@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Arts, Faculty of"@en, "Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Baronowski, Donald Walter"@en ; dcterms:issued "2010-01-21T20:20:35Z"@en, "1974"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts - MA"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """In Part One the composition of Book 45 of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita is studied and an attempt is made to trace portions of the book to a small number of principal sources. It is demonstrated that Livy used the work of the Greek historian Polybius for his account of Roman activities in the Hellenistic east and for Roman relations with the Hellenistic states. Livy's Latin sources in this book were the Sullan annalists Valerius Antias and Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, of whom Claudius may have been the more prominent. Livy used these late annalists for his account of events in Rome and the west, and for administrative details such as lists of magistrates. This analysis of Livy's work helps us to evaluate the relative worth of his account, since Polybius was generally more reliable than the annalists in his description of affairs in the Hellenistic east, while the annalists seem to have provided an important service by preserving "archival" material in their writings. The detailed commentary on Book 45 appears in Part Two. Although problems of many kinds are treated, the emphasis is on international relations, prosopography, political groups in Rome, chronology and the other traditions which treat the events described by Livy. In Appendix One and Appendix Three an attempt is made to clarify the diplomatic relations of Rome with the Rhodians and with the Ptolemaic kingdom, respectively, during the years 172 - 167. This attempt involves an evaluation and synthesis of a variety of sources belonging to different traditions. The attitude towards the Rhodians reflected in the work of the Roman annalists forms the subject of Appendix Two. In Appendix Four the relations between Rome and the Hellenistic states are considered. The most usual bond between Rome and these states in the second century B. C. seems to have been that of amicitia, a relationship which denoted friendship without clearly defining the terms by which friendly relations were to be maintained. The Romans, however, became more and more insistent that their foreign amici should follow Roman foreign policy much as the Italian socii did. A few Hellenistic states, however, were granted, or were forced to accept, foedera with Rome which imposed upon them obligations similar to those of the Italian socii, but these non-Italian socii of Rome were never fully absorbed into the system of the "Roman alliance"."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/18831?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "LIVY, BOOK 4 5 : HISTORICAL COMMENTARY AND STUDY OF SOURCES by DONALD WALTER BARONOWSKI B. A., McGill University, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF,; MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1 9 7 4 In present ing t h i s thes i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permiss ion for extensive copying of t h i s thes i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thes i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permiss ion . Donald W. Baronowski Department of C l a s s i c s The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B . C . V6T 1W5, Canada September 4, 1974 i i ABSTRACT In P a r t One the composition of Book 45 of L i v y ' s Ab Urbe Condita i s s tudied and an attempt i s made to trace por t ions of the book to a smal l number of p r i n c i p a l sources . I t i s demonstrated that L i v y used the work of the Greek h i s t o r i a n Po lyb ius for h i s account of Roman a c t i v i t i e s i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east and for Roman r e l a t i o n s wi th the H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s . L i v y ' s L a t i n sources i n t h i s book were the S u l l a n a n n a l i s t s V a l e r i u s An t ia s and Q. Claudius Q u a d r i g a r i u s , of whom Claudius may have been the more prominent. L i v y used these l a t e a n n a l i s t s for h i s account of events i n Rome and the west, and for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t a i l s such as l i s t s of magi s tra tes . Th i s a n a l y s i s of L i v y ' s work helps us to evaluate the r e l a t i v e worth of h i s account, s ince Po lyb ius was g e n e r a l l y more r e l i a b l e than the a n n a l i s t s i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of a f f a i r s i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east , wh i l e the a n n a l i s t s seem to have provided an important s e r v i c e by p r e s e r v i n g \" a r c h i v a l \" m a t e r i a l i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s . The d e t a i l e d commentary on Book 45 appears i n P a r t Two. Although problems of many kinds are t r e a t e d , the emphasis i s on i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , prosopography, p o l i t i c a l groups i n Rome, chronology and the other t r a d i t i o n s which t r e a t the events descr ibed by L i v y . In Appendix One and Appendix Three an attempt i s made to c l a r i f y the d ip lomat ic r e l a t i o n s of Rome with the Rhodians and wi th the Ptolemaic kingdom, r e s p e c t i v e l y , dur ing the years 172 - 167. T h i s attempt invo lves an eva luat ion and synthes is of a v a r i e t y of sources belonging to d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s . The a t t i t u d e towards the Rhodians r e f l e c t e d i n the work of the Roman a n n a l i s t s forms the subject of Appendix Two. In Appendix Four the r e l a t i o n s between Rome and the H e l l e n i s t i c s tates are cons idered . The most usua l bond between Rome and these s tates i n the second century B . C . seems to have been that of a m i c i t i a , a r e l a t i o n s h i p which denoted f r i e n d s h i p without c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g the terms by which f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s were to be mainta ined. The Romans, however, became more and more i n s i s t e n t that t h e i r fore ign amici should fol low Roman fore ign p o l i c y much as the I t a l i a n s o c i i d i d . A few H e l l e n i s t i c states, however, were granted, or were forced to accept, foedera with Rome which imposed upon them obligations similar to those of the Italian s o c i i , but these non-Italian s o c i i of Rome were never f u l l y absorbed into the system of the \"Roman alliance\". iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations vi Introduction x Part One. The Sources 1 Part Two. Commentary 26 Part Three. Appendices 134 Bibliography 154 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing t h i s t h e s i s I wish to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the generous support I have r e c e i v e d from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and from the Department of C l a s s i c s . In p a r t i c u l a r I am g r a t e f u l to Mr. E. G. W i l s o n f o r h i s u s e f u l suggestions. P r o f e s s o r s R u s s e l l and W i l l i a m s have o f f e r e d v a l u a b l e advice on s e v e r a l a r c h a e o l o g i c a l problems. Through d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h P r o f e s s o r Harding about i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s among the c l a s s i c a l Greek and H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s , I have begun to l e a r n how to approach s i m i l a r problems as they i n v o l v e Rome and the H e l l e n i s t i c s t a t e s i n the second century. P r o f e s s o r s Evans and Dusing, the d i r e c t o r s of t h i s t h e s i s , have reviewed a l l p o r t i o n s of my work. To P r o f e s s o r Evans I am e s p e c i a l l y indebted f o r h i s help and advice on complicated problems i n H e l l e n i s t i c h i s t o r y and c i v i l i z a t i o n . P r o f e s s o r Dusing has not only guided me through the l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of s c h o l a r s h i p on Roman h i s t o r y and i n s t i t u t i o n s , but has a l s o given very generously of h i s time and pat i e n c e i n teaching a young graduate student how to present h i s work f o r m a l l y . To P r o f e s s o r McGregor, who has o f f e r e d h i s a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement on so many occasions, I should a l s o l i k e to express my deepest g r a t i t u d e . v i AJA AJP A n a t o l i a n Studies Ant . C l a s s . Beloch I t a l i s c h e Bund B l e i k e n V o l k s t r i b u n a t Broughton Magis trates Brunt I t a l . Manpower BSA Buettner-Wobst CAH Casso la Gruppi C I L , 2nd ed. C I L 2 C o l i n Rome et l a Grece CP CQ Dar emb e r g - S a g l i o De Sanct i s S t o r i a , 2nd ed. S t o r i a 2 ABBREVIATIONS American Journa l of Archaeology American Journa l of P h i l o l o g y C a l d e r , W. M. and J . K e i l , ed. A n a t o l i a n Studies Presented to W i l l i a m Hepburn Buckler L ' A n t i q u i n g C l a s s i q u e Be loch , J . Per I t a l i s c h e Bund unter Roms Hegemonie B l e i k e n , J . Das V o l k s t r i b u n a t der k l a s s i s c h e n Republ ik Broughton, T . R. S. The Magis tra tes of the Roman Republ ic Brunt , P . A . I t a l i a n Manpower, 225 B . C . - A . D. 14 Annual of the B r i t i s h School at Athens P o l y b i i H i s t o r i a e . E d i t e d by T . Buettner-Wobst. 5 v o l s . Cook, S. A . , F . E . Adcock and M. P . Charlesworth , ed. The Cambridge Ancient H i s t o r y C a s s o l a , F . I Gruppi P o l i t i c i Romani n e l I I I seco lo A . C . Corpus Inscr ipt ionum Latinarum C o l i n , G . Rome et l a Grece de 200 a 146 avant J e s u s - C h r i s t C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y C l a s s i c a l Q u a r t e r l y (N. S. i n d i c a t e s New Ser i e s ) Daremberg, Ch. and E . S a g l i o , ed. D i c t i o n n a i r e des A n t i q u i t e s Grecques et Romaines De S a n c t i s , G . S t o r i a d e i Romani v i i Degrass i F a s t i Triumphales Degrassi E l o g i a Deininger P o l . Widerstand Frank ESAR I Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea Giarratano Hammond Macedonia Hansen A t t a l i d s Heuss V B l k . G r u n d l . H i l l Roman Middle Class Holleaux Rome, l a Grece How Se lec t L e t t e r s HSCP IG, 2nd ed. IG' ILS Jacoby FGrHis t JHS JRS Klotz L i v i u s Degrass i , A . F a s t i Consulares et Triumphales , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , Fasc . 1 Degrass i , A . E l o g i a , I n s c r i p t i o n e s I t a l i a e . v o l . X I I I , Fasc . 3 De in inger , J . Der p o l i t i s c h e Widerstand gegen Rom i n Griechenland 2 1 7 - 8 6 v . Chr . Frank, T . Rome and I t a l y of the R e p u b l i c , An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, v o l . I F r a s e r , P . M. and G . E . Bean. The Rhodian Peraea and Is lands T i t i L i v i Ab Urbe Condita L i b r i XLI - XLV. E d i t e d by C . Giarra tano Hammond, N . G . L . A H i s t o r y of Macedonia. v o l . I Hansen, E . V . The A t t a l i d s of Pergamon Heuss, A . Die V O l k e r r e c h t l i c h e n Grundlagen der rbmischen A u s s e n p o l i t i k i n r e p u b l i k a n i s c h e r Z e i t H i l l , H. The Roman Middle C lass i n the Republ ican P e r i o d Hol leaux, M. Rome, l a Grece et les Monarchies H e l l e n i s t i q u e s au I I I e s i e c l e avant J . - C . (273 - 205) How, W. W . , ed. C i c e r o : Se lec t L e t t e r s with H i s t o r i c a l In troduct ions , Notes and Appendices Harvard Studies i n C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y I n s c r i p t i o n e s Graecae Dessau, H. I n s c r i p t i o n e s Lat inae Selectae Jacoby, F . Die Fragmente der gr i ech i schen H i s t o r i k e r J o u r n a l of H e l l e n i c Studies Journa l of Roman Studies K l o t z , A . L i v i u s und seine Vorga'nger v i i i Larsen ESAR IV Larsen Rep. Gov ' t L a t t e RBm. R e l . McShane Fore ign P o l i c y Magie Roman Rule Maleovat i ORF Matthaei Meloni Perseo Mommsen RHm. S t a a t s r , Mfl l ler FHG Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . O g i l v i e Commentary OGIS Oost Roman P o l i c y Pease De Natura Deorum Pedech Meth. H i s t . Peter HRR2 L a r s e n , J . A . 0. Roman Greece, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, v o l . IV L a r s e n , J . A . 0. Representat ive Government i n Greek and Roman H i s t o r y L a t t e , K . Rtjmische R e l i g i o n s g e s c h i c h t e McShane, R. B. The Fore ign P o l i c y of the A t t a l i d s of Pergamum Magie, D. Roman Rule i n A s i a Minor to the End of the T h i r d Century a f t e r C h r i s t M a l c o v a t i , H . Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta. 2nd ed. v o l . I M a t t h a e i , L . E . \"On the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Roman A l l i e s \" . CQ 1 (1907) 182 - 204. M e l o n i , P . Perseo e l a F i n e d e l l a Monarchia Macedone Mommsen, T h . Rflmisches S taat srecht Mtf l ler , C . Fragmenta Hi s tor i corum Graecorum N i s s e n , H . K r i t i s c h e Untersuchungen fiber d ie Que l l en der V i e r t e n und Ftinften Dekade des L i v i u s O g i l v i e , R. M . A Commentary on L i v y , Books 1 - 5 Di t t enberger , W. O r i e n t i s G r a e c i I n s c r i p t i o n e s Se lectae Oost , S. I . Roman P o l i c y i n E p i r u s and Acarnania i n the Age of the Roman Conquest of Greece Pease, A . S . , ed. M. T u l l i C i c e r o n i s De Natura Deorum Pedech, P . La Methode H i s t o r i q u e de Polybe P e t e r , H . Hi s tor i corum Romanorum R e l i q u i a e R E R o s t o v t z e f f S E H R o t o n d i L e g e s P u b l i c a e S c h a n z - H o s i u s G e s c h . R U m . L i t . S c u l l a r d R o m . P o l , S E G S G D I S I G -T A P A T a y l o r V o t i n g D i s t r i c t s T a y l o r V o t i n g A s s e m b l i e s W a l b a n k C o m m e n t a r y W e i s s e n b o r n - M u ' l l e r W i l l H i s t o i r e W i s s o w a R e l . u n d K u l t . P a u l y s R e a l - E n c y c l o p H d i e d e r c l a s s i s c h e n A l t e r t u m s w i s s e n s c h a f t R o s t o v t z e f f , M . T h e S o c i a l a n d E c o n o m i c H i s t o r y o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c W o r l d R o t o n d i , G . L e g e s P u b l i c a e P o p u l i R o m a n i S c h a n z , M . a n d C . H o s i u s . G e s c h i c h t e d e r R H m i s c h e L i t e r a t u r b i s z u m G e s e t z g e b u n g s w e r k d e s K a i s e r s J u s t i n i a n S c u l l a r d , H . H . R o m a n P o l i t i c s , 2 2 0 - 1 5 0 B . C . H o n d i u s , J . J . E . e t a l i i , e d . S u p p l e m e n t u m E p i g r a p h i c u m G r a e c u m C o l l i t z , H . , F . B e c h t e l a n d 0 . H o f f m a n n . S a m m l u n g d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n D i a l e k t -I n s c h r i f t e n D i t t e n b e r g e r , W . S y l l o g e I n s c r i p t i o n u m G r a e e a r u m . 3 r d e d . T r a n s a c t i o n s a n d P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A m e r i c a n P h i l o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n T a y l o r , L . R . T h e V o t i n g D i s t r i c t s o f t h e R o m a n R e p u b l i c T a y l o r , L . R . R o m a n V o t i n g A s s e m b l i e s f r o m t h e H a n n i b a l i c W a r t o t h e D i c t a t o r s h i p o f C a e s a r W a l b a n k , F . W . A H i s t o r i c a l C o m m e n t a r y o n P o l y b i u s T i t i L i v i A b U r b e C o n d i t a L i b r i . E d i t e d b y W . W e i s s e n b o r n a n d H . J . M t i l l e r W i l l , E . H i s t o i r e P o l i t i q u e d u M o n d e H e l l e n i s t i q u e W i s s o w a , G . R e l i g i o n u n d K u l t u s d e r R O m e r INTRODUCTION A f t e r t h e i r v i c t o r y i n the s trugg le against Hannibal and the Car thag in ians , the Romans turned t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to the H e l l e n i s t i c east to s e t t l e an o ld score with P h i l i p V, k ing of Macedonia. The Second Macedonian War brought Rome for the f i r s t time i n t o c lose and continuous contact with the H e l l e n i s t i c east and provided an e n t i r e l y new theatre of a c t i o n i n which the Roman p o l i t i c i a n s and generals could win renown and p u b l i c support at home. The Greeks, d i s t r a c t e d by t h e i r own q u a r r e l s , t r i e d on many occasions to use the might and p r e s t i g e of Rome as a means to t h e i r own ends, but they f a i l e d to understand how the p o l i t i c a l experiences of the Roman people had accustomed them to be leaders ins tead of f o l l o w e r s , and to demand enduring respect ins tead of momentary g r a t i t u d e from the communities upon which they conferred b e n e f i t s . The s tates which had i n v i t e d Roman i n t e r v e n t i o n and which had co-operated wi th the Romans became the i n f e r i o r partners i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s wi th Rome. Several H e l l e n i s t i c s ta t e s , such as Rhodes and the A t t a l i d s , d iscovered suddenly and i n unpleasant circumstances that they were no longer free to act i n t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s without cons ider ing the wishes of Rome. I t was def iance of Roman wishes that brought on the Achaean War of 1 4 7 - 1 4 6 whose r e s u l t was the superv i s ion of Greece by the governor of Macedonia. The arrogance and armed force which had p r e v i o u s l y been reserved for the Ant igonids and the Se leuc ids along with t h e i r Greek a l l i e s had now been turned against the h o s t i l e s tates of mainland Greece . But naked v io l ence had been used against the Greeks over twenty years e a r l i e r . A f t e r the d e s t r u c t i o n of the Macedonian monarchy i n 168 - 167, the Romans d i sp layed a shocking ruth lessness and c r u e l t y i n punishing the Greeks and the other peoples of the Balkans who had fought on the Macedonian s i d e . C i t i e s and towns were plundered; i n d i v i d u a l s were put to death or forced i n t o e x i l e by the Romans and by the fr iends of the Romans i n the Greek s t a t e s . Leading f igures were detained i n I t a l y , where they were denied the opportunity to defend themselves against suspic ions and nebulous charges of anti-Roman sympathies or actions. For years after their crushing victory the Romans were pleased to allow Epirus and several of the Greek states to be dominated by opportunists such as Kharops and Kailikrates. These men were permitted or even encouraged to persecute any of their political opponents whom they could brand as anti-Roman. It is with these reflections on Roman relations with the Hellenistic world that we begin our study of the last extant book of Livy. Unless otherwise stated, all dates are B. C., and all dates are given by the day and month of the pre-Julian calendar. In the transliteration of Greek and Latin names, I have tried to follow the original as closely as possible except where the Latinized or Anglicized forms have become common (for example, A. Antonius, Kharops, but Pompey, Polybius. For non-Anglicized Latin names I have followed the spelling given by Broughton Magistrates wherever possible. The forms of the Greek and Latin names given in the headings to the notes in the commentary are the forms of these names as they appear in the text of Giarratano. The numbers in parentheses which follow the names of Roman magistrates and officers are the numbers used in the articles of RE to distinguish the various persons with the same nomen gentilicium, and such numbers following other personal names are those used in the articles of RE to distinguish persons who bore the same name. An asterisk signifies that the article appears in the first edition of RE. Where an equivalent without an asterisk is given to a number with an asterisk, for example, Quinctilius (*6/l3), the equivalent number (in this example, 13) refers to the corresponding article in the new edition of RE (edited by G. Wissowa et a l i i . Stuttgart, 1894 - ). It is intended that these references will aid the reader in identifying the persons discussed in this thesis and in obtaining further biographical and prosppographical information about them from the articles in RE and from Broughton Magistrates, where reference is x i i made to a r t i c l e s i n RE whenever they e x i s t . I have not used a r t i c l e s i n the supplements to RE which have appeared s ince 1962 (SupplementbMnde IX (1962) - ) for any of the Roman magistrates and o f f i c e r s mentioned i n t h i s t h e s i s . PART ONE THE SOURCES Introduct ion Most of our informat ion about the per iod between the end of the Second Punic War and the f a l l of the Macedonian monarchy can be traced to the work of the Greek h i s t o r i a n P o l y b i u s . As a prominent f i gure i n the Achaean League, Po lyb ius was among the thousand Achaeans detained i n I t a l y a f t er the war against Perseus because of a l l eged anti-Roman sympathies. While i n Rome Po lyb ius became a f r i e n d of S c i p i o Aemil ianus and was allowed the freedom to c o l l e c t in format ion for a h i s t o r y of the H e l l e n i s t i c world as i t f e l l under Roman domination i n the per iod 220/19 to 146/5 B . C . As a member of a prominent family i n one of the more important Greek s ta te s , as a l eading f i g u r e i n the Achaean League, w i th fr iends and connections i n other H e l l e n i s t i c s ta te s , as the f r i e n d and protege of an i l l u s t r i o u s and powerful Roman f a m i l y , as a res ident of a great c a p i t a l where he could speak to so many persons of h igh rank, and as a t r a v e l e r and observer who witnessed many of the events he d e s c r i b e d , Po lybius was i n a favourable p o s i t i o n to undertake the w r i t i n g of an account of the developments which brought Rome to world domination. Although h i s pre jud ice s can be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d , the h i s t o r i c a l methods and the standards of accuracy of Po lybius give h i s work a h igh v a l u e . See Pedech Meth. H i s t , esp. 598 - 604; Walbank Po lyb ius 71 - 96. Of Books 16 - 39, t r e a t i n g the years 202/1 - 146/5, only fragments s u r v i v e . The Codex Vat icanus U r b i n a s , which conta ins excerpts from Books 1 - 1 8 (except Book 17), i s our best s i n g l e manuscript of the fragments of P o l y b i u s . Most of the excerpts from the remaining books (19 - 39) are found i n the c o l l e c t i o n s made i n the tenth century on the order of the emperor Constant ine Porphyrogennetos (see p . 24 n . 3 ) . Other fragments of the l o s t books occur i n the works of l a t e r w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g P l u t a r c h , Strabo, Athenaios and the author of the Suda L e x i c o n . See Z i e g l e r RE XXI . 2 (1952) c o l s . 1575 - 1577. 2 One of the l a t e r Greek w r i t e r s to make extensive use of P o l y b i u s ' work i n h i s own treatment of the per iod 2 1 8 - 1 4 6 was Diodoros of S i c i l y , who wrote i n the middle and l a t t e r part of the f i r s t century B . C . Books 2 5 - 32 of Diodoros surv ive only i n fragments preserved i n the Cons tant in ian excerpts , i n the works of Photios and i n the work of an u n i d e n t i f i e d Byzantine w r i t e r . A comparison of the fragments of Diodoros with the corresponding fragments of P o l y b i u s , where they e x i s t , suggests that Diodoros was fo l lowing h i s source very c l o s e l y . See Schwartz RE V. 1 ( 1 9 0 3 ) c o l s . 6 6 4 , 6 8 8 - 6 9 0 . An important c o n t r i b u t i o n made by L i v y to our knowledge of Roman h i s t o r y i n the e a r l y second century was h i s regu lar use of Polybius for events i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world from the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War to the end of the Achaean War i n Books 3 1 - 52 of the Ab Urbe C o n d i t a , of which only Books 3 1 - 4 5 are extant . Us ing P o l y b i u s , L i v y was able to present a d e t a i l e d and r e l i a b l e account of eastern events which was super ior to the work of the S u l l a n a n n a l i s t s Q. Claudius Quadr igar ius and V a l e r i u s A n t i a s , L i v y ' s two major L a t i n sources for the same p e r i o d . For informat ion on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e matters and events i n Rome and the west, L i v y turned to the work of Claudius and A n t i a s , whose s p e c i a l value cons i s ted i n t h e i r pre s erva t ion of Roman documentary evidence, e s p e c i a l l y from the Tabulae Pont i f i cum. T h i s a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l inc luded e l e c t i o n l i s t s , d i s t r i b u t i o n of provinces and commands among the consuls , praetors and promagis trates , l eg ionary d i s p o s i t i o n s i n the var ious theatres of war, p r i e s t l y appointments, p r o d i g i e s , g r a i n p r i c e s and p u b l i c games. The a n n a l i s t s a l so d e a l t w i th t r e a t i e s , embassies and m i l i t a r y a c t i o n , but t h e i r work on these subjects was often u n r e l i a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y when they descr ibed events i n v o l v i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c s ta t e s . Even the m a t e r i a l which appears to be a r c h i v a l must be treated wi th caut ion because the l a t e r a n n a l i s t s seem to have indulged i n a c e r t a i n amount of e l a b o r a t i o n and i n v e n t i o n . A study of L i v y ' s sources i s therefore of immediate value i n p r o v i d i n g a means of es t imat ing the r e l a t i v e worth of L i v y ' s account. In the a n n a l i s t i c sect ions of the fourth and f i f t h decades, i t i s genera l ly agreed that L i v y used Claudius and Ant ias as h i s 3 principal sources, Antias being the more prominent source in Books 3 1 - 3 8 , Claudius thereafter. Since Livy usually identified his sources only to note a conflict in his sources or to supply additional information from another source, it is often impossible to identify with confidence the annalistic source which Livy followed at any given point in his narrative. In Bodk 4 5 there are at least four passages that seem to permit us to attempt an identification of the annalistic sources: 1) 1 . 1 - 5 , which bears some resemblance to a fragment of Valerius Antias; 2 ) 2 0 . 4 - 2 5 . 4 , describing an embassy which Claudius possibly antedated to 1 6 9 ; 3 ) 4 0 . 1 - 5 , where Valerius Antias seems to have been used as an alternative source; 4 ) 4 3 . 1 - 8 , where Antias seems to have been used for additional information. Since Claudius and Antias were Livy's two main annalistic sources, it is probable that, i f we are able to exclude either-one of these as the source for a given annalistic passage, we may identify the other as the source for that passage. On Livy's use of sources see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 18 - 1 0 9 ; Klotz RE XIII. 1 ( 1 9 2 6 ) cols. 8 3 5 - 8 4 6 and Livius 1 r 7 8 ; Walsh Livy 1 1 0 - 1 3 7 and Latin Historians, ed. Dorey 124 - 1 2 9 ; Walbank, Livy, ed. Dorey 4 7 r 5 9 . On Claudius and Antias see Peter HRR2 I. cclxxxv — cccxxxiii; Niese RE III. 2 ( 1 8 9 9 ) cols. 2 8 5 8 - 2 8 6 1 ; Klotz Rheinisches Museum 9 1 ( 1 9 4 2 ) 2 6 8 - 2 8 5 ; Volkmann RE VII. A. 2 ( 1 9 4 8 ) cols. 2 3 1 3 - 2 3 4 0 ; Badian, Latin Historians, ed. Dorey 18 - 2 2 . On the historical worth of the annalists, see Klotz Livius 78 - 1 0 0 ; Balsdon C Q 3 N. S. ( 1 9 5 3 ) 1 5 8 - 164 and JRS 4 4 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 3 0 - 4 2 ; Walbank, Livy, ed. Dorey 5 6 - 5 9 ; Meyer, Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 2 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 9 7 0 - 9 8 6 . Of the fifth decade of Livy, only Books 4 1 r 4 5 are extant. These books survive in but a single MS. of the fifth or sixth century, the Codex Vindobonensis (see Giarratano 7 r 1 2 ) . The remaining books of Livy ( 4 6 - 5 2 ) in which Polybius was used are l o s t . Apart from the works of l a t e r w r i t e r s who used L i v y , these l o s t books are represented by the Epitomae of L i v y f o r Books 46 - 52, and by the Oxyrhynchus summaries f o r Books 48 - 52 (see K l o t z RE X I I I . 1 (1926) c o l s . 822 - 824). > Dio C a s s i u s , who wrote a h i s t o r y of Rome i n Greek i n the time of Septimius Severus, seems to have f o l l o w e d the P o l y b i a n account of events i n the H e l l e n i s t i c east i n Books 18 - 21, cov e r i n g the years 201 - 146, but the occurrence i n h i s work of a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l very s i m i l a r to that found i n L i v y suggests t h a t Dio d i d not use P o l y b i u s d i r e c t l y , but i n s t e a d obtained the P o l y b i a n account along w i t h a n n a l i s t i c m a t e r i a l from the L a t i n h i s t o r i a n . Dio seems to have used other sources, p o s s i b l y i n c l u d i n g a n n a l i s t i c w r i t e r s . His work i s u s u a l l y of no help to us i n t r a c i n g p o r t i o n s of L i v y ' s account e i t h e r to P o l y b i u s or to the a n n a l i s t s . In the manuscripts of Dio are preserved only Books 36 - 54, s u b s t a n t i a l fragments of Books 55 - 60, fragments of Books 78 - 79 and m u t i l a t e d remains, probably of Book 17. Of the l o s t books of Dio we have excerpts i n the works of the Byzantine w r i t e r s X i p h i l i n o s (second h a l f of the 11th c ) , who used Dio, Books 36 - 80 and Zonaras ( e a r l y 12th c ) , who used Dio, Books 1 - 2 1 and 44 - 80 i n Books 7 - 12 of h i s ' E TiTop*) MoTopciov. Other fragments of Dio are found i n the C o n s t a n t i n i a n c o l l e c t i o n s and i n a number of other sources. See Schwartz RE I I I . 2 (1899) c o l . 1721. The other sources f o r t h i s p e r i o d , such as V e l l e i u s P a t e r c u l u s and Appian, cannot be considered i n the context of the P o l y b i a n -L i v i a n t r a d i t i o n . These authors are g e n e r a l l y u n h e l p f u l to us i n the study of L i v y ' s sources, s i n c e we cannot i d e n t i f y t h e i r own sources w i t h confidence and s i n c e we do not know how they used t h e i r sources. 5 A n a l y s i s o f L i v y , B o o k 4 5 1 . 1 - 3 . 2 P r e s e n t i m e n t o f v i c t o r y a t Rome ( 1 . 1 - 5 ) ; a n n o u n c e m e n t o f v i c t o r y , d e m o b i l i z a t i o n o f R o m a n f o r c e s , t h a n k s g i v i n g ( 1 . 6 - 3 . 2 ) . T h i s s e c t i o n i s a n n a l i s t i c . N i s s e n ( K r i t . U n t e r s u c h . 2 7 2 ) a r g u e d t h a t 1 . 1 - 5 i s P o l y b i a n o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e n a m e s o f t h e t h r e e e n v o y s a p p e a r i n a p a s s a g e o f B o o k 4 4 w h i c h i s c l e a r l y P o l y b i a n ( L . 4 4 . 4 5 . 3 ) a n d t h a t t h e r e t u r n o f F a b i u s t o M a c e d o n i a i s m e n t i o n e d i n a p a s s a g e o f B o o k 4 5 w h i c h i s c l e a r l y P o l y b i a n ( L . 4 5 . 2 7 . 1 ) . K l o t z ( L i v i u s 2 0 , 7 3 ) a g r e e s w i t h N i s s e n i n a t t r i b u t i n g 1 . 1 - 5 t o P o l y b i u s , b u t s u g g e s t s t h a t L i v y o b t a i n e d t h e n a m e s o f t h e e n v o y s f r o m t h e a n n a l i s t i c s o u r c e o f 1 . 6 - 3 . 2 . N i s s e n ' s r e a s o n s f o r a t t r i b u t i n g 1 . 1 - 5 t o P o l y b i u s a r e u n c o n v i n c i n g b e c a u s e i t i s n o t u n u s u a l f o r b o t h P o l y b i u s a n d L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c s o u r c e s t o k n o w t h e n a m e s o f R o m a n e n v o y s . F u r t h e r m o r e , a m i r a c u l o u s s t o r y o f t h i s k i n d i s n o t t o b e e x p e c t e d f r o m P o l y b i u s ( s e e f o r i n s t a n c e h i s c r i t i c i s m o f T i m a i o s i n 1 2 . 2 4 . 5 : O S T O 5 « ^ « P 4\\/ jaW r«*?s\" r c S v ngK*? u. t'\\lovT\"05. i t would appear, then, t h a t P o l y b i u s placed the b a t t l e of Pydna at the h e i g h t of summer, perhaps somewhat l a t e r than the Roman a n n a l i s t s placed i t . However, there i s probably no c h r o n o l o g i c a l problem here, s i n c e seasonal dates i n P o l . are always approximate and i t i s not l i k e l y t h a t P o l y b i u s used astronomical t a b l e s f o r p r e c i s e d a t i n g by phenomena. See Pedech Meth. H i s t . 461 - 464; Sumner Proceedings of the A f r i c a n C l a s s i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 9 (1966) 1 - 9 . We have, moreover, an A t t i c i n s c r i p t i o n honouring one K a l l i p h a n e s , who brought to Athens the news of the defeat of Perseus (see M e r i t t Hesperia 3 (1934) no. 18, pp. 18 - 21 and Hesperia 5 (1936) no. 17, pp. 429 - 430). The i n s c r i p t i o n i s dated to the l a s t day of the archon year of Eunikos (169/8). M e r i t t now equates t h i s date w i t h J u l i a n 7 August, but h i s e a r l i e r view had been 8 J u l y (see M e r i t t The Athenian Year 219 - 220). M e r i t t ' s e a r l i e r view seems more a p p r o p r i a t e , s i n c e the Athenians had no cause to postpone f o r over s i x weeks the v o t i n g of t h e i r memorial of the Roman v i c t o r y . No p r e c i s e date i s given f o r the capture of Perseus. A b r i e f n o t i c e on the capture occurs i n L. 45.13.9 i n an a n n a l i s t i c s e c t i o n on events which occurred l a t e i n the consular year 168. On the n i g h t a f t e r the b a t t l e , Perseus reached P e l l a ( P l u t . Aem. 23.3). By the second day a f t e r the b a t t l e (6 Sept.) he reached Amphipolis (L. 44.45.1), where he t r i e d w i t h o u t success to o b t a i n a i d from the B i s a l t a e , who l i v e d i n l a n d on the west bank of the Strymon. P e r c e i v i n g t h a t the people of Amphipolis would not support him a g a i n s t the Romans, Perseus f l e d to Galepsos, a r r i v i n g there on the same day as h i s departure from Amphipolis. On the f o l l o w i n g day he reached Samothrace (L. 44.45.15). S i n c e P a u l l u s had r e c e i v e d the submission of most of Macedonia w i t h i n two days (by 6 Sept.), Perseus probably f l e d Macedonia w i t h i n a week or ten days of h i s defeat at Pydna, a r r i v i n g i n Samothrace about 14 Sept. ( J u l i a n 2 J u l y ) . Meanwhile at Pydna P a u l l u s r e c e i v e d the ambassadors sent by Perseus from Amphipolis. These ambassadors would have a r r i v e d i n Pydna by at l e a s t 8 Sept. ( J u l i a n 26 June). As y e t unaware of the king's f l i g h t to Samothrace, P a u l l u s placed g a r r i s o n s i n the Macedonian c i t i e s under h i s c o n t r o l and sent out e x p e d i t i o n s to destroy r e s i s t a n c e . I f we a l l o w about two weeks for t h i s a c t i v i t y , P a u l l u s would have s e t out from Pydna about 20 Sept. ( J u l i a n 8 J u l y ) , r e a c h i n g P e l l a on the f o l l o w i n g day (L. 44.46.4). A f t e r having spent a few days here, examining 34 the s i t e and r e c e i v i n g c o n g r a t u l a t o r y embassies, he l e f t f o r Amphipolis, a r r i v i n g there a f t e r a three-day march on about 26 Sept. ( J u l i a n 14 J u l y ) . From Amphipolis P a u l l u s marched up the Strymon to S i r a e (L. 45.4.2), probably to complete the subjugation of Macedonia. I f we a l l o w about a week f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y , P a u l l u s would have returned to Amphipolis about 3 Oct. ( J u l i a n 19 J u l y ) . During the n e g o t i a t i o n s between P a u l l u s and Perseus, Octavius brought the f l e e t to Samothrace. Some time was consumed i n the e f f o r t s of Octavius to persuade the Samothracians to a l l o w the removal of Perseus from the sanctuary. Perseus meanwhile l a i d p l a ns f o r an escape, but he was abandoned by h i s guide Oroandes. H i s two younger c h i l d r e n were taken by the t r i b u n u s m i l i t u m C. Postumius along w i t h the r o y a l pages, and Perseus now surrendered h i m s e l f t o Octavius along w i t h h i s e l d e r son. I f we a l l o w about a week f o r these events, the capture of Perseus would have occurred about 10 Oct. ( J u l i a n 28 J u l y ) . That the capture of Perseus occurred i n the archonship of Xenokles (168/7) i s not proved by the fragment of Apollodoros of Athens (Jacoby FGrHist I I . B. 244 F 47, verses 28 - 31): V\\ ^ <* p.if < r f u J p fxer\\ T V TT*p e r r i Z e v o x A f o o j TT^V arto'AvJcrcV TOO jScoo e r r o i ' v j V t f T . . . . This scheme f o r the capture of Perseus a l l o w s an i n t e r v a l of about f i v e weeks between the b a t t l e of Pydna and the capture of the k i n g . See De S a n c t i s S t o r i a IV. 1 . 314 - 323, where only seven days are allowed between the b a t t l e and the a r r i v a l of P a u l l u s i n Amphipolis. 2.1 s u p p l i c a t i o n e s : These were occasions of request or of t h a n k s g i v i n g , i n i t i a t e d by the consuls or the senate, and c e l e b r a t e d by the e n t i r e c i t i z e n body. O r i g i n a l l y l a s t i n g only one day, the s u p p l i c a t i o n e s as occasions of request to the gods were sometimes extended to l a s t two or even three days. There was a tendency t o extend s u p p l i c a t i o n e s as occasions of t h a n k s g i v i n g a f t e r m i l i t a r y v i c t o r i e s , so that i n the l a t e r e p u b l i c we hear of such f e s t i v a l s l a s t i n g ten days (Cicero De Prov. Cons. 27) and even as long as f i f t y days (Cicero P h i l . 14.29.37). See Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 425. 35 2.1 D e m o b i l i z a t i o n : On 17 Sept. the senate decreed t h a t the consul L i c i n i u s should disband a l l the f o r c e s under h i s command quos p r a e t e r m i l i t e s sociosque navales coniuratos haberet (2.1). The c o n i u r a t i were those Roman, L a t i n and a l l i e d troops ( c f . P o l . 6.21; L. 22.38.1-5) who had taken the formal oath of l o y a l t y administered by the decuriones and centurions to t h e i r u n i t s (see F i e b i g e r RE IV. 1 (1900) c o l . 885). The l e v i e s now to be disbanded by L i c i n i u s were p o s s i b l y the e v o c a t i , who took the oath (sacramentum) en masse i n a shortened form. See Se r v i u s ad Aeneidem 8.1; F i e b i g e r RE V. 1 (1907) c o l s . 1145 - 1152; K l i n g m i l l l e r RE I . A. 2 (1920) c o l s . 1667 - 1668, On 25 Sept. the senate ordered the d i s m i s s a l of the s o c i i navales and of a l l troops who had taken the c o n i u r a t i o before L i c i n i u s , Rowers i n the f l e e t were u s u a l l y s u p p l i e d by the a l l i e s , but Roman c i t i z e n s of the lowest census r a t i n g might a l s o serve (see Liebenam RE V. 1 (1903) c o l s . 606 - 607; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I I . 518 - 521). No previous mention occurs of the d i s p o s i t i o n of reserv e troops i n the places s p e c i f i e d i n 2.11, but i n 169 the s o c i i nominis ,p — — — — • - -~ -L a t i n i were to be hel d i n reserv e i n case of f u t u r e need ( c f . L. 43.12.8: s i quo res p o s c e r e t ) , w h i l e l e v i e s of c a v a l r y and i n f a n t r y over and above the the two le g i o n s needed f o r Macedonia were to be d i s t r i b u t e d as g a r r i s o n s (L. 44.21.8: ceteros p e d i t e s equitesque i n p r a e s i d i i s d i s p o n i ) . 3.1 duo l e g a t i : C. L i c i n i u s Nerva (133) P. Decius (Subulo) (20) L i c i n i u s may have been the legatus of A n i c i u s i n 167 and the ambassador sent to Kotys of Thrace l a t e i n that year (see L. 45.26.2, 42.11; Broughton M a g i s t r a t e s I . 432 n.1). The L i c i n i i Nervae were t r a d i t i o n a l supporters of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 186 - 187). Note that i n 169 an A. L i c i n i u s Nerva (131) had been chosen by the senate as one of the three s p e c i a l envoys to r e p o r t on c o n d i t i o n s i n Greece and Macedonia. 36 These envoys were to be men acceptable to P a u l l u s , the consu l -e l ec t (L . 44 .18 .5 ) . The D e c i i were a p lebe ian family who rose to p o l i t i c a l prominence at the time of the Samnite wars, a f ter the consulship had been opened up to plebeians by the L i c i n i a n -Sext ian Laws of 367. The most prominent representa t ive s of the D e c i i were P. Decius Mus (15), consul i n 340; P. Decius Mus (16), consul i n 312, 308, 297, 295, censor i n 304, Magis ter Equitum i n 306; P . Decius Mus (17), consul i n 279, consul suf fec tus i n 265. The next member of the gens Decia known to have he ld high o f f i c e a f t er Decius (17) was P . Decius (9), praetor i n 115. Decius (20) had been t r i u m v i r co loniae deducendae for A q u i l e i a i n 169 (L . 43 .17 .1 ) . In a Po lyb ian sec t ion of the n a r r a t i v e (44.23.1 - 37.4) L i v y s tates that A n i c i u s , a f t er the f a l l of Scodra, sent Perperna (M. Perperna (3) to announce the v i c t o r y over Gentius (L . 44 .32 .4 ) . We are thus confronted by a d i f f e r e n c e between the P o l y b i a n and the a n n a l i s t i c accounts . Mflnzer (RE IV. 2 (1901) c o l . 2286; RE X I I I . 1 (1926) c o l . 453) s tates that we must simply pre fer the account of P o l y b i u s to that of the a n n a l i s t s , but i t i s at l ea s t p o s s i b l e that the two accounts are not mutual ly e x c l u s i v e . Since we have a lready noted that an A . L i c i n i u s Nerva (131) had been sent as a s p e c i a l envoy to Greece and Macedonia i n 169, and s ince L i c i n i u s (133) may perhaps be i d e n t i f i e d wi th the legatus of A n i c i u s i n 167, the appearance of a L i c i n i u s i n the present context i s not s u r p r i s i n g . The Roman commanders l e f t for t h e i r provinces i n e a r l y s p r i n g (L. 44 .30 .1 ) . Gentius was captured w i t h i n a month (32.4) , whi le the b a t t l e of Pydna was not fought u n t i l summer (c f . L . 44.36.1 and see on 1.11). L i c i n i u s and Decius could have been sent a f ter the defeat of Perseus, whi le Perperna may have been sent immediately a f t er the capture of G e n t i u s . A poss ib l e p a r a l l e l i s the r e p o r t of the v i c t o r y over Hasdrubal at the Metaurus i n 207 by Claudius Nero and L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r (L. 27.50.3 - 51.10) , where news was f i r s t brought by two cavalrymen whose report was 37 l a t e r confirmed by a l e t t e r from t h e i r commanding o f f i c e r and f i n a l l y by the report of the three o f f i c i a l l e g a t i . 3.1 Gentium regem: Gentius was k ing of the A r d i a e i , an I l l y r i a n t r i b e , from 180 to 168. His predecessors S k e r d i l a i d a s and Pleuratus had become amic i of Rome about 216 before the opening of the F i r s t Macedonian War. P l e u r a t u s , the son of S k e r d i l a i d a s , was inc luded as an adscr iptus to the Peace of Phoinike (c f . P o l . 5 .110.8-9; L . 26 .24 .9 , 29 .12 .14) . I t was probably the I l l y r i a n s who brought the complaints against P h i l i p V mentioned by L i v y (30.26.2 f f . , 30.42.2 f f . , 32.33.3 = P o l . 18 .1 .4 ) . P leuratus a s s i s t e d the Romans dur ing the Second Macedonian War (c f . L . 31.28.1) and i n the war against Antiochus I I I (c f . L . 3 8 . 7 . 1 - 3 ) . Although Gent ius had been accused of h o s t i l e acts against the Romans (c f . L . 40 .18 .3-5 , 40 .42 .1-5 , 42 .26 .2-7; 4 3 . 9 . 4 ) , he sent a squadron of 54 lembi for the Roman f l e e t i n 170 (L . 42 .48 .8 ) , but i n the fo l lowing year he abandoned h i s a m i c i t i a w i th Rome and made an a l l i ance , wi th Perseus ( c f . P o l . 29 .2 ; L . 44 .23) . See Stat ie l in RE V I I . 1 (1910) c o l . 1199; Holleaux Rome, l a Grece 165 - 166, 177 - 178, 211 n . 1; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 55 -57. 3.2 supp l i ca t iones d e c r e v i t . Indic tae a consule sunt: The reading of the MS. i s DECRE / UITURLATINAEDICTAE. Mommsen emended t h i s to supp l i ca t iones d e c r e v i t . i terum Lat inae e d i c t a e . He drew p a r a l l e l s from the F a s t i to show that the F e r i a e Lat inae could be repeated as a feast of thanksg iv ing , for example i n 449 and 23 B . C . , and pointed to the evidence of Dio 55 .2 .5 , where a r e p e t i t i o n of the F e r i a e Lat inae was being planned for the c e l e b r a t i o n of the triumph of Drusus, the brother of T i b e r i u s , i n 9 B . C . See Mommsen ROmische Forschungen 97 - 112. The F e r i a e Lat inae were not f ixed to any one date by the ca lendar , but were set by the consuls before t h e i r departure for t h e i r provinces at the beginning of the magis trate y e a r . The F a s t i (Tabula Feriarum Lat inarum, CIL I 2 (1893) pp . 55 - 59; CIL V I . 1 (1876) nos. 2011 - 2019; CIL XIV (1887) nos . 2227 - 2250), which date from i m p e r i a l t imes, c o n s i s t e n t l y name only one day, 38 the day f o r the e s s e n t i a l s a c r i f i c e , but the f e s t a l p e r i o d l a s t e d up to four days. The F e r i a e L a t i n a e could be repeated because of an e r r o r i n form, or repeated as a s p e c i a l occasion of t h a n k s g i v i n g . See Samter RE V I . 2 (1909) c o l s . 2213 - 2217; Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 125; L a t t e Rtim. R e l . 144 - 146. While Mommsen was c o r r e c t about the p o s s i b i l i t y of the r e p e t i t i o n of the F e r i a e L a t i n a e , i t i s not l i k e l y t h a t t h i s honour would be accorded t o A n i c i u s , whose achievements were d e s c r i b e d by the a n n a l i s t i c source of L i v y (45.43.1-4) as i n f e r i o r to those of P a u l l u s . We may a l s o p o i n t out the l i n g u i s t i c p a r a l l e l to the s u p p l i c a t i o voted i n t h a n k s g i v i n g f o r the v i c t o r y of P a u l l u s : s u p p l i c a t i o . . . i n d i c t a est ex ante diem quintum idus Octobres cum eo d i e i n quinque d i e s (2.12). The s u p p l i c a t i o i n t h a n k s g i v i n g f o r the v i c t o r y of A n i c i u s was to l a s t only three days. 3.3 legatos Rhodios nondum dimissos: On the Rhodian embassy of 168 see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 143 - 150; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 247 - 253; De S a n c t i s S t o r i a I V . I 2 . 306, 343; Deininger P o l . Widerstand 184 - 191, 204 - 208. This embassy was sent to Rome i n the summer of 168 be f o r e the defeat of Perseus ( P o l . 29.10) f o r the purpose of mediating a peace between Rome and Macedonia. On the d i p l o m a t i c r e l a t i o n s between Rome and Rhodes from 172 to 167 see Appendix I . There i s a t r a d i t i o n t h a t there e x i s t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a between Rome and Rhodes s i n c e 306. An i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a c e r t a i n l y d i d e x i s t from about 201, when the Rhodians sent an embassy to Rome to warn the senate about the Syro-Macedonian pact. A formal t r e a t y (foedus) was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 165/4 ( P o l . 30.31; L. Kp. 46). On a m i c i t i a and s o c i e t a s see Appendix I V . On the problem of the a m i c i t i a between Rome and Rhodes see Holleaux Rome, l a Grece 29 - 46; Casson TAPA 85 (1954) 168 - 187; Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 1 - 150, esp. 47 - 49; Cass o l a Gruppi 41 - 45. 3.4 Agepolim, principem eorum: / c f . P o l . 29.10.4: oc< oev ^ e . f n « p « ^ ^ P « rrpe^ur** K*Tepoi, the annual pres idents of the Samothracian bou le . See F r a s e r Samothrace 24, 28 - 29. 6.2 ad C ot ym : Kotys , k ing of the Odrysian T h r a c i a n s . He p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Macedonian war as an a l l y of Perseus , l ead ing T h r a c i a n forces i n the campaign of 171 (L . 42.51.10, 57.6); he was present wi th 43 the Odrysian c a v a l r y at the b a t t l e of Pydna ( L . 44.42.2). His son B i t h y s , whom he had sent to Macedonia as a hostage ( P o l . 30.17; L . 45.42.6-12), was captured by the Romans along w i t h the other Thracian hostages, who were rel e a s e d without ransom by the Romans l a t e i n 167 ( L . 45.42.6-11). \"The kingdom of the Odrysae, the l e a d i n g t r i b e of Thrace, extended over present-day B u l g a r i a , T u r k i s h Thrace (east of the Hebrus) and Greece between the Hebrus and the Strymon, except f o r the c o a s t a l s t r i p w i t h i t s Greek c i t i e s . . . . \" (Cormack, The Oxford C l a s s i c a l D i c t i o n a r y , 2nd ed. 1065). By the Roman settlement of Macedonia i n 167, the f i r s t of the four ^ep 1- was to extend from the Strymon to the Nessos, encroaching i n p a r t upon the t e r r i t o r y of the Odrysae. The acceptance of t h i s arrangement by Kotys may have been a c o n d i t i o n f o r the r e l e a s e of B i t h y s and the other hostages without ranson. On e a r l i e r Macedonian r e l a t i o n s w i t h Thrace see M e l o n i Perseo 86 - 92. 6.9 ad C. Postumium tribunum m i l i t u m ; C. Postumius (*3l/l0) The P o s t u m i i were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the F a b i i (see on 4.7). For the year 168 P a u l l u s had been pe r m i t t e d t o choose twelve t r i b u n i m i l i t u m f o r h i s two Macedonian l e g i o n s from among a l l the t r i b u n i f o r the e i g h t l e g i o n s , h a l f of the t r i b u n i having been e l e c t e d by the people and h a l f chosen by the two consuls ( L . 44.21.2). I t i s t h e r e f o r e p o s s i b l e t h a t Postumius ( * 3 l / l 0 ) , who served as t r i b u n u s m i l i t u m under Octavius i n t h i s y e a r , was not a p a r t i c u l a r l y important a s s o c i a t e of P a u l l u s , even though another Postumius, L . (Postumius) A l b i n u s (*29/41) served as t r i b u n u s mi1itum under P a u l l u s i n 168. 6.9 Ion T h e s s a l o n i c e n s i s : In 171 he commanded the s l i n g e r s and j a v e l i n - t h r o w e r s of Perseus ( L . 42.58.10). 6.9 Philippum, maximum natu ex f i l i i s ; Perseus' two sons were P h i l i p and Alexander ( L . 45.39 . 7 ) . Perseus a l s o had a daughter whose name i s unknown ( c f . P l u t . Aem. 33.4). 44 Perseus and h i s e l d e r son were taken to Amphipolis soon a f t e r they were captured, but h i s younger son Alexander and h i s daughter were l e f t i n Samothrace u n t i l autumn of 167 ( c f . L. 45.28.11), when they were summoned to Amphipolis. Perseus and h i s three c h i l d r e n were sent to Rome to be paraded i n the triumph ( P l u t . Aem. 33.4). Perseus, P h i l i p and the daughter died i n p r i s o n a t Al b a F u c e n t i a , but Alexander survived as an a r t i s a n and as a s e c r e t a r y to the l o c a l m a g istrates ( P l u t . Aem. 37.3). 7.1 Q. Aelium Tuberonem; Q. A e l i u s Tubero (154) He was married to a daughter of A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s ( P l u t . Aem. 5.4). In 168 he served as legatus i n Macedonia under h i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w . In the middle of the f i r s t century B. C , Q. A e l i u s Tubero (156) wrote a h i s t o r y of Rome from the f a l l of Troy to at l e a s t the time of the c i v i l war between Caesar and Pompey. A e l i u s (156) was the son of L. A e l i u s Tubero (150), not of Q. A e l i u s (154). Q. A e l i u s Tubero (155), the son of Q. A e l i u s (154), was tr i b u n u s p l e b i s before 129, and would not l i k e l y be a l i v e over e i g h t y years l a t e r to be w r i t i n g about the c i v i l war. See Schanz-Hosius Gesch. Rflm. L i t . I . 321 - 323. The A e l i i were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 96, 211). Note t h a t a P. A e l i u s Tubero (152) had been one of the ten commissioners f o r the settlement of A s i a i n 189 (L. 37.55.7). 7.2 Patrum aetate Syphax r e x : For the i n t e r v i e w of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s w i t h Syphax i n the Roman camp, see L. 30.13. 7.3 nec i p s i u s tantum p a t r i s . . . f e c e r a n t : Perseus was the son of P h i l i p V (221 - 179) and the grandson of Demetrios I I (239 - 229). The r o y a l dynasty of the An t i g o n i d s to which Perseus belonged had been f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n Macedonia by Antigonos Gonatas (276 - 239), the f a t h e r of Demetrios I I and the son of Demetrios I P o l i o r k e t e s , who r u l e d Macedonia from 294 to 285. The dynasty of P h i l i p I I 4 5 and Alexander the Great had come to an end in 310 with the execution by Kassandros of Alexander IV, the son of Alexander the Great and Roxane. 8.4 pacis: For the terms of peace with Philip V in 196 see Pol. 18.44; L. 33.30. For the Isthmian Declaration see Pol. 18.46; L. 33.32. 9.3 Perseus Q. Fulvio L. Manlio consulibus regnum accepit: In 179. See L. 40.54.1 - 57.1. 9.3 a senatu rex est appellatus M. Iunio A. Manlio consulibus: In 178. Recognition by the senate implied that the Romans expected the new king to follow the policy of his predecessors in acting in accordance with Roman wishes. See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic 59 - 88; Badian Foreign Clientelae 105 - 106. 10.1 Anterior: Admiral of the Macedonian fleet (see L. 44.28.1 - 29.5). See Wilcken RE I. 2 (1894) col. 2353; Schoch RE Suppl. IV (1925) cols. 31 -32. 10.2 C. Popilius; C. Popillius Laenas (*7/l8). He was praetor in 175, consul in 172, legatus in Greece and Macedonia in 170 and 169, consul again in 158. Early in 168 Popillius was instructed by the senate to protect the Ptolemies from Antiochus IV (L. 44.19.3; see Appendix III), but until the defeat of Perseus at Pydna, he commanded a squadron of ships based at Delos in praesidio navibus Macedonian! petentibus (L. 45.10.2). The Macedonian fleet under Antenor was attacking merchant ships (L. 44.29.3-4). These would have included grain carriers heading for Chalcis in Euboia, the Roman naval base in Greece. Egyptian grain was brought to Chalcis for distribution to the Roman forces (OGIS 760), and it was probably to inspect conditions that the three legati visited Chalcis (L. 44.29.1) before going to the Aegean against Antenor. The Pop'illii had recently emerged from a century of obscurity to prominence in political life along with a number of other plebeian gentes, such as the Aelii Ligures and the Cassii Longini (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 194 - 198). M. Popillius Laenas (*6/24), the brother of Popillius (*7/l8), had been praetor in 180 and consul in 173. .2 adventiciis navibus: The reading of the MS. is ADTICISNAUIBUS. The following emendations have been proposed: adventiciis navibus, Madvig; Attalicis navibus, Attali navibus, Luterbacher; Asiaticis navibus, Harant. The reading adopted by Giarratano 298 is adventiciis navibus. Attalos, the brother of Eumenes II of Pergamon, participated in the military campaigns of the Third Macedonian War, but we have no evidence for his presence with the fleet, while we do know that Eumenes himself commanded a fleet of twenty sail in 169 (see McShane Foreign Policy 180 - 181). The Pergamene sailors met by Popillius at Delos before the defeat of Perseus were described as Eumenis socii navales (L. 44.29.3). Thus, it seems unlikely that we may connect Attalos with the fleet by reading Attalicis navibus or Attali navibus with Luterbacher. The words adventicius and Asiaticus are not used in the surviving books of Livy in the manner proposed in the emendations of Madvig and Harant. Ferguson (Hellenistic Athens 314 n. 1) suggested that we read Atticis navibus, since the Athenians are known to have participated in the defense of Delos in the Second Macedonian War (cf. SIG3 582). In 171 the praetor C. Lucretius Gallus refused the Athenian offer of naval assistance (L. 43.6.1-3), but Athenian ships may have been necessary in 168 to oppose the fleet which Perseus sent into the Aegean (L. 44.28.1 -29.5). It was perhaps in recognition for their services that the senate assigned to the Athenians Haliartos in Boiotia and the islands of Delos, Skyros, Lemnos and Imbros (cf. Pol. 30.20 and see De Sanctis Storia IV. 1 . 336 - 337). Thus, on historical grounds Ferguson's suggestion is not unreasonable; i t is possible that the first syllable of Atticis was erroneously transcribed as the preposition ad. .2 ad susceptam legationem: This embassy was sent early in the consular year 168 in response to a request for aid against Antiochus IV from the co-rulers of Egypt, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II. On the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War and diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemies from 170 to 168, see Appendix III. The tradition according to which an informal relationship of amicitia was established between Rome and Ptolemy II in 273 is now generally accepted. In 201/200 Rome seems to have been made the errCTpoTTo^ 0 f Ptolemy V (see on 44.13). See Holleaux Rome, la Grece 60-83; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 31 - 32; Neatby TAPA 81 (1950) 89 - 98; Cassola Gruppi 45 - 47; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 134 - 140; Heinen, Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt I. 1 (1972) 633 - 659; Peremans and van't Dack, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ROmischen Welt I. 1 (1972) 660 - 667. For general discussions of the embassy of Popillius see 2 Badian Foreign Clientelae 107; De Sanctis Storia IV. 1 . 325 -327; Will Histoire II. 262 - 275; Scullard Rom. Pol. 210 n. 2. 4 Cum praeterveherentur Asiam legati et Loryma venissent: Loryma (modern Bozuk or Oplasikabu'ku') was a town in the Rhodian Peraea just across from the city of Rhodes. See Fraser-Bean Rhodian Peraea 59. The members of this embassy were C. Popillius Laenas (*7/l8) C. Decimius (1) C. Hostilius (Tubulus ?) (3) On the Popillii see on 10.2. The family of the Decimii had only recently attained Roman citizenship. During the second Punic War, Num. Decimius (6), a prominent nobleman from the Samnite town of Bovianum, was placed in command of 8000 infantry and some 500 cavalry by the dictator Q. Fabius Maximus in 217 (L. 22.24.11-14). In 209 C. Decimius Flavus (8) served as tribunus militum under the proconsul M. Claudius Marcellus. During the Third Macedonian 48 War two other members of this family, L. Decimius (3) and M. Decimius (4) served as legati. In 171 Decimius (1) had been one of the three legati sent to Crete to raise additional auxiliary troops. He was praetor in 169. The Hostilii were politically associated with the \"middle group\" led by the Fabii, Claudii and Fulvii (see Scullard Rom. Pol. 184 - 189). Because of the importance of the embassy to Antiochus IV, and since Popillius was of consular and Decimius of praetorian rank, Mifnzer (RE VIII. 2 (1913) col. 2501) argued that Hostilius (3) must have been one of the praetors whose names appeared in the list of magistrates for 170 which occurred in the lacuna in the text of Livy after 43.3.7. Broughton (Magistrates I. 420) does not include Hostilius (3) in his list of praetors in 170, but at least two of the names on his list are very uncertain. 11.1 The Sixth Syrian War: On the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War and the diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemies from 170 to 168, see Appendix III. \" 11.1 maiore Ptolemaeo: Ptolemy VI Philometor (180 - 145) 11.2 ad sororem: Cleopatra II (170 - ca. 116) 11.3 ad fratrem: Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (170 - 116) 12.6 dextram regi tamquam socio et amico porrexit: The tradition which spoke of a foedus amicitiae between Rome and a Seleucus (Seleucus I or II?), granted by Rome on condition that Ilion be left free of taxation, is generally discredited. There was also an annalistic tradition that before the war with Rome, Antiochus III had been an amicus (cf. L. 32.8.13, 33.20.8). Although this is generally disbelieved by modern scholars, it it not impossible that the tradition is sound. From about 200 to 198, Antiochus III had enjoyed cordial relations with Rome which could be considered an informal amicitia (see Appendix IV). 49 After his defeat by the Romans, Antiochus became an amicus of Rome (cf. Pol. 21.42-43; L. 38.38). See Holleaux Rome, la Grece 46 - 60; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 35 - 37; Cassola Gruppi 48. 12.9-12 Licinius in Gaul: Livy's annalistic source made an unfavourable comparison of the achievements of Licinius with those of Paullus, but the the comparison is probably a fair one. Licinius' province was Italy, with charge of the levies and supplies for the Macedonian war. The Gallic campaign conducted by Licinius began late in 168; his imperium was prorogued for 167 (L. 45.17.2), but Licinius was later succeeded in Gaul by the new consul Q. Aelius Paetus when he was named to the commission for the settlement of Macedonia. The Roman magistrate took the auspicia on behalf of the state in a place designated by the augurs and called the templum. For the technical fault in his omission to do so, Licinius was deprived by the augurs of his legions. See Mommsen ROm. Staatsr. I. 99 - 104; WissowaRel. und Kult. 526 - 528. 12.10 augur es: In 168 the college of augurs probably included Patricians: L. Aemilius Paullus (114) ca. 192 - 160 C. Claudius Pulcher (300) 195 - 167 P. Cornelius Scipio (331) 180 - ? ? (name lost in the lacuna which occurs in the text of Livy 43.11.13. His predecessor was L. Quinctius Flamininus (*4/43) 170 - ? Plebeians: M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (78) 211 - after 168 Q. Aelius Paetus (104) 174 - ? T i . Sempronius Gracchus Veturianus (T. Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus (*17/23): see below) 174 - ? T i . Sempronius Gracchus (53) 204 - ? ? (identity unknown) The t e x t of L. 41.21.9 reads T. V e t u r i u s Gracchus Sempronianus. Th i s suggests t h a t a Sempronius Gracchus was adopted by a T. V e t u r i u s who had no cognomen. According to Broughton (Magistrates I . 407 n. 5 ) , the r e t e n t i o n of the cognomen Gracchus a f t e r adoption would not have been i m p o s s i b l e , but i t i s unexampled i n t h i s p e r i o d . A greater d i f f i c u l t y i s t h a t the names of the four p a t r i c i a n augurs i n 174 are known, so t h a t as a p a t r i c i a n , a member of the gens V e t u r i a would have been excluded from the c o l l e g e of augurs at t h i s time. Geer (AJP 60 (1939) 466 - 467) argued t h a t the new augur must have been a p l e b e i a n and suggested t h a t we read T i . Sempronius Gracchus Ve t u r i a n u s . In t h i s case, a member of the p a t r i c i a n gens V e t u r i a would have been adopted i n t o the p l e b e i a n gens Sempronia. Of the nine augurs, four belonged to the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group: A e m i l i u s P a u l l u s h i m s e l f ; C o r n e l i u s (331), the son of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s ; S e r v i l i u s (78), who supported the b i l l g r a n t i n g P a u l l u s h i s triumph i n 167 ( c f . L. 45.36.9 - 39.19); A e l i u s (104) (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 211). Sempronius (53), although he married a daughter of S c i p i o A f r i c a n u s , was a supporter of the C l a u d i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 295 - 296). The V e t u r i i were supporters of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 - 166), but i f a V e t u r i u s was adopted by a Sempronius, he could probably be expected t o f o l l o w the p o l i t i c a l a l l i g n m e n t of h i s new f a m i l y , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the Sempronii were much more prominent than the V e t u r i i . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the C l a u d i i was Claudius (300), consul i n 177, censor i n 169. I f the unknown p a t r i c i a n augur was a Q u i n c t i u s , he would probably have been an a s s o c i a t e of the C l a u d i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 97 - 98). .13 praetores p r a e t e r C. Papirium Carbonem: C. P a p i r i u s Carbo (32) had obtained S a r d i n i a as h i s p r o v i n c e during h i s p r a e t o r s h i p i n 168, w h i l e L. A n i c i u s had obtained 5 1 the j u r i s d i c t i o n between c i t i z e n s and f o r e i g n e r s i n Rome (L. 44.17.10). When A n i c i u s was sent to succeed Appius Claudius i n I l l y r i c u m (L. 44.21.4), P a p i r i u s took over as praetor peregrinus f o r A n i c i u s and P. Fonteius Capito (24), praetor i n S a r d i n i a i n 169, was probably continued i n h i s command. 13 .1 P o p i l i u s et ea l e g a t i o : See on 10.2. 13.10 disceptatum i n t e r Pisanos Lunensesque legatos e s t : P i s a was an Etruscan town which became a socius of Rome probably a t the time of the L i g u r i a n war i n 238 - 236 (on foedera between Rome and the Etruscan s t a t e s see H a r r i s Rome i n E t r u r i a and Umbria 85 - 98). In the e a r l y second century the L i g u r i a n s penetrated n o r t h e r n I t a l y , r eaching P l a c e n t i a ( i n 194) and Mutina ( i n 177). In 180 P i s a , threatened by the L i g u r i a n s , who had captured the Tyrrhenian coast j u s t t o the no r t h , o f f e r e d t e r r i t o r y to Rome w i t h the request t h a t a L a t i n colony be founded on i t (L. 40.43.1). Three years l a t e r the Romans founded Luna on the Bay of Spezia, which the L i g u r i a n s had captured from the Etruscans i n the v i c i n i t y of the r i v e r Macra. Luna, however, was founded not as a L a t i n colony but as a Roman colony (L. 41.13.4-5). Before the Second Punic War the c i t i z e n - c o l o n i e s (Roman c o l o n i e s ) had been e x c l u s i v e l y c o l o n i a e maritimae occupying s t r a t e g i c p o i n t s w h i l e the c o l o n i a e L a t i n a e were sent to s i t e s of the f i r s t rank where there was an e x c e l l e n t chance f o r the development of an important community. A f t e r 183, however, w i t h the settlement of A q u i l e i a , L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n ceased. Salmon (JRS 26 (1936) 47 - 67) argued that the senate stopped L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n i n order to mainta i n c i t i z e n numbers, w h i l e the u n w i l l i n g n e s s of Romans to r e l i n q u i s h t h e i r c i t i z e n s h i p or to share the s p o i l s of conquest w i t h n o n - c i t i z e n s were a l s o f a c t o r s . See McDonald Cambridge H i s t o r i c a l J o u r n a l 6 (1939) 127 - 128; Sherwin-White The Roman C i t i z e n s h i p 7 2 - 7 5 ; Salmon Phoenix 9 (1955) 63 - 75; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I I . 142 - 154, 533 - 540; H a r r i s Rome i n E t r u r i a and Umbria 147 - 160. 52 S a t u r n i a , Parma and Mutina ( in 1 8 3 : L . 3 9 . 5 5 . 6 - 9 ) were the f i r s t i n l a n d co lonies (coloniae agrar iae) to have Roman rather than L a t i n s ta tus . C i t i z e n co lonies before 1 8 3 normally rece ived 3 0 0 f a m i l i e s , whi le the L a t i n co lon ies tended to be much l a r g e r , Vibo V a l e n t i a r e c e i v i n g 3 7 0 0 pedi tes and 3 0 0 equites i n 192 (L . 3 5 . 4 0 . 5 - 6 ) , P l a c e n t i a and Cremona 6 0 0 0 fami l iae i n 1 9 0 (L . 3 7 . 4 6 . 9 - 4 7 . 2 ) , and Bononia 3 0 0 0 homines i n 1 8 9 (L . 3 7 . 5 7 . 7 - 8 ) . With i n l a n d Roman co lon ies now r e p l a c i n g L a t i n c o l o n i e s , Luna rece ived 2 0 0 0 c ives (L. 4 1 . 1 3 . 4 - 5 ) , as had Mutina and Parma and probably Sa turn ia i n 1 8 3 (L . 3 9 . 5 5 . 6 - 9 ) . The s i z e of the al lotments had been, on the whole, much l a r g e r i n the L a t i n co lon ie s than i n the c i t i z e n c o l o n i e s . From 1 9 4 to 1 7 7 the al lotments i n c i t i z e n co lonies tended to be under 10 iugera per man, whi le i n the L a t i n co lon ies the a l lotments during the same p e r i o d v a r i e d from 15 iugera (Vibo V a l e n t i a ) to as much as 5 0 iugera ( A q u i l e i a ) , d i scount ing the p r o - r a t a al lotments of the centurions and equi tes . See Frank ESAR I . 122 - 1 2 3 . Salmon (Roman C o l o n i z a t i o n under the Republ ic 1 8 8 n . 1 9 3 and JRS 2 6 ( 1 9 3 6 ) 6 5 ) r e j e c t e d the f i gure of 5 1 1/2 iugera per man at Luna given by the MS. at L . 4 1 . 1 3 . 5 (LIS= 5 1 1 / 2 ) , which he emended to VIS ( 6 1/2) to b r i n g the a l lotment at Luna in to l i n e w i th al lotments at the other Roman co lon ie s e s tab l i shed i n t h i s p e r i o d . The reading of the manuscript may w e l l be c o r r e c t , however, i n view of the c e s s a t i o n of L a t i n c o l o n i z a t i o n , and the unusual s i z e of the a l lotments may e x p l a i n the complaints of the people of P i s a . We have no informat ion about the sett lement made by the f i v e commissioners (see on 1 3 . 1 1 ) . P i s a was dec lared one of the consular provinces i n 1 6 7 (see on 1 7 . 6 ) . 1 3 . 1 1 quinque v i r o s : Q . Fabius Buteo ( 5 8 ) P. C o r n e l i u s B l a s i o ( 7 6 ) T . Sempronius Musca ( 7 2 ) L . Naevius Balbus ( 1 1 ) C . Appuleius Saturninus (not i n RE) 53 Fabius had been p r a e t o r i n C i s a l p i n e Gaul i n 181 where h i s imperium was prorogued i n 180; he was named t r i u m v i r c o l o n i a e deducendae when P i s a o f f e r e d land f o r a colony (see on 13.10). C o r n e l i u s became p r a e t o r about 165 (see Broughton M a g i s t r a t e s I . 438 n . l ) . Nothing f u r t h e r i s known about the other members of the commission, who were probably f a i r l y young men. On the p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s of the Sempronii (Gracchi) see on 15.8. 13.12-13 Se r v i c e s of M a s i n i s s a to Rome: c f . L. 42.29.8-10, 62.5 (1000 c a v a l r y , 1000 i n f a n t r y , 22 e l e p h a n t s ) ; 43.6.11-13 (1,000,000 modii of wheat, 1200 c a v a l r y , 12 e l e p h a n t s ) . In a d d i t i o n to a change i n C a r t h a g i n i a n hostages (L. 45.14.5), Masgaba may a l s o have been seeking to win Roman approval f o r h i s f a t h e r ' s s e i z u r e of C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y . Carthage had remained f a i t h f u l to the t r e a t y of 201 ( c f . P o l . 15.18; L. 30.37; Appian L i b . 54 w i t h Walbank Commentary I I . 466 - 469), f u r n i s h i n g s i x ships f o r the war a g a i n s t Antiochus I I I i n 191 (L. 36.42.2) and two quinquiremes f o r the war against Perseus i n 171 (L. 42.56.6). They s u p p l i e d 1,000,000 modii of wheat and 500,000 modii of b a r l e y i n 170 (L. 43.6.11). The Romans had n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y allowed M a s i n i s s a t o s e i z e and r e t a i n C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y ( c f . L. 40.17.1-6 (182); L. 40.34.14 (181); L. 42.23-24 (172); P o l . 31.21; Appian L i b . 67). The aim of M a s i n i s s a , according to P o l y b i u s ( c f . L. 42.29.8-10 w i t h N i s s e n K r i t . Untersuch. 248 - 249; K l o t z L i v i u s 19, 68) had been to g a i n c o n t r o l of a l l C a r t h a g i n i a n t e r r i t o r y i n the event of a Roman set-back i n the war a g a i n s t Perseus. I t was perhaps because of t h i s i n t e n t i o n of M a s i n i s s a ' s t h a t the senate, which d i d not d e s i r e the complete d e s t r u c t i o n of Carthage, considered a v i s i t by the Numidian c h i e f t a i n unwelcome, and saw f i t to remind him t h a t he owed h i s p o s i t i o n to Rome. In 153, during another boundary d i s p u t e , K a r t h a l o , the C a r t h a g i n i a n commander of a u x i l i a r y f o r c e s , attacked a group of Numidians occupying disputed t e r r i t o r y . T his a t t a c k l e d to 54 a war between Mas in i s sa and the Car thag in ians , who had now t e c h n i c a l l y broken the t rea ty of 201. A f t e r a s er i e s of embassies to A f r i c a , the senate dec lared war against Carthage i n the winter of 151 - 150 on the grounds that the m i l i t a r y preparat ions of Carthage cons t i tu ted an infringement of the t rea ty of 201 (L. Ep . 48) . On the p r e l i m i n a r i e s to the T h i r d Punic War see De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV. 3. 1 - 3 3 ; A s t i n S c i p i o Aemil ianus 2 70 - 280. 14.2 tr ium regum b e l l i s : In the wars against P h i l i p V (c f . L . 31 .11 .8-12) , Antiochus I I I (c f . L . 36.4.8) and Perseus (see on 13.12). 14.5 P e t e n t i Masgabae . . . ex igere t : Giarra tano 308 reads: obses i n locum * [ ex igere tur , responsum est haud aequum v i d e r i senatum a Carthag in iens ibus obsides a r b i t r i o Masinissae] ex igere . Giarra tano e x p l a i n s : Post LOCUM genetivus nominis p r o p r i i deest . Lacunam e x p l e v i t Z i n g e r l e , Sigonium, Madvigium, H. I . Muellerum secutus . The reading of the M S . , i n t e r p r e t e d by Giarratano as ex igere , i s e x i g e r e t . According to the peace t rea ty of 201 the Carthag in ians were requ ired to sent 1000 hostages to Rome. I t appears from t h i s passage that hostages were s t i l l being he ld i n 168 and that t h e i r personnel was changed from time to time (c f . P o l . 15.18 with Walbank Commentary I I . 466 - 471) . Hanno was p o s s i b l y the son of that Hamilkar ( c a l l e d \"the Samnite\") who l a t e r became the leader of the s o - c a l l e d democratic par ty i n Carthage which favoured going to war against Mas in i s sa (c f . Appian L i b . 68) . 14.8-9 Misagenes: In 171 he was sent wi th 1000 i n f a n t r y , 1000 cava l ry and 22 elephants to serve under the consul P . L i c i n i u s Crassus (L. 42.29.8-10, 62.2, 65 .12) . L i v y ' s account of t h i s episode, p a r t l y l o s t i n the lacuna which fol lows 45 .14 .9 , may be reconstructed from V a l . Max. 5 . 1 . I d , where Misagenes i s c a l l e d Musochares. 15.1 Census: Part of the census d e s c r i p t i o n i s miss ing from the beginning 55 of Chapter 15, where a page of the MS. is lost (see Weissenborn-Mu'ller 213; Giarratano 309). To this lacuna probably belonged the information preserved in L. Ep. 45: Lustrum a censoribus conditum est; censa sunt civium capita trecenta duodecim milia octoginta quinque. 15.1-6 The voting of the libertini: In the early republic the libertini voted in the four urban tribes. As censor in 312, Appius Claudius Caecus enrolled the libertini in all the tribes, but Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus, censors in 304, cancelled the registrations of Appius Claudius and once more restricted the libertini to the four urban tribes (L. 9.46; Diod. 20.36.4; Plut. Poplicola 7). In the next half-century other censors evidently followed the example of Appius Claudius by enrolling libertini in the rural tribes, since at some time between 234 and 220 they were once again restricted to the four urban tribes (L. Ep. 20 with Taylor Voting Districts 138 n. 22). By the Lex Terentia of 189 (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 274) the sons of libertini were granted full citizen rights, and at some time between 189 and 174, probably in 179 during the censorship of M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior, favourable changes were made in the registration of the libertini themselves. Those who had sons over five years of age and those who^ had property valued at a minumum of 30,000 HS. (a census rating of the first and secons classes) were placed in the rural tribes (L. 45.15.1-2). In 168 the censor T i . Sempronius Gracchus wished to exclude the libertini altogether from the tribes, except, perhaps, those already enrolled in the four urban tribes, but his colleague C. Claudius Pulcher objected and a compromise was reached, by which one of the four urban tribes was to be chosen by lot and all the libertini, except, perhaps, those already enrolled in the four urban tribes, were to be placed in i t . The precedent for the selection by lot of a tribe in which a group of people would vote was the selection by lot of a tribe for the Latini (see 56 Tay lor Vot ing Assemblies 79 n . 46. On the use of the l o t i n e l e c t i o n s , see I b i d . 70 - 74). I t was perhaps M. Aemi l ius Scaurus, the consul of 115, who res tored the l i b e r t i n i to the four urban t r i b e s and perhaps to the r u r a l t r i b e s as w e l l . Several fur ther attempts were made to e n r o l l the l i b e r t i n i i n a l l the t r i b e s , notably by P. S u l p i c i u s Rufus i n 88, by C . M a n i l i u s i n 66 and by P. C lod ius Pulcher i n 53, but except for b r i e f p e r i o d s , the votes of the l i b e r t i n i dn the l a t e r e p u b l i c were l i m i t e d to the four urban t r i b e s . See Mommsen Rom. S t a a t s r . I I I . 434 - 439; T a y l o r Vot ing D i s t r i c t s 132 - 149; Casso la Gruppi 119 - 120. C . Claudius Pulcher (300) and T i . Sempronius Gracchus (53), the censors of 169, belonged to f a m i l i e s which were p o l i t i c a l l y assoc iated (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 f f . , 295 -296). Claudius and Sempronius had been praetors together i n 180 and consuls i n 177. During t h e i r t r i a l for p e r d u e l l i o i n 169, i t was sa id that Claudius was saved from c o n v i c t i o n by the threat of Sempronius to go in to e x i l e i f h i s co l league should be condemned (c f . L . 43 .16.15-16) . Claudius may have been r e t u r n i n g a favour by l e t t i n g Sempronius have h i s way i n the matter of the v o t i n g of the l i b e r t i n i . On the c e n s o r i a l a c t i v i t y of Sempronius, a l so see C i c e r o De O r a t . 1.38; [Aure l ius V i c t o r ] De V i r . 111. 57 .3 . 15.8 P l u r e s . . . i g n o m i n i a : Seven men were removed from the senate (L . 43 .15 .7 ) . Persons accused of immoral i ty or misbehaviour by the censors suf fered the p u b l i c d i sgrace (ignominia) of having a mark (nota censoria) p laced against t h e i r names i n the r e g i s t e r of c i t i z e n s . The punishment which accompanied the nota c e n s o r i a could take four d i f f e r e n t forms: a senator could be expe l led from membership i n the senate (senatu motus); an Eques Equo Pub l i co could be deprived of the Equus Pub l i cus (equum vendere i u s s u s ) , and any f u l l Roman c i t i z e n subject to the tr ibutum (see on 34.5) could be taxed at a higher ra te (aerar ius factus) o r , i f he was r e g i s t e r e d i n one of the r u r a l t r i b e s , he could be both taxed at a higher ra te and t r a n s f e r r e d to one of t h e f o u r u r b a n t r i b e s ( t r i b u m o t u s e t a e r a r i u s f a c t u s ) . Mommsen (ROm. S t a a t s r . I I . 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 ) t h o u g h t t h a t t h e t w o p a r t s o f t h e p h r a s e t r i b u m o v e r e e t a e r a r i u m f a c e r e r e f e r t o t h e same a c t , o n t h e b a s i s o f h i s b e l i e f t h a t , b e f o r e t h e c e n s o r s h i p o f A p p i u s C l a u d i u s i n 3 1 2 , R o m a n c i t i z e n s s u b j e c t t o t r i b u t u r n w e r e d i v i d e d i n t o t w o c l a s s e s : t h e t r i b u l e s , w h o p o s s e s s e d t h e m i n i m u m v a l u e o f l a n d e d p r o p e r t y r e q u i r e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s , a n d w h o w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s , a n d t h e a e r a r i i , w h o d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e m i n i m u m p r o p e r t y c e n s u s a n d w h o w e r e n o t m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s . T o t h i s s e c o n d g r o u p Mommsen a d d e d t h e c i v e s s i n e s u f f r a g i o a n d f o r m e r t r i b u l e s w h o h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r t r i b e s b y t h e c e n s o r s . A c c o r d i n g t o M o m m s e n , a p e r s o n r e m o v e d f r o m h i s t r i b e a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e c a m e a n a e r a r i u s ; a f t e r A p p i u s C l a u d i u s a d m i t t e d t o t h e t r i b e s c i t i z e n s w i t h o u t t h e m i n i m u m c e n s u s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s , t h e o n l y a e r a r i i l e f t w e r e t h e c i v e s s i n e s u f f r a g i o a n d f o r m e r t r i b u l e s w h o h a d b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r t r i b e s . F r a c c a r o , h o w e v e r , h a s a r g u e d c o n v i n c i n g l y ( A t h e n a e u m 11 N . S . ( 1 9 3 3 ) 1 5 0 - 1 7 2 ) t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h Mommsen p o s i t e d b e t w e e n t r i b u l e s a n d a e r a r i i n e v e r e x i s t e d . M e m b e r s h i p i n t h e t r i b e s w a s n o r m a l l y a n e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f c i t i z e n s h i p ; n o R o m a n c i t i z e n c o u l d b e d e p r i v e d o f m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e t r i b e s w i t h o u t l o s i n g h i s s t a t u s a s a f u l l c i t i z e n . E v e n b e f o r e 3 1 2 c i t i z e n s w i t h o u t t h e m i n i m u m c e n s u s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e S e r v i a n c l a s s e s w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s , a n d t h e a e r a r i i , b e f o r e a n d a f t e r 3 1 2 , w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e t r i b e s . S e e a l s o L a s t J R S 3 5 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 3 0 - 4 8 . R e g i s t r a t i o n i n t h e f o u r u r b a n t r i b e s b e c a m e a d i s a b i l i t y a f t e r 3 0 4 w h e n t h e c e n s o r Q . F a b i u s M a x i m u s R u l l i a n u s t r a n s f e r r e d t h e m a s s o f t h e p o o r e r u r b a n d w e l l e r s f r o m t h e r u r a l t o t h e u r b a n t r i b e s . D i s e n f r a n c h i s e m e n t r e d u c e d a c i t i z e n t o t h e s t a t u s o f a c i v i s s i n e s u f f r a g i o , w h e r e a s t r a n s f e r f r o m a r u r a l t o a n u r b a n t r i b e c a u s e d a d i m i n u t i o n i n a c i t i z e n ' s p o l i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e a n d i n f l u e n c e . 58 The term aerarium facere as a penalty may occur alone, w h i l e the term t r i b u movere i s always c l o s e l y l i n k e d to aerarium f a c e r e . This i m p l i e s t h a t the punishment s i g n i f i e d by the expression t r i b u movere et aerarium f a c e r e was the more severe punishment, imposing not only the payment of t r i b u t u m at a higher r a t e , but a l s o the p o l i t i c a l disadvantage of being t r a n s f e r r e d from a r u r a l to an urban t r i b e . See P i e r i L ' H i s t o i r e du Cens jusqu'a l a F i n de l a Republique Romaine 113 - 122. The Equites Equo P u b l i c o were Roman c i t i z e n s of the h i g h e s t census group e n r o l l e d i n the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , and are to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the l a r g e r number of c i t i z e n s who possessed the resources t o serve as cavalrymen a t t h e i r own expense ( c f . L. 5.7.5 w i t h O g i l v i e Commentary 641 - 642). The Equites Equo P u b l i c o were given the aes equestre and the aes hordearium by the s t a t e f o r the purchase and maintenance of a horse on m i l i t a r y campaigns. U n t i l some time between the year 123 and the time of S u l l a , senators had been e n r o l l e d i n the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , but were then t r a n s f e r r e d to the f i r s t c l a s s by a p l e b i s c i t u m reddendorum equorum (see Rotondi Leges P u b l i c a e 303). The l o s s of the Equus P u b l i c u s , along w i t h the p r i v i l e g e of v o t i n g i n one of the eighteen e q u e s t r i a n c e n t u r i e s , c o u l d accompany the nota c e n s o r i a . This punishment was designated by the expressions equos adimere, equi adempti, equum vendere i u s s i t , d i r e p t i s equis p u b l i c i s , equum publicum perdere. A senator who was an Eques Equo P u b l i c o could be deprived of the Equus P u b l i c u s as w e l l as e x p e l l e d from the senate. S e e N i c o l e t L'Ordre Equestre a l'Epoque R e p u b l i c a i n e (312 - 43 av. J.-C.) 15 - 123; H i l l Roman Middle C l a s s 32 - 44. 15.9 Cn. T r e m e l l i u s t r i b u n u s : Cn. T r e m e l l i u s (2) As praetor i n 159 he was f i n e d f o r contending w i t h M. A e m i l i u s Lepidus, the P o n t i f e x Maximus and Princeps Senatus (L. Ep. 47). On the p r o r o g a t i o n of urban m a g i s t r a c i e s see Mommsen RHm. S t a a t s r . I . 637 n. 1, I I . 351. For other examples of the use of tribunician powers for personal reasons see L. Z2.61.5-8, 25.3.15-17 with Bleiken Volkstribunat 98 - 99. Since Tremellius was now tribunus plebis, he had probably already held the quaestorship, but election to this office did not automatically confer membership in the senate before the time of Sulla (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 362, 353 - 354), while the tribunate did not automatically confer membership until the passing of the Lex Atinia some time before 102 (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 330; perhaps the law was passed about 131: see Astin Scipio Aemilianus 354 - 355). The censors, who performed the lectio senatus, were not obliged to choose only ex-magistrates, but there was a tendency to choose persons who had held curule office (cf. L. 23.23.5). Another ex-magistrate in this period who was not a senator was P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus (72), quaestor in 152, who was mistaken for a senator at the beginning of the Third Punic War by Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (Val. Max. 2.2.1). Certain privati, magistrates and ex-magistrates (quibus in senatu sententiam dicere licet: L. 23.32.4; Gellius 3.18.7), who were not technically senators, were permitted to participate in the deliberations of the senate before they were formally enrolled as members of that body by the censors at the next lustrum. See Mommsen ROta. Staatsr. III. 354 - 866. .10 C. Cicereius: C. Cicereius (1) He was praetor in Sardinia in 173 where his imperium was prorogued in 172. Later in 172 he was sent as an ambassador to Gentius (L. 42.26.6-7). As praetor in 173 he vowed a temple to Iuno Moneta (L. 42.7.1) which he now built on the Alban mount where, as propraetor, he had celebrated an ovatio in 172 because the senate refused to grant him a triumph for his exploits in Corsica (L. 42.21.6-7). Cicereius had been secretary to Scipio Africanus (Val. Max. 3.5.1, 4.5.3). In 167 he was one of the five commissioners for the settlement of Illyricum (see on 17.4). 6 0 1 5 . 1 0 Flamen M a r t i a l i s Inauguratus; The f i f t e e n Flamines , three maiores and twelve minores, formed part of the Col legium Pont i f i cum. Each Flamen was assigned the c u l t of one god. The Flamen M a r t i a l i s , who attended to the c u l t of Mars, was one of the three Flamines maiores . See L a t t e RHm. R e l . 3 6 . L . Postumius A lb inus (--32/42) was praetor by 1 5 7 and consul i n 1 5 4 , when he died on h i s way to h i s p r o v i n c e . His grea t -grandfather A. Postumius Alb inus ( 3 0 ) had a l so he ld the p o s i t i o n of Flamen M a r t i a l i s . On the Postumii i n p o l i t i c s , see on 4 . 7 . 1 6 . 1 Q . A e l i o M. Iunio consu l ibus : Q . A e l i u s Paetus ( 1 0 4 ) M. Iunius Pennus ( 1 2 2 ) They took o f f i c e on Roman 15 March, which would have been about 1 J a n . by the J u l i a n calendar (see on 1 . 1 1 ) . L i v y now begins h i s account of the consular year 1 6 7 . The A e l i i and the I u n i i were p o l i t i c a l assoc iates of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 1 6 5 f f . , 2 1 1 for the A e l i i ; 1 8 4 , 2 1 1 for the I u n i i ) . A e l i u s ( 1 0 4 ) had been augur s ince 1 7 4 ; he was probably praetor i n 1 7 0 (see Broughton Magis trates I . 4 2 2 n . 1 ) . As consul i n 167 h i s province was G a u l . Iunius ( 1 2 2 ) was praetor i n Nearer Spain i n 172 where h i s imperium was prorogued i n 1 7 1 . As consul i n 1 6 7 h i s province was L i g u r i a . 1 6 . 2 duas p r o v i n c i a s Hispaniam rursus f i e r i : During the war years 171 to 1 6 8 the two Spanish provinces had been un i ted under one governor of p r a e t o r i a n rank so that a praetor would be free to take command of the f l e e t . According to L . 3 2 . 2 8 . 1 1 , the two Spanish provinces were demarcated i n 1 9 7 , but Sumner (Arethusa 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) 8 5 - 1 0 2 ) argues that from 2 1 8 u n t i l at l eas t 1 9 6 there were two simultaneous commands he ld over a l l of Spa in . Because the consul M. Porc ius Cato he ld the command i n Spain along with two praetors i n 1 9 5 , i t appears that the permanent d i v i s i o n of the province occurred 61 some time after 195. The college of praetors was increased from four to six in 197 in order to supply two governors each year for Spain. Before the permanent division of Spain into two provinces the command had been held jointly by two governors with proconsular imperium. This arrangement probably continued at least until 196. 16.3 Consulibus Pisae et Gallia decretae: Violence had perhaps broken out in the dispute between Luna and Pisa in 168 over the assignment of land for the Roman colony at Luna (see on 13.10). C. Licinius Crassus, the consul of 168, had led a campaign in Cisalpine Gaul, where his imperium was prorogued in 167 until he was named as one of the ten commissioners for the settlement of Macedonia (L. 45.12.9-12, 17.2). Later in 167 both consuls campaigned against the Ligurians (L. 45.44.1). 16.3-4 Praetorum sortes fuere: Q. Cassius (Longinus) (69) T i . Claudius Nero (252) Cn. Fulvius (13) M' . Iuventius Thalna (30) C. Licinius Nerva (133) A. Manlius Torquatus (73) Cassius (69) belonged to a family which had recently risen from three centuries of political obscurity. C. Cassius (Longinus) (55), consul in 171, was the first member of his gens to reach the consulship since Sp. Cassius Vicellinus (91) in the early fifth century. The Cassii were one of a group of plebeian families which rose to prominence in the late 170's. As praetor in 167, Cassius (69) conducted Perseus to Alba Fucentia (L. 45.42.4) and presented the ships captured from Gentius to the people of Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium (L. 45.43.10). He was consul in 164. See Scullard Rom. Pol. 195 ff. As tribunus plebis in 170 Iuventius joined in the prosecution of C. Lucretius Gallus for his treatment of Chalcis as praetor in command of the fleet in 171 (L. 43.8.2-10). In attempting to obtain the declaration of war against Rhodes during his praetorship (L. 45.21.1-8), Iuventius was probably acting in 62 the i n t e r e s t s of Q. Marcius P h i l i p p u s (see Appendix I ) . I t i s p o s s i b l e that P h i l i p p u s , as censor i n 164, used h i s in f luence to help Iuventius to the consulship of 163, s ince the I u v e n t i i were not prominent i n Roman p o l i t i c s , and Iuventius (30) was the f i r s t and only member of h i s gens to a t t a i n the c o n s u l s h i p . He died dur ing h i s consulship i n 163. See S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 287. For L i c i n i u s see on 3 . 1 . The M a n l i i were p o l i t i c a l assoc iates of the F a b i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 135, 184). Manl ius (73) became consul i n 164, one year a f t er h i s brother T . Manl ius Torquatus (83). Nothing fur ther i s known of Claudius (252) and F u l v i u s (13). 16.4 A . Manl io T o r q u a t o . . . r e t e n t u s ; The p r a e t o r i a n governors of S a r d i n i a sometimes rece ived s p e c i a l a d d i t i o n a l t a sks . In 177 L . Mummius was r e q u i r e d to prosecute the L a t i n i who had not returned home before 1 Nov. of that year (L . 41 .9 .9 -10) . 16.5-6 P r o d i g i e s : c f . J u l i u s Obsequens 11. The exp ia t ion of p r o d i g i e s r e g u l a r l y took p lace at the beginning of the new year before the consuls l e f t for t h e i r prov inces . The senate could decree s a c r i f i c e s , l e c t i s t e r n i a , s u p p l i c a t i o n e s , novemdiales s a c r i , l u s t r a t i o n e s u r b i s , l u d i s c a e n i c i , or obsecrat iones . When a p a r t i c u l a r l y ser ious prodigy was repor ted , the senate might consul t the P o n t i f i c e s or seek the advice of haruspices or i ssue a decree order ing the decemvir i s a c r i s f ac iund i s to consul t the S i b y l l i n e books. See Mommsen Rb*m. S t a a t s r . I I I . 1059 - 1062; Wissowa R e l . und K u l t . 394 - 396; Hktndel RE X X I I I . 2 (1959) c o l s . 2283 - 2296; L a t t e Rom. R e l . 204. 16.7-8 L e c t i s t e r n i u m i n thanksgiv ing for the v i c t o r i e s over Perseus and Gent ius : On l e c t i s t e r n i a see L a t t e Rb*m. R e l . 242 - 244. The l e c t i s t e r n i u m for the v i c t o r y over Antiochus I I I was vowed i n 191 (L. 3 6 . 2 . 2 - 5 ) , but the f u l f i l m e n t of t h i s vow i n 185 was not recorded i n L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c account for that year , and i s mentioned here for the 63 f i r s t time. 17.1 - 18.8 The sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m : On the settlement of Macedonia see Frank CP 9 (1914) 49 - 59; Larsen CP 40 (1945) 65 - 97; CP 44 (1949) 7 3 - 9 0 ; ESAR IV. 294 - 300; Rep. Gov ' t 86, 103 - 104; Greek F e d e r a l States 295 - 300; Aymard CP 45 (1950) 96 - 107; M e l o n i Perseo 409 - 431; Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 96 - 97; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 236 - 238; De Sanc t i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 328 - 331. On the settlement of I l l y r i c u m see Larsen ESAR IV. 300 - 302; Hammond BSA 61 (1966) 239 - 253; W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 230 - 231; De Sanct i s S t o r i a IV. I 2 . 332 - 333. For L i v y ' s Po lyb ian account of the sett lement of Macedonia and I l l y r i c u m see 45.29 and 45.26.11-15, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 17.1-3 Legatos; A . Postumius (Albinus) Luscus (*26/46) C . Claudius Pulcher (300) Q. Fabius (Labeo ?) (91) (?) Q. Marcius P h i l i p p u s (79) C . L i c i n i u s Crassus (51) Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (19) Ser . C o r n e l i u s S u l l a (2, 388) L . Iunius (Brutus ?) (19) T . Numisius T a r q u i n i e n s i s (10) A. Terent ius Varro (80) Of the commissioners of c e n s o r i a l rank, Postumius had been praetor i n 185, consul i n 180 and censor i n 174; Claudius had been praetor i n 180, consul i n 177 and censor i n 169. Of the three consu lars , only the name of L i c i n i u s i s preserved i n the M S . , which seems to have omitted two names. The name of Fabius i s res tored on the bas i s of L . 45.31.14, where the Labeo sent to Lesbos i s almost c e r t a i n l y a member of the commission. The name of Marcius P h i l i p p u s was res tored by Weissenborn s o l e l y on the bas i s of M a r c i u s ' experience i n Greek a f f a i r s (see Weissenborn-Mfil ler 39 ad L . 45 .17 .2 ) . Domitius may have been praetor i n 170, seeing that h i s name occurs f i r s t a f t er those of the consulars (also see on 10 .4) . 64 C o r n e l i u s , whose name comes next, was probably the C o r n e l i u s whose imperium was prorogued i n S a r d i n i a i n 174, and who would thus probably have been praetor i n th a t province i n 175. Drumann (Geschichte Roms. v o l . IV. 10) conjectured t h a t Iunius (19) was a Brutus and the brother of M. Iunius Brutus (48), the consul of 178. Numisius had been sent to Egypt i n 169 to attempt to n e g o t i a t e a peace between Antiochus IV and Ptolemy V I I I and C l e o p a t r a (see Appendix I I I ) . Terentius had been p r a e t o r i n 184. On the p o l i t i c a l connections of the P o s t u m i i see on 4.7. On the C l a u d i i see on 4.1. On the F a b i i see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 165 f f . On Marcius P h i l i p p u s see B r i s c o e JRS 54 (1964) 66 - 67. C. L i c i n i u s Crassus (51) was an a s s o c i a t e of the P o p i l l i i (see on 1.6). Domitius, C o r n e l i u s , Iunius and Ter e n t i u s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group (Domitius had been one of the three s p e c i a l envoys to Greece and Macedonia acceptable to P a u l l u s l a t e i n 169: see on 3.1; f o r the I u n i i see on 16.1; f o r the T e r e n t i i see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 141, 211, 284) . Numisius may have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Marcius P h i l i p p u s (see B r i s c o e JRS 54 (1964) 76 - 77). 17.4 In I l l y r i c u m autem h i n o m i n a t i ; P. A e l i u s Ligus (84) C. C i c e r e i u s (1) Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (42; c f . 43) P. Terentius Tuscivicanus (75) P. M a n i l i u s (13) A e l i u s had been consul i n 172; C i c e r e i u s p r a e t o r i n 173; Baebius praetor i n 168. A e l i u s (see on 16.1), C i c e r e i u s (see on 15.10), Baebius (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 170, 211) and T e r e n t i u s (see on 17.1) were p o l i t i c a l a s s o c i a t e s of the A e m i l i a n - S c i p i o n i c group. M a n i l i u s (13) belonged to a new fa m i l y whose f i r s t member to reach the consulship was M 1. M a n i l i u s (12), perhaps a younger 65 brother of M a n i l i u s (13), i n 149. According to C i c e r o (De Re Pub. 1.18), M a n i l i u s (13) was a member of the S c i p i o n i c c i r c l e . 17.7 ce terum. . .possent : In 189 a f t er the defeat of Antiochus I I I the senate sent ten commissioners to A s i a for the sett lement of d e t a i l s , but determined beforehand the general p o l i c y to be fol lowed (cf . P o l . 21 .24 .4 -9 ; L. 37 .55 .4 -6 ) . 18.1 l i b e r o s esse: In the H e l l e n i s t i c world the terms otofovop*'<* , eXe-u l9 had come to denote l i t t l e more than \" l o c a l autonomy\" and were not incompatible with var ious forms of domination (see McShane Fore ign P o l i c y 68 - 73; Jones The Greek C i t y from Alexander to J u s t i n i a n 95 - 112). When the Romans rece ived the d e d i t i o (see on 1.9) of a defeated enemy, they considered themselves e n t i t l e d to make p o l i t i c a l arrangements for that s ta te and to determine i t s s tatus (see Dahlheim D e d i t i o und soc ie tas 1 - 52) . Cato the Censor had argued against the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of Macedonia as a province on the grounds that i t could not be defended (Malcovat i ORF 2 no. 8 f r s . 161 - 162). Macedonia now became a free amicus of Rome. The e a r l i e r Roman no t ion of l i b e r t a s excluded r e s t r i c t i o n s such as the impos i t ion of t r i b u t e , but here for the f i r s t time the Romans imposed t r i b u t e on a free s ta te (see on 18 .7) . 18.2 sub t u t e l a [popul i Romani]: The words p o p u l i Romani, which do not occur i n the M S . , and which were added by S igon ius , are accepted by Giarratano 313. L i v y r e f e r s to the informal pro tec tora te e s tab l i shed over the Greek states by the Romans dur ing the course of t h e i r i n t e r v e n t i o n i n eastern a f f a i r s from the time of the F i r s t I l l y r i a n War i n 229 - 228 (see on 43 .10) . 18.3 M e t a l l i quoque M a c e d o n i c i . . . t o l l i p lacebat : In Macedonia the gold and s i l v e r mines had formed par t of the r o y a l domains. The estates (praedia r u s t i c a ) c losed to c a p i t a l i s t development were probably the p r i v a t e estates of the k i n g . See C icero II De Lege A g r a r i a 50; Ros tovtze f f SEH 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , 632 - 6 3 3 , 7 5 8 , 1 4 7 1 n . 3 9 . Although the senate had o r i g i n a l l y decided to c lose a l l the mines, Pau l lus and the ten commissioners c losed only the gold and s i l v e r mines, whi le permi t t ing the working of the i r o n and copper mines, presumably by Macedonian contrac tors (cf . L . 4 5 . 2 9 . 1 1 ) . The former r o y a l estates probably continued to be worked by small tenants . See Ros tovtze f f SEH 7 5 8 . Badian (Publicans and Sinners 3 9 - 4 3 ) argues that the p u b l i c a n i were being deprived of the opportuni ty to e x p l o i t the mines and estates i n Macedonia because of t h e i r c o n f l i c t with the censors C . Claudius Pulcher and T i . Sempronius Gracchus i n 1 6 9 which led to a charge of p e r d u e l l i o being brought against them by the tr ibunus p l e b i s P . R u t i l i u s (L . 4 3 . 1 6 ) . The c o n f l i c t continued in to the fo l lowing y e a r , when the censors deprived R u t i l i u s and many other Equi tes Equo Pub l i co of t h e i r horses (c f . L . 4 4 . 1 6 . 8 and see on 1 5 . 8 ) , and i n 167 the p u b l i c a n i were fur ther chas t i sed by be ing deprived of the chance to e x p l o i t the mines and estates i n Macedonia. However, i f i t was merely a quest ion of punish ing the equ i te s , the senate might simply have barred them from e x p l o i t i n g the mines and estates without prevent ing the Macedonians from e x p l o i t i n g them. The mines and estates had to be c losed because the a l t e r n a t i v e to a l lowing t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n by the equites was to permit the Macedonian f i n a n c i e r s to e x p l o i t them, but t h i s was considered a p o l i t i c a l l y dangerous expedient which might lead to the resurgence of Macedonian s t rength . According to L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source, the p u b l i c a n i could not be permitted to e x p l o i t the mines and estates because Macedonia had been dec lared f r e e . In Spain the mines were exp lo i t ed by equestr ian companies, and the taxes on revenues from the mines were farmed out by the censors to contrac tors who b i d for the r i g h t to c o l l e c t them. The ager pub l i cus i n the Roman provinces was l e t to tenants by the censors for f ixed periods and for f ixed r e n t s . A f t e r the Pergamene kingdom had been dec lared a prov ince , the personal property of the kings was treated i n t h i s way. But s ince Macedonia had been 67 declared free , the extension of the censors' a u t h o r i t y to Macedonia would be a v i o l a t i o n of the r i g h t s of free a m i c i . Thus i t was the d e c i s i o n not to annex Macedonia as a province which p r o h i b i t e d the a c t i v i t y of the p u b l i c a n i there , but th i s d e c i s i o n was taken, not as a means of punishing the p u b l i c a n i , but because of the general re luctance of the senate dur ing th i s per iod to annex t e r r i t o r y outs ide of I t a l y (see Badian Roman Imperial i sm i n the Late Republ ic 1 - 43) . Cato ' s argument against d i r e c t r u l e over Macedonia was that the country could not be defended (c f . M a l c o v a t i ORF 2 no. 8 f r . 162). Without d i r e c t r u l e , the p u b l i c a n i could not be supervised p r o p e r l y , another reason for keeping them out of Macedonia. See Orth RE Suppl . IV (1924) c o l s . 152 - 154; Frank ESAR I . 154 - 157; Stevenson Roman P r o v i n c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n t i l l the Age of the Antonines 134 - 144; H i l l Roman Middle Class 57 - 59; UrHgdi RE Suppl . XI (1968) c o l s . 1184 - 1192. The go ld and s i l v e r mines were re-opened i n 158 (cf . Cass iodorus Chron ica , ed. Mommsen. p . 130 n . 403), probably for e x p l o i t a t i o n by the Macedonians. When Macedonia became a province i n 148, the mines and other sources of revenue were presumably opened up for e x p l o i t a t i o n by the p u b l i c a n i . I t i s thought that coinage was resumed with the re-opening of the mines i n 158 and that the four Macedonian fxepi- (see below) had coined no money dur ing the preceding y e a r s . See R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 758. 18.6 commune c o n s i l i u m ; The reading of the MS. i s COMMUNECONSILIUMGENTISESSETINPROBUM VULGIADSENATORALIQUAN POLIBERTATEMSALUBRIMODERATIONIDATAMAD LICENTIAMPESTILENTEMTRAHERETINQUATTUORMACEDONESDESCRIBI MACEDONIAMVISUMQUAEQUECONSILIUMHABEREPLACUIT Giarratano 314 reads [denique ne, s i ] commune c o n c i l i u m gent i s esset , inprobus v u l g i adsentator al iquando l iber ta tem s a l u b r i moderatione datam ad l i c e n t i a m pes t i l entem t r a h e r e t , i n quattuor regiones d i s c r i b i Macedoniam, ut suum quaeque conc i l ium haberet , p l a c u i t . . . . T h i s t e x t , i n i t s main o u t l i n e s and i n most p a r t i c u l a r s , i s accepted by modern e d i t o r s , except for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the MS. reading consilium which occurs twice in this passage. Larsen (CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 73 - 9 0 ) argued for the retention of the MS. reading instead of emending to concilium. The emendation of consilium to concilium can be traced back to Sigonius and has generally been treated as the orthodox reading. The MS. in both cases reads consilium, which Sigonius adopted as the reading in 1 8 . 6 with a note to the effect that it should be understood as concilium, and which in 1 8 . 7 he emended to concilium. Because consilium in Livy corresponds best to the Greek p i o \\ / (cf. L. 4 5 . 3 2 . 2 : senatores, quos synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio res publica administraretur). This implies a representative government (see Larsen CP 4 0 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 6 5 - 9 7 ; Rep. Gov't. 8 6 - 1 0 5 ) . Aymard (CP 4 5 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 102 - 1 0 7 ) argued against Larsen (CP 4 4 ( 1 9 4 9 ) 8 7 - 8 8 ) that there probably were primary assemblies in each of the four u.ef L ' ^ 5 . Larsen himself (ESAR IV. 2 9 8 ) had 69 e a r l i e r granted the p o s s i b i l i t y of e l e c t o r a l assemblies c o n s i s t i n g , presumably, of the deni p r i n c i p e s c i v i t a t i u m ( c f . L. 45.29.1). A p a r a l l e l to the d i v i s i o n of Macedonia and of I l l y r i c u m (see on 18.7) i s the d i v i s i o n of the new province of G a l a t i a i n t o t hree a d m i n i s t r a t i v e areas i n 25 B. C. (see Jones The C i t i e s of the Eastern Roman Provinces 119 - 120). 18.6 inprobus v u l g i adsentator: L i v y i m p l i e s t h a t the lower c l a s s e s of Macedonia co u l d be s t i r r e d to r e b e l l i o n by t h e i r leaders i f the Romans were t o allow a u n i f i e d government f o r the whole country. The important s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l cleavage i n H e l l e n i s t i c s o c i e t y was not i d e o l o g i c a l (e.g., democracy versus o l i g a r c h y ) but economic (lower c l a s s versus upper c l a s s ) . Two main feat u r e s i n t h i s \" c l a s s s t r u g g l e \" were the demands f o r the c a n c e l l a t i o n of debts and the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of land (see R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 755 - 757, 1115 - 1134, 1460 n. 14; Holleaux CAH V I I I (1930) 146 - 148). The question of p o l i t i c a l o p p o s i t i o n to Rome i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world from the F i r s t Macedonian War to the time of S u l l a has r e c e n t l y been s t u d i e d by Deininger (Der p o l i t i s c h e Widerstand gegen Rom i n Griechenland 217 - 86 v. Chr.) Deininger seeks to d i v i d e t h i s o p p o s i t i o n to Rome i n t o two perio d s marked by the d e p o r t a t i o n of the anti-Roman leaders to I t a l y i n 167. Co n f i n i n g h i s study to Rhodes and mainland Greece (e x c l u d i n g Macedonia), Deininger concludes t h a t before 167 the upper c l a s s e s , d i v i d e d among themselves on the question of r e l a t i o n s w i t h Rome, c o n t r o l l e d f o r e i g n p o l i c y , w h i l e a f t e r 167 the lower c l a s s e s , who had been opposed t o Rome even d u r i n g the e a r l i e r p e r i o d , l e d the o p p o s i t i o n to Rome. Although the Romans g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d to see the upper c l a s s e s i n c o n t r o l of the Greek s t a t e s ( c f . the arrangements made by Flamininus i n Thessaly i n 194: L. 34.51.4-6), i t i s not t r u e t h a t there was i n v a r i a b l y a s t a t e of h o s t i l i t y between the Romans and the lower c l a s s e s i n Greece. The Romans sometimes recognized or t o l e r a t e d r e v o l u t i o n a r y regimes (e.g., Sparta under Makhanidas and Nabis) and were not i n general concerned 70 about the internal politics of the Greek states unless there was danger that any state or group of states might upset the social and political stability and order which the Romans wished to preserve in Greece. Flamininus went to war against Nabis in 195 to free Argos from Spartan control, but this was only to restrict Spartan power in the Peloponnese (cf. L. 34.22.4 -41.10). In the wars of the the Romans, against Philip V, Antiochus III and Perseus the lower classes in the states which supported Rome generally followed without incident the example of their political leaders. See Briscoe Past & Present 36 (1967) 3 - 2 0 . In their recent reviews of Deininger's book, Derow (Phoenix 26 (1972) 303 - 311) and Errington (JRS 63 (1973) 249 - 250) question the rigid conclusions stated by the author, who may not have paid enough attention to the tendency of Livy to interpret differences in public opinion along class lines even when his source did not do so (cf. Pol. 27.1.7-9 and L. 42.44.3-5). Also see Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 2 (1972) 1165 - 1168. After the deportation of the anti-Roman leaders in 167, the political leaders of the Greek states continued to come from the upper classes. In the Achaean War of 147 - 146, which broke out after the Roman attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Achaean League, the wealthy classes as well as the lower classes opposed Rome (see De Sanctis Storia IV. 3. 127 - 162; Fuks JHS 90 (1970) 78 - 89). The lower classes were not instantly prepared to fight Rome at the first opportunity, but had to be persuaded to vote for the declaration of war by the proclamation of social measures favourable to them. The liberation and arming of slaves was an act of necessity approved by the leaders of the Achaean League (cf. Pol. 38.15.1-5). After more than a half-century of relative political stability in the Greek world, Mithridates tried to gain the support of the lower classes in Greece and Asia Minor by promises of social revolution (see Rostovtzeff SEH 930 - 944), but although he appealed to widespread social discontent, many cities opposed him, notably Rhodes (see Hiller von Gaertringen RE Suppl. V 71 (1931) c o l s . 801 - 803), where c o n d i t i o n s were more favourable f o r the lower c l a s s e s (see R o s t o v t z e f f SEH 676 - 691 and CAH V I I I (1930) 628 - 642; Casson TAPA 85 (1954) 168 - 187). A f t e r the defeat of Perseus, Macedonians of a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s remained h o s t i l e to Rome and r e b e l l e d i n 149 - 148 under Andriskos. The Roman settlement of Macedonia d i s p l e a s e d the t r a d e r s , whose business was damaged by r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on commerce between the four regions ( c f . L. 45.30.1-2), w h i l e the p o l i t i c a l arrangements which e s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l governments f o r the Macedonian regions l e d to the outbreak of d i s o r d e r and v i o l e n c e among the p o l i t i c a l l e aders ( c f . P o l . 31.2.12, 17.1-2), who probably d i s l i k e d the new ways. A l l Macedonians, whether r i c h or poor, must have resented the defeat and fragmentation of t h e i r country, which had been an important i m p e r i a l i s t power w i t h strong t r a d i t i o n s of u n i t y under a n a t i o n a l monarchy. Thus the establishment of the f our f*.ep 16&5 by Rome represents an attempt to r e s t r i c t not only the lower c l a s s e s , but a l s o the upper c l a s s e s , who would continue to supply the p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p i n Macedonia. 18.7 dimidium t r i b u t i : P l u t a r c h gives t h i s sum as 100 t a l e n t s per year (Aem. 28.3). Larsen (Greek F e d e r a l States 299) suggests t h a t the f u l l t ax formerly c o l l e c t e d by the k i n g was s t i l l c o l l e c t e d , w i t h h a l f of i t now going to Rome and h a l f to the governments of the four ( j w 6 f L ^ ^ J . The t r i b u t u m s o l i or land t a x was one of the forms of revenue d e r i v e d by the Romans from the p r o v i n c e s , but i n the case of Macedonia, a f r e e amicus of Rome, the tributum should probably be considered more a war-indemnity than a tax. See C i c e r o In Verrem I I . 3.6.12; Schwann RE V I I . A. 1 (1939) c o l s . 1 - 13, 42. U n t i l t h i s time the Romans had always a s s o c i a t e d immunitas (freedom from t a x a t i o n ) w i t h l i b e r t a s ( p o l i t i c a l independence). During the course of t h e i r involvement i n the a f f a i r s of the Greek east, the Romans learned t h a t the H e l l e n i s t i c concept 72 of auTovo^.u ) . During the settlement of A s i a a f t e r the defeat of Antiochus I I I , the Romans freed from t r i b u t e c i t i e s oVoU uW Tobv ocuTovoVtov x\\6\\(rL»\\J •vrpdfc-pov u n c - T t X o o V 'A^Tlo '^u) c^opov ( P o l . 21 .45 .2 ; note L i v y ' s t r a n s l a t i o n of t h i s : quae s t i p e n d i a r i a e r e g i Antiocho fuerant: L . 38 .39 .7 ) . In 189 the Romans s t i l l considered i t a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms that a free c i t y should be paying t r i b u t e , though apparent ly they permit ted free c i t i e s which formerly pa id t r i b u t e to A t t a l o s I to continue paying t r i b u t e to Eumenes I I . The Romans themselves are f i r s t known to have appl ied condi t ions to a .grant of l i b e r t a s i n the case of the Ambraciots i n 187 (cf . L . 38 .44.4: p o r t o r i a quae v e l l e n t . . . caperent, dum eorum immunes Romani ac s o c i i nominis L a t i n i e ssent ) . On l i b e r t a s et immunitas see Jones, A n a t o l i a n Studies 103 - 117. As i n the case of S i c i l y , the Romans found that the Macedonians had been accustomed to paying tax, and the senate decided to continue c o l l e c t i n g i t , even though i t might have been considered more a war-indemnity than a tax, s ince the Macedonians were l e f t as free a m i c i . See Badian Fore ign C l i e n t e l a e 79 - 81. 18.7 S i m i l i a h i s et i n I l l y r i c u m mandata: For the P o l y b i a n account of the sett lement of I l l y r i c u m see L . 45.26.11-15. Cato the Censor appears to have been concerned about the treatment of I l l y r i c u m and may have argued against annexation, c f . Peter HRR2 I . p . 88 f r . 96: M. Catonem i n Originum quarto - s c r i p s i s s e et item i n quinto: urbes insulasque omnis pro agro I l l y r i o . esse; f r . 97: Cato Originum l i b r o V: Fluvium Naronem magnum, pulchrum, p i s c u l e n t u m . . . . (the r i v e r Naro, the modern Narenta or Neretwa, i s i n J u g o s l a v i a . ) 19.1 The embassy of A t t a l o s : The purpose of t h i s embassy was to congratulate the Romans f o r t h e i r v i c t o r y over Perseus and to request ass i s tance against the Galatians. For general discussions of this embassy see McShane Foreign Policy 181 - 186; Will Histoire II. 245 - 246; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 347 - 351; Hansen Attalids 121 - 122. Eumenes himself had been forced to return home in 168 to deal with an uprising of the Galatians (see on 19.3) and was now seriously i l l in Pergamon (cf. L. 45.34.10-14). Attalos I became an amicus of Rome about 211 along with the Aetolians, with whom he was on good terms. He seems to have made arrangements with the Romans for the division of the spoils in the First and Second Macedonian Wars similar to those made by the Aetolians in 211 (for the Romano-Aetolian treaty see IG. IX 2. 1. 2 (1957) no. 241 and SEG XVII. 280 with Will Histoire II. 76 - 77). On Attalos cf. L. 28.7.4-5, 31.45.7, 31.46.16. On the amicitia between the Attalids and Rome see Holleaux Rome, la Grece 94-95; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. 32 -35; McShane Foreign Policy 92 - 109; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 216 n. 2; Hansen Attalids 46 -.47; Werner, Aufstieg und Niedergang der RHmischen Welt, vol. I, Part 1 (1972) 549 - 551. Attalos was born in 220, the second son of Attalos I. In 192 he came to Rome with the report that Antiochus III had crossed the Hellespont into Europe (L. 35.23.10-11). Attalos was left in charge of Pergamon in 190 when Eumenes took command of the fleet (L. 37.18.1-8); he commanded forces on the Roman right wing at the battle of Magnesia (L. 37.43.5). In 189, while Eumenes was in Rome, Attalos was again left in charge of Pergamon and participated in the campaign of Cn. Manlius Vulso against the Galatians (L. 38.12.6-8). Attalos commanded the Pergamene forces in the war against Pharnakes (183 - 179) during the illness of Eumenes and went to Rome with his younger brothers to seek Roman intervention (Pol. 24.5). He commanded forces at the battle of Pydna (L. 44.36.8). He returned to Rome in 160 to refute the charges of Prusias II and the Galatians (Pol. 31.1.2-7, 32.1.5-7). The senate, displeased with the conduct of Eumenes (see on 19.5), showed Attalos special favour (cf. Pol. 32.1.7) and during the 74 embassy of 167 a group within the senate tried to create an open break between the brothers (see on 19.2). Upon the death of Eumenes, Attalos became king as Attalos II (159 - 138). 19.2 Exceptus enim ab iis...venissent: There was an important group in the senate which desired to support Attalos against Eumenes. In an annalistic section of Book 44 (see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 260 - 263; Klotz Livius 20, 72 - 73) Livy, following Valerius Antias, contrasted the uncooperativeness of Eumenes with the eager support given the Romans by Attalos in the campaigns of 169 and 168 (L. 44.13.12-14, 44.20.7). This may have been due to the Galatian revolt in Asia Minor (see on 19.3), but a more serious charge made by Polybius was that Eumenes had communicated with Perseus concerning the negotiation of peace between Rome and Macedonia (see on 19.5). In 167 Attalos was well received by those senators present who had known him during their military service in the Macedonian war (cf. Pol. 30.1.4: -rrdtVTow oc- G?«- Ao cOiooMtos- ao-rov arrooe^onc-^wv otocTG- TTJV &\\j Tr| ; e u x v T O O V*, see on 18.6. On the geography of Macedonia see Strabo Book 7, frs. 9-47; Pliny NH 8.10; Ptolemy Geogr. 3.12. 29.5-6 unam fore et primam partem...appellant: Ainos and Maroneia had resisted the attack of C. Lucretius Gallus in 171, and remained untaken until the end of the war, while Abdera seems to have fallen to L. Hortensius in 170 (cf. L. 43.4.8-13, 1 0 1 4 3 . 7 . 1 0 ; also see Meloni Perseo 2 6 0 - 2 6 1 ) . The senate had declared free (TJ \\£\\j-dt puoo~e\\/) the towns of Ainos and Maroneia (see on 2 0 . 2 ) ; the senate refused to grant Abdera, which had probably also been declared a civitas libera, to Kotys of Thrace, who requested it in 1 6 6 (cf. SIG 6 5 6 ) . See Jones The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 6 - 7 . The Bisaltae lived to the west of the lower Strymon, between Lakes Prasias and Kerkinitis. Herakleia Sintike was on the west bank of the Strymon above Lake Kerkinitis. See Hammond Macedonia 192 - 1 9 3 . 2 9 . 7 Secundam fore regionem...colerent: The Paeones lived between the upper Strymon and Axius rivers. By the fifth century they held the eastern side of the upper and middle Axius valley and a narrow strip of land on the west down to the sea (Thuc. 2 . 9 9 . 4 ) . See Hammond Macedonia 4 2 8 . 2 9 . 8 tertia pars...cingunt; The Peneus is the famous river in Thessaly. The third region was defined on the south by the lowest reach of the Peneus. See Hammond Macedonia 7 3 . 2 9 . 8 ad septentrionem Bora mons obicitur...concesserunt; The reading of the MS. is ABSENTENONEMBORA. This was corrected in the editio princeps to ad septentrionem Bora. The reading of the MS. at 2 9 . 9 is TRANSDORSUMMONTEM, corrected in the editio princeps to trans Boram montem. The reading of Diod. 3 1 . 8 . 8 , which is not disputed, is D e p v o v °pc»5 in both cases. Hammond identifies Mt. Bora and Mt. Bernon with Mt. Bermion (see Ptolemy Geogr. 3 . 1 2 . 1 6 ) . The emendation of L. 4 5 . 2 9 . 9 is perhaps unnecessary in view of Livy's use of the word dorsum to mean \"the ridge of a range\" (e.g., L. 3 6 . 1 5 . 6 : Apennini dorso Italia dividitur; also see 4 1 . 1 8 . 8 , 4 4 . 4 . 4 ) . Because Polybius' direction is east to west instead of north to south, he treats Mt. Bermion as a northern instead of as a western boundary marker. Thus there is no real problem with Edessa being actually north of Mt. Bermion. See Hammond Macedonia 73 - 7 4 . 2 9 . 9 Quarta regio...Epiro: From L. 4 5 . 3 0 . 6 we learn that this area was inhabited by the 102 Eordaei, Lyncestae and Pelagones, and that adjacent to these peoples were Atintania, Strymepalis and Elimiotis. Hammond (Macedonia 46) prefers to retain the MS. reading Strymepalis instead of adopting the common emendation Tymphaeis, which would denote part of Epirus (see Hammond Epirus 680 - 682). He places Strymepalis between Lyncestis and Eordia and to the west, in the basin south of Lake Prespa (Epirus 633 - 634). Atintania controlled the approach to Macedonia through the Aous valley (see Hammond Macedonia 76 - 78; Oost Roman Policy 82). 2 9.9 Capita regionum...fecit: Amphipolis, Thessalonike and Pella were to be administrative centres for the first three uep C6e$ ; p elagonia was not a city but a tribal district. Hammond (Macedonia 74 - 75) suggests that the tribal government of the Pelagones and the existing governments of the three capital cities formed the basis of the new administrations. This seems likely in the case of the fourth p.epiS , where there were no fully developed cities, but in the other it appears that a federal form of government was instituted, in which representatives from the various districts of the p-ep^ dfrj participated. See on 18.6. The governments of the individual Macedonian cities apparently continued to function. See Larsen Greek Federal States 295 - 300. Pelagonia was west of the upper and middle Axius, across from the Paeonians (see Hammond Macedonia 59 - 60). A city called Pelagonia is first clearly attested in the Synekdemos of Hierokles (ed. Parthey, no. 641.5), composed about 527 A. D. De Sanctis (Storia IV. I 2 . 329 n. 260) suggested that Pelagonia be identified with Herakleia Lynkestis. 29.10 Pronuntiavit...esse: Connubium and commercium, respectively, denoted the recognition in Roman law of marriages and commercial contracts between Roman citizens and foreigners. The prohibition of connubium and commercium was a punishment applied to the Latins and Italians (cf. L. 8.14.10, in 338 after the Latin War; 9.43.24, in 306 after the Second Samnite War), not only in their relationship with Rome but also in their relationships with other 103 Roman s o c i i . See Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship 30 -32, 103 - 104, 107 - 108. De Sanctis (Storia IV. I 2 . 329 n. 262) suggested that the expression commercium agrorum aedificiorumque refers, not to the vali d i t y of contracts among the four u.trpif6c-5, but to the right of a person to own property in land and houses in a state of which he is not a citizen (^rjs K^ U otKi'tfS e'H, KTT)cn5) . gee Rostovtzeff SEH 204 - 205. On t<\\\\5 4^toAoovTO -P} OnepopCq KTcco*T?5 oAou Ko(To; Kep HLOtTLO'^evTo^ . Plutarch or his source apparently used this lower figure to help explain the dissatisfaction of the troops which is otherwise clearly attributed to the refusal of Paullus to distribute the spoils taken from the treasury of Perseus (cf. L. 45.34.7, 35.6, 37.10; Plut. Aem. 30.2). The money had been handed over to the quaestors (Plut. Aem. 38.6), while the works of art and other precious articles, after being displayed in Amphipolis, were handed over to Octavius for transport to Rome (L. 45.33.5-7). A distribution of 11 drachmas (equivalent to about 11 denarii) would have been the lowest recorded distribution per soldier since 191 when P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica in his triumph over the Boii gave each soldier 125 asses (under 8 denarii). The sum of 11 denarii would have been extremely low in view of the generally high profitability of the Third Macedonian War. A distribution of 200 denarii per soldier, however, would have been four times as great as the highest recorded distribution during the period 200 - 168 (the highest being 50 denarii per I l l soldier by Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 180). During this period distributions rarely exceeded 25 denarii per soldier. The sum of 200 denarii per soldier is not unreasonable in view of the distribution of 100 denarii per soldier by Paullus at his triumph and the suspension of the tributum soli on ager Romanus (producing about 1,800,000 denarii per year in this period according to Frank ESAR I. 139) after the war. It is also possible that Aemilius Paullus was aware of the movement to deny him a triumph and wished to secure the favour of the troops by a generous distribution in Epirus. While such a distribution of 200 denarii would not have been a source of dissatisfaction to the troops, the failure of Paullus to reward the troops by a generous distribution in Macedonia, followed by his refusal to be more generous at his triumph, may have aroused their anger despite the relatively high value of the distributions. Although the soldiers could traditionally expect to be rewarded with a portion of the booty, the triumphing general was not required by law to grant any part of the booty to the troops at all (cf. the example of L. Papirius Cursor in 293: L. 10.46). See Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 177 - 205. 34.7 Or i cum; Flamininus departed from Oricum (in Akrokeraunia, part of Epirus). cf. L. 34.52.1. 34.10 legati...in Asiam pervenerant: The leader of the Roman embassy was P. Licinius Crassus (60). The embassy left near the beginning of the consular year 167 (probably about late January: see on 1.11). For earlier trouble between the Galatians and the Attalids, see on 19.3. 34.12-14 Ibi Romani cum Solovettium...fuisse: Solovettius was probably the tetrarch of one of the three Galatian tribes. See Jones The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 114 - 115. The report of Licinius on his interview with Solovettius shows that the Romans did not intend to arrange a peace between Pergamon and the Galatians. For the estrangement between Rome and Eumenes II 112 s e e o n 1 9 . 2 a n d 1 9 . 5 ; f o r t h e s u b s e q u e n t t r e a t m e n t o f t h e G a l a t i a n p r o b l e m b y Rome s e e o n 4 4 . 2 1 . 3 5 . 1 r e g e s c a p t i v i ; P e r s e u s a n d h i s f a m i l y h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f A . P o s t u m i u s A l b i n u s a t A m p h i p o l i s i n t h e summer o f 1 6 7 ( s e e o n 2 8 . 1 1 ) . I n t h e s u m m e r o f 1 6 8 G e n t i u s h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f C . C a s s i u s a t S c o d r a a n d w a s s o o n s e n t w i t h h i s f a m i l y a n d o t h e r l e a d i n g I l l y r i a n s t o Rome ( L . 4 4 . 3 1 . 1 5 , 3 2 . 4 ) . 3 5 . 2 s i q u i a p u d r e g e s e s s e d i c e b a n t u r ; F o r t h e e x a m p l e o f P o l y a r a t o s , s e e P o l . 3 0 . 9 . 3 5 . 3 r e g i a n a v e . . . a g e b a n t : T h i s s h i p w a s p r o b a b l y t h e € K K 0 u 6 £Ki{pT]5 o f D e m e t r i o s P o l i o r k e t e s ( c f . P l u t . Pe rn . 4 3 ) , l a t e r i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f P h i l i p V , w h o w a s p e r m i t t e d t o k e e p i t i n 1 9 7 a f t e r t h e S e c o n d M a c e d o n i a n W a r ( P o l . 1 8 . 4 4 . 6 ) . O n s u c h l a r g e s h i p s i n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d s e e T a r n H e l l e n i s t i c M i l i t a r y a n d N a v a l P e v e l o p m e n t s 132 - 1 4 1 , w h e r e i t i s a r g u e d t h a t t h i s s h i p w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b i r e m e w i t h s i x t e e n r o w e r s t o e a c h p a i r o f o a r s , e i g h t r o w e r s t o a n o a r . 3 5 . 4 m a n d a t u m q u e Q . C a s s i b p r a e t o r i . . . i m p e r i u m e s s e t ; F o r Q . C a s s i u s L o n g i n u s ( 6 9 ) s e e o n 1 6 . 3 . I n o r d e r t o c e l e b r a t e a t r i u m p h , t h e v i c t o r i o u s g e n e r a l w a s r e q u i r e d t o b e a m a g i s t r a t e w i t h i m p e r i u m l e a d i n g t r o o p s u n d e r h i s own a u s p i c i a . T h e s e n a t e c l a i m e d t h e r i g h t t o g r a n t t h e v i c t o r i o u s g e n e r a l t h e p e r m i s s i o n t o t r i u m p h o n t h e C a p i t o l , b u t t h e r i g h t t o t r i u m p h w a s v e s t e d i n t h e g e n e r a l h i m s e l f , a n d h e c o u l d n o t b e p r e v e n t e d f r o m c e l e b r a t i n g a l e s s p r e s t i g i o u s t r i u m p h o u t s i d e t h e c i t y ( t r i u m p h u s i n m o n t e A l b a n o : s e e o n 3 8 . 4 ) . F o r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t o f t h e s e n a t e ' s c o n t r o l o v e r t h e t r i u m p h s s e e o n 2 1 . 1 . O n t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e n a t e a n d t h e t r i b u n i p l e b i s i n t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y s e e B l e i k e n V o l k s t r i b u n a t 4 6 - 6 3 . T h e e a r l i e s t e x a m p l e o f a c o m i t i a l l e x p a s s e d t o e n a b l e a t r i u m p h a t o r t o r e t a i n h i s i m p e r i u m o n t h e d a y o f t h e t r i u m p h i n Rome i s t h a t o f M . C l a u d i u s M a r c e l l u s i n 2 1 1 ( L . 2 6 . 2 1 . 5 : T r i b u n i p l e b i s e x a u c t o r i t a t e s e n a t u s a d p o p u l u m t u l e r u n t u t M . M a r c e l l o q u o d i e u r b e m o v a n s i n i r e t i m p e r i u m e s s e t ) . A t l e a s t 113 from this time, the imperium militiae lapsed when the magistrate crossed the pomerium, unless he could obtain this dispensation. This arrangement may have been the result of the conflict between the senate and C. Flaminius in 2 2 3 . The senate had refused Flaminius a triumph, but he was granted one through a plebiscitum (see Rotondi Leges Publicae 2 4 9 ) . Perhaps the senate allowed the populus (or the plebs) the right to refuse a triumph in exchange for the understanding that the senate would continue to hold the initiative in granting triumphs. See Mommsen Rtfai. Staatsr. I. 1 3 2 ; Botsford The Roman Assemblies 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; Versnel Triumphus 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 . 3 5 . 6 Antigua disclipina milites habuerat: On the declining efficiency of Roman officers and troops after the Second Punic War, see Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy II. 8 0 - 8 7 . Because it was becoming more difficult in this period to raise Roman troops, the generals had to pay more attention to the wishes of citizens liable for military service (see Brunt Ital. Manpower 6 1 - 7 5 ) . 3 5 . 8 Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba...privatim imperatori inimicus; Ser. Sulpicius Galba ( 5 8 ) was tribunus militum of the second legion under Aemilius Paullus in 1 6 8 and 1 6 7 ; he was praetor in 1 5 1 and consul in 1 4 4 . As tribunus militum under Paullus, Sulpicius ( 5 8 ) was likely to have been associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group (cf. L. 4 4 . 2 1 . 1 - 3 and see on 2 8 . 9 ) . He may have led the opposition to the triumph of Paullus because of the insult to C . Sulpicius Galus ( 6 6 ) , whose young son Quintus ( 6 9 ) later became the ward of Sulpicius ( 5 8 ) . See Val. Max. 8 . 1 . 2 . It is not known how closely related Sulpicius Galba ( 5 8 ) and Sulpicius Galus ( 6 6 ) were. 3 6 . 1 T i . Sempronius; Nothing further is known of T i . Sempronius ( 1 2 ) . For the political allignment of the Sempronii (Gracchi), see on 1 5 . 1 . The political meeting described here is a contio (see on 2 1 . 1 ) . 3 6 . 7 Intro vocatae primae tribus: A legislative meeting of the Concilium Plebis is being described. 114 The order in which the tribes voted was determined by lot. The first tribe was called the principium. See Taylor Voting Assemblies 70 - 77. 36.9 M. Servilius: M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (78) was Magister Equiturn in 203, consul in 202, augur from 211. The Servilii had been closely associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group for the greater part of the Second Punic War (see Cassola Gruppi 411 - 413; Scullard Rom. Pol. 35, 39). Servilius (78) was probably the oldest living consular at this time. Another supporter of Paullus on this occasion was probably Cato the Censor, who seems to have delivered a speech against Galba (cf. Malcovati ORF2 no. 8, fr. 172; see Scullard Rom. Pol. 269 - 270). 36.9 ut de integro...facerent; A legislative assembly could be interrupted at any time up to the final announcement of results, most frequently by tribunician intercessio or by the report of omens. A presiding officer could interrupt proceedings in order to withdraw a b i l l which he was sponsoring, as in the cases of T i . Gracchus (cf. Appian B. C. 1.12.52-54) and of A. Gabinius (cf. Dio 36.30), who, as a threat, had introduced bills before the concilium plebis calling for the removal from office of tribuni plebis hostile to them. Electoral meetings of the Comitia Centuriata could be interrupted before the announcement of final results by a presiding officer (e.g., by Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator at the consular elections for 214 after the centuria praerogativa had voted for two candidates of whom he disapproved: L. 24.7.10 - 9.3), by a candidate (e.g., by T. Manlius Torquatus at the consular elections for 210 after the praerogativa had voted for him despite his disabilities: L. 26.22) or by a tribunus plebis (e.g., by C. and L. Arrenius at the consular elections for 209 after the praerogativa had voted for Fabius Maximus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus: L. 27.6). In these three cases the person who stopped proceedings also addressed the voters, and the voting was repeated. In the voting for the triumph of Paullus, the leaders of the 115 senate (principes civitatis) seem to have invaded a concilium plebis (see L. 45.35.4 and 36.1) and persuaded the presiding officers, the tribuni plebis, to stop the voting. Since the praetor Q. Cassius Longinus had arranged with some of the tribuni plebis for this rogatio to be brought before the plebs, i t is likely that they were co-operating with the senate and would have allowed such an interruption of the voting at the insistence of the leaders of the senate. See Taylor Voting Assemblies 74 - 77, 93 - 94. On co-operation between the senate and the tribuni plebis see Bleiken Volkstribunat 46 - 63. 37.3 tirocinium ponere et documentum eloquentiae dare: Sulpicius Galba did not reach the praetorship until 151. He had not yet held any magistracy (cf. L. 45.37.4) and must have been a fairly young man at this time. Sulpicius later became known as an eloquent public speaker (cf. Cicero Brutus 82 with Mtfnzer RE IV. A. 1 (1931) cols. 766 - 767). 37.4-5 nomen deferret...ad populum accusaret: In order to institute legal proceedings, Sulpicius Galba could only bring a complaint against Paullus to a magistrate with the ius agendi cum populo as long as Sulpicius himself was a privatus; as a magistrate with this right, he himself would be able to institute proceedings. The charge that Sulpicius might have wished to bring against Paullus in either of these ways was that of peculatus. See Jolowicz Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 321 - 331; Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 188 - 202. 37.9-10 eodem die...duxit: According to L. 44.36, the troops, military staff and commanders of the foreign contingents called for an immediate engagement, which Paullus refused (also see Plut. Aem. 17.1-3). 37.12 quae ambitione imperatorum clades acceptae sint...meminit: In 217 M. Minucius Rufus was appointed Magister Equitum under the Dictator Q. Fabius Maximus, and was later granted imperium equal to that of the Dictator by a bi l l sponsored by C. Terentius Varro. The example of Fabius and Minucius is not appropriate as a parallel to the hostility between Paullus and Sulpicius Galba because Minucius, who belonged to the group of politicians who favoured direct encounters with the enemy, was not trying to win favour with the troops by relaxing discipline or offering higher distributions. The point of the comparison must have been that Minucius and Sulpicius Galba were inferior men contending with their betters. See Scullard Rom. Pol. 44 - 55. 38.4 in monte Albano triumpharunt: There were three kinds of victory procession: the triumph proper (see on 35.4), the ovatio and the triumphus in monte Albano. The last of these was held outside Rome on the mons Albanus and ended at the temple of Iuppiter Latiaris. It was celebrated as the prerogative of a victorious general by a commander who had been refused a formal triumph or an ovatio in the city, and was recorded in the Fasti Triumphales. The first such triumph was held in 231 by C. Papirius Maso (6, 57), the father-in-law of Aemilius Paullus. See Mommsen RHm. Staatsr. I. 134; Cagnat, Daremberg-Saglio V. 491; Versnel Triumphus 165 - 166. 38.4 C. Lutatio: C. Lutatius Catulus (4) concluded the treaty with Carthage and celebrated a naval triumph de Poenis ex Sicilia in 241. 38.4 P. Cornelio: P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (336) arranged a peace with Carthage with the advice of the ten legati and celebrated a triumph over Hannibal, the Carthaginians and King Syphax in 201. 38.7 peccatum in Camillo: M. Furius Camillus (44) as Dictator in 390 saved Rome from the Gauls. After his appointment as Interrex in 391, before the Gallic invasion, Camillus had been condemned on some charge and had retired into voluntary exile, from which he was recalled in the hour of peril (cf. L. 5.32.8-9; Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. 13.5.1 with Ogilvie Commentary 698 - 699). 38.7 in P. Africano: After the conclusion of the war against Antiochus III, Lucius (337) the brother of Scipio Africanus (336), was accused in the senate and later by the tribunus plebis C. Minucius Augurinus, of having 117 accepted bribes from Antiochus. This attack was also aimed against Scipio Africanus, who was accused personally by the tribunus plebis M. Naevius. He withdrew into exile at Liternum, where he died in 1 8 3 . On the chronology of the so-called \"trials of the Scipios\", see Scullard Rom. Pol. 2 9 0 - 3 0 3 . 3 8 . 1 1 de Pyrrho: M 1 . Curius Dentatus, consul in 2 7 5 , defeated Pyrrhos, king of Epirus, at Malventum, forcing him to leave Italy, which he had invaded in 2 8 0 . 3 8 . 1 2 triumphum nomine cientes...incedunt; cf. Varro De Ling. Lat. 6 . 6 8 : Sic triumphare appellatum, quod cum imperatore milites redeuntes clamitant per urbem in Capitolium eunti: \"Io triumphe\". It was also the custom at a triumph for the soldiers to chant short Fescenine verses in praise or in blame of their general. cf. Appian Lib. 66: K«\\ TwV ap^oyTcoV Keu erreuvo 0 i'*\" | W ^ f p o f < T 0 v e K a \\ e o 6 T O n X ^ o f 41.3 Profectus ex Ital ia. . . . : According to the tradition preserved in this speech, Paullus finished in fifteen days a war that had dragged on for four years. This fifteen-day period must refer, not to the time between the departure of Paullus from Brundisium and the battle of Pydna, but to the time required for the final military operations of the war from the attempt on the passage through Petra to the defeat of Perseus at Pydna. The magistrates left Rome for their provinces immediately after the celebration of the Feriae Latinae on Prid. Kal. Apriles (Roman 31 March = about Julian 16 January: cf. L. 44.22.16 and see on 1.11), while the battle of Pydna was fought o n Roman 4 Sept. (Julian 22 June). The seasonal dates given by Polybius for these two events, as they appear in the text o f Livy, are iam veris principium erat (L. 44.30.1) and [tempus] anni post circumactum solstitium erat (L. 44.36.1). After reaching the camp in Thessaly within nine days of his departure from Brundisium, Paullus restored discipline, marched through the pass at Tempe into Macedonia, and established a camp at Phila, north of the Peneus river. Paullus then moved north to a position across from the fortifications which Perseus had built along the north bank of the Elpeus river, and attempted to dislodge the enemy. Considerable portions of Livy's narrative of the action at Phila and at the Elpeus river have been lost (two folia after L. 44.32.11; one folium before 44.35.1 and four folia after 35.24: see Giarratano 260, 264, 268), but the surviving narrative suggests that the fighting was protracted. Because Macedonian resistance on the Elpeus was firm, Paullus finally decided to attempt the pass at Petra in order to enter . Macedonia. Scipio Nasica and Fabius Maximus Aemilianus were sent to Herakleion on the coast with Octavius and the fleet carrying ten days' cooked rations for a thousand men, while Aemilius Paullus continued to attack the fortifications along the Elpeus. When the pass at Petra had been seized, Paullus rejoined Scipio Nasica and forced his way through to Pydna, where Perseus had gone to await him. There was an interval of several days before the battle (cf. Zon. 9.23.4: £ t eVp i f modern historians tend to disregard this statement: see, for example, Meloni Perseo 363 - 376; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 309 - 314). This interval was probably taken up with changes of position made by Paullus and Perseus (see on 1.1 An interval of fifteen days from the first attempt on the pass of Petra and the final defeat of Perseus is not impossible. There was possibly an interval of ten days between the forcing of the pass and the battle of Pydna (cf. CIL XI (1888) no. 1829, line 10 and see on 1.8). The notion in some of the ancient sources (e.g., Plut. Aem. 36.3; Appian Mak. 19) that the fifteen days in which Paullus ended the war followed directly upon his arrival in Thessaly was probably due to a misinterpretation of their sources. The journey of Paullus from Brundisium to the camp in Thessaly in nine days was quick but not unreasonably so, and winter sailing was not unknown. Pompey crossed from Brundisium to Dyrrhachium in late January, 49 B. C., and in the following year Caesar made a January crossing to Akrokeraunia in one day (Caesar B. C. 1.25-29, 3.6). In the spring of 169 Q. Marcius Philippus and C. Marcius Figulus reached Corcyra on the day after their departure from Brundisium (L. 44.1.1-2). If Ti . Sempronius Gracchus could complete the journey from Amphissa to Pella in two days (L. 37.7.11), Paullus' four days from Delphi to the camp in Thessaly is not an unreasonable interval. 122 41.5 tres ante me consules: P. Licinius Crassus (60) in 171; A. Hostilius Mancinus (16) in 170; and Q. Marcius Philippus (79) in 169. 41.7-8 Mihi quoque ipsi...sentiret: cf. Val. Max. 5.10.2: cum in maximo proventu felicitatis nostrae, Quirites, timerem ne quid mali fortuna moliretur, Iovem optimum maximum Iunonemque reginam et Minervam precatus sum ut, si quid adversus populum Romanum inmineret, totum in meum domum converteretur. 42.2 Cn. Octavius...navalem triumphum egit; cf. Degrassi Fasti Triumphales p. 81 ad a. 167: [Cn. Ocjtavius Cn. f. Cn. n. pro pr(aetore) an. DXXCV[l] ex Macedon(ia) et rege Perse naval(em) egit K. Dec. 42.4 Albam: Alba Fucentia on the Via Valeria, a Latin colony founded in 303 in the territory of the Aequi (L. 10.1). Alba was one of the twelve colonies which refused to send military contingents in 209 for the war against Hannibal (L. 27.9.7). The strength of its walls and its natural position made Alba an ideal place of detainment. Syphax of Numidia (L. 30.17.2) and Bituitus, king of the Arverni (L. Ep. 61) were also imprisoned here. See MacKendrick The Mute Stones Speak 95 - 98. For a possible identification of the dungeons, see De Visscher and De Ruyt Ant. Class. 20 (1951) 72 - 74. According to Diod. 31.9, Perseus had been thrown into prison by one of the praetors (TwV K°tfv (rrcpcvr-^ &V c-lj •„ probably by Cassius Longinus himself) before the senate had made a final decision on the fate of the king. After seven days of the most miserable confinement Perseus was removed to more comfortable quarters at the instance of M. Aemilius Lepidus (68), the princeps senatus. There are two versions of the circumstances of the king's death. According to Diod. 31.9, which probably represents the Polybian tradition, the king was killed by the prison guards, who would not let him sleep. This version also occurs in Sallust Hist, fr. IV. 69.7. The other version is recorded by Zon. 9.24.5 and probably represents the annalistic tradition. Zonaras states that Perseus committed suicide when he lost hope of being restored to his kingdom. Plutarch (Aem. 37) recorded both versions, noting that most of his sources reported that Perseus committed suicide, while some said he was killed by the guards. According to Plutarch it was Aemilius Paullus himself who interceded on behalf of Perseus; this tradition is preserved in the Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto VI (VII) 10.7. 42.5 [Bithys, filius Cotyis], regis Thracum: The words detrahens habere sineret; Bithys, filius Cotyis, which are missing from the MS. at L. 45.42.4-5, were added by Madvig (see Giarratano 363 - 364). Bithys had been captured along with the children of Perseus in Macedonia, where he had been sent as a hostage by his father (see on 6.1). In the following year Bithys was sent by Kotys at the head of an embassy to request that the Romans assign Abdera in Thrace to Kotys (cf. SIG3 656). 42.5 Carseolos: Carseoli was a Latin colony founded in 198 (L. 10.13.1). It was another one of the twelve colonies which refused to send contingents in 209 (L. 27.9.7). The town was located on the Via Valeria in the territory of the Aequi. 42.8 meminisse amicitiae quae...fuisset: Amicitia was established with three Thracian tribes in 172 (L. 42.19.6), but we do not know of any relationship of amicitia between Rome and the Odrysae, who in fact had supported Perseus against Rome (see on 6.2). 42.11 beneficia gratuita esse populi Romani: In fact the Romans had annexed to Macedonia the part of Thrace west of the Nestos and declared free the cities of Ainos, Maroneia and Abdera (see on 29.5), the last of which had been claimed by Kotys (see on 42.5). 42.11 Legati tres: T. Quinctius Flamininus (*6/46) C. Licinius Nerva (133) M. Caninius Rebilus (12) Quinctius (*6/46) was the son of either T. Quinctius Flamininus (*3/45) or of the latter's brother Lucius (*4/43). The Quinctii had been associated with the Claudii during the Second Punic War, but were not hostile to the Scipios (see Cassola Gruppi 421 - 422; Scullard Rom. Pol. 97 - 100). In 167 Quinctius (*6/46) succeeded C. Claudius Pulcher (300) as augur. He was consul in 150. For Licinius see on 3.1. Caninius (12) had been sent to Greece in 170 as a legatus to investigate the conduct of the war by the consul Hostilius Mancinus (L. 43.11.2). His brother Caius (8) had been praetor in Sicily in 171. 43.1 Triumph of Anicius: cf. Degrassi Fasti Triumphales p. 81 ad a. 167: [L. Ani]cius L. f. M. n. Gallus pro pr(aetore) de rege [Genjfio et Illurie[is] a. DXXCVI Quirinalibus. The Quirinalia were held on 17 Feb. (see Wissowa Rel. und Kult. 153 - 156). The date by the Julian calendar would have been about 2 Dec. 167 (see on 1.11). On dating by the Quirinalia indicating an intercalary year see Michels The Calendar of the Roman Republic 171 - 172. 43.4 intra paucos dies: cf. L. 44.32.4: intra triginta dies. The subjugation of Illyricum took twenty days according to Appian 111. 9. 43.8 multis dux ipse carminibus celebratus: For triumphal odes, see on 38.12. 43.8 Sestertium ducentiens...auctorem pro re posui: The part of the booty which was displayed in the triumph was turned over to the treasury, where official lists describing this booty were deposited (cf. Cicero In Verrem II. 1.57). Because Roman generals were not required to surrender al l of the booty to the treasury, no complete lists of booty were kept, so that there were no public records from which the value of the undisplayed booty could be discovered by Valerius Antias (see Shatzman Historia 21 (1972) 177 - 205). 125 43.9 Spoletium; On the Via Flaminia, a Latin colony in Umbria founded in 241 (L. Ep. 20; Veil. Pat. 1.14.8). 43.9 Romae in carcerem: The Tullianum. See Welin RE VII. A. 1 (1939) cols. 794 - 798; Nash Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome I. 206 ff. 43.9 Iguvium; A civitas foederata on the Via Flaminia in Umbria. Iguvium received the Roman citizenship during the Social War (see Cicero Pro Balbo 47). 43.10 Corcyraeis et Apolloniatibus et Dyrrhachinis: The Greek towns of Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium (ancient Epidamnos) had placed themselves under Roman protection (for deditio see on 1.9) during the First Illyrian War and entered into a relationship of amicitia with Rome. At the conclusion of the war the Romans established a sphere of influence over the coastal regions of Illyricum and Epirus, perhaps from the river Mati just south of Lissos, to just south of Apollonia. This sphere of influence came into being as a result of the amicitia established with Issa, Corcyra, Pharos, the Atintani and the Parthini, along with these three Greek towns. Corcyra, Apollonia and Dyrrhachium were later incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia established in 148. See Oost Roman Policy 9-15; Badian Foreign Clientelae 44 - 45 and Studies in Greek and Roman History 1-33; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 22 - 27; De Sanctis Storia III 2. 1. 290 - 294. 44.1 agro tantum Ligurum populato: The Ligures lived along the coast between the Rhone and the Arno, and inland as far as the Durance and the mountains south of the Po. The Ligurian tribes were defeated in campaigns between 238 and 117, and their territory incorporated into Gallia Cisalpina, the province of Gallia Narbonnensis and the Alpine provinces. The Ligurians supported Mago in 205 - 203; after the campaign of 180 the Roman colony of Luna was established on territory captured from the Ligurians (in 177: see on 13.10). 126 On the Ligurians see De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 405 - 412. 44.1 consules crearunt: M. Claudius Marcellus (225) C. Sulpicius Galus (66) For Claudius (225) see on 4.1. For Sulpicius (66) see on 28.9. The two men had also been praetors together in 169. 44.2 praetores; L. Iulius (Caesar?) (28, 127?) L. Appuleius Saturninus (28) A. Licinius Nerva (131) P. Rutilius Calvus (12) P. Quinctilius Varus (*6/l3) M. Fonteius (11) The precise allotment of provinces among the praetors is unknown, except that Iulius may have been the praetor urbanus (Iulius 127) who died in office. Sex. Iulius Caesar (148, 149), consul in 157, had served as tribunus militum under Aemilius Paullus in the campaign against the Ligurians in 181; in 165 he was curule aedile with Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (132). The Iulii Caesares may therefore have been associated with the Aemilian-Scipionic group at this time. For the Licinii Nervae see on 3.1. Rutilius (12) is perhaps to be identified with the tribunus plebis of 169, Rutilius (8), who supported the cause of the publicani in their dispute with the censors C. Claudius Pulcher and T i . Sempronius Gracchus (cf. L. 43.16). Rutilius (8) was deprived of the Equus Publicus, moved from his tribe and made an aerarius by the censors (see on 15.8). Mifnzer (RE I. A. 1 (1914) col. 1248) rejected the identification of Rutilius (12) with Rutilius (8) on the grounds that the nota censoria could not be lifted until the next census, which took place in 164, but Cicero (De Re Pub. 4.6; Pro Cluentio 119 - 122) implied that the nota censoria did not bar a man from holding public office. Note further that C. Antonius Hibrida (19), praetor 127 i n 66, had been expel led from the senate by the censors i n 70, even though the next census took place only i n 65. See Ktibler RE XVII . 1 (1936) c o l s . 1055 - 1057. The Q u i n c t i l i i were assoc iated with the \"middle group\" led by the C l a u d i i , the F u l v i i and the F a b i i (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 134 - 135, 165 f f . ) The Fonte i were probably supporters of the S c i p i o s (see S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 208 n . 1). A P. Fonte ius Capi to had been praetor i n S i c i l y i n 169, and h i s imperium was probably prorogued i n 168 (see on 12.13). 44.2 duae Hispaniae: For the war-time treatment of Spa in , see on 16.2. 44.3 Intercalatum eo anno: In 168 the Roman calendar was some 74 days ahead of the J u l i a n (see on 1.11). In the p r e - J u l i a n Roman ca lendar , the i n t e r c a l a r y month was i n s e r t e d a f t er the T e r m i n a l i a (A. D. VII K a l . M a r t . = 23 F e b . ) When 22 i n t e r c a l a r y days were to be added, the regu lar month of February was i n t e r r u p t e d on the 23rd and the 22 days were i n s e r t e d , fol lowed by the l a s t f i v e days of February; when 23 days were to be added, the regu lar month of February was i n t e r r u p t e d on the 24th and 22 days were i n s e r t e d . The i n t e r c a l a r y month was c a l l e d Mercedonius or I n t e r c a l a r i s , See Miche l s The Calendar of the Roman Republ ic 145 f f . 44.3 C . C l a u d i u s : C . Claudius Pulcher (300) had been consul i n 177, censor i n 169, augur from 195 u n t i l h i s death i n 167. For T . Q u i n c t i u s Flamininus (*6/46) see on 42 .11 . 44.3 Q. Fabius P i c t o r : Q. Fabius P i c t o r (127), Flamen Q u i r i n a l i s from 190 to 167, was the son of Q. Fabius P i c t o r (126), the f i r s t Roman h i s t o r i a n . As praetor i n 189 he was prevented by the Pont i fex Maximus P. L i c i n i u s Crassus Dives from a c t i n g as praetor i n S a r d i n i a and was t r a n s f e r r e d to the p o s i t i o n of praetor peregrinus (L . 37 .51 .1 -6) . For the p o s s i b l e representa t ion of Fabius (127) by h i s grandson or great-grandson N . Fabius P i c t o r (125), who was t r i u m v i r monetal is about 114 - 104, see Babelon D e s c r i p t i o n 128 H i s t o r i q u e et Chronologique des Monnaies de l a Republique Romaine I . 484. 44.4 rex P r u s i a : Prus ias I I , k ing of B i t h y n i a (ca. 182 - 149). His fa ther , Prus ias I (ca. 230 - 182), had at f i r s t been a supporter of P h i l i p V of Macedonia. During the F i r s t Macedonian War, Prus ias I fought against A t t a l o s I of Pergamon i n A s i a Minor and was inc luded as an adscr ip tus to the Peace of Phoin ike i n 205 as an a l l y of P h i l i p (L. 29 .12 .14) . In 202 he and P h i l i p co-operated i n the capture of K i o s , which was assigned to Prus ias ( P o l . 15.23.10) . Although Antiochus I I I sought Prus ias as an a l l y , the B i t h y n i a n k ing was persuaded by the S c i p i o s and by the legatus C . L i v i u s S a l i n a t o r to remain n e u t r a l ( P o l . 21 .11 .1 -2 ; L . 37 .25 .4-14) . P r u s i a s I I had wished to remain n e u t r a l at the opening of the T h i r d Macedonian War (L. 42 .29 .3 ) , but i n 169 he decided to contr ibute f i v e ships for the Pergamene f l e e t (L.' 44.10.12) and probably now entered in to a r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a wi th Rome. T h i s a m i c i t i a was terminated by the senate i n 154 ( P o l . 33 .11 .4 ) . See Habicht . RE X X I I I . 1 (1957) c o l s . 1086 - 1127. The a n n a l i s t i c source of L i v y 44.14.5-7 reported the a r r i v a l i n Rome of an embassy from Prus ias I I i n 169 with the object of n e g o t i a t i n g a peace between Rome and Macedonia. T h i s account may have been coloured by the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n which p laced the peace-making embassy of the Rhodians i n t h i s year (see Appendix I ) . On the other hand, the Ptolemaic embassy of l a t e 170 came to Rome with the i n t e n t i o n of seeking an end to the war between Rome and Macedonia (Po l . 28 .1 .7) without provoking r e p r i s a l s (although i t must be added that the envoys r e f r a i n e d from i n t r o d u c i n g the subject of peace on the advice of M. Aemi l ius Lepidus , the princeps senatus) . P r u s i a s , too, may have withdrawn h i s o f f er of mediat ion before a c t u a l l y d e c l a r i n g h i s p o s i t i o n before the senate, or the senate may have found i t more convenient to overlook h i s mistake (see on 4 4 . 9 ) . On t h i s embassy see W i l l H i s t o i r e I I . 245 - 246. 129 For the later treatment of Prusias, see on 44.9. 44.4 cum filio Nicomede: He later reigned as Nikomedes II (ca. 149 - 128). 44.7 [L.] Cornelius Scipio quaestor: ,L. Cornelius Scipio (324), son of L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (337). He died soon after his quaestorship at the age of 33 (cf. CIL I 2 (1893) no. 12= ILS 5). 44.8 Praeneste unam Fortunae: At the temple of Fortuna Primigenia (see Berig RE Suppl. VIII (1956) cols. 1243 - 1254; Fasolo and Gullini II Santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina). At once a primordial mother-goddess and the daughter of Jupiter, she also delivered oracles (see Otto RE VII. 1 (1910) cols. 23 - 29; Latte RHm. Rel. 176, 264). Another well-known visitor to Praeneste was Karneades, the head of the Academy (in 155: cf. Cicero De Div. 2.87). The feast in honour of Fortuna Primigenia was held on 11 and 12 April, a sacrifice being offered on these dates. cf. CIL I 2 (1893) p. 235 with Commentarii p. 339 (Fasti Praenestini, ad A. D. I l l , Prid. Id. Apr.): [hoc biduo sacrificijum maximu[m] Fortunae Prim[i]g(eniae). Utro eorum die oraclum patet. II viri vitulum i[nmolant]. In 194 a temple to this goddess was built in Rome by Q. Marcius Ralla, the duumvir created for the purpose (L. 34.53.5). 44.9 ut societas secum renovaretur: For the relation of amicitia between Rome and Prusias, see on 44.4. As an informal relationship of friendship not based on a foedus of the Italian type, amicitia with Rome was frequently renewed by foreign states and rulers. The renewal of amicitia with Rome by a new Hellenistic ruler implied that the Romans expected the new ruler to continue the policy of deference to Roman wishes which his predecessor had initiated or maintained; the renewal of amicitia by a non-monarchic state implied that the Romans expected the present government to continue such a policy of deference. Examples of such renewals mentioned by Livy are: Nabis of Sparta, ca. 198 (L. 34.31.6); Perseus, 178 (42.40.4); Ptolemy VI, 173 (42.6.5); Antiochus IV, 173 (42.6.8); Rhodes and cities in Crete, 172 (42.19.8); Thebes, 172 (42.44.5); Pamphylia, 169 (44.14.4). See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic 58 - 59. On amicitia see Appendix IV. .9 agerque*sibi de rege Antiocho captus...daretur: It is not known what territory is meant here. By the treaty of Apamea (cf. Pol. 21.42; L. 38.38) Antiochus III was required to evacuate all of Asia Minor north of the Taurus and west of the Halys river. According to the settlement of Asia, Eumenes II received Hellespontine Phrygia, Greater Phrygia and Phrygia Epiktetos (also called Mysia; Prusias I had taken it from Antiochus III). At the conclusion of the war between Eumenes and Prusias in 183, the country of the Galatians seems to have fallen under Pergamene control, but in 168 the Galatians revolted and were not reduced until 166 (see on 19.3). The territory in question here might have been occupied by the Galatians before the peace of Apamea and the settlement of Asia Minor, and left in Galatian hands (cf. L. 45.44.10-11). See Hansen Attalids 92 - 101, 120 - 124. 9 filium. ..senatui commendavit; In the Roman sense, commendatio denoted an act of submission in which one party placed itself under the protection of another (cf. Caesar B. G. 4.27.7: principesque undique convenire et se civitatesque suas Caesari commendare coeperunt). In Roman social life commendatio implied that a person was placed under the tutela or clientela of another (cf. Terence Eunuchus 1039 — 1040; patri se Thais commendavit, in clientelam et fidem nobis dedit se). A somewhat similar concept in the Hellenistic world was that of •irriTponcrt'^ . According to Memnon of Herakleia (Jacoby FGrHist III. B. 434 F 14.1), Nikomedes I of Bithynia declared as err C'TpoTTo I for his heirs Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Antigonos Gonatas, and the people of Byzantion, Herakleia Pontike and Kios. This act of c-rrirpoTreCo(, however, did not necessarily imply the subordination of one party to another, but constituted a guarantee that a ruler's heirs would by recognized by other states. 131 44.9 omnium...favore est adiutus: The same group of senators who wished to interfere in the Attalid dynasty (see on 19.2) and to declare war on Rhodes (see on 25.2) probably desired to promote the influence of Prusias as the guardian of the balance of power in the east. See Badian Foreign Clientelae 104 - 105; McShane Foreign Policy 182 - 186; Will Histoire II. 245 - 246; De Sanctis Storia IV. I 2 . 352 - 354; Hansen Attalids 116 - 125; Scullard Rom. Pol. 215 - 216. 44.10 legatos: Their identity is unknown. It was perhaps their recommendations which led to the senatus consultum granting the Galatians independence in 166 (cf. Pol. 30.28). 44.13 quanta cura...documento Ptolemaeum, Aegypti regem, esse: For the tradition of amicitia between Rome and the Ptolemies since 273 see on 10.2. There is also a tradition that M. Aemilius Lepidus assumed a tutela over Ptolemy V in 201/200 at the request of the Alexandrians (cf. Justinus 30.2.8; Val. Max. 6.6.1). This may have been an act of eTUTporTet'G( , which the Romans could have interpreted as an act of commendatio (see on 44.9), that is, as an act implying that the Ptolemaic kingdom was being placed under Roman protection. In keeping with this act and with the Ptolemaic request for protection, the three legati C. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus and P. Sempronius Tuditanus set out for Egypt in 200 in order to attempt a settlement of the dispute between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V (cf. Pol. 16.27.5) and later warned Philip V not to touch any of Ptolemy's possessions (cf. Pol. 16.34.3). For Roman ulterior motives, see Walbank Commentary II. 533 - 534. An embassy from Ptolemy VI in late 170 renewed friendly relations with Rome (Pol. 28.1.7), and after the defeat of Perseus the Romans decided to limit the ambitions of Antiochus IV, ostensibly on behalf of their amici, the Ptolemies (see Badian Foreign Clientelae 107). The present rulers of Egypt (see on 11.1, 11.2, 11.3) were the children of Ptolemy V. 44.15 ex ea summa munera dari...data essent: —-—-j^- j One hundred pounds of silver (cf. L. 45.14.6). 44.16 ex classe, quae Brundisi esset; These were warships used in the Macedonian war; they did not belong to the flotillas of the duumviri navales which protected the coasts of Italy from 181 to 176. The duumviral squadrons made their last appearance in 176 (cf. L. 41.17.7). See Thiel Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican Times 420 - 429. 44.19 Polybius; The account of Polybius (30.18) and of the Greek writers who followed his account (e.g., Diod. 31.15) does not treat the details of this embassy, but concentrates on portraying the servil baseness of Prusias. The annalistic tradition and the account of Polybius, which are not strictly contradictory, may reflect the different attitudes towards Prusias taken by the senate, who viewed him as a useful ally, and by Polybius, who viewed him as a gross degenerate whose vices led to his inevitable downfall (cf. Pol. 32.15, 36.15 with Pedech Meth. Hist. 216 - 229). The unfavourable opinion of the Bithynian kings seems to have persisted down to the time of Nikomedes IV, with whom Caesar was suspected by some people of having had homosexual relations (cf. Suet. Julius 2, 49). 44.21 actumque in Asia bellum inter Eumenen et Gallos in . . . . i t ; The reading of the MS. is ACTUMQUEINASIABELLUMINTEREUMENET GALLOS / IN....IT. cf. Giarratano 370: Post IN secuntur duo versus fere evanidi, in quibus Gitlbauer haec agnovit; ASIABELLUMINTEREUMENETGALLOS / IN....IT. Mommsen, qui jam EUMENEN correxerat, INDE COEPIT supplevit, INCREVIT Gitlbauer, INNOTUIT Wessely. Prusias I was aided by the Galatians in his war against Eumenes II (ca. 186 - 183). In 167 Prusias II requested some territory in Asia Minor being held by the Galatians (see on 44.9). In response to this request the senate despatched ambassadors, who may have recommended that the Galatians be declared free (see on 44.10). This declaration probably followed the defeat of the Galatians by Eumenes in 168 - 166. 1 3 3 Eumenes was later accused by Prusias of interfering with the Galatians (cf. Pol. 30.30.2-3). In 165 Prusias also encouraged the Galatians themselves to complain about Eumenes (Pol. 31.1.2-5). Their suspicions increased by these accusations, the Romans sent envoys to investigate the conduct of Eumenes as well as that of the other Greeks (Pol. 31.1.6-8, 31.6). These accusations continued as late as 161 (cf. Pol. 31.32), until Prusias and Attalos II, who had succeeded his brother Eumenes in 159, went to war (ca. 156 - 154). See Willrich RE VI. 1 (1907) cols. 1096 - 1103; Vitucci II Regno di Bitinia 73-82; Habicht RE XXIII. 1 (1957) cols. 1113 - 1120; Hansen Attalids 124 - 133. On the colophon which occurs at the end of the MS. containing Book 45, cf. Giarratano 370: Post sex fere versuum intervallum haec exstant et minio et atramento exarata: TITI LIUI AB URBE CONDITA LIB . XLU . EXP . INC . LIB . XLUI . FELICITER 1 3 4 PART THREE APPENDICES APPENDIX ONE: ROME AND RHODES, 172 - 1 6 7 L i v y ( 4 4 . 1 4 . 8 - 1 5 . 8 ) , f o l lowing h i s a n n a l i s t i c source, wrongly placed i n 1 6 9 the peace-making embassy which, according to P o l . 2 9 . 1 9 (fol lowed by L . 4 5 . 3 . 3 - 8 ) , a r r i v e d i n the summer of 1 6 8 s h o r t l y before the b a t t l e of Pydna (also see L . 4 4 . 3 5 . 4 ) . The Rhodians d i d send an embassy to Rome l a t e i n the summer of 1 6 9 ( c f . P o l . 2 8 . 2 , 1 6 ) , but at that time r e l a t i o n s between Rome and Rhodes were s t i l l c o r d i a l and the purpose of the embassy was to renew a m i c i t i a w i th Rome and to request t r a d i n g p r i v i l e g e s i n S i c i l y . The ambassadors were a l so to defend t h e i r c i t y against accusat ions (Po l . 2 8 . 2 . 2 ) . These must have been accusat ions of d i s l o y a l t y occasioned by the emergence of a powerful pro-Macedonian f a c t i o n which c o n s i s t e n t l y opposed Rhodian support of Rome (for example, of the f o r t y ships placed at the d i s p o s a l of the Romans by Hagesilokhos i n 1 7 2 , only s ix were sent when the praetor C . L u c r e t i u s G a l l u s requested Rhodian ships i n 1 7 1 : P o l . 2 7 . 3 , 7 ) . The embassy despatched to Rome under Hagesilokhos i n 1 6 9 seems to have been c o n t r o l l e d by the pro-Roman group, whi le the other embassy of 1 6 9 , sent to the consul Q . Marcius P h i l i p p u s and to the praetor C . Marcius F i g u l u s , seems to have been c o n t r o l l e d by the pro-Macedonian group. A g e p o l i s , the leader of t h i s second embassy, was the leader of the peace-making embassy of 1 6 8 ( c f . P o l . 2 8 . 2 , 1 6 ; 2 9 . 1 0 ) . When Agepol i s and h i s col leagues a r r i v e d on t h e i r embassy to him i n 1 6 9 , Marcius P h i l i p p u s suggested that the Rhodians should t r y to negot iate a peace between Rome and Macedonia (c f . P o l . 2 8 . 1 7 . 4 with Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 1 4 5 n . 2 ) . Thus, P h i l i p p u s was probably aware of the s t r i f e between the pro-Roman p o l i t i c i a n s of Rhodes and t h e i r opponents, who e i t h e r des i red an o u t r i g h t v i c t o r y for Perseus or p r e f e r r e d a balance of power (see on 2 4 . 2 , 3 1 . 4 ) . Later i n 1 6 9 Perseus sent an embassy to Rhodes ( P o l . 2 9 . 4 . 7 ) . Metrodoros, the leader of t h i s embassy, rece ived an assurance from 135 Polyaratos that the Rhodians would join Perseus ( L . 44.23). In 168 the Rhodian boule, now controlled by the pro-Macedonian group, decided to send peace-making embassies to Rome and to Aemilius Paullus and Perseus (Pol. 29.10). Envoys were also sent to the Cretan cities with which the Rhodians wished to form alliances. Upon the arrival of the embassy from Perseus, the Rhodian boule granted the ambassadors of Perseus and Gentius a courteous reply, informing them of the Rhodian policy of mediation and urging them to be disposed to accept terms with Rome (Pol. 29.11; L. 44.29.6-8). The Rhodian envoys sent to Aemilius Paullus, arriving in Macedonia shortly before the time of the battle of Pydna, were summarily dismissed (L. 44.35.4-6; Zon. 9.23.3). The envoys sent to Rome arrived before the victory over Perseus, but when they were introduced before the senate after the defeat of Perseus at Pydna was known, they made no attempt to disguise the purpose for which they had been sent. In fact, they seem to have already discussed peace negotiations at an earlier audience with the senate (cf. L. 44.35.4; Zon. 9.23.3). It is possible that the senatorial commission sent to the Hellenistic east in 172 did find out about the pro-Macedonian group in Rhodes and accurately reported that the Rhodians could not be relied upon (L. 42.19.7-8; 42.26.7-9. Annalistic: see Nissen Krit. Untersuch. 246 - 248; Klotz Livius 67 - 68). The majority of Rhodian leaders, however, were s t i l l loyal to Rome in 172 (cf. Pol. 27.3) and it was only towards the latter half of 169 that the pro-Macedonian group became predominant. The annalists probably placed the Rhodian attempt at mediation a year earlier in order to exaggerate the disloyalty of Rhodes and to justify the harsh treatment of the Rhodians which followed the war (see on 20.4). For general bibliography see on 3.3 and 20.4. Also see Schmitt Rom und Rhodos 211 - 217; Derow Phoenix 27 (1973) 351 n. 20. 136 APPENDIX TWO: THE THEME OF RHODIAN ARROGANCE IN THE ANNALISTIC TRADITION The Roman annalistic tradition seems to have characterized the Rhodians as proud and arrogant. We read, for instance, in Livy's account of the embassy of 169, Rhodii superbe commemoratis meritis suis (44.14.8). The Rhodians issued a stern warning: per quos stetisset quominus belli finis fieret, adversus eos quid sibi faciendum esset Rhodios consideraturos esse (44.14.12). After the senate, according to Claudius Quadrigarius, had issued the senatus consultum liberating Lycia and Caria, the Rhodian bubble burst: qua re audita principem legationis, cuius magniloquentiam vix curia paulo ante ceperat, corruisse (L. 44.15.1-2). Valerius Antias reported an answer of the senate contemptuous of the Rhodians' presumption, and pointed out that the envoys refused the customary gift of money offered by the senate (L. 44.15.3-8). Livy introduced the notion of Rhodian arrogance even when his source did not. In describing the embassy of 168, Polybius wrote that Fortune made a mocking display of Rhodian stupidity ( T T J V T O O V 'PoSuoW efyvocctv\": 29.19.2). Livy rendered this as ludibrium stolidae superbiae (45.3.3). Livy also inserted a reference to inborn Rhodian arrogance into his version of the speech of the Rhodian spokesman in 167 (45.23.13-19). The reason for the tardiness of the Rhodians in seeking an alliance with Rome was, according to Pol. 30.5.6-8 (followed by L. 45.25.9), the desire to remain independent in their foreign policy. However, we may perhaps find another trace of the Roman annalistic attitude to the Rhodians in the reasons given by Dio fr. 68.3: the Rhodians wished to inspire the Romans with fear and wished to be courted by states which went to war against Rome. Finally, we may note a statement in the speech of Cato the Censor on behalf of the Rhodians delivered in 167 (Malcovati ORF2 no. 8 fr. 169): Rodiensis superbos esse aiunt id obiectantes quod mihi et liberis meis minime dici velim. sint sane superbi. quid ad nos pertinet? idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos? Livy had read this speech (cf. L. 45.25.2-4) as well as the accounts of Claudius Quadrigarius and of Valerius Antias, and seems to have repeated their bias against the Rhodians which probably stemmed from the surprising tone of independence which the Rhodians alone dared to take with Rome at this time. 138 APPENDIX THREE: ROME, THE PTOLEMIES AND ANTIOCHUS IV, 170 - 168 Our knowledge of the chronology of the Sixth Syrian War is derived from a variety of sources, mainly partial or fragmentary accounts. The following scheme represents an attempt to clarify the stages of this war and the diplomatic relations between Rome and the Ptolemaic kingdom during the war. 1) Some time between 5 Oct. and 12 Nov. 170 the joint reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Cleopatra II was proclaimed. This move was probably connected with the Egyptian plans for the conquest of Koile Syria. See Turner Bulletin of the John Rylands, Library 31 (1948) 148 - 161; Bikerman Chronique d'Egypte 54 (1952) 396 - 403; Skeat Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47 (1961) 107 - 112. 2) Embassy of Ptolemy VI and of Antiochus IV to Rome, late 170 (Pol. 28.1). The envoys of Antiochus complained of Ptolemaic aggression, while the envoys of Ptolemy came to renew friendly relations with Rome (see on 10.2), to seek an end to the war between the Romans and the Macedonians, and to observe the outcome of the audiences of Antiochus1 envoys with the senate. M. Aemilius Lepidus (68), who had been sent as an ambassador to Ptolemy V in 201, warned the Egyptian envoys not to introduce the subject of peace with Macedonia. The Ptolemaic envoys received favourable replies to their requests, while the ambassadors of Antiochus were told that the senate would charge Q. Marcius Philippus (79), the consul of 169, to write to Ptolemy C05 *(5«ive r o v e T O V v/c-wTgpov T r T o \\ e M « ' ° v Jno T £ V o'xkoov «v«l.eoe?xJ«l (Wu/<* O I * ^ v/ rTC-p I V T * cn • ). 6) Antiochus now l a i d s iege to A l e x a n d r i a , c la iming to support the r i g h t s of the e lder Ptolemy, whom he had l e f t at Memphis (c f . P o l . Z 9 . Z 3 . 4 ; P o l . 28.ZZ ; L . 45 .11 .1 ) . 7) Before the departure of Antiochus from A l e x a n d r i a , Ptolemy V I I I and Cleopatra sent an embassy to Rome. This embassy i s erroneously placed by L i v y ' s a n n a l i s t i c source (cf . L . 44.19.6-14) at the beginning of the consular year 168 (about mid-January: see on 1.11). Since by that time the two Ptolemies had been r e c o n c i l e d (see no. 10), i t appears that the a n n a l i s t i c source post-dated t h i s e a r l i e r embassy. I t was probably i n r e p l y to t h i s embassy from Ptolemy V I I I and Cleopatra that the senate sent T . Numisius T a r q u i n i e n s i s (10) to negot ia te an agreement between Antiochus and the Ptolemies (c f . P o l . Z 9 . Z 5 . 3 - 4 ) . See Nissen K r i t . Untersuch . 263; S c u l l a r d Rom. P o l . 210 n . 2 . There a l so seems to have been a l a t e r embassy which a r r i v e d i n Rome e a r l y i n the consular year 168 (see no. 10). 8) Unable to capture A l e x a n d r i a , Antiochus i n s t a l l e d a g a r r i s o n i n Pe lous ion , which he he ld as a po int of entry in to Egypt i n case he decided to lead another invas ion of the country . Leaving Ptolemy VI at Memphis i n c o n t r o l of the r e s t of Egypt , Antiochus r e t i r e d in to S y r i a , expect ing that a c i v i l war between the two brothers would remove any threat to h i s continued possess ion of K o i l e S y r i a (L . 45 .11 .4 -5 ) . 9) When Antiochus abandoned the siege of A l e x a n d r i a i n 169, he sent as envoys to Rome the same men whom he had sent e a r l i e r to complain about Ptolemaic aggress ion (Po l . 28.22; c f . P o l . 2 8 . 1 . 1 ) . The money which Antiochus of fered as a g i f t to the Romans may have been der ived from the booty he had taken i n Egypt (cf . Porphyrios of T y r e , Jacoby FGrHis t I I . B. 260 F 49) . 10) A f t e r the departure of Antiochus from A l e x a n d r i a and before the spr ing of 168, the Ptolemies were r e c o n c i l e d (L. 45 .11 .1 -7 ) . They asked m i l i t a r y a i d from the Achaean League (Po l . 29.23-25) and 140 from Rome (L. 44.19.6-14 with no. 7; Justinus 34.2.8 - 3.1).. The request for Roman aid was perhaps accompanied by a shipment of grain to the Roman naval base at Chalcis in Euboia (cf. OGIS 760 and see on 10.2). 11) In response to this embassy the senate sent C. Popillius Laenas (*7/18), C. Decimius (1) and C. Hostilius (3). For their instructions, cf. L. 44.19.14: Prius Antiochum, dein Ptolemaeum adire iussi et nuntiare, ni absistatur bello, per utrum stetisset, eum non pro amico nec pro socio habituros esse. For the amicitia of Rome with the Ptolemies and with the Seleucids see on 10.2 and 12.6. For general bibliography on this embassy, see on 10.2. 141 APPENDIX FOUR: AMICITIA, SOCIETAS, AMICITIA ET SOCIETAS According to Roman Fetial'Law, all foreign states were either hostes or socii. The socii in peninsular Italy were technically sovereign states bound to Rome by a foedus (permanent alliance). The socii nominis Latini, who were not all bound by a foedus, and whose status approached more closely that of Roman citizenship, were not foederati in the same sense as the socii proper. The individual states allied to Rome (civitates foederatae) agreed by the terms of their foedus that neither party would commit an act of hostility against the other, and that either party would come to the aid of the other if that state was attacked by a third party. Although it is possible that in theory either state was required to aid the other with all its forces (see the summary of the Foedus Cassianum in Dionysios of Halikarnassos Ant. 6.95 with Ogilvie Commentary 317 - 318), in practice the Romans, always the dominant partner in these alliances, determined the extent of allied participation in their wars by reference to the formula togatorum, by which fewer than the full levy were called up (cf. L. 27.10.3, 29.15.6). The formula togatorum was a schedule which stated either the maximum number of troops which the socii and the Latini were required to provide by treaty (see Beloch Italische Bund 203 - 210; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I. 424 - 437) or, more probably, the number of troops requested each year by Rome on the basis of revised estimates of allied military capacity (see Beloch Die BevHlkerung der griechisch-rb'mischen Welt III. 353 - 355; Brunt Ital. Manpower 545 - 548. Also see Beloch Italische Bund 194 - 206; Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship 112 - 125; Badian Foreign Clientelae 25 - 28; Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy I. 258 - 266. The relationship which Rome usually formed with non-Italian states in the third and second centuries B. C. was that of amicitia. This relationship was not necessarily based on a foedus and did not necessarily mean anything more than the existence of friendly relations between Rome and a foreign state. The amici might voluntarily co-operate with Rome in wars or in other circumstances (on Polybius' use of the term koivorrpa(^ i.'ox see Dahlheim Deditio und 142 societas 242 n. 2), but they were not strictly obliged to do more than maintain cordial relations with Rome. By the middle of the second century, however, the Romans had come to expect the amici to show a willingness to defer to Roman wishes, especially in the area of foreign policy (cf. Pol. 3.4.3; OGIS 315). In this way, the amici, although sovereign states, tended to become clientes of Rome, and the conduct expected of them approached that expected of the Italian socii. The senate declared- foreign states and individuals amici through a senatus consultum, and public lists (the so-called formula sociorum or formula amicorum) were kept of the amici (cf. L. 43.6.10, 44.16.7; CIL I 2 (1893) no. 588). Treaties formed with the amici might specify conditions under which friendly relations could be deemed to exist (cf. the treaties between Rome and Carthage: Pol. 2.7, 3.22-25 with Walbank Commentary I. 168-172, 337-353; the treaty between Rome and Antiochus III in 189: Pol. 21.42; L. 38.38 with T&ibler Imperium Romanum 49: amicitia was established between the two powers on condition that Antiochus observe the terms of the peace treaty). A similar case was probably the amicitia granted Philip V in 197 (cf. Pol. 18.48.4-5; L. 33.35.5-6). Such treaties might also determine the nature of the co-operation between Rome and the amici for some specific purpose of limited duration (cf. the last treaty between Rome and Carthage: Pol. 3.25.1-5; the treaty between Rome and the Aetolian League in about 211: IG IX 2. 1. 2 (1957) no. 241; L. 26.24 with Walbank Commentary II. 162; Will Histoire II. 76 - 77). The conclusion of a peace treaty with a foreign power did not in itself establish a defeated state as an amicus of Rome. After the conclusion of the peace-treaty with Philip V in 197, the king was instructed to send ambassadors to Home to seek a relationship of amicitia (Pol. 18.48.4-5; L. 33.35.5-6). In the revised peace treaty (see THubler Imperium Romanum 34 - 35) ratified by Antiochus III and the ten commissioners in 188, the first clause granted Antiochus a relationship of amicitia with Rome on condition that he observe the terms of the peace treaty (Pol. 21.42.1; L. 38.38.1). Although the establishment of a m i c i t i a might be accompanied by a foedus which defined the o b l i g a t i o n s of the a m i c i , i t i s most probable that the Romans intended the f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s e s tab l i shed by a m i c i t i a to continue even a f t er the s p e c i f i c circumstances envisaged i n the foedus no longer e x i s t e d , or when both the Romans and the amici had f u l f i l l e d the terms of the foedus. One case which may seem to suggest that the Romans p laced temporal l i m i t s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a i s the peace t rea ty between Rome and Hieron I I of Syracuse i n 2 6 3 . According to D i o d . 2 3 . 4 . 1 , peace was made for f i f t e e n y e a r s , whi le Zon. 8 . 1 6 . 2 recorded the establishment of perpetua l a m i c i t i a i n 2 4 8 . From t h i s Dahlheim (Dedit io und soc ie tas 122 - 1 2 7 ) concludes that the Romans o c c a s i o n a l l y made a l l i a n c e s (c f . I b i d , p . 1 2 1 : \"Es i s t absolut s i c h e r , dass der P r a e l i m i n a r v e r t r a g h i e r erwe i ter t und Hieron unter die O\"\\>'u,f-«xoi z u zaTilen i s t\") of f i xed d u r a t i o n , but i t seems more l i k e l y that the terms mentioned by Diodoros formed p a r t of a peace t rea ty ( W a f f e n s t i l l s t a n d s v e r t r a g , or , more probably , D e d i t i o n s v e r t r a g ; see THubler Imperium Romanum 14 - 4 4 ) , ra ther than part of an a l l i a n c e . I f these terms formed par t of a peace t r e a t y , i t i s p o s s i b l e that Hieron had been requ ired to pay t r i b u t e i n y e a r l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , the l a s t of which was p a i d i n 2 4 8 (cf . Zon. 8 . 1 6 . 2 ) , and that the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a m i c i t i a f i r s t e s tab l i shed i n 2 6 3 was now renewed on a d i f f e r e n t bas i s i n 2 4 8 . A somewhat s i m i l a r case was the a m i c i t i a between Rome and Macedonia, which was probably based on the peace t rea ty of 1 9 7 (c f . P o l . 1 8 . 4 8 . 4 - 5 ; L . 3 3 . 3 5 . 3 - 7 ) . In 1 7 2 , when Perseus refused to abide by the terms of the peace t rea ty which had been made with h i s fa ther , or to accept the Roman i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s t r e a t y , he demanded that new terms more favourable to Macedonia should be negot iated (see L. 4 2 . 2 5 , i n an a n n a l i s t i c s ec t ion r e f l e c t i n g the Roman a t t i t u d e towards a m i c i t i a : Nissen K r i t . Untersuch. 2 4 6 - 2 4 7 ; Klotz L i v i u s 6 7 - 6 8 ) . See the review of Dahlheim's book by Oost, CP 6 2 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 1 4 9 - 151. Even i f Diodoros was accura te ly r e p o r t i n g the terms of an a l l i a n c e s i m i l a r to the one which accompanied the a m i c i t i a between Rome and the A e t o l i a n League, we should not conclude that a temporal limit was imposed on the amicitia established at that time as well as on the validity of the specific terms listed in the treaty (the terms of the Romano-Aetolian treaty, for instance, were to be observed until the war against Philip V was ended on conditions acceptable to the Romans). Treaties made by Rome with the amici did not, however, assimilate the amici to the status of the Italian socii, who were distinguished from them (cf. L. 29.11.2; Appian Kelt. 13). Societas of the Italian type always rested upon a foedus, whereas amicitia was not necessarily based upon a foedus. Foedera of the Italian type were perpetual alliances, while the foedera which might accompany the establishment of amicitia contained terms which were valid in specific circumstances of limited duration. The relationship of amicitia could be revoked unilaterally by Rome or by the amicus (cf. Pol. 33.12.5; L. 36.3.8, 42.25.1), whereas societas could not be revoked in this way. Amicitia did not bind either party to come to the military assistance of the other, while societas did so bind them. The amici of Rome were not regularly called upon to provide military aid as were the Italian socii; they were not included in the formula togatorum. Unless there existed a foedus defining the responsibilities of the amici, they had no formal commitment to Rome beyond the adoption of at least a position of declared or of undeclared neutrality when Rome was at war. If an amicus did decide to give military support, \"he sent it of his own free will alone, determined the amount himself and the time during which i t should be available, and it was not subject to Roman command, except by special and temporary arrangement\" (Matthaei 191). It was of course expected that the amici would refrain from committing hostile acts against Rome, but the interpretation of any act as hostile was dependent upon the attitudes of the Romans at any given time, and by the middle of the second century, the failure of the amici to accept Roman foreign policy could clearly be considered a hostile act (cf. the alleged negotiations between Perseus and Eumenes II concerning the mediation of peace between Rome and Macedonia: Pol. 30.1.6 and see on 19.1 and 19.5; the attempt of the Rhodians 145 to mediate: Pol. 29.19 and see on 3.3 and 24.2). Since they were expected more and more to accept Roman foreign policy, the amici came to resemble the Italian socii in their responsibilities to Rome. See Sands The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic; Heuss VHlk. Grundl. ; Dahlheim Deditio und societas 244 - 246; Accame Roma alia Conquista del Mediterraneo Orientale 59 - 69. Although the foreign amici may be distinguished from the Italian socii, the terminology used of the amici in the literary sources is confused and imprecise. Although the amici were not identical in status to the Italian socii, the terms socii and societas were often used in connection with the amici (see Matthaei 186 - 187). We may perhaps identify a number of factors which led to this confusion. By the middle of the second century, the responsibilities of the amici were in certain ways similar to those of the Italian socii. Some of the amici did have foedera with Rome, while even those who did not have foedera could be expected to act as i f they did. Since the socii were all foederati (but not all foederati were socii), the Roman annalists may have tended to treat as socii those of the amici who did have foedera with Rome, and even those who did not have such foedera, seeing that in practice the difference between the two groups had grown slight. Any state which supported Rome in war could in a practical sense be considered a socius, and Polybius seems to have often equated KOivorrpanux with e\"opu.o<;|>- be ou s ocAX-^Aot^j y c r f - ^ w v - T& Kcxt uVep oov ^e-rj n^erev/ 4t<* is clearly distinguished from tyiALOC K cn.x^ w^s often used in the Greek east. The expression