Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:48:39.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treaties true and false: The error of Philinus of Agrigentum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. D. Hoyos
B. D. Hoyos
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Rome and Carthage had established peaceful diplomatic relations before 300 b.c. — as early as the close of the sixth century according to Polybius, whose dating there no longer seems good cause to doubt. A second treaty was struck probably in 348. Both dealt essentially with traders' and travellers' obligations and entitlements, so any military or political terms sprang from that context. In both, the Carthaginians agreed to hand over any independent town they captured in Latium. In the first treaty they were not to establish a fort in Latium either; in the second, the Romans were not to found a city in Carthaginian Africa, Spain or Sardinia.

But independent military considerations are the stuff of a third treaty concluded during Rome's war with Pyrrhus. Rome and Carthage now pledged each other military aid in certain circumstances, as we shall see. And ‘geopolitical’ concerns of a very broad kind imbued a treaty which was reported by the third-century historian Philinus of Agrigentum. By this, he stated, ‘the Romans must keep out of the whole of Sicily, the Carthaginians out of Italy’ (ἔδει Ῥωμαίους μ⋯ν ⋯πέχεσθαι Σικελίας ⋯πάσης, Καρχηδονίους δ' Ἰταλίας). This is Polybius' citation of Philinus' allegation; Polybius himself then roundly rejects the very existence of such a pact and declares himself at a loss to understand how his predecessor could record it, but modern scholarship is no longer all that ready to accept his view. A strong majority of historians prefer to follow the Agrigentine, and many see 306 b.c. as the likely year for the agreement because Livy records a ‘renewal’ then of a foedus with Carthage (without giving details).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 92 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Polybius 3. 22. 1–3 (with text of treaty at 22. 4–13). On the highly disputed dating of the ‘first Polybian’ see now, e.g., Walbank, F. W., Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1 (Oxford, 1957), 337–45Google Scholar; Toynbee, A. J., Hannibal's Legacy, 1 (Oxford, 1965), 519–39Google Scholar and bibliography at 571–2; Petzold, K.-E. in Aufstieg u. Niedergang der röm. Welt, i.1 (Berlin, 1972), 361–411Google Scholar with bibl. 364 n. 1. All these favour c. 508 b.c. By contrast Werner, R., Der Beginn der röm. Republik (München, 1969), 299–340Google Scholar, dates it c. 470; A. Alföldi puts it in 348, with the second in 343 (Early Rome and the Latins [Ann Arbor, 1964], 350–5Google Scholar; Röm. Frühgeschichte [Heidelberg, 1976], 119–22)Google Scholar; cf. Musti, D. in ANRW i. 2 (1972), 1136–8Google Scholar. The dating c. 508 has been strongly supported by the discovery of the Pyrgi tablets in 1964, on which see Ferron, J., ANRW i. 1 (1972), 189–216Google Scholar.

2 Pol. 3. 24. 1–13. Argument over the date shifts around the years 348, in which Livy reports a treaty with Carthage (7. 27. 2; cf. Diodorus 16. 69. 1, who terms it the ‘first’ one), 343, where Livy reports a congratulatory Punic embassy coming to Rome (7. 38. 2), and 306, where he reports ‘foedus tertio renovatum’ (7. 43. 26). Livy gives no details of these foedera. 348 is the most widely accepted date for the ‘second Polybian’, even apart from the general view (cf. note 6) that the ‘Philinus’ dates to 306: see e.g. Walbank, i. 337–8, 345–6; Werner, 341–68; Marek, C., Chiron 7 (1977), 1–7Google Scholar; and note C. Giannelli's suggestion that the mention of Tyre among Carthage's allies implies the period 350–344, when Tyre was free of Persian control (Helikon 2 [1962], 421)Google Scholar.

3 Pol. 3. 22. 12, 24. 5.

4 22. 13; 24.4 and 11.

5 3. 25. 1–5.

6 Philinus' treaty: Pol. 3. 26. 3–5. The ‘renewal’ of 306: Livy 9. 43. 26. Moderns who accept the ‘Philinus’, dating it 306 unless otherwise noted, include Nissen, H., Neue Jahrbücher für class. Philo. 95 (1867), 321–32Google Scholar; Meltzer, O., Gesch. der Karthager, i (Berlin, 1879), 415–16Google Scholar; Meyer, Paul, Der Ausbruch des Ersten Punischen Krieges (Diss. Berlin, 1908), 17–23Google Scholar; Cary, M., JRS 9 (1919), 67–77Google Scholar; Meyer, Eduard, Kl. Schriften, 11 (Halle, 1924), 363 n. 1Google Scholar; Schachermeyr, F., Rh. Mus. 69 (1930), 378–9Google Scholar, seeing it as a secret annex to the ‘third Polybian’ or else as made c. 272; Scullard, H. H., Hist. of the Rom. World, 753–146 b.c. 3 (London, 1969), 114, 143 n. 2, 434–5Google Scholar; HRW 4 (London, 1980), 486–8Google Scholar; Mazzarino, S., Introduzione alle Guerre Puniche (Catania, 1947), 56–98Google Scholar, and cf. his Il Pensiero storico antico ii. 1 (Bari, 1966), 148Google Scholar; Bung, P., Q. Fabius Pictor (Diss. Köln, 1950), 144 n. 1Google Scholar, following Schachermeyr; Thiel, J. H., Hist. of Rom. Sea-Power before the First Punic War (Amsterdam, 1954), 12–20, 129–34Google Scholar; Hampl, F., Rh. Mus. 101 (1958), 72–5Google Scholar; Nenci, G., Historia 7 (1958), 273–4, 280, 294–5Google Scholar, and Rivista di Studi Liguri 24 (1958), 96Google Scholar; Staveley, E. S., Historia 8 (1959), 422Google Scholar; Càssola, F., I Gruppi politici romani nel III Sec. a.C. (Trieste, 1962, repr. Rome, 1968), 87–8Google Scholar, favouring 306 but uncertain; Giannelli (n. 2), 423; Werner (n. 1), 367 n. 1, on pp. 367–8; Toynbee (n. 1), i. 543–55; La Bua, V., Filino-Polibio Sileno-Diodoro (Palermo, 1966), 23Google Scholar; Petzold, K.-E., Studien zur Methode des Polybios u. ihre historische Auswertung (München, 1969), 177–8Google Scholar (implied acceptance); Schmitt, H. H., Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, 111 (München, 1969), 53–5 no. 438Google Scholar; Meister, K., Riv. di Filol. e Istruz. Class. 98 (1970), 408–23, esp. 417–21Google Scholar; idem, Histor. Kritik bei Polybios (München, 1975), 135–9; Roussel, D., Les Siciliens entre les Romains et les Carthaginois… (Paris, 1970), 74Google Scholar, accepting 306 without discussion; Mitchell, R. E., Historia 20 (1971), 633–44, 648, 654Google Scholar; Hampl, in ANRW i. 1.422Google Scholar; Musti, in ANRW i. 2. 1139–40Google Scholar; Schwarte, K.-H., Historia 21 (1972), 217–18Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., The Rise of Rome (London, 1973), 212, 252Google Scholar; Picard, G.-C., Life and Death of Carthage (London, 1968/N.Y. 1969), 173Google Scholar; Develin, R., Historia 25 (1976), 484–7Google Scholar.

For disbelief e.g. Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Selections from Pol.(Oxford, 1888), 63–5Google Scholar; Täubler, E., Imperium Rom., i (Leipzig, 1913), 273–4Google Scholar; De Sanctis, G., Stor. dei Romani iii. 12 (repr. Firenze, 1970), 97 n. 15Google Scholar; Frank, T., Cambridge Anc. Hist., vii (Cambridge, 1928), 672Google Scholar; Gelzer, M. in Rom u. Karthago, ed. Vogt, J. (Leipzig, 1943), 182Google Scholar; Heuss, A., Histor. Zeitschr. 169 (1949), 459–60Google Scholar = Der Erste Pun. Krieg u. dos Problem des röm. Imperialismus 3 (Darmstadt, 1970), 8–9Google Scholar; Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae, 264–70 B.C. (Oxford, 1958), 34 n. 3Google Scholar; Warmington, E. H., Carthage (Penguin edn.: Harmondsworth, 1960), 179–80Google Scholar; Lippold, A., Consules (Bonn, 1963), 113 n. 147Google Scholar; Pédech, P., La Méthode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964), 188–91Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., The Dawn of Empire (London, 1971)Google Scholar; and now Badian, in Φιλίας χάριν: miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenio Manni (Roma, 1980), i. 161–9Google Scholar, which came into my hands after this paper was substantially completed.

Some scholars hold that Philinus may have misinterpreted or distorted clauses of the second or third Polybian: thus De Sanctis, Täubler, Frank, Gelzer (art. cit., and also in Hermes 68 [1933], 135Google Scholar), Heuss, Warmington and Pédech, as also Judeich, W. (Klio 20 [1926], 16 and n. 1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Walbank, , Comm. i. 354Google Scholar. Like Lenschau, in RE x (1919), 2229Google Scholar s.v. ‘Karthago’, Walbank thinks it possible, though apparently less likely, that the ‘Philinus’ on the other hand ‘may have been an unpublished agreement towards the end of the war with Pyrrhus’; in turn, Schachermeyr's view that it was a secret annex to the third Polybian influenced Cary later (Hist. of Rome [London, 1954], 154 n. 12)Google Scholar. Welwei, K.-W., Historia 27 (1978), 586 n. 33Google Scholar, remains undecided over the ‘Philinus’; Harris, W. V., War and Imperialism in Republ. Rome (Oxford, 1979), 188 and n. 3Google Scholar, undecided but favouring it.

7 26.3…καθ' ἅς ἔδει Ῥωμαίους μ⋯ν ⋯πέχεσθαι Σικελίας ⋯πάσης, Καρχηδονίους δ' Ἰταλίας,…μήτε γεγονότος μήθ' ὑπάρχοντος παράπαν ⋯γγράɸου τοιούτου μηδενός.

8 26. 1.

9 E.g. Cary, , JRS (1919), 67–70Google Scholar; Mazzarino, , Introduz., 82Google Scholar; Thiel, , Rom. Sea-Power, 13–14, 130Google Scholar; Hampl, , Rh. Mus. (1958), 72–3Google Scholar; Nenci, , Historia (1958), 273–4Google Scholar; Toynbee, i. 551–4 ‘…Polybius may well have been the victim of a trick played on him by Roman security officers’ (cf. next note); Mitchell, Historia (1971), 635; Hampl, , ANRW i. 1.422Google Scholar; Meister, , Riv. Fil. Istr. Cl. (1970), 421Google Scholar, and Hist. Kr. b. Pol., 138. Of course this view does not require that the incriminating bronze was removed just when Polybius was making his inquiries.

10 ‘We may well imagine a couple of Roman worthies simply suppressing the agreement of 306, showing Polybius the three remaining treaties and telling him brazenly that there was nothing else’ (pp. 13–14. Why a couple of worthies? I suppose because Polybius implies that he needed help in understanding the earliest treaty from ‘the most intelligent men’ (plural) at Rome: 3. 22. 3 τοὺς συνετωτάτους).

11 Walbank rejects this picture (i. 354; cf. Pédech, 189). Arguably, though, it looked that way to the Carthaginians.

12 Most fully put by Mazzarino, 61–4, cf. 87–90, 97–9; Thiel, 16–20; Mitchell, 636–44; cf. Toynbee, i. 545. Mazzarino and Mitchell also point to the — rather vague — remark of Theo-phrastus (Hist. Plant. 5. 8. 2) that the Romans ‘once’ (ποτέ) sent 25 ships to try to colonise Corsica; for them it is further evidence of Roman expansionism that may have roused Punic concern. They also note Diodorus' report (15. 27. 4) of a Roman attempt to colonise Sardinia (and it could be added that Càssola [n. 6], 32, dates the Corsica effort to the later fourth century). Thiel by contrast decides that neither item can be used in the context of the ‘Philinus’ (Rom. Sea-Power, 18–20, 54–6).

13 ad Aen. 4. 628–9 ‘litora litoribus contraria, fluctibus undas | imprecor’. On Aen. 1. 108 ‘saxa latentia’ Servius comments, ‘haec autem saxa inter Africam, Siciliam et Sardiniam et Italiam sunt, quae saxa ab hoc Itali aras vocant, quod ibi Afri et Romani foedus inierunt et fines imperii sui illic voluerunt’. That he independently confirms Philinus is held, e.g. by Meyer, P., Ausbruch 1. Pun. Kr., 18Google Scholar; Cary, 71–2; Scullard, , HRW 3, 435Google Scholar, and HRW 4, 487; Mazzarino, 59 and 72; Thiel, 13; Càssola, 87–9; Giannelli (n. 2), 423; Toynbee, i. 550; Meister (1970), 418–19; Heurgon, 212; Mitchell, 635, cf. 641; Develin, , Historia (1976), 485Google Scholar.

14 Per. 14; 21. 10. 8; Dio, frg. 43. 1; Zonaras, 8. 6. 12–13 and 8. 3; Orosius 4. 3. 1–2 and 5. 2 (note ‘rupti foederis labem’).

15 Meltzer, , Gesch. d. K., ii. 246–8Google Scholar; P. Mayer, 18–21, 22–3; Cary, 73; Mazzarino, 59, 72, 80–1, 170–1 (n. 97); Bung, , Q. Fab. Pictor, 144 n. 1 (implied)Google Scholar; Thiel, 14–15, cf. 130 n. 216; Càssola, 87–8; Werner, 367 n. 1; Toynbee, 549; Schmitt, , Staatsv., 54Google Scholar; Meister (1970), 418; Hampl, , ANRW i. 1. 422Google Scholar; Mitchell, 633–6, 654–5; cf. Meister, , Hist. Krit. b. Pol., 135Google Scholar.

16 3. 25. 3 ἵνα ⋯ξῇ βοηθεῖν ⋯λλήλοις ⋯ν τῇ τ⋯ν πολεμουμένων χώρᾳ.

17 For proponents of this view see n. 63 below.

18 1. 14. 2 (speaking of Philinus and Fabius Pictor).

19 Introduz., 79.

20 Misc. Manni, 165–9.

21 Cf. also Schachermeyr, , Rh. Mus. (1930), 378Google Scholar, who in more general terms thinks it unlikely that Carthage in 306 would give up the right to intervene in Southern Italy, which was not yet under Roman dominance. — R. Develin (n. 6) involves the ‘Philinus’ in his effort to identify the man commemorated in the acephalous Brindisi elogium (A É 1954, no. 216; Broughton, , MRR, ii Suppl., 2–3Google Scholar) as Ap. Claudius Caecus, cos. 307. But his thesis of a small Punic war in 307, fought in South Italy — against a Hannibal! — and concluded by the ‘Philinus’ in 306, is too eccentric. What caused the war? How could the Romans have forgotten it (Livy has Caecus stay at Rome: 9. 42. 4) — while remembering the treaty that ended it? How in turn was it remembered for a local Brundisine inscription three centuries later? The elogium is far likelier to commemorate Fabius Cunctator (so Càssola, 438) or, better, a Second Punic War Brundisine hero.

22 Historia (1971), 643–4.

23 Pol. 3. 26. 4: Philinus wrote διότι ὑπερέβαινον Ῥωμαῖοι τ⋯ς συνθήκας κα⋯ τοὺς ὅρκους, ⋯πε⋯ ⋯ποιήσαντο τ⋯ν πρώτην εἰς Σικελίαν διάβασιν.

24 Dio (frg. 43. 1) and his epitomator Zonaras (8. 8. 3) do say that the Carthaginians resented these contacts just as Rome resented the Punic naval effort to help Tarentum. This claim may be influenced by belief in the ‘Philinus’ (see below in text), and could well be an inference of Dio's — seeking to balance the alleged Roman ground of resentment. But the Tarentum episode is highly improbable as the sources tell it, and in any case there is no actual evidence to support Dio–Zonaras' assertion about the Carthaginians.

25 Diod. 20. 61. 6; 64; 21. 9. 10; Justin 22. 8. 4–6.

26 Mazzarino believes that Carthage was indeed interested in obtaining Roman support against the Etruscans (Introduz., 63–4), but does not see that this makes the stipulation in the ‘Phillinus’ rather inappropriate. Cf. also Meister, , RFIC (1970), 420Google Scholar.

27 Schachermeyr, 378; Pédech, 190.

28 Toynbee, i. 548–9; Schachermeyr, 378–9.

29 He stressed that the Romans in 264 violated both ὅρκους and συνθήκας: Pol. 3. 26. 4 (quoted above, n. 23) and 7. On the significance of the oaths see Täubler, , Imp. Rom., 266Google Scholar; Meister (1970), 417 n. 1.

30 3. 26. 2–4 implies this plainly.

31 Schachermeyr, 380; Hampl, , Rh. Mus. (1958), 74Google Scholar; Schmitt, , Staatsv., 55Google Scholar; cf. Werner, 367 n. 1 (on 367–8).

32 Pace (e.g.) Cary, 72; Thiel, 13, 18–19; Meister (1970), 418–19; Mitchell, 635.

33 Like the Latin ὑπήκοοι of the first two treaties (Pol. 3. 22. 11, with Walbank's note; 24. 5). In 264 the Carthaginians may well have liked to think that the Mamertines had become subjects by accepting Punic protection, but there is not the slightest evidence that this was recognised in any international agreement (still less by the Mamertines themselves). Thus any such view would have been a unilateral opinion of the Carthaginians, based on a new event.

34 Klaus Meister, who in 1970 saw Servius — and the Livian tradition — as confirming Philinus, (RFIC [1970], 418–19)Google Scholar, more recently has conceded that they might all derive from him (Hist. Kr. b. Pol., 136).

35 Scholars who see Servius as confirming Philinus do not pay much attention to the discrepancy between their respective specifications, but Thiel, 13, does remark that the two are in accordance ‘in a somewhat vague way’.

36 Pol. 3.22. 5–6, 11, 13; 24.4 and 11. Werner argues that Servius' treaty corresponds to neither Polybian, and that Servius is simply drawing an inference from the political situation of 264 and presenting it as a treaty agreement; but concedes that Servius' terms ‘zur Not auch aus dem I. und 2. römisch-punischen Vertrag herausgelesen werden kann’ (Beginn d. r. Rep., 367 n. 1, cf. 362).

37 Imp. Rom., 273–4; Rh. Mus. (1930), 380.

38 3. 27. 2 and 8.

39 Cary, 72 n. 3, is at a loss to explain the plural. No one else seems to have offered an explanation either.

40 Thiel is particularly emphatic that the annalists' insistence on the incident (which he regards as invented) ‘presupposes the terms of Philinus' treaty’ (Rom. Sea-Pow., 14–15, 130).

41 Misc. Manni., 169, without elaboration.

42 δι⋯ τ⋯ κα⋯ πλείους διεψε⋯σθαι τ⋯ς ⋯ληθείας ⋯ν τούτοις, πιστεύσαντας τῇ το⋯ Φιλίνου γράɸῃ (3. 26. 5, cf. 7; tr. Paton, Loeb edn.).

43 Cary holds that Polybius ‘killed’ Philinus' version for the future (JRS [1919], 72 and 74). But he overlooks the signs that the Roman annalists, or at any rate Livy, may have drawn on it. And that Diodorus mentions that Philinus ‘was a historian’ (23. 17, as emended; also 23. 8. 1) is no proof of oblivion having practically engulfed the Agrigentine: apart from the lack of context in Diod., Polybius both accords Philinus the same description and simultaneously indicates that many read him (3. 26. 2–3). Badian holds that his influence on Roman historiographical tradition ceased — though with damage already done — once Polybius' researches established the facts (Misc. Manni, 168); but that is only an assumption. Livy, whatever his source, certainly did not allow Polybius' arguments to affect his presentation, judging by the passages already cited (note 28).

44 Pol. 3. 26. 5; cf. 1. 15. 1.

45 On Livy's methods of composition see Walsh, P. G., Livy : his Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1963), 5–8, 114–28, 133–5, 139–51Google Scholar; and ‘Livy’ in Latin Historians, ed. Dorey, (London, 1966), 121–3Google Scholar; also Luce, T. J., Livy: the Composition of his History (Princeton, 1977), 185–229, esp. 188–205Google Scholar, whose views — though different from Walsh's on many details (cf. also 92–104) — support my contention. Nor was Livy much inclined, or perhaps able, to go back and rewrite an earlier passage in the light of later reading. His convolutions à propos of the Scipionic trials and the date of Africanus' death show this particularly clearly (38. 50. 4–60. 10; 39. 52. 1–6). Cf. Walsh, , Livy, 149–50Google Scholar; and on the practical difficulties in making such corrections (not always appreciated), Luce, 102. Luce does not believe that Livy made such a mess of these matters as is usually thought (92–104). But the passage in Book 39 certainly shows that he had not read too far ahead in all his sources — and shows him rejecting details from Antias which he had accepted for Bk. 38, but had now found disproved by more recent reading (and cf. Luce, 104).

46 For an interesting analogy cf. Livy 22. 7. 4, where, faced with the usual discrepancies over battle losses — this time at Lake Trasimene —, he decides to accept the statistics of Fabius, as being ‘aequalem temporibus huiusce belli’. Admittedly Polybius gives the same number of Roman dead (3. 84. 7; Livy, ibid. 2).

47 Luce, 69–70, 129 n. 34, and esp. 188 n. 5.

48 On Philinus see, e.g. De Sanctis, , Stor. d. Rom. iii. 12. 218–30Google Scholar; Laqueur, R., RE xix (1938), 2180–93Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Philinos (8)’ — often controversial; Walbank, , CQ 34 (1945), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Comm., i. 65; La Bua, Filino-Polibio…, an ambitious example of hyper-Quellenforschung, with Walbank, 's review in CR 17 (1967), 299–302Google Scholar, and discussion in Kokalos 14–15 (1968–9), 485–6, 493–8. La Bua credits Philinus with four books of histories altogether, covering the period 289 to 237.

49 As generally agreed: cf. De Sanctis, 225–9; Gelzer, , Hermes (1933), 133Google Scholar; von Stauffenberg, A., König Hieron der Zweite v. Syrakus (Stuttgart, 1933), 97Google Scholar; Laqueur, 2180; Bung, , Q. Fab. Pic., 57, 64–5Google Scholar; Péclech, , RÉA 1952, 246–66, esp. 247–8, 252–64Google Scholar, although his view that Philinus was not one of Polybius' main authorities does not convince; Thiel, 150–1,224 n. 523, etc.; Berve, H., König Hieron II. (München, 1958), 23Google Scholar; Altheim, F., in Untersuchungen zur röm. Geschichte, ed. Altheim, and Felber, D., i (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1961), 131–5, 138Google Scholar; etc.; Lippold, , Consules (n. 6), 4 (and cf. his n. 18), 41–2Google Scholar; Petzold (n. 6), 149–51, 162–4, 173–4; Meister, , Hist. Kr. b. Pol., 139–40Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Romans and Aliens (London, 1979), 200Google Scholar. La Bua holds that Diodorus on the First Punic War derives from Philinus through Silenus of Cale Acte, the Sicilian companion and historian of Hannibal (Filino-Polibio, 35–7, 100, 112, 277–9, etc.); but his arguments are based on complex and rigid criteria of source-criticism (cf. Walbank, loc. cit. n. 48) and I am not persuaded. F. P. Rizzo has recently argued for Diodorus' source being Timaeus down to the year 263 (in Misc. Manni [1980], vi. 1899–1920Google Scholar) — about which I feel doubts again — but does not go into the question of whom Diod. then switched to. On Pol. as Diod.'s source for the Mercenary War see Walbank, , Comm., i. 130–1Google Scholar, citing earlier discussions. La Bua does not think Diod. draws directly on him (op. cit., 233–52) and Musti, D. is inclined to agree (ANRW i. 2. 1129)Google Scholar, but see Walbank, 's comments in Kokalos (1968–1969), 493–5Google Scholar.

50 Cf. Mazzarino, , Introduz., 80–1Google Scholar; Badian, , Misc. Manni, 168Google Scholar (see n. 44 above). That would be one reason why Pol. decided to discuss the extant treaties at length: note his repeated stress that the only area of Sicily specified in them is the Punic province (3. 23. 5, 24. 14) — cf. Pédech, , Méth. hist., 188Google Scholar.

51 Frg. 84 Peter; on the form of the second word (= duoetvicesimo) see Peter ad loc. That Polybius found the texts in Cato was a suggestion of Mommsen Chronologie 2, 1859, 322–3; Hist. of Rome, Engl. tr., London, 1901, ii. 523–5)Google Scholar. Täubler cast doubt on this (Imp. Rom., 256–7), and cf. Walbank, i. 336; Nenci, , Historia (1958), 264–73Google Scholar; Werner, 307–9; Petzold, , ANRW. i 1. 368–70Google Scholar.

52 Livy's references to the treaties of 348 and 306 (refs. in n. 2 above) give no details. On the Tabulae Pontificum / Annales Maximi see, e.g., Badian, E. in Latin Historians (n. 46), 1–2, 15Google Scholar; Rawson, Elizabeth, CQ 21 (1971), 158–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; I have not yet been able to see Frier, B. W., Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum (Rome, 1979)Google Scholar.

53 For the currency of such accusations (even apart from Philinus') in Cato's, and Fabius Pictor's, time, and Roman anxiety to combat them, see Gelzer, , Hermes (1933), 133–6Google Scholar; and cf. Bung, 135–6.

54 Note Luce's illuminating remarks about Livy's methods of composition (Livy, 143–53, esp. 144–5, 149–50).

55 Though πρός can mean ‘with’ or ‘against’ in context, there is no other instance of συμμαχία πρός meaning ‘alliance against’; and cf. Pol. 3. 24. 6 and 8, εἰρήνη (ἔγγραπτος) πρός meaning ‘(written) peace with’. The problems of the ‘third Polybian’ — content, date and purpose — are manifold; I hope I may be able to discuss them at another time [forthcoming in Historica].

56 Diod. 22. 10. 5–6; Plut, . Pyrrh. 23. 2Google Scholar (ships presumably to take him home — or back to Italy and his war with Rome). Lévêque, P. discusses the talks in Pyrrhos (Paris, 1957), 481–4Google Scholar; as does Garoufalias, P., Pyrrhus (rev. edn., London, 1979), 98–9Google Scholar and notes 6–12 on pp. 381–6, but his treatment is almost entirely derivative.

57 So (e.g.) Beloch, K. J., Griech. Geschichte, iv. 12 (Berlin/Leipzig, 1925, repr. 1967), 554Google Scholar; Meyer, P., Ausbr., 24Google Scholar; De Sanctis, , Stor.d. R, 11 (Torino, 1907), 409Google Scholar; Lévêque, , Pyrrhos, 418, 482–3Google Scholar.

58 Schmitt, , Staatsv., 105–6Google Scholar, suggests that they may have been in consultation: ‘voraufgegangene Verhandlungen zwischen Karthagern und Römern verloren gegangen sein können’. It cannot, of course, be taken for granted that Roman annalists must have known of Pyrrhus' campaigns in Sicily; but, if they had known of the ‘third Polybian’ and were eager to find instances of ‘Punic faith’ before 264, it is not inconceivable that one or more of them might have done a little basic research into the Sicilian side of the Pyrrhic Wars (that would in any case help to place his return to Italy in proper context). I might add that, if La Bua is correct in making Philinus cover the period 289–264 in his first book (and it seems plausible enough, since Philinus reached the events of 264 only with Book II: above, n. 45; La Bua, 177–87), then any Roman writer who read him and who also knew details of the ‘third Polybian’ — from Polybius or some other source — could have found excellent material in the Agrigentine himself for an accusation of Punica fides. Unless that historian suppressed mention of the Punic overtures to Pyrrhus in 277!

59 Viewed with strict logic, Livy's own surviving reference to a foedus-violation over Tarentum (21. 10. 8: n. 14 above) should carry little weight: for he explicitly parallels it with the alleged violation of the ‘Hasdrubal treaty’ of 226 by Hannibal's sack of Saguntum (‘…sicut nunc Sagunto non abstinemus’, he makes Hanno continue). That the ‘Hasdrubal treaty’ did guarantee Saguntum (as L. asserts at 21. 2. 7) is rightly disbelieved by most scholars: cf. Walbank, , Comm., i. 170–2Google Scholar, and iii (Oxford, 1979), 760; Walsh, P. G., T. Livi AVC XXI (London, 1973), 124–5Google Scholar.

60 (τα⋯τ'), ἠγνόουν, says Pol. (3. 26. 2), having given the texts followed by details of the oaths sworn to the treaties. This assertion must be accepted: we can hardly pick and choose among his statements on this topic. If his report of what Philinus claimed is believed, and it is the only evidence, then his report of his contemporaries' ignorance of the extant treaties — resting on the same basis — is also to be believed.

61 Cf. n. 52, and text at n. 63 below.

62 3. 26. 5 (quoted, n. 42).

63 The arguments (the second one with particular vehemence) of Mazzarino, , Introduz., 68–72, 77–8Google Scholar (‘nessun dubbio è possibile’, p. 69); also of Cary, 73; Scullard, , HRW 4, 487Google Scholar = HRW 3, 435; Thiel, 131; Toynbee, i. 543, 544–7; Schmitt, , Staatsv., 54Google Scholar, cf. 104; Meister, , RFIC (1970), 417–18, 420–1Google Scholar, and Hist. Kr. b. Pol., 136, 138; Mitchell, 636, 648, 652; Musti, , ANRW i. 2. 1139Google Scholar.

64 Misc. Manni, 167–8.

65 Pol. 3. 24. 4, 6, 8, 12–13.

66 Cf. Toynbee, i. 544–5 ‘it is impossible to believe that in 278 b.c. Rome herself will have conceded gratuitously, in a new treaty with Carthage, that her sphere in Italy was, in fact, Latium only, and not even the whole of that’; cf. 543 n. 5 (on 544); Mitchell, 648 ‘by the time of the Pyrrhic War, Roman interests extended far beyond those recognized by the Carthaginians in 348’; Meister, , Hist. Kr., 138Google Scholar. — Badian speaks of ‘references to Latium’, in the plural, but there is only one.

67 The proposals, respectively, of Täubler, 275; Schachermeyr, 375–7 (but on both see Toynbee, 543 n. 5); Walbank, i. 349.

68 22. 11–12 (Carthage not to wrong specified Latin towns, and if she capture any other must hand it over to Rome), 12 (no fort to be built by C. ⋯ν τῇ Λατίνῃ).

69 3. 21. 10 (ἵνα)…ᾖ τις ⋯μολογουμένη θεωρία τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯ρχ⋯ς ὑπαρξάντων δικαίων Ῥωμαίοις κα⋯ Καρχηδονίοις. Walbank himself does not think the third suggestion to be likeliest (349–50).

70 Toynbee, 543 n. 5, argues against it because the same phrase (‘the Romans and [their] allies’) appears in the ‘first Polybian’, yet that text proceeds to spell out the names of the cities on the Latin coast then under Roman control (cf. n. 68 above); similarly, he holds, the second should spell out the same names plus those of Rome's later coastal acquisitions, especially as both Täubler and Schachermeyr dated the second to 306 (not 348). But this seems to be an unwarranted assumption, all the more as Schachermeyr's point is that the new treaty sought greater flexibility. For Walbank's comment, see Comm., i. 346.

71 i. 349–50; cf. Strachan-Davidson, , Sel. from Pol. (n. 6), 62Google Scholar ‘the Romans…had too much on their minds to insist on a substantially fresh Treaty’. The date of the ‘third Polybian’, like practically everything else about it, is much debated and cannot be touched on here, but whether 279, 278 or 280, the essential point here will stand.

72 Justin 18. 2. 1–6; Diod. 22. 7. 5; Livy per. 13; these and other source-materials collected in Schmitt, , Staatsv., 101–3Google Scholar.

73 3. 25. 1.

74 3. 27. 7.

75 25. 6; cf. Walbank, i. 351.

76 9. 43. 26.

77 For this type of renewal cf. Täubler, 122–5.

78 So assumed by Mazzarino, 69–71; Toynbee, 543; Meister, , RFIC (1970), 417Google Scholar; cf. Mitchell, 652.

79 Pol. 3.27.4; Pédech, , Méth. hist., 189–90Google Scholar.

80 Cf. Walbank, i. 348.

81 Cf. Toynbee, 547 ‘why tie the strategists' hands — perhaps awkwardly, as it might turn out — by adding a qualifying phrase?’

82 Noted only by Passerini, A., Athenaeum 21 (1943), 103 n. 1Google Scholar (‘l'obbligo’ [sic] of assistance may have applied only when warfare took place in Latium, Campania or Africa).

83 Cf. Lévêque, , Pyrrhos, 334–40Google Scholar, favouring Praeneste. Nenci argues for 280 as the date of the ‘third Polybian’; his arguments in fact constitute plausible proof that that is the date Polybius envisaged — not quite the same thing (Historia [1958], 263–99). Even if he were right, the other points made in my text would hold; cf. n. 71.

84 Thiel, 29 and n. 80; cf. Walbank, I. 351 (‘the clause is merely permissive’ and the two remaining clauses include ‘the normal proviso [Walbank cites Täubler, 55, 266–7] that help shall be sent only as required by the party attacked’), ii. 55 (ad Pol. 7. 9. 11); Nenci, 292.

85 I take this to mean ‘written alliance with P.’, but cannot discuss that here.

86 On the emendation ἄɸοδος (‘return journey’) for MSS. ἔɸοδος at Pol. 3. 25. 4, see e.g. Walbank, i. 351; Flach, D., Historia 27 (1978), 615–16Google Scholar.

87 Diod. 22. 7. 5 has often been thought to record one co-operative venture, against Rhegium or some other South Italian town. I prefer the view that he is reporting a purely Carthaginian mission (Mitchell, 650, though inadequately argued there).

88 Cf. Walbank, i. 354.

89 And if La Bua is right that Philinus began his work with the death of Agathocles (Filino-Polibio, 199–232), it was struck within the period he himself covered and was highly relevant to Pyrrhus' subsequent war in Sicily.

90 Was the Tarentum incident of 272 narrated by Philinus as an example of friendly aid offered by Carthage to Rome, only to provide welcome ammunition to Roman annalists later on for combating his treaty? One wonders.

91 This second point also in Täubler, 274. Pol. is concerned as much with the details as with the existence of the treaties, as his emphasis on the references to Sicily shows (3. 23. 5, 26. 14) — and the fact that he writes τα⋯τ(α) ἠγνόει, not ταύτας ἠ. (26. 2), even though τ⋯ν συνθηκ⋯ν precedes at 26. 1.

92 That Philinus misconstrued the second or third Polybian is naturally the view of those who agree with Pol.'s refutation. Cf. n. 6 above.

93 On the date of Philinus' work, and thus life, see Laqueur, , RE xix. 2191–2Google Scholar; Walbank, , CQ (1945), 4–5, 11–12Google Scholar, and Comm., i. 65; La Bua, 233–79 — but, following Laqueur, 2190, he also wants Philinus to have covered the Mercenary War of 240–237 (see Walbank's comments cited above, n. 48).

I should like to thank the Editors of Classical Quarterly for their friendly and helpful advice on improving this paper.