^{page 309 note 1} Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae, xiii. I (Rome, 1947), 40 fGoogle Scholar. I wish to thank Prof. E. Badian for having many times discussed with me the problems of Metellus' career, and Prof. A. Mauersberger for making available to me a complete list of the Polybian passages containing the word but this is not to say that they share my views. [All dates are B.C.]

^{page 309 note 2} To simplify references, the following works are cited hereafter by author's name and page number only: Beloch, K.J., Romische Geschichte bis sum Beginn der punischen Kriege (1926)Google Scholar; Broughton, T.R.S., Magistrates of the Roman Republic, i (1951)Google Scholar; Corbett, J.H., ‘Rome and the Gauls 285–280 B.C.’, Historia xx (1971), 656–64Google Scholar; Forni, G., ‘Manio Curio Dentato uomo democratico’, Athenaeum xxxi (1953), 170–240Google Scholar; Mommsen, T., Romische Forschungen, ii (1879)Google Scholar; Salmon, E.T., ‘Rome's Battles with Etruscans and Gauls in 284–282 B.C.’, C.P. xxx (1935), 23–31Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, i (1957)Google Scholar.

^{page 309 note 3} Polyb. 2. 19. 7–20. 6. That Polybius followed Fabius Pictor, suggested first by Mommsen 365 ff., was contested by Bung, P., Q. Fabius Pictor: der erste römische Annalist (Diss., Cologne, 1950), 161 ff.Google Scholar, especially 175 ff.; but his arguments in favour of Cato have been demolished by Klotz, A. (Gnomon xxiv [1952], 132Google Scholar) and by Hanell, K. (Histoire et historiens dans l';antiqué [Fondation Hardt, Entretiens iv, 1956], 162 and 168 f.Google Scholar).

^{page 310 note 1} Polyb. 2. 19. 10: . This must mean still in the one year; cf. Mommsen 368; Forni 205; Walbank 189.

^{page 310 note 2} The grounds leading Corbett 660 f. to deny this are either unconvincing (below, pp. 310 f.) or confused (below, p. 316 n. 5).

^{page 310 note 3} Polyb. 2. 20. 1 gives no indication that the Boii made their first move in a different year, a fact which is rejected almost as often as it is remarked (cf. below, p. 321 n. i).

^{page 310 note 4} See further below, part IV.

^{page 310 note 5} Cf. Beloch 133 and 452; Salmon 29 and 31; Forni 205, n. 1; Walbank 188. The subject will be discussed in detail below, part V.

^{page 310 note 6} Degrassi, , op. cit. 40 f., 112, 428 f.;Google Scholar Broughton 188, n. 2; Corbett 659, n. 9a.

^{page 310 note 7} Corbett 659 f., 662, and 664, n. 16.

^{page 311 note 1} Degrassi, , op. cit. 40 f. and 44 f.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 2} See Polyb. 1. 24. 9; 3. 70. 7; 3. 106. 2; 9. 4. 5. Polybius uses the verb once of non-Romans (2. 2. 11); there too a properly constituted election is involved.

^{page 311 note 3} Livy, Epit. 11–12; Oros. 3. 22. 12–14; Augustine, CD. 3. 17 (these works clearly represent the Livian tradition: Hagendahl, H., Augustine and the Latin Classics, ii [1967], 650 ff.Google Scholar); Eutrop. 2. 10;Flor. 1.8.3; Frontin., Strat, 1. 2. 7 (writers who may readily be assumed here to have observed their common practice of following Livy or a Livian epitome, since their remarks fit perfectly well into the Livian scheme); Dio, frag. 38. 1–39. 1 and Zonar. 8. 2. 1 show only minor divergencies and-as in their accounts of the First Punic War (cf. Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, iii. I [1916], 238 ff.Google Scholar)-they too may be assumed here to have followed the Livian tradition; Dion. Hal. 19. 13. 1. For the sources which Livy himself used see Walsh, P. G., Livy (1961), 114ff.Google Scholar, and literature there cited; Dionysius' authorities are discussed by Schwartz, E., RE v (1905), 946 ffGoogle Scholar. Harris, W.V., Rome in Etruria and Umbria (1971), 79 fGoogle Scholar. exaggerates the divergencies between these sources.

^{page 311 note 4} Oros. 3. 22. 12–14 (whence the quotations); Livy, Epit. 12; cf. Augustine, CD. 3. 17.

^{page 312 note 1} Eutrop. 2. 10; Flor. i. 8. 3; Dion. Hal. 19. 13. 1; cf. Dio, frag. 38. 1.

^{page 312 note 2} Frontin., Strat. 1. 2. 7; Dion. Hal. 19. 13. 1; cf. below, part II.

^{page 312 note 3} Though the Fasti Capitolini record triumphs over the Etruscans under 281 and 280 (below, part III), they go unmentioned in all the literary sources. Not that this affects the date of the re-establishment of peace with the Gauls, to which alone-I think-the of Polyb. 2. 20. 5 refer (despite Harris, , op. cit. 83).Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 4} Praetorship after consulship: Broughton 130, n. 2; 150, n. 3; 188, n. 2. Ap. Claudius: Broughton 178; cf. Garzetti, A., ‘Appio Claudio Cieco nella storia politica del suo tempo’, Athenaeum xxv (1947), 216 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 5} Mommsen 367; cf. Beloch 133 and 452; Salmon 27f. Nothing can be made of trouble in the south. The Romans appear to have quarrelled with the Lucanians c. 285 (Livy, Epit. 11; Pliny, N.H. 34. 32; cf. Beloch 460 f.), and the defeat at Arretium certainly increased the unrest among the Lucanians, Bruttians, and Samnites-hence, no doubt, the talk of a ‘conspiracy’ between these peoples and the Gauls and Etruscans (Oros. 3. 22. 12; Eutrop. 2. 10; Augustine, CD. 3. 17; cf. Livy, Epit. 12). But Dio, frag. 39. 1 and Zonar. 8. 2. 1 carefully indicate that all members of this ‘conspiracy’ did not rebel at once. Actual warfare must have broken out in the south only in 282 (cf. Broughton 189 f.; Beloch 460 ff.; Forni 209).

^{page 312 note 6} Appian, Samn. 6 = Gall. 11.

^{page 313 note 1} Forni 209 f. For speculation on Appian's source see Schwartz, , RE ii (1896), 217 fGoogle Scholar. Harris, , op. cit. 80Google Scholar holds that Curius' disappearance from the later tradition is significant ‘only in Appian’. This misses the point; Dolabella clearly plays Curius' role as destroyer of the Senones in that tradition generally.

^{page 313 note 2} Witness C. Claudius in 180 and-perhaps-A. Manlius Vulso in 189 (respectively Broughton 388 and 361).

^{page 313 note 3} Cf. Mommsen 367.

^{page 313 note 4} Beloch 453 f.; Salmon 24.

^{page 313 note 5} Cf. Forni 208.

^{page 314 note 1} This explanation is favoured by Beloch 452 f., Salmon 28 ff., and Werner, R., Der Beginn der römischen Republik (1963), 93Google Scholar. In fact, it explains little (cf. Forni 208), and it implies a time-lag between Arretium and Vadimon whose existence has yet to be established. If we are to see Roman vanity at work in the annalistic tradition, it would be better discerned in a deliberate multiplication of Rome's enemies after Arretium, designed to emphasize Rome's skill in surviving their combined attentions (cf. above, p. 312, n. 5).

^{page 314 note 2} Polyb. 2. 19. 12; Beloch 452; Salmon 25.

^{page 314 note 3} Walbank 189; cf. Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, ii (1907), 358, n. 1 and 375.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} Corbett 659, n. 3.

^{page 314 note 5} Cf. Salmon, E.T., Samnium and the Samnites (1967), 264 and 268 f.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 6} See especially Salmon, , ‘Roman Expansion and Roman Colonization in Italy’, Phoenix ix (1955), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 314 note 7} Salmon 25; cf. Beloch 453 f.

^{page 314 note 8} Frontin., Strat. 1. 2. 7. There can be no doubt that the campaign of 282 is the subject; see Gundermann, G., ‘Quaestiones de Iuli Frontini Strategematon Libris’, Jahrb.f. class. Philol. Supb. xvi (1888), 353 f.Google Scholar; Beloch 454. What is more, the suggestion of Broughton 189 that Papus was the commander at Vadimon needlessly destroys the clear inter-relation between Frontinus and the accounts of Dionysius, Floras, and Eutropius.

^{page 315 note 1} Cf. Gundermann, loc. cit.; Beloch 454 f.; Forni 207, n. 4; Pfiffig, A.J., ‘Das Verhalten Etruriens im Samniterkrieg und nachher bis zum 1. Punischen Krieg’, Historia xvii (1968), 342Google Scholar, n. 117.

^{page 315 note 2} This prompted Beloch 453 to transfer Sena's foundation to Curius' third consulship in 274; there is no evidence to justify so drastic a step.

^{page 315 note 3} Salmon 26 f.

^{page 315 note 4} Polyb. 2. 20. 4. Salmon 27, n. 30 is a wholly specious attempt to circumvent this difficulty.

^{page 315 note 5} Frontin., Strat. 1. 2. 7; Dion. Hal. 19. 13. 1; Walbank 190.

^{page 315 note 6} One other correction is in any case required in the passage; the manuscripts give the consul's cognomen as ‘Paulus’, not ‘Papus’.

^{page 315 note 7} Salmon, , ‘The Coloniae Maritimae’, Athenaeum xli (1963), 25 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Harris, , Rome in Etruria and Umbria, 80.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 1} Balsdon, J.P.V.D., ‘Some Questions about Historical Writings in the Second Century B.C.’, C.Q.. N.s. iii (1953), 158 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} Cf. Salmon, , Roman Colonization under the Republic (1969), 115.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} This is not to say that the annalistic tradition credited Curius with Sena's foundation, although that view has been widely held since Mommsen 372 f. noted the link.

^{page 316 note 4} Salmon 30 attempts to connect with the northern war the statement of [Aurelius Victor], de vir. ill. 33. 3, that Curius tertio de Lucanis ouans urbem intromit. If this were accurate, the ovation would have to be set between 290 and 281, and probably between 285 and 283 (Münzer, , RE iv. 1842 f.)Google Scholar; but this is best seen as a confused reference to Curius' third triumph, over Pyrrhus (cf. Forni 207, n. 5). That the acta triumphalia count the triumph over Pyrrhus as Curius' fourth (Degrassi, , Inscr. Ital., xiii. 1. 74 f.Google Scholar) is surely an error in numeration (the literary sources declare it his third: Cicero, , Cato maior 55Google Scholar; Plut., , Cato cens. 2. 1Google Scholar; Apul., Apol. 17). And even if we were to allow Curius an extra triumph, there is no way in which it can be attached to the war under discussion here (Harris, despite, op. cit. 80 and n. 3Google Scholar); for as we have already seen, there is no way in which we can plausibly explain how Curius succeeded Metellus, be it in 284 or 283.

^{page 316 note 5} Corbett 661 f. argues that Curius' victory in Polybius should be equated with Dolabella's victory in the annalistic tradition (but not at Vadimon), and that Polybius' first Roman victory over the Boii at Vadimon is identical with the victory over the Senones which Appian credits to Domi-tius Calvinus. This would produce four battles in each tradition, if Appian could be considered a member of the later tradition. Since he is not (above, p. 313), the argument falls to the ground.

^{page 317 note 1} Mommsen 366; Walbank 188; cf. De Sanctis, , Storia dei Romani, ii. 375 f.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 2} The references are given above, p. 311, n. 3.

^{page 317 note 3} Cf. Mommsen 376. I cannot accept the suggestion of Werner, , Der Beginn der rön. Republik, 94, n. 3Google Scholar, ‘daβ bei den Späteren die Senones stellvertretend für die Galli überhaupt stehen’, so that in the accounts of Vadimon we are dealing ‘weniger um eine Sub-stituierung, sondern vielmehr um eine Subsumierung der Boii unter die Senones‘.

^{page 317 note 4} This motif is explicit in Florus, implied by Wolski, Dionysius J. (Historia v [1956], 33)Google Scholar suggests that the Senones' role in Rome's sack was a retrojection designed to justify the Romans' annihilating the tribe in 284/3. But for that the murder of the Roman envoys, fact or fiction, would have sufficed—and there is no cogent reason for thinking the murders fictitious (despite Beloch 454 and Salmon 31, n. 39).

^{page 317 note 5} Eutrop. 2. 10; Dio, frag. 39. 1 (cf. 38. 1–2); Zonar. 8. 2. 1.

^{page 318 note 1} Cf. Mommsen 373; Forni 212 f.; Wal-bank 190.

^{page 318 note 2} Cf. Bömer, F., ‘Naevius und Fabius Pictor’, S.O. xxix (1952), 38.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 3} De Sanctis, , Storia, ii. 377Google Scholar; Corbett 661. Peace-treaties: see Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum (1913), i. 81 ff.Google Scholar Wartime: Kornhardt, H., ‘Regulus und die Cannae-gefangenen’, Hermes lxxxii (1954), 85 ff.,Google Scholar especially 97 f.

^{page 318 note 4} Oros. 3. 22. 12; Appian, , Samn. 6Google Scholar = Gall. 11 (cf. Mommsen 364 f.).

^{page 318 note 5} Eutrop. 2. 10; Augustine, , CD. 3. 17Google Scholar; Dio, frag. 39. 1; Zonar. 8. 2. 1; Appian, 11. cc; Oros. 3. 22. 13.

^{page 319 note 1} Livy, , Epit. 11Google Scholar; Degrassi, , Inscr. Ital., xiii. i. 72 f. and 545Google Scholar; Beloch 451 and 454ff. Harris, Despite, Rome in Etruria and Umbria, 83,Google Scholar the mention of the suppression of trouble in Etruria to be found in Livy, , Epit. 13Google Scholar may readily be taken as a reference to Coruncanius' campaign.

^{page 319 note 2} Walbank 190, on the basis of Degrassi, loc. cit., and Dion. Hal. 19. 6. 2.

^{page 319 note 3} For Arretium's position and strength see Nissen, H., Italische Landeskunde, ii. 314 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} Polybius' interest in the Gauls is not, by itself, enough to explain the divergency; though this leads him to ignore the Roman campaigns against the Etruscans in 281– 280, it has not prevented him from mentioning their participation in the campaigns of Vadimon and Vetulonia.

^{page 320 note 2} In the Greek view, as Kiechle, F. has shown (Historia vii [1958], 129 ff.Google Scholar), one was supposed to treat a civilized opponent humanely, but had no such obligation toward a barbarian enemy.

^{page 320 note 3} Errington, R. M., ‘The Chronology of Polyblus' Histories, Books I and IF’, J.R.S. lvii (1967), 96 ff., especially 107 f.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 4} Errington, , op. cit. 101 f. and iosf.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 1} Mommsen 369; Beloch 133 f.; Bung, , Fabius Pictor, 169, n. 2;Google Scholar Walbank 189 f.; Werner, , Der Beginn, 94 ff.;Google ScholarErrington, , op. cit. 102 and 105;Google Scholar cf. Corbett 658. The only scholars to accept the idea of a two-year war are Niese, B. (Hermes xiii [1878], 404)Google Scholar and Forni (210 f.), and they think the years in question 285–284 and 284–283 respectively; neither view is convincing.

^{page 321 note 2} It will be suggested below that the envoys continued their work into the winter of 284/283.

^{page 321 note 3} The subject has been discussed by Magie, D., De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique uocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conuersis, i (Diss., Halle, 1904), 6 ff.,Google Scholar and by M. Holleaux, (1918), 45 ff.

^{page 322 note 1} The second of these passages is reprinted as 6. 18. 9 by Büttner-Wobst (whose Teubner text I have used throughout). Polybius uses the phrase of non-Romans at 5. 45. 6 and 46. 6.

^{page 322 note 2} If Polyb. 1. 57. 2 refers to a Roman (cf. Walbank 121), it may be included in this category. There are a further twelve passages in which he uses of military commanders without regard for their race (3.48. 1; 9. 8. 1359. 15.2; 10. 17.2; 10.32. 9 and 11; 11. 2. 5; 15. 15. 3; 18. 15. 9; 25. 1. 2; 34. 12. 12; frag. 63); and three fragments (95, 161, 235) are too brief to permit any decision on the meant.

^{page 322 note 3} For such distinctions as Polybius makes between see Holleaux, , op. cit. 45–50.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 4} Consuls: Book 1:7. 12; 11. 2; 16. 1 and 5; 17. 6; 18. 2; 20. 4; 24. 10; 26. 11; 27. 12; 28. 12; 29. 8; 36. 10; 39. 8 and 15; 40. 1; 41. 2 and 3. Book 2: 34. 3 and 6. Book 3: 41. 2; 61. 8; 70. 7; 106. 1. Book 5: 108. 10. Book 6: 15. 6; 19. 7. Book 9: 6. 7. Book 10: 32. 4. Book 21: 32. 13. Book 23: 1.8. Book 28: 13. 11; 16. 2. Book 29: 1. 1; 7. 4. Book 35:4. 14. Book 36: 3. 9; 6. 1. Proconsuls: Book 3: 99. 2; 106. 7. Book 9: 22. 3. Book 10: 6. 2; 36. 3. Book 30: 13. 1; 18. 1. Uncertain: Book 6: 15. 8; 15. 11; 39. 9.

^{page 322 note 5} Consul: Book 1: 11. 9; 21. 3 and 8; 25. 1 and 3; 31. 4 and 8; 34. 8, 10 and 12; 43. 1; 46.8; 49. 3; 50. 1; 51. 11:54. I; 59.8; 61.8. Book 2: 26. 2; 27. 3; 31. 3; 33. 7; 34. 14. Book 3: 18. 3; 19. 12; 45. 3; 49. 1; 61. 4; 68. 10 and 13; 88. 8; 116. 13. Book 6: 27. 1; 33. 12 (bis); 35. 2 and 3; 39. 2 and 6; 40. 2; 41. 2, 6, 7 and 9. Book 8: 35.9. Book 14:3.6. Book 18: 1. 8 and 12; 8. 4; 9. 7. Book 20: 9. 3 and 9; 10. 2 and 6. Book 21: 14. 7; 26. 1 and 5; 28. 18; 29. 8, 9, 11 and 14; 32. 8 and 10; 34. 5; 37. 1 and 2; 39. 1, 7 and 9. Book 27: 8. 1 and 6. Book 28: 12. 4; 13. 3. Book 29: 10.4. Book 35: 2. 1; 3. 2, 4 and 6; 54. 5. Book 38: 7. 6 and 1158.1,4 and 8. Book 39: 3. 10. Fragments: 74; no; 178. Proconsul: Book 3: 97. 2. Book 8: 35. 1; 37. 11. Book 9: 42. 1 and 5. Book 10:4. 5; 13. n; 15.9; 17. 6 and 8; 18. 12; 19. 4; 34. 1. Book 11: 23. 8; 24. 6; 26. 7; 27. 4, 5 and 6; 30. 3. Book 14: 2. 1157. 1 59. 1, 2 and 3. Book 15: 1.954. 4; 5. 4; 12. 4; 14. 1; 18. 8; 19. 1. Book 18: 27. 4; 36. 2. Book 21:4. 1; 41. 1 and 6; 44. 1; 46. 1. Book 30: 9. 17; 13. 11; 25. 1. Book 38: 20. 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Book 39: 6. 1. Uncertain: 6. 15. 6.

^{page 323 note 1} Since the praetor in question was A. Postumius Albinus, whom Polybius had no reason to admire (cf. Lehmann, G. A., Untersuchungen zur historischen Glaubwürdigkeit des Polybios [1967], 374 ff.Google Scholar), he may have had other motives for being precise about his title, e.g., to emphasize his inferior standing.

^{page 323 note 2} This confirms the view (found in Broughton 241, n. 11) that Cn. Scipio was a legatus pro praetore in 218: Polybius 3. 76. 1 terms him

^{page 323 note 3} Polyb. 7. 3. 1 (for 215) and 8. 3. 1 (for 214); no doubt Marcellus' superior status was also indicated in a passage now lost.

^{page 323 note 4} Cf. Jashemski, W. F., The Origins and History of the Proconsular and the Propraetorian Imperiwn to 27 B.C. (Diss., Chicago, 1950), 1 ff. and 100.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} Smith, R. E., Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army (1958), 11 f.Google Scholar This practice was noticed earlier by McDonald, A. H. (J.R.S. xliii [1953]) 143f.)Google Scholar, but he associated with it theories of Quellenforschmg which I cannot accept.

^{page 324 note 2} Livy, , Epit. 12Google Scholar; Oros. 3. 22. 13; Augustine, CD. 3. 17.

^{page 325 note 1} So, rightly, De Sanctis, , Storia, ii. 376;Google Scholar Beloch 454.