^{page 97 note 1} C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 73–89; this article gives a history of the problem and a bibliography up to 1943.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} For example by A. H. McDonald, O.C.D. s.v. ‘Polybius’; Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 220–150 B.C. (1951), 247 ff. Dr. McDonald, to whom we are indebted for discussion of the problem, is now in substantial agreement with the view put for ward in this paper.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 3} We omit authors only incidentally concerned with Polybius, such as Sinclair, T. A., History of Greek Political Thought (1952), 269–75;Google ScholarSabine, G. H., A History of Political Theory, 3rd ed. (1951), 140 f.Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa (1948–1949), i. 193, 205, 269, ii. 98, 102, 138;Google ScholarOilier, M., Le mirage spartiate, ii (1943), 125–60.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} Storie, interpret, in ling, ital., ii (1949), pp. i-xxxi;Google Scholar cf. Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, iii. 1 (1916), 205–9.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 5} Hermes, lxxxi, 1953, 296–302, ‘Schichten im 6. Buch des Polybios’.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 6} Polibio (1949): see especially pp. 33–78. Mioni dates the publication of all Book 6 before 146, while admitting the possibility of two stages in composition before that date.

^{page 97 note 7} Rh. Mus. xciv, 1951, 157–79, ‘Die Entstehung des polybianischen Geschichts-werkes’. Erbse dates the whole work long after 146.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 8} Mεταβολ⋯ πολιτει⋯ν (1949), passim, but especially pp. 180–228 (with Appendix V); this work contains a useful criticism of Pöschl, V., Römischer Stoat u. gr. Staatsdenken bei Cicero (1936). It does not concern itself with the date of composition.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 9} Ziegler, K., R.E. xxi (1952), s.v. ‘Poly bios (1)’, cols. 1440–1578, especially 1489–1500. This article gives a useful survey and bibliography without making any new contributions to the problem of Book 6.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 10} Despite the arguments of C.Q. xxxvii, 1943. 73 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} The basis of study is still De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, iii. 1 (1916), 201–19Google Scholar (with earlier bibliography). Two important articles are those of M. Holleaux (p. 100, n. 1, below) andM. Gelzer (p. 102, n. 1, below). The most recentaccounts are in Mioni, , op. cit., 33–48Google Scholar; Ziegler, , op. cit., cols. 1474–1500.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} Cf. 3. 1. 4–6; and for the extension 4. 1; 4. 6; 4. 12–15. 6.

^{page 98 note 3} Phil. lxxii, 1913, 465–83.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 4} In 31. 12. 12, dealing with the escape of Demetrius I Soter of Syria from Rome in 162, Carthage is mentioned as still in existence; this Sanctis, De, op. cit., 202 f.Google Scholar, shows to be best explained on the hypothesis that 31. 11–15 was a contemporary memorandum later incorporated in the narrative (cf. Thommen, , Hermes, xx, 1885, 229–30). 31. 21. 3 is irrelevant.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 5} op. cit., 170 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 6} 2. 37. 7–8; cf. 4. 30. 5; 31. 3 ff.; 73. 6 ff.; 5. 106. 4.

^{page 98 note 7} 1. 73. 4; 6. 52. 1–3; 56. 1–3; 9. 9. 9–10; 14. 10. 5; 15. 30. 10; on 31. 12. 13 see n. 4 above. On 12. 25, which points to composition before 146, see Walbank, , C.R. lix, 1945, 39–42Google Scholar; Galbiati, , Defontibus M. Tulli Ciceronis (1916), 447–8.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 1} Op. cit., 170 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} Jacoby, , F.G.H. 70 F. 149 (Strabo 10. 4. 16) and notes ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 3} Erbse, , op. cit., 172.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} Cf. App. Lib. 92; 134; Zon. 9. 26; Livy, per. 47. 48: Florus, 1. 31. 7; Oros. 4. 22. 2.

^{page 99 note 5} Cf. Griffith, G. T., C.H.J. v, 1935, 1–14.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 6} On the problem of the Carthaginian fleet between the Second and Third Punic Wars see Gelzer, , Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 267Google Scholar (= Vom römischen Stoat, i (1943), 84–85); Scullard, , op. cit., 288–9.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 7} Op. cit., 172 ‘Diese anschauliche, der Bindung an eine Zeitstufe entzogene Verwendung des Verbums ist aber bei Polybius nicht auf die Synkrisis beschränkt.’ He applies it to 1. 73.4; 14. 10. 5; 15. 30. 10; ind 31. 12. 11 f.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 8} See 9. 9. 9–10, a passage not considered by Erbse.

^{page 99 note 9} R.E.A. lxii, 1940, 12, n. 2; 14, n. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 10} See Svoboda, , op. cit., 469 ff.Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, op. cit., 204 ff. The passages are 3. 21, 9 ff. (Carthaginian treaties); 4. 30. 5 (on an Acarnanian alliance: 5. 106. 8 might be linked with this passage); 4.31. 3–33. 12 (war not the worst of evils; Arcadia and Messenia should combine against Sparta); 4. 73. 6–74. 8 (Elis should resume her asylia). They point to publication a little before the last troubles flared up in Greece.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} R.E.G. xxxvi, 1923, 480–98Google Scholar (= Études, i, 445–62Google Scholar). The suggestion that 5. 88–90 is in fact displaced from immediately after 4. 56 (De Foucault, J., Rev. Phil. xxvi, 1952, 47–52Google Scholar) involves too many assumptions to be convincing; and had the digression occurred here, Polybius must have introduced it some what differently.

^{page 100 note 2} Cf. Nissen, H., Rh. Mus. xxvi, 1871, 260.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 3} Op. cit., 36 ff.Google Scholar Already in Hermes, xxxi, 1896, 519 ff.Google Scholar, K.J. Neumann had argued that Polybius' request to his readers to treat any honest mistakes charitably (16. 20. 5 ff.) indicated the prior publication of Books 1–15 before [46: but this is a false conclusion.

^{page 100 note 4} ‘In esilio e in patria’: op. cit. 38. But if we can accept Nissen's hypothesis op. cit., 271) that Polybius accompanied Scipio to Spain in 151, and went on with Scipio to Africa to visit Masinissa, who died in 149–8 (cf. 9. 25. 4), he can scarcely have been back in Rome before 150; and in the autumn of that year the exiles returned to Greece (Paus. 7. 10. 12; cf. Plut. Cato Mai. 9; Nissen makes it September 150). If the return is put in 151 (Benecke, , C.A.H. viii, 302;Google ScholarScullard, , op. cit., 239), it must be before Aemllianus' departure from Spain, which hardly fits Pausanias: ⋯κκαιδεκάτῳ ὕστερν ἔτει the deportation in 167.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 5} Cf. Laqueur, , Hermes, xlvi, 1911, 180–4.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 6} Leo, F., Gesch. der röm. Lit. i (1913), 326, n. 1, thinks this occurred when a posthumous edition of the whole of the Histories superseded the original books, whereas Laqueur, loc. cit., associates the loss with the transference of the text from scroll to codex.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} On Ch. 18 see below, p. 105.

^{page 101 note 2} In Phil. Woch. 1930, 1182, in a review of Wilsing, Aufbau u. Quellen von Cicero's Schrift ‘de re publico’, Philippson argues that when in Cicero, De rep. 2. 11. 22, Laelius is made to say that Scipio's argument (which exhypothesi draws largely on Polyb. 6) is a nova ad disputandum ratio, quae nusquam est in Grae-corum libris, this implies that in 129, the dramatic date of the dialogue, Polybius 6 was not yet published. Such precision would indeed be remarkable in the de re publico, a work in which Cicero was ‘écrivant près de trois quarts de siecle apres ces événements, n'ayant nullement la prétention de faire ceuvre historique et ne ressentant jamais la hantise de l'exactitude du détail chrono-logique’ (Aymard, A., Mélanges geographiques Faucher (1948), 37Google Scholar; for some such chronological errors cf. Bilz, K., Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (1936), 43, n. 40.Google Scholar) Indeed Laelius' remark is rather a warning against trying to reconstruct Polybius' archaeologia too mechanically from Cicero, as is done by Taeger, F. (Die Archäologie des Polybios (1922)Google Scholar; contra Pöschl, V., op. cit. 42–99). On the relationship between the two works see below, pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 3} Polyb. 39. 2. 1–3 (= Strabo 8. 6. 28) shows him present at Corinth a little after its capture; and cf. 39. 3–5.

^{page 101 note 4} Scala, Von, Studien des Polybios, i (1890), 159 ff.Google Scholar, argues that Polybius developed from a rationalist position to one of cautious acceptance of τύχη Cuntz, , op. cit., 44 ff.Google Scholar sees the development as one from belief to incredulity; cf. Sanctis, De, op. cit., iii. 1. 213–15:Google Scholar τύχη is merely a convenient formula for dramatizing the fortuitous occurrence of certain facts and incidents. See further Walbank, , C.Q. xxxix, 1945, 6–7Google Scholar; Mioni, , op. cit., 140–5Google Scholar (a good analysis, which can be criticized mainly for attempting to sub sume irreconcilable concepts under a single definition); Ziegler, , op. cit., cols. 1532–43.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 5} Scala, Von (op. cit. passim and especially 325–33)Google Scholar argues for a conversion to Stoicism; cf. Susemihl, , Gesch. d. gr. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii. 110, n., for a list of assumed Stoic insertions in Books 2–5.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 6} Supported by Ziegler, K., op. cit., cols. 1453 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 7} Convenient résumé in Sanctis, De, op. cit., iii. 1. 209 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Mioni, , op. cit., 44–46.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 8} These are: 3. 4. 5 (the revised plan); 3. 32. 1 (reference to 40 books and the fall of Carthage); 3. 37. 11 (the part of Europe washed by the Outer Sea has only recently come under our notice: probably a reference to the campaign of D. Junius Brutus Callaecus in 138/7: cf. Cuntz, , op. cit., 34–37);Google Scholar 3. 39. 6–8 (reference to the Via Domitia, constructed in 120. This passage forms a crux: cf. Cuntz, , op. cit., 20–27;Google ScholarSanctis, De, op. cit., iii. 1. 212–13.Google Scholar A posthumous insertion by the editor is not impossible; but there seems no reason but the date to question the authenticity of the passage. De Sanctis observes that the road between Nice and Marseilles was laid down by Q. Opimius, the consul of 154; and Mioni, , op. cit., 46,Google Scholar follows him. But Polybius is speaking of the road from Marseilles, or the Rhône, to Emporiae); 3. 57–59 (forms a whole and is probably late: cf. 57. 4: Greek men of action now relieved from the ambitions of a military or political career: this must have been written after 146; 59. 7: Polybius' voyage on the Outer Sea, probably after the sack of Carthage, cf. 34. 15. 7 = Pliny, N.H. 5. 9); 3. 61. n; 86. 2 (probably after 133 since it implies the Rubicon frontier, not that of the Aesis; Cuntz, , op. cit., 27–34Google Scholar, argues convincingly for attributing this change to Tiberius Gracchus); 10. 11. 4 (autopsy of New Carthage, probably visited 151/0); 12. 2. 153. 1–6 (on the lotus, and on Africa: these passages suggest that Polybius had already visited the country; but whether this is also true of Corsica (3. 7–4. 4) is uncertain. We know of no visit of Polybius to this island); 12. 27ff. (stress on αὐτοπάθεια a and reference to Odysseus' wanderings date this after 151, and probably after 146: cf. Class, et med. ix, 1948, 171 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} Polyb. 2. 21. 8 has been ignored; it can be satisfactorily explained without the assumption of a late insertion (see below, p. 103, n. 1). The date of the Achaean chapters 2. 37–70 has recently been questioned by Gelzer, , Hermes, lxxv, 1940, 27–37Google Scholar (cf- Abh. preuss. Ak. 1940, No. 2, pp. 32), who argues that they were a late insertion made after 146. His arguments (partially accepted by Ziegler, , op. cit., 1476Google Scholar) cannot be discussed in detail here; but it should be noted that they fail to explain 2. 37. 8 ff., a passage clearly written before 146 (since it implies the continued existence of the Achaean League), but also clearly part of the Histories, and not explicable as borrowed from some supposed juvenile work dealing with Achaea. The hypothesis of Cardona, , op. cit., i (1948), pp. xcvi, n. 1, Ixxiii-lxxiv, that such a work was written before Polybius came to Rome, is not based on any evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} See below, pp. 108 ff.

^{page 102 note 3} See especially 3. 7; 10. 6–14; 18. 5–8. In 10. 6–14 Polybius describes Lycurgus' mixed constitution set up ‘thanks to the principle of reciprocity’ is Reiske's emendation for the meaningless ⋯ντιπλοίας of the manuscript. Pöschl, 52–54, n. 21, has translated ⋯ντιπλοίας as ‘luffing to’, i.e. sailing into the wind to meet a sudden squall. But Greek and Roman craft were not capable of sailing closehauled to windward, without which luffing to is impossible. On 18. 5–8 see below, p. 105.

^{page 102 note 4} The idea of decay is stressed in 4. 11–13; 9. 11–14; 51. 3–8; 57. All these passages specifically envisage a decline in the Roman constitution.

^{page 103 note 1} Op. cit., 85–86.Google Scholar The description (2. 21. 8) of Flaminius' land-law as ⋯ρχηγòν … τ⋯ς ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ χεῖρον το⋯ δήμου διαστροφ⋯ς had been associated with the Gracchi by Ed. Meyer, and his view was widely followed; but it is probable that in this passage Polybius has in mind the outburst of popular assertiveness associated with Flaminius' career, which ended in the fiasco of the double dictatorship of Fabius and Minucius, and the election of such leaders as Flaminius and Varro who, at Trasimene and Cannae, were responsible, in the eyes of the Senate, for bringing Rome within an inch of ruin. It is clear that Polybius exaggerated the role of the tribunate from the time of Cannae onwards (cf. 3. 87. 8 πλ⋯ν τ⋯ν δημάρχων), and his belief in Flaminius' maleficent role may help to explain the strange remarks on the tribunate to be found in 6. 16. 3–5. But there is no necessary connexion between the remark on Flaminius and the Gracchan revolution.

^{page 103 note 2} Op. cit., 86:Google Scholar the view is that of Kornemann, , Phil. Ixxxvi, 1931, 180 ff.Google Scholar, and is rightly rejected by Mioni, , op. cit., 63;Google Scholar cf. Oilier, , op. cit., 158–9.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 3} Schmekel, , Philosophic der miltleren Stoa, 4–7, puts it in 144–142;Google ScholarLaqueur, , op. cit., 223–49,Google Scholar after 142; Susemihl, , op. cit., ii. 86Google Scholar towards 140; Cuntz, , op. cit., 77,Google Scholar between 138 and 132; while Svoboda, , Phil. Ixxii, 1913, 477,Google Scholar and Kornemann, , Phil. Ixxxvi, 1931, 183,Google Scholar suggest a date earlier than 149. Cichorius, , Rh. Mus. lxiii, 1908, 220 ff.Google Scholar, argues that Panaetius was present in the Third Punic War; but Pohlenz, R.E. ‘Panaitios’ (1949), 422, is non-committal (‘eher vor als nach 146’).

^{page 103 note 4} Cf. Reitzenstein, , Gött. Nachr. 1917, 406 ff.Google Scholar; Pohlenz, R.E. ‘Panaitios’, col. 423.

^{page 103 note 5} Cf. Pliny, , N.H. 33. 150;Google Scholar Veil. Pat. 2. 1. I; Floras, i. 33. 1; 34. 18; Orosius, 5. 8. 2.

^{page 103 note 6} Catiline, 10. 1; Jug. 41; cf. Hist. 1. 11; I. 12. See Gelzer, , Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 271 ff. (= Vom römischen Staat, i. 93).Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 7} Plut. Cato mai. 27. 3 f. See further C.Q. xxxvi, 1943, 87Google Scholar, n. 5. On the thesis that Rome's decline followed on her conquest of the world see Bikerman, , R.E.L. xxiii, 1946, 150;Google ScholarGelzer, , Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 273 ff.Google Scholar; Aymard, , Mélanges de la société toulousaine d'éludes classiques, ii, 1948, 109, n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 8} Plut. Cato mai. 27.2 f.

^{page 104 note 1} Loc. cit., 101–20.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} His father Aemilius Paullus struck a similar note after the defeat of Perseus; cf. 29. 20. 1–4; Plut. Aem. 27.

^{page 104 note 3} Gelzer, , Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 294. The story in Orosius (5. 8. i), if it is more than a piece of rhetorical embroidery, shows merely that in 133 some people at Rome, including perhaps Aemilianus, recognized the importance of concordia; nothing more.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 4} Gelzer, ibid. 292; Skard, E., Euergetes Concordia (Oslo, 1932), 76.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 5} Plutarch's excuse that Aemilius acted παρ⋯ τ⋯ν αὑτο⋯ φύσιν ⋯πιεικ⋯ κα⋯ χρηστ⋯ οὖσαν (Aem. 30. 1) is facile and unconvincing (cf. Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, iv. 1, 350,Google Scholar n. 300). For Aemilianus' ready imitation of his father's cruelty, see Livy, , per. 51Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, op. cit., iv. 2 (1953), 346, n. 1003.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 6} Plut. Cato mai. 27. 4; in Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 298Google Scholar (= Vom römischen Stoat, i. 111–12), Gelzer rightly identifies the policies of Cato and Aemilianus.

^{page 104 note 7} Thus, in 6. 50. 3 it is accounted a merit in the Roman constitution that it is better adapted to conquest than that of Sparta.

^{page 104 note 8} Loc. cit., 109–10.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 9} 6. 57. 5.

^{page 104 note 10} 31. 25. 6.

^{page 105 note 1} Cf. 6. 18. 2:

^{page 105 note 2} Cf. 35. 6. 1–4 = Plut. Cato mai. 9. It does not, of course, follow that Cato accepted the implications of Polybius' theories on the state.

^{page 105 note 3} 36. 9.

^{page 105 note 4} Diod. 32. 2 (cf. 4): See further Gelzer, , Phil. lxxxvi, 1931, 290 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 5} C.H.J. viii, 1946, 127–8.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} It does not affect our argument if Polybius has taken over this criticism from Philinus (C.Q. xxxix, 1945, 13).Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 2} 6. 56. 1 ff.

^{page 106 note 3} In 1. 71. 8 Polybius applies the expression to the First Punic War (from the point of view of Carthage); but the coincidence in phrase is not to be pressed, for he cannot be thinking of so early a date here. Dr. A. H. McDonald has reminded us that an annalistic tradition (Livy 39. 6) makes the introduction of luxury at Rome the aftermath of Manlius Vulso's Galatian expedition of 189–188.

^{page 106 note 4} Plut, . Cat. mai. 19. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 5} On Cato's censorship see Scullard, H. H., op. cit., 152 ff.: ‘the last real attempt of the old-fashioned Romans to re-establish a more austere manner of life in the face of the social and moral decline which was resulting from Rome's expansion in the Mediterranean world and her contacts with the East.’Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 106 note 7} Cf. Pöschl, , op. cit. 64–65. Polybius quotes Cato's criticisms of Roman morals in 31. 25. 5; and compare Livy 34. 4. 2: ‘duo- bus vitiis, avaritia et luxuria, civitatem laborare, quae pestes omnia magna imperia everterunt’.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 8} 3. 118. 9–12.

^{page 106 note 9} 3. 2.6; 118. 9–12; 5. 111. 10.

^{page 106 note 10} For example, the position of the Senate inside Italy as described in 6. 13. 4–5; the development of the system of sending senatorial legati, 6. 13. 6; the Senate's reception of royal embassies, 6. 13. 9; the account of the publicani (identified with the ‘People’) 6. 17. On the other hand, some features are true for 216 but not for 150: e.g. the reference in 6. 16. 3 to the People's passing of legislation detrimental to the Senate must refer back to the time of Flaminius (cf. 2. 21. 7–8: above, p. 103, n. 1). The same is true of his account of the tribune's position as the servant of the people: 6. 16. 3–5. Many of these discrepancies seem to spring from the schematic character of the exposition in this book.

^{page 107 note 1} 6. 11. 13; 12. 10.

^{page 107 note 2} 6. 58. 1.

^{page 107 note 3} 6. 11. 10.

^{page 107 note 4} 1. 1. 5: with Polybius indicates the history as a whole, with Book 6. See C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 76, n. 2Google Scholar for criticism of Zancan, , Rend. 1st. Lombardo, lxix, 1936, on this score.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 5} 6. 2. 3; 8. 2. 3; 39.8. 7.

^{page 107 note 6} Cf. 3. 4. 4: there is no reason to think that such judgements would be adverse to Rome. The accounts of the Third Punic War, the destruction of the pseudo-Philip in Macedon, and the Achaean War, are all given from the Roman point of view and there is no doubt where Polybius' sympathies lie; cf. 36. 17. 13–15 (support of pseudoPhilip is ); 38. 1. 5 (Carthage gave posterity ‘some ground, however slight’, for defending her, the Greeks gave none); 4. 1–9 (duty of the historian to speak out on the faults of the Greeks); 7. 1–8. 15 (word-lessness of Hasdrubal: the Greeks and Carthaginians alike in their leaders); and his account of the Achaean War and its aftermath in Books 38 and 39.

^{page 108 note 1} 6. 2. 8; 3. 2; 4. 11–35; 9. 10–14; 10. 2, 6, 12–14; 57. 2–4, 5–9.

^{page 108 note 2} 6.4. 11–13; 9. 11–14; 43.2; 51.3–8; 57.

^{page 108 note 3} 6. 3. 5–9. 14.

^{page 108 note 4} 6. 3. 7f.; 10.

^{page 108 note 5} 6. 11a; cf. 4. 13; 9. 13 f.; 57. 10. There is no ancient authority for this convenient term.

^{page 108 note 6} 6. 11. 11–18. 8;cf. 43–57.

^{page 108 note 7} See pp. 102 ff.

^{page 108 note 8} Laqueur, R., Polybios (1913), 223 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 9} For some of the suggested divisions of the book, see C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 79 ff., 83 f.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} The subject-matter of what was the bulk of the sixth book is indicated by these remarks—the discussion of the Roman constitution from ch. 11 onwards, and the archaeologia, now almost entirely lost.

^{page 109 note 2} Both at 6. 4. 12 f. and 9. 12 f. the prime (⋯κμ⋯) of the Roman constitution is referred to. While this need not mean more than the middle stage of the biological pattern (as described above, p. 108, and again below, pp. 110 ff.), it will be seen that the Roman ⋯κμ⋯ is the mixed constitution-cf. 6.57.10, 58. 1, referring back to the description of the μικτ⋯, 11 ff.; and below, pp. 116 ff.

^{page 109 note 3} The words occur at 6. 10. 2, and refer to the anacyclosis described in the preceding chapters.

^{page 110 note 1} Laqueur, , op. cit., 245.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} See 6. 2. 8 and 3. 2.

^{page 110 note 3} Zancan, L., Rend. 1st. Lombardo, lxix, 1936, 499 ff.Google Scholar, cf. C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 73–75. For the idea of decadence, see below, p. 116, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 4} 6.4. 11–13; 9. 11–14; 57. 4.

^{page 110 note 5} 6. 43. 2; 51. 3–8.

^{page 110 note 6} 6. 43. 2; indeed, De Sanctis thought the mere mention of the biological pattern a sufficient cause for removing to the second draft chs. 43–44: against this, see C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} Early monarchy 6. 5. 4; kingship 5. 10; 6. 1; 7. 1 (tyranny 7. 8); aristocracy 8. 1 (oligarchy 8. 5); democracy 9. 3 (ochlocracy 9. 7).

^{page 111 note 2} 6. 7. 8 , change to aristocracy; 8. 5 change to democracy; 9. 7 (9)

^{page 111 note 3} 6. 4. 12 , 5. 4 , 10 , 6. 12

^{page 111 note 4} 6. 7. 8; 8. 5; 9. 9.

^{page 111 note 5} 6. 4. 11, Paton's trans.

^{page 112 note 1} 6. 9. 11, Paton's trans.

^{page 112 note 2} 6. 9. 12–14, cf. 4. 13.

^{page 112 note 3} Above, p. 107.

^{page 112 note 4} p. 110.

^{page 112 note 5} 6. 10. 2 and 6; see above, p. 109.

^{page 112 note 6} 6. 10. 11 . Polybius uses the word to denote the essence of the Spartan constitution at its best. This appears to be Ephorus' idea of Sparta and it is fully explained at 6. 46. 7, 48. 2, 3, and 5.

^{page 112 note 7} 6. 10. 2

^{page 112 note 8} 6. 10. 2 referring to the anacyclosis; 10. 2 f. Lycurgus' inference ; 10. 6 .

^{page 113 note 1} 6. 10. 7 There is of course no suggestion of absolute permanence; Cf. 10. 11 .

^{page 113 note 2} 6. 10. 12–14.

^{page 113 note 3} The various propositions are stated above, p. 108.

^{page 113 note 4} For Polybius' warnings see 6. 9. 13; and 57.

^{page 113 note 5} Meyer, , Rh. Mus. xxxvii, 1882, 622–3;Google ScholarSanctis, De, op. cit., ii. 41, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 6} 6. 3. 3 and 11. 4.

^{page 113 note 7} 6. 10. 14.

^{page 113 note 8} 6.9. 13 .

^{page 113 note 9} 6. 11. 1 f., cf. 57. 10 and 51. 5. See below, pp. 116 ff.

^{page 113 note 10} Cicero, , De rep. 2. 3 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 11} Taeger, , op. cit.;Google ScholarPöschl, , op. cit., 50 ff. (see above, p. 101, n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} Cicero, , De rep. 2. 62 f.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} 6. 11. 1.

^{page 114 note 3} Meyer, , op. cit., 623 ff.Google Scholar, Taeger, , op. cit., 100.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 4} Fabius Pictor, according to Gelzer, , Hermes, lxix, 1934, 50, n.Google Scholar; but a recent writer is rather more sceptical—see Bung, P., Q. Fabius Pictor, der erste römische Annalist (Cologne thesis, 1952), 198 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 5} For the deliberative function of the aristocracy, see below, p. 118.

^{page 114 note 6} 6. 11. .

^{page 115 note 1} There was, then, some sound sense in Taeger's suggestion, based on Cicero, that Polybius conceived of Roman history as the evolution of a μικτ⋯ within the cycle of constitutions (op. cit., 109). But he spoilt his case by ascribing to Polybius Cicero's mixed kingship and mixed aristocracy. There is no reason to assume that Polybius combined μικτ⋯ and anacyclosis in the same way as Cicero. On the contrary, Polybius' harping on the ‘natural’ character of Roman history (as explained below, p. 121) would make him wish to draw attention to the likeness between the stages of Roman history and those of the anacyclosis with its simple, and ‘unmixed’, constitutions. If this is so, Pöschl's criticism of Taeger, (op. cit., 50 ff.)Google Scholar would seem to be justified in some details, but does not take account of the merits of Taeger's case. Ryffel, H., op. cit., 183, n. 343, is fairer as regards Taeger, but is obscure on the question of Rome's anacyclosis.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} See above, pp. 109 f.

^{page 115 note 3} The additional constitution, the régime of force in the pre-social (or post-social) monarchy, is not a πολιτεία in the technical sense of Greek political theory. It lacks a παρέκβασις and its sole purpose is to close the gulf fixed between the pre-constitutional and the constitutional stages of society. If this point is observed, the chronological inference from the confusion of six and seven forms, C. Q. xxxvii, 1943, 79,Google Scholar need not in fact be drawn. The same explanation, mutatis mutandis, applies to the meaning attached to the term μόναρχος in this, seventh, constitution (ibid.). This special usage was bound to clash with the more usual employment of the word, but is restricted to a single context and, probably, taken over from Polybius' source.

^{page 116 note 1} Zancan, L., op. cit. (above, p. 110, n. 3),Google Scholar 508, has charged Polybius with legerdemain in indiscriminately applying to history the logical anacydosis and the biological, or ‘organic’, pattern—two different concepts of political life. But Polybius cannot be fairly charged with hiding what he deliberately asserted, namely, the approximation of the two. Nor is it fair to say, as was asserted both by Zancan and by Mioni, E. (Polibio, 69 f.)Google Scholar, that owing to its schematic, circular form there is no place for decay in the anacyclosis. Three stages of decline are clearly envisaged within the cycle—that is, tyranny, oligarchy, and mob rule issuing into the dictatorship of brute force.

^{page 116 note 2} See above, p. 111.

^{page 117 note 1} Cicero, , De rep. 1. 46 and 56–69.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Ryffel, H., op. cit., 216.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} For democracy in the Achaean League, see 2. 41. 5; for a similar problem in Macedonia, 31. 2. 12.

^{page 117 note 4} The passages in Books 2 and 31 contain, in fact, a more modern, Hellenistic, usage of the word democracy. Independence from monarchic rule seems to be the main point—see Larsen, J. A. O., C.P. xl, 1945, 88 ff.Google Scholar, and Sinclair, T. A., op. cit., 272.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 5} Here the problem of Polybius' sources has some relevance to our discussion—but this is beyond the scope of our paper.

^{page 117 note 6} See above, n. 2, and, especially, Cicero, , op. cit., 1. 69:Google Scholar ‘ex tribus primis generibus longe praestat mea sententia regium, regio autem ipsi praestabit id quod erit aequatum et temperatum ex tribus optimis rerum publicarum modis’.

^{page 118 note 1} 6. 12. 3) ‘the consuls refer urgent business to the Senate for deliberation’. The reference of 51 to the μικτ⋯ and the connexion with 12 and 13 is stated by Taeger, , op. cit., 112 f.Google Scholar, and reaffirmed by Pöschl, , op. cit., 61.Google Scholar Unfortunately they also offer much inconclusive speculation about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ μικταί and about an acme within a mixed constitution.

^{page 118 note 2} The acme of a constitution is mentioned at 6. 4. 12 and at 9. 12—that is, in the introduction and the epilogue of the anacyclosis—but not in the descriptive chapters 5–9. 9. Nor is there a clearly marked apogee in any of the constitutions of the cycle—see above, p. in. And though he stressed the ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ of each of the ‘good’ constitutions, Polybius was yet at pains to let the various forms merge into each other—see above, loc. cit.

^{page 119 note 1} 6. 9. 10 .

^{page 119 note 2} For example in the passages about Achaea, cited above, p. 117, n. 3; cf. C.Q. xxxvii, 1943, 89, n. a.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 3} 6. 43. 2.

^{page 119 note 4} Thus Pöschl, , op. cit., 51,Google Scholar as modified by Ryffel, , op. cit., 182 f.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} Aristotle, , Politics, 5. 12.Google Scholar 1316 ^a n, criticizing Plato, , Republic, 8. 546.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 6} For examples of this mode of reasoning in Book 6, see 43. 5: the success of Thebes is said not to be due to her constitution but to the personalities of her leaders; likewise Athens, ch. 44; at 10. 12 Sparta is said to have achieved her μικτ⋯ untaught by adversity, i.e. Lycurgus founded die Spartan μικτ⋯ and there was no prolonged sequence of constitutions. For the last passage, see below, p. 121, n. 3.

^{page 120 note 1} See above, pp. 113 ff.

^{page 120 note 2} Pöschl, , op. cit., 50 ff.Google Scholar, denies the relevance to Rome of the anacyclosis, and holds that Carthage, Sparta, and Rome are said to have had natural evolutions ‘weil diese Staaten sich in einem natiirlichen Lebens-process entwickelt haben’ (p. 54)—which is begging the question. Ryffel, , op. cit., 221 ff.Google Scholar, equally denies that in calling Roman history ‘natural’ Polybius was thinking of the anacyclosis. He maintains that the natural process to which Polybius here refers is die biological pattern behind the anacyclosis. This leaves unexplained why, then, growth and decline should be more natural in the case of Rome than in any other.

^{page 120 note 3} 6. 9. 13, citing 4. 13.

^{page 121 note 1} See pp. 112 f.

^{page 121 note 2} Neither at 6. io. 12–14 nor at 50. 2 is preference given to- Sparta or to Rome (50. 3 raises a different issue). Cato (ap. Cic. De rep. 2. 1) gave the preference to the Roman constitution as being the work of many men over a long period. But Polybius is merely contrasting a creation δι⋯ λόγοω with an empirical development. Hence there is no reason to assume that he is here arguing against Cato (so Oilier, , Le mirage spartiate, ii. 151Google Scholar), or indeed that he has Cato in mind at all.

^{page 121 note 3} The comparison is made at 6. 51–55; for our discussion see above, pp. 117 ff.

^{page 121 note 4} 6. 52. τ⋯ κατ⋯ μέρος.