Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T06:42:28.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polybius, Aristaenus, and the Fragment ‘on Traitors’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Late in the campaigning season of 198 B.C., the Achaean League abandoned its traditional place within Macedon's Hellenic Symmachy and entered into war on the side of Rome against the Macedonian king, Philip V. The Achaean politician Aristaenus, strategos of the League in 199/198, played a crucial role in bringing about this reversal of policy. The strategic impact of the Achaean decision is not in doubt: the Macedonian political-military system in Greece was weakened, while the Romans and their allies gained a firm base in southern Greece from which to threaten the Macedonian homeland next summer. What has been in some question among scholars, however, is the extent to which the Achaean decision was controversial among Greeks in the second century, both in the 190s and later. It is the purpose of the present paper to re-examine this question, with particular attention being paid to Pol. 18.13–15: the famous discussion ‘On Traitors’ by the historian Polybius, himself an Achaean statesman of a later period. I will suggest that – contrary to current scholarly opinion – the discussion ‘On Traitors’ was evoked, precisely, by Polybius' reflections (and unease) about the behaviour of Aristaenus and the Achaean League in 198, behaviour which was, in fact, highly controversial.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , May 1987 , pp. 140 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1987

References

1 On the diplomacy of 225/224, cf. E. S. Gruen, ' Aratus and the Achaean Alliance with Macedon', Historia 21 (1972), 609–25.Google Scholar

2 For detailed discussion, cf. A. Aymard, Les Premiers rapports de Rome et de la confederation achaieme (198–189 av. J.-C.) (Bordeaux and Paris, 1938), 50–7Google Scholar

3 On Achaea's territorial expansion, cf. Aymard, PR (above, n. 2) 52. On the ancient testimony that the Achaeans were grateful (or ought to have been grateful) for the favours received from Macedon: 53–4.

4 Cf. R. M. Errington, Philopoemen (Oxford, 1969). 63–7.Google Scholar

5 Livy 31.25; cf. 32.21.10–11.Google Scholar

6 Aymard, PR 54.Google Scholar

7 On the importance to League politics of the narrow, ' Peloponnese-centred' point of view of the Achaeans, see now E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome n (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984), 445–6.Google Scholar

8 Errington, Philopoemen (above, n. 4), 85–6 notes the relationship between the Achaean mission to Rhodes and the Roman diplomatic initiative of spring 200. But to characterise the Achaean mission as 'anti-Roman' (86) is perhaps too strong: Rome to the Greeks in the autumn of 200 was not yet the overriding issue; Philip was. For Cycliadas' attitude toward Macedon, cf. Livy 32.19.2.Google Scholar

9 This seems a fair inference from Livy 32.5.3 and 19.2Google Scholar

10 Livy 32.19.2; cf. Pol. 18.1.2

11 See Livy 31.25.3; and Plut. Philop. 13.1 (Nabis' destructive raids on the Megalopolis area).Google Scholar

12 Heraea, Alipheira, and the Triphylia region (all promised to Achaea as early as 208), plus Orchomenus: for discussion, cf. Aymard, PR 57–61 (with the notes). Philip apparently initiated these concessions (cf. Livy 32.5.3–4) – but it will hardly have been unwelcome to Aristaenus that they occurred during his term of office.Google Scholar

13 Hence Aristaenus' dancing around this issue in his speech in autumn 198, and the reluctance of the Achaean damiurgoi - on legal grounds - even to bring the question of an alliance with Rome before the Achaean assembly: Livy 32.21.1–22.8 (discussed below). Note also the comments evidently made by the Macedonian envoy Cleomedon at that time (implied from Livy 32.21.5 and 11).

14 Cf. the slightly different comments of Aymard, PR 78–9.

15 On the importance of this incident for understanding the character of Achaean politics in 200–198, cf. Gruen, HWCR II (above, n. 7), 445 n. 35.Google Scholar

16 Errington, Philopoemen 72–5 and 81–7, sees Achaean politics between 200 and 198 as riven by Macedon's new war with Rome, and by stark conflict between a 'pro-Macedonian' and a 'pro-Roman' party. This seems too simple a picture. Errington mentions Cycliadas' role in the rejection of Macedon in 200 all too briefly (87), and does not note the swearing of Achaean allegiance to Macedon early in the strategia of Aristaenus. See the brief criticism of Errington's approach by Gruen (last note) - who himself misses the significance of the swearing of Achaean loyalty to Macedon early in 198. No doubt the effect of Cycliadas' absence after late 199 was to weaken the effectiveness of his faction, which certainly had a favourable view of Macedon (cf. Livy 32.19.2)–and hence (indirectly, though eventually crucially) to weaken Macedonian influence

17 On the military background to Flamininus' diplomacy with the Achaeans, cf. A. M. Eckstein, 'T. Quinctius Flamininus and the Campaign against Philip in 198 B.C.', Phoenix 30(1976), 127–41.

18 Elatiam obsidenti consult rei maioris spes adfulsit, Achaeorum gentem ab societate regia in Romanam amicitiam avertendi. Cycliadan principem factionis ad Philippum trahentium res expulerunt; Aristaenus, qui Romanis gentem iungi volebat, praetor erat.

19 Cf. The comments of M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grece et les monarchies hellenistiques au IIIe siecle av. J.C. (273–205) (Paris, 1921), 227–8, and in CAN vm.170; Aymard, PR 79 and n. 48.Google Scholar

20 Aymard (last note) suggests that Aristaenus had been in secret correspondence with Flamininus ever since the consul first arrived in Greece, but his hypothesis is based on the usual scholarly view that Flamininus was a philhellene who would have been attractive to many Greeks; against which, see Eckstein, 'Flamininus' (above, n. 17) passim. The threat posed by the nearby presence of Roman troops is a major theme in Aristaenus' speech to the Achaeans in Livy 32.21, and in Polybius' own comments on Aristaenus' policy at 18.13.8–10.

21 A parallel controversial case of Achaean diplomacy would be Aratus' secret negotiations with Antigonus Doson in the mid-220s, which win Polybius' approval but which Aratus himself preferred to leave out of his memoirs: see Pol. 2.47.6ff. and 50.5, with F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford, 1957), 246–7.Google Scholar

22 Note the sharp division among the damiurgoi at Livy 32.22.2/3. It is possible that Aristaenus himself cast the decisive vote allowing diplomacy to proceed: so Aymard, PR 81–2 with n. 51.

23 Cf. Aymard PR 82 and n. 53; also: Les Assemblies de la confederation achaienne (Paris and Bordeaux, 1938), 324Google Scholar

24 The speeches of the foreign ambassadors: Livy 32.19.6–13. For Cleomedon's emphasis on the Achaean oaths, cf. 32.21.5 and 11.

25 Cf. Pol. 18.13.8–10; note the comments here of Aymard, PR 91, and also 82 with n. 55.

26 For the legal situation, cf. Aymard, Assemblies (above, n. 23), 359–61 and 37Off; J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXI–XXXIII (Oxford, 1973), 210. For the political impact of Aristaenus' removal from the board, cf. Aymard, PR 91 and 94.

27 Cf. Aymard, PR 94.

28 Compare the tone of Livy 32.21 with Polybius' comments at 18.13.8.

29 Livy 32.21.7; 21.15; 21.17; 21.26–8; 21.32.

30 terrebat Nabis Lacedaemonius, gravis et adsiduus hostis (Livy 32.19.6).

31 Cf. esp. 32.21.28; also: 21.9; 11; 13.

32 Cf. esp. 32.21.9 and 28; also: 21.4 and 13.

33 ... Macedonum beneficiis el veteribus et recenlibus obligati erant (Livy 32.19.7); Aristaenus' own acknowledgement, in the Livian speech: 32.21.25.

34 On the illegality of the proposed Sicyon vote, cf. Aymard, PR 55 and 94; Errington, Philopoemen 224; Briscoe, Comm. (above, n. 26), 210.

35 If Aristaenus had still been able to cast a vote among the damiurgoi, presumably this crisis would not have occurred: the motion to put the proposal to the assembly would have been immediately carried by six to five. Cf. Aymard, PR 91 and 94–5. Meanwhile, the synkletos was soon to reach its legal time-limit for a session (Livy 32.22.4).

36 Note that both the name of the reluctant damiurgos and the name of his threatening father are preserved by Livy - who surely had no reason to care!

37 The versions of the last day at Sicyon preserved in the (evidently) non-Polybian traditions are even more emphatic than Livy concerning the contentiousness (and even violence) which surrounded the Achaean vote for the Roman alliance: App. Mac. 7; Paus. 7.8.1–2: Zon. 9.16. For discussion, cf. Aymard, PR 95 n. 58.

38 On the Argive secession, see Livy 32.25.1–11 (the sole ancient source). Recent modern discussions: J. Deininger, Der politische Widerstandgegen Rom in Griechenland, 217–86 v. Chr. (Berlin and New York, 1971), 46–7; J.-G. Texier, Nabis (Paris, 1975), 46–7.

39 The passage is obviously drawn from Polybian material, as was realised long ago: cf. H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Quellen der vierten undfiinften Dakade des Livius (Berlin, 1863), 241.

40 See, most recently, Deininger, Widerstand (above, n. 38), 43–6; Gruen, HWCR n.445.

41 Walbank, Comm. I (above, n. 21), 12. This is a direct response to the contrary position taken by C. Edson in AHR 47 (1942), 827

42 A. Aymard, 'Le fragment de Polybe "Sur les traitres" (xviii, 13–15)', REA 42 (1940), 15.

43 Aymard's position is all the more striking in view of his earlier, detailed analysis of the sharp political conflict which took place at Sicyon: PR 79–102.

44 For Megalopolis as Polybius' home town, cf. Suda, s.v. noXvfiios (and note Paus. 8.30.8). Cf. Walbank, Comm. 1.12.

45 The Megalopolitan departure from Sicyon in protest: Livy 32.22.10. On Antigonus Doson's favours to Megalopolis, cf. Aymard, PR 53 (with sources).

46 Cf. the excellent (but brief and general) comments of E. Gabba, 'Studi su Filarco: Le biografie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene", Athenaeum 35 (1957), 32 – which are usually ignored.

47 For the possible connections between Pol. 24.13.7 on the one hand, and Plut. Philop. 17.3 and Paus. 8.51.4 on the other, cf. F. W. Walbank. A Historical Commentary on Polybius m (Oxford, 1979), 266. That Pol. 24.13.7 constitutes a very harsh assessment of Aristaenus by Philopoemen is accepted by Errington, Philopoemen 225–6.

48 Pol. 22.9.1–12. On this incident, cf. the comments of G. A. Lehmann. Untersuchungen:ur historischen Glaubwiirdigkeit des Polybios (Munster, 1967), 198–9.

49 Note also Lycortas' strong words concerning Achaean independence before the Roman senate in winter 189/188 (Livy 38.32.6–8), and his bluntly anti-Roman speech in 184 (39.36–7, esp. 37.9). In the anti–Roman atmosphere leading up to the Achaean War of 146. Callicrates' public statues were replaced by those of Lycortas: Pol. 36.13.1–2.

50 Livy 41.24.14: nihil metus praesens ab Romanis sententias nostras inchnaret. This is obviously meant to be ironic.

51 Megalopolis' sufferings at the hands of Nabis: Plut. Philop. 13.1. Note the comments of Aymard, PR 111 n. 28.

52 On the negative connotation ofat Pol. 18.6.7 ('Abfall; Verrat'), cf. A. Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon i, 1 (Berlin, 1961), s.v, col. 203

53 Cf. E. S. Shuckburgh, The Histories of Polybius 11 (London and New York, 1889), loc. cit. - kept by A. Bernstein in the new edition, Polybius on Roman Imperialism (New York, 1980); W. R. Paton, Polybius: The Histories v (Cambridge, Mass., 1926), loc. cit.; D. Roussel, Polybe: Histories (Paris, 1970), loc. cit.; I. Scott-Kilvert, Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire (Harmondsworth, 1979), loc. cit. Note in general P. Treves, Polibio: II libro secondo delle Storie (Naples, 1937), at Pol. 2.32.8.

54 The clearest case seems to be at Pol. 3.49.2.

55 Comm. 1.208 (discussing Pol. 2.32.8). Cf. also 3.70.4 (with Comm. 1.404); 3.78.2 (with Comm. 1.412, and note Livy 22.1.2–4); 4.29.4; 8.21.10; 9.30.2; 24.14(8).7. Hence the old conclusion of J. Schweighaeuser, Lexicon Polybianum (Leipzig, 1795) 9, s.v. adtoia: certe gravius quid Polybius rr/v adfoiav dicere consuevit, quam... levitatem et inconstantiam

56 32.34.14. So too Schweighaeuser, Lexicon (above n. 55) 9. Cf. Mauersberger I, 1 (above, n. 52), col. 22, on 18.6.7: 'Treulosigkeit'; H. Drexler, Polybios: Geschichte n (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1962), 942, at Pol. 18.6.7: 'Treulosigkeit' (and Drexler's own comment, 1388: 'mit Recht'); M. H. Chambers, Polybius: The Histories (New York, 1966), at 18.6.7: 'treachery'; J. A. Foucault, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe (Paris, 1972), 327: 'manquement a la foi juree".

57 Aristaenus as one of the two Achaean representatives at Nicaea: Pol. 18.1.4. Philip confronts the Achaean envoys directly: cf. Pol. 18.6.5, within the context of the king's various speeches in 18.5–6.

58 questus deinde Achaeos, Philippi quondam milites, ad postremum inclinata for tuna eius transfugas, et Corinthum recepisse el id agere ut Argos habeant... Note also that the Aetolian speaker here lumps the Achaeans not only with the dishonest Romans (23.7–8), but also with the Athenians, whom he describes as betrayers of Greece, i.e. Greek freedom (communem causam prodentes - 23.5).

59 Cf. J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXIV–XXXVII (Oxford, 1981), 85. Some Livian re-working may have occurred.

60 Cf. Gruen, HWCR i. 175

61 Cf. Briscoe, Comm. n (above, n. 59), 87, with Comm. 233.

62 Hence the point of Aristaenus' bitter retort to Alexander in Livy: the Aetolians themselves are inveterate robbers (34.24.1^1). Beyond Alexander's remarks about Corinth and Argos, note that the Aetolians also strongly objected to Achaean possession of Heraea (Pol. 18.42.7), a concession of Philip's during Aristaenus' strategia (see above, n. 12) which the Romans had allowed the Achaeans to keep (Pol. 18.47.10).

63 The offer: Livy 32.19.4; cf. Pol. 18.45.12. Achaean claims at Nicaea: Pol. 18.2.5; Livy 32.33.7. At Rome: note Pol. 18.11.4, cf. 10.11; Livy 32.37.3.

64 Cf. Eckstein, 'Flamininus' 139^0. Aymard (PR 85–6) doubts that such an offer was ever explicitly made at Sicyon - partly because he thinks it inconceivable that such a major policy decision as the fate of Corinth could have been made by a mere Roman commander in the field, and not by the Senate. This is to take an excessively legalistic view of magisterial-senatorial relations in the middle Republic. The evidence is clear that Flamininus made the offer of Corinth to the Achaeans - and that he was able to keep his promise.

65 For the theme of Achaean fear (and fear alone) as responsible for the League's change of

66 Cf. Eckstein, 'Flamininus' 126–38. The authenticity of that reputation is confirmed by the vast amount of loot Flamininus' army brought back from Greece in 194: cf. Livy 34.52.2.

67 See Pol. 28.8.6–7 and 28.7.1, with the comments now of A.M.Eckstein, 'Polybius, Syracuse, and the Politics of Accommodation', GRBS 26 (1985), 277–9. Note that in the extant text of The Histories, which is not more than a quarter of the original, Polybius uses the word avayKrj 83 times: see Mauersberger I, 1, s.v. Lehmann, Glaubwiirdigkeit (above, n. 48), 220, argues that much weight is given by Aristaenus in Livy 32.21 to an intelligent weighting of the chances of both sides in the on-going war; but surely Aymard (PR 93) is more correct to characterise Aristaenus' Livian speech as ' au total un discours uniquement destine a effrayer et a terroriser'.

68 Compare Philopoemen's harsh opinion of Aristaenus at Pol. 24.13.7 with Polybius' own much more positive opinion, given immediately after at 13.8. The first phase in Polybius' intellectual break with the Achaean 'hard-liners' is apparent, by his own account, in 170: cf. Eckstein, 'Polybius and Accommodation' (above, n. 67), 277–9.

69 For Polybius' prejudices and patriotism, see in general Walbank, Comm. 1.12–13. A locus classicus regarding Aetolia is Pol. 2. 46.1–5. For Polybius' bias against Sparta, see Gabba, 'Filarco' (above, n. 46), 24. (For Lycortas' attitude, cf. Livy 39.36. 6ff.) For Polybius' prejudice against Nabis, cf. D. Mendels, 'Polybius, Nabis and Equality', Athenaeum 57 (1979), 333.

70 Cf. Pol. 2.50.11, with 2.51.4

71 Cf. T. W. Africa, Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961)

72 See Pol. 16.14.6, with the comments of Edson, AHR 47 (1942), 827.

73 These two manuscripts apparently date from the late tenth century: see J. M. Moore, The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius (Cambridge, 1965), 19 and 130.

74 J. Reiske, Animadversionum ad Graecos Auctores Volumen Quartum (Leipzig, 1763), 606.

75 Cf. F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius n (Oxford, 1967), 565.

76 J. Schweighaeuser, Polybii Megalopolitani Historiarum Quidquid Superest IV (Leipzig, 1790), 29 (where the general title of the fragment is given as Nonfuit Proditor Aristaenus, Achaeos a socielate Philippi ad amicitiam Romanorum traducens); cf. also vn (Leipzig, 1793), 327–8 and 330–1 (especially 331).

77 Cf. Aymard, 'Traitres' (above, n. 42), 13–14.

78 14.

79 Nissen, KU (above, n. 39), 326 n. **.

80 Cf. F. Dubner, Polybii Historiarum Reliquiae I–II (Paris, 1839: Didot), 1.602 and n.206, who follows the opinion of Schweighaeuser; B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten n (Gotha, 1899), 681 n. 3, who makes Nissen's connection between Pol. 18.13.7 and 18.6.5–7 (Philip's speech at Nicaea); cf. also P. Waltz, Polybe m (Paris, 1921), 324 n. 1.

81 'Traitres', 15–16; cf. already PR 91 n. 38

82 Traitres', 16–17.

83 17. See Livy 32.25 and 32.38.

84 Traitres', 16–17.

85 Cf. Comm. 1.12 and n. 4; Comm. n (above, n. 75), 564–5; Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), 85–7.

86 P. Pedech, La Melhode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964), 200 n. 512; Lehmann, Glaubwiirdigkeit 221; Roussel, Polybe (above, n. 53), 1390– Deininger, Widerstand 47 n. 11; Briscoe, Comm. 214; Texier, Nabis (above, n. 38), 48 n. 2 3; Scott-Kilvert, Polybius (above, n. 53), 504–5.

87 ' F i l a r c o ' 31–4. But the unlikelihood of Gabba's own thesis (see below, 155) has unfortunately tended to obscure his cogent criticism of Aymard (cf. esp. ' F i l a r c o ' 31–2).

88 Note, however, that if Aymard is correct, then the notion of'treason', even when it came up in a context (Argos) quite removed from Aristaenus and the decision of 198, nevertheless immediately brought the latter to Polybius' mind (cf. 18.13.4–10). One could hardly have a better refutation of the claim that Aristaenus and his policies were non-controversial.

89 This is obvious from the narrative of Livy 32.22ff., where the secession of Argos (32.25) is an integral part of the account of the immediate aftermath of the Sicyon decision.

90 Cf. Aymard, 'Traitres', 17: 'En effect, lachaien Polybe, en racontant les evenements

91 Cf. Gabba, 'Filarco' 32.

92 On the conflict between the 'Argos thesis' and the appearance of 18.14 in the digression, cf. Gabba,

93 For Polybius as the obvious source of Livy's account of the Argive secession, cf. Nissen, KU 138, cf. 134.

94 Cf. Deininger, Widerstand47'. Evidence for strong popular support for the revolution: Livy 32.25.1 (discussed in the text); 25.3–5, 7–8.

95 Compare Pol. 18.17 and Livy 32.38.8 with Pol. 13.6–8 (especially 13.8, where Nabis acts, as at Argos, to extract money, by torture, from leading citizens).

96 P. Oliva, Sparta and her Social Problems (Amsterdam and Prague, 1971), 287

97 Polybius' bias against Nabis: cf. Mendels, 'Nabis' (above, n. 69)passim; see also 'Polybius and the Socio-Economic Revolution in Greece (227–146 B.C.)', AC 51 (1982), 86–109. Aymard's hypothesis that Polybius despised the Argives because of their secession from the Achaean League ('Traitres', 17 and n. 2) is undermined both by the neutral tone of Livy 32.25 and also by the historical background we have established above: the strong opposition at Megalopolis itself to Aristaenus' policy (perhaps strongest among Polybius' own political mentors). This probably later led the historian to take a more understanding view of the Argive action in 198.

98 Walbank has suggested that the rift between Philip V and the Peloponnesian poet Alcaeus was caused by the bloody consequences of his having turned Argos over to Nabis: 'Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome, CQ 37 (1943), 6–7. This cannot be proved, but if correct it hardly suggests that the Argiveprincipes suffered from 'universal hatred'. We do know that there were many anti–Nabis Argive exiles with Flamininus in 195 (Livy 34.25.12 and cf. 34.33.6–7), and surely these men were representatives of the upper classes; they may well have had an influence on some of Flamininus' peace terms with Nabis (cf. 34.35.4). This is not what Polybius proposed happens to 'traitors'.

99 An additional complication is that the deepest humiliation inflicted on the Argive upper class, at the hands of Nabis' wife Apia (Pol. 18.17), only occurs at a point in the Polybian text substantially after the digression 'On Traitors'.

100 'Filarco' 3 3.

101 Comm. n.564.

102 'Traitres', 11.

103 Cf. P. Cloche, 'A propos d'un chapitre de Polybe', AC 8 (1939), 363–5; P. Treves, 'Demosthene, d'apres M. Werner Jaeger', LEC 8 (1940), 290; criticism accepted by Walbank, Comm. H.568

104 Cf. Cloche, 'Polybe' (above, n. 103), 365–7; Treves, 'Demosthene' (above, n. 103), 291–3.

105 Cf. the comments of Treves,'Demosthene', 291.

106 Traitres", 11–12

107 See above, 143^4.

108 Walbank has long found the verbal echo of Pol. 18.11.4and6at 18.14.6 to be paradoxical, since the one case describes the effect of Macedon being invited into the Peloponnese (18.14.6), while the other describes the effect of Macedon being driven out of the Peloponnese (18.11.4 and 6): cf.' Alcaeus' (above, n. 98), 8 n. 1; Comm. n.568; Polybius (above, n. 85), 85–6. The hypothesis presented above would resolve this paradox, neatly explaining Polybius' wording at 18.14.6 as an association with Aristaenus and his policies

109 On the meaning of18.13.2, cf. Walbank, Comm. 11.565

110 Comm. n.565.

111 Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon i, 2 (Berlin, 1961), col. 811, s.v. iviarayLai; Scott-Kilvert, Polybius 505.

112 Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon i, 2, col. 811.

113 Pol. 2.26.3; 2.54.14; 3.15.4; 3.70.3; 3.70.9; 3.86.7; 3.118.7; 4.23.3; 5.49.1; 5.74.8; 5.75.9; 5.103.6; 9.3.4; 9.26.3; 9.37.1; 9.42.4; 11.20.5; 11.27.6; 15.1.5; 15.3.3; 15.7.5; 15.17.5; 16.25.1; 16.31.1; 16.32.3; 18.8.4; 20.1; 20.9.6; 21.10.4; 21.15.10; 21.19.2; 22.14.7; 28.6.3; 28.19.1; 38.17.6. Note also 11.25.8; 14.4.1; 15.15.4; 31.12.9

114 Comm. n.565 (cf. also Comm. m.727). So too Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon i, 2, col. 811 (on Pol. 39.1.11).

115 Shuckburgh, Polybius 11 (above, n. 53), 536; Drexler, Polybios 11 (above, n. 56), 1334; Roussel, Polybe 1196. Cf. also Dubner 11 (above, n. 80), 150 (following Schweighaeuser)

116 Cf. Dubner 1.579; Shuckburgh 11.182; Paton v (above, n. 53), 31; Drexler n.911; Rousse 812

117 Pol. 18.13.7 is translated in the fashion I suggest by Dubner 1.602; Shuckburgh 11.213; Paton v. lll; Drexler 11.948; Roussel 845. Note that the translations of Pol. 16.15.1, 18.13.7 and 39.1.11 offered by Dubner/Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh, Paton, Drexler and Roussel all have the virtue of consistency.

118 Traitres', 14 n. 7.

119 Comm. n.566.

120 Schweighaeuser vn (above, n. 76), 331 thought, of course, that this 'outside discussion' was Polybius' narrative of the Achaean decision of 198 (with the digression' On Traitors' coming immediately afterwards). This cannot be the case (see above, 151). Reiske (above, n. 74) 606 thought that the TOT indicated a discussion of the decision of 198 non in eo loco sed alio quidam superiore; nevertheless, he held that the origin of the digression did not concern Aristaenus (rather, the betrayal of some unknown town).

121 Given the conclusions reached above, one may also wonder if the phrase TO. vpi-novTa. TOIS Kcupois at 18.32.2, rather than being too vague to use, actually constitutes yet a third indication that the origin of 'On Traitors' lies with a discussion of Aristaenus outside the digression.

122 There are some verbal similarities between Pol. 18.6.7 and 18.13.5 - note the appearance of forms of fifTariOrjui, a relatively rare word in Polybius, in both passages - but these are too slight a foundation upon which to build a case.

123 This trend in method began with Aymard. 'Traitres', 16

124 15 (my italics). Aymard, of course, denies the premise that Aristaenus' reputation was controversial.

125 For discussion, cf. Walbank, Comm. m.264–6. Like 18.13–15, the'debate'in Pol. 24.11–13 is patched together from later excerptors – hence the similar problem of context.

126 A. Momigliano, Polybius between the English and the Turks (Oxford, 1974), 1

127 On the nature and purpose of Polybius' (irpaynaTiK-r) laropia, see now K. S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981), especially 178

128 Stupidity: Pol. 38.1.5; 3.7; 10.13; 11.10–11. Madness: 38.12.7; 13.8; 16.2; 18.8.

129 Cf. now Eckstein, 'Polybius and Accommodation', 281–2. I wish to thank the editors of CQ, the anonymous readers, and especially Ernst Badian, for their helpful criticism - which is not to imply their agreement with the final result. The writing of this paper was facilitated by a generous grant from the University of Maryland.