^{page 39 note 1} Diod. xiii. 90. 5, xxxii. 25; Cic. Verr. ii. 4. 73.

^{page 39 note 2} Diod. xiii. 90. 4; cf. Polyb. xii. 25. 3: .

^{page 39 note 3} Diod. ibid.; Xen. Hell. i. 5. 21.

^{page 39 note 4} Scipio's beneficence made a great impression and was widely celebrated: cf. Livy, ep. 51; Eutrop. iv. 12. 2; App. Pun. 133; Plut. Moral. 200 B (Apophiheg. Scip. Min. 6); Cic. Verr. ii. 2. 3, 85, 86; 4.93, and passim.

^{page 39 note 5} Cic. Verr. ii. 4. 73.

^{page 39 note 6} Diod. xiii. 90. 5: .

^{page 39 note 7} Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiv. 89: ‘itaque una de causa servantur opera eius (i.e. the bull), ut quisquis ilia videat, oderit manus’.

^{page 39 note 8} Polyb. xii. 25. 5: .

^{page 39 note 1} Polyb. xii. 25; Diod. xiii. 90.4–7.

^{page 39 note 2} Not so (b) and (c); yet Freeman, History of Sicily, 2 (1891), 463, argues, rather curiously, that from the scholiast's statement on the identity of the bull at Agrigentum ‘it would seem that Timaios neither denied the existence of Phalaris’ bull nor said anything about any bull at Carthage'. This well illustrates the dangers of the argumentum ex silentio. Freeman also discusses whether Polybius believed the bull at Carthage to have been identical with that which Timaeus knew of at Agrigentum (i.e. that representing the river god Gela); and, as he sees, Polybius' phraseology (n. 2 above) does not exclude that view, since ‘during the Carthaginian domination’ could cover any time down to the First Punic War. But Freeman also sees that such a bull would hardly have had a joint at the shoulder. His solution that the Carthaginians with true Punic duplicity constructed a second bull for the Graeco–Roman tourist traffic is hardly to be taken seriously.

^{page 40 note 1} So Freeman, loc. cit., rightly, against Bentley, Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (1699), 512.

^{page 40 note 2} P.–W. (1938), s.v. ‘Phalaris’, col. 1650. Lenschau's Diodorus reference must be corrected from xx. 71 to xiii. 90. 5.

^{page 40 note 3} See, besides Lenschau, Clasen, C., Timaios v. Tauromenion (Kiel, 1883), 25, n. I;Google Scholar E. Schwartz, P.–W., s.v. ‘Diodoros (37)’, col. 686: ‘xiv (read xiii). 90. 5–7 ist Einlage aus Polybios (xii. 25)’.

^{page 40 note 4} Bentley, op. cit. 511: ‘The sole argument that they (i.e. Polybius and Diodorus) go upon is a Brazen Bull that Scipio found in Carthage’, etc.; nor is this merely loose writing: cf. p. 514: ‘For he (i.e. Lucian) might read in Polybius and Diodorus, whose passages have been cited above, that the very bull was found at Carthage and restored to the Agrigentines by Scipio's order.' And so the bad tradition was established. Thus Freeman, op. cit. ii. 462, writes that Polybius ‘describes Timaios as denying that the bull brought from Carthage was the genuine bull of Phalaris’. ‘He himself (i.e. Polybius) argues that the bull brought from Carthage was genuine.’ On p. 463 again it is ‘Scipio's bull’. The same error had already appeared in Clasen, loc. cit.: ‘Polybius führt nun zur Widerlegung des Timaios an, dass der eherne Stier später von Scipio wieder nach Akragas gebracht sei.’ Busolt, Griech. Gesch. i². 422, n. 4 repeats it, quoting Clasen; and Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altert. iii² (1937), 632, is on the kindest interpretation ambiguous. This misunderstanding of what Polybius said in xii. 25 seems to have preceded the assumption that Diodorus xiii. 90.4–7 drew directly on this passage; for neither Bentley nor Freeman expresses any opinion on the relation between the two historians.

^{page 40 note 1} Polyb. xii. 25. 3.

^{page 40 note 2} Cf. Thommen, , Hermes, xx (1885), 221Google Scholar; Strachan–Davidson, Selections from Polybius, 647; Svoboda, K., Philol. lxxii (1913), 483Google Scholar; De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, iii. 1. 203.

^{page 40 note 3} Laqueur, R., Polybios (1913), 259.Google Scholar But, as I have argued elsewhere (C.Q., xxxix (1945), 14, n. 5), in his recent P.–W. article on Philinus Laqueur has already surrendered his position and must logically recast his scheme.

^{page 41 note 1} The restoration of the bull to Agrigentum was described in its proper place by Diodorus, xxxii. 25; and Schwartz, op. cit. cols. 689–90, has shown that here Diodorus is giving a mere excerpting from Polybius. That Polybius did in fact include such a reference forward in xii. 25, and that it was omitted by the excerptor of the collection of Valesius' extracts is highly unlikely.

^{page 41 note 2} Diodorus' misunderstanding of what Timaeus said thus comes via Polybius. But Timaeus must have made his point a little obscurely to mislead Polybius into thinking that he denied the existence of the bull outright. On the other hand, Polybius was inclined to be careless in polemic. In i. 15. I–II he attributes to Philinus the statement that in 264 B.C. Appius Claudius was defeated at Messana by Hiero of Syracuse and the Carthaginians in turn, but that both victors retreated and let him march on Syracuse. It is hardly credible that this was what Philinus wrote: for discussion see Beloch, Griech. Gesch. iv. 2, 523 f.; De Sanctis, op. cit. iii. 1, 109, n. 23; 232; 236–7.

^{page 41 note 1} Timaeus' πικία is a constant theme in Polybius' polemic throughout Book xii.

^{page 41 note 2} Cf. Schwartz, op. cit. col. 688.

^{page 41 note 3} Cf. Gell. iii. 4. 1; for Plutarch's biography cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21. 3; C. Gracch. 10. 4.

^{page 41 note 4} Gell. vi. 1. 2.

^{page 41 note 5} Gell. i. 14.1; cf. Asconius in Cic. Pison. 13.13 (on which see Tolkiehn, P.–W., s.v. ‘Iulius Hyginus (278)’, cols. 632–3).

^{page 42 note 1} Cf. Val. Max. v. i. 6 (example of Scipio's humanitas). Neither Valerius nor Plutarch in his Apophihegmata actually includes the anecdote of the restoration of the bull. But Cicero's version (above, p. 39, n. 5) rings like an example of mansuetudo straight from some suasorta—though this does not exclude the possibility that it is authentic Few can have seen more clearly than Scipio how low the stock of Roman mansuetudo had sunk in 146, the year of the destruction of Carthage and Corinth; and how essential it was to use every opportunity to rebuild the Roman among the Greeks.

^{page 42 note 1} I have already pointed out in C.Q. xxxix (1945), 4 the impossibility of a suggestion made by Kunz, Margrit, Zur Beurteilung der Prooemien in Diodors historischer Bibliothek (Diss. Zumacr;rich, 1935), 13–14Google Scholar, that Diodorus' source for xiii. 90 is Philinus of Agrigentum; for Philinus was contemporary with the First Punic War.