^{page 67 note 1} Polybius iii, 26.

^{page 67 note 2} Loc. cit.

^{page 67 note 3} Nissen's arguments in favour of Philinus (Neue Jahrbücher, 1867, pp. 320-332) were accepted by Meltzer, (Geschichte der Karthager ii, p. 414Google Scholar) and developed by Vollmer (Rheinisches Museum 1877, p. 617 sqq.) and Soltau (Philologus 1889, p. 135 sqq., 279 sqq.). But they have been rejected or disoc regarded by most recent writers except Sanctis, de (Storia dei Romani ii, 253Google Scholar, n. 3) and Gsell, (Histoire de l'ancienne Afrique du nord iii, 72Google Scholar), who give a hesitating assent.

^{page 67 note 4} Loc. cit.

^{page 68 note 1} De Legibus iii, 20, § 46.

^{page 68 note 2} Suetonius, Diuus Julius 28, § 3. Cf. also Plutarch, Cato Minor ch. 17, where we read that the clerks at the aerarium were in the habit of accepting bogus decrees for insertion in the public records.

^{page 68 note 3} Cassius Dio 54, 36, 1.

^{page 68 note 4} Tacitus, Annals 13, 28, 5.

^{page 68 note 6} iii, 26, 2.

^{page 69 note 1} Pol. iii, 24, 5-6.

^{page 69 note 2} Pol. iii, 24, 16.

^{page 69 note 3} Cf. Pol. iii, 25, 1: τϵλϵυτάιας ποιοῦνται συνθήκας 'Ρωμαῖοι and iii, 25, 3: ἐὰν σνμμαχΙαν ποιῶνται πρὸς Πύρρον ἕγγραπτον. The latter clause shows that P3 anticipated new treaty, but did not constitute a new treaty in itself. See Soltau, Philologus 1889, pp. 135, 138.

^{page 69 note 4} Mommsen's shrewd guess to this effect (Roman History, 1894 ed., ii, p. 524Google Scholar) has been amply confirmed by Soltau (Philologus 1889, pp. 279-80). Polybius' general authority for his third book appears to have been Postumius (Beloch, Hermes 1915, pp. 359-73). But this does not preclude his having consulted Cato on some particular point.

^{page 69 note 5} Cato ap. Nonium v. duodevicesimo.

^{page 70 note 1} Täubler (Imperium Romanum, p. 274) says roundly that either Philinus was wrong or Polybius was a forger. The horns of this dilemma will not bear pressing into anybody.

^{page 70 note 2} So Strachan-Davidson, Selections from Polybius, pp. 51, 64-5; Täubler, op. cit. pp. 273-4.

^{page 70 note 3} i, 14, 2-3.

^{page 70 note 4} No certain means exist for determining Philinus' date, but appearances point to his being contemporary with the First Punic War.

^{page 70 note 5} Polybius (iii, 26, 2) mentions that in his time the Carthaginians as well as the Romans had lost account of the early treaties between the two powers.

^{page 70 note 6} Aristotle, , Politics iii, 9, 10, p. 1284Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 7} 348 B.c. (Livy vii, 27; Diodorus xvi, 69); 343 B.C. (Livy vii, 38); 306 B.C. (Livy ix, 43).

^{page 71 note 1} Schäfer, Rheinisches Museum 1861, p. 288.

^{page 71 note 2} Epit. 13: cum Carthaginiensibus quarto foedus renovatum est.

^{page 71 note 3} So Täubler p. 272-3; Heitland, History of Rome, pp. 136-7.

^{page 71 note 4} Scala, V., Staatsverträge des Altertums i, p. 204Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 5} If we follow Nissen (Neue Jahrbücher 1876. p. 320 sqq) in assigning P1 to 509 rather than to 348 B.C. we shall have two fourth-century treaties on our hands. But it is far more probable that P1 belongs to 348 B.C.

^{page 72 note 1} Ad Aen. iv, 628.

^{page 72 note 2} So Unger, Rheinishes Museum 1882, p. 196.

^{page 72 note 3} In particular, what are we to make of ‘foederibus’? Strictly speaking, we should infer from the plural form that the clauses about Corsica occurred in more than one treaty. But it would be difficult to find room for such a clause in any of the other treaties.

^{page 72 note 4} In P1 the Romans are free to sojourn in Sicily on the same terms as the Carthaginians (Pol. iii, 22, 10). In P2 this freedom of intercourse is confirmed and extended to Carthage itself (iii, 24, 12). Conversely the Carthaginians are expressly permitted to sojourn in Rome, and are implicitly allowed to set foot on Latium (iii, 24, 5-6, 13).

^{page 72 note 5} So v. Scala i, 203; Täublber, pp. 273-4.

^{page 72 note 6} Diodorus xxiii, 17.

^{page 72 note 7} This follows quite plainly from Pol. iii, 24, 5-6. To argue as Taubler does (p. 276), that the clauses of P2 relating to Latium covered Campania by implication, is a veritable tour de force of interpretation. Seeing that the very purpose of treaties is to safeguard states against misunderstandings by making their relations explicit, we cannot believe that an important question like the status of Campania could have been dealt with in this slovenly way. Cf. Gsell, , Histoire de l'ancienne Afrique du nord, iii, 70, n. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 1} Pol. iii, 25, 1: (συνθῆκαι) ἐν αἷς τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τηροῦσι πὰντα κατὰ τἀς ὑπαρχόυσας ὅμολογίας.

^{page 73 note 2} Nissen, p. 325; Gsell, iii, 72, n. 1.

Strachan-Davidson, who admits that P2 does not fit the situation of 279 B.C., suggests that the negotiators were in too great a hurry to make an entire new treaty (p. 62). But this, needless to say, is a pure guess.

^{page 73 note 3} Pol. iii, 25, 3.

^{page 73 note 4} Soltau p. 135, n. 10

^{page 73 note 5} Cassius Dio ft. 43, § 1; Livy xxi, 10, 5; Epit. 14; Orosius iv, 5.

^{page 73 note 6} As the Romans co-operated with Hiero for action against Rhegium and not against any part of Sicily, the Carthaginian accusation was very. As regards the Tarentum incident, there is no need to exculpate the Carthaginians by denying the historic reality of this episode, as is done by Niese, (Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen staaen ii 63Google Scholar n. 2) and Beloch, (Griechische Geschichte iii, 2, 225–6Google Scholar). The story of Orosius (loc. cit.) that the Carthaginians disavowed their admiral and that the Romans accepted the excuse, is quite sufficient to exonerate Carthage and more credible than a blank denial of the whole incident.

^{page 74 note 1} Vollmer, Rheinisches Museum 1877, p. 622.

^{page 74 note 2} Täubler p 384.

^{page 74 note 3} Pol. iii, p. 30, 3.

^{page 74 note 4} See the interesting article by Kahrstedt in Klio 1912 (pp. 461-473), where it is shown that most of the objects of Phoenician workmanship found in Italy belong to the ninth, eighth and seventh centuries, previous to the expansion of Carthage.

^{page 75 note 1} Strachan-Davidson (pp. 59-61) admits that P2 is a defective treaty if applied to the situation of 306 B.C. He endeavours to palliate this admission by suggesting that Campania was not mentioned explicitly in P2 because it was regarded as part of the ager Romanus, and that Etruria was left unmentioned because the Etruscan War was not yet concluded in 306. But by 306 Roman annexations in Campania had been mostly confined to the interior, and the Etruscan War ended in 308 B.C.

Schäfer (Rhein. Mus. 1860, pp. 396-7) emphasises the inclusion of Tyre as a partner of Carthage in P2 (Pol. iii, 24, 1, 3). He gives reasons for believing in a close connexion between Tyre and Carthage in 306 B.C., and uses this as an argument for assigning P2 to that year. It is difficult to decide whether the mention of Tyre in P2 is more than a bare form. But assuming it to be so, we are still free to assign P2 to 348 or 343, for at this time too the connexion between Tyre and Carthage must have been close. It was reliance on help from Carthage that induced the Tyrians to resist Alexander in 333-2 B.C. (Diodorus xvii, 40, 10).

^{page 75 note 2} Against the contention of Unger (p. 203), that the Roman conquest of Italy must have been complete before Rome could presume to put Italy out of bounds, we may instance the ‘Hasdrubal’ treaty, by which Rome confined Carthaginian dominion to the south of the Ebro. At the time in question Rome did not occupy a square inch of Spanish territory.

^{page 76 note 1} Pol. iii, 24, 12.

^{page 76 note 2} Pol. iii, 25, 4.

^{page 76 note 3} Theophrastus, , Historia Plantarum v, 8, 2Google Scholar: πλεῦσαί γάρ ποτε τοὺς Ῥωμάιους βουλομένους κατασκευάσασθαι πόλιν έν τῇ (Κύρνῳ) πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι ναῦσι.

^{page 76 note 4} Loc. cit. pp. 326-7. It has been maintained by Unger (p. 197) that Nissen's date is too late, because Theophrastus, who is our sole informant on this point, wrote not much after 314 B.C. But Theophrastus in his History of Plants makes allusion to an event of 308 B.C. (Ophelas' expedition against Carthage—iv, 3, 2). Moreover Timaeus, who is almost certainly Theophrastus' authority on matters relating to western history, did not compile his History till close on 300 B.C. (Susemihl, , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit i, p. 274Google Scholar, n. 28, pp. 565-6). Theophrastus therefore could very well have alluded to an event of 311-309 B.C. In 264 B.C., as is pointed out by Strachan-Davidson (p. 64), Corsica was in the power of Carthage. But this is not inconsistent with a treaty stipulation that either party should have a free hand in the island.

^{page 76 note 5} Livy ix, 30, 10.

^{page 76 note 6} Pol. iii, 25, 2.

^{page 77 note 1} My conclusions are in keeping with those of Prof. J. S. Reid in his article on the causes of the Second Punic War (Journal of Roman Studies 1913, p. 175 sqq.). Prof. Reid brings out clearly that in the ‘Saguntum affair’ Rome was not quite the injured innocent which our historical tradition has made her out to be, and that Polybius, though honest enough in himself, was liable to be deceived by the special pleading of Roman partisans.