John Briscoe (ed.), A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI–XXXIII
30–35. The settlement of the Isthmus
L.'s main source is Pol. xviii. 44–8. See also Plut. Flam. 10–12, App. Mac. 9. 3–4, Just. xxx. 4. 17–18, Val. Max. iv. 8. 5, Zon. ix. 16. 12 (on Plutarch's account cf. C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome [Oxford, 1971], 97 ff.). For literature cf. Walbank, Philip V, 179 n. 1, Commentary, ii. 609–10, to which add Dahlheim, 83 ff., Accame, Espansione romana, 199 ff. On L.'s adaptation of Polybius in this section cf. Brueggmann, 145 ff.
30. 1. paucos … est: Pol. xviii. 44. 1: κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἧκον ἐκ τῆς 'Ρώμης οἱ δέκα, διʼ ὧν ἔμελλε χειρίζεσθαι τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Ἔλληνας, κομίζοντες τὸ τῆς συγκλήτου δόγμα τὸ περὶ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήνης. What Polybius reports as the senatus consultum governing the actions of the x legati L. describes as the actual terms of peace. Polybius does not claim to be reporting the whole of the s.c., only τὰ συνέχοντα (xviii. 44. 2).
2. ut omnes … tempus: Pol. xviii. 44. 2–3: τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους Ἕλληνας πάντας, τούς τε κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην, ἐλευθέρους ὑπάρχειν καὶ νόμοις χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἰδίοις· τοὺς δὲ ταττομένους ὑπὸ Φίλιππον καὶ τὰς πόλεις τὰς ἐμφρούρους παραδοῦναι Φίλιππον 'Ρωμαίοις πρὸ τῆς Ἰσθμίων πανηγύρεως. L. has misunderstood pg 305Polybius here. Freedom for the Greeks was granted for all except those under Philip's direct control. The latter were to be handed over to Rome and their ultimate status was left in doubt. There could, of course, have been no serious question of those in the first category not remaining free: but the statement was probably designed to serve as a manifesto against Antiochus as well as a settlement with Philip. L. has made all the states free, and then added the provision that those of them in Philip's control were to be evacuated by him. (It is conceivable that L. understood Polybius perfectly well, but chose to portray Rome as granting freedom to all without question.)
3. quae in Asia … esse: Pol. xviii. 44. 4: Εὔρωμον δὲ καὶ Πήδασα καὶ Βαργύλια καὶ τὴν Ἰασέων πόλιν, ὁμοίως Ἄβυδον, Θάσον, Μύριναν, Πέρινθον, ἐλευθέρας ἀφεῖναι τὰς φρουρὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν μεταστησάμενον. L. has added quae in Asia essent, wrongly, for Myrina, Thasos, and Perinthus are not in Asia: though at xviii. 45. 4 (cf. 31. 3) Polybius makes the Aetolians complain that all the states specifically freed are in Asia.
B conflated Euromo Pedasisque into Burū ope dasis.
Myrina: on Lemnos. In 35. 2 Hephaestia, the other town on the island, is freed and it seems certain that the whole of Lemnos was under Philip's control. The date of its acquisition by Macedon is uncertain. Cf. Walbank, Commentary, ii. 611.
The absence of any reference to Sestus and Chalcedon may be due to an omission by Polybius, but it is conceivable that they had already been abandoned by Philip and that the senate knew this at the time the s.c. was passed. But the absence of any mention of the Ptolemaic cities in Thrace captured by Philip in 200 (cf. xxxi. 16) is deliberate, and not an omission by Polybius, as argued by Holleaux, Études, iv. 320. The senate did not intend to return them to pg 306Egypt, as that would have been a flagrant contrast with her policy of Greek freedom. But it did not want to advertise this abandonment of Ptolemaic interests too widely. The inclusion of towns which were already in Antiochus' possession may be due to the fact that at the time the s.c. was passed the senate was not aware of the real situation. It is not necessarily to be seen as a warning to Antiochus, as argued by Holleaux, Études, iv. 309 n. 2, Walbank, Commentary, ii. 611.
4. de Cianorum … placuisset: Pol. xviii. 44. 5: περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν Κιανῶν ἐλευθερώσεως Τίτον γράψαι πρὸς Προυσίαν κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου. L.'s addition of decem legatis introduces a mistake. The senate had clearly agreed in principle that Cius should be freed, but did not see how to enforce its decision without going to war with Prusias. On Philip's capture of Cius cf. xxxi. 31. 4 n., on Prusias xxxii. 34. 6 n., and on the subsequent fate of Cius, Walbank, Commentary, ii. 611.
5. captivos … agebant: Pol. xviii. 44. 6: τὰ δʼ αἰχμάλωτα καὶ τοὺς αὐτομόλους ἅπαντας ἀποκαταστῆσαι Φίλιππον 'Ρωμαίοις ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς χρόνοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς καταφράκτους ναῦς πλὴν πέντε σκαφῶν καὶ τῆς ἑκκαιδεκήρους. L. adds details of the ship, for which cf. xlv. 35. 3, Walbank, Commentary, ii. 611–12, D. J. Blackman, GRBS x (1969), 215–16, who doubts whether this ship was identical with the one built by Demetrius Poliorcetes. The provision about the ships is an addition by the senate to the terms provisionally agreed with Flamininus (cf. App. Mac. 9. 3).
The captivi probably included those of Rome's allies. Cf. Walbank, Commentary, ii. 611, Ducrey, 270, xxxii. 33. 3 n.
6. ne plus … gereret: these two clauses are not in Polybius, and have long been recognized as annalistic fabrications. Philip never had any elephants, and his activities after the peace show that he was not forbidden to wage war outside Macedonia. Both provisions have been imported from the treaty with Carthage.
Cf. Täubler, i. 228–39, 432 ff., Klotz, Hermes l (1915), 523–5, Holleaux, Études, v. 104 ff., De Sanctis, iv. 1. 95–6 n. 185, Petzold, 92 ff., Meloni, Perseo, 187, Valore storico, 152, Walbank, Commentary, ii. 609–10. Contra L. Bivona, Kokalos ii (1956), 50 ff. On the relevance of this passage for the question of L.'s use of his sources cf. p. 7.
7. mille talentum … annorum: Pol. xviii. 44. 7: δοῦναι δὲ καὶ χίλια τάλαντα, τούτων τὰ μὲν ἡμίση παραυτίκα, τὰ δʼ ἡμίση κατὰ φόρους ἐν ἔτεσι δέκα. Appian, Mac. 9. 3 sees this too as a senatorial addition to Flamininus' terms. But the 200 talents paid at the time of the pg 307negotiations with Flamininus were clearly only a deposit (cf. 13. 14–15) and the details were left for the senate to decide. Cassola (Labeo vi , 119) thinks that Flamininus regarded them as a final payment.
quaternum … tradit: if Antias was using a calculation of 80 lb. to a talent (cf. xxxviii. 38. 13) the total is 500 talents, which suggests that he has omitted the initial payment from his calculations.
9. idem … gereret: Klotz (Hermes l, 525) and Holleaux (Études, v. 118) argue that nominatim indicates Claudius had also mentioned the general prohibition. But the word could easily be L.'s own, to bring harmony to his account as a whole.
10. in haec … filius: not reported by L. as being from Antias or Claudius, but equally false. They were in fact given at Tempe: cf. 13. 14 n. The s.c. may have said that the hostages were to remain at Rome.
Attalo … datos: Attalus was no longer alive and Aegina was in fact acquired by Attalus in 210 (cf. xxxi. 14. 11 n.). On the elephants cf. § 6 n. Klotz's view (Hermes l, 524) that absenti means 'dead' and that the elephants were Roman elephants given to Eumenes is quite impossible. Cf. Holleaux, Études, v. 112–17.
11. Rhodiis … tenuisset: Stratonicea and several Carian cities were already in Rhodian possession (cf. ch. 18 and especially 18. 22 n.). Cariae urbes could refer to all the Carian cities taken by Philip, or to those recaptured by Rhodes in 197. If the former, it is an anticipation of the settlement of Apamea, if the latter, the reference, like those to Aegina and Stratonicea, could be justified on the grounds that the senate did permit Eumenes and Rhodes to keep these possessions. But the senate would not have said so publicly (the s.c. was clearly not secret) and it is more likely that in the case of Stratonicea Antias was seeking to justify Rome's removal of it in 167 (Pol. xxx. 21. 3) by claiming that it was an earlier Roman gift (cf. pg 308Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 217) and that the Carian reference is simply a mistake. Cf. De Sanctis, iv. 1. 121 n. 19.
Atheniensibus … Scyrum: Delos and Lemnos were in fact given to Athens in 167 (Pol. xxx. 20. 7). There is no mention of Imbros and Scyros in this connection but they were Athenian later and so their acquisition by Athens may also date to 167. Cf. Niese, iii. 189 n. 6, Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, 315–16, Holleaux, Études, v. 108 n. 1.