37–40. 2. EVENTS IN ASIA
37. Prelude to the Peace of Apamea
37. 1. Pol. 21. 41. 1 κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους … ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. Even if κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους comes from Polybius himself rather than the excerptor, it can scarcely refer to events in Italy, and hieme … sunt must be L.'s own way of joining the account of events in Asia to what precedes, though he was certainly wrong as far as the eclipse of 36. 4 is concerned (cf. p. 18). It should not, however, be taken to indicate L.'s awareness of the dislocation of the calendar (cf. Introd. n. 47). Even if L. did not regard spring as beginning at the vernal equinox, the events to which he refers are those narrated in 35. 1–36. 10 and include the elections, which he may have conceived as taking place around the end of February; with Manlius still in winter quarters, it was natural to talk of all the events as taking place in winter (even southern Italy can have wintry weather in the first half of March).
For Polybius' use of στρατηγός to refer to both consuls and proconsuls see Walbank 430; L., having reported the proroguing of Manlius' command (35. 3), is more specific.
1–4. legationes … attulerant: Pol. 21. 41. 1–2 παρεγένοντο … παρανομίας. L. rearranges and makes the terror caused by the Gauls more specific, though he generalizes what Polybius says about the rule of Antiochus. In fact what Polybius says about the Galatians is exaggerated; cf. Walbank 153–4.
5. Pol. 21. 41. 3–5 ἦλθε δὲ … ἄγνοιαν. L. omits the name of Antiochus' ambassador (cf. 3. 7 n.) and Polybius' statement that Ariarathes had sent several previous embassies. He had, in fact, not only supported Antiochus, but also sent troops to help the Galatians (26. 4). Gruen 87 oddly takes Polybius to mean that it was only now that Antiochus 'sent to enquire pg 127about terms' and 'asked on what conditions he could make a φιλίαʼ, as if these had not been settled after Magnesia (cf. 37. 45. 4–21 nn.) and the treaty ratified at Rome (37. 55. 1–3 nn.): in fact βουλόμενοι … τὴν φιλίαν applies only to the Galatian ambassadors.
6–7. In §§1–5 L. has followed the order in which Polybius reported the various embassies—Greek cities, Antiochus, Galatians, Ariarathes. Polybius now gives Manlius' replies in the same order, except that Antiochus is placed at the end. L. has Ariarathes, Galatians, Greek cities, Antiochus—the reverse of the original order, except that the Greek cities precede Antiochus.
7. Pol. 21.41.8 πρὸς δὲ τόν … ὁμολογίας. I fail to see the evidence for Walsh's assertion that, contrary to what Polybius says at 21. 42. 1, Manlius knew 'from the previous year's campaigning' that Perge had not been freed (he talks of 'the continuing defiance of Perge': Antiochus was not obliged to remove his garrison until the peace had been agreed at Rome), and that this was the reason for his fixing the 'borders of Pamphylia' as the meeting place with Antiochus.
8. Pol. 21. 41. 9–10 μετά δὲ ταῦτα … κατεστρατοπέδευσε. L. omits mention of Attalus and the forced marches from Apamea (cf. 13. 5–7 n.) to the meeting point (for details see Walbank 154–5), as well as the obvious point that having got there, Manlius pitched camp.
lustrato exercitu: cf. 12. 2 n. Rüpke 144 n. 6 misclassifies the present passage as 'wenn das Heer von Rom abmarschiert'. The lustratio occurs here because the march to Apamea marks the beginning of a new campaigning season.
9. <duo> milia: Pol. 21. 41. 11–12 συμμιξάντων δέ … εἰς Ἀπάμειαν. Polybius specifies the amount of money when reporting Manlius' reply to Musaeus (§7 n.). Since Polybius there has τὰ δὲ δισχίλια τάλαντα καὶ πεντακόσια and that is the sum specified in the terms laid down after the battle of Magnesia (37. 45. 14), the MSS' mille (my apparatus is deficient) must be emended. L. omits Polybius' statement that Musaeus said that the carts bringing the corn and money had been delayed, and requested Manlius to wait for them, as well as the detail that Manlius entrusted one of the military tribunes with taking the money to Apamea.
9–10. inde … decessum est: Pol. 21. 42. 1–5 αὐτὸς δέ … παρέδωκε τὴν πόλιν. L. abbreviates considerably (omitting Polybius' remark that Manlius saw that Antiochus was keeping faith), and has expressed himself obscurely in the final sentence. It is clear from Polybius that the Seleucid commander was granted the thirty-day truce, consulted Antiochus, and received a reply (in considerably less than thirty days, it seems). L. gives the impression that having been granted the truce, he immediately abandoned Perge, which would be ridiculous. But L. cannot have meant this; rather the truce was granted, and as a result Perge was (eventually) surrendered.
It should be stressed that this remains the case whatever we read in L. Adam strangely claims that Mg's praesidio decessum (Adam writes decessum praesidio est, which is Zingerle's conjecture) lacks sense because it means that the Roman army abandoned Perge. Walsh accuses Adam, who prints decessit praesidio (Bχ), of contradicting Polybius, and leaving the 'outcome unstated', though Adam makes it clear that in his view L. has written ambiguously, but that common sense makes it clear that the governor of Perge is the subject; I do not understand why Walsh should think that his conjecture decessit <cum> praesidio restores sense. Whether we should in fact read praesidio decessum, praesidio decessum est (Fr. 2), or decessit praesidio is hard to say. Certainly et (Bχ) placed at the beginning of the following sentence is intrusive, and it is tempting to see it as a corruption of est and to hold that Carbachius misreported Mg in the 1519 Mainz edition.
11–38. 1. a Perga … conscriptum est: Pol. 21. 42. 6–43. 1 κατὰ δὲ τόν … διάταξις. Again considerable compression by L. (though he adds iussis sequi Antiochi legatis), but the main points are expressed accurately enough. L.'s period in 37. 11 corresponds to one in Pol. §§7–9.