Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) Author(s): Craige Champion Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 45, H. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1996), pp. 315-328Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436429Accessed: 09-12-2015 16:12 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

POLYBIUS, AETOLIA AND THE GALLIC ATTACK ON DELPHI (279 B.C.)

The Aetolian repulse of the Gallic attack on Delphi in 279 was a celebrated event: Polybius pairs it with the great fifth century Persian invasions, while Pausanias views it as the greatest foreign threat in the history of the Greeks.' The alleged Aetolian heroics of 279 served to legitimate Aetolian control of the sanctuary in the third and early second centuries. Polybius' treatment of this event allows us to test two well-known and competing forces in his work. First is Polybius' avowed commitment to historical truth.2 For Casaubon in the early seventeenth century, as for Niebuhr in the nineteenth century, Polybius was the most honest of historians.3 Indeed, Polybius' historiographical pronounce-

2.35.7; Paus. 10.19.5; cf. Plut. Cim.l.l. Frequently cited works are abbreviated as follows: C. Champion, The Indirect Historian: The Depiction of Group Character in Polybius' Histories, 1-6 (Princeton Diss. 1993) = Champion; A.M. Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley 1995) = Eckstein; E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy (Oxford 1989) = Hall; Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, C. Gill, T.P. Wiseman, edd. (Austin 1993) = Lies and Fiction; B. MeiBner, "TIPArMATIKH IXTOPIA: Polybios uber den Zweck pragmati- scher Geschichtsschreibung," Saeculum 37 (1986) 313-351 = MeiBner; G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grace et les S6te'ria de Delphes (Brussels 1977) = Nachtergael; P. P6dech, La m6thode historique de Polybe (Paris 1964) = Pedech; K.-E. Petzold, Studien zur Methode des Polybios und zu ihrer historischen Auswertung (Munich 1969) = Petzold; K.S. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1981) = Sacks; R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore 1969) = RDGE; F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Poly- bius, 3 vols. (Oxford 1957-1979) = COP; id., Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1972) = Walbank, Polybius; id., "Speeches in Greek Historians," in Selected Papers. Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge 1985) 242-261 = Walbank, "Speeches"; K. Ziegler, "Polybios," RE 21:2 (1952) cols. 1440-1578 = RE. Citations of Polybius are from the Teubner edition of Th. Buttner-Wobst (Stuttgart 1882-1905). All dates are B.C.

2 Loci classici: 1.14.5-9; 13.5.4-6; further references at COP, I, 10f., ad 1.14.5, to which add 1.14.1f.; 2.40.4 (Aratus' Memoirs); 3.21.9f.; 12.25i.8f.; fr. 48. Cf. Eckstein, 241f.; Meifner, 321f.; Pedech, 30f., 46; RE, cols. 1506-1509, 1557-1560; Sacks, 139-144; Walbank, Polybius, 43. It is instructive that nearly twenty percent of the occurrences of dXil8eta and its cognates are found in the methodological Bk. 12.

3 For Casaubon, see Pddech, 22 and n. 3; cf. Eckstein, 17 and n. 76. B.G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome2, L. Schmitz, ed. (London 1849) 3; cf. R. Pichon, "Un historien positiviste dans l'antiquit6," Revue Universitaire 6 (Brussels 1896) 317-334 (non vidi).

Historia, Band XLV/3 (1996) C Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316 CRAIGE CHAMPION

ments, his wide travels, interrogation of eyewitnesses and personal inspection of important sites, and his consultation of inscriptional and archival materials all attest to a conscientious and painstaking researcher.4 On the other hand, Polybian scholars long have been aware that Polybius' anti-Aetolian prejudices run deep and that they at times may distort the historical narrative.5 The purpose of this paper is to examine Polybius' treatment of the Aetolian defense of Delphi in 279 and to discover its implications for Polybian historiography.

Section I examines the historical evidence for the creation and persistence of the Aetolian Delphic legend, as well as indications in Polybius which suggest that he accepted the Aetolian version of the events of 279. Section II studies the

For more recent defenders of Polybius' impartiality and objectivity, see G.A. Lehmann,

Untersuchungen zur historischen Glaubwurdigkeit des Polybios (Munster 1967) passim;

A.l. Nemirovskii, "Polybius as Historian," Soviet Studies in History 15.3 (Winter 1976-

77) 51-87, for whom Polybius' work "achieves self-definition as a scientific discipline"

(54); E. Gabba, "True History and False History in Classical Antiquity," JRS 71 (1981)

50-62, who implicitly accepts Polybius' objectivity in referring to him as one who wrote

"committed history" (52), an oddity in the mainstream of classical historiography, which,

according to the author, was given to myth and the miraculous. Similarly, T.P. Wiseman,

"Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity," in Lies and Fiction, 122-146, at pp. 134,

141-143, sees Polybius as a remarkable exception to the rule of classical historiography.

4 12.25e.1f. Historiographical conceptions and methodology: COP, I, 6-16; Meilner, 317-

324; Pedech, 21-53; Petzold, 3-24, 34-64; RE, cols. 1500-1560; Sacks, passim. Personal

testimony, travels and autopsy: 3.48.12, 58.1-59.8; 12.25f.5-h.4, 27.1-28a.10; 20.12.8

(cf. Paus. 8.30.8), with the summary at COP, I, 4-6. Cf. Eckstein, 1-16, 279-281; P6dech,

4 If., 52 and nn. 143f., 358-367, 516-597; Petzold, 3-7; RE, cols. 1520-1522; Sacks, 31-78

(autopatheia, autoptes, autourgia, empeiria, emphasis); Walbank, Polybius, 73f., 1 19f.

Documentary evidence: references assembled at RE, col. 1564, to which add 3.56.4;

25.2.3-15, with COP, I, 26-35. Cf. Nemirovskii (as in n. 3), 62-66; P6dech, 52 and n. 142,

377-389; Walbank, Polybius, 82-84. 5 See P6dech, 154. For examples, COP, 1, 12 n. 6 (anti-Aetolian obiter dicta); ad 2.43.9;

4.3-6; K.S. Sacks, "Polybius' Other View of Aetolia," JHS 95 (1975) 92-106, esp. p. 92,

with D. Mendels, "Did Polybius Have 'Another' View of the Aetolian League?," AncSoc

15-17 (1984-1986) 63-73. The Aetolians' greed and envy which brought about their

alleged triple alliance with Cleomenes and Antigonus Doson for the destruction of

Achaea constitute the Polybian passage in which antipathy for Aetolia most blatantly

distorts the historical narrative (2.45.1-6). On the independence of Polybius' version here

from Aratus' Memoirs, see E.S. Gruen, "Aratus and the Achaean Alliance with Mace-

don," Historia 21 (1972) 608-625, at pp. 617-620; J.A.O. Larsen, "The Aetolians in the

Cleomenic War," in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of

Harry Caplan (Ithaca 1966) 43-57; Pedech, 156 n. 288, 160. On the doubtful historicity

of the triple alliance, see R. Urban, Wachstum und Krise des achaischen Bundes: Quellen-

studien zur Entwicklung des Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr., Historia Einzelschr. 35

(Wiesbaden 1979) 98-107, and references to modern scholarship at 98 nn. 7-9, 99 n. 10.

Contra: R.A. DeLaix, "Polybius' Credibility and the Triple Alliance of 230/229 B.C.,"

CSCA 2 (1969) 65-83.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 317

speech of the Acarnanian Lyciscus which mentions the Gallic attack (9.32.3- 39.7). Here the extent to which Polybius may have editorialized in reported speeches is considered. Authorial license in speeches in classical historians is likely to remain a hotly debated topic, yet this speech lends further support to Polybius' acceptance of the Aetolian Delphic legend. Section III concerns the only passage in which Polybius directly mentions this event in his historical narrative (2.35). Both of the passages considered in Sections II and III demon- strate Polybius' integrity as an historian: Polybius acknowledges that, in his mind, all Greeks are indebted to the otherwise detestable Aetolians for having saved Delphi from the Gauls. The second passage (2.35) also shows that, while adhering to his historiographical principles on truth and accurate reporting of events in a technical sense, Polybius employs the Aetolian defense of Delphi to underscore the praiseworthy group characteristics of his native Achaeans at their prime.

L. Polybius and the Aetolian Delphic Legend

The Aetolians worked to claim credit for the defense of Delphi in 279 in order to legitimate their usurpation of control of the sanctuary in the first half of the third century.6 They reorganized the annual Amphictionic Soteria which commemorated the defeat of the Gauls in 279 into a grander, penteteric festival, the first celebration of which fell in 245.7

Epigraphical evidence suggests that in their advertisement in 246/5 of the first celebration of the expanded Soteria festival, the Aetolians diminished or eliminated the element of divine intervention in an earlier Delphic legend in order to highlight their heroics in the defense of the sanctuary. The earliest testimony on the Gallic attack, a decree from Cos which dates to the first half of 278 (Syll.3 378), emphasizes the role of Apollo in the defeat of the Gauls.8 The men who defended the sanctuary are mentioned but left unidentified (lines 6f.). This early Delphic legend, which stressed the divine element in the defense of

6 On the Aetolian installation at Delphi circa 300 and the Aetolians' steady increase of power there in the third century, see R. Flaceli&e, Les Aitoliens td Delphes (Paris 1937) 57-66; F.W. Walbank, "Macedonia and Greece," in CAH, 7.1 (Cambridge 1984) 233-234, 248-249.

7 See Nachtergael, 223-241; id., "L'archonte athdnien Polyeuctos et la p6riodicitM des sotdria itoliennes," Historia 25 (1976) 62-85, at pp. 62-78; P. Roussel, "La fondation des s6t6ria de Delphes," REA 26 (1924) 97-1 11 , esp. pp. 10 1-109.

8 Lines 1-4; cf. 16-18, 20, 24f., 28f., 40. On the date, see Syll.3 378, nn. 1, 6; FlaceliWre (as in n. 6), 105 n. 2; Nachtergael, 172f.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318 CRAIGE CHAMPION

the sanctuary, is reflected in the account of Pausanias and in Justin's epitome of Pompeius Trogus.9

The recognition decrees for the initial celebration of the Aetolian Soteria in 245 provide a glimpse into an extensive propaganda campaign designed to elevate the stature of the Aetolians in Greece by focusing on their alleged preservation of Delphi from barbarian destruction.)0 These decrees deempha- size divine intervention in the battle, and they imply that the Gallic threat was a massive invasion which was repulsed by the Aetolians before the sanctuary.

A brief consideration of the political struggles for control of the Delphic sanctuary from the end of Aetolian control there in the early second century to Polybius' own day helps to determine what bearing the Aetolian Delphic legend may have had on Polybius' understanding of the events of 279.

The Aetolians officially fell from power at Delphi in 189 in the aftermath of Thermopylae. In the following years, despite the senatorial decree introduced by the praetor Sp. Postumius Albinus which guaranteed the freedom and autonomy of the Delphians and the asylia of Apollo's temple, " various Greek states, headed by the Thessalians and Athenians, rushed to fill the power vacuum left by the Aetolians. A decree of 184/3, which honors the Thessalian Nicostratus, shows that the Thessalians and Athenians, as the leaders of a

9 Paus. 10.19.4-23.14; Justin, 24.7.6, 8.3-7. The remaining literary sources add nothing of

importance; they are assembled by H.W. Parke and D.E.W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle

(Oxford 1956) 133f., to which add Call. Del. 171-187. 10 E.M. 7400 = IG II/II12, 680 = Syll.3 408 (Athens); Delph. Inv. 2275 = IG IX, 12, 194b = FD

III, 3, 215 = Syll.3 402 (Chios); Delph. Inv. 688 = IG XII, Suppl., 309 = FD III, 1, 482

(Tenos); Delph. Inv. 2158, 2159 = FD III, 1, 481 (Cyclades); Delph. Inv. 697, 698, 699 =

FD III, 1, 483 = I Smyrna, 2.1 (Bonn 1987) 574, Petzl (Smyrna); Delph. Inv. 6377, 2872

(Abdera); Delph. Inv. 6203 (unknown origin). The Abderaean decree and the inscription

of unknown origin are too fragmentary to be of much use. The Smyrnaean decree has

several peculiarities which distinguish it from the rest of the group and should be

dissociated from the decrees of 246/5 and assigned a later date, probably 241, in response

to the Aetolian announcement of the second celebration of the reorganized Soteria. See S.

Elwyn, "The Recognition Decrees for the Delphian Soteria and the Date of Smyrna's

Inviolability," JHS 110 (1990) 177-180. I have discussed these decrees, the evidence for

the earlier Delphic legend, and the implications for Aetolian propaganda at Delphi in

greater detail in "The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Re-

cord," AJP 116 (1995) 213-220. 11 RDGE, no. 1, A, lines 4-6; B, lines 4-7 (189 B.C.). Cf. M'. Acilius Glabrio's earlier

promises, RDGE, no. 37, lines 7-10, supplemented by J.-P. Michaud, "Nouvelle inscrip-

tion de la base de M'. Acilius," in Etudes Delphiques. BCH Suppl. IV (1977) 125-136,

and C. Livius Salinator's reply to a Delphian petition in 189, RDGE, no. 38, lines 22-25;

see also RDGE, no. 39, lines 1Of. (180s). The Romans proved to be uninterested in living

up to these promises.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 319

reconstituted Amphictiony, won out in this struggle at the expense of the Delphians. 12

The Aetolian presence at Delphi was diminished but not obliterated. The rhetoric of the decree honoring Nicostratus is aimed against the Aetolians. An examination of a decree of 178 which concerns the pasturage of the sacred cattle and horses, however, reveals six Aetolian votes: those of the Locrians (2), Aenianes (2), Heracleotes (1), and the Dorians of the Metropolis (1). Only the designation Aetolian has dropped out, and a quarter of the Amphictionic votes remained defacto Aetolian. 13 It is true that of the fifty-nine occupants at Delphi who were evicted by the proconsul M'. Acilius Glabrio in 190, some were high functionaries in the Aetolian Confederation.'4 Yet only nine of these may be said to come from Aetolia proper.'5 Also of interest in this period is the dedication of a bronze statue to a three-time Aetolian strategos by the Delphi- ans (Syll.3 621).

The preceding survey demonstrates that an Aetolian presence at Delphi survived the turbulent years following Thermopylae. Most important for the present argument is the fact that although the Aetolians were no longer the dominant force at Delphi, there is no evidence that there was any lingering hostility against them of a sort which would precipitate an attempt to efface the Aetolian record of the events of 279. Indeed, Pausanias could still see monu- ments commemorating Aetolian heroics against the Gauls at Delphi. He reports four Aetolian commemorations of the victory: the arms of the Gauls which were set up at Apollo's temple alongside the Persian shields dedicated by the Atheni- ans from the spoils at Marathon;'6 a statue group of various Aetolian strategoi

12 Syll.3 613 A, with Ch. Habicht, "The Role of Athens in the Reorganization of the Delphic Amphictiony after 189 B.C.," Hesperia 56 (1987) 59-71.

13 Syll.3 636, with A. Giovannini, "Philipp V., Perseus und die delphische Amphictyonie," in Ancient Macedonia: First International Symposium, B. Laourdas, Ch. Makaronas, edd.

(Thessaloniki 1970) 147-154. "Und tatsachlich wird man in der amphictyonischen Liste des J. 178 (Syll.3 636) alle alten Mitglieder wieder in ihrem eigenen Namen vertreten finden, so daB auf dem Papier die Aetoler uberhaupt nicht mehr vorhanden sind" (150).

14 E.g., RDGE, no. 37, B, line 35 (Agelaus of Naupactus). These people had no legal foundation for their occupancy, as Delphi was technically never part of the Aetolian Confederation; see P. Roussel, "Delphes et l'Amphictionie aprbs la Guerre d'Aitolie," BCH 56 (1932) 1-36, at p. 10 with n. 5.

15 G. Daux, Delphes au lie et au ler sikcle depuis l'abaissement de l'ttolie jusqu'7 la paix romaine, 191-31 av. J.-C. (Paris 1936) 230. Four are from Naupactus, which may be considered Aetolian: Roussel (as in n. 14), 9. The majority are Aetolians from west Locris, which may be explained by its proximity to Delphi: Daux, 261; Roussel (as in n. 14), 8, 24.

16 10.19.4. The shields are mentioned by Callim. Del. 182-185, and they are probably referred to at Syll.3 398, lines 9f.; see Flaceli6re (as in n. 6), 108 nn. 2-5.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320 CRAIGE CHAMPION

and of Artemis, Athena and Apollo;17 a statue of the Aetolian commander Eurydamus dedicated near the omphalos;'8 and a trophy and personification of Aetolia commemorating Aetolian vengeance upon the Gauls for their atrocities at Kallion (10.18.7). Some three centuries after Polybius wrote his history, the propaganda which created the Aetolian legend at Delphi was plain to see in the form of these monuments.

Polybius does not state in his extant work that he visited Delphi. Yet he demonstrates an interest in sanctuaries,'9 and the burden of proof would be upon one who would claim that he never visited the most venerable religious site in Greece: Polybius stresses autopsy and accurate geographical knowledge, and he relays his wide travels.20 With the exception of the Athenian decree (E.M. 7400), the recognition decrees for the Aetolian penteteric Soteria all were found on the site of the sanctuary (see above, note 10). It is probable that Polybius himself saw these decrees, as well as the monuments celebrating the Aetolian triumph over the Gauls which Pausanias reports. Alternatively (and less likely), he may have learned of the Gallic attack through written sources alone,2' or from informants, such as his contemporary Polemon, proxenos to Delphi in 175/4, a man with interests in epigraphical texts.22

In any event, there are several indications that Polybius accepted the Aetolian version of the events of 279. He uses the Gallic attack, along with other events of monumental importance in Greek history, to date lesser events;23 he seems to think of the Gauls' rather insignificant raid on the sanctuary as one massive invasion directed against Delphi;24 he mentions Delphi nine times in the extant corpus, five of which concern the Gallic invasion;25 he pairs the ephodos of the Gauls with the fifth century Persian invasions of Greece (2.35.7, see below, Section III).

17 10.15.2; for the identity of the strategoi, see Nachtergael, 198f. with notes.

18 10.16.4. Eurydamus is identified as Aetolian strategos for 279/8 by Klaffenbach, IG IX,

12, p. 49; for further references, see Nachtergael, 200 n. 321. 19 Cf. P6dech, 532 and nn. 98-100, 542. 20 See above, note 4; cf. Pedech, 534-537. 4.57.2 and Liv. (P) 32.18.7, on Oeanthea and

Daulis respectively, indicate that Polybius probably had first-hand knowledge of these

sites in close proximity to the sanctuary. 21 Polybius' knowledge of written sources: 2.35.7. Modern scholars are divided on the

source of our most detailed account, Paus. 10. 19.4-23.14, between Hieronymus of Cardia

and Timaeus: Nachtergael, 27-49. Polybius certainly would have known the account of

Timaeus, if indeed that author is the source of Pausanias' account. 22 Ath. 6.234d (avrXoKc6na;); Syll.3, 585:114; RE 21:2 (1952) cols. 1290f. (Deichgraber);

P&iech, 377 and n. 154, 533 and n. 105. 23 1.6.5; 2.20.6; cf. 4.46.1f. 24 COP, 1, ad 1.6.5, p. 51; 2.35.7; 4.46.1. 25 1.6.5; 2.20.6, 35.7; 4.46.1; 9.35.1. The other references to Delphi are 9.33.4; 22.18.4;

25.3.2; 39.6.1.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 321

II. The Speech of Lyciscus (9.32.3-39.7) and the Aetolian Delphic Legend

Allied against Macedonia by the so-called treaty of Laevinus, the Aetolians and Romans jointly raided northwest Greece in the late autumn and winter of 21 1. In the late spring of 210, ambassadors from Aetolia and Acarnania arrived at Sparta. The Aetolian Chlaeneas urged the Spartans to join Aetolia and the Romans against Philip (9.28.1-31.6), while the Acamanian Lyciscus implored the Spartans not to desert the perennial defender of Greece, Macedon (9.32.3- 39.7).26 In response to Chlaeneas' earlier boast of Aetolian heroics (30.3), Lyciscus makes a passing reference to the Aetolian defense at Delphi in 279 (35.lf.). Lyciscus' mention of the Gallic ephodos is in accord with the indica- tions in the historical narrative which suggest that Polybius accepted the Aetol- ian version of the events of 279: Lyciscus has no grounds to refute or denigrate the alleged Aetolian heroics at Delphi.

This evidence raises the controversial issue of the degree to which classical historians editorialized in reported speeches. Modem scholarly opinions range from the conviction that some classical historians attempted to report accurately the substance of historical speeches to the view that the speech is little more than a vehicle by which the historian displays his rhetorical skills in composi- tion and that speeches in classical historians on the whole are fabrications of the author.27

Polybius expresses his indifference to prose style, and he states that histori- cal truth and accuracy must be placed before considerations of literary artistry in the recording of speeches.28 Yet we find verbal echoes of Polybius' narrative in the speech of Lyciscus. Two of Lyciscus' points, the benefactions of Antigo- nus and the raid of Timaeus, have been given earlier by the Spartan elders in response to the appeal of the Aetolian Machatas.29 At 9.34.6f., Lyciscus pairs

26 See the summary at COP, II, 162f. Cf. 9.40.4-6 with Liv. 26.25 and COP, II, 182f. 27 For the former view, see C.W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and

Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1983) 142-168; Walbank, "Speeches." For the latter view, see T.P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature (Leicester 1979) 28-30, 72-75 (hybrid nature of Appius Claudius' speech of 486 in Dion. Hal.), 118f. (Valerius Antias' fabrications in Livy); more recently and more vehemently, A.J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (Kent and Portland 1988) passim, "Verbatim speeches and classical historiography are a contradiction in terms" (13). Surprisingly, Woodman fails to consider Polybius, as noted in the review by T.J. Luce, Phoenix 43 (1989) 174-177.

28 Indifference to prose style: 3.31.11-13; 16.18.2-4, 20.3f.; cf. Dion. Hal. Comp. 4; P6dech, 33 and n. 61. Truth before style in reported speeches: 12.25a.3-b.4, 25i.3-9 (Timaeus); 16.17.9-11 (Zeno); 36.1.7; COP, I, 13f.; RE, cols. 1524-1527; Sacks, 79-95; Walbank, Polybius, 43-46.

29 4.34.9; cf. P6dech's review article of COP, I, REG 71 (1958) 440, and Walbank's rejoinder at COP, II, 163.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322 CRAIGE CHAMPION

the Aetolian pact with Gonatas and the Aetolian alliance with Alexander II of Epirus. The same pairing occurs in the narrative (2.45.1), and there are close verbal parallels in the alleged purpose of the arrangement between the Aetoli- ans and Gonatas.30 The verbal parallels between Lyciscus' speech and Polybi- us' narrative are even more striking in the case of the aftermath of Doson's victory at Sellasia.31 In both Lyciscus' speech and the historical narrative, Polybius states that although it was in Antigonus' power to do as he wished with the city, he refrained from any maltreatment and even restored the ances- tral Spartan constitution.32 Again, in both passages, Polybius states that as a result of his benefactions, Antigonus was hailed as ootilp cat E-epycvnl;.33 At 9.35.3, Lyciscus uses the argument that Macedonia always had acted as a bulwark against barbarian invasion. The same argument is employed by Flami- ninus at 18.37.9. Finally, at 9.37.10, Lyciscus refers to Rome as an ominous cloud from the west, rnXucoxofo Vw'o; adiro ti'j; ?Co-pa;, which repeats Age- laus' famous metaphor (5.104.10), and the figure recurs in the narrative.34 The question of Polybius' presence in Lyciscus' speech may be safely laid aside as a given fact.

These parallels between Lyciscus' speech and the historical narrative, however, do not compromise Polybius' historiographical pronouncements on truth and the reporting of speeches. The historian's duty is to report the

ipsissima verba whenever possible.35 Yet the historian's task comprises much more than this. For Polybius, the importance of historical events, both pragma- ta and logoi, lies not merely in what happened or what was said, but rather in the deep-rooted causes and in the psychological dispositions of the historical agents.36 The historian is not at liberty to falsify content, but he may embellish a speech

30 9.34.6f., ena &at?oei toi AX voV); 2.43.10-44.1, 6n?p ba&rpareo roi3 r&iV

'AXatCov cOvoou. 31 9.36.3f., ?tok11cTE ip6; bga; 'Avriyovo;, icai r&t tai-ta azpaTadgaevo;

EVitKloE...vYgVErO K-)pio; 5; Xdopa; cga Kai -riS n6x6;; 5.9.8f., 'Avriyovo; bc

xtapa,sTd4o-,q viKila; gdXi Kkeog6vlv ... ixpaTm; ?ygvero Kai ?x;anp'M. 32 9.36.4f.; 5.9.9f.; cf. 2.70. 1. 33 This, of course, was a common Hellenistic collocation and is epigraphically attested for

Doson: IG V.2.299, p. 50 (Antigoneia-Mantinea), with S. Dow and C.F. Edson, Jr.,

"Chryseis: The Study of the Evidence in Regard to the Mother of Philip V," HSCP 48

(1937) 127-180, at p. 131. 34 38.16.3. The metaphor has a long history: Hom. 11. 17.243; cf. 4.275-278. See C.M.

Bowra, "Signs of Storm (Archilochus fr. 56)," CR 54 (1940) 127-129, esp. p. 129, and

COP, I, ad 5.104.10. 35 2.56.10-12; 12.25b. 1, 25i.8; 36.1.7. 36 12.25i.8f. Further references at COP, I, 11 n. 8, to which add 2.56.16; 3.32.6. Cf. P.

Derow, "Historical Explanation: Polybius and His Predecessors," in Greek Historiogra-

phy, S. Hornblower, ed. (Oxford 1994) 73-90, at pp. 85-90; MeiBner, 318f.; P6dech,

258f.; Petzold, 7-11, 115 and n. 2; Wiseman (as in n. 3), 143.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 323

in a way which underscores and clarifies the historically important issues which, to his mind, lay behind it.37 The historian searches out the words suitable and opportune to the situation,38 but he does this by editing the materials he has collected, not by sheer invention.39 Antilogies such as the Chlaeneas-Lyciscus debate at Sparta serve to set opposing views in the sharpest light.40 In cases where Polybius has insufficient evidence at his disposal, he trusts in his judg- ment to reconstruct the situation.41 Polybius admits that he often is unable to reproduce the exact words which were spoken and that at times he actually uses the same words as on previous occasions due to the scope of his work.42 The true historian, the man with wide experience in politics, diplomacy and warfare who can write with emphasis, possesses the requisite knowledge to present speeches which elucidate the historical circumstances which occasioned them.43 He may be in a better position to understand the import of a speech, its "entire intention," than the actual historical agent who uttered it, and the &X106; keXxevta, much like Thucydides' famous programmatic statement at 1.22, reveal the substance, if not the precise form, of historical speeches.44

Lyciscus' speech is an anti-Aetolian harangue which emphasizes Aetolian lawlessness and impiety, in keeping with Polybius' overall picture of Aetol- ians.45 Polybius may have allowed his anti-Aetolian prejudices to color Lycis-

37 This statement conforms to the evidence of the one test case we possess: Tac. Ann. 1 1.24 and CIL 13.1668; see M. Griffen, "The Lyons Tablet and Tacitean Hindsight," CQ n.s. 32 (1982) 404-418. On Polybius' practice, see Sacks, 91f. and n. 146; Walbank, Polybius, 45.

38 12.25i.5, x6 & roi); X pg61ovac; icai Katpiou; [sc. X6you;] a&tXi Xackvetv; cf. 36.1.6f., on statesmen, with Pddech, 257 n. 16.

39 Cf. 36.1.7; Eckstein, 44 n. 54; Sacks, 85-95, esp. pp. 85-89; contra: Gomme, HCT, III, 522f.

40 See RE, col. 1526, for the paired speeches in Polybius. 41 Cf. 18.8.8-10. Exhortations of field commanders before military engagements often

would require such reconstruction. For a list of such napaKX1O?aeL in Polybius, see RE, col. 1526.

42 29.12.9-12, with Walbank, Polybius, 45 n. 71; Walbank, "Speeches," 249. Further refer- ences on pardonable involuntary errors are assembled at COP, I, ad 1.14.5.

43 See Sacks, 31-78, 87-95, 148-161. 44 For Polybius' theory on speeches and Thuc. 1.22.1, see RE, col. 1525. On Thucydides'

practice, see J.L. Moles, "Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides," in Lies and Fiction, 88-12 1, at pp. 104f.; Fornara (as in n. 27), 144f.; for the rendering of Thucydides' practice at 1.22 as an attempt to recover the speaker's "entire intention," see E. Badian, "Thucydides on Rendering Speeches," Athenaeum 80 (1992) 187-190. On the important differences between Thucydidean and Polybian speeches, see Sacks, 89 n. 142, and for some more general distinctions, Eckstein, 60, 151 and n. 125.

45 Aetolian impiety-dac4ekta and its cognates: 4.18.1 1; 5.9.6, 11.1, 11.2; 18.54.9, 54. 10 (Dicaearchus' altars to Impiety and Lawlessness); cf. Lyciscus' speech at 9.35.6f. Aetoli- an impiety is stressed in the complaints of the allies at the council at Corinth: 4.25.2-8.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324 CRAIGE CHAMPION

cus' oratory.46 Yet the mention of the Aetolian repulse of the Gauls before Delphi in 279 (9.35.1) strikes a discordant note with the rest of the speech: the Aetolian service to Greece is implicitly acknowledged, as Lyciscus quickly passes over the event with no attempt to deny the importance of the Aetolian feat at Delphi. Rather, the Acarnanian ambassador hastens to emphasize Mace- donian benefactions to Greece as a counterweight to the Aetolian claims (35.2- 4). This element of the speech is most likely historical: Lyciscus probably would have felt obligated to address the Aetolian Delphic legend, and it is difficult to imagine why Polybius would insert a fabrication on the Aetolian defense of Delphi, as it runs counter to his general characterization of Aetol- ians.

Lyciscus' reference to the Aetolians at Delphi raises two points on Polybian historiography which are important for the present inquiry: 1) Polybius' accep- tance of the Aetolian Delphic legend is corroborated by this passage; had Polybius himself had any doubts as to the Aetolian tradition, we should expect objections to be raised here in his narrative; 2) the passage testifies to Polybius' commitment to his resolve to report, when available, the actual words spoken, whatever they may be (see above, note 35). The historian's integrity is well illustrated here: Lyciscus' concession to Aetolian heroics at Delphi hardly fits well with the Polybian image of Aetolia.47

III. Aetolian Heroics at Delphi (2.35.7) and the Achaean Prokataskeue (2.37-71)

The Aetolians did not enjoy the best of reputations in antiquity, and Polybi- us provides the most scathing remarks on Aetolian character and practice.48 He

Aetolian lawlessness-ciuSdia and its cognates: 2.43.10, 45.1, 45.6; 4.3.12, 4.8, 6.2, 7.2 bis, 15.11, 16.3 (gnomic statement within discussion of Aetolians), 18.7, 26.2, 26.4, 27.2

(Scopas), 29.4 (Aetolian pact with Scerdilaidas); napavogia: 4.5.2 (Dorimachus); 5.11.2

(Philip's charges against Scopas and Dorimachus); irapaanovkw and its cognates: 4.3.5, 7.3, 9.2; 5.67.9 (Theodotus); used in Lyciscus' speech at 9.34.1 1; cf. 5.96.8 on Agetas.

See also the characterization of Aetolians at 4.6.9-12, 16.4, 67.4. Cf. above, note 5; on

Aetolian group character in Polybius, see Champion, 98-1 10. 46 Cf. COP, 11, ad 9.28-39 (p. 163); Walbank, "Speeches," 258; C. Wooten, "The Speeches

in Polybius: An Insight into the Nature of Hellenistic Oratory," AJP 95 (1974) 235-251, at

p. 240. 47 Conversely, Polybius can be highly critical of the Achaean heroes Aratus and Philopoe-

men: 4.8.5-8, with Eckstein, 36f., 239 (Aratus); 22.19.1-4, with Eckstein, 114-116 (Philo-

poemen). 48 Thuc. 3.94.5; cf. 1.5.3-6.2 (retarded progress in Ozolian Locris, Acarnania and Aetolia,

oIr5ep oi j36p1apoi); Eur. Phoen. 138 with D.J. Mastronarde, Euripides: Phoenissae

(Cambridge 1994) ad 134, 138. For a possible ethnic joke at Aetolian expense at Od.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 325

acknowledges, to his credit, what he believed to have been an Aetolian service to Greece, the preservation of the Delphic sanctuary from barbarian destruction. Polybius' admiration of this deed is most apparent at 2.35.7, where he pairs it with the Greek repulse of the great fifth century Persian invasions as prime examples of Hellenic logismos triumphing over barbarian thumos. Polybius employs these examples of the superiority of Hellenic rationality to reinforce his general characterization of his native Achaea at its zenith.

In the narrative structure of the introductory prokataskeue (Bks. 1-2), 2.35 serves as a bridge between Roman and Achaean affairs. The chapter opens with a summation of the Gallic tumultus of 225. The account of this war will be useful to future generations in the face of barbarian onslaughts (35.5-7). These sections lead directly to the great Persian invasions of Greece and the Greek resistance against the Gallic attack on Delphi (35.7f.). These events serve as paradigmatic manifestations of logic and reason overcoming superior numbers at great odds, i 'rci cuv vC, xai gea Xoytavtoi xctv8uveDu6vv atipEctn; (35.8f.). In the following chapter, Polybius tidies up the account of Roman affairs by rapidly setting the stage for the Hannibalic war in recounting the murder of Hasdrubal and Hannibal's appointment to the Iberian strategeia. The Achaean prokataskeue commences with 2.37.

The digression into Achaean history shows some distinctions in the compa- rison of the ascents of Rome and Achaea: key Achaean leaders, Aratus, Philo- poemen and Lycortas, are considered as catalysts for the implementation of the Achaean political lpoaipeot;, while Polybius stresses that in the case of Rome, no single individual stands out, as the Roman politeia arose through communal toil and effort.49 The ever-present Achaean political principle (2.42.3; cf. 2.38.10f.) prevailed in the face of minimal manpower and resources, while material resources are emphasized as a key to Roman success.50 Moreover, the details of Polybius' account of early Achaean history suggest that the Achaeans achieved the unification of the Peloponnesus through Realpolitik and correct

14.462-506, see T. Corey Brennan, "An Ethnic Joke in Homer?," HSCP 91 (1987) 1-3. Duris, FGrH 76 F 13 = Ath. 6.63.253 d-f, and for the historical foundations of Duris' charge, see now G. Reger, "The Political History of the Kyklades 260-200 B.C.," Historia 43 (1994) 32-69, at pp. 66-68, and literature cited there. Agatharchides, FGrH 86 F 6 - Ath. 12.33.527 b-c. Cf. Hall, 175f. For Polybius, see above, notes 5, 45.

49 Cf. 2.39.11-40.2f. (Achaea); 6.10.14 (Rome); Petzold, 73f.; cf. 97f., lOlf. (Aratus). 50 Cf. 2.35.8, oi5ir Ryp XopTjytv o50' 6nXtov o'tt' dv6pCiv nilXOo; KataWxacZei; dv t;

dnoaraiij itq rO?vraia; cXniioq, with 2.53.1, oi 5' 'AXatoi, KQai1ep ov get?pia)4

iiXavcz ov -rot 6Xoi;, 6gso.q oO.K doaiotavto Ti; npo06oaew oi68' ev a&rozi; Xni8ia;;

cf. 5.93.3f. (Achaeans); 1.3.9, nioical; 8uvcIje Ktai Xopnlyiat5 Xpijadievot 'Powtaiot; 1.13.12 (Romans); Eckstein, 255f.; Petzold, 93-95. After Cannae, however, Polybius does stress the deficiency of Roman material resources: 3.118.4-9; cf. 6.58.7 and Eck- stein, 67.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326 CRAIGE CHAMPION

relations with Rome, not through their political ideology. Petzold states that these inconsistencies confirm Geizer's hypothesis that the Achaean prokata- skeue was an earlier monograph which was inserted into the historical work.5'

The question of the Achaean prokataskeue as an earlier monograph must remain open, but there are clear signs that Polybius has worked it to fit into the Histories: Pyrrhus' crossing at 2.41.1 1 refers back to 2.20.6; the Carthaginian defeat in Sicily at 2.43.6 is an indirect reference to 1.62 and 2.1.2; the first Roman crossing to Illyria at 2.44.2 looks back to 2.1.2.52 The Romano-Achaean parallelism, and not the differences between Rome and Achaea nor the inconsis- tencies within the Achaean digression, is the most striking feature of the Achaean prokataskeue.53

In 2.35, logismos provides the link between Rome and Achaea in their early histories.54 The chapter looks back to the Roman triumphs over the barbarian Carthaginians, Illyrians and Gauls. The Hellenic struggles against barbarians are referred to as agones (35.8), which recalls the description of Rome's early wars against Samnites and Gauls (1.1.6; cf. l. 13.4f.) and the Roman psychoma- chia in the final phase of the First Punic War (1.59.6). The opposition of

logismos to thumos echoes the Roman rationality and discipline which in Bk. 2

are contrasted with Illyrian and Gallic impulse, greed, and unbridled passion.55 This bridging chapter also looks forward to the account of Achaea's rise

(2.37-71). The final sections strongly foreshadow the characterization of

Achaeans which the reader will encounter in the immediately succeeding chap- ters. The agones at 1. 1.6, in addition to providing a lexical echo of Rome's early

51 Petzold, 44-49, 97. Cf. M. Gelzer, "Die hellenische nPOKATAZKETH im zweiten

Buche des Polybios," in Kleine Schriften, III (Wiesbaden 1964) 111-122; id., "Die

Achaica im Geschichtswerk des Polybios," in Kl. Schr., III, 123-154, at pp. 123-127. 2.37

and the nap?KIaat; at 1. 12.5-15.13 are, according to Gelzer, rough attempts to integrate

the Achaean monograph into the main work. Petzold, 25-128; id., Historia 9 (1960) 252f.,

believes that the Achaean digression, a work prior to the Histories, was inserted after

Polybius' decision to extend the historical work to 146, when ethical concerns began to

dominate Polybius' thought (cf. 3.4.4-8). Contra: F.W. Walbank, "Polybius between

Greece and Rome," in Polybe. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 20 (Geneva 1974) 1-3 1, at p.

29; id., JRS 60 (1970) 252. On moral and ethical concerns in Polybius, see now Eckstein,

passim. 52 See M. Treu, "Biographie und Historie bei Polybios," Historia 3 (1954/5) 219-228, at p.

226. 53 Champion, 111-122; cf. Pddech, 405-431; Walbank, JRS 60 (1970) 252.

54 Cf. 2.35.3f., on the Gauls' conduct of the war, 6uji4p VdXov l koyta,o PpakekaOat; 2.30.4; 3.3.5f. (ivpptq, napavoisia). Timaeus, FGrH 566 F 69; App. Illyr. 2 (cf. Natale

Conti, Myth. 9.8), reflect a tradition which has the brutish Cyclops Polyphemus as the sire

of Galates, eponym of the Gauls. Cf. Eckstein, 122-124 and nn. 12, 15-18; P&Iech, 210-

212, 216-229, 423. 55 See Champion, 47-57. But for some individual Roman failures to live up to the rational

standard in Bk. 1, see Eckstein, 9; ibid., 192 n. 112, for examples in later books.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Polybius, Aetolia and the Gallic Attack on Delphi (279 B.C.) 327

struggles, also adumbrate Achaea's struggle to realize its political 1poaipeaq (cf. 2.69. If., Sellasia). According to Polybius, intelligence can more than compensate for deficiencies in men and material resources (2.35.8). Achaeans demonstrate the truth of this statement in the Achaean prokataskeue, as well as in the account of the Social War of 220-217.56 The steadfast resolve and self- reliance of the rational aipeat; (35.8f.) finds expression in the Achaean politi- cal itpoaipcat;.57

The contrast between Hellenic rationality and barbarian irrationality is underscored repeatedly in 2.35. The initial sections (?? 2-7) emphasize barbari- an mindlessness. The war's positive aspect lay in its formidability, but even here, the Gallic tumultus is described as an affair of &,6vota and t6Xr..58 Its negative aspect lay in the total lack of planning and calculation on the part of the Gauls, Mtv dKpatiav xoi ca-a g?po; Xetpta0goi TteXko; eU'KatacpOV1rTO; (? 3).59 As a consequence of barbarian akrisia, barbarian attacks are sudden, but the results are ephemeral, ai'vt&ou; ic& xlapaXoyou; tciv IapIkpov 'c-

66ou;; oXtyoXpovt6v Eczt caQ Xciav e`00aptov (? 6). In his polar opposition of Hellenic rationality, moderation, and communal

values to barbarian mindlessness, excess, and divisiveness, Polybius conforms to the Greek/barbarian dichotomy which was first articulated in the fifth centu- ry as a response to the historical experience of the Persian warsA60 There is nothing new here.

Yet the Aetolian defense of Delphi against the Gauls in 279 posed some- thing of an historiographical dilemma. Polybius regularly employs the vocabu- lary of barbarism in describing Aetolians: alogia, paranomia, pleonexia, thu-

56 See above, n. 50; cf. 5.93.3f., raLs 6E Xop7lytiat; .. .po; rcav a8uvdto eixov. 57 Prohairesis generally denotes the deliberative function of the human intellect. In Aristot-

le it is a self-conscious, deliberated choice toward a determined end, or, more simply, a rational choice: Poet. 1454a 1 8; Eth. Eud. B. 10. 1226a 18-1226b9; Eth. Nic. G.4.111 1 b4- I1 12a 17, npoaipeai; Rer&z Myo) icai btavoia;; see S. Broadie, Ethics with Aristotle (Oxford 1991) 80-82, 179-185, 212-225, 232-242; conveniently, J. Lear, Aristotle: The Desire to Understand (Cambridge 1988) 141-15 1. On Polybius' uses of the word, Cham- pion, 81-98; COP, 1, ad 2.7.6; MeiBner, 318 n. 49; P6dech, 212f.

58 PNdech, 211 n. 38, assembles Polybius' other pejorative uses of EAXo . For a possible uncharacteristically neutral use of di6vota, see Eckstein, 48 n. 64, on 16.32.1.

59 Cf. above, note 54. Barbarian attacks are referred to generally as napaxoXyo-u (? 6). On barbarians' lack of strategic order and discipline in battle, cf. Thuc. 4.125.1-128.4 (Illyrians); Isoc. Paneg. 150-15 1, ?XXo; drwcao;, with J. de Romilly, "Les Barbares dans la pensde de la Grece classique," Phoenix 47 (1993) 283-292, esp. pp. 287, 289. Barbari- an military inferiority in Homer has been exaggerated: Hall, 30.

60 See H. Diller, "Die Hellenen-Barbaren-Antithese im Zeitalter der Perserkriege," in Grecs et Barbares. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 8 (Geneva 1962) 39-68; cf. Hall, passim, with references assembled at p. 6 n. 18. On Polybius and barbarians, see now Eckstein, 119- 125, 286f. and n. 3 (barbarian drunkenness).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328 CRAIGE CHAMPION

mos.61 The alleged Aetolian heroics of 279, however, serve as an exemplum at 2.35.7 of the positive Hellenic traits. There could be little doubt in any reader's mind as to the authors of the resistance to the Gauls at Delphi, and the Aetolians are not identified here. Similarly, the Athenians, another people for whom Polybius had little fondness,62 are left unidentified as the heroes in turning back the fifth century Persian invasions. Polybius expropriates these two great events in Greek history to highlight Achaean virtues in a chapter which serves as the introduction to the Achaean prokataskeue.

Conclusion

The legend of the Aetolian defense of Delphi against the Gauls in 279 survived to Polybius' time and beyond: Pausanias reports several monuments which attest to the propagation of the Aetolian Delphic legend. There are clear signs that Polybius accepted its historicity: he uses the Gallic ephodos of 279 to date lesser events, he believes that the seriousness of the Gallic attack was much greater than it was in fact, more than half of the references to Delphi in the extant Histories refer to the Gallic attack, and he pairs this event with the fifth century Persian invasions (2.35.7).

Polybius' acknowledgement of what he believed to have been a great Aetolian service to Greece (2.35.7; 9.35.1-4) attests to his integrity as an historian: the Aetolian feat at Delphi is at odds with Polybius' generally negative characterization of Aetolians.

At 16.14.6, Polybius concedes a slight patriotic bias to the historian, pro- vided that he does not contradict the historical facts.63 His treatment of the Gallic ephodos of 279 at 2.35 appears to be a case in point. Polybius does not violate his historiographical principles here, but he does employ an Aetolian

exploit to highlight Achaean virtues: in the narrative structure of Bk. 2, 2.35 stands as an introduction to a digression into Achaean history (2.37-71). This

passage serves as a prime example of the subtle ways in which Clio could invoke Peitho in classical historiography.

Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania Craige Champion

61 See above, notes 5, 45; Champion, 98-1 10, 176-184, cf. 11 1-122. Petzold, 126-128, sees

the Aetolians as the Gegenprinzip to the Achaean political principle in the Achaean

prokataskeue. On the standard characterizations of the barbarian, see Hall, passim, esp.

pp.79-84, 99f., 102-113, 121-133, 158f., 184-190, 198-200. For the view of Aetolians as

semi-barbarous, see above, note 48; cf. Polyb. 18.5.7f., where Philip V denies that the

Aetolians are Greeks. 62 See 6.44 with Walbank, Polybius, 169 and n. 81. 63 See COP, 1, 1 2f.; COP, II, ad loc.; cf. Moles (as in n. 44), 94. 1 wish to thank Ch. Habicht,

T.J. Luce, D. Silverman, and the referee of the journal for their helpful suggestions.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:12:23 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions