MiChele belloMo POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE* The events that led to the outbreak of the First Punic War in 264 BC, play an important role in a political and constitutional analysis of the history of Rome. The Roman intervention in Sicily and the commitment to a long conlict with Carthage were seen as a milestone in the evolution of that important phenomenon to which we give the name of ‘Roman imperialism’1. However, the outbreak of this irst extra-Italic conlict has attracted the scholars’ attention not only for its historical and military implications, but especially for the complexities of the record of the sources at our disposal, which are in conlict with each other and do not provide a clear reconstruction. The dificulties mainly related to the translation of the important passage by Polybius (1, 11, 1-3) about the way by which the Romans decided to intervene in Sicily, gave rise to a long series of interpretations not only about the strategic and military reasons that led * I would like to thank prof.ssa Simonetta Segenni and prof. Piergiuseppe Michelotto, which through their helpful comments have driven me during the composition of this article, and prof. Cesare Letta who read the irst version of this paper and advanced careful corrections. 1 On Roman imperialism scholars have written extensively. Although initially MoMMSen, Geschichte, had proposed the theory of a defensive imperialism, i.e. an hegemony result of a mere defence of the territory (followed by frank, Imperialism; holleaux, Rome; walbank, Polybius; baDian, Imperialism; errinGton, Dawn), in the last thirty years there has been a revision of this concept, mainly the result of the brilliant work of harriS, Imperialism (with results obtained independently also by hoPkinS, Conquerors) which suggested a policy much more aggressive of Rome, the result of a general propulsion to war, seen as a mean of obtaining material beneits and glory, proper of the aristocratic class. From this point scholars have divided between those who have criticized the view of Harris, proposing a return to the theory of defensive imperialism (Sherwin-white, East; Gruen, Hellenistic; DySon, Frontier; kallet-Marx, Hegemony) and those who have been inspired by his work to address the subject from a new point of view (north, Development; bearD, CrawforD, Republic; riCharDSon, Hispaniae; Cornell, Beginnings; eCkStein, Anarchy). It is not my intention to analyze the events surrounding the outbreak of the First Punic War within the history of the evolution of Roman imperialism, but from any perspective we want to analyze (defensive or aggressive) it is obvious that the irst armed intervention outside the Italian peninsula represented an important step and certainly fraught with consequences for the future. SCO 59 (2013), 71-90 72 MICHELE BELLOMO Rome to extend her interests in this region, but to the same constitutional developments related to the matter. In these pages irst of all we will try to give an accurate account, perhaps not exhaustive, of the modern interpretations that have been given up to the passage by Polybius, highlighting which schools of thoughts have developed, which bases have provided to the research and what questions they have not been able to solve; then we’ll try to determine, by means of a comparison of the text by Polybius with the other sources related to the outbreak of the First Punic War, what was the nature of the debate which arose in Rome in 264 BC and which constitutional process it set in motion; and at least, on the basis of this reconstruction we will attempt to provide a new interpretation of the constitutional form that took the Roman intervention in Sicily, shedding light on which forces went into the political game, with what weight and with which consequences. In the period between 288 and 270 BC the Mamertines, Campanian mercenaries who had served under the command of Agathocles, seized the city of Messana and extended their inluence on the area in the north of Sicily. This policy inevitably put them at odds to the nearby Syracuse, which under the leadership of Hiero had taken a strong territorial expansion. After years of skirmishes, the Syracusans inally defeated the Mamertines in the battle of the river Longanus (264 BC)2, and so the latter, unable to ight alone Hiero asked the help of both the Carthaginians, whose power extended on the western side of the island, and the Romans, with which they were bound by constraints of ethnicity3. In particular, the Mamertines offered the surrender of the city and their own destiny (deditio in idem) to the latter4. A long debate on the issue arose in Rome. What worried the Romans was, on the one hand, the senselessness of providing assistance to the Mamertines when only a few years before they had severely punished another mercenary population who had seized the city of Rhegium; on 2 I accept the version proposed by hoyoS, Hiero, 32-56, who places the battle of Longanus in 264 BC and directly related to the request for help of the Mamertines. 3 Polyb. 1, 10, 1-2: οἱ δὲ Μαμερτῖνοι πρότερον μὲν ἐστερημένοι τῆς ἐπικουρίας τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Ῥηγίου, καθάπερ ἀνώτερον εἶπον, τότε δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις πράγμασιν ἐπταικότες ὁλοσχερῶς διὰ τὰς νῦν ῥηθείσας αἰτίας, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ Καρχηδονίους κατέφευγον καὶ τούτοις ἐνεχείριζον σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τὴν ἄκραν, οἱ δὲ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐπρέσβευον, παραδιδόντες τὴν πόλιν καὶ δεόμενοι βοηθήσειν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ὁμοφύλοις ὑπάρχουσιν. 4 That the request of the Mamertines had taken the form of a deditio (παραδιδόντες τὴν πόλιν) was argued by täubler, Imperium, 91, and then accepted by most of modern historiography: DahlheiM, Völkerrechts, 56-58; PetzolD, Polybios, 177-178; riCh, Declaring, 120; harriS, Imperialism, 185; eCkStein, General, 75-76; hoyoS, Unplanned, 47-51. POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 73 the other, the awareness of the need to prevent the Carthaginians’ occupation of Messana, a step that would have led them to build a bridgehead for a future crossing in Italy5. Here’s how the discussion proceeded in Rome, according to the witness by Polybius: Ὃ προορώμενοι Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ νομίζοντες ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι σφίσι τὸ μὴ προέσθαι τὴν Μεσσήνην μηδ᾽ ἐᾶσαι Καρχηδονίους οἱονεὶ γεφυρῶσαι τὴν εἰς Ἰταλίαν αὑτοῖς διάβασιν, πολὺν μὲν χρόνον ἐβουλεύσαντο, καὶ τὸ μὲν συνέδριον οὐδ᾽ εἰς τέλος ἐκύρωσε τὴν γνώμην διὰ τὰς ἄρτι ῥηθείσας αἰτίας. ἐδόκει γὰρ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀλογίαν τῆς τοῖς Μαμερτίνοις ἐπικουρίας ἰσορροπεῖν τοῖς ἐκ τῆς βοηθείας συμφέρουσιν. Oἱ δὲ πολλοὶ τετρυμένοι μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν προγεγονότων πολέμων καὶ προσδεόμενοι παντοδαπῆς ἐπανορθώσεως, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς ἄρτι ῥηθεῖσι περὶ τοῦ κοινῇ συμφέρειν τὸν πόλεμον καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστοις ὠφελείας προδήλους καὶ μεγάλας ὑποδεικνυόντων τῶν στρατηγῶν, ἔκριναν βοηθεῖν. Kυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, προχειρισάμενοι τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὑπάτων στρατηγὸν Ἄππιον Κλαύδιον ἐξαπέστειλαν, κελεύσαντες βοηθεῖν καὶ διαβαίνειν εἰς Μεσσήνην6. So the Romans at least decided to accept the request of the Mamertines. A decision which was the result, however, of a long and bitter debate (Ῥωμαῖοι… πολὺν μὲν χρόνον ἐβουλεύσαντο) carried out in two stages: irst in the Senate, where they failed to ind a solution since those favourable to the intervention were equally balanced by those against it (καὶ τὸ μὲν συνέδριον οὐδ’εἰς τέλος ἐκύρωσε τὴν γνώμην), then in the popular assembly, where the consuls (στρατηγοί) managed to convince the people (οἱ πολλοί), worn out by previous wars and eager to anything which could restore its situation, to decide in favour of the Mamertines (ἔκριναν βοηθεῖν). Once the solution had been approved by the people (Kυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου), the Romans sent to Messana one of the two consuls as a commander, namely Appius Claudius. This reconstruction of events, as it has been presented by the modern translators7, would be of great importance not only from a strategic 5 Polyb. 1, 10, 3-9. According to baDian, Clientelae, 34-35, the Romans would not have been very moved by moral scruples as situations of Rhegium and Messana would have been very different. The Senate hesitated only because it knew that a direct intervention could lead to a long struggle with Carthage. 6 Polyb. 1, 10, 9-11, 3. 7 This is the current translation of the passage, with a decisive role played by the people in front of the inability of the Senate to decide on the matter: «Il Senato… non 74 MICHELE BELLOMO point of view (the involvement of Rome in a new conlict), but above all from a constitutional one. Indeed, it would show a Senate forced to leave the people, under the decisive pressure of the consuls, a matter of its ordinary competence, namely: the acceptance of the Mamertines in an alliance resulting from their deditio, and the decision to send them military aid8. Given the exceptional nature of the event, and the dificulty, or rather the mysteriousness of the lexicon of Polybius, scholars have divided in two schools of thought. First, those who have followed the general interpretation of the passage9 and have tried to specify which popular assembly voted in favour of the intervention. Here they have given more emphasis on both the comitia tributa, which normally took care of cases of deditio, and the comitia centuriata, which usually were summoned for military affairs10. Some scholars have instead proposed a completely different translation of the passage, according to which it was the Senate, or rather its majority (οἱ πολλοί) to decide the matter, without any intervention by the people11. volle ratiicare la proposta d’intervento. Ma il popolo… decise d’inviare gli aiuti» (borStorie), «Le Sénat, lui, rejeta catégoriquement la demande… mais la plèbe… décida l’envoi d’un corps expéditionnaire» (PéDeCh, Histoires), «The Senate did not sanction the proposal… the commons, however, were in favour of sending help» (Paton, Histories). 8 This interpretation was provided by the irst commentators on the work of Polybius: CaSaubon, Polybii, 103 ss., suggested that a ‘honest’ Senate could never approve the delivery of aid to Mamertines and the decision was then taken by the people through a rogatio proposed by the consuls; and SChweiGäuSer, Polybii, 23, according to which, however, the Senate ‘voluntarily’ left the issue to the people because unable to reach a unanimous decision. 9 SCullarD, Scipio, 30-35; heuSS, Imperialismus, 475, nt. 3; walbank, Commentary, 60-61; e. Meyer, Geschichte, 265; P. Meyer, Ausbruch, 44; De SanCtiS, Storia, III 1, 97; PiGaniol, Conquête, 190; thiel, Sea-Power, 134; hoffMann, Mamertiner, 153-180; briSSon, Carthage, 33; hoyoS, Unplanned, 62; frank, Imperialism, 88-91; SChur, Scipio, 44; PaiS, Storia, 106; Giannelli, Roma, 62; liPPolD, Consules, 113; baDian, Clientelae, 34; haMPl, Vorgeschichte, 417; CàSSola, Gruppi, 181; Gabba, Imperialismo, 64, nt. 36. 10 Comitia tributa: Scullard, Heuss, Walbank; comitia centuriata: E. Meyer, P. Meyer, De Sanctis, Piganiol, Thiel, Hoffmann, Brisson, Hoyos. It should be emphasized as there are many scholars who have left the issue unresolved, accepting that it was the people which took the inal decision but refusing to give it a precise institutional placement (Schur, Pais, Giannelli, Lippold, Badian, Hampl, Cassola, Gabba). An alternative theory was proposed by frank, Imperialism, 88-91, that the people was summoned by the tribunes of the plebs in the form of concilium plebis. 11 täubler, Imperium, I, 100, nt. 2; De Martino, Costituzione, 276; Giannelli, Repubblica, 295; CalDerone, Polibio, 7-78; eCkStein, General, 80-83. GoGno, POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 75 Both versions are based on a particular interpretation of the term οἱ πολλοί, and both show big dificulties due to its translation as ‘popular assembly’ or ‘the majority of the Senate’12. A major obstacle to the irst interpretation lies in the sentence by Polybius that sending aid to Mamertines, just decided by οἱ πολλοί, was the subject of the ratiication of a δόγμα, a term which usually means an oficial decree, by the people (ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου)13. Whether interpreting the term δόγμα as ‘popular decree’ or ‘senatus consultum’, the two meanings generally used by Polybius, the reconstruction is complicated14. In the irst case, if the popular assembly had already arranged to send aid, then Polybius had apparently no need to point out that the same assembly ratiied a decree. In the second case, however, it is inexplicable that the people’s decision to send aid was to receive a ratiication by the Senate when the same Senate had been unable to reach a solution15. In fact, if the Senate had approved the sending of aid to Mamertines, then it had no reason to leave the inal decision to the people, and conversely, if it was against the resolution it could always block the popular vote by convincing a tribune to put his veto16. With regard to the interpretation of οἱ πολλοί as ‘majority of the Senate’, there are two objections that can be raised: on the one hand, the sharp contrast between καὶ τὸ μὲν συνέδριον… οἱ δὲ πολλοί, which hardly suggests to consider the latter as a part of the former; on the other, the condition of these πολλοὶ, τετρυμένοι μὲν ὑπὸ προγεγονότων πολέμων καὶ προσδεόμενοι τῶν παντοδαπῆς ἐπανορθώσεως, that best adapts to a popular class rather than to a senatorial one17. For the interpretation of this term in a ‘popular’ way: DeininGer, Widerstand, 18. Polyb. 1, 11, 3. 14 For the use of the term δόγμα in Polybius: MauerSberGer, Lexicon, I 2, 559. 15 The cases in which δόγμα is used by Polybius to indicate a senatus consultum are numerous: 6, 12, 3-4; 6, 13, 2; 18, 44, 1-5; 18, 45, 1-3; 24, 10, 3; 28, 3, 3; 28, 13, 11; 28, 16, 1-2; 29, 27, 1-3; 30, 5, 12-16; 30, 19, 6-7; 30, 21, 3. 30, 2-3; 33, 18, 11. hoyoS, Unplanned, 58-59, nt. 18, showed how the term could indicate, at least in two cases (3, 27, 7; 6, 14, 4) a popular decree. On the expression κυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου and its meaning in this context I’ll return later. walbank, Commentary, 61 (followed by SCullarD, Carthage, 540-543) translated the term as senatus auctoritas, that is, the people ratiied a measure not approved neither refused by the Senate, but such interpretation seems unconvincing. 16 See De Martino, Costituzione, 276 for the reluctance of the Senate; eCkStein, General, 80-81 for the possibility to use the veto of one of the tribunes. 17 As suggested by Walbank in CalDerone, Polibio, 44-45, the term πολλοί is used to indicate a majority only if compared to a minority and not to the whole council. On the economic condition of this πολλοί see CaSSola, Gruppi, 180-181. According to Pinzone, Etica, 18, the term τετρυμένοι could hardly be referred to the people as 12 13 76 MICHELE BELLOMO The question of who actually decided to send aid to Messana remains thus open and not fully clariied by the previous interpretations. In order to solve the problem and identify the most likely constitutional procedure set in motion by the events of 264 a.C. we need to make a more extensive analysis of the issue. First of all with regard to the chronology. As noted by the majority of scholars, Polybius seems at irst to place the deditio of the Mamertines (and their call for help) and the Roman decision to intervene in a single moment, and hence the general assumption that these two topics were discussed at the same time18. But the other sources that testify the outbreak of the First Punic War present a slightly different account19. According to Diodorus Siculus, Cassius Dio / Zonaras and other later sources, the Roman intervention in Sicily was divided into two stages20: irst, there was a request for help of the Mamertines following the defeat they had suffered at the Longanus and that brought the Romans to send some legates to Messana21; then a second request, when the city was besieged by the combined forces of Syracuse and Carthage, which had formed an alliance when the Mamertines, probably on the advice of the Romans, have expelled a Punic garrison from the city22. Rome had won the previous wars and it would appear strange the behaviour of who, worn out by a war, would search another one to restore its condition. The whole argument could be a literary invention provided by Polybius. 18 Polyb. 1, 10, 2-3: οἱ δὲ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐπρέσβευον, παραδιδόντες τὴν πόλιν…Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ πολὺν μὲν χρόνον ἠπόρησαν. See nt. 3. 19 For the chronology about the outbreak of the First Punic War, I follow mainly the reconstruction provided by eCkStein, General, 335-341. 20 Diod. Sic. 22, 9 - 23, 4; Dio. Frg. 43, 1-4 (Zon. 8, 8-9). 21 According to Zonaras (8, 9), the expulsion of the Carthaginians was due to the action conducted by the military tribune C. Claudius, sent in Sicily by the consul. The historicity of this tribune has been long debated. Some scholars accept his existence: De SanCtiS, Storia, III 1, 104; thiel, Sea-Power, 149; CaSSola, Gruppi, 179-180; hoffMann, Mamertiner, 175-176; riCh, Declaring, 122; eCkStein, General, 337-340; others are rather doubtful: heuSS, Imperialismus, 483-484; walbank, Commentary, 61-62; liPPolD, Consules, 249. Even Diodorus Siculus (23, 1, 2: ἐποιήσαντο γὰρ συμμαχίαν Ῥωμαίους πολεμῆσαι, ἐὰν μὴ τὴν ταχίστην ἐκ τῆς Σικελίας ἀπαλλάττωνται) attests the presence of ‘Romans’ in Messana before the siege of the city. It was only after this incident that Rome decided to intervene (on Diodorus: GankowSkJ, Diodore, XVIII-XIX). 22 According to later Roman sources, the Mamertines received assistance only after having previously concluded a foedus with Rome: Liv. 30, 31, 4: neque patres nostri priores de Sicilia, neque nos de Hispania fecimus bellum; et tum Mamertinorum sociorum periculum et nunc Sagunti excidium nobis pia ac iusta induerunt arma; Fl. 1, 18, 2, 3: cum de Poenorum inpotentia foederata Siciliae civitas Messana quereretur; Oros. 4, 7, 1: Anno ab urbe condita CCCCLXXXIII id est Appio Claudio Q. Fabio consulibus POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 77 Only at this second stage the Romans decided to send the consul Appius Claudius to Sicily. Moreover, Polybius, in a subsequent step, suggests the possibility that this reconstruction was the most likely. When in the third book he comes back on the events of the First Punic War, he says that the Romans could be to blame «for having accepted the Mamertines in an alliance and in a second moment having sent them help»23. If this reconstruction is correct, then there were probably two debates in Rome, one concerning the possibility of accepting the Mamertines in an alliance and a following one in which the possibility of practical help was discussed as a result of the threat posed by Syracuse and Carthage. Although the Greek historian speaks, earlier in the discussion, about the problems associated with the accepting of Mamertines in an alliance and their deditio, it is likely that the recorded debate refers to the second claim, namely the one involving a military intervention by Rome24. So, the question debated would not have been the formation of an alliance as the result of a deditio, but – since the Romans had already accepted this request25 –, the assignment of a military command to one of the two consuls (adsignatio provinciarum), and since Appius Claudius’ colleague was already engaged in the ield, an extra sortem designation26. Also in this area it was the Senate which had to take the irst decision, and the same Polybius says, moreover, that it was within the Senate that the debate had a beginning (with the division of the senators between those in favour of the intervention and those against it)27. Within this deMamertinis, quorum Messana nobilis Siciliae civitas erat, auxilia contra Hieronem Syracusanum regem et Poenorum copias Hieroni iunctas et Appium Claudium consulem cum exercitu misere Romani; Auct. Vir. Ill. 37, 2: Foederata civitas. 23 Polyb. 3, 26, 6: ὅτι καθόλου Μαμερτίνους προσέλαβον εἰς τὴν φιλίαν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δεομένοις ἐβοήθησαν. The key expression here is μετὰ ταῦτα which usually has a temporal meaning, so delineating an action divided in two stages: irst, the acceptance of the Mamertines in a φιλία, then the sending of military aid. On this see: walbank, Commentary, 355; reuSS, Krieges, 101-148; hoffMann, Mamertiner, 153-180. 24 The ‘rescue’ mentioned by Polybius is clearly military aid and the reference to «the general beneits of the war and earnings for individuals» obviously suggests a direct and armed involvement of Rome in Sicily. 25 See nt. 18. 26 In spite of the military character of the question, we can’t speak here of a debate concerning the possibility to start a new war (lex de bello indicendo). As rightly suggested by riCh, Declaration, the declaration of war was not submitted to the comitia, but presented directly by the consul Appius Claudius in Sicily, after the failure of the last diplomatic talks with both the Carthaginians and the Syracusans. 27 On the role of the Senate about the choice of the provinciae: willeMS, Sénat, III, 540-542; MoMMSen, Staatsrecht, II, 122-128; arnolD, Administration, 48; De Martino, 78 MICHELE BELLOMO bate, however, two new elements took part (πολλοί and στρατηγοί) and their institutional identiication and placement is critical for the understanding of how the events went on. With the term στρατηγοί Polybius generally indicates, in a Roman context, the consuls, and it is quite likely that this case does not make exception28. Much more complicated is the location of οἱ πολλοί, and it is around this explanation that the whole constitutional discourse develops. Having eliminated the possibility that this term stands to indicate a popular assembly (comitia centuriata, tributa and concilium plebis) or a majority of the senators, it only remains a third way, that is, to assign to this term a broader and less formal meaning, going to identify οἱ πολλοί as ‘the most of the Romans’ or, as it was wisely suggested, «la pubblica opinione, cioè l’opinione del popolo»29. But which institutional position can we give to this deinition? That is, of which kind of people are we talking about? In addition to the comitia, the Roman people could be summoned and gathered in another assembly: the contio. By this term it was meant an informal meeting of citizens convened by a magistrate who in view of the vote on a particular measure explained its validity and advantages: it represented so the only meeting at which such magistrate could make use of his oratorical skills to direct the voting of the next meetings, and indeed, Costituzione, 194; roSenStein, Lot, 53-54; oGilvie, Commentary, 395. The expression καὶ τὸ μὲν συνέδριον οὐδ᾽ εἰς τέλος ἐκύρωσε τὴν γνώμην is usually translated as ‘the Senate did not sanction the proposal’, but it could also be interpreted in a less formal meaning as ‘the Senate could not sanction the proposal’ so suggesting that the balance between the senators in favour of the intervention and those against it had conduced to a blockade; cfr. Liv. Per. 16: cum de ea re inter suadentes, ut id ieret, dissuadentesque contentio fuisset. See CalDerone, Polibio, 27-30. 28 As originally observed by e. Meyer, Geschichte, 376, Appius Claudius’ colleague, M. Fulvius Flaccus, was engaged throughout the year in a military campaign against Volsinii, obtaining a triumph at the Kalends of November (see brouGhton, Magistrates, 203 for sources). Attempts to identify the στρατηγοί of Polybius not as consuls but as ‘military leaders’ are not convincing (frank, Imperialism, 88-91) and at the same time it seems too dogmatic the statement of MaSon, Terms, 156, that the term «does not mean consul in Polybius, even when it is obvious that it is to consuls that he is referring». Two interpretations have been suggested: that Polybius ignored the fact that in Rome there was only one consul (thiel, Sea-Power, 137), or that the other consul had made a sudden return to Rome because of the importance of the discussion (hoyoS, Unplanned, 62). The solution could be another: if the debates in Rome were two, then it is likely that M. Fulvius Flaccus had been present at the irst, but absent in the second because already employed in the ield. Polybius would have inserted him alongside with Appius Claudius in an attempt to summarize in a single moment the two threads. 29 E. Gabba in CalDerone, Polibio, 40. POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 79 he was particularly stimulated in doing this since the opinion manifested by the people in a contio rarely deviated from that later expressed in the legislative assemblies; in addition, the support gained at such meeting had its speciic weight in the Senate, giving the magistrate a hypothetical support of the people to be used as a political weapon30. Although contiones knew a particular development especially in the irst century BC, the period for which, moreover, we have the most evidence, even in the Middle-Republic we can see that the use of these assemblies is presented with some frequency, especially when the topic discussed was the assignment of a particular province to a magistrate. We have several examples in this regard. According to the testimony of Livy, in 295 BC the consuls Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus came in contrast about the assignment of a command in Etruria. After the Senate had pronounced in favour of Fabius Maximus, Decius Mus called a contio in which both the consuls sought to have the people on their side31. In the subsequent comitia the command was then assigned (extra sortem) to Fabius Maximus. In 217 BC the tribune M. Metillius violently attacked the dictator Q. Fabius Maximus for his policy and particularly for having prevented his own magister equitum, M. Minucius Rufus, to take military action against Hannibal. He then delivered several speeches in the Senate and in contiones proposing to remove the imperium of the dictator or to assign an equal one to Rufus32. In 211 BC the Senate decided to consult the people, through the tribunes of the plebs, in order to test its opinion (probably through different contiones) with respect to the commander to send to Spain after the death of Gn. Cornelius Scipio33. In 209 BC the tribune C. Publicius Bibulus attacked M. Claudius Marcellus in different contiones threatening to propose a legislation to repeal his imperium34. Finally, in 202 BC it was discussed in several contiones on the request of the consul P. Cornelius Lentulus to receive Africa as his province thus depriving Scipio Africanus of the command35. 30 On contiones: vanDerbroeCk, Leadership; Pina Polo, Contiones, Procedures, Consul; MouritSen, Plebs; MorStein-Marx, Oratory; tan, Contiones; hiebel, Contio. 31 Liv. 10, 24, 4-5: revocata res ad populum est. In contione, ut inter militares viros et factis potius quam dictis fretos, pauca verba habita. 32 Liv. 22, 25, 1: De iis rebus persaepe et in senatu et in contione actum est. 33 Liv. 26, 2, 5-6: omniumque in unum sententiae congruebant agendum cum tribunis plebis esse, primo quoque tempore ad plebem ferrent quem cum imperio mitti placeret in Hispaniam ad eum exercitum cui Cn. Scipio imperator praefuisset. 34 Liv. 27, 20, 11: inimicus erat ei C. Publicius Bibulus tribunus plebis. is iam a prima pugna quae adversa fuerat adsiduis contionibus infamem invisumque plebei Claudium fecerat, et iam de imperio abrogando eius agebat. 35 Liv. 30, 40, 7: multis contentionibus et in senatu et ad populum acta res postremo eo deducta est ut senatui permitterent. 80 MICHELE BELLOMO From these examples it can be seen how the use of contiones was a constitutional practice fairly widespread in cases in which the assignment of a particular province was discussed, and how it might represent a possible political weapon to be used by the magistrates to demonstrate that they had the ‘people’ on their side36. Given the importance of the contio in this constitutional practice, we could suggest that it is to this particular assembly that Polybius was referring. In fact, this assumption is not entirely new. Other scholars have already shown that the action of the consuls and their reference to the material beneits for individual citizens were elements proper of a contio and that probably the meeting was called before the inal intervention of the comitia37. What we suggest here is not only to envisage the convening of this meeting, but to give this kind of meeting the whole popular intervention recorded by Polybius (1, 11, 2) and especially to put in relief the political and institutional role which it played within the senatorial debate. The irst thing we need to do is to determine if, in the lexicon of Polybius, we can ind the proper elements of a contio, and here we can highlight three references. First of all about the ‘people’ who attended this meeting, which is shown as consisting of those who had been «reduced to poverty by the previous wars and were then eager to ind anything which could restore their condition». This deinition has raised many troubles for the majority of scholars, not only for the general character which often plays in Polybius the term οἱ πολλοί38, but also for the dificulties encountered in identifying the social and institutional position of these citizens ‘ruined by previous wars’39. Given the multitude of solutions proposed, 36 This was just one of the purposes of these contiones, at least in the late Republic, but there is no reason to think that things work differently in the third century. On the ‘political’ use of the opinion expressed in a contio: MornStein-Marx, Oratory, 119128, 143; tan, Contiones, 188; hiebel, Contio, 217. 37 See haMPl, Vorgeschichte, 424; Gabba, Punica, 60; Walbank in CalDerone, Polibio, 45; Cassola in CalDerone, Polibio, 51; hoyoS, Unplanned, 66. 38 Other cases in which the term refers to a general majority within a group to whom is talking about: Polyb. 1, 74, 6 (many of the enemies), 2, 21, 9 (many of the Gauls), 2, 34, 8 (many of the Celts), 3, 14, 7 (many of the barbarians), 3, 51, 7 (a lot of enemies), 3, 60, 4 (many of the soldiers of Hannibal’s army), 3, 65, 11 (many of the Roman soldiers), 5, 47, 2 (many of the soldiers), 6, 54, 4 (many Romans), 8, 32, 7 (many of the Romans), 9, 26a, 7 (most men), 10, 12, 9 (many of the Carthaginians), 10, 17, 4 (most men), 21, 7, 6 (many men), 22, 13, 6 (many of the citizens), 32, 6, 2 (the majority of the population of Phoenix), 34, 12, 6 (the majority of the people). 39 Here the scholars have divided and, following mainly the historical and political reasons that had led them to opt for one of the popular assemblies, attributed this POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 81 it is likely that such a deinition embraced a wide enough range of the population, grouping, as Polybius tells us, those who needed a new conlict to raise their economic status, and those who adhered the design of the consul for the general rightfulness of the war. Now, if this variety has a dificult collocation in a legislative assembly, it its rather well to the public who generally attended the contiones40. Secondly, we have the role played by the consuls, who, according to Polybius, «besides giving the reasons above stated for the general advantageousness of the war, pointed out the great beneit in the way of plunder which each and every one would evidently derive from it». It’s pretty obvious that the intervention of the consuls had taken the form of direct speeches to the people, a type of surgery that could only be recorded in a contio: indeed, the reference to the material advantages and the general usefulness of the war occurs with some frequency in other contiones of the period, namely those in which the consuls urged the people to enlist and those where they explained their war plans on the eve of the departure for a military campaign41. poverty to different social strata of the Roman people. These πολλοί would then have represented the peasant class (frank, Imperialism; thiel, Sea-Power), the urban plebs (hoffMann, Mamertiner), or the middle class (e. Meyer, Geschichte; P. Meyer, Ausbruch; SChur, Scipio; PiGaniol, Conquête). 40 The true nature of the plebs contionalis has not yet been identiied: it could group together all of freedmen (artisans and merchants) that usually attended the forum because of their work (vanDerbroeCk, Leadership, 161-165), a very high social stratum of the population, composed of political supporters of the magistrates who summoned the meeting (MouritSen, Plebs, p. 38-62), or, inally, a more heterogeneous group, ready to change its composition depending on the topics discussed and the time of the meeting (MorStein-Marx, Oratory, 28-36). Obviously these deinitions have been applied to the late Republic, in which the social conditions had to be very different from those of the third century (in particular for the role played by freedmen). For the period that interests us we have only one testimony, that of Livy, who says that the contio which discussed the imperium of M. Claudius Marcellus in 209 BC was attended by a great multitude of people from all orders (27, 21, 1: Actum de imperio Marcelli in circo Flaminio est ingenti concursu plebisque et omnium ordinum). Some kind of variety already existed in the third century. 41 It is not uncommon to see, already in the Archaic period, examples of magistrates which used these meetings both to convince the people to enlist and to show the program of their military campaigns. Contiones to convince the people: Dion. Hal. 6, 40, 3: ὁρῶντες αἰεί τινα τῶν παρακαλούντων ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ τοὺς πολέμους ὑπάτων ὑπισχνούμενον, ὧν ἂν δέησθε, παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς διαπράξεσθαι, μηδὲν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τέλος ἄγοντα τῶν ὁμολογηθέντων; 6, 41, 2: ἐγγυῶμαι ὑμῖν τὴν βουλὴν ἐγὼ τάς τε ὑπὲρ τῶν χρεῶν φιλονεικίας καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ἄλλο παρ᾽ αὐτῆς αἰτῆσθε μέτριον, ἀξίως τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἣν ἂν παράσχησθε ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ, βραβεύσειν; Liv. 3, 66, 6: Quinctius consul ad contionem populum vocavit; 3, 68, 6: praeda parta agro ex hoste capto pleni fortunarum gloriaeque simul publicae simul pri- 82 MICHELE BELLOMO At least, we have the resolution reached by the ‘people’, who «decided to send aid». The expression used by Polybius (ἔκριναν βοηθεῖν) does not necessarily suggest an oficial decision, especially since in this case it stands in contrast to the following statement κυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου which clearly asserts a decree ratiied by the people42. The only ‘institutional’ translation that can be applied to the decision to send aid is therefore that of a ‘people’s will’, the one that was expressed in contiones, considerable as it usually coincided with the result of the following vote in the comitia, but not binding from a legislative point of view. So if the entire popular intervention recorded by Polybius can be classiied as one or more contiones, it remains to explain the political signiicance it might have had, and in particular at what stage of the debate it entered and in what form, considering that, as we have already explained, this debate took place within the Senate43. To help in understanding, we can call to another famous episode. According to the testimony of Livy, in 205 BC P. Cornelius Scipio (later Africanus) returned victoriously from Spain and just elected consul for that year proposed in the Senate the launch of a military campaign in Africa that would put an end to the second Punic war forcing Carthage vatae triumphantes domum ad penates redibatis; Liv. 4, 32, 1-8: dictator ad contionem advocatam… Proinde memores secum triumphos, secum spolia, secum victoriam esse, cum hostibus scelus legatorum contra ius gentium interfectorum; contiones in which the military program was shown: Liv. 22, 38, 6-7: contiones, priusquam ab urbe signa moverentur, consulis Varronis multae ac feroces fuere denuntiantis bellum arcessitum in Italiam ab nobilibus mansurumque in visceribus rei publicae, si plures Fabios imperatores haberet, se quo die hostem vidisset perfecturum; Liv. 44, 22, 1-15, Per. 44; Polyb. 29, 1; Sall. Iug. 84-85. On the importance of acquire booty in this period: harriS, Imperialism, 182-190; oakley, Conquest, 23-28. On the possibility that the reference of the consul to the individual gains could be referred to the acquisition of booty and was presented in a contio: Cassola in CalDerone, Polibio, 51. 42 Although the expression usually means a formal decision (PéDeCh, Polybe, 85, nt. 148), it can also refer to a general will then become oficial with the ratiication of a decree. 43 That the term πολλοί could indicate yes the people, but not formally assembled in an oficial meeting has already been suggested, but not deepened, by Pinzone, Etica, 20: «L’unica alternativa semmai ammissibile a quella, che credo l’interpretazione esatta (‘la maggioranza’ del senato), potrebbe essere di intendere il concetto di οἱ πολλοί, in riferimento ai Ῥομαῖοι, di cui parla Polibio in 1, 10, 3 e 9: non quindi in maniera deinita e precisa, come ‘il popolo’, la ‘massa’, né come riferito ad un preciso organo deliberante (i comizi), bensì in genere, come la ‘maggior parte dei Romani’»; and by hoyoS, Unplanned, 66: «Before the formal meeting of the Comitia some public gatherings, concione, may have been called by Appius to put the case for intervention: that could help account for Polybius’ statement, ‘the common people (hoi polloi) resolved’ – or ‘made up their minds’ – ‘to send aid’, with mention of the peoples’ decree following». POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 83 to recall Hannibal from Italy. The plan was initially met with strong opposition, due to the intervention of Q. Fabius Maximus, and so Scipio threatened the assembly making it known he was ready to recur to the people to receive the command if the Senate continued to hinder him44. Already in previous days, in fact, the people had expressed its desire to see the province of Sicily assigned to Scipio, because he was the only one who could carry the war through a successful end45. Faced with this threat, the Senate then assigned to Scipio Sicily as his province with the opportunity to go to Africa if he thought it necessary. Also in this case we have a situation in some ways similar to that of 264 BC: debate in the Senate on an issue, then expression of the popular will. We could expect then the same constitutional pattern also for the debate recorded by Polybius: the consul Appius Claudius, who had the duty to convene the Senate and introduce the topics to be discussed, proposed to accept the request for help of the Mamertines and send them a military rescue (of course under his command). The irst opinions heard in the Senate, however, outlined a situation extremely uncertain, with a good number of senators opposed to the legitimacy of the Roman intervention, or at least dubious about the need to engage in a new conlict (συνέδριον οὐδ' εἰς τέλος ἐκύρωσε τὴν γνώμην). The consul then appealed to the possibility that the people and not the Senate attributed him the province and the military command, as he had already achieved a broad consensus through various contiones (Oἱ δὲ πολλοὶ… ἔκριναν βοηθεῖν) and by strength of this, eventually convinced the Senate to give him the command that was asking46. 44 Liv. 28, 40, 1-2: Cum Africam novam provinciam extra sortem P. Scipioni destinari homines fama ferrent, et ipse nulla iam modica gloria contentus non ad gerendum modo bellum sed ad iniendum diceret se consulem declaratum, neque id aliter ieri posse quam si ipse in Africam exercitum transportasset, et acturum se id per populum aperte ferret, si senatus adversaretur. 45 Liv. 28, 45, 7: permissum senatui est. provinciae ita decretae: alteri consuli Sicilia et triginta rostratae naves quas C. Servilius superiore anno habuisset; permissumque ut in Africam, si id e re publica esse censeret, traiceret. According to many scholars, the inal decision was the result of a compromise between Scipio and the Senate with the former which left to the Assembly the right to decide receiving in return assurances that he would receive the command that was wondering. See: De SanCtiS, Storia, IV 1, 508-509; haywooD, Studies, 55; SChur, Scipio, 98-99; SCullarD, Politics, 75; lazenby, Hannibal, 194; brizzi, Scipione, 147. 46 In similar terms had already been expressed SCherMann, Tradition, 17, according to which the consuls incited the people to vote in favour of military intervention. Faced with this fact, the Senate issued a decree to save face. Polybius and Livy found a confused report in the sources and the inal decision was taken by the Senate (Livy) and not by the people (Polybius). Even Privitera in CalDerone, Polibio, 57, proposed a Senate that delivered a decree inluenced by the will of the people. Even closer to the 84 MICHELE BELLOMO On this last point an ‘issue’ arises. Polybius states that «when the measure had been passed by the people they (the Romans) appointed to the command one of the consuls, Appius Claudius, who was ordered to cross to Messana». The expression κυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου means without doubt the oficial ratiication of a decree by the comitia. According to our reconstruction, and considering the previous popular intervention (Oἱ δὲ πολλοὶ… ἔκριναν βοηθεῖν) as a contio, it would therefore seem natural to conclude that, at least according to Polybius, Appius Claudius received the military command by the people and not by the Senate. It is hard to accept such a reconstruction, not only because it is refuted by the version of Livy (according to which it was the Senate to take the inal decision)47, but also because it outlines a constitutional practice quite exceptional for the period. Here we would have the irst adsignatio provinciarum decided by the people and without the advice of the Senate, a procedure which is actually attested only from the second century BC and with a remarkable tone48. If Appius Claudius received the military command by the people, is it possible that we do not have any echo of this in all the following literary tradition? The solutions may be two. On one hand we could assume that Polybius has confused. In fact, he may have been misled by Fabius Pictor, which in all probability was his main source for these events. Considering the aim of his history, it is quite possible that the Roman annalist changed the events and condemning the Roman intervention in Sicily, questionable from a moral point of view, he considered more prudent to attach the inal decision to the people rather than to the Senate49. solution, in my opinion, errinGton, Dawn, 16, according to which Appius Claudius received from the Senate permission to reach Messina and begin a conlict if he deemed necessary, a solution very similar to that accorded to Scipio Africanus in 205 BC. That the threat of the consul to receive the province by the people was real is obvious: indeed, if all the previous cases of allocation of a province extra sortem had been resolved in the Senate (Liv. 3, 2, 2; 6, 22, 6; 6, 30, 3; 7, 23, 2; 10, 24, 10), in the period following we have several cases in which it was instead the people to take the action, and nothing leads us to believe that it was impossible for it to proceed in this way already in 264 (see nt. 48). 47 Liv. Per. 16: auxilium Mamertinis ferendum senatus censuit. 48 The famous case was that involving Scipio Aemilianus in 147 BC when he received by the people the command of the Third Punic War. See: App. Lib. 112; Liv. Per. 16; Val. Max. 8, 15. 4. For other episodes, see: roSenStein, Lot, 54 (with references). 49 That Fabius Pictor was one of the main sources for Polybius’ account of the First Punic War has been widely accepted (see walbank, Commentary, 60; CalDerone, Polibio, 19-20; errinGton, Chronology, 97; Gelzer, Politik, 133-142; SCullarD, Car- POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 85 On the other hand, we could suggest that even the text of Polybius is in line with that of Livy. We have already discussed the possible presence of two debates in Rome: one referring to the possibility to accept the Mamertines in a φιλία, and the other on the possibility to send them a military relief under the leadership of the consul50. It is possible that Polybius combined in a single statement the outcomes of both the debates. With the expression κυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ δόγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου he would show the result of the irst debate, with the acceptance of the deditio of the Mamertines expressed through a senatus consultum then ratiied by the comitia, and this was in fact recognized as a constitutional practice (cfr. Polyb. 6, 14, 11). Instead, with the expression προχειρισάμενοι τὸν ἕτερον τῶν ὑπάτων στρατηγὸν Ἄππιον Κλαύδιον ἐξαπέστειλαν he would indicate the result of the second debate, with the choice of appointing Appius Claudius as a military commander. Authors of this decision would have been the ‘Romans’, but understood in this sense as the Roman ‘senators’. It is curious the similarity of this expression with that used by the same Polybius when he speaks about the assignment of the military commands at the beginning of the Second Punic War (3, 40, 2: προεχειρίσαντο πέμπειν μετὰ στρατοπέδων Πόπλιον μὲν Κορνήλιον εἰς Ἰβηρίαν, Τεβέριον δὲ Σεμπρώνιον εἰς Λιβύην) and there is no doubt that on this occasion he is talking about the Senate. So even Polybius could have attached to the Senate the decision to appoint Appius Claudius as a commander. Moreover, it is through this reconstruction of facts (debate in the Senate, intervention of the people in a contio, inal decision in the Senate) that we remove several obstacles which have arisen in the general interpretation of this historical moment. On the one hand, it is admitted that the inal decision to send military aid to the Mamertines was taken by the Senate; on the other, it is recognized that the people had a signiicant weight in the decision to intervene in Sicily, but an inluence thage, 540; Pinzone, Etica, 63-69), especially for the references to the consuls’ names. In this case, the dependence to Fabius is also explained in the description of the Carthaginian Empire as expanding to Spain (1, 10, 5), a situation that best its to the time when Fabius was writing his history, namely at the eve of the Second Punic War. It was Gelzer (Politik, 126-169) who irst showed that the historical program of Fabius was mainly directed to publicize the Senate’s political program to the Greek world. Naturally he did not want to show a Senate which chose to help the Mamertines because attracted by the prospective of booty. 50 Cfr. Polyb. 3, 26, 6. 86 MICHELE BELLOMO which was realized only through the expression of a ‘general will’, then politically used by the consul. Constitutionally, then, the events of 264 BC did not give rise to any special procedure, and the Senate formally maintained its dominant position, but certainly the threat posed by Appius Claudius had heavy consequences, both in the desire of the council to see its authority reestablished, and in the awareness of the consuls on the possibility to use the popular will to pursue their own political aims, a lesson that both Scipio Africanus and Aemilianus learned very well51. Quoted works arnolD, Administration = w.t. arnolD, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, Oxford 1906 baDian, Clientelae = e. baDian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.), Oxford 1958 baDian, Imperialism = e. baDian, Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, Oxford 1968 bearD, CrawforD, Republic = M. bearD, M. CrawforD, Rome in the Late Republic: Problems and Interpretations, London 1985 borGoGno, Storie = a. borGoGno, Polibio, Storie I-III, Roma, Aracne 2006 briSSon, Carthage = J.P. briSSon, Carthage ou Rome?, Paris 1973 brizzi, Scipione = G. brizzi, Scipione e Annibale: la guerra per salvare Roma, Roma-Bari 2009 brouGhton, Magistrates = t.r.S. brouGhton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, New York 1951 CalDerone, Polibio = S. CalDerone, i. bitto, l. De Salvo, a. Pinzone, Polibio 1. 11. 1 ss., «Quad. Urb. Cult. Class.» 36 (1981), 7-78 CaSaubon, Polybii = i. CaSaubon, Ad Polybii historiarum librum primum commentarium, Parisiis, apud Antonium Stephanum, 1617 CaSSola, Gruppi = f. CaSSola, I gruppi politici romani nel III sec. a.C., Trieste 1962 Cornell, Beginnings = t.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York 1995 51 CaSSola, Gruppi, 184-186: that Appius Claudius acted in partial contrast with the Senate is evidenced by the fact that in the following years he covered no more ofices, nor gained new military commands. Evidently, in the third century BC the Senate still had the means to impose itself on individual magistrates, even when they had enjoyed, in their year in ofice, a strong popular support. POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 87 DahlheiM, Völkerrechts = w. DahlheiM, Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts im 3. und 2. Jahrhundert vor Chr., München 1968 De Martino, Costituzione = f. De Martino, Storia della costituzione romana, II 1, Napoli 19732 De SanCtiS, Storia = G. De SanCtiS, Storia dei Romani, III 1, Torino 1916; IV 1, Torino 1923 DeininGer, Widerstand = J. DeininGer, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 217-86 v. Chr., Berlin-New York 1971 DySon, Frontier = S.l. DySon, The Creation of the Roman Frontier, Princeton 1985 eCkStein, General = a.M. eCkStein, Senate and General: Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign Relations (264-194 B.C.), Berkeley 1987 eCkStein, Anarchy = a.M. eCkStein, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2006 errinGton, Chronology = r.M. errinGton, The Chronology of Polybius’ Histories, Books I and II, «Journ. Rom. Stud.» 57 (1967), 96-108 errinGton, Dawn = r.M. errinGton, Dawn of Empire: Rome’s Rise to World Power, London 1971 frank, Imperialism = t. frank, Roman Imperialism, New York 1914 Gabba, Imperialismo = e. Gabba, Aspetti culturali dell’imperialismo romano, «Athenaeum» 65 (1977), 49-74 Gabba, Punica = e. Gabba, La prima guerra punica e gli inizi dell’espansione transmarina in a. MoMiGliano, a. SChiavone (ed.), Storia di Roma, II 1, Torino 1990, 55-69 GankowSkJ, Diodore = P. GankowSkJ, Origines de la première guerre punique d’après un fragment de Diodore (XXIII, 1, 3-4), «Rev. Étud. Grec.» 94 (1981) XVIII-XIX (sunto) Gelzer, Politik = M. Gelzer, Römische Politik bei Fabius Pictor, «Hermes» 68 (1933), 129-166 Giannelli, Roma = G. Giannelli, Roma nell’età delle guerre puniche, Bologna 1938 Giannelli, Repubblica = G. Giannelli, La Repubblica romana, Milano 19443 Gruen, Hellenistic = e. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1984 haMPl, Vorgeschichte = f. haMPl, Zur Vorgeschichte des ersten und zweiten punischen Krieges, in Auf. Nied. Röm. Welt, I.1 (1972), 412-441 harriS, Imperialism = w.v. harriS, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (327-70 B.C.), Oxford 1979 haywooD, Studies = r.M. haywooD, Studies on Scipio Africanus, Baltimore 1933 heuSS, Imperialismus = a. heuSS, Der erste Punische Krieg und das Problem des römischen Imperialismus (Zur Politischen Beurteilung des Krieges), «Hist. Zeitschr.» 169 (1949), 457-513 88 MICHELE BELLOMO hiebel, Contio = D. hiebel, Rôles institutionnel et politique de la contio sous la République romaine (287-49 av. J.-C.), Paris 2009 hoffMann, Mamertiner = w. hoffMann, Das Hilfegesuch der Mamertiner am Vorabend des ersten punischen Krieges, «Historia» 18 (1969), 153-180 holleaux, Rome = M. holleaux, Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (273-205), Paris 1921 hoPkinS, Conquerors = k. hoPkinS, Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History, I, Cambridge 1978 hoyoS, Hiero = D. hoyoS, The Rise of Hiero II. Chronology and Campaigns 275-264 B.C., «Antichthon» 19 (1985), 32-56 hoyoS, Unplanned = D. hoyoS, Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic War, Berlin-New York 1998 kallet-Marx, Hegemony = r.M. kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire. The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 BC, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford 1995 lazenby, Hannibal = J.f. lazenby, Hannibal’s War: A Military History of the Second Punic War, Warminster 1978 liPPolD, Consules = a. liPPolD, Consules: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Römischen Konsulates von 264 bis 201 v. Chr., Bonn 1963 MaSon, Terms = h.J. MaSon, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: a Lexicon and Analysis, Toronto 1974 MauerSberGer, Lexicon = a. MauerSberGer, Polybios - Lexicon, I 2, Berlin 1961 Meyer e., Geschichte = e. Meyer, Der Gang der alten Geschichte: Hellas und Rom, in Kleine Schriften, I2, Halle 1924, 231-248 Meyer P., Ausbruch = P. Meyer, Der Ausbruch des ersten punischen Krieges, Berlin 1908 MorStein-Marx, Oratory = r. MorStein-Marx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge 2004 MoMMSen, Geschichte = th. MoMMSen, Römische Geschichte, I-III, Berlin 1856-57 MoMMSen, Staatsrecht = th. MoMMSen, Römisches Staatsrecht, II, Leipzig 1888 MouritSen, Plebs = h. MouritSen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge 2001 north, Development = J.a. north, The Development of Roman Imperialism, «Jour. Rom. Stud.» 71 (1981), 1-9 oakley, Conquest = S. oakley, The Roman Conquest of Italy, in J. riCh, G. ShiPley (ed.), War and Society in the Roman World, London-New York 1993 oGilvie, Commentary = r.M. oGilvie, A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5, Oxford 1965 POLYBIUS AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 89 PaiS, Storia = e. PaiS, Storia di Roma durante le guerre puniche, Roma 1927 Paton, Histories = w.r. Paton, Polybius: the Histories in Six Volumes (with an English translation by W.R. Paton), Cambridge Mass. 1967 PéDeCh, Polybe = P. PéDeCh, La méthode historique de Polybe, Paris 1964 PéDeCh, Histoires = P. PéDeCh, Polybe. Histoires: Livre 1 (texte établi et traduit par Paul Pédech), Paris 1969 PetzolD, Polybios = k.e. PetzolD, Studien zur Methode des Polybios und zu ihrer historische Auswertung, “Vestigia: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte” 9, München 1969 PiGaniol, Conquête = a. PiGaniol, La conquête romaine, Paris 1927 Pina Polo, Contiones = f. Pina Polo, Las contiones civiles y militares en Roma, Saragoza 1989 Pina Polo, Procedures = f. Pina Polo, Procedures and functions of civil and military contiones in Rome, «Klio» 77 (1995), 203-216 Pina Polo, Consul = f. Pina Polo, The Consul at Rome: the Civic Functions of the Consul in the Roman Republic, Cambridge 2011 Pinzone, Etica = a. Pinzone, Storia ed etica in Polibio: ricerche sull’archeologia della prima punica, Messina 1983 reuSS, Krieges = f. reuSS, Zur Geschichte des ersten punischen Krieges, «Philologus» 60 (1901), 101-148 riCh, Declaring = J.w. riCh, Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of the Transmarine Expansion, “Coll. Latomus” 146, Bruxelles 1976 riCharDSon, Hispaniae = J.S. riCharDSon, Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 219-82 BC, Cambridge 1986 roSenStein, Lot = n. roSenStein, Sorting Out the Lot in Republican Rome, «Amer. Jour. Phil.» 116 (1995), 43-75 SCherMann, Tradition = M. SCherMann, Der Erste Punische Krieg im Lichte der Livianischen Tradition, Tübingen 1905 SChur, Scipio = w. SChur, Scipio Africanus und die Begründung der römischen Weltherrschaft, Leipzig 1927 SChweiGäuSer, Polybii = J. SChweiGäuSer, Polybii historiarum quidquid superest, Lipsiae 1789-1795 SCullarD, Scipio = h.h. SCullarD, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, Cambridge 1930 SCullarD, Politics = h.h. SCullarD, Roman Politics (220-150 BC), Oxford 1951 SCullarD, Carthage = h.h. SCullarD, Carthage and Rome in f.w. walbank, a.e. aStin, M.w. freDerikSen, r.M. oGilvie (ed.), Cambridge Ancient History2, VII, Cambridge 1989, 486-570 Sherwin-white, East = a.n. Sherwin-white, Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 BC-AD 1, London 1984 90 MICHELE BELLOMO tan, Contiones = J. tan, Contiones in the Age of Cicero, «Class. Ant.» 27 (2008), 163-201 täubler, Imperium = e. täubler, Imperium Romanum, I, Berlin 1913 thiel, Sea-Power = J.h. thiel, A History of the Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War, Amsterdam 1954 vanDerbroeCk, Leadership = P.J.J. vanDerbroeCk, Popular Leadership and Collective Behaviour in the Late Roman Republic (80-50 BC), Amsterdam 1987 walbank, Commentary = f. walbank, A historical Commentary on Polybius, I, Oxford 1957 walbank, Polybius = f. walbank, Polybius and Rome’s Eastern Policy, «Jour. Rom. Stud.» 53 (1963), 1-13 willeMS, Sénat = P. willeMS, Le Sénat de la république romaine, Livre III: Les rapports du Sénat et des magistrats, Louvain 1885 ABSTRACTS MiChele belloMo, Polybius and the outbreak of the First Punic War (pp. 71-90) The aim of this article is to provide an institutional analysis of the passage by Polybius (1, 11, 1-3) concerning the outbreak of the First Punic War, and particularly the debate arose in Rome about the possibility to accept the Mamertines’ request for help. The ‘issue’ is represented by the role that Polybius apparently attaches to the people and not to the Senate in the inal decision, a fact that brought modern scholarship to look for which of the legislative assemblies Polybius was referring (comitia tributa or centuriata). Firstly, it is here suggested that the debates in Rome were two and that the one which is recorded was not concerning the acceptance of the Mamertines in an alliance, but the assignment of a military command to the consul Appius Claudius. Secondly, that the popular intervention took place within a senatorial debate in the form of a contio, as it is suggested by several elements in the language of Polybius, i.e. the status of those who attended the meeting, the role played by the consul and the inal decision by the assembly. A new political interpretation of the passage is hence proposed, namely that the consul used the will expressed by the people in the contio to force the Senate and to obtain the command he was asking for, a reconstruction which is conirmed by the text of Livy (Per. 16) and which its that of Polybius as well. [email protected] Sara Chiarini, Intorno alla storicizzazione dello Scutum Herculis (pp. 11-22) On the historic interpretation of the Scutum Herculis The long debated hypothesis of a historical connection between the composition of the poem and the context of the irst sacred war is discussed in the paper in sceptical terms. A special focus is devoted to line 25, where Locrians and Phocians are mentioned as allies in the mythical war lead by Amphitryon against the Taphians and the Teleboans. If the poem had been composed to celebrate the irst sacred war, the author SCO 59 (2013), 349-355 350 ABSTRACTS would have avoided the association of these two armies, which were bitter enemies during that conlict. [email protected] franCeSCo De niCola, Per Isacco di Ninive (pp. 291-315) For Isaac of Niniveh The present paper concerns Isaac of Nineveh and consists of two parts. In the irst one Isaac’s passage about Secundus, the silent philosopher (homily 57 in the original Syriac text, homily 25 in the Greek translation), is compared with other texts about him, in particular the Life of Secundus in the papyrus and in the manuscript tradition and ancient and medieval translations of the same work. Through a close examination, the author proposes several textual emendations and exegetical explications. Since Isaac’s discourses were quite widespread, they greatly contributed to keep alive the memory of Secundus himself, especially in monastic circles. The second part of this paper presents the critical edition (based on ms. Marc. Gr. ii 64, written in 1664) and the Italian translation of the modern Greek translation (or better paraphrase) of Isaac’s precepts to novices by Dionysios hieromonachos. The source is to be identiied with Isaac’s homily 10 in the Greek translation. [email protected] Johann Goeken, Socrate e Micco: un’amicizia particolare nel Liside di Platone (pp. 35-54) Socrates and Miccos: a particular friendship in Plato’s Lysis At the beginning of Plato’s Lysis, Socrates tells how he met on his direct way back from the Academy to the Lyceum, near the fountain of Panops and apparently by chance, Hippothales and Ctesippus, two of his friends. Around them was a crowd of young people who spent their time discussing in a new palaestra where Miccos, the sophist, was teaching. My paper analyses the very mention of this otherwise unknown sophist (204 a 5-7). This mention shows that Plato indicates right from the prologue that the theme of philia will be treated in opposition to the sophists’ methods (i.e. eulogy and eristic). [email protected] ABSTRACTS 351 CeSare letta, Precisazioni sull’iscrizione dell’arco di Berà (CIL II 4282 = RIT 930) (pp. 335-337) Remarks on the inscription of the arch of Berà (CIL, II 4282 = RIT, 930) The author proposes a new reconstruction of the dedicatory inscription on the arch of Berà (Hispania Tarraconensis): [Col(onia) Tarr(aconensium)] ex testamento L. Licini L.f. Serg. Surae consa[cravit ex dec(reto) dec(urionum)]. [email protected] CeSare letta, Dalla tabula Lugdunensis alla tomba François. La tradizione etrusca su Servio Tullio (pp. 91-115) From the Tabula Lugdunensis to the Tomba François. The Etruscan tradition on Servius Tullius A re-examination of all the sources allows the author to conclude what follows: 1) feSt., p. 487 L., s.v. Tuscum vicum (of whose text a new reconstruction is proposed), and Claudius’ discourse in the Tabula Lugdunensis present the same Etruscan tradition on Caeles Vibenna’s arrival in Rome in the service of Tarquinius Priscus. Tacitus’ digression on Mount Caelius (ann., IV, 65), whose source is very likely another Claudian discourse, demonstrates that in Claudius’ opinion the occupation of the Mount Caelius by the Caeliani was not a hostile conquest. Therefore in the Lyons tablet occupavit means that they took legitimately possession of the Mount Caelius, placed at their disposal by Tarquinius Priscus, as the cives took legitimately possession of the ager occupatorius. 2) arnob., adv. nat., VI, 7 does not demonstrate that Mastarna-Servius Tullius killed Aulus Vibenna after Caeles’ death. 3) The ‘historical’ scene of the Tomba François does not represent the slaughter of Tarquinius Priscus and the conquest of Rome by the Vibennae; on the contrary, it represents an episode of the struggle for the power at Rome, caused by an unsuccessful attempt to usurp the throne carried out after Tarquinius Priscus’ death by another Tarquinius (Cneve Tarchunies). 4) Mastarna-macstrna (nickname of Servius Tullius) is an Etruscan adjective derived from the Latin magister, perhaps of the same type as some Latin adjectives derived from names of magisterial or sacerdotal ofices (praetorius, censorius etc.), which often became nicknames or cognomina (Censorius / Censorinus, Augurinus, Flamininus etc.). [email protected] 352 ABSTRACTS Paola Mollo, Is 51,9a: interpretazione problematica del testo ebraico. Studio sulle traduzioni greche e sulla Peshitta Is 51.9a: problematic interpretation of the Hebrew text. A study on the Greek translations and on the syriac version (Peshitta) of this passage (pp. 23-34) This paper deals with the textual problems of Is 51, 9a, a passage of ambiguous interpretation, and provides an overview and analysis of ancient translations of this hemistich, which are quite different. In particular, it focuses on masoretic accentuation, on the Greek translations of the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, and on the main textual witnesses of the Syriac version. Of particular interest is the Syriac version of the verse proposed by the Polyglots of Paris and London in the seventeenth century. The addition of the word Sion (Awake awake, Sion) by the curator of the Syriac text of the Polyglot of Paris (the discussed maronite priest Gabriel Sionita) is here explained in the light of the dificulties of interpretation emerging since the earliest translations of the passage. [email protected] oburo notoMi, Citations in Plato, Symposium 178b-c (pp. 55-69) In Plato’s Symposium, Phaedrus proposes the main theme of ‘encomium to Eros’ at Agathon’s party. This paper examines the beginning of his speech, which cites the authorities, namely Hesiod, Parmenides, and Acusilaus (178b-c). The passage has been suffering many editorial emendations since the late eighteenth century, but the philological examination reveals that the prevailing text of John Burnet (OCT) lacks a irm ground against the manuscripts’ reading. On the other hand, the recent studies of doxography shed a new light on the passage: the citations derive from the Anthology edited by the sophist Hippias. This consideration shows how Phaedrus performs sophistic presentation on the theme of ‘Eros’. [email protected] Stefano Poletti, Il Servio Tullio di Livio e le sue ‘contraddizioni’. A proposito dell’elezione ritardata in Liv. I, 46, 1 e di altri stratagemmi liviani (pp. 117-151) Livy’s Servius Tullius and his ‘contradictions’. The delayed election in Liv. I, 46, 1 and other Livian stratagems If we compare Livy’s account of king Servius Tullius with the one reported by the other sources, some oddities stand out. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero and Zonaras/Cassius Dio, Servius seized the ABSTRACTS 353 power thanks to a plebiscite and against the senate’s will; in Livy, Servius begins to reign voluntate patrum and the election by the people is delayed until the end of the reign. Moreover Lucius Tarquinius’ charge against Servius (non auctoribus patribus […] regnum occupasse) seems to clash with the voluntas patrum. In this essay, we shall try to ind a proper explanation for these apparent ‘contradictions’. On the one hand, Livy places the ‘moderate element’ of the voluntas patrum at the beginning of his account; on the other hand, the distribution of the land, the plebiscite and the senatorial dissent are postponed and linked to the discredited character of Tarquinius the Proud. Therefore Livy does not remove the ‘irregularity’ that, according to the tradition, characterized the reign of Servius Tullius, but he inds an effective way to dissimulate it. Consequently, whereas the other main sources show a sort of evolution of Servius from demagogy to moderation, in the Ab urbe condita we can recognize a ‘total absolution’ of the king who laid the foundations of the Roman Republic. Taking the cue from a thorough inquiry into the meaning of the delayed election and from a new contextualisation of it (see D.H. IV, 37), the Livian ‘stratagems’ that make this absolution possible are here analysed. [email protected] GiuSePPe Polizzi, Un manoscritto ebraico dell’Inghilterra medievale Cambridge, Gonville & Caius College 404/625 - K93 (pp. 317-331) A hebraic manuscript of medieval England - Cambridge, Gonville & Caius College 404/625 - K93 The aim of this article is to discuss the main features of a manuscript (n. 93 in Kennicott’s list, hence K93), which contains a large portion of the Hebrew Bible, from Joshua to Malachi. It belongs to a bigger group of manuscripts written in medieval England between the twelfth and thirteenth century. These manuscripts show the social, cultural and linguistic exchanges between Christian scholars and the Jewish community in medieval England. In this study the paleographic peculiarities are examined in details and the text is compared with the textus receptus of the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Daniel is used as a case study. The phonetic and orthographic variants reveal a very particular modus operandi of the Christian scholar, who vocalized the consonantal text; for example, the use of dagesh and the ‘hyper-punctuation’ of qibbûs ̣ below the consonant before the mater lectionis waw. I tried to connect the following three areas: the punctuation of K93, the studies of Olszowy-Schangler on this group of manuscripts and the ‘Christian punctuation’, which is a simpliied Tiberian system based on ive vowels. Finally, with regard to the book of Daniel, a connection is suggested between the punctuation 354 ABSTRACTS of the Aramaic sections and the results of a recent article of Heijmans on the vocalization of Western Targum-Manuscripts. [email protected] eleonora roManò, Gli Augustales a Rusellae. Una rilettura delle testimonianze architettoniche, scultoree ed epigraiche (pp. 153-206) The Augustales at Rusellae. A re-examination of the architectural, sculptural and epigraphic evidence Following the excavations carried out at the end of the ifties of the twentieth century by the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Toscana and by a few Italian Universities, scholars have tried to interpret the structures rising in the area to the South of the Roman forum of Rusellae (GR): the so called Domus dei Mosaici, Tempietto and Aula Absidata/Augusteo/ Domus degli Augustales/Vano Statue. In a few speciic studies, these structures have been directly linked to the cultural activities of the Augustales, but this interpretation does not appear very convincing to the author of the present paper. The aim of this work is to face again this debated question on the three above-mentioned structures, which is relevant to different aspects (planimetric, functional and cultural). For this reason, the sculptural and epigraphic remains, found near them, have been examined and connected to the imperial cult also in the light of what we know about the activities of the Augustales and the architectonic characteristics (functional and symbolic) of the connected structures. The study ends analysing the use of the Domus dei Mosaici and raising new questions about the three structures here at issue. [email protected] elia ruben ruDoni, La freddura dell’usurpatore ‘Regiliano’ (Historia Augusta, T 10, 3-7) (pp. 339-347) The pun of the usurper ‘Regilianus’ (Historia Augusta, T 10, 3-7) In Historia Augusta, T 10, 3, the expression capitalis iocus (‘witty joke’) is itself a pun by the author, as the context makes clear. [email protected] Paolo SanGriSo, Prosopograia e produzione ceramica: i Murrii (pp. 207-227) Prosopography and pottery production: the Murrii ‘Terra sigillata’ production has a very great economic importance, involving a high number of potters; Murrii’s activity begins in the Augus- ABSTRACTS 355 tan age and extends for a long time, as we can determine from numerous pottery stamps, attested until the middle of second century AD. It was a gens with a conservative frame of mind and attached to land property; the origin of their fortune probably dates back to the Sillan age, as high number of toponyms referring to their name seems to suggest. During the irst imperial age they stood far from political activities and conined themselves to a local sphere. However, the economical activity of the Murrii is attested by Pisa’s iglinae and by links with professional collegia. From the middle of the irst century, Pisa’s potters took part in the diffusion of ‘terra sigillata tardoitalica’ and the offsprings of the freedmen of this family are likely to have served in legionary units of the Flavian age. Members of the gens are testiied in Rome and in Italy until the fourth century AD. [email protected] SiMonetta SeGenni, Novità epigraiche da Pisa romana (pp. 229-240) New epigraphic discoveries from Roman Pisa The Author presents four new fragmentary inscriptions from Roman Pisa. The most interesting of them regards a public building (perhaps a temple with its alae) erected i(m)pensa sua in 10 B.C. by some unidentiied men; among them, a [- - - ] Saturninus is perhaps C. Canius Saturninus, duovir in A.D. 2, mentioned in the decreta Pisana (CIL, XI, 1420-1421). DaviDe triPoDi, Sulla tradizione manoscritta di Dione di Prusa: la terza famiglia nelle orr. 52-53 (pp. 241-290) On Dio’s of Prusa manuscript tradition: the third family in the orations 52-53 In this article I present the data of the collation of the ‘third family’ manuscripts of Dio of Prusa for orr. 52-55 (including some not collated for this part of the corpus so far) and I discuss them taking into account a number of dificulties which the analysis implies: the meager content of several of the manuscripts, the changes of model in the recently discovered codex Tol. 101/16, the philological activity of the scribes and so on. The resulting stemma varies from oration to oration (sometimes even in the same oration) and the available data allow more than one reconstruction for some parts of it. [email protected]