We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The dramatic date is the Feriae Latinae of 129 B.C., the consulship of Tuditanus and Aquilius, the scene the gardens of Scipio Aemilianus, the theme for discussion the Roman state. Who could expound the subject better than Aemilianus himself for, says Laelius, ‘not only is it proper that an eminent statesman rather than anyone else should discuss the State, but also I recollect that you used to converse very frequently with Panaetius on this subject in company with Polybius—two Greeks who were perhaps the best versed of them all in politics—and that you assembled many arguments to prove that the form of government handed down to us by our ancestors is by far the best of all.’ Here is Cicero's assurance that sometime before 129 Panaetius, Scipio and Polybius used to discuss the Roman State together—though he does not tell us when or where. According to Velleius Scipio kept Polybius and Panaetius, praecellentis ingenio uiros, beside him domi militiaeque, so many opportunities for such conversations offered themselves. Was Panaetius perhaps present, like Polybius, at the siege of Carthage? Possibly, though there is no proof. For it is now generally agreed that Panaetius' voyage with Telephus' fleet and the two years devoted to general education (πρὸς φιλομάθησιν)—or was it research?—before he went to Athens (which we learn of from a fragmentary passage in the Index Stoicorum discovered at Herculaneum) have nothing to do with any ships the Rhodians may have sent to help Rome during the siege of Carthage (as Cichorius thought), but belong to Panaetius' early years.
1 Cic., rep. I, 34.
2 Vell. Pat. 1, 13, 3.
3 cf. Cichorius, , Rh. Mus. 1908, w220.Google Scholar
4 Perhaps the Rhodian mentioned in XXIX, 10, 4 [where no author is named, the references are to Polybius]. Cf. Pohlenz, RE, ‘Panaitios,’ col. 440; von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl. v, ‘Rhodos,’ col. 800.
5 Stoicorum Index Herculanensis, col. 55–77, conveniently consulted in van Staaten, M., Panaetii Rhodii Fragmenta (Leiden, 1952)Google Scholar, fg. 1. See for this incident § 56.
6 cf. Pohlenz, , Antikes Führertum (Berlin, 1934), 130–1Google Scholar, n. 3; Tatakis, , Panétius de Rhodes (Paris, 1931), 26Google Scholar (against Cichorius, loc. cit.).
7 On the date of this see Astin, , CPh 1959, 221 ff.Google Scholar; Scullard, , JRS 1960, 69Google Scholar, n. 43.
8 Plut., Mor. 777A = FGH 87, F 30; cf. 87, F 6 with app. crit.
9 Cic., fin. II, 23 and 24.
10 Cic., de or. I, 75.
11 Cic., Brut. 101.
12 Cic., fin. IV, 23; cf. rep. I, 14.
13 Cic., Tusc. disp. IV, 4; cf. Pohlenz, RE, ‘Panaitios,’ col. 423.
14 § 63.
15 Cic., rep. I, 15.
16 See especially Pohlenz, Antikes Führertum, 125–6, who argues convincingly that it was published after Scipio's death.
17 For various views concerning the date of Panaetius' arrival in Rome see Brink, and Walbank, , CQ 1954, 103, n. 3.Google Scholar
18 VI, 50, 2–5. Shimron, B., Historia 1964, 147–55Google Scholar, argues that in reality the Lycurgan regime, as applied by Cleomenes III, was adapted to expansion; hence Polybius' refusal to discuss Cleomenes' reforms and his treatment of the king as a tyrant.
19 VI, 48, 7–8.
20 VI, 49, 8.
21 cf. 1, 1, 5.
22 III, 4, 1 f.
23 XI 6, 1 f.
24 Livy XXXI, 29, 6.
25 XXXVI, 9, 5–8; 9–11.
26 Livy XLII, 47; see Kahrstedt, , Klio 1911, 415–430Google Scholar; Walbank, , JRS 1941, 82–93Google Scholar; Briscoe, J., JRS 1964, 66–77.Google Scholar
27 On the repetition of words and phrases in his work see XXIX, 12, 10.
28 III, 4, 12–13.
29 cf. Thommen, Hermes 1885, 199; Susemihl, , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit II, 108, n. 104.Google Scholar
30 III, 5.
31 XXXVI, 10.
32 XXXVI, 17, 12–15.
33 XXXVIII, 16, 7.
34 See the just comments of Hoffmann, W., Historia 1960, 309–44.Google Scholar
35 XXX, 1–3.
36 XXX, 18, 7.
37 XXX, 19, 12–13.
38 XXX, 20.
39 XXXII, 10.
40 XXXIII, 18, 10.
41 XXX, 27; 30, 7–8.
42 XXXIII, 6, 8.
43 e.g. XXX, 32.
44 XXXI, 2.
45 XXXI, 10.
46 XXXI, 21.
47 XXXII, 3, 11–13.
48 Livy XLII, 47, 9.
49 XXXII, 13.
50 XXXVI, 2.
51 Plut., Cato mai. 27, 3; App., Lib. 69; Diod. XXXIV, 33, 4–6 (based on Poseidonius). See Gelzer, , Phil. 1931, 284–5Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. II, 39–72; Strasburger, below, 42, n. 23.
52 Historia 1960, 340.
53 ib., 319–22.
54 Taylor, L. Ross, JRS 1962, 19–27Google Scholar, especially 21 ff.
55 App., Lib. 69.
56 III, 20, 1 ff.
57 Livy XXI, 6, 7; 16, 2; Dio, fg. 55; Zon. VIII, 22; Otto, , Hist. Zeit. 145 (1932), 513.Google Scholar
58 Hoffmann, , Rh.Mus. 1951, 77 ff.Google Scholar: contra Gelzer, , Gnomon 1957, 409Google Scholar (= Kl. Schr. III, 211), who argues that the names of the legates are invented.
59 VI, 18, 5–8.
59a XXXVI, I, 1 is perhaps against it.
60 Livy XLII, 47, 9 ff.
61 Plut., Cato mai. 19, 3; cf. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius I, 647–8.
62 XXXI, 25, 3 ff.
63 XXXI, 25, 2; 25, 9; 29, 1.
64 cf. Book VI passim, and especially 56, 1–5.
65 VI, 50, 3–6.
66 VI, 56, 6 ff.
67 XVIII, 34, 7.
68 VI, 56, 11–15.
69 XXXVI, 9.
70 Historia 1960, 311; it is of course true that neither Athens nor Sparta maintained her dominant position for long; that of Sparta lasted only twelve years (1, 2, 3).
71 XVIII, 37, 2 f.; 7.
72 X, 36, 2 f.
73 XXXVIII, 7. 1; see further on Hasdrubal XXXVIII, 20.
74 XXVII, 8, 8.
75 Diod. XXXII, 2 and 4; cf. Gelzer, , Phil. 1931, 290 ff.Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. II, 64 ff.;Adcock, , Camb. Hist. Journ. 1946, 127–8Google Scholar; Bilz, , Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Würzburg, 1935), 31Google Scholar; Astin, , Latomus 1956, 180Google Scholar; Strasburger, below, 46, n. 58.
76 l.c.(n.75).
77 XXX, 7, 2–4.
78 XI, 2, 1–11.
79 XVI, 31–3.
80 Livy XXXI, 17.
81 III, 4, 9–10.
82 Gelzer, , Hermes 1933, 129–166Google Scholar =; Kl. Schr. III, 51–92.
83 Plut., Cato mai. 22; Cic., Acad. II, 137; de orat. II, 155; Tusc. Disp. IV, 5; ad Att. XII, 23; Gell. VI, 14, 8 f.; XVII, 21, 48; Pliny, , Nat. hist. VII, 30Google Scholar, 112.
84 Lucilius 1, 31 Marx, ‘non Carneades si ipsum… Orcus remittat.’
85 Plut., Cato mai. 22
86 Cic., rep. III, 6 ff.
87 Lact., Div. inst. V, 14 f., especially 17 ad fin.
88 Gell. VI, 14, 8–10 (quoting Polybius and Rutilius Rufus); cf. Macrob. 1, 5.
89 Pliny, , Nat. hist. VII, 30.Google Scholar
90 Plut., Cato mai. 22, 5.
91 Gell. VI, 14, 10.
92 Capelle, W., Klio 1932, 86–113.Google Scholar
93 § 62.
94 Cic., leg. III, 14.
95 Cic., rep. III, 33–41, especially 36; cf. Schmekel, Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa, 55 ff. For a dissenting view, see Strasburger, below, 45, n. 50.
96 Aug., Civ. Dei. XIX, 21.
97 Plato, rep. I, 331 f.; SVF III, fg. 262; it is also known to Aristotle, Eth. Nic. V, 5, 1130b, 31; VI, 1131a, 24 (but he regards it as only one form of justice). Cf. Walbank, Commentary, on VI, 6, 11.
98 For Plato slavery is not a problem: cf. rep. v, 469 B–C; legg. 766B, 778A. For a defence of the institution see Arist., Pol. I, especially 3–7.
99 Pohlenz, RE, ‘Panaitios,’ cols. 437–8.
100 cf. Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958), 11 f., 55 ff.
101 cf. Seel, , Römisches Denken und römischer Staat (Berlin, 1937), 96Google Scholar; see, however, Strasburger, below, 44 ff.
102 Athen. VI, 263C = FGH 87, F 8; cf. Capelle, op. cit. (n. 92), 99–100.
103 cf. Strabo III, 144; 154; 156 (cf. 163); Capelle, loc. cit.
104 cf. Cole, T., Historia 1964, 451Google Scholar, who, however, draws a distinction between Poseidonius' view and that of Polybius.
105 VI, 5, 9–7, 3.
106 cf. Seel, op. cit. (n. 1O1), 64 ff.
106a Naturally it need not represent Poseidonius' total judgement on the role of Rome (see Strasburger, below, 40 ff.).
107 So Seel, op. cit. 64 ff.
108 Livy XXII, 13, 11; cf. Capelle, op. cit. (n. 92), 97.
109 Tac., Hist. IV, 74.
110 A paper read at the Fourth International Congress of Classical Studies, Philadelphia, on 28th August, 1964.
