Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:18:34.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Q. Marcius Philippus and Nova Sapientia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

John Briscoe
John Briscoe
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Nova ea minus placebat sapientia’: that was the view that the ‘veteres et moris antiqui memores’ took of the diplomatic activity of Q. Marcius Philippus and his colleagues during their embassy to Greece and Macedonia in 172/1. For once we have evidence of a definite division in the Senate on a matter of policy, and if the political groupings established by prosopographers are to have any meaning beyond mere manoeuvring for office, it should be possible to discover the protagonists on each side, and to trace the division in the Fasti. Such an inquiry should make it possible to write a coherent political history of the years leading up to the Third Macedonian War. It has long been recognized that the decade after 180 was a period of sharp disagreement among the nobiles, but no satisfactory interpretation of the whole period between 179 and the end of the Third Macedonian War has yet been given. In this paper I shall attempt an analysis of the problem in two sections: firstly I shall discuss the diplomatic career of Q. Marcius Philippus and some related questions; secondly, I shall try to relate the conclusions of the first section to the political history of Rome in the 170's.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 1-2 , November 1964 , pp. 66 - 77
Copyright
Copyright ©John Briscoe 1964. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Liv. XLII, 47, 4, 9.

2 See especially Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920) 198–223Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics, 220–150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), 177–219.Google ScholarBadian, E., Foreign Clientelae, 264–70 B.C. (Oxford, 1958), 95, n. 4Google Scholar, denies any differences on attitudes to Macedonia.

3 Election, Liv. XXXVIII, 35, 2; appointment to Sicily, XXXVIII, 35, 10.

4 Liv. XXXIX, 8, 1; 20, 1. For the one-year interval between praetorship and consulship at this time cf. Astin, A. E., The Lex Annalis before Sulla (Brussels, 1958), 10.Google Scholar The evidence for Philippus' career as a whole can conveniently be consulted in Münzer, , RE XIV (1930), 1573–9Google Scholar; van Ooteghem, J., Lucius Marcius Philippus et sa famille (Brussels, 1961), 58–97.Google Scholar

5 I cannot go into this: for the date, cf. P. Fraccaro, ‘I processi degli Scipioni’ (1913), 384 ff. ( = Opuscula I (1956), 373 ff.).

6 Liv. XXXIX, 20; Oros. IV, 20, 6.

7 For the sources see MRR I, 379. The chronology is difficult. Liv. XXXIX, 49, is a digression and is not evidence for the date of the death of Philopoemen: Aymard, A., REA XXX (1928), 29–30.Google Scholar Pol. XXIII, 9 = Liv. XL, 2, is reported under 183/2 in Polybius and 182 in Livy. This is in accord with Livy's practice of taking events from an Olympiad year, and placing them in the consular year in which the Olympiad year ends. The war had already started when the Achaean embassy reached Rome (Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten III (1903), 54, n. 4Google Scholar; contra, De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani IV, 1 (1923), 243)Google Scholar: but there is no need to suppose that Philopoemen is already dead by this time, as Niese III, 52, n. 4, Hoffman, W., RE XX (1941), 91–2, doGoogle Scholar: cf. Aymard, o.c., 49–53.

8 For all this see Walbank, F. W., Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940), 224 ff.Google Scholar

9 Pol. XXIII, 8; Liv. XXXIX, 53; cf. Walbank, o.c. (n. 8), 241; Meloni, P., Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (Cagliari, 1953), 33–4.Google Scholar

10 Pol. XXIII, 5; Plut., Tit. 17, 3; Aymard, , Les assemblées de la confederation achaienne (Bordeaux, 1938) 348.Google Scholar

11 Pol. XXIII, 9; Liv. XL, 2, for what follows.

12 Pol. XXIII, 9, 11. For the dispute cf. Niese III, 49 ff.

13 Pol. XXIII, 17, 3.

14 Pol. XXIII, 17, 6; it is not completely clear whether this is the first Lycortas had heard of the reply given to Sparta.

15 Pol. XXIV, 8 ff.

16 Sources in MRR I, 413. The fullest account of the events leading up to the Third Macedonian War is in Meloni, Perseo 61–209. See also id., Il valore storico e le fonti del libro Macedonico di Appiano (Rome, 1955), 119 ff.; Bikerman, E., RÉG LXVI (1953) 4791–505.Google Scholar

17 For the treaty with Philip and its relation to the charges against Perseus, see Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum I (1913), 228–39Google Scholar; Holleaux, M., Études V (1957), 104 ff.Google Scholar; Meloni, Perseo 186 ff.; Il Valore storico 152. For the renewal with Perseus, Pol. XXV, 3, 1; Diod. XXIX, 30; Liv. XL, 58; XLI, 24, 7; App., Mac. XI, 6; Zon. IX, 22, 2. The marriage to Laodice, Pol. XXV, 4, 8; Liv. XLII, 12, 4; App., Mac. XI, 2; cf. Syll. 3 639; Meloni, Perseo 122 ff.

18 Meloni, Perseo 444, takes the view that Rome was afraid of an invasion. The secret decision: Liv. XLII, 14, 1; App., Mac. XI, 3; Val. Max. 11, 2, 1. For senatorial secrecy cf. Willems, P., Le Sénat (1885) 11, 164Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., SB Heid. Ak. 1956, 3, 11.Google Scholar Bikerman, o.c. (n. 16), 498, ignores this evidence, and this is sufficient to vitiate his view that it was fear of Antiochus that decided the Senate to declare war on Perseus.

19 On what follows see especially, Nissen, H., Kristiche Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin, 1863), 246–9Google Scholar; Kahrstedt, U., Klio XI (1911), 415–30Google Scholar; Walbank, , JRS XXXI (1941), 82–93.Google Scholar Professor Walbank kindly informs me that despite his objections in JHS LXXV (1955), 194–5, he would now return to his earlier view.

20 Liv. XLII, 27, 5. Meloni, Perseo 195, n. 2, is surely wrong to think that Sicinius left after the consular elections which were on the 18th February (28, 5).

21 Troops: Liv. XLII, 40, 1; 43, 1–3, cf. 47, 2; exercitus in 40, 10, can, I think, refer to these. Milites diviserunt (37, 1) does not necessarily mean that the troops were divided into bodyguards for the legati. Ante hiemem: Liv. XLII, 37, 3; cf. 44, 8. See n. 23 for the calendar equation.

22 All agree that 37–47 are Polybian. Meloni, Perseo 181, n. 3, thinks that 36, 8–9, are Polybian, and that Livy has conflated two passages of Polybius. The annalistic section is far from uniform, as the chaotic details of the armaments show: Kahrstedt, o.c. (n. 19), 417–20; Meloni, Perseo 193, n. 5.

23 See Sanctis, De, Storia IV, 1, 368 ff.Google ScholarOost's, S. I. attempt (CPh XLVIII, 1953, 217 ff.)Google Scholar to make the gap larger is unconvincing, and his argument from ἀντιστράτηγος in Pol. XXVIII, 3, 1 is disposed of by the inscription published by Charneux, P., BCH LXXXI (1957), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 The consuls left after the celebration of the Latin games on Kal. Jun., Liv. XLII, 35, 3: in XLII, 47, 1, the truce is called indutiae, but that does not mean either that the war had been declared by the time of the interview (Broughton, , MRR I, 415Google Scholar, n. 8) or that the whole story of Marcius' deception is a fabrication (Frank, T., CPh V, 1910, 359Google Scholar).

25 I hope to discuss elsewhere these links and the origin of the cognomen ‘Philippus’.

26 Liv. XLII, 43, 3.

27 Liv. XLII, 47; Diod. XXX, 7, 1.

28 Pol. XXVII, 1–2; Liv. XLII, 43, 4 ff.; Meloni, Perseo 191, 197–9, with bibliography. For the earlier relations of Perseus with Boeotia, ibid. 145 ff.

29 Θήβας in the MSS at Pol. XXVII, 5, 2, must be a mistake, cf. Liv. XLII, 46, 7. For Liv. XLII, 63, 12, see n. 90.

30 Pol. XXVIII, 17; App. Mac. 17. Meloni, Perseo 318, nn. 1, 3, for some literature. Add now Schmitt, H. H., Rom und Rhodes (Munich, 1957), 145Google Scholar, n. 2; Badian, Foreign Clientelae 100; Van Ooteghem, Lucius Marcius Philippus 92 ff.

31 cf. n. 17. Lycia: Pol. XXV, 5; Liv. XLI, 6; Schmitt, o.c. (n. 30), 95 ff.

32 Liv. XLII, 14, 6–9; App., Mac. II, 3; Meloni, Perseo 160 ff.

33 Perseus' request for mediation in 172/1, Pol. XXVII, 4; Rhodes loyal, Pol. XXVII, 4; 7, 14; Liv. XLII, 45, 4; 56, 6. Liv. XLII, 26, 9, is false; Meloni, Perseo 205, n. 3. Embassies in 169, Pol. XXVIII, 16, 7: the embassy to the Senate is in XXVIII, 2. Polybius himself is aware of the possible confusion, XXVIII, 16, 9 ff. Liv. XLIV, 14, 5, is clearly false. Cavaignac's view (RHR CXXX, 1945, 53–8) that the embassy to the Senate was in 170 is unconvincing.

34 For the Syrian War see p. 71.

35 Pol. XXVIII, 17, 15.

36 Pol. XXVIII, 17, 9.

37 o.c. (n. 4), 92.

38 Pol. XXIX, 10, 1; 19; Diod. XXX, 24; Liv. XLV, 3, 3 ff., cf. Liv. XLIV, 35; App., Mac. 17, 1. But Appian is only interpreting Polybius. There is no reason to think that he had access to some part of Polybius no longer surviving, as Meloni, Il valore storico 182, does.

39 For Rome's policy in the Syrian War, see below, p. 72. Otto, W., Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemaers (Abh. Bay. Akad., 1934, 11) 63Google Scholar, and Schmitt l.c. (n. 30), think there is a reference to both wars.

40 Sanctis, De, Storia IV, 1, 315Google Scholar, n. 207, Meloni, Perseo 318, reject the aside. Frank, Tenney, CPh V (1910), 358–61Google Scholar, thinks that Philippus really wanted mediation with Perseus, and that Polybius' report is malicious. Schmitt, o.c. (n. 30), 146, n. 1, sees Rhodian sources behind Polybius' account.

41 Meloni, Perseo 311–16, with bibliography: Oost, , Roman Policy in Epirus and Acarnania (Dallas, 1954). 132, n. 80.Google Scholar

42 174: Liv. XLI, 23, 3 ff. 171: Pol. XXVII, 2, 11; Liv. XLII, 37, 7–8.

43 Pol. XXVIII, 6. Polybius and his father evidently disagreed. Bribery was used in the election, Pol. XXVIII, 7, 7.

44 Pol. XXVIII, 12, 1, for the accusations.

45 Sanctis, De, Storia IV, 1, 300Google Scholar, Meloni, Perseo 313, take the view that the offer is not serious.

46 Pol. XXVIII, 13: s.c. of 170, Pol. XXVIII, 3, 3; 16, 2; Liv. XLIII, 17, 2.

47 Pol. XXVIII, 13, 10.

48 See especially Otto, o.c. (n. 39); Winkler, H., Rom und Aegypten (Leipzig, 1933) 25 ff.Google Scholar; Passerini, A., Ath. (n.s.) XIII (1935), 317–42Google Scholar; Jouguet, P., Rev. Phil. (3ème série) XI (1937), 193–238Google Scholar; Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte XIX (1937), 157–174; Swain, , CPh XXXIX (1944), 73–94Google Scholar; Manni, E., Riv. di fil. XXVIII (1950), 229–236Google Scholar; Bikerman, E., Chronique d'Égypte XXVII (1952), 396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skeat, T., Reigns of the Ptolemies (Munich, 1954), 33, n. 10Google Scholar; Volkmann, H., RE XXIII (1959), 1705–10Google Scholar; Skeat, , JEA XLVII (1961), 107–112Google Scholar; Mørkholm, , Cl. et med. XXII (1961), 32–43Google Scholar; Samuel, A. E., Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 140–3.Google Scholar

49 That Egypt is responsible is clear from Pol. XXVII, 19; XXVIII, 16; Diod. XXX, 2; Liv. XLII, 29, 7; Porph., FGH 260 F49a: contra I Makk. i, 16; Jos., AJ XII, 242. I cannot follow Otto, o.c. (n. 39), 37–8, in thinking that Rome instigated Egypt to attack. For the chronology, Otto, 40, n. 2; 41, n. 1; Jouguet, , Rev. Phil. (3éme ser.) XI, 214Google Scholar, n. 1; Volkmann, 1705. We now know that Euergetes and Cleopatra were associated in the kingdom in 170 (P. Ryl. 583), Skeat, Samuel, ll. cc. This removes the need for dating Antiochus' withdrawal before 3rd October, 169, on the grounds that the joint reign was instituted after that withdrawal, but within the year 170/169. Skeat argues that the battle of Pelusium should be placed in the early winter of 170, since apart from P. Ryl. 583 all other documents of the year 170/69 revert to a dating by Philometor alone. But there could well be other reasons for this. The cuneiform document (Swain, 81, n. 35; Bikerman, 397, n. 3) may talk about Arabia, but Antiochus cannot possibly have been there at the time.

50 Pol. XXVIII, 18; Diod. XXX, 18; Liv. XLIV, 19, 8; Porph. F49a.

51 Pol. XXVIII, 19, 1. Otto, 49, thinks that they brought Philometor back from Samothrace: but it is not at all certain that he ever went. cf. Pol. XXVIII, 21; Diod. XXX, 17; Mørkholm, o.c. (n. 48), 42.

52 Diod. XXX, 18, 2; Dan. 11, 27; Porph., F49b; Jos., AJ XII, 243; cf. Pol. XXVIII, 23, 4; XXX, 26, 9; Suid. s.v. Ήρακλείδης.

53 Volkmann, l.c. (n. 49), rejects the evidence of coins and P. Tebt. III, 698, which has been used to argue that Antiochus had himself crowned as King. cf. also Aymard, , Aegyptus XXXII (1952), 85–96.Google Scholar Even if he was crowned it may have been in 168, not 169, where Porph. F49a puts the event. Swain, o.c. (n. 49), 82; Skeat, and Bell, , JEA XXI (1935), 263–4.Google Scholar In Antiochus' view Philometor remained King.

54 Pol. XXIX, 23, 4; Porph. F2, 7; Just, XXXIV, 2, 4; Liv. XLIV, 19, 8; Diod. XXXI I.

55 Pol. XXVIII, 23, 4; Liv. XLIV, 19, 8, for Antiochus' claims. Pol. XXVIII, 22, 1; Liv. XLV, 11, 1; Porph. F49b, for the retreat from Alexandria. Swain, o.c. (n. 49), 84, Meloni, Perseo 343, n. 1, follow Ed. Meyer in putting the revolt of Jason in 168: it does not matter for our purposes. But Swain's view that Pol. XXVIII, 23, 4, means that the Egyptians were ready to take Philometor back, and that Antiochus withdrew on these terms is wrong: it is contradicted by Liv. XLV, 11, 3, and the epitomator's words καὶ δὴ πεποίηκε prove nothing.

56 Liv. XLIV, 19, 8 ff.

57 Pol. XXIX, 2.

58 Pol. XXIX, 25, 3.

59 Pol. XXIX, 23, 4.

60 Otto, o.c. (n. 39), 60 ff.

61 See n. 49.

62 Swain, o.c. (n. 49), 90 ff. For him the s.c. presented by Popillius (Pol. XXIX, 27, 1) was the one issued in January, referring to a different situation. Popillius' movements and sources for the ultimatum, MRR 1, 430.

63 Otto, o.c. (n. 39), 72 ff., for the date of Popillius' departure.

64 cf. Pol. XXIX, 23, 1: and even less for Numisius' embassy to follow the joint appeal, as Volkmann, o.c. (n. 48), 1709, suggests.

65 Liv. XLV, 11, 4. With Otto's scheme κύριον γεγονέναι (Pol. XXIX, 2) will have to be translated ‘had had control’, a perfectly possible meaning (Otto, 62 and n. 2). τὸν ἐνεστῶτα πόλεμον (Pol. XXIX 25, 7) does not mean that war had actually broken out again.

66 I see no reason to think that there was any formal alliance between Rome and Egypt at this time. But cf. Passerini, Manni, o.c. (n. 48).

67 Otto, o.c. (n. 39), 65.

68 Sanctis, De, Storia IV, 1, 308.Google Scholar

69 Passerini, o.c. (n. 48), 339–342.

70 Pol. XXVIII, 1, 7. Meloni, Perseo 268–9, thinks that Egypt hoped for help from Perseus; Jouguet, , Rev. Phil, (3ème ser.) XI, 223Google Scholar, and Bull. d'Ég. XIX, 172, n. 1, that Egypt represented a Hellenic nationalism opposed to Roman domination.

71 Pol. XXVII, 7, 15; cf. XXIX, 4. Rome and Antiochus: Liv. XLII, 6: see, with due caution, Zambelli, , Riv. fil. XXXVIII (1960), 363–389.Google Scholar

72 Pol. XXVIII, 1, 9: Bikerman's notion (o.c, 398, n. 1) that Philippus was a legatus in 170, and was to act in that capacity, is impossible.

73 If one rejects Otto's chronology, Numisius will have to be sent earlier in 169. cf. n. 64. The appeal to Achaea, Pol. XXIX, 23–5.

74 Liv. XLII, 47, 9; Diod. XXX, 7, 1: Philippus was not, of course, the first to use underhand methods: there are plenty of discreditable episodes in the career of Flamininus.

75 Römische Adelsparteien, 199–223: 209 for the point mentioned. Scullard (Rom. Pol., 177 ff.) accepts Münzer's picture in its essentials, but regards Gracchus as a member of the Fulvian group.

76 For the details, McDonald, A. H., JRS XXVIII (1938), 161–4Google Scholar; Scullard, Rom.Pol., 133–152. That is not to say that all the opponents of Scipio were allies of Fulvius: Cato was not.

77 The consuls of 179: Fast. Cap.; Vell. Pat. 11, 8, 3; MRR 1, 391–2; Laevinus: Pol. XXI, 29, 11.

78 Scullard, Rom. Pol., 193, appears to mark a division between Postumii and Popillii, but his position is not absolutely clear.

79 Fulvius, : RE VII (1912), 246Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women (London, 1962), 31Google Scholar; Köves, T., Historia XII (1963), 340.Google Scholar Postumius: Liv. XXXIX, II. P. Sulpicius Galba, cos. 211, 200, is certainly in the anti-Scipionic group in the Second Punic War: Ser. Sulpicius Galba opposed Paullus' triumph in 167. This sort of evidence is not decisive, but so long as it harmonizes with the other data, it constitutes a valid argument. For the opposite view of Cassola, F., I gruppi politici romani nel iii secolo a.c. (Trieste, 1962)Google Scholar see my review in CR (n.s.) XIII (1963), 321–4.

80 Hostilia: Liv. XXXIX, II. On the poisoning of Piso, Balsdon, o.c. (n. 79), 31. On the Calpurnii Pisones, Earl, D. C., Ath. (n.s.) XXXVIII (1960), 283–298Google Scholar, who reaches the right conclusions by means of some dubious arguments.

81 Rom. Pol., 190–1.

82 Crassus and Popillius, Liv. XLII, 22, 7–8. On the military tribunes see below, pp. 76 f.

83 Disagreement: Liv. XLI, 27 (for the text, cf. Richter, W., Rh. Mus. CIV, 1961, 257–269Google Scholar). Scullard, o.c. (n. 75), 192, says that Postumius was responsible for expelling Fulvius' brother from the senate, but Liv. XLI, 27, 2, makes it the responsibility of both: for his possible identification with the military tribune of 180 cf. MRR I, 391, n. 3. Two Cornelii were censured by the censors (Liv. XLI, 27, 2).

84 Cf. Gelzer, , Historia I (1950), 636–7.Google Scholar

85 MRR I, 397, n. 1; Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla, 23 and 28.

86 On Lepidus, Scullard, o.c. (n. 75), 180–1. cf. Cassola, Gruppi politici 19 and n. 33, for the censorship of 179.

87 Scullard, o.c. (n. 75), 141–2; sources, MRR I, 360. Though there is nothing new in complaints of ill-treatment by Roman commanders.

88 Fulvius: Liv. XLII, 3, 1–11; Val. Max. I, 1, 20. Postumius: LIV. XLII, 1, 7–12.

89 Liv. XLII, 7, 3 ff.; 22, 7.

90 For Lucretius, Liv. XLII, 63, 3; Strabo IX, 2, 30 (p. 411 C) (Haliartus), cf. Holleaux, , Études I, 187–193Google Scholar; Liv. XLII, 63, 12; Syll. 3 646 (Thisbe—for the reading cf. n. 29). For Crassus, Liv. XLII, 67, 6 ff.; XLIII, 4, 5, 11; Zon. IX, 22, 6 (especially Coronea). Hortensius and Lucretius, Liv. XLIII, 7, 11 ff. (Chalcis); Hortensius, Liv. XLIII, 4, 8–13 (Abdera); XLIII, 8, for the condemnation of Lucretius.

91 Liv. XLIII, 1, 4–12.

92 Liv. XLIII, 4, 5: evidence for Paullus: Aeginium, etc., Liv. XLV, 27, 1 ff. Aetolia XLV, 28, 7–8; 31, 2. Illyria and Epirus, Pol. XXX, 16; Liv. XLV, 33, 7 ff.; Plut., Paull. 29–30; App., Ill. 9; Pliny, NH IV, 39.Google Scholar All except Polybius stress the s.c, cf. Scullard, , JRS XXXV (1945), 58–64Google Scholar; Oost, Roman Policy, 84, n. 106; Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 98, n. 2.

93 Hostilius, Liv. XLIV, 1, 5; Paullus, Diod. XXX, 20; Liv. XLIV, 33 ff.; Plut., Paull. 13; Zon. IX, 23.

94 MRR I, 435. But in both 196 and 189 there are reasons for thinking that the majority of the X legati did not agree with the terms laid down by the Senate.

95 See Passerini, , Ath. (n.s.) XI (1933), 327 ff.Google Scholar; for Paullus' attitude to these men, cf. Pol. XXX, 13, 11; XXXII, 6, 5.

96 Liv. XLII, 17.

97 Liv. XLII, 21–2. Neither cognomen is known elsewhere in the Marcian gens. Münzer, , RE XIV (1930), 1595Google Scholar, suggests that they owed their position to the influence of Philippus.

98 Liv. XLV, 25, 2, says that the commanders who had been in Macedonia supported the proposal. Paullus had not yet returned. cf. Scullard, Rom. Pol., 287.

99 Liv. XLIII, 8, 2–10.

100 171: Liv. XLII, 32,7–35, 2. Taylor, L. R., JRS LII (1962), 21. 169Google Scholar: Liv. XLIII, 4. Neither Marcellus nor Galus is certainly Fulvian, though it was a Sulpicius Galba who opposed Paullus' triumph in 167. cf. n. 79.

101 Failure to realize this vitiates many of the arguments of Earl, , Latomus XIX (1960), 657–669Google Scholar.

102 Plut., Paull. 5, 2; cf. Mor. 141A; Balsdon, Roman Women, 211.

103 RE VI (1909), 1811–2.

104 Liv. XLV, 37, 1 ff.

105 Friendship, Cic., De sen. 83; marriage, RE XXII (1953), 167–8. For the relations of Cato and Aemilianus see Astin, , Latomus XVI (1956), 159–180Google Scholar; Cassola, o.c. (n. 79), 354.

106 Eumenes, Plut., Cato mai. 8, 12; cf. Meloni, Perseo, 161, n. 4. App., Mac. II, 3, says that several senators opposed the war. De tribunis militum, ORF 2, fr. 154–5; Meloni, 215, n. 3. Rhodes, ORF 2, fr. 163–171; Cassola, o.c. (n. 75), 354. The speech De Macedonia liberanda is also noteworthy, ORF 2, fr. 161–2.

107 Thus, Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien, 152; Scullard, Rom. Pol. 203; Meloni, Perseo, 287. It is quite wrong to regard this as a patrician-plebeian quarrel. The all-plebeian colleges are only a symptom of the outlook of the Popillii and their friends.

108 The assumption that consular colleagues must be political allies is very dangerous, cf. Cassola, o.c. (n. 75), 13 ff.

109 Liv. XLIII, 14, 1 ff.

110 Liv. XXXV, 10, 2 ff.; 24, 4; XXXIX, 40; Plut., Cato mai. 16, 4.

111 De or. 1, 38.

112 Contracts: Liv. XLIII, 16, 2; freedmen: XLV, 15 (sec. 3 for Claudius' opposition, but cf. sec. 7: Claudio qui non impedisset). On the details see McDonald, , CHJ VI (1939), 135–8Google Scholar; Scullard, Rom. Pol., 205; Taylor, , Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960), 138–41Google Scholar; Badian, , JRS LII (1962), 207.Google Scholar

113 Tiberius Gracchus was born in 162, Caius about 153: Plut., TG 3, 2; CG I, 2. The date of the marriage cannot be precisely settled. Carcopino, , Autour des Gracques (Paris, 1928) 47–81Google Scholar, argued for 176, but I doubt if it comes before 169.

114 Liv. XLI, 10–11: 10, 5, for Gracchus.

115 Liv. XLII, 49, 8; cf. 31, 5. In 168 Paullus' choice was more limited: Liv. XLIV, 21, 1–3.

116 Cassola's attempt (o.c, 411) to make Ap. Claudius Pulcher, cos. 212, into an ally of Scipio Africanus is quite unconvincing. Though he and Fulvius did disagree about the treatment of Capua (Liv. XXVI, 15, 1).

117 Inscr. Ital. XIII, 3, 81; Plut., Paull. 10; Just. XXXIII, 1, 6; against Liv. XLIV, 17, 4; 22, 4; Scullard Rom. Pol., 207, n. 2; Meloni, Perseo, 319, n. 4. The friendship of P. Licinius Crassus, cos. 205, and Scipio Africanus is of no relevance to the relations of the consuls of 168 (contra Earl, , Latomus XIX, 1960, 660Google Scholar).

118 I am very grateful to Mr. A. E. Astin, Mr. W. G. Forrest, Dr. A. H. McDonald and Professor F. W. Walbank for reading earlier drafts of this article, and making many helpful suggestions. They are not, of course, to be taken as necessarily agreeing with what is said.