^{page 73 note 1} Bilz, K., Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, (Würzb. Stud, Heft vii, 1936)Google Scholar: published originally as a Würzburg dissertation, 1935. Bliz, pp. 9 ff., develops the thesis of Taeger, F., Die Archaeologie des polybios (1922), 108, that Polybius vi was written in a single piece, and has no inconsistencies or traces of successive versionsGoogle Scholar.

^{page 73 note 2} Riv. Fil. lxv, 1937, 83–4Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 3} Storia dei Rotnani, iii. 1 (1916), 205–9Google Scholar; Encic. ital. xxvii (1935), s.v. ‘Polibio’, p. 629Google Scholar. The other alternative is accepted by Zillig, P., Die Theorie von der gemischten Verfassung inihrer literarischen Entwicklung im Altertum usw. (Diss, Würzburg, 1915) 54–5Google Scholar(a reference which I owe to Taeger, op.cit. 108, n. 20).

^{page 73 note 4} Cuntz, O., Polybius und sein Werk (1902), 37–42Google Scholar. The passages were vi. 9. 10–14; 10. 7(π πολύ inserted); 51. 3–8; 57.

^{page 73 note 5} Svoboda, K., Hermes, Ixxii, 1913, 55–83 (particularly 472–8)Google Scholar: ‘Die Abfassungszeit des Geschichtswerkes des Polybios’; Laqueur, R., Polybios (1913), 223–49Google Scholar(cf. also Phil. Woch. 1924, col. 336, reviewing Taeger, op. cit., and Hermes, Ixv, 1930, 164–6)Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 6} See above, n. 3.

^{page 73 note 7} Kornemann, E., Philol. Ixxxvi, 1931, 169–84Google Scholar: ‘Zum Staatsrecht des Polybios’.

^{page 73 note 8} Zancan, L., Rend. 1st. Lombardo, lxix, 1936, 499–512Google Scholar: ‘Dottrina delle costituzioni e decadenza politica in Polibio’.

^{page 74 note 1} La-Roche, Paul, Charakteristik des Polybios theoretically (1857), 18 ffGoogle Scholar.; particularly p. 31 and n. 2.

^{page 74 note 2} La-Roche pointed out the seeming inconsistency between vi. 9. 13 (linked with 51. 4), in which Polybius envisages the natural decline of the Roman constitution, and 18. 5f., which describes the equilibrium of the mixed state; and between the definition of the Roman State as a mixed constitution and 51. 5 f., where the Roman success against Carthage is attributed to the predominance of the Senate. La-Roche's view appears almost unchanged in Heinze, R., Hermes, lix, 1924, 87Google Scholar(= p. 160 in Vom Geiste des Rötnertums, ed. Burck, E., 1938, pp. 142–70)Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 3} Op. cit. 504–5. This is speaking logically and theoretically. In practice, as we shall see, Poly bius maintained his own political preferences even within the closed circle.

^{page 74 note 4} viz. 10. 11 where Lycurgus is said to have preserved freedom at Sparta πλεῖστον ὧν μεῖς ἲσμεν ϰρόνον; 10. 14 where the Roman, like the Spartan constitution, is κάλλιστον σύστημα τν καθ μς πολιτειν; 11. 1 where the former is said to have beenκάλλιστον σλειον ν τοῖς A7nu;νιβαϊκοῖς καιροῖς. Cf. also 10. 7: the mixed constitution remains in a state of equilibrium π πολύ (cf. Taeger, op. cit. 112). See further Bilz, op. cit. 10, who anticipated Zancan in drawing attention to these passages.

^{page 75 note 1} Cuntz, op. cit. 40–1; cf. Sanctis, De, Storia, iii. I. 206Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 2} Zancan, op. cit. 508.

^{page 75 note 3} e.g. for anacyclosis, 4. 7 ϕνσικς 4. 9 κατϕύσιν; 4. 11; 4. 13; for the ‘organic’ idea, 9. 13; 9.14; 51. 4; 57. I τς ϕύσεως νУκη. But this is not an exhaustive list.

^{page 75 note 4} See above, p. 74, n. 4. Sanctis, De (Storia, iii. 1. 207Google Scholar; cf. Svoboda, op. cit. 474–5) argues that 11.1 is one of the passages introduced later to reconcile the mixed constitution with the anacyclosis; on this view Polybius, having jetisoned the conception of the Roman consitution as unchageable, puts its acme at the time of the Hannibalic War. However, a reference to the Hannibalic War seems wholly in place here, since it is in connexion with the Roman recovery after Cannae that Polybius sets out to discuss the Roman constitution at all (vi. 2. 4f.). Kornemann seems (op. cit. is not an exhaustive list. 170, n. 8) to have ignored this passage, when he claims ch. II as one which ‘betont vor allem die Stabilität der römischen Mischverfassung’.

^{page 75 note 5} Cf. Aristot, . Pol. ii. 6. 1265b, 33 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 6} This point was already seen by Bilz, op. cit. 10, and approved by Lincke, E., Phil. Woch. 1936, col. 1168Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 7} Polyb. vi. 3. 3; see below, p. 80.

^{page 76 note 1} Op. cit. 507, n. 11. It is true that the approach is not entirely that of the anacyclosis, for reasons to be considered below (pp. 83, ff.).

^{page 76 note 2} It is significant that when he undertook to discuss the Roman constitution at all, he was not originally concerned with deterioration, but solely with the explanation of Roman success; cf. iii. z. 6; 118. 9f.; v. III. 10. Zancan, with his assumption of a double problem (see above, p. 74), ignores the clear indication of these three passages. I owe this point to Dr. Treves.

^{page 76 note 3} Op. cit. 500.

^{page 76 note 4} This was, of course, a commonplace by the time of Thucydides; cf. Thuc. ii. 64. 3 (Pericles’ defence): πάντα γρ πϕνκε κα λασσοθαι.

^{page 76 note 5} Taeger, op. cit. 109 (cf. the review by Ehrenberg, V., Hist. Zeit. 130Google Scholar(3. Folge, 34), 1924, 478) believes that the anacyclosis was the means by which the Roman mixed constitution grew to its ideal prime; but there is no justification in Polybius for this particular combitaion, which he arrives at only by somewhat arbitarary ‘reconstruction’ of Polybius from Cicero's De re publica.

^{page 77 note 1} He behaved with σλγεια and παρανομία, offending ταὺς μετρίουςἂνδρας; the context of ideas is that of the ‘tyrant’, not the ‘legitimate monarch’.

^{page 77 note 2} On the use of τραννος (τυραννίς Schweighaeuser's index is inadequate; but it is clearly not so common in Polybius as μόναρϰος.

^{page 77 note 3} Similarly in Aristot, . Pol. v. 10Google Scholar. 1310b, I f.,βασιλεία and τυραννίς are the two forms of the neutral μοναρϰία.

^{page 77 note 4} Was he perhaps thinking of Nabis, to the Achaeans a tyrant, to others a king? Cf. Syll.³ 584 (IG. 4. 716); IG. v. I. 885.

^{page 77 note 5} It is worth noting that the only two cases in this book where μοναρϰικώτερος has its favourable or neutral sence (II. 11 and 12. 9)—μόναρϰος is nowhere so used—are in descriptions of the mixed constitution, where the possibility of the deterioration of the simple form could not arise, and therefore only the three main forms needed to be considered. Even so, in 12. 9 Polybius has added the defining words κα βασιλικόν. A possible reason for this is suggested below (p.84, n. 2).

^{page 78 note 1} It is particularly regrettable that Paton in the Loeb edition should at this point have translated μεταβαλλούσης δ ταύτης (antecedent βασιλεία)by ‘Monarchy first changes …’, thus introducing a double error and confusion.

^{page 78 note 2} The analysis ends (6. 12)with the word: κα δ τῷ τοιούτῳ τρπῳ βασιλεὺς κ μονάρϰου λανθάνει γενόμενος κτλ.

^{page 78 note 3} I will give a single example, tanti nominis causa. De Sanctis, Encic. ital., loc. cit., states that Polybius vi contains two contradictory theories, that of the mixed consitution and that of the circular development: both of these presuppose six constitutional forms. Taeger, op. cit. 27, on the other hand, makes the distinction between monarchy and basileia, but without seeing its importance for the problem of composition; and Menzel, A., Wien. Sitz.-ber. (Phil. hist. Klasse), 216. 1 (1936), 195, n. 1, asks (without answering) what type of monarchia is meant by Polybius as the form of government succeeding to ochlocracy (9. 9). This question touches the root of the matter. Menzel envisages the three alternatives—monarch, basileus, and tyrant. But it is difficult to believe that the basileus, whose rule is associated with συντροϕία, συνήθεια, ruling over perfect savages (πατεθηριώμεναν πάλιν) and if the tyrant is meant, we reduce the number of forms in the cycle from six to five and upset the whole scheme of degeneration. In short, there can be little doubt that the μόναρϰος of the constitution which πάλιν εςαὑτ καταντᾷ (9. 16) is the same as the μναρϰος from which the cycle began (4. 7; 5. 9)Google Scholar. Cf. von Scala, R., Die Studien des Polybios i (1890), 138Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Op. cit. 20.

^{page 79 note 1} For the truth of this, as it concerns political technicalities, see Aymard's, A. notable study, Les assembliées de la confédération acharienne (1938)Google Scholar, passim.

^{page 79 note 2} There is one possible exception. In 3. 9 the double expression μοναρϰικς κα τυραννικς ἤδη τινς τεθεάμεθα πολιτείας (see above, p. 77) probably represents a slight attempt at adjustment to a terminology more strictly in accordance with that of the anacyclosis passage, which begins a chapter later. I regard it as probable, therefore, that the words κα τυραννικάς Were added at the same time as ch. 4. 7–9. 147.

^{page 79 note 3} Laqueur, op. cit. 245.

^{page 79 note 4} Storia, iii. I. 208.

^{page 79 note 5} Kornemann, op. cit. 178.

^{page 79 note 6} Zancan, op. cit., 503 and n. 3; Mesk, J., Phil. Woch. 1931, cols. 796–8Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 1} It also follows that Kornemann's termination of the anacyclosis section at 10. 6 (ἅ προἵδ μενος) must also be rejected, since it rests on a hypothetical continuation of the reference to Lycurgus in 3. 8.

^{page 80 note 2} Cf. xii. 258b. 3: κ γρ τν μοίων π τοὺς οκείους μεταϕερομέων καιροὺς ϕορμα γνονται κα προλήΨεις εἰς τ προἵδέσθι τ μλλον.

^{page 80 note 3} See above, p. 75 f.

^{page 80 note 4} I agree with Kornemann, op. cit. 173, the chapters on the army (19–42) look like ‘eingleichzeitig oder nicht allzu lang nanchher ausgearbeiteter Nachtrag zum ersten Entwurf. They do not figure in the programme as laid down in 3. 1–4 (Which in any case only covers the first part of the book down to ch. 18); but they undoubtedly reflect Polybius’ personal interest in military matters, and there is no reason for thinking them late.

^{page 81 note 1} In ch. 10. 1–2 the words “κεx1FD6;νος (i.e. Lycurgus) γρ ἔκαστα τν προειρημένων, κτλ.’ must in their present form be a link, introduced to join the anacyclosis section with what follows (cf. Laqueur, op. cit. 245). But there is no reason to follow Laqueur and Cuntz in seeing further insertions or adaptations in 10. 4–5 and 10. 7.

^{page 81 note 2} Laqueur, op. cit. 243 ff. (the elaborate stratification and the chronology are to be rejected); Sanctis, De, Storia. iii. I. 206fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 81 note 3} Kornemann, op. cit. 173ff.; Svoboda, op. cit. 473.

^{page 81 note 4} This argument was given prominence by Passerini, A., Stud. ital. fil. class. N.S.. xi, 1934, 43, who, like Kornemann, assumed that such passages as ch. 57 contain a genuine prophecy of the disruption of Roman society. Subsequently, in a review ofGoogle ScholarBilz, , op. cit., in Gnomon, xiii, 1937, 238, Passerini declared himself converted to the complete ‘Unitarian’ position; the attempt to detect contradictions and different strata in Polybius vi was now rejected ad ‘una critica ora, sembra, superata’Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 5} Cf. i. 13. 12: at the time of the first Punic War both Rome and Carthage were uncorrupted in morals. Clearly Polybius was interested in this aspect from the start.

^{page 81 note 6} See above pp. 75–6 and 80, criticizing De Sanctis’ view that 3. 1–4 is to be associated with the anacyclosis section.

^{page 82 note 1} Op. cit. 172; 178. Kornemann believes the insertion of the second draft to have begun at 3. 9.

^{page 82 note 2} Examples of Polybius’ well-known prejudice against Athens and Thebes (or Boeotia) are: v. 106. 6–8; xviii. 14. 10; xxx. 20. 1–7 (Athens); iv. 31. 5; xx. 5. 1f.; xxii. 4 (Boeotia).

^{page 82 note 3} Mantinea is not classed with Athens and Thebes. But it can be assumed that Polybius intended to treat it severely. His attitude towards the town may be judged from ii. 48, a passage which Kornemann mentions, though it militates against his view (op. cit. 174, n. 21) that ‘Polybios nahm an dieser stadt … besonderen Anteil’.

^{page 82 note 4} Cf. 45. I, with its references to Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Plato (Crete); 47. 7: πειδή κα τατην τινς τν ϕιλοσόϕωνξνμνοσιν (Plato's Republic).

^{page 82 note 5} Cf. iii. 2. 6; 118. 9f.; v. III. 10. Books IV and V are devoted to the contemporary events at 3. 9. in Greece and Syria.

^{page 82 note 6} It is noteworthy that Cato had discussed the Carthaginian constitution as an example of the μικτή Serv. ad Aen. iv. 682.

^{page 82 note 7} These features do not, however, include the past tenses of 51, which Sanctis, DeSloria, iii. 1. 206)Google Scholar regards as a proof that ch. 51 was composed after 146. As I have explained, I think this exceedingly likely. But the past tenses have nothing to do with whether Carthage still existed; they merely indicate that Polybius that Polybios was dealing with a definite time in the past. See further below, p. 84, n. 1.

^{page 82 note 8} Bilz, op. cit. 10 f., is aware of this difficulty; but his solution of it is inadequate. He argues: (I) vi. 10. 12 reveals the same view of the growth of the Roman constitution as the work of many men, not one (like the Spartan), that appears as Cato's opinion in Cie. De rep. ii. I. 2, i.e. that it is typically aristocratic—to which the answer is that the contrast which polybius stresses is not that between one and many, but between ϕύσις and λόγος. (2) The mixed constitution has only a ‘verfassungsrechtlich’ triple form; actually the senate is predominant, cf. vi. 13. 9. Bilz, after the manner of La-Roche, then concludes that Polybius, seeing a successful form of compromise at Rome, forces it violently into the scheme of the ‘mixed constitution’ of Greek theory. This is really no explanation at all of why Polybius in one place speaks of a mixed constitution and in another of an aristocracy

^{page 83 note 1} It need hardly be said that this does not necessarily link these chapters to the theory of anacydosis; ochlocracy is the specific corruption of democracy, which is avoided by the setting up of a mixed constitution,

^{page 83 note 2} Cf. Ehrenberg, V., reviewing Taeger, op. cit., in Hist. Zeit. cxxx (3. Folge, 34), 1924, 479Google Scholar, quoting various fourth- and third-century authorities; following Taeger, Ehrenberg here identifies aristocracy with the mixed constituactually tion.

^{page 83 note 3} Even if one agrees to give it only a convencludes-tional meaning; cf. Ehrenberg, , Alexander and the Greeks (1938), 73, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 4} This earlier version clearly links up with Polybius’ first plan for a history going down to 167; see Thommen, R., Hermes, xx, 1885, 205 fGoogle Scholar., who compares vi. 2. 3 (with its reference to the whole world falling under Roman domination in less than 53 years) with the similar statement in i. 1. 5. Cf. above, p. 76, n. 2.

^{page 84 note 1} As we saw, 51 differs from 52 in applying the constitutional comparison specifically to the time of the Hannibalic War (whereas the other features of comparison in 52 are mentioned in general terms). This difference may well go back to the first draft (see above, p. 75, n. 4); but the details of the comparison in 50 definitely brand it as a later insertion. Hence it is possible that $$ 4–8 (Laqueur would begin at χεῖρον3) represent a later substitution for a version which corresponded more closely to the presumptions of the theory of the mixed constitution.

^{page 84 note 2} Some scholars, particularly Cuntz, Laqueur,2 Some scholars, particularly Cuntz, Laqueur, and De Sanctis, have suggested several insertions in chs. 10–12, viz. 10. 1 (reference to the ana-cyclosis); 11. 1 (Roman constitution at its height at the time of the Hannibalic War); 11. 11–13 dismast tenses and transition to presents in 11.13); 12.10 (vague reference to future changes). With the exception of the first reference (10. 1: dis-cussed above, p. 81, n. 1), all these are explicable as part of the first draft, on the assumption (a) that the mixed constitution was not everlasting, (b) that Polybius was specifically concerned with sugthe period in reference to which he inserted his discussion at this point (viz. the years after Cannae), but tended for convenience to express much of his discussion of the Roman constitu-tion, as later much of his comparison between the Roman and Carthaginian constitutions, in general terms, using present tenses. It was only afterwards, when he was impressed by the imminence of Roman decline, that this gap between the Hannibalic War and his own time assumed a real significance. It has already been suggested that in 12. 9 the words καі βασιλικόν (like the addition καі τμραννικάς in 3. 9: see above, p. 79, n. 2) were inserted later, probably in an attempt to adjust the earlier expression to fit the more precise terminology of the ana-cyclosis passage (see above, p. 77, n. 5).

^{page 84 note 3} See above, pp. 74 f.

^{page 84 note 4} These passages are 9. 12–14; 51. 4–8; 57. In chs. 43–4 Polybius had already applied the conception of growth, acme, and dechne in dismast cussing the unstable constitutions of Athens and Thebes (see above, p. 83).

^{page 84 note 5} It is of course older than Dicaearchus; see above, p. 75, n. 5.

^{page 84 note 6} Schmekel, A., Die Philosophic der mitUeren Stoa (1892), 64–5Google Scholar; Susemihl, , Gesch. der gr. Lift, in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii (1892), 99, n. 75Google Scholar. The sugthe gestion also appears in Newman, , Politics of Arist. ii (1887), p. xivGoogle Scholar; it was first made by Osann, , Beitr. zur gr. u. röm. Literaturgesch. (1839), 23 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 85 note 1} Photius, , cod. 37, p. 8Google Scholara, 2 f. For the most recent discussion of Dicaearchus see Solmsen, F., Philol. lxxxviii, 1933, 238 ff.Google Scholar, and Egermann, F., Wien. Sitz.-ber. ccxiv. 3 (1932), 55 ff.Google Scholar, and particularly 61, n. 1. Egermann rightly rejects Wilamowitz's explanation of Δικαιαρχικόν as a common formation, meaning ubi regnat iustitia (HeUen. Dichtung, i. 64, n. 1). The Τριπολικός, in which the theory of the mixed constitution is most probably developed, is mentioned by Cicero, , ad Att. xii. 32Google Scholar and by Athen. iv. 141 a (extract quoted). See Martini, P.-W., s. v. ‘Dikaiarchos’, cols. 550–2.

^{page 85 note 2} Ancient Greek Historians, 204 ff.

^{page 85 note 3} Op. tit. 248 ff.; cf. Hermes, lv, 1930, 165Google Scholar. The influence of Cato is also assumed by Schmekel, op. cit. 84; Ciaceri, , Rend. Line. (Sc. Mor.), S.V. xxvii, 1918, 236–49, 266–78; 303–15Google Scholar; Kornemann, op. cit. 171, n. 11; Bilz, op. cit. 10; Sarrazin, E., DasFuhreridealdes Polybios (Diss. Breslau, 1934), 57–8Google Scholar; and see above, p. 82, n. 6. But as Ehrenberg, points out (Hist. Zeit. exxx (3. Folge, 34), 1924, 480)Google Scholar, it is not susceptible of proof.

^{page 85 note 4} See Susemihl, op. cit. ii. 63–80.

^{page 85 note 5} Ibid. 73; 74, n. 56; 99, n. 75.

^{page 85 note 6} For discussion of Panaetius and Polybius see, besides the works of Schmekel and Susemihl (above, p. 84, n. 6), Hirzel, R., Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften, ii (1892)Google Scholar, Exkursus 7, 841 ff. and Scala, R. von, Die Studien des Polybios, i (1890), 223 ffGoogle Scholar. (cf. Korne-mann, op. cit. 179–80). Dicaearchus receives attention in the recent discussion on the sources of Cicero's De re publica; see the bibliography by Burck, E. in Heinze's, R.Vom Geiste des Romertums (1938), pp. 291–2Google Scholar, and add Jaeger, W., Berlin. Sitz.-ber. 1928, 420–1Google Scholar: Über Ursprung u. Kreislauf des philosophischen Lebensideals’ (Dr. Treves informs me that an enlarged edition of this essay appeared in Italian as an appendix to the Italian translation of Jaeger's, Aristotle (1935)Google Scholar; on Dicaearchus see p. 599 f.; 616–17); Philippson, R., Phil. Woch., 1930Google Scholar, cols. 1171–84 (reviewing Wilsing, N., Aufbau u. Quellen von Ciceros Sckrift ‘De re publica’ (Diss. Leipzig, 1929))Google Scholar; -W, P.., v, s.. ‘M. Tullius Cicero’ (1939)Google Scholar, col. 1116; Schur, W., Klio, xxix, 1936, 64–5Google Scholar. In his Reden u. Vorträge, ii ⁴ (1926), 199Google Scholar, Wilamowitz denies any influence of Panaetius on Polybius; cf. Glaube der Hellenen, ii. 394, 396.

^{page 85 note 7} Cf. Hoffmann, W., Hermes, lxxi, 1936, 18Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 8} Unger, , Philol. xli, 1882, 617Google Scholar, n. 15; Ed. Meyer, , Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen (1894), 8Google Scholar(= Kleine Schriften, i ² (1924), 374)Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 9} Cuntz, op. cit. 41; Bury, op. cit. 208; Sanctis, De, Storia, iii. 1. 206Google Scholar; cf. too Laqueur, , Hermes, Ixv, 1930, 165Google Scholar; Schur, W., Sallust als Historiker (1934), 62 fGoogle Scholar. It appears most recently in Boccadoro, G., La civiltà cattolica, i. 1938, 145–58Google Scholar: ‘L'idea di Roma in Polibio’, an essay from which Dr. Treves kindly sent me a résuméof the relevant passages.

^{page 86 note 1} Svoboda, op. cit. 472–3, dates the composi-tion of ch. 51 before 146, on the grounds that it is part of the comparison of constitutions, which presupposes the existence of Carthage!

^{page 86 note 2} Op. cit. 180 ff.

^{page 86 note 3} See above, p. 85.

^{page 86 note 4} Cf. ix. 2. 5; and see Bury, op. cit. 199 f.

^{page 86 note 5} On this point I am in complete agreement with Bilz, op. cit. 9.

^{page 86 note 6} Similarly in 51. 6 the acme at Rome is identified with aristocracy.

^{page 86 note 7} It is noteworthy that Polybius’ observation of this process has influenced his schematic account also; the passage from democracy to ochlocracy within the anacyclosis is more fully described than any of the other changes (9. 4–9). This point is recognized by Laqueur, , Hermes, lxv, 1930, 166Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 8} Polyb. xxxviii. 22. 3 (=App. Pun. 132).

^{page 87 note 1} This chapter receives detailed attention in the essay of Ch. Saumagne, , Rev. Hist, clxvii, 1931, 225–53Google Scholar; clxviii, 1931, 1–42: ‘Les prétextes juridiques de la Hie guerre punique’. Saumagne points out the juridical form taken both by the pro-Roman and anti-Roman propaganda, as Polybius reveals it here; but his assertion that Polybius himself accepted this Roman case entirely at its face value (op. cit. clxviii, 1931, 10) is not convincing. Polybius saw deeper than that (cf. xxxvi. 2. 1–4); he had at least the perception of a Nasica Corculum. See also Bilz, op. cit. 30–1, and Zancan, L., Atti del r. 1st. Veneto, xcv. 2, 1935–1936, 529–601Google Scholar: ‘Le cause della terza guerra punica’. (Zancan—whose work was written at the time of the Italo-Abyssinian War—tries to show that the Third Punic War was due ultimately to the unaccommodating attitude of Carthage, and her attempt to pursue a policy disproportionate to her strength, ‘contro la realtà.)

^{page 87 note 2} Cf. xxxvi. 1. 1–7.

^{page 87 note 3} Cf. E. Schwartz, P.-W., s.v. ‘Diodoros (38)’, cols. 689–90.

^{page 87 note 4} It is no contradiction of the above that in xxxviii. 1. 5, contrasting the Carthaginians with the Achaeans, Polybius asserts with stylistic meiOSlS that the former τόπον ἒοχατον πέλειπον ϒε πρς έπιϒιϒνομένομς περ σΦν ảπέλειπον Much of this paragraph depends on the excellent essay of Gelzer, M., Philol. lxxxvi, 1931, 261–99Google Scholar: ‘Nasicas Widerspruch gegen die Zerstörung Karthagos', the relevance of which for the question of Polybius’ political views is observed by Zancan, , Rend. 1st. Lombardo, lxix, 1936, 520Google Scholar. Gelzer's essay should be studied in conjunction with the very suggestive work of Saumagne, quoted above, n. 1.

^{page 87 note 5} Cf. App, . Pun. 69Google Scholar; Diod. xxxiv. 33. 4–6; Oros. iv. 23.9; Floras, i. 31. 5; Zon. ix. 30. 7. See further, Bilz, op. cit. 22 f. The analogy between this argument and the analysis of Polyb. vi. 57 has not escaped notice; cf. Gelzer, op. cit. 277; Bilz, op. cit. 25 (who seems, however, to contradict himself later, 31, when he identifies the standpoint of Polybius with that of Cato).

^{page 87 note 6} Op. cit. 285 flf. Also Saumagne's, analysis of Nasica's arguments (Rev. Hist, clxviii, 1931, 30 flf.)Google Scholar, which is based on Gsell's, hypothesis (Histoire ancienne de VAfrique du Nord, iii. 329, n. 6Google Scholar; cf. Zancan, L., Atti del r. 1st. Veneto, xcv. 2, 1935–1936, 577, n. 42Google Scholar; 591, n. 54) that the arguments in Appian, , Pun. 61 f.Google Scholar, which nominally refer to 202, in fact reflect those used by Nasica at the time of the Third Punic War, is substantially in accordance with this interpretation.

^{page 87 note 7} Polybius’ criticism of Flaminius’ land bill in ii. 21. 8 (see above, p. 85) is not decisive, since the significance and the implications of land-legislation must have been clear to the Scipionic circle at least as early as the successful attempt to dissuade C. Laelius from such legislation during his consulship in 140 B.C.; on Laelius’ land-bill (Plut, . Tib. Gracch. 8. 5)Google Scholarsee Münzer, P.-W., s.v. ‘C. Laelius (3)’, col. 406; Bilz, op. cit. 47–8; , J. Göhler, Rom und Italien (= Breslauer hist. Forsch., Heft 13, 1939), 90–100Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 8} Cf. Bilz, op. cit. 13; Swoboda, G. Busolt-H., Griech. Staatskunde, i (1920), 99Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 1} He must have been considerably helped by the ease with which the early history of Rome (the monarchy of Romulus, the kingship of Numa, the tyranny of Tarquin, and the aristo-cracy of the early republic) fit into the scheme of the anacyclosis; cf. Newman, , Politics of Aristotle, ii, p. xivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 88 note 2} Cf. Polyb. iii. 2. 6:ύποδμεν ὂτι ὂτι μέϒισϒα συνεβάλετ αύτοῖς το πολτεύματϒος іδιότης… πρς τ καρατήσαντας τᾦ πολέμψ Καρχηδονіων ἓννοιαν σχεῖν τς τν λων έπιβολς

^{page 88 note 3} Cf. Saumagne, , Rev. Hist, clxviii, 1931, 27Google Scholar; I have discussed the details of this embassy in JRS. xxxi, 1941, 82–93Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 4} Polyb. xxxviii. 22. 2; see in particular Ed. Meyer, , Kleince Schriften, i ². £374Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 1} Op. cit. i. 255.

^{page 89 note 2} Cf. Polit. v. 12. 1316^a, 1 f. (criticizing Plato, , Republic, viii, 546 B.C.)Google Scholar. Aristotle points out that in practice any type of constitution can turn into almost any other. Moreover, Polybius him-self in a less doctrinaire passage (ii. 44. 6) speaks of tyrannies giving way to τς τν Αχαιν δη μοκρατίας; and in ii. 41. 5 the Achaeans them-selves, being dissatisfied with their kings, the sons of Ogyges, έπ τᾦ μ νομίμως άλλ δεσποτι.