POLYBIUS, 'THE TREATY OF PHILINUS' AND ROMAN ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CARTHAGE
Philinus of Agrigentum, a pro Carthaginian and anti Roman historian of the First Punic War (Polyb. 1.14.3) asserted that there was a treaty between Rome and Carthage which forbade Roman involvement in Sicily as it forbade Carthaginian involvement in Italy. The terms of the treaty which Philinus reported are summarized by Polybius at 3.26.3: edei Romaious men apekhesthai Sikelias apases, Karkhedonious d Italias. Philinus went on to assert that when the Romans crossed into Italy to aid the Mamertines of Messana (264 B.C. and thus began the First Punic War, this was a violation of the treaty and of Roman oaths to the gods to obey it; the Romans broke tas sunthekas kai tous orkous (3.26.7, cf. 26.4).1 Polybius, of course, denies that the treaty of Philinus ever existed. This was in great part because even with the help of Roman friends (3.23.3) he could not find such a treaty in the 'Treasury of the Aediles' at Rome; yet several other Roman Carthaginian treaties dating from before the First Punic War were there, inscribed on bronze tablets (3.26.1) as well as several Roman Carthaginian treaties dating from the middle and late third century. In addition, Polybius emphasized that the terms of the three treaties antedating the First Punic War that were in the archives took as a given the presence of Romans in Sicily, including Punic western Sicily, and took as a given the presence of Carthaginians in Italy, including in Latium (3.23.5, 24.12 16, cf. 25.3 5) Polybius concluded: 'How, then, and from what source did he [Philinus] make so bold as to write that there was a treaty? There has never been and there is no document of this kind at all' (3.26.3) 2 The question of the historicity of the 'treaty of Philinus' is a major issue in the modern scholarship of Roman expansion under the Republic, and scholars are divided on whether Polybius was correct, or whether, on the contrary, the Philinus treaty actually existed.3 The question is important for two reasons. First,
The Classical Quarterly