14 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 
it, much more serious to us than to Polybius. As a representative of the last century of Greek 
independence, he was too much of an aristocrat to understand demands of the lower classes in 
general. Polybius, in Book XIV, 12, returns to that revolution and mentions it in a very 
similar way. He describes the profligate life of Philopator after his victory over Antiochus of 
Syria and continues: 
"Owe 5€ more Biacbels bTd TaV TpayyaTwr But at some near time, forced by the circumstances (!), 
éverrecev eis TOV viv dedn\wuevoy TOdEUOV. he fell into the here-mentioned war. 
This again sounds like exonerating the king and is in such contrast with the previous 
description of his tyranny that we can not assume the numerous personal faults of the king to be 
held by Polybius to be responsible for the rebellion.! As something which might have 
“happened” (cuvéBaue, évérece) also to a better king, it would again best be understood of some 
administrative measure based on the system of government used by his predecessors. ‘This 
lenient judgment of the historian would seem to include even new taxes as something for which 
the subject class of natives ought not to have raised rebellion. If those natives remonstrated 
or demanded reforms, I fear even as sober a mind as Polybius would have considered this as 
unbecoming (according to Greek thinking) to the native subjects of the Hellenistic states. At 
present, however, it is impossible to find anything positive on that “pretext” of the machimot. 
We suspect that the forced reforms mentioned in the decree of Rosetta include the removal 
of that “‘pretext,’’ but there is nothing among the enumeration of these reforms which refers to 
the native soldiers in special. This could be explained by the assumption that the odious 
measure which furnished the “‘pretext’”’ might have been withdrawn directly under Ptolemy IV., 
Philopator—not a very probable explanation, according to what we know of his character. It 
seems more plausible that those special concessions are covered by the general statement of 
line 12 of the Greek text, “from the revenues and taxes existing in Egypt he remitted some com- 
pletely and reduced (kexov¢ixev) others.’’ ‘The redactor of the decree, evidently, saw that the 
detailed description of those concessions, implying a considerable loss of royal prestige, would 
be tactless. That he had the warriors specially in mind in referring to those reforms becomes 
evident from the following clause: ‘“‘in order that both the people (6 vaés, see above) and all the 
others be prosperous.’ ‘These “others’’ mean hardly the higher classes, such as Greek or 
Egyptian priests; in the first place those undeserving rebels, the warriors, are in the mind of 
the writer. 
In both passages of Polybius the revolution is said to have followed rather soon after the 
battle of Raphia, 217-216 B. C. Not immediately, as we see from the lapse of time necessary 
for seeking a “pretext” and a leader. This points to the facts that those soldiers in time of 
peace were widely scattered and that the peculiar geography of Egypt, a narrow country, widely 
extending in one direction, made possible a comparatively slow process of communication 
between the dissatisfied elements after their disbanding. Thus the plotting of the revolution 
ought to have taken some time. On the other hand, the repeated statement of Polybius that — 
the outbreak came not very long after that battle of Raphia, 7. e., after 216 B. C. (year 6 of the 





1 As the confused statement of Diodorus (28, 15) would suggest. 
