Book XXVIII
[Sidenote: B.C. 169, Antiochus and Ptolemy both appeal to Rome on the subject of Coele-Syria.]
+1.+ When the war between the kings Antiochus and Ptolemy[155] for the possession of Coele-Syria had just begun, Meleager, Sosiphanes, and Heracleides came as ambassadors from Antiochus, and Timotheos and Damon from Ptolemy. The one actually in possession of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia was Antiochus; for ever since his father’s victory over the generals of Ptolemy at Panium[156] all those districts had been subject to the Syrian kings. Antiochus, accordingly, regarding the right of conquest as the strongest and most honourable of all claims, was now eager to defend these places as unquestionably belonging to himself: while Ptolemy, conceiving that the late king Antiochus had unjustly taken advantage of his father’s orphan condition to wrest the cities in Coele-Syria from him, was resolved not to acquiesce in his possession of them. Therefore Meleager and his colleagues came to Rome with instructions to protest before the Senate that Ptolemy had, in breach of all equity, attacked him first; while Timotheos and Damon came to renew their master’s friendship with the Romans, and to offer their mediation for putting an end to the war with Perseus; but, above all, to watch the communications made by Meleager’s embassy. As to putting an end to the war, by the advice of Marcus Aemilius they did not venture to speak of it; but after formally renewing the friendly relations between Ptolemy and Rome, and receiving a favourable answer, they returned to Alexandria. To Meleager and his colleagues the Senate answered that Quintus Marcius should be commissioned to write to Ptolemy on the subject, as he should think it most to the interest of Rome and his own honour. Thus was the business settled for the time....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians ask for license to import corn.]
+2.+ About this time there came also ambassadors from the Rhodians towards the end of summer, Agesilochus, Nicagoras, and Nicander. The objects of their mission were to renew the friendship of Rhodes and Rome; to obtain a license for importing corn from the Roman dominions; and to defend their state from certain charges that had been brought against it. For there were most violent party contests going on in Rhodes: Agathagetus, Philophron, Rhodophon, and Theaetetus resting all their hopes on the Romans, and Deinon and Polyaratus on Perseus and the Macedonians; and as these divisions gave rise to frequent debates in the course of their public business, and many contradictory expressions were used in their deliberations, plenty of opportunities were afforded to those who wished to make up stories against the state. On this occasion, however, the Senate affected to be ignorant of all this, though perfectly acquainted with what went on in the island, and granted them a license to import one hundred thousand medimni of corn from Sicily. This answer was given by the Senate to the Rhodians separately. Audience was then given collectively to all the envoys from the rest of Greece that were united in the same policy....
[Sidenote: B.C. 169. Aulus Hostilius, in Greece with proconsular authority, sends Popilius and Octavius to visit the Greek towns and read the decree of the Senate.]
[Sidenote: Lycortas, Archon, and Polybius are supposed to be particularly aimed at.]
[Sidenote: They visit the Peloponnese, and express some dissatisfaction at the backward policy of certain Achaeans.]
+3.+ Aulus being thus Proconsul, and wintering in Thessaly with the army, sent Gaius Popilius and Gnaeus Octavius to visit certain places in Greece. They first came to Thebes, where, after speaking in complimentary terms of the Thebans, they exhorted them to maintain their good disposition towards Rome. They then went a round of the cities in the Peloponnese, and endeavoured to convince the people of the clemency and humanity of the Senate by producing the[157] decree which I recently mentioned. At the same time they made it clearly understood that the Senate was aware who in the several states were hanging back and trying to evade their obligations, and who were forward and zealous; and they let it be seen that they were as much displeased with those who thus hung back as with those who openly took the opposite side. This brought hesitation and doubt to the minds of the people at large, as to how to frame their words and actions so as to exactly suit the necessities of the times. Gaius and Gnaeus were reported to have resolved, as soon as the Achaean congress was assembled, to accuse Lycortas, Archon, and Polybius, and to point out that they were opposed to the policy of Rome; and were at the present moment refraining from active measures, not because that was their genuine inclination, but because they were watching the turn of events, and waiting their opportunity. They did not, however, venture to do this, because they had no well-founded pretext for attacking these men. Accordingly, when the council[158] met at Aegium, after delivering a speech of mingled compliments and exhortation, they took ship for Aetolia.
[Sidenote: The legates in Aetolia.]
[Sidenote: Various Aetolians accuse each other.]
[Sidenote: Proandrus.]
[Sidenote: Lyciscus.]
[Sidenote: Pantaleon.]
[Sidenote: Thoas stoned.]
+4.+ The Aetolian congress being summoned to meet them at Thermum, they came before the assembled people, and again delivered a speech in which expressions of benevolence were mixed with exhortations. But the real cause of summoning the congress was to announce that the Aetolians must give hostages. On their leaving the speakers’ platform, Proandrus stood forward and desired leave to mention certain services performed by himself to the Romans, and to denounce those who accused him. Gaius thereupon rose; and, though he well knew that Proandrus was opposed to Rome, he paid him some compliments, and acknowledged the truth of everything he had said. After this, Lyciscus stood forward, and, without accusing any one person by name, yet cast suspicion on a great many. For he said that “The Romans had been quite right to arrest the ringleaders and take them to Rome” (whereby he meant Eupolemus, Nicander, and the rest): “but members of their party still remained in Aetolia, all of whom ought to meet with the same correction, unless they gave up their children as hostages to the Romans.” In these words he meant to point especially to Archedamus and Pantaleon; and, accordingly, when he retired, Pantaleon stood up, and, after a brief denunciation of Lyciscus for his shameless and despicable flattery of the stronger side, turned to Thoas, conceiving him to be the man whose accusations of himself obtained the greater credit from the fact that he had never been supposed to be at enmity with him. He reminded Thoas first of the events in the time of Antiochus; and then reproached him for ingratitude to himself, because, when he had been surrendered to Rome, he obtained an unexpected release at the intercession of Nicander and himself. He ended by calling upon the Aetolians, not only to hoot Thoas down if he tried to speak, but to join with one accord in stoning him. This was done; and Gaius, after administering a brief reproof to the Aetolians for stoning Thoas, departed with his colleague to Acarnania, without any more being said about hostages. Aetolia, however, was filled with mutual suspicions and violent factions.
[Sidenote: Acarnania.]
+5.+ In Acarnania the assembly was held at Thurium, at which Aeschrion, Glaucus, and Chremes, who were all partisans of Rome, begged Gaius and Gnaeus to place a garrison in Acarnania; for they had among them certain persons who were for putting the country in the hands of Perseus and the Macedonians. The advice of Diogenes was the opposite. “A garrison,” he said, “ought not to be put into any of their cities, for that was what was done to those who had been at war with Rome and had been beaten; whereas the Acarnanians had done no wrong, and did not deserve in any respect to have a garrison thrust upon them. Chremes and Glaucus and their partisans were slandering their political opponents, and desired to bring in a garrison which would support their selfseeking policy, in order to establish their own tyrannical power.” After these speeches, Gaius and his colleague, seeing that the populace disliked the idea of having garrisons, and wishing to follow the line of policy marked out by the Senate, expressed their adherence to the view of Diogenes; and departed to join the Proconsul at Larisa, after paying some compliments to the Acarnanians....
[Sidenote: Meeting of Achaean statesmen to consider their policy, B.C. 169.]
[Sidenote: Lycortas is for complete neutrality.]
[Sidenote: Apollonides and Stratius for suppressing rash declarations for Rome, and yet not openly opposing her.]
[Sidenote: The Strategus Archon is for bending to the storm, and acting frankly for Rome.]
[Sidenote: Polybius Hipparch.]
+6.+ The Greeks made up their minds that this embassy required much consideration on their part. They therefore called to council such men as were of one mind in other political questions,—Arcesilaus and Ariston of Megalopolis, Stratius of Tritaea, Xenon of Patrae and Apollonides of Sicyon. But Lycortas stood firm to his original view: which was that they should send no help to either Perseus or Rome in any way, nor, on the other hand, take part against either. For he held that co-operation with either would be disadvantageous to the Greeks at large, because he foresaw the overwhelming power which the successful nation would possess; while active hostility, he thought, would be dangerous, because they had already in former times been in opposition to many of the most illustrious Romans in their state policy. Apollonides and Stratius did not recommend open and avowed hostility to Rome, but thought that “Those who were for plunging headlong into the contest, and wished to use the action of the nation to secure their own personal favour at Rome, ought to be put down and boldly resisted.” Archon said that “They must yield to circumstances, and not give their personal enemies a handle for accusations; nor allow themselves to fall into the same misfortune as Nicander, who, before he had learnt what the power of Rome really was, had met with the gravest calamities.” With this last view, Polyaenus, Arcesilaus, Ariston, and Xenon agreed. It was thereupon decided that Archon should go without delay to his duties as Strategus, and Polybius to those of Hipparch.
[Sidenote: Embassy from Attalus to the Achaeans desiring the restoration of the honours formally decreed to his brother Eumenes. See 27, 18.]
[Sidenote: Speech of Polybius.]
+7.+ Very soon after these events, and when Archon had made up his mind that the Achaeans must take active part with Rome and her allies, it happened most conveniently that Attalus made his proposal to him and found him ready to accept it. Archon at once eagerly promised his support to Attalus’s request: and when thereupon that prince’s envoys appeared at the next congress, and addressed the Achaeans about the restoration of king Eumenes’s honours, begging them to do this for the sake of Attalus, the people did not show clearly what their feeling was, but a good many rose to speak against the proposal from many various motives. Those who were originally the advisers of the honours being paid to the king were now desirous to confirm the wisdom of their own policy; while those who had private reasons for animosity against the king thought this a good opportunity for revenging themselves upon him; while others again, from spite against those who supported him, were determined that Attalus should not obtain his request. Archon, however, the Strategus, rose to support the envoys,—for it was a matter that called for an expression of opinion from the Strategus,—but after a few words he stood down, afraid of being thought to be giving his advice from interested motives and the hope of making money, because he had spent a large sum on his office. Amidst a general feeling of doubt and hesitation, Polybius rose and delivered a long speech. But that part of it which best fell in with the feelings of the populace was that in which he showed that “The original decree of the Achaeans in regard to these honours enacted that such honours as were improper and contrary to law were to be abolished, but not all honours by any means. That Sosigenes and Diopeithes and their colleagues, however, who were at the time judges, and for private reasons personally hostile to Eumenes, seized the opportunity of overturning all the erections put up in honour of the king; and in doing so had gone beyond the meaning of the decree of the Achaeans, and beyond the powers entrusted to them, and, what was worst of all, beyond the demands of justice and right. For the Achaeans had not resolved upon doing away with the honours of Eumenes on the ground of having received any injury at his hands; but had taken offence at his making demands beyond what his services warranted, and had accordingly voted to remove everything that seemed excessive. As then these judges had overthrown these honours, because they had a greater regard for the gratification of their private enmity than for the honour of the Achaeans, so the Achaeans, from the conviction that duty and honour must be their highest consideration, were bound to correct the error of the judges, and the unjustifiable insult inflicted upon Eumenes: especially as, in doing so, they would not be bestowing this favour on Eumenes only, but on his brother Attalus also.” The assembly having expressed their agreement with this speech, a decree was written out ordering the magistrates to restore all the honours of king Eumenes, except such as were dishonourable to the Achaean league or contrary to their law. It was thus, and at this time, that Attalus secured the reversal of the insult to his brother Eumenes in regard to the honours once given him in the Peloponnese....
[Sidenote: Early in B.C. 169,[159]
[Sidenote: Perseus goes back to Hyscana in Illyria.]
[Sidenote: A second mission to Genthius.]
[Sidenote: Genthius temporises.]
+8.+ Perseus sent Pleuratus the Illyrian, an exile living at his court, and Adaeus of Beroea on a mission to king Genthius, after taking Hyscana in Illyria, Perseus advances to Stubera, and thence sends envoys to king Genthius at Lissus. Livy, 43, 19.] with instructions to inform him of what he had achieved in his war with the Romans, Dardani, Epirotes, and Illyrians up to the present time; and to urge him to make a friendship and alliance with him in Macedonia. These envoys journeyed beyond Mount Scardus, through Illyria Deserta, as it is called,—a region a short time back depopulated by the Macedonians, in order to make an invasion of Illyria and Macedonia difficult for the Dardani. Their journey through this region was accompanied by much suffering; but they reached Scodra, and being there informed that Genthius was at Lissus, they sent a message to him. He promptly responded: and having been admitted to an interview with him, they discussed the business to which their instructions referred. Genthius had no wish to forfeit the friendship of Perseus; but he alleged want of means as an excuse for not complying with the request at once, and his inability to undertake a war with Rome without money. With this answer, Adaeus and his colleagues returned home. Meanwhile Perseus arrived at Stubera, and sold the booty and gave his army a rest while waiting for the return of Pleuratus and Adaeus. On their arrival with the answer from Genthius, he immediately sent another mission, consisting again of Adaeus, Glaucias, one of his bodyguards, and the Illyrian (Pleuratus) also, because he knew the Illyrian language, with the same instructions as before: on the ground that Genthius had not stated distinctly what he wanted, and what would enable him to consent to the proposals. When these envoys had started the king himself removed with his army to Hyscana.[160]...
[Sidenote: Genthius being unpersuaded by the second mission, Perseus sends a third, but still without offering money.]
[Sidenote: The dislike of Perseus to give money turned out happily for Greece.]
+9.+ The ambassador sent to Genthius returned without having accomplished anything more than the previous envoys, and without any fresh answer; for Genthius remained of the same mind,—willing to join with Perseus in his war, but professing to be in want of money. Perseus disregarded the hint, and sent another mission under Hippias to conclude the treaty, without taking any notice of the main point, while professing a wish to do whatever Genthius wished. It is not easy to decide whether to ascribe such conduct to mere folly, or to a spiritual delusion. For my part, I am inclined to regard it as a sheer spiritual delusion when men aim at bold enterprises, and risk their life, and yet neglect the most important point in their plans, though they see it all the time and have the power to execute it. For I do not think it will be denied by any man of reflection that, had Perseus at that time been willing to make grants of money either to states as such, or individually to kings and statesmen, I do not say on a great scale, but even to a moderate extent, they would all—Greeks and kings alike—have yielded to the temptation. As it was, he happily did not take that course, which would have given him, if successful, an overweening supremacy; or, if unsuccessful, would have involved many others in his disaster. But he took the opposite course: which resulted in confining the numbers of the Greeks who adopted the unwise policy at this crisis to very narrow limits....
[Perseus now returned from Stubera to Hyscana, and after a vain attempt upon Stratus in Aetolia, retired into Macedonia for the rest of the winter. In the early spring of B.C. 169 Q. Marcius Philippus began his advance upon Macedonia from his permanent camp in Perrhaebia. Perseus stationed Asclepiodotus and Hippias to defend two passes of the Cambunian mountains, while he himself held Dium, which commanded the coast road from Thessaly into Macedonia. Marcius however, after only a rather severe skirmish with the light-armed troops of Hippias, effected the passage of the mountains and descended upon Dium. The king was taken by surprise: he had not secured the pass of Tempe, which would have cut off the Romans from retreat; and he now hastily retired to Pydna. Q. Marcius occupied Dium, but after a short stay there retired upon Phila, to get provisions and secure the coast road. Whereupon Perseus reoccupied Dium, and contemplated staying there to the end of the summer. Q. Marcius took Heracleum, which was between Phila and Dium, and made preparations for a second advance on Dium. But the winter (B.C. 169-168) was now approaching, and he contented himself with seeing that the roads through Thessaly were put in a proper state for the conveyance of provisions. Livy, 43, 19-23; 44, 1-9.]
[Sidenote: Perseus lays the blame of his failure on his generals. Livy, 44, 8.]
+10.+ Having been completely worsted on the entrance of the Romans into Macedonia, Perseus found fault with Hippias. But in my opinion it is easy to find fault with others and to see their mistakes, but it is the hardest thing in the world to do everything that can be done one’s self, and to be thoroughly acquainted with one’s own affairs. And Perseus was now an instance in point....
[Sidenote: The testudo. Livy, 44, 9.]
+11.+ The capture of Heracleum was effected in a very peculiar manner. The city wall at one part and for a short distance was low. The Romans attacked with three picked maniples: and the first made a protection for their heads by locking their shields together over them so closely, that they presented the appearance of a sloping tiled roof....
This manœuvre the Romans used also in mock fights....
While C. Marcius Figulus, the praetor, was engaged in Chalcidice, Q. Marcius sent M. Popilius to besiege Meliboea in Magnesia. Perseus sent Euphranor to relieve it, and, if he succeeded, to enter Demetrias. This he did, and was not attacked at the latter place by Popilius or Eumenes—scandal saying that the latter was in secret communication with Perseus. Livy, 44, 10-13, B.C. 169.
[Sidenote: The Achaeans decide to co-operate actively with the Romans in Thessaly.]
[Sidenote: Polybius sent to the Consul.]
[Sidenote: Ptolemy Physcon celebrates his anacleteria.]
+12.+ Upon Perseus designing to come into Thessaly and there decide the war by a general engagement, as he probably would have done, Archon and his colleagues resolved to defend themselves against the suspicions and slanders that had been thrown upon them, by taking some practical steps. They therefore brought a decree before the Achaean congress, ordering an advance into Thessaly, with the full force of the league, to co-operate energetically with the Romans. The decree being confirmed, the Achaeans also voted that Archon should superintend the collection of the army and the necessary preparations for the expedition, and should also send envoys to the Consul in Thessaly, to communicate to him the decree of the Achaeans, and to ask when and where their army was to join him. Polybius and others were forthwith appointed, and strictly instructed that, if the Consul approved of the army joining him, they should at once send some messengers to communicate the fact, that they might not be too late on the field; and meanwhile, that Polybius himself should see that the whole army found provisions in the various cities through which it was to pass, and that the soldiers should have no lack of any necessaries. With these instructions the envoys started. The Achaeans also appointed Telocritus to conduct an embassy to Attalus, bearing the decree concerning the restoration of the honours of Eumenes. And as news arrived about the same time that king Ptolemy had just celebrated his anacleteria, the usual ceremony when the kings come of age, they voted to send some ambassadors to confirm the friendly relations existing between the league and the kingdom of Egypt, and thereupon appointed Alcithus and Pasiadas for this duty.
[Sidenote: Summer of B.C. 169.]
[Sidenote: Autumn of B.C. 169.]
[Sidenote: Q. Marcius declines the offered army of Achaeans.]
[Sidenote: Appius Claudius Cento defeated at Hyscana in B.C. 170. Livy, 43, 10.]
[Sidenote: See above, p. 372.]
+13.+ Polybius and his colleagues found the Romans moved from Thessaly and encamped in Perrhaebia, between Azorium and Doliche. They therefore postponed communication with the Consul, owing to the critical nature of the occasion, but shared in the dangers of the invasion of Macedonia. When the Roman army at length reached the district of Heracleum, it seemed the right moment for their interview with Q. Marcius, because he considered that the most serious part of his undertaking was accomplished. The Achaean envoys therefore took the opportunity of presenting the decree to Marcius, and declaring the intention of the Achaeans, to the effect that they wished with their full force to take part in his contests and dangers. In addition to this they demonstrated to him that every command of the Romans, whether sent by letter or messenger, had been during the present war accepted by the Achaeans without dispute. Marcius acknowledged with great warmth the good feeling of the Achaeans, but excused them from taking part in his labours and expenses, as there was no longer any need for the assistance of allies. The other ambassadors accordingly returned home; but Polybius stayed there and took part in the campaign, until Marcius, hearing that Appius Cento asked for five thousand Achaean soldiers to be sent to Epirus, despatched Polybius with orders to prevent the soldiers being granted, or such a heavy expense being causelessly imposed on the Achaeans; for Appius had no reason whatever for asking for these soldiers. Whether he did this from consideration for the Achaeans, or from a desire to prevent Appius from obtaining any success, it is difficult to say. Polybius, however, returned to the Peloponnese and found that the letter from Epirus had arrived, and that the Achaean congress had been soon afterwards assembled at Sicyon. He was therefore in a situation of great embarrassment. When Cento’s demand of soldiers was brought before the Congress he did not think it by any means proper to reveal the charge which Q. Marcius had given him privately: and on the other hand to oppose the demand, without some clear pretext, was exceedingly dangerous. In this difficult and delicate position he called to his aid the decree of the Roman Senate, forbidding compliance with the written demands of commanders unless made in accordance with its own decree. Now, no mention of such a decree occurred in the despatch from Appius. By this argument he prevailed with the people to refer the matter to the Consul, and by his means to get the nation relieved of an expense which would amount to over a hundred and twenty talents. Still he gave a great handle to those who wished to denounce him to Appius, as having thwarted his design of obtaining a reinforcement....
[Sidenote: Crete. The Cydonians attack and take Apollonia near Cnossus.]
+14.+ The people of Cydon at this time committed a shocking act of indisputable treachery. Though many such have occurred in Crete, yet this appeared to go beyond them all. For though they were bound to Apollonia, not only by the ties of friendship, but by those of common institutions also, and in fact by everything which mankind regard as sacred, and though these obligations were confirmed by a sworn treaty engraved and preserved in the temple of Idaean Zeus, yet they treacherously seized Apollonia, put the men to the sword, plundered the property, and divided among themselves the women, children, city, and territory....
[Sidenote: The Cydonians ask help from Eumenes.]
+15.+ Afraid of the Gortynians, because they had narrowly escaped losing their city in the previous year by an attack led by Nothocrates, the Cydonians sent envoys to Eumenes demanding his assistance in virtue of their alliance with him. The king selected Leon and some soldiers, and sent them in haste to Crete; and on their arrival the Cydonians delivered the keys of their city to Leon, and put the town entirely in his hands....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians determine to send a mission to Rome, B.C. 170.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 169.]
[Sidenote: See supra, ch. 2.]
+16.+ The factions in Rhodes kept continually becoming more and more violent. For when the decree of the Senate, directing that they should no longer conform to the demands of the military magistrates but only to those contained in the Senate’s decrees, was communicated to them, and the people at large expressed satisfaction at the care of the Senate for their interests; Philophron and Theaetetus seized the occasion to carry out their policy further, declaring that they ought to send envoys to the Senate, and to Q. Marcius Philippus the Consul, and Gaius Marcius Figulus, the commander of the fleet. For it was by that time known to everybody which of the magistrates designate in Rome were to come to Greece. The proposal was loudly applauded, though some dissent was expressed: and at the beginning of the summer Agesilochus, son of Hegesias, and Nicagoras, son of Nicander, were sent to Rome; Agepolis, Ariston, and Pancrates to the Consul and commander of the fleet, with instructions to renew the friendship of the Cretans with Rome, and to make their defence against the accusations that were being uttered against their state; while Agesilochus and his colleagues were at the same time to make a proposal about a license to export corn from the Roman dominions. The speech made by these envoys to the Senate, and the reply made by the Senate, and the successful termination of their mission, I have already mentioned in the section devoted to Italian affairs. But it is useful to repeat such points, as I am careful to do, because I am obliged frequently to record the actual negotiations of ambassadors before mentioning the circumstances attending their appointment and despatch. For since I am recording under each year the contemporary events in several countries, and endeavouring to take a summary review of them all together at the end, this must of necessity form a feature in my history.
[Sidenote: The envoys visit Q. Marcius Philippus at Heracleum.]
[Sidenote: Why do not the Rhodians stop the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy?]
[Sidenote: They endeavour to make peace between Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Physcon.]
[Sidenote: Effect of the warm reception of their ambassadors on the Rhodians.]
+17.+ Agepolis and his colleagues found Q. Marcius himself encamped near Heracleum in Macedonia, and delivered their commission to him there. In answer, he said that “He himself paid no attention to those calumnies, and advised them not to pay any to those who ventured to speak against Rome.” He added many other expressions of kindness, and even wrote them in a despatch to the people of Rhodes. Agepolis was much charmed by his whole reception; and observing this, the Consul took him aside and said to him privately that “He wondered at the Rhodians not trying to put an end to the war,[161] which it would be eminently in their interests to do.” Did the Consul act thus because he was suspicious of Antiochus, and was afraid, if he conquered Alexandria, that he would prove a formidable second enemy to themselves, seeing that the war with Perseus was becoming protracted, and the war for Coele-Syria had already broken out? Or was it because he saw that the war with Perseus was all but decided, now that the Roman legions had entered Macedonia, and because he had confident hopes of its result; and therefore wished, by instigating the Rhodians to interfere between the kings, to give the Romans a pretext for taking any measures they might think good concerning them? It would not be easy to say for certain; but I am inclined to believe that it was the latter, judging from what shortly afterwards happened to the Rhodians. However, Agepolis and his colleagues immediately afterwards proceeded to visit Gaius Marcius Figulus: and, having received from him still more extraordinary marks of favour than from Quintus Marcius, returned with all speed to Rhodes. When they received the report of the embassy, and knew that the two commanders had vied with each other in warmth, both by word of mouth and in their formal answers, the Rhodians were universally elated and filled with pleasing expectation. But not all in the same spirit: the sober-minded were delighted at the good feeling of the Romans towards them; but the restless and fractious calculated in their own minds that this excessive complaisance was a sign that the Romans were alarmed at the dangers in which they found themselves, and at their success not having answered to their expectations. But when Agepolis communicated to his friends that he had a private message from Q. Marcius to the Cretan Council about putting an end to the war (in Syria), then Deinon and his friends felt fully convinced that the Romans were in a great strait; and they accordingly sent envoys also to Alexandria to put an end to the war then existing between Antiochus and Ptolemy....
Ptolemy Epiphanes, who died B.C. 181, left two sons, Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Physcon, and a daughter, Cleopatra, by his wife Cleopatra, sister of Antiochus Epiphanes. After the death of Ptolemy’s mother Cleopatra, his ministers, Eulaeus and Lenaeus, engaged in a war with Antiochus for the recovery of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, which had been taken by Antiochus the Great, and which they alleged had been assigned as a dower to the late Cleopatra. Their war was singularly unsuccessful. Antiochus Epiphanes defeated their troops at Pelusium, took young Ptolemy Philometor captive, and advanced as far as Memphis. Thereupon Ptolemy Physcon assumed the royal title at Alexandria as Euergetes II., and sent envoys to Antiochus at Memphis. Antiochus, however, treated Ptolemy Philometor with kindness, established him as king at Memphis, and advanced to Naucratis, and thence to Alexandria, which he besieged on the pretext of re-establishing Philometor. B.C. 171. See infra, bk. 29. ch. 23.
[Sidenote: Character of Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes).]
+18.+ King Antiochus was a man of ability in the field and daring in design, and showed himself worthy of the royal name, except in regard to his manœuvres at Pelusium....
[Sidenote: Comanus and Cineas, Physcon’s ministers, determine to send embassies to Antiochus, B. C. 169.]
+19.+ When Antiochus was actually in occupation of Egypt, Comanus and Cineas, after consultation with king Ptolemy Physcon, determined upon summoning a conference of the most distinguished Egyptian nobles to consult about the danger which threatened them. The first resolution the conference came to was to send the Greek envoys who were then at Alexandria as envoys to Antiochus to conclude a pacification. There were at that time in the country two embassies from the Achaean league, one which had been sent to renew the alliance between the league and Egypt, and which was composed of Alcithus of Aegium, son of Xenophon, and Pasiodes, and another sent to give notice of the festival of the Antigoneia.[162] There was also an embassy from Athens led by Demaratus on the subject of some present, and two sacred embassies, one in connexion with the Panathenaea under the presidency of Callias the pancratiast, and the other on the subject of the mysteries, of which Cleostratus was the active member and spokesman. There were also there Eudemus and Hicesius from Miletus, and Apollonides and Apollonius from Clazomenae. The king also sent with them Tlepolemus and Ptolemy the rhetorician as envoys. These men accordingly sailed up the river to meet Antiochus....
[Sidenote: Antiochus occupies Naucratis and thence advances to Alexandria.]
[Sidenote: Reply of Antiochus.]
[Sidenote: Their arguments.]
[Sidenote: The Greek envoys visit Antiochus and endeavour to make peace.]
+20.+ While Antiochus was occupying Egypt,[163] he was visited by the Greek envoys sent to conclude terms of peace. He received them courteously, devoted the first day to giving them a splendid entertainment and on the next granted them an interview, and bade them deliver their instructions. The first to speak were the Achaeans, the next the Athenian Demaratus, and after him Eudemus of Miletus. And as the occasion and subject of their speeches were the same, the substance of them was also nearly identical. They all laid the blame of what had occurred on Eulaeus, and referring to Ptolemy’s youth and his relationship to himself, they intreated the king to lay aside his anger. Thereupon Antiochus, after acknowledging the general truth of their remarks, and even supporting them by additional arguments of his own, entered upon a defence of the justice of his original demands. He attempted to establish the claim of the king of Syria on Coele-Syria, “Insisting upon the fact that Antigonus, the founder of the Syrian kingdom, exercised authority in that country; and referring to the formal cession of it to Seleucus,[164] after the death of Antigonus, by the sovereigns of Macedonia. Next he dwelt on the last conquest of it by his father Antiochus; and finally he denied that any such agreement was made between the late king Ptolemy and his father as the Alexandrian ministers asserted, to the effect that Ptolemy was to take Coele-Syria as a dowry when he married Cleopatra, the mother of the present king.” Having by these arguments not only persuaded himself, but the envoys also, of the justice of his claim, he sailed down the river to Naucratis. There he treated the inhabitants with humanity, and gave each of the Greeks living there a gold piece, and then advanced towards Alexandria. He told the envoys that he would give them an answer on the return of Aristeides and Thesis, whom he had sent on a mission to Ptolemy; and he wished, he said, that the Greek envoys should all be cognisant and witnesses of their report....
[Sidenote: The evil influence of Eulaeus upon Ptolemy Philometor. He advises him to yield to Antiochus and retire to Samothrace.]
+21.+ The eunuch Eulaeus persuaded Ptolemy to collect his money, give up his kingdom to his enemies, and retire to Samothrace. This will be to any one who reflects upon it a convincing proof of the supreme mischief done by evil companions of boyhood. That a monarch so entirely out of reach of personal danger and so far removed from his enemies, should not make one effort to save his honour, while in possession too of such abundant resources, and master over such wide territory and such numerous subjects, but should at once without a blow surrender a most splendid and wealthy kingdom,—is not this the sign of a spirit utterly effeminate and corrupted? And if this had been Ptolemy’s natural character, we must have laid the blame upon nature and not upon any external influence. But since by his subsequent achievements his natural character has vindicated itself, by proving Ptolemy to be sufficiently resolute and courageous in the hour of danger, we may clearly, without any improbability, attribute to this eunuch, and his companionship with the king in his boyhood, the ignoble spirit displayed by him on that occasion, and his idea of going to Samothrace....
[Sidenote: Antiochus leaves Alexandria for a time, being met by some Roman envoys. See 29, 25.]
+22.+ After raising the siege of Alexandria, Antiochus sent envoys to Rome, whose names were Meleager, Sosiphanes, and Heracleides, agreeing to pay one hundred and fifty talents, fifty as a complimentary present to the Romans, and the rest as a gift to be divided among certain cities in Greece....
[Sidenote: Envoys from Rhodes visit Antiochus in his camp not far from Alexandria.]
+23.+ In the course of these same days envoys sailed in from Rhodes to Alexandria, headed by Pration, to negotiate a pacification; and a few days afterwards presented themselves at the camp of Antiochus. Admitted to an interview, they argued at considerable length, mentioning their own country’s friendly feelings to both kingdoms, and the ties of blood existing between the two kings themselves, and the advantage which a peace would be to both. But the king interrupted the envoy in the middle of his speech by saying that there was no need of much talking, for the kingdom belonged to the elder Ptolemy, and with him he had long ago made terms, and they were friends, and if the people wished now to recall him Antiochus would not prevent them. And he kept his word....
Book XXIX
[Sidenote: B. C. 168. Coss. L. Aemilius Paullus, C. Licinius Crassus. A fragment of the speech of L. Aemilius before starting for Macedonia. See Livy, 44, 22.]
+1.+ “Their one idea, expressed at parties or conversations in the street, was, that they should manage the war in Macedonia while remaining quietly at home in Rome, sometimes by criticising what the generals were doing, at others what they were leaving undone. From this the public interests never got any good, and often a great deal of harm. The generals themselves were at times greatly hampered by this ill-timed loquacity. For as it is the invariable nature of slander to spread rapidly and stop at nothing, the people got thoroughly infected by this idle talk, and the generals were consequently rendered contemptible in the eyes of the enemy.”...
[Sidenote: In answer to an embassy from Ptolemy Physcon and his sister Cleopatra, the Senate sends Gaius Popilius Laenas to Alexandria. Livy, 44, 19.]
+2.+ The Senate being informed that Antiochus had become master of Egypt, and all but taken Alexandria, and conceiving that the aggrandisement of that king was a matter affecting themselves, appointed Gaius Popilius and others to go as ambassadors to put an end to the war, and generally to inspect the state of affairs....
[Sidenote: Genthius joins Perseus on being supplied with 300 talents;]
[Sidenote: and also consents to join in a mission to Rhodes.]
+3.+ Hippias, and the other ambassadors sent by Perseus, to Genthius to make an alliance with him, returned before the winter, and reported that Genthius would undertake to join in the war with Rome if he was paid three hundred talents and received proper securities. Thereupon Perseus sent Pantauchus, one of his chief friends, with the following instructions: He was to agree to pay Genthius the money; to interchange oaths of alliance; to take from Genthius such hostages as he himself might select, and send them at once to Macedonia; and to allow Genthius to have such hostages from Perseus as he might name in the text of the treaty; further, he was to make arrangements for the transport of the three hundred talents. Pantauchus immediately started and met Genthius at Mebeōn, in the country of the Labeates, and quickly bought the young monarch over to join in the projects of Perseus. The treaty having been sworn to and reduced to writing, Genthius at once sent the hostages whose names Pantauchus had caused to be entered in the text of the treaty; and with them he despatched Olympion to receive the oaths and hostages from Perseus, with others who were to have charge of the money. Pantauchus persuaded him to send also some ambassadors to join in a mission to Rhodes with some sent by Perseus, in order to negotiate a mutual alliance between the three states. For if this were effected, and the Rhodians consented to embark upon the war, he showed that they would be easily able to conquer the Romans. Genthius listened to the suggestion, and appointed Parmenio and Morcus to undertake the mission; with instructions that, as soon as they had received the oaths and hostages from Perseus, and the question of the money had been settled, they were to proceed on the embassy to Rhodes.
[Sidenote: Perseus meets the envoys from Genthius;]
+4.+ So these various ambassadors started together for Macedonia. But Pantauchus stayed by the side of the young king, and kept reminding him of the necessity of making warlike preparations, and urging him not to be too late with them. He was especially urgent that he should prepare for a contest at sea; for, as the Romans were quite unprepared in that department on the coasts both of Epirus and Illyria, any purpose he might form would be easily accomplished by himself and the forces he might despatch. Genthius yielded to the advice and set about his preparations, naval and military alike: and Perseus, as soon as the ambassadors and hostages from Genthius entered Macedonia, set off from his camp on the River Elpeius,[165] with his whole cavalry, to meet them at Dium. His first act on meeting them was to take the oaths to the alliance in the presence of the whole body of cavalry; for he was very anxious that the Macedonians should know of the adhesion of Genthius, hoping that this additional advantage would have the effect of raising their courage: and next he received the hostages and handed over his own to Olympion and his colleagues, the noblest of whom were Limnaeus, the son of Polemocrates, and Balacrus, son of Pantauchus. Lastly, he sent the agents who had come for the money to Pella, assuring them that they would receive it there: and appointed the ambassadors for Rhodes to join Metrodorus at Thessalonica, and hold themselves in readiness to embark.
[Sidenote: and sends others to Eumenes and Antiochus.]
This embassy succeeded in persuading the Rhodians to join in the war. And, having accomplished this, Perseus next sent Herophon, who had been similarly employed before, on a mission to Eumenes; and Telemnastos of Crete to Antiochus to urge him “Not to let the opportunity escape; nor to imagine that Perseus was the only person affected by the overbearing and oppressive conduct of Rome: but to be quite sure that, if he did not now assist Perseus, if possible by putting an end to the war, or, if not, by supporting him in it, he would quickly meet with the same fate himself.”...
[Sidenote: The intrigues of Perseus and Eumenes.]
+5.+ In venturing upon a narrative of the intrigues of Perseus and Eumenes, I have felt myself in a position of great embarrassment. For to give full and accurate details of the negotiations, which these two kings conducted in secret between themselves, appeared to me to be an attempt open to many obvious criticisms and exceedingly liable to error: and yet to pass over in complete silence what seemed to have exercised the most decisive influence in the war, and which alone can explain many of the subsequent events, seemed to me to wear the appearance of a certain sluggishness and entire want of enterprise. On the whole, I decided to state briefly what I believed to be truth, and the probabilities and surmises on which I founded that opinion; for I was, in fact, during this period more struck than most people at what happened.
[Sidenote: The Romans become suspicious of Eumenes, and ostentatiously transfer their favour to his brother Attalus.]
+6.+ I have already stated[166] that Cydas of Crete, while, serving in the army of Eumenes and held in especial honour by him, had in the first place had interviews with Cheimarus, one of the Cretans in the army of Perseus, and again had approached the walls of Demetrias, and conversed first with Menecrates, and then with Antimachus. Again, that Herophon had been twice on a mission from Perseus to Eumenes, and that the Romans on that account began to have reasonable suspicions of king Eumenes, is rendered clear from what happened to Attalus. For they allowed this prince to come to Rome from Brundisium, and to transact the business he had on hand, and finally gave him a favourable answer and dismissed him with every mark of kindness, although he had done them no service of any importance in the war with Perseus; while Eumenes, who had rendered them the most important services, and had assisted them again and again in their wars with Antiochus and Perseus, they not only prevented from coming to Rome, but bade him leave Italy within a certain number of days, though it was mid-winter. Therefore it is quite plain that some intriguing had been taking place between Perseus and Eumenes to account for the alienation of the Romans from the latter. What this was, and how far it went, is our present subject of inquiry.
[Sidenote: The origin of the intrigue between Eumenes and Perseus was the idea of the former that, both sides being tired of the war, he might intervene with profit to himself.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 168.]
+7.+ We can easily satisfy ourselves that Eumenes cannot have wished Perseus to be the victor in the war and become supreme in Greece. For to say nothing of the traditional enmity and dislike existing between these two, the similarity of their respective powers was sufficient to breed distrust, jealousy, and, in fact, the bitterest animosity between them. It was always open to them to intrigue and scheme against each other secretly, and that they were both doing. For when Eumenes saw that Perseus was in a bad way, and was hemmed in on every side by his enemies, and would accept any terms for the sake of putting an end to the war, and was sending envoys to the Roman generals year after year with this view; while the Romans also were uneasy about the result, because they made no real progress in the war until Paulus took the command, and because Aetolia was in a dangerous state of excitement, he conceived that it would not be impossible that the Romans would consent to some means of ending the war and making terms: and he looked upon himself as the most proper person to act as mediator and effect the reconciliation. With these secret ideas in his mind, he began sounding Perseus by means of Cydas of Crete, the year before, to find out how much he would be inclined to pay for such a chance. This appears to me to be the origin of their connexion with each other.
[Sidenote: The bargain attempted between Eumenes and Perseus.]
+8.+ Two kings, one of whom was the most unprincipled and the other the most avaricious in the world, being now pitted against each other, their mutual struggles presented a spectacle truly ridiculous. Eumenes held out every kind of hope, and threw out every species of bait, believing that he would catch Perseus by such promises. Perseus, without waiting to be approached, rushed to the bait held out to him, and made for it greedily; yet he could not make up his mind to swallow it, to such an extent as to give up any money. The sort of huckstering contest that went on between them was as follows. Eumenes demanded five hundred talents as the price of his abstention from co-operating with the Romans by land and sea during the fourth year of the war, and fifteen hundred for putting an end to the war altogether, and promised to give hostages and securities for his promise at once. Perseus accepted the proposal of hostages, named the number, the time at which they were to be sent, and the manner of their safe custody at Cnosus. But as to the money, he said that it would be disgraceful to the one who paid, and still more to the one who received it, to be supposed to remain neutral for hire; but the fifteen hundred talents he would send in charge of Polemocrates and others to Samothrace, to be held as a deposit there. Now Perseus was master of Samothrace; but as Eumenes, like a poor physician, preferred a retaining-fee to a payment after work, he finally gave up the attempt, when he found that his own craftiness was no match for the meanness of Perseus. They thus parted on equal terms, leaving, like good athletes, the battle of avarice a drawn one. Some of these details leaked out at the time, and others were communicated subsequently to Perseus’s intimate friends; and he has taught us by them that every vice is clinched, so to speak, by avarice.
[Sidenote: Reflexions on the blindness of the avaricious kings.]
[Sidenote: See Plutarch, Aemilius, ch. 12.]
+9.+ I add the further question from my own reflexions, whether avarice is not also short-sighted? For who could fail to remark the folly of both the kings? How could Eumenes on the one hand expect to be trusted by a man with whom he was on such bad terms; and to get so large a sum of money, when he was able to give Perseus absolutely no security for recovering it, in case of his not carrying out his promises? And how could he expect not to be detected by the Romans in taking so large a sum? If he had concealed it at the time he certainly would not have done so long. Moreover, he would have been bound at any rate, in return for it, to have adopted the quarrel with Rome; in which he would have been certain to have lost the money and his kingdom together, and very probably his life also, by coming forward as an enemy of the Romans. For if, even as it was, when he accomplished nothing, but only imagined it, he fell into the gravest dangers, what would have happened to him if this design had been brought to perfection? And again, as to Perseus—who could fail to be surprised at his thinking anything of higher importance, or more to his advantage, than to give the money and allow Eumenes to swallow the bait? For if, on the one hand, Eumenes had performed any part of his promises, and had put an end to the war, the gift would have been well bestowed; and if, on the other hand, he had been deceived of that hope, he could at least have involved him in the certain enmity of Rome; for he would have had it entirely in his own power to make these transactions public. And one may easily calculate how valuable this would have been to Perseus, whether he succeeded or failed in the war: for he would have regarded Eumenes as the guilty cause of all his misfortunes, and could in no way have retaliated upon him more effectually than by making him an enemy of Rome. What then was the root of all this blind folly? Nothing but avarice. It could have been nothing else; for, to save himself from giving money, Perseus was content to suffer anything, and neglect every other consideration. On a par too with this was his conduct to the Gauls and Genthius....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians take active steps to form a confederation against Rome, in case their intervention fails.]
+10.+ The question being put to the vote at Rhodes, it was carried to send envoys to negotiate a peace; and this decree thus decided the relative strength of the opposite political parties at Rhodes [as has been stated in my essay on public speaking], showing that the party for siding with Perseus was stronger than that which was for preserving their country and its laws. The Prytanies immediately appointed ambassadors to negotiate the cessation of the war: Agepolis, Diocles, and Cleombrotus were sent to Rome; Damon, Nicostratus, Agesilochus, and Telephus to Perseus and the consul. The Rhodians went on in the same spirit to take further steps, so that they eventually committed themselves past all excuse. For they at once sent ambassadors to Crete, to renew their friendly relations with the entire Cretan people, and to urge that, in view of the dangers that threatened them, they should throw in their lot with the people of Rhodes, and hold the same people to be friends and enemies as they did, and also to address the separate cities to the same effect....
[Sidenote: The manner in which this vote of the Rhodians was carried, B.C. 168.]
+11.+ When the embassy led by Parmenio and Morcus from Genthius, accompanied by those led by Metrodorus, arrived in Rhodes, the assembly summoned to meet them proved very turbulent, the party of Deinon venturing openly to plead the cause of Perseus, whilst that of Theaetetus was quite overpowered and dismayed. For the presence of the Illyrian galleys, the number of the Roman cavalry that had been killed, and the fact of Genthius having changed sides, quite crushed them. Thus it was that the result of the meeting of the assembly was as I have described it. For the Rhodians voted to return a favourable answer to both kings, to state that they had resolved to put an end to the war, and to exhort the kings themselves to make no difficulty about the terms. They also received the ambassadors of Genthius at the common altar-hearth or Prytaneum of the city with every mark of friendship....
[Sidenote: A digression on Polybius’s method in writing history, and his avoidance of imaginary details.]
+12.+ Other historians [have spoken in exaggerated terms][167] of the Syrian war. And the reason is one which I have often mentioned. Though their subjects are simple and without complications, they seek the name and reputation of historians not from the truth of their facts, but the number of their books; and accordingly they are obliged to give petty affairs an air of importance, and fill out and give rhetorical flourishes to what was originally expressed briefly; dress up actions and achievements which were originally quite secondary; expatiate on struggles; and describe pitched battles, in which sometimes ten or a few more infantry fell, and still fewer cavalry. As for sieges, local descriptions, and the like one cannot say that their treatment is adequate, because they have no facts to give. But a writer of universal history must pursue a different plan; and therefore I ought not to be condemned for minimising the importance of events, if I sometimes pass over affairs that have met with wide fame and laboured description, or for mentioning them with brevity; but I ought to be trusted to give to each subject the amount of discussion which it deserves. Such historians as I refer to, when they are describing in the course of their work the siege, say of Phanoteia, or Coroneia, or [Haliartus], are forced to display all the contrivances, bold strokes, and other features of a siege; and when they come to the capture of Tarentum, the sieges of Corinth, Sardis, Gaza, Bactra, and, above all, of Carthage, they must draw on their own resources to prolong the agony and heighten the picture, and are not at all satisfied with me for giving a more truthful relation of such events as they really occurred. Let this statement hold good also as to my description of pitched battles and public harangues, as well as other departments of history; in all of which I might fairly claim considerable indulgence, as also in what is now about to be narrated, if I am detected in some inconsistency in the substance of my story, the treatment of my facts, or the style of language; and also if I make some mistakes in the names of mountains or rivers, or the special features of localities: for indeed the magnitude of my work is a sufficient excuse in all these points, unless, indeed, I am ever detected in deliberate or interested misstatements in my writings: for such I ask no indulgence, as I have repeatedly and explicitly remarked in the course of my history....
[Sidenote: Intemperance and brutality of Genthius.]
+13.+ Genthius, king of the Illyrians, disgraced himself by many abominable actions in the course of his life from his addiction to drink, in which he indulged continually day and night. Among other things he killed his brother Plastor, who was about to marry the daughter of Monunius, and married the girl himself. He also behaved with great cruelty to his subjects....
In the spring of B.C. 168 Genthius was forced to surrender to the praetor L. Anicius Gallus (Livy, 44, 30-31). The consul L. Aemilius Paulus found Perseus on the left bank of the Macedonian river Enipeus in a very strong position, which was however turned by a gallant exploit of Nasica and Q. Fabius Maximus, who made their way with a considerable force over the mountains, thus getting on the rear of Perseus. Livy, 44 30-35. Plutarch, Aemil. 15.
[Sidenote: Nasica, Fabius, and others volunteer to cross the mountains into Macedonia by Gytheum.]
+14.+ The first man to volunteer to make the outflanking movement was Scipio Nasica, son-in-law of Scipio Africanus, who afterwards became the most influential man in the Senate,[168] and who now undertook to lead the party. The second was Fabius Maximus, the eldest of the sons of the consul Aemilius Paulus,[169] still quite a young man, who stood forward and offered to join with great enthusiasm. Aemilius was therefore delighted and assigned them a body of soldiers.[170]...
[Sidenote: Struggle in the bed of the Enipeus. Livy, 44, 35.] +15.+ The Romans offered a gallant resistance by aid of their strong targets or Ligurian shields....
[Sidenote: The Romans force the heights by way of Gytheum.]
Perseus saw that Aemilius had not moved, and did not reckon on what was taking place, when suddenly a Cretan, who had deserted from the Roman army on its march, came to him with the information that the Romans were getting on his rear. Though thrown into the utmost panic he did not strike his camp, but despatched ten thousand mercenaries and two thousand Macedonians under Milo, with orders to advance with speed and seize the heights. The Romans fell upon these as they were lying asleep.[171]...
+16.+ An eclipse of the moon occurring, the report went abroad, and was believed by many, that it signified an eclipse of the king. And this circumstance raised the spirits of the Romans and depressed those of the Macedonians. So true is the common saying that “war has many a groundless scare.”[172]...
Perseus finding himself thus on the point of being outflanked retired on Pydna, near which town Aemilius Paulus, after considerable delay, about midsummer inflicted a crushing defeat upon him. Perseus fled to Amphipolis, and thence to Samothrace, where he was captured by Paulus and taken to Rome to adorn his triumph, and afterwards allowed to live as a private person at Alba. This was the end of the Macedonian kingdom. (Livy, 44, 36-43; 45, 1-8. Plutarch, Aemil. 16-23.)
[Sidenote: The phalanx the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168.]
+17.+ The consul Lucius Aemilius had never seen a phalanx until he saw it in the army of Perseus on this occasion; and he often confessed to some of his friends at Rome subsequently, that he had never beheld anything more alarming and terrible than the Macedonian phalanx: and yet he had been, if any one ever had not only a spectator but an actor in many battles....
Many plans which look plausible and feasible, when brought to the test of actual experience, like base coins when brought to the furnace, cease to answer in any way to their original conceptions....
When Perseus came to the hour of trial his courage all left him, like that of an athlete in bad training. For when the danger was approaching, and it became necessary to fight a decisive battle, his resolution gave way....
As soon as the battle began, the Macedonian king played the coward and rode off to the town, under the pretext of sacrificing to Hercules,—who certainly does not accept craven gifts from cravens, nor fulfil unworthy prayers....
[Sidenote: Scipio Africanus the younger, cf. Livy, 44, 44 (?)]
+18.+ He was then very young, and it was his first experience of actual service in the field, and having but recently begun to taste the sweets of promotion, he was keen, ambitious, and eager to be first....
[Sidenote: The Rhodian mission deliver their message too late.]
[Sidenote: Uncompromising answer of the Senate.]
+19.+ Just when Perseus had been beaten and was trying to save himself by flight, the Senate determined to admit the ambassadors, who had come from Rhodes to negotiate a peace, to an audience: Fortune thus appearing designedly to parade the folly of the Rhodians on the stage,—if we may say “of the Rhodians,” and not rather “of the individuals who were then in the ascendant at Rhodes.” When Agesipolis and his colleagues entered the Senate, they said that “They had come to arrange an end to the war; for the people of Rhodes,—seeing that the war was become protracted to a considerable length of time, and seeing that it was disadvantageous to all the Greeks, as well as to the Romans themselves, on account of its enormous expenses,—had come to that conclusion. But as the war was already ended, and the wish of the Rhodians was thus fulfilled, they had only to congratulate the Romans.” Such was the brief speech of Agesipolis. But the Senate seized the opportunity of making an example of the Rhodians, and produced an answer of which the upshot was that “They did not regard this embassy as having been sent by the Rhodians in the interests either of the Greeks or themselves, but in those of Perseus. For if they had meant to send an embassy in behalf of the Greeks, the proper time for doing so was when Perseus was plundering the territory and cities of Greece, while encamped for nearly two years in Thessaly. But to let that time pass without notice, and to come now desiring to put an end to the war, at a time when the Roman legions had entered Macedonia, and Perseus was closely beleagured and almost at the end of his hopes, was a clear proof to any one of observation that the Rhodians had sent their embassy, not with the desire of ending the war, but to rescue and save Perseus to the best of their ability. Therefore they deserved no indulgence at the hands of the Romans at this time, nor any favourable reply.” Such was the Senate’s answer to the Rhodians....
[Sidenote: Perseus, being brought a prisoner before Aemilius Paulus and his council, refuses to reply to his questions, Paulus addresses the king in Greek and then his council in Latin. Livy, 45, 8.]
+20.+ Then Aemilius Paulus speaking once more in Latin bade the members of his council, “With such a sight before their eyes,”—pointing to Perseus,—“not to be too boastful in the hour of success, nor to take any extreme or inhuman measures against any one, nor in fact ever to feel confidence in the permanence of their present good fortune. Rather it was precisely at the time of greatest success, either private or public, that a man should be most alive to the possibility of a reverse. Even so it was difficult for a man to exhibit moderation in good fortune. But the distinction between fools and wise was that the former only learnt by their own misfortunes, the latter by those of others.”...
[Sidenote: Demetrius of Phalerum on mutability.]
+21.+ One is often reminded of the words of Demetrius of Phalerum. In his treatise on Fortune, wishing to give the world a distinct view of her mutability, he fixed upon the period of Alexander, when that monarch destroyed the Persian dynasty, and thus expresses himself: “If you will take, I don’t say unlimited time or many generations, but only these last fifty years immediately preceding our generation, you will be able to understand the cruelty of Fortune. For can you suppose, if some god had warned the Persians or their king, or the Macedonians or their king, that in fifty years the very name of the Persians, who once were masters of the world, would have been lost, and that the Macedonians, whose name was before scarcely known, would become masters of it all, that they would have believed it? Nevertheless it is true that Fortune, whose influence on our life is incalculable, who displays her power by surprises, is even now I think, showing all mankind, by her elevation of the Macedonians into the high prosperity once enjoyed by the Persians, that she has merely lent them these advantages until she may otherwise determine concerning them.” And this has now come to pass in the person of Perseus; and indeed Demetrius has spoken prophetically of the future as though he were inspired. And as the course of my history brought me to the period which witnessed the ruin of the Macedonian kingdom, I judged it to be right not to pass it over without proper remark, especially as I was an eye-witness of the transaction. It was a case I thought both for enlarging on the theme myself, and for recalling the words of Demetrius, who appeared to me to have shown something more than mere human sagacity in his remarks; for he made a true forecast of the future almost a hundred and fifty years before the event....
[Sidenote: The unexpected always happens.]
[Sidenote: Eumenes disappointed of his hope of quiet by a rising in Galatia, and was the case now with Eumenes. He imagined that at last his own kingdom was safe, and that he might look forward to a time of ease, now that Perseus and the whole kingdom of Macedonia were utterly destroyed; yet it was then that he was confronted with the gravest dangers, by the Gauls in Asia seizing the opportunity for an unexpected rising....
After reigning in Memphis for a time Philometor made terms with his brother and sister, returned to Alexandria, and there all three were being besieged by Antiochus. See above, 28, 18.
[Sidenote: Autumn of B.C. 169.]
+22.+ After the conclusion of the battle between Perseus and the Romans, king Eumenes found himself in what people call an unexpected and extraordinary trouble, but what, if we regard the natural course of human concerns, was quite an everyday affair. For it is quite the way of Fortune to confound human calculations by surprises; and when she has helped a man for a time, and caused her balance to incline in his favour, to turn round upon him as though she repented, throw her weight into the opposite scale, and mar all his successes.
[Sidenote: Winter of B.C. 169-168.]
+23.+ In the Peloponnesus a mission arrived before the end of the winter from the two kings, Ptolemy (Philometor) and Ptolemy (Physcon), asking for help. This gave rise to repeated and animated discussions. The party of Callicrates and Diophanes were against granting the help; while Archon, Lycortas, and Polybius were for sending it to the kings in accordance with the terms of their alliance. For by this time it had come to pass that the younger Ptolemy had been proclaimed king by the people (at Alexandria), owing to the danger which threatened them; and that the elder had subsequently returned from Memphis, and was reigning jointly with his sister. As they stood in need of every kind of assistance, they sent Eumenes and Dionysodorus to the Achaeans, asking a thousand foot and two hundred horse, with Lycortas to command the foot and Polybius the horse. They sent a message also to Theodoridas of Sicyon, urging him to hire them a thousand mercenaries. For the kings chanced to have become intimately acquainted with these particular men, owing to the transactions I have related before. The ambassadors arrived when the Achaean congress was in session in Corinth. They therefore came forward, and after recalling the many evidences of friendship shown by the Achaeans to the kingdom of Egypt, and describing to them the danger in which the kings then were, they entreated them to send help. The Achaeans generally were ready enough to go to the help of the kings (for both now wore the diadem and exercised regal functions), and not only with a detachment, but with their full levy. But Callicrates and his party spoke against it; alleging that they ought not to meddle in such affairs at all, and certainly not at that time, but should reserve their undivided forces for the service of Rome. For there was a general expectation just then of a decisive battle being fought, as Q. Philippus was wintering in Macedonia.
[Sidenote: Polybius advocates the cause of the Ptolemies.]
+24.+ The people were alarmed lest they should be thought to fail the Romans in any way: and accordingly Lycortas and Polybius rose in their turn, and, among other advice which they impressed upon them, argued that “When in the previous year the Achaeans had voted to join the Roman army with their full levy, and sent Polybius to announce that resolution, Quintus Marcius, while accepting the kindness of their intention, had yet stated that the assistance was not needed, since he had won the pass into Macedonia. Their opponents therefore were manifestly using the need of helping the Romans merely as a pretext for preventing this aid being sent to Alexandria. They entreated the Achaeans, in view of the greatness of the danger surrounding the king of Egypt, not to neglect the right moment for acting; but keeping in mind their mutual agreement and good services, and above all their oaths, to fulfil the terms of their agreement.”
[Sidenote: Callicrates defeats the motion,]
[Sidenote: but at a smaller meeting at Sicyon Polybius prevails.]
The people were once more inclined to grant the aid when they heard this: but Callicrates and his party managed to prevent the decree being passed, by staggering the magistrates with the assertion that it was unconstitutional to discuss the question of sending help abroad in public assembly.[173] But a short time afterwards a meeting was summoned at Sicyon, which was attended not only by the members of the council, but by all citizens over thirty years of age; and after a lengthened debate, Polybius especially dwelling on the fact that the Romans did not require assistance,—in which he was believed not to be speaking without good reason, as he had spent the previous summer in Macedonia at the headquarters of Marcius Philippus,—and also alleging that, even supposing the Romans did turn out to require their active support, the Achaeans would not be rendered incapable of furnishing it by the two hundred horse and one thousand foot which were to be despatched to Alexandria,—for they could, without any inconvenience, put thirty or forty thousand men into the field,—the majority of the meeting were convinced, and were inclined to the idea of sending the aid. Accordingly, on the second of the two days on which, according to the laws, those who wished to do so were bound to bring forward their motions, Lycortas and Polybius proposed that the aid should be sent. Callicrates, on the other hand, proposed to send ambassadors to reconcile the two Egyptian kings with Antiochus. So once more, on these two motions being put, there was an animated contest; in which, however, Lycortas and Polybius got a considerable majority on their side. For there was a very wide distinction between the claims of the two kingdoms. There were very few instances to be found in past times of any act of friendship on the part of Syria to the Greeks,—though the liberality of the present king was well known in Greece,—but from Egypt the acts of kindness in past times to the Achaeans had been as numerous and important as any one could possibly expect. By dwelling on this point Lycortas made a great impression, because the distinction between the two kingdoms in this respect was shown to be immense. For it was as difficult to count up all the benefactions of the Alexandrine kings, as it was impossible to find a single act of friendship done by the dynasty of Antiochus to the Achaeans....
[Sidenote: The measure is again defeated by a trick of Callicrates.]
[Sidenote: The kings ask for Lycortas and Polybius.]
+25.+ For a time Andronidas and Callicrates kept on arguing in support of the plan of putting an end to the war: but as no one was persuaded by them, they employed a stratagem. A letter-carrier came into the theatre (where the meeting was being held) who had just arrived with a despatch from Quintus Marcius, urging those Achaeans who were of the pro-Roman party to reconcile the kings; for it was a fact that the Senate had sent a mission under T. Numisius to do so. But this really made against their argument: for Titus Numisius and his colleagues had been unable to effect the pacification, and had returned to Rome completely unsuccessful in the object of their mission. However, as Polybius and his party did not wish to speak against the despatch, from consideration for Marcius, they retired from the discussion: and it was thus that the proposal to send an aid to the kings fell through. The Achaeans voted to send ambassadors to effect the pacification: and Archon of Aegeira, and Arcesilaus and Ariston of Megalopolis were appointed to the duty. Whereupon the envoys of Ptolemy, being disappointed of obtaining the help, handed over to the magistrate the despatch from the kings, in which they asked that they would send Lycortas and Polybius to take part in the war....
[Sidenote: Annoyed by the two Ptolemies thus joining each other, Antiochus renews the war, B.C. 168.]
+26.+ Forgetful of all he had written and said Antiochus began preparing for a renewal of the war against Ptolemy. So true are the words of Simonides,—“‘Tis hard to be good.” For to have certain impulses towards virtue, and even to hold to it up to a certain point, is easy; but to be uniformly consistent, and to allow no circumstances of danger to shake a resolute integrity, which regards honour and justice as the highest considerations, is indeed difficult....
[Sidenote: Antiochus is met near Alexandria (Livy, 45, 12) by C. Popilius Laenas, who forces him to abstain from the war.]
+27.+ When Antiochus had advanced to attack Ptolemy in order to possess himself of Pelusium, he was met by the Roman commander Gaius Popilius Laenas. Upon the king greeting him from some distance, and holding out his right hand to him, Popilius answered by holding out the tablets which contained the decree of the Senate, and bade Antiochus read that first: not thinking it right, I suppose, to give the usual sign of friendship until he knew the mind of the recipient, whether he were to be regarded as a friend or foe. On the king, after reading the despatch, saying that he desired to consult with his friends on the situation, Popilius did a thing which was looked upon as exceedingly overbearing and insolent. Happening to have a vine stick in his hand, he drew a circle round Antiochus with it, and ordered him to give his answer to the letter before he stepped out of that circumference. The king was taken aback by this haughty proceeding. After a brief interval of embarrassed silence, he replied that he would do whatever the Romans demanded. Then Popilius and his colleagues shook him by the hand, and one and all greeted him with warmth. The contents of the despatch was an order to put an end to the war with Ptolemy at once. Accordingly a stated number of days was allowed him, within which he withdrew his army into Syria, in high dudgeon indeed, and groaning in spirit, but yielding to the necessities of the time.
[Sidenote: Popilius goes on to Cyprus and forces the army of Antiochus to evacuate it.]
[Sidenote: The previous defeat of Perseus really secured the salvation of Egypt.]
Popilius and his colleagues then restored order in Alexandria; and after exhorting the two kings to maintain peaceful relations with each other, and charging them at the same time to send Polyaratus to Rome, they took ship and sailed towards Cyprus, with the intention of promptly ejecting from the island the forces that were also gathered there. When they arrived, they found that Ptolemy’s generals had already sustained a defeat, and that the whole island was in a state of excitement. They promptly caused the invading army to evacuate the country, and remained there to keep watch until the forces had sailed away for Syria. Thus did the Romans save the kingdom of Ptolemy, when it was all but sinking under its disasters. Fortune indeed so disposed of the fate of Perseus and the Macedonians, that the restoration of Alexandria and the whole of Egypt was decided by it; that is to say, by the fate of Perseus being decided previously: for if that had not taken place, or had not been certain, I do not think that Antiochus would have obeyed these orders.
Book XXX
[Sidenote: B.C. 167. Coss. Q. Aelius Paetus, M. Junius Pennus.]
[Sidenote: Attalus at Rome, is persuaded to try by the Roman help to supplant his brother.]
+1.+ Attalus, brother of king Eumenes, came to Rome this year, pretending that, even if the disaster of the Gallic rising had not happened to the kingdom, he should have come to Rome, to congratulate the Senate, and to receive some mark of its approval for having been actively engaged on their side and loyally shared in all their dangers; but, as it happened, he had been forced to come at that time to Rome owing to the danger from the Gauls. Upon finding a general welcome from everybody, owing to the acquaintance formed with him on the campaign, and the belief that he was well disposed to them, and meeting with a reception that surpassed his expectation, the young man’s hopes were extraordinarily raised, because he did not know the true reason of this friendly warmth. The result was that he narrowly escaped ruining his own and his brother’s fortunes, and indeed the entire kingdom. The majority at Rome were thoroughly angry with king Eumenes, and believed that he had been playing a double game during the war, keeping up communications with Perseus, and watching his opportunity against them: and accordingly some men of high rank got Attalus under their influence, and urged him to lay aside the character of ambassador for his brother, and to speak in his own behalf; as the Senate was minded to secure a separate kingdom and royal government for him, because of their displeasure with his brother. This excited the ambition of Attalus still more, and in private conversation he signified his assent to those who advised this course. Finally, he arranged with some men of position that he would actually appear before the Senate and deliver a speech on the subject.
[Sidenote: Stratius is sent to dissuade Attalus from his meditated treason.]
+2.+ While Attalus was engaged on this intrigue, Eumenes, fearing what would happen, sent his physician Stratius to Rome, putting him in possession of the facts and charging him to employ every means to prevent Attalus from following the advice of those who wished to ruin their kingdom. On arriving at Rome and getting Attalus by himself, he used a great variety of arguments to him (and he was a man of great sense and powers of persuasion), and at length, with much trouble, succeeded in his object, and in recalling him from his mad project. He represented to him that “he was already practically joint-king with his brother, and only differed from him in the fact that he wore no diadem, and was not called king, though in everything else he possessed an equal and identical authority: that in the future he was the acknowledged heir to the crown, and with no very distant prospect of possession; as the king, from the weak state of his health, was in constant expectation of his departure, and being childless could not, even if he wished it, leave the crown to any one else.” (For in fact that natural son of his, who afterwards succeeded to the crown, had not as yet been acknowledged.) “Above all, he was surprised at the hindrance Attalus was thus interposing to the measures necessary at that particular crisis. For they ought to thank heaven exceedingly if they proved able, even with hearty co-operation and unanimity, to repel the threatened attack of the Gauls; but if he should at such a time quarrel with and oppose his brother, it was quite clear that he would ruin the kingdom, and deprive himself both of his present power and his future expectations, and his other brothers also of the kingdom and the power they possessed in it.” By these and similar arguments Stratius dissuaded Attalus from taking any revolutionary steps.
[Sidenote: Embassy to Galatia.]
+3.+ Accordingly, when Attalus appeared before the Senate, he congratulated it on what had happened; expatiated on the loyalty and zeal shown by himself in the war with Perseus; and urged at some length that the Senate should send envoys to restrain the audacity of the Gauls, and compel them to confine themselves once more to their original boundaries. He also said something about the cities of Aeneus and Maronea, desiring that they might be given as a free gift to himself. But he said not a single word against the king, or about the partition of the kingdom. The senators, supposing that he would interview them privately on a future occasion upon these points, promised to send the envoys, and loaded him lavishly with the customary presents, and, moreover, promised him these cities. But when, after receiving these marks of favour, he at once left Rome without fulfilling any of its expectations, the Senate, though foiled in its hopes, had nothing else which it could do; but before he had got out of Italy it declared Aeneus and Maronea free cities,—thus rescinding its promise,—and sent Publius Licinius at the head of a mission to the Gauls. And what instructions these ambassadors had given to them it is not easy to say, but it may be guessed without difficulty from what subsequently happened. And this will be rendered clear from the transactions themselves.
[Sidenote: Fresh embassies from Rhodes, B.C. 167. See 29, 27.]
[Sidenote: Terror of the Rhodian envoys at the threat of war.]
[Sidenote: A criticism on the speech of the Rhodian Astymedes.]
+4.+ There also came embassies from Rhodes, the first headed by Philocrates, the second by Philophron and Astymedes. For when the Rhodians received the answer given to the embassy of Agesipolis immediately after the battle of Pydna, they understood the anger and threatening attitude of the Senate towards them, and promptly despatched these embassies. Astymedes and Philophron, observing in the course of public and private conversations the suspicions and anger entertained towards them at Rome, were reduced to a state of great discouragement and distress. But when one of the praetors mounted the Rostra and urged the people to declare war against Rhodes, then indeed they were beside themselves with terror at the danger that threatened their country. They assumed mourning garments, and in their various interviews with their friends dropped the tone of persuasion or demand, and pleaded instead, with tears and prayers, that they would not adopt any measure of supreme severity towards them. A few days afterwards Antony, one of the tribunes, introduced them to the Senate, and dragged the praetor who advised the war down from the Rostra. Philophron spoke first, and was followed by Astymedes; and, having thus uttered the proverbial “swan’s song,” they received an answer which, while freeing them from actual fear of war, conveyed a bitter and stern rebuke from the Senate for their conduct. Now Astymedes considered himself to have made a good speech on behalf of his country, but did not at all satisfy the Greeks visiting or residing at Rome. For he afterwards published the speech containing his argument in defence, which, to all those into whose hands it fell, appeared absurd and quite unconvincing. For he rested his plea not alone on the merits of his country, but still more on an accusation of others. Comparing the good services done and the co-operation undertaken by the others, he endeavoured to deny or minimise them; while he exaggerated those of Rhodes as far above their actual amount as he could. The errors of others, on the contrary, he inveighed against in bitter and hostile terms, while those of the Rhodians he attempted to cloak and conceal, in order that, by this comparison, those of his own country might appear insignificant and pardonable, those of others grave and beyond excuse, “all of whom,” he added, “had already been pardoned before.” But this sort of pleading can in no circumstances be considered becoming to a statesman. Take the case of the betrayal of secrets. It is not those who, for fear or gain, turn informers that we commend; but those who endure any torture and punishment rather than involve an accomplice in the same misfortune. These are the men whom we approve and consider noble. But a man who, from some undefined alarm, exposes to the view of the party in power all the errors of others, and who recalls what time had obliterated from the minds of the ruling people, cannot fail to be an object of dislike to all who hear of it.
[Sidenote: Dismayed by this answer the Rhodians endeavour to propitiate the Senate. Livy, 45, 25.]
[Sidenote: The Senate declare Caria and Lycia free. See 22, 5.]
[Sidenote: Caunus, in Peraea, and Mylassa, in Caria, revolt.]
[Sidenote: The astuteness of the Rhodian policy.]
+5.+ After receiving the above answer Philocrates and his colleagues immediately started home; but Astymedes and his fellows stayed where they were and kept on the watch, that no report or observation against their country might be made unknown to them. But when this answer of the Senate was reported at Rhodes, the people, considering themselves relieved of the worst fear—that, namely, of war—made light of the rest, though extremely unfavourable. So true it ever is that a dread of worse makes men forget lighter misfortunes. They immediately voted a complimentary crown worth ten thousand gold pieces[174] to Rome, and appointed Theaetetus at once envoy and navarch to convey it at the beginning of summer, accompanied by an embassy under Rhodophon, to attempt in every possible way to make an alliance with the Romans. They acted thus because they wished that, if the embassy failed by an adverse answer at Rome, the failure might take place without the people having passed a formal decree, the attempt being made solely on the initiative of the navarch, and the navarch having by the law power to act in such a case. For the fact was that the republic of Rhodes had been administered with such consummate statesmanship, that, though it had for nearly a hundred and forty years been engaged in conjunction with Rome in actions of the greatest importance and glory, it had never yet made an alliance with her. Nor ought I to omit stating the reason of this policy of the Rhodians. They wished that no ruler or prince should be entirely without hope of gaining their support or alliance; and they therefore did not choose to bind or hamper themselves beforehand with oaths and treaties; but, by remaining uncommitted, to be able to avail themselves of all advantages as they arose. But on this occasion they were much bent upon securing this mark of honour from Rome, not because they were anxious for the alliance, or because they were afraid of any one else at the time except the Romans, but because they wished, by giving an air of special importance to their design, to remove the suspicions of such as were inclined to entertain unfavourable thoughts of their state. For immediately after the return of the ambassadors under Theaetetus, the Caunians revolted and the Mylassians seized on the cities in Eurōmus. And about the same time the Roman Senate published a decree declaring all Carians and Lycians free who had been assigned to the Rhodians after the war with Antiochus. The Caunian and Mylassian revolts were speedily put down by the Rhodians; for they compelled the Caunians, by sending Lycus with a body of soldiers, to return to their allegiance, though the people of Cibyra had come to their assistance; and in an expedition into Eurōmus they conquered the Mylassians and Alabandians in the field, these two peoples having combined their forces to attack Orthosia. But when the decree concerning the Lycians and Carians was announced they were once more in a state of dismay, fearing that their gift of the crown had proved in vain, as well as their hopes of an alliance....
[Sidenote: The three classes of men who in the various states got into trouble for their conduct during the Macedonian war.]
+6.+ I have already directed my readers’ attention to the policy of Deinon and Polyaratus. For Rhodes was not the only place which experienced grave danger and important changes. Nearly all the states suffered in the same way. It will therefore be instructive to take a review of the policy adopted by the statesmen in the several countries, and to ascertain which of them will be proved to have acted with wisdom, and which to have done otherwise: in order that posterity in similar circumstances of danger may, with these examples as models, so to speak, before their eyes, be able to choose the good and avoid the bad with a genuine insight; and may not in the last hour of their lives dishonour their previous character and achievements, from failing to perceive where the path of honour lies. There were, then, three different classes of persons who incurred blame for their conduct in the war with Perseus. One consisted of those who, while displeased at seeing the controversy brought to a decisive end, and the control of the world fall into the power of one government, nevertheless took absolutely no active steps for or against the Romans, but left the decision entirely to Fortune. A second consisted of those who were glad to see the question settled, and wished Perseus to win, but were unable to convert the citizens of their own states or the members of their race to their sentiments. And a third class consisted of those who actually succeeded in inducing their several states to change round and join the alliance of Perseus. Our present task is to examine how each of these conducted their respective policies.
[Sidenote: Antinous, Theodotus, and Cephalus of the Molossi are instances of the third class.]
+7.+ In the last class were Antinous, Theodotus, and Cephalus, who induced the Molossians to join Perseus. These men, when the results of the campaign went completely against them, and they found themselves in imminent danger of the worst consequences, put a bold face upon it and met an honourable death in the field. These men deserve our commendation for their self-respect, in refusing to allow themselves to lapse into a position unworthy of their previous life.
[Sidenote: Several instances of the first class in Achaia Phthiotis, Thessaly, and Perrhaebia.]
Again, in Achaia and Thessaly and Perrhaebia several persons incurred blame by remaining neutral, on the ground that they were watching their opportunity, and were in heart on the side of Perseus; and yet they never let a word to that effect get abroad, nor were ever detected in sending letter or message to Perseus on any subject whatever, but conducted themselves with unexceptionable discretion. Such men as these therefore very properly determined to face judicial inquiry and stand their judgment, and to make every effort to save themselves. For it is quite as great a sign of cowardice to abandon life voluntarily when a man is conscious of no crime, from fear of the threats of political opponents or of the power of the conquerors, as it is to cling to life to the loss of honour.
[Sidenote: Instances of the second class in Rhodes, Cos, and other places.]
Again, in Rhodes and Cos, and several other cities, there were men who favoured the cause of Perseus, and who were bold enough to speak in behalf of the Macedonians in their own cities, and to inveigh against the Romans, and to actually advise active steps in alliance with Perseus, but who were not able to induce their states to transfer themselves to alliance with the king. The most conspicuous of such men were in Cos the two brothers Hippias and Diomedon, and in Rhodes Deinon and Polyaratus.
+8.+ And it is impossible not to view the policy of these men with disapproval. To begin with, all their fellow-citizens were aware of everything they had done or said; in the next place, the letters were intercepted and made public which were coming from Perseus to them, and from themselves to Perseus, as well as the messengers from both sides: yet they could not make up their minds to yield and put themselves out of the way, but still disputed the point. The result of this persistence and clinging to life, in the face of a desperate position, was that they quite ruined their character for courage and resolution, and left not the least ground for pity or sympathy in the minds of posterity. For being confronted with their own letters and agents, they were regarded as not merely unfortunate, but rather as shameless. One of those who went on these voyages was a man named Thoas. He had frequently sailed to Macedonia on a mission from these men, and when the decisive change in the state of affairs took place, conscious of what he had done, and fearing the consequences, he retired to Cnidos. But the Cnidians having thrown him into prison, he was demanded by the Rhodians, and on coming to Rhodes and being put to the torture, confessed his crime; and his story was found to agree with everything in the cipher of the intercepted letters, and with the despatches from Perseus to Deinon, and from Deinon and Polyaratus to him. Therefore it was a matter of surprise that Deinon persuaded himself to cling to life and submit to so signal an exposure.
[Sidenote: The vain attempts of Polyaratus to escape,]
[Sidenote: at Phaselis,]
[Sidenote: at Caunus,]
[Sidenote: and at Cibyra.]
+9.+ But in respect to folly and baseness of spirit, Polyaratus surpassed Deinon. For when Popilius Laenas charged king Ptolemy to send Polyaratus to Rome, the king, from a regard both to Polyaratus himself and his country, determined not to send him to Rome but to Rhodes, this being also what Polyaratus himself asked him to do. Having therefore caused a galley to be prepared, the king handed him over to Demetrius, one of his own friends, and despatched him, and wrote a despatch to the Rhodians notifying the fact. But touching at Phaselis in the course of the voyage, Polyaratus, from some notion or another which he had conceived, took suppliant branches in his hand, and fled for safety to the city altar. If any one had asked him his intention in thus acting, I am persuaded that he could not have told it. For if he wanted to go to his own country, where was the need of suppliant branches? For his conductors were charged to take him there. But if he wished to go to Rome, that was sure to take place whether he wished it or no. What other alternative was there? Other place that could receive him with safety to himself there was none. However, on the people of Phaselis sending to Rhodes to beg that they would receive Polyaratus, and take him away, the Rhodians came to the prudent resolution of sending an open vessel to convoy him; but forbade the captain of it to actually take him on board, on the ground that the officers from Alexandria had it in charge to deliver the man in Rhodes. When the vessel arrived at Phaselis, and its captain, Epichares, refused to take the man on board, and Demetrius, who had been deputed by the king for that business, urged him to leave the altar and resume his voyage; and when the people of Phaselis supported his command, because they were afraid they would incur some blame from Rome on that account, Polyaratus could no longer resist the pressure of circumstances, but once more went on board Demetrius’s galley. But in the course of the voyage he seized an opportunity of doing the same again at Caunus, flying for safety there in the same way, and begging the Caunians to save him. Upon the Caunians rejecting him, on the grounds of their being leagued with Rhodes, he sent messages to Cibyra, begging them to receive him in their city, and to send him an escort. He had some claim upon this city, because the sons of its tyrant, Pancrates, had been educated at his house; accordingly, they listened to his request, and did what he asked. But when he got to Cibyra, he placed himself and the Cibyratae into a still greater difficulty than that which he caused before when at Phaselis. For they neither dared to retain him in their town for fear of Rome, nor had the power of sending him to Rome, because of their ignorance of the sea, being an entirely inland folk. Eventually they were reduced to send envoys to Rhodes and the Roman proconsul in Macedonia, begging them to take over the man. Lucius Aemilius wrote to the Cibyratae, ordering them to keep Polyaratus in safe custody; and to the Rhodians to make provision for his conveyance by sea and his safe delivery upon Roman territory. Both peoples obeyed the despatch: and thus Polyaratus eventually came to Rome, after making a spectacle of his folly and cowardice to the best of his ability; and after having been, thanks to his own folly, four times surrendered—by king Ptolemy, the people of Phaselis, the Cibyratae, and the Rhodians.
The reason of my having dwelt at some length on the story of Polyaratus and Deinon is not that I have any desire to trample upon their misfortunes, for that would be ungenerous in the last degree; but in order that, by clearly showing their folly, I might instruct those who fall into similar difficulties and dangers how to take a better and wiser course....
[Sidenote: The columns constructed at Delphi for statues of Perseus used by Aemilius. Autumn of B.C. 167. Livy, 45, 27.]
+10.+ The most striking illustration of the mutability and capriciousness of Fortune is when a man, within a brief period, turns out to have been preparing for the use of his enemies the very things which he imagined that he was elaborating in his own honour. Thus Perseus was having some columns made, which Lucius Aemilius, finding unfinished, caused to be completed, and placed statues of himself on them....
[Sidenote: Aemilius at Corinth.]
He admired the situation of the city, and the excellent position of the acropolis for commanding the districts on both sides of the Isthmus....
[Sidenote: At Olympia.]
Having been long anxious to see Olympia, he set out thither....
Aemilius entered the sacred enclosure at Olympia, and was struck with admiration at the statue of the god, remarking that, to his mind, Pheidias was the only artist who had represented the Zeus of Homer; and that, though he had had great expectations of Olympia, he found the reality far surpassed them....
[Sidenote: The disturbed state of Aetolia,]
+11.+ The Aetolians had been accustomed to get their livelihood from plundering and such like lawless occupations; and as long as they were permitted to plunder and loot the Greeks, they got all they required from them, regarding every country as that of an enemy. But subsequently, when the Romans obtained the supremacy, they were prevented from this means of support, and accordingly turned upon each other. Even before this, in their civil war, there was no horror which they did not commit; and a little earlier still they had had a taste of mutual slaughter in the massacres at Arsinoe;[175] they were, therefore, ready for anything, and their minds were so infuriated that they would not allow their magistrates to have even a voice in their business. Aetolia, accordingly, was a scene of turbulence, lawlessness, and blood: nothing they undertook was done on any calculation or fixed plan; everything was conducted at haphazard and in confusion, as though a hurricane had burst upon them....
[Sidenote: and of Epirus. See 27, 15.]
+12.+ The state of Epirus was much the same. For in proportion as the majority of its people are more law-abiding than those of Aetolia, so their chief magistrate surpassed every one else in wickedness and contempt for law. For, I think, there never was and never will be a character more ferocious and brutal than that of Charops....
[Sidenote: The selection of suspected Greeks, especially Achaeans, to be sent to Italy, B.C. 167.]
+13.+ After the destruction of Perseus, immediately after the decisive battle, embassies were sent on all sides to congratulate the Roman commanders on the event. And as now all power tended towards Rome, in every city those who were regarded as of the Romanising party were in the ascendant, and were appointed to embassies and other services. Accordingly they flocked into Macedonia—from Achaia, Callicrates, Aristodamus, Agesias, and Philippus; from Boeotia, Mnasippos; from Acarnania, Chremas; from Epirus, Charops and Nicias; from Aetolia, Lyciscus and Tisippus. These all having met, and eagerly viewing with each other in attaining a common object; and there being no one to oppose them, since their political opponents had all yielded to the times and completely retired, they accomplished their purpose without trouble. So the ten commissioners issued orders to the other cities and leagues through the mouths of the strategi themselves as to what citizens were to go to Rome. And these turned out to be, for the most part, those whom the men I have named had made a list of on party grounds, except a very few of such as had done something conspicuous. But to the Achaean league they sent two men of the highest rank of their own number, Gaius Claudius and Gnaeus Domitius. They had two reasons for doing so: the first was that they were uneasy lest the Achaeans should refuse to obey the written order, and lest Callicrates and his colleagues should be in absolute danger from being reputed to be the authors of the accusations against all the Greeks,—which was about true; and in the second place, because in the intercepted despatches nothing distinct had been discovered against any Achaean. Accordingly, after a while, the proconsul sent the letter and envoys with reference to these men, although in his private opinion he did not agree with the charges brought by Lyciscus and Callicrates, as was afterwards made clear by what took place....
[Sidenote: Triumph of L. Anicius Gallus over the Illyrians at the Quirinalia, February 17, B.C. 167.]
[Sidenote: A scene in a Roman theatre.]
+14.+ Lucius Anicius, who had been praetor, after his victory over the Illyrians, and on bringing Genthius prisoner to Rome with his children, while celebrating his triumph, did a very ridiculous thing. He sent for the most famous artists from Greece, and having constructed an immense theatre in the circus, he brought all the flute-players on the stage together first. Their names were Theodorus the Boeotian, Theopompus and Hermippus of Lysimacheia, the most celebrated of the day. He placed them on the proscenium with the chorus, and bid them all play at once. But on their beginning to play the tune, accompanied by appropriate movements, he sent to them to say that they were not playing well, and must put more excitement into it. At first they did not know what to make of this, until one of the lictors showed them that they must form themselves into two companies, and facing round, advance against each other as though in a battle. The flute-players caught the idea at once, and, adopting a motion suitable to their own wild strains, produced a scene of great confusion. They made the middle group of the chorus face round upon the two extreme groups, and the flute-players, blowing with inconceivable violence and discordance, led these groups against each other. The members of the chorus meanwhile rushed, with a violent stamping which shook the stage, against those opposite them, and then faced round and retired. But when one of the chorus, whose dress was closely girt up, turned round on the spur of the moment and raised his hands, like a boxer, in the face of the flute-player who was approaching him, then the spectators clapped their hands and cheered loudly. Whilst this sort of sham fight was going on, two dancers were brought into the orchestra to the sound of music; and four boxers mounted upon the stage, accompanied by trumpeters and clarion players. The effect of these various contests all going on together was indescribable. But if I were to speak about their tragic actors, I should be thought by some to be jesting.[176]...
+15.+ It requires the same sort of spirit to arrange public games well, and to set out great banquets and wine with fitting splendour, as it does to draw up an army in presence of the enemy with strategic skill....
[Sidenote: Aemilius in Epirus.]
+16.+ Aemilius Paulus took seventy cities in Epirus after the conquest of the Macedonians and Perseus, most of which were in the country of the Molossi; and enslaved one hundred and fifty thousand men....
[Sidenote: Release of Menalcidas.]
+17.+ In Egypt the first thing the kings did after being relieved from the war with Antiochus was to send Numenius, one of their friends, as an envoy to Rome to return thanks for the favours received; and they next released the Lacedaemonian Menalcidas, who had made active use of the occasion against the kingdom for his own advantage; Gaius Popilius Laenas asked the king for his release as a favour to himself.[177]...
[Sidenote: Cotys, king of the Odrysae, cp. bk. 27, ch. 12.]
+18.+ At this period Cotys, king of the Odrysae, sent ambassadors to Rome, asking for the restoration of his son, and pleading his defence for having acted on the side of Perseus. The Romans, considering that they had effected their purpose by the successful issue of the war against Perseus, and that they had no need to press their quarrel with Cotys any further, allowed him to take his son back—who, having been sent as a hostage to Macedonia, had been captured with the children of Perseus,—wishing to display their clemency and magnanimity, and with the idea at the same time of binding Cotys to themselves by so great a favour....
[Sidenote: The abject conduct of king Prusias.]
+19.+ About the same time king Prusias also came to Rome to congratulate the Senate and the generals on their success. This Prusias was in no sense worthy of the royal title, as we may judge from the following facts: When the Roman envoys first appeared at his court, he met them with shorn head and wearing a cap, toga, and shoes, and in fact exactly in the garb worn by those recently manumitted at Rome, whom they call liberti: and greeting the envoys respectfully, he exclaimed, “Behold your freedman, who is willing to obey you in all things and to imitate your fashions!” than which a more contemptible speech it would be difficult to imagine. And now, again, when he reached the entrance of the Senate-house he stopped at the door facing the senators, and, dropping both his hands he paid reverence to the threshold and the seated Fathers, exclaiming, “Hail, ye gods my preservers!” seeming bent on surpassing all who might come after him in meanness of spirit, unmanliness, and servility. And his behaviour in the conference which he held when he had entered the Senate-house was on a par with this; and was such as might make one blush even to write. However this contemptible display served in itself to secure him a favourable answer.
[Sidenote: To prevent a visit from Eumenes the Senate pass a decree forbidding all kings to visit Rome.]
[Sidenote: Eumenes stopped at Brundisium.]
+20.+ Just as he had got his answer, news came that Eumenes was on his way. This caused the Senators much embarrassment. They were thoroughly incensed with him, and were entirely fixed in their sentiments towards him; and yet they did not wish to betray themselves. For having proclaimed to all the world that this king was their foremost and most esteemed friend, if they now admitted him to an interview and allowed him to plead his cause, they must either, by answering as they really thought and in harmony with their sentiments, signalise their own folly in having marked out such a man in past times for special honour; or if, in deference to appearances, they gave him a friendly answer, they must disregard truth and the interests of their country. Therefore, as both these methods of proceeding could have consequences of a disagreeable nature, they hit upon the following solution of the difficulty. On the ground of a general dislike of the visits of kings, they published a decree that “no king was to visit Rome.” Having been informed subsequently that Eumenes had landed at Brundisium in Italy, they sent the quaestor to convey the decree to him, and to bid him to communicate with himself if he wanted anything from the Senate; or, if he did not want anything, to bid him depart at the earliest possible opportunity from Italy. When the quaestor met the king and informed him of the decree, the latter, thoroughly understanding the intention of the Senate, said not a single word, except that “he wanted nothing.”
[Sidenote: Winter of B.C. 167-166.]
This is the way in which Eumenes was prevented from coming to Rome. And it was not the only important result of this decree. For the Gauls were at that time threatening the kingdom of Eumenes; and it was soon made apparent that by this repulse the king’s allies were all greatly depressed, while the Gauls were doubly encouraged to press on the war. And it was in fact their desire to humiliate him in every possible way that induced the Senate to adopt this resolution. These things were going on at the beginning of the winter: but to all other ambassadors who arrived—and there was no city or prince or king who had not at that time sent an embassy of congratulation—the Senate returned a gracious and friendly answer, except to the Rhodians; and these they dismissed with displeasure, and with ambiguous declarations as to the future. As to the Athenians again the Senate hesitated....
[Sidenote: The Athenians ask for the restoration of Haliartus; failing that, to have its territory, with Delos and Lemnos themselves.]
+21.+ The first object of the Athenian embassy was the restoration of Haliartus;[178] but when they met with a refusal on that point, they changed the subject of their appeal and put forward their own claim to the possession of Delos, Lemnos, and the territory of Haliartus. No one could properly find fault with them for this, as far as Delos and Lemnos were concerned, for they had of old laid claim to them; but there is good reason for reproaching them in respect to the territory of Haliartus. Haliartus was nearly the most ancient city in Boeotia; had met with a heavy misfortune: instead of endeavouring in every possible way to restore it,—to contribute to its utter annihilation, and to deprive its dispossessed inhabitants of even their hopes for the future, was an act which would be thought worthy of no Greek nation, and least of all of the Athenians. They open their own territory to all comers; and to take away that of others can never appear consonant with the spirit of their State. However, the Senate granted them Delos and Lemnos. Such was the decision in the Athenian business....
[Sidenote: The possession of these places a misfortune to Athens. See 32, 17.] As to Lemnos and Delos they had, according to the proverb, “got the wolf by the ears:” for they suffered much ill fortune from their quarrels with the Delians; and from the territory of Haliartus they reaped shame rather than profit....
[Sidenote: Death of Theaetetus of Rhodes.]
[Sidenote: Caunus and Stratoniceia in Caria.]
+22.+ At this time Theaetetus being admitted into the Senate spoke on the subject of the alliance. The Senate, however, postponed the consideration of the proposal, and in the meantime Theaetetus died in the course of nature, for he was more than eighty years old. But on the arrival in Rome of exiles from Caunus and Stratoniceia, and their admission to the Senate, a decree was passed ordering the Rhodians to withdraw their garrisons from Caunus and Stratoniceia. And the embassy of Philophron and Astymedes having received this answer sailed with all speed home, alarmed lest the Rhodians should disregard the order for withdrawing the garrisons, and so give a fresh ground for complaints....
[Sidenote: The effect of the message from the Romans in the Achaean league. Supra ch. 13.]
+23.+ In the Peloponnese, when the ambassadors arrived and announced the answers from Rome, there was no longer mere clamour, but downright rage and hatred against Callicrates and his party....
[Sidenote: Unpopularity of Callicrates, Adronidas, and their party.]
An instance of the hatred entertained for Callicrates and Adronidas, and the others who agreed with them, was this. The festival of the Antigoneia was being held at Sicyon,—the baths being all supplied with large public bathing tubs, and smaller ones placed by them used by bathers of the better sort,—if Adronidas or Callicrates entered one of these, not a single one of the bystanders would get into it any more, until the bathman had let every drop of water run out and filled it with fresh. They did this from the idea that they would be polluted by entering the same water as these men. Nor would it be easy to describe the hissing and hooting that took place at the public games in Greece when any one attempted to proclaim one of them victor. The very children in the streets as they returned from school ventured to call them traitors to their faces. To such height did the anger and hatred of these men go....
[Sidenote: Joy of the people of Peraea at the Roman decree emancipating them from Rhodes.]
+24.+ The inhabitants of Peraea were like slaves unexpectedly released from chains, who are scarcely able to believe their present good fortune, thinking it a change almost too great to be natural; and cannot believe that those they meet can understand or fully see that they are really released, unless they do something strange and out of the ordinary course....
Book XXXI
[Sidenote: B.C. 165. War in Crete of Cnosus and Gortyn against Rhaucus.]
+1.+ At this time the Cnosians, in alliance with the Gortynians, made war upon the Rhaucians, and swore a mutual oath that they would not end the war until they had taken Rhaucus.
[Sidenote: The Rhodians are again refused an alliance.]
But when the Rhodians received the decree regarding Caunus, and saw that the anger of the Romans was not abating, after having scrupulously carried out the orders contained in the Senate’s replies, they forthwith sent Aristotle at the head of an embassy to Rome, with instructions to make another attempt to secure the alliance. They arrived in Rome at the height of summer, and, having been admitted to the Senate, at once declared how their people had obeyed the Senate’s orders, and pleaded for the alliance, using a great variety of arguments in a speech of considerable length. But the Senate returned them a reply in which, without a word about their friendship, they said that, as to the alliance, it was not proper for them to grant the Rhodians this favour at present....
[Sidenote: Autonomy to Galatia on conditions.]
+2.+ To the ambassadors of the Gauls in Asia they granted autonomy, on condition that they remained within their dwellings, and went on no warlike expeditions beyond their own frontiers....
[Sidenote: The grand festival held by Antiochus Epiphanes at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, sacred to Apollo.]
+3.+ When this same king (Antiochus Epiphanes) heard of the games in Macedonia held by the Roman proconsul Aemilius Paulus, wishing to outdo Paulus by the splendour of his liberality, he sent envoys to the several cities announcing games to be held by him at Daphne; and it became the rage in Greece to attend them. The public ceremonies began with a procession composed as follows: first came some men armed in the Roman fashion, with their coats made of chain armour, five thousand in the prime of life. Next came five thousand Mysians, who were followed by three thousand Cilicians armed like light infantry, and wearing gold crowns. Next to them came three thousand Thracians and five thousand Gauls. They were followed by twenty-thousand Macedonians, and five thousand armed with brass shields, and others with silver shields, who were followed by two hundred and forty pairs of gladiators. Behind these were a thousand Nisaean cavalry and three thousand native horsemen, most of whom had gold plumes and gold crowns, the rest having them of silver. Next to them came what are called “companion cavalry,” to the number of a thousand, closely followed by the corps of king’s “friends” of about the same number, who were again followed by a thousand picked men; next to whom came the Agema or guard, which was considered the flower of the cavalry, and numbered about a thousand. Next came the “cataphract” cavalry, both men and horses acquiring that name from the nature of their panoply; they numbered fifteen hundred. All the above men had purple surcoats, in many cases embroidered with gold and heraldic designs. And behind them came a hundred six-horsed, and forty four-horsed chariots; a chariot drawn by four elephants and another by two; and then thirty-six elephants in single file with all their furniture on.
The rest of the procession was almost beyond description, but I must give a summary account of it. It consisted of eight hundred young men wearing gold crowns, about a thousand fine oxen, foreign delegates to the number of nearly three hundred, and eight hundred ivory tusks. The number of images of the gods it is impossible to tell completely: for representations of every god or demigod or hero accepted by mankind were carried there, some gilded and others adorned with gold-embroidered robes; and the myths, belonging to each, according to accepted tradition, were represented by the most costly symbols. Behind them were carried representations of Night and Day, Earth, Heaven, Morning and Noon. The best idea that I can give of the amount of gold and silver plate is this: one of the king’s friends, Dionysius his secretary, had a thousand boys in the procession carrying silver vessels, none of which weighed less than a thousand drachmae;[179] and by their side walked six hundred young slaves of the king holding gold vessels. There were also two hundred women sprinkling unguents from gold boxes; and after them came eighty women sitting in litters with gold feet, and five hundred in litters with silver feet, all adorned with great costliness. These were the most remarkable features of the procession.
+4.+ The festival, including the gladiatorial shows and hunting, lasted thirty days, in the course of which there was continual round of spectacles. During the first five of these everybody in the gymnasium anointed himself with oil scented with saffron in gold vessels, of which there were fifteen, and the same number scented with cinnamon and nard. On the following days other vessels were brought in scented with fenugreek, marjoram, and lily, all of extraordinary fragrancy. Public banquets were also given, at which couches were prepared, sometimes for a thousand and sometimes for fifteen hundred, with the utmost splendour and costliness.
The whole of the arrangements were made personally by the king. He rode on an inferior horse by the side of the procession, ordering one part to advance, and another to halt, as occasion required; so that, if his diadem had been removed, no one would have believed that he was the king and the master of all; for his appearance was not equal to that of a moderately good servant. At the feasts also he stood himself at the entrance, and admitted some and assigned others their places; he personally ushered in the servants bringing the dishes; and walking about among the company sometimes sat down and sometimes lay down on the couches. Sometimes he would jump up, lay down the morsel of food or the cup that he was raising to his lips, and go to another part of the hall; and walking among the guests acknowledge the compliment, as now one and now another pledged him in wine, or jest at any recitations that might be going on. And when the festivity had gone on for a long time, and a good many of the guests had departed, the king was carried in by the mummers, completely shrouded in a robe, and laid upon the ground, as though he were one of the actors; then, at the signal given by the music, he leapt up, stripped, and began to dance with the jesters; so that all the guests were scandalised and retired. In fact every one who attended the festival, when they saw the extraordinary wealth which was displayed at it, the arrangements made in the processions and games, and the scale of the splendour on which the whole was managed, were struck with amazement and wonder both at the king and the greatness of his kingdom: but when they fixed their eyes on the man himself, and the contemptible conduct to which he condescended, they could scarcely believe that so much excellence and baseness could exist in one and the same breast.[180]...
[Sidenote: Roman envoys at Antioch. Antiochus affects extreme cordiality.]
+5.+ After the completion of the festival, the envoys with Tiberius Gracchus arrived, who had been sent from Rome to investigate the state of affairs in Syria. Antiochus received them with such tact and with so many expressions of kindness, that Tiberius not only had no suspicion that he was meditating any active step, or cherishing any sinister feeling on account of what had happened at Alexandria, but was even induced by the extraordinary kindness of his reception to discredit those who made any such suggestion. For, besides other courtesies, the king gave up his own hall for the use of the envoys, and almost his crown in appearance; although his true sentiments were not at all of this kind, and he was on the contrary profoundly incensed with the Romans....
[Sidenote: B.C. 164. Complaints against Eumenes at Rome from Prusias of Bithynia, and other parts of Asia.]
[Sidenote: The Senate’s policy in Galatia.]
[Sidenote: Failure of the mission of Gracchus.]
+6.+ A large number of ambassadors from various quarters having arrived at Rome, the most important of which were those with Astymedes from Rhodes, Eureus, Anaxidamus and Satyrus from the Achaeans, and those with Pytho from Prusias,—the Senate gave audience to these last. The ambassadors from Prusias complained of king Eumenes, alleging that he had taken certain places belonging to their country, and had not in any sense evacuated Galatia, or obeyed the decrees of the Senate; but had been supporting all who favoured himself, and depressing in every possible way those who wished to shape their policy in accordance with the Senate’s decrees. There were also some ambassadors from certain towns in Asia, who accused the king on the grounds of his intimate association with Antiochus. The Senate listened to the accusers, and neither rejected their accusations nor openly expressed its own opinion; but acted with close reserve, thoroughly distrusting both Eumenes and Antiochus: and meanwhile contented itself by continually supporting Galatia and contriving some fresh security for its freedom. But the envoys under Tiberius Gracchus, on their return from their mission, had no clearer idea themselves in regard to Eumenes and Antiochus than before they left Rome, nor could they give the Senate one either. So completely had the kings hoodwinked them by the cordiality of their reception.
[Sidenote: Rhodians appeal against the injury done to their trade, B.C. 165.]
[Sidenote: Speech of Astymedes.]
[Sidenote: The Senate is mollified by this speech and by the report of Gracchus, and grants the alliance.]
+7.+ The Senate next called in the Rhodians and heard what they had to say. When Astymedes entered, he adopted a more moderate and more effective line of argument than on his former embassy. He omitted the invectives against others, and took the humble tone of men who are being flogged, begging to be forgiven, and declaring that his country had suffered sufficient punishment, and a more severe one than its crime deserved. And then he went briefly through the list of the Rhodian losses. “First, they have lost Lycia and Caria, which had already cost them a large sum of money, having been forced to support three wars against them; while at the present moment they have been deprived of a considerable revenue which they used to draw from those countries. But perhaps,” he added, “this is as it should be: you gave them to our people as a free gift, because you regarded us with favour; and in now recalling your gift, because you suspect and are at variance with us, you may seem only to be acting reasonably. But Caunus, at any rate, we purchased from Ptolemy’s officers for two hundred talents; and Stratoniceia we received as a great favour from Antiochus, son of Seleucus; and from those two towns our people had a revenue of a hundred and twenty talents a year. All these sources of revenue we have surrendered, in our submission to your injunctions. From which it appears that you have imposed a heavier penalty on the Rhodians for one act of folly, than on the Macedonians that have been continually at war with you. But the greatest disaster of all to our State is that the revenue from its harbour has been abolished by your making Delos a free port; and by your depriving our people of that independence by which the harbour, as well as other interests of the States, were maintained in suitable dignity.[181] And it is easy to satisfy yourselves of the truth of my words. Our revenue from harbour dues amounted in past years to one million drachmae, from which you have now taken one hundred and fifty thousand; so that it is only too true, gentlemen of Rome, that your anger has affected the resources of the country. Now, if the mistake committed, and the alienation from Rome, had been shared in by the entire people, you might perhaps have seemed to be acting rightly in maintaining a lasting and irreconcilable anger against us; but if the fact is made clear to you that it was an exceedingly small number who shared in this foolish policy, and that these have all been put to death by this very people itself, why still be irreconcilable to those who are in no respect guilty? Especially when to every one else you are reputed to exhibit the highest possible clemency and magnanimity. Wherefore, gentlemen, our people having lost their revenues, their freedom of debate, and their position of independence, in defence of which in time past they have been ever willing to make any sacrifices, now beg and beseech you all, as having been smitten sufficiently, to relax your anger, and to be reconciled and make this alliance with them: that it may be made manifest to all the world that you have put away your anger against Rhodes, and have returned to your old feelings and friendship towards them.” Such among others were the words of Astymedes. He was thought to have spoken much to the point in the circumstances; but what helped the Rhodians to the alliance more than anything else was the recent return of the embassy under Tiberius Gracchus. For he gave evidence, in the first place, that the Rhodians had obeyed all the decrees of the Senate; and in the next place, that the men who were the authors of their hostile policy had all been condemned to death; and by this testimony overcame all opposition, and secured the alliance between Rome and Rhodes....
[Sidenote: B.C. 165. Embassy from Achaia asking for the trial or release of the Achaean détenus, who to the number of over 1000 had been summoned to Italy in B. C. 167. See 30, 13. Pausan. 7, 10, 11.]
+8.+ After an interval the envoys of the Achaeans were admitted with instructions conformable to the last reply received, which was to the effect that “The Senate were surprised that they should apply to them for a decision on matters which they had already decided for themselves.” Accordingly another embassy under Eureus now appeared to explain that “The league had neither heard the defence of the accused persons, nor given any decision whatever concerning them; but wished the Senate to take measures in regard to these men, that they might have a trial and not perish uncondemned. They begged that, if possible, the Senate should itself conduct the investigation, and declare who are the persons guilty of those charges; but, if its variety of business made it impossible to do this itself, that it should intrust the business to the Achaeans, who would show by their treatment of the guilty their detestation of their crime.” The Senate recognised that the tone of the embassy was in conformity with its own injunctions, but still felt embarrassed how to act. Both courses were open to objection. To judge the case of the men was, it thought, not a task it ought to undertake; and to release them without any trial at all evidently involved ruin to the friends of Rome. In this strait the Senate, wishing to take all hope from the Achaean people of the restitution of the men who were detained, in order that they might obey without a murmur Callicrates in Achaia, and in the other states those who sided with Rome, wrote the following answer: “We do not consider it advisable either for ourselves or for your nationalities that these men should return home.” The publication of this answer not only reduced the men who had been summoned to Italy to complete despair and dejection, but was regarded by all Greeks as a common sorrow, for it seemed to take away all hope of restoration from these unfortunate men. When it was announced in Greece the people were quite crushed, and a kind of desperation invaded the minds of all; but Charops and Callicrates, and all who shared their policy, were once more in high spirits....
[Sidenote: Reduction of the Cammani in Cappadocia.]
+9.+ Tiberius Gracchus, partly by force and partly by persuasion, reduced the Cammani to obedience to Rome....
A large number of embassies having come to Rome, the Senate gave a reply to Attalus and Athenaeus. For Prusias, not content with earnestly pressing his accusations himself against Eumenes and Attalus, had also instigated the Gauls and Selgians (in Pisidia), and many others in Asia, to adopt the same policy; consequently king Eumenes had sent his brothers to defend him against the accusations thus brought. On their admission to the Senate they were thought to have made a satisfactory defence against all accusers; and finally returned to Asia, after not only rebutting the accusations, but with marks of special honour. The Senate, however, did not altogether cease to be suspicious of Eumenes and Antiochus. They sent Gaius Sulpicius and Manius Sergius as envoys to investigate the state of Greece; to decide the question of territory that had arisen between Megalopolis and the Lacedaemonians; but, above all, to give attention to the proceedings of Antiochus and Eumenes, and to discover whether any warlike preparations were being made by either of them, or any combination being formed between them against Rome....
[Sidenote: The mission, Sulpicius Gallus in Asia; he collects facts against Eumenes.]
+10.+ Besides his other follies, Gaius Sulpicius Gallus, on arriving in Asia, put up notices in the most important cities, ordering any one who wished to bring any accusation against king Eumenes to meet him at Sardis within a specified time. He then went to Sardis, and, taking his seat in the Gymnasium, gave audience for ten days to those who had such accusations to make: admitting every kind of foul and abusive language against the king, and, generally, making the most of every fact and every accusation; for he was frantic and inveterate in his hatred of Eumenes....
But the harder the Romans appeared to bear upon Eumenes, the more popular did he become in Greece, from the natural tendency of mankind to feel for the side that is oppressed....
[Sidenote: B.C. 164. Death of Antiochus Epiphanes on his return from Susiana. See 26, 1.]
+11.+ In Syria king Antiochus, wishing to enrich himself, determined on an armed attack upon the temple of Artemis, in Elymais. But having arrived in this country and failed in his purpose, because the native barbarians resisted his lawless attempt, he died in the course of his return at Tabae, in Persia, driven mad, as some say, by some manifestations of divine wrath in the course of his wicked attempt upon this temple....
Antiochus Epiphanes left a son and daughter; the former, nine years old, was called Antiochus Eupator, and succeeded to the kingdom, Lysias acting as his guardian. Demetrius, his cousin, son of Seleucus Philopator, being at Rome as a hostage in place of the late Antiochus Epiphanes, endeavoured to persuade the Senate to make him king of Syria instead of the boy.
[Sidenote: Demetrius, son of Seleucus, and grandson of Antiochus the Great, wishes to be restored to the kingdom of Syria.]
[Sidenote: The commissioners are also to visit Galatia, Cappadocia, and Alexandria.]
[Sidenote: A Syrian commission appointed.]
+12.+ Demetrius, son of Seleucus, who had been long detained at Rome as an hostage, had been for some time past of opinion that his detention was unjust. He had been given by his father Seleucus as a pledge of his good faith; but, when Antiochus (Epiphanes) succeeded to the throne, he considered that he ought not to be a hostage in behalf of that monarch’s children. However, up to this time he kept quiet, especially as he was unable, being still a mere boy, to do anything. But now, being in the very prime of youthful manhood, he entered the Senate and made a speech: demanding that the Romans should restore him to his kingdom, which belonged to him by a far better right than to the children of Antiochus. He entered at great length upon arguments to the same effect, affirming that Rome was his country and the nurse of his youth; that the sons of the Senators were all to him as brothers, and the Senators as fathers, because he had come to Rome a child, and was then twenty-three years old.[182] All who heard him were disposed in their hearts to take his part: the Senate however, as a body voted to detain Demetrius, and to assist in securing the crown for the boy left by the late king. Their motive in thus acting was, it seems to me, a mistrust inspired by the vigorous time of life to which Demetrius had attained, and an opinion that the youth and weakness of the boy who had succeeded to the kingdom were more to their interest. And this was presently made manifest. For they appointed Gnaeus Octavius, Spurius Lucretius, and Lucius Aurelius as commissioners to arrange the affairs of the kingdom in accordance with the will of the Senate, on the ground that no one would resist their injunctions, the king being a mere child, and the nobles being quite satisfied at the government not being given to Demetrius, for that was what they had been most expecting. Gnaeus and his colleagues therefore started with instructions, first of all to burn the decked ships, next to hamstring the elephants, and generally to weaken the forces of the kingdom. They were also charged with the additional task of making an inspection of Macedonia; for the Macedonians, unaccustomed to democracy and a government by popular assembly, were splitting up into hostile factions.[183] Gnaeus and his colleagues were also to inspect the state of Galatia and of the kingdom of Ariarathes. After a time the further task was imposed on them, by despatch from the Senate, of reconciling as well as they could the two kings in Alexandria....
[Sidenote: Mission to Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, in regard to the encroachments of the Gauls.]
+13.+ While this was going on at Rome, envoys from the city, under Marcus Junius, had arrived to arbitrate on the disputes between the Gauls and king Ariarathes. For the Trocmi, having found themselves unable to annex any portion of Cappadocia by their unaided efforts, and having been promptly foiled in their audacious attempts,[184] sought refuge with the Romans, and endeavoured to bring Ariarathes into discredit there. On this account an embassy under M. Junius was sent to Cappadocia. The king gave them a satisfactory account of the affair, treated them with great courtesy, and sent them away loud in his praises. And when subsequently Gnaeus Octavius and Spurius Lucretius arrived, and again addressed the king on the subject of his controversies with the Gauls, after a brief conversation on that subject, and saying that he would acquiesce in their decision without difficulty, he directed the rest of his remarks to the state of Syria, being aware that Octavius and his colleagues were going thither. He pointed out to them the unsettled state of the kingdom and the unprincipled character of the men at the head of affairs there; and added that he would escort them with an army, and remain on the watch for all emergencies, until they returned from Syria in safety. Gnaeus and his colleagues acknowledged the king’s kindness and zeal, but said that for the present they did not need the escort: on a future occasion, however, if need should arise, they would let him know without delay; for they considered him as one of the true friends of Rome....
Ariarathes died soon after this embassy, and was succeeded by his son Ariarathes Philopator. B.C. 164. Livy, Ep. 46.
[Sidenote: B.C. 163. Ariarathes Philopator continues his father’s policy of friendship with Rome.]
+14.+ About this time ambassadors arrived from Ariarathes, who had recently succeeded to the kingdom of Cappadocia, to renew the existing friendship and alliance with Rome, and in general to exhort the Senate to accept the king’s affection and goodwill, which he entertained, both in their private and public capacity, for all the Romans. The Senate, on hearing this, acceded to the request for the renewal of the friendship and alliance, and graciously acknowledged the general amity of the king. The chief reason for this warmth on the part of the Senate was the report of the envoys under Tiberius, who, when sent to inspect the state of Cappadocia, had returned full of the praises of the late king and of his kingdom generally. It was on the credit of this report that the Senate received the ambassadors of Ariarathes graciously, and acknowledged the goodwill of the king....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians ask for Calynda in Caria, and for the retention of private property in Caria and Lycia.]
[Sidenote: A colossal statue of Rome.]
+15.+ Having somewhat recovered from their previous disaster, the Rhodians sent Cleagoras with ambassadors to Rome to ask that Calynda should be ceded to them, and to petition the Senate that those of their citizens who had properties in Lycia and Caria might be allowed to retain them as before. They had also voted to raise a colossal statue of the Roman people thirty cubits high, to be set up in the temple of Athenè....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians undertake the protection of Calynda.]
+16.+ The Calyndians having broken off from Caunus, and the Caunians being about to besiege Calynda, the Calyndians first called in the aid of the Cnidians; and, on their sending the required support, they held out against their enemies for a time: but becoming alarmed as to what would happen, they sent an embassy to Rhodes, putting themselves and their city in its hands. Thereupon the Rhodians sent a naval and military force to their relief, forced the Caunians to raise the siege, and took over the city....
[Sidenote: Ariarathes’s joy at the favourable answer from Rome.]
[Sidenote: He recovers the ashes of his mother and sister from Antioch.]
+17.+ When Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, had received his ambassadors on their return from Rome, judging from the answers they brought that his kingdom was secured, because he had gained the goodwill of Rome, he offered a thank-offering to the gods for what had happened, and entertained his nobles at a feast. He then sent ambassadors to Lysias in Antioch, desiring to be allowed to bring away the bones of his sister and mother. He determined not to say a word of blame as to the crime that had been committed, lest he should irritate Lysias, and so fail to effect his present object, though he was in fact greatly incensed at it. He gave his envoys therefore instructions couched in terms of courteous request. Lysias and his friends acceded to his wishes; and the bones having been conveyed to Cappadocia, the king received them in great state, and buried them next the tomb of his father with affectionate reverence....[185]
[Sidenote: The influence of good men, Artaxias of Armenia. See 25, 2.]
Artaxias wished to kill a man, but on the remonstrances of Ariarathes did not do so, and held him on the contrary in higher respect than ever. So decisive is the influence of justice, and of the opinions and advice of good men, that they often prove the salvation of foes as well as of friends, and change their whole characters for the better....
Good looks are a better introduction than any letter....
The quarrels of the two kings of Egypt, Ptolemy VI. Philometor and Euergetes II. (or Ptolemy VII.) Physcon. The former had been expelled by the latter, and had taken refuge in Cyprus, but had been restored by a popular outbreak in his favour, and under the authority of Commissioners sent from Rome, B.C. 164. (Livy, Ep. 46. Diod. Sic. fr. xi.) Fresh quarrels however broke out, in the course of which Physcon was much worsted by his brother, (Diod. Sic. fr. of 31), and at length it was arranged that one should reign in Egypt the other in Cyrene. B.C. 162. (Livy, Ep. 47.)
[Sidenote: B.C. 162. Euergetes II. (Ptolemy Physcon), who had Cyrene as his share, asks for Cyprus.]
[Sidenote: The members of the Commission who had been in Egypt support the elder brother.]
[Sidenote: The object of the Senate is to divide and weaken Egypt.]
[Sidenote: The Senate decide in favour of Physcon.]
+18+. After the Ptolemies had made their partition of the kingdom, the younger brother arrived in Rome desiring to set aside the division made between himself and his brother, on the ground that he had not acceded to the arrangement voluntarily, but under compulsion, and yielding to the force of circumstances. He therefore begged the Senate to assign Cyprus to his portion; for, even if that were done, he should still have a much poorer share than his brother. Canuleius and Quintus supported Menyllus, the ambassador of the elder Ptolemy, by protesting that “the younger Ptolemy owed his possession of Cyrene and his very life to them, so deep was the anger and hatred of the common people to him[186]; and that, accordingly, he had been only too glad to receive the government of Cyrene, which he had not hoped for or expected; and had exchanged oaths with his brother with the customary sacrifices.” To this Ptolemy gave a positive denial: and the Senate, seeing that the division was clearly an unequal one, and at the same time wishing that, as the brothers themselves were the authors of the division being made at all, it should be effected in a manner advantageous to Rome, granted the petition of the younger Ptolemy with a view to their own interest. Measures of this class are very frequent among the Romans, by which they avail themselves with profound policy of the mistakes of others to augment and strengthen their own empire, under the guise of granting favours and benefiting those who commit the errors. On this principle they acted now. They saw how great the power of the Egyptian kingdom was; and fearing lest, if it ever chanced to obtain a competent head, he would grow too proud, they appointed Titus Torquatus and Gnaeus Merula to establish Ptolemy Physcon in Cyprus, and thus to carry out their own policy while satisfying his. These commissioners were accordingly at once despatched with instructions to reconcile the brothers to each other, and to secure Cyprus to the younger....
When the Roman commissioners (see ch. 12) arrived in Syria, and began carrying out their orders, by burning the ships and killing the elephants, the popular fury could not be restrained; and Gnaeus Octavius was assassinated in the gymnasium at Laodicea by a man named Leptines. Lysias did his best to appease the anger of the Romans, by giving Octavius honourable burial, and by sending an embassy to Rome to protest his innocence. Appian, Syr. 46.
[Sidenote: B.C. 162. The Senate pay little attention to Lysias’s excuses.]
+19.+ News having come to Rome of the disaster by which Gnaeus Octavius lost his life, ambassadors also arrived from king Antiochus, sent by Lysias, who vehemently protested that the king’s friends had had no part in the crime. But the Senate showed scant attention to the envoys, not wishing to make any open declaration on the subject or to allow their opinion to become public in any way.
[Sidenote: Demetrius thinks there is again a chance for him.]
[Sidenote: Polybius advises, “act for yourself.”]
[Sidenote: He however again appeals to the Senate,]
[Sidenote: and is again refused.]
But Demetrius was much excited by the news, and immediately summoned Polybius to an interview, and consulted him as to whether he should once more bring his claims before the Senate. Polybius advised him “not to stumble twice on the same stone,” but to depend upon himself and venture something worthy of a king; and he pointed out to him that the present state of affairs offered him many opportunities. Demetrius understood the hint, but said nothing at the time; but a short while afterwards consulted Apollonius one of his intimate friends, on the same subject. This man, being simple minded and very young, advised him to make another trial of the Senate. “He was convinced,” he said, “that, since it had deprived him of his kingdom without any just excuse, it would at least release him from his position of hostage; for it was absurd that, when the boy Antiochus had succeeded to the kingdom in Syria, Demetrius should be a hostage for him.” Persuaded by these arguments he once more obtained a hearing of the Senate, and claimed to be relieved of his obligations as a hostage, since they had decided to secure the kingdom to Antiochus. But, though he pleaded his cause with many arguments, the Senate remained fixed in the same resolve as before. And that was only what was to be expected. For they had not, on the former occasion, adjudged the continuance of the kingdom to the child on the ground that the claim of Demetrius was not just, but because it was advantageous to Rome that it should be so; and as the circumstances remained precisely the same, it was only natural that the policy of the Senate should remain unchanged also.
[Sidenote: Demetrius resolves to escape from Rome, and again consults Polybius.]
+20.+ Demetrius having thus delivered himself in vain of his swan’s song, his last appeal, and becoming convinced that Polybius had given him good advice, repented of what he had done. But he was naturally of a lofty spirit, and possessed sufficient daring to carry out his resolutions. He promptly called Diodorus, who had recently arrived from Syria, to his aid, and confided his secret purpose to him. Diodorus had had the charge of Demetrius as a child, and was a man of considerable adroitness, who had besides made a careful inspection of the state of affairs in Syria. He now pointed out to Demetrius that “The confusion caused by the murder of Octavius,—the people mistrusting Lysias, and Lysias mistrusting the people, while the Senate was convinced that the lawless murder of their envoy really originated with the king’s friends,—presented a most excellent opportunity for his appearing on the scene: for the people there would promptly transfer the crown to him, even though he were to arrive attended by but one slave; while the Senate would not venture to give any further assistance or support to Lysias after such an abominable crime. Finally, it was quite possible for them to leave Rome undetected, without any one having any idea of his intention.” This course being resolved upon, Demetrius sent for Polybius, and telling him what he was going to do, begged him to lend his assistance, and to join him in contriving to manage his escape.
[Sidenote: Menyllus of Alabanda (in Caria) helps him by hiring a vessel.]
There happened to be at Rome a certain Menyllus of Alabanda, on a mission from the elder Ptolemy to confront and answer the younger before the Senate. Between this man and Polybius there was a strong friendship and confidence, and Polybius therefore thought him just the man for the purpose in hand. He accordingly introduced him with all speed to Demetrius, and with warm expressions of regard. Being trusted with the secret, Menyllus undertook to have the necessary ship in readiness, and to see that everything required for the voyage was prepared. Having found a Carthaginian vessel anchored at the mouth of the Tiber, which had been on sacred service, he chartered it. (These vessels are carefully selected at Carthage, to convey the offerings sent by the Carthaginians to their ancestral gods at Tyre.) He made no secret about it but chartered the vessel for his own return voyage; and therefore was able to make his arrangements for provisions also without exciting suspicion, talking openly with the sailors and making an appointment with them.
[Sidenote: Preparations for the flight.]
[Sidenote: Polybius sends a warning to Demetrius.]
+21.+ When the shipmaster had everything ready, and nothing remained except for Demetrius to do his part, he sent Diodorus to Syria to gather information, and to watch the disposition of the people there. His foster-brother Apollonius took part in this expedition; and Demetrius also confided his secret to the two brothers of Apollonius, Meleager and Menestheus, but to no one else of all his suite, though that was numerous. These three brothers were the sons of the Apollonius who occupied so important a position at the court of Seleucus, but who had removed to Miletus at the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes. As the day agreed upon with the sailors approached, it was arranged that one of his friends should give an entertainment to serve as an excuse for Demetrius going out. For it was impossible that he should sup at home; as it was his constant habit, when he did so, to invite all his suite. Those who were in the secret were to leave the house after supper and go to the ship, taking one slave each with them; the rest they had sent on to Anagnia, saying that they would follow next day. It happened that at this time Polybius was ill and confined to his bed; but he was kept acquainted with all that was going on by constant communications from Menyllus. He was therefore exceedingly anxious, knowing Demetrius to be fond of conviviality and full of youthful wilfulness, lest, by the entertainment being unduly prolonged, some difficulty should arise from over-indulgence in wine to prevent his getting away. He therefore wrote and sealed a small tablet; and just as it was getting dusk sent a servant of his own, with orders to ask for Demetrius’s cupbearer and give him the tablet, without saying who he was or from whom he came, and to bid the cupbearer to give it to Demetrius to read at once. His orders were carried out, and Demetrius read the tablet, which contained the following apophthegms[187]:—
“The ready hand bears off the sluggard’s prize.”
“Night favours all, but more the daring heart.”
“Be bold: front danger: strike! then lose or win, Care not, so you be true unto yourself.”
“Cool head and wise distrust are wisdom’s sinews.”
[Sidenote: Demetrius takes the hint, and the voyage is safely begun.]
+22.+ As soon as Demetrius had read these lines, he understood their purport, and from whom they came; and at once pretending that he felt sick, he left the banquet escorted by his friends. Arrived at his lodging, he sent away those of his servants who were not suited to his purpose to Anagnia, ordering them to take the hunting nets and hounds and meet him at Cerceii, where it had been his constant custom to go boar hunting, which, in fact, was the origin of his intimacy with Polybius. He then imparted his plan to Nicanor and his immediate friends, and urged them to share his prospects. They all consented with enthusiasm; whereupon he bade them return to their own lodgings, and arrange with their servants to go before daybreak to Anagnia and meet them at Cerceii, while they got travelling clothes and returned to him, telling their domestics that they would join them, accompanied by Demetrius, in the course of the next day at Cerceii. Everything having been done in accordance with this order, he and his friends went to Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiber, by night. Menyllus preceded them and had a conversation with the sailors; telling them that orders had arrived from the king which made it necessary for him to remain at Rome for the present, and to send some of the most trustworthy of his young men to his Majesty, to inform him of what had been done about his brother. He should not, therefore, he said, go on board himself; but the young men who were to sail would come about midnight. The shipmasters made no difficulty about it, as the passage money for which they had originally bargained was in their hands; and they had long made all their preparations for sailing, when Demetrius and his friends arrived about the third watch. There were altogether eight of them, besides five slaves and three boys. Menyllus entered into conversation with them, showed them the provisions in store for the voyage, and commended them earnestly to the care of the shipmaster and crew. They then went on board, and the pilot weighed anchor and started just as day was breaking, having absolutely no idea of the real state of the case, but believing that he was conveying some soldiers from Menyllus to Ptolemy.
[Sidenote: The absence of Demetrius is not ascertained in Rome until the fourth day.]
[Sidenote: The Senate is summoned, but decides not to attempt pursuit.]
[Sidenote: Commissioners appointed for Greece and Asia, B.C. 162.]
+23.+ At Rome, during the whole of the following day, no one was likely to make any inquiry for Demetrius or those who had gone with him. For those of his household who stayed in the city supposed him to have gone to Cerceii; and those at Anagnia were expecting him to come there too. The flight from Rome, therefore, was entirely unremarked; until one of his slaves, having been flogged at Anagnia, ran off to Cerceii, expecting to find Demetrius there; and not finding him, ran back again to Rome, hoping to meet him on the road. But as he failed to meet him anywhere, he went and informed his friends in Rome and the members of his household who had been left behind in his house. But it was not until the fourth day after his start that, Demetrius being looked for in vain, the truth was suspected. On the fifth the Senate was hastily summoned to consider the matter, when Demetrius had already cleared the Straits of Messina. The Senate gave up all idea of pursuit: both because they imagined that he had got a long start on the voyage (for the wind was in his favour), and because they foresaw that, though they might wish to hinder him, they would be unable to do so. But some few days afterwards they appointed Tiberius Gracchus, Lucius Lentulus, and Servilius Glaucia as commissioners: first to inspect the state of Greece; and, next, to cross to Asia and watch the result of Demetrius’s attempt, and examine the policy adopted by the other kings, and arbitrate on their controversies with the Gauls. Such were the events in Italy this year....
Demetrius expecting the arrival of the commissioner who was to be sent to him....
[Sidenote: Cato on the growth of luxury.]
+24.+ The dissoluteness of the young men in Rome had grown to such a height, and broke out in such extravagances, that there were many instances of men purchasing a jar of Pontic salt-fish for three hundred drachmae.[188] In reference to which Marcus Porcius Cato once said to the people in indignation, that no better proof could be shown of the degeneracy of the state than that good-looking slaves[189] should fetch more than a farm, and a jar of salt-fish more than a carter....
[Sidenote: The Rhodians accept money to pay their schoolmasters, B.C. 162.]
+25.+ The Rhodians, though in other respects maintaining the dignity of their state, made in my opinion a slight lapse at this period. They had received two hundred and eighty thousand medimni of corn from Eumenes, that its value might be invested and the interest devoted to pay the fees of the tutors and schoolmasters of their sons. One might accept this from friends in a case of financial embarrassment, as one might in private life, rather than allow children to remain uneducated for want of means; but where means are abundant a man would rather do anything than allow the schoolmaster’s fee to be supplied by a joint contribution from his friends. And in proportion as a state should hold higher notions than an individual, so ought governments to be more jealous of their dignity than private men, and above all a Rhodian government, considering the wealth of the country and its high pretensions....
[Sidenote: Ptolemy Physcon returning with the commissioners, collects mercenaries in Greece, but is persuaded to disband them, B.C. 162.]
[Sidenote: He, however, takes about 1000 Cretans back with him to Africa.]
[Sidenote: ch. 18.]
+26.+ After this the younger Ptolemy arrived in Greece with the Roman commissioners, and began collecting a formidable army of mercenaries, among whom he enlisted Damasippus the Macedonian, who, after murdering the members of the council at Phacus, fled with his wife and children from Macedonia, and after reaching Peraea, opposite Rhodes, and being entertained by the people there, determined to sail to Cyprus. But when Torquatus and his colleagues saw that Ptolemy had collected a formidable corps of mercenaries, they reminded him of their commission, which was to restore him “without a war,” and at last persuaded him to go as far as Side (in Pamphylia), and there disband his mercenaries, give up his idea of invading Cyprus, and meet them on the frontiers of Cyrene. Meanwhile, they said that they would sail to Alexandria, and induce the king to consent to their demands, and would meet him on the frontiers, bringing the other king with them. The younger Ptolemy was persuaded by these arguments, gave up the attack upon Cyprus, dismissed the mercenaries, and first sailed to Crete, accompanied by Damasippus and Gnaeus Merula, one of the commissioners; and, after enlisting about a thousand soldiers in Crete, put to sea and crossed to Libya, landing at Apis.
[Sidenote: Ptolemy Physcon invades the dominions of his brother.]
+27.+ Meanwhile Torquatus had crossed to Alexandria and was trying to induce the elder Ptolemy to be reconciled to his brother, and yield Cyprus to him. But Ptolemy, by alternate promises and refusals and the like, managed to waste the time, while the younger king lay encamped with his thousand Cretans at Apis in Libya, according to his agreement. Becoming thoroughly irritated at receiving no intelligence, he first sent Gnaeus Merula to Alexandria, hoping by this means to bring Torquatus and those with him to the place of meeting. But Merula was like the others in protracting the business: forty days passed without a word of intelligence, and the king was in despair. The fact was that the elder king, by using every kind of flattery, had won the commissioners over, and was keeping them by him, rather against their will than with it. Moreover, at this time the younger Ptolemy was informed that the people of Cyrene had revolted, that the cities were conspiring with them, and that Ptolemy Sympetesis had also taken their side. This man was an Egyptian by birth, and had been left by the king in charge of his whole kingdom when he was going on his journey to Rome. When the king was informed of this, and learned presently that the Cyreneans were encamped in the open country, afraid lest, in his desire to add Cyprus to his dominions, he might lose Cyrene also, he threw everything else aside and marched towards Cyrene. When he came to what is called the Great Slope, he found the Libyans and Cyreneans occupying the pass. Ptolemy was alarmed at this: but, putting half his forces on board boats, he ordered them to sail beyond the difficult ground, and show themselves on the rear of the enemy; while with the other half he marched up in their front and tried to carry the pass. The Libyans being panic-stricken at this double attack on front and rear, and abandoning their position, Ptolemy not only got possession of the pass, but also of Tetrapyrgia, which lay immediately below it, in which there was an abundant supply of water. Thence he crossed the desert in seven days, the forces under Mochyrinus coasting along parallel to his line of march. The Cyreneans were encamped eight thousand five hundred strong, eight thousand infantry and five hundred cavalry: for having satisfied themselves as to the character of Ptolemy from his conduct at Alexandria, and seeing that his government and policy generally were those of a tyrant rather than a king, they could not endure the idea of becoming his subjects, but were determined to venture everything in their desire for freedom. And at last he was beaten....
[Sidenote: The Roman commission fails to secure peace between the brothers.]
+28.+ At this time Gnaeus Merula also came from Alexandria, informing the king (Physcon) that his brother would consent to none of the proposals, but maintained that they ought to abide by the original agreements. On hearing this, Physcon selected the brothers Comanus and Ptolemy[190] to go as ambassadors to Rome with Gnaeus, and inform the Senate of his brother’s selfish and haughty behaviour. At the same time the elder Ptolemy sent away Titus Torquatus also without having attained the object of his mission. Such was the state of things in Alexandria and Cyrene....
Book XXXII
[Sidenote: B.C. 161. The Senate break off relations with Ptolemy Philometor, and encourage Ptolemy Physcon in his claim on Cyprus.]
+1.+ This year Comanus and his brother arrived at Rome on their mission from the younger Ptolemy, and Menyllus of Alabanda from the elder. Their interview with the Senate was the occasion of many mutual recriminations expressed with great bitterness; and when Titus Torquatus and Gnaeus Merula gave evidence in favour of the younger king, and supported him with great earnestness, the Senate voted that Menyllus and his colleagues should leave Rome within five days, and that the treaty of alliance with the elder Ptolemy should be annulled; but that they should send envoys to the younger to inform him of the decree of the Senate. Publius Apustius and Gaius Lentulus were appointed to this service, who immediately sailed to Cyrene, and with great despatch announced to Physcon the decree of the Senate. Greatly elated by this, Ptolemy began collecting mercenaries, and devoted his whole attention and energies to the acquisition of Cyprus. This was what was going on in Italy....
[Sidenote: Between the second and third Punic wars Massanissa constantly encroached on Carthaginian territory. Both sides refer to Rome,]
[Sidenote: and the Romans invariably support Massanissa.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 193, cp. Livy, 34, 62.]
+2.+ Not long before this period Massanissa resolved to try his strength with the Carthaginians. He saw how numerous the cities built along the lesser Syrtis were, and noticed the excellence of the district which they call Emporia, and he had long been casting an envious eye upon the revenues which those places produced. He quickly possessed himself of the open part of the country, because the Carthaginians were always averse from service in the field, and were at that time completely enervated by the long peace. But he was unable to get possession of the towns, because they were carefully guarded by the Carthaginians. Both parties then referring their case to the Roman Senate, and frequent embassies coming to Rome from both sides, it always happened that the Carthaginians got the worst of it in the judgment of the Romans, not on the merits of the case, but because the judges were convinced that such a decision was in their interests. For instance, not many years before this Massanissa was himself at the head of an army in pursuit of Aphther, who had revolted from him, and asked permission of the Carthaginians to go through this territory, which they refused on the ground that it had nothing to do with him. Owing, however, to the decisions given at Rome during this period, the Carthaginians were put into such difficulties that they not only lost the cities and territory, but had to pay besides five hundred talents as mesne profits from the district. And this was the origin of the present controversy.[191]...
[Sidenote: Further complaints against Eumenes by Prusias and the Gauls. See 31, 4, B.C. 161.]
+3.+ Prusias sent envoys to Rome with some Gauls to accuse Eumenes; and Eumenes in his turn sent his brother Attalus to rebut the accusations. Ariarathes sent a present of ten thousand gold pieces, and envoys to inform the Senate of the reception given to Tiberius Gracchus; and generally to ask for their commands, and to assure them that he would do anything they told him....
[Sidenote: Surrenders the murderer of Octavius.]
[Sidenote: Demetrius induces Tiberius Gracchus to salute him as king.]
+4.+ When Menochares arrived in Antioch to visit Demetrius, and informed the king[192] of the conversation he had had with the commission under Tiberius Gracchus in Cappadocia, the king, thinking it a matter of the most urgent necessity to get these men on his side as much as he could, devoted himself, to the exclusion of every other business, to sending messages to them, first to Pamphylia, and then to Rhodes, undertaking to do everything the Romans wished; till at last he extracted their acknowledgment of him as king. The fact was that Tiberius was very favourably disposed to him; and, accordingly, materially contributed to the success of his attempt, and to his acquisition of the royal power. Demetrius took advantage of this to send envoys to Rome, taking with them a complimentary crown, the murderer of Gnaeus Octavius, and with them Isocrates the critic....
[Sidenote: Ambassadors from Ariarathes.]
[Sidenote: Attalus again in Rome early in B.C. 160. Coss. L. Anicius Gallus. M. Cornelius Cethegus.]
+5.+ At this time came ambassadors from Ariarathes, bringing a complimentary present of ten thousand gold pieces, and announcing the king’s faithful attachment to Rome; and of this they appealed to Tiberius and his colleagues as witnesses. Tiberius and his colleagues confirmed their statements: whereupon the Senate accepted the present with warm thanks, and sent back in return presents, which with them are the most honourable they can give—a sceptre and ivory chair. These ambassadors were dismissed at once by the Senate before the winter. But after them arrived Attalus when the new Consuls had already entered on their office; as well as the Gauls who had accusations against him, and whom Prusias had sent, with as many more from Asia. After giving all a hearing, the Senate not only acquitted Attalus of all blame, but dismissed him with additional marks of their favour and kindness: for their friendship for and active support of Attalus was in the same proportion as their hostility and opposition to king Eumenes....
[Sidenote: Reception of the ambassadors of Demetrius.]
[Sidenote: Previous career of Isocrates.]
[Sidenote: His conduct in Syria.]
+6.+ The ambassadors with Menochares arrived in Rome from Demetrius, bringing the present of ten thousand gold pieces, as well as the man who had assassinated Gnaeus Octavius. The Senate was for a long time doubtful what to do about these matters. Finally they received the ambassadors and accepted the present, but declined to receive the men who were thus brought prisoners. Yet Demetrius had sent not only Leptines, the actual assassin of Octavius, but Isocrates as well. The latter was a grammarian and public lecturer; but being by nature garrulous, boastful, and conceited, he gave offence even to the Greeks, Alcaeus and his friends being accustomed to direct their wit against him and hold him up to ridicule in their scholastic discussions.[193] When he arrived in Syria, he displayed contempt for the people of the country; and not content with lecturing on his own subjects, he took to speaking on politics, and maintained that “Gnaeus Octavius had been rightly served; and that the other ambassadors ought to be put to death also, that there might be no one left to report the matter to the Romans; and so they might be taught to give up sending haughty injunctions and exercising unlimited power.” By such random talk he got into this trouble.
[Sidenote: The boldness of Leptines.]
[Sidenote: Extraordinary conduct of Isocrates.]
+7.+ And there is a circumstance connected with both these men that is worth recording. After assassinating Gnaeus, Leptines immediately went openly about Laodicea, asserting that what he had done was just, and that it had been effected in accordance with the will of the gods. And when Demetrius took possession of the government, he went to the king exhorting him to have no fear about the murder of Gnaeus, nor to adopt any measures of severity against the Laodiceans; for that he would himself go to Rome and convince the Senate that he had done this deed in accordance with the will of the gods. And finally, thanks to his entire readiness and even eagerness to go, he was taken without chains or a guard. But directly Isocrates found himself included under this charge, he went entirely beside himself with terror; and, after the collar and chain were put on his neck, he would rarely touch food, and completely neglected all care of his body. He accordingly arrived at Rome a truly astonishing spectacle, sufficient to convince us that nothing can be more frightful than a man, in body and soul alike, when once divested of his humanity. His aspect was beyond all measure terrifying and savage, as might be expected in a man who had neither washed the dirt from his body, nor pared his nails, nor cut his hair, for a year. The wild glare and rolling of his eyes also showed such inward horror, that any one who saw him would have rather approached any animal in the world than him. Leptines, on the contrary, maintained his original view: was ready to appear before the Senate; owned plainly to all who conversed with him what he had done; and asserted that he would meet with no severity at the hands of the Romans. And eventually his expectation was fully justified. [The Senate decide to keep the question of the murder open.] For the Senate, from the idea, I believe, that, if it received and punished the guilty men, the populace would consider that full satisfaction had been taken for the murder, refused almost outright to receive them; and thus kept the charge in reserve, that they might have the power of using the accusation whenever they chose. They therefore confined their answer to Demetrius to these words: “He shall find all favour at our hands, if he satisfy the Senate in accordance with the obedience which he owed to it before.”...
[Sidenote: Fruitless embassy from Achaia on behalf of Polybius and the other Achaean detenus, B.C. 160.]
There came also ambassadors from the Achaeans, headed by Xenon and Telecles, in behalf of their accused compatriots, and especially in behalf of Polybius and Stratius; for lapse of time had now brought an end to the majority, or at any rate to those of any note. The ambassadors came with instructions couched in a tone of simple entreaty, in order to avoid anything like a contest with the Senate. But when they had been admitted and delivered their commission in proper terms, even this humble tone failed to gain their end, and the Senate voted to abide by their resolve....
[Sidenote: The small property left by Aemilius Paulus at his death is a proof of his disinterestedness.]
[Sidenote: See 18, 35.]
[Sidenote: Polybius has the fear of Roman critics before his eyes.]
+8.+ The strongest and most honourable proof of the integrity of Lucius Aemilius Paulus was made public after his death. For the character which he enjoyed while alive was found to be justified at his death, than which there can be no clearer proof of virtue. No one of his contemporaries brought home more gold from Iberia than he; no one captured such enormous treasures as he did in Macedonia; and yet, though in both these countries he had the most unlimited authority, he left so small a private fortune, that his sons could not pay his wife’s jointure wholly from the sale of his personalty, and were obliged to sell some of his real estate also to do so, a fact of which I have already spoken in some detail. This forces us to acknowledge that the fame of the men who have been admired in Greece in this respect suffers by a comparison. For if to abstain from appropriating money, entrusted to a man for the benefit of the depositor, deserves our admiration,—as is said to have happened in the case of the Athenian Aristeides and the Theban Epaminondas,—how much more admirable is it for a man to have been master of a whole kingdom, with absolute authority to do with it as he chose, and yet to have coveted nothing in it! And if what I say appears incredible to any of my readers, let them consider that the present writer was fully aware that Romans, more than any other people, would take his books into their hands,—because the most splendid and numerous achievements recorded therein belong to them; and that with them the truth about the facts could not possibly be unknown, nor the author of a falsehood expect any indulgence. No one then would voluntarily expose himself to certain disbelief and contempt. And let this be kept in mind throughout the whole course of my work, when I seem to be making a startling assertion about the Romans.
[Sidenote: The origin of the friendship between Scipio Aemilianus and Polybius.]
[Sidenote: Young Scipio opens his heart to Polybius.]
+9.+ As the course of my narrative and the events of the time have drawn our attention to this family, I wish to carry out fully, for the sake of students, what was left as a mere promise in my previous book. I promised then that I would relate the origin and manner of the rise and unusually early glory of Scipio’s reputation in Rome; and also how it came about that Polybius became so attached to and intimate with him, that the fame of their friendship and constant companionship was not merely confined to Italy and Greece, but became known to more remote nations also. We have already shown that the acquaintance began in a loan of some books and the conversation about them. But as the intimacy went on, and the Achaean detenus were being distributed among the various cities, Fabius and Scipio, the sons of Lucius Aemilius Paulus,[194] exerted all their influence with the praetor that Polybius might be allowed to remain in Rome. This was granted: and the intimacy was becoming more and more close, when the following incident occurred. One day, when they were all three coming out of the house of Fabius, it happened that Fabius left them to go to the Forum, and that Polybius went in another direction with Scipio. As they were walking along, in a quiet and subdued voice, and with the blood mounting to his cheeks, Scipio said, “Why is it, Polybius, that though I and my brother eat at the same table, you address all your conversation and all your questions and explanations to him, and pass me over altogether? Of course you too have the same opinion of me as I hear the rest of the city has. For I am considered by everybody, I hear, to be a mild effete person, and far removed from the true Roman character and ways, because I don’t care for pleading in the law courts. And they say that the family I come of requires a different kind of representative, and not the sort that I am. That is what annoys me most.”
[Sidenote: Scipio Aemilianus, b. B.C. 185.]
[Sidenote: Polybius is somewhat alarmed at the responsibility.]
+10.+ Polybius was taken aback by the opening words of the young man’s speech (for he was only just eighteen), and said, “In heaven’s name, Scipio, don’t say such things, or take into your head such an idea. It is not from any want of appreciation of you, or any intention of slighting you, that I have acted as I have done: far from it! It is merely that, your brother being the elder, I begin and end my remarks with him, and address my explanations and counsels to him, in the belief that you share the same opinions. However, I am delighted to hear you say now that you appear to yourself to be somewhat less spirited than is becoming to members of your family: for you show by this that you have a really high spirit, and I should gladly devote myself to helping you to speak or act in any way worthy of your ancestors. As for learning, to which I see you and your brother devoting yourselves at present with so much earnestness and zeal, you will find plenty of people to help you both; for I see that a large number of such learned men from Greece are finding their way into Rome at the present time. But as to the points which you say are just now vexing you, I think you will not find any one more fitted to support and assist you than myself.” While Polybius was still speaking the young man seized his right hand with both of his, and pressing it warmly, said, “Oh that I might see the day on which you would devote your first attention to me, and join your life with mine. From that moment I shall think myself worthy both of my family and my ancestors.” Polybius was partly delighted at the sight of the young man’s enthusiasm and affection, and partly embarrassed by the thought of the high position of his family and the wealth of its members. However, from the hour of this mutual confidence the young man never left the side of Polybius, but regarded his society as his first and dearest object.
[Sidenote: Scipio's high character for continence as a young man.]
[Sidenote: The deterioration in Roman morals and its causes.]
+11.+ From that time forward they continually gave each other practical proof of an affection which recalled the relationship of father and son, or of kinsmen of the same blood. The first impulse and ambition of a noble kind with which he was inspired was the desire to maintain a character for chastity, and to be superior to the standard observed in that respect among his contemporaries. This was a glory which, great and difficult as it generally is, was not hard to gain at that period in Rome, owing to the general deterioration of morals. Some had wasted their energies on favourite youths; others on mistresses; and a great many on banquets enlivened with poetry and wine, and all the extravagant expenditure which they entailed, having quickly caught during the war with Perseus the dissoluteness of Greek manners in this respect. And to such monstrous lengths had this debauchery gone among the young men, that many of them had given a talent for a young favourite. This dissoluteness had as it were burst into flame at this period: in the first place, from the prevalent idea that, owing to the destruction of the Macedonian monarchy, universal dominion was now secured to them beyond dispute; and in the second place, from the immense difference made, both in public and private wealth and splendour, by the importation of the riches of Macedonia into Rome. Scipio, however, set his heart on a different path in life; and by a steady resistance to his appetites, and by conforming his whole conduct to a consistent and undeviating standard, in about the first five years after this secured a general recognition of his character for goodness and purity.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s liberality to his mother.]
+12.+ His next object was to cultivate lofty sentiments in regard to money, and to maintain a higher standard of disinterestedness than other people. In this respect he had an excellent start in his association with his natural father (L. Aemilius): but he also had good natural impulses towards the right; and chance contributed much to his success in this particular aim. For he first lost the mother of his adoptive father, who was the sister of his natural father Lucius, and wife of his adoptive grandfather, Scipio the Great. She left a large fortune, to which he was heir, and which gave him the first opportunity of giving a proof of his principles. Aemilia, for that was this lady’s name, was accustomed to attend the women’s processions in great state, as sharing the life and high fortune of Scipio. For besides the magnificence of her dress and carriage, the baskets, cups, and such implements for the sacrifice, which were carried in her train, were all of silver or gold on great occasions; and the number of maid-servants and other domestics that made up her train was in proportion to this splendour. All this establishment, immediately after Aemilia’s funeral, Scipio presented to his own mother, who had long before been divorced by his father Lucius, and was badly off considering the splendour of her birth.[195] She had therefore in previous years refrained from taking part in grand public processions; but now, as there chanced to be an important state sacrifice, she appeared surrounded with all the splendour and wealth which had once been Aemilia’s, using among other things the same muleteers, pair of mules, and carriage. The ladies, therefore, who saw it were much impressed by the kindness and liberality of Scipio, and all raised their hands to heaven and prayed for blessings upon him. This act, indeed, would be thought honourable anywhere, but at Rome it was quite astonishing: for there no one ever thinks of giving any of his private property to any one if he can help it. This was the beginning of Scipio’s reputation for nobility of character, and it spread very widely,—for women are talkative and prone to exaggeration whenever they feel warmly.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s liberality to his cousins, sisters to his adoptive father.]
+13.+ The next instance was his conduct to the daughters of the Great Scipio, sisters to his adoptive father.[196] When he took the inheritance he was bound to pay them their portion. For their father covenanted to give each of his two daughters a marriage portion of fifty talents. Half of this their mother paid down at once to their husbands, but left the other half undischarged when she died. Now, the Roman law enjoins the payment of money due to women as dowry in three annual instalments, the personal outfit having been first paid within ten months according to custom.[197] But Scipio instructed his banker at once to pay the twenty-five talents to each within the ten months. When, therefore, Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Nasica, for they were the husbands of these ladies, called on the banker at the expiration of the ten months, and asked whether Scipio had given him any instructions as to the money, he told them they might have it at once, and proceeded to enter the transfer of twenty-five talents to each.[198] They then said that he had made a mistake, for they had no claim for the whole as yet, but only took a third according to the law; and upon the banker answering that such were his instructions from Scipio, they could not believe him, and went to call on the young man, supposing him to have made a mistake. And, indeed, their feelings were natural: for at Rome, so far from paying fifty talents three years in advance, no one will pay a single talent before the appointed day; so excessively particular are they about money, and so profitable do they consider time. However, when they reached Scipio and asked him what instructions he had given his banker, on his replying, “To pay both sisters the whole sum due to them,” they told him he had made a mistake; and with a show of friendly regard pointed out to him that, according to the laws, he had the use of the money for a considerable time longer. But Scipio replied that he was quite aware of all that; but that close reckoning and legal exactness were for strangers; with relations and friends he would do his best to behave straightforwardly and liberally. He therefore bade them draw on the banker for the whole sum. When Tiberius and Nasica heard this they returned home in silence, quite confounded at the magnanimity of Scipio, and condemning themselves for meanness, though they were men of as high a character as any at Rome.
[Sidenote: The liberality of Scipio to his brother and sisters, B.C. 160.]
+14.+ Two years afterwards, when his natural father, Lucius Aemilius, died, and left him and his brother Fabius joint heirs to his property, he did an act honourable to himself and worthy to be recorded. Lucius died without children in the eyes of the law, for the two elder had been adopted into other families, and the other sons, whom he was bringing up to be the successors to himself and to continue his family, all died;[199] he therefore left his property to these two. But Scipio, perceiving that his brother was worse off than himself, renounced the whole of his share of the inheritance, though the property was valued altogether at over sixty talents, with a view of thus putting Fabius on an equality with himself in point of wealth. This was much talked about; but he afterwards gave a still clearer proof of his liberality. For when his brother wished to give some gladiatorial games in honour of his father, but was unable to support the expense, because of the enormous costliness of such things, Scipio contributed half of this also from his own pocket. Now the cost of such an exhibition, if it is done on a large scale, does not amount in all to less than thirty talents. While the fame of his liberality to his mother was still fresh, she died; and so far from taking back any part of the wealth he had recently bestowed on her, of which I have just spoken, Scipio gave it and the entire residue of his mother’s property to his sisters,[200] though they had no legal claim at all upon it. Accordingly his sisters again adopted the splendour and retinue which Aemilia had employed in the public processions; and once more the liberality and family affection of Scipio were recalled to the minds of the people.
With such recommendations dating from his earliest years, Publius Scipio sustained the reputation for high morality and good principles, which he had won by the expenditure of perhaps sixty talents, for that was the sum which he bestowed from his own property. And this reputation for goodness did not depend so much on the amount of the money, as on the seasonableness of the gift and the graciousness with which it was bestowed. By his strict chastity, also, he not only saved his purse, but by refraining from many irregular pleasures he gained sound bodily health and a vigorous constitution, which accompanied him through the whole of his life and repaid him with many pleasures, and noble compensations for the immediate pleasures from which he had formerly abstained.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s physical strength and courage were confirmed by the exercise of hunting in Macedonia,]
[Sidenote: and his taste continued after his return to Rome, and was encouraged by Polybius.]
+15.+ Courage, however, is the most important element of character for public life in every country, but especially in Rome: and he therefore was bound to give all his most serious attention to it. In this he was well seconded by Fortune also. For as the Macedonian kings were especially eager about hunting, and the Macedonians devoted the most suitable districts to the preservation of game, these places were carefully guarded during all the war time, as they had been before, and yet had not been hunted the whole of the four years owing to the public disturbances: the consequence was that they were full of every kind of animal. But when the war was decided, Lucius Aemilius, thinking that hunting was the best training for body and courage his young soldiers could have, put the royal huntsmen under the charge of Scipio, and gave him entire authority over all matters connected with the hunting. Scipio accepted the duty, and, looking upon himself as in a quasi-royal position, devoted his whole time to this business, as long as the army remained in Macedonia after the battle of Pydna. Having then ample opportunity for following this kind of pursuit, and being in the very prime of his youth and naturally disposed to it, the taste for hunting which he acquired became permanent. Accordingly when he returned to Rome, and found his taste supported by a corresponding enthusiasm on the part of Polybius, the time that other young men spent in law courts and formal visits,[201] haunting the Forum and endeavouring thereby to ingratiate themselves with the people, Scipio devoted to hunting; and, by continually displaying brilliant and memorable acts of prowess, won a greater reputation than others, whose only chance of gaining credit was by inflicting some damage on one of their fellow-citizens,—for that was the usual result of these law proceedings. Scipio, on the other hand, without inflicting annoyance on any one, gained a popular reputation for manly courage, rivalling eloquence by action. The result was that in a short time he obtained a more decided superiority of position over his contemporaries, than any Roman is remembered to have done; although he struck out a path for his ambition which, with a view to Roman customs and ideas, was quite different from that of others.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s subsequent success, therefore, was the natural result of his early conduct, and not the offspring of chance.]
+16.+ I have spoken somewhat at length on the character of Scipio, because I thought that such a story would be agreeable to the older, and useful to the younger among my readers. But especially because I wished to make what I have to tell in my following books appear credible; that no one may feel any difficulty because of the apparent strangeness of what happened to this man; nor deprive him of the credit of achievements which were the natural consequences of his prudence, and attribute them to Fortune and chance. I must now return from this digression to the regular course of my history....
[Sidenote: The Delians having been allowed to leave their island with “all their property,” found many occasions of legal disputes with the Athenians, to whom the island was granted. See 30, 21. They remove to Achaia, and sue the Athenians under the Achaean convention. Roman decision against Athens.]
+17.+ Thearidas and Stephanus conducted a mission from Athens and the Achaeans on the matter of the reprisals. For when the Delians were ordered, in answer to an embassy to Rome after Delos had been granted to Athens, to depart from the island, but to take all their goods with them, they removed to Achaia; and having been enrolled as citizens of the league, wished to have their claims upon the Athenians decided, according to the convention existing between the Achaeans and Athens. But, on the Athenians denying that they had any right to plead under that agreement, the Delians demanded from the Achaeans license to make reprisals on the Athenians. The latter, therefore, sent an embassy to Rome on these points, and were answered that decisions made by the Achaeans according to their laws concerning the Delians were to be binding....
[Sidenote: Piracies of the Dalmatians on the island of Issa, B.C. 158.]
+18.+ The people of Issa having often sent embassies to Rome, complaining that the Dalmatians damaged their territory and the cities subject to them,—meaning thereby Epetium and Tragyrium,—and the Daorsi also bringing similar complaints, the Senate sent a commission under Gaius Fannius to inspect the state of Illyria, with special reference to the Dalmatians. This people had been subject to Pleuratus as long as he was alive; but when he died, and was succeeded on the throne by Genthius, they revolted, overran the bordering territories, and reduced the neighbouring cities, some of which even paid them a tribute of cattle and corn. So Fannius and his colleague started on their mission....
[Sidenote: Death of Lyciscus.]
+19.+ Lyciscus the Aetolian was a factious turbulent agitator, and directly he was killed the Aetolians from that hour lived harmoniously and at peace with each other, simply from the removal of one man. Such decisive influence has character in human affairs, that we find not only armies and cities, but also national leagues and whole divisions of the world, experiencing the greatest miseries and the greatest blessings through the vice or virtue of one man....
Though he was a man of the worst character, Lyciscus ended his life by an honourable death; and accordingly, most people with some reason reproach Fortune for sometimes giving to the worst of men what is the prize of the good—an easy death....
[Sidenote: Death of Charops, B.C. 157.]
[Sidenote: The tyranny of Charops in Epirus after the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168-157.]
[Sidenote: He extorts money from the rich under threat of exile.]
+20.+ There was a great change for the better in Aetolia when the civil war was stopped after the death of Lyciscus; and in Boeotia when Mnasippus of Coronea died; and similarly in Acarnania when Chremas was got out of the way. Greece was as though purified by the removal from life of those accursed pests of the country. For in the same year Charops of Epirus chanced to die at Brundisium. Affairs in Epirus had been still in disorder and confusion as before, owing to the cruelty and tyranny of Charops, ever since the end of the war with Perseus. For Lucius Anicius having condemned some of the leading men in the country to death, and transported all others to Rome against whom there was the slightest suspicion, Charops at once got complete power to do what he chose; and thereupon committed every possible act of cruelty, sometimes personally, at others by the agency of his friends: for he was quite a young man himself, and was quickly joined by a crowd of the worst and most unprincipled persons, who gathered round him for the sake of plunder from other people. But what protected him and inclined people to believe that he was acting on a fixed design, and in accordance with the will of the Romans, was his former intimacy with them, and the support of the old man Myrton and his son Nicanor. These two had the character of being men of moderation and on good terms with the Romans; but though up to that time they had been widely removed from all suspicion of injustice, they now gave themselves up wholly to support and share in the lawless acts of Charops. This man, after murdering some openly in the market-place, others in their own houses, others by sending secret assassins to waylay them in the fields or on the roads, and selling the property of all whom he had thus killed, thought of another device. He put up lists of such men and women as were rich, condemning them to exile; and having held out this threat, he extracted money out of them, making the bargain himself with the men, and by the agency of his mother Philotis with the women; for this lady was well suited to the task, and for any act of violence was even more helpful than could have been expected in a woman.
[Sidenote: The people of Phoenice terrified or cajoled into supporting him.]
[Sidenote: Charops goes to Rome, but is forbidden by the leading nobles to enter their houses,]
[Sidenote: and repudiated by the Senate.]
[Sidenote: He suppresses the reply of the Senate.]
+21.+ When he and his mother had thus got all the money they could out of these persons, they none the less caused all the proscribed to be impeached before the people; and the majority in Phoenice, partly from fear and partly induced by the baits held out by Charops and his friends, condemned all thus impeached, for being ill-disposed to Rome, to death instead of banishment. These men, however, fled while Charops visited Rome, whither he went with money, and accompanied by Myrton and Nicanor, wishing to get a seal of approval put to his wickedness by means of the Senate. On that occasion a very honourable proof was given of Roman principles; and a spectacle was displayed exceedingly gratifying to the Greeks residing in Rome, especially the detenus. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who was Pontifex Maximus and Princeps Senatus, and Lucius Aemilius, the conqueror of Perseus, a man of the highest credit and influence, learning what had been done by Charops in Epirus, refused to admit him into their houses. This becoming much talked about, the foreign residents in Rome were exceedingly rejoiced, and observed with pleasure that the Romans discountenanced evil. And on Charops being afterwards admitted to the Senate-house, the Senate refused to consent to his demands, but answered that “They would give instructions to commissioners to examine into what had taken place.” But when Charops returned home he entirely suppressed this reply; and having written one to suit his own ideas, gave out that the Romans approved of what had been done by him....
[Sidenote: Death and character of Eumenes, B.C. 159.]
[Sidenote: He raised his kingdom to the first rank;]
[Sidenote: was exceedingly bountiful;]
[Sidenote: and was loyally served by four brothers.]
+22.+ King Eumenes was entirely broken in bodily strength, but still maintained his brilliancy of mind. He was a man who in most things was the equal of any king of his time; and in those which were the most important and honourable, was greater and more illustrious than them all. First, he succeeded his father in a kingdom reduced to a very few insignificant cities; and he raised it to the level of the largest dynasties of his day. And it was not chance which contributed to this, or a mere sudden catastrophe, it was his own acuteness, indefatigable industry, and personal labour. Again, he was exceedingly ambitious of establishing a good reputation, and showed it by doing good services to a very large number of cities, and enriching privately a great many men. And in the third place, he had three brothers grown up and active, and he kept all four of them loyal to himself, and acting as guards of his person and preservers of the kingdom: and that is a thing of which there are very rare instances in history....
[Sidenote: Attalus restores Ariarathes.]
On succeeding his brother Eumenes on the throne, Attalus at once gave a specimen of his principles and activity by restoring Ariarathes to his kingdom.[202]...
[Sidenote: Fannius and his colleagues roughly treated by the Dalmatians, B.C. 157.]
[Sidenote: The Senate decide on declaring war with the Dalmatians.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 168-157.]
+23.+ When the envoys under Fannius returned from Illyria, and reported that, so far from the Dalmatians making any restitution to those who asserted that they were being continually wronged by them, they refused even to listen to the commissioners at all, saying that they had nothing to do with the Romans. Besides, they reported that no lodging or entertainment of any sort had been supplied to them; but that the very horses, which they had procured from another city, the Dalmatians had forcibly taken from them; and would have laid violent hands upon themselves, if they had not yielded to necessity and retired as quietly as they could. The Senate listened attentively to the report; they were exceedingly angry at the disobedience and rudeness of the Dalmatians, but their prevailing feeling was that the present time was a suitable one for declaring war against this people for more reasons than one. For, in the first place, the coasts of Illyria towards Italy had been entirely neglected by them ever since they had expelled Demetrius of Pharos; and, in the next place, they did not wish their own citizens to become enervated by a long-continued peace; for it was now the twelfth year since the war with Perseus and the campaigns in Macedonia. They therefore planned that, by declaring war against the Dalmatians, they would at once renew as it were the warlike spirit and enterprise of their own people, and terrify the Illyrians into obedience to their injunctions. Such were the motives of the Romans for going to war with the Dalmatians. But to the world at large they gave out that they had determined on war owing to the insults offered to their legates....
[Sidenote: B.C. 157. Coss. Sext. Julius Caesar, L. Aurelius Orestes.]
+24.+ King Ariarathes arrived in Rome in the course of the summer.[203] And when Sextus Julius Caesar and his colleague had entered on their consulship, the king visited them privately, presenting in his personal appearance a striking picture of the dangers with which he was surrounded.
Ambassadors also arrived from Demetrius, headed by Miltiades, prepared to act in two capacities—to defend the conduct of Demetrius in regard to Ariarathes, and to accuse that king with the utmost bitterness. Orophernes also had sent Timotheus and Diogenes to represent him, conveying a crown for Rome, and charged to renew the friendship and alliance of Cappadocia with the Romans; but, above all, to confront Ariarathes, and both to answer his accusations and bring their own against him. In these private interviews Diogenes and Miltiades and their colleagues made a better show, because they were many to one in the controversy; besides their personal appearance was better than that of Ariarathes, for they were at present on the winning side and he had failed. They had also the advantage of him, in making their statement of the case, that they were entirely unscrupulous, and cared nothing whatever about the truth of their words; and what they said could not be confuted, because there was no one to take the other side. So their lying statements easily prevailed, and they thought everything was going as they wished....
[Sidenote: The evil rule of Orophernes.]
+25.+ After reigning for a short time in Cappadocia in utter contempt of the customs of his country, Orophernes introduced the organised debaucheries of Ionia.[204]...
It has happened to not a few, from the desire for increasing their wealth, to lose their life along with their money. It was from being captivated by such passions that Orophernes, king of Cappadocia, perished and was expelled from his kingdom. But having briefly narrated the restoration of this king (Ariarathes), I will now bring back my narrative to its regular course; for at present I have, to the exclusion of Greek affairs, selected from those of Asia the events connected with Cappadocia out of their proper order, because it was impossible to separate the voyage of Ariarathes from Italy from his restoration to his kingdom.[205] I will therefore now go back to the history of Greece during this period, in which a peculiar and extraordinary affair took place in regard to the city of Oropus, of which I will give the whole story from beginning to end, going both backward and forward in point of time, that I may not render the history of an episode which was made up of separate events, and was not on the whole important, still more insignificant and indistinct by relating it under different years. For when an event as a whole does not appear to readers to be worth attention, I cannot certainly expect a student to follow its details scattered at intervals through my history.[206]...
For the most part when things go well men generally get on together; but in times of failure, in their annoyance at events, they become sore and irritable with their friends. And this is what happened to Orophernes, when his affairs began to take a wrong turn in his relations with Theotimus,—both indulging in mutual recriminations....
[Sidenote: B.C. 156. Coss L. Cornelius Lentulus, C. Marcius Figulus II.]
+26.+ Ambassadors having arrived from Epirus about this time, sent both from those who were in actual possession of Phoenice and from those who been banished from it; and both parties having made their statement in presence of each other, the Senate answered that they would give instructions on this point to the commissioners that were about to be sent into Illyria with Gaius Marcius the Consul.[207]...
[Sidenote: Prusias, king of Bithynia, attacks Attalus of Pergamum.]
[Sidenote: 5, 11.]
[Sidenote: Elaea on the Casius, the port of Pergamum.]
+27.+ After defeating Attalus, and advancing to Pergamum, Prusias prepared a magnificent sacrifice and brought it to the sacred enclosure of Asclepius, and after offering the victims, and having obtained favourable omens, went back into his camp for that day; but on the next he directed his forces against the Nicephorium, and destroyed all the temples and sacred enclosures, and plundered all the statues of men and the marble images of the gods. Finally he carried off the statue of Asclepius also, an admirably executed work of Phyromachus, and transferred it to his own country,—the very image before which the day before he had poured libations and offered sacrifice; desiring, it would seem, that the god might in every way be propitious and favourable to him. I have spoken of such proceedings before, when discoursing on Philip, as sheer insanity. For at one time to offer sacrifice, and endeavour to propitiate heaven by their means, worshipping and uttering the most earnest prayers before holy tables and altars, as Prusias was wont to do, with bendings of the knee and effeminate prostrations, and at the same time to violate these sacred objects and to flout heaven by their destruction,—can we ascribe such conduct to anything but a mind disordered and a spirit lost to sober reason? I am sure this was the case with Prusias: for he led his army off to Elaea, without having performed a single act of manly courage in the course of his attempts on Pergamum, and after treating everything human and divine with petty and effeminate spite. He attempted to take Elaea, and made some assaults upon it; but being unable to effect anything, owing to Sosander, the king’s foster-brother, having thrown himself into the town with an army and repelling his assaults, he marched off towards Thyateira. In the course of his march, he plundered the temple of Artemis in the Holy village; and the sacred enclosure of Apollo Cynneius at Temnus[208] likewise he not only plundered but destroyed by fire. After these achievements he returned home, having waged war against the gods as well as against men. But Prusias’s infantry also suffered severely from famine and dysentery on their return march, so that the wrath of heaven appears to have quickly visited him for these crimes.[209]...
[Sidenote: Attalus sends his brother to Rome.]
[Sidenote: Prusias had sent his son Nicomedes and some ambassadors to represent his case at Rome.]
[Sidenote: The Senate send fresh commissioners to investigate.]
+28.+ After his defeat by Prusias Attalus appointed his brother Athenaeus to accompany Publius Lentulus to Rome to inform the Senate of what had happened. At Rome they had not paid much attention when a previous messenger named Andronicus had come from Attalus, with news of the original invasion; because they suspected that Attalus wished to attack Prusias himself, and was therefore getting up a case against him beforehand, and trying to prejudice him in their eyes by these accusations; and when Nicomedes and some ambassadors from Prusias, headed by Antiphilus, arrived and protested that there was not a word of truth in the statement, the Senate was still more incredulous of what had been said about Prusias. But when after a time the real truth was made known, the Senate still felt uncertain, and sent Lucius Apuleius and Gaius Petronius to investigate what was the state of the case in regard to these two kings.
Book XXXIII
[Sidenote: B.C. 155. The Roman legate Publius Lentulus, and Athenaeus, brother of Attalus, reach Rome and declare the truth.]
+1.+ Before spring this year the Senate, after hearing the report of Publius Lentulus and his colleagues, who had just reached Rome from Asia, in the business of king Prusias, called in Athenaeus also, brother of king Attalus. The matter, however, did not need many words: the Senate promptly appointed Gaius Claudius Cento, Lucius Hortensius, and Gaius Arunculeius, to accompany Athenaeus home, with instructions to prevent Prusias from waging war against Attalus.
[Sidenote: Another embassy in behalf of the Achaean detenus.]
[Sidenote: It fails by the action of the praetor, who, by putting the question simply “yes” or “no” for release, forced the party who were for postponing it to vote “no.”]
Also Xeno of Aegium and Telecles of Tegea arrived as ambassadors from the Achaeans in behalf of the Achaean detenus. After the delivery of their speech, on the question being put to the vote, the Senators only refused the release of the accused persons by a very narrow majority. The man who really prevented the release from being carried was Aulus Postumius, who was praetor, and as such presided in the Senate on that occasion. Three alternatives were proposed—one for an absolute release, another for an absolute refusal, and a third for a postponement of the release for the present. The largest numbers were for the first of these three; but Postumius left out the third, and put the two first to the vote together, release or no release; the result was that those who were originally for the postponement transferred their votes to the party that were against the release, and thus gave a majority against release....
[Sidenote: The Achaeans are encouraged to try again.]
+3.+[210] When the ambassadors returned to Achaia with the news that the restoration of all the detenus had been only lost in the Senate by a narrow majority, the people becoming hopeful and elated sent Telecles of Megalopolis and Anaxidamus on a fresh mission at once. That was the state of things in the Peloponnese....
[Sidenote: Aristocrates proves a failure in the war with Crete.]
+4.+ Aristocrates, the general of the Rhodians, was in appearance a man of mark and striking ability; and the Rhodians, judging from this, believed that they had in him a thoroughly adequate leader and guide in the war.[211] But they were disappointed in their expectations: for when he came to the test of experience, like spurious coin when brought to the furnace, he was shown to be a man of quite a different sort. And this was proved by actual facts....
+5.+ [Demetrius] offered him five hundred talents if he would surrender Cyprus to him, with other similar advantages and honours from himself if he would do him this service....
Archias, therefore, wishing to betray Cyprus to Demetrius, and being caught in the act and led off to stand his trial, hanged himself with one of the ropes of the awnings in the court. For it is a true proverb that led by their desires “the reckonings of the vain are vain.” This man, for instance, imagining that he was going to get five hundred talents, lost what he had already, and his life into the bargain....
[Sidenote: Honesty of the people of Priene (in Caria) in preserving the money deposited by Orophernes.]
+6.+ About this time an unexpected misfortune befell the people of Priene. They had received a deposit of four hundred talents from Orophernes when he got possession of the kingdom; and subsequently when Ariarathes recovered his dominion he demanded the money of them. But they acted like honest men, in my opinion, in declaring that they would deliver it to no one as long as Orophernes was alive, except to the person who deposited it with them; while Ariarathes was thought by many to be committing a breach of equity in demanding a deposit made by another.
However, up to this point, one might perhaps pardon his making the attempt, because he looked upon the money as belonging to his own kingdom; but to push his anger and imperious determination as much farther as he did seems utterly unjustifiable. At the period I refer to, then, he sent troops to pillage the territory of Priene, Attalus assisting and urging him on from the private grudge which he entertained towards the Prienians. After losing many slaves and cattle, some of them being slaughtered close to the city itself, the Prienians, unable to defend themselves, first sent an embassy to the Rhodians, and eventually appealed for protection to Rome....
But he would not listen to the proposal. So it came about that the Prienians, who had great hopes from the possession of so large a sum of money, found themselves entirely disappointed. For they repaid Orophernes his deposit, and, thanks to this same deposit, were unjustly exposed to severe damage at the hands of Ariarathes....
[Sidenote: B.C. 155. The Ligurians harass Marseilles and besiege Antibes and Nice.]
+7.+ This year there came ambassadors also from the people of Marseilles, who had long been suffering from the Ligurians, and at that time were being closely invested by them, while their cities of Antipolis and Nicaea were also subjected to a siege. They, therefore, sent ambassadors to Rome to represent the state of things and beg for help. On their being admitted, the Senate decided to send legates to see personally what was going on, and to endeavour by persuasion to correct the injurious proceedings of the barbarians....
The peaceful mission failed, and the consul Opimius subdued the Oxybii, a Ligurian tribe, in arms, B.C. 154. Livy, Ep. 47.
[Sidenote: B.C. 154. Coss. Q. Opimius, L. Postumius Albinus. Ptolemy Physcon charges his brother with inciting a plot against his life.]
[Sidenote: The Senate refuses to hear the ambassadors of Ptolemy Philometor,]
[Sidenote: and send commissioners to restore Physcon to Cyprus.]
+8.+ At the same time as the Senate despatched Opimius to the war with the Oxybii, Ptolemy the younger arrived at Rome; and being admitted to the Senate brought an accusation against his brother, laying on him the blame of the attack against his life. He showed the scars of his wounds, and speaking with all the bitterness which they seemed to suggest, moved his hearers to pity him; and when Neolaidas and Andromachus also came on behalf of the elder Ptolemy, to answer the charges brought by his brother, the Senate refused even to listen to their pleas, having been entirely prepossessed by the accusations of the younger. They commanded them to leave Rome at once; while they assigned five commissioners to the younger, headed by Gnaeus Merula and Lucius Thermus, with a quinquereme for each commissioner, and ordered them to restore Ptolemy (Physcon) to Cyprus; and at the same time sent a circular to their allies in Greece and Asia, granting permission to them to assist in the restoration of Ptolemy....
[Sidenote: Prusias having refused obedience to the former commission (see supra, ch. 1), a new commission is sent out with peremptory orders.]
+9.+ When the commissioners under Hortensius and Arunculeius returned from Pergamum, and reported Prusias’s disregard of the orders of the Senate; and how by an act of treachery he had besieged them and Attalus in Pergamum,[212] and had given rein to every kind of violence and lawlessness: the Senate, enraged and offended at what had happened, immediately appointed ten commissioners, headed by Lucius Anicius, Gaius Fannius, and Quintus Fabius Maximus, and sent them out with instructions to put an end to the war, and compel Prusias to indemnify Attalus for the injuries received by him during the war....
[Sidenote: The Ligurians prevent the commissioners from landing, and wound Flaminius who had already landed, and drive him to his ship.]
[Sidenote: War ordered with the Oxybii and Deciatae, B.C. 154.]
+10.+ On the complaint of the ambassadors of Marseilles as to their injuries sustained at the hands of the Ligurians, the Senate at once appointed a commission, consisting of Flaminius, Popilius Laenas, and Lucius Pupius, who sailed with the envoys of Marseilles, and landed in the territory of the Oxybii at the town of Aegitna. The Ligurians, hearing that they were come to bid them raise the siege, descended upon them as they lay at anchor, and prevented the rest from disembarking; but finding Flaminius already disembarked and his baggage landed, they began by ordering him to leave the country, and on his refusal they began to plunder his baggage. His slaves and freedmen resisting this, and trying to prevent them, they began to use violence and attacked them with their weapons. When Flaminius came to the rescue of his men they wounded him, and killed two of his servants, and chased the rest down to their ship, so that Flaminius only escaped with his life by cutting away the hawsers and anchors. He was conveyed to Marseilles and his wound attended to with all possible care; but when the Senate was informed of the transaction, it immediately ordered one of the consuls, Quintus Opimius, to lead an army against the Oxybii and Deciatae.[213]
[Sidenote: Opimius orders his soldiers to join at Placentia, and marches into Gaul,]
[Sidenote: takes Aegitna,]
[Sidenote: and defeats the Oxybii and Deciatae.]
[Sidenote: Opimius winters in Gaul, B.C. 154-153.]
+11.+ Having collected his army at Placentia, Quintus Opimius marched over the Apennines and arrived in the territory of the Oxybii; and, pitching his camp on the river Apro, awaited the enemy, being informed that they were mustering their forces and were eager to give him battle. Meanwhile, he advanced to Aegitna, where the ambassadors had been outraged, took the city by assault, and sold its inhabitants as slaves, sending the ringleaders in the outrage to Rome in chains. Having done this, he went to meet the enemy. The Oxybii, convinced that their violence to the ambassadors admitted of no terms being granted them, with all the courage of desperation, and excited to the highest pitch of furious enthusiasm, did not wait to be joined by the Deciatae, but, having collected to the number of about four thousand, rushed to the attack upon their enemy. Quintus was somewhat dismayed at the boldness of their attack, and at the desperate fury of the barbarians; but was encouraged by observing that the enemy were advancing in complete disorder, for he was an experienced soldier and a man of great natural sagacity. He therefore drew out his men, and, after a suitable harangue, advanced at a slow pace towards the enemy. His charge was delivered with great vigour: he quickly repulsed the enemy, killed a great many of them, and forced the rest into headlong flight. Meanwhile, the Deciatae had mustered their forces, and appeared on the ground intending to fight side by side with the Oxybii; but finding themselves too late for the battle, they received the fugitives in their ranks, and after a short time charged the Romans with great fury and enthusiasm; but being worsted in the engagement, they immediately all surrendered themselves and their city at discretion to the Romans. Having thus become masters of these tribes, Opimius delivered over their territory on the spot to the people of Marseilles, and for the future forced the Ligurians to give hostages at certain fixed intervals to the Marsilians. He then deprived the tribes that had fought with them of their arms, and divided his army among the cities there for the winter, and himself took up his winter quarters in the country. Thus the war had a conclusion as rapid as its commencement....
[Sidenote: The commissioners visit Attalus and Prusias early in B.C. 154.]
[Sidenote: Prusias will not yield till too late.]
[Sidenote: The Romans promote a combination against Prusias.]
+12.+ All the previous winter Attalus had been busy collecting a large army, Ariarathes and Mithridates having sent him a force of cavalry and infantry, in accordance with the terms of their alliance with him. While he was still engaged in these preparations the ten commissioners arrived from Rome: who, after meeting and conferring with him at Cadi about the business, started to visit Prusias, to whom on meeting him they explained the orders of the Senate in terms of serious warning. Prusias at once yielded to some of the injunctions, but refused to submit to the greater part. The Romans grew angry, renounced his friendship and alliance, and one and all started to return to Attalus. Thereupon Prusias repented; followed them a certain distance with vehement entreaties; but, failing to gain any concession, left them in a state of great doubt and embarrassment. The Romans, on their return to Attalus, bade him station himself with his army on his own frontier, and not to begin the war himself, but to provide for the security of the towns and villages in his territory: while they divided themselves, one party sailing home with all speed to announce to the Senate the disobedience of Prusias; another departing for Ionia; and a third to the Hellespont and the ports about Byzantium, all with one and the same purpose namely, to detach the inhabitants from friendship and alliance with Prusias, and to persuade them to adhere to Attalus and assist him to the best of their power....
[Sidenote: Summer of B.C. 154. Attalus’s brother Athenaeus harasses the coast of Prusias’s kingdom.]
+13.+ At the same time Athenaeus set sail with eighty decked ships, of which five were quadriremes sent by the Rhodians for the Cretan war, twenty from Cyzicus, twenty-seven Attalus’s own, and the rest contributed by the other allies. Having sailed to the Hellespont, and reached the cities subject to Prusias, he made frequent descents upon the coast, and greatly harassed the country. But when the Senate heard the report of the commissioners who had returned from Prusias, they immediately despatched three new ones, Appius Claudius, Lucius Oppius, and Aulus Postumius: who, on arriving in Asia, put an end to the war by bringing the two kings to make peace, on condition of Prusias at once handing over to Attalus twenty decked ships, and paying him five hundred talents in twenty years, both retaining the territory which they had at the commencement of the war. Farther, that Prusias should make good the damage done to the inhabitants of Methymna, Aegae, Cymae, Heracleia, by a payment of a hundred talents to those towns. The treaty having been drawn out in writing on those terms, Attalus withdrew his army and navy to his own country. Such are the particulars of the events which took place in the quarrel between Attalus and Prusias....
[Sidenote: B. C. 153. Another fruitless embassy from Achaia.]
+14.+ An embassy again coming to Rome from Achaia in behalf of the detenus, the Senate voted to make no change....
[Sidenote: Heracleides brings to Rome Laodice, daughter of Antiochus Epiphanes, and his supposed son Alexander Balas.]
+15.+Heracleides came to Rome in the middle of summer, bringing Laodice and Alexander, and stayed there a long time, employing all the arts of cunning and corruption to win the support of the Senate....
[Sidenote: The quarrel of Rhodes and Crete.]
Astymedes of Rhodes being appointed ambassador and navarch at the same time, came forward immediately and addressed the Senate on the war with Crete. The Senate listened with attention, and immediately appointed Quintus at the head of a commission to put an end to the war....
[Sidenote: The Achaeans decline to help either Rhodes or Crete,]
[Sidenote: although inclined to support Rhodes.]
+16.+ This year the Cretans sent Antiphatas, son of Telamnestus of Gortyn, with envoys to the Achaeans asking for help, and the Rhodians sent Theophanes with a similar mission. The Congress of the Achaeans was that year at Corinth: and on each body of ambassadors pleading their respective causes, the assembled people were more inclined towards the Rhodians, from respect to the reputation of their state, and the general character of their policy and statesmen. When Antiphatas saw this, he wished to come forward to make another speech; and, having obtained permission from the Strategus to do so, he spoke in weightier and more exalted terms than might be expected from a Cretan; for, in fact, the young man was in no way of the ordinary Cretan type, but had shunned the characteristic principles of his countrymen. Accordingly the Achaeans received his plain speaking with favour; and still more for the sake of his father Telamnestus, who had taken a spirited part with them at the head of five hundred Cretans in their war against Nabis. However, none the less for that, after listening to him they were still inclined to aid the Rhodians, until Callicrates of Leontium stood up and said that they ought not to go to war in favour of either, or to send aid to either of the two peoples without the consent of the Romans. This argument decided them in favour of non-intervention....
+17.+ Dispirited with the course things were taking, the Rhodians entered upon some measures and designs which were strange and unreasonable. In fact, they were much in the same state as men suffering from chronic diseases. It frequently happens that such men, when, in spite of following all the rules of medicine and obeying the prescriptions of the doctors, they are unable to make any advance towards improvement, give up all such efforts in despair, and either listen wholly to priests and seers, or try every sort of charm or amulet. So it was with the Rhodians. When their hopes were baffled in every direction, they were reduced to listen to every kind of suggestion, and to magnify and accept every kind of chance. Nor was this unnatural. For when nothing dictated by reason proves successful, and yet some action or another must necessarily be pushed on, there is no alternative but to try something which does not depend on reason. The Rhodians, having come to this dilemma, acted accordingly; and, among other things that were in defiance of reason, reelected as their archon a man of whom they disapproved....
[Sidenote: Demetrius, son of Ariarathes VI.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 152. Visit of the young Attalus, son of the late king Eumenes.]
+18.+ Many different embassies having come to Rome, the Senate admitted Attalus,[214] son of king of the young Eumenes I. For he had arrived at Rome at this time, still quite a young boy, to be introduced to the Senate, and to renew in his person the ancestral friendship and connexion with the Romans. After a kindly reception by the Senate and his father’s friends, and after receiving the answer which he desired, and such honours as suited his time of life, he returned to his native land, meeting with a warm and liberal reception in all the Greek cities through which he passed on his return journey. Demetrius also came at this time, and, after receiving a fairly good reception for a boy, returned home.
[Sidenote: Laodice and Alexander Balas. See ch. 15.]
[Sidenote: The Senate’s decree in favour of Alexander and Laodice.]
Then Heracleides entered the Senate, bringing Laodice and Alexander with him. The youthful Alexander first addressed the Senate, and begged the Romans “to remember their friendship and alliance with his father Antiochus, and if possible to assist him to recover his kingdom; or if they could not do that, at least to give him leave to return home, and not to hinder those who wished to assist him in recovering his ancestral crown.” Heracleides then took up the word, and, after delivering a lengthy encomium on Antiochus, came to the same point, namely, that they ought in justice to grant the young prince and Laodice leave to return and claim their own, as they were the true-born children of Antiochus. Sober-minded people were not all attracted by any of these arguments. They understood the meaning of this theatrical exhibition, and made no secret of their distaste for Heracleides. But the majority had fallen under the spell of Heracleides’s cunning, and were induced to pass the following decree:
“Alexander and Laodice, children of a king, our friend and ally, appeared before the Senate and stated their case; and the Senate gave them authority to return to the kingdom of their forefathers; and help, in accordance with their request, is hereby decreed to them.” Seizing on this pretext, Heracleides immediately began hiring mercenaries, and calling on some men of high position to assist him. He accordingly went to Ephesus and devoted himself to the preparations for his attempt.[215]...
[Sidenote: Demetrius’s intemperance.]
+19.+ Demetrius, who, when residing as a hostage at Rome, had fled and become king in Syria, was a man so much addicted to drunkenness that he spent the greater part of the day in drinking....
+20.+ When once the multitude feel the impulse to violent love or hatred of any one, any pretext is good enough for indulging their feelings....
However, I am afraid I may fall under the common dilemma, “Which is the greater fool, the man who milks a he-goat, or the man who holds a sieve to catch the milk?” For I seem to be doing something of this sort in arguing and writing an essay on what every one acknowledges to be false. It is, then, waste time to speak of such things, unless one cares to write down dreams, or look at dreams with one’s eyes open....