The Histories (Books XXVIII–XXXIX) — Polybius
=============================================
ΠΟΛΥΒΙΟΥ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΙ
Translation/edition: Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (1889)
Language: English
Read in Plato Scroll: https://plato-scroll.com/s/polybius-6/
This file: https://plato-scroll.com/text/polybius-6.txt
Other editions of this work:
  - Greek text: https://plato-scroll.com/text/polybius-6-e.txt
Sources and licences: https://plato-scroll.com/attribution.html
Numbers in [brackets] are the edition's reference loci (Stephanus, Bekker, book.line, page...). Superscript numerals refer to the Notes at the end.


## The Histories (Books XXVIII–XXXIX)


## Book XXVIII

[28.1] When the war between the kings Antiochus and Ptolemy¹ 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 Panium² 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. . . .
[28.2] 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. . . .
[28.3] 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 the³ 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 council⁴ met at Aegium, after delivering a speech of mingled compliments and exhortation, they took ship for Aetolia.
[28.4] 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.
[28.5] 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 self-seeking 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. . . .
[28.6] 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.
[28.7] 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. . . .⁵
[28.8] Perseus sent Pleuratus the Illyrian, an exile living at his court, and Adaeus of Beroea on a mission to king Genthius, 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.⁶ . . .
[28.9] 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. . . .
[28.9] [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.]
[28.10] 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. . . .
[28.11] 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. . . .
[28.11] This manœuvre the Romans used also in mock fights. . . .
[28.11] 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.
[28.12] 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.
[28.13] 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. . . .
[28.14] 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. . . .
[28.15] 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. . . .
[28.16] 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.
[28.17] 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,⁷ 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. . . .
[28.17] 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.
[28.18] 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. . . .
[28.19] 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.⁸ 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. . . .
[28.20] While Antiochus was occupying Egypt,⁹ 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,¹⁰ 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. . . .
[28.21] 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. . . .
[28.22] 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. . . .
[28.23] 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

[29.1] “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.” . . .
[29.2] 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. . . .
[29.3] 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.
[29.4] 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,¹¹ 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.
[29.4] 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.” . . .
[29.5] 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.
[29.6] I have already stated¹² 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.
[29.7] 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.
[29.8] 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.
[29.9] 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. . . .
[29.10] 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. . . .
[29.11] 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. . . .
[29.12] Other historians [have spoken in exaggerated terms]¹³ 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. . . .
[29.13] 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. . . .
[29.13] 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.
[29.14] 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,¹⁴ and who now undertook to lead the party. The second was Fabius Maximus, the eldest of the sons of the consul Aemilius Paulus,¹⁵ 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.¹⁶ . . .
[29.15] The Romans offered a gallant resistance by aid of their strong targets or Ligurian shields. . . .
[29.15] 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.¹⁷ . . .
[29.16] 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.”¹⁸ . . .
[29.16] 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.)
[29.17] 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. . . .
[29.17] 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. . . .
[29.17] 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. . . .
[29.17] 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. . . .
[29.18] 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. . . .
[29.19] 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. . . .
[29.20] 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.” . . .
[29.21] 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. . . .
[29.22] 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. And this 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. . . .
[29.22] 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.
[29.23] 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.
[29.24] 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.”
[29.24] 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.¹⁹ 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. . . .
[29.25] 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. . . .
[29.26] 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. . . .
[29.27] 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.
[29.27] 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

[30.1] 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.
[30.2] 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.
[30.3] 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.
[30.4] 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.
[30.5] 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 pieces²⁰ 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. . . .
[30.6] 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.
[30.7] 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.
[30.7] 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.
[30.7] 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.
[30.8] 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.
[30.9] 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.
[30.9] 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. . . .
[30.10] 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. . . .
[30.10] He admired the situation of the city, and the excellent position of the acropolis for commanding the districts on both sides of the Isthmus. . . .
[30.10] Having been long anxious to see Olympia, he set out thither. . . .
[30.10] 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. . . .
[30.11] 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;²¹ 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. . . .
[30.12] 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. . . .
[30.13] 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 vieing 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. . . .
[30.14] 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.²² . . .
[30.15] 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. . . .
[30.16] 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. . . .
[30.17] 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.²³ . . .
[30.18] 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. . . .
[30.19] 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.
[30.20] 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.”
[30.20] 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. . . .
[30.21] The first object of the Athenian embassy was the restoration of Haliartus;²⁴ 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. . . .
[30.21] 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. . . .
[30.22] 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. . . .
[30.23] 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. . . .
[30.23] 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. . . .
[30.24] 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

[31.1] 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.
[31.1] 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. . . .
[31.2] 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. . . .
[31.3] 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.
[31.3] 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;²⁵ 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.
[31.4] 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.
[31.4] 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.²⁶ . . .
[31.5] 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. . . .
[31.6] 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.
[31.7] 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.²⁷ 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. . . .
[31.8] 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. . . .
[31.9] Tiberius Gracchus, partly by force and partly by persuasion, reduced the Cammani to obedience to Rome. . . .
[31.9] 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. . . .
[31.10] 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. . . .
[31.10] 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. . . .
[31.11] 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. . . .
[31.11] 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.
[31.12] 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.²⁸ 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.²⁹ 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. . . .
[31.13] 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,³⁰ 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. . . .
[31.13] Ariarathes died soon after this embassy, and was succeeded by his son Ariarathes Philopator. B. C. 164. Livy, Ep. 46.
[31.14] 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. . . .
[31.15] 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. . . .
[31.16] 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. . . .
[31.17] 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. . . .³¹
[31.17] 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. . . .
[31.17] Good looks are a better introduction than any letter. . . .
[31.17] 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.)
[31.18] 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 him³²; 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. . . .
[31.18] 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.
[31.19] 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.
[31.19] 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.
[31.20] 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.
[31.20] 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.
[31.21] 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 apophthegms³³:—
“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.”
[31.22] 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.
[31.23] 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. . . .
[31.23] Demetrius expecting the arrival of the commissioner who was to be sent to him. . . .
[31.24] 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.³⁴ 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 slaves³⁵ should fetch more than a farm, and a jar of salt-fish more than a carter. . . .
[31.25] 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. . . .
[31.26] 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.
[31.27] 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. . . .
[31.28] 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 Ptolemy³⁶ 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

[32.1] 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. . . .
[32.2] 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.³⁷ . . .
[32.3] 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. . . .
[32.4] When Menochares arrived in Antioch to visit Demetrius, and informed the king³⁸ 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. . . .
[32.5] 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. . . .
[32.6] 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.³⁹ 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.
[32.7] 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. 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.” . . .
[32.7] 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. . . .
[32.8] 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.
[32.9] 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,⁴⁰ 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.”
[32.10] 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.
[32.11] 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.
[32.12] 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.⁴¹ 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.
[32.13] The next instance was his conduct to the daughters of the Great Scipio, sisters to his adoptive father.⁴² 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.⁴³ 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.⁴⁴ 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.
[32.14] 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;⁴⁵ 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,⁴⁶ 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.
[32.14] 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.
[32.15] 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,⁴⁷ 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.
[32.16] 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. . . .
[32.17] 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. . . .
[32.18] 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. . . .
[32.19] 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. . . .
[32.19] 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. . . .
[32.20] 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.
[32.21] 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. . . .
[32.22] 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. . . .
[32.22] 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.⁴⁸ . . .
[32.23] 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. . . .
[32.24] King Ariarathes arrived in Rome in the course of the summer.⁴⁹ 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.
[32.24] 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. . . .
[32.25] After reigning for a short time in Cappadocia in utter contempt of the customs of his country, Orophernes introduced the organised debaucheries of Ionia.⁵⁰ . . .
[32.25] 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.⁵¹ 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.⁵² . . .
[32.25] 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. . . .
[32.26] Ambassadors having arrived from Epirus about this time, sent both from those who were in actual possession of Phoenice and from those who had 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.⁵³ . . .
[32.27] 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 Temnus⁵⁴ 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.⁵⁵ . . .
[32.28] 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

[33.1] 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.
[33.1] 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. . . .
[33.3] ⁵⁶When 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. . . .
[33.4] 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.⁵⁷ 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. . . .
[33.5] [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. . . .
[33.5] 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. . . .
[33.6] 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. . . .
[33.6] 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. . . .
[33.7] 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. . . .
[33.7] The peaceful mission failed, and the consul Opimius subdued the Oxybii, a Ligurian tribe, in arms, B. C. 154. Livy, Ep. 47.
[33.8] 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. . . .
[33.9] 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,⁵⁸ 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. . . .
[33.10] 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.⁵⁹
[33.11] 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. . . .
[33.12] 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. . . .
[33.13] 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. . . .
[33.14] An embassy again coming to Rome from Achaia in behalf of the detenus, the Senate voted to make no change. . . .
[33.15] 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. . . .
[33.15] 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. . . .
[33.16] 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. . . .
[33.17] 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. . . .
[33.18] Many different embassies having come to Rome, the Senate admitted Attalus,⁶⁰ son of king 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.
[33.18] 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.⁶¹ . . .
[33.19] 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. . . .
[33.20] When once the multitude feel the impulse to violent love or hatred of any one, any pretext is good enough for indulging their feelings. . . .
[33.20] 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. . . .

## Book XXXIV


### Geographical Fragments

[34.1] Polybius devoted one book of his history to a separate treatise on the geography of the continents. Strabo, 9.1.1.
[34.1] In their Greek histories Eudoxus gave a good, but Ephorus the best, account of the foundations, blood connexions, migrations, and founders of states; but I shall now give some information on the position of countries and their distances, which are the subjects most properly belonging to the science of Geography. . . .
[34.2] It is not Homer’s manner to indulge in mere mythological stories founded on no substratum of truth. For there is no surer way of giving an air of verisimilitude to fiction than to mix with it some particles of truth. And this is the case with the tale of the wanderings of Odysseus. . . .
[34.2] For instance, Aeolus, who taught the way of getting through the straits, where there are currents setting both ways, and the passage is rendered difficult by the indraught of the sea, came to be called and regarded as the dispenser and king of the winds; just as Danaus, again, who discovered the storages of water in Argos, and Atreus, who discovered the fact of the sun’s revolution being in the opposite direction to that of the heaven, were called seers and priest-kings. So the priests of the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Magi, being superior to the rest of the world in wisdom, obtained rule and honour in former generations. And on this principle, too, each one of the gods is honoured as the inventor of something useful to man. I do not allow therefore that Aeolus is wholly mythical, nor the wanderings of Odysseus generally. Some mythical elements have been undoubtedly added, as they have in the War of Ilium; but the general account of Sicily given by the poet agrees with that of other historians who have given topographical details of Italy and Sicily. I cannot agree therefore with the remark of Eratosthenes that “we shall discover where Odysseus wandered, when we find the cobbler who sewed up the leather bag of the winds.” See for instance how Homer’s description of Scylla agrees with what really happens at the Scyllaean rock, and the taking of the sword fish:⁶²
“And there she fishes, roaming round the rock,
For dog-fish and for dolphins, or what else
Of huger she may take that swims the sea.”
For the fact is that tunnies swimming in great shoals along the Italian coast, if they are drifted from their course and are prevented from reaching Sicily, fall a prey to the larger fish, such as dolphins, dog-fish, or other marine monsters; and from hunting these the sword-fish (called also xiphiae, or sometimes sea-dogs) are fattened. The same thing happens at a rise of the Nile, and other rivers, as in the case of a fire or a burning forest; the animals crowd together, and, in their effort to escape the fire or the water, fall a prey to stronger animals.
[34.3] Fishing for sword-fish at the Scyllaean rock is carried on in this way. A number of men lie in wait, two each in small two-oared boats, and one man is set to look out for them all. In the boat one man rows, while the other stands on the prow holding a spear. When the look-out man signals the appearance of a sword-fish (for the animal swims with one-third of its body above water), the boat rows up to it, and the man with the spear strikes it at close quarters, and then pulls the spear-shaft away leaving the harpoon in the fish’s body; for it is barbed and loosely fastened to the shaft on purpose, and has a long rope attached to it. They then slacken the rope for the wounded fish, until it is wearied out with its convulsive struggles and attempts to escape, and then they haul it on to land, or, if its size is not too great, into the boat. And if the spear-shaft falls into the sea it is not lost; for being made of two pieces, one oak and the other pine, the oak end as the heavier dips under water, the other end rises above it and is easily got hold of. But sometimes it happens that the man rowing is wounded, right through the boat, by the immense size of the animal’s sword; for it charges like a boar, and hunting the one is very like hunting the other.
[34.3] This would lead us to conjecture that the wandering described by Homer was near Sicily, because he has assigned to Scylla the kind of fishing which is indigenous to the Scyllaean rock; and because what he says of Charybdis correctly describes what does happen in the Straits. But the
“Thrice sends she up the darksome tide,”
instead of twice “a day,” is an error to be ascribed to the copyist or the geographer.⁶³ So also Meninx answers to his description of the Lotophagi.
[34.4] Or if there are some points which do not answer, we must lay the blame on ignorance or poetic licence, which uses real history, picturesque detail, and mythological allusion. The object of history is truth, as when in the catalogue of ships the poet describes the features of the several localities, calling one city “rocky,” another “frontier-placed,” another “with wealth of doves,” or “hard by the sea.” But the object of picturesque detail is vividness, as when he introduces men fighting; and that of mythological allusion is to give pleasure or rouse wonder. But a narrative wholly fictitious creates no illusion and is not Homeric. For all look upon his poetry as a philosophical work; and Eratosthenes is wrong in bidding us not judge his poems with a view to having any serious meaning, or to seek for history in them.
[34.4] It is better, again, to take the line⁶⁴
“Thence for nine days the foul winds drave us on,”
to mean that he made but a short distance—for foul winds do not favour a straight course—than to imagine him to have got into the open ocean as running before favouring winds. The distance from Malea to the Pillars is twenty-two thousand five hundred stades. If we suppose this to have been accomplished at an even speed in the nine days, he would make two thousand five hundred stades a day. Now, who has ever asserted that any one made the voyage from Lycia or Rhodes to Alexandria in four days, a distance of four thousand stades?
[34.4] To those who ask how it was that Odysseus, though he came to Sicily three times, never once went through the straits, I answer that all subsequent sailors avoided that passage also. . . .
[34.5] In treating of the geography of Europe I shall say nothing of the ancient geographers, but shall confine my attention to their modern critics, Dicaearchus, Eratosthenes, who is the most recent writer on geography, and Pytheas, who has misled many readers by professing to have traversed on foot the whole of Britain, the coastline of which island, he says, is more than forty thousand stades. And again by his stories of Thule and the countries in its neighbourhood, “in which,” he says, “there is neither unmixed land or sea or air, but a kind of compound of all three (like the jellyfish or Pulmo Marinus), in which earth and sea and everything else are held in suspense, and which forms a kind of connecting link to the whole, through which one can neither walk nor sail.” This substance, which he says is like the Pulmo Marinus, he saw with his own eyes, the rest he learnt by report. Such is Pytheas’s story, and he adds that, on his return thence, he traversed the whole of the coast of Europe from Gades to the Tanais. But we cannot believe that a private person, who was also a poor man, should have made such immense journeys by land and sea. Even Eratosthenes doubted this part of his story, though he believed what he said about Britain, and Gades, and Iberia. I would much rather believe the Messenian (Euhemerus) than him. The latter is content with saying that he sailed to one country which he calls Panchaia;⁶⁵ while the former asserts that he has actually seen the whole northern coast of Europe up to the very verge of the world, which one would hardly believe of Hermes himself if he said it. Eratosthenes calls Euhemerus a Bergaean,⁶⁶ yet believes Pytheas, though Dicaearchus himself did not.⁶⁷ . . . Eratosthenes and Dicaearchus give mere popular guesses as to distances.
[34.6] For instance, Dicaearchus says that the distance from the Peloponnese to the Pillars is ten thousand stades and still further to the head of the Adriatic; and from the Peloponnesus to the Sicilian straits three thousand; and therefore the remainder, from the Straits to the Pillars, is seven thousand stades. I say nothing about the three thousand stades, whether they are right or wrong; but the seven thousand cannot be made out, whether you measure along the coast or straight across the sea. The coast route is a kind of obtuse angle, contained by two lines resting on the straits and the pillars respectively; so that we have a triangle, of which the apex is Narbo, and the base the straight line representing the course by the open sea; of the two sides of the triangle which contain the obtuse angle, that which extends from the straits to Narbo is more than eleven thousand two hundred stades, the other from Narbo to the Pillars is a little under eight thousand. The longest distance from Europe to Libya across the Tuscan sea is allowed to be not more than three thousand stades, that by the Sardinian sea is somewhat less; but let us call it three thousand stades. Now suppose a perpendicular let down through the gulf of Narbo to the base of the triangle, that is to the straight sea-course, measuring two thousand stades; it requires only a schoolboy’s geometry to prove that the coasting voyage is longer than the direct sea voyage by nearly five hundred stades.⁶⁸ And when the three thousand stades from the Peloponnese to the straits are added, the whole number of the stades even of the straight sea course will be more than double Dicaearchus’s reckoning. And if we measure to the head of the Adriatic we must add still more by his own admission; that is to say, from the Peloponnese to Leucas is seven hundred stades, from Leucas to Corcyra seven hundred, from Corcyra to Ceraunia seven hundred, and from Ceraunia along the Illyrian coast six thousand one hundred and fifty. Strabo quotes this reckoning of the distance from the Peloponnese to the head of the Adriatic to prove that Polybius, on his own showing, is wrong in admitting that this distance (8250 stades) is greater than that from the Peloponnese to the Pillars, which Dicaearchus said was 10,000 stades, and which Polybius showed to be 18,765 stades by the shortest route.
[34.6] In talking such nonsense he might well be regarded as having gone beyond even Antiphanes of Berga, and, in fact, to have left no folly for his successors to commit. . . .
[34.7] From Ithaca to Corcyra is more than nine hundred stades; from Epidamnus to Thessalonica more than two thousand. From Marseilles to the Pillars is more than nine thousand; from the Pyrenees, rather less than eight thousand. . . . The Pagus from source to mouth is eight thousand, not following its windings, but taking a direct line. . . . Eratosthenes is quite ignorant of the geography of Iberia, and sometimes makes statements about it entirely contradictory. He says, for instance, that its western coast as far as Gades is inhabited by Gauls, since the whole western side of Europe, as far south as Gades, is occupied by that people: and then, quite forgetting he has said this, when taking a survey of the whole of Spain, he nowhere mentions the Gauls. . . . The length of Europe is less than that of Libya and Asia put together by the distance between the sunrise in summer and at the point of the equinox; for the source of the Tanais is at the former, and the Pillars are at the western equinox, and between them lies Europe, while Asia occupies the northern semicircle between the Tanais and equinoctial sunrise. . . .
[34.7] Southern Europe is divided into five peninsulas—Iberia; Italy; a third ending in the Capes Malea and Sunium, in which are included Greece and Illyria, and a part of Thrace; a fourth called the Thracian Chersonese, bounded by the strait between Sestos and Abydos; and a fifth along the Cimmerian Bosphorus and the entrance to the Maeotis. . . .
[34.8] In the sea off Lusitania acorn-bearing oaks grow, upon which the tunnies feed and fatten themselves, which may, therefore, well be called sea-hogs, as they feed like hogs on acorns. . . .
[34.8] These acorns are sometimes carried by the tide as far as the coast of Latium, unless they may be thought to be the produce of Sardinia or neighbouring islands. . . .
[34.8] In Lusitania both animals and man are extraordinarily productive, owing to the excellent temperature of the air; the fruits never wither; there is not more than three months in the year in which roses, white violets (or gilly-flowers), and asparagus do not grow; while the fish caught in its sea is far superior to what is found in our waters for quantity, quality, and beauty. There, too, a Sicilian medimnus of barley is sold for a drachma, and one of wheat for nine Alexandrine obols. A metreta of wine costs a drachma, and a good kid or hare an obol, and a lamb from three to four obols; a fat pig weighing a hundred minae costs five drachmae, and a sheep two. A talent of figs is sold for three obols, a calf for five drachmae, a draught-ox for ten. The flesh of wild animals is not thought worth fixing a price upon at all, but the people give it to each other for nothing and as a present.⁶⁹ . . .
[34.9] The Turduli live on the immediate north of the Turdetani. . . .
[34.9] The fertility of their country has had a civilising influence on the Turditani and on their Celtic kinsfolk, and taught them the art of social life. . . .
[34.9] The Pillars are at either side of the straits. . . .
[34.9] There is a fountain in the Heracleum at Gades, the water of which is sweet and is reached by steps. This fountain has a tide which rises and falls exactly in the reverse order of the sea tide. When it is high tide at sea it is low tide in the fountain, and high in the fountain when it is low at sea. The explanation of this is that the wind, which rises from the bowels of the earth to the surface, is prevented from finding its natural egress when the earth is covered with water at the rise of the tide, and being thus turned back into the interior of the earth, it stops up the underground channels of the fountain and produces a deficiency of water; but when the earth is again uncovered, the wind having once more found an easy egress, sets the veins of the fountain free again, and the water spurts up freely. . . .
[34.9] There are very large silver mines about twenty stades from New Carthage, extending to a circuit of four hundred stades, in which forty thousand men are continually employed, who produce for the benefit of the Roman people twenty-five thousand drachmae a day. It would take too long to describe the whole process of working them, but I may mention that the alluvial soil containing the silver ore is first broken up, and sifted in sieves held in water; that then the deposit is again broken, and being again filtered with running water, is broken a third time. This is done five times; the fifth deposit is smelted, and, the lead having been run off, pure silver remains. . . .
[34.9] The Anas and Baetis both flow from Celtiberia, their streams being about nine hundred stades apart. . . .
[34.9] Among other cities of the Vaccaei and Celtiberians are Segesama and Intercatia. . . .
[34.9] One of the Iberian kings had such a magnificent and richly furnished palace, that he rivalled the luxury of the Phaeacians, except that the vessels standing in the interior of the house, though made of gold and silver, were full of barley-wine. . . .
[34.10] From the Pyrenees to the river Narbo the country is flat; and through it flow the Illeberis and Ruscinus, past some cities of the same name inhabited by Celts. In this plain there are found what are called underground fish. The soil is light, and produces a quantity of grass called agrostis; and below this soil the earth is sandy for a depth of two or three cubits, through which the overflow of the river percolates; and with this water, as it makes its way, the fish also get below the soil to feed, for they are exceedingly fond of the root of the agrostis, and have thus made the whole plain full of subterranean fish, which people dig up and take. . . .
[34.10] The Rhone has not five, but two mouths. . . .
[34.10] The Liger discharges itself between the Pictŏnes and Namnitae. There was in ancient times an emporium on this river called Corbilo, but none of its inhabitants, nor those of Massalia or Narbo, could give Scipio⁷⁰ any information worth mentioning on the subject of Britain when questioned by him, though they were the most important cities in that part of the country; and yet Pytheas has ventured on all those stories about it. . . .
[34.10] An animal is produced on the Alps of a peculiar form; its shape is that of a stag except its neck and coat, which resemble that of a he-goat. Beneath its chin it has an excrescence about a span long, hairy at the end, about as thick as a colt’s tail. . . .
[34.10] Near Aquileia, in the territory of the Noric Taurisci, in my own time a gold mine was discovered, so easy to work, that by scraping away the surface soil for two feet, gold could be found immediately. The seam of gold was not more than fifteen feet; some of it was found unmixed with alloy in nuggets of the size of a bean or lupine, only an eighth of it disappearing in the furnace; and some wanted more elaborate smelting, but would still pay thoroughly well. Accordingly, on the Italians joining the barbarians in working this mine, in two months the price of gold went down a third throughout Italy: and when the Taurisci found out that, they expelled their Italian fellow-workers and kept the monopoly themselves. . . .
[34.10] If we compare the mountains in Greece—Taygetus, Lycaeus, Parnassus, Olympus, Pelion, Ossa, and those in Thrace—Haemus, Rhodope, Dunax, with the Alps, we may state the case thus. Each one of the former may be ascended or skirted by an active traveller in a single day; but no one could ascend the Alps even in five days, the distance from the plain being two thousand two hundred stades. There are but four passes, one through Liguria, nearest the Tyrrhenian Sea; the next through the Taurini, which was the one used by Hannibal; the third through the Salassi; and the last by the Rhaeti,⁷¹ all of them excessively precipitous. There are several lakes in the mountains, three of great size, the Benacus, five hundred by one hundred and thirty stades, out of which the Mincius flows; the Larius, four hundred stades long, and somewhat narrower than the Benacus, discharging the Addua; and thirdly, the Verbanus, about three hundred stades by thirty, from which comes a considerable river—the Ticinus. All these three rivers discharge themselves into the Padus. . . .
[34.11] There is an excellent wine made at Capua called Anadendrites, or the “wine of the climbing vine,” with which no other can compare. . . .
[34.11] The length of the coast from Iapygia to the straits is three thousand stades by land, and it is washed by the Sicilian sea. Sailing, however, the distance is less than five hundred stades. . . .
[34.11] The largest distance of the Etrurian coast is from Luna to Ostia, a distance of one thousand three hundred and thirty stades.⁷² . . .
[34.11] The island Lemnos is called Aethaleia. . . .
[34.11] The bay between the two promontories of Misenum and Minerva is called the Crater (the Bowl). Above this coast lies the whole of Campania, the most fertile plain in the country. Round the Bowl live the Opici and the Ausones. . . .
[34.11] The north road from Iapygia has been marked out with miles, five hundred and sixty to Sena, and one hundred and seventy thence to Aquileia. . . .
[34.11] Then comes Lacinium . . . from the straits to this place is a distance of one thousand three hundred stades, and thence to the Iapygian promontory seven hundred. . . .
[34.11] Of the three craters one has partly fallen in, the other two remain perfect. The largest has a circular orifice with a circumference of five stades, but it gradually contracts to a diameter of fifty feet; it runs right down to the sea for a stade, so that the sea is visible in clear weather. When a south wind is about to blow, a thick mist envelopes the little island, so that even Sicily is invisible from it: but if there is going to be a north wind, bright flames rise from the crater and shoot up high, and louder rumblings are emitted; but a west wind causes a medium display of both. The other two craters are of the same shape, but their eruptions are less violent. From the difference in the sound of the rumbling, and by observing from what point the eruptions and flames and smoke begin, the wind which is to blow on the third day from that time can be foretold. At least, some men in the Lipari Islands when weather-bound have foretold what wind was coming and have not been deceived. Therefore, it appears that Homer did not speak without meaning, but was stating a truth allegorically when he called Aeolus⁷³ “steward of the winds.” . . .
[34.12] The road from Apollonia to Macedonia is called the Via Egnatia, which has been measured in miles and marked out with milestones as far as Cypselus and the River Hebrus, a distance of five hundred and thirty-five miles. Reckoning eight and one-third stades to a mile, the number of stades will be four thousand four hundred and fifty-eight.⁷⁴ The distance is exactly the same whether you start from Apollonia or Epidamnus. The whole road is called the Egnatia, but its first part has got a name from Candavia, a mountain of Illyria, and leads through the town of Lycnidus, and through Pylon, which is the point on the road where Illyria and Macedonia join. Thence it leads over Mount Barnūs, through Heracleia, Lyncestia, and Eordea, to Edessa and Pella, and finally to Thessalonica; and the number of miles is altogether two hundred and sixty-seven. . . . And the whole distance from the Ionian Gulf at Apollonia to Byzantium is seven thousand five hundred stades. . . .
[34.12] The circumference of the Peloponnesus, if you do not follow the indentations, is four thousand stades. . . .
[34.12] The distance from Cape Malea to the Ister is ten thousand stades.⁷⁵ . . .
[34.13] On matters concerning the country between the Euphrates and India, Eratosthenes is a better authority than Artemidorus. . . .
[34.14] A personal visit to Alexandria filled me with disgust at the state of the city. It is inhabited by three distinct races,—native Egyptians, an acute and civilised race; secondly, mercenary soldiers (for the custom of hiring and supporting men-at-arms is an ancient one), who have learnt to rule rather than obey owing to the feeble character of the kings; and a third class, consisting of native Alexandrians, who have never from the same cause become properly accustomed to civil life, but who are yet better than the second class; for though they are now a mongrel race, yet they were originally Greek, and have retained some recollection of Greek principles. But this last class has become almost extinct, thanks to Euergetes Physcon, in whose reign I visited Alexandria; for that king being troubled with seditions, frequently exposed the common people to the fury of the soldiery and caused their destruction. So that in this state of the city the poet’s words only expressed the truth—⁷⁶
“To Egypt ’tis a long and toilsome road.”

## Book XXXV

[35.1] Spain, the eastern and southern parts of which were, since the 2d Punic war, governed by the Romans under a kind of military occupation without being reduced to the form of regular provinces, was always in a disturbed state, partly from sudden uprisings of various tribes against the Roman authority, and partly from numerous bodies of banditti, who seized strongholds or fortified towns and carried on their depredations from these centres. Hence it had been the policy of the Roman praetors and consuls to insist on the demolition of fortresses and city walls, as we learn from the accounts of Cato in B.C. 195 and others. In B.C. 177 Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus had inflicted a severe defeat upon the Celtiberians, and had made a settlement of the country, which for a few years produced comparative quiet and content. But in B.C. 154 an outbreak of the Lusitani led to a considerable disaster to the Roman army under Lucius Mummius; and when the consul Q. Fulvius Nobilior arrived in B.C. 153, he found that the war had accordingly spread to the Celtiberian tribes, the Belli and Titthi, who attempted to build the walls of Segeda. On Nobilior ordering them to desist, in accordance with Gracchan settlement, most of them obeyed after some resistance, but some of them fled to the Arevacae (near the sources of the Douro and Tagus); and this powerful tribe, after defeating the Roman army, entrenched themselves in Numantia, under the walls of which Nobilior sustained further losses. He was superseded in B.C. 152 by Marcus Claudius Marcellus, who, partly by strategy, and partly by administrative skill and conciliation, restored the Roman fortunes to a better position. The Belli and Titthi became allies of Rome, and the Arevacae at least thought it worth while to ask for a truce to enable them to send envoys to Rome to arrange peace.—Appian, Hispan. 44-50.
[35.1] The war between the Romans and Celtiberians was called the “fiery war;” for it was of a peculiarly fierce kind and remarkable for the frequency of its battles. The wars in Greece and Asia were as a rule settled by one battle, or in rare cases by two; and the battles themselves were decided by the result of the first charge and shock of the two armies. But in this war things were quite different. As a rule the battles were only stopped by the fall of night; the men neither lost heart nor would yield to bodily fatigue; but returned again and again with fresh resolution to renew the combat. The whole war, and its series of pitched battles, was at length interrupted for a time by the winter. One therefore could hardly conceive a war more nearly answering to our notion of a “fiery war” than this. . . .
[35.2] The Celtiberians, after making a truce with the consul M. Claudius Marcellus, had sent ambassadors to Rome who remained there quietly waiting for the answer of the Senate. Meanwhile M. Claudius went on an expedition against the Lusitani, took Nercobrica by assault, and then went into winter quarters at Corduba. Of the ambassadors who came to Rome the Senate admitted those from the Belli and Titthi, who were on the side of Rome, to enter the city; but ordered those from the Arevacae to lodge on the other side of the Tiber, as being at war with Rome, until such time as the Senate should have decided the whole question. When the time for the interview was come,⁷⁷ the praetor introduced the envoys from their allies first. Barbarians as they were, they made a set speech, and endeavoured to explain clearly the causes of all the dissension prevailing in their country: pointing out that “Unless those who had broken out into war were reduced to tranquillity and punished as they deserved, the very moment the Roman legions left Iberia, they would inflict punishment upon the Belli and Titthi as traitors; and that if they escaped unpunished for their first act of hostility, they would make all the tribes in Iberia ripe for an outbreak from the belief that they were capable of coping with Rome. They begged, therefore, that the legions should remain in Iberia, and that each year a consul should come thither⁷⁸ to protect the allies of Rome and punish the depredations of the Arevacae; or, if they wished to withdraw the legions, they should first take signal vengeance for the outbreak of this tribe, that no one might venture to do the like again.” Such, or to this effect, was the speech of the envoys of the Belli and Titthi who were in alliance with Rome. The envoys of the hostile tribe were then introduced. On coming forward the Arevacae assumed a feigned tone of submission and humility in the language of their answer, without being, as was evident, at all yielding in their hearts or acknowledging themselves beaten. On the contrary, they continually hinted at the uncertainty of fortune; and speaking of the battles that had taken place as undecided, they conveyed the impression that they had had the best of the contest in them all. The upshot of their speech was this: “If they must submit to some definite mulct for their error, they were ready to do so: but, when that was completed, they demanded that things should revert to the position fixed by their treaty made with the Senate in the time of Tiberius Gracchus.”
[35.3] The Senators having thus heard both sides called in the legates from Marcellus; and when they saw that they also were inclined to a pacification, and that Marcellus was more inclined to favour the enemy than the allied tribes, they answered the Arevacae that Marcellus would declare in Iberia to both parties the decision of the Senate. However, they were convinced in their own minds that their true interests were such as the envoys of the allied tribes suggested, and that the Arevacae were still inclined to haughty independence, and that their own commander was afraid of them: they therefore gave secret instructions to the legates of Marcellus to carry on the war with spirit, and as the honour of the country demanded. But when they had thus determined on a continuance of the war, feeling no confidence in Marcellus, they determined first of all to send a commander to relieve him in Iberia, as the new consuls Aulus Postumius and Lucius Licinius Lucullus had just taken up their office. They then entered with spirit and vigour on their preparations, because they believed that the Iberian question would be decided by the result of this campaign: if these enemies were beaten, they assumed that all others would accept the orders of Rome; but that, if the Arevacae proved able to ward off the punishment that threatened them, not only would their spirits be again raised, but those of all the other Iberian tribes besides.
[35.4] The more determined however the Senate was to carry on the war, the greater became their embarrassment. For the report brought to Rome by Q. Fulvius Nobilior, the commander in Iberia in the previous year (B. C. 153), and those who had served under him, of the perpetual recurrence of the pitched battles, the number of the fallen, and the valour of the Celtiberians, combined with the notorious fact that Marcellus shrank in terror from the war, caused such a panic in the minds of the new levies as the old men declared had never happened before. To such an extent did the panic go, that sufficient men were not found to come forward for the office of military tribune, and these posts were consequently not entirely filled up; whereas heretofore a larger number than were wanted had been wont to volunteer for the duty: nor would the men nominated by the Consuls as legati to accompany the commanders consent to serve; and, worst of all, the young men tried to avoid the levies, and put forward such excuses as were disgraceful for them to allege, and beneath the investigation of the Consuls, and yet impossible to refute. But at length, in this embarrassment of the Senate and magistrates, when they were wondering what was to be the end of this shameless conduct of the young men, for they could call it nothing else, Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, who, though still a young man, had been one of those to advise the war, and who, though he had already acquired a reputation for high principle and pure morality, had not been known for his personal courage, seeing the Senate was in a difficulty, stood up and bade them send him to Iberia, either as military tribune or legatus, for he was ready to serve in either capacity. “Though, as far as I am concerned,” he said, “my mission to Macedonia would be safer and more appropriate”—for it happened that at that time Scipio was personally and by name invited by the Macedonians to come and settle the disputes which were raging among them—“yet the needs of my own country are the more pressing of the two, and imperatively summon to Iberia all who have a genuine love of honour.” This offer was unexpected by all, both from the youth of Scipio and his general character for caution, and consequently he became exceedingly popular on the spot, and still more so on subsequent days. For those who had before shrunk from the danger of the service, now, from dislike of the sorry figure they made in comparison with him, began volunteering to serve. Some offered to go as legati to the generals, and others in groups and clubs entered their names on the muster rolls. . . .
[35.4] Lucius Lucinius Lucullus, consul for B. C. 151, is sent to Spain, Scipio Aemilianus acting as his legatus. They found that the Arevacae had already submitted to Marcellus; but being in want of money Lucullus was determined not to be deprived of a campaign. He therefore attacked the next tribe, the Vaccaei, who lived on the other side of the Tagus, nominally on the pretext of their having injured the Carpetani. The war which followed was marked by signal acts of cruelty and treachery on the part of Lucullus, as on that of the praetor Servius Sulpicius Galba among the Lusitani. Appian, Hisp. 49-55.
[35.5] In Scipio’s mind there rose a contest of feelings, and a hesitation as to whether he ought to meet the barbarian and fight him in single combat.⁷⁹ . . .
[35.5] Scipio’s horse was much distressed by the blow, but did not come down entirely, and accordingly Scipio managed to light on his feet. . . .
[35.6] Cato was consulted by Scipio, at the request of Polybius, on behalf of the Achaeans; and when the debate in the Senate, between the party who wished to grant it and the party that opposed it, was protracted to a considerable length, Cato stood up and said: “As though we had nothing else to do, we sit here the whole day debating whether some old Greek dotards should be buried by Italian or Achaean undertakers!” Their restoration being voted, Polybius and his friends, after a few days’ interval, were for appearing before the Senate again, with a petition that the exiles should enjoy the same honours in Achaia as they had before. Cato, however, remarked with a smile that Polybius, like another Odysseus, wanted to go a second time into the cave of the Cyclops, because he had forgotten his cap and belt. . . .

## Book XXXVI


### The Third Punic War

[36.1] It may occur to some to ask why I have not given a dramatic turn to my narrative, now that I have so striking a theme and a subject of such importance, by recording the actual speeches delivered; a thing which the majority of historians have done, by giving the appropriate arguments used on either side. That I do not reject this method altogether I have shown in several parts of my work, in which I have recorded popular harangues and expositions delivered by statesmen; but that I am not inclined to employ it on every occasion alike will now be made clear; for it would not be easy to find a subject more remarkable than this, nor material more ample for instituting a comparison of such a character. Nor indeed could any form of composition be more convenient to me. Still, as I do not think it becoming in statesmen to be ready with argument and exposition on every subject of debate without distinction, but rather to adapt their speeches to the nature of the particular occasion, so neither do I think it right for historians to practise their skill or show off their ability upon their readers: they ought on the contrary to devote their whole energies to discover and record what was really and truly said, and even of such words only those that are the most opportune and essential. . . .
[36.2] This idea having been firmly fixed in the minds of all, they looked out for a suitable opportunity and a decent pretext to justify them in the eyes of the world. For indeed the Romans were quite rightly very careful on this point. For instance, the general impression that they were justified in entering upon the war with Demetrius enhances the value of their victories, and diminishes the risks incurred by their defeats; but if the pretext for doing so is lame and poor the contrary effects are produced. Accordingly, as they differed as to the sentiments of the outer world on the subject, they were very nearly abandoning the war. . .
[36.2] The policy of Rome in Africa of constantly supporting Massanissa against Carthage was mentioned in 32, 2. Frequent complaints came to Rome from the Numidian king, and the Carthaginians were said to be collecting an army contrary to treaty. Commissioners were sent over in 154 B. C. on the advice of Cato, who were roughly treated at Carthage; and when, in B. C. 151, Massanissa sent his son Gulussa with similar complaints to Rome, Cato urged immediate war. The Senate, however, again sent commissioners, among whom was Cato himself, to examine into the matter. They reported that the Carthaginians had an army and navy. An ultimatum was therefore sent, that the army and navy were to be broken up within the year, or that the next consuls should bring the question of war before the Senate (B. C. 150). Just at this crisis Utica, in enmity with Carthage, placed itself under the protection of Rome. Livy, Ep. 48; Appian, Pun. 75.
[36.3] When the Carthaginians had been some time deliberating how they should meet the message from Rome they were reduced to a state of the utmost embarrassment by the people of Utica anticipating their design by putting themselves under the protection of Rome. This seemed their only hope of safety left: and they imagined that such a step must win them favour at Rome: for to submit to put themselves and their country under control was a thing which they had never done even in their darkest hour of danger and defeat, with the enemy at their very walls. And now they had lost all the fruit of this resolve by being anticipated by the people of Utica; for it would appear nothing novel or strange to the Romans if they only did the same as that people. Accordingly, with a choice of two evils only left, to accept war with courage or to surrender their independence, after a long and anxious discussion held secretly in the Senate-house, they appointed two ambassadors with plenary powers, and instructed them, that, in view of the existing state of things, they should do what seemed for the advantage of their country. The names of these envoys were Gisco Strytanus, Hamilcar, Misdes, Gillimas, and Mago. When they reached Rome from Carthage, they found war already decreed and the generals actually started with their forces. Circumstances, therefore, no longer giving them any power of deliberating, they offered an unconditional surrender.
[36.4] I have spoken before about what this implies, but I must in this place also briefly remind my readers of its import. Those who thus surrender themselves to the Roman authority, surrender all territory and the cities in it, together with all men and women in all such territory or cities, likewise rivers, harbours, temples, and tombs, so that the Romans should become actual lords of all these, and those who surrender should remain lords of nothing whatever. On the Carthaginians making a surrender to this effect, they were summoned into the Senate-house and the Praetor delivered the Senate’s decision, which was to this effect: “They had been well advised, and therefore the Senate granted them freedom and the enjoyment of their laws; and moreover, all their territory and the possession of their other property, public or private.” The Carthaginian envoys were much relieved when they heard this; thinking that, where the alternatives were both miserable, the Senate had treated them well in conceding their most necessary and important requirements. But presently the Praetor went on to state that they would enjoy these concessions on condition of sending three hundred hostages to Lilybaeum within thirty days, sons of members of the Hundred⁸⁰ or the Senate, and obeying such commands as should be imposed on them by the consuls. This dashed their satisfaction for a time, because they had no means of knowing what orders were to be given them through the consuls; however, they started at once, being anxious to report what had occurred to their countrymen with all speed. When they arrived in Carthage and stated the facts, the citizens considered that the envoys had in all respects acted with proper caution; but they were greatly alarmed and distressed by the fact that in the answer no mention was made of the city itself.
[36.5] At this juncture they say that Mago Brettius delivered a manly and statesmanlike speech. He said: “The Carthaginians had two opportunities of taking counsel in regard to themselves and their country, one of which they had let pass; for in good truth it was no use now to question what was going to be enjoined on them by the consuls, and why it was that the Senate had made no mention of the city: they should have done that when they made the surrender. Having once made that, they must clearly make up their mind to the necessity of submitting to every possible injunction, unless it should prove to be something unbearably oppressive or beyond what they could possibly expect. If they would not do this, they must now consider whether they preferred to stand an invasion and all its possible consequences, or, in terror of the attack of the enemy, accept without resistance every order they might impose upon them.” But as the imminence of war and the uncertainty of the future made every one inclined to submit to these injunctions, it was decided to send the hostages to Lilybaeum. Three hundred young men were forthwith selected and sent to Lilybaeum amidst loud expressions of sorrow and tears, each of them being escorted by his nearest friends and relations, the whole scene being made especially moving by the lamentations of the women. On landing at Lilybaeum the hostages were at once handed over by the consuls to Quintus Fabius Maximus, who had been appointed to the command in Sicily at that time. By him they were safely conveyed to Rome and confined in the dockyard of the six-benched ships.
[36.6] The hostages being thus disposed of, the consuls brought their fleet to the citadel of Utica. When news of this reached Carthage, the city was in the utmost excitement and panic, not knowing what to expect next. However, it was decided to send envoys to ask the consuls what they were to do, and to state that they were all prepared to obey orders. The envoys arrived at the Roman camp: the general’s council was summoned: and they delivered their commission. The senior Consul thereupon, after complimenting them on their policy and readiness to obey, bade them hand over all arms and missiles in their possession without subterfuge or concealment. The envoys answered that they would carry out the directions, but begged the Consul to consider what would happen if the Carthaginians surrendered all their arms, and the Romans took them and sailed away from the country. However, they gave them up. . . .
[36.6] It was clearly shown that the resources of the city were enormous, for they surrendered to the Romans more than two hundred thousand stands of arms and two thousand catapults. . . .
[36.6] This was followed by a second injunction of the consuls that the whole people of Carthage should remove to some other spot, to be not less than ten miles from the sea, and there build a new city. Livy, Ep. 49.
[36.7] The people had no idea what the announcement was going to be, but suspecting it from the expression of the envoys’ countenances, they immediately burst into a storm of cries and lamentations. . . .
[36.7] Then all the Senators,⁸¹ uttering a cry of horror, remained as though paralysed by the shock. But the report having quickly spread among the people, the general indignation at once found expression. Some made an attack on the envoys, as the guilty authors of their misfortunes, while others wreaked their wrath upon all Italians caught within the city, and others rushed to the town gates. . . .
[36.7] The Carthaginians determine to resist, and the consuls, who had not hurried themselves, because they believed that resistance from an unarmed populace was impossible, found, when they approached Carthage, that it was prepared to offer a vigorous resistance. The scene which followed the announcement of the Consul’s orders, and the incidents of the siege, are chiefly known to us from Appian, Pun. 91 sq. Livy, Ep. 49. Scipio was serving as military Tribune, B. C. 149-148; consul, B. C. 147.
[36.8] Hamilcar Phameas⁸² was the general of the Carthaginians, a man in the very prime of life and of great physical strength. What is of the utmost importance too for service in the field, he was an excellent and bold horseman. . . .
[36.8] When he saw the advanced guard, Phameas, though not at all deficient in courage, avoided coming to close quarters with Scipio: and on one occasion when he had come near his reserves, he got behind the cover of the brow of a hill and halted there a considerable time. . . .
[36.8] The Roman maniples fled to the top of a hill; and when all had given their opinions, Scipio said, “When men are consulting what measures to take at first, their object should be to avoid disaster rather than to inflict it.”⁸³ . . .
[36.8] It ought not to excite surprise that I am more minute than usual in my account of Scipio and that I give in detail everything which he said. . . .
[36.8] When Marcius Porcius Cato heard in Rome of the glorious achievements of Scipio he uttered a palinode to his criticisms of him: “What have you heard? He alone has the breath of wisdom in him: the rest are but flitting phantoms.”⁸⁴

## Book XXXVII

[37.1] There was a great deal of talk of all sorts in Greece, first as to the Carthaginians when the Romans conquered them, and subsequently as to the question of the pseudo-Philip. The opinions expressed in regard to the Carthaginians were widely divided, and indicated entirely opposite views. Some commended the Romans for their wise and statesmanlike policy in regard to that kingdom. For the removal of a perpetual menace, and the utter destruction of a city which had disputed the supremacy with them, and could even then if it got an opportunity have still been disputing it,—thus securing the supremacy for their own country,—were the actions of sensible and far-sighted men. Others contradicted this, and asserted that the Romans had no such policy in view when they obtained their supremacy; and that they had gradually and insensibly become perverted to the same ambition for power, which had once characterised the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; and though they had advanced more slowly than these last, that they would from all appearances yet arrive at the same consummation. For in old times they had only carried on war until their opponents were beaten, and induced to acknowledge the obligation of obedience and acceptance of their orders; but that nowadays they had given a foretaste of their policy by their conduct to Perseus, in utterly destroying the Macedonian dynasty root and branch, and had given the finishing stroke to that policy by the course adopted in regard to the Carthaginians; for though this latter people had committed no act of irretrievable outrage, they had taken measures of irretrievable severity against them, in spite of their offering to accept any terms, and submitting to any injunctions that might be placed upon them. Others again said that the Romans were generally a truly civilised people; and that they had this peculiarity, on which they prided themselves, that they conducted their wars openly and generously, not employing night surprises or ambuscades, but scorning every advantage to be gained by stratagem and deceit, and regarding open and face-to-face combats as alone becoming to their character: but that in the present instance their whole campaign against the Carthaginians had been conducted by means of stratagem and deceit. Little by little,—by holding out inducements here, and practising concealment there,—they had deprived them of all hopes of assistance from their allies. This was a line of conduct more appropriate by rights to the intriguing chicanery of a monarchy, than to a republican and Roman policy. Again, there were some who took the opposite line to these. They said that if it were really true that, before the Carthaginians had made the surrender, the Romans had behaved as alleged, holding out inducements here, and making half revelations there, they would be justly liable to such charges; but if, on the contrary, it was only after the Carthaginians had themselves made the surrender,—acknowledging the right of the Romans to take what measures they chose concerning them,—that the latter in the exercise of their undoubted right had imposed and enjoined what they determined upon, then this action must cease to be looked on as partaking of the nature of impiety or treachery. And some denied that it was an impiety at all: for there were three ways in which such a thing could be defined, none of which applied to the conduct of the Romans. An impiety was something done against the gods, or one’s parents, or the dead; treachery was something done in violation of oaths or written agreements; an injustice something done in violation of law and custom. But the Romans could not be charged on any one of these counts: they had offended neither the gods, their parents, nor the dead; nor had they broken oaths or treaties, but on the contrary charged the Carthaginians with breaking them. Nor again had they violated laws, customs, or their own good faith; for having received a voluntary surrender, with the full power of doing what they pleased in the event of the submitting party not obeying their injunctions, they had, in view of that eventuality having arisen, applied force to them.
[37.2] Such were the criticisms commonly made on the dealings of the Romans with the Carthaginians. But as to the Pseudo-Philip, the report at first appeared quite beneath consideration. A Philip suddenly appears in Macedonia, as though he had dropped from the skies, in contempt of Macedonians and Romans alike, without having the least reasonable pretext for his claim, as every one knew that the real Philip had died in Alba in Italy two years after Perseus himself. But when, three or four months afterwards, a report arrived that he had conquered the Macedonians in a battle in the territory of the Odomanti beyond the Strymon, some believed it, but the majority were still incredulous. But presently, when news came that he had conquered the Macedonians in a battle on this side of the Strymon, and was master of all Macedonia; and when letters and envoys came from the Thessalians to the Achaeans imploring help, as though the danger were now affecting Thessaly, it seemed an astonishing and inexplicable event; for there was nothing to give it the air of probability, or to supply a rational explanation of it.
[37.2] Such was the view taken of these things in Greece. . . .
[37.3] A despatch from Manius Manilius to the Achaeans having reached the Peloponnese, saying that they would oblige him by sending Polybius of Megalopolis with all speed to Lilybaeum, as he was wanted on account of certain public affairs, the Achaeans decided to send him in accordance with the letter of the consul. And as I felt bound to obey the Romans, I put everything else aside, and sailed at the beginning of summer. But when we arrived at Corcyra, we found another despatch from the consul to the Corcyreans had come, announcing that the Carthaginians had already surrendered all the hostages to them, and were prepared to obey them.⁸⁵ Thinking, therefore, that the war was at an end, and that there was no more occasion for our services, we sailed back to the Peloponnese. . . .
[37.4] It should not excite surprise that I sometimes designate myself by my proper name, and at other times by the common forms of expression—for instance, “when I had said this,” or “we had agreed to this.” For as I was much personally involved in the transactions about to be related, it becomes necessary to vary the methods of indicating myself; that I may not weary by continual repetition of my own name, nor again by introducing the words “of me,” or “through me,” at every turn, fall insensibly into an appearance of egotism. I wished, on the contrary, by an interchangeable use of these terms, and by selecting from time to time the one which seemed most in place, to avoid, as far as could be, the offensiveness of talk about one’s self; for such talk, though naturally unacceptable, is frequently inevitable, when one cannot in any other way give a clear exposition of the subjects. I am somewhat assisted in this point by the accident that, as far as I know, no one up to our own time has ever had the same name as myself.⁸⁶ . . .
[37.5] The statues of Callicrates⁸⁷ were carried in under the cover of darkness, while those of Lycortas were brought out again by broad daylight, to occupy their original position: and this coincidence drew the remark from every one, that we ought never to use our opportunities against others in a spirit of presumption, knowing that it is extremely characteristic of Fortune to subject those who set a precedent to the operation of their own ideas and principles in their turn. . . .
[37.5] The mere love of novelty inherent in mankind is a sufficient incentive to any kind of change. . . .
[37.6] The Romans sent envoys to restrain the impetuosity of Nicomedes and to prevent Attalus from going to war with Prusias. The men appointed were Marcus Licinius, who was suffering from gout, and was quite lamed by it, and with him Aulus Mancinus, who, from a tile falling on his head, had so many and such great scars on it, that it was a matter of wonder that he escaped with his life, and Lucius Malleolus who was reputed the stupidest man in Rome. As the business required speed and boldness, these men seemed the least suitable possible for the purpose that could be conceived; and accordingly they say that Marcus Porcius Cato remarked in the Senate that “Not only would Prusias perish before they got there, but that Nicomedes would grow old in his kingdom. For how could a mission make haste, or if it did, how could it accomplish anything, when it had neither feet, head, nor intelligence?” . . .
[37.7] King Prusias was exceedingly repulsive in personal appearance, though his reasoning powers were somewhat superior: but externally he seemed only half a man, and was cowardly and effeminate in all matters pertaining to war. For not only was he timid, but he was averse to all hardships, and in a word was utterly unmanned in mind and body throughout his whole life; qualities which all the world object to in kings, but the Bithynians above all people. Moreover, he was also exceedingly dissolute in regard to sensual pleasures; was completely without education or philosophy, or any of the knowledge which they embrace; and had not the remotest idea of what virtue is. He lived the barbaric life of a Sardanapallus day and night. Accordingly, directly his subjects got the least hope of being able to do so, they conceived an implacable resolution not only to throw off allegiance to the king, but to press for vengeance upon him.⁸⁸ . . .
[37.8] Museium is a place near Olympus in Macedonia. . . .
[37.9] As I blame those who assign fortune and destiny as the moving causes in common events and catastrophes, I wish now to enter as minutely on the discussion of this subject as the nature of an historical work will admit. Those things of which it is impossible or difficult for a mere man to ascertain the causes, such as a continuous fall of rains and unseasonable wet, or, on the contrary, droughts and frosts, one may reasonably impute to God and Fortune, in default of any other explanation; and from them come destruction of fruits, as well as long-continued epidemics, and other similar things, of which it is not easy to find the cause. On such matters then, we, in default of a better, follow the prevailing opinions of the multitude, attempting by supplications and sacrifices to appease the wrath of heaven, and sending to ask the gods by what words or actions on our part a change for the better may be brought about, and a respite be obtained for the evils which are afflicting us. But those things, of which it is possible to find the origin and cause of their occurrence, I do not think we should refer to the gods. I mean such a thing as the following. In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. If, then, any one had advised our sending to ask the gods in regard to this, what we were to do or say in order to become more numerous and better fill our cities,—would he not have seemed a futile person, when the cause was manifest and the cure in our own hands? For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws for the preservation of infants. On this subject there is no need of seers or prodigies. And the same holds good of all similar things. But in regard to events of which the causes are impossible or difficult to discover, it is reasonable to feel a difficulty. And in this class may be reckoned the course of Macedonian history. For the Macedonians had enjoyed many important favours at the hands of the Romans, having been as a nation liberated from arbitrary government and imports, and having obtained undisputed freedom in the place of slavery; and having been individually relieved to a great extent from intestine factions and civil bloodshed.⁸⁹ . . . They had been worsted by the Romans formerly when fighting on the side of Demetrius⁹⁰ and again on that of Perseus; yet when engaged on the side of a man of odious character,⁹¹ and in support of his claims to the throne, they displayed great courage and conquered a Roman army. These facts may well seem a puzzle to us, for it is difficult to discover their cause. And accordingly one would be inclined to say in such matters that what had happened was a heaven-sent infatuation, and that the wrath of God had fallen upon the Macedonians. And this will be rendered evident from what remains to be told. . . .
[37.10] Massanissa, king of the Numidians in Africa, was the best man of all the kings of our time, and the most completely fortunate; for he reigned more than sixty years in the soundest health and to extreme old age,—for he was ninety when he died. He was, besides, the most powerful man physically of all his contemporaries: for instance, when it was necessary to stand, he would do so without moving a foot all day long; and again, when he had once sat down to business he remained there the whole day; nor did it distress him the least to remain in the saddle day and night continuously; and at ninety years old, at which age he died, he left a son only four years old, called Sthembanus, who was afterwards adopted by Micipses, and four sons besides. Owing, again, to the affection existing between these sons, he kept his whole life free from any treasonable plot and his kingdom unpolluted by any family tragedy. But his greatest and most divine achievement was this: Numidia had been before his time universally unproductive, and was looked upon as incapable of producing any cultivated fruits. He was the first and only man who showed that it could produce cultivated fruits just as well as any other country whatever, by cultivating farms to the extent of ten thousand plethra for each of his sons in different parts of it. On this man’s death, then, so much may reasonably and justly be said. Scipio arrived at Cirta on the third day after his departure, and settled everything properly and fairly.⁹² . . .
[37.10] A little while before his death he was seen, on the day following a great victory over the Carthaginians, sitting outside his tent eating a piece of dirty bread, and on those who saw it expressing surprise at his doing so, he said.⁹³ . . .

## Book XXXVIII

[38.1] Hasdrubal, the general of the Carthaginians, was a vain ostentatious person, very far from possessing real strategic ability. There are numerous proofs of his want of judgment. In the first place he appeared in full armour in his interview with Gulussa, king of the Numidians, with a purple dyed robe over his armour fastened by a brooch, and attended by ten bodyguards armed with swords; and in the next place, having advanced in front of these armed attendants to a distance of about twenty feet, he stood behind the trench and palisade and beckoned the king to come to him, whereas it ought to have been quite the other way. However, Gulussa, after the Numidian fashion, being not inclined to stand on ceremony, advanced towards him unattended, and when he got near him asked him “Whom he was afraid of that he had come in full armour?” And on his answering, “The Romans,” Gulussa remarked: “Then you should not have trusted yourself to the city, when there was no necessity for your doing so. However, what do you want, and what do you ask me to do?” To which Hasdrubal replied: “I want you to go as our ambassador to the Roman commander, and to undertake for us that we will obey every injunction; only I beg of you both to abstain from harming this wretched city.” Then said Gulussa: “Your demand appears to me to be quite childish! Why, my good sir, what you failed to get by your embassies from the Romans, who were then quietly encamped at Utica, and before a blow had been struck,—how can you expect to have granted you now, when you have been completely invested by sea and land, and have almost given up every hope of safety?” To which Hasdrubal replied that “Gulussa was ill informed; for they still had good hopes of their outside allies,”—for he had not yet heard about the Mauretani, and thought that the forces in the country were still unconquered,⁹⁴ —“nor were they in despair as to their own ultimate safety. And above all, they trusted in the support of the gods, and in what they might expect from them; for they believed that they would not disregard the flagrant violation of treaty from which they were suffering, but would give them many opportunities of securing their safety. Therefore he called on the Roman commander in the name of the gods and of Fortune to spare the city; with the distinct understanding that, if its inhabitants failed to obtain this grace, they would be cut to pieces to the last man sooner than evacuate it.” After some more conversation of the same sort, these men separated for the present, having made an appointment to meet again on the third day from that time.
[38.2] On Gulussa communicating to him what had been said, Scipio remarked with a laugh: “Oh, then, it was because you intended to make this demand that you displayed that abominable cruelty to our prisoners!⁹⁵ And you trust in the gods, do you, after violating even the laws of men?” The king went on to remind Scipio that above all things it was necessary to finish the business speedily; for, apart from unforeseen contingencies, the consular elections were now close at hand, and it was only right to have regard to that, lest, if the winter found them just where they were, another Consul would come to supersede him, and without any trouble get all the credit of his labours. These words induced Scipio to give directions to offer Hasdrubal safety for himself, his wife and children, and ten families of his friends and relations, and permission to take ten talents of his private property and to bring out with him whichever of his slaves he chose. With these concessions therefore Gulussa went to his meeting with Hasdrubal on the third day, who again came forward with great pomp and at a dignified step, clothed in his purple robe and full suit of armour, so as to cast the tyrants of tragedy far into the shade. He was naturally fat, but at that time he had grown extremely corpulent, and had become more than usually red from exposure to the sun, so that he seemed to be living like fat oxen at a fair; and not at all like a man to be in command at a time of such terrible miseries as cannot easily be described in words. When he met the king, and heard the offer of the Consul, he slapped his thigh again and again, and appealing to the gods and Fortune declared that “The day would never come on which Hasdrubal would behold the sun and his native city in flames; for to the nobly-minded one’s country and its burning houses were a glorious funeral pile.” These expressions force us to feel some admiration for the man and the nobility of his language; but when we come to view his administration of affairs, we cannot fail to be struck by his want of spirit and courage; for at a time when his fellow-citizens were absolutely perishing with famine, he gave banquets and had second courses put on of a costly kind, and by his own excellent physical condition made their misery more conspicuous. For the number of the dying surpassed belief, as well as the number who deserted every day from hunger. However, by fiercely rebuking some, and by executing as well as abusing others, he cowed the common people: and by this means retained, in a country reduced to the lowest depths of misfortune, an authority which a tyrant would scarcely enjoy in a prosperous city. Therefore I think I was justified in saying that two leaders more like each other than those who at that time directed the affairs of Greece and Carthage it would not be easy to find. And this will be rendered manifest when we come to a formal comparison of them. . . .
[38.3] My thirty-eighth book embraces the consummation of the misfortunes of Greece. For though Greece as a whole, as well as separate parts of it, has on several occasions sustained grave disasters, yet to none of her previous defeats could the word “misfortune” be more properly applied, than to those which have befallen her in our time. For it is not only that the sufferings of Greece excite compassion: stronger still is the conviction, which a knowledge of the truth of the several occurrences must bring, that in all she undertook she was supremely unfortunate. At any rate, though the disaster of Carthage is looked upon as of the severest kind, yet one cannot but regard that of Greece as not less, and in some respects even more so. For the Carthaginians at any rate left something for posterity to say on their behalf; but the mistakes of the Greeks were so glaring that they made it impossible for those who wished to support them to do so. Besides, the destruction of the Carthaginians was immediate and total, so that they had no feeling afterwards of their disasters: but the Greeks, with their misfortunes ever before their eyes, handed down to their children’s children the loss of all that once was theirs. And in proportion as we regard those who live in pain as more pitiable than those who lose their lives at the moment of their misfortunes, in that proportion must the disasters of the Greeks be regarded as more pitiable than those of the Carthaginians,—unless a man thinks nothing of dignity and honour, and gives his opinion from a regard only to material advantage. To prove the truth of what I say, one has only to remember and compare the misfortunes in Greece reputed to be the heaviest with what I have just now mentioned.
[38.4] Now, the greatest alarm that fortune ever brought upon the Greeks was when Xerxes invaded Europe: for at that time all were exposed to danger though an extremely small number actually suffered disaster. The greatest sufferers were the Athenians: for, with a prudent foresight of what was coming, they abandoned their country with their wives and children. That crisis then caused them damage; for the Barbarians took Athens and laid it waste with savage violence: but it brought them no shame or disgrace. On the contrary, they gained the highest glory in the eyes of all the world for having regarded everything as of less importance, in comparison with taking their share in the same fortune as the other Greeks. Accordingly, in consequence of their exalted conduct, they not only immediately recovered their own city and territory, but soon afterwards disputed the supremacy in Greece with the Lacedaemonians. Subsequently, indeed, they were beaten by the Spartans in war, and forced to submit to the destruction of their own city walls: but even this one might assert to be a reproach to the Lacedaemonians, for having used the power put into their hands with excessive severity, rather than to the Athenians. Then the Spartans once more, being beaten by the Thebans, lost the supremacy in Greece, and after that defeat were deprived of their outside rule and reduced to the frontiers of Laconia. But what disgrace was there in having retired, while disputing for the most honourable objects, to the limits of their ancestral dominion? Therefore, these events we may speak of as failures, but not as misfortunes in any sense. The Mantineans again were forced to leave their city, being divided out and scattered into separate villages by the Lacedaemonians; but for this all the world blamed the folly, not of the Mantineans, but of the Lacedaemonians. The Thebans, indeed, besides the loss of their army, saw their country depopulated at the time when Alexander, having resolved on the invasion of Asia, conceived that by making an example of Thebes he should establish a terror that would act as a check upon the Greeks, while his attention was distracted upon other affairs: but at that time all the world pitied the Thebans as having been treated with injustice and harshness, and no one was found to justify this proceeding of Alexander.
[38.5] Accordingly after a short time they obtained assistance, and once more inhabited their country in security. For the compassion of foreigners is no small benefit to those who are unjustly dispossessed; since we often see that, with the change of feeling among the many, Fortune also changes; and even the conquerors themselves repent, and make good the disasters of those who have fallen under undeserved misfortunes. Once more, at certain periods the Chalcidians and Corinthians and some other cities, owing to the advantages of their situation, were attacked by the kings of Macedonia, and had garrisons imposed on them: but when they were thus enslaved all the world were eager to do their best to liberate them, and loathed their enslavers and regarded them continually as their enemies. But above all, up to this time it was generally single states that were depopulated, and in single states that reverses were met with, in some cases while disputing for supremacy and empire, and in others from the treacherous attacks of despots and kings: so that, so far from their losses bringing them any reproach, they escaped even the name of misfortune. For we must look on all those who meet with incalculable disasters whether private or public as the victims of losses, and those only to be “unfortunate,” to whom events through their own folly bring dishonour. Instances of this last are the Peloponnesians, Boeotians, Phocians, . . . and Locrians, some of the dwellers on the Ionian gulf, and next to these the Macedonians, . . . who all as a rule did not merely suffer loss, but were “unfortunate,” with a misfortune of the gravest kind and for which they were themselves open to reproach: for they displayed at once want of good faith and want of courage, brought upon themselves a series of disgraces, lost all that could bring them honour, . . . and voluntarily admitted into their towns the Roman fasces and axes. They were in the utmost panic, in fact, owing to the extravagance of their own wrongful acts, if one ought to call them their own; for I should rather say that the peoples as such were entirely ignorant, and were beguiled from the path of right: but that the men who acted wrongly were the authors of this delusion.
[38.6] In regard to these men, it should not be a matter of surprise if we leave for a while the ordinary method and spirit of our narrative to give a clearer and more elaborate exposition of their character. I am aware that some may be found, regarding it as their first duty to cast a veil over the errors of the Greeks, to accuse us of writing in a spirit of malevolence. But for myself, I conceive that with right-minded persons a man will never be regarded as a true friend who shrinks from and is afraid of plain speech, nor indeed as a good citizen who abandons the truth because of the offence he will give to certain persons at the time. But a writer of public history above all deserves no indulgence whatever, who regards anything of superior importance to truth. For in proportion as written history reaches larger numbers, and survives for longer time, than words spoken to suit an occasion, both the writer ought to be still more particular about truth, and his readers ought to admit his authority only so far as he adheres to this principle. At the actual hour of danger it is only right that Greeks should help Greeks in every possible way, by protecting them, veiling their errors or deprecating the wrath of the sovereign people,—and this I genuinely did for my part at the actual time: but it is also right, in regard to the record of events to be transmitted to posterity, to leave them unmixed with any falsehood: so that readers should not be merely gratified for the moment by a pleasant tale, but should receive in their souls a lesson which will prevent a repetition of similar errors in the future. Enough, however, on this subject. . . .
[38.6] In the autumn of B. C. 150 the corrupt Menalchidas of Sparta was succeeded as Achaean Strategus by Diaeus, who, to cover his share in the corruption of Menalchidas, induced the league to act in the matter of some disputed claim of Sparta in a manner contrary to the decisions of the Roman Senate. The Spartans wished to appeal again to Rome; whereupon the Achaeans passed a law forbidding separate cities to make such appeals, which were to be only made by the league. The Lacedaemonians took up arms: and Diaeus professing that the league was not at war with Sparta, but with certain factious citizens of that city, named four of its chief men who were to be banished. They fled to Rome, where the Senate ordered their restoration. Embassies went from Achaia and from Sparta to Rome to state their respective cases; and on their return gave false reports,—Diaeus assuring the Achaeans that the Senate had ordered the Spartans to obey the league; Menalchidas telling the Spartans that the Romans had released them from all connexion with the league. War then again broke out (B.C. 148). Metellus, who was in Macedonia on the business of the Pseudo-Philip, sent legates to the Achaeans forbidding them to bear arms against Sparta, and announcing the speedy arrival of commissioners from Rome to settle the dispute. But the Achaean levies were already mustered under the Strategus Damocritus, and the Lacedaemonians seem to have almost compelled them to fight. The Spartans were beaten with considerable loss: and on Damocritus preventing a pursuit and a capture of Sparta, the Achaeans regarded him as traitor and fined him fifty talents. He was succeeded in his office of Strategus by Diaeus (autumn B.C. 148 - B. C. 147) who promised Metellus to await the arrival of the commissioners from Rome. But the Spartans now assumed their freedom from the league and elected a Strategus of their own, Menalchidas; who provoked a renewal of the war by taking the town of Iasos on the Laconian frontier. In despair of resisting the attack of the Achaeans, and disowned by his fellow-citizens, he took poison. The Roman commissioners arrived, led by L. Aurelius Orestes, in B.C. 147, and summoning the magistrates of the Achaean towns and the Strategus Diaeus before them at Corinth, announced the decision of the Senate—separating Lacedaemon, Corinth, Argos, Heraclea near Aete, and Orchomenus in Arcadia from the Achaean league, as not being united by blood, and only being subsequent additions. The magistrates, without answering, hastily summoned the league congress. The people, on hearing the Roman decision, pillaged the houses of the Lacedaemonian residents in Corinth, and savagely attacked all who were or who looked like Spartans. The Roman envoys endeavoured to restrain the popular fury. But they were somewhat roughly handled themselves; and the people could not be persuaded to release the Spartans whom they had arrested: though they let all others go, and sent an embassy to Rome, which, however, meeting the former embassy on its return, and learning the hopelessness of support in Rome, returned home. It is this outbreak which is referred to in the next fragment. See Pausanias, vii. 12-14; Livy, Ep. 51.
[38.7] When the commissioners with L. Aurelius Orestes arrived in Rome from the Peloponnese, they reported what had taken place, and declared that they had a narrow escape of actually losing their lives. They made the most of the occurrence and put the worst interpretation upon it; for they represented the violence which had been offered them as not the result of a sudden outbreak, but of a deliberate intention on the part of the Achaeans to inflict a signal insult upon them. The Senate was therefore more angry than it had ever been, and at once appointed Sextus Julius Caesar and other envoys with instructions to rebuke and upbraid the Achaeans for what had occurred, yet in terms of moderation, but to exhort them “not to listen to evil councillors, not to allow themselves to be betrayed into hostility with Rome, but even yet to make amends for their acts of folly by inflicting punishment on the authors of the crime.” This was a clear proof that the Senate gave its instructions to Aurelius and his colleagues, not with the view of dismembering the league, but with the object of restraining the obstinacy and hostility of the Achaeans by terrifying and overawing them. Some people accordingly imagined that the Romans were acting hypocritically, because the Carthaginian war was still unfinished; but this was not the case. The fact is, that they had long regarded the Achaean league with favour, believing it to be the most trustworthy of all the Greek governments; and though now they were resolved to give it an alarm, because it had become too lofty in its pretensions, yet they were by no means minded to go to war or to have a serious quarrel with the Achaeans. . . .
[38.8] As Sextus Julius Caesar and his colleagues were on their way from Rome to the Peloponnese, they were met by Thearidas and the other envoys, sent by the Achaeans to make their excuse and give the Senate an explanation of the intemperate acts committed in regard to Aurelius Orestes. But Sextus Julius persuaded them to turn back to Achaia, on the ground that he and his colleagues were coming with full instructions to communicate with the Achaeans on all these points. When Sextus arrived in the Peloponnese, and in a conference with the Achaeans in Aegium spoke with great kindness, he made no mention of the injurious treatment of the legates, and scarcely demanded any defence at all, but took a more lenient view of what had happened than even the Achaeans themselves; and dwelt chiefly on the subject of exhorting them not to carry their error any further, in regard either to the Romans or the Lacedaemonians. Thereupon the more sober-minded party received the speech with satisfaction, and were strongly moved to obey the suggestions, because they were conscious of the gravity of what they had been doing, and had before their eyes what happened to opponents of Rome; but the majority, though they had not a word to say against the justice of the injunctions of Sextus Julius, and were quite silent, yet remained deeply tainted with disaffection. And Diaeus and Critolaus, and all who shared their sentiments,—and they consisted of all the greatest rascals in every city, men at war with the gods, and pests of the community, carefully selected,—took, as the proverb has it, with the left hand what the Romans gave with the right, and went utterly and entirely wrong in their calculations. For they supposed that the Romans, owing to the troubles in Libya and Iberia, feared a war with the Achaeans and would submit to anything and say anything. Thinking, therefore, that the hour was their own, they answered the Roman envoys politely that “They would, nevertheless, send Thearidas and his colleagues to the Senate; while they would themselves accompany the legates to Tegea, and there in consultation with the Lacedaemonians would provide for some settlement of the war that would meet the views of both parties.” With this answer they subsequently induced the unhappy nation to follow the senseless course to which they had long before made up their mind. And this result was only what might have been expected from the inexperience and corruption of the prevailing party.
[38.9] But the finishing stroke to this ruinous policy was given in the following manner. When Sextus and his colleagues arrived at Tegea, and invited the attendance of the Lacedaemonians, in order to arrange terms between them and the Achaeans, both as to the satisfaction to be given for previous complaints and for putting a stop to the war, until the Romans should send commissioners to review the whole question, Critolaus and his party, having held a conference, decided that all the rest should avoid the meeting, and that Critolaus should go alone to Tegea. When Sextus and his fellow-commissioners therefore had almost given them up, Critolaus arrived; and when the meeting with the Lacedaemonians took place, he would settle nothing,—alleging that he had no authority to make any arrangement without the consent of the people at large; but that he would bring the matter before the Achaeans at their next congress, which must be held six months from that time. Sextus and his fellow-commissioners, therefore, convinced of the ill disposition of Critolaus, and much annoyed at his conduct, dismissed the Lacedaemonians to their own country, and themselves returned to Italy with strong views as to the folly and infatuation of Critolaus.
[38.9] After their departure Critolaus spent the winter in visiting the cities and holding assemblies in them, on the pretext that he wished to inform them of what he had said to the Lacedaemonians at Tegea, but in reality to denounce the Romans and to put an evil interpretation on everything they said; by which means he inspired the common people in the various cities with feelings of hostility and hatred for them. At the same time he sent round orders to the magistrates not to exact money from debtors, nor to receive prisoners arrested for debt, and to cause loans on pledge to be held over until the war was decided. By this kind of appeal to the interests of the vulgar everything he said was received with confidence; and the common people were ready to obey any order he gave, being incapable of taking thought for the future, but caught by the bait of immediate indulgence and relief.
[38.10] When Quintus Caecilius Metellus heard in Macedonia of the commotion and disturbance going on in the Peloponnese, he despatched thither his legates Gnaeus Papirius and the younger Popilius Laenas, along with Aulus Gabinius and Gaius Fannius; who, happening to arrive when the congress was assembled at Corinth, were introduced to the assembly, and delivered a long and conciliatory speech, much in the spirit of that of Sextus Julius, exerting themselves with great zeal to prevent the Achaeans from proceeding to an open breach with Rome, either on the pretext of their grievance against the Lacedaemonians, or from any feeling of anger against the Romans themselves. But the assembled people would not hear them; insulting words were loudly uttered against the envoys, and in the midst of a storm of yells and tumult they were driven from the assembly. The fact was that such a crowd of workmen and artisans had been got together as had never been collected before; for all the cities were in a state of drivelling folly, and above all the Corinthians en masse; and there were only a very few who heartily approved of the words of the envoys.
[38.10] Critolaus, conceiving that he had attained his purpose, in the midst of an audience as excited and mad as himself began attacking the magistrates, abusing all who were opposed to him, and openly defying the Roman envoys, saying that he was desirous of being a friend of the Romans, but had no taste for them as his masters. And, finally, he tried to incite the people by saying that, if they quitted themselves like men, they would have no lack of allies; but, if they betrayed womanish fears, they would not want for masters. By many other such words to the same effect, conceived in the spirit of a charlatan and huckster, he roused and excited the populace. He attempted also to make it plain that he was not acting at random in these proceedings, but that some of the kings and republics were engaged in the same policy as himself.
[38.11] And when some of the Gerusia wished to check him, and restrain him from the use of such expressions, he ordered the soldiers surrounding him to retire, and stood up fronting his opponents, and bade any one of them come up to him, come near him, or venture to touch his chlamys. And, finally, he said that “He had restrained himself now for a long time; but would endure it no longer, and must speak his mind. The people to fear were not Lacedaemonians or Romans, but the traitors among themselves who co-operated with their foes: for there were some who cared more for Romans and Lacedaemonians than for their own country.” He added, as a confirmation of his words, that Evagoras of Aegium and Stratius of Tritaea betrayed to Gnaeus Papirius and his fellow-commissioners all the secret proceedings in the meetings of the magistrates. And when Stratius acknowledged that he had had interviews with those men, and should do so again, as they were friends and allies, but asserted that he had told them nothing of what was said in the meetings of the magistrates, some few believed him, but the majority accepted the accusation as true. And so Critolaus, having inflamed the people by his accusations against these men, induced the Achaeans once more to decree a war which was nominally against the Lacedaemonians, but in effect was against the Romans; and he got another decree added, which was a violation of the constitution, namely, that whomsoever they should elect as Strategi should have absolute power in carrying on the war. He thus got for himself something like a despotism.
[38.11] Having carried these measures, he began intriguing to bring on an outbreak and cause an attack upon the Roman envoys. He had no pretext for doing this; but adopted a course which, of all possible courses, offends most flagrantly against the laws of gods and man. The envoys, however, separated; Gnaeus Papirius went to Athens and thence to Sparta to watch the turn of events; Aulus Gabinius went to Naupactus; and the other two remained at Athens, waiting for the arrival of Caecilius Metellus. This was the state of things in the Peloponnese. . .

## Book XXXIX

[39.1] [Including Book XL. of Dindorf’s Text.]
[39.1] I am fully aware that some will be found to criticise my work, on the ground that my narrative of events is incomplete and disconnected; beginning, for instance, the story of the siege of Carthage, and then leaving it half told, and interrupting the stream of my history, I pass over to Greek affairs, and from them to Macedonian or Syrian, or some other history; whereas students require continuity, and desire to hear the end of a subject; for the combination of pleasure and profit is thus more completely secured. But I do not think this: I hold exactly the reverse. And as a witness to the correctness of my opinion I might appeal to nature herself, who is never satisfied with the same things continuously in any of the senses, but is ever inclined to change; and, even if she is satisfied with the same things, wishes to have them at intervals and in diversity of circumstance. This may be illustrated first by the sense of hearing, which is never gratified either in music or recitations by a continuance of the same strains or subjects; it is the varied style, and, in a word, whatever is broken up into intervals and has the most marked and frequent changes, that gives it pleasurable excitement. Similarly one may notice that the palate can never remain gratified by the same meats, however costly, but grows to feel a loathing for them, and delights in changes of diet, and often prefers plain to rich food merely for the sake of variety. The same may be noticed as to the sight: it is quite incapable of remaining fixed on the same object, but it is a variety and change of objects that excites it. And this is more than all the case with the mind; for changes in the objects of attention and study act as rests to laborious men.
[39.2] Accordingly the most learned of the ancient historians have, as it seems to me, taken intervals of rest in this way: some by digressions on myths and tales, and others by digressions on historical facts,—not confining themselves to Greek history, but introducing disquisitions on points of foreign history as well. As, for instance, when, in the course of a history of Thessaly and the campaigns of Alexander of Pherae, they introduce an account of the attempts of the Lacedaemonians in the Peloponnese; or those made by the Athenians; or actions which took place in Macedonia or Illyria: and then break off into an account of the expedition of Iphicrates into Egypt, and the iniquitous deeds of Clearchus in the Pontus. This will show you that these historians all employ this method; but, whereas they employ it without any system, I do so on a regular system. For these men, after mentioning, for instance, that Bardylis, king of the Illyrians, and Cersobleptes, king of the Thracians, established their dynasties, neither go on continuously with the stories nor return to them after an interval to take them up where they left off, but, treating them like an episode in a poem, they go back to their original subject. But I made a careful division of all the most important countries in the world and the course of their several histories; pursued exactly the same plan in regard to the order of taking the several divisions; and, moreover, arranged the history of each year in the respective countries, carefully keeping to the limits of the time: and the result is that I have made the transition backwards and forwards between my continuous narrative and the continually recurring interruptions easy and obvious to students, so that an attentive reader need never miss anything. . . .
[39.2] After various operations during the autumn of B. C. 147, the upshot of which was to put the whole of the open country in Roman hands, in the beginning of spring B. C. 146, Scipio delivered his final attack on Carthage, taking first the quarter of the merchants’ harbour, then the war harbour, and then the market-place. There only remained the streets leading to the Byrsa and the Byrsa itself. Appian, Pun. 123-126. Livy, Ep. 51.
[39.3] Having got within the walls, while the Carthaginians still held out on the citadel, Scipio found that the arm of the sea which intervened was not at all deep; and upon Polybius advising him to set it with iron spikes or drive sharp wooden stakes into it, to prevent the enemy crossing it and attacking the mole,⁹⁶ he said that, having taken the walls and got inside the city, it would be ridiculous to take measures to avoid fighting the enemy. . . .
[39.4] The pompous Hasdrubal threw himself on his knees before the Roman commander, quite forgetful of his proud language. . . .
[39.4] When the Carthaginian commander thus threw himself as a suppliant at Scipio’s knees, the proconsul with a glance at those present said: “See what Fortune is, gentlemen! What an example she makes of irrational men! This is the Hasdrubal who but the other day disdained the large favours which I offered him, and said that the most glorious funeral pyre was one’s country and its burning ruins. Now he comes with suppliant wreaths, beseeching us for bare life and resting all his hopes on us. Who would not learn from such a spectacle that a mere man should never say or do anything presumptuous?” Then some of the deserters came to the edge of the roof and begged the front ranks of the assailants to hold their hands for a little; and, on Scipio ordering a halt, they began abusing Hasdrubal, some for his perjury, declaring that he had sworn again and again on the altars that he would never abandon them, and others for his cowardice and utter baseness: and they did this in the most unsparing language, and with the bitterest terms of abuse. And just at this moment Hasdrubal’s wife, seeing him seated in front of the enemy with Scipio, advanced in front of the deserters, dressed in noble and dignified attire herself, but holding in her hands, on either side, her two boys dressed only in short tunics and shielded under her own robes.⁹⁷ First she addressed Hasdrubal by his name, and when he said nothing but remained with his head bowed to the ground, she began by calling on the name of the gods, and next thanked Scipio warmly because, as far as he could secure it, both she and her children were saved.⁹⁸ And then, pausing for a short time, she asked Hasdrubal how he had had the heart to secure this favour from the Roman general for himself alone, . . . and, leaving his fellow-citizens who trusted in him in the most miserable plight, had gone over secretly to the enemy? And how he had the assurance to be sitting there holding suppliant boughs, in the face of the very men to whom he had frequently said that the day would never come in which the sun would see Hasdrubal alive and his native city in flames. . . .
[39.4] Hasdrubal’s wife finally threw herself and children from the citadel into the burning streets. Livy, Ep. 51.
[39.4] After an interview with [Scipio], in which he was kindly treated, Hasdrubal desired leave to go away from the town. . . .
[39.5] At the sight of the city utterly perishing amidst the flames Scipio burst into tears, and stood long reflecting on the inevitable change which awaits cities, nations, and dynasties, one and all, as it does every one of us men. This, he thought, had befallen Ilium, once a powerful city, and the once mighty empires of the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and that of Macedonia lately so splendid. And unintentionally or purposely he quoted,—the words perhaps escaping him unconsciously,—⁹⁹
“The day shall be when holy Troy shall fall
And Priam, lord of spears, and Priam’s folk.”
And on my asking him boldly (for I had been his tutor) what he meant by these words, he did not name Rome distinctly, but was evidently fearing for her, from this sight of the mutability of human affairs. . . .
[39.5] Another still more remarkable saying of his I may record. . . [When he had given the order for firing the town] he immediately turned round and grasped me by the hand and said: “O Polybius, it is a grand thing, but, I know not how, I feel a terror and dread, lest some one should one day give the same order about my own native city.” . . . Any observation more practical or sensible it is not easy to make. For in the midst of supreme success for one’s self and of disaster for the enemy, to take thought of one’s own position and of the possible reverse which may come, and in a word to keep well in mind in the midst of prosperity the mutability of Fortune, is the characteristic of a great man, a man free from weaknesses and worthy to be remembered. . . .
[39.5] After the rejection of the orders conveyed by the legates of Metellus (38, 11), Critolaus collected the Achaean levies at Corinth, under the pretext of going to war with Sparta; but he soon induced the league to declare themselves openly at war with Rome. He was encouraged by the adhesion of the Boeotarch Pytheas, and of the Chalcidians. The Thebans were the readier to join him because they had lately been ordered by Metellus, as arbiter in the disputes, to pay fines to the Phocians, Euboeans, and Amphissians. When news of these proceedings reached Rome in the spring of B. C. 146, the consul Mummius was ordered to lead a fleet and army against Achaia. But Metellus in Macedonia wished to have the credit of settling the matter himself; he therefore sent envoys to the Achaeans ordering them to release from the league the towns already named by the Senate viz. Sparta, Corinth, Argos, Heracleia, and Orchomenus in Arcadia, and advanced with his army from Macedonia through Thessaly by the coast road, skirting the Sinus Maliacus. Critolaus was already engaged in besieging Heraclea Oetea, to compel it to return to its obedience to the league, and when his scouts informed him of the approach of Metellus, he retreated to Scarphea on the coast of Locris, some miles south of the pass of Thermopylae. But before he could get into Scarphea Metellus caught him up, killed a large number of his men, and took one thousand prisoners. Critolaus himself disappeared; Pausanias seems to imagine that he was drowned in the salt marshes of the coast, but Livy says that he poisoned himself. Pausanias, 7.14-15. Livy, Ep. 52. Orosius, 5, 3.
[39.7] Pytheas was a brother of Acatidas the runner, and son of Cleomenes. He had led an evil life, and was reported to have wasted the flower of his youth in unnatural debauchery. In political life also he was audacious and grasping, and had been supported by Eumenes and Philetaerus for these very reasons. . . .
[39.8] Critolaus the Achaean Strategus being dead, and the law providing that, in case of such an event befalling the existing Strategus, the Strategus of the previous year should succeed to the office until the regular congress of the league should meet, it fell to Diaeus to conduct the business of the league and take the head of affairs. Accordingly, after sending forward some troops to Megara,¹⁰⁰ he went himself to Argos; and from that place sent a circular letter to all the towns ordering them to set free their slaves who were of military age, and who had been born and brought up in their houses, and send them furnished with arms to Corinth. He assigned the numbers to be furnished by the several towns quite at random and without any regard to equality, just as he did everything else. Those who had not the requisite number of home-bred slaves were to fill up the quota imposed on each town from other slaves. But seeing that the public poverty was very great, owing to the war with the Lacedaemonians, he compelled the richer classes, men and women alike, to make promises of money and furnish separate contributions. At the same time he ordered a levy en masse at Corinth of all men of military age. The result of these measures was that every city was full of confusion, commotion, and despair: they deemed those fortunate who had already perished in the war, and pitied those who were now starting to take part in it; and everybody was in tears as though they foresaw only too well what was going to happen. They were especially annoyed at the insolent demeanour and neglect of their duties on the part of the slaves,—airs which they assumed as having been recently liberated, or, in the case of others, because they were excited by the prospect of freedom. Moreover the men were compelled to make their contribution contrary to their own views, according to the property they were reputed to possess; while the women had to do so, by taking the ornaments of their own persons or of their children, to what seemed deliberately meant for their destruction.
[39.9] As these measures came all at once, the dismay caused by the hardship of each individually prevented people from attending to or grasping the general question; or they must have foreseen that they were all being led on to secure the certain destruction of their wives and children. But, as though caught in the rush of some winter torrent and carried on by its irresistible violence, they followed the infatuation and madness of their leader. The Eleians and Messenians indeed did not stir, in terror of the Roman fleet; for nothing could have saved them if the storm had burst when it was originally intended. The people of Patrae, and of the towns which were leagued with it, had a short time before suffered disasters in Phocis;¹⁰¹ and their case was much the most pitiable one of all the Peloponnesian cities: for some of them sought a voluntary death; others fled from their towns through deserted parts of the country, with no definite aim in their wanderings, from the panic prevailing in the towns. Some arrested and delivered each other to the enemy, as having been hostile to Rome; others hurried to give information and bring accusations, although no one asked for any such service as yet; while others went to meet the Romans with suppliant branches, confessing their treason, and asking what penance they were to pay, although as yet no one was asking for any account of such things. The whole country seemed to be under an evil spell: everywhere people were throwing themselves down wells or over precipices; and so dreadful was the state of things, that as the proverb has it “even an enemy would have pitied” the disaster of Greece. For in times past the Greeks had met with reverses or indeed complete disaster, either from internal dissensions or from treacherous attacks of despots; but in the present instance it was from the folly of their leaders and their own unwisdom that they experienced the grievous misfortunes which befell them. The Thebans also, abandoning their city en masse, left it entirely empty; and among the rest Pytheas retired to the Peloponnese, with his wife and children, and there wandered about the country.¹⁰² . . .
[39.9] He came upon the enemy much to his surprise. But to my mind the proverb, “the reckonings of the foolish are foolishness” applies to him. And naturally to such men things clear as day come as a surprise. . . .
[39.9] He was even forming plans for getting back home, acting very like a man who, not having learnt to swim and being about to plunge into the sea, should not consider the question of taking the plunge; but, having taken it, should begin to consider how he is to swim to land. . . .
[39.9] Having secured Boeotia, Metellus advanced to Megara, where the Achaean Alcamenes had been posted by Diaeus with five thousand men. Alcamenes hastily evacuated Megara and rejoined Diaeus at Corinth, the latter having meanwhile been reelected Strategus. Pausanias, 7, 15, 10.
[39.10] Diaeus having recently come to Corinth after being appointed Strategus by the vote of the people, Andronidas and others came from Caecilius Metellus. Against these men he spread a report that they were in alliance with the enemy, and gave them up to the mob, who seized on them with great violence and threw them into chains. Philo of Thessaly also came bringing many liberal offers to the Achaeans. And on hearing them, certain of the men of the country attempted to secure their acceptance; among whom was Stratius, now a very old man, who clung to Diaeus’s knees and entreated him to yield to the offers of Metellus. But he and his party would not listen to Philo’s proposals. For the fact was that they did not believe that the amnesty would embrace them with the rest; and, as they regarded their own advantage and personal security as of the highest importance, they spoke as they did, and directed all their measures on the existing state of affairs to this end: although, as a matter of fact, they failed entirely to secure these objects. For as they understood quite clearly the gravity of what they had done, they could not believe they would obtain any mercy from Rome; and as to enduring nobly whatever should befall on behalf of their country and the safety of the people, that they never once took into consideration; yet that was the course becoming men who cared for glory, and professed to be the leaders of Greece. But indeed how or whence was it likely that such a lofty idea should occur to these men? The members of this conclave were Diaeus and Damocritus, who had but recently been recalled from exile owing to the disturbed state of the times, and with them Alcamenes, Theodectes and Archicrates; and of these last I have already stated at length who they were, and have described their character, policy, and manner of life.
[39.11] Such being the men with whom the decision rested, the determination arrived at was what was to be expected. They not only imprisoned Andronidas and Lagius and their friends, but even the sub-Strategus Sosicrates, on the charge of his having presided at a council and given his voting for sending an embassy to Caecilius Metellus, and in fact of having been the cause of all their misfortunes. Next day they empanelled judges to try them; condemned Sosicrates to death; and having bound him racked him till he died, without however inducing him to say anything that they expected: but they acquitted Lagius, Andronidas and Archippus, partly because the people were scared at the lawless proceeding against Sosicrates, and partly because Diaeus got a talent from Andronidas and forty minae from Archippus; for this man could not relax his usual shameless and abandoned principles in this particular even “in the very pit,”¹⁰³ as the saying is. He had acted with similar cruelty a short time before also in regard to Philinus of Corinth. For on a charge of his holding communication with Menalcidas¹⁰⁴ and favouring the Roman cause, he caused Philinus and his sons to be flogged and racked in each other’s sight, and did not desist until the boys and Philinus were all dead. When such madness and ferocity was infecting everybody, as it would not be easy to parallel even among barbarians, it would be clearly very natural to ask why the whole nation did not utterly perish. For my part, I think that Fortune displayed her resources and skill in resisting the folly and madness of the leaders; and, being determined at all hazards to save the Achaeans, like a good wrestler, she had recourse to the only trick left; and that was to bring down and conquer the Greeks quickly, as in fact she did. For it was owing to this that the wrath and fury of the Romans did not blaze out farther; that the army of Libya did not come to Greece; and that these leaders, being such men as I have described, did not have an opportunity, by gaining a victory, of displaying their wickedness upon their countrymen. For what it was likely that they would have done to their own people, if they had got any ground of vantage or obtained any success, may be reasonably inferred from what has already been said. And indeed everybody at the time had the proverb on his lips, “had we not perished quickly we had not been saved.”¹⁰⁵ . . .
[39.12] Aulus Postumius deserves some special notice from us here. He was a member of a family and gens of the first rank, but in himself was garrulous and wordy, and exceedingly ostentatious. From his boyhood he had a great leaning to Greek studies and literature: but he was so immoderate and affected in this pursuit, that owing to him the Greek style became offensive to the elder and most respectable men at Rome. Finally he attempted to write a poem and a formal history in Greek, in the preface to which he desired his readers to excuse him if, being a Roman, he could not completely command the Greek idiom or method in the handling of the subject. To whom M. Porcius Cato made a very pertinent answer. “I wonder,” said he, “on what grounds you make such a demand. If the Amphictyonic council had charged you to write the history, you might perhaps have been forced to allege this excuse and ask for this consideration. But to write it of your own accord, when there was no compulsion to do so, and then to demand consideration, if you should happen to write bad Greek, is quite unreasonable. It is something like a man entering for the boxing match or pancratium in the public games, and, when he comes into the stadium, and it is his turn to fight, begging the spectators to pardon him ‘if he is unable to stand the fatigue or the blows.’ Such a man of course would be laughed at and condemned at once.”¹⁰⁶ And this is what such historiographers should experience, to prevent them spoiling a good thing by their rash presumption. Similarly, in the rest of his life, he had imitated all the worst points in Greek fashions; for he was fond of pleasure and averse from toil. And this may be illustrated from his conduct in the present campaign: for being among the first to enter Greece at the time that the battle in Phocis took place, he retired to Thebes on the pretence of illness, in order to avoid taking part in the engagement; but, when the battle was ended, he was the first to write to the Senate announcing the victory, entering into every detail as though he had himself been present at the conflict. . . .
[39.12] On the arrival of the Consul Mummius, Metellus was sent back into Macedonia. Mummius was accompanied by L. Aurelius Orestes, who had been nearly murdered in the riot at Corinth (38, 7), and, pitching his camp in the Isthmus, was joined by allies who raised his army to three thousand five hundred cavalry and twenty-six thousand infantry. The Achaeans made a sudden attack upon them and gained a slight success, which was a few days afterwards revenged by a signal defeat. Instead of retiring into Corinth, and from that stronghold making some terms with Mummius, Diaeus fled to Megalopolis, where he poisoned himself, after first killing his wife. The rest of the beaten Achaean army took refuge in Corinth, which Mummius took and fired on the third day after the battle with Diaeus. Then the commissioners were sent from Rome to settle the whole of Greece. Pausanias, 7, 16-17; Livy, Ep. 52.
[39.13] The incidents of the capture of Corinth were melancholy. The soldiers cared nothing for the works of art and the consecrated statues. I saw with my own eyes pictures thrown on the ground and soldiers playing dice on them; among them was a picture of Dionysus by Aristeides—in reference to which they say that the proverbial saying arose, “Nothing to the Dionysus,”—and the Hercules tortured by the shirt of Deianeira. . . .
[39.14] Owing to the popular reverence for the memory of Philopoemen, they did not take down the statues of him in the various cities. So true is it, as it seems to me, that every genuine act of virtue produces in the mind of those who benefit by it an affection which it is difficult to efface. . . .
[39.14] One might fairly, therefore, use the common saying: “He has been foiled not at the door, but in the road.” . . .¹⁰⁷
[39.14] There were many statues of Philopoemen, and many erections in his honour, voted by the several cities; and a Roman at the time of the disaster which befell Greece at Corinth, wished to abolish them all and to formally indict him, laying an information against him, as though he were still alive, as an enemy and ill-wisher to Rome. But after a discussion, in which Polybius spoke against this sycophant, neither Mummius nor the commissioners would consent to abolish the honours of an illustrious man. . . .
[39.14] Polybius, in an elaborate speech, conceived in the spirit of what has just been said, maintained the cause of Philopoemen. His arguments were that “This man had indeed been frequently at variance with the Romans on the matter of their injunctions, but he only maintained his opposition so far as to inform and persuade them on the points in dispute; and even that he did not do without serious cause. He gave a genuine proof of his loyal policy and gratitude, by a test as it were of fire, in the periods of the wars with Philip and Antiochus. For, possessing at those times the greatest influence of any one in Greece, from his personal power as well as that of the Achaeans, he preserved his friendship for Rome with the most absolute fidelity, having joined in the vote of the Achaeans in virtue of which, four months before the Romans crossed from Italy, they levied a war from their own territory upon Antiochus and the Aetolians, when nearly all the other Greeks had become estranged from the Roman friendship.” Having listened to this speech and approved of the speaker’s view, the ten commissioners granted that the complimentary erections to Philopoemen in the several cities should be allowed to remain. Acting on this pretext, Polybius begged of the Consul the statues of Achaeus, Aratus, and Philopoemen, though they had already been transported to Acarnania from the Peloponnese: in gratitude for which action people set up a marble statue of Polybius himself.¹⁰⁸ . . .
[39.15] After the settlement made by the ten commissioners in Achaia, they directed the Quaestor, who was to superintend the selling of Diaeus’s property, to allow Polybius to select anything he chose from the goods and present it to him as a free gift, and to sell the rest to the highest bidders. But, so far from accepting any such present, Polybius urged his friends not to covet anything whatever of the goods sold by the Quaestor anywhere:—for he was going a round of the cities and selling the property of all those who had been partisans of Diaeus, as well of such as had been condemned, except those who left children or parents. Some of these friends did not take his advice; but those who did follow it earned a most excellent reputation among their fellow-citizens.
[39.16] After completing these arrangements in six months, the ten commissioners sailed for Italy, at the beginning of spring, having left a noble monument of Roman policy for the contemplation of all Greece. They also charged Polybius, as they were departing, to visit all the cities and to decide all questions that might arise, until such time as they were grown accustomed to their constitution and laws. Which he did: and after a while caused the inhabitants to be contented with the constitution given them by the commissioners, and left no difficulty connected with the laws on any point, private or public, unsettled.
[39.16] [Wherefore the people, who always admired and honoured this man, being in every way satisfied with the conduct of his last years and his management of the business just described, honoured him with the most ample marks of their respect both during his life and after his death. And this universal verdict was fully justified. For if he had not elaborated and reduced to writing the laws relating to the administration of justice, everything would have been in a state of uncertainty and confusion. Therefore we must look upon this as the most glorious of the actions of Polybius.] . . .
[39.17] The Roman Proconsul, after the commissioners had left Achaia, having restored the holy places in the Isthmus and ornamented the temples in Olympia and Delphi, proceeded to make a tour of the cities, receiving marks of honour and proper gratitude in each. And indeed he deserved honour both public and private, for he conducted himself with self-restraint and disinterestedness, and administered his office with mildness, although he had great opportunities of enriching himself, and immense authority in Greece. And in fact in the points in which he was thought to have at all overlooked justice, he appears not to have done it for his own sake, but for that of his friends. And the most conspicuous instance of this was in the case of the Chalcidian horsemen whom he put to death.¹⁰⁹ . . .
[39.18] Ptolemy, king of Syria,¹¹⁰ died from a wound received in the war: a man who, according to some, deserved great praise and abiding remembrance, and according to others the reverse. If any king before him ever was, he was mild and benevolent; a very strong proof of which is that he never put any of his own friends to death on any charge whatever; and I believe that not a single man at Alexandria either owed his death to him. Again, though he was notoriously ejected from his throne by his brother, in the first place, when he got a clear opportunity against him in Alexandria, he granted him a complete amnesty; and afterwards, when his brother once more made a plot against him to seize Cyprus, though he got him body and soul into his hands at Lapethus, he was so far from punishing him as an enemy, that he even made him grants in addition to those which formerly belonged to him in virtue of the treaty made between them, and moreover promised him his daughter. However, in the course of a series of successes and prosperity, his mind became corrupted; and he fell a prey to the dissoluteness and effeminacy characteristic of the Egyptians: and these vices brought him into serious disasters. . . .
[39.19] Having accomplished these objects, I returned home from Rome, having put, as it were, the finishing-stroke to my whole previous political actions, and obtained a worthy return for my constant loyalty to the Romans. Wherefore I make my prayers to all the gods that the rest of my life may continue in the same course and in the same prosperity; for I see only too well that Fortune is envious of mortals, and is most apt to show her power in those points in which a man fancies that he is most blest and most successful in life.
[39.19] Such was the result of my exertions. But having now arrived at the end of my whole work, I wish to recall to the minds of my readers the point from which I started, and the plan which I laid down at the commencement of my history, and then to give a summary of the entire subject. I announced then at starting that I should begin my narrative at the point where Timaeus left off, and that going cursorily over the events in Italy, Sicily, and Libya—since that writer has only composed a history of those places,—when I came to the time when Hannibal took over the command of the Carthaginian army; Philip son of Demetrius the kingdom of Macedonia; Cleomenes of Sparta was banished from Greece; Antiochus succeeded to the kingdom in Syria, and Ptolemy Philopator to that in Egypt,—I promised that starting once more from that period, namely the 139th Olympiad, I would give a general history of the world: marking out the periods of the Olympiads, separating the events of each year, and comparing the histories of the several countries by parallel narratives of each, up to the capture of Carthage, and the battle of the Achaeans and Romans in the Isthmus, and the consequent political settlement imposed on the Greeks. From all of which I said that students would learn a lesson of supreme interest and instructiveness. This was to ascertain how, and under what kind of polity, almost the whole inhabited world came under the single authority of Rome, a fact quite unparalleled in the past. These promises then having all been fulfilled, it only remains for me to state the periods embraced in my history, the number of my books, and how many go to make up my whole work. . . .

## Shorter Fragments

[fr] The first eight of these fragments belong to book 6, but as they do not fall in with what remains of the text, I have placed them here. I have divided these fragments into two classes: (A) those which seem to have some distinct reference which can be recognised or guessed: (B) those which though fairly complete in themselves cannot be so classed. A good many more, generally quoted by Suidas for the sake of some one word, did not seem worth putting in an English dress. The numbers in brackets are those of Hultsch’s text.

I (6, 2). I believe Rome to have been founded in the second year of the 7th Olympiad.¹¹¹

II (6, 2). Polybius, like Aristodemus of Elis, informs us that the register of the athletic victors at the Olympic games began to be kept from the 27th Olympiad, at which Coroebus of Elis was first registered as conqueror in the stadium; and this Olympiad was regarded as an era by the Greeks from which to calculate dates.¹¹²

III (6, 2). The Palatine was named after Pallas, who died there. He was the son of Heracles and Lavina, daughter of Evander. His maternal grandfather raised a barrow as his tomb on this hill, and called the place after him the Pallantium.

IV (6, 2). Among the Romans women are forbidden to drink wine; and they drink what is called passum, which is made from raisins, and tastes very like the sweet wine of Aegosthena or Crete. This is what they drink to quench their thirst. But it is almost impossible for them to drink wine without being found out. For, to begin with, the woman has not got the charge of wine; and, in the next place, she is bound to kiss all her male relatives and those of her husband, down to his cousins, every day on seeing them for the first time; and as she cannot tell which of them she will meet, she has to be on her guard. For if she has but tasted wine, there is no occasion for any formal accusation.¹¹³

V (6, 2). He also founded Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber.

VI (6, 2). Lucius, the son of Demaratus of Corinth, came to Rome relying on his own ability and wealth, and convinced that the advantages he possessed would place him in the front rank in the state: for he had a wife who, among other useful qualities, was admirably suited by nature to assist in any political enterprise. Arrived at Rome, and admitted to citizenship, he devoted himself to flattering the king; and before very long his wealth, his natural dexterity, and, more than all, his early training, enabled him so to please the king’s taste that he gained his cordial liking and confidence. As time went on his intimacy became so close that he lived with [Ancus] Marcius, and assisted him in managing his kingdom. While so engaged, he contrived to make himself useful to every one. All who were suitors for anything found in him an active supporter and friend: his wealth was spent with noble liberality and judgment on various objects of national importance; and thus he secured for himself the gratitude of many, and the goodwill and good word of all, and finally obtained the throne. . . .¹¹⁴
[fr] Every branch of virtue should be practised by those who aim at good training, from childhood, but, above all, courage. . .

(6, 1) An impossible lie admits of no defence even.

(6, 1) It is the act of a wise and sensible man to recognise—as Hesiod puts it—“how much greater the half is than the whole.”¹¹⁵

VII (6, 1). To learn sincerity towards the Gods is a kind of image of truthfulness towards each other.

VIII (6, 1). It generally happens in the world that men who acquire have a natural turn for keeping; while those who succeed to wealth, without any trouble to themselves, are apt to squander it.

IX (10). The strongest fortifications are in general dangerous to both sides; which may be illustrated from what occurs in the case of citadels. These last are regarded as contributing greatly to the security of the cities in which they stand, and to the protection of their freedom; but they often turn out to be the origin of slavery and indisputable misfortunes.¹¹⁶

X (13). Some few approved of his doing so, but the majority objected, saying, some that it was folly, and others that it was madness for a man thus to risk and hazard his life, who was quite unacquainted with the kind of fighting in use among these barbarians.¹¹⁷

XI (16). “Secure retreat in case disaster fall.”

One ought always to keep this line in mind. From failing to do so Lucius the Roman¹¹⁸ met with a grave disaster. So narrow is the risk of destruction to the most powerful forces when the leaders are unwise. A sufficient illustration to thoughtful men is furnished by the headstrong invasion of Argos by Pyrrhus king of the Epirotes,¹¹⁹ and the expedition through Thrace of king Lysimachus against Dorimichaites, king of Odrysae;¹²⁰ and indeed many other similar cases.

XII (23). Marcellus never once conquered Hannibal, who in fact remained unbeaten until Scipio’s victory.¹²¹

XIII (25). No darkness, no storm however violent, turned him from his purpose. He forced his way through all such obstacles; he overcame even disease by resolute labour, and never once failed in an object or experienced a variation in his uniform good fortune.

XIV (29). In old times single combats among the Romans were conducted with good faith [but in our days many contrivances have been hit upon].

XV (31). The horse, from the agony of the wound, first fell forward, and then galloped furiously through the middle of the camp.

XVI (42). Seeing that the superstitious feelings of the soldiers were roused by these portents, he exerted himself to remove the scruples of the men by means of his own intelligence and strategic skill.
[fr] XVII (63). Ships with six banks of oars. These vessels appear to be as swift sailers as penteconters, but to be much inferior to triremes; and their construction has been abandoned for many years past. Polybius, however, is supposed to lay down the measurements of such vessels, which the Romans and Carthaginians appear to have often employed in their wars with each other.¹²²

XVIII (64). Getting completely drunk, and all flung on the ground in the various tents, they neither heard any word of command nor took any thought of the future whatever.¹²³

XIX (66). In consultations of war, as in those relating to bodily sickness, one ought to take as much account of the symptoms that have since arisen as of those originally existing.

XX (90). Cappadocia extends from Mount Taurus and Lycaonia up to the Pontic Sea. The name is Persian and arose thus. A certain Persian [named Cappadocus?] was present at a hunt with Artaxerxes, or some other king, when a lion sprang upon the king’s horse. This Persian happened to be in that part of the hunting company, and drawing his sword rescued the king from his imminent danger and killed the lion. This Persian therefore ascending the highest mountain in the neighbourhood received as a gift from the king as much territory as the human eye could take in, looking east, west, north, and south.¹²⁴

XXI (95). The Celtiberians have a peculiar manœuvre in war. When they see their infantry hard pressed, they dismount and leave their horses standing in their places. They have small pegs attached to their leading reins, and having fixed them carefully into the ground, they train their horses to keep their places obediently in line until they come back and pull up the pegs.

XXII (96). The Celtiberians excel the rest of the world in the construction of their swords; for their point is strong and serviceable, and they can deliver a cut with both edges. Wherefore the Romans abandoned their ancestral swords after the Hannibalian war and adopted those of the Iberians. They adopted, I say, the construction of the swords, but they can by no means imitate the excellence of the steel or the other points in which they are so elaborately finished.¹²⁵
[fr] XXIII (102). The Roman praetor Marcus¹²⁶ wished to get rid of the war against the Lusitani, and laying aside war altogether, to shirk— as the saying is—“the men’s hall for the women’s bower,” because of the recent defeat of the praetor by the Lusitani.

(103) But those of the Ligurians who fought against Mago were unable to do anything important or great.

XXIV (113). A mora consisted of nine hundred men.¹²⁷

XXV (117). A general needs good sense and boldness; they are the most necessary qualities for dangerous and venturesome undertakings.

XXVI (154). The second king of Egypt, called Philadelphus, when giving his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus king of Syria, was careful to send her some Nile water, that the young bride might drink no other water.

XXVII (156). I say this to point out the wisdom of the Romans, and the folly of those who despise the practice of making comparisons with the habits of foreign nations, and believe themselves competent to reform their own armies without reference to others.¹²⁸

XXVIII (157). The Romans were wont to take great care not to appear to be the aggressors, or to attack their neighbours without provocation; but to be considered always to be acting in self-defence, and only to enter upon war under compulsion.¹²⁹

XXIX (166). When Scipio Africanus, the younger, was commissioned by the Senate to settle the kingdoms throughout the world, and see that they were put in proper hands, he only took five slaves with him; and, on one of these dying during the journey, he wrote home to his relations to buy another and send him to take the place of the dead one.¹³⁰

XXX (184). If one ought to speak of Fortune in regard to such things; for I fear she often gets credit of that sort without good reason; while the real fault lies with the men who administer public business, who sometimes act with seriousness and sometimes the reverse.

XXXI (1). But not making at all a good guess at the king’s mind, he acted in a most inconsiderate manner.

XXXII (2). Want of civilisation appears to have an extraordinary influence on mankind in this direction.

XXXIII (3). But the general being unable to endure the unfairness of those who made these assertions. . .

XXXIV (5). But he determined to hold out to the last, trusting to the supplies from Egypt.

XXXV (6). But having fallen in with him he gained an extremely fortunate victory.

XXXVI (7). In all these things the Aetolians had been deceived.

XXXVII (8). And some he honoured with gold cloths and spears, because he wished that his promises should agree with his performances.

XXXVIII (11). He wrote in bitter and frantic terms, calling them fiends and murderers in his letter, if they abandoned the positions thus disgracefully, before they had suffered or witnessed any hardship.
[fr] XXXIX (12). There is a courage in words too which can despise death.

XXXIX (14). Before he had been rejoined by the stragglers of the skirmishing parties.

XL (27). Being utterly at a loss, at last he rested his chance of escape from the difficulty which was upon him on some such hope as this.

XLI (30). None of the citizens being aware of what was taking place owing to the distance, for the city was a large one.

XLII (32). But trusting to them he undertook the war against Ariarathes.

XLIII (34). Harpyia is a city in Illyria near Encheleae, to which Baton, charioteer of Amphiaraus, removed after the latter’s disappearance.

XLIV (35). And he waited for the coming of Hasdrubal.

XLV (36). Hearing all this through the curtain the king laughed.

XLVI (39). Foreseeing and fearing the fierce temper and obstinacy of the men.

XLVII (40). At that time, persuaded that he was enduring a fiery test, he was released from the suspicion.

XLVIII (43). He thought therefore that it was dangerous to have shared in their enterprise when their plan had failed and come to an end.

XLIX (44). Having urged the soldiers to make haste, and exhorted the tribunes to engage.

L (46). Thinking it better and safer not to be present at the hour of the enemy’s opportunity, nor when they were under the influence of popular excitement and fury.

LI (47). Whenever it is possible to obtain satisfaction from those who have wronged us either by law or by any other settled forms of justice.

LII (54). Having drawn his army from the pass he encamped.

LII (55). And then they took up some sort of order, as though by mutual consent, and fought the battle in regular formation.

LIII (56). That which causes the most pain at the time involves also the most signal revulsion of joy.

LIV (57). Having ordered the pilots to steer the ships as fast as they could to Elaea.

LV (61). They not only drove themselves off the stage, but ruined also all Greece.

LV (62). But he, from his long experience of war, did not all lose his presence of mind.

LVI (67). He persuades them by reckoning all the wealth he considered they would gain in the battle.

LVII (68). The Romans had been inspired by some divine influence, and having fortified their courage with irresistible might . . .

LVII (69). To signalise some by favours, and others by punishments, that they might be a warning to the rest.
[fr] LVIII (72). And they, being persuaded, and throwing themselves in the way of the enemy’s charge, died gallantly.

LIX (73). He tried to take the city by an intrigue, having long secured a party of traitors within it.

LX (74). He brought up the transports, by lading which with rocks and sinking them at the mouth of the harbour he planned to shut out the enemy entirely from the sea.

LXI (80). Though I have much more to say, I fear lest some of you may think that I am unnecessarily diffuse.

LXII (81). They are reserving themselves for an opportunity, and are quite ready to meet them again.

LXIII (85). To be eager for life and to cling to it is a sign of the greatest baseness and weakness.

LXIV (86). He was feeling something like starters in horse races, which are started by the raising of torches.

LXV (88). Their boldness transgresses the bounds of propriety, and their actions are a violation of duty.

LXV (91). Seeing that the Carthaginians had obeyed all injunctions in the most honourable spirit.

LXVI (92). To have fifty ships built entirely new, and to launch fifty of those already existing from the docks.

LXVII (100). Lucius being appointed to go on a mission to the Lapateni and speak to them in favour of an unconditional surrender, was unprepared for the task before him.

LXVIII (101). Of all the determining forces in war the most decisive of failure or success is the spirit of the combatants.

LXIX (104). Having mentioned summarily the defeats they had sustained, and putting before them the successes of the Macedonians.

LXX (105). For he perceived that the Macedonian kingdom would become contemptible, if the rebels succeeded in their first attempt.

LXXI (109). Therefore it was intolerable that the Romans even then should make their way into Macedonia unobserved.

LXXII (110). He, if any one of our time has done so, has examined all that has been said scientifically on tactics.

LXXIII (111). Metrodorus and his colleagues, frightened at the threatening aspect of Philip, departed.

LXXIV (112). The Romans made no show of bearing a grudge for what had taken place.

LXXV (113). But putting both spurs to his horse he rode on as hard as he could.
[fr] LXXVI (114). Being annoyed at the treaty, Nabis paid no attention to its provisions.

LXXVII (120). It was neither possible to examine the man closely in his state of physical weakness, nor to put a question to him for fear of worrying him.

LXXVIII (122). The Pannonians having seized the fort at the beginning of the war, had taken it as a base of operations, and had fitted it up for the reception of booty.

LXXIX (124). But wishing to point the contrast between his policy to those who trusted and those who disobeyed him, he commenced the siege.

LXXX (126). So that those in the assembly were thunderstruck and unable to collect their thoughts, sympathising with the poignant sorrow of those thus dispossessed of their all.

LXXXI (131). They immediately sent a courier to Perseus to tell him what had happened. (132) It was Perseus’s design to keep it close, but he could not hide the truth.

LXXXII (133). In other respects he was well equipped for service, but his spear was limp.

LXXXIII (134). Publius was anxious to engage and avail himself of the enthusiasm of the barbarians. (135) He put in at Naupactus in Aetolia. (136) He escorted Publius out with great respect. (137) Having received Publius and Gaius with kindness and honour.

LXXXIV (140). It was the deliberate intention of the Romans to fight at sea.

LXXXV (141). While they were still together and were fighting at close quarters with their swords, taking his stand behind them he stabbed him under the armpit.

LXXXVI (151). This man presented Prusias with many silver and gold cups during the banquet.

LXXXVII (153). Taking a wise view of the future, he came to the conclusion to get rid of the garrison sent by Ptolemy.

LXXXVIII (158). On that occasion both Romans and Carthaginians bivouacked on the embankment.

LXXXIX (159). Not being able to persuade him again, owing to that king’s cautious and inactive character, he was forced to offer five hundred talents. And so Seleucus agreed to give the aid.
[fr] XC (161). Chance and Fortune, so to speak, enhanced the achievements of Scipio, so that they always appeared more illustrious than was expected.

XCI (162). One must not pass over even a minor work of his, as in the case of a famous artist.

XCII (163). Scipio counselled him either not to try, or to do so in such a manner as to succeed at all risks. For to make an attempt on the same man twice was dangerous in itself, and was apt to make a man altogether contemptible.

XCIII (164). But being jealous of Scipio they tried to decry his achievements.

XCIV (168). Fixing the stocks upright in the ground in a semicircle touching each other.

XCV (170). The important point of their resolution was that they would not admit a garrison or governor, and would not give up their constitution as established by law.

XCV (177-179). He said that we should not let the enemy escape, or encourage their boldness by shirking a battle. . . .

Conceiving a slight hope from the besieged garrison, he made the most of it. . . .

Pretending warm friendship, he tried every manœuvre whereby he might promote the enemy’s interests, and surround us by the gravest perils. . . .

XCVI (182). As the rock caused them difficulty because they were obliged to bore a hole in it, they completed the mine which they were making by using wooden bolts.

XCVII (183). He did not think it right to leave the war in Etruria, and give his attention to the cities in that part of the country. He feared that he should waste all the time, which was not very long to begin with, in less important details.

XCVIII (185). And having got his boats and hemioliae dragged across the Isthmus he put to sea, being anxious to be in time for the Achaean congress.

XCIX (191). Philip was annoyed at the request of the Corcyreans.

C (192). Since circumstances debar Philip, the king wishes to give that man the credit of the achievement, making the proposal to him in the light of a favour.

CI (193). Philip, having given out that he was about to serve out rations, made a proclamation that a return should be made to him of all who had not provisions for more than thirty days.

CII (195). After two days from starting for the seat of war Philip passed the order to make two rations three, whenever he wanted an additional day, and sometimes to make two four. (? Cp. Livy, 35, 28.)

CIII (195). A swipe (φρεατοτόπανον) is one of the implements mentioned by Polybius. (See 9, 43, Hultsch.)

CIV (199). It was impossible to convey the equipments and provisions for the legions by sea or upon beasts of burden; they must carry ten days’ provisions in their wallets.

## Notes

[1] Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, B. C. 175-164; Ptolemy VI. Philometor, B. C. 181-146.
[2] See 16, 18.
[3] The decree referred to is given in Livy, 43, 17. “No one shall supply any war material to the Roman magistrates other than that which the Senate has decreed.” This had been extracted from the Senate by vehement complaints reaching Rome of the cruel extortions of the Roman officers in the previous two years.
[4] Polybius seems to mean the smaller council, not the public assembly, though Livy evidently understood the latter (43, 47).
[5] The expedition of Perseus into Illyricum apparently took place late in the year B.C. 170 and in the first month of B.C. 169. Livy, 43, 18-20.
[6] Hyscana, or Uscana, a town of the Illyrian tribe Penestae.
[7] That is, the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy.
[8] The Antigoneia was a festival established in honour of Antigonus Doson, who had been a benefactor of the Achaeans. In 30, 23, it is mentioned as being celebrated in Sicyon. The benefactions of this Macedonian king to the Achaeans are mentioned by Pausanias (8, 8, 12).
[9] See 27, 19; 18, 1, 17.
[10] Seleucus Nicanor, B. C. 306-280.
[11] Livy (44, 8) calls it the Enipeus (Fersaliti), a tributary of the Peneus.
[12] In a previous part of the book now lost. See Livy, 44, 25.
[13] The extract begins in the middle of a sentence at the top of a page. I have supplied these words at a guess, giving what seems the sense.
[14] P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum was afterwards Pontifex Maximus (B. C. 150). See Cic. de Sen. 3, 50.
[15] Of the two eldest sons of Aemilius, the elder was adopted by Quintus Fabius Maximus, the second by P. Cornelius Scipio, son of the elder Africanus, his maternal uncle.
[16] From Plutarch, Aemilius, 15, who adds that Polybius made a mistake as to the number of soldiers told off for this service, which to judge from Livy, 44, 35, Polybius probably stated at 5000. Plutarch got his correction from an extant letter of Nasica (8000 Roman infantry, with 120 horse, and 200 Thracians and Cretans).
[17] From Plutarch, who again contradicts this last statement, on the authority of Nasica, who said that there was a sharp engagement on the heights.
[18] The Roman was saved from a scare by the eclipse being foretold by Gaius Sulpicius Gallus, famous for his knowledge of Greek literature and astronomy. He is represented by Cicero as explaining the celestial globe (sphaera) which Marcellus brought from Syracuse. He was consul in B. C. 166. Livy, 44, 37; Cicero, Brut. § 78; de Repub. 1, § 21.
[19] ἐν ἀγορᾷ. The objection, though it served to divert the magistrates from going on with the proposition at the time, seems to have been got over before the meeting at Sicyon; unless, indeed, the latter was considered to be of a different nature in regard to the age of those attending. But we have no information as to this restriction of thirty years of age,—whether it was universal, or confined to particular occasions. This passage would seem to point to the latter alternative.
[20] Livy says viginti millia. By χρυσοῦς Polybius appears to mean “staters,” worth about 20 drachmae (20 francs). This would give a rough value of the present as £8000, or on Livy’s computation twice that amount.
[21] Called by Polybius in previous books Conope, 4, 64: 5, 6. Its name was changed to Arsinoe, from its having been rebuilt and enlarged by Arsinoe, sister and wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Strabo, 10.2.22). It was on the east bank of the Achelous. Its modern name is Angelokastro. The civil war in Aetolia alluded to here is mentioned in Livy, 41, 25 (B. C. 174). This particular massacre appears to have taken place in B. C. 168-167. Livy (45, 28) narrates that Aemilius was met during his Greek tour in B. C. 167 by a crowd of Aetolians, in a miserable state of destitution, who informed him that five hundred and fifty Aetolian nobles had been massacred by Lyciscus and Tisippus, besides many driven into exile, and that the goods of both had been confiscated.
[22] From Athenaeus, xiv. 4, p. 615. It seems to be part of some strictures of Polybius on the coarseness of the amusements of the Romans. This noisy and riotous scene in a theatre would strike a Greek as barbarous and revolting; and may remind us of the complaints of the noise and interruption to their actors so often found in the prologues to the plays of Plautus and Terence. Though the substance of this extract is doubtless from Polybius, Athenaeus has evidently told the anecdote in his own language.
[23] Menalcidas was one of the Romanising party, who appears to have been Strategus of the league in B.C. 153 [Pausan. 7.11.7], and to have committed suicide in B.C. 148-147, in despair at his failure to wrest Sparta from the league.
[24] Haliartus had been taken by the praetor L. Lucretius Gallus in B.C. 171, its inhabitants sold into slavery, and its houses and its houses and walls entirely destroyed. Its crime was siding with Perseus. Livy, 42, 63. Supra bk. 27, ch. 5; 29, 12.
[25] A drachma may be taken as between a sixth and a seventh of an ounce.
[26] Hultsch prints in parallel columns the text of this fragment as it appears in Athenaeus and Diodorus. The English translation attempts to combine them.
[27] He means that, they being no longer able to decide in mercantile affairs independently of Rome, the prestige (προστασία), and consequently the popularity, of this harbour is destroyed.
[28] Demetrius had been exchanged for his uncle Antiochus Epiphanes in B. C. 175, just eleven years before.
[29] The Senatus Consultum de Macedonibus (Livy, 45, 29) had declared all Macedonians free; each city to enjoy its own laws, create its own annual magistrates, and pay a tribute to Rome—half the amount that it had paid to the king. Macedonia was divided into four regions, at the respective capitals of which—Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia—the district assemblies (concilia) were to be held, the revenue of the district was to be collected, and the district magistrates elected; and there was to be no inter-marriage or mutual rights of owning property between the regions.
[30] The Greek of this sentence is certainly corrupt, and no satisfactory sense can be elicited from it.
[31] Ariarathes, the elder, had been in alliance with Antiochus the Great, and had apparently given him one of his daughters in marriage, who had been accompanied by her mother to Antioch, where both had now fallen victims to the jealousy of Eupator’s minister, Lysias. See 21, 43.
[32] The anger of the Alexandrians had been excited against Ptolemy Physcon by his having, for some unknown reason, caused the death of Timotheus, who had been Ptolemy Philometor’s legate at Rome. See 28, 1. Diodor. Sic. fr. xi.
[33] The first line is of unknown authorship. The second is from Euripides, Phoeniss. 633. The third apophthegm is again unknown. The last is from Epicharmus, see 18, 40.
[34] About £12.
[35] In his Censorship (B. C. 184) Cato imposed a tax on slaves under twenty sold for more than ten sestertia (about £70.) Livy, 39, 44.
[36] Called Ptolemy the Orator in 28, 19.
[37] A more detailed statement of the controversies between Carthage and Massanissa, fostered and encouraged by the Romans, is found in Appian, Res Punicae, 67 sq.
[38] Demetrius was now king. On his escape from Rome, described in bk. 31, chs. 20-23, he had met with a ready reception in Syria, had seized the sovereign power, and put the young Antiochus and his minister Lysias to death; this was in B.C. 162. Appian, Syriac, ch. 47,
[39] ἐν ταῖς συγκρίσεσιν. But it is very doubtful what the exact meaning of this word is. Alcaeus seems to be the Epicurean philosopher who, among others, was expelled from Rome in B. C. 171. See Athenaeus, xii. 547, who however calls him Alcios. See also Aelian, V. Hist. 9, 12.
[40] See note on p. 456.
[41] She was the daughter of C. Papirius Carbo, Coss. B. C. 231.
[42] The following pedigree will show the various family connexions here alluded to:—
Publius Cornelius Scipio (ob. in Spain B. C. 212) → P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (ob. B.C. 187)
P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (ob. B.C. 187) = Aemilia (ob. B.C. 162) → Cornelia (1); Cornelia (2); Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (ob. s. p. adopted his cousin who became Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus ob. B. C. 129.)
— → Aemilia (ob. B.C. 162); Lucius Aemilius Paulus (ob. B.C. 160)
Lucius Aemilius Paulus (ob. B.C. 160) = Papiria → Quintus Fabius Maximus (adopted by Q. F. M.); Scipio Aemilianus (b. B.C. 185); two daughters
P. Scipio Nasica = Cornelia (1)
Tib. Sempronius Gracchus = Cornelia (2)
[43] τῶν ἐπίπλων, the ornamenta of a bride, consisting of clothes, jewels, slaves, and other things, in accordance with her station. See Horace, Sat. 2, 3, 214. For the three instalments in which it was necessary to pay dowries, see Cicero ad Att. ii. 23; 2 Phil. § 113.
[44] ποιοῦντος τὴν διαγραφὴν seems a banker’s term for “paying,” i.e. by striking off or cancelling a debt entered against a man. The only other instance of such a use seems to be Dionys. Hal. 5, 28.
[45] Of his two younger sons one died five days before his Macedonian triumph, the other three days after it. See Livy, 45, 40.
[46] The two sisters were both named Aemilia; the elder was married to Q. Aelius Tubero, the younger to M. Porcius Cato, elder son of the Censor. The daughters were prevented from taking the inheritance of their mother’s property by the lex Voconia (B. C. 174), in virtue of which a woman could not be a haeres, nor take a legacy greater than that of the haeres, or of all the haeredes together. The object of the law was to prevent the transference of the property of one gens to another on a large scale. It was evaded (1) by trusteeships, Gaius, 2, 274; Plutarch, Cic. 41: (2) by the assent of the haeres, Cic. de Off. 2, § 55. And it was relaxed by Augustus in favour of mothers of three children, Dio Cass. 56, 10. See also Cicero de Sen. § 14; de legg. 2, 20; de Rep. 3, 10; Verr. 2, 1, 42; Pliny, Panegyr. 42; Livy, Ep. 41.
[47] That is, the morning from daybreak till about ten or eleven. The salutationes came first, and the law business in the third hour.
[48] Ariarathes V. had been expelled his kingdom by Demetrius, who, in consideration of one thousand talents, had assisted his reputed brother Orophernes, who had been palmed off on Ariarathes IV. by his wife, to displace him. The Senate, when eventually appealed to, decided that the two brothers should share the kingdom. Livy, Ep. 47; Appian, Syr. 47.
[49] Ariarathes arrived in the summer of B.C. 158.
[50] τὴν Ἰακὴν καὶ τεχνητικὴν ἀσωτίαν. The translation given above is in accordance with the explanation of Casaubon, who quoted Horace (Odes 3, 6, 21), Motus doceri gaudet Ionicos matura virgo. Orophernes had been sent to Ionia, when Antiochis had a real son (Ariarathes V.), that he might not set up a claim to the throne. He had been imposed by Antiochis on her husband Ariarathes IV. before she had a real son.
[51] Orophernes was soon deposed, and Ariarathes V. restored, but we have no certain indication when this happened. See 3, 5.
[52] The episode of Oropus here referred to, Polybius’s account of which is lost, was made remarkable by the visit of the three philosophers to Rome as ambassadors from Athens. The story, as far as Athens was concerned, is told by Pausanias, 7, 11, 4-7. The Athenians had been much impoverished by the events of the war with Perseus (B.C. 172-168), and had made a raid or raids of some sort upon Oropus. The Oropians appealed to Rome. The Romans referred the assessment of damages to an Achaean court at Sicyon. The Athenians failed to appear before the court at Sicyon, and were condemned by default to a fine of five hundred talents. Thereupon Carneades the Academician, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus the Peripatetic were sent to plead for a remission of a fine which the Athenians were wholly unable to pay. They made a great impression on the Roman youth by their lectures, and Cato urged that they should get their answer and be sent away as soon as possible. The Senate reduced the fine to one hundred talents: but even that the Athenians could not collect; and they seem to have managed to induce the Oropians to allow an Athenian garrison to hold Oropus, and to give hostages for their fidelity to the Athenian government. This led to fresh quarrels and an appeal to the Achaean government. The Achaean Strategus, Menalcidas of Sparta, was bribed by a present of ten talents to induce an interference in behalf of Oropus. Thereupon the Athenians withdrew their garrison from Oropus, after pillaging the town, and henceforth took no part in the quarrels which ensued, arising from the demands of Menalcidas for his ten talents; which the Oropians refused to pay, on the ground that he had not helped them as he promised; quarrels which presently centred round the question of the continuance of Sparta in the Achaean league. The date of the original quarrel between Athens and Oropus is not fixed, but the mission of the philosophers was in B.C. 155. See Plutarch, Cato, 22; Pliny, N. H. 7, 112-113; Aulus Gellius, 6, 14; Cic. ad Att. 12, 23; Tusc. 4, § 5.
[53] C. Marcius consul adversus Dalmatas parum prospere primum, postea feliciter pugnavit. The war was continued in the next year (B.C. 155), and the Dalmatians subdued for the time by the consul P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. Livy, Ep. 47.
[54] Temnus was in Mysia, s. of the river Hermus. Cynneius or Cyneius Apollo seems to mean Apollo guardian of the shepherd dogs. There was, according to Suidas (s. v. κυνήειος), a temple to Apollo at Athens with that title, said to have been the work of Cynnis, a son of Apollo and a nymph Parnethia.
[55] The battle, in which Prusias is here said to have conquered Attalus, was a treacherous attack upon Attalus who was waiting, in accordance with an arrangement made by Roman envoys Hortensius and Arunculeius, to meet Prusias on his frontier, accompanied by only one thousand cavalry. The Roman envoys even had to fly for their lives. Appian, Mithridates, 3.
[56] Hultsch places an extract from Aulus Gellius (6, 14, 8) relating to the mission of the three philosophers as ch. 2 of this book. The substance is given in the note on p. 466. It is more in place there, as Polybius expressly said that he would give the whole story together (32, 25).
[57] This war appears to have arisen from a treacherous attack of the Cretans upon the island of Siphnos. Exc. de Virt. et Vit. p. 588.
[58] See 32, 27, note.
[59] Ligurian tribes between Nice and Marseilles. Pliny, N. H. 3, § 47.
[60] Surnamed Philometor. He succeeded his uncle Attalus Philadelphus in B.C. 138, and at his death in B.C. 133 left his dominions to Rome.
[61] Alexander Balas was an impostor of low origin set up by Heracleides as a son of Antiochus Epiphanes. He entered Syria in B.C. 152, defeated and killed Demetrius in B.C. 150, and was himself defeated in B.C. 146 by Ptolemy Philometor (who also fell) in favour of a son of Demetrius, and was shortly afterwards murdered. Livy, Ep. 52, Appian, Syr. 67; Joseph. Antiq. 13, 2, 4.
[62] Odyss. 12, 95.
[63] Odyss. 12, 105.
[64] Odyss. 9, 82.
[65] Panchaia or Panchēa, the fabulous island or country in the Red Sea or Arabian gulf, in which Euhemerus asserted that he had discovered the inscriptions which proved the reputed gods to have been famous generals or kings. Plutarch, Is. et Osir. 23, Diodor. fr. 6. 1. The Roman poets used the word as equivalent to “Arabian.” See Verg. Georg. 2, 139.
[66] That is “as great a liar as Antiphanes of Berga.” See below. Strabo classes Antiphanes with Pytheas and Euhemerus more than once (see 2, 3, 5). Hence came the verb βεργαΐζειν, “to tell travellers’ tales” (Steph. Byz.). But there is considerable doubt as to the identification of the traveller Antiphanes, some confounding him with a comic poet of the same name, and others with the author of an essay περὶ ἑταιρῶν. Berga was in the valley of the Strymon.
[67] Strabo here protests against Dicaearchus being treated as a standard of geographical truth. For Pytheas see Appendix.
[68] Polybius proves his point by the demonstration of the proposition “The square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled-triangle is equal to the squares of the sides containing the right angle.”
By applying this principle AD = 7745.9 . . and DC = 11019.9 . . . and the whole AC = 18765.8: whereas AB + BC (i.e. the coasting voyage) = 19200 stades (a difference of 434.2 stades, not 500). Add to this the 3000 from the Peloponnese to the Straits, the total coast voyage is 22,200 stades, as against Dicaearchus’s 10,000.
[69] To enable the reader to follow this list of prices, a short table is here sub-joined of Greek weights and money,—though he must be warned that values varied at different times and places,—with approximate values in English weights and money. 1 obol =1/40 oz. =1/8 shilling. 6 obols =1 drachma =3/20 oz. . . . 9d. 100 drachmae = 1 mina =15½ oz. . . . £3:18:6. 60 minae =1 talent =57 lbs. . . £235. A medimnus =11 gals. 4 pts. (dry measure). A metreta =8 gals. 5 pts. (liquid measure).
[70] Which member of the Cornelian gens this was is unknown. He appears to have been at Marseilles in the 4th century B. C. inquiring as to centres of trade open to Rome in rivalry with Carthage.
[71] Varro (Serv. ad Æn. 10, 13) adds a fifth by the Graian Alps, i.e. Little St. Bernard.
[72] Strabo corrects this, saying that the distance is 3000 stades.
[73] The islands were called also Vulcaniae and Aeoliae.
[74] Strabo reckons 8 stades to a mile, thus making the number of stades 4280. The exact calculation by Polybius’s reckoning is 4458-1/3 stades. The miles are Roman miles of 5000 feet; therefore, by Strabo’s calculation, the stade is 625 feet, by Polybius’s 600 feet.
[75] Strabo, however, supports the measurement of Artemidorus—6500, explaining that Polybius is taking some practical measurement of a voyage, not the shortest.
[76] Homer, Odyss. 4, 485.
[77] Probably in February, the month usually devoted by the Senate to legationes.
[78] Since B. C. 195 up to B. C. 154 the two divisions of Spain had been entrusted to Praetors.
[79] Livy, Ep. 48. Provocatorem barbarum tribunus militum occidit.
[80] τῶν ἐκ συγκλήτου καὶ τῆς γερουσίας. The same distinction occurs in 10, 18, and seems to refer to the two bodies known as the Hundred and the Gerusia. See Bosworth Smith’s Carthage and the Carthaginians, p. 27.
[81] The envoys first report to the Gerusia. Appian, Pun. 91.
[82] Phameas was afterwards persuaded by Massanissa to join the Romans. Livy, Ep. 50.
[83] The incident referred to is narrated in Appian. Punica, 103. Scipio relieved this body of men, who were beleaguered on the top of a hill, by a rapid and bold movement of his cavalry.
[84] Odyssey, 20, 495. Cato had always been opposed to the Scipios, but Livy seems to attribute his former criticisms of the younger Africanus to his general habit of caustic disparagement (vir promptioris ad vituperandum linguae), and we know that his elder son had married a daughter of Paulus, sister to the younger Africanus.
[85] Livy, Ep. 49.
[86] He seems to have forgotten his namesake mentioned in 11, 15.
[87] For Callicrates, the author of the Romanising policy, see 26, 1-3. One of the statues raised to him by the Spartan exiles was at Olympia, the base of which has been discovered. See Hicks’s Greek Inscriptions, p. 330. To what the fragment refers is not clear, but evidently to something connected with the popular movement against Sparta, and a recurrence to the policy of Philopoemen as represented by Lycortas, which eventually brought down the vengeance of Rome.
[88] Prusias was killed at Pergamum by his son Nicomedes with the connivance of Attalus (Livy, Ep. 50).
[89] A considerable passage is here lost, with the exception of a few words, insufficient to ground a conjectural translation upon.
[90] Demetrius II., son of Antigonus Gonatas.
[91] Pseudophilippus, after cutting to pieces a Roman legion under the praetor Juventius, was conquered and captured by Q. Caecilius Metellus in B. C. 148 (Livy, Ep. 50; Eutrop. 4, 6).
[92] Massanissa, feeling himself to be dying, had asked Scipio to come to him. He left his sons strict injunctions to submit the arrangements of the succession and division of his kingdom to Scipio. Appian, Punica, 105; Livy, Ep. 50. Livy has adopted the statement of Polybius as to the age of Massanissa at his death; and Cicero (de Sen. § 34) has made Cato take the same reckoning, perhaps from Polybius also. But it does not agree with another statement of Livy himself, who (24, 49) speaks of him as being seventeen in B. C. 213, in which case he would be in his eighty-second year in B. C. 148. It is, however, proposed to read xxvii. for xvii. in this passage of Livy.
[93] Livy (Ep. 48) in speaking of this victory says that Massanissa was ninety-two, and ate and enjoyed his bread without anything to flavour it (sine pulpamine).
[94] The task of subduing the country in B. C. 147 was entrusted to the proconsul Culpurnius Piso, while Scipio was engaged in completing the investment of Carthage. Appian, Pun. 113-126.
[95] After the capture of Megara, the suburban district of Carthage, by Scipio, Hasdrubal withdrew into the Byrsa, got made commander-in-chief, and bringing all Roman prisoners to the battlements, put them to death with the most ghastly tortures. Appian, Pun. 118.
[96] τὰ χώματα, that is, apparently, the mole of huge stones constructed by the Romans to block up the mouth of the harbour.
[97] μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἐνδυμάτων. The German translator Kraz gives up these words in despair. Kampe translated them in ihrer gewöhnlicher Tracht. Mr. Strachan-Davidson says, “προσειληφυῖα, etc., ‘folding them in her own robe with her hands,’” which seems straining the meaning of προσειληφυῖα. The French translator says, deux enfans suspendus à ses vétemens.
[98] According to Livy (Ep. 51) she had tried to induce her husband to accept the offer described in 38, 2.
[99] Homer, Il. 6, 448.
[100] 4000 under Alcamenes, Pausan. 7.15.8.
[101] In the battle with Metellus at Scarphea.
[102] Pausanias on the contrary says that Pytheas was caught in Boeotia and condemned by Metellus (7, 15, 10).
[103] The pit is the place dug out (σκάμμα) and prepared in the gymnasium for leapers. To be in the pit is to be on the very ground of the struggle, without possibility of escaping it.
[104] See note on 30, 17.
[105] For this proverb see Plutarch, Themist. 29; de Alex. Virt. 5; de Exil. 7.
[106] Plutarch reports the same anecdote much more briefly in Cato Maj. 12, as do others. Professor Freeman (History of Federal Government, p. 142) seems to regard it as a serious indication that the Amphictyonic council had become a body exercising some literary authority, in default of any other. I think that Cato had no such meaning. He mentioned any body of men, however unlikely to exercise such an influence, which at any rate was Greek.
[107] Seems to mean “he lost before he began,” before he got even at the threshold of his enterprise. There is nothing to show to what the fragment refers.
[108] The base of a statue of Polybius has been discovered at Olympia with the inscription ἡ πόλις ἡ τῶν Ἡλείων Πολύβιον Δυκόρτα Μεγαλοπολείτην. But the statue mentioned in the text seems to be one set up by the Achaeans. For the statues of Polybius, see Introduction, pp. xxxi. xxxii.
[109] Thebae quoque et Chalcis, quae auxilio fuerant, dirutae. Ipse L. Mummius abstinentissimum virum egit; nec quidquam ex iis opibus ornamentisque, quae praedives Corinthus habuit, in domum ejus pervenit. Livy, Ep. 52.
[110] Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, is called, by way of distinction, “King of Syria,” because that title was bestowed on him by the people of Antioch during his last expedition in Syria. This was undertaken in support of Alexander Balas, who repaid him by conniving at an attempt upon his life. Whereupon Ptolemy joined Demetrius, the son of Demetrius Soter, and supported his claim against Alexander Balas. Joseph. Ant. 13, 3; 1 Maccabees 11, 1-13.
[111] Dionysius Hal. (1, 74) quotes this statement of Polybius with the remark that it is founded on a single tablet in the custody of the Pontifices. Various calculations as to the date were:—
Eratosthenes (followed by Apollodorus, Nepos, Dionysius, Lutatius): Olymp. 7, 1 — B.C. 752.
Q. Fabius Pictor: Olymp. 8, 1 — B.C. 748.
Timaeus: 38th year before Olymp. 1 — B.C. 813.
L. Cincius Alimantus: Olymp. 12, 4 — B.C. 729.
M. Porcius Cato: 432 years after the Trojan war — B.C. 752.
Varro, Velleius Paterculus: Olymp. 6, 2 — B.C. 755.
Pomponius Atticus: Olymp. 6, 3 — B.C. 754.
But even granting a definite act of foundation (on which see Mommsen, H. of R. vol. i. p. 4), the Olympic register before 672 B. C. is a very uncertain foundation on which to build. See Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. ii. p. 164 sq.
[112] From Eusebius. It may be noted that this statement of Polybius is an earlier evidence than any other for the existence of an Olympian register prior to B. C. 600. Pausanias also dates the register from the year of Coroebus’s victory (5, 8, 6).
[113] I have translated this passage as it stands in the various editions of Polybius. But I feel convinced that none of it belongs to him except the first sentence. It comes from Athenaeus, 440 E.
[114] See Livy, 1, 34. Dionys. Halic. 3, 46.
[115] Hesiod, Works and Days, 40, νήπιοι, οὐδὲ ἴσασιν ὅσῳ πλέον ἥμισυ παντός.
[116] Polybius is perhaps referring to the Acrocorinthus especially. But we must remember that many of the citadels in the third century B.C. were in the hands of Macedonian garrisons.
[117] This has been referred by some to the account of Scipio Aemilianus’s single combat with the Spaniard. See 35, 5.
[118] Perhaps L. Postumius, Livy, 23, 24 (Hultsch).
[119] B.C. 272. Plutarch, Pyrrh. 31-34.
[120] See Pausan. i. 9, 6. His disaster compelled him to give up his dominions beyond the Danube. Another and more successful war in Thrace seems referred to in Diod. Sic. 18, 14.
[121] Livy, however, records more than one success of Marcellus against Hannibal, see 23, 16, 46; 27, 14. Scipio’s victory of course is at Zama.
[122] From Zosimus, 5, 20, 7. See 1, 26.
[123] Some refer this to a circumstance narrated in Livy, 41, 2. But Hultsch points out that Livy is not using Polybius in that period.
[124] From Constantine Prophyrogenneta de thematis, p. 18, ed. Bonnensis (Hultsch). He says that there are two Cappadocias, great and little. Great Cappadocia extending from Caesarea (Neo-Caesarea), and Mount Taurus to the Pontus, bounded on the south-west by the Halys and on the east by Melitene.
[125] See 6, 23. The excellence of Spanish steel has never perhaps been surpassed even to our day.
[126] See 35, 2-4.
[127] Plutarch, Pelop. 17, who says that other authorities reckoned it at 500 and 700 men. There were originally six morae in the Spartan army. See Xenophon, Rep. Lac. 11, 4; Hell. 6, 4, 12-17.
[128] See 6, 25.
[129] This is referred by Nissen to the account of the origin of the third Punic war. See 36, 3-5.
[130] This moderation in the number of slaves was perhaps imitated from Cato. See Cato, Orationum frgm. 3. Ed. Jordan.