CONTENTS
_In the 148th Olympiad (B.C. 188-184) embassies came from Philip and
the tribes bordering on Macedonia to Rome. The decrees of the Senate
concerning them. In Greece the quarrel of Philip with the Thessalians
and Perrhaebians about the cities held by Philip in their countries
from the time of the war with Antiochus. The decision concerning them
before Q. Caecilius at Tempe. Decisions of Caecilius. A difference of
Philip with the ambassadors of Eumenes and the exiles from Maroneia;
the pleadings on these points at Thessalonica and the decision of
Caecilius. The massacre at Maroneia instigated by king Philip. The
arrival of the Roman legates, and their decisions. The causes of the
war between the Romans and Perseus. Arrival of ambassadors from kings
Ptolemy and Eumenes and Seleucus in the Peloponnese. The decision of
the Achaeans on the alliance with Ptolemy, and on the gifts offered
them by these kings. Arrival of Q. Caecilius and his disapprobation
of the measures taken in regard to Sparta. Embassy of Areus and
Alcibiades, two of the earlier exiles from Sparta, to Rome, and their
accusations against Philopoemen and the Achaeans. The Roman envoys come
to Cleitor, where there is an Achaean assembly. The speeches delivered
for both parties, and the Achaean decrees in the affair of Sparta._[116]
[Sidenote: An appeal to Rome against Philopoemen. B.C. 187. Coss. M.
Aemilius Lepidus, C. Flamininus.]
+3.+ After the execution of the men at Compasium,[117] some of the
Lacedaemonians, incensed at what had been done, and believing that
the power and authority of the Romans had been set at naught by
Philopoemen, went to Rome and accused Philopoemen and his proceedings;
and finally obtained a letter addressed to the Achaeans from Marcus
Lepidus, the consul of the year, and afterwards Pontifex Maximus, in
which he told the Achaeans that they had not acted equitably in the
matters of the Lacedaemonians. At the same time as this mission from
Sparta, Philopoemen also appointed Nicodemus of Elis and others to go
on an embassy to Rome.
[Sidenote: Renewal of the treaty between the Achaean league and
Ptolemy.]
[Sidenote: The accomplishments of Ptolemy Epiphanes.]
Just at that time Demetrius of Athens came on a mission from Ptolemy,
to renew the existing alliance between the king and the Achaean league.
This was eagerly accepted, and my father, Lycortas, and Theodoridas,
and Rhositeles of Sicyon were appointed ambassadors to take the oaths
on behalf of the Achaeans, and receive those of the king. And on
that occasion a circumstance occurred, which, though not important
perhaps, is still worth recording. After the completion of this renewal
of alliance on behalf of the Achaeans, Philopoemen entertained the
ambassador; and in the course of the banquet the ambassador introduced
the king’s name, and said a great deal in his praise, quoting anecdotes
of his skill and boldness in hunting, as well as his excellence in
riding and the use of arms; and ended by quoting, as a proof of what
he said, that the king on horseback once transfixed a bull with a
javelin....
[Sidenote: The effect of the collapse of Antiochus upon Boeotia.]
[Sidenote: Resistance to the recall of Zeuxippus.]
[Sidenote: See 18, 43. Livy, 33, 28.]
+4.+ In Boeotia, after the formation of the treaty between Rome and
Antiochus, the hopes of the whole revolutionary party were destroyed.
Politics therefore began to assume a new aspect; and whereas the
administration of justice among them had been postponed for nearly the
last twenty years, voices began to make themselves heard in the cities
to the effect that “there ought to be an end and settlement of their
mutual disputes.” But after considerable controversy on this point,
because the discontented were more numerous than the wealthy, the
following circumstance occurred which helped accidently to support the
party of order. Titus Flamininus had for some time past been zealously
working in Rome to secure the restoration of Zeuxippus to Boeotia,
because he had found him serviceable on many occasions during the wars
with Antiochus and Philip. And just at this time he had induced the
Senate to send a despatch to the Boeotians ordering them to recall
Zeuxippus and his fellow exiles. When this despatch arrived, the
Boeotians, fearing that, if these men were restored, they would become
detached from their good understanding with Macedonia, determined that
the legal sentence upon Zeuxippus and the rest should be publicly
proclaimed,[118] which they had formerly drawn up against them. Thus
they condemned them on two charges, first, of sacrilege for having
stripped off the silver from the plated table of Zeus, and, secondly,
of murder for having killed Brachylles. Having made this arrangement,
they assumed that they need pay no further attention to the despatch
of the Senate, but contented themselves with sending Callicritus and
others to Rome with the message that they were unable to rescind what
had been settled by their laws. Zeuxippus having sent an embassy to the
Senate at the same time, the Romans wrote to the Aetolians and Achaeans
an account of the attitude assumed by the Boeotians, and ordered them
to restore Zeuxippus to his country. The Achaeans refrained from
invading the country with an army, but selected some ambassadors to go
and persuade the Boeotians to obey the orders from Rome; and also to
settle the legal disputes existing between them and the Achaeans, on
the same principles as they conducted the administration of justice at
home: for it happened that there were some controversies between the
two nations that had been dragging on for a long time. On receiving
this message the Boeotians, whose Strategus was then Hippias, promised
at the moment that they would do what was demanded of them, but shortly
afterwards neglected it at every point. Therefore, when Hippias had
laid down his office and Alcetas had succeeded him, Philopoemen gave
all who chose license to make reprisals on the territories of the
Boeotians; which proved the beginning of a serious quarrel between the
two nations. For on the cattle of Myrrhichus and Simon being driven
off,[1] and a struggle arising over this transaction, the contest soon
ceased to be political, and became the beginning and prelude of open
war. If indeed the Senate had persisted in carrying out the restoration
of Zeuxippus, war would quickly have been kindled; but as it maintained
silence on the subject, the Megareans were induced by an embassy
proposing terms to stop the reprisals.[119]...
[Sidenote: Rhodes and the Lycians.]
+5.+ A quarrel arose between the Lycians and Rhodians from the
following causes. When the ten commissioners were employed in the
settlement of Asia, they were visited by Theaetetus and Philophron
on a mission from Rhodes, demanding that Lycia and Caria should be
given to them in return for the goodwill and zeal displayed by them in
the war with Antiochus. At the same time Hipparchus and Satyrus came
from Ilium begging, on the ground of their kindred with the Lycians,
that the latter should receive pardon for their transgressions. The
commissioners listened to these pleadings, and tried to do what they
could to satisfy both. For the sake of the people of Ilium, they
inflicted no severity on the Lycians, but gratified the Rhodians by
presenting them with the sovereignty over that people. This decision
was the origin of a serious division and controversy between the
Lycians and Rhodians. For the envoys of Ilium visited the Lycian
cities, giving out that they had succeeded in pacifying the Roman
anger, and that they owed their liberty to them; while Theaetetus and
his colleague took back word to their countrymen that Lycia and all
Caria south of the Maeander had been given as a free gift by the Romans
to Rhodes. Presently an embassy came from Lycia to Rhodes desiring
an alliance; while the Rhodians on their part had elected certain of
their citizens to go to Lycia and give orders to the several cities as
to what they were to do. They were thus entirely at cross purposes,
and for some time the cause of the misunderstanding was not generally
intelligible. But when the Lycian ambassadors appeared in the assembly
and began talking about an alliance, and Pothion the Prytanis rose
after them and explained the different ideas which the two people
entertained on the subject, and moreover, sternly rebuked the Lycian
envoys,[120] the latter declared that they would endure anything rather
than be subject to the Rhodians....
EGYPT UNDER PTOLEMY EPIPHANES AFTER THE DEATH OF ARISTOMENES (18, 53,
54)
[Sidenote: Contrast of the conduct of Philip II. of Macedon to Athens
in B.C. 338 with that of Ptolemy.]
+6.+ All men admire the magnanimity of Philip towards Athens; for
though he had been injured as well as abused by them, yet when he
conquered them at Chaeroneia, so far from using this opportunity for
injuring his opponents, he caused the corpses of the Athenians to be
buried with the proper ceremonies; while those of them who had been
taken prisoners he actually presented with clothes, and restored to
their friends without ransom. But though men praise they do not imitate
such conduct. They rather try to outdo those with whom they are at
war, in bitterness of passion and severity of vengeance. Ptolemy, for
instance, had men tied naked to carts and dragged at their tail, and
then put to death with torture....
[Sidenote: Lycopolis in the Thebaid.]
[Sidenote: Suppression of the revolt in Lower Egypt, B.C. 186-185.]
+7.+ When this same Ptolemy was besieging Lycopolis, the Egyptian
nobles surrendered to the king at discretion; and his cruel treatment
of them involved him in manifold dangers. The same was the result at
the time Polycrates suppressed the revolt. For Athinis, Pausiras,
Chesuphus, and Irobastus, who still survived of the rebellious nobles,
yielding to necessity, appeared at the city of Sais and surrendered
at discretion to the king. But Ptolemy, regardless of all pledges,
had them tied naked to the carts and dragged off, and then put to
death with torture. He then went to Naucratis with his army, where he
received the mercenaries enlisted for him by Aristonicus from Greece,
and thence sailed to Alexandria, without having taken any part whatever
in the actual operations of the war, thanks to the dishonest advice of
Polycrates, though he was now twenty-five years old....
[Sidenote: B.C. 186. The origin of the last Macedonian war.]
[Sidenote: Abrupolis, a Thracian prince and friend of the Romans. See
Livy, 42, 13, 40. Death of Philip V. B.C. 179.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 176-172.]
[Sidenote: See bk. 3, ch. 6.]
+8.+ At this time were sowed the seeds of fatal evils to the royal
house of Macedonia. I am aware that some historians of the war between
Rome and Perseus, when they wish to set forth the causes of the quarrel
for our information, assign as the primary one the expulsion of
Abrupolis from his principality, on the ground of having made a raid
upon the mines at Pangaeum after the death of Philip, which Perseus
repulsed, finally expelling him entirely out of his own dominions.
Next they mention the invasion of Dolopia, and the visit of Perseus
to Delphi, the plot against Eumenes at Delphi, and the murder of
the ambassadors in Boeotia; and from these they say sprang the war
between Perseus and the Romans. But my contention is that it is of
most decisive advantage, both to historians and their readers, to
know the causes from which the several events are born and spring.
Most historians confound these, because they do not keep a firm hold
upon the distinction between a pretext and a cause, or again between
a pretext and a beginning of a war. And since events at the present
time recall this distinction I feel compelled to renew my discussion of
this subject. For instance, of the events just referred to, the first
three are pretexts; the last two—the plot against Eumenes, the murder
of the ambassadors, and other similar things that happened during the
same period—are clear _beginnings_ of the war between Rome and Perseus,
and of the final overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom; but not one of
them is a _cause_ of these things. I will illustrate by examples. Just
as we say that Philip son of Amyntas contemplated and determined upon
accomplishing the war with Persia, while Alexander put into execution
what he had projected, so in the present instance we say that Philip
son of Demetrius first projected the last war against Rome, and had all
his preparations ready for the execution of his design, but that after
his death Perseus became the agent in carrying out the undertaking
itself. If this be true, the following also is clear: it is impossible
that the causes of the war should have been subsequent to the death of
him who resolved upon and projected it; which would be the case if we
accepted the account of these historians; for the events alleged by
them as its causes were subsequent to the death of Philip....
[Sidenote: Complaints lodged against Philip at Rome, B. C. 185.]
[Sidenote: A commission of investigation appointed.]
+9.+ About the same time ambassadors came to Rome from king Eumenes,
informing the Senate of the encroachment of Philip upon the cities in
Thrace. There came also the exiles of the Maronitae denouncing Philip,
and charging him with being the cause of their expulsion. These were
followed by Athamanians, Perrhaebians, and Thessalians, demanding the
restoration of their cities which Philip had taken from them during the
war with Antiochus. Ambassadors also came from Philip to make answer
to all accusers. After repeated debates between all these envoys and
the ambassadors of Philip, the Senate decided to appoint a commission
at once, to investigate the actions of Philip, and to protect all
who chose to state their views and their complaints of the king to
his face. The legates thus appointed were Quintus Caecilius, Marcus
Baebius, and Tiberius Claudius.[121]...
[Sidenote: Aenus in Thrace.]
There was again a war of parties among the Aenii, one side inclining to
Eumenes, the other to Macedonia....
_The result of these embassies was the Congress of Tempe, at which no
definite settlement was made. Livy, 39, 25-28._
A MEETING OF THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE PARLIAMENT
[Sidenote: Philopoemen Achaean Strategus for two years running, from
May B.C. 189 to May B.C. 187.] +10.+ I have already stated that in the
Peloponnese, while Philopoemen was still Strategus, the Achaean league
sent an embassy to Rome on the subject of Sparta, and another to king
Ptolemy to renew their ancient alliance.
[Sidenote: Aristaenus. May, B.C. 187 to May, B.C. 186.]
[Sidenote: Seleucus Philopator succeeded his father Antiochus the
Great, B.C. 187.]
[Sidenote: Business of the Achaean assembly.]
[Sidenote: Letter from the Senate on the subject of Philopoemen’s
actions at Sparta.]
Immediately after Philopoemen had been succeeded by Aristaenus as
Strategus, the ambassadors of king Ptolemy arrived, while the league
meeting was assembled at Megalopolis. King Eumenes also had despatched
an embassy offering to give the Achaeans one hundred and twenty
talents, on condition that it was invested and the interest used to
pay the council of the league at the time of the federal assemblies.
Ambassadors came also from king Seleucus, to renew his friendship
with them, and offering a present of a fleet of ten ships of war.
But when the assembly got to business, the first to come forward to
speak was Nicodemus of Elis, who recounted to the Achaeans what he and
his colleagues had said in the Roman Senate about Sparta, and read
the answer of the Senate; which was to the effect that the Senate
disapproved of the destruction of the walls, and of the execution of
the men put to death at Compasium, but that it did not rescind any
arrangement made. No one saying a word for or against this, the subject
was allowed to pass.
[Sidenote: The offer of Eumenes.]
Next came the ambassadors from Eumenes, who renewed the ancestral
friendship of the king with the Achaeans, and stated to the assembly
the offer made by him. They spoke at great length on these subjects,
and retired after setting forth the greatness of the king’s kindness
and affection to the nation.
[Sidenote: Answer of Apollonidas.]
+11.+ After they had finished their speech, Apollonidas of Sicyon rose
and said that: “As far as the amount of the money was concerned, it was
a present worthy of the Achaeans. But if they looked to the intention
of the donor, or the purpose to which the gift was to be applied,
none could well be more insulting and more unconstitutional. The laws
prohibited any one, whether a private individual or magistrate, from
accepting presents from a king on any pretence whatever; but if they
took this money they would every one of them be plainly accepting a
present, which was at once the gravest possible breach of the law,
and confessedly the deepest possible personal disgrace. For that the
council should take a great wage from Eumenes, and meet to deliberate
on the interests of the league after swallowing such a bait, was
manifestly disgraceful and injurious. It was Eumenes that offered
money now; presently it would be Prusias; and then Seleucus. But as
the interests of democracies and of kings are quite opposite to each
other, and as our most frequent and most important deliberations
concern the points of controversy arising between us and the kings,
one of two things must necessarily happen; either the interests of the
king will have precedence over our own, or we must incur the reproach
of ingratitude for opposing our paymasters.” He therefore urged
the Achaeans not only to decline the offer, but to hold Eumenes in
detestation for thinking of making it.
[Sidenote: Speech of Cassander of Aegina.]
Next rose Cassander of Aegina and reminded the Achaeans of “The
misfortunes which the Aeginetans had met with through being members of
the Achaean league; when Publius Sulpicius sailed against them with
the Roman fleet, and sold all the unhappy Aeginetans into slavery.” In
regard to this subject I have already related how the Aetolians, having
got possession of Aegina in virtue of their treaty with Rome, sold it
to Attalus for thirty talents. Cassander therefore drew the attention
of the Achaeans to these facts; and demanded that Eumenes should not
seek to gain the affection of the Achaeans by offering them money,
but that he should establish an incontestable claim to every sign of
devotion by giving back Aegina. He urged the Achaeans not to accept
presents which would place them in the position of being the destroyers
of the hopes of Aeginetan restoration for all time.
[Sidenote: The present of Eumenes is refused.]
After these speeches had been delivered, the people showed such signs
of enthusiastic approval that no one ventured to speak on the side of
the king; but the whole assembly rejected the offer by acclamation,
though its amount certainly made it exceedingly tempting.
[Sidenote: Ptolemy. The speech of Lycortas.]
[Sidenote: A mistake discovered.]
+12.+ The next subject introduced for debate was that of king Ptolemy.
The ambassadors who had been on the mission to Ptolemy were called
forward, and Lycortas, acting as spokesman, began by stating how they
had interchanged oaths of alliance with the king; and next announced
that they brought a present from the king to the Achaean league of
six thousand stands of arms for peltasts, and two thousand talents in
bronze coinage. He added a panegyric on the king, and finished his
speech by a brief reference to the goodwill and active benevolence of
the king towards the Achaeans. Upon this the Strategus of the Achaeans,
Aristaenus, stood up and asked Lycortas and his colleagues in the
embassy to Ptolemy “which alliance it was that he had thus renewed?”
No one answering the question, but all the assembly beginning to
converse with each other, the Council chamber was filled with
confusion. The cause of this absurd state of things was this. There
had been several treaties of alliance formed between the Achaeans and
Ptolemy’s kingdom, as widely different in their provision as in the
circumstances which gave rise to them: but neither had Ptolemy’s envoy
made any distinction when arranging for the renewal, merely speaking
in general terms on the matter, nor had the ambassadors sent from
Achaia; but they had interchanged the oaths on the assumption of there
being but one treaty. The result was, that, on the Strategus quoting
all the treaties, and pointing out in detail the differences between
them, which turned out to be important, the assembly demanded to know
which it was that it was renewing. And when no one was able to explain,
not even Philopoemen himself, who had been in office when the renewal
was made, nor Lycortas and his colleagues who had been on the mission
to Alexandria, these men all began to be regarded as careless in
conducting the business of the league; while Aristaenus acquired great
reputation as being the only man who knew what he was talking about;
and finally, the assembly refused to allow the ratification, voting on
account of this blunder that the business should be postponed.
[Sidenote: Offer of Seleucus.]
Then the ambassadors from Seleucus entered with their proposal. The
Achaeans, however, voted to renew the friendship with Seleucus, but to
decline for the present the gift of the ships.
[Sidenote: Winter of B.C. 185.]
+13.+ Having thus finished their deliberations, the assembly broke up
and the people separated to their several cities. But subsequently,
while the (Nemean) games were in course of celebration, Quintus
Caecilius arrived from Macedonia, on his way back from the embassy
which he had been conducting to Philip. Aristaenus having called a
meeting of the league magistrates in Argos, Quintus attended and
upbraided them for having exceeded justice in the harshness and
severity with which they had treated the Lacedaemonians, and urged
them strongly to repair the error. Aristaenus said not a word, showing
clearly by his silence that he disapproved of what had been done and
agreed with the words of Caecilius. But Diophanes of Megalopolis, who
was more of a soldier than a statesman, stood up to speak, and so far
from offering any defence of the Achaeans, suggested to Caecilius, from
hostility to Philopoemen, another charge that might be brought against
them. For he said that “the Lacedaemonians were not the only people who
had been badly treated; the Messenians had been so also.” There were
as a fact some controversies going on among the Messenians, in regard
to the decree of Flamininus concerning the exiles, and the execution
of it by Philopoemen: and Caecilius, thinking that he now had a party
among the Achaeans themselves of the same opinion as himself, expressed
still greater anger at the hesitation on the part of the assembled
magistrates in obeying his orders. However, when Philopoemen, Lycortas,
and Archon argued long and elaborately to prove that what had been done
at Sparta was right, and advantageous to the Lacedaemonians themselves
more than to any one else, and that it was impossible to disturb any
existing arrangements without violating justice to man and piety to
the gods, they came to the decision that they would maintain them, and
give an answer to that effect to the Roman legate. Seeing what the
disposition of the magistrates was, Caecilius demanded that the public
assembly should be summoned, to which the Achaean magistrates demanded
to see the instructions which he had from the Senate on these points:
and when he gave no answer to this demand, they said that they would
not summon the assembly for him, as their laws forbade them to do so
unless a man brought written instructions from the Senate, stating
the subject on which they were to summon it. Caecilius was so angry
at this uncompromising opposition to his orders, that he refused to
receive his answer from the magistrates, and so departed without any
answer at all. The Achaeans laid the blame both of the former visit
of Marcus Fulvius and the present one of Caecilius on Aristaenus and
Diophanes, on the ground that they had invited them on account of their
political opposition to Philopoemen; and accordingly the general public
felt a certain suspicion of these two men. Such was the state of the
Peloponnese....
[Sidenote: Philopoemen on Archon.]
+14.+ Philopoemen had a sharp difference in debate with Archon the
Strategus. In course of time, however, Philopoemen was convinced by
Archon’s arguments, and, changing his mind, spoke in warm commendation
of Archon as having managed his business with skill and address. But
when I heard the speech at the time it did not seem to me right to
praise a man and yet do him an injury, nor do I think so now in my
maturer years. For I think that there is as wide a distinction in
point of morality between practical ability and success secured by
absence of scruples, as there is between skill and mere cunning. The
former are in a manner the highest attainments possible, the latter the
reverse. But owing to the lack of discernment so general in our day,
these qualities, which have little in common, excite the same amount of
commendation and emulation in the world....
[Sidenote: Ambassadors from Philip and the Achaeans heard on the report
of Caecilius, B.C. 185-184.]
+15.+ When Caecilius returned from Greece and made his report to the
Senate concerning Macedonia and the Peloponnese, the ambassadors who
had come to Rome on these matters were introduced into the Senate.
First came those from Philip and Eumenes, as well as the exiles from
Aenus and Maroneia; and on their saying much the same as they had said
before Caecilius and his colleagues at Thessalonica, the Senate voted
to send another deputation to Philip, to see first of all whether he
had evacuated the cities in Perrhaebia in conformity with the answer he
gave to Caecilius: and secondly, to order him to remove his garrison
from Aenus and Maroneia; and in a word, to abandon all fortresses,
positions, and towns on the seaboard of Thrace.
[Sidenote: The Achaean ambassadors make their defence.]
After these the ambassadors from the Peloponnese were introduced.
For the Achaeans on their part had sent Apollonidas of Sicyon, and
others, to justify themselves to Caecilius for his having received no
answer, and generally to inform the Senate on the question of Sparta;
and at the same time Areus and Alcibiades had come from Sparta as
ambassadors,—two of the old exiles recently restored by Philopoemen
and the Achaeans. And this was a circumstance that particularly roused
the anger of the Achaeans; because they thought it the height of
ingratitude on the part of the exiles, after receiving so important and
recent a service at their hands, to be now sending a hostile embassy,
and accusing to the sovereign people those who had been the authors of
their unlooked-for preservation and restoration to their country.
[Sidenote: The Spartan envoys.]
[Sidenote: The decision.]
+16.+ Both parties were heard in their defence in each other’s
presence. Apollonidas of Sicyon and his colleagues tried to convince
the Senate that the affairs of Sparta could not have been better
managed than they were managed by Philopoemen. Areus and his colleagues
attempted to establish the reverse: alleging, first of all, that the
power of the city was entirely destroyed by the violent withdrawal
of so large a number; and, in the second place, that even those that
were left were so few that their position was insecure, now that the
walls were pulled down; and that their freedom of speech was entirely
destroyed by the fact that they were not only amenable to the general
decrees of the Achaean league, but were also made specially subject to
the magistrates set over them from time to time. After hearing these
envoys also, the Senate decided to give the same legates instructions
regarding them as well as the others, and appointed Appius Claudius and
his colleagues commissioners for Greece.
[Sidenote: Defence of the refusal to call the Achaean assembly.]
But the ambassadors from the Achaeans offered an explanation also to
Caecilius in the Senate, on behalf of the magistrates, asserting that
“They did not act wrongly or deserve blame for refusing to summon the
assembly, unless it were requisite to decide on an alliance or a war,
or unless some one brought a letter from the Senate. The magistrates
had therefore impartially considered the subject of summoning the
assembly, but were prevented from doing so by the laws, because he
neither brought a despatch from the Senate nor would show them any
written instructions.” At the conclusion of this speech Caecilius
rose and made an attack on Philopoemen and Lycortas, and the Achaeans
generally, and on the policy they had pursued towards the city of
Sparta. After listening to the arguments, the Senate answered the
Achaeans by saying that they would send commissioners to investigate
the matter of Sparta; and they accompanied this answer by an admonition
to them to pay attention to the ambassadors sent by them from time to
time, and show them proper respect, as the Romans did to ambassadors
who came to them....
[Sidenote: Philip’s vengeance on the people of Maroneia, early in B. C.
184. Livy, 39, 33.]
[Sidenote: He attempts to evade responsibility for it.]
+17.+ When Philip learnt, by a message from his own ambassadors at
Rome, that he would be obliged to evacuate the cities in Thrace, he
was extremely annoyed, because he regarded his kingdom as being now
curtailed on every side; and he vented his wrath upon the unhappy
people of Maroneia. He sent for Onomastus, his governor in Thrace, and
communicated with him on the subject. And Onomastus on his return sent
Cassander to Maroneia, who, from long residence there, was familiar
with the inhabitants,—for Philip’s practice had long been to place
members of his court in these cities, and accustom the people to their
residence among them. Some few days after his arrival, the Thracians
having been prepared for what they had to do, and having obtained
entrance to the city by night through the instrumentality of Cassander,
a great massacre took place, and many of the Maronites were killed.
Having wreaked this vengeance on those who opposed him, and satisfied
his own anger, Philip waited for the arrival of the Roman legates,
persuaded that no one would venture for fear of him to denounce his
crime. But when Appius and his colleagues presently arrived, they were
promptly informed of what had happened at Maroneia, and expostulated in
severe terms with Philip for it. The king attempted to defend himself
by asserting that he had nothing to do with this act of violence;
but that the Maronites, being divided into two hostile parties, one
inclined to Eumenes and the other to himself, inflicted this misfortune
upon themselves. He moreover bade them confront him with any one who
wished to accuse him. He said this from a conviction that no one would
venture to do so; because they would consider that Philip’s vengeance
upon those who opposed him would be near at hand, while assistance from
Rome would have a long way to come. But when Appius and his colleagues
said that “they required to hear no defence, for they were well aware
of what had happened, and who was the cause of it,” Philip became much
confused.
[Sidenote: The guilty agents are to be sent to Rome.]
[Sidenote: Another crime.]
[Sidenote: Philip’s hostility to Rome.]
+18.+ They went no further than this in the first interview: but during
the next day Appius ordered Philip to send Onomastus and Cassander at
once to Rome, that the Senate might inform itself on what had happened.
The king was disturbed at this to the greatest possible degree, and for
some time did not know what to say; but at last he said that he would
send Cassander, who was the actual author of the business, that the
Senate might learn the truth from him; but he tried to get Onomastus
excused, both in this and subsequent interviews with the legates,
alleging as a reason that not only had Onomastus not been in Maroneia
at the time of the massacre, but not even in any part of the country
in its neighbourhood. His real motive, however, was fear lest, if he
got to Rome, having been engaged with him in many similar transactions,
he would not only tell the Romans the story of Maroneia, but all the
others also. Eventually he did get Onomastus excused; and having, after
the departure of the legates, sent off Cassander, he sent some agents
with him as far as Epirus, and there had him poisoned.[122] But Appius
and his colleagues left Philip with their minds fully made up both as
to his guilt in the matter of Maroneia and his alienation from Rome.
[Sidenote: King Philip meditates a breach with Rome.]
[Sidenote: Sends his son Demetrius there, in hopes of putting off the
war for a time.]
The king, thus relieved of the presence of the legates, after
consulting with his friends Apelles and Philocles became clearly
conscious that his quarrel with Rome had now become serious, and that
it could no longer be concealed, but was become notorious to most
people in the world. He was therefore now wholly bent on measures of
self-defence and retaliation. But as he was as yet unprepared for
some of the plans which he had in his mind, he cast about to find
some means of putting matters off, and gaining time for making his
preparations for war. He accordingly resolved to send his youngest son
Demetrius to Rome: partly to make his defence on the charges brought
against him, and partly also to beg pardon for any error which he
might have committed. He felt certain that everything he wished would
be obtained from the Senate by means of this young prince, because
of the extraordinary attentions which had been shown him when he was
acting as a hostage. He no sooner conceived this idea than he set about
making preparations for sending the prince and those of his own friends
destined to accompany him on his mission. At the same time he promised
the Byzantines to give them help: not so much because he cared for
them, as from a wish under cover of their name to strike terror into
the princes of the Thracians living beyond the Propontis, as a step
towards the fulfilment of his main purpose....
[Sidenote: Disputes in Crete.]
+19.+ In Crete, while Cydas son of Antalces was _Cosmus_,[123] the
Gortynians, who sought in every way to depress the Gnossians, deprived
them of a portion of their territory called Lycastium, and assigned it
to the Rhaucii, and another portion called Diatonium to the Lyctii.
But when about this time Appius and his colleagues arrived in the
island from Rome, with the view of settling the controversies which
existed among them, and addressed remonstrances to the cities of
Gnossus and Gortyn on these points, the Cretans gave in, and submitted
the settlement of their disputes to Appius. He accordingly ordered
the restoration of their territory to the Gnossians; and that the
Cydoniates should receive back the hostages which they had formerly
left in the hands of Charmion, and should surrender Phalasarna, without
taking anything out of it. As to sharing in the legal jurisdiction of
the whole island, he left it free to the several cities to do so or not
as they pleased, on condition that in the latter case they abstained
from entering the rest of Crete, they and the exiles from Phalasarna
who murdered Menochius and his friends, their most illustrious
citizens....
[Sidenote: The Queen-Dowager, widow of Attalus, and her sons.]
[Sidenote: Herodotus, 1, 31.]
+20.+ Apollonias, the wife of Attalus, father of king Eumenes, was a
native of Cyzicus, and a woman who for many reasons deserves to be
remembered, and with honour. Her claims upon a favourable recollection
are that, though born of a private family, she became a queen, and
retained that exalted rank to the end of her life, not by the use of
meretricious fascinations, but by the virtue and integrity of her
conduct in private and public life alike. Above all, she was the mother
of four sons with whom she kept on terms of the most perfect affection
and motherly love to the last day of her life. And so Attalus and his
brother gained a high character, while staying at Cyzicus, by showing
their mother proper respect and honour. For they took each of them one
of her hands and led her between them on a visit to the temples and on
a tour of the town, accompanied by their suite. At this sight all who
saw it received the young princes with very warm marks of approval,
and, recalling the story of Cleobis and Biton, compared their conduct
with theirs; and remarked that the affectionate zeal shown by the young
princes, though perhaps not going so far as theirs, was rendered quite
as illustrious by the fact of their more exalted position. This took
place in Cyzicus, after the peace made with king Prusias....
[Sidenote: The policy of Ostiagon in Galatia.]
+21.+ Ostiagon the Gaul, king of the Gauls of Asia, endeavoured to
transfer to himself the sovereignty of all the Gauls; and he had many
qualifications for such a post, both natural and acquired. For he was
open-handed and generous, a man of popular manners and ready tact;
and, what was most important in the eyes of the Gauls, he was a man of
courage and skill in war....
[Sidenote: Character of Aristonicus. See above, ch. 7.]
+22.+ Aristonicus was one of the eunuchs of Ptolemy, king of Egypt,
and had been brought up from childhood with the king. As he grew up he
displayed more manly courage and tastes than are generally found in
an eunuch. For he had a natural predilection for a military life, and
devoted himself almost exclusively to that and all that it involved.
He was also skilful in dealing with men, and, what is very rare, took
large and liberal views, and was naturally inclined to bestow favours
and kindnesses....