[Sidenote: B.C. 161. The Senate break off relations with Ptolemy
Philometor, and encourage Ptolemy Physcon in his claim on Cyprus.]
+1.+ This year Comanus and his brother arrived at Rome on their
mission from the younger Ptolemy, and Menyllus of Alabanda from the
elder. Their interview with the Senate was the occasion of many
mutual recriminations expressed with great bitterness; and when Titus
Torquatus and Gnaeus Merula gave evidence in favour of the younger
king, and supported him with great earnestness, the Senate voted that
Menyllus and his colleagues should leave Rome within five days, and
that the treaty of alliance with the elder Ptolemy should be annulled;
but that they should send envoys to the younger to inform him of
the decree of the Senate. Publius Apustius and Gaius Lentulus were
appointed to this service, who immediately sailed to Cyrene, and with
great despatch announced to Physcon the decree of the Senate. Greatly
elated by this, Ptolemy began collecting mercenaries, and devoted his
whole attention and energies to the acquisition of Cyprus. This was
what was going on in Italy....
[Sidenote: Between the second and third Punic wars Massanissa
constantly encroached on Carthaginian territory. Both sides refer to
Rome,]
[Sidenote: and the Romans invariably support Massanissa.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 193, cp. Livy, 34, 62.]
+2.+ Not long before this period Massanissa resolved to try his
strength with the Carthaginians. He saw how numerous the cities
built along the lesser Syrtis were, and noticed the excellence of
the district which they call Emporia, and he had long been casting
an envious eye upon the revenues which those places produced. He
quickly possessed himself of the open part of the country, because the
Carthaginians were always averse from service in the field, and were
at that time completely enervated by the long peace. But he was unable
to get possession of the towns, because they were carefully guarded
by the Carthaginians. Both parties then referring their case to the
Roman Senate, and frequent embassies coming to Rome from both sides,
it always happened that the Carthaginians got the worst of it in the
judgment of the Romans, not on the merits of the case, but because the
judges were convinced that such a decision was in their interests. For
instance, not many years before this Massanissa was himself at the
head of an army in pursuit of Aphther, who had revolted from him, and
asked permission of the Carthaginians to go through this territory,
which they refused on the ground that it had nothing to do with him.
Owing, however, to the decisions given at Rome during this period, the
Carthaginians were put into such difficulties that they not only lost
the cities and territory, but had to pay besides five hundred talents
as mesne profits from the district. And this was the origin of the
present controversy.[191]...
[Sidenote: Further complaints against Eumenes by Prusias and the Gauls.
See 31, 4, B.C. 161.]
+3.+ Prusias sent envoys to Rome with some Gauls to accuse Eumenes; and
Eumenes in his turn sent his brother Attalus to rebut the accusations.
Ariarathes sent a present of ten thousand gold pieces, and envoys to
inform the Senate of the reception given to Tiberius Gracchus; and
generally to ask for their commands, and to assure them that he would
do anything they told him....
[Sidenote: Surrenders the murderer of Octavius.]
[Sidenote: Demetrius induces Tiberius Gracchus to salute him as king.]
+4.+ When Menochares arrived in Antioch to visit Demetrius, and
informed the king[192] of the conversation he had had with the
commission under Tiberius Gracchus in Cappadocia, the king, thinking
it a matter of the most urgent necessity to get these men on his side
as much as he could, devoted himself, to the exclusion of every other
business, to sending messages to them, first to Pamphylia, and then
to Rhodes, undertaking to do everything the Romans wished; till at
last he extracted their acknowledgment of him as king. The fact was
that Tiberius was very favourably disposed to him; and, accordingly,
materially contributed to the success of his attempt, and to his
acquisition of the royal power. Demetrius took advantage of this to
send envoys to Rome, taking with them a complimentary crown, the
murderer of Gnaeus Octavius, and with them Isocrates the critic....
[Sidenote: Ambassadors from Ariarathes.]
[Sidenote: Attalus again in Rome early in B.C. 160. Coss. L. Anicius
Gallus. M. Cornelius Cethegus.]
+5.+ At this time came ambassadors from Ariarathes, bringing a
complimentary present of ten thousand gold pieces, and announcing
the king’s faithful attachment to Rome; and of this they appealed to
Tiberius and his colleagues as witnesses. Tiberius and his colleagues
confirmed their statements: whereupon the Senate accepted the present
with warm thanks, and sent back in return presents, which with them
are the most honourable they can give—a sceptre and ivory chair. These
ambassadors were dismissed at once by the Senate before the winter. But
after them arrived Attalus when the new Consuls had already entered on
their office; as well as the Gauls who had accusations against him,
and whom Prusias had sent, with as many more from Asia. After giving
all a hearing, the Senate not only acquitted Attalus of all blame, but
dismissed him with additional marks of their favour and kindness: for
their friendship for and active support of Attalus was in the same
proportion as their hostility and opposition to king Eumenes....
[Sidenote: Reception of the ambassadors of Demetrius.]
[Sidenote: Previous career of Isocrates.]
[Sidenote: His conduct in Syria.]
+6.+ The ambassadors with Menochares arrived in Rome from Demetrius,
bringing the present of ten thousand gold pieces, as well as the man
who had assassinated Gnaeus Octavius. The Senate was for a long time
doubtful what to do about these matters. Finally they received the
ambassadors and accepted the present, but declined to receive the
men who were thus brought prisoners. Yet Demetrius had sent not only
Leptines, the actual assassin of Octavius, but Isocrates as well.
The latter was a grammarian and public lecturer; but being by nature
garrulous, boastful, and conceited, he gave offence even to the Greeks,
Alcaeus and his friends being accustomed to direct their wit against
him and hold him up to ridicule in their scholastic discussions.[193]
When he arrived in Syria, he displayed contempt for the people of the
country; and not content with lecturing on his own subjects, he took
to speaking on politics, and maintained that “Gnaeus Octavius had
been rightly served; and that the other ambassadors ought to be put
to death also, that there might be no one left to report the matter
to the Romans; and so they might be taught to give up sending haughty
injunctions and exercising unlimited power.” By such random talk he got
into this trouble.
[Sidenote: The boldness of Leptines.]
[Sidenote: Extraordinary conduct of Isocrates.]
+7.+ And there is a circumstance connected with both these men that
is worth recording. After assassinating Gnaeus, Leptines immediately
went openly about Laodicea, asserting that what he had done was just,
and that it had been effected in accordance with the will of the gods.
And when Demetrius took possession of the government, he went to the
king exhorting him to have no fear about the murder of Gnaeus, nor to
adopt any measures of severity against the Laodiceans; for that he
would himself go to Rome and convince the Senate that he had done this
deed in accordance with the will of the gods. And finally, thanks to
his entire readiness and even eagerness to go, he was taken without
chains or a guard. But directly Isocrates found himself included under
this charge, he went entirely beside himself with terror; and, after
the collar and chain were put on his neck, he would rarely touch food,
and completely neglected all care of his body. He accordingly arrived
at Rome a truly astonishing spectacle, sufficient to convince us that
nothing can be more frightful than a man, in body and soul alike,
when once divested of his humanity. His aspect was beyond all measure
terrifying and savage, as might be expected in a man who had neither
washed the dirt from his body, nor pared his nails, nor cut his hair,
for a year. The wild glare and rolling of his eyes also showed such
inward horror, that any one who saw him would have rather approached
any animal in the world than him. Leptines, on the contrary, maintained
his original view: was ready to appear before the Senate; owned plainly
to all who conversed with him what he had done; and asserted that he
would meet with no severity at the hands of the Romans. And eventually
his expectation was fully justified. [The Senate decide to keep the
question of the murder open.] For the Senate, from the idea, I believe,
that, if it received and punished the guilty men, the populace would
consider that full satisfaction had been taken for the murder, refused
almost outright to receive them; and thus kept the charge in reserve,
that they might have the power of using the accusation whenever they
chose. They therefore confined their answer to Demetrius to these
words: “He shall find all favour at our hands, if he satisfy the Senate
in accordance with the obedience which he owed to it before.”...
[Sidenote: Fruitless embassy from Achaia on behalf of Polybius and the
other Achaean detenus, B.C. 160.]
There came also ambassadors from the Achaeans, headed by Xenon and
Telecles, in behalf of their accused compatriots, and especially in
behalf of Polybius and Stratius; for lapse of time had now brought
an end to the majority, or at any rate to those of any note. The
ambassadors came with instructions couched in a tone of simple
entreaty, in order to avoid anything like a contest with the Senate.
But when they had been admitted and delivered their commission in
proper terms, even this humble tone failed to gain their end, and the
Senate voted to abide by their resolve....
[Sidenote: The small property left by Aemilius Paulus at his death is a
proof of his disinterestedness.]
[Sidenote: See 18, 35.]
[Sidenote: Polybius has the fear of Roman critics before his eyes.]
+8.+ The strongest and most honourable proof of the integrity of Lucius
Aemilius Paulus was made public after his death. For the character
which he enjoyed while alive was found to be justified at his death,
than which there can be no clearer proof of virtue. No one of his
contemporaries brought home more gold from Iberia than he; no one
captured such enormous treasures as he did in Macedonia; and yet,
though in both these countries he had the most unlimited authority, he
left so small a private fortune, that his sons could not pay his wife’s
jointure wholly from the sale of his personalty, and were obliged to
sell some of his real estate also to do so, a fact of which I have
already spoken in some detail. This forces us to acknowledge that the
fame of the men who have been admired in Greece in this respect suffers
by a comparison. For if to abstain from appropriating money, entrusted
to a man for the benefit of the depositor, deserves our admiration,—as
is said to have happened in the case of the Athenian Aristeides and the
Theban Epaminondas,—how much more admirable is it for a man to have
been master of a whole kingdom, with absolute authority to do with it
as he chose, and yet to have coveted nothing in it! And if what I say
appears incredible to any of my readers, let them consider that the
present writer was fully aware that Romans, more than any other people,
would take his books into their hands,—because the most splendid and
numerous achievements recorded therein belong to them; and that with
them the truth about the facts could not possibly be unknown, nor
the author of a falsehood expect any indulgence. No one then would
voluntarily expose himself to certain disbelief and contempt. And let
this be kept in mind throughout the whole course of my work, when I
seem to be making a startling assertion about the Romans.
[Sidenote: The origin of the friendship between Scipio Aemilianus and
Polybius.]
[Sidenote: Young Scipio opens his heart to Polybius.]
+9.+ As the course of my narrative and the events of the time have
drawn our attention to this family, I wish to carry out fully, for the
sake of students, what was left as a mere promise in my previous book.
I promised then that I would relate the origin and manner of the rise
and unusually early glory of Scipio’s reputation in Rome; and also
how it came about that Polybius became so attached to and intimate
with him, that the fame of their friendship and constant companionship
was not merely confined to Italy and Greece, but became known to more
remote nations also. We have already shown that the acquaintance began
in a loan of some books and the conversation about them. But as the
intimacy went on, and the Achaean detenus were being distributed among
the various cities, Fabius and Scipio, the sons of Lucius Aemilius
Paulus,[194] exerted all their influence with the praetor that Polybius
might be allowed to remain in Rome. This was granted: and the intimacy
was becoming more and more close, when the following incident occurred.
One day, when they were all three coming out of the house of Fabius, it
happened that Fabius left them to go to the Forum, and that Polybius
went in another direction with Scipio. As they were walking along, in
a quiet and subdued voice, and with the blood mounting to his cheeks,
Scipio said, “Why is it, Polybius, that though I and my brother eat
at the same table, you address all your conversation and all your
questions and explanations to him, and pass me over altogether? Of
course you too have the same opinion of me as I hear the rest of the
city has. For I am considered by everybody, I hear, to be a mild effete
person, and far removed from the true Roman character and ways, because
I don’t care for pleading in the law courts. And they say that the
family I come of requires a different kind of representative, and not
the sort that I am. That is what annoys me most.”
[Sidenote: Scipio Aemilianus, b. B.C. 185.]
[Sidenote: Polybius is somewhat alarmed at the responsibility.]
+10.+ Polybius was taken aback by the opening words of the young man’s
speech (for he was only just eighteen), and said, “In heaven’s name,
Scipio, don’t say such things, or take into your head such an idea.
It is not from any want of appreciation of you, or any intention of
slighting you, that I have acted as I have done: far from it! It is
merely that, your brother being the elder, I begin and end my remarks
with him, and address my explanations and counsels to him, in the
belief that you share the same opinions. However, I am delighted to
hear you say now that you appear to yourself to be somewhat less
spirited than is becoming to members of your family: for you show
by this that you have a really high spirit, and I should gladly
devote myself to helping you to speak or act in any way worthy of
your ancestors. As for learning, to which I see you and your brother
devoting yourselves at present with so much earnestness and zeal, you
will find plenty of people to help you both; for I see that a large
number of such learned men from Greece are finding their way into Rome
at the present time. But as to the points which you say are just now
vexing you, I think you will not find any one more fitted to support
and assist you than myself.” While Polybius was still speaking the
young man seized his right hand with both of his, and pressing it
warmly, said, “Oh that I might see the day on which you would devote
your first attention to me, and join your life with mine. From that
moment I shall think myself worthy both of my family and my ancestors.”
Polybius was partly delighted at the sight of the young man’s
enthusiasm and affection, and partly embarrassed by the thought of the
high position of his family and the wealth of its members. However,
from the hour of this mutual confidence the young man never left the
side of Polybius, but regarded his society as his first and dearest
object.
[Sidenote: Scipio's high character for continence as a young man.]
[Sidenote: The deterioration in Roman morals and its causes.]
+11.+ From that time forward they continually gave each other practical
proof of an affection which recalled the relationship of father and
son, or of kinsmen of the same blood. The first impulse and ambition
of a noble kind with which he was inspired was the desire to maintain
a character for chastity, and to be superior to the standard observed
in that respect among his contemporaries. This was a glory which,
great and difficult as it generally is, was not hard to gain at that
period in Rome, owing to the general deterioration of morals. Some had
wasted their energies on favourite youths; others on mistresses; and
a great many on banquets enlivened with poetry and wine, and all the
extravagant expenditure which they entailed, having quickly caught
during the war with Perseus the dissoluteness of Greek manners in
this respect. And to such monstrous lengths had this debauchery gone
among the young men, that many of them had given a talent for a young
favourite. This dissoluteness had as it were burst into flame at this
period: in the first place, from the prevalent idea that, owing to
the destruction of the Macedonian monarchy, universal dominion was
now secured to them beyond dispute; and in the second place, from
the immense difference made, both in public and private wealth and
splendour, by the importation of the riches of Macedonia into Rome.
Scipio, however, set his heart on a different path in life; and by a
steady resistance to his appetites, and by conforming his whole conduct
to a consistent and undeviating standard, in about the first five years
after this secured a general recognition of his character for goodness
and purity.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s liberality to his mother.]
+12.+ His next object was to cultivate lofty sentiments in regard
to money, and to maintain a higher standard of disinterestedness
than other people. In this respect he had an excellent start in his
association with his natural father (L. Aemilius): but he also had good
natural impulses towards the right; and chance contributed much to his
success in this particular aim. For he first lost the mother of his
adoptive father, who was the sister of his natural father Lucius, and
wife of his adoptive grandfather, Scipio the Great. She left a large
fortune, to which he was heir, and which gave him the first opportunity
of giving a proof of his principles. Aemilia, for that was this lady’s
name, was accustomed to attend the women’s processions in great state,
as sharing the life and high fortune of Scipio. For besides the
magnificence of her dress and carriage, the baskets, cups, and such
implements for the sacrifice, which were carried in her train, were all
of silver or gold on great occasions; and the number of maid-servants
and other domestics that made up her train was in proportion to this
splendour. All this establishment, immediately after Aemilia’s funeral,
Scipio presented to his own mother, who had long before been divorced
by his father Lucius, and was badly off considering the splendour of
her birth.[195] She had therefore in previous years refrained from
taking part in grand public processions; but now, as there chanced
to be an important state sacrifice, she appeared surrounded with all
the splendour and wealth which had once been Aemilia’s, using among
other things the same muleteers, pair of mules, and carriage. The
ladies, therefore, who saw it were much impressed by the kindness and
liberality of Scipio, and all raised their hands to heaven and prayed
for blessings upon him. This act, indeed, would be thought honourable
anywhere, but at Rome it was quite astonishing: for there no one ever
thinks of giving any of his private property to any one if he can help
it. This was the beginning of Scipio’s reputation for nobility of
character, and it spread very widely,—for women are talkative and prone
to exaggeration whenever they feel warmly.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s liberality to his cousins, sisters to his adoptive
father.]
+13.+ The next instance was his conduct to the daughters of the
Great Scipio, sisters to his adoptive father.[196] When he took the
inheritance he was bound to pay them their portion. For their father
covenanted to give each of his two daughters a marriage portion of
fifty talents. Half of this their mother paid down at once to their
husbands, but left the other half undischarged when she died. Now, the
Roman law enjoins the payment of money due to women as dowry in three
annual instalments, the personal outfit having been first paid within
ten months according to custom.[197] But Scipio instructed his banker
at once to pay the twenty-five talents to each within the ten months.
When, therefore, Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Nasica, for they were the
husbands of these ladies, called on the banker at the expiration of the
ten months, and asked whether Scipio had given him any instructions as
to the money, he told them they might have it at once, and proceeded
to enter the transfer of twenty-five talents to each.[198] They then
said that he had made a mistake, for they had no claim for the whole as
yet, but only took a third according to the law; and upon the banker
answering that such were his instructions from Scipio, they could not
believe him, and went to call on the young man, supposing him to have
made a mistake. And, indeed, their feelings were natural: for at Rome,
so far from paying fifty talents three years in advance, no one will
pay a single talent before the appointed day; so excessively particular
are they about money, and so profitable do they consider time. However,
when they reached Scipio and asked him what instructions he had given
his banker, on his replying, “To pay both sisters the whole sum due to
them,” they told him he had made a mistake; and with a show of friendly
regard pointed out to him that, according to the laws, he had the use
of the money for a considerable time longer. But Scipio replied that
he was quite aware of all that; but that close reckoning and legal
exactness were for strangers; with relations and friends he would do
his best to behave straightforwardly and liberally. He therefore bade
them draw on the banker for the whole sum. When Tiberius and Nasica
heard this they returned home in silence, quite confounded at the
magnanimity of Scipio, and condemning themselves for meanness, though
they were men of as high a character as any at Rome.
[Sidenote: The liberality of Scipio to his brother and sisters, B.C.
160.]
+14.+ Two years afterwards, when his natural father, Lucius Aemilius,
died, and left him and his brother Fabius joint heirs to his property,
he did an act honourable to himself and worthy to be recorded. Lucius
died without children in the eyes of the law, for the two elder had
been adopted into other families, and the other sons, whom he was
bringing up to be the successors to himself and to continue his family,
all died;[199] he therefore left his property to these two. But Scipio,
perceiving that his brother was worse off than himself, renounced the
whole of his share of the inheritance, though the property was valued
altogether at over sixty talents, with a view of thus putting Fabius
on an equality with himself in point of wealth. This was much talked
about; but he afterwards gave a still clearer proof of his liberality.
For when his brother wished to give some gladiatorial games in honour
of his father, but was unable to support the expense, because of the
enormous costliness of such things, Scipio contributed half of this
also from his own pocket. Now the cost of such an exhibition, if it
is done on a large scale, does not amount in all to less than thirty
talents. While the fame of his liberality to his mother was still
fresh, she died; and so far from taking back any part of the wealth he
had recently bestowed on her, of which I have just spoken, Scipio gave
it and the entire residue of his mother’s property to his sisters,[200]
though they had no legal claim at all upon it. Accordingly his sisters
again adopted the splendour and retinue which Aemilia had employed
in the public processions; and once more the liberality and family
affection of Scipio were recalled to the minds of the people.
With such recommendations dating from his earliest years, Publius
Scipio sustained the reputation for high morality and good principles,
which he had won by the expenditure of perhaps sixty talents, for
that was the sum which he bestowed from his own property. And this
reputation for goodness did not depend so much on the amount of the
money, as on the seasonableness of the gift and the graciousness with
which it was bestowed. By his strict chastity, also, he not only saved
his purse, but by refraining from many irregular pleasures he gained
sound bodily health and a vigorous constitution, which accompanied
him through the whole of his life and repaid him with many pleasures,
and noble compensations for the immediate pleasures from which he had
formerly abstained.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s physical strength and courage were confirmed by the
exercise of hunting in Macedonia,]
[Sidenote: and his taste continued after his return to Rome, and was
encouraged by Polybius.]
+15.+ Courage, however, is the most important element of character for
public life in every country, but especially in Rome: and he therefore
was bound to give all his most serious attention to it. In this he
was well seconded by Fortune also. For as the Macedonian kings were
especially eager about hunting, and the Macedonians devoted the most
suitable districts to the preservation of game, these places were
carefully guarded during all the war time, as they had been before, and
yet had not been hunted the whole of the four years owing to the public
disturbances: the consequence was that they were full of every kind of
animal. But when the war was decided, Lucius Aemilius, thinking that
hunting was the best training for body and courage his young soldiers
could have, put the royal huntsmen under the charge of Scipio, and
gave him entire authority over all matters connected with the hunting.
Scipio accepted the duty, and, looking upon himself as in a quasi-royal
position, devoted his whole time to this business, as long as the army
remained in Macedonia after the battle of Pydna. Having then ample
opportunity for following this kind of pursuit, and being in the very
prime of his youth and naturally disposed to it, the taste for hunting
which he acquired became permanent. Accordingly when he returned to
Rome, and found his taste supported by a corresponding enthusiasm on
the part of Polybius, the time that other young men spent in law courts
and formal visits,[201] haunting the Forum and endeavouring thereby to
ingratiate themselves with the people, Scipio devoted to hunting; and,
by continually displaying brilliant and memorable acts of prowess, won
a greater reputation than others, whose only chance of gaining credit
was by inflicting some damage on one of their fellow-citizens,—for
that was the usual result of these law proceedings. Scipio, on the
other hand, without inflicting annoyance on any one, gained a popular
reputation for manly courage, rivalling eloquence by action. The result
was that in a short time he obtained a more decided superiority of
position over his contemporaries, than any Roman is remembered to have
done; although he struck out a path for his ambition which, with a view
to Roman customs and ideas, was quite different from that of others.
[Sidenote: Scipio’s subsequent success, therefore, was the natural
result of his early conduct, and not the offspring of chance.]
+16.+ I have spoken somewhat at length on the character of Scipio,
because I thought that such a story would be agreeable to the older,
and useful to the younger among my readers. But especially because
I wished to make what I have to tell in my following books appear
credible; that no one may feel any difficulty because of the apparent
strangeness of what happened to this man; nor deprive him of the credit
of achievements which were the natural consequences of his prudence,
and attribute them to Fortune and chance. I must now return from this
digression to the regular course of my history....
[Sidenote: The Delians having been allowed to leave their island with
“all their property,” found many occasions of legal disputes with the
Athenians, to whom the island was granted. See 30, 21. They remove
to Achaia, and sue the Athenians under the Achaean convention. Roman
decision against Athens.]
+17.+ Thearidas and Stephanus conducted a mission from Athens and the
Achaeans on the matter of the reprisals. For when the Delians were
ordered, in answer to an embassy to Rome after Delos had been granted
to Athens, to depart from the island, but to take all their goods with
them, they removed to Achaia; and having been enrolled as citizens of
the league, wished to have their claims upon the Athenians decided,
according to the convention existing between the Achaeans and Athens.
But, on the Athenians denying that they had any right to plead under
that agreement, the Delians demanded from the Achaeans license to make
reprisals on the Athenians. The latter, therefore, sent an embassy to
Rome on these points, and were answered that decisions made by the
Achaeans according to their laws concerning the Delians were to be
binding....
[Sidenote: Piracies of the Dalmatians on the island of Issa, B.C. 158.]
+18.+ The people of Issa having often sent embassies to Rome,
complaining that the Dalmatians damaged their territory and the cities
subject to them,—meaning thereby Epetium and Tragyrium,—and the Daorsi
also bringing similar complaints, the Senate sent a commission under
Gaius Fannius to inspect the state of Illyria, with special reference
to the Dalmatians. This people had been subject to Pleuratus as long
as he was alive; but when he died, and was succeeded on the throne
by Genthius, they revolted, overran the bordering territories, and
reduced the neighbouring cities, some of which even paid them a tribute
of cattle and corn. So Fannius and his colleague started on their
mission....
[Sidenote: Death of Lyciscus.]
+19.+ Lyciscus the Aetolian was a factious turbulent agitator, and
directly he was killed the Aetolians from that hour lived harmoniously
and at peace with each other, simply from the removal of one man. Such
decisive influence has character in human affairs, that we find not
only armies and cities, but also national leagues and whole divisions
of the world, experiencing the greatest miseries and the greatest
blessings through the vice or virtue of one man....
Though he was a man of the worst character, Lyciscus ended his life
by an honourable death; and accordingly, most people with some reason
reproach Fortune for sometimes giving to the worst of men what is the
prize of the good—an easy death....
[Sidenote: Death of Charops, B.C. 157.]
[Sidenote: The tyranny of Charops in Epirus after the battle of Pydna,
B.C. 168-157.]
[Sidenote: He extorts money from the rich under threat of exile.]
+20.+ There was a great change for the better in Aetolia when the
civil war was stopped after the death of Lyciscus; and in Boeotia when
Mnasippus of Coronea died; and similarly in Acarnania when Chremas
was got out of the way. Greece was as though purified by the removal
from life of those accursed pests of the country. For in the same year
Charops of Epirus chanced to die at Brundisium. Affairs in Epirus had
been still in disorder and confusion as before, owing to the cruelty
and tyranny of Charops, ever since the end of the war with Perseus. For
Lucius Anicius having condemned some of the leading men in the country
to death, and transported all others to Rome against whom there was the
slightest suspicion, Charops at once got complete power to do what he
chose; and thereupon committed every possible act of cruelty, sometimes
personally, at others by the agency of his friends: for he was quite
a young man himself, and was quickly joined by a crowd of the worst
and most unprincipled persons, who gathered round him for the sake of
plunder from other people. But what protected him and inclined people
to believe that he was acting on a fixed design, and in accordance with
the will of the Romans, was his former intimacy with them, and the
support of the old man Myrton and his son Nicanor. These two had the
character of being men of moderation and on good terms with the Romans;
but though up to that time they had been widely removed from all
suspicion of injustice, they now gave themselves up wholly to support
and share in the lawless acts of Charops. This man, after murdering
some openly in the market-place, others in their own houses, others by
sending secret assassins to waylay them in the fields or on the roads,
and selling the property of all whom he had thus killed, thought of
another device. He put up lists of such men and women as were rich,
condemning them to exile; and having held out this threat, he extracted
money out of them, making the bargain himself with the men, and by the
agency of his mother Philotis with the women; for this lady was well
suited to the task, and for any act of violence was even more helpful
than could have been expected in a woman.
[Sidenote: The people of Phoenice terrified or cajoled into supporting
him.]
[Sidenote: Charops goes to Rome, but is forbidden by the leading nobles
to enter their houses,]
[Sidenote: and repudiated by the Senate.]
[Sidenote: He suppresses the reply of the Senate.]
+21.+ When he and his mother had thus got all the money they could
out of these persons, they none the less caused all the proscribed to
be impeached before the people; and the majority in Phoenice, partly
from fear and partly induced by the baits held out by Charops and
his friends, condemned all thus impeached, for being ill-disposed to
Rome, to death instead of banishment. These men, however, fled while
Charops visited Rome, whither he went with money, and accompanied
by Myrton and Nicanor, wishing to get a seal of approval put to his
wickedness by means of the Senate. On that occasion a very honourable
proof was given of Roman principles; and a spectacle was displayed
exceedingly gratifying to the Greeks residing in Rome, especially the
detenus. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who was Pontifex Maximus and Princeps
Senatus, and Lucius Aemilius, the conqueror of Perseus, a man of the
highest credit and influence, learning what had been done by Charops
in Epirus, refused to admit him into their houses. This becoming much
talked about, the foreign residents in Rome were exceedingly rejoiced,
and observed with pleasure that the Romans discountenanced evil. And
on Charops being afterwards admitted to the Senate-house, the Senate
refused to consent to his demands, but answered that “They would give
instructions to commissioners to examine into what had taken place.”
But when Charops returned home he entirely suppressed this reply; and
having written one to suit his own ideas, gave out that the Romans
approved of what had been done by him....
[Sidenote: Death and character of Eumenes, B.C. 159.]
[Sidenote: He raised his kingdom to the first rank;]
[Sidenote: was exceedingly bountiful;]
[Sidenote: and was loyally served by four brothers.]
+22.+ King Eumenes was entirely broken in bodily strength, but still
maintained his brilliancy of mind. He was a man who in most things was
the equal of any king of his time; and in those which were the most
important and honourable, was greater and more illustrious than them
all. First, he succeeded his father in a kingdom reduced to a very few
insignificant cities; and he raised it to the level of the largest
dynasties of his day. And it was not chance which contributed to this,
or a mere sudden catastrophe, it was his own acuteness, indefatigable
industry, and personal labour. Again, he was exceedingly ambitious of
establishing a good reputation, and showed it by doing good services
to a very large number of cities, and enriching privately a great many
men. And in the third place, he had three brothers grown up and active,
and he kept all four of them loyal to himself, and acting as guards of
his person and preservers of the kingdom: and that is a thing of which
there are very rare instances in history....
[Sidenote: Attalus restores Ariarathes.]
On succeeding his brother Eumenes on the throne, Attalus at once gave a
specimen of his principles and activity by restoring Ariarathes to his
kingdom.[202]...
[Sidenote: Fannius and his colleagues roughly treated by the
Dalmatians, B.C. 157.]
[Sidenote: The Senate decide on declaring war with the Dalmatians.]
[Sidenote: B.C. 168-157.]
+23.+ When the envoys under Fannius returned from Illyria, and reported
that, so far from the Dalmatians making any restitution to those who
asserted that they were being continually wronged by them, they refused
even to listen to the commissioners at all, saying that they had
nothing to do with the Romans. Besides, they reported that no lodging
or entertainment of any sort had been supplied to them; but that the
very horses, which they had procured from another city, the Dalmatians
had forcibly taken from them; and would have laid violent hands upon
themselves, if they had not yielded to necessity and retired as quietly
as they could. The Senate listened attentively to the report; they were
exceedingly angry at the disobedience and rudeness of the Dalmatians,
but their prevailing feeling was that the present time was a suitable
one for declaring war against this people for more reasons than one.
For, in the first place, the coasts of Illyria towards Italy had been
entirely neglected by them ever since they had expelled Demetrius of
Pharos; and, in the next place, they did not wish their own citizens to
become enervated by a long-continued peace; for it was now the twelfth
year since the war with Perseus and the campaigns in Macedonia. They
therefore planned that, by declaring war against the Dalmatians, they
would at once renew as it were the warlike spirit and enterprise of
their own people, and terrify the Illyrians into obedience to their
injunctions. Such were the motives of the Romans for going to war with
the Dalmatians. But to the world at large they gave out that they had
determined on war owing to the insults offered to their legates....
[Sidenote: B.C. 157. Coss. Sext. Julius Caesar, L. Aurelius Orestes.]
+24.+ King Ariarathes arrived in Rome in the course of the summer.[203]
And when Sextus Julius Caesar and his colleague had entered on their
consulship, the king visited them privately, presenting in his personal
appearance a striking picture of the dangers with which he was
surrounded.
Ambassadors also arrived from Demetrius, headed by Miltiades, prepared
to act in two capacities—to defend the conduct of Demetrius in regard
to Ariarathes, and to accuse that king with the utmost bitterness.
Orophernes also had sent Timotheus and Diogenes to represent him,
conveying a crown for Rome, and charged to renew the friendship and
alliance of Cappadocia with the Romans; but, above all, to confront
Ariarathes, and both to answer his accusations and bring their own
against him. In these private interviews Diogenes and Miltiades and
their colleagues made a better show, because they were many to one in
the controversy; besides their personal appearance was better than that
of Ariarathes, for they were at present on the winning side and he had
failed. They had also the advantage of him, in making their statement
of the case, that they were entirely unscrupulous, and cared nothing
whatever about the truth of their words; and what they said could not
be confuted, because there was no one to take the other side. So their
lying statements easily prevailed, and they thought everything was
going as they wished....
[Sidenote: The evil rule of Orophernes.]
+25.+ After reigning for a short time in Cappadocia in utter contempt
of the customs of his country, Orophernes introduced the organised
debaucheries of Ionia.[204]...
It has happened to not a few, from the desire for increasing their
wealth, to lose their life along with their money. It was from being
captivated by such passions that Orophernes, king of Cappadocia,
perished and was expelled from his kingdom. But having briefly narrated
the restoration of this king (Ariarathes), I will now bring back
my narrative to its regular course; for at present I have, to the
exclusion of Greek affairs, selected from those of Asia the events
connected with Cappadocia out of their proper order, because it was
impossible to separate the voyage of Ariarathes from Italy from his
restoration to his kingdom.[205] I will therefore now go back to
the history of Greece during this period, in which a peculiar and
extraordinary affair took place in regard to the city of Oropus, of
which I will give the whole story from beginning to end, going both
backward and forward in point of time, that I may not render the
history of an episode which was made up of separate events, and was
not on the whole important, still more insignificant and indistinct by
relating it under different years. For when an event as a whole does
not appear to readers to be worth attention, I cannot certainly expect
a student to follow its details scattered at intervals through my
history.[206]...
For the most part when things go well men generally get on together;
but in times of failure, in their annoyance at events, they become
sore and irritable with their friends. And this is what happened
to Orophernes, when his affairs began to take a wrong turn in his
relations with Theotimus,—both indulging in mutual recriminations....
[Sidenote: B.C. 156. Coss L. Cornelius Lentulus, C. Marcius Figulus II.]
+26.+ Ambassadors having arrived from Epirus about this time, sent both
from those who were in actual possession of Phoenice and from those who
been banished from it; and both parties having made their statement
in presence of each other, the Senate answered that they would give
instructions on this point to the commissioners that were about to be
sent into Illyria with Gaius Marcius the Consul.[207]...
[Sidenote: Prusias, king of Bithynia, attacks Attalus of Pergamum.]
[Sidenote: 5, 11.]
[Sidenote: Elaea on the Casius, the port of Pergamum.]
+27.+ After defeating Attalus, and advancing to Pergamum, Prusias
prepared a magnificent sacrifice and brought it to the sacred enclosure
of Asclepius, and after offering the victims, and having obtained
favourable omens, went back into his camp for that day; but on the
next he directed his forces against the Nicephorium, and destroyed
all the temples and sacred enclosures, and plundered all the statues
of men and the marble images of the gods. Finally he carried off the
statue of Asclepius also, an admirably executed work of Phyromachus,
and transferred it to his own country,—the very image before which the
day before he had poured libations and offered sacrifice; desiring,
it would seem, that the god might in every way be propitious and
favourable to him. I have spoken of such proceedings before, when
discoursing on Philip, as sheer insanity. For at one time to offer
sacrifice, and endeavour to propitiate heaven by their means,
worshipping and uttering the most earnest prayers before holy tables
and altars, as Prusias was wont to do, with bendings of the knee and
effeminate prostrations, and at the same time to violate these sacred
objects and to flout heaven by their destruction,—can we ascribe such
conduct to anything but a mind disordered and a spirit lost to sober
reason? I am sure this was the case with Prusias: for he led his army
off to Elaea, without having performed a single act of manly courage in
the course of his attempts on Pergamum, and after treating everything
human and divine with petty and effeminate spite. He attempted to take
Elaea, and made some assaults upon it; but being unable to effect
anything, owing to Sosander, the king’s foster-brother, having thrown
himself into the town with an army and repelling his assaults, he
marched off towards Thyateira. In the course of his march, he plundered
the temple of Artemis in the Holy village; and the sacred enclosure
of Apollo Cynneius at Temnus[208] likewise he not only plundered but
destroyed by fire. After these achievements he returned home, having
waged war against the gods as well as against men. But Prusias’s
infantry also suffered severely from famine and dysentery on their
return march, so that the wrath of heaven appears to have quickly
visited him for these crimes.[209]...
[Sidenote: Attalus sends his brother to Rome.]
[Sidenote: Prusias had sent his son Nicomedes and some ambassadors to
represent his case at Rome.]
[Sidenote: The Senate send fresh commissioners to investigate.]
+28.+ After his defeat by Prusias Attalus appointed his brother
Athenaeus to accompany Publius Lentulus to Rome to inform the Senate
of what had happened. At Rome they had not paid much attention when a
previous messenger named Andronicus had come from Attalus, with news
of the original invasion; because they suspected that Attalus wished
to attack Prusias himself, and was therefore getting up a case against
him beforehand, and trying to prejudice him in their eyes by these
accusations; and when Nicomedes and some ambassadors from Prusias,
headed by Antiphilus, arrived and protested that there was not a word
of truth in the statement, the Senate was still more incredulous of
what had been said about Prusias. But when after a time the real truth
was made known, the Senate still felt uncertain, and sent Lucius
Apuleius and Gaius Petronius to investigate what was the state of the
case in regard to these two kings.