Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 45
William A. McDevitte, Sen. Class. Mod. Ex. Schol. A.B.T.C.D., Ed.

19. Among the many embassies from kings, nations, and states, Attalus, the brother of Eumenes, attracted the general attention in a very particular manner; [2] for he was received by those who had served along with him in the late war, with even greater demonstration of kindness than if Eumenes had come in person. [3] Two reasons, both, apparently, highly honourable, had induced him to come; one to offer congratulations, which were quite proper, in the case of a victory to which he himself had contributed; the other to complain of disturbances raised by the Gauls, and of a defeat received, by which his brother's kingdom was endangered. [4] But he had, also, secret hopes of honours and rewards from the senate, which he could scarcely receive without infringing on his duty to his brother. There were among the Romans some evil advisers, who were working on his ambition by promises. [5] They told him, that “the general opinion concerning Attalus and Eumenes was, that one was a steady friend to the Romans, and that the other was not a faithful ally either to them or to Perseus. [6] That it was not easy to determine whether the [p. 2136]requests that he might make for himself, or those against his brother, were more likely to be obtained from the senate; so entirely were all disposed to gratify the ones and to grant nothing to the other.” [7] As the event proved, Attalus was one of those who would have coveted all that hope can promise to itself, had not the prudent admonitions of one friend put a curb on those passions, which were growing wanton through prosperity. He had, in his retinue, a physician, called Stratius, sent to Rome by Eumenes, who distrusted Attalus, for the purpose of watching over his conduct, and giving him faithful advice, if he should perceive him swerve from his allegiance. [8] This man, although he had to address ears already prepossessed, and a mind already biassed, yet, by addressing him at judiciously selected times, restored the thing to its proper state, even after it had become almost desperate. [9] He said that “different kingdoms grew into power by different means: that their kingdom being lately formed, and unsupported by any long-established strength, was upheld solely by the concord of the brothers; for, while one bore the title and the ornament which distinguishes the head of a sovereign, each of the brothers was considered as a king. [10] As to Attalus, in particular, being the next in years, was there any man who did not consider him as king? [11] and that, not only because they perceived his present power to be great, but because there was not a doubt but he must ascend the throne, in a very short time, in consequence of the age and infirmity of Eumenes, who had no legitimate issue” (for he had not at this time acknowledged the son who afterwards reigned). “To what purpose, then, employ violence, to attain what must come to him presently without any exertions on his part? [12] Besides, a new storm had fallen on the kingdom, from the insurrection of the Gauls, which could scarcely be resisted by the most perfect harmony and union of the brothers. [13] But if to a foreign war domestic dissensions were added, the evil could not be checked; nor would he effect any thing else than preventing his brother from dying on the throne, and depriving himself of the hope of ascending it. If both modes of acting were honourable, —either to preserve the kingdom for his brother, or to take it from him, —yet the honour that would result to him from the preservation of the kingdom, since it was united to brotherly love, would be the greater. [14] The latter [p. 2137]indeed, would be detestable, and bordering nearly on parricide; what room, then, could there be for deliberation? For, whether did he mean to demand a share of the kingdom, or to seize the whole? [15] If he would demand a share, then both, by the separation of their strength, would be rendered feeble, and exposed to injuries of every kind; if the whole, would he then require his elder brother, reduced to a private station, at his time of life and labouring under such bodily infirmities, to live in exile, and die in such a wretched state. [16] For, not to mention the catastrophes of undutiful brothers recorded in stories, the fate of Perseus seemed a striking instance, who, prostrated at the feet of a victorious enemy, laid down, in the temple of the Samothracians, before the gods, who, as it were, demanded satisfaction for his crimes, the crown which he had seized after the death of his brother. [17] Those very men,” he continued, “who not through friendship for him, but enmity to Eumenes, had instigated him to the adoption of such measures, would praise his affection and firmness, if he preserved to the last his allegiance to his brother.”