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.1
Sparta and the League
AFTER the execution of the men at Compasium,2
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.
An appeal to Rome against Philopoemen. B. C. 187. Coss. M. Aemilius Lepidus, C. Flamininus,
At the same time as this mission from Sparta,
Philopoemen also appointed Nicodemus of Elis and others to
go on an embassy to Rome.
Just at that time Demetrius of Athens came on a mission
Renewal of the treaty between the Achaean league and Ptolemy.
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 Rositeles of
Sicyon were appointed ambassadors to take the
oaths on behalf of the Achaeans, and receive those of the
The accomplishments of Ptolemy Epiphanes.
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. . . .
The Murderers of Brachylles
In Boeotia, after the formation of the treaty between
The effect of the collapse of Antiochus upon Boeotia.
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.
Resistance to the recall of Zeuxippus.
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,3
which they had formerly drawn up against them.
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 Myrrichus and
Simon being driven off,4
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. . . .5
Quarrel Between Lycians and Rhodians
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,6
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）
All men admire the magnanimity of Philip towards
Contrast of the conduct of Philip II. of Macedon to Athens in B. C. 338 with that of Ptolemy.
Athens; for though 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. . . .
Seeds of the Third Macedonian War
When this same Ptolemy was besieging Lycopolis, the
Suppression of the revolt in lower Egypt, B. C. 186-185.
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
Lycopolis in the Thebaid.
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. . . .
Origin of the Last Macedonian War
At this time were sowed the seeds of fatal evils to the
B. C. 186. The origin of the last Macedonian war.
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.
Abrupolis, a Thracian prince
and friend of the Romans. See Livy, 42, 13, 40. Death of Philip V. B. C. 179.
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.
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. . . .
The Senate Investigates Philip
About the same time ambassadors came to Rome from
Complaints lodged against Philip at Rome, B. C. 185.
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.
A commission of investigation appointed.
The legates thus appointed
were Quintus Caecilius, Marcus Baebius, and Tiberius
. . .
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
I have already stated that in the Peloponnese, while Philopoemen was still Strategus,
Philopoemen Achaean Strategus for two years running, from
the Achaean league sent an embassy to Rome
on the subject of Sparta, and another to king
Ptolemy to renew their ancient alliance.
May B. C. 189 to May B. C. 187.
Immediately after Philopoemen had been succeeded by
Aristaenus. May, B. C. 187 to May, B. C. 186.
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.
Seleucus Philopator succeeded his father
Antiochus the Great, B.C. 187. Business of the Achaean assembly. Letter from the Senate
on the subject of Philopoemen's actions at Sparta.
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
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.
Apollonidas and Cassander Urge Rejection of Eumenes' Gifts
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.
Next rose Cassander of Aegina and reminded the Achaeans
Speech of Cassander of Aegina.
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
After these speeches had been delivered, the people showed
The present of Eumenes is refused.
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.
Offers of Eumenes and Seleucus Declined
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.
Ptolemy. The speech of Lycortas.
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.
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.
Caecilius In the Achaean Assembly
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. . . .
Philopoemen on Archon
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. . . .
Caecilius Reports and Ambassadors Respond
When Caecilius returned from Greece and made his
Ambassadors from Philip and the Achaeans heard on the report of Caecilius, B. C. 185-184.
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 sea-board
After these the ambassadors from the Peloponnese were
The Achaean ambassadors make their defence.
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.
Another Commission For Greece
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
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.
Defence of the refusal to call the Achaean assembly.
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. . . .
Philip and the Massacre At Maroneia
When Philip learnt, by a message from his own
Philip's vengeance on the people of Maroneia, early in B.C. 184. Livy, 39, 33.
ambassadors at Rome, that he would he 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.
Nut 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
He attempts to evade responsibility 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.
Philip Hopes to Defer War With Rome
They went no further than this in the first interview: but
The guilty agents are to be sent to Rome.
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.
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.
Philip's hostility to Rome.
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.8
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.
The king, thus relieved of the presence of the legates, after
King Philip meditates a breach with Rome.
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.
Sends his son Demetrius there, in hopes of putting off the war for a time.
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. . .
Disputes in Crete
In Crete, while Cydas son of Antalces was Cosmus,9
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. . . .
Apollonias, Widow of Attalus
Apollonias, the wife of Attalus, father of king
The Queen-Dowager, widow of Attalus, and her sons.
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. . . .
Ostiagon Tries to Become King of All the Gauls
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.
The policy of Ostiagon in Galatia.
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. . . .
Aristonicus was one of the eunuchs of Ptolemy, king
Character of Aristonicus. See above, ch. 7.
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. . . .