Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 34
Cyrus Evans, Ed.

57. After the consuls had finished the levies, and were gone to their provinces, Titus Quinctius demanded, that “the senate should receive an account of the regulations which he, in concert with the ten ambassadors, had settled; and, if they thought proper, ratify them by their authority.” [2] He told them, that “they would accomplish this the more easily, if they were first to give audience to the ambassadors, who had come from all parts of Greece, and a great part of Asia, and to those from the two kings.” [3] These embassies were introduced to the senate by the city praetor, Caius Scribonius, and all received kind answers. [4] As the discussion of the affair with Antiochus required too much time, it was referred to the ten ambassadors, some of whom had conferred with the king in Asia, or at Lysimachia. [5] Directions were given to Titus Quinctius, that, in conjunction with these, he should listen to the representations of the king's ambassadors, and should give them such answer as comported with the dignity and interest of the Roman people. [6] At the head of the embassy were Menippus and Hegesianax; the former of whom said, that “he could not conceive what intricacy there was in the business of their embassy, as they came simply to ask friendship, and conclude an alliance. [7] Now, there were three kinds of treaties, by which kings and states formed friendships with each other: one, when terms were dictated to a people vanquished in war; for after all their possessions have been surrendered to him who has proved superior in war, he has the sole power of judging and determining what portion of them the vanquished shall hold, and of what they shall be deprived. [8] The second, when parties, equally matched in war, conclude a treaty of peace and friendship on terms of equality; for then demands are proposed and restitution made, reciprocally, in a convention; and if, in consequence of the war, confusion has arisen with respect to any parts of their properties, the matter is adjusted on the footing either of an- [p. 1547]cient right or of the mutual convenience of the parties. [9] The third kind was, when parties who had never been foes, met to form a friendly union by a social treaty: these neither dictate nor receive terms, for that is the case between a victor and a party vanquished. [10] As Antiochus came under this last description, he wondered, he said, that the Romans should think it becoming to dictate terms to him; as to which of the cities of Asia they chose should be free and independent, which should be tributary, and which of them the king's troops and the king himself should be prohibited to enter. [11] That a peace of this kind might be ratified with Philip, who was their enemy, but not a treaty of alliance with Antiochus, their friend.”