25.
There, when they had taken their places, the 'Roman commissioners in the position of arbitrators, the Thessalians, Perrhaebians and Athamanians as unquestionably accusers, and Philip to hear the charges almost as a criminal,
[2??]
each one of the men who were chiefs of embassies, in accordance with his own inclinations, whether towards sympathy for Philip or towards hatred, made more harsh or more lenient proposals.
[3]
But the principal grounds for controversy were Philippopolis, Tricca, Phaloria, [p. 293]Eurymenae1 and other cities near them, whether,2 at a time when they were under Thessalian control, they had been forcibly seized and occupied by the Aetolians —for
[4]
it was agreed that Philip had taken them from the Aetolians3 —or whether these towns had been Aetolian in earlier times; for Acilius had given them to the king subject to the condition that they had belonged to the Aetolians and, furthermore, that they had joined with the Aetolians voluntarily, not under compulsion of armed force.4
[5]
Under the same procedure the dispute was conducted as to the cities of the Perrhaebians and Magnesians; for the Aetolians had confused all claims by seizing them as opportunity offered.5
[6]
Besides these questions, which were matters for legal adjudication, there were the complaints of the Thessalians that if these cities should be restored to them he would give them back after they had been despoiled and abandoned;
[7]
for in addition to those who had been lost in the hardships of war he had taken five hundred of the leaders of the youth away to Macedonia and was misusing their services on tasks fit only for slaves;
[8]
and what he had restored to the Thessalians, under compulsion, he had taken care to return unusable.
[9]
Phthian Thebes, they said, had once been [p. 295]the one maritime market of the Thessalians which6 was profitable and productive of revenue: by assembling there cargo-boats which would steer past Thebes to Demetrias, the king had diverted thither all the sea-trade. At last not even ambassadors, who were inviolable under the law of nations, had he refrained from attacking: he had laid an ambush for them while they were on their way to Titus Quinctius.7
[10]
As a result, then, they said, all Thessalians had been thrown into such a panic that no one dared to open his mouth either in his own city or in the common councils of the people.
[11]
The Romans, the source of their liberty, were far away: close beside them was a threatening master, forbidding them to take advantage of the kindnesses of the Roman people. What, pray, was free if there was no free speech? Even now, with the confidence and under the safeguards of ambassadors, they were lamenting rather than stating their case. Unless the Romans found some device by which both the fear of the Greeks who were neighbours of Macedonia and the aggressiveness of Philip could be diminished, both his defeat and their liberation would be in vain.
[12]
Like a stubborn horse which would not obey, more cruel reins must be employed to control him.
[13]
These remarks the last speakers made in bitterness, although previous speakers had gently soothed his wrath, begging that he would pardon their pleas for liberty, that he would lay aside the harshness of a tyrant and train himself to act as an ally and friend, and that he would imitate the Roman
[14??]
people, which preferred to win for itself allies by affection rather than by fear.
[15]
When the Thessalians had been heard, the Perrhaebians argued [p. 297]that Gonnocondylum, which Philip had named8 Olympias, belonged to Perrhaebia and should be restored to them; the same demand was also made for Malloea and Ericinium. The Athamanians sought liberty and the forts of Athenaeum and
[16]
Poetneum.9
[17]
1 Tricca and Phaloria, as well as Malloea and Ericinium in sect. 16 below, but not Philippopolis and Eurymenae, are on the list of towns recovered from the Athamanians by Baebius and Philip (XXXVI. xiii. 6).
2 B.C. 185
3 This is inconsistent with the narrative quoted in the preceding note.
4 The text of this passage seems to be corrupt in so many places that the real meaning remains obscure and uncertain, and no combination of emendations possesses both palaeographical and intrinsic probability. It is clear, however, that the general question involved is the priority of Thessalian and Aetolian claims to these towns. Two details make the answer particularly difficult: first, the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word antiquitus, since Aetolian expansion seems to have begun only after the Macedonian conquest; second, the fact that the condition said here to have been imposed by Acilius has not been mentioned before. Both text and translation, it must be admitted, are a patch-work.
5 The incessant shifting of military control rendered impossible any purely legal adjudication of such questions which could be regarded as final. Rome's decisions were certain to offend some party and were likely to offend all parties, even if they were purely impersonal and equitable.
6 B.C. 185
7 This incident has not been mentioned.
8 B.C. 185
9 This demand is inconsistent with Livy's previous narrative. Poetneum is otherwise unknown. For Athenaeum cf. XXXVIII. i. 11.
The discrepancies between these chapters and Livy's account in Book XXXVI suggest that Livy here follows a different source. The real facts become, in consequence, less attainable.
Livy. Books XXXVIII-XXXIX with an English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1936: published without copyright notice.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.