Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 34
Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. Professor of Latin and Head of the Department of Classics in the University of Pittsburgh, Ed.

57. After the consuls had conducted their levies and departed to their provinces, Titus Quinctius demanded that the senate should listen to an account of the arrangements which he, in concert with the ten commissioners, had made, and should, if it was their pleasure, ratify them by their vote; [2] they would accomplish this more easily if they would hear the words of the ambassadors who had come from all Greece and a great part of Asia and those who had come from the kings. [3] These embassies were introduced to the senate by the city praetor, Gaius Scribonius, and were accorded a courteous reception. [4] Since the discussion with Antiochus was of longer duration, it was referred to the ten commissioners, part of whom had met the king either in Asia or at Lysimachia. [5] Titus Quinctius was instructed to hear, in the company of the commissioners, what the king's ambassadors had to say, and to make such a reply [p. 563]to them. as was consistent with the dignity and the¹ interest of the Roman people. [6] Menippus and Hegesianax were the leaders of the king's embassy. On their behalf, Menippus said that he did not see what there was in their embassy that was so difficult, since they had come merely to ask for friendship and conclude an alliance. [7] There were three kinds of treaties, he said, by which states and kings concluded friendships: one, when in time of war terms were imposed upon the conquered; for when everything was surrendered to him who was the more powerful in arms, it is the victor's right and privilege to decide what of the conquered's property he wishes to confiscate; the second, when states that are equally matched in war conclude peace and friendship on terms of equality; [8] under these conditions demands for restitution are made and granted by mutual agreement, and if the ownership of any property has been rendered uncertain by the war, these questions are settled according to the rules of traditional law or the convenience of each party; [9] the third exists when states that have never been at war come together to pledge mutual friendship in a treaty of alliance; neither party gives or accepts conditions; for that happens when a conquering and a conquered party meet. Since Antiochus was in this last class, he wondered on what account the Romans deemed it right to impose terms upon him. [10] prescribing what cities of Asia he was to leave free and independent and what he was to make tributary to him, and what cities they forbade the king's armies and the king to enter. [11] For in that way it was proper to make peace with Philip, an enemy, but not a treaty of alliance with Antiochus, a friend.

[p. 565]