Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 39
Evan T. Sage, Ph.D., Ed.

47. Demetrius,¹ who was then quite a young [p. 369]man, had to answer all these complaints. Since it² was not easy to remember either all the charges which were made or what was to be said in reply to them —for [2] they were not only numerous but many of them also trivial in the extreme,³ dealing with boundary disputes, men abducted or animals driven off, justice either administered by caprice or not administered, decisions rendered as a result of violence or influence —when [3] the senate saw that Demetrius could give no intelligent information on any of these points and that they could learn nothing explicit from him, and when they were moved by both the inexperience and the embarrassment of the young man, they ordered that the question be asked of him whether he had received any notes from his father on these matters. [4] When he replied that he had received them, it was resolved that nothing should have preference or precedence over hearing the answers of the king himself to these several charges. They immediately demanded the book and then allowed him to read it. [5] The arguments, however, on single items were given in a brief digest; for example, that he had done some things in accordance with the decrees of commissioners, other things he had been prevented from doing, not through his own fault, but that of the very persons who made the accusations. [6] He had included also complaints about the injustice of the decrees and how unfair had been the discussion before Caecilius, and how he had been trampled upon by everyone unjustifiably and in no wise as he deserved. [7] The senate took these to be indications of his irritation; but when the young man apologized for some things and undertook that in the future [p. 371]other things should be done as the senate specifically⁴ desired, it was decided to reply that his father had done nothing more correctly or more in accordance with the senate's wishes than that, whatever his own conduct [8??] had been, he had wished to be justified in the eyes of the Romans through his son Demetrius. The senate, they said, could close its eyes to much and could forget and let the past be past and continue to trust to Demetrius. [9] For they held his soul hostage, even though his body had been restored to his father, and they knew that, [10??] so far as his loyalty to his father would permit, he would be a friend to the Roman people, and for the sake of doing him honour they would send ambassadors to Macedonia, to say that if anything had not been done which should have been done, it might even then be done without any atonement being required for previous omissions. [11] They said that they wished Philip to know that all things were unchanged between him and the Roman people, thanks to his son Demetrius.