Polybius: Histories Book 23

IN the 149th Olympiad a greater number of embassies came to Rome from Greece than were almost ever seen before. For as Philip was compelled by treaty to submit disputes with his neighbours to arbitration, and as it was known that the Romans were willing to receive accusations against Philip, and would secure the safety of those who had controversies with him, all who lived near the frontier of Macedonia came to Rome, some in their private capacity, some from cities, others from whole tribes, with complaints against Philip. At the same time also came ambassadors from Eumenes, accompanied by his brother Athenaeus, to accuse Philip in regard to the Thracian cities and the aid sent to Prusias. Philip's son, Demetrius, also came to make answer to all these various envoys, accompanied by Apelles and Philocles, who were at that time considered the king's first friends. Ambassadors also came from Sparta, representatives of each faction of the citizens.

The first summoned to the Senate was Athenaeus, from whom the Senate accepted the compliments of fifteen thousand gold pieces, and passed a decree highly extolling Eumenes and his brothers for their answer, and exhorting them to continue in the same mind. Next the praetors called upon all the accusers of Philip, and brought them forward by one embassy at a time. But as they were numerous, and their entry occupied three days, the Senate became embarrassed as to the settlement to be made in each case. For from Thessaly there were ambassadors from the whole nation, and also from each city separately; so also from the Perrhaebians, Athamanians, Epirotes, and Illyrians. And of these some brought cases of dispute as to territory, slaves, or cattle; and some about contracts or injuries sustained by themselves. Some alleged that they could not get their rights in accordance with the treaty, because Philip prevented the administration of justice; while others impeached the justice of the decisions given, on the ground that Philip had corrupted the arbitrators. And, in fact, there was an inextricable confusion and multiplicity of charges.

In such a state of things the Senate felt unable to come to a clear decision itself, and did not think it fair that Demetrius should have to answer each of the several indictments; for it regarded him with great favour, and saw at the same time that his extreme youth unfitted him to cope with business of such intricacy and complexity. Besides, what it desired most was not to hear speeches of Demetrius, but to ascertain with certainty the disposition of Philip. Excusing him therefore from pleading his cause, the Senate asked the young man and his friends whether they were the bearers of any written memoir from the king; and upon Demetrius answering that he was, and holding out a paper of no great size, the Senate bade him give a summary of what the paper contained in answer to the accusations alleged. It amounted to this, that on each point Philip asserted that he had carried out the injunctions of the Senate, or, if he had not done so, laid the blame upon his accusers; while to the greater number of his declarations he had added the words, “though the commissioners with Caecilius were unfair to me in this point,” or again, “though I am unjustly treated in this respect.” Such being Philip's mind, as expressed in the several clauses of the paper, the Senate, after hearing the ambassadors who were come to Rome, comprehended them all under one measure. By the mouth of the praetor it offered an honourable and cordial reception to Demetrius, expressed in ample and emphatic language, and answered his speech by saying that “The Senate fully believe that on all the points mentioned by Demetrius, or read by him from his paper of instructions, full justice was already done or would be done. But, in order that Philip might be made aware that the Senate paid this honour to Demetrius, ambassadors. would be sent to see that everything was being done in accordance with the will of the Senate, and at the same time to inform the king that he owed this grace to his son Demetrius.” Such was the arrangement come to on this part of the business.

The next to enter the Senate were the ambassadors of king Eumenes, who denounced Philip on account of the assistance sent to Prusias, and concerning his actions in Thrace, alleging that even at that moment he had not withdrawn his garrisons from the cities. But upon Philocles showing his wish to offer a defence on these points, as having been formerly charged with a mission to Prusias, and being now sent to the Senate to represent Philip on this business, the Senate, without listening very long to his speech, answered that “With regard to Thrace, unless the legates found everything there settled in accordance with its will, and all the cities restored to the entire control of Eumenes, the Senate would be unable any longer to allow it to pass, or to submit to being continually disobeyed.”

Though the ill-feeling between the Romans and Philip was becoming serious, a check was put to it for the time by the presence of Demetrius. And yet this young prince's mission to Rome proved eventually no slight link in the chain of events which led to the final ruin of his house. For the Senate, by thus making much of Demetrius, somewhat turned the young man's head, and at the same time gravely annoyed Perseus and the king, by making them feel that the kindness they received from the Romans was not for their own sakes, but for that of Demetrius. And T. Quintius Flamininus contributed not a little to the same result by taking the young prince aside and communicating with him in confidence. For he flattered him by suggesting that the Romans meant before long to invest him with the kingdom; while he irritated Philip and Perseus by sending a letter ordering the king to send Demetrius to Rome again, with as many friends of the highest character as possible. It was, in fact, by taking advantage of these circumstances that Perseus shortly afterwards induced his father to consent to the death of Demetrius. But I shall relate that event in detail later on.

The next ambassadors called in were the Lacedaemonians. Of these there were four distinct factions. Lysis and his colleagues represented the old exiles, and their contention was that they ought to have back the possessions from which they had originally been driven. Areus and Alcibiades, on the contrary, contended that they should receive the value of a talent from their original property, and divide the rest among deserving citizens. pleaded that things should be left in exactly the state in which they were when they formerly belonged to the Achaean league. Lastly, Chaeron and his colleagues represented those who had been condemned to death or exile by the votes of the Achaean league, and demanded their own recall and the restoration of the constitution. These all delivered speeches against the Achaeans in conformity with their several objects. The Senate, finding itself unable to come to a clear decision on these particular controversies, appointed a committee of investigation, consisting of the three who had already been on a mission to the Peloponnese on these matters, namely Titus Flamininus, Q. Caecilius, and Appius Claudius Pulcher.1 After long discussions before this committee it was unanimously decided that the exiles and the condemned were to be recalled, and that the city should remain a member of the Achaean league. But as to the property, whether the exiles were each to select a talent's worth from what had been theirs [or to receive it all back], on this point they continued to dispute. That they might not, however, have to begin the whole controversy afresh [the committee] caused the points agreed upon to be reduced to writing, to which all affixed their seals. But the committee, also wishing to include the Achaeans in the agreement, called in Xenarchus and his colleagues, who were at that time on a mission from the Achaeans, to renew their alliance with Rome, and at the same time to give an eye to their controversy with the Lacedaemonians. These men, being unexpectedly asked whether they consented to the terms contained in the written document, were somewhat at a loss what to answer. For they did not approve of the restoration of the exiles and the condemned persons, as being contrary to the decree of the league, and the contents of the tablet on which that decree was engraved; and yet they approved of the document as a whole, because it contained the clause providing that Sparta should remain a member of the league. Finally, however, partly from this difficulty, and partly from awe of the Roman commissioners, they affixed their seal. The Senate, therefore, selected Quintus Marcius to go as legate to settle the affairs of Macedonia and the Peloponnese. . . .

When Deinocrates of Messene arrived on a mission at Rome, he was delighted to find that Titus Flamininus had been appointed by the Senate to go as ambassador to Prusias and Seleucus. For having been very intimate with Titus during the Lacedaemonian war, he thought that this friendship, combined with his disagreements with Philopoemen, would induce him on his arrival in Greece to settle the affairs of Messene in accordance with his own views. He therefore gave up everything else to attach himself exclusively to Titus, on whom he rested all his hopes. . . .

This same Deinocrates was a courtier and a soldier by nature as well as habit, but he assumed the air of consummate statesmanship. His parts, however, were showy rather than solid. In war his fertility of resource and boldness were beyond the common run; and he shone in feats of personal bravery. Nor were these his only accomplishments: he was attractive and ready in conversation, versatile and courteous in society. But at the same time he was devoted to licentious intrigue, and in public affairs and questions of policy was quite incapable of sustained attention or far-sighted views, of fortifying himself with well-considered arguments, or putting them before the public. On this occasion, for instance, though he had really given the initiative to grave misfortunes, he did not think that he was doing anything of importance; but followed his usual manner of life, quite regardless of the future, indulging day after day in amours, wine, and song. Flamininus, however, did once force him to catch a glimpse of the seriousness of his position. For seeing him on a certain occasion in a party of revellers dancing in long robes, he said nothing at the time; but next morning, being visited by him with some request in behalf of his country, he said: “I will do my best, Deinocrates; but it does astonish me that you can drink and dance after having given the start to such serious troubles for Greece.” He appears, indeed, at that to have a little recovered his soberer senses, and to have understood what an improper display he had been making of his tastes and habits. However, he arrived at this period in Greece in company with Flamininus, fully persuaded that the affairs of Messene would be settled at a blow in accordance with his views. But Philopoemen and his party were fully aware that Flamininus had no commission from the Senate in regard to affairs in Greece; they therefore awaited his arrival without taking any step of any sort. Having landed at Naupactus, Flamininus addressed a despatch to the Strategus and Demiurgi2 bidding them summon the Achaeans to an assembly; to which they wrote back that “they would do so, if he would write them word what the subjects were on which he wished to confer with the Achaeans; for the laws enjoined that limitation on the magistrates.” As Flamininus did not venture to write this, the hopes of Deinocrates and the so-called “old exiles,” but who had at that time been recently banished from Sparta, came to nothing, as in fact did the visit of Flamininus and the plans which he had formed. . . . Ambassadors from the Spartan Exiles About the same period some ambassadors were sent by the exiled citizens of Sparta to Rome, among whom was Arcesilaus and Agesipolis who, when quite a boy, had been made king in Sparta. These two men were fallen upon and killed by pirates on the high seas; but their colleagues arrived safely at Rome. . . .

On the return of Demetrius from Rome, bringing with him the formal reply, in which the Romans referred all the favour and confidence which they avowed to their regard for Demetrius, saying that all they had done or would do was for his sake,—the Macedonians gave Demetrius a cordial reception, believing that they were relieved from all fear and danger: for they had looked upon war with Rome as all but at their doors, owing to the provocations given by Philip. But Philip and Perseus were far from pleased, and were much offended at the idea of the Romans taking no account of them, and referring all their favour to Demetrius. Philip however concealed his displeasure; but Perseus, who was not only behind his brother in good feelings to Rome, but much his inferior in other respects, both in natural ability and acquired accomplishments, made no secret of his anger: and was beginning to be thoroughly alarmed as to his succession to the crown, and lest, in spite of being the elder, he should be excluded. Therefore he commenced by bribing the friends of Demetrius. . . .

The end of this fraternal jealousy is described in Livy, 40, 5-24 . By a forged letter purporting to come from Flamininus, Philip is persuaded that his son played the traitor at Rome and gives an order or a permission for his being put to death; which is accordingly done, partly by poison and partly by violence, at Heracleia, B. C. 181.

Upon Quintus Marcius arriving on his mission in Macedonia, Philip evacuated the Greek cities in Thrace entirely and withdrew his garrisons, though in deep anger and heaviness of spirit; and he put on a right footing everything else to which the Roman injunctions referred, wishing to give them no indication of his estrangement, but to secure time for making his preparations for war. In pursuance of this design he led out an army against the barbarians, and marching through the centre of Thrace he invaded the Odrysae, Bessi, and Dentheleti. Coming to Philippopolis, the inhabitants flying for safety to the heights, he took it without a blow. And thence, after traversing the plain, and sacking some of the villages, and exacting a pledge of submission from others, he returned home, leaving a garrison in Philippopolis, which was after a time expelled by the Odrysae in defiance of their pledge of fidelity to Philip. . . .

In the second year of this Olympiad, on the arrival of ambassadors from Eumenes, Pharnaces, and the Achaean league, and also from the Lacedaemonians who had been banished from Sparta,3 and from those who were in actual possession of it, the Senate despatched their business. But there came after them a mission from Rhodes in regard to the disaster at Sinope; to whom the Senate replied that it would send legates to investigate the case of the Sinopeans and their grievances against those kings. And Quintus Marcius having recently arrived from Greece and made his report on the state of affairs in Macedonia and the Peloponnese, the Senate did not require to hear much more; but having called in the envoys from the Peloponnese and Macedonia they listened indeed to what they had to say, but founded its reply, without any reference to their speeches, wholly on the report of Marcius, in which he had stated, in reference to king Philip, that he had indeed done all that was enjoined on him, but with great reluctance; and that, if he got an opportunity, he would go all lengths against the Romans. The Senate accordingly composed a reply to the king's envoys in which, while praising Philip for what he had done, they warned him for the future to be careful not to be found acting in opposition to the Romans. As to the Peloponnese, Marcius had reported that, as the Achaeans were unwilling to refer any matter whatever to the Senate, but were haughtily inclined and desirous of managing all their affairs themselves, if the Senate would only reject their present application and give ever so slight an indication of displeasure, Sparta would promptly come to an understanding with Messene; and then the Achaeans would be glad enough to appeal to the protection of Rome. In consequence of this report they answered the Lacedaemonian Serippus and his colleagues, wishing to leave this city in a state of suspense, that they had done their best for them, but that for the present they did not think this matter concerned them. But when the Achaeans besought for help against the Messenians4 in virtue of their alliance with Rome, or at least that they would take precautions to prevent any arms or corn from being brought from Italy into Messene, the Senate refused compliance with either request and answered that the Achaeans ought not to be surprised if Sparta or Corinth or Argos renounced their league, if they would not conduct their hegemony in accordance with the Senate's views. This answer the Senate made public, as a kind of proclamation that any people who chose might break off from the Achaeans for all the Romans cared; and they further retained the ambassadors in Rome, waiting to see the issue of the quarrel between the Achaeans and Messenians. . . .

In this period a certain dreadful foreshadowing of misfortune fell upon king Philip and the whole of Macedonia, of a kind well worthy of close attention and record. As though Fortune had resolved to exact from him at once the penalties for all the impieties and crimes which he had committed in the whole course of his life, she now visited him with furies, those deities of retribution, those powers that had listened to the prayers of the victims of his cruelties, who, haunting him day and night, so plagued him to the last day of his life, that all the world was forced to acknowledge the truth of the proverb, that “Justice has an eye” which mere men should never despise. The first idea suggested to him by this evil power was that, as he was about to go to war with Rome, he had better remove from the most important cities, and those along the sea-coast, the leading citizens, with their wives and children, and place them in Emathia, formerly called Paeonia, and fill up the cities with Thracians and other barbarians, as likely to be more securely loyal to him in the coming hour of danger. The actual carrying out of this measure, and the uprooting of these men and their families, caused such an outburst of grief, and so violent an outcry, that one might have supposed the whole district to have been taken by the sword. Curses and appeals to heaven were rained upon the head of the king without any further attempt at concealment. His next step, prompted by the wish to leave no element of hostility or disaffection in the kingdom, was to write to the governors of the several cities ordering them to search out the sons and daughters of such Macedonians as had been put to death by him, and place them in ward; in which he referred especially to Admetus, Pyrrhicus, and Samus, and those who had perished with them: but he also included all others whosoever that had been put to death by order of the king, quoting this verse, we are told:—5 ““Oh fool! to slay the sire and leave the sons.” ” Most of these men being persons of distinguished families, their fate made a great noise and excited universal pity. But Fortune had a third act in this bloody drama in reserve for Philip, in which the young princes plotted against each other; and their quarrels being referred to him, he was forced to choose between becoming the murderer of his sons and living the rest of his life in dread of being murdered by them in his old age; and to decide which of the two he had the greater reason to fear. Tortured day and night by these anxieties, the miseries and perturbations of his spirit lead to the inevitable reflection that the wrath of heaven fell upon his old age for the sins of his previous life: which will be rendered still more evident by what remains to be told. . . . Just when his soul was stung to madness by these circumstances, the quarrel between his sons blazed out: Fortune, as it were of set purpose, bringing their misfortunes upon the scene all at one time. . . .

as a hero, and perform a purification of the army with horses fully equipped. . . .

“One should not merely read tragedies, tales, and histories, but should understand and ponder over them. In all of them one may learn that whenever brothers fall out and allow their quarrel to go any great length, they invariably end not only by destroying themselves but in the utter ruin of their property, children, and cities; while those who keep their self-love within reasonable bounds, and put up with each other's weaknesses, are the preservers of these, and live in the fairest reputation and fame. I have often directed your attention to the kings in Sparta, telling you that they preserved the hegemony in Greece for their country just so long as they obeyed the ephors, as though they were their parents, and were content to reign jointly. But directly they in their folly tried to change the government to a monarchy, they caused Sparta to experience every misery possible. Finally, I have pointed out to you as an example the case of Eumenes and Attalus; showing you that, though they succeeded to but a small and insignificant realm, they have raised it to a level with the best, simply by the harmony and unity of sentiment, and mutual respect which they maintained towards each other. But so far from taking my words to heart, you are, as it seems to me, whetting your angry passions against each other. . . .”

Philopoemen rose6 and proceeded on his way, though he was oppressed at once by illness and the weight of years, being now in the seventieth year of his age. Conquering his weakness, however, by the force of his previous habits he reached Megalopolis, from Argos, in one day's journey. . . .

He was captured, when Achaean Strategus, by the Messenians and poisoned. Thus, though second to none that ever lived before him in excellence, his fortune was less happy; yet in his previous life he seemed ever to have enjoyed her favour and assistance. But it was, I suppose, a case of the common proverb, “a man may have a stroke of luck, but no man can be lucky always.” We must, therefore, call our predecessors fortunate, without pretending that they were so invariably—for what need is there to flatter Fortune by a meaningless and false compliment? It is those who have enjoyed Fortune's smiles in their life for the longest time, and who, when she changes her mind, meet with only moderate mishaps, that we must speak of as fortunate. . . .

Philopoemen was succeeded by Lycortas,7 . . . and though he had spent forty years of an active career in a state at once democratic and composed of many various elements, he had entirely avoided giving rise to the jealousy of the citizens in any direction: and yet he had not flattered their inclinations, but for the most part had used great freedom of speech, which is a case of very rare occurrence. . . .

An admirable feature in Hannibal's character, and the strongest proof of his having been a born ruler of men, and having possessed statesmanlike qualities of an unusual kind, is that, though he was for seventeen years engaged in actual warfare, and though he had to make his way through numerous barbaric tribes, and to employ innumerable men of different nationalities in what appeared desperate and hazardous enterprises, he was never made the object of a conspiracy by any of them, nor deserted by any of those who had joined him and put themselves under his command. . . .

Publius Scipio, in the course of an active career in an aristocratic state, secured such popularity with the multitude and such credit with the Senate, that when some one took upon himself to bring him to trial before the people in the manner usual at Rome, and produced many bitter accusations against him, he came forward and said nothing but that “It ill-became the Roman people to listen to accusations against P. Cornelius Scipio, to whom his accusers owed it that they had the power of speech at all.” At this the populace dispersed, and quitting the assembly, left the accuser alone. . . . Once when there was a sum of money required in the Senate for some pressing business, and the quaestor, on the ground of a legal difficulty, refused to open the treasury on that particular day, Scipio said that “he would take the keys himself and open it; for he was the cause of the treasury being locked at all.” And again, when some one in the Senate demanded an account of the money which he had received from Antiochus before the treaty for the pay of his army, he said that he had the ledger, but that he ought not to be called to account by any one. But on his questioner persisting, and urging him to produce it, he bade his brother bring it. When the schedule was brought, he held it out in front of him, and tearing it to pieces in the sight of everybody bade the man who asked for it seek it out of these fragments, and he demanded of the rest “How they could ask for the items of the expenditure of these three thousand talents, and yet no longer ask for an account of how and by whose agency the fifteen thousand talents which they received from Antiochus came into the treasury, nor how it is that they have become masters of Asia, Libya, and Iberia?” This speech not only made a strong impression on the rest, but also reduced the man who demanded the account to silence.

These anecdotes have been related by me for the double purpose of enhancing the fame of the departed, and of encouraging future generations in the paths of honour. . . .

For my part, I never concur with those who indulge their anger against men of their own blood to the length of not only depriving them of the year's harvest when at war with them, but even of cutting down their trees and destroying their buildings, and of leaving them no opportunity for repentance. Such proceedings seem to me to be rank folly. For, while they imagine that they are dismaying the enemy by the devastation of their territory, and the deprivation of their future as well as their present means of getting the necessaries of life, they are all the while exasperating the men, and converting an isolated ebullition of anger into a lasting hatred. . . .

Lycortas the Achaean Strategus crushed the spirits of the Messenians in the war. Up to this time the populace at Messene had been afraid of their magistrates; but now at length, relying on the protection of the enemy, some of them plucked up courage to break silence and to say that the time was come to send an embassy to negotiate a peace. Deinocrates and his colleagues, being no longer able to face the people under this storm of popular odium, yielded to circumstances and retired to their own houses. Thereupon the people, acting under the advice of the older men, and especially under that of Epaenetus and Apollodorus, the ambassadors from Boeotia,—who, having arrived some time before to negotiate a peace, happened fortunately to be at that time at Messene,—appointed and despatched envoys, begging forgiveness for their transgressions. The Achaean Strategus, having summoned his colleagues8 to council, and given the envoys a hearing, answered that “There was but one way in which the Messenians could reconcile themselves to the league, and that was by at once surrendering to him the authors of the revolt and of the murder of Philopoemen, leave the rest to the authority of the league assembly, and at once receive a garrison into their citadel.” When this message was announced to the Messenian populace, those who had long been bitterly opposed to the authors of the war were ready enough to surrender them and to arrest them; while the rest, being persuaded that they would not be severely dealt with by the Achaeans, readily consented to submit the general question to the decision of the assembly. But what chiefly induced them to unanimously accept the proposal was, that they in fact had no choice in the matter. The Strategus accordingly at once took over the citadel and marched his peltasts into it; and then, taking some picked troops with him, entered the city; and having summoned a meeting of the people, addressed them in terms befitting the occasion, promising that “they would never have reason to repent having committed themselves to the honour of the Achaeans.” The general question of what was to be done he thus referred to the league,—for it happened conveniently that the Achaeans were just then reassembling at Megalopolis for the second Congress,9—but of those who were guilty of the disturbances, he ordered all such as were actually implicated in the summary execution of Philopoemen to put an end to their own lives. . . .

The Messenians were reduced by their own folly to the brink of ruin, but were restored to their former position in the league by the magnanimity of Lycortas and the Achaeans. But the towns of Abia, Thuria, and Pharae during these transactions abandoned their connection with Messene, and, setting up a pillar engraved with a treaty of alliance between themselves, formed a separate league. When the Romans were informed that the Messenian war had turned out successfully for the Achaeans, without taking any account of their previous declaration they gave a different answer to the same ambassadors, asserting that they had taken measures to prevent any one from conveying arms or corn from Italy into Messene. By this they showed clearly that, so far from avoiding or disregarding the affairs of foreign nations not directly concerning themselves, they were, on the contrary, annoyed at everything not being referred to them and carried out in accordance with their opinion.

When the ambassadors arrived in Sparta with their answer, the Achaean Strategus as soon as he had settled the Messenian business, summoned a congress at Sicyon, and on its assembling, proposed a resolution for the reception of Sparta into the league, alleging that “The Romans had declined the arbitration which had previously been offered to them in regard to this city,—for they had answered that they had now no concern with any of the affairs of Sparta. Those, however, at present in power at Sparta were desirous of being admitted to the privileges of the league. Therefore he advised that they should admit the town; for this would be advantageous in two ways: first, because they would be thus admitting men who had remained unshaken in their loyalty to the league; and secondly, because they would not be admitting those of the old exiles, who had behaved with ingratitude and impiety towards them, to any share of their privileges; but by confirming the measures of those who had excluded them, would at the same time be showing, with God's help, due gratitude to the latter.” With these words Lycortas exhorted the Achaeans to receive the city of Sparta into the league. But Diophanes and some others attempted to put in a word for the exiles, and urged the Achaeans “Not to join in pressing heavily upon these banished men; and not to be influenced by a mere handful of men to strengthen the hands of those who had impiously and lawlessly expelled them from their country.”

Such were the arguments employed on either side. The Achaeans, after listening to both, decided to admit the city, and accordingly the agreement was engraved on a tablet, and Sparta became a member of the Achaean league: the existing citizens having agreed to admit such of the old exiles as were not considered to have acted in a hostile spirit against the Achaeans. After confirming this arrangement the Achaeans sent Bippus of Argos and others as ambassadors to Rome, to explain to the Senate what had been done in the matter. The Lacedaemonians also sent Chaeron and others; while the exiles too sent a mission led by Cletis Diactorius10 to oppose the Achaean ambassadors in the Senate.