In the 148th Olympiad (B. C. 188-184) embassies came from Philip and the tribes bordering on Macedonia to Rome. The decrees of the Senate concerning them. In Greece the quarrel of Philip with the Thessalians and Perrhaebians about the cities held by Philip in their countries from the time of the war with Antiochus. The decision concerning them before Q. Caecilius at Tempe. Decisions of Caecilius. A difference of Philip with the ambassadors of Eumenes and the exiles from Maroneia; the pleadings on these points at Thessalonica and the decision of Caecilius. The massacre at Maroneia instigated by king Philip. The arrival of the Roman legates, and their decisions. The causes of the war between the Romans and Perseus. Arrival of ambassadors from kings Ptolemy and Eumenes and Seleucus in the Peloponnese. The decision of the Achaeans on the alliance with Ptolemy, and on the gifts offered them by these kings. Arrival of Q. Caecilius and his disapprobation of the measures taken in regard to Sparta. Embassy of Areus and Alcibiades, two of the earlier exiles from Sparta, to Rome, and their accusations against Philopoemen and the Achaeans. The Roman envoys come to Cleitor, where there is an Achaean assembly. The speeches delivered for both parties, and the Achaean decrees in the affair of Sparta.1

AFTER the execution of the men at Compasium,2 some of the, Lacedaemonians, incensed at what had been done, and believing that the power and authority of the Romans had been set at naught by Philopoemen, went to Rome and accused Philopoemen and his proceedings; and finally obtained a letter addressed to the Achaeans from Marcus Lepidus, the consul of the year, and afterwards Pontifex Maximus, in which he told the Achaeans that they had not acted equitably in the matters of the Lacedaemonians. At the same time as this mission from Sparta, Philopoemen also appointed Nicodemus of Elis and others to go on an embassy to Rome.

Just at that time Demetrius of Athens came on a mission from Ptolemy, to renew the existing alliance between the king and the Achaean league. This was eagerly accepted, and my father, Lycortas, and Theodoridas, and Rositeles of Sicyon were appointed ambassadors to take the oaths on behalf of the Achaeans, and receive those of the king. And on that occasion a circumstance occurred, which, though not important perhaps, is still worth recording. After the completion of this renewal of alliance on behalf of the Achaeans, Philopoemen entertained the ambassador; and in the course of the banquet the ambassador introduced the king's name, and said a great deal in his praise, quoting anecdotes of his skill and boldness in hunting, as well as his excellence in riding and the use of arms; and ended by quoting, as a proof of what he said, that the king on horseback once transfixed a bull with a javelin. . . .

In Boeotia, after the formation of the treaty between Rome and Antiochus, the hopes of the whole revolutionary party were destroyed. Politics therefore began to assume a new aspect; and whereas the administration of justice among them had been postponed for nearly the last twenty years, voices began to make themselves heard in the cities to the effect that “there ought to be an end and settlement of their mutual disputes.” But after considerable controversy on this point, because the discontented were more numerous than the wealthy, the following circumstance occurred which helped accidently to support the party of order. Titus Flamininus had for some time past been zealously working in Rome to secure the restoration of Zeuxippus to Boeotia, because he had found him serviceable on many occasions during the wars with Antiochus and Philip. And just at this time he had induced the Senate to send a despatch to the Boeotians ordering them to recall Zeuxippus and his fellow exiles. When this despatch arrived, the Boeotians, fearing that, if these men were restored, they would become detached from their good understanding with Macedonia, determined that the legal sentence upon Zeuxippus and the rest should be publicly proclaimed,3 which they had formerly drawn up against them. Thus they condemned them on two charges, first, of sacrilege for having stripped off the silver from the plated table of Zeus, and, secondly, of murder for having killed Brachylles. Having made this arrangement, they assumed that they need pay no further attention to the despatch of the Senate, but contented themselves with sending Callicritus and others to Rome with the message that they were unable to rescind what had been settled by their laws. Zeuxippus having sent an embassy to the Senate at the same time, the Romans wrote to the Aetolians and Achaeans an account of the attitude assumed by the Boeotians, and ordered them to restore Zeuxippus to his country. The Achaeans refrained from invading the country with an army, but selected some ambassadors to go and persuade the Boeotians to obey the orders from Rome; and also to settle the legal disputes existing between them and the Achaeans, on the same principles as they conducted the administration of justice at home: for it happened that there were some controversies between the two nations that had been dragging on for a long time. On receiving this message the Boeotians, whose Strategus was then Hippias, promised at the moment that they would do what was demanded of them, but shortly afterwards neglected it at every point. Therefore, when Hippias had laid down his office and Alcetas had succeeded him, Philopoemen gave all who chose license to make reprisals on the territories of the Boeotians; which proved the beginning of a serious quarrel between the two nations. For on the cattle of Myrrichus and Simon being driven off,4 and a struggle arising over this transaction, the contest soon ceased to be political, and became the beginning and prelude of open war. If indeed the Senate had persisted in carrying out the restoration of Zeuxippus, war would quickly have been kindled; but as it maintained silence on the subject, the Megareans were induced by an embassy proposing terms to stop the reprisals. . . .5

A quarrel arose between the Lycians and Rhodians from the following causes. When the ten commissioners were employed in the settlement of Asia, they were visited by Theaetetus and Philophron on a mission from Rhodes, demanding that Lycia and Caria should be given to them in return for the goodwill and zeal displayed by them in the war with Antiochus. At the same time Hipparchus and Satyrus came from Ilium begging, on the ground of their kindred with the Lycians, that the latter should receive pardon for their transgressions. The commissioners listened to these pleadings, and tried to do what they could to satisfy both. For the sake of the people of Ilium, they inflicted no severity on the Lycians, but gratified the Rhodians by presenting them with the sovereignty over that people. This decision was the origin of a serious division and controversy between the Lycians and Rhodians. For the envoys of Ilium visited the Lycian cities, giving out that they had succeeded in pacifying the Roman anger, and that they owed their liberty to them; while Theaetetus and his colleague took back word to their countrymen that Lycia and all Caria south of the Maeander had been given as a free gift by the Romans to Rhodes. Presently an embassy came from Lycia to Rhodes desiring an alliance; while the Rhodians on their part had elected certain of their citizens to go to Lycia and give orders to the several cities as to what they were to do. They were thus entirely at cross purposes, and for some time the cause of the misunderstanding was not generally intelligible. But when the Lycian ambassadors appeared in the assembly and began talking about an alliance, and Pothion the Prytanis rose after them and explained the different ideas which the two people entertained on the subject, and moreover, sternly rebuked the Lycian envoys,6 the latter declared that they would endure anything rather than be subject to the Rhodians. . . .

All men admire the magnanimity of Philip towards Athens; for though had been injured as well as abused by them, yet when he conquered them at Chaeroneia, so far from using this opportunity for injuring his opponents, he caused the corpses of the Athenians to be buried with the proper ceremonies; while those of them who had been taken prisoners he actually presented with clothes, and restored to their friends without ransom. But though men praise they do not imitate such conduct. They rather try to outdo those with whom they are at war, in bitterness of passion and severity of vengeance. Ptolemy, for instance, had men tied naked to carts and dragged at their tail, and then put to death with torture. . . .

When this same Ptolemy was besieging Lycopolis, the Egyptian nobles surrendered to the king at discretion; and his cruel treatment of them involved him in manifold dangers. The same was the result at the time Polycrates suppressed the revolt. For Athinis, Pausiras, Chesuphus, and Irobastus, who still survived of the rebellious nobles, yielding to necessity, appeared at the city of Sais and surrendered at discretion to the king. But Ptolemy, regardless of all pledges, had them tied naked to the carts and dragged off, and then put to death with torture. He then went to Naucratis with his army, where he received the mercenaries enlisted for him by Aristonicus from Greece, and thence sailed to Alexandria, without having taken any part whatever in the actual operations of the war, thanks to the dishonest advice of Polycrates, though he was now twenty-five years old. . . .

At this time were sowed the seeds of fatal evils to the royal house of Macedonia. I am aware that some historians of the war between Rome and Perseus, when they wish to set forth the causes of the quarrel for our information, assign as the primary one the expulsion of Abrupolis from his principality, on the ground of having made a raid upon the mines at Pangaeum after the death of Philip, which Perseus repulsed, finally expelling him entirely out of his own dominions. Next they mention the invasion of Dolopia, and the visit of Perseus to Delphi, the plot against Eumenes at Delphi, and the murder of the ambassadors in Boeotia; and from these they say sprang the war between Perseus and the Romans. But my contention is that it is of most decisive advantage, both to historians and their readers, to know the causes from which the several events are born and spring. Most historians confound these, because they do not keep a firm hold upon the distinction between a pretext and a cause, or again between a pretext and a beginning of a war. And since events at the present time recall this distinction I feel compelled to renew my discussion of this subject. For instance, of the events just referred to, the first three are pretexts; the last two—the plot against Eumenes, the murder of the ambassadors, and other similar things that happened during the same period—are clear beginnings of the war between Rome and Perseus, and of the final overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom; but not one of them is a cause of these things. I will illustrate by examples. Just as we say that Philip son of Amyntas contemplated and determined upon accomplishing the war with Persia, while Alexander put into execution what he had projected, so in the present instance we say that Philip son of Demetrius first projected the last war against Rome, and had all his preparations ready for the execution of his design, but that after his death Perseus became the agent in carrying out the undertaking itself. If this be true, the following also is clear: it is impossible that the causes of the war should have been subsequent to the death of him who resolved upon and projected it; which would be the case if we accepted the account of these historians; for the events alleged by them as its causes were subsequent to the death of Philip. . . .

About the same time ambassadors came to Rome from king Eumenes, informing the Senate of the encroachment of Philip upon the cities in Thrace. There came also the exiles of the Maronitae denouncing Philip, and charging him with being the cause of their expulsion. These were followed by Athamanians, Perrhaebians, and Thessalians, demanding the restoration of their cities which Philip had taken from them during the war with Antiochus. Ambassadors also came from Philip to make answer to all accusers. After repeated debates between all these envoys and the ambassadors of Philip, the Senate decided to appoint a commission at once, to investigate the actions of Philip, and to protect all who chose to state their views and their complaints of the king to his face. The legates thus appointed were Quintus Caecilius, Marcus Baebius, and Tiberius Claudius.7 . . .

There was again a war of parties among the Aenii, one side inclining to Eumenes, the other to Macedonia. . . .

The result of these embassies was the Congress of Tempe, at which no definite settlement was made. Livy, 39, 25-28 .

I have already stated that in the Peloponnese, while Philopoemen was still Strategus, the Achaean league sent an embassy to Rome on the subject of Sparta, and another to king Ptolemy to renew their ancient alliance.

Immediately after Philopoemen had been succeeded by Aristaenus as Strategus, the ambassadors of king Ptolemy arrived, while the league meeting was assembled at Megalopolis. King Eumenes also had despatched an embassy offering to give the Achaeans one hundred and twenty talents, on condition that it was invested and the interest used to pay the council of the league at the time of the federal assemblies. Ambassadors came also from king Seleucus, to renew his friendship with them, and offering a present of a fleet of ten ships of war. But when the assembly got to business, the first to come forward to speak was Nicodemus of Elis, who recounted to the Achaeans what he and his colleagues had said in the Roman Senate about Sparta, and read the answer of the Senate; which was to the effect that the Senate disapproved of the destruction of the walls, and of the execution of the men put to death at Compasium, but that it did not rescind any arrangement made. No one saying a word for or against this, the subject was allowed to pass.

Next came the ambassadors from Eumenes, who renewed the ancestral friendship of the king with the Achaeans, and stated to the assembly the offer made by him. They spoke at great length on these subjects, and retired after setting forth the greatness of the king's kindness and affection to the nation.

After they had finished their speech, Apollonidas of Sicyon rose and said that: “As far as the amount of the money was concerned, it was a present worthy of the Achaeans. But if they looked to the intention of the donor, or the purpose to which the gift was to be applied, none could well be more insulting and more unconstitutional. The laws prohibited any one, whether a private individual or magistrate, from accepting presents from a king on any pretence whatever; but if they took this money they would every one of them be plainly accepting a present, which was at once the gravest possible breach of the law, and confessedly the deepest possible personal disgrace. For that the council should take a great wage from Eumenes, and meet to deliberate on the interests of the league after swallowing such a bait, was manifestly disgraceful and injurious. It was Eumenes that offered money now; presently it would be Prusias; and then Seleucus. But as the interests of democracies and of kings are quite opposite to each other, and as our most frequent and most important deliberations concern the points of controversy arising between us and the kings, one of two things must necessarily happen; either the interests of the king will have precedence over our own, or we must incur the reproach of ingratitude for opposing our paymasters.” He therefore urged the Achaeans not only to decline the offer, but to hold Eumenes in detestation for thinking of making it.

Next rose Cassander of Aegina and reminded the Achaeans of “The misfortunes which the Aeginetans had met with through being members of the Achaean league; when Publius Sulpicius sailed against them with the Roman fleet, and sold all the unhappy Aeginetans into slavery.” In regard to this subject I have already related how the Aetolians, having got possession of Aegina in virtue of their treaty with Rome, sold it to Attalus for thirty talents. Cassander therefore drew the attention of the Achaeans to these facts; and demanded that Eumenes should not seek to gain the affection of the Achaeans by offering them money, but that he should establish an incontestable claim to every sign of devotion by giving back Aegina. He urged the Achaeans not to accept presents which would place them in the position of being the destroyers of the hopes of Aeginetan restoration for all time.

After these speeches had been delivered, the people showed such signs of enthusiastic approval that no one ventured to speak on the side of the king; but the whole assembly rejected the offer by acclamation, though its amount certainly made it exceedingly tempting.

The next subject introduced for debate was that of king Ptolemy. The ambassadors who had been on the mission to Ptolemy were called forward, and Lycortas, acting as spokesman, began by stating how they had interchanged oaths of alliance with the king; and next announced that they brought a present from the king to the Achaean league of six thousand stands of arms for peltasts, and two thousand talents in bronze coinage. He added a panegyric on the king, and finished his speech by a brief reference to the goodwill and active benevolence of the king towards the Achaeans. Upon this the Strategus of the Achaeans, Aristaenus, stood up and asked Lycortas and his colleagues in the embassy to Ptolemy “which alliance it was that he had thus renewed?”

No one answering the question, but all the assembly beginning to converse with each other, the Council chamber was filled with confusion. The cause of this absurd state of things was this. There had been several treaties of alliance formed between the Achaeans and Ptolemy's kingdom, as widely different in their provision as in the circumstances which gave rise to them: but neither had Ptolemy's envoy made any distinction when arranging for the renewal, merely speaking in general terms on the matter, nor had the ambassadors sent from Achaia; but they had interchanged the oaths on the assumption of there being but one treaty. The result was, that, on the Strategus quoting all the treaties, and pointing out in detail the differences between them, which turned out to be important, the assembly demanded to know which it was that it was renewing. And when no one was able to explain, not even Philopoemen himself, who had been in office when the renewal was made, nor Lycortas and his colleagues who had been on the mission to Alexandria, these men all began to be regarded as careless in conducting the business of the league; while Aristaenus acquired great reputation as being the only man who knew what he was talking about; and finally, the assembly refused to allow the ratification, voting on account of this blunder that the business should be postponed.

Then the ambassadors from Seleucus entered with their proposal. The Achaeans, however, voted to renew the friendship with Seleucus, but to decline for the present the gift of the ships.

Having thus finished their deliberations, the assembly broke up and the people separated to their several cities. But subsequently, while the (Nemean) games were in course of celebration, Quintus Caecilius arrived from Macedonia, on his way back from the embassy which he had been conducting to Philip. Aristaenus having called a meeting of the league magistrates in Argos, Quintus attended and upbraided them for having exceeded justice in the harshness and severity with which they had treated the Lacedaemonians, and urged them strongly to repair the error. Aristaenus said not a word, showing clearly by his silence that he disapproved of what had been done and agreed with the words of Caecilius. But Diophanes of Megalopolis, who was more of a soldier than a statesman, stood up to speak, and so far from offering any defence of the Achaeans, suggested to Caecilius, from hostility to Philopoemen, another charge that might be brought against them. For he said that “the Lacedaemonians were not the only people who had been badly treated; the Messenians had been so also.” There were as a fact some controversies going on among the Messenians, in regard to the decree of Flamininus concerning the exiles, and the execution of it by Philopoemen: and Caecilius, thinking that he now had a party among the Achaeans themselves of the same opinion as himself, expressed still greater anger at the hesitation on the part of the assembled magistrates in obeying his orders. However, when Philopoemen, Lycortas, and Archon argued long and elaborately to prove that what had been done at Sparta was right, and advantageous to the Lacedaemonians themselves more than to any one else, and that it was impossible to disturb any existing arrangements without violating justice to man and piety to the gods, they came to the decision that they would maintain them, and give an answer to that effect to the Roman legate. Seeing what the disposition of the magistrates was, Caecilius demanded that the public assembly should be summoned, to which the Achaean magistrates demanded to see the instructions which he had from the Senate on these points: and when he gave no answer to this demand, they said that they would not summon the assembly for him, as their laws forbade them to do so unless a man brought written instructions from the Senate, stating the subject on which they were to summon it. Caecilius was so angry at this uncompromising opposition to his orders, that he refused to receive his answer from the magistrates, and so departed without any answer at all. The Achaeans laid the blame both of the former visit of Marcus Fulvius and the present one of Caecilius on Aristaenus and Diophanes, on the ground that they had invited them on account of their political opposition to Philopoemen; and accordingly the general public felt a certain suspicion of these two men. Such was the state of the—Peloponnese. . . .

Philopoemen had a sharp difference in debate with Archon the Strategus. In course of time, however, Philopoemen was convinced by Archon's arguments, and, changing his mind, spoke in warm commendation of Archon as having managed his business with skill and address. But when I heard the speech at the time it did not seem to me right to praise a man and yet do him an injury, nor do I think so now in my maturer years. For I think that there is as wide a distinction in point of morality between practical ability and success secured by absence of scruples, as there is between skill and mere cunning. The former are in a manner the highest attainments possible, the latter the reverse. But owing to the lack of discernment so general in our day, these qualities, which have little in common, excite the same amount of commendation and emulation in the world. . . .

When Caecilius returned from Greece and made his report to the Senate concerning Macedonia and the Peloponnese, the ambassadors who had come to Rome on these matters were introduced into the Senate. First came those from Philip and Eumenes, as well as the exiles from Aenus and Maroneia; and on their saying much the same as they had said before Caecilius and his colleagues at Thessalonica, the Senate voted to send another deputation to Philip, to see first of all whether he had evacuated the cities in Perrhaebia in conformity with the answer he gave to Caecilius: and secondly, to order him to remove his garrison from Aenus and Maroneia; and in a word, to abandon all fortresses, positions, and towns on the sea-board of Thrace.

After these the ambassadors from the Peloponnese were introduced. For the Achaeans on their part had sent Apollonidas of Sicyon, and others, to justify themselves to Caecilius for his having received no answer, and generally to inform the Senate on the question of Sparta; and at the same time Areus and Alcibiades had come from Sparta as ambassadors,—two of the old exiles recently restored by Philopoemen and the Achaeans. And this was a circumstance that particularly roused the anger of the Achaeans; because they thought it the height of ingratitude on the part of the exiles, after receiving so important and recent a service at their hands, to be now sending a hostile embassy, and accusing to the sovereign people those who had been the authors of their unlooked—for preservation and restoration to their country.

Both parties were heard in their defence in each other's presence. Apollonidas of Sicyon and his colleagues tried to convince the Senate that the affairs of Sparta could not have been better managed than they were managed by Philopoemen. Areus and his colleagues attempted to establish the reverse: alleging, first of all, that the power of the city was entirely destroyed by the violent withdrawal of so large a number; and, in the second place, that even those that were left were so few that their position was insecure, now that the walls were pulled down; and that their freedom of speech was entirely destroyed by the fact that they were not only amenable to the general decrees of the Achaean league, but were also made specially subject to the magistrates set over them from time to time. After hearing these envoys also, the Senate decided to give, the same legates instructions regarding them as well as the others, and appointed Appius Claudius and his colleagues commissioners for Greece.

But the ambassadors from the Achaeans offered an explanation also to Caecilius in the Senate, on behalf of the magistrates, asserting that “They did not act wrongly or deserve blame for refusing to summon the assembly, unless it were requisite to decide on an alliance or a war, or unless some one brought a letter from the Senate. The magistrates had therefore impartially considered the subject of summoning the assembly, but were prevented from doing so by the laws, because he neither brought a despatch from the Senate nor would show them any written instructions. “At the conclusion of this speech Caecilius rose and made an attack on Philopoemen and Lycortas, and the Achaeans generally, and on the policy they had pursued towards the city of Sparta. After listening to the arguments, the Senate answered the Achaeans by saying that they would send commissioners to investigate the matter of Sparta; and they accompanied this answer by an admonition to them to pay attention to the ambassadors sent by them from time to time, and show them proper respect, as the Romans did to ambassadors who came to them. . . .

When Philip learnt, by a message from his own ambassadors at Rome, that he would he obliged to evacuate the cities in Thrace, he was extremely annoyed, because he regarded his kingdom as being now curtailed on every side; and he vented his wrath upon the unhappy people of Maroneia. He sent for Onomastus, his governor in Thrace, and communicated with him on the subject. And Onomastus on his return sent Cassander to Maroneia, who, from long residence there, was familiar with the inhabitants,—for Philip's practice had long been to place members of his court in these cities, and accustom the people to their residence among them. Some few days after his arrival, the Thracians having been prepared for what they had to do, and having obtained entrance to the city by night through the instrumentality of Cassander, a great massacre took place, and many of the Maronites were killed. Having wreaked this vengeance on those who opposed him, and satisfied his own anger, Philip waited for the arrival of the Roman legates, persuaded that no one would venture for fear of him to denounce his crime. Nut when Appius and his colleagues presently arrived, they were promptly informed of what had happened at Maroneia, and expostulated in severe terms with Philip for it. The king attempted to defend himself by asserting that he had nothing to do with this act of violence; but that the Maronites, being divided into two hostile parties, one inclined to Eumenes and the other to himself, inflicted this misfortune upon themselves. He moreover bade them confront him with any one who wished to accuse him. He said this from a conviction that no one would venture to do so; because they would consider that Philip's vengeance upon those who opposed him would be near at hand, while assistance from Rome would have a long way to come. But when Appius and his colleagues said that “they required to hear no defence, for they were well aware of what had happened, and who was the cause of it,” Philip became much confused.

They went no further than this in the first interview: but during the next day Appius ordered Philip to send Onomastus and Cassander at once to Rome, that the Senate might inform itself on what had happened. The king was disturbed at this to the greatest possible degree, and for some time did not know what to say; but at last he said that he would send Cassander, who was the actual author of the business, that the Senate might learn the truth from him; but he tried to get Onomastus excused, both in this and subsequent interviews with the legates, alleging as a reason that not only had Onomastus not been in Maroneia at the time of the massacre, but not even in any part of the country in its neighbourhood. His real motive, however, was fear lest, if he got to Rome, having been engaged with him in many similar transactions, he would not only tell the Romans the story of Maroneia, but all the others also. Eventually he did get Onomastus excused; and having, after the departure of the legates, sent off Cassander, he sent some agents with him as far as Epirus, and there had him poisoned.8 But Appius and his colleagues left Philip with their minds fully made up both as to his guilt in the matter of Maroneia and his alienation from Rome.

The king, thus relieved of the presence of the legates, after consulting with his friends Apelles and Philocles became clearly conscious that his quarrel with Rome had now become serious, and that it could no longer be concealed, but was become notorious to most people in the world. He was therefore now wholly bent on measures of self-defence and retaliation. But as he was as yet unprepared for some of the plans which he had in his mind, he cast about to find some means of putting matters off, and gaining time for making his preparations for war. He accordingly resolved to send his youngest son Demetrius to Rome: partly to make his defence on the charges brought against him, and partly also to beg pardon for any error which he might have committed. He felt certain that everything he wished would be obtained from the Senate by means of this young prince, because of the extraordinary attentions which had been shown him when he was acting as a hostage. He no sooner conceived this idea than he set about making preparations for sending the prince and those of his own friends destined to accompany him on his mission. At the same time he promised the Byzantines to give them help: not so much because he cared for them, as from a wish under cover of their name to strike terror into the princes of the Thracians living beyond the Propontis, as a step towards the fulfilment of his main purpose. . .

In Crete, while Cydas son of Antalces was Cosmus,9 the Gortynians, who sought in every way to depress the Gnossians, deprived them of a portion of their territory called Lycastium, and assigned it to the Rhaucii, and another portion called Diatonium to the Lyctii. But when about this time Appius and his colleagues arrived in the island from Rome, with the view of settling the controversies which existed among them, and addressed remonstrances to the cities of Gnossus and Gortyn on these points, the Cretans gave in, and submitted the settlement of their disputes to Appius. He accordingly ordered the restoration of their territory to the Gnossians; and that the Cydoniates should receive back the hostages which they had formerly left in the hands of Charmion, and should surrender Phalasarna, without taking anything out of it. As to sharing in the legal jurisdiction of the whole island, he left it free to the several cities to do so or not as they pleased, on condition that in the latter case they abstained from entering the rest of Crete, they and the exiles from Phalasarna who murdered Menochius and his friends, their most illustrious citizens. . . .

Apollonias, the wife of Attalus, father of king Eumenes, was a native of Cyzicus, and a woman who for many reasons deserves to be remembered, and with honour. Her claims upon a favourable recollection are that, though born of a private family, she became a queen, and retained that exalted rank to the end of her life, not by the use of meretricious fascinations, but by the virtue and integrity of her conduct in private and public life alike. Above all, she was the mother of four sons with whom she kept on terms of the most perfect affection and motherly love to the last day of her life. And so Attalus and his brother gained a high character, while staying at Cyzicus, by showing their mother proper respect and honour. For they took each of them one of her hands and led her between them on a visit to the temples and on a tour of the town, accompanied by their suite. At this sight all who saw it received the young princes with very warm marks of approval, and, recalling the story of Cleobis and Biton, compared their conduct with theirs; and remarked that the affectionate zeal shown by the young princes, though perhaps not going so far as theirs, was rendered quite as illustrious by the fact of their more exalted position. This took place in Cyzicus, after the peace made with king Prusias. . . .

Ostiagon the Gaul, king of the Gauls of Asia, endeavoured to transfer to himself the sovereignty of all the Gauls; and he had many qualifications for such a post, both natural and acquired. For he was open-handed and generous, a man of popular manners and ready tact; and, what was most important in the eyes of the Gauls, he was a man of courage and skill in war. . . .

Aristonicus was one of the eunuchs of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, and had been brought up from childhood with the king. As he grew up he displayed more manly courage and tastes than are generally found in an eunuch. For he had a natural predilection for a military life, and devoted himself almost exclusively to that and all that it involved. He was also skilful in dealing with men, and, what is very rare, took large and liberal views, and was naturally inclined to bestow favours and kindnesses. . . .