ATTALUS, brother of king Eumenes, came to Rome this year, pretending that, even if the disaster of the Gallic rising had not happened to the kingdom, he should have come to Rome, to congratulate the Senate, and to receive some mark of its approval for having been actively engaged on their side and loyally shared in all their dangers; but, as it happened, he had been forced to come at that time to Rome owing to the danger from the Gauls. Upon finding a general welcome from everybody, owing to the acquaintance formed with him on the campaign, and the belief that he was well disposed to them, and meeting with a reception that surpassed his expectation, the young man's hopes were extraordinarily raised, because he did not know the true reason of this friendly warmth. The result was that he narrowly escaped ruining his own and his brother's fortunes, and indeed the entire kingdom. The majority at Rome were thoroughly angry with king Eumenes, and believed that he had been playing a double game during the war, keeping up communications with Perseus, and watching his opportunity against them: and accordingly some men of high rank got Attalus under their influence, and urged him to lay aside the character of ambassador for his brother, and to speak in his own behalf; as the Senate was minded to secure a separate kingdom and royal government for him, because of their displeasure with his brother. This excited the ambition of Attalus still more, and in private conversation he signified his assent to those who advised this course. Finally, he arranged with some men of position that he would actually appear before the Senate and deliver a speech on the subject.

While Attalus was engaged on this intrigue, Eumenes, fearing what would happen, sent his physician Stratius to Rome, putting him in possession of the facts, and charging him to employ every means to prevent Attalus from following the advice of those who wished to ruin their kingdom. On arriving at Rome and getting Attalus by himself, he used a great variety of arguments to him (and he was a man of great sense and powers of persuasion), and at length, with much trouble, succeeded in his object, and in recalling him from his mad project. He represented to him that “he was already practically joint-king with his brother, and only differed from him in the fact that he wore no diadem, and was not called king, though in everything else he possessed an equal and identical authority: that in the future he was the acknowledged heir to the crown, and with no very distant prospect of possession; as the king, from the weak state of his health, was in constant expectation of his departure, and being childless could not, even if he wished it, leave the crown to any one else.” (For in fact that natural son of his, who afterwards succeeded to the crown, had not as yet been acknowledged.) “Above all, he was surprised at the hindrance Attalus was thus interposing to the measures necessary at that particular crisis. For they ought to thank heaven exceedingly if they proved able, even with hearty co-operation and unanimity, to repel the threatened attack of the Gauls; but if he should at such a time quarrel with and oppose his brother, it was quite clear that he would ruin the kingdom, and deprive himself both of his present power and his future expectations, and his other brothers also of the kingdom and the power they possessed in it.” By these and similar arguments Stratius dissuaded Attalus from taking any revolutionary steps.

Accordingly, when Attalus appeared before the Senate, he congratulated it on what had happened; expatiated on the loyalty and zeal shown by himself in the war with Perseus; and urged at some length that the Senate should send envoys to restrain the audacity of the Gauls, and compel them to confine themselves once more to their original boundaries. He also said something about the cities of Aeneus and Maronea, desiring that they might be given as a free gift to himself. But he said not a single word against the king, or about the partition of the kingdom. The senators, supposing that he would interview them privately on a future occasion upon these points, promised to send the envoys, and loaded him lavishly with the customary presents, and, moreover, promised him these cities. But when, after receiving these marks of favour, he at once left Rome without fulfilling any of its expectations, the Senate, though foiled in its hopes, had nothing else which it could do; but before he had got out of Italy it declared Aeneus and Maronea free cities,—thus rescinding its promise,—and sent Publius Licinius at the head of a mission to the Gauls. And what instructions these ambassadors had given to them it is not easy to say, but it may be guessed without difficulty from what subsequently happened. And this will be rendered clear from the transactions themselves.

There also came embassies from Rhodes, the first headed by Philocrates, the second by Philophron and Astymedes. For when the Rhodians received the answer given to the embassy of Agesipolis immediately after the battle of Pydna, they understood the anger and threatening attitude of the Senate towards them, and promptly despatched these embassies. Astymedes and Philophron, observing in the course of public and private conversations the suspicions and anger entertained towards them at Rome, were reduced to a state of great discouragement and distress. But when one of the praetors mounted the Rostra and urged the people to declare war against Rhodes, then indeed they were beside themselves with terror at the danger that threatened their country. They assumed mourning garments, and in their various interviews with their friends dropped the tone of persuasion or demand, and pleaded instead, with tears and prayers, that they would not adopt any measure of supreme severity towards them. A few days afterwards Antony, one of the tribunes, introduced them to the Senate, and dragged the praetor who advised the war down from the Rostra. Philophron spoke first, and was followed by Astymedes; and, having thus uttered the proverbial “swan's song,” they received an answer which, while freeing them from actual fear of war, conveyed a bitter and stern rebuke from the Senate for their conduct. Now Astymedes considered himself to have made a good speech on behalf of his country, but did not at all satisfy the Greeks visiting or residing at Rome. For he afterwards published the speech containing his argument in defence, which, to all those into whose hands it fell, appeared absurd and quite unconvincing. For he rested his plea not alone on the merits of his country, but still more on an accusation of others. Comparing the good services done and the co-operation undertaken by the others, he endeavoured to deny or minimise them; while he exaggerated those of Rhodes as far above their actual amount as he could. The errors of others, on the contrary, he inveighed against in bitter and hostile terms, while those of the Rhodians he attempted to cloak and conceal, in order that, by this comparison, those of his own country might appear insignificant and pardonable, those of others grave and beyond excuse, “all of whom,” he added, “had already been pardoned before.” But this sort of pleading can in no circumstances be considered becoming to a statesman. Take the case of the betrayal of secrets. It is not those who, for fear or gain, turn informers that we commend; but those who endure any torture and punishment rather than involve an accomplice in the same misfortune. These are the men whom we approve and consider noble. But a man who, from some undefined alarm, exposes to the view of the party in power all the errors of others, and who recalls what time had obliterated from the minds of the ruling people, cannot fail to be an object of dislike to all who hear of it.

After receiving the above answer Philocrates and his colleagues immediately started home; but Astymedes and his fellows stayed where they were and kept on the watch, that no report or observation against their country might be made unknown to them. But when this answer of the Senate was reported at Rhodes, the people, considering themselves relieved of the worst fear—that, namely, of war— made light of the rest, though extremely unfavourable. So true it ever is that a dread of worse makes men forget lighter misfortunes. They immediately voted a complimentary crown worth ten thousand gold pieces1 to Rome, and appointed Theaetetus at once envoy and navarch to convey it at the beginning of summer, accompanied by an embassy under Rhodophon, to attempt in every possible way to make an alliance with the Romans. They acted thus because they wished that, if the embassy failed by an adverse answer at Rome, the failure might take place without the people having passed a formal decree, the attempt being made solely on the initiative of the navarch, and the navarch having by the law power to act in such a case. For the fact was that the republic of Rhodes had been administered with such consummate statesmanship, that, though it had for nearly a hundred and forty years been engaged in conjunction with Rome in actions of the greatest importance and glory, it had never yet made an alliance with her. Nor ought I to omit stating the reason of this policy of the Rhodians. They wished that no ruler or prince should be entirely without hope of gaining their support or alliance; and they therefore did not choose to bind or hamper themselves beforehand with oaths and treaties; but, by remaining uncommitted, to be able to avail themselves of all advantages as they arose. But on this occasion they were much bent upon securing this mark of honour from Rome, not because they were anxious for the alliance, or because they were afraid of any one else at the time except the Romans, but because they wished, by giving an air of special importance to their design, to remove the suspicions of such as were inclined to entertain unfavourable thoughts of their state. For immediately after the return of the ambassadors under Theaetetus, the Caunians revolted and the Mylassians seized on the cities in Euromus. And about the same time the Roman Senate published a decree declaring all Carians and Lycians free who had been assigned to the Rhodians after the war with Antiochus. The Caunian and Mylassian revolts were speedily put down by the Rhodians; for they compelled the Caunians, by sending Lycus with a body of soldiers, to return to their allegiance, though the people of Cibyra had come to their assistance; and in an expedition into Euromus they conquered the Mylassians and Alabandians in the field, these two peoples having combined their forces to attack Orthosia. But when the decree concerning the Lycians and Carians was announced they were once more in a state of dismay, fearing that their gift of the crown had proved in vain, as well as their hopes of an alliance. . . .

I have already directed my readers' attention to the policy of Deinon and Polyaratus. For Rhodes was not the only place which experienced grave danger and important changes. Nearly all the states suffered in the same way. It will therefore be instructive to take a review of the policy adopted by the statesmen in the several countries, and to ascertain which of them will be proved to have acted with wisdom, and which to have done otherwise: in order that posterity in similar circumstances of danger may, with these examples as models, so to speak, before their eyes, be able to choose the good and avoid the bad with a genuine insight; and may not in the last hour of their lives dishonour their previous character and achievements, from failing to perceive where the path of honour lies. There were, then, three different classes of persons who incurred blame for their conduct in the war with Perseus. One consisted of those who, while displeased at seeing the controversy brought to a decisive end, and the control of the world fall into the power of one government, nevertheless took absolutely no active steps for or against the Romans, but left the decision entirely to Fortune. A second consisted of those who were glad to see the question settled, and wished Perseus to win, but were unable to convert the citizens of their own states or the members of their race to their sentiments. And a third class consisted of those who actually succeeded in inducing their several states to change round and join the alliance of Perseus. Our present task is to examine how each of these conducted their respective policies.

In the last class were Antinous, Theodotus, and Cephalus, who induced the Molossians to join Perseus. These men, when the results of the campaign went completely against them, and they found themselves in imminent danger of the worst consequences, put a bold face upon it and met an honourable death in the field. These men deserve our commendation for their self-respect, in refusing to allow themselves to lapse into a position unworthy of their previous life.

Again, in Achaia and Thessaly and Perrhaebia several persons incurred blame by remaining neutral, on the ground that they were watching their opportunity, and were in heart on the side of Perseus; and yet they never let a word to that effect get abroad, nor were ever detected in sending letter or message to Perseus on any subject whatever, but conducted themselves with unexceptionable discretion. Such men as these therefore very properly determined to face judicial inquiry and stand their judgment, and to make every effort to save themselves. For it is quite as great a sign of cowardice to abandon life voluntarily when a man is conscious of no crime, from fear of the threats of political opponents or of the power of the conquerors, as it is to cling to life to the loss of honour.

Again, in Rhodes and Cos, and several other cities, there were men who favoured the cause of Perseus, and who were bold enough to speak in behalf of the Macedonians in their own cities, and to inveigh against the Romans, and to actually advise active steps in alliance with Perseus, but who were not able to induce their states to transfer themselves to alliance with the king. The most conspicuous of such men were in Cos the two brothers Hippias and Diomedon, and in Rhodes Deinon and Polyaratus.

And it is impossible not to view the policy of these men with disapproval. To begin with, all their fellow-citizens were aware of everything they had done or said; in the next place, the letters were intercepted and made public which were coming from Perseus to them, and from themselves to Perseus, as well as the messengers from both sides: yet they could not make up their minds to yield and put themselves out of the way, but still disputed the point. The result of this persistence and clinging to life, in the face of a desperate position, was that they quite ruined their character for courage and resolution, and left not the least ground for pity or sympathy in the minds of posterity. For being confronted with their own letters and agents, they were regarded as not merely unfortunate, but rather as shameless. One of those who went on these voyages was a man named Thoas. He had frequently sailed to Macedonia on a mission from these men, and when the decisive change in the state of affairs took place, conscious of what he had done, and fearing the consequences, he retired to Cnidos. But the Cnidians having thrown him into prison, he was demanded by the Rhodians, and on coming to Rhodes and being put to the torture, confessed his crime; and his story was found to agree with everything in the cipher of the intercepted letters, and with the despatches from Perseus to Deinon, and from Deinon and Polyaratus to him. Therefore it was a matter of surprise that Deinon persuaded himself to cling to life and submit to so signal an exposure.

But in respect to folly and baseness of spirit, Polyaratus surpassed Deinon. For when Popilius Laenas charged king Ptolemy to send Polyaratus to Rome, the king, from a regard both to Polyaratus himself and his country, determined not to send him to Rome but to Rhodes, this being also what Polyaratus himself asked him to do. Having therefore caused a galley to be prepared, the king handed him over to Demetrius, one of his own friends, and despatched him, and wrote a despatch to the Rhodians notifying the fact. But touching at Phaselis in the course of the voyage, Polyaratus, from some notion or another which he had conceived, took suppliant branches in his hand, and fled for safety to the city altar. If any one had asked him his intention in thus acting, I am persuaded that he could not have told it. For if he wanted to go to his own country, where was the need of suppliant branches? For his conductors were charged to take him there. But if he wished to go to Rome, that was sure to take place whether he wished it or no. What other alternative was there? Other place that could receive him with safety to himself there was none. However, on the people of Phaselis sending to Rhodes to beg that they would receive Polyaratus, and take him away, the Rhodians came to the prudent resolution of sending an open vessel to convoy him; but forbade the captain of it to actually take him on board, on the ground that the officers from Alexandria had it in charge to deliver the man in Rhodes. When the vessel arrived at Phaselis, and its captain, Epichares, refused to take the man on board, and Demetrius, who had been deputed by the king for that business, urged him to leave the altar and resume his voyage; and when the people of Phaselis supported his command, because they were afraid they would incur some blame from Rome on that account, Polyaratus could no longer resist the pressure of circumstances, but once more went on board Demetrius's galley. But in the course of the voyage he seized an opportunity of doing the same again at Caunus, flying for safety there in the same way, and begging the Caunians to save him. Upon the Caunians rejecting him, on the grounds of their being leagued with Rhodes, he sent messages to Cibyra, begging them to receive him in their city, and to send him an escort. He had some claim upon this city, because the sons of its tyrant, Pancrates, had been educated at his house; accordingly, they listened to his request, and did what he asked. But when he got to Cibyra, he placed himself and the Cibyratae into a still greater difficulty than that which he caused before when at Phaselis. For they neither dared to retain him in their town for fear of Rome, nor had the power of sending him to Rome, because of their ignorance of the sea, being an entirely inland folk. Eventually they were reduced to send envoys to Rhodes and the Roman proconsul in Macedonia, begging them to take over the man. Lucius Aemilius wrote to the Cibyratae, ordering them to keep Polyaratus in safe custody; and to the Rhodians to make provision for his conveyance by sea and his safe delivery upon Roman territory. Both peoples obeyed the despatch: and thus Polyaratus eventually came to Rome, after making a spectacle of his folly and cowardice to the best of his ability; and after having been, thanks to his own folly, four times surrendered—by king Ptolemy, the people of Phaselis, the Cibyratae, and the Rhodians.

The reason of my having dwelt at some length on the story of Polyaratus and Deinon is not that I have any desire to trample upon their misfortunes, for that would be ungenerous in the last degree; but in order that, by clearly showing their folly, I might instruct those who fall into similar difficulties and dangers how to take a better and wiser course. . . .

The most striking illustration of the mutability and capriciousness of Fortune is when a man, within a brief period, turns out to have been preparing for the use of his enemies the very things which he imagined that he was elaborating in his own honour. Thus Perseus was having some columns made, which Lucius Aemilius, finding unfinished, caused to be completed, and placed statues of himself on them. . . .

He admired the situation of the city, and the excellent position of the acropolis for commanding the districts on both sides of the Isthmus.

Having been long anxious to see Olympia, he set out thither.

Aemilius entered the sacred enclosure at Olympia, and was struck with admiration at the statue of the god, remarking that, to his mind, Pheidias was the only artist who had represented the Zeus of Homer; and that, though he had had great expectations of Olympia, he found the reality far surpassed them.

The Aetolians had been accustomed to get their livelihood from plundering and such like lawless occupations; and as long as they were permitted to plunder and loot the Greeks, they got all they required from them, regarding every country as that of an enemy. But subsequently, when the Romans obtained the supremacy, they were prevented from this means of support, and accordingly turned upon each other. Even before this, in their civil war, there was no horror which they did not commit; and a little earlier still they had had a taste of mutual slaughter in the massacres at Arsinoe;2 they were, therefore, ready for anything, and their minds were so infuriated that they would not allow their magistrates to have even a voice in their business. Aetolia, accordingly, was a scene of turbulence, lawlessness, and blood: nothing they undertook was done on any calculation or fixed plan; everything was conducted at haphazard and in confusion, as though a hurricane had burst upon them. . . .

The state of Epirus was much the same. For in proportion as the majority of its people are more law-abiding than those of Aetolia, so their chief magistrate surpassed every one else in wickedness and contempt for law. For, I think, there never was and never will be a character more ferocious and brutal than that of Charops. . . .

After the destruction of Perseus, immediately after the decisive battle, embassies were sent on all sides to congratulate the Roman commanders on the event. And as now all power tended towards Rome, in every city those who were regarded as of the Romanising party were in the ascendant, and were appointed to embassies and other services. Accordingly they flocked into Macedonia—from Achaia, Callicrates, Aristodamus, Agesias, and Philippus; from Boeotia, Mnasippos; from Acarnania, Chremas; from Epirus, Charops and Nicias; from Aetolia, Lyciscus and Tisippus. These all having met, and eagerly vieing with each other in attaining a common object; and there being no one to oppose them, since their political opponents had all yielded to the times and completely retired, they accomplished their purpose without trouble. So the ten commissioners issued orders to the other cities and leagues through the mouths of the strategi themselves as to what citizens were to go to Rome. And these turned out to be, for the most part, those whom the men I have named had made a list of on party grounds, except a very few of such as had done something conspicuous. But to the Achaean league they sent two men of the highest rank of their own number, Gaius Claudius and Gnaeus Domitius. They had two reasons for doing so: the first was that they were uneasy lest the Achaeans should refuse to obey the written order, and lest Callicrates and his colleagues should be in absolute danger from being reputed to be the authors of the accusations against all the Greeks,—which was about true; and in the second place, because in the intercepted despatches nothing distinct had been discovered against any Achaean. Accordingly, after a while, the proconsul sent the letter and envoys with reference to these men, although in his private opinion he did not agree with the charges brought by Lyciscus and Callicrates, as was afterwards made clear by what took place. . . .

Lucius Anicius, who had been praetor, after his victory over the Illyrians, and on bringing Genthius prisoner to Rome with his children, while celebrating his triumph, did a very ridiculous thing. He sent for the most famous artists from Greece, and having constructed an immense theatre in the circus, he brought all the flute players on the stage together first. Their names were Theodorus the Boeotian, Theopompus and Hermippus of Lysimacheia, the most celebrated of the day. He placed them on the proscenium with the chorus, and bid them all play at once. But on their beginning to play the tune, accompanied by appropriate movements, he sent to them to say that they were not playing well, and must put more excitement into it. At first they did not know what to make of this, until one of the lictors showed them that they must form themselves into two companies, and facing round, advance against each other as though in a battle. The fluteplayers caught the idea at once, and, adopting a motion suitable to their own wild strains, produced a scene of great confusion. They made the middle group of the chorus face round upon the two extreme groups, and the fluteplayers, blowing with inconceivable violence and discordance, led these groups against each other. The members of the chorus meanwhile rushed, with a violent stamping which shook the stage, against those opposite them, and then faced round and retired. But when one of the chorus, whose dress was closely girt up, turned round on the spur of the moment and raised his hands, like a boxer, in the face of the fluteplayer who was approaching him, then the spectators clapped their hands and cheered loudly. Whilst this sort of sham fight was going on, two dancers were brought into the orchestra to the sound of music; and four boxers mounted upon the stage, accompanied by trumpeters and clarion players. The effect of these various contests all going on together was indescribable. But if I were to speak about their tragic actors, I should be thought by some to be jesting.3 . . .

It requires the same sort of spirit to arrange public games well, and to set out great banquets and wine with fitting splendour, as it does to draw up an army in presence of the enemy with strategic skill. . . .

Aemilius Paulus took seventy cities in Epirus after the conquest of the Macedonians and Perseus, most of which were in the country of the Molossi; and enslaved one hundred and fifty thousand men. . . .

In Egypt the first thing the kings did after being relieved from the war with Antiochus was to send Numenius, one of their friends, as an envoy to Rome to return thanks for the favours received; and they next released the Lacedaemonian Menalcidas, who had made active use of the occasion against the kingdom for his own advantage; Gaius Popilius Laenas asked the king for his release as a favour to himself.4 . . .

At this period Cotys, king of the Odrysae, sent ambassadors to Rome, asking for the restoration of his son, and pleading his defence for having acted on the side of Perseus. The Romans, considering that they had effected their purpose by the successful issue of the war against Perseus, and that they had no need to press their quarrel with Cotys any further, allowed him to take his son back—who, having been sent as a hostage to Macedonia, had been captured with the children of Perseus, —wishing to display their clemency and magnanimity, and with the idea at the same time of binding Cotys to themselves by so great a favour. . . .

About the same time king Prusias also came to Rome to congratulate the Senate and the generals on their success. This Prusias was in no sense worthy of the royal title, as we may judge from the following facts: When the Roman envoys first appeared at his court, he met them with shorn head and wearing a cap, toga, and shoes, and in fact exactly in the garb worn by those recently manumitted at Rome, whom they call liberti : and greeting the envoys respectfully, he exclaimed, “Behold your freedman, who is willing to obey you in all things and to imitate your fashions!” than which a more contemptible speech it would be difficult to imagine. And now, again, when he reached the entrance of the Senate-house he stopped at the door facing the senators, and, dropping both his hands he paid reverence to the threshold and the seated Fathers, exclaiming, “Hail, ye gods my preservers!” seeming bent on surpassing all who might come after him in meanness of spirit, unmanliness, and servility. And his behaviour in the conference which he held when he had entered the Senatehouse was on a par with this; and was such as might make one blush even to write. However this contemptible display served in itself to secure him a favourable answer.

Just as he had got his answer, news came that Eumenes was on his way. This caused the Senators much embarrassment. They were thoroughly incensed with him, and were entirely fixed in their sentiments towards him; and yet they did not wish to betray themselves. For having proclaimed to all the world that this king was their foremost and most esteemed friend, if they now admitted him to an interview and allowed him to plead his cause, they must either, by answering as they really thought and in harmony with their sentiments, signalise their own folly in having marked out such a man in past times for special honour; or if, in deference to appearances, they gave him a friendly answer, they must disregard truth and the interests of their country. Therefore, as both these methods of proceeding could have consequences of a disagreeable nature, they hit upon the following solution of the difficulty. On the ground of a general dislike of the visits of kings, they published a decree that “no king was to visit Rome.” Having been informed subsequently that Eumenes had landed at Brundisium in Italy, they sent the quaestor to convey the decree to him, and to bid him to communicate with himself if he wanted anything from the Senate; or, if he did not want anything, to bid him depart at the earliest possible opportunity from Italy. When the quaestor met the king and informed him of the decree, the latter, thoroughly understanding the intention of the Senate, said not a single word, except that “he wanted nothing.”

This is the way in which Eumenes was prevented from coming to Rome. And it was not the only important result of this decree. For the Gauls were at that time threatening the kingdom of Eumenes; and it was soon made apparent that by this repulse the king's allies were all greatly depressed, while the Gauls were doubly encouraged to press on the war. And it was in fact their desire to humiliate him in every possible way that induced the Senate to adopt this resolution. These things were going on at the beginning of the winter: but to all other ambassadors who arrived—and there was no city or prince or king who had not at that time sent an embassy of congratulation—the Senate returned a gracious and friendly answer, except to the Rhodians; and these they dismissed with displeasure, and with ambiguous declarations as to the future. As to the Athenians again the Senate hesitated. . . .

The first object of the Athenian embassy was the restoration of Haliartus;5 but when they met with a refusal on that point, they changed the subject of their appeal and put forward their own claim to the possession of Delos, Lemnos, and the territory of Haliartus. No one could properly find fault with them for this, as far as Delos and Lemnos were concerned, for they had of old laid claim to them; but there is good reason for reproaching them in respect to the territory of Haliartus. Haliartus was nearly the most ancient city in Boeotia; had met with a heavy misfortune: instead of endeavouring in every possible way to restore it,—to contribute to its utter annihilation, and to deprive its dispossessed inhabitants of even their hopes for the future, was an act which would be thought worthy of no Greek nation, and least of all of the Athenians. They open their own territory to all comers; and to take away that of others can never appear consonant with the spirit of their State. However, the Senate granted them Delos and Lemnos. Such was the decision in the Athenian business. . . .

As to Lemnos and Delos they had, according to the proverb, “got the wolf by the ears:” for they suffered much ill fortune from their quarrels with the Delians; and from the territory of Haliartus they reaped shame rather than profit. . . .

At this time Theaetetus being admitted into the Senate spoke on the subject of the alliance. The Senate, however, postponed the consideration of the proposal, and in the meantime Theaetetus died in the course of nature, for he was more than eighty years old. But on the arrival in Rome of exiles from Caunus and Stratoniceia, and their admission to the Senate, a decree was passed ordering the Rhodians to withdraw their garrisons from Caunus and Stratoniceia. And the embassy of Philophron and Astymedes having received this answer sailed with all speed home, alarmed lest the Rhodians should disregard the order for withdrawing the garrisons, and so give a fresh ground for complaints. . . .

In the Peloponnese, when the ambassadors arrived and announced the answers from Rome, there was no longer mere clamour, but downright rage and hatred against Callicrates and his party. . . .

An instance of the hatred entertained for Callicrates and Adronidas, and the others who agreed with them, was this. The festival of the Antigoneia was being held at Sicyon,—the baths being all supplied with large public bathing tubs, and smaller ones placed by them used by bathers of the better sort,—if Adronidas or Callicrates entered one of these, not a single one of the bystanders would get into it any more, until the bathman had let every drop of water run out and filled it with fresh. They did this from the idea that they would be polluted by entering the same water as these men. Nor would it be easy to describe the hissing and hooting that took place at the public games in Greece when any one attempted to proclaim one of them victor. The very children in the streets as they returned from school ventured to call them traitors to their faces. To such height did the anger and hatred of these men go. . . .

The inhabitants of Peraea were like slaves unexpectedly released from chains, who are scarcely able to believe their present good fortune, thinking it a change almost too great to be natural; and cannot believe that those they meet can understand or fully see that they are really released, unless they do something strange and out of the ordinary course. . . .