THIS year Comanus and his brother arrived at Rome on their mission from the younger Ptolemy, and Menyllus of Alabanda from the elder. Their interview with the Senate was the occasion of many mutual recriminations expressed with great bitterness; and when Titus Torquatus and Gnaeus Merula gave evidence in favour of the younger king, and supported him with great earnestness, the Senate voted that Menyllus and his colleagues should leave Rome within five days, and that the treaty of alliance with the elder Ptolemy should be annulled; but that they should send envoys to the younger to inform him of the decree of the Senate. Publius Apustius and Gaius Lentulus were appointed to this service, who immediately sailed to Cyrene, and with great despatch announced to Physcon the decree of the Senate. Greatly elated by this, Ptolemy began collecting mercenaries, and devoted his whole attention and energies to the acquisition of Cyprus. This was what was going on in Italy. . . .

Not long before this period Massanissa resolved to try his strength with the Carthaginians. He saw how numerous the cities built along the lesser Syrtis were, and noticed the excellence of the district which they call Emporia, and he had long been casting an envious eye upon the revenues which those places produced. He quickly possessed himself of the open part of the country, because the Carthaginians were always averse from service in the field, and were at that time completely enervated by the long peace, But he was unable to get possession of the towns, because they were carefully guarded by the Carthaginians. Both parties then referring their case to the Roman Senate, and frequent embassies coming to Rome from both sides, it always happened that the Carthaginians got the worst of it in the judgment of the Romans, not on the merits of the case, but because the judges were convinced that such a decision was in their interests. For instance, not many years before this Massanissa was himself at the head of an army in pursuit of Aphther, who had revolted from him, and asked permission of the Carthaginians to go through this territory, which they refused on the ground that it had nothing to do with him. Owing, however, to the decisions given at Rome during this period, the Carthaginians were put into such difficulties that they not only lost the cities and territory, but had to pay besides five hundred talents as mesne profits from the district. And this was the origin of the present controversy.1 . . .

Prusias sent envoys to Rome with some Gauls to accuse Eumenes; and Eumenes in his turn sent his brother Attalus to rebut the accusations. Ariarathes sent a present of ten thousand gold pieces, and envoys to inform the Senate of the reception given to Tiberius Gracchus; and generally to ask for their commands, and to assure them that he would do anything they told him. . . .

When Menochares arrived in Antioch to visit Demetrius, and informed the king2 of the conversation he had had with the commission under Tiberius Gracchus in Cappadocia, the king, thinking it a matter of the most urgent necessity to get these men on his side as much as he could, devoted himself, to the exclusion of every other business, to sending messages to them, first to Pamphylia, and then to Rhodes, undertaking to do everything the Romans wished; till at last he extracted their acknowledgment of him as king. The fact was that Tiberius was very favourably disposed to him; and, accordingly, materially contributed to the success of his attempt, and to his acquisition of the royal power. Demetrius took advantage of this to send envoys to Rome, taking with them a complimentary crown, the murderer of Gnaeus Octavius, and with them Isocrates the critic. . . .

At this time came ambassadors from Ariarathes, bringing a complimentary present of ten thousand gold pieces, and announcing the king's faithful attachment to Rome; and of this they appealed to Tiberius and his colleagues as witnesses. Tiberius and his colleagues confirmed their statements: whereupon the Senate accepted the present with warm thanks, and sent back in return presents, which with them are the most honourable they can give—a sceptre and ivory chair. These ambassadors were dismissed at once by the Senate before the winter. But after them arrived Attalus when the new Consuls had already entered on their office; as well as the Gauls who had accusations against him, and whom Prusias had sent, with as many more from Asia. After giving all a hearing, the Senate not only acquitted Attalus of all blame, but dismissed him with additional marks of their favour and kindness: for their friendship for and active support of Attalus was in the same proportion as their hostility and opposition to king Eumenes. . . .

The ambassadors with Menochares arrived in Rome from Demetrius, bringing the present of ten thousand gold pieces, as well as the man who had assassinated Gnaeus Octavius. The Senate was for a long time doubtful what to do about these matters. Finally they received the ambassadors and accepted the present, but declined to receive the men who were thus brought prisoners. Yet Demetrius had sent not only Leptines, the actual assassin of Octavius, but Isocrates as well. The latter was a grammarian and public lecturer; but being by nature garrulous, boastful, and conceited, he gave offence even to the Greeks, Alcaeus and his friends being accustomed to direct their wit against him and hold him up to ridicule in their scholastic discussions.3 When he arrived in Syria, he displayed contempt for the people of the country; and not content with lecturing on his own subjects, he took to speaking on politics, and maintained that “Gnaeus Octavius had been rightly served: and that the other ambassadors ought to be put to death also, that there might be no one left to report the matter to the Romans; and so they might be taught to give up sending haughty injunctions and exercising unlimited power.” By such random talk he got into this trouble.

And there is a circumstance connected with both these men that is worth recording. After assassinating Gnaeus, Leptines immediately went openly about Laodicea, asserting that what he had done was just, and that it had been effected in accordance with the will of the gods. And when Demetrius took possession of the government, he went to the king exhorting him to have no fear about the murder of Gnaeus, nor to adopt any measures of severity against the Laodiceans: for that he would himself go to Rome and convince the Senate that he had done this deed in accordance with the will of the gods. And finally, thanks to his entire readiness and even eagerness to go, he was taken without chains or a guard. But directly Isocrates found himself included under this charge, he went entirely beside himself with terror: and, after the collar and chain were put on his neck, he would rarely touch food, and completely neglected all care of his body. He accordingly arrived at Rome a truly astonishing spectacle, sufficient to convince us that nothing can be more frightful than a man, in body and soul alike, when once divested of his humanity. His aspect was beyond all measure terrifying and savage, as might be expected in a man who had neither washed the dirt from his body, nor pared his nails, nor cut his hair, for a year. The wild glare and rolling of his eyes also showed such inward horror, that any one who saw him would have rather approached any animal in the world than him. Leptines, on the contrary, maintained his original view: was ready to appear before the Senate; owned plainly to all who conversed with him what he had done; and asserted that he would meet with no severity at the hands of the Romans. And eventually his expectation was fully justified. For the Senate, from the idea, I believe, that, if it received and punished the guilty men, the populace would consider that full satisfaction had been taken for the murder, refused almost outright to receive them; and thus kept the charge in reserve, that they might have the power of using the accusation whenever they chose. They therefore confined their answer to Demetrius to these words: “He shall find all favour at our hands, if he satisfy the Senate in accordance with the obedience which he owed to it before.” . . .

There came also ambassadors from the Achaeans, headed by Xenon and Telecles, in behalf of their accused compatriots, and especially in behalf of Polybius and Stratius; for lapse of time had now brought an end to the majority, or at any rate to those of any note. The ambassadors came with instructions couched in a tone of simple entreaty, in order to avoid anything like a contest with the Senate. But when they had been admitted and delivered their commission in proper terms, even this humble tone failed to gain their end, and the Senate voted to abide by their resolve. . . .

The strongest and most honourable proof of the integrity of Lucius Aemilius Paulus was made public after his death. For the character which he enjoyed while alive was found to be justified at his death, than which there can be no clearer proof of virtue. No one of his contemporaries brought home more gold from Iberia than he; no one captured such enormous treasures as he did in Macedonia; and yet, though in both these countries he had the most unlimited authority, he left so small a private fortune, that his sons could not pay his wife's jointure wholly from the sale of his personalty, and were obliged to sell some of his real estate also to do so, a fact of which I have already spoken in some detail. This forces us to acknowledge that the fame of the men who have been admired in Greece in this respect suffers by a comparison. For if to abstain from appropriating money, entrusted to a man for the benefit of the depositor, deserves our admiration,—as is said to have happened in the case of the Athenian Aristeides and the Theban Epaminondas,—how much more admirable is it for a man to have been master of a whole kingdom, with absolute authority to do with it as he chose, and yet to have coveted nothing in it! And if what I say appears incredible to any of my readers, let them consider that the present writer was fully aware that Romans, more than any other people, would take his books into their hands,—because the most splendid and numerous achievements recorded therein belong to them; and that with them the truth about the facts could not possibly be unknown, nor the author of a falsehood expect any indulgence. No one then would voluntarily expose himself to certain disbelief and contempt. And let this be kept in mind throughout the whole course of my work, when I seem to be making a startling assertion about the Romans.

As the course of my narrative and the events of the time have drawn our attention to this family, I wish to carry out fully, for the sake of students, what was left as a mere promise in my previous book. I promised then that I would relate the origin and manner of the rise and unusually early glory of Scipio's reputation in Rome; and also how it came about that Polybius became so attached to and intimate with him, that the fame of their friendship and constant companionship was not merely confined to Italy and Greece, but became known to more remote nations also. We have already shown that the acquaintance began in a loan of some books and the conversation about them. But as the intimacy went on, and the Achaean detenus were being distributed among the various cities, Fabius and Scipio, the sons of Lucius Aemilius Paulus,4 exerted all their influence with the praetor that Polybius might be allowed to remain in Rome. This was granted: and the intimacy was becoming more and more close, when the following incident occurred. One day, when they were all three coming out of the house of Fabius, it happened that Fabius left them to go to the Forum, and that Polybius went in another direction with Scipio. As they were walking along, in a quiet and subdued voice, and with the blood mounting to his cheeks, Scipio said, “Why is it, Polybius, that though I and my brother eat at the same table, you address all your conversation and all your questions and explanations to him, and pass me over altogether? Of course you too have the same opinion of me as I hear the rest of the city has. For I am considered by everybody, I hear, to be a mild effete person, and far removed from the true Roman character and ways, because I don't care for pleading in the law courts. And they say that the family I come of requires a different kind of representative, and not the sort that I am. That is what annoys me most.”

Polybius was taken aback by the opening words of the young man's speech (for he was only just eighteen), and said, “In heaven's name, Scipio, don't say such things, or take into your head such an idea. It is not from any want of appreciation of you, or any intention of slighting you, that I have acted as I have done: far from it! It is merely that, your brother being the elder, I begin and end my remarks with him, and address my explanations and counsels to him, in the belief that you share the same opinions. However, I am delighted to hear you say now that you appear to yourself to be somewhat less spirited than is becoming to members of your family: for you show by this that you have a really high spirit, and I should gladly devote myself to helping you to speak or act in any way worthy of your ancestors. As for learning, to which I see you and your brother devoting yourselves at present with so much earnestness and zeal, you will find plenty of people to help you both; for I see that a large number of such learned men from Greece are finding their way into Rome at the present time. But as to the points which you say are just now vexing you, I think you will not find any one more fitted to support and assist you than myself.” While Polybius was still speaking the young man seized his right hand with both of his, and pressing it warmly, said, “Oh that I might see the day on which you would devote your first attention to me, and join your life with mine. From that moment I shall think myself worthy both of my family and my ancestors.” Polybius was partly delighted at the sight of the young man's enthusiasm and affection, and partly embarrassed by the thought of the high position of his family and the wealth of its members. However, from the hour of this mutual confidence the young man never left the side of Polybius, but regarded his society as his first and dearest object.

From that time forward they continually gave each other practical proof of an affection which recalled the relationship of father and son, or of kinsmen of the same blood. The first impulse and ambition of a noble kind with which he was inspired was the desire to maintain a character for chastity, and to be superior to the standard observed in that respect among his contemporaries. This was a glory which, great and difficult as it generally is, was not hard to gain at that period in Rome, owing to the general deterioration of morals. Some had wasted their energies on favourite youths; others on mistresses; and a great many on banquets enlivened with poetry and wine, and all the extravagant expenditure which they entailed, having quickly caught during the war with Perseus the dissoluteness of Greek manners in this respect. And to such monstrous lengths had this debauchery gone among the young men, that many of them had given a talent for a young favourite. This dissoluteness had as it were burst into flame at this period: in the first place, from the prevalent idea that, owing to the destruction of the Macedonian monarchy, universal dominion was now secured to them beyond dispute; and in the second place, from the immense difference made, both in public and private wealth and splendour, by the importation of the riches of Macedonia into Rome. Scipio, however, set his heart on a different path in life; and by a steady resistance to his appetites, and by conforming his whole conduct to a consistent and undeviating standard, in about the first five years after this secured a general recognition of his character for goodness and purity.

His next object was to cultivate lofty sentiments in regard to money, and to maintain a higher standard of disinterestedness than other people. In this respect he had an excellent start in his association with his natural father (L. Aemilius): but he also had good natural impulses towards the right; and chance contributed much to his success in this particular aim. For he first lost the mother of his adoptive father, who was the sister of his natural father Lucius, and wife of his adoptive grandfather, Scipio the Great. She left a large fortune, to which he was heir, and which gave him the first opportunity of giving a proof of his principles. Aemilia, for that was this lady's name, was accustomed to attend the women's processions in great state, as sharing the life and high fortune of Scipio. For besides the magnificence of her dress and carriage, the baskets, cups, and such implements for the sacrifice, which were carried in her train, were all of silver or gold on great occasions; and the number of maid-servants and other domestics that made up her train was in proportion to this splendour. All this establishment, immediately after Aemilia's funeral, Scipio presented to his own mother, who had long before been divorced by his father Lucius, and was badly off considering the splendour of her birth.5 She had therefore in previous years refrained from taking part in grand public processions; but now; as there chanced to be an important state sacrifice, she appeared surrounded with all the splendour and wealth which had once been Aemilia's using among other things the same muleteers, pair of mules, and carriage. The ladies, therefore, who saw it were much impressed by the kindness and liberality of Scipio, and all raised their hands to heaven and prayed for blessings upon him. This act, indeed, would be thought honourable anywhere, but at Rome it was quite astonishing: for there no one ever thinks of giving any of his private property to any one if he can help it. This was the beginning of Scipio's reputation for nobility of character, and it spread very widely,—for women are talkative and prone to exaggeration whenever they feel warmly.

The next instance was his conduct to the daughters of the Great Scipio, sisters to his adoptive father.6 When he took the inheritance he was bound to pay them their portion. For their father covenanted to give each of his two daughters a marriage portion of fifty talents. Half of this their mother paid down at once to their husbands, but left the other half undischarged when she died. Now, the Roman law enjoins the payment of money due to women as dowry in three annual instalments, the personal outfit having been first paid within ten months according to custom.7 But Scipio instructed his banker at once to pay the twenty-five talents to each within the ten months. When, therefore, Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Nasica, for they were the husbands of these ladies, called on the banker at the expiration of the ten months, and asked whether Scipio had given him any instructions as to the money, he told them they might have it at once, and proceeded to enter the transfer of twenty-five talents to each.8 They then said that he had made a mistake, for they had no claim for the whole as yet, but only took a third according to the law; and upon the banker answering that such were his instructions from Scipio, they could not believe him, and went to call on the young man, supposing him to have made a mistake. And, indeed, their feelings were natural: for at Rome, so far from paying fifty talents three years in advance, no one will pay a single talent before the appointed day; so excessively particular are they about money, and so profitable do they consider time. However, when they reached Scipio and asked him what instructions he had given his banker, on his replying, “To pay both sisters the whole sum due to them,” they told him he had made a mistake; and with a show of friendly regard pointed out to him that, according to the laws, he had the use of the money for a considerable time longer. But Scipio replied that he was quite aware of all that; but that close reckoning and legal exactness were for strangers; with relations and friends he would do his best to behave straightforwardly and liberally. He therefore bade them draw on the banker for the whole sum. When Tiberius and Nasica heard this they returned home in silence, quite confounded at the magnanimity of Scipio, and condemning themselves for meanness, though they were men of as high a character as any at Rome.

Two years afterwards, when his natural father, Lucius Aemilius, died, and left him and his brother Fabius joint heirs to his property, he did an act honourable to himself and worthy to be recorded. Lucius died without children in the eyes of the law, for the two elder had been adopted into other families, and the other sons, whom he was bringing up to be the successors to himself and to continue his family, all died;9 he therefore left his property to these two. But Scipio, perceiving that his brother was worse off than himself, renounced the whole of his share of the inheritance, though the property was valued altogether at over sixty talents, with a view of thus putting Fabius on an equality with himself in point of wealth. This was much talked about; but he afterwards gave a still clearer proof of his liberality. For when his brother wished to give some gladiatorial games in honour of his father, but was unable to support the expense, because of the enormous costliness of such things, Scipio contributed half of this also from his own pocket. Now the cost of such an exhibition, if it is done on a large scale, does not amount in all to less than thirty talents. While the fame of his liberality to his mother was still fresh, she died; and so far from taking back any part of the wealth he had recently bestowed on her, of which I have just spoken, Scipio gave it and the entire residue of his mother's property to his sisters,10 though they had no legal claim at all upon it. Accordingly his sisters again adopted the splendour and retinue which Aemilia had employed in the public processions; and once more the liberality and family affection of Scipio were recalled to the minds of the people.

With such recommendations dating from his earliest years, Publius Scipio sustained the reputation for high morality and good principles, which he had won by the expenditure of perhaps sixty talents, for that was the sum which he bestowed from his own property. And this reputation for goodness did not depend so much on the amount of the money, as on the seasonableness of the gift and the graciousness with which it was bestowed. By his strict chastity, also, he not only saved his purse, but by refraining from many irregular pleasures he gained sound bodily health and a vigorous constitution, which accompanied him through the whole of his life and repaid him with many pleasures, and noble compensations for the immediate pleasures from which he had formerly abstained.

Courage, however, is the most important element of character for public life in every country, but especially in Rome: and he therefore was bound to give all his most serious attention to it. In this he was well seconded by Fortune also. For as the Macedonian kings were especially eager about hunting, and the Macedonians devoted the most suitable districts to the preservation of game, these places were carefully guarded during all the war time, as they had been before, and yet had not been hunted the whole of the four years owing to the public disturbances: the consequence was that they were full of every kind of animal. But when the war was decided, Lucius Aemilius, thinking that hunting was the best training for body and courage his young soldiers could have, put the royal huntsmen under the charge of Scipio, and gave him entire authority over all matters connected with the hunting. Scipio accepted the duty, and, looking upon himself as in a quasi-royal position, devoted his whole time to this business, as long as the army remained in Macedonia after the battle of Pydna. Having then ample opportunity for following this kind of pursuit, and being in the very prime of his youth and naturally disposed to it, the taste for hunting which he acquired became permanent. Accordingly when he returned to Rome, and found his taste supported by a corresponding enthusiasm on the part of Polybius, the time that other young men spent in law courts and formal visits,11 haunting the Forum and endeavouring thereby to ingratiate themselves with the people, Scipio devoted to hunting; and, by continually displaying brilliant and memorable acts of prowess, won a greater reputation than others, whose only chance of gaining credit was by inflicting some damage on one of their fellow-citizens,—for that was the usual result of these law proceedings. Scipio, on the other hand, without inflicting annoyance on any one, gained a popular reputation for manly courage, rivalling eloquence by action. The result was that in a short time he obtained a more decided superiority of position over his contemporaries, than any Roman is remembered to have done; although he struck out a path for his ambition which, with a view to Roman customs and ideas, was quite different from that of others.

I have spoken somewhat at length on the character of Scipio, because I thought that such a story would be agreeable to the older, and useful to the younger among my readers. But especially because I wished to make what I have to tell in my following books appear credible; that no one may feel any difficulty because of the apparent strangeness of what happened to this man; nor deprive him of the credit of achievements which were the natural consequences of his prudence, and attribute them to Fortune and chance. I must now return from this digression to the regular course of my history. . . .

Thearidas and Stephanus conducted a mission from Athens and the Achaeans on the matter of the reprisals. For when the Delians were ordered, in answer to an embassy to Rome after Delos had been granted to Athens, to depart from the island, but to take all their goods with them, they removed to Achaia; and having been enrolled as citizens of the league, wished to have their claims upon the Athenians decided, according to the convention existing between the Achaeans and Athens. But, on the Athenians denying that they had any right to plead under that agreement, the Delians demanded from the Achaeans license to make reprisals on the Athenians. The latter, therefore, sent an embassy to Rome on these points, and were answered that decisions made by the Achaeans according to their laws concerning the Delians were to be binding. . . .

The people of Issa having often sent embassies to Rome, complaining that the Dalmatians damaged their territory and the cities subject to them,— meaning thereby Epetium and Tragyrium,—and the Daorsi also bringing similar complaints, the Senate sent a commission under Gaius Fannius to inspect the state of Illyria, with special reference to the Dalmatians. This people had been subject to Pleuratus as long as he was alive; but when he died, and was succeeded on the throne by Genthius, they revolted, overran the bordering territories, and reduced the neighbouring cities, some of which even paid them a tribute of cattle and corn. So Fannius and his colleague started on their mission. . . .

Lyciscus the Aetolian was a factious turbulent agitator, and directly he was killed the Aetolians from that hour lived harmoniously and at peace with each other, simply from the removal of one man. Such decisive influence has character in human affairs, that we find not only armies and cities, but also national leagues and whole divisions of the world, experiencing the greatest miseries and the greatest blessings through the vice or virtue of one man. . . .

Though he was a man of the worst character, Lyciscus ended his life by an honourable death; and accordingly, most people with some reason reproach Fortune for sometimes giving to the worst of men what is the prize of the good—an easy death. . . .

There was a great change for the better in Aetolia when the civil war was stopped after the death of Lyciscus; and in Boeotia when Mnasippus of Coronea died; and similarly in Acarnania when Chremas was got out of the way. Greece was as though purified by the removal from life of those accursed pests of the country. For in the same year Charops of Epirus chanced to die at Brundisium. Affairs in Epirus had been still in disorder and confusion as before, owing to the cruelty and tyranny of Charops, ever since the end of the war with Perseus. For Lucius Anicius having condemned some of the leading men in the country to death, and transported all others to Rome against whom there was the slightest suspicion, Charops at once got complete power to do what he chose; and thereupon committed every possible act of cruelty, sometimes personally, at others by the agency of his friends: for he was quite a young man himself, and was quickly joined by a crowd of the worst and most unprincipled persons, who gathered round him for the sake of plunder from other people. But what protected him and inclined people to believe that he was acting on a fixed design, and in accordance with the will of the Romans, was his former intimacy with them, and the support of the old man Myrton and his son Nicanor. These two had the character of being men of moderation and on good terms with the Romans; but though up to that time they had been widely removed from all suspicion of injustice, they now gave themselves up wholly to support and share in the lawless acts of Charops. This man, after murdering some openly in the market-place, others in their own houses, others by sending secret assassins to waylay them in the fields or on the roads, and selling the property of all whom he had thus killed, thought of another device. He put up lists of such men and women as were rich, condemning them to exile; and having held out this threat, he extracted money out of them, making the bargain himself with the men, and by the agency of his mother Philotis with the women; for this lady was well suited to the task, and for any act of violence was even more helpful than could have been expected in a woman.

When he and his mother had thus got all the money they could out of these persons, they none the less caused all the proscribed to be impeached before the people; and the majority in Phoenice, partly from fear and partly induced by the baits held out by Charops and his friends, condemned all thus impeached, for being ill-disposed to Rome, to death instead of banishment. These men, however, fled while Charops visited Rome, whither he went with money, and accompanied by Myrton and Nicanor, wishing to get a seal of approval put to his wickedness by means of the Senate. On that occasion a very honourable proof was given of Roman principles; and a spectacle was displayed exceedingly gratifying to the Greeks residing in Rome, especially the detenus. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who was Pontifex Maximus and Princeps Senatus, and Lucius Aemilius, the conqueror of Perseus, a man of the highest credit and influence, learning what had been done by Charops in Epirus, refused to admit him into their houses. This becoming much talked about, the foreign residents in Rome were exceedingly rejoiced, and observed with pleasure that the Romans discountenanced evil. And on Charops being afterwards admitted to the Senate-house, the Senate refused to consent to his demands, but answered that “They would give instructions to commissioners to examine into what had taken place.” But when Charops returned home he entirely suppressed this reply; and having written one to suit his own ideas, gave out that the Romans approved of what had been done by him. . . .

King Eumenes was entirely broken in bodily strength, but still maintained his brilliancy of mind. He was a man who in most things was the equal of any king of his time; and in those which were the most important and honourable, was greater and more illustrious than them all. First, he succeeded his father in a kingdom reduced to a very few insignificant cities; and he raised it to the level of the largest dynasties of his day. And it was not chance which contributed to this, or a mere sudden catastrophe, it was his own acuteness, indefatigable industry, and personal labour. Again, he was exceedingly ambitious of establishing a good reputation, and showed it by doing good services to a very large number of cities, and enriching privately a great many men. And in the third place, he had three brothers grown up and active, and he kept all four of them loyal to himself, and acting as guards of his person and preservers of the kingdom: and that is a thing of which there are very rare instances in history. . . .

On succeeding his brother Eumenes on the throne, Attalus at once gave a specimen of his principles and activity by restoring Ariarathes to his kingdom.12 . . .

When the envoys under Fannius returned from Illyria, and reported that, so far from the Dalmatians making any restitution to those who asserted that they were being continually wronged by them, they refused even to listen to the commissioners at all, saying that they had nothing to do with the Romans. Besides, they reported that no lodging or entertainment of any sort had been supplied to them; but that the very horses, which they had procured from another city, the Dalmatians had forcibly taken from them; and would have laid violent hands upon themselves, if they had not yielded to necessity and retired as quietly as they could. The Senate listened attentively to the report; they were exceedingly angry at the disobedience and rudeness of the Dalmatians, but their prevailing feeling was that the present time was a suitable one for declaring war against this people for more reasons than one. For, in the first place, the coasts of Illyria towards Italy had been entirely neglected by them ever since they had expelled Demetrius of Pharos; and, in the next place, they did not wish their own citizens to become enervated by a long-continued peace; for it was now the twelfth year since the war with Perseus and the campaigns in Macedonia. They therefore planned that, by declaring war against the Dalmatians, they would at once renew as it were the warlike spirit and enterprise of their own people, and terrify the Illyrians into obedience to their injunctions. Such were the motives of the Romans for going to war with the Dalmatians. But to the world at large they gave out that they had determined on war owing to the insults offered to their legates. . . .

King Ariarathes arrived in Rome in the course of the summer.13 And when Sextus Julius Caesar and his colleague had entered on their consulship, the king visited them privately, presenting in his personal appearance a striking picture of the dangers with which he was surrounded.

Ambassadors also arrived from Demetrius, headed by Miltiades, prepared to act in two capacities—to defend the conduct of Demetrius in regard to Ariarathes, and to accuse that king with the utmost bitterness. Orophernes also had sent Timotheus and Diogenes to represent him, conveying a crown for Rome, and charged to renew the friendship and alliance of Cappadocia with the Romans; but, above all, to confront Ariarathes, and both to answer his accusations and bring their own against him. In these private interviews Diogenes and Miltiades and their colleagues made a better show, because they were many to one in the controversy; besides their personal appearance was better than that of Ariarathes, for they were at present on the winning side and he had failed. They had also the advantage of him, in making their statement of the case, that they were entirely unscrupulous, and cared nothing whatever about the truth of their words; and what they said could not be confuted, because there was no one to take the other side. So their lying statements easily prevailed, and they thought everything was going as they wished. . . .

After reigning for a short time in Cappadocia in utter contempt of the customs of his country, Orophernes introduced the organised debaucheries of Ionia.14 . . .

It has happened to not a few, from the desire for increasing their wealth, to lose their life along with their money. It was from being captivated by such passions that Orophernes, king of Cappadocia, perished and was expelled from his kingdom. But having briefly narrated the restoration of this king (Ariarathes), I will now bring back my narrative to its regular course; for at present I have, to the exclusion of Greek affairs, selected from those of Asia the events connected with Cappadocia out of their proper order, because it was impossible to separate the voyage of Ariarathes from Italy from his restoration to his kingdom.15 I will therefore now go back to the history of Greece during this period, in which a peculiar and extraordinary affair took place in regard to the city of Oropus, of which I will give the whole story from beginning to end, going both backward and forward in point of time, that I may not render the history of an episode which was made up of separate events, and was not on the whole important, still more insignificant and indistinct by relating it under different years. For when an event as a whole does not appear to readers to be worth attention, I cannot certainly expect a student to follow its details scattered at intervals through my history.16 . . .

For the most part when things go well men generally get on together; but in times of failure, in their annoyance at events, they become sore and irritable with their friends. And this is what happened to Orophernes, when his affairs began to take a wrong turn in his relations with Theotimus,—both indulging in mutual recriminations. . . .

Ambassadors having arrived from Epirus about this time, sent both from those who were in actual possession of Phoenice and from those who had been banished from it; and both parties having made their statement in presence of each other, the Senate answered that they would give instructions on this point to the commissioners that were about to be sent into Illyria with Gaius Marcius the Consul.17 . . .

After defeating Attalus, and advancing to Pergamum, Prusias prepared a magnificent sacrifice and brought it to the sacred enclosure of Asclepius, and after offering the victims, and having obtained favourable omens, went back into his camp for that day; but on the next he directed his forces against the Nicephorium, and destroyed all the temples and sacred enclosures, and plundered all the statues of men and the marble images of the gods. Finally he carried off the statue of Asclepius also, an admirably executed work of Phyromachus, and transferred it to his own country,—the very image before which the day before he had poured libations and offered sacrifice; desiring, it would seem, that the god might in every way be propitious and favourable to him. I have spoken of such proceedings before, when discoursing on Philip, as sheer insanity. For at one time to offer sacrifice, and endeavour to propitiate heaven by their means, worshipping and uttering the most earnest prayers before holy tables and altars, as Prusias was wont to do, with bendings of the knee and effeminate prostrations, and at the same time to violate these sacred objects and to flout heaven by their destruction,—can we ascribe such conduct to anything but a mind disordered and a spirit lost to sober reason? I am sure this was the case with Prusias: for he led his army off to Elaea, without having performed a single act of manly courage in the course of his attempts on Pergamum, and after treating everything human and divine with petty and effeminate spite. He attempted to take Elaea, and made some assaults upon it; but being unable to effect anything, owing to Sosander, the king's foster-brother, having thrown himself into the town with an army and repelling his assaults, he marched off towards Thyateira. In the course of his march, he plundered the temple of Artemis in the Holy village; and the sacred enclosure of Apollo Cynneius at Temnus18 likewise he not only plundered but destroyed by fire. After these achievements he returned home, having waged war against the gods as well as against men. But Prusias's infantry also suffered severely from famine and dysentery on their return march, so that the wrath of heaven appears to have quickly visited him for these crimes.19 . . .

After his defeat by Prusias Attalus appointed his brother Athenaeus to accompany Publius Lentulus to Rome to inform the Senate of what had happened. At Rome they had not paid much attention when a previous messenger named Andronicus had come from Attalus, with news of the original invasion; because they suspected that Attalus wished to attack Prusias himself, and was therefore getting up a case against him beforehand, and trying to prejudice him in their eyes by these accusations; and when Nicomedes and some ambassadors from Prusias, headed by Antiphilus, arrived and protested that there was not a word of truth in the statement, the Senate was still more incredulous of what had been said about Prusias. But when after a time the real truth was made known, the Senate still felt uncertain, and sent Lucius Apuleius and Gaius Petronius to investigate what was the state of the case in regard to these two kings.