15. The present matter is an example. When coming to details of the battle of Lade, these writers confess that in it “two quinqueremes of Rhodes were captured by the enemy; and that upon one ship raising its studding-sail to escape from the conflict, owing to its having being staved in and shipping sea, many of the vessels near it did the same and made for the open sea; and that at last the admiral, being left with only a few vessels, was forced to follow their example. That for the present they were forced by unfavourable winds to drop anchor on the territory of Myndus, but next day put to sea and crossed to Cos; while the enemy, having secured the quinqueremes, landed at Lade and took up their quarters in the Rhodian camp: that, moreover, the Milesians, deeply impressed by what had taken place, presented not only Philip, but Heracleides also, with a garland of victory on his entrance to their territory.” And yet, though they give all these particulars, which all evidently indicate the losing side, they still declare the Rhodians to have been victorious both in particular combats and in the whole battle; and that too in spite of the fact that the original despatch from the admiral concerning the battle, sent to the Senate and Prytanies, still exists in their Prytaneium, which testifies to the truth, not of the statements of Antisthenes and Zeno, but of mine.
15. δῆλον δʼ ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἐκ τῶν ἐνεστώτων. ὁμολογοῦντες γὰρ οἱ προειρημένοι διὰ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐν τῇ περὶ Λάδην ναυμαχίᾳ δύο μὲν αὐτάνδρους πεντήρεις τῶν Ῥοδίων ὑποχειρίους γενέσθαι τοῖς πολεμίοις, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κινδύνου μιᾶς νηὸς ἐπαραμένης τὸν δόλωνα διὰ τὸ τετρωμένην αὐτὴν θαλαττοῦσθαι, πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἐγγὺς τὸ παραπλήσιον ποιοῦντας ἀποχωρεῖν πρὸς τὸ πέλαγος, τέλος δὲ μετʼ ὀλίγων καταλειφθέντα τὸν ναύαρχον ἀναγκασθῆναι ταὐτὸ τοῖς προειρημένοις πράττειν, καὶ τότε μὲν εἰς τὴν Μυνδίαν ἀπουρώσαντας καθορμισθῆναι, τῇ δʼ ἐπαύριον ἀναχθέντας εἰς Κῶ διᾶραι, τοὺς δὲ πολεμίους τὰς πεντήρεις ἐνάψασθαι καὶ καθορμισθέντας ἐπὶ τὴν Λάδην ἐπὶ τῇ ʼκείνων στρατοπεδείᾳ ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἔπαυλιν, ἔτι δὲ τοὺς Μιλησίους, καταπλαγέντας τὸ γεγονός, οὐ μόνον τὸν Φίλιππον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλείδην στεφανῶσαι διὰ τὴν ἔφοδον, ταῦτα δʼ εἰρηκότες ἃ προφανῶς ἐστιν ἴδια τῶν ἡττημένων, ὅμως καὶ διὰ τῶν κατὰ μέρος καὶ διὰ τῆς καθολικῆς ἀποφάσεως νικῶντας ἀποφαίνουσι τοὺς Ῥοδίους, καὶ ταῦτα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἔτι μενούσης ἐν τῷ πρυτανείῳ τῆς ὑπʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς καιροὺς ὑπὸ τοῦ ναυάρχου πεμφθείσης περὶ τούτων τῇ τε βουλῇ καὶ τοῖς πρυτάνεσιν, οὐ ταῖς Ἀντισθένους καὶ Ζήνωνος ἀποφάσεσι συμφωνούσης ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἡμετέραις.
16. Next as to their account of the treacherous attempt upon Messene. Zeno says that “Nabis started from Sparta, crossed the Eurotas near the tributary called the Hoplites, and advanced along the narrow road past Poliasium until he arrived at Sallasia, thence past Pharae to Thalamae, and so to the river Pamisus.” About which I do not know what to say. It is just as if one were to say that a man started from Corinth and marched through the Isthmus and arrived at the Scironean way, and then came straight to the Contoporian road, and journeyed past Mycenae to Argos. For such a statement would not be merely slightly wrong but wholly contradictory. For the Isthmus and the Scironian rocks are east of Corinth, while the Contoporian road and Mycenae are nearly due south-west; so that it is completely impossible to go by way of the former to the latter. The same may be said about Lacedaemon; for the Eurotas and Sallasia are to the northeast of Sparta, while Thalamae, Pharae, and the Pamisus are to the south-west. Therefore it is not possible to go to Sallasia, nor necessary to cross the Eurotas, if a man means to go to Messenia by way of Thalamae.
16. ἑξῆς δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις γράφουσι περὶ τοῦ κατὰ Μεσσηνίους παρασπονδήματος. ἐν ᾧ φησιν ὁ Ζήνων ὁρμήσαντα τὸν Νάβιν ἐκ τῆς. Λακεδαίμονος καὶ διαβάντα τὸν Εὐρώταν ποταμὸν παρὰ τὸν Ὁπλίτην προσαγορευόμενον πορεύεσθαι διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς στενῆς παρὰ τὸ Πολιάσιον, ἕως ἐπὶ τοὺς κατὰ Σελλασίαν ἀφίκετο τόπους· ἐντεῦθεν δʼ ἐπὶ Θαλάμας ἐπιβαλόντα κατὰ Φαρὰς παραγενέσθαι πρὸς τὸν Πάμισον ποταμόν. ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐκ οἶδα πῶς χρὴ λέγειν· τοιαύτην γὰρ φύσιν ἔχει τὰ προειρημένα πάντα συλλήβδην ὥστε μηδὲν διαφέρειν τοῦ λέγειν ὅτι ποιησάμενός τις ἐκ Κορίνθου τὴν ὁρμὴν καὶ διαπορευθεὶς τὸν Ἰσθμὸν καὶ συνάψας ταῖς Σκειρωνίσιν εὐθέως ἐπὶ τὴν Κοντοπορίαν ἐπέβαλε καὶ παρὰ τὰς Μυκήνας ἐποιεῖτο τὴν πορείαν εἰς Ἄργος. ταῦτα γὰρ οὐχ οἷον παρὰ μικρόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐναντίαν διάθεσιν ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα, καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸν Ἰσθμόν ἐστι καὶ τὰς Σκιράδας πρὸς ἀνατολὰς τοῦ Κορίνθου, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Κοντοπορίαν καὶ Μυκήνας ἔγγιστα πρὸς δύσεις χειμερινάς, ὥστʼ εἶναι τελέως ἀδύνατον ἀπὸ τῶν προηγουμένων ἐπιβαλεῖν τοῖς προειρημένοις τόποις. τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Λακεδαίμονα συμβέβηκεν· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Εὐρώτας καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν Σελλασίαν κεῖται τῆς Σπάρτης ὡς πρὸς τὰς θερινὰς ἀνατολάς, τὰ δὲ κατὰ Θαλάμας καὶ Φαρὰς καὶ Πάμισον ὡς πρὸς τὰς χειμερινὰς δύσεις, ὅθεν οὐχ οἷον ἐπὶ τὴν Σελλασίαν, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τὸν Εὐρώταν δέον ἐστὶ διαβαίνειν τὸν προτιθέμενον παρὰ Θαλάμας ποιεῖσθαι τὴν πορείαν εἰς τὴν Μεσσηνίαν.
17. Besides these mistakes, he says that Nabis started on his return from Messenia by the gate on the road to Tegea. This is another absurdity; for Megalopolis is between Tegea and Messene, so that it is impossible that a gate at Messene should be called the “Gate to Tegea.” The fact is that there is a gate there called the “Tegean Gate,” by which Nabis commenced his return; and this led Zeno into the mistake of supposing that Tegea was near Messene, which is not the fact: for the Laconian territory, as well as that of Megalopolis, lies between that of Messene and Tegea. Lastly, he says that the Alpheus flows underground from its source for a considerable distance, and comes up near Lycoa, in Arcadia. The truth is that this river does go down underground not far from its source, and, after remaining hidden for about ten stades, comes up again, and then flows through the territory of Megalopolis, at first with a gentle stream, and then gaining volume, and watering that whole district in a splendid manner for two hundred stades, at length reaches Lycoa, swollen by the tributary stream of the Lusius, and become unfordable and deep.... However, I think that the points I have mentioned, though all of them blunders, admit of some palliation and excuse; for the latter arose from mere ignorance, those connected with the sea-fight from patriotic affection. But is it not then a fault in Zeno, that he does not bestow as much pains on investigating the truth and thoroughly mastering his subject, as upon the ornaments of style; and shows on many occasions that he particularly plumes himself on this, as many other famous writers do? To my mind it is quite right to take great care and pay great attention to the presentation of one’s facts in correct and adequate language, for this contributes in no small degree to the effectiveness of history; still I do not think that serious writers should regard it as their primary and most important object. Far from it. Quite other are the parts of his history on which a practical politician should rather pride himself.
17. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις φησὶ τὴν ἐπάνοδον ἐκ τῆς Μεσσήνης πεποιῆσθαι τὸν Νάβιν κατὰ τὴν πύλην τὴν φέρουσαν ἐπὶ Τεγέαν. τοῦτο δʼ ἔστιν ἄλογον· πρόκειται γὰρ τῆς Τεγέας ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις ὡς πρὸς τὴν Μεσσήνην, ὥστʼ ἀδύνατον εἶναι καλεῖσθαί τινα πύλην παρὰ τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις ἐπὶ Τεγέαν. ἀλλʼ ἔστι παρʼ αὐτοῖς πύλη Τεγεᾶτις προσαγορευομένη, καθʼ ἣν ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐπάνοδον Νάβις· ᾧ πλανηθεὶς ἔγγιον ὑπέλαβε τὴν Τεγέαν εἶναι Μεσσηνίων. τὸ δʼ ἔστιν οὐ τοιοῦτον, ἀλλʼ ἡ Λακωνικὴ καὶ [ἡ] Μεγαλοπολῖτις χώρα μεταξὺ κεῖται τῆς Μεσσηνίας καὶ Τεγεάτιδος. τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον· φησὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἀλφειὸν ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς εὐθέως κρυφθέντα καὶ πολὺν ἐνεχθέντα τόπον ὑπὸ γῆς ἐκβάλλειν περὶ Λυκόαν τῆς Ἀρκαδίας. ὁ δὲ ποταμὸς οὐ πολὺν τόπον ἀποσχὼν τῆς πηγῆς, καὶ κρυφθεὶς ἐπὶ δέκα στάδια, πάλιν ἐκπίπτει, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν φερόμενος διὰ τῆς Μεγαλοπολίτιδος τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς ἐλαφρός, εἶτα λαμβάνων αὔξησιν καὶ διανύσας ἐπιφανῶς πᾶσαν τὴν προειρημένην χώραν ἐπὶ διακοσίους σταδίους γίνεται πρὸς Λυκόαν, ἤδη προσειληφὼς καὶ τὸ τοῦ Λουσίου ῥεῦμα καὶ παντελῶς ἄβατος ὢν καὶ βαρύς. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντα μοι δοκεῖ τὰ προειρημένα διαπτώματα μὲν εἶναι, πρόφασιν δʼ ἐπιδέχεσθαι καὶ παραίτησιν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ διʼ ἄγνοιαν γέγονε, τὸ δὲ περὶ τὴν ναυμαχίαν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὴν πατρίδα φιλοστοργίαν. τί τις οὖν εἰκότως ἂν Ζήνωνι μέμψαιτο; διότι τὸ πλεῖον οὐ περὶ τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ζήτησιν οὐδὲ περὶ τὸν χειρισμὸν τῆς ὑποθέσεως, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν τῆς λέξεως κατασκευὴν ἐσπούδακε, καὶ δῆλός ἐστι πολλάκις ἐπὶ τούτῳ σεμνυνόμενος, καθάπερ καὶ πλείους ἕτεροι τῶν ἐπιφανῶν συγγραφέων; ἐγὼ δὲ φημὶ μὲν δεῖν πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι καὶ σπουδάζειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεόντως ἐξαγγέλλειν τὰς πράξεις — δῆλον γὰρ ὡς οὐ μικρά, μεγάλα δὲ συμβάλλεται τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν — οὐ μὴν ἡγεμονικώτατόν γε καὶ πρῶτον αὐτὸ παρὰ τοῖς μετρίοις ἀνδράσι τίθεσθαι· πολλοῦ γε δεῖν· ἄλλα γὰρ ἂν εἴη καλλίω μέρη τῆς ἱστορίας, ἐφʼ οἷς ἂν μᾶλλον σεμνυνθείη πολιτικὸς ἀνήρ.
18. The best illustration of what I mean will be the following. This same writer, in his account of the siege of Gaza and Antiochus’s pitched battle with Scopas in Coele-Syria, at Mount Panium, showed such extreme anxiety about ornaments of style, that he made it quite impossible even for professional rhetoricians or mob-orators to outstrip him in theatrical effect; while he showed such a contempt of facts, as once more amounted to unsurpassable carelessness and inaccuracy. For, intending to describe the first position in the field taken up by Scopas, he says that “the right extremity of his line, together with a few cavalry, rested on the slope of the mountain; while its left with all the cavalry belonging to this wing, was in the plains below. That Antiochus, just before the morning watch, despatched his elder son Antiochus with a division of his army to occupy the high ground which commanded the enemy; and that at daybreak he led the rest of his army across the river which flowed between the two camps, and drew them up on the plain: arranging his heavy-armed infantry in one line, facing the enemy’s centre, and his cavalry, some on the right and the rest on the left wing of the phalanx, among which were the heavy-armed horsemen, under the sole command of the younger of the king’s sons Antiochus. That in advance of this line he stationed the elephants at certain intervals, and the Tarentines commanded by Antipater; while he filled up the spaces between the elephants with archers and slingers. And finally, that he took up his own station on the rear of the elephants with a squadron of household cavalry and bodyguards.” After this preliminary description he continues: “The younger Antiochus”—whom he had described as being on the level ground with the heavy-armed cavalry—“charged down from the high ground and put to flight and pursued the cavalry under Ptolemy, son of Aeropus, who was in command of the Aetolians in the plain on the left wing; but the two lines, when they met, maintained a stubborn fight.” But he fails to observe that, as the elephants, cavalry, and light-armed infantry were in front, the two lines could not possibly meet at all.
18. ὃ δὲ λέγειν βούλομαι, γένοιτʼ ἂν οὕτω μάλιστα καταφανές. ἐξηγούμενος γὰρ ὁ προειρημένος συγγραφεὺς τήν τε Γάζης πολιορκίαν καὶ τὴν γενομένην παράταξιν Ἀντιόχου πρὸς Σκόπαν ἐν Κοίλῃ Συρίᾳ περὶ τὸ Πάνιον, περὶ μὲν τὴν τῆς λέξεως κατασκευὴν δῆλός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐσπουδακὼς ὡς ὑπερβολὴν τερατείας μὴ καταλιπεῖν τοῖς τὰς ἐπιδεικτικὰς καὶ πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τῶν πολλῶν συντάξεις ποιουμένοις, τῶν γε μὴν πραγμάτων ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὠλιγώρηκεν ὥστε πάλιν ἀνυπέρβλητον εἶναι τὴν εὐχέρειαν καὶ τὴν ἀπειρίαν τοῦ συγγραφέως. προθέμενος γὰρ πρώτην διασαφεῖν τὴν τῶν περὶ τὸν Σκόπαν ἔκταξιν, τῷ μὲν δεξιῷ κέρατί φησι τῆς ὑπωρείας ἔχεσθαι τὴν φάλαγγα μετʼ ὀλίγων ἱππέων, τὸ δʼ εὐώνυμον αὐτῆς καὶ τοὺς ἱππεῖς πάντας τοὺς ἐπὶ τούτου τεταγμένους ἐν τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις κεῖσθαι. τὸν δʼ Ἀντίοχον ἐπὶ μὲν τὴν ἑωθινὴν ἐκπέμψαι φησὶ τὸν πρεσβύτερον υἱὸν Ἀντίοχον ἔχοντα μέρος τι τῆς δυνάμεως, ἵνα προκαταλάβηται τῆς ὀρεινῆς τοὺς ὑπερκειμένους τῶν πολεμίων τόπους, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν δύναμιν ἅμα τῷ φωτὶ διαβιβάσαντα τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν μεταξὺ τῶν στρατοπέδων ἐν τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις ἐκτάττειν, τιθέντα τοὺς μὲν φαλαγγίτας ἐπὶ μίαν εὐθεῖαν κατὰ μέσην τὴν τῶν πολεμίων τάξιν, τῶν δʼ ἱππέων τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ λαιὸν κέρας τῆς φάλαγγος, τοὺς δʼ ἐπὶ τὸ δεξιόν, ἐν οἷς εἶναι καὶ τὴν κατάφρακτον ἵππον, ἧς ἡγεῖτο πάσης ὁ νεώτερος Ἀντίοχος τῶν υἱῶν. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησι τὰ θηρία προτάξαι τῆς φάλαγγος ἐν διαστήματι καὶ τοὺς μετʼ Ἀντιπάτρου Ταραντίνους, τὰ δὲ μεταξὺ τῶν θηρίων πληρῶσαι τοῖς τοξόταις καὶ σφενδονήταις, αὐτὸν δὲ μετὰ τῆς ἑταιρικῆς ἵππου καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν κατόπιν ἐπιστῆναι τοῖς θηρίοις. ταῦτα δʼ ὑποθέμενος, τὸν μὲν νεώτερον Ἀντίοχόν φησιν, ὃν ἐν τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις ἔθηκε κατὰ τὸ λαιὸν τῶν πολεμίων ἔχοντα τὴν κατάφρακτον ἵππον, τοῦτον ἐκ τῆς ὀρεινῆς ἐπενεχθέντα τρέψασθαι τοὺς ἱππέας τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Ἀερόπου καὶ καταδιώκειν, ὃς ἐτύγχανε τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς ἐπιτεταγμένος ἐν τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις ἐπὶ τῶν εὐωνύμων, τὰς δὲ φάλαγγας, ἐπεὶ συνέβαλλον ἀλλήλαις, μάχην ποιεῖν ἰσχυράν. ὅτι δὲ συμβαλεῖν ἀδύνατον ἦν τῶν θηρίων καὶ τῶν ἱππέων καὶ τῶν εὐζώνων προτεταγμένων, τοῦτʼ οὐκέτι συνορᾷ.
19. Next he says that “the phalanx, outmatched in agility and forced backwards by the Aetolians, retired step by step, while the elephants received the retreating line, and did great service in charging the enemy.” But how the elephants got on the rear of the phalanx it is not easy to understand, or how, if they had got there, they could have done good service. For as soon as the two lines were once at close quarters, the animals would no longer have been able to distinguish friend from foe among those that came in their way. Again, he says that “the Aetolian cavalry were thrown into a panic during the engagement, because they were unaccustomed to the look of the elephants.” But, by his own account, the cavalry which was originally stationed on the right wing remained unbroken; while the other division of the cavalry, that on the right wing, had all fled before the successful attack of Antiochus. What portion of the cavalry was it, then, that was on the centre of the phalanx, and was terrified by the elephants? And where was the king, or what part did he take in the battle, seeing that he had with him the very flower of the infantry and cavalry? For not a word has been told us about these. And where was the elder of the young Antiochi, who, with a division of the troops, occupied the high ground? For this prince is not represented even as returning to his quarters after the battle. And very naturally so. For Zeno started by assuming two sons of the king named Antiochus, whereas there was only one in the army on that occasion. How comes it, again, that according to him, Scopas returned first and also last from the field? For he says: “when he saw the younger Antiochus, after returning from the pursuit, on the rear of his phalanx, and accordingly gave up all hopes of victory, he retired.” But afterwards he says that “he sustained the most imminent peril when his phalanx got surrounded by the elephants and cavalry, and was the last man to retire from the field.”
19. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτά φησι καταπροτερουμένην τὴν φάλαγγα ταῖς εὐχειρίαις καὶ πιεζομένην ὑπὸ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ πόδα, τὰ δὲ θηρία τοὺς ἐγκλίνοντας ἐκδεχόμενα καὶ συμπίπτοντα τοῖς πολεμίοις μεγάλην παρέχεσθαι χρείαν. πῶς δὲ ταῦτα γέγονεν ὀπίσω τῆς φάλαγγος οὐ ῥᾴδιον καταμαθεῖν, ἢ πῶς γενόμενα παρείχετο χρείαν μεγάλην· ὅτε γὰρ ἅπαξ αἱ φάλαγγες συνέπεσον ἀλλήλαις, οὐκέτι δυνατὸν ἦν κρῖναι τὰ θηρία τίς τῶν ὑποπιπτόντων φίλιος ἢ πολέμιός ἐστι. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις φησὶ τοὺς Αἰτωλῶν ἱππέας δυσχρηστεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν κίνδυνον διὰ τὴν ἀσυνήθειαν τῆς τῶν θηρίων φαντασίας. ἀλλʼ οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ ταχθέντες ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀκέραιοι διέμενον, ὡς αὐτός φησι· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν πλῆθος τῶν ἱππέων τὸ μερισθὲν ἐπὶ τὸ λαιὸν ἐπεφεύγει πᾶν ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀντίοχον ἡττημένον. ποῖον οὖν μέρος τῶν ἱππέων ἦν κατὰ μέσην τὴν φάλαγγα τὸ τοὺς ἐλέφαντας ἐκπληττόμενον; ποῦ δʼ ὁ βασιλεὺς γέγονεν, ἢ τίνα παρέσχηται χρείαν ἐν τῇ μάχῃ, τὸ κάλλιστον σύστημα περὶ αὑτὸν ἐσχηκὼς καὶ τῶν πεζῶν καὶ τῶν ἱππέων; ἁπλῶς γὰρ οὐδὲν εἴρηται περὶ τούτων. ποῦ δʼ ὁ πρεσβύτερος τῶν υἱῶν Ἀντίοχος ὁ μετὰ μέρους τινὸς τῆς δυνάμεως προκαταλαβόμενος τοὺς ὑπερδεξίους τόπους; οὗτος μὲν γὰρ οὐδʼ εἰς τὴν στρατοπεδείαν ἀνακεχώρηκεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὴν μάχην. εἰκότως· δύο γὰρ Ἀντιόχους ὑπέθετο τοῦ βασιλέως υἱούς, ὄντος ἑνὸς τοῦ τότε συνεστρατευμένου. πῶς δʼ ὁ Σκόπας ἅμα μὲν αὐτῷ πρῶτος, ἅμα δʼ ἔσχατος ἀναλέλυκεν ἐκ τοῦ κινδύνου; φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ἰδόντα τοὺς περὶ τὸν νεώτερον Ἀντίοχον ἐκ τοῦ διώγματος ἐπιφαινομένους κατὰ νώτου τοῖς φαλαγγίταις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰς τοῦ νικᾶν ἐλπίδας ἀπογνόντα, ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀποχώρησιν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα συστῆναι τὸν μέγιστον κίνδυνον, κυκλωθείσης τῆς φάλαγγος ὑπό τε τῶν θηρίων καὶ τῶν ἱππέων, καὶ τελευταῖον ἀποχωρῆσαι τὸν Σκόπαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κινδύνου.
20. These and similar blunders appear to me to reflect very great discredit upon writers. It is necessary, therefore, to endeavour to make one’s self master of all departments of history alike. That is the ideal; but if that is impossible, one ought at least to be excessively careful on the most essential and important points in it. I have been induced to say this because I have observed that in history, as in other arts and sciences, there is a tendency to neglect the true and essential, while the ostentatious and the showy secure praise and emulation as something great and admirable. The fact being that in history, as in other departments of literature, these latter qualities require less trouble and gain a cheaper reputation. As to his ignorance of the topography of Laconia, considering that his error was an important one, I did not hesitate to write to Zeno personally. For I thought it a point of honour not to look upon the mistakes of others as personal triumphs, as is the way with some writers; but to do the best I could to secure correctness, not only of my own historical writings, but of those of others also, for the benefit of the world at large. When Zeno received my letter and found that it was impossible to make the correction, because his history was already published, he was much vexed, but could do nothing. He, however, put the most friendly interpretation on my proceeding; and, in regard to this point, I would beg my own readers, whether of my own or future generations, if I am ever detected in making a deliberate misstatement, and disregarding truth in any part of my history, to criticise me unmercifully; but if I do so from lack of information, to make allowances: and I ask it for myself more than others, owing to the size of my history and the extent of ground covered by its transactions....
20. ταῦτα δέ μοι δοκεῖ, καὶ καθόλου τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ἀλογημάτων, πολλὴν ἐπιφέρειν αἰσχύνην τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι. διὸ δεῖ μάλιστα μὲν πειρᾶσθαι πάντων κρατεῖν τῶν τῆς ἱστορίας μερῶν· καλὸν γάρ· εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο δυνατόν, τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων καὶ τῶν μεγίστων ἐν αὐτῇ πλείστην ποιεῖσθαι πρόνοιαν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν προήχθην εἰπεῖν, θεωρῶν νῦν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιτηδευμάτων, τὸ μὲν ἀληθινὸν καὶ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ἀνῆκον ἐν ἑκάστοις ἐπισεσυρμένον, τὸ δὲ πρὸς ἀλαζονείαν καὶ φαντασίαν ἐπαινούμενον καὶ ζηλούμενον, ὡς μέγα τι καὶ θαυμάσιον, ὃ καὶ τὴν κατασκευὴν ἔχει ῥᾳδιεστέραν καὶ τὴν εὐδόκησιν ὀλιγοδεεστέραν, καθάπερ αἱ λοιπαὶ τῶν γραφῶν. περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν τόπων ἀγνοίας τῶν κατὰ τὴν Λακωνικὴν διὰ τὸ μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν παράπτωσιν οὐκ ὤκνησα γράψαι καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν Ζήνωνα, κρίνων καλὸν εἶναι τὸ μὴ τὰς τῶν πέλας ἁμαρτίας ἴδια προτερήματα νομίζειν, καθάπερ ἔνιοι ποιεῖν εἰώθασιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ μόνον τῶν ἰδίων ὑπομνημάτων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, καθʼ ὅσον οἷοί τʼ ἐσμέν, ποιεῖσθαι πρόνοιαν καὶ διόρθωσιν χάριν τῆς κοινῆς ὠφελείας. ὁ δὲ λαβὼν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, καὶ γνοὺς ἀδύνατον οὖσαν τὴν μετάθεσιν διὰ τὸ προεκδεδωκέναι τὰς συντάξεις, ἐλυπήθη μὲν ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα, ποιεῖν δʼ οὐδὲν εἶχε, τήν γε μὴν ἡμετέραν αἵρεσιν ἀπεδέξατο φιλοφρόνως. ὃ δὴ κἂν ἐγὼ παρακαλέσαιμι περὶ αὑτοῦ τοὺς καθʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς ἐπιγινομένους, ἐὰν μὲν κατὰ πρόθεσιν εὑρισκώμεθά που κατὰ τὴν πραγματείαν διαψευδόμενοι καὶ παρορῶντες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀπαραιτήτως ἐπιτιμᾶν, ἐὰν δὲ κατʼ ἄγνοιαν, συγγνώμην ἔχειν, καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ἡμῖν διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς συντάξεως καὶ διὰ τὴν καθόλου περιβολὴν τῶν πραγμάτων.
21. Tlepolemus, the chief minister in the kingdom of Egypt, was a young man, but one who had spent all his life in the camp, and with reputation. By nature aspiring and ambitious, he had done much that was glorious in the service of his country, but much that was evil also. As a general in a campaign, and as an administrator of military expeditions, he was a man of great ability, high natural courage, and extremely well fitted to deal personally with soldiers. But on the other hand, for the management of complicated affairs, he was deficient in diligence and sobriety, and had the least faculty in the world for the keeping of money or the economical administration of finance. And it was this that before long not only caused his own fall, but seriously damaged the kingdom as well. For though he had complete control of the exchequer, he spent the greater part of the day in playing ball and in matches in martial exercises with the young men; and directly he left these sports he collected drinking parties, and spent the greater part of his life in these amusements and with these associates. But that part of his day which he devoted to business, he employed in distributing, or, I might rather say, in throwing away the royal treasures among the envoys from Greece and the Dionysian actors, and, more than all, among the officers and soldiers of the palace guard. He was utterly incapable of saying no, and bestowed anything there was at hand on any one who said anything to please him. The evil which he himself thus began continually increased. For every one who had received a favour expressed his gratitude in extravagant language, both for the sake of what he had got and of what he hoped to get in the future. And thus being informed of the universal praise which was bestowed on him, of the toasts proposed in his honour at banquets, of complimentary inscriptions, and songs sung in his praise by the public singers all through the town, he became entirely befooled, and grew daily more and more puffed up with conceit, and more reckless in squandering favours upon foreigners and soldiers.
21. ὅτι ὁ Τληπόλεμος ὁ τὰ τῆς βασιλείας τῶν Αἰγυπτίων πράγματα μεταχειριζόμενος ἦν μὲν κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν νέος καὶ κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς ἐν στρατιωτικῷ βίῳ διεγεγόνει μετὰ φαντασίας, ἦν δὲ καὶ τῇ φύσει μετέωρος καὶ φιλόδοξος, καὶ καθόλου πολλὰ μὲν εἰς πραγμάτων λόγον ἀγαθὰ προσεφέρετο, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ κακά. στρατηγεῖν μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ὑπαίθροις καὶ χειρίζειν πολεμικὰς πράξεις δυνατὸς ἦν, καὶ ἀνδρώδης ὑπῆρχε τῇ φύσει, καὶ πρὸς τὰς στρατιωτικὰς ὁμιλίας εὐφυῶς διέκειτο· πρὸς δὲ ποικίλων πραγμάτων χειρισμόν, δεόμενον ἐπιστάσεως καὶ νήψεως, καὶ πρὸς φυλακὴν χρημάτων καὶ καθόλου τὴν περὶ τὸ λυσιτελὲς οἰκονομίαν, ἀφυέστατος ὑπῆρχε πάντων. ᾗ καὶ ταχέως οὐ μόνον ἔσφηλεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ἠλάττωσε. παραλαβὼν γὰρ τὴν τῶν χρημάτων ἐξουσίαν, τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον μέρος τῆς ἡμέρας κατέτριβε σφαιρομαχῶν καὶ πρὸς τὰ μειράκια διαμιλλώμενος ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις, ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων γινόμενος εὐθέως πότους συνῆγε καὶ τὸ πλεῖον μέρος τοῦ βίου περὶ ταῦτα καὶ σὺν τούτοις εἶχε τὴν διατριβήν. ὃν δέ ποτε χρόνον τῆς ἡμέρας ἀπεμέριζε πρὸς ἐντεύξεις, ἐν τούτῳ διεδίδου, μᾶλλον δʼ, εἰ δεῖ τὸ φαινόμενον εἰπεῖν, διερρίπτει τὰ βασιλικὰ χρήματα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Ἑλλάδος παραγεγονόσι πρεσβευταῖς καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνίταις, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ἡγεμόσι καὶ στρατιώταις. καθόλου γὰρ ἀνανεύειν οὐκ ᾔδει, τῷ δὲ πρὸς χάριν ὁμιλήσαντι πᾶν ἐξ ἑτοίμου τὸ φανὲν ἐδίδου. τὸ λοιπὸν ηὐξάνετο τὸ κακόν, ἐξ αὑτοῦ λαμβάνον τὴν ἐπίδοσιν. πᾶς γὰρ ὁ παθὼν εὖ παρὰ τὴν προσδοκίαν καὶ τοῦ γεγονότος χάριν καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος ὑπερεβάλλετο ταῖς τῶν λόγων εὐχαριστίαις· ὁ δὲ πυνθανόμενος τὸν γινόμενον ἐκ πάντων ἔπαινον ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ καὶ τὰς ἐν τοῖς πότοις ἐπιχύσεις, ἔτι δὲ τὰς ἐπιγραφὰς καὶ τὰ διὰ τῶν ἀκροαμάτων εἰς αὑτὸν ᾀδόμενα παίγνια καθʼ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν, εἰς τέλος ἐχαυνοῦτο καὶ μᾶλλον ἀεὶ καὶ μᾶλλον ἐξετυφοῦτο, καὶ προχειρότερος ἐγίνετο πρὸς τὰς ξενικὰς καὶ στρατιωτικὰς χάριτας.
22. These proceedings were very offensive to the other members of the court; and, therefore, they watched everything he did with a jealous eye, and conceived a detestation for his insolence, which they began to compare unfavourably with the character of Sosibius. For the latter was considered to show more wisdom in his guardianship of the king than his age gave reason to expect; and, in his dealings with other persons, to maintain the dignity proper to his high trust, which was the royal seal and person. Just at this time, Ptolemy, the son of Sosibius, returned from his mission to Philip. Before he left Alexandria on his voyage, he had been full of foolish pride, partly from his own natural disposition and partly from his father’s success. But upon landing in Macedonia, and mixing with the young men at court, he conceived the notion that the virtue of the Macedonians consisted in the better fashion of their boots and clothes; he therefore came home got up in imitation of all these peculiarities, and fully persuaded that his foreign tour and association with Macedonians had made a man of him. He therefore immediately began showing jealousy of Tlepolemus, and inveighing against him; and as all the courtiers joined him, on the ground that Tlepolemus was treating the business and revenue of the state as though he were its heir and not its guardian, the quarrel quickly grew. Meanwhile Tlepolemus, being informed of certain unfriendly speeches, originating in the jealous observation and malignity of the courtiers, at first turned a deaf ear to them and affected to despise them; but when at length they ventured to hold a meeting and openly express their disapproval of him in his absence, on the ground of his maladministration of the government of the kingdom, he grew angry; and, summoning the council, came forward and said that “they brought their accusations against him secretly and in private, but he judged it right to accuse them in public and face to face.”... After making his public speech, Tlepolemus deprived Sosibius of the custody of the seal also, and having got that into his hands, thenceforth conducted the administration exactly as he chose....
22. ἐφʼ οἷς οἱ περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ἀσχάλλοντες πάντα παρεσημαίνοντο καὶ βαρέως αὐτοῦ τὴν αὐθάδειαν ὑπέφερον, τὸν δὲ Σωσίβιον ἐκ παραθέσεως ἐθαύμαζον. ἐδόκει γὰρ οὗτος τοῦ τε βασιλέως προεστάναι φρονιμώτερον ἢ κατὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν, τήν τε πρὸς τοὺς ἐκτὸς ἀπάντησιν ἀξίαν ποιεῖσθαι τῆς ἐγκεχειρισμένης αὐτῷ πίστεως· αὕτη δʼ ἦν ἡ σφραγὶς καὶ τὸ τοῦ βασιλέως σῶμα. κατὰ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀνακομιζόμενος ἥκει παρὰ τοῦ Φιλίππου Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Σωσιβίου. καὶ πρὶν μὲν οὖν ἐκ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐκπλεῦσαι πλήρης ἦν τύφου διά τε τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν καὶ διὰ τὴν προσγεγενημένην ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εὐκαιρίαν· ὡς δὲ καταπλεύσας εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν συνέμιξε τοῖς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν νεανίσκοις, ὑπολαβὼν εἶναι τὴν Μακεδόνων ἀνδρείαν ἐν τῇ τῆς ὑποδέσεως καὶ τῇ τῆς ἐσθῆτος διαφορᾷ, παρῆν ταῦτα πάντʼ ἐζηλωκὼς καὶ πεπεισμένος αὑτὸν μὲν ἄνδρα γεγονέναι διὰ τὴν ἐκδημίαν καὶ διὰ τὸ Μακεδόσιν ὡμιληκέναι, τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἀνδράποδα καὶ βλᾶκας διαμένειν. διόπερ εὐθέως ἐζηλοτύπει καὶ παρετρίβετο πρὸς τὸν Τληπόλεμον. πάντων δʼ αὐτῷ συγκατατιθεμένων τῶν περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν διὰ τὸ τὸν Τληπόλεμον καὶ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὰ χρήματα μὴ ὡς ἐπίτροπον, ἀλλʼ ὡς κληρονόμον χειρίζειν, ταχέως ηὐξήθη τὰ τῆς διαφορᾶς. καθʼ ὃν καιρὸν ὁ Τληπόλεμος, προσπιπτόντων αὐτῷ λόγων δυσμενικῶν ἐκ τῆς τῶν αὐλικῶν παρατηρήσεως καὶ κακοπραγμοσύνης, τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς παρήκουε καὶ κατεφρόνει τῶν λεγομένων. ὡς δέ ποτε καὶ κοινῇ συνεδρεύσαντες ἐτόλμησαν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ καταμέμφεσθαι τὸν Τληπόλεμον, ὡς κακῶς χειρίζοντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν, οὐ παρόντος αὐτοῦ, τότε δὴ παροξυνθεὶς συνῆγε τὸ συνέδριον καὶ παρελθὼν ἐκείνους μὲν ἔφη λάθρᾳ καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ποιεῖσθαι κατʼ αὐτοῦ τὰς διαβολάς, αὐτὸς δʼ ἔκρινε κοινῇ καὶ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν ποιήσασθαι τὴν κατηγορίαν. — ὅτι μετὰ τὴν δημηγορίαν ἔλαβε καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα παρὰ Σωσιβίου, καὶ ταύτην παρειληφὼς ὁ Τληπόλεμος λοιπὸν ἤδη πάντα τὰ πράγματα κατὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ προαίρεσιν ἔπραττεν.
22a. It seems to me to be at once just and proper to give the people of Gaza the praise which they deserve. For though they do not differ as to bravery in war from the rest of the inhabitants of Coele-Syria, yet as parties to an international agreement, and in their fidelity to their promises, they far surpass them, and show altogether a courage in such matters that is irresistible. In the first place, when all the other people were terrified at the invasion of the Persians, in view of the greatness of their power, and one and all submitted themselves and their countries to the Medes, they alone faced the danger and stood a siege. Again, on the invasion of Alexander, when not only did the other cities surrender, but even Tyre was stormed and its inhabitants sold into slavery; and when it seemed all but hopeless for any to escape destruction, who resisted the fierce and violent attack of Alexander, they alone of all the Syrians withstood him, and tested their powers of defence to the uttermost. Following the same line of conduct on the present occasion, they omitted nothing within their power in their determination to keep faith with Ptolemy. Therefore, just as we distinguish by special mention in our history individuals of eminent virtue, so ought we, in regard to states as such, to mention with commendation those which act nobly in any point from traditional principles and deliberate policy....
22a. ὅτι Ἀντιόχου τοῦ βασιλέως τὴν τῶν Γαζαίων πόλιν πορθήσαντος φησὶν ὁ Πολύβιος· ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ δίκαιον ἅμα καὶ πρέπον εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ τοῖς Γαζαίοις ἀποδοῦναι τὴν καθήκουσαν μαρτυρίαν. οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέροντες ἀνδρείᾳ τῶν κατὰ Κοίλην Συρίαν πρὸς τὰς πολεμικὰς πράξεις, ἐν κοινωνίᾳ πραγμάτων καὶ τῷ τηρεῖν τὴν πίστιν πολὺ διαφέρουσι καὶ συλλήβδην ἀνυπόστατον ἔχουσι τὴν τόλμαν. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν Περσῶν ἔφοδον ἐκπλαγέντων τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς δυναστείας, καὶ πάντων ἐγχειρισάντων σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰς πατρίδας Μήδοις, μόνοι τὸ δεινὸν ὑπέμειναν πάντες, τὴν πολιορκίαν ἀναδεξάμενοι. κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου παρουσίαν οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων παραδεδωκότων αὑτούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ Τυρίων ἐξηνδραποδισμένων μετὰ βίας, καὶ σχεδὸν ἀνελπίστου τῆς σωτηρίας ὑπαρχούσης τοῖς ἐναντιουμένοις πρὸς τὴν ὁρμὴν καὶ βίαν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου, μόνοι τῶν κατὰ Συρίαν ὑπέστησαν καὶ πάσας ἐξήλεγξαν τὰς ἐλπίδας. τὸ δὲ παραπλήσιον ἐποίησαν καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἐνεστῶτας καιρούς· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀπέλειπον τῶν ἐνδεχομένων, σπουδάζοντες διαφυλάξαι τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πτολεμαῖον πίστιν. διὸ καθάπερ καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ἐπισημαινόμεθα τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον χρὴ καὶ κοινῇ τῶν πόλεων τὴν ἐπʼ ἀγαθῷ ποιήσασθαι μνήμην, ὅσαι τῶν καλῶν ἐκ παραδόσεώς τι καὶ προθέσεως πράττειν εἰώθασιν.
23. Publius Scipio returned from Libya soon after the events I have narrated. The expectation of the people concerning him was proportionable to the magnitude of his achievements: and the splendour of his reception, and the signs of popular favour which greeted him were extraordinary. Nor was this otherwise than reasonable and proper. For after despairing of ever driving Hannibal from Italy, or of averting that danger from themselves and their kinsfolk, they now looked on themselves as not only securely removed from every fear and every menace of attack, but as having conquered their enemies. Their joy therefore knew no bounds; and when Scipio came into the city in triumph, and the actual sight of the prisoners who formed the procession brought still more clearly to their memories the dangers of the past, they became almost wild in the expression of their thanks to the gods, and their affection for the author of such a signal change. For among the prisoners who were led in the triumphal procession was Syphax, the king of the Masaesylii, who shortly afterwards died in prison. The triumph concluded, the citizens celebrated games and festivals for several days running with great splendour, Scipio, in his magnificent liberality, supplying the cost....
23. Πόπλιος δὲ Σκιπίων ἧκεν ἐκ Λιβύης οὐ πολὺ κατόπιν τῶν προειρημένων καιρῶν. οὔσης δὲ τῆς προσδοκίας τῶν πολλῶν ἀκολούθου τῷ μεγέθει τῶν πράξεων, μεγάλην εἶναι συνέβαινε καὶ τὴν φαντασίαν περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν τοῦ πλήθους εὔνοιαν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ τοῦτʼ εἰκότως ἐκ τῶν κατὰ λόγον ἐγίνετο καὶ καθηκόντως· οὐδέποτε γὰρ ἂν ἐλπίσαντες Ἀννίβαν ἐκβαλεῖν ἐξ Ἰταλίας οὐδʼ ἀποτρίψασθαι τὸν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων κίνδυνον, τότε δοκοῦντες ἤδη βεβαίως οὐ μόνον ἐκτὸς γεγονέναι παντὸς φόβου καὶ πάσης περιστάσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ κρατεῖν τῶν ἐχθρῶν, ὑπερβολὴν οὐ κατέλιπον χαρᾶς. ὡς δὲ καὶ τὸν θρίαμβον εἰσῆγε, τότε καὶ μᾶλλον ἔτι διὰ τῆς τῶν εἰσαγομένων ἐνεργείας μιμνησκόμενοι τῶν προγεγονότων κινδύνων ἐκπαθεῖς ἐγίνοντο κατά τε τὴν πρὸς θεοὺς εὐχαριστίαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν αἴτιον τῆς τηλικαύτης μεταβολῆς εὔνοιαν. καὶ γὰρ ὁ Σόφαξ ὁ τῶν Μασαισυλίων βασιλεὺς ἤχθη τότε διὰ τῆς πόλεως ἐν τῷ θριάμβῳ μετὰ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων· ὃς καὶ μετά τινα χρόνον ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ τὸν βίον μετήλλαξε. τούτων δὲ συντελεσθέντων οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ἀγῶνας ἦγον καὶ πανηγύρεις ἐπιφανῶς, χορηγὸν ἔχοντες εἰς ταῦτα τὴν Σκιπίωνος μεγαλοψυχίαν.
24. At the beginning of the winter in which Publius Sulpicius was elected consul at Rome, king Philip, who was staying at Bargylia, was rendered exceedingly uneasy and filled with many conflicting anxieties for the future, when he observed that the Rhodians and Attalus, far from dismissing their navy, were actually manning additional ships and paying more earnest attention than ever to guarding the coasts. He had a double cause, indeed, for uneasiness: he was afraid of sailing from Bargylia, and foresaw that he would have to encounter danger at sea; and at the same time he was not satisfied with the state of things in Macedonia, and therefore was unwilling on any consideration to spend the winter in Asia, being afraid both of the Aetolians and the Romans; for he was fully aware of the embassies sent to Rome to denounce him [as soon as it was known] that the war in Libya was ended. These considerations caused him overwhelming perplexity; but he was compelled for the present to remain where he was, leading the life of a wolf, to use the common expression: for he robbed and stole from some, and used force to others, while he did violence to his nature by fawning on others, because his army was suffering from famine; and by these means managed sometimes to get meat to eat, sometimes figs, and sometimes nothing but a very short allowance of corn. Some of these provisions were supplied to him by Zeuxis, and some by the people of Mylae, Alabanda, and Magnesia, whom he flattered whenever they gave him anything, and barked at and plotted against when they did not. Finally, he made a plot to seize Mylae by the agency of Philocles, but failed from the clumsiness with which the scheme was contrived. The territory of Alabanda he harried as though it were an enemy’s, alleging that it was imperatively necessary to get food for his troops.... When this Philip, father of Perseus, was thus overrunning Asia, being unable to get provisions for his army, he accepted a present of figs from the Magnesians, as they had no corn. For which reason, when he conquered Myus, he granted its territory to the Magnesians in return for their figs....
24. ὅτι Φίλιππος ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ χειμῶνος ἤδη καταρχομένου, καθʼ ὃν Πόπλιος Σολπίκιος ὕπατος κατεστάθη ἐν Ῥώμῃ, ποιούμενος τὴν διατριβὴν ἐν τοῖς Βαργυλίοις, θεωρῶν καὶ τοὺς Ῥοδίους καὶ τὸν Ἄτταλον οὐχ οἷον διαλύοντας τὸ ναυτικόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσπληροῦντας ναῦς καὶ φιλοτιμότερον προσκειμένους ταῖς φυλακαῖς, δυσχρήστως διέκειτο καὶ πολλὰς καὶ ποικίλας εἶχε περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐπινοίας. ἅμα μὲν γὰρ ἠγωνία τὸν ἐκ τῶν Βαργυλίων ἔκπλουν καὶ προεωρᾶτο τὸν κατὰ θάλατταν κίνδυνον, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Μακεδονίαν πράγμασι διαπιστῶν οὐδαμῶς ἐβούλετο παραχειμάζειν κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν, φοβούμενος [μὲν οὖν] καὶ τοὺς Αἰτωλοὺς καὶ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους· καὶ γὰρ οὐδʼ ἠγνόει τὰς ἐξαποστελλομένας κατʼ αὐτοῦ πρεσβείας εἰς Ῥώμην, διόπερ πέρας ἔχει τὰ κατὰ τὴν Λιβύην. ἐξ ὧν ἐδυσχρηστεῖτο μὲν ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἠναγκάζετο δὲ κατὰ τὸ παρὸν ἐπιμένων αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, λύκου βίον ζῆν. παρʼ ὧν μὲν γὰρ ἁρπάζων καὶ κλέπτων, τοὺς δʼ ἀποβιαζόμενος, ἐνίους δὲ παρὰ φύσιν αἰκάλλων διὰ τὸ λιμώττειν αὐτῷ τὸ στράτευμα, ποτὲ μὲν ἐσιτεῖτο κρέα, ποτὲ δὲ σῦκα, ποτὲ δὲ σιτάρια βραχέα παντελῶς· ὧν τινὰ μὲν αὐτῷ Ζεῦξις ἐχορήγει, τὰ δὲ Μυλασεῖς καὶ Ἀλαβανδεῖς καὶ Μάγνητες, οὕς, ὁπότε μέν τι δοῖεν, ἔσαινεν, ὅτε δὲ μὴ δοῖεν, ὑλάκτει καὶ ἐπεβούλευεν αὐτοῖς. τέλος ἐπὶ τὴν Μυλασέων πόλιν πράξεις συνεστήσατο διὰ Φιλοκλέους, ἐσφάλη δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀλογίαν τῆς ἐπιβολῆς. τὴν δʼ Ἀλαβανδέων χώραν ὡς πολεμίαν κατέφθειρε, φήσας ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πορίζειν τῷ στρατεύματι τὰ πρὸς τὴν τροφήν. — Πολύβιος δʼ ὁ Μεγαλοπολίτης ἐν τῇ ι#2# τῶν ἱστοριῶν "3Φίλιπποσ"3 φησὶν "3ὁ Περσέως πατήρ, ὅτε τὴν Ἀσίαν κατέτρεχεν, ἀπορῶν τροφῶν τοῖς στρατιώταις παρὰ Μαγνήτων, ἐπεὶ σῖτον οὐκ εἶχον, σῦκα ἔλαβε. διὸ καὶ Μυοῦντος κυριεύσας τοῖς Μάγνησιν ἐχαρίσατο τὸ χωρίον ἀντὶ τῶν σύκων"3. — ὅτι ὁ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος ἐξέπεμπε πρεσβευτὰς πρὸς Ἄτταλον τὸν βασιλέα τοὺς ἅμα μὲν εὐχαριστήσοντας ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγονόσιν, ἅμα δὲ παρακαλέσοντας αὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν Ἀθήναζε χάριν τοῦ συνδιαλαβεῖν περὶ τῶν ἐνεστώτων.
25. The Athenian people sent envoys to king Attalus, both to thank him for the past, and to urge him to come to Athens to consult with them on the dangers that still threatened them. The king was informed a few days afterwards that Roman ambassadors had arrived at the Peiraeus; and, believing that it was necessary to have an interview with them, he put to sea in haste. The Athenian people, being informed of his coming, passed very liberal votes as to the reception and general entertainment of the king. Arrived at the Peiraeus, Attalus spent the first day in transacting business with the Roman ambassadors, and was extremely delighted to find that they were fully mindful of their ancient alliance with him, and quite prepared for the war with Philip. Next morning, in company with the Romans and the Athenian magistrates, he began his progress to the city in great state. For he was met, not only by all the magistrates and the knights, but by all the citizens with their children and wives. And when the two processions met, the warmth of the welcome given by the populace to the Romans, and still more to Attalus, could not have been exceeded. At his entrance into the city by the gate Dipylum the priests and priestesses lined the street on both sides: all the temples were then thrown open; victims were placed ready at all the altars; and the king was requested to offer sacrifice. Finally they voted him such high honours as they had never without great hesitation voted to any of their former benefactors: for, in addition to other compliments, they named a tribe after Attalus, and classed him among their eponymous heroes.
25. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς μετά τινας ἡμέρας πυθόμενος καταπεπλευκέναι Ῥωμαίων πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ, καὶ νομίζων ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ συμμῖξαι τούτοις, ἀνήχθη κατὰ σπουδήν. ὁ δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος γνοὺς τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ μεγαλομερῶς ἐψηφίσατο περὶ τῆς ἀπαντήσεως καὶ τῆς ὅλης ἀποδοχῆς τοῦ βασιλέως. Ἄτταλος δὲ καταπλεύσας εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ τὴν μὲν πρώτην ἡμέραν ἐχρημάτισε τοῖς ἐκ τῆς Ῥώμης πρεσβευταῖς, θεωρῶν δʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ τῆς προγεγενημένης κοινοπραγίας μνημονεύοντας καὶ πρὸς τὸν κατὰ τοῦ Φιλίππου πόλεμον ἑτοίμους ὄντας περιχαρὴς ἦν. τῇ δʼ ἐπαύριον ἅμα τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις καὶ τοῖς τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἄρχουσιν ἀνέβαινεν εἰς ἄστυ μετὰ μεγάλης προστασίας· οὐ γὰρ μόνον οἱ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἔχοντες μετὰ τῶν ἱππέων, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ πολῖται μετὰ τῶν τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν ἀπήντων αὐτοῖς. ὡς δὲ συνέμιξαν, τοιαύτη παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν ἐγένετο κατὰ τὴν ἀπάντησιν φιλανθρωπία πρός τε Ῥωμαίους καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον πρὸς τὸν Ἄτταλον ὥσθʼ ὑπερβολὴν μὴ καταλιπεῖν. ἐπεὶ δʼ εἰσῄει κατὰ τὸ Δίπυλον, ἐξ ἑκατέρου τοῦ μέρους παρέστησαν τὰς ἱερείας καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πάντας μὲν τοὺς ναοὺς ἀνέῳξαν, ἐπὶ δὲ πᾶσι θύματα τοῖς βωμοῖς παραστήσαντες ἠξίωσαν αὐτὸν θῦσαι. τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον ἐψηφίσαντο τιμὰς τηλικαύτας ἡλίκας οὐδενὶ ταχέως τῶν πρότερον εἰς αὐτοὺς εὐεργετῶν γεγονότων· πρὸς γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ φυλὴν ἐπώνυμον ἐποίησαν Ἀττάλῳ, καὶ κατένειμαν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἐπωνύμους τῶν ἀρχηγετῶν.