[12.] The town of Iassus is situated in Asia on the gulf between the temple of Poseidon, the territory of Miletus,Legends of Iassus and Bargylia. and the city of Myndus, called the gulf [of Iassus by some], but by most the gulf of Bargylia, from the names of the cities built upon its inner coast. The Iassians boast of being originally colonists from Argos, and more recently from Miletus, their ancestors having invited to their town the son of Neleus, the founder of Miletus, owing to their losses in the war with the Carians. The size of the town is ten stades. Among the people of Bargylia it is a common report widely believed that the statue of the Kindyan Artemis, though in the open air, is never touched by snow or rain; and the same belief is held among the Iassians as to the Artemis Astias.[69] All these stories have been repeated by certain historians. But, for my part, I have in the whole course of my work set myself against such statements of our historiographers and have had no toleration for them. For it appears to me that such tales are only fit to amuse children, when they transgress not only the limits of probability but even those of possibility. For instance, to say that certain bodies when placed in full light cast no shadow argues a state of quite deplorable folly. But Theopompus has done this; for he says that those who enter the holy precinct of Zeus in Arcadia cast no shadow, which is on a par with the statements to which I have just referred. Now, in so far as such tales tend to preserve the reverence of the vulgar for religion, a certain allowance may be made for some historians when they record these miraculous legends. But they must not be allowed to go too far. Perhaps it is difficult to assign a limit in such a matter; still it is not impossible. Therefore, in my judgment, such displays of ignorance and delusion should be pardoned if they do not go very far, but anything like extravagance in them should be rejected....

AFFAIRS IN GREECE

[13.] I have already described the deliberate policy of Nabis, tyrant of the Lacedaemonians; how he drove the citizens into exile,The tyranny of Nabis. See 13, 6-8. freed the slaves, and gave them the wives and daughters of their masters. How also, by opening his kingdom as a kind of inviolable sanctuary for all who fled from their own countries, he collected a number of bad characters in Sparta. I will now proceed to tell how in the same period,B.C. 202-201. being in alliance with Aetolians, Eleans, and Messenians, and being bound by oaths and treaties to support one and all of those peoples in case of any one attacking them, he yet in utter contempt of these obligations determined to make a treacherous attack on Messene....

DIGRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE HISTORIANS ZENO AND ANTISTHENES OF RHODES

[14.] As some episodical historians have written on the period which embraces the affair at Messene and the sea-fights already described, it is my intention to discuss them briefly. I will not however speak of them all, but only those whom I suppose to be worthy of commemoration and full discussion. The necessity of discussing the histories of Zeno and Antisthenes. These are the Rhodian writers Zeno and Antisthenes, whom I judge to deserve this distinction, for more than one reason. They were contemporary with the events, and were engaged in practical politics; and, lastly, they composed their histories with no view to gain, but for the sake of fame, and as part of the business of politicians. Since then they write of the same events as myself, I cannot omit mentioning them; lest, from the reputation of their country, and the idea that naval affairs are peculiarly the province of Rhodians, some students may prefer their authority to mine where I differ from them.

Now both these writers, to begin with, describe the battle of Lade as not less severe than that of Chios,Their description of the battle of Lade. See ch. 10. but more fiercely and daringly contested, both in detail and as a whole, and finally assert that the victory was with the Rhodians. For my part I should be inclined to allow that historians must show some partiality to their own countries; not however that they should state what is exactly opposite to the facts regarding them. There are quite enough mistakes which writers make from ignorance, and which it is difficult for poor human nature to avoid: but if we deliberately write what is false for the sake of country, friends, or favour, how do we differ from those who do the same to get a living? For as the latter, by measuring everything by the standard of private gain, ruin the credit of their works, so your politicians often fall into the same discredit by yielding to the influence of hatred or affection. Therefore readers ought to be jealously watchful on this head; while writers ought to be on their guard for their own sakes.

[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.

[16.] Next as to their account of the treacherous attempt upon Messene. Zeno says that “Nabis started from Sparta,Zeno’s account of the attack of Nabis upon Messene. See ch. 13. 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 north-east 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.

[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....