[35.] If I had been speaking of an earlier period, and expressing what was generally true,The disinterestedness of the Romans generally as to money. I should have had no hesitation in asserting of the Romans as a nation that they would not be likely to do such a thing,—I mean in the period before they engaged in wars beyond the sea, and while they retained their own habits and principles uncontaminated.[87] But in the present times I should not venture to say this of them all; still, as individuals, I should be bold to say of the majority of the men of Rome that they are capable of preserving their honesty in this particular: and as evidence that I am making no impossible assertion,Lucius Aemilius Paulus. I would quote two names which will command general assent,—I mean first, Lucius Aemilius who conquered Perseus, and won the kingdom of Macedonia. In that kingdom, besides all the other splendour and wealth, there was found in the treasury more than six thousand talents of gold and silver: yet he was so far from coveting any of this, that he even refused to see it, and administered it by the hands of others; though he was far from being superfluously wealthy himself, but, on the contrary, was very badly off. At least, I know that on his death, which occurred shortly after the war, when his own sons Publius Scipio and Quintus Maximus wished to pay his wife her dowry, amounting to twenty-five talents, they were reduced to such straits that they would have been quite unable to do so if they had not sold the household furniture and slaves, and some of the landed property besides. And if what I say shall appear incredible to any one, he may easily convince himself on the subject: for though there are many controversies at Rome, and especially on this particular point,Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Minor. arising from the antagonistic parties among them, yet he will find that what I have just said about Aemilius is acknowledged by every one. Again, Publius Scipio, son by blood of this Aemilius, and son by adoption of Publius called the Great, when he got possession of Carthage, reckoned the wealthiest city in the world, took absolutely nothing from it for his own private use, either by purchase or by any other manner of acquisition whatever, although he was by no means a very rich man, but very moderately so for a Roman. But he not only abstained from the wealth of Carthage itself, but refused to allow anything from Africa at all to be mixed up with his private property. Therefore, in regard to this man once more, any one who chooses to inquire will find that his reputation in this particular is absolutely undisputed at Rome. I shall, however, take a more suitable opportunity of treating this subject at greater length.
[36.] Titus then having appointed Philip a day for the congress, immediately wrote to the allies announcing when they were to appear;The congress of Tempe, B.C. 197. and a few days afterwards came himself to the pass of Tempe at the appointed time. When the allies had assembled, and the congress met, the Roman imperator rose and bade each say on what terms they ought to make peace with Philip.Speech of King Amynandros. King Amynandros then delivered a short and moderate speech, merely asking that “they would all have some consideration for him, to prevent Philip, as soon as the Romans left Greece, from turning the whole weight of his anger upon him; for the Athamanes were always an easy prey to the Macedonians, because of their weakness and the close contiguity of their territory.”Alexander the Aetolian. When he had finished, Alexander the Aetolian rose and complimented Flamininus for “having assembled the allies in that congress to discuss the terms of peace; and, above all, for having on the present occasion called on each to express his opinion. But he was deluded and mistaken,” he added, “if he believed that by making terms with Philip he would secure the Romans peace or the Greeks freedom. For neither of these was possible. But if he desired to accomplish both the design of his own government and his own promises, which he had given to all the Greeks, there was one way, and one only, of making terms with Macedonia, and that was to eject Philip from his throne; and this could easily be done if he did not let slip the present opportunity.”
After some further arguments in support of this view he sat down.
[37.] Flamininus here took up the argument, and said that “Alexander was mistaken not only as to the policy of Rome,Reply of Flamininus. but also as to the object which he proposed to himself, and above all as to the true interests of Greece. For it was not the Roman way to utterly destroy those with whom they had been at open war. A proof of his assertion might be found in the war with Hannibal and the Carthaginians; for though the Romans had received the severest provocation at their hands, and afterwards had it in their power to do absolutely what they pleased to them, yet they had adopted no extreme measures against the Carthaginians. For his part, moreover, he had never entertained the idea that it was necessary to wage an inexpiable war with Philip; but on the contrary had been prepared before the battle to come to terms with him, if he would have submitted to the Roman demands. He was surprised, therefore, that those who had taken part in the former peace conference should now adopt a tone of such irreconcilable hostility. Have we not conquered? (say they). Yes, but this is the most senseless of arguments. For brave men, when actually at war, should be terrible and full of fire; when beaten, undaunted and courageous; when victorious, on the other hand, moderate, placable, and humane. But your present advice is the reverse of all this. Yet, in truth, to the Greeks themselves it is greatly to their interest that Macedonia should be humbled, but not at all so that she should be destroyed. For it might chance thereby that they would experience the barbarity of Thracians and Gauls, as has been the case more than once already.” He then added that “the final decision of himself and Roman colleagues was, that, if Philip would consent to fulfil all the conditions formerly enjoined by the allies, they would grant him peace, subject, of course, to the approval of the Senate: and that the Aetolians were free to take what measures they chose for themselves.” Upon Phaeneas attempting to reply that “Everything done hitherto went for nothing; for if Philip managed to extricate himself from his present difficulties, he would at once find some other occasion for hostilities,”—Flamininus sprang at once from his seat, and said, with some heat, “Cease this trifling, Phaeneas! For I will so settle the terms of the peace that Philip will be unable, even if he wished it, to molest the Greeks.”
[38.] After this they separated for that day. On the next the king arrived: and on the third,On the third day of the conference Philip appears. when all the delegates were met for discussion, Philip entered, and with great skill and tact diverted the anger which they all entertained against him. For he said that “He conceded the demands made on the former occasion by the Romans and the allies, and remitted the decision on the remaining points to the Senate.” But Phaeneas, one of the Aetolians present, said: “Why then, Philip, do not you restore to us Larisa Cremaste, Pharsalus, Phthiotid Thebes, and Echinus?” Whereupon Philip bade them take them over.The Aetolians checkmated by Flamininus. But Flamininus here interposed, and forbade the Aetolians to take over any of the towns except Phthiotid Thebes; “for upon his approaching this town with his army, and summoning it to submit to the Roman protection, the Thebans had refused; and, as it had now come into his hands in the course of war, he had the right of taking any measures he chose regarding it.” Phaeneas and his colleagues indignantly protested at this, and asserted that it was their clear right to recover the towns previously members of their league, “first on the ground that they had taken part in the recent war; and secondly in virtue of their original treaty of alliance, according to which the movable property of the conquered belonged to the Romans, the towns to the Aetolians.” To which Flamininus answered that “they were mistaken in both points; for their treaty with Rome had been annulled when they abandoned the Romans, and made terms with Philip: and, even supposing that treaty to be still in force, they had no right to recover or take over such cities as had voluntarily put themselves under the protection of Rome, as the whole of the cities in Thessaly had done, but only such as were taken by force.[88]
[39.] The other members of the congress were delighted at this speech of Flamininus.The terms of the peace settled. Winter of B.C. 197. But the Aetolians listened with indignation; and what proved to be the beginning of serious evils was engendered. For this quarrel was the spark from which, not long afterwards, both the war with the Aetolians and that with Antiochus flamed out. The principal motive of Flamininus in being thus forward in coming to terms was the information he had received that Antiochus had started from Syria with an army, with the intention of crossing over into Europe. Therefore he was anxious lest Philip, catching at this chance, should determine to defend the towns and protract the war; and lest meanwhile he should himself be superseded by another commander from home, on whom the honour of all that he had achieved would be diverted. Therefore the terms which the king asked were granted: namely, that he should have four months’ suspension of hostilities, paying Flamininus at once the two hundred talents; delivering his son Demetrius and some others of his friends as hostages; and sending to Rome to submit the decision on the whole pacification to the Senate. Flamininus and Philip then separated, after interchanging mutual pledges of fidelity, on the understanding that, if the treaty were not confirmed, Flamininus was to restore to Philip the two hundred talents and the hostages. All the parties then sent ambassadors to Rome, some to support and others to oppose the settlement....
[40.] Why is it that, though deceived again and again by the same things and persons, we are unable to abandon our blind folly?Foolish credulity, see ch. 13; and 31, 21. For this particular kind of fraud has often been committed before now, and by many. That other men should allow themselves to be taken in is perhaps not astonishing; but it is wonderful that those should do so who are the authors and origin of the same kind of malpractice. But I suppose the cause is the absence of that rule so happily expressed by Epicharmus:
“Cool head and wise mistrust are wisdom’s sinews.”...