The Histories of Polybius, Vol. 2 (of 2)

by Polybius

[12.] The next subject introduced for debate was that of king Ptolemy. The ambassadors who had been on the mission to Ptolemy were called forward, and Lycortas, acting as spokesman, Ptolemy. The speech of Lycortas. began by stating how they had interchanged oaths of alliance with the king; and next announced that they brought a present from the king to the Achaean league of six thousand stands of arms for peltasts, and two thousand talents in bronze coinage. He added a panegyric on the king, and finished his speech by a brief reference to the goodwill and active benevolence of the king towards the Achaeans.A mistake discovered. Upon this the Strategus of the Achaeans, Aristaenus, stood up and asked Lycortas and his colleagues in the embassy to Ptolemy “which alliance it was that he had thus renewed?”

No one answering the question, but all the assembly beginning to converse with each other, the Council chamber was filled with confusion. The cause of this absurd state of things was this. There had been several treaties of alliance formed between the Achaeans and Ptolemy’s kingdom, as widely different in their provision as in the circumstances which gave rise to them: but neither had Ptolemy’s envoy made any distinction when arranging for the renewal, merely speaking in general terms on the matter, nor had the ambassadors sent from Achaia; but they had interchanged the oaths on the assumption of there being but one treaty. The result was, that, on the Strategus quoting all the treaties, and pointing out in detail the differences between them, which turned out to be important, the assembly demanded to know which it was that it was renewing. And when no one was able to explain, not even Philopoemen himself, who had been in office when the renewal was made, nor Lycortas and his colleagues who had been on the mission to Alexandria, these men all began to be regarded as careless in conducting the business of the league; while Aristaenus acquired great reputation as being the only man who knew what he was talking about; and finally, the assembly refused to allow the ratification, voting on account of this blunder that the business should be postponed.

Then the ambassadors from Seleucus entered with their proposal. The Achaeans,Offer of Seleucus. however, voted to renew the friendship with Seleucus, but to decline for the present the gift of the ships.

[13.] Having thus finished their deliberations, the assembly broke up and the people separated to their several cities.Winter of B.C. 185. But subsequently, while the (Nemean) games were in course of celebration, Quintus Caecilius arrived from Macedonia, on his way back from the embassy which he had been conducting to Philip. Aristaenus having called a meeting of the league magistrates in Argos, Quintus attended and upbraided them for having exceeded justice in the harshness and severity with which they had treated the Lacedaemonians, and urged them strongly to repair the error. Aristaenus said not a word, showing clearly by his silence that he disapproved of what had been done and agreed with the words of Caecilius. But Diophanes of Megalopolis, who was more of a soldier than a statesman, stood up to speak, and so far from offering any defence of the Achaeans, suggested to Caecilius, from hostility to Philopoemen, another charge that might be brought against them. For he said that “the Lacedaemonians were not the only people who had been badly treated; the Messenians had been so also.” There were as a fact some controversies going on among the Messenians, in regard to the decree of Flamininus concerning the exiles, and the execution of it by Philopoemen: and Caecilius, thinking that he now had a party among the Achaeans themselves of the same opinion as himself, expressed still greater anger at the hesitation on the part of the assembled magistrates in obeying his orders. However, when Philopoemen, Lycortas, and Archon argued long and elaborately to prove that what had been done at Sparta was right, and advantageous to the Lacedaemonians themselves more than to any one else, and that it was impossible to disturb any existing arrangements without violating justice to man and piety to the gods, they came to the decision that they would maintain them, and give an answer to that effect to the Roman legate. Seeing what the disposition of the magistrates was, Caecilius demanded that the public assembly should be summoned, to which the Achaean magistrates demanded to see the instructions which he had from the Senate on these points: and when he gave no answer to this demand, they said that they would not summon the assembly for him, as their laws forbade them to do so unless a man brought written instructions from the Senate, stating the subject on which they were to summon it. Caecilius was so angry at this uncompromising opposition to his orders, that he refused to receive his answer from the magistrates, and so departed without any answer at all. The Achaeans laid the blame both of the former visit of Marcus Fulvius and the present one of Caecilius on Aristaenus and Diophanes, on the ground that they had invited them on account of their political opposition to Philopoemen; and accordingly the general public felt a certain suspicion of these two men. Such was the state of the Peloponnese....

[14.] Philopoemen had a sharp difference in debate with Archon the Strategus. In course of time, however,Philopoemen on Archon. Philopoemen was convinced by Archon’s arguments, and, changing his mind, spoke in warm commendation of Archon as having managed his business with skill and address. But when I heard the speech at the time it did not seem to me right to praise a man and yet do him an injury, nor do I think so now in my maturer years. For I think that there is as wide a distinction in point of morality between practical ability and success secured by absence of scruples, as there is between skill and mere cunning. The former are in a manner the highest attainments possible, the latter the reverse. But owing to the lack of discernment so general in our day, these qualities, which have little in common, excite the same amount of commendation and emulation in the world....

[15.] When Caecilius returned from Greece and made his report to the Senate concerning Macedonia and the Peloponnese,Ambassadors from Philip and the Achaeans heard on the report of Caecilius, B.C. 185-184. the ambassadors who had come to Rome on these matters were introduced into the Senate. First came those from Philip and Eumenes, as well as the exiles from Aenus and Maroneia; and on their saying much the same as they had said before Caecilius and his colleagues at Thessalonica, the Senate voted to send another deputation to Philip, to see first of all whether he had evacuated the cities in Perrhaebia in conformity with the answer he gave to Caecilius: and secondly, to order him to remove his garrison from Aenus and Maroneia; and in a word, to abandon all fortresses, positions, and towns on the seaboard of Thrace.

After these the ambassadors from the Peloponnese were introduced. For the Achaeans on their part had sent Apollonidas of Sicyon,The Achaean ambassadors make their defence. and others, to justify themselves to Caecilius for his having received no answer, and generally to inform the Senate on the question of Sparta; and at the same time Areus and Alcibiades had come from Sparta as ambassadors,—two of the old exiles recently restored by Philopoemen and the Achaeans. And this was a circumstance that particularly roused the anger of the Achaeans; because they thought it the height of ingratitude on the part of the exiles, after receiving so important and recent a service at their hands, to be now sending a hostile embassy, and accusing to the sovereign people those who had been the authors of their unlooked-for preservation and restoration to their country.

[16.] Both parties were heard in their defence in each other’s presence. Apollonidas of Sicyon and his colleagues tried to convince the Senate that the affairs of Sparta could not have been better managed than they were managed by Philopoemen.The Spartan envoys. Areus and his colleagues attempted to establish the reverse: alleging, first of all, that the power of the city was entirely destroyed by the violent withdrawal of so large a number; and, in the second place, that even those that were left were so few that their position was insecure, now that the walls were pulled down; and that their freedom of speech was entirely destroyed by the fact that they were not only amenable to the general decrees of the Achaean league, but were also made specially subject to the magistrates set over them from time to time.The decision. After hearing these envoys also, the Senate decided to give the same legates instructions regarding them as well as the others, and appointed Appius Claudius and his colleagues commissioners for Greece.

But the ambassadors from the Achaeans offered an explanation also to Caecilius in the Senate, on behalf of the magistrates, asserting that “They did not act wrongly or deserve blame for refusing to summon the assembly,Defence of the refusal to call the Achaean assembly. unless it were requisite to decide on an alliance or a war, or unless some one brought a letter from the Senate. The magistrates had therefore impartially considered the subject of summoning the assembly, but were prevented from doing so by the laws, because he neither brought a despatch from the Senate nor would show them any written instructions.” At the conclusion of this speech Caecilius rose and made an attack on Philopoemen and Lycortas, and the Achaeans generally, and on the policy they had pursued towards the city of Sparta. After listening to the arguments, the Senate answered the Achaeans by saying that they would send commissioners to investigate the matter of Sparta; and they accompanied this answer by an admonition to them to pay attention to the ambassadors sent by them from time to time, and show them proper respect, as the Romans did to ambassadors who came to them....