After him
Archo, the brother of Xenarchus the praetor, discoursed thus: "Callicrates has made a hard speech both for me and for all who dissent from him; for, by pleading the cause of the Roman alliance, and saying that it is being probed and assailed — which no one either probes or assails — he has brought it about that whoever dissents from him should seem to speak against the Romans. And, first of all, as though he had not been here among us, but came either from the senate-house of the Roman people, or had been present at the kings’ secret councils, he knows and reports all that has been done in secret. He divines too what would have come to pass had Philip lived, why Perseus is heir of the kingdom, what the Macedonians are preparing, what the Romans intend. But we, who know neither for what cause nor in what manner Demetrius perished, nor what Philip, had he lived, would have done, ought to suit our counsels to these things which are openly done. And we know that Perseus, on receiving the kingdom, was styled king by the Roman people; we hear that Roman envoys came to the king and were kindly received. All these things I judge to be signs of peace, not of war; nor can the Romans be offended if, as we followed them while they waged war, so now too we follow them as authors of peace. Why indeed we alone should wage an implacable war against the kingdom of the Macedonians, I do not see. Are we exposed by the very nearness of Macedonia? Or are we the weakest of all — like the Dolopians, whom he lately subdued? Nay, on the contrary, we are safe, whether by our own strength, the gods being kind, or by the distance of our region. But suppose we were as much subject as the Thessalians and
Aetolians: have we no more credit and authority with the Romans — we who have always been allies and friends — than the Aetolians, who a little before were enemies? What right the Aetolians, the Thessalians, the Epirotes, all Greece in short, have with the Macedonians, let the same be ours too. Why is this abhorrent severing of human right ours alone? Granted Philip did something for which we should decree this against him while he was armed and waging war; what has Perseus, a new king, innocent of all wrong, blotting out his father’s quarrels by his own benefaction, deserved, that we alone of all should be his enemies? Although I might say this too — that the deserts of the former kings of Macedonia toward us were so great that the wrongs of Philip alone, if there were any, ought in any case to be forgotten; especially since, after his death, when the Roman fleet stood at
Cenchreae and the consul was with his army at
Elatea, we were three days in council deliberating whether to follow the Romans or Philip. Let no present fear from the Romans have bent our votes; yet there was certainly something which made so long a deliberation: it was the ancient bond with the Macedonians, the ancient and great deserts of their kings toward us. Let those same things avail now too, not that we should be especially friends, but that we should not be especially enemies. Let us not, Callicrates, pretend that the thing is in hand which is not in hand; no one is the author of writing up a new alliance or a new treaty by which we should rashly entangle ourselves, but let there be only the granting and reclaiming of mutual right, that we may not, by interdicting our borders, bar our own people and ourselves from the kingdom, that our slaves may not be free to flee anywhere. What is there in this against the Roman treaties? Why do we make a small and open matter great and suspect? Why do we stir up idle alarms? Why, that we ourselves may have a place for flattering the Romans, do we make others suspected and hated? If there shall be war, not even Perseus doubts that we shall follow the Romans. In peace, even if hatreds are not ended, let them be intermitted." When the same men who had assented to the king’s letter assented to this speech too, by the indignation of the leading men — that a thing which Perseus had not judged worthy even of an embassy he should obtain by a letter of a few lines — the decree was put off. Envoys, sent afterward by the king, when the council was at Megalopolis, were, by the contrivance of those who feared offense with the Romans, not admitted.
post hunc
Archo, frater Xenarchi praetoris, ita disseruit. “difficilem orationem Callicrates et mihi et omnibus, qui ab eo dissentimus, fecit: agendo enim Romanae societatis causam ipse temptarique et oppugnari dicendo, quam nemo neque temptat neque oppugnat, effecit, ut, qui ab se dissentiret, adversus Romanos dicere videretur. ac primum omnium, tamquam non hic nobiscum fuisset, sed aut ex curia populi Romani veniret aut regum arcanis interesset, omnia scit et nuntiat, quae occulte facta sunt. divinat etiam, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset, quid ita Perseus regni heres sit, quid parent Macedones, quid cogitent Romani. nos autem, qui nec ob quam causam nec quem ad modum perierit Demetrius scimus, nec, quid Philippus, si vixisset, facturus fuerit, ad haec, quae palam geruntur, consilia nostra accommodare accomodare oportet. ac scimus Persea regno accepto regem a populo Romano appellatum; audimus legatos Romanos venisse ad regem et eos benigne exceptos. haec omnia pacis equidem signa esse iudico, non belli, nec Romanos offendi posse, si, ut bellum gerentes eos secuti sumus, nunc quoque pacis auctores sequamur. cur quidem nos inexpiabile omnium soli bellum adversus regnum Macedonum geramus, non video. opportuni propinquitate ipsa Macedoniae sumus? an infirmissimi omnium, tamquam, quos nuper subegit, Dolopes? immo contra ea vel viribus nostris, deum benignitate, vel regionis intervallo tuti. sed simus aeque subiecti ac Thessali Aetolique: nihilo plus fidei auctoritatisque habemus adversus Romanos, qui semper socii atque amici fuimus, quam
Aetoli, qui paulo ante hostes fuerunt? quod Aetolis, quod Thessalis, quod Epirotis, omni denique Graeciae cum Macedonibus iuris est, idem et nobis sit. cur exsecrabilis ista nobis solis velut dissertio iuris humani est? fecerit aliquid Philippus, cur adversus eum armatum et bellum gerentem hoc decerneremus; quid Perseus, novus rex, omnis iniuriae insons, suo beneficio paternas simultates oblitterans, meruit, cur soli omnium hostes ei simus? quamquam et illud dicere poteram, tanta priorum Macedoniae regum merita erga nos fuisse, ut Philippi unius iniurias, si quae forte fuerunt, utique post mortem cum classis Romana
Cenchreis staret, consul cum exercitu
Elatiae esset, triduum nos in concilio fuisse consultantis, utrum Romanos an Philippum sequeremur. nihil metus praesens ab Romanis sententias nostras inclinarit; fuit certe tamen aliquid, quod tam longam deliberationem faceret. [id quod] erat vetusta coniunctio cum Macedonibus, vetera et magna in nos regum merita. valeant et nunc eadem illa, non ut praecipue amici, sed ne praecipue inimici simus. ne id, quod non agitur, Callicrates, simulaverimus agi; nemo novae societatis aut novi foederis, quo nos temere inligemus, conscribendi est auctor, sed commercium tantum iuris praebendi repetendique sit, ne interdictione finium nostrorum nostros quoque et nos regno arceamus, ne servis nostris aliquo fugere liceat. quid hoc adversus Romana foedera est? quid rem parvam et apertam magnam et suspectam facimus? quid vanos tumultus ciemus? quid ut ipsi locum adsentandi Romanis habeamus, suspectos alios invisosque efficimus? si bellum erit, ne Perseus quidem dubitat, quin Romanos secuturi simus. in pace, etiam si non finiuntur odia, intermittantur. ” cum idem huic orationi, qui litteris regis adsensi erant, adsentirentur, indignatione principum, quod quam rem ne legatione quidem dignam iudicasset Perseus, litteris paucorum versuum impetraret, decretum differtur. legati deinde postea missi ab rege, cum Megalopoli concilium esset, dataque opera est ab iis, qui offensionem apud Romanos timebant, ne admitterentur.