by Polybius
55. But Cleomenes was on the alert. He saw that the Macedonians in the army of Antigonus had been sent home; and that the king and his mercenaries in Aegium were three days’ march from Megalopolis; and this latter town he well knew to be difficult to guard, owing to its great extent, and the sparseness of its inhabitants; and, moreover, that it was just then being kept with even greater carelessness than usual, owing to Antigonus being in the country; and what was more important than anything else, he knew that the larger number of its men of military age had fallen at the battles of Lycaeum and Ladoceia. There happened to be residing in Megalopolis some Messenian exiles; by whose help he managed, under cover of night, to get within the walls without being detected. When day broke he had a narrow escape from being ejected, if not from absolute destruction, through the valour of the citizens. This had been his fortune three months before, when he had made his way into the city by the region which is called the Colaeum: but on this occasion, by the superiority of his force, and the seizure in advance of the strongest positions in the town, he succeeded in effecting his purpose. He eventually ejected the inhabitants, and took entire possession of the city; which, once in his power, he dismantled in so savage and ruthless a manner as to preclude the least hope that it might ever be restored. The reason of his acting in this manner was, I believe, that Megalopolis and Stymphalus were the only towns in which, during the vicissitudes of that period, he never succeeded in obtaining a single partisan, or inducing a single citizen to turn traitor. For the passion for liberty and the loyalty of the Clitorians had been stained by the baseness of one man, Thearces; whom the Clitorians, with some reason, denied to be a native of their city, asserting that he had been foisted in from Orchomenus, and was the offspring of one of the foreign garrison there.
[1] ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καιροὺς Ἀράτῳ γεγραφότων παρ᾽ ἐνίοις ἀποδοχῆς ἀξιοῦται Φύλαρχος, ἐν πολλοῖς ἀντιδοξῶν καὶ τἀναντία γράφων αὐτῷ, [2] χρήσιμον ἂν εἴη, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν, Ἀράτῳ προῃρημένοις κατακολουθεῖν περὶ τῶν Κλεομενικῶν, μὴ παραλιπεῖν ἄσκεπτον τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, ἵνα μὴ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν ἰσοδυναμοῦν ἀπολείπωμεν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. [3] καθόλου μὲν οὖν ὁ συγγραφεὺς οὗτος πολλὰ παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πραγματείαν εἰκῇ καὶ ὡς ἔτυχεν εἴρηκεν. [4] πλὴν περὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ἴσως οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιτιμᾶν κατὰ τὸ παρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἐξακριβοῦν: ὅσα δὲ συνεπιβάλλει τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν γραφομένοις καιροῖς — ταῦτα δ᾽ ἔστιν τὰ περὶ τὸν Κλεομενικὸν πόλεμον — ὑπὲρ τούτων ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν διευκρινεῖν. [5] ἔσται δὲ πάντως ἀρκοῦντα ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ καὶ τὴν ὅλην αὐτοῦ προαίρεσιν καὶ δύναμιν ἐν τῇ πραγματείᾳ καταμαθεῖν. [6] βουλόμενος δὴ διασαφεῖν τὴν ὠμότητα τὴν Ἀντιγόνου καὶ Μακεδόνων, ἅμα δὲ τούτοις τὴν Ἀράτου καὶ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, φησὶ τοὺς Μαντινέας γενομένους ὑποχειρίους μεγάλοις περιπεσεῖν ἀτυχήμασι, καὶ τὴν ἀρχαιοτάτην καὶ μεγίστην πόλιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἀρκαδίαν τηλικαύταις παλαῖσαι συμφοραῖς ὥστε πάντας εἰς ἐπίστασιν καὶ δάκρυα τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀγαγεῖν. [7] σπουδάζων δ᾽ εἰς ἔλεον ἐκκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας καὶ συμπαθεῖς ποιεῖν τοῖς λεγομένοις, εἰσάγει περιπλοκὰς γυναικῶν καὶ κόμας διερριμμένας καὶ μαστῶν ἐκβολάς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις δάκρυα καὶ θρήνους ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν ἀναμὶξ τέκνοις καὶ γονεῦσι γηραιοῖς ἀπαγομένων. ποιεῖ δὲ τοῦτο παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν ἱστορίαν, [8] πειρώμενος ἐν ἑκάστοις ἀεὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν τιθέναι τὰ δεινά. [9] τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀγεννὲς καὶ γυναικῶδες τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτοῦ παρείσθω, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας οἰκεῖον ἅμα καὶ χρήσιμον ἐξεταζέσθω. [10] δεῖ τοιγαροῦν οὐκ ἐπιπλήττειν τὸν συγγραφέα τερατευόμενον διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας οὐδὲ τοὺς ἐνδεχομένους λόγους ζητεῖν καὶ τὰ παρεπόμενα τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, καθάπερ οἱ τραγῳδιογράφοι, τῶν δὲ πραχθέντων καὶ ῥηθέντων κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν αὐτῶν μνημονεύειν πάμπαν, κἂν πάνυ μέτρια τυγχάνωσιν ὄντα. [11] τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἱστορίας καὶ τραγῳδίας οὐ ταὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ δεῖ διὰ τῶν πιθανωτάτων λόγων ἐκπλῆξαι καὶ ψυχαγωγῆσαι κατὰ τὸ παρὸν τοὺς ἀκούοντας, ἐνθάδε δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀληθινῶν ἔργων καὶ λόγων εἰς τὸν πάντα χρόνον διδάξαι καὶ πεῖσαι τοὺς φιλομαθοῦντας, [12] ἐπειδήπερ ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν ἡγεῖται τὸ πιθανόν, κἂν ᾖ ψεῦδος, διὰ τὴν ἀπάτην τῶν θεωμένων, ἐν δὲ τούτοις τἀληθὲς διὰ τὴν ὠφέλειαν τῶν φιλομαθούντων. [13] χωρίς τε τούτων τὰς πλείστας ἡμῖν ἐξηγεῖται τῶν περιπετειῶν, οὐχ ὑποτιθεὶς αἰτίαν καὶ τρόπον τοῖς γινομένοις, ὧν χωρὶς οὔτ᾽ ἐλεεῖν εὐλόγως οὔτ᾽ ὀργίζεσθαι καθηκόντως δυνατὸν ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν συμβαινόντων. [14] ἐπεὶ τίς ἀνθρώπων οὐ δεινὸν ἡγεῖται τύπτεσθαι τοὺς ἐλευθέρους; ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως, ἐὰν μὲν ἄρχων ἀδίκων χειρῶν πάθῃ τις τοῦτο, δικαίως κρίνεται πεπονθέναι: ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐπὶ διορθώσει καὶ μαθήσει ταὐτὸ τοῦτο γίνηται, προσέτι καὶ τιμῆς καὶ χάριτος οἱ τύπτοντες τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ἀξιοῦνται. [15] καὶ μὴν τό γε τοὺς πολίτας ἀποκτεινύναι μέγιστον ἀσέβημα τίθεται καὶ μεγίστων ἄξιον προστίμων: καίτοι γε προφανῶς ὁ μὲν τὸν κλέπτην ἢ μοιχὸν ἀποκτείνας ἀθῷός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ τὸν προδότην ἢ τύραννον τιμῶν καὶ προεδρείας τυγχάνει παρὰ πᾶσιν. [16] οὕτως ἐν παντὶ τὸ τέλος κεῖται τῆς διαλήψεως ὑπὲρ τούτων οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τελουμένοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ταῖς αἰτίαις καὶ προαιρέσεσι τῶν πραττόντων καὶ ταῖς τούτων διαφοραῖς.
56. For the history of the same period, with which we are now engaged, there are two authorities, Aratus and Phylarchus, whose opinions are opposed in many points and their statements contradictory. I think, therefore, it will be advantageous, or rather necessary, since I follow Aratus in my account of the Cleomenic war, to go into the question; and not by any neglect on my part to suffer misstatements in historical writings to enjoy an authority equal to that of truth. The fact is that the latter of these two writers has, throughout the whole of his history,
made statements at random and without discrimination. It is not, however, necessary for me to criticise him on other points on the present occasion, or to call him to strict account concerning them; but such of his statements as relate to the period which I have now in hand, that is the Cleomenic war, these I must thoroughly sift. They will be quite sufficient to enable us to form a judgment on the general spirit and ability with which he approaches historical writing. It was his object to bring into prominence the cruelty of Antigonus and the Macedonians, as well as that of Aratus and the Achaeans; and he accordingly asserts that, when Mantinea fell into their hands, it was cruelly treated; and that the most ancient and important of all the Arcadian towns was involved in calamities so terrible as to move all Greece to horror and tears. And being eager to stir the hearts of his readers to pity, and to enlist their sympathies by his story, he talks of women embracing, tearing their hair, and exposing their breasts; and again of the tears and lamentations of men and women, led off into captivity along with their children and aged parents. And this he does again and again throughout his whole history, by way of bringing the terrible scene vividly before his readers. I say nothing of the unworthiness and unmanliness of the course he has adopted: let us only inquire what is essential and to the purpose in history. Surely an historian’s object should not be to amaze his readers by a series of thrilling anecdotes; nor should he aim at producing speeches which might have been delivered, nor study dramatic propriety in details like a writer of tragedy: but his function is above all to record with fidelity what was actually said or done, however commonplace it may be. For the purposes of history and of the drama are not the same, but widely opposed to each other. In the former the object is to strike and delight by words as true to nature as possible; in the latter to instruct and convince by genuine words and deeds; in the former the effect is meant to be temporary, in the latter permanent. In the former, again, the power of carrying an audience is the chief excellence, because the object is to create illusion; but in the latter the thing of primary importance is truth, because the object is to benefit the learner. And apart from these considerations, Phylarchus, in most of the catastrophes which he relates, omits to suggest the causes which gave rise to them, or the course of events which led up to them: and without knowing these, it is impossible to feel the due indignation or pity at anything which occurs. For instance, everybody looks upon it as an outrage that the free should be struck: still, if a man provokes it by an act of violence, he is considered to have got no more than he deserved; and, where it is done for correction and discipline, those who strike free men are deemed worthy of honour and gratitude. Again, the killing of a fellow-citizen is regarded as a heinous crime, deserving the severest penalties: and yet it is notorious that the man who kills a thief, or his wife’s paramour, is held guiltless; while he who kills a traitor or tyrant in every country receives honours and pre-eminence. And so in everything our final judgment does not depend upon the mere things done, but upon their causes and the views of the actors, according as these differ.
[1] Μαντινεῖς τοίνυν τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐγκαταλιπόντες τὴν μετὰ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν πολιτείαν ἐθελοντὴν Αἰτωλοῖς ἐνεχείρισαν αὑτοὺς καὶ τὴν πατρίδα, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Κλεομένει. [2] γεγονότες δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοιαύτης προαιρέσεως καὶ μετέχοντες τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτείας ἔτει τετάρτῳ πρότερον τῆς Ἀντιγόνου παρουσίας ἑάλωσαν κατὰ κράτος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, Ἀράτου πραξικοπήσαντος αὐτῶν τὴν πόλιν. [3] ἐν ᾧ καιρῷ τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχον τοῦ παθεῖν τι δεινὸν διὰ τὴν προειρημένην ἁμαρτίαν ὡς καὶ περιβόητον συνέβη γενέσθαι τὸ πραχθὲν διὰ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς κατὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἀμφοτέρων μεταβολῆς. [4] ἅμα γὰρ τῷ κατασχεῖν τὴν πόλιν Ἄρατος παραυτίκα μὲν τοῖς ὑφ᾽ αὑτὸν ταττομένοις παρήγγελλε μηδένα μηδενὸς ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, [5] ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις τοὺς Μαντινέας συναθροίσας παρεκάλεσε θαρρεῖν καὶ μένειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἰδίων: ὑπάρξειν γὰρ αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν πολιτευομένοις μετὰ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. [6] τοῖς δὲ Μαντινεῦσιν ἀνυπονοήτου καὶ παραδόξου φανείσης τῆς ἐλπίδος, παραυτίκα πάντες ἐπὶ τῆς ἐναντίας ἐγένοντο γνώμης. [7] καὶ πρὸς οὓς μικρῷ πρότερον μαχόμενοι πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐπεῖδον ἀπολλυμένους, οὐκ ὀλίγους δ᾽ αὐτῶν βιαίοις τραύμασι περιπεσόντας, τούτους εἰς τὰς ἰδίας οἰκίας εἰσαγόμενοι καὶ ποιησάμενοι σφίσι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀναγκαίοις ὁμεστίους, οὐδὲν ἀπέλειπον τῆς μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων φιλοφροσύνης. [8] καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἰκότως ἐποίουν: οὐ γὰρ οἶδ᾽ εἴ τινες ἀνθρώπων εὐγνωμονεστέροις ἐνέτυχον πολεμίοις οὐδ᾽ εἴ τινες ἀβλαβέστερον ἐπάλαισαν τοῖς μεγίστοις δοκοῦσιν εἶναι συμπτώμασι Μαντινέων διὰ τὴν Ἀράτου καὶ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν εἰς αὐτοὺς φιλαν
57. Now the people of Mantinea had in the first instance abandoned the league, and voluntarily submitted, first to the Aetolians, and afterwards to Cleomenes. Being therefore, in accordance with this policy, members of the Lacedaemonian community, in the fourth year before the coming of Antigonus, their city was forcibly taken possession of by the Achaeans owing to the skilful plotting of Aratus. But on that occasion, so far from being subjected to any severity for their act of treason, it became a matter of general remark how promptly the feelings of the conquerors and the conquered underwent a revolution. As soon as he had got possession of the town, Aratus issued orders to his own men that no one was to lay a finger on anything that did not belong to him; and then, having summoned the Mantineans to a meeting, he bade them be of good cheer, and stay in their own houses; for that, as long as they remained members of the league, their safety was secured. On their part, the Mantineans, surprised at this unlooked-for prospect of safety, immediately experienced a universal revulsion of feeling. The very men against whom they had a little while before been engaged in a war, in which they had seen many of their kinsfolk killed, and no small number grievously wounded, they now received into their houses, and entertained as their guests, interchanging every imaginable kindness with them. And naturally so. For I believe that there never were men who met with more kindly foes, or came out of a struggle with what seemed the most dreadful disasters more scatheless, than did the Mantineans, owing to the humanity of Aratus and the Achaeans towards them.