- Source
- Polybius. Vols. 1-4. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:2.61.1-2.61.12
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Polybius criticizes the historian Phylarchus for exaggerating the disasters of the Mantineans while completely ignoring the noble deeds and loyalty of the Megalopolitans to their allies.
χωρίς τε τούτων τὰς μὲν Μαντινέων ἡμῖν συμφορὰς μετʼ αὐξήσεως καὶ διαθέσεως ἐξηγήσατο, δῆλον ὅτι καθήκειν ὑπολαμβάνων τοῖς συγγραφεῦσι τὰς παρανόμους τῶν πράξεων ἐπισημαίνεσθαι, τῆς δὲ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν γενναιότητος, ᾗ περὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχρήσαντο καιρούς, οὐδὲ κατὰ ποσὸν ἐποιήσατο μνήμην, ὥσπερ τὸ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τῶν πραξάντων οἰκειότερον ὑπάρχον τῆς ἱστορίας τοῦ τὰ καλὰ καὶ δίκαια τῶν ἔργων ἐπισημαίνεσθαι, ἢ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν ἧττόν τι διορθουμένους1 ὑπὸ τῶν σπουδαίων καὶ ζηλωτῶν ἔργων ἤπερ ὑπὸ τῶν παρανόμων καὶ φευκτῶν πράξεων.
And besides these things, he expounded to us the disasters of the Mantineans with exaggeration and dramatic effect, evidently assuming that it is proper for historians to point out the lawless deeds, but of the nobility of the Megalopolitans, which they displayed around the same times, he made not the slightest mention, as if the enumeration of the errors of the doers were more appropriate to history than the pointing out of the beautiful and just deeds, or as if those who read his memoirs were less corrected by noble and admirable deeds than by lawless and avoidable actions.
ὁ δὲ πῶς μὲν ἔλαβε Κλεομένης τὴν πόλιν καὶ πῶς ἀκέραιον διαφυλάξας ἐξαπέστειλε παραχρῆμα πρὸς τοὺς Μεγαλοπολίτας εἰς τὴν Μεσσήνην γραμματοφόρους, ἀξιῶν αὐτοὺς ἀβλαβῆ κομισαμένους τὴν ἑαυτῶν πατρίδα κοινωνῆσαι τῶν ἰδίων πραγμάτων, ταῦτα μὲν ἡμῖν ἐδήλωσε, βουλόμενος ὑποδεῖξαι τὴν Κλεομένους μεγαλοψυχίαν καὶ μετριότητα πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους.
But he showed us how Cleomenes took the city, and how, having preserved it intact, he immediately sent messengers to the Megalopolitans in Messene, demanding that they, having recovered their homeland unharmed, should share in his own fortunes; this indeed he made clear to us, wishing to demonstrate Cleomenes’ magnanimity and moderation towards his enemies.
ἔτι δὲ πῶς οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀναγινωσκομένης οὐκ ἐάσαιεν εἰς τέλος ἀναγνωσθῆναι, μικροῦ δὲ καταλεύσαιεν2 τοὺς γραμματοφόρους, ἕως τούτου διεσάφησε. τὸ δʼ ἀκόλουθον καὶ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας ἴδιον ἀφεῖλεν, τὸν ἔπαινον καὶ τὴν ἐπʼ ἀγαθῷ μνήμην τῶν ἀξιολόγων προαιρέσεων.
And further, how the Megalopolitans, while the letter was being read, did not allow it to be read to the end, and almost stoned the messengers—up to this point he made clear. But he omitted what follows and what is proper to history, namely, the praise and honorable memory of remarkable choices.
καίτοι γʼ ἐμποδὼν ἦν. εἰ γὰρ τοὺς λόγῳ καὶ δόγματι μόνον ὑπομείναντας πόλεμον ὑπὲρ φίλων καὶ συμμάχων ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς νομίζομεν, τοῖς δὲ καὶ χώρας καταφθορὰν καὶ πολιορκίαν ἀναδεξαμένοις3 οὐ μόνον ἔπαινον, ἀλλὰ καὶ χάριτας καὶ δωρεὰς τὰς μεγίστας ἀπονέμομεν, τίνα γε χρὴ περὶ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν ἔχειν διάληψιν; ἆρʼ οὐχὶ τὴν σεμνοτάτην καὶ βελτίστην;
And yet it was obvious. For if we consider those men to be good who endured war on behalf of friends and allies in word and decree only, and to those who also underwent the devastation of their land and siege we award not only praise, but also the greatest gratitude and rewards, what opinion must we have about the Megalopolitans? Is it not the most venerable and best?
οἳ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν χώραν Κλεομένει προεῖντο, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πάλιν ὁλοσχερῶς ἔπταισαν τῇ πατρίδι διὰ τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς αἵρεσιν, τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον, δοθείσης ἀνελπίστως καὶ παραδόξως αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίας ἀβλαβῆ ταύτην ἀπολαβεῖν, προείλαντο στέρεσθαι χώρας, τάφων, ἱερῶν, πατρίδος, τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ἁπάντων συλλήβδην τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀναγκαιοτάτων χάριν τοῦ μὴ προδοῦναι τὴν πρὸς τοὺς συμμάχους πίστιν.
who, in the first place, abandoned their territory to Cleomenes, and after this again completely lost their homeland because of their choice of alliance with the Achaeans, and finally, when an opportunity was given to them unexpectedly and contrary to expectation to recover it unharmed, they preferred to be deprived of territory, tombs, temples, homeland, property, in short, of all the most necessary things among men, for the sake of not betraying their faith to their allies.
οὗ τί κάλλιον ἔργον ἢ γέγονεν ἢ γένοιτʼ ἄν; ἐπὶ τί δʼ ἂν μᾶλλον συγγραφεὺς ἐπιστήσαι τοὺς ἀκούοντας; διὰ τίνος δʼ ἔργου μᾶλλον ἂν παρορμήσαι πρὸς φυλακὴν πίστεως καὶ πρὸς ἀληθινῶν πραγμάτων καὶ βεβαίων κοινωνίαν; ὧν οὐδεμίαν ἐποιήσατο μνήμην Φύλαρχος, τυφλώττων, ὥς γʼ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα καὶ μάλιστα συγγραφεῖ καθήκοντα τῶν ἔργων.
Than which what more beautiful deed has occurred or could occur? And on what would a historian more focus his audience’s attention? And by what deed would he more urge them to preserve faith and to share in true and secure affairs? Of which things Phylarchus made no mention, being blind, as it seems to me at least, to the most beautiful deeds and those most proper to a historian.
- 2.61.3ὥσπερ τὸ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τῶν πραξάντων οἰκειότερον ὑπάρχον ... ἢ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας ... ἧττόν τι διορθουμένους
Two different participle constructions led by the conjunction ὥσπερ ("as if") are coordinated. The first, ὑπάρχον, is a neuter singular accusative participle acting in an accusative absolute construction with the articular infinitive τὸ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι as its subject. The second, διορθουμένους, is a masculine plural accusative participle modifying the preceding noun τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας (the readers). Together they present coordinated hypothetical assumptions.
- 2.61.5μικροῦ δὲ καταλεύσαιεν
The genitive μικροῦ (derived from μικροῦ δεῖν) is an idiomatic expression meaning "almost" or "all but". The verb καταλεύσαιεν (aorist optative third-person plural) is used in the indirect question introduced by πῶς because the main verb διεσάφησε is in a historical tense (representing an indicative or optative in the original thought).
- 2.61.7τοὺς λόγῳ καὶ δόγματι μόνον ὑπομείναντας ... τοῖς δὲ καὶ χώρας καταφθορὰν καὶ πολιορκίαν ἀναδεξαμένοις
Within the conditional clause introduced by εἰ γάρ..., the first group τοὺς ... ὑπομείναντας (accusative) serves as the object of νομίζομεν ("we consider them good men"), whereas the second group τοῖς ... ἀναδεξαμένοις (dative) serves as the indirect object of ἀπονέμομεν ("we award to them..."), creating an asymmetrical syntactic contrast.