Humanitext Reader

Pausanias · Description of Greece §7.12.1-7.12.9

Intrigues and False Reports of Menalcidas and Diaeus

Passage 274 of 465 · Greek

Summary

Menalcidas avoids prosecution for keeping a bribe by bribing his successor Diaeus, who then incites a conflict with Sparta to deflect public anger. Sent to Rome as envoys, both Diaeus and Menalcidas return and deceive their respective states about the Roman senate's decision.

§7.12.1Ὠρώπιοι δὲ καὶ ὠφελείας σφίσιν οὐ γενομένης τῆς παρὰ Ἀχαιῶν, ὅμως ὑπὸ Μεναλκίδα τὰ χρήματα ἐξεπράχθησαν·
Although no help came to them from the Achaeans, the Oropians were nevertheless forced by Menalcidas to pay the money.
ὁ δὲ ὡς τὸ δωροδόκημα εἶχεν ἐν χειρί, ἐποιεῖτο συμφορὰν εἰ καὶ Καλλικράτει μεταδώσει τῶν λημμάτων.
Once he had the bribe in his hand, he considered it a disaster if he should have to share any of the gains with Callicrates too.
τὰ μὲν δὴ πρῶτα ἀναβολαῖς καὶ ἀπάταις ἐχρῆτο ἐς τὴν δόσιν, μετὰ δὲ οὐ πολὺ ἐτόλμησεν ἀποστερεῖν ἐκ τοῦ εὐθέος.
At first he resorted to delays and deceits regarding the payment, but not long afterwards he had the audacity to outright withhold it.
§7.12.2βεβαιοῖ δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον ὡς ἄρʼ ἦν καὶ πῦρ ἐς πλέον ἄλλου πυρὸς καῖον καὶ λύκος ἀγριώτερος λύκων ἄλλων καὶ ὠκύτερος ἱέραξ ἱέρακος πέτεσθαι, εἴγε καὶ Καλλικράτην ἀνοσιώτατον τῶν τότε Μεναλκίδας ὑπερῆρεν ἀπιστίᾳ, Καλλικράτην, ὃς ἐλάσσων παντοίου λήμματος καὶ ἐπὶ οὐδενὶ οἰκείῳ κέρδει πόλει τῇ Ἀθηναίων ἀπηχθημένος παυσάμενον τῆς ἀρχῆς Μεναλκίδαν ἐδίωκεν ἐν τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς θανάτου δίκην·
This indeed confirms the saying that there is a fire that burns hotter than another fire, a wolf fiercer than other wolves, and a hawk that flies swifter than another hawk, seeing that Menalcidas surpassed in treachery even Callicrates, the most unprincipled man of those days—Callicrates, who, though a slave to every kind of gain and having incurred the hatred of the city of the Athenians for no private profit of his own, prosecuted Menalcidas before the Achaeans on a capital charge when the latter had ceased from his office.
πρεσβεῦσαί τε γὰρ Ἀχαιῶν ἐναντία ἔφασκεν αὐτὸν ἐς Ῥώμην καὶ ἐς τὰ μάλιστα γενέσθαι πρόθυμον ἐξελέσθαι τὴν Σπάρτην συνεδρίου τοῦ Ἀχαιῶν.
For he alleged that Menalcidas had gone on an embassy to Rome against the interests of the Achaeans, and had been extremely eager to detach Sparta from the Achaean league.
§7.12.3ἐνταῦθα ὡς ἀφικνεῖτο ἐς πᾶν ὁ Μεναλκίδας κινδύνου, μεταδίδωσι τάλαντα τρία τῶν ἐξ Ὠρωποῦ Μεγαλοπολίτῃ Διαίῳ.
Thereupon, as Menalcidas was in extreme danger, he shared three talents of the money from Oropus with Diaeus of Megalopolis.
ἐγεγόνει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἀρχῆς διάδοχος τῆς Ἀχαιῶν ὁ Δίαιος· τότε δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λήμματος προθυμούμενος ἔμελλε Μεναλκίδᾳ καὶ ἀκόντων Ἀχαιῶν σωτηρίαν παρέξειν.
Diaeus had also become his successor in the generalship of the Achaeans; and being eager at that time for the bribe, he was bound to secure safety for Menalcidas, even against the will of the Achaeans.
Ἀχαιοὶ δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ ἀφέσει τοῦ Μεναλκίδα ἰδίᾳ τε ἕκαστος καὶ ἐν κοινῷ Δίαιον ἐποιοῦντο ἐν αἰτίᾳ· Δίαιος δὲ σφᾶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐς αὐτὸν ἐγκλημάτων μετῆγεν ἐς πραγμάτων ἐλπίδα μειζόνων, προφάσει χρώμενος τοιᾷδε ἐς τὴν ἀπάτην.
The Achaeans, both individually and in common, blamed Diaeus for the acquittal of Menalcidas; but Diaeus diverted them from the charges against himself into the hope of greater undertakings, using the following pretext for his deception.
§7.12.4Λακεδαιμόνιοι περὶ ἀμφισβητησίμου χώρας καταφεύγουσιν ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων βουλήν· καταφεύγουσι δὲ αὐτοῖς προεῖπεν ἡ βουλὴ δικάζεσθαι τὰ ἄλλα πλὴν ψυχῆς ἐν συνεδρίῳ τῷ Ἀχαιῶν.
The Lacedaemonians fled for refuge to the Roman senate concerning disputed land; and to them in their refuge, the senate declared that they should submit other matters, except capital cases, to trial in the assembly of the Achaeans.
ἡ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα ἀπεκρίνατο· Δίαιος δὲ οὐ τὸν ὄντα ἔλεγεν Ἀχαιοῖς λόγον, ψυχαγωγῶν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἔφασκε παρὰ τῆς Ῥωμαίων σφίσιν ἐφεῖσθαι βουλῆς καὶ θάνατον ἀνδρὸς καταγνῶναι τῶν ἐκ Σπάρτης.
This indeed was the senate's answer; but Diaeus did not tell the Achaeans the true report, but, to beguile them, he asserted that it had been permitted to them by the Roman senate even to condemn to death any man of those from Sparta.
§7.12.5οἱ μὲν δὴ δικάζειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ἠξίουν καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἑκάστου ψυχῆς, Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ οὔτε ἀληθῆ συνεχώρουν Δίαιον λέγειν καὶ ἀνάγειν ἤθελον ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων βουλήν.
They indeed claimed the right to judge the Lacedaemonians even on capital charges, but the Lacedaemonians neither admitted that Diaeus was telling the truth and wished to refer the matter back to the Roman senate.
Ἀχαιοὶ δὲ ἀντελαμβάνοντο αὖθις ἄλλου λόγου, πόλεις ὅσαι τελοῦσιν ἐς Ἀχαιοὺς μηδεμίαν ἐφʼ ἑαυτῆς καθεστηκέναι κυρίαν ἄνευ τοῦ κοινοῦ τοῦ Ἀχαιῶν παρὰ Ῥωμαίους ἰδίᾳ πρεσβείαν ἀποστέλλειν.
But the Achaeans in turn took up another argument, that no city that belonged to the Achaeans was independently authorized to send an embassy of its own privately to the Romans, without the consent of the Achaean league.
§7.12.6πόλεμός τε δὴ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμφισβητημάτων τούτων Ἀχαιοῖς καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἤρχετο καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι συνιέντες οὐκ ἀξιόμαχοι πρὸς Ἀχαιοὺς εἶναι πρεσβείαις ἐχρῶντο πρὸς τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδίᾳ πρὸς τὸν Δίαιον λόγοις.
Thus war was beginning between the Achaeans and Lacedaemonians from these disputes; and the Lacedaemonians, realizing that they were not a match for the Achaeans in war, employed embassies to their cities and private negotiations with Diaeus.
αἱ μὲν δὴ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ αἱ πόλεις ἐποιοῦντο τὰς ἀποκρίσεις, οὔ σφισιν ἔξοδον ἐπαγγέλλοντος στρατηγοῦ παρακούειν εἶναι νόμον·
The cities indeed made their replies in the same manner, saying that it was not lawful for them to disobey when the general ordered an expedition.
Δίαιος γὰρ ἦρχε τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ ἔφασκεν οὐ τῇ Σπάρτῃ, τοῖς δὲ ταράσσουσιν αὐτὴν πολεμήσων ἀφίξεσθαι.
For Diaeus was leading the Achaeans, and he declared that he would come to make war, not upon Sparta, but upon those who were disturbing her.
§7.12.7ἐρομένων δὲ τῶν γερόντων ὁπόσους ἡγοῖτο ἀδικεῖν, ἐσπέμπει σφίσι τεσσάρων ὀνόματα ἀνδρῶν καὶ εἴκοσι πρωτευόντων τὰ πάντα ἐν Σπάρτῃ.
When the elders asked how many he considered to be doing wrong, he sent in to them the names of twenty-four men, who were foremost in all things in Sparta.
ἐνταῦθα Ἀγασισθένους ἐνίκησε γνώμη δοκίμου καὶ τὰ πρότερα ὄντος, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς παραινέσεως ταύτης προελθόντος καὶ ἐς πλέον δόξης· ὃς τοὺς ἄνδρας τούτους ἐκέλευσεν ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος ἐθελοντὰς φεύγειν μηδὲ αὐτοῦ μένοντας ἐργάσασθαι τῇ Σπάρτῃ πόλεμον, φυγόντας δὲ ἐς Ῥώμην καταχθήσεσθαι σφᾶς οὐ μετὰ πολὺ ἔφασκεν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων.
Thereupon prevailed the opinion of Agasisthenes, a man who was esteemed even before this, but who from this advice rose to even greater glory; he urged these men to go into voluntary exile from Lacedaemon, and not, by remaining there, to bring war upon Sparta, and he said that if they fled to Rome, they would be brought back not long after by the Romans.
§7.12.8καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπελθόντες ὑπήγοντο ὑπὸ Σπαρτιατῶν ἐς δικαστήριον τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἦσαν κατεγνωσμένοι·
So they departed and were formally brought to trial by the Spartans and condemned to death.
ἀπεστάλησαν δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ Ἀχαιῶν Καλλικράτης ἐς Ῥώμην καὶ Δίαιος τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἐκ Σπάρτης ἀντιδικήσοντες ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς.
Also Callicrates and Diaeus were sent by the Achaeans to Rome, to argue the case against the exiles from Sparta before the senate.
καὶ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν Καλλικράτης τελευτᾷ νόσῳ, οὐδὲ οἶδα εἰ ἀφικόμενος ἐς Ῥώμην ὠφέλησεν ἄν τι Ἀχαιοὺς ἢ κακῶν σφισιν ἐγένετο μειζόνων ἀρχή· Δίαιος δὲ ἐς ἀντιλογίαν Μεναλκίδᾳ καταστὰς ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς πολλὰ μὲν εἶπε, τὰ δὲ ἤκουσεν οὐ σὺν κόσμῳ.
And of them, Callicrates died of disease on the way, and I do not even know whether, if he had reached Rome, he would have been of any benefit to the Achaeans, or would have become the beginning of greater evils for them; while Diaeus, having entered into dispute with Menalcidas before the senate, spoke much and heard much that was unbecoming.
§7.12.9καί σφισιν ἀπεκρίνατο ἡ βουλὴ ἀποστέλλειν πρέσβεις, οἳ κρινοῦσιν ὅσα Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ Ἀχαιοῖς διάφορα ἦν ἐς ἀλλήλους.
And the senate answered them that they would send envoys who would judge the differences between the Lacedaemonians and the Achaeans.
καὶ τοῖς ἐκ Ῥώμης πρέσβεσι σχολαιτέρα πως ἐγίνετο ἡ ὁδός, ὥστε ἐξαπατᾶν ὑπῆρχεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς Διαίῳ τε Ἀχαιοὺς καὶ Μεναλκίδᾳ Λακεδαιμονίους·
And the journey of the envoys from Rome was somewhat slow, so that Diaeus had the opportunity from the start to deceive the Achaeans, and Menalcidas the Lacedaemonians.
τοὺς μὲν δὴ παρῆγεν ὁ Δίαιος ὡς τὰ πάντα ἕπεσθαι Λακεδαιμόνιοί σφισιν ὑπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων βουλῆς εἰσιν ἐγνωσμένοι, Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ ὁ Μεναλκίδας ἠπάτα παντελῶς τοῦ συνεδρεύειν ἐς τὸ Ἀχαϊκὸν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων αὐτοὺς ἀπηλλάχθαι.
For Diaeus led them astray, claiming that it had been decided by the Roman senate that the Lacedaemonians should obey them in all things; while Menalcidas deceived the Lacedaemonians completely, telling them that they had been released by the Romans from belonging to the Achaean league.

Notes

  1. §7.12.1εἰ καὶ Καλλικράτει μεταδώσει — The conditional conjunction εἰ followed by the future indicative (μεταδώσει), combined with the imperfect ἐποιεῖτο in the main clause, represents the subjective apprehension or concern of the subject, Menalcidas, at that time ("he thought it would be a disaster if he should have to share...").
  2. §7.12.2ἐλάσσων παντοίου λήμματος — The comparative adjective ἐλάσσων takes a genitive (λήμματος), meaning "inferior to" or "yielding to". Here it figuratively describes Callicrates' greedy nature, meaning he was "unable to resist (a slave to) any kind of bribe or gain."
  3. §7.12.3ἀκόντων Ἀχαιῶν — A genitive absolute construction consisting of the present participle ἀκόντων and the noun Ἀχαιῶν, expressing concession ("even though the Achaeans were unwilling" / "against the will of the Achaeans").
  4. §7.12.8οὐδὲ οἶδα εἰ ἀφικόμενος ἐς Ῥώμην ὠφέλησεν ἄν τι Ἀχαιοὺς ἢ κακῶν σφισιν ἐγένετο μειζόνων ἀρχή — In the indirect question clause introduced by εἰ, the conclusion of a past contrary-to-fact condition is expressed by ἄν with the aorist indicative (ōphelēsen an). It conveys the author's doubt about a past possibility that did not occur: "whether, if he had reached Rome, he would have benefited the Achaeans, or (as indeed happened) became the beginning of greater evils."

Cite this passage

Pausanias, Description of Greece §7.12.1-7.12.9. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0525.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:7.12.1-7.12.9

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.