Humanitext Reader

Polybius · The Histories §2.45.1-2.45.7

Aetolian Plot against Achaea and Aratus's Countermeasures

Passage 133 of 1311 · Greek

Summary

An overview of how the Aetolians, envious of the Achaean League's growth, attempted to partition their cities by forming an alliance with Antigonus of Macedon and Cleomenes of Sparta, and how Aratus thwarted their plans.

§2.45.1ὁλοσχερεστέρας δὲ γενομένης αὐξήσεως διὰ ταῦτα καὶ προκοπῆς περὶ τὸ ἔθνος, Αἰτωλοὶ διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον ἀδικίαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν φθονήσαντες, τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἐλπίσαντες καταδιελέσθαι τὰς πόλεις, καθάπερ καὶ πρότερον τὰς μὲν Ἀκαρνάνων διενείμαντο πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον, τὰς δὲ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἐπεβάλοντο πρὸς Ἀντίγονον τὸν Γονατᾶν, §2.45.2καὶ τότε παραπλησίαις ἐλπίσιν ἐπαρθέντες ἀπετόλμησαν Ἀντιγόνῳ τε τῷ κατʼ ἐκείνους τοὺς καιροὺς προεστῶτι Μακεδόνων, ἐπιτροπεύοντι δὲ Φιλίππου παιδὸς ὄντος, καὶ Κλεομένει τῷ βασιλεῖ Λακεδαιμονίων κοινωνεῖν καὶ συμπλέκειν ἀμφοτέροις ἅμα τὰς χεῖρας.
When a more complete growth and progress had thus taken place in the nation, the Aetolians, envying them because of their innate injustice and greed, and still more hoping to partition the cities, just as they had formerly divided those of the Acarnanians with Alexander, and had planned to divide those of the Achaeans with Antigonus Gonatas, were on this occasion also excited by similar hopes, and ventured to associate themselves both with Antigonus, who at that time was at the head of Macedon as guardian of Philip, who was still a child, and with Cleomenes, the king of the Lacedaemonians, and to join hands with both at the same time.
§2.45.3ὁρῶντες γὰρ τὸν Ἀντίγονον κυριεύοντα μὲν τῶν κατὰ Μακεδονίαν ἀσφαλῶς, ὁμολογούμενον δὲ καὶ πρόδηλον ἐχθρὸν ὄντα τῶν Ἀχαιῶν διὰ τὸ τὸν Ἀκροκόρινθον πραξικοπήσαντας καταλαβεῖν, §2.45.4ὑπέλαβον, εἰ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους προσλαβόντες ἔτι κοινωνοὺς σφίσι τῆς ἐπιβολῆς προεμβιβάσαιεν εἰς τὴν πρὸς τὸ ἔθνος ἀπέχθειαν, ῥᾳδίως ἂν καταγωνίσασθαι τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ἐν καιρῷ συνεπιθέμενοι καὶ πανταχόθεν περιστήσαντες αὐτοῖς τὸν πόλεμον.
For seeing that Antigonus held secure dominion over Macedon, and was an acknowledged and open enemy of the Achaeans because they had taken Acrocorinth by a coup de main, they supposed that if, by taking the Lacedaemonians also as associates in their enterprise, they could first lead them into hostility towards the nation, they would easily defeat the Achaeans, by attacking them in cooperation at a favorable moment and surrounding them with war on all sides.
§2.45.5ὃ δὴ καὶ ταχέως ἂν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ λόγον ἐπετέλεσαν, εἰ μὴ τὸ κυριώτατον παρεῖδον τῆς προθέσεως, οὐ συλλογισάμενοι διότι ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς Ἄρατον ἕξουσιν ἀνταγωνιστήν, ἄνδρα δυνάμενον πάσης εὐστοχεῖν περιστάσεως.
And this indeed they would have quickly accomplished in the course of reason, had they not overlooked the most vital part of their purpose, failing to reckon that they would have Aratus as an opponent to their enterprises, a man capable of rising to every emergency.
§2.45.6τοιγαροῦν ὁρμήσαντες ἐπὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν καὶ χειρῶν ἄρχειν ἀδίκων οὐχ οἷον ἤνυσάν τι τῶν ἐπινοηθέντων, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον καὶ τὸν Ἄρατον τότε προεστῶτα καὶ τὸ ἔθνος ἐσωματοποίησαν, πραγματικῶς ἀντιπερισπάσαντος ἐκείνου καὶ λυμηναμένου τὰς ἐπιβολὰς αὐτῶν.
Consequently, though they set out to meddle in affairs and to begin unjust acts of aggression, so far from achieving any of their designs, they on the contrary consolidated both Aratus, who was then at the head, and the nation, since he practically counteracted and ruined their enterprises.
§2.45.7ὡς δʼ ἐχειρίσθη τὰ ὅλα, δῆλον ἔσται διὰ τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων.
How the whole matter was managed will be made clear by what is about to be told.

Notes

  1. §2.45.3διὰ τὸ τὸν Ἀκροκόρινθον πραξικοπήσαντας καταλαβεῖν — The subject of the infinitive `καταλαβεῖν` is represented by the accusative plural participle `πραξικοπήσαντας`, referring to the Achaeans. Although not explicitly named in the immediate clause, they are understood from the historical context (the capture of Acrocorinth by Aratus).
  2. §2.45.4ὑπέλαβον, εἰ ... προεμβιβάσαιεν ... ῥᾳδίως ἂν καταγωνίσασθαι — A conditional sentence in indirect discourse. While the protasis (eἰ-clause) uses the optative `προεμβιβάσαιεν`, the apodosis is expressed by the infinitive `καταγωνίσασθαι` with `ἂν`, dependent on the verb of thinking `ὑπέλαβον`, representing a potential optative in direct discourse.
  3. §2.45.5ὃ δὴ καὶ ταχέως ἂν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ λόγον ἐπετέλεσαν, εἰ μὴ ... παρεῖδον — A past contrary-to-fact conditional sentence. The apodosis with `ἂν` and the past indicative (`ἂν ... ἐπετέλεσαν`) combined with the protasis using `εἰ` and the past indicative (`εἰ μὴ ... παρεῖδον`) indicates an event that did not actually happen in the past.
  4. §2.45.5διότι — Here, `διότι` does not mean 'because', but functions as equivalent to `ὅτι` introducing a noun clause ('that'), which acts as the object of the participle `συλλογισάμενοι` ('reckoning / considering').
  5. §2.45.6οὐχ οἷον — The idiom `οὐχ οἷον ... ἀλλά (καί)` functions to express a strong contrast: 'so far from [doing something], they on the contrary [did something else]', similar in usage to `οὐχ ὅπως`.

Cite this passage

Polybius, The Histories §2.45.1-2.45.7. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:2.45.1-2.45.7

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.