§5.67.1πλὴν καὶ τότε τῶν πρέσβεων ἀφικομένων οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Σωσίβιον ἕτοιμοι πρὸς πᾶν, §5.67.2ὁ δʼ Ἀντίοχος μεγίστην ἐποιεῖτο σπουδὴν εἰς τὸ καθάπαξ καὶ τοῖς ὅπλοις καὶ τοῖς δικαίοις ἐπὶ τῶν ἐντεύξεων καταπεριεῖναι τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας.
Nevertheless, on this occasion also, when the envoys arrived, while Sosibius and his party were ready for any contingency, Antiochus was making the greatest effort to completely master the envoys from Alexandria during the interviews, both by force of arms and by right of argument.
§5.67.3ᾗ καὶ παραγενομένων τῶν πρεσβευτῶν εἰς τὴν Σελεύκειαν, καὶ συγκαταβαινόντων εἰς τοὺς κατὰ μέρος ὑπὲρ τῆς διαλύσεως λόγους κατὰ τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Σωσίβιον ἐντολάς, §5.67.4ὁ μὲν βασιλεὺς τὸ μὲν ἄρτι γεγονὸς ἀτύχημα καὶ προφανὲς ἀδίκημα περὶ τῆς ἐνεστώσης καταλήψεως τῶν περὶ Κοίλην Συρίαν τόπων οὐ δεινὸν ἐνόμιζε κατὰ τὰς δικαιολογίας,
Consequently, when the envoys arrived at Seleucia and entered into detailed discussions regarding the treaty of peace, in accordance with the instructions from Sosibius and his party, the king, in his legal arguments, did not consider the recently occurred misfortune and manifest injustice concerning the present occupation of the districts of Coele-Syria to be of serious consequence.
§5.67.5τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον οὐδʼ ἐν ἀδικήματι, κατηριθμεῖτο τὴν πρᾶξιν, ὡς καθηκόντων αὐτῷ τινων ἀντιπεποιημένος,
Indeed, for the most part, he did not even reckon the action as an injustice, maintaining that he had merely laid claim to things that rightfully belonged to him.
§5.67.6τὴν δὲ πρώτην Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Μονοφθάλμου κατάληψιν καὶ τὴν Σελεύκου δυναστείαν τῶν τόπων τούτων ἐκείνας ἔφη κυριωτάτας εἶναι καὶ δικαιοτάτας κτήσεις, καθʼ ἃς αὐτοῖς, οὐ Πτολεμαίῳ, καθήκειν τὰ κατὰ Κοίλην Συρίαν· §5.67.7καὶ γὰρ Πτολεμαῖον διαπολεμῆσαι πρὸς Ἀντίγονον οὐχ αὑτῷ, Σελεύκῳ δὲ συγκατασκευάζοντα τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν τόπων τούτων.
He asserted that the original occupation by Antigonus Monophthalmus and the sovereignty of Seleucus over these regions were the most valid and rightful possessions, by virtue of which the affairs of Coele-Syria belonged to them, not to Ptolemy; for Ptolemy had waged war against Antigonus, not for himself, but to help establish the sovereignty of Seleucus over these regions.
§5.67.8μάλιστα δὲ τὸ κοινὸν ἐπιέζει πάντων τῶν βασιλέων συγχώρημα, καθʼ οὓς καιροὺς Ἀντίγονον νικήσαντες, καὶ βουλευόμενοι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ὁμόσε πάντες, Κάσσανδρος, Λυσίμαχος, Σέλευκος, ἔκριναν Σελεύκου τὴν ὅλην Συρίαν ὑπάρχειν.
Most of all, Antiochus pressed the joint agreement of all the kings, at which time, having defeated Antigonus, and all consulting together with one purpose, Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus decided that the whole of Syria belonged to Seleucus.
§5.67.9οἱ δὲ παρὰ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τἀναντία τούτων ἐπειρῶντο συνιστάνειν· τό τε γὰρ παρὸν ηὖξον ἀδίκημα καὶ δεινὸν ἐποίουν τὸ γεγονός, εἰς παρασπόνδημα τὴν Θεοδότου προδοσίαν καὶ τὴν ἔφοδον ἀνάγοντες τὴν Ἀντιόχου, §5.67.10προεφέροντο δὲ καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου κτήσεις, φάσκοντες ἐπὶ τούτῳ συμπολεμῆσαι Σελεύκῳ Πτολεμαῖον, ἐφʼ ᾧ τὴν μὲν ὅλης τῆς Ἀσίας ἀρχὴν Σελεύκῳ περιθεῖναι, τὰ δὲ κατὰ Κοίλην Συρίαν αὑτῷ κατακτήσασθαι καὶ Φοινίκην.
But Ptolemy's envoys attempted to establish the very opposite of these claims; for they magnified the present injustice and made a serious matter of what had happened, attributing the treachery of Theodotus and the invasion of Antiochus to a breach of treaty, and they also brought forward the possessions of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, asserting that Ptolemy had joined Seleucus in the war on the condition that, while they should invest Seleucus with the sovereignty of all Asia, Ptolemy should acquire Coele-Syria and Phoenicia for himself.
§5.67.11ἐλέγετο μὲν οὖν ταῦτα καὶ παραπλήσια τούτοις πλεονάκις ὑπʼ ἀμφοτέρων κατὰ τὰς διαπρεσβείας καὶ τὰς ἐντεύξεις, ἐπετελεῖτο δὲ τὸ παράπαν οὐδέν, ἅτε τῆς δικαιολογίας γινομένης διὰ τῶν κοινῶν φίλων, μεταξὺ δὲ μηδενὸς ὑπάρχοντος τοῦ δυνησομένου παρακατασχεῖν καὶ κωλῦσαι τὴν τοῦ δοκοῦντος ἀδικεῖν ὁρμήν.
These and similar arguments were frequently urged by both parties in the course of their embassies and interviews, but absolutely nothing was accomplished, since the negotiation was conducted through common friends, and there was no mediator between them who could restrain and prevent the impulse of the party deemed to be acting unjustly.
§5.67.12μάλιστα δὲ παρεῖχε δυσχρηστίαν ἀμφοτέροις τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἀχαιόν· Πτολεμαῖος μὲν γὰρ ἐσπούδαζε περιλαβεῖν ταῖς συνθήκαις αὐτόν, §5.67.13Ἀντίοχος δὲ καθάπαξ οὐδὲ λόγον ἠνείχετο περὶ τούτων, δεινὸν ἡγούμενος τὸ καὶ τολμᾶν τὸν Πτολεμαῖον περιστέλλειν τοὺς ἀποστάτας καὶ μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι περί τινος τῶν τοιούτων.
What caused the greatest embarrassment to both sides was the question of Achaeus; for Ptolemy was anxious to include him in the treaty, while Antiochus would not even tolerate a single word on the subject, thinking it monstrous that Ptolemy should even dare to protect rebels and make mention of any such person.