Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 41
Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. and Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., Ed.

24. After him Archo, brother of the general Xenarchus, spoke as follows: “Difficult indeed has Callicrates made the task of speaking for me and for all of us who disagree with him; for by pleading the cause of the Roman alliance he himself. [2] by alleging that it is being endangered and attacked, although no one is either endangering or attacking it, has brought it to pass that whoever should disagree with him would seem to be speaking against the Romans. [3] And first of all, just as if he had not been here with us, but were either coming from the senate-house of the Roman people or were a sharer in the secrets of kings, he knows everything and reports everything which has been done in concealment. [4] He even foretells what would have happened if Philip had lived, why Perseus became heir to the throne in such a [p. 267]way, what preparations the Macedonians are making,¹ what the Romans are considering. [5] But we who know neither for what reason or in what manner Demetrius died nor what Philip would have done if he had lived, ought to adjust our decision to those events which are taking place in full view. [6] And we do know that Perseus, having gained the throne, was saluted as king by the Roman people: we hear that Roman ambassadors came to King Perseus and that they were courteously received. [7] All these things I, for my part, interpret as signs of peace, not war; nor can the Romans be offended if, as we followed them in waging war, we now follow them likewise as sponsors of peace. Why indeed we, alone of men, should wage unrelenting war against the Kingdom of the Macedonians, I do not see. Are we vulnerable because of our very proximity to Macedonia? Or are we, like the Dolopians whom he has just subdued, the weakest of all mortals? [8] No, on the contrary, by the grace of the gods, either our own strength or the distance which separates us makes us secure. [9] Grant that we are as much at the mercy of the king as the Thessalians, and the Aetolians; have we no more credit and standing in the eyes of the Romans, we who have always been their allies and friends, than the Aetolians, who but a short time ago were their enemies? Whatever rights exist between the Macedonians and the Aetolians, the Thessalians, the Epirotes, in a word, all Greece, let us also possess. [10] Why should we alone experience that accursed [p. 269]loosening, so to speak, of human ties? Assume that Philip² has done something for which we should pass this decree against him when he was armed and waging war; [11] what has Perseus deserved, a new king, innocent of all wrong, who now wipes out by his kindness the memory of his father's quarrels, that we alone of all men should be his enemies? [12] And yet I might have said even this, that so great were the benefits conferred upon us by former kings of Macedonia that they, especially now that he is dead, wipe out the memory of wrongs committed by Philip alone, if perchance there were such. [13] Does it not come to mind that when the Roman fleet lay at Cenchreae and the consul with his army was at Elatia, we spent three days in the council deliberating whether we should follow the Romans or Philip?³ Grant that no immediate fear of the Romans affected our judgment: there was certainly something, nevertheless, which caused so long consideration; and this was our long-standing association with the Macedonians and the ancient and great services rendered us by their kings. Let the ancient arguments prevail even now, not to make us conspicuously their friends, but to prevent our being conspicuously their [15] enemies. Let us not pretend, Callicrates, that the question is being settled which is not being settled. No one counsels us to make a new alliance or conclude a new treaty by which we may without knowing it entangle ourselves in difficulties; only intercourse of proffering and receiving justice, and that we shall not exclude ourselves from the territory of the kingdom by barring our frontiers to [16] them; that it may not be permitted our slaves to flee anywhere —how is that against the Roman treaties? [p. 271]Why do we turn a slight and open matter into one⁴ that is important and suspicious? Why do we stir up groundless [17] alarms? Why, in order that we may have an opportunity to flatter the Romans, do we bring others under suspicion and [18] distrust? If there is to be war not even Perseus doubts that we will follow the Romans; in peace, even if hatreds are not ended, let them be suspended.”

When the same persons who had applauded the king's letter applauded this speech, on account of the indignation of the chiefs, that what Perseus did not deem deserving even of an embassy he should secure by means of a letter a few lines long, the decree was [19] deferred. Later on ambassadors were sent by the king, at the time when the council was meeting at Megalopolis, and precautions were taken by the party which feared that the Romans would take [20??] offence, that they should not be received.