3.

He rightly alleges, as a proof of the affinity subsisting reciprocally between the Eleii and the Ætolians, these inscriptions, both of which recognise not the affinity alone, but also that their founders had established settlers in each other’s country. Whence he clearly convicts those of falsehood who assert, that the Eleii were a colony of Ætolians, and that the Ætolians were not a colony of Eleii. But he seems to exhibit the same inconsistency in his positions here, that we proved689 with regard to the oracle at Delphi. For after asserting that Ætolia had never been ravaged by war from all time of which there was any memorial, and saying, that from the first the Curetes were in possession of this country, he ought to have inferred from such premises, that the Curetes continued to occupy the country of Ætolia to his days. For in this manner it might be understood never to have been devastated, nor in subjection to any other nation. But forgetting his position, he does not infer this, but the contrary, that Ætolus came from Elis, and having defeated the Curetes in various battles, these people retreated into Acarnania. What else then is there peculiar to the devastation of a country than the defeat of the inhabitants in war and their abandonment of their land, which is evinced by the inscription among the Eleii; for speaking of Ætolus the words are,

“he obtained possession of the country of the Curetes by the continued toils of war.”