|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | -----------------------------
| + | Moved to [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/augustine/civitate-2.htm here]. |
| − | ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK III
| |
| − | ---------------------------
| |
| − | | |
| − | Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#c0|Introduction]]
| |
| − | *[[#c1|Chapter 1]] Of the Ills Which Alone the Wicked Fear, and Which the World Continually Suffered, Even When the Gods Were Worshipped
| |
| − | *[[#c2|Chapter 2]] Whether the Gods, Whom the Greeks and Romans Worshipped in Common, Were Justified in Permitting the Destruction of Ilium
| |
| − | *[[#c3|Chapter 3]] That the Gods Could Not Be Offended by the Adultery of Paris, This Crime Being So Common Among Themselves
| |
| − | *[[#c4|Chapter 4]] Of Varro's Opinion, that It is Useful for Men to Feign Themselves the Offspring of the Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c5|Chapter 5]] That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus
| |
| − | *[[#c6|Chapter 6]] That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus
| |
| − | *[[#c7|Chapter 7]] Of the Destruction of Ilium by Fimbria, a Lieutenant of Marius
| |
| − | *[[#c8|Chapter 8]] Whether Rome Ought to Have Been Entrusted to the Trojan Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Whether It is Credible that the Peace During the Reign of Numa Was Brought About by the Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c10|Chapter 10]] Whether It Was Desirable that The Roman Empire Should Be Increased by Such a Furious Succession of Wars, When It Might Have Been Quiet and Safe by Following in the Peaceful Ways of Numa
| |
| − | *[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Of the Statue of Apollo at Cumж, Whose Tears are Supposed to Have Portended Disaster to the Greeks, Whom the God Was Unable to Succor
| |
| − | *[[#c12|Chapter 12]] That the Romans Added a Vast Number of Gods to Those Introduced by Numa, and that Their Numbers Helped Them Not at All
| |
| − | *[[#c13|Chapter 13]] By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives
| |
| − | *[[#c14|Chapter 14]] Of the Wickedness of the War Waged by the Romans Against the Albans, and of the Victories Won by the Lust of Power
| |
| − | *[[#c15|Chapter 15]] What Manner of Life and Death the Roman Kings Had
| |
| − | *[[#c16|Chapter 16]] Of the First Roman Consuls, the One of Whom Drove the Other from the Country, and Shortly After Perished at Rome by the Hand of a Wounded Enemy, and So Ended a Career of Unnatural Murders
| |
| − | *[[#c17|Chapter 17]] Of the Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic After the Inauguration of the Consulship, and of the Non-Intervention of the Gods of Rome
| |
| − | *[[#c18|Chapter 18]] The Disasters Suffered by the Romans in the Punic Wars, Which Were Not Mitigated by the Protection of the Gods
| |
| − | *[[#c19|Chapter 19]] Of the Calamity of the Second Punic War, Which Consumed the Strength of Both Parties
| |
| − | *[[#c20|Chapter 20]] Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome
| |
| − | *[[#c21|Chapter 21]] Of the Ingratitude of Rome to Scipio, Its Deliverer, and of Its Manners During the Period Which Sallust Describes as the Best
| |
| − | *[[#c22|Chapter 22]] Of the Edict of Mithridates, Commanding that All Roman Citizens Found in Asia Should Be Slain
| |
| − | *[[#c23|Chapter 23]] Of the Internal Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic, and Followed a Portentous Madness Which Seized All the Domestic Animals
| |
| − | *[[#c24|Chapter 24]] Of the Civil Dissension Occasioned by the Sedition of the Gracchi
| |
| − | *[[#c25|Chapter 25]] Of the Temple of Concord, Which Was Erected by a Decree of the Senate on the Scene of These Seditions and Massacres
| |
| − | *[[#c26|Chapter 26]] Of the Various Kinds of Wars Which Followed the Building of the Temple of Concord
| |
| − | *[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Of the Civil War Between Marius and Sylla
| |
| − | *[[#c28|Chapter 28]] Of the Victory of Sylla, the Avenger of the Cruelties of Marius
| |
| − | *[[#c29|Chapter 29]] A Comparison of the Disasters Which Rome Experienced During the Gothic and Gallic Invasions, with Those Occasioned by the Authors of the Civil Wars
| |
| − | *[[#c30|Chapter 30]] Of the Connection of the Wars Which with Great Severity and Frequency Followed One Another Before the Advent of Christ
| |
| − | *[[#c31|Chapter 31]] That It is Effrontery to Impute the Present Troubles to Christ and the Prohibition of Polytheistic Worship Since Even When the Gods Were Worshipped Such Calamities Befell the People
| |
| − | | |
| − |
| |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=46%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=54%|Latin
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK III</b> [] ||The City of God (Book III) Argument-As in the foregoing book Augustin has proved regarding moral and spiritual calamities, so in this book he proves regarding external and bodily disasters, that since the foundation of the city the Romans have been continually subject to them; and that even when the false gods were worshipped without a rival, before the advent of Christ, they afforded no relief from such calamities.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK III</b> [I] Iam satis dictum arbitror de morum malis et animorum, quae praecipue cavenda sunt, nihil deos falsos populo cultori suo, quo minus eorum malorum aggere premeretur, subvenire curasse, sed potius, ut maxime premeretur, egisse. Nunc de illis malis video dicendum, quae sola isti perpeti nolunt, qualia sunt fames morbus, bellum exspoliatio, captivitas trucidatio, et si qua similia iam in primo libro commemoravimus. Haec enim sola mali deputant mala, quae non faciunt malos; nec erubescunt inter bona, quae laudant, ipsi mali esse qui laudant, magisque stomachantur, si villam malam habeant, quam si vitam, quasi hoc sit hominis maximum bonum, habere bona omnia praeter se ipsum. Sed neque talia mala, quae isti sola formidant, dii eorum, quando ab eis libere colebantur, ne illis acciderent obstiterunt. Cum enim variis per diversa temporibus ante adventum Redemptoris nostri innumerabilibus nonnullisque etiam incredibilibus claudius genus contereretur humanum, quos alios quam istos deos mundus colebat, excepto uno populo Hebraeo et quibusdam extra ipsum populum, ubicumque gratia divina digni occultissimo atque iustissimo Dei iudicio fuerunt? Verum ne nimis longum faciam, tacebo aliarum usquequaque gentium mala gravissima: quod ad Romam pertinet Romanumque imperium tantum loquar, id est ad ipsam proprie civitatem et quaecumque illi terrarum vel societate coniunctae vel condicione subiectae sunt, quae sint perpessae ante adventum Christi, cum iam ad eius quasi corpus rei publicae pertinerent. ||Of moral and spiritual evils, which are above all others to be deprecated, I think enough has already been said to show that the false gods took no steps to prevent the people who worshipped them from being overwhelmed by such calamities, but rather aggravated the ruin. I see I must now speak of those evils which alone are dreaded by the heathen-famine, pestilence, war, pillage, captivity, massacre, and the like calamities, already enumerated in the first book. For evil men account those things alone evil which do not make men evil; neither do they blush to praise good things, and yet to remain evil among the good things they praise. It grieves them more to own a bad house than a bad life, as if it were man's greatest good to have everything good but himself. But not even such evils as were alone dreaded by the heathen were warded off by their gods, even when they were most unrestrictedly worshipped. For in various times and places before the advent of our Redeemer, the human race was crushed with numberless and sometimes incredible calamities; and at that time what gods but those did the world worship, if you except the one nation of the Hebrews, and, beyond them, such individuals as the most secret and most just judgment of God counted worthy of divine grace? But that I may not be prolix, I will be silent regarding the heavy calamities that have been suffered by any other nations, and will speak only of what happened to Rome and the Roman empire, by which I mean Rome properly so called, and those lands which already, before the coming of Christ, had by alliance or conquest become, as it were, members of the body of the state.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK III</b> [II] Primum ipsa Troia vel Ilium, unde origo est populi Romani, (neque enim praetereundum aut dissimulandum est, quod et in primo libro adtigi) eosdem habens deos et colens cur a Graecis victum, captum atque deletum est? "Priamo, inquiunt, sunt reddita Laomedontea paterna periuria." Ergo verum est, quod Apollo atque Neptunus eidem Laomedonti mercennariis operibus seruierunt? Illis quippe promisisse mercedem falsumque iurasse perhibetur. Miror Apollinem nominatum divinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus. Quamquam nec ipsum Neptunum patruum eius, fratrem Iovis, regem maris, decuit ignarum esse futurorum. Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris Roma est, cum ante illam urbem conditam idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid divinantem, quem etiam nube rapuit, ut dicit, ne ab Achille occideretur, cuperet cum vertere ab imo, quod aput Vergilium confitetur, Structa suis manibus periurae moenia Troiae. Nescientes igitur tanti dii, Neptunus et Apollo, Laomedontem sibi negaturum esse mercedem structores moenium Troianorum gratis et ingratis fuerunt. Videant ne gravius sit tales deos credere quam diis talibus peierare. Hoc enim nec ipse Homerus facile credidit, qui Neptunum quidem contra Troianos, Apollinem autem pro Troianis pugnantem facit, cum illo periurio ambos fabula narret offensos. Si igitur fabulis credunt, erubescant talia colere numina; si fabulis non credunt, non obtemdant Troiana periuria, aut merentur deos periuria punisse Troiana, amasse Romana, Vnde enim coniuratio Catilinae in tanta tamque corrupta civitate habuit etiam eorum grandem copiam, quos manus atque lingua periurio aut sanguine civili alebat? Quid enim aliud totiens senatores corrupti in iudiciis, totiens populus in suffragiis vel in quibusque causis, quae apud eum contionibus agebantur, nisi etiam peierando peccabant? Namque corruptissimis moribus ad hoc mos iurandi servabatur antiquus, non ut ab sceleribus metu religionis prohiberentur, sed ut periuria quoque sceleribus ceteris adderentur. ||First, then, why was Troy or Ilium, the cradle of the Roman people (for I must not overlook nor disguise what I touched upon in the first book), conquered, taken and destroyed by the Greeks, though it esteemed and worshipped the same gods as they? Priam, some answer, paid the penalty of the perjury of his father Laomedon. Then it is true that Laomedon hired Apollo and Neptune as his workmen. For the story goes that he promised them wages, and then broke his bargain. I wonder that famous diviner Apollo toiled at so huge a work, and never suspected Laomedon was going to cheat him of his pay. And Neptune too, his uncle, brother of Jupiter, king of the sea, it really was not seemly that he should be ignorant of what was to happen. For he is introduced by Homer (who lived and wrote before the building of Rome) as predicting something great of the posterity of Жneas, who in fact founded Rome. And as Homer says, Nep tune also rescued Жneas in a cloud from the wrath of Achilles, though (according to Virgil)"All his will was to destroyHis own creation, perjured Troy."Gods, then, so great as Apollo and Neptune, in ignorance of the cheat that was to defraud them of their wages, built the walls of Troy for nothing but thanks and thankless people. There may be some doubt whether it is not a worse crime to believe such persons to be gods, than to cheat such gods. Even Homer himself did not give full credence to the story for while he represents Neptune, indeed, as hostile to the Trojans, he introduces Apollo as their champion, though the story implies that both were offended by that fraud. If, therefore, they believe their fables, let them blush to worship such gods; if they discredit the fables, let no more be said of the "Trojan perjury;" or let them explain how the gods hated Trojan, but loved Roman perjury. For how did the conspiracy of Catiline, even in so large and corrupt a city, find so abundant a supply of men whose hands and tongues found them a living by perjury and civic broils? What else but perjury corrupted the judgments pronounced by so many of the senators? What else corrupted the people's votes and decisions of all causes tried before them? For it seems that the ancient practice of taking oaths has been preserved even in the midst of the greatest corruption, not for the sake of restraining wickedness by religious fear, but to complete the tale of crimes by adding that of perjury.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK III</b> [III] Nulla itaque causa est, quare dii, quibus, ut dicunt, steterat illud imperium, cum a Graecis praeualentibus probentur victi, Troianis peierantibus fingantur irati. Nec adulterio Paridis, ut rursus a quibusdam defenduntur, ut Troiam desererent, suscensuerunt. Auctores enim doctoresque peccatorum esse adsolent, non ultores. "Vrbem Romam, inquit Sallustius, sicuti ego accepi, condidere atque habuere initio Troiani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis uagabantur." Si ergo adulterium Paridis vindicandum numinaa censuerunt, aut magis in Romanis aut certe etiam in Romanis puniendum fuit, quia Aeneae mater hoc fecit. Sed quo modo in illo illud flagitium oderant qui in sua socia Venere non oderant (ut alia omittam) quod cum Anchise commiserat, ex quo Aenean pepererat? An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? Dii enim, credo, non zelant coniuges suas, usque adeo ut eas etiam cum hominibus dignentur habere communes. Inridere fabulas fortassis existimor nec graviter agere tanti ponderis causam. Non ergo credamus, si placet, Aenean esse Veneris filium: ecce concedo, si nec Romulum Martis. Si autem illud, cur non et illud? An deos <fas est> hominibus feminis, mares autem homines deabus misceri nefas? Dura vel potius non credenda condicio, quod ex iure Veneris in concubitu Marti licuit, hoc in iure suo ipsi Veneri non licere. At utrumque firmatum est auctoritate Romana. Neque enim minus credidit recentior Caesar aviam Venerem quam patrem antiquior Romulus Martem. ||There is no ground, then, for representing the gods (by whom, as they say, that empire stood, though they are proved to have been conquered by the Greeks) as being enraged at the Trojan perjury. Neither, as others again plead in their defence, was it indignation at the adultery of Paris that caused them to withdraw their protection from Troy. For their habit is to be instigators and instructors in vice, not its avengers. "The city of Rome," says Sallust, "was first built and inhabited, as I have heard, by the Trojans, who, flying their country, under the conduct of Жneas, wandered about without making any settlement." If, then, the gods were of opinion that the adultery of Paris should be punished, it was chiefly the Romans, or at least the Romans also, who should have suffered; for the adultery was brought about by Жneas' mother. But how could they hate in Paris a crime which they made no objection to in their own sister Venus, who (not to mention any other instance) committed adultery with Anchises, and so became the mother of Жneas? Is it because in the one case Menelaus was aggrieved, while in the other Vulcan connived at the crime? For the gods, I fancy, are so little jealous of their wives, that they make no scruple of sharing them with men. But perhaps I may be suspected of turning the myths into ridicule, and not handling so weighty a subject with sufficient gravity. Well, then, let us say that Жneas is not the son of Venus. I am willing to admit it; but is Romulus any more the son of Mars? For why not the one as well as the other? Or is it lawful for gods to have intercourse with women, unlawful for men to have intercourse with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus, should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. However, both cases have the authority of Rome; for Cжsar in modern times believed no less that he was descended from Venus, than the ancient Romulus believed himself the son of Mars.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK III</b> [IV] Dixerit aliquis: Itane tu ista credis? Ego vero ista non credo. Nam et vir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse, quamuis non audacter neque fidenter, paene tamen fatetur. Sed utile esse civitatibus dicit, ut se viri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, diis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus velut divinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas praesumat audacius, agat uehementius et ob hoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius. Quae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis verbis cernis quam latum locum aperiat falsitati, ut ibi intellegamus plura iam sacra et quasi religiosa potuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt civibus etiam de ipsis diis prodesse mendacia. ||Some one will say, But do you believe all this? Not I indeed. For even Varro, a very learned heathen, all but admits that these stories are false, though he does not boldly and confidently say so. But he maintains it is useful for states that brave men believe, though falsely, that they are descended from the gods; for that thus the human spirit, cherishing the belief of its divine descent, will both more boldly venture into great enterprises, and will carry them out more energetically, and will therefore by its very confidence secure more abundant success. You see how wide a field is opened to falsehood by this opinion of Varro's, which I have expressed as well as I could in my own words; and how comprehensible it is, that many of the religions and sacred legends should be feigned in a community in which it was judged profitable for the citizens that lies should be told even about the gods themselves.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK III</b> [V] Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Ancisae Aenean parere vel Mars ex concubitu filiae Numitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinguamus. Nam paene talis quaestio etiam de scripturis nostris oboritur, qua quaeritur, utrum praeuaricatores angeli cum filiabus hominum concubuerint, unde natis gigantibus, hoc est nimium grandibus ac fortibus viris, tunc terra completa est. Proinde ad utrumque interim <modo> nostra disputatio referatur. Si enim vera sunt, quae apud illos de matre Aeneae et de patre Romuli lectitantur, quo modo possunt diis adulteria displicere hominum, quae in se ipsis concorditer ferunt? Si autem falsa sunt, ne sic quidem possunt irasci veris adulteriis humanis, qui etiam falsis delectantur suis. Huc accedit, quoniam, si illud de Marte non creditur, ut hoc quoque de Venere non credatur, nullo divini concubitus obtentu matris romuli causa defenditur. Fuit autem sacerdos illa Vestalis ,et ideo dii magis in Romanos sacrilegum illud flagitium quam in Troianos Paridis adulterim vindicare debuerunt. Nam et ipsi Romani antiqui in stupro detectas Vestae sacerdotes vivas etiam defodiebant, adulteras autem feminas, quamuis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant: usque adeo gravius quae putabant adyta divina quam humana cubilia vindicabant. ||But whether Venus could bear Жneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled questions. For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I will limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books relate about the mother of Жneas and the father of Romulus be true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure? If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really commit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods, they delight in. Moreover, if the adultery of Mars be discredited, that Venus also may be freed from the imputation, then the mother of Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction. For Sylvia was a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this sacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris' adultery on the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times used to go so far as to bury alive any vestal who was detected in adultery, while women unconsecrated, though they were punished, were never punished with death for that crime; and thus they more earnestly vindicated the purity of shrines they esteemed divine, than of the human bed.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK III</b> [VI] Aliud adicio, quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent, ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignibusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moveret Romuli frater occisus quam contra Troianos Graecus maritus inlusus; magis inritaret parricidium nascentis quam regnantis adulterium civitatis. Nec ad causam, quam nunc agimus, interest, utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, quod multi inpudentia negant, multi pudore dubitant, multi dolore dissimulant. Nec nos itaque in ea re diligentius requirenda per multorum scriptorum perpensa testimonia demoremur: Romuli fratrem palam constat occisum, non ab hostibus, non ab alienis. Si aut perpetravit aut imperavit hoc Romulus, magis ipse fuit Romanorum quam Paris Troianorum caput; cur igitur Troianis iram deorum prouocavit ille alienae coniugis raptor, et eorumdem deorum tutelam Romanis inuitavit iste sui fratris extinctor? Si autem illud scelus a facto imperioque Romuli alienum est: quoniam debuit utique vindicari, tota hoc illa civitas fecit, quod tota contempsit, et non iam fratrem, sed patrem, quod est peius, occidit. Vterque enim fuit conditor, ubi alter scelere ablatus non permissus est esse regnator. Non est, ut arbitror, quod dicatur quid mali Troia meruerit, ut eam dii desererent, quo posset extingui, et quid boni Roma, ut eam dii inhabitarent, quo posset augeri; nisi quod victi inde fugerunt et se ad istos, quos pariter deciperent, contulerunt; immo vero et illic manserunt ad eos more suo decipiendos, qui rursus easdem terras habitarent, et hic easdem artem fallaciae suae magis etiam exercendo maioribus honoribus gloriati sunt. ||I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus' brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born city should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already flourishing. It makes no difference to the question we now discuss, whether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with his own hand; it is a crime which many shamelessly deny, many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject. All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man's wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he who took his brother's life obtained the guardianship of those same gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable with it, because it did not see to its punishment, and thus committed, not fratricide, but parricide, which is worse. For both brothers were the founders of that city, of which the one was by villainy prevented from being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their characteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who re-peopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their malignant arts, they exulted in more abundant honors.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK III</b> [VII] Certe enim civilibus iam bellis scatentibus quid miserum commiserat Ilium, ut a Fimbria, Marianarum partium homine pessimo, euerteretur, multo ferocius atque crudelius quam olim a Graecis? Nam tunc et multi inde fugerunt et multi captivati saltem in seruitute vixerunt; porro autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit, ne cui parceretur, atque urbem totam cunctosque in ea homines incendio concremavit. Hoc meruit Ilium non a Graecis quos sua inritaverat iniquitate, sed a Romanis quos sua calamitate propagaverat, diis illis communibus ad haec repellenda nihil ivuantibus seu, quod verum est, nihil valentibus. Numquid et tunc Abscessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus illud oppidum steterat post antiquos Graecorum ignes ruinasque reparatum? Si autem abscesserant, causam requiro, et oppidanorum quidem quanto invenio meliorem, tanto deteriorem deorum. Illi enim contra Fimbriam portas clauserant, ut Sullae servarent integram civitatem; hinc eos iratus incendit vel potius penitus extinxit. Adhuc autem meliorum partium civilium Sulla dux fuit, adhuc armis rem publicam recuperare moliebatur; horum bonorum initiorum nondum malos euentus habuit. Quid ergo melius cives urbis illius facere potuerunt, quid honestius, quid fidelius, quid Romana parentela dignius quam meliori causae Romanorum civitatem servare et contra parricidam Romanae rei publicae portas claudere? At hoc eis in quantum exitium verterit, adtendant defensores deorum. Deseruerint dii adulteros Iliumque flammis Graecorum reliquerint, ut ex eius cineribus Roma castior naxceretur: cur et postea deseruerunt eandem civitatem Romanis cognatam, non rebellantem adversus Romam nobilem filiam, sed iustioribus eius partibus fidem constantissimam piissimamque servantem, eamque delendam reliquerunt non Graecorum viris fortibus, sed viro spurcissimo Romanorum? Aut si displicebat diis causa partium Sullanarum, cui servantes urbem miseri portas clauserant: cur eidem Sullae tanta bona promittebant et praenuntiabant? An et hic agnoscuntur adulatores felicium potius quam infelicium defensores? Non ergo Ilium etiam tunc, ab eis cum desereretur, euersum est. Nam daemones ad decipiendum semper vigilantissimi, quod potuerunt, fecerunt. Euersis quippe et incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Mineruae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Livius, integrum stetisse perhibetur, non ut <diceretur>: Di patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troia est, ad eorum laudem, sed ne diceretur: Excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, ad eorum defensionem. Illud enim posse permissi sunt, non unde probarentur potentes, sed unde praesentes conuincerentur. ||And surely we may ask what wrong poor Ilium had done, that, in the first heat of the civil wars of Rome, it should suffer at the hand of Fimbria, the veriest villain among Marius' partisans, a more fierce and cruel destruction than the Grecian sack. For when the Greeks took it many escaped, and many who did not escape were suffered to live, though in captivity. But Fimbria from the first gave orders that not a life should be spared, and burnt up together the city and all its inhabitants. Thus was Ilium requited, not by the Greeks, whom she had provoked by wrong-doing; but by the Romans, who had been built out of her ruins; while the gods, adored alike of both sides, did simply nothing, or, to speak more correctly, could do nothing. Is it then true, that at this time also, after Troy had repaired the damage done by the Grecian fire, all the gods by whose help the kingdom stood, "forsook each fane, each sacred shrine?"But if so, I ask the reason; for in my judgment, the conduct of the gods was as much to be reprobated as that of the townsmen to be applauded. For these closed their gates against Fimbria, that they might preserve the city for Sylla, and were therefore burnt and consumed by the enraged general. Now, up to this time, Sylla's cause was the more worthy of the two; for till now he used arms to restore the republic, and as yet his good intentions had met with no reverses. What better thing, then, could the Trojans have done? What more honorable, what more faithful to Rome, or more worthy of her relationship, than to preserve their city for the better part of the Romans, and to shut their gates against a parricide of his country? It is for the defenders of the gods to consider the ruin which this conduct brought on Troy. The gods deserted an adulterous people, and abandoned Troy to the fires of the Greeks, that out of her ashes a chaster Rome might arise. But why did they a second time abandon this same town, allied now to Rome, and not making war upon her noble daughter, but preserving a most steadfast and pious fidelity to Rome's most justifiable faction? Why did they give her up to be destroyed, not by the Greek heroes, but by the basest of the Romans? Or, if the gods did not favor Sylla's cause, for which the unhappy Trojans maintained their city, why did they themselves predict and promise Sylla such successes? Must we call them flatterers of the fortunate, rather than helpers of the wretched? Troy was not destroyed, then, because the gods deserted it. For the demons, always watchful to deceive, did what they could. For, when all the statues were overthrown and burnt together with the town, Livy tells us that only the image of Minerva is said to have been found standing uninjured amidst the ruins of her temple; not that it might be said in their praise, "The gods who made this realm divine," but that it might not be said in their defence, They are "gone from each fane, each sacred shrine:" for that marvel was permitted to them, not that they might be proved to be powerful, but that they might be convicted of being present.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK III</b> [VIII] Diis itaque Iliacis post Troiae ipsius documentum qua tandem prudentia Roma custodienda commissa est? Dixerit quispiam iam eos Romae habitare solitos, quando expugnante Fimbria cecidit Ilium. Vnde ergo stetit Mineruae simulacrum? Deinde, si apud Romam erant, quando Fimbria delevit Ilium, fortasse aput Ilium erant, quando a Gallis ipsa Roma capta et incensa est; sed ut sunt auditu acutissimi motuque celerrimi, ad vocem anseris cito redierunt, ut saltem Capitolinum collem, qui remanserat, turerentur; ceterum ad alia defendenda serus sunt redire commoniti. ||Where, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to the Trojan gods, who had demonstrated their weakness in the loss of Troy? Will some one say that, when Fimbria stormed Troy, the gods were already resident in Rome? How, then, did the image of Minerva remain standing? Besides, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy, perhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was taken and set on fire by the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing, and very swift in their movements, they came quickly at the cackling of the goose to defend at least the Capitol, though to defend the rest of the city they were too long in being warned.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK III</b> [IX] Hi etiam Numam Pompilium successorem Romuli adivuisse creduntur, ut toto regni sui tempore pacem haberet et Iani portas, quae bellis patere adsolent, clauderet, eo merito scilicet, quia Romanis multa sacra constituit. Illi vero homini pro tanto otio gratulandum fuit, si modo id rebus salubribus scisset impendere et perniciosissima curiositate neglaecta Deum verum vera pietate perquirere. Nunc autem non ei dii contulerunt illud otium, sed eum minus fortasse decepissent, si otiosum minime repperissent. Quanto enim minus eum occupatum invenerunt, tanto magis ipsi occupaverunt. Nam quid ille molitus sit et quibus artibus deos tales sibi vel illi civitati consociare potuerit, Varro prodit, quod, si Domino placuerit, suo diligentius disseretur loco. Modo autem quia de beneficiis eorum quaestio est: magnum beneficium est pax, sed Dei veri beneficium est, plerumque etiam sicut sol, sicut pluuia vitaeque alia subsidia super ingratos et nequam. Sed si hoc tam magnum bonum dii illi Romae vel Pompilio contulerunt, cur imperio Romano per ipsa tempora laudabilia id numquam postea praestiterunt? An utiliora erant sacra, cum instituerentur, quam cum instituta celebrarentur? Atqui tunc nondum erant, sed ut essent addebantur; postea vero iam erant, quae ut prodessent custodiebantur. Quid ergo est, quod illi quadraginta tres vel, ut alii volunt, triginta et novem anni in tam longa pace transacti sunt regnante Numa, et postea sacris institutis diisque ipsis, qui eisdem sacris fuerant inuitati, iam praesidibus atque tutoribus vix post tam multos annos ab Vrbe condita usque ad Augustum pro magno miraculo unus commemoratur annus post primum bellum Punicum, quo belli portas Romani claudere potuerunt? ||It is also believed that it was by the help of the gods that the successor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peace during his entire reign, and shut the gates of Janus, which are customarily kept open during war. And it is supposed he was thus requited for appointing many religious observances among the Romans. Certainly that king would have commanded our congratulations for so rare a leisure, had he been wise enough to spend it on wholesome pursuits, and, subduing a pernicious curiosity, had sought out the true God with true piety. But as it was, the gods were not the authors of his leisure; but possibly they would have deceived him less had they found him busier. For the more disengaged they found him, the more they themselves occupied his attention. Varro informs us of all his efforts, and of the arts he employed to associate these gods with himself and the city; and in its own place, if God will, I shall discuss these matters. Meanwhile, as we are speaking of the benefits conferred by the gods, I readily admit that peace is a great benefit; but it is a benefit of the true God, which, like the sun, the rain, and other supports of life, is frequently conferred on the ungrateful and wicked. But if this great boon was conferred on Rome and Pompilius by their gods, why did they never afterwards grant it to the Roman empire during even more meritorious periods? Were the sacred rites more efficient at their first institution than during their subsequent celebration? But they had no existence in Numa's time, until he added them to the ritual; whereas afterwards they had already been celebrated and preserved, that benefit might arise from them. How, then, is it that those forty-three, or as others prefer it, thirty-nine years of Numa's reign, were passed in unbroken peace, and yet that afterwards, when the worship was established, and the gods themselves, who were invoked by it, were the recognized guardians and pa trons of the city, we can with difficulty find during the whole period, from the building of the city to the reign of Augustus, one year-that, viz., which followed the close of the first Punic war-in which, for a marvel, the Romans were able to shut the gates of war?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK III</b> [X] An respondent, quod nisi assiduis sibique continuo succedentibus bellis Romanum imperium tam longe lateque non posset augeri et tam grandi gloria diffamari? Idonea vero causa! Vt magnum esset imperium, cur esse deberet inquietum? Nonne in corporibus hominum satius est modicam staturam cum sanitate habere quam ad molem aliquam giganteam perpetuis adflictionibus pervenire, nec cum perueneris requiescere, sed quanto grandioribus membris, tanto maioribus agitari malis? Quid autem mali esset, ac non potius plurimum boni, si ea tempora perdurarent, quae perstrinxit Sallustius, ubi ait: "Igitur initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit) diversi pars ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiamtum vita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur, sua cuique satis placebant." An ut tam multum augeretur imperium, debuit fieri quod Vergilius dedestatur, dicens: Deterior donec paulatim ac decolor aetas Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi? Sed plane pro tantis bellis susceptis et gestis iusta defensio Romanorum est, quod inruentibus sibi inportune inimicis resistere cogebat non aviditas adipiscendae laudis humanae, sed necessitas tuendae salutis et libertatis. Ita sit plane. Nam "postquam res eorum, sicut scribit ipse Sallustius, legibus moribus agris aucta satis prospera satisque pollens videbatur, sicut pleraque mortalium habentur, inuidia ex opulentia orta est. Igitur reges populique finitimi bello temptare; pauci ex amicis auxilio esse, nam ceteri metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti festinare parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obuiam ire, libertatem patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post ubi pericula virtute propulerant, sociis atque amicis auxilia portabant magisque dandis quam accipiendis beneficiis amicitias parabant." Decenter his artibus Roma crevit. Sed regnante Numa, ut tam longa pax esset, utrum inruebant inprobi belloque temptabant, an nihil eorum fiebat, ut posset pax illa persistere? Si enim bellis etiam tum Roma lacessebatur nec armis arma obuia ferebantur: quibus modis agebatur, ut nulla pugna superati, nullo Martio impetu territi sedarentur inimici, his modis semper ageretur et semper Roma clausis Iani portis pacata regnaret. Quod si in potestate non fuit, non ergo Roma pacem habuit, quamdiu dii eorum, sed quamdiu homines finitimi circumquaque voluerunt, qui eam nullo bello prouocaverunt; nisi forte dii tales etiam id homini vendere audebunt, quod alius homo voluit sive noluit. Interest quidem, iam vitio proprio, malas mentes quatenus sinantur isti daemones vel terrere vel excitare; sed si semper hoc possent nec aliud secretiore ac superiore potestate contra eorum conatum saepe aliter ageretur, semper in potestate haberent paces bellicasque victorias, quae semper fere per humanorum animorum motus accidunt; quas tamen plerumque contra eorum fieri voluntatem non solae fabulae multa mentientes et vix veri aliquid vel indicantes vel significantes, sed etiam ipsa Romana confitetur historia. ||Do they reply that the Roman empire could never have been so widely extended, nor so glorious, save by constant and unintermitting wars? A fit argument, truly! Why must a kingdom be distracted in order to be great? In this little world of man's body, is it not better to have a moderate stature, and health with it, than to attain the huge dimensions of a giant by unnatural torments, and when you attain it to find no rest, but to be pained the more in proportion to the size of your members? What evil would have resulted, or rather what good would not have resulted, had those times continued which Sallust sketched, when he says, "At first the kings (for that was the first title of empire in the world) were divided in their sentiments: part cultivated the mind, others the body: at that time the life of men was led without coveteousness; every one was sufficiently satisfied with his own!" Was it requisite, then, for Rome's prosperity, that the state of things which Virgil reprobates should succeed:"At length stole on a baser ageAnd war's indomitable rage,And greedy lust of gain?"But obviously the Romans have a plausible defence for undertaking and carrying on such disastrous wars,-to wit, that the pressure of their enemies forced them to resist, so that they were compelled to fight, not by any greed of human applause, but by the necessity of protecting life and liberty. Well, let that pass. Here is Sallust's account of the matter: "For when their state, enriched with laws, institutions, territory, seemed abundantly prosperous and sufficiently powerful, according to the ordinary law of human nature, opulence gave birth to envy. Accordingly, the neighboring kings and states took arms and assaulted them. A few allies lent assistance; the rest, struck with fear, kept aloof from dangers. But the Romans, watchful at home and in war, were active, made preparations, encouraged one another, marched to meet their enemies,-protected by arms their liberty, country, parents. Afterwards, when they had repelled the dangers by their bravery, they carried help to their allies and friends, and procured alliances more by conferring than by receiving favors." This was to build up Rome's greatness by honorable means. But, in Numa's reign, I would know whether the long peace was maintained in spite of the incursions of wicked neighbors, or if these incursions were discontinued that the peace might be maintained? For if even then Rome was harassed by wars, and yet did not meet force with force, the same means she then used to quiet her enemies without conquering them in war, or terrifying them with the onset of battle, she might have used always, and have reigned in peace with the gates of Janus shut. And if this was not in her power, then Rome enjoyed peace not at the will of her gods, but at the will of her neighbors round about, and only so long as they cared to provoke her with no war, unless perhaps these pitiful gods will dare to sell to one man as their favor what lies not in their power to bestow, but in the will of another man. These demons, indeed, in so far as they are permitted, can terrify or incite the minds of wicked men by their own peculiar wickedness. But if they always had this power, and if no action were taken against their efforts by a more secret and higher power, they would be supreme to give peace or the victories of war, which almost always fall out through some human emotion, and frequently in opposition to the will of the gods, as is proved not only by lying legends, which scarcely hint or signify any grain of truth, but even by Roman history itself.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK III</b> [XI] Neque enim aliunde Apollo ille Cumanus, cum adversus Achivos regemque Aristonicum bellaretur, quadriduo flevisse nuntiatus est; quo prodigio haruspices territi cum id simulacrum in mare putavissent esse proiciendum, Cumani senes intercesserunt atque rettulerunt tale prodigium et Antiochi et Persis bello in eodem apparuisse figmento, et quia Romanis feliciter provenisset, ex senatus consulto eidem Apollini suo dona missa esse testati sunt. Tunc velut peritiores acciti haruspices responderunt simulacri Apollinis fletum ideo prosperum esse Romanis, quoniam Cumana colonia Graeca esset, suisque terris, unde accitus esset, id est ipsi Graeciae, luctum et cladem Apollinem significasse plorantem. Deinde mox regem Aristnicum victum et captum esse nuntiatum est, quem vinci utique Apollo nolebat et dolebat et hoc sui lapidis etiam lacrimis indicabat. Vnde non usquequaque incongrue quamuis fabulosis, tamen veritati similibus mores daemonum descirbuntur carminibus poetarum. Nam Camillam Diana doluit apud Vergilium et Pallantem moriturum Hercules flevit. Hinc fortassis et Numa Pompilius pace abundans, sed quo donante nesciens nec requirens, cum cogitaret otiosus, quibusnam diis tuendam Romanam salutem regnumque committeret, nec verum illum atque omnipotentem summum Deum curare opinaretur ista terrena, atque recoleret Troianos deos, quos Aeneas advexerat, neque Troianum neque Laviniense ab ipso Aenea conditum regnum diu conservare potuisse: alios providendos existimavit, quos illis prioribus, qui sive cum Romulo iam Romam transierant, sive quandoque Alba euersa fuerant transituri, vel tamquam fugitivis custodes adhiberet vel tamquam inualidis adiutores. ||And it is still this weakness of the gods which is confessed in the story of the Cuman Apollo, who is said to have wept for four days during the war with the Achжans and King Aristonicus. And when the augurs were alarmed at the portent, and had determined to cast the statue into the sea, the old men of Cumж interposed, and related that a similar prodigy had occurred to the same image during the wars against Antiochus and against Perseus, and that by a decree of the senate, gifts had been presented to Apollo, because the event had proved favorable to the Romans. Then soothsayers were summoned who were supposed to have greater professional skill, and they pronounced that the weeping of Apollo's image was propitious to the Romans, because Cumж was a Greek colony, and that Apollo was bewailing (and thereby presaging) the grief and calamity that was about to light upon his own land of Greece, from which he had been brought. Shortly afterwards it was reported that King Aristonicus was defeated and made prisoner,-a defeat certainly opposed to the will of Apollo; and this he indicated by even shedding tears from his marble image. And this shows us that, though the verses of the poets are mythical, they are not altogether devoid of truth, but describe the manners of the demons in a sufficiently fit style. For in Virgil, Diana mourned for Camilla, and Hercules wept for Pallas doomed to die. This is perhaps the reason why Numa Pompilius, too, when, enjoying prolonged peace, but without knowing or inquiring from whom he received it, he began in his leisure to consider to what gods he should entrust the safe keeping and conduct of Rome, and not dreaming that the true, almighty, and most high God cares for earthly affairs, but recollecting only that the Trojan gods which Жneas had brought to Italy had been able to preserve neither the Trojan nor Lavinian kingdom rounded by Жneas himself, concluded that he must provide other gods as guardians of fugitives and helpers of the weak, and add them to those earlier divinities who had either come over to Rome with Romulus, or when Alba was destroyed.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK III</b> [XII] Nec his sacris tamen Roma dignata est esse contenta, quae tam multa illic Pompilius constituerat. Nam ipsius summum templum nondum habebat Iovis; rex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capitolium fabricavit; Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambivit ad Romam, ut peritissimus medicus in urbe nobilissima artem gloriosius exerceret; mater etiam deum nescio unde a Pessinunte; indignum enim erat, ut, cum eius filius iam colli Capitolino praesideret, adhuc ipsa in loco ignobili latitaret. Quae tamen si omnium deorum mater est, non solum secuta est Romam quosdam filios suos, verum et alios praecessit etiam secuturos. Miror sane, si ipsa peperit Cynocephalum, qui longe postea venit ex Aegypto. Vtrum etiam dea Febris ex illa nata sit, viderit Aesculapius pronepos eius; sed undecumque nata sit, non, opinor, audebunt eam dicere ignobilem dii peregrini deam civem Romanam. Sub hoc tot deorum praesidio (quos numerare quis potest, indigenas et alienigenas, caelites terrestres, infernos marinos, fontanos fluuiales, et, ut Varro dicit, certos atque incertos, in omnibusque generibus deorum, sicut in animalibus, mares et feminas?) _ - sub hoc ergo tot deorum praesidio constituta Roma non tam magnis et horrendis cladibus, quales ex multis paucas commemorabo, agitari adfligique debuit. Nimis enim multos deos grandi fumo suo tamquam signo dato ad tuitionem congregaverat, quibus tampla altaria, sacrificia sacerdotes instituendo atque paraebendo summum verum Deum, cui uni haec rite gesta debentur, offenderet. Et felicior quidem cum paucioribus vixit, sed quanto maior facta est, sicut navis nautas, tanto plures adhibendos putavit; credo, desperans pauciores illos, sub quibus in comparatione peioris vitae melius vixerat, non sufficere ad opitulandum granditati suae. Primo enim sub ipsis regibus, excepto Numa Pompilio, de quo iam supra locutus sum, quantum malum discordiosi certaminis fuit, quod fratrem Romuli coegit occidi! ||But though Pompilius introduced so ample a ritual, yet did not Rome see fit to be content with it. For as yet Jupiter himself had not his chief temple,-it being King Tarquin who built the Capitol. And Жsculapius left Epidaurus for Rome, that in this foremost city he might have a finer field for the exercise of his great medical skill. The mother of the gods, too, came I know not whence from Pessinuns; it being unseemly that, while her son presided on the Capitoline hill, she herself should lie hid in obscurity. But if she is the mother of all the gods, she not only followed some of her children to Rome, but left others to follow her. I wonder, indeed, if she were the mother of Cynocephalus, who a long while afterwards came from Egypt. Whether also the goddess Fever was her offspring, is a matter for her grandson Жsculapius to decide. But of whatever breed she be, the foreign gods will not presume, I trust, to call a goddess base-born who is a Roman citizen. Who can number the deities to whom the guardianship of Rome was entrusted? Indigenous and imported, both of heaven, earth, hell, seas, fountains, rivers; and, as Varro says, gods certain and uncertain, male and female: for, as among animals, so among all kinds of gods are there these distinctions. Rome, then, enjoying the protection of such a cloud of deities, might surely have been preserved from some of those great and horrible calamities, of which I can mention but a few. For by the great smoke of her altars she summoned to her protection, as by a beacon-fire, a host of gods, for whom she appointed and maintained temples, altars, sacrifices, priests, and thus offended the true and most high God, to whom alone all this ceremonial is lawfully due. And, indeed, she was more prosperous when she had fewer gods; but the greater she became, the more gods she thought she should have, as the larger ship needs to be manned by a larger crew. I suppose she despaired of the smaller number, under whose protection she had spent comparatively happy days, being able to defend her greatness. For even under the kings (with the exception of Numa Pompilius, of whom I have already spoken), how wicked a contentiousness must have existed to occasion the death of Romulus' brother!
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK III</b> [XIII] Quo modo nec Iuno, quae cum Iove suo iam fovebat Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam, nec Venus ipsa Aeneidas suos potuit adivuare, ut bono et aequo more coniungia mererentur, cladesque tanta inruit huius inopiae, ut ea dolo raperent moxque compellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur? At enim vicerunt in hac conflictione Romani vicinos suos. Quantis et quam multis utrimque uulneribus et funeribus tam propinquorum et confinium istae victoriae constiterunt! Propter unum Caesarem socerum et unum generum eius Pompeium iam mortua Caesaris filia, uxore Pompei, quanto et quam iusto doloris instinctu Lucanus exclamat: Bella per Emathios plus quam civilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus. Vicerunt ergo Romani, ut strage socerorum manibus cruentis ab eorum filiabus amplexus mierabiles extorquerunt, nec illae auderent flere patres occisos, ne offenderent victores maritos, quae adhuc illis pugnantibus pro quibus facerent vota nesciebant. Talibus nuptiis populum Romanum non Venus, sed Bellona donavit; aut fortassis Allecto illa inferna furia iam eis favente Iunone plus in illos habuit licentiae, quam cum eius precibus contra Aenean fuerat excitata. Andromacha felicius captivata est, quam illa coniugia Romana nupserunt. Licet seruiles, tamen post eius amplexus nullum Troianorum Pyrrhus occidit; Romani autem soceros interficiebant in proeliis, quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. Illa victori subdita dolere tantum suorum mortem potuit, non timere; illae sociatae bellantibus parentum suorum mortes procedentibus viris timebant, redeuntibus dolebant, nec timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum civium propinquorum, fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur, aut crudeliter laetabantur victoriis maritorum. Huc accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt viros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et viros. Neque enim et apud Romanos parua fuerunt illa discrimina, si quidem ad obsidionem quoque peruentum est civitatis clausisque portis se tuebantur; quibus dolo apertis admissisque hostibus intra moenia in ipso foro scelerata et nimis atrox inter generos socerosque pugna commissa est, et raptores illi etiam superabantur et crebro fugientes inter domos suas gravius foedabant pristinas, quamuis et ipsas pudendas lugendasque victorias. Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam virtute desperans Iovem oravit ut starent, atque ille hac occasione nomen Statoris invenit; nec finis esset tanti mali, nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent et prouolutae parentibus iram eorum iustissimam non armis victricibus, sed supplici pietate sedarent. Deinde Titum Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre compulsus est, germani consortis inpatiens: sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Vnde et ipso interfecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solus obtinut. Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis, societatis divinitatis? quae postremo sub tot diis tutoribus vita civitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio et sermo in alia festinaret. ||How is it that neither Juno, who with her husband Jupiter even then cherishedRome's sons, the nation of the gown,nor Venus herself, could assist the children of the loved Жneas to find wives by some right and equitable means? For the lack of this entailed upon the Romans the lamentable necessity of stealing their wives, and then waging war with their fathers-in-law; so that the wretched women, before they had recovered from the wrong done them by their husbands, were dowried with the blood of their fathers. "But the Romans conquered their neighbors." Yes; but with what wounds on both sides, and with what sad slaughter of relatives and neighbors! The war of Cжsar and Pompey was the contest of only one father-in-law with one son-in-law; and before it began, the daughter of Cжsar, Pompey's wife, was already dead. But with how keen and just an accent of grief does Lucan exclaim: "I sing that worse than civil war waged in the plains of Emathia, and in which the crime was justified by the victory!"The Romans, then, conquered that they might, with hands stained in the blood of their fathers-in-law, wrench the miserable girls from their embrace,-girls who dared not weep for their slain parents, for fear of offending their victorious husbands; and while yet the battle was raging, stood with their prayers on their lips, and knew not for whom to utter them. Such nuptials were certainly prepared for the Roman people not by Venus, but Bellona; or possibly that infernal fury Alecto had more liberty to injure them now that Juno was aiding them, than when the prayers of that goddess had excited her against Жneas. Andromache in captivity was happier than these Roman brides. For though she was a slave, yet, after she had become the wife of Pyrrhus, no more Trojans fell by his hand; but the Romans slew in battle the very fathers of the brides they fondled. Andromache, the victor's captive, could only mourn, not fear, the death of her people. The Sabine women, related to men still combatants, feared the death of their fathers when their husbands went out to battle, and mourned their death as they returned, while neither their grief nor their fear could be freely expressed. For the victories of their husbands, involving the destruction of fellow-townsmen, relatives, brothers, fathers, caused either pious agony or cruel exultation. Moreover, as the fortune of war is capricious, some of them lost their husbands by the sword of their parents, while others lost husband and father together in mutual destruction. For the Romans by no means escaped with impunity, but they were driven back within their walls, and defended themselves behind closed gates; and when the gates were opened by guile, and the enemy admitted into the town, the Forum itself was the field of a hateful and fierce engagement of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. The ravishers were indeed quite defeated, and, flying on all sides to their houses, sullied with new shame their original shameful and lamentable triumph. It was at this juncture that Romulus, hoping no more from the valor of his citizens, prayed Jupiter that they might stand their ground; and from this occasion the god gained the name of Stator. But not even thus would the mischief have been finished, had not the ravished women themselves flashed out with dishevelled hair, and cast themselves before their parents, and thus disarmed their just rage, not with the arms of victory, but with the supplications of filial affection. Then Romulus, who could not brook his own brother as a colleague, was compelled to accept Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, as his partner on the throne. But how long would he who misliked the fellowship of his own twin-brother endure a stranger? So, Tatius being slain, Romulus remained sole king, that he might be the greater god. See what rights of marriage these were that fomented unnatural wars. These were the Roman leagues of kindred, relationship, alliance, religion. This was the life of the city so abundantly protected by the gods. You see how many severe things might be said on this theme; but our purpose carries us past them, and requires our discourse for other matters.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK III</b> [XIV] Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo, sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia videlicet pax Numae tam longa viluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Allbanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio civitatis! Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creavit Ascanius, Romae mater propior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adflixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc atque inde fratribus placuit experiri: a Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processrunt; a Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et extincti sunt. Ita Roma extitit victrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus, nisi Aeneae stirpi nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris nisi nepotibus Iovis? Nam et hoc plus quam civile bellum fuit, quando filia civitas cum civitate matre pugnavit. Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox atque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici (uicini quippe atque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in victore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre, quoniam flevit, occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam universi populi Romani mihi fuisse videtur affectus. Illa quem virum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens, qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit. Vnde enim aput Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremptum manu? Vnde Marcellus Syracusanam civitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso ab humano impetremus affectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremptum sine crimine fleuerit, si viri hostes a se victos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem civitatem tanta strage bellasse et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione vicisse Roma gaudebat. Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque victoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur. Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis nulla similis invenitur; tantum ut resides moveret Tullus in arma viros et iam desueta triumphis Agmina. Illo itaque vitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli atque cognati, quod vitium Sallustius magnum transeunter adtingit. Cum enim laudans breviter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando vita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant: "Postea vero, inquit, quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes atque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare", et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. Mihi huc usque satis sit eius verba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc victa Albam se vicisse triumphabat et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur. Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: Magnus ille atque ille, quia cum illo et illo pugnavit et vicit. Pugnant etiam gladiatores, vincunt et ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam ilorum armorum quaerere gloriam. Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius, alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? quis non auferret? Quo modo ergo gloriosum alterius matris, alterius filiae civitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? An ideo diversum fuit, quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum, sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus implebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed universo obri, et tunc vivis et postris, quo usque ista fama porrigitur, impium spectaculum praebebatur? Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui dii illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremptos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro dubus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae vicerat. Deinde ad fructum victoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lavinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum atque fugituum constituerat, tertio loco habitaverant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde iam fortasse migraverant, ideo deleta est. Discesserant videlicet omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat. Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio, ut eis quarta Roma providentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat, ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnaverat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur, transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam, ut ex tutraque una civitas fieret. Esto, ita factum sit; urbs tamen illa, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit. Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata, quae victoriis finita videbantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? non paruum indicium calamitatis huius fuit, quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot diis praesidibus in pace regnavit. ||But what happened after Numa's reign, and under the other kings, when the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to themselves alone, but also to the Romans? The long peace of Numa had become tedious; and with what endless slaughter and detriment of both states did the Roman and Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba, which had been founded by Ascanius, son of Жneas, and which was more properly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provoked to battle by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflict both inflicted and received such damage, that at length both parties wearied of the struggle. It was then devised that the war should be decided by the combat of three twin-brothers from each army: from the Romans the three Horatii stood forward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two of the Horatii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; but by the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. Thus Rome remained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that only one survivor returned to his home. Whose was the loss on both sides? Whose the grief, but of the offspring of Жneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter? For this, too, was a "worse than civil" war, in which the belligerent states were mother and daughter. And to this combat of the three twin-brothers there was added another atrocious and horrible catastrophe. For as the two nations had formerly been friendly (being related and neighbors), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii; and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of her betrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother in his anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humane than the whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for lamenting the man to whom already she had plighted her troth, or, as perhaps she was doing, for grieving that her brother should have slain him to whom he had promised his sister. For why do we praise the grief of Жneas (in Virgil) over the enemy cut down even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus shed tears over the city of Syracuse, when he recollected, just before he destroyed, its magnificence and meridian glory, and thought upon the common lot of all things? I demand, in the name of humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over enemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not be counted criminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by the hand of her brother. While, then, that maiden was weeping for the death of her betrothed inflicted by her brother's hand, Rome was rejoicing that such devastation had been wrought on her mother state, and that she had purchased a victory with such an expenditure of the common blood of herself and the Albans.Why allege to me the mere names and words of "glory" and "victory?" Tear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look at the naked deeds: weigh them naked, judge them naked. Let the charge be brought against Alba, as Troy was charged with adultery. There is no such charge, none like it found: the war was kindled only in order that there"Might sound in languid ears the cryOf Tullus and of victory."This vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to that social and parricidal war,-a vice which Sallust brands in passing; for when he has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive times in which life was spent without covetousness, and every one was sufficiently satisfied with what he had, he goes on: "But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty a sufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory consisted in the greatest empire;" and so on, as I need not now quote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human race with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory. For, as our Scriptures say, "the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, and blesses the covetous, whom the Lord abhors." Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a "great" man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, one being father, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? who would not be revolted by it? How, then, could that be a glorious war which a daughter-state waged against its mother? Or did it constitute a difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the wide plains were filled with the carcasses not of two gladiators, but of many of the flower of two nations; and that those contests were viewed not by the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished a profane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to their posterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?Yet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as it were, theatric spectators of such contests as these, were not satisfied until the sister of the Horatii was added by her brother's sword as a third victim from the Roman side, so that Rome herself, though she won the day, should have as many deaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the victory, Alba was destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had formed a third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, and after they had left Lavinium, where Жneas had founded a kingdom in a land of banishment. But probably Alba was destroyed because from it too the gods had migrated, in their usual fashion, as Virgil says:"Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,Are those who made this realm divine."Gone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Rome might seem all the wiser in committing herself to them after they had deserted three other cities. Alba, whose king Amulius had banished his brother, displeased them; Rome, whose king Romulus had slain his brother, pleased them. But before Alba was destroyed, its population, they say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome so that the two cities were one. Well, admitting it was so, yet the fact remains that the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan gods, was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect this pitiful conglomerate of the war's leavings, much blood was spilt on both sides. And how shall I speak in detail of the same wars, so often renewed in subsequent reigns, though they seemed to have been finished by great victories; and of wars that time after time were brought to an end by great slaughters, and which yet time after time were renewed by the posterity of those who had made peace and struck treaties? Of this calamitous history we have no small proof, in the fact that no subsequent king closed the gates of war; and therefore with all their tutelar gods, no one of them reigned in peace.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK III</b> [XV] Ipsorum autem regum qui exitus fuerunt? De Romulo viderit adulatio fabulosa, qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; viderint quidam scriptores eorum, qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt subornatumque nescio quem Iulium Proculum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano, ut inter numina coleretur, eoque modo populum, qui contra senatum intumescere coeperat, repressum atque sedatum. Acciderat enim et solis defectio, quam certa ratione sui cursus effectam imperita nesciens multitudo meritis Romuli tribuebat. Quasi vero si luctus ile solis fuisset, non magis ideo credi deberet occisus ipsumque scelus aversione etiam diurni luminis indicatum; sicut re vera factum est, cum Dominus crucifixus est crudelitate atque impietate Iudaeorum. Quam solis obscrationem non ex canonico siderum cursu accidisse satis ostendit, quod tunc erat pascha Iudaeorum; namplena luna sollemniter agitur, regularis autem solis defectio non nisi lunae fine contingit. Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris de re publica Scipionisque sermone: "Tantum est, inquit, consecutus, ut, cum subito sole obscurato non comparuisset, deorum in numero conlocatus putaretur, quam opinionem nemo umquam mortalis assequi potuit sine eximia virtutis gloria." (Quod autem dicit eum subito non comparuisse, profecto ibi intellegitur aut violentia tempestatis aut caedis facionorisque secretum; nam et alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem, quae profecto aut occasionem sceleri praebuit aut Romulum ipsa consumpsit.) De tullo quippe etiam Hostilio, qui tertius a Romulo rex fuit, qui et ipse fulmine absumptus est, dicit in eisdem libris idem Cicero, propterea et istum non creditum in deos receptum tali morte, quia fortasse quod erat in Romulo probatu, id est persuasum, Romani uulgare noluerunt, id est vile facere, si hoc et alteri facile tribueretur. Dicit etiam aperte in invectivis: "Illum, qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum ad deos immortales benivolentia famaque sustulimus", ut non vere factum, sed propter merita virtutis eius benivole iactatum diffamatumque monstraret. In Hortensio vero dialogo cum de solis canonicis defectionibus loqueretur: "Vt easem, inquit, tenebras efficiat, quas efficit <in> interitu Romuli, qui obscuratione solis est factus." Certe hic minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, quia disputator magis quam laudator fuit. Ceteri autem reges populi Romani, excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio, qui morbo interierunt, quam horrendos exitus habuerunt! Tullus, ut dixi, Hostilius, victor et euersor Albae, cum tota domo sua fulmine concrematus est. Priscus Tarquinius per sui decessoris filios interemptus est. Seruius Tullius generi sui Tarquinii Superbi, qui ei successit in rgunum, nefario scelere occisus est. Nec "discessere adytis arisque relictis di" tanto in optimum illius populi regem parricidio perpetrato, quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque graecis diruendam exurendamque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos; sed insuper interfecto a se socero Tarquinius ipse sucessit. Hunc illi dii nefarium parricidam soceri interfectione regnantem, insuper multis bellis victoriisque gloriantem et de manubiis Capitolium fabricantem non abscedentes, sed praesentes manentesque viderunt et regem suum Iovem in illo altissimo templo, hoc est in opere parricidae, sibi praesidere atque regnare perpessi sunt. Neque enim adhuc innocens Capitolium struxit et postea malis meritis Vrbe pulsus est, sed ad ipsum regnum, in quo Capitolium fabricaret, inmanissimi sceleris perpetratione pervenit. Quod vero eum regno Romani postea depulerunt ac secluserunt moenibus civitatis, non ipsius de Lucretiae stupro, sed filii peccatum fuit illo non solum nesciente, sed etiam absente commissum. Ardeam civitatem tunc oppugnabat, pro populo Romano bellum gerebat; nescimus quid faceret, si ad eius notitiam flagitium filii deferretur; et tamen inexplorato iudicio eius et inexperto ei populus ademit imperium et recepto exercitu, a quo deseri iussus est, clausis deinde portis non sivit intrare redeuntem. At ille post bella gravissima, quibus eosdem Romanos concitatis finitimis adtrivit, postea quam desertus ab eis quorum fidebat auxilio regnum recipere non eualuit, in oppido Tusculo Romae vicino quttuordecim, ut fertur, annos privatam vitam quietus habuit et cum uxore consenuit, optabiliore fortassis exitu quam socer eius, generi sui facinore nec ignorante filia, sicut perhibetur, extinctus. Nec tamen istum Tarquinium Romani crudelem aut sceleratum, sed superbum appelaverunt, fortasse regios eius fastus alia superbia non ferentes. Nam scelus occisi ab eo soceri optimi regis sui usque adeo contempserunt, ut eum regem suum facerent; ubi miror, si non scelere graviore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. Nec "discessere adytis arisque relictis di." Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, ut dicat eos ideo mansisse Romae, quo possent magis Romanos punire suppliciis quam beneficiis adivuare, seducentes eos uanis victoriis et bellis gravissimis conterentes. Haec fuit Romanorum vita sub regibus laudabili tempore illius rei publicae usque ad expulsionem Tarquinii Superbi per ducentos ferme et squadraginta et tres annos, cum illae omnes victoriae tam multo sanguine et tantis emptae calamitatibus vix illud imperium intra viginti ab Vrbe milia dilataverint; quantum spatium absit ut saltem alicuius Getulae civitatis nunc terriotiro comparetur. ||And what was the end of the kings themselves? Of Romulus, a flattering legend tells us that he was assumed into heaven. But certain Roman historians relate that he was torn in pieces by the senate for his ferocity, and that a man, Julius Proculus, was suborned to give out that Romulus had appeared to him, and through him commanded the Roman people to worship him as a god; and that in this way the people, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course: though this grief of the sun might rather have been considered proof that Romulus had been slain, and that the crime was indicated by this deprivation of the sun's light; as, in truth, was the case when the Lord was crucified through the cruelty and impiety of the Jews. For it is sufficiently demonstrated that this latter obscuration of the sun did not occur by the natural laws of the heavenly bodies, because it was then the Jewish Passover, which is held only at full moon, whereas natural eclipses of the sun happen only at the last quarter of the moon. Cicero, too, shows plainly enough that the apotheosis of Romulus was imaginary rather than real, when, even while he is praising him in one of Scipio's remarks in the De Republica, he says: "Such a reputation had he acquired, that when he suddenly disappeared during an eclipse of the sun, he was supposed to have been assumed into the number of the gods, which could be supposed of no mortal who had not the highest reputation for virtue." By these words, "he suddenly disappeared," we are to understand that he was mysteriously made away with by the violence either of the tempest or of a murderous assault. For their other writers speak not only of an eclipse, but of a sudden storm also, which certainly either afforded opportunity for the crime, or itself made an end of Romulus. And of Tullus Hostilius, who was the third king of Rome, and who was himself destroyed by lightning, Cicero in the same book says, that "he was not supposed to have been deified by this death, possibly because the Romans were unwilling to vulgarize the promotion they were assured or persuaded of in the case of Romulus, lest they should bring it into contempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry." In one of his invectives, too, he says, in round terms, "The founder of this city, Romulus, we have raised to immortality and divinity by kindly celebrating his services;" implying that his deification was not real, but reputed, and called so by courtesy on account of his virtues. In the dialogue Hortensius, too, while speaking of the regular eclipses of the sun, he says that they "produce the same darkness as covered the death of Romulus, which happened during an eclipse of the sun." Here you see he does not at all shrink from speaking of his "death," for Cicero was more of a reasoner than an eulogist.The other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said, himself and all his house consumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was slain by his predecessor's sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered by his son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on the throne. Nor did so flagrant a parricide committed against Rome's best king drive from their altars and shrines those gods who were said to have been moved by Paris' adultery to treat poor Troy in this style, and abandon it to the fire and sword of the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin who had murdered, was allowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this infamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was allowed to triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitol from their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding, and abetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside and reign over them in that very splendid Capitol, the work of a parricide. For he did not build the Capitol in the days of his innocence, and then suffer banishment for subsequent crimes; but to that reign during which he built the Capitol, he won his way by unnatural crime. And when he was afterwards banished by the Romans, and forbidden the city, it was not for his own but his son's wickedness in the affair of Lucretia,-a crime perpetrated not only without his cognizance, but in his absence. For at that time he was besieging Ardea, and fighting Rome's battles; and we cannot say what he would have done had he been aware of his son's crime. Notwithstanding, though his opinion was neither inquired into nor ascertained, the people stripped him of royalty; and when he returned to Rome with his army, it was admitted, but he was excluded, abandoned by his troops, and the gates shut in his face. And yet, after he had appealed to the neighboring states, and tormented the Romans with calamitous but unsuccessful wars, and when he was deserted by the ally on whom he most depended, despairing of regaining the kingdom, he lived a retired and quiet life for fourteen years, as it is reported, in Tusculum, a Roman town, where he grew old in his wife's company, and at last terminated his days in a much more desirable fashion than his father-in-law, who had perished by the hand of his son-in-law; his own daughter abetting, if report be true. And this Tarquin the Romans called, not the Cruel, nor the Infamous, but the Proud; their own pride perhaps resenting his tyrannical airs. So little did they make of his murdering their best king, his own father-in-law, that they elected him their own king. I wonder if it was not even more criminal in them to reward so bountifully so great a criminal. And yet there was no word of the gods abandoning the altars; unless, perhaps, some one will say in defence of the gods, that they remained at Rome for the purpose of punishing the Romans, rather than of aiding and profiting them, seducing them by empty victories, and wearing them out by severe wars. Such was the life of the Romans under the kings during the much-praised epoch of the state which extends to the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus in the 243d year, during which all those victories, which were bought with so much blood and such disasters, hardly pushed Rome's dominion twenty miles from the city; a territory which would by no means bear comparison with that of any petty Gжtulian state.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK III</b> [XVI] Huic tempori adiciamus etiam tempus illud ,quo usque dicit Sallustius aequo et modesto iure agitatum, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum grave cum Etruria positum est. Quamdiu enim Etrusci Tarquinio in regnum redire conanti opitulati sunt, gravi bello Roma concussa est. Ideo dicit aequo et modesto iure gestam rem publicam metu premente, non persuadente iustitia. In quo brevissimo tempore quam funestus ille annus fuit, quo primi consules creati sunt expulsa regia potestate! Annum quippe suum non compleuerunt. Nam Iunius Brutus exhonoratum eiecit Vrbe collegam Lucium Tarquinium Collatinum; deinde mox ipse in bello cecidit mutuis cum hoste uulneribus, occisis a se <ipso> primitus filiis suis et uxoris suae fratribus, quod eos pro restituendo Tarquinio coniurasse cognoverat. Quod factum Vergilius postea quam laudabiliter commemoravit, continuo clementer exhorruit. Cum enim dixisset: Natosque pater noua bella moventes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate vocabit, mox deinde exclamavit et ait: Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores. Quomodo libet, inquit, ea facta posteri ferant, id est praeferant et extollant, qui filios occidit, infelix est. Et tamquam ad consolandum infelicem subiunxit: Vincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido. Nonne in hoc Bruto, quiet filios occidit et a se percusso hosti filio Tarquinii mutuo percussus superuivere non potuit eique potius ipse Tarquinius superuixit, Collatini collegae videtur innocentia vindicata, qui bonus civis hoc Tarquinio pulso passus est, quod tyrannus ipse Tarquinius? Nam et idem Brutus consanguineus Tarquinii fuisse perhibetur; sed Collatinum videlicet similitudo nominis pressit, quia etiam Tarquinius vocabatur. Multaere ergo nomen, non patriam cogeretur; postremo in eius nomine hoc vocabulum minus esset, L. Collatinus tantummodo vocaretur. Sed ideo non amisit quod sine ullo detrimento posset amittere, ut et honore primus consul et civitate bonus civis carere iuberetur. Etiamne ista est gloria, Iunii Bruti detestanda iniquitas et nihilo utilis rei publicae? Etiamne ad hanc perpetrandam "uicit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido"? Iam expulso utique Tarquinio tyranno consul cum Bruto creatus est maritus Lucretiae L. Tarquinius Collatinus. Quam iuste populus mores in cive, non nomen adtendit! Quam impie Brutus collegam primae ac nouae illius potestatis, quem posset, si hoc offendebatur, nomine tantum privare, et patria privavit et honore! Haec mala facta sunt, haec adversa acciderunt, quando in illa re publica "aequo et modesto iure agitatum est." Lucretius quoque, qui in locum Bruti fuerat subrogatus, morbo, antequam idem annus terminaretur, absumptus est. Ita P. Valerius, qui successerat Collatino, et M. Horatius, qui pro defuncto Lucretio suffectus fuerat, annum illum funereum atque tartareum, qui consules quinque habuit, compleuerunt, quo anno consulatus ipsius nouum honorem ac potestatem auspicata est Romana res publica. ||To this epoch let us add also that of which Sallust says, that it was ordered with justice and moderation, while the fear of Tarquin and of a war with Etruria was impending. For so long as the Etrurians aided the efforts of Tarquin to regain the throne, Rome was convulsed with distressing war. And therefore he says that the state was ordered with justice and moderation, through the pressure of fear, not through the influence of equity. And in this very brief period, how calamitous a year was that in which consuls were first created, when the kingly power was abolished! They did not fulfill their term of office. For Junius Brutus deprived his colleague Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and banished him from the city; and shortly after he himself fell in battle, at once slaying and slain, having formerly put to death his own sons and his brothers-in-law, because he had discovered that they were conspiring to restore Tarquin. It is this deed that Virgil shudders to record, even while he seems to praise it; for when he says:"And call his own rebellious seedFor menaced liberty to bleed,"he immediately exclaims,"Unhappy father! howsoe'erThe deed be judged by after days;"that is to say, let posterity judge the deed as they please, let them praise and extol the father who slew his sons, he is unhappy. And then he adds, as if to console so unhappy a man:"His country's love shall all o'erbear,And unextinguished thirst of praise."In the tragic end of Brutus, who slew his own sons, and though he slew his enemy, Tarquin's son, yet could not survive him, but was survived by Tarquin the elder, does not the innocence of his colleague Collatinus seem to be vindicated, who, though a good citizen, suffered the same punishment as Tarquin himself, when that tyrant was banished? For Brutus himself is said to have been a relative of Tarquin. But Collatinus had the misfortune to bear not only the blood, but the name of Tarquin. To change his name, then, not his country, would have been his fit penalty: to abridge his name by this word, and be called simply L. Collatinus. But he was not com pelled to lose what he could lose without detriment, but was stripped of the honor of the first consulship, and was banished from the land he loved. Is this, then, the glory of Brutus-this injustice, alike detestable and profitless to the republic? Was it to this he was driven by "his country's love, and unextinguished thirst of praise?"When Tarquin the tyrant was expelled, L. Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia, was created consul along with Brutus. How justly the people acted, in looking more to the character than the name of a citizen! How unjustly Brutus acted, in depriving of honor and country his colleague in that new office, whom he might have deprived of his name, if it were so offensive to him! Such were the ills, such the disasters, which fell out when the government was "ordered with justice and moderation." Lucretius, too, who succeeded Brutus, was carried off by disease before the end of that same year. So P. Valerius, who succeeded Collatinus, and M. Horatius, who filled the vacancy occasioned by the death of Lucretius, completed that disastrous and funereal year, which had five consuls. Such was the year in which the Roman republic inaugurated the new honor and office of the consulship.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK III</b> [XVII] Tunc iam deminuto paululum metu, non quia bella conquieuerant, sed quia non tam gravi pondere urgebant, finito scilicet tempore, quo aequo iure ac modesto agitatum est, secuta sunt quae idem Sallustius breviter explicat: "dein seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de vita atque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saevitiis et maxime faenore oppressa plebes, cum assiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum atque Aventinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi paravit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum bellum Punicum." Quid itaque ego tantas moras vel scribens patiar, vel lecturis adferam? Quam misera fuerit illa res publica, tam longa aetate per toto annos usque ad secundum bellum Punicum bellis forinsecus inquietare non desistentibus et intus discordiis seditionibusque civilibus, a Sallustio breviter intimatum est. Proinde victoriae illae non solida beatorum gaudia fuerunt, sed inania solacia miserorum et ad alia atque alia sterilia mala subeunda inlecebrosa incitamenta minime quietorum. Nec nobis, quia hoc dicimus, boni Romani prudentesque suscenseant: quamquam de hac re nec petendi sint nec monendi, quando eos minime suscensuros esse certissimum est. Neque enim gravius vel graviora dicimus auctoribus eorum et stilo et otio multum impares; quibus tamen ediscendis et ipsi elaboraverunt et filios suos elaborare compellunt. Qui autem suscensent, quando me ferrent, si ego dicerem, quod Sallustius ait? "plurimae turbae, seditiones et ad postremum bella civilia orta sunt, dum pauci potentes, quorum in gratiam plerique concesserant, sub honesto patrum aut plebis nomine dominationes adfectabant; bonique et mali cives appellati, non ob merita in rem publicam, omnibus pariter corruptis, sed uti quisque locupletissimus et iniuria validior, quia praesentia defendebat, pro bono ducebatur." Porro si illi scriptores historiae ad honestam libertatem pertinere arbitrati sunt mala civitatis propriae non tacere, quam multis locis magno praeconio laudare compulsi sunt, cum aliam veriorem, quo cives aterni legendi sunt, non haberent: quid nos facere convenit, quorum spes quanto in Deo melior et certior, tanto maior debet esse libertas, cum mala praesentia Christo nostro inputant, ut infirmiores imperitioresque mentes alienentur ab ea civitate, in qua sola iugiter feliciterque vivendum est? Nec in deos eorum horribiliora nos dicimus, quam eorum identidem auctores, quos legunt et praedicant, quando quidem et ex ipsis quae diceremus accepimus, et nullo modo dicere vel talia vel cuncta sufficimus. Vbi ergo erant illi dii, qui propter exiguam fallacemque mundi huius felicitatem colendi existimantur, cum Romani, quibus se colendos mendacissima astutia venditabant, tantis calamitatibus uexarentur? Vbi erant, quando Valerius consul ab exulibus et seruis incensum Capitolium cum defensaret occisus est faciliusque ipse prodesse potuit aedi Iovis, quam illi turba tot numinum cum suo maximo atque optimo rege, cuius templum liberaverat, subvenire? Vbi erant, quando densissimis fatigata civitas seditionum malis, cum legatos Athenas missos ad leges mutuandas paululum quieta opperiretur, gravi fame pestilentiaque uastata est? Vbi erant, quando rursus populus, cum fame laboraret, praefectum annonae primum creavit, atque illa fame inualescente Spurius Maelius, quia esurienti multitudini frumenta largitus est, regni adfectati crimen incurrit et eiusdem praefecti instantia per dictatorem, L. Quintium aetate decrepitum a Quinto Seruilio magistro equitum cum maximo et periculosissimo tumultu civitatis occisus est? Vbi erant, quando pestilentia maxima exorta diis inutilibus populus diu multumque fatigatus noua lectisternia, quod numquam antea fecerat, exhibenda arbitratus est? Lecti autem sternebantur in honorem deorum, unde hoc sacrum vel potius sacrilegium nomen accepit. Vbi erant, quando per decem continuos annos male pugnando crebras et magnas clades apud Veios exercitus Romanus acceperat, nisi per Furium Camillum tandem subveniretur, quem postea civitas ingrata damnavit? Vbi erant, quando Galli Romam ceperunt spoliaverunt, incenderunt caedibus impleuerunt? Vbi erant, cum illa insignis pestilentia tam ingentem stragem dedit, qua et ille Furius Camillus extinctus est, qui rem publicam ingratam et a Veientibus ante defendit et de Gallis postea vindicavit? In hac pestilentia scaenicos ludos aliam nouam pestem non corporibus Romanorum, sed, quod est multo perniciosius, moribus intulerunt. Vbi erant, quando alia pestilentia gravis de venenis matronarum exorta credita est, quarum supra fidem multarum atque nobilium mores deprehensi sunt omni pestilentia graviores? vel quando in Caudinas furculas a Samnitibus obsessi ambo cum exercitu consules foedus cum eis foedum facere coacti sunt, ita ut equitibus Romanis sescentis obsidibus datis ceteri amissis armis aliisque spoliati privatique tegminibus sub iugum hostium in uestimentis singulis mitterentur? vel quando gravi pestilentia ceteris laborantibus multi etiam in exercitu icti fulmine perierunt? vel quando item alia intolerabili pestilentia Aesculapium ab Epidauro quasi medicum deum Roma aduocare atque adhibere compulsa est, quoniam regem omnium Iovem, qui iam diu in Capitolio sedebat, multa stupra, quibus adulescens uacaverat, non permiserant fortasse discere medicinam? vel cum conspirantibus uno tempore hostibus Lucanis, Bruttiis, Samnitibus, Etruscis et Senonibus Gallis primo ab eis legati perempti sunt, deinde cum praetore oppressus exercitus septem tribunis cum illo pereuntibus et militum tredecim milibus? vel quando post longas et graves Romae seditiones, quibus ad ultimum plebs in Ianiculum hostili diremptione secesserat, huius mali tam dira calamitas erat, ut eius rei causa, quod in extremis periculis fieri solebat, dictator crearetur Hortensius, qui plebe reuocata in eodem magistratu exspiravit, quod plebe reuocata in eodem magistratu exspiravit, quod nulli dictatori ante contigerat et quod illis diis iam praesente Aesculapio gravius crimen fuit? Tum vero tam multa bella ubique crebruerunt, ut inopia militum proletarii illi, qui eo, quod proli gignendae uacabant, ob egestatem militare non valentes hoc nomen acceperant, militiae conscriberentur. Accitus etiam a Tarentinis Pyrrhus, rex Graeciae, tunc ingenti gloria celebratus, Romanorum hostis effectus est. Cui sane de rerum futuro euentu consulenti satis urbane Apollo sic ambiguum oraculum edidit, ut, e duobus quidquid accidisset, ipse divinus haberetur (ait enim: "Dico te, Pyrrhe, vincere posse Romanos") atque ita, sive Pyrrhus a Romanis sive Romani a Pyrrho vincerentur, securus fatidicus utrumlibet expectaret euentum. Quae tunc et quam horrenda utriusque exercitus clades! In qua tamen superior Pyrrhus extitit, ut iam posset Apollinem pro suo intellectu praedicare divinum, nisi proxime alio proelio Romani abscederent superiores. Atque in tanta strage bellorum etiam pestilentia gravis exorta est mulierum. Nam priusquam maturos partus ederent, gravidae moriebantur. Vbi se, credo, Aesculapius excusabat, quod archiatrum, non obstetricem profitebatur. Pecudes quoque similiter interibant, ita ut etiam defecturum genus animalium crederetur. Quid? hiems illa memorabilis tam incredibili inmanitate saeviens, ut nivibus horrenda altitudine etiam in foro per dies quadraginta manentibus Tiberis quoque glacie duraretur, si nostris temporibus accidisset, quae isti et quanta dixissent! Quid? illa itidem ingens pestilentia, quamdiu saeviit, quam multos peremit! Quae cum in annum alium multo gravius tenderetur frustra praesente Aesculapio, aditum est ad libros Sibyllinos. In quo genere oraculorum, sicut Cicero in libris de divinatione commemorat, magis interpretibus ut possunt seu volunt dubia coniectantibus credi solet. Tunc ergo dictum est eam esse causam pestilentiae, quod plurimas aedes sacras multi occupatas privatim tenerent: sic interim a magno imperitiae vel desidiae crimine Aesculapius liberatus est. Vnde autem a multis aedes illae fuerant occupatae nemine prohibente, nisi quia tantae numinum turbae diu frustra fuerat supplicatum, atque ita paulatim loca deserebantur a cultoribus, ut tamquam uacua sine ullius offensione possent humanis saltem usibus vindicari? Namque tunc velut ad sedandam pestilentiam dilegenter repetita atque reparata nisi postea eodem modo neglecta atque usurpata latitarent, non utique magnae peritiae Varronis tribueretur, quod scribens de aedibus sacris tam multa ignorata commemorat. Sed tunc interim elegans non pestilentiae depulsio, sed deorum excusatio procurata est. ||After this, when their fears were gradually diminished,-not because the wars ceased, but because they were not so furious,-that period in which things were "ordered with justice and moderation" drew to an end, and there followed that state of matters which Sallust thus briefly sketches: "Then began the patricians to oppress the people as slaves, to condemn them to death or scourging, as the kings had done, to drive them from their holdings, and to tyrannize over those who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these oppressive measures, and most of all by usury, and obliged to contribute both money and personal service to the constant wars, at length took arms and seceded to Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus secured for themselves tribunes and protective laws. But it was only the second Punic war that put an end on both sides to discord and strife." But why should I spend time in writing such things, or make others spend it in reading them? Let the terse summary of Sallust suffice to intimate the misery of the republic through all that long period till the second Punic war,-how it was distracted from without by unceasing wars, and torn with civil broils and dissensions. So that those victories they boast were not the substantial joys of the happy, but the empty comforts of wretched men, and seductive incitements to turbulent men to concoct disasters upon disasters. And let not the good and prudent Romans be angry at our saying this; and indeed we need neither deprecate nor denounce their anger, for we know they will harbor none. For we speak no more severely than their own authors, and much less elaborately and strikingly; yet they diligently read these authors, and compel their children to learn them. But they who are angry, what would they do to me were I to say what Sallust says? "Frequent mobs, seditions, and at last civil wars, became common, while a few leading men on whom the masses were dependent, affected supreme power under the seemly pretence of seeking the good of senate and people; citizens were judged good or bad without reference to their loyalty to the republic (for all were equally corrupt); but the wealthy and dangerously powerful were esteemed good citizens, because they maintained the existing state of things." Now, if those historians judged that an honorable freedom of speech required that they should not be silent regarding the blemishes of their own state, which they have in many places loudly applauded in their ignorance of that other and true city in which citizenship is an everlasting dignity; what does it become us to do, whose liberty ought to be so much greater, as our hope in God is better and more assured, when they impute to our Christ the calamities of this age, in order that men of the less instructed and weaker sort may be alienated from that city in which alone eternal and blessed life can be enjoyed? Nor do we utter against their gods anything more horrible than their own authors do, whom they read and circulate. For, indeed, all that we have said we have derived from them, and there is much more to say of a worse kind which we are unable to say.Where, then, were those gods who are supposed to be justly worshipped for the slender and delusive prosperity of this world, when the Romans, who were seduced to their service by lying wiles, were harassed by such calamities? Where were they when Valerius the consul was killed while defending the Capitol, that had been fired by exiles and slaves? He was himself better able to defend the temple of Jupiter, than that crowd of divinities with their most high and mighty king, whose temple he came to the rescue of were able to defend him. Where were they when the city, worn out with unceasing seditions, was waiting in some kind of calm for the return of the ambassadors who had been sent to Athens to borrow laws, and was desolated by dreadful famine and pestilence? Where were they when the people, again distressed with famine, created for the first time a prefect of the market; and when Spurius Melius, who, as the famine increased, distributed corn to the famishing masses, was accused of aspiring to royalty, and at the instance of this same prefect, and on the authority of the superannuated dictator L. Quintius, was put to death by Quintus Servilius, master of the horse,-an event which occasioned a serious and dangerous riot? Where were they when that very severe pestilence visited Rome, on account of which the people, after long and wearisome and useless supplications of the helpless gods, conceived the idea of celebrating Lectisternia, which had never been done before; that is to say, they set couches in honor of the gods, which accounts for the name of this sacred rite, or rather sacrilege? Where were they when, during ten successive years of reverses, the Roman army suffered frequent and great losses among the Veians and would have been destroyed but for the succor of Furius Camillus, who was afterwards banished by an ungrateful country? Where were they when the Gauls took sacked, burned, and desolated Rome? Where were they when that memorable pestilence wrought such destruction, in which Furius Camillus too perished, who first defended the ungrateful republic from the Veians, and afterwards saved it from the Gauls? Nay, during this plague, they introduced a new pestilence of scenic entertainments, which spread its more fatal contagion, not to the bodies, but the morals of the Romans? Where were they when another frightful pestilence visited the city-I mean the poisonings imputed to an incredible number of noble Roman matrons, whose characters were infected with a disease more fatal than any plague? Or when both consuls at the head of the army were beset by the Samnites in the Caudine Forks, and forced to strike a shameful treaty, 600 Roman knights being kept as hostages; while the troops, having laid down their arms, and being stripped of everything, were made to pass under the yoke with one garment each? Or when, in the midst of a serious pestilence, lightning struck the Roman camp and killed many? Or when Rome was driven, by the violence of another intolerable plague, to send to Epidaurus for Жsculapius as a god of medicine; since the frequent adulteries of Jupiter in his youth had not perhaps left this king of all who so long reigned in the Capitol, any leisure for the study of medicine? Or when, at one time, the Lucanians, Brutians, Samnites, Tuscans, and Senonian Gauls conspired against Rome, and first slew her ambassadors, then overthrew an army under the prжtor, putting to the sword 13,000 men, besides the commander and seven tribunes? Or when the people, after the serious and long-continued disturbances at Rome, at last plundered the city and withdrew to Janiculus; a danger so grave, that Hortensius was created dictator,-an office which they had recourse to only in extreme emergencies; and he, having brought back the people, died while yet he retained his office,-an event without precedent in the case of any dictator, and which was a shame to those gods who had now Жsculapius among them?At that time, indeed, so many wars were everywhere engaged in, that through scarcity of soldiers they enrolled for military service the proletarii, who received this name, because, being too poor to equip for military service, they had leisure to beget offspring. Pyrrhus, king of Greece, and at that time of widespread renown, was invited by the Tarentines to enlist himself against Rome. It was to him that Apollo, when consulted regarding the issue of his enterprise, uttered with some pleasantry so ambiguous an oracle, that whichever alternative happened, the god himself should be counted divine. For he so worded the oracle that whether Pyrrhus was conquered by the Romans, or the Romans by Pyrrhus, the soothsaying god would securely await the issue. And then what frightful massacres of both armies ensued! Yet Pyrrhus remained conqueror, and would have been able now to proclaim Apollo a true diviner, as he understood the oracle, had not the Romans been the conquerors in the next engagement. And while such disastrous wars were being waged, a terrible disease broke out among the women. For the pregnant women died before delivery. And Жsculapius, I fancy, excused himself in this matter on the ground that he professed to be arch-physician, not midwife. Cattle, too, similarly perished; so that it was believed that the whole race of animals was destined to become extinct. Then what shall I say of that memorable winter in which the weather was so incredibly severe, that in the Forum frightfully deep snow lay for forty days together, and the Tiber was frozen? Had such things happened in our time, what accusations we should have heard from our enemies! And that other great pestilence, which raged so long and carried off so many; what shall I say of it? Spite of all the drugs of Жsculapius, it only grew worse in its second year, till at last recourse was had to the Sibylline books,-a kind of oracle which, as Cicero says in his De Divinatione, owes significance to its interpreters, who make doubtful conjectures as they can or as they wish. In this instance, the cause of the plague was said to be that so many temples had been used as private residences. And thus Жsculapius for the present escaped the charge of either ignominious negligence or want of skill. But why were so many allowed to occupy sacred tenements without interference, unless because supplication had long been addressed in vain to such a crowd of gods, and so by degrees the sacred places were deserted of worshippers, and being thus vacant, could without offence be put at least to some human uses? And the temples, which were at that time laboriously recognized and restored that the plague might be stayed, fell afterwards into disuse, and were again devoted to the same human uses. Had they not thus lapsed into obscurity, it could not have been pointed to as proof of Varro's great erudition, that in his work on sacred places he cites so many that were unknown. Meanwhile, the restoration of the temples procured no cure of the plague, but only a fine excuse for the gods.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK III</b> [XVIII] Iam vero Punicis bellis, cum inter utrumque imperium victoria diu anceps atque incerta penderet populique duo praeualidi impetus in alterutrum fortissimos et opulentissimos agerent, quot minutiora regna contrita sunt! quae urbes amplae nobilesque deletae, quot adflictae, quot perditae civitates! Quam longe lateque tot regiones terraeque uastate sunt! Quotiens victi hinc atque inde victores! Quid hominum concumptum est vel pugnantium militum vel ab armis uacantium populorum! Quanta vis navium marinis etiam proeliis oppressa et diversarum tempestatum varietate submersa est! Si enarrare vel commemorare conemur, nihil aliud quam scriptores etiam nos erimus historiae. Tunc magno metu perturbata Romana civitas ad remedia uana et redenda currebat. Instaurati sunt ex auctoritate librorum Sibyllinorum ludi saeculares, quorum celebritas inter centum annos fuerat instituta felicioribusque temporibus memoria neglegente perierat. Renouarunt etiam pontifices ludos sacros inferis et ipsos abolitos annis retrorsum melioribus. Nimirum enim, quando renouati sunt, tanta copia morientium ditatos inferos etiam ludere delectabat, cum profecto miseri homines ipsa rabida bella et cruentas animositates funereasque hinc atque inde victorias magnos agerent ludos daemonum et opimas epulas inferorum. Nihil sane miserabilius primo Punico bello accidit, quam quod ita Romani victi sunt, ut etiam Regulus ille caperetur, cuius in primo et in altero libro mentionem fecimus, vir plane magnus et victor antea domitorque Poenorum, qui etiam ipsum primum bellum Punicum confecisset, nisi aviditate nimia laudis et gloriae duriores condiciones, quam ferre possent, fessis Carthaginiensibus imperasset. Illius viri et captivitas inopinatissima et seruitus indignissima, et iuratio fidelissima et mors crudelissima si deos illos non cogit erubescere, verum est quod aerii sunt et non habetn sanguinem. Nec mala illo tempore gravissima intra moenia defuerunt. Nam exundante nimis ultra morem fluuio Tiberino paene omnia urbis plana subuersa sunt, aliis impetu quasi torrentis inpulsis, aliis velut stagno diuturno madefactis atque sublapsis. Istam deinde pestem ignis perniciosior subsecutus est, qui correptis circa forum quibusque celsioribus etiam templo Vestae suo familiarissimo non pepercit, ubi ei veluti vitam perpetuam diligentissima substitutione lignorum non tam honoratae quam damnatae virgines donare consuerant. Tunc vero illic ignis non tantum vivebat; sed etiam saeviebat. Cuius impetu exterritae virgines sacra illa fatalia, quae iam tres, in quibus fuerant, presserant civitates, cum ab illo incendio liberare non possent, Metullus pontifex suae quodam modo salutis oblitus inruens ea semiustus abripuit. Neque enim vel ipsum ignis agnovit, aut vero erat ibi numen, quod non etiam, si fuisset, fugisset. Homo igitur potius sacris Vestae quam illa homini prodesse potuerunt. Si autem a se ipsis ignem non repellebant, civitatem, cuius salutem tueri putabantur, quid contra illas aquas flammasque poterant adivuare? sicut etiam res ipsa nihil ea prorsus potuisse patefecit. Haec istis nequaquam obicerentur a nobis, si illa sacra dicerent non tuendis his bonis temporalibus instituta, sed significandis aeternis, et ideo, cum ea, quod corporalia visibiliaque essent, perire contingeret, nihil his rebus minui, propter quas fuerant instituta, et posse ad eosdem usus denuo reparari. Nunc vero caecitae mirabili eis sacris, quae perire possent, fieri potuisse existimant, ut salus terrena et temporalis felicitas civitatis perire non posset. Proinde cum illis etiam manentibus sacris vel salutis contritio vel infelicitas inruisse monstratur, mutare sententiam, quam defendere nequeunt, erubescunt. ||In the Punic wars, again, when victory hung so long in the balance between the two kingdoms, when two powerful nations were straining every nerve and using all their resources against one another, how many smaller kingdoms were crushed, how many large and flourishing cities were demolished, how many states were overwhelmed and ruined, how many districts and lands far and near were desolated! How often were the victors on either side vanquished! What multitudes of men, both of those actually in arms and of others, were destroyed! What huge navies, too, were crippled in engagements, or were sunk by every kind of marine disaster! Were we to attempt to recount or mention these calamities, we should become writers of history. At that period Rome was mightily perturbed, and resorted to vain and ludicrous expedients. On the authority of the Sibylline books, the secular games were re-appointed, which had been inaugurated a century before, but had faded into oblivion in happier times. The games consecrated to the infernal gods were also renewed by the pontiffs; for they, too, had sunk into disuse in the better times. And no wonder; for when they were renewed, the great abundance of dying men made all hell rejoice at its riches, and give itself up to sport: for certainly the ferocious wars, and disastrous quarrels, and bloody victories-now on one side, and now on the other-though most calamitous to men, afforded great sport and a rich banquet to the devils. But in the first Punic war there was no more disastrous event than the Roman defeat in which Regulus was taken. We made mention of him in the two former books as an incontestably great man, who had before conquered and subdued the Carthaginians, and who would have put an end to the first Punic war, had not an inordinate appetite for praise and glory prompted him to impose on the worn-out Carthagians harder conditions than they could bear. If the unlooked-for captivity and unseemly bondage of this man, his fidelity to his oath, and his surpassingly cruel death, do not bring a blush to the face of the gods, it is true that they are brazen and bloodless.Nor were there wanting at that time very heavy disasters within the city itself. For the Tiber was extraordinarily flooded, and destroyed almost all the lower parts of the city; some buildings being carried away by the violence of the torrent, while others were soaked to rottenness by the water that stood round them even after the flood was gone. This visitation was followed by a fire which was still more destructive, for it consumed some of the loftier buildings round the Forum, and spared not even its own proper temple, that of Vesta, in which virgins chosen for this honor, or rather for this punishment, had been employed in conferring, as it were, everlasting life on fire, by ceaselessly feeding it with fresh fuel. But at the time we speak of, the fire in the temple was not content with being kept alive: it raged. And when the virgins, scared by its vehemence, were unable to save those fatal images which had already brought destruction on three cities in which they had been received, Metellus the priest, forgetful of his own safety, rushed in and res cued the sacred things, though he was half roasted in doing so. For either the fire did not recognize even him, or else the goddess of fire was there,-a goddess who would not have fled from the fire supposing she had been there. But here you see how a man could be of greater service to Vesta than she could be to him. Now if these gods could not avert the fire from themselves, what help against flames or flood could they bring to the state of which they were the reputed guardians? Facts have shown that they were useless. These objections of ours would be idle if our adversaries maintained that their idols are consecrated rather as symbols of things eternal, than to secure the blessings of time; and that thus, though the symbols, like all material and visible things, might perish, no damage thereby resulted to the things for the sake of which they had been consecrated, while, as for the images themselves, they could be renewed again for the same purposes they had formerly served. But with lamentable blindness, they suppose that, through the intervention of perishable gods, the earthly well-being and temporal prosperity of the state can be preserved from perishing. And so, when they are reminded that even when the gods remained among them this well-being and prosperity were blighted, they blush to change the opinion they are unable to defend.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK III</b> [XIX] Secundo autem Punico bello nimis longum est commemorare clades duorum populorum tam longe secum lateque pugnantium, ita ut his quoque fatentibus, qui non tam narrare bella Romana quam Romanum imperium laudare instituerunt, similior victo fuerit ille qui vicit. Hannibale quippe ab Hispania surgente et Pyrenaeis montibus superatis, Gallia transcursa Alpibusque disruptis, tam longo circuitu auctis viribus cuncta uastando aut subigendo torrentis modo Italiae faucibus inruente quam cruenta proelia gesta sunt, quotiens Romani superati! quam multa ad hostem oppida defecerunt, quam multa capta et oppressa! quam dirae pugnae et totiens Hannibali Romana clade gloriosae! De Cannensi autem mirabiliter horrendo malo quid dicam, ubi Hannibal, cum esset crudelissimus, tamen tanta inimicorum atrocissimorum caede satiatus parci iussisse perhibetur? Vnde tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quo intellegerunt tantam in illo proelio dignitatem cecidisse Romanam, ut facilius eam caperet mensura quam numerus, atque hinc strages turbae ceterae tanto utique numerosioris, quanto infirmioris, quae sine anulis iacebat, conicienda potius quam nuntianda putaretur. Denique tanta militum inopia secuta est, ut Romani reos facinorum proposita inpunitate colligerent, seruitia libertate donarent atque illis pudendus non tam suppleretur quam institueretur exercitus. Seruis itaque, immo, ne faciamus iniuriam, iam libertis, pro Romana re publica pugnaturis arma defuerunt. Detracta sunt templis, tamquam Romani diis suis dicerent: Ponite quae tam diu inaniter habuistis, ne forte aliquid utile inde facere possint nostra mancipia, unde nostra numina facere non potuistis. Tunc etiam stipendiis sufficiendis cum defecisset aerarium, in usus publicos opes venere privatae, adeo unoquoque id quod habuit conferente, ut praeter singulos anulos singulasque bullas, miserabilia dignitatis insignia, nihil sibi auri senatus ipse, quanto magis ceteri ordines tribusque relinquerent. Quis ferret istos, si nostris temporibus ad hanc inopiam cogerentur, cum eos modo vix feramus, quando pro superflua voluptate plura donantur histrionibus, quam tunc legionibus pro extrema salute conlata sunt? ||As to the second Punic war, it were tedious to recount the disasters it brought on both the nations engaged in so protracted and shifting a war, that (by the acknowledgment even of those writers who have made it their object not so much to narrate the wars as to eulogize the dominion of Rome) the people who remained victorious were less like conquerors than conquered. For, when Hannibal poured out of Spain over the Pyrenees, and overran Gaul, and burst through the Alps, and during his whole course gathered strength by plundering and subduing as he went, and inundated Italy like a torrent, how bloody were the wars, and how continuous the engagements, that were fought! How often were the Romans vanquished! How many towns went over to the enemy, and how many were taken and subdued! What fearful battles there were, and how often did the defeat of the Romans shed lustre on the arms of Hannibal! And what shall I say of the wonderfully crushing defeat at Cannж, where even Hannibal, cruel as he was, was yet sated with the blood of his bitterest enemies, and gave orders that they be spared? From this field of battle he sent to Carthage three bushels of gold rings, signifying that so much of the rank of Rome had that day fallen, that it was easier to give an idea of it by measure than by numbers and that the frightful slaughter of the common rank and file whose bodies lay undistinguished by the ring, and who were numerous in proportion to their meanness, was rather to be conjectured than accurately reported. In fact, such was the scarcity of soldiers after this, that the Romans impressed their criminals on the promise of impunity, and their slaves by the bribe of liberty, and out of these infamous classes did not so much recruit as create an army. But these slaves, or, to give them all their titles, these freed-men who were enlisted to do battle for the republic of Rome, lacked arms. And so they took arms from the temples, as if the Romans were saying to their gods: Lay down those arms you have held so long in vain, if by chance our slaves may be able to use to purpose what you, our gods, have been impotent to use. At that time, too, the public treasury was too low to pay the soldiers, and private resources were used for public purposes; and so generously did individuals contribute of their property, that, saving the gold ring and bulla which each wore, the pitiful mark of his rank, no senator, and much less any of the other orders and tribes, reserved any gold for his own use. But if in our day they were reduced to this poverty, who would be able to endure their reproaches, barely endurable as they are now, when more money is spent on actors for the sake of a superfluous gratification, than was then disbursed to the legions?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK III</b> [XX] Sed in his omnibus belli Punici secundi malis nihil miserabilius ac miserabili querella dignius quam exitium Saguntinorum fuit. Haec quippe Hispaniae civitas amicissima populi Romani, dum eidem populo fidem servat, euersa est. Hinc enim Hannibal fracto foedere Romanorum causas quaesivit, quibus eos inritaret ad bellum. Saguntum ergo ferociter obsidebat; quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem, ut ab eius obsidione discederet. Contempti Carthaginem pergunt querimoniamque deponunt foederis rupti infectoque negotio Romam redeunt. Dum hae morae aguntur, misera illa civitas opulentissima, suae rei publicae Romanaeque carissima, octauo vel nono a Poenis mense deleta est. Cuius interitum legere, quanto magis scribere, horroris est. Breviter tamen eum commemorabo; ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet. Primo fame contabuit; nam etiam suorum cadaveribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur. Deinde omnium fessa rerum, ne saltem captiva in manus Hannibalis perveniret, ingentem rogum publice struxit, in quem ardentem ferro etiam trucidatos omnes se suosque miserunt. Hic aliquid agerent dii helluones atque nebulones, sacrificiorum adipibus inhiantes et fallacium divinationum caligine decipientes; hic aliquid agerent, civitati populi Romani amicissimae subvenirent, fidei conservatione pereuntem perire non sinerent. Ipsi utique medii praefuerunt, cum Romanae rei publicae interiecto foedere copulata est. Custodiens itaque fideliter, quod ipsis praesidibus placito iunxerat, fide vinxerat, iuratione constrinxerat, a perfido obsessa oppressa consumpta est. Si ipsi dii tempestate atque fulminibus Hannibalem postea Romanis proximum moenibus terruerunt longeque miserunt: tunc primum tale aliquid facerent. Audeo quippe dicere honestius illos pro amicis Romanorum ideo periclitantibus, ne Romanis frangerent fidem, et nullam opem tunc habentibus quam pro ipsis Romanis, qui pro se pugnabant atque adversus Hannibalem opulenti erant, potuisse tempestate saevire. Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felicitatis et gloriae, tam grave ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis averterent; nunc vero quam stulte creditur, diis illis defensoribus Romam victore Hannibale non perisse, qui Saguntinae urbi non potuerunt, ne pro eius periret amicitia, subvenire! Si Saguntinorum Christianus populus esset et huius modi aliquid pro fide euangelica pateretur, quamquam se ipse nec ferro nec ignibus corrupisset sed tamen si pro fide euangelica excidium pateretur: ea spe pateretur, qua in Christum crediderat, non mercede brevissimi temporis, sed aeternitatis interminae. Pro istis autem diis, qui propterea coli perhibentur, propterea colendi requiruntur, ut harum labentium atque transeuntium rerum felicitas tuta sit, quid nobis defensores et excusatores eorum de Saguntinis pereuntibus respondebunt, nisi quod de illo Regulo extincto? Hoc quippe interest, quod ille unus homo, haec tota civitas; utriusque tamen interitus causa conservatio fidei fuit. Propter hanc enim ad hostes et redire ille voluit, et noluit ista transire. Conservata ergo prouocat deorum iram fides? an possunt et diis propitiis perire non solum quique homines, verum etiam integrae civitates? Vtrum volunt, eligant. Si enim fidei servatae irascuntur illi dii, quaerant perfidos, a quibus colantur; si autem etiam illis propitiis multis gravibusque cruciatibus adflicti interire homines civitatesque possunt, nullo fructu felicitatis huius coluntur. Desinant igitur suscensere, qui sacris deorum suorum perditis se infelices esse factos putant. Possent enim illis non solum manentibus, verum etiam faventibus non sicut modo de miseria murmurare, sed sicut tunc Regulus et Saguntini excruciati horribiliter etiam penitus interire. ||But among all the disasters of the second Punic war, there occurred none more lamentable, or calculated to excite deeper complaint, than the fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain, eminently friendly to Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity to the Roman people. For when Hannibal had broken treaty with the Romans, he sought occasion for provoking them to war, and accordingly made a fierce assault upon Saguntum. When this was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal, urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance was neglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint against the breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing their object. Meanwhile the siege went on; and in the eighth or ninth month, this opulent but ill-fated city, dear as it was to its own state and to Rome, was taken, and subjected to treatment which one cannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it bears directly on the matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it. First, then, famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpses were eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently, when thoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape the ignominy of falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publicly erected a huge funeral pile, and cast themselves into its flames, while at the same time they slew their children and themselves with the sword. Could these gods, these debauchees and gourmands, whose mouths water for fat sacrifices, and whose lips utter lying divinations,-could they not do anything in a case like this? Could they not interfere for the preservation of a city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent it perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselves had been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping the treaty it had entered into before these gods, and to which it had firmly bound itself by an oath, was besieged, taken, and destroyed by a perjured person. If afterwards, when Hannibal was close to the walls of Rome, it was the gods who terrified him with lightning and tempest, and drove him to a distance, why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I make bold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest would have been more honorably made in defence of the allies of Rome-who were in danger on account of their reluctance to break faith with the Romans, and had no resources of their own-than in defence of the Romans themselves, who were fighting in their own cause, and had abundant resources to oppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians of Roman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved that glory from the stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how silly it is to believe that Rome was preserved from destruction at the hands of Hannibal by the guardian care of those gods who were unable to rescue the city of Saguntum from perishing through its fidelity to the alliance of Rome. If the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as it did for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians would not have used fire and sword against their own persons), they would have suffered with that hope which springs from faith in Christ-the hope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss. What, then, will the advocates and apologists of these gods say in their defence, when charged with the blood of these Saguntines; for they are professedly worshipped and invoked for this very purpose of securing prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything be said but what was alleged in the case of Regulus' death? For though there is a difference between the two cases, the one being an individual, the other a whole community, yet the cause of destruction was in both cases the keeping of their plighted troth. For it was this which made Regulus willing to return to his enemies, and this which made the Saguntines unwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then, the keeping of faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible that not only individuals, but even entire communities, perish while the gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choose which alternative they will. If, on the one hand, those gods are enraged at the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjured persons as their worshippers. If, on the other hand, men and states can suffer great and terrible calamities, and at last perish while favored by the gods, then does their worship not produce happiness as its fruit. Let those, therefore, who suppose that they have fallen into distress because their religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for it were quite possible that did the gods not only remain with them, but regard them with favor, they might yet be left to mourn an unhappy lot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines, be horribly tormented, and at last perish miserably.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXI] Porro inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, quando Sallustius optimis moribus et maxima concordia dixit egisse Romanos (multa enim praetereo suscepti operis modum cogitans), eodem ipso ergo tempore morum optimorum maximaeque concordiae Scipio ille Romae Italiaeque liberator eiusdemque belli Punici secundi tam horrendi, tam exitiosi, tam periculosi praeclarus mirabilisque confector, victor Hannibalis domitorque Carthaginis, cuius ab adulescentia vita describitur diis dedita templisque ntrita, inimicorum accusationibus cessit carensque patria, quam sua virtute saluam et liberam reddidit, in oppido Linternensi egit reliquam complevitque vitam, post insignem suum triumphum nullo illius urbis captus desiderio, ita ut iussisse perhebeatur, ne saltem mortuo in ingrata patria funus fieret. Deinde tunc primum per Gneum Manlium proconsulem de Gallograecis triumphantem Asiatica luxuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lecti aerati et pretiosa stragula visa perhibentur; tunc inductae in conuivia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia. Sed nunc de his malis, quae intolerabiliter homines patiuntur, non de his, quae libenter faciunt, dicere institui. Vnde illud magis, quod de Scipione commemoravi, quod cedens inimicis extra patriam, quam liberavit, mortuus est, ad praesentem pertinet disputationem, quod ei Romana numina, a quorum templis avertit Hannibalem, non reddiderunt vicem, quae propter istam tantummodo coluntur felicitatem. Sed quia Sallustius eo tempore ibi dixit mores optimos fuisse, propterea hoc de Asiana luxuria commemorandum putavi, ut intellegatur etiam illud a Sallustio in comparationem aliorum temporum dictum, quibus temporibus peiores utique in gravissimis discordiis mores fuerunt. Nam tunc, id est inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, lata est etiam lex illa Voconia, ne quis heredem feminam faceret, nec unicam filiam. Qua lege quid iniquius dici aut cogitari possit, ignoro. Verum tamen toto illo interuallo duorum bellorum Punicorum tolerabilior infelicitas fuit. Bellis tantummodo foris conterebatur exercitus, sed victoriis consolabatur; domi autem nullae, sicut alias, discordiae saeviebant. Sed ultimo bello Punico uno impetu alterius Scipionis, qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen invenit, aemula imperii Romani ab stirpe deleta est, ac deinde tantis malorum aggeribus oppressa Romana res publica, ut prosperitate ac securitate rerum, unde nimium corruptis moribus mala illa congesta sunt, plus nocuisse monstretur tam cito euersa, quam prius nocuerunt tam diu adversa carthago. Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui videtur non adhuc vel ipsorum opinione gloriosam, sed contentiosaet exitiosam et plane iam eneruem ac languidam libertatem omni modo extorsisse Romanis et ad regale arbitrium cuncta reuocasse et quasi morbida uetustate conlapsam veluti instaurasse ac renouasse rem publicam; toto ergo isto tempore omitto ex aliis atque aliis causis etiam atque etiam bellicas clades et Numantinum foedus horrenda ignominia maculorsum; volaverant enim pulli de cavea et Mancino consuli, ut aiunt, augurium malum fecerant; quasi per tot annos, quibus illa exigua civitas Romanum circum sessa exercitum adflixerat ipsique Romanae rei publicae terrori esse iam coeperat, alii contra eam alio augurio processerunt. ||Omitting many things, that I may not exceed the limits of the work I have proposed to myself, I come to the epoch between the second and last Punic wars, during which, according to Sallust, the Romans lived with the greatest virtue and concord. Now, in this period of virtue and harmony, the great Scipio, the liberator of Rome and Italy, who had with surprising ability brought to a close the second Punic war-that horrible, destructive, dangerous contest-who had defeated Hannibal and subdued Carthage, and whose whole life is said to have been dedicated to the gods, and cherished in their temples,-this Scipio, after such a triumph, was obliged to yield to the accusations of his enemies, and to leave his country, which his valor had saved and liberated, to spend the remainder of his days in the town of Liternum, so indifferent to a recall from exile, that he is said to have given orders that not even his remains should lie in his ungrateful country. It was at that time also that the pro-consul Cn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introduced into Rome the luxury of Asia, more destructive than all hostile armies. It was then that iron bedsteads and expensive carpets were first used; then, too, that female singers were admitted at banquets, and other licentious abominations were introduced. But at present I meant to speak, not of the evils men voluntarily practise, but of those they suffer in spite of themselves. So that the case of Scipio, who succumbed to his enemies, and died in exile from the country he had rescued, was mentioned by me as being pertinent to the present discussion; for this was the reward he received from those Roman gods whose temples he saved from Hannibal, and who are worshipped only for the sake of securing temporal happiness. But since Sallust, as we have seen, declares that the manners of Rome were never better than at that time, I therefore judged it right to mention the Asiatic luxury then introduced, that it might be seen that what he says is true, only when that period is compared with the others during which the morals were certainly worse, and the factions more violent. For at that time-I mean between the second and third Punic war-that notorious Lex Voconia was passed, which prohibited a man from making a woman, even an only daughter, his heir; than which law I am at a loss to conceive what could be more unjust. It is true that in the interval between these two Punic wars the misery of Rome was somewhat less. Abroad, indeed, their forces were consumed by wars, yet also consoled by victories; while at home there were not such disturbances as at other times. But when the last Punic war had terminated in the utter destruction of Rome's rival, which quickly succumbed to the other Scipio, who thus earned for himself the surname of Africanus, then the Roman republic was overwhelmed with such a host of ills, which sprang from the corrupt manners induced by prosperity and security, that the sudden overthrow of Carthage is seen to have injured Rome more seriously than her long-continued hostility. During the whole subsequent period down to the time of Cжsar Augustus, who seems to have entirely deprived the Romans of liberty,-a liberty, indeed, which in their own judgment was no longer glorious, but full of broils and dangers, and which now was quite enervated and languishing,-and who submitted all things again to the will of a monarch, and infused as it were a new life into the sickly old age of the republic, and inaugurated a fresh rйgime;-during this whole period, I say, many military disasters were sustained on a variety of occasions, all of which I here pass by. There was specially the treaty of Numantia, blotted as it was with extreme disgrace; for the sacred chickens, they say, flew out of the coop, and thus augured disaster to Mancinus the consul; just as if, during all these years in which that little city of Numantia had withstood the besieging army of Rome, and had become a terror to the republic, the other generals had all marched against it under unfavorable auspices.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXII] Sed haec, inquam, omitto, quamuis illud nequaquam tacuerim, quod Mithridates rex Asiae ubique in Asia peregrinantes cives Romanos atque innumerabili copia suis negotiis intentos uno die occidi iussit; et factum est. Quam illa miserabilis rerum facies erat, subito quemque, ubicumque fuisset inventus, in agro in via in oppido, in domo in vico in foro, in templo in lecto in conuivio inopinate atque impie fuisse trucidatum! Quis gemitus morientium, quae lacrimae spectantium, fortasse etiam ferientium fuerunt! Quam dura necessitas hospitum non solum videndi nefarias illas caedes domi suae, verum, etiam perpetrandi, ab illa blanda comitate humanitatis repente mutatis uultibus ad hostile negotium in pace peragendum, mutuis dicam omnino uulneribus, cum percussus in corpore et percussor in animo feriretur! Num et isti omnes auguria contempserant? Num deos et domesticos et publicos, cum de sedibus suis ad illam inremeabilem peregrinationem profecti sunt, quos consulerent, non habebant? Hoc si ita est, non habent cur isti in hac causa de nostris temporibus conquerantur; olim Romani haec uana contemnunt. Si autem consuluerunt, respondeatur, quid ista profuerunt, quando per humanas dumtaxat leges nemine prohibente licuerunt. ||These things, I say, I pass in silence; but I can by no means be silent regarding the order given by Mithridates, king of Asia, that on one day all Roman citizens residing anywhere in Asia (where great numbers of them were following their private business) should be put to death: and this order was executed. How miserable a spectacle was then presented, when each man was suddenly and treacherously murdered wherever he happened to be, in the field or on the road, in the town, in his own home, or in the street, in market or temple, in bed or at table! Think of the groans of the dying, the tears of the spectators, and even of the executioners themselves. For how cruel a necessity was it that compelled the hosts of these victims, not only to see these abominable butcheries in their own houses, but even to perpetrate them: to change their countenance suddenly from the bland kindliness of friendship, and in the midst of peace set about the business of war; and, shall I say, give and receive wounds, the slain being pierced in body, the slayer in spirit! Had all these murdered persons, then, despised auguries? Had they neither public nor household gods to consult when they left their homes and set out on that fatal journey? If they had not, our adversaries have no reason to complain of these Christian times in this particular, since long ago the Romans despised auguries as idle. If, on the other hand, they did consult omens, let them tell us what good they got thereby, even when such things were not prohibited, but authorized, by human, if not by divine law.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXIII] Sed iam illa mala breviter, quantum possumus, commemoremus, quae quanto interiora, tanto miseriora exstiterunt: discordiae civiles vel potius inciviles, nec iam seditiones, sed etiam ipsa bella urbana, ubi tantus sanguis effusus est, ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus variisque vocibus in alterutrum, sed plane iam ferro armisque saeviebant; bella socialia, bella seruilia, bella civilia quantum Romanum cruorrem fuderunt, quantam Italiae uastationem desertionemque fecerunt! Namque antequam se adversus Romam sociale Latium commoveret, cuncta animalia humanis usibus subdita, canes equi, asini boves, et quaeque alia pecora sub hominum dominio fuerunt, subito efferata et domesticae lenitatis oblita relictis tectis libera uagabantur et omnem non solum aliorum, verum etiam dominorum aversabantur accessum, non sine exitio vel periculo audentis, si quis de proximo urgeret. Quanti mali signum fuit, si hoc signum fuit, quod tantum malum fuit, si etiam signum fuit! Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur. ||But let us now mention, as succinctly as possible, those disasters which were still more vexing, because nearer home; I mean those discords which are erroneously called civil, since they destroy civil interests. The seditions had now become urban wars, in which blood was freely shed, and in which parties raged against one another, not with wrangling and verbal contention, but with physical force and arms. What a sea of Roman blood was shed, what desolations and devastations were occasioned in Italy by wars social, wars servile, wars civil! Before the Latins began the social war against Rome, all the animals used in the service of man-dogs, horses, asses, oxen, and all the rest that are subject to man-suddenly grew wild, and forgot their domesticated tameness, forsook their stalls and wandered at large, and could not be closely approached either by strangers or their own masters without danger. If this was a portent, how serious a calamity must have been portended by a plague which, whether portent or no, was in itself a serious calamity! Had it happened in our day, the heathen would have been more rabid against us than their animals were against them.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXIV] Initium autem civilium malorum fuit seditiones Gracchorum agrariis legibus excitatae. Volebant enim agros populo dividere, quos nobilitas perperam possidebat. Sed iam uetustam iniquitatem audere convellere periculosissimum, immo vero, ut res ipsa docuit, perniciosissimum fuit. Quae funera facta sunt, cum prior Gracchus occisus est! quae etiam, cum alius frater eius non longo interposito tempore? Neque enim legibus et ordine potestatum, sed turbis armorumque conflictibus nobiles ignobilesque necabantur. Post Gracchi alterius interfectionem Lucius Opimius consul, qui adversus eum intra Vrbem arma commoverat eoque cum sociis oppresso et extincto ingentem civium stragem fecerat, cum quaestionem haberet iam iudiciaria inquisitione ceteros persequens, tria milia hominum occidisse perhebetur. Ex quo intellegi potest, quantam multitudinem mortium habere potuerit turbidus conflictus armorum, quando tantam habuit iudiciorum velut examinata cognitio. Percussor Gracchi ipsius caput, quantum grave erat, tanto auri pondere consuli vendidit; haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat. In qua etiam occisus est cum liberis Marcus Fuluius consularis. ||The civil wars originated in the seditions which the Gracchi excited regarding the agrarian laws; for they were minded to divide among the people the lands which were wrongfully possessed by the nobility. But to reform an abuse of so long standing was an enterprise full of peril, or rather, as the event proved, of destruction. For what disasters accompanied the death of the older Gracchus! what slaughter ensued when, shortly after, the younger brother met the same fate! For noble and ignoble were indiscriminately massacred; and this not by legal authority and procedure, but by mobs and armed rioters. After the death of the younger Gracchus, the consul Lucius Opimius, who had given battle to him within the city, and had defeated and put to the sword both himself and his confederates, and had massacred many of the citizens, instituted a judicial examination of others, and is reported to have put to death as many as 3000 men. From this it may be gathered how many fell in the riotous encounters, when the result even of a judicial investigation was so bloody. The assassin of Gracchus himself sold his head to the consul for its weight in gold, such being the previous agreement. In this massacre, too, Marcus Fulvius, a man of consular rank, with all his children, was put to death.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXV] Eleganti sane senatus consulto eo ipso loco, ubi funereus tumultus ille commissus est, ubi tot cives ordinis cuiusque ceciderunt, aedes Concordiae facta est, ut Gracchorum poenae testis contionantium oculos feriret memoriamque compungeret. Sed hoc quid aliud fuit quam inrisio deorum, illi deae templum construere, quae si esset in civitate, non tantis dissensionibus dilacerata conrueret? Nisi forte sceleris huius rea Concordia, quia deseruerat animos civium, meruit in illa aede tamquam in carcere includi. Cur enim, si rebus gestis congruere voluerunt, non ibi potius aedem Discordiae fabricarunt? An ulla ratio redditur, cur Concordia dea sit, et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sit ista, illa vero mala? Nec ipse aliud secutus videtur quam quod advertit Romae etiam Febri, sicut Saluti, templum constitutum. Eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae, verum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit. Periculose itque Romani tam mala dea irata vivere voluerunt nec Troianum excidium recoluerunt originem ab eius offensione sumpsisse. Ipsa quippe quia inter deos non fuerat inuitata, trium dearum litem aurei mali suppositione commenta est; unde rixa numinum et Venus victrix, et rapta Helena et Troia deleta. Quapropter, si forte indignata, quod inter deos in Vrbe nullum templum habere meruit, ideo iam turbabat tantis tumultibus civitatem, quanto atrocius potuit inritari, cum in loco illius caedis, hoc est in loco sui operis, adversariae suae constitutam aedem videret! Haec uana ridentibus nobis illi docti sapientesque stomachantur, et tamen numinum bonorum malorumque cultores de hac quaestione Concordiae Discordiaque non exeunt, sive praetermiserint harum dearum cultum eisque Febrem Bellonamque praetulerint, quibus antiqua fana fecerunt, sive et istas coluerint, cum sic eos discedente Concordia Discordia saeviens usque ad civilia bella perduxerit. ||A pretty decree of the senate it was, truly, by which the temple of Concord was built on the spot where that disastrous rising had taken place, and where so many citizens of every rank had fallen. I suppose it was that the monument of the Gracchi's punishment might strike the eye and affect the memory of the pleaders. But what was this but to deride the gods, by building a temple to that goddess who, had she been in the city, would not have suffered herself to be torn by such dissensions? Or was it that Concord was chargeable with that bloodshed because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, and was therefore incarcerated in that temple? For if they had any regard to consistency, why did they not rather erect on that site a temple of Discord? Or is there a reason for Concord being a goddess while Discord is none? Does the distinction of Labeo hold here, who would have made the one a good, the other an evil deity?-a distinction which seems to have been suggested to him by the mere fact of his observing at Rome a temple to Fever as well as one to Health. But, on the same ground, Discord as well as Concord ought to be deified. A hazardous venture the Romans made in provoking so wicked a goddess, and in forgetting that the destruction of Troy had been occasioned by her taking offence. For, being indignant that she was not invited with the other gods [to the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis], she created dissension among the three goddesses by sending in the golden apple, which occasioned strife in heaven, victory to Venus, the rape of Helen, and the destruction of Troy. Wherefore, if she was perhaps offended that the Romans had not thought her worthy of a temple among the other gods in their city, and therefore disturbed the state with such tumults, to how much fiercer passion would she be roused when she saw the temple of her adversary erected on the scene of that massacre, or, in other words, on the scene of her own handiwork! Those wise and learned men are enraged at our laughing at these follies; and yet, being worshippers of good and bad divinities alike, they cannot escape this dilemma about Concord and Discord: either they have neglected the worship of these goddesses, and preferred Fever and War, to whom there are shrines erected of great antiquity, or they have worshipped them, and after all Concord has abandoned them, and Discord has tempestuously hurled them into civil wars.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXVI] Praeclarum vero seditionis obstaculum aedem Concordiae, testem caedis suppliciique Gracchorum, contionantibus opponendam putarunt. Quantum ex hoc profecerint, indicant secuta peiora. Laborarunt enim deinceps contionatores non exemplum devitare Gracchorum, sed superare propositum, Lucius Saturninus tribunus plebis et Gaius Seruilius praetor et multo post Marcus Drusus, quorum omnium seditionibus caedes primo iam tunc gravissimae, deinde socialia bella exarserunt, quibus Italia uehementer adflicta et ad uastitatem mirabilem desertionemque perducta est. Bellum deinde seruile successit et bella civilia. Quae proelia commissa sunt, quid sanguinis fusum, ut omnes fere Italae gentes, quibus Romanum maxime praepollebat imperium, tamquam saeua barbaries domarentur! Iam ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum seruile contractum sit, ad quantum numerum et quam acrem ferocemque peruenerit, quos ille numerus imperatores populi Romani superaverit, quas et quo modo civitates regionesque, uastaverit, vix qui historiam conscripserunt satis explicare potuerunt. Neque id solum fuit seruile bellum, sed et Macedoniam provinciam prius seruitia depopulata sunt et deinde Siciliam oramque maritimam. Quanta etiam et quam horrenda commiserint primo latrocinia, deinde valida bella piratarum, quis pro magnitudine rerum valeat eloqui? ||But they supposed that, in erecting the temple of Concord within the view of the orators, as a memorial of the punishment and death of the Gracchi, they were raising an effectual obstacle to sedition. How much effect it had, is indicated by the still more deplorable wars that followed. For after this the orators endeavored not to avoid the example of the Gracchi, but to surpass their projects; as did Lucius Saturninus, a tribune of the people, and Caius Servilius the prжtor, and some time after Marcus Drusus, all of whom stirred seditions which first of all occasioned bloodshed, and then the social wars by which Italy was grievously injured, and reduced to a piteously desolate and wasted condition. Then followed the servile war and the civil wars; and in them what battles were fought, and what blood was shed, so that almost all the peoples of Italy, which formed the main strength of the Roman empire, were conquered as if they were barbarians! Then even historians themselves find it difficult to explain how the servile war was begun by a very few, certainly less than seventy gladiators, what numbers of fierce and cruel men attached themselves to these, how many of the Roman generals this band defeated, and how it laid waste many districts and cities. And that was not the only servile war: the province of Macedonia, and subsequently Sicily and the sea-coast, were also depopulated by bands of slaves. And who can adequately describe either the horrible atrocities which the pirates first committed, or the wars they afterwards maintained against Rome?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXVII] Cum vero Marius civili sanguine iam cruentus multis adversarum sibi partium peremptis victus Vrbe profugisset, vix paululum respirante civitate, ut verbis Tullianis utar, "superavit postea Cinna cum Mario. Tum vero clarissimis viris interfectis lumina civitatis extincta sunt. Vltus est huius victoriae crudelitatem postea Sulla, ne dici quidem opus est quanta deminutione civium et quanta calamitate rei publicae." De hac enim vindicta, quae perniciosior fuit, quam si scelera quae puniebantur inpunita relinquerentur, ait et Lucanus: Excessit medicina modum nimiumque secuta est, Qua morbi duxere manum. Periere nocentes; Sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes. Illo bello Mariano atque Sullano exceptis his, qui foris in acie ceciderunt, in ipsa quoque Vrbe cadaveribus vici plateae fora theatra templa completa sunt, ut difficile iudicaretur, quando victores plus funerum ediderint, utrum prius ut vincerent, an postea quia vicissent; cum primum victoria mariana, quando de exilio se ipse restituit, exceptis passim quaque versum caedibus factis caput Octavii consulis poneretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis visceribus interirent, Catulus hausto veneno se manibus inimocorum subtraheret, Merula flamen Dialis praecisis venis Iovi etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset. ||But when Marius, stained with the blood of his fellow-citizens, whom the rage of party had sacrificed, was in his turn vanquished and driven from the city, it had scarcely time to breathe freely, when, to use the words of Cicero, "Cinna and Marius together returned and took possession of it. Then, indeed, the foremost men in the state were put to death, its lights quenched. Sylla afterwards avenged this cruel victory; but we need not say with what loss of life, and with what ruin to the republic." For of this vengeance, which was more destructive than if the crimes which it punished had been committed with impunity, Lucan says: "The cure was excessive, and too closely resembled the disease. The guilty perished, but when none but the guilty survived: and then private hatred and anger, unbridled by law, were allowed free indulgence." In that war between Marius and Sylla, besides those who fell in the field of battle, the city, too, was filled with corpses in its streets, squares, markets, theatres, and temples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the victors slew more before or after victory, that they might be, or because they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, and returned from exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head of the consul Octavius was exposed on the rostrum; Cжsar and Fimbria were assassinated in their own houses; the two Crassi, father and son, were murdered in one another's sight; Bebius and Numitorius were disembowelled by being dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands of his enemies by drinking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, cut his veins and made a libation of his own blood to his god. Moreover, every one whose salutation Marius did not answer by giving his hand, was at once cut down before his face.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c28"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXVIII] Sullana vero victoria secuta, huius videlicet vindex crudelitatis, post tantum sanguinem civium, quo fuso fuerat comparata, finito iam bello inimicitiis viventibus crudelius in pace grassata est. Iam etiam post Marii maioris pristinas ac recentissimas caedes additae fuerant aliae graviores a Mario ivuene atque Carbone earundem partium Marianarum, qui Sulla imminente non solum victoriam, verum etiam ipsam desperantes salutem cuncta suis aliis caedibus impleuerunt. Nam praeter stragem late per diversa diffusam obsesso etiam senatu de ipsa curia, tamquam de carcere, producebantur ad gladium. Mucius Scaeuola pontifex, quoniam nihil apud Romanos templo Vestae sanctius habebatur, aram ipsam amplexus occisus est, ignemque illum, qui perpetua virginum cura semper ardebat, suo paene sanguine extinxit. Vrbem deinde Sulla victor intravit, qui in villa publica non iam bello, sed ipsa pace saeviente septem milia deditorum (unde utique inermia) non pugnando, sed iubendo prostraverat. In Vrbe autem tota quem vellet Sullanus quisque feriebat, unde tot funera numerari omnino non poterant, donec Sullae suggereretur sinendos esse aliquos vivere, ut essent quibus possent imperare qui vicerant. Tunc iam cohibita quae hac atque illac passim furibunda ferebatur licentia iugulandi, tabula illa cum magna gratulatione proposita est, quae hominum ex utroque ordine splendido, equestri scilicet atque senatorio, occidendorum ac proscribendorum duo milia continebat. Contristabat numerus, sed consolabatur modus; nec quia tot cadebant tantum erat maeroris, quantum laetitiae quia ceteri non timebant. Sed in quibus dam eorum, qui mori iussi erant, etiam ipsa licet crudelis ceterorum securitas genera mortium exquisita congemuit. Quendam enim sine ferro laniantium manus diripuerunt, inmanius homines hominem vivum, quam bestiae solent discerpere cadaver abiectum. Alius oculis effossis et particulatim membris amputatis in tantis cruciatibus diu vivere vel potius diu mori coactus est. Subhastatae sunt etiam, tamquam villae, quaedam nobiles civitates; una vero, velut unus reus duci iuberetur, sic tota iussa est trucidari. Haec facta sunt in pace post bellum, non ut acceleraretur obtinenda victoria, sed ne contemneretur obtenta. Pax cum bello de crudelitate certavit et vicit. Illud enim prostravit armatos, ista nudatos. Bellum rat, ut qui feriebatur, si posset, feriret; pax autem, non ut qui euaserat viveret, sed ut moriens non repugnaret. ||Then followed the victory of Sylla, the so-called avenger of the cruelties of Marius. But not only was his victory purchased with great bloodshed; but when hostilities were finished, hostility survived, and the subsequent peace was bloody as the war. To the former and still recent massacres of the elder Marius, the younger Marius and Carbo, who belonged to the same party, added greater atrocities. For when Sylla approached, and they despaired not only of victory, but of life itself, they made a promiscuous massacre of friends and foes. And, not satisfied with staining every corner of Rome with blood, they besieged the senate, and led forth the senators to death from the curia as from a prison. Mucius Scжvola the pontiff was slain at the altar of Vesta, which he had clung to because no spot in Rome was more sacred than her temple; and his blood well-nigh extinguished the fire which was kept alive by the constant care of the virgins. Then Sylla entered the city victorious, after having slaughtered in the Villa Publica, not by combat, but by an order, 7000 men who had surrendered, and were therefore unarmed; so fierce was the rage of peace itself, even after the rage of war was extinct. Moreover, throughout the whole city every partisan of Sylla slew whom he pleased, so that the number of deaths went beyond computation, till it was suggested to Sylla that he should allow some to survive, that the victors might not be destitute of subjects. Then this furious and promiscuous licence to murder was checked, and much relief was expressed at the publication of the proscription list, containing though it did the death-warrant of two thousand men of the highest ranks, the senatorial and equestrian. The large number was indeed saddening, but it was consolatory that a limit was fixed; nor was the grief at the numbers slain so great as the joy that the rest were secure. But this very security, hard-hearted as it was, could not but bemoan the exquisite torture applied to some of those who had been doomed to die. For one was torn to pieces by the unarmed hands of the executioners; men treating a living man more savagely than wild beasts are used to tear an abandoned corpse. Another had his eyes dug out, and his limbs cut away bit by bit, and was forced to live a long while, or rather to die a long while, in such torture. Some celebrated cities were put up to auction, like farms; and one was collectively condemned to slaughter, just as an individual criminal would be condemned to death. These things were done in peace when the war was over, not that victory might be more speedily obtained, but that, after being obtained, it might not be thought lightly of. Peace vied with war in cruelty, and surpassed it: for while war overthrew armed hosts, peace slew the defenceless. War gave liberty to him who was attacked, to strike if he could; peace granted to the survivors not life, but an unresisting death.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c29"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXIX] Quae rabies exterarum gentium, quae saevitia barbarorum huic de civibus victoriae civium comparari potest? Quid Roma funestius taetrius amariusque vidit, utrum olim Gallorum et paulo ante Gothorum inruptionem an Marii et Sullae aliorumque in eorum partibus virorum clarissimorum tamquam suorum luminum in sua membra ferocitatem? Galli quidem trucidaverunt senatum, quidquid eius in Vrbe tota praeter arcem Capitolinam, quae sola utcumque defensa est, reperire potuerunt; sed in illo colle constitutis auro vitam saltem vendiderunt, quam etsi ferro rapere non possent, possent tamen obsidione consumere: Gothi vero tam multis senatoribus pepercerunt, ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt. At vero Sulla vivo adhuc Mario ipsum Capitolium, quod a Gallis tutum fuit, ad decernendas caedes victor insedit, et cum fuga Marius lapsus esset ferocior cruentiorque rediturus, iste in Capitolio per senatus etiam consultum multos vita rebusque privavit: Marianis autem partibus Sulla absente quid sanctum cui parcerent fuit, quando Mucio civi senatori pontifici aram ipsam, ubi erant ut aiunt fata Romana, miseris ambienti amplexibus non pepercerunt? Sullana porro tabula illa postrema, ut omittamus alias innumerabiles mortes, plures iugulavit senatores, quam Gothi vel spoliare potuerunt. ||What fury of foreign nations, what barbarian ferocity, can compare with this victory of citizens over citizens? Which was more disastrous, more hideous, more bitter to Rome: the recent Gothic and the old Gallic invasion, or the cruelty displayed by Marius and Sylla and their partisans against men who were members of the same body as themselves? The Gauls, indeed, massacred all the senators they found in any part of the city except the Capitol, which alone was defended; but they at least sold life to those who were in the Capitol, though they might have starved them out if they could not have stormed it. The Goths, again, spared so many senators, that it is the more surprising that they killed any. But Sylla, while Marius was still living, established himself as conqueror in the Capitol, which the Gauls had not violated, and thence issued his death-warrants; and when Marius had escaped by flight, though destined to return more fierce and bloodthirsty than ever, Sylla issued from the Capitol even decrees of the senate for the slaughter and confiscation of the property of many citizens. Then, when Sylla left, what did the Marian faction hold sacred or spare, when they gave no quarter even to Mucius, a citizen, a senator, a pontiff, and though clasping in piteous embrace the very altar in which, they say, reside the destinies of Rome? And that final proscription list of Sylla's, not to mention countless other massacres, despatched more senators than the Goths could even plunder.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c30"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXX] Quia igitur fronte quo corde, qua inpudentia qua insipientia vel potius amentia illa diis suis non inputant, et haec nostro inputant Christo? Crudelia bella civilia, omnibus bellis hostilibus, auctoribus etiam eorum fatentibus, amariora, quibus illa res publica nec adflicta, sed omnino perdita iudicata est, longe ante adventum Christi exorta sunt ,et sceleratarum concatenatione causarum a bello Mariano atque Sullano ad bella Sertorii et Catilinae (quorum a Sulla fuerat ille proscriptus, ile nutritus), inde ad Lepidi et Catuli bellum (quorum alter gesta Sullana rescindere, alter defendere cupiebat), inde ad Pompei et Caesaris (quorum Pompeius sectator Sullae fuerat eiusque potentiam vel aequaverat vel iam etiam superaverat; Caesar autem Pompei potentiam non ferebat, sed quia non habebat, quam tamen illo victo interfectoque transcendit), hinc ad alium Caesarem, qui post Augustus appellatus est, peruenerunt, quo imperante natus est Christus. Nam et ipse Augustus cum multis gessit bella civilia, et in eis etiam multi clarissimi viri perierunt, inter quos et Cicero, disertus ille artifex regendae rei publicae. Pompei quippe victorem Gaium Caesarem, qui victoriam civilem clementer exercuit suisque adversariis vitam dignitatemque donavit, tamquam regni adpetitorem quorundam nobilium coniuratio senatorum velut pro rei publicae libertate in ipsa curia trucidavit. Huius deinde potentiam multum moribus dispar vitiisque omnibus inquinatus atque corruptus adfectare videbatur Antonius, cui uehementer pro eadem illa velut patriae libertate Cicero resistebat. Tunc emerserat mirabilis indolis adulescens ille alius Caesar, illius Gai Caesaris filius adoptivus, qui, ut dixi, postea est appellatus Augustus. Huic adulescenti Caesari, ut eius potentia contra Antonium nutriretur, Cicero favebat, sperans eum depulsa et oppressa Antoniii dominatione instauraturum rei publicae libertatem, usque adeo caecus atque inprovidus futurorum, ut ille ipse ivvenis, cuius dignitatem ac potestatem fovebat, et eundem Ciceronem occidendum Antonio quadam quasi concordiae pactione permitteret et ipsam libertatem rei publicae, pro qua multum ille clamaverat, dicioni propriae subiugaret. ||With what effrontery, then, with what assurance, with what impudence, with what folly, or rather insanity, do they refuse to impute these disasters to their own gods, and impute the present to our Christ! These bloody civil wars, more distressing, by the avowal of their own historians, than any foreign wars, and which were pronounced to be not merely calamitous, but absolutely ruinous to the republic, began long before the coming of Christ, and gave birth to one another; so that a concatenation of unjustifiable causes led from the wars of Marius and Sylla to those of Sertorius and Cataline, of whom the one was proscribed, the other brought up by Sylla; from this to the war of Lepidus and Catulus, of whom the one wished to rescind, the other to defend the acts of Sylla; from this to the war of Pompey and Cжsar, of whom Pompey had been a partisan of Sylla, whose power he equalled or even surpassed, while Cжsar condemned Pompey's power because it was not his own, and yet exceeded it when Pompey was defeated and slain. From him the chain of civil wars extended to the second Cжsar, afterwards called Augustus, and in whose reign Christ was born. For even Augustus himself waged many civil wars; and in these wars many of the foremost men perished, among them that skilful manipulator of the republic, Cicero. Caius [Julius] Cжsar, when he had conquered Pompey, though he used his victory with clemency, and granted to men of the opposite faction both life and honors, was suspected of aiming at royalty, and was assassinated in the curia by a party of noble senators, who had conspired to defend the liberty of the republic. His power was then coveted by Antony, a man of very different character, polluted and debased by every kind of vice, who was strenuously resisted by Cicero on the same plea of defending the liberty of the republic. At this juncture that other Cжsar, the adopted son of Caius, and afterwards, as I said, known by the name of Augustus, had made his dйbut as a young man of remarkable genius. This youthful Cжsar was favored by Cicero, in order that his influence might counteract that of Antony; for he hoped that Cжsar would overthrow and blast the power of Antony, and establish a free state,-so blind and unaware of the future was he: for that very young man, whose advancement and influence he was fostering, allowed Cicero to be killed as the seal of an alliance with Antony, and subjected to his own rule the very liberty of the republic in defence of which he had made so many orations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="c31"><b>BOOK III</b> [XXXI] Deos suos accusent de tantis malis, qui Christo nostro ingrati sunt de tantis bonis. Certe quando illa mala fiebant, calebant arae numinum Sabaeo thure sertisque recentibus halabant, clarebant sacerdotia, fana renidebant, sacrificabatur ludebatur furebatur in templis, quando passim tantu civium sanguis a civibus non modo in ceteris locis, verum etiam inter ipsa deorum altaria fundebatur. Non elegit templum, quo confugeret Tullius, quia frustra elegerat Mucius. Hi vero qui multo indignius insultant temporibus Christianis, aut ad loca Christo dicatissima confugerunt, aut illuc eos ut viverent etiam ipsi barbari deduxerunt. Illud scio et hoc mecum, quisquis sine studio partium iudicat, facillime agnoscit (ut omittam cetera quae multa commemoravi et alia multo plura quae commemorae longum putavi): si humanum genus ante bella Punica Christianam reciperet disciplinam et consequeretur rerum tanta uastatio, quanta illis bellis Europam Africamque contrivit, nullus talium, quales nunc patimur, nisi Christianae religioni mala illa tribuisset. Multo autem minus eorum voces tolerarentur, quantum adtinet ad Romanos, si Christianae religionis receptionem et diffamationem vel inruptio <illa> Gallorum vel Tiberini fluminis igniumque illa depopulatio vel, quod cuncta mala praecedit, bella illa civilia sequerentur. Mala etiam alia, quae usque adeo incredibiliter acciderunt, ut inter prodigia numerarentur, si Christianis temporibus accidissent, quibus ea nisi Christianis hominibus tamquam crimina obicerent? Omitto quippe illa, quae magis fuerunt mira quam noxia, boves locutos, infantes nondum natos de uteris matrum quaedam verba clamasse, volasse serpentes, feminas et gallinas et homines in masculinum secum fuisse conversas et cetera huius modi, quae in eorum libris non fabulosis, sed historicis, seu vera seu falsa ssint, non inferunt hominibus perniciem, sed stuporem. Sed cum pluit terra, cum pluit creta, cum pluit lapidibus (non ut grando appellari solet hoc nomine, sed omnino lapidibus), haec profecto etiam graviter laedere potuerunt. Legimus apud eos Aetnaeis ignibus ab ipso montis vertice usque ad litus proximum decurrentibus ita mare ferbuisse, ut rupes urerentur, ut pices navium soluerentur. Hoc utique non leviter noxium fuit, quamuis incredibiliter mirum. Eodem rursus aestu ignium tanta vi favillae scripserunt oppletam esse Siciliam, ut Catinensis urbis tecta obruta et pressa dirueret; qua calamitate permoti misericorditer eiusdem anni tributum ei relaxavere Romani. Lucustarum etiam in Africa multitudinem prodigii similem fuisse, cum iam esset populi Romani provincia, litteris mandaverunt; consumptis enim fructibus foliisque lignorum ingenti atque inaestimabili nube in mare dicunt esse deiectam; qua mortua redditaque litoribus atque hinc aere corrupto tantam ortam pestilentiam, ut in solo regno Masinissae octingenta hominum milia perisse referantur et multo amplius in terris litoribus proximis. Tunc Vticae ex triginta milibus iuniorum, quae ibi erant, decem milia remansisse confirmant. Talis itaque uanitas, qualem ferimus eique respondere compellimur, quid horum non Christianae religioni tribueret, si temporibus Christianis videret? Et tamen diis suis ista non tribuunt, quorum cultum ideo requirunt, ne ista vel minora patiantur, cum ea maiora pertulerint a quibus antea colebantur. ||Let those who have no gratitude to Christ for His great benefits, blame their own gods for these heavy disasters. For certainly when these occurred the altars of the gods were kept blazing, and there rose the mingled fragrance of "Sabжan incense and fresh garlands;" the priests were clothed with honor, the shrines were maintained in splendor; sacrifices, games, sacred ecstasies, were common in the temples; while the blood of the citizens was being so freely shed, not only in remote places, but among the very altars of the gods. Cicero did not choose to seek sanctuary in a temple, because Mucius had sought it there in vain. But they who most unpardonably calumniate this Christian era, are the very men who either themselves fled for asylum to the places specially dedicated to Christ, or were led there by the barbarians that they might be safe. In short, not to recapitulate the many instances I have cited, and not to add to their number others which it were tedious to enumerate, this one thing I am persuaded of, and this every impartial judgment will readily acknowledge, that if the human race had received Christianity before the Punic wars, and if the same desolating calamities which these wars brought upon Europe and Africa had followed the introduction of Christianity, there is no one of those who now accuse us who would not have attributed them to our religion. How intolerable would their accusations have been, at least so far as the Romans are concerned, if the Christian religion had been received and diffused prior to the invasion of the Gauls, or to the ruinous floods and fires which desolated Rome, or to those most calamitous of all events, the civil wars! And those other disasters, which were of so strange a nature that they were reckoned prodigies, had they happened since the Christian era, to whom but to the Christians would they have imputed these as crimes? I do not speak of those things which were rather surprising than hurtful,-oxen speaking, unborn infants articulating some words in their mothers' wombs, serpents flying, hens and women being changed into the other sex; and other similar prodigies which, whether true or false, are recorded not in their imaginative, but in their historical works, and which do not injure, but only astonish men. But when it rained earth, when it rained chalk, when it rained stones-not hailstones, but real stones-this certainly was calculated to do serious damage. We have read in their books that the fires of Etna, pouring down from the top of the mountain to the neighboring shore, caused the sea to boil, so that rocks were burnt up, and the pitch of ships began to run,-a phenomenon incredibly surprising, but at the same time no less hurtful. By the same violent heat, they relate that on another occasion Sicily was filled with cinders, so that the houses of the city Catina were destroyed and buried under them,-a calamity which moved the Romans to pity them, and remit their tribute for that year. One may also read that Africa, which had by that time become a province of Rome, was visited by a prodigious multitude of locusts, which, after consuming the fruit and foliage of the trees, were driven into the sea in one vast and measureless cloud; so that when they were drowned and cast upon the shore the air was polluted, and so serious a pestilence produced that in the kingdom of Masinissa alone they say there perished 800,000 persons, besides a much greater number in the neighboring districts. At Utica they assure us that, of 30,000 soldiers then garrisoning it, there survived only ten. Yet which of these disasters, suppose they happened now, would not be attributed to the Christian religion by those who thus thoughtlessly accuse us, and whom we are compelled to answer? And yet to their own gods they attribute none of these things, though they worship them for the sake of escaping lesser calamities of the same kind, and do not reflect that they who formerly worshipped them were not preserved from these serious disasters.
| |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
