Dio's Rome, Vol VI.
by Cassius Dio
Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

8. Dio the Roman says that Janus, an ancient hero, because of his entertainment of Saturn, received the knowledge of the future and of the past, and that on this account he was represented with two faces by the Romans. From him the month of January was named, and the beginning of the year comes in the same month. (Cedrenus, Vol. 1, p. 295, 10, Bekker.)

9. Book 1, Dio:—"For in some beginnings, when grasping at ends, the costs that we endure are not unwelcome." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 161, 3.)

10. (Numa) having lived for a period of three more than eighty years, and having been king forty and three years.—Zonaras, 7, 5. (Cp. Haupt, Hermes XIV.)

[Frag. VI]

1. Dio, Book 2: "that their [Footnote: Probably refers to the people of Alba.] reputation would stand in the way of their growth." (Bekker, Anecd., p. 139, 12.)

2. Neither of the two [Tullus or Mettius] sanctioned the removal, but both championed their own pretensions. For Tullus in view of the report about Romulus and the power they possessed was elated and so was Fufetius in view of the age of Alba and because it was the mother city not only of the Romans themselves but of many others; and both felt no little pride. For these reasons they withdrew from that dispute but plunged into a new quarrel about the sovereignty: for they saw that it was impossible [Footnote: Refers to the Romans.] to keep them free from party feeling, dwelling with them in safety on fair terms; and this was due to the inherent disposition of men to quarrel with their equals, and to desire to rule others. Many claims also regarding this they preferred against each other, to see if by any means the one party would voluntarily concede either of the two favors to the other. They accomplished nothing, but formed a compact to struggle in her behalf.

(Mai, p. 139.)

3. Dio, Book 2.—"and attacking them who expected no further danger." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 139, 15.)

4. Tullus was deemed most able against the enemy, but absolutely despised and neglected religion until, during the recurrence of a plague, he himself fell sick. Then, indeed, he paid the strictest regard to all the gods, and furthermore established the Salii Collini. (Valesius, p. 569.)

[Frag. VII]

Marcius, comprehending how it is not sufficient for men who wish to remain at peace to refrain from wrongdoing, and that refusing to molest others, without active measures, is not a means of safety, but the more one longs for it the more vulnerable does one become to the mass of mankind, changed his course. He saw that a desire for quiet was not a power for protection unless accompanied by equipment for war: he perceived also that delight in freedom from foreign broils very quickly and very easily ruined men who were unduly enthusiastic over it. For this reason he thought that war was nobler and safer, both as a preparation and as forethought, than was peace, and so whatever he was unable to obtain from the Latins with their consent, and without harming them, he took away against their will by means of a military expedition. (Mai, p. 139.)

[Frag. VIII]

Tarquinius, by using wealth, knowledge, and great wit opportunely everywhere, put Marcius in such a frame of mind than he was enrolled by the latter among the patricians and among the senators, was often appointed general and was entrusted with the guardianship of his children and of the kingdom. He was no less agreeable to the rest, and consequently ruled them with their consent. The reason was that while he took all measures from which he might derive strength he did not lose his head, but though among the foremost humbled himself. Any laborious tasks he was willing to undertake openly in the place of others, but in pleasure he willingly made way for others while he himself obtained either nothing or but little, and that unnoticed. The responsibility for what went well he laid upon any one sooner than upon himself and placed the resulting advantages within the reach of the public for whoever desired them, but more unsatisfactory issues he never laid to the charge of any one else, nor attempted to divide the blame. Besides, he favored all the friends of Marcius individually both by deeds and by words. Money he spent without stint and was ready to offer his services if any one wanted anything of him. He neither said nor did anything mean against any one, and did not fall into enmity with any one if he could help it. Furthermore, whatever benefits he received from any persons he always exaggerated, but unpleasant treatment he either did not notice at all or minimized it and regarded it is of very slight importance: not only did he refuse to take offensive measures in return, but he conferred kindnesses until he won the man over entirely. This gained him a certain reputation for cleverness, because he had mastered Marcius and all the latter's followers, but through subsequent events he caused the majority of men to be distrusted, either as being deceitful by nature or as changing their views according to their own influence and fortunes. (Valesius, p. 570.)

[Frag. IX]

Second Book of Dio: "As there was nothing in which they did not yield him obedience." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 164, 19.)

[Frag. X] 1. Dio, Book 2.—"Because his brother did not cooperate with him he secretly put him out of the way by poison through the agency of his wife." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 139, 17. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 9.)

2. Tarquinius, when he had equipped himself sufficiently to reign over them even if they were unwilling, first arrested the most powerful members of the senate and next some of the rest, and put to death many publicly, when he could bring some real charge against them, and many besides secretly, while some he banished. Not merely because some of them loved Tullius more than him, nor because they had family, wealth, intelligence, and displayed conspicuous bravery and distinguished wisdom did he destroy them, out of jealousy and out of a suspicion likewise that their dissimilarity of character must force them to hate him, the while he defended himself against some and anticipated the attack of others; no, he slew all his bosom friends who had exerted themselves to help him get the kingship no less than the rest; for he thought that impelled by the audacity and fondness for revolution through which they had obtained dominion for him they might equally well give it to some one else. So he made away with the best part of the senate and of the knights and did not appoint to those orders any one at all in place of the men who had been destroyed: he understood that he was hated by the entire populace and was anxious to render the classes mentioned extremely weak through paucity of men. Yes, he even undertook to abolish the senate altogether, since he believed that every gathering of men and especially of chosen persons who had some pretence of prestige from antiquity, was most hostile to a tyrant. But as he was afraid that the multitude or else his body-guards themselves, in their capacity as citizens, might by reason of vexation at the change in government revolt, he refrained from doing this openly, but effected it in a conveniently outrageous way. He failed to introduce any new member into the senate to make up the loss, and to those who were left he communicated nothing of importance. He called the senators together not to help him in the administration of any important business; no, this very act was to give them a proof of their littleness, and thereby to enable him to humiliate and show scorn for them. Most of his business he carried on by himself or with the aid of his sons, in the first place to the end that no one else should have any power, and secondly because he shrank from publishing matters involving his own wrongdoing. He was difficult of access and hard to accost, and showed such great haughtiness and brutality toward all alike that he received the nickname among them of "Proud." Among other decidedly tyrannical deeds of himself and his children might be mentioned the fact that he once had some citizens bound naked to some crosses in the Forum and before the eyes of the citizens, and had them shamefully beaten to death with rods. This punishment, invented by him at that time, has often been inflicted. (Valesius, p. 573.)

3. Dio in 2nd Book: "Publicly and by arrangement reviling his father in many unusual ways on the ground that he was a tyrant and was forsworn." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 155, 1.)

4. The Sibyl about whom Lycophron is now speaking was the Cumaean, who died in the time of Tarquin the Proud and left behind three or nine of her prophetic books. Of these the Romans bought either one or three, after the Sibyl's servant had destroyed the rest by fire because they would not give her as much gold as she wanted. This they did later and bought up either one that was left over or else three, and gave them to Marcus Acilius to keep. Him they cast alive into the skin of an ox and put to death because he had given them to be copied: but for the book or books they dug a hole in the Forum and buried them along with a chest. (Ioannes Tzetzes, scholia on Lycophr. 1279.)

5. Lucius Junius, a son of Tarquinius's sister, in terror after the king had killed his father and had moreover taken his property away from him feigned madness, to the end that he might possibly survive. For he well understood that every person possessed of sense, especially when he is of a distinguished family, becomes an object of suspicion to tyrants. And when once he had started on this plan he acted it out with great precision, and for that reason was called Brutus. This is the name that the Latins gave to idiots. Sent along with Titus and Arruns as if he were a kind of plaything he carried a staff as a votive offering, he said, to the gods, though it had no great value so far as anyone could see. (Mai, p. 139.)

6. Dio in Book 2: "After that he was found in the Pythian god's temple." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 139, 21.)

7. They made sport of the gift [i. e. the staff] of Brutus, and when to the enquiry of the ambassadors as to who should succeed to the kingdom of their father the oracle replied that the first to kiss his mother should hold dominion over the Romans, he kissed the earth, pretending to have fallen down by accident, for he regarded her as the mother of all mankind. (Mai, p. 140.)

8. Brutus overthrew the Tarquins for the following reason. During the siege of Ardea the children of Tarquin were one day dining with Brutus and Collatinus, since these two were of their own age and relatives; and they fell into a discussion and finally into a dispute about the virtue of their wives,—each one giving the preference to his own spouse. And, as all the women happened to be absent from the camp, they decided straightaway that night, before they could be announced, to take horse and ride away to all of them simultaneously. This they did, and found all engaged in a carousal except Lucretia, wife of Collatinus, whom they discovered at work on wool. This fact about her becoming noised abroad led Sextus to desire to outrage her. Perchance he even felt some love for her, since she was of surpassing beauty; still it was rather her reputation than her body that he desired to ruin. He watched for an opportunity when Collatinus was among the Rutuli, hurried to Collatia, and coming by night to her house as that of a kinswoman obtained both food and lodging. At first he tried to persuade her to grant her favors to him, but as he could not succeed he attempted force. When he found he could make no progress by this means either, he devised a plan by which in the most unexpected way he compelled her to submit voluntarily to be debauched. To his declaration that he would cut her throat she paid no attention, and his statement that he would make away with one of the servants she listened to in contempt. When, however, he threatened to lay the body of the servant beside her and spread the report that he had found them sleeping together and killed them he was no longer to be resisted: and she, fearing it might be believed that this had so happened, chose to yield to him and die after giving an account of the affair rather than lose her good name in perishing at once. For this reason she did not refuse to commit adultery, but afterward she made ready a dagger beneath the pillow and sent for her husband and her father. As soon as they had come she shed many tears, then spoke with a sigh: "Father, I utter your name because I have disgraced it less than my husband's. It is no honorable deed I have done this last night, but Sextus forced me, threatening to kill me and a slave together and pretend he had found me sleeping with the man. This threat compelled me to sin, to prevent you from believing that such a thing had taken place. And I, because I am a woman, will treat my case as becomes me: but do you, if you are men and care for your wives and for your children, avenge me, free yourselves, and show the tyrants what manner of creatures you are and what manner of woman they have outraged." Having spoken to this effect she did not wait for any reply but immediately drawing the dagger from its hiding place stabbed herself. (Valesius, p. 574.)

9. Dio, Second Book: "And he [Footnote: Van Herweiden's reading is the one adopted in this doubtful passage.] went outside of Roman territory making frequent trials of neighboring peoples." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 164, 25.)

1. All crowds of people judge measures according to the men who direct them, and of whatever sort they ascertain the men to be, they believe that the measures are of the same sort. (Mai, p. 140.)

[Frag. XI]

2. Every one prefers the untried to the well known, attaching great hope to the uncertain in comparison with what has already gained his hatred. (Ib.)

3. All changes are very dangerous, and especially do those in governments work the greatest and most numerous evils to both individuals and state. Sensible men, therefore, decide to remain under the same forms continually, even if they be not very good, rather than by changing to have now one, now another, and be continually wandering. (Ib.)

4. Dio, 2nd Book: "When he had learned this he accordingly both came to them the following day [lacuna]" (Bekker, Anecd., p. 178, 20.)

5. In 3rd Book of Dio: "Whose father also ruled you blamelessly." (Ib., p. 120, 24.)

6. Dio's 3rd Book: "Of the fact that he loves you, you could get no greater proof than his eagerness to live in your midst and his action in having his possessions long since brought here." (Ib., p. 139, 26, and p. 164, 28.)

7. Dio's 3rd Book: "How would it pay any one to do this?" (Ib, p. 155,14.)

8. Dio's 3rd Book: "As Romulus also enjoined upon us." (Ib., p. 139, 29.)

9. Every person comes to possess wishes and desires according to his fortune and whatever his circumstances be, of like nature are also the opinions he acquires. (Mai, p. 141.)

10. The business of kingship, more than any other, demands not merely virtue, but also great understanding and intelligence, and it is not possible without these qualities for the man who takes hold of it to show moderation. Many, for example, as if raised unexpectedly to some great height, have not endured their elevation, but startled from their senses have fallen and made failures of themselves and have shattered all the interests of their subjects. (Mai, ib.)

11. With regard to the future form a judgment from what they have done, but do not be deceived by what they as suppliants falsely pretend. Unholy deeds proceed in every case from a man's real purpose, but any one may concoct creditable phrases. Hence judge from what a man has done, not from what he says he will do. (Mai, ib.)

12. 3rd Book of Dio: "It is done not merely by the actual men who rule them, but also by those who share the power with those rulers." (Bekker, Anecd. p.130, 23, and p.164, 32.)

In the preceding fragment we have, apparently, some comment of Dio himself on the change in the Roman government (from monarchy to republic) together with scraps of two speeches,—namely, that of the envoys of Tarquinius to the Roman people, and that of Brutus in reply.

[Frag. XII]

1. Valerius, the colleague of Brutus, although he had proved himself the most democratic of men came near being murdered in short order by the multitude: they suspected him, in fact, of being eager to become sole sovereign. They would have slain him, indeed, had he not quickly anticipated their action by courting their favor. He entered the assembly and bent the rods which he had formerly used straight, and took away the surrounding axes that were bound in with them. After he had in this way assumed an attitude of humility, he kept a sad countenance for some time and shed tears: and when he at last managed to utter a sound, he spoke in a low fearful voice with a suggestion of a quaver. [The general subject is speechmaking.] (Mai, p. 141.)

2. On account of whom (plur.) also [Collatinus] was enraged. Consequently Brutus so incited the populace against him that they came near slaying him on the spot. They did not quite do this, however, but compelled him to resign without delay. They chose as colleague to the consul in his place Publius Valerius, who had the additional title of Poplicola. This appellation translated into Greek signifies "friend of the people" or "most democratic." (Zonaras, 7, 12. Cp. Haupt, Hermes XIV.)

[Frag. XIII]

The temple of Jupiter was dedicated by Horatius, as determined by lot, although Valerius made the declaration that his son was dead, and arranged to have this news brought to him during the very performance of his sacred office, with the purpose that Horatius under the blow of the misfortune and because in general it was impious for any one in grief to fulfill the duties of priest, should yield to him the dedication of the structure. The other did not refuse credence to the report—for it was noised abroad by many trustworthy persons—yet he did not surrender his ministry: on the contrary, after bidding some men to leave unburied the body of his son, as if it were a stranger's, in order that he might seem unconcerned regarding the rites due to it, he then performed all the necessary ceremonies. (Valesius, p.577.)

[Frag. XIV]

1. (Tarquinius continued to supplicate Klara Porsina.) (Zonaras, 7, 12. Cp. Tzetz. Hist. 6, 201. Plutarch, Poplic. 16, has "Lara Porsina.")

2. Dio in 4th Book: "But they overran the Roman territory and harried everything up to the wall." (Bekker, Anecd. p.152, 3 and 1.) 3. Larta Porsenna, an Etruscan, or, perhaps, Klara Porsenna, was proceeding against Rome with a great army. But Mucius, a noble Roman soldier, after equipping himself in arms and dress of Etruscans then started to spy upon them, wishing to kill Porsenna. Beside the latter at that time was sitting his secretary, who in the Etruscan tongue was called Clusinus; and Mucius, doubtful which might be the king, killed Clusinus instead of the king. The man was arrested, and when Porsenna asked him: "Why in the world did you do this thing? What injury had you received from him?" the other cried out: "I happen to be not Etruscan but Roman; and three hundred others of like mind with me who are now hunting thee to slay thee." This he had spoken falsely; and, with his right hand thrust into the fire, he gazed on Porsenna as though another were suffering: and when the prince enquired: "Why do you look fixedly upon us?" he said: "Reflecting how I erred in failing to slay thee and in thy stead killed one whom I thought Porsenna." And when Porsenna exclaimed: "You shall now become my friend!" Mucius rejoined: "If thou becom'st a Roman." Porsenna admiring the man for his uprightness becomes a friend to the Romans and checks the tide of battle. (Tzetzes, Chiliades, VI, 201-223.)

(Cp. Scholia on John Tzetzes's Letters in Cramer's Anecd. Oxon., vol. III, p.360, 30: "Clusinus was the name of Porsenna's secretary, according to what Dio says"; and Zonaras, 7, 12: "Drawing his sword he killed his secretary, who was sitting beside him and was similarly arrayed.")

4. Dio's 4th Book: "And he [Footnote: Porsenna.] presented to the maiden [Footnote: Claelia] both arms (or so some say) and a horse." (Bekker, Anecd. p.133, 8.)

5. After this the Tarquins endeavored on several occasions, by forming alliances with tribes bordering on Roman dominions, to recover the kingdom; but they were all destroyed in the battles save the sire, who, moreover, was called Superbus (or, as a Greek would say, Proud). Subsequently he found his way to Cyme of Opicia and there died. Thus the careers of the Tarquins reached a conclusion. And after their expulsion from the kingdom consuls, as has been stated, were chosen by the Romans. One of these was Publius Valerius, who became consul four times,—the one to whom also the name Poplicola was applied. (Zonaras 7, 12 sq. Cp. Haupt, Hermes XIV.)

6. And the management of the funds they assigned to others in order that the men holding the consular office might not possess the great influence that would spring from their having the revenues in their power. Now for the first time "stewards" began to be created and they called them quaestors. These in the first place tried capital cases, from which fact they have obtained this title,—on account of their questionings and on account of their search for truth as the result of questionings. But later they acquired also management of the public funds and received the additional name of Stewards ([Greek: tamiai]). After a time the courts were delivered over to different persons, while these officials were managers of the funds. (Zonaras 7, 13. Cp. Haupt, Hermes, XIV.)

7. Dio's 4th Book: "And they provided them [Footnote: Probably a reference to the quaestors.] with separate titles besides in general making very different provision for them in the different cases." (Bekker, Anecd. p.133, 16.)

8. Dio in 5th Book: "The lords filling them with hope on certain points." (Ib. p.140, 10.)

9. Dio in 5th Book: "With this accordingly he honored him." (Ib. p.175, 19.)

[Frag. XV]

To a large extent success consists in planning secretly, acting at the opportune moment, following one's own counsel somewhat, and in having no chance to fall back upon any one else, but being obliged to take upon one's self the responsibility for the issue, however it turns out. [Footnote: Fragment XV may perhaps be a comment on dictatorships.] (Mai, p.142.)

[Frag. XVI]

1. They had recourse to civil strife. And the reason is plain. Those whose money gave them influence desired to surpass their inferiors in all respects as though they were their sovereigns, and the weaker citizens, sure of their own equal rights, were unwilling to obey them even in some small point. The one class, insatiate of freedom, sought to enjoy the property of the other; and this other, uncontrolled in its pride of place, to enjoy the fruits of the former's labors. So it was that they sundered their former relations, wherein they were wont harmoniously to assist each other with mutual profit, and no longer made distinctions between foreign and native races. Indeed, both disdained moderation, and the one class set its heart upon an extreme of dominion, the other upon an extreme of resistance to voluntary servitude; consequently they missed the results accomplished by their previous allied efforts and inflicted many striking injuries, partly in defence against each other's movements and partly by way of anticipating them. More than all the rest of mankind they were at variance save in the midst of particularly threatening dangers that they incurred in the course of successive wars,—wars due chiefly to their own dissensions; and for the sake of the respite many prominent men on several occasions brought on these conflicts purposely. This, then, was the beginning of their suffering more harm from each other than from outside nations. And the complexion of their difficulties inspires me to pronounce that it was impossible that they should be deprived of either their power or their sway, unless they should lose it through their own contentions. (Mai, ib.)

2. They were especially irritated that the senators were not of the same mind after obtaining something from them as they were while requesting it, but after making them numbers of great promises while in the midst of danger failed to perform the slightest one of them when safety had been secured. (Mai, p.143.)

3. So to the end that they might not fight in a compact mass, but each division struggle separately for its own position and so become easier to handle, they divided the army. [Footnote: Cp. Livy, II, 30.] (Ib.)

4. The populace, as soon as Valerius the dictator became a private citizen, began a most bitter contest, going so far even as to overturn the government. The well-to-do classes insisted, in the case of debts, upon the very letter of the agreement, refusing to abate one iota of it, and so they both failed to secure its fulfillment and came to be deprived of many other advantages; they had failed to recognize the fact that an extreme of poverty is the heaviest of curses and that the desperation which results from it is, especially if shared by a large number of persons, very difficult to combat. This is why not a few politicians voluntarily choose the course which is expedient in preference to that which is absolutely just. Justice is often worsted in an encounter with human nature and sometimes suffers total extinction, whereas expediency, by parting with a mere fragment of justice, preserves the greater portion of it intact.

Now the cause of most of the troubles that the Romans had lay in the unyielding attitude adopted by the more powerful class toward its inferiors. Many remedies were afforded them against delays in payment of debts, one of which was that in case it happened that several persons had been lending to anybody, they had authority to divide his body piecemeal according to the proportionate amounts that he was owing. Yet, however much this principle had been declared legal, still it had surely never been put into practice. For how could a nation have proceeded to such lengths of cruelty when it frequently granted to those convicted of some crime a refuge for their preservation and allowed such as were thrust from the cliffs of the Capitoline to live in case they should survive the experience? (Mai, p.143. Cp. Zonaras. 7, 14.)

5. Those who were owing debts took possession of a certain hill and having placed one Gaius at their head proceeded to secure their food from the country as from hostile territory, thereby demonstrating that the laws were weaker than arms, and justice than their desperation. The senators being in terror both that this party might become more estranged and that the neighboring tribes in view of the crisis might join in an attack upon them proposed terms to the rebels offering everything that they hoped might please them. The seceders at first were for brazening it out, but were brought to reason in a remarkable way. When they kept up a series of disorderly shouts, Agrippa, one of the envoys, begged them to hearken to a fable and having obtained their consent spoke as follows. Once all the Members of Man began a contention against the Belly, saying that they worked and toiled without food or drink, being at the beck and call of the Belly in everything, whereas it endured no labor and alone got its fill of nourishment. And finally they voted that the Hands should no longer convey aught to the Mouth nor the latter receive anything, to the end that the Belly might so far as possible come to lack both food and drink and so perish. Now when this measure was determined and put into execution, at first the entire body began to wither away and next it collapsed and gave out. Accordingly, the members through their own evil state grew conscious that the Belly was the salvation of them and restored to it its nourishment.

On hearing this the multitude comprehended that the abundance of the prosperous also supports the condition of the poor; therefore they showed greater mildness and accepted a reconciliation on being granted a release from their debts and from seizures therefor. This then, was voted by the senate. (Mai, p.144. Cp. Zonaras 7, 14.) The account of John of Antioch, frag. 46 (Mueller, fr. hist gr. IV, p.556) regarding this secession of the plebs seems to have been taken from intact books of Dio. (Cp. Haupt, Hermes XIV, p.44, note 1; also G. Sotiriadis, Zur Kritik des Johannes von Antiochia, Supplem. annal. philol. vol. XVI, p.50.)

6. And it seemed to be most inconsistent with human conditions, and to many others also, some willingly, some unwillingly [lacuna]

Whenever many men gathered in a compact body seek their own advantage by violence, for the time being they have some equitable agreement and display boldness, but later they become separated and are punished on various pretexts. (Mai, p.146. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 15.)

7. Through the tendency, natural to most persons, to differ with their fellows in office (it is always difficult for a number of men to attain harmony, especially in a position of any influence)—through this natural tendency, then, all their power was dissipated and torn to shreds. None of their resolutions was valid in case even one of them opposed it. They had originally received their office for no other purpose than to resist such as were oppressing their fellow-citizens, and thus he who tried to prevent any measure from being carried into effect was sure to prove stronger than those who supported it. (Mai, ib. Cp. Zonaras 7, 15.)

[Frag. XVII]

1. For it is not easy for a man either to be strong at all points or to possess excellence in both departments,—war and peace,—at once. Those who are physically strong are, as a rule, weak-minded and success that has come in unstinted measure generally does not luxuriate equally well everywhere. This explains why after having first been exalted by the citizens to the foremost rank he was not much later exiled by them, and how it was that after making the city of the Volsci a slave to his country he with their aid brought his own land in turn into an extremity of danger. (Mai, p. 146. Cp. Zonaras 7,16.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 491 (a.u. 263)] 2. The same man wished to be made praetor, and upon failing to secure the office became angry at the populace; and in his displeasure at the great influence of the tribunes he employed greater frankness in speaking to that body than was attempted by others whose deeds entitled them to the same rank as himself. A severe famine occurring at the same time that a town Norba needed colonizing, the multitude censured the powerful classes on both these points, maintaining that they were being deprived of food and were being purposely delivered into the hands of enemies for manifest destruction. Whenever persons come to suspect each other, they take amiss everything even that is done in their behalf, and yield wholly to their belligerent instincts. Coriolanus had invariably evinced contempt for the people, and after grain had been brought in from many sources (most of it sent as a gift from princes in Sicily) he would not allow them to receive allotments of it as they were petitioning. Accordingly, the tribunes, whose functions he was especially eager to abolish, brought him to trial before the populace on a charge of aiming at tyranny and drove him into exile. It availed nothing that all his peers exclaimed and expressed their consternation at the fact that tribunes dared to pass such sentences upon their order. So on being expelled he betook himself, raging at his treatment, to the Volsci, though they had been his bitterest foes. His valor, of which they had had a taste, and the wrath that he cherished toward his fellow-citizens gave him reason to expect that they would receive him gladly, since they might hope, thanks to him, to inflict upon the Romans injuries equal to what they had endured, or even greater. When one has suffered particular damage at the hands of any party, one is strongly inclined to believe in the possibility of benefit from the same party in case it is willing and also able to confer favors. (Mai, p.147. Cp. Zonaras 7, 16.) 3. For he was very angry that they, who were incurring danger for their own country would not even under these conditions withdraw from the possessions of others. When, accordingly, this news also was brought, the men did not cease any the more from factional strife. They were, indeed, so bitterly at variance that they could be reconciled not even by dangers. But the women, Volumnia the wife of Coriolanus and Veturia his mother, gathering a company of the other most eminent ladies visited him in camp and took his children with them; and they caused him to end the war not only without requiring the submission of the country, but without even demanding restoration from exile. For he admitted them at once as soon as he learned they were there, and granted them a conversation, the course of which was as follows. While the rest wept without speaking Veturia began: "Why are you surprised, my child? Why are you startled? We are not deserters, but the country has sent to you, if you should yield, your mother and wife and children, if otherwise, your spoil; hence, if even now you still are angry, kill us first. Why do you weep? Why turn away? Can you fail to know how we have just ceased lamenting the affairs of state, in order that we might see you? Be reconciled to us, then, and retain no longer your anger against your citizens, friends, temples, tombs; do not come rushing down into the city with hostile wrath nor take by storm your native land in which you were born, were reared, and became Coriolanus, bearer of this great name. Yield to me, my child, and send me not hence without result, unless you would see me dead by own hand."

At the end of this speech she sighed aloud, and tearing open her clothing showed her breasts, and touching her abdomen exclaimed: "See, my child, this brought you forth, these reared you up." When she had said this, his wife and the children and the rest of the women joined in the lament, so that he too was cast into grief. Recovering himself at length with difficulty he embraced his mother and at the same time kissing her replied: "Mother, I yield to you. Yours is the victory, and let the other men, too, bestow their gratitude for this upon you. For I can not endure even to see them, who after receiving such great benefits at hands have treated me in such a way. Hence I never even enter the city. Do you keep the country instead of me, since you have so wished it, and I will take myself out of the way of you all."

Having spoken thus he withdrew. For through fear of the multitude and shame before his peers, in that he had made an expedition against them at all he would not accept even the safe return offered him, but retired among the Volsci, and there, either as the result of a plot or from old age, died. (Mai, p.148. Zonaras, 7, 16. Cp. John Tzetzes, Letters, 6, p.9, 16.)

4. Dio Cocceianus himself and numberless others who have set forth the deeds of the Romans, tell the story of this Marcus Coriolanus. This Marcus, as he was formerly called and later Gnaeus, had along with these the name of Coriolanus. When the Romans were warring against the city of Coriolanus [sic], and had all turned to flight at full speed, the man himself turned toward the hostile city and finding it open alone set fire to it. As the flames rose brilliantly he mounted his horse and with great force fell upon the rear of the barbarians, who were bringing headlong flight upon the Romans. They wheeled about and when they saw the fire consuming the city, thinking it was sacked they fled in another direction. He, having saved the Romans and sacked the city, which we have already said was called Coriolanus, received, in addition to his former names Marcus and Gnaeus, the title of Coriolanus, from the rout. But (the usual treatment that jealousy accords to benefactors) after a little in the course of reflections they fine the man. The man excessively afflicted with most just wrath leaves his wife, his mother, and his country, and goes to the Corioli, and they receive the man. Then after that they arrayed themselves against the Romans. And had not his spouse and mother at the breaking out of that war run and torn apart their tunics and stood about him naked,—Veturia and Volumnia were their names,—and checked him with difficulty from the battle against the Romans, Rome would have made a resolve to honor benefactors. But brought to a halt by the prayers of his mother and of his spouse he stopped the war against the Romans, and he himself leaving behind the Corioli and the Romans hurried to another land, smitten by sorrow. (Tzetzes, Hist. 6, 527-560. Cp. Haupt, Hermes, XIV.)

5. I pass over mention of the noble Marcus Coriolanus, and with Marcus himself also Marcus Corvinus; of whom the one, having sacked unaided a city named Coriolanus and burned it down, although the entire army of the Romans had been routed, was called Coriolanus, though otherwise termed Marcus. (Tzetzes, Hist. 3, 856-861.)

[Frag. XVIII]

[Sidenote: B.C. 486 (a.u. 268)] Cassius after benefiting the Romans was put to death by that very people. So that thereby it is made plain that there is no element deserving confidence in multitudes. On the contrary they destroy men who are altogether devoted to them no less than men guilty of the greatest wrongs. With respect to the interest of the moment on various occasions they deem those great who are the cause of benefits to them, but when they have profited to the full by such men's services they no longer regard them as having any nearer claims than bitterest foes. For Cassius, although he indulged them, they killed because of the very matters on which he prided himself: and it is manifest that he perished through envy and not as a result of some injustice committed. (Mai, p.150.)

[Frag. XIX]

1. For the men from time to time in power when they became unable to restrain them by any other method stirred up purposely wars after wars in order that they might be kept busy attending to those conflicts and not disturb themselves about the land. (Mai, ib. Zonaras 7, 17.)

2. At any rate they were so inflamed with rage by each of the two as to promise with an oath victory to their generals: with regard to the immediate attack they thought themselves actually lords of fortune. (Mai, p.150.)

3. It is natural for the majority of the human race to quarrel with any opposing force even beyond what is to its own advantage and upon those who yield to bestow a benefit in turn even beyond its power. (Mai, p.151.)

[Frag. XX]

[Sidenote: B.C. 477 (a.u. 277)] 1. The Fabii, who on the basis of birth and wealth made pretensions equal with the noblest, very quickly indeed saw that they were dejected. For when persons involve themselves in many undertakings that are at the same time hard to manage, they can discover no device for confronting the multitude and array of dangers, and give up as hopeless quite easy projects: after which their sober judgments and, contrary to what one would expect, their very opinions cause them to lose heart and they voluntarily abandon matters in hand with the idea that their labor will be but vain; finally they surrender themselves to unforseen dispensations of Heaven and await whatever Chance may bring. (Mai, p.151. Zonaras 7,17.)

2. The Fabii, three hundred and six in number, were killed, by the Etruscans. Thus the arrogance which arises from confidence in valor is ofttimes ruined by its very boldness, and the boastfulness which comes from good fortune runs mad and suffers a complete reverse. (Mai, ib. Zonaras 7, 17.)

3. For whom (plur.) the Romans grieved, both in private and with public demonstrations, to a greater degree than the number of the lost would seem to warrant. That number was not small, especially since it was composed entirely of patricians, but they further felt, when they stopped to consider the reputation and the resolute spirit of these men that all their strength had perished. For this reason they inscribed among the accursed days that one on which they had been destroyed and put under the ban the gates through which they had marched out, so that no magistrate might pass through them. And they condemned Titus Menenius the praetor,—it was in his year that the disaster took place,—when he was later accused before the people of not having assisted the unfortunates and of having been subsequently defeated in battle. (Valesius, p.578.)

[Frag. XXI]

1. The patricians openly took scarcely any retaliatory measures, except in a few cases, where they adjured some one of the gods, but secretly slaughtered a number of the boldest spirits. Nine tribunes on one occasion were delivered to the flames by the populace. This did not, however, restrain the rest: on the contrary, those who in turn held the tribuneship after that occurrence were rather filled with hope in the matter of their own quarrels than with fear as a result of the fate of their predecessors. Hence, so far from being calmed, they were even the more emboldened by those very proceedings. For they put forward the torture of the former tribunes as a justification of the vengeance they would take really in their own behalf; and they got great pleasure out of the idea that they might possibly, contrary to expectation, survive without harm. The consequence was that some of the patricians, being unable to accomplish anything in the other way, transferred themselves to the ranks of the populace: they thought its humble condition far preferable, considered in the light of their desire for the tribunician power, to the weakness of their own ornamental titles,—especially so because many held the office a second and third and even greater number of times in succession, although there was a prohibition against any one's taking the position twice. (Mai, p. 152. Zonaras 7, 17.)

2. The populace was incited to this course by the patricians themselves. For the policy which the latter pursued with an eye to their own advantage, that of always having some wars in readiness for them, so that the people might be compelled by the dangers from without to practice moderation,—this policy, I say, only rendered the people bolder. By refusing to go on a campaign unless they obtained in each instance the objects of their striving and by contending listlessly whenever they did take the field, they accomplished all that they desired. Meanwhile, as a matter of fact, not a few of the neighboring tribes, relying on the dissension of their foes more than on their own power, kept revolting. (Mai, ib. Zonaras 7, 17.)

[Frag. XXII]

1. The AEqui after capturing Tusculum and conquering Marcus [Footnote: Other accounts give his name as Lucius or Quintus.] Minucius became so proud that, in the case of the Roman ambassadors whom the latter people sent to chide them regarding the seizure of the place, they made no answer at all to the censure but after designating by the mouth of their general, Cloelius Gracchus, a certain oak, bade them speak to it, if they desired aught. (Ursinus, p.373. Zonaras 7, 17.)

2. That the Romans on learning that Minucius with some followers had been intercepted in a low-lying, bushy place elected as dictator against the enemy Lucius Quintius, in spite of the fact that he was a poor man and at the time was engaged in tilling with his own hands the little piece of ground which was his sole possession: for in general he was the peer in valor of the foremost and was distinguished by his wise moderation; though he did let his hair grow in curls, from which practice he received the nickname of Cincinnatus. (Valesius, p.578. Zonaras 7, 17.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 449 (a.u. 305)] 2. Affairs of state and camp alike were thrown into confusion. For the men under arms in their zealous eagerness that no success should attend those who held the power voluntarily surrendered both public and private interests. The other side, too, took no pleasure in the death of their own members at the hands of opponents, but themselves likewise destroyed in some convenient manner many of the most active persons who espoused the cause of the populace. As a result no small contention arose between them. (Mai, p.153. Zonaras, 7, 18.)

3. For they [Footnote: This must mean the "military tribunes with consular powers."]reached such a pitch of emulation and next of jealous rivalry of one another that they no longer, as the custom had been, all held office as one body, but each of them individually in turn; and the consequence was by no means beneficial. Since each one of them had in view his own profit and not the public weal and was more willing that the State should be injured, if it so happened, than that his colleagues should obtain credit, many unfortunate occurrences took place. (Mai, ib.)

4. Democracy consists not in all winning absolutely the same prizes, but in every man's obtaining his deserts. [Footnote: Seemingly an excerpt from a speech of one of the optimates, though possibly a remark by Dio himself.] (Mai, p.154.)

[Frag. XXIII]

1[lacuna]. to have happened as the law of triumphs enjoins, about which Dio Cocceianus writes. And if it seems to you an irksome thing to delve into books of ancient writers, at all events I will explain cursorily, as best I may, the entertainments pertaining to the triumph. They cause the celebrator of the triumph to ascend a car, smear his face with earth of Sinope or cinnabar (representing blood) to screen his blushes, fasten armlets on his arms, and put a laurel wreath and a branch of laurel in his right hand. Upon his head they also place a crown of some kind of wood having inscribed upon it his exploits or his experiences. A public slave, standing in the back part of the chariot holds up the crown, saying in his ear: "See also what comes after." Bells and a whip dangle from the pole of the chariot. Next he runs thrice about the place in a circle, mounts the stairs on his knees and there lays aside the garlands. After that he departs home, accompanied by musicians. (Tzetzes Epist. 107, p. 86.)

[Therefore the following words of Zonaras (7, 21) correspond nearly with those of Dio, concerning the popular anger against Camillus on account of his triumph (according to Plutarch's Camillus, Chap. 7).—Editor]

The celebration of the triumphal festivities, which they called thriambos, was of somewhat the following nature. When any great success, worthy of a triumph, had been gained, the general was immediately saluted as imperator by the soldiers, and he would bind twigs of laurel upon the rods and deliver them to the runners to carry, who announced the victory to the city. On arriving home he would assemble the senate and ask to have the triumph voted him. And if he obtained a vote from the senate and from the people, his title of imperator was confirmed. If he still held the office in the course of which he happened to be victorious, he continued to enjoy it while celebrating the festival; but if the term of his office had expired, he received some other name connected with it, since it was forbidden a private individual to hold a triumph. Arrayed in the triumphal dress he took armlets, and with a laurel crown upon his head and holding a branch in his right hand he called together the people. After praising his comrades of the campaign he presented some both publicly and privately with money: he honored them also with decorations, and upon some he bestowed armlets and spears without the iron; crowns, too, he gave to some of gold and to others of silver, bearing the name of each man and the representation of his particular feat. For example, either a man had been first to mount a wall and the crown bore the figure of a wall, or he had captured some point by storm, and a likeness of that particular place had been made. A man might have won a battle at sea and the crown had been adorned with ships, or one might have won a cavalry fight and some equestrian figure had been represented. He who had rescued a citizen from battle or other peril, or from a siege, had the greatest praise and would receive a crown fashioned of oak, which was esteemed as far more honorable than all, both the silver and the gold. And these rewards would be given not only to men singly, as each had shown his prowess, but were also bestowed upon cohorts and whole armies. Much of the spoils was likewise assigned to the sharers in the campaign. Some have been known to extend their distributions even to the entire populace and have gone to expense for the festival and obtained public appropriations: if anything was left over, they would spend it for temples, porticos or for some public work.

After these ceremonies the triumphator ascended his chariot. Now the chariot did not resemble one used in games or in war, but had been made in the shape of a round tower. And he would not be alone in the chariot, but if he had children or relatives he would make the girls and the infant male children get up beside him in it and place those who were grown upon the horses, outriggers as well as the yoke-pair. If these were many, they would accompany the procession on chargers, riding along beside the triumphator. None of the rest rode, but all went on foot wearing laurel wreaths. A public servant, however, rode also upon the chariot itself holding over him the crown made of precious stones set in gold and kept saying to him "Look behind!", the "behind" meaning naturally "Look ahead at the ensuing years of life, and do not be elated or puffed up by your present fortune." Both a bell and a whip were fastened to the chariot, signifying that it was possible for him to meet misfortune as well, to the extent of being disgraced or condemned to death. It was customary for those who had been condemned to die for any offence to wear a bell, to the end that no one should approach them as they walked along and so be affected with pollution.

Thus arrayed they entered the city, having at the head of the procession the spoils and trophies and in images the captured forts displayed, cities and mountains and rivers, lakes, seas,—everything that they had taken. If one day sufficed for the exhibition of these things in procession, well and good: otherwise, the celebration was held during a second and a third. When these adjuncts had gone on their way the triumphator reached the Roman Forum and after commanding that some of the captives be led to prison and put to death he rode up to the Capitol. There, when he had fulfilled certain rites and had brought offerings and had dined in the buildings on the hill, toward evening he departed homeward, accompanied by flutes and pipes.

Such were the triumphs in old times. Factions and powerful cliques attempted very frequently revolutionary movements on those occasions.

All the matters pertaining to the triumphal, the curule chair the letter contains. What need to write again? How after anointing with cinnabar or else Sinopian earth the man who held a triumph they put him on a chariot and placed upon his head a golden crown bearing plainly marked all he had accomplished: in the man's hand they lay a laurel sprig; armlets they clasp about his arms: they crown all who had gained distinction with crowns made out of silver material inscribed with the feats of daring; and how upon the chariot a public slave stands behind him holding up the crown and saying in his ear: "see also what comes after"—all things important the letter contains. (Tzetzes, Hist. 13, 41-54.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 395 (a.u. 359)] 2. The Romans after fighting many battles against the Falisci, [Footnote: Perhaps Dio wrote Fidenates or Veientes (Livy, IV, 32), and Falisci is due to the copyist, although, to be sure, there were wars with the last named (Livy, IV, 18). Whether the transference of Juno from Veii to Rome (Livy, V, 22) or the lectisternia just established about this time (Livy, V, 13) constitutes the topic discussed is a matter respecting which scholars differ.] and after many sufferings and achievements as well, despised their ancestral rites and took up with foreign ones in the idea that the latter would suffice them. Human nature is for some reason accustomed in trouble to scorn what is usual even though it be divine, and to admire the untried. Thinking, as men do, that they are not helped by it at the present, they expect no benefit in the future, but from what is strange they hope to accomplish whatever they may wish, by means of its novelty. (Mai, p. 153.)

3. The Romans, who were besieging the city of the Falisci would have consumed much time encamped before it, had not an incident of the following nature occurred. A school teacher of the place who instructed a number of children of good family, either under the influence of anger or through hope of gain led them all outside the wall, supposedly for some different purpose from his real one. They had so great an abundance of courage that they followed him even then. And he took them to Camillus, saying that in their persons he surrendered to him the whole city: for the inhabitants would no longer resist them when those dearest to them were held prisoners. However, he [Sidenote: B.C. 393 (a.u. 361)] to accomplish aught; for Camillus, filled with a sense of the conduct proper for Romans and also of the liability to failure of human plans, would not agree to take them by treachery: instead, he bound the traitor's hands behind his back and delivered him to the children themselves to lead home again.

After this episode the Falisci held out no longer, but in spite of the fact that they were securely entrenched and had ample resources to continue the war nevertheless came to terms voluntarily. They felt sure it would be no ordinary friendship that they would enjoy at the hands of one, whom, as an enemy even, they had found so just. (Valesius, p. 578. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 22.)

4. Accordingly Camillus became on this account an object of even greater jealousy to the citizens, and he was indicted by the tribunes on the charge of not having benefited the public treasury with the plunder of the Veii; and before the trial he voluntarily withdrew. (Valesius, ib. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 22.)

5. In Dio's 7th Book: "When he had ended his term of office they indicted him and imposed a money fine, not bringing him into danger of his life." [Footnote: Boissevain believes that this fragment does not refer to Camillus, and that the number of the Book is possibly a corruption. He would locate it earlier.](Bekker, Anecd. p. 146, 21.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 393 (a.u. 361)]6. To such a degree did not only the populace nor all those who were somewhat jealous of his reputation merely, but his best friends and his relatives, too, feel envy toward him that they did not even attempt to hide it. When he asked some of them for support in his case, and others to deposit the money for his release, they refused to assist him in regard to the vote but simply promised, if he were convicted, to estimate the proper money value and to help him pay the amount of the fine. This led him to take an oath in anger that the city should have need of him; and he went over to the Rutuli before accusation was brought against him. [Footnote: Very likely the copyist erred here. The sense requires "before sentence was passed upon him."] (Mai, p. 154. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 22.)

[Frag. XXIV]

[Sidenote: B.C. 391 (a.u. 363)] 1. The cause of the Gallic expedition was this. The Clusini had endured hard treatment in the war from the Gauls and fled for refuge to the Romans, having considerable hope that they could obtain certainly some little help in that quarter, from the fact that they had not taken sides with the people of Veii, though of the same race. When the Romans failed to vote them aid, but sent ambassadors to the Gauls and negotiated peace for them, they came very near accepting it (it was offered them in return for a part of the land); however, they attacked the barbarians after the conference and took the Roman envoys into battle along with them. The Gauls, vexed at seeing them on the opposite side, at first sent men to Rome, preferring charges against the envoys. Since, however, no punishment was visited upon the latter, but they were all, on the contrary, appointed consular tribunes, they were filled with wrath—being naturally quick to anger—and, as they held the Clusini in contempt, started for Rome. (Ursinus, p.373. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 23.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 364 (a.u. 390)] 2. The Romans after withstanding the inroads of the Gauls had no time to recover breath, but went immediately from their march into battle, just as they were, and lost. Panic-stricken by the unexpectedness of the invaders' hostile expedition, by their numbers, their physical dimensions, and their voices uttering some foreign and terrifying sound they forgot their training in military science and after that lost possession of their valor. A good comprehension contributes very largely to bravery, because when present it confirms the strength of a man's resolution and when lacking destroys the same more thoroughly by far, than if such a thing had never existed at all. Many persons without experience often carry things through by the violence of their spirit, but those who fail of the discipline which they have learned lose also their strength of purpose. This caused the defeat of the Romans. (Mai, p.154. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 23.)

3. Coclius Horatius was by race a Roman. He, when on one occasion the army of the Romans had been routed, so that there was danger of their opponents occupying Rome, alone withstood them all at the wooden bridge, while Marcus cut it down behind Minucius. When it had been cut down, Coclius too crossed the Tiber, having saved himself and Rome by the cutting of the bridge. Yet, as he swam, he might have been struck by a spear of the enemy. To him the senate presents lands (as a reward for his excellent bravery) as much as he could mark out in a day with cattle fastened to a plow. He was called Coclius in the Roman tongue because he had lost one of his eyes before he fought. (Tzetzes, Hist. 3, 818-830. Cp. Haupt, Hermes XIV.)

[Sidenote: B. C 364 (a.u. 390)] 4. The Romans who were on the Capitol under siege had no hope of safety unless from heavenly powers. So scrupulously did they observe the mandates of religion, although in every extremity of evil, that when it was requisite for one of the sacred rites to be performed by the pontifices in another part of the city Caeso [Footnote: Very likely the copyist erred here. The sense requires "before sentence was passed upon him."] Fabius, who exercised the office of priest, descended for the purpose from the Capitol after receiving his charge, as he had been accustomed to do, and passing through the enemy performed the customary ceremony and returned the same day. I am led to admire the barbarians on the one hand because either on account of the gods or his bravery they spared him: and far more do I feel admiration for the man himself for two reasons, that he dared to descend alone among the enemy, and that when he might have withdrawn to some place of safety he refused and instead voluntarily returned up the Capitol again to a danger that he foresaw: he understood that they hesitated to abandon the spot which was the only part of their country they still held but saw at the same time that no matter how much they desired to escape it was impossible to do so by reason of the multitude of the besiegers. (Valesius, p.581.)

5. Camillus, being urged to let the leadership be entrusted to him, would not allow it because he was an exile and could not take the position according to time-honored usage. He showed himself so law-abiding and exact a man that in so great a danger to his native land he made precedent a matter of earnest thought and did not think it right to hand down to posterity an example of lawlessness. (Valesius, p.582. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 23.)

6. When Rome had been sacked by the Gauls, Brennus being at the head of that expedition of theirs, as the Gauls were on the point of capturing the Capitol by ascending secretly to the Acropolis at night, a great outcry of geese arose in that quarter; and one Marcus Manlius roused from sleep saw the enemy creeping up, and by striking some with his oblong shield and slaying others with his sword he repulsed them all and saved the Romans. For this they gave him the title of Capitolinus, and in honor of the geese they have door-keepers as guards in the palace in remembrance of their watch at that time, just as earlier the Greeks in Athens called Pelargikon Geraneia (Crane-ry) from such creatures. (Tzetzes, His. 830-842. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 23.)

[Frag. XXV]

[Sidenote: B.C. 384 (a.u. 370)] 1. The populace passed sentence against Capitolinus, his house was razed to the ground, his money confiscated, and his name and even likeness, if such anywhere existed, were erased and destroyed. At the present day, too, all these punishments, except the razing to the ground, are visited upon those who conspire against the commonwealth. They gave judgment also that no patrician should dwell upon the height because Capitolinus happened to have had his house there. And his kinsmen among the Manlii prohibited any one of their number from being named Marcus, since that appellation had been his.

Capitolinus at any rate underwent a great reversal, both in his character and in his fortune. Having made a specialty of warfare he did not understand how to remain at peace; the Capitol he had once saved he occupied for the purpose of establishing a tyranny; although a patrician he became the prey of a house-servant; and whereas he was deemed a warrior, he was arrested after the manner of a slave and hurled down the very rock from which he had repulsed the Gauls. (Valesius, p.582. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 24.)

2. Capitolinus was thrown headlong down the rock by the Romans. So true it is that nothing in the affairs of men,—generally speaking,—remains at it was; and success, in particular, leads many people on into catastrophes equally serious. It raises their hopes, makes them continually strive after like or greater results and, if they fail, casts them into just the opposite condition. (Mai, p. 155. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 24.)

3. This Marcus Manlius, who was once termed also Capitolinus, and fell through seeking the tyranny, when about to be put to death by vote of all the jurors was saved by their looking just then at the Capitol, where he himself had performed famous deeds of valor,—until the one who spoke against him, perceiving the cause, transferred the assembly to another court-house from which the Capitol could not be seen at all and so a remembrance spring up of his trophies. Then they kill him. But on the other hand, even so, through the whole period the populace of Rome wore black, recompensing the graces of his valor and the inimitable manner of his distinguished behavior. (Tzetzes, Hist. 3, 843-855. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 24.)

[Frag. XXVI]

[Sidenote: B.C. 381 (a.u. 373)] 1. Camillus made a campaign against the Tusculans, but thanks to the astonishing attitude that they adopted they suffered no harm. For just as if they themselves were guilty of no offence and the Romans entertained no anger toward them, but were either coming to them as friends to friends or else marching through their territory against some other tribes, they changed none of their accustomed habits and were not in the least disturbed: instead, all without exception remaining in their places, at their occupations and at their other work just as in time of peace, received the army within their borders, gave them hospitable gifts, and in other ways honored them like friends. Consequently the Romans so far from doing them harm enrolled them subsequently among the citizens. (Valesius, p.582.)

[Frag. XXVII]

[Sidenote: B.C. 376 (a.u. 378)] 2. In Dio's 7th Book: "Tusculans did not raise their hands against him." (Bekker, Anecd. p. 123, 32.)

1. The wife of Rufus, while he was military tribune and engaged in public service in the Forum was visited by her sister.[Footnote: Livy and Valerius Maximus give his name as Gaius.] When the husband arrived and the lichtor, according to some ancient custom, knocked at the door, the visitor was alarmed at this having never previously had any such experience and was startled. She was consequently the subject of hearty laughter on the part of her sister and the rest alike and she was made a butt for jests as one not at home in an official atmosphere because her husband had never proved his capacity in any position of authority. She took it terribly to heart, as women, from their littleness of soul, usually do, and would not give up her resentment until she had thrown all the city in an uproar. Thus small accidental events become, in some cases, the cause of many great evils, when a person receives them with jealousy and envy. (Mai, p.155. Zonaras, 7, 24)

2. In the midst of evils expectation of rescue has power to persuade one to trust even in what is beyond reason. (Mai, p.156.)

3. For by their disputes they kept constantly enfeebling in one way or another the good order of their government; consequently, all these objects so to speak for which they were formerly accustomed to wage the greatest wars they gained in time—not without factional quarrels, to be sure, but still with small difficulty. (Mai, ib.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 368 (a.u. 386)] 4. Publius,[Footnote: The gap existing from the word "Forum" to the end of the sentence is supplied by Bekker's conjecture.] when the citizens of Rome were quarreling with one another, nearly reconciled them. For he chose as master of the horse Licinius Stolo, who was merely one of the populace.[Footnote: This is Publius Manlius, the dictator (Livy, VI, 39).] This innovation grieved the patricians, but conciliated the rest so much that they no longer laid claim to the consulship for the following year, but allowed the consular tribunes to be chosen. As a result of this they in turn yielded some points one to the other, and perhaps would have made peace with each other had not Stolo the tribune made such utterance as that they should not drink unless they could eat and so persuaded them to relinquish nothing, but to perform as inevitable duties all that they had taken in hand. (Valesius, p.585.)

[Frag. XXVIII]

[Sidenote: B.C. 362 (a.u. 392)] 1. Dio Cassius Cocceianus, the compiler of Roman history, states that as a result of the wrath of Heaven a fissure opened in the ground round about Rome and would not close. An oracular utterance having been obtained to the effect that the fissure would close if they should throw into it the mightiest possession of the Romans, one Curtius, a knight of noble birth, when no one else was able to understand the oracle, himself interpreted it to mean a horse and man together. Straightway he mounted his horse and, just as he was, dashed heroically forward and passed down into that frightful pit. No sooner had he rushed down the incline than the fissure closed; and the rest of the Romans from above scattered flowers. From this event the name of Curtius was applied also to a cellar. (Io. Tzetzes, Scholia for the Interpretation of Homer's Iliad, p. 136, 17, Cp. Zonaras, 7, 25.)

2. There is no mortal creature either better or stronger than man. Do you not see that all the rest go downwards and look forever toward the earth and accomplish nothing save what is closely connected with eating and the propagation of their species? So they have been condemned to these pursuits even by Nature herself. We alone gaze upwards and associate with heaven itself and despise those things that are on the earth, while we dwell with the gods themselves, believing them to be similar to us inasmuch as we are both their offspring and creations, not earthly but heavenly: for which reason we paint and fashion those very beings according to our forms. For, if one may speak somewhat boldly, man is naught else than a god with mortal body, and a god naught else than a man without body and consequently immortal. That is why we surpass all other creatures. And there is nothing afoot which we do not enslave, overtaking it by speed or subduing it by force or catching it by some artifice, nor yet aught that lives in the water or travels the air: nay, even of these two classes, we pull the former up from the depths without seeing them and drag the latter down from the sky without reaching them. (Mai, p. 532. Zonaras, 7, 25.)

[Frag. XXIX]

Dio says: "Wherefore, although not accustomed to indulgence in digressions, I have taken pains to make mention of it and have stated in addition the Olympiad, in order that when most men forget the date of the migration,[Footnote: This last clause is a conjecture by Reimar.] it may, from the precaution mentioned, become less doubtful." (Mai, p. 156.)

[Frag. XXX]

[Sidenote: B.C. 353 (a.u. 401)] The Agyllaeans, when they ascertained that the Romans wished to make war on them, despatched ambassadors to Rome before any vote was taken, and obtained peace on surrender of half their territory. (Ursinus, p. 374.)

[Frag. XXXI]

[Sidenote: B.C. 349 (a.u. 405)] Marcus Corvinus received the name of Corvinus because when once engaged with a barbarian in single combat, he had a savage crow as his ally in the battle, that flew at the eyes of the barbarian until this Marcus killed him at that time. (Tzetzes, Hist. 3, 862-866. Cp. Zonaras, 7, 25.)

[Frag. XXXII]

1. These proposals and a few others of similar nature they put forward not because they expected to carry any of them into effect,—for they, if anybody, understood the purposes of the Romans,—but in order that failing to obtain their requests they might secure an excuse for complaints, on the ground that wrong had been done them. (Mai, p. 156.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 340 (a.u. 414)] 2. Dio in Book 7: "And for this reason I shall execute you, in order that even as you obtain the prize for your prowess, so you may receive the penalty for your disobedience." [Footnote: The migration of Alexander(?). See Livy, VIII, 3, 6.] (Bekker, Anecd. p. 133, 19. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

3. The statement is made by Douris, Diodorus and Dio that when the Samnites, Etruscans and other nations were warring against the Romans, Decius, a Roman consul and associated with Torquatus in command of the troops, gave himself to be slain, and of the opposite side there were slaughtered a hundred thousand that very day.[Footnote: Words of Torquatus to his son.] (Io. Tzetzes, on Lycophr. 1378. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 340 (a.u. 414)] 4. Dio says: "I am surprised that his (Decius's) death should have set the battle right again, should have defeated the side that was winning and have given victory to the men who were getting worsted: I can not even comprehend what brought about the result. When I reflect what some have accomplished,—for we know that many such chances have befallen many persons before,—I can not disbelieve the tradition: but when I come to calculate the causes of it, I fall into a great dilemma. How can you believe that from such a sacrifice of one man so great a multitude of human beings were brought over at once to safety and to victory? Well, the truth of the matter and the causes that are responsible shall be left to others to investigate." (Mai, p.157. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

5. It was evident to every one that they had considered the outcome of the event [Footnote: At the battle of Sentinum (295 B.C.).] and had ranged themselves on the victorious side. Torquatus did not, however, question them about it for fear they might revolt, since the affair of the Latins was still a sore point with them. He was not harsh in every case nor in most matters the sort of man he had shown himself toward his son: on the contrary, he was admitted to be good at planning and good in warfare, so that it was said by the citizens and by their adversaries alike that he held success in war subservient to him, and that if he had been leader of the Latins, he would certainly have made them conquer. (Mai, p.157, and Valesius, p.585.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 340 (a.u. 414)] 6. The Romans, although vexed at Torquatus on account of his son to such an extent that deeds remarkable for their cold-blooded indifference [Footnote: The phrase after "deeds" is supplied from the general sense. The MS. shows a superlative ending of adjective form, but the root portion of the word is lost.] are called "Manliana," after him, and angry furthermore that he had celebrated the triumph in spite of the death of that youth, in spite of the death of his colleague, nevertheless when another war threatened them elected him again to a fourth consulship. He, however, refused to hold their chief office longer, and renounced it, declaring: "I could not endure you nor you me." (Mai, p.157. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 338 (a.u. 416)] 7. The Romans by way of bringing the Latins in turn to a condition of friendliness, granted them citizenship so that they secured equal privileges with themselves. Those rights which they would not share with that people when it threatened war and for which they underwent so many dangers, they voluntarily voted to it now that they conquered. Thus they requited some for their allegiance and others because they had taken no steps of a revolutionary character. (Mai, p.158.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 328 (a.u. 426)] 8. With reference to the inhabitants of Privernum the Romans made no enquiry, asking them what they deserved to suffer for such conduct. The others answered boldly: "Whatever is suitable for men who are free and desire so to continue." To the next question of the consul: "And what will you do if you obtain peace?" they replied: "If we are granted it on [Sidenote: B.C. 426 (a.u. 426)] fairly moderate terms, we will cease from disturbance, but if unendurable burdens are placed upon us, we will fight." Admiring their spirit they not only made a much more favorable truce with them than with the rest [lacuna] (Mai, p.158.)

[Frag. XXXIII]

[Sidenote: B.C. 325 (a.u. 429)] 1. [From the address of the father of Rullus.] Be well assured that penalties most unfitting in such cases, while they destroy the culprits under sentence, who might have been made better, are of no avail in correcting the rest. Human nature refuses to leave its regular course for any threats. Some pressing fear or violence of audacity together with courage born of inexperience and rashness sprung from opportunity, or some other combination of circumstances such as often occurs unexpectedly in the careers of many persons leads men to do wrong. And these men are of two classes,—such as do not even think of the punishments but heedless of them rush into the business before them, and such as esteem them of no moment in comparison with the attainment of the ends for which they are striving.

Consistent humanity, however, can produce an effect quite the opposite of that just now mentioned. Through the influence of a seasonable pardon the criminals frequently change their ways, especially when they have acted from brave and not from wicked motives, from ambition and not from baseness. For it should be noted that a reasonable humanity is a mighty force for subduing and correcting a noble soul. As for the rest, they are, without resistance, brought [Sidenote: B.C. 325 (a.u. 429)] into a proper frame of mind by the sight of the rescue. Every one would rather obey than be forced, and prefers voluntary to compulsory observance of the law. He who submits to a measure works for it as if it were his own invention, but what is imposed upon him he rejects as unfitting for a freeman. Furthermore it is the part of the highest virtue and power alike not to kill a man,—this is often done by the wickedest and weakest men,—but to spare him and to preserve him; yet no one of us is at liberty to do that without your consent.

It is my wish at length to cease from speaking. What little spirit I have is weary, my voice is giving way, tears check my utterance and fear closes my mouth. But I am at a loss how to close. For my suffering, appearing to me in no doubtful light, does not allow me (unless you decide otherwise) [Footnote: A clause that in the MS. has faded out is represented here by Boissevian's conjecture.] to be silent, but compels me, as if the safety of my child were going to be in accord with whatever I say last, to speak even further as it were in prayers. (Mai, p.159.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 325 (a.u. 429)] 2. The name and form of the office with which he was invested he shrank from changing, and when he was intending to spare Rullus,—for he observed the zeal of the populace,—he wished to resist him somewhat before granting the favor and to alter the attitude of the young men, so as to have his pardon come unexpectedly. Therefore he contracted his face, and darting a harsh frowning look at the populace, he raised his voice and spoke. The talking ceased, but still they were not quiet: instead, as generally happens in such a case, what with groaning over his fate and whispering one to another, in spite of their not uttering a single word they gave the impression that they desired the rescue of the cavalry commander. Papirius seeing this, in fear of their possibly taking hostile action, relaxed the extremely domineering manner which he had assumed (for purposes of their correction) in an unusual degree, and by showing moderation in the rest of his actions brought them once more to friendship and enthusiasm for him, so that they proved themselves men when they met their opponents. (Mai, p.160. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

3. The Samnites after their defeat at the hands of the Romans, made proposals for truce to the Romans in the city. They sent them all the Roman captives that they held, together with the property of a man named Papius, [Footnote: Papius Brutulus.] who was esteemed among the foremost of his race and bore the entire responsibility for the war; his bones, since he anticipated them in committing suicide, they scattered abroad. Yet they did not obtain their peace; for they were regarded as untrustworthy and had the name of making truces according to events merely for the purpose of cheating any power that conquered them: hence they not only failed to obtain terms, but even brought a relentless war upon themselves. The Romans while accepting their prisoners voted to make war upon them without announcement. (Ursinus, p.374. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 321. (a.u. 433)] 4. Among the many events of human history that might give one cause for wonder must certainly be reckoned what occurred at this time. The Romans, who were so extremely arrogant as to vote that they would not again receive a herald from the Samnites in the matter of peace and hoped moreover to capture them all at the first blow, succumbed to a terrible disaster and incurred disgrace as never before; the others, who to begin with were badly frightened and thought the refusal to make peace a great calamity, seized their camp and entire force, and sent them all under the yoke. So great a reverse of fortune did they suffer. (Mai, p.161. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

5. Benefits lie rather within the actual choice of men and are not brought about by necessity, or by ignorance, or anger, or deceit, or anything of the sort, but are performed voluntarily by a willing and eager condition of spirit. And for this reason it is proper to pity, admonish, instruct those who commit any error and to admire, love, reward those who do right. Whenever men act in both of these two ways, it is decidedly more befitting our characters to remember their better than their less correct deeds. [Footnote: Sections 5, 6, and 7 appear to come from various speeches delivered at the Caudine Forks; section 8, however, is from the speech of Herennius Pontius.] (Mai, p.535.)

6. Quarrels are checked by kindness. The greater the pitch of enmity to which a man has come when he unexpectedly obtains safety instead of severity, the more readily does he hasten voluntarily to abandon the quarrel and to acknowledge gladly the influence of kindness. B.C. 321 (a.u. 433) As in a random host of persons at variance from divers causes those who have passed from friendship to enmity hate each other with the more intense hatred, so in a random host of persons kindly treated do those who receive this considerate treatment after a state of strife love their benefactors the more. Romans, accordingly, are very anxious to surpass in war and at the same time they honor virtue; for this reason, compelled in both regards by their nobility of spirit, they verily earn the right to surpass, since they take pains to recompense fair treatment fairly, and even beyond its value. (Mai, p.161.)

7. For it is right to pride one's self upon requiting those who have done some wrong, but to feel more highly elated over recompensing such as have conferred some benefit. (Mai, p.536.)

8. All men are by nature so constituted as to grieve more over any insults offered them than they rejoice over benefits conferred upon them: therefore they show hostility to persons who have injured them with less effort than they require for aiding in return persons who have shown them kindness; hence also they make no account, when their own advantage is concerned, of the ill reputation they will gain by not taking a friendly attitude toward their preserver, but indulge a spirit of wrath even when such behavior runs counter to their own interest.

Such was the advice he gave them out of his own inherent good sense and experience acquired in a long life, not looking to the gratification of the moment but to the possible regret of the future. (Mai, p.162.)

9. The people of Capua, when the Romans after [Sidenote: B.C. 321 (a.u. 433)] their defeat arrived in that city, were guilty of no bitter speech or outrageous act, but on the contrary gave them both food and horses and received them like victors. They pitied in their misfortune the men whom they would have not wished to see conquer on account of the treatment those same persons had formerly accorded them. When the Romans heard of the event they were altogether possessed by doubt whether to be pleased at the survival of their soldiers or whether to continue displeased. When they thought of the depth of the disgrace their grief was extreme; for they deemed it unworthy of them to have met with defeat, and especially at the hands of the Samnites, so that they could wish that all had perished; when they stopped to reflect, however, that if such a calamity had befallen them all the rest as well would have incurred danger, they were not sorry to hear that the men had been saved. (Mai, p.162. Zonaras, 7, 26.) 10. It is requisite and blameless for all men to plan for their own safety, and if they get into any danger to do anything whatsoever so as to be preserved. (Mai, p.163.)

11. Pardon is granted both by gods and by men to such as have committed any act involuntarily. (Ib. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

12. Dio in Book 8: "I both take to myself the crime and admit the perjury." (Bekker, Anecd. p.165, 13.)

13. Dio in Book 8: "For in all such matters he was quite all-sufficient to himself." [Footnote: This is thought to refer to L. Papirius Cursor or possibly to Q. Fabius Maximus. Cp. Livy, X, 26.] (Ib. p.124, 1.)

14.[Sidenote: B.C. 321 (a.u. 433)] The Samnites, seeing that neither were the oaths observed by them nor gratitude for favors manifested in any other way, and that few instead of many were surrendered, thus making void the oaths, became terribly angry and loudly called upon the gods in respect to some of these matters: moreover, they brought the pledges to their attention, demanded the captives, and ordered them to pass naked under the same yoke where through pity they had been released, in order that by experience they might learn to abide by terms which had been once agreed upon. The men that had been surrendered they dismissed, either because they did not think it right to destroy guiltless persons or because they wished to fasten the perjury upon the populace and not through the punishment of a few men to absolve the rest. This they did, hoping as a result to secure decent treatment. (Mai, p.163. Zonaras, 7, 26.) 15. The Romans so far from being grateful to the Samnites for the preservation of the surrendered soldiers, actually behaved as if they had in this suffered some outrage. They showed anger in their conduct of the war, and, being victorious, treated the Samnites in the same way. For the justice of the battle-field does not fit the ordinary definition of the word, and it is not inevitable that the party which has been wronged should conquer: instead, war, in its absolute sway, adjusts everything to the advantage of the victor, often causing something that is the reverse of justice to go under that name. (Mai, p.163. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

16.[Sidenote: B.C. 321 (a.u. 433)] The Romans after vanquishing the Samnites sent the captives in their turn under the yoke, regarding as satisfactory to their honor a repayment of similar disgrace. So did Fortune for both parties in the briefest time reverse her position and by treating the Samnites to the same humiliation at the hands of their outraged foes show clearly that here, too, she was all-supreme. (Mai, p. 164. Zonaras, 7, 26.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 319 (a.u. 435)] 17. Papirius made a campaign against the Samnites and having reduced them to a state of siege entrenched himself before them. At this time some one reproached him with excessive use of wine, whereupon he replied: "That I am not intoxicated is clear to every one from the fact that I am up at the peep of dawn and lie down to rest latest of all. But on account of having public affairs on my mind day and night alike, and not being able to obtain sleep easily, I take a little wine to lull me to rest." (Mai, ib.)

18. The same man one day while making the rounds of the garrison became angry on not finding the general from Praeneste at his post. He summoned him and bade him hand the axe to the lictor. Alarm and consternation at this was evident on the part of the general, and his fear sufficed. Papirius harmed him no further but merely gave orders to the lictor to cut off some roots growing beside the tents, so that they should not injure passers-by. (Mai, ib.)

19. In numerous cases instances of good fortune are not at all constant, but lead many aside into paths of carelessness and ruin them.[Footnote: Cp. Livy, IX, 18, 8.] (Mai, p. 165.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 310 (a.u. 444)] 20. The men of the city put forward Papirius as dictator, and fearing that Rullus might be unwilling to name him on account of his own experiences while master of the horse, they sent for him and begged him to put the common weal before a private grudge. And he gave the envoys, indeed, no response, but when night had come (according to ancient custom it was quite necessary that the dictator be appointed at night), he named Papirius and secured by this act the greatest renown.(Valesius, p. 585.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 296 (a.u.)] 21. Appius the Blind and Volumnius became at variance each with the other: and it was owing to this that Volumnius once, when Appius charged him in the assembly with showing no gratitude for the progress he had made in wisdom through Appius's instruction, answered that he had indeed grown wiser and was likewise ready to admit it, but that Appius had not advanced at all in matters pertaining to war. (Mai, p. 165.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 296 (a.u. 458)] 22. As regards the prophecy the multitude was not capable for the time being of either believing or disbelieving him.[Footnote: I.e., Manius, an Etruscan.] It neither wished to hope for everything, inasmuch as it did not desire to see everything fulfilled, nor did it dare to refuse belief in all points inasmuch as it wished to be victorious, but was placed in an extremely painful position, as it were between confusion and fear. As each single event occurred they applied the interpretation to it according to the actual result, and the man himself undertook to assume some reputation for skill with regard to the foreknowledge of the unseen. (Mai, p. 165. Cp. Zonaras, 8, 1.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 293 (a.u. 461)] 23. The Samnites, enraged at what occurred and deeming it highly disgraceful to be defeated, resorted to extreme daring and folly with the intention of either conquering or being utterly destroyed. They assembled all their men that were of military age, threatening with death all that should remain at home, and they bound themselves with frightful oaths to the effect that no man should flee from the contest but should slaughter any person that might undertake to do so. (Mai, ib. Zonaras, 8, 1.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 292 (a.u. 462)] 24. The Romans on hearing that their consul Fabius had been worsted in the war became terribly angry and summoned him to stand trial. A vehement denunciation of the man was made before the people,—and, indeed, he was depressed by the injury to his father's reputation even more than by the complaints,—and no opportunity was afforded the object of the attack for reply. Nor did the elder man make a set defence of his son, but by enumerating his own services and those of his ancestors, and by promising furthermore that his son would do nothing unworthy of them, he abated the people's wrath, especially since he urged his son's youth. Moreover, he joined him at once in the campaign, overthrew the Samnites in battle, though they were elated by their victory, and captured their camp and great booty. The Romans therefore extolled him and ordered that his son also should command for the future with consular powers, and still employ his father as lieutenant. The latter managed and arranged everything for him, sparing his old age not a whit, and the allied forces readily assisted the father in remembrance of his old-time deeds. He made it clear, however, that he was not executing the business on his own responsibility, but he associated with his son as if actually in the capacity of counselor and under-officer, while he moderated his temperament and assigned to him the glory of the exploits. (Valesius, p. 585. Zonaras, 8, 1.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 291 (a.u. 463)] 25. The soldiers with Junius who took the field along with Postumius fell sick on the way, and thought that their trouble was due to the felling of the grove. He was recalled for these reasons, but showed contempt for them even at this juncture, declaring that the senate was not his master but that he was master of the senate [lacuna] Envio [lacuna] and the [lacuna] men much [lacuna] ambition [lacuna] [Words of Postumius Megillus: Cp. Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. 16, [Footnote: The famous Apollonius of Tyana.]. (Mai, p. 167.)

[Frag. XXXIV]

Gaius Fabricius in most respects was like Rufinus, but in incorruptibility far superior. He was very firm against bribes, and on that account did not please Rufinus, but was always at variance with him. Yet the latter chose Fabricius, thinking that he was a most proper person to meet the requirements of the war, and making his personal enmity of little account in comparison with the advantage of the commonwealth.

[Frag. XXXIV]

As a result he gained some reputation for having shown himself above jealousy, which springs up in the hearts of many of the best men by reason of emulation. Since he was a thorough patriot and did not practice virtue for a show he thought it a matter of indifference whether the State were benefited by him or through some other man, even if that man should be an opponent. (Valesius, p.586.)

[Frag. XXXV]

Cornelius Fabricius, when asked why he had entrusted the business to his foe, [lacuna][Footnote: See Niebuhr, Rh. Mus., 1828, p.600, or Kleine Schriften, 2, p.241.] the general excellence of Rufius and added that to be spoiled by the citizen is preferable to being bought and sold by the enemy. [This anecdote concerns Fabricius Luscinus, mentioned by Cicero, de orat. 2, 66, 268; Quintilian 12, 1, 43; Gellius 4, 48.]

[Frag. XXXVI]

[Sidenote: B.C. 290 (a.u. 464)] Curius, in defence of his conduct in the popular assembly, said that he had acquired so much land [lacuna] and had hunted for so many men [lacuna] country [lacuna] [The person referred to is Manius Curius Dentatus. Cp. Auct. de Viris. Illustr., c. 33.

After Niebuhr, Rh. Mus. 1828, p.579.]

[Frag. XXXVII]

When the tribunes moved an annulment of debts, the law was often proposed without avail, since the lenders were by no means willing to accept it and the tribunes granted the nobles the choice of either putting this law to the vote or following that of Stolo, by which they were to reckon the previous interest toward the principal and receive the remainder in triennial payments. [Footnote: The opening portion of this fragment is based largely on conjectures of Niebuhr (Rhein. Mus., 1828, p.579ff.)] And for the time being the weaker party, dreading lest it might lose all, paid court to them, and the wealthier class, encouraged to think it would not be compelled to adopt either course, maintained a hostile attitude. But when the revolted [Footnote: A doubtful reading.] party proceeded to press matters somewhat, both sides changed their positions. The debtors were no longer satisfied with either plan, and the nobles thought themselves lucky if they should not be deprived of their principal. Hence the dispute was not decided immediately, but subsequently they prolonged their rivalry in a spirit of contentiousness, and did not act at all in their usual character. Finally the people made peace in spite of the fact that the nobles were unwilling to remit much more than they had originally expected; however, the more they beheld their creditors yielding, the more were they emboldened, as if they were successful by a kind of right; and consequently they regarded the various concessions almost as matters of course and strove for yet more, using as a stepping-stone to that end the fact that they had already obtained something. (Mai, p.167. Zonaras, 8,2.)


When the opposite side [Footnote: The Tuscans, Senones, and Gauls appear to be meant.] saw also another general approaching, they ceased to heed the common interests of their force but each cast about to secure his individual safety, as a common practice of those who form a union uncemented by kindred blood, or who make a campaign without common grievances, or who have not one commander. While good fortune attends them their views are harmonious, but in disaster each one sees before him only matters of individual concern. They betook themselves to flight as soon as it had grown dark, without having communicated to one another their intention. In a body they thought it would be impossible for them to force their way out or for their defection to pass unnoticed, but if they should leave each on his own account and, as they believed, alone, they would more easily escape. And so, to his own party,—each one of them [lacuna] they will think that accomplishing their flight with the greatest security [lacuna] (Mai, p.167.)

[Frag. XXXIX]

[Sidenote: B.C. 283 (a.u. 471)] 1. The Romans had learned that the Tarentini and some others were making ready to war against them, and had despatched Fabricius as an envoy to the allied cities to prevent them from committing any revolutionary act: but they had him arrested, and by sending men to the Etruscans and Umbrians and Gauls they caused a number of them also to secede, some immediately and some a little later. (Ursinus, p.375. Zonaras, 8, 2-Vol. II, p.174, 4 sq.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 283 (a.u. 471)] 2. The Tarentini, although they had themselves initiated the war, nevertheless were sheltered from fear. For the Romans, who understood what they were doing, pretended not to know it on account of temporary embarrassments. Hereupon the Tarentini, thinking that they either could mock [Footnote: Verb adopted from Boissevain's conjecture [Greek: diasilloun] (cp. the same word in Book Fifty-nine, chapter 25). at Rome or were entirely unobserved because they were receiving no complaints behaved still more insolently and involved the Romans even contrary to their own wishes in a war. This proved the saying that even good fortune, when a disproportionately large portion of it falls to the lot of any individuals, becomes the cause of disaster to them; it entices them on to a state of frenzy (since moderation refuses to cohabit with vanity) and ruins their greatest interests. So these Tarentini, too, after rising to an unexampled height of prosperity in turn met with a misfortune that was an equivalent return for their wantonness. (Mai, p.168 and 536.)

Previous Part     1  2  3  4  5     Next Part
Home - Random Browse