Chapter XIII: Book LXXX: , A.d. 222-229 (9)

[Footnote 42: _Q. Servilius Caepio_ (consul B.C. 140).]

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXVIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 139 (_a.u._ 615)] (Par.) Popilius so terrified Viriathus that the latter sent to him about peace immediately and before they had tried any battle at all, killed some of the leaders of the rebels whose surrender had been demanded by the Romans--among these his father-in-law, though commanding his own force, was slaughtered--and delivered up the rest, all of whose hands the consul cut off. And he would have agreed to a complete truce, if their weapons had not been demanded in addition: with this condition neither he nor the rest of the throng would comply.[43] (Ursinus, p. 383.)

[Footnote 43: Adopting Reiske's conjecture [Greek: hypomeinai epsesen] in place of the MS. [Greek: hypomeinai epoieses].]

_(BOOK 23, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXIX] [Sidenote: B.C. 136 (_a.u._ 618)] (Par.) The Romans received the Numantine ambassadors on their arrival outside the walls, to the end that their reception might not seem to imply a ratification of the truce. However, they sent gifts of friendship notwithstanding, not wishing to deprive them of the hope of possibly coming to terms. Mancinus and his followers told of the necessity of the compact made and the number of the saved, and stated that they still held all of their former possessions in Spain. They besought their countrymen to consider the question not in the light of their present immunity, but with reference to the danger that then encompassed the soldiers, and to think not what ought to have been done, but what might have been the outcome. The Numantini brought forward many statements about their previous good-will toward the Romans and considerable about the latter's subsequent injustice, by reason of which they had been forced into the war, and the perjury of Pompeius: and they asked for considerate treatment in return for the preservation of Mancinus and the rest. But the Romans both dissolved the truce and decided that Mancinus should be given up to the Numantini. (Ursinus, p. 383.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXX] (Par.) Claudius[44] through his harshness would have committed many outrageous acts, had he not been restrained by his colleague Quintus.[45] The latter, who was amiable and possessed exactly the opposite temperament, did not oppose him with anger in any matter and, indeed, occasionally yielded to him, and by gentle behavior so manipulated him that he found very few opportunities for irritation. (Valesius, p. 621.)

[Footnote 44: These are the censors for the year B.C. 136, Ap. Claudius Pulcher and Q. Fulvius Nobilior.]

[Footnote 45: See note, page 335.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXI] (Par.) Furius[46] led out among his lieutenants both Pompeius and Metellus though they were hostile both to him and to each other; for, expecting to achieve some great success, he wished to have in them sure witnesses to his deeds and to receive the evidence of his prowess from their unwilling lips. (Valesius, ib.)

[Footnote 46: P. Furius Philus (consul B.C. 136).]

_(BOOK 24, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXIII] 1. (Par.) Tiberius Gracchus caused an upheaval of the Roman state,--and this in spite of the fact that he belonged to one of the foremost families (his grandfather being Africanus), that he possessed a natural endowment worthy of the latter, that he had gone through a most thorough course of education, and had a high spirit. In proportion to these great gifts of his was the allurement that they offered to follow his ambitions: and when once he had turned aside from what was best he drifted even involuntarily into what was worst. It began with his being refused a triumph over the Numantini: he had hoped for this honor because he had previously had the management of the business, but so far from obtaining anything of the kind he incurred the danger of being delivered up; then he decided that deeds were estimated not on the basis of goodness or truth but according to mere chance. And this road to fame he abandoned as not safe, but since he desired by all means to become prominent in some way and expected that he could accomplish this better through the popular than through the senatorial party, he attached himself to the former. (Valesius, p. 621.)

2. (Par.) Marcus Octavius on account of an hereditary feud with Gracchus willingly made himself his opponent. [Sidenote: B.C. 133 (_a.u._ 621)] Thereafter there was no semblance of moderation: striving and quarreling as they were, each to survive the other rather than to benefit the community, they committed many acts of violence as if they were in a principality instead of a democracy, and suffered many unusual calamities proper for war but not for peace. In addition to their individual conflicts, there were many who, banded together, instituted grievous abuses and battles in the senate-house itself and the popular assembly as well as throughout the rest of the city: they pretended to be executing the law, but were in reality making in all things every effort not to be surpassed by each other. The result was that the authorities could not carry on their accustomed tasks, courts came to a stop, no contract was entered into, and other sorts of confusion and disorder were rife everywhere. The place bore the name of city, but was no whit different from a camp. (Valesius, p. 622.)

3. (Par.) Gracchus proposed certain laws for the benefit of those of the people who served in the army, and transferred the courts from the senate to the knights, bedeviling and disturbing all established customs in order that he might be enabled to lay hold on safety in some wise. And after he found not even this of advantage to him, but his term of office was drawing to a close, when he would be immediately exposed to the attacks of his enemies, he attempted to secure the tribuneship also for the following year (in company with his brother) and to appoint his father-in-law consul: to obtain this end he would make any statement or promise anything whatever to anybody. Often, too, he put on a mourning garb and brought his mother and children, tied hand and foot, into the presence of the populace. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 129 (_a.u._ 625)] (Par.) Scipio Africanus had more ambition in his makeup than was suitable for or compatible with his general excellence. And in reality none of his rivals took pleasure in his death, but although they thought him a great obstacle in their way even they missed him. They saw that he was valuable to the State and never expected that he would cause them any serious trouble. When he was suddenly taken away all the possessions of the powerful class were again diminished, so that the promoters of agrarian legislation ravaged at will practically all of Italy. And this seems to me to have been most strongly indicated by the mass of stones that poured down from heaven, falling upon some of the temples and killing men, and by the tears of Apollo. [Sidenote: B.C. 131 (_a.u._ 623)] For the god wept copiously[47] for three days, so that the Romans on the advice of the soothsayers voted to cut down the statue and to sink it in the deep. (Valesius, p. 625.)

[Footnote 47: In the original the word "wept" is repeated. Van Herwerden thinks that the second one should be deleted, but Schenkl prefers to substitute an adverb in place of the first. In the translation I have used an adverb giving nearly the same force as the repetition of the verb.]

_(BOOK 25, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXIV] (Par.) Gracchus had a disposition like his brother; only the latter drifted from excellence into ambition and then to baseness whereas this man was naturally intractable and played the rogue voluntarily and far surpassed the other in his gift of language. For these reasons his designs were more mischievous, his daring more spontaneous, and his self-will greater in all junctures alike. He was the first to walk up and down in the assemblies while he harangued and the first to bare his arm; hence neither of these practices has been thought improper, since he did it. And because his speaking was characterized by great condensation of thought and forcefulness of words and he consequently was unable to restrain himself easily but was often led to say what he did not wish, he used to bring in a flute-player, and from him, playing a low accompaniment, he would take his rhythm and time, or if even so he in some way fell out of measure, he would stop. This was the sort of man that attacked the government, and, by assuming no speech or act to be forbidden, in the briefest time became a great power among the populace and the knights. All the nobility and the senatorial party if he had lived longer[48] ... [Sidenote: B.C. 121 (_a.u._ 633)] but as it was his great authority made him envied even by the members of his faction, and he was ruined by his own devices. (Valesius, ib.)

[Footnote 48: One may supply here, as Reiske suggests, "would have been overthrown", "would have been humbled", or "would have been brought low".]

_(BOOK 26, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXV] [Sidenote: B.C. 114 (_a.u._ 640)] 1. (Par.) The priestesses for the most part incurred destruction and shame themselves, and proved the source of great evils to numerous others as well, while the entire city because of them was thrown into an uproar. For the people, in view of the fact that what was immaculate by law and sacred by the dictates of religion and decent through fear of vengeance had been polluted, were ready to believe that anything most shameful and unholy might be done. For this reason they visited punishment not only on the convicted, but also on all the rest who had been accused, to show their hatred of what had occurred. Hence the whole episode in which the women were concerned seemed now to be due not so much to their feminine incontinence[49] as to a kind of madness inspired by supernatural powers. (Valesius, p. 626.)

[Footnote 49: Reading [Greek: eti aselgeias] (Boissevain's emendation) in place of the unintelligible [Greek: aitias algein] of the MS.]

2. (Par.) Three altogether had had intercourse with men; and of them Marcia had acted individually, granting her favors to one single knight[50] and would never have been discovered, had not the investigation into the cases of the others spread and overtaken her besides. AEmilia and Licinia had a multitude of lovers and carried on their wanton behavior with each other's help. At first they surrendered themselves to some few privately and secretly, telling each man that he was the only one admitted. Later they themselves bound every one who could suspect and inform against them to certain silence in advance by the price of intercourse with them, and those who had previously enjoyed their conversation, though they saw this, yet endured it in order not to be detected by a show of vexation. So after holding commerce with many, now singly, now in groups, now privately, now publicly, Licinia enjoyed the society of the brother of AEmilia, and AEmilia that of Licinia's brother. These doings were hidden for a great period of time, and though many men and many women, both free and slaves, were in the secret, it was hidden for a very long period, until one Manius,[51] who seems to have been the first to assist and cooeperate in the whole evil, gave information of the matter because he had not obtained freedom nor any of the other objects of his hope. He was, indeed, very skillful not only at leading women into prostitution, but also in slandering and ruining some of them. (Valesius, p. 626.)

[Footnote 50: Namely, L. Betutius Barrus.]

[Footnote 51: A slave of the aforesaid Barrus.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXVI] [Sidenote: B.C. 112 (_a.u._ 642)] (Par.) This was calculated to bring him [sc. Marcus Drusus] glory first of itself and second in the light of Cato's disaster; and because he had shown great amiability toward the soldiers and seemed to have made success of more importance than truth, he also secured a renown greater than his deeds deserved. (Valesius, p. 629.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXVII] [Sidenote: B.C. 108 (_a.u._ 646)] 1. (Par.) When Jugurtha sent to Metellus about peace the latter made separate demands upon him as if each were to be the last, and in this way got from him hostages, arms, the elephants, the captives, and the deserters. All of these last he killed but did not grant a truce because Jugurtha, fearing to be arrested, refused to come to him and because Marius and Gnaeus[52] prevented. (Ursinus, p. 385.)

[Footnote 52: Possibly an error for _Gaudas_.]

2. For he [sc. Marius] was in general seditious and turbulent, wholly friendly to the rabble from which he had sprung and wholly ready to overthrow the nobility. He risked with perfect readiness any statement, promise, lie, or false oath in any matter where he hoped to gain a benefit. Blackmailing one of the foremost citizens or commending some rascal he thought child's play. And let no one be surprised that such a man could conceal his villanies for a very long time: for, as a result of his exceeding cunning and the good fortune which he enjoyed all through his early life, he actually acquired a reputation for virtue. (Valesius, p. 629.)

3. (Par.) Marius was the more easily able to calumniate Metellus for the reason that the latter was numbered among the nobles and was managing military concerns excellently, whereas he himself was just beginning to come forward from a very obscure and doubtful origin into public notice:--the populace was readily inclined to overthrow Metellus through envy, and favored Marius increasingly for his promises:--of great assistance, too, was the report that Metellus had said to Marius (who was just then coming forward for election): "You ought to be satisfied if you get to be consul along with my son" (who was a mere lad). (Valesius, p. 630.)

4. (Par.) Gaudas was angry at Metellus because in spite of requests he had received from him neither the deserters nor a garrison of Roman soldiers, or else because he could not sit near him,--a privilege ordinarily vouchsafed by the consuls to princes and potentates. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 107 (_a.u._ 647)] 5. (Par.) When Cirta was captured by capitulation Bocchus sent a herald to Marius and first demanded the empire of Jugurtha as the price for his defection, but later, as he did not obtain it, simply asked him to make terms. So he sent envoys to Rome, but Jugurtha while this was taking place retired to the most desolate portions of his own territory. (Ursinus, p. 385.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 106 (_a.u._ 648)] 6. (Par.) Marius entertained the envoys of Bocchus but said he would make no compact with him unless he should receive Jugurtha's prisoners from his hands; and this was done. (Ursinus, p. 386.)

_(BOOK 27, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXVIII] (Par.) Tolosa, which was formerly at peace with the Romans but had revolted, under the influence of hope in the Cimbri, to the extent of imprisoning the garrison, was occupied by them at night: they were admitted unexpectedly by friends and plundered the temples, obtaining much other money besides, for the place had been wealthy from of old, containing among other offerings those of which the Gauls under the leadership of Brennus had once despoiled Delphi. Nothing of importance, however, reached the Romans in the capital, but the victors themselves confiscated the most of it. For this a number were called to account. (Valesius, p. 630.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. LXXXIX] [Sidenote: B.C. 105 (_a.u._ 649)] 1. (Par.) Servilius by reason of his jealousy of his colleague[53] became the cause of many evils to the army; for, though he had in general equal powers, his repute was naturally diminished by the fact that the other was also consul. And ... after the death of Scaurus[54] he [Manlius?] sent for Servilius: but the latter replied that each of them ought to keep his position. Then, apprehending that Manlius might gain some success by his own resources, he grew jealous of him, fearing that he might secure individual glory, and went to him: yet he did not bivouac on the same ground nor make him the partaker of any plan, but took up a distinct position with the evident intention of joining battle with the Cimbri before him and winning all the glory of the war. At the outset they still inspired the enemy with dread, as long as their quarrel was concealed, so much so as to lead the foe to desire peace, but when the Cimbri sent a herald to Manlius as consul Servilius became indignant that they had not directed their embassy to him, refused to agree to any reconciliation, and came near slaying the envoys. (Valesius, p. 630.)

[Footnote 53: _Cn. Manlius Maximus_.]

[Footnote 54: _M. Aurelius Scaurus_ (consul suffectus B.C. 108).]

2. (Par.) The soldiers forced Servilius to go to Manlius and consult with him about the emergency. But so far from coming into accord they became as a result of the meeting even more hostile than before: they fell into strife and abuse and parted in a disgraceful fashion. (Valesius, p. 633.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. XC] [Sidenote: B.C. 104 (_a.u._ 650)] (Par.) After Gnaeus Domitius obtained leave to bring suit against Scaurus, one of the slaves then came forward and offered to bring any damaging charges against his master: but he refused to become involved in such despicable business, and arresting the fellow delivered him over to Scaurus. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCI] 1. (Par.) Publius Licinius Nerva, who was praetor in the island, on learning that the slaves were not being justly treated in some respects, or else because he sought an occasion of profit (for he was not inaccessible to bribes), circulated the announcement that all who had any charges to bring against their masters should come to him, for he would assist them. Accordingly, many of them banded together, and some declared they were being wronged and others made known some other grievances against their masters, thinking they had secured an opportunity for accomplishing without bloodshedding all that they wished. The freeborn, after consultation, resisted them and would not yield to them on any point. Therefore Licinius, inspired with fear by the united front of both sides and dreading that some great mischief might be done by the defeated party, would not admit any of the slaves but sent them away thinking that they would suffer no harm or that at any rate they would be scattered and so could cause no more disturbance. But they, fearing their masters because they had dared to raise their voices at all against them, organized a force and by common consent turned to robbery. (Valesius, p. 633.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 103 (_a.u._ 651)] 2. (Par.) The Messenians, believing that they would suffer no abuse, had deposited in that place for safe keeping all their most valuable and highly prized possessions. Athenio, who as a Cilician held the chief command of the robbers, on learning this attacked them while they were celebrating a public festival in the suburbs, killed many of them as they were scattered about, and almost took the city by storm. After building a wall to fortify Macella,[55] a strong position, he did serious injury to the country. (Valesius, p. 634.)

[Footnote 55: Possibly the modern _Macellaro_.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCII] [Sidenote: B.C. 102 (_a.u._ 652)] 1. (Par.) After the defeat of the barbarians though many had fallen in battle some few were saved. Whereupon Marius attempted to console these survivors and to make amends by restoring to them all the plunder at a nominal price, to prevent its being thought that he had bestowed favors gratuitously upon any one. By this act Marius, who previously had been the darling of the populace alone because sprung from that class and raised to power by it, now won over even the nobles by whom he was hated, and was praised equally by all. He received from a willing and harmonious people a reelection for the following year, to enable him to subdue his remaining foes. (Valesius, ib.)

2. (Par.) The Cimbri when they had once halted lost much of their spirit and consequently grew duller and weaker in both soul and body. The reason was that in place of their former outdoor life they rested in houses, instead of their former cold plunges they used warm baths, whereas they were wont to eat raw meat they now filled themselves with richly spiced dishes and relishes of the country, and they saturated themselves, contrary to their custom, with wine and strong drink. These practices extinguished all their fiery spirit and enervated their bodies, so that they could no longer bear toils or hardships or heat or cold or sleeplessness. (Valesius, ib.)

_(BOOK 28, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 99 (_a.u._ 655)] 1. (Par.) The son of Metellus besought everybody to such an extent both in private and in public to let his father return from exile that he received the appellation _Pius_, i.e. dutiful. (Valesius, p. 638.)

2. (Par.) Furius had such enmity toward Metellus that when he was censor he took his horse away. (Valesius, ib.)

3. Publius Furius,[56] indicted for his deeds committed in the tribuneship, was slain by the Romans in the Comitia itself. He richly deserved to die, for he was a seditious person and after first joining Saturninus and Glaucia he veered about, deserted to the opposing faction, and joined its members; it was not proper, however, for him to perish in just this way. And this action seemed to be on the whole justifiable. (Valesius, p. 637.)

[Footnote 56: He was tribune of the plebs, B.C. 99.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCIV] 1. For there were other factional leaders, but the greatest authority was possessed by Marcius[57] over one group, and by Quintus[58] over the other: these men were eager for power, of insatiable ambition, and consequently greatly inclined toward strife. Those qualities they possessed in common; but Drusus had the advantage of birth, and of wealth, which he lavishly expended upon those who at any time made demands upon him, while the other greatly surpassed him in audacity, daring, the anticipation of plots, and malignity suitable to the occasion. Hence not unnaturally, since they supplemented each other partly by their likeness and partly by their differences, they created an extremely strong factional feeling which remained even after the death of both. (Valesius, p. 638.)

[Footnote 57: _M. Livius Drusus._]

[Footnote 58: _Q. Servilius Caepio._]

2. (Par.) Drusus and Caepio, formerly great friends and united by mutual ties of marriage, became privately at enmity with each other and carried their feud even into politics. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCV] [Sidenote: B.C. 92 (_a.u._ 662)] 1. (Par.) Rutilius, an upright man, was most unjustly condemned. He was brought to court by a preconcerted plan of the knights on a charge of having been bribed while serving in Asia as lieutenant under Quintus Mucius,[59] and they imposed a fine upon him. The reason for this act was their rage at his having ended many of their irregularities in connection with the collecting of taxes. (Valesius, p. 637.)

[Footnote 59: The clause as found in the MS. gives no sense. The translation here is on the basis of an emendation suggested by Boissevain.]

2. (Par.) Rutilius made a very able defence, and there was no one of his words which would not be the natural utterance of an upright man who was being blackmailed and grieved far more for the conditions of the State than for his own possessions: he was convicted, however, and immediately stripped of his property. This process more than any other revealed the fact that he had in no wise deserved the sentence passed upon him. He was found to possess much less than the accusers had charged him with having confiscated from Asia, and he could trace all of his goods back to just and lawful sources of acquisition. Such was his unworthy treatment, and Marius was not free from responsibility for his conviction; a man so excellent and of such good repute had been an annoyance to him. Wherefore Rutilius, indignant at the conduct of affairs in the city, and disdaining to live longer in the company of such a creature, withdrew, though under no compulsion, and went even as far as Asia. There for a time he dwelt in Mitylene; then after that place had received injury in the Mithridatic war he transferred his residence to Smyrna and there lived to the end of his life nor wished ever to return home. And in all this he suffered not a whit in reputation or plenty. He received many gifts from Mucius and a vast number from all the peoples and kings as well who had become acquainted with him, till he possessed far more than his original property. (Valesius, p. 637.)

_(BOOK 29, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCVI] [Sidenote: B.C. 90 (_a.u._ 664)] 1. (Par.) Lupus,[60] suspecting that the patricians making the campaign with him were revealing his plans to the enemy, sent word about them to the senate before he had any definite information,[61] and, as a consequence, although they were in no case well disposed[62] toward each other through factional differences, he set them still more at variance. There would have been even greater disturbance, had not some of the Marsi been detected mixing with the foraging parties of the Romans and entering the ramparts under the guise of allies, where they took cognizance of speeches and actions in the camp and reported them to their own men. In consequence of this discovery they ceased to be angry with the patricians. (Valesius, p. 641.)

[Footnote 60: _P. Rutilius Lupus_.]

[Footnote 61: There are two gaps in the MS. here. "Had ... information" is a conjecture of Tafel and Gros; and "well disposed toward each other" of Reiske, who compares Book Fifty, chapter 16, of Dio.]

[Footnote 62: [See previous footnote.]]

2. (Par.) Marius suspected Lupus, although a relative, and through jealousy and hope of being appointed consul even a seventh time as the only man who could bring success out of the existing situation, bade him delay: their men, he said, would have provisions, whereas the other side would not be able to hold out for any considerable time when the war was in their country. (Valesius, ib.)

3. (Par.) The Picentes subdued those who would not join their rebellion and abused these men in the presence of their friends and from the heads of their wives they tore out the hair along with the skin. (Valesius, ib.)

_(REMAINS OF BOOKS 30-35, BOISSEVAIN.)_

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCVII] 1. (Par.) Mithridates, when the Roman envoys[63] arrived, did not make the slightest move, but after bringing some counter-charges and also exhibiting to the envoys the amount of his wealth, some of which he had at that time spent on various objects public and private, he remained quiet. But Nicomedes, elated by their alliance and being in need of money, invaded his territory. (Ursinus, p. 386.)

[Footnote 63: Their leader was M.' Aquilius.]

2. (Par.) Mithridates despatched envoys to Rome requesting them if they deemed Nicomedes a friend to persuade him or compel him to act justly toward him, or if not, to allow him (Mithridates) to take measures against his foe. They, so far from doing what he wished, even threatened him with punishment if he should not give back Cappadocia to Ariobarzanes and remain at peace with Nicomedes. His envoys they sent away the very day and furthermore ordered him never to send another one unless he should render them obedience. (Ursinus, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCVIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 89 (_a.u._ 665)] (Par.) Cato,[64] the greater part of whose army was effeminate and superannuated, found his power diminished in every direction: and once, when he had ventured to rebuke them because they were unwilling to work hard or obey orders readily, he came near being overwhelmed with a shower of missiles from them. He would certainly have been killed, if they had had plenty of stones; but since the site where they were assembled was given over to agriculture and happened to be very wet, he received no hurt from the clods of earth. The man who began the mutiny, Gaius Titius,[65] was arrested: he was a low fellow who made his living in the courts and was excessively and shamelessly outspoken; he was sent to the city to the tribunes, but escaped punishment. (Valesius, p. 641.)

[Footnote 64: _L. Porcius Cato_ (consul B.C. 89).]

[Footnote 65: Properly _C. Titinius Sisenna_.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCIX] [Sidenote: B.C. 88 (_a.u._ 666)] 1. (Par.) All the Asiatics, at the bidding of Mithridates, massacred the Romans; only the people of Tralles did not personally kill any one, but hired a certain Theophilus, a Paphlagonian (as if the victims were more likely thus to escape destruction, or as if it made any difference to them by whom they should be slaughtered). (Valesius, p. 642.)

2. (Par.) The Thracians, persuaded by Mithridates, overran Epirus and the rest of the country as far as Dodona, going even to the point of plundering the temple of Zeus. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. C] [Sidenote: B.C. 87 (_a.u._ 667)] 1. (Par.) Cinna, as soon as he took possession of the office, was anxious upon no one point so much as to drive Sulla out of Italy. He made Mithridates his excuse, but in reality wanted this leader to remove himself that he might not, by lurking close at hand, prove a hindrance to the objects that Cinna had in mind. He fairly distinguished himself by his zeal for Sulla and would refuse to promise nothing that pleased him. For Sulla, who saw the urgency of the war and was eager for its glory, before starting had arranged everything at home for his own best interests. He appointed Cinna and one Gnaeus Octavius to be his successors, hoping in this way to retain considerable power even while absent. The second of the two he understood was generally approved for his excellence and good nature, and he thought he would cause no trouble: the other he well knew was an unprincipled person, but he did not wish to antagonize him, because the man had some influence and was ready, as he had said and declared on oath, to assist him in every way possible. Sulla himself, though an adept at discovering the minds of men and inferring correctly in regard to the nature of things, made a thorough mistake in this matter and bequeathed a great war to the State. (Valesius, p. 642.)

2. (Par.) Octavius was naturally dull in politics. (Valesius, ib.)

3. (Par.) The Romans, when civil war set in, sent for Metellus, urging him to help them. (Ursinus, p. 386.)

4. (Par.) The Romans, at odds with one another, sent for Metellus and bade him come to terms with the Samnites, as he best might: for at this time they alone were still damaging Campania and the district beyond it. He, however, concluded no truce with them. They demanded citizenship to be given not to themselves alone but also to those who had deserted to their side, refused to give up any of the booty which they had, but demanded back all the captives and deserters from their own ranks, so that even the senators no longer chose to make peace with them on these terms. (Ursinus, p. 385.)

5. (Par.) When Cinna had put in force again the law regarding the return of exiles, Marius and the rest of his followers who had been expelled leaped into the city with the army left to them by all the gates at once; these they shut, so that no one could make his escape, and despatched every man they met, making no distinction, but treating them all alike as enemies. They took special pains to destroy any persons who had possessions, because they coveted such property, and outraged their children and wives as if they had enslaved some foreign city. The heads of the most eminent citizens they fastened to the rostra. That sight was no less cruel than their ruin; for the thought might occur to the spectators that what their ancestors had adorned with the beaks of the enemy was now being deformed by the heads of the citizens.

For, in fine, so great a desire and greed for slaughter possessed Marius, that when he had killed most of his enemies and no one because of the great confusion prevailing occurred to him whom he wished to destroy, he gave the word to the soldiers to stab all in succession of the passers-by to whom he should not extend his hand. For Roman affairs had come to this, that a man had to die not only without a trial and without having incurred enmity, but by reason of Marius's hand not being stretched out. Now naturally in so great a throng and uproar it was not only no object to Marius to make the gesture, but it was not even possible, no matter how much he wished it, to use his hand as he pleased. Hence many died for naught who ought certainly on every account not to have been slain. The entire number of the murdered is beyond finding out; for the slaughter went on five whole days and an equal number of nights. (Valesius, p. 642.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 86 (_a.u._ 668)] 6. (Par.) While the Romans were offering the New Year's sacrifice at the opening of the season and making their vows[66] for their magistrate according to ancestral rites, the son of Marius killed a tribune with his own hands, sending his head to the consuls, and hurled another from the Capitol,--a fate which had never befallen such an official,--and debarred two praetors from both fire and water. (Valesius, p. 645.)

[Footnote 66: Reading [Greek: euchas] (Reiske, Boissevain) in place of [Greek: archas].]

[Sidenote: FRAG. CI] 1. (Par.) The lieutenant of Flaccus, Fimbria, when his chief had reached Byzantium revolted against him. He was in all matters very bold and reckless, passionately fond of any notoriety whatsoever and contemptuous of all that was superior. This led him at that time, after his departure from Rome, to pretend an incorruptibility in respect to money and an interest in the soldiers, which bound them to him and set them at variance with Flaccus. He was the more able to do this because Flaccus was insatiable in regard to money, not being content to appropriate what was ordinarily left over, but enriching himself even from the soldiers' allowance for food and from the booty, which he invariably maintained belonged to him. (Valesius, p. 650.)

2. (Par.) When Flaccus and Fimbria had arrived at Byzantium and Flaccus after commanding them to bivouac outside the wall had gone into the city, Fimbria seized the occasion to accuse him of having taken money, and denounced him, saying that he was living in luxury within, whereas they were enduring hardships under the shelter of tents, in storm and cold. The soldiers then angrily rushed into the city, killed some of those that fell upon them and scattered to the various houses. (Valesius, ib.)

3. (Par.) On the occasion of some dispute between Fimbria and the quaestor Flaccus threatened to send him back to Rome whether he liked it or not, and when the other consequently made some abusive reply deprived him of his command. Fimbria set out upon his return with the worst possible will and on reaching the soldiers at Byzantium greeted them as if he were upon the point of departure, asked for a letter, and lamented his fate, pretending to have suffered undeservedly. He advised them to remember the help he had given them and to be on their guard; and his words contained a hidden reference to Flaccus, implying that he had designs upon them. Finding that they accepted his story and were well disposed toward him and suspicious of the general, he went on still further and incited them to anger by accusing Flaccus of various faults, finally stating that he would betray them for money; hence the soldiers drove away Thermus, who had been assigned to take charge of them. (Valesius, ib.)

4. (Par.) Fimbria destroyed many men not to serve the best ends of justice nor to secure the greatest benefit to Rome but through bad temper and lust of slaughter. A proof is that he once ordered many crosses to be made, to which he was wont to bind them and wear out their lives by cruel treatment, and then when these were found to be many more than those who were to be put to death he commanded some of the bystanders to be arrested and affixed to the crosses that were in excess, that they might not seem to have been made in vain. (Valesius, p. 653.)

5. (Par.) The same man on capturing Ilium despatched as many persons as he could, sparing none, and all but burned the whole city to the ground. He took the place not by storm but by guile. After bestowing some praise on them for the embassy sent to Sulla and saying that it made no difference with which one of the two they ratified a truce (for he and Sulla were both Romans) he thereupon went in among them as among friends and performed these deeds. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CII] [Sidenote: B.C. 85 (_a.u._ 669)] 1. (Par.) Metellus after being defeated by Cinna went to Sulla and was of the greatest assistance to him. For in view of his reputation for justice and piety not a few who were opposed to Sulla's policy decided that it was not without reason that Metellus had joined him but that he chose what was really juster and more advantageous for the country, and hence they went over to their side. (Valesius, p. 653.)

2. (Par.) A thunderbolt fell upon the Capitol, causing the destruction of the Sibylline books and of many other things. (Mai, p. 551.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 83 (_a.u._ 671)] (Par.) Pompey was a son of Strabo, and has been compared by Plutarch with Agesilaus the Lacedaemonian. Indignant at those who held the city he proceeded absolutely alone to Picenum before he had quite yet come to man's estate: from the inhabitants on account of his father's position of command he collected a small band and set up an individual sovereignty, thinking to perform some famous exploit by himself; then he joined the party of Sulla. Beginning in this way he became no less a man than his chief, but, as his title indicates, grew to be "Great." (Valesius, p. 653.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CIV] [Sidenote: B.C. 82 (_a.u._ 672)] (Par.) Sulla delivered the army to a man[67] who was in no wise distinguished[68] nor generally commended, in spite of the fact that he had many who had been with him from the beginning superior in both experience and action, whom up to that time he had employed in all emergencies and treated as most faithful. Before he became victor he was accustomed to make requests of them and use their assistance to the fullest extent. But as he drew near his dream of absolute dominion, he made no account of them any longer but reposed his trust rather in the basest men who were not conspicuous for family or possessed of a reputation for uprightness. The reason was that he saw that such persons were ready to assist him in all his projects, even the vilest; and he thought they would be most grateful to him if they should obtain even very small favors, would never show contempt nor lay claim to either his deeds or his plans. The virtuous element, on the other hand, would not be willing to help him in his evil-doing but would even rebuke him; they would demand rewards for benefits conferred, according to merit, would feel no gratitude for them but take them as something due, and would claim his actions and counsels as their own. (Valesius, p. 654.)

[Footnote 67: _Q. Lucretius Ofella._]

[Footnote 68: Supplying [Greek: met' epiphanei], with Reiske.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. CV] 1. (Par.) Sulla up to that day that he conquered the Samnites had been a conspicuous figure, possessing a renown from his leadership and plans, and was believed to be most devoted to humaneness and piety, so that all thought that he had Fortune as an ally because of his excellence. After this event he changed so much that one would not say his earlier and his later deeds were those of the same person. This probably shows that he could not endure good fortune. Acts that he censured in other persons while he was still weak, and others, far more outrageous even, he committed: it had presumably always been his wish to do so, but he had been hindered by lack of opportunity. This fact produced a strong conviction in the minds of some that bad luck has not a little to do with creating a reputation for virtue.[69] As soon as Sulla had vanquished the Samnites and thought he had put an end to the war (the rest of it he held of no account) he changed his tactics and, as it were, left his former personality behind outside the wall and in the battle, and proceeded to surpass Cinna and Marius and all their associates combined. Treatment that he had given to no one of the foreign peoples that had opposed him he bestowed upon his native land, as if he had subdued that as well. In the first place he sent forthwith the heads of Damasippus and the members of his party stuck on poles to Praeneste, and many of those who voluntarily surrendered he killed as if he had caught them without their consent. The next day he ordered the senators to assemble at the temple of Bellona, giving them the idea that he would make some defence of his conduct, and ordered those captured alive to meet at the so-called "public" field,[70] pretending that he would enroll them in the lists. This last class he had other men slay, and many persons from the city, mixed in among them, likewise perished: to the senators he himself at the same time addressed a most bitter speech. (Valesius, p. 654.)

[Footnote 69: Adopting Reiske's suggestion for filling out a lacuna in the sense.]

[Footnote 70: The _villa publica_.]

2. (Par.) The massacre of the captured persons was going on even under Sulla's direction with unabated fury, and as they were being killed near the temple the great uproar and lamentation that they made, their shrieks and wails, invaded the senate-house, so that the senate was terrified for two reasons. The second of the two was that they were not far from expecting that they themselves, also, might yet suffer some terrible injury, so unholy were both his words and his actions: therefore many, cut to the heart with grief at the thought of reality and possibility, wished that they themselves belonged to the number of men already dead outside, and so might secure a respite at last from fear. Their cases, however, were postponed, while the rest were slaughtered and thrown into the river, so that the savagery of Mithridates, deemed so terrible, in slaughtering all the Romans in Asia in one day, was now held to be of slight importance in comparison with the number massacred and their manner of death. Nor did the terror stop here, but the slaughters which began at this point as if by a kind of signal occurred in the country district and all the cities of Italy. Toward many Sulla himself showed hatred and toward many others his companions did the same, some truthfully and some in pretence, in order that displaying by the similarity of their deeds a character similar to his and establishing him as their friend they might not, by any dissimilarity, incur suspicion, seem to be reproving him at all, and so endanger themselves. They murdered all whom they saw to surpass them either in wealth or in any other respect, some through envy and others on account of their possessions. For under such conditions many neutral persons even, though they might have taken neither side, became subject to some private complaint, as surpassing some one in excellence or wealth and family. No safety was visible for any one against those in power who wished to commit an injustice in any case. (Valesius, p. 657.)

[Sidenote: B.C. 81 (_a.u._ 673)] 3. (Par.) Such calamities held Rome encompassed. Who could narrate the insults to the living, many of which were offered to women, and many to the noblest and most prominent children, as if they were captives in war? Yet those acts, though most distressing, yet at least in their similarity to others that had previously taken place seemed endurable to such persons as were away from them. But Sulla was not satisfied, nor was he content to do the same as others: a certain longing came over him to far excel all in the variety of his slaughters, as if there were some virtue in being second to none even in bloodguiltiness, and so he exposed to view a new device, a whitened tablet, on which he inscribed the names. Notwithstanding this all previous atrocities continued undiminished, and not even those whose names were not inscribed on the tablets were in safety. For many, some living and others actually dead, had their names subsequently inscribed at the pleasure of the slayers, so that in this aspect the phenomenon exhibited no novelties, and equally by its terror and its absurdity distressed absolutely every one. The tablets were exposed like some register of senators or list of soldiers approved, and all those passing by at one time or another ran eagerly to it in crowds, with the idea that it contained some favorable announcement: then many found relatives' names and some, indeed, their own inscribed for death, whereupon their condition, overwhelmed by such a sudden disaster, was a terrible one; many of them, making themselves known by their behavior, perished. There was no particle of safety for any one outside of Sulla's company. For whether a man approached the tablets, he incurred censure for meddling with matters not concerning him, or if he did not approach he was regarded as a malcontent. The man who read the list through or asked any question about anything inscribed became suspected of enquiring about himself or his companions, and the one who did not read or enquire was suspected of being displeased at it and for that reason incurred hatred. Tears or laughter proved fatal on the instant: hence many were destroyed not because they had said or done anything forbidden, but because they either drew a long face or smiled. Their attitudes were so carefully observed as this, and it was possible for no one either to mourn or to exult over an enemy, but even the latter class were slaughtered on the ground that they were jeering at something. Furthermore many found trouble in their very names, for some who were unacquainted with the proscribed applied their names to whomsoever they pleased, and thus many perished in the place of others. This resulted in great confusion, some naming any man they met just as ever they pleased, and the others denying that they were so called. Some were slaughtered while still ignorant of the fact that they were to die, and others, who had been previously informed, anywhere that they happened to be; and there was no place for them either holy or sacred, no safe retreat, no refuge. Some, to be sure, by perishing suddenly before learning of the catastrophe hanging over them, and some at the moment they received the news, were fortunately relieved of the terrors preceding death: those who were warned in advance and hid themselves found it a very difficult matter to escape. They did not dare to withdraw, for fear of being detected, nor could they endure to remain where they were for fear of betrayal. Very many of them were betrayed by their associates and those dearest to them, and so perished. Consequently not those whose names were inscribed merely, but the rest, as well, suffered in anticipation. (Valesius, pp. 658-662.)

4. (Par.) The heads of all those slaughtered in any place were brought to the Roman Forum and exposed on the rostra, so that as often as proscriptions were issued, so often did the heads appear. (Valesius, ib.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CVI] [Sidenote: B.C. 74 (_a.u._ 680)] Lucullus said that he would rather have rescued one Roman from danger than have captured at one stroke all the forces of the enemy. (Mai, p. 551.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CVII] 1. For titles do not change the characters of men, but one makes titles take on new meanings according to one's management of affairs. Many monarchs are the source of blessings to their subjects,--wherefore such a state is called a kingdom,--whereas many who live under a democracy work innumerable evils to themselves. (Mai, p. 556. Cp. Frag. XII.)

2. For nothing leads on an army or anything else requiring some control to better or worse like the character and habits of the person presiding over it. The disposition and character of their leaders the majority imitate, and they do whatever they see them doing, some from real inclination, and others as a mere pretence. (Mai, p. 556.)

3. The subservient element is wont ever to shape itself according to the disposition of its rulers. (Mai, p. 560, from Antonius Melissa, p. 78, ed. Tigur.)

4. For who would not prefer to be upright and at his death to lie in the bosom of the State, rather than to behold her devastated? (Mai, p. 557.)

5. If any one were building a house for you where you were not going to remain, you would think the undertaking a loss: do you now wish to grow rich in that place from which you must depart repeatedly before evening? (Mai, ib.)

6. Do you not know that we tarry in others' domains just like strangers and sojourners? Do you not know that it is the lot of sojourners to be driven out when they are not expecting or looking for it? That is our case. (Mai, ib.)

7. Who would not choose to die from one blow, and that with no pain or very little, instead of after sickness? Who would not pray to depart from a sound body with sound spirits rather than to rot with some decay or dropsy, or wither away in hunger? (Mai, ib.)

8. Things hoped for that fail of realization are wont to grieve some persons more than the loss of things never expected at all. They regard the latter as far from them and so pursue them less, as if they belonged to others, whereas the former they approach closely, and grieve for them as if deprived of rightful possessions. (Mai, p. 558.)

9. Expectation of danger, without danger, puts the person expecting in the position of having made things secure beforehand through imagining some coming unpleasantness. (Mai, p. 560, from Antonius Melissa.)

10. To be elated by good fortune is like running the stadium race on a slippery course. (Mai, ib., also from Antonius.)

11. The same author [i.e., Dio the Roman] said: "Is it not an outrage to trouble the gods, when we ourselves are not willing to do what the gods deem to be in our power?" (Mai, p. 561, from the Anthology of Arsenius.)

12. The same said: "It is much better to win some success and be envied than to fail and be pitied." (Mai, ib., from Arsenius.)

13. The same said: "It is impossible for any one who acts contrary to right principles to derive any benefit from them." (Mai, p. 562.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CVIII] [Sidenote: B.C. 70 (_a.u._ 684)] The Cretans sent an embassy to the Romans, hoping to renew the old truce and furthermore to obtain some kindness for their preservation of the quaestor and his fellow soldiers. But they, rather imbued with anger at their failure to overcome the Cretans than grateful to the enemy for not having destroyed them, made no reasonable answer and demanded back from them all the captives and deserters. They demanded hostages and large sums of money, required the largest ships and the chief men to be given up, and would not wait for an answer from the envoys' country but sent out one of the consuls immediately to take possession of those things and make war upon them if they failed to give,--as proved to be the case. For the men who at the outset, before any such demand was made and before they had conquered, had refused to make terms would naturally not endure after their victory the imposition of exorbitant demands of such a character. The Romans knowing this clearly and suspecting further that the envoys would try to corrupt some persons with money, so as to hinder the expedition, voted in the senate that no one should lend them anything. (Ursinus, p. 388.)