By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives.

Chapter 13.—By What Right or Agreement The Romans Obtained Their First Wives.

Caput XIII. Quo iure, quo foedere Romani obtinuerint prima coniugia.

How is it that neither Juno, who with her husband Jupiter even then cherished

“Rome’s sons, the nation of the gown,”

nor Venus herself, could assist the children of the loved Æneas to find wives by some right and equitable means? For the lack of this entailed upon the Romans the lamentable necessity of stealing their wives, and then waging war with their fathers-in-law; so that the wretched women, before they had recovered from the wrong done them by their husbands, were dowried with the blood of their fathers. “But the Romans conquered their neighbors.” Yes; but with what wounds on both sides, and with what sad slaughter of relatives and neighbors! The war of Cæsar and Pompey was the contest of only one father-in-law with one son-in-law; and before it began, the daughter of Cæsar, Pompey’s wife, was already dead. But with how keen and just an accent of grief does Lucan exclaim: “I sing that worse than civil war waged in the plains of Emathia, and in which the crime was justified by the victory!”

Quo modo nec Iuno, quae cum Ioue suo iam fouebat Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam, nec Venus ipsa Aeneidas suos potuit adiuuare, ut bono et aequo more coniugia mererentur, cladesque tanta inruit huius inopiae, ut ea dolo raperent moxque conpellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur? At enim uicerunt in hac conflictione Romani uicinos suos. Quantis et quam multis utrimque uulneribus et funeribus tam propinquorum et confinium istae uictoriae constiterunt! Propter unum Caesarem socerum et unum generum eius Pompeium iam mortua Caesaris filia, uxore Pompei, quanto et quam iusto doloris instinctu Lucanus exclamat: Bella per Emathios plus quam ciuilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus.

The Romans, then, conquered that they might, with hands stained in the blood of their fathers-in-law, wrench the miserable girls from their embrace,—girls who dared not weep for their slain parents, for fear of offending their victorious husbands; and while yet the battle was raging, stood with their prayers on their lips, and knew not for whom to utter them. Such nuptials were certainly prepared for the Roman people not by Venus, but Bellona; or possibly that infernal fury Alecto had more liberty to injure them now that Juno was aiding them, than when the prayers of that goddess had excited her against Æneas. Andromache in captivity was happier than these Roman brides. For though she was a slave, yet, after she had become the wife of Pyrrhus, no more Trojans fell by his hand; but the Romans slew in battle the very fathers of the brides they fondled. Andromache, the victor’s captive, could only mourn, not fear, the death of her people. The Sabine women, related to men still combatants, feared the death of their fathers when their husbands went out to battle, and mourned their death as they returned, while neither their grief nor their fear could be freely expressed. For the victories of their husbands, involving the destruction of fellow-townsmen, relatives, brothers, fathers, caused either pious agony or cruel exultation. Moreover, as the fortune of war is capricious, some of them lost their husbands by the sword of their parents, while others lost husband and father together in mutual destruction. For the Romans by no means escaped with impunity, but they were driven back within their walls, and defended themselves behind closed gates; and when the gates were opened by guile, and the enemy admitted into the town, the Forum itself was the field of a hateful and fierce engagement of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law. The ravishers were indeed quite defeated, and, flying on all sides to their houses, sullied with new shame their original shameful and lamentable triumph. It was at this juncture that Romulus, hoping no more from the valor of his citizens, prayed Jupiter that they might stand their ground; and from this occasion the god gained the name of Stator. But not even thus would the mischief have been finished, had not the ravished women themselves flashed out with dishevelled hair, and cast themselves before their parents, and thus disarmed their just rage, not with the arms of victory, but with the supplications of filial affection. Then Romulus, who could not brook his own brother as a colleague, was compelled to accept Titus Tatius, king of the Sabines, as his partner on the throne. But how long would he who misliked the fellowship of his own twin-brother endure a stranger? So, Tatius being slain, Romulus remained sole king, that he might be the greater god. See what rights of marriage these were that fomented unnatural wars. These were the Roman leagues of kindred, relationship, alliance, religion. This was the life of the city so abundantly protected by the gods. You see how many severe things might be said on this theme; but our purpose carries us past them, and requires our discourse for other matters.

Vicerunt ergo Romani, ut strage socerorum manibus cruentis ab eorum filiabus amplexus miserabiles extorquerent, nec illae auderent flere patres occisos, ne offenderent uictores maritos, quae adhuc illis pugnantibus pro quibus facerent uota nesciebant. Talibus nuptiis populum Romanum non Venus, sed Bellona donauit; aut fortassis Allecto illa inferna furia iam eis fauente Iunone plus in illos habuit licentiae, quam cum eius precibus contra Aenean fuerat excitata. Andromacha felicius captiuata est, quam illa conubia Romana nupserunt. Licet seruiles, tamen post eius amplexus nullum Troianorum Pyrrhus occidit; Romani autem soceros interficiebant in proeliis, quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. Illa uictori subdita dolere tantum suorum mortem potuit, non timere; illae sociatae bellantibus parentum suorum mortes procedentibus uiris timebant, redeuntibus dolebant, nec timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum ciuium propinquorum, fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur. aut crudeliter laetabantur uictoriis maritorum. Huc accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt uiros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et uiros. Neque enim et aput Romanos parua fuerunt illa discrimina, si quidem ad obsidionem quoque peruentum est ciuitatis clausisque portis se tuebantur; quibus dolo apertis admissisque hostibus intra moenia in ipso foro scelerata et nimis atrox inter generos socerosque pugna commissa est, et raptores illi etiam superabantur et crebro fugientes inter domos suas grauius foedabant pristinas, quamuis et ipsas pudendas lugendasque uictorias. Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam uirtute desperans Iouem orauit ut starent, adque ille hac occasione nomen Statoris inuenit; nec finis esset tanti mali, nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent et prouolutae parentibus iram eorum iustissimam non armis uictricibus, sed supplici pietate sedarent. Deinde [Titum] Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre conpulsus est, germani consortis inpatiens: sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Unde et ipso interfecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solus obtinuit. Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis, societatis diuinitatis? quae postremo sub tot dis tutoribus uita ciuitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio et sermo in alia festinaret.

Chapter 14.—Of the Wickedness of the War Waged by the Romans Against the Albans, and of the Victories Won by the Lust of Power.

Caput XIV. De inpietate belli, quod Albanis Romani intulerunt, et de uictoria dominandi libidine adepta.

But what happened after Numa’s reign, and under the other kings, when the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to themselves alone, but also to the Romans? The long peace of Numa had become tedious; and with what endless slaughter and detriment of both states did the Roman and Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba, which had been founded by Ascanius, son of Æneas, and which was more properly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provoked to battle by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflict both inflicted and received such damage, that at length both parties wearied of the struggle. It was then devised that the war should be decided by the combat of three twin-brothers from each army: from the Romans the three Horatii stood forward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two of the Horatii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; but by the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. Thus Rome remained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that only one survivor returned to his home. Whose was the loss on both sides? Whose the grief, but of the offspring of Æneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter? For this, too, was a “worse than civil” war, in which the belligerent states were mother and daughter. And to this combat of the three twin-brothers there was added another atrocious and horrible catastrophe. For as the two nations had formerly been friendly (being related and neighbors), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii; and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of her betrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother in his anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humane than the whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for lamenting the man to whom already she had plighted her troth, or, as perhaps she was doing, for grieving that her brother should have slain him to whom he had promised his sister. For why do we praise the grief of Æneas (in Virgil) over the enemy cut down even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus shed tears over the city of Syracuse, when he recollected, just before he destroyed, its magnificence and meridian glory, and thought upon the common lot of all things? I demand, in the name of humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over enemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not be counted criminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by the hand of her brother. While, then, that maiden was weeping for the death of her betrothed inflicted by her brother’s hand, Rome was rejoicing that such devastation had been wrought on her mother state, and that she had purchased a victory with such an expenditure of the common blood of herself and the Albans.

Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo, sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia uidelicet pax Numae tam longa uiluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Albanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio ciuitatis! Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creauit Ascanius, Romae mater proprior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adfiixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc adque inde fratribus placuit experiri; a Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processerunt; a Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et extincti sunt. Ita Roma extitit uictrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus, nisi Aeneae stirpi nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris nisi nepotibus Iouis? Nam et hoc plus quam ciuile bellum fuit, quando filia ciuitas cum ciuitate matre pugnauit. Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox adque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici (uicini quippe adque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in uictore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre, quoniam fleuit, occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam uniuersi populi Romani mihi fuisse uidetur adfectus. Illa quem uirum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens, qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit. Unde enim aput Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremtum manu? Unde Marcellus Syracusanam ciuitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso ab humano inpetremus adfectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremtum sine crimine fleuerit, si uiri hostes a se uictos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem ciuitatem tanta strage bellasse et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione uicisse Roma gaudebat. Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque uictoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur.

Why allege to me the mere names and words of “glory” and “victory?” Tear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look at the naked deeds: weigh them naked, judge them naked. Let the charge be brought against Alba, as Troy was charged with adultery. There is no such charge, none like it found: the war was kindled only in order that there

Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis, nulla similis inuenitur; tantum ut resides moueret Tullus in arma uiros et iam desueta triumphis Agmina. Illo itaque uitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli adque cognati, quod uitium Sallustius magnum transeunter adtingit.

“Might sound in languid ears the cry

Of Tullus and of victory.”

This vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to that social and parricidal war,—a vice which Sallust brands in passing; for when he has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive times in which life was spent without covetousness, and every one was sufficiently satisfied with what he had, he goes on: “But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty a sufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory consisted in the greatest empire;” and so on, as I need not now quote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human race with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory. For, as our Scriptures say, “the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth.” Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a “great” man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, one being father, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? who would not be revolted by it? How, then, could that be a glorious war which a daughter-state waged against its mother? Or did it constitute a difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the wide plains were filled with the carcasses not of two gladiators, but of many of the flower of two nations; and that those contests were viewed not by the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished a profane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to their posterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?

Cum enim laudans breuiter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant: (Postea uero, inquit, quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes adque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare’, et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. Mihi huc usque satis sit eius uerba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc uicta Albam se uicisse triumphabat et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur. Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: magnus ille adque ille, quia cum illo [et illo] pugnauit et uicit. Pugnant etiam gladiatores, uincunt etiam ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam illorum armorum quaerere gloriam. Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius, alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? quis non auferret? Quo modo ergo gloriosum alterius matris, alterius filiae ciuitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? An ideo diuersum fuit, quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum, sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus inplebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed uniuerso orbe et tunc uiuis et posteris, quo usque ista fama porrigitur, inpium spectaculum praebebatur?

Yet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as it were, theatric spectators of such contests as these, were not satisfied until the sister of the Horatii was added by her brother’s sword as a third victim from the Roman side, so that Rome herself, though she won the day, should have as many deaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the victory, Alba was destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had formed a third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, and after they had left Lavinium, where Æneas had founded a kingdom in a land of banishment. But probably Alba was destroyed because from it too the gods had migrated, in their usual fashion, as Virgil says:

Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui di illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremtos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro duobus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae uicerat. Deinde ad fructum uictoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lauinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum adque fugitiuum constituerat, tertio loco habitauerant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde iam fortasse migrauerant, ideo deleta est.

“Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,

Are those who made this realm divine.”

Discesserant uidelicet omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat.

Gone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Rome might seem all the wiser in committing herself to them after they had deserted three other cities. Alba, whose king Amulius had banished his brother, displeased them; Rome, whose king Romulus had slain his brother, pleased them. But before Alba was destroyed, its population, they say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome so that the two cities were one. Well, admitting it was so, yet the fact remains that the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan gods, was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect this pitiful conglomerate of the war’s leavings, much blood was spilt on both sides. And how shall I speak in detail of the same wars, so often renewed in subsequent reigns, though they seemed to have been finished by great victories; and of wars that time after time were brought to an end by great slaughters, and which yet time after time were renewed by the posterity of those who had made peace and struck treaties? Of this calamitous history we have no small proof, in the fact that no subsequent king closed the gates of war; and therefore with all their tutelar gods, no one of them reigned in peace.

Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio, ut eis quarta Roma prouidentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat, ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnauerat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur, transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam, ut ex utraque una ciuitas fieret. Esto, ita factum sit; urbs tamen ilia, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit. Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata, quae uictoriis finita uidebantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? Non paruum indicium calamitatis huius fuit, quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot dis praesidibus in pace regnauit.

Chapter 15.—What Manner of Life and Death the Roman Kings Had.

Caput XV. Qualis Romanorum regum uita adque exitus fuerit.

And what was the end of the kings themselves? Of Romulus, a flattering legend tells us that he was assumed into heaven. But certain Roman historians relate that he was torn in pieces by the senate for his ferocity, and that a man, Julius Proculus, was suborned to give out that Romulus had appeared to him, and through him commanded the Roman people to worship him as a god; and that in this way the people, who were beginning to resent the action of the senate, were quieted and pacified. For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun’s course: though this grief of the sun might rather have been considered proof that Romulus had been slain, and that the crime was indicated by this deprivation of the sun’s light; as, in truth, was the case when the Lord was crucified through the cruelty and impiety of the Jews. For it is sufficiently demonstrated that this latter obscuration of the sun did not occur by the natural laws of the heavenly bodies, because it was then the Jewish Passover, which is held only at full moon, whereas natural eclipses of the sun happen only at the last quarter of the moon. Cicero, too, shows plainly enough that the apotheosis of Romulus was imaginary rather than real, when, even while he is praising him in one of Scipio’s remarks in the De Republica, he says: “Such a reputation had he acquired, that when he suddenly disappeared during an eclipse of the sun, he was supposed to have been assumed into the number of the gods, which could be supposed of no mortal who had not the highest reputation for virtue.” By these words, “he suddenly disappeared,” we are to understand that he was mysteriously made away with by the violence either of the tempest or of a murderous assault. For their other writers speak not only of an eclipse, but of a sudden storm also, which certainly either afforded opportunity for the crime, or itself made an end of Romulus. And of Tullus Hostilius, who was the third king of Rome, and who was himself destroyed by lightning, Cicero in the same book says, that “he was not supposed to have been deified by this death, possibly because the Romans were unwilling to vulgarize the promotion they were assured or persuaded of in the case of Romulus, lest they should bring it into contempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry.” In one of his invectives, too, he says, in round terms, “The founder of this city, Romulus, we have raised to immortality and divinity by kindly celebrating his services;” implying that his deification was not real, but reputed, and called so by courtesy on account of his virtues. In the dialogue Hortensius, too, while speaking of the regular eclipses of the sun, he says that they “produce the same darkness as covered the death of Romulus, which happened during an eclipse of the sun.” Here you see he does not at all shrink from speaking of his “death,” for Cicero was more of a reasoner than an eulogist.

Ipsorum autem regum qui exitus fuerunt? De Romulo uiderit adulatio fabulosa, qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; uiderint quidam scriptores eorum, qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt subornatumque nescio quem Iulium Proculum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano, ut inter numina coleretur, eoque modo populum, qui contra senatum intumescere coeperat, repressum adque sedatum. Acciderat enim et solis defectio, quam certa ratione sui cursus effectam inperita nesciens multitudo meritis Romuli tribuebat. Quasi uero si luctus ille solis fuisset, non magis ideo credi deberet occisus ipsumque scelus auersione etiam diurni luminis indicatum; sicut re uera factum est, cum Dominus crucifixus est crudelitate adque inpietate Iudaeorum. Quam solis obscurationem non ex canonico sideruin cursu accidisse satis ostendit, quod tunc erat pascha Iudaeorum; nam plena luna sollemniter agitur, regularis autem solis defectio non nisi lunae fine contingit. Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris de re publica Scipionisque sermone: ‘Tantum est, inquit, consecutus, ut, cum subito sole obscurato non conparuisset, deorum in numero conlocatus putaretur, quam opinionem nemo umquam mortalis assequi potuit sine eximia uirtutis gloria’. (Quod autem dicit eum subito non conparuisse, profecto ibi intellegitur aut uiolentia tempestatis aut caedis facinorisque secretum; nam et alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem, quae profecto aut occasionem sceleri praebuit aut Romulum ipsa consumsit.) De Tullo quippe etiam Hostilio, qui tertius a Romulo rex fuit, quia et ipse fulmine absumtus est, dicit in eisdem libris idem Cicero, propterea et istum non creditum in deos receptum tali morte, quia fortasse quod erat in Romulo probatum, id est persuasum, Romani uulgare noluerunt, id est uile facere, si hoc et alteri facile tribueretur. Dicit etiam aperte in inuectiuis: <Illum, qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum ad deos inmortales beniuolentia famaque sustulimus’, ut non uere factum, sed propter merita uirtutis eius beniuole iactatum diffamatumque monstraret. In Hortensio uero dialogo cum de solis canonicis defectionibus loqueretur: Ut easdem, inquit, tenebras efficiat, quas effecit interitu Romuli, qui obscuratione solis est factus’. Certe hic minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, quia disputator magis quam laudator fuit. Ceteri autem reges populi Romani, excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio, qui morbo interierunt, quam horrendos exitus habuerunt!

The other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said, himself and all his house consumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was slain by his predecessor’s sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered by his son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on the throne. Nor did so flagrant a parricide committed against Rome’s best king drive from their altars and shrines those gods who were said to have been moved by Paris’ adultery to treat poor Troy in this style, and abandon it to the fire and sword of the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin who had murdered, was allowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this infamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was allowed to triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitol from their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding, and abetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside and reign over them in that very splendid Capitol, the work of a parricide. For he did not build the Capitol in the days of his innocence, and then suffer banishment for subsequent crimes; but to that reign during which he built the Capitol, he won his way by unnatural crime. And when he was afterwards banished by the Romans, and forbidden the city, it was not for his own but his son’s wickedness in the affair of Lucretia,—a crime perpetrated not only without his cognizance, but in his absence. For at that time he was besieging Ardea, and fighting Rome’s battles; and we cannot say what he would have done had he been aware of his son’s crime. Notwithstanding, though his opinion was neither inquired into nor ascertained, the people stripped him of royalty; and when he returned to Rome with his army, it was admitted, but he was excluded, abandoned by his troops, and the gates shut in his face. And yet, after he had appealed to the neighboring states, and tormented the Romans with calamitous but unsuccessful wars, and when he was deserted by the ally on whom he most depended, despairing of regaining the kingdom, he lived a retired and quiet life for fourteen years, as it is reported, in Tusculum, a Roman town, where he grew old in his wife’s company, and at last terminated his days in a much more desirable fashion than his father-in-law, who had perished by the hand of his son-in-law; his own daughter abetting, if report be true. And this Tarquin the Romans called, not the Cruel, nor the Infamous, but the Proud; their own pride perhaps resenting his tyrannical airs. So little did they make of his murdering their best king, his own father-in-law, that they elected him their own king. I wonder if it was not even more criminal in them to reward so bountifully so great a criminal. And yet there was no word of the gods abandoning the altars; unless, perhaps, some one will say in defence of the gods, that they remained at Rome for the purpose of punishing the Romans, rather than of aiding and profiting them, seducing them by empty victories, and wearing them out by severe wars. Such was the life of the Romans under the kings during the much-praised epoch of the state which extends to the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus in the 243d year, during which all those victories, which were bought with so much blood and such disasters, hardly pushed Rome’s dominion twenty miles from the city; a territory which would by no means bear comparison with that of any petty Gætulian state.

Tullus, ut dixi, Hostilius, uictor et euersor Albae, cum tota domo sua fulmine concrematus est. Priscus Tarquinius per sui decessoris filios interemtus est. Seruius Tullius generi sui Tarquinii Superbi, qui ei successit in regnum, nefario scelere occisus est. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di tanto in optimum illius populi regem parricidio perpetrato, quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis diruendam exurendamque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos; sed insuper interfecto a se socero Tarquinius ipse successit. Hunc illi di nefarium parricidam soceri interfectione regnantem, insuper multis bellis uictoriisque gloriantem et de manubiis Capitolium fabricantem non abscedentes, sed praesentes manentesque uiderunt et regem suum louem in illo altissimo templo, hoc est in opere parricidae, sibi praesidere adque regnare perpessi sunt. Neque enim adhuc innocens Capitolium struxit et postea malis meritis Urbe pulsus est. sed ad ipsum regnum, in quo Capitolium fabricaret, inmanissimi sceleris perpetratione peruenit. Quod uero eum regno Romani postea depulerunt ac secluserunt moenibus ciuitatis, non ipsius de Lucretiae stupro, sed filii peccatum fuit illo non solum nesciente, sed etiam absente commissum. Ardeam ciuitatem tunc obpugnabat, pro populo Romano bellum gerebat: nescimus quid faceret, si ad eius notitiam flagitium filii deferretur; et tamen inexplorato iudicio eius et inexperto ei populus ademit imperium et recepto exercitu, a quo deseri iussus est, clausis deinde portis non siuit intrare redeuntem. At ille post bella grauissima, quibus eosdem Romanos concitatis finitimis adtriuit, postea quam desertus ab eis quorum fidebat auxilio regnum recipere non eualuit, in oppido Tusculo Romae uicino quattuordecim, ut fertur, annos priuatam uitam quietus habuit et cum uxore consenuit, optabiliore fortassis exitu quam socer eius, generi sui facinore nec ignorante filia, sicut perhibetur, extinctus. Nec tamen istum Tarquinium Romani crudelem aut sceleratum, sed superbum appellauerunt. fortasse regios eius fastus alia superbia non ferentes. Nam scelus occisi ab eo soceri optimi regis sui usque adeo contemserunt, ut eum regem suum facerent; ubi miror, si non scelere grauiore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. Nec ‘discessere adytis arisque relictis di’. Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, ut dicat eos ideo mansisse Romae. quo possint magis Romanos punire suppliciis quam beneficiis adiuuare, seducentes - eos uanis uictoriis et bellis grauissimis conterentes. Haec fuit Romanorum uita sub regibus laudabili tempore illius rei publicae usque ad expulsionem Tarquinii Superbi per ducentos ferme et quadraginta et tres annos, cum illae omnes uictoriae tam multo sanguine et tantis emtae calamitatibus uix illud imperium intra uiginti ab Urbe milia dilatauerint; quantum spatium absit ut saltem alicuius Getulae ciuitatis nunc territorio conparetur.