Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome.

Chapter 20.—Of the Destruction of the Saguntines, Who Received No Help from the Roman Gods, Though Perishing on Account of Their Fidelity to Rome.

Caput XX. De exitu Saguntinorum, quibus propter Romanorum amicitiam pereuntibus di Romani auxilium non tulerunt.

But among all the disasters of the second Punic war, there occurred none more lamentable, or calculated to excite deeper complaint, than the fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain, eminently friendly to Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity to the Roman people. For when Hannibal had broken treaty with the Romans, he sought occasion for provoking them to war, and accordingly made a fierce assault upon Saguntum. When this was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal, urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance was neglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint against the breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing their object. Meanwhile the siege went on; and in the eighth or ninth month, this opulent but ill-fated city, dear as it was to its own state and to Rome, was taken, and subjected to treatment which one cannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it bears directly on the matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it. First, then, famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpses were eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently, when thoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape the ignominy of falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publicly erected a huge funeral pile, and cast themselves into its flames, while at the same time they slew their children and themselves with the sword. Could these gods, these debauchees and gourmands, whose mouths water for fat sacrifices, and whose lips utter lying divinations,—could they not do anything in a case like this? Could they not interfere for the preservation of a city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent it perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselves had been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping the treaty it had entered into before these gods, and to which it had firmly bound itself by an oath, was besieged, taken, and destroyed by a perjured person. If afterwards, when Hannibal was close to the walls of Rome, it was the gods who terrified him with lightning and tempest, and drove him to a distance, why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I make bold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest would have been more honorably made in defence of the allies of Rome—who were in danger on account of their reluctance to break faith with the Romans, and had no resources of their own—than in defence of the Romans themselves, who were fighting in their own cause, and had abundant resources to oppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians of Roman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved that glory from the stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how silly it is to believe that Rome was preserved from destruction at the hands of Hannibal by the guardian care of those gods who were unable to rescue the city of Saguntum from perishing through its fidelity to the alliance of Rome. If the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as it did for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians would not have used fire and sword against their own persons), they would have suffered with that hope which springs from faith in Christ—the hope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss. What, then, will the advocates and apologists of these gods say in their defence, when charged with the blood of these Saguntines; for they are professedly worshipped and invoked for this very purpose of securing prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything be said but what was alleged in the case of Regulus’ death? For though there is a difference between the two cases, the one being an individual, the other a whole community, yet the cause of destruction was in both cases the keeping of their plighted troth. For it was this which made Regulus willing to return to his enemies, and this which made the Saguntines unwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then, the keeping of faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible that not only individuals, but even entire communities, perish while the gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choose which alternative they will. If, on the one hand, those gods are enraged at the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjured persons as their worshippers. If, on the other hand, men and states can suffer great and terrible calamities, and at last perish while favored by the gods, then does their worship not produce happiness as its fruit. Let those, therefore, who suppose that they have fallen into distress because their religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for it were quite possible that did the gods not only remain with them, but regard them with favor, they might yet be left to mourn an unhappy lot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines, be horribly tormented, and at last perish miserably.

Sed in his omnibus belli Punici secundi malis nihil miserabilius ac miserabili querella dignius quam exitium Saguntinorum fuit. Haec quippe Hispaniae ciuitas amicissima populi Romani, dum eidem populo fidem seruat, euersa est. Hinc enim Hannibal fracto foedere Romanorum causas quaesiuit, quibus eos inritaret ad bellum. Saguntum ferociter ergo obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem, ut ab eius obsidione discederet. Contemti Carthaginem pergunt querimoniamque deponunt foederis rupti infectoque negotio Romam redeunt. Dum hae morae aguntur, misera illa ciuitas opulentissima, suae rei publicae Romanaeque carissima, octauo uel nono a Poenis mense deleta est. Cuius interitum legere, quanto magis scribere, horroris est. Breuiter tamen eum commemorabo; ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet. Primo fame contabuit; nam etiam suorum cadaueribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur. Deinde omnium fessa rerum, ne saltem captiua in manus Hannibalis perueniret, ingentem rogum publice struxit, in quem ardentem ferro etiam trucidatos omnes se suosque miserunt. Hic aliquid agerent di helluones adque nebulones, sacrificiorum adipibus inhiantes et fallacium diuinationum caligine decipientes; hic aliquid agerent, ciuitati populi Romani amicissimae subuenirent, fidei conseruatione pereuntem perire non sinerent. Ipsi utique medii praefuerunt, cum Romanae rei publicae interiecto foedere copulata est. Custodiens itaque [fideliter], quod ipsis praesidibus placito iunxerat, fide uinxerat, iuratione constrinxerat, a perfido obsessa obpressa consumta est. Si ipsi di tempestate adque fulminibus Hannibalem postea Romanis proximum moenibus terruerunt longeque miserunt: tunc primum tale aliquid facerent. Audeo quippe dicere honestius illos pro amicis Romanorum ideo periclitantibus, ne Romanis frangerent fidem, et nullam opem tunc habentibus quam pro ipsis Romanis, qui pro se pugnabant adque aduersus Hannibalem opulenti erant, potuisse tempestate saeuire. Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felicitatis et gloriae, tam graue ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis auerterent; nunc uero quam stulte creditur, dis illis defensoribus Romam uictore Hannibale non perisse, qui Saguntinae urbi non potuerunt, ne pro eius periret amicitia, subuenire! Si Saguntinorum Christianus populus esset et huius modi aliquid pro fide euangelica pateretur, quamquam se ipse nec ferro nec ignibus corrupisset, sed tamen si pro fide euangelica excidium pateretur: ea spe pateretur, qua in Christum crediderat, non mercede breuissimi temporis, sed aeternitatis interminae. Pro istis autem dis, qui propterea coli perhibentur, propterea colendi requiruntur, ut harum labentium adque transeuntium rerum felicitas tuta sit, quid nobis defensores et excusatores eorum de Saguntinis pereuntibus respondebunt, nisi quod de illo Regulo extincto? Hoc quippe interest, quod ille unus homo, haec tota ciuitas; utriusque tamen interitus causa conseruatio fidei fuit. Propter hanc enim ad hostes et redire ille uoluit, et noluit ista transire. Conseruata ergo prouocat deorum iram fides? an possunt et dis propitiis perire non solum quique homines, uerum etiam integrae ciuitates? Utrum uolunt. eligant. Si enim fidei seruatae irascuntur illi di, quaerant perfidos, a quibus colantur; si autem etiam illis propitiis multis grauibusque cruciatibus adflicti interire homines ciuitatesque possunt, nullo fructu felicitatis huius coluntur. Desinant igitur suscensere, qui sacris deorum suorum perditis se infelices esse factos putant. Possent enim illis non solum manentibus, uerum etiam fauentibus non sicut modo de miseria murmurare, sed sicut tunc Regulus et Saguntini excruciati horribiliter etiam penitus interire.

Chapter 21.—Of the Ingratitude of Rome to Scipio, Its Deliverer, and of Its Manners During the Period Which Sallust Describes as the Best.

Caput XXI. Quam ingrata fuerit Romana ciuitas Scipioni liberatori suo et in quibus moribus egerit, quando eam Sallustius optimam fuisse describit.

Omitting many things, that I may not exceed the limits of the work I have proposed to myself, I come to the epoch between the second and last Punic wars, during which, according to Sallust, the Romans lived with the greatest virtue and concord. Now, in this period of virtue and harmony, the great Scipio, the liberator of Rome and Italy, who had with surprising ability brought to a close the second Punic war—that horrible, destructive, dangerous contest—who had defeated Hannibal and subdued Carthage, and whose whole life is said to have been dedicated to the gods, and cherished in their temples,—this Scipio, after such a triumph, was obliged to yield to the accusations of his enemies, and to leave his country, which his valor had saved and liberated, to spend the remainder of his days in the town of Liternum, so indifferent to a recall from exile, that he is said to have given orders that not even his remains should lie in his ungrateful country. It was at that time also that the pro-consul Cn. Manlius, after subduing the Galatians, introduced into Rome the luxury of Asia, more destructive than all hostile armies. It was then that iron bedsteads and expensive carpets were first used; then, too, that female singers were admitted at banquets, and other licentious abominations were introduced. But at present I meant to speak, not of the evils men voluntarily practise, but of those they suffer in spite of themselves. So that the case of Scipio, who succumbed to his enemies, and died in exile from the country he had rescued, was mentioned by me as being pertinent to the present discussion; for this was the reward he received from those Roman gods whose temples he saved from Hannibal, and who are worshipped only for the sake of securing temporal happiness. But since Sallust, as we have seen, declares that the manners of Rome were never better than at that time, I therefore judged it right to mention the Asiatic luxury then introduced, that it might be seen that what he says is true, only when that period is compared with the others during which the morals were certainly worse, and the factions more violent. For at that time—I mean between the second and third Punic war—that notorious Lex Voconia was passed, which prohibited a man from making a woman, even an only daughter, his heir; than which law I am at a loss to conceive what could be more unjust. It is true that in the interval between these two Punic wars the misery of Rome was somewhat less. Abroad, indeed, their forces were consumed by wars, yet also consoled by victories; while at home there were not such disturbances as at other times. But when the last Punic war had terminated in the utter destruction of Rome’s rival, which quickly succumbed to the other Scipio, who thus earned for himself the surname of Africanus, then the Roman republic was overwhelmed with such a host of ills, which sprang from the corrupt manners induced by prosperity and security, that the sudden overthrow of Carthage is seen to have injured Rome more seriously than her long-continued hostility. During the whole subsequent period down to the time of Cæsar Augustus, who seems to have entirely deprived the Romans of liberty,—a liberty, indeed, which in their own judgment was no longer glorious, but full of broils and dangers, and which now was quite enervated and languishing,—and who submitted all things again to the will of a monarch, and infused as it were a new life into the sickly old age of the republic, and inaugurated a fresh régime;—during this whole period, I say, many military disasters were sustained on a variety of occasions, all of which I here pass by. There was specially the treaty of Numantia, blotted as it was with extreme disgrace; for the sacred chickens, they say, flew out of the coop, and thus augured disaster to Mancinus the consul; just as if, during all these years in which that little city of Numantia had withstood the besieging army of Rome, and had become a terror to the republic, the other generals had all marched against it under unfavorable auspices.

Porro inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, quando Sallustius optimis moribus et maxima concordia dixit egisse Romanos (multa enim praetereo suscepti operis modum cogitans), eodem ipso ergo tempore morum optimorum maximaeque concordiae Scipio ille Romae Italiaeque liberator eiusdemque belli Punici secundi tam horrendi, tam exitiosi, tam periculosi praeclarus mirabilisque confector, uictor Hannibalis domitor que Carthaginis, cuius ab adulescentia uita describitur dis dedita templisque nutrita, inimicorum accusationibus cessit carensque patria, quam sua uirtute saluam et liberam reddidit, in oppido Linternensi egit reliquam conpleuitque uitam, post insignem suum triumphum nullo illius urbis captus desiderio, ita ut iussisse perhibeatur, ne saltem mortuo in ingrata patria funus fieret. Deinde tunc primum per Gn. Manlium proconsulem de Gallograecis triumphantem Asiatica luxuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lecti aerati et pretiosa stragula uisa perhibentur; tunc inductae in conuiuia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia. Sed nunc de his malis, quae intolerabiliter homines patiuntur, lion de his, quae libenter faciunt, dicere institui. Unde illud magis, quod de Scipione commemoraui, quod cedens inimicis extra patriam, quam liberauit, mortuus est, ad praesentem pertinet disputationem, quod ei Romana numina, a quorum templis auertit Hannibalem, non reddiderunt uicem, quae propter istam tantummodo coluntur felicitatem. Sed quia Sallustius eo tempore ibi dixit mores optimos fuisse, propterea hoc de Asiana luxuria commemorandum putaui, ut intellegatur etiam illud a Sallustio in conparationem aliorum temporum dictum, quibus temporibus peiores utique in grauissimis discordiis mores fuerunt. Nam tunc, id est inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, lata est etiam lex illa Voconia, ne quis heredem feminam faceret, nec unicam filiam. Qua lege quid iniquius dici aut cogitari possit, ignoro. Verum tamen toto illo interuallo duorum bellorum Punicorum tolerabilior infelicitas fuit. Bellis tantummodo foris conterebatur exercitus, sed uictoriis consolabatur; domi autem nullae, sicut alias, discordiae saeuiebant. Sed ultimo bello Punico uno impetu alterius Scipionis, qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen inuenit, aemula imperii Romani ab stirpe deleta est, ac deinde tantis malorum aggeribus obpressa Romana res publica, ut prosperitate ac securitate rerum, unde nimium corruptis moribus mala illa congesta sunt, plus nocuisse monstretur tam cito euersa, quam prius nocuerat tam diu aduersa Carthago. Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui uidetur non adhuc uel ipsorum opinione gloriosam, sed contentiosam et exitiosam et plane iam eneruem ac languidam libertatem omni modo extorsisse Romanis et ad regale arbitrium cuncta reuocasse et quasi morbida uetustate conlapsam ueluti instaurasse ac renouasse rem publicam; toto ergo isto tempore omitto ex aliis adque aliis causis etiam adque etiam bellicas clades et Numantinum foedus horrenda ignominia maculosum; uolauerant enim pulli de cauea et Mancino consuli, ut aiunt, augurium malum fecerant; quasi per tot annos, quibus illa exigua ciuitas Romanum circumsessa exercitum adflixerat ipsique Romanae rei publicae terrori esse iam coeperat, alii contra eam alio augurio processerunt.

Chapter 22.—Of the Edict of Mithridates, Commanding that All Roman Citizens Found in Asia Should Be Slain.

Caput XXII. De Mithridatis edicto, quo omnes ciues Romanos, qui intra Asiam inuenirentur, iussit occidi.

These things, I say, I pass in silence; but I can by no means be silent regarding the order given by Mithridates, king of Asia, that on one day all Roman citizens residing anywhere in Asia (where great numbers of them were following their private business) should be put to death: and this order was executed. How miserable a spectacle was then presented, when each man was suddenly and treacherously murdered wherever he happened to be, in the field or on the road, in the town, in his own home, or in the street, in market or temple, in bed or at table! Think of the groans of the dying, the tears of the spectators, and even of the executioners themselves. For how cruel a necessity was it that compelled the hosts of these victims, not only to see these abominable butcheries in their own houses, but even to perpetrate them: to change their countenance suddenly from the bland kindliness of friendship, and in the midst of peace set about the business of war; and, shall I say, give and receive wounds, the slain being pierced in body, the slayer in spirit! Had all these murdered persons, then, despised auguries? Had they neither public nor household gods to consult when they left their homes and set out on that fatal journey? If they had not, our adversaries have no reason to complain of these Christian times in this particular, since long ago the Romans despised auguries as idle. If, on the other hand, they did consult omens, let them tell us what good they got thereby, even when such things were not prohibited, but authorized, by human, if not by divine law.

Sed haec, inquam, omitto, quamuis illud nequaquam tacuerim, quod Mithridates rex Asiae ubique in Asia peregrinantes ciues Romanos adque innumerabili copia suis negotiis intentos uno die occidi iussit; et factum est. Quam illa miserabilis rerum facies erat, subito quemque, ubicumque fuisset inuentus, in agro in uia in oppido, in domo in uico in foro, in templo in lecto in conuiuio inopinate adque inpie fuisse trucidatum! Quis gemitus morientium, quae lacrimae spectantium, fortasse etiam ferientium fuerunt! Quam dura necessitas hospitum non solum uidendi nefarias illas caedes domi suae, uerum etiam perpetrandi, ab illa blanda comitate humanitatis repente mutatis uultibus ad hostile negotium in pace peragendum, mutuis dicam omnino uulneribus, cum percussus in corpore et percussor in animo feriretur! Num et isti omnes auguria contemserant? Num deos et domesticos et publicos, cum de sedibus suis ad illam inremeabilem peregrinationem profecti sunt, quos consulerent, non habebant? Hoc si ita est, non habent quur isti in hac causa de nostris temporibus conquerantur; olim Romani haec uana contemnunt. Si autem consuluerunt, respondeatur, quid ista profuerunt, quando per humanas dumtaxat leges nemine prohibente licuerunt.

Chapter 23.—Of the Internal Disasters Which Vexed the Roman Republic, and Followed a Portentous Madness Which Seized All the Domestic Animals.

Caput XXIII. De interioribus malis, quibus Romana res publica exagitata est, praecedente prodigio, quod in rabie omnium animalium, quae hominibus seruiunt, fuit.

But let us now mention, as succinctly as possible, those disasters which were still more vexing, because nearer home; I mean those discords which are erroneously called civil, since they destroy civil interests. The seditions had now become urban wars, in which blood was freely shed, and in which parties raged against one another, not with wrangling and verbal contention, but with physical force and arms. What a sea of Roman blood was shed, what desolations and devastations were occasioned in Italy by wars social, wars servile, wars civil! Before the Latins began the social war against Rome, all the animals used in the service of man—dogs, horses, asses, oxen, and all the rest that are subject to man—suddenly grew wild, and forgot their domesticated tameness, forsook their stalls and wandered at large, and could not be closely approached either by strangers or their own masters without danger. If this was a portent, how serious a calamity must have been portended by a plague which, whether portent or no, was in itself a serious calamity! Had it happened in our day, the heathen would have been more rabid against us than their animals were against them.

Sed iam illa mala breuiter, quantum possumus, commemoremus, quae quanto interiora, tanto miseriora exstiterunt: discordiae ciuiles uel potius inciuiles, nec iam seditiones, sed etiam ipsa bella urbana, ubi tantus sanguis effusus est, ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus uariisque uocibus in alterutrum, sed plane iam ferro armisque saeuiebant; bella socialia, bella seruilia, bella ciuilia quantum Romanum cruorem fuderunt, quantam Italiae uastationem desertionemque fecerunt! Namque antequam se aduersus Romam sociale Latium commoueret, cuncta animalia humanis usibus subdita, canes equi, asini boues, et quaeque alia pecora sub hominum dominio fuerunt, subito efferata et domesticae lenitatis oblita relictis tectis libera uagabantur et omnem non solum aliorum, uerum etiam dominorum auersabantur accessum, non sine exitio uel periculo audentis, si quis de proximo urgeret. Quanti mali signum fuit, si hoc signum fuit, quod tantum malum fuit, si etiam signum non fuit! Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur.

Chapter 24.—Of the Civil Dissension Occasioned by the Sedition of the Gracchi.

Caput XXIV. De discordia ciuili, quam Gracchinae seditiones excitauerunt.

The civil wars originated in the seditions which the Gracchi excited regarding the agrarian laws; for they were minded to divide among the people the lands which were wrongfully possessed by the nobility. But to reform an abuse of so long standing was an enterprise full of peril, or rather, as the event proved, of destruction. For what disasters accompanied the death of the older Gracchus! what slaughter ensued when, shortly after, the younger brother met the same fate! For noble and ignoble were indiscriminately massacred; and this not by legal authority and procedure, but by mobs and armed rioters. After the death of the younger Gracchus, the consul Lucius Opimius, who had given battle to him within the city, and had defeated and put to the sword both himself and his confederates, and had massacred many of the citizens, instituted a judicial examination of others, and is reported to have put to death as many as 3000 men. From this it may be gathered how many fell in the riotous encounters, when the result even of a judicial investigation was so bloody. The assassin of Gracchus himself sold his head to the consul for its weight in gold, such being the previous agreement. In this massacre, too, Marcus Fulvius, a man of consular rank, with all his children, was put to death.

Initium autem ciuilium malorum fuit seditiones Gracchorum agrariis legibus excitatae. Volebant enim agros populo diuidere, quos nobilitas perperam possidebat. Sed iam uetustam iniquitatem audere conuellere periculosissimum, immo uero, ut res ipsa docuit, perniciosissimum fuit. Quae funera facta sunt, cum prior Gracchus occisus est! quae etiam, cum alius frater eius non longo interposito tempore! Neque enim legibus et ordine potestatum, sed turbis armorumque conflictibus nobiles ignobilesque necabantur. Post Gracchi alterius interfectionem L. Opimius consul, qui aduersus eum intra Urbem arma commouerat eoque cum sociis obpresso et extincto ingentem ciuium stragem fecerat, cum quaestionem haberet iam iudiciaria inquisitione ceteros persequens, tria milia hominum occidisse perhibetur. Ex quo intellegi potest, quantam multitudinem mortium habere potuerit turbidus conflictus armorum, quando tantam habuit iudiciorum uelut examinata cognitio. Percussor Gracchi ipsius caput, quantum graue erat, tanto auri pondere consuli uendidit; haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat. In qua etiam occisus est cum liberis hi. Fuluius consularis.

Chapter 25.—Of the Temple of Concord, Which Was Erected by a Decree of the Senate on the Scene of These Seditions and Massacres.

Caput XXV. De aede Concordiae ex senatus consulto in loco seditionum et caedium condita.

A pretty decree of the senate it was, truly, by which the temple of Concord was built on the spot where that disastrous rising had taken place, and where so many citizens of every rank had fallen. I suppose it was that the monument of the Gracchi’s punishment might strike the eye and affect the memory of the pleaders. But what was this but to deride the gods, by building a temple to that goddess who, had she been in the city, would not have suffered herself to be torn by such dissensions? Or was it that Concord was chargeable with that bloodshed because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, and was therefore incarcerated in that temple? For if they had any regard to consistency, why did they not rather erect on that site a temple of Discord? Or is there a reason for Concord being a goddess while Discord is none? Does the distinction of Labeo hold here, who would have made the one a good, the other an evil deity?—a distinction which seems to have been suggested to him by the mere fact of his observing at Rome a temple to Fever as well as one to Health. But, on the same ground, Discord as well as Concord ought to be deified. A hazardous venture the Romans made in provoking so wicked a goddess, and in forgetting that the destruction of Troy had been occasioned by her taking offence. For, being indignant that she was not invited with the other gods [to the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis], she created dissension among the three goddesses by sending in the golden apple, which occasioned strife in heaven, victory to Venus, the rape of Helen, and the destruction of Troy. Wherefore, if she was perhaps offended that the Romans had not thought her worthy of a temple among the other gods in their city, and therefore disturbed the state with such tumults, to how much fiercer passion would she be roused when she saw the temple of her adversary erected on the scene of that massacre, or, in other words, on the scene of her own handiwork! Those wise and learned men are enraged at our laughing at these follies; and yet, being worshippers of good and bad divinities alike, they cannot escape this dilemma about Concord and Discord: either they have neglected the worship of these goddesses, and preferred Fever and War, to whom there are shrines erected of great antiquity, or they have worshipped them, and after all Concord has abandoned them, and Discord has tempestuously hurled them into civil wars.

Eleganti sane senatus consulto eo ipso loco, ubi funereus tumultus ille commissus est, ubi tot ciues ordinis cuiusque ceciderunt, aedes Concordiae facta est, ut Gracchorum poenae testis contionantium oculos feriret memoriamque conpungeret. Sed hoc quid aliud fuit quam inrisio deorum, illi deae templum construere, quae si esset in ciuitate, non tantis dissensionibus dilacerata conrueret? Nisi forte sceleris huius rea Concordia, quia deseruerat animos ciuium, meruit in illa aede tamquam in carcere includi. Quur enim, si rebus gestis congruere uoluerunt, non ibi potius aedem Discordiae fabricarunt? An ulla ratio redditur, quur Concordia dea sit, et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sit ista, illa uero mala? Nec ipse aliud secutus uidetur quam quod aduertit Romae etiam Febri, sicut Saluti, templum constitutum. Eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae, uerum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit. Periculose itaque Romani tam mala dea irata uiuere uoluerunt nec Troianum excidium recoluerunt originem ab eius offensione sumsisse. Ipsa quippe quia inter deos non fuerat inuitata, trium dearum litem aurei mali subpositione commenta est; unde rixa numinum et Venus uictrix, et rapta Helena et Troia deleta. Quapropter, si forte indignata, quod inter deos in Urbe nullum templum habere meruit, ideo iam turbabat tantis tumultibus ciuitatem, quanto atrocius potuit inritari, cum in loco illius caedis, hoc est in loco sui operis, aduersariae suae constitutam aedem uideret! Haec uana ridentibus nobis illi docti sapientesque stomachantur, et tamen numinum bonorum malorumque cultores de hac quaestione Concordiae Discordiaeque non exeunt, siue praetermiserint harum dearum cultum eisque Febrem Bellonamque praetulerint, quibus antiqua fana fecerunt, siue et istas coluerint, cum sic eos discedente Concordia Discordia saeuiens usque ad ciuilia bella perduxerit.

Chapter 26.—Of the Various Kinds of Wars Which Followed the Building of the Temple of Concord.

Caput XXVI. De diuersis generibus belli, quae post conditam aedem Concordiae sunt secuta.

But they supposed that, in erecting the temple of Concord within the view of the orators, as a memorial of the punishment and death of the Gracchi, they were raising an effectual obstacle to sedition. How much effect it had, is indicated by the still more deplorable wars that followed. For after this the orators endeavored not to avoid the example of the Gracchi, but to surpass their projects; as did Lucius Saturninus, a tribune of the people, and Caius Servilius the prætor, and some time after Marcus Drusus, all of whom stirred seditions which first of all occasioned bloodshed, and then the social wars by which Italy was grievously injured, and reduced to a piteously desolate and wasted condition. Then followed the servile war and the civil wars; and in them what battles were fought, and what blood was shed, so that almost all the peoples of Italy, which formed the main strength of the Roman empire, were conquered as if they were barbarians! Then even historians themselves find it difficult to explain how the servile war was begun by a very few, certainly less than seventy gladiators, what numbers of fierce and cruel men attached themselves to these, how many of the Roman generals this band defeated, and how it laid waste many districts and cities. And that was not the only servile war: the province of Macedonia, and subsequently Sicily and the sea-coast, were also depopulated by bands of slaves. And who can adequately describe either the horrible atrocities which the pirates first committed, or the wars they afterwards maintained against Rome?

Praeclarum uero seditionis obstaculum aedem Concordiae, testem caedis suppliciique Gracchorum, contionantibus obponendam putarunt. Quantum ex hoc profecerint, indicant secuta peiora. Laborarunt enim deinceps contionatores non exemplum deuitare Gracchorum, sed superare propositum, L. Saturninus tribunus plebis et G. Seruilius praetor et multo post M. Drusus, quorum omnium seditionibus caedes primo iam tunc grauissimae, deinde socialia bella exarserunt, quibus Italia uehementer adflicta et ad uastitatem mirabilem desertionemque perducta est. ‘Bellum deinde seruile successit et bella ciuilia. Quae proelia commissa sunt, quid sanguinis fusum, ut omnes fere Italae gentes, quibus Romanum maxime praepollebat imperium, tamquam saeua barbaries domarentur! Iam ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum seruile contractum sit, ad quantum numerum et quam acrem ferocemque peruenerit, quos ille numerus imperatores populi Romani superauerit, quas et quo modo ciuitates regionesque uastauerit, uix qui historiam conscripserunt satis explicare potuerunt. Neque id solum fuit seruile bellum, sed et Macedoniam prouinciam prius seruitia depopulata sunt et deinde Siciliam oramque maritimam. Quanta etiam et quam horrenda commiserint primo latrocinia, deinde ualida bella piratarum, quis pro magnitudine rerum ualeat eloqui?

Chapter 27.—Of the Civil War Between Marius and Sylla.

Caput XXVII. De bello ciuili Mariano adque Syllano.

But when Marius, stained with the blood of his fellow-citizens, whom the rage of party had sacrificed, was in his turn vanquished and driven from the city, it had scarcely time to breathe freely, when, to use the words of Cicero, “Cinna and Marius together returned and took possession of it. Then, indeed, the foremost men in the state were put to death, its lights quenched. Sylla afterwards avenged this cruel victory; but we need not say with what loss of life, and with what ruin to the republic.” For of this vengeance, which was more destructive than if the crimes which it punished had been committed with impunity, Lucan says: “The cure was excessive, and too closely resembled the disease. The guilty perished, but when none but the guilty survived: and then private hatred and anger, unbridled by law, were allowed free indulgence.” In that war between Marius and Sylla, besides those who fell in the field of battle, the city, too, was filled with corpses in its streets, squares, markets, theatres, and temples; so that it is not easy to reckon whether the victors slew more before or after victory, that they might be, or because they were, victors. As soon as Marius triumphed, and returned from exile, besides the butcheries everywhere perpetrated, the head of the consul Octavius was exposed on the rostrum; Cæsar and Fimbria were assassinated in their own houses; the two Crassi, father and son, were murdered in one another’s sight; Bebius and Numitorius were disembowelled by being dragged with hooks; Catulus escaped the hands of his enemies by drinking poison; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, cut his veins and made a libation of his own blood to his god. Moreover, every one whose salutation Marius did not answer by giving his hand, was at once cut down before his face.

Cum uero Marius ciuili sanguine iam cruentus multis aduersarum sibi partium peremtis uictus Urbe profugisset, uix paululum respirante ciuitate, ut uerbis Tullianis utar, ‘superauit postea Cinna cum Mario. Tum uero clarissimis uiris interfectis lumina ciuitatis extincta sunt. Ultus est huius uictoriae crudelitatem postea Sylla, ne dici quidem opus est quanta deminutione ciuium et quanta calamitate rei publicae). De hac enim uindicta, quae perniciosior fuit, quam si scelera quae puniebantur inpunita relinquerentur, ait et Lucanus: Excessit medicina modum nimiumque secuta est, Qua morbi duxere manum. Periere nocentes; Sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes. Illo bello Mariano adque Syllano exceptis his, qui foris in acie ceciderunt, in ipsa quoque Urbe cadaueribus uici plateae fora, theatra templa conpleta sunt, ut difficile iudicaretur, quando uictores plus funerum ediderint, utrum prius ut uincerent, an postea quia uicissent; cum primum uictoria Mariana, quando de exilio se ipse restituit, exceptis passim quaqua uersum caedibus factis caput Octauii consulis poneretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis uisceribus interirent, Catulus hausto ueneno se manibus inimicorum subtraheret, Merula flamen Dialis praecisis uenis Ioui etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset.