Dio's Rome Volume I Part 19

3. Publius Furius,[56] indicted for his deeds committed in the tribunes.h.i.+p, 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 surpa.s.sed him in audacity, daring, the antic.i.p.ation 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. --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. --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. --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 pa.s.sed 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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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)] --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 a.s.sembled 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 t.i.tius,[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. t.i.tinius Sisenna_.]

[Sidenote: FRAG. XCIX] [Sidenote: B.C. 88 (_a.u._ 666)] 1. --All the Asiatics, at the bidding of Mithridates, ma.s.sacred 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. --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. --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 a.s.sist 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. --Octavius was naturally dull in politics. (Valesius, ib.)

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

4. --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 citizens.h.i.+p 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. --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 pa.s.sers-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. --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. --The lieutenant of Flaccus, Fimbria, when his chief had reached Byzantium revolted against him. He was in all matters very bold and reckless, pa.s.sionately 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. --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 hards.h.i.+ps 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. --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 a.s.signed to take charge of them. (Valesius, ib.)

4. --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 l.u.s.t 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. --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 emba.s.sy 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. --Metellus after being defeated by Cinna went to Sulla and was of the greatest a.s.sistance 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. --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)] --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 t.i.tle indicates, grew to be "Great."

(Valesius, p. 653.)

[Sidenote: FRAG. CIV] [Sidenote: B.C. 82 (_a.u._ 672)] --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 a.s.sistance 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 a.s.sist 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 grat.i.tude for them but take them as something due, and would claim his actions and counsels as their own. (Valesius, p. 654.)