(BOOK 29, BOISSEVAIN.)

Frag.XCVIB.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.)

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.)

Frag.XCVII1. ¶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.)

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.)

Frag.XCVIIIB.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 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.)

Frag.XCIXB.C. 88(a.u.666)1. ¶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. ¶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.)

Frag.CB.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 Gnæus 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. ¶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 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. ¶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 oughtcertainly 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.)

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 prætors from both fire and water. (Valesius, p. 645.)

Frag.CI1. ¶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. ¶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. ¶On the occasion of some dispute between Fimbria and the quæstor 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. ¶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. ¶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.)

Frag.CIIB.C. 85(a.u.669)1. ¶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. ¶A thunderbolt fell upon the Capitol, causing the destruction of the Sibylline books and of many other things. (Mai, p. 551.)

Frag.CIIIB.C. 83(a.u.671)¶Pompey was a son of Strabo, and has been compared by Plutarch with Agesilaus the Lacedæmonian.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.)

Frag.CIVB.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 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.)

Frag.CV1. ¶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 sentforthwith the heads of Damasippus and the members of his party stuck on poles to Præneste, 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.)

2. ¶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 soterrible, 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.)

B.C. 81(a.u.673)3. ¶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 wereaway 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 himselfor 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 themwere 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. ¶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.)

Frag.CVIB.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.)

Frag.CVII1. 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 whereyou 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 bein 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.)

Frag.CVIIIB.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 quæstor 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.)

[1]Iahni Annales, vol. 141, p. 290 sqq.

[2]Mommsen (Hermes VI, pp. 82-89); Haupt (Hermes XIV, pp. 36-64, and XV, p. 160); Boissevain (Program, Rotterdam, 1884).

[3]This would give Dio a considerably longer life than is commonly allowed him.

[4]Seep. 22.

[5]The first alternative agrees with Plutarch, who, at the end of his life of Numa (chapter 22), says that this death by lightning of Tullus Hostilius caused many among the population at large to revere that religion which their king had for so long a time neglected.

[6]Zonaras spellsAcillius.

[7]Zonaras spells itVeturina.

[8]This was probably one of the Manlii Cincinnati.

[9]The second "Manlius" is evidently an error of Zonaras. The name should beFabius.

[10]Zonaras spellsCicinatus.

[11]The town is calledCorbioby Livy (II, 39, 4).

[12]Zonaras spellsIcillius.

[13]Near the end ofVII, 17.

[14]In Greek,Birdless.

[15]In Roman records these persons are known respectively as L. PostumiusL. f. L. n.Megellus and Q. MamiliusQ. f. M. n.Vitulus.

[16]This name should in both cases be Gnæus.

[17][See previous footnote.]

[18]A. Atilius Calatinus is meant.

[19]Apparently a mistake forSulpicius.

[20][See previous footnote.]

[21]Zonaras spellsPlætinus.

[22]This is A. Atilius Calatinus again.

[23]A mistake for Gaius Aurelius and Publius Servilius, as at the beginning of Chapter 16.

[24][See previous footnote.]

[25]But Valerius Maximus (II, 7, 4) calls him P. Aurelius Pecuniola.

[26]A. Atilius Calatinusonce more.

[27][See previous footnote.]

[28]This is a mistake, due to the carelessness of Zonaras. Some Gallic tribe is evidently meant.

[29]Gnæus Scipio is meant whenever Zonaras writes this form.

[30]Zonaras consistently spells this nameLavinius.

[31]Possibly an error on the part of Zonaras forproconsuls.

[32]By comparing other authors the names Alinius and Plautius are found to be the corruptions of some copyists for Dasius and Blattius.

[33][See previous footnote.]

[34]A corruption for Pityusæ.

[35]Or, in other words, Balearis Major and Balearis Minor.

[36][See previous footnote.]

[37]Dio probably wroteCæpiohere.

[38]Zonaras consistently spellsFlaminius.

[39]This name is erroneously written by Zonaras for Gnæus. (Cp. Polybius 28, 3, 2; 31, 12 (also 13, 19, and 20); 32, 4 to 7.)

[40]Presumably an error for theNestus, a well-known stream.

[41]This is Q. Pompeius A.f.Nepos (consul B.C. 141).

[42]Q. Servilius Cæpio(consul B.C. 140).

[43]Adopting Reiske's conjecture'υπομειναι εψησενin place of the MS.'υπομειναι εποιησες.

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

[45]See note,page 335.

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

[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.

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

[49]Readingετι ασελγειας(Boissevain's emendation) in place of the unintelligibleαιτιας αλγεινof the MS.

[50]Namely, L. Betutius Barrus.

[51]A slave of the aforesaid Barrus.

[52]Possibly an error forGaudas.

[53]Cn. Manlius Maximus.

[54]M. Aurelius Scaurus(consul suffectus B.C. 108).

[55]Possibly the modernMacellaro.

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

[57]M. Livius Drusus.

[58]Q. Servilius Cæpio.

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

Back to Index Next