Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79)

by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

  [57.1] The following year there was no king of the Romans elected, but a certain magistracy, called by them an interregnum, had the oversight of public affairs, being created in much the following manner: The patricians who had been enrolled in the senate under Romulus, being, as I have said, two hundred in number, were divided into decuriae; then, when lots had been cast, the first ten persons upon whom the lot fell were invested by the rest with the absolute rule of the State.

  [2] ἐκεῖνοι δ᾽ οὐχ ἅμα πάντες ἐβασίλευον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἡμέρας πέντε ἕκαστος, ἐν αἷς τάς τε ῥάβδους εἶχε καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἐξουσίας σύμβολα. παρεδίδου δ᾽ ὁ πρῶτος ἄρξας τῷ δευτέρῳ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν κἀκεῖνος τῷ τρίτῳ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐγίνετο μέχρι τοῦ τελευταίου. διεξελθούσης δὲ τοῖς πρώτοις δέκα βασιλεῦσι τῆς πεντηκονθημέρου προθεσμίας ἕτεροι δέκα τὴν ἀρχὴν παρελάμβανον καὶ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων αὖθις ἄλλοι.

  [2] They did not, however, all reign together, but successively, each for five days, during which time they had both the rods and the other insignia of the royal power. The first, after his power had expired, handed over the government to the second, and he to the third, and so on to the last. After the first ten had reigned their appointed time of fifty days, ten others received the rule from them, and from those in turn others.

  [3] ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ παῦσαι τὰς δεκαδαρχίας ἀχθομένῳ ταῖς μεταβολαῖς τῶν ἐξουσιῶν διὰ τὸ μήτε προαιρέσεις ἅπαντας ὁμοίας ἔχειν μήτε φύσεις, τότε δὴ συγκαλέσαντες εἰς ἐκκλησίαν τὸ πλῆθος οἱ βουλευταὶ κατὰ φυλάς τε καὶ φράτρας ἀπέδωκαν αὐτῷ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου τῆς πολιτείας σκοπεῖν, εἴτε βασιλεῖ βούλεται τὰ κοινὰ ἐπιτρέπειν εἴτε ἀρχαῖς ἐνιαυσίοις.

  [3] But presently the people decided to abolish the rule of the decuriae, being irked by all the changes of power, since the men did not all have either the same purposes or the same natural abilities. Thereupon the senators, calling the people together in assembly by tribes and curiae, permitted them to consider the form of government and determine whether they wished to entrust the public interests to a king or to annual magistrates.

  [4] οὐ μὴν ὅ γε δῆμος ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπέδωκε τοῖς βουλευταῖς τὴν διάγνωσιν ὡς ἀγαπήσων ὁποτέραν ἂν ἐκεῖνοι δοκιμάσωσι τῶν πολιτειῶν: τοῖς δὲ βασιλικὴν μὲν ἐδόκει καταστήσασθαι πολιτείαν ἅπασι, περὶ δὲ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἄρξειν στάσις ἐνέπιπτεν ἐξ ὁποτέρας ἔσται τάξεως. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων βουλευτῶν ᾤοντο δεῖν ἀποδειχθῆναι τὸν ἐπιτροπεύσοντα τὴν πόλιν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ὕστερον ἐπεισαχθέντων, οὓς νεωτέρους ἐκάλουν. [p. 237]

  [4] The people, however, did not take the choice upon themselves, but referred the decision to the senator, intimating that they would be satisfied with whichever form of government the others should approve. The senators all favoured establishing a monarchical form of government, but strife arose over the question from which group the future king should be chosen. For some thought that the one who was to govern the commonwealth ought to be chosen from among the original senators, and others that he should be chosen from among those who had been admitted afterwards and whom they called new senators.

  [1] ἑλκομένης δ᾽ ἐπὶ πολὺ τῆς φιλονεικίας τελευτῶντες ἐπὶ τούτῳ συνέβησαν τῷ δικαίῳ, ὥστε δυεῖν θάτερον, ἢ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους βουλευτὰς ἀποδεῖξαι βασιλέα σφῶν μὲν αὐτῶν μηδένα, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ὃν ἂν ἐπιτηδειότατον εἶναι νομίσωσιν, ἢ τοὺς νεωτέρους τὸ αὐτὸ ποιῆσαι τοῦτο. δέχονται τὴν αἵρεσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἐπὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν βουλευσάμενοι τάδ᾽ ἔγνωσαν: ἐπειδὴ τῆς ἡγεμονίας αὐτοὶ κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας ἀπηλαύνοντο μηδὲ τῶν ἐπεισελθόντων βουλευτῶν μηδενὶ προσθεῖναι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπακτόν τινα ἔξωθεν ἄνδρα καὶ μηδ᾽ ὁποτέροις προσθησόμενον, ὡς ἂν μάλιστα ἐξαιρεθείη τὸ στασιάζον,

  [58.1] The contest being drawn out to a great length, they at last reached an agreement on the basis that one of two courses should be followed — either the older senators should choose the king, who must not, however, be one of themselves, but might be anyone else whom they should regard as most suitable, or the new senators should do the same. The older senators accepted the right of choosing, and after a long consultation among themselves decided that, since by their agreement they themselves were excluded from the sovereignty, they would not confer it on any of the newly-appointed senators, either, but would find some man from outside who would espouse neither party, and declare him king, as the most effectual means of putting an end to party strife.

  [2] ἐξευρόντες ἀποδεῖξαι βασιλέα. ταῦτα βουλευσάμενοι προὐχειρίσαντο ἄνδρα γένους μὲν τοῦ Σαβίνων, υἱὸν δὲ Πομπιλίου Πόμπωνος ἀνδρὸς ἐπιφανοῦς κατ᾽ ὄνομα Νόμαν, χρὴ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν συλλαβὴν ἐκτείνοντας βαρυτονεῖν ἡλικίας τε τῆς φρονιμωτάτης ὄντα, τετταρακονταετίας γὰρ οὐ πολὺ ἀπεῖχε, καὶ ἀξιώσει μορφῆς βασιλικόν.

  [2] After they had come to this resolution, they chose a man of the Sabine race, the son of Pompilius Pompon, a person of distinction, whose name was Numa. He was in that stage of life, being near forty, in which prudence is the most conspicuous, and of an aspect full of royal dignity;

  [3] ἦν δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ κλέος μέγιστον οὐ παρὰ Κυρίταις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς περιοίκοις ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ. ὡς δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς συγκαλοῦσι τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ παρελθὼν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ τότε μεσοβασιλεὺς εἶπεν, ὅτι κοινῇ δόξαν ἅπασι τοῖς βουλευταῖς βασιλικὴν καταστήσασθαι πολιτείαν, κύριος [p. 238] γεγονὼς αὐτὸς τῆς διαγνώσεως τοῦ παραληψομένου τὴν ἀρχὴν βασιλέα τῆς πόλεως αἱρεῖται Νόμαν Πομπίλιον. καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο πρεσβευτὰς ἀποδείξας ἐκ τῶν πατρικίων ἀπέστειλε τοὺς παραληψομένους τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνιαυτῷ τρίτῳ τῆς ἑκκαιδεκάτης ὀλυμπιάδος, ἣν ἐνίκα στάδιον Πυθαγόρας Λάκων.

  [3] and he enjoyed the greatest renown for wisdom, not only among the citizens of Cures, but among all the neighbouring peoples as well. After reaching this decision the senators assembled the people, and that one of their number who was then the interrex, coming forward, told them that the senators had unanimously resolved to establish a monarchical form of government and that he, having been empowered to decide who should succeed to the rule, chose Numa Pompilius as king of the State. After this
he appointed ambassadors from among the patricians and sent them to conduct Numa to Rome that he might assume the royal power. This happened in the third year of the sixteenth Olympiad, at which Pythagoras, a Lacedaemonian, won the foot-race.

  [1] μέχρι μὲν δὴ τούτων οὐδὲν ἀντειπεῖν ἔχω πρὸς τοὺς ἐκδεδωκότας τὴν περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἱστορίαν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς ἀπορῶ τί ποτε χρὴ λέγειν. πολλοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσιν οἱ γράψαντες ὅτι Πυθαγόρου μαθητὴς ὁ Νόμας ἐγένετο καὶ καθ᾽ ὃν χρόνον ὑπὸ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως ἀπεδείχθη βασιλεὺς φιλοσοφῶν ἐν Κρότωνι διέτριβεν, ὁ δὲ χρόνος τῆς Πυθαγόρου ἡλικίας μάχεται πρὸς τὸν λόγον.

  [59.1] Up to this point, then, I have nothing to allege in contradiction to those who have published the history of this man; but in regard to what follows I am at a loss what to say. For many have written that Numa was a disciple of Pythagoras and that when he was chosen king by the Romans he was studying philosophy at Croton. But the date of Pythagoras contradicts this account,

  [2] οὐ γὰρ ὀλίγοις ἔτεσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τέτταρσι γενεαῖς ὅλαις ὕστερος ἐγένετο Πυθαγόρας Νόμα, ὡς ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν παρειλήφαμεν ἱστοριῶν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκκαιδεκάτης ὀλυμπιάδος μεσούσης τὴν Ῥωμαίων βασιλείαν παρέλαβε, Πυθαγόρας δὲ μετὰ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα διέτριψεν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ.

  [2] since he was not merely a few years younger than Numa, but actually lived four whole generations later, as we learn from universal history; for Numa succeeded to the sovereignty of the Romans in the middle of the sixteenth Olympiad, whereas Pythagoras resided in Italy after the fiftieth Olympiad.

  [3] τούτου δ᾽ ἔτι μεῖζον ἔχω τεκμήριον εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ συμφωνεῖν τοὺς χρόνους ταῖς παραδεδομέναις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἱστορίαις, ὅτι καθ᾽ ὃν χρόνον ὁ Νόμας ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν ἐκαλεῖτο ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων οὔπω πόλις ἦν ἡ Κρότων: τέτταρσι γὰρ ὅλοις ὕστερον ἔτεσιν ἢ Νόμαν ἄρξαι Ῥωμαίων Μύσκελος αὐτὴν ἔκτισεν ἐνιαυτῷ τρίτῳ τῆς ἑπτακαιδεκάτης [p. 239] ὀλυμπιάδος. οὔτε δὴ Πυθαγόρᾳ τῷ Σαμίῳ συμφιλοσοφῆσαι τῷ μετὰ τέτταρας ἀκμάσαντι γενεὰς δυνατὸς ἦν τὸν Νόμαν οὔτ᾽ ἐν Κρότωνι διατρίβειν, ὅτ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκάλουν ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν Ῥωμαῖοι, τῇ

  [3] But I can advance yet a stronger argument to prove that the chronology is incompatible with the reports handed down about Numa, and that is, that at the time when he was called to the sovereignty by the Romans the city of Croton did not yet exist; for it was not until four whole years after Numa had begun to rule the Romans that Myscelus founded this city, in the third year of the seventeenth Olympiad. Accordingly, it was impossible for Numa either to have studied philosophy with Pythagoras the Samian, who flourished four generations after him, or to have resided in Croton, a city not as yet in existence when the Romans called him to the sovereignty.

  [4] μήπω τότ᾽ οὔσῃ πόλει. ἀλλ᾽ ἐοίκασιν οἱ τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ γράψαντες, εἰ χρὴ δόξαν ἰδίαν ἀποφήνασθαι, δύο ταῦτα λαβόντες ὁμολογούμενα, τήν τε Πυθαγόρου διατριβὴν τὴν γενομένην ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ τὴν Νόμα σοφίαν ῾ὡμολόγηται γὰρ ὑπὸ πάντων ὁ ἀνὴρ γενέσθαι σοφόσ᾽ ἐπισυνάψαι ταῦτα καὶ ποιῆσαι Πυθαγόρου μαθητὴν τὸν Νόμαν οὐκέτι τοὺς βίους αὐτῶν ἐξετάσαντες, εἰ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἤκμασαν ἀμφότεροι χρόνους,

  [4] But if I may express my own opinion, those who have written his history seem to have taken these two admitted facts, namely, the residence of Pythagoras in Italy and the wisdom of Numa (for he has been allowed by everybody to have been a wise man), and combining them, to have made Numa a disciple of Pythagoras, without going on to inquire whether they both flourished at the same period — unless, indeed, one is going to assume that there was another Pythagoras who taught philosophy before the Samian, and that with him Numa associated.

  [5] ὅπερ ἐγὼ πεποίηκα νῦν: εἰ μή τις ἄρα Πυθαγόραν ἕτερον ὑποθήσεται πρὸ τοῦ Σαμίου γεγομέναι παιδευτὴν σοφίας, ᾧ συνδιέτριψεν ὁ Νόμας. τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ἂν ἀποδεῖξαι δύναιτο μηδενὸς τῶν ἀξιολόγων μήτε Ῥωμαίου μήθ᾽ Ἕλληνος, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι, παραδεδωκότος ἐν ἱστορίᾳ. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἅλις.

  [5] But I do not know how this could be proved, since it is not supported, so far as I know, by the testimony of any author of note, either Greek or Roman. But I have said enough on this subject.

  [1] ὁ δὲ Νόμας ἀφικομένων ὡς αὐτὸν τούτων τῶν καλούντων ἐπὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, τέως μὲν ἀντέλεγε καὶ μέχρι πολλοῦ διέμεινεν ἀπομαχόμενος μὴ λαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν, ὡς δὲ οἵ τε ἀδελφοὶ προσέκειντο λιπαροῦντες καὶ τελευτῶν ὁ πατὴρ οὐκ ἠξίου τηλικαύτην τιμὴν διδομένην ἀπωθεῖσθαι, συνέγνω γενέσθαι βασιλεύς:

  [60.1] When the ambassadors came to Numa to invite him to the sovereignty, he for some time refused it and long persisted in his resolution not to accept the royal power. But when his brothers kept urging him insistently and at last his father argued that the offer of so great an honour ought not to be rejected, he consented to become king.

  [2] τοῖς δὲ Ῥωμαίοις πυθομένοις ταῦτα παρὰ τῶν [p. 240] πρεσβευτῶν, πρὶν ὄψει τὸν ἄνδρα ἰδεῖν πολὺς αὐτοῦ παρέστη πόθος, ἱκανὸν ἡγουμένοις τεκμήριον εἶναι τῆς σοφίας, εἰ τῶν ἄλλων ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτριον ἐκτετιμηκότων βασιλείαν καὶ τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον ἐν ταύτῃ τιθεμένων μόνος ἐκεῖνος ὡς φαύλου τινὸς καὶ οὐκ ἀξίου σπουδῆς πράγματος καταφρονεῖ, παραγενομένῳ τε ὑπήντων ἔτι καθ᾽ ὁδὸν ὄντι σὺν ἐπαίνῳ πολλῷ καὶ ἀσπασμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τιμαῖς παραπέμποντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν.

  [2] As soon as the Romans were informed of this by the ambassadors, they conceived a great yearning for the man before they saw him, esteeming it a sufficient proof of his wisdom that, while the others had valued sovereignty beyond measure, looking upon it as the source of happiness, he alone despised it as a paltry thing and unworthy of serious attention. And when he approached the city, they met him upon the road and with great applause, salutations and other honours conducted him into the city.

  [3] ἐκκλησίας δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο συναχθείσης, ἐν ᾗ διήνεγκαν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τὰς ψήφους αἱ φυλαὶ κατὰ φράτρας καὶ τῶν πατρικίων ἐπικυρωσάντων τὰ δόξαντα τῷ πλήθει καὶ τελευταῖον ἔτι τῶν ὀρνιθοσκόπων αἴσια τὰ παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου σ�
�μεῖα ἀποφηνάντων παραλαμβάνει τὴν ἀρχήν.

  [3] After that, an assembly of the people was held, in which the tribes by curiae gave their votes in his favour; and when the resolution of the people had been confirmed by the patricians, and, last of all, the augurs had reported that the heavenly signs were auspicious, he assumed the office.

  [4] τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρα Ῥωμαῖοί φασι στρατείαν μηδεμίαν ποιήσασθαι, θεοσεβῆ δὲ καὶ δίκαιον γενόμενον ἐν εἰρήνῃ πάντα τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς χρόνον διατελέσαι καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἄριστα πολιτευομένην παρασχεῖν, λόγους τε ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πολλοὺς καὶ θαυμαστοὺς λέγουσιν ἀναφέροντες τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην σοφίαν εἰς θεῶν ὑποθήκας.

  [4] The Romans say that he undertook no military campaign, but that, being a pious and just man, he passed the whole period of his reign in peace and caused the State to be most excellently governed. They relate also many marvellous stories about him, attributing his human wisdom to the suggestions of the gods.

  [5] νύμφην γάρ τινα μυθολογοῦσιν Ἠγερίαν φοιτᾶν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἑκάστοτε διδάσκουσαν τὴν βασιλικὴν σοφίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ οὐ νύμφην, ἀλλὰ τῶν Μουσῶν μίαν. καὶ τοῦτό φασι γενέσθαι πᾶσι φανερόν. ἀπιστούντων γὰρ, ὡς ἔοικε, τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς καὶ πεπλάσθαι νομιζόντων τὸν περὶ τῆς θεᾶς λόγον, βουλόμενον [p. 241] αὐτὸν ἐπιδείξασθαι τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν ἐναργές τι μήνυμα τῆς πρὸς τὴν δαίμονα ὁμιλίας καὶ διδαχθέντα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ποιῆσαι τάδε: