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

by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

  [3] Thus the spoils were to be divided into three portions, the subjects of the Romans and aliens receiving two of them and the natives and dominant race the third part. They pointed out that as a result of this procedure one or the other of two most absurd situations would come about in case they should choose to honour any other nation, in return for many great services, by granting the same privileges with which they had honoured not only the Latins, but also the Hernicans, who had never done them the least service. For, as there would be but one third left for them, they would either have no part to bestow upon their benefactors or, if they granted them the like favour, they would have nothing for themselves.

  [1] πρὸς δὲ τούτοις διεξῄεσαν, ὅτι δημεῦσαι τὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως ἐπιβαλόμενος οὔτε τῆς βουλῆς ψηφισαμένης οὔτε τῷ συνυπάτῳ δοκοῦν, βίᾳ κυροῦν ἐμέλλησε τὸν νόμον, ὃς οὐ καθ᾽ ἓν τοῦτο μόνον ἦν ἀσύμφορός τε καὶ ἄδικος, ὅτι προβουλεῦσαι δέον τὸ συνέδριον καὶ εἰ δόξειεν ἐκείνῳ κοινὴν ἁπάντων εἶναι τῶν ἐν τέλει τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐποίει τὴν χάριν:

  [78.1] Besides this they went on to relate that Cassius, in proposing to give to the people the common possessions of the state without a decree of the senate or the consent of his colleague, had intended to get the law passed by force — a law that was inexpedient and unjust, not for this reason alone, that, though the senate ought to have considered the measure first, and, in case they approved of it, it ought to have been a joint concession on the part of all the authorities, he was making it the favour of one man,

  [2] ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ πάντων σχετλιώτατον, ὅτι λόγῳ μὲν δόσις ἦν τοῖς πολίταις τῆς δημοσίας χώρας, ἔργῳ δ᾽ ἀφαίρεσις, Ῥωμαίων μὲν τῶν κτησαμένων αὐτὴν μίαν μοῖραν ληψομένων, Ἑρνίκων δὲ καὶ Λατίνων, ἧς οὐθὲν αὐτοῖς μετῆν, τὰς δύο: καὶ ὡς οὐδὲ τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐναντιωθεῖσι καὶ παραλύειν [p. 246] ἐκ τοῦ νόμου θάτερον ἀξιοῦσι μέρος τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἰσομοιρίαν τῶν ἐπηλύδων, ἐπείσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ δημάρχοις καὶ συνυπάτῳ καὶ βουλῇ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ τὰ κράτιστα βουλευομένοις τἀναντία πράττων διετέλεσε.

  [2] but also for the further reason — the most outrageous of all — that, though it was in name a grant of the public land to the citizens, it was in reality a deprivation, since the Romans, who had acquired it, were to receive but one third, while the Hernicans and the Latins, who had no claim to it at all, would get the other two thirds. They further charged that even when the tribunes opposed him and asked him to strike out the part of the law granting equal shares to the aliens, he had paid no heed to them, but continued to act in opposition to the tribunes, to his colleague, to the senate, and to all who consulted the best interests of the commonwealth.

  [3] διεξελθόντες δὲ ταῦτα καὶ μάρτυρας αὐτῶν ἅπαντας τοὺς πολίτας ποιησάμενοι, μετὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἤδη καὶ τὰς ἀπορρήτους τῆς τυραννίδος παρείχοντο πίστεις, ὡς χρήματά τε συνενέγκαιεν αὐτῷ Λατῖνοι καὶ Ἕρνικες καὶ ὅπλα παρασκευάσαιντο καὶ συμπορεύοιντο ὡς αὐτὸν οἱ θρασύτατοι τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι νέων ἀπόρρητά τε ποιούμενοι βουλευτήρια καὶ πολλὰ πρὸς τούτοις ἕτερα ὑπηρετοῦντες, καὶ παρείχοντο τοὺς τούτων μάρτυρας πολλοὺς μὲν ἀστούς, πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων συμμαχίδων πόλεων, οὔτε φαύλους οὔτ᾽

  [3] After they had enumerated these charges and named as witnesses to their truth the whole body of the citizens, they then at length proceeded to present the secret evidences of his having aimed at tyranny, showing that the Latins and the Hernicans had contributed money to him and provided this with arms, and that the most daring young men from their cities were resorting to him, making secret plans, and serving him in many other ways besides. And to prove the truth of these charges they produced many witnesses, both residents of Rome and others from the cities in alliance with her, persons who were neither mean nor obscure.

  [4] ἀφανεῖς. οἷς ἐπίστευσεν ὁ δῆμος, καὶ οὔτε λόγοις ἔτι ὑπαχθείς, οὓς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκ πολλῆς παρασκευῆς συγκειμένους διέθετο, οὔτ᾽ οἴκτῳ ἐνδοὺς τριῶν μὲν αὐτῷ παίδων μεγάλην παρεχόντων εἰς ἔλεον ἐπικουρίαν, πολλῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων συγγενῶν τε καὶ ἑταίρων συνολοφυρομένων, οὔτε τῶν κατὰ πολέμους ἔργων, δι᾽ οὓς ἐπὶ μήκιστον ἦλθε τιμῆς φειδὼ λαβών τινα, καταψηφίζεται τὴν δίκην.

  [4] In these the populace put confidence; and without either being moved now by the speech which the man delivered — a speech which he had prepared with much care, — or yielding to compassion when his three young sons contributed much to his appeal for sympathy and many others, both relations and friends, joined in bewailing his fate, or paying any regard to his exploits in war, by which he had attained to the greatest honour, they condemned him.

  [5] οὕτως τ᾽ ἄρα ἦν πικρὸς πρὸς τὸ τῆς τυραννίδος ὄνομα, ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ τιμήματι τῆς δίκης μετρίᾳ ὀργῇ ἐχρήσατο πρὸς αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ θανάτου ἐτίμησεν. εἰσῄει γὰρ αὐτὸν δέος, μὴ φυγὰς ἐλασθεὶς [p. 247] ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος ἀνὴρ στρατηγῆσαι πολέμους τῶν τότε δεινότατος ὅμοια δράσῃ Μαρκίῳ τά τε φίλια διαβάλλων καὶ τὰ ἐχθρὰ συνιστὰς καὶ πόλεμον ἄσπειστον ἐπαγάγῃ τῇ πατρίδι. τοῦτο τὸ τέλος τῆς δίκης λαβούσης ἀγαγόντες οἱ ταμίαι τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπὶ τὸν ὑπερκείμενον τῆς ἀγορᾶς κρημνόν, ἁπάντων ὁρώντων ἔρριψαν κατὰ τῆς πέτρας. αὕτη γὰρ ἦν τοῖς τότε Ῥωμαίοις ἐπιχώριος τῶν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἁλόντων ἡ κόλασις.

  [5] Indeed, they were so exasperated at the name of tyranny that they did not moderate their resentment even in the degree of his punishment, but sentenced him to death. For they were afraid that if a man who was the ablest general of his time should be driven from his country into exile, he might follow the example of Marcius in dividing his own people and uniting their enemies, and bring a relentless war upon his country. This being the outcome of his trial, the quaestors led him to the top of the precipice that overlooks the Forum and in the presence of all the citizens hurled him down from the rock. For this was the traditional punishment at that time among the Romans for those who were condemned to death.

  [1] ὁ μὲν οὖν πιθανώτερος τῶν παραδεδομένων ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λόγων τοιόσδε ἐστίν: δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἧσσον πιθανόν, ἐπειδὴ κἀκεῖνος πεπίστευται ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ ἐν γραφαῖς ἀξιοχρέοις φέρεται, μὴ παρελθεῖν. λέγεται δή τισιν, ὡς ἀδήλου πᾶσιν οὔσης ἔτι τῆς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ συσκευαζομένης τυραννίδος, πρῶτος ὑποπτεύσα
ς ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Κασσίου καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀκριβεστάτης βασάνου τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐξετάσας ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὴν βουλήν: ἔπειτα κελεύσας ἐλθεῖν τὸν υἱὸν μηνυτής τε καὶ κατήγορος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο: καταγνούσης δὲ καὶ τῆς βουλῆς ἀγαγὼν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπέκτεινε.

  [79.1] Such is the more probable of the accounts that have been handed down concerning this man; but I must not omit the less probable version, since this also has been believed by many and is recorded in histories of good authority. It is said, then, by some that while the plan of Cassius to make himself tyrant was as yet concealed from all the world, his father was the first to suspect him, and that after making the strictest inquiry into the matter he went to the senate; then, ordering his son to appear, he became both informer and accuser, and when the senate also had condemned him, he took him home and put him to death.

  [2] τὸ μὲν οὖν πικρὸν καὶ ἀπαραίτητον τῆς τῶν πατέρων ὀργῆς εἰς υἱοὺς ἀδικοῦντας καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἐν τοῖς τότε Ῥωμαίοις οὐδὲ ταύτην ἀπωθεῖται τὴν πρόφασιν: ἐπεὶ καὶ πρότερον Βροῦτος ὁ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἐκβαλὼν ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς υἱοὺς ἐδικαίωσε κατὰ τὸν τῶν κακούργων νόμον ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ πελέκεσι τοὺς αὐχένας ἀπεκόπησαν, [p. 248] ὅτι συμπράττειν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐδόκουν τὴν κάθοδον. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα Μάλλιος τὸν Γαλατικὸν πόλεμον στρατηγῶν τὸν υἱὸν ἀριστεύοντα κατὰ πόλεμον τῆς μὲν ἀνδρείας ἕνεκα τοῖς ἀριστείοις στεφάνοις ἐκόσμησεν, ἀπείθειαν δ᾽ ἐπικαλῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ᾧ ἐτάχθη φρουρίῳ ἔμεινεν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος ἐξῆλθεν ἀγωνιούμενος, ὡς λιποτάκτην ἀπέκτεινε.

  [2] The harsh and inexorable anger of fathers against their offending sons, particularly among the Romans of that time, does not permit us to reject even this account. For earlier Brutus, who expelled the kings, condemned both his sons to die in accordance with the law concerning malefactors, and they were beheaded because they were believed to have been helping to bring about the restoration of the kings. And at a later time Manlius, when he was commander in the Gallic war and his son distinguished himself in battle, honoured him, indeed, for his bravery with the crowns given for superior valour, but at the same time accused him of disobedience in not staying in the fort in which he was posted but leaving it, contrary to the command of his general, in order to take part in the struggle; and he put him to death as a deserter.

  [3] καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ πατέρες, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ μείζοσιν αἰτίαις, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐλάττοσιν, οὔτε φειδὼ τῶν παίδων οὔτ᾽ ἔλεον ἔσχον. κατὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἀξιῶ, ὥσπερ ἔφην, προβεβλῆσθαι τὸν λόγον ὡς ἀπιθανόν: ἐκεῖνα δέ με ἀνθέλκει τεκμηρίων ὄντα οὔτ᾽ ἐλάχιστα οὔτ᾽ ἀπίθανα καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν ἄγει συγκατάθεσιν, ὅτι μετὰ τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κασσίου ἥ τ᾽ οἰκία κατεσκάφη, καὶ μέχρι τοῦδε ἀνεῖται ὁ τόπος αὐτῆς αἴθριος ἔξω τοῦ νεὼ τῆς Γῆς, ὃν ὑστέροις ἡ πόλις κατεσκεύασε χρόνοις ἐν μέρει τινὶ αὐτῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Καρίνας φέρουσαν ὁδόν, καὶ τὰ χρήματα αὐτοῦ τὸ κοινὸν ἀνέλαβεν: ἐξ ὧν ἀπαρχὰς ἐν ἄλλοις τε ἱεροῖς ἀνέθηκε, καὶ δὴ καὶ τῇ Δήμητρι τοὺς χαλκέους ἀνδριάντας ἐπιγραφαῖς δηλοῦντας,

  [3] And many other fathers, some for greater and others for lesser faults, have shown neither mercy nor compassion to their sons. For this reason I do not feel, as I said, that this account should be rejected as improbable. But the following considerations, which are arguments of no small weight and are not lacking in probability, draw me in the other direction and lead me to agree with the first tradition. In the first place, after the death of Cassius his house was razed to the ground and to this day its site remains vacant, except for that part of it on which the state afterwards built the temple of Tellus, which stands in the street leading to the Carinae; and again, his goods were confiscated by the state, which dedicated first-offerings for them in various temples, especially the bronze statues to Ceres, which by their inscriptions show of whose possessions they are the first-offerings.

  [4] ἀφ᾽ ὧν εἰσι χρημάτων ἀπαρχαί. εἰ δέ γ᾽ ὁ πατὴρ μηνυτής τε καὶ κατήγορος καὶ κολαστὴς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ κατεσκάφη οὔτε ἡ οὐσία ἐδημεύθη. Ῥωμαίοις γὰρ οὐθὲν ἴδιόν ἐστι κτῆμα [p. 249] ζώντων ἔτι τῶν πατέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὰ σώματα τῶν παίδων, ὅ τι βούλονται διατιθέναι, τοῖς πατράσιν ἀποδέδοται. ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν δήπου τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν τοῦ μηνύσαντος τὴν τυραννίδα ἐπὶ τοῖς τοῦ παιδὸς ἀδικήμασιν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι καὶ δημεύειν ἡ πόλις ἠξίου. διὰ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα τῷ προτέρῳ συγκατατίθεμαι τῶν λόγων μᾶλλον: ἔθηκα δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρους, ἵνα ἐξῇ τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις, ὁποτέρῳ βούλονται τῶν λόγων, προσέχειν.

  [4] But if his father had been at once the informer, the accuser and the executioner of his son, neither his house would have been razed nor his estate confiscated. For the Romans have no property of their own while their fathers are still living, but fathers are permitted to dispose both of the goods and the persons of their sons as they wish. Consequently the state would surely never have seen fit, because of the crimes of the son, to take away and confiscate the estate of his father who had given information of his plan to set up a tyranny. For these reasons, therefore, I agree rather with the former of the two accounts; but I have given both, to the end that my readers may adopt whichever one they please.

  [1] ἐπιβαλλομένων δέ τινων καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἀποκτεῖναι τοῦ Κασσίου δεινὸν τὸ ἔθος ἔδοξεν εἶναι τῇ βουλῇ καὶ ἀσύμφορον: καὶ συνελθοῦσα ἐψηφίσατο ἀφεῖσθαι τὰ μειράκια τῆς τιμωρίας καὶ ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀδείᾳ ζῆν, μήτε φυγῇ μήτ᾽ ἀτιμίᾳ μήτ᾽ ἄλλῃ συμφορᾷ ζημιωθέντα. καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου τὸ ἔθος τοῦτο Ῥωμαίοις ἐπιχώριον γέγονεν ἕως τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς διατηρούμενον ἡλικίας, ἀφεῖσθαι τιμωρίας ἁπάσης τοὺς παῖδας, ὧν ἂν οἱ πατέρες ἀδικήσωσιν, ἐάν τε τυράννων ὄντες υἱοὶ τύχωσιν, ἐάν τε πατροκτόνων, ἐάν τε προδοτῶν, ὃ

  [80.1] When the attempt was made by some to put to death the sons of Cassius also, the senators looked upon the custom as cruel and harmful; and having assembled, they voted that the penalty should be remitted in the case of the boys and that they should live in complete security, being punished by neither banishment, disfranchisement, nor any other misfortune. And from that time this custom has become established among the Romans and is observed down to our day, that the sons shal
l be exempt from all punishment for any crimes committed by their fathers, whether they happen to be the sons of tyrants, of parricides, or of traitors — treason being among the Romans the greatest crime.

  [2] μέγιστόν ἐστι παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις ἀδίκημα. οἵ τε καταλῦσαι τὸ ἔθος τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιβαλόμενοι κατὰ τοὺς ἡμετέρους χρόνους μετὰ τὴν συντέλειαν τοῦ Μαρσικοῦ τε καὶ ἐμφυλίου πολέμου, καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τῶν ἐπικηρυχθέντων ἐπὶ Σύλλα πατέρων ἀφελόμενοι τὸ μετιέναι τὰς πατρίους ἀρχὰς καὶ βουλῆς μετέχειν καθ᾽ ὃν ἐδυνάστευον αὐτοὶ χρόνον, ἐπίφθονόν τ᾽ ἀνθρώποις καὶ νεμεσητὸν θεοῖς ἔργον ἔδοξαν ἀποδείξασθαι. τοιγάρτοι δίκη μὲν [p. 250] ἐκείνοις σὺν χρόνῳ τιμωρὸς οὐ μεμπτὴ παρηκολούθησε, δἰ ἣν ἐκ μεγίστου τέως αὐχήματος εἰς ταπεινότατον πτῶμα κατήχθησαν, καὶ οὐδὲ γένος τὸ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὅτι μὴ κατὰ γυναῖκας ἔτι λείπεται.

  [2] And those who attempted to abolish this custom in our times, after the end of the Marsic and civil wars, and took away from the sons of fathers who had been proscribed under Sulla the privilege of standing for the magistracies held by their fathers and of being members of the senate as long as their own domination lasted, were regarded as having done a thing deserving both the indignation of men and the vengeance of the gods. Accordingly, in the course of time a justifiable retribution dogged their steps as the avenger of their crimes, by which the perpetrators were reduced from the greatest height of glory they had once enjoyed to the lowest depths, and not even their posterity, except of the female line, now survives;