Marcellus

Plutarch

Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives, Vol. V. Perrin, Bernadotte, translator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1917.

For those who won the mastery by fighting and slaying their enemies celebrated, as it would seem, that martial and terrible triumph, after wreathing their arms and their men with abundant laurel, just as they were wont to do when they purified their armies with lustral rites; while to those generals who had had no need of war, but had brought everything to a good issue by means of conference, persuasion, and argument, the law awarded the privilege of conducting, like a paean of thanksgiving, this unwarlike and festal procession.

For the flute is an instrument of peace, and the myrtle is a plant of Aphrodite, who more than all the other gods abhors violence and wars. And this minor triumph is called ova, not from the Greek euasmos, as most think (since they conduct the major triumph also with songs and cries of eua!), but the name has been wrested by the Greeks into conformity with their speech, since they are persuaded that something of the honour has to do with Dionysus also, whom they call Euius and Thriambus. This, however, is not the true explanation; but it was the custom for commanders, in celebrating the major triumph, to sacrifice an ox, whereas in the minor triumph they sacrificed a sheep. Now, the Roman name for sheep is ova, and from this circumstance the lesser triumph is called ova.[*](It is hardly necessary to say that Plutarch’s etymology, as often, is worthless.)

And it is worth our while to notice that the Spartan lawgiver appointed his sacrifices in a manner opposite to that of the Romans. For in Sparta a returning general who had accomplished his plans by cunning deception or persuasion, sacrificed an ox; he who had won by fighting, a cock. For although they were most warlike, they thought an exploit accomplished by means of argument and sagacity greater and more becoming to a man than one achieved by violence and valour. How the case really stands, I leave an open question.

While Marcellus was serving as consul for the fourth time,[*](In 210 B.C.) his enemies induced the Syracusans to come to Rome and accuse and denounce him before the senate for terrible wrongs which they had suffered contrary to the terms of surrender. It chanced, then, that Marcellus was performing a sacrifice on the Capitol, but, the senate being still in session, the Syracusans hurried before it and begged that they might have a hearing and justice.

The colleague of Marcellus tried to have them expelled, angrily explaining that Marcellus was not present; but Marcellus, when he heard of it, came at once. And first, sitting as consul in his curule chair, he transacted the routine business; then, when this was all ended, coming down from his curule chair and taking his stand as a private citizen in the place where men under accusation usually plead their cause, he gave the Syracusans opportunity to press their charge.

But they were terribly confounded by his dignity and confidence, and thought him yet more formidable and hard to confront in his robe of purple than he had been irresistible in arms. However, being encouraged by the rivals of Marcellus, they began their denunciation and rehearsed their demands for justice, which were mingled with much lamentation.

The gist of their plea was that, although they were allies and friends of the Romans, they had suffered at the hands of Marcellus what other generals allowed many of their enemies to escape. To this Marcellus made answer that in return for many injuries which they had done to the Romans, they had suffered nothing except what men whose city has been taken by storm in war cannot possibly be prevented from suffering; and that their city had been so taken was their own fault, because they had refused to listen to his many exhortations and persuasions.