Ab urbe condita

Then M. Fabius, the father, said: “Since neither the authority of the senate nor the years which I, whom you are preparing to bereave of a son, have reached, nor the noble birth and personal merits of the Master of the Horse whom you yourself appointed, and entreaties such as have often mitigated the fierceness of human foes and pacified the anger of offended deities —since none of these move you —I claim the intervention of the tribunes of the plebs and appeal to the people.

As you are seeking to escape from the judgment which the army has passed upon you and which the senate is passing now, I summon you before the one judge who has at all events more power and authority than your Dictatorship.

I shall see whether you will submit to an appeal to which a Roman king —Tullus Hotilius —submitted.” [*](Alluding to the case of Horatius, Book I. p. 31.) He at once left the Senate-house for the

Assembly. Thither the Dictator also proceeded with a small party, whilst the Master of the Horse was accompanied by all the leaders of the senate in a body. They had both taken their places on the rostra when Papirius ordered Fabius to be removed to the space

below. His father followed him and turned to Papirius with the remark, “You do well to order us to be removed to a position from which we can speak as private

citizens.” For some time regular debate was out of the question, nothing was heard but mutual

altercations. At last the loud and indignant tones of the elder Fabius rose above the hubbub as he expatiated on the tyranny and brutality of Papirius. He himself, he said, had been Dictator, and not a single person, not a single plebeian, whether centurion or private soldier, had ever suffered any wrong from

him. But Papirius would wrest victory and triumph from a Roman commander just as he would from hostile generals. What a difference there was between the moderation shown by the men of old and this new fashion of ruthless

severity! The Dictator, Quinctius Cincinnatus, rescued the consul, L. Minucius, from a blockade, and the only punishment he inflicted was to leave him as second in command of the

army. [*](See Vol. I. pp. 169, 172.) L. Furius, after expressing his contempt for the age and authority of M. F. Camillus, incurred a most disgraceful defeat, [*](See Book Vi. p. 28.) but Camillus not only checked his anger for the moment and refrained from putting in his despatches to the people, or rather to the senate, anything reflecting on his colleague, but on his return to Rome, after the senate had allowed him to choose from the consular tribunes one to be associated with him in his command, he actually

chose L. Furius. Why, even the people themselves, who hold in their hands the sovereign power, have never allowed their feelings to carry them beyond the imposition of a fine even where armies have been lost through the foolhardiness or ignorance

of their generals. Never up to this day has a commander-inchief been tried for his life because he was defeated. But now generals who have won victories and earned the most splendid triumphs are threatened with the rods and axes, a treatment which the laws of war forbid even

to the vanquished. What, he asked, would his son have suffered if he had met with defeat, been routed and stripped of his camp? Could that man's rage and violence go beyond

scourging and killing? It was owing to Q. Fabius that the State was offering up joyous and grateful thanksgivings for victory; it was on his account that the sacred fanes stood open and prayers and libations were being offered at the altars, and the smoke of

sacrifice was ascending. How fitting it was that this very man should be stripped and torn with rods before the eyes of the Roman people, in sight of the Capitol and the Citadel, in sight of the gods whom he invoked in two battles nor

invoked in vain! What would be the feelings of the army who had won their victories under his auspices and generalship? What grief would there be in the Roman camp, what exultation among the enemy!