Follow'd by him, who, to the imperial hate, The poor remains of greatness from the rest ; Whom Massa dreads, though of the informing tribe, Whom anxious Carus softens with a bribe, more probably, however, Marcus Regulus, who carried on the trade of an informer under Nero, and again under Domitian. Pliny gives an entertaining account of his cowardly apprehensions for himself after the death of the latter; and pronounces him to be the wickedest of all two-legged creatures, omnium bipedum nequissimus. The difficulty of fixing on any particular name, affords matter for deep reflection. That so many people should at the same period be guilty of the complicated crimes of treachery and ingratitude (for such is the charge) could only be believed on the credit of concurring testimonies; and gives us a dreadful picture of the state of corruption into which Rome was now fallen. up VER. 56. Whom Massa dreads, &c.] He speaks of Babius Massa, who took the trade of an informer under Domitian, and rose to great eminence in guilt. Tacitus calls him a pernicious enemy to all good men, and the cause of many evils to the state. He was prosecuted in his turn for mal-practises in his government (of the province of Bætica), and condemned to refund his ill-gotten property. It seems, however, from Pliny, who was one of his prosecutors, that there was some collusion among the judges; and that the sentence was never inforced. But though Massa might be rich, he was now no longer powerful: for Martial, who was never accused of temerity, attacks him without fear. Humorously exaggerating the thievish propensities of one Hermogenes, a thief by descent, he observes, that he was as great a stealer of napkins, wherever he went, as Massa was of money! VER. 57. Whom anxious Carus, &c.] This was Carus Metius, no less conspicuous for villany than Massa. He did not, indeed, begin so early; for And pale Latinus, trembling for his life, For now, the hoary grandam's itch supplies Or all that share her favours, share her gold: when Tacitus was writing the life of Agricola, he had obtained "but one victory;" that, probably, over the virtuous Senecio, who assisted Pliny in the prosecution of Massa. The first draught of this Satire (for it was afterwards considerably improved and enlarged), might be formed, I should think, soon after the above event: since we find Carus, infamous as he was, and ready to join in the destruction of the worthiest characters, not yet so firmly established in the Emperor's favour, but that he needed the protection of a more powerful villain. Carus obtained more "victories," as Tacitus calls them, afterwards, and outlived his execrable master; when he fell into poverty and contempt. Of Latinus, or rather the mime represented by him (for he himself had been put to death in a former reign) I have nothing to relate with certainty. Or stood prepared at Lyons to declaim, Heavens! need I tell what frenzy fires my brain, And laughs, in exile, at the offended powers; VER. 74. Or stood prepared at Lyons to declaim, &c.] It was here that Caligula instituted games of oratory. The meed of the conqueror is no where mentioned, but the punishment of the vanquished was to obliterate what he had written with his tongue, to be ducked in the river, &c. &c. Tyranny, like dullness, sometimes “loves a joke,” and this was a most miserable one. If Caligula himself were one of the candidates, and any other won the palm, his reward was certain death. Dio tells a curious story of Caligula's accusing Domitius Afer in a set speech. Domitius wisely determined not to answer it; but throwing himself into an ecstacy at the beauty of the composition, he repeated parts of it here and there, affecting to be so enraptured by it, as utterly to forget that it was pronounced against himself. The artifice succeeded: his life was spared, because, when ordered to plead he prostrated himself-xa χαμαι κειμενΘ, ικετευσεν, ὡς καὶ τον ρήτορα αύλον μαλλον η του Καισαρα Cobμer. Lib. LIX. c. XIX. The scene of these contests, which was at the confluence of the Soane and the Rhone, had been looked on as a sacred spot from the earliest ages. After the subjection of the country, the natives built a temple and altar here to Augustus, and established, or rather renewed, the ancient festival, to which there was annually a great resort. The happy thought of instituting oratorical games at this altar, is, as I have already observed, due to Caligula. While, sighing o'er the victory she has won, And shall I feel that crimes like these require The bellowing labyrinth, the builder's flight, VER. 82. Marius, &c.] Marius (see Sat. vIII. 182), was proconsul of Africa, and being prosecuted by the province for extortion and cruelty, was convicted on the clearest evidence, fined, and banished from Italy. "Yet," says Holyday,"reserving the greater part of his former spoils, he lived in a wanton exile;"-while the Africans returned home with the wretched consolation of having defrayed their own expences, and seen the money levied on their oppressor, carried to the Roman treasury. Juvenal observes, Marius was damnatus inani judicio; that is, says the Scholiast, non ademptis bonis. Now Cæsar had made a law to prevent this kind of judgment. Pænas facinorum auxit (Suet. Cæs. lxii.) cum locupletes eò facilius scelere se obligarent, quod integris patrimoniis exulabant. It is true, this with other good laws, was now grown obsolete; but the Scholiast's explanation is, nevertheless, unfounded: Juvenal uses the expression inani judicio, in reference to the vast wealth of Marius, which could be little, if at all, affected by the paltry sum (not quite £6000.) exacted from him by way of punishment. After all, I believe here is a tacit censure on Trajan; in the third year of whose reign this scandalous instance of lenity took place. VER. 92. When He can take th' adulterer's goods, and heir That wealth, the law forbids the wife to share, &c.] Adulterers were accustomed to bequeath their property to their mistresses: this opened a door to Who gave with wand'ring eye, and vacant face, A tacit sanction to his own disgrace, universal corruption, and occasioned so great a clamour amongst the defrauded relatives, that Domitian interfered,* and by an express law rendered such infamous women incapable of receiving any bequests whatever. The avarice of the Roman husbands, however, contrived to elude this wholesome restriction; they became panders to their own wives, and the legacies were in consequence of it, transferred to themselves! Αυτό τις γήμας πιθανην τῳ γειτονι ρεγχει Και τρεφεται. Ταυ ̓ ἦν ευχολΘ εργασία. But this was not all. If the adulterer was old and wealthy, the husband slept and snored on; if not, he watched his opportunity, and took care to wake at a moment favourable to his views of extorting a compromise for an attempt. Now I am on this subject, (far, indeed, from a pleasing one,) I will relate a a little anecdote of Mæcenas. He was invited to supper by one Galba, who had a handsome wife. The minister was at this time all-powerful, and his protection, therefore, of consequence to his host, who remarked with joy his advances to his wife, and after supper, fell fast asleep. Mæcenas made the best use of his time; and a friend, whom he had brought with him, was proceeding to the same familiarities, when Galba, who had nothing to hope from this new competitor, gravely raised his head and exclaimed non omnibus dormio, I don't sleep for every body. This was thought a good joke at Rome, where the expression soon passed into a proverb. Domitian's interference, however, obtains little credit with Xiphilinus. Sneering at his sudden and inconsistent starts of virtue, he says he put to death several women for adultery whom himself had debauched ! Συχνοί δε καὶ ανδρες καὶ γυναίκες των πλεσίων επι μοιχεια εκολασθησαν, ὧν ένιαι καὶ ὑπ ̓ από Boxednov. Lib. LXVII. c. XII. |