previous next
20. When the dictator now saw that the victory was in his hands, that a most opulent city was on the point of being taken, and that there would be more spoil than had been obtained in all previous wars taken together, that he might not incur either the resentment of the soldiers from a parsimonious [2??] partition of the plunder, or displeasure among the patricians from a prodigal lavishing of it, he sent a letter to the senate, “that by the kindness of the immortal gods, his own measures, and the perseverance of the soldiers, Veii would be soon in the power of the Roman people.” [3] What did they thinly should be done with respect to the spoil? Two opinions divided the senate; the one that of the elder Publius Licinius, who on being first asked by his son, as they say, proposed it as his opinion, that a proclamation should be openly sent forth to the people, that whoever wished to share in the plunder, should proceed to the camp before Veii; [4] the other that of Appius Claudius,1 who, censuring such profusion as unprecedented, extravagant, partial, and one that was unadvisable, [p. 348]if they should once judge it criminal, that money taken from the enemy should be [deposited] in the treasury when exhausted by wars, advised their pay to be paid to the soldiers out of that money, so that the commons might thereby have to pay less tax. For that “the families of all would feel their share of [7] such a bounty in equal proportion; that the hands of the idlers in the city, ever greedy for plunder, would not then carry off the prizes due to brave warriors, as it generally so happens that [8] according as each individual is wont to seek the principal part of the toil and danger, so is he the least active as a plunderer.” Licinius, on the other hand, argued that the money in that case would ever prove the source of jealousy and animosity, and that it would afford grounds for charges before the commons, and thence for seditions and new laws. "That it was more advisable therefore that the feelings of the commons should be conciliated by that bounty; that succour should be afforded them, exhausted and drained [9] by a tax of so many years, and that they should feel the fruits arising from a war, in which they had in a manner grown old. What each took from the enemy with his own hand and brought home with him would be more gratifying and delightful, than if he were to receive a much larger share at the will of another. That the dictator himself wished to shun the odium and recriminations arising from the matter; for that reason he transferred it to the senate. The senate, too, ought to hand the [10??] matter thus referred to them over to the commons, and suffer every man to have what the fortune of war gave to to him. This proposition appeared to be the safer, as it would make the senate popular. A proclamation was therefore issued, that those who chose should proceed to the camp to the dictator for the plunder of Veii.

1 According to Niebuhr, (vol. ii. p. 233,) this fear put into the mouth of Claudius, is attributable to ignorance or forgetfulness on the part of Livy, of the early usage in the dividing of spoils, which had ceased to be observed in the time of Augustus. According to former Roman usage, half of the conquering army was employed, under the sanction [5] of a solemn oath, to subtract nothing, in collecting the spoil, which was then partly divided by lot, partly sold, and the proceeds, if promised to the soldiers, disbursed to them man by man, if otherwise, it was brought into the treasury. Both schemes mentioned here by Livy, it will be observed. contemplated compensation to the people for the war-tax which they had so long paid; but that of Licinius was more [6] favourable, especially to the poor, as the ordinary citizens would receive equal shares, and the compensation would be direct and immediate. —Gunne.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

load focus Summary (Latin, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1924)
load focus Summary (English, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1924)
load focus Summary (Latin, W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1898)
load focus English (Rev. Canon Roberts, 1912)
load focus Latin (Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1924)
load focus Latin (Robert Seymour Conway, Charles Flamstead Walters, 1914)
load focus English (Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., 1924)
load focus Latin (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1898)
hide References (25 total)
  • Commentary references to this page (7):
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 32.19
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 33.19
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 33.36
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 34.57
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 35.14
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 35.31
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 39-40, commentary, 40.13
  • Cross-references to this page (6):
  • Cross-references in general dictionaries to this page (12):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: