An Attack on an Enemy of Freedom
(The Second Philippic against Mark Antony)
Members of the Senate: Why is this my fate? I am obliged to record that, for twenty years past, our country has never had an enemy who has not, simultaneously, made himself an enemy of mine as well. I need mention no names. You remember the men for yourselves. They have paid me graver penalties than I could have wished.
Antony, you are modelling your actions on theirs. So what happened to them ought to frighten you; I am amazed that it does not. When those others were against me as well as against Rome I was less surprised. For they did not seek me out as an enemy. No, it was I who, for patriotic reasons, took the initiative against every one of them. But you I have never injured, even in words. And yet, without provocation, you have assailed me with gross insults. Catiline himself could not have been so outrageous, nor Publius Clodius so hysterical. Evidently you felt that the way to make friends, in disreputable circles, was by breaking off relations with me.
Did you take this step in a spirit of contempt? I should not have thought that my life, and my reputation, and my qualities – such as they are – provide suitable material for Antony's contempt. Nor can he have believed, surely, that he could successfully disparage me before the Senate. Accustomed though it is to complimenting distinguished Romans for good service to the state, the Senate has praised only one man for actually rescuing it from annihilation: and that is myself. But perhaps Antony's ambition was to compete with me as a speaker? If so, how extremely generous of him to present me with such a subject – justification of myself, criticism of him: the richest and most promising theme imaginable! No, the truth is clearly this. He saw no chance of proving to people like himself that he was Rome's enemy, unless he became mine too.
Before I reply to his other accusations, I should like to say a few words in answer to one particular complaint, namely that it was I who broke our friend-ship. Because I regard this as a very serious charge. He has protested that I once spoke against him in a lawsuit. But surely I was obliged to support my close friend against someone with whom I had no connexion. Besides, the backer of my friend's opponent was only interested in him from a discreditable interest in his youthfulness, and not because the young man was really promising. Since his supporter had procured an unfair result through a scandalous exercise of the veto, I had no choice but to intervene. However, I think I know why you brought the matter up. You wanted to ingratiate yourself with the underworld, by reminding everybody that you are the son-in-law of an ex-slave, Quintus Fadius; in other words, a former slave is the grandfather of your children.
Yet you allege that you constantly visited my house, in order to receive my tuition. If you had, your reputation and your morals would have benefited. But you did not! Even if you had wanted to, Gains Scribonius Curio would never have let you. Then you claim that you retired from the election to the augurship in my favour. That is sheer effrontery: monstrous, shameless, and unbelievable. In those days, when the entire Board of Augurs was pressing me to become a member, and my nominators (only two being allowed) were Pompey and Quintus Hortensius, you were completely destitute. There was only one hope of safety which you could see, and that was revolution. At that juncture you stood no chance whatever of becoming an augur; for Curio was out of Italy. Later, when you came up for election, you could not have secured the votes of a single tribe without Curio. So energetic, indeed, was the canvassing of his friends on your behalf, that they were condemned in the courts for the use of violence!
You did me a favour, you object. Certainly; I have always admitted the instance that you quote. It seemed to me less undesirable to admit my obligation to you than to let ignorant people think me ungrateful. However, the favour was this, was it not? – that you did not kill me at Brundisium. But I do not see how you could have killed me. For I had been ordered to Italy by the conqueror himself – the very man whose chief gangster you were congratulating yourself on having become.
Nevertheless, let us imagine that you could have killed me. That, Senators, is what a favour from gangsters amounts to. They refrain from murdering someone; then they boast that they have spared him! If that is a true favour, then those who killed Caesar, after he had spared them, would never have been regarded as so glorious – and they are men whom you yourself habitually describe as noble. But the mere abstention from a dreadful crime is surely no sort of favour. In the situation in which this ‘favour’ placed me, my dominant feelings ought not to have been pleasure because you did not kill me, but sorrow because you could have done so with impunity.
However, let us even assume that it was a favour; at any rate the best favour that a gangster could confer. Still, in what respect can you call me ungrateful? Were my protests against the downfall of our country wrong, because you might think they showed ingratitude? I admit that there was no lack of grief and misery in my complaints. But a man in my position, the position conferred on me by the Senate and people of Rome, could not help that. And my words were restrained and friendly, never insulting. Surely that is real moderation – to protest about Antony and yet refrain from abuse!
For what was left of Rome, Antony, owed its final annihilation to yourself. In your home everything had a price: and a truly sordid series of deals it was. Laws you passed, laws you caused to be put through in your interests, had never even been formally proposed. You admitted this yourself. You were an augur, yet you never took the auspices. You were a consul, yet you blocked the legal right of other officials to exercise the veto. Your armed escort was shocking. You are a drink-sodden, sex-ridden wreck. Never a day passes in that ill-reputed house of yours without orgies of the most repulsive kind.
In spite of all that, I restricted myself in my speech to solemn complaints concerning the state of our nation. I said nothing personal about the man. I might have been conducting a case against Marcus Licinius Crassus (as I often have, on grave issues) instead of against this utterly loathsome gladiator.
Today, therefore, I am going to ensure that he under-stands what a favour I, on that occasion, conferred upon himself. He read out a letter, this creature, which he said I had sent him. But he has absolutely no idea how to behave – how other people behave. Who, with the slightest knowledge of decent people's habits, could conceivably produce letters sent him by a friend, and read them in public, merely because some quarrel has arisen between him and the other? Such conduct strikes at the roots of human relations; it means that absent friends are excluded from communicating with each other. For men fill their letters with flippancies which appear tasteless if they are published – and with serious matters which are quite unsuitable for wide circulation. Antony's action proves he is totally uncivilized.
But just see how unbelievably stupid he is as well. Try to answer my next point, you marvel of eloquence! (At least that is what you seem to Seius Mustela and Numisius Tiro, who stand here in full view of the Senate at this very moment, sword in hand: and even I shall admit that you are an eloquent orator after you explain to me how, when they were charged with assassination, you could get them acquitted.) However, to resume – what if I denied that I had ever sent you that letter? You would be left without an answer: you could not find a shred of evidence to convict me. By the handwriting? It is true that you have found your knowledge of handwriting very lucrative. All the same, your efforts would be pointless, because the letter was written by a secretary. What a lucky man your teacher of oratory was! You paid him very handsomely (as I shall remind you later), and yet when you left his hands you were still a complete fool. To charge one's opponent with something which, in the face of a blank denial, he cannot press home to the slightest effect is of no service whatever to any speaker; indeed to anyone with any sense at all. Nevertheless I do not deny authorship. And when I say that, I am also saying that you are not ill-behaved but a lunatic. For my whole letter was replete with dutiful kindness – it was a veritable model of how to behave. Your criticism concerning its contents merely amounts to this: that I do not express a bad opinion of you; and that I address you as a Roman citizen and a decent man, instead of as a bandit and a criminal.
Now I do not propose to produce your letter, though under this provocation I should be entitled to: the letter in which you begged me to consent to someone's return from exile, and promised that you would not bring him back unless I agreed. And I did agree. For it was not for me to stand in the way of your outrageous behaviour, seeing that this is uncontrollable even by the authority of this Senatorial Order, and universal public opinion, and the whole body of the law. But what was the point of making me such a plea, when Caesar had actually passed a law authorizing the return of the very man with whom your letter was concerned? No doubt Antony was eager that I should get the credit! – seeing that even he was not going to win any credit, since the matter had already been settled by legislation.
Senators: in self-defence, and in denunciation of Antony, I have no lack of material. But as regards the former of those themes, I have an appeal to make: while I speak in my own defence I urge you to be indulgent. The second matter I shall look after on my own account – I shall ensure that what I am going to say against Antony impresses itself upon your attention. At the same time I beg this of you. My whole career as a speaker, indeed my whole life, has, I believe, demonstrated to you that I am a moderate man and not an extremist. So do not suppose that I have forgotten myself when I reply to this man in the spirit in which he has challenged me. I am not going to treat him as a consul, for he did not treat me as a former consul, as a man of consular rank. Besides, he is no true consul at all. He does not live like one; he does not work like one; and he was never elected to be one. Whereas a former consul I unquestionably am.
You can see what sort of a consul he claims to be by the way in which he criticizes my tenure of that office. Yet my consulship, Senators, though it can be called mine, was in plain fact yours. For everything I decided, every policy I carried out, every action I took, derived from this Senatorial Order – from its deliberations, its authority, and its rulings. What a strange kind of wisdom you show, Antony – eloquence is evidently not your only quality – when you abuse me before the very men whose corporate judgement inspired those actions of mine! The only people who have ever abused my consulship are Publius Clodius and yourself. And his fate – the fate which also overtook Curio – will be yours: for what brought death to both of them is now in your home! (1)
So Antony disapproves of my consulship. But – to name first the most recently deceased of the ex-consuls of that time – Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus thought well of it. Quintus Lutatius Catulus, who will always carry weight among our countrymen, like-wise bestowed upon me his approval. So did Lucius Licinius Lucullus and his brother Marcus, and Marcus Licinius Crassus, Quintus Hortensius, Gaius Scribonius Curio the elder, Gaius Calpurnius Piso, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Manius Aemilius Lepidus, Lucius Volcacius Tullus, Gaius Marcius Figulus, and the two consuls designate at the time, Decimus Junius Silanus and Lucius Licinius Murena. And Marcus Porcius Cato felt the same as those of consular rank: he too praised my activities as consul. Your consulship, on the other hand, was the worst of the many things which death spared Cato. Another very strong supporter of mine was Pompey. When we first met after his return from Syria, he embraced me, offered his congratulations, and declared that it was through my services that there was still a Rome for him to see. But why do I mention individuals? A very full house of the Senate so warmly applauded my consulship that there was not a man there who did not thank me as if I had been his father. Their possessions, their lives, their children's lives, their country – they owed all these, said every one of them, to me.
However, since Rome has lost all the great men whom I have mentioned, let us pass to the two ex-consuls of that time who are still with us. For those very actions which you denounce, that brilliant statesman Lucius Aurelius Cotta proposed that I should be accorded a most generous vote of thanks. And this proposal was adopted – by those very ex-consuls whose names I have just recorded, and indeed by the whole Senate. This was an honour which, ever since the city's foundation, had been awarded to no civilian before me. On that occasion your uncle Lucius Julius Caesar attacked his sister's husband, your stepfather; and he spoke with great eloquence, solemnity, and firmness. In all your activities throughout your whole life, your inspiration, your teacher, ought to have been Lucius Caesar. But instead of your uncle, the man on whom you preferred to model yourself was your step-father. When I was consul I consulted Lucius Caesar, though we were not related. You are his sister's son: but when did you ever consult him on state affairs?
Who, indeed, are Antony's advisers? Evidently people whose birthdays have not come to our attention. Antony is not attending the Senate today. Why? He is giving a birthday-party on his estate. For whom? I shall name no names. No doubt it is some comic Phormio or other, some Gnatho or Ballio. (2) What a disgusting, intolerable sensualist the man is, as well as a vicious, unsavoury crook! How is it possible, Antony, that you should consistently fail to consult that admi-rable leading Senator Lucius Caesar, who is your close relation, while instead you prefer to rely on the advice of this collection of down-and-out spongers?
I see; your consulship is beneficent, mine was destructive. Your impudence must be equal to your debauchery if you dare make that assertion in the very place where, as consul, I consulted the Senate, which once, in its glory, presided over the whole world: namely, in this temple of Concord, now crammed – by your agency – with delinquents bristling with weapons. And yet you had the effrontery, the unlimited effrontery, to claim that, when I was consul, the road up the Capitoline Hillwas packed with armed slaves! Do you really mean to suggest that I was applying violent pres-sure upon the Senate in order to force through those decrees of mine – in other words, that they were discreditable? You poor fool, to utter such impertinences before men of this calibre! – if the facts are known to you: or perhaps they are not, since all that is good is completely foreign to your mind.
When the Senate met in this temple, every single Roman knight, every young man of aristocratic birth – except yourself – every man (of whatever class) who was conscious of his Roman citizenship, gathered together on the road to the Capitol; each of them gave in his name. So many were they that no number of secretaries or writing tablets could have been enough for the registration of the entire multitude of them.
For that was the very moment when evil men were confessing that they had planned to assassinate their country. The revelations of their own accomplices had forced them to this admission. So had their own hand-writing, and the almost audible testimony of their own letters. To murder the citizens of Rome – that was the intention which emerged; to ravage Italy; revolution! At such a time, no one could fail to hear the call to defend the common cause – especially as the Senate and Roman people, in those days, possessed a leader. If they had his like as a leader now, the fate that descended upon those anarchists would be yours also.
Antony protests that I refused to give up his stepfather's body for burial. But even Publius Clodius never brought that charge. I was the enemy of Clodius – justifiably: but your faults, I regret to see, are blacker even than his. Why did it occur to you, I wonder, to remind us of your upbringing in your stepfather's home? I suppose you were afraid that we should be sceptical of nature's unaided effects; that we should need this evidence of upbringing before we could understand why you had turned out so criminally.
Really, your speech was demented, it was so full of inconsistencies. From beginning to end, you were not merely incoherent but glaringly self-contradictory: indeed you contradicted yourself more often than you contradicted me. You admitted that your stepfather was involved in that terrible crime, and yet you complained because he had been punished for what he did. But the effect of that argument was to praise my part in the matter, and to blame what was wholly the Senate's part. For whereas it was I who arrested the guilty men, it was the Senate which punished them. So our masterly speaker here does not realize he is praising the man he is trying to attack, and is abusing those who sit here listening to him!
I will not call this effrontery – which is in any case a quality he proudly claims. But Antony has no desire to be stupid, and he must be the most stupid man alive to talk of the Capitoline road at this moment – when armed men are actually standing here among our benches, are stationed with their swords in that same temple of Concord, heaven bear me witness, where my consulship saw decisions which saved our nation and brought us in safety to this day.
Go on, criticize the Senate, criticize the knights who were at that time its partners. Assail every class and every citizen with your accusations, provided you admit that at the present moment this meeting of ours here is picketed by your Ituraean police. Unscrupulous-ness is not what prompts these shameless statements of yours; you make them because you entirely fail to grasp how you are contradicting yourself. In fact, you must be an imbecile. How could a sane person first take up arms to destroy his country, and then protest because someone else had armed himself to save it?
At one point you tried to be witty. Heaven knows this did not suit you. And your failure is particularly blameworthy, since you could have acquired some wit from that professional actress known as your wife. ‘Let gown be mightier than sword’ (3) were the words of mine that you mocked. Well, that was so in those days, was it not? But since then your swords have won. Let us consider which was the better: the time when gangsters’ weapons were overcome by men defending Roman freedom, or now, when your weapons have struck that freedom down. As far as my poem is concerned that is the only answer I have to give. I will merely add briefly that you understand neither this poem nor any other literature. I, on the other hand, though I have not neglected my duty to our country or to my friends, have nevertheless employed my leisure hours in literary productions of many kinds. All that I have written, the whole of my effort, has been intended for the benefit of young people and for the greater glory of Rome. However, that is another matter. Let us turn to questions of more importance.
It was upon my initiative, you said, that Publius Clodius was killed by Titus Annius Milo. But what would people have thought if he had been killed when, sword in hand, you chased him into the Forum, with the whole of Rome looking on? If he had not stopped you by hiding under the stairs of a bookshop and barricading them, you would have finished him off. Now I admit that I viewed your attempt with favour; yet even you do not claim that I prompted you. But as for Milo, I did not have an opportunity even to favour his attempt, since he had completed the job before anyone suspected what he was going to do. You say I prompted him. So presumably Milo was not the sort of man who could perform a patriotic action without a prompter! I celebrated the deed when it was done, you point out. But when the whole nation was rejoicing, why should I be the only mourner? Certainly, the inquiry into Clodius's death was not very judiciously designed. For when an established legal procedure for murder was available, the creation of a new law to deal with the case was pointless. Anyway, that is what was done, and the inquiry took its course. At the time, when the matter was under active consideration, no one brought this charge against me. It remained for you to perpetrate the fabrication after all these years!
Your next impudent accusation – made at considerable length – is that I was responsible for alienating Pompey from Caesar, and that by so doing I caused the Civil War. Your mistake in saying this is not wholly factual, but chronological; and this is a significant point. It is true that, during the consul-ship of the admirable Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, I made every possible attempt to separate Pompey from Caesar. But Caesar was more successful: for he alienated Pompey from me. And when Pompey had wholeheartedly joined Caesar, how could I endeavour to set them apart? I should have been foolish to hope for such a thing – and impertinent to attempt persuasion. Yet there were two occasions on which I advised Pompey against Caesar. Blame me for them, if you can. First, I advised him not to renew Caesar's five-year term in Gaul; secondly, I urged him not to allow Caesar's candidature for the consulship in absentia . If I had been successful on either occasion, our present miseries would never have befallen us.
But instead Pompey made a present to Caesar of all his own resources, and all the resources of Rome. Only then did he belatedly begin to understand what I had foreseen long before. But by that time I had also come to realize that a criminal attack on our country was imminent. That is why, from then onward, I never ceased to urge peace, harmony, and arrangement. Many people knew what I was saying: ‘If only, Pompey, you had either avoided joining Caesar or avoided breaking with him! Your strength of character demanded the former course, and your wisdom the latter!’ That, Antony, was the advice I consistently gave in regard to Pompey and the crisis of our Republic. If this advice had prevailed, the Republic would still be flourishing: but you would not be, for your scandalous, down-at-heels, infamous behaviour would have brought you down.
However, these are old stories. Your new story is this: I was responsible for the killing of Caesar. Now, Senators, I am afraid I may look guilty, at this point, of a deplorable offence: namely the production, in a case against myself, of a sham prosecutor – a man who will load me with compliments whether I am entitled to them or not. For among the company who did that most glorious of deeds, my name was never once heard. Yet not a name among them remained secret. Secret, do I say? Every one of them was instantly known far and wide! It was much more likely, believe me, that men should have boasted of complicity, though they had nothing to do with the deed, than that having been accomplices they should have desired to conceal the fact. There were quite a number of them; some obscure, some youthful – not the sort of people who would keep anyone's identity quiet. So, if I had been involved, how on earth could my participation have remained unknown?
Besides – if we really need to assume that the prime movers in that operation needed prompting to free their country! – was it for me to inspire the two Brutuses? Every day, in their own homes, each of them had the statue of Lucius Junius Brutus to gaze upon – and one of them had Gaius Servilius Ahala as well. These living Brutuses, with these ancestors, needed no outside advisers from other houses: they had advisers ready to hand within their own homes. Gaius Cassius Longinus, too, belongs to a clan incapable of tolerating not only autocracy but even excessive power in any single individual. Yet apparently he needed me as his instigator! On the contrary, even before his present distinguished associates were avail-able, Cassius had proposed to perform this same task in Cilicia at the mouth of the Cydnus, if only Caesar, after deciding to moor his ships on one bank of the river, had not moored them on the other instead. And then again, when the recovery of freedom was at stake, what need had Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus of me to inspire him? Inspiration enough for Domitius was the memory of how his noble father and his uncle had died – and how he himself had been deprived of his rights as a citizen. As for Gaius Trebonius, far from persuading him, I should not even have ventured to advise him – so close were his ties with Caesar. The existence of those ties increases the debt of gratitude which our country owes Trebonius: for one man's friendship seemed to him of less importance than the freedom of the Roman people – he could have shared autocracy, but he preferred to strike it down. Or was I Lucius Tillius Cimber's counsellor? No, my admiration for him after he had done the deed was a great deal stronger than my confidence, beforehand, that he would do it; I admired him all the more because he disregarded the personal favours he had received: he thought only of Rome. And then the two Serviliuses – whether to call them Cascas (4) or Ahalas I do not know. Do you suppose they needed my advice to urge them on? They had their love for their country. To enumerate all the rest would take too long; it reflects great credit on themselves, and great glory on Rome, that they were so many!
But remember, please, how this astute man demonstrated my complicity. ‘When Caesar had been killed,’ said he, ‘Brutus immediately brandished aloft his bloodstained dagger and called out Cicero's name, congratulating him on the recovery of national freedom.’ But this choice of myself, above all others – why must it indicate my foreknowledge? Consider instead whether the reason why Brutus called upon me was not this. The deed which he had done resembled the deeds which I had done myself: that is why he singled me out – to proclaim that he had modelled himself on me.
What a fool you are, Antony. Do you not under-stand this? If wanting Caesar to be killed (as you complain that I did) is a crime, then it is also criminal to have rejoiced when he was dead. For between the man who advises an action and the man who approves when it is done there is not the slightest difference. Whether I wished the deed to be performed or am glad after its performance, is wholly immaterial. Yet, with the exception of the men who wanted to make an autocratic monarch of him, all were willing for this to happen – or were glad when it had happened. So everyone is guilty! For every decent person, in so far as he had any say in the matter, killed Caesar! Plans, courage, opportunities were in some cases lacking; but the desire nobody lacked.
Just listen to the fatuity of this man – this sheep, rather. Here were his words: ‘Brutus, whose name I mention with all respect, called out Cicero's name while he was holding the bloodstained dagger: from which you must understand that Cicero was an accomplice.’ So, just because you suspect that I suspected something you call me a criminal, yet the man who brandished a dripping dagger is mentioned by you ‘with all respect’! Very well, use this imbecile language if you must; and your actions and opinions are even more brainless. In the end, Consul, you will have to make up your mind! You must pronounce your final judgement on the cause of the Brutuses, Cassius, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Gaius Trebonius, and the rest. Sleep off your hangover – breathe it out. Perhaps a torch might be administered, to sting you out of your snoring over this far from unimportant matter. Will you never understand that you must decide which description to apply to the men who did that deed: are they murderers or are they the restorers of national freedom?
Concentrate, please – just for a little. Try to make your brain work for a moment as if you were sober. I confess I am their friend – you prefer to call me their associate. And yet even I refuse to see any compromise solution. If these men are not liberators of the Roman people and saviours of the state, then even I assert that they are worse than assassins, worse than murderers. Indeed, on the assumption that even the murder of one's own father is less horrible than to kill the father of one's country, even parricides are better than they are.
Well, then, you wise and thoughtful man, what do you say to this: if they are parricides, why, in the Senate and Assembly, do you refer to them with respect? You will also have to explain why you yourself proposed Marcus Brutus's exemption from the laws (5) when he remained outside the city for more than ten days; why, at the Games of Apollo, he received such a complimentary reception; and why he and Cassius were given provincial commands, and supernumerary quaestors and legates were assigned to them for the purpose. This was all your doing! So evidently you do not regard them as murderers. It follows – since no compromise is possible – that you must regard them as liberators. What is the matter? I am not embarrassing you, am I? For I doubt if you are quite competent to grasp the sort of dilemma in which this places you. Anyway, what my conclusion amounts to is this: by not regarding Brutus and the rest as criminals, you have automatically proclaimed that they deserve the most glorious rewards.
So I must redesign my speech. I shall write to these men and say that, if anyone asks whether your charge against me is true, they must offer no denials. For, if I was their accomplice and they conceal the fact, I am afraid this may discredit them; whereas if I was invited to join them and refused, this will reflect the gravest discredit on me. For heaven will bear witness that Rome – that any nation throughout the whole world – has never seen a greater act than theirs! There has never been an achievement more glorious – more greatly deserving of renown for all eternity. So if you pen me in a Trojan horse of complicity with the chief partners in that deed, I do not protest. Thank you, I say – whatever your motives. For where so outstanding an action is concerned, I account the unpopularity, which you hope to unload upon me, as nothing beside the glory.
You have driven these men away and expelled them, you boast. Yet they are blessed beyond measure. There is no place in the world too deserted and too barbarous to welcome them and delight in their presence. All people on earth, however uncivilized, are capable of understanding that life could offer no more outstanding happiness than a sight of these men. Writers will continue, for generation after generation throughout time everlasting, to immortalize the glory of their achievement.
Enrol me among such heroes, I beg of you! Though I am afraid that one thing may not be to your liking. If I had been among their number I should have freed our country not only from the autocrat but from the autocracy. For if, as you assert, I had been the author of the work, believe me, I should not have been satisfied to finish only one act: I should have completed the play! (6)
If it is a crime to have wanted Caesar to be put to death, consider your own situation, Antony. Everyone knows that at Narbo you formed a similar plan with Gaius Trebonius: it was because of this plot, while Caesar was being killed, that we saw Trebonius taking you aside. You see – my intentions to you are friendly. I am praising you for the good intention you once had! For not having reported the plot, I thank you; for not having carried it out, I excuse you. That task needed a man.
But suppose that someone prosecutes you; that he applies the test of the jurist Lucius Cassius Longinus: ‘who benefited thereby?’. Then you will have to take care, for you might be implicated. True, you used to observe, once upon a time, that such an act would benefit all who were unwilling to be slaves. Nevertheless, whom did its performance benefit most of all? Yourself! You, who, far from being a slave, are an autocratic ruler: you, who employed the treasure in the Temple of Ops to wipe off your gigantic debts, who after manipulating these same account-books squandered countless sums, who transferred enormous possessions from Caesar's house to your own. What an immensely profitable output of fake memoranda and forged handwritings your home produces! The place is a forger's workshop, a black market: whole properties and cities, mass exemptions from tribute and taxation are the wares of its truly scandalous trade.
Nothing short of Caesar's death could have rescued you from your debtor's ruin. You look rather worried. Are you secretly nervous that you may be implicated? No, I can set your fears at rest: no one will ever believe such a thing of you. You are not the man to perform a patriotic act. Our country has great men, and they did that noble deed. I do not say you took part. I only say you were glad.
Now I have answered your most serious accusations. Well, I must reply to the others. You have complained about my presence in Pompey's camp, and about my conduct throughout that period. True, at that time – and I have said this before – if my advice and authority had prevailed, you would be a poor man today, and we should be free; and our country would not have lost so many armies and commanders. For when I foresaw what has now happened, I confess that I mourned as sadly as all other good citizens, if they had possessed my foresight, would likewise have mourned. I grieved, Senators, I grieved that our Republic, which your and my counsels had once preserved, was moving towards rapid annihilation. In such circumstances I was not uneducated and ignorant enough to be overcome by fears whether I personally should survive. For my life, while it was still mine, was full of anguish; whereas its loss would mean an end of all troubles. But I wanted life to remain for the magnificent men who were Rome's glory – all those who have served as consul and praetor, the fine Senators, the flower and promise of our nobility, the armies of good Romans. So for me any peace that could unite our citizens seemed preferable to a war that tore them apart. And indeed, however hard the circumstances of peace, if those men were only living today, at least the Republic would still be with us.
If this view of mine had prevailed, and if the very men whose lives I sought to preserve had not, in their military over-optimism, set themselves against me, one of many results would certainly be this: you would never still be in the Senate. You would not even be at Rome!
You object that my speech alienated Pompey from me. That is absurd. He had more affection for me than for anyone. There was no one in the world whom he talked to and consulted more often. Indeed it was a splendid thing that two men with so widely differing views on government policy should remain such close friends. Each of us knew, equally well, the thoughts and opinions of the other. My first concern was to keep our fellow-Romans alive: by so doing, we could give ourselves time to think later on about their civic rights. Pompey, on the other hand, was preoccupied with their rights in the immediate present. Nevertheless, our disagreement was tolerable – the more so because we both concentrated on our own specific objectives.
But what Pompey, with his outstanding and almost superhuman gifts, thought about myself is well known to those who accompanied him on his retreat from Pharsalus to Paphos. He never mentioned my name except in complimentary terms and with an abundance of friendly regrets that we were not together. He also admitted that, whereas his had been the higher hopes, the more accurate prophet had been myself. But how can you have the effrontery to taunt me with Pompey, when you have to admit that I was his friend: whereas you, on the other hand, were the purchaser of his confiscated property!
However, let us say no more about that war – in which you fared only too well. Nor have I any answer to give you about the jokes which you say I made while I was in camp. Life was certainly anxious there. Yet however grim circumstances are, human beings, if they really are human, occasionally relax. Antony criticizes my gloom, and he criticizes my jokes! Which proves that I showed moderation in both.
No one left me any legacies, (7) you said. I only wish that the charge were justified, for then more of my friends and relations would be alive today. But I wonder how that idea came into your mind. For men have made me bequests amounting to more than twenty million sesterces. True, I admit that in this respect you have been more fortunate than I have. For all who have made me their heirs have been my friends. That has been their way of soothing my grief with some mitigating benefit – if it could be regarded as such. But you inherited from Lucius Rubrius Casinas: whom you had never seen! He must indeed have loved you dearly, seeing that you do not even know whether he was black or white. He passed over in your favour the sons of that very worthy knight, his friend Quintus Fufius. Rubrius had constantly announced, in public, that Fufius's son was to be his heir. And yet he did not even mention him in his will! Instead, you were the man he made his heir – you whom he had never seen or, at any rate, had never spoken to. And tell me this, please, if it is not too much trouble: what did your other benefactor Lucius Turselius look like? How tall was he, where did he come from, what was his tribe? ‘I know nothing,’ you will answer, ‘except what properties he owned.’ Was that sufficient cause for him to disinherit his brother and make you his heir? But there were many others too, equally remote from any connexion with him, from whom Antony grabbed huge sums of money, ejecting the true heirs, and behaving as if he himself were the inheritor.
And there is another reason too why I am surprised, particularly surprised, that you should have had the impudence even to mention matters of inheritance. For you did not come into your own father's property!
Fool! Were these the arguments you were trying to hunt out when you spent day after day in another man's country house, practising oratory? Though your oratorical practice, as your closest friends point out, is intended to work off your hangovers rather than to sharpen your brain, you have facetiously appointed a teacher of oratory – the appointment carried by the supporting votes of your fellow-drinkers – and you have allowed the man to speak against you in any way he likes. He is certainly an amusing enough fellow. But, since you and your friends are his targets, he cannot complain of any lack of material!
Note the contrast between yourself and your grand-father. He, with deliberation, produced arguments relevant to his case; you just pour out irrelevancies. And yet what a salary your teacher of rhetoric has drawn from you. Listen to this, Senators: take note of the wounds inflicted upon our nation. To this elocution trainer – Sextus Clodius – he handed over 1,250 acres of land, taxfree. You made the people of Rome defray this enormous charge, Antony, with no other result than to make you learn to be the idiot that you are. You unprincipled rogue! Was this one of the directions you found in Caesar's notebooks? However, about this estate at Leontini I will say something later; also about other properties in Campania – all of them lands which Antony has wrenched from Rome, and polluted by the utterly degraded characters of the men to whom he has given them.
I have said enough in answer to his charges. Now some attention must be given to our moralist and reformer himself. However, I do not propose to tell the whole story at once: so that if I have to return to the fray, I shall not need to repeat myself. In view of the extraordinary quantity of his crimes and vices, that presents no difficulty.
Would you like us to consider your behaviour from boyhood onwards, Antony? I think so. Let us begin then at the beginning. Your bankruptcy, in early adolescence – do you remember that? Your father's fault, you will say. Certainly; and what a truly filial self-defence! But it was typical of your impudence to go to the theatre and sit in one of the fourteen rows reserved for knights, when the Roscian Law assigned special seats for bankrupts – and meant this to apply whether it was bad luck or bad conduct had caused the bankruptcy. Then you graduated to man's clothing – or rather it was woman's as far as you were concerned. At first you were just a public prostitute, with a fixed price: quite a high one, too. But very soon Curio intervened and took you off the streets, promoting you, one might say, to wifely status, and making a sound, steady, married woman of you. No boy bought for sensual purposes was ever so completely in his master's power as you were in Curio's. On countless occasions his father threw you out of the house. He even stationed guards to keep you out! Nevertheless, helped by nocturnal darkness, urged on by sensuality, compelled by the promised fee – in, through the roof, you climbed.
The household found these repulsive goings on completely unendurable. I wonder if you realize that I have a very thorough knowledge of what I am speaking about. Cast your mind back to the time when Curio's father lay weeping in his bed. The son, likewise in tears, threw himself at my feet and begged me to help you – and to defend himself against a demand, which he expected from his own father, for six million sesterces. The young man loved you so passionately that he swore he would leave the country because he could not bear to be kept apart from you. In those days, within that renowned family, there were troubles without number which I helped to mitigate – or rather, brought to an end altogether. I persuaded the father to pay his son's debts. I persuaded him to sacrifice part of his property to restore the position of this young man, whose promise of brain and character was so brilliant. But I also persuaded him to use all his legal authority as a father to prevent Curio from associating with you or even meeting you. When you remembered all these interventions of mine, only one thing can have given you the nerve to provoke and abuse me in the way you have, and that is your reliance on the brute force of arms: the weapons which we see in the Senate today.
But about Antony's degradations and sex-crimes that is as far as I will go. For there are some things which it would be indecent for me to describe. As far as free speaking goes you have the advantage of me! – since you have done things which a respectable opponent cannot even mention. So instead I will now turn briefly to the remaining portion of this man's life. For our thoughts will naturally run on to what he did during the national miseries of the Civil War – and what he is doing today. You know those things, Senators, as well as I do, and indeed much better. Yet continue, I beg of you, to listen to them carefully. For in such cases knowledge about events is not enough. There is also need to be reminded of them: only thus will they be fully felt.
However, since I must allow myself time to reach the end of these happenings, I must cut short the middle part of the story. Well, Antony now recounts his kindnesses towards me. All the same, when Publius Clodius was tribune, the two men were intimate friends. Antony was the firebrand who started all Clodius's fires. Indeed, one of his projects – he knows very well which one I mean – was actually located in Clodius's home. Then Antony went to Alexandria: in defiance of the Senate, and of patriotism, and of the will of heaven. But he was under a man with whom he could do no wrong – Aulus Gabinius. Then consider the nature and circumstances of Antony's return. Before he came home, he went from Egypt to farthest Gaul. Home, did I say? At that time, other men still possessed homes: but you, Antony, had none at all. Home? You had no piece of ground of your own in the whole world, except at Misenum; and that you only shared with partners, as though it were a company affair like the Sisapo mines.
From Gaul you came to stand for the quaestorship. On that occasion, I dare you to claim that you went to your father before you came to me! I had already received a letter from Caesar asking me to accept your excuses; so I did not even allow you to thank me. After that, you treated me with respect, and I helped you in your candidature for the quaestorship. That was the time when, with the approval of Rome, you tried to kill Publius Clodius. Now, though this was entirely your own idea, and owed nothing to my initiative, nevertheless you proclaimed the conviction that only his murder could ever repay me for the injuries I had suffered from you. This makes me wonder why you say Titus Annius Milo killed Clodius on my instigation. For, when you spontaneously proposed to me that you should perform the same action, I had given you no encouragement. If you went through with the deed, I wanted you yourself, and not my influence upon you, to have the glory.
Well, you became quaestor; and instantly – without benefit of Senate's decree, drawing of lots, or legal sanction – you ran off to Caesar. For that seemed to you the only place on earth where destitution, debt, and crime could find shelter: the only refuge for ruined men. There, through Caesar's generosity and your own looting, you reimbursed your losses – if you can call it reimbursement when you immediately squander what you have embezzled! So then, beggared again, you hastened to apply for a tribuneship. Your aim in acquiring it, presumably, was to model yourself on your lover.
Now listen, I beg you, Senators, I do not mean to the personal and domestic scandals created by Antony's disgusting improprieties, but to the evil, godless way in which he has undermined us all, and our fortunes, and our whole country. At the root of all our disasters you will find his wickedness. When Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus and Gaius Claudius Marcellus became consuls on the first of January, the Republican government was tottering and on the verge of collapse. You, members of the Senate, wanted to support the government; you also desired to meet the wishes of Caesar himself, if he was in his right mind. Yet Antony had sold and subjected his tribuneship to another man, and he exploited the office for your obstruction. That is to say, to the axe which had struck down many men for lesser crimes he had the audacity to expose his own neck. In those days the Senate was still its own master; those honourable members who are now dead were still among its number. That Senate, Antony, employed for your censure the decree reserved, by ancestral custom, for Roman citizens who are the enemies of Rome. And yet, as audience for your criticisms of me, you have the impertinence to select the Senate – that very body which pronounced me to be its saviour, and you the enemy of the state!
Your criminal action at that time has not been mentioned lately; but what you did has not been forgotten. So long as there are human beings in the world, so long as the name of Rome remains upon the earth – and that means everlastingly, barring destructive action by yourself – that pestilential veto (8) of yours will be remembered. In the Senate's proceedings there had not been the slightest sign of bias or impetuosity. Yet you, a single young man, imposed your veto, and thus prevented the entire Senatorial Order from passing a measure on which the safety of our nation depended. And this you did not once, but repeatedly. Furthermore, you rejected all efforts to open negotiations with you about upholding the authority of this House. Yet the matter at stake was nothing less than your itch to plunge the whole country into anarchy and desolation. The pleas of the nation's leaders, the warnings of your elders, a crowded Senate, none of them sufficed to deter you from this measure you had been bribed and bought into proposing.
Next, therefore, after many attempts to dissuade you, there was no alternative; you had to be dealt the blow which few had received before – and which none had survived. So this Senatorial Order directed the consuls, and other powers and authorities, to take up arms against you. You only escaped those arms by sheltering behind Caesar's.
Caesar's intentions were wholly revolutionary. But the man who gave him his principal excuse for attacking his country was yourself. For that was the only pretext he claimed, the only reason he put forward for his maniacal decision and action: he quoted the Senate's disregard of a veto, its abolition of a tribune's entitlement, its encroachment on Antony's rights. I say nothing of the falsity and frivolity of these charges – though no man can possibly be justified in taking up arms against his own nation. But I am not speaking of Caesar. You, Antony, were the man who provided the pretext for this most catastrophic of wars: you cannot deny it.
If what I am now going to say is known to you already, then your fate is sad indeed: and sadder still if it is not. Now, there exist written records, to be recollected without possibility of oblivion by remotest posterity until the end of time, proving that these things happened. That the consuls were expelled from Italy; that they were accompanied by the man whose glory illuminated our nation – Pompey; that all former consuls whose health enabled them to share in that disastrous retreat, all praetors and expraetors, tribunes of the people, a great part of the Senate, the flower of our young manhood, in a word all the components of the entire Roman state, were uprooted and driven from their homes.
Just as seeds are the origins of trees and plants, so, with equal certainty, you were the seed of that most grievous war. Senators, you are mourning three armies of Roman soldiers slain in battle: Antony killed them. You are sorrowing for great men of Rome: Antony robbed you of them. The authority of your Order has been destroyed: Antony destroyed it. For every evil which we have seen since that time – and what evils have we not seen? – he is responsible. There can be no other conclusion. He has been our Helen of Troy! He has brought upon our country war, and pestilence, and annihilation.
The rest of his tribuneship resembled the beginning. Of all the misdeeds which the Senate, while the Republic was still with us, had rendered impossible there was not one which he left undone. And note the crimes within his crime. Though he rehabilitated many who were in trouble, there was no mention of his uncle among them. But if he was severe, why was he not severe to everyone? and if merciful, why not merciful to his own kinsmen?
Among those whose civil rights he restored I will only mention Licinius Lenticula, his fellow-dicer – a man convicted for gambling. I can only suppose Antony protested that his partner at the tables must not be a convict! But his real aim was to utilize the law cancelling Lenticula's sentence as a cloak for the cancellation of his own gaming debts. Now, Antony, what reasons justifying his reinstatement did you quote to the people of Rome? The normal sort of argument would run like this: that Lenticula had been absent when the prosecution was instituted against him; that the case went undefended, that the law provided no judicial procedure to deal with dicing, that armed violence had been used to procure his downfall, or as a final objection what was said in your uncle's case – that the court's decision had been influenced by bribery. But not at all. Those were not your excuses. What you urged was that Lenticula was a good man, useful to his country. Well, that was irrelevant. All the same, I should excuse you on that count if your plea were only true, for the mere fact of having been convicted is of no great importance. But there is not a word of truth in it. Lenticula has been condemned under the law which relates to dicing: he is the sort of person who would not hesitate to throw dice in the Forum itself – a thoroughly criminal type. The man who can restore the rights of such a ruffian reveals a great deal about his own character.
Then consider another aspect of Antony's tribune-ship. When Caesar, on his way to Spain, had given him Italy to trample upon, the journeys Antony made and the towns he visited are well worth looking into. I realize I am speaking of matters which are thoroughly well known and widely talked about. I am also aware that the events of which I am, and shall be, speaking are better known to anyone who was in Italy at that time than to myself who was absent. Nevertheless, although what I tell you will undoubtedly fall short of what you know already, allow me to recall certain particulars.
For never, anywhere in the world, have there been stories of such depraved and discreditable misconduct. He travelled about in a lady's carriage, did this tribune of the people. In front of him marched attendants crowned with laurel-wreaths. Among them, carried in an open litter, went an actress. The respectable citizens of the country towns, compelled to come and meet him, greeted her, not by her well-known stage name, but as Volumnia. Next followed a repulsive collection of his friends: a four-wheeler full of procurers. Only then came his neglected mother, following, like a mother-in-law, her debauched son's mistress. Poor woman! Her capacity for child-bearing has indeed been catastrophic. In such fashion a wide variety of country towns, indeed the whole of Italy, was branded by Antony with the marks of his degraded behaviour.
To censure his other actions, Senators, is difficult and delicate. He fought in the war. He wallowed in the blood of Romans who were in every way his opposites. He was fortunate, if there can ever be good fortune in criminality. But since we do not want to offend the old soldiers – though the soldiers’ case and yours, Antony, are wholly unlike (they followed their leader, you went to seek him out) – nevertheless I shall give you no opportunity to incite them against me. For concerning the character of the war I shall say nothing.
From Thessaly to Brundisium you returned as conqueror with your legions. At Brundisium you refrained from killing me. How very kind of you! For you could have killed me, I admit. Though the men who were with you at that time unanimously maintained I must be spared. For even your own legionaries revered me: so great is man's love for their country, which they remembered that I had saved. However, let us concede that you gave me as a present what you did not take away from me; you did not deprive me of my life, which I therefore retain as a gift from your-self. After hearing all your insults I nearly forgot my gratitude, though not quite. And there was something particularly impudent about your abuse, because you knew how I would be able to retaliate!
Arrival at Brundisium for you meant envelopment in the embraces of your little actress. Well, is that a lie? It is distressing, is it not, to be unable to deny something that is disreputable to admit. But if the townsmen caused you to feel no shame, did not your own veteran army? For every single soldier who was at Brundisium saw her. Every one of them knew she had come all those days’ journey to congratulate you: every man grieved to have found out so late in the day the worthlessness of the leader he had followed.
Again you toured Italy, with this actress by your side. In the communities through which you passed, amid scenes of brutality and misery, you planted your soldiers as settlers. At Rome you cut a deplorable figure as a robber of gold and silver – and of wine. As a climax, unknown to Caesar (who was at Alexandria), Caesar's friends were kind enough to make Antony his Master of Horse. At that juncture he felt entitled to live with Hippias; and to hand over race-horses, intended for the national games, to another actor Sergius. At that time Antony had chosen to live, not in the house which he so discreditably retains now, but in Marcus Pupius Piso's home. His decrees, his looting, his legacies inherited and grabbed I will pass over in silence. Need compelled him: he did not know which way to turn. Those substantial inheritances from Lucius Rubrius Casinas and Lucius Turselius had not yet come to him; not yet had he become the unexpected ‘heir’ to Pompey, and many more. He had nothing except what he could plunder; he was obliged to live like a bandit.
But about these examples of the tougher sorts of rascality, I shall speak no more. Let us turn instead to meaner kinds of misbehaviour. With those jaws of yours, and those lungs, and that gladiatorial strength, you drank so much wine at Hippias's wedding, Antony, that on the next day you had to be sick in full view of the people of Rome. It was a disgusting sight; even to hear what happened is disgusting. If you had behaved like that at a private dinner party, among those outsize drinking cups of yours, everyone would have regarded it as disgraceful enough. But here, in the Assembly of the Roman People, was a man holding public office, a Master of the Horse – from whom even a belch would have been unseemly – flooding his own lap and the whole platform with the gobbets of wine-reeking food he had vomited up. He admits that this was one of his filthier actions: let us now return to his grander misdeeds.
Well, Caesar returned from Alexandria, a fortunate man – as he seemed to himself at least: though in my view no one who brings misfortune upon his country can be called fortunate. The spear was set up before the temple of Jupiter Stator; and Pompey's property – the very thought brings unhappiness! for even when the tears no longer flow the sorrow remains deeply fixed in my heart – Pompey's property, I say, was subjected to the pitiless voice of the auctioneer.
On that single occasion the nation forgot its slavery, and mourned. Men felt slaves, because fear gripped them all, yet, even so, the people of Rome lamented freely enough. Every man waited to see if there would be some depraved madman, repulsive to heaven and humanity, who would dare to take part in that criminal auction. Though some of the men round that spear would have stopped at nothing else, no one had audacity enough for this – no one except Antony alone! One person, only one, was shameless enough to perpetrate the act which all others, however great their effrontery, had shunned in horror. But, Antony, were you too totally witless – or is not insanity the appropriate word? – to realize this: that in your station of life to become a purchaser of confiscated property, and of Pompey's property at that, would earn you the curses and loathing of the Roman people, the detestation of all gods and all human beings, now and for evermore? And then, think of the arrogance with which this debauchee took instant possession of the estate! The estate of a man who through his valour had made Rome more greatly feared, and by his justice had made her more greatly loved, by all the other nations upon earth.
So, abruptly seizing that great man's property, Antony wallowed in its midst. In his mighty satisfaction he gloated, like the character in a play who was poor and has suddenly become rich. But as some poet wrote, ‘ill-gotten gains will soon be squandered’. And the unbelievable – almost miraculous – fact is that he squandered Pompey's substantial fortune, not in a few months, but in a few days! In that house there were large quantities of wine, heavy pieces of the finest silver-ware, costly robes, ample and elegant furniture – all the splendid and abundant property of a man who, though not luxurious, had none the less been nobly endowed with possessions. Of these, within a few days, nothing was left! Charybdis, if she ever existed, was but a single animal. I swear that such a number of objects so widely scattered in so great a variety of places could hardly have been swallowed up, at such a speed, by the Ocean itself.
Nothing was locked up, nothing sealed, nothing listed. Whole store-rooms were disposed of as gifts, to unmitigated scoundrels. Actors and actresses grabbed everything they wanted. The place was packed with gamblers, crammed with inebriates. For days on end, in many parts of the house, the orgies of drinking went on and on. Gaming losses piled up; Antony's good luck did not always hold. On view were the richly worked counterpanes which had belonged to Pompey – now they were in the garrets of slaves, and on their beds!
So let it not surprise you that these riches were consumed with such speed. A profligacy so boundless as Antony's could have rapidly devoured not just a single man's patrimony, even one so abundant as Pompey's, but whole cities and whole kingdoms. And then the mansion and the parks that he took over! Your impudence, Antony, was preposterous. How could you have the effrontery to enter that house, to pass its most sacred threshold, to let the household gods of such an abode see you flaunting your degraded features? This was a home which no one, for many days and months, could gaze upon or pass by without weeping. As you linger on within its rooms, are you not overcome with shame?
You are brainless, I know: yet surely, even so, none of the things that are there can bring you enjoyment. When you look at those beaks of ships (9) in the hall, you cannot possibly imagine that the house you are entering is your own! That would be out of the question. For all your lack of sense and sensibility, still you are aware of what you yourself are, you know your own people and possessions. So I do not believe that, waking or sleeping, you can ever feel easy in your mind. Drink-sodden and demented though you are, the appearance in your dreams of that great man must surely rouse you in terror; and when you are awake, too, his recurring image must unhinge your mind still further.
I pity the very walls and roof of that house. For never before had the place witnessed anything but strict propriety – fine, high-minded tradition and virtue. As you know very well, Senators, Pompey was as praise-worthy in his domestic as in his international dealings; as admirable in his home life as in public affairs he was renowned. Yet nowadays, in his home, every dining-room is a taproom, every bedroom a brothel. Antony may deny this nowadays. Be tactful; do not investigate! For he has become economical. He has told that actress of his to gather up her own property and hand back his keys, as the Twelve Tables ordain – and he has driven her out. What a reputable citizen! What solid respectability! Here is the most honourable action of his whole life; he has divorced his actress.
How he harps on the phrase: ‘I, the consul Antony.’ That amounts to saying, ‘I, the consul, debauchee’, or ‘I, the consul, criminal’. For that is the significance of ‘Antony’. If there were any dignity in the name, I presume that your grandfather, too, would sometimes have called himself ‘the consul, Antony’. But he never did. So would your uncle, who was my colleague. Or has there been no Antony but yourself?
However, I pass over these offences, for they had no direct connexion with the part you played in ruining our country. I return to the latter – to the Civil War, which owed its birth, its rise, and its performance to yourself. True, your role in the war was insignificant. That was because you were frightened, or rather preoccupied with your sexual interests. But you had tasted Roman blood; indeed you had drunk deeply of it. At Pharsalus you were in the front rank. It was you who killed that fine nobleman, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus – as well as many others, fugitives from the battle-field. Caesar would perhaps have spared them, as he spared others. But you, on the other hand, hunted them down for your slaughter.
However, after these grand and glorious achievements, the war was still by no means ended. So why did you not follow Caesar to Africa? And then, when Caesar had returned from Africa, let us note the position and rank which he assigned to you. As general he had made you quaestor, when he was dictator you had become his Master of the Horse. You had begun the war. Every atrocity had been instigated by yourself; in each successive robbery you had been his associate. We have it on your own authority that his will adopted you as his son. (10) Yet what did he now do? He took action against you – the sums you owed for the house, and for its parks and the other property you acquired in the auction, were all demanded back from you by Caesar.
Your initial reply was vigorous enough: and, I admit – for I do not want to seem prejudiced against you – reasonably fair and just. ‘So Caesar claims money from me? Could I not just as reasonably claim money from him – or did he win the war without my help? No: nor could he have. It was I who provided him with the pretext for the Civil War, I who proposed those subversive laws, who forcibly resisted not merely the Roman people's consuls and generals, but the entire Senate and Roman people and the gods and altars and homes of our fathers – indeed Rome itself. Caesar did not conquer for himself alone; why should those who shared the work not share the plunder too?’ Reasonable enough. But reason was beside the point, for Caesar was the stronger. So he silenced you, and you and your guarantors received a visit from his soldiers.
And then, suddenly, out came that spectacular list of yours. Everyone laughed at the size of the list – at the varied and extensive catalogue of possessions, none of which (except a part of the Misenum property) the seller could call his own. But the auction itself was a melancholy sight. Few of Pompey's robes were now to be seen, and even they were covered with stains; a certain amount of his silver plate appeared in battered condition; and there were some Seedy-looking slaves. So the remains were meagre enough. If nothing at all had survived, our grief would have been less.
However, the heirs of Lucius Rubrius Casinas prevented the auction, and they were backed by a decree from Caesar. Antony, the wild spender, was embarrassed – he had nowhere to turn. And that was the precise moment of the arrest in Caesar's house (so the report went) of an assassin, dagger in hand – sent by you, Antony: and Caesar charged you openly with this in the Senate. Next, however, after allowing you a few days for payment – since you were so poor – he departed for Spain. Even then you did not follow him. So early a retirement, for so good a gladiator? A man who showed such timidity in standing up for his party (and that means standing up for himself) need surely inspire no fear in others!
In the end, some time afterwards, Antony did leave for Spain. But he proved unable to reach that country safely, he maintains. Then how did Publius Cornelius Dolabella get there? Either you ought not to have backed the cause you did, Antony, or, having done so, you ought to have stood up for your side to the end. Three times Caesar fought against his fellow-citizens: in Thessaly, in Africa, and in Spain. Dolabella took part in all these campaigns; in the Spanish war he was wounded. If you want to know my view, I wish he had not been there. Yet however blameworthy his initial decision, at least he deserves praise for consistent adherence thereafter. But what about yourself? That was the time when Pompey's sons were fighting to make their way home – a matter, surely, which concerned all Caesar's partisans. In other words, Pompey's sons were struggling to recover the shrines of their household gods, their sacred hearth and home, and the guardian spirits of their family – all of which you had seized. When, in order to recover what was theirs by law, they were obliged to use force, who would most justly (though indeed among such grievous wrongs to speak of justice is impossible) – who, I say, would be their principal target? The answer is, yourself, the taker of their property. So it was your battle, was it not, that Dolabella had to fight in Spain: while you stayed at Narbo, vomiting over your hosts’ tables.
And your return from Narbo! Antony actually wanted to know why I returned from my journey so suddenly. Now I have recently explained to the Senate the reasons for my return. I wanted, if I could, to be of service to the state even before the New Year. You ask how I returned. First, I arrived by daylight, not after dark. Secondly, I came in my boots and toga, not in Gallic sandals and a cloak. I see your eyes fixed upon me: in anger, it appears. But you ought, instead, to harbour friendly feelings if only you knew how ashamed I am – unlike yourself – of the depths to which you have fallen. Of all the offences that I have seen or heard of as committed by any single person this is the most deplorable. You, who claimed to have been Master of the Horse, who were standing for one of next year's consulships – or rather begging for one of them as a personal favour – off you went, in your Gallic sandals and mantle, speeding through the towns of Cisalpine Gaul: the towns in which, when we were candidates for consulships, we used to seek votes – in the days when these appointments went by votes and not by personal favour.
Note the frivolity of the man. When, at about three o'clock, he approached Rome and came to Red Rocks, he dived into a wretched little wine-shop, and, hiding there, drank and drank until evening. Then a two-wheeler took him rapidly into the city and he arrived at his house with his head veiled. ‘Who are you?’ said the porter. ‘A messenger from Antony,’ he replied. He was immediately taken to the lady for whose sake he had come, and he handed her a letter. As she read the contents, she wept; for it was amorously written – and the gist was that he had given up the actress and transferred all his love to this other lady. And as her weeping increased, this soft-hearted fellow could bear the sight no longer, but uncovered his head and threw his arms round her neck. Depraved character! No other epithet is adequate for this creature who plunged the city into terror by night, plunged Italy into a series of nerve-racking days, merely in order to make his sudden appearance before this woman. What a surprise this must have been to her: to see such behaviour from a male prostitute.
At home, then, you could lay claim to a love affair. But elsewhere there was an even nastier affair for you: to prevent Lucius Munatius Plancus from selling up your sureties. A tribune brought you before a public meeting, and you replied: ‘I have come here on a matter concerning my private property.’ This was regarded by everyone as an excellent joke. (11)
However, that is enough about trivialities; let us turn to more significant matters. When Caesar came back from Spain, you travelled a long way to meet him. You went quickly, and you returned quickly: Caesar could therefore note that, if not brave, you were at least energetic. Somehow or other you got on friendly terms with him again. Caesar was like that. He was extremely ready to offer his intimate friendship to anyone whom he knew to be corrupt and unbalanced, penniless, and hopelessly in debt. In these respects your credentials were excellent. So he gave orders that you should be made consul – with himself, moreover, as your colleague. One can only feel sympathy with Publius Cornelius Dolabella, who had been urged to stand, brought forward, and then fobbed off. Everyone knows how deceitfully both of you treated Dolabella in this matter. Caesar induced him to be a candidate for the consulship, and then, after promising and virtually granting him election, blocked the proceedings and transferred the post to himself. And you supported this treachery.
The first of January arrived. We were made to attend the Senate. Dolabella attacked Antony – with much greater fullness and preparation than I do now. And heavens, the things that Antony himself said in his rage! Caesar indicated his intention, before his forthcoming departure for the east, of ordering that Dolabella should become consul in his own place. And yet they deny that the man who was always acting and speaking like that was a totalitarian monarch! Well, after Caesar had said that, this splendid augur Antony announced that his priesthood empowered him to employ the auspices in order to obstruct or invalidate the proceedings of the Assembly. And he declared that this is what he would do. But first note the man's unbelievable stupidity. For your priestly office of augur, Antony, was what you relied upon for entitlement to perform those actions. Yet, as consul alone, without the added possession of your augurship, your entitlement would still have been just as good. Indeed, was your consulship not actually a better qualification? For we augurs are only empowered to report omens, whereas the consuls and other state officials have the right actually to watch the heavens.
Very well, you bungled the matter through inexperience. We cannot expect good judgement from someone who is never sober. But just observe the man's impudence. Many months earlier he had declared in the Senate that he would either use the auspices to prevent the Assembly from meeting to elect Dolabella, or alternatively would act as he finally did. Now, who on earth can divine what flaws there are going to be in the auspices, except the man who has already formally set about watching the heavens? Which cannot legally be done during an election – and if anyone has been watching the heavens previously, he is obliged to make his report not after but before the election has begun. But Antony is as ignorant as he is shameless: the insolence his actions display is as unbounded as his ignorance of what an augur ought to do. And yet cast your minds back to his consulship, from that day onwards until the fifteenth of March. No servant was ever so humble and abject. He could do nothing himself; everything had to be begged for. You could see him poking his head into the back of his litter asking his colleague (12) for the favours Antony wanted to market.
So the day of Dolabella's election arrived. The right of the first vote is settled by lot; Antony said nothing. The result of this ballot was announced. He remained silent. The first class was called to vote, its vote announced; then the six centuries which voted next, then the second class – all this in a shorter time than it takes to tell the story. Then, when the proceedings were over, came our brilliant augur's announcement – you would say he was Gaius Laelius himself: ‘the meeting is adjourned until another day’. What monstrous impudence! You had neither seen, nor understood, nor heard, any omen whatever. You did not even claim to have watched the heavens; you do not today. So the flaw in question was the one which you had foreseen and foretold as long ago as the first of January! In other words, you undoubtedly falsified the auspices. You employed religion to constrain an Assembly of the Roman People. You announced unfavourable omens, augur to augur, consul to consul: and you did so fraudulently. May the calamitous consequences fall not upon Rome, but upon your own head.
That is all I shall say, in case I should seem to be invalidating the actions of Dolabella – which must, at some time, be referred to our Board of Augurs. But mark the man's audacious arrogance. As long as it is your pleasure, Antony, the election of Dolabella as consul was irregular. Then you change your mind: the procedure in regard to the auspices had nothing wrong with it after all! If an augur's report in the terms you employed has no meaning, then admit that when you demanded an adjournment you were drunk. If, on the other hand, the words have any meaning at all, then I request you, as my fellow-augur, to tell me what their meaning is.
But I must make sure that this survey of Antony's numerous exploits does not by accident omit one outstandingly brilliant action. So let us turn to the festival of the Lupercalia. Look, Senators! He cannot hide his anxiety. Do you see how upset he looks – pale, and sweating? Never mind, so long as he is not sick, as he was in the Minucian Colonnade. How does he defend his scandalous behaviour at the Lupercalia? I should like to hear – and thereby learn the results of that generous fee and those lands at Leontini, which he gave his teacher of oratory.
Upon the dais on a golden chair, wearing a purple robe and a wreath, was seated your colleague. You mounted the dais. You went up to Caesar's chair – Lupercus though you were, you should have remembered you were consul too – and you displayed a diadem. From all over the Forum there were groans. Where did the diadem come from? You had not just found one on the ground and picked it up. No, you had brought it from your own house! This was crime, deliberate and premeditated. Then you placed the diadem on his head: the people groaned. He took it off – and they applauded.
So, criminal, you were ready, alone among all that gathering, to propose that there should be a king and autocrat at Rome; to transform your fellow-consul into your lord and master; and to inflict upon the Roman people this ultimate test of its capacity to suffer and endure. You even tried to move him to pity – when you hurled yourself at his feet as a suppliant. What were you begging for? To become his slave? For your-self alone that would be a fitting plea, seeing that from boyhood onwards there was nothing which you had not allowed to be done to you. For your own person, adjustment to slavery was easy. But from ourselves, and from the people of Rome, you had no such mandate.
What glorious eloquence that was – when you made that speech with no clothes on! Offensive misbehaviour could go no further. Nothing could have been more thoroughly deserying of the severest possible punishment. Are you a slave, cowering in expectation of the lash? If you have any feelings at all, you must be feeling the lash now: and my account of these events must surely be drawing blood. Far be it from me to detract from the glory of our noble liberators. Yet such is my grief that I must speak out. Seeing that the man who rejected the diadem was killed, and was, by general consent, killed justly, it is appalling that the man who made him the offer should still be alive. In the public records, what is more, under the heading of the Lupercalia, he even caused the following entry to be made: ‘At the bidding of the people, Antony, consul, offered Caesar, perpetual dictator, the kingship: Caesar refused.’
So I feel no surprise when you disturb the peace, when you shun Rome and the very daylight itself, when you drink with thieving riffraft from early in one day until dawn of the next. For you, no refuge can be safe. Where could you possibly find a place in any community owning laws and lawcourts – since these are precisely what you have done your utmost to abolish and to replace by tyranny? Was this why Tarquin was expelled, why Spurius Cassius Vecellinus and Spurius Maelius and Marcus Manlius Capitolinus were slain: to allow Antony, centuries after they were dead, to commit the forbidden evil of setting up a king at Rome?
Let us return to the auspices, the subject on which Caesar intended to address the Senate on the fifteenth of March. Antony, I must ask you this: what would you then have said? You came here today (or so I heard) primed to rebut my assertion that the auspices – which unless declared invalid require scrupulous obedience – were employed by you in a fraudulent manner. However, that day's business was eliminated – by our national destiny. Did Caesar's death also eliminate your opinion concerning the auspices?
But now I have come to that time which I must discuss before the subject upon which I had embarked. On that glorious day, you fled panic-stricken – your criminal conscience certain of impending death. You slunk surreptitiously home. Men interested in your survival looked after you; for they hoped you would behave sanely. My prophecies of the future have always fallen upon deaf ears. Yet how completely right they have proved! On the Capitol, when our noble liberators desired me to go to you and urge you to uphold the Republican government, I told them this: that as long as you were still frightened you would promise anything, but as soon as your fears ceased you would be yourself again. When, therefore, the other former consuls were continually in and out of your house, I held to my opinion. And I did not see you on that day or the next. For I believed that good Romans could come to no understanding, could have no association, with a totally unprincipled enemy.
After two days had passed, I came to the Temple of Tellus – reluctantly enough even then, since armed men locked all its approaches. What a day that was for you, Antony! Even though you have abruptly turned against me, yet I am sorry for you – because you have subsequently done so little justice to your own good fame. If only you had been able to maintain the attitude you showed on that day, heaven knows, you would have been a hero! And the peace, which was pledged on that occasion by the cession of an aristocratic hostage – the young grandson of Marcus Fulvius Bambalio – would be ours.
Fear made you a good citizen. However, as an instructor of good behaviour, fear lacks permanency; and your unscrupulousness – which never leaves you unless you are afraid – soon perverted you into evil ways again. And indeed even at that time, when people (other than myself) had an excellent opinion of you, your manner of presiding over the tyrant's funeral – if funeral that ceremony can be called – was outrageous. For you were the man who pronounced that grandiose eulogy, that lachrymose appeal to morality. You lit the torches which charred the very body of Caesar, which burnt down the house of Lucius Bellienus. You, Antony, unleashed against our homes those ruffians, slaves most of them, whose ferocity we had to repel with our own hands.
And yet you seemed to have wiped off the soot. For upon the Capitol, in the days that followed, the resolutions that you proposed before the Senate were excel-lent. I mean those declaring that, from the fifteenth of March onwards, there should be no publication of any announcement conferring exemptions from taxes, or similar favours. As regards these exemptions, and the men in exile, you yourself remember what you said. But the finest thing of all was that you abolished from the constitution, for ever, the title of dictator. On account of men's recent fears of dictators you decided to abolish, once and for all, the whole institution: so tremendous was the hatred of this tyranny which had apparently taken hold of you.
So to other men the government seemed securely established – though to me things looked differently, for with you at the helm I expected all manner of shipwreck. Was I wrong? Could a man, for very long, remain unlike himself? Members of the Senate, what happened next you saw for yourselves. Announcements were posted up all over the Capitol: tax exemptions were put on sale, not merely to individuals but to whole peoples. Citizenship was granted not to single persons only but to entire provinces. If these decisions are going to stand, it means the downfall of our state. Senators, you have lost complete provinces. In his own domestic market, this man has slashed the revenues of Rome. He has slashed the Roman empire itself.
Those seven hundred million sesterces, recorded in the account-books of the Temple of Ops – where are they now? The origins of that treasure store were tragic enough. Nevertheless, if the money was not going to be returned to its rightful owners, it could be used to save us from property-tax. But how do you account for the fact, Antony, that whereas on the fifteenth of March you owed four million sesterces, you had ceased to owe this sum by the first of April?
Your people sold countless concessions: and you were well aware of them. Nevertheless, the decrees posted up on the Capitol did include one excellent measure. This concerned a very good friend of Rome, King Deiotarus. Yet all who saw the document could not help laughing, in spite of their grief. For no man has ever hated another so much as Caesar hated Deiotarus. He felt quite as much hatred for Deiotarus as he felt for this Senate, and the Roman knights, and the citizens of Massilia, and every other person in whom he discerned a love for the Roman nation and its people. In his lifetime Caesar never treated Deiotarus fairly or kindly, either to his face or in his absence. Yet we are invited to believe that, when Caesar was dead, Deiotarus gained his favours! When they were together, and Deiotarus was his host, Caesar had summoned him, demanded an account of his resources, planted a Greek agent in his principality, and deprived him of Armenia, which the Roman Senate had added to his kingdom. And now we are asked to believe that what the living Caesar had confiscated, the dead Caesar gave back.
And the way in which he is stated to have expressed himself! At one point, apparently, he described this restoration as ‘fair’; at another as ‘not unfair’. A peculiar way of putting the matter! I was not with Deiotarus, but I always supported him; whereas Caesar never once said that anything we asked for on his behalf seemed to him fair.
A bond for ten million sesterces was negotiated at Antony's house in the women's suite – where a lot of selling went on, and goes on still. The negotiators were the envoys of Deiotarus. They were good men, but timid and inexperienced. I and the king's other friends were not asked for our views. About this bond, I suggest that you should consider carefully what you are to do. For, when he heard of Caesar's death, the king himself – with no thought for any memorandum Caesar might have left – recovered what belonged to him of his own accord, by the strength of his own hand. Deiotarus was wise. He knew that this had always been the law: that when tyrants who had stolen things were killed, the men whose property they had stolen take them back. So no jurist, not even the man whose only client is yourself and who is now representing you, will say that there is a debt on that bond for what Deiotarus had recovered before the bond was executed. For he did not buy these possessions from you: before you could sell him his own property, he took it himself. He was a man! How contemptible, on the other hand, are we, who uphold the actions of someone whose memory we hate.
Of the countless memoranda, the innumerable alleged examples of Caesar's handwriting which have been brought forward, I shall say nothing. We can view their forgers, selling their efforts as openly as though these were programmes of gladiatorial shows. Today, as a result, the house where Antony lives is piled high with such enormous heaps of money that they have to be weighed out instead of counted. But this greed has its blind spots. For example one of the recently displayed notices exempts from taxation the wealthiest communities of Crete. This notice decrees that Crete shall cease to be a province ‘when the governorship of Marcus Junius Brutus comes to an end’. But where is your sanity, Antony? Are you fit to be at large? How could there possibly be a decree by Caesar exempting Crete ‘when the tenure of Brutus comes to an end’, seeing that in Caesar's lifetime Brutus had not yet even formed this connexion with Crete at all? However, do not suppose, Senators, that this consideration prevented the decree from being put on sale – indeed it has resulted in your losing your Cretan province! There was never a thing, provided a buyer was available, that Antony was not ready to sell.
And this law, Antony, which you posted up about recalling exiles – I suppose Caesar composed that too? Far be it from me to persecute anyone who is in trouble. My only complaints are these. First, that the men recalled from exile because Caesar had singled them out as especially deserving have been discredited by this new batch. Secondly, I cannot see why you do not treat everyone alike. Not more than three or four are now left unrecalled, and I do not understand why men whose plight is the same do not qualify for the same degree of your indulgence: I refer to your uncle and those whom you have treated like him. When you legislated about the others, you refused to include him. Yet at the same time you encouraged him to stand for election as censor! Indeed, you even encouraged his election campaign – thus arousing universal ridicule and protest. But, having done so, why did you refrain from holding his election? Was it because a tribune had announced an ill-omened flash of lightning? When you personally are involved, the auspices are immaterial. Your scruples are reserved for when your friends are concerned. And then, while your uncle was standing for membership of the Board of Seven, you deserted him again. Do not tell us that this was because of objections by some formidable member to whom you could not say no, for fear of your life! If you had any family loyalty, you ought to have respected Gaius Antonius like a father. Instead, you loaded him with insults.
What is more, you threw his daughter out of the house – Antonia your cousin. You had looked around and made an alternative arrangement. And not content with that, though no woman could have been more blameless, you even charged her with adultery! You could hardly have sunk further. Yet you were still not satisfied. On January the first, at a full meeting of the Senate at which your uncle was present, you had the audacity to declare that this was why you regarded Publius Cornelius Dolabella as an enemy: because you had learnt of his adultery with your wife and cousin. It would be difficult to say which was the most outrageous – your audacity in making such allegations before the Senate; your unscrupulousness in directing them against Dolabella; your indecency in speaking in such terms before her father; or your brutality in employing against that poor woman such filthy, godforsaken language.
But let us return to the documents supposed to be in Caesar's handwriting. How did you verify them, Antony? To preserve the peace, the Senate had confirmed Caesar's acts – the acts which were truly his, not those which Antony alleged were his. Now, where do all these memoranda spring from? On whose authority are they produced? If they are forgeries, why are they approved? If genuine, why does money have to be paid for them? The decision had been taken that, from the first of June onwards, you should examine Caesar's acts, with the assistance of an advisory board. What was this board, and which of its members did you ever convene? And as for your awaiting the first of June, no doubt that was the day when you returned from your tour of the exsoldiers’ settlements: for you brought an armed guard to surround you.
That trip of yours in April and May, when you have even tried to found a settlement at Capua, what a splendid affair it was! We all know how you escaped from that town – or rather very nearly did not escape. And you are still uttering threats against Capua. I wish you would try to put them into practice: then that ‘very nearly’ could be struck out. Your progress was truly magnificent. Of your elaborate banquets and frantic drinking I say nothing; all that only damaged yourself. But we were damaged too. Even when, at an earlier date, the Campanian territory had been exempted from taxation, we regarded this as a grave blow to our national interests – although, on that occasion, soldiers were its recipients. But when you distributed land there, the beneficiaries were your fellow-diners and fellow-gamblers. Members of the Senate, these latest settlers in Campania were nothing but actors and actresses. Equally objectionable was the settlement at Leontini; seeing that at one time the crops in that area, like those of Campania, were renowned for their fertile and abundant contribution to the Roman domains of which they formed an integral part. You gave your doctor 1,875 acres. Whatever vast sum, one may ask, would you have given him if he had cured your mind? Your oratorical trainer received 1,250: what on earth would the total have been if he had succeeded in making a speaker of you?
But let us return to your journey, and to its effects on Italy. You founded a settlement of ex-soldiers at Casilinum, where Caesar had founded one before. About Capua, you had written asking for my advice; but I should have sent the same reply about Casilinum. You inquired whether it was legal to plant a new settlement where there was one already. I replied that the establishment of a new settlement, where there existed an earlier one duly founded in accordance with the auspices, was not legitimate – though I also pointed out that new settlers could be added to the old foundation. In spite of this, you had the arrogance to upset all the provisions of the auspices and plant a settlement at Casilinum, even though another settlement had been established there only a few years previously. You raised your standard; you marked out the boundaries with a plough. Indeed, your ploughshare nearly grazed the very gate of Capua, and the territory of that most flourishing settlement suffered grievous encroachment at your hands.
Fresh from this violation of religious observance, you rushed elsewhere: for you had designs on the property of the devout and high-principled Marcus Terentius Varro at Casinum. But what was the legal or moral sanction for this project? The same, you will say, as had enabled you to displace from their estates the heirs of Lucius Rubrius Casinas and Lucius Turselius – and countless others too. Now, if you had occupied these properties as a result of an auction, we may allow auctions their proper rights. We may concede rights also to written instructions, provided that they were Caesar's and not yours – and provided that they recorded you as a debtor, instead of releasing you from your debts!
As for Varro's farm at Casinum, who claims that this was ever sold at all? Did anyone ever see the auctioneer's spear or hear his voice? You sent someone to Alexandria, you say, to buy the place from Caesar. It was too much to expect that you should await his return! But no one ever heard that any part of Varro's property had been confiscated; and yet there was no man whose welfare was of more general concern. Now, if the truth is that Caesar wrote ordering you to hand the estate back, no words are fit to describe the outrage that you perpetrated. Just call off, for a spell, those armed men whom we see all round us. Do that, and you will very soon learn this lesson: whatever the justification for Caesar's auctions, your own deplorable conduct is on quite another level – for, once the armed men are gone, you will find yourself thrown outside Varro's gates. And it will not be the owner alone who expels you. Not one of his friends, his neighbours, his visitors, or his agents will fail to take a hand.
Day after day, at Varro's mansion, you continued your disgusting orgies. From seven in the morning onwards, there was incessant drinking, gambling, and vomiting. What a tragic fate for that house; and ‘what an ill-matched master’!
Though how could Antony be described as its master? Let us call him occupant. Well then, he was an occupant who matched it ill. For Marcus Varro had chosen this place not for indulgence, but for retirement and study. Those walls had witnessed noble discussions, noble thoughts, noble writings; laws for the Roman people, the history of our ancestors, the principles of all wisdom and all learning. When you, on the other hand, became the lodger – for house-holder I will not call you – the house rang with the din of drunkards, the pavements swam with wine, the walls dripped with it. On view were young free-born Roman youths consorting with paid boys; Roman matrons with prostitutes.
From Casinum, from Aquinum, from Interamna, came men to greet Antony. But no one was allowed in. And that was entirely proper, for in his degradation the emblems of office were a complete anomaly. When he left for Rome and approached Aquinum, quite a large crowd came to meet him, since the town has a considerable population. But he was carried through the streets in a covered litter, like a dead man. The people of Aquinum had no doubt been foolish to come; yet they did live beside the road on which he was passing by. What about the men of Anagnia? They, on the other hand, lived away from his path. But they too came down to greet him, on the supposition that he was consul. The incredible fact is – though I as a neighbour can vouch that everyone noticed it at the time – he did not return a single greeting. This was especially remarkable since he had with him two men of Anagnia, Mustela to look after his swords and Laco in charge of his drinking cups.
There is no need to recall to you the threats and insults with which he assailed the population of Teanum Sidicinum and harassed the inhabitants of Puteoli. This was because they had adopted Cassius and the Brutuses as their patrons. Their choice had been dictated by enthusiastic approval, sound judgement, friendly feelings, and personal, affection – not by force and violence, which compelled others to choose you and Minucius Basilus, and others like you, whom no one could voluntartly choose as their patrons. Even as dependants you would be undesirable.
Meantime, while you were away, your colleague (13) had a great day when he overturned, in the Forum, the funeral monument which you had persistently treated with reverence. When you were told of this, you fainted: everyone who was with you agrees that this is so. What happened afterwards I do not know. I suppose terror and armed violence had the final word. For you pulled your colleague down from heaven; you made him quite unlike himself – to say you made him your own replica would be going too far.
And that return of yours to Rome! The whole city was in an uproar. Lucius Cornelius Cinna's excess of power, Sulla's domination we remembered; Caesar's autocratic monarchy was fresh in our memories. In those days there had been swords perhaps, but they had stayed in their sheaths, and there were not many of them. Your procession, on the other hand, was totally barbaric. Your followers were in battle order, with drawn swords, and whole litter-loads of shields. And yet, Senators, familiarity with such spectacles has inured us to the shock.
The decision had been taken that the Senate should meet on the first of June, and we did our best to attend. But we encountered intimidation and were abruptly forced to retire. Antony, however, feeling no need of a Senate, missed none of us; on the contrary, our departure pleased him. Without delay he embarked on his extraordinary exploits. He, who had defended Caesar's memoranda for his own personal profit, suppressed Caesar's laws – good laws, too – in order to upset the constitution. He lengthened the tenures of provincial governorships. Instead of protecting Caesar's acts, as he should have, he annulled them: those relating to national and private affairs alike. Now in the national sphere nothing has greater weight than a law; while in private affairs the most valid of all things is a will. Antony abolished both – laws, with or without notice; wills, although even the humblest citizens have always respected them. The statues, the pictures, which Caesar, along with his gardens, had bequeathed to the people of Rome as his heirs – now they all went to Pompey's gardens, or Scipio's mansion: removed by Antony.
And yet, Antony, you are so attentive to Caesar's memory; you love the dead man, do you not? Now, the greatest honours he ever received were the sacred couch, the image, the gable, the priest for his worship. Because of these honours, on the analogy of the priesthoods of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus, Antony is the priest of the divine Julius. Yet you delay, Antony, to assume these duties: you have not been inducted. Why? Choose a day, choose someone to induct you. We are colleagues; no one will refuse. Loathsome man! – equally loathsome as priest of a tyrant, or priest of a dead human being!
And now I have to ask you a question: Do you not know what day this is? Yesterday, in case it escaped your notice, was the fourth day of the Roman Games in the Circus. Now you yourself moved in the Assembly a proposal that a fifth day also should be added to these Games in Caesar's honour. Why, then, are we not in our official robes? Why do we allow the honour which your law conferred on Caesar to be neglected? You were prepared to concede, apparently, that this holy day should be polluted by the addition of a thanks-giving, but not by a sacred couch ceremony. But you should either disregard religious observances altogether, or maintain them invariably.
You ask whether I like this couch, gable, priest of the divinity. I like none of them. But you, who defend the acts of Caesar, cannot possibly justify the maintenance of some of them and the neglect of others. Unless, that is, you are prepared to admit that your own profit, rather than Caesar's honour, is your guide. Come, answer these arguments! I look forward to your eloquence. I knew your grandfather; he was a very fine orator. And you certainly speak with even greater freedom than he did. For he never made a public speech naked! – whereas you, straightforward fellow that you are, have let us all have a look at your torso. Are you going to let me have a reply? Are you even going to venture to open your mouth? Indeed, I wonder whether in the whole of my long speech you will find anything at all which you can pluck up the courage to answer.
But let us leave the past. Your behaviour today, at the present day and moment at which I am speaking – defend that if you can! Explain why the Senate is surrounded by a ring of men with arms; why my listeners include gangsters of yours, sword in hand; why the doors of the temple of Concord are closed; why you bring into the Forum the world's most savage people, Ituraeans, with their bows and arrows. I do these things in self-defence, says Antony. But surely a thousand deaths are better than the inability to live in one's own community without an armed guard. A guard is no protection, I can tell you! The protection you need is not weapons, but the affection and good-will of your fellow-citizens. The people of Rome will seize your weapons and wrench them from you. I pray that we shall not perish before that is done! But however you behave towards ourselves, believe me, these are methods which cannot preserve you for long. Your wife – she is no miser, and this reference implies no disrespect – is already taking too long to pay the Roman people her third instalment. (14)
Our country does not lack men to place in charge of its affairs. Wherever they are, they are our national defence, indeed our very nation. Rome has avenged itself: but it has not yet recovered. However, that there are young noblemen ready to leap to its defence is beyond doubt. They may choose to retire for a spell, seeking quiet, but Rome will call them back.
The name of peace is beautiful – and peace itself is a blessing. Yet peace and slavery are very different things. Peace is freedom tranquilly enjoyed, slavery is the worst of all evils, to be repelled, if need be, at the cost of war and even of death. Even if those liberators of ours have withdrawn from our sight, they have left behind them the example of their deeds. They achieved what no one had ever achieved before. Lucius Junius Brutus made war against Tarquin, who was king at a time when kingship was lawful at Rome. Spurius Cassius Vecellinus, Spurius Maelius, and Marcus Manlius Capitolinus were killed because of the suspicion that they aimed at autocratic monarchy. But here, for the first time, are men raising their swords to kill one who was not merely aiming at monarchy, but actually reigning as monarch. Their action was super-humanly noble in itself, and it is set before us for our imitation: all the more conspicuously, because heaven itself is scarcely immense enough to hold the glory which this deed has made theirs. The consciousness of a noble achievement was reward enough; yet no one, I believe, should spurn that further reward which they have also won – immortality.
The day you ought to remember, Antony, is that day on which you abolished the dictatorship for ever. Let your memory dwell on the rejoicing of the Senate and people of Rome on that occasion. Contrast it with the haggling with which you and your friends busy your-selves now. Then you will realize that gain is a different thing from glory. Just as there are diseases, or dull-nesses of the senses, which prevent certain people from being able to taste food: so, by the same token, debauchees, misers, and criminals are unattracted by glory.
However, if the hope of being praised cannot entice you to behave decently, is fear equally incapable of scaring you out of your repulsive behaviour? I know the lawcourts cause you no alarm. If that is due to innocence, you are to be commended. But if the reason is your reliance upon force, do you not understand this: that the man whose imperviousness to judicial processes is due to such a cause has pressing reason to feel terrors of quite another kind? For if you are not afraid of brave men and good Romans – seeing that armed satellites keep them away from your person – believe me, your own supporters will not stand you for very much longer. To be afraid of danger from one's own people night and day is no sort of a life; and you can hardly have men who owe you more, in terms of benefactions, than some of Caesar's killers owed to him.
However, you and he are not in any way comparable! His character was an amalgamation of genius, method, memory, culture, thoroughness, intellect, and industry. His achievements in war, though disastrous for our country, were none the less mighty. After working for many years to become king and autocrat, he surmounted tremendous efforts and perils and achieved his purpose. By entertainments, public works, food-distributions, and banquets, he seduced the ignorant populace; his friends he bound to his allegiance by rewarding them, his enemies by what looked like mercy. By a mixture of intimidation and indulgence, he inculcated in a free community the habit of servitude.
Your ambition to reign, Antony, certainly deserves to be compared with Caesar's. But in not a single other respect are you entitled to the same comparison. For the many evils which Caesar inflicted upon our country have at least yielded certain benefits. To take a single example, the people of Rome have now discovered what degrees of confidence they can repose in this or that person. They have discovered who are fit to be entrusted with their fortunes, and who, on the other hand, need to be shunned. Do these facts never occur to you? Do you never understand the significance of this: that brave men have now learnt to appreciate the noble achievement, the wonderful benefaction, the glorious renown, of killing a tyrant? When men could not endure Caesar, will they endure you? Mark my words, this time there will be crowds competing to do the deed. They will not wait for a suitable opportunity – they will be too impatient.
Antony: some time, at long last, think of your country. Think of the people from whom you come – not the people with whom you associate. Let your relationship with myself be as you please: but your country I pray you to make your friend once again. However, your behaviour is a matter for yourself to decide. As for mine, I will declare how I shall conduct myself. When I was a young man I defended our state: in my old age I shall not abandon it. Having scorned the swords of Catiline, I shall not be intimidated by yours. On the contrary, I would gladly offer my own body, if my death could redeem the freedom of our nation – if it could cause the long-suffering people of Rome to find final relief from its labours. For if, nearly twenty years ago, I declared in this very temple that death could not come prematurely to a man who had been consul, how much greater will be my reason to say this again now that I am old. After the honours that I have been awarded, Senators, after the deeds that I have done, death actually seems to me desirable. Two things only I pray for. One, that in dying I may leave the Roman people free – the immortal gods could grant me no greater gift. My other prayer is this: that no man's fortunes may fail to correspond with his services to our country!
————————————————————
(1) Fulvia, successively the wife of Publius Clodius, Curio, and Antony.
(2) Phormio and Gnatho were parasites in the Phormio and Eunuch respectively, comedies by Terence ( c .195-159 BC). Ballio was the pimp in The Cheat by Plautus ( c. 254-184 BC).
(3) A quotation from Cicero's much maligned poem On his Consulate . The verse went on: ‘let laurel yield to honest worth.’
(4) Publius Servilius Casca, who struck the 昀 rst blow against Caesar, and his brother Gaius.
(5) As city-praetor he was not allowed to be away from Rome for more than ten nights.
(6) i. e. killed Antony too.
(7) It was regarded as a slight not to be mentioned in a friend's will. Lawyers, who were not allowed to accept fees, particularly expected this sort of reward.
(8) On 2 January 49 bc, Antony and another tribune had vetoed a proposal in the Senate that unless Caesar disbanded his army before a named date he should be declared a public enemy. Caesar crossed the Rubicon eight days later.
(9) Captured by Pompey in his campaign against the pirates in 67 BC.
(10) It had been a blow for Antony when Caesar's published will reserved this distinction for Octavian, appointing Antony as one of the secondary heirs only.
(11) The joke was that Antony was notoriously impoverished, a disgrace according to Roman ideas.
(12) Caesar, his fellow-consul.
(13) Dolabella, now consul.
(14) Her three instalments were her three husbands (参见此处) .
图书在版编目(CIP)数据
阴谋论:英汉对照/(意)马基雅维利著;孙平华,方丹丹译.—北京:中译出版社,2015.11
(企鹅口袋书系列·伟大的思想)
ISBN 978-7-5001-4348-2
Ⅰ.①阴… Ⅱ.①马… ②孙… ③方… Ⅲ.①政治哲学—研究—英、汉 Ⅳ.①D0
中国版本图书馆CIP数据核字(2015)第267718号
Penguin Books Ltd,Registered Offices:80 Strand,London WC2R 0RL,England
www.penguin.com
Extracts taken from The Discourses ,first published in this edition in 1970 with an introduction
by Bernard Crick and subsequently revised and updated 1974,1998,2003
This selection published in Penguin Books 2010
All rights reserved
The moral right of the translator has been asserted
出版发行 /中译出版社
地 址 /北京市西城区车公庄大街甲4号物华大厦6层
电 话 /(010)68359827;68359303(发行部);68359725(编辑部)
邮 编 /100044 传真 /(010)68357870
电子邮箱 /book@ctph.com.cn 网址 /http://www.ctph.com.cn
出版策划 /张高里
责任编辑 /胡晓凯
装帧设计 /土 豆
排 版 /竹叶图文
印 刷 /保定市中画美凯印刷有限公司
规 格 /760毫米×940毫米 1/32
印 张 /7.5
版 次 /2016年1月第一版
印 次 /2016年1月第一次
ISBN 978–7–5001–4348–2 定 价: 23.00元
“企鹅”及相关标识是企鹅图书有限公司已经注册或尚未注册的商标。
未经允许,不得擅用。
中译出版社与企鹅图书有限公司联合出版
《伟大的思想》中文版序
企鹅《伟大的思想》丛书2004年开始出版。在英国,已付梓八十种,尚有二十种计划出版。美国出版的丛书规模略小,德国的同类丛书规模更小一些。丛书销量已远远超过二百万册,在全球众多读者间,尤其是学生当中,普及了哲学和政治学。中文版《伟大的思想》丛书的推出,迈出了新的一步,令人欢欣鼓舞。
推出这套丛书的目的是让读者再次与一些伟大的非小说类经典著作面对面地交流。太久以来,确定版本依据这样一个假设——读者在教室里学习这些著作,因此需要导读、详尽的注释、参考书目等。此类版本无疑十分有用,但我想,如果能够重建托马斯·潘恩《常识》或约翰·罗斯金《艺术与人生》初版时的环境,营造更具亲和力的氛围,也许是一件有趣的事。这样,读者除了原作者及其自身的理性思考外没有其他参照。
这样做有一定的缺陷:每位作者的话难免有难解或不可解之处,一些重要的背景知识会缺失。例如,读者对亨利·梭罗创作时的情形毫无头绪,也不了解该书的接受情况以及影响;不过,这样做的优点也显而易见。最突出的优点是:作者的初衷又一次变得重要起来——托马斯·潘恩的愤怒、查尔斯·达尔文的灵光、塞内加的隐逸。这些作家在许多国家影响着许多人的生活,其影响难以估量;长达几个世纪,读他们书的乐趣罕有匹敌。没有亚当·斯密或阿图尔·叔本华,或无法想象我们今天的世界。这些小书的创作年代久远,但其中的话语彻底改变了我们的政治学、经济学、智力生活、社会规划和宗教信仰。
《伟大的思想》丛书一直求新求变。地域不同,收录的作家亦不同。在中国或美国,一些作家更受欢迎。英国《伟大的思想》收录的一些作家在其他地方则默默无闻。称其为“伟大的思想”,我们亦慎之又慎。思想之伟大,在于其影响之深远,而不意味着这些思想是“好”的,实际上一些书或可列入“坏”思想之列。丛书中很多作家受到同一丛书其他作家的很大影响,例如,马塞尔·普鲁斯特承认受约翰·罗斯金影响很大,米歇尔·德·蒙田也承认深受塞内加影响,但其他作家彼此憎恶,如果发现他们被收入同一丛书,一定会气愤难平。不过,读者可自行判明这些思想是否合理。我们衷心希望,您可以从阅读这些杰作中获得乐趣。
《伟大的思想》出版者
西蒙·温德尔
Introduction to the Chinese Editions of Great Ideas
Penguin's Great Ideas series began publication in 2004.In the UK we now have 80 copies in print with plans to publish a further 20.A somewhat smaller list is published in the USA and a related,even smaller series in Germany.The books have sold now well over two million copies and have popularized philosophy and politics for many people around the world — particularly students.The launch of a Chinese Great Ideas series is an extremely exciting new development.
The intention behind the series was to allow readers to be once more face to face with some of the great non-fiction classics.For too long the editions of these books were created on the assumption that you were studying them in the classroom and that the student needed an introduction,extensive notes,a bibliography and so on.While this sort of edition is of course extremely useful,I thought it would be interesting to recreate a more intimate feeling — to recreate the atmosphere in which,for example,Thomas Paine's Common Sense or John Ruskin's On Art and Life was first published — where the reader has no other guide than the original author and his or her own common sense.
This method has its severe disadvantages — there will inevitably be statements made by each author which are either hard or impossible to understand,some important context might be missing.For example the reader has no clue as to the conditions under which Henry Thoreau was writing his book and the reader cannot be aware of the book's reception or influence.The advantages however are very clear — most importantly the original intentions of the author become once more important.The sense of anger in Thomas Paine,of intellectual excitement in Charles Darwin,of resignation in Seneca — few things can be more thrilling than to read writers who have had such immeasurable influence on so many lives,sometimes for centuries,in many different countries.Our world would not make sense without Adam Smith or Arthur Schopenhauer — our politics,economics,intellectual lives,social planning,religious beliefs have all been fundamentally changed by the words in these little books,first written down long ago.
The Great Ideas series continues to change and evolve.In different parts of the world different writers would be included.In China or in the United States there are some writers who are liked much more than others.In the UK there are writers in the Great Ideas series who are ignored elsewhere.We have also been very careful to call the series Great Ideas — these ideas are great because they have been so enormously influential,but this does not mean that they are Good Ideas — indeed some of the books would probably qualify as Bad Ideas.Many of the writers in the series have been massively influenced by others in the series — for example Marcel Proust owned so much to John Ruskin,Michel de Montaigne to Seneca.But others hated each other and would be distressed to find themselves together in the same series! But readers can decide the validity of these ideas for themselves.We very much hope that you enjoy these remarkable books.
Simon Winder
Publisher
Great Ideas
目录
Introduction to the Chinese Editions of Great Ideas
Contents
The army,its discipline and component parts
Mistakes often made in connection with war
Rome's dealings with neighbouring states and cities in peace and war
Sundry remarks on strategy,tactics,new devices and discipline
Advice to generals in the field
译者导读
尼可罗·马基雅维利(Niccolò Machiavelli,1469—1527),意大利政治哲学家、音乐家、诗人和浪漫喜剧剧作家,意大利文艺复兴时期的重要人物。马基雅维利出生在一个没落的贵族家庭,家境贫寒,没有接受过多少正规教育,通过自学,使自己博古通今、多才多艺。他于1498年出任佛罗伦萨共和国第二国务厅的长官,兼任共和国执政委员会秘书,1505年担任国民军九人指挥委员会秘书。1511年教皇的军队攻陷佛罗伦萨,废黜执政官,马基雅维利丧失了一切职务。1527年,美第奇家族倒台,马基雅维利被逐,郁悒成疾,58 岁即去世。
《阴谋论》是马基雅维利关于阴谋论和军队、战争、战略等领域思想认识的一个合集,该合集用意大利语写成,1513年首次出版。马基雅维利曾于1498年进入十人执政团服务,随后奉命出国担任外交官员,期间积累的工作经验为其政治军事著作提供了丰富的经验基础。整个合集大量引用罗马时期的事例,来论述其政治军事领域的思想。
《阴谋论》合集共分七个部分。第一部分主要是其关于阴谋论的认识,通过对阴谋的成因、实施、失败因素以及防范措施的论述,旨在提醒统治者如何阻止阴谋。第二部分主要介绍了其关于军队、军纪和各兵种方面的认识,通过对比引证,强调了步兵在战争中的重要性,论述了炮兵如何在战争中发挥作用。第三部分主要驳斥了关于城堡利弊、利用城市内讧夺取城市等一些与战争有关的错误认识。第四部分引用罗马共和国在平时与战时和相邻国家城市关系的经验教训,旨在唤起统治者的注意。第五部分通过引用罗马共和国的战争事例,阐述其对战争、策略、新装备和纪律等方面的一些评论。第六部分主要在大战前的小规模战斗、如何取得军队信任、熟悉地形等方面,为征战中的统帅们提出一些建议。第七部分通过对于战争欺诈、誓死卫国、城下之盟的论述,印证其人民利益至高无上的思想。整个合集作于其著名论著《君主论》之后,是在美第奇家族重新掌权后马基雅维利失意之时所作,作为政治军事领域的重要图书,被列入企鹅口袋书“伟大的思想”系列。
阴谋论
引言
既然阴谋会导致对君主和个人同样危险的后果,那么我也就无法略去不谈其性质,毕竟有更多君主由于阴谋而非公开战争丧失了性命和政权,因为能对一个君主宣战的不过寥寥几个人,但是策划谋反的却可能是任何人。另一方面,在任何一项事业里,没有比个人参与阴谋更危险或者更轻率鲁莽的事情了,因为整个过程都充满困难和危险。因此,尽管人们已有许多阴谋尝试,但达到目的的却寥寥无几。为了使君主们了解如何防范此类危险,为了使个人三思而行并学会安于天命、臣服君主,我将对阴谋进行细致的探讨,不会遗漏任何与君王或个人相关的重要事项。事实上,克奈里乌斯·塔西佗曾经说过这样一句金玉良言:“人应尊重过去,更应着眼当下,即使内心渴求明主,也必须接受自己的君王——不论他们是怎样的人。”毋庸置疑,那些反其道而行之的人常常给他们自己和他们的国家带来灾难。
在开始讨论此话题之前,第一个需要思考的问题是:这些阴谋的产生是针对谁?事实证明,阴谋的产生要么是针对其祖国,要么是针对君主。此文中,我会对这两种类型的阴谋分别进行探讨,因为以将城池移送给围城的敌人手里为目的而制造的阴谋,或者因某种理由制造的与此相似的阴谋,其他地方已言之足矣。
成因
在此论述第一部分,我们先谈谈针对君主的阴谋。首先,我们对其众多成因提出疑问。但其实有一个成因比其他所有成因都更为重要,那就是君主所激起的普遍仇恨,因为当其激起了这种普遍仇恨之时,我们就能预料到,那些曾被他大大冒犯的人将会寻求报复。而当这些人发现君主已经激起了人们的普遍憎恶,他们的报复欲望就更强烈了。因此,君主应当避免招致此类个人恩怨,鉴于别处已经论及如何避免个人恩怨,此处不再赘述。之所以提及,是因为若君主真有意提防,那么仅仅对于个人施以惩罚将会招致较少的敌意。原因如下:首先,我们很少遇到这样的人,对某种不公正行为无比愤慨,从而身犯险境去实施报复;其次,如果他们确实想这么做且已具备必需的能力,那么他们也会因为君主受人民拥戴而行动受限。
伤害可能波及人的财产、生命或荣誉。杀戮的威胁要比杀戮本身更危险。的确,威胁要进行杀戮是极其危险的,然而杀戮却毫无危险,因为死人不可能思量着复仇,而那些幸存者却通常促使你做复仇的思虑。但是,那些已受到威胁并意识到不得不做些什么或者投身其中的人,对君主而言已构成真正的威胁,我们将引用实例说明。
除去那些由求生本能驱使的行动实例,对人的财产或者荣誉的伤害是最容易激怒人的,对此君主应当警惕,因为不论他如何掠夺一个人的财产,也无法确保那人丧失复仇的能力;不论他如何剥夺一个人的荣誉,也无法让那人打消报复的念头。在人们被剥夺的众多荣誉中,最重要的是女人的荣誉,其次是对男人人品的蔑视。正因如此,帕萨尼亚斯才揭竿而起反对马其顿国王菲利普;也正因如此,才有许多人拿起武器反对其君主。在我们的时代,如果卢西奥·柏兰提没有把他女儿嫁给西恩纳暴君潘多佛为妻,然后又把她带走,那么他就不会被迫密谋反对潘多佛了,这点我们会在适当时候详述。导致帕西对美第奇谋反的主要原因在于美第奇下令夺走了乔瓦尼·邦热美的继承权。
导致人们密谋反对君主的另外一个原因,也是非常有力的一个原因,就是他们收复已被君主攫为己有的国土的欲求。正因如此,布鲁特斯和卡修斯才转而反对恺撒,也正因如此,有那么多人密谋反对法拉里斯、狄奥尼修斯和其他国家权力的篡夺者。没有一个暴君可以超越此种意志,除非放弃其暴政。然而,没有暴君愿意放弃暴政,所以几乎所有暴君皆以悲剧收场。因此尤维纳尔的诗歌这样写道:“几乎没有君主可以毫发未伤地陨落于冥界,暴君也屡屡难逃悲惨下场。”
单人阴谋
如前所述,阴谋带来的危险是相当多的,并且持续不断,因为一个阴谋中会有多种危险突然出现,这些危险充斥于阴谋形成、实施的整个过程,以及阴谋产生的后果中。阴谋的形成可由单人而为,亦可由多人而为。若仅由单人而为,并不能理所当然地称之为阴谋。准确地说,它是某个个体要杀掉君主的坚定决心。在阴谋所蕴含的三种危险之中,单人之谋仅包含后两种危险。因为在行动之前是不可能有危险产生的,既然没有其他人知晓,也就不存在对君主实施该阴谋的危险。而是否有实施阴谋的决心取决于这个人的能力——无论他伟大或渺小,高贵或卑微,与君主关系密切或疏远。因为任何被准许在某个时间同君主交谈的人,以及任何有机会同君主交谈的人,其情绪皆有可能得以舒缓。我们已经屡次提到的帕萨尼亚斯,在马其顿国王菲利普与一帮武装人员前去庙宇的路上杀害了他,当时走在国王两边的分别是他的儿子和女婿。但是,帕萨尼亚斯是贵族,且与君主相识(但也有其他人)。一个贫穷可怜的西班牙人将匕首刺入了西班牙国王斐迪南的脖子,尽管伤口并不致命,但是它却表明了此种类型的人也可能具备做这种事的意图和机会。一个托钵僧或土耳其牧师,在巴雅泽用弯刀袭击了当时的土耳其君主。他并没有杀死他,但是他必然具有这样做的意图和机会。我认为,我们周围有很多想要做这种事的人,但仅仅心怀这种意图,既不需要受到惩罚,也不会产生任何的危险。但是真正去做的人却寥寥无几,且在这些人中,也只有非常少的人在其行动中幸存。因此,你会发现没有人甘于赴死。但让我们撇开这些单人阴谋,来谈谈多人阴谋。
弱者的阴谋
在我看来,历史上所有的阴谋要么是有名望之人所为,要么是君主近侍或亲信所为,其他人除非是十足的疯子,否则不可能阴谋陷害君主,毕竟无权之人以及无法接触君主之人没有成功实施阴谋的任何希望和机会。首先,无权之人笼络不到可以忠于他们的人,毕竟在有可能冒大风险的情况下,没有人会答应去为他们做事,因为阴谋一旦传达至两三人,告密者就会出现,他们的计划便会暴露。其次,即使他们足够幸运,没有告密者出现,他们在阴谋的实施中也一样会由于无法轻易接近君主而困难重重,而在得以行事之时根本无法逃离险境。既然有名望之人和能够轻易接近君主的人都得屈服于这些困难,更不要说其他人了,他们面临的困难将被无限放大。所以,只要他们的生命和财产并未受到威胁,只要他们不会丢掉脑袋,那么当其认识到自己的劣势,就会变得小心谨慎,即使对君主心怀不满,也只会私下咒骂发泄,等待着那些拥有更高地位声望之人可以替他们报仇雪恨。这样一来,一旦遇见这种人欲行谋害君主之事,人们应对其意图动机而非审慎态度加以赞赏。
强者的阴谋
阴谋者似乎一直都是有名望之人或者与君主关系密切之人,其中因赐予太多利益而导致的谋反与因施予太多惩罚所引发的谋反案例一样众多,例如卜兰尼斯密谋反对康茂德,普劳提阿努斯密谋反对西弗勒斯,塞扬努斯密谋反对泰比里厄斯。对于这些人而言,君主赐予的财富、荣誉和头衔已经很多,似乎什么都不缺,除了君主的头衔,他们对此不愿意忍受,因此密谋反对君主,而最终总会得到其忘恩负义之行应得的结果。
而近代发生的相似阴谋中,有一个却取得了成功,即雅各布·阿皮亚诺密谋反对比萨君主梅瑟·皮耶罗·干姆巴科尔提,因为雅各布正是由后者抚养长大,且名誉加身,而他却夺了后者的权。在我们的时代也有科波拉阴谋反对亚拉贡国王费迪南。因为对于已经拥有巨大财富的科波拉来说,唯一缺乏的就是一个王国,而他也因为决心得到它而丧命。然而,如果有名望之人谋反成功,则情况一定如此:阴谋必定是由有名的另一位君主所为。但是那种易于使人盲目的支配欲,又一次使他们在着手做事时失去理智。只要他们知道怎样谨慎实施恶行,那么就不可能不成功。
对君主们的忠告
因此,想要提防阴谋的君主,相对于那些已被其过多伤害的人,更应当害怕那些被其授予过多恩惠的人。因为前者缺乏机会,而后者却机会多多,尽管二者所欲相同;统治国家的欲望与复仇的欲望一样大,甚至更大。所以,君主授予其朋友的权力应当保持一个度,即在此权力和君主权力之间应当保持一个特定的间距,且在此间距之中还有别的东西可所欲求。否则,如果我们刚谈论的事情未发生在他们身上,那倒是一件怪事了。下面,言归正传。
告密引发的危险
前面已经提及,谋反者一定是有名望之人和容易接近君主之人,这里我们就谈谈他们的成功和事例,以及为什么有些人成功了而其他人却失败了。如前所述,阴谋的危险常常发生在三个阶段:开始之时,实施之时和结束之后。我们发现,阴谋很少成功,因为成功通过这三个阶段是不可能或者几乎不可能的。首先,我们来谈谈开始阶段的危险。鉴于在制订计划过程中要使阴谋不被发现需要敏锐的判断力和足够的运气,对此阶段危险的探讨显得更加重要。阴谋暴露有两种方式,要么走漏了消息,要么出自推断。信息泄露要么是合谋之人变节,要么是其不够谨慎所致。变节之事时有发生,因为你只能将阴谋传达给你认为会誓死效忠于你的人,或对君主不满的人。也许其中有一两个人是你可以信任的,但是如果你将计划透露给多人,那么要找到这样的人是不可能的,因为他们必须对你非常信任,他们对危险和惩罚的估计不会影响对你的信任。人常常错估别人对自己的情分,而除非你有前车之鉴,否则无法确定这份情谊。然而,这种前车之鉴的获得也要冒很大风险。甚至于即使在其他危险事件中,他们忠诚于你,你也不能保证他们会在种种危险远远超出之前的事件中保持同等忠诚。如果你判断一个人的忠诚度是依据他对君主的不满程度,那么你很容易犯错;因为你接受了这种不满,即是为他提供了获得满足的各种条件,这样一来,如果要他保持对你的忠诚,要么他确实苦大仇深,要么你对他的影响一定巨大。
所以,阴谋就屡遭暴露,在开始就被挫败。的确,若是一个传达给多人的阴谋很长时间内一直仍是秘密,那可真让人啧啧称奇,就像历史上庇索密谋反对尼罗,以及我们这个时代帕西密谋反对洛伦佐和朱利安诺·美第奇一样,当时五十多人对此保守秘密,直到采取行动的那一刻阴谋才暴露。
轻率导致的危险
由于轻率而使阴谋暴露的情况发生在密谋时不够谨慎而使佣人或者第三者听到之时,例如,布鲁特斯之子就因其与塔奎因报信者的阴谋谈话被佣人听到而被告发。或者,阴谋的暴露是因为你无意中将其告诉了女友或者男友或者别的轻佻之人,以蒂姆努斯为例,他和菲洛塔斯以及其他人一起谋反亚历山大大帝,曾向一个他很喜欢的名叫尼克马库斯的男孩谈到了他们的计划,不料那个男孩立刻就把此事告诉了他的哥哥赛巴利努斯,而赛巴利努斯又把这个阴谋告诉了国王亚历山大。
推断引发的暴露
由于推断而引起的阴谋暴露,庇索尼安阴谋反对尼罗即是一例。其中一个名叫斯伽维努斯的阴谋者在计划杀掉尼罗的前一天立下遗嘱,并命令他的自由民米里库斯把他那把老旧而锈迹斑斑的匕首磨光,释放所有的奴隶并分给他们钱财,准备好用于包扎伤口的绷带,从这些事情中米里库斯推断出了有阴谋存在并告诉了尼罗。于是,斯伽维努斯,连同前一天被看到跟他一起长时间秘密谈话的共谋者纳塔莱斯,一起被捕了。由于他们解释不一致,最后被迫说出真相,这样一来阴谋就暴露了,所有与之相关的人都遭遇了灭顶之灾。
防止暴露的困难
无论是由于恶意,还是由于不够谨慎,或者是言行失检,或者是轻率的谈话,所有这些情况下如果知道阴谋的人超过三个或者四个,那么要防止上述这些原因造成的阴谋暴露就是不可能的。因为一旦有一个以上的阴谋者被捕,那么要想阻止阴谋泄露就不可能,原因在于两个人不可能在他们给出解释的每一个细节上都能保持一致。如果只有一个人被捕而他恰好是一个果毅之人,那么他或许不会供出他的同谋者。但是,极为重要的是,其他同谋者也必须有不逊于被捕者的胆量坚守其立场不逃跑,因为无论是被捕之人还是在逃之人,均可能由于缺乏勇气而泄露阴谋。
的确存在这样一个稀少的案例,由泰特斯·李维提出,即反对锡拉库扎国王希罗尼穆斯的阴谋。在这场阴谋中,其中一个叫狄奥多士的同谋者被捕后,他仗义保护其他同谋者,栽赃给了国王的朋友;而他的同伴也非常信得过狄奥多士的为人,他们之中没有一个人离开锡拉库扎或者表现出一丝的害怕。
预防暴露的措施
以上这些都是在阴谋实施之前暴露所面临的危险;避免泄露的补救措施如下。首要的、最安全的,实话讲也是唯一的补救方法就是不给共谋者泄露对你不利信息的时间,且仅在你准备行动之时而非提前将你的计划告知他们。这样做,至少可以避开因谋划阴谋而招致的危险,其他人通常也可以逃离危险。事实上,他们都会成功,任何谨慎之人都会发现这样做事是可行的。后面我会引用两个实例,暂且讨论至此。
奈勒迈特斯,由于无法忍受伊庇鲁斯君主亚里士提摩斯的暴政,集结了家中众多亲戚和朋友,劝说他们一起解放祖国。有人提出需要时间考虑,先把家里的事情安排好。奈勒迈特斯让随从锁上家门,对这些人说道:“要么你们现在就跟我一起行动,要么我把你们统统作为囚犯交给亚里士提摩斯。”这些话让他们下了决心,他们发了誓并立即行动,成功地执行了奈勒迈特斯的命令。当通过诡计获得波斯王冠后,王国的一个领袖马吉中的一人和奥塔尼斯听说了此消息并发现了这个诡计,于是他就与其他六位领袖协商,告诉他们是时候推翻这个占星师的暴政了。当有人问何时行动时,六位领袖中一个名叫达赖厄斯的人站起来说道:“要么我们现在立刻行动解决此事,要么我去指控你们。”于是他们整齐划一地行动,在敌人未来及做任何准备之时成功实施了计划。与这两个实例相似的还有埃托利亚人为了杀掉斯巴达暴君纳比斯所采用的方法。他们命令同胞亚历科萨麦尼斯带领三十匹马和两百步兵假意援助纳比斯,并只将计划告知亚历科萨麦尼斯,命令其他人必须严格服从于他,违者处以流放之惩罚。因此,亚历科萨麦尼斯去到斯巴达,绝口不提其受委托的任务,直到准备好行动的那一刻。结果,他成功地杀掉了纳比斯。这些人通过采用这些手段,避免了策划阴谋阶段隐藏的危险,效仿他们做法的人也同样总是能避免危险。
阴谋的实用性
他们的行为人人可以效仿,这一点可以从前文提到的庇索案例中得以证明。庇索是尼罗非常信任的人,和尼罗关系密切,有很高的地位和声望。尼罗经常在自己的花园中和庇索一起用餐,这样一来庇索就可以结交到无论心态、勇气还是爱好都非常适合执行此阴谋的朋友,这对于有身份地位的人是非常容易的。当尼罗在花园里的时候,庇索可以用适当的言语指使这些人做一些他们没有时间拒绝的事,或者使本不可能成功的阴谋最后取得成功。因此,纵观诸多阴谋,没有几个不是按照这个方法成功的。但是,通常情况下人们很少关注世事,因而往往犯下重大错误,尤其是在那些超出常规的事情上,比如阴谋。
进一步的防范
不到迫不得已或时机成熟之时,阴谋绝不能泄露。如果必须要泄露,也只能泄露给一个人,并且是你知根知底或者与你动机相同的人。找一个这样的人要比找一群这样的人容易得多,因为知道的人越多意味着越危险。此外,在合谋者不多的情况下,如果你犯了错误,你还可能找到保护自己的机会。因为一位智者曾经说过,你可以把你所有的事情单独告诉一个人,因为别人无论肯定回答还是否定回答意义都差不多,除非他说服你将你的所作所为写下来。每个人都要特别提防写下任何东西,因为没有什么比自己的笔迹更容易证实自己的罪行。普劳提阿努斯决心杀掉君主西弗勒斯及其儿子安东尼纳斯,并把这个秘密告诉护民官撒图尔尼努斯。撒图尔尼努斯想去告发他,但又害怕控告普劳提阿努斯时别人相信他而不相信自己,于是他要求普劳提阿努斯提供书面凭证,以证明自己受普劳提阿努斯的委托和授权。被雄心壮志冲昏头脑的普劳提阿努斯真的写给了他,最终因被撒图尔尼努斯控告而获罪。如果没有这份书面材料和其他一些不利证据,普劳提阿努斯完全可以厚着脸皮死不承认以保全自己。可见,如果没有书面材料或其他证据,即便你被控告,照样有机会得以逃脱,因此对待提供书面材料之事要慎之又慎。
在针对尼罗的庇索尼安阴谋中,有一个名叫艾比开瑞斯的女人,曾是尼罗的情人。她认为让一个曾担任尼罗警卫的战船船长参与进来有助于阴谋的实施,因此她把阴谋告诉了这位船长,但是并未告知共谋者都是谁。后来,这个船长食言向尼罗控告她的时候,她严词否认了对她的控告,以至于尼罗无法定守而让她离开。因此,将阴谋告知另外一人存在两种危险。一种危险是他可能会主动指控你;另一种危险是他受到怀疑或者不利证据而被捕,在被宣判有罪或受到严刑拷问之时将你供出。在这两种情况下,危险都是可以补救的。因为在第一种情况下,你可以否认对你的指控,宣称对方因为恨你而捏造事实;在第二种情况下,你也可以否认指控,宣称对方是因为被暴力威逼而撒谎。
无预谋的暗杀
因此,最明智的做法是不把自己的情况告诉任何人,而只按照上述案例行动;或者如果你不得不告诉某一个人,也不要告诉再多的人,这样尽管危险可能会更大,但是也不会比你告诉更多人的危险大。当情势逼迫你必须要对君主下手,就像你看到君主准备要对你下手一样时,情况也是一样的,因为此时此刻你的需要迫切至根本没有时间考虑如何防范。这种必要性几乎总能导向理想的结果,为了证明这一点,举两个例子。
在君主康茂德的几个主要朋友和亲信里,里图斯和埃克莱克图斯掌管着禁卫军,而马西娅是他主要情妇之一。这些人有时候会因他的行为有失体统而责备他,所以康茂德决定将他们处死,并把这三人和他决定在第二天夜里处死的其他几个人列了一个名单。他把名单放在了枕头下。在他去洗漱的时候,他最喜爱的小儿子在他床上玩耍嬉闹,无意中看到那个名单,就拿在手里跑了出去,在外面遇到了马西娅,马西娅从他手里拿过名单,读完之后记录下内容,并立即派人去叫里图斯和埃克莱克图斯。他们三人都意识到了自己处境的危险,于是决定先发制人。所以,他们没有浪费任何不必要的时间,在第二天夜里杀掉了康茂德。
第二个例子是,君主安东尼纳斯·卡拉卡拉带兵到美索不达米亚时,有一个地方行政长官叫马克里努斯,比起他的战士身份,他倒更像是一个平民百姓。与所有那些不好的君主一样,安东尼纳斯总是害怕别人不按照他所认为应该得到的礼遇对待他自己。他给在罗马的一个名叫马特尼安纳斯的朋友写信,托他向占星家询问是否有人觊觎他的王位,并给他一些相应的建议。马特尼安纳斯回信说,马克里努斯就是那个觊觎王位之人,但是这封信却在送给安东尼纳斯之前落入了马克里努斯之手。就这样,马克里努斯意识到,要么在下一封来自罗马的信到达之前杀掉安东尼纳斯,要么就会被他杀掉,只能二选一。于是他命令手下一个名叫马尔提亚里斯的百夫长将安东尼纳斯暗杀,马尔提亚里斯最终成功完成了任务。马尔提亚里斯效忠于马克里努斯,而他的兄弟几天前刚刚被安东尼纳斯处死。
可以看到,当情势紧迫到没有时间可以耽搁的时候,结果就会与前面所说的伊庇鲁斯的奈勒迈特斯所用方法产生的结果相同。还可以看到,我在本文一开始所说的话仍然适用,即与实际造成的伤害相比,威胁对君主的伤害更大,更可能导致阴谋的产生。因此,君主必须防止这类威胁,要么他应该对那些人十分关怀,要么应该确保那些人不对他造成伤害,但是在任何情况下,他都绝不应该将那些人置于“不是你死就是我亡”的境地。
改变计划导致的危险
阴谋实施过程中发生的危险,要么是因为计划发生改变,要么是因为阴谋实施者缺乏勇气,要么是因为实施者粗心犯错,要么是因为未将目标全部消灭而没能完成任务。因此,在此我要指出,没有预先通知突然改变计划,放弃起初拟定的行动计划,是干扰计划实施的最大因素。如果计划的改变会滋生混乱,那么也是在军事行动和我们正谈及的事件之中。因为此类事件中,首先必须要做的是,让参与行动的人清晰地了解自己要做的事情;如果他们花了几天时间去设想一个详细的计划及其行动过程,而突然被告知行动有变,一切都会失调,整个计划就会被搞砸。所以,即使看到计划中存在不妥之处,执行原计划也比取消计划从而卷入诸多不便之中好得多。这个原则适用于没有时间制定新计划的情况,因为如果有时间的话,完全可以按其所愿进行计划安排。
帕西阴谋反对洛伦佐和朱利亚诺·美第奇的事为大家所熟知。根据拟定的计划,洛伦佐和朱利亚诺·美第奇会受邀与圣乔治教堂的红衣主教共进晚餐,在用餐时将其暗杀。计划还详细布置了哪些人负责暗杀、哪些人负责占领宫殿以及哪些人负责在城市周围散播讯息鼓动人们解放自己。当帕西、美第奇和红衣主教在佛罗伦萨天主教堂出席庄严肃穆的集会时,大家得知朱利亚诺那天不会去和他们共进晚餐,所以共谋者们聚集起来决定将原打算在美第奇家里完成的任务改在教堂完成。这个决定搅乱了整个计划,因为吉奥万巴提斯塔·蒙特塞克拒绝参与,他说他不会去教堂做这件事。因此,不得不寻找替补并重新分配任务,由于没有时间搞清楚行动的细节,他们在实施的时候就犯了许多致命错误,最终失败了。
由于优柔寡断造成的失败
负责完成阴谋任务的实施者优柔寡断,要么是因为尊重人性,要么是因为胆小怯懦。君主展现的威严和气场很容易动摇阴谋实施者的决心或者使他害怕。马里厄斯被民特纳人俘虏后,一个奴隶被派去杀他,但来到马里厄斯面前时,奴隶被他的强大气场所震摄,又想到他的名字代表的含义,顿时失去了杀他的勇气和力量。如果连一个被锁在监狱之中承受不幸的人都有如此魅力,那么未被俘虏且身穿君主长袍,威严无比地被壮丽浮华和朝臣包围时的他一定更有魅力。这样的排场足以威慑到你,他对你热情亲切的迎接可能会让你心软。有一伙人阴谋反对色雷斯国王西塔尔凯斯,他们于行动之日到达国王所在之地,但是竟然没有人敢向西塔尔凯斯动手,最后什么都没做就离开了,他们搞不清到底是什么原因阻止了行动,只好互相责怪。就这样,他们不止一次犯下同样的错误,最终导致阴谋暴露,他们也都因这一可能犯下但最终没有实施的罪行而受到了惩罚。菲拉拉的阿方索公爵有两个兄弟阴谋反对他,他们选择了一个给公爵当差的人作为中间人,这个人既是牧师又是合唱指挥。应两兄弟的要求,此人多次成功引公爵与他们会面,让他们可以趁势杀掉阿方索,但兄弟二人均不敢动手,阴谋暴露后,他们不得不遭受邪恶与缺乏谨慎而招致的惩罚。只有在被君主的强大气场所震慑及因其仁慈的举止而失掉戾气的情况下,这种疏忽大意的过错才会出现。
由于心绪不宁而造成的失败
阴谋实施过程中的诸多不顺利,是由于缺乏谨慎或缺乏勇气酿成的错误所致,因为这两种情况都可能发生,使得你心绪混乱,说错话、做错事。提图斯·李维向我们讲述的一个叫亚历科萨麦尼斯的埃托利亚人的事例,最能贴切描述人们这样崩溃混乱的情形。亚历科萨麦尼斯决心杀掉上文所述的斯巴达人纳比斯,行动时机到来之时,他告知手下任务,并且,依照李维的叙述,“努力使自己集中力量,因为思索这样一件大事令他的思绪混乱”。的确,一个人的意志再坚强,对死亡或持弄刀剑再熟悉,也不太可能不混乱。因此,应当选择有做这种事情经验的人,不要把事情委托给任何其他人,即使人们认为他再勇敢也不行。做大事的时机到来之时,如果行动者之前没有任何经验,那么没人敢肯定会发生什么。例如,心绪混乱可能导致武器从手中滑落,或者偶然泄露某些信息并导致同样的后果。康茂德的姐姐卢西拉与昆提阿努斯一起计划杀掉他,昆提阿努斯在圆形剧场入口处等待着康茂德,拿着亮晃晃的匕首来到康茂德面前,说道:“元老院送你的礼物!”这些话让他没来得及放下武器袭击康茂德就被捕了。之前提到过,梅瑟·安东尼奥·沃尔泰拉受命杀掉洛伦佐·美第奇,在扑向美第奇那一刻,他喊道:“啊,叛徒!”这一惊叫挽救了洛伦佐的性命,摧毁了那个阴谋。
旨在推翻多位君主的阴谋
由于上述原因,成功密谋推翻一位君主已经相当不易,而成功密谋推翻两位君主更是难上加难。换句话说,推翻两位君主的密谋几乎不可能成功,因为你几乎不可能在同一时间不同地点实施相似的行动,而在不同的时间实施两次又很难确保二者不相互影响。因此,如果说密谋推翻一位君主是没有把握、危险、鲁莽任务,那么密谋推翻两位君主的行为则完全是愚蠢、轻佻。如果不是出于对历史学家的尊重,我是绝不会认为赫罗狄安对普劳提阿努斯的记叙是可能的。依照他的说法,普劳提阿努斯委任同一个人——百夫长萨图尔尼努斯,去刺杀居住在不同地方的塞维鲁和安东尼努斯。这件事完全不合理,我相信它的唯一理由就是赫罗狄安的权威性。
几个雅典青年志士密谋推翻雅典暴君狄奥克莱斯和希庇亚斯,他们杀死了狄奥克莱斯,但希庇亚斯得以逃脱并为他报了仇。柏拉图的弟子,赫拉克勒亚的希翁和利奥尼兹赫密谋推翻暴君克利阿科斯和萨提洛斯,但他们只杀死了克利阿科斯,萨提洛斯得以存活并替他报了仇。我们前边多次提到的帕西,也仅仅成功杀死了朱利亚诺。因此,任何人都不应该参与密谋推翻多位统治者,因为这对他自己、对他的国家、对其他任何人都没有一点好处。相反,得以幸存的统治者会变本加厉地残暴,就像前文提到的佛罗伦萨、雅典、赫拉克勒亚后来的境况一样。的确,佩洛皮达斯解放他的祖国底比斯的密谋涉及了前文提到的重重困难,最后却得以成功;佩洛皮达斯推翻的君主不是两位而是十位,他不仅是个外人,难以接触到君主,而且他还是一个反叛者。尽管如此,他仍然能够进入底比斯,杀死统治者,解放祖国。但其实,他是因得到了君主参赞卡戎的帮助才得以轻松完成这项壮举的。任何人都不该模仿佩洛皮达斯的做法,因为这本身就是一个不可能的任务,最终能成功是个奇迹。所有提到这件事的作家也都一致认为这件事情是举世无双、空前绝后的事迹。
错误认知导致的失败
阴谋的实施可能被中途产生的错误认知或者不可预见的意外而摧毁。就在布鲁特斯和他的同伙准备刺杀恺撒的那个早晨,恺撒碰巧和共谋者之一的盖厄斯·庞庇利乌斯·雷那进行了一次长谈。其他同伙发现他们聊了那么久,于是就怀疑庞庇利乌斯向恺撒泄密,并且企图不等他进入元老院就将他当场杀死。实际上,他们确实会这样做,但他们的争论后来得到平息,在看到恺撒没有表露出任何异常的迹象后也消除了疑虑。谨慎的人会充分考虑到这种错误认知并给予充分的关注,但是关注越多越容易产生错觉。这是因为当一个人心里有鬼的时候,很容易认为别人都在谈论他,哪怕毫不相关的言论都可以扰乱他,使其认为肯定和他有关,这样就会导致其放弃密谋,或者过早行事,搅黄密谋。知情人越多,这样的情形越容易发生。
由不可预见的意外导致的失败
由于意外不可预见,我们唯一能做的就是举例说明该如何谨慎行事。前文提到过的西恩纳的卢西奥·柏兰提,因潘道夫带走了已经与他结婚的女儿而对他充满愤怒,于是决定选好时机杀掉潘道夫。潘道夫之前每天都去看望一位生病的亲戚,途中要路过卢西奥的房子。卢西奥发现后,安排同伙在他的家里,以备在潘道夫经过时将其杀害。这些同伙携带武器站在门口内侧,一个观察哨在窗口观察,一旦潘道夫经过门口,观察哨给出信号,门口的同伙就立马冲出去。潘道夫出现那天,信号发出后,他碰巧遇到一个老朋友停了下来,同行的另外几人继续往前走,看到发生了什么,听到武器的嘈杂声,发现了这场预谋。结果,潘道夫逃过一劫,卢西奥和他的同伙不得不逃离西恩纳。就这样,这次偶然的会面打乱了谋划中的事情,从而导致卢西奥计划的流产。由于这样的意外是偶发事件,因此也无法提前给出解决方法。我们能做的只能是尽量考虑所有可能发生的情况,并采取相应的举措。
阴谋实施后的危险
我们现在需要讨论阴谋成功实施后可能发生的危险。唯一的危险就是,幸免于难的人可能会为君主的死亡实施报复。例如,君主可能还有在世的兄弟、儿子或其他支持者,他们会继承王位。这些可能寻求报复的人之所以得以幸存,往往是由于你的疏忽或者上文提到的原因。因而,当乔瓦尼·安德烈和他的同伙杀死了米兰公爵后,米兰公爵幸存的一个儿子和两个弟弟及时赶到为他复仇。此情形之下共谋者们情有可原,因为对于这样的事情他们也无能为力;但是由于不谨慎或疏忽而导致留下活口,他们就没有任何借口了。弗利城堡的几个公民密谋杀害了他们的君主吉罗拉莫伯爵,俘虏了他的妻子和尚年幼的孩子。然而,在他们看来,只有获得城堡他们的性命才能保全,但掌控城堡的人拒绝交出城堡。于是,那位名叫凯瑟琳的伯爵夫人向密谋者承诺,如果他们放她回城堡,她就会安排把城堡交给他们。同时,他们把她的孩子作为人质。达成协议后,阴谋者们放她回到城堡,而她一进入城堡就斥责他们杀害了她的丈夫,并威胁会以各种形式报复。为了使阴谋者相信她不在意那些孩子,她把自己的性器官展示给阴谋者们,并告诉他们她还可以生更多的孩子。阴谋者们目瞪口呆,意识到他们错了,但为时已晚,最终为不谨慎的错误受到了永久流放的惩罚。
但是,如果阴谋者杀害的是受人民爱戴的君主,那么阴谋实施后的危险将是最无法避免和令人畏惧的。这样的情形下阴谋者们无法补救和挽回,因此他们不可能安全。恺撒大帝就是典型例证,因为罗马人民爱戴他,替他复仇,因此阴谋者们在被驱逐出罗马之后,均在不同时间不同地点相继被杀。
旨在反对国家的阴谋
与旨在反对君主的阴谋相比,旨在反对国家的阴谋给参与者带来的危险会更小,因为后者在筹划中的危险更少,在实施过程中也同样,实施完毕后则根本不存在危险了。策划阴谋的过程中危险不多,因为公民在谋划攫取权力时,可以不向任何人透露自己的想法和计划。如果计划未受干扰,那么任务就能完成;但是如果受到某部法律或者其他因素的限制,那么就必须放弃此次尝试,寻找其他合适时机。这个原则适用于在一定程度上腐败的共和国,因为在一个并不腐败的国家,根本找不到踏入邪途的起步之地,也根本没有公民会有这种想法。对于生活在封邑的公民,他们有各种方法和手段使自己受益,同时不冒任何风险或卷入麻烦;在共和国中也类似,因为相比君主,共和国采取行动会更慢、更让人信服,也因此更不谨慎;还因为共和国对有权势的公民更加尊重,因此这些人更敢于也更倾向于违反国家利益行事。大家都读过撒路斯提乌斯对于喀提林阴谋的叙述,知道喀提林在阴谋暴露后不仅仍在罗马,而且还加入了元老院,发表着对元老院和执政官的各种无礼申斥言论,由此可见这个城市对公民尊重的程度。如果雷恩图卢斯和其他人自己手中并未持有明明白白证明其阴谋的信件的话,那么在喀提林离开罗马并已经同军队取得联系之时,他们也不会被捕。
迦太基地位显赫的公民汉诺,希望建立一个暴力政权,他安排好要在女儿婚宴上毒死全体元老院成员并自立为王。听到此消息后,元老院仅做了一件事,便是通过了一项法律,限制婚礼和宴会的费用开销。人们对于地位显赫之人的尊重程度可见一斑。
另一方面,旨在反对国家的阴谋在实施过程中,也有可能遇到更多的困难和更大的危险,因为在针对如此多人的阴谋中,你几乎不可能拥有足够的兵力,而且也不是每个人都有任其指挥的军队,像恺撒、阿加托克利斯、克莱奥梅尼等人一样可以靠他们指挥的军队一举征服他们的国家。对于他们来说,此方法简单易行、安全可靠,但是对于没有军队可供指挥的人而言,要想成功实施计划,要么必须采用骗术和诡计,要么必须借助外国军队的力量。雅典人皮西斯特拉妥的故事就是使用骗术和诡计的好例子,他通过战胜麦加拉人而取得了人民的拥护。一天早上,他拖着受伤的身体出现在公众视野,声称是贵族们出于嫉妒袭击了他,并请求武装军队随行保护他本人。得到授权以后,他轻而易举地大权独揽,成为了雅典的独裁君主。在和其他流放者一起回到西恩纳之后,潘道夫·佩特鲁奇受命指挥露天广场的护卫队,这是一份常规性的差事,别人都不愿意接受。但是,这支武装军队却逐渐为他赢得了声望,不久后他就成了一名君主。除此之外,也有不少人采取过各种手段或方法,最终毫无危险地达到了目的。
一些人企图通过自己的军队或者借助外国军队以控制国家,他们能否取得成功,取决于命运对他们是否眷顾。前文提到的喀提林就丧命于自己的阴谋尝试中。上文提到的汉诺,先是使用毒药却失败了,后来拥有了几千武装支持者,但最终全军覆没,自己也因此丧命。底比斯的几个地位显赫的公民召集了一支斯巴达军队来援助他们,并在底比斯建立专制政权。仔细探究这些推翻国家的阴谋,我们会发现,当阴谋还在策划之中的时候,没有人或者只有寥寥几人受到镇压,但是阴谋付诸实施之时,所有人要么都成功了,要么都失败了。在取得成功之后,除了那些在根本上涉及君主统治权的阴谋,其他阴谋都不会引起任何后续的危险。这是因为,假如一个人变成了专制君主,他就会面临专制统治自然带来的各种危险,而为了避开这些危险,只能采取我们在上文讨论过的那些方法来进行补救。
毒药的使用
关于阴谋,我们要说的到此为止。我之所以重点讨论那些使用刀剑而非毒药的阴谋,是因为它们其实属于同一类型。的确,毒药的不确定性更大,因此它也更加危险,但由于不是每个人都有毒药这种东西,所以人们在使用时必须向那些有毒药的人请教,而请教这一举动对你本身就意味着危险。由于种种原因,一杯下毒的饮料可能并不致命。例如,要去杀康茂德的人发现康茂德将他们给的毒药扔掉之后,如果想要他死,则不得不去勒死他。
阻止阴谋所采取的策略
这样看来,最不利于君主的就是阴谋。若一场旨在推翻君主的阴谋已经形成,结果要么是君主被杀,要么是君主蒙受恶名:如果阴谋得逞,君主必死无疑;如果阴谋暴露,君主杀掉了共谋者,人们就会倾向于以为整件事是被君主冠以阴谋之名的工具,以掩盖他对被杀者的贪婪残忍。因此,我必须提醒那些知道有人策划谋反的君主或者共和国,要在采取惩罚性行动之前尽力挖掘精确的信息,并将阴谋者的实力和地位与自己认真对比,如果发现谋反者实力壮大,就要装作毫不知情,直到自己拥有足够兵力一举摧毁它。如若不然,只会招致灾祸。因此,他们应当尽力学会如何掩饰自己,以防共谋者发现自己已经暴露,从而不顾后果地立即采取行动。
罗马人给我们做了很好的例证。在其他地方已经提到过,两个军团的士兵被派去守卫加普亚,以防萨谟奈人的进攻,而军团的指挥者合谋要征服并统治加普亚。当这个消息传到罗马,一个名叫卢提鲁斯的执政官被委任彻查此事。为了不打草惊蛇,他将元老院批准的加普亚军团的住宿营地公之于众。密谋军队信以为真,认为有足够时间实施计划,于是并不急于行动。就这样,直到意识到执政官已将两个军团分离,共谋者们才起了疑心,采取行动并命令实施计划。没有比这更好的例子了,因为在这个事例中,我们可以看到,当人们认为有时间的时候其行动会十分迟缓,而当形势紧迫时其行动又会非常迅速。如果一位君主或共和国政权想让阴谋延迟起事,最好的做法就是巧妙地给共谋者提供在未来某天的时机,这样,当他们等待那天的来临,相信时间充裕之时,君主或共和国就可以趁机策划对阴谋者的惩罚。
没有这样做的人,只会加速自己的失败,雅典公爵和古格里尔莫·帕西就是例证。当公爵成为佛罗伦萨的独裁君主,并听说有人阴谋推翻他的时候,他把其中的一个共谋者抓了起来,但没有进一步调查此事,结果其他共谋者立刻揭竿而起,一举推翻了他的政权。1501年,当古格里尔莫担任瓦尔基亚纳行政官的时候,他发现了在阿雷佐有一个支持维海利的阴谋企图从佛罗伦萨人手中夺走城镇,于是立刻奔赴阿雷佐。他既没有考虑共谋者或者他自己的实力,也没有兵力准备就绪,就在主教即其儿子的建议之下抓获一位共谋者。不料,其他共谋者立刻拿起武器,一举从佛罗伦萨人的手中夺取了城镇,古格里尔莫也不再是行政官,而是变成了阶下囚。
但是,如果阴谋本身就脆弱不堪,上述二例就能也应该立刻受到镇压,以免夜长梦多。人们也不应采取下述两种策略——尽管二者的行事方向几乎完全相反。一种是上述的雅典公爵所用的,他为了证明自己相信佛罗伦萨人深深爱戴他,处死了一个向他告密的人。另一种是锡拉库扎人戴恩所用,为了揭露自己所怀疑之人的意图,允许他信任的卡利普斯假装正在酝酿一场阴谋。这两种策略无一例外导致了灾难:第一种阻挠了告密者,鼓励了阴谋者;第二种使杀死戴恩变得很容易,在这场阴谋中他自己其实就是实际的领导者,从他的经历来看,卡利普斯此时已经能够阴谋推翻戴恩——这一计划非常缜密,最终不仅让戴恩丢掉了政权,也丢掉了性命。
军队、军纪和兵种
军队军纪:当代与昔日之差
托夸图斯与德西乌斯领导下的拉丁人之战是罗马人与外族之间最重要的一战。种种迹象表明,如果拉丁人战败,其就会被罗马人统治,同样,如果罗马人战败,也会沦为拉丁人的臣民。泰特斯·李维认为,这两支军队在军纪、素质、战斗力和人数方面都势均力敌,唯一区别就在于:与拉丁军队将领相比,罗马军队统帅更工于战术。
在这场战争中,还有两件前所未有、闻所未闻的事引起了人们的注意,即为拢军心、正军规,一个执政官选择了自杀,另一个执政官则选择了杀子。在泰特斯·李维看来,这两支军队的共同之处是由于长期交战而形成的相同的语言、相同的军纪、相同的武器装备、相同的作战阵形,甚至相同的作战单位和军官称谓。因此,既然实力相当,一方则必然有某些非凡之处用于鼓舞士气提升战斗力。正如我们在他处提到过的,胜利取决于决心,因为只要战士胸中决心不灭,他们决不会退缩。正因如此,为了使罗马战士的决心比拉丁人更持久,既出于巧合,也出于执政官的素质,托夸图斯不得不杀子,德西乌斯不得不自杀。
泰特斯·李维在指出双方势均力敌时,详细描述了罗马人如何组织和调遣军队作战。所以,此处不再赘述,但有几个值得关注的事我却无法避而不谈,当今所有统帅对它们的忽视,导致了组织调遣军队作战中严重缺乏纪律性。从李维那里,我们知道罗马军队分为三个主要作战单位,托斯卡纳语称为“三列阵法”。第一列为枪兵,第二列为主力兵,第三列为后备兵;每一列都有自己的骑兵。在战场上列阵时,枪兵置于最前沿,其后面紧接的是第二列主力兵,在第三列相同的空间上,部署后备兵。每个作战单位的骑兵都被部署在三个方阵的左右两翼。骑兵部分,因其队形和位置,被称为“翼”,因为他们看起来像鸟的一双翅膀。罗马人的第一列由枪兵组成密集队形,以向前冲杀并抵御敌军的攻击。第二列的主力兵,最初不参加战斗,而是当第一列被敌人击败或压制时,对其进行支援;他们不是排成密集队形,而是排成疏松的阵形,这样如果第一列被敌人击败而被迫后退,第二列能够和第一列整合且不破坏阵形。第三列的后备兵阵形比第二列更疏松,旨在与败退下来的前两列(即枪兵和主力兵)整合在一起。阵形布置完毕后,他们就投入战斗。如果第一列被迫后退或被打败,他们能直接退入主力兵阵列的间隙中,重新组成一个完整的阵形,继续战斗。如果这两个阵列都被击败或被迫后撤,他们可以退到后备兵更疏松的阵线中,三个阵列又组成一个阵形重新作战。如果这样也被击溃了,就真的失败了,因为没有机会重整阵形。因此,当后备兵阵列参战时,说明军队已身处险境,于是谚语有曰“一切取决于后备兵”,抑或如托斯卡纳习语所曰“我们已经孤注一掷了”。
正如当今将领们已抛弃了所有其他传统,且对古代军队纪律漠不关心一样,他们也已摒弃军事纪律举足轻重的意义。当军队排列成能在战斗中三次组成的阵形时,要击败它,进攻三次已属走运,进攻者的勇气必须要足够打击它三次。只能承受一次攻击的军队,通常指基督徒军队,更容易战败,因为无组织性或缺乏勇气的军队均会与胜利无缘。我们的军队无法三次组成阵形,是因为其丢失了将一个阵列吸纳到另一个阵列中的传统。究其原因,当代战斗阵形中存在两个问题:其一,将阵列一字并排展开,使阵形很宽,但很薄弱,面对进攻时,会因缺乏纵深而不堪一击。其二,为了加强阵线,他们会按罗马方式组织阵形,然而却没有组织好第二阵列如何吸纳第一阵列,所以当第一阵列败退下来时,所有阵列都会乱作一团,不战自败。因为前面的阵列一旦溃退,就会与第二阵列发生冲突,如果第二阵列想要前进,就会受第一阵列的阻碍。因此,当第一阵列冲垮第二阵列,第二阵列又冲垮第三阵列之时,混乱丛生,整个军队往往会遭受灭顶之灾。
率领法国军队的富瓦亲王战死的那场拉文那战斗,如今看来,也是一场鏖战。西班牙和法国均按照上述方式组织军队阵形,并排列队,因此双方都只有宽度要远大于纵深的单一阵线。在像拉文那这样宽阔的平原交战时,他们总是采用这样的战术。因为他们认为如果军队排成两列,撤退时容易产生混乱,为了避免混乱发生,故将阵线排得很长,如上所述。但是一旦可作战空间狭小不堪,他们就只能忍受上述糟糕的安排,毫无办法。无论是实战,还是军事演习,他们均以此糟糕阵形御敌。
同样,正如法国国王查尔斯穿越意大利之后,因为城市反叛而爆发佛罗伦萨人和比萨人之战,最终前者被后者击败的地方一样,在比萨领地内的圣莱戈洛,灾难完全是由于盟友骑兵团导致的,他们在阵前被敌人打败后,溃退至佛罗伦萨步兵阵列,引发混乱,结果所有战士均闻风而逃。曾经的佛罗伦萨步兵队长——梅瑟·西里亚科·达尔·博尔格,经常在我面前说,除了盟友骑兵外,他从未被打败过。瑞士人被誉为现代战争的大师,他们与法国并肩作战时,首先考虑的就是将其军队部署于两翼,这样即使盟友骑兵被迫撤退,也不会与其冲撞在一起。虽然此战术容易理解且十分可行,但当代将领们仍无人以此改进当代军队阵形。虽然同样有三重军队编制,即前卫、主力和后卫,但其唯一用处仅在于方便安排士兵扎营。如上所述,此法阵列,众人皆在劫难逃。
鉴于许多人为了掩饰其无知,声称火炮的毁灭力已使得古代战例战术不再适用于当代,下面的章节我将会对火炮是否使得往昔岁月英勇不再这个问题再做探讨。
炮兵在军队中应处于何种地位,大众持有的观点是否合情合理
除以上所述外,我在想,当代被法国人称为“日子”而意大利人称为“武器的功绩”的正面战斗,罗马人在不同时期共进行了多少次,于是我立刻想起大众持有的观点:如果那个时代里有了火炮,罗马人就不可能征服外族行省,也不可能轻易地变外族为其附庸国,也绝不可能进行如此大胆的掠夺占领。他们认为,毁灭性武器的应用已经扼杀了人们像古时那样运用展现其优势的能力。第三个观点还认为,现今比过去更难实现议和,保持古代惯例是不可能的。事实上,不久以后,战争将会变成火炮之间的单纯较量。
探究此观点是否可靠,或者查究火炮究竟会增强还是削弱军队的实力,及其究竟会剥夺还是赋予优秀将军展现“才能”的机会,我认为均值得关注。所以从第一个观点入手,即如果那个时代有火炮,古罗马人将无法取得当时的战绩。
为此,我要指出,战争既有进攻也有防守。那么,我们不禁要问火炮对哪一方更有用或更危险。虽然火炮对双方都有一定作用,但显然其对防守者的杀伤力要远大于进攻者。因为防守者往往身处有城墙的城镇或有栅栏的营地中。如果是有城墙保护的城镇,像大多数城堡一样,空间可能非常狭小,但也或者比较大。若是空间狭小,防守者就必败无疑,因为城墙根本无法抵挡火炮的威力,最厚的城墙也只能多撑几天而已。由于城中的防守者没有足够空间退守或挖掘壕沟或修筑壁垒,因此其失败无法避免。即使有火炮的帮助,他们也无法抵抗敌人从城墙上打开缺口涌入城中,因为有一条公认的真理:火炮无法抵挡猛烈的大规模进攻。所以,在对抗阿尔卑斯山外的异族凶猛进攻时,火炮根本不起作用,但是对抵挡意大利人的进攻却非常有效,因为后者不会大规模进攻,只是以分队形式袭击,这种袭击方式只能称作骚扰战。以这种脆弱阵形向有火炮防守的城墙突破口进军,无疑是自寻死路,对付这样的进攻,火炮非常有用。但是当进攻者以密集持续的阵形涌向突破口,除非有壕沟或壁垒阻挡,否则他们就会到处渗透。火炮即使歼灭一些敌军,也依然无法抵挡更多人冲杀进来夺取胜利。
意大利许多城镇均被阿尔卑斯山附近的外族攻陷就是明证,尤以布雷西亚为典型。其反抗法国统治时,法国人仍以其国王的名义据守卫城。为了防止来自卫城的法国人袭击,威尼斯人在通往卫城的街道上构造了防御工事,并将大炮置于卫城前方、两侧及其他妥当之处。但是,富瓦亲王却对此嗤之以鼻。与之相反,他带领骑兵中队下马作战,冲破火炮的封锁,占领了城市。无人听说过火炮让他损失惨重。因此,如上所述,当小城市防守者自知其城墙低矮且没有可以躲避的壁垒和壕沟,而不得不依赖火炮时,他们会很快溃败。
若是防守一座有回旋空间的大城市,包围者的火炮仍然比防守者的更有用。首先,要使火炮对包围者造成伤害,必须将其抬至高于地面的位置,因为在水平面上,敌人挖掘的壕沟和构筑的壁垒能够为其提供防御,致使你根本无法对其造成破坏。即使将火炮抬升并拖到城墙的凹处,或者用别的方法提升到高处,你仍然会遇到两个问题。第一,使用相同尺寸和威力的火炮时,你不可能像包围者那么有效率,因为你不可能在狭小空间内操作大型武器。第二,即使成功将其安置,你也无法建筑安全可靠的壁垒来掩护火炮,它会被外面的攻击轻易摧毁,而在地面上,任何人都能有想要的空间和便利。因此,包围者有威力足够大的火炮时,防守者不可能在高处设置火炮,如果被赶至低处,如上所述,火炮则很难发挥作用。所以,防守城市不得不像古代军队那样依靠肉搏战,用小口径的火炮作为支援。虽然小型火炮有一定作用,但是其劣势抵消了其优势。由于重炮,城墙被摧毁,壕沟被填平,当守军进行肉搏战时,其处境会因此更为不利。所以,如上所述,这些战争机器对包围者比对防守者更有用。
至于第三个观点,如果为了避免正面作战而用栅栏保护军营,除非情况对你有利并能发挥你方优势,否则我认为在这种情况下,同样是为了避免交战,你不会比古时情况更好,况且有火炮的时代,你可能会更处于劣势。因为如果敌人进攻你,并且地理优势不明显,只要其处于比你更高的地方,这种情况就会发生,或者如果在他们到来之前,你还没有挖好壕沟做好防护,那么敌人会在你采取补救措施之前,将你赶出来,你就不得不放弃防御工事与敌人作战。西班牙人和拉文那交战时就是如此。他们在龙果河岸建立防御阵地,但是其土木工事不够高,而法国人占有略微地理优势。最终其防御工事被火炮摧毁,被迫参战。但是假设你选择的营地高于敌人领地,且土木工事良好坚固,那么鉴于你的地形优势和其他准备充足,敌人就不敢发动进攻。通常情况下,敌人据守易守难攻之地时,必须依靠古代战术,即四处搜索,占领和包围你的友邦城市,切断你的供给,以迫使你离开营地进行决战,如上所述,火炮发挥不了作用。因此,从罗马人发动战争的原因中,可以看到其几乎所有的战争都是进攻模式,而非防守模式,由此可见,上述内容仍然适用,即如果那个时代有火炮,它将成为罗马人的优势,并加速他们的胜利。
对于第二个观点,其认为火炮的使用使得人们不能再像古代那样英勇,我不否认。当军队以小分队进行战斗时,如果必须攀爬城墙或者不以整体队形而是以个人形式,一个接一个发起攻击,则现在的危险要比过去更大。军队统帅会比以前面临更多危险,这是事实,因为无论在哪里,他们都会受到火炮的威胁。即使在最后一支骑兵中队或非常勇敢的士兵们的保护下也无济于事。我们发现,这两种危险情况仍然极少造成重大损失。毕竟,人不可能攀登上防御严密的城墙,也不可能被小股部队攻击。如果想要占领一座城市,就必须像古时那样包围它。甚至在其被攻陷时,现在的危险也没有比过去更大,因为那个时代城里的守军不缺少发射弹丸的武器,即使不令人恐惧,仍然能有效杀伤敌人。至于军队统帅阵亡的例子,在意大利最近二十四年战争里阵亡的人数要比古代十年战争中阵亡的人数更少。除了几年之前在菲拉拉战死的卢多维科·黛拉·米兰多拉伯爵,和在切里尼奥拉战死的内穆尔公爵,没有其他人死于火炮的轰炸。富瓦亲王死于刀剑下,而不是被炮弹所杀。因此,如果作为个人无法展现英勇,原因一定不在火炮,而在于拙劣的战术和无能的(现代)军队,因为他们作为一个整体都缺乏勇气,个体就更不可能勇敢了。
第三个观点说,肉搏战不可能出现,战争将最终成为火炮之间的较量。这一观点完全错误,尤其对于希望军队在战斗中表现出古代素质的人们来说,更被视为绝对谬论。想要组建善战之师的人理应通过模拟战或实战,使士兵适应与敌人近距离战斗,刀锋相见。他们应该更多依靠步兵,而非骑兵,理由将在下文中详述。如果他们确实依靠步兵,并接照上述方式训练,那么火炮将变得一无是处。相对于躲避古代的战象或装有大镰刀的战车,或者其他罗马步兵遭遇的不熟悉的武器而言,当今步兵在交战中躲避炮弹更加容易。他们总能找出对付那些武器的对策,而找到对付火炮的方法则更容易,因为火炮造成伤亡的时间要比大象和镰刀战车更短。后者在战斗中会让你陷入混乱,而前者只是战斗开始前的小麻烦。步兵可以通过借助战场掩体或者在炮弹来袭时卧倒的方式轻松躲避这种小麻烦。但是,经验表明,这是没有必要的,尤其是遇到重炮需要防御时,因为调整重炮的射程很费劲。要么炮口太高,打不到你,要么太低,落在你的前面。
同样,当军队之间展开近战时,事实也清楚地表明,无论是重炮还是小炮都伤害不到你。如果敌人将火炮设在阵前,你可以缴获它;如果将它放在后面,它会在打到你之前打到他们自己人。如果在侧翼,火炮无法对你造成伤害,你反而可以冲过去夺取它,所以毋庸置疑,最终结果都是一样的。瑞士人的例子即是明证:1513年在诺瓦拉,瑞士人在没有火炮和骑兵的情况下,与法国军队交战,虽然法军在防御阵地上有火炮支援,但是瑞士人还是轻而易举地击败了他们。
除了上述原因外,还因为想要火炮发挥作用,就必须要将其置于城墙、壕沟或土木工事的保护下;缺少任何一种形式的保护,它都会被敌人夺取或不起作用,当人们必须在战场正面激战时,以上情况就会发生。除非像古代人使用抛射机那样,否则火炮无法在侧翼使用。这种发射装置被安置在主力部队外围,是为了使其在阵列之外发挥作用,当操作手被敌人骑兵或其他部队袭击时,他可以躲到正规军中。那些对火炮期望甚高的人并没有理解它的用处,因此仅仅寄希望于容易让其失望的武器上。土耳其人使用火炮战胜了古波斯王苏菲和苏丹,仅仅是由于火炮奇怪的轰鸣声惊吓骑兵的马匹而引发的混乱。
最后,我的结论是,只有在如古人所表现的勇气的支持下,火炮才能发挥作用,否则,它一样无法抵御无畏的军队。
罗马权威和古代军事实例表明步兵比骑兵更应该受到重视
许多原因和事例清楚地表明,在所有军事行动中,罗马人对步兵的重视程度要大于骑兵,并以此制定作战计划。例如,罗马人与拉丁人在里吉洛斯湖附近交战,为了支援开始动摇的罗马军队,一些骑兵被命令下马,徒步作战。这个方法的采用,使战斗得以延续,罗马人最终取得胜利。此例中,相对骑兵而言,罗马人明显对徒步作战的士兵更有信心。他们在其他诸多战斗中也使用了此战术,并发现在危机关头这是最好的补救措施。
即使是汉尼拔也不能反驳这一点,在坎尼战役中,他注意到罗马执政官让骑兵下马参加战斗,于是开玩笑说“Quam mallem vinctos mihi traderent equites ”,意思是:“如果他们能把骑兵交由我指挥,我将不胜荣幸。”即使这话出自一位伟人,我们也还是更应该相信罗马共和国及其众多杰出将领的观点,而非汉尼拔一家之言。除了对权威的认同之外,我还可以列举其他合理的原因:步兵可以到达骑兵无法到达的地方;步兵可以被训练保持阵列,即便阵列被攻破,步兵也知道如何重新列阵,然而骑兵就很难保持阵列,当其阵列被打乱时,不可能重新组织。除此之外,马和人一样,有时胆小,有时勇敢,于是经常会发生这样的事情,即胆怯之人骑着英勇之马,以及英勇之人骑着胆怯之马,无论是哪一种组合,都会扰乱军队的秩序。
组织严密的步兵能轻松击败骑兵,但是骑兵却很难击溃步兵。这个观点不仅仅在古代和现代的诸多事例中得以证实,而且也得到了公民行为规范制定者的认同:在没有组建步兵之前,骑兵是战争中的主力军,后来有了步兵,人们随即确信其比骑兵更有用。但这并不是说骑兵对军队不重要,骑兵的作用是侦察敌情,袭击和掠夺乡村,追逐逃亡的敌人,以及与敌军的骑兵对抗。但是,步兵构成了军队的基础,军队的中坚力量应该是步兵,所以应该得到更多的重视。
使意大利陷于外国统治者奴役的意大利君主犯下的诸多罪行中危害最大的就是,不重视军队的规模,过分专注于骑兵。这种荒唐做法源自军官们的刚愎自用和统治者的无知。失去官方地位的意大利民兵在过去的二十五年里,逐渐沦为雇佣兵。这些民兵意识到,如果他们拥有统治者所没有的武装力量,他们就能获得应有的地位。由于他们没有财力维持一支大规模的步兵团,没有可利用的人力资源,而小规模军队不足以使他们声名鹊起,于是他们将目光转向骑兵。两三百人的雇佣骑兵队就能确保佣兵队长的名誉,而且这笔数目不大的金钱容易从国务大臣那里得到。因此,他们得遂所愿并取得了名誉,于是更加轻视步兵的作用,更多关注骑兵。这种做法的滥用导致即便在规模最大的军队中步兵也只占少数。此做法以及其他与之有关的诸多错误行为,让意大利的民兵组织变得软弱无能,从而使意大利沦为更容易被外族人欺凌的对象。
为了更明确地证实“应重视骑兵轻视步兵”这一观点的错误,另以罗马为例。罗马人在索拉城外扎营之时,从城中杀出一支骑兵袭击他们营地。罗马人组织骑兵进行反击。两军交锋时,意外出现了,第一回合交手中双方指挥官均阵亡。即便如此,战斗仍然继续,罗马士兵为了更容易战胜对手,从马上下来,使敌人骑兵也被迫下马徒步作战,凭这个战术罗马人取胜了。这个例子极好地说明了步兵比骑兵更有功效。在别的行动中,执政官让罗马骑兵下马的目的是协助处于被动、需要支援的步兵。但是在此处,他们下马不是为了帮助自己的步兵,也不是为了与敌人步兵交战,而是骑兵对骑兵的对决,因为罗马人意识到他们在马上无法战胜敌人,他们徒步战斗胜算会更大。所以,据此我推断,只有付出艰苦的努力,一支组织严密的步兵团才有可能被另外一支步兵团击败。
虽然帕提亚骑兵数目庞大,但罗马的克拉苏和马克·安东尼,依靠极少的骑兵和众多的步兵占领了帕提亚的领土很长时间。尽管克拉苏和他的军队被消灭了,但是马克·安东尼英勇作战,最终脱离险境。虽然罗马人遭受了不幸,但我们仍看出步兵比骑兵的价值更大,平原广阔,无险可依,河流稀少,远离大海,交通不便,但是帕提亚人自己也承认,马克·安东尼凭借他杰出的才智拯救了自己。虽然帕提亚拥有庞大的骑兵,却依旧不敢与他的军队决战。克拉苏被留在了战场上,仔细研究他当时的行为记录,人们发现他死于敌人的计谋而非武力。尽管克拉苏陷入被动,帕提亚人也没有趁机冒险进攻他。相反,他们总是在附近游击,拦截他的护卫,许下空头承诺,直到将他逼入绝境。
如果近期没有太多有说服力的事例证明步兵的“功效”要比骑兵更大的话,那么我将不得不花大力气以作证实,但事实证明这种担心完全多余。之前提到过九千瑞士士兵在诺瓦拉进攻一万骑兵和一万步兵,并打败了他们。因为一方面骑兵无法靠近他们,另一方面他们还不屑那些步兵,因为其大部分步兵是只会吹牛的加斯科涅人,组织混乱。后来有两万六千瑞士军队前往米兰,欲与法国国王弗朗西斯交战,后者有两万骑兵、四万步兵和一万门大炮。即使没有像诺瓦拉那样取得胜利,他们依然英勇战斗了两天,虽然被打败了,但仍然有半数的军队成功逃脱。马尔库斯·雷古鲁斯·阿蒂利乌斯不仅有勇气以步兵与敌人骑兵作战,他还与象兵作战。即使他没有获胜,也不是因为他的步兵缺乏勇气而使他不相信他们能战胜困难。再次强调,要想战胜纪律严明的步兵,必须要借助纪律更加严明的步兵,否则只有痛苦的绝望。
米兰公爵菲利普·维斯康蒂在位期间,伦巴第遭到一万六千瑞士人的进攻。于是公爵派遣卡尔米纽奥拉率领他的军队迎敌,共有一千骑兵和少数步兵。卡尔米纽奥拉不熟悉敌人的作战方式,用骑兵进攻敌军,以为能迅速击溃他们。但是瑞士人稳住了阵脚,他却损失惨重,于是撤退了。然而,作为勇士,他知道情况改变时如何抓住有利战机,所以当增援军队到达,实力增强时,他果断出击,命令骑兵下马,并将其置于步兵前面,于是这些骑兵无处可逃。由于卡尔米纽奥拉的骑兵下马作战,而且有厚重的盔甲保护,他们轻而易举地突破了瑞士人的阵列,而没有损伤,随着阵线的突破,最终战胜了瑞士人。结果仁慈的卡尔米纽奥拉选择宽恕他们,瑞士人得以保全性命。
我相信很多人都已意识到这两个兵种之间的特点差异,但是我们当今有些世人仍不接受这一点,无论是古代抑或现代的事例,或者正在发生的公认的错误,都不足以使现代统治者改变观点并意识到:一位君主或一个国家要想保持其军队的声誉,就必须恢复步兵的地位和信誉,信任他们,壮大他们,这样他们才能为统治者带来安全保障和显赫声望。但是,如果统治者就像忽视了上述的其他提醒一样忽视了这点,则不良后果将迅速降临,不仅不会为国家带来荣誉,反而会造成损害。
与战争相关的错误
建造城堡往往弊大于利
对于当代精明之士来说,罗马人似乎做了一件蠢事,即虽然希望取得拉丁姆和普里乌努姆民众的忠心支持,但也没有建造城堡去控制民众,迫使他们保持忠诚,尤其是在佛罗伦萨,这已是公认事实。于是,这些精明之士断言,比萨和其他城市均应该依靠城堡守卫。如果罗马人能力具备,他们也会毫无疑问地建造城堡,但是因其品德、判断力和权力与常人不同,所以他们没有这么做。只要罗马依然享受着自由,依然忠于其自身的制度和有效的体制,就决不会依靠城堡守卫罗马的城市与行省(原有的城堡除外)。鉴于此,透过古罗马人和当今统治者在此件事上看法不同,我认为,建造城堡是否有益及其对于建造者来说是利是弊,都值得思考。
须知城堡作为防御工事是用于抵御外敌或镇压臣民的。于前者,它不必要,于后者,其则有害。首先,我们要解释为什么于后者而言是有害的。我坚信,君王或共和国惧怕他的臣民,害怕他们会聚众叛乱。此恐惧根源于臣民对统治者的切肤之恨;此仇恨源自统治者的荒诞行为,而荒诞行为又来自于他们自以为能通过武力或愚蠢的统治方式控制民众的幻想。有城可据,是统治者们迷信武力的原因之一,因此,统治不当升级为仇恨也往往由坐拥城堡的君主或共和国所致。在此事例中,城堡的作用弊远大于利。正如前文所说,一开始,它会使你在对待臣民时更加鲁莽粗暴。然后,它无法满足你内心希望得到的安全感。在控制你的臣民时,除了下面两种情况之外,武力与暴力均无济于事:一是你拥有一支像罗马人一样能投入战斗的善战之师;二是你的臣民精疲力竭、一盘散沙、各自为战,无法联合起来反抗你。如果你使他们穷困潦倒,“虽然被盘剥殚尽,他们仍然能武装起来”,就算你解除了他们的武装,“他们的怒火将成为最锋利的武器”,如果你处决了他们的领袖,将暴动扼杀在萌芽中,其他领袖也会像九头蛇一样又重新出现。如果你建立了城堡,它们在和平时期有用,能为你虐待臣民的暴行壮胆,但是在战争时期,却会变得一无是处,因为它们将受到来自敌人和臣民的攻击,在这双重打击之下,没有城堡能幸免于难。而且,火炮的使用让城堡风光不再,根本无法对抗火炮的威力来守卫狭小的城堡,如上所述,没有人能够舒服地躲在高墙之后逃过一劫。
在这个问题上我意欲浓墨重彩。我的君主,你想用城堡牢牢掌控城中居民吗?作为一国之主或共和国,你想固守住你在战争中夺取的城市吗?我想告诉你,如果你成为君主,控制百姓最无用的办法就是修建城堡,理由我早已给出:它简单易行,无所顾忌,是严酷之法,只会使百姓希望你早日垮台,正因如此,他们的愤怒会让你失去城堡的庇护。因此,贤明的君主若希望永保圣明,同时不给子孙自甘堕落的理由,那么他永远也不会建造城堡,而是希望继任者能更多地倚重臣民的衷心拥护,而非高墙壁垒。
弗朗西斯科·斯福尔扎伯爵,虽然被誉英明之士,但却在成为米兰公爵之后建造了城堡,我坚信,他的做法极不明智,结果也证明这座城堡非但没有为其后人提供安全保护,反而招致祸害。他们自以为在城堡中就可以安全无虞,可以镇压市民臣民,肆无忌惮地对他们使用暴力;结果被人们极度憎恶,如此一来敌人可轻而易举地攻取他们的国家。城堡在战争时期,既不能提供保护,也不能为其所用,在和平时期又对他们产生损害;如果没有城堡,残酷对待公民亦非明智之举,他们本该早点意识到危险,本可不受其害。在此例中,与其拥有城堡和离心离德的臣民,不如没有城堡却能够和忠诚的臣民共同英勇抵抗法国的进攻。
无论如何,城堡都不会有助于你。守军的背叛,敌人猛烈的进攻,或饥饿围困都会让城堡失陷。在仅存一座城堡的情况下,如果你想利用它收复失地,则必须要有一支能反攻入侵者的军队。有了这样一支军队,即使没有城堡,你也能夺回领土。尤其当你没有因城堡而心生傲慢,没有欺凌友善的臣民,这将更容易做到。经验表明,当遇到灾祸时,米兰城堡无论对斯福尔扎家族,还是对法国人都毫无用处。它带来的灾难与毁灭,反而让其甚至无暇顾及这是否是维护其地位的最有效方法。
乌尔比诺公爵吉多贝多,即弗雷德里克之子,曾贵为军队统帅,却被凯撒·博尔吉亚(即教皇亚历山大六世之子)驱逐流放。后来,因偶然的原因,他又重返故土,将当地所有的城堡都夷为平地,因为在他看来城堡是祸害。他的臣民爱戴他,所以他不需要城堡;在敌人面前,他意识到自己无法保卫城堡,除非专门调派一支军队在战场上保护它们。所以他决心摆脱它们的束缚。
教皇尤利乌斯将本蒂沃利奥从博洛尼亚驱逐出境后,建造了一座城堡,随后他的总督残酷压迫居民,从而导致群众暴动,很快就失去了城堡。城堡非但没帮助他,反而害了他。如果当初不那么做,城堡本可以有益于他。
维特里之父尼科洛·达·卡斯特罗,当他从流亡地重新踏上国土时,立刻拆除了教皇西克斯特四世建造的两座城堡,因为他坚信,不是城堡而是人民对他的衷心爱戴为他守护了自己的国家。
但是,在所有事件中,最近也最值得注意的是不久前发生在热那亚的事件,它能从各个方面说明建造城堡的徒劳无用,以及拆除它们的种种好处。众所周知,1507年热那亚反抗法国国王路易十二,法国国王亲率所有军队重新征服了它,随后建立了当时所知的最坚固的城堡,由于地处海角山顶,因此称“热那亚之角”。因其地理位置险要及其他因素,该城堡易守难攻,可以控制港口和热那亚城的大片地区。1512年,情况有变,法国人被赶出意大利之后,尽管依然控制着城堡,但热那亚人还是起义了。奥塔维诺·弗雷哥索取得政权,使出浑身解数围困城堡达十六个月之久,最终城堡中的人在饥饿面前屈服。人们都希望而且许多人建议应将城堡作为紧急避难所保留下来,但是弗雷哥索是聪明之人,他拆除了城堡,因为他认识到将权力赋予统治者的不是城堡的威严,而是人民的意愿。所以,他没有依赖城堡,而是选择用美德和贤明来巩固地位,他做到了。过去想夺取热那亚政权,一千步兵足矣,但如今纵使它的敌人有上万之众,热那亚也岿然不动。从此,人们知道拆掉城堡不会对奥塔维诺产生威胁,建立城堡也不会有助于君主。一旦他能率领军队进入意大利,即便没有城堡,他也能收复热亚那;但假若他无法率军进入意大利,即使有城堡他也无法收复热亚那。由此可见,法国国王花费大笔金银修建城堡,却落得城破人亡、颜面尽失,反之,奥塔维诺征服城堡为他带来了无上荣耀,拆毁城堡又使他获益匪浅。
现在来谈一下共和国,他们在夺取的城镇中而非自己的国家里建立城堡。如果已列举的关于法国和热那亚的事例还不能说明问题,那么引用佛罗伦萨和比萨的事例应该足矣。佛罗伦萨人修建城堡以控制比萨城,却不知道比萨人对其统治充满了愤怒,渴望得到自由,将反抗作为重获自由的必经之途。佛罗伦萨人要想得到比萨,就要采用罗马人的方式,要么化敌为友,要么将其毁灭。查尔斯国王的到来,使得城堡的作用日益明显,比萨人向他投降了,既是因为对现有管理者的不信任,也是因为害怕招来更坏的统治者。但是如果一开始没有城堡,佛罗伦萨人不用城堡也能控制比萨,那么查尔斯国王也就无法因此从其手中夺取比萨,因为迄今他们所采用的方法或许能守住比萨,但利用城堡无疑是最具灾难性的方法。
由此可见,城堡不利于保卫自己的国家,也无法守住夺取的城镇。罗马人这一事例足以证明这一点。为了固守所得城镇,他们非但没有修建城墙,反而拆掉它们。若有人引用古代塔伦特姆和现代布雷西亚的例子驳斥我,我现对此做出回应。这两个地方在当地民众起义之后,都是因为城堡的协助得以收复。为了收复塔伦特姆,费边·马克西姆斯在其执政初期,就派遣了所有的军队,即使没有城堡,也足够收复之用。虽然费边利用了城堡,但即便没有城堡,他也能用其他方法取得同样的效果。也就是说,收复城市,只需要一支军队和一个像费边·马克西姆斯一样的指挥者足矣。从加普亚的例子来看,罗马人收复它是迟早的事,那里没有城堡,罗马人依靠的是军队的英勇。
现在谈谈布雷西亚。那场暴动中发生的事情绝对是极其罕见的。一个城市发动暴动,城堡仍在你的控制中,而且附近驻有你一支大军,这就是法国人当时的处境。国王的指挥官富瓦亲王,在博洛尼亚有一支军队,当他听到布雷西亚失守时,没有片刻犹豫,立即出兵平叛,三天内就抵达了布雷西亚,并凭借城堡的抵抗收复了失地。在这里,布雷西亚的城堡发挥了作用,但它依然需要富瓦亲王和行军三天后的法国军队来解救。因此布雷西亚的例子并不足以反驳与之相反的例子。在最近发生的战争中,许多城堡被反复争夺,拥有着和那些被反复争夺的不设防的国家相同的命运,不只是在伦巴第,也在罗马涅,在那不勒斯,在意大利的每个角落都是如此。
对于拥有强大军队的人民或国家来说,没有必要修建城堡抵御外敌;对于没有这样军队的国家来说,也没有此必要。无城可守的善战之师足以保卫国家,而有城可据的孱弱之师则无以御敌。这里有享誉青史的统治者的经验为证,以罗马人与斯巴达人为例。罗马人没有建造城堡,斯巴达人不仅没有这么做,甚至不允许修建城墙,他们选择依靠个人品德来抵御外敌,因此无需其他。当斯巴达人被雅典人问到雅典的城墙是否美观时,他们回答道:“非常好,专为女人们而建。”
对于拥有强大军队的统治者而言,在领土的海岸和边界上设立城堡,以阻挡敌人进攻使其有备而战,有时有用,但并非必要。但是,如果没有强大的军队,那么在其境内或边境上修建城堡,要么有害,要么无用。有害是因为他会很轻易地失去这些城堡,而且失守后会被敌人所用;如果城堡足够坚固,没有被敌人占领,那么也会被敌军丢在身后,毫无用武之地。因为强大的军队不会遭遇激烈抵抗,行进军不会理会城市和城堡,只会把它们甩在身后。古代史中弗朗西斯科·玛丽亚多次进攻乌尔比诺,但途中敌人的城市均秋毫无犯。
能召集强大军队的统治者,没有城堡也能成就大业,而没有强大军队的统治者最好不要修建城堡。最好的办法是,加固其所居住的城市,保证食物供给充足,妥善安置居民,这样才能抵挡敌人的进攻,直到达成协议或争取到外援解救。所有其他计谋在和平时期只会耗费财力,而在战时却毫无用处。如上所述,罗马人在其他管理制度方面同样明智而谨慎,正如他们决定用更善良、更明智的方法来获得拉丁人和普里奈特人的忠心那样。
利用内讧借机征服城市的策略不可取
罗马共和国时期,平民和贵族之间冲突不断,因此维恩特人和伊特鲁里亚人认为,只要他们联手利用这些矛盾就可以摧毁罗马政权。于是,他们组织军队,入侵罗马领土,元老院派遣盖厄斯·曼利厄斯和马库斯·费边去抵抗入侵。当罗马军队靠近维恩特人的军队时,后者不停地辱骂罗马人。他们的鲁莽与傲慢反倒让内讧的罗马人同仇敌忾,一致对外,战斗一开始,他们就被罗马人打得落花流水,大败而归。由此可见,依赖敌方内部的不和来制定策略多么愚蠢啊!历史在不断地重演,他们自以为唾手可得,却功败垂成。维恩特人自以为在罗马人不团结时,可以趁虚而入,结果入侵反而引火烧身,使罗马人重新团结起来。罗马共和国内部不和通常是因其正处太平盛世,而团结一致是因其恐惧和战争。如果维恩特人稍有头脑,发现罗马人内部不和时,就应该有意避免与之开战,而采用和平时期所用的计谋来智取。
首先,要取得内讧城市的信任。只要还没有开始互相攻击,他们就可继续在各派之间充当仲裁人的角色。已经武力冲突时,也不要急于支持较弱的一方,而应让其继续自相残杀,消耗彼此的实力。有效的策略不会给任何人留有余地去怀疑你是在谋划征服他们,成为他们的统治者。计谋进展顺利,你就能达到目的,取得你想要的结果。我曾在另一个论题中提及,佛罗伦萨共和国就是靠这种计谋征服了皮斯托亚城。皮斯托亚城正处在分裂中时,佛罗伦萨人时而支持这一方,时而又支持另一方,两面都不得罪,诱使他们上当,直到皮斯托亚城人厌倦其动乱的生活方式,最终自愿投入佛罗伦萨的怀抱。
西恩纳城从未因佛罗伦萨人的帮助而改变其政体,除非那种帮助微弱而少有,因为频繁而有力的帮助反而会使整个城市为保卫当权政府而团结起来。
还有一个有力的实例,即米兰公爵菲利普·维斯康蒂,曾利用佛罗伦萨人的内讧对他们发动过几次战争,但结果都以失败告终,因此他为这些无果的进攻而悲叹,说佛罗伦萨人的愚蠢让他花费了两百万金币,却一无所获。
如上所述,维恩特人和托斯卡纳人在这点上均犯了大错,因此刀兵相见之时,反而被罗马人击败。如果其他人也打算借助此法妄想征服敌人,那么也会犯同样的错误。
蔑视和侮辱对施行的人非但无益,反而会招致仇恨
避免使用威胁和侮辱性言语是人们审慎的标志,因为这两个方法都不能夺敌之勇,反而会使其保持警惕,其次会加深对你的仇恨,使其更加处心积虑地想消灭你。上个章节中讨论的维恩特人一例就是证明。除了战争所带来的伤亡之外,他们还用言语侮辱罗马人,每个理智的统帅都应该禁止他的士兵这样做。因为这种言语只会激怒敌人,他们会为此复仇,或者如上所述,这只会影响他的进攻:事实上它们会变成对抗你的武器。
亚洲有一个很有名的事例即是证明。波斯统帅科巴第斯对阿米达城长时间包围,逐渐心生厌倦,于是决定撤军。正当他拔营撤退时,城里的人为其胜利忘乎所以,登上城墙,极尽各种羞辱之能事,嘲笑和辱骂波斯人的胆小和怯懦。这一行为终于惹怒了科巴第斯,他深感愤怒,于是改变主意,又重新包围此城,并在几天后将其攻陷。
同样的事情也发生在维恩特人身上,如上所述,他们不仅对罗马人开战,而且还轻视敌人,走近罗马军营防御栅栏,不停地辱骂他们。这比战争本身更让罗马军队恼怒,本来一开始他们不情愿打仗,但是现在反而逼迫执政官要求参战,结果正如前文中提到的,维恩特人为其行为得到了应有的惩罚。优秀的军队统帅和明智的共和国统治者应该采取一切必要措施来阻止粗言秽语和嘲讽横行,无论是在城中,还是在军队中,无论是对自己人,还是对敌人。除非谨慎之人采取预防措施,否则,如果对敌人使用,会导致上述麻烦产生,如果对自己人使用,后果更糟。
被留在加普亚的罗马军团密谋反抗加普亚人时,(与这次阴谋有关的)兵变发生了,后来瓦列利乌斯·科尔维努斯将其镇压下去,并在集会中制定了对那些责难他人参与兵变之人应处以的最严厉刑罚规定。
提比略·格拉古,在对汉尼拔的战争中,曾受命指挥因兵员短缺而被罗马人武装起来的奴隶们,对那些胆敢侮辱奴隶的人,他特意制定了一条死刑的特殊规定。
可见,罗马人认为诽谤或责难他人的过失非常有害,如上所述,没有比这个更能激怒人心,或引起更大愤怒,无论嘲笑是真的,还是在开玩笑,“智者说过,当他们接近真相时,要将苦涩的滋味丢掉”。
明智的君主和共和国应满足于胜利,否则胜利将弃之而去
轻视敌人通常是因胜利或者对胜利虚假的希望而骄傲,这种虚假的希望不仅让人在言语中,也会让人在行动中犯错误。人一旦有了这种希望,就不再小心行事,从而常常与希望中可成之事失之交臂,更别提可改进的确定之事。这值得思考,因为人们经常会犯这样的错误,以推罗城为例,被胜利冲昏了头脑的人们,不仅拒绝了使者的条件,还杀了这位前来谈判的使者。因此,亚历山大震怒了,全力攻城,最终占领并毁灭了推罗城,城里居民不是被杀,就是沦为奴隶。
1512年,西班牙军队入侵佛罗伦萨,旨在重振美第奇并对该城征税。佛罗伦萨的内奸使他们相信,只要他们越过边境,就会以其名义揭竿而起。但是当西班牙军队进入阿尔诺河平原后,却发现没有内应,由于缺少粮食补给,于是提出议和。但佛罗伦萨人太过骄傲没有接受,由此导致了普拉托的陷落和国家的灭亡。
因此,当统治者遭受攻击,而敌军比其自己的军队强大许多时,此时最愚蠢的决定就是拒绝和谈,尤其如果和谈是由敌方提出,因为条件不会太苛刻,接受条款的人总会得到一些利益,所以从某种程度上说,他们也分享了胜利。举例说明,亚历山大接受他起初拒绝的条件时,如果推罗城的人们能满足于此,那么他们获得的胜利将不止一点,因为凭借自己的军队,他们使一个伟人被迫屈尊于其意愿。同样地,当西班牙军队对佛罗伦萨人的条件做出让步而没有提出自己的条件时,如果佛罗伦萨人能够满足于此,这也将是伟大的胜利。因为西班牙军队想要的是佛罗伦萨改变政体,不再亲近法国,以及征收贡品。对于这三件事,如果西班牙人能得到后两个,佛罗伦萨人则能保留第一个,即保留他们的政体,双方都能获得一定的荣誉和满足。只要性命无忧,佛罗伦萨人也不会对另两件事太过计较。可惜结果并非如此。如果他们能将此看成一个不错的、几成定局的更伟大的胜利,那么也不会沦落到将自己完全交付命运的安排,并且拿最后的本钱冒险,除非万不得已,否则,冒险绝非明智之举。
在意大利曾尊享荣耀十六年的汉尼拔,当因被迦太基人召回帮助他自己的国家而离开意大利时,他发现哈斯德鲁巴和西法克斯已经被击溃,努米底亚王国灭亡了,迦太基人被困在自己的城市里,只有他和他的军队能为他们带来希望。当他意识到祖国已经危如累卵,于是就决定,在尝试过所有的补救措施之前,绝不去冒险,追求和平并非耻辱,因为他确信,如果他的国家还有一线希望,那就是和平,而不是战争。当和平没有出路时,既然自觉仍可能取得胜利,即使必然战败,他也没有拒绝战斗。但如果他的失败不可避免,他至少可以光荣地失败。虽然汉尼拔具备将领的大智大勇,也拥有一支强劲的军队,但考虑到战败后,人民将沦为奴隶,他便更倾向于和平,而非战争。因此,那些并不具备他的才智和经验的人,在决定开始战争前,是否应该三思呢?但是,人会犯错误,因为他们的希望太无边无际;他们会被摧毁,因为他们只依赖这样的希望而不考虑其他因素。
罗马在和平时与战时同相邻国家和城市的关系
共和国或君主如果不为公众或个人伸张正义、惩奸罚恶将是危险的
什么会使人产生愤怒,这可以从罗马人的经历中找到答案。罗马人派遣三个法比依家族的人出使高卢,当时高卢人正准备进攻托斯卡纳,尤其是克鲁修姆城。克鲁修姆人请求罗马帮助抵抗高卢人。因此罗马人向高卢派遣三个法比依家族的人作为使节,并以罗马共和国的名义声明,一定会阻止高卢对托斯卡纳的战争。当使节到达目的地时,他们发现高卢人和托斯卡纳人正准备交战,于是超过职责范围直接介入了冲突,帮助托斯卡纳人。如此一来事情发生了改变,高卢人发现后,他们将对托斯卡纳人的怒火转移到罗马人的身上。高卢人向罗马元老院提出抗议,要求将上述使节移交给他们发落,以弥补给他们造成的损失。但是这些使节不仅没有被移交给高卢人,也没有受到任何惩罚,反而被选为享有领事权的护民官。结果,高卢人看到本应受到惩处的人反而受到重用,就认为这是对他们的侮辱和蔑视,于是义愤填膺进军罗马并占领了除卡庇托山外的所有地区。罗马人因藐视正义而给自己带来了灾难,因为他们的使节违反了“万国公法”,本应该受到惩罚,而不是加官进爵。
这不禁让人思考,重视这些冒犯对每个共和国和君主来讲多么重要,不仅仅是对所有民众的冒犯,还有关系到个人的冒犯。毕竟,如果一个人受到公众或个人的严重伤害,却没有得到应有的公正对待,那么假如他生活在共和国中,他会为自己复仇,即使会导致共和国毁灭;假如处于君主统治下,且生性勇敢不屈,即使会惹火烧身,他也会费尽心机地报仇雪恨,不达目的誓不罢休。
为了验证这点,没有比马其顿国王菲利普(亚历山大的父亲)更好的例子了。菲利普国王的一个名叫阿塔罗斯的随从被一位名叫鲍桑尼亚的年轻贵族迷住了,几次三番向他表达爱意,但是却发现对方对其并无好感。眼看着无法得其所欲,他于是决定设计阴谋迫使鲍桑尼亚就范。因此,阿塔罗斯大摆酒宴,邀请鲍桑尼亚和其他贵族男爵参加,在其酒足饭饱之际,他抓住了鲍桑尼亚,把他绑了起来。然后他不光使用暴力满足自己的淫欲,而且为了羞辱鲍桑尼亚,他还让其他人也用同样下流不堪的方式虐待他。对此奇耻大辱,鲍桑尼亚向菲利普国王反复申诉,国王却让他稍安勿躁,耐心等候。后来国王不但没有为他复仇,反而任命阿塔罗斯为希腊省总督。看到他的仇敌不仅没有受到惩罚还被重用,于是鲍桑尼亚将作恶者阿塔罗斯和没有为其主持公正的菲利普国王均视为其怒火的宣泄对象。因此在一天早晨菲利普国王女儿嫁入伊庇鲁斯王国的亚历山大家族的庄严婚礼上,正当菲利普国王站在两个亚历山大族人和其儿子与女婿之间,要走向圣殿参加仪式时,鲍桑尼亚杀死了他。这件事与罗马人的遭遇相似,统治者均应引以为戒,决不应该轻视任何人,理所当然地以为如果往伤口上洒盐,受伤之人不会复仇,因为其会卷入危险和毁灭之中。
命运不想让人类阻碍她的计划,于是她蒙蔽了他们的头脑
仔细思考世事,我们会发现许多事情的发生和众多不幸的降临并非天意,毫无防备。因此,显而易见,此段论述在罗马事例中仍然适用,正如美德、宗教、规范的行为方面,同样的事情会经常发生在缺乏以上方面的城市和行省。泰特斯·李维用一个众所周知的事件详细而有力地说明了天意控制人事的道理。他说,为了让罗马人认识到他的力量,天意首先使法比依家族的人在出使高卢时表现不公正,借助其错误行为激怒了高卢人,使高卢对罗马宣战。然后又宣布罗马人无力抵抗高卢的进攻。首先,罗马人在邪恶笼罩的时期里唯一的希望卡美卢斯被流放到了阿尔代亚。然后,当高卢人逼近罗马时,他们没有像以前抵抗沃尔西人和附近其他敌人的多次入侵那样,任命一个独裁官。这也使他们变得虚弱,无法迅速集结部队,部队也根本没有时间武装起来并及时赶到离罗马十英里的阿里亚河岸与高卢人对阵。此时,护民官丢失了其惯有的勤勉来安营扎寨,既没有提前侦察地形,也没有修建壕沟和栅栏保护军营,更没有采取其他人为或天助的防御措施。备战时,指挥混乱,军队和指挥官也没有表现出罗马应有的军纪。战斗中没有人员伤亡,因为罗马军队一触即溃,大部分人逃到维伊,其余的人退守罗马,他们没有回家而是直接躲进卡庇托山。由于罗马元老院对罗马的防御一窍不通,他们甚至忘记关上城门。一些罗马元老逃走了,其他元老则和剩下的罗马人退据卡庇托山,他们在防守卡庇托山时恢复了一些军纪,把不能战斗的人留在城外,为应对长期围困收集他们能找到的所有粮食。不能战斗的人,像老人、妇女和儿童大部分逃到附近乡下,余下的人只能留在罗马听天由命。没有人知道前人是如何应对的,也没有人知道接下来要怎么做,因为没有人认为他们还是与祖先一样的罗马人。
对上述种种混乱的描述,泰特斯·李维总结如下:“当命运不想让人们反抗她的力量时,就蒙蔽人们的头脑至此地步。”
李维的结论是正确无疑的。人的一生既会遭遇坎坷,也会享受富贵,因此应宠辱不惊。人们发现其已经被天意给予种种美好的前景所驱使,要么走向毁灭,要么成就辉煌。据此,他们被给予或被剥夺成为美德之人的机会。命运的安排尽善尽美。当她想让一个人成为伟大事业的领导者之时,她会选择一个品行兼备、能抓住她所给予的时机的人。同样地,当她想让一个人制造灾难时,她会优先考虑可以帮助她达到目的的人。如果有任何人敢横加拦阻,她会杀死他或者剥夺他行善的所有能力。
从李维的论据中可清楚地看出,为了使罗马更加伟大,指引它铸就日后的辉煌,天意认为它必须先要经受磨难(在下本书的开篇会有详细的描述),但她并没有完全毁灭罗马。因为她只是将卡美卢斯流放,并没有害死他;虽然罗马被占领了,但卡庇托山没有沦陷;她这样安排是为了让罗马得不到有效的帮助。她致使罗马被占领,军队主力在阿里亚河畔被击溃,退守到维伊城,从而使罗马城无兵可守。在这些事情的设计之中,她同时也为罗马的再生准备了出路,即在维伊城还有罗马军队,而且卡美卢斯还在阿尔代亚,罗马在战无不胜、声名显赫的统帅的带领下,还可以发动积极攻势收复失地。
为了证实上述观点,我可能还可以列举出更多的现代事例,但并无此必要,此处给出的例子已经足矣。再次强调历史的真相,总体来说证明了人可以接受其命运,但不能反对它;我们可以自己安排它,但不可以破坏它。人应永不放弃,因为希望总是会有的,虽然不知道结局,也不知道通向希望的道路有多么曲折和凶险,但是因为有希望,无论命运会带来什么,无论要承受怎样的艰难困苦,我们都不应该绝望。