Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu/895

Rh CRASSUS. cise his authority by attacking the Parthians. This was a stretch and perversion of the law, for the Parthians were not expressly named in the lex Trebonia, and the Senate, who constitutionally were the proper arbiters of peace and war, refused to sanction hostilities by their decree. Indeed there was not the sliijhtest pretext for hostil- ities, and nothing could be more flagrantly un- just than the detennination of Crassus. It was in express violation of treaties, for in the year B. c. 92, Sulla had concluded a treaty of peace with the Parthians, and the treaty had been renewed by Pompey with their king Phraates. The Romans wore not very scrupulous in their career of con- quest, and they often fought from motives of gain or ambition, but their ostensible reasons generally bore some show of plausibility, and a total disre- gard of form was offensive to a people who were accustomed in their international dealings to ob- serve certain legal and religious technicalities. It was not surprising, therefore, that, apart from all political considerations, the feelings of common jus- tice should excite a strong repugnance to the plans of Crassus, who, having gained his immediate object in obtaining Syria as his province, broke out into a display of childish vanity and boastful- ness, which were alien from his usual demeanour. C. Ateius Capito, the tribune, ordered his officer to arrest Crassus, but was obliged to release him by the intercession of his colleagues. However, he ran on to the gate of the city to intercept the consul, who was anxious without delay to proceed to his destination, and resolved to set out at once without waiting for the termination of his year of office. Posted at the gate, Ateius kindled a fire, and with certain fumigations and libations and in- vocations of strange and terrible deities, mingled the most awful curses and imprecations against Crassus. This was done in pursuance of an an- cient Roman rite, which was never solemnized on light grounds ; for, while it was believed to be fatal to the person devoted, it was also thought to bring calamity upon the person who devoted another. Rut Crassus was not deterred. He proceeded on his way to Brundusium. The evil omen daunted the army, and seems to have occasioned an unusual attention to disastrous auguries and forebodings, for Plutarch is copious in his account of tokens of misfortune in almost every stage of the expedition. The route of Crassus lay through Macedonia, Thrace, the Hellespont, Galatia, and the northern part of Syria to Mesopotamia. Throughout the whole campaign he exhibited so much imprudence and such a complete neglect of the first principles of military ai-t, that premature age may be thought to have impaired his faculties, though he was now but little more than sixty years old. He was deaf, and looked older than he really was. The aged Deiotarus, whom he met in Galatia, rallied him on his coming late into the field. He was accompanied by some able men, especially the quaestor C. Cassius Longinus (afterwards one of ('aesar's murderers) and the legate Octavius, but he did not profit by their advice. He was quite uninformed as to the character and resources of the enemy he was going to attack ; fancied that he should have an easy conquest over un warlike peo- l)le ; that countless treasures lay before him, and that it would be a matter of no difficulty to out- Rtrip the glor' of his predecessors, Scipio, Lucullus, Poiiipcy, and push on his army to Bactria and CRASSUS. 877 India. He did not attempt to ttike advantage of the intestine dissensions in Parthia, did not form any cordial union with the Armenians and other tribes who were hostile to the Parthians, and did not obtiiin correct information as to the position of the enemy's force, and the nature of the country. On the contrary, he listened to flatterers; he suffered himself to be grossly deceived and misled, and he alienated, by ill-treatment and insolence, those who might have been useful, and were dis- posed to be friendly. After crossing the Euphrates, and tjiking Zenodotium in Mesopotamia (a suc- cess on which he prided himself as if it were a great exploit), he did not follow up the attack upon Parthia, but gave time to the enemy to as- semble his forces and concert his plans and choose his ground. He was advised by Cassius to keep the banks of the Euphrates, to make himself mas- ter of Seleuceia (which was situate on a canal con- necting the Euphrates and the Tigris), and to take Babylon, since both these cities were always at enmity with the Parthians. He chose, however, after leaving 7000 infantry and 1000 cavalry in garrison in Mesopotamia, to recross the Euphrates with the rest of his forces, and to pass the winter in northern Syria. In Syria he behaved more like a revenue officer than a general He omitted to muster and exercise the troops, or to review the armour and military stores. It is true that he ordered the neighbouring tribes and chieftains to furnish recruits and bring supplies, but these re- quisitions he willingly commuted for money. Nor was his cupidity satisfied by such gains. At Hierapolis there was a wealthy temple, dedicated to the S'rian goddess Derceto or Atargatis (the Ashtarotli of Scripture), who presided over the elements of nature and the productive seeds of things. (Plin. H. N. v. 19; Strab. xvi. in fin.) This temple he plundered of its treasures, which it took several days to examine and weigh. One of the ill omens mentioned by Plutarch occurred here. Crassus had a son Publius, who had lately arrived from Italy with 1000 Gallic cavalry to join his father's army. The son, on going out of the temple, stumbled on the thresh- old, and the father, who was following, fell over him. Josephus {AnL xiv. 7, Bell. Jud. i. 8) gives a circumstantial account of the plunder of the temple at Jerusalem by Crassus, but the narrative is not free from suspicion, for Jerusalem lay en- tirely out of the route of Crassus, and was at a distance of between 400 and 500 Roman miles from the winter quarters of the army ; and we believe that no historian but Josephus mentions the occurrence, if we except the author of the Latin work " De Bello Judaico," (i. 21,) which is little more than an enlarged translation of Josephus, and passes under the name of Hegesippus. To the divine judgment for his sacrilege on this occasion, Dr. Pridcaux (Conneaion, part 2) attributes the subsequent infatuation of Crassus. According to this account, Eleazjir, treasurer of the temple, had, for security, put a bar of gold of the weight of 300 Hebrew minae into a hollowed beam, and to this beam was attached the veil which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Perceiving that Crassus intended to plunder the temple, Eleazar endeavoured to compound with him, by giving him the bar of gold on condition that he would spare the other treasures. This Crassui promised with an oath, but had no sooner receivsd