Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, was not able, as I have said, to protect its own citizens in the sacred places of their gods from the fire and sword of the Greeks, though the Greeks worshipped the same gods.Not only so, but "Phoenix and Ulysses fell In the void courts by Juno's cell Were set the spoils to keep; Snatched from the burning shrines away, There Ilium's mighty treasure lay Rich altars, bowls of massy gold, And captive raiment, rudely rolled In one promiscuous heap; While boys and matrons, wild with fear, In long array were standing near." (1)In other words, the place consecrated to so great a goddess was chosen, not that from it none might be led out a captive, but that in it all the captives might be immured.Compare now this "asylum"--the asylum not of an ordinary god, not of one of the rank and file of gods, but of Jove's own sister and wife, the queen of all the gods--with the churches built in memory of the apostles.Into it were collected the spoils rescued from the blazing temples and snatched from the gods, not that they might be restored to the vanquished, but divided among the victors; while into these was carried back, with the most religious observance anti respect, everything which belonged to them, even though found elsewhere There liberty was lost;here preserved.There bondage was strict; here strictly excluded Into that temple men were driven to become the chattels of their enemies, now lording it over them; into these churches men were led by their relenting foes, that they might be at liberty.In fine, the gentle(2) Greeks appropriated that temple of Juno to the purposes of their own avarice and pride; while these churches of Christ were chosen even by the savage barbarians as the fit scenes for humility and mercy.But perhaps, after all, the Greeks did in that victory of theirs spare the temples of those gods whom they worshipped in common with the Trojans, and did not dare to put to the sword or make captive the wretched and vanquished Trojans who fled thither; and perhaps Virgil, in the manner of poets, has depicted what never really happened?
But there is no question that he depicted the usual custom of an enemy when sacking a city.
CHAP.5.--CAESAR'S STATEMENT REGARDING THE UNIVERSAL CUSTOM OF AN ENEMYWHEN
SACKING A CITY.
Even Caesar himself gives us positive testimony regarding this custom;for, in his deliverance in the senate about the conspirators, he says (as Sallust, a historian of distinguished veracity, writes(3)) "that virgins and boys are violated, children torn from the embrace of their parents, matrons subjected to whatever should be the pleasure of the conquerors, temples and houses plundered, slaughter and burning rife; in fine, all things filled with arms, corpses, blood, and wailing." If he had not mentioned temples here, we might suppose that enemies were in the habit of sparing the dwellings of the gods.And the Roman temples were in danger of these disasters, not from foreign foes, but from Catiline and his associates, the most noble senators and citizens of Rome.But these, it may be said, were abandoned men, and the parricides of their fatherland.
CHAP.6.--THAT NOT EVEN THE ROMANS, WHEN THEY TOOK CITIES, SPARED THECONQUERED IN
THEIR TEMPLES.
Why, then, need our argument take note of the many nations who have waged wars with one another, and have nowhere spared the conquered in the temples of their gods? Let us look at the practice of the Romans themselves let us, I say, recall and review the Romans, whose chief praise it has been "to spare the vanquished and subdue the proud," and that they preferred "rather to forgive than to revenge an injury;"(4) and among so many and I great cities which they have stormed, taken, and overthrown for the extension of their dominion, let us be told what temples they were accustomed to exempt, so that whoever took refuge in them was free.Or have they really done this, and has the fact been suppressed by the historians of these events? Is it to be believed, that men who sought out with the greatest eagerness points they could praise, would omit those which, in their own estimation, are the most signal proofs of piety? Marcus Marcellus, a distinguished Roman, who took Syracuse, a most splendidly adorned city, is reported to have bewailed its coming ruin, and to have shed his own tears over it before he spill its blood.He took steps also to preserve the chastity even of his enemy.For before he gave orders for the storming of the city, he issued an edict forbidding the violation of any free person.
Yet the city was sacked according to the custom of war; nor do we anywhere read, that even by so chaste and gentle a commander orders were given that no one should be injured who had fled to this or that temple.And this certainly would by no means have been omitted, when neither his weeping nor his edict preservative of chastity could be passed in silence.Fabius, the conqueror of the city of Tarentum, is praised for abstaining from making booty of the images.For when his secretary proposed the question to him, what he wished done with the statues of the gods, which had been taken in large numbers, he veiled his moderation under a joke.For he asked of what sort they were; and when they reported to him that there were not only many large images, but some of them armed, "Oh," says he, "let us leave with the Tarentines their angry gods." Seeing, then, that the writers of Roman history could not pass in silence, neither the weeping of the one general nor the laughing of the other, neither the chaste pity of the one nor the facetious moderation of the other, on what occasion would it be omitted, if, for the honor of any of their enemy's gods, they had shown this particular form of leniency, that in any temple slaughter or captivity was prohibited?
CHAP.7.--THAT THE CRUELTIES WHICH OCCURRED IN THE SACK OF ROME WEREIN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOM OF WAR, WHEREAS THE ACTS OF CLEMENCY RESULTEDFROM THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S NAME.
