- quis furor, o cives, quae tanta licentia ferri
- gentibus invisis Latium praebere cruorem?
- cumque superba foret Babylon spolianda tropaeis
- Ausoniis umbraque erraret Crassus inulta
- bella geri placuit nullos habitura triumphos?
What madness [is this], o citizens, what oversized licence of the sword
to offer Latin blood to hated nations?
And when proud Babylon ought to have been despoiled of Ausonian
trophies and Crassus was wandering with shade unavenged,
did it please you for wars to be waged that would have no triumphs?
Notes: Vergil too follows his opening paragraph with a direct address and series of questions (first indirect, then a direct question in l.11). But whereas Vergil calls on the Muse to ‘remember to him the causes’ of Aeneas’ suffering, Lucan does not address a divinity but instead addresses his fellow citizens, and all of his questions are direct. Aeneas suffers because of the wrath of the goddess Juno (suffering considered vertically); the Romans suffer because of each other (suffering considered horizontally).
Line 10 is entirely dactylic, which contrasts sharply with the very slow pace of l.11.
foret: forem, fores, foret, etc. are often used in place of the the imperfect subjuntive of sum (essem, esses, esset, etc.) (see Allen & Greenough 170.a).
Regarding the refernce to Crassus in l.11: Crassus’ death at the hands of the Parthians at Carrhae is narrated in Plutarch, Crassus 31: ‘Crassus was killed by a Parthian called Pomaxathres, though, according to other accounts, it was not he but another Parthian who killed him and cut off his head and right hand as he lay on the ground. This, however, is conjecture rather than certain knowledge
Do you think it’s possible that gentibus invisis Latium praebere cruorem is an allusion to/inversion of the games, i.e., “displaying (a spectacle of) Roman gore for (an audience of) hateful races”?
That’s an interesting idea. Now that I look back on it, I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense, because the Romans aren’t really offering their own blood to other nations (as though in a war with them); they’re offering it to each other, which presumably would *delight* the other nations–that is, offering it *for the benefit of* other nations. A quick look at Lewis and Short tells me of at least one instance where *praebere* is used of games–with *ludos* at Ter. Eun.5.6.9, where it seems to be metaphorical:
numquam pol hominem stultiorem vidi nec videbo ah,
non possum satis narrare, quos ludos praebueris intus.
Oh, I just now see from L&S that there’s a use of *praebere* with *spectaculum* at Sall. J.14.23, though I don’t have time to track it down at the moment.
Ok, one more comment on this. I wonder if there’s a contrast between this line (9) and lines 13-14–that is, ‘Why are you offering your blood (cruorem) to hated nations [for free] when many foreign lands could have been *bought* with it (hoc…sanguine)?’
The line in Sallust comes from Adherbal’s speech to the Roman senate. Specifically he’s apostrophizing his deceased brother, fortunate to have died, while he himself offers a “rerum humanarum spectaculum.”
On the blood, I really like that symmetry.