they seek scepters only to have more notable slaves, and when they crown their governors, it is merely for the pleasure of seeing them prosternate at their feet and pay tribute. Vanity is the very essence of this nation; it is what drives them. That is why they conquer, usurp kingdoms, sow desolation around the world, and cross the seas to disturb our peace. If their only wish were to expand their borders and increase their wealth, they would be content to overthrow thrones and kill those who possess them. But since it is their pride that spurs them on, a mere Roman bourgeois must drag chained kings behind him for his own glory and to entertain the people. Is it possible that there are victors inhuman enough, and is it possible that there are defeated kings cowardly enough to endure such disgrace? Unfortunately, yes, there are many examples of this kind that have shown not all princes are honorable.
       
Nevertheless, it is certain that iron and crowns, scepters and chains should never be associated. A chariot drawn by elephants should never be followed by chained kings, and kings should never be treated like criminals, retaining the signs of their regality only to highlight the shame of their defeat and the glory of their conquerors. But where is the glory for those who win in this way? If those they've defeated are cowards, simply because they still live, there is no ground for pride in having dominated them. These defeated kings have shown great nobility of heart in their defeat, and it is cruel to treat them in this way when all they did was defend their crown, their country, their wives, their children, their subjects, and their gods. If they wanted congratulations for the glory of their victors and the delight of the people, it would be more memorable to carry the arms of the enemies they killed with their own hands instead of being escorted by kings they did not fight. Chariots full of broken weapons, shields, spears, javelins, flags taken from their opponents would be a less sinister and more agreeable sight to the people. But is it possible that kings are doomed to such an indignity? Is it possible that this people, who entertain themselves by watching gladiatorial and wild animal fights, are also the cause of this sad ceremony? Is the pleasure of the people found in the shame and distress of kings? Must kings be dragged in chains in front of the very people who rejoice in seeing four thousand men brutally kill each other in a single day, and who find their happiness in the spectacle of tigers and lions devouring one another? Could it be for this same people that kings are to be humiliated in this way? As for myself, Massinissa, I find this form of triumph so strange that I think it is more disgraceful for the victors than the vanquished. And personally, I know that I will be neither one nor the other. You can therefore judge, Massinissa, if a person who does not wish to enter Rome as a prisoner followed by a hundred chained kings can bring herself to follow the prideful Scipio herself in chains. No, Sophonisbe deserves better than that. Even if I were but a Carthaginian, I would not. 

37