That the Romans, by Refusing to the Poets the Same License in Respect of Men Which They Allowed Them in the Case of the Gods, Showed a More Delicate Sensitiveness Regarding Themselves than Regarding the Gods.

Chapter 12.—That the Romans, by Refusing to the Poets the Same License in Respect of Men Which They Allowed Them in the Case of the Gods, Showed a More Delicate Sensitiveness Regarding Themselves than Regarding the Gods.

Caput XII. Quod Romani auferendo libertatem poetis in homines, quam dederunt in deos, melius de se quam de dis suis senserint.

The Romans, however, as Scipio boasts in that same discussion, declined having their conduct and good name subjected to the assaults and slanders of the poets, and went so far as to make it a capital crime if any one should dare to compose such verses. This was a very honorable course to pursue, so far as they themselves were concerned, but in respect of the gods it was proud and irreligious: for they knew that the gods not only tolerated, but relished, being lashed by the injurious expressions of the poets, and yet they themselves would not suffer this same handling; and what their ritual prescribed as acceptable to the gods, their law prohibited as injurious to themselves. How then, Scipio, do you praise the Romans for refusing this license to the poets, so that no citizen could be calumniated, while you know that the gods were not included under this protection? Do you count your senate-house worthy of so much higher a regard than the Capitol? Is the one city of Rome more valuable in your eyes than the whole heaven of gods, that you prohibit your poets from uttering any injurious words against a citizen, though they may with impunity cast what imputations they please upon the gods, without the interference of senator, censor, prince, or pontiff? It was, forsooth, intolerable that Plautus or Nævus should attack Publius and Cneius Scipio, insufferable that Cæcilius should lampoon Cato; but quite proper that your Terence should encourage youthful lust by the wicked example of supreme Jove.

At Romani, sicut in illa de re publica disputatione Scipio gloriatur, probris et iniuriis poetarum subiectam uitam famamque habere noluerunt, capite etiam sancientes, tale carmen condere si quis auderet. Quod erga se quidem satis honeste constituerunt, sed erga deos suos superbe et inreligiose; quos cum scirent non solum patienter, uerum etiam libenter poetarum probris maledictisque lacerari, se potius quam illos huiusce modi iniuriis indignos esse duxerunt seque ab eis etiam lege munierunt, illorum autem ista etiam sacris sollemnitatibus miscuerunt. Itane tandem, Scipio, laudas hanc poetis Romanis negatam esse licentiam, ut cuiquam obprobrium infligerent Romanorum, cum uideas eos nulli deorum pepercisse uestrorum? Itane pluris tibi habenda est existimatio curiae uestrae quam Capitolii, immo Romae unius quam caeli totius, ut linguam maledicam in ciues tuos exercere poetae etiam lege prohiberentur, et in deos tuos securi tanta conuicia nullo senatore nullo censore, nullo principe nullo pontifice prohibente iacularentur? Indignum uidelicet fuit, ut Plautus aut Naeuius [Publio et] Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius M. Catoni malediceret, et dignum fuit, ut Terentius uester flagitio Iouis optimi maximi adulescentium nequitiam concitaret?

Chapter 13.—That the Romans Should Have Understood that Gods Who Desired to Be Worshipped in Licentious Entertainments Were Unworthy of Divine Honor.

Caput XIII. Debuisse intellegere Romanos, quod di eorum, qui se turpibus ludis coli expetebant, indigni essent honore diuino.

But Scipio, were he alive, would possibly reply: “How could we attach a penalty to that which the gods themselves have consecrated? For the theatrical entertainments in which such things are said, and acted, and performed, were introduced into Roman society by the gods, who ordered that they should be dedicated and exhibited in their honor.” But was not this, then, the plainest proof that they were no true gods, nor in any respect worthy of receiving divine honours from the republic? Suppose they had required that in their honor the citizens of Rome should be held up to ridicule, every Roman would have resented the hateful proposal. How then, I would ask, can they be esteemed worthy of worship, when they propose that their own crimes be used as material for celebrating their praises? Does not this artifice expose them, and prove that they are detestable devils? Thus the Romans, though they were superstitious enough to serve as gods those who made no secret of their desire to be worshipped in licentious plays, yet had sufficient regard to their hereditary dignity and virtue, to prompt them to refuse to players any such rewards as the Greeks accorded them. On this point we have this testimony of Scipio, recorded in Cicero: “They [the Romans] considered comedy and all theatrical performances as disgraceful, and therefore not only debarred players from offices and honors open to ordinary citizens, but also decreed that their names should be branded by the censor, and erased from the roll of their tribe.” An excellent decree, and another testimony to the sagacity of Rome; but I could wish their prudence had been more thorough-going and consistent. For when I hear that if any Roman citizen chose the stage as his profession, he not only closed to himself every laudable career, but even became an outcast from his own tribe, I cannot but exclaim: This is the true Roman spirit, this is worthy of a state jealous of its reputation. But then some one interrupts my rapture, by inquiring with what consistency players are debarred from all honors, while plays are counted among the honors due to the gods? For a long while the virtue of Rome was uncontaminated by theatrical exhibitions; and if they had been adopted for the sake of gratifying the taste of the citizens, they would have been introduced hand in hand with the relaxation of manners. But the fact is, that it was the gods who demanded that they should be exhibited to gratify them. With what justice, then, is the player excommunicated by whom God is worshipped? On what pretext can you at once adore him who exacts, and brand him who acts these plays? This, then, is the controversy in which the Greeks and Romans are engaged. The Greeks think they justly honor players, because they worship the gods who demand plays; the Romans, on the other hand, do not suffer an actor to disgrace by his name his own plebeian tribe, far less the senatorial order. And the whole of this discussion may be summed up in the following syllogism. The Greeks give us the major premise: If such gods are to be worshipped, then certainly such men may be honored. The Romans add the minor: But such men must by no means be honoured. The Christians draw the conclusion: Therefore such gods must by no means be worshipped.

Sed responderet mihi fortasse, si uiueret: Quo modo nos ista inpunita esse nollemus, quae ipsi di sacra esse uoluerunt, cum ludos scaenicos, ubi talia celebrantur dictitantur actitantur, et Romanis moribus inuexerunt et suis honoribus dicari exhiberique iusserunt? Quur non ergo hinc magis ipsi intellecti sunt non esse di ueri nec omnino digni, quibus diuinos honores deferret illa res publica? Quos enim coli minime deceret minimeque oporteret, si ludos expeterent agendos conuiciis Romanorum, quo modo quaeso colendi putati sunt, quo modo non detestandi spiritus intellecti, qui cupiditate fallendi inter suos honores sua celebrari crimina poposcerunt? Itemque Romani, quamuis iam superstitione noxia premerentur, ut illos deos colerent, quos uidebant sibi uoluisse scaenicas turpitudines consecrari, suae tamen dignitatis memores ac pudoris actores talium fabularum nequaquam honorauerunt more Graecorum, sed, sicut aput Ciceronem idem Scipio loquitur, ‘cum artem ludicram scaenamque totam in probro ducerent, genus id hominum non modo honore ciuium reliquorum carere, sed etiam tribu moueri notatione censoria uoluerunt.’ Praeclara sane et Romanis laudibus adnumeranda prudentia; sed uellem se ipsa sequeretur, se imitaretur. Ecce enim recte, quisquis ciuium Romanorum esse scaenicus elegisset, non solum ei nullus ad honorem dabatur locus, uerum etiam censoris nota tribum tenere propriam minime sinebatur.s o animum ciuitatis laudis auidum germaneque Romanum! Sed respondeatur mihi: qua consentanea ratione homines scaenici ab omni honore pelluntur, et ludi scaenici deorum honoribus admiscentur? Illas theatricas artes diu uirtus Romana non nouerat, quae si ad oblectamentum uoluptatis humanae quaererentur, uitio morum inreperent humanorum. Di eas sibi exhiberi petierunt: quo modo ergo abicitur scaenicus, per quem colitur Deus? et theatricae illius turpitudinis qua fronte notatur actor, si adoratur exactor? In hac controuersia Graeci Romanique concertent. Graeci putant recte se honorare homines scaenicos, quia colunt ludorum scaenicorum flagitatores deos; Romani uero hominibus scaenicis nec plebeiam tribum, quanto minus senatoriam curiam dehonestari sinunt. In hac disceptatione huiusce modi ratiocinatio summam quaestionis absoluit. Proponunt Graeci: Si di tales colendi sunt, profecto etiam tales homines honorandi. Adsumunt Romani: Sed nullo modo tales homines honorandi sunt. Concludunt Christiani: Nullo modo igitur di tales colendi sunt.

Chapter 14.—That Plato, Who Excluded Poets from a Well-Ordered City, Was Better Than These Gods Who Desire to Be Honoured by Theatrical Plays.

Caput XIV. Meliorem fuisse Platonem, qui poetis locum in bene morata urbe non dederit, quam hos deos, qui se ludis scaenicis uoluerint honorari.

We have still to inquire why the poets who write the plays, and who by the law of the twelve tables are prohibited from injuring the good name of the citizens, are reckoned more estimable than the actors, though they so shamefully asperse the character of the gods? Is it right that the actors of these poetical and God-dishonoring effusions be branded, while their authors are honored? Must we not here award the palm to a Greek, Plato, who, in framing his ideal republic, conceived that poets should be banished from the city as enemies of the state? He could not brook that the gods be brought into disrepute, nor that the minds of the citizens be depraved and besotted, by the fictions of the poets. Compare now human nature as you see it in Plato, expelling poets from the city that the citizens be uninjured, with the divine nature as you see it in these gods exacting plays in their own honor. Plato strove, though unsuccessfully, to persuade the light-minded and lascivious Greeks to abstain from so much as writing such plays; the gods used their authority to extort the acting of the same from the dignified and sober-minded Romans. And not content with having them acted, they had them dedicated to themselves, consecrated to themselves, solemnly celebrated in their own honor. To which, then, would it be more becoming in a state to decree divine honors,—to Plato, who prohibited these wicked and licentious plays, or to the demons who delighted in blinding men to the truth of what Plato unsuccessfully sought to inculcate?

Deinde quaerimus, ipsi poetae talium fabularum conpositores, qui duodecim tabularum lege prohibentur famam laedere ciuium, tam probrosa in deos conuicia iaculantes quur non ut scaenici habeantur inhonesti. Qua ratione rectum est, ut poeticorum figmentorum et ignominiosorum deorum infamentur actores, honorentur auctores? An forte Graeco Platoni potius palma danda est, qui cum ratione formaret, qualis esse ciuitas debeat, tamquam aduersarios ueritatis poetas censuit urbe pellendos? Iste uero et deorum iniurias indigne tulit et fucari corrumpique figmentis animos ciuium noluit. Confer nunc Platonis humanitatem a ciuibus decipiendis poetas urbe pellentem cum deorum diuinitate honori suo ludos scaenicos expetente. Ille, ne talia uel scriberentur, etsi non persuasit disputando, tamen suasit leuitati lasciuiaeque Graecorum; isti, ut talia etiam agerentur, iubendo extorserunt grauitati et modestiae Romanorum. Nec tantum haec agi uoluerunt, sed sibi dicari, sibi sacrari, sibi sollemniter exhiberi. Cui tandem honestius diuinos honores decerneret ciuitas? utrum Platoni haec turpia et nefanda prohibenti, an daemonibus hac hominum deceptione gaudentibus, quibus ille uera persuadere non potuit?

This philosopher, Plato, has been elevated by Labeo to the rank of a demigod, and set thus upon a level with such as Hercules and Romulus. Labeo ranks demigods higher than heroes, but both he counts among the deities. But I have no doubt that he thinks this man whom he reckons a demigod worthy of greater respect not only than the heroes, but also than the gods themselves. The laws of the Romans and the speculations of Plato have this resemblance, that the latter pronounce a wholesale condemnation of poetical fictions, while the former restrain the license of satire, at least so far as men are the objects of it. Plato will not suffer poets even to dwell in his city: the laws of Rome prohibit actors from being enrolled as citizens; and if they had not feared to offend the gods who had asked the services of the players, they would in all likelihood have banished them altogether. It is obvious, therefore, that the Romans could not receive, nor reasonably expect to receive, laws for the regulation of their conduct from their gods, since the laws they themselves enacted far surpassed and put to shame the morality of the gods. The gods demand stageplays in their own honor; the Romans exclude the players from all civic honors; the former commanded that they should be celebrated by the scenic representation of their own disgrace; the latter commanded that no poet should dare to blemish the reputation of any citizen. But that demigod Plato resisted the lust of such gods as these, and showed the Romans what their genius had left incomplete; for he absolutely excluded poets from his ideal state, whether they composed fictions with no regard to truth, or set the worst possible examples before wretched men under the guise of divine actions. We for our part, indeed, reckon Plato neither a god nor a demigod; we would not even compare him to any of God’s holy angels; nor to the truth-speaking prophets, nor to any of the apostles or martyrs of Christ, nay, not to any faithful Christian man. The reason of this opinion of ours we will, God prospering us, render in its own place. Nevertheless, since they wish him to be considered a demigod, we think he certainly is more entitled to that rank, and is every way superior, if not to Hercules and Romulus (though no historian could ever narrate nor any poet sing of him that he had killed his brother, or committed any crime), yet certainly to Priapus, or a Cynocephalus, or the Fever,—divinities whom the Romans have partly received from foreigners, and partly consecrated by home-grown rites. How, then, could gods such as these be expected to promulgate good and wholesome laws, either for the prevention of moral and social evils, or for their eradication where they had already sprung up?—gods who used their influence even to sow and cherish profligacy, by appointing that deeds truly or falsely ascribed to them should be published to the people by means of theatrical exhibitions, and by thus gratuitously fanning the flame of human lust with the breath of a seemingly divine approbation. In vain does Cicero, speaking of poets, exclaim against this state of things in these words: “When the plaudits and acclamation of the people, who sit as infallible judges, are won by the poets, what darkness benights the mind, what fears invade, what passions inflame it!”

Hunc Platonem Labeo inter semideos commemorandum putauit, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum. Semideos autem heroibus anteponit; sed utrosque inter numina conlocat. Verum tamen istum, quem appellat semideum, non heroibus tantum, sed etiam dis ipsis praeferendum esse non dubito. Propinquant autem Romanorum leges disputationibus Platonis, quando ille cuncta poetica figmenta condemnat, isti autem poetis adimunt saltem in homines maledicendi licentiam; ille poetas ab urbis ipsius habitatione, isti saltem actores poeticarum fabularum remouent a societate ciuitatis; et si contra deos ludorum scaenicorum expeditores aliquid auderent, forte undique remouerent. Nequaquam igitur leges ad instituendos bonos aut corrigendos malos mores a dis suis possent accipere seu sperare Romani, quos legibus suis uincunt adque conuincunt. Illi -enim honori suo deposcunt ludos scaenicos, isti ab honoribus omnibus repellunt homines scaenicos; illi celebrari sibi iubent figmentis poeticis obprobria deorum, isti ab obprobriis hominum deterrent inpudentiam poetarum. Semideus autem ille Plato et talium deorum libidini restitit, et ab indole Romanorum quid perficiendum esset ostendit, qui poetas ipsos uel pro arbitrio mentientes uel hominibus miseris quasi deorum facta pessima imitanda proponentes omnino in ciuitate bene instituta uiuere noluit. Nos quidem Platonem nec deum nec semideum perhibemus, nec ulli sancto angelo summi Dei nec ueridico prophetae nec apostolo alicui nec cuilibet Christi martyri nec cuiquam Christiano homini conparamus; cuius nostrae sententiae ratio Deo prosperante suo loco explicabitur. Sed eum tamen, quando quidem ipsi uolunt fuisse semideum, praeferendum esse censemus, si non Romulo et Herculi (quamuis istum nec fratrem occidisse, nec aliquod perpetrasse flagitium quisquam historicorum uel poetarum dixit aut finxit), certe uel Priapo uel alicui Cynocephalo, postremo uel Febri, quae Romani numina partim peregrina receperunt, partim sua propria sacrauerunt. Quo modo igitur tanta animi et morum mala bonis praeceptis et legibus uel inminentia prohiberent, uel insita extirpanda curarent di tales, qui etiam seminanda et augenda flagitia curauerunt, talia uel sua uel quasi sua facta per theatricas celebritates populis innotescere cupientes, ut tamquam auctoritate diuina sua sponte nequissima libido accenderetur humana, frustra hoc exclamante Cicerone, qui cum de poetis ageret: Ad quos cum accessit, inquit, clamor et adprobatio populi quasi cuiusdam magni et sapientis magistri, quas a illi obducunt tenebras, quos inuehunt metus, quas inflammant cupiditates!’

Chapter 15.—That It Was Vanity, Not Reason, Which Created Some of the Roman Gods.

Caput XV. Quod Romani quosdam sibi deos non ratione, sed adulatione instituerint.

But is it not manifest that vanity rather than reason regulated the choice of some of their false gods? This Plato, whom they reckon a demigod, and who used all his eloquence to preserve men from the most dangerous spiritual calamities, has yet not been counted worthy even of a little shrine; but Romulus, because they can call him their own, they have esteemed more highly than many gods, though their secret doctrine can allow him the rank only of a demigod. To him they allotted a flamen, that is to say, a priest of a class so highly esteemed in their religion (distinguished, too, by their conical mitres), that for only three of their gods were flamens appointed,—the Flamen Dialis for Jupiter, Martialis for Mars, and Quirinalis for Romulus (for when the ardor of his fellow-citizens had given Romulus a seat among the gods, they gave him this new name Quirinus). And thus by this honor Romulus has been preferred to Neptune and Pluto, Jupiter’s brothers, and to Saturn himself, their father. They have assigned the same priesthood to serve him as to serve Jove; and in giving Mars (the reputed father of Romulus) the same honor, is this not rather for Romulus’ sake than to honor Mars?

Quae autem illic eligendorum deorum etiam ipsorum falsorum ratio ac non potius adulatio est? quando istum Platonem, quem semideum uolunt, tantis disputationibus laborantem, ne animi malis, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, mores corrumperentur humani, nulla sacra aedicula dignum putarunt, et Romulum suum dis multis praetulerunt, quamuis et ipsum semideum potius quam deum uelut secretior eorum doctrina commendet. Nam etiam flaminem illi instituerunt, quod sacerdotii genus adeo - in Romanis sacris testante apice excelluit, ut tres solos flamines haberent tribus numinibus institutos, Dialem Ioui, Martialem Marti, Quirinalem Romulo. Nam beneuolentia ciuium uelut receptus in caelum Quirinus est postea nominatus. Ac per hoc et Neptuno et Plutoni, fratribus Iouis, et ipsi Saturno, patri eorum, isto Romulus honore praelatus est, ut pro magno sacerdotium, quod Ioui tribuerant, hoc etiam huic tribuerent, et Marti tamquam patri eius forsitan propter ipsum.

Chapter 16.—That If the Gods Had Really Possessed Any Regard for Righteousness, the Romans Should Have Received Good Laws from Them, Instead of Having to Borrow Them from Other Nations.

Caput XVI. Quod, si dis ulla esset cura iustitiae, ab eis Romani accipere debuerint praecepta uiuendi potius quam leges ab aliis hominibus mutuari.

Moreover, if the Romans had been able to receive a rule of life from their gods, they would not have borrowed Solon’s laws from the Athenians, as they did some years after Rome was founded; and yet they did not keep them as they received them, but endeavored to improve and amend them. Although Lycurgus pretended that he was authorized by Apollo to give laws to the Lacedemonians, the sensible Romans did not choose to believe this, and were not induced to borrow laws from Sparta. Numa Pompilius, who succeeded Romulus in the kingdom, is said to have framed some laws, which, however, were not sufficient for the regulation of civic affairs. Among these regulations were many pertaining to religious observances, and yet he is not reported to have received even these from the gods. With respect, then, to moral evils, evils of life and conduct,—evils which are so mighty, that, according to the wisest pagans, by them states are ruined while their cities stand uninjured,—their gods made not the smallest provision for preserving their worshippers from these evils, but, on the contrary, took special pains to increase them, as we have previously endeavored to prove.

Si autem a dis suis Romani uiuendi leges accipere potuissent, non aliquot annos post Romam conditam ab Atheniensibus mutuarentur leges Solonis, quas tamen non ut acceperunt (tenuerunt>, sed meliores et emendatiores facere conati sunt, quamuis Lycurgus Lacedaemoniis leges ex Apollinis auctoritate se instituisse confinxerit, quod prudenter Romani credere noluerunt, propterea non inde acceperunt. Numa Pompilius, qui Romulo successit in regnum, quasdam leges, quae quidem regendae ciuitati nequaquam sufficerent, condidisse fertur, qui eis multa etiam sacra constituit; non tamen perhibetur easdem leges a numinibus accepisse. Mala igitur animi, mala uitae, mala morum, quae ita magna sunt, ut his doctissimi eorum uiri etiam stantibus urbibus res publicas perire confirment, di eorum, ne suis cultoribus acciderent, minime curarunt [immo uero ut augerentur, sicut supra disputatum est, omni modo curarunt].

Chapter 17.—Of the Rape of the Sabine Women, and Other Iniquities Perpetrated in Rome’s Palmiest Days.

Caput XVII. De raptu Sabinarum aliisque iniquitatibus, quae in ciuitate Romana etiam laudatis uiguere temporibus.

But possibly we are to find the reason for this neglect of the Romans by their gods, in the saying of Sallust, that “equity and virtue prevailed among the Romans not more by force of laws than of nature.” I presume it is to this inborn equity and goodness of disposition we are to ascribe the rape of the Sabine women. What, indeed, could be more equitable and virtuous, than to carry off by force, as each man was fit, and without their parents’ consent, girls who were strangers and guests, and who had been decoyed and entrapped by the pretence of a spectacle! If the Sabines were wrong to deny their daughters when the Romans asked for them, was it not a greater wrong in the Romans to carry them off after that denial? The Romans might more justly have waged war against the neighboring nation for having refused their daughters in marriage when they first sought them, than for having demanded them back when they had stolen them. War should have been proclaimed at first; it was then that Mars should have helped his warlike son, that he might by force of arms avenge the injury done him by the refusal of marriage, and might also thus win the women he desired. There might have been some appearance of “right of war” in a victor carrying off, in virtue of this right, the virgins who had been without any show of right denied him; whereas there was no “right of peace” entitling him to carry off those who were not given to him, and to wage an unjust war with their justly enraged parents. One happy circumstance was indeed connected with this act of violence, viz., that though it was commemorated by the games of the circus, yet even this did not constitute it a precedent in the city or realm of Rome. If one would find fault with the results of this act, it must rather be on the ground that the Romans made Romulus a god in spite of his perpetrating this iniquity; for one cannot reproach them with making this deed any kind of precedent for the rape of women.

An forte populo Romano propterea leges non sunt a numinibus constitutae, quia, sicut Sallustius ait, ‘ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat’? Ex hoc iure ac bono credo raptas Sabinas. Quid enim iustius et melius quam filias alienas fraude spectaculi inductas non a parentibus accipi, sed ui, ut quisque poterat, auferri? Nam si inique facerent Sabini negare postulatas, quanto fuit iniquius rapere non datas? Iustius autem bellum cum ea gente geri potuit, quae filias suas ad matrimonium conregionalibus et confinalibus suis negasset petitas, quam cum ea, quae repetebat ablatas. Illud ergo potius fieret; ibi Mars filium suum pugnantem iuuaret, ut coniugiorum negatorum armis ulcisceretur iniuriam, et eo modo ad feminas, quas uoluerat, perueniret. Aliquo enim fortasse iure belli iniuste negatas iuste uictor auferret; nullo autem iure pacis non datas rapuit et iniustum bellum cum earum parentibus iuste suscensentibus gessit. Hoc sane utilius feliciusque successit, quod, etsi ad memoriam fraudis illius circensium spectaculum mansit, facinoris tamen in illa ciuitate et imperio non placuit exemplum, faciliusque Romani in hoc errauerunt, ut post illam iniquitatem deum sibi Romulum consecrarent, quam ut in feminis rapiendis factum eius imitandum lege ulla uel more permitterent. Ex hoc iure ac bono post expulsum cum liberis suis regem Tarquinium, cuius filius Lucretiam stupro uiolenter obpresserat.

Again, I presume it was due to this natural equity and virtue, that after the expulsion of King Tarquin, whose son had violated Lucretia, Junius Brutus the consul forced Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, Lucretia’s husband and his own colleague, a good and innocent man, to resign his office and go into banishment, on the one sole charge that he was of the name and blood of the Tarquins. This injustice was perpetrated with the approval, or at least connivance, of the people, who had themselves raised to the consular office both Collatinus and Brutus. Another instance of this equity and virtue is found in their treatment of Marcus Camillus. This eminent man, after he had rapidly conquered the Veians, at that time the most formidable of Rome’s enemies, and who had maintained a ten years’ war, in which the Roman army had suffered the usual calamities attendant on bad generalship, after he had restored security to Rome, which had begun to tremble for its safety, and after he had taken the wealthiest city of the enemy, had charges brought against him by the malice of those that envied his success, and by the insolence of the tribunes of the people; and seeing that the city bore him no gratitude for preserving it, and that he would certainly be condemned, he went into exile, and even in his absence was fined 10,000 asses. Shortly after, however, his ungrateful country had again to seek his protection from the Gauls. But I cannot now mention all the shameful and iniquitous acts with which Rome was agitated, when the aristocracy attempted to subject the people, and the people resented their encroachments, and the advocates of either party were actuated rather by the love of victory than by any equitable or virtuous consideration.

Iunius Brutus consul L. Tarquinium Conlatinum, maritum eiusdem Lucretiae, collegam suum, bonum adque innocentem uirum, propter nomen et propinquitatem Tarquiniorum coegit magistratu se abdicare nec uiuere in ciuitate permisit. Quod scelus fauente uel patiente populo fecit, a quo populo consulatum idem Conlatinus sicut etiam ipse Brutus acceperat. Ex hoc iure ac bono M. Camillus, illius temporis uir egregius, qui Veientes, grauissimos hostes populi Romani, post decennale bellum, quo Romanus exercitus totiens male pugnando grauiter adflictus est, iam ipsa Roma de salute dubitante adque trepidante facillime superauit eorumque urbem opulentissimam cepit, obtrectatorum inuidia uirtutis suae et insolentia tribunorum plebis reus factus est tamque ingratam sensit quam liberauerat ciuitatem, ut de sua damnatione certissimus in exilium sponte discederet et decem milia aeris absens etiam damnaretur, mox iterum a Gallis uindex patriae futurus ingratae. Multa commemorare iam piget foeda et iniusta, quibus agitabatur illa ciuitas, cum potentes plebem sibi subdere conarentur plebsque illis subdi recusaret, et utriusque partis defensores magis studiis agerent amore uincendi, quam aequum et bonum quidquam cogitarent.

Chapter 18.—What the History of Sallust Reveals Regarding the Life of the Romans, Either When Straitened by Anxiety or Relaxed in Security.

Caput XVIII. Quae de moribus Romanorum aut metu conpressis aut securitate resolutis Sallustii prodat historia.

I will therefore pause, and adduce the testimony of Sallust himself, whose words in praise of the Romans (that “equity and virtue prevailed among them not more by force of laws than of nature”) have given occasion to this discussion. He was referring to that period immediately after the expulsion of the kings, in which the city became great in an incredibly short space of time. And yet this same writer acknowledges in the first book of his history, in the very exordium of his work, that even at that time, when a very brief interval had elapsed after the government had passed from kings to consuls, the more powerful men began to act unjustly, and occasioned the defection of the people from the patricians, and other disorders in the city. For after Sallust had stated that the Romans enjoyed greater harmony and a purer state of society between the second and third Punic wars than at any other time, and that the cause of this was not their love of good order, but their fear lest the peace they had with Carthage might be broken (this also, as we mentioned, Nasica contemplated when he opposed the destruction of Carthage, for he supposed that fear would tend to repress wickedness, and to preserve wholesome ways of living), he then goes on to say: “Yet, after the destruction of Carthage, discord, avarice, ambition, and the other vices which are commonly generated by prosperity, more than ever increased.” If they “increased,” and that “more than ever,” then already they had appeared, and had been increasing. And so Sallust adds this reason for what he said. “For,” he says, “the oppressive measures of the powerful, and the consequent secessions of the plebs from the patricians, and other civil dissensions, had existed from the first, and affairs were administered with equity and well-tempered justice for no longer a period than the short time after the expulsion of the kings, while the city was occupied with the serious Tuscan war and Tarquin’s vengeance.” You see how, even in that brief period after the expulsion of the kings, fear, he acknowledges, was the cause of the interval of equity and good order. They were afraid, in fact, of the war which Tarquin waged against them, after he had been driven from the throne and the city, and had allied himself with the Tuscans. But observe what he adds: “After that, the patricians treated the people as their slaves, ordering them to be scourged or beheaded just as the kings had done, driving them from their holdings, and harshly tyrannizing over those who had no property to lose. The people, overwhelmed by these oppressive measures, and most of all by exorbitant usury, and obliged to contribute both money and personal service to the constant wars, at length took arms and seceded to Mount Aventine and Mount Sacer, and thus obtained for themselves tribunes and protective laws. But it was only the second Punic war that put an end on both sides to discord and strife.” You see what kind of men the Romans were, even so early as a few years after the expulsion of the kings; and it is of these men he says, that “equity and virtue prevailed among them not more by force of law than of nature.”

Itaque habebo modum et ipsum Sallustium testem potius adhibebo, qui cum in laude Romanorum dixisset, unde nobis iste sermo ortus est: ‘lus bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat’, praedicans illud tempus, quo expulsis regibus incredibiliter ciuitas breui aetatis spatio plurimum creuit, idem tamen in primo historiae suae libro adque ipso eius exordio fatetur etiam tunc, cum ad consules a regibus esset translata res publica, post paruum interuallum iniurias ualidiorum et ob eas discessionem plebis a patribus aliasque in Urbe dissensiones fuisse. Nam cum optimis moribus et maxima concordia populum Romanum inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense commemorasset egisse causamque huius boni non amorem iustitiae, sed stante Carthagine metum pacis infidae fuisse dixisset (unde et Nasica ille ad reprimendam nequitiam seruandosque istos mores optimos, ut metu uitia cohiberentur, Carthaginem nolebat euerti): continuo subiecit idem Sallustius et ait: (At discordia et auaritia adque ambitio et cetera secundis rebus oriri sueta mala post Carthaginis excidium maxime aucta sunt’, ut intellegeremus etiam ante oriri solere et augeri: Unde subnectens quur hoc dixerit: Nam iniuriae, inquit, ualidiorum et ob eas discessio plebis a patribus aliaeque dissensiones domi fuere iam inde a principio, neque amplius quam regibus exactis, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est, aequo et modesto iure agitatum.’ Vides quem ad modum etiam illo breui tempore, ut regibus exactis, id est eiectis, aliquantum aequo et modesto iure ageretur, metum dixit fuisse causam, quoniam metuebatur bellum, quod rex Tarquinius regno adque Urbe pulsus Etruscis sociatus contra Romanos gerebat. Adtende itaque quid deinde contexat: ‘Dein, inquit, seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita adque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore obpressa plebes cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum adque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum Punicum bellum.) Cernis ex quo tempore, id est paruo interuallo post reges exactos, quales Romani fuerint, de quibus ait: (Ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat.’ Porro si illa tempora talia reperiuntur, quibus pulcherrima adque optima fuisse praedicatur Romana res publica, quid iam de consequenti aetate dicendum aut cogitandum arbitramur, cum (paulatim mutata, ut eiusdem historici uerbis utar, ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est,’ post Carthaginis uidelicet, ut commemorauit, excidium?

Now, if these were the days in which the Roman republic shows fairest and best, what are we to say or think of the succeeding age, when, to use the words of the same historian, “changing little by little from the fair and virtuous city it was, it became utterly wicked and dissolute?” This was, as he mentions, after the destruction of Carthage. Sallust’s brief sum and sketch of this period may be read in his own history, in which he shows how the profligate manners which were propagated by prosperity resulted at last even in civil wars. He says: “And from this time the primitive manners, instead of undergoing an insensible alteration as hitherto they had done, were swept away as by a torrent: the young men were so depraved by luxury and avarice, that it may justly be said that no father had a son who could either preserve his own patrimony, or keep his hands off other men’s.” Sallust adds a number of particulars about the vices of Sylla, and the debased condition of the republic in general; and other writers make similar observations, though in much less striking language.

Quae tempora ipse Sallustius quem ad modum breuiter recolat et describat, in eius historia legi potest; quantis malis morum, quae secundis rebus exorta sunt, usque ad bella ciuilia demonstret esse peruentum. (Ex quo tempore, ut ait, maiorum mores non paulatim ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta, ut merito dicatur genitos esse, qui neque ipsi habere possent res familiares neque alios pati.’ Dicit deinde plura Sallustius de Syllae uitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae, et alii scriptores in haec consentiunt, quamuis eloquio multum inpari.

However, I suppose you now see, or at least any one who gives his attention has the means of seeing, in what a sink of iniquity that city was plunged before the advent of our heavenly King. For these things happened not only before Christ had begun to teach, but before He was even born of the Virgin. If, then, they dare not impute to their gods the grievous evils of those former times, more tolerable before the destruction of Carthage, but intolerable and dreadful after it, although it was the gods who by their malign craft instilled into the minds of men the conceptions from which such dreadful vices branched out on all sides, why do they impute these present calamities to Christ, who teaches life-giving truth, and forbids us to worship false and deceitful gods, and who, abominating and condemning with His divine authority those wicked and hurtful lusts of men, gradually withdraws His own people from a world that is corrupted by these vices, and is falling into ruins, to make of them an eternal city, whose glory rests not on the acclamations of vanity, but on the judgment of truth?

Cernis tamen, ut opinor, et quisquis aduerterit, facillime perspicit, conluuie morum pessimorum quo illa ciuitas prolapsa fuerit ante nostri superni regis aduentum. Haec enim gesta sunt non solum antequam Christus in carne praesens docere coepisset, uerum etiam antequam de uirgine natus esset. Cum igitur tot et tanta mala temporum illorum uel tolerabiliora superius, uel post euersam Carthaginem intoleranda et horrenda dis suis inputare non audeant, opiniones humanis mentibus, unde talia uitia siluescerent, astutia maligna inserentibus: quur mala praesentia Christo inputant, qui doctrina saluberrima et falsos ac fallaces deos coli uetat et istas hominum noxias flagitiosasque cupiditates diuina auctoritate detestans adque condemnans his malis tabescenti ac labenti mundo ubique familiam suam sensim subtrahit, qua condat aeternam et non plausu uanitatis, sed iudicio ueritatis gloriosissimam ciuitatem?