The Republic and The Laws (Oxford World's Classics) (8 page)

In this area there is so much scientific sophistication that earlier solar eclipses are calculated from this day (recorded by Ennius and the Major Annals
*
) right back to the one which occurred on July the seventh in the reign of Romulus.
*
In that darkness nature carried Romulus
*
off to a normal death; yet we are told that on account of his valour he was raised to heaven.

TUBERO
: Do you realize, Africanus, that not long ago you thought otherwise …

[One leaf is missing. When the text resumes, the speaker is Scipio.]

SCIPIO
: … which the rest may see. Moreover, what can seem impressive in human affairs to one who has contemplated those divine realms, or long lasting to one who has comprehended eternity, or glorious to one who has perceived the smallness of the earth (both as a whole and in the areas inhabited by human beings) and to how tiny a part of it we are confined, and how countless nations have never heard of us, in spite of our hopes that our fame flits and wanders far and wide? As for estates, buildings, herds, and huge amounts of silver and gold—how blessed should we count that man who does not think or speak of such things as ‘goods’, because he regards their enjoyment as frivolous, their usefulness slight, and their ownership precarious, and observes that the worst kind of person often has them in measureless quantities! He alone can truly claim everything as his in virtue, not of the citizen’s, but of the wise man’s right,
*
not by the guarantee of civil law, but by the universal law of nature. (For nature decrees that nothing belongs to anyone except the person who can handle and use it.) Such a man considers that our military commands and consulships belong to the class of necessary rather than desirable things,
*
that they should be undertaken from a sense of duty, not coveted for the sake of glory or rewards. Such a man, finally, can say of himself what, according to Cato, my grandfather Africanus used to say: that he was never doing more than when he was doing nothing, and was never less alone than when alone.

Who can really believe that when Dionysius, by every conceivable exertion, deprived his citizens of their liberty, he did more than his fellow-citizen Archimedes, when the latter, by apparently doing nothing,
*
constructed the aforementioned globe? Again, who believes that people who can find no one to talk to in the crowded forum are not more alone than those who, with no one present, either converse with themselves or share the company, as it were, of the greatest minds by enjoying their discoveries and writings? Who would think anyone richer than the man who lacks nothing—nothing, at least, that is required by nature, or anyone
more powerful than the man who obtains all he desires, or anyone more blessed than the man who is free from emotional disturbance, or anyone more secure in his prosperity than the man who possesses everything that he could, as they say, take with him from a shipwreck? What power, what office, what kingdom can be more desirable than the ability to look down on all things human, ranking them lower than wisdom, and never turn over in one’s mind anything except what is divine and eternal, or the conviction that, while others are
called
men, only those who are skilled in the specifically human arts are worthy of the name? That remark of Plato’s (or whoever made it) strikes me as very apt. When he had been driven by a storm at sea to an unknown land and cast up on a lonely shore, and the others were in terror because they knew nothing of the place, he is supposed to have noticed some geometric figures drawn in the sand. On seeing them he cried ‘Take heart! I see the traces of men!’ He drew this conclusion, evidently, not from any crops which he saw growing in the fields, but from the signs of intellectual activity. That is why, Tubero, I have always valued learning, and educated men, and those interests of yours.

LAELIUS
: I hesitate to say, Scipio, that you or Philus or 30 Manilius are so (devoted) to those questions …
[One leaf is lost in which Laelius said that while he is not hostile to physics and astronomy he regards them as less important than legal and political matters.
| … that friend of ours, who was related to him
*
on his father’s side, is well worth taking as his model; I mean

Aelius

Sextus, a shrewd and very able man,

who was called ‘shrewd’ and ‘very able’ by Ennius, not because he sought for things which he could never find, but because he gave answers which relieved his clients’ anxiety and worry. When he spoke against the astronomical interests of Gaius, he would always quote the famous words of Achilles in
Iphigenia:
*

Why should diviners seek celestial signs?
   When goat or scorpion or some other beast
     Comes up, then no one sees what lies before
His feet; they scan the regions of the sky.

Yet this same man would say (for I have often listened to him— yes, with pleasure) that Pacuvius’ Zethus
*
was too antagonistic to culture. He approved more of Ennius’ Neoptolemus, who said he wanted to practise philosophy ‘fitfully’, not ‘totally’. But if you are so keen on the interests of the Greeks, there are other, less limiting and more wide-ranging, subjects, which can be applied to practical life and even to the conduct of politics. If
your
skills are good for anything, it is for sharpening up a bit and, as it were, provoking the minds of youngsters, to help them learn more important things more easily.

TUBERO
: I don’t disagree with you, Laelius; but I wonder what more important things you have in mind.

LAELIUS
: Well then, I’ll tell you, at the risk of incurring your derision. You asked Scipio about those celestial phenomena, whereas I should regard what happens before our very eyes as more worthy of study. Why, I ask you, does the grandson of Lucius Paulus, and the nephew of our friend here, born into an illustrious family and this far-famed country, enquire how two suns can have been seen, but does not enquire why in one country there are now two senates and almost two nations? As you realize, the death of Tiberius Gracchus and, even before that, the whole policy of his tribunate, split a single people into two camps. The critics and opponents of Scipio were initially inspired by Publius Crassus and Appius Claudius. Now that those two are dead the critics still ensure that one section of the Senate, led by Quintus Metellus and Publius Mucius, is opposed to you. They have stirred up the allies and our Latin comrades; they have broken treaties; every day the three commissioners
*
contrive some new act of sedition; and the one man, here, who is capable of rectifying this dangerous situation is not allowed to do so. Take my advice, then, my young friends, and don’t worry about the second sun. It may not exist at all; or, as it has been seen, let it exist provided it does no harm. In any case we can know nothing of such things, and even if we come to know a great deal, that kind of knowledge will not make us better or happier people. To have one Senate and one citizen body is achievable; if it isn’t achieved, we are in serious trouble. The opposite is obviously true at present, and we can see that if unity is brought about we shall live better and happier lives.

MUCIUS
: So what do you think we should learn, Laelius, in order to achieve what you require?

LAELIUS
: Those skills which make us fit to serve the community. That, in my opinion, is the finest duty that wisdom has, and the greatest proof and function of moral excellence. So then, to make sure that we spend this holiday in discussions that are primarily of benefit to the state, why don’t we ask Scipio to tell us what form of government he regards as the best? Then we’ll go on to other questions. After clarifying them, we will come step by step, I hope, to these very problems, and will get a systematic understanding of the difficulties that now beset us.

After Philus, Manilius, and Mummius had given their whole- 34 hearted approval …
[One leaf is missing here. When the text resumes, Laelius is addressing his request to Scipio.]

… I wanted this to happen, not just because it was right that a talk about the state should be given, preferably, by a statesman, but also because I recalled that you used to have frequent conversations with Panaetius in the company of Polybius
*
(the two Greeks who were possibly most expert in political theory); you would adduce numerous arguments to prove that much the best form of government was the one we had inherited from our ancestors. Since you are more
au fait
with that debate, you would do us all a favour (if I may also speak for the others) by presenting your views about the state.

SCIPIO
: Well, I can’t pretend that there’s any subject to which I give more attention than the one which you are suggesting, Laelius. I am aware that every craftsman in his own work, if he is any good, thinks, ponders, and strives for nothing except to improve in that field. I have inherited this task from my parents and ancestors, that is, the supervision and management of the country. So I suppose I would be admitting that I was lazier than any craftsman
*
if I devoted less effort to that great art than they do to their little ones. Yet I am not satisfied with what the fore most and wisest Greeks have left us in their writings about that topic. Nor do I venture to set my own opinions above theirs. So, as you listen, I suggest you think of me as not wholly ignorant of the Greek views, nor as ranking them above our own, especially
in this field. Think of me rather as one of the toga-wearing people,
*
who has been given a liberal education thanks to his father’s kindly concern, and has been fired from boyhood with a love of learning, but who has, nevertheless, been trained by experience and family sayings much more than by books.

PHILUS
: I’m quite sure, Scipio, that you have no superior in ability, and that you far surpass everyone else in your experience of the great affairs of state. We know what studies you have always pursued. So if, as you say, you have also paid some attention to this science (or should I say art?), I am most grateful to Laelius for his suggestion. I expect that what you have to say will be more richly rewarding than anything which the Greeks have written for us.

SCIPIO
: Well, you are saddling my talk with great expectations—a heavy burden indeed for anyone about to speak on such an important subject.

PHILUS
: However great our expectations, you will still surpass them, as you always do. There’s no danger that your rhetorical powers will fail when you are talking about political theory.

SCIPIO
: I’ll do my best to oblige. I begin by observing a rule which all speakers, I fancy, must adhere to if confusion is to be avoided: that is, if the name of the subject under discussion is accepted (whatever it is), the meaning of the name
*
should be explained. Only when that has been agreed can the discussion begin. For the scope of the subject under investigation will never be understood unless people first understand what it is. Since, then, we are examining the state, let us first ascertain what precisely we are examining.

Laelius nodded assent; so Scipio resumed: As the topic of discussion is so well known and familiar, I shan’t go back to the basic elements which professionals usually deal with in such cases. That is, I shan’t begin with the initial union
*
of male and female, and then go on to their offspring and degrees of kinship. Nor shall I offer frequent definitions of what each thing is and the ways in which it is expressed. After all, the audience consists of intelligent men who have served this great country with enormous distinction
in war and peace; so I shan’t allow my talk to be more obscure than the actual subject I have chosen. In undertaking this task, I don’t aspire to give an exhaustive account like a professional teacher; nor do I promise that not one single detail will be overlooked.

LAELIUS
: For myself, I’m looking forward to just the kind of talk that you have promised.

SCIPIO
: Well then, a republic is the property of the public
*
But a public is not every kind of human gathering,
*
congregating in any manner, but a numerous gathering brought together by legal consent and community of interest. The primary reason for its coming together is not so much weakness
*
as a sort of innate desire on the part of human beings to form communities. For our species is not made up of solitary individuals or lonely wanderers. From birth it is of such a kind that, even when it possesses abundant amounts of every commodity …
[One leaf is lost in which Scipio presumably speaks of mankind’s intrinsic impulse to form societies.]

… (Without) certain seeds, as it were, (of that kind) no means could be discovered of establishing the other virtues or even the community itself. So these groups, formed for the reason just explained, first founded a settlement in a fixed place for the purpose of building houses. When, with the help of the terrain and their own manual labour, they had made it secure, they called such a collection of dwellings a town or, when it had been laid out with shrines and public spaces, a city. So then, every people (which is a numerous gathering of the kind described), every state (which is an organization of the populace), and every republic (which, as I said, is the property of the public) must be governed by some decision-making process
*
if it is to last. That process must, in the first instance, always come into being for the same reason as that which gave rise to the state. Then this process must be entrusted to one man, or a select group, or else be carried on by the whole populace. When the supreme authority is vested in one man, we call him a king, and the government of that state is a monarchy. When it is vested in a select group, that state is
said to be ruled by the power of an aristocracy.
*
The state in which everything depends on the people is called a democracy. Provided the bond holds firm, which in the first place fastened the people to each other in the fellowship of a community, any of these three types may be, not indeed perfect, nor in my view the best, but at least tolerable, though one may be preferable to another. A just and wise king, or a select group of leading citizens, or the populace itself (though that is the least desirable type) can still, it seems, ensure a reasonably stable government, provided no forms of wickedness or greed find their way into it.