|
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 trader 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 Naevus should attack Publius
and Cneius Scipio, insufferable that Caecilius should lampoon
Cato; but quite proper that your Terence should encourage youthful
lust by the wicked example of supreme Jove.
|
|