|
Do they reply that the Roman empire could never have been so widely
extended, nor so glorious, save by constant and unintermitting wars?
A fit argument, truly! Why must a kingdom be distracted in order to
be great? In this little world of man's body, is it not better to
have a moderate stature, and health with it, than to attain the huge
dimensions of a giant by unnatural torments, and when you attain it to
find no rest, but to be pained the more in proportion to the size of
your members? What evil would have resulted, or rather what good
would not have resulted, had those times continued which Sallust
sketched, when he says, "At first the kings (for that was the first
title of empire in the world) were divided in their sentiments: part
cultivated the mind, others the body: at that time the life of men was
led without coveteousness; every one was sufficiently satisfied with
his own!" Was it requisite, then, for Rome's prosperity, that
the state of things which Virgil reprobates should succeed: "At
length stole on a baser age And war's indomitable rage, And greedy
lust of gain?"
But obviously the Romans have a plausible defence for undertaking and
carrying on such disastrous wars, to wit, that the pressure of their
enemies forced them to resist, so that they were compelled to fight,
not by any greed of human applause, but by the necessity of protecting
life and liberty. Well, let that pass. Here is Sallust's account
of the matter: "For when their state, enriched with laws,
institutions, territory, seemed abundantly prosperous and sufficiently
powerful, according to the ordinary law of human nature, opulence gave
birth to envy. Accordingly, the neighboring kings and states took
arms and assaulted them. A few allies lent assistance; the rest,
struck with fear, kept aloof from dangers. But the Romans, watchful
at home and in war, were active, made preparations, encouraged one
another, marched to meet their enemies, protected by arms their
liberty, country, parents. Afterwards, when they had repelled the
dangers by their bravery, they carried help to their allies and
friends, and procured alliances more by conferring than by receiving
favors." This was to build up Rome's greatness by honorable means.
But, in Numa's reign, I would know whether the long peace was
maintained in spite of the incursions of wicked neighbors, or if these
incursions were discontinued that the peace might be maintained? For
if even then Rome was harassed by wars, and yet did not meet force
with force, the same means she then used to quiet her enemies without
conquering them in war, or terrifying them with the onset of battle,
she might have used always, and have reigned in peace with the gates of
Janus shut. And if this was not in her power, then Rome enjoyed
peace not at the will of her gods, but at the will of her neighbors
round about, and only so long as they cared to provoke her with no
war, unless perhaps these pitiful gods will dare to sell to one man as
their favor what lies not in their power to bestow, but in the will of
another man. These demons, indeed, in so far as they are permitted,
can terrify or incite the minds of wicked men by their own peculiar
wickedness. But if they always had this power, and if no action were
taken against their efforts by a more secret and higher power, they
would be supreme to give peace or the victories of war, which almost
always fall out through some human emotion, and frequently in
opposition to the will of the gods, as is proved not only by lying
legends, which scarcely hint or signify any grain of truth, but even
by Roman history itself.
|
|