|
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 alI 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.
|
|