Quintilian [Deal., 13.16]: How can I say this creature is a poor pattern for man?
WOULD AT LEAST THAT A MAN WERE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW
That is, when men wish to harm another, would that they might also leave their very life in the wound, and balance at one and the same time
another’s loss with their own misfortune. They would not be so shameless to do harm, if they realized they were pouring out wrath at the expense of their own life.
5. BUT EVEN AS IT IS, SUCH A MAN HAS NO SAFE COURSE
Now by rhetorical correction he subjoins that it is no safer for men than for bees to exercise their power in cruelty. And this he proves by the proverb so often quoted: HE MUST FEAR MANY, WHOM SO MANY FEAR. Therefore he who strikes constant terror in others must himself be disturbed about his own life at every single moment of time and ponder that new perils hourly threaten him. Cyprian to Donatus On the Tyrant [Ep., 1.13]: A man is compelled to fear as much as he himself is feared. A lofty station inflicts punishment equally on the more powerful, although he has been hedged about by a band of satellites, and guards his person with the enclosure and protection of a numerous retinue. As secure as he does not allow his subjects to be, to that extent must he himself be not secure.
DOES ANYONE ENDURE TO SEE SUCH LIFE
He reproaches the tyrants for their misery, since they could win men’s hearts to themselves in an easy way, if they rule them willing, not against their will.
ANYONE AS MISTAKEN WHO THINKS
This depends on the other statement: HE MUST FEAR MANY, WHOM SO MANY FEAR. For he fears all, who is the cause of fear for all. And he is in peril from all, who is himself the peril of all. Curtius [10.8.1] says the same thing: No one is altogether faithful toward him whom he fears.
FOR THE PRICE OF SECURITY IS AN INTERCHANGE OF SECURITY
The prince can be promised security by all provided he keeps all secure.
Pliny [Panegyr., 85.2,3]: You have friends because you yourself are a friend. For love is not a thing that can be demanded from your subjects like certain other things. And there is no feeling nobler and freer and more unwilling to be dominated, nor that demands a greater response than love.
6. HE HAS NO NEED TO REAR
This tyrants do, who, when they dwell among their citizens, as if besieged by enemies fortify themselves with ramparts and camps. Plutarch, Life of Aratus [50], refers his words to Philip in this fashion: Robbers inhabit rocky places and cliffs and protect themselves by precipices; but for a king there can be no firmer fortification than good faith and kindliness. And Pliny [Panegyr., 49.1], speaks of Domitian as follows: Yet that man, with the very walls and fortifications by which he seemed to be protecting himself, shut up with himself treason, conspiracy, and God, the avenger of crimes.
CITADELS
The proper meaning of the word is not to be overlooked. Citadel (arx) often means the seat of a tyrant, as Pedianus notes [Comm. Cic. Div.].
A KING WILL BE ASSURED OF SAFETY ON AN OPEN PLAIN Publilius Syrus means this, when he says: Mercy prepares good
protection.
HIS ONE IMPREGNABLE DEFENSE IS THE LOVE OF HIS COUNTRYMEN
A beautiful exclamation, which embraces the whole. In this vein, see Pliny, Panegyr. [49.2f]: How much safer, how much more secure is that same house, now that it is defended, not by guards of cruelty, but of love, not by solitude and enclosures! Do we not learn by experience that the most faithful guard of a prince is his own innocence? Sallust [B.J., 10.4]: D is not armies or treasures that are the defenses of a kingdom, but friends, whom you cannot acquire with arms or with gold; for they are acquired only by good offices and integrity. [Pliny, Panegyr., 49.3]: This is an inaccessible citadel; this is an impregnable rampart, not to need a
rampart. In vain will he gird himself about with terror, who is not hedged about with love. Arms are aroused by arms. Plutarch, Life of Aratus [25.4]
True and staunch goodwill of the citizens is the best protection of the prince. Also, Antigonus, Demetrius’ father, used to say that goodwill always seemed to him the best foundation of a kingdom and its safest protection.
7. AND WHAT IS MORE GLORIOUS THAN TO LIVE A LIFE WHICH ALL MEN HOPE MAY LAST
This one thing, by Hercules I ought to be enough for the prince to make himself beloved by all; because so all will as one man protect his life, and his death will be accompanied by public weeping.
AND FOR WHICH ALL VOICE THEIR PRAYERS For his safety and prosperity. On set days the magistrates and priests were accustomed to voice ritual prayers for the Roman emperors, which were framed in a particular form of words. Meanwhile, also, when the occasion called for it, whether a general was setting out to war, or his life
was imperiled by grave illness, or when as before the monarchy of the Caesars, the consuls were about to enter upon the magistracy, or were going off to war, they voiced prayers for the state. Concerning public prayers, which were voiced on the Calends of January, Suetonius [Aug., 97.1] says: Upon observing this, he ordered his colleague Tiberius to voice the prayers which it is customary to make for the forthcoming lustrum. The same [Nero, 46.2]: When a great multitude of the several orders was already assembled for the voicing of prayers, the keys to the Capitol were found only with difficulty. On extraordinary prayers, Livy [10.7.6]: Who could complain of the prayers voiced on behalf of the state by so many plebeian consuls and dictators, either before setting out to their armies, or in the midst of wars? Tacitus Ann., [12.68.1]: The senate was in the meantime called together, and the consuls and pontiffs were voicing prayers for the recovery of the emperor. “Nuncupare vota” (to voice prayers) is to promise, or in our vernacular, “to make vows.” Cicero, Phillipp. [3.4.11]: Those solemn vows he was never to fulfill, he voiced...
Latinus Pacatus [Panegyr., 3.2]: I, about to carry out the vows which I had voiced, shall grace with prayer that time at which the Roman dawn begins.
Now it is also to be observed in order to understand this passage, that after the consuls and priests had framed the voicing of their prayers with a definite form of words, the people voiced the same prayers. This is what Ovid [Trist., 2.57-60] means: I wished that late thou mightest attain the stars of the heavens; / And was a humble fraction of the multitude that prayed the same. / For thee, with pious feelings, have I offered the
frankincense; / And with all the rest I myself, as one, have seconded [The prayers of the public with my own.
NOT UNDER A WATCHMAN
Therefore free, and conceived with a benevolent mind. From this I infer that the Neros and Domitians and emperors of the same type were accustomed to appoint watchmen over the citizens, lest they turn their prayers into curses. But such prayers were voiced more out of servitude and duty than out of love and benevolence. Yet those who wholeheartedly wish their prince well and pray for his welfare, need no watchman.
“Watchman” is used for “spy,” as in Seneca, On Anger [2.33.4]: Caesar pledged him in a glass of wine, and set a watchman over him… the
emperor sent him some perfume and a garland, and gave orders to watch whether he used them. Suetonius, Tib. [12.3]:... he repeatedly begged that some person of any of the three Orders be placed as a watchman over his doings and sayings. Our common folk say “spy.” The ancients used to call “watchman” the subscriber or pleader in a cause who helped the lawyer in a rather subdued voice, warning him, lest he make a mistake.
Cicero [Q. Caec. Div., 16.51]: Appoint me, says he, as a watchman for Tullius. What? How many watchers shall I have need of, if I once allow you to meddle with my bag? as you will have to be watched not only to prevent your betraying anything, but to prevent your removing anything.
There were also watchmen, assigned to jurymen and questor, when the votes were cast into the urn, as far as I can gather from a passage in Asconius Pedianus. Individual judges, he says, used in less important cases to pronounce verdict from the tablet, and for that reason, there was no need of note or watchman. According to Budaeus, we can also call
“watchmen” those whom the Greeks call antigrapheis, that is,
“antigrapharii”, or “controleurs.” All these meanings amount to the same thing.
9. TO BE CONSIDERED THE GREATEST
The Romans expressed adulation to their Caesars with these titles, after the example of Jupiter, whom in antiquity they endowed with these titles.
Cicero, Nat. Deor. [2.25.64]: Jupiter our ancestors called “best and greatest” because to benefit others is greater and more pleasing than to have the greatest power. The same in his speech Pro Domo Sua [57.144]:
Wherefore I beseech and supplicate thee, God of the Capitol, to whom the Roman people have given the name of “Best” by reason of the blessings thou hast vouchsafed, and of “Greatest” by reason of thy might... Puny, Panegyr. [2.7]: Is there anything more fitting to a citizen, more fitting to a senator, than this title “Best” which me have bestowed upon him? [Ibid., 88.4f]: Is it for just reasons that the Senate and the Roman people have added to your titles that of “Best”? It is common, so to speak, and banal, yet new. You should know that no one previously deserved this title, that it was not conceivable even if someone had deserved it. Would it be better, perhaps, to call you “Happy”? But this is given not for moral character
but rather for the gifts of chance. “Great”? To this title more envy than comeliness attaches. [Ibid., 88.8]: The Father of the gods and of men is worshipped first under the name “Best,” and then under that of
“Greatest.” Therefore your praise is all the more glorious, because everyone knows for certain that you are not only “Best” but also
“Greatest”/ Suetonius, Calig. [22.1]: He assumed a variety of titles, such as “Pious,” “The Child of the Camp,” “The Father of the Armies,” and
“The Best and Greatest Caesar.” See how Suetonius and Puny disagree among themselves. One of them asserts that the title “Best” was first attributed to Trajan [Pliny, Panegyr., 2.7]; the other reports that it was also conferred upon Caligula, who reigned long before Trajan [Suet., Calig., 22.1].
CHAPTER 20
1. A prince usually inflicts punishment for one of two reasons: to avenge either himself or another. I shall first discuss the situation in which he is personally concerned; for moderation is more difficult when vengeance is owed to resentment rather than to example.
2. At this point it is needless to caution him to be slow in believing, to ferret out the truth, to befriend innocence, so that it may be evident to all that he (the prince) is not taking the side of the judge any more than he is taking that of the man on trial. But all this concerns justice, not clemency. What I now urge is that, although he has been clearly injured, he should keep his mind under control, and, if he can do so in safety, should remit the punishment; if not, that he should modify it, and be far more willing to forgive wrongs done to himself than those done to others.
3. For just as the magnanimous man is not he who makes free with what is another’s, but he who deprives himself of what he gives to someone else, so I shall not call him clement who takes it greatly when the smart is another’s, but him who, though the spur galls himself, does not become restive, who understands that it is magnanimous to brook injuries even when you are in supreme authority, and that there is nothing more glorious than a prince who, though wronged, remains unavenged.
This division adds much clarity to the discourse and would have added still more if it had embraced the work as a whole. For under these members could have been included the things discussed in the entire work. Yet one should not disapprove the plan of Seneca, who first discussed the matter in general, and then digested and assembled into the form of division the matters which were spoken of in scattered fashion. Now let us briefly explain the division. He sums up the matter in this twofold proposition:
that the prince punishes for these two reasons: to avenge either injury to himself or to another. (1) With respect to the first member: REVENGE CAN EITHER COMPENSATE THE PERSON INJURED OR ENSURE HIM FOR THE FUTURE
[1.21.1]. But neither of these motives should be found with a prince.
Therefore it is not lawful for him to punish just in order to take revenge.
The minor premise can be proved by these reasons: (a) that the prince’s fortune is greater than to need such compensation, (b) that his power is more manifest than to seek thence for himself a reputation of strength; and so on. (ii) Concerning the second member, the offenses of others are avenged either (a) in order to reform by punishment him who has inflicted the injury, or (b) by an example to strike others with terror, or (c) BY REMOVING BAD MEN TO LET THE REST LIVE IN GREATER SECURITY [1.22.1].
These three purposes are better served by a lighter penalty than a heavier one; therefore we should forego the letter of the law. After this he pursues these points separately.
MODERATION IS MORE DIFFICULT
For then the prince does not consider himself a prince, but as if he has to deal with a major enemy, he plots whatever his resentment can devise.
2. AT THIS POINT IT IS NEEDLESS
Paralepsis or preterition, when under pretense of passing over certain matters, we nonetheless mention them, as here he pretends to remain silent concerning the duties of justice, because they do not apply to the present matter, but nevertheless in the meantime he admonishes the judge to take them into account.
TO BE SLOW IN BELIEVING
Because it almost always so happens that ears which are open to informers are closed to truth. But why should the prince believe the accuser, whose reward is not conscience, but, as Celsus [Quint., Inst., 2.15.32] says, victory? Ammianus Marcellinus [18.1.4]: Notable is that reply of Julian to Cephidius the accuser who said: “Everyone could always be innocent if to deny the accusation were sufficient”; “And who could be innocent, if it were enough to have merely accused him?” And Publilius Syrus: One ought to give a deaf ear to accusations.
TO FERRET OUT THE TRUTH
Let him attribute nothing to conjectures or suspicions, nor put trust in the words of litigants, but elicit the truth by manifest proofs. Phocylides the Greek poet has expressed this thought in a beautiful verse:
Do not pass sentence before you hear both sides.
TO BEFRIEND INNOCENCE
Always let him, readier to absolve than to condemn, consider a man innocent whom he has not caught “tedhanded.” The laws also hold to the principle that it is considered more sacred to leave unpunished the crime of a wicked person than to let an innocent one be condemned.
ALTHOUGH HE HAS BEEN CLEARLY INJURED, HE SHOULD KEEP HIS MIND UNDER CONTROL
These are the characteristics of clemency, that the prince should spontaneously condone those offenses which he could justly vindicate, and control his resentment lest he yearn after vengeance. For we are said to have CONTROL OVER OUR MIND when not carried away by any mood and not subject to passions of the mind, because such perturbations deprive us of judgment (arbitrium) and freedom of will. Cato in his speech On Behalf of the People of Rhodes [Gell. 6.(7).3.14]: Therefore it is with the greater emphasis that I advise and urge that this matter be put off for a the days, until we regain our self-command after so great rejoicing.
3. FOR JUST AS THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IS NOT HE
fix very apt comparison. Just as, he says, this preposterous liberality, which robs from the one what it lavishes on the other, is not worthy of a magnanimous person, so is this readiness to pardon which condones others’ offenses not worthy of the name of clemency. For when those who wish to seem beneficent at another’s expense, commit the same injustice and so turn another’s possessions into their very own, they do nothing worthy of praise. See Cicero, Off [1.14.42f].