that maniac, as those fellows call him, without being compelled by any necessity, chose to be buffeted by these stormy waves right into extreme old age, instead of enjoying the delightfully tranquil and easy life which they extol. I say nothing of those countless individuals who in peace and war have brought salvation to this country; and I shall not mention the names of those who are close to the memory of this generation, for I do not want anyone to complain that he or one of his family has been left out. I simply state this basic fact: nature has given to mankind such a compulsion to do good, and such a desire to defend the well-being of the community, that this force prevails over all the temptations of pleasure and ease.
Yet it is not enough to possess moral excellence * as a kind of skill, unless you put it into practice. You can have a skill simply by knowing
how
to practise it, even if you never do; whereas moral excellence is entirely a matter of practice. Its most important field of practice, moreover, is in the government of a state, * and in the achievement (in reality, not just in words) of those things which our friends in their shady nooks make such a noise about. For nothing is laid down by philosophers—nothing right and honourable at any rate—which has not been brought into being and established by those who have drawn up laws for states. Where does devotion come from? Who gave us our religious observances? What is the source of law, either the law of nations or this civil law of ours? From where did justice, good faith, and fair dealing come? Or decency, restraint, the fear of disgrace, and the desire of praise and honour? Or fortitude in hardship and danger? Why, from those men who have taken these values, already shaped by teaching, and either established them in custom or confirmed them in law. In fact Xenocrates, one of the most illustrious philosophers, when asked what his pupils got from him, is said to have answered ‘to do of their own free will what they are compelled to do by law’. So then, the statesman * who, by official authority and legal sanctions obliges everyone to do what barely a handful can be induced to do by philosophy lectures, must take precedence over the teachers who theorize about such matters. For what philosophy lecture is so fine that it deserves to be set above the public law and customs of a well-ordered state? For my own part, I consider what Ennius calls ‘great and commanding cities’ superior to little villages and outposts; similarly, in my view, those who govern such cities by their counsel and authority are in wisdom itself * far above those without any experience of public affairs. We are led by a powerful urge to increase the wealth of the human race; we are keen to make men’s lives safer and richer by our policies and efforts; we are spurred on by nature herself to fulfil this purpose. Therefore, let us hold that course which has always been followed by the best men, ignoring the bugle for retreat, which tries to recall those who have already advanced.
2
3
Against these well-known and well-established principles our opponents set, first, the hardships which have to be endured indefending the state—surely a flimsy objection in the eyes of anybody alert and diligent, and one to be treated with contempt not only in matters of such moment but even in things of less importance, such as one’s pursuits or social duties or even one’s everyday occupations. They point, in addition, to the dangers of public life, using the despicable fear of death to deter brave men— men who normally think it more miserable to decay in the natural course of old age than to have the chance of laying down, as a supreme gift to their country, the life which in any case would have to be given back to nature.
4
On that topic our opponents wax fluent and eloquent (in their own opinion), reeling off the disasters of highly eminent men and the wrongs they have suffered from
Yet it is not enough to possess moral excellence * as a kind of skill, unless you put it into practice. You can have a skill simply by knowing
how
to practise it, even if you never do; whereas moral excellence is entirely a matter of practice. Its most important field of practice, moreover, is in the government of a state, * and in the achievement (in reality, not just in words) of those things which our friends in their shady nooks make such a noise about. For nothing is laid down by philosophers—nothing right and honourable at any rate—which has not been brought into being and established by those who have drawn up laws for states. Where does devotion come from? Who gave us our religious observances? What is the source of law, either the law of nations or this civil law of ours? From where did justice, good faith, and fair dealing come? Or decency, restraint, the fear of disgrace, and the desire of praise and honour? Or fortitude in hardship and danger? Why, from those men who have taken these values, already shaped by teaching, and either established them in custom or confirmed them in law. In fact Xenocrates, one of the most illustrious philosophers, when asked what his pupils got from him, is said to have answered ‘to do of their own free will what they are compelled to do by law’. So then, the statesman * who, by official authority and legal sanctions obliges everyone to do what barely a handful can be induced to do by philosophy lectures, must take precedence over the teachers who theorize about such matters. For what philosophy lecture is so fine that it deserves to be set above the public law and customs of a well-ordered state? For my own part, I consider what Ennius calls ‘great and commanding cities’ superior to little villages and outposts; similarly, in my view, those who govern such cities by their counsel and authority are in wisdom itself * far above those without any experience of public affairs. We are led by a powerful urge to increase the wealth of the human race; we are keen to make men’s lives safer and richer by our policies and efforts; we are spurred on by nature herself to fulfil this purpose. Therefore, let us hold that course which has always been followed by the best men, ignoring the bugle for retreat, which tries to recall those who have already advanced.
2
3
Against these well-known and well-established principles our opponents set, first, the hardships which have to be endured indefending the state—surely a flimsy objection in the eyes of anybody alert and diligent, and one to be treated with contempt not only in matters of such moment but even in things of less importance, such as one’s pursuits or social duties or even one’s everyday occupations. They point, in addition, to the dangers of public life, using the despicable fear of death to deter brave men— men who normally think it more miserable to decay in the natural course of old age than to have the chance of laying down, as a supreme gift to their country, the life which in any case would have to be given back to nature.
4
On that topic our opponents wax fluent and eloquent (in their own opinion), reeling off the disasters of highly eminent men and the wrongs they have suffered from
Similar Books
