high or low,' according to his approval or disapproval of CHAP. XII. censors. The moral influence of the censors will be estimated at Qualificaa still lower rate when we inquire what title and what tions of the special qualification they possessed to act as judges of public morality. Surely no one will think slightly of the efficiency of a priestly order if such an order is raised above the general level of the people by means of special education, of intellectual power beyond the average, of professional organization or nobility of caste; if it is furnished with the magic of a peculiar sanctity, of an ascetic mode of life, of a supernatural power derived from God; or even if it can keep the mass of the people in awe by the terrors of the invisible world. Such an order of priests can act powerfully for good as well as for evil. But the Roman censors were far from being in the possession of such power. They were not even priests or priestly officials, but simply political magistrates. They were elected, like all other magistrates, by a political body, on grounds of political qualifications or political influence. The standard of their personal morality was by no means higher than that of the average of their colleagues and fellow-citizens. Though the censorial office stood in rank and dignity at the head of all republican offices, and, being the most sacred magistracy (sanctissimus magistratus), was regarded by all Roman statesmen as the reward obtained ' Liv. xxxix. 44. Plutarch, Cato M. 18. Compare the anecdote of the censor Sempronius related by Plutarch, Ti. Gracchus, 14. 2 Valer. Max. ii. 9, 5. BOOK after years of faithful service, and as the summit of all honours, we know, nevertheless, by numerous instances, what, indeed, we might infer even without any positive proofs, that a long life spent in party quarrels and contests of ambition is not calculated to purify the mind of political passions and of the failings of ordinary mortals. We know that among the Roman censors there were men so passionate and excitable, unjust, revengeful, selfish, and pedantic, that they could not pretend to stand as models of good conduct to the community. It happened that from personal enmity one censor stigmatized the other; that a censor in a fit of spiteful spleen degraded thirty-four out of the thirty-five tribes to the class of ærarians, or citizens without political rights; 2 that another censor inflicted punishment for an untimely but innocent jest. It is plain that such men were suited for anything rather than to be preachers and guardians of morality. But the people by no means required purity of conduct in these so-called moral judges. Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, who was censor in 173 B.C., committed the sacrilege of carrying away the marble tiles of the temple of Juno Lacinia in Bruttium, to use them for covering a temple which he was building in commemoration of a victory in Spain. He was censured by the senate, and compelled to restore the tiles, and when a short time afterwards he died by his own hand, his death was interpreted as a punishment for his impiety. Yet this man was censor and guardian of public morality.3 Lucius Scipio, convicted of having embezzled large sums of public money, was not prevented from becoming a candidate for the censorship. He had apparently favourable prospects of success, and succumbed only As a colleague's intercession invalidated every decree of a magistrate, such mutual aspersions produced no effect beyond the offence given by an act of personal spite and passion. 2 Liv. xxix. 37. This outbreak of a half-crazy temper gave such scandal that a tribune of the people brought an action against both censors, Livius and Claudius, which was hushed up by the senate, ne postea obnoxia populari auræ censura esset.' Comp. Plin. Hist. Nat. xvii. 1. Liv. xlii. 3, 28, 10. XII. to the exertions of his rival. Lucius Cornelius Lentulus CHAP. after his consulship (156 B.C.) was condemned for extortion, but was nevertheless chosen censor soon after (147 B.C.).1 What value was attached by the people and senate to a censorial reprimand was seen when Cato, as censor, expelled Lucius Flaminius from the senate because at a banquet he had so far forgotten himself as to kill an innocent man to please a favourite boy. In spite of Cato's censorial condemnation, the people allowed the brutal murderer to keep his place among the senators in the public festivals, thus disapproving, in the most striking manner, the decree of the moral judge. L. Cæcilius Metellus had been deprived of his full civil rights and classed among the ærarii for the cowardice he had shown after the battle of Cannæ. Nevertheless, he was in the following year elected tribune of the people, and thus the censorial sentence was solemnly set aside by the people.3 Surely an office the efficacy of which depends principally upon public opinion is powerless when it is so emphatically disavowed by the people. nature of decrees. Apart from the drawbacks just mentioned, the cen- Transitory sorial decrees must have failed in producing lasting effects, the cen inasmuch as they were in force only during the time of sorial office of those who issued them. On the expiration of a censorship, the new holder of the office might act in the same spirit as his predecessor, or in precisely the contrary spirit. Every man affected by a censorial degradation might hope to be restored to his lost honours. Success depended upon the result of the next election, and thus the much-praised censorship of morals was made dependent upon the result of electioneering agitation-i.e. upon the basest, most disgraceful intrigues, tricks, and, occasionally, on acts of violence. Even during the censor's term of office his decrees necessarily lost a great part of their moral influence from the chance that they might be reversed after a new election. 1 Valer. Max. vi. 9, 10. 2 Liv. xxxix. 42; Plut. Flamin. 19. a Liv. xxiv. 18. BOOK tions of the censorship. The censorship was practically abolished by Sulla. After Sulla's death, when his reforms were set aside, the Later no- censorship in its whole extent, with the duty of watching over public morals, was revived; but it would have been really a farce if in the general dissolution of the old institutions and political habits some fanatic for civic virtue had tried to play the part of Cato. Therefore Cicero and the better sort of his contemporaries, as well as the historians of that time, looked upon the old censorship of morals as a lost palladium, and deluded themselves with the belief that this office might restore the old civic virtues which they dreamed of. Such mistaken sentiments were the origin of the exaggerated estimation of the censorship which, strange to say, has continued down to our time. Roman virtues Drawing a conclusion from these reflections on the and vices. customs of the Romans in the good time of the republic, we arrive at the following result. As the strictly organized family forms the basis for the national life of the Roman people and the starting-point for the development of the state, so also Roman morality and private economy were determined by the influence which the same family organization exercised upon every member of society. The preservation and prosperity of families was the first condition of civil society, and consequently imposed upon every member of it fixed duties, by which the free action of purely selfish motives was restrained. Labour, frugality, self-sacrifice for the good of the house and state were the active virtues of the old Roman peasant. He was trained to practise simplicity in life, honesty in actions, moderation in enjoyment, severity towards himself, submission to the law, regard for the rights of fellow-citizens. These were the sound elements of the old morality. But the bounds which custom set to the encroachments of citizen upon citizen did not apply to foreigners. A man as a human being was little respected. It was only as a fellow-citizen that he could claim to be treated with justice and kindness. Towards subjects and foreigners the Romans displayed unmixed selfishness, and practised it without the least regard for equity or the laws of humanity. When Rome began to be over-powerful, the Romans displayed, with ever-increasing cynicism, the vices of a strong man conscious of his strength and regardless of the feelings of others. Too proud to practise common deception, they did not steal, but they robbed. They despised the vices of the feeble who endeavoured to maintain themselves by cunning and deceit. They, to a great extent, resembled the Turks, who also combine a certain respectability and personal dignity with coarse brutality and heartless cruelty. CHAP. results of luxury and the growth of large estates. Thus by the great successes of the republic not only General was the old constitution of the town, which had been admirable, turned into a curse; not only was the old economical system of the Roman peasantry exchanged for the cultivation of the land by proprietors of large estates, but also the original simplicity, moderation, domesticity— in short, all the virtues of poverty, were lost. Avarice, cupidity, love of pleasure, which had formerly been kept within narrow bounds, now flourished upon abundant conquests, and respect for the law yielded more and more to the habits of violence. The time approached when, upon moral as well as upon political ground, the old order of things was found to be worn out and decayed. |