historical and political thought in the seventeenth - RePub - Erasmus ...

228
Chapter 7. The mistress of life
Then, Boxhorn takes a giant leap in time to the mid-first century BC to
discuss the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Julian-Claudian house to
supreme power, a rise which he sees as instigating a new form of monarchical
rule at Rome. 147 To understand the causes of ‘this so famous change’ Boxhorn
decides to concentrate on two aspects: the condition of the Roman Republic
at that specific moment in time, that is, the first century BC, and the person of
Julius Caesar. 148
In the mid-first century BC Rome, a mixed constitution, dominated by its
democratic element, the people, was at it heights. It was the undisputed master
of the world, ‘the prince of nations’ (princeps gentium). Internally, however,
Rome had become extremely corrupt. The rule of law and the power of justice
had ceased to exist; ambition and factions thrived widely to the destruction of
the people. 149 The great cause behind the rise of these factions is expressed in
the words of the Roman historian Florus: ‘The cause of this great calamity was
the same which caused all our calamities, namely excessive good fortune.’ 150
Rome’s ‘excessive good fortune’ had led to a great concentration of power
in the hands of only a few men. This was possible because the mos maiorum, the
custom of the forefathers, was first ignored and later abandoned. There was
no longer any equality before the law (aequalitas); the normal yearly rotation
of office had been given up; 151 and too many offices had been handed down
was necessary to establish new institutions. That is what happened when they created the Censors, who
were one of the provisions that helped keep Rome free as long as it did continue in freedom. Because
when they became the arbiters of Rome’s mores, they were a very potent reason why the Romans put
off becoming corrupt for so long.’
147 Thus, the third and second centuries BC, the period of the ‘classical Republic’, in which Rome
became the dominant power in the Mediterranean world, are left out of the picture. This same neglect
can be found in Machiavelli’s Discorsi and in The Excellency of a Free State (1656), written by the English
journalist Marchamont Nedham (1620-1678). See Millar, The Roman Republic in Political Thought, pp. 68,
84.
148 Boxhorn, Emblemata politica: accedunt dissertationes politicae de Romanorum Imperio et quaedamaliae,
XIV.3, p. 314. ‘Caeterum illius tam celebris mutationis, qua in omnium optime constituta & tot pro libertate
repertis legibus ac magistratibus confirmata Republica unius imperium factum est, quod omnium
fuerat, cum initia jam nobis breviter explicanda sint, & quae huc faciunt prope sint infinita, neque nunc
singulatim expendemus omnia, neque praecipua, ex quibus facile colliguntur caetera, praetermittemus.
Quod postremum facile obtinebimus, si in duo, cum statum Reipublicae Romanae, qualis tunc fuit, tum
Julium Caesarem … propius inspiciamus.’
149 Ibidem, XIV.4, pp. 314-15. ‘Et faciem quidem Reipublicae inspectantibus haud alia quàm corruptissima
offertur; in qua non jus, non leges, non pax valebant, sed studia tantum, eaque acerrima &
infestissima nunc surgentium, nunc succumbentium factionum, per quas armato in exitium populo.’
150 Ibidem, p. 315. ‘Causa mali, ut recte Florus lib. IV. cap. II. eadem, quae omnium, nimia felicitas.’ Florus,
Epitome, II.13, p. 268. ‘Causa tantae calamitatis eadem quae omnium, nimia felicitas.’ See also John
Thomas Quinn, Studies in the Historiography of Florus (UMI Dissertation Services; Ann Harbor, 1999), p.
74.
151 Ibidem, XIV.5, p. 318. ‘Contempta exutaque aequalitate ac vicissitudine parendi et obsequendi.’
See for this theme Sallust, Jugurthine War, XXX.4. Following Aristotle, Politics, 1317a1-1318a1 [VI:2], Boxhorn
claimed that the ius aequalitatis was the foundation of any democratic regime; it ensured a rotation
of offices, which were (in theory) accessible for every member of the body politic. See for this principle
also Boxhorn, Institutiones politicae, I.5, p. 55.