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

Chapter 7. The mistress of life
at Leiden, had agreed with Sallust that a ‘desire for silver and gold’, avarice
and ambition had been the cause of the calamities that had befallen the eternal
city in the period between the Second Punic War and the principate of
Augustus. 177 In Boxhorn’s view on the fall of the Roman Republic, however,
these elements are missing. We hear nothing about the problem of avarice, nor
do we hear of an agricultural crisis, deprived peasants or land distributions.
While it is true that Boxhorn speaks of moral decline in the sense that the mos
maiorum is neglected, he nowhere connects this with an influx of riches or
with the problem of avarice, the two key elements in Sallust’s theory. He does
not even speak of them, nor does he mention or refer to any of the works of
Sallust, Appian or Cicero for that matter. But Florus, on whom Boxhorn so
much relies, does. 178
Indeed, when reading Florus, it becomes clear that Florus had quite an outspoken
view about what had caused the fall of the Roman Republic, a view
that shows a stark resemblance with the work of Sallust. 179 Since Boxhorn had
read the works of Sallust and had published an edition of Florus’s Epitome in
1632, which he had provided with his comments, he must have been aware
of their authors’ theses. 180 It is therefore somewhat surprising to see how
vague Boxhorn’s explanation is in comparison to Florus’s. While Boxhorn follows
Florus in seeing Rome’s ‘excessive good fortune’ as the greatest cause of
the Republic’s decline, Boxhorn nowhere explains what had caused it, what
Rome’s ‘excessive good fortune’ exactly had entailed, or when it had started.
He also fails to explain what had been the primary cause of the negligence
of the mos maiorum. Boxhorn only states its features, not how it had come
about. In short, we are left with a view on the fall of the Roman Republic that
concentrates on certain short periods of time and that leaves out most of the
traditional and common explanations, without offering a comprehensive and
well-considered theory in return. 181
Religion, Vol. 3: The First Decline and Fall (Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2003), pp. 276-303. See
for a broader view also Andrew Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford University Press;
Oxford, 1999), pp. 233-55, and Millar, The Roman Republic in Political Thought, pp. 50-99, 187-90.
177 Heinsius, “De secunda & postrema Romanorum aetate”, pp. 170-72.
178 See, for example, Florus, Epitome, I.47, pp. 215-17.
179 Quinn, Studies in the Historiography of Florus, pp. 68-78.
180 These comments, however, are more text-critical, and do not comment on the actual content of
what is said, unlike Boxhorn’s commentaries on Tacitus.
181 That Boxhorn was quite capable of such a performance becomes clear from his Oratio de eversionibus
rerumpublicarum et earum caussis. Following the Greek theories on the rise and fall of empires,
Boxhorn discusses some causes of the fall of empires. He distinguishes, amongst others, providence,
natural disasters, vices, luxury, and love. ‘Saepe luxuriae, et amori Magna imperia succubuere.’ (p. 9).
He also refers to the fickleness of the plebs. ‘Mitto iam publicae calamitatis causam, vulgi levitatem.’
(p. 8). Furthermore, the characters of Augustus and Tiberius have done much in overthrowing the old
Roman Republic. ‘Augusti vero atque Tiberii ingenia quantum ad subvertendam Rempublicam contu-
235