 Section 3 of the Complete Works of Tacitus, edited by Thomas Gordon. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recorded by J. C. Guan. The Complete Works of Tacitus, to which are prefixed political discourses upon that author. Edited and translated by Thomas Gordon. With introductory essays by Thomas Gordon. Volume 1. Discourse 2. Upon Tacitus and his writings. Part 2. Section 8. More proofs of the candor and veracity of Tacitus. Tacitus makes Tiberius no worse than he was. Hardly so bad. That he doomed almost his whole family to exile, famine, or the executioner. That his cruel suspicion and distrust extended even to women. Even to his mother. Nay to children. Relations and strangers to names, nobility, and all men is undeniable. Nor does Tacitus relate any part of the conduct or politics of Tiberius. But what evidently results either from the nature of the man or the nature of his power. He frequently speaks well of that prince, and ill, he could not avoid speaking, if he spoke of him at all. Nay, the whole sixth chapter of the fourth annul is a fine panagiric. Upon the moderation and wisdom of his government for eight years before. Public business and private maxima, or father's, is an adventure. In the future, he would say that he would die, and in the duration of his life he would live. He would be honored. The greater mobility. The military clarity. In the light of the art of the house. Ut Satis constaret non alios posiores fuise. Sua consulibus. Sua retoribus species. Minorum cuocche magistratum exercita potestas. Legesche se majestatis cuestio exime retur. Bono in usu. Et cetera. What can be fairer than this? And do not other historians agree that he grew worse and worse, that he had long smothered his vices, and was, first and last, a complete dissimilar? And is it just a pontacitus to accuse him of displaying the subtleties and craft of a prince, who was all craft and subtlety? Does he not give us the good and bad of his character, and frequently defend it? Does he not say of him, in opposition to popular opinion, and report, non crediterim adostantandum servisiam, movendasche populi offensiones concesam filio materiam, quon quom i cuocche dictum est? A and one, C76. Does he not represent Tiberius elsewhere, as mollifying a rigorous sentence of the senate, for banishing a criminal to a barren and desolate island, and arguing that to whomsoever they granted life, they ought to grant the conveniences of life? Dandos vitae usus, cui vitae consideritur? Does he not represent him in another place, absolutely refusing a new accession of power, and arguing against it? Like a republican, yet charges him there with no dissimulation. Intacitus, you have no false coloring, no true words blemished, no bad qualities disguised, but fair representations and equal justice. Tiberius is a dangerous prince, extremely false, extremely cruel, but he has many abilities, and some good qualities. He is prudent in moderating the excesses of others, where he was not instigated by his own personal anger. Prudence moderanti uvi propria ira non impererretur. He left power without bounds, yet was constant and resolute in rejecting pompous honors. Spernendis honoribus validus. A great tyrant, but a prince observing the roles of primitive parsimony. Antiqua passimoniae princeps. Fearously jealous of prerogative. Yet the laws were processes of treason interfered not, rare in proper force. Legis sima estatis, questio eximeritur, bono in usu. He isn't flexible in his vengeance, and wherever his jealousy or anger centers, there terrible tragedies are sure to follow. Yet the popular importation of his poisoning his son is by tacitus exposed as incredible and fabulous, in many the like instances of eminent impartiality. He gives fear quarter to the man, but none to the tyrant. To Claudius a stupid prince, and almost a changeling, who had no judgment, no aversion of his own, but only such as were ensued and managed by others. He allows a share of sense at intervals, that he did some reasonable things, gave good advice to the prince of Parthia, and wanted not elegance in his speeches, when his speeches were premeditated. He owns the spirit of sovereignty to be jealous and unsociable, but as an exception from the role, mentions the amiable friendship and union between Germanicus and Drusus, in the court of Tiberius, though their different interest had rent the whole court into factions. He owns the friendship of Drusus, for the children of Germanicus, though the participation of power and the union of hearts are seldom compatible. The same fair temper and truth he observes in the conduct and character of Galba, Oso, and even of Nero and Vitaleus, and it was his business and design to lay open the iniquity and horrors of the misrule. These are some of the objections made to the writings of Tacitus, and I think, with extreme injustice, his critics are more subtle than he. They are false refiners, who for the reputation of sagacity make singular remarks and serve him as they say he did Tiberius. They pervert and lack in his designs, and are too curious to be equitable. Tacitus, with a masterly discernment, unravels the mysterious conduct of Tiberius. It is from awe of his mother. It is from fear of Germanicus. It is from jealousy of the grandees and with design to amuse and humor, or to deceive them all, that he rolls and acts with such temper and moderation against the bent and pride of his nature, always imperious and tyrannical. But when he had well established himself, when Germanicus was dead, when his mother, too, was gone, when he had crushed some of the grandees and terrified all, and especially when he was far from the eyes of Rome, is it not most true that he then gave aloof to all the excesses of wellness and cruelty? Con cta simul visie, male dio disimulata, tantem profundit. It is not Tacitus who says this. Was he not continually mocking and deluding the senate? First, he would by no means accept the empire. At a time when he was actually in possession, sometimes he was weary of it and would needs resign at every turn. Before he quitted the city, he was for visiting the provinces, and for this purpose many preparations were made and high expectations raised. Then, when he had retired to Caprië, he was continually amusing them with his immediate return to Rome. Ne begged one of the consuls to guard him. He carried the deceit so far that he often visited the continent and the very walls and gardens about Rome, but never once returned to Rome, nor visited the provinces, nor had a thought of resigning. The commonwealth was always in his mouth, even when he was acting the tyrant most. He professed eminent mediation while he was meditating acts of cruelty and in instances of injustice and rigor pleaded law and mercy. His malice in living so wicked a successor appears more from Suetonius than from Tessitus, who allows him to have had some thoughts of appointing another. But the former testifies expressly that Tiberius was want to foretell what a devouring dragon he reared for the Roman people and what a phyton or incendiary to the whole earth. Tessitus is vouched by Suetonius in what he says was reported for the motive which determined Augustus to adopt Tiberius. Ambitione tractum uttali successore considerabilitor ipsi quando che fierret. Suetonius in Tiberius C-21. The same two is testified by Dian Cassius. Section 9. Mr. Bale's unjust censure of Tessitus and how well the latter knew and observed the laws of history. Mr. Bale in his dictionary in the article of Tessitus quotes some passages out of a book entitled Anonimiana. A very foolish book where Tessitus is criticized as above and approves those passages. This is the last matter of wonder to me for that Mr. Bale with all his immense learning, acuteness and candor has a strange and unnatural bias to absolute monarchy though he had fled from the fury of it and taken refuge in a free state. Approved this that great weakness cleaves to the great minds and who can boast an exemption from prejudices when a spirit so signally disinterested and philosophical as that of Bale was not exempted. He himself says of Tessitus qu'il y'a bien à reprendre dans l'affectation de son langage et dans celle de rechercher les motifs secrets des actions et de les retourner vers le criminel. That this charge is groundless I have already proved. Much less to be regarded is the authority of Mr. St. Evermont in his censure upon Tessitus. His observations are without depth to say no worse nor have I found in his works any political observations remarkable for solidity and force. What he has said of the Romans is superficial and often wrong. Tessitus knew perfectly the laws of history and blames the passionate and partial accounts given by those who described the same reigns since those of them which were written during the lives of the princes were falsified through the dread of their tyranny and when dead through the detestation of their late cruelties. He had no motive to be partial free as he was from affection free from resentment. He knew that truth uncorrupted was the business of an historian and that personal affection and hate should have no share in the work. Ne camore qu'esquam escene odio discendus est Of Galba, Oso and Vitalius, he says that to him they were known by no mark either a favor or in this kindness. The same is true of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. He shrews how the truth was corrupted first by flattery, then by resentment and professes to be far from either. I think he is as good as his word. Section 10 An apology for the wrong account by Tacitus, given of the Jews and Christians and for his disregard of the religion then received. There are other accusations against Tacitus. He has misrepresented the Jews and Christians and wanted religion. Concerning the Jews he followed the tradition and account current amongst the Romans. He tells you what different relations there were and neither adds anything nor misrepresent things maliciously. It was an obscure state, generally enslaved to some greater power to the Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and then to the Romans and condemned by all as much as they themselves hated all. They had not common mercy or charity toward the Gentiles and uncircumcised and being persuaded that the Almighty loved only themselves. They fancied that he abhorred and therefore they abhorred the whole human race besides. So that it was said by Tacitus too truly Adversus omnes alios o stile odium They were likewise ever solicitous to hide their mysteries from the eyes of the heathens and could not blame them for not knowing what was not to be known. Yet he was not ill-informed in some instances especially in their spiritual notions of the deity with their aversion to images and to the adoration of the emperors. Nulla simulacra urbibus suis non regibus aic adulatio non casaribus onor Of the Gospel it is manifest that he knew nothing He could not else have made so ugly a picture of those who professed it for it is not likely that the Christians were yet so degenerated as to disgrace the Christian religion. Tacitus wanted an opportunity to be better informed that religion as it began among the lower sort of people had not probably hitherto gained many proselytes of name and quality to countenance and recommended to men of figure. Tacitus considered it like a statement as a new set inconsistent with the laws of Rome and threatening civil tomats and innovations. It is probable too that he had heard and credited the Calomnes than usually thrown and meetings of that people. Nor after the best instruction could he have become a believer without the illumination of the spirit which, it is plain, was withheld from him and without a change of heart it was impossible for him to conceive the resurrection of the dead and the crucifixion of the Son of God yet he does them the justice to vindicate them from the obliquy of Nero and exposes the barbarity of their treatment by that tyrant. For his disregarding the religion then received, when I consider what sorts of absurdities the pagans held for religion I cannot so much blame him. It was a worship paid to deities altogether frantic and impure by sacrifices and follies ridiculous and vain and both their worship and their gods were invented by the cunning or delusion of men. It consisted in no purification of the heart nor amendsment of morals the things which men and societies require but in sounds just the collation and the blood of beasts not in truth and sense in benevolence and rectitude of mind but in lying oracles unaccountable mysteries and raving imagination sometimes in professed acts of lewdness often in those of fury and madness always in such as were foreign from real virtue and the restraining of the passions public calamities were never thought to be brought down by public depravity and vice nor to be averted or removed by public reformation the gods were not offended but by the omission or wrong performance of some ceremony or grimace and by grimace and ceremony they were to be appeased and when the deities were deemed to be endowed with the pivishness and caprices of children and apes or the frenzy of lunatics what's man of sense could reverence them or believe in them it would not have redounded to the reputation of his sense if he had where religion is pure superstition and the belief of it absolutely groundless and blind where its rights are fanciful, foolish and unmanly as the religion and gods and worship of the pagans were it would have been a revolt from common reason to have had any such religion we know how freely Cicero deals with their gods it is true that these great men of Rome who either had no notion of religion were one quite opposite to that publicly received and practiced regarded it as far as it was interwoven with the constitution of the state and subservient to the ends of government yet they suffered their poets especially the dramatic poets to treat their gods with severe jest and satire they seemed to be of Tiberias's mind the autumn in Eurythias di Escure that is to leave to the gods the avenging of indignities done to the gods men were punished they were still leveling particulars people of condition and especially magistrates but to regecule and lampune the diaries, Jupiter himself even upon the stage was a matter of impunity and diversion their religion therefore consisting in rituals a man might be very religious with a very debauched and lever-chain spirit but does not seem to infer much heavenly mindness nor a departure from his impure pleasures one might, on the contrary be exactly good and just nay, the pattern of virtue and the public patriot without any tincture of their religion such was cut to the censor such epicurious and such was tacitus and such was tacitus he thought that either there was no providence for his mind wavered between the doctrine of necessity and that of chance or such a providence as he could have well spared non esse curai d'esse curatem nostram esse ulcionem but this bold reproach upon the diaries he uttered after his heart zealous for the good of his country had been heated by a terrible detail of her calamities nor indeed according to the ideas received from these odd beings so easily humored and provoked could once say much good of them or expected from them in the reign of Nero he enumerates many presages from which, as from signals divinely sent great changes for the better were inferred but all vanished into air and disappointment hence he argues that all these omens happened so apparently without any direction or interposition of the gods that, for many years after Nero rioted in power and wickedness whatever were the speculations of our author about religion his morality is strong and pure full of benevolence to human society full of every generous passion and every noble principle a terrible rebuke to inequity vice and baseness in all stations and shapes and one continued lesson of wisdom and virtue these are the excellencies which in civil life recommend books and men these the excellencies which recommend Hasidis excellencies which he has carried as high as the utmost efforts of human genius could carry then Mr. Bale says so that we are attached to the beauty of his thoughts and to this happy brush with which he has learned to paint the ornaments and the tricks of politics and the weak of passions doctor he who has store of states but wants virtue and abounds not in good sense for he who wants the first but abounds in knowledge and the rules of righteousness it is for this we consult Hasidis not for his theological speculations how do his metaphysical notions impede his excellencies as an historian and politician are his mistakes in one thing less than his discernment and veracity in another according to the accounts of our best travelers concerning China the Mandarin who are the nobility of the country the learned and such as whole the majesty have no religion at all their governing principle is public spirit their principle study the good of the state and they are noted for politeness and virtue the bonzes or priests on the contrary pretend to extraordinary devotion but are vicious sordid and void of every virtue private or public here is an instance of a monarchy the most thriving of any upon earth or that ever was upon earth an empire that contains more people than half the rest of the globe these people full of industry and arts yet administered by men who are of no particular religion or sect but are guided by the natural lights of reason and morality nor knows it a greater blood and disgrace than the vile lives of its priests and religions again this instance sets another that of the pope's dominance the center of the romish religions where holy men sway all things and have engrossed all things where tortures and flames keep out infidels and heretics and every man who thinks are we and where the champions for devotion so called protect the church and feed themselves now where but here should one look for the marks of peace and plenty and public happiness if by an administration of priests and devotees public happiness were advanced but behold a different and melancholy scene countries fertile but desolate the people ignorant idle and starving and all the marks and weights of misery does not this merit reflection that the church blended and botched with excessive wealth and power is worse a thousand times worse than none and that the mere light of nature and reason is many degrees more conductive to the temporal welfare of human kind than the religion or church which is purely lucrative and selfish where the romish church or any other church that teaches pains and penalties any that exalts ecclesiastics into power and leaves them the sword or wields it for them once established in China there would in a little time be an end of their incredible numbers and it would soon feel the cruel curse attending the change in this sentiment I am vouched by that polite writer and candid prelate better it were says he there were no revealed religion and that human nature were left to conduct of its own principles and inclinations which are much more mild and merciful much more for the peace and happiness of human society than to be acted by a religion that inspires men with so wild a fury and prompts them to commit such outrages sermons volume 1 page 206 make another comparison between two particulars a hidden guided by reason and a Christian by passion and false zeal between Tacitus and Saint Jerome behold the politeness candor eternal truth and good sense in the one mark the rashness and enthusiasm the fierceness falsehood of the other so much stronger were the passions and insincerity of this great saint than the impressions of the Christian religion which is all makeness and candor nay he often makes it a steal for his fury forgeries and implacable vengeance I meddle not with his strange maxims some mad some impracticable and others turbulent and seditious in Tacitus you have the good sense and breathing of a gentleman in the saint the rage and dreams of a monk does the religion of the latter recommend his reveries and bitter spirit or the ones of it in Tacitus weaken the shining truths that are in him bitter relates facts or reasons from principles his good sense and veracity only are to be regarded and we have no more to do with his speculations or mistakes in other matters than with his person or complexion Pliny and Aristotle are reckoned atheists but what is this to their fine parts and learning with small spirits saying that is noble and free is atheism and blasphemy the littleness and sourness of their own hearts is the measure of all things Nerva Trajan and Marcus Aurelius were heathen princes but they had virtue and benevolence and their administration was righteous what more did their subjects worship them Justinian Constantius John Basilovitz John Galeas and Louis the 11th were Christian princes and men pretending to hide the ocean some of them great contenders for orthodoxy some great builders of churches but all barbarous and consuming tyrants what were the people or themselves the better for the religion without good nature and probity nay, they made religion one of the principal machines for tyranny as religion in a tyrant or in posture is little else but an impious bargain and composition with God for abusing men such in truth is the situation of things below such the frame and foyable of men that it depends in a great measure upon civil government where the religion shall in this world do good or harm it is a country filled with oppression the happier for being filled too with churches and priests as were Greece and Italy by Justinian or can a country that abounds in virtue and happiness and good laws wants any more to all the purposes of social life like Lassidamon and Rome in their best ages let us praise all who have true religion full of mercy and void of bigotry but let us not condemn such as for want of the same lights and revelation which we have been blessed with without any forms of religion virtues and wise certainly worse much worse than none is that religion which inspires pride bigotry and fierceness and has not charity for all men to conclude this head I shall here subjoin what I have said elsewhere to the like purpose that black is not white and that two and two make four is as true out of the mouth of an atheist as out of the mouth of an apostle a penny given by an atheist to a beggar is better alms than a half penny given by a believer and a good sense of an atheist is preferable to the mistakes of a good Christian in short whatever reputed atheists do well or speak truly are more irritated and credited than what the greatest believers do wickedly or say falsely even in the business of bearing testimony or making a report in which cases the credit or reputation of the witness gives some weight or none to what he says more regard is to be held to the world of an unbeliever who has no interest on either side than to the word of a believer who has neither are the good or bad actions of an atheist worse with respect to the world at least for his being one though the sin of a saint is more sinful than that of a pagan it is the greatest folly to think that any man's crimes are the less for him who commits them or the truth is less or more truth for the ill or good name of him who makes it section 11 the folly's censure of Bokalini and others of Fantasidas the censure passed upon Fantasidas by Bokalini and some of the other commentators as if he maliciously taught lessons of tyranny is so senseless and absurd that it merits no notice much less consultation as well may Luther and Father Paul display the encroachments and frauds of the Church of Rome on purpose to teach that or other churches how to oppress and deceive or that livy as great a republican as ever lived exposed the usurpations and tyranny of Tarkin in order to instruct usurpers to support themselves and extinguish public liberty Fantasidas represents tyrants as odious to all men and even to themselves but what answer could one give to a man who should advance that Grosius wrote his book in the truth of Christianity with a view to promote and confirm paganism section 12 of the several commentators and translators of Fantasidas it were almost endless to mention all who have written of Fantasidas and their success numbers have done it many as critics some politically and several of the former with sufficiency and applause such as Lipsius, Heinz-Hemius old Gurnovius and Ricius from the edition published by this last I have made a compilation the text is very correct and his notes are judicious and good of all those who have commented upon his politics I can commend but very few I mean such as I have seen many of them are worse than indifferent tedious compilations of common places were heavy paraphrases upon the original where its vigor is lost and the lively thoughts of Fantasidas converted into life less maxims frequently wrong converted frequently trifling and afflicted often such discoveries as are oblivious to every peasant or child or puffy declamations tedious labored and uninstructive of one or the other sort are the commentaries of Bacalini Annibal Scoti Forstnerus Schildus and diverse others Mr. Amalot de la Houssée has made a large collection of political observations of Fantasidas as far as the 13 are now inclusive some of them pertinent and useful but many of them insipid and little worth the very first which he makes is flat and poor de que la royauté commence to be generated in tyranny the people aspire to freedom little better is this when a prince begins to become firm or broken everyone turns their eyes towards the rising sun that is to say to his successor for this the prince's refusal must be seasoned with sweetness and courtesy for this those who have renounced their honor the force de trape les traîtres for this un bon général ne doit jamais hasarder une bataille qu'il n'est mis bon d'ordre partout destieu il n'y a rien dont un favorit ou un premier ministre doit se mettre plus en peine que de bien connaître l'humeur de son prince destieu un prince dépouillé de ses états ne reste pas volonté entre les mains de celui qui en est emparé c'est tout de suite de force et d'instruction la translation spanish by Don Alamos de Valentos is accompanied by numerous annotations by him-styled aphorismos which are as indifferent and impotent as the translation itself is good and strong his observation upon Cuncta discordis civilibus fessa nomini principis sub-imperium assipit is the opportunity for anyone to become master of a great and powerful free city is most commonly at the end of a great civil war tacitis says that Augustus left the first lords of the senate in the first years in the third degree though most of them were hated by him flerosque in viso civil se liactancia gloriaque at posteros Don Alamos observes apondes el principe muchas veces hace honra a las personas que abordece para ganar fama de modestia y sufrimiento a prince often confers honors on those he hates for the reputation of a moderation and temper tacitis says of germanicus anxus ocultis in se patrui avie che odis voron causae acriyores chia inike el hombre inoscente y bueno se don alamos by way of annotation de ninguna cosa recibe tanta congoxa como de los secretos avorecimientos que sabe le tienen sus parientos sin merecelero a worthy and innocent man feels so much anguish from nothing as from the secret hate which he knows his parents bear him without deserving it of small value are such reflections and small thought they cost to produce them the less is the wonder that Don Alamos has vented such a myriad canini an Italian has however translated them into his own language with high ecumeniums and publish them with the Italian translation of polity a translation which reads well but hampers the thoughts of tacitis and from an affectation to be as concise as the original loses much of its weight and spirit Don Alamos on the contrary opens the sentiments of tacitis folly often over folly by supplemental parenthesis that are sometimes perfectly needless and always mar and embarrass the reading these are the only Spanish and Italian versions which I have seen of tacitis there are two more of the former by Suyerro and Coloma both well esteemed and as many more Italian by Dati and Davazanti not at all commanded of French translations there are five or six all except two good for little some of them good for nothing these two are by Mr. Darley de Chambalon who has done the whole Mr. Amelot de Laoussaille who has only gone as far as the 13th annul the former is vigorous and just like that of a man of sense of observation nor has the latter any advantage over him save that his French is more modern if that be any a Blancourt is likewise one of the French translators of tacitis a man of name and of a flowing style but if he has abused other authors as he has abused and transformed tacitis it is fit they were all done over again there is some life in him and harmony but no justness nor strength all the force and fine ideas of tacitis are lost in Blancourt section 13 a conjecture concerning the modern languages more largely concerning the English of the French tongue itself I may venture to say after better judges than myself that from a laxness and a feminacy essential to it it cannot naturalize the strong expressions of the ancients without spreading and weakening them considerably it has a number of relatives particles and monosyllables that return incessantly and flatten the sense and tire the ear the English language has indeed many words more harsh than the French but it has likewise many more spirituals and sounding and though it be also loaded with relatives, particles and words of one syllable yet I think not to the same degree nor do those we have return so often and we can frequently drop the particles and leave them to be understood as well as the relatives in this respect the Latins had an advantage over the Greeks as those two languages have over every other that is now in the world or perhaps ever was we are infinitely behind them in significancy and sound and with all our inventishes, words and refinements are still crude and gothic to them nearest in language to the ancients come the Spaniards and Italians though still far behind yet they stand over the heads of the English French and walk while we creep the Spanish is the more sonorous and lofty the Italian the more sweet and gliding both excel in harmony numerosity and the pump of words the Italians seem to have spoiled their tongue by wild hyperboles and phrases of mere sound and compliment whether it be from the turn to love and music whether it be from the legends of their saints and their extravagant panegyrics upon them or from their slavery to churchmen or the severity of their government or from what other cause I do not pretend to determine the French to have greatly refined their tongue and it is indeed brought to be exceedingly glib and perspicuous but whether the refiners have not paired away its strength to make it more shapely and regular has been doubted some refinements we also have made in ours perhaps by imitating the French though I hope we have better preserved its force easy writing has been studied to affectation a sort of writing which where the thoughts are not closed the scent strong and the phrase gentile is of all others the most contemptible such were the productions of Sir Roger Lestrange not fit to be read by any who have taste or good breeding they are full of technical terms of phrases picked up in the street from apprentices and porters and nothing can be more low and nauseous his sentences are lively of nothing which can never be translated a sure way to try language and will hardly bear repetition between hawk and buzzard clawed him with kindness alert and frisky guzzling down tipple would not keep touch a queer putt lay cursed hard upon their gizzard cram his gut conceited nutty old chaff and alike are some of riser's choice flowers yet this man was reckoned a master a reformer of the English language a man who read no language nor does it appear that he understood any witness his miserable translations of Cicero's offices and Josephus that of the latter is a version full of mistakes wretched and low from an easy and polite one of Mr. Don Diyi Sir Roger is one amongst the several hands who attempted Tacitus and the third book of the history is said to be done by him he knew not a word of it but what he has taken from Sir Henry Savile and him he had wretchedly perverted and mangled out of the wise and grave mouth of Tacitus he brings such quaint stuff as this to cast the point upon that issue sneaking departure of Vitellius at the rate of a man at his wit's end satish multitude never went beyond bawling and emperors lugged out of his hole the sexton of the capital the government dropped into of his patient's mouth not cut out of a soldier went not a sneaking way to work balance in the interim with his dissolute train of capons into the senseless can't word Sir Roger elegantly changes that of Enoch's used by Sir H. Savile for I there he neither saw nor knew the original Agminis pandonum the emperor guzzling and gormandizing like a beast such jargon is hardly good enough for a puppet show Sir Roger had a genius for and a rebel and hire he never went his style and his thoughts are too vulgar for a sensible artificer to put his books into the hands of youth or boys for whom chiefly ace up by him burlesque was designed is to vitiate their taste and to give them a poor low turn of thinking not to mention the style and slavish principles of the man he has not only turned ace of plain beats from the simplicity of nature into gestures and bassoons but out of the mouth of animal inured to the boundless freedom of air and deserts has drawn doctrines of servitude and a deference of tyranny the taste and style of the court is always the standard of the public at the restoration a time of great festivity and joy the formal and forbidding gravity of the preceding times became a fashionable topic of ridicule a manner different and opposite was introduced just and vagary were encouraged and the king himself delighted in drollery and low humor hence the language became replete with ladictious phrases archness and can crew diverting the writings of witlings passed for wit and if they were severe upon the sectaries as the fashion was they pleased the court by this means Lestrange got his character it is very true that there appeared at the same time men of just wit and polite style but it cannot be denied but that the other manner was prevalent the greatest wits sometimes fell into it the humor ended not with that brain nor the next but was continued after the revolution by Lestrange, Tom Brown and other the lighters in low jests their imitators and such witlings have contributed considerably to the bouch our tongue if we go so high as Queen Elizabeth's time we shall find that a good style began then to be used agreeably to the good sense of that princess and her court and we have the language of that age in Sir Walter Raleigh whose genius was too just and strong to go into the miserable pedantry of the next reign many of the productions then and particularly the royal productions are wretched beyond measure I wish the honor and politics of those days had been better nor could so considerable a man as Sir Francis Beacon escaped the infection the next prince affected a high and rigid gravity and the pomp and solemnity of style became common yet the language began to recover when the Kant and enthusiasm ensuing gave it a new turn extremely insipid and offensive but between the reign of King James and the restoration several writers appeared eminently happy in their style such particularly was Mr. Chillingworth whose language is flowing and free as his own candid spirit the same character is due to the excellent Lord Falkland and Mr. Hills of Eaton Mr. Hope's English is beautiful almost if not all together beyond example nothing can be finer than his way of expressing his thoughts his style is as singularly good charming and clean as many of his principles are dangerous and false under this character of his style I do not comprise his translation of two sedites as it does not however just it be resemble his other works hence I am inclinable to believe what I have heard that it was done by some of his disciples and by him revised yet it far excels most of our translations Milton's English prose is harsh and uncouth though vigorous and expressive the style of seldom and Hammond is rugged and perplexed section 14 a conjecture concerning the present state of the English tongue with an account of the present work of the character of writing and our own tongue where I give my opinion I should be apt to say that in general it comes too near to talking a method which will hardly make it delightful or lasting no words upon paper will have the same effect as words accompanied with a voice looks and action hence the thoughts and language should be so far raised as to supply the want of those advantages but indeed this is impossible and therefore there is the greater cause for heightening the style now because labored periods are defensive and flat ones are insipid the excellency lies between pomp and negligence let it be as easy as you please but let it be strong two advantages that are very compatible and often found in the same writer Livy is remarkable for both it is his eloquency and ornaments which have preserved him in such esteem his matter and good sense the late Lord Shaftesbury though he has been perhaps too anxious and affected in forming his praise to easiness and fluency has yet had good success since it is manifest that his soft alluring style has multiplied his readers and helped powerfully to recommend his works Dr. Burnett of the Charter House wrote with great eloquence and majesty yet easy and unaffected Dr. Tillitson's style is plain and pleasant and livened too with fine images and strong sense yet many while they strove to imitate him have written very poorly this has happened to some of our devines who, studying his manner but wanting his genius have utterly a flow of words which sound not ill but lack spirit and matter I have looked over whole pages of Bishop Blackwell's sermons without finding anything which offended the ear or pleased the imagination or informed the understanding I cannot help mentioning another writer who has gained great reputation for style without deserving any I mean Dr. Spratt Bishop of Rochester his expression is languishing and insipid full of false pomp full of affectation he is always aiming at harmony and wit but succeeds ill for his manner is starched and pedantic with much greater justice has the style of Dr. Atterbury his successor been admired our tongue is naturally cold and the less force our words have the more they must be multiplied this multiplying of words is tedious hence the remedy is as bad as the disease the Latin phrases on the contrary are short and lively and the few words convey many images these difficulties with many others I found in this translation very sensibly I wanted new words but have rarely coined any as the creating of words is generally thought affected in vain yet I have sometimes ventured upon a new phrase and the way of my own upon drawing the English idiom as near as possible to that of the Latin and to the genius of my author by leaving the beaten road dropping particles transposing words and sometimes beginning a sentence where it is usual to end it I have studied to imitate the spirit eloquence and turns of tassudas as far as I could assisted by a language weak in its sounds and loose in its contextual this manner of writing of my own would be strange and even ridiculous in plain and familiar subjects but where the subject is high and sullen there must be a conformity of style in the political discourse as following I have likewise taken a method of my own in reasoning largely upon topics which to me seemed of the most moment to this free nation and giving an idea of the I have displayed the genius of these usurpers the temper and the basement of the people with the conduct and tyranny of their successors to the end of the annals in my translation of the history I have done the same I have little troubled myself with the strife and guesses of commentators and various readings I have chosen the best editions and where the meaning was dubious taken the most probable for after all there is a good deal of guesswork and uncertainty difficulties not peculiar to tassudas I was persuaded to this undertaking several years ago by a friend of mine a gentleman of letters in the city for then I had never seen the English translation and knew not but it was a good one Mr. Trenchard approved the design with his usual zeal for everything which favored public liberty my Lord Cartwright who understands tassudas perfectly and admires him encouraged me not unfit for it and gave me many just lights about the manner of doing it that particularly of allowing myself scope and freedom without which I am satisfied every translation must be pedantic and cold a translation ought to read like an original the Duke of Argyll espoused it generously with that frankness which is natural to him and his knowledge and the taste of polite learning and to his sincere love of liberty so did my Lord Townshend Sir Robert Walpole encouraged me in the pursuit of it in a manner imminently to my credit and to many gentlemen of my acquaintance I am much obliged upon this occasion I own I have been long about this translation that it was so is to be ascribed not so much to idleness as to diffidence it was done a long while before I put it to the press after all my care and many revises I continued apprehensive that much fault might be found and many objections made a misfortune which I still doubt I shall not be able to escape and wish I may not deserve I therefore rely more on the tender of my readers than on my own sufficiency those of them who understand tacitus in the original will easily make allowances for the difficulty of making him speak in any other language I have been chiefly careful not to mistake the sentiments of my author about human nature and government and I will venture to say that no man who has not accustom himself to think upon these subjects can ever make tolerable sense of tacitus let him be as learned in other things as he will for the same reason no man that is merely learned can ever be pleased with a free translation however faithful and just for his chief attachment will ever be to words and criticism who had more learning than Sir H. Savile to explain he abounded beyond most men but I suppose learning was his chief accomplishment and then his translation is a very poor one the fault cannot be ascribed to the time for that time the polite world wrote in spoke well and if Sir Walter Raleigh had then translated it nobody I believe would have ever attempted to mend it and of discourse two part two section four of the complete works of tacitus edited by Thomas Gordon this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org the complete works of tacitus to which are prefixed political discourses upon that author edited and translated by Thomas Gordon with introductory essays by Thomas Gordon discourse three upon Caesar the dictator section one of Caesar's usurpation and why his name is less odious than that of Catalan nothing has been hitherto found a sufficient check and barrier to the exorbitant passions of men neither kindness nor severity nor mocks nor pain nor honor nor infamy nor the terrors of death a proof how far human malice or ambition is an overmatch for human wisdom since laws and constitutions framed by the best and wisest men have first or last become the sport and conquest of the worst sometimes of the most foolish could wise establishments have ensured the stability of a state that of Rome had been immortal adopting all the best institutions of the free states of Greece and her principal struggle and employment for some centuries was the sedoing of foreign enemies by arms and the securing of domestic liberty by wholesome laws and for laws and arms she was the wonder and glory of the earth but she whose force and policy no power could withstand not that of Greece nor of Carthage nor of the world fell and perdifiousness and violence of her own citizens the only sword that could hurt her was her own with that she trusted Caesar and that he turned unnaturally upon his own mother and by it enslaved her Catalan's conspiracy and crime every man detests yet Caesar accomplished what Catalan only intended had he better qualities than Catalan he was so much the worst and able to do higher mischiefs see how infatuation prevails the same men who aboard Catalan admire Caesar who actually did more evil than ever the wicked heart of Catalan ever conceived but Catalan had no success nor consequently flatters had he succeeded had he entailed Rome upon his race and in such as would have been concerned to have guarded his fame there would not have been wanting and historians to have echoed his praises and genius divine his eloquence, courage, liberality and politics and how much the degeneracy of Rome wanted such a reformer with every other topic urged in defense of Caesar but Catalan failed and his own to have been a traitor Caesar's iniquity was triumphant so was his name and after ages have continued to reverence him by the force of habit and follows everything and examines nothing when popular opinion has consecrated a man or a name all that man's actions however wicked or foolish and everything done under that name are sure to be consecrated too the force of authority is irresistible and infatuating and reason and truth must yield prejudice and words section 2 of the public corruption by Caesar with his bold and wicked conduct was the commonwealth become disjointed and corrupt as in truth it was deeply and dangerously who had contributed so much as Caesar to that wicked work from his first appearance in the world he confederated with every public incendiary with every trouble of the peace of the state with every traitor against his country in so much that he was divested of the dignity of Prater with the solemn decree of senate and when he solicited for his consulship his ambition and violent designs were so much apprehended that that supreme office that to check him with a proper colleague the senators contributed a great sum of money nor did even Cato deny that such a contribution however against law was necessary then to save the state he began that office with violent acts of power by violence dispossessed his colleague of all share of his administration and during the whole term he raised and pulled down gave and took away by mere will and power whatsoever and whomever he would terrified some imprisoned others forged plots some borned lying accusers and then murdered them and trampled upon all faith and law to escape punishment for all these outrages he corrupted and bribed the people magistrates after they were chosen he went so far as even to engage some of them by oath and writing never to call him to account nor suffer him to be called by the same wicked methods he obtained for his lot the province of Gaul and kept it for ten years committing fresh treason every day making war of his own head right or wrong upon friend and foe in so much that it was proposed in senate to deliver him up to the enemy but faction and bribery saved him and from the most extensive rapine he derived his power of bribing he feasted the people he gave them largesse he gained the senators by money the soldiers by donatives nay, the favorite servants and lowest slaves of considerable men were bribed by him every prodigal every expensive youth every man indebted and desperate every criminal found in him a ready support and protector and when their expenses, debts, and crimes were so excessive as to admit of no relief from him to such was he want to preach the absolute necessity of a civil war nor did foreign kings and nations escape his court and gifts upon them he bestowed aids and arms and captives all belonging to the roman people and without their authority thus to purchase foreign friendship against the day of usurpation and need to do all this he robbed the provinces plunder towns, pillage temples even the capital he plundered once he stole a vast quantity of gold and placed so much guilt brass in the room of it and put whole kingdoms and provinces under contribution to his preview purse how many thousands deaths did this man deserve even before he had committed his capital iniquity it was he who thus principally corrupted the state and unsettled it in all its parts he offered indeed to disband his forces if Pompey would do so too but even this offer was given law to Rome the senate was the judge and not Caesar what armies were to be disbanded what to be retained besides even that proposal was justly suspected to have been faithless and hollow since had he executed the same it would have been easier for him to have reassembled upon occasion his veteran soldiers than for Pompey his troops lately levied had there been no corruption in the state such a man was enough to introduce it from his infancy he was thought to have meditated the enslavement of his country and in order to enslave it created corruption or improved it to commit the blackest treason and iniquity that the malice of man could devise he struck at no other but by a babble of crimes accomplished the highest in three Caesar might have purified and reformed the state but far different were his intentions his art good sense and continued ill designs did the state want reforming why did not Caesar reform and restore it this would have been true glory the only true use of his absolute power and the only amends for having assumed it the work too was practicable the wisest and gravest men in Rome thought it so even after all the poison and depravity introduced by him Brutus, Cicero and the senate thought so else he would never have been put to death by those who did it if the state had been deemed irretrievable and in use super and necessary evil they could not have had it better than Caesar but they judged themselves and for some time liberty was actually restored why it subsisted no longer was owing to casualties and the faithlessness of Octavius no human wisdom can take in all incidents and possibilities at one view to see them by secession is often to see them too late and against what is not foreseen no remedy can be provided Cicero who swayed the senate and hatred to Anthony trusted Octavius too much and raised him too high and was by that false creature given up to the slaughter to satiate the vengeance of Anthony to cement their late union against their country and her liberty by the murder of so signal a patriot what followed was horrible continued massacres in the rage of the sword the people armed against one another two-thirds of them destroyed and Augustus established sovereign over the rest he too thought it possible to resettle the old free state by proposing once or twice to resign however insincere he were it was a confession that he thought it to be practicable his wife's son declared his own purpose to effect it nay it was what Tiberius after he was emperor pretended to do Caesar was said to have foretold the public calamities and civil wars to ensue why did he not prevent them by his dictatorial power he might have removed what enormities and made what regulations he would suppress the insolence of particulars revive the force of laws and reduced the commonwealth to her first principles and firmness instead of this he continued more and more to break her remaining balance to weaken and debauch the people and to destroy every law of liberty liberty and the republic were a justice Caesar he treated the very name with ridicule and contempt he punned upon Sulla for resigning his usurped power he had nothing in his head or heart but absolute rule a diadem the title of king and controlling the world according to his lust nay to have his very words go for laws and as a proof that he meant to entail all this pompous dominion upon his race he had a law ready to be proposed for a privilege of taking as many wives as he thought fit and of what quality and condition he thought fit his acts of tyranny were indeed so many so high and insupportable that even his dear friends, the populace notwithstanding all his bounties his feast and shows and his other arts to soothe and debauch them grew sullen and discontented they declined against such usurpation in their houses and in the forum they called aloud for avengers and gave him public affronts by the laws of Rome the dominion of one and consequently the dominion of Caesar was detestable and accursed and any man was warranted to slay the tyrant nor was there any valid reason against killing Caesar but that someone as bad or worse was to follow now the best and ableist Romans judged themselves as I have shown and who was better qualified to judge as to Caesar's prophecy of worse times it was decided in his favor and not to be credited and there was policy in it as well as vanity the accomplishments of Caesar the mildness of his administration and the mercy to his enemies have been much magnified it is certain that he had exquisite abilities and address but how did he apply them was it not to be master or mankind and was not this interest and self-love what could be more interested what more selfish than to take the world to himself Caesar had good sense and experience he knew that particular acts of cruelty and revenge were odious even more odious than the slaughter of thousands under the title of war and conquest however unprovoked and unjust so much more quarter from the world has ambition than cruelty the former is often the more mischievous passion he knew that while general acts of blood would pass for heroism fit to be distinguished with praise and laurels a particular life taken away in anger would pass for barbarity what fallacy is there in sounds and in the imaginations of men we judge not of evil by its quality the true medium of judging but by its name and the quality of the doer and the sufferer hence the foolish causes of popularity without merit and innocence acts of rage the execution of particulars and a vindictive reign would have diminished the hero and tarnished his fame as much as his generosity to enemies his noble contempt of fear and offenders blazoned his glory and begot admirers section four the probability of his waxing more cruel had he reigned much longer the generous the forgiving temper of Caesar was no sure warrant that he would not have broke out into personal cruelties four of his public cruelty Rome and the world were the theater and the witnesses he must have acted agreeably to the necessities and jealousy of power broken those necks which would not bend and destroyed such as he could not but constantly fear I own there came after him some emperors who reigned without many acts of blood but the soventry was then thoroughly established and they had no high spirits to fear bred in the notions and possessions of liberty as were all Romans in his time nor even after servitude had begun and for some time suffered under Caesar could the second triumvirate think themselves secure till they had destroyed at once by prescription a whole army of illustrious Romans such as they conceived would oppose and even extirpate their dominion nor did this tragical precaution and general barbarity put an end to barbarity in particular instances Augustus for the first years of his reign was making almost daily sacrifices of noble blood to his fears and safety power of itself makes men wanton distrustful and cruel Caesar live not long enough in purple to show what he would prove five months were but a short time for a trial it would be rash to assert that he who had shed the blood of nations and armies without provocation without authority he who had violated liberty and law and put chains upon his country and the race of men would have spared particular lives when from particular lives he had come to apprehend danger and revolt he that could be peaked even to folly and ridicule because Aquila the Tribune did not rise as he passed by he who could not put up this nor forget it nor cease mentioning it upon every occasion for a long while after nor even forbear scolding at it must have been capable of carrying his resentment very far as well as of sudden anger nay been full of capricious and childish humours how far such humours and vanity and anger might have carried him he live not to show but he had amply shown that his ambition was dearer to him than Rome and the whole earth and to this private passion of his every public regard had yielded the genuine mark this of a tyrant who rules the state for his own sake and rather than not rule it and thralls it Caesar who had committed all wickedness to gain power would have committed more to have kept it as soon as he found it to be necessary what avails the fair behaviour of one who may do what he pleases what avail his fair promises which he may break when he pleases the worst of the Roman emperors began their reigns well many of them excellently well as Nero, Claudius, Caligula, Domitian some of them reigned well for some years Caesar was generous magnificent and humane to affection but every passion every sentiment must yield to the ardent lust of reigning had it not been for his great and acceptable qualities he could not have introduced public bondage the hero, the orator and the fine gentleman hid the usurper and palliated at least the usurpation let any man consider Caesar as a subject of a state altogether private one who never bore office or authority as a physician, ascribe or an artist or one just started out of obscurity or come from another country and then ask himself what has this man this private unknown man to do with governing all men against laws established by all his being once consul his commanding of armies and appearing in a great public light gave him no more right to do what he did than the quality of an artist ascribe, physician upstart or stranger would have given him public trust betrayed were aggravations of his crime horrible aggravations so were his excellent parts impiously applied section 5 Caesar no lawful magistrate but a public enemy of Caesar his usurpation and death I have reasoned largely elsewhere and shall hear a bridge part of that reasoning he had no sort of title but success of violence and all wicked means the acquiring and exercising a power by force is tyranny nor is success any proof of right if the person of Caesar was sacred so is the person of every usurper and tyrant and if all the privileges and impunity belonging to a lawful magistrate do also appertain to a lawless intruder and public oppressor then all these blessed consequences follow there is an utter end to all right and wrong every usurper is a lawful magistrate every magistrate may be a lawless tyrant it is unlawful to resist the greatest human evil the necessary means of self-preservation are unlawful though it be lawful and expedient to destroy little robbers who are so for subsistence it is impious and unlawful to oppose great robbers who destroy nations out of lust and ambition public mischief is defended by giving it a good name since tyranny may be practiced with impunity if a be but called magistrate and the exerble authors of it are sacred if they but call themselves magistrates though it be unlawful to be a public destroyer yet it is unlawful to destroy him and to prevent or punish that which is most impious and lawful and fine any man who has wickedness and force enough to destroy or enslave the whole world may do it and be safe if Caesar was a lawful magistrate every powerful villain may make himself one and lawful magistrates may become such by mere force and iniquity but if lawful magistrates be not acquired by violence and butchery Caesar was none if he was not how came he by the rights and impunity of such against lawless force every man has a right to use force Caesar had no more right than Alleric, Attila or Brennice who were foreign invaders his crime was greater of usurpation he added those of ingratitude and treachery it is owned that when he first made war upon his country his country had a right to make war upon him how come that right to cease when he had heightened that iniquity by success is it lawful to resist a robber before he has robbed you but not after is a wickedness lessened by aggravations Caesar had forfeited his life by all the laws of Rome was it not as lawful to take it away then as by 30,000 in the senate as in the field a private man in society however capital injured must not be his own judge but leave revenge to the more impartial law but a capital offender against all who sets himself above law and judgment is a public enemy and violence is the proper remedy for violence when no other is left in a state of nature every man has a right to vindicate himself the same right returns men can never be deprived of both public protection and private defense Caesar had violated every tie that combined the human soul oaths, trust and law he had violated everything dear to the humankind their peace, liberty, rights and possessions he did all this by means the most black and flagitious by plots, faction, corruption robbery, devastation, sacrilege slaughter what was left to the oppressed Romans to do under the bonds of the oppressor with his sword at their throat laws and appeals were no more a tyrant was their master the will of a tyrant their law because he had slaughtered and destroyed one half of the people had he thence a right to govern the rest there was no public force to oppose him he had destroyed many of the armies of the state and appropriated the rest to himself against the state and as to have thought of judicial process in short there was no other way of abolishing his tyranny but by dispatching the tyrant section 6 of the share which casualties had in raising the name and memory of Caesar the judgment of Cicero concerning him people suffer their own imaginations to abuse and mislead them the sound of Caesar's name the superstitious reverence paid to him his great employments, great victories and even his great usurpation are all pompous images that dazzle the eyes and give a false luster to the blackest iniquity and imposter nay, it proved an advantage to the fame and defensive Caesar that he was assassinated hence so much popular pity and lamentation for him hence so much rage and obliquy upon the tyrannocides a violent death or violent sufferings often pass for great merit often atone for great crimes and in the compassion for the doom of criminals the abhorrence of their villainies is often extinguished malefactors the most barbarous who never showed any mercy in their lives are bewildered at their execution only because they are executed there were circumstances also in his death favorable to his fame he died with decency in a manly spirit and he fell by the hands of his friends these circumstances and his bloody shirt displayed to a mob with an artful melting speech from Anthony inflamed them with sorrow and fury two gross passions which do not reason but feel the same topics have ever since furnished undiscerning declaimers with big words and vehemence in behalf of so fine a man slain for no fault but that of his usurpation and tyranny a small crime that of being the enemy of humankind as to the glory and prosperous fortune of this mighty conqueror says with great truth that felicity is nothing else but good fortune assisting righteous councils nor can he whose purposes are not upright be from any success esteemed in any wise happy hence it is that from the impious and abandoned pursuits of Caesar no true felicity could flow happier in my judgment was Camillus under exile from his country that manliest his cotemporary had been acquired over his country that tyranny which he had lusted after the same wise man says elsewhere that he would have preferred the last day of Antonius the orator tragical as it was to the usurped rule of Sinna by whom that worthy Roman was barbarously murdered I cannot admire Caesar's ambition he would rather have been lord of a poor village than the second man in Rome to me it appears more glory as a member of a free state especially the greatest state upon earth than the lord of slaves the biggest lord how vain it is to extol any designs of his for the glory of the Roman people it is said that Caesar was meditating great and glorious things for the Roman people when he was cut off he might have indeed gathered empty laurels for himself by more wars at the expense of the people but how could this have redounded I cannot see I can easily see that all the future strength he could have acquired must have been acquired to himself and over them and every accession of power must by raising his tyranny higher have sunk them lower and strengthen their chains he wanted to fight the Parthians but first he wanted to be king and for this purpose a prophecy was forged that none but a king could conquer them was this impudent forgery too and the design of it for the glory of the Roman people who were abused by it in short he could have done nothing beneficial or glorious for the Roman people but to have restored them to their ancient and substantial glory that of their liberty and laws this too would have been the highest glory of his own life which to those who consider things as they are stripped of foolish fair names and disguises is without this all over black and infamous seeing all the malefactors condemned since there were men in crimes did not have the mischief which he did it was even currently believed in what worse could be believed of him than what he had done that he had meant to translate the seat of empire with all of its strength to Ilium or to Alexandria and having exhausted all Italy by great levees that she might never recover herself he would have begun probably a new sort of sovereignty upon his own model of the appearances of the old constitution and laws which still had reverence paid to them at Rome and consequently were so many grievances to him Rome he intended to have left to the dominion of his creatures it is probable he thought himself not safe at Rome nor in any place which had ever known the governance of laws nor anywhere but at the head of armies he had reason for his fear the severest oppressor could never tie the hands of all the oppressed or put chains upon the resentments section 8 of his death and the rashness of ascribing to divine vengeance the fate of such as slew him in the midst of his father designs whatever they were a bloody doom overtook this man of blood and he was lawfully slain though not by the forms of law his lawless power had made this impossible it is true they who slew him were themselves slain the righteousness of a cause does not always ensure its success to seldom God knows but they who perish in defense of the laws are slain against law such was the difference between his death and theirs they were vanquished and slain in a great civil war at a time when courage and virtue and patriotism were capital and prescribed did none of those who destroyed Caesar die a natural death no more did Caesar who destroyed the state if this was not a judgment upon him why should theirs be won upon them what rule have we to know a judgment but from the justice or iniquity of a cause if so Caesar fell by the appointment of heaven Brutus and his brethren by the malice of men but if there is no rule or if judgments like parties take different sides how dare we pronounce how many of the Caesars his successors died naturally not one if we believe the historians and probability from Caesar the dictator to the emperor of Vespasian Augustus was poisoned by Livia his wife Tiberius smothered by macro his favorite to make way for Caligula who was slain with the sword by the officers of his guard Agrippina poisoned her husband Claudius Nero stabbed himself Galois was murdered by the soldiers so was Vitellius Otto fell by his own hands End of discourse 3