Justus Lipsius, Monita et exempla politica / Political Admonitions and Examples (Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae) 9462703051, 9789462703056

Citation preview

166mm

57,60mm

15mm

15mm

15mm

In 17th-century intellectual life, the ideas of the Renaissance huma­ nist Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) were omnipresent. The publication of his  Politica  in 1589 had made Lipsius’ name as an original and controversial political thinker. The sequel, the  Monita et exempla  politica (Political admonitions and examples), published in 1605, was meant as an illustration of Lipsius’ political thought as expounded in the Politica. Its aim was to offer concrete models of behaviour for rulers against the background of Habsburg politics.

Justus Lipsius

Monita et exempla politica Political Admonitions and Examples

Monita et exempla politica Political Admonitions and Examples

Justus Lipsius

Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae

Edited with Translation, Commentary and Introduction by

Jan Papy Toon Van Houdt Marijke Janssens

246mm

Lipsius’ later political treatise also forms an indispensable key to interpret the place and function of the  Politica  in Lipsius’ political discourse and in early modern political thought. The  Political admonitions and examples – widely read, edited, and translated in the 17th and 18th centuries – show Lipsius’ pivotal role in the genesis of modern political philosophy.

Toon Van Houdt is associate professor of Latin at KU Leuven. His research focuses on the history of political and ethical thought in early modern times.

Justus Lipsius

Monita et exempla politica Political Admonitions and Examples

15mm

Marijke Janssens earned her PhD from KU Leuven with a dissertation on Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica and has published several articles on Lipsius and his political views.

Jan Papy Toon Van Houdt Marijke Janssens (eds)

Jan Papy is full professor of Latin and Neo-Latin literature at KU Leuven. He publishes on Renaissance Humanism in the Low Countries, intellectual history, and Lipsius and Neo-Stoic philosophy.

Monita_DEF.indd 1

11/04/2022 09:07

JUSTUS LIPSIUS MONITA ET EXEMPLA POLITICA POLITICAL ADMONITIONS AND EXAMPLES

BIBLIOTHECA LATINITATIS NOVAE

Editorial Board Jan Waszink (editor in chief) • Corinna Vermeulen • Yasmin Haskell • David Money • Christoph Pieper • Wouter Kool

Advisory Board Maurizio Campanelli • Karl Enenkel • Marianne Pade • Dirk Sacré • Florian Schaffenradt

www.bln-series.eu www.upers.kuleuven.be/en/bibliotheca-latinitatis-novae The series Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae offers Latin literature from the later Renaissance and the Early Modern period. By combining each critical Latin text with an English translation, an historical introduction, and notes, Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae makes texts accessible to specialists and general readers alike. Submissions or questions can be sent by e-mail to [email protected]

JUSTUS LIPSIUS

MONITA ET EXEMPLA POLITICA POLITICAL ADMONITIONS AND EXAMPLES

EDITED, WITH TRANSLATION, COMMENTARY, AND INTRODUCTION by Jan Papy, Toon Van Houdt & Marijke Janssens

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

© 2022 by Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain / Universitaire Pers Leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium). All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. ISBN 978 94 6270 305 6 eISBN 978 94 6166 420 4 D / 2022 / 1869 / 12 NUR: 617 https://doi.org/10.11116/9789461664204 Lay-out: Crius Group Cover design: Friedemann Cover illustration: P.P. Rubens, Portrait of Justus Lipsius, Antwerp 1616 (?), after Abraham Janssen. Oil painting, 660 x 509 mm. Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus, inv. nr.V.IV.53 https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Justus_Lipsius_by_Peter_Paul_Rubens.jpg

CONTENTS

Preface  vii Introduction Section 1. Lipsius and the Monita: General Introduction  1 Section 2. The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form  8 Section 3. The Monita in the Context of Lipsius’ Oeuvre  22 Section 4. Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views  48 Section 5. The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution  78 Section 6. The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions  127 Text and Translation I. Principles of this Edition  139 II. The English Translation  145 Monita et exempla politica   148 Commentary I. Preliminary Remarks  539 II. Commentary on Book 1  540 III. Commentary on Book 2  576 Appendix: Tables of contents of the Monita and the Politica  619 Bibliography  625 General index  661

v

PREFACE Feeling old and ill and being overburdened with his many scholarly projects, Justus Lipsius found it very hard to complete his Monita et exempla politica, an elucidatory sequel to his controversial treatise Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex.The Politica was first published in 1589 during the author’s stay in Leiden and was re-issued in 1596 in a modified version after his return to the Southern Netherlands. As can be inferred from his vast correspondence, Lipsius envisaged to write his complementary work as early as 1596 but it was not until 1605 that the Monita was at long last published by Jan Moretus in Antwerp, albeit in a strongly reduced form. For while the author originally planned three sequels of two books, each of them corresponding to two books of the Politica, he was only able to finish the first part of the scheduled triptych before his death in 1606. Lipsius was forced to lower his great ambitions, but even the publication of a seriously truncated work took him more time and energy than he had expected or wished. No wonder that he characterized his enterprise as a truly ‘Herculean task’. Likewise, it has taken us more time and energy than we initially expected successfully to execute the ‘Herculean task’ with which we saw ourselves confronted – to offer contemporary scholars a critical edition, together with a reliable English translation, commentary, and introductory study, of Lipsius’ Monita et exempla poli­ tica. As a matter of fact, this is the very first critical edition, modern English translation, and thorough historical and philological study of the Monita ever to appear. For while the Politica has never ceased to attract a good deal of scholarly attention for a considerable number of decades now and was made available in a modern critical edition with English translation and introductory study by Jan Waszink in 2004, the Monita has been largely neglected thus far despite the obvious fact that it offers a unique key to a better understanding of Lipsius’ political discourse and its evolution during his eventful life. The present volume originated from a research project entitled ‘Power and Passion, Prince and People. Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica (1605) as a Bridge between Political Philosophy and the Ideal of the Christian Ruler’. It was initiated in 2004 by Jan Papy and Toon Van Houdt, and obtained generous financial support from the Research Council of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven as well as from the Research Foundation-Flanders/FWO-Vlaanderen (Belgium). Between October 2005 and December 2009, two young scholars worked on the Monita under the joint supervision of Jan Papy and Toon Van Houdt. Erik De Bom focused his attention on the reception of the Monita in the Netherlands in the first half of the seventeenth century, a path-breaking study which eventually resulted

vii

Preface in the publication of Geleerden en politiek. De politieke ideeën van Justus Lipsius in de vroegmoderne Nederlanden (Hilversum:Verloren, 2011). Meanwhile, the doctoral dissertation prepared by Marijke Janssens, Collecting Historical Examples for the Prince. Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica (1605): Edition, Translation, Commentary and Introductory Study of an Early Modern Mirror-for-Princes, was successfully defended in December  2009 but remained unpublished for a regrettably long period of time. Personal reasons prevented the author from reworking her dissertation so as to make it ready for publication. Despite their busy academic occupations, Jan Papy and Toon Van Houdt decided to join forces and took upon themselves the humble but necessary task of reworking, as carefully and diligently as possible, the initial edition, translation, commentary, and introductory study made by Marijke Janssens. While executing their ‘Herculean task’, they received invaluable help from dr Ingrid Sperber, who assisted them with admirable acumen and unfailing zest and zeal in revising both the critical edition and the English translation. Furthermore, she read the entire manuscript and polished our English. We owe her our sincere gratitude.We are equally obliged to dr Jan Waszink who, from an early stage onwards, showed a genuine interest in our scholarly project and in the course of many years regularly encouraged us to complete our work and submit our manuscript to the editorial board of the international series ‘Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae’. Without his encouragement and patience this work would probably never have come to fruition. Many years after Waszink’s publication of the Politica in the afore-mentioned series, Lipsius’ Monita has now, at long last, also become available for Neo-Latin scholars and intellectual historians. It is our profound hope and firm conviction that the present publication will stimulate further research into the political thought of one of the leading representatives of Northern Humanism, as well as into the development of political discourse in Early Modern Europe. Leuven, October 2021

viii

INTRODUCTION Section 1 Lipsius and the Monita: General Introduction Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) was an influential representative of late humanism in the Netherlands, who was not only renowned as a classical philologist, a­ ntiquarian, and Neo-Stoic thinker, but also made a major contribution to early modern European political thought with the publication of his Politica, published in Leiden in 1589. With over sixty editions and translations, the work was a best seller in its day ‒ a popularity which is reflected by the scholarly attention it has recently received.1 Sitting somewhat in the shadow of its elder brother is the Monita et exempla politica (1605). It was written by Lipsius after his return to the Southern Netherlands and was conceived as an illustration of the more theoretical aphorisms of the Politica by means of historical examples. Remarkably, scholarly discussions of Lipsius’ political thought and legacy often only mention the Monita in passing,2 or even ignore it completely.3 One of the few scholars who have paid considerable attention to the Monita is Francine de Nave, who has taken the work into account in her (unpublished) dissertation on Lipsius’ political views, which led to the publication of a scholarly article in 1969-1970.4 In the meantime, a few more recent articles have been devoted to the Monita, but compared to the abundant literature on the Politica, they remain limited in number and sometimes bear the character of ‘Vorstudien’, of ‘Preliminary studies’.5

1 Gerard Oestreich (1982 and 1989) was the first to study Lipsius’ political views and their influence systematically. More recently, important contributions to our understanding of Lipsius’ political ideas and their reception in early modern Europe have been made, amongst others, by Bireley (1990), Tuck (1992), van Gelderen (1992), McCrea (1997), and Lindberg (2001). In 2004 Jan Waszink provided an edition and English translation of Lipsius’ Politica, with an extensive introduction, in which he thoroughly analyses and contextualizes the work. His work has been exemplary for ours in many ways. A review of the recent debate on the nature and influence of Lipsius’ political thought has recently been published by Halvard Leira (2008). A status quaestionis of the reception of Lipsius’ political thought is offered by Erik De Bom (2011a: 28-32). 2 Bireley (1990: 80) and Jehasse (1976: 428-430) take the work into consideration, although to a limited extent. 3 There is no mention of the Monita in Tuck (1992). 4 de Nave (1967). A summary was published as de Nave (1970b). 5 See especially the articles by Janssens (2006, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013) and the contributions to the volume (Un)masking the Realities of Power, collected and edited by De Bom – Janssens – Van Houdt – Papy (2011).

1

Introduction Moreover, the Monita has often been dismissed as a stereotypical amplification of Lipsius’ political masterpiece, a product bearing the marks of his old age and of the intellectually repressive climate of the Catholic Southern Netherlands.6 One of the reasons for such an evaluation of the work may be found in its form or genre. Dedicated to Archduke Albert of Austria, the then co-sovereign of the Spanish Netherlands, the Monita is a mirror for princes which makes abundant use of historical examples and can thus also be characterised as a collection of examples or a commonplace book. The genre of commonplace books had largely been ignored until it was definitively put on the map in 1996 by the studies of Francis Goyet and Ann Moss. Although Moss’ monograph on the subject is as much a storehouse of information as the works which she studied, some of them certainly deserve a more in-depth analysis. Moreover, her study concentrates on collections of sayings, while Renaissance exempla-collections remain largely unstudied. The same is true for Renaissance mirrors for princes.7 The genre has mainly attracted the attention of medievalists, while contributions covering the Renaissance are usually limited to a general overview,8 to certain areas, or a few individual treatises.9 Although works which stand in the tradition of mirrors for princes, like the Monita, may at first sight seem less impressive as far as intellectual or stylistic achievement is concerned than more systematic treatises of political philosophy such as Jean Bodin’s De Republica libri sex or Lipsius’ Politica, we agree with Ronald Truman that they deserve more attention than they have received so far since they often express interesting thoughts on moral, educational, political, and religious questions that were of the utmost importance for the authors and their contemporary readers.10 Moreover, as a commonplace book, the Monita offers an almost unique insight into the knowledge available at the time and the ways in which it was organised.11 Therefore, this type of treatise needs to be taken into account to complete our picture of the intellectual history of this period. Another element which may have hindered a positive reception of the Monita by modern scholars is the fact that the work remained unfinished. For Lipsius had intended to illustrate all six books of the Politica with examples, but only published 6

See, e.g., Moss (1996b; 1998 and 2011). Compare Bireley (1990: 80): “Stylistically the Advice did not match the Constancy or Politics.” 7 Perhaps with the exception of Machiavelli’s Il Principe, although to our knowledge, no one has paid much attention to the genre and its tradition apart from Allan Gilbert (1938) and, more recently, Stacey (2007). 8 E.g. Skinner (1978: 1, 113-139 and 213-220) or Born (1928a: 540-543). 9 For instance, one would like to see the work which Bruno Singer (1981) did for Germany and Ronald Truman (1999) for Spain repeated for other countries, and that of Harald Braun (2007) or Ingmar Ahl (2004) for other mirrors for princes. 10 Truman (1999: 9) on mirrors for princes, who at this point quotes the opinion of Kristeller. 11 See e.g. Moss (1998: 421).

2

Lipsius and the Monita: General Introduction the first two.12 Although in his correspondence only months before his death he expressed his intention to continue the work,13 evidence has only been found for the last two books of the Monita on military affairs, a first draft of which has been preserved in manuscript form.14 Since we will never know whether he did indeed plan to illustrate the other, more controversial books of the Politica as well, we think it is justified to study the work as it is, because it does form a self-contained unit and was published as such by Lipsius himself. Despite the alleged mediocrity of the work, some scholars have gone so far as to say that it was the most widely read of all Lipsius’ publications,15 or even one of the most widespread books of the century.16 However, such statements are rarely supported by evidence. Nevertheless, a few specific aspects or instances of the influence of the work have recently come to light. Thus, Jan Raeymaekers (1999) has drawn attention to the influence of the Monita on Rubens,17 while Robert Evans and Lynn Bryan (1994) have pointed out that Ben Jonson took a keen interest in the Monita, as his heavily annotated copy of the work reveals. Jan Papy and Toon Van Houdt (1997 and 1998) have suggested that the Monita influenced the image of Archduke Albert of Austria, the dedicatee of the Monita, in panegyrics and funeral orations.18 Even more tellingly, the detailed reception study carried out by Erik De Bom (2011a) amply testifies to the unexpectedly rich and diverse afterlife which the Monita enjoyed in the Netherlands (and elsewhere) throughout the seventeenth century. All these studies indicate that the Monita cannot and should not be overlooked in any attempt to get a better and more complete understanding of Lipsius’ political thought, its development and impact; the work indeed deserves a thorough philological and intellectual-historical, as well as literary-historical analysis. In order to stimulate such scholarly research, the present work aims to make available, for the very first time, the Monita in a critical edition, combined with an English translation, a commentary, and a substantial introductory study. In the following introductory study, we shall first offer a brief description of the life and works of Lipsius, as well as a preliminary overview of the content and structure of the Monita (subsections 1.1 and 1.2). In the second section we shall situate the work in the tradition of mirrors for princes, exempla-collections and (political) commonplace books. Subsequently, we shall analyse the relation of the Monita to Lipsius’ oeuvre and humanist ideals in general, as well as to individual 12 In the preface to the reader, he states that in the meantime he has published the first two books because he is afraid that illness or death will prevent him from finishing the project, as indeed it did. 13 ILE [XIX], 06 02 09 and 06 02 17 B. 14 It has been edited and analysed by Jan Papy (2003a). 15 Salmon (1989: 204): “the most widely read and most frequenty plagiarized of all his publications”. 16 Stegmann (1980: 1021): «l’un des plus vulgarisés des ouvrages du siècle». See also De Bom (2011a: 53), who quotes Coreth (1959: 12), and Oestreich (1982: 58). 17 See also Morford (1991: 206-209), McGrath (1997: passim), and Janssens (2013). 18 On this subject, more recently De Bom (2011a: 209-302).

3

Introduction works, in particular the Politica, in order to reach a first assessment of the work (section  3). Next, a comparison of some of the views expressed in the Monita regarding key-topics of early modern political thought to those of contemporary thinkers will reveal some interpretative difficulties which may call for a reassessment of the text (section 4). After this study of the contents of the work, we shall analyse the writing process and the text itself from the point of view of its invention, disposition, and elocution (section 5).This should allow us to see the humanist at work, so to speak. In a final section we shall briefly sketch the history of the text as it has come down to us (section 6). 1.1. Introducing Lipsius: Between humanist erudition and socio-political commitment19 Born in Overijse, a small town between Brussels and Leuven, in 1547 and educated initially at local schools and later at the Jesuit College of Cologne, Lipsius started his academic career in 1563 as a student at the University of Leuven, where he was engaged in the emendation and critical examination of Latin texts and registered as a student of law. He spent the rest of his early years in Rome, in the entourage of Cardinal Granvelle, where he developed his philological and antiquarian interests by examining ancient monuments, studying precious manuscripts of Tacitus, Seneca, and others, and meeting eminent humanists such as Marcus Antonius Muretus. In Rome he also laid the foundations for his philosophical and political works, by studying the writings of Renaissance philosophers such as Pico della Mirandola and the political works of authors such as Machiavelli and Guicciardini.20 Later, in 1570, Lipsius returned to Leuven to continue his legal studies, but a looming war between the Low Countries and the Habsburg government forced him to leave for the peaceful court of Maximilian II in Vienna. However, Lipsius did not find the support he was looking for at court and left, disappointed, for Jena, where he was offered a professorship in history at the Lutheran university in 1572. At Jena Lipsius completed an edition of the works of Tacitus, which would establish his reputation as an eminent philologist throughout Europe and would influence not only his own political works, but also those of contemporary authors. In 1574 Lipsius quietly returned to Leuven, where he stayed for a short period. Eventually he accepted a chair at the newly founded University of Leiden in 1578, again under the pressure of political instability. Although Lipsius continued to publish critical editions of ancient authors, mostly historians, and antiquarian 19 For the life and works of Lipsius, with special attention to the development of his view in politicis, and for further literature, primary and secondary, see De Bom (2015b), Waszink (2004: 15-31), Morford (1991) and (1993), Oestreich (1989: 43-60), Grafton (1987), and Jehasse (1976: passim). In general, see the numerous exhibition catalogues and compilations included in the bibliography. 20 See Oestreich (1989: 49-51).

4

Lipsius and the Monita: General Introduction studies on various aspects of the culture of ancient Rome, he also drew on his knowledge of ancient philosophy, history, and culture to advise his contemporaries on how to behave in private and public life. At Leiden, for instance, Lipsius published his influential dialogue De Constantia (1583), in which he sought to reconcile Stoicism and Christianity, thus becoming one of the founding fathers of Neo-Stoicism. It was also at Leiden that Lipsius published his most famous political treatise, the Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex (1589). Controversy arose after the publication of this work and, in 1591, Lipsius decided to seek reconciliation with Catholicism and to return to the Southern Netherlands to continue his academic career where it had begun.21 In this final period of his life, Lipsius wrote, amongst other things, a few hagiographical treatises on the Virgin Mary, the Diva Virgo Hallensis (1604) and Diva Virgo Sichemensis (1605),22 and a history of Leuven and its university, the Lovanium (1605).23 But most of his attention went to an edition of Seneca and the manuals on Stoic doctrine and physics which accompanied it, the Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam (1604) and the Physiologia Stoicorum (1604).24 In 1605 he published his Monita et exempla politica. Libri duo, qui virtutes et vitia principum spectant (“Political admonitions and examples.Two books on the virtues and vices of princes”). As we have seen, this work was designed as the first in a series of three, but in 1606, death prevented Lipsius from completing the project. 1.2. Presenting the Monita: A brief overview of the work The Monita consists of two books of unequal length.25 The books are divided into several chapters, the headings of which list the main virtues and vices, and which correspond roughly to the first two books of the Politica.26 Each of these topics is first briefly defined and discussed on the basis of quotations from authorities.27 Then, in most, but not all chapters, further practical advice is formulated in the form of Monita or admonitions, and illustrated by copious historical examples ‒ hence the title Monita et exempla politica ‒ of generals, kings, and queens from 21

On the controversy with Coornhert, see Vissentin (2015), Voogt (2006: 197-229), Lindberg (2011: 132-134), Waszink (2004: 115-118),Voogt (1997),Vanhassel (1992), de Nave (1970a), and Güldner (1968: 65-147). On Lipsius’ return to the South, see also Machielsen (2011) and De Landtsheer (1996 and 2000a). 22 See De Landtsheer (1997) and (2004). 23 See Papy (2000a) and (2002b). 24 See, amongst others, Isnardi Parente (1986), Lagrée (1994a), and Papy (2005, 2010, and 2011). 25 The first book contains eight chapters, the second eighteen. 26 As indicated by Lipsius in the introductory chapters of the work: “Est scilicet eadem divisio et ordo qui in Politicis nostris fuit, quorum luci aut assertioni haec scribuntur.” (Mon., Ad lect.), and “Ordinem servabo quem Politicis praestruxi; nec Exempla solum, sed et Monita passim inspergam et alibi Quaestiunculas.” (Mon. 1.1). 27 Sources are not indicated consistently, nor precisely. Usually the author is indicated, but not the specific passage.

5

Introduction ancient, medieval, and more recent (European, Asian, and occasionally African or American) history. Finally, some chapters close with a debate, quaestio or quaestiuncula, of a practical issue under discussion. Regarding the content, the work is structured as follows. After a dedicatory letter to Archduke Albert of Austria, who was first the Spanish Governor and later co-sovereign of the Southern Netherlands, and a preface to the reader, Lipsius opens the first book with an introductory chapter on the usefulness of examples. This is followed by a discussion of religion, the cornerstone of society according to Lipsius.The humanist warns the prince that the state cannot exist without religion (religio) because fear of God is the only bond strong enough to control the people. Moreover, when the prince is pious, he will be safer, for the people will love and respect him more, and be better and more obedient. After these, and other, general reflections, four instances of practical advice, all illustrated by examples, complete the chapter. Subsequently, Lipsius warns the prince against excessive piety. This leads to a discussion on superstition (superstitio) and the circumstances in which it occurs. This chapter is closed by a detailed discussion (Quaestiuncula) of the much-debated question of whether or not the superstition of the people can be useful to the prince and should be permitted. The discussion ends in a digressing description of pagan religions and traditions, ridiculed by Lipsius. In any case the ruler should avoid impiety (impietas), which is even worse than superstition. This brief chapter on impiety is followed by a considerably longer one on fate (fatum) or divine providence (providentia). For in Lipsius’ view, whoever believes in God and honours Him, must also believe in fate. This will benefit the prince in various ways: by reading the signs which God has sent to reveal the future, he can align his decisions with the plans of the Creator. For reading such signs, he can rely on the experience and the writings of wise men, but never on fortune-­tellers or magicians. Furthermore, a pious prince must always follow his conscience (­conscientia), for if he only pretends to be good, without actually being good, he will never find peace. With this short chapter on conscience Lipsius ties the topic of religion to his next topics: probity (probitas) and constancy (constantia), the first of which is defined by Lipsius as the honest pursuit of virtue for its own sake.The prince must be honest at all times, as well as strong, patient, and invariable (constans), whatever the circumstances. However, a ruler should not only be pious and virtuous but also needs to be prudent. Prudence (prudentia) is described as the knowledge of facts and events and the correct judgment of them. It is said to stem from nature, experience, and above all from the study of history. This gives the humanist the occasion to close the first book with a lengthy digression on the usefulness of the study of history, to recommend travel and specific subjects for the education of the prince, and to offer him countless models of highly educated and learned princes. The second book starts with a substantial discussion of the pros and cons of monarchy (principatus) as the best form of government, of men or women as the

6

Lipsius and the Monita: General Introduction best governors, and of election (electio) or hereditary succession (successio) as the best way of obtaining power. In these chapters Lipsius expresses a strong preference for hereditary monarchy following the male line and tries to determine detailed rules of succession. In any case the prince should not use fraud (fraus) or violence (vis, violentia) to obtain power, for this is never rewarded. However, once a prince has gained power, he often changes for the worse (principum inclinatio). Lipsius devotes a small chapter to the causes of this phenomenon and two more brief chapters to the aim of government, which should always be the common good (publicum bonum), and to the exemplary role of the prince. After this discussion of the best form of government, which takes up nearly one third of the entire work, Lipsius resumes the original theme of the book, namely the virtues of the prince. The remaining virtues are divided by Lipsius into three categories: firstly, the principal (public) virtues of the prince, secondly private virtues, and thirdly, minor virtues. The author first devotes a few chapters to justice (iustitia), which he singles out as the most important of all virtues for without it life in society would be impossible. Princes are appointed especially to protect justice and thus guarantee the peace and security of the state. Therefore, they must apply justice to themselves, the members of their court, and to their subjects. This general discussion is followed by two debates (Quaestiones) on practical issues, such as whether the prince should administer justice himself and whether judges should be appointed for life. Attached to this is a small chapter on laws (leges), which, just like trials, should be limited in number and length. Before continuing with the next virtue, Lipsius inserts a very brief chapter on divine justice (iustitia divina): if justice is not applied by princes for some reason, God will make sure justice is done and will protect the prince if he suffers injustice. The next chapter deals with the key virtue of clemency (clementia) which serves the same purpose as justice, albeit in a different way: while justice improves the subjects by way of severity, fear, and punishment, clemency improves them by way of benevolence and forgiveness. If the prince is merciful as a father towards his subjects, this will benefit his popularity. Another of those virtues which increases the prince’s fame and is indispensable to civil life is faithfulness (fides). The prince who does not keep his promises will damage his reputation and will ultimately be punished by God. After a long series of examples, Lipsius turns to the private virtues of the prince and firstly to modesty (modestia). All people must avoid arrogance, but especially the prince, because he is exposed to it more than anyone else. In the face of ever-changing fortune, one has to be modest.The prince should not only be modest in sensu, but also in cultu, for modesty is not only a virtue of the mind, but also of the body. Jewellery and other forms of display do not honour the prince and should be put aside. Nevertheless, Lipsius advises the prince to assume a certain degree of majesty (maiestas), defined as the veneration generated in the souls of others by the magnitudo or greatness of the king and by his appearance, clothes, and

7

Introduction gesture. Lipsius offers some specific advice concerning the prince’s behaviour and appearance. If he does not behave this way, people will start to disdain princely rule. Because it is customary to do so, Lipsius says, he adds three other virtues. The first one is chastity (castitas), which the prince should preserve before marriage and partly during it, in the form of affection for, and fidelity to, his partner. Lust is fatal for the mind, the soul, and the body, and must be avoided at all times. Lipsius stresses that he has no objections to marriage as such, for it relieves the ruler’s mind when he can share his worries with his wife but still takes the opportunity to warn the prince not to discuss state affairs with his wife given the weaknesses of the female sex. The next virtue recommended by Lipsius is forbearance (patientia). Although people cannot rule themselves, it is difficult for them to be ruled. Consequently, the prince will never be able to please everyone, whatever he does, and people will always criticise him. The prince must ignore this, because it is impossible to punish everybody and such vengeance would only create more discontent. Lipsius conveniently ends the book with a chapter on the virtue of magnanimity or the honorable pursuit of fame and glory (magnitudo animi). An important way of ensuring immortal fame is the patronage of arts and letters. Lipsius expresses his wish that, after the example of the Byzantine Emperor Leo I, princes will one day invest more in scholars than in soldiers, but he is afraid it will not happen in his day, because “a dark shadow of ignorance” threatens Europe. With this last warning the humanist concludes his political admonitions and examples.

Section 2 The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form 2.1. The Monita as a mirror for princes28 The previous description of the content and structure of the Monita immediately reveals its affinity with the tradition of mirrors for princes. One of the defining characteristics of the genre is that it advises princes on matters regarding moral and political, private and public behaviour by drawing an image of the ideal prince.29 Hence, in most mirrors for princes the point of departure for the discussion of political issues is the virtue of the prince: finance is discussed in relation to the virtue of frugality, foreign affairs in relation to the love of peace, etc. Usually, these 28 For a general overview of the mirror for princes tradition and further literature, see for instance Truman (1999: 12-31), Mulder-Bakker (1992) and Born (1928a: 540-543), who provides an (incomplete) list of mirrors for princes from the 12th until the 17th century, arranged by country, or articles in encyclopaedias, such as those of De Bom (2015), Anton et al. (1989), Singer (1983), and Hadot (1972). A recent bibliographical overview can be found in Thomas (2002: 92-93). 29 They were also called advice books for princes, and form a subgenre of the advice book, which could also be directed to monks, magistrates, courtiers, women, etc. A definition and description of the general features of mirrors for princes can be found in Singer (1981: 15-47).

8

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form virtues are not theoretically derived from general principles and do not form a system but are rather derived from historical examples and joined together somewhat at random. The ideal image and the particular virtues ascribed to the prince in mirrors for princes changed over the course of time. In what follows we will therefore offer a brief historical overview of the most important exponents of the genre, with special attention to this evolution. The mirror for princes genre has a very long tradition, with roots in ancient Egypt, China, India, and the ancient Arabic, Greek, and Roman worlds.30 For Western literature Isocrates’ Ad Nicoclem, Nicocles and Evagoras should be mentioned,31 as well as Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, Agesilaus, and Hiero, Pliny’s Panegyricus, and Seneca’s De clementia. These authors laid the foundations for the subsequent tradition by presenting the political leaders whom they addressed with an ideal image and a canon of virtues, and by couching their advice on practical matters of statecraft in different literary forms, such as panegyrics or biographies. These and other works fell into oblivion after the fall of Rome, but in the Carolingian age a new tradition of Christian mirrors for princes originated in the circle of Charlemagne from the need to determine the relationship between the power of the emperor and that of the rising Christian Church and its leaders.32 Treatises from this period (eighth – ninth century) were mostly written by clergymen. They drew heavily on the Bible and St Augustine’s account of the good ruler in the De civitate Dei and they adhered to a sacral image of kingship. They saw the ruler as God’s minister or vice-regent, who had to rule on earth after His example, preserve justice and peace, and protect the Church. They thus subordinated the power of the secular ruler to the Church. These works also treat topics that would remain at the core of the subsequent tradition, such as the opposition of kings and tyrants, and the related question of tyrannicide, the question whether it is better to be loved or feared, and the importance of choosing good advisers and avoiding flatterers. These ideas and topics were further developed in the period from the twelfth until the fourteenth century, when the genre reached a first Golden Age.33 It is indeed in this period that the term ‘Mirror for Princes’ occurs for the first time, for instance in the Speculum regum of Godfrey of Viterbo,34 who was the first author to 30

Singer (1983: 707). For a detailed study of the mirror for princes literature in Graeco-Roman antiquity, see Schulte (2001), Eder (1995), and Adam (1970). For Islamic mirrors for princes, see, amongst others, Marlow (2009), Lambton (1980: 419-442), Rosenthal (1968: 67-83), Dawoord (1965), and Richter (1932). The compilation of De Benedictis – Pisapia (1999) focuses on juristic aspects of Byzantine, Persian, Arabic, and Western European mirrors for princes from late antiquity onwards. 31 Erasmus would define his Institutio principis Christiani as a commentary on Isocrates. 32 For this period, see Anton (2006: 11-22), Mähl (1969), Ullmann (1969), and Born (1933). 33 For medieval mirrors for princes and further literature, see Anton (2006), Ferster (1996), Berges (1938), and Born (1928b). 34 On mirror imagery in titles and texts of the Middle Ages and the English Renaissance, see Grabes – Collier (1982).

9

Introduction assign an important part to (pagan) history as a matter of study.35 One of the most influential works of this period was the Policraticus (1159) of John of Salisbury, who developed a less extreme hierocratic position, and a more comprehensive view of human society, expressing its unity and the interdependence of its members by drawing an analogy between the body politic and the human body, which would remain extremely popular in mirrors for princes of the subsequent tradition.36 This evolution was stimulated by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics in the thirteenth century, which enabled medieval thinkers, led by Thomas Aquinas, to move further away from hierocratic notions of polity towards autocratic or human-centred ones. However, this did not constitute as radical a break in political thought as has sometimes been presented by scholars in the past.37 For although authors such as Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome adopted the Aristotelian premise that man is “a social and political animal”, in other words, that political order is natural, they still believed that the order of nature was Godgiven. In addition to this, the Aristotelian idea that virtuous living is the aim of society was connected to the Christian view that a virtuous life according to God’s laws brings man to God, who is his final end. Consequently, authors of this period valued the vita contemplativa, a life devoted to the contemplation of the supernatural and to Christian love in the seclusion of a monastery or friary, above the vita activa or a life involved in worldly, e.g. political affairs. Thus Aristotelian ‘political naturalism’ confirmed and refined rather than replaced the existing view on kingship. One of the most important representatives of this period was Giles of Rome, also known under the Latin name Aegidius Romanus, whose De regimine principum was clearly influenced by the eponymous work of Aquinas and by Aristotle’s Politics and Ethics, and in turn had a great impact on the subsequent tradition. The evolution of the medieval image of the sacred ruler towards an image of an ideal prince who rules through his personal virtue rather than through divine inspiration or intervention was reinforced by the rise of Renaissance Humanism in fourteenth-century Italy.38 In this period the number of works available from antiquity increased greatly. Crucial in this context was the influence of the moral 35 Anton

(2006: 24-26). On the use of the organic analogy in (medieval and Renaissance) political thought, see De Bom (2011a: 133-134), Kühlmann (1982: 72), Archambault (1967), Hale (1971), Kantorowicz (1957), Hinrichs (1969: 53-58), and Stacey (2007: s.v. prince as medic). 37 This point has been stressed by, among others, Scanlon (1994: 84-87), Truman (1999: 17), and Nederman (1988). 38 For a general overview of mirrors for princes in the Renaissance, see Skinner (1978: 1, 113-139 and 213-244), Tuck (1993: 1-30), and the compilation of Mühleisen – Stammen (1990). For Germany, see Singer (1981) and Müller (1985), for Spain Truman (1999), and for the Netherlands Tilmans (1991). For the influence of Seneca on Renaissance mirrors for princes, see Stacey (2007). For advice books by or for female rulers, see Multe (1998). For Machiavelli’s Il Principe as an exponent of the mirror for princes tradition, see Gilbert (1938). 36

10

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form works of Cicero and Seneca.39 According to Cicero, everyone can and must seek to acquire the highest form of excellence or virtus. Essential for the achievement of this goal is education, which must be based on the study of rhetoric and ancient philosophy. This Ciceronian image of the vir virtutis or ideal citizen was applied to the person of the prince by Seneca and taken up by the writers of Renaissance mirrors for princes.40 Consequently, humanists paid a lot of attention to the education of princes and gentlemen, which was reflected in the schools which humanist pedagogues such as Vittorino da Feltre and Guarino da Verona began to set up, and in the emergence of advice books which were mainly concerned with the education of young men and princes, such as the educational writings of Maffeo Vegio or Enea Silvio Piccolomini.41 The adoption of this classical ideal of virtus prompted humanists to reject the medieval (Augustinian) picture of human nature (as corrupted or fallen) and to believe instead that every person can overcome the obstacles of fortune and achieve virtuousness by his own efforts rather than by the grace of God. This return to the classical view of human nature did not, however, mean the abandonment of Christian virtues, but rather resulted in a blend of Christian and classical ethics when authors combined the four cardinal virtues of fortitudo, sapientia, iustitia, and moderatio, praised by ancient moralists, with Christian virtues such as pietas, caritas, castitas, or modestia. Cicero’s moral and political thought (as well as his stylistic example) remained influential throughout the Renaissance.This is especially true for his view on the superiority of the vita activa over the vita contemplativa, and the claim that what is morally right is also expedient, and that what serves the public interest best is also best for the individual. As princely forms of government gained the upper hand in fifteenth-century Italy at the expense of republican forms, advice books for princes as well as for magistrates and courtiers boomed. This period saw some of the most famous advice books of all time, such as Baldassare Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano, Francesco Patrizzi’s De regno et regis institutione, Giovanni Pontano’s De principe, Diomede Carafa’s Memoriali, and – last but not least – Niccolò Machiavelli’s Il Principe.42 Most of these mirror for princes writers continued to propagate traditional moral and educational values, endorsing the humanist assumption that with the right kind of education the prince can overcome the power of fortune and achieve virtus, which will be rewarded by honour, glory, and fame. Consequently, writers of mirrors for princes from this period paid a lot of attention to describing the 39 Their ideas were already influential but were combined with Christian (Augustinian) ideas of sin and grace. See Nederman (1988). 40 See Peter Stacey, who stresses in the introduction to this study (2007: 1-19) that it is a mistake to say that Renaissance mirrors for princes were indebted to Cicero’s De officiis alone. He argues that they were rather indebted to Seneca’s adaptation of the Ciceronian ideology to a monarchical context, as he goes on to prove in the rest of his book. 41 Skinner (1978: 1, 90). 42 According to Bárcenas (2015: 21), “Machiavelli’s works could be considered the highest and most sophisticated manifestation of the speculum principis or ‘mirror for princes’”.

11

Introduction education and virtues of the prince. Among the various (classical and Christian) virtues, some were thought to be especially appropriate for kings and princes. These included liberality, magnificence, clemency, and faithfulness (understood as the duty to keep faith, never to engage in deceit, never to tell a lie or break a promise). The ideal prince, the princeps optimus,43 was presented as the sum of all these carefully combined virtues. Unsurprisingly, the authors of mirrors for princes often compared themselves to the painter Zeuxis, who composed a perfect statue by combining the most beautiful characteristics of various beautiful women.44 The ideal prince whom they depicted was thought to be able to guarantee the peace, security, and harmony of a community through the example of his personal virtue. Therefore, monarchy was usually singled out as the best form of government. With his virtuous way of living the prince would set an example for the people, whose task it was to cultivate the virtue of obedience. Some of these key elements of (humanist) advice books and political theory were notoriously questioned and challenged by Machiavelli in his mirror for princes. He essentially criticised contemporary political theorists for lack of realism and for not recognising the significance of power or force in political life. He agreed with his predecessors and contemporaries that the prince should try to maintain the state and aim for honour, glory, and fame, but he rejected the common belief that the surest way to attain these is by acting in a conventionally virtuous way. He denied the premise that what is morally right is necessarily expedient and argued instead that if a prince wants to maintain the state, it is sometimes better, for instance, to be feared than loved, to break a promise, or to use force and deceit. Indeed, the prince needs to use the cunning of a fox and the force of a lion when necessary.45 With the diffusion of humanist culture in Northern Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the genre flourished again with treatises such as Guillaume Budé’s De l’Institution du Prince, Fox Morcillo’s De regni regisque institutione, Felipe de la Torre’s Institución de un rey christiano, Pedro de Ribadeneyra’s Tratado de la religión y virtudes que debe tener el príncipe cristiano, Juan de Mariana’s De rege et regis institutione, Jakob Wimpfeling’s Agatharchia, Johann Sturm’s De educatione principum, 43 A reference to Trajan, who is praised like this by Pliny in his Panegyricus. Cf. Singer (1981: 32). Albert is called this by Lipsius in the dedicatory letter to the Monita. See Morford (1991: 126). 44 The image of the painter Zeuxis can be found in various ancient authors, including Cicero (inv. 2.1). It was used, e.g., by Francesco Patrizzi in his De regno et regis institutione. See Singer, (1981: 32). Compare Cornelius Aurelius’ unpublished mirror for princes for Charles V, the Opus Pal­marium (1520). See Tilmans (1989: 428). Also, Lipsius alludes to the activity of Zeuxis in the first chapter of the Monita. 45 Skinner (1978: 1, 131). The image of the fox and the lion is borrowed from Cicero’s De officiis, but contrary to Machiavelli Cicero strongly rejects both force and deceit. On the image and its use by Machiavelli, see for instance Barlow (1999) and Bárcenas (2015: 61-63), with further literature. In section 4 we shall examine Machiavelli’s controversial ideas in close connection to Lipsius’ political thought as expressed in the Monita.

12

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form and Erasmus’ Institutio principis Christiani, to name just a few of the most important representatives.46 Just like their Italian predecessors, most of these authors stressed that through virtuous behaviour the prince should and could attain honour, glory, and fame for himself, and peace, security, and harmony for society. These virtues included the four cardinal virtues, as well as the princely virtues of liberality, clemency, and fidelity.47 In order to achieve the necessary virtues, the northern humanists, like their Italian colleagues, stressed the importance of education. In addition to points of contact or continuity between northern and Italian humanists, there were also points of criticism. For example, a number of northern humanists blamed their Italian colleagues for defending the notion of ‘reasons of state’, that is, the view that it might be legitimate for the prince to leave the straight and narrow path if it is in the interest of the state to disregard the virtues.48 As we have seen, this view was first advanced by Machiavelli, and his principles had been endorsed to a certain extent by Francesco Guicciardini as well. Their view was denounced and attacked by humanists such as Reginald Pole, Jerónimo Osório, and Innocent Gentillet, who laid the foundation of an anti-Machiavellian tradition.49 As civil and religious wars started to trouble sixteenth-century Europe, however, humanists started to ease their defence of traditional morality, and adopt a more flexible view of political morality. Authors such as Giovanni Botero, Guillaume Budé, Pedro de Ribadeneyra, Guillaume Du Vair, and Montaigne admitted that in some cases it may be justifiable to do what is useful rather than what is strictly right. They argued that the prince should obey the dictates of prudence as well as of justice, thus trying to reconcile Christian ethics and politics, the good and the useful, and develop a realistic ethics or morality of power. From this description of the mirror for princes genre it should be clear that ascribing a central role to virtue and education was a characteristic feature of mirrors for princes throughout the centuries. Although mirrors for princes could take different forms, such as that of a historical work, a biography, a letter, a panegyric, a dialogue, or a combination of these, one other feature most of these works have 46 During the 16th century the genre also underwent the influence of the Reformation. Protestant mirrors for princes are discussed by Singer (1981: 38-44). They are, in general, characterised by a different “Zeit- und Selbstgefühl”. 47 Skinner (1978: 1, 228-236). 48 The literature on the history of reasons of state as an idea and term is extensive. For a recent bibliographical overview, see for instance Soll (2005: 140-141, n. 31). In recent decades, especially Michael Stolleis and Maurizio Viroli have devoted several studies to the concept and its history. For a summary, see for instance Burke (1991). 49 The anti-Machiavellian tradition is studied in detail by Bireley (1990). For the reception of Machiavelli, see also Kahn (1994 and 2000), Anglo (2005), Howard (2014) and Soll (2014), and the literature cited there. On the particularly aggressive anti-Machiavellism of the Jesuit order, see especially Höpfl (2004: 84-185). On Machiavellism and anti-Machiavellism in the Netherlands, see e.g. van Heck (2002), Goosens (1997) and Brants (1914).

13

Introduction in common is the use of historical examples: sometimes they advise the prince by describing and/or eulogising the life of famous statesmen, sometimes by formulating and discussing norms and rules for the conduct of a prince, and illustrating them with historical examples. Lipsius’ Monita, however, seems to distinguish itself from most other mirrors for princes by its abundant use of examples. With over 350 historical anecdotes the Monita contains many examples and comparatively little advice or few monita. The work should therefore also be situated in the tradition of exempla collections. 2.2. The Monita as an exempla collection Historical examples were the basic means of moral instruction in the ancient world from the earliest times onwards. One of the most influential collectors of historical examples in antiquity was Valerius Maximus, whose Facta et dicta memorabilia combined features of Hellenistic collections of examples and turned them into a thematically arranged handbook of historical material apparently unknown in the Hellenistic era. Valerius Maximus would remain a well-liked, much commented upon, and much-imitated model and source for exempla collections throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance.50 The ‘father’ of medieval exempla collections was Gregory I, who recommended the use of examples (by stressing that they were often more efficacious than precepts), used exempla in his Homiliae, and compiled his own collection of moral anecdotes, the Dialogi.51 This work contained anecdotes from the lives of Christian rulers, saints, and monks, written for the instruction of novices. This monastic tradition was continued by Caesar of Heisterbach, whose Dialogus miraculorum was also intended for a monastic audience but was soon used by preachers as a source for sermon exempla. For when great preaching campaigns started from the mid-12th century onwards, the exemplum soon became a prominent element of sermons, as a means of illustration or proof of doctrine, and the need for sermon manuals and exempla collections grew. Some of the most important compilers of examples from this period were Jacques de Vitry, Vincent of Beauvais, John of Wales, John of Salisbury, and the anonymous authors of the Alphabetum Exemplorum, the Liber exemplorum (ad usum praedicantium), the Speculum Laicorum, the Speculum Ecclesiae, the Secreta Secretorum, and the Gesta Romanorum. They drew examples from a wide range of sources to cover a broad range of topics, related 50 See Crab (2015) and Burke (2011: 50). On Valerius Maximus’ collection, see especially Skidmore (1996). On exempla and exempla collections in antiquity, see also Holcroft (1976:21-31). In Roman antiquity the instruction of the audience by examples was explicitly recommended by Seneca and Quintilian. See Sen. epist. 1.1; 11.10; 104.19-26; 83.13; Quint. inst. 12.2.29-30. For the use of (lists) of exempla in the work of Seneca, one of Lipsius’ most beloved ancient authors, see now Langlands (2015) and Roller (2015). 51 Mosher (1911: 10-11) and Scanlon (1994: 63-65). For a fuller discussion and further bibliography, see Straw (1988: 66-89).

14

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form to the conduct of laymen and clergymen. This tradition continued up to the 16th century with collections of sermons or religious examples such as Ianus Nicius Erythraeus’ Exempla virtutum et vitiorum or editions of Nicolaus Hanapus’ Virtutum et vitiorum exempla. In such collections, examples (and other homiletic materials) were usually arranged by source, alphabetically or under headings such as the four cardinal virtues, the seven sins, or the ten commandments, and were often indexed and/or cross-referenced. These methods of organising knowledge would deeply influence Renaissance compilations.52 One of the first exempla collections of the Renaissance is Petrarch’s Rerum memorandarum libri, an incomplete account of the four cardinal virtues, illustrated with ancient, medieval, and contemporary examples, reminiscent of Valerius Maximus’ collection. The part which has been completed deals with the virtue of prudence as memory of the past, knowledge of the present, and foreknowledge of the future.53 The examples are preceded by an introductory chapter and are divided into Romana, externa (like Valerius Maximus’) and moderna. Many examples which occur in Petrarch’s work feature in the Monita as well, and Petrarch’s chapter on providence in particular is similar to the treatment of the subject by both Valerius Maximus and Lipsius.54 In the wake of Petrarch followed collections such as Baptista Fulgosus’ Factorum dictorumque memorabilium libri IX, Johannes Baptista Egnatius’ Libri novem de Exemplis illustrium virorum, Marcus Marulus’ De institutione bene vivendi per exempla sanctorum, Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus’ De memorabilibus factis dictisque exemplorum libri decem, and Balthasar Exnerus’ Valerius Maximus Christianus. As can be derived from these titles, these collections were all inspired by Valerius Maximus, although they all had their own approach and level of (in-)dependence.55 A related tradition is that of the De viris illustribus, collections of brief biographies designed to illustrate the virtues, civil and literary, of famous men.56 The genre, as practised, for instance, by Suetonius and Cornelius Nepos, was popular in Graeco-Roman antiquity, and would be further developed in the Middle Ages and 52

On medieval collections of (sermon) examples, see Mosher (1911), Haug-Wachinger (1991), Scanlon (1994: 55-134), and Moss (1996a: 24-50). For the use of medieval exempla in general, see Berlioz – Polo de Beaulieu – Brémond (1992) and Berlioz – Polo de Beaulieu (1998), for the use of examples by John of Salisbury and for further literature, see von Moos (1996). For Jacques de Vitry, see Crane (1976). For use of examples in Italy in the period of transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, see Delcorno (1989). 53 Billanovich (1945: cxxiv-cxxx). 54 For specific examples which occur in both Petrarch and Lipsius, see below in our commentary on the Monita. For the use of examples by Petrarch, see also Ebbersmeyer (2006). 55 These exempla collections have mainly been studied by Holcroft (1976) and Aragüés Aldaz (1993). See also Aragüés Aldaz (1999), with further literature. For a recent brief overview of the early modern culture of exemplarity as well as anti-exemplarity, see Burke (2011). 56 For this tradition, with special attention to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and for further literature, see Petoletti (2006).

15

Introduction the Renaissance, with Jerome and his collection of Christian biographies acting as an intermediary. Jerome’s De viris illustribus found many imitators in the Middle Ages, such as Isidore of Seville and Sigebert of Gembloux. Some of the most well-known collections of the Renaissance are Petrarch’s De viris illustribus, and Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium and De mulieribus claris.57 Boccaccio’s collection of female biographies inspired works such as Christine de Pizan’s Livre de la Cité des Dames, Thomas Elyot’s Defence of Good Women, and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women.58 Boccaccio also compiled a collection of biographies of famous men, De casibus virorum illustrium, with biographies of famous people who were at the height of happiness and fell to misfortune when they least expected it. The work was very successful and initiated what some scholars have called a De casibus tradition, inspiring many translations and imitations, including Geoffrey Chaucer’s Monk’s Tale, Laurent de Premierfait’s Des cas des nobles hommes et femmes and John Lydgate’s Fall of Princes.59 Later these exempla collections grew ever larger and covered an ever wider range of subjects and sources, some of them evolving into true encyclopaedias.60 Thus Lucius Andreas Resendius’ Sententiae et exempla consisted of one book of quotations or sententiae, arranged under headings ranging from government to moral goods and evils, and spiritual subjects, and one book of pagan and Christian exempla which runs through virtues and vices by opposites.61 It offers a good compendium of the main collections from Valerius Maximus to Marcus Marulus. Similarly, Johannes Herold’s Exempla virtutum et vitiorum offers an indexed compilation of the exempla collections of Valerius Maximus, Frontinus, Hanapus, Sabellicus, Fulgosus, and others. Also, Ravisius Textor’s Officina is an enormous collection of examples of almost anything anyone could think of, with some appropriate quotations, linked by affinities and occasional opposites.62 His work was later indexed and expanded, amongst others by Conrad Lycosthenes.63 He had devoted him57

For other, lesser-known ones, see Petoletti (2006). Brown (2001: xxi-xxii). Many of the examples adduced in Lipsius’ chapter on female rule (Mon. 2.2) are also present in these collections. 59 Scanlon (1994: 119-134). Lipsius shared Boccaccio’s insistence on the fickleness of fortune, which is stressed throughout the Monita, as well as many examples illustrating it (Cyrus, Dionysius of Syracuse, Valerian, Polycrates, Sardanapalus, Croesus, Mithridates, Orodes, Pompey, Alexander Balas, etc.). See e.g. Mon. 1.5 and 2.14 (esp. examples 9-19: “Mutationum exempla”) and the corresponding notes in our commentary. 60 For encyclopaedias such as those of Ravisius Textor, Zwinger, and Beyerlinck, and for further literature see, e.g., Ong (1976), Blair (2005) and Enenkel (2005), as well as the compilation on the early modern encyclopaedia by Theo Stammen and Wolfgang Weber (2004, esp. the articles of Gilbert Heß and Markus Friedrich), or the compilation of Frank Büttner, Markus Friedrich and Helmut Zedelmaier on collecting and organising knowledge in early modern times (2003, esp. the article of Louis Van Delft). 61 Moss (1996a: 201-202). 62 Moss (1996a: 114-115). 63 For the life and works of Conrad Lycosthenes and further literature, see Moss (2006). 58

16

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form self to commonplacing works by Erasmus, and had started work on the Theatrum vitae humanae, which would be completed by his stepson Theodor Zwinger. This compendium arranged material, collected from every possible source and every major collection of examples from Valerius Maximus to Marulus, according to a philosophical scheme so complex it needed clarification, offered in the form of diagrams at the start of each book. A similar work is represented by Laurentius Beyerlinck’s (alphabetically arranged) Magnum Theatrum Vitae Humanae, which did not only draw heavily on Zwinger’s encyclopaedia, but also on Lipsius’ Monita, from which many discussions and examples were copied literally. From this description of exempla collections, it can be derived that Lipsius’ Monita resembles collections such as those by Valerius Maximus and his Renaissance imitators in its abundant use of historical examples. However, it distinguishes itself from them insofar as it does not regard moral behaviour in general but is restricted to the conduct of the prince. It did not intend to cover all knowledge either, like the encyclopaedias of Vincent of Beauvais, John of Wales, or Theodor Zwinger, but one specific sub-discipline, namely politics. By collecting historical examples under headings derived from the Politica, Lipsius thus created a discipline-focused exempla collection. In doing so, he followed the advice of Renaissance pedagogues such as Johann Sturm, Philipp Melanchthon, Melchior Junius, and Jodocus Willichius, who recommended the composition of commonplace books for individual disciplines, claiming that each discipline needed to be analysed according to headings and subheadings appropriate to that discipline.64 Consequently, the practice of collecting historical examples should be seen within a wider tendency to collect sentences, proverbs, etc. in commonplace books. 2.3. The Monita as a political commonplace book When quotations from authoritative authors were gathered under headings or places (loci communes or commonplaces) for their moral and/or stylistic value, such a collection is called a commonplace book. Renaissance commonplace books and their forerunners have been studied systematically by Ann Moss.65 She traces their history from medieval florilegia (collections of quotations), encyclopaedias, and sermon manuals, to their decline in the seventeenth century, and illustrates their history with copious examples, thus creating an invaluable companion to the 64

Moss (1996a: 132; 146; 153). Moss (1996a). The following account is largely based on her comprehensive overview of the history of commonplace books. In Moss (2011) she also situates the Monita in the tradition of the commonplace book. The commonplace method has also been studied by Lechner (1962), Brückner (1975), and Goyet (1996), as well as in several contributions by Ann Blair (with special attention to encyclopaedias of natural philosophy such as Jean Bodin’s Universae naturae theatrum). See esp. Blair (1996), (1997), (2003), and (2007). For an overview see also Moss (2005 and 2015) and Grafton (2007: 189-226. 65

17

Introduction organisation of knowledge in the early modern period. She shows how during the Renaissance printed commonplace books were used in schools as textbooks for rhetorical and moral instruction, while pedagogues from Italy and Northern Europe such as Gasparinus Barzizza, Guarino and Battista Guarini, Vittorino da Feltre, Rudolphus Agricola, Jakob Wimpfeling, Erasmus, Vives, Melanchthon, Sturm, and Ramus also encouraged students to read the best ancient authors as a source of moral wisdom and as models of the best Latinity and to transcribe selected passages from their reading in notebooks of their own, with topical headings for easy reference.These headings would also supply the themes for compositions of their own, as well as quotations, examples, and other material to quote or expand. Works that clearly made use of this loci communes method of composition are, for instance, Montaigne’s Essais and Lipsius’ own Politica.66 In the early modern period, the arrangement of such commonplace books began to constitute a discipline in itself, with its own theory, alternative systems and its own authorities. Moss indicates that more elementary commonplace books divide the selected passages under headings listing the main virtues and vices, while more advanced ones intended to cover all knowledge or specific disciplines. Some commonplace books were devoted, for instance, to the discipline of politics. Thus, Francesco Guicciardini’s Ricordi (1530) contained around 400 political maxims and reflexions or observations, mainly derived from the author’s own experience, but sometimes also illustrated with examples from a more remote past. It was a very popular collection which was constantly reissued and augmented.67 Equally popular, in the North, was Lambertus Danaeus’ ever growing collection of political aphorisms, Politicorum Aphorismorum Silva (1583).68 And let us not forget Lipsius’ own Politica, of course, composed of political sententiae connected by the author with his own words and arranged under appropriate headings. In the wake of collections like these, political commonplace books began to proliferate. Many of them even culled aphorisms from the works of these very authors.Thus, several commonplace books were issued on the basis of Lipsius’ oeuvre.69

66 Compositions (prose or poetic) composed of passages from other authors are also called centos. On the Politica as a cento and commonplace book, see Lafond (1981), Moss (1998), Waszink (1997a and b, and 2004: 49-79), and Tucker (2011); on Montaigne’s Essais, see McKinley (1981) and Tucker (2002) and (2005). 67 Anglo (2005: 631), who studied the presence of Machiavelli (and Guicciardini) in collections of political aphorisms in the Renaissance (2005: 630-370). For a brief overview of collections of political aphorisms, see also Stegmann – Chavy (2000: 244-245). 68 See De Bom (2011a: 199-206). Lipsius kept a copy of this work in his library: Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 13r. 69 These have been studied in detail by De Bom (2008a) and (2011).

18

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form 2.4. The specificity of the Monita from a formal point of view One could say that Lipsius’ Monita unites all of the traditions described above, as implied by its full title Monita et exempla politica. Libri duo qui virtutes et vitia principum spectant. The Monita can be defined as a mirror for princes insofar as it offers Archduke Albert, the then co-sovereign of the Habsburg Netherlands, advice regarding matters of government and conduct by drawing an ideal image of the prince. With the mirror for princes tradition the Monita shares the central role ascribed to the virtues and the use of historical examples. However, as mentioned earlier, the Monita distinguishes itself from most mirrors for princes by formulating its advice almost exclusively in the form of historical examples. Mirrors for princes such as John of Salisbury’s Policraticus, Budé’s Institution du prince, Mariana’s De rege, or Machiavelli’s Il Principe incorporated examples (and quotations) in their text. Lipsius, on the contrary, briefly introduces each topic with a description ‒ interspersed with quotations from authorities ‒ of its meaning and importance to the prince, and then illustrates it with a long list of examples. Although these are linked together with connecting phrases, they are not integrated into a running text, but clearly separated from each other and individually numbered. In this respect it resembles exempla collections such as those of Valerius Maximus and his Renaissance imitators, but it distinguishes itself from them insofar as it does not regard moral behaviour in general but is restricted to the conduct of the prince. It does not intend to cover all knowledge either, like the encyclopaedias of Vincent of Beauvais, John of Wales, and Theodor Zwinger, but only one specific sub-discipline, namely politics. Political commonplace books indeed began to proliferate in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. Lipsius was certainly familiar with this tradition, given the fact that he kept many of these works in his library.70 Moreover, he explicitly characterises his Monita as a commonplace book or florilegium in his correspondence.71 However, the above-mentioned political commonplace books mainly collected political aphorisms or sentences rather than examples.72 In the course of our study we have not come across a work with quite the same form as Lipsius’.73 Nevertheless, a few ‘close relatives’ can be indicated here. 70

See below subsection 5.1.2.1. ILE IX 96 10 22: “Sum nunc totus in libro atque opere grandiore, cui titulum facio Monita et exempla politica, et erit quasi flos et excerptio per locos suos certos salubrium monitionum aut historiarum ex vetere, medio et nostro aevo.” 72 Admittedly, deeds and sayings are not always easy to separate and partly coincide, as can be seen in Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia or Erasmus’ Apophthegmata sive scite dictorum libri sex. His collection of sayings, contextualised in narrated exempla, is dedicated to a prince, the Duke of Cleves, and is modelled on Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, of which he gives explanatory paraphrases rather than direct translations. See Moss (2011). 73 That is when taking into account all of the above-mentioned works, which are considered as the main representatives of these traditions or genres. However, a definitive conclusion on the unique character of the Monita’s form could only be reached after a more systematic investigation of all mirrors for princes, exempla collections, and (political) commonplace books published before the Monita. 71

19

Introduction A first work which resembles the Monita quite closely is the already mentioned treatise De casibus by Boccaccio. The work is dedicated to a political figure (because Boccaccio finds current princes wanting, as he explains in the dedicatory letter) and intended to keep princes from making the same mistakes as the historical characters whose fate is described in the work. Their examples are described, discussed, and gathered under different headings related to the topic, such as “In superbos reges”, “In condicionem mortalium”, and “Pauca de somniis”. Thus, it also constitutes a political exempla collection in a way, but it treats politics from a very specific perspective (i.e., the vicissitudes of fortune). This perspective is also present in the Monita,74 but rather as an undertone and as part of a more comprehensive view on statecraft. Some more general collections of political aphorisms also included examples. The above-mentioned Politicorum Aphorismorum Silva of Lambertus Danaeus was provided with examples by Everardus Bronchorstius in his Aphorismi Politici (1589), later augmented and reissued as Aphorismi Politici et Militares (1639). He explained, illustrated, and augmented Danaeus’ aphorisms, and added examples to them. It usually offers one or two examples (not a long list like Lipsius’), separated from the aphorisms by the use of a different type face.75 Similar is the augmented edition of Gregorius Richter’s collection of political aphorisms, Editio nova axiomatum politicorum, accessione CLXXIIII novarum regularum, multarumque sententiarum et exemplorum aucta et locupletata (1604), which contained 440 political aphorisms, culled from authors such as Guicciardini, Bodin, and Danaeus, and amplified with further sentences and exempla.76 Although compilers such as these indeed added some examples to their political aphorisms, none of them did so as systematically as Lipsius. Nevertheless, there were a few authors who were working on similar projects around the same time. One of them is Giovanni Botero. He added four books of Aggiunte to his Ragion di stato: two books Delle eccellenze degli antichi capitani, and two books Della agilità delle forze del principe, with examples separated from each other by paragraphs and arranged under various sub-headings related to these topics. Lipsius must have been familiar with the work because he kept a copy of it in his library.77 However, it probably did not inspire Lipsius directly to illustrate his political views with examples, because it was first published in 1598, when Lipsius had already started writing the Monita, or had at least planned to.78 A similar, but even more closely related case is represented by Ercole Cati’s running commentary in the form of examples on Lipsius’ Politica.79 Cati complements

74

See pp. 42-44 and 51-56. De Bom (2011a: 201-202). 76 Anglo (2005: 658). Likewise, but at a slightly later date, Sir Robert Dallington collected political aphorisms from the work of Guicciardini in his Aphorismes civill and militarie (1613), which he amplified with more sentences and exemplified with historical instances. See Anglo (2005: 636). 77 Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 17r. Lipsius also kept a copy of the Ragion di stato (fol. 9r). 78 See pp. 24-28. 79 See Fournel (1996), and Moss (1998: 433) and (2011). 75

20

The Monita and Early Modern Political Writing: Genre and Form his Italian translation of the Politica with so-called “annotations”, which he inserts at the end of certain (but not all) chapters of the Politica, and which are constituted of nothing but examples, divided into paragraphs. In the preface he states that there is only one thing which is missing from Lipsius’ Politica for it to be perfect, that is anecdotes (“favelle”), a ‘shortcoming’ which he intends to remedy with his annotations. Although the work was published posthumously (in 1618) by his son, Cati probably worked on it just around the same time when Lipsius was finalising and publishing his own supplement. So, it seems that immediately before and after the publication of the Monita a few authors were working on similar projects at the same time, without necessarily influencing each other directly. Someone who was directly inspired by Lipsius, is Joannes a Chokier, who intended to continue Lipsius’ work of illustrating political maxims with historical examples in his Thesaurus politicorum Aphorismorum (1611).80 Chokier uses political maxims as headings, which he first discusses by means of aphorisms connected by his own words, after the fashion of Lipsius’ Politica, and then illustrates by means of examples. These are all numbered; some of them are more elaborate than others, and some are interspersed with notae or monita on particular subtopics or questions. They even include a few examples from the Monita. By using both sententiae and exempla, Chokier united the Politica and the Monita in one book, so to speak.81 By offering the prince a mirror in the form of a political exempla collection, Lipsius can thus be said to have united all of the traditions described above in quite a unique way.82 Something all of the above-mentioned authors have in common is their belief in the value of the past as a source of wisdom for the present.This view, which was at the core of Lipsius’ humanist programme, formed the basis of his entire oeuvre and of the Monita in particular, as a closer look at the correspondence prior to its publication will reveal.

80

This collection is discussed by De Bom (2008a) and (2011: 179-198). Chokier claims to be a student of Lipsius and was indeed one of his correspondents. In the introduction to his work, he says that he was inspired by Lipsius to collect political aphorisms and illustrate them with examples, a work which Lipsius himself had not been able to complete. He also added a letter in which Lipsius encouraged him to continue his project since he himself had only written a few lines of the planned sequels of the Monita and was scared that illness or death would prevent him from finishing it. For an edition of this letter (ILE [XVIII], 05 05 11), see De Bom (2008a: 43-44). 81 De Bom (2011a: 181-183). Lipsius probably intended his work to be read this way too. See, e.g., a letter from Moretus to Lipsius (ILE [XVII], 04 12 10), in which Moretus says that they should have used a bigger type face for the first edition of the Monita, but that in the future the work will form a sufficiently large book when the Politica and the Panegyricus are added. 82 With the Politica Lipsius explicitly claimed to have developed a new genre (that is the prose cento). See Pol., De consilio et forma nostri operis (p. 230, ed. Waszink). No such claim is made by Lipsius about the Monita.

21

Introduction Section 3 The Monita in the Context of Lipsius’ Oeuvre 3.1. Genesis of the work and Lipsius’ humanist ideals As most of his contemporaries, Lipsius corresponded all his life with the most prominent scholars, clergymen, and politicians of his day. It was one way, among others, to promote his works and to clarify or justify certain views.83 Thus, as early as 1596, the Monita was announced to a wide circle of learned correspondents, and the ideas behind it exposed. A look at the letters from 1596 to 1605 not only offers us a clear picture of the history and development of the Monita, but also of its position in Lipsius’ oeuvre and its underlying views and aims. More specifically, the letters reveal a very concrete view on the study of history and the social role of the humanist, which is also visible in the Monita itself and other works.84 According to Lipsius, it is his task to educate the prince and leading citizens of the country on the basis of his knowledge of history, which he considers to be a mirror for the present. In the following paragraphs we shall illustrate how this characteristically humanist idea is at the base of Lipsius’ oeuvre as a whole, and of the Monita in particular. We shall first demonstrate how this view is at the core of Lipsius’ correspondence prior to the publication of the Monita and then illustrate its presence in the Monita and Lipsius’ other (political) works. Furthermore, we shall situate Lipsius’ view against its humanist background and indicate how he puts his humanist programme into practice. In conclusion, we shall discuss how Lipsius places historiography at the service of the Habsburg dynasty and the Archdukes Albert and Isabella. 3.1.1. Analysis of the correspondence from 1596 to 1605: the Monita from the cradle to the press A first letter which deserves our attention is one which Lipsius wrote to Guillaume d’Assonleville on 10 September 1596.85 In this letter the author advises his correspondent, who aspires to a career in politics, on the nature of the right kind of education. According to Lipsius, a future politician should concentrate on the study of ethics and history. In his view, ethics (ethica) should be at the base of politics (politica), which he considers the most important and useful part of philosophy.86 83 On letter writing as a means to do this, see especially Van Houdt – Papy –Tournoy – ­Matheeussen (2002). 84 Humanists often expressed their views on history and historiography in their letters, dedications and introductions to (philosophical, pedagogical, historical, and political) treatises. See Landfester (1972: 32–36), and Lathrop (1933: 80). 85 ILE IX, 96 09 10 A. On this letter, see also Nordman (1932: 44). 86 On the close connection between moral and political philosophy, see e.g. Kraye (1988: 302306). For Lipsius’ concept of political philosophy, and the close link between history and politics, see also De Bom (2011a: 24-28 and 45-48).

22

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE Therefore, the study of the most important ethical works should always precede the study or practice of politics; it will immerse the soul in salutary precepts. Only after having learnt how to control one’s own life, can one advise others on public life. After having studied ethical and political writings, one should concentrate on history (historica). History is compared by Lipsius to a field in which one can find an infinite number of “flowers of virtues”.87 At the end of the letter he stresses the usefulness of the study of history for politics: while reading stories from the past, one can mark and select admonitions and examples for moral and political instruction: “But it is also easy (since the material is accumulated by reading) to select admonitions or examples which regard politics or ethics from historical works”.88 Similar thoughts about the practical value of history for politics are expressed by Lipsius elsewhere. Humanists commonly believed that because of the similitudo temporum, the resemblance of the past to the present, history can provide us with specific guidelines and offer a model for private and public behaviour in the present.89 Lipsius expressed this opinion strikingly in the dedication of his commentary on Tacitus to the States of Holland: Reading the memories of ancient times, wars between mighty kings, the misfortunes and adventures of people is a worthy and pleasant occupation.The soul is not only nourished by such reading, but also elevated. For it is useful to note the variety of examples and the causes of events in history, and to derive precepts for private and public life from those sources.90 However, not all historical writings are equally suitable to read, Lipsius adds. One must select those which bear most resemblance to one’s own time, such as the works of Tacitus.91 In his works, the past becomes a theatre of the present: 87 “Post haec [= Politica] autem ad Historica descende; ad amoenum illum et ridentem campum, in quo tot virtutum, tot consiliorum velut flores aut stirpes.” 88 “Sed et hoc facile (cum lectio multa accedet) subnotare et seligere ex historiis monita aut exempla, quae huc et ad quamque partem conducent.” 89 On the humanist view that history repeats itself, see e.g. Guion (2008: 71-79), Halsted (1991: 263–266), Hampton (1990: 8–9), Landfester (1972: 132–136), and Gilbert (1967: 377-382). This view was also shared by Machiavelli. See Bárcenas (2015: 3-5).    On this view as the basis of the instruction of political sciences at the University of Leiden, see Wansink (1981: 42–63; about Lipsius see esp. pp. 67 ff.). 90 Lipsius, Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: *2r), Dedicatio: “Memorias legere prisci aevi, bella inter summos reges, populorum casus et occasus, dignitatem cum voluptate habet, nec pascitur solum ea lectione animus, sed adsurgit. Notare autem in historia varietates exemplorum, causas eventorum, et ex iis fontibus praecepta derivare ad vitam privatam communemque, utilitas est.” (= ILE I, 81 00 00 H, 2-7). 91 Lipsius, Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: *3r), Dedicatio: “Nec utiles omnes nobis pari gradu, ea, ut censeo, maxime, in qua similitudo et imago plurima temporum nostrorum. Ut in pictura faciem praevisam facilius agnoscimus, sic in Historia noti moris exempla.” (= ILE I, 81 00 00 H, 24-27).

23

Introduction If such a historical work exists or existed among the Greeks or Romans, then it is the Historia of Cornelius Tacitus ‒ I affirm to you, illustrious members of the States, he does not give you splendid wars and triumphs, written solely for the entertainment of the reader; nor revolts or meetings of the tribunes, agrarian and corn laws, which are not useful for our time. But behold before you kings and monarchs, and as it were a spectacle of life today.92 In the dedication to the Spanish crown prince, the future Philip III, of Lipsius’ De Militia Romana (1595) we find a similar opinion about the usefulness of Roman history for one’s own time in general and for contemporary warfare in particular.93 The dedication prompted Philip II to appoint Lipsius as Royal Historiographer (Historiographus Regius) at the end of 1595.94 Around the same time as this, advice about the didactic value of history for politics can be found in Lipsius’ correspondence, and the first references to the Monita begin to appear as well, about half a year after Lipsius’ appointment as Royal Historiographer. In these first references the work is described in terms that remind us of the above-mentioned letter to Guillaume d’Assonleville, and it seems as if Lipsius is putting his own advice into practice. For Lipsius had devoted himself for years to text editions, philological collections, and antiquarian works, while at the same time developing his personal interest in philosophy (ethica). In the autumn of 1596, the year in which a revised edition of the Politica was published, Lipsius planned to build on the theories which he had developed in that work and illustrate them by means of historical examples (historica), as can be derived from this letter to Nicolaas Oudaert: 92 Lipsius, Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: *3r and v), Dedicatio: “Cuius generis si ulla est fuitque, inter Graecos aut Latinos: eam esse Cornelii Taciti Historiam adfirmate apud vos dico, Ordines illustres. Non adfert ille vobis speciosa bella aut triumphos, quorum finis sola voluptas legentis sit; non seditiones aut conciones Tribunicias, agrarias frumentariasque leges, quae nihil ad saecli huius usum: reges ecce vobis et monarchos, et velut theatrum hodiernae vitae.” Compare the oration held by Lipsius in Jena in 1572 about Tacitus’ Annales, quoted by Nordman (1932: 48–49): “Iam vero quam multa in eo, ad res civiles, ad motus communes, ad iurisprudentiam pertinentia, ut in similitudine similis Tyrannidis, quam multa exempla temporum nostrorum?” A similar thought is expressed in the dedicatory letter of his Tacitus-edition to Emperor Maximilian II, C. Corneli Taciti Historiarum et Annalium libri qui exstant (1574: 5), Dedicatio. On these comments see also Nordman (1932: 48–51), Morford (1993: 136–139) and (2001: 62–63), and Laureys (1998: 338–339). On the genesis and printing history of Lipsius’ commentaries on Tacitus, more generally, see De Landtsheer (2012) and (2014), with further literature. 93 De Militia Romana Libri quinque, commentarius ad Polybium (1595), Dedicatio = ILE VIII [95 04 21] P: “O si mens tibi sit, Princeps, […] vagandi per eorum annales et gesta, quos flores virtutum colligas, quae praecepta paci et bello! Sed huic maxime, in quo excelluisse eos super omnes gentes, dicere possumus cum gentium consensu.” 94 On Lipsius’ appointment as Historiographus Regius see H. Peeters in Lipsius en Leuven (128–130) and the literature cited there, as well as ILE VIII, Index, s.v. Lipsius, Justus, appointm. hist. reg. On the office of royal and archducal historiographer, see Vermaseren (1941) and (1981: 202–223).

24

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE You suggest that I dedicate something to our Highness. I certainly will, or rather, I already am, since I am completely engrossed in the Monita et Exempla, which will serve as an extensive commentary on our Politica. I will pick the flower and marrow of ancient philosophy and universal history, I think, or rather, I know.95 By writing this commentary, Lipsius says, he distances himself from philology and antiquarianism, and concentrates instead on what he considers really worthy and useful: (political) philosophy and historiography. A few days after writing this letter to Oudaert, he justifies his choice in a letter to Franciscus Raphelengius, as follows: I live in peace and quiet, renovate my house, cultivate my garden, and meditate upon some Political admonitions and examples. For my innermost feelings and inclinations have long called me away from these philologists towards philosophy. Why should I not listen? There is no less fame in that, but there is less occasion for calumny: those new Critics consider themselves little learned or acute if they cannot show their teeth. But most importantly this genre is more beneficial for the common good as well for me personally.96 This work is intended, not for his quibbling colleagues, but for a wider readership. A similar reason is adduced in a letter to Lambert van der Burch, in which Lipsius stresses the historical character of his project: You urge me to write a historical work, which I certainly do, if God lets me live. But first I plan something political, with examples, however, and as it were to prepare my style for historiography.You will soon see a sample, I hope. For I do not deny that I have almost had enough of the kind of antiquarian subjects I used to treat, either because others can and want to treat these subjects, or

95 ILE IX, 96 09 27: “Iniicis de lucubratiuncula aliqua ad nostrum Serenissimum. Quod equidem faciam, aut potius iam facio totus in Monitis et Exemplis, quae vicem iusti commentarii politicis nostris erunt. Florem et medullam excerpturum me veteris philosophiae et totius historiae, id opinor aut scio.”    Lipsius expressed himself in similar terms on the Monita in a letter to Juan Fernández de Velasco (ILE IX, 96 12 04): “De Militia iterum recudere parabamus exactius paullo (nam dies quaedam docet) auctiusque. Sed praemittimus Monita et Exempla Politica quae velut iustus laxusque commentarius ad politica nostra vetera sint Excellentiae tuae fortasse visa. Mittam, cum edidero.” 96 ILE IX, 96 10 02 R: “Nos satis in tranquillo vivimus, aedificamus, hortum colimus, Politica quaedam monita meditamur, et exempla. Sane meus interior affectus et inclinatio iamdiu ad Philosophica a Philologis his vocat. Quidni paream? non minor gloria, minor materies calumniae: et novi isti Critici, parum docti vel acuti sibi videntur, nisi si dentati. Sed praecipuum, maior publico, maior mihi fructus ex illo genere.” See also ILE IX, 96 11 30 L, ILE IX, 96 10 16 U, and ILE IX, 96 12 01 C.

25

Introduction because those serious, historical and philosophical topics suit our time and my personality better.97 Possibly, Lipsius’ appointment as Historiographus Regius encouraged him to emphasise the historical character of his work. More than once he presents the Monita as an exercise for a historical treatise. In a letter from 1597 to Antonio de Covarruvias, Lipsius explicitly wonders what kind of works he is supposed to write in his capacity as Royal Historiographer. He expresses the hope that he will be allowed to complete the few works which he is preparing for publication, such as the Monita. For the Monita is a work with historical examples, which thus comes close to historiography and is, as it were, a preparatory exercise.98 Lipsius would also present his history of Leuven and its university, the Lovanium (1605), as such. For while this work was being printed, he was approached by the States of Brabant to write a history of the duchy, a task which he was reluctant to execute, but could not refuse as Royal Historiographer. Since he had just finished the Lovanium at the time, he was quick to present this work as a first step towards the requested history, which he would never write, however, because he died a few months later.99 So Lipsius intended to extract salutary advice and anecdotes from history which could be useful in public life. It can be derived from a letter to Jacques de Carondelet, in which we find the clearest description of Lipsius’ plan, that he did not only have antiquity in mind, but also medieval and contemporary history: You add that I will receive a necklace; let it be, with God’s help. It would be a sign that our work and study find favour with the leading people. I am busy now writing a new book, a great work, which I entitle Monita et exempla poli­ tica, and which will be, as it were, a florilegium of salutary admonitions and stories from antiquity, the Middle Ages, and our time, arranged under appropriate headings.You will see it when I finish it, if God allows us to. Anyway, I continue strenuously. I am confident that this Herculean task, so to speak, is within my reach and that it can stand the test of time.100 97 ILE IX, 96 12 01 B: “Hortaris ad Historiam, quod ago equidem, si Deus vitam dat, sed prius aliquid Politicum praemitto: cum exemplis t[ame]n, et ut velut stilum ad historiam formam.Videbis brevi, ut spero, specimen. Nam priorum eiusmodi antiquitatum, non nego, satias habere me incipit, sive quia alii haec possunt et volunt, sive quia pro aevi et animi mei gustu magis sunt illa seria historiae aut philosophiae argumenta.” 98 ILE [X], 97 08 05 C. See also ILE [XVII], 04 09 21. 99 See Papy (2000a: 15–18) and (2002b: 47). 100 ILE IX, 96 10 22:“Addis torquatum fore me; age, fiat cum bono Deo, et sit testimonium la­bores et studia nostra Principibus viris non displicere. Sum nunc totus in libro atque opere g­ randiore, cui titulum facio Monita et exempla politica, et erit quasi flos et excerptio per locos suos certos salubrium monitionum aut historiarum ex vetere, medio et nostro aevo. Videbis cum perfecero, si Deus perficere dabit. Strenue quidem pergo. Equidem hoc quasi Herculeum opus, ut sic dicam, inter mea fore confido, et quod aevum vitamque ferre possit.”

26

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE The Monita is described here by Lipsius as a “Herculean task”. Nevertheless, he made good progress and in December  1596 he announced that the work was ready to be published. Lipsius even had a patron in mind: from the very start he connects the work to Archduke Albert, governor of the Spanish Netherlands. In a letter from 15 December he personally informs Albert that the Monita is about to come out and that it will be dedicated to him.101 In this letter Lipsius requests a privilege, not only for the publication of the Monita, but also for whatever he will publish in the future. His request was granted without delay.This should not come as a surprise given the fact that the Spanish King Philip II had recommended his Historiographus Regius to Albert at the start of 1596 and told him to treat Lipsius with respect and reward him for his efforts in the field of literature.102 Contrary to what Lipsius said in the letter to the Archduke, the new treatise was all but ready to be published, as can be derived from the correspondence in the following period. In these letters he keeps referring to the work as “almost finished”, and to Giambatista Sacco he even reveals that he is planning to publish something else first.103 A letter to Antonio de Covarruvias clarifies that he means the Admiranda sive De magnitudine Romana, which was first published in 1598 and was also dedicated to Archduke Albert.104 In the Admiranda Lipsius describes the aspects which in his view determined the greatness of the Roman Empire, that is the power (potentia), virtue (virtus), and durability (diuturnitas) of the empire. The work was part of an ambitious project: Lipsius planned to write Admiranda of almost all big empires.105 In the Admiranda the Roman Empire is presented as an example for contemporary European rulers. The work thus offers the reader a model for action and is therefore completely in line with Lipsius’ views on the utility and aim of historiography. This enables Lipsius to connect it to the Monita as well:

101 Lipsius writes, in the third person: “Ecce etiamnunc quaedam in manibus habet scripta sua editioni parata, et nominatim Monita et exempla politica, quae non ex confidentia, sed ex cultu et devotione animi Cels[itudini] Tuae dicat.” For more detailed information and an edition of the text of this letter, see Tournoy – Deceulaer (2006). 102 Archives Générales du Royaume, Audience, Registre 196, fol. 82° = Ramírez (1966: 166), epist. 37. 103 ILE [X], 97 06 03 S: “Militia nostra nunc recudebatur alibi melior vel auctior et efficiam ut ille Princeps ac tu exemplar habeatis. Sunt in manibus etiam Monita et Exempla Politica, sed opus grandius est et fortasse aliud interponam.” 104 ILE [X], 97 08 05 C: “Uti nunc De magnitudine Romana meditabar edere et tum addere Monita et exempla Politica, affectum paene opus.” 105 These works would never appear. There is a manuscript preserved in the British Library (ms. Harl. 4122) with part of the Admiranda sive de magnitudine Hebraea. On this subject, see Van Crombruggen (1949: 280–285). As pointed out by Laureys (2006) and Ballesteros (2006), this Admiranda-project is very similar to another one of Lipsius’ historical projects, the Fax historica, which he described as a commentary on all ancient historiographers or even on all ancient writers, in which he would illustrate every aspect of antiquity.

27

Introduction They have started printing my Admiranda sive De magnitudine Romana (that is how I entitled it), and I already have a few folia. I wish you could see them! But that is not possible.What is possible is that I consult you about other things that I have in hand now. For, behold, that same subject has brought along a twin brother, a work about the greatness of other peoples, including the Jews, Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians, and others, and in conclusion, the Spaniards. It will be a second part of the Admiranda. And because I like that title (I entrust this to you in confidence), there might even be a third part, Admiranda in virtutibus et vitiis (of virtues and vices).You might see where I am heading: that I am not abandoning the Monita et exempla which I have started.106 A last letter from 1597 which deserves our attention is one from Lipsius to one of his students, Jérôme de France.107 In this letter he recommends the student to extract rules for virtuous behaviour from his reading, like he himself has shown him in class. Also, Lipsius’ history classes, then, aimed to provide students with guidelines for private and public life on the basis of the reading of historical writings.108 In the following year, the Admiranda demanded all of Lipsius’ attention. When the work finally came off the press in March 1598, Lipsius soon started to work on a second, revised edition, which went to the printer at the end of the year.109 Once the printer got hold of the revised edition, Lipsius had his hands free to apply himself to the Monita, as he writes to Garcia Figueroa on 20 November 1598: “A while ago I sent you the Admiranda […]. Now I am preparing to devote myself to the Monita et Exempla Politica, at least if God gives me time and leisure”.110 However, Lipsius did not seem to be able to achieve his plan, and the Monita is no longer mentioned in the correspondence. Or, as Lipsius puts it in a letter of 3 December 1600 to Nicolas de Hacqueville, one of his students: he has put the

106 ILE [X], 97 11 15: “Admiranda mea sive de Magnitudine Romana (sic inscripsi) iam coepta excudi et folia aliquot habeo, utinam a te videnda! Sed non potest: hoc tamen potest, ut in aliis consulam, et quae nunc sunt in manu. Nam illud ecce argumentum alterum geminum traxit, de magnitudine aliarum gentium; in qua sunt Iudaei, Aegyptii, Persae, Macedones, alii, et in clausula Hispani. Pars secunda erit Admirandorum. Et quoniam titulus ille placuit (familiariter tecum garrio) fortasse et tertia accedet, Admirandorum in virtutibus et vitiis.Vides fortasse quo eam; ut retinerem coeptum de Monitis et Exemplis.” 107 ILE [X], 97 12 23 F: “Interea in sacro illo otio, non ambigo quin studiis et optimorum librorum tractatione saepe te delectes. Quod hortor ut facias et monita ex iis haurias ad prudentiam et virtutem. Enimvero et in meis libris esse te significas: qui utinam eodem conducant ac iuvent! Conati sumus certe et hunc finem scriptionis mihi fuisse atque etiam esse Deum testor. […] Conamur idem in docendo, ut scis, et vocem ac praecepta dirigimus ad animos formandos et firmandos.” Compare ILE [X], 97 12 11 A. 108 On the historical method employed by Lipsius in his classes, see Enenkel (2004: 588–589). 109 A detailed study of the genesis of the Admiranda can be found in Deneire (2006). 110 ILE [XI], 98 11 20: “Admiranda iamdiu ad te misi […]. Nunc parabam me dare ad Monita et exempla politica, si Deus tamen aevum et otium dabit.”

28

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE work aside in his book chest, and it is itching to come out.111 This famous letter, in which Lipsius advises Nicolas de Hacqueville on the study of history, was included in the Centuriae miscellaneae and also published separately, as a brief ars historica.112 Lipsius offers a detailed definition and subdivision of history and advice on which (ancient and contemporary) authors should be read for each part. To conclude, the student is advised to keep four notebooks while reading historical works: one for memorable deeds, facts, and changes of fortune that indicate the power of a monarch or a people (memorabilia), a second about customs and habits (ritualia), a third about the organisation of civil life (civilia), and a fourth about the virtues and vices of private citizens (moralia). In each of these notebooks one can record either aphorisms (sententiae) concerning the subject or examples (exempla).113 Lipsius says that he has applied this former strategy in the Politica, although he has not neglected the latter: he has a work ready which is based on just such examples.114 This unmistakable reference to the Monita again stresses the complementary character of the two works: they exemplify two different techniques ‒ argumentation and illustration by quotation and by example ‒ that serve the same purpose. Nevertheless, as already stated, the Monita would remain unfinished for quite some time. Shortly before 1600 quite a number of Lipsius’ works appeared to be out of stock, and needed to be corrected and reprinted,115 although the publication of the Monita remained at the back of Lipsius’ mind. Thus, the Monita can be found on a list of works awaiting publication in a letter to Baltasar Gomez de Amescua.116 Thereafter, Lipsius was engrossed in the selection and publication of six hundred of his letters, his Seneca-edition and the manuals of Stoic philosophy which preceded it.117 At the start of 1604, however, he promised Casaubon to return to the Monita after the publication of his Seneca-edition.118 111

ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H: “Hanc postremam partem non neglexi equidem, et habeo sepositam, imo paratam in scriniis et avidam exire”. On this letter, see Nordman (1932: 52-59), Morford (1993: 133–134), Nelles (1998: 234-237), Laureys (2006), Grafton (2007: 222-226), and below (pp. 127-129). 112 Vander Haeghen (1886: 1, 457-461). 113 Notebooks are also mentioned in ILE XIII, 00 12 01 K, where it is recommended to collect dicta as well as sententiae and exempla. Concerning the similarities between Lipsius’ method of reading history and Bodin’s, see Nordman (1932: 60–62), Laureys (2006), Grafton (2007: 222-226) and Guion (2008: 77-78). 114 ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H, 178–180, as quoted above in n. 111. See also ILE VIII, 95 04 21 B, quoted and analysed by Laureys (2006), and Peeters (1999: 150). Laureys (2006) stresses that not only the Politica but also the Admiranda exemplify Lipsius’ notebook method, in which elements are collected from the categories of memorabilia and moralia to describe the greatness of Rome’s power (potentia) and virtue (virtus). 115 See J. De Landsheer in Lieveling van de Latijnse taal (162–169). 116 ILE [XIII], 03 03 17 GO: “Monita et Exempla Politica affecta etiam habebam”. 117 The Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam and the Physiologiae Stoicorum libri tres would both appear in the spring of 1604. 118 ILE [XVII], 04 02 14: “Alia quaedam edo, et post Senecam, Monita et Exempla Politica, quae nunc me habent”. Compare ILE [XVII], 04 03 14 C to Andrea Chiocci.

29

Introduction At the beginning of 1604 Lipsius finally resumed work on the Monita. It is not clear, however, how much progress he had made by then and whether he was still planning to illustrate all six books of the Politica with examples.119 Anyway, only the first two books would go to press. In the preface to the reader and in a letter to Carolus Clusius after the publication of the work, Lipsius states that ill-health kept him from finishing the work for the time being and led him to publish the first two books in the meantime.120 In September Moretus started the typesetting,121 so that on the 29th of September Lipsius could claim that he was busy correcting the proofs of his Seneca-edition and of the Monita.122 Thenceforth, Moretus regularly sent folia for correction, but it is not always clear whether it concerned proofs of the Seneca-edition or of the Monita. Nevertheless, the work would be at the printer’s for quite a while longer. On 21 December Henri d’Oultreman even commented on the slow progress of the Officina.123 Moretus explained as follows: “The problem is, the person working on Seneca is quite industrious and has quick fingers; the one working on the Monita, on the other hand, is a little slower. He has around eight folia left to do, which he promises to finish before 1 January”.124 The dedicatory letter to Archduke Albert, which Lipsius usually wrote when the printing was nearly completed, is dated 18 January 1605;125 a fortnight later Moretus had completed the publication.126 Lipsius wanted to go to Brussels to personally offer the Archduke a copy,127 but when he had still not received a copy from Moretus by the beginning of February, he left it to his relations in Brussels.128 A few days later, Lipsius was finally able to send copies to friends and acquaintances both at home and abroad,129 and by the end of February he started to receive the 119

In ILE [X], 97 02 14 to Remaclo Roberti, Lipsius does state that he has finished two books of the Monita, but the fact that this part of the letter was deleted later could indicate that Lipsius thought he had spoken too soon. 120 ILE [XVIII], 05 02 08 L and Mon., Ad lect. 121 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 164. 122 ILE [XVII], 04 09 29 M: “Accessit denique propria mea occupatio, quia nunc Senecam totum edo, itemque Monita et exempla politica: in quibus vel corrigendis vel alibi augendis, ut fit, sic occupor, ut aegre ad aliam curam me donem.” 123 ILE [XVII], 04 12 21 H: “[…] ac post Senecam illum tuum, Monitorumque et Exemplorum libros duos – sed quam lentus in illis Moretus noster! – feriari lubeat iam.” 124 ILE [XVII], 04 12 10: “Ita est; qui in Seneca operatur, sat sedulus et manu promptus est; qui in Monitis, paullo lentior. Restant in his ei peragenda folia circiter octo, quae promittit ad Kalendas fere Ianuarias se absoluturum.” 125 ILE [XVIII], 05 01 18. 126 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 172. 127 ILE [XVIII], 05 01 28. 128 ILE [XVIII], 05 02 06: “Bruxellam sic cito, ut destinaveram, non venio. Est libelli munusculum, quod dedicatum Principi offerre volebam: sed non venit. Quid si, cum venerit, per te facio? Nam fugio iam Bruxellam venire, aut valetudo potius me vetat. Utinam tu cum Oudarto huc! Facite me compotem huius voti, et in caelo me collocate. Salve.” 129 ILE [XVIII], 05 02 08 to Carolus Clusius; ILE [XVIII], 05 03 17 (without name of addressee); ILE [XVIII], 05 04 04 C to Isaac Casaubon; ILE [XVIII], 05 04 14 S to Robert Schilders.

30

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE first responses.130 The work seemed to circulate quickly, and in April Puteanus was able to buy a copy in Rome.131 The sales seemed to go well because by the end of 1605 the work went to the press again. In a letter dated 9 February 1606, Balthasar Moretus announced to Lipsius that they had started reprinting the Monita in quarto and that they were thinking about an edition in octavo as well, so that it would be easier for people to carry this useful work with them all the time.132 In the same letter, Balthasar also inquired about the planned sequel to the first two books of the Monita.133 Lipsius’ reply has not been preserved, but he probably said that he would work on it if his health permitted it, because a few days later Balthasar wrote:“We hope that your health will allow (you to work on) the Monita et exempla for the common good.”134 Similarly, in a letter to Joannes a Chokier, dated 11 May 1605, Lipsius had expressed the fear that illness or death would prevent him from completing the remaining sequels, of which he had only written the first few lines.135 3.1.2. Lipsius’ view on historiography in the Politica and the Monita In a letter from 1 December 1605 to Nicolas Oudaert, Lipsius strikingly summarizes the view which underlies the Monita. In this letter Lipsius defines history as “a teacher of life and a mirror of, and example for, political philosophy and morals”.136 Lipsius was convinced that history could give solace in a period which he considered to be characterised by a strong deterioration of morals. He does not only express such cultural pessimism in his correspondence, but also several times in the Monita.137 Thus at the start of the work, he vents his doubts about the effect the examples will have on his contemporaries. Giving his contemporaries advice is like offering medicine to the dying or light to the blind. But that does not alter the fact that it can be useful for future generations. Pearls, which are thrown in the mud, do not lose their brilliance. This utterly cynical argument persuades Lipsius to write his work anyway. He ends the last chapter on an equally dark note. There he states that a time of peace is characterised by the flourishing of the arts. He 130

ILE [XVIII], 05 02 26 from Charles-Philippe de Croÿ; ILE [XVIII], 05 04 30 from Isaac Casaubon; ILE [XVIII], 05 05 25 from Erycius Puteanus; ILE [XVIII], 05 09 01 from Johann Decker; ILE [XVIII], 05 09 10B from Marc–Antonio Bonciari, and ILE [XVIII], 05 10 31 from Martinus Antonius Delrio. 131 ILE [XVIII], 05 05 25. 132 ILE [XIX], 06 02 09. 133 ILE [XIX], 06 02 09. 134 ILE [XIX], 06 02 17 B: “de Monitis et Exemplis vovemus ut per valitudinem bono publico possit.” 135 This letter has been edited by De Bom (2008a: 43-44). Cf. supra (p. 21, n. 81). 136 ILE [XVIII], 05 12 01: “Historia est vitae quaedam magistra, et civilis atque moralis philosophiae speculum aut exemplum.” It concerns a topos, which can be found in its most famous expression in Cicero, de orat. 2, 36. See Guion (2008), Argüés Aldaz (1999), and Landfester (1972). 137 For the Kulturpessimismus and Zeitkritik which Lipsius shared with his contemporaries, and for further literature, see Van Houdt (1998: 416–423) and Enenkel (1995).

31

Introduction realises, however, that this will never happen in his time, since it is threatened by a dark cloud of ignorance.138 However, in this dark time a gleam of hope is still offered by the prince. According to Lipsius, he has an important exemplary role to play with respect to the people. He has to excel in virtue, so that his high moral standards will reflect on all strata of society and generate order, stability, and moral progress. By drawing rules of conduct for him, one can educate all citizens through one person, as Lipsius stresses in the dedicatory letter of the Politica.139 In a brief chapter dedicated especially to the exemplary role of the prince (Pol. 2.9), Lipsius elaborates on this subject and illustrates it with quotations. The behaviour of the prince, the author stresses, is a more effective means of ensuring the virtuousness of society than laws, for our eyes are always directed towards higher things and there we find examples of conduct to be imitated and even emulated.This subject is resumed in the Monita, elaborated by means of examples, and illustrated by two comparisons: just as a yardstick by which others are measured needs to be straight, so does the prince, and just as in bodies the worst diseases are those spread from the head, so are the diseases spread from the prince.140 This view on the exemplary role of the prince is based on Lipsius’ utterly pessimistic view of the nature of the populace. In Lipsius’ view the populace ‒ jealous, irrational, fickle, credulous, and selfish ‒ is unable to control itself. Therefore, subjects need to be united under the power of one ruler, who keeps them on the straight and narrow path by being an example to them.141 Guidelines for a correct execution of that role can again be found by the prince in history. In the Politica Lipsius states that the prince can acquire political wisdom or prudentia in two ways: through experience or through the study of history. For history enables the prince to “model his own life on other people’s virtues, as in a mirror”.142 From the many examples which history offers, the prince can select those which bear most resemblance to his own situation. In the Monita the mirror-metaphor of the Politica is elaborated on in an introductory chapter dedicated entirely to the utility of examples. The benefit which the ruler can derive from history is illustrated further with two other comparisons.143 In that same chapter Lipsius stresses the power of history in representing theoretical precepts such as those of the Politica more graphically by means of historical examples, which

138

Mon. 1.1 and 2.18. Politica, Prelim. 2 (ed. Waszink, 226). 140 Mon. 2. 8. This first comparison can also be found in the Notae to chapter 2.9 of the Politica (p. 744, ed. Waszink). 141 Cf. Pol. 4.5 (pp. 400-408, ed. Waszink). See further Van Houdt (2007: 26-27), Lindberg (2001: 120-125), Lagrée (1995: 517–518), and Senellart (1995: 239). 142 Pol. 1.9 (p. 288, ed. Waszink): “In hac [= historia] enim tibi fas, tanquam in speculo, ornare et componere vitam tuam ad alienas virtutes.” 143 Mon. 1. 1. 139

32

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE can incite (the prince and the intellectual) to action.144 Also elsewhere in the Monita (1.8) the utility of history for the prince is elaborated. In Lipsius’ view, the study of history, next to experience, is the best way to acquire political wisdom. Whereas the prince can only acquire experience for a limited period of time in one particular region, history encompasses the events of all times and places of the world.145 Therefore he can learn a lot if he directs the eyes of the mind to history as to a mirror of examples and extracts those salutary suggestions which historiographers have inserted.146 3.1.3. Lipsius’ humanist programme147 It is clear that in Lipsius’ opinion it was the task of the humanist adviser to make imitation possible for the reader and the prince by selecting, transmitting, and interpreting famous words and virtuous deeds from the past. He considered it his social duty to collect the shining examples and sentences which he found scattered among various authors and disseminate them among the readers, as he put it in the Monita.148 In the Politica one can read: For what could I have done that was more useful than bringing together so many maxims, beautiful, sharp ones, and, may Salvation bestow this upon me, conceived for the salvation of mankind?149 If the humanist does not transmit the deeds of famous people from the past, they can never be exemplary: “For all examples would lie in the dark if the light of literature did not reach them.”150 By rendering antiquity accessible through critical text editions and monographs on ancient culture, and by formulating guidelines for the ruler based on his knowledge of the past, the humanist serves the common good, as is stressed several times by Lipsius in the Politica: Wise men should rightly be praised, whose task it is, then and now, to light the way of the ruler with a torch of salutary examples. For in which way could 144 The idea that history gives a more graphical representation through historical examples is a topos. See Landfester (1973: 140–142). 145 On this topos see Landfester (1973: 136–140) and below (pp. 105-106). 146 Mon. 1.8. Compare ILE [XVIII], 05 12 01. On this passage, see also Provvidera (2012a: 56). 147 On Lipsius’ humanist programme in general see e.g. Morford (1993), Laureys (1998), and Papy (1998b) and (2003). 148 Mon. 1.1: “sparge, sparge salutaria haec velut semina.” Compare with ILE [XVIII], 05 12 01: “satis multa documenta dedi, et semina sparsi salubrium monitorum.” 149 Pol., Prelim., 4 (p. 233, ed. Waszink): “Quid utilius potui quam tot sententias in unum condu­ cere, pulchras, acres, et, ita me Salus amet, ad salutem natas generis humani?” 150 Pol. 1.9 (p.  288, ed. Waszink): “Exempla enim omnia iacerent in tenebris, nisi litterarum lumen accederet.” Lipsius quotes Cic. Arch. 14.

33

Introduction they do a better service to the human race? It is laudable and useful to teach on morals or sciences, but is teaching on rule and civil administration not even more so?151 It should be mentioned here, as already indicated, that this is certainly not an original or unique view of Lipsius, but, on the contrary, one deeply rooted in humanist pedagogy. After the example of Cicero and other ancient authors,152 humanists such as Coluccio Salutati, Leonardo Bruni, Lorenzo Valla, Guillaume Budé, Desiderius Erasmus, and Jean Bodin praised history in letters, introductions to historical writings and pedagogical treatises, for its unique combination of utility and pleasure and for its practical, especially political, value. This growing success of the study of history in the late fifteenth century resulted in an increase in historical writings, including critical editions of ancient historiographers, the organisation of history classes at universities, and the development of a theory of history in treatises on the reading and writing of history or artes historicae.153 However, Lipsius did not only formulate theoretical considerations about his task, but also put them into practice, in his history classes, as well as in most of his writings. In the introductions and dedications of his works and in his correspondence, Lipsius repeatedly stresses that he rejects erudition as an end in itself, and considers his antiquarian and philological works as a mere step towards (political) philosophy and historiography, which he considers to be truly useful for the common good.154 A thorough knowledge of the ancient writers and of various aspects of ancient culture formed an indispensable basis for his works of moral and political philosophy.155 In those works he wanted to achieve his pedagogical goals 151 Pol., Prelim., 2 (p. 227, ed.Waszink): “Merito laudandi Sapientes, quibus olim et nunc haec cura, ut salutarium monitorum face praelucerent imperanti. Qua enim in re melius mereantur de genere humano? In moribus aut scientiis aliquid praecepisse, laudem et usum habet: et non magis in regno et administratione civili?” 152 Cicero, de orat., 2.36; fin. 5.51. 153 On humanist views of history, humanist historiography and the ars historica, see, most recently, Guion (2008) and Grafton (2007) and the literature cited there. We also relied on Kelley (1970) and (1988: 746–761), Landfester (1972), Wansink (1981: 44–51), Buck (1957), Gilmore (1963: 1–37), Nadel (1964), Gilbert (1967), Burke (1969), and Koselleck (1979). 154 Cf. Justus Lipsius, C. Cornelii Taciti Opera quae exstant (1607: fol. *7r), Adlocutio iterata et novissima: “te uti frui cupio, Lector, sed inprimis Tacito ipso, et altius aliquid firmiusque, quam Criticorum sive et Grammaticorum has curas, spirare. Non enim ad ista, sed per ista, imus.” Cf. Morford (1993: 130). 155 In ILE [XVI], 03 11 03 W he writes: “At tertium et praecipuum, quod iudicii, ingenii, eloquii, stili quidquid in me fuit, in publicum contuli, et usui, non pompae, volui servire.Vide mea vel a iuvenilibus annis, semper scintillae aliquae ad Virtutem aut Prudentiam praelucentes; semper animus ille apertus, amans generosi et honesti. At grandior paullo, non iam occulto aut obliquo tramite, sed palam et recta illuc ivi. Ego ad Sapientiam primus vel solus mei aevi Musas converti: Ego e philologia philosophiam feci. Vide Constantiam meam, dicet: vide Politica, idem: et hoc utrumque opus est, cui vita fortasse cum Latinis litteris manebit. Quid in Tacito, Plinio, Epistolis, Militia, Admirandis, Seneca, nonne finis idem et fructus apparet?” Cf. Morford (1991: 136 ff.) and Grafton (1987: 389).

34

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE through history, thus turning it, as it were, into a social discipline. In this way, he wanted to serve the Spanish Crown Prince by digging up Roman military science so that it could be useful for contemporary warfare. It has been pointed out how De Militia Romana indeed influenced military reform in the Netherlands and elsewhere.156 Also in De Constantia, the Admiranda, and the Politica Lipsius formulated guidelines for the private life of the individual citizen and for public life, based on his knowledge of ancient culture, philosophy, and history. Those same ideological and pedagogical aims are also at the basis of the Monita. Here Lipsius fulfilled his role as a humanist adviser by proposing a model of conduct to the prince, based on historical examples from antiquity, the Middle Ages, and his own time.We can clearly discern the various periods of history and themes (memorabilia, ritualia, civilia, and moralia) described by Lipsius in the letter to De Hacqueville.157 In the Monita Lipsius indeed describes the memorable deeds and fortunes of princes, religious rituals of various peoples, the best form of constitution, and the virtues and vices of kings, queens, and other historical characters.The prince should emulate these deeds and virtues of illustrious predecessors and avoid their vices.The prince can select those examples which resemble his own situation most so as to be guided by them in his rule. In so doing, he will be an example for the people at the same time. In the dedicatory letter of the Monita, Lipsius states that Albert has already appropriated all of these virtues. This way he also paints an ideal image of the prince, which the intelligent citizen can and should emulate: It concerns Virtues and Vices of princes: we mould or supply the former and remove the latter. Now, you are a paragon of virtue, which you have always had and still have in abundance, while you are nearly free from vice (as far as this is possible for men): at any age you either did not know vice or despised it.158 At the end of that same dedication, Lipsius addresses Albert with the title optimus princeps, thus identifying him with Emperor Trajan, who bore the same title.159 156 Hahlweg (1941) and (1973), Oestreich (1969: 11–34), and De Landtsheer (2001: 116-119). For a more sceptical viewpoint, see Brooke (2012: 16). 157 This way it was easy for scholars and students to select useful information from Lipsius’ own treatise in turn and write it down under the appropriate headings.This is also true for other works of Lipsius, such as the Politica and the Admiranda. That this was indeed Lipsius’ intention can be derived from ILE [X], 97 12 23 F, as quoted in n. 108. The fact that Lipsius’ works are suited for this purpose is proved by the commonplace books composed on the basis of Lipsius’ oeuvre. See De Bom (2011a: 140-165). 158 On this passage, see T.Van Houdt in Lipsius en Leuven (237–239), and Id. (1998: 428–429) and (2007). Erasmus’ dedicatory letter of the Institutio principis Christiani to Charles V is very similar. See Rundle (1998: 148). 159 Morford (1991: 126). The same title appears in the dedicatory letter of Lipsius’ Dissertatiuncula to Archdukes Albert and Isabella. See ILE XIII, 00 04 12, with commentary by Jan Papy.

35

Introduction This is the beginning of a series of (implicit) comparisons between the Archduke and his predecessors. While each of them excelled in one particular quality, the Archduke embodies them all. He is a living example, which other rulers, courtiers, and intellectuals can emulate. A few years after having returned to the Southern Netherlands (in 1592), Lipsius thus directed his hope to Albert to bring peace for this war-stricken country. Albert must become the new Trajan, the new optimus princeps. It is safe to conclude that Lipsius’ oeuvre was permeated by his humanist (educational) programme and that the Monita was clearly embedded in it, as can be derived from the correspondence prior to the publication of the work. In these letters the work is described as a historical commentary on the Politica. The same key to interpret the Monita is offered in the work itself – in the letter of dedication, the preface to the reader, and the first chapter. But can and should the Monita really be read as a mere commentary on the Politica? A comparison of a number of political ideas expressed in the Monita with the corresponding ideas in the Politica will shed a different light on the nature of the Monita and even on the nature of Lipsius’ political thought. 3.2. First assessment of the nature of Lipsius’ political thought: between Leiden and Leuven 3.2.1. Lipsius in Leiden: the Politica160 The Politica, which Lipsius composed and published in Leiden in 1589, consists of six books in which the humanist presents his ideas on how the state should be constructed and on how the prince should behave in order to achieve peace and wealth for his citizens. In the first book he analyses virtue and prudence, which he considers to be the two necessary conditions of civil life (vita civilis). The second book deals with the virtues of the prince as well as the purpose of government and its various forms. In the third and fourth book Lipsius discusses prudentia civilis or political wisdom, which he considers to be the most important virtue, which is not only required for the prince, but also for his advisers and officials. Here some of the most delicate problems faced by the prince are addressed, such as the place of religion in the state, the punishment of heretics, the relationship between the prince and his subjects, and the use of fraud and deceit. In this book Lipsius argues for what he calls prudentia mixta, that is prudence “mixed with a little drop of deceit”. Lipsius stresses that the prince should not act directly against what is honourable and be criminal (scelestus), but that it is in the interest of the community if he sometimes departs slightly from the honourable and mixes it with the useful. In the final two books the prince’s prudence in military affairs (prudentia militaris) 160 The following description of the Politica is a mere summary. More detailed information can be found in Waszink (2004: 1-223).

36

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE is discussed. In these chapters Lipsius stresses the importance of a well-organised and disciplined army to defend the country. It is worth stressing that Lipsius does not express his ideas directly in his own words, but rather in a network of quotations, mostly from classical authors and above all from Tacitus. These citations are structured by Lipsius into a coherent argument by offering introductions, definitions, and subdivisions of the topics, titles, connecting phrases and summaries of the main ideas and the line of thought in the margins. The work can thus be characterised as a commonplace book or cento.161 As has been emphasised by Ann Moss and Hugo Tucker, it was characteristic of this type of book to present a plurality of opinions and arguments, and to be open-ended.162 The reader was expected to cooperate actively while reading the book. When reading the Politica, for example, one could construct one’s own opinion and arguments based on the quotations adduced by Lipsius, by consulting the original context of the quotations or by adding other quotations. Lipsius was aware of this and warned his readers on several occasions about the form of the book and gave them advice on how to read it.163 In order to make the work more univocal, explicatory notes were published, as early as 1589, under the title Ad libros Politicorum breves notae. These notes clarified and elaborated some individual topics and ideas treated in the Politica with more information and quotations.These notes would be published together with subsequent editions of the Politica and would be extended in the course of time.164 In reply to Coornhert’s attack, Lipsius also published the Adversus Dialogistam liber de una religione (1590), in which he explained and defended his views on religion as expressed in the Politica. Like the Notae, this work would also be bound with the Politica in most future editions. The political ideas expressed in the Politica, as well as in Lipsius’ correspondence prior to the publication of the book,165 can be summarised as a defence of centralised monarchy and ‘reasons of state’-based rule as the best form of government. Concern for peace and safety is a central issue of Lipsius’ oeuvre.166 According to the humanist, the only way out of the chaos of the civil strife and religious wars, witnessed by him in the Netherlands and elsewhere in 161 Lipsius explicitly calls his book a commonplace book in his notes to the first chapter of the Politica (p. 722, ed. Waszink). In the prefatory remarks on the form of the book (“De consilio et forma nostri operis”) the work is called a cento. 162 Moss (1998: 428-436) and Tucker (2011). 163 Politica, prelim., 4 (= “Monita quaedam, sive cautiones”, p. 234, ed.Waszink) and 5 (= “De consilio et forma”, p. 230, ed. Waszink), and the corresponding Notae. 164 See Waszink (2004: 191-197). Some of these notes, for example those on religion, fate, modesty, and on the minor virtues of the prince, seem to have formed the basis of the Monita. See below pp. 80-81. 165 Waszink (1999) and (2004: 24-28 = “The political content of the correspondence up to 1589”), and Coron (1977). 166 See Papy (2003b).

37

Introduction Europe, was powerful centralised rule. For man himself, Lipsius declares, is not capable of ruling – a pessimistic view of human nature which Lipsius shared with authors such as Tacitus and Guicciardini.167 Consequently in the correspondence, the Politica and elsewhere, governance by representational bodies is denounced. In this context Lipsius often expressed his distrust of the StatesGeneral of the Netherlands. The strong rule of an absolute monarch was an attractive alternative to Lipsius and many of his contemporaries. Such rule had to be morally correct and effective. In order to realise this, the prince had to display all the traditional Christian-Ciceronian virtues, such as justice, prudence, modesty, and clemency. The moral greatness of the head of state would radiate through the whole community and bring order, stability, and moral improvement. However, Lipsius acknowledged that in reality the morality of the prince alone was not sufficient to guarantee the well-being and stability of the state. Therefore, Lipsius allowed the prince to revert to more unconventional and morally less correct instruments, such as force or deceit, in emergencies, for example, when his power or the safety of the community are threatened. This theory, that would subsequently become known as reasons of state, was originally associated with Niccolò Machiavelli and strongly denounced by the Church and its defenders.168 Like many of his contemporaries, Lipsius tried to reconcile Machiavelli’s practical politics with Christianity. By combining the rule of the virtuous monarch with the instruments of reasons of state, Lipsius sought to create a morally sound use for reasons of state.169 In this theory, the image of the prince is very important and magnanimity is one of his capital virtues. Crucial for the prince’s image and for the achievement of peace is his support of the arts and letters. In addition, Lipsius believed that another necessary condition for peace and for the stability of the state was religious unity. Lipsius tried to defend unity of religion in a way that preserved the individual’s freedom of conscience, by arguing that in the public domain there should only be one religion, but that in the private sphere individuals could adhere to their own belief, as long as this did not affect the state. As mentioned above, Lipsius’ opinion on religion was much criticised and was at the core of the controversy with Coornhert. Whereas Coornhert accused Lipsius of being too harsh, the Catholic authorities, on the other hand, criticised him for being too tolerant towards religious dissidents, as well as for promoting Machiavelli’s irreligious and immoral views, and threatened to put the Politica on the Index if it was not corrected. With the help of some Jesuit friends

167 See Gajda (2009: 255-257), Waszink (2004: 44), Lindberg (2001: 120-125), and Lagrée (1995: 517-518). 168 On Lipsius and his thoroughly Tacitean theory of reasons of state, see Waszink (2004: 24 – 129) and (2013: 156-162), and the literature cited there, as well as above in n. 48. 169 Bireley (1990).

38

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE and the notes of the Vatican censors, Lipsius prepared a new edition of the Politica which met with the approval of the commission and was published in 1596.170 Whether it was due to the controversy with Coornhert or not, in 1591 Lipsius left Leiden, citing health problems as an excuse, and quietly returned to the Southern Netherlands, despite repeated appeals from the university. In the South, his return had been carefully prepared by his Jesuit friends.171 They also arranged for Lipsius to be offered a professorship at the University of Leuven. It came as a great shock to his colleagues in Leiden to hear that Lipsius had reconverted to Catholicism, and his religious allegiance would indeed remain the subject of debate for many years to come.172 3.2.2. Lipsius in Leuven: the Admiranda, Dissertatiuncula, and Monita After his return to Leuven, Lipsius continued to publish books on related themes. The matters dealt with by Lipsius in the final two books of the Politica were further developed in his De Militia Romana (1595), a manual on the art of war in the form of a commentary on the ancient historian Polybius.173 The theoretical statements of the Politica on the subject were illustrated with the practical example of the Roman military system. Lipsius emphasised the strength and virtue of the Roman soldiers and their leaders, qualities which his contemporary military system lacked in his view. Furthermore, in 1598 Lipsius published his Admiranda sive De magnitudine Romana Libri Quattuor, in which the Roman Empire was presented as a model for contemporary rulers such as Archduke Albert. In 1600 the Dissertatiuncula apud Principes appeared, which was a somewhat revised version of one of Lipsius’ lectures which the Archdukes Albert and Isabella attended during their Joyous Entry in Leuven in 1599, and which was published together with a commentary on the Panegyricus ad Traianum by Pliny the Younger. The starting point of this lecture was a passage from Seneca’s De clementia, which Lipsius used to lecture the Archdukes on the expectations of the citizens and on their duties as rulers. The adjoined commentary on the Panegyricus contained explanations of realia and difficult passages from the work of the ancient panegyrist, as well as practical political and moral advice for princes and members of the court.174 And finally, in 1605, the

170

See Waszink (2004: 173-189). See De Landtsheer (2000). 172 Morford (1991: 117-119, and 126-131 on the Fama Postuma, a collection of poems composed in his defence). 173 This was part of a series of commentaries on all ancient historians which Lipsius planned to write and publish as Fax historica. On the De Militia Romana, see Momigliano (1973: 347-372) and (1974), and De Landtsheer (2001). 174 For a discussion of the lecture, see Van den Broeck (1988) and Van Houdt (1998). On the commentary, see Jehasse (1996). 171

39

Introduction Monita et exempla politica was published to illustrate the political ideas expressed in the Politica by means of practical advice and historical examples. Yet Lipsius’ return to the Spanish Netherlands and his reconciliation with Catholicism had certain implications for the content of his political works. A number of the ideas expressed in the Politica can also be found in the works published after 1591, but some aspects gained considerable importance, while other (more controversial) views were notably absent. 3.2.2.1. Traditional political morality At first sight, the Monita seems to follow the subject matter of the first two books of the Politica quite faithfully. Nevertheless, there are several new emphases to be observed. Firstly, the virtues of the monarch and his exemplary role are highlighted much more in the Monita than in the Politica. Each of the virtues and vices of the prince listed in the Politica is developed and illustrated individually in the Monita, and moreover a whole chapter is devoted to the exemplary role of the monarch. Even the minor virtues listed in chapter 17 of the second book of the Politica each get their own chapter in the Monita, along with the vices of superstition and impiety, which had been treated to a limited extent in the Notae to the Politica. There is also a chapter devoted to the virtue of constancy, a quality hardly touched upon in the Politica. Most of the virtues which are treated in the Monita can be considered as conventional Christian-Ciceronian virtues, which were traditionally defended in advice books for princes throughout the centuries, as described above. In the Monita, Lipsius particularly emphasises pietas, iustitia, modestia, and clementia, as well as the related virtues of fides and patientia (forbearance), all preeminent Christian virtues, as the key virtues of the prince. Continentia is also praised by Lipsius, in the form of castitas, and fortitudo in the form of constantia.175 In the Monita it becomes clear that in the author’s view the virtue of constancy – in the sense of “willing obedience to the divine will”,176 treated extensively in the De Constantia, but mentioned only briefly in the Politica – is not only a virtue of the individual citizen, but is also of capital importance to the prince.177 In general, it should be noted that in the account of the virtues, justice gets much more attention in the Monita than in the Politica, where it was somewhat overshadowed by prudence. Prudence is not treated as extensively in the Monita, while what was stated in the Politica on justice is developed further with more admonitions, a chapter on laws, on divine justice, and two discussions on legal affairs. In these chapters Lipsius attacks the views of Bodin and declares, in line 175 Lipsius would probably reserve fortitudo as physical strength for the last two books of the Mo­nita, as part of prudentia militaris. 176 Mon. 1.5. 177 See also Van Houdt (2007) and below pp. 43-44, 81-82.

40

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE with Thomas Aquinas, that the prince is not superior to the law.178 Moreover, he agrees with Aquinas that the prince should administer justice himself because he is the representative of God’s justice on earth and God will assist him in his duty.179 In the Monita, then, contrary to the Politica, the traditional Christian-Ciceronian system of virtues is not openly challenged: there is no explicit mention in the Monita of the theory of “mixed prudence” or reasons of state cautiously defended in the Politica. The use of fraud and deceit as instruments of governance is strongly denounced on several occasions and Machiavelli’s views are attacked explicitly. In the chapter on conscience, for instance, Lipsius warns the prince that if he is not truly virtuous, he will never find peace of mind. He adds that political theorists who teach how to appear, but not how to be virtuous, are wrong.180 In the next chapter on probity, he emphasises that the prince should be virtuous, not for the sake of appearance or fame, but out of true love of virtue.The truly virtuous prince will act honestly and do useful things. Just like Cicero in his De officiis, Lipsius stresses in the Monita that the morally good (honestum) is inextricably bound up with the useful (utile). The scholar from Italy (Machiavelli) who teaches otherwise is wrong, Lipsius adds.181 Moreover, a whole chapter is devoted to the virtue of faithfulness (fides), and another to fraud and violence (de fraude et vi). Again, deceit and perjury are strongly condemned, as well as fraud and violence as inappropriate ways of obtaining power. In these chapters dozens of examples show the prince that a ruler who uses fraud, deceit, or violence will ultimately be punished by God. One could object that the traditional morality is not challenged in the first two books of the Politica either. Nevertheless, it could have been a conscious decision of Lipsius to exemplify the first two books, and not, for example, the third or fourth book, which promoted prudentia mixta or ‘reason of state’-based rule. After Lipsius’ reconversion to Catholicism and return to the Southern Netherlands, it seems highly unlikely that the authorities would have welcomed an illustration of those books of the Politica which had been under serious attack from various members of the Catholic Church. The fact that traces have been found of the Monita et exempla politica de re militari, illustrating the final two books,182 but none of the third and fourth book, seems to support such a hypothesis. 178 Mon. 2.9, quoting Suet. Calig. 29: “Servanda autem, etiam in iis quae Principes, aut qui circa ipsos sunt, tangunt. Mali doctores, qui a legibus eximunt: qui cum Caligula censent, Omnia ipsi, et in omnes, licere. Sive cum Sallustiano Memmio: Impune quidlibet facere, id est regem esse. Abite qui docetis, qui discitis.” Cf. de Nave (1970b: 460-461). On Lipsius and Bodin’s theory of sovereignty in the Politica, see Waszink (2004: 92-93). 179 Mon. 2.5. Cf. de Nave (1970b: 461). 180 Mon. 2.6: “Mali doctores in Politicis, qui hanc [=conscientiam] seponunt aut calcant: qui externam virtutum speciem nobis ingerunt, ipsas admitti negant.” 181 Mon. 1.7: “Iustus probusque esto: et ex profunda mente pullulabunt honesta, et utilia, consilia. Ne enim ista separemus: non inquam Honestum ab Utili. Et errat ab Italia doctor, qui ducit alio.” Compare Provvidera (2012a: 99, n. 182). 182 See above pp. 2-3.

41

Introduction 3.2.2.2. Concern for peace and defence of hereditary monarchy Next to the concern with virtuousness, the same, ever-present concern for peace and stability as expressed by Lipsius in his earlier works and correspondence, can also be found in the Monita. At the end of the dedicatory letter to Albert, Lipsius expresses his desire for peace in this prayer: May the same God keep you,Your Most Serene and Mighty Highness, safe for us for a long time and may He sometime grant the best state under the best prince, that is to say, the long-desired peace and tranquillity.183 As we have seen, according to Lipsius the best constitution to ensure peace and stability was hereditary monarchy.This defence of hereditary monarchy as the best form of government is repeated in the Monita.Yet, after the renewal of his alliance to the Spanish Crown, Lipsius considerably extended and elaborated his discussion of monarchy in the Monita.The considerable space taken up by this discussion in the work (around one third) indicates its importance to Lipsius at the time. To begin with, some of the same arguments for monarchy as the best form of government are repeated, while others are elaborated on, and new ones are added. Lipsius adduces several arguments in preference of monarchy, which are all very conventional and go back to Thomas Aquinas.184 Lipsius also shows himself a faithful follower of the Thomistic tradition in his preference for hereditary monarchy. In the Politica Lipsius advanced a few arguments for hereditary monarchy and a few for election without reaching a definitive conclusion. In the Monita, both ways of obtaining power are subjected to a detailed analysis of the arguments pro and contra, but Lipsius concludes in favour of succession after having carefully refuted the arguments in favour of election and in opposition to succession. He also adds detailed rules for succession. 3.2.2.3. The divine origin of power Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Thomist argument that monarchy is the best form of government on account of its divine origin, is elaborated at length in the Monita. The divine origin of monarchy and the divine foundation of the power of the monarch are emphasised continuously throughout the works which Lipsius produced after his return to the Southern Netherlands. In the Monita, for instance, in the chapters on religion, and on fate or divine providence, Lipsius repeatedly states that kingdoms exist by the grace of God only and that the king owes his

183

Mon., Dedicatio. On Lipsius’ dependence on Thomistic tradition, see de Nave (1970b: 449-483). Lipsius’ views on monarchy will be commented on in more detail below in subsection 4.1.7. 184

42

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE power to God.185 The prince is the representative of God on earth and has to bring order and justice in imitation of the Creator.186 Consequently, the prince has to honour God, his servants and the sacred in all circumstances; he has to be modest because his fortune can change and because life is short, and he has to be unwavering in the face of fate, must accept God’s plan, and adjust his decisions to it.187 The admonitions in the chapter on fate, reading “Kingdoms and kings are given by God”, “Kingdoms and kings are taken by God”, and “Kingdoms and Kings are moderated by God”, are also indicative of the general tendency of the work. Moreover, each admonition is illustrated with an abundance of examples of kings whose fortunes changed. In the face of this changing fate, the prince must be modest. He must remember that he is merely the executor of the divine plan, an actor put on the stage of the world by God188 and that his fortune can change.189 More examples of kings who were aware of their fate (from the beginning or after a certain event) are listed in the chapter on modesty and reinforce the point. Moreover, the prince who does not behave virtuously, or his descendants, will be punished by God. Lipsius repeatedly underlines that God favours the virtuous and pious prince and punishes the deceitful and impious ones.190 Numerous examples of this divine justice can be found in the chapter on fraud and violence, and on faith. All the kings who used fraud or deceit to obtain power, or who did not keep their promises were punished for doing so.191 When a prince comes to 185

E.g. Mon. 1.2: “Rex es? a Deo habes: et quo maior altiorque, plura benefico illi Numini debes: et per cultum igitur venerationemque eius agnosce. Rex es? ut diu et feliciter esse possis, datori supplica: et scito tollere posse qui tribuit, et evertere qui sublimavit.” 186 Mon. 2.7: “Cogitet secum Princeps: Ego ex omnibus mortalibus placui, electusque sum, qui Deorum vice in terris fungerer: ego vitae necisque gentibus arbiter: qualem quisque statum sortemque habeat, in mea manu est positum. O dignitas! vicarium Dei esse, et non esse aemulum?” 187 Mon. 1.5: “[…] prima illa causa omnia temperat, suaviter, prudenter, utiliter: nec aliter est censendum. Hoc monitum variam utilitatem Principi dabit. a Deo se et regnum; a Deo bona malaque externa esse: ideo nec in illis elate, nec in istis abiecte nimis agendum. Constantia ubique esto, et volens quaedam obedientia decretis divinis.” 188 Mon. 2.14: “Videsne histriones in scaena personam Agamemnonis aut Priami gerere et mox, cum fabula peracta est, ad habitum et sortem veterem redire? Date veniam, Principes, tales estis. Deus personam in orbis theatro hanc imposuit: sustinete, agite, sed qui introrsim et apud vos sitis cogitate. Choragus ille est, qui dedit ornamenta et, nisi refertis ad eum, aufert.” Compare Erasmus, Moriae Encomium, ll. 599 – 603 (ASD 4.3: 104). For the stage-metaphor and its history, see Christian (1987). 189 Mon. 2.14: “Regnas? potes subiici. Dominaris? potes servire. Quidquid alte se sustulit, opportunum est ad casum.” For the popular image of the wheel of fortune, see Doren (1924: 81-92 and passim), Patch (1967: 147-177), Skinnner (1978: 1, 95), and Konst (2003: 30). 190 Mon. 1.2: “Quod ab omni aevo observatum, Deum qui se colunt attollere; et piis religiosisque Principibus prospera plurimum evenisse; alia aliis.” 191 Mon. 2.13: “Calidi isti et impostores, quantumvis subtilibus consiliis, raro aut numquam ad potentiam perveniunt: aut si, in ea non sunt firmi. At aliter in candidis ingenuisque mentibus, qui Deum, qui fidem reverentur: hi crescunt, florent, et perseverant, caelesti favore prosequente et attollente; Q. Marcius hoc bene, apud Livium: Favere pietati fideique deos” and Ibid.: “Semper mala fides poenas statim aut postea, in violatoribus, aut sanguine eorum, luit.”

43

Introduction power prematurely, this is also a punishment from God.192 On the other hand, the virtuous and pious princes who suffered injustice will be revenged by God.This is illustrated by examples in a completely new, albeit short, chapter on divine justice. Summarising, one could say that the important role ascribed to divine providence in the Monita seems to entail a change in the meaning of Lipsius’ concept of political prudence. Political prudence now seems to lie in obedience to God’s will and His laws, and consequently in virtues such as piety, modesty, justice, clemency, and faithfulness rather than in the careful manipulation of one’s subjects and enemies, and the cautious handling of political tools such as fear or deception, as promoted in the Politica. 3.2.2.4. In the service of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Habsburgs Such a change of focus was likely to be inspired by Lipsius’ return to the Southern Netherlands and his reconciliation with the Catholic Church and Spanish Crown, and should also be seen in connection with the publication of the expurgated version of the Politica which Lipsius published in 1596, as mentioned above.193 In this context Lipsius had been accused of defending and praising Machiavelli in public, and criticised for defending the use of fraud and deceit by the prince, the priority of internal religion over external ritual and for his doctrine on fate. Some of the changes requested by the Vatican censors had been carried out dutifully by the humanist when they touched less important elements of his political theory. Other suggestions and problems were ignored or masked when it came to crucial elements such as his defence of Machiavelli. In the Monita, however, Lipsius seems to meet the terms of the Church further, by explicitly criticising Machiavelli and rejecting the use of fraud. In addition, he stresses the importance of external ritual and of divine providence and justice, and promotes Christian virtues. Moreover, Lipsius starts to emphasise the excellence of monarchy, and the divine origin of the power of the monarch. Some of these elements were already present in Lipsius’ Admiranda (1598) and Panegyricus (1600).Thus, from the outset of the Panegyricus, Lipsius takes Pliny’s preliminary prayer as a starting point to stress the divine foundation of monarchy. Kings receive their power from God and must bring justice and prosperity to their people, but God Himself distributes prosperity and adversity.194 In the dedicatory letter of the Admiranda to Albert of Austria, we find the same stress on divine providence and the divine origin of power. At the beginning of the letter, for instance, one can read: Amongst the fruits of history, your Highness, I hold in the highest esteem that which leads to wisdom and knowledge of the admirable things in the world. For who, if he reads a little more profoundly and attentively, does not observe 192

Mon. 2.4: “Deus sic disponit (ipsemet dicit) ubi visum ei punire regna aut immutare.” See p. 39. 194 See Jehasse (1996: 511), referring to Panegyricus. 193

44

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE the works of God, great empires being preserved or destroyed, and in them a certain image of divine providence and at the same time of divine power? For that is certainly the case. Just as there is only one God in the heavens, who rules and tempers this whole mechanism, so He appointed certain curators and delegates of His on earth to protect and administer it in specific areas.195 While fulfilling God’s task on earth, the Archduke can take the greatness of the Romans as an example: members of the Habsburg dynasty like him are, after all, the true heirs of the Roman Empire, Lipsius stresses, thus supporting the Spanish claim to power. Further on in the treatise (1.3), Lipsius again expresses the hope that the Spanish Empire will equal or even surpass the greatness and unity of the Roman Empire. He thinks that “some kind of hidden decree of providence” might indeed allow it to flourish and grow!196 Something which greatly contributed to the greatness and unity of the Roman Empire according to Lipsius was the religious zeal, conservatism, and unity of the empire and its citizens.197 Lipsius expresses his hope that the Roman Curia will once again take up this position and bring peace and unity to a Europe divided by civil and religious wars: We are convinced that Rome itself and its spiritual power has been and still is an anchor for the ship of Europe which has long been adrift. The benevolence of God towards that city is amazing!198 As has been stressed by Jan Papy, Marc Laureys, and Karl Enenkel, the treatise could thus be read as a powerful piece of religious and political propaganda.199 195 ILE [XI], 98 03 01 A (=Admiranda sive de magnitudine Romana libri quattuor (1598: *2-*5), Dedicatio: “Inter historiarum fructus, Ser[enissi]me Princeps, ego illum eximium habui, qui ad sapientiam et rerum in orbe Admirandarum cognitionem ducit. Quis enim paullo altior et attentior eas legit, qui non divina illa opera observet, magna imperia stabilita aut diruta et in iis imaginem quandam Providentiae simul et Potentiae divinae? Ita profecto se res habet. Sicut unus in superis Deus est, qui machinam hanc totam moderatur et temperat, sic in terris velut curatores et vicarios quosdam suos constituit, qui in partibus eam tueantur et administrent.” See also ILE [XVIII], 05 04 17 I, the dedicatory letter of the Diva Sichemiensis to Archduchess Isabella. For an analysis of Lipsius’ dedications to various members of the House of Habsburg, see Deneire (2012a). 196 “Sed de Hispanico imperio quod aiebas, id sane, spatia terrarum si consideras, praesertim in Novo illo orbe et insulis, Romanum longe vel superat, sed iunctio et devinctio provinciarum, viri et copiae quam deficiunt et delinquunt! Nunc equidem, nam postea quid futurum sit nescio; florebunt, crescent fortasse, et sensum meum tibi dicam? Nescio quo Providentiae decreto res et vigor ab Oriente (considera, si voles) in Occasum eunt.” Also in the dedicatory letter of the De Militia Romana to Philip III and in the De Constantia (1.16 and 2.11) Lipsius had indicated that God wanted the Spanish Empire to flourish now. See Papy (2001c). 197 Enenkel (2004: 596). 198 Admiranda, Ad lectorem: “Nobis constat hanc ipsam Romam et sacrum in ea imperium fuisse et esse velut anchoram fluctuanti diu Europae. Mira Dei benignitas in hanc urbem!” 199 Laureys – Papy (1998); Laureys (2001); Enenkel (2004), and Laureys (2006). On this subject, see also Deneire (2006) and Ballesteros (2006).

45

Introduction In the dedicatory letter of the Monita quoted above, Lipsius also praises Albert and his predecessors as examples of virtue, and throughout the work he highlights the chosen character of the Habsburg dynasty. When describing Philip II’s acquisition of the crown of Portugal, for instance, Lipsius comments: “God more than once showed a strong favour for this dynasty (I mean the Austrian)”.200 To legitimise their power, the Habsburgs seized every opportunity to highlight the fact that God had elected their dynasty to rule.201 This concern of the Habsburgs to stress the chosen character of their dynasty manifested itself especially in the legends surrounding the life of Rudolf I, the first Habsburg to become King of the Romans.202 According to legend, while hunting, Rudolf met a priest who was taking the communion to a dying man. Rudolf is said to have given his horse to the priest, who was so moved by the gesture that he predicted that Rudolf would be elected King of the Romans. Nine years later he was. Unsurprisingly, this anecdote, characteristic of the pietas Austriaca, is also recorded by Lipsius in the Monita (1.2., mon. 3.5). Nor did Archduke Albert miss any opportunity to promote his own piety (pietas Albertina). As has been demonstrated by Luc Duerloo,203 Albert launched a true multimedia campaign to this purpose. By praising the excellence of hereditary monarchy and of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs in particular, in the Monita, the Admiranda, the De Militia Romana, the Dissertatiuncula, and the Panegyricus, Lipsius can thus be said to have supported the centralisation policy of the Spanish Kings. By stressing the divine origin of their power, Lipsius also contributed to the attempt of the Habsburgs and the Archdukes to sacralise their regime.204 The devotional tracts composed by Lipsius after his return to Leuven, such as the Diva Virgo Hallensis (1604) and Diva Sichemiensis sive Aspricollis (1605), of which the latter was dedicated to the Infanta Isabella, are to be interpreted in much the same way.205 It is thus clear that with his writings, Lipsius actively contributed to the political and religious agenda of Albert and Isabella.206 That they depended on writers such as Lipsius to enhance their fame and to create a certain image of them, is stressed by Lipsius on several occasions, for instance in the letter mentioned 200

Mon. 1.5, mon. 1.6:“Magnus favor Numinis nec semel in hac gente (Austriam dico) se ostendit.” See Coreth (1959), Evans (1979), and Duerloo (1998), with further references. 202 On the devotion of Rudolf and the Habsburgs to the Eucharist, see Coreth (1959: 17-35). On the sources and representations of this anecdote, see our commentary on Mon. 1.2, mon. 3.5. 203 Duerloo (1997). 204 Cf. Duerloo (1998). 205 Van Houdt (1998: 424-425) and De Landtsheer (2004: 66). On the Habsburg devotion to the Virgin Mary, see Coreth (1959: 43-69). 206 Toon Van Houdt and Jan Papy (1997) and (1998: 319–334) have suggested that the image Lipsius created of the Archduke indeed influenced future panegyrics. Their thesis has now been refined by De Bom (2008b) and (2011: 209-287), who detected some influence of the Monita in the funeral oration for Albert by Laurentius Beyerlinck and in the biography of Aubertus Miraeus, and of the Admiranda elsewhere (e.g. in the funeral orations of Andreas Hoius and Libertus Fromondus). 201

46

The Monita IN THE CONTEXT OF LIPSIUS’ OEUVRE above, which the author wrote to the Archduke to request a privilege on the occasion of the publication of the Monita. In this letter, Lipsius writes that people like the Archduke do not only have to perform illustrious acts, but that those acts also need to be recorded by writers in order to be able to serve as an example for future generations. This is also stressed by Lipsius at a strategic point in the Monita, that is, in the last chapter, in which he discusses the virtue of magnanimity. In this final chapter, he underlines the fact that nothing can help the prince more to gain eternal fame than the promotion of the arts. A long and detailed list of the emperors who did so, and of their generosity towards writers and artists, concludes the work. A similar account of artistic patronage by Roman emperors and of the wages of scholars can also be found in one of the final chapters of the Admiranda.207 The same strategy is employed at the end of Lipsius’ description of the City and University of Leuven, published in the same year as the Monita.208 Albert understood this message well. Next to his official salary as Historiographus Regius, Lipsius had repeatedly received extra rewards from the Archdukes.209 Moreover, after the dedication of the Monita to Albert and the Diva Sichemiensis sive Aspricollis (1605) to Isabella, Lipsius was appointed as member of the Council of State. Albert thus confirmed the mutually beneficial relationship that had existed between the Archduke and Lipsius for quite some time.210 3.2.3. Conclusion A general comparison of the Politica and the Monita reveals that in the Monita Lipsius seems to distance himself from certain aspects of his earlier political theory as represented by the Politica, and to emphasise others instead. This seems to have been inspired by a desire to confirm his allegiance to the Catholic Church and to express his loyalty to the Spanish and archducal regime. Consequently, the Monita cannot be interpreted as a mere historical commentary on the Politica. In fact, at first sight the work seems to be everything the Politica is not: traditional and conservative, explicitly anti-Machiavellian, pro-Catholic, and pro-Spanish. Moreover, whereas the Politica was characterised by a certain open-endedness, the purpose of the Monita does not seem to have been to stimulate the thoughts of the reader, but rather to illustrate some of Lipsius’ political statements in a more unequivocal way, as the Notae (which were augmented and extended considerably in 1596) were also supposed to do.

207

Lipsius, Admiranda, 4.10 (1598: 197-199). Lipsius, Lovanium, 3.6-8 (1605: 101-112). It also occurs in similar works by humanists, for example in Budé’s Institution du prince (1547). Cf. Hampton (1990: 45). 209 See ILE [IX], 96 10 22. 210 See Van Houdt (1998: 425-426), who also points to a letter dated 29  April  1605 in which Balthasar Moretus congratulates Lipsius on his newly received title of councillor and candidly says that the Archduke has increased his own fame by granting Lipsius this title (ILE [XVIII], 05 04 29 M). 208

47

Introduction But are the thoughts expressed in the Monita indeed as conventional and unambiguous as they seem at first sight? Before a definitive conclusion can be reached, a more detailed comparison is needed of the views expressed in the Monita regarding some particular key-topics of early modern political thought with those expressed by Lipsius in other works and by contemporary political thinkers, as well as a more detailed study of the ways in which these views are presented.

Section 4 Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views 4.1. The Monita in relation to early modern political thought and thinkers 4.1.1. The morally good and the useful As touched upon above, the classical view, adopted by Christian humanists, that the morally good (honestum) is inextricably bound up with the useful (utile) was challenged by Machiavelli, who claimed that history and experience show that the good and the useful are irreconcilable in politics. However, in order to secure popular support, it is important, according to Machiavelli, for the prince to appear to have all the traditional virtues.211 Other authors believed to the contrary that the good and the useful belonged together, that a good Christian could be a good statesman, as demonstrated by many historical instances. Innocent Gentillet, who composed the first systematic refutation of Machiavelli, the Anti-Machiavel (1576), argued that immoral or irreligious conduct was ultimately counterproductive. It either brought down God’s punishment on the state or ruler, or it produced by its very nature the opposite of the desired effect.212 This argument was later developed by Catholic authors such as Giovanni Botero and Pedro de Ribadeneyra. Robert Bireley, who studied this ‘anti-Machiavellian’ tradition, indicates that these authors mainly resort to two types of argument in their efforts to reconcile the good and the useful, that is, providentialist and intrinsic pragmatism.213 The first argued from God’s providence: God bestows victory and success in this world on rulers and peoples that serve him faithfully and uprightly; the second from nature: moral action by its very nature is useful, while immoral action is counterproductive. In other words, violation of natural or divine law inevitably brings its retribution on states as well as individuals. Both arguments were supported with examples from history. Like Botero and Ribadeneyra, Lipsius also argued that virtue is useful from its intrinsic nature. In the Monita, for instance, Machiavelli is denounced as follows: 211

Il Principe, 18, transl. W.K. Marriot. Bireley (1990: 18). 213 Bireley (1990: 30-31). The following analysis is mainly based on Bireley’s study of the works of Botero and Ribadeneyra, as well as on our own reading of the relevant works. 212

48

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views For what do I call probity? Nothing but an upright mind which loves virtue without pretence, a mind which loves it for its own sake, not for profit or fame. That type of probity I require in a prince. […] Be righteous and upright, and from the depths of your mind honourable and useful plans will grow. For let us not separate those: the morally good from the useful. And the teacher from Italy who leads in another direction is mistaken. He shapes petty tyrants, not legitimate kings or princes. Let him go away.You, remove pretence and fraud, which can neither be strong nor last for long.214 In a further attack on the Florentine, Lipsius, like Ribadeneyra, combines intrinsic arguments with providentialist ones: Bad are those teachers of politics who put it aside or trample on it.They present an outward appearance of virtue to us, but refuse to let the virtues themselves in. Utterly miserable, do they not also impose that appearance on our mind and conscience? Veil yourself and turn into various forms: wherever there is no true virtue, vice will follow, and from it, restlessness in your mind, or fear. That same ancient writer says, Nature filled every evil with fear or shame. How much better, more secure, and more stable is it to walk along the straight and open way and to recommend oneself to God, oneself, and mankind!215 The argument that virtue is not only useful from its intrinsic nature, but also from the assistance of God which it invites is elaborated by Lipsius throughout the Monita, for instance when discussing religion, superstition, fate, conscience, deceit, and faithfulness. We shall first turn to the chapters on religion and superstition. 4.1.2. Religion and superstition: a means of social control? In the Discorsi Machiavelli had stressed the importance of religion as a means of controlling the masses. He indicated that laws and legal sanctions do not stop people from committing crimes or breaking promises, but fear of God and religious sanctions do.Therefore, the prudent prince should instil religion in his people and appear religious: in that way the subjects will not only display the virtues essential for the preservation of society, but also obey him more since people do not want to harm someone whom they consider to be protected by God. According to Machiavelli, it does not matter whether their faith is true or not. He illustrates this with several instances of successful religious deceit. Thus, the Roman people assented to all the measures proposed by King Numa because he pretended to have received these in conversations with a nymph, and likewise the people of Florence were persuaded by Savonarola that he spoke with God. The Romans 214 215

Mon. 1.7. Mon. 1.6.

49

Introduction often successfully manipulated auspices to demonstrate the favour of the gods and thus secure popular support. In doing so, they had succeeded where Christianity, which was not suited to foster the public spirit, now failed.216 In the Politica, the De una religione, and the Monita, Lipsius agreed with most of his contemporaries that religion constituted a bond which was essential for the unity of society. Only religion and the fear of God can hold the state together. Moreover, the author adds, when the prince has instilled religion in the hearts of the subjects, they will obey him more easily.217 Thus Lipsius agrees with Machiavelli that religion is indeed a powerful means to control behaviour, but he stresses that it needs to be true. For history has shown that God exalts the pious and punishes irreligious behaviour.218 To prove that, the author adduces plenty of examples from history, including those used by Machiavelli himself to make his point. Thus, the practice of Numa, and the Romans in general, praised by Machiavelli, is condemned, and the example of Savonarola is adduced to show how the introduction of new or superstitious beliefs can incite the people to rebellion instead of obedience. Moreover, Savonarola ended on the stake,219 whereas Rudolf of Austria ensured an empire for himself and his descendants with his pious behaviour, and Charles V defeated the Lutherans at Mühlberg.220 More examples of people who unsuccessfully tried to use superstition as an instrument for governing, such as John of Leiden and Joan of Arc, had been adduced by Lipsius in the Notae (p. 726, ed. Waszink) and the De una religione.221 The argument that history shows that God rewards those who honour and serve Him faithfully and honestly (in this life or the next) and punishes irreligious behaviour was a common anti-Machiavellian argument, also adduced by authors such as Giovanni Botero, Juan de Mariana, and Pedro de Ribadeneyra, as briefly mentioned above. They also made their case by offering multiple examples from history intended to overwhelm the reader and thus convince him of their argument. Lipsius’ treatment of the subject clearly reveals the influence of these writers. He was indeed familiar with their works, of which he kept copies in his library.222 According to Mariana, religion can only function as the bond of society if there exists religious unity.223 Religious differences can only lead to civil discord and rebellion. Although Lipsius does not make this explicit in the Monita, he did do so in the Politica (4.2) and the De una religione, to which he refers the reader 216

See e.g. Machiavelli, Discorsi, 1.11-15. See Bireley (1990: 11-12). Mon. 1.2. 218 Mon. 1.2. Compare Mon. 1.3 and Pol. 4.2. 219 According to Machiavelli, the reason for Savonarola’s failure was a lack of arms or armed forces (Il Principe, 6). 220 This example is also adduced by Antonio Possevino in his attack on Machiavelli. See Bireley (1990: 26). 221 See further Lindberg (2001: 129-131). 222 Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 9r, 11v and 16v. 223 Mariana, De rege, 3.16 (1599: 419-446). See Braun (2007: 138). 217

50

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views twice in the Monita, which suggests that unity of religion is indeed presupposed here. Although the thorny issue of the relation between State and Church is not addressed as such, religion is nonetheless characterised as the foundation of the State. However, the focus of the chapter on religion (Mon. 1.2) is rather on piety as a personal virtue of the prince, and nothing is said about state religion, the punishment of heretics, etc., either because Lipsius felt that it was too dangerous to address these delicate issues and wanted to avoid the kind of criticism and controversy which the Politica had provoked, or because he thought he had elaborated the topic sufficiently in the Politica and the De una religione. Lipsius does not discuss the unity of religion, at least not explicitly; nor does he specify which religion is the better civic religion (something he was also criticised for by his detractors).224 Unlike Botero and Ribadeneyra, he does not try to argue against Machiavelli to show the suitability of Christianity as state religion nor does he try to demonstrate the preferability of the Catholic as opposed to the Reformed faith. Lipsius does indeed adduce the victories of kings and crusaders over the Moors and of Charles V over the Lutherans, and ridicules the superstitious behaviour of pagans, Muslims and the like, but tellingly, he does not seem to have a problem in adducing the examples of Christians, pagans, and Muslims equally to prove that the protection and veneration of sacred buildings and priests will procure fame and power to the prince.225 Thus, in his effort to stay clear of unstable ground, he in fact comes dangerously close to it.226 4.1.3. Divine providence and free will Experience and examples from history had taught Machiavelli that conventional religious and moral behaviour is not always rewarded by immediate political success, but that in order to maintain the state the prince rather had to follow a set of precepts very different from those prescribed by God or religion. This had led the author to deny the existence of divine providence and to believe instead that things are not ordered by God’s benevolent power or will, but by chance or fortune, described by Machiavelli in terms of the capricious power of the Roman goddess Fortuna.227 For if everything were determined, people would be reduced to

224

Neither did Mariana. See Braun (2007: 140). See e.g. Lipsius’ praise of the respect paid by Osman, Orhan, and Murad to their priests (talismans) in Mon. 1.2.4.4. 226 Lipsius’ own uneasiness is noticeable in his awkward attempt to defend his choice for pagan examples (Mon. 1.2: “Quod ab omni aevo observatum Deum qui se colunt attollere et piis religiosisque Principibus prospera plurimum evenisse; alia aliis. Exemplis haec firmemus videamusque in ve­­ teri et vana Religione etiam eius cultores fuisse et praemium a Deo externum tulisse. Qui si imaginem et speciem eius honestat ac munerat, quid in vera faciet?”). See below pp. 121-123. 227 For a summary of Machiavelli’s views on fortune and its background, see e.g. Skinner (1978: 1, 95-98, 119-122, and 145-146), Bireley (1990: 5-8), and Brooke (2012: 24-25). 225

51

Introduction slaves without a free will (“libero arbitrio”), which Machiavelli refused to accept.228 In his view, there is room for the prudent prince to influence the course of events through his personal political virtuosity (“virtù”), that is, his ability to discern the course of events, seize opportunities, and adapt to the circumstances. The relation between divine providence and free will indeed would remain a topic of great interest to sixteenth-century thinkers. Lipsius discussed the subject in his De Constantia, a dialogue in which he tried to incite his fellow-citizens to constancy in the face of public evils such as civil war. In the Politica and the Monita, the teachings of De Constantia are repeated and applied to the prince. In De Constantia, Lipsius argued, contrary to Machiavelli, that everything is ordered by God’s providence, which is always benevolent, and not by chance or fortune.229 In the Monita Lipsius expresses the same idea as follows: For he who has created everything also directs, moves, and preserves it, just like an experienced charioteer (in the words of Trismegistus), who braces this chariot of the world on himself and holds it fast to make sure it is not driven in a disorderly fashion. That is certainly the way it is. Through intermediate causes, connected in various ways, that first cause regulates everything gently, prudently, and usefully, and one must not think otherwise.230 As a consequence, God always looks after people and princes who honour him while sooner or later immoral or irreligious behaviour is always punished, even if it does not always seem so (cf. supra). In De Constantia, Lipsius had used a combination of Christian, Stoic, and natural elements to support his views.231 Thus, when it seems that good people are punished and bad people rewarded this could have several reasons, Lipsius says: God distributes adversity and transfers kingdoms from one nation to another, either to punish us for our sins or those of our ancestors, or to test us, to strengthen us, to warn us, to enable us to show our virtue, or to set an example. Bad people always get chastised, but the punishment is not always visible: it can be external (e.g. diseases and natural disasters) or internal (fear, bad conscience, etc.), sooner or later, in this world or in the next, in the sinner or in his descendants. A whole nation can even suffer or pay for the sins one person committed long ago. The Monita is replete with examples of people who have been punished for their sins. Lipsius comments on the career of papal favourites Carlo and Giovanni Carafa, who ended up being executed by the Pope, as follows:

228

Il Principe, 15. Lipsius, De Constantia, 1.13. 230 Mon. 1.5. 231 On Plutarch’s De sera numinis vindicta as a source for these views in the De Constantia, see Tarrête (2008). 229

52

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views Although many accused the Pope of cruelty and ingratitude, wiser people recognised in these famous examples the uncertainty of human affairs and recognised that those who a while earlier, in dignity and wealth, had been at the top of Roman affairs had perished by the punishment and dishonour that awaits base criminals.232 Moreover, in Lipsius’ view, contrary to Machiavelli’s, the immediate success or happiness of individual citizens, rulers, or kingdoms is not the ultimate end, but rather eternal happiness and the conservation of the world or of mankind. From this wider perspective God sometimes necessarily destroys people or countries to keep the world in balance. If a good individual experiences adversity, he should not give up hope of a better future in this life or the next. If a country is ruined, another will rise or the same one may flourish again in the future: The sun has shined with his bright beams a long time upon us. Now let it be night with us a while, and let the glittering light illuminate the Spaniards and farthest western parts.233 In the Monita Lipsius puts it as follows: Just as he who holds a balance and gives the order to add a weight to one side or the other and causes it to lean, so does God act.234 And he admonishes the prince “That kingdoms and kings are moderated by God. A brief admonition, but one of much sense and use, is to see how God disposes and prevents some from growing and others from falling and holds things, as it were, in balance.”235 This natural process of rise and fall allows Lipsius to explain certain historical events which, at first sight, are difficult to reconcile with a view of God’s benevolent providence. Along these lines the author explains for example the fate of Sebastian, King of Portugal, who unsuccessfully took up arms against the Moors, and whose kingdom eventually came to an end.236 His fall allowed Philip II, whose dynasty was favoured by God, Lipsius stresses, to acquire the Kingdom of Portugal and united it to the Spanish crown.237 In short, the adversity of people can either be explained as a punishment, test, etc. from God or as an inherent quality of things attributed to them by God for the benefit and conservation of 232

Mon. 1.5., admon. 2.5. De Constantia, 2.11, in the translation of J. Stradling. 234 Mon. 1.5. 235 Mon.1.5, mon. 4. 236 Mon. 2.14.19. 237 Mon. 1.5, mon. 1.6. 233

53

Introduction the world and mankind. If some events remain difficult to understand or explain this way, this is because of our ignorance. God always has a good reason, but it is sometimes beyond human understanding: The majority of God’s judgments are secret, but none of them unrighteous.238 Thus, also unexpected or inexplicable events are considered by Lipsius as proof of the existence of fate and the working of divine providence: Providence affirms and asserts itself everywhere, but more openly when some intermediate, sudden, or unusual causes intervene, and one can say, Who would have expected that?239 According to Lipsius, then, all of this does not jeopardise man’s free will. He asserts, like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, that not everything has been determined: God is the first cause, but He operates through intermediate or secondary causes, which include free will.240 Therefore God reveals his plans to us through signs.241 If the signs are positive, God still needs our help to execute His plan. If the signs are negative or one experiences adversity, one does not know whether one is heading for destruction or whether it is just a warning, so one must still do everything to avoid it ‒ unless the signs are undeniable, in which case it is better to resign oneself to one’s fate.242 Such signs enable the prudent citizen and prince to adapt his plans to God’s, and herein resides his freedom: It is also useful to inquire lightly and modestly into fate and see in what direction that superior power is drawing our affairs and adapt oneself and one’s plans in accordance with that direction.The advantage is huge, and for a prudent man hardly any public fates and changes will remain obscure from the signs which precede or accompany them.243

238 De Const. 2.17, transl. J. Stradling. Compare Mon. 1.5: “O quam mira, quam inopinata saepe ab illa potentia? Nam et hoc gaudet atque amat praeter opinionem (non enim rationem) quaedam facere et vel sic ostendere vim illam omnia gubernantem et moventem.” 239 Mon. 1.5, mon. 3.1. 240 Cf. Lipsius, De constantia, 1.19. Lipsius refers to Augustine, civ. 5.9 and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem, 4.4. See Papy (2011: 201-202); compare Lagrée (2010: 67-70) and (2016: 165-166). 241 Mon. 1.5: “Et fortunam temperat, sed manibus aut consiliis fere nostris. Atque haec ita palam ut vel hebes mens videat, si non praevideat, et dominum arbitrumque terrestrium rerum ex eventis illum e caelo agnoscat.” 242 Mon. 1.5. 243 Mon. 1.5.

54

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views According to Lipsius, living in a world determined by God’s providence does not make us slaves, like Machiavelli had said. In the De Constantia, Lipsius concludes to the contrary that true freedom lies in wanting what God wants: “In regno nati sumus: deo parere libertas est”.244 It seems, then, that Lipsius’ views on fate, as expressed in the Monita, and as opposed to Machiavelli, for the most part correspond to the ideas expounded earlier in the De Constantia. Some of the arguments adduced there are elaborated here by singling them out in the form of admonitions and illustrating them by means of examples. However, the Monita does not show the same kind of terminological precision or theoretical rigour as the De Constantia. In the Monita fate is equated to providence and to the divine will or decree, whereas Lipsius, following Boethius (consol. 4.6), had carefully distinguished providence and fate in the De Constantia and in the Physiologia Stoicorum, as Jan Papy and Jacqueline Lagrée have pointed out.245 This lack of terminological clarity sometimes seems to create contradictions and undermine his argument. Thus, unexpected events are sometimes ascribed by Lipsius to Fortuna which he describes, in terms reminiscent of the Roman goddess Fortuna as adopted by Machiavelli, as someone who smiles upon people, plays games with them, is jealous, unpredictable, etc.,246 leaving the reader to wonder what its powers are exactly. Thus, the success of the utterly wicked Ottoman Sultan Selim is simply attributed to fortune. By saying that Selim was “loved by fortune, but not by God”, Lipsius seems to suggest that there is indeed another force beyond God’s control at work in the universe, the existence of which Lipsius had denied. We can only assume that the author hints at the process of decline and fall ascribed to all things natural (which is, however, also wanted by God and ultimately beneficial). In fact, also the working of secondary causes in general and the role of man’s free will remain unclear and unillustrated. Much attention is paid to the signs sent by God to warn or instruct us about our future, but exactly how prince and people can turn these to their advantage is left to the discretion 244

Lipsius, De Const. 1.14, quoting Seneca, dial. 7.15.7. See Lindberg (2001: 109) and Lagrée (2016:

165). 245

Papy (2011) and Lagrée (2010: 67-71 and 2016: 165-167). See, e.g., Mon. 1.5.1.4 (“Fortune smiled on him, but not in such a trustworthy manner.”); 2.2.1bis (“When he was defeated by King Pyrrhus, deprived of his camp and kingdom, she could not bear to live any longer and killed herself, depriving fortune of the opportunity.”); 2.3.4 (“It is pleasing to watch those games of fortune.”); 2.6.2 (“But behold how everything changed in the blink of an eye, either through the fault of fortune, who turned against him in favour of the Romans, broke his mind, and called him back from his planned journey to glory, or through the fault of his informers and himself, who thoughtlessly and easily listened to them”); 2.10.1 (“Gaius Julius Caesar (Suetonius says) was planning to reduce civil law in number to a fixed limit and to gather in a few books only the best and necessary ones from the immense and diffuse abundance of laws. But fate begrudged him this.); 2.14.9 (“And for how few did fortune drive the chariot from start to finish without striking or overturning them?”); and 2.14.19 (“This game is unremitting.”). 246

55

Introduction of the reader. More often than not, the reader gets the impression that he is fighting a losing battle against unidentified and unidentifiable forces which inevitably determine his course. Thus, Lipsius comments on Hannibal, who, upon learning of Hasdrubal’s defeat, exclaims, “I recognise the fortune of Carthage” as follows: Excellent. You, try and do all you can. But still you will not win, although you are on the winning side, prudence will be less powerful than fortune and Nemesis will press down upon your Carthage.247 In our eyes at least, comments such as these leave the reader in a state of uncertainty and create doubts about the role of prudence, fortune, divine providence, and free will. Nevertheless, Lipsius also argues from divine providence when discussing a number of other central issues of early modern political writing, including the right to resist or kill a tyrant and the right to use deceit. 4.1.4. Deceit, violence, and perjury In the early modern period, a heated debate was held on lying and deception.248 Many authors, including medical writers, scholastic theologians, casuists, and political theorists, discussed the acceptability of telling a lie (mendacium) to protect oneself, deceiving someone in the interest of the state (simulatio), or concealing the truth (dissimulatio), for instance when one is unjustly questioned. Whereas traditional moral discourse condemned all forms of fraud and deceit, based on biblical, classical, and patristic sources, such as St Augustine’s De mendacio and Contra mendacium, political thinkers such as Machiavelli acknowledged and struggled with the practical problems this created in everyday political and economic life. In a chapter “concerning the way in which princes should keep faith” (Il Principe, 18), Machiavelli had argued that, although in an ideal world it is best and most honourable for the prince to keep faith, in reality, it is in the interest of the state and its preservation for the ruler to use deceit, and even to break his promises, as other people will do the same to him. But as it is also important to have a reputation of faithfulness, a ruler must learn to disguise his faithlessness. In the Politica, Lipsius states that Machiavelli should not be condemned categorically ‒ a remark which was deleted in later editions under the pressure from the Vatican censors ‒ and that it might be in the interest of the state and the prince to use some cunning, under certain conditions, for instance, when dealing

247

Mon. 1.5, mon. 3.4. For a discussion of this debate, with attention to Lipsius’ position, and for further literature, see, e.g., Stone (2006) and Van Houdt (2002), on whose analyses the following account is largely based. For the affinity of Lipsius’ thought with early modern casuistry, see also Jones (2011: 68-80). 248

56

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views with cunning people.249 However, such circumstances need to be clearly defined. Therefore, in Politica 4.14 Lipsius distinguishes three types of fraud or deceit (fraus): a first category of light (levis) deceit, including distrust (diffidia) and dissimulation (dissimulatio), a middle sort (media), covering bribery (conciliatio) and deception (deceptio), and finally grave instances of deceit such as perfidy (perfidia) and injustice (iniustitia). Concerning these forms of deceit, he recommends the prince to distrust people and employ dissimulation, that is to say, to conceal the truth or one’s intentions, but moderately.250 Although he thinks that bribery can certainly be useful to the prince, he is much more reserved about deception. Prompting someone to act in your interest by misleading or lying clearly conflicts with divine law. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to allow small acts of deception if they contribute to the common good. Breaking an oath, however, is a bridge too far even for Lipsius and should under no circumstances be allowed. No tricks can be used to evade treatises, for concealed faithlessness is no less a sin against God and will at the end of the day be punished by Him. For deceit obscures the guilt of perjury, but does not remove it, and does not delude God: whatever artfulness one may apply in swearing an oath, God who is witness of our consciences interprets the oath the way it is understood by the person to whom it is sworn.251 This statement seems to be directed against late scholastic thinkers such as Martin Azpilcueta, Francisco Suarez, Franciscus Toletus, and Leonardus Lessius, who tried to overcome the practical problems resulting from too rigorous an application of the traditional position on lying and deceiving, by developing theories of equivocation (aequivocatio) and mental reservation (restrictio mentalis).252 According to these thinkers, one could avoid telling a direct lie by making a statement ambiguous through the use of a term with more than one meaning (equivocation), or by making a false statement true by adding an appropriate qualification in your own mind (mental reservation). Such ‘tricks’ are denounced by Lipsius, although he does seem more tolerant towards small departures from law, such as bending or breaking privileges, in order

249 Pol. 4.13 (p. 507, ed. Waszink): “to play the fox when dealing with a fox”. Lipsius quotes Erasmus, Adag. 1.2.28. Compare Snyder (2009: 126) and Provvidera (2012a: 95). 250 On the use of dissimulation in the writings of early modern reasons of state thinkers, see Snyder (2009: 106-158). Lipsius’ Politica is discussed on pp. 124-129. 251 Pol. 4.14.5 (p. 525, ed. Waszink), quoting Isid. sent. 2.31.8. 252 See, among others, Jonsen-Toulmin (1988), Sommerville (1988), Zagorin (1990), and Stone (2006), and the literature cited there. Tellingly, Jones (2011: 72-73) overlooks the statement just quoted in his over-zealous effort to bring Lipsius’ views completely in line with those of late scholastic theologians and casuists.

57

Introduction for the prince to preserve his position, but never to extend it!253 Grave acts of injustice, however, such as eliminating noble rivals, seizing other people’s property, or seizing opportunities, such as the death of a prince or internal conflicts, to grasp power will be punished by God. Further, in Politica 5.17, where Lipsius discusses “cunning strategies”, and recommends the use of deceit in military matters, he does not allow perjury, which he labels as a base and low kind of fraud.254 This is illustrated abundantly in various chapters of the Monita. In chapter 2.13, which deals with faithfulness, perjury is categorically denounced. According to Lipsius, perjury is intrinsically bad (we are naturally appalled by it) and is punished by God. It is in the interest of the state and the prince to keep faith (“it agrees with utility”): it is the bond of society, it creates a good reputation, and is rewarded by God. Only pretending to be faithful is disgraceful, will destroy one’s reputation (for people cannot be deceived for long), and invoke the anger of God (who cannot be deceived at all and will punish, sooner or later).255 In other words, it is in accordance with natural, and human and divine law to keep one’s promises. This is illustrated with copious examples from history in which faithfulness is rewarded and perjury punished.256 Similarly, Monita 2.5 (“De fraude et vi”) specifically deals with forms of deception (simulatio) related to succession and election, which are referred to in general terms as “fraus” or “dolus”. Although Lipsius acknowledges that there are many types of deceit,257 he particularly illustrates how various leaders have tried to come to power through deception, mainly by pretending to be someone they are not, and how they have consequently been punished by God. Lipsius’ treatment of the subject indeed provided readers with a large number of quotations, illustrations, and applications on the subject in the political sphere, which was valued by later generations of (political) writers, such as Christoph Besold, who refers his readers to Lipsius’ Monita for historical examples of impostors, and fraudulent elections and successions.258 However, Lipsius’ discussion lacks the terminological and logical precision and the detailed argumentation typical of scholastic or casuist writers. Thus, Lipsius simply insists on fidelity and does not consider particular 253 As Tuck (1993: 57-58) has pointed out, this marks the “main difference between Machiavelli and Lipsius (and fellow ‘anti-Machiavellians’) – or what they took the difference to be: laws could be broken for preservation, but not for any other reason, such as the enhancement of a ruler’s or country’s glory.” See also Brooke (2012: 29-30). 254 Pol. 5.17.2 (p. 644, ed.Waszink): “Nam contra foedera aut pacta fraudem quis probet? quis item vilem aliquam et abiectam?” 255 Compare Pol. 4.14.5, as quoted above (p. 57). 256 Apart from the case of Selim (Mon.2.5, viol. 8). See above p. 55. 257 Mon. 2.5.2: “Ac genera sane fraudium plura sunt, sed una ad rem hanc Successionum apposita quae crebra. Est eorum qui inserunt se in alienam familiam et callide adoptant.” In the Politica all types of deceit had been denounced, if used to come to power or extend one’s power. 258 Christoph Besold, Dissertationes Nomicopoliticae (Frankfurt – Tübingen, 1617: 26), referring to Mon. 2.5.

58

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views questions such as whether the ruler is allowed to withdraw from an agreement when the circumstances have changed (e.g. when the other party has not lived up to its promise), in which case most scholastics, casuists, and even authors such as Botero, Ribadeneyra, and Mariana were inclined to be flexible,259 or what the ruler should do when the demands of faithfulness conflict with other divine laws. Lipsius simply leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions out of examples such as that of Antistius Restio’s slave (Mon. 2.13.19), who was required to kill someone and tell a lie in order to protect his master. 4.1.5. Tyrannicide The topic of tyrannicide is only touched upon briefly in the Monita. In Mon. 2.4 Lipsius states that when evil kings come to power, be it through election or succession, this should be endured in the hope of a better one. Likewise, when infant kings come to power, they should be borne because God has sent them, either as a punishment or to keep the kingdoms of the world in balance. So, the same argument as described above regarding public calamities is applied by Lipsius to incompetent kings. This was the position adopted by the majority of Catholic theologians of the time, who stressed that Scripture teaches us that God appoints vicious kings in order to punish people for their sins.260 The same arguments used in the Monita to argue against the right to resist or kill bad, incompetent, or infant kings are adduced by Lipsius in his treatment of tyranny and tyrannicide in the Politica, where he stressed that tyrants should be borne because all kings are sent by God and therefore it is a sin to kill one.261 Similar ideas were adopted by many humanist political theorists, who used it as an argument to reject the right to resist a king. The question of tyrannicide was the subject of an intense (legal and technical) debate in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.262 It was discussed by Monarchomach authors such as George Buchanan, Théodore de Bèze, the anonymous author of the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, and by Jesuit authors such as Francisco

259 See Bireley (1990: 58-59) on Botero’s position on the subject, Braun (2007: 119-128) on Mariana (1990: 58-59), and Bireley (1990: 127) and Höpfl (2004: 152) on Ribadeneyra. See also Höpfl (2004: 150-155) for further examples of the position of Jesuit theologians. 260 Turchetti (2001: 366-373). For a survey of Jesuit positions on tyrannicide, see Höpfl (2004: 317-319). On collective culpability, see also Lipsius, De Constantia, 2.17. Given the specific nature of the Monita and the particular context in which it was written, it is not surprising to see that Lipsius does not discuss the delicate question of whether or not one is allowed to commit suicide under a tyrannical regime – a topic which he dealt with, albeit cautiously, in his correspondence and his Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam. See Papy (2010). 261 Pol. 6.5.4 (ed. Waszink, 694-696). 262 A detailed overview of the discussion of tyrannicide and its diversity, in the early modern period as well as in other times, can be found in Turchetti (2001). For the positions of Lipsius and Erasmus on tyrannicide, see Papy (2000b), with suggestions for further reading on p. 280.

59

Introduction Suarez and Juan de Mariana.The Monarchomach theory of tyrannicide saw the relationship between a ruler and his subjects as a mutual contract; if this contract were broken by the tyrant-ruler, it would be just to revolt against or kill the tyrant. In his analysis of tyranny in the Politica (6.5), Lipsius also stresses that the violation of laws distinguishes a tyrant from a legitimate king. This is no reason, however, in Lipsius’ view, to revolt against, or to kill, a tyrant. It is better to endure a bad ruler and hope for a better one, all the more because tyrannicide could cause disorder.263 Nevertheless, he does not condemn or prohibit it as such, and even praises it at times. In Politica, 6.5.3, he writes that removing a tyrant is a sign of an upright soul, and in the Monita, he presents the tyrannicide Brutus as an example of probity. Lipsius praises Brutus for not wanting to kill Caesar out of hatred, but for love of his country and the law. For the same reason Brutus, unlike the other conspirators, did not want to kill Antony together with Caesar, convinced that “a tyrant should only be killed on legal grounds”. Examples such as these seem to suggest that it is honourable and permissible to kill a ruler who has violated the law, and thus undermine Lipsius’ statements which argued to the contrary. 4.1.6. Is it better to be loved or feared? After Seneca, clemency was traditionally described as the characteristic which distinguished a legitimate king from a tyrant, and which generated love and protection of the prince by the people. The question first posed by Cicero in his De officiis of whether it is better for a person in government to be loved or feared was applied to a specifically monarchical context by Seneca, who in his De clementia advanced the idea that the virtue of the monarch, and in the first place his clemency, legitimises his absolute power.264 Peter Stacey has convincingly demonstrated how the political theory of Seneca’s De clementia greatly influenced pre-humanist and humanist mirrors for princes, and how the Senecan ideology of clemency was used to legitimise royal absolutism from the first half of the Duecento until the high Renaissance in works such as Petrarch’s Institutio regia,265 Beccadelli’s De dictis et factis Alfonsi regis, Erasmus’ Institutio principis Christiani, and Budé’s De l’Institution du prince.This theory, however, was challenged at the start of the sixteenth century by Machiavelli, who pointed out that clemency could create a perception of weakness and hence cause disorder, and that it was sometimes better to use violence and cruelty rather than clemency, and to be feared rather than loved.266 In chap263 Contrary to contemporary late scholastic theologians like Leonardus Lessius, Lipsius does not seem to consider the relation between a ruler and his subjects in terms of a contract or iustitia particularis, but in terms of iustitia generalis or legalis: the chaos caused by tyrannicide threatens the bonum commune. On the late scholastic view, see especially Höpfl (2004: 224-262). 264 Stacey (2007: 10-11 and 58-61). 265 I.e. Fam. 12.2 (letter to Niccolo Acciaioli). 266 Stacey (2007). Compare Brooke (2012: 21-25), Soen (2012: 1041), Stacey (2015), and Barlow (1999).

60

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views ter 17 of Il Principe, he stated that a king should ideally use both love and fear, but given the nature of man, fear is a far more secure means of constraining people than love. But at all costs the prince should avoid hatred and contempt, the twin sources of conspiracy.267 In the Politica, Lipsius seems to disagree with Machiavelli when, in chapters 2.12 and 13, he encourages the prince to be clement rather than cruel, and strengthen his power through love rather than fear, for fear does not restrain the subjects and is unworthy of a king. However, in Politica 4.9 he expressed a very different, Machiavellian, point of view when saying that the nature of the populace requires that they be ruled by fear resulting from severity.268 Severity must be applied for the sake of the common good. Like a doctor, the prince should remove what is harmful. And although it is better that a few are punished and all others are frightened by it, the prince has to resort to drastic measures, if the evil or “disease” is too widespread or persistent. Lipsius warns, however, like Machiavelli, that repeated severity could arouse hatred and contempt, which should be avoided. In Politica 4.11 executions are singled out, next to taxes and censorship, as a source of hatred, which contributes to the destruction of a reign. In order to make sure that executions do not cause hatred, Lipsius recommends the prince to take measures such as proceeding slowly, without wrath or joy, and observing traditional custom. He also insists that the prince should never carry out punishments or executions himself nor watch them. This view is repeated in the Monita (2.9 bis 1.7), where he condemns the behaviour of Baldwin VII of Flanders, who ordered eleven knights who were found guilty of theft and murder to be put on a table to be hung and drew the table from underneath them with his own hands, as follows: “I praise the event, but not the method. He could and should have done it with someone else’s hands.” In Lipsius’ view, Baldwin’s act would cause people to think that the prince was cruel rather than severe, that the villain was put to death to satisfy the cruelty of the prince rather than to serve the common good, and compassion (for the accused) and hatred (for the prince) would arise. In the Monita, both of the positions found in the Politica (for and against the use of fear and severity) are reconciled by explicitly stressing that both love and fear should be used by the prince, and that severity and clemency can each instil both love and fear. Thus, in the chapter on clemency, Lipsius stresses that clemency and severity are complementary; both serve the same purpose:

267 Machiavelli, Il Principe, 17: “Debbe nondimanco el principe farsi temere in modo che, se non acquista lo amore, che fugga l’odio: perché e’ può molto bene stare insieme essere temuto e non odiato.” 268 Lipsius, Pol. 4.9 (p. 426, ed. Waszink). Compare 4.11.1 (p. 460, ed. Waszink).

61

Introduction both have the same end and goal. Justice corrects through severity and fear; clemency through benevolence and mildness. The former punishes, the latter forgives.269 Both can be used to strengthen the prince’s authority because some people are corrected better through fear resulting from severity, others better through love resulting from clemency: For the character of man is extraordinary and diverse. Some are made better by benevolence and the respect that results from it, others by severity and the fear that results from it.The Prince uses everything to obtain the aforementioned benefit.270 Examples of the successful application of clemency are provided in the same chapter, while examples of the successful use of severity are recalled in the chapter on justice (Mon. 2.9, admon. 1: “ Justice has to be administered strictly”). In the same chapter (2.9, quaestio: “Is it suitable or useful for the prince to pronounce and pass judgment personally?”), the use of severity and clemency is discussed again. In this context Lipsius stresses that clemency does not only create love, but also fear (while the decision of the judge is pending).271 Similarly, severity does not only create fear, but also love. Lipsius now denies that repeated severity will cause the hatred of the people, arguing that even ordinary people will realise that it is best for the common good.272 It can be inferred from this that the prince can use (repeated) severity if the circumstances and the public interest demand it. These circumstances are not specified, but in the chapter on clemency the practical application of clemency in the judicial sphere is examined in detail, when Lipsius discusses how, when, and by whom punishments can be mitigated or remitted. There the author insists that mercy can only be exhibited by a superior towards an inferior, in practice only by the prince, who has received from God the supreme power over life and death.273 Moreover, the crimes which, according to Lipsius, qualify for forgiveness are all offences against the person of the prince, crimes of lese-majesty. The forgiveness 269

Mon. 2.12. Mon. 2.12. 271 Mon. 2.9, quaestio 1: “Aliqua vero interdum remissio plane ex usu erit, si tamen terror iste et sub magno Iudice praeivit. Ignovit illi Princeps, sed metu, sed ignominia perfuso.” Compare to Mon. 2.12: “Est et communiter illud dogma verissimum: Verecundiam peccandi facit ipsa clementia regentis”. Lipsius quotes Seneca, clem. 1.22.3. 272 Mon. 2.9 quaestio 1. The practice of the prince is again compared to that of a doctor. On the use of medical and corporal imagery in ancient, medieval, and early modern political writing, which was very common, see e.g. De Bom (2011a: 133-134), Kühlmann (1982: 72), Archambault (1967), Hale (1971), Kantorowicz (1957), Hinrichs (1969: 53-58), and Stacey (2007: s.v. prince as medic) and (2015: 294). 273 See o.a. Mon. 2.7 and 2.9bis, quaestio 1. 270

62

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views of those who have committed crimes against religion, which was much debated at the time,274 is not mentioned here. In the Politica (4.4), Lipsius made a distinction between those who offend religion in public and cause disorder, and those who err in private. Regarding the second group, it is better to try to correct them through teaching rather than punishing them: Severity has done harm, and will do harm. Travel through Europe in your thoughts. You will see that by those severe decisions, communities are destroyed rather than corrected. This is the truth indeed.The nature of what we have in our minds is such that it is to be removed by teaching rather than by commanding, by admonition rather than by threats.275 Regarding the first group, however, he recommended the use of severity, again by using a medical analogy: There is no place for clemency here. Burn, cut, in order that some member perishes rather than the whole body.276 This admonition was interpreted literally by Coornhert, upon whom the medical figure of speech was lost, and who accused Lipsius of defending the cruel practices of the Inquisition. Undoubtedly, Lipsius thought it safer not to bring up the subject again in the Monita. As Violet Soen points out, Lipsius’ treatment of clemency did not only offer an answer to Machiavelli, but also to the contemporary political debate on princely clemency during the Dutch Revolt and the French Civil Wars.277 During the Dutch Revolt it was debated whether Philip II should grant pardon for lese-ma­ jesty and repentant heretics, and whether the use of clemency would make him more loved, or if it would create an impression of weakness. According to the Duke of Alba, notorious for his cruelty, clemency would endanger the royal ma­­jesty, and severity should be preferred. As discussed above, Lipsius opted for a middle course, and therefore disapproved of the military strategy of the Duke, whom he called a “bloody tyrant”,278 and approved more of the strategy of clemency propagated by the Duke of Parma, Alexander Farnese, to reconcile the Netherlands. In 1592, Lipsius himself took advantage of this climate of reconciliation to return to Leuven from Leiden.AsViolet Soen observes, it is after this personal experience of clemency 274

Soen (2011) and (2015: 1042-1043). Pol. 4.4.2 (p. 397, ed. Waszink). Lipsius quotes Ps. Sall. rep. 1.6.4 and Aug. epist. 22.5 resp. 276 Pol. 4.3.2 (p. 393, ed. Waszink). Lipsius quotes Cic. Phil. 8.5.15. 277 See Soen (2011) and (2012), whose analysis of Lipsius’ treatment of clemency is summarized here. 278 Orationes octo (1608: 34): “imago sanguinolenti illius et furiosi tyranni, Ducis Albani”, quoted by Vervliet (1969: 34). 275

63

Introduction that Lipsius starts to praise the clemency of his rulers, first in his lesson to the Archdukes (Dissertatiuncula), which was an explanation of a passage from Seneca’s De clementia, and second in the Monita. In the Monita, clemency is recommended and illustrated by examples, starting with the biblical leaders Moses and David. By thus tracing the history of clemency back to the Bible, Lipsius treats clemency foremost as a Christian principle, closely associated with piety. At the time when Lipsius was writing his mirror for princes for Archduke Albert, the Habsburgs had a long tradition of presenting themselves as pious and clement princes.279 Moreover, the Archdukes Albert and Isabella renewed the Farnese strategy of clemency and incorporated clementia in the propaganda for their reign.Thus, by praising the piety and justice of Habsburg kings such as Rudolf I in the Monita, and by implicitly praising the clemency of the dedicatee by comparing him to biblical and ancient leaders known for their clemency, Lipsius found a way to propagate and glorify the Habsburg dynasty and express the loyalty which he had promised the Archdukes (in the Dissertatiuncula) in return for their clemency and benevolent care. 4.1.7. Princely rule: elective or hereditary? In the Monita Lipsius does not offer a detailed discussion and comparison of the different forms of government but restricts himself to arguments in favour of the constitution which he prefers, that is to say, monarchy, mentioning a few disadvantages of aristocracy and democracy in passing. The first four arguments can be found in some form in the Politica (2.2), but they are elaborated here, and new arguments are added. Lipsius’ defence of monarchy as expressed in the Politica has been discussed above.280 In the Monita, he argues that monarchy is the best form of government according to nature, experience, and reason. He praises monarchy in AristotelianThomistic terms as the form of government which “stems from nature”: families, communities, villages, and empires are ruled by one, herd animals and bees have one leader, and the universe is ruled by one God. Similarly, Thomas Aquinas had argued that just like in the divine and natural order of the universe everything is governed by one ‒ the universe by God, the bees by their king, the body by the heart, the soul by reason, a family by its paterfamilias ‒, one man should also be at the head of society.281 In fact, the first people, who were closest to God, chose to be governed by one.282 Not unlike Thomas Aquinas,283 Lipsius argues that the

279

See Pokorny (1978). See pp. 37-38. 281 Thomas Aquinas, De regno, 1.3. Compare to Summa theologiae, 1a q. 105 a. 6.co and Summa contra gentiles, 3.98 n.1. A very similar view of monarchy as the best form of government as exemplified in the natural world, e.g. of the bees, can be found in Seneca (clem. 1.19.2) and is quoted by Lipsius. 282 Mon. 2.1. 283 De Regno, 1.5. 280

64

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views fact that these early monarchies later evolved into aristocracies is the result of a natural process of change according to which “a commonweal goes from a king to a tyrant, from a tyrant to an aristocracy or the people, and from them again to a tyrant and a king”,284 which happens because of contempt and hatred, not for monarchy, but for a certain monarch who has misused his power. Moreover, Lipsius, like Thomas Aquinas,285 stresses that justice, peace, harmony, and safety are better guaranteed by monarchy because one person is more difficult to corrupt than many, and authority or power is stronger when it is not divided. Finally, Lipsius argues that experience shows that monarchies last the longest, and he corroborates his claim with historical examples of long-lasting monarchies and shortlived republics.286 These arguments were shared by many of Lipsius’ contemporaries.Very similar arguments are advanced by Fox Morcillo,287 Juan de Mariana, Giovanni Botero, and Jean Bodin. In his De rege et regis institutione, Mariana adduced many arguments similar to Lipsius’ to show that out of the different forms of government monarchy is the lesser evil.288 In his Six livres de la république (6.4), Jean Bodin, who offers a much more detailed comparison of the different types of government, concludes in favour of monarchy as well, adducing many of the same arguments as Lipsius (and Mariana).289 Similar arguments can be found in Botero’s brief treatise on monarchy, the Discorso dell’ eccellenza della monarchia. There he argues that monarchy should be preferred because it resembles most closely the government of God, who has created, preserves, and governs the world on His own, because virtue and authority or power are greater in one person than when they are divided, and because experience teaches that monarchies have always dominated the entire world and surpass republics in durability and dimensions. While some republics, such as Sparta, have lasted two or three hundred years, monarchies, such as those of the Assyrians, Romans, Scots, English, French, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, and Tatars, are known to have lasted thousands of years. These examples correspond for the most part to those adduced by Lipsius, who also provides a detailed calculation in order to illustrate that monarchies, such as those of the Assyrians, Persians, etc. have lasted much longer than republics, such as those of Rome and Sparta.The only exception, Lipsius acknowledges, is the Republic of Venice. It’s “long life” attracted the attention of constitutional

284

Mon. 1.2. De Regno, 1.3. 286 On Lipsius’ dependence on the Thomistic tradition, see Greenleaf (1964: 747-760) and de Nave (1970b: 449-483). On the revival of Thomism in the sixteenth century see, among others, Skinner (1978:1, 135-173). 287 On Fox Morcillo’s views on monarchy, see e.g. Truman (1999: 64-66). 288 Mariana, De rege 1.2 (1599: 25-26). See further Braun (2007: 15-41). 289 Bodin, De Republica, 6.4 (1594: 1111-1117). 285

65

Introduction theorists, from inside and outside Venice, from Italy as well as from abroad, from the early Renaissance until the 18th century.290 Although Lipsius does not go into detail, he does seem to agree with Bodin and Botero, who attribute the success of Venice to its good laws and administration, not to its republican constitution (for according to these writers,Venice was not so much a republic as an oligarchy or aristocracy). Thus,Venice could serve as a model of good administration to the defenders of monarchy and of republicanism alike. Nevertheless, by finishing the chapter with the praise of a long-lived republic, Lipsius ‒ once more ‒ leaves his readers with something to think about. Once the superiority or preferability of monarchy has been discussed, Lipsius, like Bodin and Mariana, goes on to determine whether the monarch should be appointed through election or hereditary succession. The original chapter of the Politica on the two legitimate ways to come to power, that is to say, via election or hereditary succession, is split into two separate chapters in the Monita, and the discussion is elaborated and expanded. In the Politica the discussion takes the form of a brief but balanced dissertatio in utramque partem, in which Lipsius formulates his own preference with caution (“Succession is more widely accepted, and in some ways better”). The subtitle of the chapter on election in the Monita (“What could argue for it and what could argue against it.”) suggests an equally balanced discussion, but in fact Lipsius first presents half a dozen arguments in favour of election, and then meticulously counters every single one of them, in the order in which they were advanced, in order to conclude: “We have demonstrated above that succession is better and more secure than election.” However, in reality Lipsius does not refute two of the strongest arguments (namely that election allows for the best and most suitable people to come to power, and not for infants). Instead, he adduces two other, strong, but independent arguments against election (namely that often corruption is involved, and that an interregnum often leads to chaos and civil strife), and concludes the discussion with historical examples. Lipsius first advances seven examples of unsuccessful elections involving chance or corruption, thus confirming his point that because election is often decided by wrong criteria or involves bribery, it seldom results in virtuous rule. Nevertheless, he concludes with three examples of the successful election of a virtuous ruler. However, according to Lipsius, these often need to be attributed to divine intervention. The discussion is taken up again in the next chapter (Mon. 2.4: De Successione), in which Lipsius again advances the main arguments in favour of hereditary succession and sets off to answer the main objections against it. Against the first objection, that through hereditary succession bad or incompetent kings come to power, Lipsius answers that, as the historical examples in the previous chapter

290 See, e.g., Skinner (1978: 1,139-189), Gilmore (1974: 431-444), Bouwsma (1974: 445-466), and Gaeta (1961: 58-75).

66

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views have shown, bad kings can come to power through election as well. Secondly, the author admits that through hereditary succession infant kings are sometimes appointed to the throne, but stresses that this is often a punishment by God and that, moreover, this problem can be solved by appointing the mother as regent. Among the main reasons recommending hereditary succession is the fact that the care of a hereditary king for his subjects is greater and, vice versa, the love and obedience of the subjects is greater towards a hereditary king. The most important reason, however, to favour hereditary succession is that it avoids the interregnum created by election after the death of a ruler “since the rights of succession are firmly established in every way by law and custom”. Quite similar arguments had been adduced in favour of hereditary succession by Bodin and Mariana.291 Lipsius then goes on to formulate detailed rules of succession. The formulation and illustration of rules for hereditary succession are new compared to the Politica, and draw heavily on the treatment of the subject by Bodin in his Six livres de la république (6.5) and by Mariana in the De rege (1.3-4). Lipsius agrees with Bodin and Mariana that in theory the first-born son should be preferred. Like them, he indicates that there can be some doubt when the oldest son dies prematurely and leaves behind an heir. According to some his oldest son should be preferred, whereas others favour the brother of the deceased. Lipsius illustrates these rules with examples, many of which can also be found in Bodin or Mariana.292 Mariana’s recommendations from the De rege are summarized in his Historiae de rebus Hispaniae (20.3), which also provides Lipsius with examples of election and succession from Spanish history.293 When Lipsius tries to formulate rules of hereditary succession, however, it soon becomes clear that what is prescribed is often difficult to reconcile with what historical evidence suggests actually happened, as implied in the title of the second admonition that “The first-born are preferred, although in some examples it is sometimes different”. The historical examples adduced to illustrate these rules demonstrate that they have in fact generated many a succession crisis, thus undermining Lipsius’ principal argument for hereditary succession, i.e. that it avoids civil discord generated by interregna. A study of conflicting Iberian traditions, laws, and examples of hereditary succession in the De rege had led Juan de Mariana to draw the same conclusion.294

291

Mariana, De rege, 1.3 (1599: 39-40) and Bodin, De Republica, 6.5 (1594: 1124-1130). For more details on the specific examples, see our commentary on the relevant chapter of the Monita. 293 See, e.g., Mon. 2.3.10 and 2.4.9. 294 Mariana, De rege (1599: 48-55). See Braun (2007: 49-54). 292

67

Introduction 4.1.8. Princely rule: male or female? A final question related to monarchy regards the sex of the monarch (Mon. 2.2).295 By addressing this question, Lipsius entered into the popular contemporary debate over female power, which was part of a larger intellectual debate about the nature and role of women (often indicated by the French title Querelle des Femmes), which was held in many European countries during the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries. Scholars, theologians, merchants, and others fiercely debated the role of women in society, addressing questions such as: Should women be educated? Should they participate in politics? Should they own property? Should they be cloistered in convents? Should they be able to appear in court? Should there be restrictions upon their clothing, their speech, their travel, or their sexuality? Prowomen writers such as Christine de Pizan and Thomas Elyot used the example of illustrious and virtuous women of the past, such as Zenobia, to defend female rulers against the attacks of authors such as Vives, Erasmus, John Knox, and Jean Bodin, who argued that both nature and God have made women inferior to men and therefore unfit to rule.296 Such gendered polemics were generally inspired by the Church Fathers’ conviction of women’s propensity to sin, and usually revolved around ancient commonplaces on this topic, taken from Plato, Plutarch, and especially Aristotle.297 Thus, Aristotle points to the destructive lust of women for riches and luxury and their licentiousness, and claims that any involvement of women in politics is unnatural.298 Men are naturally more robust, more rational, and less subject to fluctuating emotions while women are more timid and do not have sound judgment.299 Such arguments can also be found in Lipsius’ treatment of the subject, and are similar to the arguments adduced against gynaecocracy by Jean Bodin. Lipsius argues that men are naturally stronger, while women are weak and unable to inspire fear, so they do not have authority. They are shrewd, inconstant, and incapable of sound judgment. They lack the two most important virtues of princes, namely justice and faithfulness. They are not just because they are inclined to pity and give in easily to sympathy and emotions; they are not faithful because they change their mind all the time. Although one would expect them to be clement, they are in fact cruel and vindictive. Moreover, they are licentious and luxurious.300 Similarly, 295 On the treatment of female rule in the Monita, see also Lindberg (2001: 97-100), Van Houdt (2007), and Tucker (2011). 296 The literature on the subject is vast. Good starting-points for a study of women and power in early modern times are Janssen (2008), Wiener-Hanks (20083: 276-302), and Levin-Meyer (2016). 297 MacLean (1980: 47-67, esp. 60). 298 Aristot. Politica, 2.9 [1269b 12ff]. One of the ancient examples of female intervention in public life is Sparta. Aristotle’s discussion of this is quoted in Mon. 2.17. 299 Aristot. EN, 8.10 [1160b 21ff], Oeconomica, 1.3 [1343b 27ff], Politica, 1.13 [1260a 11]. 300 Mon. 2.2. Compare to Lipsius’ unfavourable attitude towards the female sex in the De Constantia. See Sperberg-McQueen (1995).

68

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views Bodin argued that gynaecocracy goes against natural, divine, and civil law. It is unnatural for a man to obey a woman because men have been endowed with all the qualities to rule such as strength, foresight, pugnacity, and authority, but God has deprived women of these qualities. Moreover, the law of God explicitly instructs that women should be subject, not only in matters concerning law and government, but also within each family. Bodin adduced the same quotation from the Bible as Lipsius, stating that one of the most terrible threats uttered against the enemy was that they will be ruled over by women (Isaiah, 3.12).301 Even the laws of nations forbid women all charges and offices allowed to men, such as judging and pleading, and rights, such as owning land or possessions. This is not only because of their lack of prudence, but also because vigorous action is contrary to their sex, and to the natural modesty and reserve of women. Many of the female examples adduced by Bodin, such as Joan of Naples, Athalia, Cleopatra, and Faustina, feature in the Monita as well. The title of the chapter in the Monita, “In monarchy men are to be preferred to women, and women hardly ever rule successfully”, indicates a more pronounced preference for male dominion than the title and conclusion of the corresponding chapter of the Politica (2.3). There Lipsius asked “of which sex the prince should be”, and concluded that “Therefore women are capable of wielding the sceptre, as these latter authors deem to be the case, and as I do also, provided that law and ancestral custom do not decree otherwise”.302 Many of the arguments adduced in the Monita correspond to those of the Politica: men are by nature more suited to rule; they are prudent and constant, while women are cruel and lascivious. The argument adduced in the Politica that it is indecorous and shameful for men to be subjected to women is not stressed in the Monita, but additional arguments against gynaecocracy are introduced, such as the emotional instability and changeability of women, and are now also supported by a quotation from the Bible, so that it is clear that women do not have any of the key qualities attributed to the good prince by Lipsius in the rest of the work, that is to say constancy, prudence, and justice. However, the author admits, just as in the Politica, that historical examples (of successful female rulers) and custom seem to argue in favour of female rule. Unlike in the Politica, however, these arguments in favour of female dominion are not elaborated on in the Monita. Lipsius adduces examples of both unsuccessful and successful female dominion. There are, however, more examples of bad rule (seven) than of good rule (four). Moreover, with the exception of Isabella, these women are represented either as monsters or as saints, personifying male attitudes and interests,303 or displaying 301

Bodin, De Republica, 6.5 (1594: 1154). igitur sceptri: ut hi quidem censent. atque etiam ego, nisi lex aut mos patrius aliter iubent.” (Lipsius, Pol. 2.3 (p. 302, ed. Waszink). For an analysis of this passage, see Jansen (2008: 111112). 303 See Spongberg (2002: 18) and Redondo (1994: 294). 302 “Capaces

69

Introduction typically ‘female’ virtues such as chastity, modesty, patience, and faithfulness or obedience to their husbands, which were considered imperfect virtues by Aristotle, and which mainly regard the domestic rather than the public sphere.304 Nevertheless, by providing examples of both good and bad female rule, Lipsius gives his readers the chance to construct their own discourse or argument, and draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, by finishing his discussion with examples of successful female rulers, he certainly left his readers with something to think about. An equally ambiguous position can be found in the chapter on chastity (2.17), where Lipsius again seems to adopt an anti-female position. Here he repeats how indecorous and servile it is for rulers to be subjected to women, like Claudius was to Agrippina and Messalina, and how one cannot and should not entrust political secrets to them. If there is a task for women in the state, Lipsius says, it is that of pacifying and helping the unfortunate, like the Homeric Queen Arete. Similarly, in the chapter on female rule (Mon. 2.2), Phile, the wife of King Demetrius and daughter of Antipater, was praised for helping the poor, encouraging and pacifying the soldiers, and for being faithful to her husband.305 Otherwise, it is better for them to obey their natural modesty and stay at home, as Queen Maria of Aragon did (Mon. 2.17). For examples such as Queen Isabella, praised earlier on in the work (Mon. 2.2), are rare: And to tell the truth, women like Isabella, just like Phoenixes, are hardly born once in five hundred years. Still, if you meet such a person, it is useful to listen, even if she does not equal Isabella; but you should listen, not always obey.306 This discussion is followed by examples of chastity (castitas) and marital love (caritas). Among them are many chaste women who have been extremely faithful to their husbands. This seems to contradict Lipsius’ earlier statements in the chapter on female rule (Mon. 2.2), where he had denounced women for their lasciviousness. Lipsius must have been aware of the inconsistency, for he tries to explain it as follows: women live in extremes; they are either extremely bad (like Agrippina or Messalina) or extremely good (like Isabella).307 Finally, as has been pointed out by Hugo Tucker, in the chapter on justice (Mon. 2.9) – a quality which Lipsius had previously said was lacking in women ‒ he associates this essential regal quality with a female figure. In the same chapter Lipsius also quotes a Homeric passage, in which Ulysses, disguised, addresses his wife Penelope, comparing her to an ideal king. This has led Tucker to conclude that there seems to be “an intertextual tension between Lipsius’ more pronounced 304 Aristot. NE, 4.9 [1128b 10ff], 7.7 [1150a 30ff]. See further MacLean (1980: 51 and 55). Thus, Isabella is praised for never drinking wine and for her patience in childbirth. 305 Mon. 2.2.2bis. 306 Mon. 2.17. 307 Mon. 2.17.20: “At haec in faeminis sunt, quarum ad honesta aut prava maior saepe impetus.”

70

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views pro-male monarchical position in certain chapters of the Monita, and the counter-balancing pro-female implications of his Homeric source texts, if examined or remembered in their original context”, and that “it is up to the reader either to disregard that original context and apply the force of the verba to the more extreme pro-male position of Lipsius’ new cento-text, or to balance the pro-female res of that original context against Lipsius’ surface argument in a kind of unresolved tension.”308 4.1.9. Provisional conclusion Our analysis has revealed the affinity of Lipsius’ views with those of contemporary authors such as Botero, Mariana, Ribadeneyra, and Bodin. Lipsius was indeed familiar with their works, of which he kept copies in his library. The analysis has also confirmed that there are some new emphases in the Monita compared to the Politica, but that they do not necessarily imply major departures from earlier views because some statements are not as unambiguous as they seem to be at first sight. Not infrequently the historical examples adduced by Lipsius contradict his argument, causing serious interpretative difficulties. These need to be examined in more detail. 4.2. Difficulties of interpretation Earlier we defined Lipsius’ Politica and Monita as commonplace books because they gather sententiae (Politica) and exempla (Monita) from different sources under various headings. As demonstrated by Ann Moss, and indicated above, one of the intentions or functions of commonplace books was to generate argument or discourse. In the Politica Lipsius indeed used quotations from other authors, which he connected with his own words to generate a new text and new meanings. This is acknowledged by Lipsius at the start of the book when he says: For I have instituted an unusual kind of genre, in which I could truly say that everything is mine, and nothing. For although the selection and the arrangement are mine, the words and phrases I have gathered from various places in the ancient writers. […] But I have not in fact given bare or scattered maxims, to prevent them from flowing around and being mortar without limestone: but I have either connected them fittingly, or I have here and there joined them together with the cement, so to speak, of my own words.309 The sources of Lipsius’ borrowings are indicated in the inner margins, while the new argument that Lipsius constructed with them is signalled in the outer margins, 308 Tucker 309

(2011: 189-190). Pol., prelim. 4 = “de consilio et forma nostri operis” (p. 233, ed. Waszink).

71

Introduction which contain brief summaries of the main text. As has been stressed by Ann Moss,310 they only constitute a suggested outline for argument, indicating one of many possible ways to use the quotations. According to her, it was not Lipsius’ intention to construct and close arguments, as this would go against the nature and purpose of the commonplace book, which is characterised by open-endedness. Rather, he wanted to provide the reader with a set of quotations or sentences expressing a plurality of opinions which the reader could supplement or use to construct his own discourse: It has occurred to me, Reader, to add these notes, so that I may be the interpreter both of my own words and of those of others. That is my main purpose. But if, in so doing, anything pleasing or beautiful should come of it, it will be an example to you that you should augment and elucidate further this work of mine. For what is it other than, as it were, a well-ordered book of accounts, or commonplaces, to which you may attach either what you have read or are about to read on that topic. Look, and imitate.311 Moreover, by referring the reader to the original sources of the quotations, indicated in the margin, Lipsius encourages the reader to find other meanings in the original context which may supplement or qualify the explicit meaning of Lipsius’ text, thus creating multiple layers of meaning and interpretation.312 Such open-endedness and multiplicity of possible interpretations was also characteristic of the cento-genre. A cento is a “poem constructed out of extracted quotations, displaced and relocated, often with fully intended irony and double meanings”.313 With the Politica, Lipsius indeed claims to have created a new genre, “a particular kind of cento”, that is the prose cento.314 The use of the cento-form in the 16th and early 17th centuries has been studied extensively by Hugo Tucker.315 He claims that the Monita is intended to amplify, as well as to illustrate and clarify, this intertextual richness and complexity of the Politica. According to Tucker, the 310

Moss (1998: 427-428). Lipsius, Notae (p. 722, ed. Waszink): “Has [Notas] mihi visum addere, Lector, ut dictis meis alienisque interpres sim, et transferam te alibi haerentem. Praecipuus ille finis. quod si laetum interdum aliquid aut floridum interveniet; exemplum tibi erit, qui nostra haec auges et illustres. Quid enim aliud ista, quam velut tabulae quaedam dispositae, et loci communes sunt, ad quos commode referas lecta tibi in hoc argumento aut legenda? Vide, et imitare.” This explicit statement seems to contradict Jones’ heterodox viewpoint that the Politica cannot be considered as a commonplace book in the proper sense of the word. See Jones (2011: 76). 312 It is important to stress that Waszink (2004: 49-79) sharply disagrees with this view. He sees a coherent argument prevailing over the free collection-aspect emphasized by Ann Moss. 313 Moss (1998: 429). 314 On the Politica as cento and commonplace book, see Tucker (2011), Moss (1996b) and (1998), Waszink (1997a, b and 2004: 55-58), and Lafond (1981). 315 See e.g. Tucker (2002) and (2005). On the Monita as a cento, see Tucker (2011). 311

72

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views intertextual dialogue set up in the Politica between the cento-text and its source texts, as well as between the author and the reader, who is invited to participate in the dialogue and to create his own interpretation of the text, continues in the Monita.316 He illustrates this by examining the original context of some of the quotations and examples in the Monita regarding Lipsius’ position on gynaecocracy (cf. supra). Ann Moss, however, seems to disagree with Hugo Tucker. According to her, the Monita, contrary to the Politica, was not intended to generate thought because the material used here, that is, examples, is very different.317 In her view historical narratives, contrary to quotations, convey a moral message which is unequivocal. She stresses that, moreover, Lipsius does not provide attributions for his exempla, nor dialectical operators in the margins.318 She attributes the difference between the two works to the intellectually repressive climate of the Catholic South in which the Monita originated, which did not welcome the opportunity commonplace books created for individuals to produce reasoned discourse from their collected knowledge, as well as to Lipsius’ old age: Le style rompu de l’adulte cède aux longues narrations de la vieillesse. Le grand édifice public des Politica est délaissé pour la maison de retraite […].319 It is true that Lipsius did not provide attributions for his examples. He does, however, provide references for most of the quotations he adduces. Moreover, most of the exemplary figures adduced in the Monita were well-known, and the educated reader would have been familiar with the various sources dealing with a particular historical figure. Because the reader can bring this prior knowledge to bear on each individual citation of an exemplary story, historical narratives are as open to interpretation as quotations.Their meaning is essentially unstable and can never be pinned down definitively. Moreover, examples can be used to stimulate reflection by arranging them in such a way that they challenge the moral category which 316

In his view, this could be implied in the first chapter of the Monita, when Lipsius invites his conversation partner to come in and sit down with him to talk. In our view, also the following sentence from Lipsius’ preface to the reader could indeed be interpreted as such: “Tu istis fruere et re­­ liqua exspecta (utiliora haud dubie et rariora, ut res et materia est) exspecta, inquam, si Deus, vita et otium dabunt. Si non, a te suppone, et dedi exemplum.” 317 See e.g. Moss (1998: 433): “Here (i.e. in the Monita) are rather lax amplifications leading to narrations of exemplary events and figures from history ancient and modern, long, loose paraphrases of texts which are not identified. There is neither the philological nor the dialectical rigor of the Politica.” 318 Something which can also be observed in later translations of the Politica itself. See Moss (1998: 434-435). 319 Moss (1996b: 478). Compare Moss (2011: 114): “In some ways the Monita is a retreat from politics, a retreat back into the leisured seclusion beloved of humanists out of which Lipsius reluctantly agrees to ‘scatter’ his examples, to be picked up at random.They are the last bequest of this old man.”

73

Introduction they are supposed to illustrate or in such a way that they contradict each other. In this way they open rather than close arguments and can be used as a deliberate strategy to increase moral understanding, in much the same way as a disputatio or dissertatio in utramque partem are supposed to do. From antiquity to the Renaissance, students were encouraged to argue every side of a question in order to shape their judgment and advance their moral understanding.320 Some sections of the Monita also take the shape of such dissertations, as Lipsius sometimes indicates when he inserts a “quaestio”, a term which was also used to refer to this teaching technique or exercise.321 Especially the chapters on election versus succession and female versus male rule, and the quaestio on the administration of justice by the prince systematically discuss arguments and examples pro and contra before concluding in favour of one side or the other. Although Lipsius does usually reach some kind of conclusion, the reader is still at liberty to form his own opinion based on the arguments presented by the author. Moreover, he can explore the contradictions between the text and its source-texts, between the examples and the precepts, and between the Monita and the text it is supposed to illustrate and clarify, the Politica. In these cases, it is hard not to consider this as a strategy deliberately used by Lipsius to shape the judgment of his reader since, moreover, the Politica seems to contain a comparable strategy. For in the chapter on prudence (Mon.1.8), Lipsius explicitly says that one can acquire prudence, defined as knowledge of facts and events and a correct judgment of them, by studying history. In the first chapter of the work Lipsius indeed indicates that it is the intention of his work to shape the prudence of princes and politicians through historical examples. If some of the examples are contradictory or evoke different interpretations, this would be in line with Lipsius’ educational purposes and the spirit of the commonplace book. However, the questions or debates mentioned here concern less essential aspects of Lipsius’ political theory.The question of whether it is in the interest of the ruler and the community to use immoral means, such as deceit, on the contrary, is one of the more controversial issues of the Politica, and one which touches the very core of Lipsius’ political views. Does Lipsius also leave room for interpretation when discussing questions like this one? Does he, in other words, use historical examples to teach what he had called “mixed prudence”? According to Harald Braun,322 this question should be answered positively. He argues that the message which is revealed in the historical narratives of the Monita is in fact the same message which the Politica contains more explicitly: that it is 320 See Langlands (2008), with further bibliography. She has demonstrated convincingly how Valerius Maximus used examples (and their instability) to promote ethical deliberation within a tradition of ‘controversial’ thinking. Her observations are similar to those of David Rundle (1998), who suggests that Erasmus also deliberately employed classical examples and allusions to ancient literature to subversive effect in his Panegyricus. 321 See below p. 101. 322 Braun (2011).

74

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views in the interest of the politician and the common good to sometimes act against traditional (Christian) morality. One of the examples Braun uses to demonstrate his thesis is that of Livius Drusus, adduced in the chapter on conscience (Mon. 1.6). Here Lipsius argues that statesmen should not pretend to be virtuous (as Machiavelli had argued), but should actually be so in order to win the favour of God and the people, and avoid being tortured by their conscience (cf. supra). The only example adduced to demonstrate this is that of Livius Drusus, who is praised for not wanting to hide any of his actions. The experienced reader would know that Roman historians indeed praised this politician for his integrity, but that he was ultimately unsuccessful as a politician, and that his political career ended in murder. Examples like this could leave the reader to conclude that integrity was politically inexpedient and thus contradict Lipsius’ explicit statements on the matter. According to Braun, Lipsius indeed invites the reader to investigate the career of Livius Drusus and draw his own conclusions from it by ending the chapter with the following words:“I am not sure whether he lived in accordance with his words and I do not inquire into it.”323 However, the examples which confirm Lipsius’ repeated claims that honesty and piety will be rewarded by God while immorality and impiety will be punished far outnumber those which contradict them. Most of the historical examples in the work are geared towards Lipsius’ providentialist interpretation of history: by inserting explicit authorial comments, the author directs the reader to a certain interpretation of the examples. In general, when more central and potentially more controversial issues of his political theory are at stake, Lipsius seems to guide the reader more towards specific conclusions. Thus, Lipsius’ treatment of the best form of government is not a balanced discussion in which he compares different constitutions and presents arguments for and against each of them, but a simple assertion of his preference for monarchy, supported by plenty of arguments and examples of successful monarchies. Nevertheless, Lipsius does adduce one counterexample, namely the Republic of Venice. Elsewhere in the work there are also occasional examples which contradict Lipsius’ argument, as our own analysis of the text (in subsection 4.1) has revealed. Moreover, whereas most of the time Lipsius strongly guides the reader to certain interpretations or conclusions, there are also instances where there is no guidance at all. As indicated above, there are a number of thorny issues which Lipsius does not explicitly address at all, such as the punishment of heretics, tyrannicide, or the unity of religion, and the reader is left to draw his own conclusions from Lipsius’ examples. According to Harald Braun, Lipsius deliberately reduces authorial control in the Monita and increases the interpretative power of the reader by letting him draw his own conclusions from the historical examples in order to avoid the kind of controversy triggered by the Politica. However, we find it difficult 323

Mon.1.6.1.

75

Introduction to determine whether this is indeed a deliberate strategy used by Lipsius to stimulate reflection and invite different interpretations. Sometimes it is rather his desire to avoid controversial issues that seems to unwittingly create problems of interpretation. In other words, the instability of examples can be deliberately exploited by the author but may also unconsciously work against him.324 Whether Lipsius intended to or not, the reader is always at liberty to interpret certain examples differently, put them to different use, or add examples of his own. The essential instability of historical examples and the problems of interpretation and application they entail would eventually lead future generations of political advisers to reject historical examples as a suitable source or means of political instruction. This evolution has been described by, amongst others, Timothy Hampton, Antony Grafton, and Jacob Soll. When history as a guide for life was in its heyday, in the decades just before and after 1600, “sceptical discussions about the cognitive feasibility of ethical and exemplary history” started to undermine the validity of commonplace books of historical exempla.325 Early doubts as to whether scholars and historians could really advise politicians were expressed by, amongst others, Isaac Casaubon and Joseph Justus Scaliger. Casaubon warned of the effect of negative examples, and of misapplication, as in the case of the Earl of Essex, who was supposedly incited to rebellion by a quotation from the ancients cited by his humanist adviser and reader in history and politics, Henry Cuffe.326 Similarly, Scaliger blamed Lipsius for signing his own death warrant by trying to formulate advice on politics based on his reading of the ancients, which no scholar could or should do.327 A more systematic attack on Lipsius’ practice of collecting historical examples came from his contemporary Bartholomaeus Keckermann, according to whom there was no point in collecting historical examples at all.328 These would only mean something if they stood for general concepts and these could not be found in history. Therefore, the reader should not expect to find instruction in history.329 In his view, history was solely a catalogue of individual events and actions, to be investigated in relation to the circumstances in which they took place. Given the fact that we can never know those circumstances in their entirety, 324

Compare Janssens (2012: 499-503). Moss (2011: 114); Grafton (2007: 189-254). 326 Grafton (2007: 198; 206-207; 238-240) and Jardine – Grafton (1990). Compare the example adduced by Hampton (1990: 1-3) of Girolamo Oligati, who claimed that his attack on the Milanese tyrant Galeazzo Maria Sforza was inspired by his reading of Sallust’s history of the Catilinarian conspiracy, which he had studied with his humanist preceptor Cola Montano. 327 Scaligeriana (1695: 245): “neque est [i.e. Lipsius] Politicus, nec potest quicquam in Politia: nihil possunt pedantes in illis rebus; nec ego nec alius doctus possemus scribere in Politicis”, as quoted by De Bom (2011a: 20). 328 On Keckermann’s critique of Lipsius and Bodin, see Moss (2011: 110-111), Grafton (2007: 217231), Brown (1939: 181-189), and Nordman (1932: 288-289). 329 Grafton (2007: 218-222), Brown (1939: 181-189), and Nordman (1932: 288-289). 325

76

Towards a Reassessment of Lipsius’ Political Views it is inappropriate for the historian to insert personal judgment either directly or indirectly by relating the historical record to ethical concepts.330 As Antony Grafton points out,331 the practice of collecting historical examples thus started to collapse from within; at the same time, it was weakened from the outside. Keckermann, for instance, argued that direct experience acquired through travel could provide essential information for politics. This is a fact which humanists like Lipsius readily acknowledged. However, Keckermann explicitly added: information which cannot be found in texts because “not everything that we hear or see is written down”.332 It was only a short step from Keckermann to Descartes, who would argue that travel and history yielded exactly equivalent levels of insight.333 Soon travel accounts, pamphlets (containing eye-witness accounts of battles, etc.), archives, official documents, correspondences, etc. gained importance as sources of political instruction, while ancient histories were discredited as fantasies, often written long after the events, unable to (completely) fill modern needs. Jacob Soll points out how Louis XIV’s Instructions, written by his adviser JeanBaptiste Colbert, did not use classical references or historical maxims, but focused on the king’s own achievements and on contemporary questions of finance and taxation: the modern world was taking the place of the ancients. Under Colbert’s direction royal pedagogy became more technocratic, focused on expertise, finance, and natural sciences. The royal press, once a centre of humanist printing, now turned to scientific and technical manuals. Soll demonstrates how a new type of absolutism, new forms of rationalism, natural law, the quarrel of the Ancients and Moderns, political economy, the rise of a financial and military-industrial complex, and the natural sciences all changed political culture.334 Early modern state-builders were not concerned with commonplace maxims, but with technical (economic) expertise. Rather than turning to ancient history and the idea of universal political knowledge, leading politicians travelled to witness markets and factories and turned to natural knowledge, making humanists like Lipsius and their historical knowledge redundant. So did Lipsius intend his text and examples to be multi-layered, ambiguous, or even subversive? Or did he, unwittingly, prove those scholars right who had denied that (ancient) history could offer detailed models for action in the modern world while he was trying to disprove them? However unsatisfactory it may 330 Keckermann, Opera omnia (Geneva: Petrus Aubertus, 1614: 2, co1. 1310). “Historia non est rerum, seu praeceptorum universalium, sive non est notitia universalis, sed singularis, restricta et determinata ad individua, et ad circumstantias temporum, locorum et personarum.” See Moss (2011: 111). 331 Grafton (2007: 229). For the “crisis of exemplarity” in early modern times, see also, e.g., Rigolot (1998) and Burke (2011). 332 Keckermann, Apparatus practicus (1609: 1, 116), as quoted by Grafton (2007: 229-230). 333 Grafton (2007: 230). 334 Soll (2011).

77

Introduction be, we may have to agree with Antony Grafton that because we will never know Lipsius’ true intentions, we can only describe his achievements and analyse them in their historical context.335 Such an analysis suggests that the ambiguity which characterises the Monita may, at times, be an unwanted and accidental side effect of Lipsius’ use of examples, rather than one intended and desired by him.

Section 5 The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution 5.1. Lipsius’ sources 5.1.1. Lipsius’ own works as a source for the Monita 5.1.1.1. Lipsius’ notebooks Lipsius kept notebooks with quotations and examples, which have been preserved at the University Library of Leiden and are very likely to have been a direct source for the Monita.336 Of these autograph manuscripts, Ms. Lips. 32 contains a Iusti Lipsii Liber Locorum Communium, a collection of apophthegmata (sayings), gnomae (longer sayings), and similitudines (comparisons), arranged under alphabetically ordered headings.337 These cover a wide range of subjects, reaching from Amor and Ebrietas to Gloria and Magistratus, and contain simple references to passages of interest or actual quotations of such passages, sub-divided into the above-mentioned categories (gnomae, similitudines, etc.). There are several headings which also feature in the Monita, such as castitas, clementia, constantia, fatum et fors fortunae, fides et perfidia, and religio, as well as subjects related to the Monita or (political) instruction, including divinatio, doctrina et litterae, educatio et institutio filiorum, historia, leges, li­­ beralitas, munera et corruptio, peregrinatio, principes et principatus (sub-divided into bonus and malus), respublica et eius conservatio, sapientia, somnus, somnia, tributa, virtus, vulgus eiusque natura, etc. At the end of the manuscript there is a collection of animalia, ethica, and geographica (related to various peoples and countries, such as Hispani, Lusitani,Tatari, Galli, India, etc.), and some more headings with empty pages to be completed. A second manuscript, Ms. Lips. 58, contains a Iusti Lipsii Exemplorum et Consiliorum Liber, a collection of exempla and monita or consilia, arranged under lemmata without any particular order,338 which contain references as well as some elaborated stories.They cover various topics, most of which are related to political 335

Grafton (1987). For a brief description of these notebooks, see J. Papy in Lipsius en Leuven (165-167) and Was­ zink (2004: 54–55). 337 The alphabetical order is sometimes disturbed by opposites. Thus between “liberalitas” and “libertas” we find “avaritia”. 338 They are not arranged alphabetically, but sometimes by opposite or affinity. 336

78

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution instruction in general or are explicitly present in the Monita. Examples of virtues are collected under headings such as Fidei exempla, Amoris exempla, Libertas in Aulis et Veritas, magnanimitas ducum, Liberalitas, pietas in patriam, in filium, etc. Some headings regard religion and fate, such as Religio, Impietas, Fortuna reciprocans, or Magica aut Divina. Other sections are devoted to military history and statistics, such as pugnae illustres, magnitudo urbium, nocturna proelia, opida magna, or varietas militiae; or politics in general (e.g. de paupertate principum). There is also a remarkable interest in the ‘dark side’ of politics, as indicated by headings such as fraudes, Necessitas, pax oblata, Improbitas felix, Reges litterati haud optimi, Falsi principes, and Caedes Principis. Some headings regard specific people or dynasties, such as Austriacae gentis origo, Medicaei, and Imperator Hispaniae; or even specific kings, such as Philippi Macedonis laudes, Isabellae reginae laudes, or splendor Philippi Boni. Others collect information on (political) historiographers, such as Philippi Cominaei vita or Roderici Toletani laudes. At the end, a heading Austria/Austrii contains a list of rulers, as well as themes such as corruptio or uxor, with references, and a heading Turcica, with an alphabetical list of related subjects. Given the great number of topics related to the Monita, Lipsius must have found inspiration for this work in his notebooks, although it is difficult to find many concrete examples of their influence. The main reasons for this is the fact that the handwriting is difficult to read and that most examples are mere references. However, sometimes it is possible to see a glimpse of the Monita. Thus the story of the impiety of Adolf of Egmond towards his father Arnold, Duke of Gelre, related in Mon. 2.5.9 (“De fraude et violentia”), can be found almost literally in Lipsius’ notebook under the lemma impietatis exempla.339 Similarly, when making a note about Emperor Rudolf I of Austria under the heading Austria/ Austrii,340 Lipsius refers to Gerardus de Roo, whose Annales rerum belli domique ab Austriacis Habsburgicae gentis principibus a Rudolpho primo usque ad Carolum V. gestarum indeed seems to be the source of some examples about Rudolf I in the Monita (1.2.admon.3, 4 and 2.5.6). Sometimes, however, we find examples in the notebooks which also occur in the Monita, but with a different wording.Thus, the story of Alexander the Great who rejects a woman because she is married, listed under the heading castitas et continentia, can also be found in the Monita (2.17.5:“De castitate”), but with different phrasing.341 Therefore, although the notebooks are very likely to have been at the basis of the Monita (and the Politica), this does not mean that Lipsius slavishly copied examples from them. This is also the case with examples which can be found in other works by Lipsius.

339

Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2, foll. 13v-14r. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2. 341 Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 32, fol. 12. 340

79

Introduction 5.1.1.2. The Politica, Notae, and De una religione Since the Monita was conceived as an illustration of the Politica, most subjects treated in the first two books of the Politica are also treated in the Monita, although some have been omitted and others have been added, as we have indicated above.342 In the introductory paragraphs of various chapters of the Monita, which summarize or elaborate the argument developed in the Politica, the same or similar definitions, etymologies, arguments, and methaphors occur. Especially the chapters on monarchy, female rule, election and succession (Mon. 2.1-4) elaborate arguments from the Politica. However, Lipsius seems to avoid quoting the same sentences as in the Politica. When the same quotations occur, they usually take a slightly different form. Thus in Mon. 2.8 Lipsius uses a quotation from Tacitus (Ann. 3.55.4) to illustrate that the example of the prince is a more effective way to instil virtue into the people than law.The same quotation is adduced in Pol. 2.9 when discussing the same subject. In the Monita, however, the author has added the sentence which precedes this passage in the Tacitean original, which indicates that it concerns Vespasian, thus turning it into a historical example. The same can be noticed with the quotations and examples which occur in the Notae. These explanatory notes were first published separately in 1589, under the title Ad libros Politicorum breves notae, and would subsequently be published together with new editions of the Politica, while being extended and added to. These notes clarified and elaborated some individual topics and ideas treated in the Politica with more quotations and examples. Some chapters of the Notae clearly formed the starting point for the further illustration of the Politica offered in the Monita. Thus, the framework for the chapters on superstition and fate (Mon. 1.3 and 5) can be found in the Notae to Politica 1.3 (pp. 725-730, ed. Waszink). Similar arguments are adduced and many of the same instances are quoted (e.g. from Livy, Curtius Rufus, Lucretius, and Nicephorus Gregoras) with minor alterations. Thus, two of the same passages from Plutarch are quoted (Plut., Cam. 6.4 and Sert. 11.3),343 but the Latin translations in the Monita of the original Greek text differ somewhat from those of the Notae. Sometimes it is not exactly the same passage which is quoted in the Monita, but one immediately following the passage quoted in the Notae.344 The Notae also contain quite a few historical examples, for instance on modesty and forbearance. These are usually supplemented with other examples in the Monita (Mon. 2.14-15, and 17 bis), although some examples are reused. Thus, the Notae (p. 749, ed. Waszink) feature a long eulogy of Queen Isabella of Spain, parts of which recur in different chapters of the Monita. Isabella’s constancy in childbirth, for instance, mentioned in the Notae, is recalled in the chapter on 342

See subsection 3.1.1. Not. 1.3 (pp. 725-726, ed. Waszink). 344 For example, this is the case with the quotations from Nicephorus Gregoras adduced in Mon. 1.5 and in the Notae (p. 729, ed. Waszink). 343

80

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution constancy (Mon. 1.7), while her predilection for Latin is mentioned in the chapter on prudence (Mon. 1.8). In reply to Coornhert’s attack, Lipsius also published the Adversus Dialogistam liber de una religione (1590).The work is referred to in the chapter on religion in the Monita (1.2) and was at the basis of its composition. Similar arguments, and some of the same quotations (e.g. from Plutarch) and metaphors (e.g. religion compared to the foundations of a house) are adduced in the Monita.345 As far as examples are concerned, both works seem to be complementary (as was the case for the Notae). Thus, the opinion that people who introduce new and false beliefs should be punished because they only incite others to rebellion is elaborated in De una religione and illustrated with numerous examples, from ancient and more recent, especially Ottoman, history, concluding with John of Leiden. More examples, such as Joan of Arc, had been adduced in the Notae.346 Therefore Lipsius confines himself in the Monita to only one example, namely that of Girolamo Savonarola. 5.1.1.3. De Constantia and Physiologia Stoicorum In the Politica and the Monita, the teachings of De Constantia are repeated and applied to the prince. As in De Constantia (1.13-14; 17), citizens were advised to be patient and constant in the face of fate, princes are told to adopt constancy and obedience to divine will in the Politica (1.4.3) and the Monita (1.5 and 7). These three treatises are components of the same political programme: they complement one another,347 and all develop a theory of obedience and constancy.348 The Monita takes up and reiterates certain arguments from De Constantia in a condensed form, while elaborating others by singling them out in the form of admonitions and illustrating them by means of examples. Certain etymologies, definitions, metaphors, and quotations from De Constantia are used throughout the Monita to demonstrate the existence of divine providence and free will, especially in the chapters on fate and constancy (Mon. 1.5 and 7). Thus in the Monita (1.5) Lipsius gives a similar etymology of the word “Fatum” as he had given in De Constantia.349 While we find (brief) examples of the inevitable decay of political bodies in De Constantia (1.15-16) and in the Notae (pp. 729-730, ed. Waszink),350 in the Monita not only the downfall, but 345

For details see our commentary on the relevant passages. Notae 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink). 347 De Constantia is explicitly connected to the Politica in Pol., prelim., 4, as are the Monita to the Politica in Mon. ad Lect. 348 See, e.g., Senellart (1994) and Oestreich (1982 and 1989). 349 De Constantia, 1.19: “Fatum enim certe a fando, nec aliud proprie quam dictum et iussum divinum”. Compare to Mon. 1.5: “Quid enim aliud est Fatum (dicet pro me Minutius Felix) quam id quod de unoquoque nostrum fatus est Deus?”, quoting Min. Oct. 36. 350 Thus in the Notae (pp. 729-730, ed. Waszink) Caesar’s victory over Pompey and the victory of the Romans over Hannibal are mentioned as examples of the attribution of power by God. 346

81

Introduction also the divine origin of states, as well as various signs predicting their fortune are illustrated abundantly, and a discussion is added about the right way to inquire into fate. In De Constantia Lipsius had used a combination of Christian and Stoic elements, and elements of natural reason to explain public disasters and adversity. In his theoretical treatises on Stoicism, the Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam and the Physiologia Stoicorum, published one year before the Monita, the Stoic view on fate is further analysed, and the topics of superstition and divination are also touched upon. As a result, it is not surprising to see that Lipsius’ treatment of these topics in the Monita also bears the marks of his reading of the Stoics.351 5.1.1.4. The Admiranda and Dissertatiuncula In the Admiranda sive De magnitudine Romana Libri Quattuor, published in 1598 and dedicated, like the Monita, to Archduke Albert of Austria, Lipsius studied the greatness of the Roman Empire. As we have seen, there is a clear connection between the Monita and the Admiranda as far as their aim is concerned.352 Interestingly enough, both works also seem to have influenced each other regarding content. Many of the topics (e.g. military practice, taxes, and public expenses) and many of the virtues of the Roman people and leaders (e.g. iustitia, pietas, probitas, constantia) listed here, are also treated in the Politica and return in the Monita. Thus, in Admiranda 4.10, Lipsius discusses the magnanimity of Roman emperors. Many of the examples adduced here of emperors who were literate and acted as patrons of the arts recur in the Monita, in the chapters on prudence and magnanimity (Mon. 1.8 and 2.18), complete with the precise remunerations and salaries awarded to writers and artists. In 1600 Lipsius published his Dissertatiuncula apud Principes together with a commentary on Pliny the Younger’s Panegyricus ad Traianum and dedicated it to the Archdukes. Lipsius’ treatment of clemency and the duties of the prince in the Monita (2.7 and 12) is similar to the Dissertatiuncula, and some of the same quotations (e.g. from Seneca) and examples are cited. Thus, the exemplary concern for the people shown by Tiberius, Hadrian, Rudolf of Austria, and Philip of Macedon, adduced in the Dissertatiuncula and Panegyricus, return in the Monita (2.7 and 9), as well as Diocletian’s love of literature (Mon. 2.18).

351 See Papy (2011) for a detailed analysis of how Lipsius’ reading of the Stoics influenced his view on fate, divination, and superstition in the Monita, and our commentary to the relevant chapters of the Monita. 352 See above pp. 27-28, 44-47.

82

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution 5.1.2. Other sources 5.1.2.1. The (politico-historical) content of Lipsius’ library We can get a good idea of what sources Lipsius could have consulted via the inventory which Philippus Zangrius, a bookseller from Leuven, composed of Lipsius’ library after his death in 1614.353 This catalogue, commissioned by his testamentary executor Johannes Woverius, has been preserved in the University Library of Leiden (as Ms. Lips. 59). The inventory lists around 1050 books in various languages (e.g. Latin, Greek, Italian, Spanish, French, German, English, and Dutch), composed by some of the most prominent scholars of his day. Many of them had been sent or given to Lipsius by their authors,354 who were often friends and students of Lipsius. In general, the list reveals a considerable interest in history, (contemporary) politics, and military affairs ‒ next to philology. The core of Lipsius’ collection was formed by manuscripts and printed editions of ancient authors (mostly historiographers), often containing autograph annotations or corrections by Lipsius, along with ‘modern’ translations and commentaries. Lipsius, for instance, kept a French and Italian translation of Caesar’s Commentarii. There is a high concentration of editions and commentaries on the works of Seneca and Tacitus, which does not come as a surprise given Lipsius’ own philological activities and interests. He kept a copy of the editions of, and annotations on, Seneca by Marc-Antoine Muret (Marcus Antonius Muretus) and Janus Gruterus. These editions, translations, and commentaries were supplemented by ‘modern’ histories of Rome and antiquarian treatises, for instance by Onofrio Panvinio, Fulvio Orsini, Carlo Sigonio, and Flavio Biondo. However, Lipsius also collected works on medieval and more recent history, such as the works of Paulo Giovio, Machiavelli’s Dell’arte della guerra, Istorie Fiorentine, and Discorsi, Francesco Guicciardini’s Storia d’Italia, Juan de Mariana’s Historiae, Matthew of Paris’ Historia maior, Antonius Bonfinius’ Rerum Hungaricarum Decades, Johannes Leunclavius’ Annales Sultanorum, Jerónimo Osório’s De rebus Emmanuelis, Damião de Goes’ De rebus Hispanicis, Leo Africanus’ De totius Africae descriptione, Augerius Gislenius Busbequius’ Itinera Constantinopolitanum et Amasianum, and Petrus Bellonius’ Observationes. He also kept editions which collected chronicles or annals regarding certain peoples (e.g. the Swedes, Danes, Hungarians, Muscovites, Goths, Spanish, Italians, and British), such as the collections edited by Johannes Pistorius, Marquardus Freherus, William Camden, and Pierre Pithou. Lipsius also showed a keen interest in the New World. He kept a copy of José de Acosta’s De natura novi orbis (1596), Pedro de Cieza de Léon’s Parte primera de la chronica del Perú (1554), Francisco López de Gómara’s Historia general de las Indias (1554), Agustín de Zárate’s Historia des cubrimiento y conquista del Peru (1555), and Olivier van Noort’s

353

See C. Heesakkers in Lipsius en Leuven (313-315) and De Landtsheer – De Schepper (2004). testified in the correspondence.

354 As

83

Introduction description of his circumnavigation of the earth. Finally, there is also a large portion of books devoted to ecclesiastical history (e.g. by Caesar Baronius), as well as general works on chronology. Besides works dedicated to history, Lipsius’ library also contained numerous well-known treatises on politics, such as Jean Bodin’s De republica, Pedro de Ribadeneyra’s Tratado, Giovanni Botero’s Ragion di Stato, Aggiunte, and Relationi Universali, François Hotman’s Francogallia, Juan de Mariana’s De rege et regis institutione, and Thomas More’s Utopia. He also collected lesser-known mirrors for princes and political treatises, such as Pierre Grégoire’s De republica (1596), Girolamo Frachetta’s Il Prencipe (1599), Ciro Spontone’s Del governo di stato (1600), Marcantonio Natta’s De principum doctrina (1603), and Paolo Paruta’s Discorsi poli­ tici (1599). The inventory also lists many works of occasional literature (panegyrics, funeral orations, festival books), as well as reports of contemporary political events, such as the Spanish Armada (1588) or the Treaty of London (1604), which concluded the Anglo-Spanish War. Finally, the library also contained a fair amount of commonplace books, including Erasmus’ Adagia, Similia, and Apophthegmata, Conrad Lycosthenes’ Apophthegmata and Similia, Nicolaus Hanapus’ Virtutum vitiorumque exempla, and Thomas Hibernicus’ Flores bibliorum and Flores doctorum. Some of these collections are also of a more specifically political content, such as Lambertus Danaeus’ Aphorismi Politici (1583), Ludovico Guicciardini’s I pre­ cetti et sententiae piu notabili (1585) or Pietro Aldobrandini’s De perfecto principe ad Clementem VIII apophthegmata (1603). It is altogether clear that the inventory gives us a unique insight into the extremely diverse and wide range of sources Lipsius had access to. It reveals his interest in the history and politics of every period and region, about which he collected works in whichever language they were available. 5.1.2.2. Recommended reading Some of these authors and their works have been explicitly recommended by Lipsius.355 Thus in his famous letter to Nicolas de Hacqueville on the study of history, Lipsius recommends the reading of various historians for each type and period of history.356 For natural history he recommends Aristotle, Theophrastus, Aelian, and Pliny. “Narrative history” is sub-divided into religious and “human” or secular history. For Jewish religious history he recommends the Bible, Flavius Josephus, and Hegesippus. For Christian history: Eusebius, Sozomenus, and Cesare Baronio (Caesar Baronius). Secular history is divided into Oriental, Greek, Roman, and “Barbarian”. Oriental history should be studied through Justin, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Plutarch, and Zonaras. Greek history can be found 355

See also Jehasse (1976: 581-588, and the corresponding notes), who discusses Lipsius’ opinion on various historians and indicates how often each of them is quoted by Lipsius. 356 ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H. See above pp. 28-29.

84

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution in the authors already mentioned, as well as in Thucydides, Plutarch, Arrian, and Quintus Curtius. Roman history is divided into three periods, the period from the first kings and the foundation till Augustus, the time of the empire, and the Byzantine period. For the first period one should read Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, Polybius, Plutarch, Appian, Florus, Eutropius, Orosius, and the compendiums of Velleius Paterculus. For this period, one can also consult the Fasti, published by Carlo Sigonio. For the middle period, Lipsius recommends “his” Tacitus (“noster Tacitus”), and further Suetonius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Spartianus and other writers of the Historia Augusta (Scriptores Historiae Augustae), Dio Cassius, Zonaras, Herodian, the compendiums of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, and the Fasti edited by Onofrio Panvinio (Onufrius Panvinius). For Byzantine history Lipsius suggests Zonaras, Zosimus, Procopius, Agathias, Nicetas Choniates, Nicephorus Gregoras, Michael Clycas, and Georgius Cedrenus. For the remaining periods and regions (“Barbarian history”) Lipsius refers to German, French, and British chronicles, such as those collected by Pierre Pithou. Carlo Sigonio can be consulted for the history of Italy, Johannes Leunclavius and Laonicus Chalcondylas for Ottoman history, and William of Tyre for the history of the crusades. In the Notae, when recommending literature for princes and politicians, Lipsius expresses a more detailed judgment on certain historians, after describing some general requirements.357 Thus historians need to describe events truthfully, as well as explain them and express their judgment on them (Veritas, Explanatio, and Iudicium). Ancient historians who, in Lipsius’ view, meet these criteria (to a greater or lesser extent) are, among the Greeks,Thucydides, Polybius, Plutarch, Xenophon, Nicetas Choniates, and Nicephorus Gregoras, and among the Romans, Tacitus, Sallust, Livy, Quintus Curtius, and Caesar.358 For the Middle Ages he recommends Ammianus Marcellinus,359 Lambert of Aschaffenburg (for German history), and Rodericus Toletanus (Rodrigo Jiménez or Ximénez de Rada, for Spanish history). For more recent history, he praises Philippus Cominaeus (Philippe de Commines or de Commynes) and Paulus Aemilius (Paolo Emilio). Of the historians of his day, Francesco Guicciardini gets a good review, Paulus Iovius (Paolo Giovio) a mixed review, and Pietro Bembo a bad one. A similar critical evaluation of historians was included in François Baudouin’s De institutione historiae (1561) and Jean Bodin’s Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem (1566) and became a standard component of later treatises on the reading

357 Notae 1.9 (= “De Memoria rerum”), pp. 730-736. Lipsius’ opinion on various historiographers as expressed in the Notae is largely copied and elaborated on by his pupil Jan Bernaerts (Johannes Bernartius) in his De utilitate legendae historiae libri duo (Antwerp: widow C. Plantin – J. Moretus, 1593), which he dedicated to Lipsius (ILE V, 92 09 06). 358 Tacitus, Caesar, Livy, and Sallust are also assessed by Lipsius in the dedication to his first edition of Tacitus (1574). 359 This Roman historian from the late imperial period (fourth century) is listed by Lipsius “inter mediae aetatis scriptores” (Not. 1.9, p. 734, ed. Waszink).

85

Introduction and writing of history. Lipsius’ letter and this passage from the Notae can also be considered as such artes historicae, albeit brief ones.360 5.1.2.3. Sources used in the Monita Many of the sources mentioned or recommended above are indeed used by Lipsius in the Monita. The relationships between Lipsius and contemporary, or near contemporary, political theorists such as Bodin, Machiavelli, Mariana, Botero, and Ribadeneyra have been discussed in the previous chapters. Here we will mainly consider which sources Lipsius used for his historical narratives. For the history of the Ancient Near East (“Oriental history”) Lipsius’ main sources are Justin and Diodorus Siculus. Their accounts are usually reproduced quite faithfully and seem to be appreciated by Lipsius especially for the often lively details which they contain. For Greek (and Roman) history, Lipsius generally draws on Plutarch, in whose works he could find ready-made moral anecdotes and sayings.The same is true for Valerius Maximus. Since these two form the most used sources in the Monita, they will be dealt with in more detail below. For Roman history, besides Valerius Maximus and Plutarch, Lipsius mainly uses Suetonius, Livy, Spartianus and other writers of the Historia Augusta, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and the compendiums of Velleius Paterculus and Aurelius Victor. These works mainly provided him with countless details about the lives of the Roman kings, statesmen, and emperors, while Nicetas Choniates and Nicephorus Gregoras informed him on Byzantine emperors. Both authors also proved to be a rich source of moral remarks to illustrate Lipsius’ own views.361 Details about the Ottoman Empire are acquired through Leunclavius,362 Bellonius, Busbequius, and Paulo Giovio. Their works supplied information about the lives of the Sultans and the religious beliefs of their subjects. For the medieval and more recent history of France, Lipsius’ favourite source is Paulus Aemilius, who is recommended in the Notae and whose De rebus gestis Francorum offered a summary of the history of the French kings from the early Frankish kings in the 5th century up to the 16th century.The more recent history of Italy is only occasionally addressed, and it usually regards the Kingdom of Naples, for which Lipsius always seems to consult Pandulphus Collenutius’ (Pandolfo Collenuccio) Historiae Neapolitanae. For the history of Hungary, he uses Antonius Bonfinius’ Rerum Hungaricarum decades, for Poland, Martinus Cromerus’ (Marcin Kromer) De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum. Much more prominent is the history of Spain and Portugal, for which Lipsius consults Juan de Mariana’s Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, Johannes Vasaeus’ Chronicon rerum Hispanicarum, Antonio Beccadelli’s De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis, Marinaeus Siculus’ De rebus Hispaniae, Girolamo Franchi Conestaggio’s Dell’Unione del Portogallo alla Corona di Castiglia, and Hieronymus 360

Grafton (2007: 6) In the Notae Lipsius indeed praises their “good judgment” (p. 733, ed. Waszink). 362 The work is praised in ILE III, 90 06 14 and recommended in ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H. 361

86

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution Osorius’ De rebus Emmanuelis. Equally prominent is the history of Austria and of the Habsburg dynasty, for which Lipsius mainly seems to have consulted Gerardus de Roo, and the Chronicon Colmariense. For other regions Lipsius consulted yet other chroniclers, such as Matthew of Paris, William of Newburgh, and Lambert of Aschaffenburg (Lampert von Hersfeld). For the history of the Netherlands under the Burgundians he usually consults Pontus Heuterus. When studying the examples of the Monita and their sources, there is a remarkably low number of examples and quotations from the Bible, the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical history, and hagiography.The occasional biblical king, saint, or martyr is mentioned, however, when it seems unavoidable, for instance, when discussing typically Christian virtues, such as chastity or mercy.363 When talking about constancy, it would have seemed very odd not to mention any saints or martyrs. But here Lipsius expresses the view that his treatise is not the right place to do so.364 Their story should be read elsewhere, that is to say, in the Bible, hagiographies, and theological treatises, not in historico-political writings such as the Monita. Lipsius often justifies this choice for pagan examples and his choice to avoid dogmatic issues by stressing that he is neither a theologian, nor writing a theological treatise. This is the case, for instance, in the correspondence surrounding the publication of De Constantia, when people such as Bishop Laevinus Torrentius urged Lipsius to revise his work and illustrate his views with examples drawn from the life of Christ rather than the ancients.365 In response to encouragement along these lines Lipsius also added a second preface to the work in 1585. The same argument was adduced by Lipsius in his De una religione to defend himself against the attacks of Coornhert, who accused him, amongst other things, of inadequate use of Scripture in the Politica.366 Another reason why Lipsius did not make much use of the Bible and hagiography is that the examples encountered there are often superhuman and therefore difficult to imitate. Thus in the chapter on clemency, Lipsius comments on the deeds of Moses as follows: O truly divine man! This spirit can only come from the Holy Spirit, and in this respect it is more fit to revere than to imitate you.367 363 When discussing piety, however, Lipsius does not mention biblical heroes, saints, or martyrs, but mainly pagan examples. 364 Mon. 1.7.6 bis: “Ad Christiana et nostra exempla tutius transeo, quae in sanctis viris et martyribus sunt infinita. Nulla re haec religio magis abundat, magis se commendat et adfirmat. Sed ea in suis locis sunt prompta.” 365 The correspondence surrounding the publication of De Constantia, e.g. with Laevinus Torrentius and Cornelius Prunius, is discussed by Morford (1991: 102-106) and Mout (1997). Pedagogues such as Vives and Erasmus recommended the use of biblical examples above pagan ones as well. See below pp. 120-121. 366 Lipsius, Adversus dialogistam liber De una religione (1591: 26): “Debui enim a sacris, inquis. Mihi aliter visum, Diodore, qui Politicum hic non Theologum ex professo egi.” 367 Mon. 2.12.1.

87

Introduction Such examples might inspire awe but might not be the best to incite imitation because readers could find it difficult to identify with these extraordinary heroes and emulate their deeds. Thus, after the examples of Moses and David, Lipsius moves on to the example of Pericles and says: “These examples are nearly superhuman, but Pericles was a man of our kind.” By indicating that Pericles was an ‘ordinary’ mortal, not so different from ‘ourselves’, Lipsius suggests that his deeds can be repeated. This concern to offer realistic models of behaviour can also be observed in the chapter on constancy, where Lipsius comments on some extreme examples:“These examples are almost miraculous. Others might not be as striking, but should be approved no less by a wise person.”368 5.1.2.4. Most commonly used sources Tacitus The popularity of Tacitus and Seneca in the early modern period, as well as Lipsius’ predilection for these authors is well-known.369 Therefore we will limit ourselves to a brief analysis of their presence in the Monita. In the Politica, Tacitus is used as a storehouse of sententiae, thought to contain universal truths, borrowed by Lipsius to construct his own political theory. The Monita, too, has been called a collection of Tacitean political sayings by J.H.M. Salmon: See Lipsius’ own collection of Tacitean and other political axioms, Iusti Lipsii monita et exempla libri duo, qui virtutes et vitia principum spectant (Paris [sic!], 1605). Once again, civilis prudentia is represented as the governing concept in this volume.370 However, Tacitus’ presence in the Monita is simply assumed here. A closer look soon reveals that with just sixteen instances he is not nearly used as much as other historians, such as Plutarch (117), Suetonius (41), Valerius Maximus (36), or Livy (19). Prudence, in the sense of wisdom or learning extracted from history, is indeed the guiding principle of the Monita, but, contrary to the Politica, Tacitus is no longer the main vehicle through which it is acquired and propagated. Nor is the Monita always characterised by the realism which Lipsius and his contemporaries admired in Tacitus: Lipsius describes how princes should be more than how they are and is more concerned with moral education than with historical truth. These moral and educational concerns lead him to shun negative examples (although he will use one occasionally), and resort to moralists, such as Plutarch, 368

Mon.1.7, const. 7. A good summary with further literature can be found in Grafton (2010) and Morford (1993 and 2001). See also the recent collection of articles gathered by Merle – Oïffer-Bomsel (2017). 370 Salmon (1987: 47, n. 70). 369

88

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution Valerius Maximus, Nicephorus Gregoras, and Nicetas Choniates, rather than to Tacitus as a source for morally edifying examples. On the other hand, like his beloved historian, he does try to offer an explanation, interpretation, and evaluation of the events and actions he describes in order to shape the reader’s, in particular the prince’s, judgment and generate prudence. Thus, he often adds a moral or explicatory remark at the end of most historical narratives. Sometimes events or actions are shown to have an internal cause or rationality, that is to say, one related to political reality or human nature. Thus in Mon. 2.6, the observation that history teaches that rulers often change for the worse is attributed to three types of causes: those related to the nature of the prince, the nature of the people, and the nature of kingship. The depravity of rulers is ascribed in the first place to their nature, i.e., human weakness, next to the credulity, stubbornness, and ungratefulness of the subjects, and finally to the influence or effect of flatterers at the court and of power itself. This analysis makes Book 2, Chapter 6 one of the most Tacitean chapters of the Monita, although the author is not explicitly quoted.371 Most of the time, however, events are shown to have an external cause, namely God. As discussed above,372 Lipsius is very anxious to relate events and changes to that first cause (“prima illa caussa”373). In the Monita, Lipsius can be said to develop a theology of history:374 there is a strong tendency to see God’s hand at work in history, and to demonstrate how moral and religious behaviour is rewarded by God, while immoral and irreligious behaviour is punished. In this respect Lipsius feels the need to correct Tacitus on several occasions in his commentary. Thus in the notes to Annales 16.33.1, where the example of Cassius Asclepiodotus, whose loyalty is not rewarded, leads Tacitus to conclude that “the gods are indifferent to good and bad deeds”, Lipsius reproaches Tacitus for “playing the Epicurean” and declaring that the gods do not care about us.375 Similarly, Tacitus’ suggestion in hist. 1.3 that “the gods take no thought for our happiness” is called impious in the notes (“Impious, impious is your suggestion, Tacitus!”376), although Lipsius admits that the present reality often gives that impression.377

371

In the corresponding chapter of the Politica (2.5) similar causes were indeed delineated on the basis of quotations from Tacitus. 372 See subsection 4.1.3. 373 Mon.1.5. 374 See also Bireley (1990: 31; 80 and 95). 375 C. Cornelii Taciti Opera quae exstant (1607: 301), note 65: “Depravatio, quam adnoto, non tollo. Nisi placet eum ἐπικουρίζειν et dicere, Deos haec iisdem oculis adspexisse, aequos bonis malisque exemplis, et sine cura nostri.” 376 Ibid. (1607: 307), note 19: “Impium, impium tuum dictum, Tacite.” 377 On the ambiguity of Lipsius’ own historical examples, which often reveal the same (Machiavellian-Tacitean) message, see subsections 1.3-4.

89

Introduction Seneca In Lipsius’ view Tacitus and Seneca were complementary: the political wisdom (prudentia) which the prince could acquire through Tacitus needed to be supplemented by wisdom (sapientia) as derived from moral philosophy and taught by Seneca.378 Lipsius encouraged people to live, like a Stoic vir sapiens, by virtue and reason, free from emotions such as anger and hope, and desire for ‘indifferent’ things such as riches, success, etc. He also taught people to accept the will of God, which determines fate while leaving room for human choice, thus ‘correcting’ Stoic views on fate through Christian doctrine. Lipsius consequently preached constancy in the face of adversity (which has been sent by God), but for him this did not imply passivity: one should discharge one’s public duties because of the love for one’s fellow human beings, whose problems one should address with mercy (misericordia) as well as with detachment.These doctrines can all be found in Seneca and were at the basis of Lipsius’ belief that Seneca could provide the kind of wisdom needed to deal with the calamities of civil and religious wars which he and his contemporaries faced.379 These views can be seen to permeate the Politica, in which they are applied to the prince, as Seneca did in De clementia.380 The same is true for the Monita, which Lipsius published when he was in the middle of preparing his Seneca-edition, and his Stoic manuals had just appeared.381 In the Monita, Lipsius’ neo-Stoic views in the field of politics are expressed in the chapters on fate and constancy, for instance (Mon. 1.5 and 7), as discussed above.382 They are not always explicitly associated with Seneca, although he is adduced at key points in the discussions. Especially in the chapters on the duties of the prince, on clemency, and on forbearance or patience (Mon. 2.7, 12, 17bis) the influence of Seneca’s De clementia and De Ira is visible.383 Lipsius indeed explicitly refers the prince to Seneca’s golden booklets (“aurei libelli”) on these subjects, which, in his view, every ruler should read.384 In his De clementia, Seneca equated the prince with the Stoic vir sapiens, whose rationality and virtuousness ensure the peace and security of the community and 378 See, e.g., Morford (1991: 157), quoting ILE [XII] 99 08 08: “Tacito et Senecae: illi ad prudentiam, huic ad sapientiam duci.” 379 In ILE [XII], 99 08 08, e.g., he says about Seneca: “honestis illis fortibusque monitis erigimur, et sublevamur, quod necessum est in multis adversis aut tristibus, quae publice and privatim suppe­ ditat hoc aevum.” Quoted by Morford (1991: 176). 380 See, among others, Griffin (1976) and Stacey (2007). 381 On how Lipsius’ reading of Seneca and the Stoics influenced his views on fate and superstition in the Monita, see Papy (2011) 382 See subsection 4.1.3. 383 Next to De clementia and De Ira, Lipsius also quotes from the Epistolae ad Lucilium and the Consolatio ad Marciam (once). He does not quote from the tragedies. He also quotes once from the Controversiae of Seneca the Elder. In the Politica, on the contrary, a much wider range of moral treatises are quoted, as well as the tragedies. See Waszink (2004: 146-148), who counts 178 instances in total. 384 Mon. 2.12: “Plura super hac Virtute liceat, sed pudor sit post Senecam, cuius aurei libelli duo, et Principibus merito legendi, satis eam revelant.”

90

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution thus legitimise his power. At the same time, the wisdom of the prince also mitigates his power, because it ensures that he will always care for the bonum commune and not be disturbed by irrational emotions, such as anger, but rather be firmly in control of himself. His love for his fellow creatures and his self-control will express themselves especially in the exercise of clemency. Like the gods, or like a good father, the prince will sometimes show moderation in his application of justice and remit a punishment, even though it is deserved and although it is in his power to take revenge.The clemency of a legitimate prince distinguishes him from the cruelty, irrationality, and intemperance of a tyrant, and generates the love and protection of the people.385 The political theory of Seneca’s De clementia greatly influenced pre-humanist and humanist mirrors for princes,386 and the Senecan image of the prince can also be found in Lipsius’ political works. Thus, in the Dissertatiuncula apud Principes and in the Monita (2.7), the point of departure for the discussion of the duties of the prince is a passage from Seneca’s De clementia. In the Dissertatiuncula Lipsius assured the Archdukes, by lecturing them on Seneca’s De clementia 1.3, that the inhabitants were prepared to be loyal to them in exchange for their continuous care for, and protection of, the people. In the Monita the prince is reminded of his duty in a similar way: For Monarchy is not an end in itself (let it be far from it), nor is its loftiness and splendour, but rather the welfare, that is, the direction and protection of the people. Ruling is a duty, not a supreme power, says our Seneca.387 The prince constantly has to care about the citizens and their problems, but without being disturbed by them, and thus procure peace and quiet for them.388 In doing so, Lipsius, after Seneca, says he should follow the example of God or of a father, who sometimes spares, sometimes punishes.389 This image is taken up again in Mon. 2.12,390 in which Lipsius incites the prince to clemency by analysing the constituent parts of Seneca’s definition of clemency as leniency of a superior towards his inferior in assigning and remitting punishments (clem., 2.3). Like Seneca, Lipsius 385

Stacey (2007: 30-71). Stacey (2007) and (2015). 387 Mon. 2.7, quoting Sen. epist. 90.5. 388 Mon. 2.7: “Sint igitur in assidua cura, sed cum tranquillitate et pace, et haec utraque suis, quantum potest, procurent.” Compare Mon. 1.7: “Debet et ab usu et tractatione rerum induere Constantiam. Videt assidue incerta rerum humanarum; publice aut privatim casus et calamitates audit; versetur in iis, non inhaereat. Et ut rota in curru per terram volvitur, sed super eam exstat, sic ipse. Tractet humana et norit, sed iis se etiam eximat et secum dicat, O quam contempta res est homo nisi super humana se erexerit!”, quoting Seneca, nat. 1, praef., 5. 389 Mon. 2.7, quoting Sen. clem. 1.1.2. Compare Sen. clem. 1.7.1 (on the example of the gods), 1.14.1-2, and 1.15.3 (on the prince as a father). See further Stacey (2008:56). 390 Mon. 2.12: “Cogitat publicum se parentem esse. Ut autem privati isti parentes liberos peccantes saepe castigant, interdum virgas modo ostendunt et metum incutiunt pro poena, sic ille facit et faciendo sic emendat.” 386

91

Introduction stresses that only a superior has the choice to be merciful and not exercise all the legal power he has over someone. Given the power of life and death which the prince has received from God, clemency is a virtue which is especially suitable for princes.391 By being merciful the prince shows himself at his most humane and at the same time at his most powerful, and above all other human beings.392 In the chapter on forbearance (Mon. 2.17bis), Lipsius similarly stresses, this time quoting from Seneca’s De Ira, that “There is no surer proof of greatness than to be in a state where nothing can possibly happen to provoke you”, and that “Forbearance of insults is an important instrument for protecting the kingdom.”393 Both virtues are illustrated with examples, starting with biblical leaders such as Moses and David. By tracing the history of clemency and forbearance back to the Bible, Lipsius equates these Stoic principles with Christian ones, thus further realising his project of reconciling Stoicism with Christian belief.394 Whereas Seneca and Tacitus mainly provided Lipsius with certain political and moral concepts and the quotations to corroborate them, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch were his main sources for historical anecdotes to illustrate them. Valerius Maximus Lipsius was well-acquainted with the work of Valerius Maximus, as can be observed in an annotated copy preserved at Leiden University Library of an edition of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia by Stephanus Pighius. It contains handwritten annotations by Lipsius in the margin, mostly of a text-critical or antiquarian nature. When a revised edition of Pighius’ text appeared in 1585, Lipsius selected some of these notes to be printed, together with some new comments, as Breves notae after Pighius’ own Annotationes.395 They kept accompanying Pighius’ text in future editions, and were also published as part of Lipsius’ Opera omnia quae ad criticam proprie spectant from 1600 onwards. These notes probably originated in the context of the history classes which Lipsius taught at the Universities of Leuven, Jena, and Leiden, which were based on the explanation of texts of ancient historiographers.396 Not surprisingly, then, the influence of Valerius can also be felt in the Monita. 391

Mon. 2.12: “Non enim quorumvis est Clementia, sed eorum qui in suprema potestate constituti sunt et temperare aut flectere ex usu aliquo leges possunt. Est, ut verbo dicam, Principum.” Compare to Sen. clem. 1.3.3 and 1.5.2. 392 Mon. 2.12. 393 Mon. 2.18: “Sed spernat Princeps et sciat, Nullum esse argumentum magnitudinis certius quam nihil posse quo instigeris accidere.”, quoting Sen. dial. 5.6.1, and “Contemne igitur et Senecae hoc imbibe: Contumeliarum patientiam ingens instrumentum esse ad tutelam regni.”, quoting Sen. dial. 5.23.2. 394 See, among others, Papy (2004: 70-71) and Kraye (1998: 1286). For the profound philosophical problems involved in such an ambitious project, see especially Lagrée (2016). 395 Lipsius also discusses some seven passages from Valerius Maximus in the Electorum liber secundus (1585). On Lipsius and Pighius, see Laureys (1998). 396 See Nordman (1932: 76) and Enenkel (2004: 588-589).

92

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution Both works are similar as far as concerns literary form (both are exempla collections), moral purpose, and criteria used in the selection and expression of examples.397 According to Valerius Maximus, the success and security of the Roman Empire depend upon the morality of the individual. In his view, which was shared by Lipsius, this individual moral behaviour is stimulated by the examples of great men from the past, which serve as models of conduct.They show how good moral conduct will be rewarded and praised, while vice will be punished and reproached. Just like Lipsius,398 Valerius Maximus uses rhetorical techniques, such as unequal or unlikely examples, to make these examples as persuasive as possible, and examples are selected on the basis of their authority, plausibility, memorability, and entertainment factor. Not only the aim and the techniques used by both compilers, but also the subject headings and even the very examples are similar in the exempla collections of Valerius Maximus and Lipsius. Valerius Maximus’ first book on religion, superstition, divine providence, and the ways in which providence is revealed through auspices, omens, prodigies, dreams, and wonders, for instance, clearly inspired Lipsius’ treatment of the subject in the first book of the Monita: similar statements and even some of the same examples can be discerned.Thus, it is said that religion should never be ignored and that he who does so should be punished, that it can augment imperial power and empires, and that therefore many princes and statesmen have honoured the sacred in the past. This is illustrated by examples of people who respectively respected religion, neglected it, or simulated it, before moving on to superstition and fate, which also feature in the Monita. In Monita 1.5.5, Lipsius illustrates by means of examples how fate becomes clear through dreams, signs, spectres, and vaticinations (“per somnia, per signa, per spectra et vaticinia”). His treatment of the subject is clearly inspired by Valerius Maximus (1.4-8), who treats auspices (auspicia), omens (omina), prodigies (prodigia), dreams (somnia), and wonders (miracula), and adduces some of the same examples (e.g. Astyages’ dream). For his chapters on justice (Mon. 2.9; Val. Max. 6.5) and faithfulness (Mon. 2.13), Lipsius also drew inspiration from Valerius Maximus, especially for the sequence on the loyalty of slaves (Mon. 2.13.16-20; Val. Max. 6.8) and on the faithfulness of the Roman senate, people, and consuls (Mon. 2.13.4). Although Valerius Maximus provided several examples for these sections, they have been elaborated on substantially by Lipsius, who has put lengthy speeches into the mouths of the slaves. Moreover, many individual examples are taken from various sections of the Facta et dicta, and often transferred to a different heading. An especially rich source is the chapter on changes of character or fortune (Val. Max. 6.9: “De mutatione morum aut fortunae”). Lipsius never indicates his dependence on Valerius Maximus as a source for his historical anecdotes, although he is quoted a few times by name in more argumentative passages to support certain views. 397 398

See Janssens (2011); Skidmore (1996: 53-118), and Langlands (2008). Cf. Janssens (2011).

93

Introduction More often than not, however, the presence of the work is felt indirectly as a source of inspiration, when Lipsius combines Valerius Maximus with other sources to elaborate the latter’s (often brief) examples. Thus, the example of Marius in the chapter on fate (Mon. 1.5) is a summary of the vicissitudes of Marius’ career, based, besides Valerius Maximus (6.9.14), on Juvenal, and on Plutarch’s life of Marius. Marius’ career is described as an example of the instability and changeability of fortune by Valerius Maximus, whose words are reproduced quite literally by Lipsius. When Valerius mentions Marius’ victory over the Cimbri, Lipsius inserts a quotation from Juvenal (7.199-200; 8.259-260), and when he brings up Marius’ exile and seventh consulate, Lipsius adds a related anecdote which he found in Plutarch (Plu., Mar., 36.5). Sometimes the account of Valerius Maximus is explicitly compared to other sources.Thus, in the chapter on justice (Mon. 2.9.4) Lipsius reproduces an anecdote about Philip of Macedon reported by Plutarch in his Apophthegmata (Plu. Mor. 178F-179A) and compares it to the version of Valerius Maximus (6.2 ext. 1), who gives a different answer (“Sive, ut alii efferunt, Ad Philippum sobrium”). Often Valerius is merely a source of inspiration for an example or a sequence of examples, while the details are provided by other sources. In the chapter on justice (Mon. 2.9 bis), for instance, Lipsius reproduces an anecdote on Marius as reported by Plutarch (Mar. 14.3-5 and Apoph. 202 B). In Plutarch, however, the victim is called Trebonius, while Lipsius calls him Plotius, as does Valerius Maximus (6.1.12). Yet Valerius Maximus, like Cicero (Mil. 4 [9]), only refers to the event without going into detail. Hence, although Lipsius might have found inspiration for the example in Valerius Maximus, he must have consulted Plutarch for the details (such as Marius’ praise of the soldier). Similarly, in the chapter on faithfulness (Mon. 2.13) Lipsius recalls two anecdotes on the loyalty of slaves, recorded close to each other in a section of Appian’s history of the civil wars, in which he adduces examples of people who were proscribed but were able to escape, often with the help of faithful slaves or freedmen (BC 4.(6). 43 and 45). The first anecdote is included by Valerius Maximus in his chapter on the loyalty of slaves (Val. Max. 6.8.7). The second example is also adduced by Valerius Maximus, but in a different chapter (Val. Max. 7.3.9) and attributed to one Sentius Saturnius Vetulo instead of Pomponius. Therefore, although Lipsius uses phrases and elements from the version of Valerius Maximus, he must nevertheless also have consulted his source, Appian.399

399 We have mentioned above (p. 14) that the work of Valerius Maximus knew many imitators in the Renaissance. Many of the examples which can be found in Lipsius’ Monita can therefore also be found in their collections. In general, however, the formulation of their examples and the details they contain differ significantly from Lipsius’ text. Therefore, it can be said that Lipsius did not use these works as a direct source, but rather consulted the original texts and sources, although further research and a more systematic comparison of the texts is required to establish to what extent they might have served as an indirect source of inspiration.

94

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution Plutarch and Erasmus Together with Valerius Maximus, Plutarch’s Vitae and Apophthegmata are the most quoted and used sources in the Monita. Plutarch is often said to be one of the most widely read authors in Renaissance Europe.400 Like many of his fellow-humanists, Lipsius clearly appreciated Plutarch: he valued him in particular as a teacher of political morals, whose ideas were easy to christianize. Thus in De Constantia, he draws on arguments from Plutarch’s De sera numinis vindicta to demonstrate the existence and omnipotence of divine providence.401 In his annotations to the Seneca edition, and in the Manuductio and Physiologia, Plutarch is used as a source for details about the Stoa, as well as as an opponent of Stoic doctrine who needed to be refuted or corrected.402 In Lipsius’ famous letter to de Hacqueville on the study of history,403 Plutarch is recommended as a source for Oriental, Greek, and Roman history, and in the Notae he is recommended to princes and politicians as follows: Among Greek authors from a later period is Plutarch, who did not write History in the strict sense of the word, but wrote and abridged little parts of history, the lives of Illustrious men. But he, if anyone, is nevertheless a worthy author for the prince. He forms judgment in a wonderful way, and always leads to Virtue and Prudence through an exhilarating and comprehensible way of writing. But more to the former, and, if I am not mistaken, he is altogether rather a good than a great teacher.404 In the Politica, however, he is not quoted as often as other historians and philosophers, such as Tacitus, Cicero, Seneca, Sallust, and Livy,405 and because of the general, incomplete, or incorrect nature of the quotations from Plutarch, Waszink assumes an intermediary source such as Erasmus’ Adagia.406 In the Monita, on 400 See e.g. Singer (1981: 34) and Lamberton (2010). There are several studies which focus on the reception of Plutarch in specific areas or countries, or by specific authors. See e.g., Guerrier (2008), Pade (2007), Gallo (1998), Bergua Cavero (1995), Konstantinovic (1989), Aulotte (1968), Di Stefano (1968), Lasso de la Vega (1962), Resta (1962), and Skackford (1929). 401 As illustrated by Tarrête (2008). 402 As illustrated by Carabin (2008). 403 ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H. See above pp. 28-29. 404 Not. 1.9 (p. 732, ed. Waszink): “Inter Graecos medios Plutarchus est. qui non Historiam proprie, sed particulas Historiae scripsit et ablegit, Illustrium virorum vitas. Sed dignus tamen, si quis alius, Principe scriptor. qui iudicium mirifice format, et diffusa ac plana quadam scribendi via ad Virtutem ubique et Prudentiam ducit. sed ad illam magis: et, nisi fallor, melior omnino quam auctior doctor.” 405 For the (ancient) sources of the Politica, see Jehasse (1976: 286) and Waszink (2004: 129- 163; 254-258). Jehasse counts 33 quotations of Plutarch in the Politica, but overall, he is one of the most quoted authors; Jehasse (1976: 654, n. 28) counts 415 instances in all of Lipsius’ works combined. 406 Waszink (2004: 258, n. 4).

95

Introduction the contrary, Plutarch is by far the most used source (with 117 instances), and the work seems to reflect a more direct reading of Plutarch. Plutarch’s Vitae and Apophthegmata are sometimes quoted in Greek text and Latin translation, but most of the time in Latin only, sometimes with explicit reference to the author (and work), sometimes without. He is occasionally adduced to support arguments, but often he is not quoted, but used indirectly as a source for Lipsius’ anecdotes. The Vitae are often used as a source for Lipsius to compose his own miniature biographies of famous men, such as Brutus (Mon. 1.7), Phocion (Mon. 1.7), Cato the Younger (Mon., 1.7), and Marius (Mon. 1.5 and 2.9), and women, such as Cleopatra (Mon. 2.2, on the basis of Plutarch’s lives of Antony and Brutus), Cratesiclea (Mon. 1.7, on the basis of Plutarch’s life of Cleomenes), and Porcia (Mon. 1.7, on the basis of Plutarch’s life of Brutus). Plutarch is also used, among other sources, to reconstruct specific qualities of historical characters, such as the clemency of Caesar, Marcellus, and Octavian (Mon. 2.12). The Apophthegmata are mainly used as a source on Alexander the Great and Philip of Macedon, two of the most frequently occurring examples in the Monita. Most of the instances adduced from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata also feature in Erasmus’ collection of sayings, the Apophthegmata sive scite dictorum libri sex. Lipsius indeed kept a copy of it in his library.407 However, although Lipsius’ Latin rendering of the Greek original is often very similar to Erasmus’, it is never exactly the same. Thus, for instance, in Mon., 2.9.1, Antigonus’ dictum about justice (Plu. Mor. 182 C: “ναὶ μὰ Δία, τοῖς τῶν βαρβάρων” εἶπεν “ἡμῖν δὲ μόνα καλὰ τὰ καλὰ καὶ δίκαια μόνα τὰ δίκαια.”) is rendered by Lipsius as follows: “Sunt, hercules, sed Barbarorum dumtaxat regibus. At nobis ea honesta quae honesta sunt et iusta quae iusta.”, while Erasmus’ Apophthegmata reads: “Sunt, per Iovem, Barbarorum dumtaxat regibus. At nobis ea honesta sunt quae honesta sunt et ea tantum iusta quae iusta.” Similarly, Philip of Macedon’s “ὁρᾶτε οὖν” εἶπεν “ὅτι παρ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτούς ἐστι καὶ τὸ καλῶς καὶ τὸ κακῶς ἀκούειν” (Plu. Mor. 177 E) is translated by Erasmus as “Videtisne, igitur, inquit, in nobis esse situm ut bene aut male audiamus?”, and by Lipsius as “Videtisne, o amici, inquit, in nostra manu esse bene vel secus audire?”(Mon. 2.17.5). Lipsius’ translations do not correspond to the translation of Cruserius either, of which Lipsius also kept a copy in his library.408 Thus Plutarch, Cam. 6.4 (“ἀνθρωπίνην ἀσθένειαν, ὅρον οὐκ ἔχουσαν, οὐδὲ κρατοῦσα αὐτῆς, ἀλλʹ ἐκφερομένην ὅπου μὲν εἰς δεισιδαιμονίαν καὶ τύφον, ὅπου δὲ εἰς ὀλιγωρίαν τῶν θείων καὶ περιφρόνησιν”) is translated by Cruserius as follows: “Anceps sit humanam 407 Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 12r: “Apophthegmata Erasmi, 8, Antver[piae], 64” (=Desiderius Erasmus, Apophthegmatum ex optimis utriusque linguae scriptoribus per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum collectorum libri octo (Antwerp: J. Gymnicus, 1564). He also kept a copy of Lycosthenes’ adaptation of Erasmus’ collection. 408 Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3r: “Plutarchi Moralia, fol[io], Francofurti, 80” (= Opera quae extant omnia Plutarchi Chaeronei ethica sive moralia complectentia interprete Hermanno Cruserio (Frankfurt: G. Corvinus – S. Feyrabend, 1580)); fol. 3r: “Plutarchi Vitae, fol[io], Bas[ileae], 73” (= Plutarchi Vitae comparatae illustrium virorum, tr[aductae ab] H. Cruserio (Basel: T. Guarinus, 1573). On the work of Cruserius in general, see Bers (1971), about his translations of Plutarch in particular, see Pade (2007).

96

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution ob imbecillitatem, quae nullis certis circumscripta cancellis est, neque sui compos, sed recedit modo in superstitionem et vanitatem, modo in deorum neglectum et fastidium.”409 The Monita reads: “humanam imbecillitatem, quae finem aut modum non habet, sed alias abripitur in Superstitionem et vanitatem, alias in Neglectum rerum divinarum aut Contemptum”,410 whereas the Notae has: “humanam infirmitatem, metam terminumque non habentem, nec sui potentem, sed efferentem se, modo in Superstitionem et vanitatem, modo in Neglectum rerum divinarum et Contemptum.”411 Lipsius might have consulted Cruserius’ translation and Erasmus’ version of the Apophthegmata,412 but certainly did not copy them slavishly. For sure, he kept an eye on the original Greek text. 5.2. The structure of the work 5.2.1. The general composition of the work 5.2.1.1. Lipsius on the organisation of commonplace books In commonplace books sayings, proverbs, examples, etc. were collected for their stylistic or moral value. The organisation of such books gradually developed into a proper discipline, with its own theory, alternative systems, and own authorities, based on a long intellectual history (from medieval ‘flower’-collections or florilegia to Melanchthon and Ramus). Different theories on the composition of commonplace books have been described by Ann Moss.413 In this section we will focus on Lipsius’ advice regarding the composition of notebooks and analyse the structure of the Monita in light of his theory and practice of collecting examples. Guidelines concerning the composition of notebooks for creating a personal Latin style can be found in Lipsius’ Institutio epistolica, in which the author suggests that excerpts from a wide range of authors, such as Cicero, Pliny, historical writers, Seneca, and Plutarch, are collected in three different notebooks. In the first, turns of expression should be assembled, in the second “ornaments”, that is to say, similitudes, allegories, witty or sharp sayings, and sententiae, collected under headings, and in the third telling phrases and unusual vocabulary, the phrases arranged by author, the words alphabetically.414 Elsewhere we can find advice on the composition of a different kind of notebook. As mentioned above, Lipsius gives advice on the composition of notebooks 409 Plutarchi Chaeronensis Qvae exstant omnia, cum Latina interpretatione Hermanni Cruserii (Frankfurt: heirs of A. Wechel – C. Marnius – Aubrius, 1599, 1, 132). 410 Mon. 1.3. Lipsius leaves out a small part of the quotation (οὐδὲ κρατοῦσα αὐτῆς), in the Greek text and in his translation. 411 Notae 1.3 (p. 725, ed. Waszink). 412 Lipsius also uses the occasional expression which occurs in Erasmus’ Adagia, of which he also kept a copy in his library (e.g. Mon. 2.15.3 = Adag. 1.9.14 = Hor. ars 139). 413 Moss (1996a). 414 Moss (1996a: 180-181).

97

Introduction for reading and writing history in a famous letter, dated 3  December  1600, on the study of history to Nicolas de Hacqueville.415 In this letter, history is divided by Lipsius into “natural” and “narrative” history. “Narrative” history is further sub-­ divided into “religious” and “human” history. “Human” history covers the history of various peoples and periods of time. When reading human history, the reader is advised to keep four notebooks. One notebook should contain memorable deeds, events, and vicissitudes which speak of the power of a ruler or people (memorabilia), a second on rituals and customs (ritualia), a third on the organisation of public life (civilia), and a fourth on the virtues and vices of private persons (moralia). Each of these books should be divided into proper sub-headings, preferably in alphabetical order, and should include sentences (sententiae) concerning the topic, or examples (exempla).416 Lipsius says this first technique has been applied in his Politica. He has not ignored the second either: he has finished a work based on just such examples! Lipsius not only gave his students advice on the composition of notebooks, he also guided his contubernales in this process,417 and applied the technique himself.This can be concluded from the notebooks with quotations and examples composed by him which are preserved at Leiden University Library and have been described above.418 Yet it is not easy to identify Lipsius’ own notebooks with one of the seven types of notebooks recommended by him. The Liber locorum communium (Ms. Lips. 32) contains similitudines, apophthegmata, and gnomae, and therefore seems to belong to the second type of stylistic notebooks. However, these comparisons and sayings are arranged under general moral categories and can therefore also be considered an example of the fourth type of historical notebook (collecting moralia). Next to general moral headings, this notebook also has headings listing various peoples, containing information about their customs ‒ material covered in the second type of historical notebook (collecting ritualia). These categories or headings are laid out at the beginning of the manuscript, and alternative ways of arranging them are suggested.419 The Liber exemplorum et consiliorum (Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2), on the other hand, collects examples and advice under headings covering civilia and memorabilia, 415

ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H. On this letter, see above (pp. 28-29) and the literature cited there. In ILE XIII, 00 12 01 K (Michael Kerll to Lipsius) such notebooks are also mentioned, in which, however, besides sententiae and exempla also dicta are included. See also ILE IX, 96 09 10 A, in which Lipsius advises Guillaume d’Assonleville to select and write down admonitions and examples relating to the discipline of ethics or politics: “Sed et hoc facile (cum lectio multa accedet) subnotare et seligere ex historiis monita aut exempla, quae huc et ad quamque partem conducent.” On this letter, see, among others, Nordman (1932: 44). See also ILE VIII, 95 04 21 B, quoted and analyzed by Laureys (2006) and Peeters (1999: 150). On the similarities between Lipsius’ reading method and Bodin’s, see Nordman (1932: 60–62), Laureys (2006), and Grafton (2007: 214-228). 417 Cf. Morford (1991: 14–51) and Peeters (1999). 418 Cf. supra (pp. 78-79), J. Papy in Lipsius en Leuven (165–167), and Waszink (2004: 54–55). 419 Thus “pax” and “peregrinatio” can also be arranged under “politica”, and “constantia”, “libe­ ralitas” and libertas” can be arranged under “virtus”. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 32, fol. 1r. As the Liber locorum communium collects material for its stylistic and moral value, this notebook resembles the type of notebook recommended by Erasmus. See Moss (1996a: 109-111). 416

98

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution and thus seems to combine the matter of the first and third type of historical notebooks recommended by Lipsius.420 The Monita, then, seems to combine all four historical notebooks recommended by Lipsius. We can clearly distinguish the various periods of history and themes (memorabilia, ritualia, civilia, and moralia) described by Lipsius in the letter to de Hacqueville. In the Monita, Lipsius indeed describes the memorable deeds and fortunes of princes, religious rituals, and general customs of various peoples, the best constitution, and the virtues and vices of kings, queens, and other historical characters. These are gathered under headings related to the virtues and vices of the prince, and to various aspects of civil life or government. As indicated above, some headings are clearly taken from Valerius Maximus. Thus, Valerius Maximus’ first book on religion, superstition, divine providence, and the ways in which it is revealed through auspices, omens, prodigies, dreams, and wonders clearly inspired Lipsius’ treatment of the subject in the first book of the Monita, as far as structure and content are concerned. However, Lipsius does not keep all the headings, nor does he follow the exact order of the Facta et dicta memorabilia, as some Renaissance imitators did.421 The headings are not arranged alphabetically either, but follow the structure of the Politica, from which they are explicitly derived. 5.2.1.2.The Monita and the organisation of the Politica At the beginning of the Monita, Lipsius says that he will maintain the same structure as in the Politica, which he intends to illustrate.422 In the Politica, the structure of the work is made clear and explicit in various ways. First of all, there is a table of contents at the start of the work with brief summaries of the content of each book, and a list of the chapters they contain.423 The summaries clarifies the relation between the various books and the internal structure of each of them. The individual chapter headings themselves also summarizes the content and indicates the structure of the chapter. At the start of each chapter, an introductory paragraph offers a more elaborate definition and sub-division of the topic under discussion. The various elements of such a definition or division are also usually marked typographically by small capitals. And finally, the structure of the work is also indicated in the margins, which contain summaries of the content. The structure of the Monita, on the contrary, is not made as explicit. A table of contents again precedes the work, but it does not contain summaries to indicate 420 Since it combines counsels and examples, it also resembles the notebook on human history recommended by Bodin (its political section in particular). See Moss (1996a: 180-181). 421 Aragüés Aldaz (1993). 422 See Mon., Ad lect.: “Est scilicet eadem divisio et ordo qui in Politicis nostris fuit, quorum luci aut assertioni haec scribuntur.”, and Mon. 1.1: “Ordinem servabo quem Politicis praestruxi; nec Exempla solum, sed et Monita passim inspergam et alibi Quaestiunculas.” On the use of monita and quaestiones or quaestiunculae, see below (pp. 101-102). 423 Pol., prelim., 6 (pp. 240-254, ed. Waszink)

99

Introduction the overall structure. The chapter headings also briefly define the subject under discussion, but do not pay much attention to its division. In the introductory chapters, the subject is usually defined, but not sub-divided, and its relation to the previous chapters often remains implicit.The structure is not indicated in the margins either. Lipsius uses small capitals to introduce the names of exemplary figures and to highlight certain virtues or parts of definitions, but they are not often used to indicate the structure of the chapter or book. An exception can be observed in the fifth admonition of the chapter on fate (Mon.1.5, admon. 5), which lists examples of signs, sub-divided into Somnia, Signa, Spectra, and Vaticinia. The transition from one category of signs to another is marked typographically by small capitals or italics.424 Although the structure of the Monita remains largely implicit, it does correspond quite closely to the structure of the first two books of the Politica. A comparison of the two tables of contents (which can be found in the Appendix at the end of this work) makes seeing any differences in structure between the two works easier, as well as what is new in the Monita and what is missing. Some of these additions and omissions can be explained quite easily in the light of the foregoing interpretation of the text and its context. In general, it can be observed that the two books of the Monita seem to form each other’s mirror image, in very much the same way as Karl Enenkel observed for the Admiranda.425 The virtues in the first book, Lipsius says, are the same for everyone, although he has applied them to the prince, while those recommended in the second book are especially suitable for the prince.426 The virtues recommended in both areas seem to mirror each other: piety in the private sphere corresponds to justice in the public sphere, probity to clemency and faithfulness, constancy to modesty, chastity, and patience, prudence as the study of history to magnanimity as promotion of the arts.Whereas the first book treats the prince as an individual person, the second book regards the prince as head of the kingdom or civitas. This was a common way of organising mirrors for princes, after the example of Giles of Rome (Aegidius Romanus), although there was usually also a section on the prince as head of the family and of government in times of war.427 The way the individual virtues are connected or organised, however, does not resemble traditional organising systems, as proposed, for instance, by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, or Thomas Aquinas, and applied by Giles of Rome in his De regimine principum or by Petrarch in his Rerum memorandarum libri, although most of the individual virtues which are mentioned are traditional. We can conclude that the structure of the Monita remains largely implicit and is therefore sometimes unclear. The structure of the work becomes clearer when 424

Thus, Mon. 1.5, mon. 5.6: “Iam ad Signa transeo, quae Magna aut Parva, sed certa pariter se ostenderunt.” 425 Enenkel (2004: 610-611). 426 Mon. 2.1: “Quae adhuc dixi, etsi ad Principem aptavi, communia cum aliis sunt […]. Hunc formare magis et propius dirigere incipiam.” 427 The latter would be treated by Lipsius in his Monita et exempla de re militari. See above p. 3.

100

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution compared to the structure of the Politica, which it is supposed to illustrate and which the reader was probably expected to have in mind or at hand. Lipsius’ main concern in the Monita seems to have been the presentation of an abundance of historical narratives for the instruction and amusement of the reader, rather than the organisation of the material, which he had already pursued in the Politica. 5.2.2. The structure of the individual chapters428 The chapter headings all take the same form:429 they indicate the subject under discussion, rendered in small capitals and introduced by the Latin word “De”, followed by a statement or exhortation summarising Lipsius’ main argument, for instance “De principatu. Eum praeferendum aliis imperiis videri.” or “De cle­ mentia. Eam quoque Principi decoram utilemque esse.” This was a common way of formulating headings in commonplace books.430 The chapter headings are followed by an introduction, in which the subject is usually defined, sometimes ­etymologised or divided, and its importance for the prince affirmed, illustrated with comparisons, and supported by quotations from authorities (usually attributed in the margins). The result is sometimes a brief cento in the style of the Politica. Chapters 7, 17, and 18 of book 2, for instance, are good examples of this. Although these are traditional elements of dialectical argumentation, Lipsius does not proceed as systematically as he did in the Politica or as a scholastic dialectician would. In some chapters, however, the treatment is more systematic. Thus, the introductory discussion in the chapters on election and succession (Mon.2.3-4), and the quaestiones or quaestiunculae which Lipsius sometimes inserts after the examples at the end of a chapter,431 take the form of a small disputatio or dissertatio in utramque partem. A question is raised, for instance, “Is it suitable or useful for the prince to pronounce and pass judgment personally?”432 or “So preferably men should rule, and they should do so on their own. But how? Appointed by election or succession?”433 The question is followed by arguments and examples pro and contra, proof of these, and replies to objections, before a tentative conclusion is reached. The quaestio disputata or disputatio was a common (scholastic) teaching method and the traditional form of an academic dispute.434

428 The

structure of the Monita has also briefly been analysed by Moss (2011). In the editio princeps one chapter heading was different but was changed to conform to the others in the second, revised edition: the title of book 1, chapter 5 first read “Fatum considerandum credendumque esse.” and was changed into “De Fato. Id considerandum credendumque esse.” 430 Moss (1996: passim). 431 In total the work counts three quaestiones, and one quaestiuncula. 432 Mon. 2.9, quaestio, 1. 433 Mon. 2.3. 434 See, e.g., Weijers (2009, 2002 and 1995), Lawn (1993), and Gilbert (1971), with further bibliography. 429

101

Introduction In some chapters, this introduction is followed by one or more admonitions or monita, as announced in the title and the introduction of the work.435 Like the chapter headings, these counsels take the form of a statement or exhortation, and function as subheadings which gather groups of examples which illustrate a particular aspect of the subject under discussion. Thus, the chapter on fate (Mon. 1.5) is divided into five admonitions, including “Kingdoms and Kings are given by God” and “Kingdoms and Kings are taken by God”, each grouping relevant examples. The last admonition, “Fate is especially clear in predictions”, is further sub-divided into examples of dreams, signs, spectres, and vaticinations (Somnia, Signa, Spectra, Vaticinia), and the signs are sub-divided further into magna and parva. In most chapters, however, there are no sub-divisions (e.g. in the form of monita) and after the introduction Lipsius proceeds immediately to examples. The examples do not appear in a strictly chronological sequence, although Lipsius does proceed in roughly chronological order: he tends to start with examples from Greek, and then Roman, history and to end with medieval or contemporary examples, but a king from the thirteenth century can easily precede one from the eleventh. Biblical examples are rare but precede all others if adduced. Sometimes the dates of facts and figures are indicated in the margin, but not consistently. This seems to be the case if a person might not be well-known (for instance, the various Ottoman emperors) or if confusion could arise, for example because a person has a common name, such as Henry, Ferdinand, or Charles. The examples are not divided explicitly into ancient and modern, or pagan and Christian, as some compilers did in imitation of Valerius Maximus’ division of the examples into Roman (Romana) and external (externa). Lipsius does sometimes indicate with small connecting phrases that a different time period or category of examples begins.436 The examples are mainly connected through association: Lipsius often says that one example reminds him of another: Why should I close? The King of France brought us to another, elder king of that nation, namely John the First.437 Sometimes an example also evokes an admonition: But this story brings another admonition to my mind, namely…438

435 Mon. 1.1: “Ordinem servabo quem Politicis praestruxi; nec Exempla solum, sed et Monita passim inspergam et alibi Quaestiunculas.” 436 See e.g. Mon. 2.17.9: “Libentius et Christianos hic insero et laudo, primumque inter eos Balduinum, ex Flandriae Comite Byzantii Imperatorem.”; Mon. 1.8.6: “Ad Romanos transeo.”; Mon. 1.5. admon. 1, 6: “ Multa haec in historia veteri. Nostri aevi unum addam.” 437 Mon. 2.13.15. 438 Mon. 1.2., mon. 3.5.

102

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution This sometimes upsets the chronological order, as Lipsius himself acknowledges: May I be allowed to disturb the chronology, but without changing the subject? For how similar is that which Emperor Hadrian once did for someone who had been ill-affected towards him before his rule?439 Similarly, Lipsius sometimes inserts another example from earlier history at the end, as if he forgot to mention it at the beginning.440 Usually a brief sentence explains the (sometimes loose or far-fetched) connection: a family connection, a common origin, country, similar deeds, or characteristics, etc.441 Next to association, another factor which determines the order of the examples is their source. We often find examples taken from the same author grouped together.Thus, chapter 2.17 features a large section of examples taken from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata (Mon. 2.17.1-13), followed by a list of examples from Suetonius’ De vita Caesarum (Mon. 2.17.14-17).442 Similarly, we find clusters of anecdotes related to one specific person or one subject.Thus, there are several series of examples related to Alexander the Great (e.g. Mon. 2.17.4-6 and 2.18.10-13), taken from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata and his life of Alexander. Likewise, examples are sometimes grouped into sub-categories. For instance, within the list of examples of faithfulness, we find groups of examples relating the loyalty of various groups of people, of individuals, and of slaves. This last section was clearly inspired by Valerius Maximus.443

439 Mon. 2.12.15. In Mon. 2.15 Roman examples precede Greek ones, as if in this case the example of Augustus came to mind first, which then brought to mind the others. Lipsius also goes back in time when he changes subject, e.g. from examples of chastity in public life to private life, or from examples of castitas to examples of caritas (Mon. 2.17). 440 See e.g. Mon. 2.16.22: “I was truly about to conclude, but a Scythian woman intervenes and requires to be put on this stage.” 441 See e.g. Mon. 1.8.9: “Nec degeneravit ab eo Octavianus, iudicio filius, postea Augustus.”; Mon. 1.7.5-6: “Quid Iunior Cato Uticensis? Sed ille Constantiae reservetur, cuius pectus templum et sacrarium proprium ei Divae fuit. In eius locum Marcus Brutus prodeat, qui et in contubernio eius vixit cum Cyprum peteret. Nec virtutibus solum, sed adfinitate se iunxit. Duxit enim Porciam, eius filiam, tali patre, tali marito dignam.”; Mon. 2.2.4bis: “Similem, non enim parem undique, ei iungo Isabellam, Ferdinandi coniugem, Hispaniarum reginam. Parem? In quibusdam superiorem, et sola fortasse virginitate cedamus.”; Mon. 2.12.8: “Aliquid ab hac stirpe aut multum traxit Octavianus Caesar, adoptione filius, sanguine eius nepos.”; or Mon. 2.17.7: “Quem autem Bibulo adiungam? Veterem collegam, Iulium Caesarem. In omni quidem vita et proposito hostes, sed in hac virtute geminos, nisi quod copia vincit qui omnes vicit”; 2.18: “An non simile alterius Alexandri, imo maioris, id est Iulii Caesaris?” 442 Compare e.g., to Mon. 2.9.2 and 3 (Zaleucus and Charondas) = Val. Max. 6.5ext.3 and 4, or the cluster of anecdotes on Spanish princes and kings who met an unfortunate death from various sections of Mariana’s Historiae de rebus Hispaniae in Mon. 2.14.17. 443 See above pp. 92-94.

103

Introduction Likewise, in the chapter on modesty we find a separate section of examples which record modesty inspired by changes of fortune (Mon. 2.1.4.9-19).444 The individual examples either record one famous deed or saying, or a collection of anecdotes, taken from one or from various sources. The result is often a small biography or panegyric. Good examples are the laudatio of Isabella I of Castile, composed of anecdotes gathered from various loci in Marinaeus Siculus’ De rebus gestis Hispaniae (Mon.2.2.6bis),445 or the biography, or rather vituperatio, of Cleopatra, based on Plutarch’s lives of Antony and Brutus (Mon. 2.2.3).446 Most examples are concluded with a few words of praise or blame from Lipsius.447 In conclusion, we can say that the chapters and the individual examples seem to be structured as educational and rhetorical exercises, a structure adapted to the objectives of the treatise as defined by the author. In what follows we shall develop this argument a little further. 5.3. The literary form of the work: rhetoric and exemplarity in the Monita448 5.3.1. History and rhetoric As indicated above, Lipsius’ Monita is steeped in a long tradition of collecting historical examples, sentences, proverbs, etc. - a tradition with its own rhetorical theory. In the following paragraphs, we will study Lipsius’ use of examples in more detail and address questions such as: Which criteria does he use in his selection of examples, which rhetorical techniques does he apply in their formulation, and how does this compare to his own advice and to (ancient and contemporary) rhetorical theory and practice? Lipsius lived in an age that witnessed the birth of a new genre, that of the artes historicae or works on reading and writing history, a tradition rooted in antiquity and fifteenth-century Italy, which has been studied in detail by Anthony Grafton in his monograph on the art of history in early modern Europe.449 One of its most important representatives was Jean Bodin’s Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, first published in 1566 and revised in 1572. History was also at the centre of Lipsius’ own thoughts, and he can be said to have dedicated his entire career to history in one form or another.450 As indicated above, Lipsius expressed his 444

Mon. 2.14.9: “Haec invitent et excitent, sed Mutationum exempla, quae addam, fortius etiam percellant.” 445 Compare to the anecdotes on Alfonso V of Aragon taken from Beccadelli’s De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis in Mon. 2.12.16. 446 See also above p. 96. 447 See below p. 125. 448 On the rhetoric of exemplarity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see for instance Guion (2008), Aragüés Aldaz (1999), Lyons (1989), and Holcroft (1976). For the use of examples from the Renaissance until the twentieth century, see the compilation of Engler – Müller (1995). 449 See Grafton (2007) and the literature cited there. 450 Jehasse (1976: 580).

104

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution thoughts on history most extensively in his letter on the reading of history to de Hacqueville, and in the chapter on historiography in the Notae (1.9), which can be considered as his very own, albeit brief, artes historicae.451 In these texts, Lipsius traditionally identifies history as a source of political wisdom or prudence.452 In Mon.1.8, he defines prudence as knowledge of facts and events and a correct judgment of them, generated by nature, experience, and learning (i.e. the study of history). As discussed above, Lipsius stresses that all events are directed by God (Mon. 1.5).453 God always has a good reason to do something, but sometimes it is beyond human understanding and remains unknown to us. However, God does usually make His plans or intentions known to us through signs.Therefore it is useful to try to detect these (Mon. 1.5).To interpret these signs, one does not have to consult soothsayers, but one does need experience, which can be acquired through reading: Is it therefore allowed and appropriate to inquire into outcomes and to consult soothsayers or diviners? I do not think so, although I mentioned earlier that with certain prudence one can examine and investigate in which direction fate is inclined. But the following distinction should be made. It is allowed to surmise or presume something about the course of events from the indications or signs which the prudent man has collected from his reading, experience, and observation of similar things, but carefully and cautiously.454 Therefore, prudence, acquired through experience and reading, can reduce the unpredictability and inexplicability of events to a minimum. Although there is a lot we know by nature, on its own, nature will only result in false opinion and needs to be supplemented by experience and the study of history.455 Wisdom or knowledge derived from the reading of history is much wider than individual experience, which is limited in time and space. In history one can find examples, not from one single age or region, but the deeds of all peoples and periods, as in an enormous theatre or mirror: For what is history, if you consider it, but another type of experience? What I see, exercise, and do in practice, I read, draw, and learn from history. And the more facts and events are covered from each period of time, the more I learn. I have only a few years to build up experience, and in just one part or corner 451 Grafton (2007: 6). Next to these works, thoughts on history and historiography can mainly be found in his correspondence, the orations he held at Jena, and the dedications and introductions to his Tacitus-editions and commentary. 452 See above pp. 31-33. 453 See section 4.1.3. 454 Mon. 1.5.quaest. 455 Mon. 1.8.

105

Introduction of the world. But in history the events of centuries can be read; in history, how wide and open are those regions of the world? Therefore the opportunity to learn is greater. And you will learn if you fix the eyes of your mind on this mirror of examples, so to speak. Moreover, many prudent men, taught by experience, once used to write history and to insert short sentences and admonitions. And good God, how appropriate and salutary are those if a sound mind selects and collects them?456 History provides advice in the form of admonitions and judgments with which historians intersperse their examples. This concern with normative instruction based on authentic and significant experience marks the three essential characteristics or requirements of historiography as formulated by Lipsius in the Notae: historians need to describe events faithfully and truthfully (veritas), analyse and explain their causes (explanatio), and evaluate or judge them (iudicium), in order to help shape the reader’s judgment.457 Does Lipsius himself meet these criteria in the Monita, which he himself called a historical work on several occasions?458 5.3.1.1. Veritas or verisimilitudo? In Lipsius’ view, history should firstly be based on the truth (veritas), otherwise one can never derive wisdom or prudence from it: Truth, the beginning of prudence as well as wisdom. If you tear the eyes out of a living being, you render the rest of the body inoperative. The same is true for

456 Mon. 1.8. Compare Epistolicae quaestiones, 2.14: “Si est ut illae litterae, iis qui in rebus gerendis versantur, conveniant: certe historia est. Nam poësim, eloquentiam, alias elegantias, quamquam ingenium admittat, negotia fere excludunt: historia nec esse ipsa sine negotiis potuit (rerum enim gestarum narratio omnis est, non otii aut quietis:) et amat in primis habitare apud eos qui trac­ tant negotia. Merito. Res enim gerere, provincias, regna administrare, nemo sine prudentia potest: prudentia ex usu est, usus ab exemplis. At si Italia aut Hispania lustrata, paucorum annorum notata exempla (quantulum enim est quod homines vivimus?) praebere hunc usum censentur: quid de historia, Di boni, sentiemus? In qua non unius aevi aut urbis exempla, sed omnium temporum, omnium gentium, quasi in diffuso theatro res gestae spectantur”, and to Lipsius, Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: 2r), Dedicatio = ILE I, 81 00 00 H, 2-7: “Quoniam in hoc angusto vitae circo citius fere ad metam pervenimus quam observare oculis licitum varios et reciprocos humanae rei fluxus. Historia autem non unius aetatis regionisque finibus circumscripta, sed omnium saeculorum gentiumque res gestas cum fide tibi ostendit, velut in tabella.” The idea that history increases practical empirical experience is also expressed by Italian humanists such as Fontius (Bartolommeo della Fonte), Guarino da Verona, and Poliziano. See e.g. Gilbert (1973: 216),Trinkaus (1960: 100-101), Kelley (1988: 749), Holcroft (1976: 38), and Truman (1999: 96). It is in fact an ancient topos. See e.g. Cic. de orat. 1.159; 1.165; 1.201; 3.74; leg. 3.41; orat. 120; Isoc. ad Nic. 35, as quoted by Landfester (1972: 60). See also our commentary on Mon.1.8 and Guion (2008: 65-67). 457 Notae, 1.9 (p. 730, ed. Waszink). 458 See above pp. 25-26.

106

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution History if you deprive her of this light. How can you avoid always being mistaken and err in history which is false and erroneous? Such history never directs you or your actions steadily.459 Did Lipsius indeed select his sources for the Monita based on their truthfulness and did he in turn render them accurately? He is in any case anxious to stress the veracity of the historical anecdotes he reproduces. For instance, he is keen to indicate that he received his information via eye-witness reports. Thus, when describing the superstitious behaviour of the ancient Egyptians, he writes: You might think I am talking nonsense, but a Roman citizen in the time of Diodorus Siculus, that is to say, in the time of Tullius Cicero, found to his cost that it was true. For Diodorus himself writes about it, adding that he was an eye-witness.460 Likewise, on the constancy of Isabella in childbirth: This would be incredible, had Marineo Siculo not affirmed having learnt this for certain from her most trustworthy chambermaids.461 Similarly, he also reports differences or contradictions between sources.When relating the execution of the astrologer Ascletarion, who predicted Domitian’s death, Lipsius reproduces the account of Cassius Dio (67.16-18), according to whom the astrologer was burnt alive. To this Lipsius adds that according to Suetonius (Dom., 15), he was killed first.462 The disagreement of the sources on this matter of detail is reported by Lipsius, as if he wants to stress that, as a good historian, he syste­matically compared and evaluated various sources. Similarly, when discussing rules of succession, the author verbally reproduces Justin’s account (2.10.110) of the succession struggle between the children of Darius, Artemenes and Xerxes, but at the end of the story he indicates some differences between Justin’s report and Herodotus’, such as a difference in names (Herodotus named the oldest brother Ariobarzanes instead of Artemenes).463 Again, however, it regards insignificant details, and it is quite obvious that, all in all, Lipsius is more concerned with moral education than with historical truth. Thus, he does not mind including

459 Notae, 1.9 (p. 731, ed.Waszink): “Veritas, principium prudentiae simul et Sapientiae. Ut animanti oculos si eruas, reliquum corpus inutile reddas: sic Historiam, si ab ea hoc lumen. In falsa et errante, quomodo non fallare semper et erres? talis firmiter numquam te diriget, aut tuas actiones.” 460 Mon. 1.3, quaest., 1. 461 Mon. 1.7, const. 8. See also Mon. 1.8.21: “And Paolo Giovio (he was with him and an eye-witness) writes that…”. 462 Mon. 1.5, mon. 5.13. 463 Mon. 2.4, mon. 2.1.

107

Introduction unbelievable or fictitious anecdotes if they are reported by reputable authors, as can be derived from the following conclusion to an anecdote: I could hardly deny that this seems closer to a tale (fabula) than to history (historia), but since it was written by good authors, what harm is there in describing it?464 In doing so, however, Lipsius followed the advice of ancient (and contemporary) rhetorical theorists such as Quintilian, who recommended the following: Above all, our orator should be equipped with a rich store of examples both old and new: and he ought not merely to know those which are recorded in history or transmitted by oral tradition or occur from day to day but should not neglect even those fictitious examples invented by the great poets. For while the former have the authority of evidence or even of legal decisions, the latter either also have the warrant of antiquity or are regarded as having been invented by great men to serve as lessons to the world.465 Erasmus, who agreed with him on this, affirms: If the audience takes these kinds of examples as true, they will be effective because people believe them; if they take them as inventions, since they are the productions of wise and revered authors, they will be effective for the very reason that they were put out by men whose authority gave what they wrote the force of precept.466 In the same section, Erasmus suggests prefacing such legendary examples by praising the reputability of the author and by saying that those wise old men of long ago did not invent stories like this for no good reason, and that there is also a reason why they have been current by general consent for so many centuries. In line with this, Lipsius comments on his examples of divine vengeance:

464

Mon. 2.9, mon. 2.3. Quint. inst. 12.4 (ed. and transl. Butler, 4, 407-409): “In primis vero abundare debet orator exemplorum copia cum veterum tum etiam novorum, adeo ut non ea modo quae conscripta sunt historiis aut sermonibus velut per manus tradita quaeque cotidie aguntur debeat nosse, verum ne ea quidem quae sunt a clarioribus poetis ficta neglegere. Nam illa quidem priora aut testimoniorum aut etiam iudicatorum optinent locum, sed haec quoque aut vetustatis fide tuta sunt aut ab hominibus magnis praeceptorum loco ficta creduntur.” 466 Erasmus, De copia, CWE 24 614; ASD 1.6 238: “Quae si pro veris accipiantur, fide valent, sin pro fictis, cum sint a sapientissimis ac probatissimis autoribus prodita, hoc ipso valent, quod ab iis conficta sint quorum auctoritas praecepti vigorem obtinet.” 465

108

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution The examples might seem extraordinary and unbelievable, but they are written by reliable, or at least ancient, authors.467 So in Lipsius’ opinion, too, fictitious examples have been invented by respectable authors for a reason, namely, to serve as a lesson, and can therefore still be morally effective, even if their historicity is doubtful. This is confirmed by his treatment of an example which some authors ascribe to Francesco Sforza, and others to Charles VIII: Maybe the self-restraint deserves to be added, although it was only in one instance, which some ascribe to Francesco Sforza and others to Charles the Eighth, King of France. But let us use Charles’ name, to make it more worthy. And it is nonetheless possible that something similar happened to both.468 It can be derived from this passage that Lipsius’ main concern indeed did not so much lie with the historical truth, as with the didactic value and moral effectiveness of historical examples. In order to be effective and convincing, stories did not have to be true, but plausible. It seems, therefore, that Lipsius’ principal aim was not veritas, but verisimilitudo. According to Quintilian, verisimilitude is an extremely important aspect of rhetorical practice, which the successful orator needs to understand and master: It is a great gift to be able to set forth the facts on which we are speaking clearly and vividly. For oratory fails of its full effect, and does not assert itself as it should, if its appeal is merely to the hearing, and if the judge merely feels that the facts on which he has to give his decision are being narrated to him, and not displayed in their living truth to the eyes of the mind.469 Like the ancients and like most of his humanist colleagues, Lipsius indeed considered history to be a part of rhetoric, with the same objectives and the same techniques.470 From the introductory chapter of the Monita it can be derived that it was indeed Lipsius’ intention to achieve verisimilitude:

467

Mon. 2.11. Mon. 2.17.12. 469 Quint., inst. 8.3.62 (ed. and transl. Butler, 3, 245): “Magna virtus res de quibus loquimur clare atque ut cerni videantur enuntiare. Non enim satis efficit neque, ut debet, plene dominatur oratio si usque ad aures valet, atque ea sibi iudex de quibus cognoscit narrari credit, non exprimi et oculis mentis ostendi.” Compare to Rhet. Her., 4.49.62. 470 On the close connection between rhetoric and history in the classical and humanist tradition, and challenges of this view, see e.g. Grafton (2007: 8-11, 31-32 and 34-39), Brown (1939: 61-63). 468

109

Introduction For they [i.e. aphorisms and examples] supply whichever of the two you wish, while they lead, as it were, to the present subject, they illustrate and show the deeds which they urge should be performed.471 For according to Lipsius the ability to “hold forth”, ostendere, is also characteristic of a good historian, as he affirms in the dedicatory letter to his commentary on the Annales, where he praises Tacitus for the visual qualities of his work as follows: If such a history exists or existed among the Greeks or Romans, agree with me, I tell you, illustrious members of the States, that it is the history of Cornelius Tacitus. He does not adduce brilliant wars and triumphs, which are only composed to entertain the reader; neither insurrections or councils of the Tribunes, nor agrarian and corn laws, which are of no use to the present day: but, look, instead you will see before your eyes kings and monarchs and as it were a spectacle of life today.472 According to Quintilian, verisimilitude is achieved by giving an actual word-picture of a scene by describing its actors, their dress, the location, etc. in detail.473 Lipsius certainly paid a lot of attention to detail: most of his examples contain detailed descriptions of the events, circumstances, individuals involved, their character, appearance, gestures, etc., allowing the reader to form a mental picture of what happened. This distinguishes Lipsius from most of his sources and fellow compilers, who often restricted themselves to a brief summary of events, and sometimes even contented themselves with a simple reference to it. Lipsius did not shrink from elaborating certain details which he found in his source texts or inventing some of his own in order to achieve the desired verisimilitude. A good example is the lively story of Philopoemen (Mon. 2.15.4), who is mistaken for a servant by his hostess. The anecdote is briefly described in Plutarch’s Life of Philopoemen (Phil. 2.1-2), and has been elaborated by Lipsius, with a lot of attention to detail. Thus, while the preparation of a meal for the guest is merely a detail in Plutarch, Lipsius describes it extensively: when the host is told that Philopoemen is coming, he rejoices at the prospect of a feast, and immediately leaves for the market to buy food. He is so absorbed by this that he forgets to describe Philopoemen to his wife, who, when Philopoemen arrives, mistakes him

471

Mon. 1.1. Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, (1581: fol. *3r and v), Dedicatio: “Cuius generis si ulla est fuitque, inter Graecos aut Latinos: eam esse Cornelii Taciti Historiam adfirmate apud vos dico, Ordines illustres. Non adfert ille vobis speciosa bella aut triumphos, quorum finis sola voluptas legentis sit; non seditiones aut conciones Tribunicias, agrarias frumentariasque leges, quae nihil ad saecli huius usum: reges ecce vobis et monarchos, et velut theatrum hodiernae vitae.” 473 See Quint. inst. 8.3.63-70. Compare to Val. Max. 5.4.ext.1, comparing historical examples to a picture. 472

110

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution for a servant, and promptly urges him to give her a hand. When the host returns from the market, he is highly indignant, but Philopoemen is amused.They all have a good laugh about it, and it was the talk of the day. Lipsius’ vivid description of the event indeed allows the reader to form a mental picture of what happened. In fact, it was so lifelike that it even inspired his contemporary and friend, Peter Paul Rubens, to paint ‘The Recognition of Philopoemen’.474 Although Rubens definitely knew Plutarch’s account, he seems to have found inspiration in the Monita for its depiction given the fact that his painting, too, gives a prominent place to the banquet: the canvas is dominated by a large quantity of food, while the main characters in the story are hidden in the left corner. The most striking difference, however, between Lipsius and his source texts is the detailed descriptions which the Monita feature of what might have been said at a given occasion. By composing such imaginary historical speeches and dialogues, Lipsius seems to violate his own laws, in the eyes of the modern reader, by neglecting the historian’s primary responsibility to tell the truth. In reality, Lipsius followed a tradition which had been initiated in Greek historical writing and had been common practice ever since. Humanists such as Valla, Pontano, and Viperano were convinced that composing direct speeches appropriate to the circumstances was a valuable intellectual and stylistic exercise which greatly enhanced the credibility and hence the effectiveness of historical narrative by increasing its verisimilitude.475 Direct speeches in which rulers are introduced speaking and acting personally make the reader feel as if he is watching the event as it takes place.They spark the reader’s imagination and take him back to the situation in which the actors had to make and explain their choices, thus enhancing the reader’s prudence. However, this tradition also had its opponents, and historical speeches became the subject of debate as early as the fifteenth century.476 Francesco Patrizzi, for instance, argued that by including fictional speeches, historians introduced deliberate lies and thus went against the first law of history (i.e. to tell the truth). This view was shared by Jean Bodin, who stressed in his Methodus that since the purpose of history is truth, the methods of the historian and the orator do not coincide: the office of the historian does not consist in diverting the reader with imaginary speeches and pleasant digressions.477 Lipsius, on the contrary, stands firmly in the humanist tradition and follows in the footsteps of ancient historians such as 474 Madrid, Museo del Prado, n. 1851. See Raeymaekers (1999). The example of Philopoemen is not an isolated case; many of the heroes whose stories we can read in the Monita, such as Thomyris, Scipio, Cloelia, and Rudolf I of Austria have been immortalised in Rubens’ paintings and drawings. See Janssens (2013). On Lipsius and Rubens, see further Morford (1991) and McGrath (1997: passim). 475 Grafton (2007: 34-38) and Brown (1939: 65). 476 See Grafton’s description of this debate (2007: 34-49) and the summary of Guion (2008: 79-82). 477 Cf. Brown (1939: 63-65), who studied Bodin’s Methodus and compared it to artes historicae (from the Italian humanist tradition, as well as from German, Protestant theorists) written both before and after the Methodus.

111

Introduction Thucydides and Quintus Curtius (Rufus), whom he praises in the Notae for their eloquent and instructive speeches.478 In doing so, he acts on the advice of humanists such as Erasmus, who believed that if the historian does not know what was actually said on a given past occasion, he is entitled to imagine what ought to have been said, for this has been the practice of the greatest of poets, such as Homer.479 Also Valla compares the practice of historians with that of poets and says: Does anyone actually believe that those admirable speeches that we find in histories are genuine, and not rather fitted, by a wise and eloquent writer, to the person, the time, and the situation, as their way of teaching us both eloquence and wisdom?480 The same opinion is expressed by Lipsius in the Admiranda when he comments on historical speeches as follows: these are inserted into histories to adorn them, not because they truly and rightly said that, but because that is what they are likely to have said.481 In the Monita, Lipsius indeed puts lengthy speeches in the mouths of the great heroes of the past, basing himself on details found in his source texts, but elaborating them extensively. The fact that nearly all of the changes in the revised edition of 1606 regard alterations of, and additions to, direct speeches indicates their importance to the author, be it as a means of persuasion or even as examples of style. Lipsius’ vivid speeches and dialogues certainly enhance the plausibility and efficacy of the material by making it verisimilar: they truly give the reader the impression 478

Notae (p. 733 and 734, ed. Waszink), 1.9, on Thucydides: “Elocutione tota gravis et brevis, densus sententiis, sanus iudiciis: occulte ubique instruens, actiones vitamque dirigens, orationibus et excursibus paene divinus.” On Quintus Curtius: “Q. Curtius: qui me iudice probus est legitimusque Historicus, si quisquam fuit. […] Verus in iudiciis, argutus in sententiis, in orationibus supra quam dixerim facundus.” For divergent opinions on Quintus Curtius (and his invented speeches) see Grafton (2007: 1-61), who uses the fortunes of this author as a case study. 479 Erasmus, De copia ASD 1.6 , p. 272. 480 Lorenzo Valla, Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum, prooemium, § 10: “An est quisquam qui credat admirabiles illas in historiis orationes utique veras fuisse, et non ab eloquenti ac sapienti opifice personis, temporibus, rebus accommodatas, quibus nos eloqui et sapere docerent?” Quoted in the translation by Grafton (2007: 36). Compare to Lipsius, C. Cornelii Tacitii Opera omnia quae extant (1607: fol. *3v): “Historiam apte scribere, Imperator, maiorum temporibus non solum magna, sed etiam rara laus fuit. Utriusque caussa a difficultate est: difficultas ex eo, quod quae aliis scientiis fere singula proponuntur, ea historiae legitimae universa. Poëta si adposite ad delectationem; orator ad fidem; philosophus ad vitam dicat: implesse munus suum videntur. Historiae scriptor nisi haec tria simul misceat ac temperet, frustra se iactet in singulis, neque adlegi aliter inter meliores illos et quasi patricios historicos a prudenti Censore potest.” 481 Lipsius, Admiranda, sive De magnitudine Romana libri quattuor (1599: 171): “quasi nescias decore haec historiis inseri, non quia probe aut vere, sed quia probabiliter ab iis dicta.”

112

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution that he has actually been present at the scene and witnessed it himself.This is indeed one of the major differences between Lipsius and his fellow compilers, from which Ann Moss concludes that “Lipsius makes the short narratio an art form.”482 In conclusion, one could say that, although in Lipsius’ time scholars began to argue for a separation of history from rhetoric, and for a new, more critical kind of history, mainly concerned with critical examination of sources, Lipsius, like most of his fellow humanists, still considered history a branch of rhetoric concerned with moral education and intended to please, touch, and persuade the reader. This concern with moral instruction can also be observed in the other two features which, according to Lipsius, characterise a good historian: explanation or interpretation (explanatio), and evaluation (iudicium). 5.3.1.2. Interpretation and evaluation According to Lipsius, the historian’s experiences should not only be reported faithfully and truthfully, but also must be processed, interpreted, and elucidated by the light of reason in order to be useful for the reader and provide him with knowledge. After the examples of Polybius and Tacitus, the historian should also expose why, how, with what aim, and with what result certain actions took place.483 As indicated above, Lipsius usually interprets historical events as manifestations of divine providence.484 Such an interpretation is usually offered at the end of the historical narrative. Thus, Lipsius comments on the execution of the papal favourites Carlo and Giovanni Carafa: Although many accused the Pope of cruelty and ingratitude, wiser people recognised in these famous examples the uncertainty of human affairs and recognised that those who a while earlier, in dignity and wealth, had been at the top of Roman affairs had perished by the punishment and dishonour that awaits base criminals.485 Similarly, Lipsius comments on the downfall of the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse as follows: He wanted to come to aid, but could not and was reduced from the sceptre to the rod. By whom? By God, by God, who let this unexpected event intervene.486

482 Moss (2011: 114). The visual qualities of the work are also stressed in the Approbatio added to the Monita: “quod ea quae Principibus ac politicis viris apprime conveniant, non modo legenda, ­verumetiam velut in tabula, non sine voluptate, spectanda, exhibeant.” 483 Notae 1.9 (p. 731, ed. Waszink). Lipsius quotes Tac. hist. 1.4 and Pb. 3.31.12. 484 See esp. Mon. 1.2 and 5; 2.5; 6; 11; 13 and 14. 485 Mon. 1.5, mon. 2.5. 486 Mon.1.5, mon. 3.1.

113

Introduction Such a theological or providentialist interpretation of history was common among ‘anti-Machiavellian’ authors of the Counter-Reformation, a period in which the moral analysis of individual actions and the careful application of general principles to them increasingly became a feature of moral theology.487 In this way, history could also teach which attitude one should adopt in the face of fate. Lipsius’ historical examples expose what results certain courses of action generate and thus offer the reader concrete rules of conduct. By showing the reader, for instance, that deceit is punished while justice is rewarded, Lipsius teaches the reader how to behave in order to avoid divine vengeance and what to do in order to obtain a reward and be successful.These rules are usually made explicit by the author at the end of the example when he draws the moral from the story. Thus, in the chapter on deceit and violence, Lipsius concludes his story of Phraates, who killed his father and was killed by his son in return, as follows: When he grew up, he killed his father with the knowledge and help of his mother. Well done, well done. Why should I not say that? He got what he deserved, and what he taught: what goes around comes around.488 Whether the historian should insert moral comments to guide the interpretation of the reader was heavily debated by humanists. Patrizzi, Bodin, and Keckermann thought it was inappropriate for historians to judge the reported facts as rhetoricians or philosophers would do, and that the narration of the bare facts was enough to praise or blame their actors.489 According to Lipsius, however, history and rhetoric are inseparable: the historian fulfils the task of the rhetorician, the poet, and the philosopher all at once, and it is his duty to praise or blame the events and actions he describes. Sometimes Lipsius simply expresses his approval or disapproval, for instance by saying “What can I add to this diligence except Bravo and well done!”490, but often he directly addresses the reader, in particular the prince, with a lesson. For example, the consultation of soothsayers is discouraged as follows: I will conclude with the words of Valerius: Astrologers (and others, that is) spread gainful darkness over fickle and silly minds with their lies by their deceitful interpretation of the stars. Do you hear that, prince? They adhere to and please fickle and silly minds. Do you want to be counted among those, too? Also listen to what he adds about gain: that is the objective of all those tricks (for they are not arts). Be careful and despise them. Only if dreams, signs, apparitions, and vaticinations have 487

Bireley (1990: 31; 80, and 95) and Guion (2008: 83-97). Mon. 2.5, viol. 2. 489 See Brown (1939: 63-64) on Bodin, and Guion (2008: 177-209) for a detailed description of this debate. 490 Mon.2.9bis, quaestio, 3. 488

114

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution clearly been sent by God (and then you must consult pious and learned men), you must not disdain them.491 Sometimes he even addresses specific people or dynasties to incite them to imitate their famous ancestors. Thus, the rulers of the Southern Netherlands are encouraged to imitate the justice of Charles the Bold as follows: “It is a tragic example, but I congratulate the Netherlands upon such an outcome under such a protector of justice. And you, successors, keep that in mind.”492 Similarly, the members of the House of Croÿ should emulate the example of their ancestor Andrew of Hungary: “Be blessed, even for this deed, great king, and you, famous House of Croÿ, who are a branch of that stock.”493 Finally, Lipsius also makes suggestions for improving certain behaviour. Thus, when Baldwin VII, Count of Flanders, personally executed some knights, Lipsius comments: “I praise the event, but not the method: He could and should have done it with someone else’s hands.”494 Similarly, from Charles V’s regrets about not understanding Latin, the reader is encouraged to draw the following lesson: And Paolo Giovio (he was with him and an eye-witness) writes that once in Genua, when Charles heard an orator speak Latin, and he did not fully understand, he confessed sadly and honestly that he was now being punished for his youthful negligence, and that his teacher Hadrian had been right, who had predicted these regrets. We believe you, dear prince. And how many people, also today, who are even greater, that is to say wiser, regret this negligence, together with you? Let parents think about this and correct it, for the sake of their sons and the common good. That is my wish.495

491

Mon, 1.5.quaest. Mon. 2.9.7. 493 Mon. 2.9bis, mon. 2.2. The house of Croÿ claimed descent from the Hungarian Prince Marc, son of King Stephen IV, who allegedly married Catherine de Croÿ, heiress to the barony of Croÿ. Lipsius dedicated three of his works ‒ his Dispunctio notarum Mirandulani codicis ad Cornelium Tacitum (Antwerp, 1602), De Bibliothecis Syntagma (Antwerp, 1602), and Lovanium (Antwerp, 1605) ‒ to a scion of this influential family, Charles de Croÿ, son of Philip III de Croÿ. He also sent a copy of the Monita to Charles Philippe de Croÿ, son of Philip II de Croÿ. See ILE [XVIII], 05 02 26, in which Charles Philippe writes to Lipsius that he has received and embraced his book, entitled Monita Principum. Compare Mon. 1.6, const. 6, in which the Dukes of Medina Sidonia are encouraged to imitate the constancy of their founder Alonso Pérez de Guzmán (1256-1309), surnamed El Bueno. 494 Mon. 2.9bis, mon. 1.7. Lipsius’ condemnation of Baldwin’s act should be seen against the background of Politica 4.11, where executions are singled out, next to taxes and censorship, as a source of hatred, which contributes to the destruction of a reign, and princes are discouraged from carrying out or watching executions. Compare Mon. 2.9.3, where Lipsius reproves Charondas, who applied his own laws to himself and applied the death penalty to himself, as follows: “One might praise the end, but not approve of the means.” 495 Mon. 1.8.21. 492

115

Introduction In the Monita Lipsius thus presents the reader with different situations and indicates how to deal with them. The decision process of the actors is often described in the speeches Lipsius writes for them. Thus, the moral dilemma of Zaleucus is described as follows: Zaleucus maintained justice even with a remarkable deed. Among other laws, he had proposed a law in Locri that an adulterer should be deprived of his eyes. Very rightly so, since it is the eyes which mostly seduce or lead to this crime. But behold, a while later his son committed adultery, and having been accused of violating the law, he was also condemned to such a punishment. But the people agreed to remit it, moved by pity (for he was his only son) and for his father’s sake. But his father refused and was angry. Let the law, he said, and punishment be fixed for us as well. But I have found a way for us to keep the law intact while still making a concession to humaneness. He and I are one. So let one eye be ripped from me and the other from him. And that is what was done.496 These sentences show how Zaleucus tried to find a way to mitigate the effect of an overly rigorous application of the law (severitas) and reconcile the duty to obey the law (iustitia) with the (Christian) virtues of paternal love, humanitas, and misericordia. Lipsius contrasts this instance to the next example of Charondas, whose behaviour he characterises as cruel (“severior et in se fuit, aut vere dicam crudelior”) and unacceptable (“a facto non probet”). Likewise, when someone reports a crime to Sultan Mehmed II committed by his son Mustafa, Lipsius lets him reply as follows: Mehmed first hesitated and then replied to the Pasha in quite severe words (but he felt differently in his mind): And why, he said, did you decide to complain so strongly about my son? Do you not know that you and your wife are in my rightful possession? So if my son has embraced her and indulged his feelings, he has obviously embraced my servant, entirely without any guilt, if it was with my consent. Think about that and go away. Leave the rest to me. But he said that more to protect his right than because he agreed, and sad and hurt in his soul, he called his son to him and questioned him first.Then, when the son confessed, he sent him away with very strong words and threats. And soon he put his threats into practice. Three days later, when his son and justice had been struggling in his heart for a while and the latter had won, he gave orders that Mustafa should be strangled with a bowstring and chastity satisfied by his death.497 Descriptions such as these take the reader back to the situation in which the actors had to make and explain their choices, so that he can put himself in their position.

496 497

Mon. 2.9.2. Mon. 2.9.8.

116

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution By depicting such moral dilemmas and the process of moral decision-making, contrasting examples, presenting examples as troubling, extreme, or ambiguous, Lipsius seeks to shape the moral judgment of the reader and guide him to prudence.498 5.3.2. Selection and formulation of the examples In antiquity, the use of historical examples was recommended by philosophers and rhetorical theorists such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Quintilian,499 while in the “age of exemplarity”, as John D. Lyons labelled the Renaissance,500 some of the most detailed advice on the use of examples was formulated by Erasmus and by Lipsius himself. Some of these authors stressed the logical and emotional qualities of the example as a means of proof and persuasion, while others emphasised its aesthetic and stylistic value as a means of illustration and amplification. The first chapter of the Monita, a dialogue on the usefulness of examples, allows us to learn something about Lipsius’ own concept of exemplarity. It teaches us that the examples in the Monita served various purposes: they did not only have to support the arguments of the Politica (“ut valida sint”) and move the reader to imitation (“ut efficacia sint”), but also had to illustrate and augment the precepts of the Politica (“ornamenta adiunge”). That the examples in the Monita had to serve all these purposes is confirmed in the first place by their sheer abundance: if they only served as proof, it would have been sufficient to make a small selection of the most impressive and persuasive examples.501 Instead, Lipsius could not resist piling one example on top of another, wondering “Why should I close?”502 This gave him the opportunity to display his erudition and fluency, and might suggest that he also intended his treatise to be used as a reference work and a manual for rhetorical or stylistic, as well as moral instruction. In the same chapter, Lipsius stresses that the imitation of historical examples requires careful selection: one should select those examples from the past

498 The

same techniques are used by Lipsius’ model,Valerius Maximus, as has been demonstrated by Rebecca Langlands (2008), whose findings we have applied to Lipsius. The procedure followed in the Monita is similar to the method applied by Lipsius in his history classes, which consisted of an explanation of the historical background of the text under consideration (ad historiam), followed by a clarification of its moral meaning (ad mores), and of the rules which can be derived from the text for public life (ad prudentiam): Lipsius, C(aius) Velleius Paterculus cum Animadversionibus (1591: fol. *2r). See further Van den Hoorn (1997: 86-90) and Enenkel (2004: 588–589). 499 See, e.g., Arist. Rh. 1.9; 2.20; 3.17; Pl. Prt. 325d-e; Cic. Arch. 14; Sest. 142-143; fam. 6.6 and 4.1.1; Sen. epist. 1.1; 11.10; 83.13 and 104.19-26; Quint. inst. 12.2.29-30. 500 Lyons (1989: 12). 501 If they mainly served as proof, Lipsius would probably have indicated their sources to increase their authority. In the preface to the reader Lipsius says he deliberately did not do so. 502 Mon. 2.13.14 and 15: “Claudamus inclito exemplo […] Quid claudam?” Compare to Mon. 2.17.22: “Vere claudebam, sed Scythica mulier intervenit et ostendi postulat in hoc theatro.”

117

Introduction which most resemble one’s own time and apply them to the present situation.503 Furthermore, Lipsius suggests that, like an artist, one should select those features of exemplary figures which are most worthy of imitation, avoiding the unattractive qualities: since it is hard to find historical examples of people who led a consistently virtuous life, individual characteristics and moments of exemplary action need to be selected. In other words, Lipsius acknowledged that, next to similarity, there is also a certain discontinuity between the past and the present which needs to be overcome in order for the past to serve as a useful model for the present. And this is where the humanist comes in: bridging the gap between past and present, prince and people depended on the humanist’s historical knowledge to provide them with suitable models of imitation.504 In order for these examples to be effective models, the author had to carefully select the most appropriate ones, as pointed out by Lipsius, and employ them in the most persuasive way according to the established rules of rhetoric. Let us therefore try to reconstruct both aspects of the writing process, that is, the selection and the formulation of the examples, starting with the former by trying to determine some of the criteria applied by Lipsius in his selection of historical examples. 5.3.2.1. Selection When studying Lipsius’ choice of examples, one is immediately struck by the large number of examples taken from recent history, especially compared to his earlier works, such as the Admiranda sive de magnitudine Romana and the De Militia Romana, in which ancient history dominates. This brings to mind Melanchthon’s advice on the use of modern examples in his De rhetorica: And with examples those can achieve most which are closest to our cause.Thus, if you consider fighting against the Turks, the example of Sigismund, under whose command some legions have been slaughtered in our time, will be more effective than those fetched from ancient times, from Alexander, Julius [Caesar] or the like.505

503 In his commentary on Tacitus’ Annales, Lipsius expressed a similar opinion (Lipsius, Ad Annales Corn.Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: fol. *3r) = ILE I, 81 00 00 H, 24-27: “Nec utiles omnes [i.e. memorias] nobis pari gradu, ea, ut censeo, maxime, in qua similitudo et imago plurima temporum nostrorum. Ut in pictura faciem praevisam facilius agnoscimus, sic in Historia noti moris exempla.” 504 See above pp. 33-34. 505 P. Melanchthon, De rhetorica libri tres (Cologne: E. Cervicorn, 1525), unpaginated: “Et in exemplis illa plurimum possunt quae ad nostram causam proxime accedunt. Ut si de Turca oppugnando deliberes, efficacius erit Sigismundi exemplum, quo imperatore nostris temporibus aliquot caesae sunt legiones, quam quae a veterum temporibus ab Alexandro, Iulio aut similibus petuntur.”

118

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution According to Melanchthon, the reader will be encouraged more by examples which are closer to him in time, as he can relate to them more easily. Similar to this recommendation of modern above ancient examples, is that of domestic examples above, or at least next to, foreign ones. This opinion is expressed for instance by Erasmus in his De copia, where he insists that one is encouraged more by examples from one’s own country, class, or family, next to well-known ancient examples.506 In his De conscribendis epistolis, he explains why this is so: Indeed, nothing rouses us to virtue as much as the examples of those whom we admire, especially famous and ancient, or domestic ones. For the former ones are commended for their authority, the latter for their emotional influence because everyone likes to hear about the virtues of the ancients and admires them more because they are far removed from envy; and it is natural that everyone is touched more by examples which are closely connected to them, such as the examples of our ancestors, relatives, teachers, and those with whom we have country, class, or profession in common.507 So according to Erasmus, although famous examples from antiquity may lend authority to the speech, because they are far removed from the reader, they do not move the reader as much as examples which are closer to him in space. In this, he seems to share the opinion of ancient theorists and writers such as Quintilian, Cicero, Seneca, and Valerius Maximus, who showed a marked preference for Roman examples above foreign and especially Greek ones. Similar motives could have led Lipsius to include many examples from recent history, as well as from local, and especially from national, Spanish history in his mirror for princes. Apart from being led by a desire to create variety,508 and to propagate and glorify the dynasty of his dedicatee, Lipsius may also have felt that his addressee and his compatriots would be more inspired by their ancestors. In the dedicatory letter, Lipsius explains: For it offers political admonitions. And to whom will they be offered with more right than to the leader of our polity and state? It concerns examples. And to whom will they be given more appropriately than to him who will recognise his own family and dynasty in them? Examples of your ancestors Rudolf, Philip, 506 Erasmus, De copia verborum ac rerum (ASD 1.6: 232): “Movent autem potissimum animos antiqua, illustria, nostratia, domestica, id est suam quaeque gentem, suum quaeque genus.” 507 Erasmus, De conscribendis epistolis (ASD 1.2: 329): “Iam nulla perinde re ad virtutem inflammescimus ut eorum quos admiramur exemplis, maxime illustribus, pervetustis, ac domesticis. Illa enim autoritate, haec affectu commendantur, propterea quod priscorum virtutes, quoniam ab invidia longe absunt, et audit quisque libenter et miratur impensius; et natura sit ut quisque finitimis exemplis acrius tangatur, veluti maiorum nostrorum, affinium, praeceptorum, et eorum quibuscum nobis vel patria, vel ordo, vel professio communis est.” 508 Cf. Skidmore (1996: 91).

119

Introduction Maximilian, Charles, Ferdinand, and Alfonso will be mentioned here on various occasions. They illuminate and lend fame to this work, just as the stars illuminate the sky. In the Politica (1.8.1), Lipsius also expressed the opinion that examples that are further removed in time and space are less effective, and elsewhere in the Monita, he often insists on omitting older examples.509 This growing interest in recent and domestic examples can be observed in Vives as well, who recommends the use of examples close to the hearts of one’s audience in his De ratione dicendi. In particular, he expresses a preference for Christian rather than pagan examples: but it matters which examples we set before whose eyes: examples of barbarians were valued the least among the Romans, examples of Greeks a little more, and ones of their own ancestors the most. Similarly, examples of pagans do not have to take the first place for us, but of Christians, and not just any Christians, but those whom we judge to have led their lives correctly according to Evangelic purity.510 A similar concern to promote the use of Christian examples is apparent in Erasmus, who stresses that all biblical examples are domestic since all the faithful are citizens of the city of God.511 In his Institutio principis Christiani, he explains this by warning the Christian reader of the moral danger of reading the pagan past: Besides, what could possibly be imagined that is more insane than that someone who is initiated into the mysteries of Christ sets Alexander, Julius [Caesar], or Xerxes before his eyes, whose lives are criticised even by the Pagan Writers, even if their opinion was not very sane? As it would be very disgraceful to be surpassed by them, if they have done anything honourable, so would it be extremely mad for a Christian prince to want to imitate them completely.512 509

See sentences such as “omitto vetera”, e.g. in Mon. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.9, and 2.17. omnia (1782: 2, 254): “sed refert quae quibus exempla proponamus: apud Romanos minime valebant barbarorum exempla, aliquantum Graecorum, plurimum maiorum suorum; apud nos praecipua debent esse non gentilium, sed Christianorum, nec quorumvis sed eorum quos recte ad Evangelicam puritatem arbitramur vitam direxisse.” For the preference of domestica over externa by Valerius Maximus and other ancient authors, such as Cicero and Seneca, see Skidmore (1996: 89 and 95). 511 Erasmus, Ecclesiastes sive De ratione concionandi (ASD 5.5: 156): “Magis enim movent domestica. Id autem arte efficiendum est ut omnia nobis domestica videantur quae sacris voluminibus prodita sunt. Una enim est omnium piorum civitas ac domus, et nobis illa gesta sunt, nobis prodita sunt.” 512 Erasmus, Institutio principis Christiani (ASD 4.1: 182): “Alioqui quid fingi possit insanius, quam hominem Christi sacramentis initiatum, Alexandrum, Iulium, aut Xerxem sibi proponere, quorum vitam incessunt etiam Ethnici Scriptores, si quibus iudicium fuit paulo sanius? A quibus ut su­­perari turpissimum est, si quid recte gesserunt, ita totos imitari velle Christianum Principem, extremae dementiae sit.” 510 Vives, Opera

120

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution As the philological and antiquarian endeavours of humanists, such as Erasmus and Lipsius, revealed more and more details about the (ancient) past, the awareness of historical contingency and of the alterity of the past increased, making it more and more difficult to render historical texts and examples relevant to one’s own day. Timothy Hampton has demonstrated how humanists such as Erasmus, Machiavelli, and Budé, in their reverence for the classical world, struggled to appropriate the past and apply it to the present.513 Such a struggle also manifests itself in the need which Lipsius clearly felt to defend his choice of pagan examples. His decision to illustrate the virtue of piety with pagan examples, for instance, must have been met with at least some surprise by his readers. Lipsius justifies it as follows: At all times it has been noticed that God exalts those who worship Him, and that pious and religious princes have been the most prosperous, while the others have not. Let us corroborate this by means of examples and let us see that even in the false religion of the ancients there were people who worshipped Him and received an external reward from God. If He even honours and rewards an image and illusion of it, what will He do then in the case of true religion?514 Furthermore, when a certain aspect of the behaviour or life of an exemplary figure in the Monita is not in line with Christian belief, Lipsius feels compelled to add a moral remark expressing his own judgment in order to forestall misapplication. A case in point is the example of figures such as Cato or his daughter Porcia, who committed suicide. Although this is something Lipsius admires, he cannot approve of it for religious reasons. He tries to solve this by adding the following remark at the end of the story of Porcia: Do you approve of this? you will ask. No, but I admire it, and some might even approve of it, but someone of her times.515 Although Lipsius believes that the deeds of pagans can inspire the modern reader if he bears in mind that they took place in a different historical period, he nevertheless thinks that it is safer to move on to Christian examples of his own time, for he adds: “It is safer for me to pass to Christian examples and examples of our times.”516 The conflict of “faith in transcendent models of action from the past and sensitivity to the rootedness of ancient heroism in its own cultural moment”,517 which 513

Hampton (1990). Compare Burke (2011: 54-59). Mon. 1.2. As we have seen, Lipsius seems to feel a similar need to defend his choice of examples in the chapter on constancy. See above p. 87. 515 Mon. 1.7.5. See also Janssens (2012: 503). 516 Mon. 1.7.6. 517 Hampton (1991: 79). 514

121

Introduction was felt by many of his contemporaries, can be noticed in Lipsius as well: although he acknowledges that his project of blending ancient history and Christian humanism causes problems, he still believes that reading pagan history can lead to ethical and political action for the Christian reader. Therefore, he supplements his list of examples from ancient history with numerous examples from the more recent Christian past, such as Charlemagne, Charles V, Rudolf I, Maximilian I, and Philip  II, all of whom are adduced several times. In works composed by Lipsius nearer the end of his life, such as the Lovanium and the Monita, he indeed widenes his historical perspective to include more recent history. In the Lovanium, he acknowledges that earlier in his life, he had concerned himself with Roman matters alone, and held nearly everything else in contempt. I admit that my zeal, or disease, embraced nothing except antiquity (antiqua), and that I despised everything of our times or the slightly earlier age before them as barbarous and sordid. But now I have partly altered my judgment, and although I vastly prefer antiquity, I nevertheless also consider those other periods in my leisure hours; it is helpful to know the affairs, minds, and manners of our forefathers, and to bring some of these things to bear for use and as an example.518 However, by presenting Christian examples next to pagan ones (as if they represent the same values), as Lipsius does in the Monita, he does not resolve, but rather ignored, the tension between them. In fact, as early as 1584, when Lipsius was publishing De Constantia, his friend Laevinus Torrentius had indeed demanded that he should revise his work and illustrate it with examples drawn from the life of Christ rather than the ancients, which Lipsius, however, refused to do, standing by what was most important to his pedagogical mission, namely the authority of pagan historiography as a relevant and principal source of ethical and political advice.519 Denying the authority and validity of the (ancient) past as a model for the present would indeed have touched the core of his humanist beliefs, and undermined the foundations on which his life’s work had been based, as has been pointed out by Harro Höpfl.520 It would effectively have meant denying a place for himself as a political counsellor. Future political advisers would indeed deny the validity of ancient history as a source of (political) wisdom, an evolution which has been studied by Timothy Hampton, Jacob Soll, and Antony Grafton, and has briefly been described above.521

518 Lovanium, 1.1 (1605: 2): “in illo aevo unicus Romanarum rerum, in contemptu fere cete­ rarum eram. Nam fateor hoc studium meum, sive morbum: nihil afficiebat, praeter antiqua, et nostri aut paullo superioris aevi omnia, ut Barbarica et sordentia, contemnebam. Nunc in parte mutavi iudicium: et quamquam illa immensum praefero, tamen et haec in subsecivis habeo, et iuvat etiam maiorum nostrorum res, ingenia, mores nosse, et quaedam ex iis in usum aut exemplum transferre.” 519 See Morford (1991: 104) and Mout (1997: 136). 520 Höpfl (2011). 521 See pp. 76-77.

122

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution These concerns about the use of pagan examples were part of a wider concern about the representation of vice and evil actions, as expressed by many ancient, as well as humanist, authors. Vives and Casaubon, for instance, considered it better not to recall bad examples because if young people or princes read or heard about them frequently, they would be attracted to them and would eventually take them as precepts.522 Lipsius, too, was wary of including examples of vice, fearing that they might have a detrimental effect on the reader’s morality. This caution is apparent, for instance, in the chapter on impiety: I will set forth impiety with a few examples; a few, and even that fearfully, in no other way than we usually put up evil geniuses in churches in order to flee and shrink back from them.523 Nevertheless, Lipsius did use such negative examples in order to discourage his readers from evil and to show how it often leads to misfortune and punishment by God. In doing so, he employed an established rhetorical technique recommended by ancient orators and employed by moralists, such as Plutarch, Pseudo-Aristotle, Seneca, and Valerius Maximus,524 in the conviction that presenting examples of vice as well as of virtue allows one to put the same message across twice (in a positive and a negative way), thus doubling its impact: comparison allows the reader to conclude twice that virtue will be rewarded by God (while vice will be punished). This technique was also recommended by Erasmus,525 and is often employed by Lipsius in the Monita. In the Notae, Lipsius expressed the opinion that bad examples should be reported because the fear of a bad reputation in posterity will thus deter the reader from vice, adducing the locus classicus for this view, that is, Tacitus, Annales, 3.65.526 There Lipsius says that bad examples will make us laugh rather than cause any damage. A similar attitude to negative examples is adopted in the Monita.Thus, the chapter on superstition is concluded with a long series of examples of the superstitious beliefs and rituals of various peoples. It is clear from the volume of examples, their length, and the detailed descriptions which they feature, as well as from remarks such as “I would like to give some examples to laugh at”, that Lipsius took great pleasure in these examples of superstition and that they were intended to confirm the true faith by ridiculing these false beliefs.527 Moreover, such examples would not only instruct and stimulate the reader, but also amuse him. Diversion ensures the interest of the reader and was therefore of 522 See e.g. Grafton (2007: 206-207) on Casaubon, and Guion (2008: 147-177) for an extensive discussion of the debate from antiquity until the seventeenth century. 523 Mon. 1.4. 524 See Skidmore (1996: 80). 525 See e.g. Erasmus, De conscribendis epistolis (ASD 1.2: 330-331; CWE 25: 84). 526 Notae 1.9 (pp. 731-732, ed. Waszink). On this view, see Guion (2008: 150-155, esp. 152). 527 Mon. 1.3: “Exempla libet dare et ridere.”

123

Introduction prime importance for Lipsius’ moralistic and didactic purposes. This was recognised and applied in antiquity by writers such as Valerius Maximus and Cicero, who used, for instance, foreign examples for entertainment.528 Also elsewhere in the Monita, it is apparent that in order to avoid boredom, Lipsius has selected his examples with one eye on the entertainment of his readers.529 For similar reasons Lipsius also uses so-called “unequal or unlikely examples” (argumenta imparia): an example or an argument can be more effective or convincing if unexpected because, for instance, it comes from an enemy, a barbarian, a woman, or a slave. The technique is recommended by Quintilian as follows: Unequal examples are most useful in exhortation. Courage is more remarkable in a woman than in a man. Therefore, if we wish to kindle someone’s ambition to the performance of heroic deeds, we shall find that the parallels drawn from the cases of Horatius and Torquatus will carry less weight than that of the woman by whose hand Pyrrhus was slain.530 Erasmus is of the same opinion.531 It is altogether clear that such examples were not only meant to entertain the reader, but also to stimulate him, as he would want to surpass these people, whom he would consider inferior. If they had to excel in a certain virtue, he certainly could, too, and had to. This technique was also applied by other compilers such as Valerius Maximus, who devoted an entire chapter, for instance, to the loyalty of slaves (6.8), which inspired a similar section in the chapter on faithfulness in the Monita (2.13.16-20). In the same way, Cyrus and Pyrrhus

528

Skidmore (1996: 89-92). See, e.g., Mon. 1.5; 2.3.7; 2.4.7; 2.5.11; 2.6.5 and 2.16. 530 Quint. inst. 5.11.10: “Ad exhortationem vero praecipue valent imparia. Admirabilior in femina quam in viro virtus. Quare, si ad fortiter faciendum accendatur aliquis, non tantum adferent momenti Horatius et Torquatus quantum illa mulier cuius manu Pyrrhus est interfectus.” 531 See, e.g., Erasmus, De copia (ASD 1.6: 232): “Movent autem potissimum animos antiqua, illustria, nostratia, domestica, id est quam quaeque gentem, suum quaeque genus. Aut longe minora, ut mulieris, pueri, servi, barbari.” Compare to Erasmus, De conscribendis epistolis (ASD 1.2: 331-332); Ecclesiastes sive De ratione concionandi (ASD 5.5: 156), and De lingua (ASD 4.1: 283-284), in which Erasmus illustrates the technique with the example of the loyalty of Antonius’ slave, used by Lipsius in Mon. 2.13.17. See also his Institutio principis Christiani (CWE 27 251-252; ASD 4.1 180-181):“Permulta furiose Alexander, sed recte a Darii mulieribus captivis abstinuit, et recte mulierem reduci domum iussit, ubi sensit esse coniugatam. Haec igitur e multis erunt excerpenda, et vehementius accen­ dunt Ethnicorum, aut illaudatorum hominum exempla. Si sic sibi temperavit Tyrannus et a Christo alienus, si iuvenis et victor hanc sanctimoniam praestitit hostium foeminis, quid me facere convenit erga meas Principem Christianum? Si tantum fuit animi mulierculae, quid a viro praestari decet? Si id probro datum es Ethnico Principi, et ab Ethnicis, quanto studio mihi vitandum, Christi religionem profitenti?” These very deeds of Alexander are recorded by Lipsius in Mon. 2.17.4 and 5. A similar argument is adduced by Ribadeneyra in his Tratado (1595: 266) to justify his practice of using pagan examples. He stresses that the virtues of pagan princes were certainly not perfect, but will shame the prince into greater efforts to surpass them. See Truman (1999: 294). 529

124

The Humanist at Work: Invention, Disposition, and Elocution (Mon. 1.5.2.1 and 2.14.16) are thought of as more effective examples of the fickleness of fortune by Lipsius because they were killed by a woman. Similarly, the author adds three examples of the learning of barbarians at the end of his chapter on prudence (1.8.18-20). To keep the risk involved in the use of such examples to a minimum, he adds the example of Charles V to finish the chapter. However, the moral effectiveness of Lipsius’ examples did not only depend on their selection, but also on their formulation. Consequently, Lipsius also pays a lot of attention to the narrative, which leads us to our second research topic. 5.3.2.2. Formulation To make the stories recounted as credible and morally effective as possible, Lipsius employed a range of rhetorical and narrative techniques in the composition and formulation of his examples. For instance, following the advice of Erasmus,532 to support the authority of the example, Lipsius first mentions the name of the person whom he proposes for imitation, followed by immediate praise and a laudatory introduction, suited to the subject. Philopoemen, for instance, is introduced as follows: Another such man in Greece was Philopoemen, whom someone wisely and truly called the last of the Greeks. After him there has hardly been anyone of great virtue and glory.533 The opposite procedure is adopted for negative examples. To introduce Messalina, Lipsius writes: What about Messalina among the Romans? That sewer (let it be allowed to use such a word for this filthy person) of cruelty, greed, unchasteness, shamelessness, and every disgrace.534 This technique was also employed by Valerius Maximus, who often invoked the authority of the great, famous men of the past and linked them to praise in the prefaces to his examples, in order to pre-condition the reader’s attitude towards them.535 The words of praise and blame which conclude many of Lipsius’ examples and guide the reader to a correct interpretation are similar. Next to the authority of the example, another important aspect of persuasion is plausibility, which is achieved most effectively by verisimilitude. As we have seen,

532

Erasmus, De conscribendis epistolis (ASD 1.2: 330). Mon. 2.15.4. 534 Mon. 2.2.4. 535 Skidmore (1996: 86). 533

125

Introduction Lipsius achieves verisimilitude in the first place by the very choice of examples as a medium to put his message across, as well as by inserting direct speeches.536 The use of techniques of style which imply imagery, such as comparisons and metaphors, also helps to illuminate descriptions and make stories more vivid and credible. Lipsius’ use of imagery in the Monita is fairly rich. Next to images derived from the natural, religious, and architectural sphere, we mostly find medical, maritime, and theatrical metaphors and comparisons. This should not come as a surprise in a political (con)text given the popularity of the classical metaphors of the ship of state, the body politic, and the world as a stage in the Renaissance.537 Although Lipsius often uses traditional metaphors and comparisons, he usually gives them an original twist. Thus, in the introductory chapter on the usefulness of examples, he describes the relation between examples and precepts as follows: Just as he who sows plants, waters and nourishes them seasonably, so that they may grow, so you should foster and raise these, as it were, shrubs of aphorisms with either the sun or the rain, so to speak, of examples.538 This metaphor was often used in a pedagogical context, but was normally applied to students who, like plants or seeds, will grow when fed by the mental nutrition offered by education.539 We can conclude that the examples in the Monita served various purposes: they had to support the arguments of the Politica, illustrate and augment its precepts, as well as persuade the reader and stimulate him to imitation. In order to be effective as such, Lipsius needed to select the most appropriate examples and employ them in the most persuasive way. In doing so, he followed established rules of rhetoric. He selected examples which were close to the reader in time and space, seeking to stimulate him through positive as well as negative, diverting, unlikely or unequal, and even legendary or fictitious examples. He applied techniques to increase their authority and credibility. Thus, he enhanced the verisimilitude of stories by paying attention to detail and making ample use of direct speech, comparisons, and metaphors. By using these rhetorical techniques, Lipsius seemed to cater to most trends in the use of exempla. At the same time, he managed to live up to his own standards by painting a particularly powerful and vivid picture for the prince, as he had promised to do in the very first chapter of the Monita. 536

See subsection 5.3.1.1. Lipsius’ use of figurative language has been studied by Tom Deneire, who distinguishes a remarkable dominance of maritime imagery in Lipsius’ oeuvre in general. See Deneire (2009: 830833) and (2012b: 213-215). On the use of medical and corporal imagery, see above n. 274. On the popular metaphor of the world as a stage and its history, see e.g. Christian (1987). For that of the ship of state, see e.g. Kühlmann (1982: 67). 538 Mon. 1.1. 539 See e.g. Aragüés Aldaz (1999: 67-68) and Horrowitz (1998, esp. 155-180 on Erasmus, Lipsius, and Du Vair). 537

126

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions Section 6 The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions In a previous section we have sketched the genesis of the Monita from its first mention in Lipsius’ correspondence in 1596 until the publication of the first edition by Jan Moretus in 1605.540 In the following pages we shall offer a brief overview of all editions which appeared between 1605 and 1733. A list of editions, with a brief description of each of them, can be found in the Bibliotheca Belgica.541 A similar list is offered by G. Oestreich, who seems to have composed his overview on the basis of the Bibliotheca Belgica and T. Georgi’s Allgemeines europäisches Bücher-Lexikon.542 The list of extant editions of the Monita which we offer here has been drawn up on the basis of their research and our own,543 with some explanatory remarks below. 1) 1605 Antwerp: J. Moretus, 4°, 1550 copies544 2) 1605 Paris: P. Chevalier, 8° 3) 1606 Antwerp: J. Moretus, 4°, 1500 copies545 4) 1606 Antwerp: J. Moretus, 8°, 1600 copies546 5) 1613 Antwerp: Widow and sons of J. Moretus, 4°, 1275 copies547 6) 1613 Lyon: H. Cardon, Opera omnia (2, 155-225), 2° 7) 1613 Paris: P. Chevalier 8) 1614 Antwerp: Widow and sons of J. Moretus, Opera omnia (4), 4° 9) 1618 Paris: P. Chevalier 10) 1625 Antwerp: B. Moretus, Widow of J. Moretus, and J. Meursius, 4°, 1000 copies548 11) 1630 Amsterdam: W. Blaeu (two different, but near-identical editions)549 12) 1630 Leiden: J. Maire (two different, but near-identical editions)

540

See subsection 3.1.1. BBr (3, 1005-1010). 542 Oestreich (1989: 218-219). The BBr and Oestreich also record some translations. For a more complete overview and a detailed study of extant translations of the Monita, see De Bom (2011a: 87-128). For editions and translations of the Politica, see Waszink (2004: 165-198), with references to Oestreich (1989: 215-218) and the Bibliotheca Belgica. 543 We have searched the catalogues of the main (European) libraries and inspected a copy of each of the different editions, as far as possible. Book sizes and print numbers have only been recorded when certain. 544 These are the print numbers as recorded in MPM, Ms. 39 f. 18v. We thank J. De Landtsheer for having checked these numbers. 545 MPM, Ms. 39 f. 19r. 546 MPM, Ms. 39 f. 19r. 547 MPM, Ms. 39 f. 23r. Of these 1275 copies, 100 were printed on a different type of paper (“e meliori charta”). 548 MPM, Ms. 39 f. 30r. 100 of these copies were printed on a different type of paper. 549 On the differences and similarities, see BBr (3, 1007). 541

127

Introduction 13) 1637 Antwerp: B. Moretus, Opera omnia (4, 169-276), 2°, 1525 copies550 14) 1650 Leiden: J. Maire 15) 1667 Jena: J. J. Bauhofer for J. Bielke, 8° 16) 1668 Amsterdam: J. Blaeu 17) 1671 Wesel: A. van Hoogenhuysen 18) 1675 Wesel: A. van Hoogenhuysen, Opera omnia (4, 321-519), 8°551 19) 1698 Trnava: University Press for J. A. Hörmann 20) 1703 Linz: s.n. 21) 1723 Trnava: University Press for Fridericus Gall 22) 1733 Košice: University Press 6.1. The editio princeps of 1605 Some scholars mention two editions of the Monita in Leiden in 1601.552 As has been suggested in the Bibliotheca Belgica,553 and has been confirmed by our own reading of Lipsius’ correspondence, it is very unlikely that these ever existed. Although the work is mentioned in the letters from 1596 onwards, it is referred to as a work in progress in the course of the following years,554 also in 1601, until Lipsius seems to have resumed work effectively in 1604. From that moment on, we can follow the printing process of the Antwerp edition very closely. Therefore, there is no reason to also assume the existence of an edition from Leuven in 1605, mentioned by some scholars.555 As suggested in the Bibliotheca Belgica, it is almost certain that they were misled by the occurrence of Leuven in the subscription of the dedicatory letter of the work. There is also no reason why Lipsius would have published the work in Leuven. For it is well-known that a strong professional and personal bond existed between Lipsius and the first three generations of the Plantin Press, where he faithfully published all of his works.556 Thanks to the archives of the Officina, which have been preserved, and the correspondence between its members and Lipsius, we can reconstruct the publication of the first edition of the Monita in detail. Thus, we know that Jan Moretus started composing the Monita on 4  September  1604, while the printing process itself 550

MPM, Ms. 39 f. 38r. 200 of these were printed on a different type of paper. pages have been numbered wrongly (121-321) by mistake. 552 De Reiffenberg (1823: 177) and Vander Aa (1869: 8, 159). See BBr (3, 1005). 553 BBr (3, 1005). 554 Namely at least in ILE IX 96 09 27, 96 10 02, 96 10 13, 96 10 22, 96 11 26, 96 12 01 B, 96 12 04, 96 12 01 AL, ILE [X] 97 01 20 B, 97 02 14, 97 06 03 S, 97 06 11 B, 97 08 05 C, 97 11 15, ILE [XI] 98 11 20, ILE XIII 00 12 03 H, ILE XIV 01 10 11, ILE [XVI] 03 03 17 GO, ILE [XVII] 04 02 14, 04 03 14 C, 04 09 21, 04 09 29 M, 04 12 10, 04 12 21, ILE [XVIII] 05 01 18 (dedicatory letter). Cf. supra (pp. 22-31), and Janssens (2006). 555 E.g. Georgi (1966: 1, 426). 556 See, e.g., Officina Plantiniana: Justus Lipsius en het Plantijnse huis, and further Een geleerde en zijn Europese netwerk (553-609), Deneire (2006), and De Landtsheer (2006a). 551 The

128

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions started on 18 September.557 From then on, his son Balthasar Moretus, who had studied under Lipsius in Leuven, regularly sent folios to be corrected. The dedicatory letter of the work, which Lipsius usually wrote when the printing process was nearly completed, is dated 18 January 1605;558 a couple of weeks later Moretus finished the publication.559 In a letter which Balthasar Moretus sent to Lipsius in December 1604560 he says that they should have used a larger typeface for the first edition of the Monita. In the future, however, the work will form a sufficiently large book when the Politica and the Panegyricus have been added. The copies of the Monita which we have examined are indeed often bound together with the Politica and other works by Lipsius, such as the Admiranda, De Constantia, or Dissertatiuncula.561 Apart from the text of the Monita, the editio princeps contains the following preliminary pieces: Lipsius’ dedicatory letter to the Archduke, his preface to the reader (“Lectori”), and a table of contents (“Index capitum, monitorum, quaestionum”). At the end of the book, one can find an approbation of the censor G. Fabricius, general privileges from the Emperor (Rudolf II) and the King of Spain (Philip II),562 and a note from Lipsius which grants Moretus the permission to print this work. 6.2. The editions by Pierre Chevalier Not much is known about the Paris-based printer Pierre Chevalier.563 As far as we know, he did not publish any other works by Lipsius. We have not been able to find evidence of a relation between the printer and Lipsius or the Plantin Press, so his edition of the Monita in 1605 is very likely to be an unauthorised reprint of the editio princeps.564 Nevertheless, it is a carefully edited publication, in which all marginal references have been reproduced (which is not the case in some other, later editions of the Monita) and obvious (printing) mistakes have been corrected. It contains the dedicatory letter, the preface to the reader, and the approbation of Fabricius, but neither the privileges nor the table of contents. The table of contents or “Index capitum” was added in a new edition by Chevalier, as indicated in the title Iusti Lipsi Monita Et Exempla Politica. Libri Duo, Qui Virtutes et Vitia 557

MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 164. ILE [XVIII], 05 01 18. 559 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 172. 560 ILE [XVII], 04 12 10. 561 For example, the Maurits Sabbebibliotheek of the KU Leuven holds a copy in which the 1606 edition of the Monita is bound together with a 1604 edition of the Politica by Moretus. See also the description of other copies below. 562 On these privileges, see Tournoy – Deceulaer (2006), with further literature. 563 De la Caille (1971: 189-190), Renouard (1969: 52-53), Id. (1995: 83), and Mellot – Queval – Monaque (2004: 166). 564 At that time Lipsius had not received yet a privilege from the King of France, which has only been added in the editions of 1606 (it is signed 13 July 1605). 558

129

Introduction Principum spectant. Editio recensita; cui additus Index Capitum et Monitorum Politicorum, which appeared for the first time in 1613 and was reprinted in 1618.565 However, this is not a revised edition in the sense that it does not contain the changes and additions of the 1606 Antwerp editions. Indeed, the only difference is the addition of the table of contents. 6.3. The revised editions by Moretus in 1606 The sales seem to have gone well, since by the end of 1605 the work went to the press again. Jan Moretus started composing a reprint in quarto on 26 November 1605; the printing process began on 31 December.566 In a letter dated 9 February 1606 Balthasar Moretus announced to Lipsius that they had started a reprint of the Monita ‒ the printing process was actually well on its way by then ‒ in quarto and that they were thinking about an edition in octavo as well, so that this “useful treatise could be taken everywhere more easily”.567 On 4 February the composing of an octavo-edition of the Monita had already started.568 By the end of March 1500 copies of the quarto-edition would come off the press,569 and around one month later another 1600 copies in octavo. Contrary to what is stated in the Bibliotheca Belgica, this edition is not a simple reprint of the 1605 edition of the Monita.570 Although it is not explicitly indicated as a revised edition on the title page, while this is the case with some other of Lipsius’ revised editions,571 it does contain corrections, as well as significant additions and changes. These mostly regard changes or additions to the speeches composed by Lipsius for his historical characters, next to small grammatical changes,572 and corrections of printing errors,573 numbers,574 names,575 and references.576 Finally, the title of the fifth chapter of the first book has been corrected from 565 The 1613 edition is not mentioned in the Bibliotheca Belgica. The Bibliothèque municipale de Valognes (France) holds a copy. 566 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 179. 567 ILE [XIX], 06 02 09 B. 568 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 164. 569 MPM, Arch. 786, fol. 171. 570 BBr (3, 1006). 571 A second edition of the Poliorceticωn, e.g., was marked as “editio altera, correcta et aucta”. Similarly, the title page of a second edition of the Admiranda reads “Secunda editio correctior auctiorque”. 572 Changes of pronouns (such as “isti” into “ipsi” or “eius” into “huius”) or verbs (e.g. “commisit” into “admisit”) or their mode (e.g. subjunctive to indicative). 573 “Godefrfdus” was corrected to “Godefredus” (Mon. 1.2, mon. 2.4). 574 In the story of the Portuguese war of succession “quattuor Gubernatores” is changed to “quinque Gubernatores “ (Mon. 2.3.11). 575 The name of the second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella is corrected from “Isabella” to “Ioanna” (Mon. 1.5, mon. 1.6). 576 A reference to a quotation from Nicephorus Gregoras is changed from “Lib.VII” to “Lib.VIII” (Mon. 1.5).

130

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions “Fatum considerandum, credendumque esse.” into “De Fato. Id considerandum, credendumque esse.” to conform to the other titles. This edition also contains an additional privilege, from the King of France (Henry IV). 6.4. The inclusion in the Opera omnia by Horace Cardon With the help of his younger brother Jacques, Horace Cardon ran a successful book business in Lyon from 1600 until 1635.577 They mainly concentrated on the production of books in large formats such as quarto or folio, often composed of several volumes, such as Lipsius’ Opera omnia, which was published by Horace Cardon in folio in 1613. For the production of these works the Cardons collaborated with several artisans including papermakers, printers, and illustrators, such as Léonard Gaultier and his pupil Jacques de Fornazeris, who designed the frontispiece of their edition of Lipsius’ Opera omnia. Their own publications were mostly exported to Spain, but also to Italy, England, and the North, where they had contacts with, amongst others, the Plantin Press. They could also be found in Horace’s own shop in Lyon, as well as elsewhere in France and at book fairs, such the Frankfurter Buchmesse. Next to their own publications, the Cardons also sold other books, published in France or abroad. When the Spanish market became less profitable, however, and the Counter-Reformation lost some of its financial strength, the brothers concluded that the time had come to retire and they sold their list to some of their workers, one of whom was Laurent Anisson, who would initiate a whole new dynasty of leading booksellers. Cardon’s edition of Lipsius’ Opera omnia contains a reprint of Moretus’ 1606 edition of the Monita.578 6.5. The editions of the Blaeus Three generations of the family Blaeu ran a successful printing and publishing office in seventeenth-century Amsterdam, one of the largest and most up-todate presses in Europe at the time, founded by Willem Janszoon.579 The Blaeus are known especially for their cartographical work, but their activity as printers and publishers was multifaceted and not in the least restricted to maps, atlases, and maritime writings. As far as religion is concerned, the Blaeus were moderate Calvinists, who advocated religious tolerance. They published books by Catholic authors and printed missals for export to the Catholic world. So it does not come as a surprise that a work such as the Monita by the Leuven professor Lipsius was printed by Blaeu (1630) in a small format.580

577

Cf. Legay (1991). BBr (3, 1020). 579 Cf. Burke (1974: 58-59, 74, 76, 81). 580 In some catalogues it is referred to as 32°, in others as 24°. 578

131

Introduction The edition of the Monita is a reprint of the revised Antwerp edition, but the table of contents and the approbation have changed place, and the marginal references and privileges have been omitted. On the title page, the title is framed by a copper engraving with an allegorical representation of Politica, holding a balance and what looks like an oar or rudder, and carrying the skins of a fox and lion which she has tied to her dress.581 Two years later (1632) Blaeu also published an edition of the Politica, which was sometimes bound together with the Monita.582 Willem Janszoon was succeeded by his son Joan Blaeu, who expanded the business and continued his father’s activities. A catalogue of the book shop of the Blaeus from 1659 includes works in Latin and the vernacular in the fields of theology, law, medicine, and human sciences.583 Joan also carried on his father’s cartographical work and continued to produce missals, Catholic devotional tracts, treatises by Jesuits, and other writings intended for export to the Catholic world on a large scale.The printing office in the Bloemgracht could not cope with all the work and in 1667 Joan Blaeu opened an even bigger printing establishment in the Gravenstraat. It was there that a reprint of the 1630 edition of the Monita was produced in 1668.584 6.6. The editions of Jean Maire In 1584, Antoine Maire, a French religious refugee and a friend of Christophe Plantin, opened a publishing and bookselling business in Leiden. His son Jean took over his father’s publishing firm in 1603 and bought his own printing office in 1626, thus becoming one of the most prominent printers at the time.585 Jean Maire was a Remonstrant or Arminian but did not always act according to his religious principles as a printer. Like most Dutch booksellers in the seventeenth century, he published and sold Remonstrant as well as CounterRemonstrant writings. In Leiden, Jean Maire found himself surrounded by an academic population, who produced texts and bought books.When having a look at R. Breugelmans’ description of Maire’s publications, we notice many publications of classical authors, such as Seneca, Cicero, and Epictetus, as well as works by Leiden professors, such as Heinsius, Scaliger, Thysius, Snellius, Scriverius, and Lipsius. In addition to Lipsius’Tacitus-edition, Maire mainly published his political and philosophical works, such as De Constantia, Manuductio, Physiologia, Politica, and 581 The image has been reproduced on p. 138. On the ruler as a helmsman, see below (p. 592). On the use of the fox and the lion in early modern political discourse, see above p. 12, n. 45 and p. 57, n. 249. 582 The copy we inspected in the University Library of Leuven (UL, BRES R5A46508) contains Blaeu’s 1630 edition of the Monita and his 1632 edition of the Politica bound together. 583 On this catalogue, preserved in the University Library of Amsterdam, see De la Fontaine Verwey – Hellinga (1961: 13-49). 584 We have not been able to find an edition published in 1669 or 1671 in Amsterdam by Boom, or in 1682 in Frankfurt, as listed by Oestreich (1989: 218) on the basis of Georgi. 585 See the in-depth study by Breugelmans (2003), on which our account is based.

132

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions Monita. Political and philosophical works can be said to dominate Maire’s list of his publications in general.Thus, we find Lambertus Danaeus’ Politicorum aphorismorum silva,Thomas Aquinas’ De regimine principum libri quattuor, Erasmus’ Institutio principis Christiani, André Rivet’s Institution du prince chrestien, Gabriel Naudé’s Bibliographia politica, Hugo Grotius’ Epistola de studio politico, Guez de Balzac’s Discours politique sur l’estat des Provinces Unies, and various items from the popular Respublicae-series. The Monita was first published by Maire in 1630. There are two editions which bear this year of publication and they have near-identical titles, lay-out, etc. Other such ‘parallel editions’ can be found in Maire’s list of publications (and those of other printers), and Breugelmans suggests that such editions may not have been printed in the same year, but that a second edition was printed with the same title page (and therefore date) after having run out of stock.586 The edition was put on the Herbstkatalog of the Frankfurter Buchmesse by Maire, thus reaching an international readership.587 For the edition Maire probably relied on one of the earlier revised Plantin-editions, as was his habit. He had good contacts with the Officina Plantiniana, and when the Raphelengii closed down their branch in Leiden, he bought their stock. The Officina regularly bought books from Maire, as can be derived from a document preserved in the archives of the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp and published by Breugelmans.588 It mainly concerned works by Lipsius, including Maire’s 1630 edition of the Monita. In 1650 Jean reprinted the 1630 edition, again putting it on the catalogues of the Frankfurter and Leipziger Buchmesse.589 In the same year he also published Lipsius’ Politica in 24o. Since Maire also had his own bookbinding business, it is quite likely that he or his customers sometimes had both works bound together.590 As mentioned, Maire supplied students and scholars (in Leiden and elsewhere) with texts. Breugelmans suggests that Lipsius’ political and philosophical works could also belong to this category, as can be deduced from the small format in which they were published.591 That the printer was proud of publishing the work in this format can be deduced from the newly added preface, “Typographus lectori”,592 in which he states that he has made a new edition of this work because it has not been published before in such a small format, which will be much more convenient for travellers and will make the work accessible to the wider readership for which the book is intended. In this new preface, the printer praises the 586

Breugelmans (2003: 24-25). Breugelmans (2003: 247). 588 MPM, Arch. 744. Breugelmans (2003: 724 ff.) 589 Breugelmans (2003: 642) 590 A copy which we inspected in the University Library of Munich has both bound together (UL München, 0001/8 Polit. 679). 591 Breugelmans (2003: 37). Breugelmans (2003: 274) considers the edition of the Monita a 24°. Some other catalogues 32°. 592 This new preface replaces Lipsius’ preface to the reader.This edition does not contain the dedicatory letter either, nor the approbation or the privileges. 587

133

Introduction power of examples to illustrate and confirm precepts, such as the Catholic dogmas. Examples can confirm the Catholic truth and unity, according to Maire. As a Remonstrant, he would probably have been an advocate of religious unity, as could be suggested by the publication by Maire of Grotius’ De veritate religionis Christianae. In the rest of the preface, the printer stresses the usefulness of this work for the common good, which, according to him, should be the aim of all human action. Otherwise, the printer seems to appreciate the work mainly for its moral or educational and historical value.The book offers an example of public conduct for everyone and will give an incentive to pursue and practise virtue. Moreover, scholars will enjoy re-reading the tales which they have read in various authors and which have now been collected in one book. Students, on the other hand, will find useful headings here, which they can rely on for future reading. So the printer valued it in the first place as a commonplace book, from which scholars and students could gather headings and examples. 6.7. The reprints at the Officina Plantiniana and the inclusion in Moretus’ Opera omnia593 After Lipsius’ death in 1606, Balthasar Moretus provided numerous reprints of Lipsius’ works. Thus, nearly every year a work by the humanist from Brabant was reprinted. Some works were published by Moretus several times as individual volumes, such as the Admiranda, Politica, De Constantia, De Militia Romana, and Monita. These editions were often emended, thanks to the fact that in his archive Moretus kept editions of Lipsius’ works with annotations by the author, as well as the fact that he had access to the library of the late Lipsius through his friend Johannes Woverius, who administered the library and part of Lipsius’ inheritance and was always consulted by the Officina after Lipsius’ death in matters which concerned the humanist.594 The Monita in particular was reprinted in the Officina in quarto in 1613595 and 1625.596 Occasionally, Moretus remarked that the investments in the reprints of Lipsius’ works did not really yield a great profit, and that they were not easily running out of their stock.597 After the publication of the Opera omnia in 1637, this production of individual works came to a stop altogether. 593

Detailed descriptions of the various Opera omnia can be found in BB, III, 1018-1029. MPM, Arch. 135, p. 173. Cf. D. Sacré in Lipsius en het Plantijnse huis (119) and Morford (1991: 44 and 50). 595 This edition is a reprint of the 1606 8°-edition and moreover contains a privilege from the Archdukes. We have not been able to find a reprint in Antwerp from 1610, as listed by Oes­ treich (1989: 218). The copy we inspected in the University Library of Leuven (Leuven, UL, BRES CaaB173 3) contains the 1613 edition of the Monita, bound together with an edition of the Politica, printed at the Officina Plantiniana in 1610. 596 This is a reprint of the 1613 edition. We have not been able to find an edition of the same year in 8°, as listed by Oestreich (1989: 218). 597 Cf. D. Sacré in Lipsius en het Plantijnse huis (119). 594

134

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions Precisely because they had a considerable stock of individual works by Lipsius, Jan and Balthasar Moretus waited quite a long time before producing Lipsius’ Opera omnia.598 Too long, in fact, for in 1613 Horace Cardon brought Lipsius’ Opera omnia to market in Lyon, to the surprise and indignation of Balthasar, who thought he was protected by his privileges. In a letter to Lipsius’ widow and to his former student and secretary Jan Bleuwart, he expressed his resentment and criticised the order of the works, the type and the mistakes made in the Politica and elsewhere.599 He said that he would have considered a new edition in folio, if he had not had so many copies in quarto. Nevertheless, Moretus felt compelled to react and came up with the following solution. In order not to lose his stock, he initially united the separate editions in nine volumes in five tomes, providing the first volume with a new preface and a new title page (dated 1614). The fourth tome of this collection featured the 1606 quarto-edition of the Monita, preceded by the Politica and followed by the Leges Regiae and the Dissertatiuncula. When the supply ran out, new copies appeared around 1628, featuring the 1625 edition of the Monita. Copies with a 1613 edition of the Monita have also been preserved.600 It was only many years later, in 1637, that Balthasar could finally fulfil his dream and bring out Lipsius’ Opera omnia in four (or, together with the editions of Tacitus and Seneca, in six) luxurious folios.Various problems caused the production to linger for several years. As early as 1633, Balthasar announced that completion was near. In 1634, however, there was an acute shortage of paper, which would last until 1637.601 In this period, Moretus decided to have an index made of Lipsius’ works, which was provided in the end by Franciscus Raphelengius Junior. Moretus also realised that his privilege for printing Lipsius’ works had long expired. Fortunately, a new privilege was soon granted, and in 1637 Moretus had a sufficient supply of paper to complete the printing process. This edition differs from the Lyon edition as far as order and preliminary pieces is concerned.602 It distinguishes itself through its high quality and fine illuminations, such as the famous frontispiece designed by Peter Paul Rubens.603 6.8. The editions by Andreas van Hoogenhuysen Andreas van Hoogenhuysen was a 17th-century Dutch printer, publisher, and bookseller who owned various printing offices in the Netherlands and abroad. In his establishment in Wesel, he printed an edition of the Monita in 1671, the year in which he also published the Politica. The edition of the Monita is a reprint of the 598

Cf. D. Sacré in Lipsius en Leuven (315-319). MPM, Arch. 135, p. 190. Cf. Lipsius en het Plantijnse huis (119-120). 600 BBr (3, 1024). 601 D. Sacré in Lipsius en Leuven (318). 602 BBr (3, 1026-1027). 603 See BBr (3, 1024), Morford (1991: 139-143) and Judson – Van de Velde (1977: 299-309). 599

135

Introduction Leiden 1630 edition, without Lipsius’ dedicatory letter and preface to the reader, approbation, or privileges but with Maire’s new preface to the reader. The edition included in the fourth volume of his publication of Lipsius’ Opera omnia in 1675, on the other hand, does contain the dedicatory letter, Lipsius’ letter to the reader, the revised text with marginal references, and the approbation, but no privileges or index. 6.9. Academic publications In 1667 Georgius Goezius, professor of moral theology at the University of Jena, had a new edition of Lipsius’ Monita published for his students. The edition contains several preliminary pieces, such as poems and a dedication by Goezius and by Justinus Theodorus Krauss, the text of the Monita with discussions of certain chapters by various authors and an additional quaestio by Goezius, as well as Johannes Henricus Boeclerus’ dissertation on Lipsius’ Politica.604 In the dedicatory letter, Goezius says he has also been working on an index of the Monita, which was, however, not finished at the time of publication. Such an index can be found, for the first time, in an edition of the Monita which was published in 1698 for the students of philosophy at the University of Trnava (in present-day Slovakia) by their professors.605 In 1723, another edition of the Monita was published at the same university,606 followed by an edition of Lipsius’ Politica in 1760.607 In 1733, yet another edition of the Monita was published at the Royal University of Košice (also in present-day Slovakia).608

604 For a description, see BBr (3, 1008). On Boecler’s Dissertatio de politicis Iusti Lipsii, which was also published together with the Politica in some editions, see e.g. Oestreich (1982: 109-110) and (1989: 197-198), and T.Van Houdt in Lipsius en Leuven (220-222). 605 BBr (3, 1009). Trnava (in German: Tyrnau; Hungarian: Nagyszombat, Latin: Tyrnavia) in western Slovakia was the seat of the Jesuit Trnava University (1635–1777), the only university of the Kingdom of Hungary at that time. 606 This edition is not listed in the BBr. The Austrian National Library holds a copy (AC03768830 306536-A MAG ZALT), entitled Justi Lipsii, laureatis honoribus perillustrium, praenobilium, & tam virtute, quàm eruditione conspicuorum dominorum, dum in alma Archi-Episcopali Universitate Tyrnaviensi S.J. prima AA. LL. & philosophiae laurea insignirentur; promotore R.P. Joanne Simeghy, è Soc. Jesu, AA. LL. & philos. doctore, ejusdémque professore ordinario, a neo-baccalaureis condiscipulis dicata, anno M. DCC. XIII, mense Majo die. (Tyrnaviæ: Typis Academ. per Fridericum Gall). 607 The University Library of Leuven holds a copy (Leuven, UL, BRES CaaB115). See Waszink (2004: 197). 608 In Latin this city is named Cassovia, in German Kaschau, and in Hungarian Kassa. This edition is not listed in the BBr. The Slovak National Library holds a copy: Slov.nár.kniž, Martin-( 1-0SNK). The popularity of Lipsius in this region requires further study.

136

The History of the Printed Text: Early Modern Editions 6.10. The indexed edition of Linz Finally, the University Library of Leuven holds a copy of an indexed edition of the Monita, published in Linz in 1703, which is not mentioned in the Bibliotheca Belgica. The title page reads: “Iusti Lipsii Monita et exempla politica libri duo qui virtutes et vitia principum et illustrium virorum complectuntur. Indice rerum ac exemplorum locupletati, et in Xenium oblati. Lincii Anno Domini MDCCIII”. It contains a new dedication to Abbot Anselm Angerer of Garsten Abbey in Austria, signed “Major D.D. Sodalitas Beatissimae Virginis Mariae Annuntiatae”, no other preliminary pieces, and the text of the revised edition of the Monita without marginal references. It does not contain the table of contents but does feature an alphabetical “Index rerum et exemplorum”.

137

Introduction

copper engraving on the title page of G. Blaeu’s edition (Amsterdam, 1630) Ex: Leuven, University Library, Bres R5A46508

138

TEXT AND TRANSLATION I. Principles of this Edition a.The Latin text Only a draft of the first page of the first chapter of the Monita can be found in an autograph manuscript preserved at the Leiden University Library (Ms Lips 6, fasc. 8r).609 The editio princeps was published at the Plantin Press in 1605. In the same year, an edition appeared in Paris, which is a copy of the first edition, in which many obvious printing errors and other mistakes have been corrected. However, since this is very likely to be an unauthorised copy, as indicated above, it has not been taken into account. A second edition appeared in Antwerp in 1606,610 which contains corrections, as well as significant additions and changes. This edition has been used as the basis for the text of the present edition because it is the last edition that contains the alterations which Lipsius wanted. Editions that appeared after his death in 1606 are based on this one. The differences between this text and the editio princeps and the manuscript folium have been indicated in the apparatus criticus. For this edition we used the programme ‘Classical Text Editor’, designed by Stefan Hagel. b.The presentation of the text When editing a neo-Latin text, the editor has to make a choice between various options regarding its presentation, which all have their respective advantages and disadvantages, and which are much-debated.611 While some editors choose to completely adapt humanist spelling, punctuation, and layout to ‘classical’ conventions for the comfort of the modern reader, others wish to preserve as many of the original features as possible, resulting in near facsimile editions. For the present edition, we have opted for a ‘middle course’. It aims to provide a text that does 609

It has been reproduced on p. 147. In 1606 the text was first published in 4°, and immediately afterwards also in 8°. The only difference between these two texts is that in the latter edition obvious printing errors and other mistakes from the former have again been corrected, while new mistakes have also slipped in. Since we have not included obvious mistakes in the apparatus, we do not distinguish between these two editions. 611 See, e.g., Deneire (2009: 81-106); Vermeulen (2007: 69-83); Hunter (2007); Deitz (1998), IJsewijn – Sacré (1998: 460-475). 610

139

Text and Translation not differ too much from the original but is at the same time understandable for a modern reader. Therefore, obvious mistakes have been corrected, preferably by a better reading from one of the other editions, or, if such a reading did not exist, by the editors, without mentioning it in the apparatus. Such errors include printing mistakes, erroneous paragraph numbering, etc. Furthermore, abbreviations and ligatures have been silently expanded, in order not to interrupt the text with superfluous and artificial marks. Similarly, the diacritical signs on the Latin text have been removed (although they can sometimes be useful for the understanding of the text) and accentuation of the Greek text has been modernised. Orthography The orthography of Latin texts varies between different periods (e.g. Antiquity versus the Renaissance) and within individual periods. In the Monita, as elsewhere, Lipsius spells words differently within one edition or between different editions. In such cases the editor can opt to ‘standardise’ the orthography. However, there is no generally accepted spelling of classical Latin (publishers and dictionaries have adopted different systems). Moreover, changing the orthography of the text is a rather drastic intervention in the text which alters its outlook completely.Therefore, we have decided to retain Lipsius’ spelling, as it represents a valuable part of the idiosyncrasy of Lipsius’ work and of the time in which he operated, without, creating major problems for the understanding of the modern reader. We have made a distinction between u and v, replaced j by i, written the different variations of ae (e, æ, ę) as ae, and replaced & by et, as this is generally accepted in modern editorial practice. Punctuation Another problematic issue is punctuation.612 From the introduction to the Politica, we know that punctuation was of great importance in Lipsius’ view to capture the meaning of his text.613 He has also left us a letter in which he explains his use of punctuation to his secretary.614 When studying the punctuation of the Monita, it seems that, in general, Lipsius separates most syntactical elements of the sentence from each other by commas.615 Sentences are not always separated from each 612

See e.g. Deitz (1998), Parkes (1992: 81-92), and Salmon (1962). Lipsius, Politica, Prelim. 5, 3 (p. 236, ed. Waszink): “Ut distinctiones multo magis [observes]: id est, in fine cuiusque clausulae cola posita, semicola, puncta, aut bipuncta. Nam pro his, sententia tibi tota terminanda est scilicet, aut sustentanda: videbisque universam orationem per membra sua et periodos curiose a nobis sic discretam. Nec enim finis semper sententiae in fine clausulae: sed pendet ea saepe ac haeret.” 614 ILE [XI], [98 05 13 / 06 15]. 615 See e.g. “Ecce in toto populo honestum ambitum, et certamen a nullo, in gloria ad posteros, vinci.” which we changed into “Ecce in toto populo honestum ambitum et certamen a nullo in gloria ad posteros vinci.” 613

140

Principles of this Edition other by full stops, but sometimes also by colons or semicolons, depending on how closely related they are. Because the punctuation is an essential part of the idiosyncrasy of Lipsius’ text and of Renaissance texts in general, just like the orthography, some editors argue that it should therefore be maintained. However, such a system can be very confusing for a reader who is not familiar with it. Moreover, this system is not applied consistently by Lipsius and the punctuation varies between different editions and within one edition. Therefore, Jan Waszink, for instance, has opted to record all differences in punctuation in the critical apparatus of his standard edition of Lipsius’ Politica, which leads to a heavy apparatus, in which it is difficult to distinguish significant textual differences (such as omissions or additions) from less significant ones (such as differences in punctuation). Similarly, in her edition of René Descartes’ Specimina philosophiae, Corinna Vermeulen argues in favour of retaining the original punctuation (and recording differences in punctuation in the apparatus), but she acknowledges that the punctuation can be very confusing for modern readers and therefore adds a separate apparatus in which she makes suggestions for a more ‘modern’ punctuation.616 In our view, examples such as these demonstrate that it is better not to retain the original punctuation, and we have therefore removed or altered all punctuation marks which could confuse a modern reader. In doing so, we have adopted the following general guidelines:617 – Full stops are used to mark the end of an independent sentence. Lipsius sometimes starts a new sentence without a capital if it is closely connected to the previous one. We have started every new sentence with a capital according to modern practice. Full stops have been removed after numbers in order to avoid the impression that the sentence ends there. – Colons are used to introduce explanations, quotations, or direct speech. They have not been retained when used by Lipsius to separate independent sentences which are related with respect to content, but not grammatically. In such cases they have been replaced by a full stop or semicolon. Colons have been preserved when used to separate a Greek quotation from a Latin translation by Lipsius.618 – Semicolons are used to separate short sentences which are somehow connected, but never to separate independent sentences. They mark a stronger pause than the comma.

616 Vermeulen

(2007). guidelines formulated by Deneire (2009) in his edition of ILE [XI] 98 are at the basis of our own. It is difficult to formulate strict rules, and every case needs to be, and has been, considered individually.Therefore, exceptions have sometimes been made to these rules whenever deemed necessary, for instance in long sentences, for the sake of clarity. 618 See e.g. “Is enim qui omnia fecit dirigit eadem, movet, servat, καθάπερ ἡνίοχος ἀγαθὸς (verba Trismegisti) τὸ τοῦ κόσμου ἅρμα ἀσφαλισάμενος καὶ ἀναδήσας εἰς ἑαυτόν, μή πως ἀτάκτως φέροιτο: tamquam Auriga peritus currum hunc mundi firmans in se atque alligans ne incomposite feratur.” 617 The

141

Text and Translation – Commas are used to introduce short direct speeches, to introduce and close addresses, and relative and appositional sentences if they are descriptive,619 to close restrictive relative sentences, and adverbial subordinated sentences (causal, temporal) if they precede or interrupt the main sentence, and to connect asyndetic word-groups (e.g. enumerations).They are never used before coordinating conjunctions such as et, atque, nec, aut (as Lipsius does) unless there is a change of subject.620 – Dashes are used to mark a parenthesis which is completely independent from the main sentence,621 brackets for a parenthesis which is somehow connected to it.622 Layout Characteristics of the layout, such as capitals, small caps, italics, marginal notes, etc. were used by Lipsius to guide the reader and to structure the text. Since these do not confuse a modern reader, they have been retained. The source-references given by Lipsius have been reproduced in the outer margin of the text; modern source-references are given in the outer margin of the translation. Chapter and paragraph numbers are Lipsius’ as well. All other departures from the text have been registered in the apparatus criticus. c.The apparatus fontium This apparatus indicates the sources quoted and used by Lipsius. It only records the exact sources which were used directly by Lipsius for his text, not all other sources which mention the same or similar facts (so-called parallel texts). If the source could not be determined, or if there is doubt between various sources, this 619 For an example of a descriptive relative clause, see “Tolerabilius Afri, qui non bestiis, sed Sa­­ turno tamen homines vivos sacrificabant.” (All Africans are more tolerable compared to other people. In Lipsius’ view this is the practice of all Africans, not of some Africans compared to ­others.) versus “Plura in Religione liceat, sed seorsim iam feci in libello quem De una religione vulgavi.” (­Lipsius uses a comma in the second case as well, which I have removed). 620 E.g. “Mulier agnoscit pilleum, et sacculum descripserat.” Here we have added a comma in order to avoid confusion, because it is not the woman who describes the bag (mulier is not the subject of descripserat, which is not expressed). But when Lipsius writes “postremus ille gravior morbus me deiecit, et a stilo arcuit”, we have changed it into “postremus ille gravior morbus me deiecit et a stilo arcuit.”The comma has sometimes been kept for the sake of clarity in long sentences. E.g. “Nam cum duas adversarias potestates inter se committere statuit nec alteram alteri subiicere, aut ingenio et virtute praestantes utrique parti moderatores praeficit ut alter alterius consilia et conatus evertat et utrimque subditorum libertati consulatur, aut utrosque hebetes et imbelles deligit ut neuter alterum tentare et saepta (quod aiunt) transilire audeat veteresque regnorum limites convellere.” 621 We have changed “ille nec locum, quid locum? nec statum nec vultum mutavit” into “ille nec locum – quid locum? – nec statum nec vultum mutavit.” 622 E.g. “Otium est, et lapsus cum equo (non enim ab equo, ne rideas) ferias mihi fecit.”

142

Principles of this Edition has not been indicated in the apparatus, but in the commentary. The precise level of dependency (e.g. free or literal reproduction) has also been specified in the commentary. The sources for verbal quotations that have been indicated as such by Lipsius by a reference to the author in the margin are not recorded here but, as indicated above, in the outer margin. In the apparatus, classical Latin authors and their works have been abbreviated as in the index to the Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Greek authors and works as in the list of abbreviations presented in the Greek-English Lexicon by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. Their works have been consulted in the editions indicated in those lists. Authors and works of the Byzantine period have been abbreviated as in the Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W.H. Lampe, and the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods by E.A. Sophocles.The abbreviations and editions used for other (medieval and early modern) authors are listed below. When the original text is not divided into chapters or paragraphs, we have added page references to the edition listed here.623 – Aemil. de reb. gest. Franc. = Paulus Aemilius, De rebus gestis Francorum libri X (Paris: M.Vascosan, 1566) – Bellon. Observat. = Petrus Bellonius, Plurimarum singularium et memorabi­lium rerum in Graecia, Asia, Aegypto, Iudaea, Arabia aliisque exteris provinciis ab ipso conspectarum observationes tribus libris expressae. Carolus Clusius Atrebas e Gallicis Latinas faciebat (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1598) – Bodin Rép. = Jean Bodin, Six livres de la Répubique (s.l.: Gabriel Cartier, 1608) – Bonfin. Rer. Ungar. = Antonius Bonfinius, Rerum Ungaricarum decades tres (Basel: R. Winter, 1543) – Busbeq. Epist. = Augerius Gislenius Busbequius, Legationis Turcicae Epistolae quatuor (Paris: G. Beys, 1589) – Chron. Colmar. = Chronicon Colmariense. References are to the Pertz edition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. – Chron. Lauresham. = Chronicon Laureshamense. References are to the Pertz edition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. – Collen. Hist. = Pandulphus Collenutius, Historiae Neapolitanae ad Herculem I Ferrariae Ducem libri VI. Omnia ex italico sermone in latinum conversa Ioann. Nicol. Stupano interprete (Basel: P. Perna 1572) – Conest. ist. = Girolamo de’ Franchi Conestaggio, Dell’ unione del regno di Portogallo alla corona di Castiglia istoria (Genoa: G. Bartoli, 1589) – Const. Manass. Ann. = Constantinus Manasses, Annales, nunc primum in lucem prolati et de Graecis Latini facti per Io. Leunclauium (Basel: Episcopius, 1573) – Cromer. de orig. et reb. gest. Polon. = Martinus Cromerus, De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX (Basel: J. Oporinus, 1568)

623 E.g. Marian. Hist. 7.4 = Juan de Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, liber 7, caput 4, while Iov. Elog. 3 (1596: 108) = Paulus Iovius, Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium, lib. 3, p. 108.

143

Text and Translation – Gerard. de Roo Ann. = Gerardus de Roo, Annales rerum belli domique ab Austriacis Habspurgicae gentis Principibus, a Rudolpho primo, usque ad Carolum V. gestarum (Innsbruck: J. Agricola, 1592) – Heut. Rer. Burg. 5.7 = Pontus Heuterus, Rerum Burgundicarum libri sex (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1584) – Jov. Elog. = Paulus Jovius, Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium (Basel: P. Perna, 1596) – Jov. Hist. = Paulus Jovius, Historiarum sui temporis tomus primus (Paris: M.Vascosan, 1533) – Lambert. Hersfeldens. Ann. = Lambertus Hersfeldensis, Annales. References are to the edition of Holder-Egger in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. – Leo African. De tot. Afric. descript. = Johannes Leo Africanus, De totius Africae descriptione libri IX (Antwerp: J. Latius, 1566) – Leuncl. Ann. = Johannes Leunclavius, Annales Sultanorum Othomanidarum a Turcis scripti (Frankfurt: C. de Marne – J. Aubry, 1588) – Leuncl. Pandect. = Johannes Leunclavius, Pandectes historiae Turcicae liber unicus ad illustrandos annales (Frankfurt: C. de Marne – J. Aubry, 1588) – Lib. de calam. eccl. Mogunt. = Christiani Archiepiscopi liber de calamitate ecclesiae Moguntinae. References are to the Waitz edition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. – Lips. Admir. = Justus Lipsius, Admiranda, sive De magnitudine Romana libri quattuor (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1599) – Lips. Diss. = Justus Lipsius, Dissertatiuncula apud principes (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1600) – Lips. Not. = Justus Lipsius, Ad libros Politicorum Notae (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1599). Page references, if given, are to the Waszink edition (2008). – Lips. Pol. = Justus Lipsius, Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex. Qui ad Principatum maxime spectant (Antwerp: Plantin, 1599). Page references, if given, are to the Waszink edition (2008) and not to the one prepared by Provvidera (2012b). – Lopez Hist. = Francisco Lopez de Gomara, Historia general de las Indias (Antwerp: J. Bellerus, 1554) – Luc. Tudens. Chron. = Lucas Tudensis, Chronicon mundi. References are to the Falque edition (2003) – Marian. Hist. = Juan de Mariana, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri XX (Toledo: P. Rodríguez, 1592) – Matt. Paris Chron. ma. = Matthaeus Parisiensis, Chronica majora. References are to the edition of Luard in the Rolls Series. – Nic. Chon. Hist. = Nicetas Choniates, Historia. Page references are to the van Dieten edition (1975) – Niceph. Greg. Hist. = Nicephorus Gregoras, Historia Romana. Volume, page and line-references are to the Bekker – Schopen edition (1829-1855)

144

The English Translation – Osor. de reb. Emman. = Hieronymus Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis, Lusitaniae regis invictissimi, virtute et auspicio, annis sex ac viginti, domi forisque gestis, libri duodecim (Cologne: Birckmann, 1597) – Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. = Antonius Panormita, De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis (Pisa: G. de Gente, 1485) – Scardeon. de antiquit. urb. Patav. = Bernardinus Scardeonius, De antiquitate urbis Patavii et claris civibus Patavinis libri tres (Venice:Valgrisi, 1558) – Sicul. de reb. Hisp. = Lucius Marinaeus Siculus, Opus de rebus Hispaniae memorabi­ libus (Alcalá de Henares: M. de Eguia, 1533) – Vas. Chron. = JohannesVasaeus, Chronicon rerum Hispanicarum, as included in Rerum Hispaniae memorabilium annales, a Ioanne Vasaeo et Francisco Tarapha Barcinonensi ad haec usque tempora deducti (Cologne: L. Alectorius and heirs of J. Soter, 1577) – Xaver. Epist. = Franciscus Xaverius, Epistolae, as included in Epistolae Indicae et Iaponicae de multarum gentium ad Christi fidem, per Societatem Iesu conversione (Louvain: R.Velpius, 1570). Paragraph numbers as in the Didier editions (1987) – Zárate Hist. = Agustín de Zárate, Historia del descubrimiento y conquista del Peru (Antwerp: M. Nucio, 1555) – Zonar. epit. = Joannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum. Page references are to the Büttner-Wobst edition (1897) d.The apparatus criticus The second apparatus registers the variant readings which can be found in the manuscript and editions described above according to the outlined principles. It does not record differences in punctuation or spelling. In this apparatus the following sigla have been used: A: edition 1605 (Antwerp: J. Moretus) B: edition 1606 (Antwerp: J. Moretus) MS: Ms. Lips. 6, fasc. 8r edd.: all editions II. The English Translation The present translation does not aim to be a literary product in itself but to facilitate the understanding of the Latin text.Therefore, we have tried to translate the text as faithfully as possible, while at the same time, however, attempting to keep the translation as transparant as possible by conforming it to the grammatical, syntactic, and idiomatic conventions of the English language. Thus, abbreviations, for instance of Roman first names, have been written in full without indication, and Roman numerals have been replaced by Arabic ones. Proper names and place names of the Latin text have been rendered as they occur in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2018). Names which cannot be found in this reference work (or others), they have been retained in the Latin spelling adopted by Lipsius.

145

Text and Translation Capitalisation has been adapted to modern usage. Small capitals have been retained, as they are employed by the author to emphasise certain words or parts of definitions, and to structure the text, as described above.624 Thus at the start of every example the name of the main character of the story is printed in small capitals. Since they do not obscure the understanding of the text, but, on the contrary, are meant to enhance it, these have also been maintained. For similar reasons, italics which are used by Lipsius for several purposes, for instance to highlight certain names or numbers, or to indicate the title of a work (e.g. De una religione), have also been preserved. Lipsius also uses italics to mark quotations, as well as direct and indirect speech. In order to conform to modern practice, we could have considered replacing italics by quotation marks in the case of direct speech and citations, and by ‘regular’ roman characters in the case of indirect speech. However, it has often been impossible to distinguish between indirect speech and citation.625 Therefore italics have been preserved in all cases. Only when Lipsius explicitly indicates the author of a quotation in the margin of the Latin text, has the modern source-reference been recorded in the outer margin of the translation. All other source-references have been included in the apparatus fontium. Other marginal references, such as data and explanatory remarks have been translated in the inner and outer margins. When Lipsius quotes from another source, we have rendered the quotation in our own translation, although existing modern translations of those sources have sometimes been consulted for correct understanding of the Latin and correct phrasing in English.When Lipsius supplies the Greek text of his source as well as a Latin translation of his own, we have translated his Latin rendering (which sometimes deviates somewhat from the original Greek text). Technical terms have been translated as consistently as possible (although Lipsius himself does not always use them consistently). Often the choice of a certain translation of a (technical) term has implications for the interpretation of the text, and therefore some choices have been explained in the commentary at the first occurrence of the word in question.

624

See above p. 101. true ‘centonist’, Lipsius hardly ever quotes literally and often adopts and integrates the quotation into his own text. 625 A

146

The English Translation

Autograph manuscript of the first page of the Monita Ex: Leiden, University Library, Ms. Lips. 6, fasc.8r

147

IUSTI LIPSI MONITA ET EXEMPLA POLITICA. LIBRI DUO qui Virtutes et Vitia

5

Principum spectant.

SERENISSIMO ET POTENTISSIMO PRINCIPI ALBERTO ARCHIDUCI AUSTRIAE, DUCI BURGUNDIAE, PRINCIPI BELGARUM. Tertium hoc ingenii et stili mei monumentum est, Serenissime Princeps, quod inclyto nomini tuo libentes merito imus consecratum. Et si ullum, quomodo non istud quod ipso titulo ad Te vocat et augustum hoc nomen vult inscribi? Sunt enim Monita Politica. Ad quem iustius quam ad Politiae et status nostri rectorem ibunt? Sunt Exempla. Et cui convenientius dabuntur quam qui stirpem et gentem suam in iis agnoscet? Rudolfi, Philippi, Maximiliani, Caroli, Ferdinandi, Alphonsi passim hic memorabuntur e maioribus tuis. Qui scriptionem hanc illustrant et insigniunt, ut caelum stellae. Quid, quod argumentum et materies eodem ducit? Virtutes et Vitia Principum: illas formamus aut suggerimus et haec amolimur. At tu illarum grande exemplar es, qui eximias habuisti et habes et, horum (quantum homini licet) paene expers, in omni aetate aut nescivisti ea aut sprevisti. Ergo ad Te imus. Et quo fine? Ut splendorem huic scriptioni mutuemur et tutelam. Sicut insignia vestra aedibus, Praetoriis, villis appendimus contra vim aut proterviam, sic nomina haec sacra contra calumniam aut livorem. Neque enim vobis hic aliquid quaeritur, non aliter quam cum Deo sacra facimus et donum ponimus, nostra id fit, non ipsius caussa. A nobis officium omne est et debetur; a vobis beneficium. Et hoc ipso accipimus, quod frontes operum sola praescriptione vestra honestatis.

148 148

10

15

20

25

JUSTUS LIPSIUS’ POLITICAL ADMONITIONS AND EXAMPLES. TWO BOOKS which concern the virtues and vices of princes.

TO HIS MOST SERENE AND MIGHTY HIGHNESS ALBERT, ARCHDUKE OF AUSTRIA, DUKE OF BURGUNDY, PRINCE OF THE NETHERLANDS. This is the third token of my literary talent, Your Most Serene Highness, that we dedicate happily and deservedly to your famous name. And if anything, why not this work, whose title itself urges me to come to you since it wishes to carry this august name. For it offers political admonitions. And to whom will they be offered with more right than to the leader of our polity and state? It concerns examples. And to whom will they be given more appropriately than to him who will recognise his own family and dynasty in them? Examples of your ancestors Rudolf, Philip, Maximilian, Charles, Ferdinand, and Alfonso will be mentioned here on various occasions. They illuminate and lend fame to this work, just as the stars illuminate the sky. Moreover, do the argument and the content not point in the same direction? It concerns virtues and vices of princes: we mould or supply the former and remove the latter. Now, you are a great paragon of those virtues, which you have always possessed and still possess to an extraordinary degree, while you are nearly free from those vices (as far as this is possible for men): at all ages you either did not know them or despised them. Therefore we address you, and for which purpose? In order to obtain splendour and protection for this writing. Just as we decorate our buildings, palaces, and villas with your coat of arms to protect them from violence or impudence, in the same way we use your sacred name and titles against calumny or spite. For nothing is asked here of you, just as when we make sacrifices to God and offer Him gifts, we do it for our own sake, not for His. On our part it is nothing but a duty, which we owe; on your part a

149 149

Ego eo fine feci; patere, Serenissime Princeps. Et sicut aurum aut ebur magis aestimare soletis a solerti manu et arte politum, sic has Exemplorum gemmas, ingenii et eloquii aliqua luce (cum Deo dicam) perfusas. Ille idem Deus, Serenissime et Potentissime Princeps, longaevum Te nobis servet et donet aliquando sub optimo Principe optimum statum, id est desideratam diu tran- 5 quillitatem et Pacem. Lovanii, xv Kalendas Februarias anni ∞iƆcv

Lectori Ecce duos istos libros, Lector, trientem operis destinati et, addam, affecti. Nam duo alii sequuntur qui Civilem Prudentiam habent, itemque duo qui Militarem. Est scilicet eadem divisio et ordo qui in Politicis nostris fuit, quorum luci aut assertioni haec 10 scribuntur. Sed cur non confeci igitur, aut certe cur non distuli? Utrumque ab eadem caussa. Fatebor enim ingenue, postremus ille gravior morbus me deiecit et a stilo arcuit atque idem impulit vel incohata haec sic edere quia post me nihil edi adamantinum est meum decretum. Ego quidem, ut res erat, ostium tunc spectabam neque nunc ad interiora valde me recepi. Ceterum Exempla quae hic sunt aut in aliis erunt, scito ab 15 optimis nec obviis semper auctoribus esse. Et cur non eos edidi? Quia novitii aut Grammatici commatis illa cura videtur et aut a vano aut pusillo animo esse. A vano si lectionem variam iactas, a pusillo si diffidis credi. Nobis aetas et priora scripta fidem vindicant. Qui abrogat, inquirat; spondeo inventurum auctores. Satis est. Tu istis fruere et reliqua exspecta (utiliora haud dubie et rariora, ut res et materia est) exspecta, in- 20 quam, si Deus, vita et otium dabunt. Si non, a te suppone, et dedi exemplum.

150 150

benefaction, which we receive because you bring honour to the front pages of works with your titles only. That has been my aim in dedicating this work to you; allow it, Most Serene Highness. And just as you are wont to value gold and ivory more if it is skilfully polished by an expert hand, may you thus value more these gems of examples, to which my talent and eloquence have (God forgive me) lent some brightness. May the same God keep you, Your Most Serene and Mighty Highness, safe for us for a long time and may He sometime grant the best state under the best prince, that is to say, the long-desired peace and tranquillity. Louvain, 18 January 1605.

To the reader Reader, behold these two books, which form one third of the work which I have planned and, I may add, have nearly finished. For two more books will follow on Civil prudence, and also two on Military prudence. Evidently, the same division and order is used as in our Politics. For the present work is written as an illustration and confirmation of the former. So why did I not complete it, or at least postpone it? Both for the same reason: I genuinely confess that my last, fairly bad, illness took me down and kept me from writing. And at the same time it urged me to publish this work in its present state, although it remains incomplete, because it is my firm decision that nothing will be published after my death. I was then, as things were, at death’s door, and I have not recovered fully yet. For the rest, you need to know that the examples which are in this book, or will be in the others, come from the best, not always the obvious, authors. And why did I not indicate those sources? Because that kind of pedantry seems to belong to novices or grammarians, and seems to come either from an ostentatious or from a petty mind. From an ostentatious mind if you boast of a variant reading, from a petty mind if you doubt that you will be believed. Our credibility is vouched for by our age and previous works – let him who denies me credit investigate: I promise that he will find the authors. That is sufficient. Enjoy these examples and look forward to the rest of them (undoubtedly more useful and rare, in view of their content and subject-matter), look forward to them, I say, if God, life, and spare time will allow it. If not, add your own examples after my example.

151 151

IUSTI LIPSI MONITA ET EXEMPLA POLITICA LIBER PRIMUS

152 152

JUSTUS LIPSIUS’ POLITICAL ADMONITIONS AND EXAMPLES BOOK 1

153 153

Caput primum In sermonem et rem ingressio atque obiter utilitas Exemplorum. Auditor: Accedo. Annuis? Lipsius: Imo accede et sede. Vacuum reperis et sermonibus haud alienum. Otium est, et lapsus cum equo (non enim ab equo, ne rideas) ferias mihi fecit et domum servare, focum assidere iussit. O rem ingenio meo alienam! Nec aliud magis vitam aut vigorem mihi sustinet quam exercitatio et motus. At ferendum est quod non mutes. Auditor: Ferendum. Et nobis diutinum desiderium. Quod haud semel promere memini et ad te velut communi legatione deferre. Lipsius: Quid ais? Auditor: Illud de Exemplis. Quae viri et iuvenes flagitant (ita loquendum est; nec enim petunt tantum) subiungi Politicorum tuis libris. Sunt ibi Sententiae et velut Decreta utilia ac salutaria. Quis abnuat? Sed ut valida atque efficacia sint, nonne vides usum, id est Exempla deesse? Haec adde et pulcherrime coeptum opus absolve: nec muros tantum et tectum, sed instrumenta atque ornamenta adiunge. Sicut herbas qui sevit, opportune eas irrigat atque alit ut adolescant, sic tu Sententiarum istos velut frutices fove et attolle vel sole vel pluvia, ut sic dicam, Exemplorum. Utrumvis enim praestant. Illustrant dum in rem velut praesentem ducunt, et facta ostendunt, quae facienda suadentur. Fovent etiam dum animum erigunt, et re docent non nova, non ardua proponi. Sed et viam praeeunt in qua vestigia tuto ponamus. Sicut qui gubernandi parum peritus est, ubi plures naves cursum temperat et sequitur priores. Ita vada et scopulos vitat et sine magna sua arte portum cum prioribus petit et tenet. Vidistine etiam qui ad speculum se comunt, faciem et cultum recte disponere? Prorsus hic idem: aliena vita et facta speculum sunt et imago in qua te videas et ad eam decore componas. Quod magis fit ubi varia et multiplex lectio Exempla varia et multa suppeditat ut eligere sit et ad rem talem aut talem appositum aliquid semper applicare. Ita sicut Zeuxis ille pictor olim Iunonem effigiaturus virgines Agrigentinorum pulcherrimas conduxit et e singulis aptavit quod praestantissimum in quaque esset, ita, inquam, Princeps

29–31 Plin. nat. 35.36; Cic. inv. 2.1 16 absolve edd. : absolve, id est MS

154 154

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 1 Introduction to the dialogue and subject-matter and, in passing, the utility of examples. Pupil: I am coming in. Do I have your approval to enter? Lipsius: Of course, come in and be seated. You find me unoccupied and by no means averse to conversation. I have nothing to do, and a fall with my horse (do not laugh, for I did not fall off it) has created days of idleness for me and has forced me to stay at home and sit by the fire – how contrary to my nature this is! There is nothing that keeps up my vitality and vigour better than exercise and motion. But what cannot be cured must be endured. Pupil: Indeed. We also have a long-standing desire which I recall expressing more than once and announcing to you as if on a common embassy. Lipsius: What are you saying? Pupil: That desire for examples, for which men, young and old, are pressing (that is how it must be said, for they are not merely asking) to be added to your Politics. There are useful and beneficial aphorisms and, so to speak, rules in that book; who would deny that? But do you not see that, in order for them to be powerful and efficient, practical application, that is to say, examples, are missing? Add these and finish the work which you have started so beautifully: do not only build the walls and the roof, but add furnishings and decorations. Just as he who sows plants waters and nourishes them seasonably, so that they may grow, so you should foster and raise these, as it were, shrubs of aphorisms with either the sun or the rain, so to speak, of examples. For they supply whichever of the two you wish: while they lead, as it were, to the present subject, they illustrate and show the deeds which they urge should be performed. They also foster the mind while raising it, and by the subject-matter itself they teach that no new or difficult things are proposed. But they also lead the way on which we may safely tread. Just as he who has little experience in steering, eases down where there are many ships and follows those in front of him, so he avoids shallows and rocks, and without much skill of his own reaches and enters the port together with the ships before him. Furthermore, have you noticed that those who adorn themselves in front of a mirror arrange their appearance and clothes carefully? It is exactly the same here: another’s life and deeds are a mirror and an image, in which you may see yourself and to which you can suitably adjust yourself. This is even more so when varied and manifold reading supplies many and various examples, so that one may choose and may always apply something that is suitable for this or that matter. So just as once, when the famous painter Zeuxis was going to portray Juno, he assembled the most beautiful virgins of Agrigentum and used from each that which was the most

155 155

Liber i, Caput i

et politici viri ab exemplis factisque illustribus potentiam (ea Iuno est) et prudentiam suam forment. Quid ais, mi Doctor? Nihil moveo aut impetro? Lipsius: Illud, nondum istud. Moves, fateor, et ex facili quippe iamante motum. Rationes quas dicis iamdiu in mente agito et rem per se utilem atque opportunam agnosco. Sed ut suscipiam et praestem, nondum hercle impellis. 5 Nam libere dicamus: cui bono? Spargimus haec monita et velut pharmaca aegris aut lumen caecutientibus offerimus. Quem usum tamen fructumque videmus? Et vis plura etiam addam, id est perdam? Auditor: Bona verba, vir optime. Quod medicis, hoc tibi faciendum cense: cum veteri imperitiae morbo acriter pugnandum. Et a perseverantia fructum 10 exspecta. Sparge, sparge salutaria haec velut semina. Et cur non vel ab agricolae exemplo? Ille, si hoc alteroque anno spes destituit, tamen arat, occat, serit. Et Bonus Eventus serius, sed uberius saepe respondet. Audi tuum doctorem: Sen. Epist. XXIX

Quare verbis parcam? Gratuita sunt. Non possum scire an ei profuturus sim quem admoneo; illud scio, alicui me profuturum si multos admonuero. Spargenda est manus. Non potest fieri ut non aliquando succedat multa tentanti.

15

Lipsius: Haec quidem auctoritas valde me quatiat, sed et tua honesta sic voluntas. Etiam ratio alia: quod sicut gemmae, etsi in lutum aut sordes abiectae, splendorem non amittunt, et dies postea revelat et attollit, sic in istis quae bene et honeste dicuntur. Si diem tamen ferent. Ergo huc imus? Eamus; tanto 20 alacrius quo brevius iter laboribus scriptisque nostris restat. Sicut athletae cum metam vident et accedunt, etsi fessi, approperant, sic nos in senectutis hoc limite alacrius promptiusque laboremus quia laborum mox expertes. Conscientia utique sustentabit et vires porriget quod haec atque alia in tuum, o magne Deus, honorem, in vestrum, Principes ac subditi, bonum moliti sumus, 25 atque utinam emoliti. Adspira tu, idem ille Deus, ut possim; favete vos isti et delectantia simul atque utilia (talia erunt) pronis animis admittite. Ordinem servabo quem Politicis praestruxi; nec Exempla solum, sed et Monita passim inspergam et alibi Quaestiunculas. Haec omnia utrique iam fini a me 30 dicto. At tu, audi.

156 156

Book 1, Chapter 1 remarkable in her, so, I say, the prince and politicians should model their power (that is Juno) and prudence on illustrious examples and deeds. What do you say, dear teacher? Am I not stirring you or achieving anything? Lipsius: The former yes, but not yet the latter. I admit that you are stirring me, and easily, for in fact I had already been stirred. I have been reflecting on the reasons which you mention for quite a while and I acknowledge that the matter is useful and opportune in itself. But, goodness me, you have not yet persuaded me to undertake or perform it. For let us speak frankly: who would benefit from it? We spread these admonitions and offer them, as it were, like medicines to the ill or light to the blind. But what is the use or result of that? And you want me to add, that is, to waste, even more? Pupil: Well said, sir. But think that what doctors do, you should do, too, namely vehemently fight the ancient disease called ignorance and expect a result from your perseverance. Spread, yes, spread these wholesome things like seeds. And why not indeed after the farmer’s example? If, this year or another, hope lets him down, he still ploughs, harrows, and sows. And often Bonus Eventus responds later but more abundantly. Listen to your teacher: Why would I be sparing with words? They are free of charge. I cannot know whether I will be of use to the person whom I admonish. But I do know that I will benefit someone if I have warned many. I must scatter advice by the handful. It is impossible that he who tries many things should not succeed some time. Lipsius: Indeed, this authority affects me strongly, but also that desire of yours, which is so honourable. There is also another argument: just as jewels do not lose their brilliance, even if they are thrown into the mud or dirt, and afterwards the day discloses them and renders them conspicuous, so the same will happen to good and honourable words, at least if they can stand daylight. Shall we proceed then? Let us do it; all the more happily, the shorter the distance that is left for our efforts and writings. Just as athletes speed up when they see and approach the finishing line, even though they are tired, so will we work more happily and willingly on this boundary of old age, because soon we will have no work. Surely my conscience will sustain me and offer me strength, since I have started these and other writings in Your honour, Great God, and in your favour, princes and subjects – and I wish I had completed them! May You, that same God, favour me so that I may succeed, and may you yourselves be favourable to, and receive with approving minds, these delightful and at the same time useful stories (that is what they will be like). I will maintain the structure which I have built before in the Politics. I will not only add examples, but I will also insert admonitions here and there, and small questions elsewhere. All of this I will do for both of the purposes which I mentioned earlier. But you, listen.

157 157

Sen. epist. 29.2

Caput ii DE RELIGIONE. Eius utilitas sive necessitas ostensa vel in tota Societate vel seorsim in Rege et Subditis.

De Mundo ad Alexandr.

Ut autem qui domum moliuntur, a fundamentis, sic nos qui Rempublicam, a fulcro et velut basi eius, Religione, ordiri debemus. Sine ea non Princeps offi- 5 cium suum, non Subditi facient; sine ea societas non erit. Quia non Fides, non Iustitia, non Virtus, sed fraus, licentia, protervitas et, uno verbo, confusio hominum ac rerum. Quod fraenum erit peccaturis? Quis metus satis validus? Nam externum illum, qui a poenis aut morte est, multi contemnunt, et desperatio, impetus aut iracundia eo ducunt. Esto igitur vinculum et firma- 10 mentum reipublicae Religio, ac Princeps, ut dixi, ipse habeat. Quo Ratio eum et Gratitudo vocant. Rex es? A Deo habes. Et quo maior altiorque, plura benefico illi Numini debes, et per cultum igitur venerationemque eius agnosce. Rex es? Ut diu et feliciter esse possis, datori supplica et scito tollere posse qui tribuit, et evertere qui sublimavit. Aristoteles ad suum Regem: Ἀρχαῖος μὲν 15 οὖν τις λόγος καὶ πάτριός ἐστι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκεν: Vetus et a maioribus acceptus hominibus est sermo quod Omnia a deo et per deum nobis sint constituta. Qui hoc imbibit, Religionem quomodo non habebit? Prima mihi debes animi bona. Sanctus habere.

20

Ex quo sequetur ut virtutes etiam habeas, et maxime Modestiam ac Clementiam, quae Religioni proxime adhaerent. Addo quod tutior ita eris. Amor enim ex isto et veneratio erga ipsos Principes innascitur, nec facile exteri aut subditi laedent cui Numen amicum et propitium arbitrantur. Quid, quod ipsi Subditi ita meliores tranquillioresque? Nulla res magis animos et mores com- 25 ponit quam Religio, et illa ubi in pectus demissa, Virtutum agmen sequitur. Inprimis mansuetudo quaedam animi et tranquillitas, bona imperantibus, et quae faciles obnoxiosque praeceptis reddit. Denique externa Felicitas eo vocat. Quod ab omni aevo observatum Deum qui se colunt, attollere et piis religiosisque Principibus prospera plurimum evenisse; alia aliis. Exemplis haec firme- 30 mus videamusque in veteri et vana Religione etiam eius cultores fuisse et

20 Iuv. 8.24

158 158

Chapter 2 ON RELIGION. Its utility or necessity demonstrated to the whole society and especially to the king and his subjects. In the same way as those who build a house begin from the foundations, so do we who construct a commonweal have to start from its main point of support and, as it were, from its base, religion. Without it the prince will not fulfil his duty, nor will his subjects; without it there will be no society. For there will be no faithfulness, no justice, no virtue, but only fraud, licence, boldness and, in one word, disorder of men and things. What restraint will there be for those who are about to sin? Which fear will be strong enough? For the external fear which comes from punishments and death is despised by many: despair, passion, or anger lead to this. Let therefore the bond and support of the commonweal be religion, and let the prince himself, as I said, be religious. Both reason and gratitude call him to religion. Are you a king? You owe it to God. And the greater or higher your position is, the more you owe to that beneficent Divinity. So acknowledge this by worshipping and honouring Him. Are you a king? If you want to remain a king for long and happily, pray humbly to the Giver and know that He who gave can also take away and He who elevated can also overthrow. Aristotle said to his king: All people have an old saying, accepted from previous Arist. Mu. generations, that everything has been arranged for us by and through God. How can he 397b13; GA 411a7 who has imbibed this not be religious?

The first things which you owe to me are the good qualities of your soul. Be considered pious. And from that will follow that you also possess virtues, and most of all modesty and clemency, which are very close to religion. I add that, in this way, you will be safer. For from this grows love of, and respect for, the princes themselves, and neither foreigners nor subjects will easily harm someone whom they judge to be protected and favoured by God. And is it not right to say that the subjects themselves become better and calmer in this way? Nothing orders minds and manners more than religion, and where it is instilled in the heart, an array of virtues follow. First of all a certain mildness of the mind and calmness, which are good for rulers and make subjects accommodating and obedient to orders. And then external happiness calls for it; at all times it has been noticed that God exalts those who worship Him, and that pious and religious princes have been the most prosperous, while the others have not. Let us corroborate this by means of examples and let us see that even in the false religion of the

159 159

Liber i, Caput ii

praemium a Deo externum tulisse. Qui si imaginem et speciem eius honestat ac munerat, quid in vera faciet? Primum igitur Monitum:

Exemplum I

II

III

Monitum i: Deus ubique colendus, etiam inter et apud hostes. Agesilaus, Spartae rex, fecit. Qui, ut Xenophon ait, venerabatur delubra etiam in hostico sita ab iisque vim militum et iniuriam abstinebat quod existimaret divina auxilia non minus in hostili quam amico solo imploranda esse. Alexander Magnus quam illustri exemplo docuit? Tyrum obsederat, Iudaeae finitimam, ceperatque. In ardua ea et longa obsidione auxilia ab Iudaeis petierat. Repulsus quia cum Dario vetustius iis foedus erat. Irae igitur plenus (et animos victoria fecerat), movit in Iudaeos, ulcisci certus, et praedae ac caedi omnia destinabat. Venitque ita affectus. Sed Iaddus, tunc Pontifex, divinitus somnio monitus, cum omni populo candidato, cum coetu sacerdotum byssino, ipse in hyacinthina stola, tiaram capite et in ea Dei nomen gerens, obvium se dedit pacis specie atque habitu. Atque ita ferocem Regem religio obiecta movit ut statim mitis submissusque ad Pontificem ultro accederet et ipsum salutaret et Mirabile illud nomen adoraret. Mirati comites, quidam et indignati. E quibus Parmenio Regem adiit, Quid ita hominem adoraret qui ipse passim iam pro Deo esset? Respondit, non illum se, sed in ipso Deum adorasse. Quem ea specie iamante in urbe Dio Macedoniae per somnium vidisset, hortantem ut prompte in Asiam pergeret, sua ope et numine eam subiecturus. Haec Alexander. Et urbi ac genti veniam. Quid veniam? Praemia atque honores tribuit et immunes suisque legibus vivere iussit et quosdam in militiam suam allegit. Antiochi, Syriae regis, in eadem gente factum simile, imo a se, si non ab auctore, illustrius. Obsidebat Hierosolyma, in una urbe bellum patraturus. Et ecce festum magnum Iudaei Scaenopegiae sive Tabernaculorum celebraturi erant. Gens nec in afflictis rebus cultum Dei deseruit et Legatos ad Antiochum misit sine alio colore petitum septem dierum inducias ut operari sacris magni Dei possent. Magnus ille Deus pectus movit: nec petita modo rex indulsit, sed ipse ad eius cultum versus, boves auratis cornibus, magnam thuris et odorum vim deduci ad portas iussit ac sacerdotibus tradita immolari. Quid magis

4–19 J. AJ 11.329-339 13.241-243

5–6 X. Ages. 11.1

160 160

7–22 J. AJ 11.329-339

23–162,5 J. AJ

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 2 ancients there were people who worshipped Him and received an external reward from God. If He even honours and rewards an image and illusion of it, what will He do then in the case of true religion? Therefore, the first admonition:

Admonition 1: God is to be honoured everywhere, even among and with enemies. 1 Agesilaus, King of Sparta, did so. According to Xenophon, he honoured temples, even if they were situated in hostile territory, and kept military violence and harm away from them because he was convinced that one should implore divine help no less on hostile than on friendly soil. 2 With a famous example Alexander the Great taught the same! He had besieged Tyre, which adjoined Judaea, and had seized it. During that hard and long siege, he had asked the Jews for help, but had been rejected since they had an older treaty with Darius. So, full of anger (the victory had inflamed him) he marched against the Jews, certain of revenge, and destined everything for plunder and slaughter. He arrived in this state of mind, but Jaddus, who was high-priest at the time, was warned from heaven in a dream and, together with the whole community dressed in white, and an assembly of priests in linen garments, while he himself wore a hyacinth-coloured robe and on his head a tiara which bore God’s name, went to meet Alexander with the appearance and dress of peace. And the furious king was moved so much by the religious objection put before him, that he immediately calmed down and humbly approached the high-priest of his own accord, greeted him and worshipped that wonderful name. His companions were surprised and some were even displeased. One of them, Parmenio, went to the king and asked why he worshipped a man in that way, when he himself was already widely regarded as a god? And he answered that he did not worship the man, but the God in him. He had already seen Him in this appearance in a dream, when he was in Dios in Macedonia, encouraging him to go to Asia at once to subject it with His help and divine power. That is what Alexander said and he forgave the city and its citizens. In what way? He rewarded and honoured them and commanded that they should live free from his taxes and by their own laws, and he selected some to serve in his army. 3 The deed of Antiochus, King of Syria, to the same people was similar, no, even more famous, due to itself if not to its performer. He was besieging Jerusalem, planning to bring the war to an end in one city, and behold, the Jews were about to celebrate the great festival of the Scenopegia or Tabernacles. The people did not neglect the adoration of God, not even in adversity, and they sent ambassadors to Antiochus to ask without pretext for a seven-day truce in order to be able to perform the sacred rites of their great God. And that great God moved the king’s heart: not only did he concede to them what they had asked for, but he even personally turned towards the worship of God and gave orders to take bulls with gilded horns and a great quantity of incense and perfumes to the gates and hand them over to the priests to be sacrificed. What should surprise me the most? That he suffered his victory to be

161 161

Example

Liber i, Caput ii

mirer? An victoriae interpellatae patientiam an sacra non solum permissa, sed instructa? Sacra quae contra se conatusque suos suscipi sciebat, fortasse et caput suum iis peti. Sed fructus, ut solet, pietati adfuit. Et Iudaei, moti inopinata benignitate, finem certaminis, initium amicitiae fecere ac se suaque Antiocho permisere. 5 Monitum ii: Sacra nec in periculis deserenda aut negligenda. I

II

III Anno ∞CCXXVII

Romani in arce Capitolina obsidebantur a Gallis, clausis undique viis nec aditu nec exitu. Quem tamen Religio invenit, quae nihil deterrita, Quinti Fabii pectus impulit sacra solennia et familiaria in colle Quirinali stato die obire. Is cum adesset, ipse cultu habituque sacro degressus per medias hostium stationes itum tutum et reditum habuit sive attonitis illis inopinata audacia sive religione etiam motis ne pietati intercederent quam nec praesens periculum nec mors in oculis impedissent. Quid Pausanias, Spartanorum rex et Graeciae tunc totius dux? Is in pugna nobili ad Plataeas cum Persis, in qua de Graeciae salute agebatur, ingruente iam hoste et lacessente suos continuit donec per sacra et victimas Dii consulti pugnae annuissent. Fiebat longius, et hostes interea cunctationem pro metu interpretati magis instare, premere. Multi e Graecis cadere, nec vel sic tamen telum remitti permisit. Sed victimis multiplicatis supinas denique manus ad caelum et preces tulit, Ut, si in fatis non foret Graecos vincere, at saltem ne inultis, sed facinore aliquo memorabili edito mori indulgerent. Auditus est, et statim felicia exta; inde procursus et victoria. Sed quis ille animus? Quam fixus obnixusque in ceremoniis patriis? Qui vel internecione caedi eligebat quam Diis invitis ferrum stringere. At vero Ludovicus, cui Divi praenomen virtus et merita pepererunt, Galliae rex, per ipsa pericula, imo infortunia, religionem assertum et defensum ivit. Vita ille Princeps et moribus optimus: iustitiae tutor unicus, histrionum osor, impiorum expulsor, ab anno duodecimo rex, in annum quinquagesimum sextum quo obiit omnia (ut verbo dicam) caelo et titulo suo digna edidit. Sed quod meae nunc rei facit: arma pro religione bis cepit. Primo in Aegyptum traiiciens, infeliciter rem gessit, copiis, commeatu, machinis amissis, nec tamen animo; iterumque magno exercitu in Africam ivit, uxore, liberis, regno relicto. Sed nec ibi felix, una re se putavit, quod vitam si non in acie, in expeditione tamen posuit, id est religioni donavit. Mortuus enim in ipsa

8–14 Liv. 5.46.1-3

15–25 Plu. Arist. 17.7-18.2

162 162

10

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 2 interrupted or that he not only permitted, but even provided for, the sacred rites? Sacred rites, which he knew were undertaken against him and his endeavours and might even be aimed at his own life. But as usual, piety paid off, and moved by his unexpected benevolence, the Jews ended the fighting and initiated an alliance, and surrendered themselves and their possessions to Antiochus.

Admonition 2: The sacred must not be abandoned or neglected, not even in danger. 1 The Romans were besieged in the Capitoline citadel by the Gauls, and the roads were blocked on all sides and there was no way in or out. But still religion found a way out. Not at all frightened, it urged Quintus Fabius to perform the sacred and habitual rites on the Quirinal Hill on the appointed day. When he showed up, going down personally in sacred dress and with a holy appearance, he was able to pass and return safely through the midst of the enemy’s posts, since they were either astonished at such unexpected bravery, or even moved by religion not to obstruct the piety which neither the present danger nor the prospect of death had hindered. 2 What about Pausanias, King of Sparta and at the time leader of the whole of Greece? During the noble battle of Plataea against the Persians, in which the welfare of Greece was at stake and the enemy was already attacking and challenging, he held back his men until the gods, consulted through sacred rites and sacrifices, had given their approval for battle. But this took quite a long time, and meanwhile the enemy, interpreting the delay as fear, threatened and pressed more. Many Greeks fell, but not even then did he allow them to throw back a missile. But he multiplied the sacrifices and finally raised his hands towards the sky and prayed that if it was not the fate of the Greeks to win, at least fate would not allow them to die unavenged but after having carried out some memorable deed. His prayer was heard and immediately the organ-reading was promising, and after that the Greeks charged and won the battle. But how brave, how firm and steadfast in long-established ceremonies was he, who even preferred to be killed in a massacre rather than draw a weapon against the will of the gods! 3 But Louis, King of France, whose virtue and merits gave him the title of Saint, In the year 1227 came to the protection and defence of religion through dangers and even misfortunes. He was an excellent prince by his life and morals: he was an unequalled protector of justice, hated actors, expelled the impious. He was king from the age of twelve, and until his fifty-sixth year, when he died, everything (to say it in one word) which he performed was worthy of heaven and of his title. But what is important for my case now is that he took up arms twice for the sake of religion. The first time, when he crossed to Egypt, he was unsuccessful and lost troops, supplies, and machinery but not his courage; once again he went to Africa with a large army, leaving his wife, children, and kingdom behind. He was not successful there either but considered himself happy in one thing at least, namely in losing his life, that is to say, in sacrificing it for reli-

163 163

Liber i, Caput ii

IV ∞XCVI

V

Africa, sed in stirpe diu vixit et vivit, e qua Henricus Quartus Galliarum nunc rex imperat. Quem proavi illos animos, sed felicius, sumere, bellis et victoriis clarum, tacitum multorum est votum. Quid ante Ludovicum Godefredus, Lotharingiae et Bullionii Dux? Quam acres illi in pectore stimuli qui adegerunt rem tentare atque aggredi vix Europae viribus patrandam? Iudaea et Terra Sancta a profanis et impiis tenebatur, qui loca illa Christo-Deo calcata aut cruentata illudebant ac profanabant. Perdolitum est piissimo Heroi (sic nominandus est, et homine in eo aliquid maius); militem collegit, opes suas et avitum patrimonium expendit, fratres ipsos duos impendit. Deus autem coeptis quam palam adfuit? Ad sexcenta millia peditum, equitum centena millia armavit: exercitum quem raro Europa nostra vidisset. Scio esse qui numerum minuant, sed fuisse certum est, etsi non omnes pervenisse. Venit igitur in Syriam et (ut Iulianis olim verbis dicam) vidit, vicit. Rex Terrae Sanctae factus, victoriis et vita illustris obiit. Quem mirari aliquando subiit non et ipsum relatum in Divorum numerum tam claris testatisque meritis. Carolus Quintus Imperator multa vitae sanctimonia, praesertim iam senior, fuit. Preces ipse componere, noctu surgere et ad Deum fundere, sed ardorem praesertim et studium in tuenda religione profiteri. Voluisset et propaganda, ac querentis eius vox saepe audita quod per bella interna et cum Christianis Principibus laurea eriperetur quam de veris profanisque hostibus posset referre. Sed quod ad tuendam, notum quid in Germanico bello fecerit. Quam periculose susceperit, animose gesserit, feliciter consummarit. In eo dum Saxonem persequitur ad Albim fluvium, sub ipsum praelii tempus observavit imaginem Christi in cruce adfixi plumbea glande ab impio milite recenter traiectam. Stetit et ingemuit atque alta voce ad Deum clamavit, Domine, si vis iniuriam hanc ulcisci, potes: ecce autem me vindicem tuum paratum. Iuva. Certe audivit et iuvit. Fuga et dissipatio hostium ad eius adspectum facta, Dux ipse saucius in manus venit, et bellum uno praelio confectum.

164 164

5

10

15

20

25

Book 1, Chapter 2 gion, if not in battle, then at least in a campaign. For he did die in Africa itself, but continued to live on – and still does – for a long time through his descendants, of whom Henry IV, King of France, now reigns. That he, famous for his wars and victories, will take up his forefather’s courage, but more successfully, is the quiet wish of many. 4 What happened before Louis’ time to Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine and Bouillon? 1096 How strong were the incentives in his heart which brought him to try and undertake something which was almost impossible for the forces of Europe to realise! Judaea and the Holy Land were held by the profane and impious, who violated and desecrated those places, which had been trodden by Jesus Christ or stained by His Blood. This greatly pained our very pious hero (that is how he should be called, for there was something greater than a man in him); he gathered an army, using his own resources and his grandfather’s inheritance and employing his own two brothers. And how clear it was that God supported his plans! He armed around six hundred thousand foot-soldiers and one hundred thousand horsemen, an army our Europe had rarely seen. I know that some say that the numbers were lower, but it is certain that there were that many, although not all arrived. So he came to Syria and (to use the words which Julius Caesar once used) saw and conquered. He became King of the Holy Land, and famous for his victories and way of life, he passed on. It has sometimes amazed me that he himself is not counted among the Saints because of his famous and attested merits. 5 Emperor Charles V led a very pious life, especially in old age. He personally composed prayers, rose at night and poured them forth to God, but he especially professed his passion and zeal in his protection of religion. He also wanted to propagate it, and his voice was often heard complaining that the laurel of victory, which could be brought back from real and profane enemies, was snatched from him through civil wars and wars against Christian princes. But as far as the protection of religion is concerned, it is well-known what he did in the German war. How dangerous it was to undertake it, but how bravely he carried it out and how successfully he finished it! During that war, when he was pursuing a Saxon at the River Elbe, he saw, during the battle itself, an image of Christ fixed to the cross, recently pierced by an impious soldier with a gunshot. He stood still, sighed, and called in a loud voice to God: Lord, if You want to take revenge for this injustice, You can. Behold, I am prepared to be Your avenger. Help me. God certainly heard and helped. Upon seeing him, the enemy fled and scattered, the leader himself fell wounded into his hands, and the war was concluded in one battle.

165 165

Liber i, Caput ii

Monitum iii: Tuitio sacrorum famam et potentiam donat. I

II

III

Cuius clarissimum exemplum est Philippus Macedo. Qui tenuis adhuc viribus neque inclytus nomine, gradum ad illa utraque fecit a sacrorum tutela. Phocenses in Graecia, cum Delfico templo praeessent, bello impliciti, thesauros eius Dei veteres et fama celebres tangere ausi et mutui titulo, quid nisi spoliare? Ea res in odio et exsecratione omnium cum esset, solus ipse non iram, sed vindictam etiam et arma sumpsit. Contra sumunt Phocenses Onomarcho quodam duce, et iuncti exercitus et praelio instruuntur. Ibi Philippus pulcherrimo astu suos omnes lauru coronari iussit (sacrae Apollini eae frondes) atque ita, velut Deo duce et Deo dicatum exercitum, manus conserere. Factum et alacriter et feliciter cum Phocenses, ipsis insignibus violati numinis conspectis in fugam consternati, armis abiectis abeunt et temeratae religionis poenas multo sanguine suo pendunt. In gratia et gloria ab hac re Philippus. Auxit opes et regnum, quod obscurum et modicum, validissimum Europae effecit et filio materiem ad illud Asiae quaerendum reliquit. Constantinum Magnum licet addere, eo iustius quod verae pietatis praebuit se assertorem. Quam ea ad id aevi iacebat? Oppressa sedibus, caedibus, ignibus, aquis, et caput aut vocem attollere in eius professionem non erat. Ille ante Principatum affectum aliquem et iam Princeps amorem ostendit: templa Diis clausit, Christo aperuit et omni vi atque arte hoc nomen et numen ivit propagatum. An non se una? Imperium turbidis illis temporibus et seditioni factis firmiter ad senectutem tenuit et suis adeo reliquit. Prospera multa bello gessit, veterem Romam tenuit et novam struxit. Haec omnia cui accepto nisi Religioni atque eius tutelae referat? Carolus deinde Magnus, iterum novi auctor imperii, qui id a Romanis, vel potius Barbaris (nam ii dominabantur in Italia), ad Francos Germanosque transtulit, is, inquam, palam hunc titulum debet inscripsitque tuitioni sacrorum. Ter in Italiam copias duxit et victrices reduxit ut laborantem a seditiosis aut ab hostibus Pontificem maximum in libertatem assereret, atque etiam dignitatem. Eumdem potentia et finibus auxit Ravennate Exarchatu atque aliis in Italia perpetuo dominii iure concessis. Alione etiam suo fructu? Alio, nam iam Imperator victorias inclytas peperit (et o laudabiles!) contra hostes fidei bellis fere susceptis. Mauros in Hispania fregit et comminuit; Saxones, Danos,

2–14 Iust. 8.1.1-2.5

16–24 Eus. h.e. 9-10; v. C.

17 sedibus B deest A

166 166

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 2

Admonition 3: The protection of the sacred grants fame and power. 1 Philip of Macedon is the most famous example of this. At a time when he did not yet have much power or fame, he took a step towards both of those by protecting the sacred. When the Phocaeans in Greece were presiding over the temple of Delphi and became involved in a war, they dared to take hold of the old and famous treasures of its god and take them away under the pretext of a loan – what was that but robbery? Although everyone was disgusted by this action and cursed it, Philip was the only one not only to be enraged, but also to take revenge by taking up arms. The Phocaeans, under the command of a certain Onomarchus, took up arms against him; armies were gathered and prepared for battle. There Philip, with superb sagacity, ordered that all of his men should be crowned with laurel, those leaves sacred to Apollo, and join battle in this way, as if the army were led by and consecrated to the god. The battle was fought with eagerness and success when the Phocaeans, having seen the insignia of the violated deity, were frightened into flight, threw away their weapons and left, and paid with much bloodshed for dishonouring religion. This brought Philip credit and glory. He enlarged his riches and turned his obscure and modest kingdom into the most powerful kingdom in Europe, and left his son the material to conquer that most powerful kingdom in Asia. 2 One may add Constantine the Great, all the more justly since he showed himself a defender of true piety. How poor was its condition at that time? It was oppressed by temples, murder, fire, and water and no one could raise his head or voice to profess it. Before becoming emperor, he showed some affection and as emperor, he showed his love: he closed the temples to pagan gods, opened churches for Christ and set about propagating His name and majesty with all his power and skill. And did he not propagate himself at the same time? In those troubled times, made for insurrection, he held his empire firmly until his old age and even left it as such to his descendants. He conducted many successful wars, preserved the old city of Rome, and constructed the new one. But to what should one attribute this, if not to his having accepted religion and its protection? 3 Next, Charlemagne, another creator of a new empire, who transferred it from the Romans, or rather from the Barbarians (because they controlled Italy) to the Franks and Germans, he, I say, clearly owes and ascribed this title (the Great) to the protection of the sacred. Three times he led troops into Italy and brought them back victorious in order to restore the liberty, and even the dignity, of the Pope, who was oppressed by rebels or enemies. He also expanded the power and territory of the same Pope by conceding the Exarchate of Ravenna and other territories in Italy with eternal right of ownership. Did this bring any other advantages for himself, too? Yes, it did, because as emperor he accomplished famous victories (and oh, how laudable they were!) chiefly by waging war against the enemies of the faith. In Spain he broke and crushed the Moors. He brought the Saxons, Danes, and Avars into a triumph, not

167 167

Liber i, Caput ii

IV DCCXXXI

V ∞CCLXXIII

Avares in triumphum, nec suum sed Christi, duxit. Plerisque enim errores detraxit et lumen veritatis nostrae infudit. Magnum Principem! Et unde, dixi. At Hispaniae mentio Alfonsum, sive Adelfonsum, ut prisci fere scribunt, eius regem mihi suggerit, ab ista hac radice florentem. Hispania scissa tunc varie et Mauricis armis regnisque insessa erat. Multa recepit, iunxit, et semper in istis prima ei cura templa instaurare, vasis vestibusque ad sacrorum cultum exornare. Adeoque haec agenti favor numinis adfuit ut saepe cum animosa audacia, an temeritate dicam, castra hostium explorabundus atque id solus adierit, solus redierit ac sese explicarit, idque cum agnitus interdum ab iis fuisset. Miraculum hic quis non agnoscat? Isto fervore (sic appellare debeo) Catholici regis agnomen meruit, quod idem antea Recaredo datum in Concilio Toletano cum Gothorum gentem abiectis Arii deliriis in Ecclesiae castra reduxisset. Ac tertium idem in Ferdinando rege patrum memoria a Iulio II Pontifice renovatum. Qui Mauros tota Hispania eiecit. Et ab eo posteris successoribusque ad hunc diem gloriosum id et sollenne mansit. Tene ego hic, Rudolfe Austriace, praeteream? Te, qui fluctuans per dissidia Imperium stabiliisti et gentem fatalem sceptris regnisque propagasti. Quo merito? Inquirere in Deum et divina consulta nefas, nec facio. Sed non est inquisitio quae in aperto sunt memorare. Tu in modica adhuc fortuna, nec nisi Comes Habespurgensis, Pietatis multiplex studium praetulisti, et illi sequentem magnitudinem tuam vaticinia et divinae voces adscripserunt. Unum videamus. Venatum forte, ut nobilitas illa et nostra solet, cum paucis in equo exiverat. Pluvius dies erat, et viae fractae et sordentes. Ecce occurrit sacerdos venerabilem et mysticam hostiam, extremum solatium, aegro laturus, et occurrit pedes. Is adspectus pium pectus perculit, nec sine indignatiuncula aliqua equo desilit et: Me vehi, te qui servatorem meum portas pedibus incedere? Indecorum vel impium sit. Conscende et equum hunc cape. Iussio, non preces erant; paret ille, et iste capite revelato humilis sequitur, ad ipsas aedes aegri deducit, ab iis eodem habitu reducit. Iam domi et apud se Sacerdos erat, qui officio attonitus, et mente a Deo mota bene abeunti dixit et simul Imperium ipsi posterisque praedixit. Alii tamen ad Suevicam vatem hoc referunt; quidam et somnio sequentis noctis edoctum ipsum volunt. Undeunde praedictio, et res illa certa et rata ista fuit ac fidem etiamnunc ab eventis habet. Sed haec narratio Monitum aliud mihi suggerit:

10–15 Marian. Hist. 7.4

22–31 Gerard. de Roo Ann. 1, a. 1291 (1592: 49-50)

168 168

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 2 his own, but that of Christ. He removed the errors of very many and poured to them the light of our truth. A great prince! And I have said why. 4 But mentioning Spain brings to my mind its King Alfonso, or Adelfonso, as 731 earlier writers usually spell it, who flourished from that same root. At that time Spain was torn apart in various ways and occupied by the weapons and rule of the Moors. But he regained and united many lands, and his first concern was always to restore their churches and adorn them with vessels and vestments for the worship of the sacred. When he was doing these things, the favour of God was with him to such an extent that he often explored the enemy’s camp with bold courage, or should I say rashness, and while doing so he went there and returned alone and extricated himself, even when having been recognised by the enemy in the meantime. Who would not recognise this as a miracle? Because of that zeal (that is what I must call it) he earned the epithet of Catholic king, the same title which had earlier been given to Recared at the Council of Toledo for having brought the Gothic people back into the camp of the Church after they had renounced the ravings of Arius. And in the times of our fathers, the same title was granted again for the third time by Pope Julius II to King Ferdinand, who threw the Moors out of the whole of Spain. And from him, this glorious and solemn title has remained for his descendants and successors until today. 5 Could I omit you here, Rudolf of Austria? You, who stabilised the empire, when 1273 it was driven back and forth through discord, and generated a dynasty destined to rule kingdoms. On account of which merit? It is forbidden to inquire into God and His plans, and I do not do that. But relating plainly known matters is not inquiring. When you still enjoyed only modest fortune, being nothing more than Count of Habsburg, you displayed the manifold zeal for piety to which predictions and divine voices have attributed your subsequent greatness. Let us look at one example. Rudolf happened to have gone out hunting on horseback with a few men, as the nobility used to do back then, just as they do now. It was a rainy day and the roads were broken up and muddy. And behold, a priest met them; he was going to bring the venerable and mystical host, the last solace, to a sick person, and he met them on foot. This sight struck Rudolf’s pious heart, and not without a certain slight indignation he dismounted and said, Should I be mounted while you, who carry my Saviour, go on foot? That would be shameful or impious. Mount and take this horse. That was an order, not a request; the priest obeyed, and Rudolf followed humbly, his head uncovered, and led him to the very house of the sick man and back from there in the same state. Soon the priest was back home and, amazed at Rudolf ’s favour and his mind moved by God, he blessed him as he was leaving and at the same time predicted an empire for him and his descendants. Others, however, attribute this to a fortune-teller from Swabia. Some are even of the opinion that he was informed in a dream the following night. Wherever the prediction came from, the event was real and the prediction was proved correct and is even confirmed today by the results. But this story brings another admonition to my mind, namely

169 169

Liber i, Caput ii

Monitum iv: Sacrorum antistites aut administros honorandos, audiendos esse. I

II

III DCCCCXCVII

IV ∞CCLXXIX

V ∞CLXXIV

Alexander Severus Imperator tanti eos fecit ut iudicatas a se caussas a Pontificibus atque Auguribus retractari atque aliter quam ipse censuisset terminari aequo animo pateretur. Bona submissio. Non minuit, sed auxit Principale culmen infra Religionem id posuisse. Constantinus Magnus, cum initio, ut fit, libertatis fervor et fluctus et contentio aliqua inter Ecclesiae proceres esset, indicto Concilio Nicaeno ipse interfuit et auctoritatem accommodavit. Ecce autem libelli plures, qui mutuas criminationes continerent, ad eum delati fuerunt, quos omnes quasi lecturus cogniturusque accepit. Sed in unum fascem collectos in ignem statim, nec inspectos quidem, coram omnibus iecit. Duo videlicet eo facto significans: et indignum illis esse certare aemulatione aut odiis, nec se dignum qui de iis iudicaret quos Deus iudicare vicem suam in terris iussisset. Iam Robertus, Galliae rex, quam eosdem honoravit et misceri iis honorem suum putavit? Scholas et templa adibat, locum inter eos sumebat nec orabat solum cum iis, sed in publico psallebat. Quin et cantica eius sacra, quae composuit ediditque, Ecclesia etiamnunc usurpat. Vir demissae et rarae sanctimoniae, cui Deus etiam miraculo attestatus est cum Avallonem urbem eo obsidente muri sponte corruerunt ipso interea laudes hymnosque cum sacerdotibus in tabernaculo concinente. Sed hoc mirari quam imitari plures volunt, sicut et illud quod de Osmane, Urchane, Murate, a quibus Turcicum hoc grande imperium fundatum coeptumque est, Annales eius gentis hisipsis verbis (digna enim ea prodi) tradunt: Quoties convivas vocabant, vescebantur adhibitis Talismanis (ita Sacerdotes dicunt), quorum praeceptis et admonitionibus inter convivandum aures praebebant et Alcoranum legi iubebant. De Principibus an de Monachis haec narrantur? At submissionis exemplum etiam unum quod horridae et, ut quorumdam deliciae sunt, sordidae Pietatis videbitur, in Henrico ii, Anglorum rege. Ille suspectus in caede beati Thomae Cantuariensis Antistitis, non facto aut manibus eius, sed iussu consensuve patrata. Et saepe admonitus ac renitens semper aut abnuens, ad extremum ipsa conscientia salutariter adducente ad ipsum locum sepulchrumque beati viri, Cantuariam, venit. Atque ibi statim in terram, simul et lacrimas effusus, veniam pacemque petiit. Sancto deinde a paenitentia impetu ad coetum monachorum pergit et multis precibus impetravit ut a sin-

2–5 Hist. Aug. Alex. 22.5 6–13 Soz. h.e 17 64b) 21–26 Leuncl. Ann. 54 21 volunt B : volent A

170 170

14–21 Aemil. de reb. gest. Franc. 3 (1566:

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 2

Admonition 4: Bishops and subordinate ecclesiastics must be honoured and heard. 1 Emperor Alexander Severus held them in such great esteem that he patiently allowed cases concluded by himself to be re-examined by pontiffs and augurs and concluded differently from what he himself had decided. A good submission. Having been placed beneath religion did not lower the prince’s high position, but raised it. 2 When initially, as usually happens, there was passion for freedom, commotion, and some struggle among the leaders of the Church, Constantine the Great convened the Council of Nicaea, participated personally and lent it authority. Many libels containing mutual accusations had been brought to him. He accepted all of them as if he was about to read and examine them. But he collected them in one bundle and immediately threw them into the fire in front of everyone, without even having looked at them. By this act he showed two things: that it was unworthy of them to fight with emulation or hatred, and that he was not worthy to judge over those whom God had appointed to judge in His place on earth. 3 Now, how much did Robert, King of France, honour priests and consider it an 997 honour to himself to mix with them? He went to their schools and churches, took a place among them, and did not only pray with them, but also sang psalms in public. Indeed, even the sacred songs which he composed and published are still used by the Church today. He was a man of humble and rare sanctity and God confirmed that to him even with a miracle when, during his siege of Avallon, the walls collapsed spontaneously while he himself was singing songs of praise and hymns in his tent together with the priests. 4 But most people prefer to admire this rather than imitate it. Just as they do with what is said about Osman, Orhan and Murad, by whom the great Turkish Empire 1279 was founded and initiated, in the Annals of that people in these exact words (for they deserve to be published): Whenever they invited guests, they ate after the Talismans (that is how they call their priests) had been brought in. They listened to their precepts and admonitions while eating, and they ordered that the Koran should be read. Are these things told about princes or monks? 5 There is one more example of submission, which will seem one of horrid and, as some will relish, sordid piety, in Henry II, King of England. He was suspected of the 1174 murder of the Blessed Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, which was not carried out by himself or with his own hands, but on his command or with his consent. And often admonished, but always resisting or denying, he eventually came to Canterbury, the very place and the grave of the blessed man, brought there by his own conscience, to his own salvation. And there he immediately fell to the ground and, shedding tears at the same time, asked for forgiveness and peace. Afterwards, driven by a pious impulse fostered by repentance, he went to an assembly of monks and obtained with many prayers that he would be beaten with rods by each of them in order. What shall I say? I am stunned: a king did this, and he did so of his own accord. He forgot about

171 171

Liber i, Caput ii

gulis eorum ordine virgis vapularet. Quid dicam? Stupeo: rex fecit, sponte fecit, sui oblitus dum Deum cogitat, iudicii hominum dum caeli praemia. O si hic vilem, ibi beatum! Imo et hic dum Deus ipso illo tempore eum attollit et magnificat rege Scotorum a ducibus suis victo, capto et per triumphum adducto. Plura in Religione liceat, sed seorsim iam feci in libello quem De una 5 religione vulgavi.

172 172

Book 1, Chapter 2 himself while he thought about God, and forgot about the judgment of men while he thought about heaven’s rewards. Oh, even if he was worthless here, may he be blessed there! No, even here he was blessed while God exalted and extolled him at that time precisely: the King of Scots was defeated, captured, and brought along in triumph by Henry’s commanders. One could say more about religion, but I have already done that separately in the book which I published under the title On one religion.

173 173

Caput iii DE SUPERSTITIONE. Assitam Religioni esse et in vanitatem, vilitatem, timorem inclinare.

In Camillo

Curt. lib. 7

Religio igitur laudabilis, sed sita velut inter duos scopulos, Superstitionem et Impietatem, quem utrumque suademus (et opus est) vitare. Subit miserari 5 humanam conditionem sive, ut Plutarchi verbis efferam, ἀνθρωπίνην ἀσθένειαν, ὅρον οὐκ ἔχουσαν, ἀλλʹ ἐκφερομένην ὅπου μὲν εἰς δεισιδαιμονίαν καὶ τύφον, ὅπου δὲ εἰς ὀλιγωρίαν τῶν θείων καὶ περιφρόνησιν: humanam imbecillitatem, quae finem aut modum non habet, sed alias abripitur in Superstitionem et vanitatem, alias in Neglectum rerum divinarum aut Contemptum. O utraque magna pestis! Sed illa crebrior, 10 haec deterior. Atque illa Pietatis ipsa imagine se commendat. Sed imagine, neque aliud est quam humanarum mentium ludibrium, Superstitio. Quae rudes, barbaros et male factos animos maxime tangit: καὶ εὐάλωτον (ait idem Plutarchus) εἰς δεισιδαιμονίαν φύσει τὸ βαρβαρικόν: Pronum natura ad Superstitionem genus barbaricum. Ea autem non aliud est quam cultus Dei quem aut cui non debet, aut 15 aliter ac debet. Errat in eligendo vel modum excedit in colendo et serviliter, muliebriter, pueriliter se gerit. Proprius autem ei timor et inquietudo, quae animos deprimunt et ad nullam rem seriam aut altam patiuntur aptari. Itaque Principi fugienda maxime, etsi Monitum i: In tristibus aut adversis saepe se insinuat.

I In Alexandro

II

20

Quod in Alexandro Magno notatum, qui omni quidem vita religiosus, in extrema ea ad hanc declinavit. Nam ita animi et corporis aeger iam se gessit, ait Plutarchus, ut nihil esset tam parvum aut absurdum, si modo insolitum, quod in prodigium aut omen non verteret. Itaque sacrificantium, lustrantium, divinantium regia 25 erat plena, et plenus ipse malis curisque mortem, dum fugit, accersit. An non in Ludovico XI, rege Galliae, simile? Qui aetate et valetudine iam inclinante medicis blanditur et auri montes promittit aut donat. Deinde et sanctos viros evocat et e silvis educit, quibus vitam suam non emendandam, sed propagandam commendat. Tanto interea metu ut in arce munita, et fenestris ipsis atque omni aditu clathris ferreis obstructo sese includeret, id est, quid 30 nisi in spontaneum carcerem daret? O miser, hoc assidue times quod semel

6–10 Lips. Not. 1.3

13–15 Plu. Sert. 11.3; Lips. Not. 1.3

14 φύσει B : φύσιν A

174 174

Chapter 3 ON SUPERSTITION. It lies close to religion and is inclined towards vanity, baseness, and fear. So religion is praiseworthy but it is situated, as it were, between two rocks, namely superstition and impiety, both of which, we urge (and that is needed), should be avoided. It enters my mind to lament the human condition, or, to say it with the words of Plutarch, human weakness, which has neither limit nor measure, but is sometimes Plu. Cam. 6.4 dragged towards superstition and vanity, sometimes towards neglect or contempt of divine affairs. Both of those are terrible plagues! But the former is more common, the latter worse. Superstition recommends itself under the guise of piety. But it is only a guise, and in fact superstition is nothing but a deception of the human mind. It especially affects uncul- Curt. 7.7.8 tured, barbarian, and ill-formed minds. The same author, Plutarch, says that the barbarian race is naturally inclined towards superstition. It is nothing but veneration of God, which is given either to the wrong one or in the wrong way. Superstition makes the wrong choices or overindulges in veneration and behaves like a slave, a woman, or a child. Characteristics of superstition are fear and restlessness, which depress the mind and do not let it adapt to anything serious or worthy. Therefore a prince should do his utmost to avoid it, although

Admonition 1: It often insinuates itself in times of misery or adversity. 1 Which is noted in Alexander the Great, who was indeed religious all his life, yet at the end of his life deviated towards superstition. For, sick in mind and body, he behaved in such a way, Plutarch says, that nothing, as long as it was unusual, was too small Plu. Alex. 75.1 or silly not to be turned into a prodigy or omen. Therefore the court was full of people making sacrifices, propitiatory offerings, and divinations, and he himself, full of misery and anxiety, invited death while avoiding it. 2 Can a similar thing not be observed in Louis XI, King of France? When his age and health were deteriorating, he flattered the doctors and promised or gave them mountains of gold. Afterwards, he also called forth holy men, led them out of the woods and entrusted his life to them, not to improve, but to prolong it. Meanwhile, he was so frightened that he locked himself in a fortified citadel and barricaded the windows and all entrances with iron lattices. What was that but willingly imprisoning himself? Poor soul, are you really that afraid of what has to be done once? Do you fear

175 175

Liber i, Caput iii

faciendum est? Hoc times quod in tua manu est ne timeas? Pietatem assume, Superstitionem omitte: mors tua vita erit, et quidem beata atque aeterna. Monitum ii: In frivolis aut parvis se ostendit. Cuius rei cottidiana, paene dicam, exempla sunt. Illustre in magno Augusto, qui Auspicia et omina, ait Suetonius, pro certissimis observabat, sed nec Somnia sua 5 aut aliena de se negligebat. Ne peregrinarum quidem religionum contemptor cum Cereris Atticae mysteriis initiari voluerit. Quid ei quietum in talibus occupato? Quaestiuncula: An in populo non utilis Superstitio et Principi permittenda?

Lib. III

Lib. I

Curtius lib. IV

A Principe igitur ipso removemus, imo, ausim dicere, nimiam Pietatem. Munus enim eius intueor, quod a Divinis ad Humana etiam vocat. In quo ipso est Dei quidam cultus et honos. Nicephorus Gregoras scite hoc mihi dixisse videtur: Τῷ μόνῃ προσέχοντι τὸν νοῦν τῇ κατὰ θεὸν θεωρίᾳ ὄρεσι καὶ σπηλαίοις ἐνδιατρίβειν προσήκει. Ὅστις δὲ μετὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ πολιτικὸν ἤσκησεν ἦθος καὶ πεῖραν ἔσχε πραγμάτων παντοίων οὗτος λαὸν ὁδηγεῖν ἐς τὰ βέλτιστα καὶ σωτήρια κράτιστος: Qui in una Dei contemplatione mentem defixam habet, ei montes et speluncas habitare convenit. At qui una cum virtute etiam mores civiles exercuit et iunxit quique notitiam paravit rerum variarum, ille vero populum regere et ducere ad optima optimus est. Sed hoc cum ita sit, Quid igitur? inquiunt. An non populum saltem in Superstitione habere Principi utile et optandum est? Sunt qui asserant, et praesertim e priscis. Nam mitigari ita animos et faciliores reddi ad parendum. Livius Numam, qui Romam superstitionibus replevit, spectasse hoc vult: et omnium primum, rem ad multitudinem imperitam et illis temporibus rudem efficacissimam, Deorum metum iniecisse. Et vero facit ad ingenium multitudinis, quae alioquin impotens, saeva, mutabilis, ubi vana religione capta est, melius vatibus suis (sive et sacerdotibus) quam ducibus regibusque paret. Quin et Polybius Romanos laudat et prudenter fecisse autumat, quod partem eam quae Religionem et Deos spectat, in republica sua sic conformarint et paene tragice extulerint ut nihil sit addere. Quod mihi quidem videntur, inquit, plebis caussa fecisse. Nam si e Sapientibus viris Rempublicam fas constituere, nihil opus sit tali ista inductione uti. At cum multitudo vana sit et

5–7 Suet. Aug. 91-92 12–18 Lips. Not. 1.3 1.3 27–178,2 Plb. 6.56.6-11

176 176

21–24 Lips. Not. 1.3

24–26 Lips. Not.

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 3 that which lies in your power not to fear? Take up piety and give up superstition: then your death will be your life, and it will truly be a happy and eternal life.

Admonition 2: It reveals itself in silly or small things. There are daily examples of this, I would dare to say. A famous example is that of the great Augustus, who heeded, says Suetonius, divine premonitions and signs as absolutely certain and did not neglect dreams either, whether his own or those of others about him. He did not even despise foreign religions, since he wanted to be initiated into the mysteries of Ceres in Attica. What rest was there for him when he was occupied with such things?

Question Is superstition among the people not useful and to be permitted by the prince? So from the prince himself we remove superstition, and even, I dare say, excessive piety. For it is his duty which I am considering, a duty which calls him from divine to human affairs. In it, there is always a certain veneration and honouring of God. Nicephorus Gregoras has expressed this nicely, in my opinion: He who keeps his mind fixed only on contemplation of God should live in mountains and caves. But he who has exercised civil practices together with virtue and united both, and who has informed himself about various affairs, that person is truly the best to govern his people and to guide them towards the best. But since that is the case, one may ask, So what follows from it? Might it not be useful and desirable for the prince to keep the people, at least, superstitious? There are those who maintain this, mainly among the ancient authors, for this mitigates minds and makes them more willing to obey. Livy holds that Numa, who filled Rome with various kinds of superstition, had this in mind and first and foremost instilled fear of the gods, the most efficient way to deal with an ignorant and, in those days, uncultivated populace. It certainly affects the mind of the masses, who are otherwise weak, savage, and capricious, but when seized by an empty religion, obey their soothsayers (or also their priests) more than their leaders and kings. And even Polybius praises the Romans and says that they wisely made sure that they shaped that part of their political organisation which concerned religion and the gods and staged it, almost as in a tragedy, in such a way that nothing could be added. I for my part, he says, think that they did this for the sake of the common people. For if it was possible to constitute a commonweal out of wise men, such an introduction would not be necessary. But since the common herd is fickle and has many furious and violent desires against the law, it was useful to hold them together with this internal terror and, so to speak, tragedy, which is called superstition. That is what they say, but may they not persuade us to approve of this principal source of vices in a good commonweal. Minds become mild, they say. I would rather say base, and those petty beliefs, to use the poet’s words,

177 177

Niceph. Greg. Hist., vol. 1, p. 67, ll. 9-15

Liv. 1.19.4 Curt. 4.10.7

Liber i, Caput iii

varia praeter leges appetat iracunda ac violenta, utile fuit interno hoc terrore et Superstitionis velut tragoedia cohiberi. Haec isti; at nobis non persuadeant in bona republica vitiorum caput et fontem approbare. Mites animi fiunt, inquiunt. Imo viles, et istae persuasiunculae, ut cum poëta dicam, – faciunt animos humiles formidine divum depressosque premunt ad terram. Nemo magnanimus et alta meditans Princeps tales subditos suos velit. Obedientiores etiam sunt? Abnuo, imo ad motus aut rebellionem proniores. Quoties olim et nuper visum pravae aut novae Religionis titulo populum concitatum? Unus aliquis concionator sanctimoniae fama, ut telo, armatus et eloquentia aliqua ornatus, quid non patrat? Omitto vetera aut extera. Ante annos circiter centum Hieronymus Savanarola Florentinus religiosi habitu (in Divi Dominici coetu erat), tum vitae vera an ficta sanctimonia, ad haec facundia populum in se converterat. Pulsi Medicaei urbe erant, et popularis status introductus, quem ille, ut ambitioni suae opportunum, omni ope tuebatur. Plebs ab eo pendula, et verba consultaque eius oracula habere. Ipsi optimates virum colere et per eum se suosque ad rempublicam (nam haec in eius manu) promovere. Regnabat enim non in concionibus tantum et sacris aedibus, sed in curia, sed in comitiis, et raro publice, imo privatim maius aliquid sine eius arbitrio gestum. Dicam? Non animis modo, sed et arcis, sed et armis civium imperabat. Hoc regnum totos annos quattuor exercuit. Sed cum invidia interfectorum aliquot civium laboraret, alia etiam obiicerentur, quorum purgandorum et divinitatis famae augendae cum pyram ardentem ingressurum se ultro spopondisset, mox retractans, vanitatis manifestus et ex eo contemptior apparuit. Denique in Pontificem summum linguae suae tela vibrans, primo bonorum, mox et mediorum favore destitutus, poenas ad ultimum ambitiosae pietatis publico igne luit. Scio variare super eo iudicia et benignius quosdam loqui. Esto, sed exemplum tamen potentiae in populo per titulum Religionis insigne et Principibus metuendum praebuit. Talia aliqua in libello De una religione dicta. Iam ratio firmissima et intima Christiano Principi nefas Superstitionem fovere. Et illi exterorum qui fecerunt, quam turpiter et foede instituerunt? Exempla libet dare et ridere, ac primum

4–6 Lips. Not. 1.3

5–6 Lucr. 6.52-53

16 Ipsi B : isti A

178 178

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 3 – abase their minds with fear of the gods and press them down deep to the ground. No magnanimous and high-minded prince would want his subjects to be such! Are they more obedient? I do not think so, rather more inclined to commotion and rebellion. How many times, in the distant and recent past, have we seen the populace roused on account of a perverse or new religion? What is there that a demagogue, armed with a reputation for sanctity as with a weapon, and adorned with a certain eloquence, cannot bring about? I omit old and foreign examples. Around one hundred years ago, the Florentine girolamo Savonarola won the people over to his cause with his monk’s habit (he was a member of the Order of Saint Dominic) and then his pious life (whether true or false) and moreover his eloquence. The Medici had been expelled from the town, and a popular regime had been introduced, which he, as it suited his ambition, protected with all means. The populace hung on his lips and considered his words and advice to be oracles. Even the aristocrats honoured him and through him they pushed themselves and their companions up to power in the state (since it was in his hands). For he did not only rule in the assemblies of the Church and in sacred buildings, but also in the senate and the assemblies of the people. And rarely was anything important carried out in public, or even in private, without his judgment. What shall I say? He controlled not only the minds, but also the purses and weapons of the citizens. He ruled like this for four years in total. But when he suffered from unpopularity because of the killings of some citizens, and yet other charges were brought against him, and he had promised, in order to purge himself of those crimes and to reinforce his reputation of divinity, to climb onto the stake of his own accord, he soon withdrew his promise and so exposed his inanity, and as a result he appeared more despicable. Then, when he attacked the Pope with his sharp tongue, he fell out of favour, first with the aristocracy and soon afterwards with the middle classes, and finally underwent the punishment for his ambitious piety in public on the stake. I know that opinions on him differ and that some speak more kindly of him. So be it. But nonetheless he gave a notable example of the power exerted over the people on account of religion, an example which should be feared by princes. Some similar matters have been addressed in my book On one religion. Surely then there is a very strong and profound reason why it is fundamentally wrong for the Christian prince to favour superstition. And those foreigners who did do so, undertook it in such a dishonourable and disgraceful manner! I would like to give some examples to laugh at, and first of all the example of

179 179

Liber i, Caput iii I

II

III

Aegyptiorum. Quos omnes gentes credo equidem vana et stulta Superstitione anteivisse. Neque enim ad homines aut ad mortuos modo Deorum cultum, Isim, Serapim, Anubim, sed ad bestias easque vilissimas transtulerunt, Canes, Ichneumones, Feles, Accipitres, Ibides, Lupos, Crocodilos, tales plures. O amentiam! His cibos dare per obsequium pietatis soliti, his agros et vectigalia e publico assignare, horum in signis imagines praeferre, his denique defunctis cum planctu funus et sumptu monumenta facere. Ex his siquis sciens aliquod interfecisset, interficiebatur; siquis vel insciens Felem aut Ibidem, idem. Nugari videar, sed vera suo malo sensit Romanus civis aevo Diodori Siculi, id est Tullii Ciceronis. Nam ipse id scribit et testem ac spectatorem rei se ascribit. Ptolomaeus, inquit, quem Romani in regnum postea restituerunt, cum primo Socius et amicus a Senatu Populoque Romano dictus esset, magna laetitia publica et concursus fuit. Erant et Romani in turba, atque inter eos miles casu (non enim sponte) felem occidit. Clamor, ira, tumultus. Non inscitia miseri, non Romani nominis reverentia, non imperium Regis, qui purpuratorum praecipuos miserat ad sedandum et deprecandum: nihil, inquam, horum iuvit quin ille statim millenis manibus discerperetur sic ut nec funeri aut rogo aliquid superesset. Vides quam mitis Superstitio? Rabies et furor est cum pectora invasit. Sed et aliter etiam saevitia an vesania est in exemplo quod eidem scriptori debemus. Aegyptum aliquando fames invasit, sic ut alimenta deessent. Quid factum? Versi sunt ad humanas carnes et pepercerunt dictis bestiis. Pepercerunt? Imo et aluerunt, neque ambiguum quin et humana carne. Caecitatem! Ergo homo, Deo proximus, infra foeda animalia ponitur. Et ille horum gratia interit, id est quid nisi iis immolatur? Tolerabilius Afri, qui non bestiis, sed Saturno tamen homines vivos sacrificabant, et praesertim pueros, aetatem florentem, innoxiam, et ideo crudo illi Deo gratiorem. Res ita fuit. Stabat Carthagine statua Saturni aenea, manibus leviter sublatis iterumque pandis in terram demissis. In eas solenniter vir aut puer impositus statim praeceps devolvebatur in subiectum barathrum, igne et eius alimentis plenum. Id vivicomburium Deo dabatur stato quidem die quotannis, sed aliquando et extra ordinem et multiplicatis victimis si clades aut tristius aliquid civitati evenisset. Ut in ea quam ab Agathocle acceperant, placuit decreto ducentos (horresco referens) optimatum filios Saturno sic immolari, et (quis credat?) totidem alii sponte se obtulerunt. Ipsa clades an florem

1–18 D.S. 1.83

20–23 D.S. 1.84.1

26–35 D.S. 20.14.4-6

180 180

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 3 1

The Egyptians, who have surpassed all other peoples – in my view at least – in vain and stupid superstition. For they did not only transfer their worship of the gods to human beings or the deceased, such as Isis, Serapis, and Anubis, but even to animals, and the vilest ones, too: dogs, ichneumons, cats, hawks, ibises, wolves, crocodiles, and more of the same kind. Absolute madness! They were in the habit of giving them food in pious obedience, assigning land and contributions out of public revenue to them, bearing their images before them on their standards, and finally, when they had passed away, burying them with lamentations and building sumptuous monuments. If someone killed one of these animals, knowing that it was forbidden, he was killed; if someone killed a cat or an ibis without this knowledge, he paid with his life all the same. You might think I am talking nonsense, but a Roman citizen in the time of Diodorus Siculus, that is to say, in the time of Tullius Cicero, found to his cost that it was true. For Diodorus himself writes about it, adding that he was an eye-witness. He writes that as soon as Ptolemy, who was later restored to the throne by the Romans, was called ally and friend by the Senate and People of Rome, the people were extremely happy and flocked together. There were also Romans in the crowd, and among them a soldier incidentally (for he did not do it on purpose) killed a cat. This resulted in shouting, anger and tumult. Neither the ignorance of the unfortunate fellow, nor respect for the Roman nation, nor the power of the king, who had sent the most prominent officers to appease and plead: none of those things, I say, helped him from being mangled immediately by a thousand hands, in such a manner that nothing remained for a funeral or pyre. Do you see now how mild superstition is? There is rage and fury when it has taken over the heart. 2 But in another way, too, there is savageness – or is it madness? – in an example which we owe to the same writer. Once famine hit Egypt, so that there was no food. What happened? They turned to human flesh and spared the animals which I mentioned. Did I say spared? They even fed them, no doubt also with human flesh. What blindness! So man, who is closest to God, is placed below filthy animals. And to die for their sake – what is that but to be sacrificed to them? 3 More tolerable were the Africans, who did not sacrifice to animals, but to Saturn, even though they used live humans, especially boys in the bloom of youth and innocent and therefore more pleasing to that bloody god. It was like this: in Carthage stood a bronze statue of Saturn, its hands slightly raised but bent downwards towards the earth. A man or a boy was placed solemnly in those hands and immediately tumbled headlong into a deep underlying pit, full of fire and fuel. This burning alive for the god took place on a fixed day every year, but sometimes there were also additional sacrifices with the offerings multiplied, if a defeat or a rather sad event had happened to the community. For example when they were defeated by Agathocles, they decided to sacrifice (I start to shiver when I recount it) two hundred sons of the nobility to Saturn in this manner. And would you believe that as many others voluntarily offered themselves? Could the defeat itself have taken away these finest citizens whom super-

181 181

Liber i, Caput iii

IV DCXX

V

hunc civium abstulerat quem Superstitio impendit? Indignor an miseror? Et lacrimas conditioni humanae impendo, cui uni Superstitionem datam Plinius conqueritur. An non iure cum in hos usus? Sed ad ridenda magis quam deflenda eamus et stultitiam quam saevitiam accusemus. Mahumetes ille, heu nimis nostris cladibus notus, cum cupidine agitaretur novarum opum et imperii, novam Religionem, id est Superstitionem commentus est, ita, me Deus, indecoram, futilem nec colore ullo veri tinctam, etsi ex Iudaeorum Christianorumque libris, velut per Satyram, miscuit et confecit. O nugas, o deliria! Et lubet quaedam recensere. Primum est Deum unum solidumque (ὀλόσφυρον Graeci exprimunt) eundemque incorporeum esse. Christum non Deum, sed magnum vatem et prophetam; se tamen maiorem et proxime a Deo missum. Praemia qui ipsum audient, Paradisum, qui post aliquot annorum millia reserabitur. Ibi quattuor flumina lacte, vino, melle, aqua fluere; ibi palatia et aedificia gemmata atque aurata esse. Carnes avium suavissimarum, fructus omne genus, quos sparsi iacentesque sub umbra arborum edent. Sed caput felicitatis, viros faeminasque maiores solito magnis genitalibus assidua libidine et eius usu sine taedio aut fatigatione. Credet haec aliquis dicta et accepta? Amplius. Ille vero Veneris his illecebris totam legem suam implevit et viro permittit uxores iustas quattuor habere, pellices tot quot lubet. Etiam, scribit hisipsis verbis: Mulieres habitaculum viri esse, ideo assidue debere eas colere, sed et ingredi qua vellent. O turpitudinem! Non provocat solum ad crebram, sed ad promiscuam libidinem et supera, infera, adversa, aversa eodem iure habet. Atque adeo ipse belle et in exemplum gloriatur, Undecim se mulieres habuisse in contubernio et omnes una hora singillatim inivisse et patrasse. Haec et plura in eius Corano, sed et Physica quoque miranda. Nam facit Solem et Lunam in equis vehi. Illum autem in aquam calidam vespere mergi et bene lotum ascendere atque oriri. Stellas in aëre e catenis aureis pendere; terram in bovini cornu cuspide stabilitam, et agitante se bove ac succutiente fieri terraemotum. Hominem autem ex hirudine aut sanguisuga nasci. Et quid addam? Pudet, piget, miseret generis humani, cuius magna aut maxima pars his non vanitatibus, sed stuporibus est oppressa. Nam Asia fere tota, plurimum Africae, multum Europae iura sceptri et sacri Turcici accepit. Quin et multi extra Turcarum iura, ut magnus Tatarorum Chamus, ut Persa, ut alii in India et extremo Oriente, deliria haec delirant. Quid etiam omitto? Iidem Turcae ad Aegyptiorum morem feles, canes, pisces, aves si non adorant, colunt tamen et pascunt. Et his se velut largitio-

2 Plin. nat. 7.1.5

4–34 Bellon. Observat. 3.9-13

182 182

35–184,6 Leuncl. Pandect. 197

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 3 stition sacrificed? Should I be outraged or feel pity? I shed tears for humanity, to whom alone superstition has been given, as Pliny complains. Am I not right to do so, when this happens for such use? 4 But let us move on to those examples which should make us laugh rather than cry and let us accuse stupidity rather than savagery. The famous Muhammad, all too well- 620 known because of our defeats, driven by the desire for new riches and for power, made up a new religion, that is to say, superstition. My God, it was disgraceful, worthless, and without a single trace of truth, although he produced it by mixing Jewish and Christian Scriptures like a hotchpotch. What nonsense, what madness! I would like to recount a few examples. The first one is that God is one and a solid substance (“with undivided ankles”, the Greeks say) and at the same time incorporeal. Christ is not God, but an important soothsayer and prophet. Nevertheless, Muhammad himself is the more important prophet, and the last one to have been sent by God. The reward for those who will listen to him is Paradise, which will be opened after several thousand years. In that Paradise four streams will flow, of milk, wine, honey, and water; there will be palaces and buildings covered with jewels and gold. There will be meat of the sweetest birds and all sorts of fruit, which they will eat whilst lying spread out in the shade of trees. But as the height of bliss, these will be men and women who will be larger than usual, with large genitals for constant sexual desire and intercourse without boredom or tiredness. Will anyone believe that this has been said and accepted? And there is more: he has filled his whole law with this type of enticements from Venus and he allows a man to have four legitimate wives and as many concubines as he likes. Moreover, he writes in these exact words that women are a dwelling-place for men, therefore men have to honour women constantly, but also enter them whichever way they want. What a disgrace! He does not only stimulate frequent but also promiscuous lust and equals above and below, front and back. And he himself even boasts nicely and exemplarily to have had eleven women in his company and to have in one hour penetrated them one by one and concluded each act. These and other things are written in his Koran, but also his physics are astonishing. For he lets the sun and moon be pulled by horses and lets the sun be immersed in warm water in the evening and rise well-washed in the morning. The stars in the sky are hanging from golden chains, the earth is fixed on the point of an ox’s horn, and whenever the ox moves and shakes, there is an earthquake. Men are born from leeches or blood-suckers. What shall I add? One feels shame, disgust, and pity for mankind, of which a large or the largest part is oppressed by this kind of vanity, or rather stupidity. For nearly the whole of Asia, most of Africa, and much of Europe have accepted the civil and sacred laws of the Turks. Moreover, also many who do not fall under the Turkish law, such as the great Khan of the Tatars, such as the Persians and others in India and the Far East, are raving along with these ravings. 5 What else am I forgetting to mention? Even if those same Turks do not worship cats, dogs, fish, and birds after the manner of the Egyptians, they still cherish them and

183 183

Liber i, Caput iii

VI

VII

nibus demereri divinum Numen censent. Itaque videre Byzantii statis horis est cibos apponi dictis animalibus, nec viles quosdam aut mensarum analecta, sed orizam coctam, carnes assas recens et hoc fine ex opsopolio emptas. Quas et perticis longis imponere solent et sic fugacibus aut vitabundis eorum dare. Quid, quod aves etiam captas redimunt et aëri ac libertati deinde per pietatem restituunt? Iam in re inanima, id est Charta, quas nugas edunt? Nefas eam abiici aut calcari. Sicubi vel fragmen vident, tollunt religiose et parieti adfigunt aut imponunt. Refert Augerius Busbequius in legatione sua ad Soleimannum, cum ductores tutoresque viae Genitzaros haberet, graviter aliquando apud se questos quod famulitio eius charta ad obscoenos usus esset. Caussa autem quam iusta? Quia Coranus ille in ea scriptus. Sed lubet levi oculo alia terrarum etiam et in iis Superstitionem lustrare. Quae discolor, sed ubique decolor et candori ac veritati aliena comparet. Sunt in Orientis magno tractu qui Malabares appellantur et a Calecutio mare versus et introrsum etiam colunt. Iis varii Dii, et simulacra eorum foedo habitu, colore etiam fere in nigrum. Templa Pagodes vocant, sacerdotes Brahmanes. Iis tanta reverentia ut et belli tempore mediis armis interveniant, sola religione et nomine suo tuti. Insigne eorum tria fila quae ab humero dextro in sinistrum latus ligant. Nomen vetus est Indorum sapientum, et quaedam ex iis habent. Sunt enim Astrologiae periti, sed et Magiae, ac praedictionibus plebi varie spem aut metum praebent. Finis earum quaesticulus, ut in hoc genere solet. Quem et ex sacrificiis aucupantur cum Diis suis cibos, sed et nummos offerri iubent atque ipsi iis vescuntur aut utuntur. Sacra eorum et conventus fere cruenti. Tela enim inter se spargunt, et qui iis occumbunt, migrare ad beatorum sedes recta censentur. Animas immortales praedicant, sed Pythagorae somnio in corpora alia transire. Sunt et Sinitae sive Sinenses ulteriore tractu. Ii quoque in Deorum cultu, quos domesticatim plures habent. Quosdam et tricipiti figura: an auditiuncula aliqua et adumbratione nostrae Trinitatis quando et Divum Thomam et Christiana olim sacra in iis locis fuisse constans traditio est? Sed deunculos istos adeo magni haud faciunt ut si aliquid praeter spem aut vota evenit, ab ipsis poenas exigant atque adeo flagris caesos in publicum saepe abiiciant et exponant. Mox tamen poenitentia recipiunt iterumque (o bellum ludum!) adorant, pla-

5–6 Busbeq. Epist. 3 (1589: 74 v) 8–11 Busbeq. Epist. 1 (1589: 19 r-v) Epist. 20.10; Osor. de reb. Emman. 2 (1597: 34a-b)

184 184

12–26 Xaver.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 3 feed them. And they think that with these gifts, as it were, they place the divine power under obligation to themselves. Thus it is possible to see that in Byzantium, food is served at fixed times to the animals mentioned, and it is not just common food or leftovers from meals, but cooked rice and roasted meat bought recently and just for this purpose from the market. These are usually put on long poles and in this manner given to those animals among them which are shy or likely to run away. They buy even captive birds and then restore them to the sky and to their liberty for the sake of piety! They even tell nonsense about an inanimate thing, namely paper. It is wrong to throw paper away or tread upon it. If anywhere they see so much as a fragment, they reverently pick it up and attach it to the wall or put it on top of it. Augerius Busbequius relates in his account of his legation to Süleyman that, as he was accompanied by Janissaries who led and protected him on his way, they once seriously complained to him about the fact that his servants used paper for indecent purposes. But how right was their cause? Because the Koran was written on it. 6 But I would also like to cast a quick glance at some other parts of the world and examine their superstition, which appears in many different colours, but everywhere discoloured and far from brightness or truth. In a large region in the East there are people called Malabars, who live in the area from Calcutta towards the sea and also inwards. They have various gods, whose statues have an ugly appearance and are nearly black. They call their temples Pagodas and their priests Brahmans. These are revered so much that they even intervene in times of war, in the midst of battle, protected only by religion and by their name. Their insignia are three cords which they tie from their right shoulder to their left side. Their name is the ancient name of the Indian sages, and they have taken over certain qualities from them. For they are skilled in astrology, but also in magic, and with their predictions they give the people hope or fear alternately. The purpose of those predictions is a small profit, as is usually the case with that kind of people. They also try to make a profit from sacrifices when they give orders to offer their gods food, which they eat, or money, which they use, themselves. Their sacred rites and assemblies are usually bloody, for they scatter spears among themselves, and those who die of these are believed to go straight to the dwellings of the blessed. They preach that souls are immortal but that they pass to other bodies in a Pythagorean dream. 7 There are also the Sinites or Chinese, who live in a region further away. They also worship gods, many of which they have at home. Some of them even have a tripleheaded shape: maybe an echo and a vague semblance of our Trinity, since there is an enduring tradition that Saint Thomas and the Christian rites have once been in those places. But they do not have such high opinions of those godlings of them. Thus, if something has happened against their hope or wishes, they exact punishment from them: indeed, they whip them and frequently throw them away and expose them in public. However, they soon take them back out of regret and once more worship, appease, and implore them with words, incense, and wine (what a nice game)! But the

185 185

Liber i, Caput iii

*vinum eius loci e palmis

VIII

IX

cant, supplicant verbis, thure, mero. Solem tamen inter omnes praecipuo cultu et aestimatione habent atque huic extra aedes progressi sub dio de patera *vinum Graeco et Romano more libant. Sacerdotes pro deorum numero ipsi quoque frequentes. Sunt Bonzii, sunt et Bonziae faeminae, et super utrosque Tundi; denique unus supremus omnium, Zasso. Hi Bonzii conventus suos et contubernia habent, ut Religiosi apud nos coenobia. In regno quidem Iaponiae ita crebra ut una aliqua provincia supra DCCC recenseat, in quorum singulis haud minus sit triginta Bonziorum. Nomino Iaponiam, nam et ii ritus eosdem cum Sinitis et sacra habent hauseruntque utrique a communi doctore, Xaca. Eorum dogma Animas interire, eademque omnia a morte quae ante natalem: exitiabile Virtuti. Iam in novo orbe et illa America quid dicam? Spissae et Cimmeriae tenebrae nisi quod Hispani leviter (sed adhuc leviter) dispulerunt et lucem nostram intulerunt. In Peruvii regni finibus receptum Solem colere, quod Ingae reges pro firmamento aut insigni dominationis instituerunt cum essent dii antea diversi. Illorum solenne templa ubique Soli erigere ampla, magnifica, auro laqueata aut et strata. In iis castae aliquot Virgines, quarum pudicitia devota, nec fas polluere nisi ut luerent morte. Excusatur siqua iuravit a sole compressam se et ex eo uterum ferre. Paene is ritus fuit qui Vestalium Romae, sed numerus praegrandior, et in uno aliquo templo ducentae aut plures. Alii etiam ministri et aeditui alibi ad millia triginta, idque tantum in templi unius cultum et usum. Sed earum munus lanam et filum carpere, vestes texere diis ornandis sive et ad sacrorum ritum, quo solent vestes et haec texta una cum ossibus pecudum cremare et mixtum cinerem in altum spectantes Soli iactare. Has virgines Mamaconas vocabant; ipsa templa, aut et idola, Guacas. Sunt et alii sacerdotes, vestitu niveo insignes, qui Deos adeunt, salutant, sermocinantur. Sed id cum hac cautione ut terram despectent et oculos versus eos non attollant. Imo quidam aut obligant sibi lumina aut eruunt semel et evellunt, quod sanctius reverentiusque habetur. Sacrificia sunt pecudes eius loci, sed homines crebro etiam et infantes. Horum sanguine simulacra oblinunt, deinde exta inspiciunt et e notis augurantur. In Vicinis ei regno Locis deorum alia portenta. Quidam tigres, leones, fera eiusmodi animalia colunt, alii feles aut aves. Quidam (in provincia quae Manta dicitur) Smaragdum insignem gemmam adorant et pro vero numine habent. Mos omnibus herbas certas pro thure adolere et incendere itemque captivos

4–8 Xaver. Epist. 96.5

14–188,15 Lopez Hist. 121; Zárate Hist. 1.10

186 186

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 3 sun is worshipped the most and esteemed the highest of all, and for that god they go outside and pour out wine* from a bowl in the open air in the manner of the Greeks *the wine of that is made and Romans. In accordance with the number of gods, the priests are also numerous. region from palms There are Bonzii and also female Bonziae; above those two are the Tundi, and finally the one highest of them all, Zasso. Those Bonzii have their own assemblies and dwellings, as the monks among us have monasteries. In the Kingdom of Japan there are so many of them that there is one province which, on its own, counts more than eight hundred of them. In each of those there are no less than thirty Bonzii. I mention Japan, as they have the same rituals and ceremonies as the Chinese, which both peoples drew from the same teacher, named Xaca. According to their doctrine souls die and everything is the same after death as before birth, which is fatal for virtue. 8 Now, what shall I say about the New World and America? Darkness as dense as in the Underworld, except for the fact that the Spaniards have driven the darkness away somewhat (but until now only somewhat) and introduced our light. Within the boundaries of the Peruvian Kingdom it was customary to worship the sun, a custom which the Inca kings established in order to consolidate or mark their dominion while earlier there were different gods. It was their custom to erect large, magnificent temples to the sun everywhere, panelled or even covered with gold. They were inhabited by a certain number of chaste virgins who had vowed chastity, which they were not allowed to pollute, unless they paid for it with their lives. A virgin was pardoned if she swore that she had been taken by the sun and was pregnant by him. This rite was similar to that of the Vestal virgins in Rome, but their number was much greater: there was one temple where there were two hundred or more virgins. In another temple there were also other attendants and keepers, around thirty thousand, and all of that just for the care and use of one temple. Now, it was the task of the virgins to card wool and spin thread and to weave garments either for adorning the gods or also for the sacred ritual, by which they usually burnt clothes and these fabrics together with bones of cattle and spread the mixed ashes to the sun, looking up at the sky. They called these virgins Mamaconae, the temples, or also the images, Guacae. There are also other priests, distinguished by their white dress, who visit the gods, greet them and converse with them. But they do this with the precaution that they look down at the earth and do not lift up their eyes towards them. Some of them even blindfold themselves or tear their eyes out once and for all, which they consider more pious and respectful. They sacrifice cattle from the area, but often also human beings, and even infants. They smear their blood over the statues, and after that they study their organs and draw prognostications from what they have found out. 9 In neighbouring areas of that kingdom there are other monstrous gods. Some worship tigers, lions, and similar wild animals, others cats or birds. Some (in the province called Manta) adore a remarkable emerald stone and consider it a real god. It is customary among all of them to offer and burn certain herbs as a kind of incense and, further, to sacrifice prisoners or, if there are none, some of their own people. They

187 187

Liber i, Caput iii

X

XI

sacrificare aut, si desunt, e suis. Oracula petunt et capiunt tam certa plerumque fide ut Hispani tradant nihil vel in eorum bellis aut in suis civilibus evenisse quod non praedictionibus fuerit vulgatum. Immortalitatem animi credunt, sed, ut videtur, cum ipso corpore et quasi migrent. Certe sepulchra laxiora et magis apparata faciunt quam ullas viventium domos. Sed et cum moriuntur, comites accipiunt, quasi ad ministerium aut solatium, atque inprimis carissimas uxorum. Eae certant inter se et aemulantur quae cum mortuo viva (ita fit) defodiatur. Quod si insignior aliquis satrapa aut regulus obiit, turba est eorum earumque quae commoriuntur. Argumentum quod ad res laetas et geniales ire se putent. Hoc est quod potum et cibum affatim apponant. Sed et quotannis velut parentalibus per foramen superne, de industria sic factum, infundant. Choreas illic et in aliis festis diebus honori Deorum ducunt, bini et bini iuncti in seriem, duobus praesultoribus, qui dant modos. Tenent autem sic saltantes manu vas potorium (assidue enim bibunt) et altera interim penem ut infusa emittant. Ultimi sunto Mexicani, quos dividit angustior ille Isthmus. Vastum regnum et olim innumerus populus, et dii pro modo. Nam omnium ferme rerum affectuumque eos habebant, ut Aquae, Piscium, Frumenti, Fructuum, Amorum, Bellorum et quidquid dici fingique tale potest. Aiunt ad duo millia Deorum culta sollenniter in urbe Themistitan, quae regni metropolis, fuisse. Templa iis magnifica, laxa, quadrata fere forma. Sacrificia cruenta ex animato et ex homine, atque adeo hominum ad quinquaginta aut supra millia uno anno immolabant. Dignum relatu est quod Ferdinando Cortesio (immortalis gloriae ob quaesitum subactumque hunc tractum), Cortesio, inquam, evenit. Populi quidam ibi, novitate facinorum eius attoniti, legatos mittunt, qui sic affantur: Tria genera munerum ad te ferimus. Primo quinque homines. Et si Deus quidem crudus es et sanguine placandus, cape istos et vescere; plures etiam dabimus. Sin bonus mitisque es Deus, en tibi herbas et plumas ad supplicandum. Si porro homo es, cape has aves et fructus, quos damus in tuum et tuorum usum. O Deus, qui coepisti has tenebras minuere, totas pelle et ipsum te verum novumque Deum cum novo imperio ostende. Plerasque Superstitiones quae in partibus orbis sunt, dixi; unam quae in toto est omisi, Iudaeorum. Ii enim sparsi per Europam, Africam, Asiam, quaqua versus colunt. Pertinax natio et qui umbram pro luce, pro veritate imaginem tenuerunt, et tenent. Quam multa etiam priscis illis suis sacrisque libris vana, superflua, inepta addiderunt? Ad Thalmudem appello. Sed isti, quod

188 188

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 3 ask for and receive oracles, mostly with such certainty and confidence that the Spanish recount that nothing happened either in the wars against the Spanish or in their own civil wars, which had not been made known by predictions. They believe in the immortality of the soul but, so it seems, together with the body itself, as if they migrate. They certainly make their graves more spacious and splendid than any houses of the living. But even when they die they receive companions to help and comfort them, as it were, and first of all their most beloved wives. These fight and compete among one another to be buried alive (yes, that is the way it is) with the deceased. And if a rather prominent governor or king dies, a whole crowd of men and women die with him. The reason is that they think that they go to a world of bliss and delight. That is the reason why they serve up plenty of food and drink. But every year, during some sort of festival in honour of their dead relations, they also pour more into the graves through a hole on top, which has been built in this manner on purpose. On this occasion, and at other festivals, they perform a dance in honour of the gods, joined two by two in a row with two dancers in front, who keep time. While they are dancing like this, they hold a drinking-vessel in one hand (for they drink constantly) and meanwhile they hold their penis in the other hand, to pour out what they have poured in. 10 And finally the Mexicans, who are separated by that quite narrow isthmus. An enormous kingdom and a people which once was countless, and gods in proportion. For they had gods of nearly every object and every feeling, such as waters, fish, grains, fruits, loves, wars, and anything similar that can be named or imagined. They say that about two thousand gods were solemnly worshipped in the city of Themistitan, the capital of the kingdom. Their temples were magnificent, spacious, and more or less square-shaped. Sacrifices were steeped in blood from animals and men, and thus as many as fifty thousand men or more were sacrificed in one single year. Worth relating is what happened to Hernán Cortés, of immortal fame for having sought and conquered this region. Some peoples who lived there, who were astounded at the unfamiliarity of his deeds, sent messengers, who said: We are bringing you three types of presents. First five men. If you are a harsh god, who is to be appeased with blood, take them and eat them. We will even give you more. If, on the contrary, you are a good and lenient god, here you have some herbs and feathers for supplication. If, on the other hand, you are a man, take these birds and fruits, which we give to be used by yourself and your companions. O God, who have begun to remove this darkness, expel it completely and show Yourself as a true and new God with a new empire. 11 I have mentioned a very great number of superstitions which exist in different parts of the world, but I have omitted one which exists all over the world, namely that of the Jews. For they live dispersed across Europe, Africa, Asia, wherever you go. They are a very persistent tribe, which has stuck, and still sticks, to shadow instead of light and to semblance instead of truth. How many vain, superfluous, and absurd things have they even added to their ancient and holy books? I am referring to the Talmud.

189 189

Liber i, Caput iii

mirum, et ter mirum est, toties attriti, vel excisi potius, vivunt et vigent. Et corpus illud gentis servant atque adeo propagant. Legat qui volet, ab Hierosolymis captis quoties a Principibus Romanis Graecisque pulsi vel caesi, quoties a Christianis etiam regibus sint. Mirabitur et vix credet vel paucos superesse in semen. At illi, ut dixi, frequentes sunt et florent. Frequentes? Bello- 5 nium audi, fidum observatorem. In omni imperio Turcico, inquit, vix opidum aut pagus est in quo non plurimi Iudaei agant, atque ii fere variarum linguarum periti, quod magno usui est exteris aut peregrinis. Nec in illo tantum imperio, sed in Oriente, in Septemtrione, apud Christianos etiam agunt. Et quamquam sic distracti, unionem et puritatem gentis servant, a coniugiis alienigenarum de- 10 creto aversi. Quid Deus in istis struat aut moliatur, nescio. Nulla quidem gens ab orbe condito aut frequentiam aut sinceritatem suam servavit, opinor, praeter istam.

6–8 Bellon. Observat. 2.26

190 190

Book 1, Chapter 3 But trampled on, or rather cut down, so many times, they are still alive and well, which is surprising – in fact, more than surprising. They preserve that body of people and enlarge it, too. If you wish, you can read how many times since the capture of Jerusalem they have been expelled or killed by Roman and Greek rulers, how many times even by Christian kings. You will be surprised and hardly believe that there are even a few left over to breed. But as I said, they are numerous and flourishing. Numerous? Listen to Belon, a trustworthy observer, who says: In the whole Turkish Empire there is hardly any town or village in which the Jews do not live in great numbers, and they are usually skilled in various languages, which is very useful for foreigners or strangers. But they do not only live in that empire, but also in the East and in the North, among Christians. And although they are thus dispersed, they still preserve the unity and purity of their people, rejecting by law marriages with foreign women. What God is planning to do with them, I do not know, but no people since the beginning of time has preserved its numerousness or its purity, I think, apart from this one.

191 191

Caput iv DE IMPIETATE. Eius matrem Superbiam aut Ferociam, saepe et Vitiorum cumulum esse.

I

Arnob. lib. I II

Deflexio altera Impietas sive Irreligio, si ἀσέβειαν Graecorum sic licet vertere. Grande et, ut sic dicam, malorum malum cum homo a ratione, imo a natura abit, contemptor Numinis aut negator, quod illa asseruit et haec insevit. Eo veniri solet sive a superba quadam et rudi Ferocia sive a Vitiorum magnitudine et cumulo, quae animum manciparunt. Deo enim tum se subtrahit et, ne illum timeat, spernit, itemque praemia omnia futura aut poenas. Infelices hi tales! Etiam in externis rebus successibusque quia desertores sui Deus deserit, nec cadunt solum turpiter saepe, sed ruunt. Quam foedi etiam sunt! Super omnes Superstitiosos quia ut illi connivent ad supremum Numen aut male vident, sic isti caecutiunt et nihil vident. Quis autem neget caecitatem deteriorem lippitudine esse? Eam ego in paucis exemplis proponam; paucis, et idipsum timide. Nec aliter quam in templis malos Genios solemus ad fugiendum et abhorrendum. Omitto veteres, apud quos veniam aliquam habuerit in caligine errorum. Apud Christianos qui potest? Et sunt tamen qui non vita solum eam praeferunt, sed impudenter lingua exprimunt. Ut ille Fredericus ii Imperator, cui saepe in ore, Tres fuisse insignes impostores qui genus humanum seduxerunt, Moysem, Christum, Mahumetem. O impure, o impie! Te hoc dicere, quod gentilium quidam olim, Christum magum fuisse et ex Aegyptiorum adytis angelorum potentium nomina habuisse? Mitior Alphonsi x, Hispaniae Regis, sed non melior vox aut sensus. Qui solitus Providentiam identidem culpare et dicere, Si principio mundi ipse Deo adfuisset, multa melius ordinatiusque condenda fuisse. Miselle, sapientia supra Deum es? Lingua quo abis, mens quo abisti? Sed notabile utrumque istum, et Fridericum et Alfonsum, illum imperio, hunc regno privatos in publico odio et infamia obiisse. Plura non addo nec vel calamum aut chartam relatione ipsa maculo.

192 192

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 4 ON IMPIETY. It is generated by haughtiness or ferocity and often also by an accumulation of vices. The other departure from piety is impiety or irreligion, if that is the right translation of the Greek word ἀσέβεια. It is a great evil, or rather the greatest evil of all, if I may say so, when man deviates from reason, nay, even from nature, and despises God or denies His existence, which has been confirmed by reason and implanted by nature. One usually reaches impiety either through a certain arrogant and uncivilised ferocity or through great and accumulated vices, which have taken possession of the mind. For then one distances oneself from God and, in order not to have to fear Him, one despises Him, as well as all future rewards or punishments. How unfortunate are such people! Also in external affairs and successes, since God deserts His deserters, and they often do not just fall shamefully, but come crashing down. How disgraceful are they, as well! More so than all the superstitious, because whereas the latter close their eyes to the supreme deity or do not see it well, the former are blind and see nothing at all. And who would deny that blindness is worse than bleariness? I will set forth impiety with a few examples; a few, and even that fearfully, in no other way than we usually put up evil geniuses in churches in order to flee and shrink back from them. 1 I omit the ancients, amongst whom impiety could be somehow forgiven in the darkness of their errors. But how can it be forgiven amongst Christians? And nevertheless there are some, who do not only display impiety in their way of life, but shamelessly express it in words. Like that Emperor Frederick ii, who often said that there had been three famous impostors who misled humankind, namely Moses, Christ, and Muhammad. Impure and impious one! Are you saying what a pagan once said, namely that Christ was a magician and took the names of the mighty angels from the sanctuaries of the Arnob. nat. 1.43 Egyptians? 2 Milder, but no better, are the words or sense of Alfonso X, King of Spain. He used to reproach providence time and again, saying that if he had assisted God at the beginning of the world, much would have had to be created in a better and more orderly way. You wretch, are you above God through your wisdom? Tongue, where are you going; mind, where have you gone? But it is remarkable that both Frederick and Alfonso died in disgrace, hated by the public, the former deprived of his empire, the latter of his kingdom. I add no more, nor do I even stain pen or paper by relating things like this.

193 193

Caput v DE FATO. Id considerandum credendumque esse.

Cap. XV

Lib. VIII

At tu qui Deum et Religionem colis, etiam Fatum, id est Providentiam decretumque divinum. Quid enim aliud est Fatum (dicet pro me Minutius Felix) quam id quod de unoquoque nostrum fatus est Deus? De unoquoque nostrum, sed et de rebus omnibus quae sunt, fuerunt, erunt. Is enim qui omnia fecit, dirigit eadem, movet, servat, καθάπερ ἡνίοχος ἀγαθὸς (verba Trismegisti) τὸ τοῦ κόσμου ἅρμα ἀσφαλισάμενος καὶ ἀναδήσας εἰς ἑαυτόν, μή πως ἀτάκτως φέροιτο: tamquam Auriga peritus currum hunc mundi firmans in se atque alligans ne incomposite feratur. Prorsus ita est. Per caussas medias, varie nexas, prima illa caussa omnia temperat suaviter, prudenter, utiliter, nec aliter est censendum. Hoc monitum variam utilitatem Principi dabit. A Deo se et regnum, a Deo bona malaque externa esse. Ideo nec in illis elate nec in istis abiecte nimis agendum. Constantia ubique esto et volens quaedam obedientia decretis divinis. Nam longe praestat (ait Gregoras Nicephorus) quietum ferri a ferente Fato quam obnitendo velut materiam et alimentum ei praebere. Hoc enim tale est ac siquis ignem metuens aedes iam circumdantem, non exstinguat eum, sed sarmentorum fasces aggerat et oleum affundat aut siquis furente Borea et tempestate exigua fragilique cymba contra fluctus et per eos eluctari conetur. Altera etiam utilitas inquirere leviter et modeste in Fata et videre quo vis illa supera nostra haec trahat proque ea inclinatione se et consilia adaptare. Magnus est fructus, et prudenti viro vix publica Fata conversionesque obscurae ex signis quae praeeunt vel adhaerent. Ruere aut vertere hunc statum vult? Consilia prava, et homines tales erunt qui ad gubernacula admovebuntur. Delatio, adulatio, vanitas locum habebunt; probitas, veritas, prudentia exsulabunt. Sed et, ut in cithara, concentus turbabitur, et obscura primum, mox palam discordia erit. Vult attollere? Omnia alia. Locus consiliis, locus honosque virtutibus, etiam artibus. Denique siquid aegri in Republica, sanatur; siquid sani, fovetur. Ut qui libram tenet, in hanc aut illam lancem pondus adiici iubet et inclinat, sic Deus. Et fortunam temperat, sed manibus aut consiliis fere nostris. Atque haec ita palam ut vel hebes mens videat, si non praevideat, et dominum arbitrumque terrestrium rerum ex eventis illum e caelo agnoscat. O quam mira, quam inopinata saepe ab illa potentia! Nam et

5–6 Min. Fel. 36.2 2 De Fato deest A

3 Id B : Fatum A

16 Lib VIII B : Lib VII A

194 194

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5 ON FATE. It has to be considered and believed in. But you who honour God and religion, also honour fate, that is to say, providence and the divine decree. For what is fate (says Minucius Felix in my stead) but that which God has foretold about each one of us? About each of us, but also about everything that is, was, and will be. For He who has created everything also directs, moves, and preserves it, just like an experienced charioteer (in the words of Trismegistus), who braces this chariot of the world on himself and holds it fast to make sure it is not driven in a disorderly fashion. That is certainly the way it is. Through intermediate causes, connected in various ways, that first cause regulates everything gently, prudently and usefully, and one must not think otherwise. This admonition will be of use to the prince in various ways. It teaches him that he and his rule come from God, and that all external good and evil things come from God, so he should not act with too much elation in good circumstances, nor too dejectedly in bad circumstances. Let there be constancy everywhere and a certain willing obedience to the divine decrees. For it is much better (says Nicephorus Gregoras) to be carried quietly by the carrying fate than to provide it, as it were, with material and food by resisting. For that is as if someone, who is afraid of the fire which is already surrounding his house, would not extinguish it but pile up bundles of twigs and pour oil on top; or as if someone, when the northern wind and storms are raging, would try to struggle his way out in a small and fragile boat against and through the waves. A second useful lesson for the prince is to inquire lightly and modestly into fate and see in what direction that superior power is drawing our affairs and adapt oneself and one’s plans in accordance with that direction. The advantage is huge, and for a prudent man hardly any public fates and changes will remain obscure from the signs which precede or accompany them. Does fate want to ruin or overthrow this state? Counsel will be bad, and so will the people who will be brought to government. Denunciation, adulation, and vanity will occur, while honesty, truth, and prudence will be banished. But also, as in a lute, the harmony will be disturbed and there will be discord, first hidden and soon open. Does fate want to elevate this state? All the signs will be completely different. There will be place for counsel; there will be place and honour for virtues and even for the arts. And lastly, if something is ill in the commonweal, it will be healed; if something is healthy, it will be cherished. God acts just as he does who holds a balance and gives the order to add a weight to one side or the other and causes it to lean. And He regulates fortune, but mostly through our hands and plans. And He does this so openly that even a stupid mind would see it, if not foresee it, and from the events recognise that He is the heavenly lord and judge of all earthly matters. What wonderful and unexpected things often come from that power! For He also enjoys and likes to do

195 195

Corp. Herm. 16.7

Niceph. Greg. Hist., vol. 1, p. 225, ll. 12-21

Liber i, Caput v

hoc gaudet atque amat, praeter opinionem (non enim rationem) quaedam facere et vel sic ostendere vim illam omnia gubernantem et moventem. Haec universe, sed in Exemplis etiam distinctius videamus et monita pro iis aptemus. Primum esto Monitum i: Regna et Reges a Deo dari. I

II

5

Quid clarius? Quae vis, gratia aut commendatio Agathocli regnum in Sicilia dederunt? Pater ei figulus, pueritiam in luti sordibus, adolescentiam in impudicitiae, iuventam in libidinis egit. Ab omni parte infamis, odio civium et inopia ad latrocinium compellitur. En gradus quibus ad sceptrum veniatur! Sed mox miles et dux e milite; id quoque cum infamia quod defuncti Damasconis, cui successerat, uxorem, stupro antea cognitam, sibi ceperat et cum ea ingentes opes. His fretus, occupare imperium patriae bis conatus, bis repellitur. Denique in exsilium agitur. Quid fit? Iungit se Siculis, Syracusiorum hostibus, palam bello patriam petit et obsidet. Nihil efficit cum Poeni, in auxilium evocati, strenue propugnarent. Vi desperata ad fraudes se vertit, Hamilcarem, Poenorum ducem, ad pacem invitat (ea species et honestus titulus fuit), revera ad pactionem ut cederet et traderet sibi Syracusas. Ita factum. Regnat, caedes populi et Principum facit et miro iterum fato ipsis conciliatoribus sceptri, Poenis, bellum infert et in Africam transfert. Praeter spem varie victor et praeter spem quoque mox victus, deserto exercitu, liberis, amicis paene solus in Siciliam effugit. Servat tamen regnum, etsi in varia sorte: immoritur ei, sed ita ut pelli uxorem liberosque videret et ab nepote id eripi, non diu fruituro. In his talibus ubi ratio alia quam summa illa Ratio est, Fatum nobis dicta? Haec in uno illo rege. Quid in quattuor (septem in universum fuere) Romanorum? Primus, Romulus, et tertius, Tullus Hostilius, uterque ex pastore ad sceptrum pervenit, quintus, Tarquinius Priscus, e peregrino et exsule, sextus, Servius, quod ipsum nomen praefert, e vernula et servo. Quid haec aliud sunt quam

10

15

20

25

Sidus et occulti miranda potentia fati? III

Nam de Gaio Mario minus mirum in populari electione si ad summa 30 pervenit ipse popularis. Sed ex ima tamen plebe ac municipali miles mox fac-

6–22 Iust. 22 24–29 Val. Max. 3.4.1-3; Iuv. 7.199-200; 8.259-260 30–198,5 Val. Max. 6.9.14; Iuv. 8.245-253

196 196

29 Iuv. 7.200

Book 1, Chapter 5 something beyond our expectations (but not beyond reason!) and to show, in exactly that way, that power which rules and moves everything. This is said in general, but let us also look at it in more detail in examples, and let us adapt our admonitions accordingly. Let the first be

Admonition 1: Kingdoms and kings are given by God. 1 Can it be any clearer? What power, favour or commendation brought Agathocles to power in Sicily? His father was a potter, and he spent his childhood in the filth of mud, his adolescence in the filth of lasciviousness, and his youth in the filth of lust. Ill spoken of everywhere, he was driven by public hatred and want to robbery. Behold the steps which lead to power. He soon became a soldier, and from soldier he became commander, and that, too, he did with infamy, as he had taken for himself his deceased predecessor Damascon’s wife, with whom he had already had illicit sexual intercourse, and with her, enormous riches. Relying on these, he tried twice to seize the power over his fatherland, and was repulsed twice. In the end he was banished. What happened? He joined the Sicilians, enemies of the Syracusans, openly attacked his fatherland and besieged it, but did not accomplish anything because the Carthaginians, who had been summoned for help, fought vigorously for the defence. Having given up on violence, he turned to deceit and offered Hamilcar, leader of the Carthaginians, peace (that was the honourable pretext), which in reality was an agreement to withdraw and hand Syracuse over to him. And that is what happened. He ruled, murdered people and princes, and by another miraculous twist of fate waged war on those who had brought him to power, the Carthaginians, and moved the war to Africa. Against hope he was victorious in various ways and, also against hope, he was soon defeated. Having abandoned his army, children, and friends, he fled to Sicily, almost alone. Nevertheless he remained in power, albeit with mixed fortune: he died in power, but in such a way that he saw his wife and children being driven away and saw his kingdom being seized by his grandson, who would not enjoy it for long. What other reason is there in all of this apart from that supreme reason, which we have called fate? 2 That is what happened to that one king. But what happened to four kings of the Romans (there were seven of them in total)? Both the first, Romulus, and the third, Tullus Hostilius, rose from shepherd to king, the fifth, Tarquinius Priscus, from foreigner and exile, the sixth, Servius, as the name itself gives away, from a servant and slave. What are these but A star and the admirable power of hidden fate? 3

Concerning Gaius Marius it was less remarkable if he rose to power during the elections of the people, as he himself belonged to the people’s party. It was nevertheless from the lowest ranks of the people and from a small town that he soon entered

197 197

Liber i, Caput v

tus in caliga, tum Centurio, tum Tribunus. Et in urbe etiam petere honores ausus, saepe repulsus, spretus, irrupit tandem in Curiam magis quam pervenit. Ex illo tamen Mario tam humili, tam fastidito, ille Marius emersit qui Africam vicit, regem Iugurtham formidatum Romanis in triumphum duxit. Et parum est: ille Marius qui 5 – Cimbros et summa pericula rerum excepit

IV

et trepidam non Italiam modo, sed urbem defendit. Ille qui post sextum Consulatum (rarum decus) carcerem et exsilium subivit, plenus tamen certusque spei quod olim iuveni, in agro apricanti, Aquila septem pullos in sinum iecisset, toties iterandi scilicet summi imperii signum. Nec fefellit eventus. Rediit, hostes vicit, urbem et Consulatum septimo inivit et in eo exspiravit. Quidlibet sperandi et timendi, cum Fata volunt, clarum exemplum. Nec minus in Masanissa (Marius enim me in Africam revocat). Qui mortuo patre Gala, patruo succedente et mox illo quoque mortuo, per fraudem exutus regno et privatus, arma sumpsit ac denique victoriae et illius compos fuit. Sed non diu ea gavisus et hoc fruitus, a Syphace rege bellum excepit. Qui iusto praelio eum fudit. In montem Balbum confugerat, sed illinc quoque Bocchar, Praefectus regius, eum pepulit, ad tantam paucitatem redactum ut vix quattuor equitibus comitatus effugerit. Ventum erat ad flumen nec vadari poterat. Quid facis, Masanissa, et tuum Fatum? Metu urgente in id se coniicit et duobus comitum gurgite abreptis ipse cum duobus aliis inter virgulta ulteriora delituit. Fama tamen sparsa submersi populares (ut quisque in eum affectus) erexit aut terruit cum ille vulnus (nam et id acceperat) in spelunca avia curans, latrocinio duorum equitum per dies aliquot vixit. Mox ubi equi patiens fuit, audacia ingenti pergit ire ad regnum recuperandum. Quibus praesidiis? Haud plus quadraginta equitibus, qui in via se addiderant auctisque paullatim ad vi millia peditum, iv equitum copiis, paternum totum regnum recepit. Sed nondum finis fatalis dispositionis. Iterum pellitur, victus a Vermina, Syphacis filio, quem rex in eum miserat. Ibi omnibus opibus, sed non spe amissa cum lxx equitibus effugit ad Garamantum terram haesitque vagans aut latitans donec Gaius Laelius, a Scipione missus, cum classe appulisset. Iunxit se et magnum nomen, etsi exiguas vires attulit. Peritia tamen militiae et locorum aliquod ad victoriam momentum. Quae mox secuta. Victi Carthaginienses et

6–7 Iuv. 8.249 8–9 Val. Max. 6.9.14 10–11 Plu. Mar. 36.5 14–32 Liv. 29.29-33 34–200,10 Liv. 30.12-15

198 198

11–12 Val. Max. 6.9.14

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5 military service as a soldier, and was then made centurion and later tribune. And he even dared to apply for public office in Rome, and although he was often rejected and despised, he eventually broke into the Senate, rather than just reaching it. Yet out of that Marius, so lowly and so despised, emerged the famous Marius who conquered Africa and brought King Jugurtha, feared by the Romans, in a triumph. And that is not all: the famous Marius who – confronted the Cimbri and took upon himself the most dangerous affairs, and defended frightened Italy as well as frightened Rome. He, who after his sixth consulship (a rare honour) endured imprisonment and exile, but remained full and sure of hope because once when he, as a young man, was in the field, basking in the sun, an eagle threw seven chicks onto his lap, undoubtedly a sign that he would obtain the highest power just as many times. And the outcome did not fail. He returned, defeated his enemies, entered Rome and consulship for the seventh time, and died in that term. A clear example that one can hope and fear anything when fate wishes. 4 No less clear is what happened to Masinissa (for Marius calls me back to Africa). When his father Gala died and was succeeded by Masinissa’s uncle, who also died soon afterwards, he, stripped and deprived of his kingdom by deceit, took up arms and eventually obtained victory and his kingdom. But he had not enjoyed his victory or relished his kingdom for long when he was attacked by King Syphax, who beat him in a fair fight. He took refuge on Mount Balbus, but Bocchar, the king’s governor, drove him away from there too, so reduced in numbers, that he escaped with a company of scarcely four horsemen. He arrived at a river which could not be forded. So what did you do, Masinissa, and what did your fate do? Urged by fear he threw himself into the river and although two of his companions were carried away by the current, he himself hid with the other two in the bushes on the other side. Nevertheless a rumour spread that he had drowned, which either encouraged or frightened the people, according to each one’s feelings towards him, while he himself tended his wound (for he also got injured) in a remote cave and lived for a few days on what the two horsemen obtained by robbery. As soon as he was able to ride a horse, he moved on with great valour to regain his kingdom. With whose help? No more than forty horsemen, who had joined him on the way, and with forces which gradually grew to six thousand foot-soldiers and four thousand horsemen he regained his father’s entire kingdom. But this was still not the end of what fate had in store. He was driven away again, defeated by Vermina, Syphax’s son, whom the king had sent against him. Having lost all resources but not hope, he fled with seventy horsemen to the land of the Garamantes, where he stayed, roaming or hiding, until Gaius Laelius, sent by Scipio, had landed with a fleet. Masinissa joined him, bringing a great name but scanty forces. Nevertheless, his knowledge of warfare and the terrain had some impact on gaining victory, which followed soon. The Carthaginians and Syphax were defeated. The

199 199

Liber i, Caput v

V

Syphax. Iste periit, et regnum eius Scipio totum Masanissae donat finibus etiam auctis. Quid deinde? Nec sic fideliter Fortuna ei ridet. In ipso aditu iactatur, sed Veneris insidiis, non vi Martis. Erat Sophonisba, Syphacis antea uxor, mulier insigni facie, facundia et astu. Haec regiam ingredienti occurrit, deiecta, maesta, sed quod deceret, et statim Numidam in amorem sui rapit. Iubet igitur bono animo esse, dextram et mox corpus iungit, sed petenti antea iurat, Nemini se traditurum eam Romano. In his erat cum Laelius supervenit et Sophonisbam dedi postulat, fluctuante Masanissa in vehementissimi amoris aestibus illam desereret an amicitiam Romanam. Sed ratio et utilitas affectum vicit: illa vita abit, iste ad Romanos redit et adhaeret. Per eos regnum stabilit, auget, quod ad posteros etiam transmisit. Inserit se his exemplis et faemina. Erat Leontii, cuiusdam Atheniensis philosophi, filia, Athenais nomine, multo ingenii corporisque lepore aut Venere. Pater occulto aliquo de fortuna eius praesagio omnes opes moriturus duobus filiis reliquerat; huic solos centum aureos cum elogio, Suffecturam ei fortunam suam. Igitur cum fratribus litigat ut iniuria affecta. Sed infirmior sexus, aliam etiam accipit et pulsa ab iis, Constantinopolim venit ut viam futurae magnitudini aperiret. Insinuat se et commendat caussam Pulcheriae, Imperatoris sorori, cui statim ita placuit ut percontata ecquid virgo esset. In aulam acceperit, sed baptismo, rudem ad id Christianae religionis, prius ablutam. Nomen eius in Eudociam mutat ac sic denique amat ut fratri Theodosio, apud quem omnia poterat, coniugem desponderet. Hem, ascensus! Sed ecce et deiectio. Nam diu felix eo coniugio, amata et amans, in suspicionem probri incidit et contubernio excidit hac caussa. Imperator insigne et praegrande pomum dono acceperat, quod porro uxori suae blandiens transmisit. Accepit illa et idem mox Paullino, facundo et erudito viro, ideoque eruditae faeminae caro, nihil sequius cogitans dedit. Quod ille, ignarus unde esset, iterum Imperatori ut regium aliquod munus offert. Mirari ille et primum ambigere, mox agnoscere et suspicari. Atque ita propere ad uxorem veniens, callide pomum ab ea repetit antea donatum. Haec totius facti ignara, temere et iuveniliter asserit sese edisse; iterumque rogata dicit atque adeo iurat. Imperator serio tum offensus et mendacii arguens, pomum profert. Nec satis: de amore occulto et improbo suspicatus, Paullinum occidit, illam abdicat et relegat. O uterque amans, vestri misereor! Etsi haec quidem casum fortiter tulit et ivit Hierosolyma et pie casteque vivens ibi moritur, sed praemortuo marito.

12–22 Zonar. epit. 13, vol. 3, p. 101

24–35 Zonar. epit. 13, vol. 3, pp. 111-112

200 200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5 latter died, and Scipio gave all of Syphax’s kingdom to Masinissa, having even extended its borders. But what happened after that? Fortune smiled on him, but not in such a trustworthy manner. He was shaken already when he ascended the throne, but by the intrigues of Venus, not by the power of Mars. There was a woman called Sophonisba, Syphax’s former wife, famous for her looks, eloquence, and cunning. She came to meet him when he entered the royal palace, and she acted dejected and sad, but only because it was appropriate, and immediately captured the Numidian’s heart. So he told her to be brave and gave her his hand, and soon also his body, but first swore to her, at her request, that he would not hand her over to any Roman. This is what he was doing when Laelius showed up and demanded that Sophonisba be handed over to him. Wavering in the heat of passionate love, Masinissa did not know whether to desert her or his friendship with the Romans. But reason and advantage overcame his feelings: she departed from life, while he returned to the Romans and remained loyal to them. With their help he consolidated his kingdom, extended it, and even passed it on to his descendants. 5 There is also a woman who inserts herself among these examples. She was the daughter of Leontius, a philosopher from Athens, and her name was Athenais, a very clever and beautiful or attractive woman. Her father had received a secret foreboding of her fortune, and when he was about to die he bequeathed all his possessions to his two sons, while he left only a hundred pieces of gold to her, with the words that her fortune would be sufficient for her. So she quarreled with her brothers, as having suffered injustice. But being of the weaker sex, she suffered even more injustice, and driven away by them, she went to Constantinople to open the path to her future greatness. She introduced herself and committed her case to Pulcheria, the emperor’s sister, who immediately liked her so much that she asked whether she was really a virgin. She received her in the palace, after first having purified her by baptism, an aspect of the Christian religion with which Athenais was not familiar. She changed Athenais’s name to Eudocia and eventually loved her so much that she betrothed her to her brother Theodosius, whom she could get to do anything. What a rise! But behold! what a downfall, too. For although she was happy for a long time in that marriage, loving and being loved in return, she became suspected of adultery and was forced to leave his company for the following reason. The emperor received a remarkable and very big apple as a present and then passed it on to his wife, flattering her. She accepted it and presently gave it to Paullinus, an eloquent and learned man and therefore precious to the learned woman, without any ulterior motives. Not knowing where it came from, he returned it to the emperor as a royal gift. The emperor was surprised and at first in doubt, but soon he recognised it and became suspicious. And so he hurried to his wife and shrewdly asked her to return the apple that he had given to her before. She was totally unaware of what had happened and boldly and childishly stated that she had eaten it. And when he asked her again, she said the same and even swore that it was so. The emperor was seriously offended and, accusing her of lying, brought forth the

201 201

Liber i, Caput v VI

* Regnare coepit anno ∞CCCCXCV

Multa haec in historia veteri. Nostri aevi unum addam. Philippus ii, Hispaniarum rex, quid nisi fato in illud Lusitaniae etiam venit? Quod ita fundatum firmumque in copia successorum videbatur ut locus non esset aut rima vel improbae externae spei. Ecce *Emanuel, xiv Lusitaniae rex, tres uxores duxerat et ex omnibus liberos tulerat. Primam Isabellam, maximam natu filiarum 5 Ferdinandi et Isabellae, Hispaniae regum. Proles ex ea nata Michael, qui, si vixisset, certus heres omnium istorum regnorum erat quae nunc magnus Hispaniarum rex tenet. Obiit puer, et ipsa mater eius a partione. Ergo alteram tunc filiam, Mariam, quae tertia erat eisdem Ferdinando et Isabellae, nuptiis iungit, nam Ioanna, secunda, tradita Philippo Austriaco fuit, e quo coniugio Hispaniae 10 isti reges. Emanuel igitur ex Maria numerosam sane prolem gignit, sex masculos, duas filias. Denique e tertiis etiam nuptiis, quas cum Leonora, Philippi Austrii filia, coivit, duos liberos, filium filiamque. Observa, te obsecro. An non haec fundata domus in tot fulcris, ut sic dicam, regni? Iam ad liberos istorum veni, quanta series? Vigintiduo erant qui Philippum regem anteibant et 15 successione legitime arcebant. Et tamen quo Fata vocabant, venit et successit. Praemortui omnes illi sunt. Quid nisi ut unum facerent Hispaniae totius caput? Magnus favor Numinis nec semel in hac gente (Austriam dico) se ostendit, quae per hereditates et adventicia incrementa fere crevit.

Monitum ii: Regna a Deo et Reges tolli. I

20

Vis illustre exemplum? Cyrus erit, qui per annos triginta in magna gloria rex Persarum, finitimis, deinde longinquis subactis longius manus etiam ad Scythas porrexit. Venit cum magno et victore exercitu (o dedecus!) a faemina vincendus. Thamyris ea erat, quae genti praeerat et filium ad fines regni repulsurum vim externam miserat. Sed victus est et insidiis a Cyro circumventus. 25 Ergo ipsa molem regni ultimam excivit et dat se animose obviam atque iisdem fraudibus circumventum et clausum, ipsum copiasque cecidit. Ducenta Persa-

1–19 Conest. ist. 3 (1589: 77-78) 10 Ioanna B : Isabella A

21–204,2 Iust. 1.8

11 Maria B : ista A

202 202

20 Monitum addidimus

Book 1, Chapter 5 apple. But that was not all: suspecting them of a secret love affair and adultery, he killed Paullinus, while he disowned her and sent her away. I pity both of you, lovers! However, she bore her misfortune bravely and went to Jerusalem, where she lived piously and chastely and died having outlived her husband. 6 Many of these examples can be found in ancient history. I will add one from our time. How did Philip II, King of Spain, gain control over Portugal if not by fate? It seemed to be founded so firmly on an abundance of successors that there was no place, no chink, even for the depraved hope of a foreigner. Behold Manuel, fourteenth King of Portugal,* who married three women and begot children by all of them. First * He ascended he married Isabella, the oldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen of the throne in 1495. Spain. She gave birth to Miguel, who, if he had lived, would certainly have been the heir of all those kingdoms, which are now held by the great King of Spain. But he died when he was a boy, and so did his mother when giving birth to him. So Manuel married Mary, another daughter, the third one, of Ferdinand and Isabella. For their second daughter Joan was given to Philip of Austria, and from that marriage came those Kings of Spain. So by Mary Manuel had a truly numerous offspring, namely six sons and two daughters. And finally, by his third marriage, in which he wed Eleanor, daughter of Philip of Austria, he had two children, a son and a daughter. Pay attention, I beg you! Was this house not founded on so many bedposts of the kingdom, so to speak? And as concerns their children: what a long series! There were twenty-two who preceded King Philip and kept him away from legitimate succession. But nevertheless where fate called him, he went and succeeded. They all died prematurely. For what other purpose than to put one person in command of all Spain? God’s great favour showed itself more than once in this dynasty (I mean Austria), which for the most part grew by means of inheritances and additions through marriage.

Admonition 2: Kingdoms and kings are taken by God. 1 Do you want a famous example? That will be Cyrus, who had spent thirty years in great glory as King of Persia and had subjected all neighbouring, and then more distant, peoples when he stretched out his hands further, even to the Scythians. He came with a large and victorious army to be defeated – what a dishonour! – by a woman. Her name was Tomyris. She was in command of that people and had sent her son to the borders of the kingdom to drive out the foreign force. But he was defeated and surrounded by Cyrus in an ambush. So she personally mobilised the last force of the kingdom and bravely went to meet Cyrus and slaughtered him and his troops after having surrounded and locked them in by means of the same deceit. There were two

203 203

Liber i, Caput v

II

III

IV

* Dominum notat

rum millia erant: ingens clades; adde ludibrium. Caput mortuo resecat et in utrem sanguine plenum merso exprobrat, Satia te sanguine, quo expleri nequisti. Regnum longa mole fundatum, ubi es? Rex tot annos felix et victor, ubi es? Quo Fata et ordo rerum miserunt: a summis ad ima decidisti. Iam Polycrates, rex Samiorum, non fortunati, sed Fortunae nomen videbatur. Nihil ei in vita adversum: ante vota, supra vota omnia aderant, id est priusquam vellet et plusquam vellet. Caelum, terra, mare favebant aut serviebant. Et res in exemplo raro dixit. Anulum in mare abiecit, quasi Nemesi placandae. Quid fit? In pisce mox inventum recepit. At ultima dissident. Et Oroetes, Darii regis satrapa, victum, captum morte nec ea communi (non dicam regia) affecit, sed in cruce alta suspensum, mirabile et miserabile orbi spectaculum, subiecit. O vere Deum, qui inopinate mutat! Et in Valeriano etiam, Imperatore Romanorum, id est orbis paene terrae, quam simile ludibrium! Ille post quindecim regni annos in ignobilem servitutem et audientium aures gravaturam vi Fati incidit. Bellum magnis viribus Sapori, Persarum regi, fecit, sed eo fine ut victus et vivus in manus hostium veniret Imperator. Barbaro fastu victoria usi sunt. Siquidem Sapor ut catenatum mancipium circumduxit et, quoties equum conscenderet, non manu eius, sed inclinati dorso adiutus innixusque est. Quis hominum sic subito deiicere et calcare Principem rerum potuit praeter divinum supremumque decretum? Assidet quod Baiasites Primus, quem Gilderun Chan a fulmine Turcae dicunt, magnus animo et rebus Imperator fuit. Atque is, varie et per decem amplius annos victor, magno illo praelio cum Temire Chano, quem Temir-lancum a claudicatione item vocant, conflixit. Utrimque ingentes copiae. Robora virorum et militiae usus a Turcis; Fatum aliunde stetit. Nam et auxiliares copiae Tatarorum in ipsa pugna deseruerunt Baiasitem transitione ad hostem facta, idem milites e regione Germiani et Mentesii. Solus se non deseruit cum immoto Praetoriano agmine Baiasites, et murus illic belli. Sed vis ac multitudo perrupit, ipse captus, filius eius Mustaphas caesus et quidem felicius. Nam pater ad victorem Temirem perductus, honeste primum exceptus est cum et obviam pedes extra tentorium ivisset illi, in equo adventanti. Cum descendisset, uterque pro more gentis humi in tapete consedit. Atque ibi Temir (operae pretium visum fide Annalium Turcicorum verba dare): O *Chan, inquit, magnas uterque Deo gratias debemus: ego quod claudus ille ab ipsis Indiae finibus ad

8–12 Val. Max. 6.9.ext.5

13–20 Oros. hist. 7.22.4

204 204

21–206,7 Leuncl. Ann. 64

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5 hundred thousand Persian soldiers: an immense blood-bath; and add ridicule: she cut off the head of the deceased, immersed it in a bag full of blood and told him reproachfully, Sate yourself with blood, with which you could not get your fill. You, kingdom founded with long-lasting labour, where are you? And you, who were a happy and victorious king for so many years, where are you? There, where fate and the order of things have sent you: you have fallen from the highest peaks to the lowest depths. 2 Now, Polycrates, King of Samos, did not seem to have the name of ‘fortunate’, but of fortune itself. Nothing in life had ever been against him: everything went his way before and beyond his wish, that is to say, before he wanted it and more than he wanted. Heaven, earth, and the ocean favoured or served him. This became clear in a remarkable example. He threw a ring into the sea to appease Nemesis, as it were, and what happened? He soon got it back because it was found in a fish. However, his end was different. And Oroetes, a satrap of King Darius, defeated and captured him and put him to death, and not a common one (but I would not call it a royal one either): he exposed him, suspended on a high cross, as a wonderful and miserable spectacle to the world. O true God, who makes unexpected changes! 3 And how similar was the mockery which was made of Valerian, Emperor of the Romans, that is to say, of nearly the whole world! After having ruled for fifteen years, he fell into ignoble servitude, which will be painful to the ears of the audience, through the power of fate. He fought with great forces against Shapur, King of the Persians, but as emperor he ended up falling defeated and alive into the hands of the enemy. They exploited their victory with barbarian arrogance, in as far as Shapur led him around as a chained slave, and each time he mounted his horse, he was helped and supported, not by Valerian’s hand, but by his bent back. What human being could, in this way, suddenly cast down, and trample upon, a prince ruling over all things against the divine and supreme decree? 4 Very similar is the case of Bayezid the First, whom the Turkish call Yildirim Khan or the Thunderbolt, who was a great emperor in courage and power. Having been victorious on various occasions for over ten years, he fought in that great fight with Timur Khan, who is also called Tamerlane because of his limp. Both sides had enormous troops. Manpower and military experience were with the Turks, but fate was on the other side. For the auxiliary Tatar troops deserted Bayezid in the midst of the battle and defected to the enemy, and so did the soldiers from the regions of Germiyan and Menteşe. Bayezid was the only one not to desert himself, along with the steadfast praetorian troop: together they formed their battle line. But force and numbers broke through, and he himself was captured, while his son Mustafa was killed, and certainly better off. For his father was taken to the victorious Timur, where he was received, honourably at first, since Timur left his tent and came to meet him on foot, while Bayezid arrived on horseback. When he had dismounted, both of them went to sit together on a carpet on the ground, according to the custom of the nation. And then Timur said (I have decided that it is worthwhile to quote the Turkish Annals faith-

205 205

Liber i, Caput v

V

∞ɔilx

moenia Sivastae imperium extenderim, tu quod a Sivasta ad ipsos Pannoniae fines. Orbem terrae inter nos partiti paene sumus. Debemus igitur gratias, atque ego reddidi et reddam. Tu vero parum fortasse memori grataque mente fuisti, et ideo haec calamitas intervenit. Sed age, mi Chan, si ego in tua sic sim potestate, quid ageres? Dic libere et veraciter. Ibi aiunt Baiasitem, qui feroci et elato animo erat, subiecisse, Equidem te, si numen victoriam adnuisset, in ferream caveam inclusum circumduxissem spectaculo et ostentui cunctis. Temir eo audito sententia hac in ipsum est usus et sic inclusit. Miser triennium fere ita vixit et cum desperata liberatione audisset in Tataros se abducendum, caput validis iteratisque ictibus caveae ferreae incussit et indignantem animam sic emisit. Multi et pulchri ludi in hoc Mundi theatro, sed tragoediam belliorem raro aut nec legimus. Nisi lubet et ad Sacros apices venire et videre quomodo nec iis vis ista parcat. Carolus Caraffa a Paullo iv Pontifice designatus Cardinalis fuit; eius frater Ioannes Montorii Comes et Dux Paliani factus. Omnia isti apud Pontificem quae vellent poterant et plus quam aequum decorumque erat volebant. Mansit aura secunda quamdiu sidus illud luxit. Post eius occasum Pius Quartus in Pontificatum assumptus idque opera et gratia (notabile est) Caraffarum maxime. Sed iste inter primas fere publicas actiones habuit Caraffas evertere fecitque initium vii Idus Iunii, ipso die quo Carolus pillei honore donatus fuerat, in carcerem eo coniecto. Additus Dux Paliani, frater, Comes Allifanus aliique propinqui eorum aut clientes. Novem menses in arce Sancti Angeli habiti, non nisi crimina et mortes audierunt et hanc denique sententia Pontificia subierunt. Cardinalis nocte carnificis manu strangulatus; Dux capite truncatus una cum Allifano Comite, et cadavera in publicum spectaculum exposita. Quis sensus et occulta vox tibi, Roma, tunc fuit? Cum multi Pontificis severitatem et ingratitudinem accusarent, sapientiores incerta rerum humanarum sub illustribus exemplis agnoscerent et vilium reorum poena atque ignominia periisse qui dignitate et opibus culmina paulloante fuerant rei Romanae.

206 206

5

10

15

20

25

Book 1, Chapter 5 fully): O Khan*, both of us owe much gratitude to God: I, because I, a cripple, have extended *This means "Sir" my empire from the very borders of India to the walls of Sivas; you, because you have extended yours from Sivas to the very borders of Hungary. We have nearly divided the entire world between us. Therefore we have to be grateful, and I have been and will be so. But perhaps you have not been sufficiently mindful and grateful, and therefore this defeat intervened. But come on, Khan, if you had the same power over me, what would you do? Speak freely and tell me the truth. They say that Bayezid, who had an aggressive and arrogant character, then replied, If God had granted victory, I would have carried you around, enclosed in an iron cage, as a spectacle and a show for everyone. When Timur heard this, he used this sentence against him and locked him up like that. The wretch lived that way for nearly three years and when he had given up all hope of liberation and heard that he would be taken away to the Tatars, he hit his head with forceful and repeated blows against the iron cage and thus gasped his life out with indignation. Many wonderful plays can be seen in this theatre of the world, but rarely, if ever, have we read a more beautiful tragedy. 5 Unless you would like to go to the sacred summits and see how the power of fate does not spare them either. Carlo Carafa had been appointed cardinal by Pope Paul IV, while his brother Giovanni had been made Count of Montorio and Duke of Paliano. They could get anything they wanted from the Pope, and they wanted more than what was fair and fitting. The favourable breeze lasted for as long as that star was shining, but when it had faded, Pius the Fourth became Pope, mainly thanks to the efforts and favour (this is remarkable) of the Carafas. But one of his first public actions was to overthrow the Carafas, and he began on 7 June, the very day on which Carlo 1560 had received the cardinal’s hat, by throwing him in jail; his brother, the Duke of Paliano, followed, and the Count of Alife and other relatives or vassals. They were held in the fortress of Sant’ Angelo for nine months and heard nothing but accusations and death threats, and finally they themselves were sentenced to death by the Pope. The cardinal was strangled at night by the hand of an executioner; the duke was beheaded, together with the Count of Alife, and their dead bodies were exposed as a public spectacle. What did you think and secretly say at the time, Rome? Although many accused the Pope of cruelty and ingratitude, wiser people recognised in these famous examples the uncertainty of human affairs and recognised that those who a while earlier, in dignity and wealth, had been at the top of Roman affairs had perished by the punishment and dishonour that awaits base criminals.

207 207

Liber i, Caput v

Monitum iii: Et caussas quasdam medias, sed inopinatas his intervenire. I

II

Adstruit et asserit se ubique Providentia, sed apertius cum caussae quaedam mediae subitae aut insolitae interveniunt, et licet dicere, Quis exspectasset? In Dionis rebus hoc elucet cum Syracusas liberatum iret a tyrannide Dionysii gravi et famosa. Erat tum forte in Italia Dionysius et res alias agebat, id quod Dioni (fato sic disponente) commode et feliciter evenit. Nam cum ipse in Siciliam exiguis copiis, animo quam prudentia maiore appulisset, Timocrates, primus amicorum Dionysii et qui vicem eius regebat, statim hominem certum cum litteris ad Dionysium ablegat qui Dionis adventum et res in Sicilia motas nunciaret. Summa erat omnia reliqueret, rediret nisi a suis vellet relinqui. Homo feliciter fretum traiicit, Cauloniam terra tendit, ubi Dionysius tunc secure agebat. In via forte notus occurit, qui recens victimam immolaverat et partem eius amice communicat et donat. Accipit, in vidulum lateralem imponit, ubi et Timocratis epistola erat. Pergit interea strenue et, noctem itineri cum adsumpsisset, iam fessus, neglectim abiicit se in humum et componit leviter dormiturus. Haud procul a silva erat, e qua ecce lupus egreditur et odore carnis stimulatus accedit et vidulum a latere abripit cum ipsa carne. Paullo post homo expergiscitur, vidulum desiderat et circa quaerit: frustra. Itaque metuens offensae aut poenae, non sustinet ad Dionysium ire et alio divertit. Hoc casu tardius quam opus erat et aliis litteris Dionysius cognoscit quid ageretur. Subvenire vult, non potest; a sceptro ad ferulam redigitur. A quo? Deo, Deo, qui inopinatum illud interiecit. Quid in Marco Bruto et campis Philippicis? Manu Providentiam tango. Legiones utrimque et instructae copiae, egregii duces. Concurritur; vincit cornu dextero Brutus et oppositum Octavianum pellit atque adeo castra eius capit. Et quam paene ipsum? Plena et certa victoria videbatur, sed quam Cassius mala sorte pervertit. Nam ipse ab Antonio pulsus in suo cornu, sed fuga et damno leviore et facilis instauratio si de Bruto scivisset aut sperasset. At campus, qui pulvere stabat, impediit prospectum, et triste sed falsum ei augurium in animo victum etiam Brutum esse. Tamen adhuc dubius, substitit in colle quodam et Lucium Titinnium ex fidis amicis mittit ad explorandum. Ille in Bruti milites statim incidit, victores et, ut fit, palantes. De Cassio, Quam salve? quaerunt, audiunt et laeti Titinnium circumfundunt et una ad Cassium, animaturi eum, tendunt. Qui cum videt et recta ad se venire, hostes arbitratus et

3–20 Plu. Dio 26-27

23–210,5 App. BC 4.15; Flor. epit. 2.17.12-14

208 208

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5

Admonition 3: Some intermediate but unexpected causes also intervene. 1 Providence affirms and asserts itself everywhere, but more openly when some intermediate, sudden or unusual causes intervene, and one may say, Who would have expected that? This is clear in the case of Dio, when he went to liberate Syracuse from the oppressive and infamous tyranny of Dionysius. Dionysius happened to be in Italy at the time, busy with other things and this turned out conveniently and happily for Dio (fate disposing). For when he arrived in Sicily with few troops and more courage than prudence, Timocrates, Dionysius’ best friend, who was ruling in his place, immediately sent a trustworthy person to Dionysius with a letter to announce Dio’s arrival and the commotion in Sicily. The essence was that Dionysius had to leave everything and come back if he did not want to be abandoned by his people. The messenger crossed the strait successfully and headed over land for Caulonia, where Dionysius was staying in safety at the time. On the way an acquaintance ran into him, who had just made a sacrifice and kindly gave him a share of it. He accepted it and put it in the travelling-bag at his side, where he also kept Timocrates’ letter. Meanwhile he continued briskly and when he was tired, having spent all night travelling, he carelessly threw himself on the ground and prepared to sleep somewhat. He was not far from a forest, out of which, behold, a wolf appeared, which came closer, attracted by the scent of meat, and snatched the bag from his side together with the meat itself. A while later the man woke up, missed his bag and looked for it around him, but in vain. And so, afraid that he would incur Dionysius’ displeasure or punishment, he could not bear to go to Dionysius and turned in another direction. Because of this, Dionysius heard what was happening later than he needed and through another letter. He wanted to come to aid, but could not and was reduced from the sceptre to the rod. By whom? By God, by God, who let this unexpected event intervene. 2 What happened to Marcus Brutus and the battlefield of Philippi? I am touching providence with my hand here. On both sides the legions were prepared for battle and had excellent commanders. They joined battle; Brutus was winning on the right wing and drove away Octavian, who was standing against him, and even took his camp. And how close was he to capturing Octavian himself? Victory seemed complete and certain, but Cassius destroyed it by bad fortune. For he himself was pushed back by Antony on his wing, but the flight and damage were limited and a recovery would have been easy, if he had had any knowledge or hope about Brutus. But the battlefield was covered in dust, which impaired visibility, and he had the sad but false premonition that also Brutus had been defeated. Still in doubt, however, he took position on a certain hill and sent out one of his faithful friends, Lucius Titinnius, to explore. He immediately ran into Brutus’ victorious soldiers, who were wandering about, as things go. They asked how safe Cassius was, listened and happily surrounded Titinnius, and together they went to Cassius to encourage him. But when Cassius saw them coming straight towards him, he took them for enemies, thought his friend had been captured and said, Why wait any longer? Let hope, life, and dishonour cease. And at the same time

209 209

Liber i, Caput v

III

IV

amicum suum captum, Quid ultra moramur? inquit, Spes, vita, dedecus abeant, et simul cervices suas liberto praebuit incidendas. Vix factum, Titinnius supervenit et casum miseratus, sibi iratus (quasi mora in caussa fuisset), idem genus fati sponte sumpsit. Haec res et Brutum perdidit, qui in Cassii anima suum animum amisit. Multa possim; unum ex historia vetere et de inclyto illo Annibale inter omnis aevi duces. Iure hoc elogium vindicat: nec fuit aut erit qui militari astu aut peritia virum aequabit, non dicam superabit. Is in Italia dominabatur post Cannas victor. Et quid nisi Roma restabat? Fraenum fati cohibuit ne statim iret. Idem consilia eius alia, consulta licet et firma, evertit. Foedus cum Philippo, tunc Macedonum rege, percusserat et ut is in societatem belli, aut potius victoriae, veniret legibus iis ut Italia quidem Annibalis et Carthaginiensium esset, Graecia Philippi, Punicis mox armis subiuganda. In hanc rem firmandam Xenophanes legatus a Philippo mittitur. Navigat, legit oram Italiae, iuxta Tarentum in classem Romanam incidit, capitur et, Quis, quo, quare rogatur. Ille Graeculus callido mendacio se expedit et ait a Philippo rege ad Senatum Romanum mitti ut foedus in Annibalem et Poenos iungat. Romani et eorum Dux Valerius Laevinus laetari, ovare et caelitus tam opportunum auxilium a potenti rege in rebus arctis missum opinari. Itaque honore honestant, prosequuntur et in tutum Italiae litus exponunt. Expositus ille recta ad Annibalem tendit et mandata dat, accipit, denique de tota re peragit et definit. Nihil supererat nisi ut ipse ad Philippum, Philippus in Italiam veniret, et funus res Romanae essent. Deo aliter visum, vigilat. Et in reditu eadem navis in Romanam classem incidit, sed cui Quintus Fulvius praeesset. Ille, prioris doli et hominum ignarus, quaerit solita, et Xenophanes, semel mentiendi felix, eodem applicat, A Senatu venire, ad regem suum ire. Haec vultu ac voce constans iamque persuaserat cum ecce vident inter comites quosdam Punico habitu. Et, Qui isti ? clamat Fulvius, a Graecia non sunt. Turbantur, fatentur, in vincula dantur, Romam mittuntur. Omnia consilia et pacta detecta, Roma servata. Servare enim eam fuit vel in tempus coepta impedire et donec misera respirasset. I nunc, et quis Epicurus hic Providentiam neget? Iterum idem in Eodem. Rebus iam sua culpa et mora dubiis, et Romanis animo ac viribus auctis, ut suas pariter firmaret, fratrem Asdrubalem ex Hispania evocaverat cum novis copiis et valido exercitu. Iam Alpes transierat, iam

10–29 Liv. 23.33.1-34.10

32–212,20 Liv. 27.43-51

33 fratrem Asdrubalem B : fratrem suum Asdrubalem A

210 210

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5 he ordered a freedman to cut his throat. He had just done this when Titinnius arrived, and, deploring what had happened and angry with himself (as if his delay had caused it), he spontaneously took on the same kind of fate. This ruined Brutus as well, who lost his courage when Cassius lost his soul. 3 I could add many other examples. One is from ancient history, about Hannibal, who is famous among the military leaders of all times. He rightly claims this saying: there never has been or will be anyone who will equal this man in military craft or experience, let alone surpass him. He controlled Italy after his victory at Cannae, and what was left but Rome? But the reins held by fate kept him from going there immediately. It also overthrew his other plans, although they had been well-considered and fixed. He had concluded a treaty with Philip, the then King of Macedonia, that he would join him in war, or rather in victory, on condition that Italy would belong to Hannibal and the Carthaginians, and Greece, soon to be subjected by the arms of the Carthaginians, to Philip. To confirm this, Philip sent out a messenger called Xenophanes. He put out to sea, sailed along the coast of Italy, and came across a Roman fleet near Taranto, was captured and asked who he was, where he was going, and why. This little Greek extricated himself with a shrewd lie and said that he had been sent to the Roman Senate by King Philip to enter into a treaty against Hannibal and the Carthaginians. The Romans and their leader Valerius Laevinus were delighted and rejoiced, believing that such timely aid by a powerful king in a distressing situation had been sent from above. And so they adorned him with honour, accompanied him, and set him ashore safely in Italy. As soon as he had disembarked, he went straight to Hannibal, gave him the orders, received new ones, and then finished and concluded everything. There was nothing left for Xenophanes but to go to Philip and for Philip to come to Italy, and that would be the end of Rome. But God was watchful and decided things differently. And on the way back his ship came across a Roman fleet again, this time under the command of Quintus Fulvius. He did not know the men nor the trick they had used before, so asked the usual, and Xenophanes, having lied successfully once, applied the same trick and said that they came from the Senate and were going to their king. His face and voice steady, he had nearly convinced them of this, when all of a sudden they noticed that some of his companions were wearing Carthaginian dress. Who are these? Fulvius shouted, They are not from Greece! They were confused, confessed, were chained and sent to Rome. All their plans and pacts were exposed; Rome was saved. For it was possible to save the city, or rather to obstruct the undertakings in time for the unfortunate city to recover. Now come on, not even Epicurus would deny providence here, would he? 4 The same thing happened again to the same person. When the situation was already uncertain because of his own fault and delay, and the Romans had gained courage and strength, he had summoned his brother Hasdrubal from Spain with new supplies and a strong army to strengthen his forces in equal measure. He had already crossed the Alps and was coming ever closer. So who would not have thought that

211 211

Liber i, Caput v

adventabat. Quis non actum de re Romana censuisset, quae aegre vel uni Annibali resistebat? Iunge istum, veteranum ducem, tot subsidia: ad exsequias tuas, Roma, imus. Vide rem levem, sed a Deo, quae turbat. Nesciebat etiam Annibal fratrem in Italiam venisse et in extrema Apulia considebat. Cui obviam ire ratio alioqui et consilium erat. Miserat autem Asdrubal praemiis inductos quattuor Gallos equites, duos Numidas, qui omnia Annnibali significarent. Sed ii, cum totam fere Italiam tuto emensi, ad Tarentum venissent, ibi a vagis Romanis pabulatoribus excipiuntur, Annibali iam vicini. Deducuntur ad Consulem Claudium Neronem, castra opposita Annibali illic habentem, fatentur, litteras tradunt, per interpretem explicantur. Ibi cognitum Asdrubalem in Umbriam venire in animo habere ac fratri ibi occursuro iungi. Consul statim, magno animo facinus ausus (ut in magno periculo), validissimam partem copiarum clam e castris subducit, lectos omnes sex milia peditum, mille equites, et dies noctesque non intermisso itinere occultus ad Livium Salinatorem (is alter Consul oppositus Asdrubali erat) venit. Ita statim duplicatis viribus cum Asdrubale pugnatum, cuius victi et caesi caput Nero secum eadem celeritate in castra refert ac postero die ante stationes hostium proiecit. Duobus etiam captivis dimissis qui rem omnem ordine nunciarent. Tum denique perculsus, imo desperatus, Annibal vocem hanc e pectore emisit, Agnosco fortunam Carthaginis. Bene, bene. Tu, nitere et omnia fac; vincens non vinces, prudentia infra fortunam erit, et Nemesis Carthaginem tuam premet.

5

10

15

20

Monitum iv: Regna a Deo et Reges temperari. I Lib. V

Breve Monitum, sed magni sensus et usus videre quomodo Deus disponat et cohibeat hos ne crescant, hos ne cadant, et velut in aequilibrio res suspendat. Hoc Nicephori Gregorae verbis dicendum est, Mirari mihi subit, inquit, impervestigabilem Dei sapientiam, qui plane contraria uno fine conclusit. Nam cum duas adversarias potestates inter se committere statuit nec alteram alteri subiicere, aut ingenio et virtute praestantes utrique parti moderatores praeficit ut alter alterius consilia et conatus evertat, et utrimque subditorum libertati consulatur, aut utrosque hebetes et imbelles deligit ut neuter alterum tentare et saepta (quod aiunt) transilire audeat veteresque 30 regnorum limites convellere. Dici prudentius nihil potuit. Et Providentiae hanc dispositionem quot exempla adfirmant? Non insisto et vetera omitto, sed nuper Carolus v nobis, Franciscus i Gallis, Soleimannus Turcis imperitabant: qui-

212 212

Book 1, Chapter 5 that was the end for Rome, which could hardly resist even Hannibal on his own? Add Hasdrubal, a veteran commander, and so many support troops, and we are heading for your funeral, Rome. But look how a thing which was small but came from God disturbed matters: Hannibal did not know that his brother had arrived in Italy, and had encamped in the farthest corner of Apulia. Hannibal had planned to go and meet him anyhow. Hasdrubal had sent four Gallic and two Numidian riders, stimulated by rewards, to notify Hannibal of everything. But when these had reached Taranto after having safely crossed nearly the whole of Italy, they were captured by roaming Roman foragers, when they were already close to Hannibal. They were brought away to Consul Claudius Nero, whose camp there was counter to Hannibal’s. They confessed, handed over the letter, and its message was deciphered through an interpreter. There they found that Hasdrubal was planning to come to Umbria and join his brother, who would meet him there. Immediately the consul, courageously venturing on the deed (as in great danger), secretly drew the strongest part of the troops from the camp. He selected six thousand foot-soldiers and one thousand horsemen in total and secretly reached Livius Salinator (the other consul, who was stationed opposite Hasdrubal) after having travelled day and night without interruption. Thus they were soon fighting Hasdrubal with doubled forces. Hasdrubal was defeated and killed, and Nero brought his head back to the camp at the same speed and the following day he threw it in front of the enemy’s posts. Also, two captives were released to announce everything in good order. Then, finally, Hannibal, disheartened, and even desperate, shouted the following words from the bottom of his heart: I recognise the fortune of Carthage. Excellent. You, try and do all you can. But still you will not win, although you are on the winning side, prudence will be less powerful than fortune and Nemesis will press down upon your Carthage.

Admonition 4: Kingdoms and kings are moderated by God. 1 A brief admonition, but one of much sense and use, is to see how God disposes and prevents some from growing and others from falling, and holds things, as it were, in balance. This should be said in the words of Nicephorus Gregoras: It comes to my mind Niceph. Greg. Hist., vol. 1, p. to admire the unfathomable wisdom of God, who has concluded clearly contrary matters in one 145, ll. 3-15 end. For when He has decided to let two opposite powers compete with one another without subordinating one to the other, He places those who excel most in intelligence and virtue in charge of each of the two sides as moderating rulers to make sure that they overthrow one another’s plans and attempts, and that on both sides freedom of the subjects is taken care of. Or he chooses dull and unwarlike rulers, so that none of them dares attack the other, cross the line (as they say) and overthrow the ancient borders of kingdoms. Nothing could be said more prudently. And how many examples confirm this disposition of providence? I do not labour the point and I omit the old ones, but recently Charles V was governing us, Francis I the French, and Süleyman the Turks: any one of them was worthy of ruling

213 213

Liber i, Caput v

vis eorum dignus orbisterrae imperio. Et habuissent aut promovissent nisi concursus ille fuisset, et alius alium interpellasset. In parte altera exempla, quae verecundia prohibitus non dicam. Monitum v: Clarissime Fata in Praedictionibus elucere. I

II

At nulla res Fatum clarius certiusque quam Vaticinia aut Prodigia asserant. Quae diu ante caussis notisque nullis apparentibus cum eventa designent, quid nisi et haec definita et a Deo esse clamant? Daniel ille Vates et Sibyllae multis ante saeculis multa et magna praedixerunt. Unde et quomodo nisi quia in Providentiae libro haec descripta, et Deus revelaverat? Nam ita amat Numinis illa benignitas per Somnia, per Signa, per Spectra et Vaticinia res futuras ostendere divinitati suae adstruendae, nobis instruendis aut praeparandis. Latus laetusque campus est. Placet ingredi et leviter lustrare? Fiat. Ac primo de Somniis, nobile est quod Astyaci, ultimo Medorum regi, factum. Vidit per quietem ex natura filiae, quam unicam habebat, vitem enasci et sic mox diffundi ut totam Asiam palmite suo obumbraret. Consulti vates aiunt, Nasciturum ex filia qui Asiae regnum occupet, suo eum nudet. Territus hac denunciatione et ut fatum averteret (miser, quid operam ludis?), iamprimum filiam suam extero et obscuro tunc viro, Cambysi, despondet. Deinde eamdem, partui vicinam, ad se traducit et ut quod natum esset se teste necaretur. Ergo infans Harpago traditur occidendus notae fidei et cui arcana illius regis iamdiu innixa. At ille veritus ne si mortuo Astyage imperium ad filiam veniret (nec enim virilis ei sexus liberi), poenam obsequii lueret, non necat, sed pastori regii pecoris tradit exponendum. Forte et uxor huius pepererat. Quae re audita summo rogat opere maritum puerum ad se deferri et oculis saltem libari. Maritus indulget, it in silvam ubi reliquerat. Repperit canem faeminam, quae mammas praebebat et una alites ferasque abigebat. Tactus miraculo et vel a cane doctus miserari, tollit puerum, uxori defert. Quae videt, amat, alit. Et crescit in virum, in regem, qui Astyagem vicit, sceptrum ad Persas transtulit. Sed et Antigoni somnium mirabile super Mithridate. Iste, e Persarum magis oriundus, erat in comitatu Antigoni, Macedonum regis, Perside scilicet devicta, et fortuna sua cum publica inclinata. Visus videre noctu Antigonus sementem auream in magno campo se facere, eam surgere, adolescere et maturescere. Sed mox omnia demessa item videre et culmos spicasque iacere in-

12–28 Iust. 1.4

29–216,11 Plu. Demetr. 4

23 huius B : eius A

214 214

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5 the world. And they would have done so, or they would at least have advanced, if there had not been that encounter and they had not obstructed one another. There are examples of the second case, which decency forbids me to relate.

Admonition 5: Fate is especially clear in predictions. 1 Nothing could affirm fate more clearly and certainly than vaticinations or omens. Since they point out events long beforehand, when no causes or signs can yet be seen, what do they proclaim but to have been both determined and sent by God? The famous Prophet Daniel and the Sibyls predicted many great things many centuries beforehand. From where and how did they get these predictions, unless they were written down in the book of providence and God had revealed them? For so much does divine benevolence love to show us future events through dreams, signs, apparitions, and vaticinations, in order to add to His divinity and to instruct or prepare us. It is a broad and joyful field. Would you like to enter it and walk around for a while? Let us do so. And first of all: concerning dreams, it is well known what happened to Astyages, the last King of the Medes. In his sleep he saw a vine being born from the genitals of his only daughter and soon spreading so widely that it overshadowed the whole of Asia with its branches. The soothsayers whom he consulted said that someone would be born by his daughter who would seize the kingdom of Asia and would deprive Astyages of his. Terrified by this announcement and in order to avert his fate (you wretch, why do you labour in vain?), he first of all betrothed his daughter to a foreigner, Cambyses, an unknown fellow at the time. Subsequently, when she was about to give birth, Astyages brought her to himself so that whatever was born could be killed with himself as witness. Thus the infant Harpago was handed over to someone of known faith, who for a long time had been responsible for carrying out the king’s secret plans, in order to be killed. But since the man was afraid that, if after the death of Astyages the power would go to his daughter (for he had no children of the male sex), he would be punished for his obedience, he did not kill him but handed him over to the herdsman of the king’s cattle in order to be exposed. Incidentally, the herdsman’s wife had just given birth as well. When she heard what had happened, she asked her husband very insistently to bring the boy to her and to let her at least look at him for a while. Her husband granted her request and went to the forest where he had left the baby. He found a bitch suckling the child and at the same time keeping away birds and wild animals. Touched by the miracle and taught – even by a dog! – to have pity, he lifted up the boy and took him to his wife. She saw him, loved and nourished him. And he grew up to be a man, a king, who defeated Astyages and transferred the sceptre to Persia. 2 But also Antigonus’ dream about Mithridates is remarkable. The latter, descended from Persian Magians, was in the company of Antigonus, King of Macedon, as Persia had been defeated, and his own as well as public fortune had changed for the worse.

215 215

Liber i, Caput v

III

IV

anes. Vocem adhaec audire, Mithridatem in Pontum Euxinum fugere, auream messem secum asportantem. Non obscurum somnium aut significatio. Itaque rex, ubi evigilasset, exterritus tollere statim Mithridatem statuit et cum filio Demetrio communicat, fidem silentii iureiurando stipulatus. Erat familiaris in pari aetate Mithridati Demetrius, et forte iste se obtulit a recenti indicio. Miseratur adolescens et adiutum velit, sed religione iuramenti cohibetur. Quid facit? Apprehensum seducit ab aliis et nihil effatus hasta in terrae pulvere scribit: Fuge Mithridates. Quod ille arripit et, verbis istis et vultu ipso Demetrii monitus, in Cappadociam clam aufugit et regnum mox potens et inclytum Ponti condidit, quod stetit in octavam ab eo stirpem, alterum illum Mithridatem Romana potentia vix eversum. Assidet istis, et primo utique, somnium quod Ertucules, pater Osmanis, a quo potentes isti Asiatici Osmanidae, vidit; sed vidit de die cum post cibum sumptum meridiaretur. Experrectus igitur et imagine ea confusus, primo corpus aquis abluit et se purgat, uti religio gentis eius habet, tum ad Edebalem, virum inter ipsos sapientem et sanctum, venit atque infit, Somniavi, vir venerabilis, (Annalium Turcicorum verba pono) splendorem Lunae e sinu tuo prodire eumque in meum deinde sinum pervenire. Eo cum delatus esset, ex meo umbilico enasci arborem, quae regiones varias, montes et valles inumbraret. Ad ipsas autem radices arboris aquas emanasse, quibus vineae et horti rigarentur. Atque ibi somnium me somnusque deseruit. Edebales audito aliquamdiu secum reputans, effatur, Nascetur tibi filius, vir bone, cui nomen erit Osman. Is multa bella geret, victoriam et famam pariet, ac posteri tui Principes Regesque terrarum erunt. Mea autem filia Osmani nubet, atque is splendor est qui e sinu meo prodivit et in tuo coivit; ex utroque autem arbor. Quam mira et vera praedictio! Sed et de Luna notabile, quam scimus inter signa prima esse Turcicae gentis. Iam ad Signa transeo, quae Magna aut Parva, sed certa pariter se ostenderunt. Timoleonti Corinthio, cum in Siciliam ad pellendum tyrannum exigua manu iret, fax ei in mari totam noctem naviganti praeluxit. Amplius, Delphos paulloante profectus ut Apollini sacra et vota faceret, e donis suspensis vittam in caput suum deciduam ita excepit ut coronae aut diadematis ritu cingeretur. Atque erat ea vitta victoriolis et corollis intexta, prorsus ut a Deo coronari et victor pronunciari videretur. Quid, quod eidem ante pugnam cum Icete con-

12–24 Leuncl. Ann. 12 218,5 Plu. Tim. 31.3-4

25–26 Leuncl. Pandect. 12

24 autem deest A

216 216

28–33 Plu. Tim. 8.2-3

33–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 5 One night Antigonus dreamed that he was sowing gold in a large field; he saw the crops coming up, growing and maturing, but all of a sudden he saw that all of it had been reaped and stalks and ears were lying empty. He also heard a voice saying that Mithridates was fleeing to the Black Sea, taking away with him a golden harvest. Neither the dream nor its meaning was obscure. And so, when the king had woken up, he was terrified and decided to eliminate Mithridates immediately. He told his son Demetrius and demanded that he should swear to keep it silent. Demetrius was friends with Mithridates, who was of his age and incidentally showed up immediately after the prediction. The young man felt pity for him and would have liked to help him, but was obstructed by the obligation of his oath. So what did he do? He grabbed him, led him away from the others, and without saying anything, he wrote with a spear in the dust on the ground: Flee, Mithridates. He understood, and warned by these words and by the very look on Demetrius’ face, he secretly fled to Cappadocia and founded the Kingdom of Pontus, soon to become powerful and famous, which was ruled by his progeny in the eighth generation, when that other Mithridates was overthrown with great difficulty by the power of Rome. 3 Similar to these, and particularly to the first, is the dream of Ertugrul, father of Osman, the founder of the famous Asian dynasty of the Ottomans. But he had his dream in the daytime, while he was taking a midday nap after having eaten. So when he woke up, confused by what he had seen, he first washed his body with water and purified himself, as the religion of his people demands, then came to Edebales, a wise and holy man among them, and began to speak (I reproduce the words of the Turkish Annals): I dreamed, venerable man, that the shining moon came forth from your lap and then came to mine. And that, after it had been brought there, a tree grew from my navel, which cast a shadow upon various regions, mountains and valleys. And that near the very roots of the tree, waters flowed out, by which vineyards and gardens were watered. And there my dream and my sleep abandoned me. When Edebales had heard that, he considered it for a while and said: A son will be born to you, sir, whose name will be Osman. He will wage many wars, acquire victory and fame, and your descendants will be princes and kings of the world. My daughter, for her part, will marry Osman, and that is the brilliance which came forth from my lap and united with yours; and from both the tree grew. What a wonderful and true prediction! But it is also noteworthy what he said about the moon, which we know is one of the most important symbols of the Turkish people. 4 I now proceed to signs, which, whether great or small, have shown themselves to be certain to an equal degree. When Timoleon of Corinth was on his way to Sicily with a small army to drive away the tyrant and was navigating at sea, a light shone in the sea before him all night. Moreover, when, shortly before, he left for Delphi to honour Apollo with sacred rites and vows, he caught a headband, which fell down from the suspended gifts, onto his head in such a way that he was encircled as if with a crown or diadem. And little crowns and images of Victory were woven into that headband, so it looked exactly as if the god was crowning him and pronouncing him victor. And

217 217

Liber i, Caput v

V

VI DCCXII

tigit? Contentio honesta inter Centuriones et manipulos de ordine erat, et praeire omnes volebant cum ille liti dirimendae sortem definire iubet et anulos Centurionum in eam poscit. Coniiciuntur in sinum vestis, commiscentur; qui primus educitur, is trophaeum pro insigni habebat insculptum. Aucti omnes ab omine animis, in hostem alacriter eunt, caedunt, vincunt. Marciano Thraci, plebeio genere et mox Imperatori, plura haec potentiae Signa evenerunt. Ad militiam primam eunti et ut nomen daret, cadaver hominis occisi in via offertur. Ad quod substitit et miseratione tactus in eo est ut sepeliat et terra tegat. Dum facit, deprehenditur, accusatur ut homicida et Philippopolim abducitur. Iam poena imminebat insonti cum verus homicida casu supervenit et agnoscitur; ipse liber ad vicinos numeros tendit, quibus inscribitur, et (pulchrum omen!) in locum defuncti militis, Augusti. Et iam cum legionibus in expeditionem ibat cum morbus eum invasit et in Lycia substitit, hospitio apud duos fratres exceptus, Iulium et Tatianum. Cum meliuscule ei esset, recreandi caussa tres simul venatum eunt et fatigati decumbunt et obdormiunt. Aestus solis erat, et ipse meridies. Ibi aquila, pansis alis leviterque corpus librans, super Marcianum se suspendit et umbram fecit. Tatianus experrectus id videt ac fratrem excitat et ostendit. Uterque mirabundus haud vane augurantur avem regiam regnum ei portendere et Marciano futuram sortem gratulati, ducentos etiam aureos in viaticum donant, unum hoc apprecati ut memor gratusque esset cum ad Imperium venisset. Idem hoc prodigium iterum ei sic factum. In Africam sub Aspare copiarum duce profectus est atque ibi pugna cum Ganzerico rege parum prospera capitur asservaturque. Cum pluribus sub divo recumbit calido item sole, ecce aquilam quae advolat, Marciano supersistit et incoram omnibus umbraculum ei sedulo praebet. Vidit ipse Ganzericus et miratur et vocat ac liberum hac lege amittit ut Imperator pacem cum Vandalis colat. Nec diu post mortuo Theodosio Pulcheria eius soror Principem hunc et sibi maritum destinat. Sed maritum sermonis caussa, stipulaturque ut nomine contentus cetero fructu corporis sui abstineat, quod castum pia virgo Deo consecrasset. Numquid veracia et palam a Deo haec Signa? Atque eadem sed tristioris fortunae nuncia in Hispania apparuerunt Roderico, ultimo Gothorum rege. Palatium Toleti erat, sed clausum et validis vectibus ferroque munitum. Fama tenebat reseratum id excidio Hispaniae futurum. Quod Rodericus ridere et thesauros occuli ratus, seras perfringendas curavit. Thesauri nulli, ceterum arca reperta et in ea linteum, in quo insolen-

6–12 Evagr. h. e. 2.1 12–21 Zonar. epit. 13, vol.3, pp. 113-114 21–30 Evagr. h. e. 2.1; Zonar. epit. 13, vol. 3, pp. 113-114 31–220,4 Marian. Hist. 6.21-22 11 quibus B: a quibus A

12 Et iam B : etiam A

218 218

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5 how about what happened to him before the fight with Hicetes? There was a noble contention between centurions and companies about the order, and all wanted to go first, until he told them to draw lots to settle the dispute and asked for the rings of the centurions for the draw. They were collected in the fold of a garment and mingled together, and the one which was drawn out first had a trophy engraved on it as its mark. Encouraged by the omen, they all eagerly went to meet the enemy and destroyed and defeated him. 5 To Marcian the Thracian, a plebeian by origin and soon to be emperor, many signs of this power occurred. When he was on his way to enlist for his first military service, he came across the body of a dead man on the road. He stopped at the body and was touched by pity for the man, so he buried him and covered him with earth. While he was doing that, he was seized and accused of murder and was taken to Philippopolis. The punishment was already looming over the innocent man, when the true murderer turned up by chance and was recognised. Marcian himself, once more a free man, made his way to the nearest division of the army, in which he was enrolled, and that (what a beautiful omen!) in the place of a deceased soldier, Augustus. He was on a campaign with the legions when he fell ill, and he stayed in Lycia, having been received into the hospitality of two brothers, Julius and Tatianus. When he was a little better, the three of them went hunting together for recreation. Exhausted, they lay down and fell asleep in the heat of the sun, and that at midday. There an eagle, with its wings spread, lightly balanced its body and hovered above Marcian and provided him with shade. Tatianus, who had woken up, saw it, woke up his brother, and showed him. Both of them were astonished and predicted, not without foundation, that the royal bird foretold him an empire. And having congratulated Marcian upon the destiny that awaited him, they even gave him two hundred pieces of gold for the journey, praying him only to remember and be grateful, when he had come to power. The same sign appeared to him again as follows. He had left for Africa, with Aspar as leader of the troops, and there, in a not particularly successful fight against King Gaiseric, he was captured and kept under guard. He was lying down in the open air together with many others, again under the scorching sun, when, behold, an eagle flew towards them, hovered over Marcian and diligently provided him with some shade in the presence of all. Gaiseric himself noticed and, surprised, called for him and sent him away free on condition that as an emperor he would live in peace with the Vandals. Not much later, when Theodosius died, his sister Pulcheria appointed him prince and husband for herself. But he was to be her husband in name only, as she demanded that he should be satisfied with the title and abstain from any other enjoyment of her body, which, as a pious virgin, she had consecrated to God to be chaste. Were these signs not true and clearly sent by God? 6 Similar announcements, but of a sadder fortune, occurred in Spain to Roderick, 712 the last King of the Goths. There was a palace in Toledo, but it was locked and fortified by strong iron bars. Rumour had it that unlocking it would mean destruction for

219 219

Liber i, Caput v

VII

VIII

IX

X

tes hominum facies vestesque depictae atque ipsi militari habitu atque impetu grassantes. Verba Latina inscripta, A tali ea gente exitium Hispaniam manere. Quid plura? Fides factis facta: Iulianus Comes, cuius filiam rex stupraverat, ex Africa hostes inducit, regem occidit, patriam perdit. Sunt et Parva magnarum saepe rerum signa. Nostro aevo, cum in locum Paulli iv Pontifex creandus esset, et in conclave purpurati patres venissent, en super Ioannis Angeli, Cardinalis Medicaei, qui post Pius iv nomen habuit, columba aliquamdiu circumvolitans, cellam consedit. Nec aliter omnes interpretati sunt quam velut a Numine missam Pontificem hunc ostendere designandum. In translatione Lusitanici sceptri ad Philippum, Hispaniarum regem, notatum a curiosis est Sebastianum, regem Lusitaniae, cum in Africam magna mole moveret et pecuniae inopia esset, edicto permisisse et aditum dedisse in Lusitaniam Regalibus Castellanis, quod genus monetae antea ibi spretum. Item, in ipso apparatu et cultu nobilium sub discessum omnes subito variasse et ad Hispanicum transisse. Clariora sunt quam ut interpretatione illustrentur. At vero Spectra etiam saepe et Genii, varia specie, praedicunt. Ut ille qui Dioni Syracusio apparuit postquam patriam magna sua gloria a tyrannide liberasset. Domi sedebat et clara luce habitu Furiae mulier se obtulit grandi statura, horrenda foeditate. Ea domum scopis coepit verrere, nihil aliter prolocuta, et territo Dione cum familiares advocasset, spectrum abscessit. Sed non noxa quam signabat. Nam filius eius grandior, incertum an per insaniam subitam an iram, e summa domo praecipitem se iecit et faede occidit. Sed et ipsum Dionem mox insidiatores domi interfecerunt, uxore et sorore eius in carcerem abductis. Quid? Non egregie domus haec versa, si non eversa fuit, monstro significatum? Marco Bruto, Dionis aemulo, simile etiam spectrum oblatum. Parabat traiicere ex Asia exercitum in Europam et funestos illos Philippos, ubi mox certatum. Nox alta erat, Luna lucens, et Brutus aliquid serium animo volvebat aut, ut alii, lucubrabatur cum ecce sonus strepitusque ad cubiculi ianuam, et ingreditur vasta forma Aethiops, saevo et terrente aspectu. Atque is silentio ante Brutum constitit. Qui animo et ore constans, interrogat, Quis hominum deorumque es? Quae res huc egit? Responsum rettulit, Malus tuus Genius sum, in campis Philippicis me videbis. Iterum animose Brutus, Videbo. Disparuit. Sed ut dixerat, in ipsis illis campis comparuit nocte quae pugnam ultimam antecessit.

11–16 Conest. ist. 1 (1589: 23)

17–25 Plu. Dio 55

220 220

27–34 Plu. Brut. 36

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5

7

8

9

10

Spain. But Roderick laughed at this and, convinced that a treasure was hidden in there, he ordered that the bars should be broken. There was no treasure, but a chest was found and in it a linen cloth, on which people with unusual faces and clothes were depicted, who were moving around with military appearance and vigour. Words in Latin were written on it: Destruction awaits Spain from such people. Why say more? The facts proved it to be truthful: Count Julian, whose daughter had been ravished by the king, brought in enemies from Africa, killed the king and destroyed his homeland. There are also small signs, often of great events. In our time, when a Pope had to be elected in the place of Paul IV, and the cardinals had come together in conclave, behold! for a while a dove circled above, and then settled on, the cell of Cardinal Giovanni Angelo de’ Medici, who was later called Pius IV. Everyone interpreted this in no other way than that it was sent, as it were, by God to show that he should be elected Pope. When the Portuguese sceptre was passed on to Philip, King of Spain, informers noticed that King Sebastian of Portugal, because he was moving to Africa with a large fleet and was in need of money, had, by means of an edict, allowed and given the Castilian Real access to Portugal, where this type of money had earlier been rejected. In the same manner, as far as the equipment and clothing of the aristocracy are concerned, everyone changed immediately after his departure and turned to Spanish fashion. These signs are too obvious to be explained by means of interpretation. But often even apparitions and geniuses, in various forms, make predictions. Like the one that appeared to Dion of Syracuse after he had liberated his fatherland from tyranny to his great glory. He was sitting at home, and in broad daylight a woman appeared, dressed like a Fury, who was tall and horribly ugly. She started to sweep the house with a broom without saying anything. Dion was terrified and when he summoned his household, the apparition disappeared, unlike the disaster which she signalled. For his oldest son – it is not certain whether it was because of sudden insanity or anger – threw himself headlong from the top of the house and killed himself in a horrible way. But also Dion himself was soon killed by people who were lying in ambush in his house, while his wife and sister were taken away to prison. Did the monster not give an excellent sign that this house would be swept, if not swept away? A similar apparition appeared to Marcus Brutus, Dion’s rival. He was preparing to transfer his army from Asia to Europe and to that fatal Philippi, where a battle would soon take place. It was the middle of the night and the moon was shining, and Brutus was reflecting upon a serious matter or, according to others, was working late, when, behold! noise and tumult could be heard at the door of his bedroom, and an Ethiopian of enormous proportions came in, savage and frightening to see, and placed himself in silence before Brutus. Keeping his mind and face steady, Brutus asked, Who of all people and gods are you? What business has brought you here? The apparition replied, I am your evil genius, you will see me on the fields of Philippi. And again Brutus said courageously, I shall see. It disappeared, but as it had said, it appeared on those very fields,

221 221

Liber i, Caput v

XI ∞IƆXXVI

XII

Cum a bono Genio Brutus desertus, malo succubuit atque adeo ipse occubuit, et Romana cum eo Libertas. Compar istis quod patrum aevo Ludovico, Hungariae regi, accidit. Cui bellum Soleimannus, Turcarum Princeps, parabat, atque ipse pariter se accingebat. Prandebat in arce Budae foribus tunc regiae de more clausis. Astat ad portam quispiam humana specie, sed claudus, distortus et habitu cetero cultuque faedo, qui acri et stridula voce clamat poscitque colloquium regis. Negligitur, et putabant mendicabulum hominis esse cum magis magisque inclamat et opus convento rege nec alio esse. Re ad regem delata mittit e splendidioribus aulicis, iussum nomen et personam suam praeferre et hoc quidquid esset elicere. Venit et appellat claudum de arcano. Qui inspecto abnuit hunc regem esse et Quoniam, inquit, audire aspernatur, abi, nuncia brevi et certo periturum. Et cum dicto ex oculis adstantium evanuit. Nimis vera comminatio fuit: rex ad Mohatzium urbem grandi proelio victus et fugiens in paludes, incidit et dum enititur, equo super eum corruente obteritur aut suffocatur. Annum agebat vigesimumprimum. Ad Vaticinia aut praedictiones venio. E quibus Thrasylli Tiberio facta quam testata est? Erat in comitatu Tiberii Mathematici titulo cum Rhodi in exsilio esset. In exsilio, et quam procul a Principe? Et Caius ac Lucius Caesares etiam vivebant. Non desinebat tamen iste identidem Tiberio fidem facere certi Principatus. Sed parum credulo et iam de dolo etiam suspectanti et ne subornatus ab aemulis ad eliciendas arcanas aliquas voces esset. Atque adeo perdere eum statuit et clam necare. Domum Rhodi habebat et in ea turrim, quae rupibus imposita, mare ex alto despectabat. In hanc turrim ducit Trasyllum cum uno fido et valente liberto comite, certus, ut dixi, tollere nisi fidem ei faceret fidae praedictionis. Cum ascendissent igitur, coepit interrogare, Soli sumus, dic per quidquid carum habes: vera hactenus mihi dicis? De imperio etiam adfirmas? Ille iterare et sidera sic velle. Si de meo igitur statu compertum, inquit, ex sideribus habes, de tuo ecquid ais? Inspice. Ille thema ponere, situs ac spatia siderum considerare, denique timere, pallescere et exclamare, Anceps sibi ac prope ultimum discrimen instare. Eo dicto complexus hominem Tiberius, vere conscium futurorum asserit et quod de ipso meditabatur, si non satisfecisset, pandit. Qua arte hoc Thrasyllus potuerit, vere siderali, an potius Geniali, alibi videndum sit; nunc aliud eius mirandum addo. Ambulabat in litore cum eodem Tiberio. Navis longe conspicitur; ille statim affirmat Roma venire et litteras

3–16 Leuncl. Pandect. 221

17–224,2 D.C. 55.11; Tac. ann. 6.21

222 222

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5 the night before the last battle. Abandoned by his good genius, Brutus succumbed to the evil one and thus he died, and Roman liberty with him. 11 Equal to these apparitions is what happened in the time of our fathers to Louis, 1526 King of Hungary. The Turkish Prince Süleyman was preparing a war against him, and he armed himself in equal manner. He was having breakfast in the citadel of Buda, with the doors of the castle closed at the time, according to the custom. Someone appeared at the door, who looked human but was limping and deformed, and the rest of his bearing and attire was ugly. He shouted in a sharp and hissing voice, demanding a conversation with the king. They neglected him and thought that he was a beggar, while he shouted louder and louder that he needed to see the king and no one else. When the king heard this, he sent one of the noblest courtiers, ordering him to pretend to be him and find this out, whatever it was. He went to the limping figure and asked him about the secret. But the latter inspected him, denied that he was the king and said, Since he refuses to listen, go away and announce that he will soon die a certain death. And having said this, he vanished out of the sight of those present. The threat was all too true: the king was defeated in a big battle near the city of Mohács, and fleeing into the marshes, he fell, and while he tried to stand up again, he was crushed or suffocated by a horse which fell on top of him. He was twenty years old. 12 I now come to vaticinations or predictions. How well-known is the one made by Thrasyllus to Tiberius? He was in the company of Tiberius with the title of astrologer when the latter was in exile on Rhodes. In exile. And how far from being emperor? Both Caius and Lucius Caesar were still alive. Yet Thrasyllus did not stop assuring Tiberius that he would certainly become emperor. But the latter was anything but credulous and was already suspecting that deceit was also involved and that the man had been instigated by rivals to elicit some secret words. So Tiberius decided to get rid of him and kill him in secret. On Rhodes Tiberius had a house with a tower, which was situated on the cliffs and looked down on the sea from on high. He took Thrasyllus to this tower, together with one faithful and strong freedman as a companion, determined, as I said, to kill him unless he convinced him that his prediction was credible. So when they had gone up, he started asking, We are alone. Tell me by whatever you hold dear: have you told me the truth so far? Do you still confirm your predictions about the imperial power? Thrasyllus repeated it and confirmed that the stars wanted it that way. So if you have certain knowledge about my condition from the stars, Tiberius said, have you anything to say about yours? Take a look. Thrasyllus cast his horoscope and considered the position and distance of the stars. After that he grew frightened, turned pale, and cried out that a hazardous and nearly fatal danger was hanging over him. That having been said, Tiberius embraced the man and asserted that he truly knew the future and explained what his intentions with him were, if he had not satisfied him. By what art Thrasyllus could do this, whether it was truly that of stars, or rather of a genius, should be seen elsewhere. Now I add another remarkable thing about him. He was walking on the shore together with Tiberius. They saw a ship in the distance and he immediately

223 223

Liber i, Caput v

XIII

nunciosque ab Augusto de reditu eius afferre. An et hoc tale ex sideribus? Nugae; ex instinctu. Neque minus nobiles istae (plures enim sunt) in domitiani Principis rebus. Fuit Largius Proculus quidam, vir inter illustres, qui publice in Germania praedixit ipso tali die Domitianum obiturum. Cumque res ea ad Praesidem dimanasset, gratificaturus Domitiano et simul quia haec praesagia vetita, vinctum eum Romam misit. Nec negavit cum introductus ad Domitianum esset, imo magis magisque asseveravit. Iussus igitur in carcerem recludi et asservari donec dies is transisset, tum puniendus, imo, ut res docuit, tum liberandus et praesagii suspiciendus. Aliud. Fuit eodem tempore Ascletario Mathematicus, qui et diem et genus mortis Domitiani apud quosdam dixit. Vocatus ab ipso, eadem iteravit quaerentique Domitiano, ut eluderet, Tu igitur qua morte periturus? Ille statim, Fore ut a canibus laniaretur. Tum Imperator ad fidem coarguendam extemplo abduci et vivum exuri iussit sive, ut Suetonius, prius interfectum. Sed utrum horum, tamen extra urbem via Latina homo uritur, scilicet ut nihil reliquum e cadavere esset quod canes laniarent. Sed ecce nimbus subito ortus rogum exstinguit, et ministri, semiustum relinquentes, diffugiunt. Canes superveniunt et vorant. Vespere cenanti Domitiano inter alias fabellas eius diei id refertur et valde eum, sed frustra commovit. Munit se, domi haeret, neminem admittit, sed sui eum reperiunt, et Stephanus, cubiculariorum primus, caedem patrat. Qua ipsa in re Apollonii Thianei nobile vaticinium non est omittendum. Erat tunc Ephesi in Asia, tanto terrarum et marium abiunctus. Is dissertationem forte in publico habebat ac primo haesitare et loqui remissius, mox pallescere et silere. Denique passus aliquot exsiliens, ut mente mota, Euge Stephane, inquit, recte. Percute tyrannum, percute homicidam. Bene est, percussisti, vulnerasti, occidisti. Haec in publico dicta et gesta ipsa hora qua Stephanus percussit. O mira, sed vera. Attexetur autem non indecore

4–21 D.C. 67.16-17; Suet. Dom. 15

21–26 D.C. 67.18

224 224

5

10

15

20

25

Book 1, Chapter 5 asserted that it came from Rome and brought letters and messengers from Augustus about his return. Can also such a thing be known from the stars? Nonsense! From

intuition. 13

No less famous are the predictions (for there are many) about what happened to Emperor Domitian. There was a certain Largius Proculus, a famous man who predicted publicly in Germany the day when Domitian would die. When the news had reached the governor, he sent Largius in chains to Rome to gratify Domitian and also because these predictions were forbidden. And the man did not deny it when he was brought to Domitian. On the contrary, he asserted it more and more strongly. So Domitian gave orders to lock him up in prison and to keep him there until that day had gone past, and then punish him, or rather, as things turned out, set him free and respect him for his prediction. Another example. At the same time there was an astrologer called Ascletarion, who told some people when and how Domitian would die. When summoned by Domitian, he repeated the same things, and when Domitian asked him, mocking him, So in which manner will you die? he immediately answered that he would be mangled by dogs. Then, to prove that he was wrong, the emperor ordered that he should be taken away immediately and burned alive or, according to Suetonius, after being killed. But whichever of these happened, the man was nevertheless burned outside the city, on the Via Latina, to make sure indeed that nothing would be left of the corpse to be mangled by dogs. But behold, a rain-storm, which suddenly came up, extinguished the pyre, and the servants left it half-burnt and fled in different directions. Dogs appeared and devoured him. In the evening this story, among others of that day, was related to Domitian while he was having dinner, and it upset him greatly, but in vain. He protected himself, remained at home, and let no one in, but his servants found him, and Stephanus, the head chamberlain, executed the murder. About the same subject, the famous prediction of Apollonius of Tyana should not be omitted. He was in Ephesus in Asia at the time, separated by so much land and sea. He happened to be lecturing in public and at first he hesitated and spoke more softly; soon he grew pale and fell silent. Finally he leaped a few steps, as he was shaken, and said: Well done, Stephanus, bravo! Strike the tyrant, strike the murderer. Well done. You have struck him, wounded him, and killed him. He said and did this in public at the same time as Stephanus struck. Astonishing, but true. And not unbecomingly will be added a

225 225

Liber i, Caput v

Quaestio: Liceatne igitur et deceat in eventus inquirere et vates aut divinos consulere?

Deuteron. cap. XVIII

Lib. III de Africa

Lib. LII

I Histor.

Ibid.

Statius

Non arbitramur, etsi supra tetigi prudentia aliqua scrutari posse et odorari quo tendant fata. Sed distinguenda tota res est, et sic habe. Indiciis aut notis quas vir prudens ex lectione, ex usu et observatione similium collegerit aliquid suspicari aut praesumere de fatis, id licet, sed caute et timide. At ex artibus magorum, hariolorum, divinorum, mathematicorum et quod aliud tale genus, id vero nefas est, nec divina aut humana lex permittit. Deus palam edicit, Non inveniatur in te qui hariolos sciscitetur et observet somnia atque auguria; nec sit maleficus nec incantator nec qui Pythones consulat nec divinos et quaerat a mortuis veritatem. Omnia enim haec abominatur Dominus. Et nostra divina lex tantum? Etiam falsa illa Mahumetis. Ioannes Leo scribit, Magiam et caballisticas artes lege Mahumetica vetitas et velut haereticas haberi. Huius enim, inquit, Alcoranus Omne divinationum genus vanum esse asserit Deumque solum arcana nosse. Bene hoc et prudenter Mahumetes, atque omnis bona Respublica damnat. Illa Romana quot decretis et legibus? Notae sunt, nec caussae etiam ignotae aut diu quaerendae. Eruo istas. Primam quod turbant praedictionibus animos et ad novas aut magnas spes impellunt. Mecaenas apud Dionem in Oratione ad Augustum de Republica constituenda, digna quam Principes legant: Τοὺς δὲ μαγευτὰς, inquit, πάνυ οὐκ εἶναι προσήκει. Πολλοὺς γὰρ πολλάκις οἱ τοιοῦτοι, τὰ μέν τινα ἀληθῆ, τὰ δὲ πλείω ψευδῆ λέγοντες, νεοχμοῦν ἐπαίρουσι: Divinos et vates in republica esse prorsus non oportet. Multos enim hi tales, dum vera quaedam, plura falsa proferunt, ad res novas impellunt. Rem dicit. Et quid tam proprium istis quam magna et blanda praedicere et animos ad fortunae fastigia attollere? Facili nostra credulitate, tamquam peritia et monitu fatorum (ait Tacitus) praedicantur, et cupidine humani ingenii libentius obscura credi. O veriloquia! Inclinamus, et vidi et risi Principes viros auribus atque animis in haec pronos, imo alia omnia artium prae his spernentes. At, ut Dio aiebat, turbas et res novas dant. Quis nescit qui historiam veterem legit? Et ad scelus (ait iterum Tacitus) ab huiusmodi votis facillime transitur. Hinc conspirationes in Principem, aggressiones, deiectiones et quae copia exemplorum deterreor affirmare. Poëta sufficiat aut veriori nomine hic vates: – nos pravum ac debile vulgus scrutamur penitus superos. Hinc pallor et irae, hinc scelus insidiaeque et nulla modestia voti.

226 226

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5

Question: Is it therefore allowed and appropriate to inquire into outcomes and to consult soothsayers or diviners? I do not think so, although I have mentioned earlier that with certain prudence one can examine and investigate in which direction fate is inclined. But the following distinction should be made. It is allowed to surmise or presume something about the course of events from the indications or signs which the prudent man has collected from his reading, experience, and observation of similar things, but carefully and cautiously. But to do so based on the arts of magicians, soothsayers, diviners, astrologers, and others of that kind is truly wrong and permitted by neither divine nor human law. God openly says: Let there not be found anyone in you who consults soothsayers and observes dreams and signs, nor may there be a magician nor an enchanter nor someone who consults Pythons or diviners, and seeks the truth from the deceased. For the Lord abominates all of this. And only our own divine law? Even that false one of Muhammad. Johannes Leo writes that magic and cabbalistic arts are forbidden by the law of Muhammad and considered heretical. For his Koran, he says, asserts that every type of divination is vain, and that only God knows secrets. This is said well and prudently by Muhammad, and every good commonweal condemns it. With how many decrees and laws did the Roman commonweal do so? They are known and their reasons are also not unknown and need not be sought for long. I draw them out. The first reason is that they disturb minds with predictions and incite them to new and high hopes. In Dio, Maecenas says in his oration to Augustus on the constitution of the commonweal, worthy to be read by princes: Diviners and soothsayers should by no means be in the commonweal. For that kind of people, while they reveal some true but more false things, drive many people to rebellion. He is right. And what is more characteristic of these people than to predict great and seductive things and lift minds to the heights of fortune? Using our willing credulity, they make predictions as if through the knowledge and admonishment of fate (says Tacitus), exploiting the desire of human nature to believe more readily in obscure things. Oh, what true words! We yield to them, and I have seen and laughed at princes, whose ears and minds were prone to those things, even despising all other arts in comparison with these. But, as Dio said, they cause turmoil and rebellion. Who does not know, who has read ancient history? And it is very easy to pass to crime (says Tacitus again) from wishes of this kind. Hence conspiracies against the prince, assaults, overthrows and other things which I am discouraged from affirming with an abundance of examples. May the poet suffice or – with a truer name here – the seer: we, wicked and weak multitude, enquire deeply into the gods above. Hence paleness and anger, hence crime, betrayal, and desire without moderation.

227 227

Dt. 15.10-11

Leo African. De tot. Afric. descript. 3 (1556: 132)

D.C. 52.36.3.3

Tac. hist. 1.22.3

Tac. hist. 1.22.3

Stat. Theb. 3.563-565

Liber i, Caput v

I Histor.

Tac. XII Annal.

Apollo veriora dicta numquam dedit. Sed caussa altera Fallacia. Nihil in praedictionibus istis firmum, nihil ex arte certa (quidquid assimulent) haustum, et qui veriora dixisse videntur, a Geniis habent. Sed iipsi quam ament et gaudeant nos fallere, id quoque scimus. Quid, quod vel inviti etiam fallunt? Neque enim sunt omniscii et quamquam subtiles et arcanorum Dei per notas scrutatores, tamen aberrant et abyssum illam Fati non pervadunt. Itaque bene iterum Tacitus: Mathematici genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax. Certe utrumque. Nam et potentes destituunt aut decipiunt, alio transgressi, et vanitatibus fallunt. Patere (ait iocose Seneca) aliquando Mathematicos vera dicere. Patior. Et tot sagittas cum emittant, unam tangere aberrantibus centenis. Enimvero ridiculi Principes qui huc se donant. Vide Agrippinam, Neronis matrem, quae mortuo Claudio domi eum aliquamdiu tenuit et famam de morte suppressit ut progressui scilicet et auspiciis tempus prosperum ex monitis Chaldaeorum attentaret. O dii deaeque, tetigit! Quam salutaris ille rector, quam diuturnus, quam illi et sibi laetus etiam fuit! Bellum aliud in Niceta Choniate, prudenti illo (fatendum est) historiae scriptore. Tangit vitium sui (utinam non et nostri!) aevi atque ait, Nostris temporibus Imperatores nil sine praescripto astrologorum agunt et rebus gerendis dies atque horas eligunt, ut sidera dictarunt. Itaque Alexius Imperator, diu cunctatus quando opportune Blachernas rediret, tandem dies et hora ex astris eliguntur. Redit. Et quidem ita feliciter ut cum primum se moveret, terra ante ipsum profunde dehisceret, atque ipse evaderet, sed Alexius gener eius et multi illustrium in specum delaberentur laederenturque; eunuchus vero unus e gratiosis planissime periret. En et hic veracem ac felicem artem! Quam Deus de industria ridendam sic propinat ut nos avertat. Recitat magis ridendum de Manuele. Cuius imperio, cum Siculi et Latini mare occupassent vicinum Byzantio, et damnum ac dedecus in oculis cottidie esset, semel iterumque in eos classem misit, sed cum clade et ignominia semper repulsam. Igitur Mathematici et astra consuluntur, eligitur dies felicior nec ambigitur de successu. Parat se Constantinus Angelus, vir illustris, et prodit iam in hostem, sed ecce citis nunciis e medio cursu revocatur quia exploraverat Princeps parum certo et sagaciter indagationem factam et erroris aliquid intervenisse. Ergo thema iterum statuitur magna cura, et diu disputato inter peritos tandem convenit de benefico et salutari siderum aspectu. Constantinus emittitur. Et quid quaeris? Victoria in manibus. Adeo quidem certo ut vix in mare progressus Constantinus, non dicam vincatur, sed ipse cum suis capiatur. Quo nihil deterius potuit evenire. Eant Principes et his

9 Sen. apocol. 3.2 17–23 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Alex3, pt2, p. 530 Hist. Man1, pt2, pp. 95-96

228 228

24–35 Nicet. Chon.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 5 Apollo has never given more truthful words. But the second reason is deceit. Nothing in those predictions is stable, nothing drawn from certain art (whatever they pretend), and those who seem to have said quite truthful things have them from geniuses. But we also know how much those same people love and take pleasure in deceiving us. Nay, they even deceive involuntarily. For they are not omniscient and, however subtly they examine the secrets of God through signs, they still make mistakes and do not penetrate that abyss of fate. So again Tacitus was right when he called astrologers a kind Tac. hist. 1.22.1 of people who are faithless towards those in power and deceitful towards those who hope. They are certainly both those things. For they desert or deceive the mighty, having gone over to another side, and cheat them with empty words. Let the astrologers for once tell the truth, Seneca says jestingly. I let them. And while they discharge so many arrows, for every one that strikes a hundred go astray. Yes, princes who give themselves to this are truly laughable. Look at Agrippina, Nero’s mother, who, when Claudius died, kept him at home for a while, suppressing the rumour about his death, to seek the fortu- Tac. ann. 12.68.3 nate moment foretold by astrologers for her son to come forward and for auspices. Good God, she certainly picked the right time! How salutary was that ruler, how long-lasting, how fortunate for her and for himself! Another delightful example can be found in Nicetas Choniates, that prudent (it has to be admitted) historiographer. He touches upon the vice of his time (if only it were not of our time as well!) and says: In our time emperors do not do anything without the precept of astrologers. And they choose the days and hours to do things as the stars have dictated. Thus Emperor Alexius, who had been hesitating for a long time about when best to return to Blachernae, finally let the day and hour be chosen from the stars. He went back and it went so well that as soon as he moved, the earth split open in front of him, leaving a deep gap. He himself escaped, but his son-in-law, Alexius, and many dignitaries fell down the hole and were injured. And a eunuch, one of his favourites, simply died. Look, also here, how truthful and successful this art is! God makes it laughable on purpose and sets it before us in this manner to turn us away from it. Nicetas recites something even more laughable about Manuel. Under his reign the Sicilians and Latins had occupied the sea near Byzantium and every day he was confronted with his loss and disgrace. Time and again he sent out his fleet against them but was always driven back, defeated and dishonoured. Therefore he consulted astrologers and the stars, a more favourable day was chosen, and nobody doubted that it would be a success. Constantinus Angelus, a nobleman, prepared himself and was already advancing towards the enemy, but, behold, he was called back halfway by fast messengers because the prince had found out that the investigation had been executed with too little certainty and sagacity and that some error had intervened. So a horoscope was cast again with great care, and after experts had debated for a long time, they finally agreed on the favourable and salutary appearance of the stars. Constantinus was sent out. And what happened, you ask? Victory was at hand. With such certainty indeed that Constantinus had hardly even set out to sea when he was, I will not say defeated, but captured together with his men. Nothing worse than this could happen. Let the

229 229

Liber i, Caput v

credant. Atqui peritiores aliquos sortientur. Ita, peritiores ad fallendum, non ad sciendum. Et quidquid dicitur, extrema fraus et noxa occupabit, rideant licet prima. Valerii verbis claudam, Mathematici (et alios intellige) levibus et ineptis ingeniis, fallaci siderum interpretatione, quaestuosam mendaciis suis caliginem iniiciunt. Audis Princeps? Levibus et ineptis ingeniis adhaerent, placent. Et tu inter 5 eos censeri velis? Audi et de quaestu quod addit: finem hunc omnes istae praestigiae (non enim artes) habent. Cave, sperne. Tantum, si Somnia, Signa, Spectra, Vaticinia Deus palam mittit, (et viros tunc pios doctosque consule) insuper ne habe.

3–5 Val. Max. 1.3.3

230 230

Book 1, Chapter 5 princes believe these people. But they will certainly receive some more skilled ones. That is to say, more skilled at deceiving, not as far as knowledge is concerned. And whatever is said, in the end they will be seized by deceit and harm, although the beginning smiles on them. I will conclude with the words of Valerius: Astrologers (and others, that is) spread gainful darkness over fickle and silly minds with their lies by their deceitful interpretation of the stars. Do you hear that, prince? They adhere to and please fickle and silly minds. Do you want to be counted among those, too? Also listen to what he adds about gain: that is the objective of all those tricks (for they are not arts). Be careful and despise them. Only if dreams, signs, apparitions, and vaticinations have clearly been sent by God (and then you must consult pious and learned men), you must not disdain them.

231 231

Caput vi DE CONSCIENTIA. Eam curandum esse atque obsequendum.

Apolog. cap. I Seneca

Bernard. in Cantic. Serm. LXXXV

A Religione priusquam abeam, de Conscientia etiam admoneo et adnecto. Quid ea est? Ex religione et Dei metu animi iudicium ortum, bona approbans, mala abhorrens. Omnes illuc vocamur ab interno isto iudice, velut ad tribunal, et homini formato indelebilem hunc characterem Deus impressit. Tertullianus pulchre, Potest obumbrari quia non est Deus; exstingui non potest quia a Deo est. Utrumque recte. Nam et nubes aliqua sive aulaeum ei obducitur affectu aut contemptu iubente. Sed prorsus non amovetur aut tollitur, imo ipsa aulaeum tollit. Mali doctores in Politicis qui hanc seponunt aut calcant. Qui externam virtutum speciem nobis ingerunt, ipsas admitti negant. Bis terque miseri, etiamne animo huic et Conscientiae imponent? Vela te et verte in varias formas: ubicumque vera virtus non est, vitium subsequetur et ex eo inquies in animo aut timor. Vetus ille idem scriptor, Omne malum aut timore aut pudore natura suffudit. Quanto melius, securius, firmius recta apertaque via incedere, Deo, sibi, hominibus se probare ? Exclamare cum Philosopho nostro, Nihil opinionis caussa, omnia Conscientiae faciam. Populo spectante fieri credam quidquid me conscio faciam. Ades, ades, quisquis populum ducis, hanc habe consiliorum actionumque tuarum ducem et magistram. Nihil hac luce clarius, nihil hoc gloriosius testimonio cum veritas in mente fulget, et mens in veritate se videt. Vis unum sed illustre probae vitae, probae mentis exemplum? Cape. Livius Drusus, cum domum in Palatio aedificaret, et architectus offerret ita se structurum ut libera ab arbitris et omni despectu esset, Quin tu potius, inquit, si quid in te artis est, ita compone domum meam ut quidquid agam ab omnibus inspici possit. Vox magnifica, vox laudanda! Vita an pro ea fuerit ambigo neque inquiro.

8 Tert. anim. 41.2

24–26 Vell. 2.14.3

232 232

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 6 ON CONSCIENCE. It has to be cared for and obeyed. Before departing from the subject of religion, I want to add some admonishment about conscience, too. How can it be defined? A judgment of the mind, stemming from religion and fear of God, which approves the good and recoils from the bad. We are all called to it by that internal judge, as to a tribunal, and when God had shaped man, He stamped this indelible mark on him. Tertullian says beautifully, It can be overshadowed because it is not God, but it cannot be extinguished because it comes from God. He is right on both counts. For a cloud or curtain is drawn over it, when affection or contempt takes command. But it is not entirely removed or taken away; on the contrary, it removes the curtain by itself. Bad are those teachers of politics who put it aside or trample on it. They present an outward appearance of virtue to us, but refuse to let the virtues themselves in. Utterly miserable, do they not also impose that appearance on our mind and conscience? Veil yourself and turn into various forms: wherever there is no true virtue, vice will follow, and from it, restlessness in your mind, or fear. That same ancient writer says, Nature filled every evil with fear or shame. How much better, more secure, and more stable it is to walk along the straight and open way and to recommend oneself to God, oneself, and mankind! And to cry out with our philosopher, I will not do anything for the sake of reputation, but everything for the sake of conscience. Whatever I do when I alone am witness I will consider as done in front of everyone. Pay attention, pay attention, whoever you are, who guide the people, take conscience as the leader and instructor for your plans and actions. Nothing is clearer than this light, nothing more glorious than this testimony when truth shines in the mind and the mind sees itself in the truth. Do you want one single, but famous, example of an upright life and mind? Take this one. When Livius Drusus built his house on the Palatine, and the architect offered to construct it in such a way that it would be hidden from witnesses and from every view, he said: Why do you not rather, if you have any talent, put together my house in such a way that whatever I do can be seen by everyone? What wonderful and praiseworthy words! I am not sure whether he lived in accordance with his words and I do not inquire into it.

233 233

Tert. apol. 1.10

Sen. dial. 7.20.4

Bernard. Serm. sup. Cant. 85.10

Caput vii DE PROBITATE ET CONSTANTIA. Utramque Principi convenientem aut necessariam esse. Has Virtuti et Religioni addidi, quae iure ubique utraque in Principum factis se ostendat. Quid enim Probitatem appello nisi rectum et sine fuco Virtutis 5 amantem animum quique ipsam propter ipsam, non commodum aut famam, amat? Talem in Principe requiro et ex descriptione Amphiarai apud Aeschylum: Οὐ γὰρ δοκεῖν δίκαιος, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι θέλει, βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα διὰ φρενὸς καρπούμενος, ἀφ᾽ ἧς τὰ κεδνὰ βλαστάνει βουλεύματα.

10

Nam iustus esse, non viderier studet, sulcum profundum in mentis agro conserens, consilia de quo germinant salubria.

Seneca

Bona descriptio et monitio. Iustus probusque esto, et ex profunda mente pullulabunt honesta et utilia consilia. Ne enim ista separemus: non, inquam, Honestum ab Utili. Et errat ab Italia doctor qui ducit alio; qui tyranniones minutos, non Reges aut Principes legitimos format. Abeat. Tolle, tu, fucum et fraudem, quae nec valida nec diuturna esse possunt. Postea super hac re plura. At vero Constantiam dico animi erecti magnitudinem qui utrique Fortunae par est, nec attollendus a laeta nec altera deprimendus. Sicut adamas, nobilissima inter gemmas, infractam vim habet, sic Princeps debet animi robur. Et vero quam ei opus est? In altam illam fortunam quot nimbi, procellae, fulmina incidunt aut incurrunt? Nihil miserius Principe qui ad singula moveatur aut se inflectat. Debet et ab usu et tractatione rerum induere Constantiam. Videt assidue incerta rerum humanarum; publice aut privatim casus et calamitates audit; versetur in iis, non inhaereat. Et ut rota in curru per terram volvitur, sed super eam exstat, sic ipse. Tractet humana et norit, sed iis se etiam eximat et secum dicat, O quam contempta res est homo nisi super humana se erexerit! Denique poëtae hoc imbibat:

9–11 A. Th. 592-594

234 234

15

20

25

30

Chapter 7 ON PROBITY AND CONSTANCY. Both are appropriate to and necessary for the prince. To virtue and religion I have added these, both of which rightly show themselves everywhere in the deeds of princes. For what do I call probity? Nothing but an upright mind which loves virtue without pretence, a mind which loves it for its own sake, not for profit or fame. That type of probity I require in a prince, and it can be derived from the description of Amphiaraus in Aeschylus: For he strives to be righteous, not seem so, sowing in a deep furrow in the mind’s field, from which salubrious plans sprout forth. A good description and admonition. Be righteous and upright, and from the depths of your mind honourable and useful plans will grow. For let us not separate those: the honourable from the useful. And the teacher from Italy who leads in another direction is mistaken. He shapes petty tyrants, not legitimate kings or princes. Let him go away. You, remove pretence and fraud, which can neither be strong nor last for long. More about this will follow later. Constancy, on the other hand, I call the greatness of an upright mind which can stand up to both good and bad fortune, which cannot be exalted by good fortune, nor depressed by bad fortune. Just as a diamond, the most noble of all precious stones, has unweakened strength, so the prince should have mental strength. And how much does he need that? How many rainclouds, storms and thunderbolts fall upon or run into that high position? Nothing is more miserable than a prince who is moved or bends to each of these. He has to assume constancy by experience and management of affairs. He continuously sees the uncertainty of human affairs. In public or in private he hears of misfortune and disasters. May he engage with those but not become stuck to them. And just as the wheel of a wagon rolls over the ground but stands above it, so should he. May he handle and know human affairs, but may he also detach himself from them and say to himself, How despicable is man unless he rises above the human condition! And finally, may Sen. nat. 1 prooem. 5 he imbibe these words of the poet:

235 235

Liber i, Caput vii Lucanus

I

II

III

IV

Lege Deum minimas rerum discordia turbat, Pacem summa tenent. Sed exempla aliquot verae Probitatis et tum Constantiae videamus. Aristide inter Graecos quid probius aut simplicius? Qui cum gloriae et nominis caussa perclitaretur in exsilium decennale mitti, quod a genere suffragii Ostracismum Graeci dicunt, minuendae scilicet privatae potentiae et muniendae publicae libertati, ille, inquam, cum in suffragia iam iretur, ipse quoque aderat et stabat permixtus plebi. Ibi aliquis de numero, scribere imperitus, hunc propinquum rogavit ut in testulam nomen Aristidis inscriberet, damnandi scilicet eiiciendique. Ergo eum nosti, inquit, aut alibi is te laesit nocuitque? Neutrum, inquit alter, sed hoc male habet, et damnatum eo quod passim vocari audio Iustum. Testam accepit Aristides et paruit ac nomen suum prompte inscripsit. O summa Probitas et alio quam populari illo theatro digna! In iisdem Graecis Epaminondae tota vita nil nisi probitas et rectitudo fuit. Adeo in factis non obliquus, ut nec in verbis, et ne ioco quidem mentitum umquam, fidi scriptores tradiderunt. Idem, cum invidia premente bello praefectus non esset, re tamen et necessitate talem Ducem postulante, imo et alius imperitus eiusce artis dilectus esset, ipse nihilum motus, pro gregario milite nomen dedit. Ac cum mox ignavia ductoris ventum in verum et grande discrimen esset, cunctis circumspicientibus et Epaminondam requirentibus, ille alacris et detersa iniuriae memoria prodiit et exercitum, obsidione ereptum, incolumem in patriam reduxit. Simile aut gemellum tuum, Quinte Fabi, factum. Qui cum per iniuriam aequatus imperio, ipse Dictator, cum Minutio, Magistro tuo militum, esses. Quin et divisio legionum, ut inter Consules solet, facta. Haud diu fuit cum temeritas et vanitas in laqueos incidit, datura Annibali poenas, nisi tu patriae et civium caritate et probitatis illo stimulo copias tuas statim de castris eductas hosti obiecisses et cives non libertati solum, sed sanitati reddidisses. Paenituit enim actorum atque ipsum adeo auctorem, Minutium. Qui reverentia et admiratione virtutis signa, se et suos in castra tua reduxit et serio submisit ac subiecit. Marci Porcii Catonis nomen in duplici homine meruit ut Probitatis et Virtutis habeatur. Sane ille senior. Quanta integritate vixisse debuit qui caussam quinquagies dixit et obtinuit? Nec id gratia aut opibus, sed contra gratiam

4–13 Plu. Arist. 7.3-6 15–16 Nep. Epam. 3.1 Fab. 11-13 33–34 Plu. Cat. Ma. 15.4

236 236

16–22 Nep. Epam. 7.1-2

23–31 Plu.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 7 It is the law of the gods that discord disturbs the smallest of things, while the highest keep peace. But let us look at some examples of true probity and then of true constancy. Who among the Greeks was more honest or ingenuous than Aristides? When he was in danger of being exiled for ten years because of his fame and reputation, a phenomenon which the Greeks call ostracism after the type of voting-tablets, used to diminish private power and to secure public liberty, he, I say, was also present in person when the vote was already being held, and stood amidst the people. There someone from the crowd who could not write asked Aristides, who was standing next to him, to write the name Aristides on the voting-tablet to have him condemned and banished. So do you know him? he asked, or has he hurt you or done you harm otherwise? Neither, the other answered, but the situation is bad and I am going to condemn him because everywhere I hear him being called “the Just”. Aristides accepted the tablet, obeyed, and promptly wrote his name on it. What great probity, worthy of another theatre than that of the people! 2 Also among the Greeks, Epaminondas’ entire life was nothing but probity and rectitude. Trustworthy writers have related that he was so straightforward in his deeds that he never even lied in words, not even in jest. Also, when he was not placed in command in the war because of oppressing jealousy, although circumstances and necessity demanded such a leader; nay, even when someone else with no experience in that art was selected, he was not moved at all and enlisted as a common soldier. And when they had soon, because of the commander’s worthlessness, fallen into truly great danger and all were looking around and searching for Epaminondas, he eagerly came forth, having wiped away the memory of the injustice, and safely led the army back to the fatherland, after having freed them from the siege. 3 Similar or nearly identical was your deed, Quintus Fabius, when you, the dictator, were wrongfully made equal in power to your army leader, Minucius. The legions had even been divided, as they were usually divided between the consuls. It was not long before rashness and vanity fell into a trap and would have been punished by Hannibal if you, out of love for your fatherland and citizens and goaded by probity, had not immediately moved your troops out of the camp and set them against the enemy, and returned the citizens, not only to liberty, but also to sanity. They, and especially Minucius himself, the instigator, regretted their actions. Out of respect and admiration for your virtue, he led his banners, himself, and his men back to your camp, and submitted and subjected them in earnest. 4 The name of Marcus Porcius Cato deserves to be considered as the name of probity and virtue in two men. Cato the Elder in particular: with how much integrity must he have lived, having defended and won fifty cases! And he did not do this by means of favour or resources, but against the favour and resources of nearly the whole society. For not only his probity, but also his severity turned many people hostile 1

237 237

Lucan. 2.272-273

Liber i, Caput vii

V VI

aut opes totius fere civitatis. Nam inimicos plurimos ei aut invidos cum Probitas tum et Severitas faciebat, qui nemini parcere aut amicus esse didicerat qui reipublicae non esset. Atque adeo (mirae fiduciae factum) ex hoc numero inimicorum Tiberium Sempronium Gracchum, cum senex accusaretur, ultro iudicem poposcit et sumpsit, sed et adversario iudicante absolutus, in posterum et gloriam sibi et securitatem peperit. Quid Iunior Cato Uticensis? Sed ille Constantiae reservetur, cuius pectus templum et sacrarium proprium ei Divae fuit. In eius locum Marcus Brutus prodeat, qui et in contubernio eius vixit cum Cyprum peteret. Nec virtutibus solum, sed adfinitate se iunxit. Duxit enim Porciam, eius filiam, tali patre, tali marito dignam. Sed ipse Brutus, fallor, aut unicum exemplar est in omni vita benignae et mansuetae Probitatis. Quam compositus ille animus fuit qui instante Pharsalica pugna ipso vespere ad multam noctem legit et scripsit, Polybii Epitomen commentans? Unde ea quies nisi ab animo introrsum quieto et puro? Qui nec Caesarem quidem cum perturbatione aut odio occidit testante Marco Antonio, cuius haec vox fuit, Unum se putare Marcum Brutum exsortem affectus Caesarem adortum patriae et legum amore. Atque ita est. Alii in regem surrexerunt, ipse in regnum. Quam certum argumentum in ipso Marco Antonio? Quem cum uno ore coniurati occidendum cum Caesare censerent, solus restitit, iustitiam magis quam commodum spectans, et quia ex norma legum modo putaret tolli tyrannum. Eadem animi rectitudine, cum alii optimatum ad Octavianum deflecterent, illum colerent, restitit et palam denunciavit imponi et tolli in humeros tyranni heredem graviori mox servitute. Nec id quidem metu suo aut odio. Quem ille odisset qui nec armatum et insidiosum hostem, Gaium Antonium? Bis eius copias et ipsum cinxit et in manu habuit capere aut occidere; dimisit. Quo tam benignae virtutis fulgore milites percussi, ad eum transierunt atque ipsum ducem captivum tradiderunt. Quid deinde in Lycios? Acres et pervicaces hostes erant. Tamen captis per vim arcibus aliquot et opidis omnes sine pretio liberos dimisit. Nec sic placantur, igitur Xanthios obsidet, premit et fortuitus ignis urbem comprehendit. Quem cives introrsum desperatione et pervicacia augent, alimenta iniiciunt, se interficiunt; Bruto miserante, restinguente, salutem offerente. Sed et lacrimas ubertim emisit in tristi casu et praemium militibus pronunciavit siquis hominem Lycium conservasset. Talis et in Patarenses fuit, pertinaciter item resistentes. Atque ipse cum animi dubius esset oppugnaret an omitteret, non victoriae diffidentia, sed metu similis vesaniae, ecce habuit in

3–6 Val. Max. 3.7.7 9–10 Plu. Brut. 3.1 13–14 Plu. Brut. 4.3-4 15–18 Plu. Brut. 29.5 18–21 Plu. Brut. 18.2-3 21–24 Plu. Brut. 22 24–28 Plu. Brut. 26 28– 240,3 Plu. Brut. 30-32

238 238

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 7 towards, and envious of, him, who had learnt to spare no one or be no one’s friend, unless he was a friend of the commonweal. And when he was indicted in his old age, he even (a deed of wonderful confidence!) voluntarily demanded and received, out of that great number of enemies, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus as his judge, but he was acquitted, even when judged by his adversary, and acquired fame and security for himself for the future. 5 What about the younger Cato Uticensis? He should be saved for constancy, since his heart was a personal temple and shrine to this goddess. 6 Let Marcus Brutus come forth in his place, who also lived in his company, when he attacked Cyprus. He joined him not only in virtues but also by marriage. For he married Cato’s daughter Porcia, worthy of such a father and such a husband. But Brutus himself, unless I am mistaken, was a unique example of benign and gentle probity throughout his whole life. How composed was the mind of him who read and wrote deep into the night on the eve of the Battle of Pharsalus, studying an Epitome of Polybius! Where did that serenity come from but from a mind that was serene and pure in its depths? Not even Caesar did he kill in agitation or hate. That is testified by Mark Antony, who said that he thought that only Brutus assaulted Caesar free from affection, out of love for his fatherland and for the laws. And it is true. Others rose against the king, he against kingship. How true is that argument in the case of Mark Antony himself? When the conspirators unanimously thought that he should be killed together with Caesar, Brutus alone resisted, looking at justice rather than at advantage, and because he thought that a tyrant should be killed only in accordance with the rule of law. When the other aristocrats turned towards Octavian and honoured him, he resisted with the same uprightness of mind and openly declared that they were raising the heir of a tyrant onto their shoulders, in servitude which was soon to grow heavier. And even that he did without fear for himself or hatred. Who would he have hated, he who did not even hate his armed and deceitful enemy Gaius Antonius? Twice he surrounded Antonius himself and his troops and could have captured or killed him, but let him go. And the soldiers, struck by that flash of such benign virtue, went over to his side and handed over their own leader as a captive. And after that, what about the Lycians? They were ardent and obstinate enemies. Nevertheless, after having taken a few citadels and towns by force, he set them all free without ransom. But not even that appeased them. So he besieged the Xanthians and put them under pressure, and an accidental fire took hold of the city. In despair and obstinacy the citizens inside increased the fire, threw fuel on it, and killed themselves, while Brutus felt pity and tried to extinguish it and offer safety. But he also shed tears abundantly in this sad event and declared to the soldiers that there would be a reward for anyone who saved a Lycian. He adopted a similar attitude towards the Patareans, who also opposed him obstinately. And when he himself was in doubt about whether he should fight them or not, not because he did not have faith in victory, but out of fear of similar madness, behold! he had most of their women in his power and sent them back to the city

239 239

Liber i, Caput vii

potestate plerasque eorum faeminas, quas omnes intactas in urbem remisit. Perfregit ea res animos, et sponte opidum Virtuti, quod non Terrori, aperuerunt. Tamen ille tam mitis in hostes, qualis in suos fuit? Severus ubi meruissent. In ipso ardore civilium armorum, cum multa militi, omnia fere ducibus licent, accusatum apud se a Sardianis Lucium Pellam Praetorem repetundarum, 5 nihil cunctatus damnavit et infamia notavit, improbante et indignante Cassio quod id temporis amici non alienandi, sed novi adiungendi viderentur. At ille in Virtutis et Iustitiae orbita firmus nec in communi excessu excessit et deseri ac deserere omnia maluit quam illas. O virum, cui vel hostis merito lacrimas impendit! Is fuit Marcus Antonius. Qui interfecti (sponte et sua manu) corpus 10 liberto cuidam sepeliendum tradidit atque adeo paludamento suo velavit. Quod ille cum avaritia intervertisset neque una cremasset, gnarus iratusque Antonius protinus interfici iussit cum hac superdictione, Et tu nesciebas cuius tibi viri sepulturam mandaveram? Nesciebat vile ingenium, sed viri, hercules, magni et vel primi vel ultimi (utrumvis dicas) Romanorum. Transeo ad exempla 15

Constantiae I

Quorum agmen ducat Phocion Atheniensis, vir qui contra vulgus, contra potentes, contra fortunam et mortem ipsam immotus stetit. Oraculo aliquando Athenis recitato, Esse unum virum qui a concordi civitate dissentiret, quaerentibus omnibus et frendentibus, Quaeso, inquit, quiescite; ego ille sum quem quaeritis. 20 Nam mihi nihil eorum quae agitis placet. Proh animum! Sicne una voce totum populum reum agere perversitatis et insipientiae? Sed caussa tamen erat: et illis Alexandri temporibus populus Atheniensis delirabat senectute. Idem igitur, cum Dux electus trepidos suos in bello videret et lingua sola fortes, prudenter abstinuit a pugna. Mox, cum rediissent et pace facta incusarent illum ignaviae 25 et quasi vincere nescisset aut noluisset, inquit, Felices vos, qui Ducem habetis vestri gnarum! Nam alioqui iamdiu periissetis. Festive et mordaciter exprobrans ignaviam et imbelliam, quam in animo gerebant, ore avertebant. Iterum in populum et eius aurigam Demosthenem. Cum ille, quasi coërcens libertatem Phocionis, diceret, Interficient te Athenienses si furere coeperint, iste, At te, inquit, 30 si sapere. Tetigit illum ut improbum, hos ut parum sanos. Et constans hic tenor per omnem vitam nec in morte deseruit. Ad quam publico iudicio damnatus

4–9 Plu. Brut. 35 10–13 Val. Max. 5.1.11 15 Suet. Tib. 61; Tac. ann. 4.34; Plu. Brut. 44.2 18–21 Plu. Phoc. 8.4 25–27 Plu. Phoc. 9.5-6 29–31 Plu. Phoc. 9.8-9

240 240

Book 1, Chapter 7 untouched. This broke their spirit and they spontaneously opened the town to virtue, which they did not open to terror. But being so lenient to the enemy, how did he behave towards his own? Severely, where they had deserved it. When, in the heat of the civil war, soldiers were allowed much and leaders almost everything, the praetor Lucius Pella was accused before him of extortion by the Sardians. Brutus condemned him without hesitation and marked him with dishonour, while Cassius disapproved and was displeased because at the time it seemed that friends should not be alienated, but new friends should be added. Yet Brutus, steady on the course of virtue and justice, did not transgress in the general transgression and preferred to be deserted or to desert everything rather than those virtues. What a man, over whom even the enemy justly shed tears! That enemy was Mark Antony, who gave Brutus’ body to a freedman to bury it, when he had been killed (out of free will and by his own hand), and even covered it with his own cloak. But the freedman stole it out of greed and did not burn it together with him. When Antony found out, he became angry and ordered that the freedman should be killed instantly, saying, Did you not know what a man he was, whose burial I entrusted to you? His vile brain did not know, but, my God, it was a great man, either the first or the last (you may say either) of the Romans. I now proceed to examples of

Constancy 1 May Phocion of Athens, a man who stood unmoved against the ordinary people, the mighty, fortune, and even death, lead those numbered among the constant. Once in Athens, when an oracle had been recited that there was one man who disagreed with the unanimous opinion of the community, he said to them all as they were searching and gnashing their teeth: I beg you, calm down; I am the one you are looking for. For none of the things you do please me. How brave! To accuse all the people like that, in one phrase, of perversity and foolishness? But there was a reason: in those times of Alexander, the people of Athens were deranged because of old age. When the same Phocion was elected commander and saw how anxious his troops were in war and that they were strong only in words, he prudently kept them away from fighting. Soon, when they had returned and peace had been made, they accused him of cowardice, as if he had not known or wanted to win. He said, You are lucky to have a leader who knows you! Because otherwise you would have long since been destroyed. With biting wit he upbraided them for the cowardice and lack of belligerence which they carried in their minds but turned away with their tongues. Once more he attacked the people and their leader Demosthenes. When the latter said, restraining, as it were, Phocion’s freedom, The Athenians will kill you if they become enraged, Phocion replied, But you if they come to their senses. He hit Demosthenes as being wicked and the people as being not very sane. He steadfastly kept this course throughout his whole life and did not abandon it in death. He was sentenced to death by public judgment when the community split into

241 241

Liber i, Caput vii

II

scissa civitate in factiones. Cum duceretur in carcerem, praecurrerunt improbi, in via obvii et conviciantes. Inter eos unus sputum in os eius congessit. Ille conversus placide ad Archontes, Nemon’ huius, inquit, reprimet proterviam? Cum amicus eius in carcere quereretur quod iniuste cum Phocione interficeretur, Et tu, inquit, non in magna gloria ponis quod cum Phocione? Alio rogante, Numquid ad filium vellet, Maxime, inquit, iubere me ut iniuriarum populi Atheniensis obliviscatur. Alio amico petente ut priori sibi bibere cicutam liceret, Gravis, mi Nicocle, inquit, (id ei nomen) haec petitio, sed cui per omnem vitam nihil abnui, hoc quoque indulgeo. Ita constantissimus vir obiit, cum sui fama, Atheniensium infamia aeterna. Quid vero mulier in eadem Graecia? Cratesiclea fuit, mater Cleomenis, qui rex Spartae res ibi novavit, aut potius lapsas in antiquum locum reponere tentavit. Is cum grandi bello cum Achaeis distineretur, sed et Antigonum ac Macedonas timeret, a se impar, opem et opes a Ptolomaeo Aegypti rege petebat. Qui spem fecit ea lege ut haec Cratesiclea, mater eius, itemque filius obsides fidei in Aegyptum mitterentur. Durum et insolens satis visum Cleomeni, nec ausus matri proponere, etsi necessitas adigebat. Itaque aliquoties loqui ea de re conatus, abscidit et abscessit. Mulier acuta animadvertit aliquid esse et amicos eius percontata, Ecquid vellet effari Cleomenes nec auderet? Quin hortata eos est ut incitarent et submonerent. Tandem ergo Cleomenes postulata regis aperuit; illa autem in cachinnum effusa, Et hoc erat, inquit, quod dicere aggressus, non dicebas? Mitte vero hoc corpusculum quocumque terrarum ubi usui Spartae sit, potius quam hic senio et desidia solvatur. At tu, vir et rex esto. Statimque institit mitti et navigare. Deduxit igitur Cleomenes cum toto exercitu Taenarum usque, Laconiae promontorium, ubi parata navis. Illic in templo Neptuni congressi, priusquam navim conscenderet, mutuo complexu et lacrimis (quis matris et filii affectum nescit?) divelluntur. Sed illa egrediens, Age rex Spartanorum, inquit, compone vultum et animum ac cave quisquam qui foris adsistunt, lacrimantes nos videat aut Sparta aliquid indignum admittentes. Hoc enim in nobis est; casus dii gubernabunt. Sic fata egreditur alacri aspectu, puerum manibus trahens; nec faeminam solum exuit, sed matrem. Eadem paullo post, cum Ptolomaeus parum ex fide ageret et Cleomeni occasio esset paciscendi cum Achaeis, sed cunctaretur ob matrem,

1–9 Plu. Phoc. 36.2-5

11–244,4 Plu. Cleom. 43.4-9

7 mi Nicocle B : mihi Nicocle A

23 At...esto deest A |Statimque B : Et statim A

242 242

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 7 factions. When he was brought to prison, the wicked ran before him, blocking his way and taunting him. One of them spat in his face. He calmly turned towards the Archons and said, Will no one curb the impudence of this man? When his friend complained in prison that he would unjustly be killed together with Phocion, he replied, Do you not consider it a great honour to be killed together with Phocion? When someone else asked whether he wanted to say something to his son, he said, Yes, certainly, tell him that I command him to forget the injustices of the Athenian people. And when another friend asked to be allowed to drink the hemlock first, he said, This is a weighty request, my dear Nicocles (that was his name), but having never in my life denied you anything, I allow this too. In this manner this most steadfast man died, to his own eternal fame and to the eternal disgrace of the Athenians. 2 But what about a woman in that same country, Greece? I mean Cratesiclea, mother of Cleomenes, who, as King of Sparta, overthrew the existing constitution, or rather, tried to restore the fallen one to its former state. When he was occupied by the great war against the Achaeans, but also feared Antigonus and the Macedonians and was unable to cope by himself, he asked Ptolemy, King of Egypt, for help and resources. Ptolemy promised, on condition that Cratesiclea, Cleomenes’ mother, and his son would be sent to Egypt as hostages for his loyalty. This seemed hard and quite impudent to Cleomenes and he did not dare to suggest it to his mother, although necessity urged him. So after having tried a few times to talk about this matter, he broke off and withdrew. But she was an intelligent woman and noticed that something was wrong and asked his friends if there was something Cleomenes wanted to say, but did not dare? Indeed she even exhorted them to give him encouragement and discreet hints to tell her. So finally Cleomenes revealed the king’s requests, but she burst out laughing and said: Is that what you were trying to say, but did not? Send this insignificant body to any place on earth where it can be of use to Sparta, rather than having it decay here in old age and inactivity. But you, be a man and a king. And she immediately insisted on being sent and on setting sail. So Cleomenes brought her with the entire army as far as Taenarus, a promontory in Laconia, where a ship had been prepared. There they met in the temple of Neptune, before she embarked, and with mutual embraces and tears (who does not know the feelings of mother and son?) they were forced to part. But as she was leaving, she said, Come, King of Sparta, compose your face and mind and make sure that no one who is standing outside sees us crying or letting ourselves do anything unworthy of Sparta. For this is in our own power, while the gods will direct the events. Having said this, she departed, looking cheerful and taking the boy by the hand, casting off not only the woman but also the mother. A short while later, when Ptolemy did not act very faithfully, and Cleomenes had the chance to make a pact with the Achaeans, but hesitated because of his mother, she heard this and wrote back to him courageously that he should act in the interest and dignity of Sparta and not fear Ptolemy because of one old woman and a boy, who were in his power. What a woman, worthy not, indeed, of

243 243

Liber i, Caput vii

III

IV

illa audito rescripsit animose, Ageret quod ex usu et dignitate Spartae esset nec Ptolomaeum hunc timeret ob unam anum et puerum quorum esset compos. O mulier, non quidem filio meliore, sed fato digna! Nam et tu et ille postea sub ignavo et infido rege periistis. Licet et alteram faeminam addere, Monimen Milesiam, quae insigni forma et lepore, sed ingenio melior Mithridati regi placuit. Tentavit pudicitiam eius blanditiis, donis et ad quindecim millia aureorum simul misit. Quae fortiter sprevit et reiecit procum regem donec nuptiarum titulo et pacto evicit. Sed nec eae fregerunt magnitudinem animi. Maerebat et sortem suam deplorabat quod pro marito dominum, pro liberis et familia custodiam nacta esset eunuchorum et barbarorum. Victus tandem Mithridates a Romanis et animi atque amoris aeger, ne in potestatem Monime veniret, misit qui mortem indiceret, eunuchum Bacchidem. Illa, nihil cunctata et cupienti propior, diadema detractum capiti (nam ut regina ornabatur) collo aptavit atque ex eo se suspendit. Sed imbecillo et diffracto, indignabunda, Infelix fascia, inquit, nec hic mihi eris usui? Et abiiciens illud ac conspuens, iugulum Bacchidi alacriter obtulit ac tantum non laeta periit. Quid Graeca me tenent? Marcus Cato ad se vocat, ille inclytus Constantiae sacerdos, cuius vel a puero dedit specimen. Nam cum apud Livium Drusum avunculum una cum Caepione fratre educaretur, ac Latini sub id tempus de impetranda civitate agerent, evenit ut Popedius Silo, vir inter primos Latinorum, hospitium item apud Drusum haberet. Itaque cum pueris familiariter cavillans et iocans, et Heus vos, inquit, ecquid apud avunculum pro nobis et civitate capienda intercedetis? Ibi Caepio blande statim annuere, Cato silere et torvum intueri. Tum Popedius, Quid tu igitur? Non promittis? et simul sustollit et extra fenestram elatum pendulum habet cum minis et terrore deiiciendi. Vocem etiam et vultum exasperat, sed Cato nihil motus, intrepide sustinuit et perstitit silentio negare. Ibi Popedius relato et deposito submisse ad amicos, Et quid si hic vir sit? Ne unum quidem suffragium, credo, in populo feramus. Bene divinabat. Nam Cato firmus et certus nihil in rempublicam ullo metu dicere aut facere, sed nec ab aliis, quod in se erat, fieri. Eiusdem roboris in Sullanis temporibus a paullo iam grandiore exemplum. Annum enim agebat quartumdecimum, et saepe Sarpedon, paedagogus et doctor eius, ad Sullam ducebat honoris caussa salutatum. Atque ipse admittebat, quia amicus patris eius fuerat, et comi sermone excipiebat. Domus autem illa parum a carnificina aberat. Ita capti, vinc-

5–17 Plu. Luc. 18.3-4 19–29 Plu. Cat. Mi. 2.1-4; Val. Max. 3.1.2a Mi. 3.2-4; Val. Max. 3.1.2b

244 244

32–246,5 Plu. Cat.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 7 a better son, but of a better fate! For both you and he later died under a cowardly and faithless king. 3 One may add another woman, namely Monime of Miletus, who was remarkable for her looks and charm, and even more so for her intelligence, and pleased King Mithridates. He tested her chastity with flattery and presents, and sent her around fifteen thousand pieces of gold at the same time. But she staunchly refused and rejected the king’s advances, until he conquered her with the title and contract of marriage. But not even those broke her great courage. She mourned and lamented her fate because instead of a husband she had obtained a master, and instead of children and a family, confinement by eunuchs and barbarians. When Mithridates had finally been defeated by the Romans, his mind anxious and troubled by love, he sent the eunuch Bacchis to enjoin Monime to kill herself so that she would not be captured. Not hesitating but almost desiring it, she took her diadem off her head (for she was adorned like a queen), put it around her neck and hanged herself with it. But it was fragile and broke, and she said, enraged, Miserable diadem, will you not be of use to me now either? And throwing it away and spitting on it, she eagerly offered her throat to Bacchis and died almost happily. 4 But why do Greek matters keep me? Marcus Cato is calling for my attention; that illustrious priest of constancy, of which he gave evidence already from childhood. For when he was brought up in the house of his uncle Livius Drusus together with his brother Caepio, and the Latins were trying to obtain citizenship at the time, Popedius Silo, a leading man among the Latins, happened to be lodging at Drusus’ place as well. So whilst bantering and joking in a familiar manner with the boys, he said, You two – will you intervene with your uncle for us to receive citizenship? Caepio immediately assented in a flattering way, but Cato was quiet and glared at him. Then Popedius said, So what do you say? Do you not promise? and at the same time he lifted him and held him hanging out of the window, threatening to throw him down. He also made his voice and looks more stern, but Cato was not moved but bore it intrepidly and kept up his denial by silence. Then, after having pulled him back and put him down, Popedius said quietly to his friends, And what if he were a grown man? We would not even be given one vote in the assembly, I think. He predicted that well, for Cato was steadfast and determined not to do or say anything against the commonweal for any fear, nor did he let others do so either, as far as it was in his power. He gave an example of the same strength in Sulla’s time, when he was a little older. For he was thirteen years old, and his pedagogue and teacher Sarpedon often took him to Sulla to greet him, to show respect. And Sulla, being a friend of his father, let him in and received him with friendly words. But Sulla’s house was not far from a place where executions were carried out. So the captured, chained, and tortured were brought there, but also the heads of those who had been executed were brought in and out. Cato shuddered and saw that the others were sighing secretly, so he asked his teacher, Why does nobody kill this man? When he answered, Because they fear him more than they hate him, he said, So

245 245

Liber i, Caput vii

ti, torti ducebantur, sed et capita inferebantur et efferebantur interfectorum. Cato inhorruit et vidit alios clam ingemiscentes atque ad magistrum suum, Hunc hominem, inquit, quid ita nemo interficit? Subiiciente illo, Nam metuunt eum magis quam oderunt. Quin tu ergo mihi, inquit, gladium dedisti ut eum interimam et patriam e servitute asseram? Quae dixit vultu atque oculis ita acribus et minacibus ut Sarpedon deinceps et rarius ad Sullam duceret nec nisi tentatum et excussum. Tertium a iam viro. Metellus Nepos Tribunus plebis rempublicam turbabat perniciosis rogationibus, quas Catoni certum erat impedire. Ille hoc providens Caesare adiutore forum de multa nocte servis et mercede conductis operis occupaverat, vim haud dubie facturus in resistentes. Amici igitur Catonis et tota domus maesti et anxii; solus ipse securus cibum cepit, dormiit, mane ad forum iit. Cum venisset, videt templum et gradus Castoris armatis insessos, ipsum Metellum assidente Caesare superne imminentes quasi duces; omnia ad pugnam et tumultum parata. Risit et ad proximos, O hominem timidum qui adversus unum et inermem tantum habuit dilectum! Et Munatium Tribunum e bonis manu secum trahens, eluctatus per gradus est in summum atque ibi medium se statim immisit et composuit inter Caesarem et Metellum. Stupuit ipsa audacia ad hoc robur. Et cum trepide Metellus legem per scribam recitari iussisset, Cato inhibuit donec ipse Metellus arrepto codice recitaret. Sed et hunc Cato e manibus ei extorsit, ac Metellus signo dato armatos immisit, dissipata statim concione, et nemine praeter Catonem restitante. Hunc, cum lignis lapidibusque peterent, Murena Consul aegre texit et abduxit, sed confirmatis iterum civibus rediit et sola sua constantia pestilentem rogationem disiecit. Quartum. Pompeius ab Oriente redux et in magnis opibus ac gloria, vidit quid animorum in viro esset et quanta sibi accessio si hunc adiunxisset. Itaque ad affinitatem adspiravit et sororem (sive sororis filiam, ut alii) petiit uxorem. Votiva conditio omnibus visa, atque ipsis maxime faeminis, sed non Catoni. Qui renunciari libere iussit, Non capi aut illaqueari se per faeminas. Quod si Pompeius rectam in republica viam iniret, ultro se amicum fore; sin aliam, nullo pacto aut pretio. Quintum. Gaius Caesar Consul legem de dividendo agro Campano ferebat, privatim utilem, publice exitiosam. Unus Cato resistebat acerrime. Adeo ut Caesar pro imperio abstrahi a Rostris hominem et duci in carcerem iuberet. Ducebatur, sed et sic inter viam de lege identidem disserebat, incommoda et insidias eius ostendens. Iamque pervenerat paene ad carcerem deducente pleraque parte Senatus et optimatium cum Caesar, a constantia victus, destitit et e Tribunis unum submisit, qui eximeret et liberaret. Sextum. Prae-

7–24 Plu. Cat. Mi. 27-28 36–248,6 Plu. Cat. Mi. 42

24–30 Plu. Cat. Mi. 30.1-4

246 246

30–36 Plu. Cat. Mi. 33.1-2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 7 why have you not given me a sword, so I may kill him and free my fatherland from slavery? And he said this with such sharp and threatening face and eyes that afterwards Sarpedon only rarely took him to Sulla, and only after he had been searched and examined. The third example dates from his adulthood. Metellus Nepos, who was tribune of the people, was stirring up unrest in the commonweal with ruinous bills, which Cato was determined to avert. Foreseeing this, Metellus, with the help of Caesar, had occupied the Forum in the middle of the night with slaves and hired abettors, and there was no doubt that he would use violence against those who resisted. So Cato’s friends and his whole household were sad and distressed, and he was the only one to have a meal, sleep, and go to the Forum in the morning, unconcerned. Upon his arrival he saw that the temple of Castor and its steps were held by armed men, and he saw Metellus himself, with Caesar at his side, standing above them as their leaders, everything ready for fight and uproar. He laughed and said to the people who were nearby, What a coward, to recruit such an army against one unarmed person! And pulling the tribune Munatius, one of the nobles, with him by the hand, he forced his way up the steps to the top and immediately went to stand in the middle, between Caesar and Metellus. Boldness itself was amazed at this strength. And when Metellus anxiously gave orders to have the law recited through a clerk, Cato prevented it, until Metellus himself grabbed the book and recited it. But Cato tore the book also from his hands, and Metellus gave a sign and sent his armed men in. The assembly scattered immediately and no one stayed behind, except Cato. When they attacked him with clubs and stones, the consul Murena covered him and led him away with difficulty. But Cato returned when the citizens had recovered and by his constancy only he frustrated the destructive bill. Fourth example. When Pompey returned from the East with much wealth and glory, he saw how courageous this man was and how much he would gain from making a friend of him. So he strove for an alliance by marriage and asked for the hand of his sister (or of his niece, according to others) in marriage. This was regarded by everyone as a desirable condition, especially by the women themselves, but not by Cato. He frankly gave orders to announce that he would not be caught or ensnared through women. However, if Pompey would take the right path in the commonweal, he would be his friend of his own free will. Otherwise, he would not be his friend for any pact or money. Fifth example. As consul, Gaius Caesar proposed a law concerning the division of the land of Campania, which was useful to him personally but destructive to the state. Only Cato opposed him very vehemently. So vehemently that Caesar gave an authoritative command that Cato was to be removed from the Rostra and taken to prison. He was taken there, but on the way he went on discussing the law over and over, showing its disadvantages and traps. He had nearly arrived at the prison, led by the major part of the Senate and the aristocrats, when Caesar, overpowered by his constancy, gave in and sent one of the tribunes to release him. Sixth example. Cato aspired to the praetorship and would have obtained it, had Caesar, Pompey, and that group of powerful men not opposed him, fearing that this one man would obstruct their progress. So by lavish and open

247 247

Liber i, Caput vii

turam petebat Cato et impetrasset nisi Caesar, Pompeius et illa potentium manus se obiecisset, unum hunc reveriti ut progressibus suis impedimentum. Itaque effusa et aperta largitione effecerunt ut praeferretur ei Vatinius, mortalium paene postremus. Quid Cato? Accepit et tulit iniuriam eo animo quo alii beneficium. Et vultu etiam nihil deiectus, eodem die in forum venit, ambu- 5 lavit et pila lusit. Deus immortalis, an non super affectus et motus humanos hic vir fuit? An non dignus de quo poëta scriberet: Quippe malo unum Catonem quam trecentos Socratas?

V

Dignus. Et robur etiam in morte sileo, quod variam interpretationem habere potest, et nostrae religionis scito culpam. Porciam subnecto, patri filiam. Nupserat ea Marco Bruto, marito heroina hac digno. Is cum agitaret de nece Caesaris, etsi sedulo silebat, tamen vultu manifestus erat grande aliquid et atrox agitare. Praesertim amanti et coniugi. Suspicata igitur tale aliquid et maritum silere quia diffideret imbecillitati, statuit sui sumere experimentum et fecit. Cultro tonsorio, cum sola esset, graviter in femore se laesit. Secutus sanguis largior, debilitas atque etiam febris. Cum Brutus domum venit, trepidus et re inopinata maestus. Illa remotis arbitris, Age, mi marite, asside. Est quod serio fabulemur. Ego tibi cum nupsi, coniux in domum tuam veni, non amica aut pellex nec mensae aut tori tantum, sed tristium laetorumque consortem me dedi. Catonis filia sum, et pro illa stirpe me cense. Quid ergo? De te queror? Minime, si alia specto et sollennia coniugiorum aut benevolentiam sive et amorem hunc externum. Sed altius spiro et amicitiam etiam volo. Atque unus in animo dolor est et pungit fidem non haberi fidei meae. Nam quid dissimulas? Nonne curam video quae te coquit? Arcani magnique aliquid quod agitas? Cur me celas? Auxilium si non speras, solatium exspecta. Nam de silentio possum apud te spondere. Non respice ad alias mei sexus. Ego (iterum dico) Catonis filia sum et, addo, Marci Bruti uxor. Vel natura me a tali patre vel consuetudo a marito fortem constantemque reddant, etiam adversus extremos metus. Quid verba facio? Rem vide. Cepi ipsa mei experimentum. Et ecce hoc vulnus quod sponte intuli ut discerem ecquid dolori aut tormentis par essem. Sum, confide. Possum ferre, possum contemnere et mori, o Brute, cum marito et pro marito possum. Proinde siquid tu honesti agitas, quod utroque nostrum sit dignum, ne sile. Brutus admiratus animum et osculatus affectum, manus prae gaudio in altum sustulit et: O omnes caelites, adeste volentes propitii ac dignum me Porcia mari-

8 Flor. carm. 8

11–250,3 Plu. Brut. 13

21–23 coniugiorum...pungit B : in coniugio aut vulgata. Unus tantum in animo dolor est et pungit A 28 ipsa B : ista A

248 248

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 7 bribery they brought it about that Vatinius, almost the lowest of men, was preferred to him. So what did Cato do? He accepted and bore the injustice with the same mind as others would accept a benefaction. And not looking dejected at all, he came to the Forum that same day, walked about and played a ball-game. Immortal God, was this man not above human affections and emotions? And did he not deserve the words which the poet wrote about him: Indeed, I prefer one Cato to three hundred Socrateses? He deserved them indeed. And I do not speak of the strength he showed even in death, which can be interpreted in different ways, and know that in our religion it is a sin. 5 I add Porcia, Cato’s daughter, to her father. She had married Marcus Brutus, a husband worthy of this heroine. When he was contemplating the murder of Caesar, although he carefully kept it quiet, it was still clear – especially to his loving wife – from the look on his face that he was planning something great and horrendous. Thus suspecting such a thing and thinking that her husband kept it quiet because he distrusted her weakness, she decided to put herself to the test and did so. When she was on her own, she hurt herself badly in her thigh with a razor. This was followed by a heavy flow of blood, weakness, and even fever. When Brutus came home, he was upset and sad at this unexpected event. She said, once any witnesses had been removed: Come, my husband, sit down, there is something we should have a serious talk about. When I married you, I came to your house as your wife, not as a mistress or concubine. I did not give myself to you only to share your table or bed, but also your worries and your happiness. I am Cato’s daughter; judge me by the standards of that family. So why? Do I complain about you? Not at all, if I look at the rest, the customs of a married couple, or this benevolence and even outward love of ours. But I aim higher and want friendship, too. And there is one thing that hurts and stings my heart, namely that my trustworthiness is not trusted. For what are you hiding? Do you think that I do not see the concern that is troubling you, some great secret that you are contemplating? Why do you hide it from me? If you do not hope for help, expect consolation. For I can promise you that I will keep it quiet. Do not look at others of my sex. I, I repeat, am Cato’s daughter and, I add, Marcus Brutus’ wife. May either the nature I have from such a father or the habit I have from such a husband make me strong and constant, even if confronted with extreme dangers. But why am I talking? Look at the fact. I personally put myself to the test. And look at this wound, which I have voluntarily inflicted in order to learn whether I would be able to stand up to pain or torture. And I am, trust me. I can bear it, I can despise it, and I can die, dear Brutus, together with, and for, my husband. So if you are planning something honourable, worthy of both of us, do not keep it quiet. Brutus, who was amazed by her courage and valued her affection, raised his hands in joy and said, All gods in heaven, stand by me with favour and kindness, and prove me to be a husband worthy of

249 249

Liber i, Caput vii

VI

∞CCXCIII

tum praestate. Tum ordine coniurationem aperit et consortes. Nihil territae aut deterrenti, imo animanti. Atque hoc primum eius Constantiae, ut sic dicam, sacrum. Alterum a mariti morte. Audiit enim de tristi in Philippis pugna et Brutum suum fuisse. Nihil igitur morata, mori voluit, sed amici et custodes impediebant. Illa ipsis et iam sibi irata, Quid, inquit, mortem aliquis impediat aut neget? Non potest, et pater vos docuit. Ac cum dicto prosiluit et e foco prunas ardentes haustas ori ingessit. Et spiritum, quem emittere non potuit, suffocavit inclusum. Probas hoc? inquies. Non, sed miror, imo et probet aliquis, sed ab illo aevo. Ad Christiana et nostra exempla tutius transeo, quae in sanctis viris et martyribus sunt infinita. Nulla re haec religio magis abundat, magis se commendat et adfirmat. Sed ea in suis locis sunt prompta; nos sparsa in historiis colligimus. Et in iis unum Alfonsi Peresii Gusmani in Hispania Baetica, cui a moribus cognomentum Boni fuit. Magnus pace et bello ille vir, clarus opibus et earum usu. Atque ecce specimen. Rex Castellae, Sanctius, Tariffam (quae veterum Carteia sive Tartessus est) de Mauris ceperat, sed anxius custodiendi et tenendi ob hostium viciniam et ingentes sumptus. Suscepit ultro in se curam Alfonsus et partem stipendii de suo daturum promisit. Rex interea res alias ageret. Paullo post frater regis, Ioannes, ambitione prava ad Maurum transiit et copiis ab eo acceptis subito Tariffam obsedit. Obsessi nihil trepidare, in sua et ducis virtute fidere, animos supra periculum habere nisi quod infregit eos subito inopinata res, captus Alfonsi filius (in agris forte interceperant) et ante moenia ostensus. Unicus porro patri erat. Illi minari, nisi opidum dederetur, sub oculis interfecturos se et foede lancinaturos. Motis flexisque aliis, ille nec hilum et alta voce negat, Si centum filios in potestate haberent, non ideo se a fide et honesto abiturum. Quin, inquit, si tanta libido iugulandi est, en gladium. Et suum e moenibus proiecit. Stupor me habet haec scribentem; quid spectantes? Ille sic abiit et ad prandium se composuit cum ecce clamor et eiulatus dissonus auditus eum evocat, iterumque in moenibus se sistit. Quaerenti consternationis caussam refertur, Filium barbara crudelitate interfectum. Hoc erat? inquit, credebam urbem ab hostibus captam. Et pari tranquillitate ad prandium uxoremque rediit. Creditis posteri? Sed credite. Res ita gesta est. Et hostes magnitudine viri attoniti, nihil ultra tentantes, discesserunt. Libet hic exsultare. Estne factum vel in omni antiquitate fortius vel laudabilius? Gratulor tibi, gens et domus illustris Ducum

3–8 Plu. Brut. 53.4; Val. Max. 4.6.5 31–32 Creditis...Et deest A

10–252,2 Marian. Hist. 14.16

32–33 nihil...tentantes B : re infecta A

250 250

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 7 Porcia. Then he revealed the conspiracy and its participants in order, and neither was she afraid, nor did she try to stop him, but on the contrary encouraged him. And this was, so to speak, her first sacrifice to constancy. The second was caused by her husband’s death. For she heard about the unfortunate Battle of Philippi and that her Brutus was no more. So she did not hesitate, she wanted to die, but her friends and guards tried to prevent it. Angry at them and indeed at herself, she said: Why? Would someone prevent or deny me my death? That is not possible, as my father has taught you. And having said that, she sprang forth, took burning coals out of the fire and put them in her mouth, and unable to breathe out her spirit, she choked it inside. Do you approve of this? you will ask. No, but I admire it, and some might even approve of it, but someone of her times. 6 It is safer for me to pass to Christian examples and examples of our times, which are infinite among saints and martyrs. There is nothing with which our religion overflows more, recommends and asserts itself more. But they can be easily found in their own places; we collect those which are spread in histories. In those there is especially that of Alonso Pérez de Guzmán, who lived in Andalusia and was named the Good 1293 after his character. He was a great man in peace and war, and famous for his riches and his use of them. Here is an example: Sancho, King of Castile, had taken Tarifa (which is the ancient Carteia or Tartessus) from the Moors, but was worried about guarding and keeping it because of the proximity of the enemy and because of the enormous cost. So Alonso voluntarily took charge of it and promised to pay a part of the stipends from his own resources. Meanwhile, the king could take care of other affairs. Shortly afterwards the king’s brother, John, went over to the Moors out of twisted ambition and with troops which he had received from them he unexpectedly besieged Tarifa. The besieged citizens were not at all afraid but had faith in their own and their leader’s courage, and their courage more than matched the danger, except that an unexpected event weakened it all of a sudden, when Alonso’s son was captured (the enemy had intercepted him in the fields by coincidence) and exposed in front of the walls. Moreover, he was his father’s only son. The enemy threatened that, unless the town was given up, they would kill him before their eyes and mangle him in a shameful way. While others were troubled and wavered, Alonso was not disturbed in the least and refused in a loud voice, saying that even if they had a hundred sons in their power, that would still not make him turn from faith and honour. Indeed, he said, if you have such a strong desire to kill, here is a sword. And he threw his sword from the wall. I am stupefied writing this, so what would it have been like for those who saw it? He left and sat down to eat when all of a sudden shouting and a jarring wail called him outside. Again he stood on the wall. When he asked for the cause of the consternation, he was told that his son had been killed with barbarian cruelty. Is that it? he said, I thought the city had been taken by the enemy. And with equal calmness he went back to his lunch and his wife. Can you believe that, posterity? Believe it, for that is what happened. And the enemy, amazed by such a great man, left without making any further

251 251

Liber i, Caput vii

VII

VIII

IX

X

Methymnae Sidoniae, quae ad hunc auctorem stemma et sanguinem refers. Felix origine, esto imitatione. Haec ad miraculum exempla sunt. Alia non tam ferientia, sed haud minus sapienti approbanda. De Ferdinando, Hispaniarum rege, traditur, postremo isto qui Mauros eiecit, per omnem aetatem firmo constantique ingenio fuisse. Et cum utramque saepe sortem expertus esset, prospera atque adversa sic composite et sedate tulisse ut nulla umquam in vultu eius consiliorum aut affectuum vestigia deprehenderentur. Idem cum Barcinone a furioso quodam grave vulnus in cervice subito accepisset, neque animo turbatus est nec gemitum aut vocem doloris indicem emisit. Tantum servari paricidam et examinari iussit quo auctore fecisset. Uxor eius Isabella virilis animi curaeque mulier et hac laude aequavit aut superavit maritum. Nam cum nuptias adornaret cognominis suae filiae cum Emanuele, Lusitaniae rege, et subito nuncius adferretur de morte Ioannis, unici filii, illa hoc agere et dolorem comprimere vultumque fingere tamdiu potuit donec Emanuel ab aliis id rescisset. Eadem non in adversae solum valetudinis, sed in partus acutissimis doloribus et gemitum et vocem supprimebat. Rem incredibilem, nisi a fidissimis matronis quae a cubiculi cura erant, id certo se cognovisse Marinaeus Siculus adfirmaret. Horum nepos, Carolus Quintus Imperator, cum in Germania copias et castra ad Ingolstadium haberet, cinxissentque eum ingenti numero militum foederati hostes, nec illi visum dimicare, vel quia sui nondum convenissent vel quia praevidebat tutam mox et sine caede victoriam. Ecce isti, aeneorum tormentorum copia validi, tantum ferreae grandinis in castra iaculati sunt ut uno die ad vi millia maiorum globorum numerarent. Itaque omnia ictibus pervia, ipsum Caesaris tentorium, et ad latus eius et tergum occisi cum ille nec locum - quid locum? - nec statum nec vultum mutavit. Quin etiam monentibus amicis sibi atque omnibus in se parceret, dixisse arridens fertur, Considerent neminem Imperatorem tormenti ictu periisse. Brevia haec relatu, examinanti ingentia sunt et digna memoria ac laude saeculorum. Atque haec talis constantia et morum actionumque gravitas in omni reliqua eius vita fuit. Etiam in sanguine. Nam ab hac stirpe Philippus ii rex familiarium testimonio Constantiae laude veteres novosque aequavit. Extra aut supra affectus, non gaudio, non dolori pervius neque animo solum, sed vultu aequabili et immoto. Quis Sapientium et qui unum hoc egerunt, eo pervenit? Sed quod

5–11 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 21 (1533: 124v) 21 (1533: 125r)

16–17 Lips. Not. 2.17

29–30 Brevia...saeculorum deest A

252 252

16–19 Sicul. de reb. Hisp.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 7

7

8

9

10

attempts. One would like to jump for joy here. Was there ever a braver or more praiseworthy act in all antiquity? I congratulate you, illustrious house of the Dukes of Medina Sidonia, who go back to this hero through your genealogy and blood. Fortunate by origin, be fortunate by imitation. These examples are almost miraculous. Others might not be as striking, but should be approved no less by a wise person. About Ferdinand, King of Spain, that last Ferdinand, who threw out the Moors, it is said that he had a stable and constant character throughout his life. And because he had often experienced both good and bad fortune, he underwent prosperity and adversity so composedly and calmly that no sign of his plans or feelings ever showed in his face. When this man was in Barcelona and a madman suddenly gave him a serious wound in his neck, he was not upset and gave no groan or cry as a sign of pain. He only gave orders to spare the assassin and to investigate at whose instigation he had acted. His wife Isabella was a woman of manly courage and concern, and equalled or surpassed her husband in this praiseworthy quality. For when she was preparing the wedding of her daughter of the same name to Manuel, King of Portugal, and suddenly received news of the death of her only son John, she was able to go on with the preparations, to suppress her pain and compose her face for a long time, until Manuel heard it from others. Not only in the troubles of bad health, but also in the worst of her labour pains, she suppressed her groans, not uttering a word. This would be incredible, had Marineo Siculo not affirmed having learned this for certain from her most trustworthy chambermaids. When their grandson, Emperor Charles the Fifth, had troops and a camp in Germany, near Ingolstadt, and the allied enemies had surrounded him with an enormous number of soldiers, he decided not to fight, either because his men had not come together yet or because he foresaw that there would soon be a safe victory without slaughter. Behold! the enemy, strengthened by a huge amount of bronze cannons, hurled such a shower of iron at the camp, that in one day they counted about six thousand fairly big balls. And so everything was pierced by the shots, including the emperor’s tent, and there were dead bodies next to and behind him, while he changed neither his position (for where would he go?) nor his posture nor the look on his face. Indeed, even when his friends advised him to spare himself and all with him, he allegedly said, laughing, that they should consider that no emperor ever died of a shot from a cannon. These things are brief to relate, but immense to him who examines them, and worthy of being remembered and praised throughout the centuries. And such was his constancy and the dignity of his character and actions throughout the rest of his life. And also through his bloodline. For King Philip II, who stemmed from this family, equalled ancients and moderns in praiseworthy constancy, on the testimony of those who knew him. He was beyond or above feelings and impervious to joy and pain. And not only his mind, but also his face, was even and undisturbed. Which of the wise men, which of those who aimed at nothing else, ever reached that? But what

253 253

Liber i, Caput vii

alii verbis, ipse factis sibi vindicavit, Nec spe nec metu. Finivi et addo non aliam virtutem Principe digniorem aut in eo, ut sic dicam, honestiorem esse.

254 254

Book 1, Chapter 7 others claimed with words, he claimed with deeds, without hope or fear. I have finished and add that no other virtue is more worthy of a prince or, so to speak, more honourable in him.

255 255

Caput viii DE PRUDENTIA, quam Usus et Historia gignunt, et producit Doctrina. Post Virtutem, cuius caput est Religio sive Pietas, Prudentia necessaria est Principi atque iis qui in republica versantur. Haec non aliud est quam notitia 5 rerum eventuumque et iudicium in iis rectum. Tria illam pariunt, Natura, Usus, Doctrina. Natura multum potest, et ab ea sola, aut certe levibus aliis auxiliis provecti, quidam operae pretium fecerunt. Sed usus si accesserit, etiam mediocris Natura attollitur et in consiliis actionibusque se probat. Quid si doctrina? Plurimum: et tria haec ubi concurrunt, mirum quam valida ea mix- 10 tio, et vera ex iis firmaque Prudentia oriatur. Nam profecto ubi aliquid horum solitarium, Superbia, Pertinacia, Error comitantur, et in multis scio me observitasse. Quid tamen ex his ad rempublicam optimum? Puto, Usus, et Theognidem sapienter scripsisse, Δόξα μὲν ἀνθρώποισι κακὸν μέγα, πεῖρα δ’ ἄριστον.

15

Est mala Opinio, at est homini longe optimus Usus. Nam ubi sola Natura, sive et Doctrina, profecto Opinio innascitur, et gnari scientesque esse volumus ubi non sumus. At Usus firmior et in artibus per se valet. Age, fabricam quam multi solo opere et usu didicerunt? Quid artem navis gubernandae? Et civilis et militaris in republica quaedam ars est; ab Usu 20 igitur discenda. Nec tamen plene satis aut perfecte. Quia illa quae dixi, uniforme aliquid et simplex sunt. Ista, Deus bone, quas varietates, quos sinus et recessus habet? Lumen undique inferendum ut pervideamus, et maxime a Doctrina, non illa tamen arguta aut subtilium scientiarum, sed memoriae rerum praesertim, quam Historiam appellamus. Nam ea, si attendis, quid nisi 25 alter Usus est? Quae in isto video, tracto, facio, in illa lego, haurio, disco. Et tanto plura quanto plus rerum eventuumque complectitur ab omni aevo. Mihi paucis annis experiri licet et in una aliqua orbis parte sive angulo; illic saeculorum res sunt; illic, quam late patent sola haec terrarum. Itaque materies discendi maior. Et disces si oculos mentis in illo velut speculo defigis exem- 30 plorum. Accedit quod prudentes multi et usu docti olim fere historiam con-

15 Thgn. 571

256 256

Chapter 8 ON PRUDENCE, which is generated by experience and history, and advanced by learning. After virtue, of which religion or piety is the most important part, prudence is required for a prince and for those involved in the commonweal. Prudence is nothing but knowledge of facts and events, and correct judgment of them. It is generated by three things, namely nature, experience, and learning. Nature can achieve a great deal and some people, led forward by her alone, or at the most with some other minor help, have accomplished worthwhile things. But if experience is added, also a mediocre nature is raised and proves itself in plans and actions. What happens if learning is added? Very much: where these three come together, it is wonderful how powerful that mixture is, and how true and firm prudence originates from them. For certainly, where one of them is by itself, it is accompanied by haughtiness, obstinacy, and error, which I know I have observed in many people. But which one of these is the best for the commonweal? I think experience, and Theognis was wise when he wrote, Opinion is bad, while experience is by far the best for man. For when nature, or even learning, is on its own, opinion definitely arises, and we want to be knowledgeable and expert while we are not. But experience is stronger and in the arts it is powerful on its own. Come on, consider how many people have learned a trade just by work and experience? What about the art of navigation? And in the commonweal there is a certain civil and military art, so it should be learnt from experience. And yet it cannot be learnt fully enough or perfectly from experience, because the skills which I named are something uniform and simple. But, good God, how many changes, how many bends and turns does this art of governing have? Light has to be brought in from everywhere to see through it, and especially from learning. Not that sharp learning of subtle sciences but, above all, of the remembrance of events which we call history. For what is history, if you consider it, but another type of experience? What I see, exercise, and do in practice, I read, draw, and learn from history. And the more facts and events are covered from each period of time, the more I learn. I have only a few years to build up experience, and in just one part or corner of the world. But in history the events of centuries can be read; in history, how wide and open are those regions of the world? Therefore the opportunity to learn is greater. And you will learn if you fix the eyes of your mind on this mirror of examples, so to

257 257

Liber i, Caput viii

I

II Lib. V Lib. XV

III

scripserunt. Et iidem sensus breves aut monita inseruerunt, Deus bone, quam recta, quam salutaria si bona mens eligit et excerpit? Sed Historiae laudes pertexere non hic est locus nec decet. Addo de Lucio Lucullo tradi, eo qui Mithridatem et Tigranem vicit, potentissimos reges, vix aliam imperandi bellandique peritiam quam ab Historiis attulisse. Et istas igitur praecipue ego Principi, sed et adhaerentem Geographiam commendem, Geometriam leviter et tum maxime Philosophiam, id est Ethicam Physicamque. Duae istae partes forment eius animum vel ad Virtutum amorem et pretium vel ad notitiam caelestium et terrestrium, e quibus Magnitudo animi oritur et simul Modestia collatione utrorumque. Non insisto (alibi feci), sed Peregrinationem etiam obiter suadeam. Quae valde ad notitiam sui status, tum et ad Prudentiam facit. Haec omnia quae Principi, magis iis et plenius qui circa ipsum suggeram, quibus plus scilicet otii et saepe ingenii est ad talia pernoscenda. Sed age, pro instituto Exemplis haec illustremus aut firmemus. Solon Atheniensis horum omnium unus exemplum praebeat. In quo Natura, Usus, Doctrina viguerunt. In republica assiduus ille fuit, sed etiam in peregrinationibus, et Aegyptum, Cyprum, Asiam lustravit atque id discendi caussa. Usum vides. Quid Doctrinam? Scripta et versus docent quos reliquit. Atque adeo tanta eius cupiditate exarsit (sic loquendum est) ut ipse in Carmine quodam glorietur, Cottidie addiscentem se aliquid senem fieri. Cottidie. Itane? Etiam circa ipsam mortem. Nam cum langueret, et assidentes amici aliquid inter se dissererent, ille caput sustulit et flexit ad audiendum. Interrogatusque, Quo fine tunc aut fructu, nobilem illam vocem edidit, Ut cum istud sciero, doctior moriar. O desiderium! Et quid in vita aut eius flore faciendum cum ille haec in morte? Epaminondae vero, etsi in crassiore aëre nato, tantum litterarum studium, philosophiae doctrina tanta fuit ut mirabile videretur, ait Iustinus, unde tam insignis militiae scientia homini inter litteras nato. Quod mihi tamen non mirabile. Imo cum Diodoro Siculo sentio, qui ipsam hanc scientiam caussam fuisse vult rerum ab eo praeclarissime gestarum. Philosophatus ille scilicet est, sed ἄνευ μαλακίας, ut Thycidides loquitur et approbat, sine mollitie aut desidia et habuit ad robur et ad prudentiam magistram. Sane Pythagoricis dogmatibus addictum maxime et Physicae scientiae fuisse idem Diodorus monet. Huius discipulus et alumnus Philippus Macedo, non Alexandri solum, sed et Magni pater. Ille, inquam, omnem hanc magnitudinem aut institutione aut

3–5 Cic. ac. 2.2 16–18 Plu. Sol. 26.1-2; Val. Max. 8.7.ext.14 Sol. 31.3; Val. Max. 8.7.ext.14 21–24 Val. Max. 8.7.ext.14 30–31 Th. 2.40.1 32–33 D.S. 15.39.2

258 258

19–20 Cic. Cato 26; Plu. 30–31 Lips. Admir. 4.10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 8 speak. Moreover, many prudent men, taught by experience, once used to write history and to insert short sentences and admonitions. And good God, how appropriate and salutary are those if a sound mind selects and collects them? But this is neither the place nor the proper time to sing the praises of history. I add that it is said about Lucius Lucullus, who defeated the very powerful kings Mithridates and Tigranes, that he had hardly any other experience of governing and fighting than what he had taken from history. That is why I would especially recommend history to the prince, but also the related subject of geography, and some geometry, and, further, especially philosophy, that is to say, ethics and physics. Those two should form his mind either to love and appreciation of virtue or to knowledge of heaven and earth, from which magnanimity springs, and at the same time modesty, by combining both. I do not insist (I have done so elsewhere), but I would, in passing, also recommend travel, which strongly enhances the understanding of one’s own state, as well as prudence. All of these I would recommend to the prince and even more, and more extensively, to those around him, who have more time and often more ability to become thoroughly acquainted with this sort of things. But come, let us illustrate and confirm this with examples, according to our plan. 1 May Solon of Athens be the one of them all to furnish an example on his own. In him nature, experience, and learning thrived. He was constantly occupied with the commonweal, but also travelled much and went around Egypt, Cyprus, and Asia, and all of that in order to learn. You see his experience, but what about his learning? The writings and poems which he left show us that. And he was so inflamed (that is how we should say it) by the desire for learning that in one of the poems he himself boasts that he grew old learning something new every day. Every day. Is that so? Even around the time of his very death. For when he was weak and his friends were sitting beside him, discussing something with one another, he lifted his head and turned it to listen. And when he was asked what the aim or point was in doing that at that time, he uttered the following noble words: So that I shall die a more learned man after having learnt this. What a desire! And what must it have been like in the prime of his life given the fact that he did this while dying? 2 But Epamindonas, though born “in thicker air”, studied so much literature and was so learned in philosophy, that it seemed strange, says Justin, how a man who was born Iust. 6.8.9 between books achieved such remarkable expertise in warfare. That does not seem strange to me at all, however. No, I agree with Diodorus Siculus, who thinks that this knowl- D.S. 15.39.2 edge caused his splendid deeds. He certainly applied himself to philosophy, but without softness or idleness, as Thucydides says and approves, and he used it as a guide to strength and prudence. Diodorus also informs us that he was truly devoted to the dogmas of Pythagoras and to physics. 3 His disciple and pupil was Philip of Macedon, the father not just of Alexander, but also of the Great. This man, I daresay, acquired all this greatness either from education or from resources and left it to his son, well equipped. The subjection of Greece, and

259 259

Liber i, Caput viii

IV

V

VI

VII

instrumento, et instructo reliquit. Graecia domita et firmus ille ordo militiae, veteranus miles, optimi Duces, haec omnia a Philippo fuerunt, et ipse Philippus ab Epaminonda et doctrina. Nam obses triennio Thebis habitus, in eius domo divertit, optimo magistro usus ad dicendum, sapiendum, faciendum. Ipse Alexander haud alia re mihi quidem magis laudabilis quam doctrinae studio videtur et moribus quos hausit a doctrina. Ii fuere Magnanimitas et Clementia. Sed a puero mitioribus artibus imbutus, mox in Ethicis et Politicis aliisque Philosophiae praeceptorem habuit Aristotelem. Quem virum? Ipsius Sapientiae prolem aut alumnum. Felix doctore, sed et felix ingenio. Cum non, ut plerique, leviter imbuit iis animum nec statim ut ad arma venit, artes fastidiit. Sed et doctos in contubernio suo habuit audivitque, et ipse, cum licuit, assidue legit. Idque Homerum maxime. Quem ita non amavit, sed coluit ut cum in Dariana praeda scrinium, gemmis et auro cultissimum, repertum esset, aliique alio destinarent, Imo, inquit, Homeri carminibus reservetur, quasi pulcherrimum opus pulcherrimo conditorio dignum esset. Sed et incubuisse et indormisse eum saepe Homeri libris traditur. Vel ex eo non vulgaris scientiae aut iudicii aestimandus qui altum et super omne vulgus poëtam aestimaret. Ultimus inter Graeca exempla Philopoemen esto. Quem ultimum Graecorum magna eius laude quispiam dixit. Is etsi in militiam studio et indole propenderet, tamen (ait Plutarchus) et Philosophorum praecepta ac monita legebat, sed non omnium; eorum dumtaxat e quibus progressum se ad Virtutem sperabat facturum. Habebat et hoc in ore: Doctrinam debere ad facta tendere, non otii aut inutilis loquacitatis caussa usurpari. Atque utinam hoc aliis, ut mihi, probet! Sed nos facere id decet, Principes debent. Ad Romanos transeo. Quorum conditores Romulus et Remus non tam rusticuli fuerunt quam vulgo eos faciunt. Si verum est quod Dionysius et Plutarchus tradiderunt, Gabiis in adolescentia liberalibus studiis operatos atque omni eorum liquore perfusos. Et sane facta atque ordo Romuli non olent barbariem; minus Numae, Servii aut Tarquinii regum. Etsi fateor iacuisse post aliquot aetatibus Romae Doctrinam; donec Graecia capta, ab hac caperentur. Longum sit omnes aut plures dicere. Marcus Cato Uticensis, pronepos illius qui Graecos et omne id genus pelli urbe volebat, ita studiis eorum se dedidit ut et in Senatu obiecta leviter toga libros legeret. Vir cuius nomen recte factum defendit, quidquid fecit.

2–4 D.S. 16.2.3 7–8 Plu. Alex. 7 12 Plu. Alex. 8.2 12–15 Plu. Alex. 26.1-2 15–16 Plu. Alex. 8.2 18–19 Plu. Phil. 1.4 20–21 Plu. Phil. 4.3 22–23 Plu. Phil. 4.4 25–31 Lips. Admir. 4.10 27–28 Plu. Rom. 6.1; D.H. 1.84.5 32 Plu. Cat. Ma. 22.4 32–33 Plu. Cat. Mi. 19.1

260 260

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 8

4

5

6

7

that strong and disciplined army, the veterans, the best leaders, all of that came from Philip, and Philip himself received it from Epaminondas and from learning. For when he was held as a hostage in Thebes for three years, he stayed at the house of Epaminondas and used this excellent teacher to learn to talk, to be wise, and to act. In my opinion, there seems to be nothing else for which Alexander himself has to be praised more than his application to learning and the moral traits which he drew from it. These were magnanimity and clemency. Imbued with the milder arts from his boyhood, he was soon instructed in ethics and politics and other philosophical disciplines by Aristotle. What a man! A child or pupil of wisdom itself. Alexander was fortunate to have such a teacher, but also to have such an intellect. Because he did not, as most people do, imbue his mind with them superficially, nor did he despise the arts as soon as he joined the army, but he had even learned men in his company and listened to them, and when he could, he read continuously. Especially Homer, whom he did not only love, but revere so much that, when in the booty taken from Darius a box was found, richly ornamented with precious stones and gold, and others intended it for other purposes, he said No, it should be reserved for Homer’s poems, as if a very beautiful work deserved a very beautiful repository. But he is also said to have frequently gone to bed and fallen asleep over Homer’s books. Even this example alone goes to prove that he should not be reckoned to have been a person of common knowledge or judgment, since he considered the poet to be highly elevated above all common people. Let Philopoemen be the last among the Greek examples. Someone spoke of him in high terms as the last Greek. Although by inclination and character he was disposed to military affairs, he still (says Plutarch) read the precepts and admonitions of the philosophers, but not of all of them; only of those whom he hoped would help him to make progress towards virtue. He also used to say that learning has to be aimed at action and should not be practised to pass the time or to engage in useless chatter. May he prove this to others, as he has proved it to me. But for us it is fitting to do that, whereas for princes it is necessary. I pass to the Romans. Their founders Romulus and Remus were not as boorish as they are commonly considered to have been, if what Dionysius and Plutarch have passed down is true, namely that in Gabii they devoted themselves to the liberal arts as adolescents and were completely permeated by their juice. And indeed, Romulus’ deeds and command do not smell of barbarity: even less did those of King Numa, Servius, or Tarquinius. Nonetheless I have to admit that for some time after that learning lay dormant in Rome until Greece had been conquered and the Romans were conquered by Greece. It would take long to mention all or several, but Marcus Cato of Utica, greatgrandson of him who wanted the Greeks and their whole race to be expelled from the city, devoted himself to studies of the Greeks so much that he even read books in the

261 261

Liber i, Caput viii VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

Quid Iulius Caesar, ille sic acer militiae et Martis vere pullus? Haud minus Musarum fuit. Scripta eius id docent, quorum pauca exstant pleraque perierunt. Quae inter ipsos rerum civilium aut militarium aestus iactationesque confecit. Nec in itinere quidem vacuus, sed amanuensem in vehiculo apud se habens dictansque aut legens. Itinere Hispaniensi spatio xxiv dierum sive, ut alii, septem poëma composuit, quod inscripsit Iter. In ipsa Hispania sub tempus Mundensis proelii (et quando umquam magis, non dicam occupatus, sed solicitus ?) libros duos de Analogia confecit et totidem Anticatones. Mirabitur qui brevitatem temporis et occupationes viri noverit, sed non mirabitur qui vigilantiam et instantiam quando pleraque haec et alia ipsis noctibus sub pellibus scribebat. Macte divini et indefessi simul ingenii vir! Cuius et hoc signum, quod sollenne tibi scribere et legere simul, dictare et audire (verba Plinii sunt), epistolas vero maximarum rerum quaternas pariter librariis dictare aut, si nihil aliud ageres, septenas. En aquilam! Et quis ad hoc aevi sublime sic volavit? Nec degeneravit ab eo Octavianus, iudicio filius, postea Augustus. Qui Eloquentiam et liberalia studia, ait Suetonius, ab aetate prima cupide et laboriosissime exercuit. Ipso Mutinensi bello in tanta mole rerum et legisse et scripsisse et declamasse cottidie legitur. Itaque opera pluscula scripsit, quaedam et versibus, a tempore tamen et eius invida falce praesecta. Nec in se modo eruditionem volebat, sed in Administris necessariam censebat. Adeo ut cuidam Legato Consulari, tamquam rudi et indocto, successorem dederit, cuius manu ixi pro ipsi scriptum animadverterat. Tiberius vero, vel ad culpam, utriusque linguae studiis artibusque se dedit. Affectabat enim et rara et obscura et quae pauci scirent, scire gloriabatur. Itaque adsidui in cohorte eius Graeculi, quos et praemiis honorabat et quaestionibus exercebat. Hic tamen est Tiberius, cui nemo in calliditate et firma regendi arte se componat. Non eo per Imperatores ceteros. Nam quis eorum non fere talis fuit? Usque adeo ut Marco Antonino Philosophi cognomen haeserit quod supra alios in eo studio deditus esset, Stoicam etiam sectam professus. Et quis tamen vita melior, imperio mitior aut felicior dabitur? Quid autem Christiani deinde nostri? De Theodosio Iuniore traditur eum historias Graecas Latinasque assidue evolvisse. Tam pertinaci in libris studio ut, cum diem militaribus aut civilibus occupationibus daret, noctem iis seponeret. Quin et candelabrum sibi strui adfabre curasse eo opificio ut oleum sponte ad

4–5 Plu. Caes. 17.4 5–8 Suet. Iul. 56.5 12–14 Plin. nat. 7.91 16–17 Suet. Aug. 84.1 17–18 Suet. Aug. 84.1 18–19 Suet. Aug. 85 20–22 Suet. Aug. 88.1 23–26 Suet. Tib. 56; 70 32–264,2 Soz. h. e. praef. 8

262 262

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 8

8

9

10

11

12

Senate, covering them slightly with his toga. A man whose name defended his actions as right, whatever he did. What about Julius Caesar, so passionate in warfare and truly a favourite of Mars? He was no less a favourite of the Muses. His writings, of which few survive and most have perished, prove that. He wrote them in the midst of the heat and agitation of civil and military affairs. Not even on the road was he idle: he brought a clerk with him in his carriage and was either dictating or reading. On a journey to Spain which took twenty-four or, according to others, twenty-seven days, he composed a poem which he entitled The journey. In Spain itself, around the time of the Battle of Munda (and when could he ever be more, I will not say occupied, but worried?), he composed two books on Analogy and as many orations Against Cato. It will surprise anyone who knows the brevity of time and the occupations of that man, but it will not surprise anyone who knows his wakefulness and perseverance, for he wrote most of these things and others in the middle of the night in the camp. Bravo, man of divine and at the same time indefatigable mind! This is also proved by the fact that you used to write and read at the same time, dictate and listen (these are the words of Pliny), and dictate four letters on highly important matters to your clerks simultaneously, or even seven, if you were not doing anything else. Look at that eagle! And who, to this day, has flown so high? And Octavian, his son by adoption, later called Augustus, did not degenerate from him. According to Suetonius he eagerly and with great application practised eloquence and the liberal arts from childhood. Even during the Battle of Mutina, he is said to have read, written, and practised speaking every day, while he was occupied with so many things. So he wrote fairly many works, some even in verse, but they were cut prematurely by time and its jealous sickle. He did not seek erudition only for himself, but also judged it necessary for his assistants. To such a degree that he replaced a consular governor, as being ignorant and uncultivated, because he had noticed that he had written IXI instead of IPSI. Tiberius devoted himself, even to the point of sinning, to the study and art of both languages. For he strove after the rare and obscure, and prided himself on knowing what few people knew. Thus there were always Greeks present in his retinue, whom he honoured with rewards and kept busy with questions. Nevertheless this is Tiberius, to whom no one could compare in shrewdness and firm governing skills. I will not go through the other emperors. For who of them was not more or less like him? To such an extent that Marcus [aurelius] Antoninus received the epithet Philosopher because he had devoted himself more than others to the study of philosophy and openly adhered to the Stoic school. And can you name someone whose life was better and whose rule was milder and happier? What about our Christian emperors after that? About Theodosius the Younger it is said that he was constantly reading Greek and Roman history. So tenacious was his application to reading, that while he was occupied with military and civil affairs during the day, he reserved the night for his books. He even had a lampstand constructed with such ingenious skill that the oil would fuel the wick by itself in a flow sufficient

263 263

Liber i, Caput viii

XIII

XIV

∞CCCXL

XV

lychnum perveniret ac suppeteret ne vel interpellaretur lectio vel ministri cum vigilante (o humanitas!) vigiles essent. Caroli Magni amorem et honorem in litteras multa loquuntur. Quid clarius quam, velut vexillo proposito, vocati undique viri docti Lutetiam, in castra quaedam litterarum! Felicia castra, quae tot praeclaros non milites, sed duces dedistis et datis in militia hac togata! Sed illud quoque in Paulum, Aquileiensis Ecclesiae Diaconum, eminet, genere nobilem, ingenio litterisque nobiliorem. His dotibus conciliatus olim Desiderio, Longobardorum regulo, dum fata erant. Postquam ea ad Carolum transissent, huic iisdem caussis carus et inter intimos familiares admissus. Sed Paulus veteris benivolentiae et aulae memor, consilia agitabat liberandi Desiderii et e finibus exsilii educendi. Quorum convictus, ipse in exsilium in Diomedis insulas seponitur. Sed nec illic fidei aut legum satis reverens, rupit transscenditque terminos et ad Ragaisum Beneventi Ducem confugit. Itaque proceres certatim accusant damnantque capitis duplicem perfidiam et in ipsum Ragaisum arma suadentur. Frustra, apud mitissimum et litterarum amantissimum regem. Quod solum nomen et titulus Paulum servavit ipsumque cum Paulo Ragaisum ei conciliavit. Impositum modo munus ut Historias a fine Eutropii scriberet, item seorsim Longobardica aliaque in profanis aut sacris. O dignum Principem, qui in digniorem haec conferret! Neque abnuo tenebras deinde fuisse et nescio quo malo fato barbariem. Praesertim in Principum aulis, et privatum modo bonum Doctrina censebatur. An addam et nunc censeri? Tamen, velut stellae, interluxerunt pauci. Ut Robertus, rex Neapolitanus, cui litterae et litterati percari fuerunt. Ille est qui Petrarcham, et poësi et seriis scriptis nobile ingenium, fovit; ille qui Boccatium in amoribus habuit. Quid ipsam doctrinam? Vox eius audita, Cariores sibi litteras regno esse. Desipuit an alte sapuit? Et quam similis vox et animus Alfonsi illius magni in eodem regno fuit? Neque enim semel edixit, Malle se omnium regnorum (septem ea numerabat) iacturam facere quam minimam doctrinae. Et sane amavit in se, in aliis. Et Laurentium Vallam, Antonium Panormitam, Bartholomaeum Faccium, Georgium Trapezuntium, Ioannem Aurispam, Iovianum Pontanum et examen deinde iuniorum huic regi debemus. Ille Athenaea in regnis passim, ille Bibliothecas instituit aut exornavit, nec gratius ei munus offerri poterat quam rarior aut electior liber. Quin ipsum Librum apertum pro insigni usurpabat, significans Scientiam Prin-

24–26 Collenut. Hist. 5 (1572: 215)

35–266,1 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 2.14

19–20 O...conferret deest A

264 264

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book 1, Chapter 8 to make sure that his reading would not be interrupted and his assistants would not have to be awake while he was – how kind! 13 Much is said about Charlemagne’s love of, and esteem for, letters. What illustrates this more clearly than the fact that, as if a banner had been raised before them, learned men were called from everywhere to Paris, as if to a camp of learning! And a fortunate camp too, which has produced and still produces so many very famous men, not soldiers, but leaders of this learned army! But this is also conspicuous in what happened to Paul, Deacon of the Church of Aquileia, a noble man by descent but even more noble by talent and learning. These gifts once won him the favour of Desiderius, King of the Lombards, as long as fate was on his side. After circumstances had changed in favour of Charles, he was dear to him for the same reasons and admitted amongst his most intimate friends. But mindful of the previous benevolence and court, Paul had plans to liberate Desiderius and to draw him out of the lands of his exile. Sentenced for these things, he was himself exiled to the Islands of Diomedes. But not even there did he respect good faith and laws adequately, but broke out, crossed the boundaries and fled to Arigiso, Duke of Benevento. So the nobles were eager to accuse him and sentence him to death for twofold treachery, and were urged to take up arms against Arigiso himself, but in vain on account of this very mild king who loved letters so much. Only this name and title saved Paul and reconciled Arigiso and Paul with the king. The latter only imposed the task of writing a History, beginning from the end of the history of Eutropius, as well as a separate History of the Lombards and other profane and sacred writings. How worthy this prince was to confer this on someone even worthier! 14 I do not deny that there was darkness after that, and barbarity caused by some bad fate. This was especially the case at princely courts, and learning was considered only a private good – or should I add: and still is? Nevertheless a few people twinkled now and then like stars. Such as Robert, King of Naples, who held letters and literate men 1340 very dear. It was he who supported Petrarch, a man with noble talent for poetry as well as for serious writings; it was he who loved Boccaccio. What about learning itself? He was heard to have said that letters were more precious to him than his kingdom. Was he silly or utterly wise? 15 And how similar were the words and mind of that great Alfonso, in the same kingdom? He said more than once that he preferred to lose all his kingdoms (he possessed seven of them), rather than lose the tiniest bit of learning. And he indeed loved learning, both in himself and in others: to this king we owe Lorenzo Valla, Antonio Il Panormita, Bartolomeo Facio, George of Trebizond, Giovanni Aurispa, Giovianni Pontano and a multitude of younger scholars after that. He founded or equipped schools and libraries all over his kingdoms, and he could not be offered a more pleasing present than a book which was quite rare or exquisite. He even had an open book as his emblem, indicating that learning drawn from books is appropriate for princes. And when he once heard that a Spanish king had said that letters were not suitable for princes, he replied angrily that

265 265

Liber i, Caput viii

XVI

XVII

cipibus convenire, ex iis haustam. Et cum aliquando audiret regem Hispanum dixisse, Non convenire Principibus litteras, stomachans subiecit, Bovis, non hominis vocem eam esse. Itaque legit assidue, Livium et Caesarem maxime. Nec dies fuit, ut familiares tradiderunt, quin his inversaretur. Idem, quod miremur, Annaei Senecae magnus amator. Adeo ut ipse suo Marte in Hispanicum sermonem Epistolas verterit usui suae gentis. Sed nec sacra lectione abstinebat gloriatusque est totum Vetus et Novum testamentum una cum Glossis decies et quater se perlegisse. Haec Rex, haec senex. Ubi privati et iuvenes estis? Senex, inquam. Nam vix ante quinquagesimum annum studia attigit, institutione eius in adolescente neglecta. Tunc Grammaticam opera Martini cuiusdam didicit. Quem ita carum deinceps habuit ut numquam a latere dimiserit. Videor non de Principe, sed litterione aliquo loqui. At ille etiam quantus vir belli domique fuit? Quam magnus, quam felix rebus gestis? Elogium ei demus. A Carolo Magno maiorem virtute et fortuna Principem Europa non habuit et (mentiri velim) non habebit. Addamus e Pannonia Matthiam Corvinum regem. Qui, clarissimo militari patre, Ioanne Hunniade, natus, nec in eo studio degener, Doctrinae istud adiunxit. Ferox ad id aevi ea natio et tota Martis cultum ingeniorum morumque a Matthia accepit. Et quis nescit regum exempla subditos aemulari? Itaque Italos Germanosque, siqui litterarum gloria clarerent, evocavit. Bibliothecam instituit in ipsa regia Budae, rarum thesaurum et quem cum dolore recordamur Barbaris cum ipsa Pannonia obvenisse. An et mulier his se inseret? Inseret merito Isabella, Ferdinandi Catholici regis uxor. Quae ad omnia alta nata et vere virilium curarum mulier etiam Doctrinam unice amavit. Delectatam semper constat (nescio qua inclinatione animi) ipso Latinae linguae pronunciatu et sono: nihil ut libentius audiret. Et mox respirans paullisper a gravissimis curis et bellis (revera enim particeps et thori et sceptri erat) respirans, inquam, statim se ad Grammaticum demisit eique annum ita assiduam operam dedit, ut Latina non solum capere, sed vertere ipsa in suum sermonem posset. Sacris etiam et divinis officiis cum interesset, lapsantes aut vel in sillaba peccantes sacrificos advertebat, sed et saepe admonebat.

1–3 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 1.12 3 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 1.8 | Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 2.13 4–6 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 3, proem. 6–8 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alph. 2.17 16–22 Jov. Elog. 3 (1596: 114) 23–32 Lips. Not. 2.17 25–32 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 21 (1533: 122v) 14–15 et2 ...habebit deest A

266 266

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book 1, Chapter 8 those were the words of an ox, not of a man. And so he read continuously, especially Livy and Caesar. No day went by, according to his friends, when he was not occupied with these writers. He was also a great lover of Annaeus Seneca, which we should admire, to such a degree that on his own he translated Seneca’s Letters into Spanish, for the use of his people. But he did not neglect reading of the sacred texts either and he prided himself on having read the whole Old and New Testament together with the Glosses fourteen times. And that for a king and for an old man. Where are you, citizens and young people? An old man, I say, because he barely took up studying before his fiftieth year, since his education had been neglected in his youth. Then he learnt grammar through a certain Martinus, who was so dear to him afterwards that he never let him leave his side. I seem to be talking about some scholar instead of a prince. But how great a man of war and peace was he! How great, how successful in his deeds! Let us give him a brief maxim. Europe has never had a prince of greater virtue and fortune since Charlemagne, and (I wish I was lying) never will. 16 Let us add King Matthias Corvinus from Hungary, who, born to a very famous military father, John Hunyadi, did not neglect military affairs, but joined them to learning. The nation, which had been uncultivated up to that time and completely dedicated to war, received cultivation of intellect and manners from Matthias. And who does not know that subjects try to emulate the examples of their kings? So he summoned every Italian and German who had any reputation for learning, founded a library at the court of Buda, a rare treasury, which we recall with pain to have fallen to the barbarians, together with Hungary itself. 17 Will not a woman join these, too? Isabella, wife of King Ferdinand the Catholic, will deservedly do so. Born to reach all high levels and truly a woman of manly concerns, she also loved learning to an extraordinary degree. It is well-known that she always took delight (I do not know by which inclination of the mind) even in the pronunciation and sound of the Latin language: there was nothing she enjoyed hearing more. And as soon as she relaxed briefly from her very serious concerns and wars (for in truth, she shared both the king’s bed and his sceptre), she immediately proceeded to a grammarian, and for one year she worked so assiduously for him, that she could not only understand Latin, but also personally translate it into her own language. When she attended sacred and divine services, she noticed when priests celebrating mass made mistakes or sinned, even if it was by no more than a syllable, and often she even admonished them.

267 267

Liber i, Caput viii XVIII

XIX

XX

XXI

Enimvero nec olim aut nunc Barbari (tam clara utilitas est) ab hoc cultu alieni. Testor Mithridatem, illum veterem Ponti regem, qui varie et in ipsa medicina doctus. Hoc praefert eximium, tenuisse vigintiduas linguas sic ut omnes subditos, quemque sua dialecto, prompte et scienter alloqueretur. Chosroes autem, Persarum rex, Iustiniano et Romanis per suas clades notus, et eloquentiam Graecam adamavit et Philosophiae ipsius non limen, sed adyta penetravit. Aristotelem totum percalluisse aiunt, Platonis lineas et numeros, sed et ipsa Graecorum opera in suam linguam multa transtulisse. Haec aiunt, et demus famam aliquid adstruere; vel conatum ista, nonne magnum in magnis istis regum? Mahumetes etiam Turca me tenet, Secundus eo nomine. Qui cognitionis illustrium virorum facinorumque maxime cupidus, Historias sibi verti in suum sermonem iussit, Graecas Romanasque, et ipsos viros depingi a Gentile Bellino, eleganti pictore, quem ad hanc operam a Venetis exambierat. His ille stimulis utinam ne ad tam alta et nobis tristia animum aemulatione erexisset! Carolum v de industria totum hoc agmen volo claudere et simul salutare monitum suggerere. Eum magnitudo statim rerum et imperii tenerum adhuc a studiis abduxit, etsi amorem tamen et reverentiam non excussit. Ac quondam cum Genuae oratorem aliquem audisset Latine dicentem nec plene satis cepisset, tristi et ingenuo ore confessum Paullus Iovius scribit (is arbiter coram et testis erat) confessum, inquam, Dare se nunc puerilis incuriae poenas et praesagum Hadrianum praeceptorem fuisse, qui hanc paenitentiam ei praedixisset. Credimus, optime Princeps. Et quam multi hodieque tecum, iam grandiores, id est sapientiores, dolent in hoc neglectu? Cogitent parentes, emendent filiorum et publico bono. Voveo.

2–4 Plin. nat. 25.5; Val. Max. 8.7.ext.16

5–8 Agath. 2.28

268 268

11–14 Jov. Elog. 3 (1596: 108)

5

10

15

20

25

Book 1, Chapter 8 18

But neither in the past nor in the present has the cultivation of learning been alien to barbarians (so clear is its utility). I call upon Mithridates, that ancient King of Pontus, as a witness. He was an expert in several domains, even in medicine. He displayed the extraordinary quality of knowing twenty-two languages, so that he could address all of his subjects readily and expertly in their own dialect. 19 And Khosrow, King of the Persians, known to Justinian and the Romans because of his defeats, loved Greek eloquence and did not just cross the threshold, but entered the innermost chamber of philosophy itself. They say that he knew the whole of Aristotle well, and the lines and numbers of Plato, and that he also translated many works by the Greeks into his own language. That is what they say, and let us admit that fame has added something to it; the simple fact that he tried – is that not a great deed among great deeds by kings? 20 Mehmed the Turk, the Second of that name, also holds my attention. Having a great desire to know about famous men and their deeds, he gave orders to have Greek and Roman histories translated for him into his own language and requested that those very men should be painted by Gentile Bellini, a fine artist, whom he had asked to come from Venice for this task. If only these things had not stimulated him to emulation aimed for such high and – to us – sad goals! 21 I deliberately want Charles V to close this whole troop and at the same time add a useful warning. The greatness of state affairs and of his empire instantly took him away from studies as a young boy, although it did not shake off his love of, and respect for, them. And Paolo Giovio (he was with him and an eye-witness) writes that once in Genua, when Charles heard an orator speaking Latin, and he did not fully understand, he confessed sadly and honestly that he was now being punished for his youthful negligence, and that his teacher Hadrian had been right, who had predicted these regrets. We believe you, dear prince. And how many people, also today, who are even greater, that is to say wiser, regret this negligence, together with you? Let parents think about this and correct it, for the sake of their sons and the common good. That is my wish.

269 269

IUSTI LIPSI MONITA ET EXEMPLA POLITICA LIBER SECUNDUS

270 270

JUSTUS LIPSIUS’ POLITICAL ADMONITIONS AND EXAMPLES BOOK 2

271 271

Caput primum DE PRINCIPATU. Eum praeferendum aliis imperiis videri. Quae adhuc dixi, etsi ad Principem aptavi, communia cum aliis sunt et in omni imperio adhibenda. Hunc formare magis et propius dirigere incipiam, si 5 tamen prius breviter adstruxero eum et laudaro. Nam ambigere multos et disseri varie de optima Imperii forma olim et nunc scitum est. At nos istum praeferimus, et caussas distincte et velut per titulos libabo. Primo, quia liquet

Monitum i: Antiquissimum hunc esse.

Epist. XCI I De Clement. Epist. XCI

Homines autem primi et origini suae, id est Deo proximi, malis artibus fraudibusque nondum corrupti, censendi sunt optima elegisse; elegerunt Principatum. In familiis, quod primum imperium, unus fuit. Plures deinde familiae cognationibus iunctae unum habuerunt. Et ex istis societates, conventus, opida; unum. Donec magna imperia nata, et oppressio coepit ab ambitione exorta, et sic quoque fere unus. Seneca verissime: Primi mortalium quique ex his geniti Naturam incorrupti sequebantur eumdem habebant et Ducem et Legem, commissi melioris arbitrio. Itaque idem alibi: Natura commenta est regem. Quod et ex aliis animalibus licet cognoscere et ex apibus, quarum regi amplissimum cubile est medioque et tutissimo loco. Sed quibus aliis animalibus? In parte alibi explicat: Mutis gregibus aut maxima corpora praesunt aut vehementissima. Non praecedit armenta degener taurus; elephantorum gregem excelsissimus ducit. Idem in ovibus, in avibus et alio genere congregum animantium est videre. Est igitur antiquissimus, et Sacrae etiam nostrae litterae ostendunt. In quibus a condito orbe ad diluvium moderatum in familiis imperium fuit. A Diluvio ambitio miscuit, et Nimrodus, Noachi pronepos, imperium in Assyria et finitimis invasit. Hic est quem profanae litterae (ad primorem sillabam allusione) Ninum appellant. Sed addo etiam

272 272

10

15

20

25

Chapter 1 ON MONARCHY. It is seen to be preferable to other constitutions. What I have said thus far, although I adapted it to the prince or monarch, is common to others, too, and should be applied in every government. I will now start shaping and guiding the prince or monarch more specifically, but only once I have first briefly equipped and praised him. For it is known that many people debate and argue differently about the best form of government in the past and the present. But we prefer a monarch and I will single out the reasons clearly and by means of headings. Firstly, because it is clear that

Admonition 1: Monarchy is the oldest constitution. The first people, who were closest to their origin, that is to say, God, and not yet corrupted by bad habits and deceit, should be judged to have chosen the best; and they chose monarchy. In families, which formed the first government, there was one leader. Then more families which were connected by birth had one leader. And from them grew communities, congregations, and towns; and they had one leader. Until great empires originated and oppression began, brought forth by ambition, and then again, for the most part, one person was in charge. Seneca says, very correctly: The Sen. epist. 90.4 first mortal people and those who were born to them, still uncorrupted, followed nature, having both the same leader and the same law, entrusting themselves to the power of the better person. And elsewhere the same author says: Nature invented the king. This can also be learnt from Sen. clem. 1.19.2 other animals, for example from bees: their king has the widest chamber, in the middle, which is the safest place. But from which other animals? He partly explains elsewhere: either the Sen. epist. 90.4 biggest or the most forceful bodies preside over herds of dumb creatures. A degenerate bull does not lead the way for a herd of cattle; a herd of elephants is led by the tallest one. This can also be seen in sheep, birds, and other types of herd animals. Thus it is the oldest constitution, as is, moreover, proven by our Holy Writ. In it, from the creation of the world until the Flood, families had a moderate supreme command. After the Flood ambition became involved, and Nimrod, great-grandson of Noah, seized supreme power in Assyria and its neighbouring countries. It is he who is called Ninus in profane literature (in allusion to the first syllable). But I also add that

273 273

Liber ii, Caput i

Monitum ii: Communissimum hunc esse. I Reg. cap. VIII Lib. I

Neque olim tantum, sed et nunc plurimo orbis sic notari. Olim quidem Sacra dicunt. Ubi Iudaei regem poscentes sic audiuntur: Constitue nobis regem, sicut et Universae habent nationes. Sed et in Italia primi illi Romani (apud Livium) in variis voluntatibus, regem tamen omnes volebant. Etsi postea mutarunt et ad Opti- 5 matium statum iverunt. Quid ita? Naturali hac saepe mutatione ut a rege in tyrannum, a tyranno ad optimates aut populum Respublica eat iterumque ab istis ad tyrannum et regem. Fastidio et odio hoc fit, non Principatus, sed Principis alicuius male eo usi. Ceterum et vetus hic orbis Principes fere ubique habuit in Asia, Africa, Europa (pauca loca neque diu excipias), et novus 10 item repertus sic est aut fuit. Argumentum optimum usu et ratione esse quod tam diu et tam multis placuit atque, ut dixi, ab ipsa natura. Sane rationem si excutimus, eam videbis hinc stare ab his caussis. Primo dicimus

Monitum iii: Iustitiam magis in eo exerceri.

* Vide hoc libro, cap. XI

At Iustitiae fruendae caussa Imperia primum sunt reperta. Ea igitur magis in 15 Principatu floret vigetque. Nec sunt noxae aut corruptelae, quae in aliis illis formis. Vide. Rex aut ipse ius dicit (olim et *nuper etiam factum) aut qui dicant, eligit et designat. Si ipse, supra metum aut gratiam est, magis avaritiam et nihil istis quae praestringere oculos iudicantium solent, donat. Si alii, sunt tamen ab ipso. Et cura eligit et electis iam superest et intendit. Non sunt iis sic 20 libera iudicia ut non iudicium huius metuant et, siquid foedius patrent, poenam. In alio statu quid simile? Si ad Optimates is, factio et agnati et amici occurrent et alternis inter se ius aut iniuriam gratificantes. Si ad Populum, magis peccabitur, et ira aut affectu damnatos passim videbis aut dimissos. Ad Athenienses aut Romanos leviter transi: ostracismi optimorum sunt et exsilia 25 et mulctae. Contra, pessimis honores habiti et iudiciis per vim et manum etiam erepti. Quid de corruptelis dicam? Hic regnant. Secundo,

274 274

Book i1, Chapter 1

Admonition 2: Monarchy is the most common constitution. And that it is so, not only in the past, but also in the present, is noted in most parts of the world. That it was so in the past is said in the Holy Writ, where the Jews are heard asking for a king in this way: Appoint a king for us, such as all nations have. But 1 Reg. 8.5 also in Italy the first Romans (according to Livy), although they had different wishes, all Liv. 1.17.3 wanted a king, even though they changed later and evolved into an aristocracy. Why so? Because of this, often natural, change by which a commonweal goes from a king to a tyrant, from a tyrant to an aristocracy or the people, and from them again to a tyrant and a king. This happens because of contempt and hatred, not for monarchy, but for a certain monarch who has misused it. Besides, not only our old world had monarchs nearly everywhere in Asia, Africa, and Europe (you could make an exception only for a few places, and not for long), but also the New World is found to be, or to have been, such. The fact that it has pleased so many for so long and that, as I said, it stems from nature itself proves that it is the best form of government according to experience and reason. Indeed, if we examine reason, you will see that it is on our side for the following reasons. In the first place we say that

Admonition 3: Justice is practised more in a monarchy. Supreme governments were first invented in order to be able to enjoy justice. Therefore justice flourishes and thrives better in a monarchy. There is no crime or corruption as in those other forms of government. Behold. The king either administers justice personally (this was done in the past, and also recently*) or he chooses and *See Chapter 11 appoints people to do it. If he does it personally, he is above fear or favour, and even in this book more above greed, and he condones nothing in those things which usually blind the eyes of judges. If others do it, they still act on his orders and he chooses them with care, and still assists and turns his attention to the people he has chosen. They are not so free to judge that they do not fear his judgment and, if they do something dishonourable, his punishment. Is there anything similar in other constitutions? If you look at aristocracy, the parties, relations and friends will come up and do one another justice or injustice in turns. If you look at democracy, there will be more offences, and everywhere you will see people who have been condemned or acquitted out of anger or sympathy. Take a quick glance at the Athenians or Romans: the best people are ostracised, banished, and fined. Conversely, honours are paid to the worst people, who are also snatched away from the courts through violence. What shall I say about corruption? It rules here. In the second place, that

275 275

Liber ii, Caput i

Monitum iv: Tranquillitatem et concordiam coli.

I Annal.

Quod optimum aut optatissimum in Societate est vivere quietos, a vi et iniuria tutos. Metus vel auctoritas hoc facit Principis. Quem unum omnes respiciunt, qui unus omnia potest et ius vitae necisque habet. Itaque merito animi magis domiti et fracti sunt, et colla ad iugum inclinant. Non sic inter plures domi- 5 nos, quorum potentia sparsa est et ideo minor, ut flumen in plures rivos diductum. Alius alium respicit; patronum contra hunc aut illum habet, et addo quod nec coërcitio severa aut libera. Quia in suffragiis aut comitiis popularium opera egent. Itaque connivent et indulgent, gratiam singulorum quaerunt. Ita minuitur Auctoritas et, quod sequitur, Reverentia aut metus, vinculum obe- 10 dientiae et quietis. Parte altera minus tranquilli quia ad rempublicam saepe avocantur. Sunt comitia, sunt leges, et suffragia sua habent. In iis deinde ambitio et factio intervenit. Quid praeterea? Seditio saepe et turbae atque etiam pugnae. Ut mare raro quietum est, ventos plurimum et saepe procellas habet, sic respublica ubi comitiorum potestas. Noster Tacitus rem tetigit: Suspectum 15 Senatus Populique imperium ob Certamina potentium et Avaritiam magistratuum. En duas assiduas ibi Pestes: Certamina et factiones et exitum sive exitium, Civilia deinde bella; Avaritiam, et sunt nundinationes, rapinae, corruptelae in magistratibus, in provinciis, in iudiciis. Tertio et universe dico

Monitum v: Modum regendi meliorem tutioremque esse.

20

Princeps diutius imperat, unus et idem semper manet. Itaque et discit magis assiduo ipso usu et rem etiam, ut propriam, cordi habet. Aliter in magistratibus qui mutantur. Sunt fere annui, id est, abeunt imperio cum discere imperare coeperunt. Sed neque intentio eadem aut cura est in brevi et alieno imperio. Tradunt enim ignotis aut invisis saepe successoribus. Satis habent quomodo- 25 cumque defungi, in posterum securitate. At Princeps non se solum cogitat, sed heredes. Deinde, arcana consilia aut litterae saepe interveniunt in gubernando: cum vicinis Principibus consilia aut pactiones, quas nolint intempestive vulgari. Quod secretum hic inter plures erit? Quis libere accedet aut tuto credet? Haec in Principatu cessant. Et aut unus ipse tractat aut fidi ministrorum 30 quibus committit. Quid etiam de secreta corruptela dicam, crebra inter plures?

276 276

Book i1, Chapter 1

Admonition 4: Tranquillity and concord are cultivated. And it is the best and most desirable thing in a community to live quietly, protected from violence and injustice. Fear of the prince or his authority assures this. He is the only one whom everyone looks up to, he is the only one who can do everything and pass judgment on life and death. And so their minds are rightly more tamed and subdued, and they bend their necks to the yoke. This is not the case when there are several masters, whose power is dispersed and therefore more limited, like a river which is divided into several rivulets. One looks up to this master, another to that master. One has a patron against the one or the other, and I add that there is no restraint, whether strict or loose. For during elections and assemblies, they need the help of the people’s party. Hence they connive and concede and seek the favour of individuals. In this way their authority is weakened, as is, as a consequence, deference or fear, which is the bond of obedience and tranquillity. On the other hand, they are less peaceful, as they are often called away to deal with public affairs. There are assemblies, there are bills, and they all have their own votes. Then, in those, ambition and faction intervene. And what further? Often insurrection, turmoil, and even fights. Just as a sea is rarely calm but is mostly shaken by winds and often by storms, so is a commonweal where assemblies have the power. Our Tacitus hit the nail on the head: the government of the Senate and People is suspect because of rivalry among the powerful and Tac. ann. 1.2.2 greed among the magistrates. Look at the two constant plagues there: rivalry and faction, and death or destruction and afterwards civil war, and greed, causing bartering, robbery, and corruption in civil offices, provinces, and courts. In the third place, and in general, I say that

Admonition 5: Monarchy is the best and safest form of government. A monarch rules for a longer time and always remains one and the same. Thus he also learns more from continuous practice and cares about the kingdom as his own. That is different in magistrates who are replaced. They are replaced nearly every year, that is to say, they step out of power when they have begun to learn how to rule. Nor does one put the same effort or care into a brief rule which is not one’s own. For they pass it on to unknown, or often hated, successors. They think it is sufficient if they discharge themselves of it in any way whatever, unconcerned about the future. But a prince does not think only of himself, but also of his heirs. Next, government often involves secret plans or letters, such as plans or pacts with neighbouring princes, which they would not want to be divulged at an untimely moment. What secret will there be here among several leaders? Who will approach them freely or trust them safely? This does not happen in a monarchy, in which these matters are handled either by one person, personally or by the faithful servants who he has entrusted with them. What shall I say about secret corruption, which is frequent when there are more

277 277

Liber ii, Caput i

Unus aliquis emi contra rempublicam potest et sana consilia aut evertere aut impedire. Athenis suis quam hoc factum Demosthenes conqueritur a callido Philippo! Et hunc esse scopulum (ita loquitur) ad quem res adhaerescant. Quid Romae? Idem: et Tribunus aliquis emptus res turbabat et hunc aut illum super capita civium imponebat. Poëta ingeniose, 5 Mutatusque fuit momentum Curio rerum. Ita. Unus Curio a Caesare corruptus Caesarem Pompeio antetulit, reipublicae et libertati finem dedit. Quarto denique dicimus

Monitum vi: Maxime hanc imperii formam diurnare. An non faciat cum a Natura maxime et Ratione sit? Deus favet et tutor est. Unus ille rector unius. Vide Status alios: pauci aevum tulerunt, quantumvis legibus bonis et institutis. Excipio parvas quasdam respublicas et validiorum tuitione aut amicitia firmas. Sparta, qua nihil videbatur moribus aut viris melius, vix quingentos annos tenuit libertatem. Athenae saepe mutarunt et oppressae iterum caput extulerunt, sed turbidae semper et in metu aut potentioribus obnoxiae. Roma quadringentos paullo plus annos liberum illum statum servavit. Quid ista ad Principatus? Ille Assyriorum, ut a vetustissimo ordiar, mille ducentos quadraginta annos stetit sive, ut alii, largius, mille trecentos. Ita enim vel Historici vel Chronici scriptores consensu tradiderunt, nec Appiano ubi mens fuerit ego scio. Qui initio operis scribit nec Assyriorum, Medorum, Persarum tria regna simul congesta aequare illud spatium aevi potuisse quod in Romano imperio ad suum tempus esset. Profecto fallitur, nec excuses. Nam a Roma condita ad Hadriani aevum nongenti circiter anni sunt, et sic ipse supputat. Quanto plures, ut dixi, in solis Assyriis? Iam Medi ducentos sexaginta fere annos vindicant. Persae ducentos triginta tres. Quamquam de Persis mirum et notabile haud diu ab Alexandro iterum revixisse et vires regnumque recepisse duce Arsace quodam (unde Arsacidae) sub bellum Punicum primum sive annum urbis diii. Sed quia tamen initium asserendi a Parthis fuit, inde Romani atque alii Parthorum hoc regnum appellarunt. Revera tamen in iisdem fere

6 Lucan. 4.819

20–22 App. praef. 34

22 ad...tempus B : ad suum illud tempus A

278 278

10

15

20

25

Book i1, Chapter 1 leaders? One person can be bought over against the commonweal and overthrow or thwart sound plans. How strongly did Demosthenes complain that this was done in his city of Athens by the shrewd Philip? And this is the rock to which affairs may cling, he says. What happened in Rome? The same thing: some corrupted tribune upset everything and imposed one man or another over the heads of the citizens. The poet said ingeniously, and Curio changed, turning with his change the scales of human things. That is how it is. One person, Curio, corrupted by Caesar, put Caesar before Pompey and put an end to the republic and to liberty. In the fourth and final place we say that

Admonition 6: This form of government is the longest-lasting. Why would it not be so, since it comes from nature, in especial, and reason? God favours and protects it. He is a monarch and leader of a monarchy. Look at other constitutions; few have lasted for even a century, however great their amount of good laws and institutions. I make an exception for some smaller republics which were strong through the protection and friendship of mightier ones. Sparta, a city which seemed to excel as far as morals or manpower were concerned, could hardly preserve its liberty for five hundred years. Athens often changed and, having been oppressed, raised its head again, but was always troubled and in fear, or subject to more powerful states. Rome preserved its republic for little more than four hundred years. What are those compared to monarchies? That of the Assyrians, to start with the oldest one, stood for one thousand two hundred and forty years or, according to others, even longer, namely one thousand three hundred. For that is how it is transmitted unanimously by historians and chroniclers. And I do not know where Appian’s thoughts were, when he wrote in the opening lines of his work that not even the three kingdoms of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians taken together could equal the age which the Roman Empire had reached to his day. He is certainly mistaken, and you should not excuse him. For from the foundation of Rome until Hadrian’s time there were about nine hundred years, and he himself computes it to be so. But how many more were there, as I said, in the Kingdom of the Assyrians alone? The Medes now claim nearly two hundred and sixty years, the Persians two hundred and thirty-three. Although concerning the Persians, it is wonderful and remarkable that they revived again not long after Alexander and regained their power and kingdom under the leadership of a certain Arsaces (hence the Arsacid Dynasty) during the First Punic war or the year 503 after the founding of the City. But since the liberation was initiated by the Parthians, the Romans and others therefore called it

279 279

Liber ii, Caput i

gentibus et finibus mansitque ad Alexandrum, Mammaeae filium, per annos circiter cccclxxx. Tum iterum nomen Persarum surrexit duce Artaxerxe quodam, qui Artabanum demovit et sustulit, ultimum Parthorum Regum. Exinde autem ad hoc aevi (diuturnitatem agnosce et mirare) Persae vivunt et regnant, etsi graviter ab Heraclio Imperatore contusi, postea a Tamer-lanco, nuper ab utroque Selymo Turcarum, avo et nepote. Sed vivunt. Quid de Aegyptiorum olim regibus dicam? Millia plura annorum numerant ad ultimam Cleopatram. Quid hodie de Sinarum? Iidem millia et a Vitaeo, qui primus fuit, ad Bonogum, qui nuper imperitabat, reges in serie continua habent ducentos quadraginta tres. Rarum exemplum neque in nostra Europa reperiendum. Tamen et in ea Principatus longaevi. Gallorum regnum potens et florens a Faramundo, primo rege, usque ad Henricum iv, qui nunc feliciter regnat, computat sexaginta tres reges idque per annos ∞cxc. At in Hispania Gothorum reges ab anno Christi cccviii ad Rodericum et Maurorum invasionem numerantur triginta novem. Et sanguis quidem ille, sed non regnum defecit, suscepitque Pelagius anno Christi dccxvii, a quo perpetua serie nec interrupta ad Philippum hunc iii sunt reges quadraginta octo. Alia exempla in minoribus Principibus liceat dicere. Omitto, sicut et Respublicas minores. Sola Veneta est quae aevum millenarium iactet. Felix fati, sed et legum atque institutorum felix, quibus velut vinculis firmata est adhuc contra lapsum. Maneat, floreat, favemus et vovemus.

280 280

5

10

15

20

Book i1, Chapter 1 the Parthian Kingdom. Yet in truth the peoples and borders remained almost the same, and that until the time of Alexander, son of Mamaea, for about four hundred and eighty years. Then the name of the Persians arose again, under the command of a certain Artaxerxes, who deposed and killed Artabanus, the last King of the Parthians. From then until these days (acknowledge and admire the long duration) the Persians have been living and ruling, although badly beaten by Emperor Heraclius, afterwards by Tamerlane, and recently by both Turkish Emperors Selim, grandfather and grandson. But they still exist. What shall I say about the Egyptian kings of olden days? They count many thousands of years until their last queen, Cleopatra. What about the Chinese kings nowadays? They also count many thousands of years and from Vitaeus, who was the first king, until Bonogus, who ruled recently, they have had two hundred and forty-three kings in a continuous series – a rare example, which cannot be found in our Europe. Nevertheless there are examples of long-lasting monarchies here, too. The powerful and prosperous Kingdom of France counts sixty-three kings from Pharamond, the first king, until Henry IV, who is now ruling happily, and that in a period of one thousand one hundred and ninety years. And in Spain from the year 308 of our Lord until Roderick and the invasion of the Moors thirty-nine kings of the Goths can be counted. And even though the family came to an end, the kingdom did not but was taken up by Pelayo in the year 717 of our Lord. From him there have been forty-eight kings in a perpetual and uninterrupted series until the present Philip III. Other examples can be given in lesser princes, but I omit them, just like the smaller republics. Only the Republic of Venice could boast of a history of one thousand years. It is happy in its fate, but also in its laws and institutions, which thus far have, as it were, chained it and so secured it against falling. We are well disposed towards it and wish that it may remain and flourish.

281 281

Caput ii In eo Viros Faeminis praeferendos, et has vix feliciter imperare. Principatus igitur optimus, et cum Solone, Ευδαῖμον πτολίεθρον ἑνὸς κήρυκος ἄκουον Felix urbs quae iussa unius Principis audit. Sed quis ille Princeps esse debet? Unius et melioris an et alterius sexus? Utrimque argumenta et exempla sunt, sed magis pro nobis. Vir ad virtutem, ad regimen natus: animo, corpore, voce, visu robustior, et quem magis vereare aut venerere. In faemina omnia levia, mollia. Quae amorem, non reverentiam creent. A natura ipsa timidae magis sunt quam timendae. Non igitur hic Auctoritas. Iam in viro prudentia et constantia; in illis calliditas aut argutiae, imbecillitas deinde iudicii et in decretis sensibusque Euripus: septies in die mutant. Raro etiam altum aut honestum spirant. Sunt in vanis aut vilibus curis. Non ergo ad sceptrum et publicum decus idoneae. Duae etiam virtutes Principum primae, Iustitia et Fides, firmiter vix sunt in istis. Non prior quia inclinant facile et miserantur: facillime et gratiae aut affectui obsecundant. Non altera quia mobiles ingenio sunt et mutant ut ventus. Ne Clementia quidem sit quae putetur, et benignior ille vultus, nescio quomodo, saevum saepe animum et vindicem celat. Quid de lascivia aut luxu dicam? Utrique vitio opportunas scimus et pudorem atque opes prodigere, praesertim cum sui iuris ac spontis fraenum non habent quod adstringat. O quale regnum ubi Cleopatra aliqua, Messallina aut Ioanna Neapolitana imperat? Neque sine caussa Sacrae litterae inter pessima comminantur faeminarum imperiis subiectum iri. Sed parte tamen altera exempla nos redarguant itemque instituta gentium. Nam et alibi succedunt in regna et feliciter atque industrie administrarunt. Cui rei utrique lubet Exempla ex Historiis dare. Ac primum

5

10

15

20

25

Muliebris imperii infelicis. I

Laodice Ariarathis, Cappadocum regis, cum marito mortuo in regni administratione esset, quas clades in media pace dedit? Saeviit passim in proceres et in vulgus: parum est. Saeviit in liberos et suum sanguinem, et (o sancta pietas!) 30

4 Plu. Mor. 152C

23 Is. 3.12

28–284,5 Iust. 37.1.4-5

282 282

Chapter 2 In monarchy men are to be preferred to women, and women hardly ever rule successfully. So monarchy is the best, and in the words of Solon: Blessed the city that hears the commands of one prince. But who should that prince be? Should it be someone of one sex, the better one, or also of the opposite sex? There are arguments and examples in favour of both, but more in favour of us. Men are born to virtue and government. Their mind, body, voice, and appearance are stronger, so that you respect or revere them more. In women everything is light and soft, which inspires love, not reverence. They are naturally more fearful than fearsome, so they do not possess authority. Now, in a man there is prudence and constancy, in women shrewdness or slyness; furthermore they are incapable of sound judgment and are like Euripus in their decisions and feelings: they change seven times a day. They also rarely aspire to anything high or honourable. They worry about vain or vile matters. Therefore they are not suitable for the sceptre and for public dignity. Also, the two most important virtues of princes, namely justice and faithfulness, hardly obtain a firm footing in women. The first virtue does not since women easily bend and take pity. They also very easily give in to favour and emotions. The second virtue does not since their mind is inconstant and they turn like the wind. Not even clemency would be what it is supposed to be, and that rather friendly face, I do not know how, hides a mind which is often savage and vindictive. What shall I say about their licentiousness or luxuriousness? We know that they are liable to both vices and that they waste their sense of shame and their money, especially when, being their own master, they have no bridle to curb them. Oh, what kind of kingdom is that where some sort of Cleopatra, Messalina, or Joan of Naples rules? Not without reason the Holy Writ threatens among the worst things to be subjected to female rule. Still, on the other hand, examples could contradict us and so could customs among the peoples. For elsewhere they do succeed to the throne and rule successfully and diligently. I would like to give examples from history of both cases, and first of

Unsuccessful female rule. 1 What massacres did Laodice cause in the middle of peacetime when she was in charge of the kingdom after the death of her husband Ariarathes, King of the Cappadocians? That she raged against the nobles and the common people indiscriminately is not enough: she raged against her children and her own blood, and killed six of her own

283 283

Liber ii, Caput ii

II

III

sex ex se natos veneno omnes sustulit. Qua caussa? Tantum ut diuturnior in imperio esset. Unus parvulus fato evasit Medeam illam. Quem populus mox ad regnum sustulit, illa prius communibus votis et suffragiis exstincta. Sed quid? Una et simplici morte exstincta quae toties paricida, tot culleos meruisset. Tale olim et vetustius in Sacris litteris malum nomen Athalia, quae Iosepho est Gotholia. Ea, cum filius Ochozias per insidias interfectus esset, invasit ipsa regnum et nepotes ex eo et totum semen regium sustulit. Connivente in sex annos divina Nemesi donec Ioas, a muliercula caedi subductus et servatus et iam adultior, regnum et tot agnatos vindicavit, bellua illa occisa. Nam quid faeminam dicam supra omnes feras immanem et saevam? Tragicum aulaeum complicemus, scaenicum siparium aperiamus et lasciviam pro saevitia magis demus. Cleopatra in theatrum veniat, a parvula ad nequitias, libidines et luxum facta. Tirocinium fuit in Iulio Caesare. Qui cum Alexandriae obsideretur, illa, velut fati praesaga, fratrem Ptolomaeum et potiores (uti videbantur) partes deseruit, ad Caesarem translata. Vere, inquam, translata. Nam et hunc astum ad fallendum et tuto transeundum cogitavit. Portae servabantur atque exitus. Illa Apollodorum quemdam inducit culcita se involvere et adstringere, ut sarcinam, ac sic in regiam, ubi Caesar, deferre. Factum est. Deponitur ante pedes eius et ecce soluta emergit Venus, non e mari, sed e culcita. Et culcitellam mox se Caesari substernit. Nam ille, etsi in medio actu et aestu etiam rerum, tamen et ingenio illo et mox forma ac lepore captus, adamavit. Et pretium libidinum adolescentula necem fratris et regnum Aegypti tulit. Hoc, ut dixi, tirocinium fuit. Fallor? An virgineam praetextam iam in amoribus Gnaei Pompei filii paulloante posuerat? Quod credere nos Plutarchus, bonus auctor, iubet. Credo tum cum missus ille a patre in Aegyptum ad arcessendam classem et auxilia fuit. Sed haec puella peccavit. Quid iam mulier? Flagitia cum aetate magis adulta. Post pugnam illam Philippensem Marcus Antonius et Octavianus partiti inter se sunt operas: ut alter in Italiam rediret et veteranos in agris disponeret, alter in Asiam et Orientem iret pecuniae undique corrogandae. Marco Antonio istud evenit. Qui dum reges, tetrarchas, urbes, omnia excutit et colligit, visum et de Aegypto cogitare, illa divite et quae offendisse videbatur, non semel auxiliis adversae parti submissis. Nam ipsa Cleopatra Cassio suppetiata dicebatur. Itaque, etsi succinctus iam ad Parthicum

6–11 2 Par. 22; 2 Reg. 11; J. AJ 9.140-156 25-27

18–24 Plu. Caes. 49.1-3

284 284

24–286,25 Plu. Ant.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 2 children (oh, holy piety!), all of them with poison. And why? Only in order to remain in power for a longer time. One little boy escaped this Medea through fate. The people soon made him king, having killed her after a unanimous decision by vote. But how? She, who killed so many relatives and would have deserved to be drowned as many times in as many bags, was killed with one simple death. 2 A similar bad name, and an even older one, is found in the Holy Writ: Athalia, whom Josephus calls Gotholia. When her son Ochozias was killed insidiously, she personally seized the kingdom and murdered the grandsons stemming from him and the entire royal offspring. Divine Nemesis left the crime unpunished for six years until Joash, who had been taken away from the massacre and kept safe by a woman and had grown up by then, claimed the kingdom and took revenge for all those relatives by killing that monster. For what should I call a woman who was more monstrous and savage than all wild animals? 3 Let us close the tragic curtain and open the comic one, and let us provide licentiousness rather than cruelty. Let Cleopatra enter the stage, who from her childhood was made for profligacy, lust, and luxury. She began her practice with Julius Caesar. When he was besieged in Alexandria, she, as it were, foretelling the future, deserted her brother Ptolemy and the strongest side (as it seemed), and was carried to Caesar. Literally carried, I mean. For she also devised this stratagem to deceive and to go over safely. The gates and exits were guarded, so she persuaded a certain Apollodorus to wrap her up in a mattress and tie it together like a package and take her away like that to the court, where Caesar was. That is what happened and she was put down in front of his feet. And behold, untied, she emerged like Venus, not out of the sea, but out of a mattress. And like a little mattress she immediately spread herself underneath Caesar. For although he was in the middle of action and in the heat of matters, he nevertheless loved her madly, captured by her intelligence and soon also by her beauty and charm. And as the price for her lust, this half-grown girl received the death of her brother and the Kingdom of Egypt. This, as I said, was just the beginning. Or am I mistaken, and had she already lost her virginity in a love affair with Gnaeus Pompeius’ son shortly before? That is what Plutarch, a good writer, wants us to believe. I believe that it happened when he was sent to Egypt by his father to recruit a fleet and auxiliary troops. But the girl sinned in this way – what about the woman? Her shameful acts increased with her age. After the famous battle of Philippi, Mark Antony and Octavian divided the work between themselves: while one of them would return to Italy and place the veterans on different plots of land, the other would go to Asia and the East to collect money everywhere, a task which fell to Mark Antony. While he was stripping kings, tetrarchs, cities, et cetera, and bringing them together under his yoke, he decided to think about Egypt as well, that rich country which seemed to have given offence by having sent auxiliary troops to the opposite side more than once. For Cleopatra herself was said to have come to the aid of Cassius. So although he was already prepared for war with the Parthians, he nevertheless sent Senator Quin-

285 285

Liber ii, Caput ii

IV

bellum, tamen Quintum Dellium Senatorem ad eam mittit et questum simul et denunciatum uti in Ciliciam sibi occurreret ad dicendam caussam. Ah miser! Ad caussae dictionem evocas tuam mox dominam et arbitram et apud quam fatalem servies servitutem! Dellius venit, faeminam videt et homo sagax quid futurum praevidet. Quippe et huius Veneres et simul obnoxium talibus Antonium norat. Itaque captare iamnunc huius gratiam, audacter monere ad Antonium iret, mite et venustum ingenium reperturam. Persuasit, et conscia formae erat ac pro ea et spe quam agitabat cultum et comitatum sumpsit. Cydno fluvio subvehi se molliter iussit navi aurata, remigio argentato, velis purpureis, ad modulos tibicinum et citharoedorum. Ipsa recumbebat sub caelo aureo, gemmis distincto; pueri formosuli habitu Cupidinum adstabant et ministrabant, quidam ventulum ei facientes. Virgines et ancillae instar nympharum per foros et tabulata navis disponebantur. Ad ripam utramque frequentes ab obviis et visoribus arae et odores. Quid verbis opus? Passim voces (et res ita erat) Venerem ad Bacchum venire comessatum. Iam propinqua Antonio erat. Et ille, magnitudinis scilicet Romanae retinens, pro tribunali etiam sedere atque eam exspectare. Quid nisi supplicem et excusaturam? At vide fiduciam. Recta in hospitium abit, et Antonius, ab omni coetu destitutus, relinquitur solus. Itaque submittit paullum fasces et ad caenam eam invitat. Recusat et excusat. Quid iam Antonius? Male sumptam personam abiicit et prior atque ultro ad eam venit. Caenat ibi, edit et bibit amorem. Quem illa non tam vultu, ut aiunt, quam verbis et ingenio inspirabat. Quae utraque tam mirifica possidebat ut semel audita caperet et devinciret. Argumentum sane ingenii quod varias linguas docta, Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, Aethiopicum, Parthicum sermonem efferret scito et nativo cuiusque sono. Hem, Marce Antoni, quid facis? Ictus es, habes et omisso bello omni aliam militiam militas et cum tua rea in Aegyptum, id est in casses et carceres eius ultro abis. Ibi quae deliciae, luxus, convivia? Non Fulvia tua abstrahit, mori in angore et aemulatione adacta. Non postea Octavia, nova uxor. Haeres, peris, ipsa tecum, et cum utroque (infelicis faeminei regni exitus) ipsa Aegyptus. Quid Messallina in Romanis? Illa saevitiae, avaritiae, impudicitiae, impudentiae, omnium flagitiorum (fas sit in illa sordida tali verbo uti) cloaca. Haec uxor erat Claudii Imperatoris. Nomine quidem. Sed quem ipsa et liberti, ut elephantum parvus aethiops, regebant. Itaque iure hanc pono inter imperantium exempla. Omitto caedes tot nobilium quas patravit, tot exsilia et fugas. In libidine non credo ab aevo tale monstrum fuisse. Cottidie adulteria, novae

25–30 Plu. Ant. 28-31

286 286

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 2 tus Dellius to her to complain and at the same time order her to meet him in Cilicia to defend herself. Poor man! You call her to defend herself, the woman who will soon be your mistress and judge and in whose fatal service you will be! Dellius came, saw the woman, and having a sharp mind, he foresaw what was going to happen, since he knew how attractive she was and at the same time how liable Antony was to such things. So he tried to win her favour straight away and advised her audaciously that she should go to Antony and that she would find his mind to be gentle and charming. He persuaded her, and she was aware of her beauty and arranged for an outfit and a retinue which suited her beauty and the hope which she nurtured. She gave orders that she should be carried gently up the River Cydnus on a ship with golden fittings, with oars plated with silver and purple sails, to the music of pipers and lute-players. She herself was reclining under a golden canopy decorated with precious stones. Next to her stood pretty boys dressed as Cupids, who served her, some of them fanning her. Young girls and female slaves were placed along the gangways and floors of the ship like nymphs. On both banks people came to meet and see her, and they built many altars and spread many perfumes. Is there need for words? Everywhere one could hear voices saying that Venus was coming to Bacchus for a festive procession (and that is how it was). She was already close to Antony. And he, mindful of the greatness of Rome, even sat on the tribunal and waited for her. For what was she but a humble petitioner, about to excuse herself? But look at her confidence. She went straight to the guestquarters and Antony did not get to meet her at all and was left on his own. So he humbled himself a little and invited her for dinner. She refused and made excuses. What did Antony do then? He threw off his mask, which he had wrongly put on, and went to her first and of his own accord. He had dinner there, ate and drank love, which she did not so much inflame with her appearance, as they say, as with her eloquence and intelligence, both of which she possessed to such an extraordinary degree that she captured and tied anyone to her who had heard her once. It is certainly proof of her intelligence that, learned in different languages, she spoke Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, the Aethiopian and the Parthian language properly and like a native. Mark Antony, Mark Antony, what are you doing? You have been struck. You have been hit. And putting aside every war, you performed another military service and voluntarily went to Egypt with your prisoner, that is to say, to her traps and prisons. What pleasure, luxury and banquets were there! Your Fulvia did not take you away, forced to die in fear and envy. Nor did your new wife, Octavia, later. You stayed there, perished, and so did Cleopatra together with you, and together with both of you, Egypt itself (the end of a disastrous female rule). 4 What about Messalina among the Romans? That sewer (let it be allowed to use such a word for this filthy person) of cruelty, greed, unchasteness, shamelessness, and every disgrace. She was Emperor Claudius’ wife, at least in name. But she and her freedmen steered him as a black boy steers an elephant. So I rightly put her among the examples of rulers. I omit the killings of all those noblemen, which she caused, all

287 287

Liber ii, Caput ii

V

conditiones et admissarii. Nec clam, sed in ipso Palatio coram matronis et viris, quasi infamia delectaret, Veneriabatur. Quin noctu, veste tecta, et Messallinam dissimulans, ad publicum lupanar ire solita, prostare inter infelices illas victimas, cellam suam et titulum habere, accipere aëra et poscere et explere libidinem nec satiare. Quid etiam? Marito ipsi illudere et hunc adigere non testem flagitiorum, sed exactorem. Vide. Erat Mnester quidam, nobilis Pantomimus, in quo ardere mulier coepit et pro sua verecundia solicitare ipsa et poscere. Ille subduxit et renuit, Principem reveritus sive etiam veritus ne torum eius non impune macularet. Mulier ad hoc ridere. Et Quid ais? inquit, Si ipse Claudius meus iubeat, parebis? Incredibilia videbantur. Fiunt. It ad maritum, persuadet illi stipiti ut Mnesterem vocet et iubeat in omnibus dicto sibi audientem esse. Factum est, et mox histrio libere, quasi iussu domini, res domini egit. Estne quod supra etiam possit? Mulier repperit. Vulgaria adhuc haec probra videbantur. Novum excogitat, et cui post factum vix sit fides. Erat Gaius Silius, Romanae iuventutis pulcherrimus. Hunc allicit, fruitur et palam in amoribus habet. Praemium etiam eorum facit Consulem, opes et decora Aulae ad eum transfert. Et iam colebatur, velut alter Princeps. Non est satis. Oportet languentis voluptatis novum aliquod esse condimentum. Itaque hoc addidit ut maritum eum palam caperet. Vivo marito? Vivo. Principe? Principe. Nec longius differtur quam dum maritus Hostiam iret et quasi de compacto paullum secederet. Tum nuptiae et nuptialis tota pompa. Flos Senatorum et Equitum adsunt, mensae apparantur, lectulus Genialis sternitur, auspices adhibentur, alia sollennia. Quin et in mariti gremio nova nupta recumbit, oscula, complexus et reliqua licentiae coniugalis. Dum scribo, stupeo. Et adhuc etiam Claudius nec excitabatur nisi liberti et in quorum manu res erant metu mutationis eum commovissent. Itaque tandem finis fabulae impositus, venit Romam, tollit aemulum et mox coniugem. Nec id quoque sine astu liberti. Consortem an non liceat addere Faustinam, et hanc etiam Romani Principis coniugem? Agebat in matrimonio Marci Antonini, Philosophi cognomento, optimi non Principum solum, sed virorum. Infelicem tantum hac foeda labe! Quia et haec libidinum sic promiscua et vilis erat ut vulgo se vulgaret. In balneis, in arenis et Xystis, ubi homines nudabantur, legere conditiones solita et bene vasatos adnotare. Atqui non imperavit, inquies. Dedit qui

1–2 D.C. 61.31.1 Tac. ann. 11.26-27

2–5 Iuv. 6.115-132 15 Tac. ann. 11.12.2

6–13 D.C. 60.21.3

288 288

15–28 D.C. 61. 31. 1-5;

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 2 those banishments and flights. I do not think that there has ever been such a lustful monster. Every day adultery, new affairs, and studs; and she entertained lovers, not secretly, but in the imperial palace itself in the presence of virtuous ladies and men, as if this disgrace would please. Even at night she used to go to a public brothel, disguised and concealing her identity, and prostitute herself among those unfortunate victims, having her own room and placard in the brothel, receiving and asking money, and satisfying her desires, but without getting enough. What more? She mocked her husband and did not make him witness, but enforce, her disgraceful acts. Behold. There was a certain Mnester, a famous pantomime, for whom the woman developed a burning desire. She started to pursue and claim him in line with this shamefacedness of hers. He withdrew and refused out of respect for the Emperor. Or perhaps he was afraid that he would not stain Claudius’ marriage-bed unpunished. The woman laughed at this and said, What do you say? If my Claudius would order it personally, will you obey? It seemed incredible, but it happened. She went to her husband, persuaded that fool to summon Mnester and order him to listen to her, whatever she said. That is what happened, and soon the actor freely played the part of the master by order of his master, as it were. Is there anything which could outdo this? Yes, and the woman found it. Thus far these disgraceful acts seemed vulgar, but she thought of something new, which can hardly be believed in retrospect. There was a certain Gaius Silius, the most beautiful of Roman youths. She attracted him, enjoyed him, and openly made love to him. By way of compensation for this she made him consul and transferred riches and ornaments from the court to him. He was already honoured as if he were a second emperor. That is not all. When her desire for him flagged, it needed some new seasoning. So she added the following: she openly took him as her husband. While her husband was alive? While he was alive. And while he was emperor? While he was emperor. And she only delayed the wedding until her husband went to Ostia and withdrew by agreement, as it were, for a little while. Then the wedding and the whole wedding-procession took place. The finest senators and knights were there, meals were prepared, the bridal bed was made, witnesses were summoned, and other ceremonies were held. The new bride even lay down in her husband’s lap, kissed and embraced him, and did all the rest which is allowed to the married. As I write this, I am stupefied. And still Claudius was unmoved and would have remained so, unless his freedmen and those who were in charge of matters had roused him for fear of a revolution. So he came to Rome to finally put an end to this comedy, killed his rival and soon also his wife. But even that he did not do without the cunning of a freedman. 5 Am I allowed or not to add Faustina as a companion, also the wife of a Roman emperor? She was married to Marcus [Aurelius] Antoninus, called the Philosopher, the best not only of all princes, but of all men. Yet how unfortunate was he because of this ugly stain only! For Faustina was so promiscuous and vile in her desires that she prostituted herself publicly. She used to select her lovers in the baths, arenas, and

289 289

Liber ii, Caput ii

VI

imperaret, Commodum, non falsa opinione gladiatore genitum. Et hic rem Romanam perdidit ab illa matre. In Galliam transeo, ubi reginam video Fredegundim nec scio an scelestius aliquid Sol vidit. Ea diu pellex duarum reginarum, Chilperici, regis Galliae, uxorum. Alteram, Andoveram, ut pelleretur effecit; alteram, Galsuindam, per insidias curavit occidi. Ita totum Chilpericum et sola iam possidens, legitimam uxorem et reginam egit, sed pro ingenio parum fidam. Nam cum Landrico, magistro equitum, furtim consueverat, et res marito casu quodam detecta fuit. Ibat venatum et uxorem conspicatus, quae capillum comebat et lotum siccabat in sole, accedit tacitus et per lusum a tergo virga percutit. Illa, suspicata amatorem suum esse et nomine compellans, Quid agis, mi Landrice? inquit, Quin si vir es, adversam me, non aversam pete. Confessio flagitii erat, et cum dicto se obvertit, plura etiam dictura. Sed attonita maritum videt et silet. Etiam ille et porro venatum, ut instituerat, pergit, iram coquens et vindictam, ut res erat, meditans. Sed praevenit mulier et Landrico suo vocato, Periimus uterque, inquit, incauta mea voce. Et rem narrat additque, Quid stupes? Virum ostende. Patiendum, aut patrandum est scelus. Landricus, suo metu et illo stimulo excitatus, rem suscipit. Deligit duos e fidissimis, qui Chilpericum, sera nocte e venatu redeuntem, turbae mixti, ferro invadunt et singuli singulis ictibus conficiunt. Clamor est ab ignaris et consciis, atque isti, quasi externae insidiae essent, in silvas vocem tollunt eoque se proripuisse paricidas. Ita auctores celantur. Et felix Fredegundis ad alia scelera animum adiicit, infensa inprimis Praetextato, Rhotomagensium antistiti, non ob noxam aliquam, sed viri eximiam virtutem. Itaque laetissimo die Paschatis, cum in frequenti templo sacra perageret, non Deum, non homines verita, percutiendum curavit letali quidem vulnere, sed cui aliquamdiu supervixit. Maesta eoipso, venit visere sive ut exploraret sive ut oculos in eius angore pasceret atque ibi belle, ut putabat, dissimulans, questus et iram miscuit quod in tali die et loco in talem virum patratum esset facinus, et auctor lateret. Sed Praetextatus, vicina morte liberior, Minime, inquit, latet. Et testor me eius scelere percussum quae reges occidit. Bene ille de regibus. Nam praeter maritum suum, etiam fratrem eius sustulerat Sigibertum, Mediomatricum (ut tunc divisio erat) regem. Sustulerat autem scelerato astu

1 Hist. Aug. Aur. 19. 1-8

3–292,5 Aemil. de reb. gest. Franc. 1 (1566: 14a-18a)

290 290

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 2 porticoes, where the men stripped, and make a note of those with large genitals. But she did not rule, you will say. She gave birth to someone who would rule, namely Commodus, not unjustly believed to be born to a gladiator. And, born of this mother, he ruined the Roman Empire. 6 I now pass on to France, where I see Queen Fredegund, and I do not know whether the sun has ever seen anything more outrageous. She had for a long time been a concubine who rivalled the two queens, the wives of Chilperic, King of the Franks. She brought about that the first one, Andovera, was banished, and ensured that the other one, Galswintha, was killed insidiously. So now that she had Chilperic completely to herself alone, she acted like his legitimate wife and queen, but in accordance with her nature, she was little faithful. For she was secretly seeing Landric, the captain of the cavalry, and her husband accidentally found out. He went hunting and caught sight of his wife, who was combing her hair and drying it in the sun after washing it, went to her in silence and hit her playfully from behind with a twig. Thinking that he was her lover, she addressed him by name, saying, What are you doing, my Landric? If you are a man, approach me from the front, not from behind. That was a confession of her disgraceful act. And with those words, she turned around to say more. But to her astonishment she saw her husband and fell silent. So did he, and he proceeded to hunt, as he had determined, fuming with rage and, in light of the situation, meditating on revenge. But the woman anticipated it, and having called her Landric, she said, We are both lost because of my thoughtless words. And she explained what had happened and added: Why are you just standing there? Show that you are a man. We have to suffer or commit a crime. Incited by his own fear and by this incentive, Landric undertook the task. He chose two of his most faithful servants who mixed with the group and stabbed Chilperic with their swords when he came back from hunting late at night, and killed him with one stroke each. Both those who were not involved and those who were cried out, and as if the ambush was the work of outsiders, the latter shouted loudly, into the forest, and said that the murderers had taken refuge there. That is how the offenders were hidden. And the fortunate Fredegund turned her mind to other crimes, hostile in the first place towards Praetextatus, Bishop of Rouen, not for having offended her but because of the man’s extreme virtue. So on the most joyful day of Easter, when he was performing the sacred rites in a crowded church, she, fearing neither God nor men, had him attacked. Despite the wound being fatal, he survived for a while. Grieving over this, she went to visit him, either to investigate or to feast her eyes on his anguish. And there, dissimulating well, as she thought, she mixed complaint and anger in saying that on such a day and place a crime had been committed against such a man and that the offender was hiding. But Praetextatus, who felt freer because death was near, said, He is not hiding at all. I swear that I have been struck by the crime of a woman who has killed kings. He was right to say “kings”, for apart from her husband, she had also killed his brother Sigebert, King of Metz (as the division was at the time). She killed him with wicked cunning by sending two killers

291 291

Liber ii, Caput ii

VII

immissis duobus percussoribus, quos cum facinus exsecuti essent, ilico iussit interfici ut vocem cum vita amitterent, et in tuto auctor agitaret. Ita iustitiae victrix, si non famae, egit. Et paullo post Childebertum etiam regem, praelio prius victum, cui ipsa interfuit, stans in prima acie, veneno tolli cum uxore eodem utrumque die curavit. Quot palmas una mulier meruit? Habeat et sicca 5 etiam suaque morte abeat, Providentia apud imperitos laborante. Fastidio eiusmodi narrationum. Nam quis modus sit si velim persequi? Ecce in uno Neapolitano regno duae Ioannae, aevo suppares, in nequitia compares, quarum flagitia atque etiam scelera (nam et haec mixta semper adulteriis) Annales texam si velim recensere. Et propero magis ad alia Exempla. Neque 10 enim desunt ea

Muliebris imperii boni et felicis. I

II

Phile, uxor Demetrii regis, filia Antipatri, illius qui Macedoniam et Graeciam vivo mortuoque Alexandro gubernavit. Haec, iamtunc puella et in annis teneris, nativa quadam prudentia sic visa excellere ut ipse pater consilia ab ea peteret et audiret. Pater, ille senex, ille usu et tractatione rerum sic peritus. Quid Demetrius, cum iam uxor eius esset? Erat ipse vario ingenio et vitiis propior. Sed mira temperie haec maritum flectebat, ne dicam regebat: calumnias supprimebat, iras mitigabat, iusta et honesta inserebat. Iam populi vere mater tenuiorum filias dotibus datis elocabat, afflictos a fortuna relevabat, bonos provehebat. Quid apud ipsos milites? Salvo pudore faemineo et iis se miscebat: alloquebatur tanta auctoritate vel gratia ut sola tumultuantes represserit et in seditionem lapsos revocarit. Quae fides deinde et amor in ipsum maritum? Cum victus a Pyrrho rege esset, castris ac regno exutus, vivere non ultra sustinuit et morte spontanea invidiam Fortunae fecit. Aevo, non animo inferior Zenobia, Palmyrenorum regina. Haec stirpem et sanguinem a Ptolomaeis et ipsa Cleopatra, sed non mores (dii boni, quam aberat!) ducebat. Uxor erat Odenati, fortissimi viri et qui ad imperium Romanum ausus adspirare. Illo vivo iisdem cum eo exercitiis in venatu, in montibus, in silvis, in ipsa militia uti. Amans eius utique, sed ob matrimonii finem: liberos. Quos ut concepisset, tangi a marito mox abnuebat. In aliis virtutibus scientiae etiam avida et historiae Orientalis ita perita ut ipsa eam suo stilo in

13–23 D.S. 19.59.4-6

23–25 Plu. Demetr. 45.1

292 292

26–294,18 Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 2 towards him, and had them killed immediately after they had committed the crime, so that they would lose their voices together with their lives and the instigator would live in safety. Thus she overcame justice, if not ill repute. And a while later she also had King Childebert, who had earlier been defeated in battle, where she had been present on the front lines, killed by poison, together with his wife, both on the same day. How many prizes did one woman earn? Let her have them and die a natural, bloodless death, since providence labours in vain among the ignorant. 7 I loathe such stories, for what limit would there be if I would like to continue? Behold, in the one Kingdom of Naples alone there are two Joans, nearly equal in time and equal in wickedness, of whose disgraceful acts and even crimes (for these, too, were always mixed with adultery) I could write Annals if I would like to recount them. But I had better move on quickly to other examples, for there are also examples of

Good and successful female rule. 1 Phile was the wife of King Demetrius and daughter of Antipater, who ruled Macedonia and Greece before and after Alexander’s death. When she was still a young girl, she was already seen to excel in a certain innate prudence, to such an extent that her father himself asked her for advice and listened to her. So did her father, that venerable old man, who was so experienced in handling affairs. What about Demetrius, once she was married to him? He had an inconstant mind and was more inclined towards vice. But she softened, not to say ruled, her husband with extraordinary temperateness. She suppressed calumny, soothed anger, and implanted that which was just and honourable. She was a true mother to the people, married off the daughters of the poor by giving them dowries, restored those who had been hit by bad fortune, and promoted good people. What about her behaviour among the soldiers? Preserving her female sense of shame, she mixed with them, too, spoke to them with such authority or kindness that she singlehandedly restrained those who were raising tumult and called back those who had fallen into mutiny. Further, what faithfulness and love did she show towards her husband? When he had been defeated by King Pyrrhus, deprived of his camp and kingdom, she could not bear to live any longer and made fortune jealous by killing herself. 2 Inferior to her in time, but not in mind, was Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. She traced her lineage and bloodline back to the Ptolemies and to Cleopatra herself, but not her morals (good God, how far away she was from them!). She was the wife of Odenathus, a very brave man, who dared aspire to the Roman Empire. While he was alive, she participated in the same exercises as he, while hunting, in the mountains, in forests, even in the army. She certainly loved him, but because of the purpose of marriage, namely children. As soon as she had conceived them, she refused to let her husband touch her. Among other virtues, she also eagerly longed for knowledge and knew the history of the East so well that she personally, with her own hand, abridged

293 293

Liber ii, Caput ii

III

compendium redegerit usui posterorum. Nec Graeci Latinique sermonis aut rerum ignara fuit. Forma autem corporis egregia, oculis supra modum vigentibus (verba Pollionis dabo) et nigris, tanto candore in dentibus ut margaritas eam plerique habere putarent, non dentes. Vox praeterea clara et virilis. Cum his dotibus, ut dixi, nupta, et forti quidem viro, etsi haud felici. Nam Gallieno, illo ignavo Imperatore, cum decus omne imperii labaret aut rueret, ipse Persidem et Orientem invasit, quasi Valerianum captum et Romanam ignominiam vindicaturus. Res magnas gerit. Adeo ut ipse Gallienus consortem imperii sumpserit et ultro Augustum declararit. Nec diu in hoc honore insidiis Maeonii consobrini sui vitam et potestatem amisit, aut hanc potius transmisit. Nam Zenobia illa uxor, laborum et victoriarum ante particeps (assidue enim comitari maritum ipsa etiam sub armis solita), imperium suscepit fortiter et gessit. Bella cum Romanis et Aureliano Principe habuit, Aegyptum invasit et victo ac caeso eius praeside Probo occupavit. Denique Aurelianus (sed aegre) fregit, non enim profecto vicit; imo velut tacito pacto passa in triumpho se duci, sed ut vitam et dignitatem in parte servaret. Atque adeo sunt qui filiam eius Imperatori dicant nuptiis iunctam, imo et stirpem eius diu post Romae inter illustres familias floruisse. Haec militaris faemina; pacatius exemplum Pulcheria dabit. Ea, Theodosii iunioris soror, vitam et virginitatem Christo devovit, paullo maiore natu quam ille. Qui septuennis fere a patre Arcadio relictus, hanc habuit morum et institutionis magistram. Atque adeo iam grandiore illo adhaesit et curas imperii participavit, salubriter omnia et pie modesteque disponens. Et vero quamdiu habenas tenuit, felix imperii et rectus cursus. Postquam invidia aliorum et calumniis Eunuchorum (Chrysaphii praesertim) submota est et loco pulsa, contulit ea se in Hebdomon, locum Byzantio suburbanum, atque ibi summa pietate et quiete victitabat. Donec post annos septem fraude calumniatorum agnita, et imperio undique concusso, fulcrum iterum rebus labentibus adsumitur aut reparatio iam lapsis. Fit utrumque, et restituit pleraque omnia aut tuetur. Specimen animi eius et prudentiae hoc esto. Fratrem Theodosium videbat et dolebat temere libellis saepe subscribere et nec lectis, aliena commendatione aut fide, ut fit, nixum. Dolum bonum hunc repperit ad emendandum. Concepit enim et ipsa libellum atque obtulit quo Eudociam, eius coniugem, petebat

2–4 Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30.15

294 294

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 2 it into a compendium for the benefit of posterity. Nor was she unfamiliar with the Greek and Latin language or history. Her outer appearance was also exceedingly beautiful, with outstandingly vivid black eyes (I will reproduce Pollio’s words); such dazzling white teeth that most people thought that she had pearls instead of teeth. Moreover her voice was clear and virile. With these gifts she married, as I said, a brave man indeed, yet not a very fortunate one. For in the time of Gallienus, that coward of an emperor, when all the splendour of the empire was sliding or crashing down, he invaded Persia and the East himself to take revenge, as it were, for the capture of Valerian and the dishonouring of Rome. He carried out great deeds, to such an extent that Gallienus himself shared supreme power with him and voluntarily proclaimed him “Augustus”. He had not been in this honorary position for long when he lost his life and power because of a plot by his cousin Maeonius, or rather handed it over. For his wife Zenobia, who had shared in his labour and victories before (she used to accompany her husband constantly, also in war) bravely took on and held the supreme power. She fought against the Romans and Emperor Aurelian, invaded and occupied Egypt, having defeated and killed its prefect Probus. Finally Aurelian broke her, albeit with difficulty, but certainly did not vanquish her; rather, as in a tacit agreement, she tolerated to be led in the triumphal procession, but in a way that preserved her life and partly her dignity. And so there are also some who say that her daughter was joined in marriage to the emperor and even that her offspring flourished for a long time afterwards among the illustrious families of Rome. 3 This was a warlike woman; Pulcheria will offer a more peaceful example. She was the sister of Theodosius the Younger and pledged her life and her virginity to Christ. She was a few years older than Theodosius. When he was deprived of his father Arcadius around the age of seven, she took care of his moral and intellectual education. And even when he was older, she remained close to him and shared in his concerns for the empire, arranging everything advantageously, piously, and modestly. And in fact, as long as she was holding the reins, the empire was steering a prosperous and steady course. After she had been removed and driven out of there through the jealousy of others and malicious accusations by some eunuchs (especially by Chrysaphius), she went to Hebdomon, a place near Byzantium, and lived there in utter piety and tranquillity. Until seven years later, when the deceit of the malicious accusers had come to light and the empire had been shaken everywhere, she was accepted to support once again the crumbling situation or restore what had already fallen to pieces. She managed to do both and restored or preserved nearly everything. Let this be an example of her courage and prudence. She saw her brother Theodosius and was sad, since he often signed documents carelessly even without having read them, relying, as happens, on the recommendation or fidelity of others. She thought of the following good deception to correct him. She personally composed and offered him a document in which she requested that his wife Eudocia should be subjected to her in servitude. He took it and immediately signed it. Why would he not sign his sister’s petition? And

295 295

Liber ii, Caput ii

IV

mancipari sibi in servitutem. Capit et subscribit statim. Quidni in sororis petitione? Atque illa scaenae instruendae caussa Eudociam apud se aliquamdiu habet. Miranti et evocanti negat missuram et suam eam, uti quae optimo maximoque iure, esse. Profert manum et subscriptionem, confuso iam illi, nescio an emendando. Revera enim secors ingenium fuit, et, alter Claudius, in faeminarum aut effaeminatorum (Eunuchos intelligo) potestate. Mortuo autem illo et sine liberis, re celata, Marcianum evocat, vita et bello bonum, et ad imperium producit. Quoque magis commendaret, nuptias suas ei donat, sed titulo tenus: stipulata ne sacrata Deo virginitas libaretur. Rexit cum illo annos aliquot, mirifice a nostrae religionis apicibus, Leone Pontifice, Hilario Episcopo aliisque laudata. Vixit annos circiter lvi. Similem, non enim parem undique, ei iungo Isabellam, Ferdinandi coniugem, Hispaniarum reginam. Parem? In quibusdam superiorem, et sola fortasse virginitate cedamus. Haec, si pietatem spectas, in sacrorum cultu mirifica et assidua: nulla occupatione aut delectatione demoveri; horas suas Canonicas (ut loquimur) sacerdotali exemplo cottidie legere, ipsos sacerdotes honorare, templa exornare. Atque id suis aut suarum fere manibus cum et ipsa acu pingeret aulaea aut vestes aut a familiaribus puellis pingi texique iuberet. Iam reliquae virtutes instructae huic fundamento. Casta, sic ut nec rumor de ea mentiretur, et maritum pariter eo ducens, pellices, amicas et id genus callide scrutata et ab Aula amolita. Frugalis adeo ut in omni vita nec vinum libarit. Quae virtus fomes, ut scimus, est castitatis et modestae gravitatis. Quam sane habuit, exosa mimos, scaenicos, ludiones, totum hoc levitatis instrumentum et nec privatim aut publice audire sustinens vel spectare. Eorum vicem viros graves, matronas serias apud se habere, item pueros aut puellas nobiles et utrosque pro sexu artibus studiisque informare. Aula illa nil nisi palaestra honoris et virtutis erat. Itaque insignes viri, etiam militia, ex ea prodierunt. Et magnum illum Consalvum, cui regnum Neapolitanum Hispania debet, haec refert expensum. Matrona ipsa civilium rerum gnara, bellicarum nec ignara. Quid magni in regno sine illa, imo nisi per illam fere gestum est? Rex maritus et consiliarii, usu edocti, peritiam eius et felicitatem in sententiis, quae edicebat pro oraculis (nec id per adulationem) amplecti. Illa factionibus, latrociniis infestum regnum purgavit et pacavit, illa Iustitiam restituit, potentiorum iniuriis exsulantem. Et quid alia commemorem? Quam in gravia animadverterit, argumentum esto quod nec aleae aut tesserae ludum toleravit et edicto vetitum sic repressit (etsi

12–298,14 Lips. Not. 2.17 14–26 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 21 (1533: 122v) 32–33 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 19 (1533: 106r) 33 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 21 (1533: 122v-123r) 34–298,2 Sicul. de reb. Hisp. 19 (1533: 110r-v)

296 296

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 2 she kept Eudocia with her for a while to keep up the pretence. When he was surprised and summoned Eudocia, Pulcheria refused to send her to him and said that Eudocia belonged to her, as she had the best and greatest right on her side. She produced his autograph signature; he was confused, but I do not know whether he could be corrected. For he was indeed lazy and negligent and, being a second Claudius, he was in the power of women and effeminate men (I mean eunuchs). When he died, childless, she kept it quiet and summoned Marcian, a man of good life, competent in war, and brought him to power. And to recommend him more, she married him, but in name only: she stipulated that her virginity, which she had consecrated to God, would not be sacrificed. She ruled together with him for some years, praised exceedingly by the highest authorities of our religion, such as Pope Leo, Bishop Hilary and others. She lived for around fifty-six years. 4 To her I connect Isabella, Ferdinand’s wife, Queen of Spain, who was similar, but not equal, to her in all respects. Equal? In some aspects superior, and inferior perhaps only as far as virginity is concerned. If you consider piety, she was extraordinarily unremitting in worshipping the sacred: no occupation or amusement could distract her; every day she read her Canonical Hours (as we say) following the example of priests; she honoured those priests and adorned churches, and that usually with her own hands or those of her entourage, since she even personally embroidered tapestries or vestments, or ordered that they should be embroidered or woven by her ladies-inwaiting. Her other virtues were built on this foundation. She was so chaste that not even false rumours about her went round, and likewise brought her husband to chastity, skilfully searching for concubines, courtesans, and the like, and removing them from the court. She was also thrifty, to such an extent that she never tasted wine in her lifetime. And this virtue, as we know, stimulates chastity and modest seriousness, which she certainly had, detesting mimes, actors, pantomimes, and this entire apparatus of frivolity, and she could not bear to hear or see them, whether in private or in public. Instead of such persons she surrounded herself with serious men and women and with noble boys and girls, and instructed all of them, according to their sex, in the arts and learning. Her court was nothing but an exercise-ground for honour and virtue. And so it produced men who were outstanding even in warfare. She also had Gonzalo paid for, that great man to whom Spain owes the Kingdom of Naples. Although she was a married woman, she was knowledgeable about civil affairs and not ignorant of military affairs. What great things were done in the kingdom without her – or rather virtually carried out by her? Her husband, the king, and his counsellors, who were learned from their experience, embraced her practical knowledge and the sound judgments which she pronounced, as if they were oracles (and they did not do that to flatter her). She cleansed and pacified a kingdom infested by faction and robbery; she restored justice, which had been banished by the injustice of influential men. What else should I mention? May it be an argument that proves how firm action she took against grave offences, that she did not tolerate dicing or gambling, which she

297 297

Liber ii, Caput ii

prona eo gens est) ut nec furtim et in angulis luderent, soliti in cauponis, viis, angiportis. Iam vero et militiae non consilio tantum, sed opera intervenit. Modesta quaedam Zenobia. Et bellum Lusitanicum absente marito confecit. Et Maurico sive Granatensi, quod plures annos traxit, pluries interfuit et summam manum praesens cum marito imposuit. Magni ad omnia animi et res 5 spesque magnas complexa. Itaque Navarrae regnum consiliis eius iunctum; Canariae insulae occupatae et insessae; ipse Novus orbis, Naturae occultior pars, per eam retectus et subiectus. Nam maritus, cetera vir egregius, restrictior aut timidior erat, retinere sua melior quam augere. Haec dilatabat. Et cum Christophorum Columbum diu rex duxisset et ad extremum destituisset, bono 10 Genio stimulante ad ipsam Reginam venit, conatus suos et perficiendi vias exposuit et instrumenta, id est naves, viros, arma ab hac impetravit. Salve, salve heroina, priscis par aut maior et in qua iure claudam exempla faeminei boni imperii. Quid enim tale addam?

298 298

Book i1, Chapter 2 forbade with an edict and repressed in such a way (although her people are inclined to it), that those who were used to gambling in taverns, streets, and narrow alleys did not even do it secretly in hidden corners. She even intervened in war, not only with counsel but with help. She was a modest Zenobia and concluded the Portuguese war while her husband was absent. She was frequently involved in the war against the Moors or Granada, which dragged on for many years, and present, together with her husband, she brought the war to a close. She always displayed a great mind, embracing great matters and hopes. Thus the Kingdom of Navarre was annexed through her counsel; the Canary Islands taken and held; even the New World, a more hidden part of nature, was uncovered and subjected thanks to her. For her husband, otherwise an excellent man, was more restrained or fearful and better at preserving his territory than expanding it. She enlarged it. And when the king had kept Christopher Columbus waiting for a long time, but let him down in the end, he came to the Queen, inspired by a good genius, exposed his enterprise and the ways to achieve it and obtained the means, that is to say, the ships, men, and weapons, from her. Hail, heroine, equal to or greater than the ancients. With her I will rightly conclude these examples of good women rulers. For what similar example could I add?

299 299

Caput iii DE ELECTIONE. Quae commendare eam, quae abiicere possint. Viri igitur potius imperent et soli. Sed quomodo? Electione an Successione admoti? Electio antiquior videtur, et heroicis illis temporibus vix aliter factum, et Principatus pace aut bello virtutis aut roboris praerogativa assignati. Naturae enim est, ait Seneca, deteriora potioribus submittere. Itaque Brasilienses quidam, cum ad Carolum ix, Galliae regem, Rothomagum deducti venissent, valde mirabantur, Quomodo validi illi et proceri viri (Helvetios intelligebant) parerent parvo et tenello regi. Nimirum pro suo more et sensu iudicantes; satis laeve, quasi a sola corporis magnitudine praestantia esset. Sunt etiam rationes quae commendare Electionem videantur. Prima, quod optimi et aptissimi per eam capi; non item a Successione possint, in qua quoscumque genitos admitti. Item, quod iusta aetate capi et idonea iam regere. Aliter in Successione, ubi pueri saepe aut infantes ius sumunt. Deinde, quod regnum ita moderatius videatur cum nec innutriti sint potentiae et ex ea superbiae et quod neque proprium habeant, ab aliis acceptum, ad alios transmittendum. Eo minus intendunt imperium aut subditos opprimunt. In quem enim post usum? Aperitur et virtutibus campus, ac multi ad eas adspirent vel spe Principatus. Haec et talia Aristotelem moverint ut Carthaginienses laudaret hoc nomine et Spartiatis praeferret, qui stirpe reges legebant. Sunt et hodie aut nuper fuerunt inter Christianos electi reges: hodie quidem Poloniae, nuper Bohemiae Daniaeque. Ista pro Electione, plura in eam possunt. Primo quod dicitur, veterem esse, fatemur, sed usus illis rudibus subiecit hic et alibi meliora. Additur optimos sic posse eligi, et verum est. Sed etiamne eligi? Si rem et experimenta vides, saepe falsum. Rara electio quae sine privato cuiusque affectu aut respectu fiat, nec rei publicae utilissimum, sed suae legunt. Quaerunt opportunos. Ut omittam pecuniam et corruptelas suffragia saepe trahere, et rem geri promissis donisque. Atque ea nec fortasse meliore aliquo saeculo excludas, sicut nullo odium aut amorem. Nicetas Choniates in hac re prudenter iudicat, ubi res Alexii, Imperatoris Graecanici, narrat. Qui fato vicinus et sine liberis, de eligendo successore cum suis agitabat. Scribit: Igitur alii atque alii varie nominabantur, sed omnes qui sibi opportuni aut utiles essent, nominabant. De eo

6–7 Sen. epist. 90.4 7–10 Montaigne Essais 1.31 32–302,1 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Alex3, pt1, p. 498, ll. 1-4

300 300

19–21 Arist. Pol. 1272b 24-1273a 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 3 ON ELECTION. What could argue for it and what could argue against it. So preferably men should rule, and only men. But how? Appointed by election or succession? Election seems older and in those heroic times it was hardly ever done differently. Kingship has been assigned to men in peace or wartime by prerogative of virtue or strength. For it is natural, Seneca says, to submit the meaner to the more powerful. Thus, when some Brazilians were brought to Rouen and came to Charles IX, King of France, they greatly wondered how such strong and tall men (they meant the Swiss) could obey such a small and delicate king. Surely they judged in conformity with their own habits and ideas, but quite wrongly, as if superiority were derived only from the size of the body. Still, there are arguments which would seem to recommend election. First, that the best and most suitable persons are chosen through it, while they could not be through succession, in which any persons are admitted, as long as they are born to it. Moreover, because they are chosen at the right age and rule when they are capable, whereas in the case of succession boys or infants often assume the right to rule. Furthermore, because the rule might seem more moderate that way, as they are not brought up in power and, as a consequence, in haughtiness, and they do not hold it as their own but received it from others and have to pass it on to others. So much less do they aim at supreme power or oppress their subjects. For of what future use would it be? Also, the field opens up for virtues, and many would aspire to them, even if it is in the hope of kingship. These and other things may have made Aristotle praise the Carthaginians for this reason and put them before the Spartans, who chose kings based on lineage. Also today there are, or there were not long ago, elected kings among the Christians. Today indeed in Poland and recently in Bohemia and Denmark. That is what argues in favour of election, but more arguments can be found against it. First of all, it is said to be old. We admit that, but custom has replaced these primitive habits with better ones, here and elsewhere. It is added that in that way the best can be chosen, and that is true. But are they elected at all? If you look at fact and experience, you see that it is often not true. Rarely does an election occur without private feelings and interests, and people do not elect what is most useful for the commonweal, but for themselves. They are looking for advantageous candidates. Not to mention the fact that votes often attract money and corruption, and the matter is carried out by promises and gifts. And these cannot be excluded, perhaps not even in a better era, just as you can never exclude hatred or love. Nicetas Choniates expresses a prudent judgment about this, where he relates the deeds of the Greek Emperor Alexius, who, near death and childless, was talking to his entourage about electing a successor. He writes: So various people were named, but all named those who were advanta-

301 301

Liber ii, Caput iii

autem eligendo qui optime et ex usu publico imperaret nulli cura aut cogitatio erat. Verissima dicit et usu probata ac probanda. Iam quod tertio inquiunt iustae aetatis et maturae imperio sic eligi. Ita habet et commodum est. Sed enim illud adhaeret incommodi quod regnum interea vacat nec possessorem habet. Quod, siquis considerat, maius malum est et plura saepe daturum quam imbecilla in imperio aetas. Sane ubi interregnum est, iustitia et leges silent, licentia et vis valent, atque id saepe hebdomadas, menses, annos manet. Quae interea confusio aut scelera sunt? Quae ambitio et prensatio? Per quas fraudes et artes? Germaniam vide, ubi Imperator demortuus: boni omnes in praesenti et futuro sunt metu. Ipsa Roma nunc in sacrorum Pontifice haec mala est cum sentit. Quid deinde in eligentium dissensu? Dissidia et bella. Quae nec inter paucos electores semper effugias: appello ad illos Imperii Septemvirales. Appello ad ipsam iterum Romam, et cum noxa religionis et, paene dicam, probro audiimus legimusque plures uno tempore Pontifices a tali caussa se gessisse. Nota mihi istud et incertum illud fluctuansque in successione: magna ratio et efficax est ad totam Electionem repudiandam. Iam quartum erat: moderatius ita fore regnum. Non abnuam. Sed addam solutius etiam et minore cura administrandum. Ut quid enim rei nec diu meae nec postea meorum nimis acriter intendam? Frui satis est. Obnoxii etiam vivunt sive iis qui elegerunt et quibus hoc velut beneficium debent sive omnibus qui in occasione minuere possunt potestate aut privare. Poloniam adi: haec fiunt. Itaque et Iustitiam minus coli necessum est, et Principem indulgere aut oculos claudere in potentium noxis. Dixi etiam minus curae aut custodiae esse regnum. An non ita est? Germaniae Imperatores video ex facili aut opida aut provincias totas vel liberis agnatisque suis vel et exteris, avulsas a corpore, contribuisse saepe per gratiam, aliquando et pecuniam aut mercedem. Non sic fiet in proprio et hereditario regno. Neque Principes solum secordes, sed ministri eorum tunc tales. Nam et ipsi futurorum securi, praesentibus inhiant, lucellum in omni occasione captant, subitis avidi et ut inter incerta festinantes. Iam quintum illud, Virtutes sic excitari, vix colorem habet. Valde scilicet, quia unus aliquando nec merito, sed casu bonus eligitur, boni esse elaborent. Si ad eventa imus, quocumque in regno Electiones mixtas videbis, et saepe deterioribus pronas. Vel Roma in Principibus suis vel Germania dicat. Ultimum, Aristotelem approbare et hodieque alibi esse. De Aristotele, non mirum: Graecus et liber regna amat proxima libertati. De usu hodierno aut nupero, leve est. Nam praeponderant exempla alia et pro uno Electionis centena sunt Successionis. Quae vis hic igitur? Quod si illud dicatur, etiam nunc melius regi aut crescere regna ab Electione, magnum sit. Sed non dicetur, et oculi ac sensus refutabunt. Ego

302 302

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 3 geous and useful to themselves. Nobody cared or thought about electing him who would rule best with a view to the common good. What he says is very true and has been and can be proved by experience. In the third place, they say that in that way someone of the right age, and mature, is elected for the rule. So it is and it is convenient. But this involves something inconvenient, namely that in the meantime the throne is vacant and has no owner, which, if you think about it, is a worse evil and will often cause more evils than if someone of a weak age is in power. Certainly, where there is an interregnum, justice and law are silent, licence and violence flourish and this situation often lasts for weeks, months, and years. Meanwhile, what chaos and crimes are there? What ambition and canvassing? Through what fraud and cunning? Look at Germany, where the emperor died. All good men fear for the present and future. Now Rome itself, in the Pope, can be observed to experience these evils. And further, what happens when the electors disagree? Civil strife and war. Even among a few electors, this cannot always be avoided. I refer to those septemvirs of the Holy Empire. I refer again to Rome itself: to the detriment and, I would nearly say, dishonour of our religion, we have heard and read that there were several people acting as pope at the same time for that reason. This situation is known to me, as is the uncertainty and wavering in the papal succession: that is an important and powerful reason to reject election altogether. There was a fourth argument, namely that the rule will be more moderate in that way. I will not deny that, but will add, also less strict and administered with less care. For why would I make that much of an effort for something which does not belong to me for long and will not belong to my descendants afterwards? To enjoy it is enough. Elected rulers live subjected either to those who have voted for them and to whom they owe their position as a favour, or to all those who can diminish their power or deprive them of it when they have the chance. Go to Poland: it happens there. Therefore justice, too, is necessarily less respected, and the prince, inevitably, is indulgent or closes his eyes to offences by the powerful. I also said that the kingdom is less well looked after and protected. Is that not so? I see that emperors in Germany have easily given their children or relatives, or even foreigners, towns or entire provinces, torn away from the body of the state, often out of favour, sometimes also for money or a price. That will not happen in one’s own hereditary kingdom. Not only will princes be careless, but so will their ministers. For, untroubled by the future, they clutch at everything in the present and snatch small profits on every occasion, eager for immediate gain, making haste just as in an uncertain situation. Now that fifth argument, that virtues are stimulated in that way, is rather pale. Surely, because at some time one good person is chosen, not for his merits but by accident, they will take great pains to be good! If we turn to historical events, you will, in any kingdom, see mixed elections, often inclined to favour worse people. Rome or Germany could say that about their princes. The final argument is that Aristotle approves and that it happens elsewhere nowadays. About Aristotle, that is not a surprise. He was Greek, and a free man who loved the governments that came closest to liberty. The argument about

303 303

Liber ii, Caput iii

I

II

vero amplius dico. Ubicumque bonum et laudabile regnum fuit, in Perside, in Macedonia, in Aegypto, in Sinensibus, in Hebraeis ipsis, Successionem valuisse. Etiam in Romanis, quoties Principum liberi aut genitura aut (quod laxius) adoptione essent. Iterumque amplius dico. Nec fuisse ulla Comitialia regna nec fore diuturna. Exoritur semper aliquis, animo et consilio inter Principes maior, qui creditum uni sibi regnum, suis stabilit gratia, arte, praemio. Et vis interdum adhibetur. Dania et Bohemia ostendunt, alia magna regio fortasse ostendet. Sed in fine non me teneo quin Nicetae etiam verba, et ego eius sensibus, subscribam. Exclamat: O quanto deterius est multorum suffragium et electio quam unius! Tu, inclytum Romanum imperium et gentibus adoranda maiestas, quos tyrannos pertulisti? Quales amatores te petierunt? Quibus substrata, tui copiam fecisti? Quales corona et diademate et puniceo vestitu exornasti? Graviora utique tulisti quam Penelope, procorum illa frequentia obsessa. Res ita habet. Romanum imperium statim a Claudio, qui primus a milite electus est et fidem eorum praemio pigneravit, in vilissima capita et pessima hac Electione venit. Electione an palam Emptione? Nam et hoc scimus, velut sub hasta vaenale pependisse et non aliud magis clarum certumque exitium rei Romanae fuisse. Sed exempla quaedam Electionis videamus, bonae aut malae mixtim. Auruncani populi barbari sunt in Peruano tractu. Ii a solis viribus corporis ductores legere soliti, experti eas in gravi aliquo ligno. Quod qui diutissime humeris baiulat nec succumbit, putatur et regendi oneri par futurus. Melius qui ab animi viribus aut praestantia sumunt. Quod Romani olim veteres in suis regibus, Romulo, Numa, Servio, vix alio aspectu fecerunt. Secuti quam aliter? Et stirps Augusti cum defecisset, casus aut corruptio Principes fere dedit. Primum in Claudio. Qui, Gaio Caligula occiso, rumore caedis exterritus et sui quoque anxius, prorepsit ad solarium et inter ianuae praetenta vela delituit. Miles aliquis e Praetorio, discurrens ad praedam, hunc repperit protrahitque. Et interrogato, Quis esset? acceptoque impetu aut instinctu Principem salutavit. Quanta unius, et gregarii quidem, in re tanta audacia? Produxit ad alios Praetorianos, fluctuantes adhuc nec aliud quam frementes. Qui ut caelitus oblatum arripuerunt et lecticae impositum in castra sua, vicissim succollantes, tulerunt. Senatus et urbanae cohortes dissidebant et Libertatem praeferebant. Inane nomen vicit militaris electio, et fatale Romanis servire. At Claudius iam imperii compos, ut militem magis obstringeret, qui-

9–13 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Alex3, pt1, p. 498, ll. 21-24 3.33 25–306,2 Suet. Claud. 10

304 304

14–15 Suet. Claud. 10.4

16 Iuv.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 3 current and recent practice is weak because other examples preponderate and for every single example of election, there are hundreds of succession. So what strength is there in this? If it were said that even nowadays kingdoms are ruled or expanded better by election, that would be a good argument. But that will not be said, and sight and sense will deny it. But I say more. Wherever there has been a good and praiseworthy rule, in Persia, Macedonia, Egypt, among the Chinese and even the Hebrews, succession prevailed. Even among the Romans, as often as the rulers were children of the princes either by birth or, in a looser sense, by adoption. Again I say more. There has never been an elective kingdom which lasted for a long time, and there never will be. Someone always comes forth with more courage and resolve than other princes, who, when the rule is entrusted to him alone, consolidates it for his descendants through favour, cunning, and rewards. And sometimes violence is used. Denmark and Bohemia prove it, and another large region will perhaps do so. But finally I cannot help but recall Nicetas’ words and approve of his ideas. He cries out: Oh, how much worse is the voting and election of many than of one! You, famous Empire of the Romans, whose majesty should be admired by all peoples, which tyrants did you endure? Which lovers courted you? To whom did you surrender, giving access to yourself? Who did you adorn with crown and diadem and purple dress? You endured heavier things than Penelope, who was beset by that crowd of suitors. That is how it is. Right from Claudius, who was the first to be elected by the army and who made sure of their faithfulness by means of a reward, the Roman Empire fell into the hands of the most worthless and evil leaders because of this election. Election, or open purchase? For we also know that it was, as it were, publicly up for auction and that nothing else contributed more to the clear and certain end of the Roman Empire. But let us look at some examples of election, good or bad, mixed together. 1 The Auruncani are some barbarian peoples in the Peruvian region. They are accustomed to choosing their leaders based on physical strength alone, testing this with a heavy piece of wood. They think that he who carries it on his shoulders the longest without succumbing will also be equal to the burden of ruling. 2 Better are those whose choice is based on mental strength or superiority, as the ancient Romans used to do with their kings, namely Romulus, Numa, and Servius, using hardly any other aspect. But how differently did their successors choose? When the house of Augustus became extinct, princes were commonly chosen by chance or corruption. This first happened with Claudius, who, when Gaius Caligula was killed, was frightened by the rumour of the murder, and fearing for himself, too, crawled to the balcony and hid between the door curtains drawn before him. A soldier of the praetorian guard, who was running around to plunder, found him, drew him forth and, having asked and heard who he was, saluted him as emperor by impulse or incitement. What presumption from one soldier, a common one even, in such a great matter! He brought him to the other praetorians, who were still wavering, doing nothing but making noises. They seized him as if he had been sent from heaven, put

305 305

Liber ii, Caput iii

III

IV

V

VI

nadena sestertia singulis (sunt nobis trecenti septuagintaquinque Philippici) promisit et dedit. Idem casus sive error clarius in Vitellio se aperuit, longe ab omni Imperatoria aut virtute aut stirpe. Homo ventri et abdomini factus erat, nulla vel specie virtutum nisi quod candor aut simplicitas in eo placerent. Is, Legatus inferioris Germaniae a Galba electus et quattuor legionibus praefectus (amabant autem hos ignavos et altioris cogitationis non suspectos) praefectus, inquam, agebat Coloniae Agrippinae cum nuncium accipit superioris Germaniae legiones defecisse a Galba et in Senatus Populique Romani nomina iurasse. Dum consultat quid facto opus, vis in defectores an consensus placeat, ecce Fabius Valens e Legatis legionum cum paucis equitibus opidum intrat, ipsum Vitellium Imperatorem salutat. Unius vox omnium fuit. Secutae legiones, alae, cohortes, cives, socii, ardore magis quam iudicio, et invasit imperium atque armis peperit, armis mox amisit. Lubet etiam hos fortunae ludos videre et in theatrum producere Probum. Tacitus Imperator absumptus erat, et Florianus, frater eius, adspirabat. Sed dum electio pendet, Orientales exercitus eam occupare et sui beneficii Principem habere voluerunt. Conveniunt ad eligendum, et Tribuni quasi per decorum eos monent, fortem, clementem, probum Imperatorem requirendum esse. Arripiunt vocem et statim acclamant, Probe Auguste, dii te servent. Inde purpura, tribunal et legitimus Princeps. Quid in Regilliano, quam consimile? Dux Illyrici erat, et milites male in Gallienum animati, res novas agitabant. Forte una plures caenitabant, fuitque Valerianus Tribunus qui in ioco et vino diceret, Regilliani nomen unde credimus ductum? Subiecit statim alius, A regno, et milites communiter, Ergo potest rex esse? et occasione sola temerarii dicti fecerunt. O ludos! Et lusum etiam adiungo qui Proculo tradidit Principatum. In Gallia milites ad latrunculos ludebant, item convivantes. Forte decies Imperator Proculus exivit, atque ibi quispiam ludens, Ave Auguste, allataque lana purpurea humeros eius velavit. Timor mox eorum qui adfuerant et ne accusarentur apud veterem Imperatorem, novum hunc faciunt consensu.

3–14 Tac. hist. 1.56.3-57.1 15–21 Hist. Aug. Prob. 10.1-5 1-7 24 Catull. 12.1 27–31 Hist. Aug. quatt. tyr. 13.2

306 306

22–26 Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 10.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 3

3

4

5

6

him on a litter and took him to their camp, taking turns to carry him on their shoulders. The Senate and the urban cohorts did not agree and preferred liberty, but the election by the military overcame that empty word, and it was the fate of the Romans to be slaves. And Claudius, who was already in possession of the supreme power, promised and gave every soldier fifteen sesterces (to us that is three hundred and seventy-five Philip daalders) in order to tie the army more strongly to himself. The same chance or error revealed itself more clearly in Vitellius, who was far from any imperial virtue or origin. He was a man who only cared for his stomach and his belly, and did not even show an appearance of virtue, apart from the fact that his candour or frankness were appreciated. He was elected Governor of Lower Germany by Galba and made commander of four legions (they liked these inactive people, who were not suspected of higher aspirations), commander, I said, in Cologne, when he received the news that the legions of Upper Germany had deserted Galba and had conspired against the names of the Roman Senate and People. While he was considering what to do, whether violence against the rebels or consent would be better, behold, Fabius Valens, one of the commanders of the legions, entered the town with a few horsemen and saluted Vitellius as emperor. The voice of one became the voice of all. The legions, cavalry, auxiliary troops, citizens, and allies followed, stimulated more by passion than by sound judgment, and he invaded the empire, seized it by force, and by force he soon lost it. It is pleasing to watch also the following games of fortune and to bring Probus forth onto the stage. Emperor Tacitus had been removed and his brother Florian aspired to the throne. But while the election was pending, the Eastern armies wished to anticipate it and have an emperor of their own making. They met to choose and the tribunes warned them, as it were, for the sake of propriety, that they should look for an emperor who was strong, merciful, and a man of probity. They interrupted them and immediately exclaimed, May the gods preserve you, Probus Augustus. He subsequently assumed the purple and the judgment seat and became a legitimate emperor. How similar is that which happened to Regalianus! He was general of the troops in Illyria and his soldiers, who were hostile towards Gallienus, started a rebellion. By chance a number of them were dining together. And it was the tribune Valerian who said, while having a laugh and a glass of wine, Where do we think the name Regalianus is derived from? Someone else immediately suggested, From reign, and the soldiers jointly said, So he can be king? And they made him king for no other reason than a word that had been spoken thoughtlessly. What a game! And I add another game, which brought Proculus to power. In Gaul, some soldiers were banqueting together and playing a board-game. Proculus accidentally came out as “Emperor” ten times and then someone said in jest, Hail Augustus, brought in a purple fleece and wrapped it around his shoulders. Fear soon overtook those who had been present, and in order not to be called to account to the former emperor, they unanimously made Proculus the new emperor.

307 307

Liber ii, Caput iii VII

VIII

IX Anno ∞XL

Ridere in illis liceat, in istis indignari ubi Corruptio suffragia temperavit. Sicut in Marco Salvio Othone, qui clam et palam militibus pecunia subornatis et in Galbam armatis eum sustulit, se immisit, sed Principem non diuturnum. Non item a simili foeditate Iulianus perennavit. Qui post caedem Pertinacis, cum vaenale in castris Praetorianis penderet imperium, et Sulpicianus licitaretur, iste, pecuniosus et ambitiosus senex, eodem aspiravit. Et ad muros subiens, modum pecuniae certum promisit, cumque illi ad Sulpicianum rettulissent, plus aliquid adiicientem, iterumque ad istum (prorsus ut in sollenni auctione), tandem pervicit Iulianus, finisque fuit ut vicenaquina sestertia (sunt sexcenti vigintiquinque Philippaei) viritim Praetorianis darentur. Immanis summa! Quam ille concussionibus et rapinis mox coëgit, atque haec omnia qui inter claros Iurisconsultos nomen vindicabat. Adeo facilius est peritum esse legum quam servantem. Sed poena a tergo pressit, statimque Severus superveniens, vita et imperio illum, Praetorianos zona et militia exuit. Sed haec foeda exemplo uno aut altero eluantur laudabilis Electionis. Quae autem laudabilior illa quam Deus iniecit et direxit? Casimirus fuit, filius Miecislai unicus, qui ob teneram aetatem regno minime aptus, sub cura et gubernatione matris Rixae conquievit. Sed ea mulier avara, superba, exteris Germanisque addicta, provocavit odia Polonorum. Quae fuga denique vitavit ablata secum regni gaza, et filio mox in Saxoniam secuto. Qui in exsilio isto animum ad litterarum studia appulit et Lutetiam Parisiorum devenit. Illinc in Italiam porro et denique pietate impulsus, in Cluniacensi coenobio Benedictinum monachum professus, Deo totum se vovit et sacravit. Interea turbae et fluctus in Polonia, ut in navi rectore vacua, et oculi atque animi requisierunt suum Casimirum, decretumque publice ut missa legatione, ubiubi terrarum esset, requireretur. Ad Reginam primo ventum, ab ea Cluniacum, et inveniunt non iam Casimirum, sed Carolum (nam et nomen mutaverat) eundemque sacramenti religione, sed et Diaconatus vinculo obstrictum. Illi praeterita excusant, patriae discrimina et calamitates proponunt et hunc, ut unicum praesidium et subsidium, Principem deposcunt. Ipse fortiter recusare, alienae potestatis se iam ostendere nec quidquam cum mundanis rebus commercii esse. Tamen urgent; ad Abbatem reiiciuntur, ab illo ad Pontificem. Atque iste indulget, laxat sacramenti atque sacerdotii vincula, data etiam venia coniugii cum lege, aiunt, ut Poloni caput deinceps in coronam tonderent ritu monachali itemque nummum annuum in luminaria et cereos Divi Petri Romam conferrent. Hoc eiusce indulti monumentum esset. Ita in regnum ducitur,

1–4 Tac. hist. 1.24 5–11 D.C. 74.11; Hist. Aug. Did. 2.4-3.2 et reb. gest. Polon. 4 (1568: 47-50)

308 308

16–310,5 Cromer. de orig.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 3 7

May it be allowed to laugh at those, but to be angry at cases in which corruption regulated the votes, as happened with Marcus Salvius Otho, who secretly and openly suborned the soldiers with money and armed them against Galba, killed him and imposed himself as emperor, but not for long. 8 Julianus, who came to power through a similar foul deed, did not last long either. After the murder of Pertinax, when the imperial power was for sale in the camps of the praetorian guard and Sulpicianus had made a bid, Julianus, a wealthy and ambitious old man, aspired to the same power. So he went to the walls and promised a definite amount of money. And when they had notified Sulpicianus, who added a bit more, they came back to Julianus (just like at an ordinary auction), and eventually Julianus won. In the end he had to give twenty-five thousand sesterces (that is six hundred and twenty-five Philip daalders) to each of the praetorian guards, an immense sum, collected quickly by extortion and plundering, and all of this by someone who claimed a place among the famous jurists. So much easier is it to be specialised in law than to keep it. But punishment came breathing down his neck and immediately Severus overtook him and stripped him of his life and power, and the praetorian guards of their moneybelt and of their office. 9 But these foul acts should be washed away by one or two examples of a praiseworthy election. And which election could be more praiseworthy than one initiated and directed by God? There was one Casimir, only son of Mieszko, who, not at all suitable In the year 1040 for ruling because of his tender age, led a peaceful life under the care and government of his mother Ryksa. But that woman, who was greedy, arrogant, and obsequious to foreigners and Germans, roused the hatred of the Polish people, which she finally escaped by fleeing, taking with her the treasure of the kingdom, and her son soon followed her to Saxony. During that exile he devoted himself to the study of letters and ended up in Paris. From there he continued to Italy and in the end, incited by piety, he took his vows as a Benedictine monk in the monastery of Cluny and by a sacred promise dedicated himself entirely to God. Meanwhile there was turmoil and disturbance in Poland, as on a ship without a helmsman. With their eyes and minds the Poles searched for their Casimir, and by public decree they gave orders to send out a legation to look for him, wherever on earth he was. They first reached the queen, and from her Cluny, where they found Casimir no longer, but Charles (for he had also changed his name), and they found him bound not only by the monastic vows, but also by the bond of deaconship. They apologised for that which had happened in the past, laid before him the crises and disasters of the fatherland, and demanded that he should be their prince, as their only protection and support. He fervently refused, showing that he belonged to the power of another and had nothing to do with mundane matters. Still they insisted. They were referred to the abbot and from him to the Pope. The latter conceded and loosened the bonds of his vows and of priesthood, and permission was even granted for marriage on condition, they say, that the Polish would afterwards tonsure their heads in accordance with monastic custom and pay an

309 309

Liber ii, Caput iii

X ∞CCCCXI

XI

gaudio et consensu excipitur. Prudentissime et fortissime administrat, domi pace parta, hostibus foris victis aut repulsis. Pie vixit, pie obiit, regno in posteros (nam et uxorem duxit et liberos ex ea tulit) propagato. Quis abnuet haec a Deo esse? Profugo, monacho, Diacono, patriam, sceptrum, uxorem, cum gratia, laude, venia. Sed memorabilis illa quoque electio sive Iudicium fuit quo regnum Aragoniae avorum aevo ad Ferdinandum, Henrici, Castellae regis, fratrem, transivit. Obierat Martinus rex idque sine liberis, et inter agnatos vel cognatos varie certabatur. Ius, favor, factio comparabantur, et iam ad coetus et arma res spectabat. Quippe inter potentes competitores, Ludovicum, Andegavensium Ducem et Neapolitanum regem, Iacobum, Comitem Urgelitanum, Alfonsum, Marchionem Villenae et Ducem Gandiae et nostrum illum iam dictum. Sed visum consensu proceribus (rarum in tali ambitu) iudices sive arbitros super hac re legere, et quemcumque Regem ii dixissent esse. Electi novem, sanctimonia vitae et doctrina aut prudentia conspicui: terni ex ipsa Aragonia, totidem e Catalaunia iterumque totidem e Valentia, quae tria regna scilicet in unum corpus contributa. Dies igitur dicta electioni, locus captus arx Caspa in Aragonia. Magna expectatio, concursus, aperta et occulta vota aut metus. Denique ipso iam die tribunal pro foribus templi erectum, aulaeis instratum et regifico ornatu. Consederunt iudices, praesedit iis (nam adesse voluit) Summus ille Pontifex, etsi in schismate, Benedictus. Tum surrexit Vincentius Ferrerius Dominicani ordinis magna sanctimoniae opinione et insigni ac fervida eloquentia, qui concione ad rem apposita proceres et populum consentire, obedire denique novo Regi hortatus est. Quis is erit? suspendit aliquamdiu omnium animos, et grandi tandem voce protulit Ferdinandum. Clamor coronae et iubilus fausta precantium. Nam plurium in hunc et virtutes eius inclinatio; quorumdam tamen et maestitia, qui suos candidatos decidisse tanta spe indignabantur. At ipse coronam mox Regni sollenni ritu accepit, pacem ubique repperit aut peperit. Et magnum illum Alphonsum genuit, Aragoniae, Siciliae, Neapolis regem. Pulchra electio et quam in manu Lusitanorum erat nuper imitari. Nam plures regnum illud mortuo Sebastiano competebant, suis quisque titulis: Philippus rex Hispaniarum, Alexander, Parmae Dux, liberorum loco, Ioannes, Dux Bragantiae, ab uxore, Antonius nothus, sed qui legitimum credi se volebat. Concurrebat et regina Galliae, Catharina Medicaea, vetusto et obsoleto

6–12 Marian. Hist. 19.19

14–19 Marian. Hist. 20.2

310 310

19–28 Marian. Hist. 20.4

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 3 annual contribution to Rome for the lamps and wax candles of Saint Peter, as a monument to this indulgence. So Casimir was brought to the kingdom and received joyfully and unanimously. He ruled with great prudence and strength, having created peace at home and defeated or repulsed enemies abroad. He lived piously, died piously, and extended the kingdom for his descendants (for he also married and had children). Who would deny that this came from God? To the exile, monk, and deacon came a fatherland, a sceptre, and a wife, with grace, praise, and favour. 10 But it was also a memorable election or trial through which, in the times of our grandparents, the Kingdom of Aragon passed to Ferdinand, brother of Henry, King 1411 of Castile. King Martin had died, and that without children, and his relations on both sides were contending in various ways among one another. Their rights, popular support, and factions were compared and the matter was already heading towards an armed encounter. For among the powerful competitors were Louis, Duke of Anjou and King of Naples, James, Count of Urgell, Alfonso, Marquis of Villena and Duke of Gandía, and our aforementioned candidate. But the nobles decided with general consent (which is rare in such an electoral struggle) to choose judges or arbitrators in this matter and that whoever they proposed would be king. Nine persons were elected, who stood out by their virtuous way of life and their learning or prudence: three from Aragon itself, another three from Catalonia, and the same again from Valencia, thus uniting three kingdoms into one entity. So a day was appointed for the election, and the chosen place was the citadel of Caspe in Aragon. There were great expectations, a concourse of people, open and hidden prayers or fear. Finally on the day itself a tribunal was erected in front of the church-doors, covered with tapestries and regal ornaments. The judges took a seat and Benedict, the Pope (although at the time of the schism) presided over them, for he wished to be present. Then Vincent Ferrer of the Dominican order stood up. He was reputed for his moral purity and was gifted with extraordinary and fiery eloquence, and in an oration adapted to the occasion he urged the nobles and the people to agree and afterwards to obey the new king. Who will that be? He kept the minds of everyone in suspense for some time, until he eventually in a loud voice proclaimed Ferdinand king. The crowd was shouting and there were cheers from people wishing Ferdinand well. For most were favourably disposed towards him and his virtues; nevertheless some were also sad, as they were displeased that their candidates had been disappointed in their high hopes. But Ferdinand soon accepted the crown of the kingdom in a solemn ritual and found or created peace everywhere. And he brought forth that great Alfonso, King of Aragon, Sicily, and Naples. 11 A beautiful election, which the Portuguese have recently been able to imitate. For several people were competing for that kingdom after the death of Sebastian, everyone with their own claims: Philip as King of Spain, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the name of his children, John, Duke of Bragança, through his wife, and Antony, a bastard who wished to be considered legitimate. Also the Queen of France, Catherine de Médicis, entered the competition, on the basis of an old and obsolete claim going back

311 311

Liber ii, Caput iii

* Avulsa anno ∞CX

titulo a Comitibus Bononiensibus repetito. Rex senex Henricus mederi futuris malis poterat, et velle videbatur, sed fortior animus deerat, et cunctantem mors occupavit. Sed et post eum quinque Gubernatores electi et undeni Iudices tarditate aut frigore peccarunt et, quamquam proni in Philippum regem, non ausi ius ei adscribere ob populi studia dissentientis. Quem suum fere Antonius fecerat et plenis velis per plebeias illas undas ferebatur. Ita factiones, dissidia et denique arma. Quae tamen priusquam Philippus inferret (et parata habebat), pro suo ingenio leniter ac tarde agere, legationibus quam legionibus velle rem conficere. A vi quidem adeo alienus ut cum Antonius ille, caput turbarum, eiectus ab Henrico rege, in Castella esset et in coenobio quopiam Divi Benedicti gnaro rege Philippo latitaret, ille nec extraxit nec reppulit cum in illo velut torre exstinguere incendium surgens posset. Simile in altero competitore, Duce Bragantiae. Cuius filium captum a Mauris infelici illo praelio redimi per Legatum suum curavit et eumdem, iam in Hispania, cum essent qui omni vi et via retinendum censerent, imo retinerent, ille, firmus in quietis consiliis et iure suo nixus, liberum dimisit. Sed neque sic, cum alii arma pararent aut caperent, invasit aut eiecit. Sed ante omnia ius suum disputari a Theologis et Consultis eius fecit iamque de eo certior, copias promovit. In limite erat Lusitaniae, et omnis mora noxia. Tamen iterum moratur iterumque peritos convocat et per Deum et Fidem obtestatur liberis vocibus sensibusque edicerent ecquid iuris sui esset. Hoc non cupere se modo, sed iubere. Omnes uno ore ius affirmant. Tum denique Ferdinandus, Dux Albae, invadit et septuaginta dierum spatio Lusitaniam totam subiicit, uno praelio Antonio, qui regem se ferebat, pulso. Si tamen praelium dixerim, veterani exercitus cum semiermi et urbana turba congressionem. *Annos paullo minus quingentos avulsa Lusitania fuerat a reliquo suo corpore. Rediit, ut retuli, sed cum admiratione aliqua eorum qui attendent in re tam opportuna, utili, facili cunctatorem Philippum sic fuisse. Imitentur reges, nec temere ambitio ad arma impellat.

3 quinque B : quattuor A

312 312

5

10

15

20

25

Book i1, Chapter 3 to the Counts of Bologna. The old King Henry could have remedied the future evils and seemed to wish to do so, but he lacked a strong mind, and while he was hesitating, death overtook him. But also the five governors and eleven judges elected after him sinned by being slow or indifferent, and although they were favourably disposed towards King Philip, they did not dare assign the right to the throne to him, because of the partisan inclinations of the people, who disagreed. Antony had won them over for the most part and sailed along with flying colours on the waves of the populace. Thus faction and discord arose and ultimately armed conflict. Nevertheless, before Philip commenced hostilities (and he had his armed troops ready), he acted gently and slowly, true to his own nature, wishing to solve things through legates rather than legions. He was so alien to violence that when Antony, the ringleader, was in Castile, having been thrown out by King Henry, and was hiding in a certain Benedictine monastery, Philip, who knew this, neither drew him out nor repelled him, while he could have extinguished the rising fire in that torch, so to speak. He acted in a similar way towards his other competitor, the Duke of Bragança. He arranged for the duke’s son, who had been captured by the Moors in that unsuccessful battle, to be ransomed by his legate. When the boy was already in Spain, there were some who thought that he should be retained by all means, and they even did retain him, but Philip, immovable in his plans for peace and relying on his own legal claim, set him free. But not even when others prepared or took up arms, did he invade them or throw them out. No, first of all he let theologians and lawyers discuss his legal claim, and only when he was certain of it, did he advance his troops. He was at the border of Portugal and every delay was harmful, but again he lingered and again he assembled the experts and implored them by God and faith to tell him freely if there was any validity to his legal claim. He did not just desire this, but ordered it. All unanimously confirmed his legal claim. Then, at last, Fernando, Duke of Alba, invaded and subjected all Portugal in seventy days, having defeated Antony, who acted as king, in one single battle. Although I said “battle”, it was in fact an encounter between veteran troops and an illequipped gang of townspeople. For almost five hundred years* Portugal had been torn * It was torn away in the year from the rest of its body. But it came back, as I said, albeit not without a certain sur- 1110 prise on the part of those who will draw attention to Philip lingering so much in such a favourable, advantageous, and easy situation. May kings imitate him and may ambition not heedlessly lead to armed conflict.

313 313

Caput iv DE SUCCESSIONE. Hanc praeferendam, etsi incommoda etiam habet. Meliorem eam Electione tutioremque esse supra ostendimus, et duplex certe caussa evincit. Prior, quod nullum hic interregnum atque ita nec competitio nec bellorum materies, praesertim cum iura successionum legibus aut moribus ubique firmentur. Secunda, quod caritas utrimque maior: et subditorum in genitum et sanguine Principem, et Principis in subditos, certo et veteri iure suos. Addam tertiam, astrictioris imperii et reverentiae aut obedientiae promptioris quia vitari aut differri vindicta aegre potest cum patri filius succedit et illius iniuriam suam putat. Non sic in exteris, qui tutius contemnuntur, et si offenderis, secessu aliquo vitas donec illi abeant e vita. Duo tamen incommoda adhaerent (et quid pure bonum in rebus humanis?) quod vel mali vel inutiles sic capiendi interdum sint vel pueri et infantes, quos aetas arcet a regendo. Quod ad prius, sciamus idem et in Electione evenire posse atque adeo saepe evenisse. Ferendum est et melior expectandus, ut post hiemem aliqua aestas. Quod ad alterum, grande incommodum, fateor, et fere Deus sic disponit (ipsemet dicit) ubi visum ei punire regna aut immutare. Quid ni feramus tamen si a Deo? Hanc ei viam castigandi adime; aliam reperiet, fortasse tristiorem. Leges viam suam teneant itemque fata. Et tamen in illaipsa puerili Successione remedium si vivit mater. Hanc admoveri et vices pueri gerere cum prudenti aliquo Senatu e re sit, et exempla docent feliciter evenisse. Nam proceres regni eligi anceps. Si unum, ceteros offendis, ut spretos, et hic fortasse proprias opes cogitet; si plures, non evades factiones inter eos et turbas. Mater igitur melior. Sed exempla aliquot aut iura diversa Successionis videamus, in qua consensu gentium receptum

Monitum i: Certos Liberos praeferri. I Circa annum ∞XIV

Sed, ut dixi, certos legitimosque. Cui rei, ubi fraus timeri poterat, cautiones video adhibitas calumniae aut suspicioni vitandae. Sicut in Ogina Lucembur-

314 314

5

10

15

20

25

Chapter 4 ON SUCCESSION. It is to be preferred, even though it also has some disadvantages. We have demonstrated above that succession is better and more secure than election, and a twofold reason surely proves it. First of all, because in this case there is no interregnum and thus neither competition nor occasion for war, especially since the rights of succession are firmly established everywhere by law and custom. Second, because love is stronger on both sides: that of the subjects towards one who was born a prince of the blood, and that of the prince towards subjects who are his according to certain and long-established right. I will add a third reason, namely that power will be stricter and reverence or obedience readier, as punishment can hardly be avoided or delayed when a son succeeds his father and considers injustice inflicted on his father as having been inflicted on himself. This is not the case with outsiders, whom you can despise more safely, and if you commit an offence, you escape by going away until they die. However, there are two disadvantages attached to succession (what is entirely good in human affairs?), namely that either bad or useless people sometimes have to be accepted, or boys and infants, whose age prevents them from ruling. As to the first disadvantage, we should know that the same can also happen and has often happened in an election. It should be endured and a better prince should be expected, just as, after winter, summer arrives. Concerning the second point, I admit that it is a great disadvantage, and usually God arranges it so (He says that Himself) when He has decided to punish or alter kingdoms. What should we do, then, but endure it, if it comes from God? Take that kind of punishment away from Him, and He will find another, maybe harsher. Laws must hold their course, as well as fate. And yet there is a remedy even in succession by a young boy, if his mother is still alive. It may be advantageous to have her placed on the throne and taking the boy’s place, together with a prudent senate. Examples teach us that this has happened successfully. For it is risky to elect the nobles of the kingdom to be governors. If you elect only one, you offend the others, as they have been rejected, and he might think of the power as his own. If you elect several, you will not avoid faction and turmoil between them. Therefore it is better to appoint the mother. But let us look at some examples and at different rights of succession, in which all peoples agree that

Admonition 1: Legitimate children are preferred. 1 But, as I said, legitimate children. I see that precautions have been taken here when deceit could be feared, in order to avoid calumny or suspicion. For example in the case of Ogiva of Luxembourg, who became pregnant by her husband Baldwin the Around the year 1014

315 315

Liber ii, Caput iv

II ∞CXCIV

gica, quae paene quinquagenaria in matrimonio Balduini Pulchro-barbi, Flandriae Comitis, gravida est facta. Et res ea suspecta multis ne vanus aut fartus tumor, non a natura et puero esset. Igitur circa dies iam partioni sollennes maritus in medio Atrebatium foro tabernaculum tendi iussit, laxum et pretiosi operis, edixitque omnibus faeminis fama et loco honestis fas esse adsistendi et oculis arbitrandi verus an suppositicius ille partus esset. Factum ita. Viderunt plures, observarunt et omnes ita rumusculos dissiparunt qui de sterilitate eius erant sparsi. Plane idem in Constantia, Neapolitana regina. Quae nupta Henrico Imperatori, quinquagenaria etiam maior uterum coepit ferre, fraudem aut fucum suspectantibus multis. Quod utrumque prudenter amolitus est Henricus. Ac primum, cum uxor ad eum in Germania agentem adspiraret, vetuit iussitque in regno subsistere et adventum suum exspectare, coram suis (cum bono Deo) heredem regni parituram. Deinde, uxore etiam ipsa sic volente, in foro tentorium expansum, facta potestate nobilibus faeminis veniendi et parientem ac partum pariter oculis usurpandi. Peperit igitur in tali, ut sic dicam, scaena Fridericum, paterni avi nomine appellatum. Haec satis mira in illa aetate. Etsi rei fides aliqua iamante ab Abbate Ioachimo facta, illo cuius vaticinia tunc clara erant et nunc quoque tradita scriptis leguntur. Quippe parituram praedixit et quidem filium tali vita et sorte quaeque alia Friderico evenerunt.

5

10

15

20

Monitum ii: Praeferri aetate primos, etsi in exemplis interdum aliter. I

Liberi igitur succedunt, sed mares supra faeminas, quod liquet. Inter autem mares ii qui aetate antecedunt. Tamen hic interdum quaestio an ex caussa minore aliquis natu non praeferatur? Caussae plures esse possunt. Una quae 25 olim inter Darii liberos litem movit, Artemenem et Xerxem. Nam ex his Artemenes regnum iure et more gentium petebat, natu prior. At Xerxes controversiam non de ordine, sed de nascendi felicitate faciebat. Nam illum Dario privato provenisse, sese regi. Ita privatas illi opes deberi quas tunc habuit, at sibi regnum, in quo genitus educatusque esset. Contentio, quamquam de 30 regno, intra arma stetit, et arbitrum patruum sumpserunt Artaphernem. Qui re pensiculata praeponendum Xerxem putavit. Sive ratione iam dicta sive et

9–20 Collen. Hist. 4 (1572: 117-118)

25–318,3 Hdt 7. 2-3; Iust. 2.10.1-10

316 316

Book i1, Chapter 4 Bearded, Count of Flanders, when she was nearly fifty years old. And this made many suspect that it was an empty or padded swelling, not naturally caused by pregnancy. So around the established time of the delivery, her husband ordered that a spacious tent of precious craftsmanship should be raised in the middle of the marketplace in Arras and announced that all women of honourable reputation and rank were allowed to be present and judge with their own eyes whether the childbirth was real or false. That is what happened. Several women watched and observed the birth, and thus made all the rumours that had been spread about her sterility disappear. 2 Exactly the same thing happened to Constance, Queen of Naples, who was mar- 1194 ried to Emperor Henry. When her womb began to swell when she was past fifty, many people suspected deception or a sham, both of which were prudently refuted by Henry. First of all, when his wife wanted to join him in Germany, he forbade her and ordered her to stay in the kingdom and await his arrival, to give birth to the heir of the kingdom (with God’s help) in the presence of her own people. Thereafter a tent was raised on the square – even his wife herself wanted this – creating the possibility for the noblewomen to come and see both her delivery and her newborn child with their own eyes. Thus on such a stage, so to speak, she gave birth to Frederick, who was named after his paternal grandfather. Giving birth at such an age was quite extraordinary, although the veracity of the affair had already been confirmed before to some extent by Abbot Joachim, whose predictions were famous at the time and can still be read nowadays, since they have been recorded in writing. He predicted that she would give birth, and that to a boy of such life and fate; and he also predicted all other things which happened to Frederick.

Admonition 2: The firstborn are preferred, although in some examples it is sometimes different. 1 So children succeed, but males above females, which is evident. But among the males, those who were born first come first. Nevertheless it is sometimes asked

whether there may be a reason for a younger child to be preferred. There can be several reasons. The first one that once started a fight between the children of Darius, namely Artemenes and Xerxes. For of those Artemenes claimed the power according to the rights and customs of nations, as he was the firstborn. But Xerxes started a controversy, not about the order of birth, but about its fortunate circumstances, because Artemenes was born to Darius when he was still a private citizen, while Xerxes himself was born when Darius was king. So Artemenes was entitled to all the private riches which Darius had back then, but Xerxes should get the kingdom in which he had been born and brought up. Even though the dispute was about the kingdom, it did not lead to an armed conflict, but they appointed their uncle

317 317

Liber ii, Caput iv

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII ∞XCV

indole utriusque motus. De patruo iudice in Iustino scribitur; in Herodoto pater ipse definit. Qui idem Herodotus alterum fratrum non Artemenem, sed Ariobarzanem appellat. Ipsum hoc in eodem Persarum regno diu post movit Parysatis, Darii alterius uxor. Movit, sed non eodem successu. Nam aegro marito persuadere conata ut Cyrum minorem filium Arsacae (qui postea Artaxerxes dictus) in iure sceptri praeferret ipsa illa dicta caussa et quod in regno natus esset. Non impetravit, et stabile priori ius suum fuit. Etsi callida mulier Xerxis exemplum suggereret. Sed quod paullo diversum inveniet qui explorabit. Nam Artemenes tunc natus Dario fuit cum vere privatus esset nec in stirpe aut iure ullo regio (quippe postea a Magis inopinato electo). At Arsaces patri quidem nondum regi natus, sed nato e regibus et in hanc spem sublato. Itaque discrimen apparet in utraque sorte, etsi nec id quidem alibi observatum, et quomodocumque primogenitis sceptrum fere delatum. Excipio in caussa etiam altera: si minor aliquis virtutibus excellat, et contra inopia sit in maiore. Tum enim praeponendus videtur quem Deus honestavit, idque ex publico etiam bono. Tale Ioannes Comnenus praetextum habuit Manuelem filium praeferendi Isaacio, idque moriens persuasit. Cepit igitur imperium et tenuit, sed revera non pro spe rexit nec fratri fortasse, nisi ab affectu patris, praeponendus. Et vero raro felix nec nisi turbandis rebus talis electio. Ut in Ptolomaeo, Lagi filio, qui cum minorem item rupto gentium iure regno imposuisset, ipsa naturae iura violata mox sunt cum alter fratrem suum paricidio sustulisset. In Ptolomaeo Physcone haud dispar eventus, sed purus a scelere. Blanditiis uxoris illectus, iuniorem seniori antehabuit et sceptrum credidit. Sed populus eo mortuo huic reddidit et illi exsilium dedit. Quid in Ludovico Pio, Caroli Magni filio? Ille item Iudithae uxoris suadela Carolum minorem Ludovico in multis praetulit. Cum eo fructu ut bellum ipso vivo adhuc motum sit, et arma adeo iunctis etiam aliis fratribus in patrem sumpta. Ideo non nimis ridendi fortasse Pannonii, qui pervicaciter hoc ius sunt tutati in suo Colomanno. Vladislaus rex, liberis ipse orbus, Almum, fratris sui filium, adoptaverat, animo et corpore meliorem, aevo inferiorem. Ut autem

4–14 Plu. Art. 2 17–18 Nicet. Chon. Hist. John2, pp. 44-46 21–23 Iust. 16.2.7-8; Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 990) 24–26 Iust. 39.3.2; Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 990) 27– 30 Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 990) 31–320,7 Bonfin. Rer. Ungar. 2.5 27 suadela correximus e suada

318 318

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 4

2

3

4

5

6

7

Artaphernes as a judge. Having carefully considered the issue, he thought that Xerxes should be given preference, either for the aforementioned reason or because Artaphernes was also guided by their respective characters. Justin writes that the uncle decided, while in Herodotus the father himself determined it. Similarly, Herodotus does not call the other brother Artemenes, but Ariobarzanes. The same controversy was initiated long afterwards in the same Persian Kingdom by Parysatis, the wife of Darius the Second. She started it, but not with the same result. For she tried to convince her husband, who was ill, to give preference to his younger son Cyrus above Arsaces (who was later called Artaxerxes) in the right to the sceptre for the same reason, namely that he was born when his father was in power. But she did not succeed, and the oldest son’s right remained unshaken, although the sly woman suggested the example of Xerxes. But a closer look will show that it was somewhat different. For Artemenes was born to Darius when he was a truly private citizen with no royal blood or rights (for afterwards he was unexpectedly elected by the Magians), while Arsaces was born when his father was not yet king, but he was born from kings and had been brought up in the hope of becoming one. So the difference is clear in the fates of those two, although it has nowhere else been taken into account, and the sceptre is usually given to first-born sons, whatever the nature of their birth. I also make an exception in a second case, namely if a younger son excels in virtue whereas there is a lack of it in the elder one. In that case it seems that preference should be given to him whom God has honoured, and that also because of the common good. That is the reason why John Comnenus preferred his son Manuel to Isaac and settled it when he was dying. So Manuel received and held the rule, but in reality his rule fell short of the expectations and perhaps he should not have been preferred to his brother, if it had not been for his father’s affection. And such a choice is rarely successful and without turmoil, as was the case for Ptolemy, Lagus’ son. When Lagus placed his younger son on the throne, having likewise broken the laws of nations, the very laws of nature were soon violated when his other son removed his brother by killing him. A similar result, but free of crime, happened to Ptolemy Physcon. Enticed by his wife’s flatteries, he placed his younger son above the older one and entrusted him with the sceptre. But when he died, the people gave it back to the elder son and exiled his brother. What about Louis the Pious, Charlemagne’s son? Persuaded by his wife Judith, he also set his younger son Charles before Louis in many respects. With the result that a war had already been initiated while he was still alive, and also the other brothers joined forces and took up arms against their father. Therefore the Hungarians should not be too much derided for obstinately protecting this right for their Coloman. King Ladislas, himself childless, had adopted Álmos, 1095 his brother’s son, who was mentally and physically superior, but inferior in age. To

319 319

Liber ii, Caput iv

VIII

rata magis electio esset, Colomannum fratrem sacris initiavit et procul a patria Lutetiam Parisiorum specie studiorum ablegavit - dicam an relegavit? Haec facta, et ipse obiit. Sed statim proceres et populus Colomannum revocant et venia exsecrationis a Pontifice impetrata regem simul et maritum fecerunt. Quem autem hominem? Ridebis Lector: statu pusillum, lingua balbum, oculo 5 luscum, pede claudum, dorso gibberum. Non monstrum vides? Tamen hic placuit, et ius hominum etiam in ambiguo, paene dicam, homine servarunt. In hac tota re tamen fateor morem Abyssinorum (in Africa late dominantur) non improbandum videri aut improbum. Qui gentiles omnes agnatosque Regis in una quadam arce educant, remotos a populo quia et arx in monte 10 paene inaccesso est (Angam nominant) et valido praesidio custoditur. Tenentur illic igitur, ne turbas aut partes faciant, et mortuo rege eum qui maxime idoneus optimatibus et custodibus videtur, assumunt et substituunt.

Monitum iii: Patruum aut fratris filium varie praeferri.

I

II ∞CCCIX

Quid autem si filius maior praemoritur, prole ex se relicta? Rationes et exempla in diversum trahunt, id est, utraque utroque. Nam qui patruum praeferunt rationem proximi sanguinis adspiciunt a patre rege, et nepotem toto gradu antecedit. At nepoti fictio iuris subvenit et idem cum patre censetur. Cur non ergo et in iura succedat? Sed exempla etiam, ut dixi, variant. Et pro patruo sunt ista: Ludovici Pii primum. Qui Bernardum, Italiae regem, deiecit et vinclis ac carcere coërcuit quia ius sibi a patre Pipino primogenito vindicabat contra patruum Ludovicum. Roberti regis Neapolitani. Cui et Pontificis auctoritas pondus addit. Nam hic Clemente V sic censente ius regni tenuit contra Carolum Numbertum Hungariae regem etsi iste natus e Carolo Martello esset, Roberti maiore fratre. Res clara est et Annalibus testata. Sed Baldus Iurisconsultus arbitratur in regni usum hoc a Pontifice factum et quia optimus et prudentissimus Robertus esset, quod res docuit, itemque salubri temperie et partitione quod Carolus iam regnum Hungariae teneret in eoque posset acquiescere.

8–13 Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 1000) 21–23 Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 993) Hist. 5 (1572: 210); Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 993-994)

320 320

24–30 Collen.

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 4 better confirm the choice, he initiated his brother Coloman in religious studies and sent him away – or should I say out of the way? – far from home to Paris under the pretext of his studies. Having done this, he himself died. But the nobles and the people immediately called Coloman back and after the Pope had dispensed him with his solemn oath, they made him king and husband at the same time. What kind of man was he? You will laugh, reader: he was very small, stuttered, was blind in one eye, limped, and was hunchbacked. Do you not see a monster? Nonetheless he was popular, and they preserved the human right even in someone who, I would almost say, could hardly be called a man. 8 Nevertheless I have to admit that in this whole matter the custom of the Abyssinians (they are widely in power in Africa) does not seem to be reprehensible or wrong. They bring up all the king’s family and relatives in one citadel, far removed from the people, because this citadel is on a mountain which is nearly inaccessible (they call it Anga) and protected by a strong guard. So they are kept there to prevent them from causing turmoil or discord, and when the king dies, they take the person who is most suitable in the eyes of the nobles and guards to replace the king.

Admonition 3: Some prefer the uncle, while others prefer the nephew. But what if the oldest son dies prematurely, leaving children behind? The arguments and examples lead in different directions, that is to say, each leads in both directions. For those who give preference to the uncle look at the argument of the nearest in the bloodline of the father, that is, the king, and he precedes his nephew by a whole degree. But a legal fiction supports the nephew and considers him equal to his father. So why would he not succeed to his rights? But examples, too, as I said, vary. And examples which argue for the uncle are the following: 1 First of all the example of Louis the Pious. He deposed Bernard, King of Italy, and put him in irons and prison as Bernard claimed the right to the throne for himself on the basis of the primogeniture of his father Pippin against his uncle Louis. 2 The example of Robert, King of Naples, to which also the authority of the Pope 1309 adds weight. For he held the right to rule with the agreement of Clement V, against Charles Robert, King of Hungary, although the latter was born to Charles Martel, Robert’s elder brother. The case is clear and attested in the Annals. But the jurist Baldo considers that this was done by the Pope for the benefit of the kingdom and because Robert was the best and most prudent person, as events have shown, and also by means of a wholesome tempering and division, as Charles already possessed the Kingdom of Hungary and could be satisfied with that.

321 321

Liber ii, Caput iv III IV V

VI

VII

VIII

IX ∞CCCCVII

Iamolim etiam Numidae pro communi iure habuerunt patruum nepoti praeferri. Quod et Vandali usurparunt. Itemque hodie Moscovitae, sed restrictius. Nempe si impubes filius relictus sit, tum patruus sceptrum accipit. In Basilio nostro aevo factum. Aliter autem si iusta nepoti aetas, atque ea discretio rationem suam habet. Haec pro Patruo. Plura etiam sunt pro Nepote. Spartiatae, sapiens populus, sic servarunt. Et ipse Lycurgus regnum Charilao, fratris filio, cessit, quod in manu eius erat omnium gratia tenere. Robertus, Neapoleos rex, etsi alio iure, ut dixi, promotus, hoc velut aequius melius restituit et sententiam publico iudicio sic tulit in lite super Comitatu Sancti Severini. Quae inter patruum et nepotem vertebatur, et Iurisconsulti varie trahebant. Meliores et ipse ad nepotem flexerunt. Ita ille rex. At Otho Magnus Imperator iudicio armorum rem commisit. Pugnarunt singulari certamine barbaro illo ritu, et vicit nepos. Quod iterum ita sub Henrico I Imperatore adnoto evenisse. Ergo et Deus hanc caussam videatur comprobasse. Sed quod iudicium, publicum aut privatum, isto Hispaniensi clarius? Rex Henricus defunctus erat, filio infante relicto, Ioanne, duos et viginti menses nato. Patruus ei erat Ferdinandus, vir vel solo virtutum merito (ut sanguis seponatur) omni summa fortuna dignus. Itaque coniecti in eum oculi vulgi et procerum, nec ambire opus, ambiebatur. Atque id non a singulis tantum et in privatis colloquiis, ubi adulatio timeretur, sed in Conventu publico, huic rei indicto, omnium non studia, sed aperta suffragia in eum ibant. Incitabat non ipse solum, aevi maturus et virtutum, ut tetigi, spectatus, sed et aetas pueri. Quae quando tandem gubernationi suffectura esset? Longum annorum intervallum, bella in manibus, turbas et dissidia in metu esse, quae semper fere comitari ubi penes alios regimen esset. Ergo ageret cum Deo bene iuvante, expergisceretur et vel regni caussa caperet fraternum regnum. Surdae aures ad has voces, et ius infantis ostendebat et Hispaniae consuetudinem, quae eo magis tutanda ipsis quo minus ille puer (hoc ipso miserandus) posset. Nondum tamen persuaserat, iterumque Conventus si forte paenitentia subeunte mutasset. Non ignarus ipse eius rei et affectuum, infantem chlamyde tectum occulte intulit. Et cum Davalus, magister equitum, de communi consensu iterum tentaturus dixisset, Quem regem, Ferdinande, renuntiari tibi placet?, ille acri voce et vultu, Quem autem, inquit, nisi

1–2 Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 993); Liv. 29.29.6 3 Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 993) Lyc. 3.1-4; Bodin Rép. 6.5 (1608: 994) 18–324,3 Marian. Hist. 19.15 34–35 Ferdinande deest A

322 322

8–9 Plu.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 4 3 4 5

6

7

8

9

In the past even the Numidians considered it a common law to prefer the uncle to his nephew. And the Vandals applied it as well. Today, too, the Muscovites apply it, but in a more limited way. Indeed, if an underage son is left, the uncle takes the sceptre, as was done in our time in the case of Vasily. But it is different if the nephew has the right age, and that distinction has its reasons. These were examples which argue in favour of the uncle, but there are more which argue in favour of the nephew. The Spartans, a wise people, observed it in this way. Even Lycurgus himself conceded the throne to Charilaus, his brother’s son, while he had the power to keep it with everyone’s favour. In spite of having been raised to kingship, as I mentioned, based on the other right [i.e. of the uncle], Robert, King of Naples, restored this one [i.e. of the nephew] as more just and better, and he judged thus in the public verdict in the dispute about the County of Sanseverino. This dispute occurred between uncle and nephew, and lawyers argued differently, but the better lawyers and he himself favoured the nephew. That is what that king did, but Emperor Otho the Great entrusted the case to the judgment of weapons. They fought a duel, according to that barbarian custom, and the nephew won. I notice that that happened again under Emperor Henry I. So also God would seem to have approved this case. But which public or private judgment is more brilliant than that Spanish one? King Henry had died, leaving behind his infant son John, who was twenty-two months old. His uncle was Ferdinand, a man who because of his virtuousness alone (apart from 1407 his royal blood) was worthy of all the best fortune. So the people and the nobles turned their eyes towards him. There was no need to canvass for support, since he was sought after. And not only by individuals and in private conversations, where flattery might be feared; but in the public assembly, convened for this affair, not only everyone’s favour but also their open votes went to him. This was incited not only by himself, as he was of mature age and proven virtuousness, as I mentioned, but also by the boy’s age: When would he finally be old enough to govern? There would be a long interval of years, wars at hand, and fear of turmoil and civil strife, which nearly always follow when the command is in the power of others. So with the help of God Ferdinand should act, rise and take on his brother’s kingdom, if only for the benefit of the kingdom. His ears were deaf to these words and he pointed out the rights of the infant and the Spanish custom, which was to be protected all the more by them, the less the boy could do so himself (he should be pitied for this). Still, he had not yet persuaded them, and another assembly was held to see if he would perhaps have changed his mind, overtaken by penitence. He was not unaware of this matter and these feelings, and secretly brought in the boy, wrapped in a mantle. And when Davalus, chief of the cavalry, asked to test him again according to the general wish, Ferdinand, who do you wish to be proclaimed king? he said with sharp voice and face, Who but John, my brother’s son? And at the same time he

323 323

Liber ii, Caput iv

Ioannem, fratris mei filium? Et simul puerum in sublime extulit, nomen Ioannis idemtidem et Regis, ut mos est, ingeminans, iussitque vexilla explicari et alia solita fieri in novo regno. Tu, Fides, tu, Modestia, e caelo paullisper descendite et hunc alumnum vestrum laetis oculis videte. Quanto illustriorem spreto sic regno quam si decem fraude vel ambiguo iure quaesisset? Sed pauci isti Ferdi- 5 nandi. Cui Deus tamen regnum Aragoniae paullo post contulit, pretium virtutum et Electione (de qua dixi) sive iudicio delatum.

324 324

Book i1, Chapter 4 raised the boy in the air, repeating the words John and King together, according to custom, and gave orders to unfurl the flags and to carry out everything else that is customary at the beginning of a new reign. You, faithfulness, and you, modesty, come down from heaven for a little while to see this disciple of yours with your own happy eyes. How much more famous is he for rejecting the kingdom in this way than if he had sought to acquire ten of them through deceit or doubtful rights? But there are few people like Ferdinand, to whom God nevertheless gave the Kingdom of Aragon a while later as a reward for his virtuousness, after it had been conferred on him by election (which I have mentioned) or judgment.

325 325

Caput v DE FRAUDE ET VI. Has quoque priorum specie intervenire.

I

II

III

Sed violat Successionis iura aut polluit saepe Ambitio, quae vim et fraudem miscet. Quam saepe sceptra sic delata non ad longinquos tantum, sed indignos? Et hic quoque ludi interveniunt. Quos lubet paullum Sapientia volente spectare. Venite qui regna aestimatis, caelo aequiparatis. En servulum aut infimum homuncionem, suo ingenio ad ea sublimatum. Videte, Et primum Pisistratum, qui fraude quidem, sed virtutibus paene debitum regnum Athenis quaesivit. Ille comem et benignum se civibus ostendere, etiam liberalem ubi opus; adeo ut refugium et asylum iniuria aut inopia pressis haberetur. Suspecta ista optimatibus, neque nesciebat. Quos ut in ordinem redigeret et satellitium pararet aliquo praetextu, ipsus se vulneravit. Sic saucius in forum delatus, sanguinem et vulnera civibus ostendebat, a potentibus illis praemium scilicet benignitatis suae in ipsos accepta. Quin et vitam suam periclitari nisi subveniant quibus eam consecrasset. Fremitus et indignatio populi, mox suffragia et custodia illi decreta. Qua cinctus, et inimicos suos statim et mox populum tyrannide oppressit. Nec omittendum hic Solonis dictum, qui dolum odoratus, ei ingessit: Non recte, inquiens, o Pisistrate, Homericum Ulyssem imitaris. Siquidem ille flagris se conscidit ut hostes falleret; tu te vulneribus ut cives. Ac genera sane fraudium plura sunt, sed una ad rem hanc Successionum apposita quae crebra. Est eorum qui inserunt se in alienam familiam et callide adoptant. Histrionio toto et ludicro initio, sed quoties in turbas et caedes ivit? Fuit in Macedonia Andriscus quidam, homo ultimae sortis, diurna mercede vitam tolerare solitus, qui Philippum se subito, Persei regis filium, dixit. Et oris similitudo ad avum inclinabat. Ipse dixit, alii credunt aut credere simulant, Macedones et Thraces maxime, taedio Romani imperii, quod novitate et asperitate displicebat. Itaque ingentes mox copiae, et Praetorem Romanum fudit donec a Metello idem victus et in catenis Romam ductus triumphatusque est. In eodem imperio, sed sub Tiberio Principe, Clemens quidam exstitit, revera servus Agrippae Postumi, quem nepotem suum ex Iulia Augustus in Plana-

9–18 Plu. Sol. 30.1-2; Arist. Ath. 14.1-2 31–328,19 Tac. ann. 2.39-40

18–20 Plu. Sol. 30.1

326 326

24 Liv. perioch. 49.6;

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 5 ON DECEIT AND VIOLENCE. These also occur in the guise of the foregoing. But ambition often violates or defiles the rights of succession, mixing violence and deceit. How often is the sceptre transferred in that way, not only to foreign, but also to unworthy people? And here, too, games occur. I would like to have a look at them for a little while if wisdom allows it. Come, you who value kingdoms and consider them equal to heaven, look at this little slave or lowly little man, raised to power by his cleverness. Behold, 1 First of all Pisistratus, who indeed sought to acquire power over Athens through deceit, but almost deserved it because of his virtuousness. He showed himself kind and friendly towards the citizens, even generous where needed, to such a degree that he was considered a refuge and asylum for people oppressed by injustice or indigence. This was suspicious in the nobles’ eyes, and he was not unaware of that. So to reduce them to order and to obtain a lifeguard under some pretext, he injured himself. Thus he was brought wounded to the forum, and showed the citizens the blood and injuries, which he had supposedly received from those powerful people as a reward for his kindness towards them. And he said that even his life was in danger, unless those to whom he had devoted it came to his aid. There was a public outcry of indignation, soon followed by a vote and a decision to give him protection. Once armed with that, he instantly oppressed his enemies and soon the people with his tyranny. The words of Solon should not be omitted here, who scented deceit and poured out against him: You do not imitate Homer’s Ulysses correctly, Pisistratus. He tore himself to pieces with whips to deceive the enemy, you inflicted wounds upon yourself to deceive the citizens. 2 There are many types of deceit, for sure, but there is one that often occurs in relation to the issue of succession. It is the deceit of those who insert themselves into another family and cunningly attach themselves to it. It begins as comedy and play, but how often does it lead to turmoil and murder? In Macedonia there was a certain Andriscus, a man of the lowest rank, who used to sustain himself with daily wages. All of a sudden he proclaimed himself to be Philip, son of King Perseus. And he looked quite similar to his grandfather. He said so and others believed him or pretended to do so, especially the Macedonians and Thracians, since they loathed being under Roman control, which displeased them by its novelty and harshness. Andriscus soon gathered very numerous troops, and he overthrew the Roman Praetor, until he was defeated by Metellus, brought to Rome in chains, and forced to join the triumphal procession. 3 In the same empire, but during the rule of Emperor Tiberius, there was a certain Clemens, actually a slave of Agrippa Postumus, Augustus’ grandson by Julia, whom he had exiled to the island of Pianosa. But through rumour and deceit Clemens soon be-

327 327

Liber ii, Caput v

IV

siam insulam relegaverat. Sed fama et fallacia mox ipse Postumus effectus. Ivit enim magno animo audita morte Augusti in insulam ut dominum furtim educeret et ad Germanicos aut alios exercitus ferret. Sed dum tardius navigat, interfectum Agrippam repperit et huc iam delabitur ut sese eum ferat. Venit in Etruriam, ignotis locis se abdit, crines barbamque in squallorem promittit. Mox per idoneos homines spargitur vivere Agrippam. Primum occultius, ut verita solent, tum vago rumore apud imperitos aut turbidos, eoque nova cupientes. Iamque in municipiis et coloniis se ostendebat, sed leviter et obscuro diei et copiam sui haud plene facturus. Augentur asseclae, audet Hostiam venire atque adeo in urbem et occultis coetibus celebrabatur. Tiberius, non ignarus periculi, ambigebat vim militarem an fraudem fraudi opponeret, et haec magis placuit, electique Sallustii Crispi opera duo milites qui simulata conscientia adiverunt, pecuniam et pericula sua offerentes. Mox noctem speculati et solitudinem circa eum, accepta idonea manu vinctum et ore clauso in palatium ad Tiberium attraxere. Ibi interrogatus, Quomodo Agrippa factus esset?, respondisse libere fertur, Quomodo tu Caesar, dolum et illi maternum obiiciens quo ab Augusto adoptatus esset. Secreto interfectus est magna inter tormenta constantia cum neminem consciorum edidisset. Nec Tiberius (prudenter in talibus) ultra quaesivit. In Syria similis dolus, etsi vix dolus. Demetrius Soter, ille qui Roma obses profugerat, iis imperabat cum certa nec iniusta de caussa, Antiochensibus offensis, bellum iis infert. Ipsi extremorum metu ad nova remedia confugiunt et vilem quemdam e plebe Alexandrum salutant et Antiochi filium faciunt ac repetere optimo iure paternum Syriae regnum. Fraus cui non apparebat? Sed novitatis studium (insitum popularibus et, addo, Orientalibus) sive odium Demetrii effecit ut crederent quae non crederent et certatim Alexandrum omnes amplexi. Ipse mirabatur novam suam sortem et tot comitum militumque agmina ac vires prope Orientis trahebat. Quibus stipatus pugnat, primo parum feliciter, mox aliter, et non vincit solum Demetrium, sed caedit. Eo facto pacificus Syriae possessor, quod solet, in vitia et luxum se effudit, parvis Demetrii liberis nec ab iis metu. Sed cum adolevisset Demetrius, Demetrii filius, cum parva manu Cretensium rem aggressus, adiutores repperit, et pari levitate

20–330,2 Iust. 35.1.5-2.4

328 328

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 came Postumus himself. For when he heard that Augustus had died, he courageously went to the island to secretly take his master away from there and bring him to the armies in Germany or elsewhere. But because he was sailing too slowly, he found Agrippa killed and he now sank so low that he posed as his master. He went to Etruria, hid in unknown places, and let his hair and beard grow and become dirty. Soon a rumour was spread by suitable people that Agrippa was alive; at first it was a quite secret rumour, as is usual with those matters which one fears, then a vague rumour was spread that reached the ears of those who were ignorant and violent, and therefore desired revolution. He was already showing himself in towns and colonies, but only briefly and after dusk, hardly ever giving anyone the opportunity to approach him. His followers increased in number, and he dared to go to Ostia and even to Rome, and held secret but well-attended meetings. Tiberius, who was not unaware of the danger, was not sure whether he should counter his deceit with military force or with deceit. He preferred the latter, and two soldiers were selected with the help of Sallustius Crispus. They went to Clemens, pretending to join him and offering to give him money and to risk their lives. They were soon looking for a night when he was alone, and with the help of some useful men they tied him, put a gag in his mouth, and dragged him into the palace to Tiberius. When he was asked there, How he became Agrippa, he is said to have boldly retorted, The way you became Caesar, taunting Tiberius with his mother’s deceit by which he had been adopted by Augustus. He was killed secretly, showing great constancy while being tortured, since he did not give away any of his accomplices. Nor did Tiberius (prudently in such matters) inquire any further. 4 A similar deceit took place in Syria, although it can hardly be called deceit. Demetrius Soter, he who had escaped from Rome when being held hostage, ruled the Syrians when, for a certain and not unjust reason, he inflicted war upon the Antiochians, who had been offended. In fear of utter destruction, they themselves took refuge to new means and greeted some vile plebeian as Alexander and made him Antiochus’ son, claiming back his father’s rule over Syria with perfect right. Who did not see the deceit? But the desire for revolution (innate in the common people and, I add, in Orientals) or hatred of Demetrius made them believe what they did not believe, and they all struggled to embrace Alexander. He himself was surprised at his new fortune and at such a multitude of associates and soldiers, and gathered nearly all the powers of the East to himself. Surrounded by them, he joined battle, not very successfully at first, but soon differently, and he did not only defeat Demetrius, but killed him as well. Having thus become the peacemaking possessor of Syria, he indulged in vices and luxury, as it usually goes. Demetrius’ children were small, so he did not fear them. But when Demetrius, Demetrius’ son, had grown up and had taken on the matter together with a small force of Cretans, he found assistance, and those who had deserted his father went over to him just as easily; among them the Antiochians themselves. So when Alexander, in his licentiousness, threw himself away on prostitutes and

329 329

Liber ii, Caput v

V

VI

ad se transeuntes qui a patre defecerant; in his ipsos Antiochenos. Itaque solutum illum et inter scorta ac mensas iactatum invadit, superat, trucidat. Hic finis scaenici et imaginarii Regis, sed satis tamen diuturni quique annos novem et menses decem in imperio alieno fuit. Alius ab isto, sed tamen Alexander et in finitima Iudaea, ipse Iudaeus genere, adoptavit se in familiam Herodis regis. Occasio erat quia facie Alexandrum referebat, ab illo exstinctum. Igitur mortuo Herode hic revixit et fucum etiam acutioribus faciebat, natura et ingenio vafer, tum ipsa illa similitudine valde gemina et vel noscentes fallente. Venit igitur Cretam et Iudaeos illic induxit sese agnoscere, pecuniam et alia usui dare. Quod idem in Melo insula, omnibus subtractum verum neci Alexandrum aliumque suppositum credentibus vulgantibusque. Ita Puteolos appulit, pari illic Iudaeorum credulitate et gaudio, ac mox Romam grandi comitatu, regia pompa. Nam et Iudaei, qui Romae frequentes et in his hospites notique Herodis, obviam ire, iurare eum esse, lecticam eius deferre prorsus ut a regio cultu et fastigio praeter Caesaris auctoritatem nihil abesset. Et sane Caesar Augustus moveri quoque coeperat. Sed retentabat quod vetus ille et veterator Herodes non videbatur in re tanta decipi potuisse. Et denique ut experimentum caperet, mittit Celadum, unum e libertis suis qui olim familiariter cum Alexandro et Aristobulo fratre (nam et is servatus dicebatur) versatus fuerat. Sed quid? Impositum ipsi Celado, et ille quasi notor et assertor ad Caesarem redit. Tamen dubitat, ipsum Alexandrum vocat. Et sagaciter animadvertit manus callosas et duratas opere, item in sermone et moribus non illum Principalem Genium et gratiam quae solet sic natis comitari et vel invitis insciisque adesse. Tum etiam interrogat quid factum Aristobulo esset, et cur non ille advenisset, causante ipso Cypri haesisse ob pericula maris et itinerum et ne, siquid durius evenisset, totum Mariamnes genus una periret. Haec illo canente, et doctore eius accinente, qui simulata gravitate aderat, Caesar seductum adolescentem monet et interminatur vera dicere et proposita impunitate, Quis esset? interrogat. Ille vero metu instantium et splendore illo praesenti territus, vera fatetur, seriem fabulae denarrat et a Caesare ad remum damnatur ut fidem in vita data non falleret; doctorem eius exuit vita. Reliquis satis supplicii censuit credidisse et pecunias effudisse. Haec vetera aut longinqua videbuntur. Addam haud longe ab aevo aut finibus nostris. Ecce in candida et simplici illa Germania exstitit Pseudofrideri-

5–32 J. BJ 2.101-110; AJ 17.324-338

33–332,6 Gerard. de Roo Ann. 1 (1592: 35-36)

330 330

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 food, Demetrius attacked, defeated and killed him. That was the end of a pretended and imaginary king, but he nevertheless ruled long enough, since he occupied someone else’s throne for nine years and ten months. 5 A different person, but still an Alexander, who lived in neighbouring Judaea, being Jewish himself by birth, attached himself to the family of King Herod. He had the opportunity because in appearance he resembled Alexander, who had been killed by Herod. So after the death of Herod, he revived and deceived even the most intelligent, being sly by nature and character, and exploiting that very twin-like resemblance, which deceived even those who knew him. So he came to Crete and tricked the Jews there into acknowledging him and giving him money and other useful things. The same happened on the island of Melos, where everyone believed and spread the rumour that the real Alexander had escaped death and had been replaced by someone else. Thus he also went to Pozzuoli, where the Jews were equally credulous and happy, and soon to Rome with a grand escort and pomp worthy of a king. For the Jews, who were numerous in Rome, among them also friends and acquaintances of Herod, also went to meet him, swore that it was he and carried his litter, so that he truly had everything pertaining to a king’s splendour and dignity – except the authority of the emperor. And indeed, also Emperor Augustus began to be influenced, but he kept in mind that it was unlikely that the old and sly Herod could have been deceived in such an important matter. So finally, in order to test that, he sent Celadus, one of his freedmen, who used to be close to Alexander and his brother Aristobulus (for it was said that he also had been saved). But what happened? Even Celadus himself was deceived, and he returned to the emperor as a witness and defender, as it were. Nevertheless Augustus had his doubts and he summoned Alexander himself. And he shrewdly noticed that his hands were calloused and hardened by work, and that in his speech and manners that princely genius and grace which normally accompany people born into those circles, even against their will and without their knowledge, were not present. Then he also asked Alexander what happened to Aristobulus and why he had not come. Alexander gave as a reason that Aristobulus had remained in Cyprus due to the dangers of the sea and the roads and to prevent that, if something bad happened, all of Mariamne’s descendants would be extinguished at once. This he sang, and his teacher, who was present with fake seriousness, sang along with it. But Augustus took the boy aside, admonished him, forced him with threats to tell the truth, and having promised him safety from punishment, asked who he was. Afraid of the imminent punishments and frightened by the surrounding splendour, he confessed the truth, related the course of events and was convicted by Augustus to the galleys, in order not to break the promise to save his life, but his teacher was deprived of his. Augustus thought that the others had received enough punishment by having believed Alexander and having wasted their money. 6 These examples will seem old or distant. I shall add others that are not far removed from our time or region. Behold, in honest and sincere Germany, at the time of Em-

331 331

Liber ii, Caput v ∞CCLXXXIV *XXII

VII ∞CCCXLVIII

VIII ∞CCXXV

cus tempore Rudolfi Habspurgensis Imperatoris, qui verum se Fridericum diceret, mortuum ante plures* annos. Obsidebat tum Rudolfus Colmariam, sed haud vane territus quod impostor ille in Germania nostra inferiore magnas sibi vires, nobiles urbesque adiungeret, soluta obsidione Rheno prono descendit et quasi veneraturus veterem Augustum accessit. Sed eius compos, interrogatum quis, unde, quare sic esset, igne in opido Witzlaria combussit. Post in eadem Germania nobilis impostura circa Marchionem Brandeburgensem, Voldemarum, evenit. Is ante annos triginta et unum amissus sive mortuus peregre erat cum Rudolfus, Saxoniae Dux, despicit qua via Ludovicum Bavarum, Ludovici Augusti Filium, Principatu Brandeburgensi pellere posset. Componit fabulam, ipse, inquam, eius poëta et actor. Nam molitorem quemdam, secreto habitum, omnibus notis insignibusque arte et astu instructum ad verum illum Marchionem, producit tandem in scaenam. Atque ecce populares desiderio et more plebis accurrunt, se et sua, plerique arces et opida etiam tradunt. Resistentes partim Saxonis copiis, partim Caroli Bohemi, qui Imperator a quibusdam designatus, ad deditionem coguntur. Ipsi Bavari et auxiliares eorum Palatini varia fortuna certant et grandi uno praelio vincuntur, capto Rudolfo Palatino Rhenensi cum lxxix e nobilitate equestri. Denique triennio toto elusit, aut potius illusit, ille molitor donec captus tandem ignem ipse, infamiam fautores eius subierunt. Sed in vicina etiam nostra et socia Flandria factum omnia dicta adaequat aut superat. Fuit Balduinus Octavus, Flandriae Hannoniaeque Comes et idem grandi ausu progressuque Orientis sive Byzantii Imperator. Dum illic res gerit, in praelio contra Bulgaros cadit. Nec ambigua res erat donec quidam Bernardus Rainsus, Campania Gallia oriundus et specie religionis iuxta Valentianas in silva quadam Anachoreta, donec is, inquam, vulgaret fingeretque post annos XX reducem et redivivum se Balduinum esse. Impulsus a nobilium quibusdam creditur, et aetas, forma, astus atque etiam audacia aderant ad fallendum. Igitur rebus in Hannonia motis in Flandriam ipsam cum hac fama venit et rara quadam oris gravitate, commemoratione hominum rerumque priorum, stem-

7–20 Leuncl. Pandect. 83

21–336,24 Aemil. de reb. gest. Franc. 8 (1566: 139a-140a)

332 332

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 peror Rudolf of Habsburg, there was a Pseudo-Frederick, who said he was the true Frederick, who had died many* years earlier. Rudolf was besieging Colmar at the time, but he was terrified – not without reason – because in our Lower Germany that impostor was tying great forces, noblemen, and cities to himself. When the siege had been finished, Rudolf travelled down the Rhine and approached the impostor, as if to pay homage to the old emperor. But once Rudolf had seized him and asked who he was, where he was from, and why he dressed and behaved like that, he had him burnt at the stake in the town of Wetzlar. 7 Later, also in Germany, a famous imposture took place around the person of Waldemar, Margrave of Brandenburg. He had gone missing or had died abroad thirty-one years before, when Rudolf, Duke of Saxony, saw a way to drive Louis of Bavaria, the son of Emperor Louis, away from the principality of Brandenburg. He made up a story, of which he himself, I say, was the author and the actor. For he had a secret henchman, whom he artfully and cunningly provided with all the marks and insignia that made him look like the real Margrave and finally introduced him onto the stage. And behold, the common people ran towards him, in accordance with the desire and custom of the plebs, and they gave themselves and their possessions, and most of them even their fortresses and towns to him. Those who resisted were forced to surrender, partly by the troops of Saxony, partly by those of Charles of Bohemia, who was elected emperor by some. The Bavarians themselves and their auxiliaries from the Palatinate fought with varying success and were defeated in one great battle, after Rudolf had been captured together with seventy-nine noble knights in the Rhineland-Palatinate. In the end that actor deluded, or rather ridiculed, them for three years in total until he was finally captured, and he himself ended up at the stake and his partisans in disrepute. 8 But what happened in our neighbour and ally Flanders equals or surpasses all that has been said. Once there was Baldwin VIII, Count of Flanders and Hainault, who at the same time, through great boldness and success, was Emperor of the East or Byzantium. When he was occupied there, he fell in battle against the Bulgarians. And no one doubted that, until a certain Bertrand of Rheims, who was born in Champagne in France and lived under the pretext of religion in a certain forest near Valenciennes as a hermit, until he, I say, spread the rumour and pretended to be Baldwin, who had come to life again and had returned after twenty years. He is believed to have been impelled by some of the nobility, and he had the age, looks, dexterity, and even the boldness to deceive. So after stirring things up in Hainault, he came to Flanders with the same rumour. And by displaying a remarkably dignified facial expression, recalling people and deeds from the past, and knowing the entire family tree, he even convinced the sagacious and the wary. Everywhere people went over and adhered to him, also out of aversion and contempt for female dominion, since Joan, Baldwin’s daughter, presided over things at the time. When she was overthrown and almost intercepted in the town of Quesnoy, she found protection and refuge with King Louis VIII

333 333

1284 *22

1348

1225

Liber ii, Caput v

matis totius notitia etiam sagaces cautosque inducit. Desciscunt et adhaerent passim fastidio etiam et contemptu faeminei imperii quod Ioanna id temporis, Balduini filia, rebus praesidebat. Quin ipsa profligata et propemodum in Querceto opido intercepta, praesidium et refugium ad regem Ludovicum Octavum Galliae habuit. Qui subvenit, sed cum prius a Senatu Ioannae examinatus inquisitusque planus ille esset. Eius enim Praeses sic dixit rogavitque: Tu, quocumque nomine appellandus, si te verum Balduinum iactas, cur Orientis magnum imperium deseruisti, ad hoc minus properasti? Cur apud notos atque optime de te meritos duces ac cives mortem simulasti, vitam dissimulasti? Quae commenti caussa aut merces? An numquid ii oderant? Etiam nunc resument si verus es Augustus. Obnoxii semper subditi fuerunt; atque utinam illi domino esse possint! Quid ad nos potissimum venisti, tot lustra non visus, nisi ut inter ignotos ignotus falleres? Viginti anni iam sunt a morte illius quem te dicis. Quibus tenebris et qua caussa tam curiose te occuluisti sic ut nec aura famae de te spiraverit? Passi multa mala fuimus, et id ob te mortuum. Mederi una voce, uno scripto poteras, vivo. Cum non feceris, ego, etiamsi vivis, vivum te habebo? Impietas tua non meretur. Abi, ingrate, a patria cuius caritatem exuisti, a Principatu cuius curam abiecisti, a civibus quos oblivione sepelisti. Dixerat Quaesitor. At ille mirum qua confidentia et ex ipsa fidem praestruens, Domi, inquit, inclementiores cives quam foris hostes repperi. Tu me, Flandria, mater et altrix, reiicis, quem Graecia, Macedonia, Thracia advenam excepit, coluit. Ipsa Barbaria, maiestatem verita, servavit. At enim ubi delitui? Audite et casuum humanorum miserescite si quid humani in pectoribus istis habetis. Captus praelio ad Hadrianopolim a Bulgaris, ab iisdem in custodia habeor, satis lenta et remissa, usque eo ut effugium etiam patuerit, et animo isto ac Deo ducibus me liberarim. Cum ad meos propero vagus et erro, in alios barbaros incido, ignaros fortunae meae, et ab iis in Asiam trahor ac vendor. Heu miseriam! Pudet, sed vos narrare cogitis. Syri me habent et ergastulum rusticum damnant. Ego, Balduinus, Comes, Imperator, qua manu sceptra tenui rastra tractavi plures per annos donec a Germanis mercatoribus, casu transeuntibus, quibus me aperui, pretio liberarer. Ii me domum remiserunt; vos expellitis? Ingrati, immemores veterum beneficiorum quibus avi vestri, patres, etiam tu atque ille a me affecti estis. En senium et hanc canitiem. Quo reservati sumus? Post tot fluctus scopulum repperi ubi portum putabam. Ipsa mea filia, mea Ioanna, patrem non agnoscit ne Comitem cognoscat. Haec et plura opportune disserens, magnitudinem suam vel fallaciam tuebatur. Vario animorum motu, et plerisque ad illum inclinatis. Adeo ut nobilium populariumque bona pars statim adhaeresceret, Comitem et Augustum salutaret donec re iam in

7 magnum deest A

9 ac cives deest A

10–11 Obnoxii...possint deest A

334 334

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 of France. He came to her assistance, but only after the impostor had first been examined and questioned thoroughly by Joan’s council. The president of the council spoke and questioned him as follows: You, by whatever name we should call you, if you boast of being the real Baldwin, then why did you abandon the great empire of the East to hasten to this smaller one? Why did you pretend to the officers and citizens whom you knew and who deserved so well of you, that you were dead and not alive? What is the reason or the reward for this lie? Did they hate you? Even now they will resume their hatred if you really are the emperor. Subjects have always been submissive; if only they could be so towards their real master! Why did you come to us above all, while you have not been seen for so many years, unless to deceive as an unknown person among unknown people? It is now twenty years since he, who you say you are, died. In which darkness and why have you been hiding so carefully that there was not even a whisper of a rumour about you? We have endured many misfortunes and that because of your death. You could have relieved us with one spoken or written word: “I am alive”. But since you did not do that, shall I consider you to be alive, even if you live? Your impiety does not deserve it. Go away from your fatherland which you ceased to love, ungrateful man; go away from the realm, the care of which you abandoned, away from the citizens whom you have buried in oblivion. That is what the examiner said. But Bertrand replied (and it is amazing how confident he was, securing his credibility from that): At home I have found citizens harsher than the enemies abroad. You, Flanders, the mother who nourished me, you reject me, while Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace received me, a foreigner, and cherished me. Even barbarous countries protected me, respecting my majesty. But where was I hiding? Listen and feel pity for the vicissitudes of human life, if you have anything human in those hearts of yours. Captured by the Bulgarians in the battle near Adrianople, I was kept in custody by them, but it was quite flexible and loose, even to such a degree that there was an opportunity to escape, and I freed myself, led by courage and God. When I hastened to my people, wandering and straying, I ran into other barbarians, who were ignorant of my circumstances, and was taken to Asia and sold by them. Oh, what misery! I am ashamed, but you force me to tell. Syrians bought me and condemned me to a country workhouse. For many years I, Baldwin, Count, Emperor, held a rake in the very hand that held the sceptre, until my freedom was bought by German merchants who happened to pass by and to whom I revealed myself. They sent me back home. And you expel me? Ungrateful people, unmindful of the old favours that your grandparents, fathers, and even you and he received from me. Look at me, I am an old, grey man; to what purpose have I been preserved? After so many waves, I found a rock where I believed there was a haven. Even my own daughter, my Joan, does not recognise her father, so that she would not have to recognise the Count. By cleverly saying these and other things, he defended his greatness or deception. Minds were moved in different directions, but most were inclined towards him. To such a degree that a great part of the nobility and of the common people immediately adhered to him and greeted him as Count and Emperor. Until, when the affair was culminating in great danger, Joan sent ambassadors to King Louis to beg him to protect the great and sacred memory of Baldwin, who was also his uncle, from the touch of a filthy scoundrel. The king took on the

335 335

Liber ii, Caput v

IX

X ∞CCCCXXII

praecipiti Ioanna ad Ludovicum Regem supplices Legatos mitteret ut Balduini, avunculi quoque sui, magnam sanctamque memoriam ab impuri nebulonis contage tueretur. Suscepit negotium Rex, diem homini dicit. Venit ille magno comitatu solitaque fiducia et fastu. Vestis erat purpurea, alba in manu virga, barba promissa, a qua vulgo Peregrinus Longobarbus vocabatur, sistitque se Regi Peronae. Ille orditur, succinctus nobilitate et Senatu, Flandria in fide et clientela mea est, ne mireris te huc vocatum. Quod more et iure, non ambitione aut usurpatione factum. Sive iniuria afficeris, a me vindicandus es; sive afficis, puniri debes. Utinam Deus et caelites facerent ut tu sis ille Balduinus, mihi avunculus, amitinae meae pater, nec uno nomine Galliae meae illigatus. Utinam! inquam. Sed famae tot annorum, tam constanti, quid faciam? Illa te iugulat. Credere me abnuis et unus tot millibus contradicis. Sed fidem ex genere humano tollis si consensui mortalium non ultra credimus. Tamen effare faveo siquid habes quo famam redarguas, quo Balduinum te asseras, quo veterem meum cognatum aut potius parentem a mortuis restituas. Si ille es, breviter ad haec respondere et statim potes. Quaero, Tene pater meus Flandriae Comitem dixerit, iura dederit? Quo teste, loco, tempore, ritu? Baltheone te et insigni militari donarit? Quae mulier ex Francica nobilitate, quo conciliante, quo auspice, loco, coetu nupserit? Quid haeres? Haec ignorare de se verus Balduinus non potest. Ista rex. Tamen audacia illa velut deprehensa haerebat et spatium cogitandi recolligendique sui petebat. Inde pro impostore haberi et contemptim dimitti. Dimitti tamen quia sub fide publica venisset. Nec diu post in Burgundia captus ab equite gentis Chastenaiae, Ioannae offertur. Quae convictum confessumque, ut dicunt, laqueo strangulavit. Non tamen sine plebeculae rumoribus, quae patrem ab improba filia in ligno suspensum tunc et diu postea differebat. Nonne consimile in Hispania cum Alfonsus Aragoniae rex esset, iuvenis et undecennis, matre gubernante? Supervenit qui se Alfonsum veterem adfirmaret, ante annos viginti et octo ad Fragam caesum. Pro colore adferebat taedio se rerum humanarum in Asiam et Terram sanctam ivisse, illic bella pro Deo et religione pugnasse, redisse ad suos culpis expiatis. Cur spernerent et puero ac mulierculae potius adhaerescerent? Moverat multos, res turbaturus haud dubie nisi Caesaraugustae captus laqueo gulam fregisset. Taedium iure vereor in paribus ausis et eventis. Qui tamen duos Mustafas sileam in Turcarum imperio ut nec id sit a scaenicis his ludis immune? Prior fuit Muratis Secundi principatu Dusmis. Sed qui se Mustafam diceret, Baiazitis

32–338,14 Leuncl. Ann. et Pandect. 83-89 3 Suscepit B : suscipit A A

7 more et deest A

336 336

8 debes B : debeas A

22 ut dicunt deest

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 matter and arranged an audience with the man. He arrived with a great escort and with his usual confidence and arrogance. His dress was purple, in his hand he held a white staff, and his beard was long (hence he was commonly called Long-bearded Stranger) and he presented himself to the king in Péronne. Surrounded by the nobility and the council, the king began: Flanders is my protégé and client, so you will not be surprised that I have called you here, which I have done according to custom and law and not out of ambition or usurpation. If you have suffered injustice, you will have to be avenged by me; if you inflict injustice, you need to be punished. I wish that God and the angels would make it so that you are that Baldwin, my uncle, my cousin’s father, connected to this country of mine, France, on more than one account. I said, “I wish!” But what should I do about the rumour that has remained so firm for so many years? It kills you. You say that I should not believe it, and you alone contradict so many thousands of people. But you take away faithfulness from the human race, if we no longer trust the general consensus of all human beings. I am nevertheless happy to let you speak if you have something to refute the rumour, to affirm that you are Baldwin, to raise my old relation, or rather parent, from the dead. If you are he, you can answer the following questions briefly and immediately. I ask you, did my father name you Count of Flanders; did he give you the rights? Who witnessed it, where, when, how did it take place? Did he give you a military sword-belt and insignia? Which woman from the French nobility married you, who wed you, witnessed by whom, where, in whose company? Why do you hesitate? It is not possible that the real Baldwin does not know these details about himself. That is what the king said. Nevertheless his boldness hesitated as if taken by surprise, and he asked for some time to think and collect himself. Therefore he was considered an impostor and dismissed with contempt. No more than dismissed, nevertheless, because he had come under protection of the people. But not much later he was captured in Burgundy by a knight from the Chastenay family and offered to Joan. After he had been convicted and had confessed his guilt, as they say, she strangled him with a rope. But not without rumours by the mob, who spread the rumour, then and long afterwards, that the father had been hanged by his evil daughter. 9 Did something similar not happen in Spain when Alfonso was King of Aragon, a young boy of eleven years, while his mother was governess? Someone appeared, who asserted that he was the old Alfonso, who had been killed twenty-eight years earlier near Fraga. As an excuse he alleged that, disgusted by human affairs, he had gone to Asia and the Holy Land, had fought for God and religion there and had come back to his country, purged of his sins. Why would they scorn him and rather support the boy and that little woman, his mother? He had influenced many and would without doubt have instigated a rebellion, had he not been captured in Saragossa and hanged. 10 I rightly fear disgust in similar ventures and events. Still, how could I not speak of the two Mustafas in the Turkish Empire in order to show that that is not free from these stage plays either? The first, during the reign of Murad II, was Dusmis. But he 1422 called himself Mustafa, son of Bayezid I, who was said to have – and indeed had – died in that unsuccessful battle against Tamerlane, where his father was captured as well. But

337 337

Liber ii, Caput v

XI

primi filium, quem fama et res erat infelici illo praelio cum Temir-lanco periisse, ubi et pater eius captus. At enim post annos vigintiduos iste se sufficit et fraudes ac turbas Murati miscet. Quas turbas? Tantas ut Begi, Bassae et primorum plerique ad eum deficerent, ipsi Christianorum Principes foedus inirent et Byzantii Imperator. Denique per triennium Muratem sic exercet ut incertum imperii et vitae faceret. Donec ad Lopadium lacum collatis castris (et Murates ipse aderat) arte quam viribus magis vincitur et transfugiis paullatim nudatur. Ivit ad hanc rem commentum callidum Legatorum, quos Byzantium uno tempore ad foedus et societatem ipse et Murates miserant. Sed Muratis irriti dimissi, illius impetraverant. Cum tamen Murataei, cursim praevenientes, audaci astu spargunt sese voti compotes et Graecos a se stare. Quod creditum sparsumque in utrisque castris multos, Mustafae detractos, Murati iunxit. Denique fugit ille, sed retrahitur et Hadrianopoli ad pinnam muri laqueo suspenditur. Alter Mustafa miri et novi commenti est, sed ab alieno impulsu et in alterius, ut putabatur, fructum. Ne grave sit me diducere paullum quae faciunt ad gravem illum nobis hostem. Soleimanno, maximo inter Turcarum principes, duae uxores fuerunt, et ex iis liberi: altera Bosphorana, e qua Mustafas; altera Roxolana, e qua isti quattuor Mahometes, Selymus, Baiazites, Giangir. Sed omnes hos aetate et gratia apud militem Mustafas anteibat. Nec dubium illius imperium si id exspectare quam habere maluisset. Pater sane eum, suspectum nimiae spei, interfecit. Iam e quattuor illis Mahometes obierat, et mox item Giangir. Duo competitores supererant, e quibus Selymum fata et pater promovebant, Baiazitem mater, mirifice in eum prona. Frustra maritum aliquoties tentaverat, vult fraudem et fortunam. Itaque re cum filio collata, visum illis initium res novandi per falsum Mustafam facere, ad cuius nomen et gratiam miles facile concurreret. Ipsi deinde eo in rem suam uterentur. Reperiunt iuvenem, audacia et facie idoneum, instruunt et dimittunt. Personam sumit et agit, venit in Thraciae loca quae Valachiam et Moldaviam spectant, ubi equitum copia, et qui plerique vivo nuper Mustafae addicti. Ibi clanculum et quasi timide se ostendit, comites qui aderant mussitant Mustafam esse, fuga elapsum a patre et alium ab amicis substitutum, qui interfectus pro ipso esset, incuria

15–342,4 Busbeq. Epist. 2 (1589: 51r-56r)

338 338

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 after twenty-two years Dusmis substituted himself for Mustafa and mixed deceit and turmoil against Murad. What kind of turmoil? Such turmoil that the Beys, Pashas and most of the noblemen defected to him; even the Christian princes and the Emperor of Byzantium joined him in a treaty. In the end he kept Murad occupied for three years to such a degree that he made him doubtful about his empire and his life. Until they set up camps near Lake Lopadium (and Murad was present in person), and he was defeated, more through art than power, and gradually stripped by desertions. A shrewd invention by the ambassadors helped this case. For he and Murad had sent ambassadors to Byzantium at the same time to conclude a treaty and alliance. But while Murad’s ambassadors had been dismissed without a result, Mustafa’s ambassadors had obtained what they requested. But those sent by Murad, who hurried to come first, boldly and cunningly spread the rumour that they had acquired a promise and that the Greeks were on their side. This was believed and spread in both camps and caused many to desert Mustafa and join Murad. In the end Mustafa fled, but was brought back and hanged in Adrianople from a pinnacle on the wall. 11 The other Mustafa was the result of an extraordinary and new type of deceit, but it was done at another’s instigation and to another’s advantage, as it was believed. I hope you do not mind if I relate a few things which pertain to that harsh enemy of ours. Süleyman, greatest of Turkish emperors, had two wives and had children by both of them. One was called Bosphorana, by whom he had Mustafa; the other one Roxelana, by whom he had these four children, Mehmed, Selim, Bayezid, and Jihangir. But Mustafa surpassed all of them in age and popularity with the army. No doubt the empire would have been his, if he had preferred to wait for it rather than have it. His father indeed killed him on suspicion of too much ambition. Of those four, Mehmed had already died, soon followed by Jihangir. Two competitors remained, of whom Selim was favoured by fate and by his father, Bayezid by his mother, who was extraordinarily favourable towards him. Having tried several times to influence her husband, to no avail, she wanted to try deceit and good luck. So she discussed it with her son, and together they decided to start a revolution through a false Mustafa, to whose name and popularity the army would gather easily. Afterwards they would use him to their own advantage. They found a young man who was suitable as far as boldness and appearance were concerned, instructed him, and sent him out. He assumed and played the role, and went to the area in Thrace which faces Walachia and Moldavia, where there were many knights, most of whom had sworn allegiance to Mustafa, when he was still alive recently. There he secretly and, as it were, timidly showed himself, while his companions who were present whispered that it was Mustafa, who had escaped from his father by fleeing and had been replaced by his friends with someone else, who had been killed in his place and through carelessness he had not been recognised or inspected in earnest. That was the argument of the spectacle, and people immediately assembled to watch and perform it. Also those who had seen Mustafa being killed with their own eyes came. But surely they wanted to be deceived so that there would

339 339

Liber ii, Caput v

nec serio agnitum aut inspectum. Id argumentum fabulae erat, ad quam spectandam agendamque statim concursus. Veniebant et ii qui oculis suis Mustafam interfectum viderant. Sed vel falli volebant ut locus esset, si non recipiendi Mustafae, saltem vindicandi. Iam paene exercitus erant. Sed Sangiacci trepidi rem ad Soleimannum referunt, qui fraudis certus eos acerbe increpat, Quid ita initiis non obstitissent? Vel nunc facerent aut iram ac poenam a se exspectarent. Mittere se Pertavvum Bassam cum validis fidisque copiis. Sed melius gratiusque fore si ii quod neglectum est, sarciant et ignem nondum validum exstinguant. Sangiacii, iis monitis minisque excitati, advigilant, concurrunt, adventantes reprimunt, manus iam factas dissipant et spargunt; nihil reliqui sibi ad diligentiam faciunt ut fidem et operam suam Domino probent. Tamen Bassa supervenit. Nec res adhuc Mustafae satis validae aut constitutae erant. Itaque a praesenti metu fluctuare multi incipiunt, dilabi alii et transfugere donec desertus miser cum praecipuis ministrorum in manus venit. Vivus trahitur Byzantium, examinatur, nihil celat. Cura iam non de illo puniendo (quod statim factum), sed de filio patrem subit. Hocne illum ausum in tam recenti Mustafae infelici exemplo? Dolor non ab impietate solum erat, sed ab impudentia et temeritate ira. Et iam magnum aliquid parabat. Sed mater filium non deserit, callida mulier et mariti sui diu potens. Venit et rem fatetur, excusat et deprecatur. Quid enim magni miri, inquit, si in fratrem (non enim in te, ne cogita) aliquid molitus est, non tam ambitu quam metu impulsus? Leges sive fata nostrae gentis sunt unum non imperare solum, sed vivere. Et exordium novi Principatus est fraternum paricidium. Quid, inquam, mirum igitur si fugere triste et extremum hoc voluit? Si vitam prorogare? Natura impellimur, et te consule. Hic scopus huius conatus fuit, miseratione, si consideras, quam ira dignioris. Tu illam da. Cui? Filio. Cui? Et mihi, uxori. Nam certum non supervivere illi, et in uno duos occides. Quamdiu autem dature? Me miseram instant fata, et in tua senis anima adolescentis illius spirat et mea. Movit intimum senile pectus et concussit mulier. Dat veniam, sed ea lege ut filius se videat et ipse eam petat. Ergo advocatur et a matre quoque excitatur, iam secura, ut tuto veniat. Venit, sed cum in aditu paterni hospitii est (extra urbem conveniebant, nec temere filii patre vivo in ipsam intrant), ecce milites, qui descendentem ex equo tradere pugionem et gladium iubent. Id in aliis de more fiebat, sed conscientia stimulante omnia timet, et multus in oculis Mustafas uterque erat. Mater tamen dat animos. Quae de industria ad ianuam exspectat et, per fenestram linteo obductam, hortatur intrepide pergat viam omnem a se praemunitam. Accedit

20 cogita B : erres A

23 et extremum deest A

340 340

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 be a chance, if not to get Mustafa back, then at least to avenge him. Soon they had nearly formed an army, but the Sanjak-beys were frightened and reported the case to Süleyman. Convinced that there was deceit involved and reproving them sharply, he asked why they had not opposed this from the beginning. They should do so now or else expect him to be angry and punish them. He would send Pertau Pasha with strong and faithful troops, but it would be better and more pleasing if they would repair what they had neglected and extinguish the fire while it was still weak. Stimulated by those warnings and threats, the Sanjak-beys kept watch, engaged in combat, kept those who were approaching back, separated troops which had already been formed and scattered them. They did everything as diligently as they could in order to demonstrate their faithfulness and service to their master. Nevertheless the Pasha came, and Mustafa’s cause was not yet strong or established enough. So many began to hesitate because of the present fear, others deserted him and went over to the other side, until the wretch was deserted and fell into the hands of the enemy together with his main assistants. He was brought alive to Byzantium and questioned and he hid nothing. The father did not worry about punishing him (which was done immediately), but about punishing his son. Had he dared to do this when there was the example of Mustafa, so recent and unsuccessful? He did not only feel hurt by the disloyalty, but also outraged by his son’s impudence and foolhardiness. And now he was preparing something substantial, but the mother did not desert her son. She was a shrewd woman and had been controlling her husband for a long time. She went to him, confessed what happened, apologised, and begged: What is so surprising if he has undertaken something against his brother (for do not think that it is against you), stimulated not so much by ambition as by fear? It is the law or fate of our people that one person does not only rule, but live. The beginning of a new reign is fratricide. Is it surprising then, I say, if he wanted to evade this sad end? If he wanted to prolong his life? We are driven by nature. Consider it for yourself. That was the goal of this attempt, an attempt worthy of pity rather than anger. Have pity on him. On whom? On your son. On whom? Also on me, your wife. For I would certainly not outlive him, and you will kill two people in one person. For how long will you have pity? My destiny awaits me, wretched woman, and in your old soul this young man’s soul breathes, and mine. The woman touched and shook the innermost feelings of Süleyman’s old heart. He forgave them, but on condition that his son would come to see him and personally ask for forgiveness. So he was called and also encouraged to come safely by his mother, who was already safe. He came, but when he was at the entrance to his father’s guest quarters (they were meeting outside the city, and sons do not rashly enter it while their father is alive), behold, soldiers ordered him, as he was dismounting, to hand over his dagger and sword. That was the normal procedure for other people, but goaded by his conscience, he feared everything, and he frequently had the fate of both Mustafas before his eyes. But his mother encouraged him. She was deliberately waiting for him at the door and through a window covered by a curtain she urged him to continue without fear; the entire path had been secured by her beforehand. He approached his father’s hand,

341 341

Liber ii, Caput v

ad manum patris, petit veniam et accipit, monitus magis quam castigatus. Atque ut plenam fidem reconciliationis faceret, potum de more gentis iussit offerri. Sed nec hunc sine metu bibit, venenum suspectans, donec pater ex eodem poculo haustu ducto omni eum cura liberavit. Atque haec Fraudium sunt; addam 5 Violentiae exempla. I

II

Heu, quam multa ea occurrunt! Passim video aditus atque exitus Regiarum sanguine respersos. Sed temperabo et eligam. Ab Oriente ordior. Atque ibi in Iudaea triste fatum Gedeonis familiae video, unius ambitione consumptae. Laudatus ille vir et dux per quadraginta annos populi, liberos genuit et reliquit septuaginta, atque hos legitimos. Unum e concubina Druma, cui nomen Abimelechi. Hic post mortem patris imperio imminens et adiutus materna pecunia atque amicis, copias collegit e vagis et sordidis hominibus. Cum quibus Sichimam venit inopinato atque omnes ibi fratres septuaginta super lapidem unum (ut sacra loquuntur) interfecit et velut immolavit. Quid si totidem alienos et extraneos? O facinus! At ille imperium invadit et in triennium etiam retinet, ut coeperat, saeviens et subditos varie affligens sic ut Sichimitae arma caperent et rebellarent. Frustra. Domuit eos et occidit et ipsum opidum delevit salemque in eo conspersit. Sed caelestis vindicta tamen consequitur, et cum turrim quamdam oppugnaret, fragmine molaris lapidis mulier superne caput eius contrivit. Quo ictu collapsus et iam moribundus, ad satellitem suum, Tu, me, inquit, gladio iugula ne muliebri manu dicar cecidisse. In Parthis Orodes regnavit, ille qui Crassum victum iactat et occisum. Is cum senuisset, in luctu ob Pacorum filium, a Ventidio caesum, aquae intercutis vitio laboravit neque longe iam a morte. Quam tamen longum Phraati filio visum exspectare et veneno eam maturat. Sed id contra fuit nec aliud quam mota alvo in medicinam abiit et totius morbi senem allevavit. Quod ille indignatus (neque enim paenitentia subiit sceleris, cui vel Numen videbat adversari), ad apertum parricidium ab occulto transit atque hominem palam suffocavit. Iamne finis? Minime: catenata sunt scelera, et post patrem fratres triginta, quasi inferias, adiecit. Quis tamen illius finis? Consimilis. Nam cum in pace et foedere cum Augusto esset, cui et signa Crasso erepta remisit, hic vicissim dona dedit, inter alia, pellicem insigni forma Italici generis, quae prolem ei genuit

8–22 J. AJ 5.233-251 344,2 J. AJ 18.39-42

14 Iud. 9.5

23–29 Plu. Crass. 33.5

342 342

30–31 Iust. 42.5.1

31–

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 asked for forgiveness and obtained it, admonished rather than chastised. And in order to fully convince him of the reconciliation, his father ordered that he should be offered a drink according to the custom of their people. But he did not even drink that without fear, suspecting poison, until his father took a sip from the same cup, freeing him of all worries. And these are examples of deceit. I will add

Examples of violence. 1 Alas, how many of those occur! Far and wide I see the entrances and exits of palaces sprinkled with blood. But I will restrain myself and make a selection. I am starting in the East. There, in Judaea, I see the sad fate of the family of Gedeon, which was destroyed by the ambition of one man. He was an esteemed man and leader of his people for forty years, procreated and left seventy children, all of them legitimate. One was born to the concubine Druma, and his name was Abimelech. After his father’s death, he was striving eagerly for power and with the help of his mother’s money and his friends, he gathered troops of vagrants and villains. With them he unexpectedly came to Shechem and there he killed all his seventy brothers on one stone (as it is written in the Bible) and, as it were, sacrificed them. What if it had been as many strangers and foreigners? What a crime! But he seized power and even held on to it for three years in the same way as he attained it, by raging and afflicting his subjects in various ways, so that the people from Shechem took up arms and rebelled. In vain. He overcame and killed them, destroyed the town itself, and besprinkled it with salt. But nevertheless heavenly vengeance followed and when he was storming a certain tower, a woman crushed his head from above with a piece of a mill-stone. Collapsed by the blow and already dying, he said to his henchman, You, kill me with your sword so that people will not say that I have been killed by a woman’s hand. 2 Orodes was ruling the Parthians, he who boasted that he had defeated and killed Crassus. When he had grown old, mourning his son Pacorus, who had been killed by Ventidius, he suffered from dropsy and was already close to death. But his son Phraates thought that he still had to wait for his father’s death for a long time and accelerated it with poison. But it had the opposite effect; the only thing that happened was that Orodes’ stomach was stirred and the poison changed into a medicine which cured the old man of the disease altogether. Angry at that (for he did not regret his crime, even though he saw that God himself opposed it), Phraates went from secretly to openly killing his father and suffocated him in open view. Was that the end? Not at all. There was a chain of crimes, and after his father he added his thirty brothers, as if they were sacrifices in honour of the dead. But what was his own end like? Similar. For when he lived in peace and alliance with Augustus, to whom he had also sent back the signs taken from Crassus, the emperor gave him gifts in return, among other things an Italian concubine of remarkable beauty, who gave birth to his son Phraatax. When he grew up, he killed his father with the knowledge and help of his mother. Well done,

343 343

Liber ii, Caput v

III

IV

V

Phraatacem. Hic ipse ut adolevit, conscientia et opera matris patrem interfecit. Bene, bene. Quidni dicam? Tulit quae meruit, et quae docuit: rediit in auctorem exemplum. Brevi stilo lata scelera in Mithridate Pontico stringam, cui bellum et clades fuit a Romanis, sed mors ab ipso filio. An et hoc immerito? Ecce ille matrem iam primis annis sustulit, mox fratrem; deinde tres filios totidemque filias. Caelum, terra, mare, aspicere, ferre, purgare toties impium potuistis? Ignosco Pharnaci et animos ad scelus paene addo: Vindica adolescens aviam, patruum, fratres, sorores, tot mortes (leve est) in una. Iam in Prusia, Bithyno tyranno, Romanorum non socio rege, sed servo, vix memorabile est quod is filium Nicomedem tollere e medio voluerit. Quid ita? Ut locum aliis filiis faceret ad regnum. Perversa aliqua pietas haec fuerit. Sed ecce filius, rei conceptae gnarus, scelus in ipsum vertit et defectione populorum regnum ei ademit et deinde vitam. Relinquo te, Oriens; fatiges me si perambulem. Centesimam partem (vere loquor) non libavi. Sed unum tamen abiens hic consignem. Ptolomaeus inter Alexandri successores pulso Antigono Macedoniam occupaverat, pacem cum Antiocho, foedus et affinitatem cum Pyrrho fecerat. Securus iam omnium nisi sororis et ex ea liberorum. Arsinoe erat, quae in matrimonio Lysimachi fuerat, Macedoniae regis. Itaque animum et artes intendit ad eam una cum liberis captandam. Cautam tamen, monitam et omnia timentem. Quid adhibet? Machinam in hunc sexum validissimam: amorem. Soror erat, sed quid ad rem? Incendit; non absterret ea cognatio Orientales barbaros, et res in mores et iura vertit. Itaque munera, legatos, litteras missitare; offerre ipsi societatem regni, liberis hereditatem. Nec alio fine se armis id occupasse quam ut iis posset relinquere. In has res fidem se paratum dare quam vellet et ubi vellet, apud sanctissimas aras et templa. Quid multa? Persuadetur mulierculae, ex fidissimis amicis mittit qui iuramentum accipiat. Quod ille incunctanter et paene invitans, in veterrimae religionis templo concipit, ipsa simulacra et altaria deorum tangens, se suumque caput inauditis ultimisque exsecrationibus devovens: Sincera se fide matrimonium sororis petere; nuncupaturum eam reginam eiusque liberos suos heredes habiturum nec alios. Ergo Arsinoe, spe iam plena, in conspectum colloquiumque fratris venit. Qui vultu ipso et oculorum acrimonia amorem simulans, fabulam peragit, uxorem ducit, capiti diadema coram milite populoque imponit et Reginam appellat. Secuta quae solent nuptiis, et laeta Arsinoe

4–7 App. Mith. 112

10–14 Iust. 34.4

16–346,12 Iust. 24.1.8-3.10

344 344

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 well done. Why should I not say that? He got what he deserved and what he taught: what goes around comes around. 3 I will briefly touch upon the extensive crimes of Mithridates of Pontus, who received war and destruction from the Romans, but death from his own son. And did he not deserve this, too? Behold, he had already killed his mother in his early years, soon also his brother, and afterwards three of his sons and as many daughters. Could you, sky, earth, and sea, watch, tolerate, and purge that impious person so many times? I forgive Pharnaces and nearly encourage him to commit a crime: When you have grown up, avenge your grandmother, uncle, brothers, sisters, so many deaths in one (it is easy). 4 Now, it is hardly remarkable that Prusias, tyrant of Bithynia and slave of the Romans, rather than an associated king, wanted to kill his son Nicomedes. Why then? To make room for his other sons to rule. This may have been a certain perverse loyalty. But behold, the son, who was aware of the plan, turned the crime against him and through rebellion of the peoples deprived him of his kingdom and then of his life. 5 I leave you, East, behind; you would tire me if I walked through you. I have not selected one hundredth (I tell the truth), but still I should record one more instance to conclude. Among the successors of Alexander, Ptolemy, who had occupied Macedonia after having expelled Antigonus, made peace with Antiochus and a treaty and alliance with Pyrrhus. He was already secure from everyone except his sister and her children. She was called Arsinoe and had been married to Lysimachus, King of Macedonia. So he directed his mind and skills towards capturing her together with her children. She was cautious, though, having been warned and fearing everything. So what did he use? The strongest device against that sex, namely love. She was his sister, but what did that matter? He inflamed her; that kinship does not deter the Oriental barbarians, and it has turned into a common and lawful practice. So he repeatedly sent her presents, messengers, and letters, offered to share the kingdom with her and to let her children inherit it. He had occupied it with weapons for no other purpose than to be able to leave it to them. He was prepared to give her whatever guarantee she wished in this matter and wherever she wished it, near the most holy altars and temples. Why say more? He persuaded the woman and she sent one of her most faithful friends to receive the oath, which he took unhesitatingly and almost invitingly in a temple of very old veneration, touching the very statues and altars of the gods, pledging himself and his life to her with unheard-of and extreme oaths: that he sincerely asked for marriage to his sister, that he would proclaim her queen and have her children as his heirs and no others. So Arsinoe, already full of hope, came to see and talk to her brother. Simulating love in his face and in the poignant expression in his eyes, he went through with his act, married her, crowned her in the presence of the army and the common people, and proclaimed her queen. The wedding was followed by the usual things: Arsinoe happily led the way to Cassandrea, a heavily secured city (the only thing he was after), where her treasures and children were, to introduce her husband and to receive

345 345

Liber ii, Caput v

VI

VII

VIII ∞IƆXI

Cassandream, munitissimam urbem (quod unum petebatur), ubi thesauri et liberi, praeivit, maritum introductura et festo apparatu exceptura. Viae, templa, domus ornantur; arae et hostiae disponuntur. Filios quoque suos, Lysimachum, sedecim annos natum, Philippum, triennio minorem, patri et avunculo occurrere iubet. Quos ille, extra portam obvios, cupide et ultra modum solitae affectionis amplexus, osculis fatigat nec dimittit. Portam et arcem ingressus, ponit personam, sumit suum vultum et affectum statimque milite introducto pueros iubet interfici in gremio ipso matris, ad quam confugerant. Illa hoc miserior quod mori cum iis non licuit (saepe se gladiis interposuerat et obtulerat), in exsilium cum duobus servulis pulsa est. Ptolomaeo tamen haud diu ab hac victoria triumphante cum Galli Macedoniam inundantes, victo ei caput paullo post abstulerint, in hasta ad terrorem et fidem circumlatum. Ad Occidentem iam ire mihi licet et ordiri ab Hispania. In qua cum Gnaeus Scipio, post Africanus, victoriales et funebres simul ludos daret capta Carthagine nova, en duo fratres patrueles, Corbis et Orsua, qui de regno armis certaturi eum adeunt. Ipse, ut mitis ingenio, omnia conatur et tentat ut ratione, non Marte iudice rem componant. Frustra: campum et arenam volunt. Concesso magnis animis concurrunt, sed maior natu, Corbis, facile minorem natu astu et armorum usu vicit atque occidit. Dicam in Italia de Romulo, Tarquinio Superbo, Nerone, tot aliis qui scelere et sanguine sceptrum pepererunt? Multa et nota sunt ideoque cum venia omittenda. Venio ad aevi nostri parricidam nobilem et, quod indignetur aliquis, felicem. Sceptra imperii Turcici tenebat Baiazites Secundus, rebus gestis clarus et numerosa prole succinctus, in qua natu minimus Selymus erat, de quo eo dictum. Sex ille fratres habebat, e quibus duo primaevi suo fato obierunt, tertius paterna vi. Duo supererant, aetate et iure imperii ante ipsum. Sed imperium tamen animo agitabat et ut perveniat, patrem, impedimento futurum, e medio vult sublatum. Id varie tentavit, et primo colore aliquo pietatis. Mos Turcarum habet filios Principis in certo loco aut opido claudere nec finibus iis egredi nisi permissu aut iussu patris. Id contra spes aut res novas institutum videtur et ne militibus aut populo misceantur captenturve aut captent. At Selymus fines istos audacter migrat, comites et milites colligit et cum hac manu ad patrem pergit. Miranti et per legatos etiam expostulanti, Ecquid sibi vellet? Patriae leges, patris iussa sperneret? Quo fine aut caussa? ille refert, non pravi-

13–19 Liv. 28.21

23–350,35 Leuncl. Ann. et Pandect. 191-215

346 346

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 him with festive splendour. The streets, temples, and houses were decorated, altars and sacrifices put in order. She also ordered her sons, Lysimachus, who was sixteen years old, and Philip, who was three years younger, to come and meet their father and uncle. They met him outside the gate, and he embraced them, passionately and beyond the measure of normal affection, showered them with kisses and did not let them go. But as soon as he entered the gates and the citadel, he dropped his mask and showed his true face and feelings: immediately after having let in his army, he gave orders to have the children killed on the lap of their mother herself, to whom they had taken refuge. She was all the more miserable as she was not allowed to die together with them (although she had often put herself between the swords and her children and exposed herself to the swords). She was exiled together with two slaves. But when Ptolemy was holding his triumph not long after this victory, the Gauls flooded Macedonia, defeated him and a while afterwards cut off his head, which they carried round on a spear to instil fear and loyalty. 6 Now I am allowed to go to the West and start in Spain. When Gnaeus Scipio, who was later called Africanus, was organising games there to celebrate his victory and at the same time hold funeral games after Carthago Nova had been captured, behold, two cousins, Corbis and Orsua, came to him to fight for the throne with weapons. As Scipio had a mild character, he tried everything and urged them to settle things with reason instead of weapons. In vain: they wanted the battlefield and the arena. When he had agreed, they joined battle with great courage, but the oldest one, Corbis, easily beat and killed the younger one by his cunning and experience with weapons. 7 Should I talk about Romulus, Tarquinius Superbus, Nero, and so many others in Italy, who acquired the sceptre through crime and bloodshed? There are many examples and they are well known, so you will forgive me if I omit them. 8 I come to a notorious and, which may annoy someone, successful murder of a parent in our time. Bayezid II was ruling the Turkish Empire; he was famous for his 1511 deeds and was surrounded by numerous children, the youngest of whom was Selim, about whom I will talk. He had six brothers; two of them died prematurely of natural causes, a third by the hand of the father. There were two left, who preceded Selim in age and right to the throne. But he was nevertheless thinking about supreme power and in order to attain it, he wanted to kill his father, who would be a hindrance. He tried in various ways and initially under the pretext of piety. It is a Turkish custom to lock the sons of the emperor in a certain place or town, and they are not allowed to cross its borders unless their father permits or orders it. This seems to have been established to prevent hopes of acquiring the throne or rebellion, and to keep them from being mixed with, or allured by, the army or the people, or alluring them in turn. But Selim audaciously crossed those borders, gathered companions and soldiers, and went to his father with those troops. His father was surprised and even urgently asked through messengers whether he wanted something; if he despised the laws of his country and his father’s orders; to which purpose or for which reason; he answered that he did

347 347

Liber ii, Caput v

tate, sed pietate motum facere. Et Mahumetis legem esse tertio quoque aut quarto anno visere ad parentes. Velle se parere et parentis optimi manum (ita Turcarum etiam sermo habet) osculari. Baiaziti haud placitum, iterumque legatos et asperiora mandata mittit, quorum summa rediret. Ille pergere nihilo sequius et iam Hadrianopoli appropinquare, nixus, ut putabatur, occulto favore et gratia Genitzarorum, quos in partes traxerat. Erat in eaipsa tunc urbe pater. Qui fraudes aut vim metuens et simul urbi dominae timens, Constantinopoli, ubi thesauri et regia gaza erat, illuc concitus pergit. Idem filius et patrem in vico assequitur qui Tzurulus appellatur. Quid? Ad manus osculum? Imo ad manus consertionem. Et suos instruit et vim parat facere, patre contra, cum eo ventum videt, dirigente. Pugna committitur, anceps et cum discrimine, maiore etiam metu Baiazitis. Qui haud de nihilo fidem suorum suspectabat et Deum ac Mahumetem alta voce invocabat vindices patriae et imperatoriae maiestatis. Audivit ille (non enim iste), et fugit Selymus, vasa et impedimenta omnia amittit, animum et impietatem retinet. Ac Capham cum venisset, copias iterum colligit et prima hieme in Thraciam redit. Fiduciam etiam Genitzari dabant, qui in urbe tumultuati, Achmetis (is frater maior erat) imperium aspernabantur atque adeo legatos eius qui tunc advenerant, per ignominiam eiecerunt. Occulte ad Selymum etiam missis ut approperaret; sese caetera exsecuturos et manu viam facturos ad solium et ad sceptrum. Imperium illud miles temperat pravo et noxio more, nec alia caussa exitii aliquando erit. Sed Achmetes horum non ignarus, cum ipse quoque iuxta Constantinopolim venisset, et militum quidam operam ac fidem obtulissent, adnuit, sed quod momentum inclinationi aliorum facturum erat, aurum praesens et amplioris stipendii spem, non adiecit. Imo vocem iecit, liberam, sed intempestivam, Sese vel invitis illis imperaturum. Offendit et alienavit, iamque Selymus ad urbem venit, tentoria in pratis fixit. Cui obviam factus Corcutes, frater alter, modesti ingenii et sapientiae ac religionis studiis deditus, ut captus est gentis. Genitzari, audito advenisse, statim coeunt et tumultuantur. Decem e suis ad Bassas (Praefectos sic nominant) ablegant qui postulent, Dominum et Sultanum Selymum esse. Baiazitem ultra non esse, aetatis et virium imbecillum nec molem imperii sustinentem. Hoc ipsi edicerent suaderentque volens faceret quod vel nolens adigeretur, et cederet, aut caedi ipsi Bassae exspectarent. Sententiam omnium sic ferre. Haec dicta, et prompti facere erant. Ergo timor Bassas incessiit, et Baiaziti rem et discrimen exponunt. Generosus animus et veteris laudis factorumque conscius, indignari. Nihil indultum velle,

348 348

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 it out of piety, not viciousness. And it was Muhammad’s law to visit one’s parents every three or four years. He wanted to obey and kiss his excellent father’s hand (that is also what is said in Turkish). This did not please Bayezid, and he once again sent messengers and harsher orders, the chief point of which was that Selim should go back. He continued nonetheless and was already approaching Adrianople, relying, as it was believed, on the secret support and favour of the Janissaries, whom he had won over to his side. His father was in that very city at the time. Fearing deceit or violence and at the same time fearing for the capital, Constantinople, where the treasuries and royal riches were, Bayezid went there in a great hurry. So did his son, and he caught up with his father in a village called Çorlu. Why? To kiss his hand? Rather to fight him hand to hand. And he lined up his troops and prepared to fight. When the father saw that it had come to that, he directed his own forces against his son. The battle began and it was undecided and critical for both, but Bayezid was the one who feared most. He was suspicious about the faithfulness of his soldiers, not without reason, and loudly invoked God and Muhammad to protect the country and the greatness of the emperor. The former listened to him (for the latter did not). Selim fled, leaving all his baggage and equipment behind, but keeping his fierceness and impiety. And when he reached Kaffa, he gathered troops again and returned to Thracia at the beginning of winter. Moreover, the Janissaries increased his confidence. They created commotion in the city, despised the rule of Ahmed (his elder brother), and even threw out Ahmed’s ambassadors, who had just arrived, in a disgraceful way. They also secretly sent messengers to Selim to hurry, promising that they would take care of the rest and pave the way to the throne and the sceptre with their bare hands. That empire is ruled by the military in a twisted and harmful way; and one day that will be the very cause of its destruction. But when Ahmed, who was not unaware of this development, also came near Constantinople and some soldiers offered him help and loyalty, he accepted, but he did not add what would have a decisive impact on the inclination of others, namely ready money and the hope of a higher stipend. He even freely, but unseasonably said that he would rule, even if they did not want it. He offended them and estranged them. Meanwhile Selim came to the city and pitched his tents in the meadows. Korkut, his other brother, a man of gentle nature and dedicated to the study of wisdom and religion, according to the capacity of this people, came to meet him. When the Janissaries heard of his arrival, they immediately came together and raised a tumult. They sent ten of their people to the Pashas (that is what they call their commanders) to demand that Selim would be master and sultan because Bayezid could no longer be; being weak of age and strength, he was no longer capable of bearing the burden of the rule. They should make this publicly known and urge him to do willingly what he would be forced to do, even against his will, and yield, or the Pashas themselves should expect to be killed. This was the decision made by everyone. This is what they said and they were ready to do it. So fear seized the Pashas and they exposed the situation and the danger to Bayezid. Being noble-minded and conscious of his previous glory and deeds, he was indignant.

349 349

Liber ii, Caput v

arma et manus suorum spectare et implorare. Sed abnuentium, atque ibi primus Bassarum (Vizirium dicunt), Mustafas: Ergo supremum vale, Imperator, inquit, nam nos quidem morituri te alloquimur, nescio an moriturum. Hoc animi tui decretum ultimum nobis iam dicit. Et minas militares addit. Movetur ille et ipsos miseratur atque infit: Ergo certum iis vitam nobis adimere? Et huc ventum? Mustafas: Huc ventum, quod ad nos attinet; de te, Deus meliora. Sed ut optima, spiculis tamen hastarum (verba ponimus) de solio imperatorio scito te detrahendum. Senex videt necessitatem ultimam esse et paullisper vocem compressam solvit: Agite igitur, inquit, ad filium ite, nuntiate rerum summam illi permitti. Filius venit, pater excipit, vultu quidem laetus, et thesauros ei atque alia imperii resignat. Tum et solium conscendere iubet, sed recusantem et subdola modestia solam pietatem affectumque visendi patris praeferentem. Iterum iubet, propinquo etiam periculo monitus et minaces militum vultus vocesque audiens aut videns. Admittit filius, sed in sequentem diem. Conveniunt frequentes, equites peditesque. Sedet pro tribunali et imperii iurisque usurpandi caussa unum e Genitzaris suspendi laqueo iubet; ceteris spe facta benigni simul et fortis dignique maioribus imperii. Cuius primum facinus relegatio patris Dimotucum. Et priusquam perveniret, interitus veneno procuratus. Aiunt medicum eius corruptum id obtulisse, adamante minutatim confracto et cibis immixto. Cui tamen pretium operae mors fuit et cervix incisa cum voce Selymi praevia: Veteri domino infidum, novo fidum non futurum. Itum in alias caedes. Et quinque fratrum filii occisi; tum ipse frater Corcutes nervo arcus strangulatus cum e fuga reprehendi curasset. Supererat Achmetes, primus fratrum et societate Aegyptiaci etiam Sultani validus. Sed falsis Genitzarorum litteris elicuit, tamquam fastidientium novelli et iniqui imperii: prodiret modo, arma cum ipso in hunc sociaturis se daret. Prodiit, pugnavit, victus, suffocatus est. Et solus iam certusque Selymus Princeps. Qui in Bassas et proceres varie item saeviit, homo caedis totus et sanguinis, idem tamen Fortunae (non enim Deo) carus et qui res maximas in imperio suo gessit. Persas vicit et reppulit, Sultanum Aegypti sustulit et amplum id regnum sibi posterisque firmiter subiecit. Nihil etiam privatim adversum, et dormire videbatur caelestis Iustitia nisi quod in extremo actu se ostendit et peste correptum exstinxit ipso loco et vico ubi prima cum patre signa contulisset. Sed et filio tamen felix fuit, magno illo et infesto nobis Soleimanno, ut externarum rerum fluxus non sint tesserae semper benivolentiae divinae.

350 350

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 5 He did not want to concede anything and went to see and implore his troops. But they refused, and then the leader of the Pashas (whom they call Vizier), namely Mustafa, said, For the last time farewell, then, Emperor, for we who are about to die talk to you – I do not know whether you are about to die, too. This decision of yours means the end for us. And he added military threats. Bayezid was moved and felt pity for them and started to speak, So they are determined to take our lives? Has it come this far? Mustafa said: It has come this far, with regard to us. May God have better things in mind for you. But nevertheless, in order to obtain the best, know that you will have to be dragged away from the imperial throne by the points of spears (we use his words). Seeing that this was his final destiny, the old man was quiet for a while and then said, Well, then, go to my son and tell him that the supreme power will be entrusted to him. The son came and his father received him, with a happy face indeed, and assigned to him the treasures and other things which pertain to imperial power. Then he ordered him to mount the throne. But he refused and with deceitful modesty displayed merely piety and desire to visit his father. Bayezid told him again, warned also by the danger at hand and looking at the threatening faces of the soldiers and listening to their menacing voices. His son agreed but delayed it until the next day. A huge crowd of horse- and foot-soldiers gathered. He sat on the tribunal, and to exercise his supreme power and right, he commanded that one of the Janissaries should be hanged. For the others the hope for a lenient and at the same time powerful rule, worthy of the ancestors, was created. Its first crime was the banishment of his father to Dimetoka. And before he arrived there, he was given poison and died. They say that his doctor, who had been corrupted, offered it to him after breaking diamond into tiny pieces and mixing it with his food. The reward for his service, however, was death, and his throat was cut, preceded by Selim’s words that he who was not faithful to his former master would not be faithful to a new one either. Other murders followed. The sons of his five brothers were killed and then his brother Korkut himself was strangled with a bowstring when Selim had given orders to catch him while fleeing. Ahmed, the oldest brother, remained; he was strong because of his alliance with none less than the Sultan of Egypt. But he was lured forth by a false letter from the Janissaries, who pretended to loathe the new and unfair rule. All he had to do was to come and give himself over to them, and they would join arms with him against his brother. He came forth, there was a fight, and he was defeated and strangled. And Selim was now the only firmly established emperor. He went on raging in various ways against the Pashas and nobles, being a man wholly given to murder and bloodshed, but at the same time a man who was precious to fortune (for he was not to God), and he accomplished great things during his reign. He defeated and drove back the Persians, killed the Sultan of Egypt, and subjected this large kingdom firmly to himself and his descendants. Nor did he experience adversity in his private life, and heavenly justice seemed to sleep, apart from showing up in the last act and destroying him, when he had been seized by the plague in precisely the place and village where he had first joined battle with his father. But heavenly justice was

351 351

Liber ii, Caput v IX

Atque illud saeculi nostri est, hoc etiam soli. Fuit Adolphus Egmondanus, cui pater Arnoldus, Geldriae Dux et dynasta, erat. Ille adoleverat, iste senuerat, et aegre ferre coepit patris diuturnum imperium et vitam. Itaque per factiones quosdam e popularibus in arma trahit et patri bellum palam facit. Sed pater viribus et caussa melior, obsessum in opido Venlone tenet ac denique Principum vicinorum interventu pax coit hac lege ut iuvenis urbem Noviomagensem sibi accipiat teneatque, in qua libere et solus dominetur. Sed exigua haec ei portiuncula visa, resilit mox a foedere, familiares quosdam patris in eius contumeliam laqueo enecat. Et cum videt a se vim frustra tentari, ad alienam potentiam fugit, ad nostrum Philippum Bonum. Bruxellam venit, patrem accusat, sese approbat, promittit multa. Sed apud vere Boni Principis surdas aures. Desperatis igitur auxiliis, ne patrem videat, Hierosolyma properat, homo sacer scilicet ad terram sacram. Paullo post redit, omnium inops. Quo nisi ad patrem? Recipitur amice et ipse paenitentiam et amorem simulat, sed vultu non animo bonus. Nam fraudem et insidias patri statim ita struit. Erat senex Graviae, ditionis suae tunc opido, cum uxore. Venit quasi per officium filius. More gentis epulantur et bibunt largius, saltant etiam in multam noctem, ipso sene Duce sustentante et in filii gratiam praeter vires et morem laetiore. Tandem cubitum sese confert. Vix fecerat cum adsunt a Noviomago (ii iuveni parebant) cives armati et ab Adolpho clam intromissi. Recta ad cubiculum Ducis duce filio tendunt. Pulsant fores. Ille e lecto, iocos et choreas etiam tunc cogitans, negat id noctis saltare ultra posse. Iuvenes faciant, et abeant. At illi effractis iam foribus adstant, iubent surgere et se consequi. Quo autem, ait senex, et ubi filius? Miser, ubi auxilium putat, exitium est. Et ille improbus, Pater, inquit, necessitati parendum est, age sequere. Nec tantillum exspectant ut tuniculam interiorem aptet atque induat, ne tibialia quidem sumat, sed pater equitantem filium nudis pedibus et corpore ita sequitur Buram usque. Ibi carceri taetro includitur et sex annos totos (non illius, sed et popularium impietatem culpo) sex, inquam, annos detinetur. Tandem improbitas querelas vulgi excitat, sed et minas Principum vicinorum. E quibus Ioannes, Cliviae Dux, ipsius Adolphi avunculus, arma etiam sumit. Qui tamen a se parum validus,

1–356,10 Heut. Rer. Burg. 5.7

352 352

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 nevertheless favourable to his son, too, the great and for us troublesome Süleyman. So the constant changes of external affairs are not dice thrown by an always divine benevolence. 9 And that is an example of our time, while this one is even of our region. Once there was Adolf of Egmond, whose father was Arnold, Duke and Prince of Gelre. The former had grown up, the latter had grown old, and the son began to feel displeased at his father’s long rule and life. So with the help of partisans he encouraged some of the common people to take up arms and openly waged war on his father. But his father, who had stronger forces and a better cause, held him besieged in the town of Venlo. In the end they made peace after an intervention by the neighbouring princes, on condition that the young man would receive and keep the city of Nijmegen, where he would rule freely and on his own. But this portion seemed too small to him, and he soon renounced the pact and hanged some persons who were close to his father to insult him. And when he saw that the violence which he used was of no avail, he fled to the power of another, namely our Philip the Good. He came to Brussels, accused his father, stressed his own virtuousness and promised many things. But our prince, who was truly Good, would not hear of it. So when there was no hope of help, he hastened to Jerusalem, so that he would not have to see his father: an unholy man going to the Holy Land. A little later he returned, destitute of everything. Where could he go but to his father? He was received kindly and pretended regret and love. But he was only good externally, not internally. For immediately he set up the following deceit and ambush for his father. The old man was in Grave, a town which was under his control at the time, with his wife, and his son came as if to pay him his respects. According to the custom of their people, they dined and drank rather extensively and even danced long into the night. The old duke held out and for his son’s sake he was unusually cheerful – more cheerful than his strength could bear. Finally he went to sleep. But as soon as he did, there appeared armed citizens from Nijmegen (for they obeyed the young man), who had secretly been let in by Adolf. They went straight to the duke’s room, led by his son. They knocked on the door. But he said from his bed, thinking that they were still joking and dancing, that he could not dance any more so late at night; that young people should do that and that they should go away. But they had already broken the door open and were standing there, ordering him to get up and follow them. Whereto, the old man said, and where is my son? Poor man, where he thought he could find help, there was ruin. And that wicked man said, Father, necessity should be obeyed. Come on, follow. And they did not wait a few moments for him to adjust and put on underwear or even a pair of stockings, but the father followed his son, who was riding, barefoot and naked, all the way to Buren. There he was imprisoned in a hideous dungeon and for six years in total (I do not only blame the son’s, but also the common people’s impiety), for six years, I said, he was kept there. Finally the wickedness gave rise to complaints by the public and also to threats by neighbouring princes. Of them, John, Duke of Cleves, Adolf ’s own uncle, even

353 353

Liber ii, Caput v

auctoritatem vel auxilia a Pontifice Paullo Secundo et Friderico Imperatore petit. Illi statim annuunt, ad Adolphum acres minacesque litteras scribunt et ut patrem luci et libertati reddat iubent. Nihil fit; ridet. Itaque iidem Carolo Audaci nostro, valido Principi, totam rem committunt. Liberet senem, reconciliet filium, denique faciat quod ex aequo et usu videretur. Ille utrumque coram se sistere iubet, qui in Galliae finibus Dorlani tunc erat. Adolphus, haud spernendam iram et iussa tam potentis vicini ratus, patrem secum eo ducit. Accusat in consilio, foeda et falsa in eum ingerit. Quorum facile purgatus senex bonorum et illustrium virorum testimoniis tandem impatientia et fiducia eo prorumpit ut filium ad singulare certamen provocaret, ferro et Deo iudicibus innocentiam suam asserturus. Mos tunc satis creber in Martiali nostro populo erat, sed Audax tamen abnuit, foeditatem rei proponens et insolentiam et simul in eventu incerto certum scelus, utercumque vicisset. Ita re cum suis deliberata pro sententia dixit, Arnoldus pater solus titulo Ducis utatur, sed filio opida arcesque totius Geldriae cedat, sola Gravia sibi excepta. Accipiat in alimoniam de manu filii tria quotannis aureorum millia. Hae conditiones. Quis abneget, imo quis non miretur filio tam bonas? Sed non silent historici Carolum, nescio qua occulta caussa an pacto, in filium proniorem. Quid tamen deinde? Refertur ad filium, et quidem a viris primariis et gravibus, inter quos Philippus ille Cominaeus erat, qui haec scripsit. At ille respondit in ipsa verba: Malle se praecipitem dare parentem in puteum, se deinde superiicere quam ut in has conditiones paciscatur. Quid malum, inquit, pater alibi imperet, qui totos quadraginta annos omnibus praefuit? Aequum est ut nostrae quoque iam vices sint. Nec aliud admisero quam de pensione trium millium, sic quoque ut pater tota Geldria cedat atque adeo excedat nec unquam pedem in eam referat. En responsum, non tam impium (et ita tunc omnibus visum) quam insanum. Igitur Carolus, cui aliae res praevertendae, cum idipsum temporis Ambianum Galliae rex intercepisset, dilata hac cognitione expeditioni se parat. Iuvenis, suspicatus detentum se iri, aversione animorum cognita, fugam cum duobus comitibus Gallica veste ad suos capit, omnia in reditu vi et armis occupaturus aut turbaturus. Sed ecce Namuri, dum Mosam flumen cymba transmittit, agnitus ab uno alteroque vectorum, mox a pluribus, capitur et ad Audacem reducitur. Qui Vilvordiam atque inde Cortracum duci et in honesta custodia asservari iussit. Mansit ad Audacis ipsius mortem

20 ipsa verba B : ipsa haec verba A

354 354

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 took up arms. But since he was not strong enough on his own, he called on the authority or help of Pope Paul the Second and Emperor Frederick. They immediately agreed, wrote Adolf sharp and threatening letters and ordered him to give his father back to light and liberty. Nothing happened, he laughed. So they entrusted the whole matter to our Charles the Bold, a powerful prince: he was to free the old man, and appease the son, and for the rest do what he found to be fair and serviceable. He ordered both of them to appear before him. He was in Doullens at the French border at the time. Adolf, who thought that the anger and orders of such a powerful neighbour should not be despised, brought his father there with him, accused him in the council and poured out disgraceful and false accusations against him. The old man was easily cleared of those by the testimonies of good and noble men, and finally impatience and self-confidence carried him so far that he challenged his son to a duel to prove his innocence with the sword and God as judges. That was quite a common practice among our warlike people at the time, but Charles the Bold refused, exposing the foulness and insolence of such a thing and at the same time pointing out that though the outcome was uncertain, the crime was certain, whoever of the two won. So having discussed the case with his advisers, he pronounced the verdict: The father, Arnold, alone was allowed to use the title of Duke, but had to concede the towns and fortresses of all Gelre to his son, except for Grave only. He should get three thousand pieces of gold a year from his son for his sustenance. Those were the conditions. Who would refuse them? Even more, who would not be surprised that such good conditions were offered to the son? But historians do not keep silent that Charles – I do not know for which hidden reason or agreement – was more favourable to the son. But what happened afterwards? This was announced to the son, and by serious men of the highest rank indeed, among whom was the famous Philippe de Commynes, who wrote this down. But the son answered according to the words: that he would rather throw his father headlong into a pit and then throw himself on top than agree under these conditions. What harm would there be, he said, if my father ruled elsewhere, after having been in charge of everything for forty years? It is fair that it is my turn now and I will not allow anything but the pension of three thousand pieces of gold a year, but only if my father concedes all Gelre and consequently withdraws and never sets foot in it again. That was his answer, not so much impious (and so it seemed to everyone at the time) as insane. So Charles, who had to attend to other matters first, since at the same time the King of France had seized Amiens, delayed that trial and prepared for an expedition. The young man suspected that he would be detained, since he understood that their minds had turned against him, and therefore fled with two companions in French dress to his followers, planning to occupy or disturb everything with force of arms on his return. But behold, in Namur, when a boat took him across the river Meuse, he was recognised by a few passengers, and soon by many, and was captured and taken back to Charles the Bold, who ordered that he should be taken to Vilvoorde and then to Kortrijk and be held in honourable custody. He stayed there until Charles the Bold’s own death. Then the inhabitants of Ghent,

355 355

Liber ii, Caput v

X

XI

cum Gandavenses, pro suo tunc more turbas daturi, hunc idoneum ducem arbitrati, eum solvunt et bello in Tornacenses praeficiunt, quos tunc Galli habebant. Ivit cum manu aliqua, adequitat moenibus, erumpunt praesidiarii, et miser inter primos cecidit. Quid tu nunc, pater? Talionem aliqua parte a iusto Iudice vides. Carcere te punivit? Ipse sustinuit. Mortem machinatus est? Ipse subivit. Nec sanguis hic multus fusus, aut violentiae caedes, fateor, ut in prioribus. Mihi tamen libranti impiae Impietatis exemplum visum est et supra omnia infixae et obstinatae. Nero, Tullia aut alius aliquis impetu peccaverint et calore; hic meditatum, hic diuturnum scelus est nec adhaesit animo, sed insedit. Apud nos haec gesta. Quid si in Graeciam novellam et Byzantium abeo? Si ad illos a Constantino Imperatores? Fideliter dico, plura scelerum ab hac Ambitione exempla quam in alia Europa tota reperiam. Sollennia illa erant: necare, exsecare, excaecare; haec patres in filios, item matres ipsae; haec filii in utrosque patrabant. Quid patruos, fratres, agnatos dicam? In levi suspicione et minimo metu haec facta, quasi per ludum aliquem et iocum. Et vide ingenium saevitiae! Certum est non alia re hominem magis abiici et animo conatuque cadere quam Exsectione illa aut Excaecatione. Qui aut virum viro aut lumen demit nihil ab eo viri ultra formidet, et in poenam aut ludibrium modo vivit. Sed claudo hoc totum de Ambitione uno eoque iocoso exemplo. Chan Tartarorum (eorum Princeps sic dicitur), cum Stephanus haud ita nuper, optimus fortissimusque Poloniae Rex, obiisset, in comitiis de Rege creando ipse quoque per Legatos intervenit. Dixit et proposuit ista: Potentem se esse et posse myriades aliquot equitum (vera sunt) educere e suis terris Poloniae tuendae vel augendae. Item, frugalem se et continentem esse ac sine ullis ciborum deliciis sola equina in fame contentum. Tertio, quod ad Religionem, de qua disputari audiebat, Tuus, inquit, Pontifex meus Pontifex esto; tuus Lutherus meus Lutherus esto. Si risu excepta Legatio fuit, nemo quaerat. Effuso maxime. Et ecce hominem paratum omnia sacra et deos deserere regnandi caussa.

21–29 Leuncl. Pandect. 190

356 356

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 5 who, according to their custom at the time, were planning to cause trouble and thought that he would be a suitable leader for them, freed him and placed him at the head of a war against the inhabitants of Tournai, who were French subjects at the time. He went with some military force, rode towards the walls; the garrison soldiers broke out, and the wretch fell among the first. What about you now, father? You see some kind of retaliation by a just Judge. Did he punish you with prison? He endured it himself. Did he plot your death? He underwent it himself. There was not much bloodshed here, nor were there violent murders, as in the previous examples, I admit. But nevertheless, when I consider it, I think that it is an example of impious and, more than anything, determined and obstinate impiety. Nero, Tullia, and other people sinned in the heat of an impulse; here is a crime that was premeditated, that lasted and did not only stick to the mind, but settled in it. 10 These things happened here. But what if I go to the new Greece and Byzantium? If I go to those emperors from Constantine on? I honestly say that I will find more examples of crimes stemming from ambition there than in the rest of Europe combined. Those were customary: killing, castrating, blinding. They were committed by fathers and even mothers against their sons, by sons against both of them. What shall I say about uncles, brothers and other relations? This was done on little suspicion and out of the smallest fear, as if it were some sort of game and a joke. And look at the nature of their violence! It is certain that nothing degrades a man and makes him lose all courage and effort more than castration or blinding. He who deprives a man of his manhood or sight should no longer fear anything manly from him, and the man himself will only live for punishment or derision. 11 But I close this whole chapter on ambition with one example, and a funny one, too. When Stephen, the best and strongest king of Poland, had died, not so recently, the Khan of the Tatars (that is how they call their king) also intervened, through ambassadors, in the electoral assembly convened to appoint a king. He said and proposed the following: that he was powerful and could bring some tens of thousands of horsemen (it is true) from his land to protect or enlarge Poland. Further, that he was a frugal and moderate man and that in a famine he would be content to live on horse-fodder without delicious food. Thirdly, about religion, which he heard was a subject of dispute, he said, Let your pope be mine; let your Luther be mine. No one needs to ask whether this legation was received with laughter. Everyone burst into a loud laugh. Behold, here you have a man who was prepared to desert all sacred things and gods if only he could rule.

357 357

Caput vi DE PRINCIPUM INCLINATIONE. Deteriores eos saepe fieri et mutari. Nescio qua caussa occulta praeter apertas etiam evenit ut cum in aliis artibus usu homines discant et meliores fiant, in hac regendi fere contra, et Principes inclinent. Omnis aetas dicet et raro decursum ad metam aequabiliter hunc cursum. Caussae partim in Principe, partim Nobis, partim Principatu ipso videntur. Atque obiter examinemus. In Principe quia initio magis intendit, et pudor est et bonae famae studium. Quae calcat paullatim et in omnium obsequiis audaciam et proterviam et contemptum sumit. Itaque rumor ille (ait Lampridius) qui plerumque novis solet dominari Principibus nisi ex summis virtutibus non permanet. Bene initio audiunt et faciunt. Sed raro constans est illa virtus nisi firmo fundamento nixa et instructa. Secunda caussa ab infirmitate ingenii humani est. Grande illud imperii pondus aliquamdiu recta cervice sustineri, vix semper potest. Lassantur et se inflectunt. Quo facit natura, prona in vitia. Et magis ubi non metus aut poena retinet, sicut in Principe, qui est super ista. Et nisi ipsum illud Honestum eum teneat et Religio, quis est qui possit? Accedunt depravatores, insitum Aulae malum, et qui prave etiam facta laudantes, magis istuc ducunt. Itaque ut qui vinum bibunt initio pares sunt et sensibus subsistunt, mox alienantur et compotores etiam invitant aut urgent. Sic in potentia, cum nova et modica, ferunt, diuturna corrumpuntur et fiunt ebrii, et magis tales faciunt adulatores. Panegyricus scriptor recte: Ubi sub tanto onere infirmitas lapsa est, faciunt licentiam de potestate. Habenas omnes ingenio suo et cupidini laxant. Caussae etiam in Nobis et subditis sunt istae. Credulitas prima. Quod temere initio etiam de malis aut ambiguis bene speramus. Et quid mirum igitur falli? Neque illi se mutant, sed nos opinionem. Inde iactatum apud nos proverbium: Flandros amare futuros Principes, odisse factos. Cum praesentes enim displicent, alios adspicimus et optamus atque, ut aegri, mutationem remedium destinamus. Secunda, quod refractarii saepe et pravi simus et communiter etiam erga optimos ingrati donec esse desinant. Id Principes gravantur et indignantur et paullatim affectum et curam a talibus abducunt. Magis autem cum seditio, rebellio aut insidiae sunt. Tum et iuste putant se opprimere aut affligere, et plurium noxam omnes luunt. Ausim dicere bonos Subditos facere

10–12 Hist. Aug. Heliog. 3.2

22–23 Paneg. 4.8.2

358 358

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 6 ON THE CHANGEABILITY OF PRINCES. They often change for the worse. I do not know for which hidden reason, apart from the obvious ones, it happens that, while in other arts people learn and improve through experience, in the art of governing the opposite usually occurs, and princes decline. Every generation will testify that it is even rare for this course to be finished in a smooth manner. The causes seem to lie partly in the prince, partly in us, and partly in monarchy itself. Let us examine this straightaway. They lie in the prince, because at the outset he makes a greater effort, is modest and anxious to obtain a good reputation. But little by little he tramples on these things and takes up arrogance, impudence, and contempt amidst the compliance of everyone. Hence the good reputation (says Lampridius) that usually governs most new princes does not last, unless it is based on the highest virtues. At the beginning they have a good name and act well, but that virtue is rarely stable, unless it is built and rests upon a strong foundation. The second reason is the weakness of the human mind. That heavy burden of princely rule can be held up for a while with a straight neck, but hardly forever. Princes become tired and bend in the direction in which nature takes them, which is inclined towards vice. And the more so when there is no fear or punishment to keep them in check, as is the case with the prince, who is above those. And if honourable conduct itself and religion do not restrain him, then who could? Moreover, there are people who corrupt the prince, an evil innate to the court, and by praising even wicked deeds, they lead them even more in that direction. So just as people who drink wine can cope with it and remain sensible at first but soon lose their senses and even invite or urge drinking-companions to join them, so it is that in power, when it is new and moderate, they sustain it, but when it lasts, they are corrupted and become drunk, and flatterers make them even more so. The panegyrist rightly says: Where weakness has collapsed under so much weight, they turn power into licence. They unloosen all reins for their weak character and desires. The causes which are to be found in us, subjects, are the following. First of all, credulity, because at the start we heedlessly have high hopes, even of bad and ambiguous rulers. Is it a surprise, then, that we are duped? They do not change, but we change our opinion. Hence the expression is spread among us that the Flemish love their future princes, but hate them once they have been appointed. For when the present rulers displease us, we look at and wish for others. And like ill people, we decide that change will be the remedy. The second reason is that we are often refractory and depraved and generally ungrateful even to the best, until they cease to be so. Princes feel annoyed and angry at this and gradually take their affection and care away from such people. Even more so when there is civil discord, rebellion, and plots. Then the princes even think that they have the right to

359 359

Liber ii, Caput vi

I

II

III

aut servare Principes bonos. At caussae in Principatu ipso sunt. Quod is ad Superbiam et contemptum invitet et vel firmissimos convellat et a statu paullatim abducat. Sicut caeli a supero illo abripiuntur et, quamquam contra nitentes, obsecundant, sic Principes ab ipsa illa potestate. Videsne privatos homines in opibus magnis aut prosperitate depravari et a veteri via et vita flectere? Idem fit istic. Potentia impotentiam gignit, licentia libidinem, vitia. Et ut pondera ab alto lapsa, in praeceps eunt. Quid, quod interdum ipsa Infelicitas mutet? Ut quibus domi aut militiae res sunt improsperae, ipsi fortunae, ipsis subditis (etsi extra culpam) obirascuntur, et ut in tempestate, clavum abiiciunt et dant vela ventis. Privatim saltem oblectamenta quaerunt, convivia, ludos, mulierculas; publicum omne decus aspernantur. Exempla horum pauca videamus. Insigne primum in Dionysio Iuniore, tyranno Siciliae, qui mortuo patre mire clementem se exhibuit et benignum. Tria millia nexorum ob aes alienum solvit; tributa per triennium remisit; alia in gratiam et famam populi. Sed mox iam dominationis certus, rettulit ingenium quod paullisper seposuerat. Avunculos interfecit, quos verebatur aut timebat; item fratres suos, nequis aemulus superesset. Mox in omnes promiscue saeviit, ille Dionysius effectus cuius non tyranni, sed tyrannidis nomen habetur. At hic natura pravus; a caussis et vi aut vitio Regni Philippus, Macedonum rex paenultimus, cui cum Romanis bellum fuit. Erat sane ille (Polybius testatur, qui novit et vidit) plerisque dotibus corporis atque animi ornatus: vultu decorus, corpore erectus, eloquentia promptus, ingenio et memoria validus, lepore et dictis etiam facetus atque omnia cum regio quodam decore et maiestate. Accessit virtutum studium in toga et in bello animi magnitudo et liberalitas. Uno verbo, vix alium tanta indole aut spe Regem Macedonia aut Graecia viderat. Sed ecce momento omnia vertuntur sive Fortunae culpa, quae, adversa ei in Romanos, animum infregit et ab instituto ad gloriam cursu revocavit, sive delatorum vitio et suo, qui aures eis temere et facile praebebat. Sane optimos quosque a se sprevit, veneno et ferro grassatus, sed nec sanguini et filio suo Demetrio tandem parcens. Denique ille Philippus de quo omnia bona sperata et videri coepta in omnia mala desiit, pravus, invisus, infelix. Herodem, Iudaeae regem, licet addere, insignem, mitem, magnificum primis sex annis, siquem alium; reliquos triginta et unum sic immanem, trucem in suos alienosque ut septuaginta Senatores regiae stirpis interfecerit, uxorem

13–19 Iust. 21.1

21–27 Plb. 4.77.2-4

360 360

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 6 oppress or afflict, and all pay for the harm done by many. I dare say that good subjects make or keep princes good. But there are also causes in monarchy itself: it invites to haughtiness and contempt, tearing apart even the strongest and gradually alienating them from their position. Just as the heavens are ripped away by the supreme deity and obey, although they try to resist, so are princes ripped away by power itself. Do you see how private citizens who are very rich or prosperous degenerate and turn away from their former path and life? The same happens here. Power begets impotence, licence begets wantonness and vice. And like heavy things that fall from a height, they tumble down headlong. What about the fact that misfortune itself sometimes changes them? Thus, when, in peace or war, things are unprosperous for them, they become angry with fortune itself and with their subjects (although they are not to blame), and as in a storm, they abandon the helm and hoist their sails. In private, at least, they look for pleasures, such as banquets, games, and women, while they despise all public dignity. Let us look at a few examples of them. 1 A first remarkable example can be found in Dionysius the Younger, tyrant of Sicily. When his father died, he showed himself wonderfully gentle and kind. He freed three thousand people who had been enslaved for their debts, remitted tributes for three years and did other things to win favour and fame with the people. But as soon as he was sure of his dominion, he put on again the character which he had put aside for a while, killed his uncles, who filled him with anxiety or fear, as well as his brothers, so that there would be no rival left. He soon raged at everyone indiscriminately and became the Dionysius whose name is considered to be synonymous, not with tyrants, but with tyranny itself. 2 But he was bad by nature, while Philip, the penultimate King of Macedonia, who was at war with the Romans, was bad for external causes and the force or vice of ruling. He was certainly well-provided (this is attested by Polybius, who knew and saw him) with very many physical and mental gifts: he had a handsome face, he was tall and spoke easily, had a strong intellect and memory and was even witty in his humour and speech, and all that with a certain regal grace and majesty. Moreover he was zealous for virtue in peace and magnanimous and generous in war. In one word, Macedonia or Greece had hardly ever seen such a talented and promising king. But behold how everything changed in the blink of an eye, either through the fault of fortune, who turned against him in favour of the Romans, broke his mind, and called him back from his planned journey to glory, or through the fault of his informers and himself, who thoughtlessly and easily listened to them. He surely removed all the best people from himself, raging with poison and sword, in the end not even sparing his own blood and his son Demetrius. Finally that Philip, about whom one had hoped and initially seen all good things, ended in all bad things, being depraved, hated, and unfortunate. 3 One may like to add Herod, King of Judaea, who for the first six years was eminent, lenient, and noble to a higher degree than anyone else, but for the other thirty-

361 361

Liber ii, Caput vi

IV

V

suam et tres filios. Denique moriturus, ex omni Iudaea nobilissimum quemque, quasi ob aliam caussam, evocari ad se iusserit et, cum venissent, ambitiose ab amicis petiit ut inclusos Circo ad unum interfici a militibus curarent. Non ob noxam, sed (ut aiebat) quo verus iustusque dolor funeri suo exhiberetur cum nulla familia immunis ab hac clade esset. 5 Quid Tiberium, Romanum Principem, loquar? Res pernota est bonum fuisse donec Germanicus ac Drusus superfuere, mixtum virtutibus ac vitiis matre incolumi, post in omne scelus, flagitium et infamiam prorupisse ut ipsum quoque interdum non factorum solum (animo torquente) sed vitae paeniteret. Nero in eadem re Romana notatur, magnus initio Princeps, magnum 10 postea monstrum. Et Traiani elogium de illo fuit, Omnes etiam optimos Principes longe a primo quinquennio Neronis abesse. Quod in aliis fortasse verum fuerit, sed domi tamen veneno frater sublatus secundo statim anno dedecorat hanc laudem. Plura exempla notare est. Plura? Imo plurima. Sed fastidium paritatis 15 vitandum est, et nihil hic quod singulariter narretur.

1–5 J. AJ. 17.174-181

11–12 Ps. Aur. Vict. epit. 5.2

362 362

Book i1, Chapter 6 one so monstrous and cruel to his own and to others that he killed seventy senators of royal blood, his wife and three sons. And when he was finally about to die, he commanded that the highest nobility of all Judaea should be called to him, under the pretext of another reason, and when they had arrived, he ostentatiously asked his friends to make sure that they were all locked in the Circus and killed to the last man by soldiers. Not to punish a crime but (as he said) so that true and just grief would be shown at his funeral, since no family would be untouched by this disaster. 4 What shall I say about the Roman Emperor Tiberius? It is well-known that he was good for as long as Germanicus and Drusus were alive, and mixed virtues with vices while his mother was still alive. Afterwards he rushed forth into every crime, disgrace, and dishonour, so that sometimes even he did not only regret his deeds (his conscience tortured him), but even his life. 5 In the same Roman context Nero should be mentioned, who was a great emperor at first, but a great monster afterwards. And Trajan briefly said about him that Not even the best emperors came close to Nero in his first five years. Which might have been true as far as others were concerned, but among his own, he poisoned his brother as soon as he reached the second year of his reign, and so dishonoured this praise. More examples can be mentioned. More? Very many, even, but we have to avoid disagreeable repetitiveness and there is nothing here which should be related separately.

363 363

Caput vii DE FINE PRINCIPATUS, qui est Publicum Bonum.

Epist. XCI

Sen. I de Clem.

Ibid.

I

At Princeps ne inclinet sic et labatur, sed bonus sit et perseveret, quid magis eum fulciat et firmet quam Finis semper in oculis quo spectet? Neque enim Principatus ipse finis est (absit) aut altitudo illa et splendor, sed populi bonum, id est directio eius et tutela. Officium est imperare, non regnum, ait Seneca noster. Graeci ἄνακτας reges dixerunt, ut Plutarchus interpretatur, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνακῶς ἔχειν, quod est curam gerere et tueri. Certe debent. Ipsum Regis nomen apud Latinos eodem vocat: ut ordinem servet, composite imperet. Quod qui neglegit, non regit ille, sed dissipat et perdit. Cogitet secum Princeps: Ego ex omnibus mortalibus placui electusque sum qui Deorum vice in terris fungerer. Ego vitae necisque gentibus arbiter. Qualem quisque statum sortemque habeat, in mea manu est positum. O dignitas! Vicarium Dei esse. Et non esse aemulum? Vide ut ille ab orbe condito dispenset et regat aestates, hiemes, anni tempora; fruges, fructus, tot usui nostro aut voluptati; caelos, terras, maria, omnia in statu et concordia, etsi maxime discordia, servet; parcat plurimum, interdum puniat, verus pater simul et dominus generis humani. Quid desideres praeter hoc exemplum? Subsequere. Et a Deo reges ad Deum eant. Sint igitur in assidua cura, sed cum tranquillitate et pace, et haec utraque suis, quantum potest, procurent. Absit otium. Neque enim specie tenus (ait Panegyristes) ac nomine fortuna Imperii consideranda est. Sunt trabeae et fasces et stipatio et fulgor et quidquid aliud huic dignitati adstruximus. Sed longe maiora sunt quae vicissim nobis, auctoribus fautoribusque potentiae, debent. Admittere in animum totius reipublicae curam et populi fata suscipere et, oblitum quodammodo sui, gentibus vivere. Accipere innumerabiles undique nuncios, totidem mandata dimittere, de tot urbibus, nationibus et provinciis cogitare, noctes omnes diesque perpeti solicitudine, pro salute omnium cogitare. En breviter tuum munus et in fine Finis, Populi salus. Exempla addamus qui fecere aut facturos se sunt professi. Inter istos Tiberius Imperator. Qui pulchra voce (utinam et re!) testatus in pleno Senatu: Dixi et nunc et saepe alias, Patres Conscripti, bonum et salutarem Principem, quem vos tanta et tam libera potestate instruxistis, Senatui servire debere et universis civibus, saepe ac plerumque etiam singulis. Neque id dixisse me paenitet. Pulchra, inquam, voce et quam sine Numine conceptam non reor aut emissam. Quid

8–9 Plu. Thes. 33.2 33 Suet. Tib. 29.1

9–10 Aug. civ. 5.12; Cic. rep. 1.26.41

364 364

21–22 Paneg. 10.3.1

31–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 7 ON THE PURPOSE OF MONARCHY, which is the common good. But what could better support and strengthen the prince to be good and persevere, than always keeping the end in view, in order to strive for it, so that he would not change for the worse and fall? For monarchy is not an end in itself (let it be far from it), nor is its loftiness and splendour, but rather the welfare, that is, the direction and protection of the people. Ruling is a duty, not a supreme power, says our Seneca. The Greeks called their kings ἄνακτας according to Plutarch ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνακῶς ἔχειν, which means to take care and to protect. They certainly have to. The Latin word for king, rex, itself calls for the same: to preserve order and to rule in an orderly fashion. He who neglects that does not rule, but dissipates and destroys. A prince should think to himself: I, out of all mortal people, have been approved, have been selected to act in the stead of the gods on earth. I am the judge of life and death of the peoples. It has been put into my hands to decide what the condition and fate of each individual shall be. What a dignity to be God’s representative! And also to be His imitator? Look how, ever since the creation of the earth, He distributes and directs summer and winter, the seasons, as many vegetables and fruit as we need or want, how He keeps the sky, earth, sea, all things, even though they are inharmonious to the highest degree, in their place in harmony; look how He mostly spares, but sometimes punishes, a true father and at the same time lord over the human race. What do you want more than this example? Follow it. And may the kings who come from God go to God. So may they constantly care, but in tranquillity and peace, and may they procure both of those for their subjects as much as possible. May there be no idleness. For the welfare of the empire has to be considered not only in name and appearance (says the panegyrist). There are robes, rods, retinue, splendour, and anything else with which we have furnished this dignity, but much more important are the things which they in turn owe to us, who create and promote power. To admit into the mind the care for the entire commonweal, to take on the fate of the people and somehow forget about themselves and live for the peoples. To receive countless messengers from everywhere, send out just as many orders, think about so many cities, nations and provinces, every day and night showing constant concern and pursuing the well-being of all. In short, your task and the final end is the welfare of the people. Let us add examples of princes who have done so or have professed to do so. Among them is 1 Emperor Tiberius, who proclaimed in beautiful words (if only the facts were such, too!) to the whole Senate: I say now and have often said on other occasions, Fathers of the Senate, that the good and beneficial prince, whom you have furnished with such great and unrestrained power, has to serve the Senate and the citizens collectively, but often and for the

365 365

Sen. epist. 90.5

Sen. clem. 1.1.2

Paneg. 10.3.3 Paneg. 10.3.4

Liber ii, Caput vii

II

III

IV

V

VI

verba facimus in instruendo Principe? Ecce hic compendium. Serviat, id est audiat obsequaturque Senatui et bonis consiliariis. Serviat universis in bono omnium procurando. Serviat singulis in Iustitia administranda, iniuria arcenda. Sine istis non est Princeps, sed tyrannus. Quod Traianus, item Imperator, considerans, cum Praefectum suum Praetorii de more gladio succingeret daretque vitae et necis potestatem, Cape hunc, inquit, et si quidem recte et ex utilitate omnium imperavero, pro me; sin aliter, contra me utere. Optimam Optimi illius vocem! Vivam si reipublicae vivo; si mihi, arma haec in me verte. Iam Hadrianus Imperator quoties auditus est dicere, Ita se rempublicam gesturum ut sciret rem populi esse, non suam? Iterumque, quod eodem ducas, Talem se praestiturum Imperatorem qualem sibi optasset privatus. Vespasiani etiam caeleste dictum est. Qui sanus valensque semper in publicis occupatus, etiam aeger perseveravit et, revocantibus amicis utque sibi parceret, Imperatorem, inquit, stantem mori oportere. Inferiore aevo Henricus, Imperatoris Friderici filius, ita assiduus in rebus ut vix sero cibum caperet. Cumque idem moneretur valetudinem et vires cordi habere, respondit, Privato quidem homini omne tempus cibi esse cum id lubet aut solet. At Regi, si nomen suum non abdicat, id solum quo vacat. Itaque rebus hominibusque se dant, etiam vilioribus. Nam et ii Principatus membra. Insigni hic monito Rudolfi, Imperatoris Austriaci. Qui cum submoveri a satellitio suo tenuiores quosdam videret, ad se affectantes, non sine stomacho edixit, Per deum (ipsa eius verba sunt), sinite homines ad me venire. Non enim ideo ad imperium sum vocatus ut in arcula includar. Melius nihil possum; desino et hoc infigo.

6–8 D.C. 68.16.1; Plin. paneg. 67.4 10–11 Hist. Aug. Hadr. 8.3; Lips. Not. 2.6; Diss. (1599: *3v) 11–12 Eutrop. 8.5.1 13–15 Suet. Vesp. 24.1 20–25 Lips. Diss. (1606: *3r)

366 366

5

10

15

20

25

Book i1, Chapter 7

2

3

4

5

6

most part, also individually. And I do not regret having said that. In beautiful words, I say, which, I think, were not conceived or pronounced without divine inspiration. Why should we give a long speech about instructing the prince? Here is a summary. Let him serve, that is, listen and submit to the Senate and to good counsellors. Let him serve the community collectively by procuring the good of all. Let him serve individuals by administering justice and preventing injustice. Without those things he is not a prince, but a tyrant. Trajan, also an emperor, considered this: when he girded his praetorian prefect with a sword in accordance with custom and gave him the power over life and death, he said, Take this, and if I will indeed rule justly and for the benefit of everyone, use it for me; if not, use it against me. Excellent words by that excellent man. Let me live, if I live for the commonweal; if I live for myself, turn these weapons against me. How many times was Emperor Hadrian heard to say that he would govern the commonweal in such a way that he knew that it belonged to the people, not to himself. And again, which you should interpret in the same way, that he would prove himself to be such an emperor as he would have wished for himself as a private citizen. What Vespasian said is even heavenly. When he was healthy and strong, he was always occupied with public affairs, and even when he was ill, he persevered. When his friends appealed to him to spare himself, he said that an emperor should die standing. In later times Henry, son of Emperor Frederick, was so occupied with matters that even late at night he hardly touched any food. And when he was warned to look after his health and strength, he answered that a private citizen indeed has all the time for food, when he wants to have some or is used to having some. But a king, if he does not renounce his name, only when he is not busy. So they give themselves to circumstances and people, even the lowest people, for they are also members of the kingdom. This can be illustrated here with the famous admonition of Emperor Rudolf of Austria. When he saw some lowly people, who were eagerly trying to see him, being sent away by his guards, he said, not without irritation: For the love of God (these are his words), let those people come to me. For I have not been called to the throne to be locked in a box. I cannot do better, so I stop and impress this.

367 367

Caput viii DE EXEMPLIS PRINCIPUM. Ea facere ad Virtutes aut Vitia subditorum. Principem ob se bonum esse oportet, sed etiam ob alios. Quos talis emendat aut alius depravat. Nam homines inprimis ad alta ista flectunt oculos et exem- 5 pla sibi suis inde moribus sumunt. Sallustius: Qui magno imperio praediti in excelso aetatem agunt, eorum facta cuncti mortales novere. Ita maxima fortuna, minima licentia est. Sicut igitur regulam maxime rectam esse oportet ad quam cetera diriguntur, sic Principem. Et ut in corporibus gravissimus est morbus qui a capite diffunditur, sic qui ab illo. Pindari ad Hieronem, Siciliae regem, aurea 10 dicta sunt: Ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως κρείσσων γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος, μὴ παρίει καλά. νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ στρατόν· ἀψευδεῖ δὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν. εἴ τι καὶ φλαῦρον παραιθύσσει, μέγα τοι φέρεται πὰρ σέθεν. πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί· πολλοὶ μάρτυρες ἀμφοτέροις πιστοί. Attamen (melior enim miseratione Invidia) ne omitte honesta. Guberna iusto clavo populum veracemque ad incudem fabrica linguam. Si enim vel leve eruperit, magnum feretur abs te. Multorum dispensator es. Multi testes utrisque fidi.

6–8 Sall. Catil. 51.12

8–9 Lips. Not. 2.9

12–20 Pi. P. 1.164-172

368 368

15

20

25

Chapter 8 ON THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF PRINCES. It is relevant to the virtues and vices of the subjects. The prince has to be good for his own sake, but also for the sake of others, whom he improves if he is good, or corrupts if he is not. For people turn their eyes towards those heights in the first place and from there they take their examples for their own morals. Sallust says: The deeds of those who are endowed with great power and spend their time up high are known to all mortals. Thus there is the greatest fortune and the least freedom of action. Thus, just as the measure for straightening other things ought to be perfectly straight, so it is with the prince. And just as in bodies the worst disease is that which spreads from the head, so is the disease which spreads from him. Pindar wrote these golden words to Hieron, King of Sicily: But nevertheless (since jealousy is better than pity) do not omit honourable things. Steer the people with a just helm and forge your tongue on a truthful anvil. For even a light outburst from you will be said to be heavy. You are the manager of many things. There are many trustworthy witnesses to your deeds, good or bad.

369 369

Liber ii, Caput viii I

II

III III Annal.

Alphonsus, rex Aragoniae et Neapoleos, cum de Subditorum moribus disputaretur, dixit, ut herbas quasdam ad Solis motum, sic populares in Principum mores verti. Alexander Magnus cervice leviter incurva et panda fuit, quod certatim proceres et aulici imitari, quasi ipsum sic effingentes. Adeo et minuta obser- 5 vant atque aemulantur. Utinam sic interiora et virtutes! Luxus in conviviis, veste, supellectile, familia ad Vespasiani tempora nimis Romae invaluit nec vel legibus potuit coërceri. At statim illo Principe sponte exolevit. Caussa in Tacito: Praecipuus adstricti moris auctor Vespasianus fuit, antiquo ipse cultu victuque. Obsequium inde in Principem et aemulandi amor validiora 10 quam poena ex legibus et metus.

1–3 Panorm. de dict. et fact. Alphon. 2.43 11 Lips. Pol. 2.9

4–5 Plu. Alex. 4.2, Pyrrh. 8.1, Mor. 53 C

370 370

9–

Book i1, Chapter 8 1 At a discussion of the morals of his subjects, Alfonso, King of Aragon and Naples, said, just like some plants turn towards the sun, so do ordinary people turn towards the morals of their princes. 2 The neck of Alexander the Great was slightly curved and bent, which was eagerly imitated by nobles and courtiers, as if in this way they portrayed him. To such a degree do they observe and emulate even the smallest things. If only they would do the same for interior qualities and virtues! 3 Luxury in banquets, clothing, furniture, and slaves increased excessively in Rome up until Vespasian’s time and could not be restrained, even by laws. But as soon as he became emperor, it stopped of its own accord. The reason can be found in Tacitus: The main creator of stricter morals was Vespasian, being himself of the old style and manner of Tac. ann. 3.55.4 life. Therefore obedience to the emperor and desire to emulate him proved more powerful than legal punishments and fear.

371 371

Caput ix DE IUSTITIA, quam Princeps in se et suis servet.

I

II

III

Inter omnes autem Virtutes sunt quaedam velut Regiae et Principales, ut Iustitia primum. A qua Homerus Reges δικασπόλους appellavit, circa ius occupatos et versantes. Nihil iis convenientius, nihil dignius. Et servata, regna servat. Servanda autem, etiam in iis quae Principes aut qui circa ipsos sunt, tangunt. Mali doctores qui a legibus eximunt. Qui cum Caligula censent, Omnia ipsi et in omnes licere. Sive cum Sallustiano Memmio: Impune quidlibet facere, id est regem esse. Abite qui docetis, qui discitis. Imo qui praeest Iustitiae, ad eam praeeat et exemplo commendet. Theodosium imitetur, de quo Panegyristes: Idem es qui fuisti, et tantum tibi per te licet quantum per leges antea licebat. Ius summum facultate et copia commodandi, non securitate peccandi experiris. Dixit sensitque Antigonus, Macedonum rex. Cui cum blandiens aliquis suggereret, Omnia regibus honesta iustaque esse, respondit: Sunt, hercules, sed Barbarorum dumtaxat regibus. At nobis ea honesta quae honesta sunt et iusta quae iusta. Retudit adulatorem et docuit non regulam iustitiae regem, sed ministrum esse. Quid idem iterum? Scripsit civitatibus ut, siquid forte iuberet quod adversaretur legibus, ne admitterent ac pro eo haberent atque si inscio se scriptum esset. Zaleucus vero et insigni facto iustitiam asseruit. Legem inter alias Locrensibus tulerat ut Adulter oculis orbaretur. Iustissime quia ii fere ad hoc crimen illices sunt aut duces. At ecce filius paullo post adulteravit et legis reus etiam poenae erat. Quam tamen populus consensu, miseratione moti (unicus enim erat) et in patris gratiam, remiserunt, sed patre abnuente et indignante. Lex, inquit, sancta et poena etiam in nobis esto. Sed viam repperi qua illa salva humanitati indulgeamus. Ipse et ego unum sumus. Mihi ergo unus oculus, alter ipsi eruatur. Atque id factum. Charondas autem, Thuriorum legislator, in eadem magna Graecia severior et in se fuit, aut vere dicam crudelior. Nam et ipse legem tulerat contra civiles factiones et caedes, nequis cum telo in concionem venisse vellet. Qui aliter, capitale id esset. Accidit ut ipse rure veniens, et indicta subito concione, uti erat, ad eam

5–6 Il. 1.238, 11.186 8–9 Suet. Cal. 29.1 9–10 Sall. Iug. 31.26 12–13 Paneg. 2.12.5 14–16 Plu. Mor. 182 C 20–27 Val. Max. 6.5.ext.3 29–374,3 Val. Max. 6.5.ext.4

372 372

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 9 ON JUSTICE, which the prince should observe in himself and his entourage. Of all virtues, some are, as it were, royal and principal virtues, such as, in the first place, justice, from which Homer called kings δικασπόλους, those who are occupied and engaged in right. Nothing is more suitable, nothing more worthy for them, and if it is preserved, it preserves kingdoms. But it needs to be preserved even in matters that touch princes and those around them. Those who exempt them from the law, are bad teachers: together with Caligula they think that a prince is allowed to do everything to everyone; or with Sallust’s Memmius that to be a king is to do whatever you want with impunity. Away with you who teach this and you who learn this. Nay, he who presides over justice has to lead the way to it and commend it by setting an example. He should imitate Theodosius, about whom the Panegyrist says: You are the same person as you were, and you are only allowed by yourself as much as you were earlier allowed by the laws. You have undertaken supreme power by the ability and means to serve, not by the ability to commit crimes with impunity. 1 Antigonus, King of Macedon, said and felt this. When someone suggested flatteringly that for kings everything is honourable and just, he answered, Yes, by Hercules, but only for the kings of barbarians. Yet for me what is honourable is honourable and what is just is just. He put the flatterer in his place and taught him that the king is not the ruler of justice but its servant. What else did he do? He wrote to the citizens that if he would happen to issue an order that was against the law, they should not admit it and consider it as if it had been written without his knowledge. 2 Zaleucus, however, maintained justice even with a remarkable deed. Among other laws, he had proposed a law in Locri that an adulterer should be deprived of his eyes. Very rightly so, since it is the eyes which mostly seduce or lead to this crime. But behold, a while later his son committed adultery, and having been accused of violating the law, he was also condemned to such a punishment. But the people agreed to remit it, moved by pity (for he was his only son) and for his father’s sake. But his father refused and was angry. Let the law, he said, and punishment be fixed for us as well. But I have found a way for us to keep the law intact while still making a concession to humaneness. He and I are one. So let one eye be ripped from me and the other from him. And that is what was done. 3 Charondas, the legislator from Thurii, also a Greek colony in Italy, was more severe even to himself or, I should truly say, more cruel. For he had also proposed a law against civil faction and killings that no one should want to come to an assembly with a weapon, and that he who did otherwise would be punished by death. It happened that he himself, when he was returning from the country and all of a sudden an assembly was announced, went there as he was, armed. When rivals shouted at him that he abolished

373 373

Liber ii, Caput ix

IV

V

VI

VII

armatus accederet. Cumque aemuli occlamassent, solvere eum legem quam tulerat, ac palam cum telo esse, ipse errore cognito, Mehercule ita est, inquit, sed idem ego sanciam. Statimque stricto ferro incubuit. A fine aliquis laudet, a facto non probet. At philippus Macedo, Magni pater, quam obnoxium se iustitiae praebuit et aures suas verberari vel convicio passus est, quod aegrius quam gladio Principes ferant? Dicebat apud eum caussam Machetas quidem. Et Philippus parum intente visus audire et re non bene tota cognita damnasse. Machetas non tulit et Macedonica ac militari libertate, Appello, inquit. Philippus miratus et iratus, Tu a rege? Et ad quem? Machetas, Ad ipsum te, inquit, sed vigilantem et attentum, sive, ut alii efferunt, Ad Philippum sobrium. Sed sive incuria sive vinolentia regi obiecta, excussit utramque et re propius pensiculata iniuriam Machetae factam agnovit et vindicavit. Quomodo? Salvo tamen priore decreto et aestimationem litis ipse a se dependit. Dupliciter laudandus. Et quod se salva rei iudicatae firmitate immutaverit et paenitentiam, poenam etiam suam fecerit. Haec in ipsis Principibus. Circa ipsos ista. Artaxerxes, Persarum rex, Longimanus cognomento, identidem obtundebatur (sic loquendum est: importune et saepe alter ingerebat) cum, inquam, obtunderetur a Satibarzane, gratioso satrapa, in re quapiam iniusta, quam alteri volebat impetratam, ille tandem rescivit triginta Daricorum millibus emptum Satibarzanem ut confectum hoc daret. Vocat ad se igitur atque una Quaestorem et, Heus tu, inquit, triginta millia huic illico adnumera; tu autem haec cape et tibi habe. Cum enim dedero, nihilo pauperior ero. At si tuum illud concessero, multo iniustior. Laudo, laudo. Neque amicum alienavit, fidei cognitum, neque Iustitiam ulla re violavit. Philippus iterum Macedo consimile, neque par tamen undique. Nam aequitate assidet, liberalitate non convenit. Harpalus pro amico quodam, iniuriarum postulato, acer et multus apud Philippum intercedebat et liberari volebat. Addebat se pro eo mulctam, quanta esset, depensurum. Hic Philippus, Quid tu igitur satagis si mulcta dependitur? Harpalus: Nempe ut fama sit ei salva. Philippus: Quid tu ais? Et non aequius illum male audire qui male fecit quam me innoxium eius caussa? Bonum factum, bonum dictum. Nostri aut patrum aevi unum adiungam. Erat Carolo Audaci, Burgundiae et nostro Duci, vir nobilis in ferventi gratia. Atque ei praefecturam opidi in

7–14 Plu. Mor. 178 F - 179 A; Val. Max. 6.2.ext.1 31 Plu. Mor. 179 A 32–378,31 Heut. Rer. Burg. 5.5

374 374

16–23 Plu. Mor. 173 D-E

26–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9

4

5

6

7

the law that he had created by openly carrying a weapon, he said, acknowledging his mistake, By Hercules, that is right. I will sanction it myself. And he immediately drew his sword and threw himself on it. One might praise the end, but not approve of the fact. But how obedient to justice did Philip of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great, show himself to be and how did he endure his ears being tormented even by loud insults, which is more difficult to sustain for princes than a sword? At least there was Machetas, who defended himself in front of him, and Philip was seen to listen without much attention and condemned him without having fully investigated the case. Machetas did not accept that and with Macedonian and military frankness he said, I appeal. Surprised and angry, Philip asked, Against a decision by the king? And to whom? Machetas replied, To yourself, but when you are awake and attentive or, as others say, To Philip, when he is sober. But whether the king was reproached for carelessness or intoxication, he shook off both, and having considered the case more closely he acknowledged the injustice that had been done to Machetas and compensated it. How? He kept his former decision, but paid the legal costs which had been fixed out of his own pocket. He is to be praised on two accounts: because he changed himself, while still preserving the stability of his verdict, and turned his repentance even into a punishment of himself. Those are the examples of princes themselves. Here are those concerning their entourages. Artaxerxes, King of Persia, surnamed the Long-Handed, was repeatedly harassed (that is how it should be called: the other often rudely pressed himself upon him). When he was harassed by the much favoured satrap Satibarzanes over an unjust thing, which Satibarzanes wanted to accomplish for someone else, Artaxerxes eventually found out that Satibarzanes had been bought for thirty thousand Darics to carry this out. So he summoned Satibarzanes together with the treasurer and said: You! – count out thirty thousand Darics for this man here immediately, and you, take them and keep them for yourself. For when I have given them to you, I will not be any poorer, but if I concede what you ask, I will be much more unjust. I praise him, I praise him. Neither did he alienate a friend, known for his faithfulness, nor did he violate justice in any way. Something very similar, but nevertheless not equal in all respects, happened again to Philip of Macedon. For it resembles the former example in fairness, but does not equal it in generosity. Harpalus repeatedly and vehemently intervened with Philip on behalf of a friend who was accused of injustice, and wanted him to be freed. He added that he would pay the fine for him, whatever it was. Then Philip said, So why do you give satisfaction if a fine is paid? Harpalus said, To protect his reputation, of course. So Philip said, What do you say? Is it not more equitable to hear him spoken ill of, who acted ill, rather than me, who am innocent, because of him? Well done, well said. I will add one example from our age or that of our fathers. A nobleman was intensely favoured by Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy and our region, and Charles gave him the governorship of a town in Zeeland. There, during his spare time, he fell in love with a woman of fine beauty and morals and even better intellect,

375 375

Liber ii, Caput ix

Zelandia dedit. Ipse ibi in otio amorem concipit in faeminam corpore scitam et moribus, animo meliorem, ut docuit eventus. Primo aspectus, obambulatio, suspiria et quae solent amantes; mox audacior et verba miscet et affectum aperit et solatium orat. Neque promissis abstinet et omnia tentat quae sint expugnandae. Frustra, munita undique castitas erat. Igitur desperatione ad facinus se vertit. Praefectus erat, ut dixi, et Carolus noster in bello. Maritum igitur amatae faeminae proditionis insimulat et statim in vincla missum carcere custodit. Quo fine? Ut vel hoc metu minisque illam moveat et obnoxiam sibi reddat vel maritum ipsum amoveat, remoram amori. Custodit igitur. Et mulier casta et viri amans statim ad carcerem, a carcere ad Praefectum, deprecatura aut liberatura, si possit. Praefectus: Et tu, o mea, me rogas? Imperium quod in me habes, ignoras? Affectum saltem mutuum redde, et maritum ecce reddo. Detinemur enim uterque, ille in meo, ego tuo carcere aut vinculis. Ah, quam facile utrumque solvis! Quid renuis? Amans peto et per meam vitam; Praefectus peto et per mariti tui vitam. Utraque agitur, et perire si debeo, perdam. Atqui miserere et mulierem te et coniugem ostende. Mulier rubere ad ista et stupere et tamen pro marito etiam timere. Constat magis animo quam corpore, et trepidat et pallet. Atque ille, quia moveri visa, et leviter vim verecundanti adhibendam ratus (soli erant), in lectum impellit, fruitur fructum, utrique mox acerbum. Nam mulier confusa et lacrimabunda abiens, pudoris magis quam peccati aegra, iram et vindictam coquit, quam magis etiam accendit barbarum (quomodo aliter appellem?) Praefecti factum. Nam ille voti potitus et cetera prolixa autumans, si aemulum sustulisset, maritum damnari curat, damnatum capite plecti. At id non in publico, sed carcere ipso factum, atque ibi cadaver in arcam ligneam inclusum, mox sepeliendum. Venit interea mulier, sive accita ab ipso (ut quidam tradiderunt) sive sponte et super salute mariti anxia. Sed venit et vel ex pacto maritum recipere se sperat. Ille benigne affatus, Et maritum, inquit, quaeris? Habebis. Abi (et digitum ad carcerem intendit). Invenies et tolle. Nihil suspicata abit, videt et percellitur et animo ac corpore lapsa, super cadaver se abiicit. Ac diu lamentata, recipit animum atque iram rediensque atroci vultu et verbis. Et hercules, inquit, reddidisti maritum. Gratia debetur; exsolvam. Retinere et placare conatur. Frustra: non tigris magis saeviat faetu erepto. Statimque amicorum fidis advocatis rem denarrat, eius ordinem et culpam suam non culpam ac consilium viamque ultioni exquirit. Censent omnes ad Principem eundum, qui inter alias virtutes (insignes habuit nisi superbia et pervicacia corrupisset)

376 376

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9 as it turned out. At first he was watching and passing close to her, sighing and doing what those who are in love usually do, but soon he became bolder and added words, revealed his feelings, and asked for relief. He did not abstain from promises and tried everything to conquer her. In vain, for her chastity was protected on all sides. So out of desperation he turned to crime. He was the governor, as I said, and our Charles was at war. So he falsely accused the husband of his beloved woman of treason and immediately had him chained and imprisoned. To what end? Either in order to move her with this fear and threats and make her obedient to him, or to remove the husband, who was a hindrance to his love. So he kept him in custody. And the chaste woman, who loved her husband, immediately went to the prison and from there to the governor to pray for her husband or to set him free, if possible. But the governor said: You, my dear, are asking me? Are you unaware of the power you have over me? At least return my feelings, and look, I give you your husband back. For both of us are detained, he in my prison or chains, I in yours. Ah, how easily you can free both of us! Why do you refuse? I beg you, as a lover, and by my own life; I beg as a governor by the life of your husband. Both are at stake and if I have to die, I will ruin both. So have mercy and show yourself a woman and a spouse. The woman grew red at this and was stunned. And yet she was also frightened for her husband’s sake. Her mind was more constant than her body and she trembled and grew pale. And as she seemed to be moved and as he was convinced that he needed to use some light force to overcome her shyness (they were alone), he pushed her onto the bed and enjoyed the fruit which would soon prove bitter to them both. For the woman, who went away confused and in tears, troubled more by her sense of shame than by the sin, was intent on anger and revenge, which was stimulated even more by the governor’s barbarous (how else should I call it) deed. For having obtained what he desired and thinking he would get the rest in abundance if he had killed his rival, he had her husband condemned and then executed. However, that was not done in public but in the jail itself. And there the corpse was enclosed in a wooden chest, soon to be buried. Meanwhile the woman came, either called by the governor (as some say) or of her own accord, being worried about her husband’s well-being. But she came and even hoped to get her husband back as they had agreed. The governor kindly said, You are looking for your husband? You will have him back. Go find him (and he pointed to the jail) and take him. Unsuspecting, she went away, saw, and was struck, and after collapsing mentally and physically, she threw herself down on the corpse. And having wept for a long time, she regained her courage and anger, and returned, her face and words dark. By Hercules, she said, you gave my husband back. I owe you thanks, you will have it. He tried to hold her back and calm her, but in vain. A tigress robbed of her cub would not be more enraged. She immediately called her most faithful friends for help, told them what had happened, step by step, and about her sin which was not a sin, and asked for advice and a way to revenge. Everyone thought that she should go to the prince, who, amongst other virtues (he would have had remarkable virtues, if he had not corrupted them with haughtiness and stubbornness),

377 377

Liber ii, Caput ix

VIII

eximius Iustitiae cultor erat. Accedit, duobus amicis comitata. Auditur; vix creditur. Et indignatur et dolet Princeps hoc in suo solo et e suis quemquam ausum. Sed et mulieri edicere minaciter, nisi vera et certa afferret, malum habituram. Iubet manere in Aula et in vicinum cubiculum secedere dum Praefectum vocat. Nam forte et ipse in Aula erat. Venit, introducitur et mulier. Hanc nostine? ait Princeps. Colorem homo mutat, et Princeps exsequitur: At querelas quas super te defert, etiam nosti? Atroces sunt, et quas nolim esse veras. Quid ais? Vacillat, perplexe loquitur, negat aliquid et annuit donec Princeps, ex vultu ipso et sermone culpam suspicatus, ut tamen certior esset, remotis omnibus solum alloquitur. Quam fidem mihi debeas et quam beneficiis meis gratiam, non nescis. Per hanc et illam te adiuro ut quid in hac re sit liquido et sine ambagine denarres. Fatenti gratia aut aliqua severitas non deerit nec abnuenti tormenta. Ibi ille ad genua se abiicere, factum agnoscere; denique mulierem culpae omnis liberare, se onerare, sed in gratia Principis refugium et solatium ponere. Quam ut magis impetret, illicitam libidinem purgaturum matrimonio offert. Princeps, quasi aures praebens et iam mitior, mulierem revocari, quosdam e suis adsistere iubet. Et heus tu, quoniam huc ventum est, mulier, placetne maritum hunc habere? Illa abnuit et, tamen voluntatem aut iussa Principis timens, adspicit circumstantes. Qui certatim innuunt aut suggerunt accipiat conditionem viri nobilis, divitis, apud Dominum gratiosi. Victa dat manus. Quas Princeps iungi cum Praefecti iubet et sollennibus verbis matrimonium firmari. Firmato, iterum Princeps: Tu, nove marite, hoc iamnunc largire, ut si prior sine liberis obeas, haec coniux heres omnium bonorum tuorum sit. Libens concedit, testes audiunt, tabularius scribit. Et his iam peractis noster Carolus ad faeminam: Dic sodes, animo tuo factum iam satis? Satis, inquit mulier. At nondum meo, ille subiicit et ablegata faemina iubet Praefectum in illum ipsum carcerem duci in quo maritus caesus, et pariter caesum in arcam ligneam sive capulum deponi. Facta sunt. Tum mulierem ignaram eo mittit. Quae inopinato iterum casu conterrita, duobus maritis eodem fere tempore, eodem certe supplicio amissis, mox in morbum incidit et fato obiit. Hoc solum alteris nuptiis lucrata, ut liberos ex priore coniugio divites relinqueret nova hereditate. Tragoediae exemplum est, sed gratulor Belgicae talem exitum sub tali Iustitiae vindice. Et vos, successores, servate. Atque haec circa Amicos brevi, sed memorabili facto claudam Mahumetis Secundi, Turcarum Principis, quem verius Muchemetem scribi gnari linguae

34–380,17 Leuncl. Pandect. 143

378 378

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9 was an excellent follower of justice. She went there, accompanied by two friends, and was given audience, but was hardly believed. The prince was outraged and pained to know that one of his own had dared to do this on his own soil. But he also told the woman threateningly that she would fall badly if she did not tell the undeniable truth. He ordered her to stay in the palace and to withdraw to a neighbouring room while he summoned the governor. For he happened to be in the palace as well. He came and the woman was brought in as well. Do you know her? the prince asked. The man changed colour and the prince continued, But do you also know the complaints she reports about you? They are atrocious and I would rather that they were not true. What do you say? He hesitated, spoke confusedly, denied one thing and admitted another, until the prince, who suspected from his face and speech that he was guilty, talked to him alone, after everyone had been removed, to be sure: You certainly know which loyalty you owe me and which gratefulness for my favours. I adjure you by these to tell me clearly and directly what truth there is in this. You will be pardoned, but not without some severity, if you confess, tortured if you deny. So he threw himself down on his knees, admitted the deed and then cleared the woman of all guilt and took it on himself, but placed his hope for refuge and relief in the prince’s grace. To obtain more grace from the prince, he offered to purge that forbidden desire through marriage. The prince, as if he was listening and already more lenient, commanded that the woman should be called back, and that some of his assistants should attend: Ah, you, woman, since it has come to this, would you like this man as your husband? She refused, but nonetheless fearing the will and orders of the prince, she looked at the bystanders. They all nodded eagerly or advised her to accept marriage to a noble and rich man, favoured by his lord. Overwhelmed, she gave her hands, and the prince ordered that her hands should be joined with the governor’s and the marriage confirmed with solemn words. When it had been confirmed, the prince spoke again: You, newly-wed husband, now grant that, if you die first without children, your wife will be the heir of all of your possessions. He conceded willingly, the witnesses listened and the registrar wrote it down. And when all of this had been done, our Charles asked the woman, Tell me, please, are you satisfied? Yes, I am, the woman said. But I am not yet, he replied, and after having sent the woman away, he ordered that the governor should be taken to the very prison cell where the husband had been murdered and that he should likewise be killed and put in a wooden chest or sarcophagus. It was done. Then he sent the woman there, unaware of this. Terrified once again by this unexpected situation, having lost two husbands at nearly the same time and certainly with the same punishment, she soon fell ill and died. The only thing which she gained through her second marriage was that she left the children from her former marriage rich because of the new inheritance. It is a tragic example, but I congratulate the Netherlands upon such an outcome under such a protector of justice. And you, successors, keep that in mind. 8 I will close these examples about friends with a brief but memorable deed by Mahumed the Second, Emperor of the Turks, whose name should more correctly be

379 379

Liber ii, Caput ix

persuadent nobis. Memorabili quia circa filium. Et quid propius tangat? Is igitur Muchemetes filium habuit Mustafam, imperio destinatum et cetera bonum, libidinibus pronum. Hic Achmetis Bassae uxorem insigni forma adamabat et blanditiis diu pervincere conatus, cum non succederet, insidiis tentavit. Speculatus est tempus quo in balneum mulier ivit (et saepe lavant se Turcae) et 5 mox secutus cum paucis suorum, ibi nudam et frustra renitentem compressit. Illa ad maritum, maritus ad Imperatorem flagitium detulit, poenas poposcit. Muchemetes primo cunctari, tum asperioribus verbis (sed alius in mente sensus erat) Bassam excipere: Et quid, inquit, sic graviter de filio queri tibi visum est? An nescis te et tuam iuris mancipiique mei esse? Si filius igitur illam amplexus est et animo 10 suo morem gessit, nempe ancillam meam amplexus est. Sine ulla quidem culpa si me volente. Haec cogita atque abi; cetera mihi permitte. Sed ista iuris tuendi caussa magis quam quia sentiret, dixit atque animi aeger et saucius, filium ad se vocatum primo examinavit; tum confessum pessimis verbis minisque acceptum dimisit. Et mox minas in rem confert ac triduo post, cum aliquamdiu in 15 pectore filius et Iustitia pugnassent, hac vincente, fauces Mustafae nervo arcus iussit effringi et morte Pudicitiae litare.

380 380

Book i1, Chapter 9 spelt Mehmed, experts of the language assure us. It is memorable, because it concerned his son. And what could affect him more closely? So this Mehmed had a son, called Mustafa, who was destined to rule. Otherwise a good man, he was prone to lust. He was deeply in love with the beautiful wife of Ahmed Pasha and he had tried for a long time to win her over by flattering her. When he did not succeed, he tried through artifice. He investigated when the woman went to the baths (and the Turks wash themselves often) and soon following her with a few of his men, he assaulted the naked woman, who struggled against him in vain. She reported the disgraceful act to her husband and he reported it to the emperor, demanding punishment. Mehmed first hesitated and then replied to the Pasha in quite severe words (but he felt differently in his mind): And why, he said, did you decide to complain so strongly about my son? Do you not know that you and your wife are in my rightful possession? So if my son has embraced her and indulged his feelings, he has obviously embraced my servant, entirely without any guilt, if it was with my consent. Think about that and go away. Leave the rest to me. But he said that more to protect his right than because he agreed, and sad and hurt in his soul, he called his son to him and questioned him first. Then, when the son confessed, he sent him away with very strong words and threats. And soon he put his threats into practice. Three days later, when his son and justice had been struggling in his heart for a while and the latter had won, he gave orders that Mustafa should be strangled with a bowstring and chastity satisfied by his death.

381 381

Caput ix DE IUSTITIA, quam Princeps erga Subditos servet.

Lib. I

Odyss.β

Quid enim potius faciat? Prima institutio et admissio regum ab hoc fine fuit. Sine Iustitia vivere inter nos, id est in Societate, non licet. Ergo aliquis aut 5 aliqui eligendi qui huic administrandae praesint. Livius bene: Multitudo coalescere in unius populi corpus nulla re quam legibus potest. Plane nulla. Haec vinclum est et, ut sic dicam, coagulum. Solve, dissipamur et, ut ferae solitariae, vagamur. Homerus, qui omnia scivit, de Iustitia istud: Ἥ τ’ ἀνδρῶν ἀγορὰς ἠμὲν λύει ἠδὲ καθίζει·

10

Quae coetus hominum cogit solvitque vicissim.

I. De Consol. phil.

Odyss. Τ

Cogit et servat si servas, solvit si neglegis et seponis. Mirum et breve, sed verum est: nulla re (ad usum provoco) quaecumque Respublica magis florebit aut floruit quam rigida et immota Iustitia; nulla re magis flaccesset et deficiet quam illa tali. Haec felicitas regnorum et statuum interna et externa. Interna 15 quidem. Nam quis nescit scelera et flagitia per eam removeri, virtutes promoveri? Externa. Quia agri, viae, maria frequentantur, et securitas ubique ac tranquillitas regnant. Boëtius egregie: Annum bonum non tam de magnis fructibus quam de iuste regnantibus existimandum. Quid iterum Homerus? Ὥς τέ τευ ἢ βασιλῆος ἀμύμονος, ὅς τε θεουδὴς ἀνδράσιν ἐν πολλοῖσι καὶ ἰφθίμοισιν ἀνάσσων εὐδικίας ἀνέχῃσι, φέρῃσι δὲ γαῖα μέλαινα πυροὺς καὶ κριθάς, βρίθῃσι δὲ δένδρεα καρπῷ, τίκτῃ δ᾽ἔμπεδα μῆλα, θάλασσα δὲ παρέχῃ ἰχθῦς ἐξ εὐηγεσίης, ἀρετῶσι δὲ λαοὶ ὑπ᾽αὐτου:

20

25

Ut cum Rex bonus imperat et metuens Divorum in multis populis et fortibus, ille quoque idem Iustitiam colit, observes et tunc sola terrae fructus ferre suos et fruges fundere itemque

4 Lips. Pol. 2.11, Mon. 2.1; Cic. off. 2.41 Pol. 2.10; Cic. rep. 2.69.5, parad. 28

4–5 Cic. rep. 2.69; Aug. civ. 2.21

382 382

7–8 Lips.

Chapter 9 ON JUSTICE, which the prince should observe towards his subjects. For what should he rather do? For that was the purpose of the first creation of, and admittance to, kings. Without justice it is not possible to live together, that is to say, in a community. So someone or some people have to be elected to preside over the administration of justice. Livy said well, A multitude can unite in one body of people by no Liv. 1.8.1 other means than laws. There is simply no other means. Justice is its bond and, so to speak, coagulator. Loosen it, and we will scatter and wander like solitary wild animals. Homer, who knew everything, said the following about justice: She who gathers the assemblies of men and dissolves them in turn.

Od. 2.69

Justice gathers and keeps if you keep it. It loosens if you neglect it and put it aside. The saying is remarkably brief, but true: nothing else (I appeal to experience) will make or has made any commonweal flourish more than rigid and immovable justice; nothing else will make it more feeble and weak than feeble and weak justice. It guarantees the prosperity of kingdoms and states, both internal and external. Internal indeed. For who does not know that crimes and disgraceful acts are removed by justice, and virtues are promoted? External because fields, roads, and seas are filled with people, and security and tranquillity rule everywhere. Boethius said very well that a year should be considered good, not so much on account of a rich harvest, as on account of Sidon. epist. 3.6.3 a just rule. What did Homer say again? Like when a good king, with the fear of the gods in his heart, reigns over many mighty peoples, cultivating justice, you will see that then also the earth bears its crops and brings forth fruits, cattle also breed and fish abound, all because of justice. And the peoples are well and happy.

383 383

Od. 19.109-114

Liber ii, Caput ix

faetificare armenta et pisces exundare, nempe ex Iustitia, populisque bene atque beate est.

∞LXXXV

Si attendas et dilates, quam laudationem uberem Iustitiae non scribas? Ergo felicia regna reddit; eadem alia si languet aut perit. O pulchrum, cum licet gloriari aut dicere quod Guilielmi, quem Acquisitorem vocant, temporibus in 5 Anglia, Totum regnum puellam onustam auro posse pervadere! Ut possit, Iustitia Monitum i: Severe administranda.

I

II

III

IV

Etiam in parvis rebus aut iniuriis. Quod fecit Andronicus Comnenus, Imperator Byzantii. Qui nullo discrimine nobiles aut novos, tenues, divites, suos aut alienos, solitus culpae convictos damnare. In his Theodorum quemdam e suis caris, quem agricolae detulerant divertisse apud se cum servitiis nec in discessu quidquam solvisse. Res erat (ut hodie) non nimis nova aut insolens Palatinis. Tamen Imperator hominem statim corripi, fusti duodecies in publico caedi iussit, tum agricolis damnum largiter rependi. Scripsit Idem ad Praesides et Magistratus hisipsis verbis: Aut iniurias aut vitam relinquite. Nam vos iniuste agere et vivere nec Deo gratum nec mihi, eius ministro, ferendum est. Tu vero nunc vive, Imperator, et mapalia nostra ordina. Leo Armenus, ibidem Imperator, cum Palatio digressus adiretur a tenuioris sortis homine qui uxorem suam diceret a Senatore raptam stupratamque, et id se facinus ad Praefectum detulisse, nec ius adhuc sibi dictum, Leo confestim mandavit ut reverso sibi actor, reus, Praefectus sisterentur. Quos deinde auditos, cum noxae reum, negligentiae Praefectum comperisset, hunc dignitate, illum vita exuit. O factum, Dei hominumque favore dignandum! Neque aliter in caussa simili Totila rex. Eo laudabilior quod barbarus patravit et in militem, non sine metu seditionis militaris. Accessit eum Calaber quidam incusavitque e satellitio eius militem filiae suae per vim compressae. Totila statim in vincla hominem dat, poenas sumpturus. Quas tamen milites remorantur miseratione an cupidine similis licentiae atque agmine adeuntes, petunt dimitti et sibi donari commilitonem notae virtutis et facinorum clarum. Totila auditos acri oratione castigat: Quid agitis, parum providi, aut vobis vultis? Sine iustitia rem civilem aut militarem stare non posse. Satis vos Theodahadas

4–6 Matt. Paris Chron. ma. a. 1085, R.S. 57.2, p. 20 8–14 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Andron1, pt2, pp. 330-331 15–17 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Andron1, pt2, p. 331 18–23 Zonar. epit. 15, vol. 3, pp. 328-329 25–386,10 Proc. Goth. 3.8.12-25

384 384

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9 If you would attend to and extend this, what rich praise would you not write on justice? So it renders kingdoms prosperous, and makes them otherwise if it is weak or dies. How beautiful, when it is allowed to boast or say the words that were spread in England during the reign of William, who is called the Conqueror, namely that A girl 1085 loaded with gold could cross the entire kingdom! To make this possible

Admonition 1: Justice has to be administered strictly. 1 Even in small cases or injustices. Andronicus Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantium, did this. He used to condemn the old and the new nobility, poor or rich, friends or strangers without distinction if they were found guilty. Among them was one of his close friends, Theodorus, whom peasants had denounced for sojourning at their place with his servants without paying anything when leaving. As today, this was nothing particularly new or unusual for courtiers. Nevertheless the emperor gave orders to seize the man immediately and give him twelve blows with a club in public, and subsequently to reimburse the peasants generously for the damage. 2 The same person wrote to the governors and magistrates in these very words: Stop committing injustices or stop living. For the fact that you act unjustly and nonetheless live is not acceptable to God nor can it be tolerated by me, who am His servant. If only you were alive now, Emperor, and could tidy our mess! 3 When Leo the Armenian, Emperor in the same place, left the palace, he was approached by a poor man, who said that his wife had been carried off and raped by a senator and that he had reported the crime to the governor, but that justice had not been administered to him yet. Leo immediately ordered that the accuser, the accused and the governor should appear before him on his return. He listened to them and when he found the defendant guilty of the crime and the governor of negligence, he deprived the latter of his dignity and the former of his life. What a deed, worthy of approbation by God and men! 4 King Totila acted no differently in a similar case. He is all the more praiseworthy, as he performed it as a barbarian and towards a soldier, not without fear of insurrection by the army. A certain Calabrian came to him and accused a soldier from his guard of having forced the Calabrian’s daughter to lie with him. Totila immediately put the man in irons and was going to inflict punishment on him. But the soldiers obstructed it out of pity or because they desired similar freedom, and arriving in group, they asked that their fellow-soldier should be released and given over to them, since he was of renowned courage and famous for his deeds. When Totila had listened to them, he reproved them with a sharp oration: What are you doing, imprudent people, or what do you want for yourselves? Without justice the state or the military cannot stand firm. King Theodahad should have taught you that sufficiently. When he gave away justice for money

385 385

Liber ii, Caput ix

V

VI

VII

rex docuisse debuit. Qui pretio aut gratiae eam largitus, quas clades ipse passus est, et per eum gens Gothorum? Nunc me rege, et illa revixit, ac statim caput sustulit vetus illa gloria nostra ac fortuna. Et vultis illam et hanc iterum (nexa ea sunt) corruere ac labi? Quo autem pretio? Unus e vulgo scelus admisit, et placet gentem totam luere, et vos venire strenuos et integros in communionem noxae? Nam venitis, et assident inter se ac paene paria sunt delinquere et tueri delinquentes. Paria? Imo maius hic peccatum est viam aperire et struere peccaturis. Sed de vobis, vos videritis, milites; ego alta voce et corde proclamo: non feram. Et si ferre vultis, me auferte. Ecce corpus et pectus. Moti sunt et animos ponunt, rem ei permittunt. Qui hominem carcere eductum audit ac capitis damnat. Damnati bona vitiatae velut in dotem donat. Alfonsus, rex Hispaniae, sed Imperator cognomento quia huic dignitati destinatus, insignis aequi iustique cultor fuit. Exemplum. Nobilis quidam in Galaecia, stirpe sua fisus et temporum perturbatione confisus, rusticulum bonis omnibus spoliavit. Praetorem ille adit, hic nobilem monet desistere et reponere. Non audit, rex aditur. Iubet idem, nec obtemperat, in locorum longinquitate spem etiam ponens. At rex ceteris omnibus omissis privati habitu, quo res occultior esset, Toleto in extremam Galaeciam pergit. Militis aedes obsidet dilapsumque comprehendi e fuga et pro ipsis foribus laqueo suspendi et cum ignominia strangulari mandavit. In nostra vero Belgica Balduinus, Septimus Comes Flandriae, Petrum, virum nobilem et Orscampi toparcham, ob duos boves pauperculae viduae reclamanti abductos, re ad eum delata, subito arripi iubet et atroci morte puniri. Forte lebes aquae ferventis in medio Brugensi foro erat, monetario puniendo destinatus. In hunc sine mora hominem coniici iubet, sic ut erat, ocreatum, vestitum, gladio accinctum. Quid ais? Sic calide, et an non temere? Nihil. Nam inquisitio praecesserat, et culpae convictus, per aliam caussam evocatus, poenas sic luit, meo animo recte et salubriter. Ille Idem undecim equestris loci viros, quod tres mercatores per viam bonis et deinde vita exuissent, vocatos in Palatium damnavit. Statimque se coram laqueis iniectis destitui super tabulam annexos ad trabem iussit ac manu tum sua tabulam subduxit ac pensiles fecit suffocavitque. Rem laudo, modum improbo: ac potuit debuitque manibus hoc alienis.

11–19 Luc. Tudens. Chron. 4.76 3 corruere ac deest A 4 Quo...pretio deest A |e vulgo deest A |admisit : commisit A |et1 ... luere deest A 5 communionem noxae : consortium eius vultis A |venitis et deest A 6 ac B : et A | Paria deest A | Imo...est : Nisi quod hic etiam maius peccatum A 7–8 Sed... auferte : Summa est, milites: ego non feram, et me potius auferte. A 8 Ecce...pectus deest A

386 386

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9 or favour, what misfortune did he endure, and the Gothic people through him? Now I am king and justice has revived and immediately our former glory and fortune raised their heads. Do you want both of them (for they are connected) to go to ruin and fall again? At what price? One person from the mob has committed a crime and you want the whole people to pay, and you want, actively and vigorously, to come and share in the crime? For you come, and committing a crime and protecting criminals come close to each other and are nearly equal. Equal? It is an even more serious crime here to open and pave the way for those who are about to commit a crime. Now, you, soldiers, see for yourselves what you want to do; I proclaim in a loud voice and from my heart: I will not tolerate it. And if you wish to tolerate it, then remove me. Look, here is my body and my heart. They were moved, calmed down, and entrusted the case to him. He had the man brought out of prison, heard him, and sentenced him to death, while he gave the goods of the convict to the violated woman as her dowry, as it were. 5 Alfonso, King of Spain, who was called Emperor because he was destined for that honour, was a remarkable cultivator of equity and justice. An example. In Galicia a certain nobleman, relying on his origin and even more on the chaotic times, robbed a peasant of all his goods. The peasant went to the governor, who warned the nobleman to stop and restore it. But he did not listen and the king was approached. He ordered the same, but the culprit did not obey, also setting his hopes on the distance between the places. But laying aside everything else, the king proceeded from Toledo to the far end of Galicia, dressed as an ordinary man so that it would be more secret. He besieged the soldier’s house and gave orders to catch him when he fled and to hang him in front of his own door and to strangle him in dishonour. 6 In our country, the Netherlands, Baldwin the Seventh, Count of Flanders, heard that a nobleman called Peter, prefect of Oostkamp, had taken two oxen from a poor widow who was screaming in protest. When the case was referred to Baldwin, he commanded that Peter should be arrested immediately and punished with a cruel death. By chance there was a basin with boiling water in the middle of the marketplace in Bruges to punish a minter. He gave orders to throw the man in without delay as he stood: greaved, dressed, and girded with a sword. What do you say? So quickly? Was that not reckless? Not at all. For there had already been an investigation, and having been found guilty, he had been summoned for another case, and thus paid the penalty, rightly and wholesomely, if you ask me. 7 The same person called eleven knights to the palace, because they had deprived three merchants of their goods and then of their lives on the road, and sentenced them. He immediately ordered that they should be placed on top of a table in his presence, ropes around their necks and tied to a beam, whereupon he drew the table from underneath them with his own hands, made them hang down and suffocate. I praise the event, but not the method: he could and should have done it with someone else’s hands.

387 387

Liber ii, Caput ix

Monitum ii: Sine affectu vel aspectu administranda. I

II

Quod nobili exemplo praeivit Gaius Marius, ille septimum Consul. Cimbricum terribile Romanis bellum erat, et ei, postquam aliorum ducum pertaesum esset, Marius praefectus. Fecerat Tribunum in legione sororis suae filium, militiae fortasse fortem, libidinis impotentem. Amare coepit in legione sua Gaium Plotium, tironem militem et in flore adhuc aevi. Nam Romani ab anno decimoseptimo eos scribebant. Igitur aliquoties tentare et de stupro eum appellare; iste aspernari et convicio mox repellere. Tanto flagrantior et ad imperii vim versus, noctu adolescentem in tabernaculum vocat. Et capitale erat non parere Tribuno. Venit et solita audit et flagitii tentamenta aut praemia. Quae cum fortiter reiiceret, manus Tribunus iniicit et vim parat. Cum ille boni sanguinis, gladio educto, Virum me scito, inquit et Tribunum transadigit. Clamor in tabernaculo, tumultus in castris. Novum et atrox facinus omnes concitat, Tribunum a manipulari occisum. Ducitur mane ad Gaium Marium, qui forte ea nocte non fuerat in castris. Qui tribunali conscenso voces et praeiudicia militum audit, disciplinam castrorum et suam etiam cognationem cogitat. Atque omnia praedamnabant militem, sed eius innocentia et Marii firma aequitas eripiunt. Nam cum ille aegre et invitus, sed victo pudore, denique rem explicasset, Marius nihil cunctatus sententiam et infamiam in defunctum vertit et hunc noxae absolvit. Absolvit tantum? Imo et laudatum corona donavit cum elogio, Quod pulcherrimum facinus eo tempore edidisset quo fortibus exemplis opus esset. Macte Mari! Pudicitia te amat atque ipsa Disciplina amat. Quam solvisses nisi sic solvisses. Talis Andreae, regis Hungariae, iustitia nec in caussa nimis dispare. Ivit in terram Sanctam cum copiis, religione impulsus, et curam regni Bancbano commisit, fidei eius et uxore Gertrude commendata. Quae apud eum sancta, non ipsam fuit. Nam cum frater Gertrudis, adolescens lascivus et petulans, absente rege visum ad sororem venisset, illa iuveni gratificatura uxorem Bancbani, pudicam ad id formosamque faeminam, fraudibus et pellaciis ei substernit. Quae post facinus paenitentia ducta, rem omnem marito exponit, et simul reginae fraudes, et iram a se in illam vertit. Qua iustissima Bancbanus accensus, ut erat doloris recens, reginam adit, exprobrat factum et gladio ulciscitur. Caede patrata Byzantium abit, Andreae regi occursurus, illac in Syriam tendenti. Quem mox reperit et rem aperit. Illum unum iudicem et, si meruit, vindicem poscit. Rex differt in suum reditum et vultu atque animo composito, Tu vero abi, inquit, et in regnum redi, vicem meam, ut ante, functurus. Nam

2–22 Plu. Mar. 14.3-5; Cic. Mil. 9

24–390,5 Bonfin. Rer. Ungar. 2.7

388 388

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9

Admonition 2: Justice has to be administered dispassionately and without bias. 1 For which Gaius Marius, when he was consul for the seventh time, led the way with his noble example. The Romans were involved in the terrible Cimbrian war, and Marius was in charge of it, after they had tired of the other commanders. He appointed his sister’s son tribune in the legion, a strong man in warfare, perhaps, but weak in his desires. He fell in love with a recruit in his legion, called Gaius Plotius, who was still in the prime of his life, for the Romans enrolled men from the age of seventeen. So he made a few attempts and accosted him with dishonourable requests. But Plotius refused and soon rejected him with loud abuse. The tribune, even more inflamed, turned to the force under his command and called the young man to his tent at night. And it was punishable by death not to obey a tribune. He came and listened to the usual things, the attempts at, or rewards for, disgraceful acts. When he vigorously rejected them, the tribune put his hand on him and prepared for violence. But then, true to his good blood, he drew his sword and said, Know that I am a man, and pierced the tribune. The shouts in the tent created tumult in the camp. The novel and cruel deed roused everyone: a tribune killed by a common soldier. In the morning he was brought to Marius, who by chance had not been in the camp that night. Having mounted the tribunal, he listened to the words and hasty judgments of the soldiers, considered the discipline of the camp and his own blood-relation. And everything condemned the soldier beforehand, but his integrity and Marius’ immovable equity saved him. For when he reluctantly and unwillingly, but having overcome his shame, had eventually explained what happened, Marius did not hesitate, turned the sentence and dishonour towards the deceased and absolved Plotius of the crime. Did he just absolve him? No, he even gave him a crown, praising him with the short sentence that he had performed a noble deed in times which were in need of strong examples. Well done, Marius! Chastity loves you and discipline itself loves you, which you would have dissolved if you had not solved the case in this way. 2 Andrew, King of Hungary, showed similar justice in a not too dissimilar case. He went to the Holy Land with his troops, impelled by religion, and left Bánk Bán in charge of the kingdom, also entrusting his wife Gertrude to his care. But the faithfulness which was unviolable to him was not so to her. For when Gertrude’s brother, a lustful and impudent young man, had come to visit his sister during the absence of the king, she, willing to please the young man, submitted Bánk Bán’s wife, until then a chaste and beautiful woman, to him through deceit and enticement. Moved by penitence after the misdeed, Bánk Bán’s wife told her husband everything which had happened, and also told him about the queen’s deceit and turned his anger from herself to the queen. Bánk Bán, very rightly enraged, his pain still fresh, went to the queen, upbraided her for her deed, and took his revenge with his sword. Having committed the murder, he went to Byzantium to meet King Andrew, who was there, on his way to Syria. Bánk Bán soon found him and told him what had happened. He asked him to be his only judge and, if he deserved it, the one who would punish him.

389 389

Liber ii, Caput ix

III

reduci mihi si Deus annuit, stat hanc caussam cognoscere et decidere. Si innocens es, tunc libens absolvero; sin autem nocens, ne nunc quidem damnatum volo nec expeditionem hanc, in hostes fidei sumptam, Christiano sanguine auspicor et perfundo. Uterque abiit: ille in Asiam, hic in Hungariam. Et cum rediisset, caussa serio inquisita et cognita pronunciat, Uxorem suam iuste caesam videri. O multa in hoc facto insignia! Quod nihil sacrae expeditioni anteposuerit, quod suspectum, si non convictum, iterum regno praeposuerit, quod amorem coniugalem Iustitiae postposuerit. Salve vel hoc facto, magne rex. Et tu, Croyorum inclyta familia, ramus ab illa stirpe. At Othonis Tertii Imperatoris affectus, etiam in suo capite et salute, domitus Iustitiae cessit (si vera est narratio quam ab illo aevo plures scriptores tradunt). Aiunt uxorem ei fuisse parum casti corporis, et hanc, cum ad Mutinam Italiae Imperator esset, cuidam Comiti in iis locis copiam usuramque sui obtulisse, sed repulsam tulisse. Id perdolitum faeminae (veteres ab eo iras et calumnias scimus) atque ausa est ipsa crimen ultro struere et tentatae pudicitiae suae Comitem accusare. Imperator calide audit, credit, damnat, occidit. Comes tamen ante mortem rei seriem uxori suae aperit et rogat ut mortuum vindicet et famam, quoniam vitam non potest, servet. Dat consilium ut iudicio candentis ferri, Deo freta, rem committat. Qui mos tunc frequens, nuper et hodie merito exolevit. Ille ita moritur. Et paullo post dies aderat qua sollenniter Caesar ius dicebat, viduis maxime et pupillis. Vidua igitur Comitis, mandatum exsecutura, venit ad tribunal et caput mariti occultum in sinu gestat. Stat ante Caesarem et veniam praefata, rogat: Ecqua poena dignus esset qui vitam alteri iniuria ademisset? Hic Imperator, Is quidem, liquet, mulier, inquit, morte. Tum illa, Ergo poenam hanc tu, Caesar, te iudice subibis, qui innocentem maritum meum sustulisti. En caput quod recidisti. Innocentem autem esse, quoniam testes et alia desunt, tractatione igniti ferri probabo. Dixit et sine noxa fecit. Miraculum Imperatorem et adstantes commovit. Sed hunc maxime, qui Deum etiam vindicem timebat. Itaque permittit se faeminae ut sua voce damnatum, sed veniam vitamque quattuor castrorum donatione redemit. Ea sunt in Etruria, Lunensi tractu, et Decimum, Octavum, Septimum, Sextum appellant a numero dierum quibus prorogationem supplicii a faemina ante plenam veniam impetraverat. Haud negaverim a fabula quam historia hoc videri propius, sed bonis tamen auctoribus scripta, quae culpa est describere?

390 390

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9 The king delayed it until his return and said with composed face and mind: Go away, back to the kingdom, to take care of it in my stead as before. For if God allows me to return, I am determined to investigate this case and decide. If you are innocent, then I will be happy to clear you. If, on the other hand, you are guilty, I certainly do not want to condemn you now and begin this expedition, undertaken against the enemy of our faith, by shedding Christian blood. They both left, one to Asia, the other to Hungary. And when the king returned and investigated the case seriously, he pronounced that his wife seemed to have been justly killed. Oh, how many remarkable elements there are in this act! That he did not place anything before a sacred expedition, that he put someone who was suspected, though not convicted, back in charge of the kingdom, that he put his love for his wife after justice. Be blessed, even for this deed, great king, and you, famous House of Croÿ, who are a branch of that stock. 3 The feelings of Emperor Otto the Third, even in a situation in which his life was at stake, were mastered and yielded to justice – if it is true what many authors of that age tell. They say that his wife was not very chaste and that when the emperor was near Modena in Italy, she offered a certain count in this region the use and enjoyment of herself, but was rejected. This grieved the woman greatly (inveterate wrath and calumny come from that, as we know) and she dared to fabricate a charge herself and accuse the count of assaulting her chastity. The emperor promptly listened, believed her, condemned and killed him. But before his death the count revealed the course of events to his wife and asked her to avenge his death and to safeguard his good name, since his life could not be saved. He advised her to rely on God and entrust the case to the ordeal of white-hot iron. That was a popular custom at the time, but lately and today it has deservedly grown out of use. Thus he died and shortly afterwards the day arrived, on which the emperor, according to custom, would pronounce judgment, especially on widows and orphans. So the widow of the count came to the court to execute his order and carried the head of her husband hidden in a fold of her clothes. She stood in front of the emperor and asked, after first having asked permission, Does someone who unjustly took someone’s life deserve a punishment? Whereupon the emperor said: Indeed it is clear, woman, that he deserves death. Then she replied, Then you, Your Highness, will undergo that punishment with yourself as judge, since you have killed my innocent husband. Look at his head, which you cut off. Since there are no witnesses or other evidence, I will prove that he is innocent by handling glowing iron. That is what she said, and she did it without injury. The miracle moved the emperor and the bystanders, but mostly him, who also feared the vengeance of God. So he surrendered to the woman, condemned by his own words, but he bought forgiveness and his life back by donating four fortresses. They are in Etruria, in the region of Luna, and are called the tenth, eighth, seventh and sixth, based on the number of days on which he had obtained a deferment of his punishment from the woman, before she forgave him completely. I

391 391

Liber ii, Caput ix IV

V

Minus aspera et, ut sic dicam, Tragica sunt quae subiungam, sed in quibus affectus tamen egregie calcati. Aristides Atheniensis, qui merito et a pluribus caussis cognomen Iusti vindicat, iudex inter duos captus sedebat cum adversarius, ut illum adversario suo alienum redderet, sibi propitium, multa dicere de hostili eius in Aristidem animo et documenta adiungere. Sed ille inter- 5 rumpens, Quin tu, inquit, siquid te laesit, hoc dicis et alia mittis? Nam huic rei nunc sedemus. Gratianus, Imperator Romanus, lepide etiam hic lusit et ablegavit mulierem stulte importunam. Accessit et de marito questa est et aspera multa dixit. Ille placide, Quid hoc ad me, mulier? At enim subiecit ipsa, etiam in te male ani- 10 matus est et loquitur. Ille iterum, Quid hoc ad te, mulier? et confusam irrisamque sic dimisit.

Monitum iii: Subtiliter interdum vel sagaciter inquirenda. I II

III

Salomonis, regis Hebraei, factum innotuit celebratae subtilitatis in eruenda veritate. Cui aequitas comitem se dedit. Galbae Imperatoris. Qui, cum de proprietate iumenti quaereretur incertis utrimque argumentis, ita decrevit ut ad lacum ubi aquari solebat, capite involuto duceretur atque ibidem revelato, eius esset ad quem sponte se recepisset. Sunt alia huius generis, sed omnia aequat aut superat Rudolfi Austriaci istud. Agebat Noribergae et rebus imperii ac publicis intendebat cum ad privatas eum vertit leviter mercator quispiam, ius et vindictam petens in hospitem sive diversitorem ibi notum, a quo grandi pecunia fraudatum se aiebat. Nam bona fide deposuisse apud eum in sacculo ducentas argenti selibras (Marcas appellant), quas ille impudenter abnegabat, iniuriose retinebat. Imperator de fide dictorum rogat. Ille affirmat, sed sua fide nec aliis (ut solet fere in Deposito) argumentis. Igitur Imperator re perpensa astum adhibendum censuit et vestigiis verum indagandum. Quaerit ab homine ille sacculus sive vidulus cuiusmodi esset? Describit formam, nec aliud Caesar quam secedere eum in proximum cubiculum et praestolari iubet. Habebat in animo evocare hospitem, sed Fortuna commodius instituit et ultro ad eum mittit. Nam veniunt primarii urbis cives, ut solet, gratulatum Principi et salutatum, inter quos iste

2–7 Plu. Arist. 4.2 18 Suet. Galba 7.2

8–12 Const. Manass. Ann. (1573: 65)

392 392

14–15 1 Reg. 3 16-28

16–

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9 could hardly deny that this seems closer to a tale than to history, but since it was written by good authors, what harm is there in describing it? 4 Less harsh and, as it were, tragic are the events which I will now add. But affections were nevertheless repressed in them in an excellent manner. Aristides from Athens, who deservedly and for many reasons claims the epithet the Just, sat, caught between two people, as a judge. To make him unfavourable towards his adversary and welldisposed towards himself, one of them talked much about the other’s hostile feelings for Aristides and added evidence. But Aristides interrupted him and said, If he has done something wrong to you, why do you not talk about that and leave the rest out? For that is the case for which we are sitting now. 5 The Roman Emperor Gratian played this game smartly, too, and sent away a woman who was foolishly rude. She approached and complained about her husband with a spate of harsh words. He calmly said, What does that have to do with me, woman? But she added, he feels and talks ill of you as well. But he said again, What does that have to do with you, woman? and thus sent her away confused and ridiculed.

Admonition 3: Sometimes subtle and sagacious investigation is needed. 1 The act of Solomon, King of the Hebrews, which was of celebrated subtlety in eliciting the truth, has become well-known. Equity gave itself to him as a companion. 2 Or the act of Emperor Galba. When there was an investigation about the ownership of a beast of burden and evidence was indecisive on both sides, he decided that the animal should be taken to the lake where it was usually watered, with its head covered; at that place the cover should be removed, and the animal would belong to the person to whom it chose to return. 3 There are other examples of this sort, but that of Rudolf of Austria equals or surpasses all. He was in Nuremberg, attending to state and public affairs, when a certain merchant diverted him a little towards private affairs, asking for justice and vengeance on a visitor who was staying at an inn, who was known there, and whom he accused of having cheated him of a large amount of money. For he had deposited two hundred half-pounds of silver (they are called Marks) with him in a purse in good faith, which the man shamelessly denied having and kept back unjustly. The emperor asked if he could prove the reliability of his words. He confirmed, but on his word, since there was no other proof (as is fairly customary for deposits). So after having weighed the case carefully, the emperor decided to try guile and to investigate the truth by following the traces. He asked the man what type of purse or wallet it was. He described its shape. The emperor just ordered him to retreat to a nearby room and wait. He wanted to summon the stranger, but fortune arranged a more convenient way and had him coming to the emperor of his own accord. For the leading citizens of the town came, as usual, to congratulate and greet the emperor, and that treacherous visitor was

393 393

Liber ii, Caput ix

infidus hospes. Norat adeo iamante Caesar et, ut comitas eius erat, benigne et per facetias appellat: Heus tu, scitum illic pilleum habes. Mihi dona, et permutemus. Ille arrisit, pilleum libens dimisit et honori hoc factum duxit. Caesar secedit paullum, quasi publicum negotium avocaret, et fidum ac notum eius opidi civem cum ipso pilleo illo ad uxorem hospitis mittit cum mandatis. Heus ma- 5 trona, maritus iubet ut sacculum illum talem ad eum mittas. Opus habet. Et ecce tesseram fidei meae hunc eius pilleum. Mulier agnoscit pilleum, et sacculum descripserat. Itaque nihil ambigens ascendit, tradit, quasi ad maritum deferendum. At ille recta ad Caesarem. Qui vidulum vocato tunc denique mercatori ostendit et: Hicne est? Et agnoscis? Affirmat, exsultat. Tum et Hospitem Imperator adhi- 10 bet et Hic, inquit, de te queritur et perfidiam accusat. Quid ais? Et refellis? Audacter ille, mentiri eum dicere aut dementire. Nihil sibi rei cum eo esse aut fuisse. Denique Imperator sacculum profert. Ad cuius aspectum ille confunditur et animo ac lingua labitur. Quid multa? Mercator pecuniam, hospes infamiam recipit atque etiam damnum. Nam grandi pecunia alia Caesar eum mulctat. At Rudolfus 15 omnium ore et sensu laudem, et decantatum in Germania satis hoc factum fuit. Sed quoniam nunc et ante Principes dedi qui ipsi et suo ore statim et de plano ius dixerunt, oriri pro moribus nostris potest

Quaestio: An ergo deceat aut expediat ipsum Principem ius dicere, reddere?

20

Ego putem decere, expedire, debere. Non alia res imperium magis asserit et ostendit quam haec in bona vitamque nostram potestas. Et cur Princeps cunctetur exercere? Expedit etiam. Quia contra potentes saepe caussae aguntur, nec minores illi aut delegati iudices satis in eos oris aut roboris semper habent. Severior igitur ita, sed et brevior Iustitia, et tricis remotis supremus ille decidit. 25 Addidi debere. Quidni? In Politicis docui reges iustitiae fruendae caussa primitus institutos. Si hoc fine, cur munus suum refugiant? Homerus audiatur: Εἷς βασιλεύς ᾧ ἔδωκε Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω σκῆπτρόν τ’ ἠδὲ θέμιστας ἵνά σφισιν βασιλεύῃ·

26–27 Lips. Pol. 2.11

28–29 Il. 2.205-206

394 394

Book i1, Chapter 9 among them. So the emperor got to know him beforehand, and friendly as he was, he kindly and jestingly called him, saying, You have a beautiful hat. Give it to me and we will change. The man laughed, happily handed over his hat and considered the fact an honour. The emperor withdrew a little, as if a state-matter called him away, and sent a trustworthy citizen of the town, who was known to him, with that hat to the visitor’s wife with orders: Woman, your husband orders you to send such and such a purse to him. He needs it. See, here is his hat as a token of my trustworthiness. The woman recognised the hat and the man had given a precise description of the purse. So she did not hesitate but went up and gave it to him, assuming that he would pass it to her husband. But he went directly to the emperor, who then at last called the merchant, showed him the wallet, and asked, Is it this one? Do you recognise it? He affirmed and jumped for joy. Then the emperor also brought in the visitor and said: This man here complains about you and accuses you of treachery. What do you say, do you refute it? He boldly said that that person was lying or mad; that he had or had had nothing to do with him. In the end the emperor brought forth the purse. When he saw it, he was perplexed and did not know what to think or say. Why say much? The merchant received his money, the visitor a bad reputation and even a fine. For the emperor sentenced him to pay another large amount of money. But Rudolf received praise from everyone’s mouth and mind and the feat was quite often retold in Germany. But because now and before I have given examples of princes who personally administered justice, with their own mouths, on the spot and out of court, from the point of view of our custom this may raise the

Question: Is it suitable or useful, then, for the prince to pronounce and pass judgment personally? I would think that it is suitable, useful, and necessary. Nothing else confirms and shows his supreme command better than this power over our goods and our lives. And why would the prince hesitate to use it? It is also useful as trials are often held against powerful people and those minor or delegated judges do not always have enough voice or strength against them. So in that way justice is more severe, but also more brief, and when all hindrances have been removed, the prince judges as the supreme power. I added that it is necessary. Why not? In my Politics I have taught that kings were originally established to enable people to enjoy justice. If they were appointed for that purpose, why would they flee their duty? We should listen to Homer: Only he is king, to whom the child of Saturn gave the sceptre and the laws to judge and rule. God has put the laws and rights in the prince’s hand together with the sceptre. He shows and carries the latter; should he delegate the former to others? He should not,

395 395

Liber ii, Caput ix

Unus rex cui concessit Saturnia proles sceptrumque et leges ut iudicet et dominetur.

Prov. cap. XVI

Leges et iura Deus in manu eius cum sceptro posuit. Hoc ostendit et praefert. Illas aliis demandet? Non debet et vel veteres ab omni aevo in omni fere orbe reges videat: ius ipsi dixerunt. Haec et plura in ista parte sunt, sed et alia acres habet assertores. Aiunt incommoda multa fuisse, et esse, si Princeps iudicet, iisque animadversis ad hodiernam hanc rationem ventum. Primum ecce, da Imperitum Principem. Qui par erit? Qui non faciet recta curva? Item, da Ineptum in sermone, in gestu. Quid nisi irrisui se exponit? Amplius, crebra haec ostentatio sui et in populo locutio nonne vulgat Principem et detrahit maiestati? Quarto, vel severe iudicabit et Odium pariet vel remisse et Ius violabit. Melius ergo res asperas et sine bona gratia in alios inclinari. Quinto denique, sunt nunc Curiae maiores minoresque, et cuique rei stata sua iudicia. Quid Principem in novas curas arcessimus, varie et affatim distractum? Quin melius tutiusque nil novare et, siquid in iam statutis labat, firmare et vincire. Ista nec male nec abs re prorsus dicuntur, fateor. Sed responderi tamen potest et iustitiae caussa debet. Primum de Imperitia dico. Plurimum et principem et quemcumque alium natura duce in magnis aut enormibus caussis iudicare posse, nec opus grandi scientia (ad hanc rem) Iuris et Legum. Da simplicem, da probum, affectuum expertem. Audeo dicere, rara caussa erit in qua verum aut quod iuxta verum non videbit. Imo Deus plerumque inspirat et talibus mentem movet. Quod sacer ille scriptor voluit: Divinatio in labiis Regis; in iudicio non errabit os eius. Et tamen fac interdum caligare. Quid? Nonne in aperto remedium, et damus ei Adsessores? Damus. Comitentur eum ad haec talia exeuntem nec auxilii solum caussa, sed decori. Atqui in Sermone aut gestu aliquis ineptus est. Scio esse, et tamen si alibi loqui eos deceat, hic vel maxime, in re severa, gravi, paucorum verborum. Itaque aut Principem talem mutum, nisi forte in cubiculo, faciant aut patiantur et hic loqui. Etsi talia exempla rara sunt. Cur adducimus aut insistimus? Ad tertium, vulgat se nimis ita Princeps. Fortassis si in rebus aliis. At haec per se talis est ut reverentiam sui gignat vel terrorem. Videmus in cottidianis istis iudicibus quam plebecula eos veneretur et timeat, etiam illa innoxia et cui nihil cum iis negotii est aut fuit. Bene a Deo ita facti sumus vereri hoc numen et nomen ipsum Iustitiae et quicumque ei administrant. Quanto magis in Principe si se non mandare tantum (in occulto id fit), sed exercere cum summa potestate ostendat? Et sane nihil hic familiariter aut comiter fit: verba, gestus, aspectus, apparatus, omnia tristitiae

396 396

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9 and he should even look at the kings of all times in the past, in nearly every part of the globe: they administered justice personally. These and many more things are to be said in favour of this, but the opposite opinion has strong advocates as well. They say that there were and still are many disadvantages if the prince judges, and having considered those, one has come to the present course of action. First, behold, take an inexperienced prince. How will he be equal to the task? How will it be possible for him not to turn right into wrong? Next, take someone inept in speech and gesture. What will he do but expose himself to ridicule? Moreover, does this frequent appearance of the prince and his speaking in public not degrade him, and does it not detract from his majesty? Fourth, he will either judge severely and engender hatred, or judge leniently and violate the law. Therefore it is better to leave thorny and unpleasant cases to others. Fifth and finally, there are now major and minor courts and each case has its own specific tribunal. Why would we summon the prince to new worries when he is already sufficiently distracted in various ways? It is indeed better and safer not to change anything and, if something is unstable in what has already been established, to stabilise and fasten it. I admit that those arguments are neither bad nor beside the point. But they can nevertheless be answered and must be so for the sake of justice. I will talk about inexperience first. Usually both the prince and anyone else can judge in important or extraordinary cases, guided by nature, and not much knowledge is needed (for this matter) of right and laws. Take a straightforward, honest, and dispassionate person. I dare say, there will rarely be a case in which he will not see the truth or what comes close to it. What is more, God inspires him for the most part and moves his mind in such cases. That is what the sacred writer meant by There is divine Pr. 16.10 inspiration on the lips of the king; his mouth will not err in judgment. But say that he is blind sometimes. What then? Is there not a clear remedy? Do we not give him assistants? We do. They should accompany him when he leaves for such things, not only to help him, but also to add dignity. But what if someone is inept in his speech or gestures? I know that such exist, but if it befits them to speak elsewhere, then especially here, in a severe and serious case where only a few words need to be spoken. Hence they should either make such a prince mute, except maybe in his room, or let him speak here as well. But such examples are rare. So why introduce any or insist? Concerning the third argument: that the prince demeans himself in this manner. Perhaps that would be the case in other matters, but this one is naturally such that it creates reverence for him, or great fear. We see how the plebs honour and fear those common judges, even those ordinary people who are guiltless and have or have had nothing to do with them. We have been well made by God in such a way that we honour the authority and the very name of justice and its ministers. The more so in a prince if he does not only show himself committing it to others (that happens in secret), but exercising it with the highest power. And certainly nothing happens in a familiar or friendly manner here: words, gestures, appearance, and apparatus – everything is closer to sternness or severity. So let him accomplish this. Let us look at the fourth argument, about fear

397 397

Liber ii, Caput ix

aut severitati propiora. Ergo hoc facessat. Quartum videamus, de Odii metu. Incurret in id, inquiunt, si severe iudicat, in Iniustitiam si remisse. Extrema accipiunt et eunt extra ipsas Iustitiae metas. Quid? An semper damnationis materia? Fac esse. In eaipsa certe alter sic deprimitur ut alter allevetur. Hunc laedis, illum iuvas. Ergo ab illo Odium, ab hoc Gratia; paria sunto. Sed nego etiam in severitate crebra odia excitari populariter. Et contra est in rectis animis, qui acclinant se magis ad tales et attrahuntur. In aspectu illa offendunt; cogitata et cum usu publico collata, delectant. Videsne ut in medicina quoque tristia et taetra saepe propinentur, sed salutis caussa? Itaque ab hoc fine adeo non odimus medicos, amamus et laudamus. Simillimum in Iustitia, a cuius acerba sectione aut ustione salus generis humani pendet. Et quis id vel e plebe nescit? Iam de Remissione, non abnuo naturas quasdam ad mitiora semper inclinare. Et quid mali erit? Imo sit nobis talis Princeps. Nam hunc sic clementem ratio tamen reget et norma iuris et legum excitabit. Nec deerunt qui ad utiliora et tristiora, cum opus erit, flectent. Aliqua vero interdum remissio plane ex usu erit, si tamen terror iste, et sub magno Iudice, praeivit. Ignovit illi Princeps, sed metu, sed ignominia perfuso. Ignovit illi Princeps, sed Princeps, id est sine corruptela aut affectu alio sordido, humanitatis tantum amore. Hoc ipsum quam Amorem omnium conciliet? Et verum est si opportune adhibeatur. Ultimo, nobis Mos opponitur et Consilia ac Curiae iam definitae. Equidem cum More haud temere pugnem. Sed quam vetusto? Avi vel proavi nostri aliter fecerunt. Vide quam longinqua repetamus. Quin totum hoc de perpetuis Curiis iudicum nuperum est et e Gallia ad nos manavit. Concludimus et moderamur: Principem decore et utiliter ius dicturum, sed aliquando, id est, vel certis temporibus, ut id sciri possit, vel in caussis gravibus sive atrocibus vel denique contra potentes aliquos et partibus graves. Caroli Magni legem, quae exstat, traxerim in exemplum: Hoc missi nostri notum faciant Comitibus et populo quod nos in omni hebdomada unum diem ad caussas audiendas sedere volumus. Populo autem dicatur ut caveat de aliis caussis ad nos reclamare nisi de quibus aut missi nostri aut Comites eis iustitiam facere noluerint. Ecce erant illo aevo passim in opidis et pagis etiam Comites sive Graviones, qui communiter ius dicebant. Interveniebant extra ordinem et Missi sive Delegati a Principe, qui idem. At Carolus ipse tamen audire caussas voluit idque hebdomadatim; caussas scilicet graviores aut in quibus laesio aut iniuria intervenisse ab ipso iudice videbatur. Si non alius in hac re fructus, quantus iste esset? Coërcere hoc modo iudices et vigilantes attentosque reddere cum Principem cogitarent iudicii

27–30 Lips. Not. 2.11

398 398

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9 of hatred. He will fall into that, they say, if he judges severely; into injustice if he judges leniently. They take the extremes and go beyond the very borders of justice. So? Is this always a reason for condemnation? Let us say that it is. In the same case one person is certainly pressed down in such a way that the other will be lifted up. You damage one, you help the other. So you receive hatred from the former and gratitude from the latter; let them be equal. But I deny that, even if the prince is often severe, hatred is aroused among common people. And it is quite the opposite with upright minds, who are more inclined and attracted to such princes. Severe judgments are displeasing at first sight, but pleasing if thoroughly considered and related to the common good. Do you not see how also in medicine bitter and foul things are often given to drink, but for the sake of health? So for this purpose we certainly do not hate doctors, but rather love and praise them. It is very similar as far as justice is concerned. The well-being of mankind depends on its harsh cutting and burning. And who, even a member of the plebs, does not know that? Concerning leniency, I do not deny that some minds are always inclined towards a softer approach. But what harm will it do? May there rather be such a prince for us. For reason will still govern such a clement prince and the norm of right and laws will stimulate him. And there will be no lack of people who will turn him towards more useful and harsh measures when it is needed. The occasional exercise of some degree of leniency will definitely be of use, as long as that fear has preceded and has occurred under a great judge. The prince has forgiven him, but he was filled with fear and disgrace. The prince has forgiven him, but as prince, that is, without corruption or other disgraceful feelings and merely out of love for humanity. How much will this bring about the love of all people! And it is true if it is used appropriately. Finally, the argument that custom and already defined councils and courts oppose us. Of course I would not heedlessly fight custom, but how old is it? Our grandparents and great-grandparents did it differently. Look how remote the customs are that we invoke. All of this about permanent counsels of judges is recent and has spread to us from France. We conclude and rule that it is suitable and useful for the prince to administer justice, but sometimes, that is to say either at welldefined times, so that it can be known, or in grave or severe cases or, finally, against certain powerful people, who are weighty by the public office they hold. I could take Charlemagne’s law, which is preserved, as an example: Let our delegates announce to the counts and to the people that once every week we wish to sit and hear causes. But let the people be told that they should take care not to make an appeal to us about other causes than those in which our delegates or the counts do not wish to do them justice. Behold, at that time there were counts or earls spread over the towns and hamlets, who publicly administered justice. Exceptionally also delegates or ambassadors of the prince intervened, who did the same. But Charlemagne still wanted to hear causes personally, and that every week; more serious causes, of course, or causes in which injury or injustice by the judge himself seemed to have intervened. Even if there was no other benefit in this, how great would it be just to keep the judges under control in this way and render them

399 399

Liber ii, Caput ix

I

II

III

IV V

VI Lamprid. in eius vita

sui iudicem et forte vindicem mox futurum. Sed Exempla pro instituto hic addamus. Philippus Macedo de communi tunc more crebro ius dixit. Sed cum forte in via et alio festinantem mulier de re sua appellasset, negavit Sibi vacare. Tum illa audacter: Noli igitur regnare, quasi admonens sive exprobrans regium hoc ita munus esse ut sine eo legitimus rex non esset. Admisit et mulierculam statim audivit et siquis alius inibi vellet. Aliter Demetrius Poliorcetes, in eadem Macedonia rex, qui per proterviam illusit etiam supplicibus. Nam cum libellos adeuntium benigne in via accepisset, quasi lecturus et cogniturus, mox cum ad pontem Axii fluminis venisset, excusso chlamydis sinu omnes in subiectam aquam abiecit. Non impune. Nam Macedones, qui talem Philippum suum non viderant sive audierant, mox spreto illo ad Pyrrhum transierunt et Iustitiae desertorem deseruerunt. Merito, merito. Sic habeant et luant. Augustus Caesar quam aliter! Qui ius dixit assidue (ait Suetonius) et in noctem nonnumquam. Quod si infirmior etiam esset et a corpore minus valeret, lectica pro Tribunali posita et in ea recubans, vel etiam domi ius reddebat. Quid ad hanc diligentiam addi potest praeter Euge et Belle? Iam Claudius Imperator item assiduus. Imo et suis suorumque sollennibus diebus atque adeo festis et religiosis non abhorruit iurisdictionem. Omitto vetera. In ipsa Gallia vicina Carolus Octavus, patrum aevo rex, sub finem vitae rebus iam attentior, omnibus septimanis binos dies destinavit iuri in publico reddundo idque aditu tam libero ut nemo vel e faece plebis regio conspectu et affatu arceretur. Sed dixi utiliter, imo necessario (quid enim si res subtilis aut in legum ambiguitate sit?) Adsessores adhiberi. Quod plerique Romani Principes aut provinciarum Praesides fecere. Imo Alexander Severus negotia et caussas prius a scriniorum principibus et doctissimis Iurisconsultis et sibi fidelibus, quorum primus tunc Ulpianus fuit, tractari ordinarique atque ita ad se referri praecepit. Provide. Ius ipse dixit, sed inquisitum prius et evolutum. Sed alia hic etiam

3–7 Plu. Mor. 179 C; Lips. Diss. (1599: *3r-v) Aug. 33.1 19–20 Suet. Claud. 14

400 400

8–13 Plu. Demetr. 42.2-3

15–17 Suet.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

watchful and attentive, since they consider the prince the judge of their judgment and maybe their future punisher? But let us add examples here, according to our plan. Philip of Macedon often administered justice according to common custom at the time. But when by chance a woman appealed to him about her case on the road, while he was hurrying to another place, he said that he did not have the time. Then she boldly replied, Do not reign, then, admonishing or reproving him, as it were, that this task was kingly to such an extent that without it he would not be a legitimate king. He agreed and immediately listened to the woman and to anyone else who would wish to appeal in that place. Demetrius Poliorcetes, who was also King of Macedon, was different. Out of wantonness he even made fun of suppliants. For although he kindly accepted the petitions of people who approached him, on the way, as if he was going to read and examine them, he emptied his pocket as soon as he arrived at the bridge over the River Axius, and threw them all into the underlying water. Not without punishment. For the Macedonians, who had not seen or heard their Philip behave like that before, soon rejected him and went over to Pyrrhus, deserting that deserter of justice. Deservedly and rightly so. Let them have it so and pay the penalty. How different was Emperor Augustus! He constantly administered justice (says Suetonius), sometimes into the night. And if he was a little weak and in less than good health, he used a litter as his tribunal and administered justice while reclining on it, or even did so at home. What can I add to this diligence except Bravo and Well done! Emperor Claudius was just as assiduous. Even on those days which were feast-days for himself or his family, and moreover on religious holidays, he was not averse to jurisdiction. I omit the older examples. In neighbouring France, Charles the Eighth, who was king at the time of our fathers and was more attentive to matters near the end of his life, reserved two days a week for administering justice in public, and that with access so free that no one, even from the dregs of the people, was kept from seeing and addressing the king. But I said that it is useful and even necessary to employ assistants (for what if a case is subtle or the laws about it are ambiguous?). Most Roman emperors or governors of the provinces did so. Indeed, Alexander Severus ordered that affairs and causes should be Hist. Aug. Alex. handled and ordered first by the principals of the archives and by the most learned lawyers who 15.6 were faithful to him, the most important of whom at the time was Ulpian, and in this way be submitted to him. That was prudent. He administered justice personally, but the case had been examined and cleared up first. But here arises another

401 401

Liber ii, Caput ix

Quaestio: An Curias et ordines Iudicum perpetuos esse conveniat?

Liber XXXIII

*Sunt monachi Graecorum aut religiosi.

Hodie sic habemus nec cum Princeps intendit et velut censuram interdum exercet, improbemus. Tamen suae etiam rationes sint improbanti. Ut, quod tempore omissiores segnioresque fiant et assidua Iustitiae tractatione minus eius reverentes. Redditur enim cottidianum opus et cum taedio aliquo aut fastidio usurpandum. Secundo, factio aut coitio facile oriri potest et superba etiam quaedam dominatio. Quod Livius notat in ordine iudicum perpetuo apud Carthaginienses: et qui unum eius ordinis, idem omnes adversos habebat. Idque inter caussas lapsae illius reipublicae quidam habent. Tertio, corruptelae interveniunt. Et quibus ex diuturnitate securitas adest, facile aures et manus iis laxant. Itaque, ut in aliis imperiis, brevia plerumque meliora et peccare minus obnoxia. Ita quidam hic censent, et mutandos esse. Romani ita. Qui Decurias Iudicum scribebant ex honestissimis et ex censu (ne paupertas ad culpam impelleret). Sed non eas omnes adsidue iudicare volebant, dumtaxat quotannis certum et necessarium numerum sorte legebant, reliquis tunc feriatis. Sed re tamen bene examinata, cum iam ad hanc multitudinem legum et ex ea tricas aut captendulas ventum, bonum est perpetuos esse eosque iuris bene peritos. Quod ad Omissionem aut Coitionem: Princeps facile arcebit si, ut dixi, iis intendit. Quod ad Corruptelam: idem si stipendia et praemia digna donat. Operae est ex Annalibus Turcarum inserere quod huc mire facit. Baiasites primus, cum fraudes et iniurias Cadiorum suorum (ita Iudices vocant) saepe iam audiret, commotus denique Neapolim omnes ad se venire iubet, ibi in domum quandam includi et igne iniecto comburi. Faciendum erat cum Alis Bassa, vir prudens, rationem quaesivit et repperit Principis molliendi. Habebat Baiasites Aethiopem puerum, garrulum et lepidum, inter delicias. Hunc instructum quid diceret faceretque, ad Principem misit. Venit igitur in meliore veste et ornatu omni. Quid hoc rei? inquit Princeps, Quid extra morem hic vestitus? Aethiops: Ut peregre eam et ableger a te ad Imperatorem Constantinopolitanum. Princeps: Ad illumne hostem nostrum? Quid facturus? Aethiops: Nempe Calogeros* aliquos arcessiturus ut nobis ius dicant quoniam Cadios tuos omnes vis occisos. Princeps: At o mi Aethiopille, numquid isti periti legum nostrarum sunt? Hic Alis Bassa opportune interloquitur: Et non sunt, o domine. Cur peritos igitur tollis? Nam, inquit, cur male iudicant? Iterum Alis: Ego, domine, caussam edam. Hi nostri stipendium e publico nullum accipiunt, capiunt igitur mercedulas a privatis. Hoc corrige, eos correxisti. Placuit consilium Baiasiti. Vitam illis dedit, Ali potestatem in hac re

21–404,5 Leuncl. Ann. 55-56

402 402

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 9

Question: Is it appropriate that the courts and orders of judges are permanent? That is the case today, and when the prince pays attention to it and sometimes applies his censorship, as it were, we should not disapprove. Still, those who disapprove of this may have their reasons too. For instance, that as time passes, they grow more negligent and lazy, and that by constantly treating legal matters, they respect justice less. For it becomes a daily task and is bound to be executed with a certain boredom and aversion. Second, faction or conspiracies can arise easily and even a certain arrogant despotism. Livy notes this about the permanent order of judges in Carthage: and he who had one of that order against him, also had all others against him. And some consider it one of the causes for the fall of that commonweal. Third, corruption intervenes. And those who are safe in the permanent duration of their office easily relax their ears and hands in favour of corruption. Therefore, as in other commanding offices, short terms are mostly the best and the least liable to faults. Some people here are of this opinion, and they also think that they need to be changed regularly. The Romans had it this way. They appointed groups of ten judges from the most honourable and wealthy people (so that poverty would not drive them to sin). Still they did not want all of them to judge all the time, so every year they chose only a certain and necessary number by drawing lots, while the others were then off duty. But having nevertheless thought closely about this, since by now we have come to such a multitude of laws and consequently to tricks and sophisms, it is good that judges are permanent and that they are experts in the laws. Concerning negligence or conspiracy: the prince will easily prevent that if, as I said, he pays attention to it. As far as corruption is concerned, the same holds true if he assigns them worthy salaries and rewards. It is worthwhile to insert something from the Turkish Annals which is very relevant to this point. When Bayezid the First had already frequently heard about fraud and injustice by his Qadis (they call their judges that way), he finally angrily ordered that they should all come to him in Naples and be locked up in a house there; the house was to be set on fire and the judges burned. It had to be done, but then Ali Pasha, a prudent man, sought a way to mollify the prince and found one. One of Bayezid’s favourites was a pretty and talkative Ethiopian boy. Having instructed him on what to say and do, he sent him to the prince. So he came in his best dress and in full apparel. What is this? the prince said, What is this extraordinary dress for? The Ethiopian boy answered, To go abroad. I will be sent to the Emperor of Constantinople by you. The prince said, To that enemy of ours? To do what? The boy replied, To invite some Calogers*, of course, to administer justice for us, since you want all your Qadis dead. The prince: But my little Ethiopian, do they know our laws? Here Ali Pasha conveniently interrupted them by saying, They do not, my Lord. So why kill those who do? For, he said, why do they judge badly? And he continued: I will explain the reason, my Lord. Our judges do not receive a salary from the state, so they accept small fees from private citizens. Correct this and you will have improved them. The advice pleased Bayezid. He gave them their lives and Ali the command in this matter, to

403 403

Liv. 33.46.1.-2

* They are Greek monks or clergymen.

Liber ii, Caput ix

quod ex usu esset, statuendi. Ille decrevit (et postea mansit) ut cuicumque hereditas tot millium Asprorum obvenisset, is in singula millena Cadio suo daret Aspros vicenos. Amplius, ut in matrimoniorum et eiusmodi contractuum instrumentis item vicenos. Ita inopiae subventum et simul Iustitiae quae laborabat. Alia munera nefas accipere nec certe, quocumque colore aut velo, decet. Aegyptius rex Iudices 5 sculpi fingique iussit velatis oculis, truncos manibus, significans nec affectu flecti nec muneribus capi debere. Aliquid laxant quidam ut dumtaxat levia munera et cibaria, item post sententiam latam. Quae talia quid nisi rimam primo, tum ianuam patefaciunt corruptelae?

404 404

Book i1, Chapter 9 establish what would be useful. He decided (and it remained later) that whoever received an inheritance of so many thousands of Aspers had to give twenty Aspers per thousand to his Qadi. Moreover, for documents regarding marriage and contracts of the like, they had to pay another twenty. In this manner he remedied their shortage of money and at the same time justice, which had been afflicted by it. It is unlawful and certainly not suitable to accept any other gifts under any pretext or cover whatever. The King of Egypt ordered that judges should be sculpted and depicted with their eyes veiled and deprived of their hands, meaning that they should not be influenced by their feelings or bought with gifts. Some are a bit more lenient, in as far as they allow small gifts and food, also after the judgment has been passed. What do such things do but open first a crack and then a gate to corruption?

405 405

Caput x DE LEGIBUS. Eas nec multas, nec item lites, probari.

Lib. VI

Leges in republica ut medicamenta esse debent: atqui nec haec multa aut varia probentur; non item illae. Plato verissime: Ὅτι παρ’ οἷς πλεῖστοι νόμοι, καὶ δίκαι παρὰ τούτοις, καὶ βίοι μοχθηροί: Quod ubi plurimae leges, ibi et lites itemque mores improbi. Deus bone, quam rem tetigit! Et usus ubique gentium aut temporum hoc affirmabit. Maneamus in Romana republica. Paucas ea initio habuit; paullo plures Decemviri addiderunt, et ita ad Principes fere mansit. Tunc sane plures, et a Iustiniano plurimae, quibus utimur Lothario Imperatore, cum diu siluissent, eas reducente. Nam Gallia, Hispania, Germania earum ad id aevi fere expertes erant. Receptae igitur sunt. Et quo fructu? Certe illo litium, nemo negaverit, quae ex eo nimium quantum succreverunt. Europam vide, et mentior nisi maxima eius pars circa istas occupatur. Alii iudicant, alii instruunt, alii agunt et qui miserrimi sunt, eas habent. Bone Lothari, manes tui per me quiescant, sed rosae aut lilia sepulchrum tuum non ornent, qui tot tricas et spinas nobis sevisti. Nam quae tam clara caussa est quae non aliqua lege - lege? imo interpretatione (nam et has admisimus) - obscuretur? Quae tam improba cui non dent colorem? Ars enim facta est Caussidicina, et perite captare aut capere laudem habet. Atqui opus est, inquiunt, multitudine ut varii factorum eventuumque velut vultus et species discernantur. Nam si paucae leges, quid? An iudici libera pleraque relinquentur? Fenestram sive ostium ad iniquitatem pandemus? Non ego censeo, sed neque sic iudicem coërceri. Obsecro, quae illa copia est quae omnia comprehendat aut distinguat? Ipsum Iustinianeum ius vide: hic deficit, et multa ex similitudine aut obscuris ex eo argumentis iudicantur. Imo ubi copia, plus intricati erit, et semper argutia aut calumnia in sinu aut recessu huius illiusque legis latebit et se defendet. An non videmus cottidie? Praeter ius illud Romanum Statuta et Decreta opidatim, pagatim, populatim habemus. Claudimur undique et velut obsidemur a legibus. At litium tamen copia, quanto non alio aevo, et controversiae assiduae super ipso iure aut querelae. Pulcherrima Strabonis nota est et vel aureis litteris signanda: Zaleucum illum Thuriis olim paucas et simplices leges dedisse, sed secutos alias per subtilitatem et nimiam curam addidisse. Ex quo factum sit ut celebres magis quam boni redderentur. Additque dogma quantivis pretii: Εὐνομεῖσθαι γὰρ οὐ τοὺς

5–6 Pl. R. 404e-405a, 425e-426b

13–14 Lips. Pol. 2.11

406 406

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 10 ON LAWS. Few laws should be approved, just as lawsuits. Laws have to be like medicines for the commonweal: medicines should not be approved in great quantities or varieties, nor should laws. Plato very rightly says that where there are many laws, there are also many lawsuits and at the same time bad morals. Good Lord, he certainly hit the nail on the head! And the custom of all peoples or times will confirm this. Let us stay in the Roman commonweal. It had few laws in the beginning; the Decemviri added a few more and so it remained more or less until the time of the emperors. Then many laws indeed were added and very many by Justinian, laws which we use today, reintroduced by Emperor Lothar after a long silence. For France, Spain, and Germany were nearly devoid of those laws until that time. So they have been accepted. And with what result? Of course that of lawsuits – no one will deny that – which sprang up in excessive numbers from that. Look at Europe. I would be lying if I did not say that most of it is occupied with them. Some judge, others instruct, still others conduct actions and the most unfortunate ones suffer from them. Dear Lothar, your ghost may rest as far as I am concerned, but may your grave not be decorated with roses and lilies, you who have sown so many vexations and thorns for us. For which case is so clear that it is not obscured by some law? By a law, nay, even by an interpretation of it (for we also admitted those)? Which case is so vile that it is not embellished by them? Advocacy has become an art, and skilfully alluring or catching someone is praised. However, they say that the multitude of laws is needed so that the various features and species, so to speak, of facts and events can be discerned. For what happens if there are few laws? Will most cases be left to the judge’s own discretion? Will we open the window or door to iniquity? I do not think so. But nor do I think that the judge will be restrained like that. For Heaven’s sake, what kind of abundance is this, which tries to comprise and distinguish everything? Look at the Justinian code itself: it fails in this respect, and many cases are judged by analogy or by obscure arguments derived from the code itself. Moreover, where there is abundance, there will be more intricacy. Cunning and calumny will always lurk in the bosom or the corners of this law or that and maintain themselves. Do we not see it every day? Apart from the Roman law we have statutes and decrees in every town, village, and nation. We are enclosed on all sides and, as it were, besieged by laws. Yet there is an abundance of lawsuits, as no other age has ever seen, and constant controversies or complaints about the law itself. Very beautiful is the remark by Strabo, which should be imprinted in golden letters: The famous Zaleucus once gave Thurii few and simple Str. 6.1.8.31-34 laws, but his successors added others through subtlety and exaggerated carefulness. As a result they became famous rather than good. And he adds a dogma of ever so great value: For it is Str. 6.1.8.34-37

407 407

Liber ii, Caput x

V De Legib.

I

II

ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ἅπαντα φυλαττομένους τὰ τῶν συκοφαντῶν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐμμένοντας τοῖς ἁπλῶς κειμένοις: Bonis enim uti legibus non qui omnes iis sycophantias aut calumnias cavent et excludunt, sed qui simpliciter latis firmiter inhaerent. Oraculum est, oraculum. Non multae leges bonos mores, bonum ius faciunt, sed paucae fideliter servatae. Atqui interveniunt calumniae. Quid igitur? Quo fine iudex? Quo fine Princeps est? Ille vir bonus et os Iustitiae; iste potens et viva ipsa lex. An non verbo uno decidet? Et da, quod alibi male? Quid magni mali est? Primum in re obscura et in qua haud valde intersit Titius an Seius vincat. Deinde (vera dicam) in re parva: in agello, in praediolo, in pecuniola. Habeat cui iudex donat. Absit tantum aperta iniquitas. Neque aliter in maxima orbis parte hodie vivunt. Alterum in Platone, de Moribus malis, palam verum. Improbitas huic Caussidicinae adhaeret. Excipio semper eos qui ex dignitate et veritate ius habent. Ecce, ubi lites, nonne discordia? Nonne odia deinde, iniuriae et saepe caedes? Platonem iterum advoco: Οὐκ εἶεν ἄν ποτε πολῖται φίλοι ὅπου πολλαὶ μὲν δίκαι ἐν ἀλλήλοις εἶεν, ἀλλ’ ὅπου ὡς ὅτι σμικρόταται καὶ ὀλίγισται: Non fuerint concordes umquam aut interamantes cives ubi mutuae multae lites iudiciales sunt, sed ubi eae brevissimae et paucissimae. Nota haec ultima: vult non Paucas solum lites, sed Breves. Ego tecum: nunc ubi sumus? Una aliqua lis Metonis annum tenet. Fit involucris legum; fit sordibus advocantium. Et comperendinationes istae ad quaestum et lucellum eunt. Per Symplegadas navigatur Colchos et aureum vellus. Quid iam in ipsis litigantibus? Pervicacia est et saepe impostura aut improbitas. Neque enim bona Conscientia (ait scite Celsus), sed Victoria litigantis est praemium. Enimvero nec publice sic expedit. Nam quanta pars hominum in istis dedita? In scholis, in foris, in curiis. Et pulchrius meliusque sit in agricultura, in mercatu, in militia et quae maioribus nostris studia fuere. Ut concludam (et satis fucos irritavi), Princeps lites minuat; Princeps et leges minuat, pro meo sensu. Ut imputata vitis late se spargit et infructuosa est, sic Ius profecto illud vetus et labruscas iam pro uvis gignit. Iustinianus ipse olim reformavit et novavit; ante eum Theodosius; post utrumque Carolus Magnus et tum Fridericus Imperatores; denique in Hispania rex Alfonsus. Quid? Principibus hodie potentibus et magnis non idem ius sit? Habent, sumant. His Monitis robur ab exemplis etiam demus. Gaius Iulius Caesar destinabat (ait Suetonius) ius Civile ad certum modum redigere atque ex immensa diffusaque legum copia optima quaeque et necessaria in paucissimos conferre libros. Fata inviderunt. Vespasianus post bella civilia, cum litium series ubique maiorem in modum excrevissent (iterum Suetonius), ipse sorte elegit qui iudicia quibus peragendis vix suffec-

18–19 Cic. Att. 12.3.2 410,2 Suet. Vesp. 10.1

22–23 Quint. inst. 2.15.32

408 408

33–35 Suet. Iul. 44.1

36–

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 10 not those who cautiously exclude all deceit or calumny by means of laws who use good laws, but those who stick firmly to the laws which were promulgated in simple language. It is an oracle, an oracle. It is not many laws which create good morals or good right, but a few, which are faithfully observed. But calumny intervenes. So what? To what purpose is there a judge? To what purpose is there a prince? The former is a good man and the spokesman of justice; the latter is powerful and is the living law itself. Does he not put an end to it with one word? And let it be granted that elsewhere judges decide in a bad way. What great harm is there? First, this occurs in obscure cases, in which it hardly makes a great difference whether Titius or Seius wins. Then (I should tell the truth) in small cases: about a little piece of land, a small farm, or a few coins. May he have it, to whom the judge gives it. As long as there is no open iniquity. One does not live otherwise in most parts of the world today. The second element in the quotation from Plato, about bad morals, is clearly true. Improbity sticks to this advocacy. I always make an exception for those who have the right on their side on the basis of dignity and integrity. Look, is there not discord where there are lawsuits? And is there not hatred, injustice, and frequently murder as a consequence? I summon Plato again: There will never be concord and love between citizens where there are many mutual law- Pl. Lg. 5.743c-d suits in court, but there where they are very brief and very few. Take note of those last words: he does not only want “few lawsuits”, he also wants them to be “brief”. I say together with you: where are we now? One single lawsuit lasts for a Meto’s year. That happens because of the intricacies of the laws; that happens because of the dirty tricks of the pleaders. And those deferrals are directed towards gain and profit. They navigate through the Symplegades to Colchis and the Golden Fleece. What is there in the litigants themselves? Stubbornness and often imposture or improbity: for the litigant’s reward is not a good conscience (Celsus cleverly says), but victory. It indeed does not benefit the state either. For how many people are dedicated to it, in schools, public places, and courts? It would be nobler and better if they were dedicated to agriculture, trade, military affairs, and whatever our ancestors were occupied with. To conclude (and I have refuted enough sophistic arguments), the prince should reduce lawsuits in number and also the laws – that is what I think, at least. Just like an unpruned vine spreads widely and bears no fruit, so does certainly that old law, which creates also wild vines instead of grapes. In the past Justinian himself reformed and renewed it, before him Theodosius, after those two Charlemagne, then the Emperors Frederick and finally King Alfonso in Spain. So? Should the powerful and great princes of today not have the same right? They have it and should apply it. Let us give strength to these admonitions through examples as well. 1 Gaius Julius Caesar (Suetonius says) was planning to reduce civil law in number to a fixed limit and to gather in very few books only the best and necessary ones from the immense and diffuse abundance of laws. But fate begrudged him this. 2 After the civil war, when the amount of lawsuits had increased excessively everywhere (again Suetonius), Vespasian personally, by drawing lots, selected those who would judge in

409 409

Liber ii, Caput x

III

IV

V ∞CCCXXVI

VI

tura litigatorum aetas videbatur, extra ordinem diiudicarent redigerentque ad brevissimum numerum. Et vero extra ordinem sic eligi, ubi reformatione opus, utile, fecitque Iustinus Curopalates, Imperator Byzantii. Cum enim ipse morbido corpore esset ac raro ius diceret, iniuria et lites creverant adeo ut pro desperata res paene (Byzantii praesertim) videretur. Ecce adit eum quidam et ingenium operamque obtulit ad coërcendum ea lege ut ipse Praefectus plena potestate in tempus certum esset. Annuit Imperator, sumit potestatis infulas et pro Tribunali sedet. Ac primo accusatur ex composito apud eum unus ex illustribus Senator, in Aula ipsa gratiosus. Accusatur, spernit se sistere et contemptim praeter ipsum tribunal in Aulam pergit. Pergit extemplo et Praefectus, videt Principem in convivio et ibidem hunc reum. Nihil deterritus: Imperator, inquit, iuri dicendo Praefecturam a te habeo et ab ipso te auxilium et praesidium merito sperabam. Nunc quid? Vides his oculis homines palam iniurios et legum non fractores solum, sed spretores aut illusores in tua domo, gratia, mensa esse. Itaque insignia haec tibi habe irritae potestatis. Ego abdico. Imperator mirari et excitari: Tu vero, inquit, quod es esto et ius tuum vel in me (quidni meos?) exerce. Duc si peccavi. Sequor. Duc siquis hic alius, et sequetur aut trahetur. Praefectus iam animi erectior, oculos et manus in illum Senatorem coniicit, per apparitores renitentem etiam trahit atque in iudicio convictum damnatumque primum verberibus afficit, tum et grandi pecunia mulctat. Hic ictus, qui tam validum illum concusserat, multos terruit, et in paucis diebus vim et vitam Iustitia recepit. Sed de iis qui lites aut leges minuere voluerunt, Carolus etiam Nonus in Gallia nuper fuit. Is prurigini sistendae vectigal iudiciarium excogitavit, ut quicumque litem ordiretur, deponeret et dependeret in fiscum Regium duos aureos, recipiendos si iure litigasse iudicatus esset; si aliter, omittendos. Sed non diuturnum id fuit et leve etiam remedium in grandia et vetera mala. Severius et fortasse utilius illud Iacobi, Aragonum regis. Qui litibus et litigiosis semper infensum se praebuit et ex iis Semenum Radam, insignem et primarium ea aetate Iurisconsultum, quod eius argutia aut malitia multi se afflictos quererentur, Praevaricatoris lege postulatum regni finibus eiecit. Quid Galeacius, Dux Mediolanensium? Cum aliquoties audisset vafro ingenio Caussidicum esse qui lites serere et satas producere atque alere, etiam in liquido iure posset, hominem ad se accitum affatur. Debeo, inquit, pistori meo centum aureos. Non lubet solvere. Tu ecquid tueri me in iure et rem protollere potes?

23–27 Bodin Rép. 6.2 (1594: 1036)

410 410

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 10

3

4

5

6

those lawsuits, for which the lifetime of the litigants hardly seemed to suffice, in an extraordinary procedure, and would reduce the lawsuits to a very small number. It is useful to have judges thus selected in an extraordinary procedure when reform is needed, and that is what Justin Curopalates, Emperor of Byzantium, did. For since he was physically ill and rarely administered justice, injustice and lawsuits had increased to such an extent that it seemed almost a lost cause (especially in Byzantium). But behold, a man came to him and offered his intelligence and effort to reduce them in number, on condition that he himself would be prefect with unlimited powers for a fixed time. The emperor agreed, and he assumed the insignia of power and sat on the tribunal. And according to the agreement the first to be accused before him was a famous senator, who was influential at the royal court itself. He was accused, refused to appear, and scornfully proceeded past the very tribunal, into the palace. The prefect, too, immediately proceeded and saw the prince holding a banquet, the accused being among the guests. Not scared at all, he said: Emperor, I received the presidency of administering justice from you and I rightly hoped to receive help and protection from you. What now? You see with your own eyes that men who are openly unjust and do not only break the law but despise or ridicule it are in your house, in your favour, at your table. So take these signs of empty power for yourself. I resign. The emperor was surprised and stirred. But you should be what you are, he said, and exercise your right even over me. And why not over my friends and family? Lead me away if I have sinned, and I will follow; lead anyone else here away, and he will follow or be dragged. Somewhat encouraged, the prefect turned his eyes and hands to that senator and dragged him away with the help of servants, while he kept resisting, and after he had been convicted and sentenced in court, the prefect first had him lashed and then fined him a huge sum. This blow, which had shattered someone so powerful, terrified many, and in a few days justice regained its strength and life. But among those who wanted to reduce the number of lawsuits or laws, there was also recently Charles the Ninth in France. To stop the itch for litigation, he devised a judiciary tax, namely that everyone who started a trial had to deposit and pay two pieces of gold to the royal treasury, which he would receive back if he was judged to have been right to litigate; if not, he would lose them. But that did not last long and was also a small remedy for a great and old evil. More severe and perhaps more useful is what James, King of Aragon, did. He 1326 always showed himself hostile towards lawsuits and litigants. He banished one of them, Jiménez de Rada, a famous lawyer and one of the chief lawyers of his time, from the kingdom on an accusation based on the law on prevarication, because many people complained that they had been afflicted by his sophistry and malice. What about Galeazzo, Duke of Milan? When he had heard a few times that there was a lawyer of sly character, who could sow lawsuits and then raise and nourish them, even in clear-cut cases, he summoned the man and talked to him. I owe my baker, he said, a hundred pieces of gold. I do not want to pay it. Can you protect me in court and prolong the case? He generously promised to do so and promptly devoted himself to

411 411

Liber ii, Caput x

VII

Annuit largiter et Principi prompte se dedit. Sed iste ei malum. Nam fraudis sic confessum, verbis prius increpitum, laqueo publice necari iussit. Heu, percutiunt haec aures rabularum! Desino si Mahumetanum sive Turcicum iudiciorum morem et in iis brevitatem explicaro. Qui alium in ius vocat, ne lictorem quidem aut publicum apparitorem adhibet ad vadandum, sed ipse 5 adversarium adit et coram testibus ad Dei Iustitiam (sic loquuntur) vocat. Hic nec verbo refragari ausit, sed statim una ad Iudicem sive Cadium suum eunt. Ille autem semper paratus, totum diem ante aedes sub tecto aliquo sedet et copiam sui facit. Isti nullo advocato aut caussidico quisque rem suam narrat; testes, si eos habent, adhibent; iudex ibidem re pensitata in hanc aut illam 10 partem decidit. Quod postea aliud alleges aut approbes nihil est: arbor ea cecidit, relevari aut erigi ultra non potest. Quid, inquies, non interdum Iudices improbe aut improbi? Credo esse, sed in rebus humanis nihil sinceri est, et eligenda quae minus noxae habent.

412 412

Book i1, Chapter 10 the prince. But the latter gave him a bad thing in return. For having in this way confessed his deceit, he first reproved the lawyer with words and then ordered that he should be hanged in public. 7 Oh, these examples strike the ears of the pettifoggers! I will stop once I have explained the Muhammadan or Turkish practice of trials and their brevity. He who sues someone does not even employ a lictor or public servant to serve a summons on him, but goes to his opponent personally and calls him before witnesses to the justice of God (that is how they say it). The other does not dare to resist but they immediately go to their judge or Qadi together. He is always prepared, sits all day in front of his house under a roof and gives them access to himself. The opponents both tell their story without advocate or lawyer and adduce witnesses if they have any. The judge considers the case on the spot and decides in favour of one side or the other. Whatever else you adduce or prove later does not matter: that tree has fallen and it is impossible to raise it again. What? you will ask, do the judges not act unjustly or are they not unjust sometimes? I believe so, but in human affairs nothing is pure, and we have to choose that which is the least harmful.

413 413

Caput xi DE IUSTITIA DIVINA, atque eam rebus intervenire.

I ∞CLIV

II ∞LIX

Principi Iustitiam commendavimus, sed ut magis discat a Deo interdum asseri siquis violat aut contemnit. Exempla mira et supra fidem videantur, sed fidis aut certe priscis auctoribus scripta. Friderico Aenobarbo Imperatore Antistes Moguntinus fuit Henricus, vir pius, tranquillus, suarum rerum et ideo Romae accusatus ut ineptus sive inutilis muneri quod gerebat. Accessit Arnoldus, qui postea in locum eius venit et fertur ab ipso Henrico missus ad purgandum, igni oleum addidisse et purpuratorum quosdam patrum corrupisse et in se vertisse. Eo ventum ut Cardinales duo Moguntiam missi, de caussa quaesiverint, Henricum damnarint, abdicarint, Arnoldum illum subrogarint. Henricus patienter id ferens, hactenus questus est ut diceret, Iniuste iudicastis. Appello igitur ad Iesum Christum, aequissimum iudicem. Ibi me responsurum exhibebo. Venite. Illi ioco eludentes, Cum praecesseris, nos sequemur. Profecto factum est. Nam ille post annum fere et dimidium fato concessit, et rumore ad aures Cardinalium delato iterum illudentes, Ecce praecessit, inquiunt, nos sequemur. Secuti sunt et uno die uterque subito obierunt. Addunt Annales de genere mortis, quae sileo, nec assensum huic narrationi firmiter etiam dono. Firmius Lamberto Schafnaburgensi, egregio, ut illa tempora tulerunt, scriptori. Qui narrat Burchardum, Episcopum Halberstadiensem, iniquam diu litem cum Abbate Herveldensi fovisse super decimis Saxoniae quas Episcopus monachis ereptum, sibi vindicatum manu magis quam iure ibat. Neque spes aut ratio erat valenti adversario resistendi cum Abbas paucis ante mortem diebus Comitem Palatinum Fridericum ad se vocat et extrema haec mandata ferre Antistiti rogat: Se quidem lite imparem, lege meliorem cedere atque etiam vita cedere. Sed Deum iudicem futurum ad quem appellaret. Pararent igitur se ambo ut caussam in Tribunali dicerent, ubi gratia et potentia spretis sola Iustitia posset polleretque. Neque diu post Abbas ipse febri obiit statimque Antistes, cum equum conscendere vellet, ut fulmine ictus, concidit desiitque in vocibus, Abripi se ad divinum tribunal, ibi iudicandum. Haec mira quamquam, fidem merentur a tradentibus, et ex usu etiam vitae est credi.

7–20 Lib. de calam. eccles. Mogunt., MGH SS 25, pp. 241-242 Ann. a. 1059, MGH SS rer. Germ. 38, pp. 75-76

414 414

21–33 Lambert. Hersfeldens.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 11 ON DIVINE JUSTICE, and the fact that it intervenes in events. We have recommended justice to the prince, but only so that he may understand better that it is sometimes protected by God if someone violates or despises it. The examples might seem extraordinary and unbelievable, but they are written by reliable, or at least ancient, authors. 1 At the time of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, the bishop of Mainz was Henry, a pious 1154 and calm man, who minded his own business and therefore was accused in Rome of being unsuitable or useless for the function which he held. Along came Arnold, who would later take his place, and who had been sent by Henry himself to exculpate him. He is said to have added fuel to the fire and to have corrupted some cardinals and won them over to himself. It came to this, that two cardinals were sent to Mainz and investigated the case, condemned Henry, renounced him, and replaced him with that Arnold. Henry bore it patiently and complained only in so far as he said: You have condemned me unjustly. I therefore appeal to Jesus Christ, the most equitable judge. There I will present myself to answer. Come. They said jestingly, If you will go first, we will follow. It certainly came true. For he met his fate about a year and a half later, and when the rumour reached the ears of the cardinals, they laughed again and said, Look, he has gone first, we will follow. They did follow and both died suddenly on one and the same day. The Annals also add something about the way they died, which I will not mention. Nor do I firmly assent to that story. 2 I approve more firmly of Lambert of Aschaffenburg, an excellent writer for his time. He tells that Burchhard, Bishop of Halberstadt, for a long time fomented an unjust 1059 lawsuit against the Abbot of Hersfeld about the tithes of Saxony, which the bishop wanted to take away from the monks and claim for himself by force rather than law. There was no hope or manner to resist such a powerful opponent when the abbot, a few days before his death, summoned Frederick, Count Palatine, and asked him to pass these last orders to the bishop: that he gave in, as the weaker party in the lawsuit, but the better one by law, just as he also gave up his life. But that God would be the judge to whom he would appeal. So they should both get ready to argue their case in front of the tribunal where favour and power were scorned and only justice prevailed. And not much later the abbot died of fever and immediately the bishop fell, when he wanted to mount his horse, as he was struck by lightning, and died saying that he was taken away to the divine tribunal to be judged there. Although these are extraordinary events, they deserve credit because of those who have handed them down, and to believe them is also useful for life.

415 415

Liber ii, Caput xi III ∞CCCXIII

IV

V ∞CCCXII

Certissimum vero habetur quod Clementi Quinto, Pontifici maximo, evenit. Qui cum Templarios, coetum religiosum et diu bonum atque utilem, Viennae in concilio damnasset et in sodales ferro atque igne passim vel animadvertisset vel (ut alii) saeviisset, a pluribus eorum citatus ad Tribunal superum, paullo plus anno post obiit, quasi ad vadimonium obeundum a supremo Praetore arcessitus. Sub idem tempus (quod admirationem auget) in eadem caussa Philippus, rex Galliae. Cui bono damnationes illae fuisse putabantur, opibus ad eum translatis et confiscatis. Si a casu, miremur; si a Deo, vereamur. At res etiam nota et cognomine prodita in Ferdinando Quarto, Hispaniae rege, ipso illo aevo, si non anno. Bello et pace bonus habebatur, sed in iudicando praeceps aut rigidus et ad saevitiam inclinare videbatur. Fuit ut Carvaialii duo fratres, Petrus et Ioannes, suspecti essent in occulta caede Benavidii, primarii viri inter nobiles. Sed suspecti neque testibus aut aliis probationibus convicti neque crimen sane, vel in vinculis, fassi. Tamen, ut rex erat, duci eos iubet et de rupe alta praecipites dari. Cum id fit, clamant et vociferantur, Innocentes se mori et, quoniam regis aures iustissimae defensioni obstructae essent, sese igitur ad summum Iudicem provocare et regi diem dicere ab isto (qui sibi ultimus esset) trigesimum. Dicta nihil valuerunt, sententia tenuit. Etiam ipsorum vadatio, nec tempore nec die fallax. Nam cum rex, animi securus, Alcaudetem in castra abiisset contra Mauros, ibi morbo statim tentatus, sed levi, Giennium se contulit atque ecce VII Idus Septembris, id est ipso trigesimo a supplicio die, in lecto exanimatus repertus est in ipso aetatis flore, annos natus XXIV menses novem. Quis neget divinum, aut Geniale aliquid hic intervenisse, sed supremo Numine consciscente? Discite Iustitiam moniti, et non temnere divos.

1–6 Marian. Hist. 15.10 2.10

10–25 Marian. Hist. 15.11

416 416

26 Verg. Aen. 6.620; Lips. de Const.

5

10

15

20

25

Book i1, Chapter 11 It is held to be very certain, however, what happened to Pope Clement the Fifth. 1313 When he had condemned the Templars, a religious community that had long been good and useful, at the Council of Vienne, and had punished or (according to others) raged against their members with fire and sword everywhere, he was summoned to the heavenly tribunal by many of them and died a little more than a year later, summoned by the supreme Judge to present himself in court, as it were. 4 At the same time (which causes even more astonishment) Philip, King of France, who was involved in the same case, died. Those convictions were thought to have been to his advantage, the goods of the Templars being confiscated and transferred to him. If it was by chance, let us be surprised; if it was by God, let us stand in awe. 5 What happened to Ferdinand the Fourth, King of Spain, at the same time, if not 1312 the same year, is also known and handed down through his epithet. In war and peace he was considered a good king, but in his judgments he was considered rash or rigid, and seemed to incline towards cruelty. Two Carvajal brothers, Peter and John, were suspected of the secret murder of Benavides, a leading nobleman. But they were only suspected, not proven guilty by witnesses or other evidence and had certainly not confessed the crime, not even in chains. Nevertheless the king, being who he was, ordered that they should be brought and thrown headlong from a high cliff. When this happened, they exclaimed and cried out that they died innocent, and since the king’s ears had been deaf to their very rightful defence, they therefore appealed to the highest Judge and summoned the king to appear in court on the thirtieth day from that day (which would be his last). Those words did not have any effect, and the sentence stood firm. So did their pledge, which did not fail, neither as far as the time was concerned nor the day. For when the king, unconcerned, went to the camp at Alcaudete to fight the Moors, he was suddenly afflicted there by a disease, but a mild one, and went to Jaén and behold, on 7 September, that is, on the thirtieth day after the execution, he was found dead in his bed in the prime of his life, at the age of twenty-four years and nine months. Who would deny that something divine or a genius intervened here, but with the approval of the supreme Deity? 3

Learn, you who have been admonished, to know justice and not to spurn the gods.

417 417

Caput xii DE CLEMENTIA. Eam quoque Principi decoram utilemque esse.

II De Cle. cap. III

I

Decet sane magnos animos et fortunam lenitas et, quod notes, non nisi in eos cadit. Barbari aut viles homines, ubi licentia adest, plerumque saevi sunt; mites in ea et moderati ingenui sanguinis et stirpis. Sed quid, inquies, ad hanc ego Principes invito, quae adversa Iustitiae et solvere eam videtur? Videtur; in re non facit, imo eumdem utraque finem et scopum habet. Iustitia severitate et metu emendat; Clementia benignitate et remissione. Illa poenam, haec veniam dat. Sed cum iudicio utraque et ubi debet et, addam, a quo debet. Non enim quorumvis est Clementia, sed eorum qui in suprema potestate constituti sunt et temperare aut flectere ex usu aliquo leges possunt. Est, ut verbo dicam, Principum. Itaque definitur a Seneca: Clementia lenitas superioris in inferiorem in constituendis poenis. Ais, constituendis? In parte verum est, sed adde et partem alteram, in remittendis. Nam et Clementia hoc solet. Sed est superioris, et nihil pulcherius, ait idem Sophus, in fastigio collocatis quam multarum rerum veniam dare, nullius petere. Quarum autem rerum? Nec enim omnium, et multas lex adstringit non resolvendas, sed earum fere quae Principem ipsum tangunt, ut sunt Iniuriae, Calumniae, Violentia et quae alia meritam poenam habeant, sed contentus potestate remittit et donat. Cogitat publicum se parentem esse. Ut autem privati isti parentes liberos peccantes saepe castigant, interdum virgas modo ostendunt et metum incutiunt pro poena, sic ille facit et faciendo sic emendat. Mirum enim et varium ingenium hominum. Quosdam benignitas et ex ea reverentia, quosdam severitas et ex ea terror meliores faciunt. Princeps utitur omnibus ad dictum hunc usum. Est et communiter illud dogma verissimum: Verecundiam peccandi facit ipsa clementia regentis, et in domo mea ac familia sum expertus. Plura super hac Virtute liceat, sed pudor sit post Senecam, cuius aurei libelli duo, et Principibus merito legendi, satis eam revelant. Nos Exempla pro more demus. Et quam multa ea sunt? Et nemo magnus laudatusque Princeps sine istis. Sed agmen ducat divinus ille dux, Moses. Qui cum populum ex Aegypto caelesti voce et monito claris miraculis adstipulantibus eduxisset, isti tamen idemtidem ingrati, refractarii, rebelles erant. Nunc carnem, nunc panem aut

15–17 Sen. dial. 6.4.4 31–420,2 Ex. 15.22-17.7

20–23 Sen. clem. 1.14.1-2; Lips. Pol. 2.12

418 418

26 Sen. clem. 1.22.3

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 12 ON CLEMENCY. It is also suitable and useful for the prince. Indeed, leniency suits great minds and good fortune and, as you should note, only belongs to them. Barbarians or common people are mostly savage where there is freedom; being lenient and moderate in freedom is characteristic of noble blood and descent. But why, you will ask, do I invite princes to clemency, which seems to be contrary to justice and to abolish it? It seems to be so, but in reality it is not; on the contrary, both have the same end and goal. Justice corrects through severity and fear, clemency through benevolence and mildness. The former punishes, the latter forgives. But both are done judiciously and when it is due. And, I add, by the person by whom it ought to be done. For clemency does not belong to anyone whoever, but to those who have been appointed to the highest power and can regulate or bend the laws if that is useful. It belongs, in a word, to princes. That is how it is defined by Seneca: Clemency is the leniency of a superior towards his inferior in assigning punishments. Do you Sen. clem. 2.3.1 say, in assigning? That is partly true. But also add the other part, namely in remitting. For clemency is also accustomed to doing that. But it belongs to a superior. And nothing is more beautiful, says the same wise man, for high officials than to give forgiveness for many things and ask for none. For what type of things? Not for everything (the law prescribes that many things are not to be relaxed), but mostly for offences which touch the prince himself, such as injustice, calumny, violence, and other crimes which deserve to be punished but which he, satisfied with his power, remits and forgives. He considers himself a public parent. Just as private parents often punish their children when they sin but sometimes only show the rod and inflict fear instead of punishment, so does he act and so does he correct by acting in that manner. For the character of man is extraordinary and diverse. Some are made better by benevolence and the respect that results from it, others by severity and the fear that results from it. The prince uses everything to obtain the aforementioned benefit. The following dogma is also generally very true: The very clemency of the ruler creates dread of sinning. And I have experienced that in my own house and family. More could be said about this virtue, but we are ashamed to do so after Seneca, whose two golden booklets, which deserve to be read by princes, reveal it sufficiently. Let us, as usual, give examples. How many they are! And no one can be a great and praised prince without those. 1 But let that divine leader, Moses, lead the host. When he led his people out of Egypt, inspired by words of warning from heaven, which were confirmed by remarkable miracles, they were nevertheless constantly ungrateful, obstinate, and rebellious. Now they were asking for meat, now for bread or water. And they asked it in such a way that they attacked him with impudent words and almost with stones and physical

419 419

Liber ii, Caput xii

II

III

aquam petebant. Et ita petebant ut voces protervas et paene lapides ac manus in illum mitterent. Sed tamen illa et veniam etiam dedit. Nec vulgum modo procacem habuit, etiam proceres, etiam proximos. Et ecce Aaron frater et soror Maria in mitissimum virum insurrexere. Qua caussa? Privata et levi, quod Aethiopissam quae animo eius collibita esset, uxorem duxisset. An huic soli, inquiebant, Dominus locutus est? Nonne et nos caelestem vocem auribus his accepimus? Etiam se Mosi non opponebant solum, sed aequabant cum Deus pro viro mitissimo super omnes homines (ita Scriptura appellat) iratus est et Mariam vitiligine ac lepra subito percussit. Quae sic cum fratre ad sanitatem mentis reversa, ad Mosem respexerunt, ille ad Deum. Et post septem dies precibus eius sincera puraque a morbo apparuit. Quid plures seditiones enumerem? Fuere enim plures, sed Moses ille semper in mansuetudine constans, usque eo amans et ignoscens suorum ut Dei iram vel hac voce sedaret, Dele me, inquit, de libro vitae potius quam ut hos tollas. O vere divine vir! Non nisi ab aethereo Spiritu hic spiritus. Et venerari magis in hac parte te fas quam imitari. Tamen et David imitatus est. Quis? Ille quoque Deo et caelo plenus. Qui, cum Absalomus filius fratrem Ammonem proterve in convivio interfecisset et triennio apud avum maternum in Syria exsulasset, fractus et misertus revocavit. Quid tamen? Ille a scelere ad scelus maius quasi gradu facto properat et regno patrem pellit; vita quoque si potuisset. David arma necessaria capit, Ioabum, Praefectum militiae, cum dilectis viris in illum mittit, sed cum mandato, Servate mihi puerum Absalomum. Adeo nec in iram nec in vindictam exarserat ut tunc quoque, cum ambiguo eventu arma caperet, solicitus de venia magis quam de victoria esset. At Deus pro illo exarsit et vindicavit et filius non filius interfectus est. Scis quam invito et dolente? Luctus eius in publico et istae voces: Fili mi Absalome, Absalome fili mi! Quis mihi tribuat ut ego moriar pro te, Absalome fili mi, fili mi Absalome? Proh superi! Ubi Orientales vos Reges et hodie Turcici estis, qui patres, liberos, fratres interficitis, prompti libentesque pro regno? Iste nec insidiatorem sceptri et vitae vita vult exutum et exutum veris lacrimis luget. Exempla haec paene supra hominem. At nostrae sortis Pericles fuit. Qui morti iam vicinus, et spiritu ac vita abeunte, cum amicos assidentes queri et lamentari audiret atque alium prudentiam, eloquentiam, victorias, alium alia

3–11 Num. 12

12–14 Ex. 32.31-32

16–27 2 Reg. 13-19

420 420

31–422,4 Plu. Per. 38.4

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 12 violence. But he nevertheless gave them those things and even forgave them. Not only the common people were shameless, but even the nobles and his relatives. Behold how his brother Aaron and sister Miriam rose up against this very lenient man. Why? For private and insignificant reasons, namely because he had married an Ethiopian girl, who had pleased his heart. Has the Lord spoken only to him, they asked. Have we not heard a heavenly voice with our own ears as well? When they were thus not only opposing Moses but matching themselves to him, God was angry in defence of the most lenient of all men (that is what the Holy Writ calls him) and immediately struck Miriam with tetter and leprosy. In this way she and her brother came back to their senses and turned to Moses, and Moses to God. And after seven days she appeared clean and cured of disease because of his prayers. Why should I enumerate more insurrections? For there were more. But Moses always remained constant in his mildness, loving and forgiving of his people to such an extent that he appeased the fury of God with these words: Erase me from the book of life rather than taking them. O truly divine man! This spirit can only come from the Holy Spirit, and in this respect it is more fit to revere than to imitate you. 2 Nevertheless, David also imitated him. Who? He who was also filled with God and heaven. When his son Absalom had shamelessly killed his own brother Amnon at a banquet and had lived in exile with his mother’s father in Syria for three years, David, broken and full of pity, called him back. But what happened? Absalom hurried on, having, as it were, jumped from one crime to an even greater crime, and forced his father from the throne; he would also have forced him from his life if he had had the chance. David took up those arms which were necessary and sent his army leader Joab against him with a selected group of men, but with the order, Save my son Absalom. Far from breaking out in anger or vengeance, even when he took up arms with doubtful expectations, he was more concerned with forgiveness than with victory. But God was inflamed and took revenge in his stead and the son who was no son was killed. Do you know how strongly against his will this was and how much pain it caused him? His mourning could be heard in public, as well as these words: My son, Absalom! Absalom, my son! Who could grant me to die instead of you, Absalom, my son, my son Absalom? Good God! Where are you, kings of the East and, today, kings of Turkey, who readily and willingly murder fathers, children, and brothers for supreme power? David did not even want the life of someone who was lying in wait for the sceptre and for his life to be taken, and he mourned with true tears when that life had been taken. 3 These examples are nearly superhuman. But Pericles was a man of our kind. When he was close to death and his spirit and life were leaving, he heard friends who were sitting by his side complaining and lamenting; someone was praising his prudence, his eloquence, his victories, and someone else still other qualities. He raised his head slightly and said, What is this? You praise either small or accidental things, but you omit the most important one, namely that no one has dressed in mourning through my fault. What a

421 421

Liber ii, Caput xii

IV

V

laudare, ille modice erecto capite, Et quid hoc est? inquit, Aut parva aut fortuita laudatis. At illud maximum omittitis, quod nemo mea opera pullam vestem sumpserit. Mirum iudicium! Hoc vir ille magnus in summis suis laudibus ponebat quod comis in omnes et humanus, numquam acerbitatem aut vindictam exercuisset. Macte Pericles! Vel hoc nomine cognomen Olympii meruisti, qui sic extra istos turbidos affectus ut nulla, non dicam crudelitas, sed asperitas mentem tuam obnubilarit. Philippus Macedo, non maior Alexandro, sed fortasse melior et certe moderatior, is, inquam, Philippus famam et immortalitatem vel sola hac virtute meruit. Amici stomachabantur et deferebant quod Peloponnesii tot beneficiis affecti, criminarentur eum atque adeo ludis Olympicis exsibilarent. Ille in iocum rem vertit et, Quid ergo, inquit, facient si laesi a nobis fuerint? Idem, suadentibus ut severius paullo cum Atheniensibus ageret, palam ingratis, Nihil agitis, inquit, An ego, qui ad gloriam omnia refero, theatrum gloriae meae evertam? Sciebat Athenienses ingenio et stilo valere eoque (etsi alibi humanissimus) hic magis esse voluit ut hanc quoque materiem et amandi et praedicandi praeberet. At illud in hoc ipso incredibilis non clementiae, sed et patientiae. Quod cum iidem Athenienses legatos super aliqua re ad eum misissent, atque ipse benigne audisset atque indulsisset, dimittens pro cumulo adiecit, Ecqua alia in re gratificari iis posset? Hic Demochares e legatis, Ita vero, inquit, si te ipse suspenderis. Hem, vocem et convicium importunum et, ut rem dicam, flagro aut cruce dignum! Itaque amici et adstantes exarserant, sed compescuit se et illos Philippus ac Thersitem illum, nulla vel re vel voce acerbiore laesum, dimisit. Tantum hoc ad legatos alios, Nunciate Atheniensibus impotentiores esse qui ista dicunt quam qui dicta comiter audiunt. Ad Romanos flecto. Inter quos Marcus Marcellus, qui Syracusas cepit, iamtum cum cepit, clementissimi animi signa in medio furore Martis misit. Parci civibus, qua potuit, iussit edicto, Nequis liberum corpus manu, ferro, stupro violaret; servitia modo et pecuniae praedae essent. Sed vel sic cum multa saevitiae aut libidinis exempla editum iri videret, ut in urbe per vim capta, conscendisse editum locum dicitur et subiecta ea oculis casum eius, paulloante sic florentis, humentibus illis deflevisse. Privatim etiam, cum de Archimede eiusque ingenio audisset et vidisset, mandavit incolumem servari, et curae hoc omnes haberent. Non mirum in rudi adhuc aevo et Romanis, ad artes istas parum factis? Sed mandavit, etsi frustra. Nam miles discurrens cum Archi-

5–7 Plu. Per. 8.2; 39.2 10–12 Plu. Mor. 179 A 12–14 Plu. Mor. 178 A dial. 5.23.2-3 26–32 Plu. Marc. 19.2-3 32–424,4 Val. Max. 8.7. ext.7

422 422

17–25 Sen.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 12 wondrous judgment! That great man considered it the highest praise for himself that he had been kind to everyone and humane, and had never exercised any harshness or revenge. Well done, Pericles! Even on this account alone, you deserved the epithet Olympic, since you stood above those turbulent feelings to such an extent that no, I would not say cruelty but harshness, clouded your mind. 4 Philip of Macedon may not have been greater than Alexander, but perhaps better, and certainly more moderate. This Philip, I say, deserved fame and immortality even through this virtue alone. His friends were angry and accused the Peloponnesians, who had received so many favours, of calumniating him and even hissing at him at the Olympic Games. But he turned the matter into a joke and said, So what will they do if they have been treated ill by us? Similarly, when they were urging him to be a bit stricter with the Athenians, who were openly ungrateful, he said, You do not achieve anything. Or would I, who direct all my deeds to glory, destroy the theatre of my glory? He knew that the Athenians excelled in genius and writing, and therefore, although he was already very humane elsewhere, he wanted to be even more so here in order to give them this material for loving and praising, too. But the following example shows not only an incredible clemency in him, but also forbearance. When the same Athenians had sent messengers to him about a certain matter and he had listened benignly and had granted what they wanted, he went on to ask in addition, when dismissing them, whether he could do them any other favour. Here Demochares, one of the legates, said, Certainly, if you hang yourself. What a rude and insulting thing to say, worthy, to be honest, of the whip or the cross. So friends and bystanders became angry, but Philip restrained himself and them, refrained from harming that Thersites with any harsh deed or sharp word, and dismissed him. He only said to the other legates, Tell the Athenians that those who say such things are weaker than those who listen to them kindly. 5 I turn to the Romans. One of them, Marcus Marcellus, who seized Syracuse, showed signs of remarkable clemency as soon as he seized the city, in the midst of the frenzy of war. He issued orders that the citizens were to be spared as far as possible, declaring that no one should assault a free person by hand, by weapon, or by sexual violence, and that only slaves and money were legitimate booty. But when he saw that, even so, many examples of ferocity and lust were going to be performed, as in any city seized by force, he is said to have ascended to an elevated spot and when his eyes saw the city below they filled with tears and he wept over the fall of a city which shortly before had been so prosperous. Even apart from state affairs, when he had heard and seen evidence of Archimedes and his ingenuity, he commanded that he should be kept unharmed and that everyone had to be mindful of this. Is that not surprising at a time which was still so uncivilised, and among the Romans, who were not exactly made for those arts? But he ordered it, though in vain. For when a soldier who was running about found Archimedes drawing figures in the sand, focused entirely on that and unaware of the public fate, he asked him, holding his sword above Archimedes’ head, Who are you? Archimedes did nothing, but covered the sand with

423 423

Liber ii, Caput xii

VI

VII

* duorum talentorum

medem repperisset, in pulvere figuras describentem et tota mente illuc versa ignarum publici fati, interrogat gladio super caput intento, Quis tu? Ille nihil nisi pulverem suum manibus tegens et, Oro, ne turba, inquit. Ita miles, indignatus et contemni ratus, occidit. Haec in Sicilia et victoria. Post ipsam ista. Siculi parum grati et ab inimicis eius impulsi, questum ad Senatum super eo venerunt, scilicet alienas etiam iniurias adscripturi. Consul tum erat, et collega Valerius Laevinus forte in Senatu non erat. Itaque facile ei turbare aut disturbare rem et homines et irritos illusosque dimittere. Non fecit et audiri voluit, sed cum collega advenisset, sedit in subselliis inferioribus et finita accusatione, cum Senatus illos facessere iuberet, ille vero retinendos censuit et ut suae quoque defensioni, non ut partes, sed velut iudices interessent. Qua absoluta excessit curia ut liberius sententiae dicerentur. Sed quid opus? Clara eius innocentia, istorum impudentia omnibus atque etiam ipsis fuit. Nam statim e partibus in fautores se transferunt, fiunt supplices atque adeo Patronum illum Siciliae adoptant. Et suscepit tam bona fide ut praesentium oblitus, aliis super alia beneficiis exornaret. Marcus etiam Bibulus, etsi fortuna parum attollente aut prospera semper usus, tamen virtute et hac animi clementia excelluit. Duos filios praestantissimae indolis, cum in Syria Proconsul ipse ageret, Gabiniani milites in Aegypto per saevitiam an proterviam interfecerant. Eos Cleopatra regina, iram iustam magnatis viri verita, comprehensos ad ipsum misit, arbitrio scilicet eius puniendos. At ille, etsi in recenti dolore, patrem et, aliquis dixerit, hominem exuit ut humanitatem retineret. Ac seposita omni ultione eosdem ad Cleopatram intactos remisit, vindicare potuisse contentus. Quem autem Bibulo adiungam? Veterem collegam, Iulium Caesarem. In omni quidem vita et proposito hostes, sed in hac virtute geminos, nisi quod copia vincit qui omnes vicit. Ecce iam adolescens, in freto illo aevi quam sustinuit se et moderatus est? Captus a piratis, iuraverat saepius se cruci omnes suffixurum si in potestatem redegisset. Redegit, sed tamen aestuat. Homines crucifigat? Crudele erat. Remittat? Religio adstringebat. In hac pugna naturae et fidei, clementia viam repperit: et iugulari prius iussit, deinde suffigi. Item sub hoc aevi Cornelius Phagita quidam fuit ex asseclis et emissariis Sullae, homo nequam et ad bonorum caedem aut pericula factus. Is latitantem in civili dissidio Caesarem, tamquam Marianarum partium, acriter et sagaciter indagarat et subinde mutantem latebras aegre pretio* accepto dimiserat. Huic tamen in

5–16 Val. Max. 4.1.7 1.7

17–24 Val. Max. 4.1.15

424 424

25–35 Suet. Iul. 74

31–35 Plut. Caes.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 12 his hands and he said, I beg you, do not disturb it. Whereupon the soldier, who was angry and thought that he was being scorned, killed him. That happened in Sicily at the time of the victory. Afterwards the following happened. The Sicilians, who were not very grateful and were incited by their enemies, came to the Senate to complain about Marcus Marcellus, that is, to attribute even unjust acts by others to him. He was consul at the time, and as it happened, his colleague Valerius Laevinus was not in the Senate. So it would have been easy for him to confuse or thwart both the issue and the people, and to send them away empty-handed and ridiculed. He did not do so, however, and wanted them to be heard, but when his colleague arrived, he sat on the lower seats, and when the accusation was finished and the Senate ordered them to leave, he was of the opinion that they should stay to be present at his defence, too, not as a party but, as it were, as judges. When he had finished his defence, he left the Senate, so that judgments could be expressed more freely. But why would he need to do that? His innocence and the Sicilians’ shamelessness were clear to everyone and even to themselves. For having been his opponents, they immediately turned into supporters and became supplicants, nay, they even chose him to be patron of Sicily. And he accepted it in such good faith that he forgot about the present accusations and supplied them with one favour after another. 6 Although Marcus Bibulus continuously experienced a fortune which was not particularly exalting or prosperous, he nevertheless excelled in virtue and in this leniency of the mind. When he himself was proconsul of Syria, Gabinius’ soldiers killed his two very distinguished sons in Egypt out of ferocity or impudence. Queen Cleopatra, fearing the righteous anger of this important man, caught them and sent them to him to be punished at his discretion. But despite his recent grief, he cast off the father or, someone might say, the human being, to retain his humanity. And having put all revenge aside, he sent them back to Cleopatra unharmed, satisfied with having had the chance to take revenge. 7 Whom shall I add to Bibulus? An old colleague, Julius Caesar: though enemies in all their life and intentions, they were twins as far as this virtue is concerned, apart from the fact that he who conquered all wins in the abundant display of it. Behold how he restrained and controlled himself when he was only a young man, in the heat of that age. Having been caught by pirates, he often swore that he would crucify them all as soon as he had subjected them. He did subject them, but hesitated nevertheless. Should he crucify them? That was cruel. Should he pardon them? His solemn oath restricted him. In this conflict between nature and faith, clemency found a way: he gave orders to cut their throats first and crucify them afterwards. Likewise, there was at the same time a certain Cornelius Phagita, one of Sulla’s followers and spies, a worthless man made to kill or endanger good men. When Caesar was hiding during the civil war, Phagita eagerly and cleverly hunted for him, as one of Marius’ partisans, and next, when he was moving to another hiding place, released him reluctantly after having accepted a bribe*. Nevertheless, Caesar could never bear to harm him when times * of two talents

425 425

Liber ii, Caput xii

mutatione temporum, cum posset, fortasse et deberet, nocere numquam sustinuit. Plane quasi post nimbum et tempestates non Aeolo, non Austro ultra offensus. Ista privatus aut impotens fecit. Quid in imperiis? Mitior seipso illo privato. Initio bellorum civilium, cum quaeri terror et adhiberi consilio solet ad reprimendum aut reducendum, ipse diversissima via veniam, libertatem, vitam omnibus non dabat solum, sed ultro offerebat. Corfinii quid evenerit, dignum memorari. Tenebat hoc opidum Lucius Domitius, vetus et acer eius inimicus, cum cohortibus triginta. Inerant Senatores plurimi, equites Romani et flos aut robur Pompeianarum partium. Ipse obsedit. Milites vim non exspectarunt, sed inclinatis in Caesarem animis transire ad illum, dedere duces et opidum parant; et iam colloquia erant. Domitius sibi praetimens et ex conscientia diffidens, vitam ponere suo quam Caesaris arbitrio (heu, quam ignarus eius animi!) elegit. Itaque servum medicum advocat, iubet venenum sibi dari. Quid deliberas? inquit, Dominus rogo et armatus rogo. Servus quasi paruit, sed astu facinus discussit. Nam soporem ei temperat pro veneno et filio mox indicavit. Praevidebat scilicet futurum, ut hominem paeniteret praecipitis consilii, maxime si spes veniae a Caesare esset. Atque ea statim affulsit. Nam ille vir omnes honestiores ad se in castra vocavit, benigne affatus est, ad pacem et pacata consilia hortatus, dimisit cum rebus incolumes. Et quo? Stultitiam rideat aliquis: plerosque iterum ad Pompeium. Sed haec illorum, non Caesaris culpa. Domitius interea cum audisset atque experrectus esset, torqueri et angi de veneno donec famulus metum discussit, rem aperuit. Atque ille quoque recta ad Caesarem, vitam, libertatem, pecuniam recepit. Eodem bello in Hispania ad Ilerdam, cum hostes ad pacis necessitatem adegisset, et iam conditiones ferrentur, milites sermones et convivia miscerent et ex binis castris una facta essent, en Petreius et Afranius, Pompeiani duces, subita paenitentia, an perfidia, arma capiunt, Iulianos invadunt, occidunt. Ipse, cum facinus reponere posset et Pompeianos detinere vel item occidere, illorum dissimilis, sui similis, summa diligentia conquiri omnes iussit et remitti. In ipsa acie Pharsalica medio ardore pugnae ita vincere voluit ut perdere timuerit, et vox eius obequitantis passim excepta, Parce civibus. Atqui non fecit, inquies. Imo ille fide optima: nisi in acie, nisi resistens, nemo occisus est, et servare promptior quam illi servari. O inauditam nec nisi caelestem clementiam! E tanto numero tam pertinacium adversariorum non nisi tres (Lucius Afranius, Faustus Sulla, Lucius Caesar) interfecti post aciem eius iussu sive permissu reperiuntur, atque ii saevi et crudeles in eum, et venia quam ante impetraverant iterata rebellione corrupta. Omni-

7–23 Plut. Caes. 34.6-8

23–428,7 Suet. Iul. 75

426 426

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 12 had changed and when he could, and perhaps should, have done so. Quite as if, after rain and storms, he was no longer offended by Aeolus and Auster. That is what he did when he was a private citizen and had not yet become powerful. What did he do when he was in power? He was more lenient than he had been as a private citizen. At the outbreak of the civil wars, when it is customary to look for and apply terror on purpose to repress or reduce, he opted for a very different approach by not only granting everyone pardon, their freedom, and life, but even offering it voluntarily. What happened in Corfinium is worth recalling. This town was held by Lucius Domitius, an old and ardent enemy of his, with thirty cohorts. Inside was a great number of senators, Roman knights, and the flower or strength of Pompey’s party. Caesar himself was besieging the town, but the soldiers were not waiting for violence but, their minds inclined towards Caesar, prepared to go over to him and hand over their leaders and the town. Negotiations had already started. Domitius, who was terribly afraid in advance for himself and despaired due to his conscience, chose to put his life in his own hands instead of Caesar’s (alas, how ignorant was he of Caesar’s character!). So he summoned one of his slaves, a physician, and ordered him to give him poison. Why do you hesitate? he said, I ask this as your master and as an armed man. The slave pretended to obey, but cunningly frustrated the deed. For he mixed him a sleeping-potion instead of poison and immediately revealed it to his son. For he predicted that the man would regret his hasty plan, especially if there was hope of forgiveness from Caesar. And that hope soon became apparent. For that man called all noblemen to himself in his camp, addressed them kindly, urged peace and peaceful plans, and dismissed them unharmed with their goods. And where to? Someone might laugh at his stupidity: most went back to Pompey. But that was their own fault, not Caesar’s. Meanwhile, when Domitius had woken up and heard, he was tormented and anguished about the poison until his servant dispelled his fear and explained everything. And he, too, went directly to Caesar and received his life, his liberty, and his money. During the same war, it happened near Ilerda in Spain that Caesar had forced the enemy to make peace. The terms were now being offered, the soldiers were sharing conversations and meals, and the two camps had become one, when all of a sudden Petreius and Afranius, Pompey’s generals, in an unexpected burst of repentance or perfidy, took up arms and attacked and killed Caesar’s men. Although he himself could retaliate by detaining or killing Pompey’s men in the same manner, he nonetheless commanded, unlike them but like himself, that they should all be brought together with great care and set free. In the heat of the fight during the very Battle of Pharsalus, he wanted to win in such a way that he might fear to lose, and when he rode to battle his words were heard everywhere, Spare the citizens. But he did not do so, you will remark. On the contrary, he truly kept his word: nobody was killed, except in battle or while resisting, and he was quicker to save them than they were ready to be saved. What an unusual, if not divine, clemency! Of such a great number of such obstinate enemies, no more than three (Lucius Afranius, Faustus Sulla, and Lucius Caesar) were found to have been killed

427 427

Liber ii, Caput xii

VIII

*XXVM Philippicorum

bus etiam suae partis nominatim unum quem vellent servare et excipere ex hostibus, concessit. Denique tandem uno edicto etiam quibus nondum ignoverat redire in Italiam ad opes, honores, imperia permisit. In ipsius Pompeii morte, qui alieno scelere et invidia ceciderat, tantum a gaudio aut insultatione abfuit ut lacrimas non tenuerit et aversatus homicidas bello etiam mox persecutus sit et caede ac sanguine manibus illius parentarit. Quin et memoriam statuasque eius disiectas a plebe, restitui iussit. Cavillemur aut interpretemur, ut volumus, magno animo et (ut ego censeo) vere miti et clementi. Verba eius ex epistola quadam ad Oppium et Balbum notavi et amavi ista: Gaudeo, me hercules, vos significare litteris quam valde probetis ea quae apud Corfinium sunt gesta. Consilio vestro utar libenter, et hoc libentius quod mea sponte facere constitueram ut quam lenissimum me praeberem et Pompeium darem operam ut reconciliarem. Tentemus hoc modo, si possumus, omnium voluntates recuperare et diuturna victoria uti. Haec nova sit ratio vincendi, ut misericordia et liberalitate nos muniamus. Ex pectore sunt ista verba et familiariter apud homines familiarissimos prolata. Ego te, Caesar, ob alia tua et caussas belli non nimis amo. In ipso bello et ob hanc clementiam inter heroas numero, et meo calculo hac quidem re Divus esto. Aliquid ab hac stirpe aut multum traxit Octavianus Caesar, adoptione filius, sanguine eius nepos. Is in republica varium clementiae specimen dedit, adeo ut in theatro, cum recitaretur, O dominum aequum et bonum!, universi oculos ad ipsum referrent et voce gestuque comprobarent. Sed in privata etiam vita (ubi natura maxime apparet, nec gloriam aut sermonem sibi proponit) praebuit insignita exempla. Ut in Diomede, servo suo dispensatore. Qui, cum una ambularent, et repente ferus aper in eos incurreret, ipse dominum obiiciens manibusque propellens, post eum latuit. Atque Augustus quidem fato aut animo suo servatus est. Sed et hunc nihil laesit, timori potius factum quam noxae adscribens. Idem, cum in Hispania Corocotta quidam, famosus latro, esset et paci publicae ac privatae diu infestus, praemium proposuit siquis hominem vivum adduxisset, decies sestertium*. At ille spe evadendi aut latendi abscisa magno animo ad Caesarem ultro venit et, Quaesitus tibi Corocotta, inquit, Ecce adsum. Facies quod voles huic capiti. Caesar ira omni deposita et memoria tot facinorum, non solum ignovit ei, sed et praemium promissum (quia Corocotta Corocottam stiterat) appendit. Sed superat priora hoc de Marco Bruto. Cuius statua aerea, adfabre facta, Mediolani erat, credo, monumentum

9–14 Caes. Cic. Att. 9.7c.1 19–21 Suet. Aug. 53.1 33 D.C. 56.43.3 33–430,9 Plu. Comp. Dio et Brut. 5

428 428

23–27 Suet. Aug. 67.1

27–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 12 after the battle on his command or with his permission, and they were fierce and cruel to him, and the mercy which they had obtained before had been destroyed by their new rebellion. He also granted every man on his own side one person, mentioned by name, from the enemy’s side, whom they wanted to save and exempt, and finally he allowed them with one edict to return to Italy, to their riches, honours, and commands, even those whom he had not yet forgiven. Even when Pompey died because of another’s evil deed and jealousy, Caesar was so far removed from joy or insolence that he did not hold back his tears, and having turned his back on the murderers, he even immediately persecuted them in a war and made their death and blood a sacrifice to his Manes. Indeed, he also gave orders to restore the statues in memory of Pompey which had been pulled down by the people. We may sneer at this or interpret it however we like, it was the deed of a great and, as I believe, truly lenient and clement mind. I noted and liked the following words by him from a letter to Oppius and Balbus: My God, I am pleased that you let me know by letter how much you approve of that which happened near Corfinium. I will use your advice with pleasure, more so because I had decided spontaneously to behave as leniently as possible and try my best to become reconciled with Pompey. Let us try in this manner, if we can, to regain everyone’s good will and enjoy a lasting victory. Let this be the new way of conquering, namely strengthening ourselves with pity and generosity. Those words come from the heart and were uttered intimately to very intimate friends. Personally I do not love you much, Caesar, for your other achievements and your motives for war. But in war itself and because of this clemency, I count you among the heroes and let you be divine at least in this respect, according to my vote. 8 Emperor Octavian, his son by adoption, his nephew by blood, drew something, or a lot, from this stem. He gave various demonstrations of clemency in public life, to the extent that, when in the theatre Oh, just and good lord! was recited, all turned their eyes towards him and approved wholly by means of voice and gesture. But even in private life (where true nature appears best and where one does not seek glory or fame) he provided striking examples, for instance in the case of Diomedes, his steward and slave. When they were out for a walk together, a wild boar suddenly ran towards them. Diomedes put his master in front, pushed him forward with his hands, and hid behind him. Augustus was saved by fate or by his courage, but he also refrained from harming the slave, attributing the deed to fear rather than to an offence. When a certain Corocotta, a famous robber, was operating in Spain and had been a danger to public and private peace for a long time, Octavian offered a reward of one million sesterces* if anyone would bring him in alive. But after all hope of escape or hiding had * 25 thousand been dashed, Corocotta bravely went to the emperor of his own accord and said: You Philip daalders have been searching for Corocotta. Here I am. Do what you want with this person. The emperor put aside all anger and the recollection of so many crimes, and not only pardoned him but also added the promised reward (because Corocotta had presented Corocotta). But the following story about Marcus Brutus surpasses the previous exam-

429 429

Liber ii, Caput xii

IX

X

XI

virtutis et modestiae qua Galliae illi Cisalpinae sub Caesare praefuerat. Hanc, diu post transiens, Augustus conspexit et represso gradu substitit vocavitque coram omnibus ad se magistratus, quasi in re gravi, et cum venissent, Quid vos? inquit, Inimici nostri estis et hostes meos apud vos habetis? Illi timidi nec gnari quo accusatio spectaret, negare et mutuo sese intueri. Caesar iterum ostensa statua: Nonne hic ille est meus hostis? Tum vero illi serio trepidare et mussitare. At Caesar arridens, laudare etiam eos benigno vultu et verbis coepit quod iudicium aut animum cum fortuna non mutarent, et ut talis viri statua maneret, porro praecepit. Duplex clementia: et in defunctum Brutum, cuius memoriam honorat, et in Mediolanenses, qui rigide interpretantibus deliquisse in maiestatem Principis videbantur. An dignus est qui inter haec nomina locum habeat Nero Caesar? Monstrum crudele, taetrum, sed una voce meritum clementissimis accenseri. Initio imperii, cum duo milites deliquissent et morte puniendi viderentur, Burrhus, Praefectus Praetorio, chartam de more ad Imperatorem tulit ut is subscriberet et mortem et caussam. Nero allatam aliquoties reiecit et distulit; tandem, cum repeteret et instaret Burrhus, nec ultra esset effugium, tristis accepit et cum hac voce: Quam vellem nescire litteras! O dictum magnae (utinam diuturnae) lenitatis! O dictum quod laudes magni Senecae illius meruit et libros De Clementia expressit! Amemus laudemusque, vel hoc nomine. Diversi ab isto uterque Vespasianus, pater et filius. Qui ante Principatum et sub initia multo saevitiae et luxuriae rumore, in ipso mutati in melius fuere. Patris quidem quanta benignitas? Qui et Vitellii, hostis sui, filiam (adeo stirpem ex ea non veritus) splendidissime maritavit, dotavit etiam et instruxit. Atque idem, cum sub Nerone interdicta ei aula esset, trepidusque abiret, accurrit quidam ex Admissionalibus, qui aspere eum compellans et simul expellens, abire Morboviam iussit. Hunc postea, et iam Princeps, vitae suae anxium et deprecantem, non nisi ioco aspersit et pariter abire Morboviam totidem verbis iussit. Denique communiter hoc de illo Tranquillus: Neque caede cuiusquam umquam laetatus est, iustis suppliciis illacrimavit etiam et ingemuit. At filius Titus, amor et deliciae generis humani, nil nisi bonitas et lenitas. Pontificatum maximum ideo se capere professus est ut in summo sacerdotio

13–20 Sen. clem. 2.1 Tit. 9.1

23–29 Suet. Vesp. 14

430 430

29–30 Suet. Vesp. 14

32–432,1 Suet.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 12 ples. There was a skilfully made bronze statue of him in Milan, in memory, I believe, of the virtue and modesty with which he had governed Cisalpine Gaul under Caesar. When Augustus was passing several years later, he looked at the statue, checked his step, stopped, and summoned the magistrates in front of everyone, as if for a serious matter. And when they came, he said: What is wrong with you? Are you our enemies? Do you have enemies of mine among you? They were afraid, and not knowing what the accusation related to, denied it and looked at one another. So the emperor showed them the statue and repeated, Is he not my enemy? Then they started to tremble and murmur in earnest. But the emperor smiled at them and even started to praise them, his face and words friendly, for not changing their opinion or feelings together with their fortune. Then he ordered that the statue of such a man should stay. His clemency was twofold: towards the deceased Brutus, whose memory he honoured, and towards the Milanese, who, in the eyes of rigid interpreters, seemed to have offended the majesty of the prince. 9 Is Emperor Nero worthy of a place among these names? He was a cruel and hideous monster, but by one saying he deserved to be reckoned among the most clement of people. At the beginning of his reign, when two soldiers had committed a crime and clearly had to be punished by death, Burrus, the praetorian prefect, brought a document to the emperor, as usual, to sign the death warrant and its motivation. Nero rejected the document which he brought a few times and delayed the execution, but finally, when Burrus returned and insisted, and there was no longer a way out, he accepted it with sadness and with these words: How I wish that I could not read! Oh, words of great mildness (if only it had lasted)! Oh, words that deserved the praise of the great Seneca and urged him to write his books On clemency. Let us love and praise him, at least on this account. 10 Different from him was Vespasian, both the father and the son. Before their reign and at its beginning, there were many rumours about cruelty and extravagance, but in the course of it they changed for the better. Indeed, how great was the father’s kindness! With great sumptuousness he married off the daughter of his enemy Vitellius (to such an extent was he unafraid of her offspring), and even endowed her and provided her with material goods. When the same Vespasian was denied access to the palace during the rule of Nero and went away anxiously, one of the ushers of the privy chamber came running to him, and harshly accosting him and at the same time pushing him out, told him to go to hell. Afterwards, when Vespasian was already emperor, he only taunted the man in a joking manner, while he feared and begged for his life, and told him likewise to go to hell in as many words. Finally Suetonius says about him in general that he was never happy about someone’s death and even wept and sighed over just punishments. 11 His son Titus, the love and delight of mankind, was nothing but kindness and leniency. He acknowledged that he assumed the office of Pontifex Maximus in order to keep his hands pure from blood in the highest office of priests, and he kept his

431 431

Liber ii, Caput xii

XII

puras a sanguine manus servaret; et re praestitit. Nec auctor posthac (verba Suetonii) cuiusquam necis, vel conscius, quamvis interdum ulciscendi caussa non deesset, sed periturum se potius quam perditurum adiurans. Duos patricii generis convictos in affectatione Imperii satis habuit verbis monere ut desisterent. Principatus fato dari; a se siquid aliud vellent, peterent impetrarentque. Et statim etiam ad alterius matrem, quae procul agebat, ne tristiore nuncio percelleretur, cursores suos misit qui et periculum filii nunciarent et salutem. Fratrem Domitianum ex professo insidiantem et exercitus in eum solicitantem, nulla re laesit aut minuit. Imo precibus saepe egit mutuo in se animo esse vellet, et consortem successoremque imperii nihilo secius semper nominavit. Non fregit improbum. Veneno eius paullo post periit, cum publico generis humani damno. Carolus vero magnus inter nostros (nam ad propiora veniendum est) gloriam et gratiam hac quoque virtute collegit. Pipinus eius filius in patrem coniuraverat. Res clara erat; ignovit. Fecit iterum; ignovit. At ne tertium tamen tam lubrica mens laberetur, adstringendum religione censuit et monachum eum fecit. Duplici beneficio: et veniae et viae ad melius regnum ostensae. Peccavit in eum et filia, sed ridicula narratio est, tamen expromenda. Erat Eginhartus in aula Carolo ab Epistolis, vir, ut illo aevo, doctus et prudens, sed non in Amorem. Concepit eum in Domini sui filiam, etsi impar erat, et ipsa vicissim arsit. Restinxerunt, ut solent amantes, furtiva sui copia et congressu, qui aliquamdiu latuit. Donec hiemante quadam nocte, cum in secretiore cubiculo Eginhartus fuisset et sub ipsam lucem exire vellet, videt multam nivem cecidisse. Haeret et timet ne a vestigiis deprehendatur vir in gynaecaeo fuisse. Consilio et astu subvenit amica et illum in humeros sublatum et pendentem, dulce onus, aliquamdiu tulit. Ecce (o sortem iniquam pariter et aequam!) videt hoc casu Carolus et cum dolore suo et risu simul utrumque bene notat. Dissimulat, die pleno conventum Principum virorum habet, narrat iocosum et foedum factum rogatque (sed nomina tacuit) famulus qui sic in dominum, filia quae in patrem peccasset, qua poena digni viderentur? Illi, Mortis, respondent. Tum igitur utrumque advocat et coram se sistit. En, inquit, isti sunt qui peccarunt. Tu, Eginharte, tu, filia, qui ausi hoc estis? Nec negandi locus est: me inspectorem, accusatorem, iudicem, vindicem habetis. Quid meruistis? Isti dixerunt mortem. Sed et animus vester vobis idem dicet. Tamen, mitem tu Dominum, tu Patrem videte. Ignoscimus hac lege quam dicam. Eginharte, hanc tuam latricem uxorem duces. Concordes

1–3 Suet. Tit. 9.1 3–7 Suet. Tit. 9.1-2 Lauresham. a. 815, MGH SS 21, pp. 358-359

7–11 Suet. Tit. 9.3-10.1

432 432

17–434,3 Chron.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 12 promise in actual practice. And after that (I quote Suetonius) he was never the author of, or accomplice to, a murder, although sometimes there was a reason for revenge, but he swore that he would die rather than kill. He thought it sufficient to warn two patricians who were convicted for aspiring to imperial power by saying that they should stop. That sovereignty was given by fate; if they wanted something else from him, they should ask and they would receive it. And he even immediately sent his couriers to the mother of one of them, who was far away, to report both that her son had been in danger, and that he had been saved, so that she would not be upset by too sad a message. He did not hurt or weaken his brother Domitian in any way, when Domitian was openly lying in wait and stirring armies against him. On the contrary, he often begged his brother to feel the same about him in return and he always called him partner and successor of the empire nevertheless. He did not move his impious brother and died shortly afterwards by Domitian’s poison to the public detriment of mankind. 12 Among our ancestors (for it is time to come closer) Charlemagne acquired fame and favour through this virtue, too. His son Pippin had conspired against his father and the case was clear-cut, but he forgave him. Pippin did it again; Charlemagne forgave him. But to nevertheless prevent Pippin’s slippery mind from falling down a third time, he decided that he should be restricted by religion and made him a monk. He did him a twofold favour: he forgave him and showed him the way to a better kingdom. His daughter sinned against him, too, but that is a laughable story, though it should be disclosed nevertheless. Eginhard was secretary at the court of Charlemagne, a learned and prudent man, at least for that time, but not as far as love was concerned. He fell in love with his lord’s daughter, although he was inferior in rank, and she returned his love. They appeased their desire, as lovers do, with secret visits and trysts, which remained hidden for a while. Until one winter night (Eginhard had spent it in a very secret room and wanted to leave shortly before dawn) he saw that a thick layer of snow had fallen. He hesitated and feared that from the footprints it would be detected that a man had been in the women’s quarters. His sweetheart came to his help with a cunning plan: she lifted him on her shoulders, let him hang there and carried her sweet load for a little while. But behold (oh, unfair and at the same time fair fate!), Charlemagne happened to see this and had a good look at both of them with pain and laughter at the same time. He acted as if nothing happened, but in the full light of day he had a meeting with the most distinguished men, narrated the funny and disgraceful incident, and asked (but did not mention their names) which punishment would be appropriate for a servant who had sinned in this way against his master and for a daughter who had sinned against her father. Death, they said. So then he summoned both of them and placed them before him. Look, he said, these are the people who committed the sin. You, Eginhard, and you, daughter, how did you dare? There is no chance of denial, for I am the one who saw and accused you, and who judges and takes revenge. What do you deserve? These people said death, but your hearts, too, will tell you the same. Nevertheless, you, Eginhard, look at your lenient lord, and you, daughter, at your lenient father. I forgive you

433 433

Liber ii, Caput xii

XIII

XIV

estote et mutuum deinceps quoque inter vos ferte. Dixerat. Illi a summo metu in summum gaudium translati, grates agunt, gratulationes accipiunt. Carolus in gloria est, isti in fama. Nec nimis severum est quod addam. Cazimirus erat Dux Sendomiriensium, potens Princeps idemque postea rex Polonorum. Visum illi aliquando fuit tempus ludo fallere et domesticum quendam suum, Ioannem Conarium Equitem, ad aleam vocat. Ille paret, ludunt, alternat fortuna. Et tandem cum multa nox esset, atque incaluissent, placuit uno iactu de tota summa decidere. Is felix Cazimiro fuit, et pecuniam totam ad se attraxit. Indignatus Ioannes et sorti suae iratus, per calorem Principem invadit et fortiter os eius depalmat. Clamor et ira omnium: famulus Dominum, eques hunc Principem? Capitale erat, sed beneficio noctis elabitur et, mane tamen captus, reducitur et Cazimiro sistitur puniendus. Ille re bene considerata in prudentem hunc sermonem erupit: Amici, iste minus quam ego peccavit. Imo quidquid peccatum est, est meum. Calor et subita ira (cui nec sapientes semper pares sunt) transversum eum egit et mentem ac manum movit. Ego caussam cur praebui? Cur oblitus conditionis et dignitatis meae, quasi cum pari lusi? Imo tu, Ioannes, non veniam a me solum, sed gratiam accipe. Utili castigatione me docuisti nequid in posterum indignum Principe committam et intra decori ac gravitatis metas me sistam. Ita dixit fecitque. O clementiam, o patientiam, o prudentiam! Omnes hae virtutes concurrunt, sed primas tamen prima me iudice ferat. At in Ludovico Duodecimo, Galliae rege, spectabilis eadem virtus fuit. Presserat eum Carolus Octavus rex, ut heredem proximum, et qui doleret prolem sibi non esse. Ita presserat ut in custodiam etiam daret et vitae suae parum securus videretur. Plerisque procerum et vulgi pro praesenti fortuna stantibus et adversantibus, certe aversantibus infelicem. Interea Deus in occulto alia destinat. Carolum subito tollit, hunc ad regnum evehit, attonitis multis et vultum sermonemque mutantibus et ad gratiam novi regis se acclinantibus. Erant etiam qui superbiebant, constantes antea in eius cultu aut obsequio. E quibus unus magna fiducia ad eum accedit et bona petit civis cuiusdam Aurelianensis qui tristi illo tempore inter accerrimos Ludovici hostes fuerat. Hic rex animo plane regio effatur: Tu vero aliud a me pete, et meritis tuis gratia erit. De isto, omitte. Nam rex Galliae (verba eius sunt) non exsequitur iniurias Ducis Aurelianensis. Optime. Dux enim antea cum hoc titulo fuerat et significabat argute dignitatem se atque etiam affectus cum ea mutasse. Ille vero eadem magnitudine

4–19 Cromer. de orig. et reb. gest. Polon. 6 (1568: 108-109)

434 434

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 12 on the condition which I will name. Eginhard, take her who carried you as your wife; you shall live in harmony and also hereafter offer each other mutual support. That is what he said, and they, having gone from extreme fear to extreme joy, thanked him and received congratulations. Charlemagne became glorious, they became notorious. 13 What I shall add is not too harsh either. Casimir was Duke of Sandomir, a powerful prince and later King of Poland. Once he wanted to pass the time by gaming and invited one of the members of his household, the knight John Conarius, to a game of dice. He obeyed and they played with alternating luck. And finally, when it was deep in the night and they had grown heated, they wanted to settle the entire sum with one throw. It was in favour of Casimir and he gathered all the money to himself. John was displeased and angry at his fate, and in the heat of anger he attacked the prince and slapped him hard in his face. Everyone shouted and was outraged: a servant had struck his lord, a knight this prince! It was a capital offence, but he escaped through the advantage of the night; he was nevertheless caught in the morning and brought back and taken to Casimir to be punished. After having considered the case well, Casimir exclaimed in these prudent words: Friends, that man there has sinned less than I. Yes, whatever the sin, it is mine. Passion and sudden anger (even wise men are not always capable of dealing with that) led him astray and moved his mind and hand. But why did I give him cause for this? Why did I forget my place and dignity as if I was playing with an equal? No, John, accept not only mercy from me, but also gratitude. You have taught me through useful chastisement that in the future I should do nothing unworthy of a prince and keep within the bounds of what is becoming and dignified. That is what he said and did. Oh, clemency, oh, forbearance, oh, prudence! All these virtues come together, but the first one should get the first prize, in my opinion. 14 But the same virtue was notable in Louis the Twelfth, King of France. King Charles the Eighth had made his life difficult, as Louis was his closest heir, and Charles regretted not having any children of his own. So much so that he placed Louis under guard and that he seemed to have doubts about the safety of his own life. Most of the nobles and of the common people were in favour of the present situation and opposed to the unfortunate fellow, whom they truly loathed. In the meantime, God had other, secret plans: he suddenly took Charles away and brought Louis to power, to the astonishment of many, who changed their faces and words, and inclined towards favouring the new king. But there were also some who were proud, as they had always honoured or obeyed him before. One of them came to him with great confidence and claimed the property of a certain citizen of Orléans, who, in those sad times, had been among the most vehement enemies of Louis. The king told him in truly regal spirit: You, ask something else from me and you will be favoured according to your merits. About this, let it go, for the King of France (these are his words) does not pursue offences made against the Duke of Orléans. Excellent. For he had been a duke before, with this title, and he wittily showed that he had changed his rank and with it also his feelings. He also publicly declared with the same magnanimity (she is always the mother of clemency) that he

435 435

Liber ii, Caput xii

XV

XVI

animi (mater haec semper Clementiae) edixit publice habiturum se eosdem consiliarios cum defuncto rege, ministros, stipatores eodemque honore et salario. Deus bone, eosdem cum illo sic infesto et iniquo? Fiducia virtutis hoc facit, et praestari sibi spondet quae scit deberi. Tempora confundere liceat, sed re eadem. Quam enim geminum est quod olim Hadrianus Imperator cuidam qui ante imperium inimicitias secum gesserat? Ille occurrit trepidus et vix verba ad preces reperiens cum statim Hadrianus, Evasisti, inquit. Benigne simul et acute. Perieras, inquit, si pares contendissemus; nunc superior omitto et potentiam meam non nisi benificio ostendo. Te autem, Alphonse, silebo? Qui totus bonitas et beneficentia, Titum nobis, sed diuturnum repraesentasti. Obsidebas Caietam, pertinaciter in te rebellem. Constabat obsessos inopia commeatuum premi. Atque ipsi hoc fassi, senes, pueros, faeminas et inutilem omnem turbam emittebant. Agitatum in consilio ut reiicerentur et reprimerentur, dedendam enim ita mox urbem. Ille misertus emitti eos maluit et diutius assidere. Sed cum nec potitus ea esset, quidam ausi obiicere, Nisi tu illos emisisses, urbs iam tua fuisset, ille constanter respondit, At mihi pluris tot hominum incolumitas est quam centum Caietae. Tamen nec ea diu defuit, et cives tam insigni virtute moniti et resipiscentes, ultro se ei tradiderunt. Simile in Antonium Caldoram, potentissimum regni Neapolitani et pervicacem hostem. Is praelio deinde magno victus itemque captus, cum omnes suaderent de tollendo importuno homine et Aragoniis semper infesto, unus restitit atque adeo non vita solum, sed omnibus bonis redonavit. Quin et supellectilem atque instrumentum eius magnae elegantiae et pretii, quod in manibus habebat, totum uxori eius dedit, unica modo patera cristallina sibi asservata. Haec facta viri, et consonae item voces. Interrogatus, Cur erga omnes, etiam malos, ita lenis esset? Quia, inquit, bonos iustitia conciliat, malos clementia. Iterum, cum de nimia eius lenitate quererentur ministri nec decere Principem, Quid ergo? inquit, Vultis ursos ac leones regnare? Nam hominum Clementia, belluarum Feritas est propria. Vera dixit. Quo quis maior et magis, ut sic dicam, homo est, hoc virtuti huic pronior, quae et Humanitas ideo est dicta.

5–9 Hist. Aug. Hadr. 17.1 11–15 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 1.21 15–19 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 1.32 19–22 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 2.21 22–25 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 3.33 25– 26 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 2.52 27–29 Panorm. de dict. et fact. 2.53 29–30 Sen. clem. 1.3.2; Lips. Pol. 2.12.1

436 436

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 12 would have the same counsellors, ministers, and attendants as the deceased king with the same honour and salary. Good God, the same as that man who had been so hostile and unjust? Trust in virtue does this and solemnly promises that that which it knows is owed to her, will be rendered to her. 15 May I be allowed to disturb the chronology but without changing the subject? For how similar is that which Emperor Hadrian once did for someone who had been illaffected towards him before his rule? He anxiously came to Hadrian, hardly finding words for his entreaty, when Hadrian immediately said, You have escaped. Kindly and at the same time sharply. You would have gone to ruin, he said, if we had fought as equals; now, being your superior, I let it go and I do not show my power through anything but favour. 16 Will I keep silent about you, Alfonso? You were nothing but goodness and kindness, and showed yourself a Titus to us, but a long-lasting one. You besieged Gaeta, a city which had been persistently rebelling against you. It was a fact that the besieged were oppressed by a shortage of supplies. And acknowledging this themselves, they sent the elderly, children, women, and all other unfit people away. Alfonso’s council moved to force and push them back, as in that way the city would have to surrender soon. But Alfonso felt pity and preferred to let them out and besiege the city for a longer time. But when he did not get hold of it and some dared to object, If you had not let them go, the city would have been yours already, he calmly replied, But the safety of so many people is more valuable to me than one hundred Gaetas. However, he did not have to wait for the city’s surrender for long, and the citizens, admonished by such excellent virtue and returned to their senses, voluntarily surrendered to him. Something similar happened to Antonio Caldora, the most powerful person in the Kingdom of Naples and a persistent enemy. He was later defeated, and also captured, in a great battle. Everyone urged that that troublesome man, who had always been hostile to Aragon, should be killed. Alfonso alone resisted, and to such an extent that he did not only give him his life back, but also all his property. Even more, he also returned to Caldora’s wife all his household goods and furniture, which were of great elegance and value and were in his possession, keeping a single crystal bowl for himself. These are the deeds of that man and his words are also in harmony with his deeds. When he was asked why he was so lenient towards everyone, even bad people, he answered, Because the good are won over with justice, the bad with clemency. And again, when his ministers complained about his excessive leniency and thought that it did not suit a prince, he said, What, then? Do you want bears and lions to rule? For clemency is characteristic of men, savageness of beasts. He told the truth. The greater and more of a man someone is, so to speak, the more inclined he is to this virtue, which is therefore also called humanity.

437 437

Caput xiii DE FIDE. Hanc quoque Principi convenientem vel necessariam potius haberi.

Valer. Max. VI cap. 6

Lib. XLIV

Iliad. δ

Post Iustitiam et Clementiam, Fidem commendamus. Hanc quidem ex Iustitia natam. Quid enim magis ea dictat quam promissa praestanda? Et qui non facit, non solum iniustum, sed ignavum merito habeamus. Qui enim fallit et decipit, eo facit quia potentiae aut viribus minus fidit. Conatur igitur fidei specie circumvenire et hanc vilitati suae praetendit, ostentandam, non servandam. Turpe et sublimi omni animo indignum. Imo et natura abhorremus. Pueros vide. Mendacium inter prima probra obiiciunt et, quamquam levitate quadam assumunt, tamen iudicii insita rectitudine damnant. Admiranda Dei providentia virtutes animo inserentis sine quibus vita et societas stare aegre possit. Quod in Iustitia et Fide palam videmus. Tolle istam aut minue: raptus, caedes, bella erunt; atque haec: nullo foedere aut pace terminanda. Quid enim adstringet? Cole igitur, o Princeps, venerabile hoc Fidei numen, quae dexteram suam, certissimum salutis humanae pignus, ostentat. Iunge tuam si, non dicam bonus, sed magnus et felix esse exoptas. Hoc enim quoque ab eadem Providentia quod callidi isti et impostores, quantumvis subtilibus consiliis, raro aut numquam ad potentiam perveniunt aut si, in ea non sunt firmi. At aliter in candidis ingenuisque mentibus qui Deum, qui fidem reverentur: hi crescunt, florent et perseverant caelesti favore prosequente et attollente. Quintus Marcius hoc bene apud Livium: Favere pietati fideique deos, per quae populus Romanus ad tantum fastigii venerit. Bene et opportune ad Persem regem, qui spem in astu et fallaciis ponebat, foederum parum constans. Utilitas igitur fidem approbat. Et vel noxa a Perfidia possit deterrere. Nam, ut sapientissime Homerus:

Οὐ μέν πως ἅλιον πέλει ὅρκιον ἇιμά τε ἀρνῶν σπονδαί τ’ ἄκρητοι καὶ δεξιαὶ ᾗς ἐπέπιθμεν. Εἴ περ γάρ τε καὶ αὐτίκ’ Ὀλύμπιος οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν, ἔκ τε καὶ ὀψὲ τελεῖ, σύν τε μεγάλῳ ἀπέτισαν σὺν σφῇσι κεφαλῇσι, γυναιξί τε καὶ τεκέεσσιν·

4–5 Lips. Pol. 2.14; Cic. off. 1.23

11–15 Lips. Pol. 2.14; Cic. off. 2.84

438 438

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 13 ON FAITHFULNESS. It is also considered fitting, or rather necessary, for the prince. After justice and clemency, we recommend faithfulness, which has indeed originated from justice. For what does it dictate more than that promises should be kept? And he who does not do so deserves to be considered not only unjust by us, but also slack. For he who cheats and deceives does it because he has less faith in power or strength. So he tries to deceive under the pretext of faithfulness and veils his worthlessness by displaying faithfulness but not keeping it. It is disgraceful and unworthy of any elevated mind. Even more, we also shun it by nature. Look at young boys. Lying is among the first disgraceful acts which they reproach; and although they take it up with a certain light-mindedness, they nevertheless condemn it with an innate rectitude in judgment. Admirable is the providence of God, who inserts virtues in the mind without which life and society can hardly stand firm. This we see clearly in justice and faithfulness. Take away or weaken the former and there will be plundering, murder, and war; and take away faithfulness: there will be no pact or peace to end them. For what will bind them? So cultivate, O prince, this venerable divinity of faithfulness, who Val. Max. 6.6 pr. shows her right hand, the most secure pledge of the welfare of mankind. Add your own right hand if you want to be, I shall not say good, but great and happy. For it is also thanks to the same providence that those sly and deceitful people, however subtle their plans, rarely, if ever, come to power, or if they do, do not remain firm in it. But it is different for honest and noble minds who revere God, who revere faithfulness: they grow, flourish, and persevere, while heavenly favour accompanies and exalts them. In Livy Quintus Marcius said well that the gods favour piety and faithfulness, through Liv. 44.1.10 which the Roman people reached such heights. Well and seasonably said to King Perseus, who put his hope in cunning and deceit, being of little firmness in pacts. So utility approves faithfulness, and even punishment could discourage faithlessness. For, as Homer very wisely said: But an oath will not be in vain, or pacts concluded with blood or a handshake, by which we were urged to give credence. For although God does not punish at the time, he will nevertheless punish later and a heavy penalty will be paid, believe me, by themselves, their wives, and, as sweet pledges, their children.

439 439

Il. 4.158-162

Liber ii, Caput xiii

At non irritum erit iurandum et foedera pacta sanguine nec dextrae, quibus credere suadebamur. Nam quamquam Deus haud poenas in tempore sumit, at post sumet, et hi magno, mihi crede, rependent ipsi atque uxores et, dulcia pignora, nati.

I

II

III

Audis vere vatem. Semper mala Fides poenas statim aut postea in violatoribus aut sanguine eorum luit. Et vis praesentis aliqua commodi specie adhaerere? Fuge. Nam et Fama sic te fugiet. Et quisquis vel hanc amat, Fidem amet. Cuius multa vel testimonia sunt vel Exempla. Aegyptiis quidem (et apud priscos illos multa praeclara invenio) lex fuit recitante Diodoro: Periuri capite puniuntur quia duplici scelere obstricti: et Pietatem in Deos violant et Fidem inter homines tollunt, maximum vinculum societatis. Recte de Pietate. Quis enim perfidus non et Dei numen et advocatum nomen spernit? Agesilai, Spartani regis, factum et dictum subiungam. Qui cum exercitum in Asiam traiecisset contra regem Persarum, Tissaphernes, summus Satrapa, viribus imparem se videns et celeritate praeventum, fallere per speciem fidei quaesivit. Itaque de induciis cum Agesilao egit, adsimulans operam interea se daturum ut Rex cum Spartanis componeret. Dedit Agesilaus trimestres. Quas ipse quidem optima fide servavit. At alter copias cogere, loca munire et bellum summa vi comparare. Quod ubi Laco sensit et monitus est, nihil moveri. Imo multum in eo sibi profici dicebat quod Tissaphernes suo periurio et homines alienaret et Deos redderet iratos. Utrumque in se aliter esse quod et milites fidentiores redderentur, Deorum ope fisi, et homines amiciores, qui iis fere studerent quos conservare fidem viderent. Et res atque exitus ita fuit. Ex eadem Graecia fuit Andronicus quidam, a Demetrio rege praefectus Tyro. Cum autem Demetrius gravi praelio victus a Ptolomaeo esset, iste loca et regiones passim invadebat atque occupabat, destitutas scilicet omni spe auxilii. In aliorum ignavia aut perfidia constans mansit Andronicus et adventanti Ptolomaeo atque invitanti fortiter restitit donec a militibus seditione mota desertus et urbe eiectus est. Venitque in Ptolomaei manus. Qui nihil ut in hostem et pertinacem fecit, sed fidem illamipsam admiratus quam oderat, donis cumulavit et in cohortem amicorum transscripsit.

11–13 D.S. 1.77.2

15–25 Xen. Ages. 1.9-13

440 440

26–33 D.S. 19.86.1-3

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 You truly hear a prophet. Faithlessness always suffers a punishment, immediately or later, in the violators or their blood. And do you wish to stick to it under some pretext of usefulness in the present? Flee, for in this way fame, too, will flee from you. And whoever loves fame should love faithfulness. Of which there are many testimonies or examples. 1 The Egyptians (and I find many splendid examples among that ancient people) had a law, recited by Diodorus: perjurers are punished with death since they are guilty of two crimes: not only do they violate piety towards the gods, but they also take faithfulness, the greatest bond of society, away from the people. He is right about piety. For does he who is faithless not scorn both God’s majesty and His name, which was invoked? 2 I will add a deed and saying by Agesilaus, King of Sparta. When he had transferred an army to Asia against the Persian king, the most powerful satrap Tissaphernes, seeing that he was inferior in strength and outstripped in speed, tried to deceive him under pretence of faithfulness. So he was negotiating a truce with Agesilaus, pretending that meanwhile he would try to reconcile the Persian king with the Spartans. Agesilaus gave him a truce of three months, which he himself respected in good faith, but the other gathered troops, fortified places and prepared for war with the greatest strength. When the Spartan sensed this and was warned, he was not affected. Indeed, he even said that it was very advantageous for him that Tissaphernes with his perjury both alienated the people and rendered the gods angry; and that both of these things were different for him because the soldiers would become more confident, having faith in the support of the gods, and the people more friendly, as they would normally be more favourable to those they saw keeping their faith. And such was the outcome of the matter. 3 A certain Andronicus, King Demetrius’ governor of Tyre, came from Greece as well. When Demetrius had been defeated by Ptolemy in a dramatic battle, the latter invaded and occupied places and regions everywhere, places which had lost all hope of help. But in the midst of the cowardice and faithlessness of others, Andronicus remained constant and courageously resisted the upcoming and challenging Ptolemy, until he was deserted by his soldiers, when mutiny had arisen, and thrown out of the town. He fell into the hands of Ptolemy, who did nothing like what he would do against an enemy, and a persistent one too, but admiring the very faithfulness which he hated, showered gifts upon him and assigned him into his circle of friends.

441 441

Liber ii, Caput xiii IV

V

Apud Romanos plura et fortiora exempla. Primum communiter in ipso Senatu aut Populo. Veluti, obsidione urbis a Porsena, cum pax iam coisset et datis utriusque sexus obsidibus firmata esset, virgines duce Cloelia transmisso Tiberi hostibus se eripuerunt et Romanis suis restituerunt. Poterat excusatio esse et qui in custodia habentur fallere posse custodes, sed noluit Senatus et bona ac vere prisca fide censuit obsides remittendos. Iterum. Faliscorum civitas, aliquoties rebellis, dedere se tandem Quinto Luctatio Consuli coacta est. In quam cum saevire populus Romanus cuperet et asperius consulere, doctus a Papirio Faliscos non potestati, sed fidei se Romanae commisisse, statim destitit et verbuli religione motus, iram omnem impetumque deposuit. Quam longe illi a cavillis, quos mala calliditas semper reperit? Romani etiam Consules bello Punico primo speciose hac fide se ostentarunt. Victa erat circa Siciliam magna Punica classis, fractique duces consilia pacis agitabant. Sed ex iis Amilcar negabat ire se ad Romanos ne eodem exemplo sibi catenae iniicerentur quo ab ipsis Cornelio Asinae Consuli fuissent nuper iniectae. Sed Hanno, melior Romani ingenii morisque aestimator, dixit fidenter se iturum et ivit. Verba fecit, et facienti Tribunusmilitum qui circa Tribunal adstabat, dixit, Nonne tibi merito eveniat quod Cornelio factum? Consules statim Tribuno tacere iusso, Isto te, inquiunt, metu, Hanno, fides civitatis nostrae liberat. Verba gravia, verba veracia. Et quanta gloria nec speciem violandae fidei dare voluisse! Quod et Publius Scipio Africanus fecit. Qui capta nave Carthaginiensium, in qua multi illustresque viri vehebantur, illi ad effugium commenti subito sunt Legatos se ad eum venisse. Apparebat mendacium et argui poterat, sed magno Romanoque animo maluit decipi fidem suam quam accusari. Idem. Carthagine iam obsessa, cum fessi malis legatos pro pace in urbem misissent atque interea naves Romanas et commeatum diriperent contra foedus, Scipio nihil armis etiam tentans, suos Legatos in urbem misit conquestum et ius petitum. At illi vix retenti sunt quin manibus eos violarent nisi quod ereptos tamen e turba primores ad mare deduxerunt et praesidium triremium dederunt, quae prosequerentur redeuntes. Sed id quoque parum bona fide. Certe abeuntibus triremibus Asdrubal statim eos aggressus est, et in conflictu duo Legatorum perierunt; reliqui inter tela volitantia aegre se in castra et ad Scipionem receperunt. An non et haec caussa solvendi iuste foederis? Non fecit. Legatos Roma exspectavit. Sed ii cum re infecta discedere a Senatu iussi essent

2–6 Val. Max. 3.2.2; Liv. 2.13.6 444,3 Liv. 30.25; Val. Max. 6.6.4

6–10 Val. Max. 6.5.1b

442 442

12–19 Val. Max. 6.6.2

21–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 4

Among the Romans there are more and stronger examples. First, in the Senate and the People themselves as a whole. For example, during the siege of the city by Porsena, when peace had already been made and had been confirmed by the giving of hostages of both sexes, the maidens, led by Cloelia, crossed the Tiber, broke away from the enemy and returned to their Roman men. It could have been an excuse that those who are being guarded are allowed to deceive the guards, but the Senate did not wish to use this excuse and decided in good and truly ancient faith that the hostages should be sent back. And again. The community of the Falisci, who had been rebellious several times, were eventually forced to give themselves over to Consul Quintus Luctatius. When the Roman people wanted to rage against them and take rather harsh measures, Papirius taught them that the Falisci had not entrusted themselves to the power, but to the faithfulness, of Rome. They immediately stopped, and moved by reverence for this one little word, they put all anger and aggression aside. How far were they from the sophisms which malicious slyness always finds? Also Roman consuls showed themselves to be brilliant in this faithfulness during the First Punic War. The great Punic fleet had been defeated near Sicily and the broken-spirited commanders were planning negotiations for peace. But among them, Hamilcar refused to go to the Romans, lest he be put in irons by the example of Consul Cornelius Asina, who had recently been put in irons by themselves. But Hanno, who better assessed the Roman mind and morals, said that he would go confidently, and went. He spoke, and while he did so, a military tribune, who stood near the tribunal, asked: Would it not be just if that which happened to Cornelius would happen to you? The consuls immediately ordered the tribune to be silent and said, Hanno, the faithfulness of our society frees you from such fear. These are weighty and true words. And how glorious it is not to have wished to give even the impression of violating faithfulness! 5 That is also what Publius Scipio Africanus did. When a Carthaginian ship with many noble men on board had been captured, they told him a lie straight away to get a chance to escape, saying that they had come to him as ambassadors. It was clearly a lie and it could have been proved, but in great Roman spirit he preferred his faithfulness to be deceived rather than to be accused. Again, when Carthage had already been besieged, and the citizens, tired of misfortune, had sent ambassadors to Rome to negotiate for peace and meanwhile plundered the Roman ships and supplies against the conditions of the treaty, Scipio made no armed attempts but sent his own ambassadors to the city to complain and ask for justice. But the citizens could hardly be kept from attacking them with their hands, and would have done so, if the leaders had not taken them away from the crowd, brought them to the sea and given them the protection of triremes to accompany them on their return. But also that was done with little good faith. For certainly, when the triremes departed, Hasdrubal immediately attacked them, and in the conflict two ambassadors died; the rest of them returned with difficulty to the camp and to Scipio, between flying spears. And was this, too, not a reason to rightly cancel the treaty? He did not do so; he waited for the Carthaginian ambas-

443 443

Liber ii, Caput xiii

VI

VII

et ad suos statim se recipere ut hostes, ecce tempestas detulit eos ad ipsa Scipionis castra. Et cum Praefectus maris a Scipione petisset, Quid iis facere deberet?, Nihil tale, inquit, quale nobis Carthaginienses, dimisitque intactos. Hominem hunc fidum dicam an ipsam in humano corpore Fidem? Dissimilis alia virtute aut fortuna, sed hac par fuit Sextus Pompeius. Is qui Sicilia et Sardinia occupatis grave bellum fecit Triumviris et populo Romano. Et cum inedia atque inopia eos conficeret, coacti sunt ad pacem venire, etsi parum fidam aut diuturnam. Igitur Octavianus Caesar et Antonius colloquium cum eo instituerunt circa Misenum, quo ipse classe instructa appulit, illi terrestribus copiis succincti. Convenit tandem certis conditionibus de pace, atque ut illi firmandae, inter se benevole agerent ac caenarent. Prima caenae sors Sexto evenit, qui rogante Antonio, Ubinam caenaturi essent?, facete respondit, In meis carinis, ad navem suam respiciens, in qua paratum epulum, tum et ad domum paternam, quam sitam Romae in Carinis Antonius occupabat. Igitur in navi convenerunt, et iam epulae et sermones et cavilli in Antonium et Cleopatram eius erant cum sensim a tergo accedens Menas libertus, classis Praefectus, Sextum clam affatus est: Visne tu ut funes incidam et navim abducam faciamque te non Siciliae modo et Sardiniae, sed orbis terrae dominum? Dixerat et facere poterat. Pons tantum navim cum terra iungebat, qui ea mota ruebat. Et quis hominum impedire aut succurrere potuisset? In duobus autem illis capitibus universa tunc res Romana nixa. Sed Deus et Fata noluerunt nec ipsa Fides, quae Sexti mentem movit: Et te quidem, Mena, facere fortasse oportebat, inquit, non praedicere. Nunc autem praesentibus acquiescamus. nec est meum peierare. Macte Sexte! Quem vel ob hoc dictum factumque (nam cetera degenerant) nec Roma abdicet nec pater. Atqui et in singulos fidei etiam exempla sunt. Ut hoc Lucillii, qui vir et senator illustris, in partibus Bruti atque acie Philippensi fuit. Cum Brutus igitur altero praelio victus fugeret et equitum manus insectaretur et iam in eo esset ut apprehenderet, ille statuit vel morte sua illum eripere ac paullum velut fatigato equo subsistens, Brutum se simulat et praefert ac capi ab illis est passus. Qui ingenti gaudio perfusi ut tam ubere praeda, adducebant eum reflexis habenis (nam id quoque petierat quo magis falleret) ad Antonium, non ad Cae-

5–23 Plu. Ant. 32

26–446,14 Plu. Brut. 50

444 444

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 sadors to return from Rome. But when the Senate ordered them to leave emptyhanded and to return immediately to their city as enemies of Rome, behold how a storm drove them to the very camp of Scipio. And when the admiral asked Scipio what he should do with them, he answered, Nothing like what the Carthaginians did to us, and sent them away unharmed. Should I call this man faithful or should I call him the very embodiment of faithfulness? 6 Although he was dissimilar with regard to other virtues or fortune, Sextus Pompey was nevertheless equal to Scipio as far as this virtue is concerned. When Sicily and Sardinia were occupied, he inflicted a great war upon the triumviri and the people of Rome. And when he had weakened them through lack of food and other supplies, they were forced to accept a peace agreement, although it was not a very faithful or lasting one. So Octavian and Antony arranged a meeting with Sextus near Misenum, where he landed with his fleet prepared, and where they were surrounded by landforces. Peace was finally agreed on, upon specific conditions, and they also agreed that in order to confirm it, they would behave cordially between one another and eat together. It was the lot of Sextus to entertain the others first. When Antony asked him, Where they would dine, he answered wittily, In my ships’ keel, referring to his ship, on which the banquet was prepared, and also to his father’s house, which was situated in Rome, in the quarter of Keels, and was occupied by Antony. So they met on the ship and were already eating, talking, and jeering at Antony and his Cleopatra when a freedman, Menas, the commander of the fleet, slowly approached Sextus from behind and said to him in secret, Do you want me to cut the ropes and lead the ship out and make you master, not only of Sicily and Sardinia, but of the entire world? That is what he said and could have done. Only the gangway connected the ship to land, and would have fallen when the ship was moved. And who could have prevented it or come to aid? All Rome rested on the shoulders of those two men at the time. But God and fate did not want it to happen, nor did faithfulness itself, which moved Sextus’ mind: You, Menas, should perhaps have done it, he said, instead of making it known. But now we have to be satisfied with the present situation. It is not my habit to commit perjury. Well done, Sextus! Because of what you said and did here (for your other acts dishonour you) neither Rome nor your father should reject you. 7 But there are also examples of faithfulness towards individuals. Like that of Lucillius, a famous man and senator, who was on Brutus’ side and participated in the Battle of Philippi. So when Brutus was defeated in another battle and fled, and a group of horsemen pursued him and were about to catch him, Lucillius decided to rescue him, even if it meant his own death, and stopping briefly, as if his horse was exhausted, he feigned and pretended to be Brutus and allowed himself to be caught by the enemy. Filled with great joy that they had such rich booty, they took him, leading his horse by the reins (for he had also asked for that, to deceive them even more) to Antony, not to Octavian, as if he had better hopes for Antony’s kindness. Meanwhile Antony was informed by some messengers, who had been sent out in advance, that Brutus had

445 445

Liber ii, Caput xiii

VIII

IX

∞LXX

sarem, quasi de eius benignitate melius speraret. Interea Antonius, per praemissos quosdam iam certior de capto Bruto, prodibat scilicet obviam. Sed et alii cum illo, partim miserantes, partim incusantes quod vitae cupidine eo deductus esset. Iam propinquis, substitit Antonius, incertus quo vultu verbisque Brutum exciperet cum statim Lucillius, Marcum Brutum, Antoni, inquit, nemo cepit aut capiet, spero, hostis. Dii meliora quam ut in tantum Fortuna Virtutem calcet. Sed enimvero ille aut alibi vivus reperietur liberque aut certe, ut illo dignum est, abivit. Ego vero Lucillius sum, qui militibus tuis imposui ut illi esset effugium. Nec quidquam poenae hoc nomine recuso. Obstupuerant omnes, praesertim milites, qui sic sibi dolebant praedam ereptam. Sed ad eos Antonius: Commilitones, inquit, bono animo estote nec putate vobis fraude vel errore isto illusum. Imo uberiorem, certe gratiorem mihi praedam quam putabatis aut petebatis, scitote adductam. Nam Bruto ipso quid facturus fuerim vivo, sum incertus. Nunc dum hostem quaeritis, amicum repperistis et adduxistis. Qui tu, Lucilii, semper mihi eris. Abite, praemium expectate. Laudabilis et ille Caesaris Centurio. Qui captus in mari Africo cum paucis veteranis et ad Scipionem deductus, cum is vitam et pecuniam proposuisset omnibus, si militare secum vellent, ipse respondit, Pro tuo summo beneficio, Scipio (nec enim Imperatorem appellabo, qui unus mihi Caesar est), gratias ago, qui vitam offers belli iure capto. Sed huic beneficio, quia scelus coniunctum est, non utor. Egone contra Caesarem, apud quem ordines duxi, vigintisex amplius annos militavi, adversus armatusque consistam? Ne fides hoc sinat aut virtus. Et te magnopere hortor ut de incepto desistas. Contra cuius enim copias contendas si nosse vis, age, elige ex tuis cohortem unam quam voles; ego ex meis, quos nunc habes, non amplius decem sumam. Tunc ex virtute et successu nostro intelleges quid sperare de copiis tuis debeas. Ita militariter Centurio. Quem statim ante pedes suos Scipio interfici iussit. Quo crimine damnatum? Fidei, quod inter desciscentes gravissimum est. Sed nec superior aut nostra aetas huius laudis ignara est. Ut in Hispania, cum rex Ferdinandus Primus tres filios reliquisset, Sanctium, Alphonsum, Garciam, regna quoque inter eos divisit, sed voluntate aut pace non firma. Nam statim ab eius morte Sanctius, ingenio violentior, fratrem Alphonsum bello aggressus vicit, cepit et monachum profiteri coëgit. Non diu perseverat coacta pietas; abdicat et clam cum Petro Ansurio Comite ad regem Toleti, Almenonem, confu-

15–25 Bell. Afr. 44.2-46.1

27–448,35 Marian. Hist. 9.8-10

7 abivit B: mortuus A

446 446

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 been caught, and went to meet him. But there were also others who came with him, some of them pitying Brutus, others reproaching him for having been led there out of a desire to live. When they were already close, Antony stopped, uncertain with which expression and words he should receive Brutus. But Lucillius immediately said, I hope, Antony, that no enemy has captured Marcus Brutus or will do so. May the gods have better things in store than fortune treading on virtue against such a man. But, for sure, he will either be found elsewhere, alive and free, or at least departed from life in a manner worthy of him. I, on the other hand, am Lucillius, who have deceived your soldiers, so that he could escape. I do not object to any punishment on that account. Everyone was stupefied, especially the soldiers, who were grieved that they had been deprived of their booty in this way. But to them Antony said, Fellow soldiers, keep your spirits up and do not think that you have been mocked through this deceit or error. On the contrary, know that you have brought me a richer and certainly more gratifying booty than you thought or asked for. For I do not know what I would have done to Brutus himself if he was alive. Now, while you were looking for the enemy, you have found and brought a friend. For you, Lucillius, will always be a friend to me. Go away and expect a reward. 8 Praiseworthy, too, is that centurion of Caesar who was captured in the African sea together with a few veterans and brought to Scipio. When the latter offered everyone their lives and money if they wanted to fight with him, he answered, I thank you, Scipio (for I do not call you commander, since only Caesar is that to me) for your immense favour in offering life to someone who has been captured according to the laws of war. But I do not accept that favour, since it is connected to crime. Would I stand hostile and armed against Caesar, under whom I have commanded companies and fought for more than twenty-six years? May faithfulness or virtue not allow this. And I strongly encourage you to cease your undertaking. For if you wish to know against whose troops you are fighting, come on, choose one cohort of your soldiers, whichever you want. I will take no more than ten of my men, whom you are now holding. Then you will understand from our courage and success what hope you should have for your troops. So spoke the centurion in a military manner. Scipio ordered that he should be killed immediately at his feet. For which crime was he condemned? For faithfulness, the worst crime among deserters. 9 But the more recent past or our own age is not unacquainted with this praise either. As in Spain: when King Ferdinand the First left behind three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and García, he also divided the kingdoms between them, but not with firm consent or peace. For immediately after his death, Sancho, who had the most violent character, 1070 waged war on his brother Alfonso, defeated and caught him, and forced him to profess to be a monk. The enforced piety did not last long; he renounced it and fled in secret together with Count Pedro Ansúrez to the King of Toledo, Al-Mamún. He was a Moor and an enemy of our religion, but he had been on friendly and peaceful terms with Alfonso’s father Ferdinand and the refugee therefore chose him to entrust himself to. And Al-Mamún received and accommodated him faithfully. While he was there, it happened that, in the presence of Al-Mamún, his hair stood on end and did not settle

447 447

Liber ii, Caput xiii

git. Maurus is erat et religioni hostis, sed cum patre Alphonsi, Ferdinando, amicitia ei et pax fuerat eoque electus a profugo cui se crederet. Et iste cum fide recepit habuitque. Dum illic est, evenit ut coram Almenone capilli eius subrigerentur et manu aliquoties compressi non subsiderent. Quod Mauri vates triste prodigium interpretati sunt et hunc esse qui ad urbis Toletanae imperium erigeretur. Itaque de nece suadebant. Non fecit Rex et potior ei metu fides fuit. Quod mirum in barbaro, satisque habuit iuramento Alphonsum adstringere ne se vivo regni sui terminos infestaret. Ecce autem paullo post interficitur ex insidiis ad Zamoram rex Sanctius. Et soror Urraca, benigne in hunc fratrem affecta, nuncios litterasque statim mittit, quibus ad regnum evocat et suadet astu aut celeritate evadere barbaros fines. Aestuabat Alphonsus. Faceret? Ingrati animi notam metuebat, tum etiam ne non celaret et reduceretur, merito non dimittendus. Non faceret et rem aperiret? Ne vinclis aut conditionibus adstringeretur ab eo, qui a tam vicino et potenti rege haud frustra timeret. Vicit tamen fides in honesto animo et gratitudo: ad Almenonem venit. Quod tibi gloriosum, inquit, mihi felix sit. Ad regnum a meis vocor, ereptum in parte a fratre nuper, nunc eius fato universum relictum. Culpare illum mortuum pietas me vetat. Eadem ut tuum beneficium praedicem, incitat. Qui profugum, ab hominibus et fortuna relictum, recepisti, fovisti. Qua spe aut praemio nisi quod ab ipsa virtute est? Et tamen animus agnoscendi solvendique non deficit, fortasse nec occasio aut materies si per te mihi datur ea uti. Age Rex magnanime, imple tua beneficia et pro cumulo Regem me in regnum remitte. Hactenus vita tui muneris est; fac ut in parte sit et sceptrum. Ita noster. Quem Maurus amplexus, incolumem regemque gratatur et promittit. Neutrum, inquit, futurum si me inscio non iter, sed fugam tentasses. Nec enim te celo notam mihi mortem Sanctii fuisse et tacitum exspectasse tua consilia ut aut laudarem ea aut vindicarem. Istud facturus sane eram si fallaci et ingrato animo te subduxisses. Et exploratores subsessoresque viarum dispositi a me erant, qui... sed taceo et gaudeo opus non fuisse. Virum bonum fidumque te erga me talem ostendisti. Fac et in regno, quod omnes dii tibi fortunent. Nihil stipulor nisi illud vetus, Amicum te fore mihi et maiori filio Hissemo, quamdiu vita utrique erit. Dixit et pecuniam comitesque dedit atque ipse honoris caussa aliquantum spatium deduxit. Clarissimum, hercules, exemplum Fidei in Afro, quod miremur, religionisque diverso, sed et divinae Providentiae, quae id regnum et urbem ab eo voluit capi qui perfugium ibi habuerat et tutelam. Quod novem circiter annis post evenit, sed mortuo Almenone et filio maiore.

22–23 sceptrum B : regnum A

448 448

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 13 down even though it was smoothed down several times. The Moorish soothsayers interpreted this as a bad sign, saying that he was the one who would rise to rule over the city of Toledo. So they urged that he should be killed. But the king did not do so, his faithfulness being stronger than his fear. That is rare in a barbarian, and it was enough for him to oblige Alfonso on oath not to attack the borders of his kingdom while he was alive. But behold, a little while later King Sancho was killed insidiously near Zamora. Their sister Urraca, who was attached to her brother Alfonso, immediately sent him messengers and letters, in which she summoned him to the kingdom and urged him to leave the barbarian territory cunningly or quickly. Alfonso hesitated: should he do it? He feared the stain of being ungrateful and also that he would not be able to hide and would be brought back – he was not going to be released, and rightly so. Should he refrain and reveal the matter? He feared that he would be bound by his host with chains or conditions since the latter would be afraid, not without reason, to have such a powerful king so nearby. Nevertheless faithfulness and gratitude won in his honourable mind, and he went to Al-Mamún. May that which is glorious for you, he said, be favourable for me; my people summon me to my kingdom, which recently was taken away partly by my brother, but has now been left behind in its entirety by his death. Piety forbids me to censure him, now that he is dead. The same piety incites me to praise your kindness. You received a fugitive, abandoned by men and fortune, and supported him. With what hope or for which reward other than that which comes from virtue itself? Nevertheless my intention to acknowledge and repay it does not cease nor, probably, does the occasion or opportunity, if you allow me to use it. Come on, magnanimous king, complete your favours and, to crown them, let me return to my kingdom as king. Thus far you have granted me my life; make the sceptre, too, part of that gift. So spoke our Alfonso. The Moor embraced him and congratulated him and promised him safety and his kingdom. You would be neither safe nor king, he said, if you would have tried, without my knowledge, to run, rather than leave openly. For I do not hide from you that Sancho’s death was known to me and I silently awaited your decisions, either to praise or to avenge them. I would certainly have done the latter if you had shown yourself deceitful and ungrateful by leaving secretly, and I had already sent out explorers and people to intercept you along the way, who... but I say nothing and am happy that there was no need for it. You have shown yourself a good and faithful man towards me, a man of similar virtue. Make sure that you also do so in your kingdom. May all the gods bless it for you. I do not demand any promise apart from that old one, that you will be a friend to me and to my oldest son Hishem for as long as we both live. That is what he said and he gave him money and a retinue, and accompanied him in person part of the way to honour him. By Hercules, this is the most illustrious example of faithfulness in an African man, which we should admire, a man of a different religion too, but also an example of divine providence, which wanted that kingdom and city to be taken by the man who had enjoyed refuge and protection there. That happened about nine years later, but after the deaths of Al-Mamún and his eldest son.

449 449

Liber ii, Caput xiii X ∞CCXLIII

XI

Habet et iterum Hispania Fidei exemplum in Lusitania, sed in homine Christiano. Is fuit Flectius, vir nobilis, arci Conimbricae atque urbi a Sanctio rege praefectus. Sed enimvero is Sanctius male et improspere regnum administrabat, aulicis quibusdam nimis credulus et inprimis Menciae uxori suae addictus mancipatusque. Igitur querelae, et mox conspiratio procerum in illum fuit. Denique eo ventum ut Pontifice ipso, quem adierant, (is Innocentius fuit) auctore curam tutelamque regni ad Alphonsum transferrent, Sanctii fratrem. Inde bellum, et plerique a Rege veteri alieni. Sed constans pro eo Flectius iste fuit et oppugnationem et arma etiam Alphonsi ac totius gentis excepit. Nec flecti potuit donec ei nunciatum Sanctium in exsilio Toleti mortem obiisse: Pro quo pugnaret ultra aut fidem obtenderet? Daret se et verteret quo Fortuna et omnes nec pulcherrimam laudem titulo Pervicacis aut Insani mutaret. Audit Flectius nec satis credit. Petit veniam ab Alphonso ut ipsus Toletum ire et coram arbitrari possit. Facile impetrat et interea ab oppugnatione cessatur. Cum venit, Regem suum fato functum sepultumque invenit. Atque ut in animo suo, non solum opinione hominum liber esset, aperto sepulchro cum suspiriis et lacrimis ipsas claves urbis Conimbricensis in manus dat his verbis: Quamdiu, o Rex, vivere te iudicabam, extrema omnia sum perpessus. Coriis pellibusque famem toleravi, sitim lotio; civium animos ad deditionem inclinantes et conantes erexi aut repressi; denique quidquid a fideli homine et in tua verba iurato exigi exspectarique potuit, id praestiti et perseveravi. Unum superest ut, clavibus tuae urbis tibi traditis, solutum me iuramento omnibus et civibus te vita cessisse denunciem. Deus tibi bene faciat in alio et meliore regno. Ita abiit et legitimum iam alterum Regem agnovit et adhaesit. Trimumpara etiam in Orientali India, qui rex Cochini erat, cum eo Lusitani venissent, foedus pacemque panxit. Mox in novam et suspectam gentem conspiratio omnium et maxime Calecutiensis regis, qui opibus et milite inter vicinos pollebat. Ille igitur copias amicosque iungere et hunc inprimis Cochini regem pertrahere et suadere ut eiectis aut potius traditis pauculis Lusitanis quos fidei suae creditos acceperat, se culpa, omnes metu exsolveret. Ille vero obniti et aperte dicere, Omnia se potius quam fidem amissurum. Siqui e subditis aut amicis id suaderent, eos vero magis hostes se ducere ipso Calecutiense quoniam ille regnum modo aut vitam eripere, isti pulcherrimam virtutum conarentur. Et vitae spatium breve ac definitum, perfidiae maculam sempiternam esse. Haec et similia dicta factis affir-

1–23 Marian. Hist. 13.4

24–452,6 Osor. de reb. Emman. 3 (1597: 70b-74b)

450 450

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 10

Spain has another example of faithfulness, in Portugal, but in a Christian man. That was Flectio, a nobleman who had been made governor of the stronghold and city of 1243 Coimbra by King Sancho. But that Sancho truly administered the kingdom badly and unfortunately, having too much trust in certain courtiers and being especially devoted and subjected to his wife Mencia. So there were complaints, and soon a conspiracy of the leading nobles against him. In the end things had gone so far that at the command of the Pope himself (that was Innocent), to whom they had applied, they transferred the care and protection of the realm to Alfonso, Sancho’s brother. Therefore war broke out and most people were hostile to their old king, but the aforementioned Flectio remained faithful to him and even sustained the attack and the weapons of Alfonso and the entire nation. He could not be moved until it was announced to him that Sancho had died in exile in Toledo: For whom would he further fight or to whom would he show his faithfulness? He should give himself in and turn in the same direction as fortune and all others had, and should not exchange his excellent reputation for the title of Stubborn or Insane. Flectio listened, but did not believe it fully. He asked Alfonso for permission to go to Toledo personally, so that he could judge on the spot. He easily received the permission and meanwhile the fighting ceased. When he arrived, he found that his king had met his fate and had been buried. And to be free in his own mind, not only in people’s opinion, he gave him, when the grave had been opened, the very keys of the city of Coimbra into his hands, sighing and weeping, with these words: As long as I thought you were alive, O king, I endured the greatest suffering. I satisfied hunger with skins and hides, and thirst with urine; when the citizens were inclining and attempting to give themselves over, I cheered them up or kept them back. In a word, whatever could be asked and expected from a faithful man who has sworn allegiance to you, I have fulfilled and steadfastly adhered to. All that is left now, after the keys of your city have been given to you, is to announce to all that I have been freed from my oath, and to the citizens that you have died. May God treat you well in another and better kingdom. In this manner he left and recognised the other king as legitimate and adhered to him. 11 Also Trimumpara in East India, who was the King of Cochin, concluded a treaty and peace when the Portuguese came there. Soon there was a conspiracy of all against that new and suspect people and especially by the King of Calcutta, who was powerful among the neighbours through his wealth and his army. So he gathered his troops and friends, and first of all tried to entice and convince this King of Cochin to free himself from blame and all from fear by throwing out, or rather surrendering, the few Portuguese whom he had received, entrusted into his faith. But he fought back and openly said that he would lose anything rather than betray his word. If any of his subjects or friends urged him to do that, he considered them to be his enemies to a greater degree than the King of Calcutta himself, since the latter only tried to take his realm or his life, whereas the former tried to deprive him of his most beautiful virtue. A lifetime is brief and limited, but the stain of perfidy is everlasting. He confirmed these and similar words with deeds. The King of Calcutta attacked him on all sides, and finally his own men deserted him as

451 451

Liber ii, Caput xiii

XII

XIII

XIV

mavit. Oppugnat eum undique Calecutiensis, tandem et sui deserunt. Vincitur, pellitur regno, in vicinam quandam insulam se recipit, sed nullius rei maiore cura quam ut secum paucos illos Lusitanos servaret. Quid? Ignotos et exteros? Cladem et pestem sui regni? Tanti fides fuit. Quinetiam cum Calecutii rex iam victo pulsoque offerret veterem fortunam et statum ea lege si illos traderet, abnuit, fortiter professus, Sceptrum et vitam eripi posse, fidem non posse. Hunc hominem barbarum ego dicam? Solo et gente fortasse, animo non possum. Haud magis quam Soleimanum, Turcicum Principem, cuius classis ducibus Luftibeio et Barbarossa in Salentinos exscenderat. Ibi Castrum opidum arcemque, vicinum Hydrunti, subito terrore in deditionem acceperant, incolis et ipso Domino Mercurino salutem et libertatem pactis. Sed barbari et praesertim navales socii nihil pensi habentes, omne maleficium inferre et idoneae aetatis captivos cum ipso Mercurino ad classem deduxere. Luftibeius tamen, non dubia perfidiae infamia, ad minuendam Mercurinum liberavit. Ceteros paullo post ipse Soleimanus. Qui inter graviores curas, Corcyram Venetorum obsidens, audito rem parum bona fide cum Castrensibus gestam, ingenuo pudore perfusus, statim conquiri captivos omnes iussit et, in naves impositos, ad penates suos remitti. Ipsos quoque praecipuos auctores supplicio affecit, non hic tantum Fidei amator et cultor. Nam et in Pannonia, cum Budam cepisset, metu vacuam, eiusque arcem oppugnaret, in qua Germanus miles eique praefectus, Thomas Nadastus, curabant, ille quoque metu perfusus, colloqui cum hostibus coepit et de arce dedenda pacisci. Quod aegre Nadastus ferens, ipse plenus animi et constantiae, compescere conabatur et diremptis colloquiis tormenta verti in hostem iubet. Enimvero hic illi ignavi ad scelus etiam versi, ipsum in vincula coniiciunt et frustra reclamante et minante, rebus corporibusque suis salvis arcem dedunt. Intrant barbari, isti exeunt, ut pacti erant. Sed cum Nadastum vinctum repperissent et rem, uti erat, ex ipso auditam ad Imperatorem suum detulissent, ille perfidae ignaviae obiratus, statim immissis in abeuntes Genitzaris omnes interfici iubet. Ipsum Nadastum, vinclis liberatum et ad se adductum, laudat et liberali stipendio invitat ac renuentem dimittit. Claudamus inclito exemplo quod magnus rex Galliarum, Franciscus, nobis donet. Ille Carolum Quintum nostrum, sola fide regis et sua fortuna nixum, in

8–19 Jov. Hist. 36 (1553: 185)

20–31 Jov. Hist. 28 (1553: 67)

452 452

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 13 well. He was defeated and expelled from his kingdom, and retreated to a nearby island, but his greatest concern was to save those few Portuguese together with himself. What? Unknown and foreign people? The overthrow and ruin of his reign? So much did he value his faithfulness. Even when the King of Calcutta, after having defeated and expelled him, offered him his former fortune and status on condition that he would surrender them, he refused, vigorously declaring that his sceptre and life could be taken away, but not his faithfulness. Should I call this man a barbarian? By country and origin, perhaps, but not with regard to his character. 12 No more than the Turkish Sultan Süleyman, whose fleet had gone up to the country of the Salentines under the command of Luftibeius and Barbarossa. There the town and fortress of Castro, near Otranto, surrendered to them, overcome by sudden terror, after the citizens and the governor himself, Mercurinus, had struck a treaty about safety and liberty. But the barbarians, and especially the allied seamen, attached no value to that at all; they inflicted every injury on them and took those of suitable age captive, together with Mercurinus himself, and brought them to the ships. Nevertheless, Luftibeius had no doubt that this would gain him a bad reputation for perfidy, and to reduce it he released Mercurinus. The others were released a while later by Süleyman himself. While he had greater concerns on his mind, as he was besieging the Venetian island of Corfu, he heard that the matter had been handled with too little good faith with the inhabitants of Castro and was filled with an honest feeling of shame. He gave orders that all captives were to be collected immediately, put on ships, and sent back home. He also punished the main instigators themselves, and this was not the only case in which he showed himself to be a lover and cultivator of faithfulness. 13 Also in Hungary, when Süleyman had taken Buda, which had been emptied by fear, and was attacking its citadel, where the German army and its general, Thomas Nadastus, were in charge, the soldiers were also filled with fear and began negotiations with the enemy and making an agreement on the surrender of the citadel. Nadastus was not pleased with that, and because he himself was filled with courage and constancy, he tried to suppress it and ordered the soldiers to break off the negotiations and turn the cannons against the enemies. In a cowardly manner, however, they now even turned to crime, put him in irons, and while he shouted and threatened in vain, they surrendered the citadel, their belongings and their lives intact. The barbarians entered and they left, as agreed. But when they found Nadastus bound and heard the story from him as it was, they reported the news to their commander. He was angry at the soldiers’ perfidious cowardice and immediately sent Janissaries after them as they left and ordered that they should all be killed. When Nadastus himself was freed from his bonds and brought to the commander, he praised and invited him with generous pay and let him go when he turned it down. 14 Let us close with a famous example which Francis, the great King of France, may give us. When our Charles the Fifth, relying only on faithfulness towards a king and on his fortune, hurried to the Netherlands and the then turbulent people of Ghent with-

453 453

Liber ii, Caput xiii

XV

XVI

XVII

Belgas et turbidos tunc Gandavenses properantem sine copiis, paene sine comitibus, comiter et regaliter excepit, apud se habuit, deduxit. Sermones inter eos varii et de pace etiam fuerunt, donando ducatu Mediolanensi (uti iniectum erat) Carolo, Regis filio. Sed cum Caesar iam apud suos, pacatique domestici motus essent, tardior in hanc rem videbatur, sive quia nec ante serio cogitasset. Tum igitur vapulare multorum sermonibus regia comitas, aut credulitas. Cur non hominem in quo rerum omne momentum, tenuisset? Ecquando tam bella umquam occasio? Et invidiae aliquid aut et infamiae pro tam spectabili utilitate subeundum fortiter fuisse. Saltem leges firmiores certioresque ei dixisset. Nunc, quid nisi inanam gloriam apud vulgus, apud prudentiores risum quaesitum? Neque nesciit Franciscus et in conventu procerum celebri, cum alia in purgationem sui dixit, tum haec ipsa in clausula: Etiamsi Fides toto orbe exsularet, tamen Regibus tenendam esse, qui ea sola et nullo metu cogi adstringique possent. Notabile dictum, et res sic habet. Nos alios Lex aut Poena coërcet, Principes solus Pudor aut Fides. Quid claudam? Gallus rex alium eius gentis et vetustiorem subiicit, Ioannem Primum, qui ingenti clade ab Eduardo, Walliae Principe, victus captusque, in Angliam abductus fuit. Ibi quattuor annis in custodia liberiore habitus, ad suos rediit, certis conditionibus cum hoste depactus. Quae tamen cum graviores subditis viderentur, nec civitates Anglis dedendae facile novum iugum praesidiumque admitterent, ipse placando hosti et fidei testandae iterum in Angliam traiecit ibique ex morbo decessit. Clade accepta famosus, sed sic lata clarus et fide clarissimus. Sed heus vos, date veniam, boni Reges et Principes, ac liceat illustri choro vestro servile nomen inserere, non maculam, sed lucem et splendorem merum, quatenus hic quidem spectabuntur. Nam et Fidei illorum in dominos aut patronos mirifica exempla sunt nec nisi cum virtutis damno silenda. Hasdrubal in Hispania res gerebat et magnam eius partem vi aut astu subegerat. Sed cum nobilem aliquem Hispanum interfecisset, Servus, natione Gallus, id non tulit et mortem Domini certa sua morte vindicaturus, Hasdrubalem occidit. Rapitur, torquetur, cruci affigitur. Inter omnia mala eo vultu ut ridentis etiam speciem praeberet, expleta ultione, sui securus. Marcus Antonius inter Romanos oratores et in dignitate viros nobilis fuit. Atque is foedo crimine (puto falso) incesti publice postulabatur. Accusator Servum maxime in quaestionem flagitabat quem dicebat praeluxisse hero suo ad flagitium eunti et laternam praetulisse. Aderat ipse servus, cum haec in

26–31 Val. Max. 3.3 ext.7; Liv. 21.2.6

32–456,11 Val. Max. 6.8.1

454 454

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 13 out troops and nearly without companions, Francis welcomed him in a kind and kingly manner, accommodated, and escorted him. They had various conversations, even about making peace by giving the Duchy of Milan to Charles, the king’s son (as had been suggested). But when the emperor had returned to his people and the internal commotion had been settled, he seemed rather slow to execute the matter, maybe because he had not thought seriously about it even before. So then the kindness, or credulity, of the king was attacked in the conversations of many: Why had he not kept the man on whom everything depended? When would there ever again be such a great occasion? One should have bravely endured some ill-will or even ignominy for such a remarkable advantage. He should at least have dictated more stable and certain conditions to him. For now, what had he achieved but empty fame among the common people and a laugh among the more prudent ones? Francis was not unaware of this and in a well-attended meeting of the noblemen, he uttered, among other things to justify himself, the following concluding words, Even if faithfulness were banished from the entire world, it should still be maintained by kings, who can be constrained and bound by this alone and by no fear. It is a remarkable saying and that is how it is. We, other people, are constrained by law or by punishment, princes only by shame or faithfulness. 15 Why should I close? The King of France brings us to another, elder king of that nation, namely John the First, who was defeated by Edward, Prince of Wales, in a huge massacre, captured and brought to England. After having been kept there for four years under quite free custody, he returned to his people, having agreed on specific conditions with the enemy. Nevertheless, when these seemed too oppressive to the subjects, and the cities which had to be handed over to the English would not easily admit a new yoke and guard, he personally crossed back to England to appease the enemy and to attest his faithfulness, and there he died from a disease. He was infamous for having suffered defeat, but famous for having endured it in this way, and most famous for his faithfulness. 16 But you, good kings and princes, forgive me and allow me to add the name of a slave to your illustrious group, not as a disgrace, but as pure light and splendour, to the extent, at least, that they will be looked at here. For there are also wonderful examples of faithfulness of slaves towards their masters or patrons, which cannot be kept silent but to the detriment of virtue. Hasdrubal was handling the situation in Spain and had subjected a great part of the country by violence or cunning. But when he had killed a certain Spanish nobleman, this man’s slave, who was a Gaul by origin, did not accept it, and to take revenge for his master’s death, although it would certainly mean his own death, he killed Hasdrubal. He was caught, tortured, and crucified. But in all that misery, his face was such that he still seemed even to laugh, unconcerned about himself, because the revenge had been accomplished. 17 Mark Antony was an outstanding man among Roman orators and high officials and was publicly accused (falsely, in my view) of the disgraceful crime of incest. The accuser especially demanded that a slave should be summoned for questioning, whom

455 455

Liber ii, Caput xiii

XVIII

XIX

iudicio dicerentur, et videbat rem ad suam pellem, quod dicitur, suosque cruciatus pertinere. Addo quod iuvenis erat, imberbis et in aetate adhuc minus aut patienti aut constante. Tamen cum domum ventum esset et herum suum animi anxium videret, Quid diffidis, here? inquit. In meo robore et constantia, si vis et expedit, spem audacter pone. Nullus metus, cruciatus, mors me adiget ut te et honorem tuum prodam. Minus arcto vinculo anima haec corpori illigata est quam affectus tibi. Nihil dividet, nullus dolor aut carnifex vocem laedenti tui ex ore isto extorquebit. Adeo non diffugio, deposco hoc certamen, in quo tibi annis tiro, animi veteranum robur probem. Erexit et fiduciae implevit Antonium, qui iterum poscentibus servum praebuit. Atque ille flagris virgisque laceratus, eculeo impositus, laminis adustus, mira patientia perstitit et omnem vim accusatorum fregit atque elisit. Accessit facundia Marci Antonii. Sed heus, quae tanta ut hunc conditione servum, animo heroëm satis celebret? Quid ille Urbinii Panopionis Servus? Qui cum proscriptus in villa sua Reatina lateret nec satis lateret (alii servi prodiderant), ecce advenientibus militibus ipse vestem heri subito induit, suam illi dedit anulo etiam in digitum inserto atque ita hero per posticum emisso ipse in lectulum se reposuit et pro illo occidi fortiter passus est. Cito id dictum, non tam cito suscipi aut susceptum fieri verus iudex dicet. Magna fides quae ultima est et post quam nec gratiae nec vitae ultra locus est. Antistii vero Restionis Servus (qui et ipse miserabili illo Triumviratus tempore inter proscriptos erat) ad fidem ingenium quoque adiunxit. Nam fugientem suum herum et, ut putabat, ignotum assecutus est et apprehendit, primo territum quoniam hic erat stigmatum perpetua iniuria ab eo affectus, eoque in re trepida vindictam timebat. At ille primum confidere eum iussit et, Ego te laedam? inquit. Qui tot annos aluisti, benigne fecisti? Absit. Nec ista stigmata plus apud me possint, meo merito imposita, quam vetera tua beneficia, in nec meritum collata. Quod servivi et servio fortunae iniuria est; tuum beneficium pressum non oppressisse. Divinitas hunc ordinem rerum disponit, et pareo. Tu, confide, tibi quoque parco. Et scis quomodo? Vel vitae huius periculo tuam servabo. Dixit breviter fideliterque. Et herum in speluncam abduxit atque ibi ex operis et mercede diurna aliquamdiu aluit. Sed cum milites, omnia ob praemium rimantes, ad speluncam quoque, aliquid suspicati, tenderent, ille subito senem viatorem abreptum occidit et exstructo rogo superiecit. Supervenientibus in re militibus et ferociter rogantibus, Quid ageret?, Quin, inquit, scelestum meum herum interfeci

14–18 Val. Max. 6.8.6

21–458,2 Val. Max. 6.8.7; App. BC 4.43

28–29 Quod...pareo deest A

29–30 Tu...Vel B: Confide. Ego vero et tegam et vel A

456 456

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 13 he said to have carried the lamp for his master and lit the way before him when he was on his way to commit the disgraceful act. The slave in question was present when these things were said in court and saw that the case was related to his hide, as they say, and the torture that awaited him. I add that he was a young man without a beard, still of an age of less endurance or constancy. Nevertheless, when he had come home and saw that his master was afraid, he said, Why do you despair, master? Be brave and place your hope in my strength and constancy, if you wish and if it is suitable. No fear, torture, or death will bring me to betray you and your honour. My soul is bound to this body by a bond less tight than that by which my heart is bound to you. Nothing will separate us, no pain or executioner will wring a word out of this mouth to harm you. Far from fleeing, I request this battle, in which I, just a recruit for you as far as years in service are concerned, may prove the veteran strength of my mind. He cheered Antony up and filled him with trust. When they asked for the slave again, he presented him to them. And mangled by whips and rods, put on a rack and burned by hot plates, he persevered with remarkable endurance and broke and shattered all the power of the accusers. To this was added the eloquence of Mark Antony, but oh, what eloquence is so strong that it can celebrate this man enough, who was a slave by condition, but a hero by character? 18 What about Urbinius Panopion’s slave? When Panopion was proscribed and was hiding in his villa in Rieti, but not hiding well enough (other slaves had betrayed him), behold how this slave quickly put on his master’s clothes when the soldiers arrived, and gave him his own, even putting his ring on his finger. And in this manner, sending his master away through the backdoor, he lay down on his bed and bravely suffered being killed in his place. That is more quickly said than done or made to be done, a true judge will say. Great is the faithfulness which is final and after which there is no longer a chance for either favour or life. 19 A slave of Antistius Restio (who was also among the proscribed in that miserable time of the Triumvirate) added intelligence to his faithfulness. For he followed and caught up with his master, who was fleeing and thought that nobody recognised him. He was afraid at first, since he had had the slave marked with the lasting injury of brands, and therefore he feared revenge in this critical situation. But the slave ordered him to have faith, and said: Would I harm you? You, who have fed me for so many years and treated me well? Far from it. These brands, which were deservedly put on me, do not have more influence over me than the benefits which you have bestowed on me in the past, while I did not deserve them. That I have been and am a slave is fate’s injustice; your benefaction consists in not having oppressed an already oppressed person. The divinity has arranged this order of things and I obey. Trust me: I will spare you, too. And do you know how? I will protect your life, even at the peril of mine. Thus he spoke briefly and honestly. And he took his master to a cave and fed him for a while from the daily wages for his labour. But when soldiers, who were turning over everything in search of a reward, also came towards the cave, suspecting something, he quickly carried off an old traveller, killed him, and placed him on top of a funeral pile which he had raised. When the soldiers came upon it and

457 457

Liber ii, Caput xiii

XX ∞CCCCXXIII

et crudelitatis huius ab eo (stigmata ostendebat) poenas exegi. Persuasit et herum servavit. Singulorum haec fides; plurium illa simul in eadem proscriptione. Nam Pomponius audaci astu arreptis insignibus Praetoriis ipse in praetexta, servi instar lictorum et cum fascibus exculti, urbem mediam transiere, arctius dominum stipantes ne ab obviis posset agnosci. Ad portam sumpsit conscenditque vehiculum publicum, ut Praetor, et per totam Italiam sic incessit, quasi legatus a Triumviris ad Sextum Pompeium iret. Itaque et triremi publice praebita in Siciliam, certissimum miseris tunc portum, transmisit. In tot hominibus, tot occasionibus et locis admiranda plurium fides et mente magis quam stilo pensanda. Addatur his non servus, sed cliens Roderici Davali, Magistri equitum in Hispania. Is Rodericus cum aliis aliquot postulatus maiestatis fuit et litterarum ad Iosephum, regem Maurum, scriptarum, quasi patriae prodendae. Plura exemplaria prolata, et res in consilio Regis cognita, atque ipse aliique damnati. Haesit in herili isto crimine Alvarus Nunnius Ferrerius, Cordubae natus, qui Praefectus aulae et domui Davali erat. Sed is strenue se herumque defendens, non prius quievit quam falsas litteras ostenderet earumque auctorem Ioannem Garsiam convinceret ac damnaret. Et ipse quidem se expedivit, sed magni illi mansere exsules cum ecce Ferrerius ad heri egestatem sublevandam omnia bona sua (quae beneficio patroni acceperat) divendidit et, octo aureorum millibus confectis, textrinae lignis excavatis, ea indidit atque asino imposita agente in viliore veste filio clam ad Davalum misit. Dignus, quem illustrissima ea gens etiamnunc in memoria et laude habeat et posteros, siqui exstant.

3–9 App. BC 4.45; Val. Max. 7.3.9

458 458

5

10

15

20

Book i1, Chapter 13 fiercely asked what he was doing, he said, I have killed my wicked master and exacted a punishment for this cruelty, which I have suffered from him (he showed the brands). He convinced them and saved his master. This is faithfulness of individuals, but there was also faithfulness of many at once during that proscription. For having stolen the praetorian insignia with audacious shrewdness, Pomponius crossed the centre of the city wearing a toga praetexta, accompanied by slaves adorned with fasces as lictors. They surrounded their master closely, so that he could not be recognised by those who met him. At the gate he took and climbed into a public vehicle like a praetor, and in this way he advanced through the whole of Italy, as if he were travelling as a messenger from the triumviri to Sextus Pompey. And so he also crossed in a public trireme to Sicily, a very safe harbour for the unfortunate in those days. The faithfulness of many towards so many people, on so many occasions and in so many places, should be admired and should be pondered with the mind rather than with a pen. 20 Not a slave, but a vassal of Rodrigo Davalos, chief of the cavalry in Spain, should be added to these. That Rodrigo was, together with some others, accused of high treason 1423 and of having written a letter to Joseph, King of the Moors, as if to betray his country. Many copies were produced; the case was investigated in the king’s council and he and others were condemned. Alvarus Nunnius Ferrerius, who was born in Cordoba, was implicated in that accusation against his master. He was the superintendent of the palace and household of Davalos. But defending himself and his master vigorously, he did not rest until he had proved that the letters were false and had had Juan García convicted and condemned as their author. And it is true that he extricated himself, but those great men remained in exile. But behold, then Ferrerius sold all his goods (which he had received through the favour of his patron) to relieve the poverty of his master, put the eight thousand pieces of gold which he gained in hollow pieces of wood from a weaver’s shop, loaded them on a donkey, driven by his son in very cheap dress, and sent them secretly to Davalos. A man who deserves to be remembered and praised by that very noble family even now, as well as his descendants, if there are any left.

459 459

Caput xiv DE MODESTIA IN SENSU. Hanc Principi decoram et utilem esse.

De Brevit. vit. cap. XVII

Diximus tres virtutes et commendavimus plane Regias et quae in publicum spectant. Sunt aliae velut Privatae, quae magis ipsum. Inter eas Modestia, quae vario adspectu Principi adsumenda. Primum, quia omnes homines decet submitti et ab Arrogantia fugere, scopulo virtutum. Sed magis Principem, qui in alto est et caussas plures sive occasiones Superbiae habet. Natura quidem haec corrupta eo vocat, et vani aut tumidi per eam sumus. Quid cum Fortunae ille ventus obsecundat et vela implet? Auferimur. Adde Educationem quae in aulis. Molliter, indulgenter, splendide habentur; obsequia et demissio omnium, etiam apud pueros. Qui non inflentur? Denique Adulatio accedit, o Aulae certa pestis! Blandiuntur assidue et laudant, honoribus ac titulis afficiunt, id est dementant. Non iure sic loquar? Vide Alexandrum illum, a tali patre, tali praeceptore: fastidit homo esse nec iam Philippi, sed Iovis filius audit. Iulius Caesar, ille animi et ingenii magnus, impingit et, omnium victor, Adulationi succumbit. Voces emittit, Debere iam homines consideratius secum loqui ac pro legibus habere quae dicat. Itane pro legibus omnia dicta? Difficile est credere virum talem sic elatum et ablatum. Caligulam, Domitianum, Commodum omitto et haec portenta, qui palam salutari et haberi, Dominus Deusque noster, volebant. Vide an temere ad Modestiam vocem. Et quae hodie peccentur, non dicam. Cave, cave, Princeps, et cogita supra homines te, sed hominem esse. Quamdiu autem esse? Mors imminet et aequabit. Quamdiu etiam esse? Tristis aliqua sors imminet et demittet. Regnas? Potes subiici. Dominaris? Potes servire. Quidquid alte se sustulit, opportunum est ad casum. Seneca noster: Nulli Fortunae minus bene quam optimae creditur. Alia felicitate ad tuendam felicitatem est opus. Videsne histriones in scaena personam Agamemnonis aut Priami gerere et mox, cum fabula peracta est, ad habitum et sortem veterem redire? Date veniam, Principes, tales estis. Deus personam in orbis theatro hanc imposuit: sustinete, agite, sed qui introrsim et apud vos sitis, cogitate. Choragus ille est, qui dedit ornamenta et, nisi refertis ad eum, aufert. Huc vocant magnorum regum Dicta vel Exempla. Et utraque ex magna copia cum dilectu quodam habe.

14–15 Val. Max. 9.5.ext.1 17–18 Suet. Iul. 77.1 22 Plin. paneg. 2.4 22–24 Lips. Pol. 2.15.1

460 460

19–20 Ps. Aur. Vict. epit. 11.6

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 14 ON MODESTY IN SPIRIT. It is suitable and useful for the prince. We have named and recommended three virtues which are distinctly regal and regard public life. There are others, as it were private ones, which rather regard the prince himself. Among them is modesty, which should be assumed by the prince in various aspects. First, because all men should be humble and shun arrogance, the cliff where virtues run aground; but more so the prince, who holds a high position and has more reasons or occasions for haughtiness. This corrupted nature of ours indeed invites us to it and we are vain or tumid because of it. What happens when that wind of fortune complies with our nature and fills its sails? We are carried away. Add the education which is given in courts: princes are treated with softness, indulgence, and sumptuousness. Everyone shows obedience and humility, even towards boys. How would they not be inflated? Finally flattery is added, that true plague of the court! Courtiers continuously flatter and praise the princes, bestow honours and titles upon them, that is, drive them out of their minds. Am I not right to say that? Look at the great Alexander, son of such a father, pupil of such a teacher: he despised being a human and was not named son ‘of Philip’, but ‘of Jupiter’. Julius Caesar, that man of great valour and intellect, crashed into flattery, and having conquered all, succumbed to it. He uttered that people now had to talk to him with more consideration and take what he said for law. So they should take everything he said for law? It is difficult to believe that such a man was so haughty and so strongly carried away. I omit Caligula, Domitian, Commodus, and those monsters, who openly wanted to be greeted and considered Our Lord and God. See whether I summon them to modesty without reason. And I will not even mention which sins are committed nowadays. Beware, beware, prince, and keep in mind that you are above men but still human. But for how long? Death is imminent and will make everyone equal. For how much longer? A miserable fate is imminent and will cast you down. Do you rule? You can be subjected. Are you lord and master? You can become a slave. Whatever exalts itself, is fit to fall. Our Seneca says: At no time is fortune less wisely trusted than when it is best. We need other prosperity to protect Sen. dial. 10.17.4 our prosperity. Do you see actors on the stage playing the role of Agamemnon or Priam and soon, when the play has been finished, return to their old clothes and situation? Forgive me, princes, but that is what you are like. God has put this character on the stage of the world: keep it up, act, but keep in mind who you are deep inside and at home. He is the director, Who has given you your costumes and if you do not bring them back to Him, He will take them away. This is what the sayings or examples of great kings invite us to. Here is a selection of both from a great number.

461 461

Liber ii, Caput xiv I

* ἀποκρότημα II

III

IV

V

VI

Sardanapalus, rex Assyriae, a deliciis et purpurata, ut ita loquar, vita innotuit. Tamen idem ab ebrietate longa sobrius, sepulchro incidi curavit symbolum quod ad Modestiam altissimos vocet. Erant digiti duo qui collisi inter se crepitum* edebant, signantes omnia regna, omnia votiva aut magna nec tanti esse. Sine aliis verbis ille hoc docuit, at Archidamus, Spartae rex, paucis et pro Lacone. Philippo enim Macedoni post victoriam ad Chaeroneam, qua libertas Graeciae concidit, insolentius se efferenti, scripsit, Metire umbram tuam, nihilo reperies auctiorem. O sapienter! Quid attollis te in hostibus victis, in finibus propagatis? Tibi nil accessit. Numquid animo? Curae maiores aut metus. Numquid corpori? Metire umbram; videbis. Sensit ipse Philippus. Cum aliquando in palaestra inter luctandum prolapsus surrexisset et corporis vestigium in arena vidisset, Papae, inquit, quam parvam terrae partem sortiti, orbem appetimus! Severus, Imperator Romanorum, diu in ambitione et ob eam bellis, senio confectus ac moriturus, urnam ad se deferri iussit in qua cineres (prisco illo more) erant recondendi. Et diu contrectans et contemplatus, vocem misit: Tu virum capies quem orbis terrae non capit. Ita, ita. – mors sola fatetur quantula sint hominum corpuscula. Attollere in vita, manus et spes ab Oriente ad Occasum mitte; illa contrahet et te intra te coget. Severus hoc sub mortem; diu ante eam Maximilianus, Primus Imperator Austriacus. Nam ille, memor fragilitatis huius, triennio (alii biennio) ante morbum, non solum mortem, capulum funebrem e querno ligno, arcae viatoriae inclusum, circumferri secum iussit cavitque testamento ut exanimum corpus suum, rudi linteo involutum, sine ulla exenteratione illi imponeretur, naribus, ore, auribusque viva calce oppletis. Quid sibi voluit magnus vir? Nisi monumentum illud assidue in oculis habere, quod diceret, Cogita mori. Quod amplius diceret, Quid te dilatas et extendis? Quid multa possides, plura appetis? Quem tot provinciae et regna non capiunt, loculus iste capiet. Cur autem et calcem cavis illis partium immisit? En aromata quibus condiretur! Sed hoc spectavit, ut corpus, putredini natum, ea quoque exedente et consumente materie citius consumeretur et iret in suam terram. Maximiliane, magnus fuisti! Et res tuae dicunt, tum et haec circa mortem. Sed amplius, ille idem pluribus diebus ante mortem nil nisi Maximilianus appellari voluit. Quod imitatus nepos eius, Carolus, cum raro et miro exemplo Imperio se ultro abdicasset et in filium, iam validum aevi et animi, curas

1–5 Ath. 12.39 6–9 Plu. Mor. 218 E 18–19 Iuv. 10.172-172

12–14 Plu. Mor. 602 D

462 462

15–18 D.C. 77.15.3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 14 1

2

3

4

5

6

Sardanapalus, King of Assyria, became known for his luxuriousness and his life clad in purple, so to speak. Nevertheless, when that same person was sober after a long drunkenness, he had a symbol carved on his grave, destined to summon the most highly placed people to modesty. It represented two fingers snapping,* meaning that *ἀποκρότημα all reigns and all desired or great things are not worth that much. He taught this without other words, but Archidamus, King of Sparta, did it in a few words and in a Laconic way. For he wrote to Philip of Macedon, who was being rather insolent and haughty after the victory at Chaeronea, where the freedom of Greece was destroyed: Measure your shadow and you will find that it has not grown at all. How wise! What exalts you when you defeat enemies and enlarge your territory? Nothing is added to you. To your mind? Greater concerns or fears. To your body? Measure your shadow and you will see. Philip himself sensed it once during wrestling: having fallen down, he stood up and saw the print made by his body in the sand. How strange, he said, that we try to conquer the world, while we have been allotted such a small part of the earth! When the Roman Emperor Severus, who lived for a long time in ambition and consequently in war, was weakened by old age and was dying, he ordered that the urn should be brought to him, in which his ashes (following that ancient habit) were to be buried. And touching and looking at it for a long time, he said, You will hold a man whom the world does not hold. Indeed, indeed. – Only death reveals how small human bodies are. Let yourself be exalted during your lifetime and send your forces and hope from the East to the West; that urn will confine you and force you to stay within yourself. That is what Severus did just before he died; Emperor Maximilian the First of Austria did it long before his death. Ever mindful of human frailty, he gave orders, three years (others say two) before his illness, not only before his death, to have an oaken coffin carried around with him, enclosed in a travelling chest, and made sure in his testament that his dead body would be placed in it, wrapped in a rough linen cloth, without having been disembowelled, and with his nose, mouth and ears completely filled with quicklime. What did this great man have in mind? Nothing but to continuously keep before his eyes that monument, which said: Remember that you will die. Moreover it said: Why do you enlarge and extend yourself? Why do you possess so much and try to acquire more? He who cannot be held within so many provinces and kingdoms will be held within that little space. Why did he put lime in those bodily orifices? There you have the perfumes with which he would be embalmed! But he intended to make sure that the body, which was born to rot, would be consumed and return to the earth more quickly with that substance helping to eat out and consume it. Maximilian, you were great! And your feats tell us that, but also these facts which surround your death. But moreover, many days before his death that same person did not want to be called anything but Maximilian. Which his grandson Charles imitated when, in a rare and wonderful example, he voluntarily abdicated the throne and entrusted its care to his son, who was already strong in years and mind. For he retired to Spain and hid in

463 463

Liber ii, Caput xiv

VII

In Onufrio VIII

IX

contulisset. Secessit enim in Hispaniam et in Divi Iusti monasterio septem a Placentia milliaribus se abdidit, cum duodecim dumtaxat familiaribus, Deo et quieti vacaturus. Interdixit autem aliter se quam Carolum appellari, Caesaris atque Augusti illa nomina cum rebus animo exuens et totum hoc honorari contemnens. Sed inter mundanos istos externosque Principes fas sit locum dare et Ecclesiae Principi ac capiti, Clementi Quarto, natione Gallo. Qui incredibile est quam se in summo illo culmine modeste gesserit et temperanter. Ante Pontificatum Iurisconsultus fuerat et filias ex uxore susceperat duas. Harum uni, in monasterium collocatae, non nisi triginta libras Turonenses semel dedit; alteri, quae maritum habebat, trecentas loco dotis idque hac lege, nequid umquam plus peteret. Nepoti quoque tria Beneficia, ut loquimur, habenti, optionem detulit unum retinendi, cetera statim dimittendi. Mirantibusque et instantibus amicis ut et illa permitteret et alia daret, in claram hanc vocem erupit, Non esse dignum Petri successorem qui plus cognationi quam pietati largiretur. Exstat epistola viri sancti ad nepotem quemdam suum, ab Antonio Augustino provulgata, in qua et voces et sensus videre est ab ipsa Modestia conceptos. Sed Canuti etiam, Anglorum regis, insigne ad Modestiam documentum est. Qui cum obsideretur ab Adulatoribus, id est corvis aulicis, et sortem eius attollerent dicerentque omnia servire et ad nutum eius vultumque (verba Annalium) converti, ille foedam adulationem sic repressit. Spectantibus iis sedem regiam in litore maris posuit, in ipso accessu eius et fluxu. Tum dixit: Tu, mare, ditionis meae es; et terra in qua sedeo, est mea. Impero tibi et denuncio ne in terram meam ascendas nec membra nec vestem domini tui madore perfundas. Ille dixerat; mare tenorem suum tenebat, veniebat, alluebat. Tum resiliens, En, inquit, quam ego omnibus imperito! Quin sciant omnes qui terram incolunt, vanam et falsam esse regum potentiam, atque unum eo nomine dignum qui vere imperium inhibet caelo, terrae, mari. Neque intra verba Modestia haec stetit. In omni actione talem se praebuit atque adeo coronam ultra in caput non admisit. Haec invitent et excitent, sed Mutationum exempla, quae addam, fortius etiam percellant. Quot enim ea sunt? Et quam paucis Fortuna currum a carceribus ad metam sine offensa aut eversione perduxit? In omni aevo et in omni orbe occurrent. In Aegypto Sesostris rex hoc didicit et imbibit. Victor erat vicinorum et imperium longe protenderat. Sed et animum evexerat et quattuor reges equorum vice currui suo subiungebat quo vehebatur. In eo

33–466,5 D.S. 1.58

464 464

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 14 the monastery of San Yuste, seven miles from Plasencia, with only twelve domestic servants, to devote himself to God and rest. He forbade the use of any other title for himself than Charles, casting those of Emperor and Majesty from his mind together with his possessions, and wholly disdaining to be honoured in that way. 7 But among those worldly and foreign princes, let it be allowed to grant a place also to an ecclesiastical prince and leader, Clement the Fourth, who was of French origin. It is incredible how modestly and moderately he behaved in that highest of positions. Before his pontificate he had been a lawyer and had begotten two daughters by his wife. To one of them, whom he placed in a convent, he only gave thirty pounds struck at Tours, on one occasion; to the other, who had a husband, three hundred as a dowry, and this on condition that she would never ask for more. He gave his nephew, who had three benefices, as we say, the choice to keep one and give up the others immediately. To his friends who were surprised and insisted that he should permit these benefices and grant others, he exclaimed in these illustrious words: He who gives more to family than to piety is not a worthy successor of Peter. There is a letter from the holy man to one of his nephews, published by Antonio Agustín, showing that his words and In Onofrio ideas were conceived by modesty itself. 8 But there is also the famous lesson in modesty by Canute, King of England. When he was beset by toadies, that is by the magpies of the court, and they were exalting his fortune and saying that everything served him and was turned at his will and expression (the words of the Annals), he repressed that foul fawning as follows. While they were watching, he placed his throne on the seashore just when the tide was coming in. He then said: You, sea, are in my power and the land on which I sit, is mine. I command and order you not to ascend onto my land and not to soak the limbs or the clothes of your master. So he spoke; the sea, keeping its course, came and washed against him. Then he sprang back and said: Look how I command everything! Indeed, may everyone who inhabits the earth know that the power of kings is vain and false, and that only He who truly exerts authority over heaven, earth, and sea is worthy of that name. But this modesty was not limited to words. In every deed he showed himself to be such and indeed no longer allowed a crown on his head. 9 May these invite and stimulate, but may the examples of changes, which I will add, impel even more strongly. For how many of those are there? And for how few did fortune drive the chariot from start to finish without striking or overturning them? These examples will occur in every period and all over the world. In Egypt, King Sesostris learned and imbibed this. He had defeated his neighbours and expanded his empire extensively. But it had gone to his head, and he harnessed four kings instead of horses to the chariot in which he was carried. When he was sitting high up there, one of those kings turned his head backwards, looked repeatedly at the chariot’s wheel, and seemed to be caught up and absorbed by it. Sesostris asked what the matter was; he frankly said, I observe this continuous rotation of the wheel, in which the bottom becomes the top and the top the bottom in turn, which I take as an example and apply to our fortune.

465 465

Liber ii, Caput xiv

X

XI

cum sublimis sederet, regum illorum unus capite reflexo identidem rotam currus aspiciebat et capi ac pasci videbatur. Quid rei sit Sesostris rogat. Ille libere, Intueor volumen hoc assiduum rotae, in qua vicissim ima summa et summa ima fiunt. Quod exemplum capio et applico nostrae fortunae. O bene! Potuisset tamen addere, et tuae. Sed Sesostris ipse fecit et statim illos a iugo, se a fastu liberavit. Solonis etiam monitum tale, sed non apud talem: neque doceri, nisi malo suo, aptum. Apud Croesum erat Lydiae, divitem illum regem. Qui Solonem comiter, ut peregrinum, excipiens et gazam omnem atque opes ostentans, Et quid videtur? Habes dicere hominem me beatiorem? Habeo, inquit Solon et Tellum quendam, hominem modicae sortis, sed in ea quietum, nominavit, tum et duos alios qui vita bene acta essent defuncti. Risit Croesus, et nos quo loco sumus? Haud dixerim, ait Solon. Nec fas beatum etiam censere qui in his vitae fluctibus iactatur donec sit in portu. Nonne tempestas intervenire potest et turbo qui evertat? Nec sic hominem docuit, sed fecit mox Cyrus. Nam ille acie victum et vinctum rogo imposuit exurendum cum Croesus clamare incoepit, O Solon, Solon! Miratus Cyrus, rogari iubet, Quem in extrema illa sorte hominum deorumve invocaret? Dixit, Solonem sibi in mente esse, qui sapienter monuisset non fidere praesenti fortunae nec beatitudinem ante finem vindicare. Risi, inquit, nunc probo et miror. Probavit et Cyrus statimque ad modestiam etiam ipse flexus, liberari Croesum iussit et in amicos transscripsit. Addamus, quamquam aevo dissitum, sensibus exemplum assitum Gilimeris, regis in Africa Vandalorum. Diu felix fuerat, opes terrasque victoriis quaesiverat. Vertit se Fortuna, et Belisarius, a Iustiniano Imperatore missus, cum exigua manu hominem evertit. Acie igitur victus, fugit in Numidiae excelsum montem Pappum atque illic obsidione aliquamdiu tolerata desperans ad Pharam misit, qui mandato Belisarii obsidebat, actum super deditione simulque petitum, Panem sibi mitti, spongiam et citharam. Panem fami relevandae, spongiam siccandis oculis, citharam leniendo animo. Dedit ea Pharas, et mox sese Gilimer. Qui ad Belisarium deductus, nil nisi risit. Desipere eum e cladibus homines censebant; vera sapientia erat qua incerta haec rerum, usu edoctus, ridebat. Idque apertius in ipso triumpho ostendit. Cum per pompam Byzantii ad

6–20 Plu. Sol. 27-28 25–28 Proc. Vand. 2.6.30-33 31–468,4 Proc. Vand. 2.9.10-13

466 466

28–31 Proc. Vand. 2.7.14-15

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 14 Well said! Still, he could have added, and yours. But Sesostris did so himself and immediately freed them from the yoke and himself from haughtiness. 10 Solon’s warning was similar, but not with a similar person: this person could not be taught but through his own misfortune. He was staying with Croesus of Lydia, that wealthy king. He received Solon kindly, as a foreigner, and showing him all his treasures and riches, he asked, And what do you think? Can you name a man who is more fortunate than I? I can, Solon said, and he named a certain Tellus, a man of modest fortune, but who was happy with that; then also two others who had died after a life well spent. Croesus laughed, And where are we? I cannot say, Solon told him. It is not right to judge someone fortunate who is still being tossed about on the waves of this life, until he has reached the harbour. Is it not true that a storm can intervene and a whirlwind that overthrows him? But he did not teach the man in this way, but Cyrus soon did. For he put Croesus, defeated in a battle and bound, at the stake to burn, when he started to shout, O Solon, Solon! Cyrus was surprised and gave orders to ask him which man or god he invoked in this final predicament. He answered that he had Solon in mind, who had wisely warned him not to rely on his present fortune and not to claim to be blessed before the end. I laughed, he said, but now I approve and admire it. Cyrus approved as well, and instantly turning to modesty himself, he ordered that Croesus should be released and assigned him into his circle of friends. 11 Let us add an example that is remote in time, but nevertheless close to our sentiments, of Gelimer, King of the Vandals in Africa. He had been fortunate for a long time and had obtained riches and land through victories. But fate changed and Belisarius, sent by Emperor Justinian, overthrew the man with only a small army. So then, defeated in battle, he fled to the high Mount Pappus in Numidia and sustained a siege there for a while, and when he had lost hope, he sent a message to Pharas, who was keeping him under siege on Belisarius’ command, to negotiate surrender and at the same time ask him to send him bread, a sponge, and a lute. Bread to relieve his hunger, a sponge to dry his eyes, and a lute to soothe his soul. Pharas gave him these and soon Gelimer surrendered. When he was brought to Belisarius, he just laughed. People thought that he had gone mad on account of the calamities which he had suffered, but it was true wisdom that made him laugh at this uncertainty of affairs, taught by experience. He showed that more openly in the triumphal procession itself. When he was brought in the parade through Byzantium to Justinian and his wife Theodora, who were sitting on an elevated throne, he just said, Vanity of vanities and all is vanity. O good Gelimer, happy is your misery, which gave you this spirit! And the private and calm life which you led in a corner of Gaul afterwards was not unhappy.

467 467

Liber ii, Caput xiv

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

Iustinianum et Theodoram coniugem, in sublimi solio sedentes, adductus, hoc tantum effatus est, Vanitas vanitatum, et omnia vanitas. O bone Gilimer, felix tua infelicitas, quae mentem hanc dedit! Nec vita deinceps infelix quam in Galliae angulo privatus quietusque duxisti. In eadem Africa, sed vetustiore aevo non alium regem video vinci, capi, triumphari? Iugurtha is fuit, Masanissae nepos, opibus et ingenio validus, sed tamen a Mario devictus. Romam ducitur et post triumphalem illusionem in carcerem coniectus, veste spoliatur, inaures, quas more gentico ferebat, detrahuntur sic ferociter ut partem imam auris senserit avelli. Tum denique nudus in carcerem infimum abiectus, taetrum et horridum, Papae, inquit, quam frigidum est vestrum balneum! atque inibi fame obiit. Quid Rex e Macedonia Perses? Is quoque victus a Romanis et animo fractus, ad religionem templi in Samothrace confugit, quasi sacra tueri possent quem non arma. Intutum igitur asylum: fraude vel vi eductus est et cum uxore et liberis ad Aemilium Paullum Consulem perductus. Ibi solutus in lacrimas et humiles preces, ad genua etiam se submisit, miserante Paullo et simul indignante quod homo sic vilis et degener victoriae suae decus delibaret. Triumphatus deinde est cum duobus filiis et filia; ipse in carcere, et duo mortui, tertius servatus. Quid nisi iterum ludibrium? Regia illa stirps primo fabrili arte vitam toleravit et usu iam Latini sermonis aliquo scriba et assecla magistratuum fuit. Ubi es, Confidentia aut Superbia? Ante illum et maior illo Philippus, eiusdem Macedoniae rex et Magni pater, quam sensit infidam sortem? Graeciam ferro vel auro suam fecerat, spes in Asiam mittebat. Et iam conventus indictus erat ubi caput et Praefectus eius belli legeretur. Quem ut celebriorem laetioremque faceret, nuptias in eum contulit filiae suae Cleopatrae cum Alexandro, Epiri rege. Ludi et theatra parantur, etiam sacra et duodecim Deorum statuae in pompa ferendae, quibus ipsius (o caeca mortalitas!) decimatertia adderetur. Quid laetitiae aut gloriae abest? Diuturnitas. Et dum securum se putat et theatrum ingreditur, Pausanias ex amicis (et hoc inopinatum) a tergo consecutus interficit. Vis iterum inopinatum? Conscendit ille celerem equum et evaserat nisi pes eius in vite adhaesisset, ubi a satellite Philippi confectus est. Sed quid ego talia memorem? Una illa Graecia, praesertim a Constantino Magno, qui imperium in eam transtulit, tot exempla casuum istorum det ut non sit opus alio theatro. Quid in Italia? Ab Augusto ad eumdem Constantinum

2 Ecclesiastes 2:1 16.91-94

6–11 Plu. Mar. 12.2-4

468 468

12–21 Plu. Aem. 26-37

22–32 D.S.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 14 12

On the same continent, Africa, but in earlier times, do I not see another king being defeated, captured, and carried in a triumphal procession? That was Jugurtha, grandson of Masinissa, who was strong because of his riches and intelligence, but was nonetheless defeated by Marius. He was taken to Rome and after being ridiculed in the triumph, he was thrown in jail and deprived of his clothes; the earrings, which he wore following the fashion of his people, were ripped away so violently that he felt his earlobes being torn off. When he was finally thrown naked into the deepest hideous and horrid cell of the prison, he said, Strange how cold your bath is, and died there of starvation. 13 What about King Perseus of Macedon? He was also defeated by the Romans and, his spirit broken, sought asylum in the sacred temple of Samothrace, thinking that the sacred could protect him when weapons could not. But it was an unsafe sanctuary: he was led out by deceit or force and brought with his wife and children to Consul Aemilius Paullus. There he broke down in tears and humble prayers and even threw himself down on his knees. Paullus felt pity and was at the same time outraged that by behaving in such a vile and ignoble way, this man took away some of the glory of his victory. He was carried in the triumphal procession afterwards, with his two sons and his daughter; he himself was thrown into prison and two of his children were killed; the third was saved. But for which purpose other than to be mocked again? This scion of a royal family sustained his life, first with the art of a craftsman, and when he had learnt some Latin, he became secretary and servant of magistrates. Where are you, overconfidence or haughtiness? 14 Before him and greater than he was Philip, also King of Macedon and father of Alexander the Great. How much did he feel the treacherous nature of fate? He had appropriated Greece with arms or money, and was directing his hopes towards Asia. And a meeting had already been announced, at which he would be elected as leader and commander in that war. And to make the meeting more well-attended and cheerful, he had arranged for the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander, King of Epirus, to be held there. Games and theatres were prepared and also religious ceremonies and twelve statues of the gods to be carried in a procession, to which he added a thirteenth, representing himself (oh, blind mortality!). What was lacking from this happiness or glory? Long duration. And while he thought he was safe and entered the theatre, Pausanias, one of his friends, (and that was unexpected) followed behind him and killed him. Do you want another unexpected thing? The killer mounted his fast horse and would have escaped, had his foot not become trapped in a vine, where he was killed by one of Philip’s guards. 15 But why would I bring such things to mind? Greece alone, especially from Constantine the Great onwards, who transferred the seat of power to Greece, could offer so many examples of similar cases that there would be no need for another theatre. What about Italy? From Augustus to the same Constantine forty-three emperors can be counted. Think about it: of these you can hardly name ten for sure, who died a natural death.

469 469

Liber ii, Caput xiv

XVI

XVII ∞CCXVII

∞CCCXC ∞CCCLXIX

XVIII

numerantur Imperatores quadraginta tres. Dispice. Vix decem ex istis certo dabis qui sua morte sint defuncti. Alios ferrum, venenum, laqueus abstulit – a filio, fratre, uxore, amico, inimico. Quid nisi singulos iustae tragoediae argumentum? Iam et fati alia genera miseranda. Polycratem in cruce mori video, Baiasitem in cavea, Dionysium in schola, Boleslaum Poloniae in culina. Quid Antiochum Syriae, nonne a latronibus occisum? Pyrrhum a faemina? Henricum nuper Galliae a monacho? In sola Hispania tria haec demus, et quartum alii. Henricus Primus puer sceptrum ceperat nec diu tenuit, post biennium miro casu, et vere casu, sublatus. Nam dum Palentiae in area domus cum aequalibus ludit, tegulae lapsae ictu repente caput comminutum, et ex vulnere undecimo post die obiit. Ioannes itidem primus, in flore rerum et aetatis (annum trigesimum tertium agebat), dum equum iuveniliter calcaribus incitat et ad cursum admittit, cum eo labente lapsus, inibi exstinctus est. Magis tragicum est de Petro. Qui cum aliquamdiu saeviter et multa procerum caede regnasset, Henricus frater arma in eum cepit et auxilia e Gallia etiam conduxit. Pugnatum acriter, quam odiis pertinacibus exitus docuit. Nam victus Petrus, cum in conspectum Henrici captus adductus esset, iste pugione faciem eius percutit atque alter dum vindicare parat, foede colluctati, uterque ad terram prosternitur. Sed aliis quoque suppetiantibus Henricus superior fratrem multis vulneribus conficit et regnum capit. Nonne hoc Thebanum vetus illud par fuit? Quartum exemplum in mente habeo, nondum in stilo. In isto, quintum. Et est Sebastiani, nuper Lusitaniae et Indiarum regis - Indole, proh, quanta iuvenis! - sed Fata eum everterunt et ipsum regnum verterunt. Iuvenis erat, animorum plenus, et accedebant qui etiam Pietatis specie illos tollerent et arma in Mauros exque iis victorias suaderent aut sponderent. Acrior stimulus Mahumetes, Abdalae filius, profugus e Fessae regno, qui ius suum et amicos ostendebat et largiter promittebat exsulum ingenio et more. Ergo excitatur et omnia parat, naves, milites, commeatus, praeter consilia, quorum inops tunc et postea fuit. Vetus regnum et alta pace commovetur. Insolens armorum nobilitas et facta maiorum facilius quam sua ostentans. Additur et mercenarius miles. Dux nusquam nisi in titulo et splendore regis. Mare transeunt, regna Fessae et Marocci, ut destinant, occupaturi. Sed rex

5 Lips. Mon. 1.5.2.2; Val. Max. 6.9.ext.5 5–6 Lips. Mon. 1.5.2.4; Leuncl. Ann. 64 6 Lips. Mon. 1.5.3.1; Val. Max. 6.9.ext.6 | Cromer. de orig. et reb. gest. Polon. 4 (1568: 62) 6– 7 Iust. 27.3 7 Plu. Pyrrh. 34.2 9–12 Marian. Hist. 12.6 13–15 Marian. Hist. 18.13 15–22 Marian. Hist. 17.13 24–472,20 Conest. ist. 1-2

470 470

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 14 Others were taken by arms, poison, or the rope – by a son, brother, wife, friend, or enemy. If anything, every single one of them provides the subject for a just tragedy. 16 But other types of fate have to be deplored, too: I see Polycrates dying on the cross, Bayezid in a cage, Dionysius in a school, Boleslaw of Poland in a kitchen. What about Antiochus of Syria: was he not killed by robbers? And Pyrrhus by a woman? And recently Henry of France by a monk? 17 Let us give three examples of this in Spain alone and let others give a fourth. Henry the First had received the sceptre as a boy, but did not keep it for long, as he 1217 was killed two years later by a miraculous coincidence, which was truly an accident. For while he was playing with boys of his own age in the courtyard of the palace in Palencia, his head was suddenly crushed by a blow from a falling tile and he died eleven days later from the injury. In the same way, when John the First, in the bloom 1390 of his condition and his youth (he was thirty-three years old), spurred his horse in the way young men do and let it run, the horse fell, and he fell with it and died there. More tragic is what happened to Peter. When he had ruled cruelly for some time, 1369 with many killings of noblemen, his brother Henry took up arms against him and even assembled auxiliary troops from France. There was a vehement fight and the outcome showed with how bitter hatred it was fought. For when Peter had been defeated and was captured and brought before Henry, he struck Henry’s face with a dagger, and while the other prepared for revenge, they engaged in unseemly wrestling and both of them were thrown to the ground. But when others, too, came to his assistance, Henry got the upper hand and killed his brother with many wounds and conquered the kingdom. Is this not equal to what happened in ancient Thebes? I have a fourth example in mind, but not yet in writing. 18 But I do have a fifth example in writing: that of Sebastian, who was recently King of Portugal and the Indies – Oh, with what great spirit was the young man endowed! – but fate overthrew him and destroyed the kingdom. He was young and full of courage and was approached by people who raised his spirits even under the pretext of piety and urged him to take up arms against the Moors and promised victories over them. An even stronger incentive was Mehmed, son of Abdallah, a fugitive from the Kingdom of Fès, who showed and generously promised his right and friends, after the character and custom of exiles. So Sebastian was encouraged and prepared everything: ships, soldiers, supplies, everything but plans, which he lacked then and later. The old kingdom, which had been profoundly at peace, was stirred. The nobility was unaccustomed to weapons and found the deeds of their ancestors easier to display than their own. An army of mercenaries was added. There was no leader to be found except in the title and splendour of the king. They crossed the sea to occupy the Kingdoms of Fès and Morocco, as planned, but their king, Muley Molucco, who was weak in body but stronger in mind, came forth against them. The armies were drawn up in order of battle, there was a fight and Muley participated, although he could hardly stay on his horse because of his illness. He saw his men being driven hither and thither or fleeing,

471 471

Liber ii, Caput xiv

XIX

illorum ex adverso prodit, Moleius Moluccus, corporis aeger, animo melior. Disponuntur acies, pugnatur, Moleius interest, etsi per aegritudinem vix in equo haerens. Videt autem fluctuare suos aut fugere et generosa ira in hostem ipse equum concitat, exemplo aut terrori futurus. Sed proximi retinent, gnari virium. Qua re ita excanduit, quasi in ordinem redactus aut proditus, ut gladio eos petierit et, mox animo linquens, in lecticam repositus, illic in ipsa acie obiit. Sed mira fides aut provisio amicorum fuit. Silentium de morte, cursus et recursus ad lecticam eius, quasi a vivo mandata peterentur. Quae res victoriam parti illi dedit. Nam Christiani pauci in plures paullatim fatigari aut cedere; multi cadere; postremum ipse rex, qui in mediis hostium pugnabat, cum videt omnia adversa, cinctum se sine spe effugii, verba de pace aut deditione facere. Ah, quam sero! Hostes invadunt et occidunt, sive inter plures ignotum (et quidam aiunt regia insignia sibi detraxisse) sive cognitum, sed rixa inter ipsos orta, quorum praeda esset, per iram interemptum. Addunt equestri sellae cadaver impositum et in tentorium novi regis Afri (frater defuncti erat) delatum abiectumque ostentui fuisse donec a captivis bona fide agnosceretur. Ita ille obiit, et simul rex tertius, Mahumetes exsul, qui fugere et fluvium vadere conatus, vorticibus sive voragine haustus mersusque est. O acerbi fati adolescens, quae tulisti et quae dedisti! Nam tecum regnum corruit, et quod seorsim diu luxit splenduitque, velut radius rediit ad suum Solem. Assiduus hic ludus, et ideo non sit finis narrationum nisi reprimam. Quod facio, sed unicum insigne exemplum Mutationis effatus, in qua et manus carnificis intervenit. Conradinus, imperatoria et regia stirpe iuvenis, ultimus Ducum Sveviae fuit. Pater ei Conradus, rex Neapoleos et Siciliae; mater e Ducibus Bavariae; avus Fridericus Secundus Imperator; avia Constantia, filia Ferdinandi, Hispaniae regis, fuit. Quam amplum et illustre hoc stemma! Quos animos non faciat? Quae fata non promittat? Sed spes undique destituit, et statim a puero adversa sorte regna Neapolitana et Sicula, iure debita, Manfredus patruus fraude invasit, vi tenuit. Cum ille abiisset aut pulsus esset, auctoritate Pontificis (Clemens quartus tunc erat, Gallici sanguinis et genti fautor) Carolus Andegavensis advocatur et invadit. Quem Conradinus dum pellere conatur, copias contrahit, e Germania in Italiam venit multa nobilium manu. Inter eos Friderico, Duce Austriae, cognato suo. Sed et Itali se iungunt, quidam ius eius, plures commoda vel affectus suos spectantes. Pugna cum Carolo commissa primo victor, denique vincitur. Et fugit cum eodem Friderico Austrio per igno-

23–474,35 Collen. Hist. 4 (1572: 177-187; 196-198)

472 472

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 14 and in noble anger he spurred his horse against the enemy, to serve as an example or to terrify them, but those close to him kept him back, knowing his weakness. This made him furious, just as though he had been brought in line or betrayed – so furious that he attacked them with his sword, but he soon fainted, was put on a litter, and died there on the battlefield itself. But the faithfulness or foresight of his friends was remarkable. Keeping silent about his death, they ran back and forth to his litter, as if asking for orders from a living person, which gave the victory to that side. For the few Christians, who were outnumbered, gradually tired and retreated; many fell. Finally, when the king himself, who was fighting in the midst of the enemies, saw that everything was against him and that he was surrounded without any hope of escape, he talked about peace or surrender. Ah, far too late! The enemy attacked and killed him, either because he was not recognised in the mass (and some say that he had torn off his royal insignia) or because he was recognised, but was killed in anger after a dispute had arisen among his enemies about whose booty he was. His corpse was placed on the saddle of a horse and brought to the tent of the new African king (the brother of the deceased) and thrown down and put on display until he was recognised by trustworthy captives. In this way he died, and at the same time a third king died, namely the exiled Mehmed, who tried to escape by crossing a river but was swallowed and immersed by a vortex or whirlpool. O young man of bitter fate, what did you take and what did you give? For with you the kingdom collapsed, and what shone brightly on its own for a long time returned like a ray to its sun. 19 This game is unremitting. Therefore this series of tales would not come to an end unless I limit it. Which I will do, but only after having related a unique and remarkable example of change, in which even the hand of an executioner intervened. Conradin, a young man of imperial and royal descent, was the last of the Dukes of Swabia. His father was Conrad, King of Naples and Sicily; his mother descended from the Dukes of Bavaria; his grandfather was Emperor Frederick the Second, his grandmother Constance, daughter of King Ferdinand of Spain. What a wide and illustrious genealogy! What courage would it not create! What future would it not promise! But hope abandoned him on all sides, and from his boyhood onwards fate turned against him. His uncle Manfred invaded the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily through deceit and occupied by force that which legally belonged to Conradin. When Manfred had departed or had been driven out, Charles of Anjou was summoned at the instigation of the Pope (that was Clement the Fourth at the time, who was of French origin and favoured this nation) and invaded the territory. Trying to expel him, Conradin assembled troops and went from Germany to Italy with a large force of noblemen, among whom was his kinsman Frederick, Duke of Austria. But also Italians joined him, some concerned with his rights, but most with their own advantage and sympathies. He engaged in battle against Charles and was winning at first, but was defeated later and fled with the same Frederick of Austria through parts of Italy which were unknown to him, frightened and disguised in the clothes of stable-boys. Thus they reached

473 473

Liber ii, Caput xiv

tam Italiam, trepidi et agasonum habitu se occultantes. Ita Asturam ventum, ubi consilium capiunt navis conscendendae et Pisas dirigendae, sociam et fidam urbem. Conveniunt cum naviculatore et iam in navi erant, sed panis et commeatus deerat, quem mittunt eumdem illum praestinatum. Pecunia etiam deerat. Ergo annulum alter a digito detrahit, sive pignus naviculario sive pretio ab eo permutandum. Is annulus gemmam raram et aestimatam habebat. Itaque aurifex miratus a sordido homine deferri et suspectans, Unde habeat? quaerit. Ille candide, A duobus iuvenibus, ingenui vultus et sanguinis, sed habitu et veste squallidis. Neque ultra se scire. Defertur res ad Dynastam urbis (qui tunc illi propius erat), Ioannem, e gente Frangipanum, atque is ex eventu praelii et fama tale suspicatus, navem instrui iubet, adolescentes retrahi et ad se duci. Dictum, factum: sistuntur, agnoscuntur. Et putabant extra periculum se, quia extra hostile solum erant, esse. Aliter accidit pravitate sive avaritia Dynastae. Nam is Carolo indicat. Qui statim cum copiis terra marique advolat et captivos suos Neapolim abducit. Quid expectas? Aliquid regium? Pudor est Andegavensis stirpis aut macula quod dicam. Diu deliberato concluditur tollendos adolescentes et publice capite minuendos. Quid? Ut sicarios aut praedones? Qui ius suum repetierant? Qui bellum intulerant et iure ac more gentium administrarant? Omnia in hoc facto saevitiam et barbariem habent, etsi Pontificem etiam obtendunt atque illum consensisse aut suasisse. Alterum potest, vix alterum. Sed aestimatio aliorum etiam esto, in re autem istud. Producuntur in scaenam publicam; concursus ad tale spectaculum e tota Italia; plerique omnes miserantur et illacrimantur, sed nemo, nisi inani favore, iuvat. Conradinus animose loquitur, Carolum accusat, se excusat, Deum vindicem invocat et ius suum in haec regna Henrico Castellano, amitae suae filio, donat. Huic rei tesseram chirotecam exuit abiicitque. Tum Fridericus primus ingeniculare iubetur et caput inciditur. Quod sublatum e tabulato Conradinus (quis sine motu audiat?) pectori appressum, deinde ori applicuit et sortem miseram eius deflevit, cui auctor ipse esset. Tum et ipse in genua provolvens, fortiter carnificem exspectat, qui caput amputat. Et cum fecisset, statim alius hunc interficit ne exstaret qui iactaret generosum illum sanguinem a se sublatum. Hoc unum Carolus magno in speciem animo; cetera feritatem habent. Etiam illud, quod ipse spectator supplicii esse sustinuit, in alta quadam turri occultus. Illi obierunt, nec diu victoria aut regnis Caroli posteri gavisi sunt, et Hispani (an non morituri voce et voto?) eiecerunt.

474 474

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 14 Astura, where they decided to board a ship and sail to Pisa, an allied and faithful city. They met with the captain and were already on board, but there was no bread or other supplies, so they sent the man to purchase some. Since there was no money either, one of them took a ring from his finger, either to give to the captain as a pledge or to have him exchange it for money. That ring had a rare and valuable gem, so the goldsmith was surprised that it was brought by a sordid man and asked suspiciously where he got it from. He honestly said, From two young men of noble face and blood, but dirty appearance and clothes, and that he knew nothing more. This was reported to the dynast of the city, Giovanni, (who was in the neighbourhood at the time) of the Frangipani family. Suspecting something like that from the outcome of the battle and from rumours, he gave orders to prepare a ship, remove the young men, and bring them to him. What was said was done: they were stopped and recognised. And they thought that they were out of danger since they were outside the enemy’s territory. It happened otherwise due to the viciousness or greed of the dynast. For he revealed the matter to Charles, who immediately rushed there by sea and by land with his troops and took his captives away to Naples. What would you expect? Something suitable for a king? What I will say is a shame or disgrace for the family of Anjou. After lengthy deliberations the decision was taken to kill the young men and behead them publicly. What? Like murderers or robbers? When they had asked to have their rights back? When they had waged war and had performed it according to the law and custom of nations? Everything was cruel and barbarous in this act, although they pleaded, as their excuse, the Pope and the fact that he had agreed to or even urged it. The one is possible, but hardly the other. Let others, too, judge about that, this is, anyhow, what happened. They were brought forth on a scaffold in public; all Italy came running to see such a spectacle; most of them felt pity and cried, but nobody helped but by showing useless sympathy. Conradin spoke bravely, accused Charles, justified himself, invoked God as his avenger, and gave his rights over these kingdoms to Henry of Castile, his aunt’s son. As a token of this he took off his glove and threw it away. Then Frederick was ordered as the first to kneel and his head fell; Conradin took it up from the boards and pressed it to his breast (who could listen to this without being moved?) and then to his mouth, and wept over his miserable fate, of which he himself was the author. Then he, too, fell to his knees and bravely awaited the executioner, who cut off his head. And when that executioner had done so, another immediately killed him in turn, so that nobody would survive to boast that he had spilled that noble blood. That was the only thing that Charles did which was noble in appearance, the rest was savage – even the fact that he endured watching the punishment, hiding in a high tower. They died, but Charles’ descendants did not enjoy his victory or kingdoms for long, for the Spanish expelled them (why, if not by the words and wish of the dying man?).

475 475

Caput xv DE MODESTIA IN CULTU, et hanc convenire; elegantiam aut pompam non convenire.

I

II

III

IV

Et praecipuum quidem est animum sic affectum esse. Sed ut corpore idem prodatur, quidni decorum sit? Aurum, gemmae, serica non digna sunt ornamenta magno Principe. Et negotiator aliquis aut mango ea usurpet. Quis etiam nescit Principi in mundo haec esse? Habet gestatque si velit, sed maioris animi est seposuisse. Sane egregios aliquot Principum sic factitasse video et plebi virtute eminuisse, cultu consensisse. Augustum apud Romanos, de quo Suetonius: Instrumenti eius et supellectilis tenuitas apparet etiamnunc residuis lectis atque mensis, quorum pleraque vix privatae elegantiae sunt. Ne toro quidem cubuisse aiunt nisi humili et modice instrato. Veste non temere alia quam domestica usus est, ab uxore, sorore et filia neptibusque confecta. Ut alia omittam, vide an vestis illi trans mare petenda qui non nisi domo sumptam et confectam gestavit. Alexander Severus, plane inter bonos Imperator, gemmas lapillosque omnes quos in Palatio repperit, vendidit, addens, Gemmas viris usui non esse. Idem nec apparatu nec pompa multum utebatur, hoc usurpans, Imperium in virtute esse, non in decore. Quod sensit sane Agesilaus, Sparta dignus rex. Qui iam senex in Aegyptum Tacho regi suppetias ivit. Navibus vehebatur et cum appropinquaret, ingens Aegyptiorum turba in portum se effudit ad celebrem ducem spectandum. Praeceperant animo magnificum virum, veste, comitatu, ipso corpore spectabilem. At ille prodiit cum vili palliolo, par gregalibus et nec aspectu verendus nisi siquis nosset. Itaque palam coepit contemni aut irrideri: Hunc esse qui res lapsas instauraret? Anchoram suae spei? Omnino iactatum illud in eo verum conspici, Montes parturire, murem nasci. Haec et talia plebecula. Sed plebecula. Virum et ducem se mox exhibuit, non parem famae, sed maiorem. Talis in eadem Graecia Philopoemen, quem scite et vere dixit aliquis, Ultimum Graecorum. Post eum vix sane alius magna virtute et laude fuit. At hic et corpore parum decens et cultus omnis negligens fuit. Ac dedit sane modestiae huius (sed apud faeminam) poenas. Megara ibat et praemiserat nunciatum amico cuidam affuturum se vespere et hospitem convivamque ei futurum.

10–13 Suet. Aug. 73.1-2 16–17 Hist. Aug. Alex. 41.1 17–19 Hist. Aug. Alex. 33.3 20–27 Plu. Ages. 36.4-5 27 Eras. Adag. 1.9.14; Hor. ars 139 29–30 Plu. Phil. 1.4; Arat. 24.2 32–478,9 Plu. Phil. 2.1-2

476 476

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 15 ON MODESTY IN APPEARANCE, And the fact that it is fitting, while splendour and pomp are not.

1

2

3

4

Truly the most important thing is that the mind is disposed in this way, but why would it not be suitable for the body to display modesty as well? Gold, jewels, and silk are not ornaments worthy of a great prince; let a trader or dealer use them. Who does not know that those things are readily available to a prince? He has them and wears them if he wishes, but having put them aside is an indication of a greater mind. I see that at least some of the greatest princes did so and stood out from the common people in virtue, but harmonised with them in appearance. Among the Romans I see Augustus, about whom Suetonius says: The plainness of his furniture and household utensils is still clear from the remaining beds and tables, most of which hardly show the elegance of a private house. They say that he would not even sleep but on a low bed with moderate bedclothes. He did not easily use other clothes than those intended for use at home, made by his wife, sister, and daughter, or granddaughters. Not to mention anything else, consider whether he who only wore clothes made and used at home is the kind of man who would have to order them from overseas. Alexander Severus, clearly one of the good emperors, sold all the gems and precious stones which he found in the palace, adding that gems are of no use to men. Likewise, he did not frequently use splendour or pomp, saying that power is in virtue, not in ornaments. Agesilaus, a king worthy of Sparta, was certainly of the same opinion. Already an old man, he went to Egypt to help King Tachos. He came by ship and when he approached, an enormous mass of Egyptians poured out into the harbour to see the famous leader. They had anticipated a magnificent man with splendid clothes, retinue, and even body. But he came forth with a cheap mantle, equal to common soldiers, and did not look awesome if one did not know him. So they openly began to despise and mock him: Was this the man who would restore what had fallen? The anchor of their hope? In him one could see that the proverb was altogether true, that the mountains gave birth and a mouse was born. The mob said these and similar things, but that was the mob. Soon he showed himself to be a man and a leader, not equal to his reputation but exceeding it. Another such man in Greece was Philopoemen, whom someone nicely and truly called the last of the Greeks. After him there has hardly been anyone else of great virtue and glory. But his physical appearance was not very becoming, and he did not care about embellishment at all. He certainly paid the price for that modesty (but before a woman). He went to Megara and had sent a messenger in advance to a friend to let him know that he would be there in the evening and would stay and eat with him.

477 477

Liber ii, Caput xv

V

VI

* Leucopheam Graecis; cineream aut murinam Latinis.

Gavisus ille, ut cocti aliquid esset, recta ad forum properat, uxori denuncians ut domi interea paret, verrat, sternat, et quae tanto hospiti conveniant. Illa satagit, et Philopoemen opinione maturius adest et comites post se reliquit. Salutat hospitam. Illa resalutat et de cultu eius et corpore suspicata antecursorem aliquem esse et ex famulitio, Heus tu, inquit, festinamus. Adde manum et adiuta atque haec ligna mihi scinde. Una porrigit securim. Et facit opus sedulo Philopoemen donec amicus de foro supervenit et attonitus, Quid hoc rei est Philopoemen? Ita te et me dedecoras? Ille subridens, En poenas, inquit, vultus et cultus mei luo. Adeo non indignatus pro servo se habitum ut ultro iocatus in se sit. Et credo materiam bellam sermonum ea die hoc factum fuisse. Rudolfo nostro Austriaco non aliter Moguntiaci evenit et a pari caussa. Nam vestitu nihil a plebeio differebat. Mane igitur egressus solus (et aura frigidior erat), videt in pistoris domo carbones de fornace recentes ignitosque. Intrat fidenter, adsistit, calefacit cum mulier eum adspicit et ex vestitu aestimans, Heus, inquit, mi homo, parum decet vos ad mulierculas et in alienam domum sic venire. Rudolfus, Mea mater, miles sum qui meas res in obsequio et comitatu Imperatoris contrivi. At ille parum benigne me nunc habet nec pro spe aut meritis muneratur. Mulier ad illud Imperatoris nomen coepit stomachari et multa mala in Rudolfum dicere. Quin iste vir est, inquit, qui nos et nostra perdit, pauperum scopulus et exitium. Merito haec vobis eveniunt qui adhaeretis et sequimini. Atque ut plura eveniant, opto. Rudolfus delectatus procacia mulierculae, Sed mulier, inquit, de me missum face. Vos proprie qua re laesit? Ibi mulier exclamare, Illene? Qui omnes pistores huius urbis, lautos satis antea, fortunis evertit; nec facile resurgemus. At tu, bone vir, fabulari desine nec ultra molestiae aut impedimento nobis esto. Abi. Aliquid voluisset etiam Rudolfus, sed illa Amazon vas aquarium in prunas accensas iecit et fumo, vapore, cinere perfusum eiecit. Sed iste cultus eius privatim et non publice fortasse fuit. Publice? Vide. Quis dies laetior et magis pompae aptus quam cum victum Ottocarum, Boëmiae regem, ad se vocatum excepturus erat et fidem ab eo (Homagium dicimus) accepturus? Ille venit cum magno et splendido comitatu: viri et equi auro, gemmis, serico nitebant. Dictum Rudolfo adventare et sedulo a quibusdam additum, Pararet se veste et cultu ornatiore et Imperatorio talem regem admissurus. Rudolfus renidens, Imo rex Boëmiae, inquit, griseam* meam vestem (verba

11–26 Chron. Colmar. a. 1288, MGH SS 17, p. 255 SS 17, pp. 248-249

478 478

27–480,7 Chron. Colmar. a. 1276, MGH

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 15 The friend was delighted and hurried straight to the market, so that there would be some food, telling his wife to prepare, sweep, and arrange the house in the meantime, and to do that which is appropriate for such a guest. She had her hands full and Philopoemen arrived earlier than expected, leaving his companions behind. He greeted the hostess; she greeted him in return and thinking, because of his attire and physical appearance, that he was a forerunner and one of the servants, she said, You there, we are in a hurry. Give me a hand and help me, and cleave this wood for me. At the same time she handed him an axe and Philopoemen diligently did his job until his friend suddenly came back from the market and said in astonishment, What is this, Philopoemen? Do you bring me and yourself to shame like this? He smiled and said, Look at the punishment which I pay for my looks and attire. Far from being angry for being mistaken for a slave, he even laughed at himself, and I think that this event was a great topic of conversation that day. 5 Something similar happened to our Rudolf of Austria in Mainz and for a similar reason. For as far as clothes were concerned, there was no difference at all between him and a plebeian. So when he had gone out on his own in the morning (there was quite a cold wind), he saw recent burning coals from an oven in the house of a baker. He confidently went in, stood beside the coals, and warmed himself. When the woman of the house saw him, she said, judging him by his clothes, My good man, it is not very suitable for you to come to women and into another’s house like that. Rudolf said: Good woman, I am a soldier and have spent my time in the service and suite of the emperor. But he is not too favourably disposed towards me now and he does not reward me according to my hope or merits. When she heard the name of the emperor, the woman became angry and said many bad things about Rudolf. It is that man, she said, who ruins us and our possessions, poses a danger to the poor, and destroys them. This happens deservedly to people like you, who adhere to him and follow him; and I hope many more things will happen to you. Rudolf was charmed by the boldness of the woman and said, My dear woman, forget about me; in which sense did he harm you exactly? Whereupon the woman shouted: He? He drove all bakers of this city, who were quite wealthy before, from their possessions; and it will not be easy for us to recover. But you, good man, stop talking and do not bother us or be in the way any longer. Go away. Rudolf would have wanted to say something more but that Amazon threw a can of water on the burning coals and threw him out, covered in smoke, steam, and ashes. 6 But that was how he dressed in private and perhaps not in public. So how did he dress in public? Behold! Which day was happier and more suitable for ostentation than when he was about to receive Otakar, King of Bohemia? Whom he had defeated and summoned to receive the oath of allegiance (we say homage) from him: Otakar arrived with a great and splendid retinue: men and horses were shining with gold, precious stones, and silk. Rudolf was told that he was coming and some persons took care to add that he should prepare himself to receive such a king in a more embellished and imperial attire and appearance. Rudolf laughed and said: No – the King of Bohemia has

479 479

Liber ii, Caput xv

VII

VIII ∞CXCVII

fuerunt) saepe derisit; nunc ipsum vestis mea grisea deridebit. At vos arma et equos expedite et accincti instructique, ut ad pugnam, state. Decus Teutonicorum armorum, non vestium advenis istis ostendite. Hoc me vobisque dignum est. Dixit Rudolfus neque aliter fecit. Ottocarus illi vili cultui se et aurum suum submisit et ad genua accessit, non sine ludibrio etiam, cum Imperator iussisset tentorium in quo res gerebatur, subito pandi et revelari ut ab omnibus geniculans Ottocarus conspici posset. Carolus Quintus Imperator, ut sanguinem ab eo, sic hanc virtutem traxit. In omni vita modicus, vel potius tenuis in cultu fuit. Quod notarunt Itali et mirati aut calumniati sunt in primo eius et sollenni ingressu Mediolanum, Insubrum urbem. Cives novo domino omnia instruxerant, plateas aulaeis, tabulis, frondibus, sese quisque vestibus exornaverant, umbella aurea parata quae ingredientem tegeret. Cum ille et Imperator et non semel Rex ac Princeps in lanea atra penula et vili pilleolo sub eam se dedit. Videbant eum et requirebant, matronae praesertim et virorum vaniores, qui trabeas et illusas auro vestes et fulgentes in capite et collo gemmas exspectabant. O quam dispares isti a Graecanicis Imperatoribus, quos luxus et deliciae ad cultum vix virilem traduxerunt! In qua re lepidum est quod Nicetas Choniates denarrat de Alexio Angelo, Principe Byzantino. Erat in Italia tunc Henricus Quintus Imperator, filius Frederici Aenobarbi, qui Sicilia et Neapoli subiecta, spes suas longius porrigebat et Graeciae imminebat. Misit igitur legatos qui magnum auri pondus poscerent, velut tributi nomine aut, si negaretur, caussam belli. Alexius, quem dixi, audito adventu exterorum, ut opes suas et splendorem iis ostenderet et oculos veneratione aut metu praestringeret, iussit suis omnibus quam ornatissimos adesse, auratos gemmatosque. Ipse autem a capite ad calcem nil nisi splendor et nitor erat, rarum vel in templo aliquo spectaculum. Veniunt legati, sed Germani, id est viri. Qui tantum abfuit (ait Nicetas) ut spectaculo eo ad metum moverentur ut contra ad cupidinem et nihil magis vellent quam cum istis quam primum ad manus venire, effaeminatis nec nisi ad praedam natis. Cum interim Graeculi etiam accedentes eos cubitis tangebant et digitis praeibant ut Imperatoris vestem et gemmas aspicerent, quibus ille, ut floridum aliquod pratum aut Alcinoi hortus, varie nitebat. En, aiebant, vel in media hieme Veris opes et gratias usurpate et oculos iis pascite atque hilarate. O belli parasiti! Et quid ad haec Germani? Nihil capi aut affici se istis muliebribus spectaculis aut ornamentis. Atque adeo iam tempus esse ut his sepositis Graeculi ferro aurum commutarent. Nam si irriti legationis suae redirent, pugnandum iis cum viris esse qui non ut

9 Lips. Not. 2.15

19–482,3 Nic. Chon. Hist. Alex3, pt2, p. 523

480 480

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 15 often made fun of my grey* clothes (these were his words); now my grey clothes will make fun of him. But you, prepare your weapons and horses and stand, girded and equipped as for combat. Show the splendour of German weapons instead of clothes to the people who are coming. That is worthy of me and of you. That is what Rudolf said, and he did not act otherwise. Otakar submitted himself and his gold to that cheap dress and fell to his knees, not without being mocked, as the emperor had given orders to quickly open and uncover the tent in which it happened, so that everyone could see Otakar on his knees. 7 Just as Emperor Charles the Fifth inherited the blood of this man, so he also inherited his virtue. He was modest, or rather poor, in his dress all his life. The Italians noticed this and admired or calumniated it during his first and solemn entry into Milan, the city of the Insubres. The citizens had prepared everything for their new lord: the streets were adorned with tapestries, paintings and garlands; everyone was splendidly dressed; they had prepared a golden parasol for him to protect him when he entered. But he went to stand under it, both as emperor and (not for the first time) as their king and prince, in a black woollen mantle and a small, cheap cap. They saw him and inspected him, especially the women and the more vain of the men, who had expected robes of state, clothes interwoven with gold, and precious stones shining on his head and around his neck. 8 Oh, how different were they from the Grecian emperors, whom splendour and luxuriousness led to an elegance which can hardly be called masculine. In this connection, that which Nicetas Choniates tells about Alexius Angelus, a Byzantine prince, is amusing. Emperor Henry the Fifth, the son of Frederick Barbarossa, was in Italy at the time; he had, after subjecting Sicily and Naples, extended his hopes and was intent on taking Greece. So he sent ambassadors to demand a great amount of gold as a pretended tribute or, if they refused, as a reason for war. When Alexius, whom I mentioned, had heard that foreigners were coming, he ordered all his men to be present and as embellished as possible, with gold and precious stones, to show the visitors his wealth and splendour and blind their eyes with reverence or fear. He himself was nothing but splendour and brightness from head to toe, a rare spectacle, even in church. The ambassadors came, but they were German, that is to say, men. They were so far (Nicetas says) from being filled with fear by that spectacle, that on the contrary they were filled with greed and wanted nothing more than to join battle as soon as possible with those effeminate men, born for nothing but to be plundered. Meanwhile, the Greeks even nudged them with their elbows when they approached, and pointed that they should look at the emperor’s clothes and precious stones, which made him shine with various colours like a meadow full of flowers or Alcinous’ garden. Look, they said, enjoy the riches and charms of spring even in the middle of winter and feed and cheer your eyes with them. Oh, beautiful parasites! And how did the Germans react to this? They said that they were not at all impressed or affected by these womanish spectacles and ornaments. It was indeed high time now for the Greeks to put those aside and exchange their gold for iron. For if the Germans would return without their mission accomplished, the Greeks would have to fight

481 481

*ash-grey to the Greeks; the colour of ashes or of a mouse to the Romans.

1197

Liber ii, Caput xv

prata lapillis niteant neque vestibus variegatis ut pavones glorientur, sed qui veri Martis alumni, flammas nitoremque ex oculis in acie iaciant et quorum sudor, splendidis guttis defluens, referat margaretas. Haec nostri Germani ad Graecos, iam verbis terrefactos. Quid si ad rem ventum fuisset? Et fuisset nisi Henrici mors subsecuta consilia haec et incepta turbasset. 5

482 482

Book i1, Chapter 15 against men who would not shine with precious stones like meadows and who would not show off their variegated clothes like peacocks, but who, as true disciples of Mars, cast flames and light from their eyes in battle, and whose sweat, dripping down in shining drops, would resemble pearls. This is what our Germans said to the Greeks, scaring them already with their words. What if they had gone from words to action? And they would have, if Henry’s death, which soon followed, had not upset these plans and undertakings.

483 483

Caput xvi DE MAIESTATE, et salva Modestia posse assumi. Neque enim inter se haec pugnant, et convenientia est etiam inter specie dispares virtutes. Appello autem Maiestatem venerationem aliorum animis insitam, 5 cui a magnitudine est origo. Et ipsum etiam nomen Maiestatis est a Magno. Ovidius decenter aperit: Donec Honos placidoque decens Reverentia vultu corpora legitimis imposuere toris. Hinc sata Maiestas.

Eccles. Hist. III cap. I

Lib. XXX

Lib. XXVIII

Proles igitur est Honoris et Reverentiae, sed et matrem siquis horum dicat, non aberret. Origo ei praecipua ab interna magnitudine, id est virtute, etsi externa etiam species, gestus, cultus aliquid addunt. Orientales in his talibus magis curiosi aut affectati; minus Europaei, et veteres Principes diademate et purpura fere contenti fuere. Hodierno aevo illis abolitis sceptrum et corona successerunt. Parum est. Arbitraria sunt. Leve adiumentum ad maiestatem nisi aliunde ea adsit. Sunt et insignia quaedam novitiae inventionis, ut Aurei velleris, Conchae Sancti Iacobi et talia. E quibus primum omen habuisse videtur aut praesagium plusquam Iasoniae navigationis, qua novus orbis et in eo aurum sunt retecta. Aliquid et Aulae pompa et ministeriorum varietas aut copia, item satellitium huc faciunt. Et Iulianum Imperatorem, vulgo Apostatam, culpatum in his memini, qui sustulit aut recidit: ὅτι (ait Socrates) παυομένη ἡ ἐκ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ πλούτου τοῖς πολλοῖς ἐγγινομένη κατάπληξις εὐκαταφρόνητον ἐποίει τὴν βασιλείαν: quoniam cessante admiratione opum et potentiae, quae plebeis animis hoc aspectu inseritur, vilem et contemni facilem reddidit Principatum. Plebeium iudicium est nec magni haec momenti. Magis mores, si ii compositi et graves. Talem Periclem Plutarchus describit, vultu serio nec ad risum facili, incessu moderato, voce et sermone sedato. Alacritas illa nimia vix convenit, sed nec dicacitas, etsi ingenii notam dicas. Livius in Philippo, ultimo Macedone, hoc notat: Et erat dicacior natura quam regem deceret et ne inter seria quidem risu temperans. Iam corpus et species si adest, valde iuvant. Atque ita de Publio Scipione Africano idem Livius: Praeterquam quod suapte natura multa maiestas inerat, adornabat promissa caesaries habitusque corporis, non cultus munditiis, sed virilis ac vere militaris. Postremo,

8–10 Ov. fast. 5.23-25

27–28 Plu. Per. 5.1

484 484

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 16 ON MAJESTY, and the fact that it can be assumed while preserving modesty. For these virtues are not contrary to one another and there is harmony even between virtues which appear to be different. I call majesty the reverence innate in the hearts of others, which originates from greatness. Indeed, the very word majesty is derived from magnus, “great”. Ovid suitably reveals: Until honour and decent reverence with her calm look united their bodies in lawful marriage. From them sprang majesty. So it is a child of honour and reverence, but whoever would call it their mother, too, would not be mistaken. It is mainly generated by internal greatness, that is to say virtue, although on the outside, looks, gesture, and attire add something as well. The Eastern peoples apply themselves more assiduously and zealously to such matters; Europeans less so, and the old princes were quite satisfied with a diadem and a purple garment. In our age these have been abolished and succeeded by the sceptre and the crown. It does not matter. They are arbitrary and a small help towards majesty, unless it has another source. There are also insignia of more recent invention, such as the Golden Fleece, Saint James’ shell, and the like, of which the former seems to have contained an omen or premonition of a more than Jasonian sea voyage, through which the New World and the gold in it have been discovered. Splendour of the palace, diversity or abundance of servants and of attendants also contribute somewhat to majesty. And I remember that Emperor Julian, commonly called the Apostate, who abolished or reduced them, was blamed because (Socrates says) with the ceasing of the Socr. h. e. 3.1.161 reverence for riches and power which is instilled in the hearts of the common people by this sight, he made the monarchy cheap and easy to despise. It is the opinion of the common people and these things are not of great importance. More important are manners, if they are composed and serious. Plutarch describes Pericles as such a man: with a serious face, not easily laughing, with moderate gait and calm voice and speech. An exaggerated liveliness is hardly suitable, nor is biting wit, although you might say that it is a sign of intelligence. Livy notes about Philip, the last Macedonian king: And he was wittier by nature Liv. 32.34.3 than was suitable for a king and not even in serious matters did he restrain his laughter. If the prince is already good-looking, that helps very much, and thus Livy also writes about Publius Scipio Africanus: Apart from the fact that he had a great majesty by nature, his long Liv. 28.35.5 hair and his bearing adorned him, not an appearance due to elegance, but a manly and truly military appearance. Finally, seclusion and withdrawal help. For, as that well-known

485 485

Liber ii, Caput xvi Apul. de Deo Socr.

Panegyr. ad Theodos.

Tacit. XIII Annal.

secessus et abductio iuvat. Ut enim ille ait, Parit conversatio contemptum, raritas conciliat ipsa rebus admirationem. Sed nimia ne sit, aut tollit munus et officium regis. Neque enim Persae laudandi, apud quos persona regis sub specie Maiestatis occulitur. Non item qui eos imitati, intra secretum Palatinae domus inclusi, tamquam aliquod Vestale secretum, consuluntur. Tumida et odiosa sunt, nisi gentium aliquis 5 receptus mos (nec is bonus) ita habet. Quid tamen de regibus dicam? Ecce olim libertum qui huc superbiae et fastidii devenit. Is fuit Pallas Claudii, qui venerationi asserendae, numquam domi aliquid, nisi nutu aut manu, significavit vel, si plura demonstranda essent, scripto usus ne vocem sociaret. Examina hoc et ride servilia illa portenta tam impotenter regnasse. 10

3–4 Iust. 1.9.11

486 486

Book i1, Chapter 16 author says, frequent contact causes contempt, rarity itself produces admiration for things. But it should not be excessive or it renders the task and office of a king empty. For the Persians should not be praised, among whom the person of the king is hidden under the appearance of majesty, nor those who, imitating them, are consulted, locked up in a secret room in the palace, like some Vestal sanctuary. These practices are arrogant and hateful, unless some custom (and not a good one) which is accepted among some peoples has it that way. Still, why should I talk only about kings? Behold how once a freedman came to such haughtiness and contempt. That was Pallas, the minister of Claudius, who, to claim reverence, never expressed anything at home unless by a nod or his hand, or if he had to indicate several things, used writing in order not to have to share his voice. Examine this and laugh at how impotently these slavish monsters ruled.

487 487

Apul. Socr. 4 p. 129

Paneg. 2.21.3

Tac. ann. 13.23.2

Caput xvii DE CASTITATE, quam Princeps extra connubium, et in eo pro parte, servet.

De Civit. Dei, lib. I Tacit. XII Annal.

II Politic. cap. VII

Lib. VI

Addidi denique alias virtutes quae ex decoro aut usu sunt, et quattuor praesertim: Beneficentiam, Castitatem, Patientiam, Animi magnitudinem. De prima alibi dicendum commodius; nunc de Castitate, dignissima Principe. Cuius proprium est alta et seria cogitare. Non facit libido, quae in sordidis cogitationibus et caeno suo haeret. Bene ille veterum: Nihil est tam mortiferum ingeniis quam libido. Nec animi solum, sed corporis robur minuit. Et perplacet illud Augustini: Pudicitia est virtus quae comitem habet fortitudinem. Omitto pericula ex ea et contemptum, alibi dicenda. Habeas igitur ante matrimonium; neque enim ab eo te arceo. Imo quod honestius (ait ille) Imperatoriae mentis levamen quam assumere coniugem, prosperis dubiisque sociam? Cui cogitationes intimas, cui parvos liberos tradas? Cogitationes, nec tamen omnes. Illae de republica non bene semper infirmo et interdum infido sexui committuntur. Spernimus qui referunt ad istas pleraque omnia et qui audiunt, etsi Aristoteles notat, feroces et militares saepe populos ita subiici et nominatim Lacedaemonios. Quod idem de istis Plutarchus scribitque, Lacedaemonios uxoribus suis semper addictos esse plusque cum his de negotiis politicis quam has cum illis de privatis communicare. Turpe est, ne fiat. Quis Claudii imperium non novit, hoc nomine famosum, quod semper aut Messalina aliqua aut Agrippina regeret aut una cum his quispiam e libertis? Quis et Alexandri Severi, boni alias Principis, non misereatur, qui per pietatem nimis matri se addixit et se sic evertit? Herodianus observat: Quippe illi mater supra modum imperabat, atque is dicto audiens semper fuit. Idque aliquis solum in Alexandro reprehenderit, quod mansuetudine nimia et reverentia maiore quam oportuit, matri etiam in iis quae displicebant, obsequeretur. Atque idem scriptor proprium muliebre vitium tangit quod instillant. Alexander, inquit, ipse ad proelium cum Partho non venit, incertum metune proprio an quia mater retinuerit faemineo pavore. Omnes enim illius (haec nota) generosos spiritus retundebat, suadens alios potius periclitari pro se sineret quam ut ipse in acie consisteret. Talia faeminae et deteriora solent, ac bonarum rara exempla, animosarum pauciora sunt. Mihi vero, siquae Principis faeminae partes in republica esse possunt, eae sint quas Homerus in Arete Alcinoi describit, quam, inquit, maritus honorat et cives. Quid ita?

8–9 Sen. contr. 1 praef. 7

16–17 Lips. Not. 2.17

488 488

18–19 Plu. Comp. Agis et Cleom. 7.4

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 17 ON CHASTITY, which the prince should preserve outside marriage, and partly in it. To conclude, I have added some other virtues which are decorous and advantageous; four in particular, namely beneficence, chastity, forbearance, and magnanimity. It is more suitable to talk about the first elsewhere; now I will speak about chastity, a virtue most worthy of a prince. Characteristic of chastity is elevated and serious thinking. Lust, which holds on to filthy thoughts and its own dirt, does not generate that. That ancient author said it well: Nothing is as deadly for the mind as lust. Not only does it diminish the strength of the soul, but also that of the body, and what Augustine said pleases me greatly: Chastity is a virtue which has strength as its companion. I omit the dangers and contempt that spring from lust; those are to be treated elsewhere. So you should have chastity before marriage; for I do not keep you from marrying. Indeed, what is a more honourable relief (that well-known author says) for the emperor’s mind than to take a wife to share his prosperity and his doubts, to whom you entrust your intimate thoughts and your small children? Share thoughts, but not all of them. It is not good to entrust those about the commonweal to the sex that is always weak and sometimes faithless. We despise those who tell their wives almost everything and who listen to them. Nevertheless Aristotle notes that ferocious and warlike people were often subjected in that way, and in particular the Spartans. Plutarch writes the same about them, namely that the Spartans were always submissive to their wives and talked more to them about political affairs than their wives talked to them about private matters. It is a disgrace and it should not happen. Who does not know the rule of Claudius, notorious since all the time either some Messalina or Agrippina ruled, or, together with them, some freedman? And who would not feel pity for Alexander Severus, otherwise a good prince? He submitted too much to his mother out of piety and so destroyed himself. Herodian observes: For his mother ruled him beyond measure, and he always listened to what she said. And the only thing for which one might reproach Alexander is that through excessive gentleness and a reverence that was deeper than appropriate he obeyed his mother even in things which he disliked. And the same writer touches the characteristically feminine vice which women instil. Alexander himself, he says, did not come to the battle against the Parthians; it is not certain whether it was because he himself was afraid or because his mother kept him back out of womanly fear. For she weakened all of his (take a note of this) noble courage, persuading him to let others risk their lives for him rather than to stand on the battlefield in person. Such, and even worse, things are typical of women, and there are few examples of good women, and of brave women even fewer. In my opinion, if there is any role in the commonweal for a most

489 489

Aug. civ. 1.18.2

Tac. ann. 12.5.3

Arist. Pol. 1269b

Hdn. 6.1.10

Hdn. 6.5.8-9

Liber ii, Caput xvii

Οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νόου γε καὶ αὐτὴ δεύεται ἐσθλοῦ, οἷσιν τ’ ἐὺ φρονέῃσι καὶ ἀνδράσι νείκεα λύει, Nam neque mente animoque ea deficitur sapienti atque inter cives et amicos iurgia solvit.

I

II

Hoc bonum germanumque faeminae opus, pacare, mitigare, amplius, ex eodem Homero, afflictos iuvare. Ita enim Minerva Ulyssi suadet adire inprimis et blandiri Aretae quia per eam in patriam restituendus esset. Plura quae facit, plurimum male facit. Et pulchrum elogium de Maria, Emanuelis Lusitani uxore. Quae (ait scriptor eius gentis) erat moribus et vita gravis, humanitate comis. Otii inimica, et ipsa manibus suis opera muliebria e lino aut serico faciebat et virgines suas eodem ducebat. negotiis publicis numquam se admiscebat, summum mulieris decus in modestia ponens, et vitae perturbationem censebat munerum confusionem. Haec magnanimae illius Isabellae filia fuit, sed non in virilibus curis ei par. Et, ut verum dicam, Isabellae, ut Phaenices, vix quingentesimo anno gignuntur. Siquis tamen talem nactus, utiliter audiat, vel minorem ea, sed audiat, non semper auscultet. Exempla porro Castitatis atque etiam deinde Caritatis inter coniuges demus. Ac primum illud quod de Cyro Xenophon sive vere sive decore scripsit. Cum, inquit, Panthea, formosissima faeminarum, capta esset atque ad eum adducenda, vetuit ne vel oculis scilicet castitatem matronalem et suam violaret. Atque Araspo ex amicis suadenti adire eam et alloqui (esse enim mulierem insigni forma et Regis plane oculis dignam), Ob istuc ipsum, inquit, magis est ut abstineam. Etenim si nunc illam adiero cum vacat, fortasse illa efficiet ut adeam, etiam cum non vacat, eique assideam neglectis rebus seriis. Bona oratio et ratio. Ac sane si non alia noxia in usu faemineo, ista certe est, avocari a melioribus curis. Itaque iure Pericles, cum Atheniensibus Praetor collegam Sophoclem poëtam haberet, atque is in communi officio forte districtus, praetereuntem egregium puerum intentius intuitus esset impensiusque laudasset, gravissima ista voce corripuit, Oportet, o Sophocles, praetorem non solum manus a lucro, sed oculos a libidine habere puros.

1–2 Od. 7.73-74

18–24 X. Cyr. 5.1.2-8

26–30 Plu. Per. 8.5

490 490

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 17 distinguished woman to play, it should be such as described by Homer in the case of Arete, Alcinous’ wife, who, he says, is honoured by her husband and by the citizens. Why? For she does not lack a wise mind and spirit and ends conflicts between citizens and friends. It is a good and genuine task for a woman to pacify and soothe, and more so, as the same Homer says, to help the unfortunate. For in this way Minerva persuaded Ulysses to go to Arete first and please her, as it was by her that he was to be brought back to his native country. If she does more than that, she usually does it wrong. And beautiful are the words about Mary, wife of Manuel of Portugal. She (says a writer of that people) was serious in morals and life and kind in her conduct towards others; since she did not like idleness, she made womanly works of linen and silk with her own hands and encouraged her maids of honour to do the same. She never interfered in state affairs, placing the greatest honour for a woman in modesty, and considered a confusion of tasks to be a disturbance of life. She was the daughter of the illustrious and magnanimous Isabella, but she did not equal her in manly concerns. And to tell the truth, women like Isabella, just like Phoenixes, are hardly born once in five hundred years. Still, if you meet such a person, it is useful to listen, even if she does not equal Isabella; but you should listen, not always obey. Thus, let us give examples of chastity and afterwards of marital love. And first of all what 1 Xenophon wrote about Cyrus, either in a truthful or suitable manner. When, he says, Panthea, the most beautiful of women, was captured and was to be brought to him, he did not allow her chastity as a married woman and his own chastity to be violated, even with his eyes. And to Araspas, one of his friends who tried to persuade him to go to her and talk to her, since she was an extraordinarily beautiful woman, certainly worthy of a king’s eyes, he answered, For that very reason, it is better for me to stay away. For if I go to her now, when I have time, maybe she will make me come to her, even when I do not have time, and sit with her while I neglect serious matters. Good speech and argument. And indeed, if there is no other harm in intimacy with women, it is certainly harmful that they keep one away from better concerns. 2 When Pericles was praetor in Athens he had the poet Sophocles as his colleague. While Sophocles happened to be engaged in a public duty, he attentively watched a beautiful boy walking past and praised him highly. Pericles rightly rebuked him with the following very serious words: A praetor, dear Sophocles, should not only keep his hands off gain, but also keep his eyes pure and averted from lust.

491 491

Liber ii, Caput xvii III

IV

V

VI

VII

Quod fecit rex Antiochus tertius. Qui Ephesi in sua urbe conspecta Dianae sacerdote supra alias forma decora, continuo illinc solvit, veritus scilicet ne amor aspectu paullatim auctior audaciorque eo impelleret unde pius castusque non rediret. Laudari meritissimo posset et contra impios quosdam Principes quibus Deo dicatas virgines violare aut incestare idque sub velo (o nefas!) sacrorum et religionis ludus iocusque fuit. At Alexandri Magni in hac re continentia cui non innotuit? Is magno praelio Darii victor eiusque gazam, coniugem et filias etiam potitus, non solum benigne et regie habuit, sed sic caste et sancte quam si eodem quo ipse parente genitae forent. Darii quidem uxorem, exsuperanti forma faeminam, nec oculis attingere umquam voluit. Quod ipse de se in epistola quadam ad Parmenionem sic scripsit: Ego enim non solum non vidisse inveniar Darii uxorem aut videre cogitasse, sed nec verba facientes de eius forma audire sustinuisse. O raram in ea fortuna et aetate laudem! Quam factum sequens cumulat. Cum aliquando enim Idem natura incitante usum faeminae voluisset, et ministri formosam noctu adduxissent, ille rogavit, Ecquid tam sero venisset? Ibi mulier excusare mariti vigilias et exspectasse donec cubitum ivisset. Quod cum audisset, quasi telo ictus et calore omni remisso, mulierem omisit vocatisque ministris, Reducite, inquit, istam. Et quam paene imprudentem me adulterio illigastis? Iam quae verba Eius et ira adversus Philoxenum quemdam, maritimae rei Praefectum suum? Qui ad eum scripserat, Esse apud se Theodorum mangonem et vaenales habere duos pueros forma eximia; ecquid eos emeret? Quibus lectis valde indignatus et idemtidem exclamans, amicos interrogabat, Quid igitur in se Philoxenus tam foedum vidisset ut tantam maculam sibi inureret? Sed et in epistola ad ipsum multis eum probris scidit iussitque Theodorum illum cum mercibus suis in malam rem ablegari. Quod si sic alii Reges et Principes, faxo ut talium rerum conciliatores et interpretes pauciores in Aulis essent. Quid autem Romanus Scipio? Nec robur eius in hostes magis quam in libidines suspexeris. Quas an non supra Alexandrum domitas habuit et compressas? Nam ille oculis suis parum credidit et veritus est capi; iste cominus congressus et vidit et vicit. Carthago Nova ab eo capta erat, ubi praeter aliam affluentiam rerum pueri virginesque nobiles reperti, et inter eos una quae ad

1–4 Plu. Mor. 183 F 11–13 Plu. Alex. 22.5 15–20 Plu. Mor. 179 D-E Alex. 22.1-2 29–494,27 Liv. 26.50; Val. Max. 4.3.1

492 492

21–27 Plu.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 17 3

4

5

6

7

That is what King Antiochus the Third did. When, in his city of Ephesus, he had seen a priestess of Diana who was more beautiful than the others, he immediately left the city. He was indeed afraid that, by seeing her, his love would gradually increase and grow more audacious and drive him to a point from which he would not return in piety and chastity. This could be very deservedly praised and used against certain impious princes, to whom it was a game and a joke to violate and defile virgins who were consecrated to God, and that (oh, how shocking!) under the veil of sacred rites and religion. But who does not know the self-restraint of Alexander the Great in this? He had defeated Darius in a great battle and seized Darius’ treasure, his wife, and also his daughters. Yet, he did not only treat them kindly and regally, but so chastely and piously as if they had been born to the same parent as he himself. He never even wanted to look at Darius’ wife, who was a woman of extraordinary beauty. And in a letter to Parmenio he wrote the following about himself: For not only will I be found not to have looked at Darius’ wife or thought about looking at her, but not even to have endured hearing people talk about her beauty. Oh, what rare praise in such fortune and at that age! Which the following deed augmented: For when, incited by nature, the same Alexander once wanted intercourse with a woman, and his servants had brought him a beautiful woman at night, he asked, Why has she arrived so late? The woman excused herself by blaming her husband’s watchfulness and said that she had waited until he had gone to bed. When Alexander heard that, he lost all heat, as if struck by a spear, and let the woman go, summoned the servants and told them, Take her back. And how near was it that you involved me, in my imprudence, in adultery? What did Alexander say and how angry was he with a certain Philoxenus, the commander of his fleet? The latter had written to him that there was a slave-dealer, Theodorus, with him, who had two very beautiful boys for sale; should he buy them? When Alexander read that, he was outraged, and shouting repeatedly he asked his friends, What vileness had Philoxenus seen in him that he would brand him with such a stain? But also in a letter to Philoxenus, Alexander showered him with numerous reproaches and ordered that Theodorus should be sent to hell with his wares. If other kings and princes were as chaste, I will guarantee you that there would be fewer people at the courts who promote and negotiate such things. What about the Roman Scipio? You should not admire his strength against the enemy more than his strength against his lust. Did he not master and restrain it even more than Alexander? For the latter had little trust in his eyes and was afraid of being caught; Scipio, on the other hand, fought at close quarters, he both saw and conquered. Cartagena had been seized by him, where, apart from an abundance of other things, many noble boys and girls were found. One of them, who was brought to Scipio, attracted the eyes of everyone wherever she went, because of her beauty. She was offered as a gift to the young general, a very welcome one, they thought. But he

493 493

Liber ii, Caput xvii

VIII

IX

Scipionem deducta, oculos, quaqua ibat, omnium in se splendore formae vertebat. Donum dabatur iuveni Imperatori, ut putabant, gratissimum. Sed ille oculis libatam modo abnuit et, Acciperem, inquit, fruererque si privatus et non cum Imperio essem. Nunc respublica occupatum hunc animum tenet. Accipio tamen quasi depositum, reddendum cui ratio et humanitas suadebunt. Simulque virginem percontari de patria, parentibus et sorte coepit agnovitque principe loco natam et principi item suae gentis adolescenti (cui Luceio nomen) desponsam esse. Igitur parentes et hunc advocat cumque venissent, statuta apud se virgine, sponsum ex iis priorem alloquitur: Ego, ut haec virgo ad me deducta a militibus nostris ac donum data est, et formam eius libens vidi et dotes animi corporisque laudavi. Nec enim caecos aut ignaros talium Natura genuit. Haec quoque pectora amor tangere potest, sed non nisi honestus et quem tempora resque meae permittunt. Haec igitur etsi iure belli mea erat, tamen non lubet inter arma hos ludos ludere, nec deceat fortasse praeripere viro forti iam desponsam. Hoc enim ab ea didici et ideo te evocavi ut coram viderem, coram tibi hanc traderem (numina testor) castus castam. Sic pudice cauteque mea cura habita est ac si apud soceros tuos parentesque suos fuisset. Non esset me teque dignum donum si aliquid ex ea vis aut occulta fraus libasset. Intactam, inviolatam accipe et fruere. Nec aliam mercedem quam te volumus, id est animum tuum Scipioni et Romanis addictum. Attonito iuvene et prae gaudio vix mentis aut linguae compote, parentes intervenerunt, gratias agentes habentesque. Et ad pedes Scipionis satis grande auri pondus deposuerunt, quod pro redimenda attulerant, rogaruntque, quoniam gratis redderet, ipse hoc munus ab sese haberet. At ille beneficentiam alia cumulans, sponsum tollere hoc aurum totum iussit et super dotem quam parentes daturi essent, hanc quoque a se habere. Quid laudes potius? Libidinem victam, avaritiam victam? Cum laude privata, cum publico fructu? Quia uno hoc facto magnam Hispaniae partem ad Romanos et ad se traxit, certatim cupientes tali virtuti subesse. Iam in Iuliano quoque Principe, etsi a pietate et religione nostra abiit, admiranda haec continentia fuit. Quem fides certa habet mortua Helena coniuge nihil umquam venereum attigisse, celebrantem saepe et recolentem Bacchylidis poëtae illud dictum: Ut egregius pictor vultum speciosum effingit, sic pudicitia celsius consurgentem vitam exornat. Libentius et Christianos hic insero et laudo, primumque inter eos Balduinum, ex Flandriae Comite Byzantii Imperatorem. Qui annos xxxii natus, in ipso illo aetatis aestu sic continuit se et adstrinxit ut toto illo tempore quo ab uxore abfuit, nec impudicis quidem oculis mulierem sit intuitus. Quod de illo

28–32 Amm. 25.4.3

33–496,4 Nicet. Chon. Hist. Halosis, pt1, p. 597

494 494

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 17 just glanced at her, then rejected her, and said: I would accept and enjoy her if I were a private citizen and were not in command. Now the commonweal keeps my mind occupied. Nevertheless I accept her as a deposit, to be restored to him whom reason and humaneness will advise. At the same time he began to question the girl about her fatherland, parents, and fate; and he learned that she was the daughter of a local prince and was betrothed to a young prince of her people (whose name was Luceius). So he called for her parents and her fiancé, and when they came, he had the girl standing next to him and addressed her fiancé first of all: When this girl was brought to me by our soldiers and offered as a gift, I liked her beauty and praised the gifts of her mind and body. For nature has not made us blind to or ignorant of those. And this heart, too, can be touched by love, but only by honourable love and that love which the times and my activities allow me. Hence, although she was mine according to the law of war, I nevertheless do not like to play these games in times of war, and perhaps it is not appropriate to tear away a girl who has already been promised to a strong man. For this is what I have learned from her, and therefore I have summoned you so that I could see you personally and could personally hand her over to you (I call upon the gods as witnesses that I do so as a chaste man with a chaste woman). She has been looked after by me so chastely and carefully as if she had been with your parents-in-law, her parents. It would not be a gift worthy of me and you if violence or hidden deceit had touched her in some way; take her untouched and unhurt and enjoy her. We do not wish for any other reward than you, that is your devoting your mind to Scipio and the Romans. The young man was astonished and hardly in control of his mind or tongue out of joy; her parents intervened and thanked him gratefully. And they put down quite a large amount of gold at Scipio’s feet, which they had brought to redeem her, and asked him to accept this gift from them, since he had given her back without ransom. But he added another kindness and ordered her fiancé to take all the gold and accept it as a dowry from him, on top of that which her parents planned to give. What could you praise more? Lust overcome, avarice overcome? With private praise and public benefit? For with this one deed he attracted a great part of Spain to the Romans and to himself, as they eagerly desired to be under such virtue. 8 In Emperor Julian, too, this self-restraint should be admired, although he departed from our faith and religion. It is credible beyond doubt that after his wife Helena’s death, he never touched anything that had to do with sexual love, and he often praised and recalled this saying by the poet Bacchylides: Just as an eminent painter portrays a beautiful face, so does chastity adorn a life which is rising higher. 9 Here I happily insert and praise Christians as well. And first of them Baldwin, who was Count of Flanders and became Emperor of Byzantium. At the age of thirtytwo he controlled and restrained himself in that very heat of his age to the extent that for all the time which he spent away from his wife, he did not even look at a woman with unchaste eyes. Nicetas, who otherwise was his enemy, attested that about him in his history in just as many words, and he added that Baldwin demanded this chastity

495 495

Liber ii, Caput xvii

X

XI

XII

totidem verbis hostis eius alioqui Nicetas in historia consignavit. Additque etiam in aliis hanc castimoniam exegisse, et bis quaqua hebdomade sub vesperam proclamari iussisse nequis qui alienam mulierem attigisset, dormisse aut cubuisse in Palatio suo vellet. Maximilianus Primus Austrius quam castus a libidine fuisse censebitur, qui sic verecundus a contactu aut aspectu fuit? Inter alias dotes corpore et omnibus membris pulcherrimus describitur, sed eorum quae natura occultari voluit, ita celans ut nemo vir aut faemina nudum eum viderit aut retectum. Subducebat se furtim cum naturae purgationes vocarent. Ad lectum iturus, nec cubicularium quidem ad exuendum, deponendum collocandumque se admittebat. Adeo ut nulla virgo magis teneri pudoris fuisse videatur. Quid, quod testamento cavit caligas et faeminalia mortuo sibi induci? Ut et tunc cura pudoris esset cum iam non esset. Sed et Consalvum Magnum, Hispana stirpe, merito celebraverim. Qui tot bellis cum regnum Neapolitanum suo Regi vindicaret, consensu traditur nullam matronarum aut virginum temerasse, imo et oblatas aut offerentes se (nec novum in tali potentia) comiter reiecisse. Atque adeo cum pater quidam, vir nobilis sed pauper, duas filias scitas et lepidas ipse ad eum perduxisset, ratus hac se via ad opes posse venire, admisit quidem, sed caussa facti cognita, ut suas filias, dote data nobilibus viris elocavit, a se tam integras quam a parente. Addi fortasse meretur, etsi in uno facto, continentia quam alii Francisco Sfortiae, alii Carolo Octavo, regi Galliarum, adscribunt. Sed huius nomen usurpemus ut dignius. Et potuit tamen hoc simile in utroque evenisse. Igitur Carolus in reditu a regno Neapolitano (quod quaesivit fortius quam tenuit) cum opidum aliquod Italiae expugnasset, in militum direptione et discursu virginem perhonesta forma ad pedes eius accidisse ferunt, tutelam a vi militum et custodiam pudicitiae suae rogantem. Atque illum a militibus quidem servasse, sed ut iuvenem et talium rerum satis liberum, statim oculos et cupidinem ad eam adiecisse et seductam in lectum abiecisse, iam imminuendam. Ibi ea, toto animo anxia, videt tabulam in pariete suspensam in qua Diva virgo puerum, mundi servatorem, sinu gestabat, et ea ostensa, Per intactam hanc Virginem, inquit, oro, adiuro, virgini mihi parce. Movit ita regem (non sine Divae illius numine) ut libidinem iam exsilientem coërceret et lacrimis etiam profusis, solo amplexu prosecutus, liberam dimiserit cum dote quingentorum aureorum. Sed et propinquos aut affines captos ei donavit.

496 496

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 17 even from others and twice every week, towards the evening, he gave orders to announce that he did not want anyone sleeping in his palace who had touched another’s wife. 10 How unpolluted by lust will Maximilian the First of Austria be considered to have been, who was so bashful about touching or looking? Among other gifts, he is described as having been very handsome as far as his body and all his limbs were concerned, but those parts which nature has wanted to be hidden, he concealed so that no man or woman ever saw him naked or uncovered. He secretly retreated when nature’s purging called; when he was about to go to bed, he did not even allow a chamber-servant to undress him, put him to bed and make him comfortable, to the extent that no virgin is seen to have had a more delicate sense of shame. Moreover he disposed in his testament that no boots and thigh-bandages would be put on him when he was dead, so that even then one would mind his sense of shame, even though he was no more. 11 But I would also deservedly praise Gonzalo the Great, who was of Spanish origin. When he claimed the kingdom of Naples for his king in so many battles, he is unanimously said to have dishonoured no married woman or virgin, and even to have gently rejected those who were offered to him or were offering themselves (not a novelty in connection with such power). To the degree that when a father, a noble but poor man, personally brought his two beautiful and charming daughters to him, thinking that in this way he could become rich, Gonzalo did let him in, but when he discovered the reason for his act, he endowed them, as his own daughters, with a dowry and gave them in marriage to noblemen, as untouched by him as by a parent. 12 Maybe the self-restraint deserves to be added, although it was only in one instance, which some ascribe to Francesco Sforza and others to Charles the Eighth, King of France. But let us use Charles’ name, to make it more worthy. And it is nonetheless possible that something similar happened to both. So on his way back from the Kingdom of Naples (which he acquired with more strength than he kept it), Charles had captured some town in Italy. While the soldiers were plundering and running around, a virgin of very distinguished beauty is said to have fallen to his feet, asking him to defend her against the soldiers’ violence and protect her chastity. And they say that he indeed protected her from the soldiers but, as a young man who was quite unrestrained in such things, immediately had his eyes and desire set on her, led her away, and threw her on a bed to violate her. There, scared in the depth of her heart, she saw a painting hanging on the wall, on which the Holy Virgin held her Son, the Saviour of the world, on her lap, and having pointed at it, she said, By this immaculate Virgin, I beg and implore you, spare my virginity. That moved the king (not without the power of that Saint) so much that he restrained his lust, which was already rising, and with a profusion of tears, seeing her off with a mere embrace, he sent her away free with a dowry of five hundred pieces of gold. But he also gave her back her relatives or relations who had been captured.

497 497

Liber ii, Caput xvii XIII

XIV

XV DCCCCXXI

Haec exempla in regnis aut imperiis. Quis carpet unum alterumque prodi in fortuna privata? Spurina, adolescens in Etruria excellenti pulchritudine, matronarum virginumque in se oculos, sed et virorum trahebat. Illae potiri avidae et in occulto aut palam suspirabant; isti aemulatione tangebantur et in suis quisque faeminis timentes aut suspectantes. Optimus iuvenum vidit. Et ut se aliosque metu vel molestia liberaret, faciem illam sic emendatam plagis scissurisque totam ipse deformavit. Quid addam? Ludibrium postea, non irritamentum vixit. Addatur, addatur ille Damocles, adolescens Atticus, tam insigni facie et corpore ut vulgo ei cognomen Formosi esset. Itaque eoipso proditus Demetrio regi, qui tunc Athenis lasciviebat, postulatur ad stuprum impelliturque donis, promissis, minis. Nihil horum valuit et, vim aut insidias veritus, abstinere etiam coepit gymnasiis publicis et palaestra. Quod Rex cum advertisset, positis observatoribus, evenit ut in balneas privatas lavandi gratia ivisse cognosceret statimque eo properans, nudum deprehendit. Quid nisi certam, ut putabat, praedam? Et iam ira quoque accensa libido irruebat cum ille non nisi in morte effugium videns, hanc elegit reseratoque aheni operculo in aquam ferventem se demersit et exstinxit. Triste fatum, etsi forte factum! Sed iustius undique laudandum quod adiungam. Pelagius in Hispania fuit. Qui in clade a Mauris accepta ad Iuncariam sub Ordonio rege cum obses datus esset, sive pro avunculo Hermogio, Episcopo Tudensi, ut plures certioresque volunt, sive pro patre, Galiciae Principe, qui captus Cordubam trahebatur. Sed pro utro, tamen obses Abderamini, regi Mauro, datus, ecce forma eius captus Barbarus, florem hunc sibi destinat et alludere coepit, contrectare et tentare. Ille reiicit atque id saepius donec vim etiam parat amator. Cui iste ingenua ira pugnum impegit et, Tolle, canis, inquit, vitam, non pudicitiam mihi extorquebis. Hic quoque in iram serio iam datus, iussit ut fundae machinali impositus, trans Baetim fluvium vi emissus, rupibus illideretur. Quod factum. Sed Pudicitia ipsa, opinor, alumnum suum tuita est, et cum miraculo vivus evasit. Non mutavit tamen Barbarus, nisi supplicium, et forcipibus membratim discerpi lancinarique iussum, in flumen proiecit. Unde Christiani nostri extraxerunt, coluerunt. Nomenque eius in Divorum numerum ab Ecclesia merito est relatum. Satis sit iam talium. Videamus et Caritatis inter coniuges exempla. Nam ea castitati fere semper comes.

2–8 Val. Max. 4.5.ext.1

9–18 Plu. Demetr. 24.2-3

498 498

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 17 13

These are examples of chastity shown in kingdoms or empires. Who will criticise one or two being told of private persons? Spurina, a young man of extraordinary beauty in Etruria, attracted the eyes of married women and girls, but also the eyes of men. The women sighed secretly or openly, eager to get him; the men were affected by jealousy and were apprehensive or suspicious, each of his own wife. The best of young men noticed, and in order to liberate himself and others from fear or trouble, he personally deformed that so perfect face completely, striking and tearing it. What shall I add? Afterwards he lived as a laughing-stock and not as an incitement. 14 Damocles should be added, that young man from Attica, who had such a remarkable face and body that everybody nicknamed him the Beautiful. Thus, because of his beauty, he was brought to the attention of King Demetrius, who indulged in licence in Athens at the time. Damocles was asked to defile himself and was urged with gifts, promises, and threats. But none of this had any effect, and he even began to stay away from the public gymnasiums and the wrestling-school, fearing violence or deceit. When the king noticed this and had observers stationed, he happened to find out that Damocles had gone to private baths to wash, so he went there in a hurry and caught him naked. What was he but certain prey (that is what he thought)? And Demetrius was already overtaken by lust kindled by anger, when the young man, seeing no escape but death, chose death, and having opened the lid of a bronze kettle, he submerged himself in the boiling water and died. A sad fate but a brave deed! But what I add now should be praised everywhere with more right. 15 Pelagius lived in Spain. After a defeat by the Moors near Iuncaria under King Ordo- 921 ño, he was given as a hostage, either for his uncle Hermogius, Bishop of Tuy, as most, and the most reliable, authors think, or for his father, the Prince of Galicia, who was brought to Cordoba as a captive. But for whoever of the two, he was still given as a hostage to Abd-ar-Rahman, King of the Moors. Behold how the barbarian was captured by his beauty, selected this flower for himself and started to play with, feel and touch him. The boy rejected him, and that several times until the lover was even ready to use violence. Pelagius gave him a blow with his fist in noble anger, and said: Take my life, dog, but you will not wring my chastity from me. Now the king, too, was seriously angry and ordered that Pelagius should be placed on a catapult and thrown with much force over the River Baetis, so that he would crash into the rocks. This happened, but chastity itself, I think, protected her disciple and he miraculously escaped alive. Nevertheless, the barbarian did not change anything but the punishment. He ordered that Pelagius should have his limbs torn apart and mangled with tongs and had him thrown into the river. Our Christians drew his corpse out of this river and revered him and his name is deservedly counted by the Church among the Saints. Let there be enough of such examples; let us also look at examples of love between married couples. For that often goes together with chastity.

499 499

Liber ii, Caput xvii XVI

XVII

Vespasiani aevo turbae aut rebellio in Gallia fuit, et dux partium Iulius Sabinus, cui uxor Eponina. Victis Gallis dux ad supplicium quaerebatur. Sed is in speluncam aviam se abdidit et famam mortis suae sparsit, quasi veneno sponte eam sumpsisset, ac rei fidem villam tamquam super se iussit incendi. Ipsa uxor haec ignorabat eratque in multis et maestis lacrimis. Soli duo liberti sciebant. Qui miserati mulierem, mori certam et cibi iam triduum expertem, marito indicant et suadent amanti subveniri. Factum, et illa resciscit Sabinum suum sic vivere venitque ad eum, fidem et silentium coluit per totos novem annos et liberos etiam in spelunca concepit ac peperit, sola Caritate obstetricante. Denique res evulgata est, capti sunt, Romam deducti. An non venia donati? Laudem et praemium merebantur, certe ista. Sed Vespasianus (ah meo animo hic saevus) iussit interfici, quamquam illa prolatis ostensisque liberis, En Caesar, dixisset, quos ego in monumento peperi atque alui ut plures supplices haberes. Indignor non vel dicto huic indulgentiam donatam. Sed nihil illa et laeta, opinor, cum marito periit, cum quo tot annos iamante fuerat sepulta. Fuit et Cabadis, Persarum regis, uxor ignoto nomine mira in eum fide. Is regno suo spoliatus a subditis, quibus durius imperasse visus, et in custodiam datus erat. Blazes frater in eius locum substitutus, consilium habuit quid captivo faciendum. Atque ibi Chanaranges (magistratus et praefecturae praecipuae nomen) ostenso cultello, Hic, inquit, tam exiguus statim peraget quod postea viginti millia hominum non efficient. Significans tolli ex facili nunc posse; vivum daturum molestias aut clades, uti evenit. Nam cum mitior sententia in virum sanguinis et loci regii obtinuisset utque in carcere cui Lethe nomen, perpetuo adservaretur, fuit ibi aliquamdiu uxore idemtidem invisente et focillante. Sed sors ita tulit ut Praefectus carceris conspectam iam saepius mulierem adamaret. Quod illa ad maritum retulit, atque hic eam iussit obsequi vel salutis suae caussa. Non volens paruit, sed volentior deinde Praefectus, et mulieri, cum vellet, ad maritum accessus fuit. Itaque opera tandem Seosis, veteris et fidi amici, equi parati in propinquo ad effugium, atque ipsa carcerem de more ingressa, viro suam vestem induit, illius accepit, qui egressus sic fefellit. Iam plures dies abierant, et Cabades in tuto et apud Euthalitas Hunnos cum fraus deprehensa, et mulier iussu regio poenas dedit. Infelix hac parte nec Cabadi suo prosperorum futura socia. Qui uxore alia ducta, filia regis Euthalitarum, gran-

1–15 Plu. Mor. 770 D-771 C

16–24 Proc. Pers. 1.5.1-10

500 500

24–502,2 Proc. Pers. 1.6.1-18

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 17 In the age of Vespasian there were disturbances or rebellion in Gaul, and the leader of the rebellious faction was Julius Sabinus, whose wife was Eponina. When the Gauls were defeated, there was a search for their leader to punish him. But he hid in a remote cave and spread a rumour about his death; word had it that he had voluntarily taken his own life with poison, and to make it credible he ordered that his house should be burnt down, to make it look as if the house had collapsed over him. Even his wife did not know and she shed many sad tears; only two freedmen knew. They felt pity for the woman, who was resolved to die and had already gone without food for three days, and they informed the husband and persuaded him to come and help his beloved. It was done, and she discovered that her Sabinus was living in those circumstances and came to him, stayed faithful and silent for nine years in total, and even conceived and gave birth to children in the cave, with only love as her midwife. In the end it became known, and they were caught and brought to Rome; and were they not forgiven? They deserved praise and reward, at least the woman. But Vespasian (ah, he was cruel here in my opinion) gave orders to kill them, although she had brought forth and shown her children and had said, Look, emperor, at these children whom I have brought forth and fed in a tomb so that you would have more supplicants. I am angry that not even those words led to remission being given. But she obtained no remission whatsoever and died happily, I think, together with her husband, with whom she had already been buried for so many years. 17 There was also the wife of Kavadh, King of Persia, whose name is unknown, but who was remarkably faithful to him. He was deprived of his kingdom by his subjects, who thought that he had ruled too severely, and was put in custody. His brother Balash was substituted for him and held a deliberation on what to do with the prisoner. And there the Chanaranges (the title of a magistrate of the highest office) showed a small knife and said, This knife, which is so small, will do immediately what twenty thousand men will not be able to do later, meaning that Kavadh could easily be killed now, while he would cause trouble or disaster if he remained alive, as happened. For when a more lenient punishment prevailed for the man of royal blood and status, namely that he would forever be held in a prison called Lethe, he was there for some time, while his wife repeatedly visited and cherished him. But fate had it this way that the warden of the prison fell in love with the woman, whom he had seen fairly often. She told her husband, and he ordered her to comply, even for the sake of his own safety. She obeyed willingly, but afterwards the warden was more favourably disposed and the woman had access to her husband whenever she wanted. And so, in the end, with the help of Seoses, an old and faithful friend, horses stood prepared in the neighbourhood to flee and the woman went into the prison as usual, put her clothes on her husband and took his; he left and deceived the warden in this way. Many days had already gone past and Kavadh was safe amongst the Euthalitae Huns when the deceit was discovered and the woman was punished on the command of the king. She was unfortunate in this respect, and she would not share in the good fortune of her Kavadh. He married 16

501 501

Liber ii, Caput xvii

XVIII

DCCCLVIII

XIX MCCLIII

des a socero copias impetravit, regnum recuperavit et Blazen in custodiam dedit, oleo fervente super oculos infuso prius excaecatum. Simile est Sanctiae Hispanae facinus. Quae soror Therasiae, reginae Legionensis, aut eius ex fratre neptis (nam dissentiunt), fidem et affectum erga sponsum et mox maritum ostendit. Is erat Ferdinandus, Castellae Comes, cui infensa Therasia ob patris mortem, ulcisci eam faeminea fraude apparabat. Itaque nuptias Sanctiae sororis offert, quae apud Garsiam fratrem, Vasconum regem, educabatur. Placuit Comiti conditio, it modico et in pacis speciem comitatu ad sponsam capiendam et fruendam et deducendam cum Garsias, insidiarum gnarus et particeps, in vincla eum condit. Sanctia, audito sua caussa et amore id evenisse, etsi amoris antea expers, honeste eum concipit. Occulte in carcerem venit, nuptias paciscitur et cum eo in Castellam elusis custodibus abit. Therasia nec sic mitior aut quiescens, aliam iterum fraudem struit idque per filium Sanctium, Legionis regem. Qui conventus regni indicit, quasi de magnis publicis rebus, et eo Comitem de more vocat. Haeret nonnihil iste et dubitat. Sed ut solent generosi animi, in fidei partes inclinat. Tamen cum venisset, immitiore statim vultu et sermone exceptus, in arctam custodiam datur. Quid facis, Sanctia? In sororem, in nepotem, pro marito quid struis? Fraudem iterum, sed piam. Simulat voti se ream velle ad Divi Iacobi proficisci. Facit iter per Legionem et satis benigne (quidni a nepote, matertera?) excipitur. Orat inprimis visendi obiter mariti copiam sibi fieri atque impetrat, sed in noctem unam. Ibi complexus, ibi lacrimae. Et domo allatum consilium exsequitur, ut veste permutata vicariam se daret pro marito. Ita ille luce dubia emittitur pro Sanctia, equos ex composito repperit, inscendit, evasit. Ipsa Sanctia, cum nepoti indicium fraudis factum, educitur, et quamquam stomacharetur primo et delusum se doleret, tamen impetu ad rationem revocato pietatem et robur faeminae veris laudibus tollit et honesto comitatu ad maritum remittit. Firmus etiam fundatusque ille amor qui in Blanca Scardeonia, Italica matrona, ad stuporem apparuit. Captum Bassianum erat, in agro Patavino municipium, ab Actiolino, immanis saevitiae tyranno, atque ibi, dum fortiter repugnat maritus Blancae, interficitur; ipsa etiam in armis virilibus marito iuncta et simul pugnans, capitur. Adducta igitur ad tyrannum et armis exuta, formosissima mulier apparuit; et accensus libidine potius quam amore, potiri sta-

3–27 Vas. Chron. a. 932 et 396

28–504,13 Scardeon. de antiquit. urb. Patav. 3.14

502 502

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 17 another woman, the daughter of the king of the Euthalitae, obtained a huge number of troops from his father-in-law, recovered the kingdom and put Balash in prison, having first blinded him by pouring boiling oil over his eyes. 18 Similar is the deed of Sancha of Spain. She was the sister of Theresa, Queen of León, or her niece, the daughter of her brother (for the sources disagree), and showed faithfulness and affection towards her fiancé, who soon became her husband. He was Ferdinand, Count of Castile. Theresa was angry with him because of her father’s death 858 and made preparations to avenge it through female deceit. So she offered him marriage to her sister Sancha, who was being educated at the court of her brother García, King of Gascony. The marriage pleased the Count, and with a modest retinue, as in times of peace, he went to get, enjoy, and bring back his fiancée, when García, who was aware of and involved in the trap, put him in irons. When Sancha heard that this had happened for her sake and for love, she felt virtuous love for him, although she had not known love before. She secretly went to the prison, betrothed herself to him, and departed with him to Castile after deceiving the guards. But this neither calmed Theresa nor made her any milder, and she arranged yet another trap, and that through her son Sancho, King of León. He proclaimed a meeting of the kingdom, as if about important state affairs, and summoned the Count, as usual. The Count was fairly hesitant and doubtful, but as is ususal for noble souls, was inclined to trust. But when he arrived, the king immediately received him with a less lenient face and rather harsh words, and placed him under strict custody. What do you do, Sancha? What do you undertake against your sister, against your nephew, for your husband? Deceit again, but pious deceit. She pretended that she was bound by a vow and wished to go to the sanctuary of Saint James. She travelled via León and was received quite kindly (why would her nephew not receive her, his aunt, kindly?). She begged first and foremost for a chance to visit her husband on her way, and she obtained it, but for only one night. There were embraces and tears, and she executed the plan which she had devised at home, namely to exchange clothes and substitute herself for her husband. So in the faint light of dawn he was sent away instead of Sancha, found horses according to the plan, mounted, and escaped. Sancha herself was brought out when her nephew was informed of the deceit, and although he was angry at first and it pained him to have been deluded, his anger was nevertheless called back to reason, and he praised the woman’s piety and strength with true words of praise and sent her back to her husband with an honourable retinue. 19 Stable and firm, too, was the love which could be seen, to everyone’s amazement, in Bianca Scardeonia, a married woman from Italy. Bassano, a town in the region of 1253 Padua, was seized by Ezzelino, a tyrant of immense ferocity, and Bianca’s husband was killed there while resisting forcefully; she, who had joined her husband in a man’s armour and was fighting together with him, was captured. So she was brought to the tyrant and when she was stripped of her armour, a very beautiful woman appeared. Inflamed by lust rather than love, he immediately wanted to possess her. She refused

503 503

Liber ii, Caput xvii

XX MDXVI

tim voluit. Illa abnegat. Precibus, minis et terroribus immobilis donec ad vim tyrannus se parat. Quod intellegens, astu ad fenestram se subducit et praecipitem ex ea iecit. Non tamen vel sic obiit, ad aliud facinus supervixit, quod fuit tale. Cum enim sanguine foedata et semianimis, sublata Actiolini iussu esset et in lecto reposita curataque, post dies aliquot iterum tentata recusavit et eumdem animum vitae potius quam pudicitiae perdendae sibi esse testata est. Ab irato igitur constringi ligarique iussa, violata, non contaminata est (qui enim posset illa castitas?). Sed tamen dedecori huic superesse noluit et fortius quam aliqua Lucretia, cum ad mariti sepulchrum isset, allevato et suffulto lapide super foetidum cadaver se proiiciens atque id amplexa, Teneo te, inquit, mi anime. Quis tyrannus ultra avellet? Maneo; accipe fidam tuam Blancam, corpore et funere nunc iunctam. Dixitque et fulcrum revellens, caput sibi contrivit et spiritum tenuem et exiturientem emisit. At haec in faeminis sunt, quarum ad honesta aut prava maior saepe impetus. Sed nec viri destituimur huius Caritatis exemplis. Omitto vetera. Sub rege Emanuele Lusitaniae in Africa bellum gerebatur, et Ataidius, eius ibi Legatus, cum satis magna manu praedatum in agrum Marochiensem iverat. Inopinantibus supervenit atque ita Rahum Benxamutium repperit, claro nomine inter Arabum duces, qui castra illic et de more familiam habebat. Igitur ingens a Lusitanis caedes edita, praeda item hominum pecorumque parta. Ipse Rahus tamen evaserat et, cum Christiani, onere graves, tardius iter facerent, collectis ad lxx e suis equitibus a tergo obequitabat minitabundus. Plures interea accedebant, et ipse tum suos cohortans, tum Arabas excitans (qui cum Lusitanis foederati militabant) ut eos desererent proderentque: En egregiam occasionem, inquiebat, Deo, Mahumeti, gentilibus placendi si istos canes et alienigenas, facto agmine ac nobiscum iuncti, invaditis et cinctos undique trucidatis. Praeda erit vestra, gloria aeterna erit vestra, patria liberata muneris erit vestri. Agite fratres, agite commilitones, expiate foederis dedecus honestissima transitione. Clamabat, non movebantur; imo contra, quo fidem suam magis nostris approbarent, in primum agmen cum praeda se conferebant. Iam parabat, ut impar, discedere Rahus, sed uxor illius, Hota nomine, singulari specie mulier, amata unice et amans, ex agmine nominatim eum inclamavit. Substitit ille et vocem agnovit simulque faeminae fatum. Atque ipsa a ducibus petito brevi colloquio et impetrato, Rahe, inquit, Benxamutie, ubi promissa et fides sunt? Quoties iurasti captivitatem meam et discrimen

14–506,24 Osor. de reb. Emman. 10 (1597: 295b-297b)

504 504

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 17 and was unmoved by his prayers, threats, or terror until the tyrant prepared to use violence. Understanding that, she cleverly withdrew to the window and threw herself headlong out of it. Nevertheless, not even in this way she died, but survived to carry out another deed, which was as follows. When she was lifted up by order of Ezzelino, smeared with blood and half-dead, she was put down on a bed and attended to. She declined another attempt a few days later and asserted that she still had the same intention to lose her life rather than her chastity. So he angrily ordered that she should be constrained and bound. She was violated but not stained (for how could such chastity possibly be stained?). Nevertheless, she did not want to live after such disgrace, and with more strength than any Lucretia, when she went to her husband’s grave, she lifted the stone and propped it up and threw herself down onto the reeking corpse, embraced it and said: I hold you, my love. Which tyrant could take me away now? I stay; accept your faithful Bianca, now joined to you in body and death. She said that, and taking away the prop, she had her head crushed and let out her spirit, which was already weak and ready to go out. 20 These are examples of women, who are often more inclined to rush towards the honourable or the bad, yet we, men, are not destitute of examples of this kind of love either. I omit the ancient examples. Under King Manuel of Portugal war was waged in 1516 Africa, and his ambassador there, Ataidius, had gone with a rather large force to Morocco to plunder. He attacked suddenly and unexpectedly and in this way he met with Rahus Benxamutius, an illustrious name among Arab leaders, who had his camp there and, according to custom, his family. So the Portuguese caused immense bloodshed and acquired a booty of men and cattle. Yet Rahus himself escaped, and when the Christians, weighed down by their load, were making their way more slowly, he collected about seventy of his horsemen and rode up to them threateningly from behind. Meanwhile many joined him, and he was sometimes encouraging his men, sometimes inciting the Arabs (who fought with the Portuguese as their allies) to desert and betray them. Behold! What a great opportunity, he said, to please God, Muhammad, and your countrymen if you attack those foreign dogs by forming a train and joining us, and slaughter them, surrounding them on all sides. The booty will be yours, eternal glory will be yours, your country will be liberated due to your service. Come, brothers, come, comrades, make up for the dishonourable treaty by a very honourable change of sides. He shouted but they were not moved. Rather the opposite: to show their faithfulness to us more clearly, they gathered at the front of the train with the booty. Rahus was already preparing to leave, since he was no match, but his wife, who was called Hota, a woman of particular beauty who was loved by him and loved him back to an extraordinary degree, called him by his name from the train. He stopped and recognised the voice and at the same time the fate of his wife. She asked the leaders for a short conversation with him, and having obtained it, she said: Rahus Benxamutius, where are your promises and your faithfulness? How many times have you sworn that you would prevent my being captured and endangered with your own life? Look how I am dragged along as a captive, and you allow it, you traitor – should I call you

505 505

Liber ii, Caput xvii

XXI

ipsa morte tua depellere? En trahor captiva, et pateris, perfide, dicam an ignave? Nec utrum probrum viro indignius sit, scio. Ubi autem de robore tuo vaniloqua verba? Pudet et famae, quae sic est mentita. His vocibus et ipsis amoris furiis incitatus Rahus, Dies, inquit, longa est, victoria in Dei manu, virtus in meo brachio. Confide. At illa pulverem manu e terra tollens et in altum proiiciens, Sic, inquit, verborum tuorum fidem aura dispellit. Abi ingrate, alia fruere, quam mihi, ut video, praetulisti. Sed Rahus statim, ut in more gentis est, calceum sibi detractum in illam iecit, quod signum et pignus sanctum erat servatae servandaeque fidei. Et simul ad equites suos conversus, Si umquam amor vos tetigit, inquit, mei atque huius miseremini et adiuvate. Per sacra nostra, per gloriam gentis, per vitam hanc meam obsecro, quae diuturna esse non potest si haec aufertur. Insilite, dii audentes et amantes iuvant. Fecitque ipse et alii impetum, quem egregie sustinebant nostri donec Ataidius in extremo agmine propugnans et sustinens, cum guttur eius casu arma nudassent, hasta Rahi transfixus occubuit. Duce amisso, confusio, et ea maior quod aemulatio etiam erat et certamen de loco. Alii hunc, alii istum sufficiebant, et id tanto certamine ut paene (o fatalem insaniam!) ad manus inter se relictis hostibus venirent. Quod Arabes foederati conspicati et simul miseratione nobilis illius Ducis tacti, arma in nostros verterunt, et puncto temporis dissipata acie caesi plerique omnes aut capti sunt. Recepta ita Hota, quam secum ducens victor Rahus, omnium oculos, voces et laudes in se vertit, fidem et robur praedicantium et utriusque felicem affectum. Nec diu sane post mulier pro se fidem quoque testata est. Cum marito in praelio quodam mortuo, illa funus eius cum multis lacrimis magnifice curavit et inedia deinde novem dierum se vita exuit et marito iunxit. Haec tragica. Mitius exemplum est quo claudam, nostri Philippi, Boni cognomento. Qui praecipuus auctor fuit magnitudinis huius quam domus Burgundicae appellamus. Is igitur annos natus vigintitres, patrem Ioannem, Burgundiae Ducem, scelere et perfidia (res dicenda est) Caroli Delphini interfectum amisit. Atque ut erat dolore et ira recens, ad uxorem venit, quae ipsa soror Caroli erat et, O mea Michaela, inquit (id mulieri nomen) frater tuus patrem meum occidit. Mulier statim in lacrimas et clamores (nam mirifice viri amans erat). Et discidium non frustra verita, sine solatio lugebat nisi quod ipse eam erexit multisque verbis affirmavit, Nihilo sibi viliorem futuram ob hanc propinquam quidem, sed alienam tamen culpam. Reciperet animum et metum poneret viro aeternum fido bonoque futuro. Et fecit. Vixit triennium cum ea, omni amore et honore

506 506

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 17 that, or rather a coward? I do not know which of those two insults is more shameful for a man. Where are the idle words about your strength? I am also ashamed about your reputation, which your present behaviour proves to be a lie. Incited by these words and by the fury of love, Rahus answered, The day is long, victory is in God’s hands, there is strength in my arm. Trust me. But she took up some dust from the ground with her hand, and throwing it up in the air, she said, This is how the wind scatters the faithfulness of your words. Go away, ungrateful creature, enjoy another woman, whom, I see, you prefer to me. But Rahus immediately took off his shoe, according to the custom of his people, and threw it to her, which was a sign and a sacred pledge that fidelity had been and would be kept. At once he turned to his horsemen and said: If love has ever touched you, take pity on me and her and help us. I beg you in the name of our religion, of the glory of our people, and this life of mine, which cannot last long if she is taken away. Attack, the gods help the brave and those who love. He himself and the others carried out an attack, which our soldiers resisted in an excellent manner until Ataidus, who was fighting and resisting in the rear guard, and whose armour accidentally left his throat bare, was transfixed by Rahus’ spear and died. The leader was lost; confusion arose, which was all the greater as there was also competition and combat about the leader’s position. Some chose this person, others chose another and with such a struggle that they almost (oh, fatal madness!) abandoned the enemy and came to blows between themselves. The Arab allies, who saw that and at the same time were touched by pity for that noble leader, turned their weapons against us, and in a moment the line of battle was scattered; almost everyone was killed or captured. In this way Hota was taken back and the victorious Rahus took her with him, turning towards himself the eyes, voices, and praise of everyone, who extolled his faithfulness and strength, and their blessed mutual affection. But not much later the woman also proved the fidelity that befitted her: when her husband died in battle, she arranged a grand funeral for him with a stream of tears; afterwards she ended her life by abstaining from food for nine days and joined her husband. 21 These examples are tragic. The example with which I shall close is milder, namely that of our Philip, surnamed the Good, who was the principal creator of that great dynasty which we call the House of Burgundy. When he was twenty-three years old, he lost his father John, Duke of Burgundy, who was killed by the perfidious crime (it should be said) of Charles, the Dauphin. And when his grief and anger were fresh, he went to his wife, who was Charles’ sister, and said, O my Michelle (that was the woman’s name), your brother has killed my father. The woman immediately burst into tears and cried out (for she was extraordinarily attached to her husband). And fearing divorce, not without reason, she lamented inconsolably until he cheered her up and ensured her with many words that she would not be less precious to him because of the crime of another, even if it was a close relative. She should take courage again and put aside her fear for a man who would be forever faithful and good. And she did. He lived with her for three years, bestowing on her all his usual love and honour, although just the sight of her brought her brother’s crime and the sad murder of his father back to his mind. Add to

507 507

Liber ii, Caput xvii

XXII

solito prosecutus, etsi ipse aspectus eius scelus fraternum et triste paricidium sensibus ingerebat. Accedebat quod sterilis esset. Quae sola caussa divortii quoties apud Principes valuit? Sed nihil apud istum, qui amorem et primam copulam, nisi morte, noluit solvi. Vere claudebam, sed Scythica mulier intervenit et ostendi postulat in hoc theatro. Non illa magna nec in re speciosa aut magna, sed si ad calculos revocetur, magni mirandique amoris. Sub Andronico Palaeologo Iuniore Scythae incursionem in Graeciam Thraciamque fecere et late populati magnam praedam avexere. In ea captivus quidam Thrax fuit, qui cum aliis ante fores Scythicae huius trahebatur. Viditque et miserata est et emit eum, imo et mox nupsit. Sed iuramentum tamen prius exegit non deserendam se ab eo in ulla fortuna, tempore aut loco. Mulierem autem hanc iamante acre desiderium habebat capiendae nostrae religionis et ut salutari aqua tingeretur. Quod marito indicat, atque ille approbat, et una constituunt hoc fine in Christianos fines demigrare. Sed dum se apparant et opportunitatem quaerunt, annus elabitur, et binos interea liberos marito suo, alterum peperit, alterum in utero gestabat. Ex quo et crevit amor mutuus, et iam firma nexio videbatur. Ecce autem interea evenit ut iterum Scythae incursione facta priorem uxorem huius mariti sui abducerent, et praetereuntem cum captivis ille agnosceret et videret. Itaque pro veteri affectu et consuetudine illacrimavit et caussam uxori suae Scythicae dixit. Illa nec indignata marito est nec odio aut aemulatione (pro muliebri ingenio) in alteram illam tacta, sed statim eam quoque emit, tum ad domestica ministeria, tum ut aspectu ipso dolorem marito levaret. Et iam tempus migrandi visum. Migrant, Constantinopolim veniunt, mulier baptismate tingitur. Altera illa (ausim ingratam, si non iniquam, dicere?) statim ad Patriarcham accurrit, clamitat per iniuriam maritum sibi ereptum et a Scythica possideri. Illa quoque venit et auditur et rem totam exponit; nec quisquam damnare eam sustinuit ut quae amborum domina esset eosque ex servitute et immanibus illis belluis liberasset. Tamen haesitantibus illis ipsa sententiam hanc ultro tulit: Marito meo si prior uxor cordi est, habeat. Cui etiam ob consuetudinem et susceptos ex eo liberos pretium redemptionis condono. In ipsam hanc autem faeminam uti eadem liberalitate cupiam, sed cum in terra aliena sim et aliarum rerum inops, haud possum. Itaque illa pretio reddito cum marito abeat. Ego cum duobus meis liberis benigni Dei manus expectabo. Dixerat mulier, et mirati omnes aequanimitatem sunt. Cui Deus sane mox adfuit. Et cum altera illa in Thraciam ivisset ad pecuniam corrogandam, ecce iterum a globo Scytharum abripitur nec ultra visa est, et maritus iam tuto in Scythicae illius coniugio acquievit.

5–37 Niceph. Greg. Hist., vol. 1, pp. 542-544

508 508

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 17 this that she was barren. How often has that counted for princes as the only reason for divorce? But not for him: he did not want his love and chief bond to be dissolved by anything but death. 22 I was truly about to conclude, but a Scythian woman intervenes and requires to be displayed on this stage. She was not noble, nor was she involved in a splendid or great matter, but if investigated closely, she showed great and admirable love. Under Andronicus Paleologus Junior the Scythians invaded Greece and Thrace and left with a large booty, having plundered over a widespread area. During that invasion a certain Thracian was captured and was dragged along together with others in front of this Scythian woman’s door. She saw him, felt pity, bought him, and soon afterwards even married him. But she first made him swear that he would not abandon her in any situation, time, or place. Now, even before this, a strong desire had come over this woman to adopt our religion and to be baptised. She told her husband, who approved, and together they decided to move to Christian soil for this purpose. But while they were preparing and looking for an opportunity, a year went by, and meanwhile she had two children by her husband, one to whom she had given birth and one whom she was carrying in her womb. This, too, had increased their mutual love, and their bond now seemed firm. But look how, meanwhile, it occurred that the Scythians, who had made another incursion, carried off her husband’s first wife, and when she was passing among the captives, he saw and recognised her. So for the sake of their old affection and relationship, he cried and told his Scythian wife the reason. She was neither angry with her husband nor touched by hatred or jealousy (in line with the female mind) of that other woman, but she immediately bought her as well, both for domestic tasks and to let the sight of her ease her husband’s pain. Now the time to move seemed to have come; they moved and came to Constantinople, and the woman was baptised. But the other one (dare I call her ungrateful, if not unfair) immediately hurried to the Patriarch and cried out that her husband had been unjustly taken away from her and was owned by a Scythian woman. She came as well and was heard and explained the whole matter; no one could bear to condemn her, as she was the mistress of both and had freed them from slavery and those savage beasts. Nevertheless they hesitated, and she herself pronounced the following sentence of her own accord: If my husband’s heart is with his first wife, let him have her, and I will remit the price for his redemption because of our relationship and the children I have borne by him. I wish that I could exercise the same generosity towards this woman, but since I am in a foreign country without any other possessions, I cannot do so. So let her go away with my husband after having paid back the price; I will expect the hands of my kind God together with both of my children. The woman had spoken and everyone admired her equanimity. And God soon stood by her. When that other woman had gone back to Thrace to collect the money, behold, she was abducted again by a band of Scythians and never seen again, and her husband finally reposed safely in his marriage to the Scythian woman.

509 509

Caput xviii DE PATIENTIA. Ab ira et vindicta alienum esse debere, praesertim in conviciatores.

Sen. III De Ira, cap. VI

II De Ira, cap. XXX

Dio Lib. LII

I

II

Poterat sub Clementia haec virtus contineri, sed educere malui et seorsim ostendere quia valde Principem decet et saepe in ea fortuna locum habet. Quis non alta illa sermunculis aut iudiciis petit? Gravamur imperari et, quamvis bene atque utiliter aliquis faciat, tamen hoc, illud carpimus, et semper aliquid est quod non omnibus placet. Inde voces. Sed spernat Princeps et sciat Nullum esse argumentum magnitudinis certius quam nihil posse quo instigeris, accidere. Sicut suprema Mundi pars ventis, fulminibus, pluviis non turbatur, non item debent apices isti rerum. Hic aut ille in te iocatus est? Convicio aspersit? Calumnias dispersit? Contemne. Ille magnus et nobilis est qui more magnae ferae latratus canum securus exaudit. Potentia tua supra laesionem est, gloria (si bene agis) supra infamiam. Sed Mecaenatis verba et consilium quod Augusto in hac re dedit, digna adscribi: Siquis conviciatus tibi fuerit aut in occulto detraxerit, neque deferentem audire debes neque delatum punire. Turpe enim sit facile te id credere, cum caussam non praebeas, esse tamen qui convicio petant. Atque id fere non nisi mali Principes credunt, quos ad fidem inclinat conscientia. Deinde autem iniquum sit haec irasci aut punire. Quae si vera sunt, praestat non admittere; sin falsa, dissimulare. Nam ultione ista quid nisi plures sermones et plurium provocabis? Sunt saluberrima monita sive rationes, et ultimam istam nota. Ne move quod motum magis exhalet; ne move quod movendo non sedes. Quod si omnes punitum ibis, quis finis erit? Neque aliud agas et assidue in iis occuperis. Contemne igitur et Senecae hoc imbibe: Contumeliarum patientiam ingens instrumentum esse ad tutelam regni. Et, ut ad Exempla veniam: Lacones apposite in publicis sacris apprecari solent, Ut possent iniuriam pati. Ne propere scilicet exsilirent ad vindicandum et statum ita suum turbarent. Tum etiam quia parum idoneos iudicabant ad res gerendas qui iniuria aut contumelia statim abriperentur. Sedatio animi et frigus decet imperantes. In qua parte David, rex Hebraeus, mirificus. Qui pulsus a filio Absalomo et profugus, cum manu tamen fortium virorum, ut ad montem Bahurim venit, ausus est Semei e Saulis cognatis petere virum conviciis. Tantum? Imo et lapidibus, quos ex alto in eum iecit. Indignati comites, et ex iis Abisai: Itane hic canis Domino meo et suo male dicat? Idque impune? Ibo, mi rex, et recidam ei caput,

9–11 Sen. dial. 5.6.1 22–23 Sen. dial. 4.31.8 Mor. 239 A 30–512,3 2 Reg. 16.5-11

510 510

23–24 Sen. dial. 5.23.2

26–29 Plu.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 18 ON FORBEARANCE. One has to be free of anger and vindictiveness, especially towards insulters. This virtue could have been treated under clemency, but I preferred to lift it out and show it separately since it is very suitable for a prince and there is often a place for it in that position. Who does not attack people who are in such a high position with gossip or judgments? We resent being ruled, and no matter how well or advantageously someone does it, we nevertheless criticise this or that, and there is always something that does not please everyone. Hence rumours. But the prince should take no notice of that and should know that there is no surer proof of greatness than to be in a Sen. dial. 5.6.1 state where nothing can possibly happen to provoke you. Just as the highest part of the world is not disturbed by winds, lightning and rain, neither should those who are at the top of everything. Did someone or another make a joke about you? Strew you with insults? Spread calumny? Take no notice. He who listens unconcernedly to the barking of dogs, Sen. dial. 4.32.3 as large animals do, is great and noble. Your power stands above being hurt, your glory (if you act well) above infamy. But the words and advice which Maecenas gave to Augustus in this respect are worth adding: If someone has reviled you or secretly disparaged you, D.C. 52.31.5-7 you should neither listen to the person who reports him nor punish the person who is reported. For it would be dishonourable for you to easily believe that there are people who are insulting you even though you give no cause for such behaviour. And usually only bad princes believe this, whose conscience brings them to believe such things. Further, it would be unfair to become angry and punish. For if what they say is true, it is better not to admit it; if it is false, to neglect it. For what will you achieve with your vengeance besides more rumours by more people? These are very salutary admonitions or reasons, and note that last one. Do not move what will breathe out more fumes, once moved; do not move what you cannot calm by moving it. For if you begin to punish everyone, where will it end? You will not do anything else and will be occupied with that all the time. So take no notice of rumours and take in this saying by Seneca: Forbearance of insults is an important instrument for protecting the kingdom. And, to come to the examples: 1 The Spartans appropriately used to pray in public sacred ceremonies that they would be able to endure injustice. That is, that they would not leap up in haste to take revenge and in this way disturb their state. They also used to do so because they considered men who were immediately carried away by injustice or insult as not very suitable for handling public affairs. A calm and indifferent character befits rulers. 2 The Hebrew King David was wonderful in this respect. When he had been expelled by his son Absalom and was a fugitive but still had a group of strong men, he arrived at the mountain in Bahurim, and Shimei, a relative of Saul, dared to insult him. Was that all? He even threw stones at him from above. David’s companions were in-

511 511

Liber ii, Caput xviii

III

IV

V

VI

VII

domicilium protervae huius linguae. At mitissimus virorum David, Mitte ut male dicat. En filius, quem genui, sanguis meus, sanguinem istum quaerit. Et indignamur si conviciatur alienus? Caelestis quaedam haec patientia. Quid mirum in viro caelesti? Magis in tyranno Pisistrato. Cuius uxore petulanter et iniurie habita a quibusdam adolescentibus ebriis idque in publico, malum illi timentes, mane ad Pisistratum supplices veniunt deprecatum. Ille autem: Quid vos vultis? Mea uxor heri nusquam prodiit. At in posterum date operam ut sobrii sitis. Quid in Artaxerxe, Persarum Rege, in qua gente superbia domicilium habere visa? Apud quem legatus Spartanus Euclidas libere pro ingenio gentis et pro suo ferociter locutus, hoc responsi rettulit: Tibi licet quae libet, apud me dicere; mihi et dicere et facere. Salva maiestate modestia inserta fuit, et ad hanc ivit, ab illa non abivit. Sed in hac virtute Macedonum aliquot reges eximii. Quid enim Philippus, Alexandri pater? Qui plura eius dedit exempla. Ut in Nicanore, qui circumiens male de Philippo opinabatur et detractabat. Nec defuit, ut solet, delator, Smicythas. Amici igitur advocandum et plectendum censere; ille contra, Et Nicanor, inquit, non est pessimus Macedonum. Videndum igitur numquid per nos admissum aut commissum cur male dicat. Et serio quaerens, repperit pauperem virum esse, bene meritum, nec adhuc habitam eius rationem. Itaque statim munere eum affecit. Qui et ipse mutata mente et lingua laudare ubique Philippum et attollere. Quod cum idem Smicythas rettulisset: Videtisne, o amici, inquit, in nostra manu esse bene vel secus audire? Factum dictumque pensitandum Regibus qui cupiunt famam. Iam iterum Idem, de petulanti quodam et procaci conviciatore, cum suaderent exsilio plectendum, Nequaquam, inquit, ne oberrans apud plures de nobis male loquatur. Nec vero in absentes solum lingulacas talis, sed in praesentes et qui in os insultabant. Ut ille Demaratus Corinthius, cum advenisset ad eum, tunc forte cum Olympiade coniuge et filio Alexandro dissidentem, rogareturque a Philippo, Ecquid consentirent iam inter se Graeci?, ille ore libero, Scilicet tibi convenit de Graecorum concordia agere, qui diffides ipse a proximis tuis. Sensit eum vera dicere Philippus, ad se rediit et cum suis in gratiam.

5–8 Plu. Mor. 189 C 177 D; Lips. Not. 2.17

9–12 Plu. Art. 5.1 14–23 Plu. Mor. 177 D-E 29–33 Plu. Mor. 179 C

512 512

25–27 Plu. Mor.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 18

3

4

5

6

7

dignant and one of them, Abishai, said: So that dog can abuse my master and his own? And that without punishment? I will go, my king, and cut off his head, the dwelling of this shameless tongue. But David, most lenient of men, said: Let him abuse me. Look how my son whom I begot, my blood, wants my blood. And we are angry if a stranger reviles us? This is a kind of heavenly forbearance. What is surprising about that in a heavenly man? It is more surprising in the tyrant Pisistratus. His wife was treated impudently and unjustly by some drunken young men, and that in public. Fearing punishment they came to Pisistratus in the morning as supplicants to avert it by prayer. But he said: What do you want? My wife did not go out yesterday. But in the future make sure that you are sober. What about Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, a people in whom haughtiness seems to reside? An ambassador from Sparta, Euclidas, addressed him frankly, according to his people’s spirit, and fiercely, according to his own spirit. The king gave him the following answer: You may say to me what you want; I may say it and do it. Keeping his majesty intact, he mixed in modesty; he went in the direction of modesty without departing from majesty. But some of the kings of the Macedonians excel in this virtue. For what about Philip, Alexander’s father? He gave several examples of forbearance, for instance with Nicanor, who had a bad opinion of Philip and disparaged him wherever he came. And as usual there was someone, Smicythas, who reported him. Philip’s friends thought that Nicanor should be summoned and punished; Philip, on the other hand, said, Really, Nicanor is not the worst of the Macedonians. So we must see whether we have allowed or done something to make him speak ill of us. And after a serious investigation he turned out to be a poor man who deserved well, but that he had been overlooked thus far. So Philip immediately graced him with a present, and the man, having changed his mind and speech, praised and exalted Philip everywhere. When this had been reported by the same Smicythas, Philip said, Do you see, friends, that it is in our hands whether we have a good or a bad name? This deed and saying have to be considered by kings who desire fame. Again, when Philip was being urged to punish some impudent and rude insulter with exile, he said, By no means, in order to avoid that he goes around speaking ill of us in front of even more people. But he did not only behave in this way towards absent gossips, but also towards those who were present and insulted him to his face. Such as that Demaratus the Corinthian, who came to him when Philip happened to have a disagreement with his wife Olympias and his son Alexander. Asked by Philip, whether the Greeks were agreeing with one another yet? he frankly replied, Surely it is all right for you to discuss the concord of the Greeks, while you yourself are distrustful of your family. Philip sensed that he told the truth, returned to his senses and made up with his family.

513 513

Liber ii, Caput xviii VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

Idem cum pro tribunali sublimis sub hasta captivos venderet ac parum decore, veste reductiore, sederet, quispiam e captivis clamare coepit, Iniuria se affici, esse enim paternum se Philippi amicum. Quod cum miraretur Philippus et dicere eum ac docere iuberet, Apud te solum, inquit. Accedensque ad tribunal, in aurem insusurrat, Heus tu, vestem demitte. Nam sic parum honeste sedes. Rex nihil offensus, gratiam imo rettulit et, Vere, inquit, iste mihi amicus erat; mittite hominem. Simulque aliter se composuit. En, fructum etiam suum alienam libertatem fecit. Et solet ipse dicere, Gratias se debere Atheniensium oratoribus quod conviciis suis redderent se meliorem dum illos factis conatur refellere. At inter successores eius Antigonus aemulus et paene par fuit in hac laude. Qui in castris aliquando, cum duo e vigilibus iuxta ipsum Praetorium de rege male dicerent, atque ipse omnia audiret, nihil ultra quam tentorii velum concussit et, Heus vos, inquit, paullo longius secedite ne Rex vos audiat. Quid istuc est? Ne dissuadet quidem male loqui, sed cautius loqui. Idem cum exercitum in tenebris aliquo duceret, et molestum ac salebris interruptum iter esset, milites ductorem passim exsecrabantur Antigonum. At ille ad singulos quosque accedens ignotus et explicans, Nunc, inquit, bene dicite ei qui vos eripuit. Iam Pyrrhus, qui Macedoniae regnum aliquamdiu tenuit, idem hanc virtutem. Iuvenes aliqui Tarentini, cum in Italia ipse esset, inter pocula male de eo et minaciter locuti deferuntur adductique postridie, An dixissent? interrogantur. Unus facete et libere, Diximus atque adeo te interfecissemus nisi lagena defecisset. Vini culpam, non animi ostendit, et Pyrrhus sic accepit atque ipse arrisit. Inter germanos Graecos Pericles, conviciis petitus in foro a protervulo quodam, nihil reposuit et placide res suas egit. Actis, domum ivit, illo prosequente et linguae tela idemtidem eiaculante. Nihil sensit, nihil dixit Pericles. Hoc tantum, cum ad aedes iam venisset et nox esset, ministro suo, Abi, puer, et facem accende et huic redituro praeluce. Vah, non patientiam solum, sed benignitatem! Qui adiutum ivit in ipso improbitatis freto aestuantem. Ptolomaeus, Lagi filius, Aegypti rex, in Grammaticum cavillans et inscitiam arguens, Quis esset Pelei pater? rogavit. Cui ille, Expediam si tu mihi prius dixeris qui Lagi. Genus obscurum aut sordidum regi palam obiectabat. Et id in-

1–7 Plu. Mor. 178 C-D 8–9 Plu. Mor. 177 E 10–13 Plu. Mor. 182 C-D; Sen. dial. 5.22.2 15–18 Sen. dial. 5.22.3 19–23 Plu. Mor. 184 D 25–29 Plu. Per. 5.2-3 31– 516,2 Plu. Mor. 458 A-B

514 514

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 18 8

9

10

11

12

13

When the same person was high up on the tribunal to sell captives at a public auction, seated with little decorum and his clothes drawn up somewhat, one of the captives started shouting that injustice was being done to him, since he was a friend of Philip’s father. When Philip was surprised about this and ordered him to tell and explain, he said, To you only, and approaching the tribunal, he whispered in his ear: You, pull down your clothes, for you are not sitting very decently like that. The king took no offence at all and even thanked him and said, He was truly my friend, let the man go. And meanwhile he rearranged his clothing. Look how he even turned someone else’s outspokenness to his own advantage. And he used to say that he was grateful to the Athenian orators that they made him better with their reproaches while he tried to prove them wrong with his deeds. But among his successors Antigonus emulated him and was almost his equal in this praiseworthy quality. Once in a camp, when two guards next to his tent spoke ill of the king and Antigonus personally overheard everything, all he did was to shake the canvas of the tent and say, You two, go a bit further away so that the king does not hear you. What did he do there? He did not even discourage them from speaking ill but told them to speak more carefully. When the same person led the army somewhere in the dark and the road was troublesome and interrupted by rough places, the soldiers cursed their leader Antigonus indiscriminately. But he went to each one of them incognito and explained, saying, Now speak well of the person who led you out of here. Now Pyrrhus, who held the Macedonian kingdom for a while, also possessed this virtue. Some young men from Taranto were reported to have spoken ill and threateningly about him over their drinks, when he himself was in Italy. The following day they were brought to him and were asked whether they had said that. One wittily and frankly said: We said that and we would even have demolished you if the bottle had not been finished. He showed that it was the fault of the wine, not of their feelings, so Pyrrhus accepted it as such and laughed. Among the true Greeks Pericles, when attacked with insults at the market by a rude person, did not put anything aside and calmly continued his business. When he was finished, he went home with that person in his wake under constant tongue-lashing. Pericles did not let himself be affected or say anything; only when he had arrived at his house and it was night, he just told his servant, Go, boy, and light a torch to shine before this man on his way home. Ah, not only forbearance, but even kindness! He helped the person who was being tossed on the waves of his own wickedness. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, King of Egypt, asked, while mocking his teacher and trying to prove his ignorance, Who was the father of Peleus? He answered him, I will reveal it if you first tell me who the father of Lagus was. He openly accused the king of an obscure or humble descent, and all those present were indignant about that apart from the king. He said to those who were inciting him that if a king cannot put up with wit, he should not be witty. He wanted the school-master’s rod to have the same rights as the sceptre in these matters.

515 515

Liber ii, Caput xviii

XIV

XV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

dignati omnes qui aderant praeter regem. Qui ad incitantes, Nisi ferre dicterium regium est, nec dicere, inquit. Idem ius volebat ferulae quod sceptro in istis esse. Sed Romani quoque Principes huc ducant, et primus eorum Caesar. Ille Gaio Calvo oratori, qui famosis epigrammatis prosciderat, cum de reconciliatione significasset, prior et ultro scripsit, tamquam ipse laesisset. Idem Catullum poëtam, qui famae eius perpetua stigmata (et nunc leguntur) versibus inusserat, satisfacientem eadem die adhibuit caenae. Nihil stipulatus est aut iniunxit, sola paenitentia pro poena contentus. At Augustus, vere et hic successor, cum in iudicio quodam inter alia crimina reo obiiceretur quod male loqui de Caesare soleret, interrupit et ad accusatorem, Velim hoc mihi probes. Faxo sciat Aelianus (id rei nomen) et me linguam habere. Bene et benigne. Quid aliud significabat quam dicta dictis ulturum? Etsi nec fecit nec ultra quidquam inquisivit. Idem in Timagene, historiarum nobili scriptore, plus semel patientiam ostendit. Multa in ipsum, etiam in uxorem, in filiam et familiam eius dixerat, atque ea, ut arguta et ab homine docto, excipiebantur vulgo et circumferebantur. Caesar tamen nihil, nisi monuit eum ut modestius ingenio et lingua uteretur idque in domo sua. Nam et (vide ingratitudinem) Caesar eum alebat. Sed cum nec sic desineret, tandem domo ei sua interdixit. Et quis accusasset si urbe, si toto imperio? At ecce, qui velut in invidiam Caesaris excipiat: et is fuit amicus eius, Asinius Pollio, nec ideo desiit esse. Fovit hominem, et eius exemplo alii. Visitur, colitur. Et quis? priora omitto, sed qui tunc quoque, tamquam professas inimicitias cum Caesare gereret, libros Historiarum de rebus eius scriptos combussit. Non hoc erat dicere, Indignus es de quo scripserim? Falsa censeo quae praedicaverim? Tulit et haec Caesar. Tantum Pollioni semel dixit: Θηριοτροφεῖς, id est, Serpentem nutris. Et paranti excusationem obstitit addiditque, Fruere, mi Pollio, fruere. Cum haec lego et examino, dicam Romam tunc servisse? Aut si, addam quod publice in theatro acclamatum, O Dominum aequum et bonum! Nimirum confirmatus in hac patientia animus iam erat et contra concussionem omnem stabilis. Quod etiam Tiberio ostendit, conquerenti super ea iuveniliter et exstimulanti. Rescripsit enim in haec verba: Aetati tuae, mi Tiberi, noli in hac re indulgere et nimium indignari quemquam esse qui de me male loquatur. Satis est enim si hoc habemus, nequis nobis male facere possit. Et hausit ab eo Tiberius. Qui adversus talia firmus, subinde iactabat, In civitate libera liberas linguas esse debere. Idem in Senatu, cognitionem super iis fla-

3–8 Suet. Iul. 73 9–12 Suet. Aug. 51.2; Lips. Not. 2.17 14–27 Sen. dial. 5.23.4 28– 29 Suet. Aug. 53.1; Lips. Mon. 2.12.8 30–34 Suet. Aug. 51.3 35–518,3 Suet. Tib. 28.1

516 516

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 18 14

15

16

17

18

But also Roman princes show the way to forbearance, and the first of them was Caesar. When the orator Gaius Calvus, who had earlier satirised him in scandalous epigrams, had shown signs of being willing to reconcile, Caesar wrote first and of his own account, as if he was the one who had hurt Calvus. Caesar also invited Catullus, the poet who had burned perpetual marks on his reputation with his verses (we still read them now), for dinner on the same day as he apologised. He did not stipulate or impose anything; he was satisfied with regret alone for punishment. But Augustus was truly his successor in this as well. When in a court case the accused was charged, among other crimes, with habitually speaking ill of the emperor, Augustus interrupted and told the accuser, I would like you to prove this to me; I will make sure that Aelianus (that was the name of the accused) knows that I have a tongue as well. Well said, and kindly. What did he mean but that he would punish words with words? Although he did not do so and did not examine it any further. The same person showed forbearance more than once with Timagenes, a wellknown historian. He had said much about the emperor and even about his wife, his daughter, and his family, and those words, clever as they were and coming from a learned man, were picked up by the people and widely divulged. Nevertheless, the emperor did not do anything but warn him to use his intelligence and language more modestly, and he did so in his own house. For it was also the emperor who sustained him (notice the ungratefulness). But when he did not even stop in this manner, Augustus eventually denied him access to his house. And who would have complained if the ban had been extended to the city or to the entire empire? But behold the man who received him as if out of ill will towards the emperor: it was Asinius Pollio, who was also a friend of the emperor and remained his friend despite what happened. He cherished the man, and so did others, following his example. He was visited, he was frequented. Who? I omit the former writings, but he who, being an avowed enemy of the emperor, also burnt the histories that he had written about his deeds. Was this not saying: You do not deserve that I have written about you? I think my previous praise of you is false? The emperor also tolerated this. He only told Pollio once, You are feeding a snake. And when Pollio wanted to apologise, he interrupted him and added, Enjoy, my dear Pollio, enjoy. When I read and examine this, would I say that Rome was enslaved at the time? Or if Rome was indeed enslaved, I would add what was publicly shouted in the theatre: Oh, fair and good lord! At that time Augustus’ character was certainly resolute in its forbearance and stood firm against all shaking. He also showed this to Tiberius, who, as the young man he was, complained about his forbearance to provoke him. For Augustus wrote back to him in these words: Do not give way, my Tiberius, to the ardour of youth in this matter and do not be too angry that someone speaks ill of me. For it is enough if we have this, namely that no one can do us any harm. And Tiberius adopted this attitude from him. He was stable in the face of such things and repeatedly said that in a free society there should be free speech. Similarly he said

517 517

Liber ii, Caput xviii

XIX

gitante, Non tantum habemus otii, Patres Conscripti, ut implicare nos pluribus negotiis debeamus. Si hanc fenestram aperueritis, nihil aliud agi sinetis: omnium inimicitiae hoc praetextu ad vos deferentur. O pulchra, o advertenda! Etsi ipse non tenuit et postea se mutavit. Unum propioris aevi exemplum etiam et finio. Fridericus Imperator con- 5 viciis petitus et ab amicis ad vindictam excitatus, Minime, inquit, An nescitis Principes, quasi scopum, expositos ad has sagittas? Ita est. Alta livor et calumnia petent. Petent, sed non tangent, ubi animus quidem est altus.

518 518

Book i1, Chapter 18 to the Senate, which demanded an inquiry into these matters: We do not have so much free time, senators, that we have to involve ourselves in even more affairs. If you open this window, you will not let anything else be done: the hostility of everyone will be reported to you under this pretext. Oh, what beautiful words, worthy to be noted. Although for his part, he did not keep his promise and changed afterwards. 19 One more example from more recent times, and I will finish. When Emperor Frederick was attacked with insults and urged by his friends to take revenge, he said, Not at all. Or do you not know that princes, like a cliff, are exposed to these arrows? That is so. Spite and calumny pursue people in a high position. They pursue them but do not touch them, at least where the heart is high-minded.

519 519

Caput xix DE MAGNITUDINE ANIMI. Famam et immortalitatem Principi proposita et expetenda esse.

Mamertinus, Panegyr. ad Iulianum

I

II

Hoc enim nunc appello Magnitudinem animi: alta et honesta proponere et nunc, ac magis olim, in fama bona ac gloria esse. Ut sol in aurora tenuior assurgit et inclarescit, sic ex virtute et meritis fama cum aevo ipso augetur et crescit. Hoc velim equidem amare Principem et ut trahat illum fax mentis honestae Gloria, ut poëta ait. Quid enim aliud in externis? Τὸ μὲν ἀργύριον, ait Polybius, ἐστι κοινόν τι πάντων ἀνθρώπων κτῆμα, τὸ δὲ καλὸν, καὶ πρὸς ἔπαινον καὶ τιμὴν ἀνῆκον, θεῶν καὶ τῶν ἔγγιστα τούτοις πεφυκότων ἀνδρῶν ἐστι: Argentum quidem et pecunia est communis omnium hominum possessio; at honestum et ex eo laus et gloria Deorum est aut eorum qui a Diis proximi censentur. Dictum egregium. Alia aliis communia et adipiscenda, at bona et magna fama magnis convenit et quos Deus vicem suam fungi voluit in terris. Velleius de Pompeio Magno: Quo viro nemo alia omnia minus aut gloriam magis concupivit. Egregie. Illuc eundum est, ad honestam ambitionem et nomen, quod non plebeiae voces, sed seria Annalium testimonia celebrent et posteritati commendent. Ita ad Virtutem (etsi per se appetendam) ducitur: nec potest quidquam abiectum et humile cogitare qui scit de se semper loquendum. Studia hoc donant et rerum memoria. Princeps foveat, sed cum modo et iudicio ut nec passim eo vocet nec argumentum se cuicumque stilo velit. Augustum videat. Qui ingenia saeculi sui (ait Tranquillus) omnibus modis fovit; componi tamen aliquid de se, nisi et serio et a praestantissimis, offendebatur. Serio, non per ludos et mimos; a praestantissimis, non ab ingeniis passivis aut plebeiis, sed quae Genium aliquem aeternitatis a se haberent. Hanc laudis cupidinem summi viri praetulerunt, ut Themistocles. Qui in adolescentia solutus et aliarum rerum, post Miltiadae de Persis victoriam honesta aemulatione percussus, depositis nugis seria agitare coepit et totas noctes insomnis agitare. Rogatus caussam, reddidit, Miltiadae se trophaeis e somno excitari. Idem in theatrum iturus, cum rogaretur, Cuius vocem libentissime audiret?, alio rettulit et, Eius, inquit, a quo laudes meae optime celebrabuntur. Numquid dissimulavit? Professus est gloriae cupidinem et eius aliqua mercede inductum se res gessisse.

7–8 Sil. 6.332 8–10 Plb. 21.23.9 14–15 Vell. 2.33.3 29 Plu. Them. 3.4 30–33 Cic. Arch. 20

520 520

21–23 Suet. Aug. 89.3

26–

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chapter 19 ON MAGNANIMITY. Fame and immortality are proposed to and have to be pursued by the prince. For this is what I now call magnanimity: to propose what is noble and honourable, and nowadays, and even more so before, to have a good reputation and fame. Just as the sun is weaker at dawn, and rises and becomes brighter, so does the fame that comes forth from virtue and merits increase and grow in the course of time. I would truly like the prince to love this, and glory to lead him as the torch of a noble mind, as the poet says. For what else does he have among external goods? Silver and money, says Polybius, are certainly a common possession of all men; but virtue and the praise and glory that springs from it belong to the gods or to those who are considered to be close to the gods. An excellent saying. Other things are common and obtainable to other people, but a good and great reputation suits great men and those whom God wished to be in His place on earth. Velleius says about Pompey the Great: No one had less desire for all other things or more for glory than this man. Excellent. That is what one should aim for: a respectable desire for honour and a good reputation, which not the voices of the common people, but the serious testimonies of history books celebrate and commit to posterity. In this manner one is led towards virtue (although that is to be pursued for its own sake) and he who knows that he is always talked about cannot think anything which is abject and ignoble. Paneg. 3.31.2 This is the result of studies and history. Let the prince foster them, but with moderation and discernment, so that he will not randomly exhort people to engage in them or wish to be a subject for everyone’s pen. Let him look at Augustus. He fostered (says Suetonius) the geniuses of his time with all means, but he was nevertheless displeased when something was written about him, unless it was serious and by the best authors. Serious, not through plays and farces; by the best, not by common or plebeian minds, but minds which had a certain genius of eternity by themselves. The greatest men have displayed this desire for praise, such as 1 Themistocles, who was unbridled and devoted to totally different matters in his youth, but, moved by honourable emulation after the victory of Miltiades over the Persians, put his trifles aside and began to meditate upon serious matters, passing entire nights without sleep. When he was asked for the reason, he answered that he was awakened from his sleep by the victories of Miltiades. 2 When the same person was about to go to the theatre and was asked whose voice he would most prefer to hear, he turned his head away and said, The voice of him who sings my praises best. Did he keep it secret? He openly confessed his desire for glory and that he had acted led by some considerable reward for that.

521 521

Liber ii, Caput xix III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

Idem tertio in conventu celebri Graeciae, ludis Olympicis, cum plerique spectaculis omissis oculos in illum verterent eumque mirabundi et faventes exteris etiam ostenderent, dixit alacer animi et laetus, Illo die se laborum quos pro Graecia tulisset, fructum maximum cepisse. Ad rigidam Sapientiam si examino, non sapientissime. Quid enim adiectum est? Vox modo et laudatiuncula, sed virtuti aliqua oblectatio cum et gratos istos videt et posteros sperat. At Alexander hic vel nimius. Qui patrem crescere et inclarescere interpretabatur se minui et obscurari. Cumque nuncii idemtidem venirent huius illiusque victoriae, inter aequales ingemiscens, Hem! inquit, Quid tandem pater nobis vincendum relicturus est? Mirus vehemensque affectus, qui vel innatam pietatem vicit. Et quid quereris, o Alexander? Ecce Asiam et Africam et reliqua Europae tibi palaestram. Sed nimiam ambitionem iure dixerim cui et orbis fuit angustus. Nam disserente Anaxarcho plures esse mundos, suspirasti et, Me miserum, qui nec unum subieci! subiecisti. An non simile alterius Alexandri, imo maioris, id est Iulii Caesaris? Qui in Hispaniae Gades cum venisset ibique imaginem Alexandri illius vidisset, diu intuitus in vocem et gemitum erupit: Heu, nihil etiam memorabile a me gestum in aetate qua iste orbem terrae vicit! Non gestum, sed gerendum. Acquiesce. Affatim Deus et fata materiem gloriae tuae dabunt. Idem in Alpibus, cum iter illac faceret, et comites rustica tuguria et pauperes illos coetus riderent, Atqui malim hic primus esse, inquit, quam Romae secundus. Quid haec vox nisi tuba et classicum belli civilis est? Nolo secundus esse; vapula libertas. Sed magis honestiusque se affectus hic prodit cum posteros et monumenta iis futura cogitat. Ut in Pericle, qui in concionem ab iratis Atheniensibus vocatus quod tantam vim pecuniae in opera et ornatum urbis contulisset, ille placide, An ergo, o cives, paenitet? Conditionem fero meum nomen iis inscribatur et privatim mihi feram expensa. Reclamatum a tota concione, hortatique ultro sunt, Cum bonis diis pergeret nec impendiis tali fine abstineret. Ecce in toto populo honestum ambitum et certamen a nullo in gloria ad posteros vinci. Traianus hoc quoque, Optimus suo iure Imperator, quaesivit. Et passim nova ac vetera opera cum faceret aut reficeret, nomen suum etiam minimis inscripsit. Adeo ut quidam subsannantes Herbam parietariam eum appellarent. Sed fidelior in libris scriptisque memoria, et Alexander iam dictus scivit. Is Callisthenem ab Aristotele acceptum, eloquentia et sapientia clarum, secum cir-

1–4 Plu. Them. 17.2 7–10 Plu. Mor. 179 D 12–15 Plu. Mor. 466 D 16–19 Suet. Iul. 7.1; Plu. Caes. 5-6 21–23 Plu. Caes. 11.4 26–30 Plu. Per. 14 32–34 Ps. Aur. Vict. epit. 41.13 35–524,2 Plu. Alex. 55; Iust. 15.13

522 522

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Book i1, Chapter 19 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I mention Themistocles for the third time. When he went to a well-attended event in Greece, the Olympic Games, most people ignored the spectacles and turned their eyes towards him, and full of wonder and applauding, they also pointed him out to foreigners. He said, in lively and cheerful spirits, that that day he had received a huge reward for the efforts which he had made for Greece. If I assess this in accordance with rigid wisdom, he did not act very wisely. For what was added? Mere words and a little praise; but virtue takes some delight in seeing those people grateful and in hoping that coming generations will be grateful too. Alexander even had an excessive desire for fame. When his father was growing more powerful and becoming ever more famous, this meant in Alexander’s eyes that he himself was being diminished and obscured. When messengers frequently came to announce this or that victory, he sighed and said to his peers: Alas! What will my father in the end leave for me to conquer? A strange and strong feeling, which even overcame his inborn piety. And why do you complain, Alexander? Look how Asia and Africa and the rest of Europe were your wrestling-ground. But I would rightly say that he, for whom even the world was too small, had excessive ambition. For when Anaxarchus was arguing that there are many worlds, you sighed and added, Poor me! I have not even subjected one. Is the example of the second, even greater Alexander, that is to say, of Julius Caesar, not similar? When he came to Cádiz in Spain and saw a statue there of the famous Alexander, he looked at it for a long time and exclaimed in words and sighs: Alas, I have done no memorable deed at the age when he had conquered the world! Not done, but to be done: take it easy. God and fate will give you enough material for glory. When the same Caesar made his way through the Alps and his comrades laughed at the peasants’ cottages and at those poor crowds, he said, But I would rather be the first here than the second in Rome. What are these words but a trumpet-signal for civil war? I do not want to be second; let liberty be ruined. But this feeling shows itself more strongly and honourably when a prince thinks about coming generations and the monuments which they will have. Just like in Pericles. When he was called to the assembly by the angry Athenians because he had spent such a great amount of money on the buildings and decoration of the city, he calmly said, So, citizens, you are offended? On condition that my name is inscribed on these, I will personally bear the expenses. He was loudly contradicted by the entire assembly and they spontaneously encouraged him to continue with the help of the good gods and not to save on costs for such a purpose. Behold the honourable ambition and struggle in an entire people not to be overcome by anybody in the pursuit of glory among posterity. Trajan, rightly called the best emperor, also pursued this. And everywhere, when he constructed or restored new and old buildings, he had his name inscribed, even on the smallest things, to the extent that some mockers called him The Wallflower. But an account in books and writings is more trustworthy, and the aforementioned Alexander knew that. He brought around with him Callisthenes, a man who had been

523 523

Liber ii, Caput xix

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

cumduxit, rerum scriptorem, famae propagatorem. Sed heu! Praepropera ira vitam abstulit a quo aeternitatem sperabat. Idem Aristotelem quam fovit hoc fine et produxit? Felicius. Nam ille nomen eius secum perenne fecit in operibus quae exstant. Sed non sine praemio. Et in unam Historiam Animalium scribendam certum est Alexandrum contulisse octingenta talenta, nostrae pecuniae quadringenta et octoginta millia Philippicorum. Quid dicitis, hodierni Principes? Compello excitandos? Idem eiusdem ardoris scintillas iudicio iecit in vate Homero. Et cum ad tumulum Achillis in Sigaeo constitisset, e pectore vocem emisit: O fortunate adolescens, qui praeconem Homerum repperisti! Certe, fatemur. Tantum enim nescio an ipse se, sed tantus ille fecit. Ab eodem iudicio Idem in accursu tabellarii cuiuspiam res, ut videbatur, laetas ferentis, Et quid, inquit, nuncias? An Homerum revixisse? Nec feriunt aut capiunt, scio, haec dicta vulgares animos, sed altos mirifice. Et quid ille, nisi summum votorum, aestimavit Homerum reviviscere idque in suas (huc ibat) laudes? Graeciae etiam colonus, Hiero, rex Syracusanus, animum Graecanicum habuit, id est, ut cum Venusino dicam, laudis avarum. Nam cum poëta quidam Archimelus epigrammate haud inscito, sed brevi (octodecim modo versuum fuit) navim quam ingentem fabricarat, celebrasset, ille delectatus et porro provocans, in alia navi mille modios tritici Athenas donum poëtae misit idque in ipsum Pyraei portum omni suo sumptu. Si quis instructam navim et socios navales euntes redeuntesque cogitet, mirabitur regiam plane liberalitatem. At nec Latini expertes huius ambitus, etiam saeculo adhuc rudi. En Publius Scipio Africanus poëtam Ennium, a quo res suas celebratas videbat gaudebatque, et vivum benivolentia omni complexus est et mortuum stare in effigie iussit in suo et Corneliorum monumento. Quid aliud quam dictum voluit, Per me in imagine vivat cuius scriptis ego mortuus etiam vivo? Nec degeneravit alter Scipio Africanus, qui (verba Velleii Paterculi) tam elegans liberalium studiorum omnisque Doctrinae et admirator et fautor fuit ut Polybium Panaetiumque, praecellentes ingenio viros, domi militiaeque secum habuerit. Macte Scipio! Dignus tu comite Polybio, dignus ille te amico et patrono.

3–7 Ath. 9.58 8–10 Hist. Aug. Prob. 1.2; Cic. Arch. 24; Plu. Alex. 15.8 12–13 Plu. Mor. 85 C 18 Hor. epist. 2.2.179 18–22 Ath. 5.44 24–27 Cic. Arch. 22 29–31 Vell. 1.13.3

524 524

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 19

11

12

13

14

15

16

accepted by Aristotle as a pupil and who was famous for his eloquence and wisdom, to recount his deeds and to spread his fame. But alas! In rash anger he killed the person from whom he was expecting eternity. How did the same Alexander favour and promote Aristotle for this purpose? With more success. For Aristotle immortalised Alexander’s name together with himself in the works that remain. But not without a price. It is certain that Alexander paid him eight hundred talents (four hundred and eighty thousand Philip daalders in our money) just to write The history of animals. What do you say, princes of this day? Do I compel you, as men who have to be incited? The same person emitted sparks of the same heat in his opinion on the poet Homer. When he stood at the grave of Achilles in Sigeum, he sighed from his heart: O lucky young man, you who found a herald in Homer! Certainly, we confess. For I do not know whether he made himself so great, but certainly the great Homer did. According to the same opinion the same person said, when a courier came hurrying to him to bring, as it seemed, good news, And what message do you have? Has Homer come to life again? These words do not strike or capture the minds of the common people, I know, but they do strike lofty minds in a wonderful way. Did he not consider Homer coming back to life in order to praise him (that is what he was hinting at), as the highest of wishes? A colonist of Greece, Hiero, King of Syracuse, had a Greek soul, that is to say, eager for praise, to use the words of the poet from Venosa. A poet, a certain Archimelus, had celebrated an enormous ship which Hiero had built in a very clever but short epigram (of just eighteen verses). Hiero was delighted and, stimulating him further, sent a thousand measures of wheat on another ship to Athens as a gift for the poet, and that to the harbour of Piraeus itself, at his own expense. If one thinks about the cost of preparing the ship and the seamen’s passage there and back, one will be surprised by the truly royal generosity. But the Romans did not lack this ambition either, not even in the age in which they were still uncivilised. Look how Publius Scipio Africanus embraced the poet Ennius, by whom he saw and enjoyed his achievements being celebrated, with every kindness while he was still alive, and how he ordered that Ennius’ image should be displayed in his own sepulchral monument and that of the Cornelii when he was dead. What did he want but to say, Let the person in whose writings I will live on when I am dead live on in an image through me? The other Scipio Africanus did not depart from his kind. He (in the words of Velleius Paterculus) was such a tasteful admirer and promoter of the liberal arts and of every teaching, that he had Polybius and Panaetius, exceptionally talented men, with him in peace and war. Well done, Scipio! You deserve Polybius as your companion; he deserves you as his friend and patron.

525 525

Liber ii, Caput xix XVII

XVIII

XIX

XX * Bis mille et quingentos Philippicos. * Duodecim millia Philippicorum et quingentos. XXI XXII XXIII

XXIV * quindecim millia Philippicorum XXV

Iam Pompeius Magnus apud se habuit Theophanem Mitylenaeum, quem Graecum et exterum in concione militum civitate donavit. Qua caussa et titulo? Scriptorem rerum suarum. Sed in unum benignus Pompeius; in totum genus Iulius Caesar. Qui rerum iam potens, omnes liberalium artium doctores qui Romae essent, civitate donavit. Quae haec liberalitas? inquies; nihil a se dedit. Dedit a publico; nec maior aut optabilior tunc honos extero quam civem dici. Augustus autem mirifice in hos propensus quod tot scriptores aut vates dicent ab eo producti et allevati. Ambitio autem ab iis vicissim attolli vel ex epistolae eius his verbis ad Horatium poëtam (quem hodie legimus) satis elucet: Irasci, inquit, tibi me scito quod non in plerisque eiusmodi scriptis mecum potissimum loquaris. An vereris ne apud posteros infame tibi sit quod videaris familiaris nobis esse? Atque hoc velut convicio expressit Eclogam cuius initium: Cum tot sustineas et tanta negotia solus. Sed quod operae talis pretium? Servi, supellex, fundi toti. Sed et Vespasianus, etsi cetera parcus, ingenia artesque fovit vel maxime. Et primus e fisco (ait Suetonius) Latinis Graecisque Rhetoribus annua centena* constituit. Idem Saleio Basso, eximio poëtae, una donatione quingenta* donavit, id est, censum tunc equestrem. Antoninus Pius diffudit etiam liberalitatem Vespasiani nec Romae tantum, sed per omnes provincias Rhetoribus et Philosophis honores ac salaria detulit. Quibus Alexander Severus addidit Grammaticos, Medicos, Mathematicos. Magna in omnes liberalitas et sic perpetua, sed illa in unum stupenda. Antoninus Caracalla, cetera haud laudabilis, delectatus elegantia carminum Oppiani, quae illi inscripta legimus, in singulos versus singulos aureos iussit rependi, id est, nostrates duos. Et versus numera; stupebis. Diocletianum addam? Is Eumenio Rhetori sexcenta* annua assignavit, in schola Augustodunensi doctori. Credimusne? Refragantur et rescribunt. Ignosco pro iudiciis et animis, addam etiam, opibus hodiernis. Sed convenio vos, Principes, voce Anaxagorae, qui senex et aeger decumbebat, nunciatumque Pericli ex eius disciplina. Is accurrit et solatus est et precatus ne sic desereret. Sed ibi opportune Anaxagoras: At enim, o Pericle, quibus opus est lucerna, oleum infundunt.

1–3 Val. Max. 8.14.3; Cic. Arch. 24 4–5 Suet. Iul. 42.1; Lips. Admir. 4.10 11–12 Suet. vita Hor., p. 56, 2 14 Hor. epist. 2.1.1 16–18 Lips. Admir. 4.10 17–18 Suet. Vesp. 18.1 18–19 Tac. dial. 9.5 20–21 Hist. Aug. Pius 11.3 22 Hist. Aug. Alex. 3.3 23– 26 Cassiod. hist. 1.1.6 27–29 Paneg. 9.11.2; Lips. Admir. 4.10 30–33 Plu. Per. 16.7

526 526

5

10

15

20

25

30

Book i1, Chapter 19 17

18

19

20

21 22 23

24

25

Now, Pompey the Great had Theophanes of Mytilene with him, whom, as a Greek and foreigner, he presented with citizenship in a military assembly. On which account and for what reason? As chronicler of his achievements. Pompey was benign towards one person; Julius Caesar towards an entire category of people. When he was in control of the situation, he presented all teachers of the liberal arts who were in Rome with citizenship. What generosity is this? you will ask; he did not give anything from his own resources. He gave it from the state; and there was no greater or more desirable honour at the time for a foreigner than to be called citizen. Augustus was extraordinarily well-disposed towards these, since so many writers and poets will say that they were promoted and exalted by him. The ambition to be extolled by them in turn is clear enough even from his words in a letter to the poet Horace (whom we read today): Know that I am angry with you, since in most of your writings of that kind you do not talk chiefly to me. Or are you afraid that you will be infamous among coming generations for seeming to be close to us? By this, which seemed like an insult, he extorted the Eclogue which opens as follows: Since you alone carry the burden of so many and so great tasks. But what was the price for such a work? Slaves, furniture, entire estates. But also Vespasian, though otherwise economical, was the strongest supporter possible of talents and arts. He was the first, according to Suetonius, to pay an annual stipend of one hundred thousand sesterces* to Latin and Greek rhetoricians from the imperial treasury. Vespasian also gave Saleius Bassus, an excellent poet, a donation of five hundred thousand sesterces*, that is to say, the property of a knight at the time. Antoninus Pius even extended the generosity of Vespasian: he offered honours and salaries to rhetoricians and philosophers, not only in Rome, but throughout all provinces. To whom Alexander Severus added grammarians, doctors, and mathematicians. Great, and in that way ever-lasting, was the generosity towards all. But this generosity towards one person is amazing. Antoninuṣ Caracalla, otherwise not worthy of praise, was delighted by the elegance of the poems of Oppian, which were dedicated to him and are still read, and gave orders to pay one piece of gold for each line, that is to say, two in our currency. Count the verses and you will be amazed. Shall I add Diocletian? He assigned an annual stipend of six hundred thousand sesterces* to the rhetorician Eumenius, a scholar of the school of Autun. Can we believe this? They contest the number, and rewrite it. I forgive them on account of modern views and feelings and, I may even add, resources. But I address you, princes, in the words of Anaxagoras. He was in bed, old and ill, and this was announced to Pericles, who had been taught by him. He ran to him, comforted him, and begged him not to leave him in this way. But then Anaxagoras seasonably said, But, Pericles, those who need a lamp pour oil into it.

527 527

* Two thousand five hundred Philip daalders. * Twelve thousand five hundred Philip daalders.

* Fifteen thousand Philip daalders

Liber ii, Caput xix XXVI

Infundite bonis meritisque. Et cum Leone, Graecanico Imperatore, Eunuchum non audite dicentem, Haec in milites debere absumi. Cui ille reposuit: Utinam meis temporibus eveniat stipendia militum in doctores artium absumi! Utinam, utinam! Sed meis non fiet: et inscitiae caligo aut tenebrae (falsus sim!) imminent Europae. 5 finis

1–3 Suid. λ 267

528 528

Book i1, Chapter 19 26

Pour it into good people who deserve it. And join Leo, the Greek Emperor, in not listening to the eunuch who says that this money should be spent on soldiers. He replied, If only it would happen in my time that the stipends of the soldiers were spent on teachers of the arts! If only, if only! But it will not happen in my time: a dark shadow of ignorance is hanging over Europe (may I be mistaken!).

the end

529 529

INDEX CAPITUM, MONITORUM, QUAESTIONUM LIBRI PRIMI. Caput i In sermonem et rem ingressio atque obiter utilitas Exemplorum. Caput ii De Religione. Eius utilitas sive necessitas ostensa vel in tota Societate vel seorsim in Rege et Subditis. Monitum i. Deus ubique colendus, etiam inter et apud hostes. Monitum ii. Sacra nec in periculis deserenda aut negligenda. Monitum iii. Tuitio sacrorum famam et potentiam donat. Monitum iv. Sacrorum antistites aut administros honorandos, audiendos esse. Caput iii De Superstitione. Assitam Religioni esse et in vanitatem, vilitatem, timorem inclinare. Monitum i. In tristibus aut adversis saepe se insinuat. Monitum ii. In frivolis aut parvis se ostendit. Quaestiuncula. An in populo non utilis Supersitio et Principi permittenda? Caput iv De Impietate. Eius matrem Superbiam aut Ferociam, saepe et Vitiorum cumulum esse. Caput v De Fato. Id considerandum credendumque esse. Monitum i. Regna et Reges a Deo dari. Monitum ii. Regna a Deo et Reges tolli. Monitum iii. Et caussas quasdam medias, sed inopinatas his intervenire. Monitum iv. Regna a Deo et reges temperari. Monitum v. Clarissime Fata in Praedictionibus elucere. Quaestio. Liceatne igitur et deceat in eventus inquirere et vates aut divinos consulere?

530 530

INDEX OF CHAPTERS, ADMONITIONS AND QUESTIONS OF BOOK 1. Chapter 1 Introduction to the dialogue and subject-matter and, in passing, the utility of examples. Chapter 2 On religion. Its utility or necessity demonstrated to the whole society and especially to the king and his subjects. Admonition 1. God is to be honoured everywhere, even among and with enemies. Admonition 2. The sacred must not be abandoned or neglected, not even in danger. Admonition 3. The protection of the sacred grants fame and power. Admonition 4. Bishops and subordinate ecclesiastics must be honoured and heard. Chapter 3 On superstition. It lies close to religion and is inclined towards vanity, baseness, and fear. Admonition 1. It often insinuates itself in times of misery or adversity. Admonition 2. It reveals itself in silly or small things. Question. Is superstition among the people not useful and to be permitted by the prince? Chapter 4 On impiety. It is generated by haughtiness or ferocity and often also by an accumulation of vices. Chapter 5 On fate. It has to be considered and believed in. Admonition 1. Kingdoms and kings are given by God. Admonition 2. Kingdoms and kings are taken by God. Admonition 3. Some intermediate but unexpected causes also intervene. Admonition 4. Kingdoms and kings are moderated by God. Admonition 5. Fate is especially clear in predictions. Question. Is it therefore allowed and appropriate to inquire into outcomes and to consult soothsayers or diviners?

531 531

Index

Caput vi De Conscientia. Eam curandum esse atque obsequendum. Caput vii De Probitate et Constantia. Utramque Principi convenientem aut necessariam esse. Caput viii De Prudentia, quam Usus et Historia gignunt, et producit Doctrina. LIBRI SECUNDI Caput i De Principatu. Eum praeferendum aliis imperiis videri. Monitum i. Antiquissimum hunc esse. Monitum ii. Communissimum hunc esse. Monitum iii. Iustitiam magis in eo exerceri. Monitum iv. Tranquillitatem et concordiam coli. Monitum v. Modum regendi meliorem tutioremque esse. Monitum vi. Maxime hanc imperii formam diurnare. Caput ii In eo Viros Faeminis praeferendos, et has vix feliciter imperare. Muliebris imperii infelicis Exempla. Muliebris imperii boni et felicis Exempla. Caput iii De Electione. Quae commendare eam, quae abiicere possint. Caput iv De Successione. Hanc praeferendam, etsi incommoda etiam habet. Monitum i. Certos Liberos praeferri. Monitum ii. Praeferri aetate primos, etsi in exemplis interdum aliter. Monitum iii. Patruum aut fratris filium varie praeferri.

532 532

Index Chapter 6 On conscience. It has to be cared for and obeyed. Chapter 7 On probity and constancy. Both are appropriate to and necessary for the prince. Chapter 8 On prudence, which is generated by experience and history, and advanced by learning.

BOOK 2 Chapter 1 On monarchy. It is seen to be preferable to other constitutions. Admonition 1. Monarchy is the oldest constitution. Admonition 2. Monarchy is the most common constitution. Admonition 3. Justice is practiced more in a monarchy. Admonition 4. Tranquillity and concord are cultivated. Admonition 5. Monarchy is the best and safest form of government. Admonition 6. This form of government is the longest-lasting. Chapter 2 In monarchy men are to be preferred to women, and women hardly ever rule successfully. Unsuccessful female rule. Good and successful female rule. Chapter 3 On election. What could argue for it and what could argue against it. Chapter 4 On succession. It is to be preferred, even though it also has some disadvantages. Admonition 1. Legitimate children are preferred. Admonition 2. The firstborn are preferred, although in some examples it is sometimes different. Admonition 3. Some prefer the uncle, while others prefer the nephew.

533 533

Index

Caput v De Fraude et Vi. Has quoque priorum specie intervenire. Caput vi De Principum Inclinatione. Deteriores eos saepe fieri et mutari. Caput vii De Fine Principatus, qui est publicum bonum. Caput viii De Exemplis Principum. Ea facere ad Virtutes aut Vitia subditorum. Caput ix De Iustitia, quam Princeps in se et suis servet. De Iustitia, quam Princeps erga Subditos servet. Monitum i. Severe administranda. Monitum ii. Sine affectu vel aspectu administranda. Monitum iii. Subtiliter interdum vel sagaciter inquirenda. Quaestio. An ergo deceat aut expediat ipsum Principem ius dicere, reddere? Quaestio. An Curias et Ordines Iudicum perpetuos esse conveniat? Caput x De Legibus. Eas nec multas, nec item lites, probari. Caput xi De Iustitia Divina atque eam rebus intervenire. Caput xii De Clementia. Eam quoque Principi decoram utilemque esse. Caput xiii De Fide. Hanc quoque Principi convenientem vel necessariam esse. Caput xiv De Modestia in Sensu. Hanc Principi decoram et utilem esse. Caput xv De Modestia in cultu, et hanc convenire; elegantiam aut pompam non convenire.

534 534

Index Chapter 5 On deceit and violence. These also occur in the guise of the foregoing. Chapter 6 On the changeability of princes. They often change for the worse. Chapter 7 On the purpose of monarchy, which is the common good. Chapter 8 On the exemplary role of princes. It is relevant to the virtues and vices of the subjects. Chapter 9 On justice, which the prince should observe in himself and his entourage. On justice, which the prince should observe towards his subjects. Admonition 1. Justice has to be administered strictly. Admonition 2. Justice has to be administered dispassionately and without bias. Admonition 3. Sometimes subtle and sagacious investigation is needed. Question. Is it suitable or useful, then, for the prince to pronounce and pass judgment personally? Question. Is it appropriate that the courts and orders of judges are permanent? Chapter 10 On laws. Few laws should be approved, just as lawsuits. Chapter 11 On divine justice, and the fact that it intervenes in events. Chapter 12 On clemency. It is also suitable and useful for the prince. Chapter 13 On faithfulness. It is also considered fitting, or rather necessary, for the prince. Chapter 14 On modesty in spirit. It is suitable and useful for the prince. Chapter 15 On modesty in appearance, and the fact that it is fitting, while splendour and pomp are not.

535 535

Index

Caput xvi De Maiestate, et salva Modestia posse assumi. Caput xvii De Castitate, quam Princeps extra conubium, et in eo pro parte, sumet. Caput xviii De Patientia. Ab ira et vindicta alienum esse debere, praesertim in conviciatores. Caput xix De Magnitudine animi. Famam et immortalitatem Principi proposita et expetenda.

536 536

Index Chapter 16 On majesty, and the fact that it can be assumed while preserving modesty. Chapter 17 On chastity, which the prince should preserve outside marriage, and partly in it. Chapter 18 On forbearance. One has to be free of anger and vindictiveness, especially towards insulters. Chapter 19 On magnanimity. Fame and immortality are proposed to and have to be pursued by the prince.

537 537

538

COMMENTARY I. Preliminary Remarks The main aim of this commentary is to illustrate the relationship between the text and its sources. We shall investigate which sources Lipsius used and how he used them. When it is doubtful which source he used, or if there are significant differences between Lipsius and his source text, this will be indicated. Next, the relation of the Monita to other works by Lipsius will be studied. Special attention will be paid to the relation between the Monita and the Politica, which it intended to illustrate, and the Notae, which ‒ just like the Monita ‒ form an illustration of the Politica. In addition, we want to illustrate the relation of the text to other mirrors for princes and exempla collections, and to contemporary political treatises. Occasionally, the commentary will also be used to explain certain choices made in the English translation and to explain some mythological or historical references which occur in the text and which might otherwise obstruct an immediate understanding of the text. However, references to ancient mythology or history are not explained systematically, nor shall we discuss the historical details of all the events described in the text.

539

Commentary II. Commentary on Book 1 Title page p.  148: Iusti Lipsi monita et exempla politica. Libri duo qui Virtutes et Vitia Principum spectant] The title of the work appears for the first time in Lipsius’ correspondence in 1596; cf. ILE [IX], 96 09 10 A, Janssens (2006) and Nordman (1932: 44). According to Wansink (1981: 43 and n. 9), monita et exempla politica ve­te­ rum was a common expression. In Singer’s overview (1981: 160) of mirrors for princes produced or published in Germany or for German princes from the fifteenth until the twentieth century, however, we have only found one similar title preceding Lipsius’ Monita, namely Henricus Stephanus, Principum Monitrix Musa sive de Principatu bene instituendo et adminstrando Poema (Basel, 1590). Dedicatory letter p. 148, ll. 7-9: In 1559 Albert VII, Archduke of Austria, was born as the son of Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor and the Infanta Maria of Spain, daughter of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and Isabella of Portugal. See Brants (1910), Pasture (1925), Duerloo (1997), and Thomas – Duerloo (1998). In 1598 King Philip II of Spain decided to marry his oldest daughter, the Infanta Isabella, to Albert and to cede the sovereignty over the Habsburg Netherlands to them. The Act of Cession did, however, contain a number of clauses that assured Spanish control over the Netherlands. p. 148, l. 10: Besides the Monita, Lipsius dedicated the Admiranda sive De Magnitudine Romana and the Dissertatiuncula apud Principes to Albert. p. 148, ll. 15-16: Albert’s great-uncle, Charles V, was the heir of Europe’s leading dynasties, namely the Burgundian Valois dynasty, the Austrian Habsburg dynasty, and the Castilian and Aragonese Trastamara dynasty. Various members of these dynasties were either called Rudolf, Philip, Maximilian, Charles, Ferdinand, or Alfonso, such as Albert’s father Maximilian II and his grandfather Ferdinand I, so that Lipsius can speak of them as Albert’s ancestors; cf. Koeningsberger (1968) and Prak (2005: 7). p. 148, ll. 21-24: The invocation of the protection of the dedicatee against possible criticism and slander is a recurring theme in Lipsius’ dedicatory letters. Lipsius often selected his dedicatees because they were a guarantee of Lipsius’ orthodoxy and/or a protection against possible calumnies. p. 150, ll. 1-3: This brings to mind Machiavelli’s dedication of Il Principe.

540

Commentary on Book 1 p. 150, ll. 3-6: Concern for peace is a central issue of the Lipsian oeuvre; cf. Papy (2003b). After his return to the Southern Netherlands, Lipsius directed all his hopes to Archduke Albert to restore peace in this war-stricken region. He had to become the new “optimus princeps”. By referring to Albert in this way, Lipsius identifies him with Emperor Trajan, who bore the same title, thus associating the Rome of Pliny and Trajan to the Spanish Netherlands; cf. Morford (1991: 126), Singer (1981: 32) and Stacey (2007: 191-192).The same title occurs in Lipsius’ dedicatory letter of the Dissertatiuncula and Panegyricus to the Archdukes (cf. ILE XIII, 00 04 12). Preface to the reader p. 150, ll. 10-11: In the preface to the reader Lipsius explicitly connects the Monita to the Politica: the aim of the former is to illuminate (“luci”) and confirm (“assertioni”) the latter. p. 150, ll. 12-14: Lipsius produced a similar reason in a letter which he wrote to Clusius after publishing the Monita: “Sunt Monita et Exempla Politica, inceptum opus, non perfectum, ita vel valetudo abiicit, vel occupatio distrahit, ut vix ultra sint pangenda” (ILE 05 02 08 L), and in a letter to Chokier: “Fac, imo perfice, et Thesaurum illum tuum Politicorum Aphorismorum divulga. Quid te abstineat? Ego? Incoepi tantum et primas lineas duxi; reliqua, vereor ut languor impediat, aut filia eius Parca.” (ILE 05 05 11). However, complaints about health problems are a recurrent theme in the Lipsian oeuvre and are often invoked as an excuse. p. 150, ll. 15-18: Lipsius anticipates an objection which a reader may raise, namely that he did not indicate the sources of his stories. Lipsius replies that, as a senior scholar, he neither needs the authority which such references would provide to young scholars, nor wants to display his erudition by indicating variant readings. In the introductions and dedications of his works and in his correspondence, Lipsius stresses repeatedly that he rejects erudition as a goal in itself (Morford 1993: 130). p. 150, ll. 18-19: As for Erasmus (cf. Gilmore [1963: 91]), for Lipsius trustworthiness (fides) was an essential quality of a historian. In the Monita he often stresses the trustworthiness of his sources; compare with Lipsius, Notae, 1.9 (p.  730, ed. Waszink). p. 150, l. 21: Si non, a te suppone, et dedi exemplum] Also in the Politica Lipsius urges the reader to expand the work (with other quotations): “Quid enim aliud ista, quam velut tabulae quaedam dispositae, et Loci Communes sunt, ad quos commode referas lecta tibi in hoc argumento aut legenda? Vide, et imitare.”; see Lipsius, Notae (p. 722, ed. Waszink).

541

Commentary Similarly, in the letter to de Hacqueville, Lipsius also encourages him or anyone else to collect examples (to supplement the Politica): the fact that he himself is composing such a work should not discourage them (ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H). Book 1 Chapter 1 p. 154, l. 2: A chapter on the utility of historical examples was a standard component of humanist treatises on the reading and writing of history (ars historica); see Brown (1939: 59-60). Humanists also often expressed their views on history and historiography in dedications and introductions to (philosophical, pedagogical, historical and political) treatises; see Landfester (1972: 32-36) and Lathrop (1933: 80). p.  154, ll. 3-12: Lipsius frequently used the dialogue form, a genre which was very popular among humanists in general (Burke 1989), in his philosophical works (e.g. the De Constantia and Manuductio) as well as in his historical and antiquarian treatises, such as the Admiranda and the Lovanium, in which a dialogue between the master and his pupils is staged in the style of the Senecan dialogue; cf. Papy (2002b). Here the dialogue seems to take the form of what Peter Burke (1989) has labelled “a catechism”, that is, a didactic or closed form of dialogue between a student and teacher which is little more than a monologue. p. 154, l. 5: lapsus cum equo] Tucker points out that Lipsius’ fall with his horse recalls “the concussed ‘equestrian’ Montaigne in De l’exercitation [Essais II:6], if not also the ‘idle’ spirit of the wide-ranging French essayist in De l’oisiveté [I:8], ‘faisant le cheval eschappé’. See Tucker (2011), with reference to Van Den Abbeele (1992: 1-38). Lipsius mentions a fall with his horse in a letter to Nicolaas Oudaert in January  1604 (ILE 04 01 24 O). Although this incident was not necessarily the immediate cause for Lipsius to resume work on the Monita, it might nevertheless have inspired him when writing this introduction and could confirm that he indeed started working on it again at the beginning of 1604. p. 154, ll. 14-15: The view that historical examples are a more efficient method of moral teaching than precepts was widespread among humanists and is as old as Western literature. See e.g. Guion (2008: 41-48), Aragüés Aldaz (1999: 69-77), Skidmore (1996: 84), Kahn (1985: 10), Holcroft (1976: 21-47; 76-82), Landfester (1972: 57-59), Nadel (1964: 298) and Gilmore (1963: 19-25 and 97-98).

542

Commentary on Book 1 p. 154, ll. 15-17: If the structure of the building has been constructed by Lipsius in the Politica, the Monita has to provide “furniture and decoration”. A similar architectural metaphor, characteristic of the cento, is used in the Notae to the Politica, 1.1 (p. 722, ed. Waszink). On Lipsius as “Architect” and “Master of Order”, see Papy (2006); on the metaphors used by Lipsius to describe his use of examples, see Halsted (1991). p. 154, ll. 17-19: Lipsius gives this metaphor, which was often used in a pedagogical context, but was traditionally applied to students, a personal twist by applying it to precepts, which will “mature” by the “nutrition” offered by examples. See e.g. Aragüés Aldaz (1999: 67-68), Horowitz (1998: esp. 155-180 on Erasmus, Lipsius and Du Vair), and Becker (2001). p. 154, ll. 19-20: Verisimilitude or the ability to represent events graphically was considered an important quality of historical examples in antiquity, by authors such as Valerius Maximus, Quintilian, Polybius, Livy and Lucian, and in the Renaissance, by writers and pedagogues such as Vergerio, Filelfo, Sigonio, Patrizzi, Pontano, Viperano, Fox Morzillo and Muret; cf. Aragüés Aldaz (1999: 83-86), Skidmore (1996: 84-85), Landfester (1972: 140-142), and Holcroft (1976: 21-47 and 76-82). It was also Lipsius’ intention to achieve such verisimilitude.The ability to “hold forth”, ostendere, is characteristic of a good historian, as he affirms in the dedicatory letter to his Ad Annales Corn.Taciti liber commentarius (1581: fol. *3r and v). p. 154, l. 21: animum erigunt] The Latin word “animus” means the rational part of the soul. Therefore we have sometimes translated it as “soul”, sometimes as “mind”, whichever seemed most suitable in a particular context. p. 154, l. 25 – p. 156, l. 2: The representation of exemplary figures was used and considered as the best rhetorical technique to teach and influence moral and political behaviour in antiquity and the Renaissance; cf. Skidmore (1996), Holcroft (1976: 21-47; 76-82), Landfester (1972), Hampton (1990), Gilmore (1963) and Halsted (1991). Lipsius expressed the same idea in ILE [XVIII], 05 12 01, ILE [XVIII], 05 11 14 L 15, and Pol. 1.9 (p. 288, ed. Waszink). Lipsius elaborates the image of the mirror: to apply past models to the present, princes and politicians have to select the appropriate aspects of the past, like the prince who looks into a mirror and selects those features of the image which are worthy of imitation, or like the painter Zeuxis, who composed a perfect statue by combining the most beautiful characteristics of various beautiful women.The image of the painter Zeuxis, which was used by various ancient authors, including Cicero (inv. 2.1) and Pliny (nat. 35.64), was often adduced by authors of mirrors for princes at the time to illustrate this point. See Singer (1981: 32) and Tilmans (1989: 428).

543

Commentary p. 156, ll. 6-8: Lipsius’ cultural pessimism and time criticism is not only expressed in the opening lines of the Monita, but also in the closing lines, in his correspondence and elsewhere (Van Houdt [1998: 418]), and was shared by many other humanists of his time. Cf. Kühlmann (1982: 67-112 and 351-371) and Enenkel (1995). p. 156, ll. 9-13: In his final attempt to convince Lipsius, the auditor resumes the medical metaphor used by his master to encourage him to disseminate the salutary examples which he has gathered from various authors, like the “sparks” of quotations he had found scattered and had collected in the Politica (Pol. 1.2; p. 262, ed. Waszink). The image of the physician is supplemented here by the image of the farmer. See further De Bom (2009: 137-139), Kühlmann (1982: 72), Archambault 1967), Hale (1971), Kantorowicz (1957), Hinrichs (1969: 53-58) and Stacey (2007: s.v. prince as medic). The decisive argument, however, comes from Seneca. A similar idea can be found in a letter to Nicolas Oudaert on Lipsius’ Panegyricus ad Traianum: “At quis usus? inquies. Alibi fortassis et ubi nolim. Quid faciam? Nos, ut in theatris olim, spargimus; ille aut alius sinum aut manum implet.” (ILE 00 04 13 O); cf.Van Houdt (1998: 422). p. 156, l. 13: In Roman mythology Bonus Eventus (“Good Issue”) was a deity originally associated with agriculture; evenire and eventus designate the ripening of the fruits of the field. Later Bonus Eventus was generally understood as the bestower of success (Apul. met. 4.2). p. 156, ll. 17-20: Lipsius adduces one more argument, albeit a cynical one, of his own: just like pearls which are thrown into the mud do not lose their brilliance, thus Lipsius’ advice can still be useful for future generations if it is not immediately helpful for his ignorant contemporaries, as Lipsius fears. Compare Mon. 2.18. This brings to mind Erasmus’ advice in the Institutio (2.17): “Et tamen si quid in horum gestis inciderit dignum bono Principe, id curabis ceu gemmam e sterquilinio colligere.” Chapter 2 p. 158, l. 1: This topic is also discussed by Lipsius in Politica, 1.2-3 and 4.2, in the corresponding chapters of the Notae and in the De una religione adversus Dialogistam. Following Valerius Maximus, religion was often treated as the first topic in exempla collections. The first book of his Facta et dicta memorabilia clearly inspired Lipsius’ treatment of the subject in the Monita. Also Lipsius’ own notebooks with quotations and examples, which are preserved in the University Library of Leiden, are likely to have been a source for the Monita. Ms. Lips. 32 contains the heading Religio, servata aut neglecta, with many quotations and references to ancient, 544

Commentary on Book 1 medieval, and contemporary authors. Ms. Lips. 58, includes, among other topics, Religio. p. 158, l. 3: In the corresponding chapters of the Politica (1.2-3; 4.2) and the Notae, piety (pietas) is divided into belief (sensus) and worship (cultus), which are treated separately. Worship is further sub-divided into internal and external. Together, Lipsius says, internal and external worship form what is commonly called religion (religio). The chapter on belief is elaborated in the corresponding Notae. In the Monita these distinctions are not made explicit and the chapter on religion in general seems to be concerned with worship only. p. 158, l. 5: Religion is called the base and foundation of the state as in the Politica (4.2.1) and the De una religione (1599: 69). In the De una religione (1599: 68) it is also compared to the foundations of a house, just as here, and moreover to the keel of a ship. p.  158, ll. 6-11: A similar argument, namely that religion and fear of God are the bonds of society and that without them, there will be nothing but crime and immorality, is developed in Pol. 4.2.1. In the Discorsi Machiavelli had stressed the importance of religion as a means of controlling the masses in a similar way, even though the author did not consider Christianity as a suitable state religion; cf. Machiavelli, Discorsi, 1.11-15, and Bireley (1990: 11-12). Giovanni Botero (Ragion di stato, 2.14-16) agreed with Machiavelli that religion is the foundation of princely rule and that piety should be encouraged among the subjects because of the virtues it engenders in them, but argued to the contrary that Christianity was especially suitable to do this; cf. Bireley (1990: 61). Juan de Mariana (De rege, 2.14, 1599: 253-254) stressed the civic function of religion in similar terms as “vinculum soci­ etatis”; cf. Braun (2007: 136-160). Like Lipsius, he does not explicitly name which religion the prince should adhere to and inspire in his subjects. p. 158, ll. 10-11: Esto igitur vinculum et firmamentum reipublicae, Religio] Lipsius concludes after Plutarch, as quoted in De una religione (1599: 69). p. 158, ll. 11-15: The argument that for a prince worship is a form of gratitude towards God and that the prince’s fortune (and consequently that of the state) depends on God is also expressed in the Politica (1.3.1 and 4.2.1) and elaborated in the corresponding passages in the Notae and the De una religione (1599: 68). The argument that history shows that God rewards those who honour and serve Him faithfully and honestly (in this life or the next) and punishes irreligious behaviour was a common anti-machiavellian argument, also adduced by authors such as Giovanni Botero, Juan de Mariana and Pedro de Ribadeneyra. Lipsius’ treatment of the subject clearly reveals the influence of these writers. He was indeed familiar with their works, of which he kept copies in his library. 545

Commentary p.  158, ll. 15-18: Lipsius’ library contained a bilingual edition of Aristotle’s De Mundo. See Leiden, University Library, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 8v: “Aristoteles, De mundo graecolatine, 8, Raphelen[gii], 1601” = Aristoteles, De Mundo, Graece: Cum duplici interpretatione Latina. Priore quidem L. Apulei; altera vero Guilielmi Budaei. Cum scholiis et castigationibus Bonaventurae Vulcanii tam in Aristotelem, quam in utrunque eius inter­ pretem. (Leiden: F. Raphelengius, 1591). The Greek text of the Monita indeed corresponds to the text of this edition. The Latin translation of the quotation in the Monita bears resemblances to the translation by Guillaume Budé in this edition, but does not correspond to it exactly. This seems to be the case for most of the translations occurring in the Monita. p. 158, ll. 17-18: omnia a deo et per deum nobis sint constituta] Saying attributed to Thales (Diels, Vorsokr., 11 A 22). The text and meaning of the quote are unaltered and translated faithfully by Lipsius. p. 158, l. 20: The original text of Juvenal (8.24), reading “prima mihi debes animi bona. Sanctus haberi / iustitiaeque tenax factis dictisque mereris?”, and its meaning are altered slightly by Lipsius to fit the context. p. 158, ll. 22-24: The argument that a prince should worship God for his own protection, because religious subjects are more obedient, goes back to Aristotle (Pol. 1314b 38 – 1315a 4) and is expressed by Lipsius in the Politica as well (4.2.1), and amplified in the De una religione (1599: 69). Machiavelli also argued that religious subjects obey the prince more since people do not want to harm someone whom they consider to be protected by God (Discorsi, 1.11). Giovanni Botero agreed that subjects will not rebel against a ruler who they think to be favoured by God, but stressed against Machiavelli that the prince’s reverence for God should be true; cf. Ragion di stato, 2.15. A similar view is expressed by Mariana in his De rege (1599: 258). p. 158, ll. 30-31: Lipsius feels the need to justify his choice of pagan examples in this context, as he had also done in Politica, 1.2.1 (see also Mon. 1.7, const. 6). Lipsius’ reliance on pagan, classical sources was criticised fiercely by Coornhert and defended by Lipsius in his De una religione (1599: 68). Like Mariana, but unlike Botero (Della ragion di stato, 2.16) and Ribadeneyra (Tratado, p. 567), Lipsius does not specify in this chapter which religion the civil religion should be and does not defend the Catholic religion as the most suitable one against Machiavelli’s attacks (Discorsi, 2.2; 1.11-15). p.  160, ll. 4-6: Lipsius relies on the last chapter of Xenophon’s Agesilaus (X. Ages. 11.1), in which Xenophon summarizes Agesilaus’ virtue, starting with his reverence for temples in the territory of the enemy. The first part of the story

546

Commentary on Book 1 (venerabatur delubra etiam in hostico sita) is a verbal translation of Xenophon’s words (Ἀγησίλαος ἱερὰ μὲν καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐσέβετο), but it is not identified as a quote (by means of italics). Then Lipsius inserts an element, namely that Agesilaus also protected temples from violence (ab iisque vim militum et iniuriam abstinebat), which he borrowed from Xenophon’s next sentence (ἱκέτας δὲ θεῶν οὐδὲ ἐχθροὺς ἐβιάζετο), before introducing the quotation. The quotation is quite faithful, maybe apart from the rendering of χρῆναι συμμάχους ποιεῖσθαι (“make allies of the Gods”) by divina auxilia imploranda esse (“implore divine help”). p. 160, ll. 7-22: Lipsius reproduces Josephus’ account (AJ 11.329-339) in his own words, preserving the general narrative and even many of the details, but adding some personal comments to stress Alexander’s virtue. The conversation between Alexander and Parmenio is rendered freely and in indirect speech instead of the original direct speech. The original meaning, however, is always retained. p. 160, ll. 23-39: Lipsius renders Josephus’ text (AJ 13.241-243) in his own words, again preserving the general narrative and some of the details, but adding comments of his own to stress that the Jews did not neglect the adoration of the sacred in times of war, as prescribed in Lipsius’ first admonition, as well as Antiochus’ participation in it. p. 162, ll. 6-7: This admonition is based on a comment made in Pol. 1.3.1 (p. 266, ed. Waszink) about religious observance in prosperity as well as in adversity. p. 162, ll. 8-14: This is a reproduction of Livy’s account of the story of Quintus Fabius Dorsuo (5.46.1-3), with verbal repetitions. The anecdote can also be found in Valerius Maximus’ chapter on religion (1.1.11). p.  162, ll. 15-25: This is a free reproduction of Plutarch’s account (Arist. 17.918.2). The general narrative is retained, but few details are preserved and even Pausanias’ words are not reproduced verbally. The moral of the story is stressed by Lipsius at the end, in a praise of Pausanias. In Plutarch the Lacedaemonians in general are praised in similar terms for their constancy, but not Pausanias, because it is the virtuousness of Aristides which Plutarch wants to illustrate here. p. 162, l. 26 – p. 164, l. 3: This is quite a general account of the religious zeal of Louis IX of France. It could be based on Aemilius Paulus’ account of the life and reign of Saint Louis in the seventh book of his De rebus gestis Francorum, of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3r), and which he recommended the prince to read in the Notae (1.9; p. 735, ed. Waszink). At the end Lipsius expresses the hope that Henry IV will continue his ancestor’s fight against religious enemies. Lipsius expressed a similar opinion in the Sent-brief,

547

Commentary a letter which he wrote in 1595 to the Spanish nobleman Francisco de San Víctores at his request concerning the foreign policy of Philip II of Spain; cf. ILE 95 01 02 S. While Lipsius generally avoided direct references to contemporary politics in the Politica, the Monita contains several references to recent and contemporary political history, as well as various appeals to leading families and rulers to imitate their famous ancestors. p. 164, ll. 4-16: This praise of Godfrey of Bouillon as one of the leaders of the first crusade and first King of Jerusalem is very general, but could be a summary of Aemilius Paulus’ description of the crusade in the fourth book of his De rebus gestis Francorum. The number of soldiers who were involved in the crusade varies in different reports according to Lipsius, but the amount reported by him corresponds to the number in De rebus gestis Francorum (1566: fol. 75r). p. 164, l. 13: The quotation of Caesar’s famous words (“veni, vidi, vici”; see Suet. Iul. 37.2) might have brought the anecdote of Charles V at the Battle of Mühlberg to mind (p. 164, ll. 17-29). A turning point in this battle was the crossing of the River Elbe, which was often compared to Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.While crossing the river, Charles would have turned Caesar’s famous words into “Veni, vidi, Deus vicit”; cf. Checa Cremades (1999: 496) and Soly – Van de Wiele (1999: 271).This anecdote is often related in mirrors for princes; cf. Alaerts (2003). Charles V’s defeat of the Lutherans at Mühlberg was often adduced by “anti-Machiavellian” authors, such as Pedro de Ribadeneyra and Antonio Possevino, as an example of piety rewarded by God; cf. Bireley (1990: 26 and 119). p.  164, l. 21: Lipsius praises Charles V for wanting to concentrate on the war against the Turks instead of against fellow Christians.This common concern is also expressed elsewhere in Lipsius’ writings and letters. See further Laureys (2001) and Enenkel (2004). p. 166, ll. 2-15: Account of the Battle of Crocus Field, as related by the Roman historian Justin (8.1-2.5). Specific details which can be found in Justin, such as the coronation of the soldiers with laurel, recur, and the wording is very similar. Lipsius’ collection of examples (Leiden, UB, Ms. Lips. 58), contained a heading “Philippi Macedonis laudes”. Together with Alexander the Great, he is one of the most frequently used examples of the Monita. p.  166, ll. 16-24: This is a very general account and praise of Constantine the Great’s religious zeal, probably based on Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, 9-10 and Vita Constantini). Constantine the Great was often adduced as an example of piety rewarded by God by “anti-Machiavellian” authors such as Botero (Ragion di Stato, 2.15), and Ribadeneyra; cf. Bireley (1990: 119).

548

Commentary on Book 1 p. 166, l. 23: novam] New Rome was a common name for Constantinople, the city founded by Emperor Constantine I the Great in 324 (known as Byzantium before that date; renamed Istanbul in modern times). p. 166, l. 25 – p. 168, l. 2: This is a very general account and praise of Charlemagne’s religious campaigns, which could be derived from accounts such as those of Michael Ritius (De regibus Francorum), Paulus Aemilius (De rebus gestis Francorum, lib. 2), or Pierre Pithou (Annales et historia Francorum), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 9r). p. 168, l. 11: This comment on the title “the Catholic” can be found literally in Juan de Mariana’s Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, 7.4 (1592: 315), but the preceding description of his piety does not seem to come from Mariana. Such a description can for instance be found in Johannes Vasaeus’ Chronicon rerum Hispanicarum, a. 737 (1577: 477). p. 168, ll. 16-33: Lipsius’ collection of examples (Leiden, UB, Ms. Lips. 58) contains a heading “Austria/Austrii”, which features a list of all rulers, but also various sub-themes with references to relevant passages. When making a note about Rudolf I, Lipsius refers to Gerardus de Roo. In his library he indeed kept a copy of Gerardus de Roo’s Annales rerum Austriacarum (cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3v), which he used as a source for his account of the popular legend of Rudolf ’s encounter with the priest. The example of Rudolf I’s piety was also used by Giovanni Botero in his Ragion di stato (2.15) as an example of piety rewarded by God, as well as by Ribadeneyra; cf. Bireley (1990: 119). p. 170, l. 1: The need to honour priests and other religious servants is also stressed by Botero, Ragion di Stato (2.15). p.  170, ll. 2-5: This is a paraphrase of Aelius Lampridius’ praise of Alexander Severus’ piety (Hist. Aug. Alex. 22.5). p. 170, ll. 21-26: Lipsius quotes from Johannes Leunclavius’ edition of the Annales, which was present in his library, and praised and recommended by Lipsius on various occasions. See, e.g., ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H and ILE III, 90 06 14. The work is also recommended as a source of political prudence for the prince in the Notae to Pol. 1.9 (p. 736, ed. Waszink). p. 170, l. 27 - p. 172, l. 1: This anecdote can be found in various chronicles such as William of Newburgh’s Historia rerum anglicarum (2.35), which was included in Henry Savile’s edition of Rerum Anglicarum scriptores post Bedam praecipue ex

549

Commentary vetustissimis codicibus primum editi (Frankfurt: Wechel, 1601), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library; cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3v. p. 172, ll. 5-6: This remark seems to suggest that the statements made in the De una religione, and consequently in the Politica, are still valid and should be kept in mind by the reader, even if some are not explicitly repeated. Chapter 3 p. 174, ll. 2-3: The basis for this chapter can be found in the Notae to the corresponding chapter of the Politica (1.3). Similar arguments are adduced and some of the same instances quoted. The subject is also treated in other mirrors for princes, such as Juan de Torres’ Philosophía moral de príncipes (2.4), and collections of examples, such as Valerius Maximus’ and Theodor Zwinger’s, and in Lipsius’ own collection of examples, viz. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2. p. 174, ll. 5-10: The assertion that humans are naturally inclined towards superstition can be found in the Politica (1.3.2) as well, and is illustrated in the Notae with the same quotation as in the Monita (Plu. Cam. 6.4). Here it appears with a (non-significant) reduction of a few words and with some variations in the translation. Lipsius probably wanted to avoid verbal repetition. p. 174, ll. 12-17: The opinion that barbarians are especially prone to superstition is expressed in the Notae, 1.3 (p. 726, ed.Waszink) as well and is illustrated with the same verbal quotation from Plutarch, but the translation is again slightly different. In the original context Plutarch describes how superstition was used by Sertorius to make the people more obedient, a matter discussed in the quaestiuncula at the end of this chapter. In the 1606 edition, the erroneous φύσιν is corrected. p. 174, ll. 15-17: This definition of superstition is based on elements present in Pol. 1.3.2 (p. 268, ed. Waszink) and Notae, 1.3 (pp. 725-727, ed. Waszink). p. 176, ll. 1-2: Plea for Stoic constancy in the face of death, reminiscent of Sen. epist. 1.4.8; 3.24.11; 3.26.10; 4.30.10-11; 7.63.16 and nat. 6.32.6. p. 176, ll. 4-7: Lipsius based his description of Augustus’ superstition on Suetonius’ account, combining and slightly adapting various elements which he found there. p.  176, l. 9: This topic is only briefly touched upon in the Politica (1.3.2) and elaborated a little more in the corresponding notes. In Lipsius’ eyes it must have deserved further development and illustration, for he adds an extensive debate about it in the Monita (although he labels it “quaestiuncula”). It was indeed a 550

Commentary on Book 1 key-issue of debate in early modern political thought. Thus in the Discorsi, 1.11-15 Machiavelli stresses the importance of religion as a means of controlling the masses; cf. Bireley (1990: 11-12). He argues that the prince should therefore instil religion in the people and appear religious, but in his view it does not matter whether their faith is true or not. This provoked strong reactions from “anti-Machiavellian” authors, such as Botero, Mariana, and Ribadeneyra, who clearly influenced Lipsius’ treatment of the subject. In the Politica and the Monita Lipsius agrees with Machiavelli and most of his contemporaries that religion is indeed a powerful means to control behaviour, but he stresses that it needs to be true because history has shown that God exalts the pious and punishes irreligious behaviour; cf. Mon. 1.2 and compare Mon. 1.3 and Pol. 4.2. To prove his point Lipsius indeed adduces plenty of examples from history, including those used by Machiavelli himself. More examples of people who unsuccessfully tried to use superstition as an instrument for governing had been adduced by Lipsius in the Notae, 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink) and the De una religione (1599: 75-76). p. 176, ll. 10-18: That the prince should not be excessively pious and that governing or civil virtue is in itself a form of piety is stated in the Politica (1.3.2) as well and illustrated with the same quotation from Nicephorus Gregoras in the Notae, 1.3 (pp. 726-727, ed. Waszink). Only the Latin translation has been polished up a little. p. 176, ll. 19-24: According to Lipsius, superstition as a tool for ruling is mainly defended by ancient authors, whose arguments he will present first. The first authority is the opinion of Numa as rendered by Livy (1.19.4), who does not, however, explicitly approve or disapprove of it.The quotation can also be found in the Notae, 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink), where a few words of the original are left out (et illis saeculis rudem). In the Monita the missing words are added again, albeit with one (insignificant) change (temporibus pro saeculis) from the original. Numa is praised, to the contrary, as an example of a leader or lawgiver who cleverly used superstition to strengthen his authority by Machiavelli (Discorsi, 1.11) and Mariana, De rege (1599: 254); cf. Braun (2007: 139-140). p. 176, ll. 24-26: Curtius Rufus also recognises the effect of superstition on the people, without, however, approving of it as an instrument for governing.The first part of the original sentence reads Nulla res multitudinem efficacius regit quam super­ stitio, and is quoted in the Politica (1.3.2). The second part is quoted verbally in the Notae, 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink): “alioqui impotens, saeva, mutabilis, ubi vana religione capta est, melius vatibus quam ducibus suis paret.” becomes “alioquin impo­ tens, saeva, mutabilis, ubi vana religione capta est, melius vatibus suis (sive et sacerdotibus) quam ducibus regibusque paret.” This has been reproduced in the Monita with some changes.Thus Lipsius felt the need to specify that the pagan “vates” (soothsayer) can

551

Commentary be equated with the more Christian-sounding “sacerdos” (priest), and to add kings (“regibusque”) to the more general and military term “dux” (leader, general), given his specific audience. Since “alioquin” is part of the quotation, it has been italicised by us in our edition. In the Notae it is printed in italics, so it must have been a small mistake that went unnoticed in various editions of the Monita. p. 176, l. 26 – p. 178, l. 2: The only ancient author who actually does praise the use of superstition is Polybius, whose text is reproduced quite literally by Lipsius. p. 178, ll. 2-3: Lipsius encourages the prince not to be persuaded by these arguments and will now systematically adduce counter-arguments. However, by presenting arguments both pro and contra, in the style of a true quaestio or disputatio, Lipsius gives the reader ample opportunity to make up his own mind. This technique is also applied elsewhere in the Monita. p. 178, ll. 3-6: First Lipsius replies to the argument that superstition makes the souls mild by saying that it rather makes souls weak. To enforce his point, Lipsius quotes Lucretius, just as in the Notae 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink), introducing it with similar terms. p. 178, ll. 7-11: Lipsius also contests that superstition makes people more obedient. According to him, it makes people, on the contrary, more rebellious. The opinion that people who introduce new and/or false beliefs should be punished because they only incite people to rebellion is expressed in the Politica as well (4.2.2) and corroborated in the Notae 1.3 (p. 726, ed. Waszink) and De una reli­ gione (1599: 75-76) with numerous examples. Therefore Lipsius confines himself to only one example here, namely that of Girolamo Savonarola. Just like Numa, Savonarola was also praised by Machiavelli (Discorsi, 1.11) for imposing a new faith on the people of Florence and persuading them that he spoke with God. p. 178, ll. 11-29: This is a general description of the political career of Savonarola, which could be derived from Francesco Guicciardini’s Historia d’Italia (books 2-3), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library, or Paolo Giovio’s Vita Leonis (book 1). p. 178, ll. 29-32: Lipsius concludes against the use of superstition by the prince and adds a long series of examples of the superstitious behaviour of various peoples. It is clear from the number of examples, their length and the detailed descriptions which they feature, as well as from the remark “Exempla libet dare et ridere”, that Lipsius took great pleasure in these examples of superstition and that they were intended to divert and amuse his readers, as well as to confirm the true faith by ridiculing these false beliefs.

552

Commentary on Book 1 Lipsius might also have been stimulated by a typically humanist interest in strange and exotic phenomena (old and new). An inventory which has been preserved of Lipsius’ library reveals his great interest in the New World; cf. Papy (2001c). A similar interest can be seen with contemporary compilers, such as Theodor Zwinger, whose Theatrum humanae vitae also contains a long list of examples of superstition by foreign peoples such as the Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, and Indians. p. 180, ll. 1-18: Faithful reproduction of Diodorus Siculus’ description of the veneration of animals by the Egyptians (1.83), also reported by Herodotus (2.65-76). Diodorus is praised as a historian in ILE 00 12 03 H. Lipsius possessed a bilingual edition of Diodorus’ Bibliotheca; cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 4v: “Diodorus Siculus graecolat[ine], fol[io], Wechel, 1604” (= Laurentius Rhodomanus, Diodori Siculi Bibliothecae libri xv Graecolatine, studio et labore Laurentii Rhodomani [Hanau: C. de Marne and heirs of J. Aubry, 1604]). He did not, however, copy the Latin translation that can be found in this edition. p. 182, ll. 4-34: Lipsius clearly found this selection of elements from Muhammad’s teaching very amusing. Most elements can be found in Petrus Bellonius’ Observationes (3.9-13). Lipsius owned a Latin translation of this work by Carolus Clusius; cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 12v. p. 182, ll. 30-34: The growth of the Ottoman Empire is also addressed by Lipsius in the Admiranda (1.3). p.  182, l. 35 – p. 184, l. 6: Lipsius’ description of the reverence of the Turks for birds and for paper is based on Leunclavius’ Pandectes (§  179) and Augerius Busbequius’ Itinera Constantinopolitanum et Amasianum, later published as Legationis Turcicae Epistolae quatuor. Lipsius kept a copy of Busbequius’ work in his private library; cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 11v. For Leunclavius, see above. p. 184, ll. 12-26 and p. 186, ll. 4-8: Certain elements of these descriptions can be found in Franciscus Xaverius’ Epistolae Indicae et Iaponicae and in Hieronymus Osorius’ De rebus Emmanuelis. p. 186, l. 14 – p. 188, l. 15: Most elements can be found in Francisco López de Gòmara’s Historia general de las Indias (121) and Agustin de Zárate’s Historia des cubrimiento y conquista del Peru (1.10), of which Lipsius kept copies in his library; cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 13r. p. 186, ll. 16-25: The same account of the Peruvian Virgins devoted to the Sun is given by Lipsius in chapter 15 of his De Vesta et Vestalibus Syntagma (1603: 53), with reference to Pedro de Cieza de Léon and Agustín de Zárate.

553

Commentary p. 188, ll. 23-31: In Mon. 1.3 quaest. 8 (ll. 12-14) Lipsius also praised the Spaniards for removing some of the superstitious beliefs of the inhabitants of the New World. Here he adds that, by doing so, they helped create a new empire for God, thus justifying the colonial efforts of Spain, which were also stimulated by the Catholic Church. A similar justification of the Spanish conquest of the New World and the violence it entailed can be found in the De Constantia (2.11). Likewise, in the dedicatory letter of the De Militia Romana (1595: 4) to Philip III, Lipsius stated that divine providence had fixed the New World as the limit of a new empire; cf. Papy (2001c). p.  190, ll. 6-8: Lipsius does not quote literally from Clusius’ translation of Bellonius’ Observationes (2.26), of which he kept a copy in his library, but rephrases and summarises what is said there. Chapter 4 p.  192, ll. 1-16: In the Monita, religion or piety is presented in relation to the opposite ends of the spectrum: excessive piety, which is superstition, or a lack of it, which is impiety (or irreligion). This was a common way to organise commonplace-books and reflects a common conception of virtue as the middle of two extremes. Like in the Notae 1.3 (p. 725, ed. Waszink) and in the previous chapter of the Monita (1.3), impiety is defined as negation or contempt of God, and is considered worse than superstition. Also here Lipsius stresses that impiety will be punished by God. New is its definition as an accumulation of vices and as originating from pride and ferocity, and the comparison of impiety to blindness and of superstition to blearedness. p. 192, ll. 20-21: Such a saying has been attributed to different people, amongst others to Frederick II; cf. Dean (1996: 480-483). He would have said such a thing in his debate with Pope Gregory IX, as can be derived from one of Gregory’s letters (MGH, Epp. saec. XIII, p. 653), which has also been included in Matthew of Paris’ Historia maior (RR 57.3, p. 607), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library. Chapter 5 p.  194, l. 2: “Fatum et fors fortunae” is also a heading in Lipsius’ commonplace-book, preserved in Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 32 and 58, fasc. 2. Lipsius’ collection of examples equally contains headings such as “Fortuna reciprocans” and “Necessitas”, which might have served as a source for this chapter. p. 194, ll. 2-3: The title of the first edition, Fatum considerandum credendumque esse was changed into De Fato. Id considerandum credendumque esse, to conform to the other titles. The synthetical introduction to the subject is in marked contrast to

554

Commentary on Book 1 the comprehensive treatment of the topic in the De Constantia (1583/84) and in the Physiologia Stoicorum (1604), which is probably assumed to be known by the author and should therefore be kept in mind by the reader. See also Papy (2011a). p. 194, l. 4: This line echoes Lipsius’ opinion as expressed in the corresponding chapter in the Politica (1.4) and in De Constantia (1.13 and 17), namely that true faith leads to the acceptance of fate. p. 194, ll. 4-5: Fate is equated here to providence and to the divine will or decree, whereas Lipsius, following Boethius (cons. 4.6), carefully distinguished providence and fate in the De Constantia (1.19) and in the Physiologia Stoicorum (1.12). p. 194, ll. 5-6: A similar etymology of the word “fatum” (as derived from the Latin verb “fari”, “to speak”) is given in De Constantia (1.19). It can also be found in St Augustine (civ. 5.9). Unfortunately, we have not been able to preserve this etymology in our English translation of the Latin text. Minucius Felix is also used as a source on the subject of fate in the De Constantia (1.19). p. 194, ll. 6-7: It is also argued in Physiologia Stoicorum 1.11 that God’s providence, and, consequently, fate, is concerned with the universal as well as the individual. p. 194, ll. 7-8: The view that He who has created everything also directs and preserves it is also expressed in De Constantia (1.13). p. 194, ll. 8-10: Hermes Trismegistus or the Corpus Hermeticum is used as a source on fate in the Physiologia Stoicorum (1.12) and the Notae 1.4 (p. 727, ed. Waszink) as well. In De constantia (1.13) God is also compared to a charioteer. p. 194, ll. 11-12: In Physiologia Stoicorum (1.12), De Constantia (1.18-19) and Pol. (1.4.1) Lipsius, following, a.o., Seneca (benef. 4.7.2; nat. 2.45.2; dial. 1.5.7), Thomas Aquinas, Pico della Mirandola (Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem, 4.4) and Augustine (civ. 5.9), also defined fate as a chain or series of interwoven causes, depending on the first cause, that is to say, God. See also Lagrée (1994). p. 194, ll. 13-14: It is also argued in De Constantia 1.13 ff. and Physiologia Stoicorum 1.13 that all external evil comes from God, and that, consequently, also the well-being of the realm depends on God. See also Notae 1.4 (pp. 729-730, ed. Waszink). p. 194, ll. 14-15: Just as in the De Constantia (1.13-14; 17) citizens were advised to be patient and constant in the face of fate, so princes were told to adopt constancy and obedience to the divine will in the Politica (1.4.3) and here in the Monita.This

555

Commentary illustrates how the De Constantia, the Politica, and the Monita are components of the same political programme; cf. Sénellart (1994). p. 194, ll. 15-20: As in the Notae, 1.4 (p. 729, ed. Waszink) this is illustrated with a quotation from Nicephorus Gregoras, namely a passage starting a few lines after the end of the quotation in the Notae. p.  194, ll. 20-22: Whereas in the De Constantia (1.22) Lipsius stressed that this should not incite citizens to passivity, he encouraged the prince in the Politica (1.4.3) to inquire carefully into fate and to adapt his plans to it. This appeal is reiterated and elaborated here in the Monita. p. 194, ll. 22-24: Also in the De Constantia Lipsius expressed the opinion that the ultimate end is not immediate success or happiness of individual citizens, rulers, or kingdoms, but eternal happiness and the conservation of the world or of mankind. From this wider perspective God sometimes necessarily destroys people or countries to keep the world in balance. This is elaborated further and illustrated in the fourth admonition of this chapter (Mon.1.5 mon. 4). p. 194, ll. 30-31: According to Lipsius (De Const. 1.19), the existence of fate or providence does not jeopardise man’s free will. He asserts that not everything has been determined: God is the first cause, but operates through intermediate or secondary causes, which include free will. Lipsius concludes in the De Constantia, 1.14, quoting Sen. dial. 7.15.7, that to want what God wants is true freedom: “In regno nati sumus: deo parere libertas est”. p. 194, l. 31 – p. 196, l. 2: If some events still remain difficult to understand or explain this way, this is because of our ignorance. God always has a good reason, but it is sometimes beyond human understanding. In the De Constantia, 2.17, quoting Aug. civ. 18.18, Lipsius says: “Iudicia Dei multa occulta sunt: nulla iniusta.” and in the Physiologia, 1.11, quoting Sen. dial. 1.1.3: “nec sine ratione, quamvis subita, accidere”. Thus also unexpected or inexplicable events are considered by Lipsius as proof of the existence of fate. See also Mon. 1.5, admon. 3, 1. p. 196, l. 5: The divine origin of power is stressed throughout the work, as well as in other works composed by Lipsius after his return to the Southern Netherlands for Archduke Albert. In the Notae (pp. 729-730, ed. Waszink) Caesar’s victory over Pompey and the victory of the Romans over Hannibal are mentioned as examples of the attribution of power by God.

556

Commentary on Book 1 p. 196, ll. 6-22: This is a summary, in Lipsius’ own words, of the account by the Roman historian Justin (22), preserving the interesting details about Agathocles’ origin, youth, and early career, and stressing the irony of fate. This example is also adduced by Machiavelli (Il Principe, 8). According to Machiavelli, however, his successes can hardly be attributed to fortune. p. 196, l. 23: Again the difference between providence and fate, so carefully constructed in the De Constantia and the Physiologia Stoicorum, is obscured here. p. 196, ll. 24-28: Similarly Tullus Hostilius,Tarquinius Priscus, and Servius Tullius are the first three examples of Valerius Maximus’ chapter on people of low birth who became famous (3.4). Servius Tullius is also given as an example of “exceptional cases of good fortune” by Juvenal (7.199). The following verse (7.200) is quoted here by Lipsius. Servius Tullius is again used by Juvenal as an example of a person who was of low birth, but achieved high things (8.260), and so is Romulus (8.259). p.  196, l. 30 – p. 192, l. 12: The seed for this example was probably sown by the passage from Juvenal used in the previous example (8.259-260), since Marius is used by Juvenal as an example of the same phenomenon (low birth – high achievements) in the verses just prior to it, namely in verses 245-253, from which Lipsius quotes here in lines 15-16. The example is a summary of the vicissitudes of Marius’ career, based, next to Juvenal, on Valerius Maximus (6.9.14), and on Plutarch’s Life of Marius for the anecdote about the eagle (Plu. Mar. 36.5). p. 198, l. 14 – p. 200, l. 11: This is a summary of Masinissa’s career, based on various passages from Livy spread over two books (29.29-33 and 30.12-15). p. 202, ll. 1-13: The only contemporary example is that of the unexpected twist of fate by which Philip II became King of Portugal. Such an account could be seen as part of Lipsius’ task as Royal Historiographer, an office which he had acquired through Philip II. For his account Lipsius could have consulted Girolamo de’ Franchi Conestaggio’s Dell’unione del Regno di Portogallo alla corona di Castiglia, of which he kept a copy in his library (cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 9r) and which he praised in ILE VI 93 11 05 M. A few small corrections have been made to the text in the revised edition of 1606. Thus Isabella in line 10 is replaced by the correct Ioanna, and ista in line 11 is replaced by Maria for the sake of clarity.

557

Commentary p. 202, l. 20: In the Notae, 1.4 (pp. 729-730, ed. Waszink) and De Constantia, 1.16 we also find some (brief and general) examples of cities and reigns taken away by God. Thus the decline of Carthage, Numantia, Corinth, Athens, Sparta, Rome, and Byzantium, and of the Assyrian, Egyptian, Jewish, Greek, African, Roman, and Scythian dominion is mentioned, and the downfall of Venice, Antwerp, and the Ottoman Empire is predicted. p. 202, l. 21 – p. 204, l. 4: This tale is first recounted by Herodotus (1. 201-214), but is also recorded by the Roman historian Justin (1.8) and, after him, by Paulus Orosius (2.7) and in several medieval sources. In none of these sources, however, do we find exactly the same formulation of Queen Tomyris’ words as in Lipsius. This story is also used by Valerius Maximus as an example of just retribution (9.10.ext.1), by Dante Alighieri as an instance of pride humbled (Purgatorio, 12. 55-57), by Christine de Pizan (Le livre de la cité des dames, 58-59) as an example of female strength, and by Giovanni Boccaccio (De casibus virorum illustrium, 2.21), just as by Lipsius, as a lesson in the fickleness of fortune. p. 204, ll. 5-12: Free reproduction of Valerius Maximus’ account of the reversal of Polycrates’ fortune in his chapter on changes of character or fortune (6.9: “De mutatione morum aut fortunae”, ext. 5).The story is originally told by Herodotus (3.40-42 and 3.120-125) and is also related by Cicero (fin. 5.30.92), as an example of virtue outweighing everything else (in this case, the evils which befell Polycrates). It is also used as an example of the vicissitude of fortune in Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium (4.6). p. 204, ll. 13-20: Another typical example of a change of fortune, which can also be found in Boccaccio’s De casibus (8.3). Apart from Ps. Aur.Vict. epit. 32 and Eutr. 9.7, the unfortunate end of Valerian is mainly recounted in the works of Christian authors, such as Orosius (hist. 7.22.4), Lactantius (mort. pers. 5), and Constantine (Oratio ad Sanctorum Coetum, 24.2), who considered it as a penalty for Valerian’s actions against the Christians. Because there are few verbal reminiscences, it is difficult to indicate Lipsius’ exact source, although “non manu eius, sed inclinati dorso” seems to point to Orosius (who has “non manu sua sed dorso”) as a direct or indirect source. Lipsius kept a copy of his Historiae adversus paganos in his library (cf. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 10v). p. 206, ll. 10-11: Lipsius often describes the world as a stage. See e.g. Mon. 2.14. On the popular metaphor of the world as a stage and its history, see e.g. Rousset (1954: 66-74), Curtius (1967: 138-144), and Christian (1987). For the use of this metaphor by Lipsius, see Jehasse (1976: 570-572).

558

Commentary on Book 1 p. 208, ll. 2-3: Also in the De Constantia (1.20 and 22) Lipsius asserted that the first cause does not work alone, but with middle or subordinate causes (caussae mediae), also called secondary (caussae secundae) or auxiliary causes (caussae auxi­liantes); cf. Papy (2011b). p. 208, ll. 4-22: The tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse is adduced as an example of the reversal of fortune in Valerius Maximus (6.9.ext.6) and Boccaccio’s De casibus (4.4). They stress how the tyrant ended up as a schoolmaster, just as Lipsius does at the end of this story (l. 21) and in Mon. 2.14.16. But here Lipsius mainly stresses how by an unexpected turn of fate Dionysius was not informed about Dion’s invasion of Syracuse. He faithfully reproduces the anecdote from Plutarch’s life of Dion (26-27) and adds some moral comments of his own. The example is also (briefly) adduced by Lipsius in the De Constantia (2.15). p.  208, ll. 23-27: Although Lipsius introduces this example as a story about Brutus, it is actually about Cassius committing suicide by an unexpected turn of events. The story of the suicide of Cassius and his messenger Titinius is reported by various authors, including Plutarch (Brut. 42-43), Valerius Maximus (9.9.2 = “De errore”), Appian (4.15), and Florus (2.17.12-14). In none of these accounts, however, are Cassius’ words exactly the same as in Lipsius’ account. Lipsius’ version seems to resemble Appian’s the most. p. 210, l. 10 – p. 212, l. 20: Faithful reproduction in Lipsius’ own words and order of Livy’s account (23.33-34) of the vicissitudes of Philip’s ambassadors. Also in the Notae 1.4 (p. 730, ed.Waszink) Lipsius expressed the opinion that this is what saved the Romans and caused Hannibal to lose. p. 212, l. 3: It was the opinion of Epicurus and his followers that the gods do not care about, and consequently do not interfere with, human life. This story, however, is so convincing according to Lipsius that it would even make Epicurus or an Epicurean believe in providence. p. 212, l. 22 – p. 214, l. 3: It is also argued in the De Constantia (1.13) and at the start of this chapter of the Monita that God moderates power so as to hold the world in balance, using the same image of God holding scales. This is elaborated here with a passage from Nicephorus Gregoras, and illustrated by Lipsius with quite a striking interpretation of the political situation of the recent past. p. 214, ll. 4-11: In this section Lipsius illustrates the different ways in which God reveals fate, and at the same time how it cannot be avoided even if it is foretold by evil omens. That God gives clear indications about the future is stated at the start of this chapter and in Politica, 1.4.2, but it is not elaborated there. Here

559

Commentary Lipsius distinguishes four ways in which God reveals the future, namely dreams (somnia), signs (signa) – further subdivided into big (magna) and small (parva) signs – apparitions (spectra), and predictions (vaticinia), and treats them in this order, visually marking the start of each new section by the use of small capitals or italics. Lipsius’ treatment of the subject is similar to Valerius Maximus (1.4-8), and the fourth chapter of Petrarch’s Rerum memorandarum libri, “De providentia et coniecturis”. “Somnia” and “omina” are also headings in Lipsius’ notebooks, preserved in Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 32 and 58, fasc. 2. The Sibyls are mentioned on equal terms with the prophet Daniel as persons through whom God reveals the future. This allows Lipsius to interpret both pagan and Christian examples as signs or proof of God’s providence. p. 214, ll. 12-28: This story is originally recorded by Herodotus (1.108 ff.) and is repeated by the Roman historian Justin (1.4). Astyages’ dream is also recounted by Valerius Maximus in his chapter on dreams (1.7.ext.5). Lipsius faithfully follows Justin’s account, preserving most details and formulations, but adding the usual moral comments on the inevitability of fate. He also rephrases the prediction of the seers and leaves out one element, namely that the herdsman’s newly born (or, according to Herodotus, stillborn) child was exposed instead of Cyrus. Astyages’ dream was a popular example and occurs in exempla collections such as Petrarch’s Rerum memorandarum libri (4.60) and Boccaccio’s De viris illustribus (2.17-18). p. 218, ll. 6-30: Details about the early life of Marcian can be found in Evagrius’ Historia Ecclesiastica (2.1) and in Zonaras’ Epitome (13, pp. 113-114, ed. Büttner-Wobst, vol. 3).The anecdotes collected by Lipsius can all be found in Evagrius except one, namely Marcian’s stay with the brothers Julius and Tatianus. This episode can be found in Zonaras, but he, on the other hand, does not mention Marcian’s registration in the army in place of the deceased soldier Augustus.Therefore Lipsius might have combined both sources or have had yet another source. p. 218, l. 31 – p. 220, l. 4: This anecdote is recorded in several chronicles, including Rodericus Ximerius’ Historia de rebus Hispaniae (3.18-19) and Juan de Mariana’s Historiae de rebus Hispaniae (6.21-22). Lipsius’ text stays close to Mariana’s, although Lipsius does not copy it literally, but rephrases some details. The story of Roderic’s love for Count Julian’s daughter is given as an example of love causing the destruction of cities, peoples and regions in Vives’ De institu­ tione feminae christianae (1.13). p. 220, ll. 17-26: Lipsius faithfully reproduces Plutarch’s account of the spectre seen by Dion at the time of the conspiracy against his life, and concludes with a pun of his own.

560

Commentary on Book 1 p.  220, l. 17: aemulo] Brutus was compared to Dion by Plutarch in his Vitae ­parallelae (Comparatio Dionis et Bruti). p. 220, ll. 27-34: Another anecdote recorded by Plutarch (Brut. 36 = Caes. 69). Lipsius follows Plutarch’s text faithfully, although Plutarch does not specify that the spectre looked Ethiopian. The apparition is characterised as such (i.e. Ethiopian) e.g. by Florus (2.17 = 4.7). According to Plutarch, Florus and Zonaras (epit. 10.20), Brutus was meditating in the light of a lamp; according to Appian (BC 4.134), he was lying awake in the light of a lamp. Lipsius yet again concludes with a pun of his own. p. 222, l. 17 – p. 224, l. 2: These two anecdotes about Tiberius and his astrologer Thrasyllus are recounted (the one after the other) by Dio Cassius (55.11). The first instance is also described in detail by Tacitus (ann. 6.21), while the second one can be found in Suetonius (Tib. 14.4). It seems that Dio Cassius provided the inspiration for this example, and Tacitus the details. The direct speeches are for the greater part composed by Lipsius himself, as well as the moral comments, as is usually the case. p. 224, ll. 3-26: All three examples of evil omens predicting Domitian’s death are reported by Dio Cassius (67.16-18). For the anecdote about the astrologer who was eaten by dogs, Lipsius also consulted Suetonius (Dom. 15), who provided him with a name (Ascletarion) and a somewhat different account: according to Dio Cassius, the astrologer was burnt alive, while Suetonius writes that he was killed first. p. 226, ll. 1-12: For Lipsius all of this gives rise to the question of just to what extent one is allowed to inquire into fate, a question which has not been raised in the Politica, but has been touched upon briefly in the De Constantia (1.21). There Lipsius warns the reader not to be too curious about fate: one should observe it, but not inquire into it, one should believe in it, not want to know it. See also De Const. 2.7.12 and 18, and Tarrête (2008: 138). p. 226, l. 11: A python is a spirit which takes possession of a person, especially one with powers of prophesy, and also (in this case) a person possessed by and uttering the words of such a spirit. p. 226, ll. 25-36: According to Lipsius, our inclination or credulity is to be blamed for this. Compare Monita, 1.3, where superstition and its prophets were rejected for arousing false hopes and belief in the people, who are naturally inclined towards superstition, resulting in rebellion. This is illustrated by two quotations from a same passage in Tacitus’ Historiae (1.22), where he says that astrologers should never

561

Commentary be trusted by the powerful, and by one quotation from a passage from Statius’ Thebais (3.563), where he condemns the sick craving of humankind to know what is to come. p. 226, l. 33 – p. 228, l. 1: When Lipsius characterises the poet Statius as a more trustworthy seer, and his words as true prophecies, inspired by Apollo, he alludes to the fact that, following Homer, Greek and Roman poets regarded themselves as “inspired” by a divinity, such as the Muses or Apollo, God of prophecy and poetry, whom they invoked in their poems; cf. Curtius (1967: 474-475). p. 228, l. 3: et qui veriora dixisse viderentur, a Geniis habent.] Compare Mon. 1.5.13. p. 228, l. 16: In the Notae, 1.9 (p. 733, ed. Waszink) Lipsius also praises Nicetas Choniates for his good judgment and recommends the prince to read the work of the Byzantine historian in order to acquire prudence. Chapter 6 p. 233, ll. 4-7: In the Politica piety (pietas) was divided into belief (sensus) and worship (cultus). While (the acceptance of) fate (fatum) was seen as originating from belief, conscience (conscientia) was seen as rooted in worship. Conscience itself then was subdivided further into approval (approbatio) and reproach (opprobatio), and it was specified that the term conscience is often used for the second part only. Such a detailed (sub)division is not repeated in the Monita, but conscience is defined in very similar terms as in Pol. 1.5. p. 233, l. 11: Lipsius clearly alludes to Machiavelli, who claimed in his Il Principe (18) that a ruler did not have to be good, but simply appear to be so. Similar refutations of Machiavelli can be found in the Politica, in the Notae and elsewhere in the Monita (see, e.g., Pol. 1.6.1 and 2.14; Not. 1.6 and 3.4 (pp. 730 and 754, ed. Waszink) and Mon. 1.7). p. 233, ll. 13-15: Also in the De Constantia (2.14) Lipsius had argued that bad people will always be punished, sometimes internally by their conscience, sometimes externally. Similarly, in the Politica (6.5.2; p. 692, ed. Waszink) Lipsius had stressed that a tyrant – a bad person par excellence – will live in constant fear and mental agony, tormented by his conscience. p. 233, ll. 16-17: A similar view is expressed by Erasmus in his Institutio principis Christiani (1.90).

562

Commentary on Book 1 Chapter 7 p. 234, ll. 1-4: The corresponding chapter in the Politica (1.6) is somewhat different in the sense that it only deals with probity. Constancy is only briefly mentioned there as a quality which should be adopted next to probity. It could be considered a result of the foregoing discussion on fate: if God distributes adversity and prosperity, one should be good (probus), as well as unmoved (constans) by the good or bad fortune he sends. The connection is not made explicit in the Monita. Probitas and constantia are treated similarly as emanations of pietas in the Admiranda; cf. Enenkel (2004: 611). Although constancy (as a virtue of the private citizen) was treated extensively by Lipsius in the De Constantia, it was hardly touched upon in the Politica. Here it is applied to the prince. In other mirrors for princes it was generally treated as part of the cardinal virtue of “fortitudo”. p. 234, ll. 4-7: In the Politica (1.6) probity (probitas) is defined as one of two constituents of virtue, next to piety, but here it is treated on the same level as virtue and religion, which is now separated from virtue. In the next chapter, however, piety is classified under virtue again, so Lipsius is probably just less precise and consistent here in the division and classification of the material than in the Politica, rather than attempting to introduce some kind of subtle difference. p. 234, l. 5: Although the definition of probity in the Politica (1.6) seems to differ somewhat from the one in the Monita, both seem to equate probitas to rectitudo (“uprightness”) and both stress that it needs to be honest and internal, not feigned or external, as Lipsius also argued in the previous chapter. p. 234, l. 15: Strictly speaking the quotation refers to the cultivation of one specific virtue, namely justice (“iustus esse”) rather than to probity. This is remedied by Lipsius in the next line by extending the statement to probity as well (“Iustus probusque esto”). p. 234, ll. 17-19: Again Lipsius refutes Machiavelli (“ab Italia doctor”), who challenged the classical view, adopted by Christian humanists, that the morally good (hones­tum) is inextricably bound up with the useful (utile), claiming that history and experience show that the good and the useful are irreconcilable in politics (Il Principe, 18). Lipsius, on the other hand, maintained, following Cicero (e.g. off. 2.43-44; 3.49 and 64) and Seneca (e.g. clem. 1.1.6), that virtue is expedient and dissimulation and deceit are inexpedient and ineffective because all efforts to fake the virtues are doomed to failure sooner or later.This was an argument which was commonly adduced against Machiavelli by contemporary political writers such as Botero (Ragion di stato, 2.15), Mariana (1599: 60) and Ribadeneyra; cf. Bireley (1990: 123-124).

563

Commentary p. 234, l. 19: Namely in Monita 2.13 (“De Fide”), where Lipsius argues, contrary to Machiavelli, that a prince should always keep faith. p. 234, ll. 20-23: This definition of constancy is similar to Lipsius’ definition of constancy in the De Constantia (1.4), where he described it as “rectum et immotum animi robur, non elati externis aut fortuitis, non depressi”. See also Monita, 1.5: “a Deo bona malaque externa esse. Ideo nec in illis elate nec in istis abiecte nimis agendum. Constantia ubique esto…”. p. 234, ll. 23-24: In the De Constantia (1.5, 6, 16; 2.11) and the Politica (4.6.1) Lipsius also describes the vicissitudes of fortune in meteorological and nautical terms, comparing them to showers, tempests, high seas, etc.; cf. Stacey (2007: 128-130). The idea that the prince is exceptionally susceptible to the blows of fortune because of his high position is expressed elsewhere in the Monita by Lipsius as well; see Mon. 1.2, 1.5 and 2.14. p.  234, ll. 25-29: That the prince should care about the misery of his subjects, without being carried away or depressed by it, is illustrated with a comparison and a quotation. The quotation from Seneca is verbal and is taken from a context in which Seneca encourages Lucilius to spurn all evil. This subject is elaborated in Mon. 2.7. p. 236, ll. 1-2: The quotation from Lucan is taken from a passage in which Brutus tries to persuade Cato to prefer a peaceful life above war, the former being suitable for high-minded souls, the latter for the common people. This is also Lipsius’ final argument to urge the prince to constancy. In the original context, however, Brutus is proved wrong. p. 236, ll. 15-22: This is a collection of different passages from Cornelius Nepos’ biography of Epaminondas. The first is a verbal quotation (indicated as such by the use of italics) from Epam. 3.1, the second is a free reproduction of the account in Epam. 7.1-2. Nepos is called a trustworthy author here. However, he is not recommended as a historian in ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H or in Notae, 1.9. p. 236, ll. 23-31: This is a summary of Plutarch’s account of the event. The predominance of Plutarch as a source for the examples in this chapter is noticeable. p. 236, l. 32 – p. 238, l. 6: The anecdote of Cato who was acquitted by his enemy is related in Valerius Maximus (3.7.7) as an example of self-confidence. The exact number of the cases defended by Cato can be found in Plutarch’s life of Cato the Elder (15.4).

564

Commentary on Book 1 p. 238, l. 9 – p. 240, l. 9: The passage on Brutus is an assemblage of various facts and anecdotes, mainly taken from Plutarch’s life of Brutus, joined by connective phrases coined by Lipsius, in the style of the cento form of the Politica. The (chronological) order in which the anecdotes occur in the original text has been preserved. p. 238, ll. 9-10: The anecdote of Brutus joining his uncle Cato on a journey to Cyprus is used to connect this example to the preceding one. It can be found in Plutarch (Brut. 3.1). p. 238, ll. 13-14: The next anecdote, taken from Plutarch, Brut. 4.3-4, seems to suggest that to Lipsius constancy and probity go hand in hand: such constancy as displayed by Brutus can only come from a pure, that is to say, truly good, soul. p.  238, ll. 15-18: This anecdote can be found in Plutarch, Brut. 29.5, although Antony’s words seem to have been altered somewhat by Lipsius for effect (as can also be noted on other occasions in direct or indirect speeches in the Monita). p.  238, ll. 18-21: The anecdote of Brutus saving Antony’s life can be found in Plutarch Brut. 18.2-3. The reasons for Brutus doing so seem to have been elaborated a bit more by Lipsius, probably to stress the justice of his cause. Thus Lipsius praises Brutus for not wanting to kill Antony because he was convinced that “a tyrant should only be killed on legal grounds”. This suggests that it is allowed to kill a ruler who has violated the law. The question of tyrannicide was the subject of intense (legal and technical) debate in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the view of Lipsius (and Erasmus) on tyrannicide, see Papy (2000b). p. 238, ll. 21-24: In Plutarch, Brut. 22, Brutus rebukes Cicero for taking the side of Caesar’s heir, Octavian; he, for his part, refuses to be a slave, even under a gentle despot. This passage in the Monita is of similar content and might therefore have been inspired by it. Nevertheless, the phrasing is completely different. Lipsius might have rephrased it to make it more powerful, or it could be derived from another source. p.  240, ll. 4-9: This is a free reproduction of Plutarch, Brut. 35. Again Cassius’ words have been rephrased by Lipsius for effect. p. 240, ll. 10-13: Although this anecdote is also related by Plutarch (Brut. 53.3; Ant. 22), Lipsius clearly based himself on Valerius Maximus’ account (5.1.11), as can be derived from the verbal repetitions. Antony’s words have been rephrased, but their meaning has not changed.

565

Commentary p. 240, l. 15: In this play on words Brutus is called the first, that is to say, the most prominent or noble of the Romans, or the last, implying that after him there has not been anyone who was as noble as he. Lipsius refers to authors such as Suetonius (Tib. 61) or Tacitus (ann. 4.34), who wrote that Brutus and Cassius were called the last of the Romans. In Plutarch, Brut. 44.2, Brutus calls Cassius the last of the Romans. Lipsius indicates that it concerns a reference to other authors by using italics. p. 240, l. 18 – p. 242, l. 9: Plutarch is once again the source of inspiration for this collection of anecdotes from the life of Phocion, connected by Lipsius through comments of his own, while preserving the original order. p. 242, l. 11 – p. 244, l. 4: Faithful reproduction of Plutarch, Cleom. 43.4-9. The direct speeches have been rephrased somewhat, but their meaning has not been altered. Thus Lipsius has added small phrases to the original text, such as “compone vultum et animum” (ll. 27-28) and “quorum esset compos” (l. 2). The most noticeable addition is “At tu vir et rex esto” (l. 23), which was only added in the revised edition of 1606. Most of the alterations made in this edition concern the speeches which Lipsius has composed for his historical characters. This indicates that Lipsius considered these speeches as an important means of persuasion, and maybe even as examples of style. Although Lipsius is very critical of women elsewhere (see e.g. Mon. 2.2 and 2.17), his praise of Cratesiclea and the other women in this chapter seems genuine. On Lipsius’ ambiguous attitude towards women in the Monita, see Tucker (2011) and Van Houdt (2007: 20-26). p. 244, ll. 2-3: After Cleomenes’ death Cratesiclea was put to death by Ptolemy Philopator, successor of Ptolemy Euergetes. Lipsius does not mention her constancy in death, although it is described by Plutarch (Cleom. 59.9). p. 244, ll. 5-17: This is a faithful reproduction of Plutarch, Luc. 18.3-4, preserving all the details, such as the gift of fifteen thousand pieces of gold (l. 7), and the content of Monime’s laments (ll. 9-11). Lipsius also adds some (insignificant) details, such as a description of her appearance and character (ll. 5-8), and Mithridates’ reasons for wanting to kill her (ll. 11-13).These are probably his own, but could be derived from a yet unidentified source. p. 244, ll. 18-19: Earlier in the chapter both Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger were mentioned as examples of probity and virtuousness. However, only the example of Cato the Elder was elaborated there. Here Cato the Younger is introduced as a priest of constancy. This introduction is followed by a collection of anecdotes from Plutarch’s biography of Cato the Younger, in chronological order.

566

Commentary on Book 1 p. 244, ll. 19-29: This anecdote is taken from Plutarch (Cat. Mi. 2.1-4), and the details and speeches have been reproduced faithfully. The story is also told by Valerius Maximus (3.1.2a) and in Aurelius Victor, De viris illustribus (80.1). p. 244, l. 32 – p. 246, l. 5: The second anecdote about the young Cato is taken from Plutarch, Cat. Mi. 3.2-4. The original details and speeches have been preserved. It is also told by Valerius Maximus, with some differences in the details, immediately after the preceding anecdote from Cato’s youth (3.1.2b). Although it was clearly Plutarch, and not Valerius Maximus, who was Lipsius’ primary source, Lipsius must have been aware of this sequence of anecdotes in Valerius Maximus. In fact, the concluding sentence (ll. 6-7: “Sarpedon deinceps et rarius ad Sullam duceret nec nisi tentatum et excussum”) seems to be derived from Valerius Maximus (“postea ad Sullam excussum semper adduxit”) rather than from Plutarch (“τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη προσέχειν ἀκριβῶς καὶ παραφυλάττειν, μή τι τολμήσῃ παραβολώτερον”). p.  246, ll. 24-30: This anecdote is taken from Plutarch, Cat. Mi. 30.1-4. Cato’s words have been rephrased, but their meaning has not changed. p. 246, ll. 26-27: sororem (sive sororis filiam, ut alii) petiit uxorem] Lipsius gives the reader the impression that he has adopted a critical attitude towards his sources and that a comparison of the sources has revealed a difference, while this phrase has just been copied from his source. In Plutarch one can read: “τινὲς δέ φασιν οὐ τῶν ἀδελφιδῶν, ἀλλὰ τῶν θυγατέρων τὴν μνηστείαν γενέσθαι”. It is not clear to us whether “θυγατέρων” indicates Cato’s daughters or the daughters of his cousin(s). Lipsius opts for the latter. p. 246, ll. 30-36: Lipsius took this anecdote from Plutarch (Cat. Mi. 33.1-2) and made some (insignificant) additions. A briefer account can be found in Valerius Maximus (2.10.7) and Suetonius (Iul. 20.4), while a more detailed one is offered by Dio Cassius (38.3.2). p. 246, l. 36 – p. 248, l. 6: Lipsius took this anecdote from Plutarch (Cat. Mi. 42). This event is also mentioned by Valerius Maximus (7.56), and briefly by Livy (perioch. 105). Also Seneca, who often contrasts Cato and Vatinius alludes to it (e.g. epist. 118.4 and 120.19). p.  248, ll. 4-6: Cato’s reaction to this defeat is described by Plutarch, Cat. Mi. 50.1. The fact that he played a ball game is also mentioned by Seneca (epist. 74.14; 104.33). Although Plutarch was his primary source, Lipsius must have had Seneca in mind as well, since it is noticeable that the foregoing as well as the following facts are all mentioned by Seneca as well. Also, in the above-mentioned passages, Seneca compared Cato to Socrates, as does Lipsius here, with a quotation from Florus, who praises Cato above Socrates. 567

Commentary p. 248, l. 8: malo] malim in the original text (Flor. carm. 8). p.  248, ll. 9-10: Lipsius blames religion for keeping him from elaborating the constancy which Cato, who is said to have committed suicide, showed in the face of death. This allows Lipsius to call the event to the mind of his readers, who would have been familiar with the (approving) accounts of Plutarch (Cat. Mi. 70),Valerius Maximus (3.2.14), Seneca (e.g. epist. 24.6-8; 67.7,13; 70.19,22; 104.29, 32-33) and others, and thus to praise Cato’s decision indirectly, without openly offending the Church. Lipsius displays similar ambiguous feelings towards suicide elsewhere in the Monita. He discussed the subject more systematically in his Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam (3. 22-23), in ILE III, [89] 01 24, and in his Thrasea, a work on the Roman senator Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus, who was condemned by Nero and committed suicide, a work which Lipsius had written but did not dare to publish for fear of criticism from the Church. Cf.Van de Bilt (1946: 79), Jehasse (1976: 636), Morford (1991: 54), De Landtsheer (2002), Papy (2002a) and (2010). p. 248, l. 11 – p. 250, l. 3: The first example of Porcia’s constancy comes from Plutarch’s life of Brutus (Brut. 13). The original text is reproduced faithfully, and most details have been preserved. The content and order of Porcia’s speech correspond closely to Plutarch’s original, but Lipsius has added quite a few lines of his own, which mainly stress Porcia’s love for Brutus. As can also be observed in other speeches in the Monita, he probably wanted to make it more impressive, which is also suggested by the fact that ll. 21-23 were only added in the revised edition of 1606. Brutus’ reply, however, has been faithfully copied from Plutarch. The anecdote is also (briefly) recounted by Valerius Maximus (3.2.15), and by Boccaccio (De mulieribus claris, 82). p. 250, ll. 3-8: The second example, regarding Porcia’s constancy in the face of death is reported primarily by Plutarch (Brut. 53.4) and Valerius Maximus (4.6.5). Neither of them lets Porcia speak. Hence ll. 5-6 have probably been coined by Lipsius. The doubts about the time and circumstances of Porcia’s death expressed by Plutarch (Brut. 53.5) are not echoed by Lipsius. Evidently the alternative (that she committed suicide or died because of a lingering illness before Brutus’ death, as reported by Cicero (ad Brut. 1.9 and 17.7) would not have impressed the reader as much. p. 250, ll. 10-12: Lipsius feels that with the topic of suicide he has entered dangerous territory, and deems it safer to insert some Christian examples. Lipsius also wants to insert examples which are more recent (“Ad Christiana et nostra exempla tutius transeo”). In the Politica (1.8.1) he also expressed the opinion that

568

Commentary on Book 1 examples that are further removed in time and space are less effective. Elsewhere in the Monita he often says that he will omit older examples (e.g. in Mon. 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 2.9; 2.17). p. 250, ll. 31-32: Creditis posteri? Sed credite. Res ita gesta est.] This has been added by Lipsius in the revised edition of 1606, either because he feared that readers would find the story too incredible to believe, or because he wanted to impress and move them more by adressing them directly with a question. p.  250, ll. 13-14: Alonso Pérez de Guzmán (1256-1309), surnamed El Bueno, founded the branch to which the Dukes of Medina Sidonia belonged, who held the oldest dukedom in the Kingdom of Spain and were once the most prominent magnate family of the Andalusian region. The most famous member of the house was his namesake Don Alonso Pérez de Guzmán El Bueno, 7th Duke of Medina Sidonia (1550-1615), who was appointed commander of the Spanish Armada by Philip II (1588). Did Lipsius want to defend the chosen commander of Philip II, who is praised further on in this chapter, against the negative popular tradition, by praising his family, or was he critical of the Duke as well and did he want to encourage him (and/or other members of the family) with this remark to live up to his family’s reputation in the future? p. 252, ll. 3-11: The account of King Ferdinand II’s constancy seems to be based on Lucius Marinaeus Siculus’ Opus de rebus Hispaniae (1533), in which he described and praised the king’s firmness in general terms (on folium 124), and illustrated it with the particular example of the constancy he displayed when inflicted with a wound. p.  252, ll. 12-19: In the same passage (fol. 124) of Marinaeus Siculus’ De rebus Hispaniae the constancy of Isabella, Ferdinand’s wife, is also described, and illustrated by the strength which she displayed in illness and childbirth (fol. 125). The constancy of both Ferdinand and Isabella at the death of their son Juan is mentioned there as well, but is not described with as many details as provided by Lipsius. Hence Marinaeus Siculus might not be his direct source, although he is mentioned explicitly. Isabella’s constancy in childbirth is mentioned by Lipsius in the Notae, 2.17 (p.  749, ed. Waszink) as well, as part of a longer eulogy on Isabella. She is also praised in Lipsius’ notebook Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58 under the head Isabellae regi­ nae laudes. p. 252, ll. 20-31: The constancy of Charles V at Ingolstadt has been described, amongst others, by Avila, Commentarii de bello Germanico, 30-31.

569

Commentary p.  254, l. 1: nec spe nec metu] This was the device of Philip II. In the De Constantia (1.6) Lipsius praises the appearance of this (Stoic) device on the arms of “some kings of his days”. Chapter 8 p. 256, ll. 1-3: This chapter combines chapters 7 to 10 of the first book of Lipsius’ Politica. Another source of inspiration for this chapter is formed by a chapter in Lipsius’ Admiranda sive De Magnitudine Romana (4.10) on the study and patronage of the arts in Rome. p. 256, ll. 4-5: In the first chapter of the Politica (1.1) virtue and prudence are indicated as “the two leaders or guides of civil life”, and Lipsius announces that he will treat virtue first. In Politica, 1.7 prudence, the “second guide of civil life” is introduced, and the relationship between virtue and prudence elaborated. To a certain extent the same is true for the Monita: in the preceding chapters Lipsius has treated virtue, and he now moves on to prudence, but this division has not been made at the start of this work, and the relationship between virtue and prudence is not elaborated here either. On this (deliberate?) ambiguity, see Stanciu (2011) and Braun (2011). p. 256, l. 5: Principi atque iis qui in republica versantur] This indicates that Lipsius’ work was not only intended for princes, but also for all other people involved in politics, as was also suggested in chapter 1.1 (“princeps et politici viri”). Further on Lipsius even suggests that it is primarily intended for the prince’s advisers, rather than for the prince himself. p. 256, ll. 11-12: Lipsius does not pay much attention to the definition of prudence here, which has already been elaborated in the Politica (1.7), where it is defined in similar terms as acquaintance and judgment. A definition similar to the one in the Monita can be found in the dedicatory letter of the Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: fol. 2r), Dedicatio (= ILE I, 81 00 00 H, ll. 2-7): “Prudentia enim certe est quae respublicas constituit, servat, auget; ea autem ab eventu rerum, et eventus non nisi ab historia aut ab usu. Sed ab uso leviter […]”. p.  256, ll. 6-25: In the Politica prudence is said to be derived from experience (usus) and (the study of) history (historia) (Pol. 1.8), and helped by learning (doc­ trina) (Pol. 1.9), as repeated in the title of this chapter in the Monita. Here Lipsius elaborates this element, and the prince is now said to be prudent by nature, experience and learning, which is understood as (the study of) history. Lipsius explains how they complement each other, points out the consequences if they do not, and singles out experience as the most important component for politicians, as he had done in the Politica (1.8) and the corresponding Notae. 570

Commentary on Book 1 p. 256, ll. 18-21: As in the Politica (1.8-9) Lipsius indicates how various arts can be learnt from experience, but cautions that the art of government is so complex and subtle that learning is required as well. A very similar view is expressed by Erasmus in his Institutio principis Christiani (1.89). p. 256, ll. 25-27: Lipsius stresses again that by learning he primarily means the recollection of events or history, and not the accumulation of useless knowledge for the sake of appearance and show, as he had argued extensively in the Politica (1.10) and the corresponding Notae. Lipsius’ plea for practical, useful knowledge announces a growing feeling of discomfort about pedantic knowledge at the dawn of the baroque era; cf. Kühlmann (1982: 285-454; 341). Similar warnings about the moderation of learning can be found in other mirrors for princes, such as Patrizzi’s De principe, Fox Morcillo’s De regni regisque institutione and Juan de Torres’ Philosophía moral de príncipes. See Truman (1999: 43; 262-263). p. 256, ll. 27-29: As in the Politica (1.8) Lipsius describes experience as knowledge from seeing or doing, and history as a similar kind of knowledge, but from reading. In the Politica (1.8) remembrance or the study of history was described in similar terms as a quicker and easier road to prudence than experience.The benefits of history are elaborated here: knowledge derived from the reading of history is much wider than individual experience, which is limited in time and space. In history one can find examples, not from one single age or region, but the deeds of all peoples and periods, as in an enormous theatre or mirror. Lipsius had expressed a similar idea in Ad Annales Corn. Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (1581: fol. 2r), Dedicatio (= ILE I, 81 00 00 H, ll. 2-7). The idea that history increases practical empirical experience was an ancient topos, expressed by various authors, such as Cicero, de orat. 1.159; 1.165; 1.201; 3.74; leg. 3.41; orat. 120 and Isocrates, ad Nic. 35, as quoted by Landfester (1972: 60) and Guion (2008: 65-67). The same concept is repeated by humanist pedagogues and political theorists, who assign an important part to the study of history in the education of a prince, believing that it will generate prudence; cf. Braun (2007: 111), Truman (1999: 74; 96; 108), Bireley (1990: 18), Hampton (1990), Kelley (1988: 749), Singer (1981: 33-34; 183; 275), Skinner (1978: 220-221), Holcroft (1976: 38), Landfester (1972: 59-61), and Hinrichs (1969: 80-83). p. 256, l. 30: The idea that history is a mirror or school for life (magistra vitae), a topos which in its most well-known phrasing can be found in Cicero, de orat. 2.36, and that it can provide us with practical guidelines and a model of conduct for private and public life in the present was very common among humanists; cf. Janssens (2006), Halsted (1991: 263-266), Hampton (1990: 8-9), Landfester (1972: 132-136) and Gilbert (1967: 377-382). Also Lipsius gives expression to this humanist vision

571

Commentary elsewhere in the Monita (1.1), in the correspondence leading up to the publication of the Monita (especially in ILE [XVIII], 05 12 01), and in the Politica (1.9). p. 258, l. 2: The idea that history is a source of salutary aphorisms and admonitions to be selected and excerpted is expressed by Lipsius on several occasions, for instance in the famous letter which he wrote to his student Nicolas de Hacqueville about the reading of history (ILE XIII, 00 12 03 H). p.  258, ll. 5-14: It was a well-established humanist belief that there was an extremely close connection between sound learning or instruction and sound government. Hence many writers included (often detailed) advice on the education of (future) princes in their mirrors for princes; cf. Skinner (1978: 88-91, 122123, 178, 213-214, 216, 220, 241-243). Here in the Monita Lipsius also inserts a brief digression on the education of the prince. A more detailed “study programme”, including other subjects such as architecture and astronomy, can be found in the Notae, 1.9 (pp.  738-740, ed. Waszink). There Lipsius says he shall treat the subject in more detail elsewhere. In the margin he has added: “*In Libris De Institutione.” The plan to compose a dialogue on education, De (recta) institutione iuventutis libri tres, is mentioned a few times in Lipsius’ letters, but the work was never published; cf. ILE 85 01 02; 86 04 01 M; 88 06 17; 90 03 15 L; 90 10 28 R; 92 01 10; 95 05 18 BERC and XIII, 00 04 29. In ILE 90 09 21 it is even referred to as De Institutione principis. p. 258, ll. 10-11: From the sixteenth century onwards one often finds reflections and/or advice on travel in different types of humanist writings; cf. Stagl (1995) and Enenkel – De Jong (2019). Humanists also edited ancient travel writers and descriptions of their own travels; cf. Enenkel – van Heck – Westerweel (1998). Furthermore, the newly acquired (empirical) knowledge of the New World was gathered in compendia. All of this led to the development of a formal methodology of travel called ars apodemica. Reflections and advice on travel were also expressed by Lipsius, for instance in his letter of 3  April  1578 to Philippe de Lannoy (cf. Papy 2019). p. 258, ll. 15-25: The example of Solon is composed of different passages. The first passage, about Solon’s travels, can be found in Plutarch’s life of Solon (Sol. 26.1-2). The second is a quote from Solon’s poems (fr. 18 West; cf. West [1972: 2, 131]) which can also be found in Plutarch (Sol. 31.3). It is also mentioned by Valerius Maximus (8.7.ext.14), who, in the same passage, connects it to the third anecdote, about Solon’s death, an anecdote which is only related by Valerius Maximus. Although it is therefore likely that Lipsius drew inspiration from the work of Valerius Maximus, the text of the quote is not Valerius Maximus’, but Cicero’s (Cato 26).The text of the second quote has been changed as well.Valerius

572

Commentary on Book 1 Maximus, 8.7.ext.14 reads: “ut cum istud, quidquid est, de quo disputatis percepero, moriar”.The change could have been made by Lipsius or by a yet unidentified source. The last two anecdotes can also be found in Petrarch’s chapter “De studio et doctrina” in his Rerum memorandarum libri (1.36). p. 258, l. 26: in crassiore aëre nato] Literally means “born in heavier air”. Such a reference to the air or atmosphere of one’s place of birth was used to indicate a stupid or uncultured person. Cf. Hor. epist. 2. 1. 244 and Juv.10.50. p. 258, ll. 26-33: The example of Epaminondas consists of two passages from the same paragraph in Diodorus Siculus (15.39.2), interrupted by two quotations. p. 258, ll. 27-28: Verbal quotation from the Roman historian Justin, which actually starts from “litterarum” in line 26, although this part of the quotation is not indicated by italics. This example also occurs in Petrarch’s Rerum Memorandarum libri (1.7.1). p. 258, ll. 30-31: Lipsius applies Pericles’ statement that the Athenians love and pursue knowledge without weakness (Th. 2.40.1) to Epaminondas. The same phrase is said to be applicable to the Romans as well by Lipsius in the Admiranda sive De Magnitudine Romana (4.10), although the fact that it refers to the Athenians in general in the original context is acknowledged there. p. 258, ll. 32-33: Diodorus Siculus (15.39.2) mentions Epaminondas’ familiarity with Pythagorean philosophy, but does not seem to mention physics. He does say (in the next sentence) that Epaminondas was well endowed with physical advantages (φυσικοῖς προτερήμασι κεχορηγημένος). Did Lipsius (or his source) misunderstand or misinterpret this? p.  258, ll. 34-35: The anecdote that Philip stayed with and learned from Epaminondas can be found in Diodorus Siculus as well (16.2.3). Although it is also mentioned by other authors, such as Dio Chrysostom (49.5), it might be more likely that Diodorus Siculus was Lipsius’ source, since he was used as a source on Epaminondas in the previous example as well. p.  260, ll. 5-17: The example of Alexander is composed of different anecdotes from Plutarch’s life of Alexander. In Plu. Alex. 7, one can read how Alexander was instructed in ethics and politics by Aristotle, and in Plu. Alex. 8.2 how he was a keen reader, especially of the Iliad, of which he kept a copy under his pillow. The anecdote about the shrine for Homer’s work can be found in Plu. Alex. 26.1-2. Alexander was a popular hero in medieval and Renaissance exempla collections and mirrors for princes; cf. Adriaenssen (2005), Orvieto (1992) and Aerts – Gosman

573

Commentary (1988). He is presented for instance as an example for Francis I in Budé’s Institution du prince, 9 (1547: 46), amongst other things, for his love of the arts. He is praised for the same reason in Baldassare Castiglione’s Il libro del cortegiano (1.43). p.  260, ll. 18-23: This is also a collection of anecdotes from Plutarch’s life of Philopoemen, with verbal quotations. p. 260, ll. 26-28: This anecdote is reported by Plutarch (Rom. 6.1) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.84.5), but with a different wording from what we read in Lipsius, although it is indicated as a quotation. A more faithful rendering of Plutarch’s text can be found in Lipsius’ Admiranda (4.10), where Romulus and Remus are the first actors in the brief history of the (patronage of the) Roman arts presented by the author. In the Admiranda a similar question about the credibility of this story is raised (“si Dionysio et Plutarcho credam”), but as in the Monita Lipsius affirms that Romulus’ deeds confirm its veracity. In both passages the same is said to be true of Rome’s first kings. p. 260, ll. 30-31: A more detailed description of this process can be found in the Admiranda (4.10). p. 260, ll. 32-33: The anecdote about Cato the Younger, who read books in the senate, comes from Plutarch’s life of Cato the Younger (Cat. Mi. 19.1). It is also mentioned by Valerius Maximus (8.7.2) and Cicero (fin. 3.7). It is opposed by Lipsius to Cato the Elder’s prejudice against Greek culture, mentioned by Plutarch in his life of Cato the Elder (Cat. Ma. 22.4). p. 262, ll. 1-14: The example of Caesar is composed of anecdotes collected from different authors. Thus Plutarch (Caes. 17.4) informs us that Caesar used to dictate to a slave while travelling, Suetonius (Iul. 56.5) tells us about the works written on the way or in battle, and Pliny (nat. 7.91) about dictating up to seven letters at a time. The last two anecdotes are reported by Petrarch as well (Rerum Memorandarum libri 1.12 and 2.2). According to Suetonius, Caesar’s journey to Spain took twenty-four days. Lipsius the philologist indicates that according to other sources it was twenty-seven. Among those sources are Strabo (3.4.9) and Appian (BC. 2.103). p. 262, ll. 15-22: The example of Octavian is composed of different anecdotes from Suetonius’ life of Augustus.Thus in Suetonius (Aug. 84.1) one can read about Octavian’s devotion to eloquence and the liberal arts.The next sentence (ll. 17-18), about the Battle of Mutina, is part of the quotation as well, although it is not indicated as such. It is also quoted by Petrarch (Rerum Memorandarum libri 1.13). Suetonius’ description of the different writings composed by Octavian in prose

574

Commentary on Book 1 and verse (Aug. 85) is summarized by Lipsius in ll. 2-3. The final anecdote is a verbal reproduction of Suet. Aug. 88.1. p. 262, ll. 23-27: Free summary of two passages from Suetonius’ life of Tiberius (Tib. 56 and 70). p. 262, ll. 28-31: Marcus Aurelius’ dedication to Stoic philosophy is mentioned, amongst others, by the Historia Augusta (Aur. 16.5), but Lipsius’ praise is so general that it is not necessarily derived from one specific source. p. 264, ll. 6-20: A brief description of the life of Paul the Deacon can be found, amongst others, in the second book of Paulus Aemilius’ De rebus gestis Francorum, but we have not been able to identify the exact source of the biographical details reported by Lipsius. p. 266, l. 19: quis nescit regum exempla subditos aemulari] According to Lipsius, the prince had an important exemplary role to play with regard to the people.This topic is elaborated by Lipsius in Mon. 2.8. p. 266, ll. 25-32: This description of Isabella’s predilection for Latin, which is also mentioned in the Notae 2.15 (p. 749, ed. Waszink) is based on Marinaeus Siculus’ De rebus Hispaniae (1533: fol. 122). Besides, Lipsius’ notebook Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58 also contained a heading “Isabellae reginae laudes”. p. 268, ll. 1-4: Mithridates’ knowledge of medicine and languages is reported by Pliny the Elder (nat. 25.3 and 7.88). Valerius Maximus also mentions his knowledge of languages (8.7.ext.16). Mithridates was a very popular example of learning and can be found in many mirrors for princes and exempla collections, e.g. in Fox Morcillo’s De regno et regis institutione (1609: 29) and Petrarch’s Rerum Memorandarum libri (2.11).

575

Commentary III. Commentary on Book 2 Chapter 1 p.  272, ll. 4-8: Compare the Notae (p.  722, ed. Waszink): “politicorum libri.] Ita inscripsi, nec perperam. Nam etsi proprie de principatu agimus, et eius instructio mihi scopus: tamen et librorum prior pars velut commune προαύλιον ad quamque Rempublicam est: et passim praecepta ad omnem Civilem vitam.” p. 272, l. 8: Lipsius does not offer a detailed discussion of the arguments pro and contra aristocracy and democracy, but restricts himself to arguments in favour of monarchy, mentioning a few disadvantages of aristocracy and democracy in passing. The first four arguments can be found in some form in the Politica (2.2), but they are elaborated here, and new arguments are added. Similar arguments were adduced by contemporary political writers such as Fox Morcillo, Juan de Mariana, Giovanni Botero, and Jean Bodin, and Lipsius’ treatment of the subject clearly reveals their influence. p. 272, l. 9: The argument that monarchy is the oldest and most natural form of government is also advanced in Pol. 2.2.2 (p. 298, ed. Waszink). p. 272, ll. 10-25: Lipsius argues that monarchy is the best form of government according to nature, experience, and reason. To prove that it is naturally the best form of government Lipsius adduces arguments from the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. See De regno, 1.3. Compare Summa theologiae, 1a q. 105 a. 6.co and Summa contra gentiles, 3.98 n.1. The analogy with bees can also be found in Seneca, as quoted here by Lipsius.The same analogy is used by Erasmus, but in different contexts. See Institutio, 1.62 and 3.8. See more in general Greanleaf (1964). On the natural development of cities out of families and villages, see Aristotle, Pol. 1252a27 ff. p. 274, ll. 1-13: The argument that monarchy is the most common form of government is also advanced in Pol. 2.2.2. The same argument is adduced by Botero in his Discorso dell’eccellenza della monarchia and Bodin in his De Republica, 6.4. On the evolution of forms of government, see e.g. Arist. EN 1160a-b; Pol. 1316a-b, and Thomas Aquinas, De regno, 1.5. Compare Mariana, De rege, 1.2 (1592: 26). Also according to Aristotle (Pol. 1316a-b) the causes of the destruction of a monarchy (that has degenerated into a tyranny) are hatred and contempt. Similarly Thomas Aquinas (De regno, 1.5) observes that tyrants who exercise their power in the name of monarchy make it hateful. p. 274, ll. 11-12: This argument is not advanced in the Politica as such.

576

Commentary on Book 2 p.  274, ll. 14-15: The argument that kingdoms have been founded in order to enjoy justice is also expressed by Lipsius in Pol. 2.11, quoting Cicero and Aristotle, and is elaborated in the chapter on justice (Mon. 2.9). The idea that justice flourishes more in a monarchy is also expressed by Thomas Aquinas, and repeated, for instance, by Fox Morcillo and Mariana, who stress, like Lipsius, that justice is also cultivated best in monarchy because there is less greed (which corrupts justice) in one person than in many. See Thomas Aquinas, De regno, 1.3, Mariana, De rege, 1.2 (1599: 26), and Fox Morcillo, De regni regisque insti­ tutione (1609: 91-95). On the injustice of democratic and aristocratic regimes and on the use of ostracism, see also book five of Aristotle’s Politics. Compare Fox Morcillo, De regni regis­ que institutione (1609: 92). p. 276, ll. 1-2: The argument that monarchy brings peace and harmony is also advanced in the Politica (2.2). A similar view is expressed by Thomas Aquinas (De regno, 1.3). Also Mariana argues that it is easier to keep peace and harmony in a society governed by one, for among many leaders opinions and interests are bound to conflict. p. 276, l. 3: According to Lipsius, the authority of the prince, based on admiration and fear, guarantees peace. The importance of authority is also discussed in Pol. 4.9. The question whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared was much debated in Renaissance political discourse. See Introduction, pp. 60-64. p. 276, l. 4: On the prince’s power over life and death, see also Mon. 2.7. p. 276, ll. 5-6: Also Bodin, Botero, Mariana, and Fox Morcillo argue that monarchy is the best form of government because power is greater when it is undivided. See Bodin, De Republica, 6.4 (1594: 1111), Botero, Discorso dell’eccellenza della monar­ chia, Mariana, De rege, 1.2 (1599: 26), and Fox Morcillo, De regni regisque institutione (1609: 94). p. 276, ll. 13-14: On ambition and faction as causes of civil war, see Pol. 6.3-4, where a similar maritime metaphor is used. Bodin similarly argues that monarchy is the best way to guarantee the safety of the subjects since in a democratic or aristocratic regime ambition and faction often cause sedition or civil war. See his De Republica, 6.4 (1594: 1111). p. 276, ll. 16-19: On avarice as a vice of magistrates and princes, and as a cause of rebellion, see Lipsius, Pol. 3.6-7; 4.10.7 and 4.11.5-10, as well as Aristotle, Pol. 1303b-1307b.

577

Commentary p.  276, l. 20: This argument is not advanced in the Politica and its elaboration seems largely new. p. 276, ll. 26-27: A similar argument is adduced in Mon. 2.3 to promote hereditary monarchy. p. 276, l. 31: On corruption during elections, see also Mon. 2.3. For a positive evaluation of corruption or bribery, see Pol. 4.14.3. p. 278, l. 3: Due to Lipsius, Demosthenes’ saying became popular in political treatises. See, for instance, Politicae compendium succinctum, cum notis Danielis Clasen (Helmstadt, 1675), p. 711: “pecuniam esse scopulum ad quam res adhaerescant.” p. 278, l. 7: According to Tacitus (ann. 11.7.2) the tribune Gaius Scribonius Curio, who was originally opposed to the triumvirate, was bribed by Caesar for his oratory. p. 278, l. 9: This is another argument that was not advanced in the Politica. p. 278, ll. 10-11: The argument that there should be one political leader because there is also only one leader of the universe (i.e. God) is also adduced by Thomas Aquinas (De regno, 1.3), and reiterated by political theorists such as Fox Morcillo, Erasmus, Botero, Mariana, and Bodin. See Fox Morcillo De regni regisque institu­ tione (1609: 6 and 95), Erasmus, Institutio, 1.75, Botero, Discorso dell’eccellenza della monarchia, Mariana, De rege, 1.2 (1599: 25), and Bodin, De Republica, 6.4 (1594: 1111). p. 278, l. 11 – p. 280, l. 20: Similarly, Bodin argues that experience teaches that monarchies have lasted long while republics have only been granted a short life. See De Republica, 6.4 (1594: 1117). His examples correspond for the most part to those adduced by Lipsius, who does, however, provide a more detailed calculation. Similar calculations can be found in Botero’s Discorso dell’ eccellenza della monarchia and his Relationi Universali, of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 5v). p. 280, l. 18: The ‘long life’ of the Republic of Venice attracted the attention of constitutional theorists, from inside and outside Venice, from Italy as well as from abroad, from the early Renaissance until the 18th century. See, e.g., Skinner (1979: 1, 139-189), Gilmore (1974: 431-444), Bouwsma (1974: 445-466), and Gaeta (1961: 58-75). Lipsius kept several descriptions of the Republic of Venice in his library, including those of Gasparo Contarini, Francesco Sansovino, and Marcus Antonius Coccius Sabellicus. Although Lipsius does not go into detail, he does seem to agree with Bodin and Botero, who attributed the success of Venice to its good laws and administration, not to its republican constitution. 578

Commentary on Book 2 Chapter 2 p. 282, l. 2: The question regarding the sex of the monarch was already addressed by Lipsius in Pol., 2.3 (p. 302, ed. Waszink). The title of the corresponding chapter in the Monita indicates a more pronounced preference for male rule. See further Introduction, pp. 68-71. p. 282, l. 12: The Euripus Strait is a narrow channel which separates the Greek island of Euboea in the Aegean Sea from Boeotia in mainland Greece. It is subject to strong tidal currents which change direction several times a day. Hence it was used proverbially for an unstable, weak-minded person (cf. Poll. 6.121). p. 284, ll. 6-11: This is a brief summary of the story of Athalia, based on the Bible and Flavius Josephus. A more detailed and balanced account of her story can, for instance, be found in Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (caput 51). p.  284, l. 12 – p. 286, l. 25: By gathering various anecdotes from Plutarch’s life of Caesar and Antony, Lipsius creates his own biography of Cleopatra, similar to those which can be found in Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (cap. 88) and Chaucer’s The Legend of Good Women (first legend). p. 286, l. 31 – p. 288, l. 28: This is a collection of anecdotes concerning Messalina gathered from various historians, especially Tacitus and Dio Cassius. As in the previous examples, much attention has been paid to detail in order to instruct and entertain the reader most effectively. p. 286, l. 33: Since Messalina cannot technically qualify as a female ruler because it was her husband Claudius who was officially in power, Lipsius feels the need to justify his choice for this example. The same is true for the next example, that of Faustina (ll. 29-30). This creates the impression that the context was just an excuse for Lipsius to present some (amusing) stories of famous lascivious women and illustrate some of the qualities attributed by him to women generally, rather than to illustrate their incapacity to rule. p.  288, ll. 29-34: The example of Faustina, who was notoriously unfaithful to her husband, features in other exempla collections as well, such as Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (chapter 98). p.  292, l. 8: duae Ioannae] That is to say Joan I (1326 – 1382), born Joanna of Anjou, who was Queen of Naples from 1343 until her death, and Joan II or Jeanne II (1371 -1435), who was Queen of Naples from 1414 to her death. Joan I is adduced as a positive example in Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (chapter 106).

579

Commentary p. 292, l. 26 – p. 294, l. 18: Among Zenobia’s most lauded traits were her beauty, love of learning, chastity, and bravery, qualities she had been credited with in the Historia Augusta, and which were repeated for instance by Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales, Boccaccio in his De mulieribus claris, and by Thomas Elyot in The defence of good women. Also Lipsius depicts Zenobia as a Christian heroine, and moreover, as a manly queen. Compare with Redondo (1994: 293-295). On Zenobia’s presence in medieval, Renaissance, and modern literature and art in general, see, e.g., Stoneman (1992: 197-200). p.  296, l. 12 – p. 298, l. 14: This eulogy of the virtues and achievements of Archduchess Isabella’s namesake and ancestor, Queen Isabella I of Castile, is based on anecdotes gathered, for instance, from different places in Marinaeus Siculus’ De rebus Hispaniae. The queen seems to embody many of the Christian, Stoic and princely virtues praised by Lipsius throughout the work, such as piety, chastity, constancy (temperance), modesty, love of learning, seriousness, and bravery, thus combining some typically female virtues with some moderate manly virtues. She is praised on similar accounts elsewhere in the Monita (1.7, const. 8; 1.8.17; 2.17) and in the Notae 2.17 (p. 749, ed. Waszink). On Lipsius’ image of Isabella, see also Van Houdt (2007: 26). She is represented in a similar way by all the chroniclers of fifteenth and sixteenth-century Spain. See Redondo (1994). Chapter 3 The original chapter of the Politica on the two legitimate ways to come to power, that is to say via election or succession, is split into two separate chapters here, and the discussion is elaborated and expanded. p. 300, ll. 5-14:The argument that election is older was also touched upon briefly in Pol. 2.4 (p. 304, ed. Waszink). It is illustrated here with a quotation from Seneca and an anecdote recorded in Montaigne’s essay “Des Cannibales” (Essais, 1.30). Lipsius kept a copy of the work in his library. p. 300, ll. 23-29: Lipsius does not directly refute the argument that through election the best rulers are chosen, but seizes the opportunity to bring up an unrelated disadvantage of election, that is to say, corruption, by wondering “Sed etiamne eligi?”. While bribery is used as an argument against election here, it is recommended to the prince in Pol. 4.14.3 (p. 520, ed. Waszink) as a means to disclose secrets and to convince opposed armies to surrender. p. 302, ll. 3-16: Lipsius stresses a particular disadvantage of election, also touched upon in the corresponding chapter of the Politica, namely the fact that it creates an interregnum, during which crime and civil war can flourish. Such an argument 580

Commentary on Book 2 was known through Machiavelli’s brief discussion of the advantages of hereditary rule in Il Principe (chapter 2) and was shared by many authors of the time. See for instance Jean Bodin, De Republica Libri Sex, 6.5 (1594: 1124) and Mariana, De rege (1599: 40). p. 302, ll. 16-28: Bodin (6.5) also stresses that hereditary kings take better care of the kingdom, whereas elected ones sometimes even give their children or relatives pieces of the empire, referring again to Germany, like Lipsius. Compare with Mariana, De rege (1599: 40). p.  302, ll. 28-32: Bodin (6.5 [1594: 1130]) and Mariana (1599: 31 and 41-42) agree with Lipsius that bad kings can come to power through election as well as succession. p. 302, ll. 33-34: Also Bodin (6.5) stresses that in thinking that kings should be elected even Artistotle was led astray by considering all the advantages. p. 304, ll. 19-21: Auruncani in Peruano tractu: Lipsius got this anecdote from Francisco López de Gómara’s La Historia general de las Indias, y todo lo acaescido en ellas, dende que se ganaron hasta agora.Y La conquista de Mexico y de la nueva España, which had been published in Antwerp by Martin Nucio in 1554. In the “Segunda parte de la Historia general de las Indias. Que contiene La conquista de Mexico, y de la nueva Espana” (Antwerp: M. Nucio, 1554), pp. 290-291 this anecdote is recounted. It is possible that Lipsius read the Italian translation: Historia delle Nuove Indie occidental, con tutti I discoprimenti, et cose notabili, avvenute dopo l’acquisto di esse. Parte seconda. Composta da Francisco Lopez di Gomara in lingua Spagnola.Tradotta nella Italiana da Agostino di Cravalit (Venetiae: Francesco Lorenzini da Turino, 1560). In this edition the story can be found on page 300. p. 304, l. 25 – p. 306, l. 2: This is quite a literal reproduction of Suetonius’ account of Claudius’ assumption of power, illustrating Lipsius’ arguments that chance and money are often involved in elections. p. 306, l. 1: Lipsius converts sums in Roman currency units to the currency of his own day.The Philip(pus) daalder or t(h)aler was minted by Philip II from July 1557 until 1598, and continued to circulate until it was gradually replaced at the start of the seventeenth century by the coins of the Archdukes. It was a standard coin for international trade. See further Hoc – Van Gelder (1960: 97-170). p. 306, ll. 3-14: This is a free reproduction of Tacitus’ account of Vitellius’ seizure of power. About Vitellius’ preoccupation with food, see among others Dio Cassius 64.2.2.

581

Commentary p. 306, ll. 15-31: This is a reproduction of the words of the Historia Augusta with some alterations. Thus Lipsius leaves out part of the dialogue, and inserts the Catullian turn (of phrase) “in ioco et vino” (Catull. 12.1). In line 24 Lipsius has “Valerianus Tribunus”, while all our manuscripts of the Historia Augusta have “vicarius tribunus” (vice tribune). The reading “Valerianus tribunus” is found in the editio princeps of the text, which was published in Milan in 1475 by Accursius, and must have occurred in the editions which Lipsius possessed as well. Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, n° 4: “Historiae Romanae scriptores Graeci et Latini, fol[io], Wechel, 88” (=Historiae Romanae scriptores Latini minores, tomus pri­ mus; Historiae Augustae scriptores Latini minores, tomus alter; Romanae historiae scriptores Graeci minores, tomus tertius, opera Friderici Sylburgii (Frankfurt: heirs of A. Wechel, 1588-1590) and n°  268: “Scriptores historiae Romanae Casauboni, 4°, P[arisi]is, 1603” (=Historiae Augustae Scriptores libri VI. Isaacus Casaubonus ex vet[eribus] libris recensuit (Paris: A. – H. Drouart, 1603). p. 308, ll. 1-4: This is a very general account of Otho’s seizure of power, probably not based on one particular source, but on common historical knowledge derived from, among others, Suetonius (Otho), Plutarch (Oth.), and Tacitus (hist. 1.24). p. 308, ll. 5-15: Summary of the battle for power between Julianus and Sulpicianus, based on Dio Cassius’ lively description of the events, also described in the Historia Augusta. p. 310, l. 6 – p. 312, l. 28: This is a summary of the events prior to the union of Spain and Portugal, as described for instance by Conestaggio in his Dell’unione del Regno di Portogallo alla corona di Castiglia, of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 9r). p. 312, l. 6: plenis velis] For this expression, see Erasmus, Adagia, 4.6.1. Chapter 4 p. 314, ll. 7-9: The argument that a hereditary prince is loved more was familiar from Machiavelli’s brief discussion of the advantages of hereditary rule in Il Principe (chapter 2). It was expressed by many authors of the time such as Juan de Mariana in his De rege (1599: 39). p. 314, ll. 15-26: In the previous chapter Lipsius had argued and illustrated by historical examples that elected kings can be bad, too. So when such evil kings come to power, be it through election or succession, it should be endured, according to Lipsius, in the hope of a better one. Likewise, when infant kings come to power, they should be borne because God has sent them, just as all other (natural) evils

582

Commentary on Book 2 and calamities, either as a punishment or to keep the kingdoms of the world in balance.This view is also expressed by Lipsius in the De Constantia and in Mon. 1.5. p. 314, l. 27: The formulation and illustration of rules of hereditary succession is new compared to the Politica, and draws heavily on the treatment of the subject by Bodin in his Six livres de la république (6.5) and by Mariana in the De rege (1.3-4). p. 314, l. 29: Ogina Lucemburgica: O(t)giva of Luxembourg was a member of the House of Luxembourg and a Countess of Flanders. She married Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders (ca. 980 – 1035) and had a son by him in 1012, also called Baldwin. She died in 1030. The story on her pregnancy and the witnesses present at the delivery of the baby is not recounted in Jacobus Meyerus’ Commentarii sive annales rerum Flandricarum libri XVII (Antwerp: Ioannes Steelsius, 1561). However, Lipsius read it in Jacobus Marchantius’ Flandria commentariorum Lib. IIII descripta, published in Antwerp at the Plantin Press in 1596, on page 192. p.  316, ll. 21-22: Under this second heading examples are listed of exceptions that have been made (successfully or unsuccessfully) to this generally excepted rule, based on the circumstances of the birth of the heirs or their virtuousness. Authors such as Jean Bodin and Juan de Mariana also discuss this rule and its exceptions. See Bodin, République, 6.5 (1608: 988-1000) and Mariana, De Rege, 1.3 (1599: 45-46) and Historiae, 20.3 (1592: 928). p. 316, l. 25 – p. 318, l. 3: This is a reproduction of the account of the Roman historian Justin, with some verbal repetitions. As elsewhere in the work (e.g. Mon. 1.5), Lipsius reports the differences in details between the accounts of Justin and Herodotus, as if he wanted to stress that, as a serious historian, he systematically compared and evaluated sources. The example is also used by Jean Bodin (6.5 [1608: 992]) to illustrate the same point. p. 318, ll. 4-14: Contrary to Plutarch (Art. 2), Lipsius points out the difference between the two examples and differentiates between Xerxes as the heir of a newly acquired empire and Cyrus as a member of an established royal dynasty, a distinction which is also made by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 992]) and probably taken from him. p. 318, ll. 21-26: This is a brief description of the succession of Ptolemy I and VIII. Because of the general nature of the accounts, it is difficult to pinpoint the source, but it could be Justin (16.2.7-8 and 39.3.2 respectively), who has been used as a source earlier on in the chapter as well. Both examples are also adduced by Bodin in his République, 6.5 (1608: 990).

583

Commentary p. 318, ll. 27-30: This example is also adduced by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 990]) to illustrate the same point. Lipsius could have read about this in Paulus Aemilius’ De rebus gestis Francorum, 3 (1566: 55 ff), but since his account is very brief and general, it is difficult to pinpoint one specific source. p. 318, l. 31 – p. 320, l. 7: Lipsius based his description of Coloman and his rise to power on Bonfinius’ history of Hungary.This example is also adduced by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 991]) to illustrate the same point. p. 320, ll. 8-13: This practice is recorded by Francisco Alvarez in his history of Ethiopia, and copied by historians such as Damianus à Goes and Paulus Iovius, whose works Lipsius kept in his library. It is also picked up by Bodin in his République, 6.5 (1608: 1000). p. 320, l. 14: This topic is also discussed by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 993]) and Mariana (1.4 [1599: 48-49]). p.  320, ll. 21-23: This example is also used by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 994]). Lipsius could have read about this in Paulus Aemilius’ De rebus gestis Francorum, 3 (1566: 53), but his account is very brief and general, so that it is difficult to pinpoint one specific source. p.  320, ll. 24-30: This example, recorded in the fifth book of Pandulphus Collenutius’ Historiae Neapolitanae (1572: 210) is also used by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 993]). p. 322, ll. 1-2: This example is mentioned by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 993]), who refers to Livy as his source. Compare with Livy 29.29.6. Given the fact that this example is recorded by Bodin together with all of the following examples, Bodin must have been Lipsius’ source rather than Livy himself. p. 322, ll. 8-9: This was originally recounted by Plutarch (Lyc. 3.1-4) and recalled by Bodin (6.5 [1608: 994]) in his discussion of the subject. p. 322, l. 18 – p. 324, l. 3: The succession of Henry III of Castile by his son is described for instance by Mariana in his Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, 19.15 (1592: 909-911). p. 322, ll. 10-13: Robertus, Neapoleos rex: Robert of Anjou, known as Robert the Wise (1275 – 1343), was King of Naples, titular King of Jerusalem and Count of Provence and Forcalquier from 1309 to 1343. He was the third son of King Charles II of Naples and Mary of Hungary.When, in 1309, his father died, Robert’s

584

Commentary on Book 2 nephew Charles I Robert of Hungary, son of his brother Charles Martel, could rightfully claim to be King Charles II’s heir. However, as he was preoccupied with obtaining the Hungarian crown, he did not press his claim to the throne of Naples. See Musto (2013). p. 322, ll. 14-16: Otho Magnus: Otto I (912 – 973), known as Otto the Great, was German king from 936 and Holy Roman Emperor from 962 until his death in 973. The duel of one of his nephews with an uncle has been recounted in the Res gestae Saxonicae sive annalium libri tres by the medieval Saxon chronicler Widukind of Corvey (c. 925 – after 973), an important chronicle of 10th-century Germany during the rule of the Ottonian dynasty. A manuscript of Widukind’s Res ges­ tae Saxonicae was first published by Joannes Herwagen in Basel in 1532; a second printed edition appeared with Andreas Wechel in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1577. p. 324, l. 7: de qua dixi] I.e. in Mon. 2.3.10. Chapter 5 This chapter does not correspond directly to a chapter in the Politica, although a starting point can be found at the end of the chapter on election and succession (Pol. 2.4). There Lipsius concludes that power obtained in any other way does not last long, a topic he resumes here in the Monita and illustrates extensively. The use of fraud or deceit by the prince had also been examined by Lipsius in the Politica (4.13-14). Lipsius does not resume the theoretical debate about deceit, but simply acknowledges that there are many types of deceit, and particularly illustrates how various leaders have tried to come to power through deception. Lipsius probably found inspiration for this chapter in his notebooks (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lip. 32 and 58, fasc. 2), which include examples and quotations gathered under headings such as “fraudes”, “simulatio”, “ambitio” and “falsi principes”, a theme which is explored extensively in this chapter. p. 326, ll. 9-20: Lipsius paraphrases Aristotle’s account of the event (Ath. 14.1-2), also recorded by Herodotus (1.59.4-6), and adds the words of Solon which can be found in Plutarch, Sol. 30.1-2, where Solon refers to Od. 4.244-264. Lipsius seems to contradict himself by calling Pisistratus virtuous (l. 9) on the one hand and a tyrannical oppressor (l. 18) on the other. However, in the following chapter of the Monita, Lipsius illustrates how these two qualities do not necessarily exclude each other, as princes often change for the worse after they have risen to power.Therefore Lipsius might call him virtuous either on the basis of his virtuous behaviour before his rise to power (as described in the first few lines of this example) or because he possessed certain virtuous qualities, as illustrated, for instance, elsewhere in the Monita (2.17.3).

585

Commentary p. 326, ll. 24-30: The story of Andriscus is reported by various historians, including Livy, perioch. 49, Florus, epit. 1.30, Eutropius, 4.14, Velleius Paterculus, 1.11, Diodorus Siculus, 11.31.40a, and Zonaras, epit. 9.28. Livy calls him “homo ultimae sortis”, just as Lipsius. Zonaras, on the other hand, is the only one to mention the discontent of the Macedonians and Thracians about the Romans. p. 330, l. 33 – p. 332, l. 6: This story is recorded in various chronicles, including the Chronicon Colmariense (MGH SS 17, p. 254) and the Ellenhardi Chronicon (MGH SS 17, pp. 124-125). It can also be found in the first book of the Annales of Gerardus de Roo (1592: 35-36), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library, and which he also uses elsewhere in the Monita as a source on Rudolf of Austria. Therefore it is the most likely source. p. 332, ll. 7-20: This story is recorded in various chronicles. See Lecuppre (2005: 380). Lipsius’ account is based on the Pandectes of Johannes Leunclavius (§ 83). p. 332, l. 21 – p. 336, l. 24: This story is also recorded in various chronicles. See Wolff (1952: 312) and Lecuppre (2005: 377-378). However, none of those versions is as detailed as Lipsius’ account, which reproduces lengthy speeches. These are largely based on the dialogues found in Paulus Aemilius’ De rebus gestis Francorum, 8 (1566: 139-140), but have been elaborated upon in the revised edition of 1606. p.  336, ll. 25-31: This anecdote can be found in Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada’s Historia de rebus Hispaniae sive Historia Gothica, p. 224 ed.Valverde. See Lecuppre (2005: 377). However, his description is not as detailed as Lipsius’, which rather resembles the description of Jerónimo Zurita in his Anales de la Corona de Aragón, abridged and translated into Latin as Indices rerum ab Aragoniae regibus gestarum, 2.22. See Arteta (1958). p. 338, l. 15 – p. 342, l. 4: Lipsius summarizes Busbequius’ account of the events (Epistola secunda, fol. 51r-56r) in his words, preserving most of the details and adding some speeches of his own making. p.  342, l. 6: Many of the examples of violence regard cruelty against relatives. Lipsius probably found inspiration in his notebook, in which he collected, amongst others, examples of impiety against relatives.Thus the ninth example in the Monita can be found almost literally in Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2 (fol. 13v-14r). p. 342, ll. 8-22: The first example of violence is a biblical example, recorded in the ninth chapter of the Book of Judges. Lipsius’ account is a summary of Josephus (AJ 5.233-251).

586

Commentary on Book 2 p. 342, l. 23 – p. 344, l. 2: This account of the violence used by Phraates against his father and brothers is composed of elements taken from Plutarch, Justin and Josephus respectively. p. 344, l. 16 – p. 346, l. 12: Lipsius freely reproduces Justin’s account (34.4). p. 346, ll. 13-19: This is a free reproduction of Livy’s account of the story (28.21). The story is also told by Valerius Maximus (9.11.ext.1) as an example of a criminal deed. p. 346, l. 23 – p. 350, l. 35: This is a very detailed account of the cruelty of Selim based on various passages from Leunclavius’ Annales (§§ 191-215) and the corresponding chapters of his Pandectes. p.  352, l. 1 – p. 356, l. 10: Although Lipsius indicates Philippe de Commines (Cominaeus) as source for (part of) the story, and lines 20-4 (pp. 354-356) indeed correspond quite closely to his account in De rebus gestis (1640: 335), Lipsius’ version is nevertheless much more elaborate and differs significantly from Cominaeus’ as far as certain details are concerned. Lipsius’ version resembles much more the account of Pontus Heuterus in his Rerum Burgundicarum libri (5.7). The story can be found (almost) literally in Lipsius’ notebook under the heading “impietatis exempla” (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2, fol. 13v-14r). p. 356, ll. 21-29: This final anecdote is an example of ambition or impiety rather than of violence or deceit involved in succession, which has been inserted by Lipsius to entertain the reader (as well as to instruct him), as is suggested by the words “iocoso exemplo”. It is a faithful reproduction of Leunclavius’ account in Pandectes, 190 (1596: 200). Chapter 6 p. 358, ll. 2-3: Lipsius also treated this topic in the Politica (2.5) and the corresponding Notae. The Monita offers a more systematic survey of the reasons for the changeability of princes and their rule. Although Tacitus is not explicitly quoted, this is one of the most Tacitean chapters of the Monita, because events or actions are here shown to have an internal cause or rationality, that is to say, one related to political reality or human nature, while elsewhere in the Monita events are usually ascribed to an external cause, namely God. p. 358, ll. 6-7: The rule of a monarch is also compared to an athletics track in Pol. 2.5.1 and 2.6.1 (pp. 306 and 308, ed. Waszink) and Mon. 2.14.9.

587

Commentary p. 358, ll. 9-15: In the Politica and the Notae Lipsius also expressed the idea that the prince behaves virtuously at the start of his rule because he cares about his reputation, but changes for the worse once his power is established because the virtues were only simulated. See Pol. 2.5.1 (pp. 306-308, ed.Waszink) and Notae 2.5 (p. 742, ed. Waszink). In the Monita the idea is illustrated with a sentence from the Historia Augusta about Heliogabalus. Whereas in the original context the sentence only applied to princes who succeed tyrants (Hist. Aug. Heliog. 3.2), Lipsius slightly changes it to adapt it to his own purpose by applying it to new princes in general. p. 358, ll. 15-24: Human weakness as a reason for the decline of a monarch and his rule is touched upon in the Notae (p. 742, ed. Waszink) as well. The theme is further developed in Mon. 2.9. According to Lipsius, the nature of the prince is corrupted even more by flatterers at the court. This opinion, also expressed in Mon. 2.14, was very common among political writers of the time, including Machiavelli, Erasmus, Juan de Mariana, Fox Morcillo, and Felipe de la Torre. See Truman (1999: 48; 52; 75). Compare with Kühlmann (1982: 344), Uhlig (1973) and Kiesel (1971). In a striking comparison, Lipsius compares flatterers to drunks. The behaviour of drunks is described in detail by Lipsius in a famous letter to his students. See AN2 (= Cent. misc., III, 51). p. 358, ll. 24-30: The same idea is expressed in Pol. 2.5.1 (p. 306, ed. Waszink). Credulity as a characteristic of the populace is discussed in Pol. 4.5.8 (p. 404, ed. Waszink). p.  358, l. 27: Flandros amare futuros Principes, odisse factos: This popular saying could not be traced. It has not been recounted in the historical works on the Dutch Revolt by Jacobus Meyerus or Alfonso de Ulloa. p. 358, l. 29 - p. 360, l. 1: Stubbornness of the subjects as a reason for bad rule is also discussed in Pol. 6.5.4 (pp. 696-698, ed. Waszink), where subjects are lectured on how their behaviour can cause or stimulate tyranny. p. 360, ll. 2-12: The idea that monarchy and power deprave the ruler is also discussed in Pol. 2.5 and 4.5.2 (pp. 308 and 402, ed. Waszink), where it is illustrated by quotes from Seneca and Tacitus, as part of an investigation into the nature of kingship and tyranny. p. 360, ll. 13-19: This is a faithful reproduction of Justin’s account of the start of Dionysius’ reign. Fear and rivalry are discussed as characteristics of kingship, and especially tyranny, in Pol. 4.6 and 6.5.2 (pp. 413 and 693, ed. Waszink).

588

Commentary on Book 2 p. 360, ll. 21-27: Lipsius refers to Polybius as the source for his description of the natural qualities of Philip V, although the details of Lipsius’ portrait do not correspond exactly to Polybius’ (4.77.2-4). p. 360, l. 34 – p. 362, l. 5: This summary of Herodes’ reign seems to be composed of various episodes recorded by Josephus, which also occur in other exempla collections, such as Boccaccio’s De casibus virorum illustrium (7.2). p. 362, ll. 10-15: The tradition which contrasts the beginning or the first five years of Nero’s reign to his later moral decline took shape even before Nero’s death, as can be derived from the narratives of Tacitus (ann. 14.13) and Seneca (clem. 1.6), and formed the basis for the anecdote in which Trajan praises the Quinquennium Neronis, as recorded by Pseudo-Aurelius Victor. See amongst others Griffin (2000a: 84 and 245). Chapter 7 p. 364, ll. 2-3: This chapter corresponds to Pol. 2.6 and the corresponding Notae. The subject is also touched upon in the dedicatory letter of the Politica (p. 228, ed. Waszink). In our translation of this chapter the Latin word “finis” has sometimes been translated as “aim”, sometimes as “end”, with no difference in meaning, because in some contexts the one sounds better than the other, and vice versa. p. 364, l. 7: The opinion that the king should protect his subjects is also expressed in the corresponding chapter of the Politica (2.6) through a quotation from Seneca (clem. 1.18.1). p.  364, ll. 9-10: Contrary to Sallust (Catil. 6.7 = Cic. rep.  2.31.53), Augustine derives the term “king” (rex) from the word regere (“to rule”, “to lead straight”, “to keep straight or from going wrong”), thus envisaging a rule concerned with the common good. See De civitate Dei 5.12. Compare conf. 13.23 and Cicero, rep. 1.26 and 6.13. See also Von Heyking (2001: 71). The Augustinian etymology is repeated by the anonymous Vindiciae contra tyrannos (3e). Lipsius agrees with it. In the next chapter of the Monita (2.8), he compares the prince to a ruler or measuring rod (regula). p. 364, l. 14: The description of the prince as God’s vice-regent and as arbiter of life and death was commonplace in Renaissance political writing, stemming from the medieval conception of kingship and its divine nature (see e.g. Thomas Aquinas, De regno, 1.13), as well as from Seneca’s influential description of divine government in De clementia 1.1.2, as quoted here by Lipsius. Similar images are

589

Commentary used by Lipsius elsewhere in the Monita, e.g. in Mon. 2.18, and in other works, such as the Panegyricus and the Admiranda. p. 364, ll. 14-19: In the wake of classical authors such as Seneca (clem. 1.7.1), also Erasmus, like Lipsius, repeatedly stressed that God and Christ are the only true examples for the prince. See Erasmus, Institutio, 1.82; 2.13 and 20. Compare his Enchiridion militis Christiani. p. 364, l. 17: In line with classical authors such as Seneca, the duties of a prince were often described as those of a father or parent by later political theorists such as Erasmus. Elsewhere in the Monita (2.12) Lipsius also compares the prince to a father who sometimes forgives, sometimes punishes his children, that is to say, his subjects. p. 364, ll. 19-28: The idea that the prince needs to forget himself and devote himself completely and continuously to the people is also expressed in Pol. 2.6, and illustrated here with two quotations from a panegyric on Emperor Maximian. In his Dissertatiuncula apud Principes, Lipsius reminded the new rulers of their duties in a similar way. p. 364, l. 30 – p. 366, l. 4: Lipsius presents a statement of Emperor Tiberius by (verbally) quoting Suetonius, and subsequently breaks it down to analyse its components, stressing, amongst other things, the need to listen to good counsellors and to administer justice, which traditionally distinguishes a legitimate king from a tyrant. See Papy (2000b). This topical antithesis is elaborated in the Politica (6.5), whereas the need for good counsellors is discussed in Pol. 3.3-7; the administration of justice is treated in Monita, 2.9. The need to take care of individual citizens is also stressed in the Dissertatiuncula, with reference to Seneca’s De clementia, 1.3, of which every constituent is analysed in a similar way. p.  366, ll. 5-9: This anecdote is reported by Dio Cassius (68.16.1) and others (Zonaras, epit. 11.21; Ps. Aur.Vict. 13.9), who, however, do not mention the clause “ex utilitate omnium”. The event is alluded to by Pliny (paneg. 67.4; 68.1 and 94.5), who does not describe it in detail, but does mention this part of the vow. Therefore, Lipsius must have consulted Pliny as well as another of these sources. The saying is also praised in Lipsius’ Panegyricus. p. 366, l. 8: This is a play on Trajan’s title “optimus”, also referred to in the dedicatory letter of the Monita.

590

Commentary on Book 2 p. 366, ll. 10-12: This saying is recorded by Eutropius (8.5.1), but he attributes it to Emperor Trajan instead of Hadrian. In the next paragraph Eutropius starts his discussion of Hadrian, which might have misled Lipsius. p. 366, ll. 13-15: This is a very famous saying byVespasian, as recorded by Suetonius (Vesp. 24.1), and repeated by many (political) writers, such as Botero (Ragion di stato, 2.10) and Montaigne (Essais, 2.21 = “Contre le faineantise”). p. 366, ll. 16-19: This is recounted by the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates in his second book on Alexius Comnenus’ brother Isaacius Angelus. Lipsius could read Choniates’ Historiae in the bilingual edition by Hieronymus Wolf, published in Basel in 1557 by Ioannes Oporinus. The story, recounted on pages 237-238 of Wolf ’s edition, refers to Henry VI (1165-1197), who was King of Germany (King of the Romans) from 1190 and Holy Roman Emperor from 1191 until his death. p. 366, ll. 20-25: The example is also used in the Dissertatiuncula (1599: fol. *3r) to illustrate the same point. We have not been able to trace its original source. Chapter 8 p. 368, ll. 4-5: Lipsius repeatedly stressed that the prince needs to excel in virtue so that his virtuous way of life would reflect on all layers of society and bring order, stability, and moral progress. See Pol., prelim. 2 (p. 227, ed. Waszink), Pol. 2.9 (p. 316, ed. Waszink), and Notae (2.9, p. 744, ed. Waszink). p. 368, ll. 5-6: A similar explanation is offered in the Politica: the eyes and minds of the people are turned upwards towards higher things, where they seek examples for their own conduct. See Pol., prelim. 2 (p. 227, ed. Waszink). p. 368, ll. 8-9: This metaphor, going back to Seneca (epist. 11.10) and Persius (4.12 and 5.38), also occurs in the corresponding chapter of the Notae (2.9, p. 744, ed. Waszink). p. 368, ll. 9-10: A similar metaphor is used in Pol., prelim. 2 (p. 226, ed. Waszink). Following classical authors such as Seneca and Pliny (epist. 4.22.7), (political) writers often compared the position of the prince in relation to the citizens with that of the head in relation to the body, and his duties to those of a medic. See e.g. Thomas Aquinas, De regno, 1.13 and Erasmus, Institutio, 1.80 and 7.5. On the use of medical and corporal imagery, see e.g. De Bom (2009: 137-139), Kühlmann (1982: 72), Archambault (1967), Hale (1971), Kantorowicz (1957), Hinrichs (1969: 53-58), and Stacey (2007: s.v. prince as medic).

591

Commentary p. 368, l. 23: In line with other (political) authors such as Thomas Aquinas (De Regno, 1.3; 15 and passim) Lipsius often compared the state to a ship, and the prince to a helmsman. See e.g. Pol., prelim. 2 (p. 226, ed. Waszink), Mon.1.1, Admir., Ad lec­ torem, and De Const. 1.13. p. 370, ll. 1-3: This example is also adduced by Bodin when discussing the influence of the prince on the people in his République, 4.6 (1608: 616). p. 370, ll. 7-11: In Pol. 2.9 Lipsius stated that there are two ways to instil virtue into the people, namely through laws or through the example of the prince. The fact that the latter is more effective is illustrated in the Politica with the same quotation from Tacitus. However, Lipsius has added the preceding sentence from the original passage, thus turning it into a historical example. Chapter 9 p.  372, ll. 2-3: This chapter corresponds to Pol. 2.10 and the complementary Notae (p.  744, ed. Waszink). Whereas those focus on the preservation of justice by the prince, in the Monita Lipsius provides specific examples of princes who have observed justice towards themselves, their family, or highly placed officials, drawing inspiration from Valerius Maximus’ chapter on justice (6.5) and Plutarch’s Apophthegmata. p. 372, l. 5: This word occurs twice in the Iliad (1.238 and 11.186).The etymology is also referred to in the anonymous Vindiciae contra tyrannos (3e) when discussing the administration of justice as one of the reasons why kings are created. The idea that kings have (originally) been appointed in order to administer justice is also expressed in Pol. 2.11 and elsewhere in the Monita (2.1 and 2.9). p.  372, ll. 8-13: Lipsius criticises writers who “free the prince from the laws”. This seems to be a rejection of the concept of absolute sovereignty defended by authors such as Bodin and an assertion of the traditional Thomistic position. However, from the treatment of the topics of justice and law in the Politica (2.1011 and 4.7-9; 11.3-4; 13-14) and elsewhere in the Monita (2.10 and 14), it appears that for Lipsius, as for Bodin, the prince is superior to the laws: he is the supreme judge and legislator; he can change laws and introduce new ones. Nevertheless Lipsius, like Bodin, advises the prince to introduce or change laws cautiously and sparingly and with respect for the existing laws and customs (Mon. 2.4). Moreover, the fact that the prince is superior to the laws does not mean that he should not obey them. Religion and conscience, that is to say, fear of God, should restrain him (Mon. 1.6 and 2.6). This is illustrated throughout the Monita with examples of princes who have been punished by God for breaking the law. On the subject see

592

Commentary on Book 2 further Burgess (1992: 837-861), Skinner (1978: 2, 284-301), Jehasse, (1996: 511), and Waszink (2004: 47-48 and 92-93). p. 372, l. 17: On flattery, see above Mon. 2.6 and 14. p.  372, ll. 20-27: To make this anecdote from Valerius Maximus more visual and appeal to the emotions of the reader, Lipsius composed a (brief) speech for Zaleucus, reflecting his moral dilemma. Lipsius contrasts this instance to the next example of Charondas, whose behaviour he characterises as cruel. By depicting such moral dilemmas, by contrasting examples, and presenting examples as troubling, extreme or ambiguous, Lipsius shows the reader, especially the prince, that there might not be such a thing as “absolute” virtue or one right way to behave, but instead invites him to seek alternative ways of acting in different situations. See further Moss (1996b and 1998) and Tucker (2011). The acts of Zaleucus and Charondas are presented in a similar way as extreme examples which the reader is not expected to emulate by Juan de Mariana in his De rege, 1.9 (1599: 102-103). See Braun (2007: 98). p. 372, l. 29 – p. 374, l. 3: This is a faithful reproduction of Valerius Maximus’ account of a story which can also be found in Diodorus Siculus (12.19), with some additions by Lipsius to make it more lively. Like Valerius Maximus, Lipsius designates the example as ambiguous. p. 374, ll. 3-4: For Lipsius’ ambiguous feelings towards suicide, see our commentary to Monita, 1.7., const. 4. p.  374, ll. 5-15: Lipsius reproduces an anecdote reported by Plutarch in his Apophthegmata, and compares it to the version of Valerius Maximus, who gives a different answer (“Sive, ut alii efferunt, Ad Philippum sobrium.”). Lipsius also adds some lines of speech (“Tu a rege?”) and some final remarks. The anecdote is also recorded in other mirrors for princes, such as Budé’s Institution du prince, 29 (1547: 120). p. 374, ll. 16-23: This is quite a literal reproduction of the anecdote as recorded by Plutarch in his Apophthegmata, with an additional final remark by Lipsius, summarizing the moral lesson which can be drawn from the story. p. 374, ll. 26-31: Lipsius freely reproduces the anecdote as recorded by Plutarch in his Apophthegmata and makes some (formal) changes and additions to the speeches. The anecdote is also recorded in other mirrors for princes, such as Budé’s Institution du prince, 29 (1547: 121).

593

Commentary p. 374, l. 32 – p. 378, l. 31: This is a detailed description of an anecdote related to the administration of justice by Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. It occurs for the first time in this form in Pontus Heuterus’ Rerum Burgundicarum libri VI, 5.5, and subsequently in Lipsius’ Monita. p.  378, ll. 34-35: Lipsius distinguishes between two ways of spelling the name “Mehmed”, namely “Mahumetes” and “Muchemetes”. The former was currently used in medieval and early modern Europe, but Lipsius says that he has been told by experts in the language that the second one is more correct, and he uses it throughout the rest of the story. This is indeed the way it is spelt by his source, Johannes Leunclavius, who discusses the orthography of this name in Pandectes, 140. We have translated it as Mehmed, which is the most commonly used form in modern English (anglicised form of the Turkish “Mehmet”). Chapter 9 bis p. 382, l. 3: The origin of royal authority is also discussed in Mon. 2.1, and further on in this chapter (2.9, quaestio), with reference to the Politica. In Pol. 2.11 Lipsius quotes from Cicero’s De officiis, the locus classicus for this subject, to support his argument. A similar discussion is held in Bodin’s République, 4.6 (1608: 610), who quotes the same locus next to others. p. 382, l. 4: Ciceronian praise of justice as the bond of society without which it cannot exist. See Cic. rep. 2.69, discussed by Augustine in civ. 2.21, and Cic. parad. 4.28, quoted by Lipsius in Pol. 2.10. p. 382, ll. 10-11 and 20-25: In this chapter Lipsius quotes from Homer twice. These quotations are discussed in detail by H. Tucker (2011). On Lipsius and Homer, see also Jehasse (1976: 450-473). p.  382, ll. 18-19: This is a quotation from Sidonius Appolinaris (epist. 3.6.3), wrongly attributed by Lipsius to Boethius. Lipsius might have found it in Thomas of Ireland’s Manipulus Florum, in which this quotation (wrongly attributed to Cassiodorus) is followed by a quotation from Boethius, and he might thus have copied the wrong source. See Thomas Hibernicus, Flores (1575: 751, s.v. regimen sive regere). Lipsius kept a copy of this work in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 13v). p. 384, ll. 5-6: This is said about the reign of William the Conqueror in various chronicles, including Matthew of Paris’ Chronica majora, a. 1085, R.S. 57.2, p. 20 (= Historia Anglorum, R.S. 11.1, p. 29), of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 5v). See also Johannes de Oxenedes, Chronica, R.S. 13, p. 35. 594

Commentary on Book 2 p. 384, l. 7: The admonitions added by Lipsius to his general praise and recommendation of justice are new and do not have a specific starting point in the Politica or Notae. p. 384, l. 25 – p. 386, l. 10: This is a reproduction of an anecdote from Procopius’ De bellis (3.8.12-25 = De bello Gothico). Lipsius’ rendering of Totila’s speech is loosely based on details provided by Procopius, who records a much longer speech. The text has been elaborated for effect by Lipsius in the revised edition of 1606. p. 386, ll. 20-27: This anecdote was originally recorded by Herman van Doornik in his Liber de restauratione, § 22, MGH SS 14, p. 283, and elaborated by later historians. See Brutsaert (2004). p. 386, ll. 28-32: This story is also recorded by Herman van Doornik in his Liber de restauratione, § 24, MGH SS 14, pp. 283-284. p. 386, ll. 31-32: Lipsius does not approve of the fact that Baldwin personally carried out the execution. In Pol. 4.11 Lipsius describes how a prince should act in the case of executions. There executions are singled out, next to taxes and censorship, as a source of hatred, which contributes to the destruction of a reign. p. 388, ll. 2-22: This is a reproduction of the anecdote as reported by Plutarch (Mar. 14.3-5 and Mor. 202 B). In Plutarch, however, the victim is called Trebonius, while Lipsius calls him Plotius, as does Valerius Maximus (6.1.12). Yet Valerius Maximus, like Cicero (Mil. 9), only refers to the event without going into detail. Hence, although Lipsius might have found inspiration for the example in Valerius Maximus, he must have consulted Plutarch for the details. p. 388, l. 24 – p. 390, l. 5: The story of Bánk Bán is recorded in various (German and Hungarian) medieval chronicles. See Vázsonyi (1980). Lipsius, who kept a copy of Bonfinius’ chronicle in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3v), bases his version on the details found in Bonfinius’ Rerum Hungaricarum decades, 2.7 (1543: 278279). Lipsius kept a copy of the work in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3v). p. 390, ll. 8-9: The House of Croÿ claimed descent from the Hungarian Prince Marc, son of King Stephen IV, who allegedly married Catherine de Croÿ, heiress to the barony of Croÿ. p. 390, ll. 10-34: A possible source for this story is Godfrey of Viterbo’s Pantheon, MGH SS 22, pp. 238-240. p. 392, ll. 2-7: This is a free reproduction of Plutarch’s account (Arist. 4.2).

595

Commentary p.  392, l. 19 – p. 394, l. 18: This anecdote was recorded in the chronicles of Ellenhard (13th century) and Mathias von Neuenberg (14th century). See Ellenhard, Chronicon, MGH SS 17, p. 133, and Mathias von Neuenberg, Chronik, MGH SS rer. Germ. N.S. 4.1, p. 44. The reports in other chronicles and exempla collections are derived from these. See Treichler (1971: 114-115). The details of Lipsius’ account correspond to those of Mathias von Neuenberg, although the direct speeches have again been coined by Lipsius. Quaestio 1 p. 394, l. 20: This subject is discussed briefly by Lipsius in Notae, 2.11 to the chapter on justice (pp. 744-745, ed. Waszink). Some of the same arguments and examples are reiterated and elaborated here. This subject is also discussed by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 610-364). For a discussion of Bodin’s view, see Hinrichs (1969: 64-65). Although Lipsius, like Bodin, is cautious about drawing conclusions, he is clearly more in favour of princely jurisdiction than his fellow humanist, who is much more sceptical about the virtuousness of the prince. Lipsius, on the other hand, does not mention or ignores the possibility of abuse by a vicious prince or tyrant. p. 394, ll. 26-27: Lipsius alludes to Pol. 2.11. The idea that kings have originally been appointed in order to administer justice is also expressed at the start of chapter 2.9 of the Monita, as well as in chapter 2.1. It is contradicted by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 621). p. 396, l. 3: This argument is also adduced against princely jurisdiction by Bodin, République, 4.6 (1608: 616-619). He illustrates it with the practice of powerful ancient and modern rulers and leaders. The habit of Persian kings to rarely leave their palace is criticised by Lipsius further on in the Monita (2.6) and by Erasmus, who approves of the practice of kings such as Mithridates, Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, who listened to cases personally, which he considers to be the duty of a prince in times of peace (Institutio, 10.2-4). p. 396, ll. 5-6: The risk that the prince might cause hatred by judging too severely or violate the law by being too clement is discussed extensively by Bodin. Contrary to Machiavelli in Il Principe, 17, he is convinced that it is better for the prince to be loved than feared and that he should therefore only execute tasks which will gain the favour of the people, and leave all others to his magistrates. See République, 4.6 (1608: 616 and 622-629). Compare Erasmus, Institutio, 3.12. p.  396, ll. 21-23: In Lipsius’ view God will inspire the prince’s judgment, like He is said to have inspired biblical kings such as Solomon (1 Reg. 3.9-12). This is indeed illustrated with a quotation from the Bible (Prov. 16.10). 596

Commentary on Book 2 p. 396, ll. 25-27: Although appropriate speech and gesture are of great importance to the prince for the acquisition of authority according to Lipsius, he nevertheless thinks that the prince should not be locked away if he is not eloquent. This is exactly what should be done according to Bodin, who praises Tiberius for withdrawing. See Lipsius, Pol. 2.16 (p. 341, ed.Waszink) and Mon. 2.16, and Bodin, République, 4.6 (1608: 617-618). p.  396, l. 29 – p. 398, l. 1: Like Bodin (4.6 [1608: 616-619]), Lipsius thinks that a prince who is constantly seen in public loses respect, and that majesty is increased if the prince keeps a distance (Mon. 2.16). Like Erasmus in his Institutio (10.2), he is nevertheless convinced that the right measure should be observed because an excessive distance conflicts with the office of kingship and the tasks of a prince, such as administering justice (Mon. 2.16). Moreover, the words, gestures and appearance appropriate for jurisdiction only increase the prince’s authority or majesty. See Lipsius, Pol. 4.9 (p. 424, ed. Waszink) and Mon. 2.1, mon. 4. On words, gestures, and appearance as a means to acquire majesty in Lipsius’ political works, see further Van Houdt (2007: 16-20). p. 398, ll. 1-6: The possible conflict between the imperative of justice and clemency is discussed in more detail in the chapter on clemency (Mon. 2.12). p. 398, ll. 1-11: The idea that severity must be applied for the sake of the common good is also expressed in Pol. 4.9 (p. 426, ed. Waszink), where a similar medical metaphor is used. For the use of medical metaphors in the Monita, see Mon. 1.1, 1.5, 2.8 and the literature referred to there. p. 398, ll. 12-16: That clemency should be used with moderation and within the limits of the law is also expressed in Pol. 2.12-13 and Mon. 2.12. p.  398, ll. 16-20: That clemency of the prince creates shamefulness to sin is expressed in Mon. 2.12 as well, in the words of Seneca (clem. 1.22.3). p. 398, l. 18: The incorruptibility of the prince is acknowledged by Bodin (4.6 [1608: 611]), and mentioned by Lipsius in Mon. 2.1 (mon.3), but not elaborated here. p. 398, ll. 26-30: We have only found such a capitulary of Louis the Pious, not of Charlemagne. See Capitulare Wormatiense, 6 14, MGH Capit. 2, p. 16. It is also recorded in the Notae (p. 745, ed. Waszink).

597

Commentary p. 398, l. 35 – p. 400, l. 1: The argument that fear of the prince’s judgment or punishment makes the judges more careful and attentive is also adduced by Lipsius in Mon. 2.1 (mon. 3). p. 400, ll. 3-7: This anecdote from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata (Mor. 179C) is also recorded in the Dissertatiuncula (1599: fol. *3r-v).The practice of Philip of Macedon is also referred to by Erasmus (Institutio, 10.3). The anecdote is also adduced by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 613), who (wrongly) attributes it to Emperor Hadrian, indicating Spartianus as a source. p. 400, ll. 8-13: This anecdote from Plutarch (Demetr. 42.2-3) is also recorded by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 620), to illustrate how the people will blame a prince who undertakes to administer justice, but does not live up to his promise. p.  400, ll. 15-17: This anecdote from Suetonius (Aug. 33.1) is also adduced by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 613), to illustrate how Roman Emperors were preoccupied with, and devoted to, the administration of justice. p. 400, ll. 21-24: Lipsius took this story from Philippus Cominaeus, whose historical account he most probably read in the Duo Gallicarum rerum scriptores nobi­ lissimi: Frossardus in brevem Historiarum memorabilium Epitomen contractus, Philippus Cominaeus De rebus gestis a Ludovico XI et Carolo VIII Francorum Regibus. Ambo a Ioanne Sleidano e Gallico in Latinum sermonem conversi, brevique explicatione illustrati, published by Andreas Wechel in Frankfurt in 1584.The story refers to Charles VIII, called the Affable (1470-1498), who was King of France from 1483 to his death in 1498. Quaestio 2 In Bodin’s République the question whether offices (in general) should be perpetual is discussed in detail (4.6 [1608: 581-602]). Although Lipsius’ treatment of the subject is much less detailed, he does repeat some of the arguments, examples, and quotations adduced by Bodin, and adds some of his own. Lipsius first presents three arguments against perpetual judges and then refutes them by proposing practical measures to avoid each of these pitfalls. In the Politica, however, where this matter is touched upon only briefly and in a different context, Lipsius advises the prince to avoid long-lasting offices, especially with respect to military commanders and governors. See Pol. 4.9 (p. 432, ed. Waszink). p. 402, l. 20 – p. 404, l. 5: As a measure against corruption Lipsius advises the prince to ensure that the judges receive a decent salary. This is illustrated with an anecdote which is recorded by Leunclavius in his Annales and rephrased by Lipsius in keeping with the details found in the original text. 598

Commentary on Book 2 p. 404, ll. 5-7: Lipsius read this story in Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, 10. It is also referred to by Diodorus of Siculus (1.48.6). Chapter 10 p. 406, ll. 1-3: This topic is touched upon at the end of the chapter on justice in the Politica (2.11) and in the corresponding Notae, and is elaborated here in a separate chapter, in which Lipsius criticises the profusion and complexity of the existing laws and advocates a reduction of the number of laws and lawsuits. Complaints about the excessive multiplication of laws and criticism of legal bureaucracy and litigiousness were recurrent themes in medieval and Renaissance literature. See e.g. Kagan (1981), Katz (1981), Bouwsma (1973), and Martines (1969), all with further literature. It has been suggested by K. Enenkel (2004: 604-606) that Lipsius’ remarks might amount to more than mere topical criticism and are rather part of a larger plea for an absolute monarchy in which the monarch is not restricted by legislation and jurisprudence. This chapter in particular received a positive reaction from Lipsius’ pupil and successor, the humanist Erycius Puteanus (ILE 05 05 25). p. 406, ll. 5-7: The idea that many laws generate a lot of lawsuits and bad morals, just as an abundance and mixture of medicines cause disease, is expressed on several occasions by Plato (R. 404e-405a and 425e-426b) and repeated by Erasmus (Institutio, 6.2 and 3). Here it is illustrated with a quotation from Strabo, attributed to Plato. p. 406, l. 9: In 1576 Lipsius, who had a master’s degree in law, had published a treatise on the laws of the Roman Kings and Decemvirs (Leges regiae et leges X-virales), about which he was teaching in Leuven at the time. See J. Papy in Lipsius en Leuven (83-84). p. 406, ll. 12-13: The idea that a profusion of laws creates even more lawsuits is expressed in Pol. 2.11 as well. p. 406, l. 13: The idea that the whole of Europe was plagued by a culture of litigation is also expressed in Pol. 2.11. p. 408, ll. 5-7: The idea that the prince, because he is the living law, can easily put an end to seemingly endless lawsuits is also expressed by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 612). Erasmus also calls the prince “viva lex” in Inst., 6.2. For the historical development of the term, see Kantorowicz (1957: 127-132). p. 408, ll. 11-12 and 19-20: Similar criticism of lawyers is expressed by Lipsius in Pol. 2.11 (p. 322, ed. Waszink), and by Erasmus in his Institutio (6.30). 599

Commentary p. 408, l. 29: In the Politica Lipsius also called for “a new Justinian”. See Pol. 2.11 (p. 325, ed. Waszink). p. 408, l. 35: Fata inviderunt]: Caesar, whose military and political successes ended in murder, was traditionally depicted as a victim of Fortuna. See Tarrête (2007:120). p. 410, ll. 3-22: Lipsius took this anecdote from the Histories of the 12th-century Byzantine chronicler Johannes Zonaras. He could read the story in Ioannis Zonarae Monachi, qui olim Byzantij Magnus Drungarius excubiarum seu Biglae protosecretarius fui, compendium Historiarum, in tres Tomos distinctum (Basel: Ioannes Oporinus, 1557), in tom. 3, p. 58. p. 410, ll. 23-27: This measure by Charles IX can also be found in Bodin’s De re­­ publica, 6.2 (1594: 1036). p. 410, ll. 28-31: Lipsius refers to James II (1267 – 1327), called the Just, who was King of Aragon and Valencia and Count of Barcelona from 1291 to 1327. Lipsius took this episode from De rebus Hispaniae, written by Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada (Rodericus of Toledo) and edited by Lipsius’ friend Andreas Schott. The first edition was issued in Frankfurt in 1579 under the title Rerum Hispanicarum scrip­ tores aliquot… nunc accuratius emendatiusque recusi et in duos tomos digesti (Frankfurt: Andreas Wechel, 1579); a second edition appeared in 1603. p. 410, l. 32 – p. 412, l. 2: Galeazzo Maria Sforza was the fifth Duke of Milan from 1466 until his death. He was famous for being lustful, cruel and tyrannical. He was assassinated on 26  December  1476. Lipsius could read the anecdote in Niccolò Macchiavelli’s Istorie fiorentine (7.6), first published in 1532. See also Black (2009: 118-121). p.  412, ll. 3-12: Lipsius read on the Ottoman ‘Cadii’ in Jean Bodin, République (1583: 374). The term qadi refers to judges who presided over matters in accordance with Islamic law, but in the Ottoman Empire, the qadi also became a crucial part of the central authority’s administrative hierarchy. See also Malcolm (2013: 197-217). Chapter 11 p. 414, ll. 1-3: This chapter on divine justice does not have an equivalent in the Politica or the Notae, and is not very elaborate: it contains a very brief introduction, followed by just five examples. However, the subject has been discussed extensively by Lipsius in his De Constantia (2.9-17). p. 414, ll. 4-6: Compare Mon. 2.9, mon. 2.3 and Mon. 2.17.12. 600

Commentary on Book 2 p.  414, ll. 21-33: This anecdote from Lambert of Hersfeld, also called Lambert of Aschaffenburg, Annales, a. 1059 (MGH SS rer. Germ. 38, pp. 75-76) has been rephrased by Lipsius.This medieval chronicler is recommended (briefly) by Lipsius in the Notae, 1.9 (p. 734, ed. Waszink). p. 416, ll. 1-6: The story about King Philip IV, called Philip the Fair, who used his influence over Pope Clement V to disband the Knights Templar, is told in the Chronicon of Guillaume de Nangis and in Ferretto of Vicenza’s Historia rerum in Italia gestarum ab anno 1250 ad annum usque 1318, c. 1328. See Barber (1993: 314-315). Lipsius’ summary is taken from Juan de Mariana’s Historiae, 15.10 and 11 (1592: 718-720; 722). p. 416, ll. 10-25: This is a faithful reproduction of the anecdote as recorded in Mariana’s Historiae, 15.11 (1592: 721-722). Chapter 12 p. 418, ll. 1-3: The virtue of clemency, which is discussed in two chapters of the Politica (2.12-13), is treated again in the Monita, but with a different emphasis. In the Politica clemency is described and defined in general, Senecan terms. In the Monita the practical application of clemency in the judicial sphere is examined in detail and illustrated by numerous famous examples. The point of departure is a sentence from Seneca’s De clementia (concerning the prince as a judge) of which the various components are analysed individually. p. 418, ll. 6-12: The possible conflict between the imperative of justice and clemency is also touched upon in Pol. 2.12 and 13 and Mon. 2.9bis (quaestio 1), and elaborated here. p. 418, ll. 13-15: Lipsius seems to ‘correct’ Seneca’s definition by adding an element (“in remittendis”), although this was included by Seneca in his definition of clemency: a few lines after the quoted passages, one can read: “clementiam esse moderationem aliquid ex merita ac debita poena remittentem” (Sen. clem. 2.3.2). p. 418, ll. 17-20: According to Lipsius, the crimes which qualify for forgiveness are all offences against the person of the prince, so-called crimes of lese-majesty. The forgiveness of those who committed crimes against religion, which was much debated at the time, is not mentioned here. Calumny is also discussed in Mon. 2.17bis. p. 418, ll. 20-23: The duty (as well as the right) of a prince was often compared to that of a father, and the rule of a state to that of a family, from antiquity onwards. See especially Sen. clem. 1.14.1-2 and 1.15.3, and Erasmus, Institutio, 1.67, 1.70 and 601

Commentary 2.9. See further Stacey (2007: s.v.”prince as parent” and “prince as Pater patriae”) and Truman (1999: 47). p. 418, l. 28: Lipsius listed the De clementia among Seneca’s most important works on several other occasions, for instance in his letters and his edition of the works of Seneca. See L. Annaei Senecae Philosophi Opera (1605), Ad lectorem and ILE 99 12 02, as quoted by Jehasse (1976: 431 and 605-606). p. 418, l. 31: Biblical examples are scarce in the Monita compared to other mirrors for princes and exempla collections. Therefore it is all the more remarkable that Lipsius starts his examples of clemency with the exemplary behaviour of the biblical leaders Moses and David. By implicitly praising the clemency of the dedicatee of the Monita by comparing him to biblical and ancient leaders known for their clemency, Lipsius found a way to propagate and glorify the Habsburg dynasty. See further Soen (2011). p. 418, l. 31 – p. 420, l. 14: Lipsius summarizes the events of Exodus 15.22-17.7, rephrases Numeri 12 and concludes with a free reproduction of Exodus 32.31-32. p. 420, ll. 16-27: Summary of the events of 2 Samuel 13-19, with literal quotation of David’s order (2 Sam. 18.5) and lamentation (2 Sam. 18.33). p. 420, l. 31 – p. 422, l. 7: This is free reproduction of different passages from Plutarch’s life of Pericles. Plutarch provides several other examples for this chapter. p. 422, ll. 8-9: This (brief) comparison of Alexander and Philip might be based on Seneca, dial. 5.23.1-2, from which Lipsius quotes an anecdote further on in this paragraph. Also elsewhere in the Monita Lipsius speaks very highly of Philip, who is said to be the source of Alexander’s good qualities (Mon. 1.8.3), and who is one of the most frequently occurring examples in the Monita (with twelve occurrences). Alexander also occurs frequently (fourteen times) in the Monita, both as a positive and a negative example. p. 422, ll. 10-25: This is a collection of anecdotes from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, followed by a passage from Seneca’s De Ira (dial.  5.23.2-3), illustrating Philip’s clemency as well as his patience, a subject treated in more detail in Mon. 2.17bis. Although Lipsius has rephrased the text of the De Ira, its meaning has not altered. p. 422, l. 23: Thersites was a character in Homer’s Iliad who abused the Greek leaders on several occasions.

602

Commentary on Book 2 p. 422, ll. 26-32: This is a collection of anecdotes which can be found in Plutarch’s life of Marcellus (Marc. 19 and 23). The details of the second and third anecdote (about Archimedes and the accusation of the Syracusans), however, do not correspond to Plutarch’s account (resp. in Marc. 19.4 and 23), and are rendered in the words of Valerius Maximus (4.1.7) instead, whose account is based on Livy (25.24 and 31; 26.26).Valerius Maximus also provides the next example (p. 424, ll. 17-24 = Val. Max. 4.1.15). The example of Archimedes is also adduced by Petrarch in his Rerum Memorandarum libri (1.23). p. 424, l. 25 – p. 428, l. 15: This long and detailed description of Caesar’s clemency is based on anecdotes from the life of Caesar by Suetonius and Plutarch, which were reproduced freely by Lipsius. He concludes with a literal quotation of a letter by Caesar as preserved with Cicero’s letters to Atticus. p. 428, ll. 15-17: This statement summarizes Lipsius’ mixed feelings with regard to Caesar, expressed throughout his work: while his ambition and cruelty are compared to the Duke of Alba and the Spanish conquistadores in the De Constantia, he is commended highly for his military qualities in the De Militia Romana, Admiranda and Politica, and especially for his love of the arts in the De bibliothecis syntagma, Admiranda, Politica and Monita, and for his legendary clemency, patience, and pacifism in the Politica and Monita. The image of Caesar in Lipsius’ oeuvre in general has been studied by Schrijvers (1985), and in the Politica in particular by Tarrête (2007). p. 428, l. 18 – p. 430, l. 11: For this eulogy of the clemency of Octavian Lipsius assembles relevant anecdotes, which he gathered from various authors, including Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Plutarch, and rephrased somewhat. p. 430, l. 29: hoc de illo Tranquillus] i.e. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. p. 430, l. 32 – p. 432, l. 11: This is a quite literal reproduction of several successive anecdotes from Suetonius’ life of Titus. The first one (about the pontificate) is also recorded as an example of princely clemency by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 621). p. 432, l. 17 – p. 434, l. 3: The oldest known written source for this anecdote is the Chronicon Laureshamense, a. 815, MGH SS 21, pp. 358-359, from which it has been taken over by various historians such as Justus Reuberus, Martinus Crusius, Marquardus Freherus and Hubertus Thomas Leodius. Lipsius could have known it from their work or from their common source. Some details of the chronicle

603

Commentary have been omitted in Lipsius’ version, who has rephrased the story (especially the dialogues, as he usually did) and adapted it somewhat. See further Tournoy (2003). p.  434, ll. 4-19: Anecdote from Martinus Cromerus’ De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX, 6 (1568: 108-109). The speech has been elaborated by Lipsius based on the details found in Cromerus’ account. p. 434, l. 22 – p. 436, l. 2: Lipsius took this account from Baptistae Fulgosi de Dictis factisque memoralibus collectanea (Antwerp: J. Bellerus, 1565), lib. IV, cap. 1. p. 436, ll. 5-9: Anecdote recorded in the life of Hadrian in the Historia Augusta (Hadr. 17.1). The last two lines seem to be have been coined by Lipsius himself to explain the meaning of the emperor’s answer. The order of Lipsius’ anecdotes is normally more or less chronological, but the example of Hadrian means a leap back in time. It is, however, evoked by the previous example, to which it is indeed very similar. Although Lipsius explicitly apologises and justifies it, it is a good illustration of how the examples are loosely connected to each other through association. p. 436, ll. 29-30: A similar etymology of (clementia as) humanitas is developed by Seneca in his De clementia (1.3.2), and is repeated by Lipsius in the Politica (2.12.1). Chapter 13 The virtue of faithfulness (fides) is also discussed and recommended by Lipsius in Pol. 2.14.The structure and arguments in the Monita are very similar to the Politica, but new arguments are also adduced, while others are elaborated and illustrated with quotations and examples. These arguments and examples were adduced by Lipsius as an answer to Machiavelli (Il Principe, 18). p. 438, ll. 4-7: Faithfulness is also defined as the most concrete application of justice by Cicero, off. 1.23, as quoted in Pol. 2.14.1. p. 438, ll. 8-11: Lipsius reacts to Machiavelli, who had encouraged the prince to disguise his faithlessness and maintained that, in general, a ruler did not have to be virtuous, but only appear to be so (Il Principe, 18). Machiavelli is refuted in a similar way in Pol. 1.6.1 and 2.14, in Not. 1.6 (p. 730, ed. Waszink) and 3.4 (p. 754, ed. Waszink), and in Mon. 1.6 and 7. p. 438, l. 12: Faithfulness is also defined as the bond of society by Cicero, off. 2.84, as quoted in Pol. 2.14.1.

604

Commentary on Book 2 p.  440, ll. 6-9: Lipsius might have found inspiration for these examples in his notebooks, which featured the lemmata perfidiae exempla, fidei exempla and fides et perfidia (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 32 and 58). p. 440, ll. 15-25: Lipsius summarizes the account of Xenophon (Ages. 1.9-13). p.  442, ll. 1-20: This is a collection of anecdotes about the faithfulness of the Roman senate, people, and consuls, gathered by Lipsius from different chapters of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia, including his chapter on fides. Although the example of Cloelia is also recorded by Valerius Maximus (amongst many other authors) in his chapter on courage (fortitudo), he does not mention the reaction of the Roman senate. Therefore, Lipsius must also have consulted Valerius Maximus’ source, Livy (2.13.6). p.  442, l. 21 – p. 444, l. 3: This is another anecdote from Valerius Maximus’ chapter on fides (6.6.4). He only recalls the event, however, without describing it in detail. Although Valerius Maximus probably provided the inspiration for this example, Lipsius must also have consulted its source in Livy (30.25). p. 444, ll. 5-23: Although this example is quite a literal reproduction of an anecdote from Plutarch’s life of Antony (Ant. 32), the pun on “carinae” is rendered and explained differently.The phrase and explanation adduced by Lipsius can be found in Dio Cassius (48.38),Velleius Paterculus (2.77), Florus (4.8 = 2.18), and PseudoAurelius Victor’s De viris illustribus (84). p. 444, l. 26 – p. 446, l. 14: This is a literal reproduction of Plutarch’s account (Brut. 50). p. 446, ll. 15-25: Lipsius faithfully reproduces Bell. Afr. 44.2-46.1. p. 446, l. 27 – p. 448, l. 35: These events are related by Mariana in his Historia de rebus Hispaniae (9.8-10). The dialogues cannot be found as such in Mariana, although they resemble Mariana’s description of them. They could have been made up by Lipsius (as we have seen in other examples), or he could have had yet another source. p. 450, ll. 1-23: This anecdote is also related by Mariana in his Historiae (13.4). Flectio’ speech can be found literally in Mariana, although Lipsius’ introduction is slightly longer. p. 450, l. 24 – p. 452, l. 6: This is a quite faithful reproduction of Orosius’ account in the third book of his De rebus Emmanuelis (1597: 70b-74b).

605

Commentary p. 452, l. 32 – p. 454, l. 13: Lipsius could read this in Book VIII, chapter 8 of the De re­­publica libri sex et viginti by the French jurist and philosopher Pierre Grégoire (Petrus Gregorius Tholosanus), published in 1596 by Jean Baptiste Buysson in Lyon and in 1597 by Nicolaus Claudet in Pont-à-Mousson. p. 454, ll. 15-22: A possible source for this anecdote is Polydorus Virgilius’ Anglica historia (19.25-30), but it is difficult to indicate a precise source because Lipsius’ description of the events is not very detailed. p. 454, l. 32 – p. 456, l. 11: Lipsius drew inspiration from Valerius Maximus for this sequence on the loyalty of slaves (Val. Max. 6.8). Although Valerius Maximus provided several examples for this section, they have nevertheless been elaborated substantially by Lipsius, who has put lengthy speeches into the mouths of the slaves. p. 456, l. 21 – p. 458, l. 9: Two anecdotes recorded close to each other in a section of Appian’s history of the civil wars (BC 4.43 and 45), in which he adduces examples of people who had been proscribed, but were able to escape, often with the help of faithful slaves or freedmen. The first anecdote is included by Valerius Maximus in his chapter on the loyalty of slaves. The second example is also used by Valerius Maximus, but in a different chapter, and attributed to one Sentius Saturnius Vetulo instead of Pomponius. Therefore, although Lipsius uses phrases and elements from the version of Valerius Maximus, he nevertheless must also have consulted his source, Appian. In the edition of Valerius Maximus provided by Stephanus Pighius and annotated by Lipsius, Pighius’ Annotationes ad 7.3.9 read: “Aliquanto speciosius sententiis Saturnini Vetullionis] “idem hoc narrat Alexandrinus de Pomponio quodam. Locus hic haud dubie contaminatissimus est, ac merito notandus asterisco; sed nihil auxilii in exemplaribus est” (1594: 53). p. 458, l. 12: These events are mentioned by Mariana in the Historiae (20.12), but Lipsius’ account is more elaborate. p. 458, ll. 12-23: Lipsius read this story in Esteban de Garibay y Zamalloa’s Los XL. libros del compendio historial de las chronicas y universal historia de todos los reynos de España.This work had been printed by Christopher Plantin in Antwerp in 1571, which made it easily accessible to Lipsius. Ruy López de Dávalos (Úbeda, 1357 – Valencia, 1428) was a nobleman, politician, and military commander.

606

Commentary on Book 2 Chapter 14 Modesty of spirit and appearance are discussed in a similar way in Pol. 2.15, and the corresponding Notae. In the Monita the subject is treated in two separate chapters, the arguments are elaborated, and illustrated with more quotations and abundant examples. First Lipsius discusses why the prince is liable to arrogance, and subsequently why he should adopt modesty. p. 460, ll. 6-8: The argument that the prince is more liable to arrogance because of his high position is also adduced in Pol. 2.15. p. 460, ll. 8-12: Nature, courtly education, and flattery are also adduced as causes in the Notae (p.745, ed. Waszink), and are elaborated here. p. 460, l. 13: The opinion that the nature of the prince is corrupted even more by the education and flattery at the court is also expressed in Mon. 2.6, and commonly expressed by political writers of the time. See further Kühlmann (1982: 344), Kiesel (1979) and Uhlig (1973). p. 460, l. 15: The fact that Alexander wanted to be called son of Jupiter is reported on several occasions by Curtius Rufus and Plutarch (e.g. Curt. 6.11.23 and Plu. Mor. 180D). The example of Alexander is also adduced by Valerius Maximus (9.5.ext.1) in his chapter on pride (superbia). p.  460, l. 20: We learn from authors such as Martial (e.g. 10.72), Dio Cassius (67.5.7;13.4) and Suetonius (Dom. 13.2) that Domitian encouraged the use of the address “dominus et deus”, aligning himself with Caligula (Ps.-Aur.Vict. 3.13 and epit. 3.8 and 11.6). Later authors say he gave orders to have himself called this way (Aur. Vict. 11.2 and epit. 11.6; Eutrop. 7.23 and Oros. 7.10.2). See further Griffin (2000a: 81). p.  460, ll. 22-25: The arguments that the prince is human, death is imminent, and fortune can change are adduced in the Pol. 2.15 and the corresponding Notae (pp. 745-746, ed. Waszink) as well. As Toon Van Houdt (2007: 19) has pointed out, these passages are reminiscent of Plin. paneg. 2.4. Compare also to Aug. civ. 5.24. p. 460, ll. 26-31: The divine origin of monarchy and the divine foundation of the power of the monarch are illustrated here with a striking comparison of God to a stage director. A similar comparison can be found in Erasmus’ Moriae Encomium, ll. 599 – 603 (ASD 4.3: 104), to be compared to Institutio, 1.89, and Théodore Agrippa d’Aubigné’s Tragiques, 4, vv. 819-824, as quoted by Tarrête (2008: 149). For similar metaphors from antiquity until the 20th century, see Curtius (1967: 138-144). Lipsius often compares the world to a stage. See, e.g., Mon. 1.2.2.4 and 1.7.1, and the literature cited there.

607

Commentary p. 462, ll. 2-5: Historians give different descriptions of the inscriptions and images found on Sardanapalus’ grave. See Papadopoulou (2005). These are collected by Athenaeus in chapter 12.39 of his Deipnosophistae. Lipsius refers to the image on the grave as it looked according to Callisthenes (frag. 32 Müller) and Aristobulus (SRAM 76 J. 2 B 772). p. 462, ll. 26-32: On the emperor’s last will and the arrangements made, see now von Srbik (1966). We have been unable to find the specific source of this widespread story. p. 464, l. 3: A description of Emperor Charles V’s life at Yuste could be read by Lipsius in the fifth book of Guilielmus Zenocarus’ De republica, vita, moribus, gestis, fama, religione, sanctitate Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Quinti, Caroli Maximi, Monarchae Libri Septem, published in Ghent with Gislenus Manilius in 1562. The anecdote about the Emperor not wanting to be called anything but Charles, is to be read on page 295. p.  464, ll. 6-17: These events are for instance recorded in Albertus Crantzius’ Ecclesiastica historia sive metropolis, 9.1 (1558: 269).The letter and the citation quoted by Lipsius (l. 15) could be read in Panvinius’ edition of Bartolomeo Platina’s Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum, the Opus de vitis ac gestis summorum pontificum (Venice, 1562). Later editions appeared in Venice and Cologne. Lipsius may have used the folio-edition published in Leuven by Ioannes Bogardus in 1572. p. 464, ll. 18-29: This anecdote was originally recorded by Henry of Huntingdon in his Historia Anglorum (6.17), and incorporated by every major historian of England. Lipsius’ version shows a great resemblance to the account by Matthew of Paris (Chron. Ma. a. 1035, R.S. 57.1, p. 510). p. 464, ll. 30-31: The changeability of fortune is a recurrent theme in the Monita. Lipsius might have found inspiration for these examples in his notebook under the lemma fortuna reciprocans (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 58, fasc. 2). More examples of the changing fates of rulers can be found in the corresponding Notae (p. 746, ed. Waszink). p. 464, ll. 31-32: The reign of a monarch is also compared to an athletics track in Pol. 2.5.1 and 2.6.1 (pp. 306 and 308, ed. Waszink) and Mon. 2.6. p. 464, l. 33 – p. 466, l. 5: This is a popular anecdote about the changeability of fortune, based on Diodorus Siculus (1.58), also recorded in Plin. nat. 33.52. See Robinson (1946).

608

Commentary on Book 2 p. 466, ll. 6-20: Well-known anecdote as recorded by Herodotus and summarized by Plutarch in his life of Solon. p. 466, l. 21 – p. 468, l. 4: This is a collection of anecdotes about Gelimer from Procopius’ De bellis (De bello Vandalico).There are a few mistakes in the text. Maybe Lipsius was quoting from memory, or was hasty in copying it down. Thus in Procopius the mountain is referred to as “Papua” rather than “Pappus” (l. 25), and Gelimer is said to retire to “Galatia” instead of “Gallia” (l. 3). p. 468, ll. 6-21: This anecdote has been copied literally from Plutarch, as is the following example. The example of Jugurtha is also briefly referred to in the corresponding chapter of the Notae (p. 746, ed. Waszink). p. 468, ll. 22-32:This is a faithful reproduction of the account of Diodorus Siculus (16.91-94). p.  470, ll. 1-4: This is a brief enumeration of kings who died an unnatural or unworthy death.The fortune of Polycrates and Dionysius, recorded in more detail in Mon. 1.5.2.2 and 1.5.3.1 respectively, is also described by Valerius Maximus (6.9.ext.5 and 6) in his chapter on changes of character or fortune, and by Boccaccio in his De casibus virorum illustrium. The fate of Bayezid I, as reported in Leunclavius’ Annales (§ 64), is related in more detail in Mon. 1.5.2.4. Different versions of the way in which Boleslaw II of Poland died, including this one, are recorded by Martinus Cromerus in the fourth book of his De origine et rebus ges­ tis Polonorum libri XXX (1568: 62). The death of Antiochus by pirates or robbers is recorded by Justin (27.3), while the death of Pyrrhus by a woman is related by Plutarch (Pyrrh. 34.2). The death of Henry III, who was killed on 1 August 1589 by a monk named Jacques Clément, is mentioned a few times by Lipsius in his correspondence just after the event (ILE 89 08 20 A and LE, and ILE 89 09 12). p.  470, ll. 9-22: All three tragic events are related in Mariana’s Historiae. The dates and details reported by Lipsius correspond to Mariana’s account. The fourth example which Lipsius has in mind, but does not want to write down, could be any of Philip II’s children, most of whom died at an early age, or of Albert and Isabella’s children, all of whom died in infancy. p. 470, l. 24 – p. 472, l. 20: This is a summary of the events as described in the first two books of Conestaggio’s Dell’ unione del Regno di Portogallo alla corona di Castiglia, of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 9r).

609

Commentary Chapter 15 In the Politica and the corresponding Notae (pp. 746-748, ed. Waszink) the prince is also recommended to be modest in his speech, clothing, and other externals. These recommendations are summarized very briefly here (speech is not even mentioned), and furnished with examples. p. 476, ll. 8-9: A few (different) examples of rulers with a modest appearance have been adduced in the Notae (p. 747, ed. Waszink). p. 476, ll. 20-27: The appearance of Agesilaus, as recorded by Plutarch (Ages. 36.45), is adduced as a negative example by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 631). p. 476, l. 27: This proverb, applied to people who create high expectations but do not live up to them, used most famously by Horace (ars 139), is discussed by Erasmus in the Adagia (1.9.14). p. 476, ll. 27-28: External marks of greatness such as jewellery, clothes, retinue, etc. might impress the common people, but according to Lipsius, their opinion should not be valued highly. See Mon. 2.16; compare Pol. 4.5.4. The same opinion is expressed on several occasions by Erasmus in his Institutio (1. 1.21, 1.22, 1.26-27). p. 476, l. 29 – p. 478, l. 9: The anecdote is briefly described in Plutarch’s life of Philopoemen (Phil. 2.1-2), and has been elaborated by Lipsius, with a lot of attention to detail. p.  480, ll. 8-16: The modest appearance of Charles V is also mentioned in the Notae (p. 747, ed. Waszink). We have not been able to identify the original source of the example. p. 480, l. 17 – p. 482, l. 3: For an analysis of this example as a mark of the gendered nature of Lipsius’ views on decorous behaviour, see Van Houdt (2007: 23). p. 480, ll. 19-20: Henricus Quintus] Both the date indicated in the margin of the text and the historical circumstances described make it clear that Lipsius is writing about the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI rather than his predecessor Henry V.

610

Commentary on Book 2 Chapter 16 Lipsius’ treatment of this subject in the Monita is restricted to a brief discussion of the definition and origin of majesty or authority, which is largely a repeat of what had been said in the Politica (2.16) and the corresponding Notae, but illustrated with different quotations. p.  484, ll. 1-5: Although majesty and modesty seem to contradict each other, to Lipsius both are means of commanding respect from the subjects. Lipsius acknowledges that in order to command admiration, greatness needs to be displayed and made visible by means of symbols. Thus a prince can display his inner greatness through impressive symbols of power, such as a great retinue or palace, and through words, gesture, gait, etc. But paradoxically enough he can also show the inner modesty of his mind through modesty of appearance and by shunning external signs of greatness. Compare Mon. 2.15. According to Lipsius, the prince has to adopt a middle course between modesty and majesty, although he admits that it is a difficult balance and one which is rarely achieved. See Pol. 2.16.1 (p. 340, ed. Waszink). As has been discussed by Susan James (2000), this humanist paradox left some seventeenth-century theorists dissatisfied, as they set out to transcend it in their theories of the passions. p.  484, ll. 5-12: In Pol. 2.16 majesty is defined as greatness which commands respect. In the Monita Lipsius defines it as respect resulting from greatness, although he adds that the other way round is possible too: majesty can be considered a child, or the mother, of respect. p. 484, l. 6: Such an etymology of the word “maiestas” is developed e.g. by Paulus Diaconus (Paul. Fest. p. 136) and Priscianus (gramm. 2.128.21). p. 484, l. 12: Lipsius distinguishes six ways of achieving majesty: it mainly originates from inner greatness or virtue (“interna magnitudine, id est virtute”), but also from external signs of power (“externa”, e.g. “insignia”), an impressive retinue or palace (“aulae pompa et ministeriorum varietas aut copia”), dignity (“mores compositi et graves”), looks (“corpus et species”), and seclusion or retirement (“secessus et abductio”). p. 484, ll. 16-17: Lipsius argues against Machiavelli that external marks of greatness such as jewellery, clothes, retinue, etc. might impress the common people, but are worthless and do not attribute much to one’s authority at all, if they do not reflect internal virtue. Compare, e.g., Mon. 1.6 and 7. p. 484, ll. 27-28: In antiquity facial expression, voice quality, speech, and gait were thought to reveal one’s inner thoughts and character. See, e.g., Cic. de orat. 3.216:

611

Commentary “Omnis enim motus animi suum quendam a natura habet vultum et sonum et gestum”. See further Corbeill (2004). p. 484, ll. 28-30: The use of wit is discussed in ancient rhetorical manuals such as Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria (6.3) and Cicero’s De oratore (2.216 ff), who warns that in witticism vulgar wisecracking (“dicacitas”) should be avoided. Compare Cic. De orat. 2.444. See further Corbeill (1996). Also in the case of executions, Lipsius recommends that the prince should not be too cheerful (Pol. 4.11) in order not to cause hatred. p. 484, l. 29: Philippo, ultimo Macedone] In fact, Philip V was the penultimate king of Macedonia, succeeded in 179 B.C. by Perseus. p. 484, l. 33: According to the ancient ideal of beauty, one had to shun female elegance and strive for masculinity. See Corbeill (1996: 128-173) and Van Houdt (2007: 20-25). p. 486, ll. 1-5: Also in Pol. 2.16 Lipsius advises the prince to restrict his appearance in public. But, just as in the Politica, in the Monita Lipsius also advises the prince to observe the right measure: he should still execute the tasks of a king, such as the administration of justice (Mon. 2.9). The argument that a frequent appearance in public will diminish the prince’s majesty is adduced against the administration of justice by the prince by Bodin in his République, 4.6 (1608: 616-619). He illustrates it by the practice of powerful ancient and modern rulers such as the Persian kings. The habit of Persian kings to rarely leave their palace is criticised here by Lipsius, as well as by Erasmus in Institutio (10.1-3). Chapter 17 p. 488, ll. 1-6: In the Politica these four so-called “minor” virtues are discussed briefly in one chapter (Pol. 2.17 and Notae 2.17 [pp. 748-750, ed. Waszink]). In the Monita, these virtues are each treated separately, except for liberality or generosity (“beneficentia”). According to Lipsius, this quality should be treated elsewhere. In a way, however, the virtue is treated, in the last chapter of the Monita, because of Lipsius’ rather unusual treatment of magnanimity. p. 488, ll. 8-11: The argument that lust diminishes the power of the intellect and the body is also adduced in Pol. 2.17. p. 488, ll. 11-31: According to Lipsius, chastity (castitas) is a suitable virtue for the prince, but he does not want to discourage him from marriage. Hence chastity is recommended in the form of marital love (caritas). However, in Lipsius’ view, a prince should be dedicated to his wife, but not submissive or docile. This idea is 612

Commentary on Book 2 also expressed in Pol. 2.17 and the corresponding Notae (pp. 748-749, ed.Waszink), but elaborated extensively here and illustrated by means of examples of powerful rulers and nations who were dominated by women. Lipsius expresses the traditional view that women had to keep themselves to activities and tasks which were considered suitable for women, such as knitting, the education of children, and charity. This ideal is exemplified by Queen Maria of Aragon. Her attitude is in sharp contrast to that of her mother Isabella, who is praised highly by Lipsius in Mon. 2.2 and the Notae (1.7, p. 749, ed. Waszink). Lipsius acknowledges the contradiction and justifies it as follows: Isabella is the exception that proves the rule. p. 490, ll. 8-17: Maria of Aragon (1482-1517), daughter of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, was King Manuel I’s first wife’s younger sister; Manuel married her after Isabella had died in childbirth in 1498. Lipsius read this story on Maria in the De rebus Emmanuelis Lusitaniae regis invictissimi virtute et auspicio domi forisque gestis libri duodecim written by Jerónimo Osório da Fonseca. First published separately in Lisbon in 1571, it was later included in the first volume of Osorio’s Opera omnia (Rome: Georgius Ferrarius, 1592). In the latter edition, Lipsius could read the account on page 1035. p. 492, l. 29 – p. 494, l. 27: This is a detailed description of the story of the continence of Scipio, based on the details found in the account of Livy (26.50). It was very popular in exemplary literature in antiquity and the Renaissance. Thus it occurs in Valerius Maximus (4.3.1), Castiglione (Il Cortegiano, 3.39), Machiavelli (Discorsi, 3.20; Il Principe, 14 and 17), and Petrarch (De viris illustribus, 2.1). p. 496, ll. 5-13: Lipsius found the description of Maximilian’s chastity in Michel de Montaigne’ Essais (1.3). p.  496, ll. 14-20: Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (1453 – 1515) was a Spanish general who led successful military campaigns during the Conquest of Granada and the Italian Wars. His military victories and widespread popularity earned him the title El Gran Capitán. His life has been described by Paolo Giovio in his De vita et gestis Consalvi Ferdinandi Cordubae cognomento Magni, written in 1525-1526 and published in Rome in 1547. The biography was later incorporated into the Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium, first published in Florence in 1551. p. 496, ll. 21-35: Lipsius could read this story in the De Rebus gestis Francorum a Pharamundo primo rege usque ad Carolum Octavum Libri IIII (Paris: Jodocus Badius Ascensius, ca. 1519) by the Veronese historian Paulus Aemilius Veronensis. It is also recounted in Philippus Cominaeus’ Tres gallicarum rerum scriptores nobilissimi: Philippus Cominaeus De rebus gestis a Ludovico XI et Carolo VIII… Frossardus in brevem Historiarum memorabilium epitomen contractus… Claudius Sesellius De Republ. Galliae,

613

Commentary et Regum officiis, a Ioanne Sleidano e Gallico in Latinum sermonem conversi, published by Andreas Wechel in Frankfurt in 1578. p. 498, ll. 1-2: After these recent examples Lipsius goes back to antiquity as he jumps from examples of public to private life. p. 498, ll. 2-7: This is a reproduction of an anecdote from Valerius Maximus, also told by Montaigne in his Essais (2.33 = “L’histoire de Spurina”). p. 498, ll. 20-33: The story of Saint Pelagius was first recorded by a contemporary, Raguel the Presbyter, and was taken up a few decades later by Hrotswitha of Gandersheim, who gives a somewhat different account (MGH, SS Rer. Germ. 34, pp.  52-62). See, amongst others, Jordan (1997: 10-28), Kelly (2000: 101-104) and Baraz (2003: 58-59), with further references. Lipsius could have been familiar with different versions of the story via Mariana’s Historiae (7.20) or Johannes Vasaeus’ Chronicon rerum Hispanicarum (a. 895). This chronicle was incorporated in the Rerum Hispanicarum scriptores aliquot, of which Lipsius kept a copy in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 3v). p.  498, l. 34: Lipsius takes the reader back in time again, as he switches from examples of castitas to examples of caritas. p.  504, l. 14 – p. 506, l. 24: Lipsius reproduces this anecdote from the tenth book of Hieronymus Osorius’ De rebus Emmanuelis quite literally, including the dialogues. p.  506, l. 25 – p. 508, l. 4: Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy from 1419 until his death in 1467, was the son of John the Fearless and Margaret of Bavaria. On 28 January 1405, Philip became engaged, at the age of eight, to Michelle of Valois, a daughter of King Charles VI of France and Isabeau of Bavaria. They were married in June 1409; Michelle died in 1422. Lipsius possessed a copy of Pontus Heuterus’ Rerum Burgundicarum libri sex, published in Antwerp at the Plantin Press in 1584; there he could read about Michelle on p. 98. p. 506, ll. 26-27: This would seem an odd example of chastity, since Philip the Good is known to have had some eighteen illegitimate children by twenty-four documented mistresses, but in Lipsius’ view this particular instance can nevertheless be exemplary. We have not been able to trace the source of this anecdote. p. 508, ll. 5-37: Lipsius reproduces Nicephorus Gregoras’ account of these events fairly literally.

614

Commentary on Book 2 Chapter 18 The virtue of patientia is also touched upon in Pol. 2.17 and the corresponding Notae (p. 749, ed. Waszink). It is treated mainly in the sense of forbearance of the insults of calumniators. In this sense it is part of, and a necessary condition for, the performance of acts of majesty and clemency (a connection made explicit by Lipsius in the first line): the ruler does not only have to suffer wrongs inflicted upon others, but also upon himself (compare Sen. clem. 1.20.3). Lipsius’ discussion of forbearance is largely based on Seneca’s discussion of anger and anger control in his De Ira, from which Lipsius quotes abundantly, both directly and indirectly. It also provides a good number of the examples, next to Plutarch’s Apophthegmata. The topic of slander or calumny had been discussed before by Lipsius in his De calumnia oratio, published as letter n. 100 of the Epistolarum selectarum centuria quinta miscellanea postuma (1607). For a discussion of this oration, see Van Houdt – Papy (1999). It was a popular topic in ancient, medieval, and humanist writings, such as Lucian’s essay on calumny (Calumniae non temere credendum) or Erasmus’ Lingua, on which see Van Houdt (1999) and the literature cited there. p. 510, l. 6: The fact that it is naturally difficult for people to obey is mentioned several times by Lipsius in the Politica, where it is adduced as a reason for the prince to be mild in his rule. See See e.g. Pol. 4.6 (p. 412, ed. Waszink) and 4.8.2 (p. 418, ed. Waszink). On the nature of people in general, see Pol. 4.5 (pp. 402-408, ed. Waszink). p. 510, l. 8: The inclination of the populace to believe and spread rumours is also discussed in Pol. 4.5 (pp. 405-407, ed. Waszink) and the De calumnia oratio. p.  510, ll. 9-11: This meteorological comparison is derived from Seneca, clem. 3.6.1. For the use of meteorological imagery by Seneca (and Petrarch), see Stacey (2007:128-130). Lipsius often speaks of the prince’s high position in meteorological terms. Also in Mon. 1.7 and Pol. 2.17 Lipsius recommends that the prince be undisturbed and look down from a height upon indifferent things such as misfortune, offences, etc. However, as has been pointed out by T. Van Houdt (2007: 26-30), Lipsius does not want the prince to be completely indifferent like a true Stoic sage: he has to care about the people and their problems, about his reputation, etc. p. 510, ll. 12-13: Calumniators were traditionally compared to barking dogs. In the De calumnia oratio Lipsius also compares such people to dogs who bark at wild animals. See De calumnia oratio (1607: 104 and 112). p. 510, ll. 13-14: The idea that if one is truly good, calumny will not destroy one’s reputation is also expressed in the De calumnia oratio (1607: 111).

615

Commentary p. 510, ll. 14-15: Like Lucian, Lipsius does not only advise the reader, especially the prince, to refrain from taking revenge on calumniators, but also from listening to them. Compare De calumnia oratio (1607: 112). p.  510, ll. 21-22: The idea that because calumny cannot be avoided (for it is intrinsic to human nature), it should be endured is expressed in very similar terms in the De calumnia oratio, where we read: “tolera quod non tollis” (1607: 111). For according to Lipsius, (constant) punishment is meaningless and even provokes trespasses and rebellion. See Pol. 2.13.2 and 4.9.2 (pp. 328 and 426, ed. Waszink). Compare Seneca, dial. 4.31.8. p. 512, ll. 14-23: This anecdote from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata (Mor. 177 D-E) is also referred to by Erasmus in his Institutio (2.23). p. 512, ll. 25-27:Yet another anecdote from Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, also recorded, in a somewhat different phrasing, in the Notae to chapter 2.17 (p. 749, ed.Waszink). p. 516, ll. 9-12: This anecdote from Suetonius’ life of Augustus is also recorded in the Notae to chapter 2.17 (p. 749, ed. Waszink). p. 516, ll. 28-29: The recital of “O Dominum aequum et bonum” in the theatre is also recorded in Mon. 2.12.8. p. 518, ll. 5-7: A possible source for this anecdote is Aeneas Silvius’ In Libros Antonii Panormitae, Poetae, De Dictis & Factis Alphonsi Regis Memorabilibus Commentarius (1.37). Chapter 19 p.  520, ll. 2-33: Lipsius’ concept of magnanimity seems to differ from the traditional Augustinian and Thomistic view. In Augustine’s view love of praise is a vice and he dismissed the quest for honour as a pestilent notion (civ. 5.14), an attack later repeated and cited by Thomas Aquinas. The moral and political writings of the humanists offered a completely contrasting point of view. Although they did insist that virtue should be pursued for its own reward and because it is good in itself, they nevertheless strongly believed that it was an appropriate goal for the virtuous man to acquire the greatest possible amount of honour, glory, and wordly fame. In traditional humanist fashion but contrary to Augustine and Aquinas, Lipsius stresses here that the same honour, glory, and praise which belong to God are also appropriate for a Christian prince, who is close to God given the fact that he is His representative on earth (l. 14). As elsewhere in the Monita (e.g. Mon. 1.7), he acknowledges that fame or gratitude are not the aim of virtue, which should be pursued for its own sake (l. 18), but he adds that they are nevertheless a 616

Commentary on Book 2 welcome result (p. 522, ll. 5-6). As elsewhere in the Monita (e.g. Mon. 1.6 and 1.7), he also stresses, in refutation of Machiavelli, that the reputation of the prince needs to be based on true virtuousness. Subsequently, he mainly focuses on the way to achieve this, that is, in his view, by supporting the arts.This is also discussed briefly in Pol. 2.17 and the corresponding Notae. On the concept of magnanimity from antiquity until the Renaissance, see e.g. Varotti (1998: 257-290), Skinner (1978: 1, 99-101; 118-119; 131-132 and 234-235), Greaves (1965), and Gauthier (1951). p. 520, l. 20: Also in the Notae (p. 749, ed. Waszink) Lipsius urges the prince to observe moderation. Similarly, Aristotle (EN 1124a) stresses that a magnanimous person disdains the esteem he receives from just anyone or for having done something small. p.  522, ll. 16-19: This anecdote often linked the examples of Alexander and Caesar, which formed a popular sequence in Renaissance exempla collections. See Holcroft (1976: 36). p. 522, ll. 32-34: This anecdote is also mentioned by Lipsius in ILE VII, 94 07 01 L. p. 522, l. 35 – p. 524, l. 2: Plutarch (Alex. 55) relates how, according to some accounts, Callisthenes, who was suspected of instigation, was executed by Alexander’s orders, while, according to others, he was arrested and died as a prisoner.Yet another account is given by Justin (15.3), according to whom Callisthenes was mutilated by Alexander in a rage and fed to the dogs, whereupon he was given poison by Lysimachus to put him out of his misery. p. 524, ll. 3-7: This anecdote, recorded by Athenaeus (9.58), is also reported by Guillaume Budé, who devotes an entire chapter of his Institution du prince (24 [1547: 97]) to Alexander’s generosity towards scholars. p. 524, ll. 8-11: This anecdote is also taken from Plutarch’s life of Alexander (15.8) and occurs in many Renaissance exempla collections, including Budé’s Institution (10 [1547: 45]). See Holcroft (1976: 36). p. 524, l. 18: ut cum Venusino dicam] Venosa was the place of birth of Horace. p. 526, ll. 4-5: This example is also recorded by Lipsius in the Admiranda (4.10 [1598: 198]). p. 526, ll. 8-15: Augustus was traditionally praised as a patron of the arts. See e.g. Budé, Institution du Prince, 10 (1547: 47).

617

Commentary p. 526, ll. 16-18: This example is also recorded by Lipsius in the Admiranda (4.10 [1598: 198]). p.  526, ll. 27-29: This example is also recorded by Lipsius in the Admiranda (4.10 [1598: 198-199]). In the Admiranda, as well as in the Monita, Lipsius alludes to a contemporary scholarly debate about the sum of the stipend. Lipsius indicates that, according to some scholars, the number, as given by Eumenius himself (Paneg. 9.11.2), should be lower, and should be emended.Thus Casaubon (ad Suet. Otho 4) argued that in the oration of Eumenius “sexcenis” and “tercenis” should be replaced by “sexagenis” and “tricenis”. This was contested by authors such as Theodorus Marcilius (ad Suet. Vesp.  18), Alciatus (Alciato), and Lipsius himself, who says the stipend is not too high if you “know the works and the spirit of the Romans” (Admiranda, 4.10 [1598: 198-199]). Lipsius kept a copy of Casaubon’s edition and commentary of Suetonius in his library (Leiden, UL, Ms. Lips. 59, fol. 5v). p. 528, ll. 3-5: Lipsius closes with one last warning for the Archduke: unless he takes Lipsius’ advice to heart, the future is not looking bright. A similar expression of cultural pessimism was articulated by Lipsius at the start of the Monita (Mon. 1.1). See further Van Houdt (1998: 418).

618

APPENDIX: TABLES OF CONTENTS OF THE MONITA AND THE POLITICA

619

Appendix: Tables of contents of the Monita and the Politica Monita Liber primus Monita

Politica

Liber Primus

Liber Primus

I. In sermonem et rem ingressio atque obiter utilitas Exemplorum.

I. Scopus et materies mei scripti.Vita Civilis definita.Virtus communiter laudata. II. Pietas Virtutis prima pars. definita ea, et divisa in Sensum ac Cultum. Hic de Sensu dictum.

II. De Religione. Eius utilitas sive necessitas ostensa vel in tota Societate vel seorsim in Rege et subditis.

III. De altero Pietatis membro, Cultu. Is definitus, et duplex factus. Plura ad Religionem monita.

III. De Superstitione. Assitam Religioni esse et in vanitatem, vilitatem, timorem inclinare. IV. De Impietate. Eius matrem Superbiam aut Ferociam, saepe et Vitiorum cumulum esse. V. De Fato. Id considerandum credendumque esse.

IV. Fatum, appendix Pietatis. Quid illud, et a quo sit? quam vim habeat, et quem usum?

VI. De Conscientia. Eam curandum esse, atque obsequendum.

V. Etiam Conscientia, Pietatis lacinia. Definio eam, divido. tormentum eius, si mala, ostendo: quietem, si pura.

VII. De Probitate et Constantia. Utramque Principi convenientem aut necessariam esse.

VI. Alterum Virtutis membrum, Probitas. Quid eam hic appellem? Brevia et universalia ad eam praecepta.

VIII. De Prudentia, quam Usus et Historia gignunt, et producit Doctrina.

VII. Ad Prudentiam transitum, qui Rectorum alter. Necessitas eius ostensa. Definitio posita, et exposita. Partes eius et utilitas.

620

Appendix: Tables of contents of the Monita and the Politica VIII. Quid gignat Prudentiam? Usum esse, et Memoriam. Quid ea utraque? Vis et firmitudo illius praelata: sed raritas et difficultas item ostensa. IX. Memoriae rerum, sive Historiae, fructus. Facilem hanc ad Prudentiam viam: etiam ad Probitatem. X. Appendix de Doctrina, quae utrique Rectori utilis. Quis legitimus usus eius, finis, modus. Liber secundus

Liber secundus I. De imperio universe dictum. eius necessitas in Societate ostensa, et fructus.

I. De Principatu. Eum praeferendum aliis imperiis videri.

II. Divisio Imperii. Principatus, prima et optima eius pars. id variis argumentis ostensum.

II. In eo Viros Faeminis praeferendos, et has vix feliciter imperare.

III. Principatus definitio. per partes declaratio. et primum, utrius sexus ille sit?

III. De Electione. Quae commendare eam, quae abiicere possint.

IV. Quomodo capiendus Principatus? duos legitimos modos esse, Electionem et Successionem. et de utraque aliquid dissertum.

IV. De Succesione. Hanc praeferendam, etsi incommoda etiam habet. V. De Fraude et Vi. Has quoque priorum specie intervenire. VI. De Principum Inclinatione. Deteriores eos saepe fieri et mutari.

V. Initia Principatuum plerumque laudabilia: sed id non satis. perseverandum esse.

VII. De Fine Principatus, qui est Publicum Bonum.

VI. Quis finis, quo actiones omnes Princeps dirigat? Bonum publicum id esse, et seponenda privata.

621

Appendix: Tables of contents of the Monita and the Politica VII. De via recta quam Princeps ingrediatur: et primum de Virtute. ostensum hanc ei, sua caussa, necessariam. VIII. Subditorum etiam caussa Principi virtutem induendam, et ipsis instillandam. sine qua probus aut diuturnus nullus coetus. VIII. De Exemplis Principum. Ea facere ad Virtutes aut Vitia subditorum.

IX. Subditos probos fieri maxime a Principis exemplo. cuius incredibilis vis in utramvis partem.

IX. De Iustitia, quam Princeps in se et suis servet.

X. Distinctius de Virtutibus Principis dictum. et primum de Iustitia, quam ea necessaria: etiam in ipso Principe.

De Iustitia, quam Princeps erga Subditos servet.

XI. Iustitiam administrandam Subditis esse. aequabiliter: temperanter: et sine cumulo legum. remoto etiam litium studio.

X. De Legibus. Eas nec multas, nec item lites, probari. XI. De Iustitia Divina, atque eam rebus intervenire. XII. De Clementia. Eam quoque Principi decoram utilemque esse.

XII. Clementia definita. Principi commendata. quae amabilem eum, quae firmum, quae illustrem facit. XIII. Clementia uberius commendata, sed cum temperie. Abire eam a Iustitia leniter. nec tamen solvere vim Imperii, sed vincire lento nodo.

XIII. De Fide. Hanc quoque Principi convenientem vel necessariam potius haberi.

XIV. De fide adiunctum, quae Iustitiae origo aut suboles. Ea commendata, ut columen humani generis. Gloriosam hanc Principi esse. utilem. Spreti ab Etruria doctores novi.

622

Appendix: Tables of contents of the Monita and the Politica XIV. De Modestia in sensu. Hanc Principi decoram et utilem esse.

XV. De Modestia praescriptum, quae Clementiae assidet. Instillata Principi, et in Sensu et in Actione.

XV. De Modestia in cultu, et hanc convenire; elegantiam aut pompam non convenire. XVI. De Maiestate, et salva Modestia posse assumi.

XVI. Ex occasione de Maiestate adnexa lacinia. quid ea, et qui, et quatenus paranda?

XVII. De Castitate, quam Princeps extra connubium, et in eo pro parte, sumet.

XVII. Minores aliquot virtutes positae, quae Principem deceant: sed sparsim, et breviter.

XVIII. De Patientia. Ab ira et vindicta alienum esse debere, praesertim in conviciatores. XIX. De Magnitudine animi. Famam et immortalitatem Principi proposita et expetenda esse.

623

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Aemilius P., De rebus gestis Francorum libri X (Paris: M.Vascosan, 1566) Arnisaeus H., De Republica seu Relectionis Politicae Libri Duo (Straßburg: heirs of L. Zetzner, 1636) Baronius C., Annales Ecclesiastici (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1598) Bellonius P., Plurimarum singularium et memorabilium rerum in Graecia, Asia, Aegypto, Iudaea, Arabia aliisque exteris provinciis ab ipso conspectarum observationes tribus libris expressae. Carolus Clusius Atrebas e Gallicis Latinas faciebat (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1598) Besold C., Dissertationum Nomicopoliticarum Libri III. Ubi De Successione Quae Regni Fit Iure et Electione Regia potissimum disputatur (Tübingen – Frankfurt:T.Werlinus for J. Bernerus, 1617). Beyerlinck L., Apophthegmata Christianorum (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1608) Beyerlinck L., Magnum Theatrum Vitae Humanae (Lyon: J.A. Huguetan – M.A. Ravaud, 1656) Boccaccio G., De mulieribus claris, a cura di V. Branca (Verona: Mondadori, 1970) Boccaccio G., De casibus virorum illustrium, a cura di V. Branca (Milano: Mondadori, 1983) Bodin J., De Republica Libri Sex, Latine ab auctore redditi, multo quam antea locupletiores, cum indice copiosissimo. Editio tertia, prioribus multo emendatior (Frankfurt: Widow of J. Wechel for P. Fischer, 1594) Bodin J., Six livres de la Répubique ([Genève]: G. Cartier, 1608) Bonfinius A., Rerum Ungaricarum decades tres (Basel: R. Winter, 1543) Botero G., I prencipi, con le aggiunte alla Ragion di Stato (Torino: G. Domenico Tarino, 1600) Botero G., La Ragion di Stato, a cura di Chiara Continisio (Roma: Donzelli, 1997) Busbequius A.G., Legationis Turcicae Epistolae quatuor (Paris: G. Beys, 1589) Camerarius P., Operae Horarum Subcisivarum, sive Meditationes Historicae (Frankfurt: J. Sauer – P. Kopff, 1602-1609) Cati H., Della politica overo del governo di stato libri sei di Giusto Lipsio (Venice: A. Righettini, 1618) Chokier J., Thesaurus Politicorum Aphorismorum (Rome: B. Zannetti, 1611) Collenutius P., Historiae Neapolitanae ad Herculem I. Ferrariae Ducem libri VI. Omnia ex Italico sermone in Latinum conversa Ioann. Nicol. Stupano interprete (Basel: P. Perna 1572) Cominaeus P., Duo Gallicarum rerum scriptores nobilissimi: Frossardus in brevem Historiarum memorabilium Epitomen contractus, Philippus Cominaeus De rebus gestis a Ludovico XI et Carolo VIII Francorum Regibus. Ambo a Ioanne Sleidano e Gallico in Latinum sermonem con­ versi, brevique explicatione illustrati (Frankfurt: A. Wechel, 1584)

625

Bibliography Cominaeus P., De rebus gestis a Ludovico XI & Carolo VIII, Francorum regibus, e Gallico in Latinum sermonem conversus, brevique explicatione illustratus a Joanne Sleidano (Amsterdam: J. and C. Blaeu, 1640) Contzen A., Politicorum Libri Decem in quibus de perfectae reipubl. forma, virtutibus, et vitiis, institutione civium, legibus, magistratu ecclesiastico, civili, potentia reipublicae, itemque seditione et bello, ad usum vitamque communem, accommodate tractatur (Cologne: J. Kinck, 1629) Crantzius A., Ecclesiastica historia sive metropolis (Basel: s.n., 1558) Cromerus M., De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX (Basel: J. Oporinus, 1568) de Roo G., Annales rerum belli domique ab Austriacis Habspurgicae gentis Principibus, a Rudolpho primo usque ad Carolum V. gestarum (Innsbruck: J. Agricola, 1592) Erasmus D.,  De conscribendis epistolis, ed. J.-C. Margolin, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 1.2 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1971) Erasmus D., Institutio principis Christiani, ed. O. Herding, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 4.1 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1974) Erasmus D., De copia, transl. and annot. by B.I. Knott, in C.R. Thompson, Literary and Educational Writings 2. De copia; De ratione studii, Collected Works of Erasmus  24 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978) Erasmus D., De conscribendis epistolis, transl. and annot. by Ch. Fantazzi, in J.K. Sowards (Ed.), Literary and Educational Writings 3. De conscribendis epistolis; Formula; De civilitate, Collected Works of Erasmus 25 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985) Erasmus D., Institutio principis Christiani, transl. and annot. by N.M. Cheshire and M.J. Heat, in A.H.T. Levi (ed.), Literary and Educational Writings 5. Panegyricus; Moria; Julius exclusus; Institutio principis Christiani; Querela pacis, Collected Works of Erasmus  27 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986) Erasmus D., De copia verborum ac rerum, ed. B.I. Knott, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 1.6 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1988) Erasmus D. Ecclesiastes (lib. III-IV), ed. J. Chomarat, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 5.5 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1994) Erasmus D., Moriae Encomium, ed. C.H. Miller, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 5.5 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1994) Exnerus B., Valerius Maximus Christianus: hoc est, Dictorum et Factorum Memorabilium, unius atque alterius Seculi, Imperatorum, Regum, Principum, inprimis Christianorum, Libri Novem (Hanau: D. and D. Aubry – C. Schleich, 1620) Forstnerus C., In tres postremos libros Annalium C. Cornelii Taciti Notae Politicae (Frankfurt: J. Beyer, 1661) Fox Morcillo S., De regni regisque institutione libri III (Antwerp: G. Speelman, 1556) Franchi Conestaggio G., Dell’ unione del regno di Portogallo alla corona di Castiglia istoria (Genoa: G. Bartoli, 1589) Fulgosus B., Factorum dictorumque memorabilium libri IX (Antwerp: J. Bellerus, 1565) Garibay y Zamalloa E., Los XL. libros del compendio historial De las Chronicas y universal Historia de todos los reynos de España (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1571) Gregorius Tholosanus P., De republica libri sex et viginti (Lyon: J.B. Buysson, 1596; Pont-àMousson: N. Claudet, 1597) Heuterus P., Rerum Burgundicarum libri sex (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1584)

626

Bibliography Hibernicus T., Flores omnium fere doctorum qui tum in theologia, tum in philosophia hactenus claruerunt (Lyon: G. Rovillius, 1575) Jovius P., Historiarum sui temporis tomus primus (Paris: M.Vascosan, 1533) Jovius P., Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium (Basel: P. Perna, 1596) Leo Africanus J. De totius Africae descriptione libri IX (Antwerp: J. Latius, 1566) Leunclavius J., Annales Sultanorum Othomanidarum a Turcis scripti (Frankfurt: C. de Marne – J. Aubry, 1588) Leunclavius J., Pandectes historiae Turcicae liber unicus ad illustrandos annales (Frankfurt: C. de Marne – J. Aubry, 1588) Lipsius J., Ad Annales Corn.Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1581) Lipsius J., De Constantia libri duo, qui alloquium praecipue continent in publicis malis (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1584) Lipsius J., Adversus dialogistam liber De una religione. In quo tria capita libri quarti Politicorum explicantur (Frankfurt: J. Wechel – P. Fischer, 1591) Lipsius J., C.Velleius Paterculus cum animadversionibus (Leiden: F. Raphelengius, 1591) Lipsius J., De Militia Romana libri quinque, commentarius ad Polybium (Antwerp:Widow of C. Plantin – J. Moretus, 1595) Lipsius J., Admiranda, sive De magnitudine Romana libri quattuor (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1599) Lipsius J., Dissertatiuncula apud principes, item C. Plini Panegyricus liber Traiano dictus (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1600) Lipsius J., De bibliothecis syntagma (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1602) Lipsius J., Dispunctio notarum Mirandulani codicis ad Cor.Tacitum (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1602) Lipsius J., Manuductionis ad Stoicam philosophiam libri tres, L. Annaeo Senecae aliisque scriptoribus illustrandis (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1604) Lipsius J., Physiologiae Stoicorum libri tres, L. Annaeo Senecae aliisque scriptoribus illustrandis (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1604) Lipsius J., L. Annaei Senecae Philosophi Opera quae exstant omnia (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1605) Lipsius J., Lovanium, sive opidi et academiae eius descriptio. Libri tres (Antwerp: J. Moretus 1605) Lipsius J., C. Cornelii Taciti Opera quae exstant (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1607) Lipsius J., Epistolarum  selectarum centuria quinta miscellanea postuma (Antwerp: J. Moretus, 1607) López de Gómara F., La Historia general de las Indias, y todo lo acaescido en ellas, dende que se segnarion hasta agora.Y La conquista de Mexico y de la nueva España (Antwerp: M. Nutius, 1554) López de Gómara F., Historia delle Nuove Indie occidental, con tutti I discoprimenti, et cose nota­ bili, avvenute dopo l’acquisto di esse. Parte seconda. Composta da Francisco Lopez di Gomara in lingua Spagnola.Tradotta nella Italiana da Agostino di Cravalit (Venice: Francesco Lorenzini da Turino, 1560) López de Gómara F., Historia general de las Indias y vida de Hernan Cortes, ed. J. Gurría Lacroix (Caracas: Ayacucho, 1979) Machiavelli N., Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio, in Tutte le opere, a cura di M. Martelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1971) Machiavelli N., Il Principe, a cura di G. Inglese (Torino: Einaudi, 1995)

627

Bibliography Machiavelli N., Istorie fiorentine, in Tutte le opere, a cura di M. Martelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1971) Machiavelli N., The Prince, transl. W.K. Marriot (Dent: Everyman’s library, 1968) Manasses C., Annales, nunc primum in lucem prolati et de Graecis Latini facti per Io. Leunclauium (Basel: Episcopius, 1573) Marchantius J., Flandria commentariorum Lib. IIII. descripta (Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana – Widow of C. Plantin & J. Moretus, 1596) Mariana J., Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri XX (Toledo: P. Rodríguez, 1592) Mariana J., De rege et regis institutione libri III (Toledo: P. Rodríguez, 1599) Marinaeus Siculus L., Opus de rebus Hispaniae memorabilibus (Alcalá de Henares: M. de Eguia, 1533) Masenius J., Utilis curiositas de humanae vitae felicitate (Cologne: J.W. Friessem, 1672) Matthiae C., Theatrum historicum theoretico-practicum (Amsterdam: D. Elzevir, 1668) Meyerus J., Commentarii sive Annales rerum Flandricarum libri XVII (Antwerp: I. Steelsius, 1561) Miraeus A., Vita sive Elogium Iusti Lipsi, sapientiae et litterarum antistitis (Antwerp: D. Martinius, 1609) Nicetas Choniates, Historiae, ed. H. Wolf (Basel: J. Oporinus, 1557) Osorius H., De rebus Emmanuelis Lusitaniae regis invictissimi virtute et auspicio, annis sex ac viginti domi forisque gestis, libri duodecim (Cologne: A. Birckmann, 1597) Osorius H., Opera omnia (Rome: G. Ferrarius, 1592) Panormita A., De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis (Pisa: G. de Gente, 1485) Platina B., Historia de vitis pontificum Romanorum, ed. O. Panvinius (Leuven: I. Bogardus, 1572) Petrarca F., Rerum memorandarum libri, ed. G. Billanovich (Florence: Sansoni, 1945) Petrarca F., De viris illustribus, ed. G. Martellotti (Florence: Sansoni, 1964) Piccart M., Observationum Historico-Politicarum Decades (Nürnberg: S. Halbmayer, 1624) Ribadeneyra P., Tratado de la religión y virtudes que ha tener el príncipe christiano para governar y conservar sus estados, contra lo que Nicolás Maquiavelo y los políticos deste tiempo enseñan (Madrid: P. Madrigal, 1595) Rodericus Toletanus, De rebus Hispaniae, ed. A. Schottus, in Rerum Hispanicarum scriptores aliquot… nunc accuratius emendatiusque recusi et in duos tomos digesti, adiecto in fine Indice copiosissimo (Frankfurt: A. Wechel, 1579) Scardeonius B., De antiquitate urbis Patavii et claris civibus Patavinis libri tres (Venice:V. Valgrisi, 1558) Sweertius F., Iusti Lipsii Flores ex eius operibus discerpti, in locos communes digesti (Antwerp: G. Bellerus, 1615) Torres J., Philosophía moral de príncipes para su buena criança y gobierno, y para personas de todos estados (Burgos: P. de Junta & J.B.Varesio, 1602) Valerius Maximus, Valerii Maximi Dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri IX, infinitis men­ dis ex veterum exemplarium fide repurgati atque in meliorem ordinem restituti per Stephanum Pighium. Accedunt in fine eiusdem annotationes et breves notae Justi Lipsii (Leiden: F. Raphelengius, 1594) Vernulaeus N., Virtutum Augustissimae gentis Austriacae libri tres (Leuven: J. Zegers, 1640)

628

Bibliography Vives J.L., Joannis Ludovici Vivis Valentini Opera omnia distributa et ordinata in argumentorum classes praecipuas a Gregorio Majansio, 7 vols. (Valencia: B. Monfort, 1782) Widukind of Corvey, Res gestae Saxonicae sive annalium libri tres (Basel: J. Herwagen, 1532; Frankfurt-am-Main: A. Wechel, 1577) Xaverius F., Saint François Xavier. Correspondance 1535-1552: lettres et documents, trad. intégrale, prés., notes et index de Hugues Didier (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1987) Zárate A., Historia del descubrimiento y conquista del Perú, ed. D. McMahon (Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de filosofía y letras, 1965) Zenocarus G., De republica, vita, moribus, gestis, fama, religione, sanctitate Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Quinti, Caroli Maximi, Monarchae Libri Septem (Ghent: G. Manilius, 1562) Zonaras J., Compendium Historiarum, in tres Tomos distinctum, ed. H. Wolf (Basel: J. Oporinus, 1557) Zwinger T., Theatrum humanae vitae (Basel: E. Episcopius, 1587)

Secundary Literature Abbreviated works Albert & Isabella = W. Thomas – L. Duerloo (eds.), Albert & Isabella 1598-1621. Essays (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998) BBr = F. Vander Haeghen – M.T. Lenger (eds.), Bibliotheca Belgica: Bibliographie générale des Pays-Bas, 7 vols. (Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1964-1975) Een geleerde en zijn Europese netwerk = J. De Landtsheer – D. Sacré – C. Coppens (eds.), Justus Lipsius (1547-1606): een geleerde en zijn Europese netwerk. Catalogus van de tentoon­ stelling in de Centrale Bibliotheek te Leuven, 18  oktober – 20  december 2006, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 21 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006) Europae lumen et columen = G.Tournoy – J. De Landtsheer – J. Papy (eds.), Iustus Lipsius. Europae lumen et columen. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven 17-19 September 1997, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 15 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999) Iam illustravit omnia = J. De Landtsheer – P. Delsaerdt (eds.), Iam illustravit omnia: Justus Lipsius als lievelingsauteur van het Plantijnse Huis (Antwerp: Vereniging van Antwerpse Bibliofielen, 2006) [= De Gulden Passer 84] ILE I = A. Gerlo – M.A. Nauwelaerts – H.D.L. Vervliet (eds.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars I: 1564-1583 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1978) ILE II = M.A Nauwelaerts – S. Sué (eds.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars II: 1584-1587 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1983) ILE III = S. Sué – H. Peeters (eds.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars III: 1588-1590 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1987) ILE V = J. De Landtsheer – J. Kluyskens (eds.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars V: 1592 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1991) ILE VI = J. De Landtsheer (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars VI: 1593 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1995) ILE VII = J. De Landtsheer (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars VII: 1594 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1997)

629

Bibliography ILE VIII = J. De Landtsheer (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars VIII: 1595 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2004) ILE IX = H. Peeters (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars IX: 1596 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2019) ILE XIII = J. Papy (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars XIII: 1600 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2000) ILE XIV = J. De Landtsheer (ed.), Iusti Lipsi Epistolae. Pars XIV: 1601 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2006) Juste Lipse en son temps = C. Mouchel (ed.), Juste Lipse (1547-1606) en son temps. Actes du col­ loque de Strasbourg, 1994, Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance, 6 (Paris: H. Champion, 1996) Justus Lipsius en het Plantijnse Huis = R. Dusoir – J. De Landtsheer – D. Imhof (eds.), Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) en het Plantijnse Huis (Antwerp: Museum Plantin-Moretus, 1998) Lieveling van de Latijnse taal = J. De Landtsheer et al. (eds.), Lieveling van de Latijnse taal. Justus Lipsius te Leiden herdacht bij zijn vierhonderdste sterfdag. Een catalogus van de tentoonstelling in de Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. 16 maart – 28 mei 2006 (Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden & Scaliger Instituut, 2006) Lipsius en Leuven = G. Tournoy – J. Papy – J. De Landtsheer (eds.), Lipsius en Leuven. Catalogus van de tentoonstelling in de Centrale Bibliotheek te Leuven, 18 september – 17 okto­ ber 1997, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 13 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997) Lipsius in Leiden = K.A.E. Enenkel – C. Heesakkers (eds.), Lipsius in Leiden. Studies in the Life and Works of a Great Humanist on the Occasion of His 450th Anniversary (Voorthuizen: Florivallis, 1997) Recreating Ancient History = K.A.E. Enenkel – J.L. de Jong – J. De Landtsheer (eds.), Recreating Ancient History. Episodes from the Greek and Roman Past in the Arts and Literatures of the Early Modern Period, Intersections:Yearbook for Early Modern Studies, 1 (Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 2001) The World of Justus Lipsius = M. Laureys et al. (eds.), The World of Justus Lipsius:A Contribution towards His Intellectual Biography. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held under the Auspices of the Belgian Historical Institute in Rome (Rome, 22-24 May 1997) (Brussels – Rome: Brepols, 1998) [= Bulletin van het Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome, 68 (1998)] (Un)masking the Realities of Power = E. De Bom – M. Janssens – J. Papy – T. Van Houdt (eds.), (Un)masking the Realities of Power. Justus Lipsius and the Dynamics of Political Writing in Early Modern Europe, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 193 (Leiden: Brill, 2011)

Others Abel (1978) = G. Abel, Stoizismus und Frühe Neuzeit. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte modernen Denkens im Felde von Ethik und Politik (Berlin – New York: De Gruyter, 1978) Adam (1970) = T. Adam, Clementia principis. Der Einfluss hellenistischer Fürstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca (Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1970)

630

Bibliography Adriaenssen (2005) = L. Adriaenssen, De middeleeuwse conceptie van Alexander de Grote in Latijnse bronnen. Een anekdotische, bijbelse, exempla- en romanfiguur (Leuven: Unpublished MA thesis, 2005) Aerts – Gosman (1988) = W.J.Aerts – M. Gosman (eds.), Exemplum et Similitudo.Alexander the Great and the Heroes as Points of Reference in Medieval Literature, Mediaevalia Groningana, Fasc. 8 (Groningen: Forsten, 1988) Alaerts (2003) = K. Alaerts, Karel V en Filips II in de vorstenspiegels in de Nederlanden (16001750): het rijke kleurenpalet van verscholen deugdenmozaïeken (Leuven: Unpublished MA thesis, 2003) Alföldi (1971) = A. Alföldi, Der Vater des Vaterlandes im römischen Denken (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971) Anglo (2005) = S. Anglo, Machiavelli, The First Century: Studies in Enthusiasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Anton (1989) = H.H. Anton e.a., ‘Fürstenspiegel’, in Lexicon des Mittelalters, 9 vols. (München: Artemis, 1989), vol. 4, pp. 1040-1058 Anton (2006) = H.H. Anton, Fürstenspiegel der frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006) Aragüés Aldaz (1993) = J. Aragüés Aldaz, ‘El modelo de los dicta et facta memorabilia en la configuración de las colecciones de exempla renacentistas’, in J.M. Maestre Maestre – J. Pascual Barea (eds.), Humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico I.1. Actas del I Simposio sobre humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico (Alcañiz, 8 al 11 de mayo de 1990) (Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz, 1993), pp. 267-282 Aragüés Aldaz (1999) = J. Aragüés Aldaz, Deus concionator: mundo predicado y retorica del exem­ plum en los siglos de oro (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999) Archambault (1967) = P. Archambault,‘The Analogy of the “Body” in Renaissance Political Literature’, in Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 29 (1967), 21-53 Arteta (1958) = A.U. Arteta, ‘La aparición del falso Alfonso I el Batallador’, in Argensola 33 (1958), 29-38 Aulotte (1965) = R. Aulotte, Amyot et Plutarque: la tradition des Moralia au XVIe siècle (Genève: Droz, 1965) Bagge (1987) = S. Bagge, The Political Thought of The King’s Mirror (Odense: Odense University Press, 1987) Ballesteros (2006) = J.R. Ballesteros,‘Histoire et utopie dans les Admiranda de Lipse’, in Iam illustravit omnia, pp. 177-192 Baraz (2003) = D. Baraz, Medieval Cruelty: Changing Perceptions, Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003) Barber (1993) = M. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Bárcenas (2015) = A. Bárcenas, Machiavelli’s Art of Politics (Leiden – Boston: Brill – Rodopi, 2015) Barlow (1999) = J.J. Barlow, ‘The Fox and the Lion: Machiavelli Replies to Cicero’, in History of Political Thought 20 (1999), 627-645 Barrio (1978) = Pedro Calderón de la Barca, El segundo blasón del Austria. Edición crítica y notas de Margarita Barrio (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978)

631

Bibliography Battles – Hugo (1969) = F.L. Battles – A.M. Hugo (eds.), Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, Renaissance Text Series, 3 (Leiden: Brill for The Renaissance Society of America, 1969) Beck (2002) = M. Beck, ‘Plutarch to Trajan: the Dedicatory Letter and the Apophthegmata Collection’, in P.A. Stadter – L. Van der Stockt (eds.), Sage and Emperor. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum Lovaniensis, Series A/29 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), pp. 163-173 Becker (2001) = J. Becker,‘”Il faut cultiver notre jardin”: beelden van beschaving’, in P. den Boer (ed.), Beschaving. Een geschiedenis van de begrippen hoofsheid, heusheid, beschavingen, cul­ tuur (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001), pp. 149-193 Berges (1938) = W. Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1938) Bergua Cavero (1995) = J. Bergua Cavero, Estudios sobre la tradición de Plutarco en España (siglos XIII-XVII) (Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Departamento de ciencias de la antigüedad, 1995) Berlioz – Polo de Beaulieu – Brémond (1992) = J. Berlioz – M.A. Polo de Beaulieu – C. Brémond (eds.), Les Exempla médiévaux: introduction à la recherche. Suivie des tables cri­ tiques de l’  “Index exemplorum” de Frederic C. Tubach, Classiques de la littérature orale (Carcassone: Gaerae – Hésiode, 1992) Berlioz – Polo de Beaulieu (1998) = J. Berlioz – M.A. Polo de Beaulieu, Les ‘Exempla’ médiévaux: Nouvelles perspectives, Nouvelle bibliothèque du Moyen Âge, 47 (Paris – Genève: H. Champion – Slatkine, 1998) Bers (1971) = G. Bers, Die Schriften des niederländischen Humanisten Dr. Hermann Cruser (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1971) Bierlaire (1995) = F. Bierlaire, ‘L’exemplum chez Érasme: théorie et pratique’, in Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome – Italie et Méditerranée 107 (1995), 525-549 Bireley (1990) = R. Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990) Black (2009) = J. Black, Absolutism in Renaissance Milan: Plenitude of Power under the Visconti and the Sforza 1329-1535 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) Blair (1996) = A. Blair, ‘Bibliothèques portables: les recueils de lieux communs dans la Renaissance tardive’, in M. Baratin – C. Jacob (eds.), Le pouvoir des bibliothèques: la mémoire des livres en Occident (Paris: A. Michel, 1996), pp. 84-160 Blair (1997) = A. Blair, The Theater of Nature. Jean Bodin and Renaissance Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997) Blair (2003) = A. Blair, ‘Reading Strategies for Coping with Information Overload ca. 1550-1700’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 64 (2003), 11-28 Blair (2005) = A. Blair, ‘Historia in Zwinger’s Theatrum Humanae Vitae’, in G. Pomata – N. Siraisi (eds.), Historia: Empiricism and Erudition in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass. – London: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 269-296 Blair (2007) = A. Blair, ‘Organizations of Knowledge’, in J. Hankins (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 287-303

632

Bibliography Blom – Winkel (2004) = H.W. Blom – L.C. Winkel (eds.), Grotius and the Stoa (Assen:Van Gorcum, 2004) (= Grotiana, N.S. 22-23 [2001-2002]) Born (1928a) = L.K. Born, ‘Erasmus on Political Ethics: The Institutio Principis Christiani’, in Political Science Quarterly 43 (1928), 520-543 Born (1928b) = L.K. Born, ‘The Perfect Prince: A Study in Thirteenth- and FourteenthCentury Ideals’, in Speculum 3/4 (1928), 470-504 Born (1933) = L.K. Born, ‘The Specula Principis of the Carolingian Renaissance’, in Revue belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 12 (1933), 583-612 Borowski (1999) = A. Borowski, ‘Justus Lipsius and the Classical Tradition in Poland’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 1-16 Bouwsma (1973) = W.J. Bouwsma, ‘Lawyers and Early Modern Culture’, in American Historical Review 78 (1973), 303-327 Bouwsma (1974) = W.J. Bouwsma, ‘Venice and the Political Education of Europe’, in J.R. Hale (ed.), Renaissance Venice (London: Faber and Faber, 1974), pp. 445-466 Brants (1910) = V. Brants, La Belgique au XVIIe siècle. Albert et Isabelle. Etudes d’histoire poli­ tique et sociale (Leuven – Paris: Peeters – H. Champion, 1910) Brants (1914) = V. Brants, ‘“Le Prince” de Machiavel dans les anciens Pays-Bas’, in Mélanges d’histoire offerts à Charles Moeller à l’occasion de son jubilé de 50 années de professorat à l’Uni­ versité de Louvain 1863-1913 par l’Association des anciens membres du Séminaire historique de l’Université de Louvain (Leuven: Bureaux de Recueil, 1914), pp. 87-99 Braun (2007) = H.E. Braun, Juan de Mariana and Early Modern Spanish Political Thought (Aldershot-Burlington: Ashgate, 2007) Braun (2011) = H. Braun, ‘Justus Lipsius and the Challenges of Historical Exemplarity’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 135-162 Breugelmans (2003) = R. Breugelmans, Fac et spera: Joannes Maire, Publisher, Printer and Bookseller in Leyden 1603-1657: A Bibliography of His Publications (‘t Goy – Houten: HES & De Graaf, 2003) Brink (1951) = C.O. Brink, ‘Justus Lipsius and the Text of Tacitus’, in Journal of Roman Studies 41 (1951), 32-51 Brooke (2012) = C. Brooke, Philosophic Pride. Stoicism and Political Thought from Lipsius to Rousseau (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012) Brown (1939) = J.L. Brown, The Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem of Jean Bodin: A Critical Study (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1939) Brückner (1975) = W. Brückner, ‘Loci communes als Denkform. Literarische Bildung und Volkstradition zwischen Humanismus und Historismus’, in Daphnis 4 (1975), 1-12 Brutsaert (2004) = B. Brutsaert, Boudewijn VII Hapkin, een witte ridder uit de 12de eeuw, graaf van Vlaanderen 1111-1119 (Leuven: Unpublished MA thesis, 2004) Buck (1957) = A. Buck, Das Geschichtsdenken der Renaissance, Schriften und Vorträge des Petrarca-Instituts Köln, 9 (Krefeld: Scherpe, 1957) Buck (1983) = A. Buck (ed.), Biographie und Autobiographie in der Renaissance: Arbeitsgespräch in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel vom 1. bis 3. November 1982, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 4 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983) Burgess (1992) = G. Burgess, ‘The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered’, in The English Historical Review 107 (1992), 837-861

633

Bibliography Burke (1974) = P. Burke, Venice and Amsterdam: A Study of Seventeenth-Century Elites (London: Smith, 1974) Burke (1989) = P. Burke, ‘The Renaissance Dialogue’, in Renaissance Studies 3 (1989), 1-12 Burke (1991) = P. Burke, ‘Tacitism, Scepticism, and Reason of State’, in J.H. Burns – M. Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 479-498 Burke (1995) = P. Burke, The Fortunes of the Courtier:The European Reception of Castiglione’s Cortegiano (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995) Burke (2011) = P. Burke, ‘Exemplarity and Anti-Exemplarity in Early Modern Europe’, in A. Lianeri (ed.), The Western Time of Ancient History. Historiographical Encounters with the Greek and Roman Pasts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 48-59 Carabin (2008) = D. Carabin, ‘Plutarque chez Juste Lipse: entre doxographie et critique philosophique’, in O. Guerrier (ed.), Moralia et Oeuvres Morales à la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque International de Toulouse (19-21 mai 2005), Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la renaissance européenne, 61 (Paris: H. Champion, 2008), pp. 153-165 Cazes (2008) = H. Cazes, ‘Genèse et Renaissance des Apophthegmes: aventures humanistes’, in O. Guerrier (ed.), Moralia et Oeuvres Morales à la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque International de Toulouse (19-21 mai 2005), Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la renaissance européenne, 61 (Paris: H. Champion, 2008), pp. 15-35 Checa Cremades (1990) = F. Checa Cremades, ‘De beeldvorming rond Karel V’, in W.P. Blockmans – P. Burke – F. Checa Cremades – H. Soly (eds.), Karel V 1500-1558: de keizer en zijn tijd (Antwerp: Mercatorfonds, 1990), pp. 477-500 Christian (1987) = L.G. Christian, Theatrum mundi: The History of an Idea (New York: Garland, 1987) Colish (1978) = M.L. Colish, ‘Cicero’s De Officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince’, in Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978), 80-93 Compagnon (1979) = A. Compagnon, La seconde main ou le travail de la citation (Paris: Seuil, 1979) Corbeill (1996) = A. Corbeill, Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) Corbeill (2004) = A. Corbeill, Nature Embodied. Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004) Coreth (1959) = A. Coreth, Pietas Austriaca: Ursprung und Entwicklung barocker Frömmigkeit in Österreich, Österreich Archiv (Wien:Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1959) Coroleu Oberparleiter (2007) = V. Coroleu Oberparleiter, ‘Nicolaus Vernulaeus’ Darstellung des Habsburger: Apologia, Virtutes und Historia Austriaca, mit einem Exkurs über die Methodus legendi historias’, in Humanistica Lovaniensia 56 (2007), 233-270 Coron (1977) = A. Coron, ‘Juste Lipse, juge des pouvoirs politiques européens à la lumière de sa correspondance’, in Théorie et pratique politiques à la Renaissance. XVIIe Colloque international de Tours, De Pétrarque à Descartes, 34 (Paris:Vrin, 1977), pp. 445-457 Crab (2015) = M. Crab, Exemplary Reading. Printed Renaissance Commentaries on Valerius Maximus (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2015) Crane (1967) = T.F. Crane, The exempla or Illustrative Stories from the sermones vulgares of Jacques de Vitry (Nendeln: Kraus, 1967)

634

Bibliography Curtius (1967) = E.R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967) DaCosta Kaufmann (1998) = T. DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘Archduke Albrecht as an Austrian Habsburg and the Prince of the Empire’, in Albert & Isabella, pp. 15-26 Dawoord (1965) = A.H. Dawoord, A Comparative Study of Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes from the Second to the Sixth Century A.D. (London: Unpublished PhD thesis, 1965) Daxelmüller (1991) = C. Daxelmüller, ‘Narratio, Illustratio, Argumentatio. Exemplum und Bildungstechnik in der frühen Neuzeit’, in W. Haug – B. Wachinger (eds.), Exempel und Exempelsammlungen (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991), pp. 77-94 De Benedictis – Pisapia (1999) = A. De Benedictis – A. Pisapia (eds.), Specula principum, Ius commune. Sonderhefte, 117 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1999) De Bom – Janssens (2006) = E. De Bom – M. Janssens, ‘Power and Passion, Prince and People. Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica (1605) as a Bridge between Political Philosophy and the Ideal of the Christian Ruler’, in Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 8 (2006), 373-377 De Bom (2008a) = E. De Bom, ‘Aphorisms and Examples, History and Politics. Chokier’s Thesaurus Politicorum Aphorismorum, 1611, and Lipsius’s Political Works’, in Lias. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 34 (2007) [immo 2008], 21-44 De Bom (2008b) = E. De Bom, ‘Mirroring the Prince. Classical and Humanist Models in the Funeral Orations for Archduke Albert by Nicolaus Vernulaeus and His Contemporaries’, in Neulateinisches Jahrbuch, 10 (2008), 41-59 De Bom (2011a) = E. De Bom, Geleerden en Politiek. De politieke ideeën van Justus Lipsius in de vroegmoderne Nederlanden (Hilversum:Verloren, 2011) De Bom (2011b) = E. De Bom, ‘Carolus Scribani and the Lipsian Legacy. The PoliticoChristianus and Lipsius’s Image of the Good Prince’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 283-305 De Bom (2015a) = E. De Bom, ‘Political Advice’, in S. Knight – S. Tilg (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 135-149 De Bom (2015b) = E. De Bom, ‘Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). De filoloog als politicoloog: een contradictio in terminis?’, in E. De Bom (ed.), Een nieuwe wereld. Denkers uit de Nederlanden over politiek en maatschappij (1500-1700) (Antwerpen – Zoetermeer: Polis – Klement, 2015), pp. 115-151 De la Caille (1971) = J. De la Caille, Histoire de l’imprimerie et de la librairie (1689) (Genève: Slatkine reprints, 1971) De la Fontaine Verwey – Hellinga (1961) = H. De la Fontaine Verwey – W.G. Hellinga, In officina Joannis Blaeu.Twee inleidende studies bij een kleine tentoonstelling van de Dr. P.A.TieleStichting (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1961) De Landtsheer – De Schepper (2004) = J. De Landtsheer – Marcus de Schepper, ‘De boeken van Justus Lipsius. Wegen naar een reconstructie van zijn bibliotheek’, in P. Delsaerdt – K. De Vlieger-De Wilde (eds.), Boekgeschiedenis in Vlaanderen: nieuwe instru­ menten en benaderingen. Contactforum 28  november 2003 (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 2004), pp. 69-78 De Landtsheer (1996) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Le retour de Juste Lipse de Leyden à Louvain selon sa correspondance’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 347-368

635

Bibliography De Landtsheer (1997) = J. De Landtsheer,‘Justi Lipsi Diva Lovaniensis: An Unknown Treatise on Louvain’s Sedes Sapientiae’, in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 92 (1997), 135-142 De Landtsheer (2000a) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘From North to South: Some New Documents on Lipsius’ Journey from Leiden to Liège’, in D. Sacré – G. Tournoy (eds.), Myricae. Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Memory of Jozef IJsewijn, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 16 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), pp. 303-331 De Landtsheer (2000b) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Justus Lipsius’s De Cruce and the Reception of the Fathers’, in Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 2 (2000), 99-124 De Landtsheer (2001) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Justus Lipsius’ De Militia Romana: Polybius Revived or How an Ancient Historian was Turned into a Manual of Early Modern Warfare’, in Recreating Ancient History, pp. 101-122 De Landtsheer (2002) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) and Publius Clodius Thraseas Paetus’, in J.M. Maestre Maestre – J. Pascual Barea – L. Charlo Brea (eds.), Humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico, Homenaje al profesor Antonio Fontán (Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Humanisticos, 2002), pp. 1283-1288 De Landtsheer (2004) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Justus Lipsius’s Treatises on the Holy Virgin’, in A.-J. Gelderblom – J.L. de Jong – M.Van Vaeck (eds.), The Low Countries as a Crossroads of Religious Beliefs, Intersections:Yearbook for Early Modern Studies, 3 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2004), pp. 65-88 De Landtsheer (2005a) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Bernartius (Bernaerts), Johannes (Jan), jurist, historicus en humanist’, in Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 2005), vol. 17, coll. 82-90 De Landtsheer (2005b) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Montaigne en Lipsius’, in P.J. Smith (ed.), Een Ridder van groot oordeel. Montaigne in Leiden. Catalogus bij de tentoonstelling in de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 1  september – 4  december 2005 (Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, 2005), pp. 39-66 De Landtsheer (2006a) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Een auteur en zijn drukker: Justus Lipsius en de Officina Plantiniana’, in T. Deneire – D. Sacré – D. Verbeke (eds.), De verhoudingen tussen auteur, drukker en gededicaceerde bij Neolatijnse publicaties. Acta selecta van de studie­ dag voor Neolatijn te Antwerpen, Museum Plantin-Moretus op 17  december 2004 (Leuven, Seminarium Philologiae Humanisticae, 2006), pp. 11-20 De Landtsheer (2006b) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Juste Lipse (1547-1606), Pline le Jeune et Montaigne à propos d’Arria Paeta’, in P. Laurence – Fr. Guillaumont (eds.), Epistulae Antiquae IV. Actes du IVe colloque international “  L’épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens  “, Université François-Rabelais, Tours, 1er-2-3  décembre 2004 (Louvain – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2006), pp. 341-353 De Landtsheer (2008) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘“Per patronos, non per merita gradus est emergendi”. Lipsius’s careful choice of patroni as a way of career planning’, in I. Bossuyt – N. Gabriëls – D. Sacré – D.Verbeke (eds.), “Cui dono lepidum novum libellum?” Dedicating Latin Works and Motets in the Sixteenth Century. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Academia Belgica, Rome, 18-20  August  2005, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 23 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2008), pp. 251-268 De Landtsheer (2012) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Commentaries on Tacitus by Justus Lipsius: Their Editing and Printing History’, in J.R. Henderson (ed.), The Unfolding of

636

Bibliography Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. 188-242 De Landtsheer (20014) = J. De Landtsheer, ‘Annotating Tacitus:The Case of Justus Lipsius’, in K.A.E. Enenkel (ed.), Transformations of the Classics via Early Modern Commentaries, Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture, 29 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2014), pp. 279-326 de Nave (1967) = F. de Nave, Bijdrage tot de kennis van Justus Lipsius’ staatsleer (Brussels: Unpublished PhD thesis, 1967) de Nave (1969) = F. de Nave,‘Justus Lipsius, schrijver “in politicis”’, in Res publica 11 (1969), 589-622 de Nave (1969-1970) = F. de Nave, ‘Justus Lipsius, schrijver “in politicis”. De “Justi Lipsii monita et exempla politica. Libri duo, qui virtutes et vitia principum spectant” (1605)’, in Tijdschrift van de Vrije Universiteit Brussel 12 (1969-1970), 110-144 de Nave (1970a) = F. de Nave, ‘De polemiek tussen Justus Lipsius en Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert (1590): hoofdoorzaak van Lipsius’ vertrek uit Leiden (1591)’, in De Gulden Passer 48 (1970), 1-39 de Nave (1970b) = F. de Nave, ‘Peilingen naar de oorspronkelijkheid van Justus Lipsius’ politiek denken’, in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 38 (1970), 449-483 de Reiffenberg (1823) = F.A. de Reiffenberg, De Justi Lipsii v. incl. vita et scriptis commenta­ rius in stadio Regiae scientiarum literarumque academiae Brux. aurea palma donatus M.DCCC. XXI. (Brussels: P.J. De Mat, 1823) de Smaele – Tollebeek (2002) = H. de Smaele – J.Tollebeek (eds.), Politieke representatie. De geschiedenis van een begrip, Alfred Cauchie reeks (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002) Dean (1996) = J. Dean (ed.), ‘Marchard’s article Impostoribus’ in S. Berti – F. CharlesDaubert – R.H. Popkin (eds.), Heterodoxy, Spinozism, and Free Thought in EarlyEighteenth-Century Europe: Studies on the Traité des trois imposteurs, International Archives of the History of Ideas/Archives internationales d’histoire des idées, 148 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996), pp. 477 sq. Deitz (1998) = L. Deitz, ‘Editing Sixteenth-Century Latin Prose Texts: A Case Study and a Few General Observations’, in G.W. Most (ed.), Editing Texts / Texte edieren (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 141-164 Delcorno (1989) = C. Delcorno, Exemplum e letteratura: tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1989) Deneire (2006) = T. Deneire,‘Justus Lipsius’s Admiranda (1598) and the Officina Plantiniana: Mixing otium with negotium’, in Iam illustravit omnia, pp. 159-176 Deneire (2009) = T. Deneire, ‘Laconicae Cuspidis Instar’.The Correspondence of Justus Lipsius: 1598. Critical Edition with Introduction, Annotations and Stylistic Study, 2 vols. (Leuven: Unpublished PhD thesis, 2009) Deneire (2012a) = T. Deneire,‘The Hermeneutics of Topicality. Justus Lipsius’s Dedications to the House of Habsburg’, in Latomus. Revue d’études latines 71 (2012), 1125-1150 Deneire (2012b) = T. Deneire, ‘The Philology of Justus Lipsius’s Prose Style’, in Wiener Studien 125 (2012), 189-262 Descendre (2009) = R. Descendre, L’État du monde. Giovanni Botero entre raison d’État et géopolitique, Cahiers d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 87 (Genève: Droz, 2009)

637

Bibliography Di Stefano (1968) = G. Di Stefano, La découverte de Plutarque en Occident: aspects de la vie intellectuelle en Avignon au XIVe siècle, Memorie dell’ Accademia delle scienze di Torino. Parte seconde. Classe di scienze morali storiche e filologiche, 4a/18 (Torino: Accademia delle scienze, 1968) Díaz Martínez (2000) = E.M. Díaz Martínez, ‘El “Discurso de las Privanzas” de Francisco de Quevedo, y el “Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae” de Justo Lipsio: dos concepciones similares de la Politica’, in Voz y letra 11 (2000), 53-72 Dollinger (1964) = H. Dollinger, ‘Kurfürst Maximilian I. von Bayern und Justus Lipsius’, in Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 46 (1964), 227-308 Doren (1924) = A. Doren, ‘Fortuna im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance’, in Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 2 (1924) 71-144 Duerloo (1997) = L. Duerloo, ‘Pietas Albertina. Dynastieke vroomheid en herbouw van het vorstelijk gezag’, in Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 112 (1997), 1-18 Duerloo (1998) = L. Duerloo, ‘Archducal Piety and Habsburg Power’, in Albert & Isabella, pp. 267-284 Ebbersmeyer (2006) = S. Ebbersmeyer, ‘Veritas ergo suis locis maneat, nos ad exempla pergamus. Fonction et signification de l’exemple chez Pétrarque’, in T. Ricklin (ed.), Exempla docent. Les examples des philosophes de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Études de philosophie médiévale (Paris:Vrin, 2006), pp. 355-372 Eder (1995) = W. Eder – C. Auffarth (eds.), Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform?, Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995) Enenkel – de Jong (2019) = K.A.E. Enenkel – J.L. de Jong (eds.), Artes Apodemicae and Early Modern Travel Culture, 1550-1700, Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture, 64 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2019) Enenkel – Neuber (2005) = K.A.E. Enenkel – W. Neuber (eds.), Cognition and the Book: Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period, Intersections:Yearbook for Early Modern Culture, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005) Enenkel – van Heck – Westerweel (1998) = K.A.E. Enenkel – P. van Heck – B.Westerweel, Reizen en reizigers in de Renaissance. Eigen en vreemd in oude en nieuwe werelden (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998) Enenkel (1985) = K.A.E. Enenkel, ‘De Neolatijnse Politica: Justus Lipsius’ Politicorum libri sex’, in Lampas 18 (1985), 350-362 Enenkel (1995) = K.A.E. Enenkel, Kulturoptimismus und Kulturpessimismus in der Renaissance: Studie zu Jacobus Canters Dyalogus de solitudine mit kritischer Textausgabe und deutscher Übersetzung, Frühneuzeit-Studien, 3 (Bern: Lang, 1995) Enenkel (1997) = K.A.E. Enenkel, ‘Humanismus, Primat des Privaten, Patriotismus und Niederländischer Aufstand: Selbstbildformung in Lipsius’ Autobiographie’, in Lipsius in Leiden, pp. 13-45 Enenkel (1999) = K.A.E. Enenkel,‘Lipsius als Modellgelehrter: Die Lipsius-Biographie des Miraeus’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 47-66

638

Bibliography Enenkel (2001) = K.A.E. Enenkel, ‘Strange and Bewildering Antiquity: Lipsius’ Dialogue “Saturnales sermones” on Gladiatorial Games (1582)’, in Recreating Ancient History, pp. 75-99 Enenkel (2004) = K.A.E. Enenkel, ‘Ein Plädoyer für den Imperialismus: Justus Lipsius’ kulturhistorische Monographie Admiranda sive de Magnitudine Romana (1598)’, in Daphnis 33 (2004), 583-621 Enenkel (2005) = K.A.E. Enenkel, Imagines agentes. Geheugenboeken en de organisatie van kennis in de Neolatijnse literatuur (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 2005) Engler – Müller (1995) = B. Engler – K. Müller, Exempla: Studien zur Bedeutung und Funktion exemplarischen Erzählens, Schriften zur Literaturwissenschaft, 10 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995) Etter (1966) = E.L. Etter, Tacitus in der Geistesgeschichte des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 103 (Basel – Stuttgart: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1966) Ettinghausen (1972) = H. Ettinghausen, Francisco de Quevedo and the Neostoic Movement, Oxford Modern Languages and Literature Monographs (New York – London: Oxford University Press, 1972) Evans – Bryan (1998) = R.C. Evans – L. Bryan, ‘Ben Jonson, Neostoicism, and the Monita of Justus Lipsius’, in The Ben Jonson Journal 1 (1998), 105-124 Evans (1979) = R.J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550-1700:An Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) Falque Rey (2003) = E. Falque Rey (ed.), Lucae  Tudensis  Chronicon mundi, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 74 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003) Fernández-Santamaria (1980) = J.A. Fernández-Santamaria,‘Reason of State and Statecraft in Spain (1595-1640)’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 41 (1980), 355-379 Ferster (1996) = J. Ferster, Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England, The Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996) Fournel (1996) = J.-L. Fournel, ‘Une réception ambiguë: la diffusion de la pensée politique de Juste Lipse’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 479-502 Gaeta (1961) = F. Gaeta, ‘Alcune considerazioni sul mito di Venezia’, in Bibliothèque d’Hu­ manisme et Renaissance 23 (1961), 58-75 Gallo (1998) = I. Gallo (ed.), L’eredità culturale di Plutarco dall’antichità al Rinascimento, Atti del Convegno plutarcheo Milano-Gargnano, 28-30 maggio 1997, Collectanea, 16 (Naples: D’Auria, 1998) Gauthier (1951) = R.A. Gauthier, Magnanimité: l’idéal de la grandeur dans la philosophie païenne et dans la théologie chrétienne, Bibliothèque thomiste, 28 (Paris:Vrin, 1951) Gajda (2009) = A. Gajda, ‘Tacitus and Political Thought in Early Modern Europe, c. 1530-c. 1640’, in A.J. Woodman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 253-268 Gelley (1995) = A. Gelley, ‘The Pragmatics of Exemplary Narrative’, in A. Gelley (ed.), Unruly Examples. On the Rhetoric of Exemplarity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), pp. 142-162

639

Bibliography Georgi (1966-1967) = T. Georgi, Allgemeines europäisches Bücher-Lexikon, 3 vols. (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1966-1967) Gerlo – Vervliet – Vertessen (1967) = A. Gerlo – H.D.L. Vervliet – I. Vertessen (eds.), La correspondance de Juste Lipse conservée au Musée Plantin-Moretus. Introduction, correspondance et commentaire, documents, bibliographie (Antwerp: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1967) Gerlo – Vervliet (1968) = A. Gerlo – H.D.L. Vervliet, Inventaire de la correspondance de Juste Lipse 1564-1606 (Antwerp: Ed. Scientifiques Érasme, 1968) Gilbert (1938) = A.H. Gilbert, Machiavelli’s Prince and Its Forerunners. ‘The Prince’ as a Typical Book ‘De Regimine Principum’ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1938) Gilbert (1967) = F. Gilbert, ‘The Renaissance Interest in History’, in C. Singleton (ed.), Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, The Johns Hopkins Humanities Seminars (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), pp. 377-382 Gilbert (1971) = N.W. Gilbert, ‘The Early Italian Humanists and Disputation’, in A. Molho – J.A.Tedeschi (eds.), Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron (Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971), pp. 201-226 Gilbert (1973) = F. Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973) Gilmore (1963) = M.P. Gilmore, Humanists and Jurists: Six Studies in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963) Gilmore (1974) = M. Gilmore, ‘Myth and Reality in Venetian Political Theory’, in J.R. Hale (ed.), Renaissance Venice (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 431-444 Goosens (1997) = A. Goosens, ‘Machiavélisme, antimachiavélisme, tolérance et répression religieuses dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux (seconde moitié du XVIe siècle)’ in A. Dierkens (ed.), L’antimachiavélisme, de la Renaissance aux Lumières (Brussels: Ed. de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1997), pp. 71-83 Goyet (1996) = F. Goyet, Le sublime du “lieu commun”. L’invention rhétorique dans l’Antiquité et à la Renaissance, Bibliothèque littéraire de la Renaissance, 3/32 (Paris: H. Champion, 1996) Grabes – Collier (1982) = H. Grabes – G. Collier, The Mutable Glass: Mirror-Imagery in Titles and Texts of the Middle Ages and English Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) Grafton (1991) = A. Grafton, ‘Humanism and Political Theory’, in J.H. Burns – M. Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 479-498 Grafton (2001) = A. Grafton, ‘Portrait of Justus Lipsius’, in The American Scholar 56 (1987), reprinted in A. Grafton, Bring out Your Dead: the Past as Revelation (Cambridge, Mass. – London: Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 227-243 Grafton (2007) = A. Grafton, What was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) Grafton (2010) = A. Grafton, ‘Tacitus and Tacitism’, in A. Grafton – G.W. Most – S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. – London:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 920-924 Greaves (1964) = M. Greaves, The Blazon of Honour: A Study in Renaissance Magnanimity (London – Southampton: The Camelot Press, 1964)

640

Bibliography Greenleaf (1964) = W.H. Greenleaf, ‘The Thomasian Tradition and the Theory of Absolute Monarchy’, in The English Historical Review 79 (1964), 747-760 Greindl (2008) = G. Greindl, ‘Die Regierungsideale Maximilians I. von Bayern im Spiegel der Münchner Residenzfassade’, in A. Schmid – G. Greindl – C. Stein (eds.), Justus Lipsius und der europäische Späthumanismus in Oberdeutschland, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte. Beihefte, 33 (München: Beck, 2008), pp. 55-73 Griffin (1976) = M. T. Griffin, Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) Griffin (2000a) = M.T. Griffin, Nero:The End of a Dynasty (London – NewYork: Routledge, 2000 [= New Haven, CT – London:Yale University Press, 1985]) Griffin (2000b) = M.T. Griffin,‘The Flavians’, in A.K. Bowman – P. Garnsey – D. Rathbone (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History: The High Empire, A.D. 70-192 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 1-83 Guerrier (2008) = O. Guerrier (ed.), Moralia et Oeuvres Morales à la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque International de Toulouse (19-21 mai 2005), Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la renaissance européenne, 61 (Paris: H. Champion, 2008) Guion (2008) = B. Guion, Du bon usage de l’histoire. Histoire, morale et politique à l’âge clas­ sique, Collection “Lumière classique” (Paris: H. Champion, 2008) Güldner (1968) = G. Güldner, Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden im Ausgang des 16. Jahrhunderts, Historische Studien, 403 (Lübeck – Hamburg: Matthiesen, 1968) Hadot (1972) = P. Hadot, ‘Fürstenspiegel’, in T. Klauser (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 22 vols. (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1972), vol. 8, coll. 555 – 632 Hahlweg (1941) = W. Hahlweg, Die Heeresreform der Oranier und die Antike. Studien zur Geschichte des Kriegswesens der Niederlande, Deutschlands, Frankreichs, Englands, Italiens, Spaniens und der Schweiz vom Jahre 1589 bis zum Dreißigjährigen Kriege (Berlin: Junker und Dunnhaupt, 1941) Hahlweg (1973) = W. Hahlweg, Die Heeresreform der Oranier. Das Kriegsbuch des Grafen Johann von Nassau-Siegen,Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Nassau, 20 (Wiesbaden: Selbstverlag der Historischen Kommission, 1973) Hale (1971) = D.G. Hale, The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Literature (The Hague: Mouton, 1971) Halsted (1991) = D. Halsted, ‘Distance, Dissolution and Neo-Stoic Ideals: History and SelfDefinition in Lipsius’, in Humanistica Lovaniensia 40 (1991), 262-274 Hampton (1990) = T. Hampton, Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature (Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press, 1990) Hardin (1982) = R.F. Hardin,‘The Literary Conventions of Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince: Advice and Aphorism’, in Renaissance Quarterly 35 (1982), 151-163 Haug – Wachinger (1991) = W. Haug – B.Wachinger (eds.), Exempel und Exempelsammlungen, Fortuna Vitrea, 2 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991) Hemels (1992) = J. Hemels, ‘Van vorstenspiegel tot toverspiegel: gedachten over gedragsmodellen en media’, in Groniek: Gronings historisch tijdschrift 25 (1992), 65-79 Heß (2004) = G. Heß, ‘Enzyklopädien und Florilegien im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Doctrina, Eruditio und Sapientia in verschiedenen Thesaurierungsformen’, in T. Stammen – W.E.J. Weber (eds.), Wissenssicherung, Wissensordnung und Wissensverarbeitung.

641

Bibliography Das europäische Modell der Enzyklopädien, Colloquia Augustana, 18 (Berlin: Akademie Verslag, 2004), pp. 39-57 Hinrichs (1969) = E. Hinrichs, Fürstenlehre und politisches Handeln im Frankreich Heinrichs IV.: Untersuchungen über die politischen Denk- und Handlungsformen im Späthumanismus, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) Hoc – van Gelder (1960) = M. Hoc – H.E. van Gelder, Les monnaies des Pays-Bas bour­ guignons et espagnols 1434-1713: répertoire général (Amsterdam: Schulman, 1960) Holcroft (1976) = A. Holcroft, Sixteenth-Century Exempla Collections (London: Unpublished MA thesis, 1976) Höpfl (2004) = H. Höpfl, Jesuit Political Thought: the Society of Jesus and the State, c. 1540-1630, Ideas in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) Höpfl (2011) = H. Höpfl, ‘History and Exemplarity in the Work of Lipsius’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 43-71. Hornblower – Spawforth (1996) = S. Hornblower – A.J.S. Spawforth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) Horowitz (1998) = M.C. Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998) Howard (2014) = K.D. Howard, The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain (Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2014) Hunter (2007) = M. Hunter, Editing Early Modern Texts. An Introduction to Principles and Practice (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) IJsewijn – Sacré (1998) = J. IJsewijn – D. Sacré, Companion to Neo-Latin Studies. 2: Literary, Linguistic, Philological and Editorial Questions, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 14 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) Isnardi Parente (1986) = M. Isnardi Parente, ‘La storia della filosofia antica nella Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam di Giusto Lipsio’, in Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa III/16 (1986), 45-64 Jahan (2004) = S. Jahan, Les Renaissances du corps en Occident (1450-1650) (Paris: Belin, 2004) James (2000) = S. James, ‘Grandeur and the Mechanical Philosophy’, in J. Kraye – M.W.F. Stone (eds.), Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, London Studies in the History of Philosophy, 1 (London – New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 172-179 Jankowski (2008) = P. Jankowski, Shades of Indignation: Political Scandals in France, Past and Present (Oxford – New York: Berghahn Books, 2008) Jansen 2008 = S.L. Jansen, Debating Women, Politics, and Power in Early Modern Europe (New York – Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008) Janssens – De Bom (2005) = M. Janssens – E. De Bom, ‘Power and Passion, Prince and People. Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica (1605) as a Bridge between Political Philosophy and the Ideal of the Christian Ruler’, in Lias. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 32 (2005), 217-221 Janssens (2006) = M. Janssens, ‘De Monita et exempla politica (1605) en Lipsius’ humanistische programma’, in Iam illustravit omnia, pp. 201-220 Janssens (2009) = M. Janssens, ‘Virtue, Monarchy and Catholic Faith. Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica (1605) and the Ideal of Virtuous Monarchy’, in H.C. Kuhn – D.

642

Bibliography Stanciu (eds.), Ideal Constitutions in the Renaissance. Papers from the Munich February 2006 Conference, Renaissance Intellectual History, 1 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009), pp. 145-180 Janssens (2011) = M. Janssens, ‘Rhetoric and Exemplarity in Justus Lipsius’ Monita et exem­ pla politica’, in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 115-134 Janssens (2012) = M. Janssens, ‘”Pulcherrime coeptum opus absolve”. The Monita et exem­ pla politica (1605), Justus Lipsius’s Last Words on Politics’, in A. Steiner-Weber (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Upsaliensis. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of NeoLatin Studies (Uppsala 2009), 2 vols. (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2012), vol. 1, pp. 493-503 Janssens (2013) = M. Janssens, ‘Vis illustre exemplum? De Oudheid door de ogen van J. Lipsius en P.P. Rubens’ in D. Sacré – T.Van Houdt (eds.), Nec scire nefas. Nieuwe bijdragen over Neolatijn voor het onderwijs (Amersfoort: Florivallis, 2013), pp. 313-334 Jardine – Grafton (1990) = L. Jardine – A. Grafton, ‘”Studied for Action”: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy’, in Past and Present 129 (1990), 29-78 Jehasse (1976) = J. Jehasse, La Renaissance de la critique: l’essor de l’Humanisme érudit de 1560 à 1614 (Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 1976) Jehasse (1996) = J. Jehasse, ‘Juste Lipse et le Pangégyrique de Trajan. Un bilan de la pensée politique lipsienne’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 503-515 Johnson (1961) = J.W. Johnson, ‘That Neo-Classical Bee’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 22 (1961), 262-266 Jones (2011) = D.M. Jones, ‘Aphorism and the Counsel of Prudence in Early Modern Statecraft: The Curious Case of Justus Lipsius’, in Parergon 28/2 (2011), 55-85 Jonsen ‒ Toulmin (1988) = A.R. Jonsen ‒ S. Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry. A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). Jordan (1997) = M.D. Jordan, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997) Judson – Van de Velde (1977) = J.R. Judson – C.Van de Velde, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Part XXI: Book Illustrations and Title-pages, 2 vols. (Brussels – London: Arcade Press, 1977) Kagan (1981) = R.L. Kagan, Lawsuits and Litigants in Castile 1500-1700 (Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press, 1981) Kahn (1994) = V. Kahn, Machiavellian Rhetoric. From the Counter-Reformation to Milton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) Kahn (2010) = V. Kahn, ‘Machiavelli’s Afterlife and Reputation to the Eighteenth Century’, in J.M. Najemi (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 239-255 Kantorowicz (1957) = E.H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957) Katz (1981) = A.P Katz, Lawsuits and Litigants in Tours:The Culture of Litigation in the Ancien Régime (Baltimore: Unpublished PhD thesis, 1981) Kelley (1970) = D.R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law and History in the French Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970) Kelley (1988) = D.R. Kelley, ‘Theory of History’, in C.B. Schmitt – Q. Skinner – E. Kessler – J. Kraye (eds.), The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 746-762

643

Bibliography Kelly (2000) = K.C. Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages, Routledge Research in Medieval Studies (London: Routledge, 2000) Kiesel (1979) = H. Kiesel, “Bei Hof, bei Höll”: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Hofkritik von Sebastian Brant bis Friedrich Schiller, Studien zur deutschen Literatur, 60 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979) Klaniczay (1988) = T. Klaniczay, ‘L’aristocratie et la pensée politique de Juste Lipse’, in A. Gerlo (ed.), Juste Lipse (1547-1606). Colloque international tenu en mars 1987, Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’Étude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme, 9 (Brussels: University Press, 1988), pp. 25-36 Koeningsberger (1968) = H.G. Koeningsberger, ‘The Empire of Charles V in Europe’, in G.R. Elton (ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History, II: The Reformation (1520-1559), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 339-376 Konst (2003) = J.W.H. Konst, Fortuna, Fatum en Providentia Dei in de Nederlandse tragedie 1600-1720 (Hilversum:Verloren, 2003) Konstantinovic´ (1989) = I. Konstantinovic´, Montaigne et Plutarque,Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance, 231 (Genève: Droz, 1989) Koselleck (1979) = R. Koselleck,‘Historia Magistra Vitae. Über die Auflösung des Topos im Horizont neuzeitlich bewegter Geschichte’, in R. Koselleck (ed.), Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1979), pp. 38-66 Kraye (1988) = J. Kraye, ‘Moral Philosophy’, in C.B. Schmitt – Q. Skinner – E. Kessler – J. Kraye (eds.), The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 303-386 Kraye (1998) = J. Kraye, ‘Conceptions of Moral Philosophy’, in D. Garber – M. Ayers (eds.), The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), vol. 2, pp. 1279-1316 Kraye (2001-2002) = J. Kraye, ‘Stoicism in the Renaissance from Petrarch to Lipsius’, in H.W. Blom – L.C. Winkel (eds.), Grotius and the Stoa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004) (= Grotiana, N.S. 22-23 [2001-2002]), pp. 21-46 Kühlmann (1982) = W. Kühlmann, Gelehrtenrepublik und Fürstenstaat: Entwicklung und Kritik des deutschen Späthumanismus in der Literatur des Barockzeitalters, Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur, 3 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1982) Lafond (1981) = J. Lafond, ‘Le centon et son usage dans la littérature morale et politique’, in J. Lafond – A. Stegmann (eds.), L’Automne de la Renaissance 1580-1630. XXIIe Colloque international d’études humanistes,Tours 2-13 juillet 1979, De Pétrarque à Descartes, 41 (Paris: Vrin, 1981), pp. 117-128 Lagrée (1994a) = J. Lagrée, Juste Lipse et la restauration du stoïcisme. Étude et traductions de divers traités stoïciens, Collection Philologie et Mercure (Paris:Vrin, 1994) Lagrée (1994b) = J. Lagrée, ‘Juste Lipse: destins et providence’, in P.-F. Moreau – J. Lagrée (eds.), Le stoïcisme aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Actes du Colloque CERPHI (4-5 juin 1993) (Caen: Université de Caen, 1994), pp. 37-52 Lagrée (1995) = J. Lagrée, ‘Le sage, le prince et la foule’, in G.M. Cazzaniga – Y.C. Zarka (eds.), L’individuo nel pensiero moderna, secoli XVI – XVIII, Memorie et atti di convegni, 4 (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 1995), pp. 513-526

644

Bibliography Lagrée (1996) = J. Lagrée, ‘Théorie des principes et de théologie naturelle chez Juste Lipse’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 31-48 Lagrée (1999a) = J. Lagrée, ‘Juste Lipse: l’âme et la vertu’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 90-106 Lagrée (1999b) = J. Lagrée, ‘La vertu stoïcienne de constance’, in P.-F. Moreau (ed.), Le stoïcisme au XVIe et au XVIIe siècle. Le retour des philosophies antiques à l’Âge classique, Bibliothèque Albin Michel: Idées (Paris: A. Michel, 1999), pp. 94-116 Lagrée (2010) = J. Lagrée, Le néostoïcisme. Une philosophie par gros temps, Bibliothèque des philosophes (Paris:Vrin, 2010) Lagrée (2016) = J. Lagrée, ‘Justus Lipsius and Neostoicism’, in J. Sellars (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition (London – New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 160-173 Lamberton (2010) = R. Lamberton, ‘Plutarch’, in A. Grafton – G.W. Most – S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. – London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 746-750 Lambton (1980) = A.K.S. Lambton, Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government, Variorum Reprint Collected Studies Series, 122 (London: Aldershot, 1980) Lancée (1977) = J.A.L. Lancée, ‘De pennestrijd tussen Lipsius en Coornhert’, in Spiegel Historiael 12 (1977), 671-675 Landfester (1972) = R. Landfester, Historia magistra vitae: Untersuchungen zur humanistischen Geschichtstheorie des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts, Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 123 (Genève: Droz, 1972) Langlands (2008) = R. Langlands, ‘Reading for the Moral in Valerius Maximus: the Case of severitas’, in The Cambridge Classical Journal 54 (2008), 160-187 Langlands (2015) = R. Langlands, ‘Roman Exemplarity: Mediating between General and Particular’, in M. Lowrie – S. Lüdemann (eds.), Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law (London – New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 68-80 Lasso de la Vega (1962) = J.S. Lasso de la Vega, ‘Traducciones españolas de las “Vidas” de Plutarco’, in Estudios clásicos 6 (1962), 451-514 Lathrop (1933) = H.B. Lathrop, Translations from the Classics into English from Caxton to Chapman 1477-1620 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1933) Laureys – Papy (1998) = M. Laureys – J. Papy, ‘”The Grandeur that was Rome”: Lipsius’ variaties op een oud thema’, in Justus Lipsius en het Plantijnse Huis, pp. 129-137 Laureys (1998) = M. Laureys, ‘Lipsius and Pighius: The Changing Face of Humanist Scholarship’, in The World of Justus Lipsius, pp. 329-344 Laureys (2001) = M. Laureys, ‘”The Grandeur that was Rome”: Scholarly Analysis and Pious Awe in Lipsius’s Admiranda’, in Recreating Ancient History, pp. 123-146 Laureys (2006) = M. Laureys, ‘Justus Lipsius’s Admiranda and His Views on the Study of History’, in H. Wrede – M. Kunze (eds.), 300 Jahre “Thesaurus Brandenburgicus”: Archäologie, Antikensammlungen und antikisierende Residenzausstattungen im Barock. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums, Schloss Blankensee, 30.9. – 2.1[0].2000 (München: Biering & Brinkmann, 2006), pp. 153-166 Lausberg (1990) = H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 3. Aufl. (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990)

645

Bibliography Lawn (1993) = B. Lawn, The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic Quaestio disputata, with Special Emphasis on its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1993) Lechner (1962) = J.M. Lechner, Renaissance Concepts of the Commonplaces. An Historical Investigation of the General and Universal Ideas Used in All Argumentation and Persuasion With Special Emphasis on the Educational and Literary Tradition of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New York: Pageant Press, 1962) Lecuppre (2005) = G. Lecuppre, L’imposture politique au Moyen Age. La seconde vie des rois, Le nœud gordien (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2005) Legay (1991) = S. Legay, ‘Les frères Cardon, marchands-libraires à Lyon, 1600-1635’, in Bulletin du bibliophile (1991), 416-424 Leira (2007) = H. Leira, ‘At the Crossroads: Justus Lipsius and the Early Modern Development of International Law’, in Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (2007), 65-88 Leira (2008) = H. Leira, ‘Justus Lipsius, Political Humanism and the Disciplining of 17th-Century Statecraft’, in Review of International Studies 34 (2008), 669-692 Levi (2000) = A.H.T. Levi,‘The Relationship of Stoicism and Scepticism: Justus Lipsius’, in J. Kraye – M.W.F. Stone (eds.), Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy, London Studies in the History of Philosophy, 1 (London – New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 91-106 Levin – Meyer (2016) = C. Levin – A. Meyer, ‘Women and Political Power in Early Modern Europe’, in A.M. Poska – J. Couchman – K.A. McIver (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (London – New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 341-359 Lindberg (2001) = B. Lindberg, Stoicism och Stat. Justus Lipsius och den politiska humanismen (Stockholm: Atlantis, 2001) Lyons (1989) = J.D. Lyons, Exemplum: The Rhetoric of Example in Early Modern France and Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) MacLean (1980) = I. MacLean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life, Cambridge Studies in the History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) Magnien (1996) = M. Magnien, ‘Montaigne et Juste Lipse: une double méprise’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 423-452 Mähl (1969) = S. Mähl, Quadriga virtutum. Die Kardinaltugenden in der Geistesgeschichte der Karolingerzeit, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, Beihefte, 9 (Köln – Wien: Böhlau, 1969) Malcolm (2013) = N. Malcolm, ‘Positive Views of Islam and of Ottoman Rule in the Sixteenth Century: the Case of Jean Bodin’, in A. Contadini – C. Norton (eds.), The Renaissance and the Ottoman World (Farnham – Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 197-217 Marin (1988) = M. Marin, ‘L’Influence de Sénèque sur Juste Lipse’, in A. Gerlo (ed.), Juste Lipse (1547-1606). Colloque international tenu en mars 1987, Travaux de l’Institut Interuniversitaire pour l’Étude de la Renaissance et de l’Humanisme, 9 (Brussels: University Press, 1988), pp. 119-126 Marin (1996) = M. Marin, ‘Le stoïcisme de Juste Lipse et de Guillaume du Vair’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 397-412

646

Bibliography Marlow (2009) = L. Marlow, ‘Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre’, in History Compass 7 (2009), 523-538 Martines (1969) = L. Martines, Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) Martínez (1993) = A.B. Martínez, ‘El humanista flamenco J. Lipsio y la receptio del Tacitismo en España’, in J.M. Maestre Maestre – J. Pascual Barea (eds.), Humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico I.1. Actas del I Simposio sobre humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico (Alcañiz, 8 al 11 de mayo de 1990) (Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz, 1993), pp. 237-249 McCrea (1997) = A. McCrea, Constant Minds: Political Virtue and the Lipsian Paradigm in England, 1584-1650, The Mental and Cultural World of Tudor and Stuart England (Toronto – Buffalo – London: University of Toronto Press, 1997) McGrath (1997) = E. McGrath, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Part XIII (1): Rubens: Subjects from History, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard XIII, 2 vols. (London: Harvey Miller, 1997) McKinley (1981) = M.B. McKinley, Words in a Corner: Studies in Montaigne’s Latin Quotations, French Forum Monographs, 26 (Lexington: French Forum, 1981) Mellot – Queval – Monaque (2004) = J.D. Mellot – E. Queval – A. Monaque (eds.), Répertoire d’imprimeurs/libraires (vers 1500-vers 1810). Nouvelle édition mise à jour et augmentée (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2004) Merle – Oïffer-Bomsel (2017) = A. Merle – A. Oïffer-Bomsel (eds.), Tacite et le tacitisme en Europe à l’époque moderne, Colloques, Congrès et Conférences – Le Classicisme, 19 (Paris: H. Champion, 2017) Momigliano (1947) = A. Momigliano, ‘The First Political Commentary on Tacitus’, in Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947), 91-101 Momigliano (1973) = A. Momigliano, ‘Polybius’ Reappearance in Western Europe’, in F.W. Walbank e.a. (eds.), Polybe: neuf exposés suivis de discussions (Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1973), pp. 347-372 Momigliano (1974) = A. Momigliano, Polybius between the English and the Turks,The Seventh J.-L. Myres Memorial Lecture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974) Momigliano (1990) = A. Momigliano,‘Tacitus and the Tacitist Tradition’, in A. Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Sather Classical Lectures, 54 (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 109-131 Morford (1991) = M. Morford, Stoics and Neostoics: Rubens and the Circle of Lipsius (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991) Morford (1993) = M. Morford, ‘Tacitean prudentia and the Doctrines of Justus Lipsius’, in T.J. Luce – A.J. Woodman (eds.), Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 129-151 Morford (2001) = M. Morford, ‘”Theatrum Hodiernae Vitae”: Lipsius, Vaenius and the Rebellion of Civilis’, in Recreating Ancient History, pp. 57-74 Morford (2013) = M. Morford, ‘Seneca the Younger’, in A. Grafton – G.W. Most – S. Settis (eds.), The Classical Tradition (Cambridge, Mass. – London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 873-877

647

Bibliography Mosher (1911) = J.A. Mosher, The exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of England (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911) Moss (1996a) = A. Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Moss (1996b) = A. Moss, ‘Vision fragmentée et unitaire: les “Politiques” et les recueils de lieux communs’, in Juste Lipse en son temps, pp. 471-478 Moss (1998) = A. Moss, ‘The Politica of Justus Lipsius and the Commonplace-Book’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 59 (1998), 421-436 Moss (2005) = A. Moss, ‘Locating Knowledge’, in K.A.E. Enenkel – W. Neuber (eds.), Cognition and the Book: Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period, Intersections:Yearbook for Early Modern Culture, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 35-49 Moss (2006) = A. Moss,‘Lycosthène’, in C. Nativel (ed.), Centuriae latinae, 2: Cent une figures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumières: à la mémoire de Marie-Madeleine de la Garanderie, Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 414 (Genève: Droz, 2006), pp. 481-486 Moss (2011) = A. Moss, ‘Monita et exempla politica as Example of a Genre’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 97-114 Moss (2015) = A. Moss, ‘Commonplace Books: Major Items in Print’, in Ph. Ford – J. Bloemendal – Ch. Fantazzi (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo-Latin World, Micropaedia (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2015), pp. 948-953 Mout (1985) = M.E.H.N. Mout, ‘In het schip. Justus Lipsius en de Nederlandse opstand tot 1591’, in S. Groenveld – M.E.H.N. Mout (eds.), Bestuurders en geleerden. Opstellen over onderwerpen uit de Nederlandse geschiedenis van de zestiende, zeventiende en achttiende eeuw, aangeboden aan Prof. Dr Jan Juliaan Woltjer bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar van de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden (Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1985), pp. 55-64 Mout (1997) = M.E.H.N Mout, ‘”Which tyrant curtails my free mind?”: Lipsius and the Reception of De Constantia’, in Lipsius in Leiden, pp. 123-140 Mühleisen – Stammen (1990) = H.O. Mühleisen – T. Stammen (eds.), Politische Tugendlehre und Regierungskunst: Studien zum Fürstenspiegel der frühen Neuzeit, Studia Augustana, 2 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990) Mulder-Bakker (1992) = A.B. Mulder-Bakker, ‘Het vorstenspiegelgenre in Oudheid en Middeleeuwen’, in Groniek 25 (1992), 9-20 Müller (1985) = R.A. Müller, ‘Die deutschen Fürstenspiegel des 17. Jahrhunderts: Regierungslehren und politische Pädagogik’, in Historische Zeitschrift 240 (1985), 571-597 Multer (1998) = R. Multer, Pädagogischen Perspektiven in deutschen Fürstenspiegeln und Erziehungsinstruktionen von Fürstinnen und für Fürstinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit (PhD thesis, Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Philosophisch-pädagogische Fakultat, 1998) Musto (2013) = R.G. Musto, Medieval Naples: A Documentary History 400 – 1400 (New York: Italica Press, 2013) Myers – Wolfram (1982) = H.A. Myers – H.Wolfram, Medieval Kingship (Chicago: NelsonHall, 1982) Nadel (1964) = G.H. Nadel, ‘Philosophy of History before Historicism’, in History and Theory 3 (1964), 291-315

648

Bibliography Nederman (1988) = C.J. Nederman, ‘Nature, Sin, and the Origins of Society: The Ciceronian Tradition in Medieval Political Thought’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (1988), 3-26 Nelles (1998) = P. Nelles, ‘Lipsius, Scaliger and the Historians’, in The World of Justus Lipsius, 233-254 Newman (1988) = R.J. Newman, ‘In umbra virtutis. Gloria in the Thought of Seneca the Philosopher’, in Eranos 86 (1988), 145-159 Nordman (1932) = V.A. Nordman, Justus Lipsius as Geschichtsforscher und Geschichtslehrer. Eine Untersuchung, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, 28/2 (Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1932) Novikova (1999) = O.E. Novikova,‘Lipsius in Russia in the First Half of the 18th Century’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 124-140 Oestreich (1982) = G. Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State. Edited by Brigitta Oestreich and H.G. Koenigsberger, translated by D. McLintock, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History (Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) Oestreich (1989) = G. Oestreich, Antiker Geist und moderner Staat bei Justus Lipsius (15471606). Der Neustoizismus als politische Bewegung. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von N. Mout, Schriftenreihe der historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 37 (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) Ong (1976) = W.J. Ong, ‘Commonplace Rhapsody: Ravisius Textor, Zwinger, and Shakespeare’, in R.R. Bolgar (ed.), Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 15001700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 91-126 Orvieto (1992) = P. Orvieto, ‘Biografia ed aneddotica storica nei trattati umanistici De institutione principis (e nel Principe di Machiavelli)’, in A. Di Stefano – G. Faraone – P. Megna – A. Tramontana (eds.), La storiografia umanistica (Messina: Centro di Studi Umanistici, 1992), pp. 153-180 Pade (2007) = M. Pade, The Reception of Plutarch’s ‘Lives’ in Fifteenth-Century Italy, Renæssance studier, 14, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007) Papadopoulou (2005) = I.N. Papadopoulou,‘Sardanapallus’ gesture’ in D. Cairns (ed.), Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2005), pp. 107-122 Papy – Van Houdt (1998) = J. Papy – T. Van Houdt, ‘The Image of Archduke Albert in Seventeenth-Century Funeral Literature’, in Albert & Isabella, pp. 319-334 Papy (1996) = J. Papy, ‘Giusto Lipsio e la superstizione’, in L. Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (ed.), L’Uomo e la Natura nel Rinascimento, Caleidoscopio, 6 (Milan: Nuovi Orizzonti, 1996), pp. 445-456 Papy (1997) = J. Papy, ‘Justus Lipsius, Rome en de Romereis: zoektocht naar een oude mythe’, in Kleio.Tijdschrift voor oude talen en antieke cultuur N.S. 26 (1997), 111-126 Papy (1998a) = J. Papy, ‘Italiam vestram amo supra omnes terras! Lipsius’ Attitude towards Italy and Italian Humanism of the Late Sixteenth Century’, in Humanistica Lovaniensia 47 (1998), 245-277 Papy (1998b) = J. Papy, ‘Virtue and Doctrine: the Humanist Programme of Justus Lipsius’, in Annales Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis – Kungliga Humanistiska

649

Bibliography Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala, Årsbok (Uppsala: Swedish Science Press, 1998), pp. 197-215 Papy (2000a) = J. Papy, Justus Lipsius. Leuven. Beschrijving van de stad en haar universiteit. Latijnse tekst met inleiding, vertaling en aantekeningen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000) Papy (2000b) = J. Papy, ‘Politiek en vrijheid onder het humanistisch mes. Erasmus en Lipsius over tirannenmoord’, in T. Verschaffel (ed.), Koningsmoorden, Alfred Cauchie reeks (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), pp. 71-83 Papy (2001a) = J. Papy, ‘Giusto Lipsio e la Respublica litteraria italiana: ammirazione, ispirazione, delusione?’, in L. Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (ed.), Rapporti e scambi: tra uma­ nesimo italiano ed umanesimo europeo, Caleidoscopio, 10 (Milan: Nuovi Orizzonti, 2001), pp. 281-289 Papy (2001b) = J. Papy, ‘La correspondance de Juste Lipse: genèse et fortune des Epistolarum Selectarum Centuriae’, in Les Cahiers de l’Humanisme 2 (2001), 223-236 Papy (2001c) = J. Papy, ‘Lipsius’ Prophecy on the New World and the Development of an “American” Identity at the University of Lima’, in E. González González – L. Pérez Puente (eds.), Colegios y Universidades II. Del antiguo régimen al liberalismo, Collección la Real Universidad. Estudios y Textos (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2001), pp. 272-283 [a Spanish version can be found on pp. 255-271] Papy (2002) = J. Papy,‘O Manuductio ad Stoicam Philosophiam (1604) de Lipsius e a Recepção do Estoicismo e da Tradição Estóica no Início da Europa Moderna’, in Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 58 (2002), 859-872 Papy (2002a) = J. Papy, ‘Erasmus’s and Lipsius’s Editions of Seneca: A “Complementary” Project?’, in Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 22 (2002), 10-36 Papy (2002b) = J. Papy, ‘The Use of Medieval and Contemporary Sources in the History of Louvain of Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). The Lovanium as a Case of Humanist Historiography’, in Lias. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 29 (2002), 45-62 Papy (2003a) = J. Papy, ‘An Unpublished Dialogue by Justus Lipsius on Military Prudence and the Causes of War: the Monita et exempla politica de re militari (1605)’, in Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 65 (2003), 135-148 Papy (2003b) = J. Papy, ‘Justus Lipsius über Frieden und Krieg: Humanismus und Neustoizismus zwischen Gelehrtheit und Engagement’, in N. Brieskorn – M. Riedenauer (eds.), Suche nach Frieden: Politische Ethik in der Frühen Neuzeit, Theologie und Frieden, 20 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2003), pp. 155-173 Papy (2004) = J. Papy, ‘Lipsius’ (Neo-)Stoicism: Constancy between Christian Faith and Stoic Virtue’, in H.W. Blom – L.C. Winkel (eds.), Grotius and the Stoa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004) (= Grotiana N.S. 22-23 [2001-2002]), pp. 47-72 Papy (2005) = J. Papy, ‘Neostoizismus und Humanismus. Lipsius’ neue Lektüre von Seneca in der Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam (1604)’, in G. Boros (ed.), Der Einfluss des Hellenismus auf die Philosophie der frühen Neuzeit, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 108 (Wiesbaden – Wolfenbüttel: Harrassowitz – Herzog August Bibliothek, 2005), pp. 53-80

650

Bibliography Papy (2008) = J. Papy, ‘Le Sénéquisme dans la correspondance de Juste Lipse. Du De Constantia (1583-1584) à la Epistolarum Selectarum Centuria Prima Miscellanea (1586)’, in Journal de la Renaissance 6 (2008), 49-62 Papy (2009) = J. Papy, ‘The First Christian Defender of Stoic Virtue? Justus Lipsius and Cicero’s Paradoxa Stoicorum’, in A.A. MacDonald – Z.R.W.M. von Martels – J.R.Veenstra (eds.), Christian Humanism. Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 142 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), pp. 139-153 Papy (2010) = J. Papy, ‘Lipsius’ Neostoic Reflections on the Pale Face of Death: From Stoic Constancy and Liberty to Suicide to Rubens’s Dying Seneca’, in Lias. Journal of Early Modern Intellectual Culture and its Sources 37/1 (2010), 35-53 Papy (2011a) = J. Papy, ‘Stoic Fate and Christian Rule: Superstition, Fate and Divination in Lipsius’s Monita et exempla politica (1605)’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 195-205 Papy (2011b) = J. Papy, ‘Lipsius’ Stoic Physics and the Neostoic Reading of the World’ in H. Hirai – J. Papy (eds.), Justus Lipsius and Natural Philosophy (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 2011), pp. 9-18 Papy (2019) = J. Papy, ‘Justus Lipsius on Travelling to Italy: From a Humanist Letter-Essay to an Oration and Political Guidebook’, in K.A.E. Enenkel – J.L. de Jong (eds.), Artes Apodemicae and Early Modern Travel Culture, 1550-1700, Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture, 64 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2019), pp. 92-113 Parkes (1992) = M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1992) Pasture (1925) = A. Pasture, La restauration religieuse aux Pays-Bas sous les archiducs Albert et Isabelle (1596-1633), Recueil de Travaux publiés par les membres des conférences d’Histoire et de Philologie, IIe série/fasc. 3 (Leuven: Uystpruyst, 1925) Patch (1967) = H.R. Patch, The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval Literature (New York: Octagon Books, 1967) Peeters (1999) = H. Peeters, ‘Le contubernium de Lipse à Louvain à travers de sa correspondance’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 141-168 Petoletti (2006) = M. Petoletti, ‘Les recueils De viris illustribus en Italie (XIVe-XVe siècles)’, in T. Ricklin – D. Carron – E. Babey (eds.), Exempla docent. Les exemples des philoso­ phes de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Études de philosophie médiévale (Paris: Vrin, 2006), pp. 335-353 Pigler (1974) = A. Pigler, Barockthemen: eine Auswahl von Verzeichnissen zur Ikonographie des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974) Pokorny (1978) = V. Pokorny, ‘Clementia Austriaca. Studien zur Bedeutung der Clementia Principis für die Habsburger im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert’, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 86 (1978), 311-364 Prak (2005) = M. Prak, The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century: The Golden Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) Provvidera (2012a) = T. Provvidera, Etica e politica in Giusto Lipsio: aristotelismo, cristianesimo e antiumanesimo, Momenti e problemi della storia del pensiero (Napels: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, 2012) Providdera (2012b) = T. Provvidera (ed.), Giusto Lipsio, Opere politiche, vol. 1: La Politica (Torino: Nino Aragno Editore, 2019)

651

Bibliography Put (1998) = E. Put, ‘Les archiducs et la réforme catholique: champs d’action et limites politiques’, in Albert & Isabella, pp. 255-266 Raeymaekers (1999) = J. Raeymaekers, ‘De herkenning van Philopoemen: Rubens en Justus Lipsius’, in De zeventiende eeuw 15 (1999), 197-203 Ramírez (1966) = A. Ramírez, Epistolario de Justo Lipsio y los españoles (1577-1606), La lupa y el escalpeo, 6 (Madrid: Editorial Castalia, 1966) Rassem – Stagl (1994) = M. Rassem – J. Stagl (eds.), Geschichte der Staatsbeschreibung. Ausgewählte Quellentexte 1456-1813 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994) Redondo (1994) = A. Redondo (ed.), Images de la femme en Espagne aux XVIe et XVIIe siè­ cles: des traditions aux renouvellements et à l’émergence d’images nouvelles,Travaux du “Centre de recherche sur l’Espagne des XVIe et XVIIe siècles”, 9 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1994) Renouard (1969) = P. Renouard, Documents sur les imprimeurs, libraires, cartiers, graveurs, fon­ deurs de lettres, relieurs, doreurs de livres, faiseurs de fermoirs, enlumineurs, parcheminiers et pape­ tiers ayant exercé à Paris de 1450 à 1600 (Paris: H. Champion, 1901 = Genève: Slatkine, 1969) Renouard (1995) = P. Renouard, Répertoire des imprimeurs parisiens, libraires et fondeurs de carac­tères en exercice à Paris au XVIIe siècle: avec tables des adresses, des enseignes et des noms de personnes (Paris: A. Claudin, 1898 = Nogent-le-Roi: Laget, 1995) Resta (1962) = G. Resta, Le epitomi di Plutarco nel Quattrocento, Miscellanea erudita (Padova: Antenore, 1962) Richter (1932) = G. Richter, Studien zur Geschichte der älteren arabischen Fürstenspiegel, Leipziger Semitische Studien. Neue Folge, 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1932) Rigolot (1998) = F. Rigolot, ‘The Renaissance Crisis of Exemplarity’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 59/4 (1998), 557-563 Robinson (1946) = D.M. Robinson, ‘The Wheel of Fortune’, in Classical Philology 4 (1946), 207-216 Rohwetter (2002) = C. Rohwetter, Zur Typologie des Hersschers im französischen Humanismus: le livre de l’institution du prince von Guillaume Budé (Frankfurt: Lang, 2002) Roller (2015) = M. Roller, ‘Between Unique and Typical: Senecan exempla in a List’, in M. Lowrie – S. Lüdemann (eds.), Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law (London – New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 81-95 Rosenthal (1968) = E.I.J. Rosenthal, Political Thought in Medieval Islam: An Introductory Outline (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) Rundle (1998) = D. Rundle,‘”Not so much praise as precept”: Erasmus, Panegyric, and the Renaissance Art of Teaching Princes’, in Ideas in Context, 50/1 (1998), 148-169. Ruysschaert (1947-1948) = J. Ruysschaert, ‘Le séjour de Juste Lipse à Rome (1568-1570) d’après ses “Antiquae lectiones” et sa correspondance’, in Bulletin de l’ Institut histori­ que belge de Rome / Bulletin van het Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome 24 (1947-1948), 139-192 Ruysschaert (1949) = J. Ruysschaert, Juste Lipse et les Annales de Tacite: une méthode de critique textuelle au XVIe siècle, Humanistica Lovaniensia, 8 (Louvain: Librairie Universitaire, 1949)

652

Bibliography Ruysschaert (1979) = J. Ruysschaert, ‘Juste Lipse, éditeur de Tacite’, in Studi Urbinati di sto­ ria, filosofia e letteratura 53 (1979), 47-61 Salmon (1962) = V. Salmon, ‘Early Seventeenth-Century Punctuation as a Guide to Sentence Structure’, in The Review of English Studies N.S. 52 (1962), 347-360 Salmon (1987) = J.H.M. Salmon, Renaissance and Revolt: Essays in the Intellectual and Social History of Early Modern France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) Saunders (1955) = J.L. Saunders, Justus Lipsius. The Philosophy of Renaissance Stoicism (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1955) Scanlon (1994) = L. Scanlon, Narrative, Authority and Power: the Medieval exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) Schellhase (1976) = K.C. Schellhase, Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1976) Schmid – Greindl – Stein (2008) = A. Schmid – G. Greindl – C. Stein (eds.), Justus Lipsius und der europäische Späthumanismus in Oberdeutschland, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte. Beihefte, 33 (München: Beck, 2008) Schrijvers (1985) = P.H. Schrijvers, ‘La présence de César dans Juste Lipse’, in R. Chevallier (ed.), Présence de César. Actes du Colloque des 9-11 décembre 1983. Hommage au doyen M. Rambaud, Caesarodunum XX bis (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1985), pp. 239-245 Schulte (2001) = J.M. Schulte, Speculum regis. Studien zur Fürstenspiegel-Literatur in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Antike Kultur und Geschichte, 3 (Münster: LIT Verslag, 2001) Schwartz (2000) = L. Schwartz, ‘Justo Lipsio en Quevedo: Neostoicismo, política y sátira’, in W. Thomas – R.A.Verdonk (eds.), Encuentros en Flandres. Relaciones e intercam­ bios hispanoflamencos a inicios de la Edad Moderna, Avisos de Flandes, 6 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), pp. 227-273 Seifert (1980) = A. Seifert, ‘Staatenkunde. Eine neue Disziplin und ihr wissenschaftstheoretischer Ort’, in M. Rassem – J. Stagl (eds.), Statistik und Staatsbeschreibung in der Neuzeit vornehmlich im 16.-18. Jahrhundert, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Staatsbeschreibung und Statistik, 1 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1980), pp. 217-248 Senellart (1989) = M. Senellart, Machiavélisme et raison d’état, Collection Philosophies (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989) Senellart (1994) = M. Senellart, ‘Le stoïcisme dans la constitution de la pensée politique: les Politiques de Juste Lipse (1589)’, in P.-F. Moreau – J. Lagrée (eds.), Le stoïcisme aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Actes du Colloque CERPHI (4-5 juin 1993) (Caen: Université de Caen, 1994), pp. 109-130 Senellart (1995) = M. Senellart, Les arts de gouverner. Du regimen médiéval au concept de gou­ vernement, “Des Travaux” (Paris: Seuil, 1995) Siedschlag (1978) = K. Siedschlag, Der Einfluss der niederländisch-neustoischen Ethik in der politischen Theorie zur Zeit Sullys und Richelieus, Historische Forschungen, 13 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1978) Singer (1981) = B. Singer, Die Fürstenspiegel in Deutschland im Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Reformation, Humanistische Bibliothek – Abhandlungen, 34 (München: Fink, 1981) Singer (1983) = B. Singer, ‘Fürstenspiegel’, in G. Krause – G. Müller – H.R. Balz (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 36 vols. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983), vol. 11, coll. 707-711

653

Bibliography Skidmore (1996) = C. Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentleman. The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996) Skinner (1978) = Q. Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) Skinner (1981) = Q. Skinner, Machiavelli, Past Masters (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) Smith (2003) = P.J. Smith, ‘Montaigne, Juste Lipse et l’art du voyage’, in Romanic Review 94 (2003), 73-91 Snyder (2009) = J.R. Snyder, Dissimulation and the Culture of Secrecy in Early Modern Europe (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press, 2009) Soen (2011) = V. Soen, ‘The Clementia Lipsiana: Political Analysis, Autobiography and Panegyric’, in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 207-231 Soen (2012) = V. Soen, ‘Challenges to Clemency: Seneca, Lipsius and the Dutch Revolt’, in A. Steiner-Weber (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Upsaliensis. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Uppsala 2009), 2 vols. (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2012), vol. 1, pp. 1039-1048 Soll (2005) = J. Soll, Publishing the Prince. History, Reading, and the Birth of Political Criticism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005) Soll (2011) = J. Soll, ‘A Lipsian Legacy? Neo-Absolutism, Natural Law and the Decline of Reason of State in France 1660-1760’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 307-323 Soll (2014) = J. Soll, ‘The Reception of The Prince 1513-1900, or Why We Understand Machiavelli the Way We Do’, in Social Research. An International Quarterly 81/1 (2014), 31-60 Soly – Van de Wiele (1999) = H. Soly – J.Van de Wiele (eds.), Carolus: Keizer Karel V 15001558 (Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju, 1999) Sommerville (1998) = J.P. Sommerville, ‘The “New Art of Lying”: Equivocation, Mental Reservation and Casuistry’, in E. Leites (ed.), Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe, Ideas in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 159-184 Sperberg-McQueen (1995) = M.R. Sperberg-McQueen, ‘Gardening without Eve: The Role of the Feminine in Justus Lipsius’s De Constantia and in Neo-Stoic Thought’, in The German Quarterly 68/4 (1995), 389-407 Spongberg (2002) = M. Spongberg, Writing Women’s History since the Renaissance (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002) Stacey (2007) = P. Stacey, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince, Ideas in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) Stacey (2015) = P. Stacey, ‘Senecan Political Thought from the Middle Ages to Early Modernity’, in S. Bartsch – A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Seneca (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 285-302 Stagl (1995) = J. Stagl, A History of Curiosity. The Theory of Travel 1550-1800, Studies in Anthropology and History, 13 (Chur: Harwood, 1995) Stanciu (2011) = D. Stanciu, ‘Prudence in Lipsius’ Monita et exempla politica: Stoic Virtue, AristotelianVirtue or not aVirtue at All?’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 233-262 Stegmann – Chavy (2000) = A. Stegmann – P. Chavy, ‘Théories politiques’, in T. Klaniczay – E. Kushner – P. Chavy (eds.), L’Époque de la Renaissance (1400-1600), tome IV: Crises et

654

Bibliography essors nouveaux (1560-1610), Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages, 13 (Amsterdam – Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000), pp. 237-246 Stegmann (1980) = A. Stegmann, ‘La littérature politique européenne en Latin (15801640)’, in J.-C. Margolin (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Turonensis. Troisième congrès international d’études néo-latines. Université François-Rabelais, Tours, 6-10  septembre 1976, 2 vols. (Paris:Vrin, 1980), vol. 2, pp. 1019-1038 Stone (2006) = M.W.F. Stone, ‘Truth, Deception, and Lies. Lessons from the Casuistical Tradition’, in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 68 (2006), 101-131 Stoneman (1995) = R. Stoneman, Palmyra and its Empire: Zenobia’s Revolt against Rome (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995) Straw (1988) = C. Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection, Transformation of the Classical Heritage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) Tarrête (2007) = A. Tarrête, ‘Jules César dans les Politiques de Juste Lipse (1589)’, in Cahiers de Recherches Médiévales 14 (2007), 111-125 Tarrête (2008) = A. Tarrête, ‘D’un usage néo-stoïcien de Plutarque: le traité Sur les délais de la Justice divine relu par Juste Lipse et Guillaume Du Vair’, in O. Guerrier (ed.), Moralia et Oeuvres Morales à la Renaissance. Actes du Colloque International de Toulouse (19-21 mai 2005), Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la renaissance européenne, 61 (Paris: H. Champion, 2008), pp. 131-151 Thomas (1998) = W.Thomas,‘The Reign of Albert & Isabella in the Southern Netherlands, 1598-1621’, in Albert & Isabella, pp. 1-14 Thomas (2002) = W. Thomas, ‘De Goede Prins. Over genegenheid tussen vorst en onderdanen’, in H. de Smaele – J. Tollebeek (eds.), Politieke representatie, Alfred Cauchie reeks (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), pp. 79-93 Tilmans (1989) = K. Tilmans, ‘Vroeg-renaissancistische vorstenspiegels in het Noorden van de Nederlanden: dankzij of ondanks maecenaat?’, in Theoretische Geschiedenis 16.4 (1989), 421-431 Tilmans (1991) = K. Tilmans, ‘The Origin of the Empire and the Tasks of the Prince: Neglected Renaissance Mirrors-of-Princes in the Netherlands’, in Humanistica Lovaniensia 40 (1991), 43-72 Toffanin (1921) = G. Toffanin, Machiavelli e il “Tacitismo” (Padova: A. Draghi, 1921) Tournoy – Deceulaer (2006) = G. Tournoy – H. Deceulaer, ‘Justus Lipsius and his Unfinished Monita et exempla politica: The Royal Privilege of 1597’, in Iam illustravit omnia, pp. 201-220 Tournoy (2003) = G. Tournoy, ‘Footsteps in the Snow: A Latin Tale from Charlemagne to Justus Lipsius’, in H. Braet – L. Guido – W. Verbeke (eds.), Risus Mediaevalis: Laughter in Medieval Literature and Art, Medieavalia Lovaniensia, Series I/ Studia 30 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), pp. 207-217 Treichler (1971) = W. Treichler, Mittelalterliche Erzählungen und Anekdoten um Rudolf von Habsburg, Geist und Werk der Zeiten, 26 (Bern – Frankfurt: Lang, 1971) Truman (1999) = R.W. Truman, Spanish Treatises on Government, Society, and Religion in the Time of Philipp II: The ‘de regimine principum’ and Associated Traditions, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 95 (Leiden: Brill, 1999)

655

Bibliography Tuck (1993) = R.Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572-1651, Ideas in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Tucker (2002) = G.H. Tucker, ‘Déchets, déchéance et recyclage – corps, corps du monde et corps-texte – chez Joachim Du Bellay et Michel de Montaigne’, in D.L. Rubin (ed.), Strategic Rewriting, EMF Studies in Early Modern France, 8 (Charlottesville, VA: Rookwood Press, 2002), pp. 1-24 Tucker (2005) = G.H. Tucker, ‘Montaigne et les néo-latins: «Capilupus» et l’art du centon dans les Essais’, in C. Magnien (ed.), Montaigne et les Anciens, Montaigne Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum 17 (2005), pp. 163-174 Tucker (2011) = G.H. Tucker, ‘Justus Lipsius and the Cento Form’ in (Un)masking the Realities of Power, pp. 163-192 Turchetti (2001) = M.Turchetti, Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Fondements de la Politique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001) Uhlig (1973) = C. Uhlig, Hofkritik im England des Mittelalters und der Renaissance: Studien zu einem Gemeinplatz der europäischen Moralistik, Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, N.F. 56 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973) Ullman (1973) = B.L. Ullman, ‘Leonardo Bruni and Humanistic Historiography’, in B.L. Ullman (ed.), Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Storia e Letteratura, 51 (Rome: Storia e letteratura, 19732 = 1955), pp. 321-344 Ullmann (1969) = W. Ullmann, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship, The Birkbeck Lectures 1968-9 (London: Methuen, 1969) Van Crombruggen (1949) = H. Van Crombruggen, ‘Een onuitgegeven werk van Justus Lipsius: De magnitudine Hebraea’, in De Gulden Passer 25 (1949), 280-285 Van de Bilt (1946) = T.M.Van de Bilt, Lipsius’ De Constantia en Seneca (Nijmegen – Utrecht: Dekker en van de Vegt, 1946) Van de Waal (1962) = H.Van de Waal, Drie eeuwen vaderlandsche geschied-uitbeelding 1500-1800: een iconologische studie, 2 vols. (’s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1952) Van Delft (2003) = L. Van Delft, ‘Theatrum Mundi. L‘encyclopédisme des moralistes’, in F. Büttner – M. Friedrich – H. Zedelmaier (eds.), Sammeln, Ordnen, Veranschaulichen. Zur Wissenskompilatorik in der Frühen Neuzeit, Pluralisierung & Autorität (Münster: LIT Verslag, 2003), pp. 245-267 Van Den Abbeele (1992) = G. Van Den Abbeele, Travel as Metaphor: From Montaigne to Rousseau (Minneapolis – Oxford: University of Minnesota Press, 1992) Van den Broeck (1988) = L.Van den Broeck, Het beeld van de vorst in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden bij de Blijde Intrede van Albrecht en Isabella in Leuven en Antwerpen (Leuven: Unpublished MA thesis, 1988) Van den Hoorn (1997) = R.-J.Van den Hoorn, ‘On Course for Quality: Justus Lipsius and Leiden University’, in Lipsius in Leiden, pp. 73-92 van Heck (2002) = P. van Heck, ‘Cymbalum Politicorum, Consultor Dolosus. Two Dutch Academics on Niccolò Machiavelli’, in T.Van Houdt e.a. (eds.), On the Edge of Truth and Honesty. Principles and Strategies of Fraud and Deceit in the Early Modern Period, Intersections: Yearbook for Early Modern Studies, 2 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 47-64

656

Bibliography Van Houdt – Papy (1997) = T. Van Houdt – J. Papy, ‘Eulogizing Rulers and the Rules of Eulogy. Neo-Latin Funeral Literature in Honour of the Archduke Albert (1621-1622)’, in Eranos 95 (1997), 108-124 Van Houdt – Papy (1999) = T. Van Houdt – J. Papy, ‘Modestia, Constantia, Fama: Towards a Literary and Philosophical Interpretation of Lipsius’s De Calumnia Oratio’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 186-220 Van Houdt (1992) = T. Van Houdt, ‘Amerika en de Oudheid. Een beschouwing van Lipsius’, in Hermeneus 64 (1992), 243-251 Van Houdt (1998) = T. Van Houdt, ‘Justus Lipsius and the Archdukes Albert and Isabella’, in The World of Justus Lipsius, 405-432 Van Houdt (1999) = T. Van Houdt, ‘The Governing of the Tongue: Language and Ethics in Erasmus’ Lingua (1525) and Burgundia’s Linguae vitia et remedia (1631)’, in J. Manning – K. Porteman – M.Van Vaeck (eds.), The Emblem Tradition and the Low Countries: Selected Papers of the Leuven International Emblem Conference, 18-23 August 1996, Imago Figurata – Studies 1b (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 77-90. Van Houdt (2002) = T. Van Houdt, ‘Word Histories, and Beyond: Towards a Conceptualization of Fraud and Deceit in Early Modern Times’, in T. Van Houdt e.a. (eds.), On the Edge of Truth and Honesty. Principles and Strategies of Fraud and Deceit in the Early Modern Period, Intersections: Yearbook for Early Modern Studies, 2 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 1-32 Van Houdt (2007) = T. Van Houdt, ‘The Spectacle of Power. Lipsius’ Model of Princely (and Humanist) Conduct in His Monita et exempla politica (1605)’, in M. Berggren – Chr. Henriksen (eds.), Miraculum Eruditionis. Neo-Latin Studies in Honour of Hans Helander, Studia Latina Upsaliensia, 30 (Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2007), pp. 13-30 Van Houdt e.a. (2002) = T. Van Houdt – J. Papy – G.Tournoy – C. Matheeussen (eds.), SelfPresentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 18 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002) Van Nierop – Fernandez Alvarez – Janssens (1998) = H.F.K. Van Nierop – M. Fernandez Alvarez – G. Janssens (eds.), Guillermo de Orange. De capitán de rebeldes a ‘Pater Patriae’ (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1998) Vander Haeghen (1886-1888) = F. Vander Haeghen, Bibliographie lipsienne, 3 vols. (Gent: Vyt, 1886-1888) Vanhassel (1992) = A. Vanhassel, ‘La liberté de conscience selon Juste Lipse et Dirck Coornhert’, in D. Letocha (ed.), Aequitas, Aequalitas, Auctoritas: raison théorique et légimi­ tation de l’autorité dans le XVIe siècle européen, De Pétrarque à Descartes, 54 (Paris: Vrin, 1992), pp. 78-90 Varotti (1998) = C.Varotti, Gloria e ambizione politica nel Rinascimento: da Petrarca a Machiavelli (Milano: Mondadori, 1998) Vázsonyi (1980) = G. Vázsonyi, ‘Thematik des Bánk Bán-Stoffes’, in Neohelicon 8 (1980), 237-277 Vermaseren (1941) = B.A. Vermaseren, ‘Het ambt van historiograaf in de Bourgondische Nederlanden’, in Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 59 (1941), 258-273

657

Bibliography Vermaseren (1981) = B.A. Vermaseren, De katholieke Nederlandse geschiedschrijving in de 16e en 17e eeuw over de opstand (Leeuwarden: G. Dykstra, 1981) Vermeulen (2007) = C.L.Vermeulen, René Descartes, Specimina philosophiae. Introduction and Critical Edition. Inleiding en kritische editie (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) (Utrecht: Utrecht University, Department of Philosophy, 2007) Vervliet (1969) = H.D.L.Vervliet, Lipsius’ jeugd, 1547-1578. Analecta voor een kritische biografie, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België – Klasse der Letteren, 31/7 (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1969) Viroli (1992) = M.Viroli, From Politics to Reason of State:The Acquisition and Transformation of the Language of Politics 1250-1600, Ideas in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Viroli (1998) = M. Viroli, ‘The Origin and the Meaning of the Reason of State’, in I. Hampsher-Monk – K. Tilmans – F. van Vree (eds.), History of Concepts: Comparative Perspectives (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998), pp. 67-73 Visentin (2015) = S. Visentin, ‘La disputa tra Dirck Coornhert e Justus Lipsius, ovvero l’emergenza di un’antropologia machiavelliana nell’umanesimo olandese’, in Storia del pensiero politico 4/2 (2015), 203-226 Voet (1969-1972) = L.Voet, The Golden Compasses: A History and Evaluation of the Printing and Publishing Activities of the Officina Plantiniana at Antwerp, 2 vols. (Amsterdam:Vangendt, 1969-1972) Voet (1980-1983) = L.Voet, The Plantin Press, 1555-1589: A Bibliography of Works Printed and Published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden, 6 vols. (Amsterdam: Van Hoeve, 1980-1983) Voinier (2017) = S.Voinier, ‘«Te lo dire con franqueza: mi regalo viene de tu Tácito y contigo mismo». La présence de Tacite dans les échanges épistolaires entre Juste Lipse et les élites espagnoles’, in A. Merle – A. Oïffer-Bomsel (eds.), Tacite et le tacitisme en Europe à l’époque moderne, Colloques, Congrès et Conférences – Le Classicisme, 19 (Paris: H. Champion, 2017), pp. 140-154 von Heyking (2001) = J. von Heyking, Augustine and Politics as Longing in the World (Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 2001) von Moos (1996) = P. von Moos, Geschichte als Topik. Das rhetorische Exemplum von der Antike zur Neuzeit und die historiae im “Policraticus” Johanns von Salisbury, Ordo: Studien zur Literatur und Gesellschaft des Mittelalters und der frühen neuzeit, 2 (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1996) von Srbik (1966) = R. von Srbik,‘Maximilian und Gregor Reisch’, Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte, 122/4 (1966), 235-240 Voogt (1997) = G.Voogt, ‘Primacy of Individual Conscience or Primacy of the State? The Clash between Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert and Justus Lipsius’, in Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997), 1231-1249 Voogt (2006) = G.Voogt, Constraint on Trial: Dirck Volkertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 52 (Kirksville, Miss.: Truman State University Press, 2006)

658

Bibliography Wallace-Hadrill (1981) = A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘The Emperor and his Virtues’, in Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 30 (1981), 298-319 Wansink (1981) = H.Wansink, Politieke wetenschappen aan de Leidse Universiteit 1575 – ±1650, Studia Historica, 2 (Utrecht: HES, 1981) Waszink (1997a) = J.H. Waszink, ‘Instances of Classical Citations in the Politica of Justus Lipsius: Their Use and Purposes’, in Humanista Lovaniensia 46 (1997), 240-257 Waszink (1997b) = J.H. Waszink, ‘Inventio in Lipsius’ Politica: Commonplace Books and the Shape of Political Theory’, in Lipsius in Leiden, pp. 141-162 Waszink (1999) = J.H. Waszink, ‘Virtuous Deception: The Politica and the Wars in the Low Countries and France, 1559-1589’, in Europae lumen et columen, pp. 248-267 Waszink (2000) = J.H. Waszink, ‘Critici van de Republiek: de politieke theorie van Justus Lipsius’, in Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte in Nederland 11 (2000), 3-20 Waszink (2004) = J.H. Waszink (ed.), Justus Lipsius, Politica. Six Books of Politics or Political Instruction, Bibliotheca Latinitatis Novae (Assen:Van Gorcum, 2004) Waszink (2013) = J.H. Waszink, ‘Lipsius and Grotius: Tacitism’, in History of European Ideas 39/2 (2013), 151-168 Weijers (1995) = O. Weijers, La ‘disputatio’ à la Faculté des arts de Paris (1200-1350 environ). Esquisse d’une typologie, Studia Artistarum – Études sur la faculté des arts dans les universités médiévales, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) Weijers (2002) = O. Weijers, La ‘disputatio’ dans les Facultés des arts au Moyen Age, Studia Artistarum – Études sur la faculté des arts dans les universités médiévales, 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002) Weijers (2009) = O. Weijers, Queritur utrum. Recherches sur la ‘disputatio’ dans les univer­ sités médiévales, Studia Artistarum – Études sur la faculté des arts dans les universités médiévales, 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) Wiener-Hanks (2008) = M. Wiener-Hanks, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20083) Wolff (1952) = R.L. Wolff, ‘Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First Latin Emperor of Constantinople: His Life, Death, and Resurrection’, in Speculum 27 (1952), 281-322 Woodhouse (1991) = J.R. Woodhouse, From Castiglione to Chesterfield: The Decline in the Courtier’s Manual (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) Zagorin (1990) = P. Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press, 1990) Zanta (1914) = L. Zanta, La Renaissance du stoïcisme au XVIe siècle, Bibliothèque littéraire de la Renaissance, N.S. 5 (Paris: H. Champion, 1914)

659

GENERAL INDEX This is a general index of names and subjects; references to the edition and translation are rendered in italics, those to the introduction and commentary in Roman. Aaron, brother of Moses, 421 Abdallah from Fès, 471 Abd-ar-Rahman, King of the Moors, 499 Abimelec(h), Biblical Judge, son of Gedeon, 343 Abishai, relative of King David, 513 Absalom, son of King David, 421, 510-513 Abyssinians, 321 Acciaioli, Nicollò, 60 Accursius, Milanese printer, 582 Achabus, see Ahab Achaeans, 243 Achilles, 525 Acosta, José de, 83 Act of Cession, 540 admonitions (monita), 5, 8, 14, 23, 26, 40, 43, 53, 55, 78, 81, 102, 106, 149, 157, 161, 163, 167, 171, 175, 177, 195, 197, 203, 209, 213, 215, 233, 235, 259, 261, 267, 273, 275, 277, 279, 315, 317, 321, 385, 389, 393, 409, 417, 511, 540, 547, 556, 572 Adolf of Egmond, Duke of Gelre, 79, 353-357 Adrianople, 339, 349 Adrianople, Battle of, 335 Aegean Sea, 579 Aegidius Romanus, see Giles of Rome Aelian (Aelianus), 84 Aelianus, calumniator of Augustus, 517 Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Lucius, 469 Aeolus, 427 Aeschylus, 235 Afranius, Lucius, 427 Africa, Africans, 6, 163, 165, 181, 183, 189, 197, 199, 219, 221, 275, 321, 447, 449, 467, 469, 473, 505, 523, 558

Agamemnon, King, 461 Agathias, 85 Agathocles of Syracuse, 181, 197, 557 Agesilaus II, King of Sparta, 161, 441, 477, 546, 547, 610 Agricola, Rudolphus, 18 Agrigentum, 155 Agrippa Postumus, 326-329 Agrippina, Iulia Minor, 70, 229, 489 Agustín, Antonio, 465 Ahmed, brother of Selim I, 349, 351 Ahmed Pasha, Gedik, 381 Alba, see Fernando, Duke of Alba Albert VII, Archduke of Austria, 2, 3, 6, 12, 19, 22, 27, 30, 35, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 64, 82, 91, 129, 134, 148-151, 540, 541, 556, 581, 609, 618 Alcaudete, 417 Alciato, Andrea (Alciatus, Andreas), 618 Alcinous, Homeric ruler, 481, 491 Alcoranus, see Koran Aldobrandini, Pietro, 84 Alexander I, King of Epirus, 469 Alexander VI, Pope, 179 Alexander Balas, 16, 329 Alexander, son of King Herod I of Judea and Mariamne I, 331 Alexander the Great, 79, 96, 103, 118, 120, 124, 161, 175, 241, 259, 261, 279, 293, 345, 371, 375, 423, 461, 469, 493, 513, 523, 525, 547, 548, 573, 596, 602, 607, 617 Alexander, see Pseudo-Alexander Alexander Severus, see Severus, Alexander, Roman Emperor Alexandria, 285

661

General index Alexius, son-in-law of Emperor Alexius III Angelus, 229 Alexius Angelus, Byzantine Prince, 481 Alexius III Angelus, Byzantine Emperor, 229 Alfonso I, Marquis of Villena and Duke of Gandía, 311 Alfonso III, King of Portugal, 451 Alfonso (Adelfonso) V of Aragon, 104, 149, 169, 311, 337, 371, 387, 409, 437 Alfonso X, King of Castile, 120, 193, 265 Alfonso, son of Ferdinand I of León, 446-449 Alife, Count of, 207 Ali Pasha, Çandarlı, Ottoman Grand Vizier, 403 Al-Mamún, King of Toledo, 446-449 Alps, 211, 523 Alphabetum Exemplorum, 14 Alvarez, Francisco, 584 Amazon, 479 ambition, 277, 327, 343, 357, 463, 523, 525, 527, 577, 585, 587, 603 America, see New World Amescua, Baltasar Gomez de, 29 Amiens, 355 Ammianus Marcellinus, 85 Amnon, son of King David, 421 Amphiaraus, King of Argos, 235 Amsterdam, 127, 128, 131, 132, 138 Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher, 527 Anaxarchus, Greek philosopher, 523 Ancient Near East, see Oriental Andalusia, 251, 569 Andovera, wife of King Chilperic, 291 Andrew of Hungary, 115, 388-391 Andriscus (Pseudo-Philip), King of Macedon, 327, 586 Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor, 385 Andronicus of Olynthus, 441 Andronicus Palaeologus Junior, see John VII Palaeologus (Andronicus) Anga, 321 Angerer, Anselm, Abbot of Garsten Abbey (Austria), 137

Anglo-Spanish War, 84 Anisson, Laurent, 131 Anjou, 579, 584 Anjou, family of, 475 Ansúrez, Pedro, Count, 447 Antigonus I, King of Macedon, 96, 214-217, 243, 345, 373, 515 anti-Machiavellism, see Machiavelli, Machiavellian, Machiavellism Antiochians, 329 Antiochus I Soter, King of the Seleucid Empire, 345 Antiochus III the Great, King of the Seleucid Empire, 493 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of the Seleucid Empire, 329 Antiochus VII Sidetes, King of the Seleucid Empire, 161-163, 547 Antiochus Hierax, King of the Seleucid Empire, 471, 609 Antipater, King of Macedon, 70, 293 antiquarian, antiquarianism, 1, 4, 24, 25, 34, 83, 92, 121, 542 Antistius Restio, see Restio, Antistius Antoninus Pius, Roman Emperor, 527 Antonius, 124 Antonius, Gaius, brother of Mark Antony, 239 Antonius, Marcus, see Mark Antony Antony, bastard child of King Sebastian of Portugal, 310-313 Antwerp, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 139, 558, 581, 583, 604, 606, 614 Anubis, 181 Apollo, 167, 217, 229, 562 Apollodorus, 285 Apollonius of Tyana, 225 apparitions (spectra), 114, 215, 221, 223, 231, 560, 561 Appian, 85, 94, 279, 559, 561, 574, 606 Apuleius, 487 Apulia, 213 Aquileia, 265 Aquinas, see Thomas Aquinas, Thomism Arabic, Arabs, 65, 287, 505, 507 Aragon, 311, 323, 371, 437, 540, 600

662

General index Araspas (Araspes), friend of King Cyrus the Great, 491 Arcadius, Roman Emperor, 295 Archidamus III, King of Sparta, 463 Archimedes, 423, 603 Archimelus, 525 Arete, Homeric Queen, 70, 491 argumenta imparia, see examples → unequal or unlikely examples Ariarathes VI, King of Cappadocia, 283 Arigiso (Ragaisus), Duke of Benevento, 265 Ariobarzanes, 107, 319 Aristides, 237, 393, 547 Aristobulus, 608 Aristobulus, son of King Herod I of Judea and Mariamne I, 331 aristocracy, 64, 65, 66, 275, 576, 577 Aristotle, Aristotelian, 10, 64, 68, 70, 84, 100, 117, 159, 261, 269, 301, 303, 461, 489, 525, 546, 573, 576, 577, 581, 585, 617 Arius, 169 Arminians, 132 Arnold of Egmond, Duke of Gelre, 79, 353-357 Arnold von Selenhofen, Archbishop of Mainz, 415 Arras, 317 Arrian, 85 arrogance, 7, 205, 207, 461, 607 Arsaces, see Artaxerxes Arsaces I, founder of the Arsacid dynasty of Parthia, 279 ars apodemica, 572 ars historica, artes historicae, 29, 34, 86, 104, 105, 111, 542 Arsinoe, wife of King Lysimachus of Macedon, 345 Artabanus IV, King of the Parthians, 281 Artaphernes, nephew of Darius, King of Persia, 319 Artaxerxes I, King of Persia, 375 Artaxerxes II, King of Persia, 319, 513 Artaxerxes (Ardashir I), 281 Artemenes, son of Darius I, 107, 317, 319 Asclepiodotus, Cassius, 89

Ascletarion, 107, 225, 561 Asia, 6, 161, 167, 183, 189, 215, 217, 221, 225, 259, 275, 285, 335, 337, 391, 469, 523 Aspar, Flavius Ardabur, 219 Assonleville, Guillaume d’, 22, 24, 98 Assyrian, Assyrians, 65, 273, 279, 463, 558 Astura, 475 Astyages, King of the Medes, 93, 215, 560 Ataidius, ambassador of King Manuel I of Portugal, 504-507 Athalia, Queen consort of Judah, 69, 285, 579 Athenaeus, 608, 617 Athenais, daughter of Leontius, 201 Athens, 201, 240-243, 259, 275, 279, 393, 423, 491, 499, 515, 523, 558, 573 Attica, 177, 499 Atticus, Titus Pomponius, 603 Aubigné, Théodore Agrippa d’, 607 Augustine, Saint, Augustinian, 9, 11, 53, 56, 63, 489, 555, 556, 589, 594, 607, 616 Augustus, Roman Emperor, 85, 96, 177, 209, 225, 227, 239, 263, 285, 305, 326-329, 331, 343, 401, 428-431, 445, 457, 459, 469, 477, 511, 517, 521, 527, 550, 565, 574, 603, 616, 618 Augustus, Roman soldier, 219, 560 Aurelian, Roman Emperor, 295 Aurelius, Cornelius, 12 Aurelius Victor, 85, 86, 567, 607 Aurispa, Giovanni, 265 Auruncani, 305 Auster, 427 Austrian dynasty, see Habsburg dynasty authority, see majesty Autun, 527 Avallon, siege of, 171 avarice, see greed (avaritia) Avars, 167 Avila, Luis de, 569 Axius, 401 Azpilcueta, Martin, 57 Bacchis, 245 Bacchus, 287 Bacchylides, 495 Badius Ascensius, Jodocus, 613

663

General index Baetis, 499 Bahurim, 511 Balash, brother of Kavadh I, King of Persia, 500-503 Balbus, Lucius Cornelius, 429 Balbus, Mount, 199 Baldo, jurist, 321 Baldwin I, Count of Flanders, Emperor of Byzantium, 495 Baldwin IV the Bearded (Balduinus Pulchrobarbus), Count of Flanders, 314-317, 583 Baldwin VII (Balduinus), Count of Flanders, 61, 115, 387, 595 Baldwin VIII (Balduinus), Count of Flanders and Hainault, 332-337 Balzac, Guez de, 133 Bánk Bán, 388-391, 595 barbarian, 84, 85, 125, 167, 175, 205, 245, 251, 261, 265, 267, 269, 305, 323, 335, 345, 373, 385, 419, 449, 453, 499, 550 Barbarossa, Hayreddin, Ottoman military leader, 453 Barcelona, 253, 600 Baronio, Cesare (Baronius, Caesar), 84 Barzizza, Gasparinus, 18 Basel, 585, 591 Bassano, 503 Baudouin, François, 85 Bauhofer J.J., 128 Bavaria, Bavarians, 333, 473 Bayezid I (Baiasites), Ottoman Sultan, 205, 337, 403, 471, 609 Bayezid II (Baiasites), Ottoman Sultan, 347-351 Bayezid, Şehzade, Ottoman Prince, son of Süleyman I and Roxelana, 339 Beccadelli, Antonio, 60, 86, 104 Belisarius, Flavius, Byzantine general, 467 Bellerus, Joannes, 604 Bellini, Gentile, 269 Belon, Pierre (Bellonius, Petrus), 83, 86, 191, 553, 554 Bembo, Pietro, 85 Benavides, Spanish nobleman, 417 Benci, Francesco Benedict IX, Pope, 309

Benedict XIII, Antipope, 311 beneficence (beneficentia), 12, 13, 47, 78, 79, 98, 489, 525, 527, 612 Bernaerts, Jan (Bernartius, Johannes), 85 Bernard, King of the Lombards (King of Italy), 321 Bertrand of Rheims, 332-335 Besold, Christoph, 58 Beyerlinck, Laurentius, 16, 17, 46 Bèze, Théodore de, 59 Bible, biblical, 9, 56, 59, 64, 69, 84, 87, 92, 102, 120, 183, 267, 273, 275, 283, 285, 343, 397, 421, 579, 586, 596, 602 Bibulus, Marcus Calpurnius, 425 Bielke, J., 128 Biondo, Flavio, 83 Bithynia, 345 Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus), 217 Blaeu, Joan, 128, 132 Blaeu, Willem Janszoon, 131, 138 Bleuwart, Jan, 135 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 16, 20, 265, 558, 559, 560, 568, 579, 580, 589, 609 Bocchar, 199 Bodin, Jean, 2, 17, 20, 29, 34, 40, 41, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76, 84, 85, 86, 98, 99, 104, 111, 114, 576, 578, 581, 583, 584, 592, 594, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 603, 610, 612 Boeclerus, Johannes Henricus, 136 Boeotia, 579 Boethius, 55, 383, 555, 594 Bogardus, Joannes, 608 Bohemia, 301, 305, 479 Boleslaw II, King of Poland, 471, 609 Bologna, 313 Bonciari, Marc-Antonio, 31 Bonfinius, Antonius, 83, 86, 584, 595 Bonogus, Chinese King, 281 Bonus Eventus, 157, 544 Bonzii, Bonziae, 187 Bosphorana, wife of Süleyman I, 339 Botero, Giovanni, 13, 20, 48, 50, 51, 59, 65, 66, 71, 84, 86, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 563, 576, 578, 591 Brabant, 26, 134

664

General index Brahmans, 185 bravery, see fortitude (fortitudo) Brazilians, 301 bribery, see corruption British, Brits, 83 Bronchorstius, Everardus, 20 Bruges, 387 Bruni, Leonardo, 34 Brussels, 4, 30, 353 Brutus, Marcus Iunius, 60, 96, 104, 208-211, 220-223, 238-241, 248-251, 428-431, 444-447, 559, 561, 564, 565, 566, 568 Buchanan, George, 59 Buda, 223, 267, 453 Budé, Guillaume, 12, 13, 19, 34, 47, 60, 121, 546, 574, 593, 617 Bulgarians, 333, 335 Burch, Lambert van der, 25 Burch(h)ard, Bishop of Halberstadt, 415 Buren, 353 Burgundian, Burgundians, Burgundy, 87, 149, 337, 375, 507, 540, 594, 614 Burr(h)us, Praetorian prefect under Emperor Nero, 431 Burton, Robert Busbequius, Augerius Gislenius, 83, 86, 185, 553, 586 Buysson, Jean Baptiste, 606 Byzantium, Byzantine, 8, 85, 86, 185, 229, 295, 333, 339, 341, 357, 385, 389, 411, 467, 495, 549, 558, 562, 591, 600 Cádiz, 523 Caepio, brother of Cato the Younger, 245 Caesar, Caius, son of Augustus, 223 Caesar, Gaius Julius, 55, 60, 81, 83, 85, 96, 118, 120, 165, 239, 247, 249, 263, 267, 279, 285, 409, 424-429, 447, 461, 517, 523, 527, 548, 556, 565, 574, 578, 579, 600, 603 Caesar, Lucius, 427 Caesar, Lucius, son of Augustus, 223 Caesar of Heisterbach, 14 Calabria, Calabrian, 385 Calcutta, 185 King of Calcutta, 450-453

Caldora, Antonio, 437 Caligula, Roman Emperor, 305, 373, 461, 607 Callisthenes, nephew of Aristotle and historian of Alexander the Great, 522-525, 608, 617 Caloger, 403 calumny (calumnia), calumniator, 92, 149, 293, 315, 375, 391, 407, 409, 419, 423, 481, 513, 515, 519, 527, 540, 601, 615 Calvinism, Calvinists, 131 Calvus, Gaius Licinius, 517 Cambyses I, King of Persia, 215 Camden, William, 83 Campania, 247 Canary Islands, 299 Cannae, 211 Canute the Great, King of England, 465 Capitulare Wormatiense, 597 Cappadocia, 217, 283 Caracalla, Antoninus, Roman Emperor, 527 Carafa, Carlo, Cardinal, 52, 113, 207 Carafa, Diomede, 11 Carafa, Giovanni, Count of Montorio and Duke of Paliano, 52, 113, 207 cardinal virtues, see virtues Cardon, Horace, 127, 131, 135 Cardon, Jacques, 131 Carondelet, Jacques de, 26 Cartagena, 493 Carteia, see Tarifa Carthage, Carthaginians, 56, 181, 197, 199, 210213, 301, 403, 442-445, 558 Carthago Nova, 347 Carvajal, John, 417 Carvajal, Peter, 417 Casaubon, Isaac, 29, 30, 31, 76, 123, 582, 618 Cassandrea, 345 Casimir I, King of Poland, 308-311 Casimir II, Duke of Sandomir, King of Poland, 435 Caspe, 311 Cassiodorus, 594 Cassius Longinus, Gaius, 208-211, 241, 285, 559, 565, 566 Castiglione, Baldassare, 11, 574, 613

665

General index Castile, 311, 313, 503, 540, 580 Castor, temple of, 247 Castro, 453 casuistry, casuists, 56, 59 Catalonia, 311 Catherine de Médicis, Queen of France, 311 Cati, Ercole, 20 Cato the Elder (Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius), 236-239, 564, 566, 574 Cato the Younger (Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis), 96, 121, 239, 244-249, 261, 263, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 574 Catullus, Catullian, 517, 582 Caulonia, 209 cause, first cause, 52, 53, 89, 195, 555, 556, 559 intermediate causes, 52, 53, 55, 195, 209, 215, 555, 556, 559 Cedrenus, Georgius, 85 Celsus, 409 cento, centos, 18, 21, 37, 71, 72, 73, 101, 146, 543, 565 Ceres, 177 Chaeronea, Battle of, 463 Chalcondylas, Laonicus, 85 Champagne, 333 Chanaranges, 501 chance, 51, 52 changeability of princes (principum inclinatio), 359-363, 585, 587, 588 Charilaus, King of Sparta, 323 Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus), Emperor, 9, 122, 167, 265, 267, 319, 399, 409, 433, 549, 597 Charles I (Charles Robert), King of Hungary, 321, 585 Charles II (Charles the Lame), King of Naples, 584 Charles IV of Bohemia, Holy Roman Emperor, 333 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 12, 50, 51, 115, 120, 122, 125, 149, 165, 213, 253, 269, 452-455, 462-465, 481, 540, 548, 569, 608, 610 Charles VI, King of France, 614

Charles VII, King of France, 507 Charles VIII (the Affable), King of France, 109, 401, 435, 497, 598 Charles IX, King of France, 301, 411, 600 Charles Martel, Prince of the Franks, 321, 585 Charles of Anjou, 472-475 Charles, see Casimir I, King of Poland, Charles, son of Charlemagne and Judith, 319 Charles, son of Francis I, King of France, 455 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, 115, 355, 374-379, 594 Charondas, 103, 115, 116, 373, 593 Chastenay family, 337 chastity (castitas), 8, 11, 40, 70, 78, 79, 87, 100, 103, 219, 245, 297, 377, 381, 389, 391, 489-509, 580, 612, 614 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 16, 579, 580 Chevalier, Pierre, 127, 129-130 Childebert II, King of Austrasia, 293 Chilperic, King of the Franks, 291 China, Chinese (Sinitae, Sinenses), 65, 185, 187, 281, 305, 553 Chiocci, Andrea, 29 Chokier, Joannes a, 21, 31, 541 Chosroes, see Khosrow I, Emperor of Persia Christ, 87, 122, 165, 167, 169, 193, 295, 415, 497, 590 Christian, Christian morality, 10, 11, 12, 13, 38, 40-41, 75, 116, 121-122, 563 Christine de Pizan, 16, 68, 558 Chronicon Colmariense, 87, 586 Chronicon Laureshamense, 603 Chrysaphius, eunuch, 295 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 11, 12, 31, 33, 34, 41, 60, 63, 94, 95, 97, 100, 106, 107, 117, 119, 120, 124, 132, 181, 543, 558, 563, 565, 568, 571, 572-573, 574, 577, 589, 594, 595, 603, 604, 611, 612 Cieza de Léon, Pedro de, 83, 553 Cilicia, 287 Cimbri, 94, 199 Cimbrian war, 389 civil strife, civil war, 37, 45, 50, 52, 66, 67, 90, 189, 241, 277, 303, 323, 409, 425, 427, 523, 577, 580, 606

666

General index Claudet, Nicolaus, 606 Claudius Nero, Roman consul, 213 Claudius, Roman Emperor, 70, 229, 286-289, 297, 305, 307, 401, 487, 489, 579, 581 clemency (clementia), 7, 12, 13, 38, 40, 44, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 78, 82, 90, 91, 92, 100, 159, 261, 283, 399, 418-437, 511, 596, 597, 601, 602, 603, 604, 615 Clemens, slave of Agrippa Postumus, 326-329 Clement IV, Pope, 465, 473, 475 Clement V, Pope, 321, 417, 601 Clément, Jacques, 471, 609 Cleomenes III, King of Sparta, 96, 243, 566 Cleopatra VII Philopator, 69, 96, 104, 281, 283, 285, 293, 425, 445, 579 Cleopatra, daughter of Philip II, King of Macedon, 469 Cloelia, 111, 443, 605 Cluny, monastery of, 309 Clusius, Carolus, 30, 541, 553, 554 Clycas, Michael, 85 Cochin, 451 Coimbra, 451 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, 77 Colchis, 409 Collenuccio, Pandolfo (Collenutius, Pandulphus), 86, 584 Colmar, 333 Cologne, 4, 307, 608 Coloman, king of Hungary, 318-321, 584 Columbus, Christopher, 299 Commines, Philip de (Cominaeus, Philippus), 79, 85, 355, 587, 598, 613 Commodus, Roman Emperor, 291, 461 common good (publicum bonum), 7, 31, 34, 57, 60, 61, 62, 75, 91, 134, 269, 303, 319, 365-367, 589, 597 common people, see populace commonplace books, 2, 3, 17-18, 35, 37, 71, 72, 73, 76, 84, 97-99, 101, 554 comparisons, 32, 36, 78, 98, 126, 564, 592, 607, 615 Conarius, Joannes, Polish knight, 435 Conestaggio, Girolamo de’ Franchi, 86, 557, 582, 609

Conrad IV, King of Germany, King of Naples and Sicily (as Conrad I), 473 Conradin, Duke of Swabia, later King of Jerusalem and Sicily (as Conrad), 472-475 conscience (conscientia), 6, 41, 49, 57, 75, 157, 171, 232-233, 409, 427, 511, 562, 592 freedom of conscience, 38 Constance, Queen of Sicily, wife of Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, 317, 473 constancy (constantia), 6, 40, 52, 69, 78, 80, 81, 82, 88, 90, 98, 100, 115, 121, 195, 235-255, 283, 329, 377, 441, 453, 457, 550, 555, 563, 564, 565, 566, 568, 569, 580 Constantine the Great, Roman Emperor, 167, 171, 357, 469, 548, 558 Constantinople, 201, 349, 403, 509, 549 Constantinus Angelus, Byzantine nobleman, 229 constitution, 35, 273 republican constitution, see republic Contarini, Gasparo, 578 continentia, see self-restraint Coornhert, Dirck Volckertszoon, 5, 37, 38, 39, 63, 81, 87, 546 Corbis, 347 Cordoba, 459, 499 Corfinium, 427, 429 Corfu (Corcyra), 453 Corinth, Corinthian, 513, 558 Çorlu, 349 Cornelii, family of, 525 Cornelius Phagita, 425 Cornelius Scipio Asina, Gnaeus, see Scipio Asina, Gnaeus Cornelius Corocotta, 429 corruption, 57, 66, 78, 79, 249, 275, 277, 279, 301, 309, 359, 369, 399, 403, 405, 425, 577, 578, 580, 588, 597, 598, 607 Cortés, Hernán (Cortesius, Ferdinandus), 189 Cosimo de Medici, see Medici, Cosimo de Costa, Juan, Counter-Reformation, 114 Covarruvias, Antonio de, 26, 27 Crantzius, Albertus, 608 Crassus, Marcus Licinius, 343

667

General index Cratesiclea, mother of Cleomenes, King of Sparta, 96, 243, 566 Crete, Cretans, 329, 331 Crocus Field, Battle of, 548 Croesus, King, 16, 467 Cromerus, Martinus, see Kromer, Marcin Croÿ, Catherine de, 115, 595 Croÿ, Charles III de, Duke of AarschotArenberg, 115 Croÿ, Charles-Philippe de, 31, 115 Croÿ, House of, 115, 391, 595 Croÿ, Philip II de, Duke of Aarschot, 115 Croÿ, Philip III de, Duke of Aarschot, 115 cruelty (crudelitas), 53, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 91, 113, 116, 207, 251, 287, 363, 373, 417, 425, 429, 431, 459, 475, 586, 587, 593, 600, 603 Cruserius, Hermannus, 96, 97 Crusius, Martinus, 603 Cuffe, Henry, 76 Curio, Gaius Scribonius Junior, 279, 578 Curtius Rufus, Quintus, 80, 85, 112, 551, 607 Cydnus, 287 Cyprus, 239, 259, 331, 565 Cyrus the Great (the Elder), King of Persia, 16, 124, 203, 467, 491, 560 Cyrus the Younger, son of Darius II, King of Persia, 319, 583 Dallington, Sir Robert, 20 Damascon, 197 Damocles, 499 Danaeus, Lambertus, 18, 20, 84, 133 Danes, Denmark, 83, 167, 301, 305 Daniel, prophet, 215, 560 Dante Alighieri, 558 Darius I, Persian King, 107, 205, 317 Darius II, Persian King, 319 Darius III, Persian King, 161, 261, 493 Davalus, see López de Dávalos, Ruy, Count of Ribadeo David, biblical King, 64, 88, 92, 421, 510-513, 602 David I, King of Scots, 173 deceit, see fraud Decemviri, 407, 599

Decker, Johann, 31 Dellius, Quintus, Roman senator, 284-287 Delphi, 167, 217 Delrio, Martinus Antonius, 31 Demaratus from Corinth, 513 Demetrius I Poliorcetes, King of Macedon, 70, 217, 293, 401, 441, 499 Demetrius I Soter, King of the Seleucid Empire, 329 Demetrius II Nicator, King of the Seleucid Empire, 328-331 Demetrius, son of Philip V of Macedon, 361 Demochares of Athens, 423 democracy, 64, 275, 576, 577 Demosthenes, 241, 279, 578 Denmark, see Danes Descartes, René, 77, 141 Desiderius, King of the Lombards, 265 Devereux, Robert, Earl of Essex, 76 Diana, 493 Dimetoka, 351 Dio Cassius, 85, 86, 107, 227, 511, 560, 567, 579, 581, 582, 590, 603, 605, 607 Dio Chrysostom, 573 Diocletian, Roman Emperor, 82, 527 Diodorus Siculus, 84, 86, 107, 181, 259, 441, 553, 573, 586, 593, 599, 608, 609 Diomedes, slave of Emperor Augustus, 429 Diomedes, the Islands of, 265 Dion of Syracuse, 209, 221, 559, 560, 561 Dionysius II (the Younger), tyrant of Syracuse, 16, 113, 209, 361, 471, 559, 588, 609 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 85, 261, 574 Dios, 161 discussions, quaestiunculae, 6, 7, 40, 42, 66, 74, 75, 99, 101, 157, 177, 227, 395, 403, 550, 552 disputatio in utramque partem, 42, 66, 74, 101, 552 dissimulation (dissimulatio), 56, 57, 563 divine decree, see providence divine justice, see justice divine providence, see providence divine will, see providence Domitian, Roman Emperor, 107, 225, 433, 461, 561, 607

668

General index Domitius Ahenobarbus, Lucius, 427 Doornik, Herman van, 595 Doullens, 355 dreams (somnia), 93, 99, 102, 114, 161, 169, 177, 185, 215, 217, 227, 231, 560 Druma, concubine of Gedeon, 343 Drusus, Julius Caesar, 363 Dusmis, see Pseudo-Mustafa Dutch Revolt, 63, 588 Edebales, 217 education, 6, 11, 13, 22, 36, 74, 78, 88, 107, 117, 295, 461, 542, 571, 572, 607, 613 Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward II, King of England), 455 Eginhard, 433 Egnatius, Johannes Baptista, 15 Egypt, Egyptians, 28, 107, 163, 181, 183, 193, 259, 281, 285, 287, 295, 305, 351, 405, 419, 425, 441, 464-467, 477, 553, 558 Elbe, 165, 548 Eleanor, wife of Manuel I of Portugal, 203 election (election), 7, 42, 58, 59, 64-67, 74, 80, 101, 277, 301-313, 580, 581, 582, 585 Ellenhardi Chronicon, 586, 596 Elyot, Sir Thomas, 16, 68, 580 Emilio, Paolo, see Paulus Aemilius Veronensis Emmanuel, see Manuel I, King of Portugal England, English, 65, 131, 385, 455, 465, 608 Ennius, 525 Epaminondas of Thebes, 237, 258-261, 564, 573 Ephesus, 225, 493 Epictetus, 132 Epicurus, Epicurean, 89, 211, 559 Epirus, 469 Eponina, wife of Julius Sabinus, 501 equivocation (aequivocatio), 57 Erasmus, Desiderius, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 57, 59, 60, 68, 74, 84, 87, 95-97, 98, 108, 112, 117, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 133, 541, 544, 562, 565, 571, 576, 578, 582, 588, 590, 591, 596, 597, 598, 599, 602, 607, 610, 612, 616 Ertugrul (Ertucules), father of Osman I, 217 Erythraeus, Ianus Nicius, 15

Estienne, Henri (Stephanus, Henricus), 540 Ethiopia, Ethiopians, 221, 287, 403, 421, 561, 584 Etruria, 329, 391, 499 Euclidas, 513 Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, 201, 294-297 Eumenius, 527, 618 Euripus Strait, 283, 579 Europe, European, 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 18, 27, 44, 63, 68, 95, 131, 165, 167, 183, 189, 221, 267, 275, 281, 357, 407, 485, 523, 529, 540, 599 Eusebius, 84, 548 Euthalitae Huns, 500-503 Eutropius, 85, 265, 558, 586, 591, 607 Evagrius Scholasticus, 560 examples (exempla), 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 43, 51, 55, 71, 73, 74, 75-77, 78, 81, 87, 88, 93, 97, 98, 102, 104-126, 149, 151, 155, 157, 540, 541, 543, 546, 573, 575, 579, 582, 589, 591, 593, 596, 602, 617 fictitious examples, 108, 109, 126 negative examples, 88, 123 unequal or unlikely examples (argumenta imparia), 93, 124, 126 Exner (Exnerus), Balthasar, 15 expedient, see useful experience (usus), 6, 32, 33, 48, 51, 64, 65, 77, 105, 211, 227, 235, 257-269, 275, 297, 301, 303, 359, 383, 467, 563, 570, 571, 576, 578 Ezzelino III da Romano, 502-505 Fabius Cunctator, Quintus, 237 Fabius Dorsuo, Quintus (immo Gaius), 163, 547 Fabricius, Georg, 129 Facio Bartolomeo (Faccius, Bartolomeus), 265 Fafila, prince of Galicia, 499 faithfulness (fides), 7, 8, 12, 13, 40, 41, 44, 49, 56, 58, 59, 68, 70, 78, 79, 93, 94, 100, 103, 124, 159, 277, 283, 293, 305, 337, 349, 375, 395, 438-459, 473, 503, 505, 541, 604, 605 Falisci, 443 Fama postuma, 39

669

General index fame, reputation (fama), 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 41, 46, 47, 49, 51, 149, 167, 189, 235, 239, 269, 361, 455, 477, 507, 513, 517, 521, 523, 525, 569, 588, 615, 616, 617 Faramundus, see Pharamond, King of the Francs Far East, 183, 185 Farnese, Alexander, Duke of Parma, 63, 64, 311 fate (fatum), 6, 37, 42, 43, 44, 49, 53, 55, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 90, 93, 94, 100, 102, 105, 114, 163, 194-231, 245, 265, 307, 339, 341, 365, 409, 415, 429, 433, 435, 445, 451, 461, 473, 475, 505, 523, 554, 555, 556, 557, 559, 560, 561, 562 Faustina the Younger, wife of Marcus Aurelius, 69, 288-291, 579 fear, 6, 7, 12, 44, 49, 50, 60-64, 123, 159, 163, 175, 177, 179, 193, 233, 239, 245, 255, 275, 277, 287, 289, 291, 305, 323, 343, 345, 357, 359, 361, 371, 377, 419, 427, 429, 443, 449, 451, 453, 455, 463, 507, 545, 577, 588, 592, 596, 598 female rule, 6, 10, 16, 68-71, 73, 74, 80, 282299, 579 Ferdinand I, King of Aragon, 120, 149, 311, 322-325, 540 Ferdinand I of León, Count of Castile, 447, 503 Ferdinand II, King of Aragon, 169, 253, 267, 297, 473, 569, 613 Ferdinand IV, King of Castile, 417 Fernández de Córdoba, Gonzalo (Gonsalvo), the Great Captain, 297, 497, 613 Fernando, Duke of Alba, 63, 313, 603 Ferrarius, Georgius, 613 Ferrer,Vincent, 311 Fès, Kingdom of, 471 fictional speeches, see historical speeches fidelity, see faithfulness Figueroa, Garcia, 28 Filelfo, Francesco, 543 Flanders, Flemish, 317, 332-337, 359, 387, 495, 583 flattery (adulatio), flatterers (adulatores), 9, 89, 175, 195, 245, 297, 319, 323, 359, 373, 461, 588, 593, 607

Flavius Josephus, 84, 285, 547, 579, 586, 587, 589 Flectio, Portuguese nobleman, 451, 605 Flood, the, 273 Florence, Florentine, 49, 179, 552, 613 Florian, brother of Emperor Tacitus, 307 Florus, historiographer, 85, 559, 561, 567, 586, 605 Florus, Latin poet, 568 Fonte, Bartolommeo della (Fontius), 106 forbearance (patientia), 8, 40, 70, 80, 81, 90, 92, 100, 423, 435, 489, 511-519, 555, 602, 603, 615 Forcalquier, 584 force, see violence Fornazeris, Jacques de, 131 fortitude (fortitudo), 11, 40, 563, 580, 605 Fortuna, Roman goddess, 51, 55 fortune (fortuna), 7, 11, 16, 20, 29, 43, 51, 52, 55, 56, 78, 79, 82, 93, 94, 104, 125, 195, 197, 201, 205, 209, 213, 215, 219, 227, 235, 253, 267, 293, 307, 351, 361, 387, 425, 431, 445, 447, 449, 451, 453, 461, 465, 545, 554, 557, 558, 559, 563, 564, 600, 607, 608, 609 fox, 12, 132 Foucois, Gui, see Clement IV, Pope Fox Morcillo, Sebastián, 12, 65, 543, 571, 575, 576, 577, 578, 588 Frachetta, Girolamo, 84 Fraga, 337 France, French (Galli), 65, 78, 86, 109, 131, 213, 281, 291, 301, 332-337, 355, 357, 401, 407, 411, 417, 435, 452-455, 465, 471, 473, 497, 598 French Civil Wars, 63 France, Jérôme de, 28 Francis I, King of France, 213, 452-455, 574 Frangipani, Giovanni, 475, Frankfurt, 131, 132, 133, 585, 598, 600, 614 Frankish, Franks, 86, 167 fraud (fraus), 7, 12, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 49, 56-59, 74, 79, 114, 159, 199, 203, 223, 229, 231, 235, 295, 303, 317, 327-343, 389, 409, 413, 439, 441, 443, 447, 449, 455, 473, 495, 499, 501, 503, 563, 585 Fredegund (Fredegundis), Merovingian queen, 291

670

General index Frederick I Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, 409, 415, 481 Frederick II, Duke of Austria, 473, 475 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, 193, 317, 367, 409, 473, 519, 554 Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, 355 Frederick, Count Palatine, 415 free will, 51-56, 81, 90, 556 Freherus, Marquardus, 83, 603 Fromondus, Libertus, 46 Frontinus, 16 Fulgosus, Baptista (Battista Fregoso), 15, 16, 604 Fulvia, wife of Mark Antony, 287 Fulvius, Quintus, 211 Gabii, 261 Gabinius, Aulus, 425 Gaeta, 437 Gaiseric (Ganzericus), King of the Vandals and Alans, 219 Gala, king of the Massylii, 199 Galatia, 609 Galba, Roman Emperor, 307, 309, 393 Galicia, 387, 499 Gall, Fridericus, 128 Gallic, see Gauls (Galli), Gallic Gallienus, Roman Emperor, 295, 307 Galswintha (Galsuinda), wife of King Chilperic, 291 Garamantes, 199 García, Juan, 459 García, King of Gascony, 503 García, son of Ferdinand I of León, 447 Garibay y Zamalloa, Esteban, 606 Garnier, Robert, Gascony, 503 Gauls (Galli), Gallic, 163, 213, 307, 347, 431, 455, 467, 501, 609 Gaultier, Léonard, 131 Gedeon, Biblical judge, 343 Gelimer, King of the Vandals and Alans, 467, 609 Gelre, 353, 355 generosity, see beneficence

Gentillet, Innocent, 13, 48 Genua, 115, 269 George of Trebizond (Georgius Trapezuntius), 265 Germanicus, Nero Claudius Drusus, 363 Germany, German, Germans, 85, 167, 225, 253, 267, 303, 307, 309, 317, 329, 330-333, 335, 395, 407, 453, 473, 481, 483, 540, 581, 585, 595 German war, 165 Germiyan, 205 Gertrude, wife of King Andrew of Hungary, 388-391 Gesta Romanorum, 14 Ghent, 355, 453, 608 Gilderun Chan, see Bayezid I Giles of Rome (Aegidius Romanus), 10, 100 Giovanni Angelo de’ Medici, Cardinal, 221 Giovio, Paulo (Iovius, Paulus), 83, 85, 86, 107, 115, 269, 552, 584, 613 Goezius, Georgius, 136 Golden Fleece, 409, 485 Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius, 239 Granada, 299, 613 Gratianus, Roman Emperor, 393 Grave, 353, 355 Grégoire, Pierre (Petrus Gregorius Tholosanus), 84, 606 Gregory I, Pope, 14 Gregory IX, Pope, 554 Gruterus, Janus, 83 Godfrey (Godefridus), Duke of Lorraine and Bouillon, 165, 548 Godfrey of Viterbo, 9, 595 Goes, Damião de (Damianus à Goes), 83, 584 Gotholia, see Athalia Goths, Gothic, 83, 169, 219, 281, 387 Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de, Cardinal, 4 greed (avaritia), 275, 277, 287, 495, 577 Greek, Greek world, 15, 84, 86, 95, 163, 167, 211, 237, 243, 259, 261, 293, 335, 357, 361, 373, 441, 463, 469, 477, 481, 483, 509, 513, 515, 523, 525, 527, 529, 558, 574, 579, 603 Gregoras, Nicephorus, 80, 85, 86, 89, 130, 177, 195, 213, 551, 556, 559, 614 Grotius, Hugo, 133, 134

671

General index Guacae, 187 Guarino da Verona, 11, 18, 106 Guarino, Battista, 18 Guicciardini, Francesco, 4, 13, 18, 20, 38, 83, 84, 85, 552 gynaecocracy, see female rule Habsburg dynasty, 4, 22, 44-47, 64, 87, 119, 149, 169, 203, 463, 497, 540, 549, 602 Hacqueville, Nicolas de, 28, 29, 35, 84, 95, 98, 99, 105, 542, 572 Hadrian, Roman Emperor, 82, 103, 279, 367, 437, 591, 598, 604 Hadrian, teacher of Charles V, 115, 269 Hainault, 333 Halberstadt, 415 Hamilcar of Carthage, 197, 443 Hanapus, Nicolaus, 15, 16, 84 Hannibal of Carthage, 56, 81, 210-213, 237, 556, 559 Hanno of Carthage, 443 Harpago, 215 Harpalus, Macedonian aristocrat, 375 Hasdrubal of Carthage, 56, 210-213, 443, 455 hatred, 60, 61, 62, 171, 197, 239, 245, 275, 277, 301, 335, 359, 361, 399, 409, 509, 576, 595, 596, 612 haughtiness (superbia), 193, 257, 301, 361, 377, 461, 469, 487, 513 Hebdomon, 295 Hebrew, 287, 305, 393, 511 Hegesippus, 84 Heinsius, Daniel, 132 Helena, wife of Emperor Julian the Apostate, 495 Heliogabalus, Roman Emperor, 588 Henry I, Archbishop of Mainz, 415 Henry I, Holy Roman Emperor, 323 Henry I, King of Castile, 471, 475 Henry II, King of England, 171 Henry III, King of Castile, 311, 323, 584 Henry III, King of France, 471, 609 Henry IV, King of France, 129, 130, 165, 281, 547

Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, 481 (immo Henry VI), 483 (immo Henry VI), 610 Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, 317, 481, 483, 591, 610 Henry VII, King of Sicily and Germany, 367 Henry, brother of Peter (the Cruel), King of Castile and León, 471 Henry, King of Portugal, 313, Henry of Huntingdon, see Huntingdon, Henry of Heraclius, Byzantine Emperor, 281 hereditary succesion, see succession heretics, 36, 51, 63, 75, 227 Hermes Trismegistus, see Trismegistus, Hermes Hermogius, Bishop of Thuy, 499 Herod (Herodes) I (the Great), King of Judea, 331, 360-363, 589 Herodian, 85, 489 Herodotus, 84, 107, 319, 553, 558, 560, 583, 585, 609 Herold, Johannes, 16 Hersfeld, Lampert von, see Lambert of Aschaffenburg Herwagen, Joannes, 585 Heuterus, Pontus, 87, 587, 594, 614 Hibernicus, Thomas, see Thomas of Ireland Hicetas (Icetas) of Syracuse, 219 Hieron I, King of Syracuse, 369, 525 Hilary, Bishop of Arles, 297 Hincmar of Rheims, Hishem, son of King Al-Mamún of Toledo, 449, Hispani, see Spain, Spaniards historical examples, see examples historical speeches, 111-112, 126, 547, 561, 565, 566, 567, 586, 593, 595, 596, 604, 606 imaginary historical speeches, 111 Historiographus Regius, see Royal Historiographer history (historia), 6, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31-33, 44, 48, 51, 74, 75-77, 78, 84, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 100, 104-113, 117, 257-269, 393, 521, 542, 545, 563, 570, 571, 572 Hoius, Andreas, 46

672

General index Holland, States of, 23 Hoogenhuysen, Andreas van, 128, 135-136 Holy Land, 165, 337, 353, 389 Holy Virgin, see Mary, Holy Virgin Holy Writ, see Bible Homer, 70, 71, 112, 261, 327, 373, 383, 395, 439, 491, 525, 562, 573, 585, 592, 594, 603 Horace, 97, 525, 527, 573, 610, 617 Horatius Cocles, 124 Hörmann, J.A., 128 Hostilius, Tullus, Roman King, 197, 557 Hota, wife of Rahus Benxamutius, 504-507 Hotman, François, 84 Hrotswitha of Gandersheim, 614 humaneness, humanity (humanitas), 92, 116, 373, 399, 423, 425, 437, 495, 604 Hungary, Hungarians, 83, 86, 136, 207, 223, 319, 389, 391, 453, 584, 595 Huntingdon, Henry of, 608 Hunyadi, John, father of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 267

Isabella I, Queen of Castile, 69, 70, 79, 80, 104, 107, 203, 253, 267, 297, 491, 569, 575, 580, 613 Isabella, Archduchess, 22, 35, 39, 45, 46, 47, 64, 82, 91, 134, 540, 580, 581, 609 Isabella, wife of Manuel I of Portugal, 203, 253 Isabella of Portugal, spouse of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 540 Isidore of Seville, 16 Isis, 181 Isocrates, 9, 106, 571 Istanbul, see Constantinople Italy, Italian, 10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 41, 83, 85, 86, 104, 131, 167, 199, 209, 210-213, 235, 267, 275, 285, 309, 321, 343, 347, 373, 391, 429, 459, 469, 473, 475, 481, 497, 503, 515, 563, 578, 581 Iuncaria, 499

Icetas, see Hicetas (Icetas) of Syracuse Iesabel, see Jezebel Ilerda, 427 Illyria, 307 imaginary historical speeches, see historical speeches impiety (impietas), see piety Inca kings, 187 India, Indians, 78, 183, 185, 207, 451, 553 infant kings, 59, 67, 301, 315, 323, 582 Ingolstadt, 253, 569 injustice, see justice → injustice Innocent IV, Pope, 451 Inquisition, 63 Insubres, 481 insult, insulter, see calumny, calumniator interregnum, 66, 67, 303, 315, 580 irreligion (irreligio), see impiety Isaac II Angelos (Isaacius Angelus), Byzantine Emperor, 591 Isaac Komnenos, son of John II Komnenos, 319, Isabeau of Bavaria, 614

Jacques de Vitry, 14, 15 Jaddus, 161 Jaén, 417 James II, Count of Urgell, 311 James II (the Just), King of Aragon and Valencia, 411, 600 James, Saint, 485, 503 Janissaries (Genitzari), 185, 349, 351, 453 Japan (Iaponia), Japanese, 65, 187, 553 Jason, 485 Jena, 4, 92, 105, 128, 136 Jerome, Church Father, 16 Jerusalem, 161, 191, 203, 353, 548, 584 Jesuits, 4, 13, 38, 39, 59, 132, 136 Jesus Christ, see Christ Jews, Jewish, 28, 84, 161, 163, 183, 189, 191, 275, 331, 547, 558 Jihangir (Giangir), Şehzade, Ottoman Prince, son of Süleyman I and Roxelana, 339 Jiménez de Rada, Rodrigo (Rodericus Toletanus), 79, 85, 411, 586, 600 Joab, army leader under King David, 421 Joachim, abbot, 317 Joan of Arc, 50, 81 Joan I, Queen of Naples, 293, 579

673

General index Joan II (Jeanne II), Queen of Naples, 69, 283, 293, 579 Joan, daughter of Baldwin VIII, Count of Flanders and Hainault, 332-337 Joan(na) the Mad, Queen of Castile, 203 Joash (Ioas), King of Judah, 285 John, brother of Sancho, King of Castile, 251 John I, Duke of Cleves, 19, 353 John I, King of Castile, 471 John I, King of France, 102, 455 John II, King of Castile, 322-325 John II Komnenos (Comnenus), Byzantine Emperor, 319 John VII Palaeologus (Andronicus), Byzantine Emperor, 509 John (Joannes), brother of King Sancho IV of Castile John (Joannes), Duke of Bragança, 310-313 John (Joannes), son of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, 253 John (Johannes), son of Henry III, King of Castile, 323, 584 John of Leiden, 50, 81 John of Salisbury, 10, 14, 15, 19 John of Wales, 14, 17, 19 John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, 507, 614 Jonson, Ben, 3 Joseph, King of the Moors, 459 Juan, son of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, 569 Judea (Judaea), 161, 165, 331, 343, 360-363 Judith, wife of Charlemagne, 319 Jugurtha, King of Numidia, 199, 469, 609 Julia the Elder, daughter of Emperor Augustus, 327 Julian, Count of Ceuta, 221, 560 Julian the Apostate, Roman Emperor, 485, 495 Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, 309, 582 Julius, 219, 560 Julius II, Pope, 169 Junius, Melchior, 17 Juno, 155, 157 Jupiter, 461, 607 justice (iustitia), 7, 10, 13, 38, 40, 43, 44, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 74, 82, 91, 93, 94, 96, 100, 114,

115, 116, 159, 163, 239, 241, 275, 283, 293, 297, 303, 367, 372-381, 382-405, 409, 419, 437, 439, 443, 563, 565, 577, 590, 592, 595, 596, 597, 599, 601, 604, 612 divine justice (iustitia divina), 7, 40, 41, 43, 44, 351, 413, 415-417, 600 injustice (iniustitia), 7, 57, 58, 165, 201, 237, 249, 275, 277, 297, 315, 327, 337, 367, 375, 399, 409, 419, 457, 511, 515 iustitia generalis, legalis, 60 iustitia particularis, 60 Justin, 84, 86, 107, 259, 319, 548, 557, 558, 560, 573, 583, 586, 588, 609, 617 Justin II (Curopalates), Byzantine Emperor, 411 Justinian, Byzantine Emperor, 269, 407, 409, 467, 600 Juvenal, 94, 546, 557 Kaffa, 349 Kavadh I, King of Persia, 501 Keckermann, Bartholomaeus, 76, 114 Kerll, Michael, 98 Khan of the Tartars, 357 Khosrow I (Chosroes), Emperor of Persia, 269 Knights Templar, 417, 601 Knox, John, 68 Koran (Alcoranus), 171, 183, 185, 227 Korkut, brother of Selim I, 349, 351 Kortrijk, 355 Košice (Slovakia), 128, 136 Krauss, Justinus Theodorus, 136 Kromer, Marcin (Cromerus, Martinus), 86, 604, 609 Lacedaemonians, see Sparta, Spartans Laconia, 243 Lactantius, 558 Ladislas I, King of Hungary, 319 Laelius Maior, Gaius, 199, 201 Laevinus,Valerius, 211, 425 Lagos (Lagus), father of Ptolemy I Soter, 319, 515 Lambert of Aschaffenburg (Lampert von Hersfeld), 85, 87, 415, 601

674

General index Lampridius, Aelius, 359, 400, 549 Landric, Merovingian nobleman, 291 Lannoy, Philippe de, 572 Laodice of Cappadocia, wife of King Ariarathes VI, 283 Largius Proculus, 225 Latins, 229, 245 law, laws (lex, leges), 4, 7, 32, 40, 49, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67, 69, 78, 80, 115, 116, 161, 183, 227, 239, 247, 265, 279, 281, 303, 309, 315, 337, 341, 349, 371, 373, 375, 383, 395, 397, 399, 403, 407-413, 415, 419, 447, 475, 565, 578, 592, 596, 597, 599, 600 divine law, 10, 44, 48, 57, 58, 59, 69, 227, 237 human law, 58, 227 law of nations, 69, 317, 319 living law (viva lex), 599 natural law, law of nature, 48, 58, 69, 77 not bound by any law (legibus solutus), 41, 592 learning (doctrina, eruditio), 88, 105, 125, 257269, 297, 311, 570, 571, 572, 575, 580 Leiden, 1, 4, 5, 36, 39, 63, 78, 83, 92, 96, 98, 128, 132, 133, 136, 139, 544, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 553, 554, 557, 558, 560, 569, 575, 578, 582, 585, 587, 594, 595, 605, 608, 609, 614, 618 Leipzig, 133 Leo I, Byzantine Emperor, 8, 529 Leo I, Pope, 297 Leo V the Armenian, Byzantine Emperor, 385 Leo Africanus, Johannes, 83, 227 Leodius, Hubertus Thomas, 603 León, 503 Leontius, 201 Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius, member of the second triumvirate, 457, 459 Lessius, Leonardus, 57, 60 Lethe, prison, 501 Leunclavius, Johannes, 83, 85, 86, 549, 553, 586, 587, 594, 598, 609 Leuven, see Louvain Liber exemplorum, 14 liberality, see beneficence lie (mendacium), 56, 201, 211, 237, 439, 507

Linz, 128, 137 lion, 12, 132, 437 Lipsius, works Ad Annales Corn.Taciti liber commentarius, sive notae, 23, 24, 40, 47, 105, 106, 110, 118, 543, 570, 571 Ad libros Politicorum breves notae, 32, 37, 50, 80-81, 85, 86, 95, 105, 106, 112, 113, 123, 541, 543, 544, 545, 547, 549, 550, 551, 552, 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 562, 564, 569, 570, 571, 572, 575, 576, 580, 587, 588, 589, 591, 595, 596, 597, 599, 600, 601, 604, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 615, 616, 617 [Admiranda in virtutibus et vitiis], 28 [Admiranda sive de magnitudine Hebraea], 27 Admiranda sive de magnitudine Romana, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 82, 100, 112, 118, 129, 130, 134, 540, 542, 553, 563, 570, 573, 574, 590, 592, 603, 617, 618 Adversus Dialogistam liber de una religione, 37, 50, 51, 80-81, 87, 146, 173, 179, 544, 545, 546, 550, 551, 552 Centuriae miscellaneae, 29 C. Cornelii Taciti Opera quae exstant, 24, 34, 105, 112, 132 C(aius) Velleius Paterculus cum Animadversionibus, 117 De Bibliothecis Syntagma, 115, 603 De Calumnia oratio, 615, 616 De Constantia, 5, 34, 35, 40, 45, 52, 55, 68, 81-82, 87, 95, 122, 129, 132, 134, 542, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 561, 562, 563, 564, 570, 583, 592, 600, 603 [De Institutione principis], 572 De Militia Romana, 24, 25, 27, 34, 35, 39, 45, 46, 118, 134, 554, 603 [De (recta) institutione iuventutis libri tres], 572 Dispunctio notarum Mirandulani codicis ad Cornelium Tacitum, 115 Dissertatiuncula apud Principes, 35, 39, 46, 64, 82, 91, 129, 135, 540, 541, 590, 591, 598

675

General index Diva Virgo Hallensis, 5, 46 Diva Virgo Sichemensis sive Aspricollis, 5, 45, 46, 47 Electorum liber secundus, 92 Epistolarum selectarum centuria quinta miscel­ lanea postuma, 615 Epistolicae quaestiones, 106 [Exemplorum et Consiliorum Liber], 78, 98 [Fax historica], 27, 39 Institutio epistolica, 97 Leges Regiae, 135 [Liber Locorum Communium], 78, 98 Lovanium, 5, 26, 47, 115, 122, 542 L. Annaei Senecae philosophi opera quae exstant omnia, 29, 30, 90, 95, 602 Manuductio ad Stoicam philosophiam, 5, 29, 82, 90, 95, 132, 542, 568 [Monita et exempla politica de re militari], 41, 100 Opera omnia, 134-135, 136 Opera omnia quae ad criticam proprie spec­ tant, 92 Panegyricus, 44, 46, 82, 129, 544, 590 Physiologia Stoicorum, 5, 29, 55, 81-82, 90, 95, 132, 555, 556, 557 Poliorceticωn, 130 Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36-39, 40, 44, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 79, 80-81, 87, 88, 89, 90, 95, 98, 99-101, 115, 117, 120, 127, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 151, 155, 157, 395, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 550, 551, 552, 555, 556, 559, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 568, 570, 571, 572, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 583, 585, 587, 588, 589, 591, 592, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 603, 604, 607, 608, 610, 611, 612, 613, 615, 616, 617 [Thrasea], 568 Lisbon, 613 Livia Drusilla, 329, 363 Livius Drusus, Marcus, 75, 233, 245 living law, see law, → living law

Livius Salinator, Roman consul, 213 Livy, 80, 85, 86, 88, 95, 177, 267, 275, 383, 403, 439, 485, 543, 547, 551, 557, 559, 567, 584, 586, 587, 603, 605, 613 Locri, 373 Lombards, 265 London, Treaty of, 84 Lopadium, 339 López de Dávalos, Ruy, Count of Ribadeo, 323, 459, 606 López de Gómara, Francisco, 83, 553, 581 Lothar I, Holy Roman Emperor, 407 Louis II, King of Hungary, 223 Louis III, Duke of Anjou and King of Naples, 311 Louis IV the Bavarian, Holy Roman Emperor, 311 Louis V, Margrave of Brandenburg, 333 Louis VIII, King of France, 332-337 Louis IX, the Saint, King of France, 163, 165, 547, 597 Louis XI, King of France, 175, 355 Louis XII, King of France, 435 Louis XIV, King of France, 77 Louis the Pious, King of the Franks, 319, 321 Louvain (Lovanium), 4, 5, 26, 36, 39, 46, 47, 63, 83, 92, 128, 129, 151, 599, 608 love, 6, 8, 10, 12, 41, 60-64, 78, 79, 82, 90, 91, 116, 159, 167, 203, 215, 239, 245, 265, 283, 287, 301, 315, 345, 353, 375, 399, 433, 577, 582, 596, 603 marital love (caritas), 70, 103, 201, 249, 293, 345, 377, 491, 499-509, 568, 612, 614 Low Countries, see Netherlands Lucanus, 237, 564 Luceius, ancient Spanish prince, 495 Lucian, 543, 615, 616 Lucil(l)ius, partisan of Marcus Iunius Brutus, 444-447 Lucilius Iunior, friend of Seneca, 564 Lucretia, 505 Lucretius, 80, 552 Luctatius Cerco, Quintus, 443 Lucullus, Lucius Licinius, 259 Luftibeius, Ottoman military leader, 453

676

General index Luna, 391 Lusitani, see Portugal, Portuguese Lutheran, Lutherans, 4, 50, 51, 548 Luxembourg, 583 Lycia, Lycians, 219, 239 Lycosthenes, Conrad, 16, 84, 96 Lycurgus of Sparta, 323 Lydgate, John, 16 Lydia, 467 Lyon, 127, 131, 135, 606 Lysimachus, companion and ‘successor’ of Alexander the Great, 345, 617 Lysimachus, son of Arsinoe, 347 Macedonia, Macedonians, 28, 161, 243, 293, 305, 327, 335, 345, 347, 361, 373, 375, 401, 463, 469, 513, 515, 586, 612 Machetas, 375 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 38, 41, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 75, 83, 86, 121, 235, 540, 545, 546, 551, 552, 557, 562, 563, 564, 581, 582, 588, 596, 600, 604, 611, 613, 617 Machiavellian, Machiavellism, 38, 47, 48, 50, 58, 61, 89, 114, 545, 548, 551 Maecenas, 227, 511 Maeonius, nephew of King Odenathus of Palmyra, 295 Magians, 319 magnanimity (magnitudo animi), 8, 38, 47, 79, 82, 100, 179, 259, 261, 361, 435, 449, 489, 521529, 612, 616, 617 Mahumetes, see Muhammad, Mehmed II Mainz, 415, 479 Maire, Jean, 127, 128, 132-134 majesty (maiestas), 7, 62, 63, 305, 335, 361, 431, 441, 484-487, 513, 577, 597, 601, 611, 612, 615 Malabars, 185 Mamaconae, 187 Mamaea, Iulia, mother of Alexander Severus, 281 Mamertinus, Claudius, Roman panegyrist, 521 Manfred, King of Naples and Sicily, uncle of Duke Conradin of Swabia, 473

Manilius, Gislenus, 608 Manta, 187 Manuel I, King of Portugal, 203, 253, 491, 505, 613 Manuel I Komnenos (Comnenus), Byzantine Emperor, 229, 319 Marc, Prince of Hungary, son of Stephen IV, King of Hungary, 115, 595 Marcellus, Marcus, 96, 423, 425, 603 Marchantius, Jacobus, 583 Marcian (Marcianus Augustus), Roman Emperor, 219, 297, 560 Marcilius, Theodorus, 618 Marcius Philippus, Quintus, 439 Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 263, 289, 575 Margaret of Bavaria, 614 Maria of Aragon, second wife of Manuel I of Portugal, 70, 203, 491, 613 Maria of Spain, spouse of Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor, 540 Mariamne I, wife of King Herod I of Judea, 331 Mariana, Juan de, 12, 19, 50, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 71, 83, 84, 86, 103, 545, 546, 549, 551, 560, 563, 576, 577, 578, 581, 582, 583, 584, 588, 593, 601, 605, 606, 609, 614 Marineo Siculo (Marinaeus Siculus), 86, 104, 107, 253, 569, 575, 580 marital love (caritas), see love → love, marital Marius, Gaius, 94, 96, 196-199, 389, 425, 469, 557 Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius), 60, 96, 104, 209, 238-241, 284-287, 444-447, 454-457, 459, 565, 579, 605 Mars, 201, 263, 483 Martial, 607 Martin the Elder, King of Aragon, 311 Martinus, teacher of Alfonso X, King of Castile, 267 Marulus, Marcus, 15, 16, 17 Mary, Holy Virgin, 5, 46, 497 Mary of Hungary, 584 masses, the, see populace Masinissa, King of Numidia, 198-201, 469, 557

677

General index Matthew of Paris, 83, 87, 554, 594, 608 Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 267 Maximian, Roman Emperor, 590 Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, 122 Maximilian I, Emperor, 120, 463, 497, 608, 613 Maximilian II, Emperor, 4, 24, 149, 540 Medea, 285 Medes, 279 Medici (Medicaei), 79, 179 medieval, Middle Ages, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 35, 62, 85, 86, 102, 545, 558, 580, 585, 589, 594, 595, 601, 615 Medina Sidonia (Methymna Sidonia), Dukes of, 115, 253, 569 Megara, 477 Mehmed II (Mahumetes), Ottoman Sultan, 116, 269, 379, 594 Mehmed (Muhammad), son of Abdallah, 183, 193, 227, 349, 413, 505, 553 Mehmed (Muhammad), son of Abdallah, from Fès, 470-473 Mehmed, Şehzaden, Ottoman Prince, son of Süleyman I and Roxelana, 339 Melanchthon, Philippus, 17, 18, 97, 118, 119 Melos, 331 Memmius, Gaius, 373 Menas, freedman of Pompey, 445 Mencia, wife of King Sancho II of Portugal, 451 mental reservation (restrictio mentalis), 57 Menteşe, 205 Mercurinus, Governor of Castro, 453 mercy (misericordia), 7, 87, 90, 92, 116, 307, 341, 385, 435, 437 Messalina,Valeria, wife of Emperor Claudius, 70, 125, 283, 286-289, 489, 579 metaphor, 32, 81, 126, 543, 544, 558, 591, 597 maritime metaphor, 126, 132, 577 theatrical metaphor, 43, 105, 126, 558, 607 Metellus Macedonicus, Quintus Caecilius, 327 Metellus Nepos, Quintus Caecilius, 15, 247 Meto, 409 Meursius, Johannes, 127 Meuse, 355 Mexicans, 189

Meyerus, Jacobus, 583, 588 Michelle of Valois, wife of Philip the Good, 507, 614 Mieszko II Lambert, King of Poland, 309 Miguel (Michael), son of Manuel I of Portugal and Isabella, 203 Milan, Milanese, 431, 481, 582, 600 Duchy of Milan, 455 Miltiades, 521 Minerva, 491 Minucius, Roman military leader, 237 Minucius Felix, 81, 195, 555 Miraeus, Aubertus, 46 Miriam, sister of Moses, 421 mirror for princes, 2, 3, 8-14, 19, 21, 32, 33, 60, 84, 91, 100, 119, 540, 543, 548, 550, 563, 571, 572, 573, 575, 593, 602 Misenum, 445 Mithridates II of Cius, 214-217 Mithridates VI (the Great), King of Parthia, 16, 217, 245, 259, 269, 345, 566, 575, 596 mixed prudence, see prudence → mixed prudence Mnester, 289 Modena (Mutina), 391 Battle of Mutina, 263, 574 moderation (moderatio), 11, 91, 423, 465, 521, 580, 597, 617 modesty (modestia), 7, 11, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 69, 70, 80, 100, 104, 159, 259, 297, 351, 431, 461483, 491, 513, 580, 607, 610, 611 Mohács, 223 Moldavia, 339 Monarchomach authors, 59, 60 monarchy (principatus), 6, 12, 37, 42, 44, 64, 65, 75, 80, 91, 273-281, 359, 361, 365-367, 576, 587, 608 absolute monarchy, 38, 60, 77, 592, 599 divine origin of, 42-44, 46, 82, 556, 607 Monime of Miletus, wife of Mithridates VI, 245, 566 Montaigne, Michel de, 13, 18, 542, 580, 591, 613, 614 Montano, Cola, 76

678

General index morally good (honestum), 11, 12, 13, 41, 48, 235, 563 Moors, 51, 53, 167, 169, 251, 253, 281, 299, 313, 417, 447, 449, 471, 499 More, Sir Thomas, 84 Moretus, Balthasar, 21, 31, 47, 128, 129, 130, 134, 135 Moretus, Jan, 30, 127, 129, 130, 131, 135 Morocco, Kingdom of, 471, 505 Moses, 64, 87, 88, 92, 193, 418-421, 602 Muchemetes, see Mehmed, Ottoman Sultan Muhammad (Mahumetes), see Mehmed (Muhammad) Mühlberg, Battle of, 50, 548 Muley Molucco, King of Fès and Morocco, 471 Munatius, Roman tribune, 247 Munda, Battle of, 263 Murad I, Ottoman Sultan, 51, 171 Murad II, Ottoman Sultan, 336-339 Murena, Lucius Licinius Minor, 247 Muret, Marc-Antoine (Muretus, Marcus Antonius), 4, 83, 543 Muscovites, 83, 323 Muses, 263, 562 Muslims, 51 Mustafa, son of Bayezid I Khan, 204-207, 337, 339 Mustafa, leader of the Ottoman Pashas, 351 Mustafa, son of Mehmed II, 116, 381 Mustafa, son of Süleyman I and Bosphorana, 339 Mustafa, see Pseudo-Mustafa Mutina, Battle of, see Modena (Mutina) → Battle of Mutina

Nepos, Cornelius, 564 Neptune, 243 Nero, Roman Emperor, 229, 347, 357, 363, 431, 568, 589 Netherlands, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 63, 87, 115, 135, 149, 379, 387, 453, 540, 541, 556 Neuenberg, Mathias von, 596 New Rome, see Constantinople New Testament, see Bible New World, 6, 53, 83, 187, 275, 299, 471, 485, 553, 554, 572 Nicaea, Council of, 171 Nicanor, 513 Nicetas Choniates, 85, 86, 89, 229, 301, 305, 481, 495, 562, 591 Nicocles, 243 Nicomedes, son of Prusias, tyrant of Bithynia, 345 Nijmegen, 353 Nimrod (Ninus), great-grandson of Noah, 273 Ninus, see Nimrod Noah, 273 Noort, Olivier van, 83 notebooks, 18, 29, 78-79, 97, 99, 544, 560, 569, 585, 586, 587, 605, 608 Nucio, Martin (Martinus Nutius), 581 Numa Pompilius, Roman King, 49, 50, 177, 261, 305, 551, 552 Numantia, 558 Numidia, Numidian, 201, 213, 323, 467 Nunnius Ferrerius, Alvarus, superintendent of the house of Dávalos, 459 Nuremberg, 393

Nadastus, Thomas, German general, 453 Namur, 355 Nangis, Guillaume de, 601 Naples, 297, 371, 403, 437, 473, 475, 481, 497, 579, 584 Natta, Marcantonio, 84 Naudé, Gabriel, 133 Navarre, Kingdom of, 299 Nemesis, 205, 213, 285

obedience (oboedientia), 6, 12, 40, 44, 50, 70, 81, 116, 159, 177, 181, 215, 233, 237, 277, 315, 349, 371, 377, 435, 461, 546, 550, 552, 555, 615 Ochozias, son of Queen Athalia, 285 Octavia the Younger, wife of Mark Antony, 287 Octavian, see Augustus Odenathus, Septimius, King of Palmyra, 293

679

General index Ogiva of Luxembourg (Ogina) Lucemburgica), wife of Baldwin IV the Bearded, Count of Flanders, 315, 583 Old Testament, see Bible oligarchy, 66 Oligati, Girolamo, 76 Olympias, wife of King Philip II of Macedon, 513 Olympic, 423 Olympic Games, 423, 523, Onomarchus, 167 Oostkamp, 387 Oporinus, Joannes, 591 Oppian, 527 Oppius, Gaius, 429 Orhan Gazi, second bey of the Ottoman empire, 51, 171 ordinary people, see populace Ordoño I, King of Asturias, 499 Oriental, Orientals, 84, 86, 95, 329, 345, 485 Orléans, 435 Orodes II, King of Parthia, 16, 343, 586, Oroetes, Persian Satrap, 205 Orosius, Paulus, 85, 558, 605, 607 Orsini, Fulvio, 83 Orsua, 347 Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire, 51, 171, 217 Osório da Fonseca, Jerónimo (Osorius, Hieronymus), 13, 83, 87, 553, 613, 614 Ostia, 289, 329 ostracism, 237, 275, 577 Otakar, King of Bohemia, 478-481 Otgiva of Luxembourg, see Ogiva of Luxembourg Otho (Otto) I, the Great, Holy Roman Emperor, 323, 585 Otho (Otto) III, Holy Roman Emperor, 391 Otho, Marcus Salvius, Roman Emperor, 309, 582 Otranto, 453 Ottoman, 55, 81, 85, 86, 102, 217, 553, 558, 600 Oudaert, Nicolaas, 24, 25, 30, 31, 542, 544 Oultreman, Henri d’, 30 Overijse, 4

Ovid, 485 Oxenedes, Joannes, 594 Pacatus Drepanius, Latinus, Roman panegyrist, 373, 487 Pacorus, son of Orodes II of Parthia, 343 Padua, 503 pagan, 6, 10, 51, 87, 102, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 167, 193, 546, 551, 560 Pagodas, 185 Palencia, 471 Pallas, freedman of Emperor Claudius, 487 Panaetius, 525 Panegyricus Latinus anonymus, 365, 590 Panormita, Antonio Il (Antonius Panormita), 265 Panthea, 491 Panvinio, Onofrio (Panvinius, Onufrius), 83, 85, 608 Papirius Maso, Gaius, 443 Pappus, Mount, 467, 609 Papua, 609 Paradise, 183 Paris, 127, 129, 139, 265, 309, 321, 613 Parmenio, Macedonian general, 161, 493, 547 Parthia, Parthians, 278-281, 285, 287, 343, 489 Paruta, Paolo, 84 Parysatis, Persian Queen, wife of Darius II, King of Persia, 319 Patareans, 239 patience, patientia, see forbearance Patrizzi, Francesco, 11, 12, 111, 114, 543, 571 Paul II, Pope, 355 Paul IV, Pope, 207, 221 Paullinus, 200-203 Paul the Deacon (Paulus Diaconus), 265, 575, 611 Paulus Aemilius Veronensis, 85, 86, 547, 548, 549, 575, 584, 586, 613 Pausanias, King of Sparta, 163, 547 Pausanias, friend of Philip II, King of Macedon, 469 peace (pax), 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 31, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 65, 79, 90, 91, 98, 161, 237, 267, 301, 311, 361, 365, 427, 439, 443, 445, 447, 525, 541, 577, 603

680

General index Pelayo (Pelagius),Visigoth King of Asturias, Saint, 281, 499, 614 Peleus, 515 Pella, Lucius, Roman praetor, 241 Peloponnesians, 423 Penelope, 70, 305 peregrinatio, see travel Pérez de Guzmán, Alonso, first Duke of Medina Sidonia, 115, 569 Pérez de Guzmán, Alonso, seventh Duke of Medina Sidonia, 251, 569 Pericles, 88, 420-423, 485, 491, 515, 523, 527, 573, 602 Péronne, 337 Perseus, King of Macedon, 327, 439, 469, 612 Persia, Persians, 28, 65, 163, 183, 202-205, 215, 269, 279, 281, 295, 305, 319, 351, 375, 441, 487, 501, 513, 521, 596, 612 Persius, 591 Pertau Pasha, 341 Pertinax, Roman Emperor, 309 Peruvian, Peruvians, 187, 305, 553 pessimism, cultural pessimism, 31, 543, 618 Peter, Governor of Oostkamp, 387 Peter, Saint, 465 Peter (the Cruel), King of Castile and León, 471 Petrarch, Francesco, 15, 16, 60, 100, 265, 560, 573, 574, 575, 603, 613, 615 Petreius, Marcus, 427 Pharas the Herulian, 467 Pharamond (Faramundus), King of the Francs, 281 Pharnaces I, King of Pontus, 345 Pharsalus, Battle of, 239, 427 Phile, wife of King Demetrius I of Macedon, 70, 293 Philip I, King of Portugal, see Philip II, King of Spain Philip II, King of Macedon, 79, 82, 94, 96, 167, 258-161, 279, 375, 401, 423, 461, 463, 469, 513, 515, 523, 548, 573, 596, 598, 602 Philip II, King of Spain, 24, 27, 46, 53, 63, 129, 203, 221, 252-255, 310-313, 540, 548, 557, 569, 570, 581, 609

Philip III, King of Spain, 24, 35, 45, 122, 281, 554 Philip IV (Philip the Fair), King of France, 417, 601 Philip V, King of Macedon, 211, 361, 485, 559, 589, 612 Philip, son of Arsinoe, 347 Philip, son of King Perseus of Macedon, 327 Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, 79, 353, 507, 614 Philip the Handsome, Archduke of Habsburg, 203 Philippi, 221 Battle of Philippi, 209, 221, 251, 285, 445 Philippopolis, 219 philology, philological, 1, 4, 24, 25, 34, 83, 121 Philopoemen, 110, 111, 125, 261, 476-479, 574, 610 philosophy, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 90, 114, 259, 261, 263, 269, 289, 542 Philoxenus, military commander under Alexander the Great, 493 Phocaeans, 167 Phocion of Athens, 96, 240-243, 566 Phoenixes, 491 Phraatax, son of Praates IV of Parthia, 343 Phraates IV, King of Parthia, 114, 343, 587 Pianosa, 327 Piccolomini, Enea Silvio, 11, 616 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, 4, 53, 555 piety (pietas), pious (pius), 6, 11, 40, 44, 50, 51, 64, 75, 79, 82, 100, 121, 159, 163, 167, 175, 177, 179, 295, 311, 347, 349, 351, 439, 441, 447, 449, 471, 489, 493, 523, 545, 548, 549, 551, 554, 562, 563, 580 excessive piety, impiety (impietas), 6, 40, 43, 52, 75, 79, 89, 175, 177, 192-193, 353, 355, 357, 433, 545, 551, 554, 587 pietas Albertina, 46 pietas Austriaca, 46 Pighius, Stephanus, 92, 606 Pindar, 369 Pippin, King of the Lombards, 321 Pippin the Hunchback, son of Charlemagne, 433

681

General index Piraeus, 525 Pisa, 475 Pisistratus, 327, 513, 585 Pistorius, Joannes, 83 Pithou, Pierre, 83, 85, 549 Pius IV, Pope, 207, 221 Plantin, Christophe, 132, 606 Plantin Press, 583, 614 Plasencia, 465 Plataea, 163 Platina, Bartolomeo, 608 Plato, 68, 100, 117, 269, 407, 409, 599 plebs, see populace Pliny the Elder, 84, 181, 263, 543, 574, 575, 608 Pliny the Younger, 9, 12, 39, 44, 82, 97, 541, 590, 591, 607 Plotius, Gaius, Roman soldier, 94, 389, 595 Plutarch, 19, 52, 68, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 88, 92, 94, 95-97, 103, 104, 110, 111, 123, 175, 261, 285, 365, 485, 489, 545, 547, 550, 557, 559, 560, 561, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 572, 573, 574, 579, 582, 583, 584, 585, 587, 592, 593, 595, 598, 599, 602, 603, 605, 607, 609, 610, 615, 616, 617 Poland, Polonians, 86, 301, 303, 309, 357, 435, 609 Pole, Reginald, 13 political wisdom, see prudence Poliziano, Angelo, 106 Pollio, Gaius Asinius, 295, 517 Pollux Grammaticus, 579 Polybius, 39, 84, 85, 113, 177, 239, 361, 521, 525, 543, 552, 589 Polycrates, King of Samos, 16, 205, 471, 558, 609 Pompey the Great, 16, 81, 247, 279, 285, 427, 429, 445, 521, 527, 556 Pompey, Sextus, 445, 459 Pomponius, 94, 459, 606 Pont-à-Mousson, 606 Pontano, Giovianni, 11, 111, 265, 543 Pontus, kingdom of, 217, 269 Pontus Euxinus, see Black Sea Popedius Silo, 245

populace (vulgus), 32, 49, 61, 62, 78, 177, 179, 197, 241, 283, 313, 329, 333, 335, 345, 353, 367, 397, 399, 419, 421, 435, 455, 485, 521, 525, 545, 551, 564, 588, 610, 611, 615 Porcia, daughter of Cato the Younger, 96, 121, 239, 248-251, 568 Porsena, 443 Portugal, Portuguese (Lusitani), 46, 53, 78, 86, 130, 203, 221, 299, 310-313, 450-453, 471, 505, 557, 582 Possevino, Antonio, 50, 548 Pozzuoli, 331 Praetextatus, Bishop of Rouen, 291 predictions, vaticinations (vaticinationes), 93, 102, 114, 169, 185, 189, 215, 217, 221, 222-231, 317 Premierfait, Laurent de, 16 Priam, King of Troy, 461 princely virtues, see virtues Priscianus, 611 probity (probitas), 6, 41, 49, 82, 100, 234-241, 307, 409, 563, 565, 566 Probus, prefect of Egypt, 295 Probus, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, 307 Procopius, 85, 595, 609 Proculus, Roman usurper, 307 promise, 7, 12, 43, 49, 56, 58, 179, 245, 301, 377, 433, 439, 519, 598 Provence, 584 providence (providentia), 6, 15, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 51-56, 81, 90, 93, 99, 113, 195, 205, 209, 211, 213, 215, 439, 449, 554, 555, 556, 557, 559, 560 prudence (prudentia), 6, 13, 15, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 44, 49, 52, 53, 56, 69, 74, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 95, 100, 105, 106, 111, 117, 125, 195, 209, 227, 257-269, 283, 295, 311, 421, 435, 562, 570, 571 civil prudence (prudentia civilis), 88, 151 military prudence (prudentia militaris), 36, 151 mixed prudence (prudentia mixta), 36, 41, 74 Prunius, Cornelius, 87 Prusias, tyrant of Bithynia, 345

682

General index Pseudo-Alexander, 331 Pseudo-Aristotle, 123 Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, 558, 589, 590, 605, 607 Pseudo-Frederick, 333 Pseudo-Mustafa, 336-343 Ptolemy I Soter, King of Egypt, 319, 345, 347, 441, 515, 583 Ptolemy IV Philopator, King of Egypt, 243, 566 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physcon, King of Egypt, 319, 566, 583 Ptolemy XII, King of Egypt, 181 Ptolemy XIII, brother of Cleopatra, 285 Pulcheria, Aelia, Saint, sister of Theodosius II, 201, 219, 294-297 Punic war, first, 279, 443 punishment, 7, 8, 36, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 75, 81, 89, 91, 93, 108, 114, 116, 123, 159, 185, 193, 207, 209, 215, 219, 225, 275, 309, 315, 331, 343, 357, 359, 365, 371, 373, 379, 385, 387, 391, 401, 419, 421, 425, 431, 433, 435, 439, 441, 447, 453, 455, 459, 475, 499, 501, 511, 513, 517, 552, 554, 562, 583, 590, 592, 598, 616 Puteanus, Erycius, 31, 599 Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, 55, 124, 293, 345, 401, 471, 515, 609 Pythagoras, Pythagorean, 185, 259, 573 Python, 227, 561 qadi (Cadii), 402-405, 413, 600 quaestio, see discussions questions, see discussions quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, 77 Querelle des Femmes, 68 Quesnoy, 333 Quintilian, 14, 108, 109, 110, 117, 119, 124, 543, 612 Ragaisus, see Arigiso, Duke of Benevento Raguel the Presbyter, 614 Rahus Benxamutius, Arab leader, 504-507 Ramus, Petrus, 18, 97 Raphelengius, Franciscus, 25, 133

Raphelengius Junior, Franciscus, 133, 135 Ravenna, the Exarchate of, 167 reason (ratio), 64, 82, 90, 159, 193, 197, 201, 275, 279, 503, 576 reason of state (ratio status), 13, 37, 38, 41 rebel, rebellion, 50, 76, 81, 167, 179, 227, 277, 307, 337, 343, 345, 347, 359, 429, 437, 443, 501, 546, 552, 561, 577, 616 Recared I,Visigothic King, 169 Regalianus, Dacian general, 307 Regillianus, see Regalianus religion (religio), 6, 36, 37, 42, 44, 49-51, 63, 78, 79, 81, 93, 99, 158-173, 195, 249, 333, 337, 349, 359, 389, 433, 447, 449, 493, 495, 507, 544, 545, 546, 547, 551, 554, 563, 592 religious unity, 38, 50, 51, 75, 134 Remonstrants, 132, 134 Remus, 261, 574 representational bodies, governance by, 38 republic, 11, 65, 66, 75, 279, 281, 578 reputation, see fame Resendius, Lucius Andreas, 16 Restio, Antistius, 59, 457 Reuberus, Justus, 603 rhetoric, rhetorical, 11, 18, 93, 104-126, 543, 612 Rhine, 333 Rhineland-Palatinate, 333 Rhodes, 223 Ribadeneyra, Pedro de, 12, 13, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 71, 84, 86, 124, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 563 Richter, Gregorius, 20 Rieti, 457 Ritius, Michael, 549 Rivet, André, 133 Robert, King of France, 171 Robert of Anjou (Robert the Wise), King of Naples, 265, 321, 323, 584 Roberti, Remaclo, 30 Roderic(k), King of the Visigoths, 218-221, 281, 560 Rodericus Toletanus, see Jiménez de Rada, Rodrigo Roman, Roman world, 5, 15, 27, 29, 39, 45, 49, 50, 65, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 93, 95, 177, 199,

683

General index 217, 227, 261, 275, 279, 287, 291, 293, 295, 305, 327, 345, 361, 363, 371, 389, 401, 403, 407, 423, 439, 442-445, 455, 469, 477, 493, 495, 517, 525, 541, 558, 566, 570, 573, 574, 586, 598, 599 Roman senate, 93, 181, 199, 211, 247, 263, 277, 307, 364-367, 425, 443, 445, 519, 605 Rome, 4, 31, 44, 65, 83, 167, 210-213, 225, 303, 311, 329, 331, 459, 469, 501, 523, 527, 613 Romulus, 197, 261, 305, 347, 557, 574 Roo, Gerardus de, 79, 87, 549, 586 Rouen, 301 Roxelana, wife of Süleyman I, 339 Royal Historiographer, 24, 26, 27, 47, 557 Rubens, Peter Paul, 3, 111, 135 Rubicon, 548 Rudolf I of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor, 46, 50, 64, 79, 82, 111, 119, 122, 149, 169-171, 333, 367, 393, 478-481, 549, 586 Rudolf II of Austria, Holy Roman Emperor, 129 Rudolf, Duke of Saxony, 333 Ryksa (Rixa), mother of King Casimir I of Poland, 309 Sabellicus, Marcus Antonius Coccius, 15, 16, 578 Sabinus, Julius, aristocratic Gaul, 501 Sacco, Giambatista, 27 saints, saints’ lives, 14, 69, 87, 251 Salentines, 453 Sallust, 63, 76, 85, 95, 369, 373, 589 Sallustius Crispus, 329 Salomon, see Solomon Salutati, Coluccio, 34 Samothrace, 469 Sancha of Spain, 503 Sancho II (the Pious), King of Portugal, 451 Sancho II (the Strong), King of Castile and León, son of Ferdinand I of León, 447, 449 Sancho IV (Sanctius), King of Castile, 251 Sancho, King of León, 503 Sanseverino, County of, 323 Sansovino, Francesco, 578 San Víctores, Francisco de, 548 Sant’ Angelo, fortress of, 207

sapientia, see wisdom Saragossa, 337 Sardanapalus, King of Assyria, 16, 463, 608 Sardians, 241 Sardinia, 445 Sarpedon, Cato the Younger’s teacher, 244-247 Satibarzanes, Persian Satrap, 375 Saturn, 181, 395 Savile, Henry, 549 Savonarola, Girolamo, 49, 50, 81, 179, 552 Saul, King of Israel and Judah, 511 Saxons, Saxony, 165, 167, 309, 333, 415, 585 Scaliger, Joseph Justus, 76, 132 Scardeonia, Bianca, 502-505, Scenopegia, feast of the, 161 Schilders, Robert, 30 scholastic, late scholastic, 56, 57, 59, 60, 101 Schott, Andreas, 600 Scipio Africanus Maior, Publius Cornelius, 111, 198-201, 347, 442-445, 485, 525, 613 Scipio Africanus Minor (Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus, Publius Cornelius), 492-495, 525 Scipio Asina, Gnaeus Cornelius, 443 Scipio Nasica, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Cornelianus, 447 Scots, 65 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 85, 86, 401, 549, 575, 580, 582, 588, 598, 604 Scripture, see Bible Scriverius, Petrus, 132 Scythian, Scythians, 103, 117, 203, 509, 558 Sebastian, King of Portugal, 53, 221, 311, 471 Secreta Secretorum, 14 sedition, see rebel, rebellion self-restraint (continentia), 40, 79, 495, 613 Selim I, Ottoman Sultan, 55, 58, 281, 346-351, 587 Selim II, Ottoman Sultan, 281, 339 Seneca, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 39, 55, 60, 64, 82, 83, 88, 90-92, 95, 97, 117, 119, 120, 123, 132, 157, 229, 233, 235, 267, 273, 301, 365, 419, 431, 461, 511, 542, 544, 550, 555, 556, 563, 564, 567, 568, 576, 580, 588, 589, 590, 591, 597, 601, 602, 604, 615, 616

684

General index Seneca the Elder, 90 sentences (sententiae), 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 33, 71, 88, 97, 98, 106, 259, 572 Seoses, 501 Serapis, 181 Sertorius, Quintus, 550 Servius Tullius, Roman King, 197, 261, 305, 557 Sesostris III, King of Egypt, 464-467 seven sins, see sins severity (severitas), 7, 61, 62, 63, 116, 237, 379, 397, 419, 596, 597 Severus, Alexander, Roman Emperor, 171, 281, 309, 401, 463, 477, 489, 527, 549 Sforza, Francesco, 109, 497 Sforza, Galeazzo Maria, Duke of Milan, 76, 411, 600 Shapur I (Sapor), King of the Sasanian Empire, 205 Shechem, 343 Shimei, relative of King Saul of Israel and Judah, 511 Sibyls, 215, 560 Sicily, 197, 209, 217, 229, 361, 369, 425, 443, 445, 459, 473, 481 Sidonius Appolinaris, 594 Sigebert I, King of Austrasia, 291 Sigebert of Gembloux, 16 Sigeum, 525 Sigismund I, Emperor, 118 signs (signa), 6, 53, 54, 55, 82, 93, 99, 100, 102, 105, 177, 195, 215, 217-221, 227, 229, 231, 560 Sigonio, Carlo, 83, 85, 543 Silius (Iunior), Gaius, 289 Silvius, Aeneas, see Piccolomini, Enea Silvio similitudo temporum, 23 simulation (simulation), 56, 58, 585 Sinites, see China, Chinese Sivas, 207 slander, see calumny (calumnia) slaves, 93, 94, 175, 197, 205, 307, 345, 347, 371, 423, 427, 454-459, 479, 527, 565, 574 loyalty of slaves, 93, 94, 103, 124, 454-457, 606 Smicythas, 513 Snellius, Rodolphus, 132

Socrates, lawyer and author, 485 Socrates, philosopher, 249, 567 Solomon, Biblical king, 393, 596 Solon of Athens, 259, 283, 327, 467, 572, 585, 609 Sophocles, 491 Sophonisba, wife of King Syphax, 201 Sozomenus, 84 Spain, Spaniards (Hispani), 24, 28, 42, 44, 45, 53, 78, 83, 85, 86, 119, 131, 167, 169, 187, 189, 203, 211, 218-221, 263, 281, 297, 313, 323, 337, 347, 387, 407, 409, 417, 427, 429, 447, 451, 455, 459, 462-465, 471, 475, 495, 497, 499, 523, 540, 541, 548, 554, 569, 574, 580, 582, 603, 613 Spanish Armada, 84, 569 Sparta, Spartans, 65, 68, 163, 243, 279, 301, 323, 441, 463, 477, 489, 511, 513, 547, 558 Spartianus, see Scriptores Historiae Augustae Speculum Ecclesiae, 14 Speculum Laicorum, 14 Spontone, Ciro, 84 Spurina, 499 Statius, 562 Steelsius, Joannes, 583 Stephanus, Henricus, see Estienne, Henri Stephanus, servant of Emperor Domitian, 225 Stephen IV, King of Hungary, 115, 595 Stephen, King of Poland, 357 Stoicism, Neo-Stoicism, 1, 5, 29, 52, 82, 90, 92, 95, 263, 550, 570, 575, 580, 615 Strabo, 407, 574, 599 Sturm, Johann, 12, 17, 18 Suarez, Franciscus, 57, 60 succession (successio), 7, 42, 46, 58, 59, 64-67, 74, 80, 101, 107, 315-325, 327, 578, 580, 581, 583, 585 Suetonius, 15, 41, 55, 85, 86, 88, 103, 107, 177, 225, 263, 401, 409, 431, 433, 477, 521, 527, 550, 561, 566, 567, 574, 575, 581, 582, 590, 591, 598, 603, 607, 616, 618 suicide, 59, 121, 568, 593 Süleyman I (Soleimannus) (Süleyman the Magnificent), Ottoman Sultan, 185, 213, 223, 338-341, 353, 453 Sulla, Faustus Cornelius, 427 Sulla, Lucius Cornelius, 244-247, 425

685

General index Sulpicianus, Titus Flavius Claudius, 309, 582 superstition (superstitio), 6, 40, 49-51, 80, 82, 90, 93, 99, 123, 174-191, 193, 550, 552, 554, 561 Swabia, 169, 473 Swedes, 83 Swiss, 301 Symplegades, 409 Syphax, King of the Massylii, 198-201 Syracuse, Syracusans, 197, 209, 423, 525, 603 Syria, 165, 329, 335, 389, 421, 425, 471 Tabernacles, feast of the, see Scenopegia, feast of the Tachos (Teos), King of Egypt, 477 Tacitus, Cornelius, 4, 23, 24, 37, 38, 80, 83, 85, 86, 88-89, 92, 95, 110, 113, 123, 227, 229, 277, 371, 487, 561, 566, 578, 579, 581, 582, 587, 588, 589, 592 Tacitus, Marcus Claudius, Roman Emperor, 307 Taenarus, 243 Talismans, 171 Talmud, 189 Tamerlane (Temir-lancus), see Timur (Temür) Khan Taranto (Tarentum), 211, 213, 515 Tarifa (Carteia, Tartessus), 251 Tarquinius Priscus, Roman King, 197, 261, 557 Tarquinius Superbus, Roman King, 347 Ta(r)tars (Tatari), 65, 78, 183, 204-207, 357 Tartessus, see Tarifa Tatianus, 219, 560 Tellus, 467 temperance, see moderation Tertullian, 233 Textor, Ravisius, 16 Thales of Milete, 546 Thebes, 261, 471 Themistitan, 189 Themistocles, 521, 523 Theodahad, King of the Ostrogoths, 384-387 Theodora, wife of Emperor Justinian, 467 Theodorus, ancient slave-dealer, 493

Theodorus, trustee of Andronicus Comnenus, 385 Theodosius I, Roman Emperor, 373 Theodosius II (the Younger), Roman Emperor, 201, 219, 263, 295, 409 Theognis, 257 Theophanes of Mytilene, 527 Theophrastus, 84 Theresa, Queen of León, 503 Thersites, 423, 603 Thomas, apostle, Saint, 185 Thomas Aquinas, Thomism, Thomistic, 10, 41, 42, 53, 64, 65, 100, 133, 555, 576, 577, 578, 589, 592, 616 Thomas Becket of Canterbury, Archbishop, 171 Thomas of Ireland, 84, 594 Thomyris, 111 Thrace, Thracians, 327, 335, 339, 349, 509, 586 Thrasea Paetus, Publius Clodius, 568 Thrasyllus, 223, 561 Thucydides, 85, 111, 112, 259 Thurii, 373, 407 Thysius, Antonius, 132 Tiber, 443 Tiberius, Roman Emperor, 82, 223, 263, 326329, 363, 364-367, 516-518, 561, 575, 590 Tigranes II (the Great), King of Armenia, 259 Timagenes, 517 Timocrates, 209 Timoleon of Corinth, 217 Timur (Temür) Khan, Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, 204-207, 281, 337 Tissaphernes, Persian Satrap, 441 Titin(n)ius, Lucius, 208-211, 559 Titus, Roman Emperor, 431, 437, 603 Toledo, 219, 387, 447, 449, 451 Toledo, Council of, 169, Toletus, Franciscus, 57 Tomyris, Queen, 202-205, 558 Torquatus, Titus Manlius, 124 Torre, Felipe de la, 12, 588 Torrentius, Laevinus, 87, 122 Torres, Juan de, 550, 571 Totila, King of the Ostrogoths, 385, 595

686

General index Tournai, 357 Trajan, Roman Emperor, 12, 35, 36, 363, 367, 523, 541, 589, 590, 591 Trapezuntius, Georgius, see George of Trebizond Trastamara dynasty, 540 travel (peregrinatio), 6, 77, 78, 98, 259, 572 Treaty of London, see London, Treaty of Trebonius, 94, 595 Trimumpara, King of Cochin, 451 Trismegistus, Hermes, 52, 141, 195, 555 Triumvirate, first, 578 Triumvirate, second, 457, 459 Trnava (Slovakia), 128, 136 trustworthiness, see faithfulness (fides) truth, truthfulness (veritas), 85, 106-113, 195, 223, 233, 379, 393, 513 Tullia Minor, Queen of Rome, 357 Tuman bay II, Sultan of Egypt Tundi, 187 Turks, 79, 118, 171, 183, 191, 205, 213, 217, 223, 269, 281, 336-343, 346-353, 378-381, 403, 413, 421, 453, 548, 553, 594 Tuy, Lucas de, see Lucas Tudensis tyranny, tyrant, tyrannicide, 9, 49, 56, 59-60, 65, 75, 91, 209, 221, 235, 239, 275, 305, 327, 503, 505, 559, 562, 565, 576, 585, 588, 589, 596, 600 Tyre, 161, 441 Ulloa, Alfonso de, 588 Ulpian, Roman jurist, 401 Ulysses, 70, 327, 491 Umbria, 213 Urban II, Pope, 321 Urbinius Panopion (Panapio), 457 Urraca, daughter of Ferdinand I of León, 449 useful (utile), 11, 12, 13, 36, 41, 48, 235, 563 Vair, Guillaume du, 13, 126 Valencia, 311, 600 Valenciennes, 333 Valens, Fabius, Roman military leader, 307 Valerian, Roman Emperor, 16, 205, 295, 558 Valerian, Roman tribune, 307, 582

Valerius Maximus, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 74, 86, 88, 89, 92-94, 99, 102, 103, 110, 114, 117, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 231, 439, 543, 544, 547, 550, 557, 558, 559, 560, 564, 565, 567, 568, 572, 574, 575, 587, 592, 593, 595, 603, 605, 606, 607, 609, 613, 614 Valla, Lorenzo, 34, 111, 112, 265 Valois, House of, 540, 614 Vandals, 219, 323, 467 Vasaeus, Johannes, 86, 549, 614 Vasily II, Grand Prince of Moscow, 323 Vatican censors, 39, 44, 56 vaticinations, see predictions Vatinius, Publius, 249, 567 Vegio, Maffeo, 11 Velasco, Juan Fernández de, 25 Velleius Paterculus, 85, 86, 521, 525, 586, 605 Venice, 65, 66, 75, 269, 281, 453, 558, 578, 608 Venlo, 353 Venosa, 525, 617 Ventidius Bassus, Publius, 343, 527 Venus, 183, 201, 285, 287 veracity, see truth, truthfulness Vergerio, Pietro Paolo, 543 verisimilitude (verisimilitudo), 106-113, 125126, 543 veritas, see truth, truthfulness Vermina, son of King Syphax, 199 Vespasian, Roman Emperor, 80, 367, 409, 431, 501, 527, 591 Vestal virgins, 187, 487 Vetulo, Sentius Saturnius, 94, 606 Vicenza, Ferretto of, 601 Victory, goddess, 217 Vienna, 4 Vienne, Council of, 417 Vilvoorde, 355 Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 59, 589, 592 Vincent of Beauvais, 14, 17, 19 violence (vis, violentia), 7, 12, 38, 41, 43, 56-59, 60, 79, 114, 149, 275, 277, 303, 305, 307, 313, 343-357, 389, 419, 421, 423, 427, 455, 473, 495, 497, 499, 505, 547, 554, 586, 587 Viperano, Giovanni, 111, 543 Virgilius, Polydorus, 606

687

General index Virgin Mary, see Mary virtù, political virtuosity, 52 virtue (virtus), virtuous, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 40, 44, 48, 49, 68, 79, 82, 87, 98, 99, 116, 123, 149, 159, 195, 233, 239, 241, 267, 283, 293, 297, 301, 303, 311, 359, 363, 369, 371, 377, 383, 435, 439, 445, 485, 545, 563, 580, 591 female virtues, 69, 70, 580 minor virtues, 7, 37, 40, 612 private virtues, 461 regal virtues, 461 vices, 5, 16, 18, 29, 35, 40, 49, 98, 99, 123, 149, 177, 193, 233, 283, 329, 363, 369, 554 vita activa, vita contemplativa, 10, 11 Vitaeus, Chinese King, 281 Vitellius, Roman Emperor, 307, 431, 581 Vittorino da Feltre, 11, 18 Vives, Juan Luis, 18, 68, 87, 120, 123, 560 Voldemarus, see Waldemar vulgus, see populace

Wolf, Hieronymus, 591 world as stage, see metaphor, theatrical metaphor Woverius, Johannes, 83, 134 Xaca, 187 Xanthians, 239 Xaverius, Franciscus, 553 Xenophanes, 211 Xenophon, 9, 85, 161, 491, 546, 547, 605 Xerxes, Persian King, 107, 120, 316-319, 583 Ximénez de Rada, see Jiménez de Rada, Rodrigo Ximerius, Rodericus, 560 Yildirim Khan (Gilderun Chan), see Bayezid I Yuste, 465, 608

Walachia, 339 Waldemar (Voldemarus), Margrave of Brandenburg, 333 Wechel, Andreas, 585, 598, 600, 614 Wesel (Germany), 128, 135 Wetzlar, 333 Widukind of Corvey, 585 William of Newburgh, 87, 549 William of Tyre, 85 William the Conqueror, 385, 594 Willichius, Jodocus, 17 Wimpfeling, Jakob, 12, 18 wisdom (sapientia), 11, 18, 78, 90, 105, 106, 193, 213, 467, 523, 525

Zaleucus of Locri, 103, 116, 373, 407, 593 Zamora, 449 Zangrius, Philippus, 83 Zárate, Agustín de, 83, 553 Zasso, 187 Zeeland, 375 Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, 68, 292-295, 299, 580 Zenocarus, Guilielmus, 608 Zeus, see Jupiter Zeuxis, painter, 12, 155, 543 Zonaras, Johannes, 84, 85, 560, 561, 586, 590, 600 Zosimus, 85 Zurita, Jerónimo, 586 Zwinger, Theodor, 16, 17, 19, 550, 553

688