![]() ![]() The only difference being, that all the virtues that first found a place in Assyria were thence transferred to Media, and afterwards passed to Persia, and from there they came into Italy and to Rome. ![]() Reflecting now upon the course of human affairs, I think that, as a whole, the world remains very much in the same condition, and the good in it always balances the evil but the good and the evil change from one country to another, as we learn from the history of those ancient kingdoms that differed from each other in manners, whilst the world at large remained the same. But should he live in that city or country at the period after it shall have passed the zenith of its glory and in the time of its decline, then he would not be wrong in praising the past. Now, if any one living at such a period should praise the past more than the time in which he lives, he would certainly be deceiving himself and this error will be found due to the reasons above indicated. ![]() We see, for instance, a city or country with a government well organized by some man of superior ability for a time it progresses and attains a great prosperity through the talents of its lawgiver. I repeat, then, that this practice of praising and decrying is very general, though it cannot be said that it is always erroneous for sometimes our judgment is of necessity correct, human affairs being in a state of perpetual movement, always either ascending or declining. I do not speak of matters pertaining to the arts, which shine by their intrinsic merits, which time can neither add to nor diminish but I speak of such things as pertain to the actions and manners of men, of which we do not possess such manifest evidence. But it is very different with the affairs of the present, in which we ourselves are either actors or spectators, and of which we have a complete knowledge, nothing being concealed from us and knowing the good together with many other things that are displeasing to us, we are forced to conclude that the present is inferior to the past, though in reality it may be much more worthy of glory and fame. Now, these two powerful reasons of hatred do not exist for us with regard to the past, which can no longer inspire either apprehension or envy. Another reason is that men’s hatreds generally spring from fear or envy. The majority of authors obey the fortune of conquerors to that degree that, by way of rendering their victories more glorious, they exaggerate not only the valiant deeds of the victor, but also of the vanquished so that future generations of the countries of both will have cause to wonder at those men and times, and are obliged to praise and admire them to the utmost. The first I believe to be the fact that we never know the whole truth about the past, and very frequently writers conceal such events as would reflect disgrace upon their century, whilst they magnify and amplify those that lend lustre to it. Their opinion is generally erroneous in that respect, and I think the reasons which cause this illusion are various. They are such partisans of the past that they extol not only the times which they know only by the accounts left of them by historians, but, having grown old, they also laud all they remember to have seen in their youth. Men ever praise the olden time, and find fault with the present, though often without reason. 1513 Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |