I’ve half an idea about how to work some of this material into a new/old project. I’m leaving these quotes here as future inspiration/reference.
“At present, when the King requires Supplies of his faithful Subjects, and they are willing and desirous to grant them, the Proprietaries intervene and say, unless our private Interests in certain Particulars are served, Nothing Shall Be Done. This insolent Tribunitial VETO, has long encumbered all our Publick Affairs, and been productive of many Mischiefs.”
Benjamin Franklin, “Cool Thoughts on the Present Situation of Our Public Affairs, 12 April 1764″
The metaphor at work here is that the colonial governors are using their ability to intervene to serve their own interests rather than protect the people and serve the state.
“Do they not most of them avow that corruption is so established there, as to be incurable, and a necessary instrument of government? Is not the British constitution arrived nearly to that point, where the Roman republic was when Jugurtha left it, and pronounc’d it a venal city ripe for destruction, if it can only find a purchaser?”
John Adams, “To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 13 February 1775” writing under the pseudonym: Novanglus
We see here the influence of Sallust’s writings and the rhetoric of decline through luxury, greed and foreign influence.
“[Hutchinson has] been the Cause of laying a Foundation for perpetual Discontent and Uneasiness between Britain and the Colonies, of perpetual Struggles of one Party for Wealth and Power at the Expence of the Liberties of this Country, and of perpetual Contention and Opposition in the other Party to preserve them, and that this Contention will never be fully terminated but by Warrs, and Confusions and Carnage. Caesar, by destroying the Roman Republic, made himself perpetual Dictator, Hutchinson, by countenancing and supporting a System of Corruption and all Tyranny, has made himself Governor—and the mad Idolatry of the People, always the surest Instruments of their own Servitude, laid prostrate at the Feet of both.”
John Adams, Diary entry for 1771 Thurdsday [sic] June 13th.
“Howe is no Sylla, but he is manifestly aping two of Syllas Tricks, holding out Proposals of Truces and bribing Soldiers to desert. But you See, he is endeavouring to make a Fimbria of somebody.”
From John Adams to Nathanael Greene, 24 May 1777
The vast majority of this letter is historical narration paraphrased very closely from Abbé René Aubert de Vertot, The History of the Revolutions that Happened in the Government of the Roman Republic, transl. Ozell, 2 vols., 4th edn., London, 1732, 2:167–173, 175. The morale only comes briefly at the very end. The warning is for Greene to be more aware of how loyalties may be subverted when the lower ranks of troops share so much in common with their compatriots in the opposing army.
“I do not know a more effectual Mode of stopping an Enemy’s Progress than carrying the War into his own Country, it has been practised with Success by the greatest Captains from Scipio to Charles the 12th of Sweden & that at a Time when their own Country seem’d to call loudly for their Aid.”
To George Washington from Joseph Reed, 1 December 1777
Most of the the letter lays out detailed strategic plans. These plans are not direct emulation of ancient practice but suited to the present circumstances alone. The invocation of history is a toss away rhetorical flourish to help convince the reader that the broad idea is not without merit.
“In this kind of war, I conceive of militia, promiscuously assembled, as an huge, unanimated machine, incapable of regular motion or activity; and must infallibly share the fate of that numerous host of undisciplined barbarians, who ventured to fight the Roman Marius. I will beg liberty to extend my Ideas further, and presume we had an army of regular, well appointed troops; sufficiently numerous to ensure victory in the field, even then the attack would appear to me impracticable.”
To George Washington from Brigadier General James Mitchell Varnum, 3–4 December 1777
This is an abuse of history. The writer remembers that Marius is credited with enrolling the lower social orders in the Roman army, but suggests this led to failure. Rather the opposite was the case, rather Rome’s successes led to and were arguably dependent upon a shift from citizen and auxiliary militiae to professional citizen and auxiliary armies. Marius is more typically remembered as professionalizing the army rather than disrupting its function. Best account of the so-called Marian Reforms.
“What would a Marlborough have done on such an occasion? “He never besieged a town but he carried it”; but he never attacked a strong village or town by assault. What would a Pyrrhus have attempted? He undertook to storm a city—He lost his army and his own life. Thus, by one rash manœuvre that dazzleing Glory which astonished the universe, was sullied and eclipsed. As many instances of the like kind will be recent in your Excellency’s memory, I shall not trouble you with selecting more.”
To George Washington from Brigadier General James Mitchell Varnum, 3–4 December 1777
“We have one Ennemy more pernicious to Us than all their Army and that is an opinion, which Still prevails in too many American Minds that there is still Some Justice, Some Honour, Some Humanity and Some Reason in Great Britain, and that they will open their Eyes and make Peace. That there are Individuals who have these Virtues cannot be doubted. Rome had many Such, even after the Ultimi Romanorum. But they were So few in Comparison to the whole, and had so little share in Government, that they only served, by their Endeavours to bring things back, to Make the Nation more miserable.”
From John Adams to the President of Congress, No. 19, 31 October 1780
Ultimi Romanorum refers to Brutus and Cassius, cf. Henry St. John’s Letter to Sir William Windham (1753) and the closely related A New History of England (1757), vol. 4, p. 490. The term in reference to these men goes back to Suet. Tib. 61 and Tact. Ann. 4.34.
“Mr. Laurence, poor old Gentleman his Grey hairs will come with sorrow to the Grave. Will he support the loss of his son with the fortitude of Cato when Marcius fell coverd with wounds in defence of his Country? Thus fell the Brave Col. Laurence, Lamented by all who knew him. Freedom mourns over his urn, and Honour decks the sod which covers his ashes with unfadeing Laurels.”
Abigail Adams to John Thaxter, 26 October 1782
This allusion is not based on ancient sources, but rather seems to derive from Joseph Addison’s play Cato (1713) or a similar tradition. The moral however does have Roman precedents in numerous traditional stories of fathers prioritizing love of country over love of son or child.
to be continued? Or not…
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
