ory of
that great people, who for many ages excelled the rest of mankind in the
arts of war and of policy, belongs originally to me.

_Marcus Aurelius_.--There is much truth in what you say. But would not
the Romans have done better if, after the expulsion of Tarquin, they had
vested the regal power in a limited monarch, instead of placing it in two
annual elective magistrates with the title of consuls? This was a great
deviation from your plan of government, and, I think, an unwise one. For
a divided royalty is a solecism--an absurdity in politics. Nor was the
regal power committed to the administration of consuls continued in their
hands long enough to enable them to finish any difficult war or other act
of great moment. From hence arose a necessity of prolonging their
commands beyond the legal term; of shortening the interval prescribed by
the laws between the elections to those offices; and of granting
extraordinary commissions and powers, by all which the Republic was in
the end destroyed.

_Servius Tullius_.--The revolution which ensued upon the death of
Lucretia was made with so much anger that it is no wonder the Romans
abolished in their fury the name of king, and desired to weaken a power
the exercise of which had been so grievous, though the doing this was
attended with all the inconveniences you have justly observed. But, if
anger acted too violently in reforming abuses, philosophy might have
wisely corrected that error. Marcus Aurelius might have new-modelled the
constitution of Rome. He might have made it a limited monarchy, leaving
to the emperors all the power that was necessary to govern a
wide-extended empire, and to the Senate and people all the liberty that
could be consistent with order and obedience to government--a liberty
purged of faction and guarded against anarchy.

_Marcus Aurelius_.--I should have been happy indeed if it had been in my
power to do such good to my country. But the gods themselves cannot
force their blessings on men who by their vices are become incapable to
receive them. Liberty, like power, is only good for those who possess it
when it is under the constant direction of virtue. No laws can have
force enough to hinder it from degenerating into faction and anarchy,
where the morals of a nation are depraved; and continued habits of vice
will eradicate the very love of it out of the hearts of a people. A
Marcus Brutus in my time could not have drawn to his standard