# 24. Well-ordered Republics, in assigning Rewards and Punishments, never balance one against the Other

Very great were the merits of Horatius by whose virtue the Curiatii had been overcome; yet so abominable was his crime of killing his sister and so distressed were the Romans by this murder, that they tried him for his life, despite his deserts which were both great and recent. Superficially this would seem to be an instance of the ingratitude of the populace. But if one examines the case more carefully, bearing in mind the kind of institutions that a republic should have, it will be seen that the populace was more to blame for letting him off than for wanting to condemn him. The reason is that no well-ordered republic allows the demerits of its citizens to be cancelled out by their merits; but, having prescribed rewards for a good deed and punishments for a bad one, and having rewarded someone for doing well, if that same person afterwards does wrong, it punishes him, regardless of any of the good deeds he has done. And, when such ordinances are duly observed, the city long enjoys freedom, but otherwise will always be ruined. Because if a citizen who has rendered some signal service to the state, acquire thereby not merely the repute which the affair has brought him, but is emboldened to expect that he can do wrong with impunity, he will soon become so insolent that civic life in such a state will disappear.

It is highly necessary, therefore, that if punishment is to be assigned for evil deeds, rewards should be made for good ones, as actually was the case in Rome. Even though a republic be poor and able to give but little, it should not withhold that little, because every little gift awarded to someone in recognition of services however great, will always be highly esteemed and treasured by the recipient.

The story of Horatius Codes and that of Mucius Scaevola is well known. The first held the enemy in check on a bridge until at length it was cut down. The other burnt the hand that had erred when he was going to assassinate Porsenna, king of the Tuscans. For these two deeds of outstanding merit, they each received a public grant of two half-acres of land.

The story of Manlius Capitolinus is also noteworthy. For having saved the Capitol from the Gauls who were encamped before it, his fellow-citizens who were being besieged together with him, gave him a small measure of corn. This reward was considerable in view of fortunes then current in Rome. It was also such that, when Manlius, out of envy or because his nature was bad, started a sedition in Rome and tried to win over the populace, not the least attention was paid to his merits, but he was thrown headlong from the Capitol which he had once saved with such renown.





Book One



[DISCOURSES 25–7]


[The Introduction of New Forms of Government]