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 a single legion of Romans.  But, further, it is certain that the spirit of liberty is absolutely incompatible with the spirit of conquest.  To keep great conquered nations in subjection and obedience, great standing armies are necessary.  The generals of those armies will not long remain subjects; and whoever acquires dominion by the sword must rule by the sword.  If he does not destroy liberty, liberty will destroy him.

Servius Tullius.—­Do you then justify Augustus for the change he made in the Roman government?

Marcus Aurelius.—­I do not, for Augustus had no lawful authority to make that change.  His power was usurpation and breach of trust.  But the government which he seized with a violent hand came to me by a lawful and established rule of succession.

Servius Tullius.—­Can any length of establishment make despotism lawful?  Is not liberty an inherent, inalienable right of mankind?

Marcus Aurelius.—­They have an inherent right to be governed by laws, not by arbitrary will.  But forms of government may, and must, be occasionally changed, with the consent of the people.  When I reigned over them the Romans were governed by laws.

Servius Tullius.—­Yes, because your moderation and the precepts of that philosophy in which your youth had been tutored inclined you to make the laws the rules of your government and the bounds of your power.  But if you had desired to govern otherwise, had they power to restrain you?