Then why not better use this proud excess
Of worthless wealth? Why lives in deep distress
A man unworthy to be poor, or why
The temples of the gods in ruins lie?
Why not of such a massy treasure spare
To thy dear country, wretch, a moderate share?[Ergo,
quod superat non est melius quo insumere possis?
Cur eget indignus quisquam te divite? Quare
templa ruunt antiqua Deum? Cur, inprobe, carae
non aliquid patriae tanto emetiris acervo?]Horace (65–8 BC) Roman poet, satirist, soldier, politician [Quintus Horatius Flaccus]
Satires [Saturae, Sermones], Book 2, # 2 “Quae virtus et quanta,” l. 101ff (2.2.101-105) (30 BC) [tr. Francis (1747)]
(Source)
Reply when a rich person argues they are so wealthy they need not be concerned about wasteful spending.(Source (Latin)). Alternate translations:Therfore, the surplus of thy goodes applye to better ende.
Why wante the silly needie soules refreshyng at thy hande?
Why doo the temples of the gods, without repayryng stande?
Thou corsye carle, thy countrey dere, from hougie substance suche
Shall she have naught, wylt onely thou devoure alone so muche?
[tr. Drant (1567)]What then? Can there no better way be found
To spend that Wealth, with which you so abound?
Why should so many brave men want? and why
Should the Gods ancient Temples ruin'd lie
While you are rich? Vile wretch! Why wilt not thou
Out of thy needless store something allow
For thy dear Countries good?
[tr. A. F.; ed. Brome (1666)]Then is there no way else to spend thy Store?
Why since thou'rt Rich, is any good Man Poor?
Why are not ruin'd Fanes rebuilt? And why
Doth not thy Wealth thy Neighbours wants supply?
And hath thy Country this superfluous Coin?
What measure hath it from this heap of Thine?
[tr. Creech (1684)]And is there then, I ask, no other end
On which the surplus thou might'st nobly spend?
Say, why does merit starve in rags? or say,
Why fall our ancient temples to decay?
Why not from those superfluous hoards bestow
A mite to sooth thy burthen'd country's woe?
[tr. Howes (1845)]Why then have you no better method of expending your superfluities? Why is any man, undeserving [of distressed circumstances], in want, while you abound? How comes it to pass, that the ancient temples of the gods are falling to ruin? Why do not you, wretch that you are, bestow something on your dear country, out of so vast a hoard?
[tr. Smart/Buckley (1853)]Then is there nothing on which you can spend your surplus income better? Why do any suffer want they don't deserve while you are rich? Why do the gods' time-honoured fanes fall to decay? And why, insatiate wretch, don't you mete out from those large stores of wealth some portion for your fatherland which should be dear?
[tr. Millington (1870)]Untold indeed! then can you not expend
Your superflux on some diviner end?
Why does one good man want while you abound?
Why are Jove's temples tumbling to the ground?
O selfish! what? devote no modicum
To your dear country from so vast a sum?
[tr. Conington (1874)]Well, is there no better object on which you can spend your surplus? Why is any worthy man in want, while you are rich? Why are the ancient temples of the gods in ruin? Why, shameless man, do you not measure out something from that great heap for your dear country?
[tr. Fairclough (Loeb) (1926)]And therefore there's no better way for you to unload
Thie surplus? Why should a single deserving man
Be in need when you are so rich? Why do the gods' ancient temples
Fall into ruin? Why not dig into your pile
And measure some out for your own dear country, you wretch?
[tr. Palmer Bovie (1959)]If that's so and you have more
money than you need, why not spend it in a better way?
Why is anyone poor who shouldn't be, if you're so rich?
Why do the gods' old temples need repair? You ingrate,
for your beloved country's sake can't you dip into your stash?
[tr. Fuchs (1977)]Well, in that case, why not find a better
way to spend your surplus? Why,
so long as you are rich, should anyone be lacking
in everything through no fault of his own?
Why are the ancient temples of the gods
falling into ruin? Why, shameless one,
do you not siphon off something
from that great reservoir of money
to present to your dear country?
[tr. Alexander (1999)]There's nothing
better you could spend your surplus for?
Why's any good man poor while you're so rich?
The temples of the gods could use repair.
Are you so shameless you'll give nothing
to your country?
[tr. Matthews (2002)]Well then, can't you think of a better way
to get rid of your surplus? Why should any decent man
be in need while you are rich> Why, if you've any conscience,
don't you give something from that pile you've made to the land of your birth?
[tr. Rudd (2005 ed.)]Well then, isn’t there something
Better you can spend the surplus on? Why, when you’re
Rich, are there any deserving men in need? Why are
The ancient temples of the gods in ruins? Why, man
Without shame, don’t you offer your dear country a tithe
From that vast heap?
[tr. Kline (2015)]
Quotations about:
commonwealth
Note not all quotations have been tagged, so Search may find additional quotes on this topic.
“But whom do I treat unjustly,” you say, “by keeping what is my own?” Tell me, what is your own? What did you bring into this life? From where did you receive it? It is as if someone were to take the first seat in the theater, then bar everyone else from attending, so that one person alone enjoys what is offered for the benefit of all in common — this is what the rich do. They seize common goods before others have the opportunity, then claim them as their own by right of preemption. For if we all took only what was necessary to satisfy our own needs, giving the rest to those who lack, no one would be rich, no one would be poor, and no one would be in need.
[Καὶ ποῖον, λέγει, ἀδικῶ, μὲ τὸ νὰ κρατῶ γιὰ τoν ἐαυτόν μου αὐτὰ ποῦ μου ἀνήκουν; Ποία, εἰπέ μου, εἶναι αὐτὰ ποῦ σου ἀνήκουν; Ἀπὸ ποῦ τὰ ἔλαβες, καὶ τὰ ἔφερες στὴν ζωὴν αὐτήν; Ὅπως ἀκριβῶς κάποιος ποὺ εὑρίσκει στὸ θέατρο θέση μὲ καλὴν θέαν, ἐμποδίζει ἔπειτα τοὺς εἰσερχομένους, θεωρώντας ὡς ἰδικὸ τοῦ αὐτὸ ποὺ προορίζεται γιὰ χρῆσιν κοινήν, ἔτσι εἶναι καὶ οἱ πλούσιοι. Ἀφοῦ ἐκυρίευσαν ἐκ τῶν προτέρων τα κοινὰ ἀγαθά, τὰ ἰδιοποιοῦνται ἁπλῶς ἐπειδὴ τὰ ἐπρόλαβαν. Ἐὰν ὁ καθένας ἐκρατοῦσε ἐκεῖνο ποὺ ἀρκεῖ γιὰ τὴν ἱκανοποίηση τῶν ἀναγκῶν του, καὶ ἄφηνε τὸ περίσσευμα σ’ αὐτὸν ποὺ τὸ χρειάζεται, κανεὶς δὲν θὰ ἦταν πλούσιος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κανεὶς πτωχός.]
Basil of Caesarea (AD 330-378) Christian bishop, theologian, monasticist, Doctor of the Church [Saint Basil the Great, Ἅγιος Βασίλειος ὁ Μέγας]
“I Will Tear Down My Barns [καθελῶ μου τὰς ἀποθήκας],” Sermon # 6 [tr. Schroeder (2009)]
(Source)
In C. Paul Schroeder, ed., Saint Basil on Social Justice (2009).
For a possession which is not diminished by being shared with others, if it is possessed and not shared, is not yet possessed as it ought to be possessed.
[Omnis enim res quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur quomodo habenda est.]
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Christian church father, philosopher, saint [b. Aurelius Augustinus]
On Christian Doctrine [De Doctrina Christiana], Book 1, ch. 1 / § 1 (1.1.1) (AD 397) [tr. Shaw (1858)]
(Source)
(Source (Latin)). Alternate translations:Everything which does not decrease on being given away is not properly owned when it is owned and not given.
[tr. Robertson (1958)]For everything which does not give out when given away is not yet possessed in the way in which it should be possessed, while it is possessed and not given away.
[tr. Green (1995)]For if a thing is not diminished by being shared with others, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned and not shared.
[Example]
Every man is a consumer, and ought to be a producer. He fails to make his place good in the world, unless he not only pays his debt, but also adds something to the common wealth.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) American essayist, lecturer, poet
Essay (1860), “Wealth,” The Conduct of Life, ch. 3
(Source)
Based on a course of lectures, "The Conduct of Life," delivered in Pittsburg (1851-03).
[Capitalism is] the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) English economist
(Attributed)
Attributed by Sir George Schuster, Christianity and Human Relations in Industry (1951). Frequently quoted, but no direct citation found.
A common variant, also not found in Keynes' work (and also attributed, without citation, to John Kenneth Galbraith):Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
E. A. G. Robinson was a close colleague of Galbraith, and in his book Monopoly (1941), he wrote:The great merit of the capitalist system, it has been said, is that it succeeds in using the nastiest motives of nasty people for the ultimate benefit of society.
Another variant:Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.
More discussion and research into this quote:
- Quote Origin: Capitalism: The Nastiest of Men for the Nastiest of Motives Will Somehow Work for the Benefit of All – Quote Investigator®
- "Capitalism is the belief that the wickedest of men…
- John Maynard Keynes: Capitalism and the "Nastiest/Wickedest of Men" | Steve Cotler | One man's squint at the metaphorical signposts, songbirds, soapboxes, street musicians, and hot dog stands of life. Criticism, lyricism, polemics, performance, and making change...all with mustard.
Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a possitive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superiour to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society.
John Adams (1735–1826) American lawyer, Founding Father, statesman, US President (1797–1801)
Letter (1776-04-16) to Mercy Otis Warren
(Source)
Adams went on to express doubt whether an American nation could live up to such ideals.
Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.
Francis I (1936-2025) Argentinian Catholic Pope (2013–2025) [b. Jorge Mario Bergoglio]
Evangelii Gaudium, sec. 203 (24 Nov 2013)
(Source)
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.
John Adams (1735–1826) American lawyer, Founding Father, statesman, US President (1797–1801)
Essay (1775-03-06), “Novanglus,” No. 7, Boston Gazette
(Source)
This series of essays was written by Adams under the pseudonym of "Novanglus" (Latin for "New England") responding to essays from his past friend Daniel Leonard as "Massachusettensis" on colonial leadership and what the proper relationship was between the American colonies and Britain.
Adams credited the concept of the line above to Aristotle, Livy, and specifically to James Harrington (1611-77), who (also crediting Aristotle and Livy) wrote in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656) of "government [...] is the empire of laws and not of men," "a commonwealth is an empire of laws and not of men," and "a commonwealth is a government of laws and not of men."
Adams later used the term ("government of laws and not of men") in the Massachusetts Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article 30 (1780), enforcing a separation of powers between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches.
A kingdom is not brought nearer to ruin by the tyranny of the sovereign than is a republic by indifference to the common welfare.
[La tyrannie d’un prince ne met pas un État plus près de sa ruine que l’indifférence pour le bien commun n’y met une république.]
Charles-Lewis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) French political philosopher
Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline [Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence], ch. 4 (1734, 1748 ed.) [tr. Baker (1882)]
(Source)
(Source (French)). Other translations:A monarchy is not dragged nearer to the brink of ruin by the tyranny of a prince, than a commonwealth by a lukewarmness and indifference for the general good.
[tr. B--- (1734)]The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.
[E.g. (1926)]The tyranny of a prince does no more to ruin a state than does indifference to the common good to ruin a republic.
[tr. Lowenthal (1965)]
