John Adams to Benjamin Rush, July 28, 1789

Richmond Hill July 28. 1789

Dear Sir

“The Characters, I So much admire among the ancients,” were not
“formed wholly by Republican forms of Government”— 1 I admire, Phillip and Alexander, as much as I do
Themistocles and Pericles, nay as much as Demosthenes— I admire Pisistratus, almost as
much as solon: and think that the Arts, Elegance, Literature and Science of Athens, was
his Work and that of his sons, more than of any or all the popular Commanders or
oraters.

The two Republicks of Antiquity, that I most admire are Sparta and
Rome, and these were both monarchical Republicks.— Athens indeed was ballanced, with
great Care and some Art, till Aristides overturned the
Constitution to make himself popular, and acquire the Title of just, so that I think the
Man who voted to ostracise him because he was called just by the Mob, was a Man of
Sense, Spirit and Virtue.—

You doubt whether Titles overawe the profligate.— You ask where do
I find more profligate manners, than among the Citizens of London?— I am almost disposed
to answer You, by Saying, in Boston, in New York, in Philadelphia.— I assure You, my
friend I wish my dear Countrymen had less Vanity and more Pride. The Advantages We have,
over Europe, are chiefly geographical— I see very little moral or political Preference.—
as far as I can judge there is as much Vice, Folly, and more Infidelity Idleness Luxury
and Dissipation, in any of our great Towns, in Proportion to Numbers, as in London.— But
the Question Should be what would be, the degree of Profligacy in London, if there were
no Titles? and I Seriously believe it would be much greater than it is.— Nay I dont
believe it would be possible to Support any Government at all, among Such Multitudes
without Distinctions of Rank and the Titles that mark them.— According to what I have
Seen in England, as well as France Holland Spain and Germany, there is nothing Strikes
and overawes the most abandoned of the Populace so much as Titles.

Whether Titles beget Pride in Rulers, or not is not an Argument.—
Would you reject every Thing that begets Pride? if you do you must reject Virtue, which
begets the most exquisite, exalted and unconquerable Pride.— You must reject Laws,
Government, offices of all Kind, and even Religion. Spiritual Pride, has grown out of
Religion. Would you reject religion.—

Men who will be made proud by a Title, will be made so by an office
without a Title.—

But Why Should Titles beget Baseness among the common People?—
Respect, Reverence, Submission and Obedience to the Laws and lawful Magistrates You
would wish to see both in the virtuous and vicious of the common People. if Obedience
cannot be obtained from the vicious without begetting Baseness, by which I suppose you
mean fear, why should you object to that.— But Titles have no Tendency to beget Baseness
in poor Men who are virtuous, more than offices without Titles.— But I must insist that
Laws are made and Magistrates appointed on Purpose, to create Fear, & Terror in the
Minds of the vicious, and if Titles will Save you the Expence of Gallows, Stocks
Whipping Posts, or the Pain of employing them, why not Use them? if Titles will do
instead of Armies and Navies, or any Part of them,
why reject them? Dont the Gallows beget Baseness in the common People?— Would you have
no Gallows? dont a prison beget Baseness? Would you have no Prison?— dont all Sorts of
Punishments beget Baseness? would you abolish all Punishments?

You Say the conquered Provinces first introduced Titles into the
Roman Empire.— But in this I believe you are mistaken.— had the Kings of Rome, no
Titles?— Vir amplissimus—Vir Clarissimus. Vir amplissimus Consul.— Vir Summus. These
were familiar among them, in the Simplest times.

Historians indeed never use Titles.— but Titles were Used in Life,
and had their Influence.—

1 The Romans conferred Titles very early, e.g. Manlius,
Capitolinus, and very late as Scipio Africanus.— These Titles, were very common and had
great Influence, for they carried with them the Ideas of Tryumphs and Glory, beyond any
Titles in our Times.

2 They managed their Agnomen, Cognomen and Nomen in a manner, to
influence the People, as much as our Titles.— Cicero tells us, what was their Custom
“Nomen cum dicimus, cognomen quoque et agnomen, intelligatur, oportet.” 2

1 The Prænomen was, our Christian Name. 2. The Nomen was the Name
of a Race, or Gens.— as all descended from Julus the son of Eneas the son of Venus, were
called Julii, and were accounted divine. 3. The Cognomen distinguished different
Families of the Same Race. for Gens signified the whole and Familia a Part.— Those of
the Same Gens were called Gentiles, (whence our Word Genteel and Gentleman)— Those of
the Same Family Agnati. 4 The Agnomen, like Scipio Africanus and Scipio Asiaticus, has
been mentioned before.— Julius Signified the Gens and Cæsar the Familia.

As these Families and Races, happened to be of consular Prætorian,
or Tribunitian Dignity, or even only of patrician Dignity, their names carried more
Influence, than the Titles of Princes, Dukes, Marquises, Earls Barons do at this day in
Europe, for We must always recollect, that these Families and Offices were all
consecrated: and consequently Struck the Roman Mind which was certainly more
Superstitious, if not more religious than ours, with an holy Awe.— in order to form some
Idea of the religious Veneration, approaching to Adoration, which the Roman Policy
inspired into the Minds of their Citizens towards their Magistracies and the Races and
Families which exercised them We must recollect their, Leges Sacratæ. and what was a Lex
Sacrata? Sacratæ leges Sunt, (inquit Festus) quibus Sancitum est, qui quid adversus eas
fecerit, Sacer alicui deorum Sit, cum familia,
pecuniaque.— 3 There were several of
these Sacred Laws, by which all their Magistrates were protected. The Lex Sacrata,
passed upon the holy Mountain, for the Security of the Tribunes, is in Dionysius as
follows “Tribunum nemo in ordinem redigito, neque invitum quidquam facere cogito, nec
verberato, nec alium verberare jubeto. Si quis contra fecerit, Sacer esto, et bona ejus
Cereri Sacra Sunto: et qui eum occiderit, purus a cæde esto.— hanc legem omnes
juraverunt Seque et Posteros in Sempiternum observaturos.[”]— 4 only consider the Effect of taking an Oath by
all the People to observe this Law.

Now sir, I contend, that as Consuls, Præters, Tribunes &c were
consecrated Officers, the Title of Sacrosanctus belonged to them all, and was little
short of that of Sacred Majesty.— I Say farther that Patres Conscripti, was an higher
Title than My Lords, or most Honourable, and that the Names of Sacred Gentes, et
Familiæ, had greater Influence among the Romans than modern European Titles.

Never Let me again hear the Romans quoted, as neglecting or
despizing Titles.— if I do, I will persecute You with more latin. Yours
affectionately

John Adams