OSLER 16262 FINK -Gal. 458 - 
A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE IN ROMAN HISTORY. 
A STUDY OF THE ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY OF NATIONS 
By Charles L. Dana 
AM calling attention to a short period of human history between 
50 b. c. and 44 b. c., during which time there was an extraor- 
dinary upset in human affairs-the world changed hands. 
I am trying to show that the phenomena of that period, as 
exhibited by certain national events, resemble a psychotic episode 
in the human individual. The analogy is not altogether fanciful, 
and is perhaps of more than academic interest; for it seems to me 
that it is suggestive of a new line of study-that of the abnormal 
psychology of races considered as units. The study is a difficult one, 
and what I present may be nothing more than suggestive, but I 
feel satisfied that it is worth while, for such studies may help us in 
interpreting and forecasting national events and progress. 
In studying the career of an individual for psychological pur- 
poses, we try to learn the make-up of his character, to get at his 
personality, to find out the amount and quality and proportions of 
his mental endowments. Some persons are simply defective quanti- 
tatively-they lack the mind stuff, they are imbecile or childish in 
intelligence; others are lacking in some single form of endowment, 
such as emotion, self-control, power of decision, or of initiative, 
being otherwise perhaps brilliantly intelligent. These are said to 
have a constitutional psychopathic inferiority. Others have an 
abnormal make-up, with overdevelopment of anti-social instincts; 
they form the criminals, the perverts, the eccentric and abnormal 
types. They are said to have a psychopathic personality. 
In the life history of a normal individual, the ordinary methodical 
working of his thoughts, emotions, or behavior may become seriously 
disordered. Then we say he has a psychosis or mental sickness. This 
morbid mental condition may be slight and episodal, or it may be 
persistent and lead to the loss of his health, property, personal 
responsibility, and death. 
The history of a race or nation may be studied, just as we study 
the career of an individual. We may study its behavior for the pur- 
pose of determining its normality or to find whether there is anything 
in the racial make-up that is comparable to a psychosis, or an 
inferiority, or psychopathic personality, or a quantitative mental 
defect. This is in line with the present trend, viz., that of studying 
behavior as well as that of applying the results of introspection, for 
the purpose of determining the condition of the mind. 
As we consider the history of nations, I think we can recall 
instances in which there have occurred some things characteristic 
of the psychoses. 
It is easy, for example, to conceive of a national exhaustion 
psychosis. This would be characterized by a general clouding and 
confusion, by indecision, by hallucination, lack of insight or fore- 
sight, and a general collapse of capacity to care for the person or its 
possessions. We may be seeing such things at the present time. 
Perhaps the history of Korea illustrates this. 
There are races which may, through partial deterioration, show 
a constitutional psychic inferiority-like the present race of the 
Persians, and that of certain West Indian republics. 
Some have what is equivalent to a psychopathic personality, 
■i.e., they are abnormal in certain lines of their development activities. 
This was perhaps true of the Phoenicians, whose civilization was 
characterized by ambition to gain money, and who contributed 
nothing to the progress of the world in the lines of science, art, 
letters, or of mechanical or agricultural inventions during the whole 
of their history. 
There are races which belong to the high grades of feeble-minded- 
ness. These races may show some intelligence, but they have not 
enough to enable them to exist nationally, except as dependents. 
A primitive and undeveloped race, however, may not be a feeble- 
minded one, for the test of intelligence lies in the power of living 
.with some degree of order and happiness through its own exertions, 
like the North American Indians and Esquimaux. 
The emotional state is the most unstable of the elements of 
mental life, the most easily affected by the strains and tragedies 
of life, and the most easily communicated to masses. All nations are 
more or less subject to emotional outbursts, to contagious obsessions, 
to illusions or misinterpretations of data. When these things pass 
beyond what the average intelligence and education of the people 
should correct, they come within the group of morbid mental states. 
The emotional attitude of the Greeks was characterized by obsessive 
passion for local and personal liberty, not for a large community 
welfare. This led to their undoing. The French had in 1870 an attack 
of episodal pithiatism, developed out of the exhaustion and suffering 
of previous years. They are said now by a German writer to have a 
"Gallic psychopathy" characterized by a passion for revenge! 
It is too soon to characterize the development and spread of 
Bolshevism, but it is some form of racial or national psychosis; a 
great national movement based on the1 results of deprivation and 
suffering and stimulated by delusions-as we believe-or by mis- 
interpretations of the laws of sound national development. 
' Thus I am sure it is safe to say that races, whether living under 
the common arrangements of organized government or not, are 
quite proper objects of studies in abnormal psychology. Such study 
may help to explain the rise and fall of nations and civilizations. 
Historians have in the past attempted to describe the cause of 
the decline of individual races and civilizations, but their explana- 
tions have generally been based upon certain incidental conditions, 
such as an excessive amount of war, of the conditions of the soil, 
of devastations made by famine, epidemics, etc. These conditions 
all exist, but they persist in a measure because of the defects in the 
organization and mental qualities of the race. One-sixth of Italy 
is uninhabitable on account of malarial conditions, yet these could 
be removed if the people and its government wished. 
Mr. Flinders Petrie, in his "Revolutions of Civilization," has 
contended that civilization is an intermittent phenomenon, that the 
civilization of certain dynasties of Egypt went through periods of 
development and decline, and that the same process took place in 
Europe. He puts the civilization which began in the fifth century 
and ended in the Age of Constantine, as a seventh period of European 
evolution. OSLER 1 [262 FINK Gal. 459 
Professor Petrie does not attempt to explain these recurrent 
phenomena, however, nor has anyone, so far as I know, attempted 
it in any general way. The suggestion that it may be due to the 
faulty make-up in the mentality of races is at least worth consider- 
ing. We know that, given a certain personality, if it is subject to 
depressing, or irritant conditions, it develops a special psychosis 
corresponding to the mechanism of the individual's character. So, 
when a nation or race is made up on a certain pattern, it may react 
to exhausting or depressing stimuli, in accordance with its mental 
mechanisms. 
Let us now see what was the "make-up ' of the Roman race. 
The members of this race were certainly not constitutionally 
inferior or psychopathic. They developed, expanded, and controlled 
the destinies of the world for a thousand years. But, like many 
normal individuals who live lives of aggression and domination, 
they had some psychopathic and perilous periods, due to their 
natural characteristics. 
The Romans started as a race of fighting farmers, and at the 
beginning, waged war mainly on the defensive. In order to retain 
their homes and land, they developed the sturdy virtues of disci- 
pline, valor, and obedience. They were fairly intelligent, but they 
believed they had superior qualities and were extremely confident 
of themselves. They were not strongly individualistic like the 
Greeks, but were willing to make personal sacrifice for the sake of 
the whole group. 
They had a state religion, and they prayed for their families and 
crops. They were not a sensitive people, not generous in spirit, were 
poor in emotion, with no great social gifts. They had little ingenuity, 
and until later developed no art or science-except those of war 
and farming. 
Says Mr. Jerome in "Roman Memories," referring to the early 
Romans: 
"The Romans were a people relatively deficient in sentiment and 
imagination; intellectually, they were not above mediocrity; they were 
self-confident, avaricious, severe, and pitiless, but were not needlessly 
cruel-, they were remarkably dree from envy, hatred, and malice; they had 
a strong feeling for gravity and decorum, and possessed to a degree higher 
than in the case of other ancient peoples, the sentiment of justice. 
"They had common sense, but no great mental nimbleness, nor clarity 
of vision. They were conservative, credulous, opportunist, formalist. 
These qualities were joined to their defective imagination and insight. 
Their strongest characteristic was their volitional power: they were iron- 
willed, energetic, determined, patient, and self-controlled. Their leaders 
were not afraid to lead, and the masses were not impatient of restraint, 
not disinclined to obey nor backward in facing death or pain." 
Says Smith in "History of Rome": 
"We may trace the superiority of the Romans, first to the strength 
and firmness of their character, which endowed them with confidence in 
themselves, still more with confidence in one another; to the power of 
command over themselves and not less of command over others; to the 
mutual sympathy and brotherly feeling nurtured by the perils they had 
encountered and the triumphs they had won together, and to a conscious- 
ness of natural fitness to rule and an imperial destiny to accomplish. 
Their vaunted patriotism of the Romans, which was undoubtedly both 
sincere and active, may be resolved into a sense of dependence upon one 
another and an independence of all besides, which taught them to regard 
their city as the center of their universe." 
The Romans prospered. As they became more experienced and 
realized the resources and enjoyments of a larger life, they secured, 
through their primitive virtues, their intelligence and practical 
training, the things that art and greater social development in other 
countries could furnish. They bought art and culture and good 
living. They found it easier to plunder than build, so they became 
predatory in habit, and war was used to enrich their homes with 
everything that the world could furnish. 
They could not fight and plunder and keep their acquisitions 
without retaining their discipline and all that went to make success- 
ful warriors. As they had continually to fight not only to acquire 
wealth, but to defend themselves against other robbers, they were 
led to become efficient in constructing roads, fortresses, and 
buildings. 
They retained their pride and egotism, which showed itself in 
an intense desire to dominate and to fear any form of personal or 
national enslavement. 
For about 250 years, under the Kings, the Roman people were 
busy organizing themselves and establishing their city, pursuing 
agriculture, and defending themselves against their neighbors. 
Then the republic began, and with it the beginnings of the Great 
Addiction. Rome began to expand; it felt the desire for power, and 
this gave it plunder, a great commerce, and riches. It conquered 
Sicily, parts of Spain and all of Italy. At about the same time it 
destroyed Carthage and conquered Greece, and by 165 b. c. became 
master of the whole Mediterranean basin. Later this people com- 
pleted the conquest of Africa and Sulla, Marius, and Brutus plun- 
dered the East and Spain. Caesar plundered Gaul. When the latter 
was assassinated he was planning to conquer the Parthians and pay 
the debts of the Romans. The desire for power and territory and 
money grew, as does the desire for opium. The more they possessed, 
the more they needed to defend what they possessed. At first this 
was an ambition of the people or nation, a group ambition, but later 
it became an individual ambition. It was specialized, and the 
leaders or the classes sought power and riches for themselves. This 
led to civil wars. The wars of the Gracchi, of Sylla and Marius, 
the wiping out of the Samnites and the control of all Italy. 
The nation was on the point of falling to pieces through the 
debts and exhaustion of the State, the rivalry and ambitions of the 
leaders, and the neglect and incapacity of its administration. 
Here is the experiment: 
War by Hannibal, first Punic War, 264-241 b. c.; second Punic 
War, 218-201 b. c.; conquest of Greece, 200-195 b. c.; conquest 
Syria, Spain and Cisapline Gaul, 191-178 b. c.; Macedonian War, 
168 b. c.; Imai conquest of Greece, 148 b. c.; destruction of Carthage, 
146 b. c.; civil wars led by the Gracchi, 133 and 121 b. c. 
Defensive and offensive war against the Teutons and Jugurtha, 
110-101; social war led by Marius, 90-86 b. c.; foreign and civil 
war conducted by Sulla, 86 to 82 b. c.; Gallic wars by Caesar, 57 to 
48 b. c.; conquest of the East by Brutus. OSLER 16262 FINK Gal. 460 
The condition of Rome at this period is summed up by Fowler 
somewhat as follows: There had been a sudden increase in wealth 
which was misused and misspent, so that the nation was over- 
whelmed with debt. There was an abnormal increase of badly used 
slave labor; city life, greatly developed, was not wisely handled; 
wholesome family life had decayed; there was a decadence of women 
and of the old forms of State religion; the methods of education 
were wrong, and there had occurred an increase of disease, due to 
malaria in the country, to bad sanitary conditions in the city. 
In Appian's "Roman History," Book II, Sect. 19, we are told 
that the Commonwealth had for a long time been disorderly and 
unmanageable. The magistrates were chosen by means of money 
and factional fights. Bribery and corruption prevailed in the most 
scandalous manner. The people went bought to the elections. The 
Consuls could not lead armies or command in war, because they were 
shut out by the Triumvirate. The Republic went without Consuls 
for eight months. Good men would not take the task. Finally mob 
violence broke out and Pompey was made Dictator, but his reforms 
were short-lived. A devotion to personal or clique ambitions, had 
taken the place of loyalty to the government and love of the father- 
land. The condition has been characterized as the beginning of na- 
tional degeneracy and decline. But the work of Rome in the next 
three centuries disproves this. 
It was rather a psychotic episode, precipitated by the weakening 
effect of wars, and excited finally by the enormous opportunities 
for personal self-indulgence, so that those things which should have 
gone to enrich and develop the state went to demoralize and 
confuse the people. 
When addiction overwhelms an individual, there results mental 
confusion, delirium, clouding of consciousness, and a definite toxic 
exhaustive psychosis, calling for the offices of a physician or 
custodian. 
It so happens that we have a picture of the times at this period, 
as accurate and vivid as if it were the best kind of daily modern 
journalism. This is in the letters of Cicero, covering the period 50 
to 47 b. c., in which latter year Caesar crossed the Rubicon and later 
conquered Pompey at Pharsalia. 
I am presenting passages from these letters, as a sort of protocol, 
illustrating this psychotic episode in Roman history. 
Cicero pictures the situation as hopeless if Caesar wins. Historians 
agree that it would have been hopeless if he had not. 
Caesar began-and Augustus completed-the medical treatment 
of Rome, bringing back the authority of Rome and its patriotism 
and passion for domination, to the government, and not to groups 
of individuals. 
Specialization of power, without co-operation and authoritative 
organization, fails in national life as it does in personal life. This is 
the lesson drawn from the story of the Great Addiction. 
The letters show Cicero's views on the instability of the Republic, 
the power of one general, the weakness of another. His letters portray 
the general distrust of those in authority and a despair for the future 
of the state and himself. I quote especially his references to Caesar, 
as showing how keenly he feared another social war and civil disaster. 
All that he apprehended did occur for a time, but after Augustus 
had finished his prescriptions and restored social order, the state 
revived and grew in strength and efficiency for several hundred 
years. 
In the year 50 b. c. Cicero had just finished his government of 
Celicia, and he was on his way home, when he first got news of 
Caesar's demands-viz., to be retained as governor of Gaul, and 
later to be elected consul. The Senate soon voted that if Caesar did 
not resign he would be declared a public enemy. 
Thereupon Caesar crossed the Rubicon (49 b. c.), and civil war 
between him and the loyalists, led by Pompey, began. Pompey left 
Rome, fled to Brundusium, the southern seaport of Italy, and thence 
crossed to Epirus. Caesar seized the government at Rome, garrisoned 
Italy, went to Spain, conquered the loyalists there; returned to 
Italy; then in January, 48 b. c., he crossed to Epirus, and in August, 
48 b. c., won a victory over Pompey at Pharsalus. The Roman 
republic was ended. OSLER 16262 NFK Gal. 461 
Athens, October 16, (A.U.C. 703) b. C. 50. 
Cicero to Atticus, Greeting: 
If you have at last received my letter, you will know, that 1 have yours y 
through our friend Acastus, and that I am in good spirits bono (animo) 
because Acastus told me of your improved health. But I shivered myself 
(coborruisse autem me) at your news of Caesar's legions. . . . For myself, 
I seem to foresee a terrific struggle (tantam dimicationem) unless the same 
god who saved us in the Parthian war take pity on the state--even so, 
such a terrific struggle as there never has been before. 
Formae, Dec. 5, b. c. 49. 
Cicero to Atticus, Greeting: 
I have really no news, but it soothes me to write to you and to read 
your letters. (Acquiesco enim ct scribens ad te et legens tua.) 
My fears about the republic are very great. I have no consolation 
except the thought that if fortune bestows on1 Caesar the supreme power 
he will not be so mad as to misuse his advantages. If he begins to run amuck 
my fears are more than I dare to write. (Quodsi ruere coeperit, ne ego multa 
timeo quse non audeo scribere). But whoever conquers there will come many 
evils and no doubt a tyrant. 
Formeae, March 8, b. c. 49. 
What a difficult and calamitous business! (Quern difficultem planeque 
perditam.) How can Caesar keep from a destructive policy? It is forbidden 
by his character, his previous career, the nature of his present enterprise 
and his associates. For what a following he has, what damned souls! what 
an abandoned and desperate cause! I foresee a massacre if he conquers, 
an attack on the wealth of nations, repudiation of obligations, recall of 
exiles, high office for the basest men and a tyranny intolerable. 
Please introduce Terentia to the bankers; and send me news of Tiro, 
as you have done. 
Athens, October 16, (A. U. C. 703) b. c. 50. 
Cicero to Atticus, Greeting: 
If you have at last received my letter you will know that 1 have yours 
through our friend Acastus, and that I am in good spirits (bono animo) 
because Acastus told me of your improved health: But I shivered myself 
(coborruisse autem me) at your news of Caesar's legions. . . . For myself, I 
seem to foresee a terrific struggle (tantam dimicationem) unless the same 
god who saved us in the Parthian war take pity on the state-even so, 
such a terrific struggle as there never has been before. 
Brundsium, Nov. 126 b. c. 50. 
I arrived at Brundusium Nov. 24th Terentia who met me in the forum 
told me that your second attack of quartan had passed ... I hope that by • 
your prudence and temperance your health has been restored. I have all 
your letters each more delightful than the last. . . . 
Cato has treated me shamefully and spitefully. He gave me a high 
character (which I did not want) but denied me a triumph, for which I 
asked, and how Caesar exults over this wrong done me by Cato! . . . 
I long to answer all your letters; though there is one to which I have 
no answer to make, and that is the one dealing with the perils of the 
republic. I am very much upset (valde eram perturbatUs). What would you 
have me do? 
From Letter to Tiro. 
A. U. 704, b. c. 49. 
But an invincible rage for war had unaccountably seized not only 
the enemies, but even those who are esteemed the friends, of the'common- 
wealth: and it was in vain I remonstrated, that nothing was more to be 
dreaded than a civil war. Caesar, in the mean time, unmindful of his former 
character and honors, and driven, it should seem, by a sort of frenzy, has 
taken possession of Ariminum, Pisaurum, Ancona, and Arrctum. 
From Letter XII, To Servius Sulpicius. 
A. U. C. 704, b. c. 49. 
1 he flames of war, you see, have spread themselves throughout the 
whole Roman dominions, and all the world has taken up arms under our 
respective chiefs. Rome, in the mean time, destitute of all rule or magis- 
tracy, of all justice or control, is wretchedly abandoned to the dreadfpl 
inroads of(rapine and devastation. In this general anarchy and confusion/1 
know not what to expect; I scarcely know even what to wish. , . . 
From Leiter XIV, Cicero to Marcus Coelius. 
A. U. C. 704, b.c. 49. 
The truth of it is, there is no calamity so severe to which we are not 
all of us, it should seem, in this universal anarchy and confusion, equally 
and unavoidably exposed. But if I could have averted this dreadful storm 
from the republic at the expense of my own private and domestic enjoy- 
ments, even of those, my friend, which you so emphatically recommend 
to my care, I should most willingly have made the sacrifice.