“There will be no loyalty between associates in tyranny
and no power will tolerate a partner.”

Nulla fides regni sociis, omnisque potestas
inpatiens consortis erit.
Book I, line 92 (tr. Susan H. Braund).
Pharsalia

Original

Nulla fides regni sociis, omnisque potestas<br/>inpatiens consortis erit.

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "There will be no loyalty between associates in tyranny and no power will tolerate a partner." by Marcus Annaeus Lucanus?
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus photo
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus 58
Roman poet 39–65

Related quotes

Michel Foucault photo

“In short, penal reform was born at the point of junction between the struggle against the super-power of the sovereign and that against the infra-power of acquired and tolerated illegalities.”

Source: Discipline and Punish (1977), Chapter Two, Generalized Punishment, pp.87
Context: It proved necessary, therefore, to control these illicit practices and introduce new legislation to cover them. The offenses had to be properly defined and more surely punished; out of this mass of irregularities, sometimes tolerated and sometimes punished with a severity out of all proportion to the offense, one had to determine what was an intolerable offense, and the offenders had to be apprehended and punished. With the new forms of capital accumulation, new relations of production and the new legal status of property, all the popular practices that belonged, either in a silent, everyday, tolerated form, or in a violent form, to the illegality of rights were reduced by force to an illegality of property. In that movement which transformed a society of juridico-political levies into a society of the appropriation of the means and products of labour, theft tended to become the first of the great loopholes in legality. Or, to put it another way, the economy of illegalities was restructured with the development of capitalist society. The illegality of property was separated from the illegality of rights. This distinction represents a class opposition because, on the one hand, the illegality that was to be most accessible to the lower classes was that of property – the violent transfer of ownership – and because, on the other, the bourgeoisie was to reserve to itself the illegality of rights: the possibility of getting round its own regulations and its own laws, of ensuring for itself an immense sector of economic circulation by a skillful manipulation of gaps in the law – gaps that were foreseen by its silences, or opened up by de facto tolerance. And this great redistribution of illegalities was even to be expressed through a specialization of the legal circuits: for illegalities of property – for theft – there were the ordinary courts and punishments; for the illegalities of rights – fraud, tax evasion, irregular commercial operations – special legal institutions applied with transactions, accommodations, reduced fines, etc. The bourgeoisie reserved to itself the fruitful domain of the illegality of rights. And at the same time as this split was taking place, there emerged the need for a constant policing concerned essentially with this illegality of property. It became necessary to get rid of the old economy of the power to punish, based on the principles of the confused and inadequate multiplicity of authorities, the distribution and concentration of the power correlative with actual inertia and inevitable tolerance, punishments that were spectacular in their manifestations and haphazard in their application. It became necessary to define a strategy and techniques of punishment in which an economy of continuity and permanence would replace that of expenditure and excess. In short, penal reform was born at the point of junction between the struggle against the super-power of the sovereign and that against the infra-power of acquired and tolerated illegalities.

Teal Swan photo
Ayaan Hirsi Ali photo

“There is a huge difference between being tolerant and tolerating intolerance”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (1969) Dutch feminist, author

https://archive.is/20130704013203/www.ejpress.org/article/10660

Helen Keller photo

“Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas.”

Helen Keller (1880–1968) American author and political activist

As quoted in the Fighting the Fires of Hate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (13 April 2003) http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/archives/detail.php?category=10-publicprograms&content=2003-04-13

Malcolm X photo

“Power in defense of freedom is greater than power in behalf of tyranny and oppression.”

Malcolm X (1925–1965) American human rights activist

Source: Malcolm X Speaks (1965), p. 158

Lewis H. Lapham photo

“In a political situation where tyranny reigns and rebellion is not tolerated, few men and women will have the luxury of going beyond the stance of the rebel.”

Sam Keen (1931) author, professor, and philosopher

Source: The Passionate Life (1983), p. 77

Ralph Waldo Emerson photo

“The difference between men is in their principle of association.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) American philosopher, essayist, and poet

1840s, Essays: First Series (1841), History
Context: The difference between men is in their principle of association. Some men classify objects by color and size and other accidents of appearance; others by intrinsic likeness, or by the relation of cause and effect. The progress of the intellect is to the clearer vision of causes, which neglects surface differences. To the poet, to the philosopher, to the saint, all things are friendly and sacred, all events profitable, all days holy, all men divine. For the eye is fastened on the life, and slights the circumstance. Every chemical substance, every plant, every animal in its growth, teaches the unity of cause, the variety of appearance.

Eric Hoffer photo

“True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society.”

Section 101
The True Believer (1951), Part Three: United Action and Self-Sacrifice
Context: Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole — the church, party, nation — and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society.

Related topics