|
Medieval Sourcebook:
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527):
Founding a Republic,
Excerpt from Discourses I, 9
To found a new republic, or to reform entirely the old institutions of an existing one, must be the work of one man only
It may perhaps appear to some that I have gone too far into the details of Roman
history before having made any mention of the founders of that republic, or of her
institutions, her religion and her military establishment. Not wishing, therefore, to keep
any longer in suspense the desires of those who wish to understand these matters, I say
that many will perhaps consider it an evil example that the founder of a civil society, as
Romulus was, should first have killed his brother, and then have consented to the death of
Titus Tatius, who had been elected to share the royal authority with him; from which it
might be concluded that the citizens, according to the example of their prince, might,
from ambition and the desire to rule, destroy those who attempt to oppose their authority.
This opinion would be correct, if we do not take into consideration the object which
Romulus had in view in committing that homicide. But we must assume, as a general rule,
that it never or rarely happens that a republic or monarchy is well constituted, or its
old institutions entirely reformed, unless it is done by only one individual; it is even
necessary that he whose mind has conceived such a constitution should be alone in carrying
it into effect. A sagacious legislator of a republic, therefore, whose object is to
promote the public good, and not his private interests, and who prefers his country to his
own successors, should concentrate all authority in himself; and a wise mind will never
censure any one for having employed any extraordinary means for the purpose of
establishing a kingdom or constituting a republic. It is well that, when the act accuses
him, the result should excuse him; and when the result is good, as in the case of Romulus,
it will always absolve him from blame. For he is to be reprehended who commits violence
for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes. The
lawgiver should, however, be sufficiently wise and virtuous not to leave this authority
which he has assumed either to his heirs or to any one else; for mankind being more prone
to evil than to good, his successor might employ for evil purposes the power which he had
used only for good ends. Besides, although one man alone should organise a government, yet
it will not endure long if the administration of it remains on the shoulders of a single
individual; it is well, then, to confide this to the charge of many, for thus it will be
sustained by the many. Therefore, as the organisation of anything cannot be made by many,
because the divergence of their opinions hinders them from agreeing as to what is best,
yet, when once they do understand it, they will not readily agree to abandon it. That
Romulus deserves to be excused for the death of his brother and that of his associate, and
that what he had done was for the general good, and not for the gratification of his own
ambition, is proved by the fact that he immediately instituted a senate with which to
consult, and according to the opinions of which he might form his resolutions. And on
carefully considering the authority which Romulus reserved for himself, we see that all he
kept was the command of the army in case of war, and the power of convoking the senate.
This was seen when Rome became free, after the expulsion of the Tarquins, when there was
no other innovation made upon the existing order of things than the substitution of two
consuls, appointed annually, in place of an hereditary king; which proves clearly that all
the original institutions of that city were more in conformity with the requirements of a
free and civil society than with an absolute and tyrannical government.
The above views might be corroborated by any number of examples, such as those of
Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, and other founders of monarchies and republics, who were enabled
to establish laws suitable for the general good only by keeping for themselves an
exclusive authority; but all these are so well known that I will not further refer to
them. I will adduce only one instance, not so celebrated, but which merits the
consideration of those who aim to become good legislators: it is this. Agis, king of
Sparta, desired to bring back the Spartans to the strict observance of the laws of
Lycurgus, being convinced that, by deviating from them, their city had lost much of her
ancient virtue, and consequently her power and dominion; but the Spartan ephors had him
promptly killed, as one who attempted to make himself a tyrant. His successor, Cleomenes,
had conceived the same desire, from studying the records and writings of Agis, which he
had found, and which explained his aims and intentions. Cleomenes was convinced that he
would be unable to render this service to his country unless he possessed sole authority;
for he judged that, owing to the ambitious nature of men, he could not promote the
interests of the many against the will of the few; and therefore he availed himself of a
convenient opportunity to have all the ephors slain, as well as all such others as might
oppose his project, after which he restored the laws of Lycurgus entirely. This course was
calculated to resuscitate the greatness of Sparta, and to give Cleomenes a reputation
equal to that of Lycurgus, had it not been for the power of the Macedonians and the
weakness of the other Greek republics. For being soon after attacked by the Macedonians,
and Sparta by herself being inferior in strength, and there being no one whom he could
call to his aid, he was defeated; and thus his project, so just and laudable, was never
put into execution. Considering, then, all these things, I conclude that, to found a
republic, one must be alone; and that Romulus deserves to be absolved from, and not blamed
for, the death of Remus and of Tatius.
Source.
The Historical, Political and Diplomatic Writings of Niccolò Machiavelli,
trans. C. E. Detmold, 4 vols, Boston 1882. Extract from `Discourses', (I, 9).
This text is part of the Internet
Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall, October 1998
halsall@fordham.edu
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]
|
