|
Medieval Sourcebook:
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527):
The Ancients and Liberty, Excerpt from Discourses II, 2
What nations the Romans had to contend against, and with what obstinacy they defended their liberty
Nothing required so much effort on the part of the Romans to subdue the nations around
them, as well as those of more distant countries, as the love of liberty which these
people cherished in those days; and which they defended with so much obstinacy, that
nothing but the exceeding valour of the Romans could ever have subjugated them. For we
know from many instances to what danger they exposed themselves to preserve or recover
their liberty, and what vengeance they practised upon those who had deprived them of it.
The lessons of history teach us also, on the other hand, the injuries people suffer from
servitude. And whilst in our own times there is only one country in which we can say that
free communities exist, in those ancient times all countries contained numerous cities
that enjoyed entire liberty. In the times of which we are now speaking, there were in
Italy from the mountains that divide the present Tuscany from Lombardy, down to the
extreme point, a number of independent nations, such as the Tuscans, the Romans, the
Samnites and many others, that inhabited the rest of Italy. Nor is there ever any mention
of there having been other kings besides those that reigned in Rome, and Porsenna, king of
the Tuscans, whose line became extinct in a manner not mentioned in history. But we do see
that, at the time when the Romans went to besiege Veii, Tuscany was free, and so prized
her liberty and hated the very name of king, that when the Veienti had created a king in
their city for its defence, and applied to the Tuscans for help against the Romans, it was
resolved, after repeated deliberations, not to grant such assistance to the Veienti so
long as they lived under that king; for the Tuscans deemed it not well to engage in the
defence of those who had voluntarily subjected themselves to the rule of one man. And it
is easy to understand whence that affection for liberty arose in the people, for they had
seen that cities never increased in dominion or wealth unless they were free. And
certainly it is wonderful to think of the greatness which Athens attained within the space
of a hundred years after having free herself from the tyranny of Pisistratus; and still
more wonderful is it to reflect upon the greatness which Rome achieved after she was rid
of her kings. The cause of this is manifest, for it is not individual prosperity, but the
general good, that makes cities great; and certainly the general good is regarded nowhere
but in republics, because whatever they do is for the common benefit, and should it happen
to prove an injury to one or more individuals, those for whose benefit the thing is done
are so numerous that they can always carry the measure against the few that are injured by
it. But the very reverse happens where there is a prince whose private interests are
generally in opposition to those of the city, whilst the measures taken for the benefit of
the city are seldom deemed personally advantageous by the prince. This state of things
soon leads to a tyranny, the least evil of which is to check the advance of the city in
its career of prosperity, so that it grows neither in power nor wealth, but on the
contrary rather retrogrades. And if fate should have it that the tyrant is enterprising,
and by his courage and valour extends his dominions, it will never be for the benefit of
the city, but only for his own; for he will never bestow honours and office upon the good
and brave citizens over whom he tyrannises, so that he may not have occasion to suspect
and fear them. Nor will he make the states which he conquers subject or tributary to the
city of which he is the despot, because it would not be to his advantage to make that city
powerful, but it will always be for his interest to keep the state disunited, so that each
place and country shall recognise him only as master; thus he alone, and not his country,
profits by his conquests. Those who desire to have this opinion confirmed by many other
arguments, need but read Xenophon's treatise On Tyranny.
It is no wonder, then, that the ancients hated tyranny and loved freedom, and that the
very name of liberty should have been held in such esteem by them; as was shown by the
Syracusans when Hieronymus, the nephew of Hiero, was killed. When his death became known
to his army, which was near Syracuse, it caused at first some disturbances, and they were
about committing violence upon his murderers; but when they learnt that the cry of liberty
had been raised in Syracuse, they were delighted, and instantly returned to order. Their
fury against the tyrannicides was quelled, and they thought only of how a free government
might be established in Syracuse. Nor can we wonder that the people indulge in
extraordinary revenge against those who have robbed them of their liberty; of which we
could cite many instances; but will quote only one that occurred in Corcyra, a city in
Greece, during the Peloponnesian war. Greece was at that time divided into two parties,
one of which adhered to the Athenians, and the other to the Spartans, and a similar
division of parties existed in most of the Greek cities. It happened that in Corcyra the
nobles, being the stronger party, seized upon the liberties of the people; but with the
assistance of the Athenians the popular party recovered its power, and having seized the
nobles, they tied their hands behind their backs, and threw them into a prison large
enough to hold them all. They thence took eight or ten at a time, under pretence of
sending them into exile in different directions; but instead of that they killed them with
many cruelties. When the remainder became aware of this, they resolved if possible to
escape such an ignominious death; and having armed themselves as well as they could, they
resisted those who attempted to enter the prison; but when the people heard this
disturbance, they pulled down the roof and upper portion of the prison, and suffocated the
nobles within under its ruins. Many such notable and horrible cases occurred in that
country, which shows that the people will avenge their lost liberty with more energy than
when it is merely threatened.
Reflecting now as to whence it came that in ancient times the people were more devoted
to liberty than in the present, I believe that it resulted from this, that men were
stronger in those days, which I believe to be attributable to the difference of education,
founded upon the difference of their religion and ours. For as our religion teaches us the
truth and the true way of life, it causes us to attach less value to the honours and
possessions of this world; whilst the pagans, esteeming those things as the highest good,
were more energetic and ferocious in their actions. We may observe this also in most of
their institutions, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices as compared with
the humility of ours, which are gentle solemnities rather than magnificent ones, and have
nothing of energy or ferocity in them, whilst in theirs there was no lack of pomp and
show, to which was superadded the ferocious and bloody nature of the sacrifice by the
slaughter of many animals; and the familiarity with this terrible sight assimilated the
nature of men to their sacrificial ceremonies. Besides, this, the pagan religion deified
only men who had achieved great glory, such as commanders of armies and chiefs or
republics, whilst ours glorifies more the humble and contemplative men than the men of
action. Our religion, moreover, places the supreme happiness in humility, lowliness and a
contempt for worldly objects, whilst the other, on the contrary, places the supreme good
in grandeur of soul, strength of body, and all such other qualities as render men
formidable; and if our religion claims of us fortitude of soul, it is more to enable us to
suffer than to achieve great deeds.
These principles seem to me to have made men feeble, and caused them to become an easy
prey to evil-minded men, who can control them more securely, seeing that the great body of
men, for the sake of gaining Paradise, are more disposed to endure injuries than to avenge
them. And although it would seem that the world has become effeminate and Heaven disarmed,
yet this arises unquestionably from the baseness of men, who have interpreted our religion
according to the promptings of indolence rather than those of virtue. For if we were to
reflect that our religion permits us to exalt and defend our country, we should see that
according to it we ought also to love and honour our country, and prepare ourselves so as
to be capable of defending her. It is this education, then, and this false interpretation
of our religion, that is the cause of there not being so many republics nowadays as there
were anciently; and that there is no longer the same love of liberty amongst the people
now as there was then. I believe, however, that another reason for this will be found in
the fact that the Roman Empire, by force of arms, destroyed all the republics and free
cities; and although that empire was afterwards itself dissolved, yet these cities could
not reunite themselves nor reorganise their civil institutions, except in a very few
instances.
Source.
The Historical, Political and Diplomatic Writings of Niccolò Machiavelli,
trans. C. E. Detmold, 4 vols, Boston 1882. Extract from `Discourses' (II, 2).
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]
|
