Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius - Niccolo Machiavelli
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
CHAPTER XVII.--_That a corrupt People obtaining Freedom can hardly
preserve it._
I believe that if her kings had not been expelled, Rome must very soon
have become a weak and inconsiderable State. For seeing to what a pitch
of corruption these kings had come, we may conjecture that if two or
three more like reigns had followed, and the taint spread from the head
to the members, so soon as the latter became infected, cure would have
been hopeless. But from the head being removed while the trunk was still
sound, it was not difficult for the Romans to return to a free and
constitutional government.
It may be assumed, however, as most certain, that a corrupted city
living under a prince can never recover its freedom, even were the
prince and all his line to be exterminated. For in such a city it must
necessarily happen that one prince will be replaced by another, and that
things will never settle down until a new lord be established; unless,
indeed, the combined goodness and valour of some one citizen should
maintain freedom, which, even then, will endure only for his lifetime;
as happened twice in Syracuse, first under the rule of Dion, and again
under that of Timoleon, whose virtues while they lived kept their city
free, but on whose death it fell once more under a tyranny.
But the strongest example that can be given is that of Rome, which on
the expulsion of the Tarquins was able at once to seize on liberty and
to maintain it; yet, on the deaths of Caesar, Caligula, and Nero, and on
the extinction of the Julian line, was not only unable to establish her
freedom, but did not even venture a step in that direction. Results so
opposite arising in one and the same city can only be accounted for by
this, that in the time of the Tarquins the Roman people were not yet
corrupted, but in these later times had become utterly corrupt. For on
the first occasion, nothing more was needed to prepare and determine
them to shake off their kings, than that they should be bound by oath
to suffer no king ever again to reign in Rome; whereas, afterwards, the
authority and austere virtue of Brutus, backed by all the legions of the
East, could not rouse them to maintain their hold of that freedom, which
he, following in the footsteps of the first Brutus, had won for them;
and this because of the corruption wherewith the people had been
infected by the Marian faction, whereof Caesar becoming head, was able so
to blind the multitude that it saw not the yoke under which it was about
to lay its neck.
Though this example of Rome be more complete than any other, I desire to
instance likewise, to the same effect, certain peoples well known in our
own days; and I maintain that no change, however grave or violent, could
ever restore freedom to Naples or Milan, because in these States the
entire body of the people has grown corrupted. And so we find that
Milan, although desirous to return to a free form of government, on the
death of Filippo Visconti, had neither the force nor the skill needed to
preserve it.
Most fortunate, therefore, was it for Rome that her kings grew corrupt
soon, so as to be driven out before the taint of their corruption had
reached the vitals of the city. For it was because these were sound
that the endless commotions which took place in Rome, so far from
being hurtful, were, from their object being good, beneficial to the
commonwealth. From which we may draw this inference, that where the body
of the people is still sound, tumults and other like disorders do
little hurt, but that where it has become corrupted, laws, however well
devised, are of no advantage, unless imposed by some one whose paramount
authority causes them to be observed until the community be once more
restored to a sound and healthy condition.
Whether this has ever happened I know not, nor whether it ever can
happen. For we see, as I have said a little way back, that a city which
owing to its pervading corruption has once begun to decline, if it is
to recover at all, must be saved not by the excellence of the people
collectively, but of some one man then living among them, on whose death
it at once relapses into its former plight; as happened with Thebes,
in which the virtue of Epaminondas made it possible while he lived to
preserve the form of a free Government, but which fell again on his
death into its old disorders; the reason being that hardly any ruler
lives so long as to have time to accustom to right methods a city which
has long been accustomed to wrong. Wherefore, unless things be put on a
sound footing by some one ruler who lives to a very advanced age, or by
two virtuous rulers succeeding one another, the city upon their death
at once falls back into ruin; or, if it be preserved, must be so by
incurring great risks, and at the cost of much blood. For the corruption
I speak of, is wholly incompatible with a free government, because it
results from an inequality which pervades the State and can only be
removed by employing unusual and very violent remedies, such as few are
willing or know how to employ, as in another place I shall more fully
explain.
CHAPTER XVIII.--_How a Free Government existing in a corrupt City may be
preserved, or not existing may be created._
I think it neither out of place, nor inconsistent with what has been
said above, to consider whether a free government existing in a corrupt
city can be maintained, or, not existing, can be introduced. And on this
head I say that it is very difficult to bring about either of these
results, and next to impossible to lay down rules as to how it may be
done; because the measures to be taken must vary with the degree of
corruption which prevails.
Nevertheless, since it is well to reason things out, I will not pass
this matter by, but will assume, in the first place, the case of a very
corrupt city, and then take the case of one in which corruption has
reached a still greater height; but where corruption is universal, no
laws or institutions will ever have force to restrain it. Because as
good customs stand in need of good laws for their support, so laws, that
they may be respected, stand in need of good customs. Moreover, the laws
and institutions established in a republic at its beginning, when men
were good, are no longer suitable when they have become bad; but
while the laws of a city are altered to suit its circumstances, its
institutions rarely or never change; whence it results that the
introduction of new laws is of no avail, because the institutions,
remaining unchanged, corrupt them.
And to make this plainer, I say that in Rome it was first of all
the institutions of the State, and next the laws as enforced by the
magistrates, which kept the citizens under control. The institutions
of the State consisted in the authority of the people, the senate, the
tribunes, and the consuls; in the methods of choosing and appointing
magistrates; and in the arrangements for passing laws. These
institutions changed little, if at all, with circumstances. But the laws
by which the people were controlled, as for instance the law relating to
adultery, the sumptuary laws, the law as to canvassing at elections, and
many others, were altered as the citizens grew more and more corrupted.
Hence, the institutions of the State remaining the same although from
the corruption of the people no longer suitable, amendments in the laws
could not keep men good, though they might have proved very useful if
at the time when they were made the institutions had likewise been
reformed.
That its original institutions are no longer adapted to a city that has
become corrupted, is plainly seen in two matters of great moment, I mean
in the appointment of magistrates and in the passing of laws. For the
Roman people conferred the consulship and other great offices of their
State on none save those who sought them; which was a good institution
at first, because then none sought these offices save those who thought
themselves worthy of them, and to be rejected was held disgraceful; so
that, to be deemed worthy, all were on their best behaviour. But in a
corrupted city this institution grew to be most mischievous. For it was
no longer those of greatest worth, but those who had most influence, who
sought the magistracies; while all who were without influence, however
deserving, refrained through fear. This untoward result was not reached
all at once, but like other similar results, by gradual steps. For after
subduing Africa and Asia, and reducing nearly the whole of Greece to
submission, the Romans became perfectly assured of their freedom, and
seemed to themselves no longer to have any enemy whom they had cause to
fear. But this security and the weakness of their adversaries led them
in conferring the consulship, no longer to look to merit, but only to
favour, selecting for the office those who knew best how to pay court
to them, not those who knew best how to vanquish their enemies. And
afterwards, instead of selecting those who were best liked, they came
to select those who had most influence; and in this way, from the
imperfection of their institutions, good men came to be wholly excluded.
Again, as to making laws, any of the tribunes and certain others of the
magistrates were entitled to submit laws to the people; but before these
were passed it was open to every citizen to speak either for or against
them. This was a good system so long as the citizens were good, since it
is always well that every man should be able to propose what he thinks
may be of use to his country, and that all should be allowed to express
their views with regard to his proposal; so that the people, having
heard all, may resolve on what is best. But when the people grew
depraved, this became a very mischievous institution; for then it was
only the powerful who proposed laws, and these not in the interest of
public freedom but of their own authority; and because, through fear,
none durst speak against the laws they proposed, the people were either
deceived or forced into voting their own destruction.
In order, therefore, that Rome after she had become corrupted might
still preserve her freedom, it was necessary that, as in the course
of events she had made new laws, so likewise she should frame new
institutions, since different institutions and ordinances are needed in
a corrupt State from those which suit a State which is not corrupted;
for where the matter is wholly dissimilar, the form cannot be similar.
But since old institutions must either be reformed all at once, as soon
as they are seen to be no longer expedient, or else gradually, as the
imperfection of each is recognized, I say that each of these two courses
is all but impossible. For to effect a gradual reform requires a
sagacious man who can discern mischief while it is still remote and in
the germ. But it may well happen that no such person is found in a city;
or that, if found, he is unable to persuade others of what he is himself
persuaded. For men used to live in one way are loath to leave it for
another, especially when they are not brought face to face with the evil
against which they should guard, and only have it indicated to them by
conjecture. And as for a sudden reform of institutions which are seen by
all to be no longer good, I say that defects which are easily discerned
are not easily corrected, because for their correction it is not enough
to use ordinary means, these being in themselves insufficient; but
recourse must be had to extraordinary means, such as violence and arms;
and, as a preliminary, you must become prince of the city, and be able
to deal with it at your pleasure. But since the restoration of a State
to new political life presupposes a good man, and to become prince of
a city by violence presupposes a bad man, it can, consequently, very
seldom happen that, although the end be good, a good man will be found
ready to become a prince by evil ways, or that a bad man having become a
prince will be disposed to act virtuously, or think of turning to good
account his ill-acquired authority.
From all these causes comes the difficulty, or rather the impossibility,
which a corrupted city finds in maintaining an existing free government,
or in establishing a new one. So that had we to establish or maintain a
government in that city, it would be necessary to give it a monarchical,
rather than a popular form, in order that men too arrogant to be
restrained by the laws, might in some measure be kept in check by a
power almost absolute; since to attempt to make them good otherwise
would be a very cruel or a wholly futile endeavour. This, as I have
said, was the method followed by Cleomenes; and if he, that he might
stand alone, put to death the Ephori; and if Romulus, with a like
object, put to death his brother and Titus Tatius the Sabine, and if
both afterwards made good use of the authority they thus acquired, it is
nevertheless to be remembered that it was because neither Cleomenes nor
Romulus had to deal with so corrupt a people as that of which I am now
speaking, that they were able to effect their ends and to give a fair
colour to their acts.
CHAPTER XIX.--_After a strong Prince a weak Prince may maintain himself:
but after one weak Prince no Kingdom can stand a second._
When we contemplate the excellent qualities of Romulus, Numa, and
Tullus, the first three kings of Rome, and note the methods which they
followed, we recognize the extreme good fortune of that city in having
her first king fierce and warlike, her second peaceful and religious,
and her third, like the first, of a high spirit and more disposed to war
than to peace. For it was essential for Rome that almost at the outset
of her career, a ruler should be found to lay the foundations of her
civil life; but, after that had been done, it was necessary that her
rulers should return to the virtues of Romulus, since otherwise the city
must have grown feeble, and become a prey to her neighbours.
And here we may note that a prince who succeeds to another of superior
valour, may reign on by virtue of his predecessor's merits, and reap
the fruits of his labours; but if he live to a great age, or if he be
followed by another who is wanting in the qualities of the first,
that then the kingdom must necessarily dwindle. Conversely, when two
consecutive princes are of rare excellence, we commonly find them
achieving results which win for them enduring renown. David, for
example, not only surpassed in learning and judgment, but was so valiant
in arms that, after conquering and subduing all his neighbours, he left
to his young son Solomon a tranquil State, which the latter, though
unskilled in the arts of war, could maintain by the arts of peace, and
thus happily enjoy the inheritance of his father's valour. But Solomon
could not transmit this inheritance to his son Rehoboam, who neither
resembling his grandfather in valour, nor his father in good fortune,
with difficulty made good his right to a sixth part of the kingdom. In
like manner Bajazet, sultan of the Turks, though a man of peace rather
than of war, was able to enjoy the labours of Mahomet his father, who,
like David, having subdued his neighbours, left his son a kingdom so
safely established that it could easily be retained by him by peaceful
arts. But had Selim, son to Bajazet, been like his father, and not like
his grandfather, the Turkish monarchy must have been overthrown; as it
is, he seems likely to outdo the fame of his grandsire.
I affirm it to be proved by these examples, that after a valiant prince
a feeble prince may maintain himself; but that no kingdom can stand
when two feeble princes follow in succession, unless, as in the case of
France, it be supported by its ancient ordinances. By feeble princes, I
mean such as are not valiant in war. And, to put the matter shortly, it
may be said, that the great valour of Romulus left Numa a period of many
years within which to govern Rome by peaceful arts; that after Numa came
Tullus, who renewed by his courage the fame of Romulus; and that he in
turn was succeeded by Ancus, a prince so gifted by nature that he could
equally avail himself of the methods of peace or war; who setting
himself at first to pursue the former, when he found that his neighbours
judged him to be effeminate, and therefore held him in slight esteem,
understood that to preserve Rome he must resort to arms and resemble
Romulus rather than Numa. From whose example every ruler of a State may
learn that a prince like Numa will hold or lose his power according
as fortune and circumstances befriend him; but that the prince who
resembles Romulus, and like him is fortified with foresight and arms,
will hold his State whatever befall, unless deprived of it by some
stubborn and irresistible force. For we may reckon with certainty that
if Rome had not had for her third king one who knew how to restore her
credit by deeds of valour, she could not, or at any rate not without
great difficulty, have afterwards held her ground, nor could ever have
achieved the great exploits she did.
And for these reasons Rome, while she lived under her kings, was in
constant danger of destruction through a king who might be weak or bad.
CHAPTER XX.--_That the consecutive Reigns of two valiant Princes produce
great results: and that well-ordered Commonwealths are assured of a
Succession of valiant Rulers by whom their Power and Growth are rapidly
extended_.
When Rome had driven out her kings, she was freed from those dangers to
which, as I have said, she was exposed by the possible succession of
a weak or wicked prince. For the chief share in the government then
devolved upon the consuls, who took their authority not by inheritance,
nor yet by craft or by ambitious violence, but by the free suffrages of
their fellow-citizens, and were always men of signal worth; by whose
valour and good fortune Rome being constantly aided, was able to reach
the height of her greatness in the same number of years as she had lived
under her kings. And since we find that two successive reigns of valiant
princes, as of Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander, suffice to
conquer the world, this ought to be still easier for a commonwealth,
which has it in its power to choose, not two excellent rulers only, but
an endless number in succession. And in every well ordered commonwealth
provision will be made for a succession of this sort.
CHAPTER XXI.--_That it is a great reproach to a Prince or to a
Commonwealth to be without a national Army_.
Those princes and republics of the present day who lack forces of their
own, whether for attack or defence, should take shame to themselves, and
should be convinced by the example of Tullus, that their deficiency does
not arise from want of men fit for warlike enterprises, but from their
own fault in not knowing how to make their subjects good soldiers. For
after Rome had been at peace for forty years, Tullus, succeeding to
the kingdom, found not a single Roman who had ever been in battle.
Nevertheless when he made up his mind to enter on a war, it never
occurred to him to have recourse to the Samnites, or the Etruscans,
or to any other of the neighbouring nations accustomed to arms, but he
resolved, like the prudent prince he was, to rely on his own countrymen.
And such was his ability that, under his rule, the people very soon
became admirable soldiers. For nothing is more true than that where a
country, having men, lacks soldiers, it results from some fault in its
ruler, and not from any defect in the situation or climate. Of this we
have a very recent instance. Every one knows, how, only the other day,
the King of England invaded the realm of France with an army raised
wholly from among his own people, although from his country having been
at peace for thirty years, he had neither men nor officers who had ever
looked an enemy in the face. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate with such
troops as he had, to attack a kingdom well provided with officers and
excellent soldiers who had been constantly under arms in the Italian
wars. And this was possible through the prudence of the English king and
the wise ordinances of his kingdom, which never in time of peace relaxes
its warlike discipline. So too, in old times, Pelopidas and Epaminondas
the Thebans, after they had freed Thebes from her tyrants, and rescued
her from thraldom to Sparta, finding themselves in a city used to
servitude and surrounded by an effeminate people, scrupled not, so great
was their courage, to furnish these with arms, and go forth with them to
meet and to conquer the Spartan forces on the field. And he who relates
this, observes, that these two captains very soon showed that warriors
are not bred in Lacedaemon alone, but in every country where men are
found, if only some one arise among them who knows how to direct them to
arms; as we see Tullus knew how to direct the Romans. Nor could Virgil
better express this opinion, or show by fitter words that he was
convinced of its truth than, when he says:--
"To arms shall Tullus rouse
His sluggish warriors."[1]
[Footnote 1: Residesque movebit Tullus in arma viros. _Virg. Aen_. vi.
814.]
CHAPTER XXII.--_What is to be noted in the combat of the three Roman
Horatii and the three Alban Curiatii_.
It was agreed between Tullus king of Rome, and Metius king of Alba, that
the nation whose champions were victorious in combat should rule over
the other. The three Alban Curiatii were slain; one of the Roman Horatii
survived. Whereupon the Alban king with all his people became subject
to the Romans. The surviving Horatius returning victorious to Rome, and
meeting his sister, wife to one of the dead Curiatii, bewailing the
death of her husband, slew her; and being tried for this crime, was,
after much contention, liberated, rather on the entreaties of his father
than for his own deserts.
Herein three points are to be noted. _First_, that we should never
peril our whole fortunes on the success of only a part of our forces.
_Second_, that in a well-governed State, merit should never be allowed
to balance crime. And _third_, that those are never wise covenants which
we cannot or should not expect to be observed. Now, for a State to be
enslaved is so terrible a calamity that it ought never to have been
supposed possible that either of these kings or nations would rest
content under a slavery resulting from the defeat of three only of their
number. And so it appeared to Metius; for although on the victory of the
Roman champions, he at once confessed himself vanquished, and promised
obedience; nevertheless, in the very first expedition which he and
Tullus undertook jointly against the people of Veii, we find him seeking
to circumvent the Roman, as though perceiving too late the rash part he
had played.
This is enough to say of the third point which I noted as deserving
attention. Of the other two I shall speak in the next two Chapters.
CHAPTER XXIII.--_That we should never hazard our whole Fortunes where we
put not forth our entire Strength; for which reason to guard a Defile is
often hurtful_.
It was never judged a prudent course to peril your whole fortunes where
you put not forth your whole strength; as may happen in more ways than
one. One of these ways was that taken by Tullus and Metius, when each
staked the existence of his country and the credit of his army on the
valour and good fortune of three only of his soldiers, that being an
utterly insignificant fraction of the force at his disposal. For neither
of these kings reflected that all the labours of their predecessors in
framing such institutions for their States, as might, with the aid of
the citizens themselves, maintain them long in freedom, were rendered
futile, when the power to ruin all was left in the hands of so small a
number. No rasher step, therefore, could have been taken, than was taken
by these kings.
A like risk is almost always incurred by those who, on the approach of
an enemy, resolve to defend some place of strength, or to guard the
defiles by which their country is entered. For unless room be found in
this place of strength for almost all your army, the attempt to hold it
will almost always prove hurtful. If you can find room, it will be right
to defend your strong places; but if these be difficult of access, and
you cannot there keep your entire force together, the effort to defend
is mischievous. I come to this conclusion from observing the example
of those who, although their territories be enclosed by mountains and
precipices, have not, on being attacked by powerful enemies, attempted
to fight on the mountains or in the defiles, but have advanced beyond
them to meet their foes; or, if unwilling to advance, have awaited
attack behind their mountains, on level and not on broken ground. The
reason of which is, as I have above explained, that many men cannot be
assembled in these strong places for their defence; partly because a
large number of men cannot long subsist there, and partly because such
places being narrow and confined, afford room for a few only; so that no
enemy can there be withstood, who comes in force to the attack; which
he can easily do, his design being to pass on and not to make a stay;
whereas he who stands on the defensive cannot do so in force, because,
from not knowing when the enemy may enter the confined and sterile
tracts of which I speak, he may have to lodge himself there for a long
time. But should you lose some pass which you had reckoned on holding,
and on the defence of which your country and army have relied, there
commonly follows such panic among your people and among the troops which
remain to you, that you are vanquished without opportunity given for
any display of valour, and lose everything without bringing all your
resources into play.