# 45. It is a Bad Precedent to break a New Law, especially if the Legislator himself does it; and daily to inflict Fresh Injuries on a City is most Harmful to him that governs it

When agreement had been reached and Rome had returned to its ancient form of government Virginius cited Appius to appear before the people to defend his case. He appeared in the company of many nobles. Virginius ordered him to be put in prison. Appius began to protest loudly, and appealed to the people. Virginius said that he was not worthy to have the right of appeal since he had abolished it, or to have as his defenders a people whom he had ill treated. Appius replied that the people ought not to violate the right of appeal which they had been so keen on instituting. He was none the less imprisoned, and killed himself before the trial came on. Appius by his wicked life no doubt merited the severest punishment. But it scarce accorded with civic custom to violate the law, especially a law that had just been made. For I do not think a worse example can be set in a republic than to make a law and not to observe it; and when it is not observed by the man who made it so much the worse.

After ’94 the government of Florence was reconstituted with the aid of Friar Girolamo Savonarola, whose writings attest the learning, prudence, and virtue of his mind. For the security of the citizens he had made, among other constitutions, a law which allowed an appeal to the people from a judgement which, in cases of treason, the Eight and the Signoria had passed. He had advocated this law for some time, and with the greatest difficulty got it accepted. Shortly after it had been sanctioned, it happened that five citizens were condemned to death by the Signoria for treason. When they wished to appeal they were not allowed to do so, and the law was not observed. This did more to lessen the reputation of the Friar than anything else that befell him. For, if the right to appeal was worth having, he ought to have seen that it was observed. If it was not worth having, he should not have forced it through. The event attracted more notice in that this Friar in not one of the many sermons which he preached after the law had been broken, ever condemned the breach or offered any excuse. For, since it suited his purpose, to condemn it he was unwilling, and to excuse it he was unable. Since this made it plain to all that at heart he was ambitious and a party-man, it ruined his reputation and brought on him much reproach.

It does considerable harm to a state to arouse every day fresh discontent in the minds of your citizens by inflicting fresh injuries on this or that person, as happened in Rome after the fall of the Decemviri. For all ten of them, and other citizens besides, were at various times accused and condemned, so that the whole nobility was in a state of extreme terror, since they thought there would be no end to such condemnations until the whole of the nobility was destroyed. This would have caused great inconveniences in the city if Marcus Duilius, a tribune, had not made provision against it by issuing an edict which made it unlawful for anyone to cite or accuse any Roman citizen for the space of a year; whereby the whole nobility was reassured.

This shows how harmful it is to a republic or to a prince to keep the minds of their subjects in suspense and fear by continually inflicting punishment and giving offence. Than this there is unquestionably no practice more pernicious. For when men begin to suspect that evil may befall them, they take any means to protect themselves and grow more bold and less restrained in attempting a revolution. It is necessary, therefore, either never to injure anyone, or to inflict the injuries at one go, and then to reassure men and give them ground to expect peace and security.





Book One



[DISCOURSES 46–9]


[The Popular Demand for a Share in Government]