# 17. A Corrupted People, having acquired Liberty, can maintain it only with the Greatest Difficulty

In Rome it was inevitable, in my opinion, that either the kings should be removed or that in a very short time the state would have become weak and of no account; because, if one considers how corrupt the kings had become, it is clear that in the course of two or three generations the corruption inherent in the kingship would have begun to spread to the members, and, when the members had become corrupt, it would no longer have been possible to reform them. But, since the head was lost while the trunk remained whole it was easily possible to recover a free and ordered mode of life. It should be assumed, then, as a basic and established principle that to a statea which has been under a prince and has become corrupt, freedom cannot be restored even if the prince and the whole of his stock be wiped out. On the contrary, what will happen is that one prince will wipe out another, and without the creation of a new lord it will never settle down unless indeed the goodness of some one man, conjoined with virtue, should keep it free. Such freedom, however, will last only so long as he lives. This happened to Syracuse in the case of Dion and of Timoleon, whose virtue was such that on both occasions the city remained free so long as they lived, but when they were dead returned to its ancient tyranny.

Nor can any better example of this be found than in Rome, which, when the Tarquins were expelled, was able forthwith both to acquire and to maintain its liberty; yet, when Caesar was killed, and Gaius Caligula and Nero were killed, and the whole of Caesar’s stock was exterminated, was not only unable ever to maintain liberty, but could not even make a start. Results so diverse in one and the same city are caused by nought else but that in the time of the Tarquins the Roman populace was not yet corrupt, but in the later period was extremely corrupt. For in the former case, in order to stiffen the people up and to keep them averse to a king, it sufficed to make them swear never to consent to any king ruling in Rome. But in the other period the authority and severity of Brutus, backed by all the legions of the East, did not suffice to keep them disposed to desire that liberty to be maintained which he, after the manner of the first Brutus, had introduced. This was due to the corruption with which the Marian faction had impregnated the populace. For, when Caesar became the head of this faction, he so successfully blinded the masses that they were unaware of the yoke which they themselves had placed on their necks.

Though the example of Rome is preferable to any other, yet I propose to add to it further examples with which those who live at the present time will be familiar. I assert, then, that nothing that befell Milan or Naples, however grave and however violent in character, could ever bring them freedom, since their members were wholly corrupt. This is apparent after the death of Filippo Visconti, for, though it was proposed to introduce freedom in Milan, it could not be done, nor could any means of maintaining it be devised. Rome, then, was extremely lucky in that its kings quickly became corrupt, with the result that they were expelled before their corruption had penetrated to the bowels of that city. This absence of corruption was, in fact, the reason why the numerous tumults which took place in Rome, instigated by men of good intentions, did no harm, but, on the contrary, were an advantage to that republic.

It is possible, then, to arrive at this conclusion: when the material is not corrupt, tumults and other troubles do no harm, but, when it is corrupt, good legislation is of no avail unless it be initiated by someone in so extremely strong a position that he can enforce obedience until such time as the material has become good. Whether this has ever happened or whether it is possible for it to happen I do not know. For, as I have just said, it is clear that, if in a state which is on the decline owing to the corruption of its material a renaissance is ever to be brought about, it will be by the virtue of some one person who is then living, not by the virtue of the public as a whole, that good institutions are kept up, and, as soon as such a person is dead, they will relapse into their former habits.15

This happened at Thebes, which, thanks to the virtue of Epaminondas, successfully maintained a republican form of government as long as he lived, but, on his death, forthwith returned to its former disorderly state. The reason is that no individual can possibly live long enough for a state which has long had bad customs to acquire good ones. Unless a man living for a very long time or one virtuous man succeeded by another, organize it on their passing away, as we have said, there would be a collapse, unless the renaissance is brought about at considerable risk and with no small blood-shedding. For corruption of this kind and ineptitude for a free mode of life is due to the inequality one finds in a city, and, to restore equality it is necessary to take steps which are by no means normal; and this few people either know how to do or are ready to do, a point that will be dealt with in detail in another place.16