# CHAPTER 9 — That a Man Must Be Alone If He Wishes to Organize a New Republic or Completely to Reform Its Ancient Institutions

Perhaps someone will think that I have gone through too much Roman history without yet having mentioned the founders of that republic or those institutions that concern religion and the profession of arms. Not wishing, therefore, to keep the minds of those who would like to hear something on this subject in suspense any longer, I must say that many are likely to judge it a bad example for the founder of a body politic, as Romulus was, to have first murdered his brother and later to have consented to the execution of Titus Tatius, the Sabine, elected by him as his companion in the kingdom, * concluding that citizens, out of ambition and a desire to rule, could, after the example of their leader, attack those opposed to their authority. This opinion would be true, if we were not to consider the goal which led Romulus to commit such a homicide.

Also, this must be taken as a general rule: that never or rarely does it happen that a republic or a kingdom is organized well from the beginning or is completely reformed apart from its old institutions, unless it is organized by one man alone; or rather, it is necessary for a single man to be the one who gives it shape, and from whose mind any such organization derives. Thus, the prudent founder of a republic, one who has this courageous desire to serve not his own interests but the common good, and not his own heirs but rather everyone in their native land, must strive to assume sole authority; nor will a wise mind ever reproach anyone for some illegal action that he might have undertaken to organize a kingdom or to constitute a republic. It is truly appropriate that while the act accuses him, the result excuses him, and when the result is good, like that of Romulus, it will always excuse him, because one should reproach a man who is violent in order to ruin things, not one who is so in order to set them aright. * He must, however, be so prudent and able that he will not bequeath the authority he has taken for himself to another as an inheritance, because men are more prone to evil than to good, and his successor might use in an ambitious fashion the power that he himself had used with skill. Besides this, although one man alone is capable of instituting a government, what he has instituted will not long endure if it rests upon the shoulders of a single man, but it endures when it remains a matter of concern to many and when it is the task of many to maintain it. Thus, just as the many are not capable of instituting anything, being unable to recognize its goodness, because of the diversity of opinions that exist among them, so in like manner, once they realize they have it, they will not agree to abandon it. That Romulus was among those who deserve to be excused for the death of his brother and his companion, and that what he did was for the common good and not for private ambition, is shown by the fact that he immediately established a senate with which he consulted and according to whose opinions he made decisions. Anyone who will carefully examine the authority that Romulus reserved for himself will see that he reserved nothing more for himself than the authority to command the armies when war was declared and to convene the senate. This became evident later when Rome became free because of the expulsion of the Tarquins, and not a single ancient institution was altered, except that in place of a king for life they created two consuls chosen annually; this testifies to the fact that all the original institutions of that city were more suitable to a free civil state than to one that was absolutist and tyrannical. *

Countless examples in support of what I have written above could be set forth, such as Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, and other founders of kingdoms and republics who were able to create laws for the common good, because they had assumed for themselves sole authority, but I wish to pass over them, since they are well known.

I shall set forth only one such example, not so famous but one to be considered by those who wish to be the creators of good laws: that is, when Agis, king of Sparta, wished to lead the Spartans back inside the boundaries within which the laws of Lycurgus had enclosed them, being of the opinion that by having deviated from them in part, his city had lost a great deal of its ancient ability and, as a result, much of its strength and its empire, he was murdered during his initial undertakings by the Spartan Ephors as a man who wanted to establish a tyranny. * But when Cleomenes succeeded him on the throne, and the same desire was born in him through his discovery of Agis’ memoirs and writings, which made Agis’ thoughts and intentions evident, he realized that he could not do this good for his native city if he did not become the sole authority, believing that because of human ambition, he could not help the many against the will of the few, and taking advantage of the right opportunity, he had all the Ephors murdered and anyone else who could oppose him; he then restored in their entirety the laws of Lycurgus. This decision would have been enough to give new life to Sparta and to give Cleomenes the same reputation enjoyed by Lycurgus had it not been for the power of the Macedonians and the weakness of the other Greek republics. After that reorganization Cleomenes was attacked by the Macedonians, and when he found himself weaker in force and had no one from whom to seek help, he was defeated, and this plan of his, no matter how just and praiseworthy it was, remained incomplete.

Having therefore considered all these matters, I conclude that in organizing a republic it is necessary to be alone, and that for the deaths of Remus and Titus Tatius, Romulus deserves to be excused and not blamed.