# CHAPTER 1 — In Order for a Religion or a Republic to Have a Long Life, It Is Often Necessary to Bring It Back to Its Beginnings

It is very true that all the things of this world have a limited existence, but those which go through the entire cycle of life ordained for them by heaven are generally those which do not allow their bodies to fall into disorder but maintain them in an orderly way, so that either nothing changes, or if it changes, it is to their welfare, not to their detriment. Since I am speaking of mixed bodies, such as republics and religions, let me say that changes which bring such bodies back to their beginnings are healthy. The ones that have the best organization and the longest lives are, however, those that can renew themselves often through their own institutions, or that come to such a renewal through some circumstance outside these institutions. And it is clearer than light itself that if they do not renew themselves, these bodies will not endure.

The method of renewing them is, as was stated, to bring them back to their beginnings, because the beginnings of religions, republics, and kingdoms must always contain in themselves some goodness through which they may regain their early prestige and their early expansion. And because in the course of time that goodness is corrupted, if something does not come about to bring it back to its proper limits, it will, of necessity, kill that body. Those doctors of medicine declare, speaking of human bodies: ‘Every day the body absorbs something that requires a cure from time to time.’ * This process of bringing something back to its beginnings, when referring to republics, is produced either by some extrinsic accident or by some intrinsic prudence. As for the first means, it is evident how necessary it was for Rome to have been taken by the Gauls in order for it to be reborn, and in being reborn, to take on new life and new vigour and to take up once again the observance of religion and of justice, which were beginning to become corrupt. This is very clearly understood through Livy’s history, where he demonstrates that in calling out their army against the Gauls and in creating tribunes with consular authority, the Romans failed to observe any religious ceremony. Likewise, they not only failed to punish the three Fabii who had fought against the Gauls ‘in opposition to the law of nations’, * but they made them tribunes. It is easy to speculate that they began to take less account of the good regulations instituted by Romulus and other prudent rulers than was reasonable and necessary to maintain a free way of life. This blow from the outside occurred, therefore, so that all the institutions of that city might be reclaimed, and so that the Roman people would see not only that it was necessary to maintain religion and justice, but also to hold good citizens in high esteem and to place a higher value on their exceptional abilities than on those conveniences they felt were lacking because of their actions. It is evident that this is exactly what happened, because as soon as Rome was retaken, the Romans renewed all the institutions of their ancient religion, punished the Fabii who had fought ‘in opposition to the law of nations’, and then honoured the exceptional ability and goodness of Camillus to such a degree that the senate and the others set aside their envy and placed back in his hands the entire burden of that republic. It is therefore necessary, as was said before, for men who live together under some kind of order to be required to reflect upon themselves, either by these extrinsic accidents or by the intrinsic ones. With respect to the latter, they must arise either from some law, which obliges the men who belong to that body to reexamine their affairs with some frequency, or, indeed, from one good man who is born among them and who, by his exemplary deeds and his exceptional works, produces the same effect as the regulation.

Such good, therefore, arises in republics either through the exceptional ability of a single man or through the special excellence of a single regulation. With respect to the latter, the institutions that brought the Roman Republic back to its beginnings were the tribunes of the plebeians, the censors, and all the other laws that were passed against the ambition and the insolence of men. These regulations must be given life by the exceptional ability of a single citizen, who courageously strives to enforce them against the power of all those who fail to observe them. Among the ways in which these laws were applied before Rome was taken by the Gauls, the most notable examples were the deaths of the sons of Brutus, the deaths of the decemvirs, * and the death of Melius the grain-dealer; after Rome was taken, these examples included the death of Manlius Capitolinus, the death of the son of Manlius Torquatus, the attempt by Papirius Cursor to execute Fabius, his master of cavalry, and the charges against the Scipios. Because these events were unusual and worthy of note, each time one of them occurred they made men move back toward their proper limits, and when such events became more rare, they also began to give more space to men to become corrupt and to conduct themselves in a far more dangerous and disorderly manner. Thus, not more than ten years should pass between one of these applications of the law and another, because after such a period of time has passed, men begin to change their habits and break the laws, and if nothing arises to remind them of the punishment and to renew the fear in their hearts, the number of delinquents will soon become so large that they can no longer be punished without danger. Those who governed the Florentine state from 1434 until 1494 used to say in this regard that it was necessary to take the state back every five years or it was otherwise difficult to preserve it, and what they called ‘taking the state back’ meant striking the same terror and fear into the hearts of men that they had instilled upon first taking power, when they struck down those who had, according to that way of life, governed badly. But when the memory of such a beating fades away, men grow bolder in making new attempts and in speaking evil, and it is therefore necessary to make provision against this by bringing the state back to its beginnings.

This return to the beginnings in republics also arises from the simple talents of a single man, without depending upon a law which drives you on to its execution; such men are nevertheless of such reputation and exemplary behaviour that good men wish to imitate them and evil men are ashamed to lead a life contrary to theirs. Those men in Rome who produced particularly good results were Horatius Codes, Scaevola, Fabricius, the two Decii, Regulus Atilius, and some others, all of whom with their uncommon and worthy examples created in Rome almost the same effect that was created by the laws and institutions. * If the enforcement of the laws noted above, along with these particular exemplary actions, had occurred at least every ten years in that city, it would have necessarily followed that Rome would never have become corrupted, but as they became both few and far between, corruption began to increase. For this reason, after Marcus Regulus no similar exemplary actions were seen in Rome, and although the two Catos * rose up in Rome, there was too great a space of time between him and them, and then between the two of them, and they remained so isolated that they could not, with their good examples, accomplish any good work; this is especially true of the last Cato who, finding the city for the most part corrupt, could not, with his own example, make the citizens better. And this should suffice as far as republics are concerned.

But as for religions, it is also evident that these revivals are necessary through the example of our own religion which, had it not been brought back to its beginnings by Saints Francis and Dominic, would have died out completely; for these men, with their poverty and the example of Christ’s life, restored religion to the minds of men where it had been extinguished; and their new institutions were powerful enough to prevent the dishonesty of the priests and leaders of this religion from ruining it; and by continuing to live in poverty and enjoying such trust among the people in the confessional and in their preaching, they made them understand that it was evil to speak ill of the evil, that it was good to live in obedience to them, and that if these priests committed errors, they should be left to the punishment of God. Thus, the clergy do the worst they can, because they do not fear that punishment they do not see and in which they do not believe. Thus, this revival has maintained and still maintains this religion. *

Kingdoms also need to renew themselves and to bring their laws back to their beginnings. What good effects this practice achieves can be seen in the kingdom of France, which lives under laws and institutions to a greater degree than any other kingdom. The parliaments maintain these laws and institutions, especially the one in Paris, which renews them every time it takes an action against a prince of that kingdom and condemns the king in its judgements. Until now it has maintained itself as the obstinate opponent of the nobility, but any time it allows them to go unpunished and allows such offences to increase, then without a doubt these offences will either have to be corrected with great disorder or that kingdom will fall apart.

To conclude, therefore, nothing is more necessary in a community, whether it be a religion, kingdom, or republic, than to restore it to the reputation it enjoyed at its beginnings and to strive to ensure that either good institutions or good men achieve this effect and that it does not have to be brought about by some external force, for although an external force may sometimes be the best remedy, as it was in Rome, it is so dangerous that it is in no way to be desired. In order to demonstrate to everyone the extent to which the actions of individual men made Rome great and produced many good results in that city, I shall proceed to a narration and discussion of them; this third book and last part of the commentary on these first ten books of Livy will conclude within the boundaries of this topic. Although the actions of the kings were great and noteworthy, nevertheless since history treats them at length I shall leave them out and mention them only when they did something pertaining to their own private interests; and we shall begin with Brutus, father of Roman liberty. *