# CHAPTER II.—_With what Nations the Romans had to contend, and how stubborn these were in defending their Freedom._

In subduing the countries round about them, and certain of the more
distant provinces, nothing gave the Romans so much trouble, as the love
which in those days many nations bore to freedom, defending it with
such obstinacy as could not have been overcome save by a surpassing
valour. For we know by numberless instances, what perils these nations
were ready to face in their efforts to maintain or recover their
freedom, and what vengeance they took against those who deprived them
of it. We know, too, from history, what hurt a people or city suffers
from servitude. And though, at the present day, there is but one
province which can be said to contain within it free cities, we find
that formerly these abounded everywhere. For we learn that in the
ancient times of which I speak, from the mountains which divide Tuscany
from Lombardy down to the extreme point of Italy, there dwelt numerous
free nations, such as the Etruscans, the Romans, and the Samnites,
besides many others in other parts of the Peninsula. Nor do we ever
read of there being any kings over them, except those who reigned in
Rome, and Porsenna, king of Etruria. How the line of this last-named
prince came to be extinguished, history does not inform us; but it is
clear that at the time when the Romans went to besiege Veii, Etruria
was free, and so greatly rejoiced in her freedom, and so detested the
regal name, that when the Veientines, who for their defence had created
a king in Veii, sought aid from the Etruscans against Rome, these,
after much deliberation resolved to lend them no help while they
continued to live under a king; judging it useless to defend a country
given over to servitude by its inhabitants.

It is easy to understand whence this love of liberty arises among
nations, for we know by experience that States have never signally
increased, either as to dominion or wealth, except where they have
lived under a free government. And truly it is strange to think to what
a pitch of greatness Athens came during the hundred years after she had
freed herself from the despotism of Pisistratus; and far stranger to
contemplate the marvellous growth which Rome made after freeing herself
from her kings. The cause, however, is not far to seek, since it is the
well-being, not of individuals, but of the community which makes a
State great; and, without question, this universal well-being is
nowhere secured save in a republic. For a republic will do whatsoever
makes for its interest; and though its measures prove hurtful to this
man or to that, there are so many whom they benefit, that these are
able to carry them out, in spite of the resistance of the few whom they
injure.

But the contrary happens in the case of a prince; for, as a rule, what
helps him hurts the State, and what helps the State hurts him; so that
whenever a tyranny springs up in a city which has lived free, the least
evil which can befall that city is to make no further progress, nor
ever increase in power or wealth; but in most cases, if not in all, it
will be its fate to go back. Or should there chance to arise in it some
able tyrant who extends his dominions by his valour and skill in arms,
the advantage which results is to himself only, and not to the State;
since he can bestow no honours on those of the citizens over whom he
tyrannizes who have shown themselves good and valiant, lest afterwards
he should have cause to fear them. Nor can he make those cities which
he acquires, subject or tributary to the city over which he rules;
because to make this city powerful is not for his interest, which lies
in keeping it so divided that each town and province may separately
recognize him alone as its master. In this way he only, and not his
country, is the gainer by his conquests. And if any one desire to have
this view confirmed by numberless other proofs, let him look into
Xenophon’s treatise _De Tirannide_.

No wonder, then, that the nations of antiquity pursued tyrants with
such relentless hatred, and so passionately loved freedom that its very
name was dear to them, as was seen when Hieronymus, grandson of Hiero
the Syracusan, was put to death in Syracuse. For when word of his death
reached the army, which lay encamped not far off, at first it was
greatly moved, and eager to take up arms against the murderers. But on
hearing the cry of liberty shouted in the streets of Syracuse, quieted
at once by the name, it laid aside its resentment against those who had
slain the tyrant, and fell to consider how a free government might be
provided for the city.

Nor is it to be wondered at that the ancient nations took terrible
vengeance on those who deprived them of their freedom; of which, though
there be many instances, I mean only to cite one which happened in the
city of Corcyra at the time of the Peloponnesian war. For Greece being
divided into two factions, one of which sided with the Athenians, the
other with the Spartans, it resulted that many of its cities were
divided against themselves, some of the citizens seeking the friendship
of Sparta and some of Athens. In the aforesaid city of Corcyra, the
nobles getting the upper hand, deprived the commons of their freedom;
these, however, recovering themselves with the help of the Athenians,
laid hold of the entire body of the nobles, and cast them into a prison
large enough to contain them all, whence they brought them forth by
eight or ten at a time, pretending that they were to be sent to
different places into banishment, whereas, in fact, they put them to
death with many circumstances of cruelty. Those who were left, learning
what was going on, resolved to do their utmost to escape this
ignominious death, and arming themselves with what weapons they could
find, defended the door of their prison against all who sought to
enter; till the people, hearing the tumult and rushing in haste to the
prison, dragged down the roof, and smothered the prisoners in the
ruins. Many other horrible and atrocious cruelties likewise perpetrated
in Greece, show it to be true that a lost freedom is avenged with more
ferocity than a threatened freedom is defended.

When I consider whence it happened that the nations of antiquity were
so much more zealous in their love of liberty than those of the present
day, I am led to believe that it arose from the same cause which makes
the present generation of men less vigorous and daring than those of
ancient times, namely the difference of the training of the present day
from that of earlier ages; and this, again, arises from the different
character of the religions then and now prevailing. For our religion,
having revealed to us the truth and the true path, teaches us to make
little account of worldly glory; whereas, the Gentiles, greatly
esteeming it, and placing therein their highest good, displayed a
greater fierceness in their actions.

This we may gather from many of their customs, beginning with their
sacrificial rites, which were of much magnificence as compared with the
simplicity of our worship, though that be not without a certain dignity
of its own, refined rather than splendid, and far removed from any
tincture of ferocity or violence. In the religious ceremonies of the
ancients neither pomp nor splendour were wanting; but to these was
joined the ordinance of sacrifice, giving occasion to much bloodshed
and cruelty. For in its celebration many beasts were slaughtered, and
this being a cruel spectacle imparted a cruel temper to the
worshippers. Moreover, under the old religions none obtained divine
honours save those who were loaded with worldly glory, such as captains
of armies and rulers of cities; whereas our religion glorifies men of a
humble and contemplative, rather than of an active life. Accordingly,
while the highest good of the old religions consisted in magnanimity,
bodily strength, and all those other qualities which make men brave,
our religion places it in humility, lowliness, and contempt for the
things of this world; or if it ever calls upon us to be brave, it is
that we should be brave to suffer rather than to do.

This manner of life, therefore, seems to have made the world feebler,
and to have given it over as a prey to wicked men to deal with as they
please; since the mass of mankind, in the hope of being received into
Paradise, think more how to bear injuries than how to avenge them. But
should it seem that the world has grown effeminate and Heaven laid
aside her arms, this assuredly results from the baseness of those who
have interpreted our religion to accord with indolence and ease rather
than with valour. For were we to remember that religion permits the
exaltation and defence of our country, we would see it to be our duty
to love and honour it, and would strive to be able and ready to defend
it.

This training, therefore, and these most false interpretations are the
causes why, in the world of the present day, we find no longer the
numerous commonwealths which were found of old; and in consequence,
that we see not now among the nations that love of freedom which
prevailed then; though, at the same time, I am persuaded that one cause
of this change has been, that the Roman Empire by its arms and power
put an end to all the free States and free institutions of antiquity.
For although the power of Rome fell afterwards into decay, these States
could never recover their strength or resume their former mode of
government, save in a very few districts of the Empire.

But, be this as it may, certain it is that in every country of the
world, even the least considerable, the Romans found a league of
well-armed republics, most resolute in the defence of their freedom,
whom it is clear they never could have subdued had they not been
endowed with the rarest and most astonishing valour. To cite a single
instance, I shall take the case of the Samnites who, strange as it may
now seem, were on the admission of Titus Livius himself, so powerful
and so steadfast in arms, as to be able to withstand the Romans down to
the consulship of Papirius Cursor, son to the first Papirius, a period
of six and forty years, in spite of numerous defeats, the loss of many
of their towns, and the great slaughter which overtook them everywhere
throughout their country. And this is the more remarkable when we see
that country, which once contained so many noble cities, and supported
so great a population, now almost uninhabited; and reflect that it
formerly enjoyed a government and possessed resources making its
conquest impossible to less than Roman valour.

There is no difficulty, therefore, in determining whence that ancient
greatness and this modern decay have arisen, since they can be traced
to the free life formerly prevailing and to the servitude which
prevails now. For all countries and provinces which enjoy complete
freedom, make, as I have said, most rapid progress. Because, from
marriage being less restricted in these countries, and more sought
after, we find there a greater population; every man being disposed to
beget as many children as he thinks he can rear, when he has no anxiety
lest they should be deprived of their patrimony, and knows not only
that they are born to freedom and not to slavery, but that they may
rise by their merit to be the first men of their country. In such
States, accordingly, we see wealth multiply, both that which comes from
agriculture and that which comes from manufactures. For all love to
gather riches and to add to their possessions when their enjoyment of
them is not likely to be disturbed. And hence it happens that the
citizens of such States vie with one another in whatever tends to
promote public or private well-being; in both of which, consequently,
there is a wonderful growth.

But the contrary of all this takes place in those countries which live
in servitude, and the more oppressive their servitude, the more they
fall short of the good which all desire. And the hardest of all hard
servitudes is that wherein one commonwealth is subjected to another.
First, because it is more lasting, and there is less hope to escape
from it; and, second, because every commonwealth seeks to add to its
own strength by weakening and enfeebling all beside. A prince who gets
the better of you will not treat you after this fashion, unless he be a
barbarian like those eastern despots who lay countries waste and
destroy the labours of civilization; but if influenced by the ordinary
promptings of humanity, will, as a rule, regard all his subject States
with equal favour, and suffer them to pursue their usual employments,
and retain almost all their ancient institutions, so that if they
flourish not as free States might, they do not dwindle as States that
are enslaved; by which I mean enslaved by a stranger, for of that other
slavery to which they may be reduced by one of their own citizens, I
have already spoken.

Whoever, therefore, shall well consider what has been said above, will
not be astonished at the power possessed by the Samnites while they
were still free, nor at the weakness into which they fell when they
were subjugated. Of which change in their fortunes Livius often reminds
us, and particularly in connection with the war with Hannibal, where he
relates that the Samnites, being ill-treated by a Roman legion
quartered at Nola, sent legates to Hannibal to ask his aid; who in
laying their case before him told him, that with their own soldiers and
captains they had fought single handed against the Romans for a hundred
years, and had more than once withstood two consuls and two consular
armies; but had now fallen so low, that they were scarce able to defend
themselves against one poor legion.