reconstruct old Institutions on an entirely new basis, must be the work
of one Man_.
It may perhaps be thought that I should not have got so far into the
history of Rome, without some mention of those who gave that city its
institutions, and saying something of these institutions themselves, so
far as they relate to religion and war. As I have no wish to keep those
who would know my views on these matters in suspense, I say at once,
that to many it might seem of evil omen that the founder of a civil
government like Romulus, should first have slain his brother, and
afterwards have consented to the death of Titus Tatius the Sabine, whom
he had chosen to be his colleague in the kingship; since his
countrymen, if moved by ambition and lust of power to inflict like
injuries on any who opposed their designs, might plead the example of
their prince. This view would be a reasonable one were we to disregard
the object which led Romulus to put those men to death. But we must
take it as a rule to which there are very few if any exceptions, that
no commonwealth or kingdom ever has salutary institutions given it from
the first or has its institutions recast in an entirely new mould,
unless by a single person. On the contrary, it must be from one man
that it receives its institutions at first, and upon one man that all
similar reconstruction must depend. For this reason the wise founder of
a commonwealth who seeks to benefit not himself only, or the line of
his descendants, but his State and country, must endeavour to acquire
an absolute and undivided authority. And none who is wise will ever
blame any action, however extraordinary and irregular, which serves to
lay the foundation of a kingdom or to establish a republic. For
although the act condemn the doer, the end may justify him; and when,
as in the case of Romulus, the end is good, it will always excuse the
means; since it is he who does violence with intent to injure, not he
who does it with the design to secure tranquility, who merits blame.
Such a person ought however to be so prudent and moderate as to avoid
transmitting the absolute authority he acquires, as an inheritance to
another; for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good, a
successor may turn to ambitious ends the power which his predecessor
has used to promote worthy ends. Moreover, though it be one man that
must give a State its institutions, once given they are not so likely
to last long resting for support on the shoulders of one man only, as
when entrusted to the care of many, and when it is the business of many
to maintain them. For though the multitude be unfit to set a State in
order, since they cannot, by reason of the divisions which prevail
among them, agree wherein the true well-being of the State lies, yet
when they have once been taught the truth, they never will consent to
abandon it. And that Romulus, though he put his brother to death, is
yet of those who are to be pardoned, since what he did was done for the
common good and not from personal ambition, is shown by his at once
creating a senate, with whom he took counsel, and in accordance with
whose voice he determined. And whosoever shall well examine the
authority which Romulus reserved to himself, will find that he reserved
nothing beyond the command of the army when war was resolved on, and
the right to assemble the senate. This is seen later, on Rome becoming
free by the expulsion of the Tarquins, when the Romans altered none of
their ancient institutions save in appointing two consuls for a year
instead of a king for life; for this proves that all the original
institutions of that city were more in conformity with a free and
constitutional government, than with an absolute and despotic one.
In support of what has been said above, I might cite innumerable
instances, as of Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, and other founders of kingdoms
and commonwealths, who, from the full powers given them, were enabled
to shape their laws to the public advantage; but passing over these
examples, as of common notoriety, I take one, not indeed so famous, but
which merits the attention of all who desire to frame wise laws. Agis,
King of Sparta, desiring to bring back his countrymen to those limits
within which the laws of Lycurgus had held them, because he thought
that, from having somewhat deviated from them, his city had lost much
of its ancient virtue and, consequently much of its strength and power,
was, at the very outset of his attempts, slain by the Spartan Ephori,
as one who sought to make himself a tyrant. But Cleomenes coming after
him in the kingdom, and, on reading the notes and writings which he
found of Agis wherein his designs and intentions were explained, being
stirred by the same desire, perceived that he could not confer this
benefit on his country unless he obtained sole power. For he saw that
the ambition of others made it impossible for him to do what was useful
for many against the will of a few. Wherefore, finding fit occasion, he
caused the Ephori and all others likely to throw obstacles in his way,
to be put to death; after which, he completely renewed the laws of
Lycurgus. And the result of his measures would have been to give fresh
life to Sparta, and to gain for himself a renown not inferior to that
of Lycurgus, had it not been for the power of the Macedonians and the
weakness of the other Greek States. For while engaged with these
reforms, he was attacked by the Macedonians, and being by himself no
match for them, and having none to whom he could turn for help, he was
overpowered; and his plans, though wise and praiseworthy, were never
brought to perfection.
All which circumstances considered, I conclude that he who gives new
institutions to a State must stand alone; and that for the deaths of
Remus and Tatius, Romulus is to be excused rather than blamed.