Produced by Robert W. Jones from an original print of the
1st edition held by The British Library, London. (Shelfmark:
432d12/432.d.12). The text was then compared against that
of an original print of the 2nd edition held by the Library
(Archives & Rare Books), London School of Economics and
Political Science.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This book was copy TYPED by
R.W. Jones <rwj@freeshell.org>
from an original print of the 1st edition held by
The British Library, London.
(Shelfmark: 432d12/432.d.12).
The resultant text was then compared, using a
text to speech player, against that of an original
print of the 2nd edition held by the
Library (Archives & Rare Books),
London School of Economics and Political Science.
This e-text incorporates the (very few)
modifications included in the later edition.
Images of the four Charts are not included nor
were they or the Indexes of the respective
editions compared.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
{Here appears before the fly-leaf the first chart, entitled
"Chart
of
Universal Commercial History,
from the year 1500 before the Christian Era
TO THE PRESENT YEAR 1805.
being a space of Three Thousand three hundred and four years,
by William Playfair.
Inventor of Linear Arithmetic"}
AN
INQUIRY
INTO THE
PERMANENT CAUSES
OF THE
DECLINE AND FALL
OF
POWERFUL AND WEALTHY NATIONS,
ILLUSTRATED BY FOUR ENGRAVED CHARTS.
---o0o---
By
WILLIAM PLAYFAIR,
AUTHOR OF NOTES AND CONTINUATION OF AN INQUIRY
INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF
NATIONS, BY ADAM SMITH, LL.D. AND INVENTOR OF
LINEAR ARITHMETIC, &C.
---o0o---
DESIGNED TO SHEW HOW THE
PROSPERITY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
MAY BE PROLONGED.
===========================
___________________
THE SECOND EDITION
___________________
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR GREENLAND AND NORRIS, BOOKSELLERS,
FINSBURY-SQUARE.
1807.
W. Marchant, Printer, 3 Greville-Street, Holborn.
---o0o---
P R E F A C E.
---o0o---
If it is of importance to study by what means a nation may acquire
wealth and power, it is not less so to discover by what means wealth
and power, when once acquired, may be preserved.
The latter inquiry is, perhaps, the more important of the two; for many
nations have remained, during a long period, virtuous and happy,
without rising to wealth or greatness; but there is no example of
happiness or virtue residing amongst a fallen people.
In looking over the globe, if we fix our eyes on those places where
wealth formerly was accumulated, and where commerce flourished,
we see them, at the present day, peculiarly desolated and degraded.
From the borders of the Persian Gulf, to the shores of the Baltic Sea;
from Babylon and Palmyra, Egypt, Greece, and Italy; to Spain and
Portugal, and the whole circle of the Hanseatic League, we trace the
same ruinous [end of page #iii] remains of ancient greatness,
presenting a melancholy contrast with the poverty, indolence, and
ignorance, of the present race of inhabitants, and an irresistible proof
of the mutability of human affairs.
As in the hall, in which there has been a sumptuous banquet, we
perceive the fragments of a feast now become a prey to beggars and
banditti; if, in some instances, the spectacle is less wretched and
disgusting; it is, because the banquet is not entirely over, and the
guests have not all yet risen from the table.
From this almost universal picture, we learn that the greatness of
nations is but of short duration. We learn, also, that the state of a
fallen people is infinitely more wretched and miserable than that of
those who have never risen from their original state of poverty. It is
then well worth while to inquire into the causes of so terrible a
reverse, that we may discover whether they are necessary, or only
natural; and endeavour, if possible, to find the means by which
prosperity may be lengthened out, and the period of humiliation
procrastinated to a distant day.
Though the career of prosperity must necessarily have a termination
amongst every people, yet there is some reason to think that the
degradation, which naturally follows, and which has always followed
hitherto, may be [end of page #iv] averted; whether it may be, or may
not be so, is the subject of the following Inquiry; which, if it is of
importance to any nation on earth, must be peculiarly so to England; a
nation that has risen, both in commerce and power, so high above the
natural level assigned to it by its population and extent. A nation that
rises still, but whose most earnest wish ought to be rather directed to
preservation than extension; to defending itself against adversity
rather than seeking still farther to augment its power.
With regard to the importance of the Inquiry, there cannot be two
opinions; but, concerning its utility and success, opinions may be
divided.
One of the most profound and ingenious writers of a late period, has
made the following interesting observation on the prosperity of
nations. {1}
"In all speculations upon men and human affairs, it is of no small
moment to distinguish things of accident from permanent causes, and
from effects that cannot be altered. I am not quite of the mind of those
speculators, who seem assured, that necessarily, and, by the
constitution of things, all states have the same period of infancy,
manhood, and decrepitude, that are found in the individuals who
compose them. The objects which are
---
{1} Mr Burke.
-=-
[end of page #v]
attempted to be forced into an analogy are not founded in the same
classes of existence. Individuals are physical beings, subject to laws
universal and invariable; but commonwealths are not physical, but
moral essences. They are artificial combinations, and, in their
proximate efficient cause, the arbitrary productions of the human
mind.
We are not yet acquainted with the laws which necessarily influence
that kind of work, made by that kind of agent. There is not, in the
physical order, a distinct cause by which any of those fabrics must
necessarily grow, flourish, and decay; nor, indeed, in my opinion,
does the moral world produce any thing more determinate on that
subject than what may serve as an amusement (liberal indeed, and
ingenious, but still only an amusement) for speculative men. I doubt
whether the history of mankind is yet complete enough, if ever it can
be so, to furnish grounds for a sure theory on the internal causes,
which necessarily affect the fortune of a state. I am far from denying
the operation of such causes, but they are infinitely uncertain, and
much more obscure, and much more difficult to trace than the foreign
causes that tend to depress, and, sometimes, overwhelm society."
The writer who has thus expressed his scepticism on this sort of
inquiry, speaks, at the same time, of the im-[end of page #vi] portance
of distinguishing between accidental and permanent causes. He doubts
whether the history of mankind is complete enough, or, if ever it can
be so, to furnish grounds for a sure theory, on the internal causes
which necessarily affect the fortune of a state. Thus, he not only
admits the existence of permanent causes, but says, clearly, that it is
from history they are discoverable, if ever their discovery can be
accomplished. This is going as far as we could wish, and, as for the
sure theory, we join issue with him in despairing of ever obtaining one
that will deserve the name of sure.
The meaning of the word, sure, in this place, appears to be intended in
a sense peculiarly strict. It seems to imply a theory, that would be
certain in its application to those vicissitudes and fluctuations to which
nations are liable, and not merely to explaining their rise and decline.
As to such fluctuations, it would be absurd to enter into any theory
about them; they depend on particular combinations of circumstances,
too infinite, in variety, to be imagined, or subjected to any general
law, and of too momentary an operation to be foreseen.
That Mr. Burke alludes to such fluctuation is, however, evident, from
what that fanciful but deeply-read man says, immediately after: "We
have seen some states which have spent their vigour at their
commencement. Some have [end of page #vii] blazed out in their
glory a little before their extinction. The meridian of some has been
the most splendid. Others, and they the greatest number, have
fluctuated, and experienced, at different periods of their existence, a
great variety of fortune. The death of a man at a critical juncture, his
disgust, his retreat, his disgrace, have brought innumerable calamities
on a whole nation; a common soldier, a child, a girl, at the door of an
inn, have changed the face of fortune, and almost of nature."
From this it is abundantly evident, that the theory he wished for, but
despaired of ever establishing, was one that would explain such
effects; but the object of this Inquiry is totally different.
When the Romans were in their vigour, their city was besieged by the
Gauls, and saved by an animal of proverbial stupidity; but this could
not have happened when Attila was under the walls, and the energy of
the citizens was gone. The taking or saving the city, in the first
instance, would have been equally accidental, and the consequences of
short duration; but, in the latter days, the fall of Rome was owing to
_PERMANENT_ causes, and the effect has been without a remedy.
It is, then, only concerning the permanent causes, (that is to say,
causes that are constantly acting, and produce [end of page #viii]
permanent effects) that we mean to inquire; and, even with regard to
those, it is not expected to establish a theory that will be applicable,
with certainty, to the preservation of a state, but, merely to establish
one, which may serve as a safe guide on a subject, the importance of
which is great, beyond calculation.
There remains but one other consideration in reply to this, and that is,
whether states have, necessarily, by the constitution and nature of
things, the same periods of infancy, manhood, and decrepitude, that
are found in the individuals that compose them? Mr. Burke thinks they
have not; and, indeed, if they had, the following Inquiry would be of
no sort of utility. It is of no importance to seek for means of
preventing what must of necessity come to pass: but, if the word
necessity is changed for tendency or propensity, then it becomes an
Inquiry deserving attention, and, as all states have risen, flourished,
and fallen, there can be no dispute with the regard to their tendency to
do so.
However much, at first sight, Mr. Burke's opinion may appear to
militate against such an Inquiry, when duly considered, it will be
found, not only to approve of the end, but to point out the manner in
which the inquiry ought to be conducted; namely, by consulting
history. [end of page #ix]
If it is allowed that any practical advantage is to be derived from the
history of the past, it can only be, in so far as it is applicable to the
present and the future; and, if there is none, it is melancholy to reflect
on the volumes that have been written without farther utility than to
gratify idle curiosity. Are the true lessons of history, because they are
never completely applicable to present affairs, to be ranked with the
entertaining, but almost useless, pages of romance? No, certainly. Of
the inheritance possessed by the present generation, the history of
those that are gone before, is not the least valuable portion. Each
reader now makes his application in his own way. It is an irregular
application, but not an useless one; and it is, therefore, hoped, that an
Inquiry, founded on a regular plan of comparison and analogy, cannot
but be of some utility.
But why do we treat that as hypothetical, of which there can be no
doubt? Wherefore should there be two opinions concerning the utility
of an inquiry into those mighty events, that have removed wealth and
commerce from the Euphrates and the Nile, to the Thames and the
Texel? Does not the sun rise, and do not the seasons return to the
plains of Egypt, and the deserts of Syria, the same as they did three
thousand years ago? Is not [end of page #x] inanimate nature the same
now that it was then? Are the principles of vegetation altered? Or have
the subordinate animals refused to obey the will of man, to assist him
in his labour, or to serve him for his food? No; nature is not less
bountiful, and man has more knowledge and more power than at any
former period; but it is not the man of Syria, or of Egypt, that has
more knowledge, or more power. There he has suffered his race to
decay, and, along with himself, his works have degenerated.
When those countries were peopled with men, who were wise,
prudent, industrious, and brave, their fields were fertile, and their
cities magnificent; and wherever mankind have carried the same
vigour, the same virtues, and the same character, nature has been
found bountiful and obedient.
Throughout the whole of the earth, we see the same causes producing
nearly the same effects; why then do we remain in doubt respecting
their connection? Or, if under no doubt, wherefore do we not
endeavour to trace their operation, that we may know how to preserve
those advantages we are so eager to obtain?
If an Inquiry into the causes of the revolutions of nations is more
imperfect and less satisfactory than when [end of page #xi] directed to
those of individuals, and of single families, if, ever it should be
rendered complete, its application will, at least, be more certain.
Nations are exempt from those accidental vicissitudes which derange
the wisest of human plans upon a smaller scale. Number and
magnitude reduce chances to certainty. The single and unforeseen
cause that overwhelms a man in the midst of prosperity, never ruins a
nation: unless it be ripe for ruin, a nation never falls; and when it does
fall, accident has only the appearance of doing what, in reality, was
already nearly accomplished.
There is no physical cause for the decline of nations, nature remains
the same; and if the physical man has degenerated, it was before the
authentic records of history. The men who built the most stupendous
pyramid in Egypt, did not exceed in stature those who now live in
mean hovels at its immense base. If there is any country in the world
that proves the uniformity of nature, it is this very Egypt. Unlike to
other countries, that owe their fertility to the ordinary succession of
seasons, of which regular registers do not exist, and are never
accurate, it depends on the overflowing of the waters of a single river.
The marks that indicated the rising of the Nile, in the days of the
Pharaos, and of the Ptolemies, do the same [end of page #xii] at the
present day, and are a guarantee for the future regularity of nature, by
the undeniable certainty of it for the past.
By a singular propensity for preserving the bodies of the dead, the
Egyptians have left records equally authentic, with regard to the
structure of the human frame. {2} Here nothing is fabulous; and even
the unintentional errors of language are impossible. We have neither
to depend on the veracity nor the correctness of man. The proofs
exhibited are visible and tangible; they are the object of the senses,
and admit of no mistake.
But while that country exhibits the most authentic proofs of the
uniform course of nature, it affords also the most evident examples of
the degradation of the human mind. It is there we find the cause of
those ruins that astonish, and the desolation that afflicts. Had men
continued their exertions, the labour of their hands would not have
fallen to decay.
It is in the exertion and conduct of man, and in the information of his
mind, that we find the causes of the mutability of human affairs. We
are about to trace
---
{2} Most part of the mummies found in Egypt, instead of being of a
larger size, are considerably under the middle stature of the people of
England. Those dead monuments of the human frame give the direct
lie to Homer and all the traditions about men's degenerating in size
and strength.
-=-
[end of page #xiii]
them through an intricate labyrinth; but, in this, we are not without a
guide.
The history of three thousand years, and of nations that have risen to
wealth and power, in a great variety of situations, all terminating with
a considerable degree of similarity, discovers the great outline of the
causes that invigorate or degrade the human mind, and thereby raise or
ruin states and empires. {3}
_____________________________________________________________________
{3} The utility of this Inquiry is considerably strengthened by the
opinion of a writer of great information and first-rate abilities. {*}
An historical review of different forms under which human affairs
have appeared in different ages and nations naturally suggests the
question, whether the experience of former times may not now furnish
some general principles to enlighten and direct the policy of future
legislators? The discussion, however, to which the question leads is of
singular difficulty; as it requires an accurate analysis of by far the
most complicated class of phenomena that can possibly engage our
attention; those which result from the intricate and often from the
imperceptible mechanism of political society--a subject of
observation which seems at first view so little commensurate to our
faculties, that it has been generally regarded with the same passive
emotions of wonder and submission with which, in the material world,
we survey the effects produced by the mysterious and uncontroulable
operation of phisical =sic= causes. It is fortunate that upon this, as on
many other occasions, the difficulties which had long baffled the
effort of solitary genius begin to appear less formidable to the united
exertions of the race; and that, in proportion as the experience and the
reasonings of different individuals are brought to bear on the objects,
and are combined in such a manner as to illustrate and to limit each
other, the science of politics assumes more and more that systematical
form which encourages and aids the labours of future inquirers.
_____________________________________________________________________
---
{*} Mr Dongald Stuart, whose name is well known and much
honoured amongst men whose studies have led them to investigate
these subjects: the intimate friend and biographer of Dr. Adam Smith.
-=-
[end of page #xiv]
_ADVERTISEMENT_.
---o0o---
_In the following Inquiry I have inserted four engraved Charts, in
order to illustrate the subjects treated of in the Book, by a method
approved of both in this and in other countries. {4}
The Chart, No. 1, representing the rise and fall of all nations or
countries, that have been particularly distinguished for wealth or
power, is the first of the sort that ever was engraved, and has,
therefore, not yet met with public approbation.
It is constructed to give a distinct view of the migrations of commerce
and of wealth in general. For a very accurate view, there are no
materials in existence; neither would it lead to any very different
conclusion, if the proportional values were ascertained with the
greatest accuracy.
I first drew the Chart in order to clear up my own ideas on the
subject, finding it very troublesome to retain a distinct notion of the
changes that had taken place. I found it answer the purpose beyond my
expectation, by bringing into one view the result of details that are
dispersed over a very wide and intricate field of universal history;
facts sometimes connected with each other, sometimes not, and always
requiring reflection each time they were referred to. I found the first
rough draft give =sic= me a better
---
{4} The Charts, Nos. 3 and 4, were copied in Paris, before the
revolution, and highly approved of by the Academy of Sciences. No. 2,
though of late invention, has been copied in France and Germany. Of
No. 1, the public has yet to judge, and, perhaps, it will treat me with
indulgence and good nature, as on former occasions.
-=-
[end of page #xv]
comprehension of the subject, than all that I had learnt from
occasional reading, for half of my lifetime; and, on the supposition
that what was of so much use to me, might be of some to others, I have
given it with a tolerable degree of accuracy.
No. 2, relates entirely to the present state of nations in Europe, and
the extent, revenue, and population, as represented, are taken from the
most accurate documents. Where statistical writers differed, I
followed him who appeared to me the most likely to be right.
Nos. 3 and 4, relate entirely to England, and are drawn from the most
accurate documents.
Opposite to each Chart are descriptions and explanations.
The reader will find, five minutes attention to the principle on which
they are constructed, a saving of much labour and time; but, without
that trifling attention, he may as well look at a blank sheet of paper
as at one of the Charts.
I know of nothing else, in the Book, that requires previous
explanation.
_________________________________________________________________
I think it well to embrace this opportunity, the best I have had, and,
perhaps, the last I ever shall have, of making some return, (as far as
acknowledgement is a return,) for an obligation, of a nature never to
be repaid, by acknowledging publicly, that, to the best and most
affectionate of brothers, I owe the invention of those Charts.
At a very early period of my life, my brother, who, in a most
examplary manner, maintained and educated the family his father left,
made me keep a register of a thermometer, expressing the variations
by lines on a divided scale. He taught me to know, that, whatever can
be expressed in numbers, may be represented by lines. The Chart of
the thermometer was on the same principle with those given here; the
application only is different. The brother to whom I owe this, now
fills the Natural Philosophy Chair in the University of Edinburgh_.
[end of page #xvi]
CONTENTS.
---o0o---
Page.
=BOOK I.=
CHAP. I.
INTRODUCTION and plan of the work.--Explanation of what the
author understands by wealthy and powerful nations, and of the
general cause of wealth and power......1
CHAP. II.
Of the general causes that operate, both externally and internally, in
bringing down nations that have risen above their level to that
assigned to them by their extent, fertility, and population; and of the
manner in which wealth destroyed power in ancient
nations...............14
CHAP. III.
Of the nations that rose to wealth and power previous to the conquests
in Asia and Africa, and the causes which ruined them...............20
CHAP. IV.
Of the Romans.--The causes of their rise under the republic, and of
their decline under the emperors.--The great error generally fallen
into with respect to the comparison between Rome and Carthage;
proofs that it is wrong, and not at all applicable to France and
England................27
CHAP. V.
Of the cities and nations that rose to wealth and power in the middle
ages, after the fall of the Western Empire, and previous to the
discovery of the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope,
and of America.--Different effects of wealth on nations in cold and in
warm climates, and of the fall of the Eastern Empire..............44
[end of page #xvii]
CHAP. VI.
Digression concerning the commerce with India.--This the only one
that raised ancient nations to wealth.--Its continual variations.--The
envy it excited, and revolutions it produced....................51
CHAP. VII.
Of the causes that brought on the decline of the nations that had
flourished in the middle ages, and of Portugal, Spain, Holland, and the
Hans Towns..........62
CHAP. VIII.
General view and analysis of the causes that operated in producing the
decline of all nations, with a chart, representing the rise, fall, and
migrations of wealth, in all different countries, from the year 1500,
before the birth of Christ, to the end of the eighteenth century,--a
period of 3300 years...............70
=BOOK II.=
CHAP. I.
Of the interior causes of decline, arising from the possession of
wealth.--Its general operation on the habits of life, manners,
education, and ways of thinking and acting of the inhabitants of a
country................81
CHAP. II.
Of the education of youth in nations increasing in wealth.--The errors
generally committed by writers on that subject.--Importance of
female education on the manners of a people.--Not noticed by writers
on political economy.--Education of the great body of the people the
chief object.--In what that consists............94
CHAP. III.
Of increased taxation, as an interior cause of decline.--Its different
effects on industry, according to the degree to which it is carried.--Its
effects on the people and on government.............102
CHAP. IV.
Of the interior causes of decline, arising from the encroachments of
public and privileged bodies; and of those who have a common
interest on those who have no common interest.....................116
[end of page #xviii]
CHAP. V.
Of the internal causes of decline, arising from the unequal division of
property, and its accumulation in the hands of particular persons.--Its
effects on the employment of capital...............125
CHAP. VI.
Of the interior causes of decline, which arise from the produce of the
soil becoming unequal to the sustenance of a luxurious people.--Of
monopoly............137
CHAP. VII.
Of the increase of the poor, as general affluence becomes greater.--
Of children left unprovided for.--Of their division into two classes.--
Those that can labour more or less, and those that can do no
labour.................. 156
CHAP. VIII.
Of the tendency of capital and industry to leave a wealthy country,
and of the depreciation of money in agricultural and commercial
countries............. 161
CHAP. IX.
Conclusion of the interior causes.--Their co-operation.--Their
general effect on the government and on the people.--The danger
arising from them does not appear till the progress in decline is far
advanced......... 166
CHAP. X.
Of the external causes of decline.--The envy and enmity of other
nations.--Their efforts, both in peace and war, to bring wealthy
nations down to their level........ 175
CHAP. XI.
Why the intercourse between nations is ultimately in favour of the
poorer one, though not so at first............................. 179
CHAP. XII.
Conclusion of exterior causes.--Are seldom of much importance,
unless favoured by interior ones.--Rich nations, with care, capable, in
most cases, of prolonging their prosperity.--Digression on the
importance of public revenue, illustrated by a statistical
chart................... 184
[end of page #xix]
=BOOK III.=
CHAP. I.
Result of the foregoing Inquiry applied to Britain.--Its present state,
in what its wealth consists; illustrated by a chart, shewing the increase
of revenue and commerce........................191
CHAP. II.
Of education, as conducted in England.--Amelioration proposed.--
Necessity of government interfering, without touching the liberty of
the subject............................ 216
CHAP. III.
Of the effects of taxation in England........229
CHAP. IV.
Of the national debt and sinking fund.--Advantages and
disadvantages of both.--Errors committed in calculating their effects.
--Causes of error.--Mode proposed for preventing future
increase....................234
CHAP. V.
Of taxes for the maintenance of the poor.--Their enormous increase.--
The cause.--Comparison between those of England and Scotland.--
Simple, easy, and humane mode of reducing them..............247
CHAP. VI.
Causes of decline, peculiar to England.................... 257
CHAP. VII.
Circumstances peculiar to England, and favourable to it............. 261
CHAP. VIII.
Conclusion.................... 276
Application of the present Inquiry to nations in general..............289
_AN
I N Q U I R Y,
&c. &c._
======
BOOK I.
======
CHAP. I.
_Introduction and Plan of the Work.--Explanation of what the Author
understands by Wealthy and Powerful Nations, and of the General
Causes of Wealth and Power_.
One of the most solid foundations on which an enquirer can proceed
in matters of political economy, as connected with the fate of nations,
seems to be by an appeal to history, a view of the effects that have
been produced, and an investigation of the causes that have operated
in producing them.
Unfortunately, in this case, the materials are but very scanty, and
sometimes rather of doubtful authority; nevertheless, such as they are,
I do not think it well to reject the use of them, and have, therefore,
begun, by taking a view of the causes that have ruined nations that
have been great and wealthy, beginning with the earliest records and
coming down to the present time. {5}
---
{5} Dr. Robertson very truly says, "It is a cruel mortification, in
searching for what is instructive in the history of past times, to find
that the exploits of conquerors who have desolated the earth, and the
freaks of tyrants who have rendered nations unhappy, are recorded
with minute, and often disgusting accuracy, while the discovery of
useful arts, and the progress of the most beneficial branches of
commerce are passed over in silence, and suffered to sink in oblivion."
Disquisition on the Ancient Commerce to India.
-=-
[end of page #1]
I divide this space into three periods, because in each is to be seen a
very distinct feature.
During the first period, previous to the fall of the Roman empire, the
order of things was such as had arisen from the new state of mankind,
who had gradually increased in numbers, and improved in sciences
and arts. The different degrees of wealth were owing, at first, to local
situation, natural advantages, and priority in point of settlement, till
the causes of decline begun to operate on some; when the adventitious
causes of wealth and power, producing conquest, began to establish a
new order of things.
The second period, from the fall of the Roman government till the
discovery of America, and the passage to the East Indies, by the
ocean, has likewise a distinct feature, and is treated of by itself.
The rulers of mankind were not then men, who from the ease and
leisure of pastoral life, under a mild heaven, had studied science, and
cultivated the arts; they were men who had descended from a cold
northern climate, where nature did little to supply their wants, where
hunger and cold could not be avoided but by industry and exertion;
where, in one word, the sterility of nature was counteracted by the
energy of man.
The possessors of milder climates, and of softer manners, falling
under the dominion of such men, inferior greatly in numbers, as well
as in arts, intermixed with them, and formed a new race, of which the
character was different; and it is a circumstance not a little curious,
that while mankind were in a state at which they had arrived by
increasing population, and by the arts of peace, slavery was universal:
but that when governed by men who were conquerors, and owed their
superiority to force alone, where slavery might have been expected to
originate, it was abolished. {6}
---
{6} This fact, which is indisputable, has, at first sight, a most
extraordinary appearance, that is to say, seems difficult to account for;
but a little examination into circumstances will render it easily
understood.
In warm and fertile countries, the love of ease is predominant, and the
services wanted are such as a slave can perform. The indolent habits
of people make them consider freedom as an object of less importance
than exemption from care. While the rulers of mankind were indolent
and luxurious, they were interested in continuing slavery, which must
have [end of page #2] originated in barbarism and ignorance. But the
northern nations were different; with them, neither the moral
character, the physical powers, or the situation of things, favoured
slavery. The services one man wanted of another were not such as a
slave could be forced to perform: neither are men who are fitted for
performing such offices disposed to submit to slavery. Shepherds may
be reduced to the situation of slaves, but hunters will not be likely to
submit to such a situation, even if their occupation admitted of it.
Slaves can only be employed to perform labour that is under the eye
of an overseer or master, or the produce of which is nearly certain: but
the labour of a hunter is neither the one nor the other, it is, therefore,
not of the sort to be performed by slaves. The athletic active life
necessary for a hunter is, besides, unfriendly to slavery, if not totally
at variance with it. What does a slave receive in return for his service?
Lodging, nourishment, and a life free from care. A hunter is obliged to
provide the two former for himself, and the latter it is impossible for
him to enjoy. The same thing goes even to hired servants. In the rudest
state of shepherds, there are hired servants, but men in a rude state
never hunt for wages: they are their own masters: they may hunt in
society or partnership, but never as slaves or hired servants.
-=-
The progress towards wealth in this new state of things was very slow,
but the equality that prevailed amongst feudal barons, their love of
war and glory, and the leisure they enjoyed, by degrees extended the
limits of commerce very widely, as the northern world never could
produce many articles which its inhabitants had by their connection
with the south learnt to relish and enjoy.
The intermediate countries, that naturally formed a link of connection
between the ancient nations of the east and the rough inhabitants of
the north, profited the most by this circumstance; and we still find the
borders of the Mediterranean Sea, though no longer the seat of power,
the places where wealth was chiefly concentrated.
The impossibility of the inhabitants of the northern countries
transporting their rude and heavy produce, in order to exchange it for
the luxuries of the south, gave rise to manufactures as well as fishing
on the southern confines of the Baltic Sea; from whence arose the
wealth of Flanders, Holland, and the Hans Towns. This forms an
epoch entirely new in its nature and description, and its termination
was only brought on by the great discovery of the passage to Asia, by
the Cape of Good Hope, and to America, by sailing straight out into
the Atlantic Ocean.
The nations that had till those discoveries been the best situated for
[end of page #3] commerce no longer enjoyed that advantage; by that
means it changed its abode; but not only did it change its abode, it
changed its nature, and the trifling commerce that had hitherto been
carried on by the intervention of caravans by land, or of little barks
coasting on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, (never venturing,
without imminent danger, to lose sight of the shore,) {7} was dropt for
that bold and adventurous navigation, connecting the most distant
parts of the world; between which since then large vessels pass with
greater expedition and safety than they formerly did between the
Grecian Islands, or from Italy to Africa.
Three inventions, two in commerce and the other in war, nearly of
equal antiquity, formed this into one of these epochs that gives a new
feature to things.
The discovery of the magnetic power of the needle improved and
totally altered navigation. The art of printing gave the means of
extending with facility, to mankind at large, the mode of
communicating thoughts and ideas, which had till then been attended
with great difficulty, and confined to a few. This placed men nearer
upon an equality with respect to mind, and greatly facilitated
commerce and the arts. The invention of gun-powder nearly at the
same time changed the art of war, not only in its manner, but in its
effect, a point of far greater importance. While human force was the
power by which men were annoyed, in cases of hostility, bodily
strength laid the foundation for the greatness of individual men, as
well as of whole nations. So long as this was the case, it was
impossible for any nation to cultivate the arts of peace, (as at the
present time), without becoming much inferior in physical force to
nations that preferred hunting or made war their study; or to such as
preferred exercising the body, as rude nations do, to gratifying the
appetites, as practised in wealthy ones. To be wealthy and powerful
long together was then impossible.
Since this last invention, the physical powers of men have ceased to
occupy any material part in their history; superiority in skill is now the
great object of the attainment of those who wish to excel, {8} and
---
{7} It was forbidden by law, formerly, in Spain, to put to sea from the
11th of November to the 10th of March.
{8} In the divine poem of the Iliad, Nestor, for experience and
wisdom, and Ulysses, for [end of page #4] cunning, are the only two
heroes whose minds gave them a superiority; but they make no figure
compared to Achilles and Hector, or even the strong, rough, and
ignorant Ajax. To bear fatigue, and understand discipline, is the great
object at present; for though, of late years, the increased use of the
bayonet seems to be a slight approximation to the ancient mode of
contending by bodily strength, it is to be considered, on the other
hand, that artillery is more than ever employed, which is increasing
the dissimilarity. Again, though the bayonet is used, it is under
circumstances quite new. Great strength enabled a single man, by
wearing very thick armour, and wielding a longer sword or spear, to
be invulnerable to men of lesser force, while he could perform what
feats he pleased in defeating them. As gun-powder has destroyed the
use of heavy armour, though with the sabre and bayonet men are not
equal, they are all much more nearly so. No one is invulnerable, even
in single combat, with the _arme blanche_, and with fire arms they are
nearly on an equality. The changes that this makes, through every
department of life, are too numerous to be enlarged upon, or not to be
visible to all.
-=-
men may devote themselves to a life of ease and enjoyment without
falling under a real inferiority, provided they do not allow the mind to
be degraded or sunk in sloth, ignorance, or vice.
Those discoveries, then, by altering the physical powers of men, by
changing their relations and connections, as well as by opening new
fields for commerce, and new channels for carrying it on, form a very
distinct epoch in the history of wealth and power, and alter greatly
their nature in the detail; though, in the main outline and abstract
definition, they are still the same; having always the same relation to
each other, or to the state of things at the time.
This last period is then very different in its nature, and much more
important than either of the others that preceded it; yet, in one thing,
there is a similarity that runs through the whole, and it is a very
important one.
The passions and propensities of mankind, though they have changed
their objects, and the means of their gratification, have not changed
their nature. The desire of enjoyment; and of enjoyment with the least
trouble possible, appears to be the basis of all the passions. Hence,
envy, jealousy, friendship, and the endless train of second-rate effects,
appear all to be produced by that primary passion; {9} and as from
---
{9} The very learned and ingenious author of the Inquiry into the
Origin and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, traces all this to an innate
propensity to barter. But barter is only a means, and not even the
means to which mankind shew the greatest pro-[end of page #5]
pensity; for, wherever they have power to take by force or pillage,
they never barter. This is seen both in an infantine and adult state;
children cry for toys, and stretch at them before they offer to
exchange; and, conquerors or soldiers never buy or barter, when they
can take, unless they are guided by some other motive than mere
natural propensity. A highwayman will pay for his dinner at an inn, as
willingly as a traveller, because he acts from other motives than
propensity, but he will strip the inn-keeper when he meets him on the
road.
-=-
this originate the wealth as well as the decline of nations, the history
of the revolutions in wealth and power, during the two first periods,
are by no means unimportant; besides, as their duration was much
longer than that of the latter, they lead to a more certain conclusion.
The review of what has taken place will occupy the first book; and
serve as a data for an inquiry into the nature and causes of the fall of
nations.
The first part of the second book will be dedicated to investigating the
internal causes of decline; that is to say, all those causes which arise
from the possession of wealth and power, operating on the habits,
manners, and minds of the inhabitants; as also on the political
arrangements, laws, government, and institutions, so far as they are
connected with the prosperity or decline of nations.
The latter part of the same book will treat of the exterior causes of
decline, arising from the envy of other nations; their advancement in
the same arts to which the nations that are rich owe their wealth, or
their excelling them in other arts, by which they can be rivalled,
reduced, or subdued.
After having inquired into external and internal causes; and the
operation of each and of both, (though they never act quite
separately,) accidental causes, will make an object for consideration,
which will bring the general inquiry to a conclusion.
The third book will begin with an application of the information
obtained to the present state of England: by comparing its situation
with that of nations that were great; and, by endeavouring to point out
a means by which its decline may be prevented.
Though we know that, in this world, nothing is eternal, particularly in
the institutions of man; yet, by a sort of fiction in language, when the
final term is not fixed, and the end desirable, what is known to be [end
of page #6] temporary is considered as perpetual. Thus, the contract
between the king and the people, the constituent laws of a country,
&c. are considered as permanent and of eternal duration.
In this case, though the final decline of a nation cannot be prevented;
though the nature of things will either, by that regular chain of causes
which admits of being traced, or by their regular operation of
coincident causes which is termed accidental, sooner or later put an
end to the prosperity of every nation, yet we shall not speak of
prolonging prosperity, but of preventing decline, just as if it were
never to happen at any period.
Before entering upon this Inquiry, it may be well, for the sake of being
explicitly understood, to define what I mean by wealthy and powerful
nations.
In speaking of nations, wealth and power are sometimes related to
each other, as cause and effect. Sometimes there is between a mutual
action and re-action. In the natural or ordinary course of things, they
are, at first, intimately connected and dependent on each other, till, at
last, this connection lessening by degrees, and they even act in
opposite directions; when wealth undermines and destroys power, but
power never destroys wealth. {10}
Though wealth and power are often found united, they are sometimes
found separated. Wealth is altogether a real possession; power is
comparative. Thus, a nation may be wealthy in itself, though
unconnected with any other nation; but its power can only be
estimated by a comparison with that of other nations.
Wealth consists in having abundance of whatever mankind want or
desire; and if there were but one nation on earth, it might be wealthy;
but it would, in that case, be impossible to measure its power.
Wealth is, however, not altogether real; it is in a certain degree
comparative, whereas power is altogether comparative.
The Romans, for example, may very justly be called the most
---
{10} Till a nation has risen above its neighbours, and those to whom it
compares itself, wealth and power act in the same direction; but, after
it has got beyond that point, they begin to counteract each other.
-=-
[end of page #7]
powerful nation that ever existed, yet a single battalion of our present
troops, well supported with artillery, would have probably destroyed
the finest army they ever sent into the field. A single ship of the line
would certainly have sunk, taken, or put to flight, all the fleets that
Rome and Carthage ever sent to sea. The feeblest and least powerful
of civilized nations, with the present means of fighting, and the
knowledge of the present day, would defeat an ancient army of the
most powerful description. Power then is entirely relative; and what is
feebleness now, would, at a certain time, have been force or power.
It is not altogether so with wealth, which consists in the abundance of
what men desire. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, had wealth;
and this, though, perhaps, not consisting in the same objects, was,
perhaps, not inferior to ours at the present time; but as wealth, purely
and simply, no comparison between different nations was necessary,
farther than that men's desires are augmented, by seeing the
abundance possessed by others; and therefore they become
comparative, as to wealth. Without, however, entering into a long
examination respecting the various possible combinations of wealth
and power, which are something similarly connected in states, as
health and strength are in the animal body, {11} let both be considered
only in a comparative way; the comparison either being made with
other nations at the same time, or with the same nation at different
times. Thus, for example, in comparing the wealth and power of
Britain now, with what they were at the latter end of Queen
Elizabeth's reign, we find that the merchants of Liverpool, during the
first three years of last =sic= war, fitted out a force of privateers equal
to the Spanish armada; and consequently superior to the whole naval
force of England at that time; there can be no doubt, then, that both the
wealth and power of the nation are increased. Again, if we find that
our ships block up the
---
{11} A man may be very feeble, yet in very good health for his whole
life-time. He may also have great strength, though he may not enjoy a
very good state of health; yet nevertheless, health and strength are
very intimately connected, and never can be completely separated.
-=-
[end of page #8]
ports of Holland, and prevent their navy from venturing to sea, we
must conclude, that the relative power of the two nations is altered,
since the time that the Dutch fleet rode triumphant in the river
Thames. But, if we want to make a comparison between the naval
power of England and that of France and Spain, we must not compare
it with the strength of their navies in the year 1780, when they bid us
defiance at Plymouth, but take things actually as they are at this
present time.
When a nation is upon an equality with others, for wealth, it may be
considered as neither deserving the name of a rich or a poor nation,
whatever its real wealth or poverty may be. The same thing holds with
power. When a nation is merely able to protect itself, but fully equal
to that, though unable to make conquests, or aggrandize itself, against
the will of other nations, it may be said to be neither weak nor strong.
Thus, for example, Denmark as a nation is upon a par with others; and
neither to be called wealthy and powerful, nor weak and poor, though
it certainly has both more actual wealth and power than it had in the
eighth century, when the Danes burnt London, Paris, and Cologne.
Thus, then, with respect to my reasoning, the whole is to be
considered as applying to other nations at the same time; and the
degree they are above or below par, is the measure of wealth and
power, poverty and weakness. {12}
But, with respect to a nation itself, wealth is comparative in the
progression of time. In speaking of power, we compare nations at the
same period, and, in speaking of wealth, we may either compare a
nation with itself at different periods, or with others at the same time.
We shall not find any example of a nation's becoming less wealthy
whilst it increased in power; but we shall find many instances of
nations becoming wealthy whilst they were losing their power,
though,
---
{12} According to this definition, if all the nations on earth were to
increase in wealth and power equally, they would be considered as
stationary; their relative situations would remain the same; like those
of the fixed stars, or those of soldiers who march in a regiment with
perfect regularity, and retain their relative portion in the same manner
as if they stood still. But this case, among nations, is only an
imaginary one; therefore, the definition given answers the true
purpose of investigation.
-=-
[end of page #9]
together with the power, the wealth always, a little sooner or a little
later, vanishes away.
Sometimes nations owe their wealth and greatness to accidental
causes, that, from their nature, must vanish away; and sometimes to
causes which, depending upon the nations themselves, may be
prolonged. In general, both the two sorts of causes have united to
render every nation great that has been distinguished amongst others
for riches or power.
The causes, then, divide themselves into two of distinct kinds;--those
which are independent of the nation itself, and those over which it has
some degree of influence and controul.
In early ages, when knowledge was but little advanced, and when the
small stock that had been accumulated was confined nearly to a single
spot, the first description of causes were the principal ones.--Local
situation, priority in discovery, or in establishment, gave to one nation
a superiority over others, and occasioned the accumulation of wealth,
and the acquisition of power and territory. {13} As in the early stages
of human life, a few years more or less occasion a greater difference,
both in physical powers and mental faculties, than any difference of
innate genius, or adventitious circumstances; so, in the early days of
the world, when it was young in knowledge, and scanty in population,
priority of settlement gave a great advantage to one nation over others,
and, of consequence, enabled them to rule over others; thus the
Assyrian and Egyptian empires were great, powerful, and extensive,
while the nations that were beyond their reach were divided into small
states or kingdoms, on the most contemptible scale.
Time, however, did away the advantages resulting from priority of
establishment.
Local situation was another cause of superiority, of a more permanent
nature; but this, also, new discovery has transferred from one na-
---
{13} It is not meant, by any means, to enter into an inquiry, much less
controversy, respecting the antiquity of mankind; but it is very clear
that the knowledge of arts and sciences can be traced to an infant state
about two thousand years before the Christian aera.
-=-
[end of page #10]
tion to another. Qualities of the soil and climate are counteracted by
the nature and habits of the inhabitants, which frequently, in the end,
give the superiority where there was at first an inferiority.
If ever the nations of the world come to a state of permanence, (which
in all probability will never be the case,) it must be when population is
nearly proportioned to the means of subsistence in different parts;
when knowledge is nearly equally distributed and when no great
discoveries remain to be made either in arts, science, or geography.
While the causes from which wealth and power rise in a superior
degree, are liable to change from one nation to another, wealth and
power must be liable to the same alterations and changes of place; so
long any equal balance among nations must be artificial. But when
circumstances become similar, and when the pressure becomes equal
on all sides, then nations, like the particles of a fluid, though free to
move, having lost their impulse, will remain at rest.
If such a state of things should ever arrive, then the wealth and power
would be only real, not comparative. The whole might be very rich,
very affluent, and possess great abundance of every thing, either for
enjoyment or for defence, without one nation having an advantage
over another: they would be on an equality.
But this state of things is far from being likely soon to take place.
Population is far from come to its equilibrium, and knowledge {14} is
farther distant still. Russia and America, in particular, are both behind
in population, and the inhabitants of the latter country are far from
being on a par in knowledge with the rest of Europe; when they
become so, the balance will be overturned, and must be re-established
anew.
The great discoveries that have taken place in knowledge and
geography have been connected.
While navigation was little understood, the borders of the
Mediterranean Sea, and the islands in it, were naturally the first places
for wealth and commerce.
The discovery of the compass, and others that followed, rendered
---
{14} By knowledge is only meant the knowledge of the arts that make
men useful, =sic= such as agriculture, manufactures, legislation, &c.
-=-
[end of page #11]
the navigation of the open ocean, more easy and safe than that of the
circumscribed seas. This laid a great foundation for change and
discovery; it brought Britain into importance, ruined Italy, Genoa,
Venice, &c. and has laid the foundation for further changes still.
As for discoveries in arts, it would be bold and presumptuous indeed
to attempt to set any bounds to them. Discoveries, however, that alter
the relations of mankind very materially, are probably near at an end.
In arts they give only a temporary preference. {15} If a method should
be discovered to cultivate a field with half the trouble, and to double
the produce, which seems very possible, it would be a great discovery,
and alter the general state of mankind considerably; but it would soon
be extended to all nations, as the use of gunpowder has been. New
produce, or means of procuring the old more easily, are the things
chiefly sought after. Potatoes, coffee, tea, sugar, cotton, silk, distilled
spirits, are new productions, unknown to the Romans. Glass,
gunpowder, printing, windmills, watermills, steam-engines, and the
most part of spinning and weaving machines, are new inventions, but
they can be extended to all countries. The mariners compass changed
the relative position of places, and no new invention of the same
importance, as to its effects on nations, probably can take place.
Navigation does not admit of a similar improvement to that which it
has received. If goods could be conveyed for a quarter of the present
price it would not produce the same sort of effect. To render
navigating the ocean practicable was a greater thing than any possible
improvement on that practicability.
As for new discoveries in geography, they are nearly at an end. The
form and the extent of the earth are known, and the habitable regions
are nearly all explored.
We have, then, arrived at a state of things where many of the causes
that formerly operated on reducing wealthy nations can never again
produce a similar effect. But still there are other causes which ope-
---
{15} The end of all discovery is to supply men with what they want;
and, accordingly, all nations that are considered as civilised find the
means of participating in the advantage of a new discovery, by
imitating that which possesses the invention first, and that is done
almost immediately. It was very different formerly.
-=-
[end of page #12]
rate as they did formerly; accordingly, wealth and power are very
unequally distributed amongst nations at this moment; and, in Europe,
there is not one nation that is not either rising or on its decline. (see
Appendix A.) =sic--there is none.=
The purpose of the present Inquiry is, by tracing those causes that still
continue to operate, to discover how nations that now stand high may
be prevented from sinking below their level: a thing to which history
shews they have a natural tendency, and which history shews also is
attended with very distressing consequences.
We do not labour in Utopia on schemes, but in Britain on real
business; and the inquiry is, how a nation, situated as this is, and
having more than its share of power, importance, and wealth, may
prolong their possession?
In this Inquiry we shall begin with taking a lesson from history, which
will serve as some guide.
As to the rise of other nations, we neither can nor should attempt to
impede that; let them rise to our level, but let us not sink down to
theirs. [end of page #13]
CHAP. II.
_Of the General Causes that operate, both externally and internally,
in bringing down Nations that have risen above their Level to that
assigned to them by their Extent, Fertility, and Population; and of the
Manner in which Wealth destroyed Power in ancient Nations_.
Without considering the particular causes that have raised some
nations greatly above others, there are some general causes of decline
which operate in all cases; but even the general causes are not always
similar, they vary their way of producing the effect, according to
circumstances.
If a nation excels in arts and manufactures, others acquire a taste for
what they make, and imitate them. If they excel in the art of war, they
teach their enemies to fight as well as themselves. If their territories
are large, the unprotected and far distant parts provoke attack and
plunder. They become more difficult and expensive to govern. If they
owe their superiority to climate and soil, they generally preserve it but
a short time. Necessity acts so much more powerfully on those who do
not enjoy the same advantages, that they soon come to an equality.--
In whatever the superiority exists, emulation and envy prompt to
rivalship in peace, and to frequent trials of strength in war. The
contempt and pride which accompany wealth and power, and the envy
and jealousy they excite amongst other nations, are continual causes
of change, and form the great basis of the revolutions amongst the
human race.
The wants of men increase with their knowledge of what it is good to
enjoy; and it is the desire to gratify those wants that increases
necessity, and this necessity is the spur to action.
There are a few natural wants that require no knowledge in order to be
felt; such as hunger and thirst, and the other appetites which men have
in common with all animals, and which are linked, as it [end of page
#14] were, to their existence. {16} But while nations satisfy
themselves with supplying such wants, there is neither wealth nor
power amongst them. Of consequence, it is not into the conduct of
such that we are to inquire.
Excepting, however, those wants which are inseparable from our
existence, all the others are, more or less, fictitious, and increase with
our knowledge and habits; it is, therefore, evident that the nation that
is the highest above others feels the fewest wants; or, in other words,
feels no wants. She knows nothing that she does not possess, and
therefore may be said to want nothing; or which is the same thing, not
knowing what she does want, she makes no effort to obtain it.
Thus necessity of rising higher, does not operate, on a nation that sees
none higher than itself; at least, it does only operate in a very slender
degree. {17} Whereas, in the nation that is behind hand with other
nations around, every one is led by emulation and envy, and by a
feeling of their own wants, to imitate and equal those that are farther
advanced.
---
{16} A child cries for food without knowing what it is; and all the
other natural appetites, though they may be increased by habit, by
knowledge, and fancy, are independent of the mind in its first state.
{17} The necessity, no doubt, continues to preserve what they have;
and, therefore, tends to keep them in a permanent state. Some
individuals again, in less affluence than others, endeavour to equal
them; by which means some progress is still making in the nation that
possesses the greatest share of wealth and power; but it is only partial
and feeble. Those who live in the nation that is the most advanced are
contented and have all they wish; they possess every thing of which
they know, they can have no particular desire for any thing they have
not got, that will produce great energy and exertion. A man may wish
for wings, or for perpetual youth; but, as he can scarcely expect to
obtain either, he will make little exertion. With things really
attainable, but not known, the case is less productive of energy still.
The people of Asia found silk a natural produce of their country; till
the Europeans saw it, they never attempted to produce so rich a
material; but no pains has since been spared to try to produce it, in
almost every country, where there was the least chance of success. We
imitated the silk mills of Italy, and the Italians (as well as many other
nations) are now imitating our cotton mills. In the case of a nation that
follows others, it always knows what it wants, and may judge whether
it can obtain it; but the nation the most advanced, gropes in the dark.
-=-
[end of page #15]
Thus it is, that necessity acts but in a very inferior degree on the
nation that is the farthest advanced; while it operates in a very
powerful way on those that are in arrear; and this single reason,
without the intervention of wars or any sort of contest or robbery,
would, in the process of time, bring nations to a sort of equality in
wealth and refinement; that is, it would bring them all into possession
of the means of gratifying their wants.
War, excited by the violent and vile passions,--by the overbearing
pride and insolence of one, and the envy and villainy of another,
derange this natural and smooth operation, which, nevertheless,
continues to act in silence at all times, and in every circumstance, and
which, indeed, is in general the chief cause of those very disorders by
which its operations are sometimes facilitated; sometimes apparently
interrupted; sometimes, their effect for a moment reversed; but their
action never, for one instant, totally suspended.
The desire of enjoyment makes all mankind act as if they were
running a race. They always keep the goal in view, though they
attempt to be the foremost to arrive at it by various means. But the
greatest exertions are never made by those who have got the advance
of their competitors. Amongst the wants of mankind, ease is one of
very permanent operation; and whenever the necessity of supplying
other wants ceases, the desire of supplying that, leads to a state of
inaction and rest. {18} To seek ease, however, does not imply
necessarily to seek total inaction or rest; a diminished exertion is
comparative ease; and this is always observable in a state of
prosperity, either of an individual or of a nation, after the prosperity
has been long enough
---
{18} The truth of this may be disputed by those who look at mankind
in an artificial state; because a variety of their actions seem without
any particular motive. But not the smallest exertion is ever made
without it. The man who walks out and takes exercise, wants health or
amusement as much as the working man does bread. Even those who
toil in the rounds of pleasure, are always in pursuit of something.
Their not finding the object is another part of the consideration; but
they always have one in view. As to savages, and the poorer classes of
people, they shew their propensity by a more simple process; that is,
merely by resting inactive, when they are not compelled to labour.
-=-
[end of page #16]
enjoyed to create a certain degree of lassitude and indifference, which
it does on every nation. {19}
Whatever may be the accidental circumstance which first raises one
nation above others, or the train of adventitious ones that increase for
a while and continue that superiority, nothing can be more clear and
certain, than, that they have a natural tendency to come back to a
level, merely by the exertions of men in the direction of acquiring
wealth by industry, and without any of those causes which arise out of
war, or interrupting the career of each other.
When, from the conduct of one nation towards another, or from
whatever other cause war, =sic= becomes the means by which the
superiority of two nations is to be decided, there are many things in
favour of the least wealthy nation.
It has less to protect and to lose, and more to attack and to gain; the
task is much easier and more alluring. There is a sort of energy in
attempting to obtain, that is not to be found in those who are only
exerting themselves to keep, of which it is difficult to explain the
cause, but of which the existence is very certain.
Where natural strength, and the struggle with want is great, as is the
case with nations who have made but little progress in acquiring
wealth, the contest with a people more enervated by ease, and less
inured to toil is very unequal, and does more than compensate those
artificial aids which are derived from the possession of property. {20}
From this cause, the triumph of poorer over more wealthy nations has
generally arisen, and, in most cases, has occasioned the contest to end
in favour of the more hardy and poorer people.
Of the revolutions that took place in the ancient world; whether
operated by degrees or by violence and suddenly, those may be ge-
---
{19} Doctor Garth, in his admirable poem of the Dispensary, says;--
"_Even health for want of change becomes disease_."
This is the case with nations sunk in prosperity.
{20} Why men should have been less tenacious to keep that which is
fairly theirs, than rapaciously to obtain that which is not, is a strange
thing; but nothing is more certain; and the effects of that propensity
are very great, and its existence very general. In the ruin of nations, it
is a most active and powerful cause.
-=-
[end of page #17]
nerally traced as the causes. In those ancient nations any considerable
degree of luxury and military success were incompatible with each
other; but, in the present age, the case is greatly altered. Military
discipline is not near so severe as formerly, and bodily strength has
but little effect, while the engines of war can only be procured by
those resources which wealth affords; by this means, the decline of
nations is, at least, now become a less natural and slower progress
than formerly; the operations of war have now a quite different
tendency from what they formerly had, and this effect is produced by
the introduction of cannon, and a different mode of attack and
defence; to carry on which, a very considerable degree of wealth is
necessary. {21}
In former times, the character and situation of the people, the object
they had in view, their bravery and the skill of their leaders, did every
thing; but now the skill of leaders and the command of money are the
chief objects; for there is not sufficient difference between any two
nations in Europe as to counterbalance those: and, indeed, (except so
far as military skill is accidental,) it is to be found principally in
nations who have a sufficient degree of wealth to exercise it and call it
into action.
We shall see that the first revolutions in the world were effected by
the natural strength, energy, and bravery of poor nations triumphing
over those that were less hardy, in consequence of the enjoyment of
wealth, until the time of the Romans; who, like other nations, first
triumphed by means of superior energy and bravery; and, afterwards
by making war a trade, continued, by having regular standing armies,
to conquer the nations who had only temporary levies, or militias, to
fight in their defence.
The triumph of poor nations, over others in many respects their
superiors, continued during the middle ages, but the wealth acquired
by certain nations then was not wrested from them by war, but by an
accidental and unforeseen change in the channel through which it
---
{21} An idea has gone abroad, since the successes of the French
armies, that money is not necessary to war, even in the present times.
It will be shewn, in its proper place, that the French armies were
maintained at very great expense, and that a poor country could not
have done what France did.
-=-
flowed. At the same time that this change took place, without the
intervention of force, the art of war changed in favour of wealthy
nations, but the changes took place by slow degrees, and the power of
nations now may almost be estimated by their disposable incomes.
This change, however, has by no means secured the prosperity of
wealthy nations; it has only prevented poor ones, unable by means of
fair competition to do by conquest what they could not effect by
perseverance in arts and industry; for, in other respects, though it
makes the prosperity of a nation more dependant =sic= on wealth, and
more independent of violence; it prevents any nation from preserving
its political importance after it loses its riches. It does not by any
means interrupt that progress by which poor nations gradually rise up
and rival richer ones in arts. It has not done away the advantages that
arise from superior industry and attention to business, or from the
gradual introduction of knowledge amongst the more ignorant,
thereby lessening their inferiority, and tending to bring nations to a
level; on the contrary, by increasing the advantages, and securing the
gradual triumphs gained by arts and industry, from the violence of
war, it makes wealth a more desirable object, and the loss of it a
greater misfortune. It tends to augment the natural propensity that
there is in poor nations to equal richer ones {22}, although it, at the
same time, augments the difficulty of accomplishing their intentions.
The superior energy of poverty and necessity which leads men, under
this pressure, to act incessantly in whatever way they have it in their
power to act, and that seems likely to bring them on a level with those
that are richer, is then the ground-work of the rise and fall of nations,
as well as of individuals. This tendency is sometimes favoured by
particular circumstances, and sometimes it is counteracted by them;
but its operation is incessant, and it has never yet failed in producing
its effect, for the triumph of poverty over wealth on the great scale as
on the small, though very irregular in its pace, has continued without
interruption from the earliest records to the present moment.
---
{22} The present inferiority of Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and
Portugal, compared with the rank they held in former times, is easily
accounted for by looking at the scale of their revenues.
-=-
[end of page #19]
CHAP. III.
_Of the Nations that rose to Wealth and Power previously to the
Conquests in Asia and Africa, and the Causes which ruined them_.
Previous to the conquests made by Alexander the Great, the
history of ancient nations is confused, incomplete, and inaccurate.
During the contests of his successors, the intricacy and confusion are
still continued, but materials are more plentiful, more accurate, and
more authentic.
During the first period, excepting what is contained in sacred history,
a few detached facts, collected by writers long after, are our only
guides in judging of the situation of ancient states, some of which
consisted of great empires, and others of single cities possessed of a
very small territory.
Add to this, that great and striking events occupied almost exclusively
the attention of historians. The means by which those events were
produced were considered as of lesser importance.
So far, however, as the present inquiry can be elucidated, although
materials are few, yet, by adhering to a distinct plan, and keeping the
object always before us, we may arrive at a conclusion.
The countries that appear to have been first inhabited were Syria and
Egypt, {23} both of them situated on the borders of the Mediterranean
Sea; and as early as any authentic records extend, those were great and
powerful countries in which agriculture and population had made
great progress, and into which commerce had already brought many of
the luxuries of the East.
The Phoenicians, a people differing in name from those who were
subjected to the Assyrian monarchs, occupied that part of Syria, now
called the Levant, directly on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea;
they were the first who rose to wealth and power by arts and com-
---
{23} Reasons have been given in the preface for not taking any view
of the situation of India, though, by its produce, it appears, at least of
equal antiquity.
-=-
[end of page #20]
merce. Tyre and Sidon were the abodes of commerce long before the
arrival of the Jews in the land of Canaan, situated in the adjacent
country, with whom, in the days of David and Solomon, the
Phoenicians were on terms of friendship and alliance, {24} assisting
the latter to carry on commerce, and enrich his people. (See Appendix
B.) =sic--there is none.=
The whole coast of the Mediterranean lay open to them for navigation,
as did also the Grecian islands, and as their own soil was barren, they
purchased the necessaries of life, giving in exchange the rich stuffs
they had manufactured, and the produce of the East of which they
almost exclusively possessed the commerce.
The Egyptians were possessed of the most fertile soil in the world,
bounded by the Mediterranean Sea on the north, and on the east and
west by barren deserts. Their country was of a triangular form, and
watered by the Nile, which, passing through it in its greatest extent,
runs nearly down the middle.
Thus situated, in the country depending on the Nile for its fertility, and
on all sides protected from enemies, it was exceedingly natural to
cultivate the arts of peace, and it was not possible that it should be
divided into many different nations, as in other countries in early
times was the case, when sovereignty rose from parental authority,
and when there was no natural bond between the heads of different
families.
The great abundance with which the inhabitants were supplied, in
years when the Nile overflowed in a favourable manner, and the
uncertainty of future plenty were inducements for accumulation and
foresight, which are not equally necessary in countries where the
important circumstances of plenty or want do not depend on one
single event over the whole face of a country, separated, besides, from
others by a sea, which they could not navigate, and by deserts not very
easy to pass over.
The difficulties of transporting corn, which were sufficient to deter the
Egyptians from depending on a supply from other parts, did not,
however, prevent other nations from applying to them in times of
scarcity, and accordingly it was the granary of the ancient world.
---
{24} For farther particulars of this commerce see the Digression on
the Trade to India.
-=-
[end of page #21]
To those natural advantages, the Egyptians added some others,
different in their nature, but not less precious.
They enjoyed a mild government, and an admirable and simple code
of laws. Their docility and obedience have never been equalled, and as
one maxim, was, to admit of no person being idle, it is evident that the
population must have increased rapidly, and that there must have been
an impossibility to employ the whole labour of so many hands on the
means of providing subsistence in a country, where the manners were
simple, the soil fertile, and the wants few.
The surplus of the industry of Egypt appears to have been at the
disposal of the sovereigns to whom all the lands belonged, and for
which they exacted a rent in kind, as is the custom among the native
powers on both peninsulas of India to this day. By that means, they
were enabled to produce those stupendous works which have been the
admiration and wonder of all succeeding generations, and of every
nation. The city of Thebes, with the labyrinth; Memphis, the canals,
and the pyramids would all be incredible, had not their singular
structure preserved those latter efforts of industry from the ravages of
time, and left them nearly entire to the present day.
The Phoenicians were a colony from that great country; for the
Egyptians in general had a dislike to the sea. It is well known,
however, that people who live immediately on the coast have a
propensity to navigation, and it is probable that those Egyptians who
left their own fruitful land to settle on the barren borders of Syria,
were from the delta of Lower Egypt, which lies on the sea coast, and
is intersected by a number of branches of the river Nile. {25}
It is not surprising that such a colony, following the natural propensity
to naval affairs, and carrying with it the arts of dying and weaving,
together with whatever else the Egyptians knew, should become under
the influence of necessity, and in a favourable situation for arts and
commerce, as much celebrated for commercial riches, as their mother
country had long been for agriculture and the cultivation of the
sciences.
---
{25} That the Phoenicians were from Egypt is not doubted, and their
becoming a totally different people from being on a different soil and
in a different situation, is a strong proof of the influence of physical
circumstances on the characters of nations.
-=-
[end of page #22]
Tyre accordingly is the first example of a city becoming rich and
powerful by arts and commerce, and though few details are known,
yet those are of a very decided character.
The pride of the Tyrians appears to have been the cause of their fall,
and that pride was occasioned by the possession of wealth, far beyond
that of any other people then in the world. While they were great they
aimed at monopoly, and were partly the cause of the rapid decay of
Jerusalem. After the death of Solomon, they founded a colony, well
situated for the extention of their own trade, which consisted chiefly in
bringing the rich produce of Arabia, and India, into the western world.
Carthage was placed on the south coast of the Mediterranean to the
west of Egypt, so as never to have any direct intercourse with India
itself, while it lay extremely well for distributing the merchandize,
brought by the Tyrians, from thence in the interior of Africa, Spain,
Sicily, Italy, and the parts that lay distant from the mother city. {26}
From the extent of its territory and situation, Tyre could only be
wealthy; it never could be powerful, as the great Assyrian monarchy,
which lay immediately to the eastward, prevented the possibility of its
extention; and, as to power at sea, there was =sic= at that time no
contests on that element; the most then that could be expected was,
that it should have sufficient strength to protect itself, which, being on
a small island, very near the shore, was not difficult. If Alexander the
Great had not joined it to the land by an earthen mound, or mole, Tyre
could never have been taken till some other power got the superiority
by sea; which could not have been till after the Romans had conquered
Carthage.
Babylon, which was the centre of the Assyrian empire, and commu-
---
{26} The best account of the commodities in which the commerce of
the Tyrians consisted, as well as the best description of their wealth,
and the cause of the downfall is to be found in Ezekiel, chap. xxvi.
and the two following. It is perfectly distinct and conclusive with
respect to the principal points of wealth, pride, and luxury founded on
wealth.
The Tyre here spoken of is not the same taken by the king of Babylon,
or Assyrian monarch long before Alexander's time, which only
appears to have been a settlement on the main land belonging to the
same people, and subject to the same prince.
-=-
[end of page #23]
nicated with the eastern part of Asia, by the river Euphrates, and by
the Persian Gulf with India, was, as Memphis, of Egypt, a capital; but
the Assyrians were not protected on all sides, like the Egyptians, from
foreign inroads; they consequently did not cultivate the arts of peace
and the sciences so much. On the east, were the Medes and Persians;
on the north, the Scythians and Partheans; but, as the territory was
fertile and extensive, under one of the finest climates of the world, the
monarchs became rich and luxurious, which was the cause of their
subjection, and they were always subdued by people less advanced in
luxury than themselves.
The whole of these countries, Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Greece,
fell under the arms of Alexander. This was the first great and general
revolution in that part of the world, from which Carthage alone, of all
the ancient seats of wealth and greatness, escaped.
The triumph of Alexander was, no doubt, that of a great captain; but,
except the destruction of Tyre, and the foundation of Alexandria,
which changed the principal seat of commerce, there was nothing
durable in his conquests. The reigning families were destroyed, and
the dynasties altered; but, under his immediate successors, the
Egyptians, the inhabitants of Syria, and the Greeks, had different
masters.
It was after the foundation of Alexandria, and under the successors of
Alexander, that Egypt became really a commercial country. Its wealth
had hitherto arisen rather from the great population and fertility of the
country, than from any participation in the trade to the East; but after
Alexandria was founded, the seat of empire, which had always been in
Upper Egypt, was established in Lower Egypt, canals were dug, and
every means taken to make the passage from the Red Sea to the
Mediterranean as commodious as possible.
Carthage began then to decline. Tyre was no more: and Alexandria
was situated on the same side of the Mediterranean Sea, in a much
more advantageous position for receiving the productions of the East,
and equally advantageous for distributing them.
The Phoenicians never recovered their importance; and indeed it was
not the interest of the Persian monarch to encourage trade by [end of
page #24] the old channel of the Red Sea and Rhinocolura, but rather
to come directly through the Persian Gulf, ascend the Euphrates, and
cross the country to the borders of the Mediterranean, which was a
way not much more expensive than by the old rout =sic=. As the
greater part of the produce imported was to be consumed at the
luxurious court of Persia, and in the numerous rich cities with which
that empire was filled, there is no doubt that the way by the Persian
Gulf was by much the least expensive; for even Solomon, King of
Jerusalem, long before, though he lived at one extremity of the
journey, and had ships for trading by the other channel, had carried on
trade by this way; and, in order to facilitate it, had laid the foundation
of the magnificent city of Palmyra, nearly in the middle between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Persia.
Whilst those revolutions were effecting amongst the ancient nations
on the continents of Asia and Africa, the Greeks, who had been the
most barbarous of all, became, by degrees, the most refined; their
learning and arts were all founded, originally, on the Egyptian
learning; and though at last they carried them to a higher pitch than
their masters; yet Egypt, for many centuries, was looked up to, even
by the Greeks, as they were afterwards for a number of centuries by
the Romans, and the other nations of the world.
The education of the Greeks; very different in some of the states from
what it was in others, had, however, the same tendency in all; that
tendency was to invigorate the body, and instruct and strengthen the
mind. While this continued, we see them at first resist the Persians,
though in very unequal numbers; and, at last, the Grecian vigour,
discipline, and skill, subdue the whole of the then civilized world.
After the conquests of Alexander, the wealth and luxury of Asia were
introduced into Greece, and indeed the Greeks refined on that luxury.
At Athens and the other cities which might be said to give manners to
the rest, shews, and theatrical representations were after that more
attended to than the military art; and cabal, intrigue, and corruption,
were introduced in the place of that manly, pure, and admirable love
of their country, for which, in less wealthy, but in better [end of page
#25] times, they had been so highly distinguished above every other
people.
This was the situation of things when a nation, less advanced in arts,
and uncorrupted with the possession of wealth, but which was still
considered by the Greeks as barbarous, prepared at once to subdue the
whole of them, and give a still more striking proof of the triumph
which vigour and energy obtain over those who have only wealth; the
possession of which, undoubtedly, gives a certain means of defence,
though one very unequal to resisting a nation when excited by the
desire of sharing its possessions, and yet vigorous and strong, not
being unnerved by the enjoyment of ease and luxury. [end of page
#26]
CHAP. IV.
_Of the Romans.--the Causes of their Rise under the Republic, and of
their Decline under the Emperors.--the great Error generally fallen
into with respect to the Comparison between Rome and Carthage;
Proofs that it is wrong, and not at all applicable to France and
England_.
In the rise and greatness of Rome, there was nothing accidental, all
was the effect of the most unremitting perseverance in a plan, at first,
of petty robbery; which, as it extended, was honoured with the title of
conquest; and, as it succeeded, has been considered as deserving the
appellation of great.
It is true, that there were talents exercised, and methods practised,
which deserve the highest praise, and are worthy of imitation. It is
impossible to withhold admiration at the recital, but the end in view,
from the beginning, cannot be justified.
Although neither the end in view, nor, generally speaking, the means
employed, are deserving of imitation, yet we shall find more
advantage from examining them than from the history of any other
nation.
In the first place, so far as prosperity depends on good conduct, and
good conduct depends on the state of the mind, the Romans are a most
striking example. While they preserved the manners that first
occasioned their rise, they continued to become more powerful; as
they forsook these manners, their power abandoned them; and they,
after having conquered all with whom they ever contended, because
they had more skill or less corruption, were themselves overcome, by
men infinitely inferior to what they had been, before they became
enervated and corrupt.
The smallness of the territory, which the Romans at first possessed,
laid them under the necessity of extending it, and drawing resources
from their neighbours; who, being brave and hardy, could not be
easily either robbed or subdued. [end of page #27]
The Romans began with robbing, and finished with subduing them all,
but the modes they practised deserve attention.
It is in vain to think that superior bravery or skill would alone have
done the business; those are often triumphant, but occasionally
defeated. The Romans owed their gradual aggrandizement to a line of
conduct that, whether in good or ill fortune, tended to make them the
sovereigns of the world. A line of conduct in which, if it had been in
human nature to persevere, they would have preserved the situation to
which they had elevated themselves.
Along with this decided conduct, which seems to have arisen from
something innate in themselves, or to have been occasioned by some
circumstance that is not known, the Romans possessed a number of
methods, in addition to personal bravery, by which they advanced the
end they had in view.
When the kings were abolished, Rome was only a small, rude,
irregular place, and a receptacle for plunder; inhabited, however, by
men who had great strength of mind, and who possessed a great
command over themselves.
Their moral code was suitable to their situation. To rob, plunder, and
destroy an enemy was a merit; to betray a trust, or to defraud a fellow
citizen, was a crime of the greatest magnitude. With the Romans,
oaths were inviolable; and attachment to the public was the greatest
virtue.
As they had neither arts nor commerce, and but very little territory,
plunder was their means of subsistence; it was to them a regular
source of wealth, and it was distributed with perfect impartiality; they
were in fact an association; the wealth of the public, and of the
individual, were, to a certain degree, the same; they were as an
incorporated company, in which private interest conspired with the
love of their country to forward the general interest.
Plundering and pillage, as well as the modes of dividing the spoil,
were reduced to system and method; and the religious observation of
oaths was conducive to the success of both. Every soldier was sworn to
be faithful to his country, both in fighting its battles, and in giving
a rigid account of whatever might be the fruits of the contest. [end of
page #28]
The moveables and lands taken from an enemy were sold for the
benefit of the public; the former went wholly for that purpose, and the
latter were divided into two equal portions; one of which, like the
moveables, went into the general stock, the other was distributed to
the poorer citizens, at the price of a small acknowledgement.
The consequence of this system was, a perpetual state of warfare; in
which it was clear that the armies must obtain a superiority over
neighbours, who but occasionally employed themselves in acts of
hostility.
From such a plan of operations it naturally followed that they must
either have been subdued altogether, or come off in general with some
advantage, otherwise it would have been impossible to proceed. Of
this they seem to have been fully sensible; for, with them, it was a
maxim never to conclude peace unless they were victorious, and never
to treat with an enemy on their own territory.
Acting in this manner, and engaging in wars with different nations,
unconnected with each other by treaties of alliance; without any
common interest, or even any knowledge of each others =sic= affairs;
ignorant, in general, even of what was going on, the Romans had, in
most cases, a great advantage over those with whom they had to
contend.
There were in Italy some very warlike people, and those were nearest
to Rome itself. The contest with those was long obstinate, and
repeatedly renewed; but still the system of conquest was followed; and
at last prevailed.
The consular government was favourable, also, for perpetual warfare.
Those temporary chief magistrates did not enjoy their dignity long
enough to become torpid or careless, but were interested in
distinguishing themselves by the activity of their conduct while in
office; whereas, in hereditary power, or elective monarchy, the
personal feelings of the chief, which must have an influence upon the
conduct of a nation, must sometimes, happily for mankind, lead him to
seek peace and quietness. {27}
---
{27} During the interruption of consular government, by the
decemvirs, though they did not reign long, the energy of the people
was suspended, and their enemies found them much less difficult to
resist.
-=-
[end of page #29]
Even when the Gauls burned the city, the Romans yielded no
advantages in treaty; they abandoned it to its fate, retired to Veii, and
renewed the war.
In the art of war, the Romans had those advantages which men
generally possess in whatever is the natural bent of their genius, and
their constant occupation. Every thing that continual attention,
experience, or example, could do to increase their success was
attended to; and their hardy manner of education and living, with
constant exercise, enabled them to practice =sic= what other men were
unable to perform.
They accustomed themselves to heavier armour than any other nation.
Their rate of marching was between four and five miles an hour, for
four or five hours together, loaded with a weight of above 60lb. Their
weapons for exercising were double the usual weight, and they were
inured to running and leaping when completely armed.
The success of the Romans in Europe was not sufficiently rapid, nor
were the nations they conquered sufficiently rich to bring on that
luxury and relaxation of discipline, which were the consequences in
those victories obtained in Egypt, Syria, and Greece; nor were the
soldiers the only persons inured to such exercises, for the Roman
citizens practised the same at home, in the Campus Martius.
No people educated with less hardiness of body, or a less firm
attachment to their country, could have undergone, or would have
submitted, to the terrible fatigues of a Roman soldier, which were
such, that, even at a very late period of the republic, they were known
to ask as a favour to be conducted to battle, as a relief from the
fatigues they were made to undergo in the camp. {28}
In addition to this unremitting and very severe discipline, and to the
inventions of many weapons, machines, and stratagems, unknown to
other nations, they had the great wisdom to examine very carefully, if
they found an enemy enjoy any advantage, in what that advantage
consisted. If it arose from any fault of their own, it was rectified
---
{28} This happened under Sylla, in the war against Mithridates, which
immediately preceded the fall of the republic.
-=-
[end of page #30]
without delay; and if it arose from any new mode of fighting, or
superior weapons, they adopted methods with such promptitude that
the advantage was only once in favour of the enemy. {29}
The Asiatic methods of fighting with elephants, though new, never
disconcerted them twice. If they knew of any superior art that they
could imitate, it was done; and when the advantage arose from natural
circumstances, and they could not themselves become masters of the
art, they took other methods. Expert slingers from the Balearian
Islands, and bowmen from Crete, were added to their legions; as, in
modern times, field-ordnance and riflemen are added to ours.
It is impossible not to view with astonishment and admiration such
wise conduct in such haughty men, whose simple citizens treated the
sovereigns of other nations as equals; but that greatness of mind had a
well-founded cause. They knew that the physical powers of men are
limited, and that to obtain a victory with the greatest ease possible it
was necessary to join together all the advantages that could be
obtained; they knew, also, that war is altogether a trial of force, and a
trial of skill, and that neither of the contending parties can act by rule,
but must be guided by circumstances and the conduct of the enemy.
{30}
This conduct of the Romans in war was supported by the laws at
home. The equal distribution of lands, their contempt for commerce
and luxury, preserved the population of the country in that state where
good soldiers are to be obtained. The wealthy, in any state, cannot be
numerous; neither are they hardy to bear the fatigue. Their servants,
and the idle, the indolent, and unprincipled persons they have about
them are totally unfit, and a wretched populace, degraded by want, or
inured to ease and plenty are equally unfit.
---
{29} This conduct appears the more admirable to those who live in the
present times that in the revolutionary war with the French, who
invented a number of new methods of fighting, and had recourse to
new stratagems, the regular generals opposed to them never altered
their modes of warfare, but let themselves be beat in the most regular
way possible. One single general (the Archduke Charles) did not think
himself above the circumstances of the case, and his success was
proportioned to his merit.
{30} The copying the form and structure of a Carthaginian galley that
was stranded.
-=-
[end of page #31]
It has been a favourite opinion among many writers on political
economy that artists and workmen are cowardly and unfit for soldiers;
but experience does not warrant that conclusion; though it is certain
that, according to the manner the Romans carried on war, the bodily
fatigue was greater than men bred up promiscuously to trades of
different sorts could in general undergo.
So long as the Romans had enemies to contend with, from whom they
obtained little, the manners and laws, the mode of education, and the
government of their country, remained pure as at first. Their business,
indeed, became more easy; for the terror of their name, their
inflexibility, and the superior means they had of bringing their powers
into action, all served to facilitate their conquests. But when they
conquered Carthage, and begun =sic= to taste the fruits of wealth,
their ground-work altered by degrees, and the superstructure became
less solid. {31}
Wealth, as we have already seen, was confined to Asia and Africa, and
of it the Carthaginians possessed a great share. It has long been the
opinion adopted by writers on those subjects that the Carthaginians, as
being a commercial and a trading nation, were quite an unequal match
for the Romans; that in Rome all was virtue, public spirit, and every
thing that was great and noble, while at Carthage all was venal, vile,
and selfish. A spirit of war and conquest reigned, say they, in one
place together with a spirit of glory, in the other a spirit of gain
presided over private actions and public counsels.
This is all very true, and very well said, with respect to the fact, but
with respect to the cause there is one of the greatest errors into which
a number of men of discernment and ability have ever fallen. {32}
The true state of the case is easily to be understood, if we only
---
{31} It will be seen, in the subsequent part of this inquiry, that, in the
present mode of warfare, the Romans would not have had equal
advantage.--Skill, and not personal strength, is now the great object,
and money to purchase arms and ammunition is the next.
{32} M. Montesquieu, notwithstanding his very superior knowledge,
accuracy, and acuteness, enlarges upon this subject; and never takes
any notice of the corrupt, mercenary, and degraded state into which
Rome fell when it became as rich as Carthage.
-=-
[end of page #32]
throw aside, for a moment, the favour for the brave warrior, and the
dislike to the selfish trader. The fact was, that Rome, in the days of its
vigour, when it was poor, attacked Carthage in the days of its wealth
and of its decline; but let us compare Carthage before its fall to Rome
in the time of the Gordians, of Maximus, or Gallus, and see which was
most vile, most venal, or most cowardly. This would at least be a fair
comparison; and nothing relative to the two cities is more certain, than
that Rome became far more degraded, in the character both of citizens
and soldiers, than ever Carthage was.
Wealth procured by commerce, far from degrading a nation more than
wealth procured by conquest, does not degrade it near so much; and
the reason is easily understood. Whenever a commercial nation
becomes too corrupted and luxurious, its wealth vanishes, and the evil
corrects itself. Whereas, a country that lives by tribute received from
others, may continue for a considerable while to enjoy its revenues.
This is so evident, that it would be absurd to enlarge on the subject.
The reduction of Carthage, and the wealth it produced at Rome, soon
brought on a change in the education, the nature, and the manner of
acting, both in private life and public concerns. The conquest of
Greece, Syria, and Egypt, completed the business; and the same
people who had conquered every enemy, while they retained their
poverty and simplicity, were themselves conquered, when they
became rich and luxurious.. =sic=
After the fall of Carthage {33}, Rome was fundamentally changed;
but the armies still continued to act. Their ambition was now
strengthened by avarice, and became ten times more active and
dangerous to other nations. They then carried on war in every
direction, and neither the riches of the East, nor the poverty of the
North, could secure other nations from the joint effects of ambition
and avarice.
But the Romans did not only get gold and wealth by their con-
---
{33} Considering circumstances, it is wonderful that the
Carthaginians made so excellent a stand against the Romans: for a
long time they were victorious; they fought excellently, even at the
battle of Zama. The Romans could not say so much for themselves,
when afterwards they were attacked by the barbarians.
-=-
[end of page #33]
quests; they became corrupted by adopting the manners of the
inhabitants of countries that had long been drowned in every
voluptuous pleasure. Then it was that they ceased to trust so much to
their bravery for their conquests; they began to employ politics and
intrigue to divide their enemies. With the poorer states, they found
gold a very useful weapon, and, with the richer, they employed
weapons of iron.
The terror of the Roman name, the actual force that they could exert
against a powerful enemy, and the facility with which a weak one
could be silenced, till a proper opportunity arrived for his destruction,
were all calculated, and force and fraud were both called into action.
Whatever truth or honour the Romans had amongst themselves, they
at least had none towards other nations. They, in the most wanton
manner, interfered in every quarrel between strangers; and, whenever
it suited their conveniency to make war, they begun without almost
being at the pains to search for a pretext. They set themselves up
above all opinion, while, at the same time, they required all nations to
submit to theirs.
In a city where all great offices were elective, the evil effects of the
introduction of riches were soon displayed. The first great changes
were, that the people became corrupted, dependent, and degraded;
fortunes became unequally divided; the provinces groaned under the
heavy contributions of generals and proconsuls; and, at last, the
country splitting into factions, the government was overturned.
The splendour of Rome augmented, as a fiery meteor shines most
bright before it falls; but the means by which it obtained the
ascendency over other nations had long been at an end.
The same laws that had been found excellent, when the state was
small and poor, did not answer now that it had become great and
splendid. The freedom of the city, and the title and privileges of a
Roman citizen had been very widely extended; they were therefore
become an illusion, and a very dangerous one for the public weal; they
served as a foundation for cabal and intrigue of every description.
Towards the latter days, after all those internal causes of decline,
which are common to other nations had rendered Rome feeble, several
[end of page #34] external ones began to act.
The provinces became exhausted, and those who ruled them gradually
retained more and more of the money. {34} Thus, while the
oppression of the provinces was augmenting, the resources of the state
were daily on the decline.
The first effect of conquests had been to free the people at home from
taxes; and when, in a state of poverty and simplicity, the effect was
advantageous and tended to preserve that spirit by which the Roman
empire aggrandized itself. After wealth flowed in from the destruction
of Carthage, donations and shews were in use. The Roman populace,
idle and degraded, clamoured for corn and public games. It is almost
as difficult to conceive the degree to which the character of the people
was degraded, as it is to give credit to the wealth and luxury of the
great, in the latter days of the empire.
Agriculture was neglected; and the masters of the world, who had
obtained every thing for which they contended, while they preserved
their purity of manners, now became unable either to govern others, to
protect themselves, or even to provide food. Sicily and Africa supplied
the Roman people with bread, long before the empire had become
feeble, and even at the very time when it is reckoned to have been in
its greatest splendour in the Augustan age. {35} The cause of its
decline was fixed beyond the power of human nature to counteract: it
began by unnerving the human character, and therefore its progress
was accelerated and became irresistible.
Of all the nations, into which luxury is introduced, none feels its
effects
---
{34} The detached facts related of the wealth of the governors of
provinces, compared with the poverty of the state, are, if not
incredible, at least, difficult to conceive. They are, however, too well
attested to admit of a doubt, though the details are not sufficiently
circumstantial to enable us to know exactly how they happened.
{35} In the time of Augustus, the people depended on the supplies
from Sicily and Egypt, in so complete a manner, that, if those failed,
there was no remedy; and, at one time, when there was only a
sufficient quantity of grain for twenty-four hours, that emperor was
determined to have put an end to his existence: but the supply arrived
in time. Such is the terrible situation into which a people is thrown,
when agriculture and industry are abandoned, and when the
population becomes too great for the production of the country!! This,
however, was a very recent change. Till some time after the conquest
of Egypt, Greece, and Sicily, it could not have happened.
-=-
[end of page #35]
so severely as one where it comes by conquest. A people of
conquerors, who are wealthy, must, at all events, be under military
authority, and that is never a desirable circumstance; depending also
on revenues which come without the aid of industry, they must
become doubly degraded.
With such a people, it would be fair to compare the Carthaginians
before their fall; for, to say nothing more than that the principle of
traffic and commerce is founded on morality and virtue, in
comparison to that trade of pillage which robbed and ruined all
nations; the physical situation of the Carthaginians was preferable to
that of the Romans in the days of their decline. This is evident, from
the noble struggle that the former made, and the contemptible manner
in which the mistress of the world terminated her career.
Montesquieu bewails the fate of a monarch, who is oppressed by a
party that prevails after his fall. His enemies are his historians; and
this reflection is employed in mitigation of the crimes imputed to
Tarquin; but, surely, if true, on that occasion, it is no less so with
respect to Carthage. All the historians that give us the character of the
two nations were Romans and of the victorious party; yet most of
them are more equitable than the historians of modern times, for they
had not seen their own country in its last state of degradation and
misery. Those who now make the comparison have proper materials;
and it is the business of the writers of history to free it from the errors
into which cotemporary =sic= authors fall, whether from prejudice, or
from want of knowing those events which happened after their days.
In the case of the Roman historians, the error arose from a
combination of three different causes. In the first place, they compared
Rome in its healthy days and its vigour, to Carthage in its decline.--
They were, next to that, led into an error, by not knowing that all
countries that have been long rich are liable to the same evils as
Carthage. And, last of all, they wrote with a spirit of party, and a
prediliction =sic= in favour of Rome. These three causes are certain;
and, perhaps, there was another. It is possible they did not dare to
speak the truth, if they did know it.
It is true, that the human mind is not proof against the effect pro-[end
of page #36] duced by what is splendid and brilliant; and that success
in all cases diminishes, and, in some, does away the reproach naturally
attached to criminality. It is also to be admitted, that in the Roman
character there was a degree of courage and magnanimity that
commands admiration, though the end to which it was applied was in
itself detestable. Even in individual life (moral principle apart) there is
something that diminishes the horror attendant on injustice and
rapacity, when accompanied with courage and prodigality.
It is no less true, that the manners of commercial men, though their
views are legitimate and their means fair, are prejudicial to them in the
opinion of others. Individuals, gaining money by commerce, may
sometimes have the splendour and magnanimity of princes; but
nations that depend only on commerce for wealth never can. No
nation, while it continues great or wealthy, can rid itself of the
characteristic manners that attend the way in which it obtains its
wealth and greatness. Merchants owe their wealth to a strict adherence
to their interest, and they cannot help shewing it.
The cruelties of the Spaniards have not excited the detestation they
deserved, because they were accompanied with courage, and crowned
with success; and that nation found means, in the midst of the most
horrible of human crimes, to preserve an appearance of greatness and
dignity of character. But the Dutch, who have gained wealth, like the
Carthaginians, and though they were conquerors, never quitted the
character of merchants, and they never possessed dignity of character,
though they triumphed by virtue, perseverance, and bravery, over that
very Spain which did preserve her dignity.
It is much more difficult to reconcile the character of trading nations
with the qualities that are improperly called great, than that of any
other. A commercial nation naturally will be just; it may be generous;
but it never can become extravagant and wasteful; neither can it be
incumbered with the lazy and the idle; for the moment that either of
these takes place, commerce flies to another habitation. {36}
---
{36} It follows, from this, that a commercial people never become so
degraded as those who obtain wealth by other means; but, then, it also
follows, that they exist a much shorter time after they become so, and
that wealth and power leave them much more speedily.
-=-
[end of page #37]
The purpose of this inquiry being, to examine the effects of wealth,
and its operation in the decline of nations; it appears to be of
considerable importance to remove the error, in which historians and
other writers have so long persevered, relative to the two greatest
republics of antiquity; particularly as their example applies the most
readily, and is the most frequently applied to two rival nations of
modern times; although the parallel is extremely imperfect in almost
every particular, and in some directly inadmissible. {37}
It cannot but be attended with some advantage to set this matter right.
It may, perhaps, tend in some degree to prevent the French from
attempting to imitate the Romans, when we shew them that a state,
whether a whole people, or a single city, exempted from taxes, and
living by the tribute of other countries, must, at all events, be
dependent on its armies. In short, military government and tributary
revenue are inseparable. We see how closely they were connected in
ancient Rome. It is fit that its imitators should know at what rate they
pay (and in what coin) for those exemptions from taxes, occasioned by
the burthens imposed upon other nations.
In general we find, that all nations are inclined to push to the extreme
those means by which they have attained wealth or power; and it will
also be found that their ruin is thereby brought on with greater
rapidity.
---
{37} The reader must see the allusion is to England and France; but, in
point of time, their situation is absolutely different. France is
farther advanced in luxury than England. Rome was far behind Carthage.
The Romans exceeded their rivals in perseverance; in following up their
plans, and in attention to their liberty. The contrary is the case with
France and England.
The French, indeed, resemble the Romans in restlessness and
ambition; but not in their mode of exerting the former, or of gratifying
the latter: the resemblance, therefore, is a very faint one, even where it
does hold at all. The English, in whatever they may resemble the
Carthaginians, such as they have been represented, neither do it in
their want of faith and honour, nor in their progress towards decline.
The different wars with Rome, in which Carthage came off a loser and
became tributary, though only for a limited time, were not the only
causes of its decline. The trade of Alexandria, which was better
situated for commerce, had diminished the resources of Carthage; so
that it was, in every sense of the word, a falling nation. It will be seen,
in the subsequent part of this inquiry, how, from the different modes
of making war and also the different effects of wealth in the present
times, the comparison is still less founded.
-=-
[end of page #38]
Had the Romans stopped the career of conquest at an earlier period,
they probably would not have so soon sunk into a state of corruption.
It is very probable, that if Caesar had never attempted the useless
conquest of Britain, he never would have succeeded in conquering the
liberties of his own country. The reputation of having conquered an
island, and the passage of the British Channel, made way for the
passage of the Rubicon, and the battle of Pharsalia.
Conquerors must be paid as well as common soldiers: and though
every man may have his price, and money and dignities may be a
sufficient reward for the most part, there are some who despise any
reward under that of royal power.--Caesar was one of those men; and
both ancient and modern history shew, that though, perhaps, in his
abilities, he has had no equal, there have been others who have rated
theirs at as high a price.
The Romans at last became sensible, when too late, that they had
pushed the spirit of conquest too far; and, as they had something great
in all they did, they had the magnanimity to retract their error.
The greatest extent of the Roman empire being from the north of
England to the Gulf of Persia, they consequently abandoned Britain,
and those conquests in Asia, which were the most difficult to keep.
The river Euphrates became the boundary, the Emperor Adrian
having, in a voluntary manner, given up all the country to the north of
that river, situated on its left bank.
The decline of the empire might have been as regular as the rise of the
republic, had it not been for the different characters of the emperors;
some of whom did honour to human nature, from their possessing
almost every virtue, while others were such monsters, that their crimes
excite the highest degree of horror and indignation, and are almost
beyond credibility.
It is but justice to the Romans to observe, that though they robbed and
conquered, yet their policy was to instruct, improve, and civilize those
whom they had robbed and conquered, wherever they stood in want of
it. They aimed, in every case, at making the most of the circumstances
in which they were placed, and they very truly conceived, that it was
more profitable and advantageous, to rule over a civilized than a rude
people. [end of page #39]
After the great influx of wealth had corrupted Rome, its public
expenses increased at an enormous rate, till at last that portion of the
tribute exacted from the provinces, which it pleased the armies and the
generals to remit to Rome, became unequal to the expenditure.
Taxation of every kind then became necessary, in Italy itself, and the
evils that attend the multiplication of imposts were greatly augmented
by the ignorant manner in which they were laid on, by men who
understood little but military affairs, added to the severe manner in
which were they =sic= levied by a rude, imperious, and debauched
soldiery.
The characters of soldier and citizen, which had been so long united,
ceased to have any connection. Soon after this, the corruption of
manners became general; and, at last, the Romans unable to find
soldiers amongst themselves, were obliged to retain barbarians to fight
in their defence, {38} and to bribe the Persians, and other nations, to
leave them in a state of tranquility.
No nation that ever yet submitted to pay tribute, has long preserved its
independence. The Romans knew this well; and if any one, having had
recourse to that expedient, has escaped ruin, it has been from some
other circumstance than its own exertion; or it has sometimes been the
effort of despair when pushed to extremity.
Though, in many respects, Montesquieu's opinion of the affairs of
Rome is by no means to be taken, yet his short account of the whole is
unexceptionally just.
"Take," says that able and profound writer, "this compendium of the
Roman history. The Romans subdued all nations by their maxims; but,
when they had succeeded in doing so, they could no longer preserve
their republican form of government. It was necessary to change the
plan, and maxims contrary to their first, being introduced, they were
divested of all their grandeur."
This was literally the case; but then it is clear that this compendium,
only includes the secondary causes, and their effects; for the
perseverance in maxims till they had obtained their end, and then
changing