# Chapter XVII: That a corrupt people obtaining freedom can hardly preserve it explained — Discourses on Livy > Chapter companion for Discourses on Livy by Niccolò Machiavelli. ## What happens Machiavelli argues that a corrupt people cannot maintain freedom, using Rome as the prime example: the early Romans, uncorrupted, easily preserved liberty after expelling the Tarquins, whereas later Romans, corrupted by the Marian faction, could not retain freedom even after the deaths of Caesar, Caligula, and Nero. He contrasts this with Syracuse under Dion and Timoleon, and notes that corrupt cities like Milan and Naples cannot recover freedom. Only a single virtuous ruler may temporarily restore order, but without a long succession of such rulers, the city relapses into corruption. ## Themes in this chapter ### Virtù and Fortune The virtue of a single ruler like Dion, Timoleon, or Epaminondas can temporarily preserve freedom, but fortune and the brevity of life prevent lasting restoration. ### Corruption and Freedom Corruption in the people makes freedom impossible to maintain, as seen in later Rome, Milan, and Naples. ### Leadership and Moral Character The character of leaders like Brutus and Caesar determines whether freedom is preserved or lost; only virtuous rulers can temporarily check corruption. ## Character check-ins ### Brutus First Brutus: expelled the Tarquins and established freedom; later Brutus: could not rouse the corrupt people to maintain freedom. ### Caesar Became head of the Marian faction and blinded the multitude, leading to the loss of freedom. ### Tarquin The Tarquins were expelled while Rome was still uncorrupted, allowing freedom to be preserved. ### Marius The Marian faction infected the people with corruption, paving the way for Caesar's tyranny. ## Key lines > I believe that if her kings had not been expelled, Rome must very soon have become a weak and inconsiderable state. If the Roman kings had not been driven out, Rome would have quickly become weak and insignificant. _Machiavelli argues that early expulsion of corrupt kings saved Rome from decline._ > For seeing to what a pitch of corruption these kings had come, we may conjecture that if two or three more like reigns had followed, and the taint spread from the head to the members, so soon as the latter became infected, cure would have been hopeless. Given how corrupt the kings were, a few more such reigns would have infected the entire population, making recovery impossible. _Corruption spreads from rulers to the people, and once the people are corrupted, reform is hopeless._ > But from the head being removed while the trunk was still sound, it was not difficult for the Romans to return to a free and constitutional government. Because the kings were expelled while the people were still uncorrupted, the Romans easily restored a free government. _Timely removal of corrupt leadership preserves the health of the state._ > For in such a city it must necessarily happen that one prince will be replaced by another, and that things will never settle down until a new lord be established; unless, indeed, the combined goodness and valour of some one citizen should maintain freedom, which, even then, will endure only for his lifetime. In a corrupt city, one ruler will simply replace another, and stability only comes with a new master, unless a single virtuous citizen temporarily preserves freedom, but only for his lifetime. _Corruption leads to perpetual tyranny; only exceptional individual virtue can briefly restore freedom._ > For on the first occasion, nothing more was needed to prepare and determine them to shake off their kings, than that they should be bound by oath to suffer no king ever again to reign in Rome; whereas, afterwards, the authority and austere virtue of Brutus, backed by all the legions of the East, could not rouse them to maintain their hold of that freedom, which he, following in the footsteps of the first Brutus, had won for them; and this because of the corruption wherewith the people had been infected by the Marian faction, whereof Caesar becoming head, was able so to blind the multitude that it saw not the yoke under which it was about to lay its neck. Early Romans needed only an oath to reject kings forever, but later, even Brutus's virtue and Eastern legions could not make the corrupt people keep the freedom he won, because Caesar, leading the Marian faction, blinded them to their impending tyranny. _Corruption makes the people blind to their own enslavement, rendering even the most virtuous leadership ineffective._ > And so we find that Milan, although desirous to return to a free form of government, on the death of Filippo Visconti, had neither the force nor the skill needed to preserve it. Milan wanted freedom after Filippo Visconti's death but lacked the strength and ability to maintain it. _Corrupt cities like Milan cannot sustain freedom even when they desire it._ > Most fortunate, therefore, was it for Rome that her kings grew corrupt soon, so as to be driven out before the taint of their corruption had reached the vitals of the city. Rome was lucky that its kings became corrupt early and were expelled before corruption infected the whole city. _Timely removal of corrupt rulers preserves the health of the republic._ > For it was because these were sound that the endless commotions which took place in Rome, so far from being hurtful, were, from their object being good, beneficial to the commonwealth. Because the people were uncorrupted, Rome's many tumults were actually beneficial, as they aimed at the common good. _In a healthy republic, political conflicts can be productive._ > From which we may draw this inference, that where the body of the people is still sound, tumults and other like disorders do little hurt, but that where it has become corrupted, laws, however well devised, are of no advantage, unless imposed by someone whose paramount authority causes them to be observed until the community be once more restored to a sound and healthy condition. In a healthy populace, disorders cause little harm; in a corrupt one, even good laws are useless unless enforced by an absolute authority until the people recover. _Corruption undermines the effectiveness of laws; only a strong ruler can temporarily restore order._ > For the corruption I speak of, is wholly incompatible with a free government, because it results from an inequality which pervades the state and can only be removed by employing unusual and very violent remedies, such as few are willing or know how to employ, as in another place I shall more fully explain. Corruption is incompatible with freedom because it stems from inequality, and can only be cured by extreme, violent measures that few are willing or able to use. _Corruption and freedom cannot coexist; radical remedies are required but rarely applied._ ## Links - HTML: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_on_livy_se/chapters/xvii - Book: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_on_livy_se - All chapters: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/discourses_on_livy_se/chapters