The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns
.docx
School
Montclair State University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
POLS 300
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 16, 2024
Pages
7
Uploaded by nertilazhaku1234
"The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns." In this speech, Constant distinguishes between two types of liberty: the liberty cherished by ancient peoples and the liberty valued by modern nations.Constant argues that the liberty of the ancients involved active participation in collective sovereignty, such as deliberating on public matters, voting on laws, and holding magistrates accountable. This form of liberty required individuals to be deeply involved in public affairs, often at the expense of personal independence.In contrast, the liberty of the moderns emphasizes individual rights and personal freedoms. Modern liberty includes the right to express opinions, choose professions, own property, and enjoy private life without undue interference from the state. Constant highlights that modern liberty is more suited to representative government, which was unknown to ancient free nations.Constant's analysis underscores the differences in how liberty was understood and practiced in ancient and modern societies, reflecting the evolving nature of political and social structures.he critiques the notion that ancient societies, such as the Lacedaemonian (Spartan) republic and the Gauls, had forms of representative government similar to modern ones.Constant argues that the Lacedaemonian government was a monastic aristocracy, not a representative government. The power of the kings was limited by the ephors, who were elected by the people but held significant religious and political authority. This system, far from being a barrier against tyranny, sometimes became an insufferable tyranny itself.Similarly, the regime of the Gauls was theocratic and warlike, with priests enjoying unlimited power and the military class or nobility being markedly insolent and oppressive. The common people had no rights or safeguards in this system.Constant's analysis highlights the differences between ancient and modern concepts of liberty and governance, emphasizing that the ancient systems were not truly representative or protective of individual rights.he continues to explore the differences between ancient and modern concepts of liberty.
Constant notes that in ancient Rome, the tribunes had a representative mission to some extent, acting as the organs of the plebeians. However, the people exercised a large part of their political rights directly, such as voting on laws and judging patricians. This system had only faint traces of a representative system as we understand it today.He argues that the concept of representative government is a modern discovery. Ancient societies neither felt the need for it nor appreciated its advantages. Their social organization led them to desire a different kind of freedom, one that involved active participation in collective sovereignty.Constant then contrasts this with the modern understanding of liberty. For modern individuals, liberty means being subject only to the laws and not to the arbitrary will of individuals. It includes the right to express opinions, choose professions, own property, and enjoy personal freedoms without undue interference. Modern liberty also involves having some influence on the administration of government through elections, representations, and petitions.This analysis highlights the fundamental shift in the concept of liberty from ancient to modern times, reflecting the evolving nature of political and social structures.he continues to highlight the stark differences between ancient and modern concepts of liberty.Constant explains that in ancient societies, liberty was exercised collectively and directly by the people. This included deliberating on public matters, forming alliances, voting on laws, pronouncing judgments, and holding magistrates accountable. However, this collective freedom came at the cost of individual independence. Private actions were heavily regulated, and individual liberties were often suppressed in favor of the community's authority.He points out that the right to choose one's own religious affiliation, which is highly valued in modern times, would have been considered a crime and sacrilege in ancient societies. Public authority intervened in even the most personal aspects of life, such as family relations and customs.Thus, while individuals in ancient societies were sovereign in public affairs, they were essentially slaves in their private lives. They could be deprived of their status, privileges, and even their lives by the collective will of the community.
Constant contrasts this with modern liberty, where individuals enjoy greater personal independence and are subject only to the laws, not the arbitrary willof others. This shift reflects the evolving nature of political and social structures, where individual rights and personal freedoms are more highly valued.he continues to highlight the differences between ancient and modern concepts of liberty.Constant explains that in modern societies, individuals are independent in their private lives but only appear to be sovereign in the freest of states. Thissovereignty is restricted and often suspended, exercised only at fixed and rare intervals, and usually only to renounce it.He anticipates an objection regarding Athens, the most famous ancient republic, where the enslavement of individual existence to the collective body was not as complete as in other ancient states. Athens, with its more extensive engagement in trade, allowed for more individual liberty comparedto Sparta or Rome. However, even in Athens, social jurisdiction was unlimited, and individual rights were not recognized as they are today.Constant traces the essential difference between ancient and modern societies back to their sources. Ancient republics were restricted to narrow territories and were constantly engaged in warfare, which necessitated a collective approach to governance and limited individual freedoms. Modern states, on the other hand, are larger and more inclined towards peace and commerce, fostering a greater emphasis on individual rights and personal freedoms.he contrasts the modern world with ancient societies. Constant points out that even the smallest modern states are much larger than ancient city-states like Sparta or Rome. The division of Europe into several states is more apparent than real, thanks to the progress of enlightenment and the development of a more homogeneous social organization.Constant argues that modern societies are strong enough to have nothing to fear from barbarian hordes and are sufficiently civilized to find war burdensome. The uniform tendency of modern societies is towards peace.He explains that war precedes commerce, and both are means of achieving the same end: obtaining what one wants. Commerce is seen as a tribute paidto the strength of the possessor by the aspirant to possession. It is an attempt to conquer by mutual agreement what can no longer be obtained
through violence. Experience has shown that war exposes individuals to various obstacles and defeats, leading them to resort to commerce as a milder and surer means of engaging the interest of others.Constant concludes that an age must come in which commerce replaces war,and he believes that we have reached this age. This shift reflects the evolving nature of political and social structures, where commerce and peaceful coexistence have replaced the constant warfare and collective governance of ancient times.Constant acknowledges that there were trading peoples among the ancients,such as the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, but they were exceptions to the general rule. He points out that the lack of navigational tools like the compass meant that ancient sailors had to stay close to the coast, making long-distance trade risky and rare.He contrasts this with the modern world, where commerce has become the norm and the primary means of achieving prosperity. Modern societies seek peace, comfort, and industry, finding war increasingly ineffective and costly compared to the benefits of peaceful work and regular exchanges.Constant argues that commerce in ancient times was influenced by the spiritof war and hostility, whereas today it is the normal state of things, driven by the desire for comfort and industry. He highlights that a successful war in ancient times increased wealth through slaves, tributes, and land, but for modern societies, even a successful war costs more than it is worth.This analysis underscores the shift from a war-driven society to one focused on commerce and peaceful coexistence, reflecting the evolving nature of political and social structures.It is easv to sce, Gentlcnten, the inevitable outcorre of these diflbrences. Firsdy, the size of a countrv calrses a corre sponding decrease of the politrc;rlir-nportance allotted to each inclividual. The most obscure republican of Sparta or Rome hacl power. The same is not true of the simple citizen of Britain or of the United States. His pcrsonal influence is an imperceptible pi.rrt of the social r.vill rvhich impresscs on the sor,ernments its dire ction. Secondl"', the abolition of slave rv has deprived the fiee populatron of ell the leisure u'hich resulted liom the fhct rhlr slaves rook care of most of the n.ork.\\,-ithout the slave population ofAthens, 20,000 Athenians could never have spent everv dar' ,rt the public square in discussions. Thirdlv. commerce docs rrot, like nar, leave in men's lives intervals of inactivinr The c()nstant exerciseof politicirl rights, the dailv discussion of the affairs of the stirte, disagre e
ments, confabr-rlations, thc u-hole cntollrage and rnovemer-it of flctior-rs, necessarv agita tions, the cornpulsorr. filling, if I may use the term, of the lifbof the peoples of antiquin', u'ho, u.ithout this resollrce rvould have languishcd under rhe rveight of painful inaction, u'ould onlv cause trouble and fatigr,re to moclern nations, u'here each individuai, occupied n'ith his specularions, his enterprises, the pleasures he obtains or hopes for, does not rvish to bc distracted fron-r them other than momentaril'u., and as Iittle as possible. Finally. thanks to commerce, ro religion, to the n-roral and intellectual progress of the human race) there are no longer slaves among the European nations. Free men must exercise Finall,v, commerce inspires in men a vivid love of individual independence. Commerce supplies their neecls, satisfies their desires, vyithout the intervention of the authorities. This intervention is almost alu'avs - and I do not know I'h1, I say almost - thisintervention is indeed alu.ays a trouble and an embarrass ment. Ever\. time collective po\\'er rvishes to n-reddle u.itl-r private speculations, it harasses the speculators. Et'ery time governments pretend. to do our orvn business, thel' do itIn this passage from Benjamin Constant's speech "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns," he continues to highlight the differences between ancient and modern societies, particularly in terms of political influence, leisure, and commerce.Constant argues that the size of modern countries leads to a corresponding decrease in the political importance of each individual. In ancient republics like Sparta or Rome, even the most obscure republican had power. In contrast, the influence of a simple citizen in Britain or the United States is an imperceptible part of the social will that directs governments.He also points out that the abolition of slavery has deprived free populations of the leisure that slaves once provided. Without the slave population, 20,000 Athenians could not have spent every day in the public square discussing political matters.Furthermore, commerce, unlike war, does not leave intervals of inactivity in people's lives. The constant exercise of political rights, daily discussions of state affairs, and the necessary agitations of factions would only cause trouble and fatigue for modern nations, where individuals are occupied with their speculations, enterprises, and pleasures.Constant emphasizes that commerce inspires a vivid love of individual independence. It supplies people's needs and satisfies their desires without
the intervention of authorities, which is often seen as a trouble and embarrassment. Every time collective power meddles with private speculations, it harasses the speculators, and when governments pretend to do our business, they do it incompetently and expensively.Constant acknowledges that Athens, being closely engaged in trade, allowed its citizens more individual liberty compared to Sparta or Rome. He notes that commerce in Athens had removed several of the differences that distinguished ancient from modern peoples. For instance, during the Peloponnesian War, Athenian merchants moved their capitals to the islands of the archipelago, demonstrating the circulation of money and the use of bills of exchange.Despite these similarities to modern commerce, Constant points out that the individual in Athens was still much more subservient to the supremacy of thesocial body than in any of the free states of Europe today. Practices like ostracism, which allowed the community to exile individuals, highlight the extent to which individual rights were subordinated to collective authority.Constant concludes that modern liberty must consist of peaceful enjoyment and private independence, rather than the active and constant participation in collective power that characterized ancient liberty. He emphasizes that theprogress of civilization, commerce, and communication among peoples have multiplied and varied the means of personal happiness, making individual independence more valuable in modern times. Constant argues that in modern societies, individuals are often lost in the multitude and can hardly perceive the influence they exercise. Unlike the ancients, whose political rights offered them significant pleasures and a sense of personal importance,modern individuals find that the exercise of political rights offers only a fraction of those pleasures. The progress of civilization, commerce, and communication among peoples has infinitely multiplied and varied the means of personal happiness.He emphasizes that modern individuals must be more attached to their individual independence than the ancients were. For the ancients, sacrificing individual independence for political rights meant sacrificing less to obtain more. In contrast, modern individuals would give up more to obtain less if they made the same sacrifice.Constant concludes that the aim of the ancients was the sharing of social power among the citizens of the same fatherland, which they called liberty. The aim of the moderns, however, is the enjoyment of the guarantees
accorded by institutions to their private pleasures and security. This shift reflects the evolving nature of political and social structures, where individualindependence and personal happiness are more highly valued in modern times.