Kootut teokset | Samlade skrifter | Selected Works
Writing: The Causes of Emigration

The Causes of Emigration, § 5

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Font size: A A A A


Viewing Options:

§ 5

We shall now proceed and, in line with our plan, first consult the oldest annals and observe to what extent oppression even then gave rise to emigration and other disorders in societies.

The oldest and truest of them all narrates of the progenitor of God’s people who, at the command of the Highest, settled in the land of Canaan, which was promised as an inheritance to his descendants in the future, that he had to move from there to Egypt, not for the sake of tranquillity or of a change but because he was forced to do so by hunger, as the time was very hard in the land.1

Out of the same necessity his grandson Jacob then moved there with his entire prolific family 212 years later. The Canaanites had developed splendid plantations, so that honey, spices, dates, almonds, balm, wine, oil, etc. etc. were to be found there. But however priceless all that was, the dearness of the times oppressed its inhabitants when there was no more bread. But the Egyptians were already cultivators at that time; their fields were covered with grain while those of the Canaanites were resplendent with splendid and artfully terraced wine, fruit and oil farms. But when famine arose they were glad to give their spices away to Egypt merely for permission to buy food there for themselves.

Had this numerous group enjoyed the freedom in Egypt that it was at first accorded, namely to settle down, occupy the land and be supported with food and subsidies for their pastoral settlements, it would within a few centuries have been able to make Egypt feared by the whole world as it then was; but things soon took on quite a different complexion. It was subjected to oppression; their lives were made bitter by bondage and heavy labour with clay and bricks; foremen were placed over them, with the aim of weakening this community, the growth of which attracted the attention of the Egyptians.

The bondage eventually became so severe that it led to murder and tyranny, but that was precisely a sign and cause of its not being sustainable for long, for the more the cries of an oppressed people are violently suppressed, the more dangerous will its eventual eruption be for a society. Tired of an unbearable yoke, the children of Israel themselves thus threw it off, gathered all the most precious of Egypt’s treasures, moved away with them and settled down in freedom under the protection of an Almighty Power.

Carthage, a flourishing state in early times, had not only under its suffetes or annual rulers2 grown in wealth and fame in its own freedom but had also subjected to itself the resources of the entire African coastline and had made extensive inroads in Europe into Spain, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily, but a case of oppressiveness that in our age would be regarded as quite inconsequential almost overthrew all that.

Among the troops in their pay that were fighting against the Romans, discontent arose because their pay was not correctly disbursed, for which reason all 20,000 deserted, which would not, however, have mattered so much in itself had the consequences of that not been even worse.

Carthage, which was arrogant because of its power and wealth, acted tyrannically towards the other African nations. It consumed the produce of the toil of others and burdened them with a double tax, and among the leaders of the people those were most favoured by the government who could extract most revenue, for which reason the oppressed made common cause with the discontented soldiers, renouncing Punic rule and with a force of 100,000 assaulting Carthage itself, which in its extreme distress had to plead for help from its hereditary enemies the Romans, who sought to assist them both with men and mediation, and the city was barely saved from destruction on that occasion through the courage and ingenuity of its loyal Hamilcar.3 Carthage lost Spain largely for the same reason.

Thus, power is misused in free societies to the profit and prosperity of a few and the oppression of other citizens. The Carthaginian republic was free, for it was not subject to an autocrat but was governed by rulers who were appointed annually in accordance with the will of the people. But what kind of people was it? It consisted of the inhabitants of the immense commercial city, who regarded all other regions as swarms of bees and their own city as the hive to which they had to deliver all their honey.

Stübelius notes in this regard: Such is the service, he says, that one gets from mercenary soldiers;4 but I would like to know if one should expect more from native-born ones who are not in anyone’s pay.


  1. the time was very hard in the land: the citation is from Genesis 12:10.
  2. Suffetes were the highest officials in many Phoenician cities. In Carthage, two suffetes were elected every year; their position resembled that of the Roman consuls.
  3. Hamilcar Barca (c.275–228 or 229 BC) was a Carthaginian general and statesman, father of Hannibal and Hasdrubal.
  4. Stübelius notes ... from mercenary soldiers: This refers to Andreas Stübel (also: Stiefel), (1653–1725), a German theologian, pedagogue and philosopher. The citation “Hi sunt fructus militum externorum” is from Cornelius Nepos De excellentibus viris in usum locupletissimum notis perpetuis ad modum Joh. Minellii illustratus a M. Andr. Stübelio, adjunctis fragmentis schottianis & adjecto indice rerum, vocum, & phrasium accuratissimo. Editio nova revisa. Lipsiae: M. G. Weidmann, 1733, p. 294, note 1. There are also several other editions.

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Places:

Names:

Biblical references:

Subjects: