This book describes the little-understood distinction between the words freedom and liberty. An understanding of these concepts is relevant to politics of today.
"In ancient Rome, liberty implied inequality. People were granted different liberties according to their condition. Some had many liberties. Others had few or none. When Rome was a republic, its citizens possessed the liberty of government by assembly, but in different ways according to their rank. Magistrates and senators had liberty to speak. Citizens had liberty to listen and vote. Servi had liberty to look on, but they could neither speak nor listen nor vote."
"The free Norse families carried into a new world their ancient folkways of freedom, which they understood as a complex set of rights and responsibilities. For them, freedom meant the rule of law, the power to choose one's own chief, and the right to be governed and judged by a local assembly called the Thing. The Thing was a gathering of free men, who in early years carried weapons to the assembly and voted by 'striking their shields or rattling their spears,' in what was called the Vapnatak in Old Norse, Wapentake of Old English, and Wappans chawing of Old Scots. A person who was born to freedom in an ancient tribe had a sacred obligation to serve and support the folk, and to keep the customs of a free people, and to respect the rights of others on pain of banishment."
"The freeborn people of northern Europe were alike in their birthright of freedom, however disparate they may have been in power, wealth, or rank. In one of the oldest lays of England the hero sings, 'Lithe and listen, gentlemen, that be of Freborn blood!' Among 'folkfree' people, freedom created an element of equality in the face of other inequalities."
"Freeborn people in northern Europe had possessions that are called rights in English, or rechte in German. These words began as adjectives that meant straight, sound, correct, or good. They became nouns for specific entitlements that could be claimed as a matter of obligation, and also for the general idea of entitlement. Ancient Mediterranean languages had no exact equivalent for rights. In archaic Greek, early references to eleutheria referred not to rights but to an idea of 'authorized concessions.' A careful student of this subject observes that libertas in Rome was 'not an innate faculty or right of man' but the sum of liberties that had been 'granted by the laws of Rome.'"
"Every Western language has words such as liberty or freedom, but only one language employs them both in common speech. German, Dutch, and Scandinavian cultures have freedom but not liberty. Spanish, French, and Italian have liberty but not freedom. Philosopher Hannah Pitkin writes, 'Speakers of English have a unique opportunity: they get to choose between 'liberty' and 'freedom.' No other European language, ancient or modern, offers such a choice.' This heritage of English speaking people has created a distinctive dynamism in their thought about liberty and freedom."