Political Treatise

Abstract

The Political Treatise grounds the science of the state on men as they actually are, driven by the passions, rather than as one would wish them, rejecting the utopias of the moralists. Each person’s right extends as far as his power (natural right), and reason counsels individuals to unite their strength by transferring right to a supreme authority, thereby constituting civil society and sovereignty. Spinoza examines how monarchy and aristocracy must be ordered so as not to degenerate into tyranny, measuring the stability of each regime by its capacity to preserve peace and freedom. The work, cut short by his death, breaks off on the threshold of the treatment of democracy.

Traduzione di R. H. M. Elwes / A. Wolf · Delphi Classics, 2019 · pubblico dominio

From the Editor’s Preface to the Posthumous Works of Benedict De Spinoza.

OUR AUTHOR COMPOSED the Political Treatise shortly before his death in 1677. Its reasonings are exact, its style clear. Abandoning the opinions of many political writers, he most firmly propounds therein his own judgment; and throughout draws his conclusions from his premisses. In the first five chapters, he treats of political science in general — in the sixth and seventh, of monarchy; in the eighth, ninth, and tenth, of aristocracy; lastly, the eleventh begins the subject of democratic government. But his untimely death was the reason that he did not finish this treatise, and that he did not deal with the subject of laws, nor with the various questions about politics, as may be seen from the following “Letter of the Author to a Friend, which may properly be prefixed to this Political Treatise, and serve it for a Preface:” —

“Dear Friend, — Your welcome letter was delivered to me yesterday. I heartily thank you for the kind interest you take in me. I would not miss this opportunity, were I not engaged in something, which I think more useful, and which, I believe, will please you more — that is, in preparing a Political Treatise, which I began some time since, upon your advice. Of this treatise, six chapters are already finished. The first contains a kind of introduction to the actual work; the second treats of natural right; the third, of the right of supreme authorities. In the fourth, I inquire, what political matters are subject to the direction of supreme authorities; in the fifth, what is the ultimate and highest end which a society can contemplate; and, in the sixth, how a monarchy should be ordered, so as not to lapse into a tyranny. I am at present writing the seventh chapter, wherein I make a regular demonstration of all the heads of my preceding sixth chapter, concerning the ordering of a well-regulated monarchy. I shall afterwards pass to the subjects of aristocratic and popular dominion, and, lastly, to that of laws and other particular questions about politics. And so, farewell.”

The author’s aim appears clearly from this letter; but being hindered by illness, and snatched away by death, he was unable, as the reader will find for himself, to continue this work further than to the end of the subject of aristocracy.

IN QUO DEMONSTRATUR, quomodo Societas, ubi

Imperium Monarchicum locum habet, sicut et ea,

ubi Optimi imperant, debet institui, ne in

Tyrannidem labatur, et ut Pax, Libertasque

civium inviolata maneat.

Auctoris epistola ad Amicum quae Praefationis loco huic Tractatui Politico apte praefigi, et inservire poterit.

Amice dilecte, Grata tua mihi heri tradita est. Gratias pro cura tam diligenti, quam pro me geris, ex animo ago. Hanc occasionem, etc. non praetermitterem, nisi in quadam re essem occupatus, quam utiliorem judico, quaeque tibi, ut credo, magis arridebit, nempe in Tractatu Politico concinnando, quem ante aliquod tempus, te auctore, inchoavi. Hujus Tractatus Capita sex jam sunt absoluta. Primum ad ipsum opus Introductionem quasi continet: secundum tractat de Jure naturali: tertium de Jure Summarum Potestatum: quartum quaenam Negotia Politica a Summarum Potestatum gubernatione pendeant: quintum, quidnam sit illud extremum, et summum, quod Societas potest considerare; et sextum, qua ratione Imperium Monarchicum debeat institui, ne in Tyrannidem labatur. Impraesentiarum caput septimum tracto, in quo omnia praecedentis sexti capitis membra, ordinem bene ordinatae Monarchiae concernentia, Methodice demonstro. Postea ad Aristocraticum et Populare Imperium, denique ad Leges, aliasque particulares Quaestiones, Politicam spectantes, transibo. Hisce vale, etc.

Patet hinc Auctoris Scopus; sed morbo impeditus, et morte abreptus hoc opus non ulterius, quam ad finem Aristocratiae, perducere valuit, quemadmodum Lector ipse experietur.

Introduction.

PHILOSOPHERS CONCEIVE OF the passions which harass us as vices into which men fall by their own fault, and, therefore, generally deride, bewail, or blame them, or execrate them, if they wish to seem unusually pious. And so they think they are doing something wonderful, and reaching the pinnacle of learning, when they are clever enough to bestow manifold praise on such human nature, as is nowhere to be found, and to make verbal attacks on that which, in fact, exists. For they conceive of men, not as they are, but as they themselves would like them to be. Whence it has come to pass that, instead of ethics, they have generally written satire, and that they have never conceived a theory of politics, which could be turned to use, but such as might be taken for a chimera, or might have been formed in Utopia, or in that golden age of the poets when, to be sure, there was least need of it. Accordingly, as in all sciences, which have a useful application, so especially in that of politics, theory is supposed to be at variance with practice; and no men are esteemed less fit to direct public affairs than theorists or philosophers.

2. But statesmen, on the other hand, are suspected of plotting against mankind, rather than consulting their interests, and are esteemed more crafty than learned. No doubt nature has taught them, that vices will exist, while men do. And so, while they study to anticipate human wickedness, and that by arts, which experience and long practice have taught, and which men generally use under the guidance more of fear than of reason, they are thought to be enemies of religion, especially by divines, who believe that supreme authorities should handle public affairs in accordance with the same rules of piety, as bind a private individual. Yet there can be no doubt, that statesmen have written about politics far more happily than philosophers. For, as they had experience for their mistress, they taught nothing that was inconsistent with practice.

3. And, certainly, I am fully persuaded that experience has revealed all conceivable sorts of commonwealth, which are consistent with men’s living in unity, and likewise the means by which the multitude may be guided or kept within fixed bounds. So that I do not believe that we can by meditation discover in this matter anything not yet tried and ascertained, which shall be consistent with experience or practice. For men are so situated, that they cannot live without some general law. But general laws and public affairs are ordained and managed by men of the utmost acuteness, or, if you like, of great cunning or craft. And so it is hardly credible, that we should be able to conceive of anything serviceable to a general society, that occasion or chance has not offered, or that men, intent upon their common affairs, and seeking their own safety, have not seen for themselves.

4. Therefore, on applying my mind to politics, I have resolved to demonstrate by a certain and undoubted course of argument, or to deduce from the very condition of human nature, not what is new and unheard of, but only such things as agree best with practice. And that I might investigate the subject-matter of this science with the same freedom of spirit as we generally use in mathematics, I have laboured carefully, not to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions; and to this end I have looked upon passions, such as love, hatred, anger, envy, ambition, pity, and the other perturbations of the mind, not in the light of vices of human nature, but as properties, just as pertinent to it, as are heat, cold, storm, thunder, and the like to the nature of the atmosphere, which phenomena, though inconvenient, are yet necessary, and have fixed causes, by means of which we endeavour to understand their nature, and the mind has just as much pleasure in viewing them aright, as in knowing such things as flatter the senses.

5. For this is certain, and we have proved its truth in our Ethics, that men are of necessity liable to passions, and so constituted as to pity those who are ill, and envy those who are well off; and to be prone to vengeance more than to mercy: and moreover, that every individual wishes the rest to live after his own mind, and to approve what he approves, and reject what he rejects. And so it comes to pass, that, as all are equally eager to be first, they fall to strife, and do their utmost mutually to oppress one another; and he who comes out conqueror is more proud of the harm he has done to the other, than of the good he has done to himself. And although all are persuaded, that religion, on the contrary, teaches every man to love his neighbour as himself, that is to defend another’s right just as much as his own, yet we showed that this persuasion has too little power over the passions. It avails, indeed, in the hour of death, when disease has subdued the very passions, and man lies inert, or in temples, where men hold no traffic, but least of all, where it is most needed, in the law-court or the palace. We showed too, that reason can, indeed, do much to restrain and moderate the passions, but we saw at the same time, that the road, which reason herself points out, is very steep; so that such as persuade themselves, that the multitude or men distracted by politics can ever be induced to live according to the bare dictate of reason, must be dreaming of the poetic golden age, or of a stage-play.

6. A dominion then, whose well-being depends on any man’s good faith, and whose affairs cannot be properly administered, unless those who are engaged in them will act honestly, will be very unstable. On the contrary, to insure its permanence, its public affairs should be so ordered, that those who administer them, whether guided by reason or passion, cannot be led to act treacherously or basely. Nor does it matter to the security of a dominion, in what spirit men are led to rightly administer its affairs. For liberality of spirit, or courage, is a private virtue; but the virtue of a state is its security.

7. Lastly, inasmuch as all men, whether barbarous or civilized, everywhere frame customs, and form some kind of civil state, we must not, therefore, look to proofs of reason for the causes and natural bases of dominion, but derive them from the general nature or position of mankind, as I mean to do in the next chapter.

Ethics, iv. 4, Coroll. iii. 31, note; 32, note.

Ibid., v. 42, note.

I. AFFECTUS, QUIBUS conflictamur, concipiunt Philosophi veluti vitia, in quae homines sua culpa labuntur; quos propterea ridere, flere, carpere, vel (qui sanctiores videri volunt) detestari solent. Sic ergo se rem divinam facere, et sapientiae culmen attingere credunt, quando humanam naturam, quae nullibi est, multis modis laudare, et eam, quae revera est, dictis lacessere norunt. Homines namque, non ut sunt, sed, ut eosdem esse vellent, concipiunt: unde factum est, ut plerumque pro Ethica Satyram scripserint, et ut nunquam Politicam conceperint, quae possit ad usum revocari, sed quae pro Chimaera haberetur, vel quae in Utopia, vel in illo Poëtarum aureo saeculo, ubi scilicet minime necesse erat, institui potuisset. Cum igitur omnium scientiarum, quae usum habent, tum maxime Politices Theoria ab ipsius Praxi discrepare creditur, et regendae Reipublicae nulli minus idonei aestimantur, quam Theoretici, seu Philosophi.

II. At Politici contra hominibus magis insidiari, quam consulere creduntur, et potius callidi, quam sapientes aestimantur. Docuit nimirum eosdem experientia (1), vitia fore, donec homines. Humanam igitur malitiam praevenire dum student, idque iis artibus, quas experientia longo usu docuit, et quas homines, magis metu, quam ratione ducti, exercere solent, Religioni adversari videntur, Theologis praecipue, qui credunt summas potestates debere negotia publica tractare secundum easdem Pietatis regulas, quibus vir privatus tenetur. Ipsos tamen Politicos multo felicius de rebus Politicis scripsisse, quam Philosophos dubitari non potest. Nam quoniam experientiam (2) magistram habuerunt, nihil docuerunt, quod ab usu remotum esset.

III. Et sane mihi plane persuadeo, experientiam omnia Civitatum genera, quae concipi possunt, ut homines concorditer vivant, et simul media, quibus multitudo dirigi, seu quibus intra certos limites contineri debeat, ostendisse: ita ut non credam, nos posse aliquid, quod ab experientia, sive praxi non abhorreat, cogitatione de hac re assequi, quod nondum expertum, compertumque sit. Nam homines ita comparati sunt, ut extra commune aliquod jus vivere nequeant; jura autem communia, et negotia publica a viris acutissimis, sive astutis, sive callidis instituta, et tractata sunt; adeoque vix credibile est, nos aliquid, quod communi Societati ex usu esse queat, posse concipere, quod occasio, seu casus non obtulerit, quodque homines, communibus negotiis intenti, suaeque securitati consulentes, non viderint.

IV. Cum igitur animum ad Politicam applicuerim, nihil quod novum, vel inauditum est, sed tantum ea, quae cum praxi optime conveniunt, certa, et indubitata ratione demonstrare, aut ex ipsa humanae naturae conditione deducere, intendi; et ut ea, quae ad hanc scientiam spectant, eadem animi libertate, qua res Mathematicas solemus, inquirerem, sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere: atque adeo humanos affectus, ut sunt amor, odium, ira, invidia, gloria, misericordia, et reliquae animi commotiones, non ut humanae naturae vitia, sed ut proprietates contemplatus sum, quae ad ipsam ita pertinent, ut ad naturam aeris aestus, frigus, tempestas, tonitru, et alia hujusmodi, quae, tametsi incommoda sunt, necessaria tamen sunt, certasque habent causas, per quas eorum naturam intelligere conamur, et Mens eorum vera contemplatione aeque gaudet, ac earum rerum cognitione, quae sensibus gratae sunt.

V. Est enim hoc certum, et in nostra Ethica verum esse demonstravimus, homines necessario affectibus esse obnoxios, et ita constitutos esse, ut eorum, quibus male est, misereantur, et quibus bene est, invideant, et ut ad vindictam magis, quam ad misericordiam sint proni, et praeterea unumquemque appetere, ut reliqui ex ipsius ingenio vivant, et ut probent, quod ipse probat, et quod ipse repudiat, repudient unde fit, ut cum omnes pariter appetant primi esse, in contentiones veniant, et, quantum possunt, nitantur se invicem opprimere, et, qui victor evadit, magis glorietur, quod alteri obfuit, quam quod sibi profuit. Et quamvis omnes persuasi sint, Religionem contra docere, ut unusquisque proximum, tanquam se ipsum amet, hoc est, ut jus alterius perinde, ac suum, defendat, hanc tamen persuasionem in affectus parum posse ostendimus. Valet quidem in articulo mortis, quando scilicet morbus ipsos affectus vicit, et homo segnis jacet, vel in templis, ubi homines nullum exercent commercium at minime in foro, vel in aula, ubi maxime necesse esset. Ostendimus praeterea, rationem multum quidem posse affectus coërcere, et moderari; sed simul vidimus viam, quam ipsa ratio docet, perarduam esse; ita ut, qui sibi persuadent posse multitudinem, vel qui publicis negotiis distrahuntur, induci, ut ex solo rationis praescripto vivant, saeculum Poëtarum aureum, seu fabulam somnient.

VI. Imperium igitur, cujus salus ab alicujus fide pendet, et cujus negotia non possunt recte curari, nisi ii, qui eadem tractant, fide velint agere, minime stabile erit; sed, ut permanere possit, res ejus publicae ita ordinandae sunt, ut qui easdem administrant, sive ratione ducantur, sive affectu, induci nequeant, ut male fidi sint, ceu prave agant. Nec ad imperii securitatem refert, quo animo homines inducantur ad res recte administrandum, modo res recte administrentur; animi enim libertas, seu fortitudo privata virtus est; at imperii virtus securitas.

VII. Denique quia omnes homines, sive Barbari, sive culti sint, consuetudines ubique jungunt, et statum aliquem civilem formant, ideo imperii causae (3), et fundamenta naturalia non ex rationis documentis petenda, sed ex hominum communi natura, seu conditione deducenda sunt, quod in sequenti Capite facere constitui.

Of Natural Right.

IN OUR THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL Treatise we have treated of natural and civil right, and in our Ethics have explained the nature of wrong-doing, merit, justice, injustice, and lastly, of human liberty. Yet, lest the readers of the present treatise should have to seek elsewhere those points, which especially concern it, I have determined to explain them here again, and give a deductive proof of them.

2. Any natural thing whatever can be just as well conceived, whether it exists or does not exist. As then the beginning of the existence of natural things cannot be inferred from their definition, so neither can their continuing to exist. For their ideal essence is the same, after they have begun to exist, as it was before they existed. As then their beginning to exist cannot be inferred from their essence, so neither can their continuing to exist; but they need the same power to enable them to go on existing, as to enable them to begin to exist. From which it follows, that the power, by which natural things exist, and therefore that by which they operate, can be no other than the eternal power of God itself. For were it another and a created power, it could not preserve itself, much less natural things, but it would itself, in order to continue to exist, have need of the same power which it needed to be created.

3. From this fact therefore, that is, that the power whereby natural things exist and operate is the very power of God itself, we easily understand what natural right is. For as God has a right to everything, and God’s right is nothing else, but his very power, as far as the latter is considered to be absolutely free; it follows from this, that every natural thing has by nature as much right, as it has power to exist and operate; since the natural power of every natural thing, whereby it exists and operates, is nothing else but the power of God, which is absolutely free.

4. And so by natural right I understand the very laws or rules of nature, in accordance with which everything takes place, in other words, the power of nature itself. And so the natural right of universal nature, and consequently of every individual thing, extends as far as its power: and accordingly, whatever any man does after the laws of his nature, he does by the highest natural right, and he has as much right over nature as he has power.

5. If then human nature had been so constituted, that men should live according to the mere dictate of reason, and attempt nothing inconsistent therewith, in that case natural right, considered as special to mankind, would be determined by the power of reason only. But men are more led by blind desire, than by reason: and therefore the natural power or right of human beings should be limited, not by reason, but by every appetite, whereby they are determined to action, or seek their own preservation. I, for my part, admit, that those desires, which arise not from reason, are not so much actions as passive affections of man. But as we are treating here of the universal power or right of nature, we cannot here recognize any distinction between desires, which are engendered in us by reason, and those which are engendered by other causes; since the latter, as much as the former, are effects of nature, and display the natural impulse, by which man strives to continue in existence. For man, be he learned or ignorant, is part of nature, and everything, by which any man is determined to action, ought to be referred to the power of nature, that is, to that power, as it is limited by the nature of this or that man. For man, whether guided by reason or mere desire, does nothing save in accordance with the laws and rules of nature, that is, by natural right. (Section 4.)

6. But most people believe, that the ignorant rather disturb than follow the course of nature, and conceive of mankind, in nature as of one dominion within another. For they maintain, that the human mind is produced by no natural causes, but created directly by God, and is so independent of other things, that it has an absolute power to determine itself, and make a right use of reason. Experience, however, teaches us but too well, that it is no more in our power to have a sound mind, than a sound body. Next, inasmuch as everything whatever, as far as in it lies, strives to preserve its own existence, we cannot at all doubt, that, were it as much in our power to live after the dictate of reason, as to be led by blind desire, all would be led by reason, and order their lives wisely; which is very far from being the case. For

“Each is attracted by his own delight.”

Nor do divines remove this difficulty, at least not by deciding, that the cause of this want of power is a vice or sin in human nature, deriving its origin from our first parents’ fall. For if it was even in the first man’s power as much to stand as to fall, and he was in possession of his senses, and had his nature unimpaired, how could it be, that he fell in spite of his knowledge and foresight? But they say, that he was deceived by the devil. Who then was it, that deceived the devil himself? Who, I say, so maddened the very being that excelled all other created intelligences, that he wished to be greater than God? For was not his effort too, supposing him of sound mind, to preserve himself and his existence, as far as in him lay? Besides, how could it happen, that the first man himself, being in his senses, and master of his own will, should be led astray, and suffer himself to be taken mentally captive? For if he had the power to make a right use of reason, it was not possible for him to be deceived, for as far as in him lay, he of necessity strove to preserve his existence and his soundness of mind. But the hypothesis is, that he had this in his power; therefore he of necessity maintained his soundness of mind, and could not be deceived. But this from his history, is known to be false. And, accordingly, it must be admitted, that it was not in the first man’s power to make a right use of reason, but that, like us, he was subject to passions.

7. But that man, like other beings, as far as in him lies, strives to preserve his existence, no one can deny. For if any distinction could be conceived on this point, it must arise from man’s having a free will. But the freer we conceived man to be, the more we should be forced to maintain, that he must of necessity preserve his existence and be in possession of his senses; as anyone will easily grant me, that does not confound liberty with contingency. For liberty is a virtue, or excellence. Whatever, therefore, convicts a man of weakness cannot be ascribed to his liberty. And so man can by no means be called free, because he is able not to exist or not to use his reason, but only in so far as he preserves the power of existing and operating according to the laws of human nature. The more, therefore, we consider man to be free, the less we can say, that he can neglect to use reason, or choose evil in preference to good; and, therefore, God, who exists in absolute liberty, also understands and operates of necessity, that is, exists, understands, and operates according to the necessity of his own nature. For there is no doubt, that God operates by the same liberty whereby he exists. As then he exists by the necessity of his own nature, by the necessity of his own nature also he acts, that is, he acts with absolute liberty.

8. So we conclude, that it is not in the power of any man always to use his reason, and be at the highest pitch of human liberty, and yet that everyone always, as far as in him lies, strives to preserve his own existence; and that (since each has as much right as he has power) whatever anyone, be he learned or ignorant, attempts and does, he attempts and does by supreme natural right. From which it follows that the law and ordinance of nature, under which all men are born, and for the most part live, forbids nothing but what no one wishes or is able to do, and is not opposed to strifes, hatred, anger, treachery, or, in general, anything that appetite suggests. For the bounds of nature are not the laws of human reason, which do but pursue the true interest and preservation of mankind, but other infinite laws, which regard the eternal order of universal nature, whereof man is an atom; and according to the necessity of this order only are all individual beings determined in a fixed manner to exist and operate. Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd, or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictate of our own reason; although, in fact, what our reason pronounces bad, is not bad as regards the order and laws of universal nature, but only as regards the laws of our own nature taken separately.

9. Besides, it follows that everyone is so far rightfully dependent on another, as he is under that other’s authority, and so far independent, as he is able to repel all violence, and avenge to his heart’s content all damage done to him, and in general to live after his own mind.

10. He has another under his authority, who holds him bound, or has taken from him arms and means of defence or escape, or inspired him with fear, or so attached him to himself by past favour, that the man obliged would rather please his benefactor than himself, and live after his mind than after his own. He that has another under authority in the first or second of these ways, holds but his body, not his mind. But in the third or fourth way he has made dependent on himself as well the mind as the body of the other; yet only as long as the fear or hope lasts, for upon the removal of the feeling the other is left independent.

11. The judgment can be dependent on another, only as far as that other can deceive the mind; whence it follows that the mind is so far independent, as it uses reason aright. Nay, inasmuch as human power is to be reckoned less by physical vigour than by mental strength, it follows that those men are most independent whose reason is strongest, and who are most guided thereby. And so I am altogether for calling a man so far free, as he is led by reason; because so far he is determined to action by such causes, as can be adequately understood by his unassisted nature, although by these causes he be necessarily determined to action. For liberty, as we showed above (Sec. 7), does not take away the necessity of acting, but supposes it.

12. The pledging of faith to any man, where one has but verbally promised to do this or that, which one might rightfully leave undone, or vice versâ, remains so long valid as the will of him that gave his word remains unchanged. For he that has authority to break faith has, in fact, bated nothing of his own right, but only made a present of words. If, then, he, being by natural right judge in his own case, comes to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly (for “to err is human”), that more harm than profit will come of his promise, by the judgment of his own mind he decides that the promise should be broken, and by natural right (Sec. 9) he will break the same.

13. If two come together and unite their strength, they have jointly more power, and consequently more right over nature than both of them separately, and the more there are that have so joined in alliance, the more right they all collectively will possess.

14. In so far as men are tormented by anger, envy, or any passion implying hatred, they are drawn asunder and made contrary one to another, and therefore are so much the more to be feared, as they are more powerful, crafty, and cunning than the other animals. And because men are in the highest degree liable to these passions (Chap. I, Sec. 5), therefore men are naturally enemies. For he is my greatest enemy, whom I must most fear and be on my guard against.

15. But inasmuch as (Sec. 6) in the state of nature each is so long independent, as he can guard against oppression by another, and it is in vain for one man alone to try and guard against all, it follows hence that so long as the natural right of man is determined by the power of every individual, and belongs to everyone, so long it is a nonentity, existing in opinion rather than fact, as there is no assurance of making it good. And it is certain that the greater cause of fear every individual has, the less power, and consequently the less right, he possesses. To this must be added, that without mutual help men can hardly support life and cultivate the mind. And so our conclusion is, that that natural right, which is special to the human race, can hardly be conceived, except where men have general rights, and combine to defend the possession of the lands they inhabit and cultivate, to protect themselves, to repel all violence, and to live according to the general judgment of all. For (Sec. 18) the more there are that combine together, the more right they collectively possess. And if this is why the schoolmen want to call man a sociable animal — I mean because men in the state of nature can hardly be independent — I have nothing to say against them.

16. Where men have general rights, and are all guided, as it were, by one mind, it is certain (Sec. 13), that every individual has the less right the more the rest collectively exceed him in power; that is, he has, in fact, no right over nature but that which the common law allows him. But whatever he is ordered by the general consent, he is bound to execute, or may rightfully be compelled thereto (Sec. 4).

17. This right, which is determined by the power of a multitude, is generally called Dominion. And, speaking generally, he holds dominion, to whom are entrusted by common consent affairs of state — such as the laying down, interpretation, and abrogation of laws, the fortification of cities, deciding on war and peace, &c. But if this charge belong to a council, composed of the general multitude, then the dominion is called a democracy; if the council be composed of certain chosen persons, then it is an aristocracy; and if, lastly, the care of affairs of state and, consequently, the dominion rest with one man, then it has the name of monarchy.

18. From what we have proved in this chapter, it becomes clear to us that, in the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone’s power (Secs. 5 and 8). But wrongdoing is action, which cannot lawfully be committed. But if men by the ordinance of nature were bound to be led by reason, then all of necessity would be so led. For the ordinances of nature are the ordinances of God (Secs. 2, 3), which God has instituted by the liberty, whereby he exists, and they follow, therefore, from the necessity of the divine nature (Sec. 7), and, consequently, are eternal, and cannot be broken. But men are chiefly guided by appetite, without reason; yet for all this they do not disturb the course of nature, but follow it of necessity. And, therefore, a man ignorant and weak of mind, is no more bound by natural law to order his life wisely, than a sick man is bound to be sound of body.

19. Therefore wrong-doing cannot be conceived of, but under dominion — that is, where, by the general right of the whole dominion, it is decided what is good and what evil, and where no one does anything rightfully, save what he does in accordance with the general decree or consent (Sec. 16). For that, as we said in the last section, is wrong-doing, which cannot lawfully be committed, or is by law forbidden. But obedience is the constant will to execute that, which by law is good, and by the general decree ought to be done.

20. Yet we are accustomed to call that also wrong, which is done against the sentence of sound reason, and to give the name of obedience to the constant will to moderate the appetite according to the dictate of reason: a manner of speech which I should quite approve, did human liberty consist in the licence of appetite, and slavery in the dominion of reason. But as human liberty is the greater, the more man can be guided by reason, and moderate his appetite, we cannot without great impropriety call a rational life obedience, and give the name of wrong-doing to that which is, in fact, a weakness of the mind, not a licence of the mind directed against itself, and for which a man may be called a slave, rather than free (Secs. 7 and 11).

21. However, as reason teaches one to practise piety, and be of a calm and gentle spirit, which cannot be done save under dominion; and, further, as it is impossible for a multitude to be guided, as it were, by one mind, as under dominion is required, unless it has laws ordained according to the dictate of reason; men who are accustomed to live under dominion are not, therefore, using words so improperly, when they call that wrong-doing which is done against the sentence of reason, because the laws of the best dominion ought to be framed according to that dictate (Sec. 18). But, as for my saying (Sec. 18) that man in a state of nature, if he does wrong at all, does it against himself, see, on this point, Chap. IV., Secs. 4, 5, where is shown, in what sense we can say, that he who holds dominion and possesses natural right, is bound by laws and can do wrong.

22. As far as religion is concerned, it is further clear, that a man is most free and most obedient to himself when he most loves God, and worships him in sincerity. But so far as we regard, not the course of nature, which we do not understand, but the dictates of reason only, which respect religion, and likewise reflect that these dictates are revealed to us by God, speaking, as it were, within ourselves, or else were revealed to prophets as laws; so far, speaking in human fashion, we say that man obeys God when he worships him in sincerity, and, on the contrary, does wrong when he is led by blind desire. But, at the same time, we should remember that we are subject to God’s authority, as clay to that of the potter, who of the same lump makes some vessels unto honour, and others unto dishonour. And thus man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

23. As, then, wrong-doing and obedience, in their strict sense, so also justice and injustice cannot be conceived of, except under dominion. For nature offers nothing that can be called this man’s rather than another’s; but under nature everything belongs to all — that is, they have authority to claim it for themselves. But under dominion, where it is by common law determined what belongs to this man, and what to that, he is called just who has a constant will to render to every man his own, but he unjust who strives, on the contrary, to make his own that which belongs to another.

24. But that praise and blame are emotions of joy and sadness, accompanied by an idea of human excellence or weakness as their cause, we have explained in our Ethics.

Theologico-Political Treatise, Chap. xvi.

Ethics, iv. 37, note 2.

Ibid., ii. 48, 49, note.

Virgil, Ecl. ii. 65.

Romans ix. 21.

I. IN NOSTRO Tractatu Theologico-politico de Jure Naturali, et Civili egimus, et in nostra Ethica explicuimus, quid peccatum, quid meritum, quid justitia, quid injustitia, et quid denique humana libertas sit. Sedi ne ii, qui hunc tractatum legunt, opus habeant ea, quae ad hunc ipsum tractatum maxime spectant, in aliis quaerere, ea hic iterum explicare, et apodictice demonstrare constitui.

II. Res quaecunque naturalis potest adaequate concipi, sive existat, sive non existat; ut igitur rerum naturalium existendi principium, sic earum in existendo perseverantia ex earum definitione non potest concludi. Nam earum essentia idealis eadem est, postquam existere inceperunt, quam antequam existerent. Ut ergo earum existendi principium ex earum essentia sequi nequit, sic nec earum in existendo perseverantia: sed eadem potentia, qua indigent, ut existere incipiant, indigent, ut existere pergant. Ex quo sequitur, rerum naturalium potentiam, qua existunt, et consequenter qua operantur, nullam aliam esse posse, quam ipsam Dei aeternam potentiam. Nam si quae alia creata esset, non posset seipsam, et consequenter neque res naturales conservare; sed ipsa etiam eadem potentia, qua indigeret, ut crearetur, indigeret, ut in existendo perseveraret.

III. Hinc igitur, quod scilicet rerum naturalium potentia, qua existunt, et operantur, ipsissima Dei sit potentia, facile intelligimus, quid Jus naturae sit. Nam quoniam Deus jus ad omnia habet, et jus Dei nihil aliud est, quam ipsa Dei potentia, quatenus haec absolute libera consideratur, hinc sequitur, unamquamque rem naturalem tantum juris ex natura habere, quantum potentiae habet ad existendum, et operandum: quandoquidem uniuscujusque rei naturalis potentia, qua existit, et operatur, nulla alia est, quam ipsa Dei potentia, quae absolute libera est.

IV. Per Jus itaque naturae intelligo ipsas naturae leges, seu regulas, secundum quas omnia fiunt, hoc est, ipsam naturae potentiam atque adeo totius naturae, et consequenter uniuscujusque individui (4) naturale Jus eo usque se extendit, quo ejus potentia; et consequenter quicquid unusquisque homo ex legibus suae naturae agit, id summo naturae jure agit, tantumque in naturam habet juris, quantum potentia valet.

V. Si igitur cum humana natura ita comparatum esset, ut homines ex solo rationis praescripto viverent, nec aliud conarentur, tum naturae Jus, quatenus humani generis proprium esse consideratur, sola rationis potentia determinaretur. Sed homines magis caeca cupiditate, quam ratione ducuntur, ac proinde hominum naturalis potentia, sive Jus non ratione, sed quocunque appetitu, quo ad agendum determinantur, quoque se conservare conantur, definiri debet. Equidem fateor, cupiditates illas, quae ex ratione non oriuntur, non tam actiones, quam passiones esse humanas. Verum quia hic de naturae universali potentia, seu Jure agimus, nullam hic agnoscere possumus differentiam inter cupiditates, quae ex ratione, et inter illas, quae ex aliis causis in nobis ingenerantur: quandoquidem tam hae, quam illae effectus naturae sunt, vimque naturalem explicant, qua homo in suo esse perseverare conatur. Est enim homo, sive sapiens, sive ignarus sit, naturae pars, et id omne, ex quo unusquisque ad agendum determinatur, ad naturae potentiam referri debet, nempe quatenus haec per naturam hujus, aut illius hominis definiri potest. Nihil namque homo, seu ratione, seu sola cupiditate ductus, agit, nisi secundum leges, et regulas naturae, hoc est (per Art. 4. hujus Cap.), ex naturae jure.

VI. At plerique, ignaros naturae ordinem magis perturbare, quam sequi, credunt, et homines in natura veluti imperium in imperio concipiunt. Nam Mentem humanam a nullis causis naturalibus statuunt produci, sed a Deo immediate creari, a reliquis rebus adeo independentem, ut absolutam habeat potestatem sese determinandi, et ratione recte utendi. Sed experientia satis superque docet, quod in nostra potestate non magis sit, Mentem sanam, quam Corpus sanum habere. Deinde quandoquidem unaquaeque res, quantum in se est, suum esse conservare conatur, dubitare nequaquam possumus, quin, si aeque in nostra potestate esset, tam ex rationis praescripto vivere, quam caeca cupiditate duci, omnes ratione ducerentur, et vitam sapienter instituerent, quod minime fit. Nam trahit sua quemque voluptas. Nec Theologi hanc difficultatem tollunt, qui scilicet statuunt hujus impotentiae causam humanae naturae vitium, seu peccatum esse, quod originem a primi parentis lapsu traxerit. Nam si etiam in primi hominis potestate fuit tam stare, quam labi, et mentis compos erat, et natura integra, qui fieri potuit, ut sciens, prudensque lapsus fuerit? At dicunt, eum a Diabolo deceptum fuisse. Verum quis ille fuit, qui ipsum Diabolum decepit quis, inquam, ipsum omnium creaturarum intelligentium praestantissimum adeo amentem reddidit, ut Deo major esse voluerit? Nonne enim se ipsum, qui Mentem sanam habebat, suumque esse, quantum in se erat, conservare conabatur? Deinde qui fieri potuit, ut ipse primus homo, qui mentis compos erat, et suae voluntatis dominus, seduceretur, et mente pateretur capi? Nam, si potestatem habuit ratione recte utendi, decipi non potuit: nam, quantum in se fuit, conatus est necessario suum esse, Mentemque suam sanam conservare. Atqui supponitur eum hoc in potestate habuisse: ergo Mentem suam sanam necessario conservavit, nec decipi potuit. Quod ex ipsius historia falsum esse constat ac proinde fatendum est, quod in primi hominis potestate non fuerit ratione recte uti, sed quod, sicuti nos, affectibus fuerit obnoxius.

VII. Quod autem homo, ut reliqua individua, suum esse, quantum in se est, conservare conetur, negare nemo potest. Nam si hic aliqua concipi posset differentia, inde oriri deberet, quod homo voluntatem haberet liberam. Sed quo homo a nobis magis liber conciperetur, eo magis cogeremur statuere, ipsum sese necessario debere conservare, et mentis compotem esse, quod facile unusquisque, qui libertatem cum contingentia non confundit, mihi concedet. Est namque libertas virtus, seu perfectio quicquid igitur hominem impotentiae arguit, id ad ipsius libertatem referri nequit. Quare homo minime potest dici liber, propterea quod potest non existere, vel quod potest non uti ratione, sed tantum quatenus potestatem habet existendi, et operandi secundum humanae naturae leges. Quo igitur hominem magis liberum esse consideramus, eo minus dicere possumus, quod possit ratione non uti, et mala prae bonis eligere; et ideo Deus, qui absolute liber existit, intelligit, et operatur, necessario etiam, nempe ex suae naturae necessitate existit, intelligit, et operatur. Nam non dubium est, quin Deus eadem, qua existit, libertate operetur: ut igitur ex ipsius naturae necessitate existit, ex ipsius etiam naturae necessitate agit, hoc est, libere absolute agit.

VIII. Concludimus itaque, in potestate uniuscujusque hominis non esse ratione semper uti, et in summo humanae libertatis fastigio esse; et tamen unumquemque semper, quantum in se est, conari suum esse conservare, et (quia unusquisque tantum juris habet, quantum potentia valet), quicquid unusquisque, sive sapiens sive ignarus conatur, et agit, id summo naturae jure conari, et agere. Ex quibus sequitur Jus, et institutum naturae, sub quo omnes nascuntur homines, et maxima ex parte vivunt, nihil, nisi quod nemo cupit, et quod nemo potest, prohibere, non contentiones, non odia, non iram, non dolos, nec absolute aliquid, quod appetitus suadet, aversari. Nec mirum. Nam natura non legibus humanae rationis, quae non nisi hominum verum utile, et conservationem intendunt, continetur, sed infinitis aliis, quae totius naturae, cujus homo particula est, aeternum ordinem respiciunt, ex cujus sola necessitate omnia individua certo modo determinantur ad existendum, et operandum. Quicquid ergo nobis in natura ridiculum, absurdum, aut malum videtur, id inde est, quod res tantum ex parte novimus, totiusque naturae ordinem, et cohaerentiam maxima ex parte ignoramus, et quod, omnia ex praescripto nostrae rationis ut dirigerentur, volumus: cum tamen id, quod ratio malum esse dictat, non malum sit respectu ordinis, et legum universae naturae, sed tantum solius nostrae naturae legum respectu.

IX. Praeterea sequitur, unumquemque tamdiu alterius esse juris, quamdiu sub alterius potestate est, et eatenus sui juris, quatenus vim omnem repellere, damnumque sibi illatum ex sui animi sententia vindicare, et absolute, quatenus ex suo ingenio vivere potest.

X. Is alterum sub potestate habet, quem ligatum tenet, vel cui arma, et media sese defendendi, aut evadendi ademit, vel cui metum injecit, vel quem sibi beneficio ita devinxit, ut ei potius, quam sibi morem gerere, et potius ex ipsius, quam ex sui animi sententia vivere velit. Qui primo, vel secundo modo alterum in potestate habet, ejus tantum Corpus, non Mentem tenet; tertio autem, vel quarto, tam ipsius Mentem, quam Corpus sui juris fecit, sed non nisi durante metu, vel spe; hac vero, aut illo adempto manet alter sui juris.

XI. Judicandi facultas eatenus etiam alterius juris esset potest, quatenus Mens potest ab altero decipi: ex quo sequitur, Mentem eatenus sui juris omnino esse, quatenus recte uti potest ratione. Imo quia humana potentia non tam ex Corporis robore, quam ex Mentis fortitudine aestimanda est, hinc sequitur, illos maxime sui juris esse, qui maxime ratione pollent, quique maxime eadem ducuntur; atque adeo hominem eatenus liberum omnino voco, quatenus ratione ducitur, quia eatenus ex causis, quae per solam ejus naturam possunt adaequate intelligi, ad agendum determinatur, tametsi ex iis necessario ad agendum determinetur. Nam libertas (ut Art. 7. hujus Cap. ostendimus) agendi necessitatem non tollit, sed ponit.

XII. Fides alicui data, qua aliquis solis verbis pollicitus est, se hoc, aut illum facturum, quod pro suo jure omittere poterat, vel contra, tamdiu rata manet, quamdiu ejus, qui fidem dedit, non mutatur voluntas. Nam qui potestatem habet solvendi fidem, is revera suo jure non cessit, sed verba tantum dedit. Si igitur ipse, qui naturae Jure sui judex est, judicaverit, seu recte, seu prave (nam errare humanum est) ex fide data plus damni, quam utilitatis sequi, ex suae mentis sententia fidem solvendam esse censet, et naturae Jure (per Art. 9. hujus Cap.) eandem solvet.

XIII. Si duo simul conveniant, et vires jungant, plus simul possunt, et consequenter plus juris in naturam simul habent, quam uterque solus, et quo plures necessitudines sic junxerint suas, eo omnes simul plus juris habebunt.

XIV. Quatenus homines ira, invidia, aut aliquo odii affectu conflictantur, eatenus diverse trahuntur, et invicem contrarii sunt, et propterea eo plus timendi, quo plus possunt, magisque callidi, et astuti sunt, quam reliqua animalia et quia homines ut plurimum (ut in Art. 5. praec. Cap. diximus), his affectibus natura sunt obnoxii; sunt ergo homines ex natura hostes. Nam is mihi maximus hostis, qui mihi maxime timendus, et a quo mihi maxime cavendum est.

XV. Cum autem (per Art. 9. hujus Cap.) in statu naturali tamdiu unusquisque sui juris sit, quamdiu sibi cavere potest, ne ab alio opprimatur, et unus solus frustra ab omnibus sibi cavere conetur, hinc sequitur, quamdiu jus humanum naturale uniuscujusque potentia determinatur, et uniuscujusque est, tamdiu nullum esse, sed magis opinione, quam re constare, quandoquidem nulla ejus obtinendi est securitas. Et certum est, unumquemque tanto minus posse, et consequenter tanto minus juris habere, quanto majorem timendi causam habet. His accedit, quod homines vix absque mutuo auxilio vitam sustentare, et mentem colere possint atque adeo concludimus Jus naturae, quod humani generis proprium est, vix posse concipi, nisi ubi homines jura habent communia, qui simul terras, quas habitare, et colere possunt, sibi vindicare, seseque munire, vimque omnem repellere, et ex communi omnium sententia vivere possunt. Nam (per Art. 13. hujus Cap.) quo plures in unum sic conveniunt, eo omnes simul plus juris habent; et si Scholastici hac de causa, quod scilicet homines in statu naturali vix sui juris esse possunt, velint hominem animal sociale dicere, nihil habeo, quod ipsis contradicam.

XVI. Ubi homines jura communia habent, omnesque una veluti mente ducuntur, certum est (per Art. 13. hujus Cap.) eorum unumquemque tanto minus habere juris, quanto reliqui simul ipso potentiores sunt, hoc est, illum revera jus nullum in naturam habere praeter id, quod ipsi commune concedit jus. Caeterum quicquid ex communi consensu ipsi imperatur, teneri exequi, vel (per Art. 4. hujus Cap.) jure ad id cogi.

XVII. Hoc jus, quod multitudinis potentia definitur, Imperium appellari solet. Atque hoc is absolute tenet, qui curam Reipublicae ex communi consensu habet, nempe jura statuendi, interpretandi, et abolendi, urbes muniendi, de bello, et pace decernendi, etc. Quod si haec cura ad Concilium pertineat, quod ex communi multitudine componitur, tum Imperium Democratia appellatur, si autem ex quibusdam tantum selectis, Aristocratia, et si denique Reipublicae cura, et consequenter imperium penes unum sit, tum Monarchia appellatur.

XVIII. Ex his, quae in hoc Capite ostendimus, perspicuum nobis fit, in statu naturali non dari peccatum, vel si quis peccat, is sibi, non alteri peccat: quandoquidem nemo Jure naturae alteri, nisi velit, morem gerere tenetur, nec aliquid bonum, aut malum habere, nisi quod ipse ex suo ingenio bonum, aut malum esse, decernit et nihil absolute naturae Jure prohibetur, nisi quod nemo potest (vid. Art. 5. et 8. hujus Cap.). At peccatum actio est, quae jure fieri nequit. Quod si homines ex naturae instituto tenerentur ratione duci, tum omnes necessario ratione ducerentur. Nam naturae instituta Dei instituta sunt (per Art. 2. et 3. hujus Cap.), quae Deus eadem, qua existit, libertate instituit, quaeque adeo ex naturae divinae necessitate consequuntur (vide Art. 7. hujus Cap.), et consequenter aeterna sunt, nec violari possunt. Sed homines maxime appetitu sine ratione ducuntur, nec tamen naturae ordinem perturbant, sed necessario sequuntur; ac proinde ignarus, et animo impotens non magis ex naturae Jure tenetur, vitam sapienter instituere, quam aeger tenetur sano Corpore esse.

XIX. Peccatum itaque non nisi in Imperio concipi potest, ubi scilicet quid bonum, et quid malum sit, ex communi totius imperii jure decernitur, et ubi nemo (per Art. 16. (5) hujus Cap.) jure quicquam agit, nisi quod ex communi decreto, vel consensu agit. Id enim (ut in praec. Art. diximus) peccatum est; quod jure fieri nequit, sive quod jure prohibetur; obsequium autem est constans voluntas, id exequendi, quod jure bonum est, et ex communi decreto fieri debet.

XX. Solemus tamen id etiam peccatum appellare, quod contra sanae rationis dictamen fit, et obsequium constantem voluntatem moderandi appetitus ex rationis praescripto; quod omnino probarem, si humana libertas in appetitus licentia, et servitus in rationis imperio consisteret. Sed quia humana libertas eo major est, quo homo magis ratione duci, et appetitus moderari potest, non possumus, nisi admodum improprie, vitam rationalem vocare obsequium, et peccatum id, quod revera Mentis impotentia; non autem contra se ipsam licentia est, et per quod homo servus potius, quam liber potest dici. Vide Art. 7. et II. hujus Cap.

XXI. Verumenimvero, quia ratio pietatem exercere, et animo tranquillo, et bono esse docet, quod non nisi in imperio fieri potest, et praeterea quia fieri nequit, ut multitudo una veluti mente ducatur, sicut in imperio requiritur, nisi jura habeat, quae ex rationis praescripto instituta sint, non ergo adeo improprie homines, qui in imperio vivere consueverunt, id peccatum vocant, quod contra rationis dictamen fit, quandoquidem optimi imperii jura (vide Art. 18. hujus Cap.) ex rationis dictamine institui debent. Cur autem dixerim (Art. 18. hujus Cap.) hominem in statu naturali sibi peccare, si quid peccat, de hoc vide Ca. Art. 4. et 5., ubi ostenditur, quo sensu dicere possumus, eum, qui imperium tenet, et Jure naturae potitur, legibus adstrictum esse, et peccare posse.

XXII. Ad Religionem quod attinet, certum etiam est, hominem eo magis esse liberum, et sibi maxime obsequentem, quo Deum magis amat, et animo magis integro colit. Verum quatenus non ad naturae ordinem, quem ignoramus, sed ad sola rationis dictamina, quae Religionem concernunt, attendimus, et simul consideramus, eadem nobis a Deo, quasi in nobis ipsis loquente, revelari, vel etiam haec eadem Prophetis veluti jura fuisse revelata, eatenus, more humano loquendo, dicimus hominem Deo obsequi, qui ipsum integro animo amat, et contra peccare, qui caeca cupiditate ducitur; sed interim memores esse debemus, quod in Dei potestate sumus, sicut lutum in potestate figuli, qui ex eadem massa alia vasa ad decus, alia ad dedecus facit, atque adeo quod homo contra haec Dei decreta quidem, quatenus in nostra, vel in Prophetarum Mente tanquam jura inscripta fuerunt; at non contra aeternum Dei decretum, quod in universa natura inscriptum est, quodque totius naturae ordinem respicit, quicquam agere potest.

XXIII. Ut itaque peccatum, et obsequium stricte sumptum, sic etiam justitia, et injustitia non nisi in imperio possunt concipi. Nam nihil in natura datur, quod jure posset dici hujus esse, et non alterius; sed omnia omnium sunt, qui scilicet potestatem habent sibi eadem vendicandi. At in imperio, ubi communi Jure decernitur, quid hujus, quidque illius sit, ille justus vocatur, cui constans est voluntas tribuendi unicuique suum, injustus autem, qui contra conatur id, quod alterius est, suum facere.

XXIV. Caeterum laudem, et vituperium affectus esse laetitiae, et tristitiae, quos comitatur idea virtutis, aut impotentiae humanae tanquam causa, explicuimus in nostra Ethica.

Of the Right of Supreme Authorities.

UNDER EVERY DOMINION the state is said to be Civil; but the entire body subject to a dominion is called a Commonwealth, and the general business of the dominion, subject to the direction of him that holds it, has the name of Affairs of State. Next we call men Citizens, as far as they enjoy by the civil law all the advantages of the commonwealth, and Subjects, as far as they are bound to obey its ordinances or laws. Lastly, we have already said that, of the civil state, there are three kinds — democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy (Chap. II. Sec. 17). Now, before I begin to treat of each kind separately, I will first deduce all the properties of the civil state in general. And of these, first of all comes to be considered the supreme right of the commonwealth, or the right of the supreme authorities.

2. From Chap. II. Sec. 15, it is clear that the right of the supreme authorities is nothing else than simple natural right, limited, indeed, by the power, not of every individual, but of the multitude, which is guided, as it were, by one mind — that is, as each individual in the state of nature, so the body and mind of a dominion have as much right as they have power. And thus each single citizen or subject has the less right, the more the commonwealth exceeds him in power (Chap. II. Sec. 16), and each citizen consequently does and has nothing, but what he may by the general decree of the commonwealth defend.

3. If the commonwealth grant to any man the right, and therewith the authority (for else it is but a gift of words, Chap. II. Sec. 12), to live after his own mind, by that very act it abandons its own right, and transfers the same to him, to whom it has given such authority. But if it has given this authority to two or more, I mean authority to live each after his own mind, by that very act it has divided the dominion, and if, lastly, it has given this same authority to every citizen, it has thereby destroyed itself, and there remains no more a commonwealth, but everything returns to the state of nature; all of which is very manifest from what goes before. And thus it follows, that it can by no means be conceived, that every citizen should by the ordinance of the commonwealth live after his own mind, and accordingly this natural right of being one’s own judge ceases in the civil state. I say expressly “by the ordinance of the commonwealth,” for, if we weigh the matter aright, the natural right of every man does not cease in the civil state. For man, alike in the natural and in the civil state, acts according to the laws of his own nature, and consults his own interest. Man, I say, in each state is led by fear or hope to do or leave undone this or that; but the main difference between the two states is this, that in the civil state all fear the same things, and all have the same ground of security, and manner of life; and this certainly does not do away with the individual’s faculty of judgment. For he that is minded to obey all the commonwealth’s orders, whether through fear of its power or through love of quiet, certainly consults after his own heart his own safety and interest.

4. Moreover, we cannot even conceive, that every citizen should be allowed to interpret the commonwealth’s decrees or laws. For were every citizen allowed this, he would thereby be his own judge, because each would easily be able to give a colour of right to his own deeds, which by the last section is absurd.

5. We see then, that every citizen depends not on himself, but on the commonwealth, all whose commands he is bound to execute, and has no right to decide, what is equitable or iniquitous, just or unjust. But, on the contrary, as the body of the dominion should, so to speak, be guided by one mind, and consequently the will of the commonwealth must be taken to be the will of all; what the state decides to be just and good must be held to be so decided by every individual. And so, however iniquitous the subject may think the commonwealth’s decisions, he is none the less bound to execute them.

6. But (it may be objected) is it not contrary to the dictate of reason to subject one’s self wholly to the judgment of another, and consequently, is not the civil state repugnant to reason? Whence it would follow, that the civil state is irrational, and could only be created by men destitute of reason, not at all by such as are led by it. But since reason teaches nothing contrary to nature, sound reason cannot therefore dictate, that every one should remain independent, so long as men are liable to passions (Chap. II. Sec. 15), that is, reason pronounces against such independence (Chap. I. Sec. 5). Besides, reason altogether teaches to seek peace, and peace cannot be maintained, unless the commonwealth’s general laws be kept unbroken. And so, the more a man is guided by reason, that is (Chap. II. Sec. 11), the more he is free, the more constantly he will keep the laws of the commonwealth, and execute the commands of the supreme authority, whose subject he is. Furthermore, the civil state is naturally ordained to remove general fear, and prevent general sufferings, and therefore pursues above everything the very end, after which everyone, who is led by reason, strives, but in the natural state strives vainly (Chap. II. Sec. 15). Wherefore, if a man, who is led by reason, has sometimes to do by the commonwealth’s order what he knows to be repugnant to reason, that harm is far compensated by the good, which he derives from the existence of a civil state. For it is reason’s own law, to choose the less of two evils; and accordingly we may conclude, that no one is acting against the dictate of his own reason, so far as he does what by the law of the commonwealth is to be done. And this anyone will more easily grant us, after we have explained, how far the power and consequently the right of the commonwealth extends.

7. For, first of all, it must be considered, that, as in the state of nature the man who is led by reason is most powerful and most independent, so too that commonwealth will be most powerful and most independent, which is founded and guided by reason. For the right of the commonwealth is determined by the power of the multitude, which is led, as it were, by one mind. But this unity of mind can in no wise be conceived, unless the commonwealth pursues chiefly the very end, which sound reason teaches is to the interest of all men.

8. In the second place it comes to be considered, that subjects are so far dependent not on themselves, but on the commonwealth, as they fear its power or threats, or as they love the civil state (Chap. II. Sect. 10). Whence it follows, that such things, as no one can be induced to do by rewards or threats, do not fall within the rights of the commonwealth. For instance, by reason of his faculty of judgment, it is in no man’s power to believe. For by what rewards or threats can a man be brought to believe, that the whole is not greater than its part, or that God does not exist, or that that is an infinite being, which he sees to be finite, or generally anything contrary to his sense or thought? So, too, by what rewards or threats can a man be brought to love one, whom he hates, or to hate one, whom he loves? And to this head must likewise be referred such things as are so abhorrent to human nature, that it regards them as actually worse than any evil, as that a man should be witness against himself, or torture himself, or kill his parents, or not strive to avoid death, and the like, to which no one can be induced by rewards or threats. But if we still choose to say, that the commonwealth has the right or authority to order such things, we can conceive of it in no other sense, than that in which one might say, that a man has the right to be mad or delirious. For what but a delirious fancy would such a right be, as could bind no one? And here I am speaking expressly of such things as cannot be subject to the right of a commonwealth and are abhorrent to human nature in general. For the fact, that a fool or madman can by no rewards or threats be induced to execute orders, or that this or that person, because he is attached to this or that religion, judges the laws of a dominion worse than any possible evil, in no wise makes void the laws of the commonwealth, since by them most of the citizens are restrained. And so, as those who are without fear or hope are so far independent (Chap. II. Sec. 10), they are, therefore, enemies of the dominion (Chap. II. Sec. 14), and may lawfully be coerced by force.

9. Thirdly and lastly, it comes to be considered, that those things are not so much within the commonwealth’s right, which cause indignation in the majority. For it is certain, that by the guidance of nature men conspire together, either through common fear, or with the desire to avenge some common hurt; and as the right of the commonwealth is determined by the common power of the multitude, it is certain that the power and right of the commonwealth are so far diminished, as it gives occasion for many to conspire together. There are certainly some subjects of fear for a commonwealth, and as every separate citizen or in the state of nature every man, so a commonwealth is the less independent, the greater reason it has to fear. So much for the right of supreme authorities over subjects. Now before I treat of the right of the said authorities as against others, we had better resolve a question commonly mooted about religion.

10. For it may be objected to us, Do not the civil state, and the obedience of subjects, such as we have shown is required in the civil state, do away with religion, whereby we are bound to worship God? But if we consider the matter, as it really is, we shall find nothing that can suggest a scruple. For the mind, so far as it makes use of reason, is dependent, not on the supreme authorities, but on itself (Chap. II. Sec. 11). And so the true knowledge and the love of God cannot be subject to the dominion of any, nor yet can charity towards one’s neighbour (Sec. 8). And if we further reflect, that the highest exercise of charity is that which aims at keeping peace and joining in unity, we shall not doubt that he does his duty, who helps everyone, so far as the commonwealth’s laws, that is so far as unity and quiet allow. As for external rites, it is certain, that they can do no good or harm at all in respect of the true knowledge of God, and the love which necessarily results from it; and so they ought not to be held of such importance, that it should be thought worth while on their account to disturb public peace and quiet. Moreover it is certain, that I am not a champion of religion by the law of nature, that is (Chap. II. Sec. 3), by the divine decree. For I have no authority, as once the disciples of Christ had, to cast out unclean spirits and work miracles; which authority is yet so necessary to the propagating of religion in places where it is forbidden, that without it one not only, as they say, wastes one’s time and trouble, but causes besides very many inconveniences, whereof all ages have seen most mournful examples. Everyone therefore, wherever he may be, can worship God with true religion, and mind his own business, which is the duty of a private man. But the care of propagating religion should be left to God, or the supreme authorities, upon whom alone falls the charge of affairs of state. But I return to my subject.

11. After explaining the right of supreme authorities over citizens and the duty of subjects, it remains to consider the right of such authorities against the world at large, which is now easily intelligible from what has been said. For since (Sec. 2) the right of the supreme authorities is nothing else but simple natural right, it follows that two dominions stand towards each other in the same relation as do two men in the state of nature, with this exception, that a commonwealth can provide against being oppressed by another; which a man in the state of nature cannot do, seeing that he is overcome daily by sleep, often by disease or mental infirmity, and in the end by old age, and is besides liable to other inconveniences, from which a commonwealth can secure itself.

12. A commonwealth then is so far independent, as it can plan and provide against oppression by another (Chap. II. Secs. 9, 15), and so far dependent on another commonwealth, as it fears that other’s power, or is hindered by it from executing its own wishes, or lastly, as it needs its help for its own preservation or increase (Chap. II. Secs. 10, 15). For we cannot at all doubt, that if two commonwealths are willing to offer each other mutual help, both together are more powerful, and therefore have more right, than either alone (Chap. II. Sec. 13).

13. But this will be more clearly intelligible, if we reflect, that two commonwealths are naturally enemies. For men in the state of nature are enemies (Chap. II. Sec. 14). Those, then, who stand outside a commonwealth, and retain their natural rights, continue enemies. Accordingly, if one commonwealth wishes to make war on another and employ extreme measures to make that other dependent on itself, it may lawfully make the attempt, since it needs but the bare will of the commonwealth for war to be waged. But concerning peace it can decide nothing, save with the concurrence of another commonwealth’s will. Whence it follows, that laws of war regard every commonwealth by itself, but laws of peace regard not one, but at the least two commonwealths, which are therefore called “contracting powers.”

14. This “contract” remains so long unmoved as the motive for entering into it, that is, fear of hurt or hope of gain, subsists. But take away from either commonwealth this hope or fear, and it is left independent (Chap. II. Sec. 10), and the link, whereby the commonwealths were mutually bound, breaks of itself. And therefore every commonwealth has the right to break its contract, whenever it chooses, and cannot be said to act treacherously or perfidiously in breaking its word, as soon as the motive of hope or fear is removed. For every contracting party was on equal terms in this respect, that whichever could first free itself of fear should be independent, and make use of its independence after its own mind; and, besides, no one makes a contract respecting the future, but on the hypothesis of certain precedent circumstances. But when these circumstances change, the reason of policy applicable to the whole position changes with them; and therefore every one of the contracting commonwealths retains the right of consulting its own interest, and consequently endeavours, as far as possible, to be free from fear and thereby independent, and to prevent another from coming out of the contract with greater power. If then a commonwealth complains that it has been deceived, it cannot properly blame the bad faith of another contracting commonwealth, but only its own folly in having entrusted its own welfare to another party, that was independent, and had for its highest law the welfare of its own dominion.

15. To commonwealths, which have contracted a treaty of peace, it belongs to decide the questions, which may be mooted about the terms or rules of peace, whereby they have mutually bound themselves, inasmuch as laws of peace regard not one commonwealth, but the commonwealths which contract taken together (Sec. 18). But if they cannot agree together about the conditions, they by that very fact return to a state of war.

16. The more commonwealths there are, that have contracted a joint treaty of peace, the less each of them by itself is an object of fear to the remainder, or the less it has the authority to make war. But it is so much the more bound to observe the conditions of peace; that is (Sec. 13), the less independent, and the more bound to accommodate itself to the general will of the contracting parties.

17. But the good faith, inculcated by sound reason and religion, is not hereby made void; for neither reason nor Scripture teaches one to keep one’s word in every case. For if I have promised a man, for instance, to keep safe a sum of money he has secretly deposited with me, I am not bound to keep my word, from the time that I know or believe the deposit to have been stolen, but I shall act more rightly in endeavouring to restore it to its owners. So likewise, if the supreme authority has promised another to do something, which subsequently occasion or reason shows or seems to show is contrary to the welfare of its subjects, it is surely bound to break its word. As then Scripture only teaches us to keep our word in general, and leaves to every individual’s judgment the special cases of exception, it teaches nothing repugnant to what we have just proved.

18. But that I may not have so often to break the thread of my discourse, and to resolve hereafter similar objections, I would have it known that all this demonstration of mine proceeds from the necessity of human nature, considered in what light you will — I mean, from the universal effort of all men after self-preservation, an effort inherent in all men, whether learned or unlearned. And therefore, however one considers men are led, whether by passion or by reason, it will be the same thing; for the demonstration, as we have said, is of universal application.

Literally, “oil and trouble “ — a common proverbial expression in Latin.

I. IMPERII CUJUSCUNQUE status dicitur Civilis; imperii autem integrum corpus Civitas appellatur, et communia imperii negotia, quae ab ejus, qui imperium tenet, directione pendent, Respublica. Deinde homines, quatenus ex jure civili omnibus Civitatis commodis gaudent, cives appellamus, et subditos, quatenus civitatis institutis, seu legibus parere tenentur. Denique status Civilis tria dari (6) genera, nempe Democraticum, Aristocraticum et Monarchicum, in Art. 17. Cap. praeced. diximus. Jam antequam de unoquoque seorsim agere incipiam, illa prius demonstrabo, quae ad statum civilem in genere pertinent; quorum ante omnia considerandum venit summum Civitatis, seu summarum potestatum jus.

II. Ex Art. 15. praeced. Cap. patet imperii, seu summarum potestatum Jus nihil esse praeter ipsum naturae Jus, quod potentia, non quidem uniuscujusque, sed multitudinis, quae una veluti mente ducitur, determinatur, hoc est, quod sicuti unusquisque (7) in statu naturali, sic etiam totius imperii corpus, et mens tantum juris habet, quantum potentia valet; atque adeo unusquisque civis, seu subditus tanto minus juris habet, quanto ipsa Civitas ipso potentior est (vid. Art. 16. praeced. Cap.), et consequenter unusquisque civis nihil jure agit, nec habet praeter id, quod communi Civitatis decreto defendere potest.

III. Si Civitas alicui concedat Jus, et consequenter potestatem (nam alias per Art. 12. praeced. Cap. verba tantum dedit) vivendi ex suo ingenio, eo ipso suo jure cedit, et in eum transfert, cui talem potestatem dedit. Si autem duobus, aut pluribus hanc potestatem dedit, ut scilicet unusquisque ex suo ingenio vivat, eo ipso imperium divisit, et si denique unicuique civium hanc eandem potestatem dedit, eo ipso sese destruxit, nec manet amplius Civitas, sed redeunt omnia ad statum naturalem, quae omnia ex praecedentibus manifestissima fiunt; atque adeo sequitur, nulla ratione posse concipi, quod unicuique civi ex Civitatis instituto liceat ex suo ingenio vivere, et consequenter hoc Jus naturale, quod scilicet unusquisque sui judex est, in statu civili necessario cessat. Dico expresse ex Civitatis instituto; nam Jus naturae uniuscujusque (si recte rem perpendamus) in statu civili non cessat. Homo namque tam in statu naturali, quam civili ex legibus suae naturae agit, suaeque utilitati consulit. Homo, inquam, in utroque statu spe, aut metu ducitur ad hoc, aut illud agendum, vel omittendum; sed praecipua inter utrumque statum differentia est, quod in statu civili omnes eadem metuant, et omnibus una, eademque securitatis sit causa, et vivendi ratio; quod sane judicandi facultatem uniuscujusque non tollit. Qui enim omnibus Civitatis mandatis obtemperare constituit, sive ejus potentiam metuit, vel quia tranquillitatem amat, is profecto suae securitati, suaeque utilitati ex suo ingenio consulit.

IV. Praeterea concipere etiam non possumus, quod unicuique civi liceat Civitatis decreta, seu jura interpretari. Nam si hoc unicuique liceret, eo ipso sui judex esset; quandoquidem unusquisque facta sua specie juris nullo negotio excusare, seu adornare posset, et consequenter ex suo ingenio vitam institueret, quod (per Art. praeced.) est absurdum.

V. Videmus itaque, unumquemque civem non sui, sed Civitatis juris esse, cujus omnia mandata tenetur exequi, nec ullum habere jus decernendi, quid aequum, quid iniquum, quid pium, quidve impium sit sed contra, quia imperii corpus una veluti mente duci debet, et consequenter Civitatis voluntas pro omnium voluntate habenda est, id quod Civitas justum, et bonum esse decernit, tanquam ab unoquoque decretum esse, censendum est; atque adeo, quamvis subditus Civitatis decreta iniqua esse censeat, tenetur nihilominus eadem exequi.

VI. At objici potest, an non contra rationis dictamen est, se alterius judicio omnino subjicere, et consequenter, an status civilis rationi non repugnat; ex quo sequeretur statum civilem irrationalem esse, nec posse creari nisi ab hominibus ratione destitutis, at minime ab iis, qui ratione ducuntur. Sed quoniam ratio nihil contra naturam docet, non potest ergo sana ratio dictare, ut unusquisque sui juris maneat, quamdiu homines affectibus sunt obnoxii (per Art. 15. praeced. Cap.), hoc est (per Art. 5. Cap. I.), ratio hoc posse fieri negat. Adde, quod ratio omnino docet pacem quaerere, quae quidem obtineri nequit, nisi communia Civitatis jura inviolata serventur, atque adeo quo homo ratione magis ducitur, hoc est (per Art. 11. praeced. Cap.), quo magis liber est, eo constantius Civitatis jura servabit, et summae potestatis, cujus subditus est, mandata exequetur. Ad quod accedit, quod status civilis naturaliter instituitur ad metum communem adimendum, et communes miserias propellendum, ac proinde id maxime intendit, quod unusquisque, qui ratione ducitur, in statu naturali conaretur, sed frustra (per Art. 15. praeced. Cap.): quapropter si homini, qui ratione ducitur, id aliquando ex civitatis mandato faciendum est, quod rationi repugnare novit, id damnum longe compensatur bono, quod ex ipso statu civili haurit: nam rationis etiam lex est, ut ex duobus malis minus eligatur, ac proinde concludere possumus, neminem quicquam contra suae rationis praescriptum agere, quatenus id agit, quod jure Civitatis faciendum est: quod nobis facilius unusquisque concedet, postquam explicuerimus, quo usque Civitatis potentia, et consequenter Jus se extendit.

VII. Nam considerandum primum venit, quod sicuti in statu naturali (per Art. II. praeced. Cap.) ille homo maxime potens, maximeque sui juris est, qui ratione ducitur, sic etiam illa Civitas maxime erit potens, et maxime sui juris, quae ratione fundatur, et dirigitur. Nam Civitatis Jus potentia multitudinis, quae una veluti mente ducitur, determinatur. At haec (8) animorum unio concipi nulla ratione posset, nisi Civitas id ipsum maxime intendat, quod sana ratio omnibus hominibus utile esse docet.

VIII. Secundo venit etiam considerandum, quod subditi eatenus non sui, sed Civitatis juris sint, quatenus ejus potentiam, seu minas metuunt, vel quatenus statum civilem amant (per Art. 10. praeced. Cap.). Ex quo sequitur, quod ea omnia, ad quae agenda nemo praemiis, aut minis induci potest, ad jura Civitatis non pertineant. Ex. gr. judicandi facultate nemo cedere potest: quibus enim praemiis, aut minis induci potest homo, ut credat, totum non esse sua parte majus, aut quod Deus non existat, aut quod corpus, quod videt finitum, Ens infinitum esse credat, et absolute ut aliquid contra id, quod sentit, vel cogitat, credat? Sic etiam quibus praemiis, aut minis induci potest homo, ut amet, quem odit, vel ut odio habeat, quem amat? Atque huc etiam illa referenda sunt, a quibus humana natura ita abhorret, ut ipsa omni malo pejora habeat, ut quod homo testem contra se agat, ut se cruciet, ut parentes interficiat suos, ut mortem vitare non conetur, et similia, ad quae nemo praemiis, nec minis induci potest. Quod si tamen dicere velimus, Civitatem jus, sive potestatem habere talia imperandi, id nullo alio sensu poterimus concipere, nisi quo quis diceret, hominem jure posse insanire, et delirare: quid enim aliud nisi delirium jus illud esset, cui nemo adstrictus esse potest? Atque hic de iis expresse loquor, quae Juris Civitatis esse nequeunt, et a quibus natura humana plerumque abhorret. Nam quod stultus, aut vesanus nullis praemiis, neque minis induci possit ad exequenda mandata, et quod unus, aut alter ex eo, quod huic, aut illi Religioni addictus sit, imperii jura omni malo pejora judicat, jura tamen Civitatis irrita non sunt, quandoquidem iisdem plerique cives continentur, ac proinde, quia ii, qui nihil timent, neque sperant, eatenus sui juris sunt (per Art. 10. praeced. Cap.), sunt ergo (per Art. 14. praeced. Cap.) imperii hostes, quos jure cohibere licet.

IX. Tertio denique considerandum venit, ad Civitatis Jus ea minus pertinere, quae plurimi indignantur. Nam certum est, homines naturae ductu in unum conspirare, vel propter communem metum, vel desiderio damnum aliquod commune ulciscendi; et, quia Jus Civitatis communi multitudinis potentia definitur, certum est, potentiam Civitatis, et Jus eatenus minui, quatenus ipsa causas praebet, ut plures in unum conspirent. Habet certe Civitas quaedam sibi metuenda, et sicut unusquisque civis, sive homo in statu naturali, sic Civitas eo minus sui juris est, quo majorem timendi causam habet. Atque haec de Jure summarum potestatum in subditos; jam antequam de earundem in alios jure, agam, solvenda videtur quaestio, quae de Religione moveri solet.

X. Nam objici nobis potest, an Status civilis, et subditorum obedientia, qualem (9) in statu civili requiri ostendimus, non tollat Religionem, qua Deum colere tenemur. Sed si rem ipsam perpendamus, nihil reperiemus, quod possit scrupulum injicere. Mens enim, quatenus ratione utitur, non summarum potestatum, sed sui juris est (per Art. 11. Cap. praeced.). Atque adeo vera Dei cognitio, et amor nullius imperio subjici potest, ut nec erga proximum charitas (per Art. 8. hujus Cap.); et si praeterea consideremus summum charitatis exercitium esse illud, quod ad pacem tuendam, et concordiam conciliandam fit, non dubitabimus, illum revera suo officio functum esse, qui unicuique tantum auxilii fert, quantum jura Civitatis, hoc est, concordia, et tranquillitas concedunt. Ad externos cultus quod attinet, certum est, illos ad veram Dei cognitionem, et amorem, qui ex ea necessario sequitur, nihil prorsus juvare, nec nocere posse; atque adeo non tanti faciendi sunt, ut propter ipsos pax, et tranquillitas publica perturbari mereatur (10). Caeterum certum est, me Jure naturae, hoc est (per Art. 3. praec. Cap.), ex divino decreto, non esse religionis vindicem; nam nulla mihi est, ut olim Christi Discipulis potestas fuit, ejiciendi spiritus immundos et faciendi miracula, quae sane potestas adeo necessaria est ad propagandam Religionem in locis, ubi interdicta est, ut sine ipsa non tantum oleum, et opera, ut ajunt, perdatur, sed plurimae insuper creentur molestiae, cujus rei funestissima exempla omnia viderunt saecula. Unusquisque igitur, ubicunque sit, Deum potest vera Religione colere, sibique prospicere, quod viri privati officium est. Caeterum cura Religionis propagandae Deo, vel summis potestatibus, quibus solis incumbit Reipublicae habere curam, committenda est. Sed ad propositum revertor.

XI. Jure summarum potestatum in cives, et subditorum officio explicato, superest, ut earum Jus in reliqua consideremus, quod jam ex dictis facile cognoscitur. Nam, quandoquidem (per Art. 2. hujus Cap.) Jus summae potestatis nihil est praeter ipsum naturae Jus, sequitur duo imperia ad invicem sese habere, ut duo homines in statu naturali, excepto hoc, quod Civitas sibi cavere potest, ne ab alia opprimatur, quod homo in statu naturali non potest, nimirum qui quotidie somno, saepe morbo, aut animi aegritudine et tandem senectute gravatur, et praeter haec aliis incommodis est obnoxius, a quibus Civitas securam se reddere potest.

XII. Civitas igitur eatenus sui juris est, quatenus sibi consulere, et cavere potest, ne ab alia opprimatur (per Art. 9. et 15. praec. Cap.), et (per Art. 10. et 15.praec. Cap.) eatenus alterius juris, quatenus alterius Civitatis potentiam timet, vel quatenus ab ea impeditur, quo minus id, quod vult, exequatur, vel denique quatenus ipsius auxilio ad sui conservationem, vel incrementum indiget; nam dubitare nequaquam possumus, quin, si duae Civitates invicem mutuum auxilium praestare volunt, ambae simul plus possint, et consequenter plus juris simul habeant, quam alterutra sola. Vid.Art. 13. Cap. praec.

XIII. Haec autem clarius intelligi possunt, si consideremus, quod duae Civitates natura hostes sunt: homines enim (per Art. 14. praec. Cap.) in statu naturali hostes sunt; qui igitur Jus naturae extra Civitatem retinent, hostes manent. Si itaque altera Civitas alteri bellum inferre, et extrema adhibere media velit, quo eam sui juris faciat, id ei jure tentare licet, quandoquidem, ut bellum geratur, ei sufficit ejus rei habere voluntatem. At de pace nihil statuere potest, nisi connivente alterius Civitatis voluntate. Ex quo sequitur Jura belli uniuscujusque Civitatis esse; pacis autem non unius, sed duarum ad minimum Civitatum esse Jura, quae propterea confoederatae dicuntur.

XIV. Hoc foedus tamdiu fixum manet, quamdiu causa foederis pangendi, nempe metus damni, seu lucri spes in medio est; hac autem, aut illo Civitatum alterutri adempto, manet ipsa sui juris (per Art. 10. praec. Cap.), et vinculum, quo Civitates invicem adstrictae erant, sponte solvitur, ac proinde unicuique Civitati jus integrum est solvendi foedus, quandocunque vult, nec dici potest, quod dolo, vel perfidia agat, propterea quod fidem solvit, simulatque metus, vel spei causa sublata est, quia haec conditio unicuique contrahentium aequalis fuit, ut scilicet quae prima extra metum esse posset, sui juris esset, eoque ex sui animi sententia uteretur, et praeterea quia nemo in futurum contrahit, nisi positis praecedentibus circumstantiis: his autem mutatis totius status etiam mutatur ratio, et hac de causa unaquaeque confoederatarum Civitatum jus retinet sibi consulendi, et unaquaeque propterea, quantum potest, conatur extra metum, et consequenter sui juris esse, et impedire, quo minus altera potentior evadat. Si quae ergo Civitas, se deceptam esse, queritur, ea sane non confoederatae Civitatis fidem, sed suam tantummodo stultitiam damnare potest, quod scilicet salutem suam alteri, qui sui juris, et cui sui imperii salus summa lex est, crediderit.

XV. Civitatibus, quae una pacem contraxerunt, jus competit dirimendi quaestiones, quae moveri possunt de pacis conditionibus, seu legibus, quibus sibi invicem fidem adstrinxerunt, quandoquidem pacis jura non unius Civitatis, sed contrahentium simul sunt (per Art. 13. hujus Cap.); quod si de iis convenire inter ipsas non potest., eo ipso ad belli statum redeunt.

XVI. Quo plures Civitates simul pacem contrahunt, eo unaquaeque reliquis minus timenda, sive unicuique minor est potestas bellum inferendi, sed eo magis pacis tenetur conditiones servare, hoc est (per Art. 13. hujus Cap.), eo minus sui juris est, sed eo magis communi foederatorum voluntati sese accommodare tenetur.

XVII. Caeterum fides, quam sana ratio, et Religio servandam docet, hic minime tollitur: nam nec ratio, nec Scriptura omnem datam fidem servare docet. Cui enim pollicitus sum, argentum ex. gr., quod mihi secreto servandum dedit, custodire, fidem praestare non teneor, simulac noverim, aut scire crediderim, furtum esse, quod mihi servandum dedit sed rectius agam, si dem operam, ut suis restituatur. Sic etiam, si summa potestas aliquid alteri se facturam promisit, quod postea tempus, seu ratio docuit, aut docere videbatur communi subditorum saluti obesse, fidem sane solvere tenetur. Cum itaque Scriptura non nisi in genere doceat fidem servare, et casus singulares, qui excipiendi sunt, uniuscujusque judicio relinquat, nihil ergo docet, quod iis, quae modo ostendimus, repugnat.

XVIII. Sed ne toties opus sit sermonis filum interrumpere, et similes posthac objectiones solvere, monere volo, me haec omnia ex naturae humanae quomodocunque consideratae necessitate demonstrasse, nempe ex universali omnium hominum conatu sese conservandi, qui conatus omnibus hominibus inest, sive ignari, sivi sapientes sint, ac proinde quomodocunque homines, sive affectu, sive ratione duci considerentur, res eadem erit, quia demonstratio, ut diximus, universalis est.

Of the Functions of Supreme Authorities.

THAT THE RIGHT of the supreme authorities is limited by their power, we showed in the last chapter, and saw that the most important part of that right is, that they are, as it were, the mind of the dominion, whereby all ought to be guided; and accordingly, that such authorities alone have the right of deciding what is good, evil, equitable, or iniquitous, that is, what must be done or left undone by the subjects severally or collectively. And, accordingly, we saw that they have the sole right of laying down laws, and of interpreting the same, whenever their meaning is disputed, and of deciding whether a given case is in conformity with or violation of the law (Chap. III. Secs. 3-5); and, lastly, of waging war, and of drawing up and offering propositions for peace, or of accepting such when offered (Chap. III. Secs. 12, 13).

2. As all these functions, and also the means required to execute them, are matters which regard the whole body of the dominion, that is, are affairs of state, it follows, that affairs of state depend on the direction of him only, who holds supreme dominion. And hence it follows, that it is the right of the supreme authority alone to judge the deeds of every individual, and demand of him an account of the same; to punish criminals, and decide questions of law between citizens, or appoint jurists acquainted with the existing laws, to administer these matters on its behalf; and, further, to use and order all means to war and peace, as to found and fortify cities, levy soldiers, assign military posts, and order what it would have done, and, with a view to peace, to send and give audience to ambassadors; and, finally, to levy the costs of all this.

3. Since, then, it is the right of the supreme authority alone to handle public matters, or choose officials to do so, it follows, that that subject is a pretender to the dominion, who, without the supreme council’s knowledge, enters upon any public matter, although he believe that his design will be to the best interest of the commonwealth.

4. But it is often asked, whether the supreme authority is bound by laws, and, consequently, whether it can do wrong. Now as the words “law” and “wrong-doing” often refer not merely to the laws of a commonwealth, but also to the general rules which concern all natural things, and especially to the general rules of reason, we cannot, without qualification, say that the commonwealth is bound by no laws, or can do no wrong. For were the commonwealth bound by no laws or rules, which removed, the commonwealth were no commonwealth, we should have to regard it not as a natural thing, but as a chimera. A commonwealth then does wrong, when it does, or suffers to be done, things which may be the cause of its own ruin; and we can say that it then does wrong, in the sense in which philosophers or doctors say that nature does wrong; and in this sense we can say, that a commonwealth does wrong, when it acts against the dictate of reason. For a commonwealth is most independent when it acts according to the dictate of reason (Chap. III. Sec. 7); so far, then, as it acts against reason, it fails itself, or does wrong. And we shall be able more easily to understand this if we reflect, that when we say, that a man can do what he will with his own, this authority must be limited not only by the power of the agent, but by the capacity of the object. If, for instance, I say that I can rightfully do what I will with this table, I do not certainly mean, that I have the right to make it eat grass. So, too, though we say, that men depend not on themselves, but on the commonwealth, we do not mean, that men lose their human nature and put on another; nor yet that the commonwealth has the right to make men wish for this or that, or (what is just as impossible) regard with honour things which excite ridicule or disgust. But it is implied, that there are certain intervening circumstances, which supposed, one likewise supposes the reverence and fear of the subjects towards the commonwealth, and which abstracted, one makes abstraction likewise of that fear and reverence, and therewith of the commonwealth itself. The commonwealth, then, to maintain its independence, is bound to preserve the causes of fear and reverence, otherwise it ceases to be a commonwealth. For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage-player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves, than they can combine existence with non-existence. But to proceed to slay and rob subjects, ravish maidens, and the like, turns fear into indignation and the civil state into a state of enmity.

5. We see, then, in what sense we may say, that a commonwealth is bound by laws and can do wrong. But if by “law” we understand civil law, and by “wrong” that which, by civil law, is forbidden to be done, that is, if these words be taken in their proper sense, we cannot at all say, that a commonwealth is bound by laws, or can do wrong. For the maxims and motives of fear and reverence, which a commonwealth is bound to observe in its own interest, pertain not to civil jurisprudence, but to the law of nature, since (Sec. 4) they cannot be vindicated by the civil law, but by the law of war. And a commonwealth is bound by them in no other sense than that in which in the state of nature a man is bound to take heed, that he preserve his independence and be not his own enemy, lest he should destroy himself; and in this taking heed lies not the subjection, but the liberty of human nature. But civil jurisprudence depends on the mere decree of the commonwealth, which is not bound to please any but itself, nor to hold anything to be good or bad, but what it judges to be such for itself. And, accordingly, it has not merely the right to avenge itself, or to lay down and interpret laws, but also to abolish the same, and to pardon any guilty person out of the fullness of its power.

6. Contracts or laws, whereby the multitude transfers its right to one council or man, should without doubt be broken, when it is expedient for the general welfare to do so. But to decide this point, whether, that is, it be expedient for the general welfare to break them or not, is within the right of no private person, but of him only who holds dominion (Sec. 3); therefore of these laws he who holds dominion remains sole interpreter. Moreover, no private person can by right vindicate these laws, and so they do not really bind him who holds dominion. Notwithstanding, if they are of such a nature that they cannot be broken, without at the same time weakening the commonwealth’s strength, that is, without at the same time changing to indignation the common fear of most of the citizens, by this very fact the commonwealth is dissolved, and the contract comes to an end; and therefore such contract is vindicated not by the civil law, but by the law of war. And so he who holds dominion is not bound to observe the terms of the contract by any other cause than that, which bids a man in the state of nature to beware of being his own enemy, lest he should destroy himself, as we said in the last section.

I. JUS SUMMARUM potestatum, quod earum potentia determinatur, in praec. Cap. ostendimus, idque in hoc potissimum consistere vidimus, nempe quod imperii veluti mens sit, qua omnes duci debent; adeoque solas jus habere decernendi, quid bonum quid malum, quid aequum, quid iniquum, hoc est, quid singulis vel omnibus simul agendum, vel omittendum sit, ac proinde vidimus iis solis jus competere leges condendi, easque, quando de iis quaestio est, in quocunque singulari casu interpretandi, et decernendi, an datus casus contra, vel secundum jus factus sit (vide Art. 3, 4, 5. praec. Cap.), deinde bellum inferendi, vel pacis conditiones statuendi, et offerendi, vel oblatas acceptandi. Vide Art. 12. et 13. praec. Cap.

II. Cum haec omnia, ac etiam media, quae ad eadem exequenda requiruntur, omnia negotia sint, quae ad integrum imperii corpus, hoc est, quae ad Rempublicam spectant, hinc sequitur, Rempublicam ab ejus solummodo directione pendere, qui summum habet imperium ac proinde sequitur solius summae potestatis Jus esse de factis uniuscujusque judicandi, de factis cujuscunque rationem exigendi, delinquentes poena mulctandi, et quaestiones inter cives de jure dirimendi, vel legum latarum peritos statuendi, qui haec ejus loco administrent. Deinde omnia ad bellum, et pacem media adhibendi, et ordinandi, nempe urbes condendi, et muniendi, milites conducendi (11), officia militaria distribuendi, et, quid factum velit, imperandi, et pacis causa legatos mittendi, et audiendi, et denique sumptus ad haec omnia exigendi.

III. Quoniam itaque solius summae potestatis Jus sit negotia publica tractandi, vel ministros ad eadem eligendi, sequitur, subditum imperium affectare, qui suo solo arbitrio, supremo Concilio inscio, negotium aliquod publicum aggressus est, tametsi id, quod intenderat agere, Civitati optimum fore crediderit.

IV. Sed quaeri solet, an summa potestas legibus adstricta sit, et consequenter an peccare possit? Verum quoniam legis, et peccati nomina non tantum Civitatis Jura, sed etiam omnium rerum naturalium, et apprime rationis communes regulas respicere solent, non possumus absolute dicere, Civitatem nullis adstrictam esse legibus, seu peccare non posse. Nam si Civitas nullis legibus, seu regulis, sine quibus Civitas non esset Civitas, adstricta esset, tum Civitas non ut res naturalis, sed ut chimaera esset contemplanda. Peccat ergo Civitas, quando ea agit, vel fieri patitur, quae causa esse possunt ipsius ruinae, atque tum eandem eo sensu peccare dicimus, quo Philosophi, vel Medici naturam peccare dicunt, et hoc sensu dicere possumus, Civitatem peccare, quando contra rationis dictamen aliquid agit. Est enim Civitas tum maxime sui juris, quando ex dictamine rationis agit (per Art. 7. praeced. Cap.); quatenus igitur contra rationem agit, eatenus sibi deficit, seu peccat. Atque haec clarius intelligi poterunt, si consideremus, quod, cum dicimus unumquemque posse de re, quae sui juris est, statuere, quicquid velit, haec potestas non sola agentis potentia, sed etiam ipsius patientis aptitudine definiri debet. Si enim ex. gr. dico, me jure posse de hac mensa, quicquid velim, facere, non hercle intelligo, quod jus habeam efficiendi, ut haec mensa herbam comedat sic etiam, tametsi dicimus homines non sui, sed Civitati juris esse, non intelligimus, quod homines naturam humanam amittant, et aliam induant; atque adeo quod Civitas jus habeat efficiendi, ut homines volent, vel quod aeque impossibile est, ut homines cum honore adspiciant ea, quae risum movent, vel nauseam; sed quod quaedam circumstantiae occurrant, quibus positis ponitur subditorum erga Civitatem reverentia, et metus, et quibus sublatis metus, et reverentia, et cum his Civitas una tollitur. Civitas itaque, ut sui juris sit, metus, et reverentiae causas servare tenetur, alias Civitas esse desinit. Nam iis, vel ei, qui imperium tenet, aeque impossibile est, ebrium, aut nudum cum scortis per plateas currere, histrionem agere, leges ab ipso latas aperte violare, seu contemnere, et cum his majestatem servare, ac impossibile est, simul esse, et non esse; subditos deinde trucidare, spoliare, virgines rapere, et similia, metum in indignationem, et consequenter statum civilem in statum hostilitatis vertunt.

V. Videmus itaque, quo sensu dicere possumus, Civitatem legibus teneri, et peccare posse. Verum si per legem intelligamus Jus civile, quod ipso Jure civili vindicari potest, et peccatum id, quod Jure civili fieri prohibetur, hoc est, si haec nomina genuino sensu sumantur, nulla ratione dicere possumus, Civitatem legibus adstrictam esse, aut posse peccare. Nam regulae, et causae metus, et reverentiae, quas Civitas sui causa servare tenetur, non ad Jura civilia, sed ad Jus naturale spectant, quandoquidem (per Art. praeced.) non Jure civili, sed Jure belli vindicari possunt, et Civitas nulla alia ratione iisdem tenetur, quam homo in statu naturali, ut sui juris esse possit, sive ne sibi hostis sit, cavere tenetur, ne se ipsum interficiat, quae sane cautio non obsequium, sed humanae naturae libertas est: at Jura civilia pendent a solo Civitatis decreto, atque (12) haec nemini, nisi sibi, ut scilicet libera maneat, morem gerere tenetur, nec aliud bonum, aut malum habere, nisi quod ipsa sibi bonum, aut malum esse decernit ac proinde non tantum jus habet sese vindicandi, leges condendi, et interpretandi, sed etiam easdem abrogandi, et reo cuicunque (13) ex plenitudine potentiae condonandi.

VI. Contractus, seu leges, quibus multitudo jus suum in unum Concilium, vel hominem transferunt, non dubium est, quin violari debeant, quando communis salutis interest easdem violare. At judicium de hac re, an scilicet communis salutis intersit, easdem violare, an secus, nemo privatus; sed is tantum, qui imperium tenet, jure ferre potest (per Art. 3. hujus Cap.); ergo Jure civili is solus, qui imperium tenet, earum legum interpres manet. Ad quod accedit, quod nullus privatus easdem jure vindicare possit, atque adeo eum, qui imperium tenet, revera non obligant. Quod si tamen ejus naturae sint, ut violari nequeant, nisi simul Civitatis robur debilitetur, hoc est, nisi simul plerorumque civium communis metus in indignationem vertatur, eo ipso Civitas dissolvitur, et contractus cessat, qui propterea non Jure civili, sed Jure belli vindicatur. Atque adeo is, qui imperium tenet, nulla etiam alia de causa hujus contractus conditiones servare tenetur, quam homo in statu naturali, ne sibi hostis sit, tenetur cavere, ne se ipsum interficiat, ut in praeced. Art. diximus.

Of the Best State of a Dominion.

IN CHAP. II. Sec. 2, we showed, that man is then most independent, when he is most led by reason, and, in consequence (Chap. III. Sec. 7), that that commonwealth is most powerful and most independent, which is founded and guided by reason. But, as the best plan of living, so as to assure to the utmost self-preservation, is that which is framed according to the dictate of reason, therefore it follows, that that in every kind is best done, which a man or commonwealth does, so far as he or it is in the highest degree independent. For it is one thing to till a field by right, and another to till it in the best way. One thing, I say, to defend or preserve one’s self, and to pass judgment by right, and another to defend or preserve one’s self in the best way, and to pass the best judgment; and, consequently, it is one thing to have dominion and care of affairs of state by right, and another to exercise dominion and direct affairs of state in the best way. And so, as we have treated of the right of every commonwealth in general, it is time to treat of the best state of every dominion.

2. Now the quality of the state of any dominion is easily perceived from the end of the civil state, which end is nothing else but peace and security of life. And therefore that dominion is the best, where men pass their lives in unity, and the laws are kept unbroken. For it is certain, that seditions, wars, and contempt or breach of the laws are not so much to be imputed to the wickedness of the subjects, as to the bad state of a dominion. For men are not born fit for citizenship, but must be made so. Besides, men’s natural passions are everywhere the same; and if wickedness more prevails, and more offences are committed in one commonwealth than in another, it is certain that the former has not enough pursued the end of unity, nor framed its laws with sufficient forethought; and that, therefore, it has failed in making quite good its right as a commonwealth. For a civil state, which has not done away with the causes of seditions, where war is a perpetual object of fear, and where, lastly, the laws are often broken, differs but little from the mere state of nature, in which everyone lives after his own mind at the great risk of his life.

3. But as the vices and inordinate licence and contumacy of subjects must be imputed to the commonwealth, so, on the other hand, their virtue and constant obedience to the laws are to be ascribed in the main to the virtue and perfect right of the commonwealth, as is clear from Chap. II. Sec. 15. And so it is deservedly reckoned to Hannibal as an extraordinary virtue, that in his army there never arose a sedition.

4. Of a commonwealth, whose subjects are but hindered by terror from taking arms, it should rather be said, that it is free from war, than that it has peace. For peace is not mere absence of war, but is a virtue that springs from force of character: for obedience (Chap. II. Sec. 19) is the constant will to execute what, by the general decree of the commonwealth, ought to be done. Besides that commonwealth, whose peace depends on the sluggishness of its subjects, that are led about like sheep, to learn but slavery, may more properly be called a desert than a commonwealth.

5. When, then, we call that dominion best, where men pass their lives in unity, I understand a human life, defined not by mere circulation of the blood, and other qualities common to all animals, but above all by reason, the true excellence and life of the mind.

6. But be it remarked that, by the dominion which I have said is established for this end, I intend that which has been established by a free multitude, not that which is acquired over a multitude by right of war. For a free multitude is guided more by hope than fear; a conquered one, more by fear than hope: inasmuch as the former aims at making use of life, the latter but at escaping death. The former, I say, aims at living for its own ends, the latter is forced to belong to the conqueror; and so we say that this is enslaved, but that free. And, therefore, the end of a dominion, which one gets by right of war, is to be master, and have rather slaves than subjects. And although between the dominion created by a free multitude, and that gained by right of war, if we regard generally the right of each, we can make no essential distinction; yet their ends, as we have already shown, and further the means to the preservation of each are very different.

7. But what means a prince, whose sole motive is lust of mastery, should use to establish and maintain his dominion, the most ingenious Machiavelli has set forth at large, but with what design one can hardly be sure. If, however, he had some good design, as one should believe of a learned man, it seems to have been to show, with how little foresight many attempt to remove a tyrant, though thereby the causes which make the prince a tyrant can in no wise be removed, but, on the contrary, are so much the more established, as the prince is given more cause to fear, which happens when the multitude has made an example of its prince, and glories in the parricide as in a thing well done. Moreover, he perhaps wished to show how cautious a free multitude should be of entrusting its welfare absolutely to one man, who, unless in his vanity he thinks he can please everybody, must be in daily fear of plots, and so is forced to look chiefly after his own interest, and, as for the multitude, rather to plot against it than consult its good. And I am the more led to this opinion concerning that most far-seeing man, because it is known that he was favourable to liberty, for the maintenance of which he has besides given the most wholesome advice.

Justin, Histories, xxxii. iv. 12.

In his book called “Il Principe,” or “The Prince.”

I. IN ART. II. Ca. ostendimus hominem tum maxime sui juris esse, quando maxime ratione ducitur, et consequenter (vid. Art. 7. Ca.) Civitatem illam maxime potentem, maximeque sui juris esse, quae ratione fundatur, et dirigitur. Cum autem optima vivendi ratio ad sese, quantum fieri potest, conservandum ea sit, quae ex praescripto rationis instituitur; sequitur ergo id omne optimum esse, quod homo, vel Civitas agit, quatenus maxime sui juris est. Nam non id omne, quod jure fieri dicimus, optime fieri affirmamus: aliud namque est agrum jure colere, aliud agrum optime colere; aliud, inquam, est sese jure defendere, conservare, judicium ferre, etc. aliud sese optime defendere, conservare, atque optimum judicium ferre; et consequenter aliud est jure imperare, et Reipublicae curam habere, aliud optime imperare, et Rempublicam optime gubernare. Postquam itaque de jure cujuscunque Civitatis in genere egimus, tempus est, ut de optimo cujuscunque imperii statu agamus.

II. Qualis autem cujuscunque imperii optimus (14) sit status, facile ex fine status civilis cognoscitur: qui scilicet nullus alius est, quam pax, vitaeque securitas. Ac proinde illud imperium optimum est, ubi homines concorditer vitam transigunt, et cujus jura inviolata servantur. Nam certum est, quod seditiones, bella, legumque contemptio, sive violatio non tam subditorum malitiae, quam pravo imperii statui imputanda sunt. Homines enim civiles non nascuntur, sed fiunt. Hominum praeterea naturales affectus ubique iidem sunt; si itaque in una Civitate malitia magis regnat, pluraque peccata committuntur, quam in alia, certum est, id ex eo oriri, quod talis Civitas non satis concordiae providerit, nec jura satis prudenter instituerit, et consequenter neque Jus Civitatis absolutum obtinuerit. Status enim civilis, qui seditionum causas non abstulit, et ubi bellum continuo timendum, et ubi denique leges frequenter violantur, non multum ab ipso naturali statu differt, ubi unusquisque ex suo ingenio magno vitae periculo vivit.

III. At sicut subditorum vitia, nimiaque licentia, et contumacia Civitati imputanda sunt, ita contra eorum virtus, et constans legum observantia maxime Civitatis virtuti, et juri absoluto tribuenda est, ut patet ex Art. 15. Ca. Unde Hannibali merito eximiae virtuti ducitur, quod in ipsius exercitu nulla unquam seditio orta fuerit.

IV. Civitas, cujus subditi, metu territi, arma non capiunt, potius dicenda est, quod sine bello sit, quam quod pacem habeat. Pax enim non belli privatio, sed virtus est, quae ex animi fortitudine oritur: est namque obsequium (per Art. 19. Ca.) constans voluntas id exequendi, quod ex communi Civitatis decreto fieri debet. Illa praeterea Civitas, cujus pax a subditorum inertia pendet, qui scilicet veluti pecora ducuntur, ut tantum servire discant, rectius solitudo, quam Civitas dici potest.

V. Cum ergo dicimus, illud imperium optimum esse, ubi homines concorditer vitam transigunt, vitam humanam intelligo, quae non sola sanguinis circulatione, et aliis, quae omnibus animalibus sunt communia, sed quae maxime ratione, vera Mentis virtute, et vita definitur.

VI. Sed notandum, imperium, quod in hunc finem institui dixi, a me intelligi id, quod multitudo libera instituit, non autem id, quod in multitudinem jure belli acquiritur. Libera enim multitudo majori spe, quam metu, subacta autem majori metu, quam spe ducitur: quippe illa vitam colere, haec autem mortem tantummodo vitare studet; illa inquam, sibi vivere studet, haec victoris esse cogitur, unde hanc servire, illam liberam esse dicimus. Finis itaque imperii, quod aliquis Jure belli adipiscitur, est dominari, et servos potius, quam subditos habere. Et quamvis inter imperium, quod a libera multitudine creatur, et illud, quod jure belli acquiritur, si ad utriusque jus in genere attendamus, nulla essentialis detur differentia, finem tamen, ut jam ostendimus, et praeterea media, quibus unumquodque conservari debeat, admodum diversa habent.

VII. Quibus autem mediis Princeps, qui sola dominandi libidine fertur, uti debet, ut imperium stabilire, et conservare possit, acutissimus Machiavellus prolixe ostendit; quem autem in finem, non satis constare videtur. Si quem tamen bonum habuit, ut de viro sapiente credendum est, fuisse videtur, ut ostenderet, quam imprudenter multi Tyrannum e medio tollere conantur, cum tamen causae, cur princeps sit Tyrannus, tolli nequeant, sed contra eo magis ponantur, quo principi major timendi causa praebetur: quod fit, quando multitudo exempla in principem edidit, et parricidio, quasi re bene gesta, gloriatur. Praeterea ostendere forsan voluit, quantum libera multitudo cavere debet, ne salutem suam uni absolute credat, qui, nisi vanus sit, et omnibus se posse placere existimet, quotidie insidias timere debet; atque adeo sibi potius cavere, et multitudini contra insidiari magis, quam consulere cogitur; et ad hoc de prudentissimo isto viro credendum magis adducor, quia pro libertate fuisse constat, ad quam etiam tuendam saluberrima consilia dedit.

Of Monarchy.

INASMUCH AS MEN are led, as we have said, more by passion than reason, it follows, that a multitude comes together, and wishes to be guided, as it were, by one mind, not at the suggestion of reason, but of some common passion — that is (Chap. III. Sec. 9), common hope, or fear, or the desire of avenging some common hurt. But since fear of solitude exists in all men, because no one in solitude is strong enough to defend himself, and procure the necessaries of life, it follows that men naturally aspire to the civil state; nor can it happen that men should ever utterly dissolve it.

2. Accordingly, from the quarrels and seditions which are often stirred up in a commonwealth, it never results that the citizens dissolve it, as often happens in the case of other associations; but only that they change its form into some other — that is, of course, if the disputes cannot be settled, and the features of the commonwealth at the same time preserved. Wherefore, by means necessary to preserve a dominion, I intend such things as are necessary to preserve the existing form of the dominion, without any notable change.

3. But if human nature were so constituted, that men most desired what is most useful, no art would be needed to produce unity and confidence. But, as it is admittedly far otherwise with human nature, a dominion must of necessity be so ordered, that all, governing and governed alike, whether they will or no, shall do what makes for the general welfare; that is, that all, whether of their own impulse, or by force or necessity, shall be compelled to live according to the dictate of reason. And this is the case, if the affairs of the dominion be so managed, that nothing which affects the general welfare is entirely entrusted to the good faith of any one. For no man is so watchful, that he never falls asleep; and no man ever had a character so vigorous and honest, but he sometimes, and that just when strength of character was most wanted, was diverted from his purpose and let himself be overcome. And it is surely folly to require of another what one can never obtain from one’s self; I mean, that he should be more watchful for another’s interest than his own, that he should be free from avarice, envy, and ambition, and so on; especially when he is one, who is subject daily to the strongest temptations of every passion.

4. But, on the other hand, experience is thought to teach, that it makes for peace and concord, to confer the whole authority upon one man. For no dominion has stood so long without any notable change, as that of the Turks, and on the other hand there were none so little lasting, as those, which were popular or democratic, nor any in which so many seditions arose. Yet if slavery, barbarism, and desolation are to be called peace, men can have no worse misfortune. No doubt there are usually more and sharper quarrels between parents and children, than between masters and slaves; yet it advances not the art of housekeeping, to change a father’s right into a right of property, and count children but as slaves. Slavery then, not peace, is furthered by handing over to one man the whole authority. For peace, as we said before, consists not in mere absence of war, but in a union or agreement of minds.

5. And in fact they are much mistaken, who suppose that one man can by himself hold the supreme right of a commonwealth. For the only limit of right, as we showed (Chap. II.), is power. But the power of one man is very inadequate to support so great a load. And hence it arises, that the man, whom the multitude has chosen king, looks out for himself generals, or counsellors, or friends, to whom he entrusts his own and the common welfare; so that the dominion, which is thought to be a perfect monarchy, is in actual working an aristocracy, not, indeed, an open but a hidden one, and therefore the worst of all. Besides which, a king, who is a boy, or ill, or overcome by age, is but king on sufferance; and those in this case have the supreme authority, who administer the highest business of the dominion, or are near the king’s person; not to mention, that a lascivious king often manages everything at the caprice of this or that mistress or minion. “I had heard,” says Orsines, “that women once reigned in Asia, but for a eunuch to reign is something new.”

6. It is also certain, that a commonwealth is always in greater danger from its citizens than from its enemies; for the good are few. Whence it follows, that he, upon whom the whole right of the dominion has been conferred, will always be more afraid of citizens than of enemies, and therefore will look to his own safety, and not try to consult his subjects’ interests, but to plot against them, especially against those who are renowned for learning, or have influence through wealth.

7. It must besides be added, that kings fear their sons also more than they love them, and so much the more as the latter are skilled in the arts of war and peace, and endeared to the subjects by their virtues. Whence it comes, that kings try so to educate their sons, that they may have no reason to fear them. Wherein ministers very readily obey the king, and will be at the utmost pains, that the successor may be an inexperienced king, whom they can hold tightly in hand.

8. From all which it follows, that the more absolutely the commonwealth’s right is transferred to the king, the less independent he is, and the more unhappy is the condition of his subjects. And so, that a monarchical dominion may be duly established, it is necessary to lay solid foundations, to build it on; from which may result to the monarch safety, and to the multitude peace; and, therefore, to lay them in such a way, that the monarch may then be most independent, when he most consults the multitude’s welfare. But I will first briefly state, what these foundations of a monarchical dominion are, and afterwards prove them in order.

9. One or more cities must be founded and fortified, whose citizens, whether they live within the walls, or outside for purposes of agriculture, are all to enjoy the same right in the commonwealth; yet on this condition, that every city provide an ascertained number of citizens for its own and the general defence. But a city, which cannot supply this, must be held in subjection on other terms.

10. The militia must be formed out of citizens alone, none being exempt, and of no others. And, therefore, all are to be bound to have arms, and no one to be admitted into the number of the citizens, till he has learnt his drill, and promised to practise it at stated times in the year. Next, the militia of each clan is to be divided into battalions and regiments, and no captain of a battalion chosen, that is not acquainted with military engineering. Moreover, though the commanders of battalions and regiments are to be chosen for life, yet the commander of the militia of a whole clan is to be chosen only in time of war, to hold command for a year at most, without power of being continued or afterwards re-appointed. And these last are to be selected out of the king’s counsellors, of whom we shall speak in the fifteenth and following sections, or out of those who have filled the post of counsellor.

11. The townsmen and countrymen of every city, that is, the whole of the citizens, are to be divided into clans, distinguished by some name and badge, and all persons born of any of these clans are to be received into the number of citizens, and their names inscribed on the roll of their clan, as soon as they have reached the age, when they can carry arms and know their duty; with the exception of those, who are infamous from some crime, or dumb, or mad, or menials supporting life by some servile office.

12. The fields, and the whole soil, and, if it can be managed, the houses should be public property, that is, the property of him, who holds the right of the commonwealth: and let him let them at a yearly rent to the citizens, whether townsmen or countrymen, and with this exception let them all be free or exempt from every kind of taxation in time of peace. And of this rent a part is to be applied to the defences of the state, a part to the king’s private use. For it is necessary in time of peace to fortify cities against war, and also to have ready ships and other munitions of war.

13. After the selection of the king from one of the clans, none are to be held noble, but his descendants, who are therefore to be distinguished by royal insignia from their own and the other clans.

14. Those male nobles, who are the reigning king’s collaterals, and stand to him in the third or fourth degree of consanguinity, must not marry, and any children they may have had, are to be accounted bastards, and unworthy of any dignity, nor may they be recognized as heirs to their parents, whose goods must revert to the king.

15. Moreover the king’s counsellors, who are next to him in dignity, must be numerous, and chosen out of the citizens only; that is (supposing there to be no more than six hundred clans) from every clan three or four or five, who will form together one section of this council; and not for life, but for three, four, or five years, so that every year a third, fourth, or fifth part may be replaced by selection, in which selection it must be observed as a first condition, that out of every clan at least one counsellor chosen be a jurist.

16. The selection must be made by the king himself, who should fix a time of year for the choice of fresh counsellors. Each clan must then submit to the king the names of all its citizens, who have reached their fiftieth year, and have been duly put forward as candidates for this office, and out of these the king will choose whom he pleases. But in that year, when the jurist of any clan is to be replaced, only the names of jurists are to be submitted to the king. Those who have filled this office of counsellor for the appointed time, are not to be continued therein, nor to be replaced on the list of candidates for five years or more. But the reason why one is to be chosen every year out of every clan is, that the council may not be composed alternately of untried novices, and of veterans versed in affairs, which must necessarily be the case, were all to retire at once, and new men to succeed them. But if every year one be chosen out of every family, then only a fifth, fourth, or at most a third part of the council will consist of novices. Further, if the king be prevented by other business, or for any other reason, from being able to spare time for this choice, then let the counsellors themselves choose others for a time, until the king either chooses different ones, or confirms the choice of the council.

17. Let the primary function of this council be to defend the fundamental laws of the dominion, and to give advice about administration, that the king may know, what for the public good ought to be decreed: and that on the understanding, that the king may not decide in any matter, without first hearing the opinion of this council. But if, as will generally happen, the council is not of one mind, but is divided in opinion, even after discussing the same subject two or three times, there must be no further delay, but the different opinions are to be submitted to the king, as in the twenty-fifth section of this chapter we shall show.

18. Let it be also the duty of this council to publish the king’s orders or decrees, and to see to the execution of any decree concerning affairs of state, and to supervise the administration of the whole dominion, as the king’s deputies.

19. The citizens should have no access to the king, save through this council, to which are to be handed all demands or petitions, that they may be presented to the king. Nor should the envoys of other commonwealths be allowed to obtain permission to address the king, but through the council. Letters, too, sent from elsewhere to the king, must be handed to him by the council. And in general the king is to be accounted as the mind of the commonwealth, but the council as the senses outside the mind, or the commonwealth’s body, through whose intervention the mind understands the state of the commonwealth, and acts as it judges best for itself.

20. The care of the education of the king’s sons should also fall on this council, and the guardianship, where a king has died, leaving as his successor an infant or boy. Yet lest meanwhile the council should be left without a king, one of the elder nobles of the commonwealth should be chosen to fill the king’s place, till the legitimate heir has reached the age at which he can support the weight of government.

21. Let the candidates for election to this council be such as know the system of government, and the foundations, and state or condition of the commonwealth, whose subjects they are. But he that would fill the place of a jurist must, besides the government and condition of the commonwealth, whose subject he is, be likewise acquainted with those of the other commonwealths, with which it has any intercourse. But none are to be placed upon the list of candidates, unless they have reached their fiftieth year without being convicted of crime.

22. In this council no decision is to be taken about the affairs of the dominion, but in the presence of all the members. But if anyone be unable through illness or other cause to attend, he must send in his stead one of the same clan, who has filled the office of counsellor or been put on the list of candidates. Which if he neglect to do, and the council through his absence be forced to adjourn any matter, let him be fined a considerable sum. But this must be understood to mean, when the question is of a matter affecting the whole dominion, as of peace or war, of abrogating or establishing a law, of trade, &c. But if the question be one that affects only a particular city or two, as about petitions, &c., it will suffice that a majority of the council attend.

23. To maintain a perfect equality between the clans, and a regular order in sitting, making proposals, and speaking, every clan is to take in turn the presidency at the sittings, a different clan at every sitting, and that which was first at one sitting is to be last at the next. But among members of the same clan, let precedence go by priority of election.

24. This council should be summoned at least four times a year, to demand of the ministers account of their administration of the dominion, to ascertain the state of affairs, and see if anything else needs deciding. For it seems impossible for so large a number of citizens to have constant leisure for public business. But as in the meantime public business must none the less be carried on, therefore fifty or more are to be chosen out of this council to supply its place after its dismissal; and these should meet daily in a chamber next the king’s, and so have daily care of the treasury, the cities, the fortifications, the education of the king’s son, and in general of all those duties of the great council, which we have just enumerated, except that they cannot take counsel about new matters, concerning which no decision has been taken.

25. On the meeting of the council, before anything is proposed in it, let five, six, or more jurists of the clans, which stand first in order of place at that session, attend on the king, to deliver to him petitions or letters, if they have any, to declare to him the state of affairs, and, lastly, to understand from him what he bids them propose in his council; and when they have heard this, let them return to the council, and let the first in precedence open the matter of debate. But, in matters which seem to any of them to be of some moment, let not the votes be taken at once, but let the voting be adjourned to such a date as the urgency of the matter allows. When, then, the council stands adjourned till the appointed time, the counsellors of every clan will meanwhile be able to debate the matter separately, and, if they think it of great moment, to consult others that have been counsellors, or are candidates for the council. And if within the appointed time the counsellors of any clan cannot agree among themselves, that clan shall lose its vote, for every clan can give but one vote. But, otherwise, let the jurist of the clan lay before the council the opinion they have decided to be best; and so with the rest. And if the majority of the council think fit, after hearing the grounds of every opinion, to consider the matter again, let the council be again adjourned to a date, at which every clan shall pronounce its final opinion; and then, at last, before the entire council, let the votes be taken, and that opinion be invalidated which has not at least a hundred votes. But let the other opinions be submitted to the king by all the jurists present at the council, that, after hearing every party’s arguments, he may select which opinion he pleases. And then let the jurists leave him, and return to the council; and there let all await the king at the time fixed by himself, that all may hear which opinion of those proposed he thinks fit to adopt, and what he decides should be done.

26. For the administration of justice, another council is to be formed of jurists, whose business should be to decide suits, and punish criminals, but so that all the judgments they deliver be tested by those who are for the time members of the great council — that is, as to their having been delivered according to the due process of justice, and without partiality. But if the losing party can prove, that any judge has been bribed by the adversary, or that there is some mutual cause of friendship between the judge and the adversary, or of hatred between the judge and himself, or, lastly, that the usual process of justice has not been observed, let such party be restored to his original position. But this would, perhaps, not be observed by such as love to convict the accused in a criminal case, rather by torture than proofs. But, for all that, I can conceive on this point of no other process of justice than the above, that befits the best system of governing a commonwealth.

27. Of these judges, there should be a large and odd number — for instance, sixty-one, or at least forty-one, — and not more than one is to be chosen of one clan, and that not for life, but every year a certain proportion are to retire, and be replaced by as many others out of different clans, that have reached their fortieth year.

28. In this council, let no judgment be pronounced save in the presence of all the judges. But if any judge, from disease or other cause, shall for a long time be unable to attend the council, let another be chosen for that time to fill his place. But in giving their votes, they are all not to utter their opinions aloud, but to signify them by ballot.

29. Let those who supply others’ places in this and the first-mentioned council first be paid out of the goods of those whom they have condemned to death, and also out of the fines of which any are mulcted. Next, after every judgment they pronounce in a civil suit, let them receive a certain proportion of the whole sum at stake for the benefit of both councils.

30. Let there be in every city other subordinate councils, whose members likewise must not be chosen for life, but must be partially renewed every year, out of the clans who live there only. But there is no need to pursue this further.

31. No military pay is to be granted in time of peace; but, in time of war, military pay is to be allowed to those only, who support their lives by daily labour. But the commanders and other officers of the battalions are to expect no other advantage from war but the spoil of the enemy.

32. If a foreigner takes to wife the daughter of a citizen, his children are to be counted citizens, and put on the roll of their mother’s clan. But those who are born and bred within the dominion of foreign parents should be allowed to purchase at a fixed price the right of citizenship from the captains of thousands of any clan, and to be enrolled in that clan. For no harm can arise thence to the dominion, even though the captains of thousands, for a bribe, admit a foreigner into the number of their citizens for less than the fixed price; but, on the contrary, means should be devised for more easily increasing the number of citizens, and producing a large confluence of men. As for those who are not enrolled as citizens, it is but fair that, at least in war-time, they should pay for their exemption from service by some forced labour or tax.

33. The envoys to be sent in time of peace to other commonwealths must be chosen out of the nobles only, and their expenses met by the state treasury, and not the king’s privy purse.

34. Those that attend the court, and are the king’s servants, and are paid out of his privy purse, must be excluded from every appointment and office in the commonwealth. I say expressly, “and are paid out of the king’s privy purse,” to except the body-guard. For there should be no other body-guard, but the citizens of the king’s city, who should take turns to keep guard at court before the king’s door.

35. War is only to be made for the sake of peace, so that, at its end, one may be rid of arms. And so, when cities have been taken by right of war, and terms of peace are to be made after the enemies are subdued, the captured cities must not be garrisoned and kept; but either the enemy, on accepting the terms of peace, should be allowed to redeem them at a price, or, if by following that policy, there would, by reason of the danger of the position, remain a constant lurking anxiety, they must be utterly destroyed, and the inhabitants removed elsewhere.

36. The king must not be allowed to contract a foreign marriage, but only to take to wife one of his kindred, or of the citizens; yet, on condition that, if he marries a citizen, her near relations become incapable of holding office in the commonwealth.

37. The dominion must be indivisible. And so, if the king leaves more than one child, let the eldest one succeed; but by no means be it allowed to divide the dominion between them, or to give it undivided to all or several of them, much less to give a part of it as a daughter’s dowry. For that daughters should be admitted to the inheritance of a dominion is in no wise to be allowed.

38. If the king die leaving no male issue, let the next to him in blood be held the heir to the dominion, unless he chance to have married a foreign wife, whom he will not put away.

39. As for the citizens, it is manifest (Chap. III. Sec. 5) that every one of them ought to obey all the commands of the king, and the decrees published by the great council, although he believe them to be most absurd, and otherwise he may rightfully be forced to obey. And these are the foundations of a monarchical dominion, on which it must be built, if it is to be stable, as we shall show in the next chapter.

40. As for religion, no temples whatever ought to be built at the public expense; nor ought laws to be established about opinions, unless they be seditious and overthrow the foundations of the commonwealth. And so let such as are allowed the public exercise of their religion build a temple at their own expense. But the king may have in his palace a chapel of his own, that he may practise the religion to which he belongs.

Curtius, x. 1.

I. QUIA HOMINES, uti diximus, magis affectu, quam ratione ducuntur, sequitur multitudinem non ex rationis ductu, sed ex communi aliquo affectu naturaliter convenire, et una veluti mente duci velle, nempe (ut Art. 9. Ca. diximus) vel ex communi spe, vel metu, vel desiderio commune aliquod damnum ulciscendi. Cum autem solitudinis metus omnibus hominibus insit, quia nemo in solitudine vires habet, ut sese defendere, et quae ad vitam necessaria sunt, comparare possit, sequitur statum civilem homines natura appetere, nec fieri posse, ut homines eundem unquam penitus dissolvant.

II. Ex discordiis igitur, et seditionibus, quae in Civitate saepe concitantur, nunquam fit, ut cives Civitatem dissolvant (ut in reliquis societatibus saepe evenit) sed ut ejusdem formam in aliam mutent, si nimirum contentiones sedari nequeunt servata Civitatis facie. Quare media, quae ad imperium conservandum requiri dixi, ea intelligo, quae ad imperii formam absque ulla ejus notabili mutatione conservandam necessaria sunt.

III. Quod si cum humana natura ita comparatum esset, ut homines id, quod maxime utile est, maxime cuperent, nulla esset opus arte ad concordiam, et fidem; sed quia longe aliter cum natura humana constitutum esse constat, imperium necessario ita instituendum est, ut omnes, tam qui regunt, quam qui reguntur, velint nolint, id tamen agant, quod communis salutis interest, hoc est, ut omnes sponte, vel vi, vel necessitate coacti sint ex rationis praescripto vivere; quod fit, si imperii res ita ordinentur, ut nihil, quod ad communem salutem spectat, ullius fidei absolute committatur. Nemo enim tam vigilans est, qui aliquando non dormitet, et nemo tam potenti, tamque integro animo fuit, qui aliquando, et praesertim quando maxime animi fortitudine opus est, non frangeretur, ac pateretur vinci. Et sane stultitia est ab alio id exigere, quod nemo a se ipso impetrare potest, nempe, ut alteri potius, quam sibi vigilet, ut avarus non sit, neque invidus, neque ambitiosus, etc., praesertim is, qui omnium affectuum incitamenta maxima quotidie habet.

IV. At experientia contra docere videtur, pacis, et concordiae interesse, ut omnis potestas ad unum conferatur. Nam nullum imperium tamdiu absque ulla notabili mutatione stetit, quam Turcarum, et contra nulla minus diuturna, quam popularia, seu Democratica fuerunt, nec ulla, ubi tot seditiones moverentur. Sed si servitium, barbaries et solitudo pax appellanda sit, nihil hominibus pace miserius. Plures sane, et acerbiores contentiones inter parentes, et liberos, quam inter dominos, et servos moveri solent, nec tamen Oeconomiae interest Jus paternum in dominium mutare, et liberos perinde, ac servos habere. Servitutis igitur, non pacis, interest, omnem potestatem ad unum transferre: nam pax, ut jam diximus, non in belli privatione, sed in animorum unione, sive concordia consistit.

V. Et sane, qui credunt posse fieri, ut unus solus summum Civitatis Jus obtineat, longe errant. Jus enim sola potentia determinatur, ut Capite 2. ostendimus: at unius hominis potentia longe impar est tantae moli sustinendae. Unde fit, ut, quem multitudo Regem elegit, is sibi Imperatores quaerat, seu Consiliarios, seu amicos, quibus suam, et omnium salutem committit, ita ut imperium, quod absolute Monarchicum esse creditur, sit revera in praxi Aristocraticum, non quidem manifestum; sed latens, et propterea pessimum. Ad quod accedit, quod Rex, puer, aeger, aut senectute gravatus, precario rex sit; sed ii revera summam potestatem habeant, qui summa imperii negotia administrant, vel qui Regi sunt proximi; ut jam taceam, quod Rex, libidini obnoxius, omnia saepe moderetur ex libidine unius, aut alterius pellicis, aut cinaedi. Audieram, inquit Orsines, in Asia olim regnasse foeminas: hoc vero novum est, regnare castratum, Curtius lib. X. Cap. I.

VI. Est praeterea hoc certum, quod Civitas semper magis propter cives, quam propter hostes periclitetur: rari quippe boni. Ex quo sequitur, quod is, in quem totum imperii Jus delatum est, magis cives, quam hostes semper timebit, et consequenter sibi cavere, et subditis non consulere, sed insidiari conabitur, iis praecipue, qui sapientia clari, vel divitiis potentiores sunt.

VII. Accedit praeterea, quod Reges filios etiam plus timent, quam amant, et eo magis, quo pacis, bellique artes magis callent, et subditis ob virtutes dilectiores sunt. Unde fit, ut eos ita educare studeant, ut causa timendi absit. Qua in re officiarii promptissime Regi obsequuntur, et studium adhibebunt summum, ut Regem successorem rudem habeant, quem arte tractare possint.

VIII. Ex quibus omnibus sequitur, Regem eo minus sui Juris, et subditorum conditionem eo miseriorem esse, quo magis absolute Civitatis Jus in eundem transfertur: atque adeo necesse est, ad imperium Monarchicum rite stabiliendum, fundamenta jacere firma, quibus superstruatur: ex quibus Monarchae securitas, et multitudini pax sequatur; ac proinde, ut Monarcha tum maxime sui juris sit, cum maxime multitudinis saluti consulit. Quaenam autem haec Imperii Monarchici (15) fundamenta sint, primum breviter proponam, et deinde ordine ea ostendam.

IX. Urbs una, aut plures condendae, et muniendae sunt, quarum omnes cives, sive ii intra moenia, sive extra propter agriculturam habitent, eodem Civitatis jure gaudeant ea tamen conditione, ut unaquaeque certum civium numerum ad sui, et communem defensionem habeat; quae autem id praestare nequit, aliis conditionibus in ditione habenda.

X. Militia ex solis civibus, nullo excepto, formanda est, et ex nullis aliis; atque adeo omnes arma habere teneantur, et nullus in civium numerum recipiatur, nisi postquam exercitium militare didicerit, illudque signatis anni temporibus exercere pollicitus fuerit. Deinde, uniuscujusque familiae militia in cohortes, et legiones divisa, nullius cohortis dux eligendus, nisi qui Architecturam militarem noverit. Porro cohortium, et legionum duces ad vitam quidem, sed qui unius familiae integrae militiae imperet, in bello tantummodo eligendus, qui annum ad summum imperium habeat, nec continuari in imperio, nec postea eligi possit. Atque hi eligendi sunt ex Regis Consiliariis (de quibus Art. 15. et seqq. dicendum), vel qui officio Consiliarii functi sunt.

XI. Omnium urbium incolae, et agricolae, hoc est, omnes Cives in familias dividendi sunt, quae nomine, et insigni aliquo distinguantur, et omnes ex aliqua harum familiarum geniti in civium numerum recipiantur, eorumque nomina in catalogum eorum familiae redigantur, simulac eo aetatis pervenerint, ut arma ferre, et officium suum noscere possint; iis tamen exceptis, qui ob scelus aliquod infames, vel qui muti, vesani, et famuli sunt, qui servili aliquo officio vitam sustentant.

XII. Agri, et omne solum, et, si fieri potest, domus etiam publici juris sint, nempe ejus, qui Jus Civitatis habet, a quo annuo pretio civibus, sive urbanis, et agricolis locentur; et praeterea omnes ab omni exactione tempore pacis liberi, sive immunes sint. Atque hujus pretii alia pars ad Civitatis munimenta, alia ad usum domesticum Regis referenda est. Nam tempore pacis urbes tanquam ad bellum munire, et praeterea naves, et reliqua instrumenta bellica parata necesse est habere.

XIII. Electo Rege ex aliqua familia, nulli Nobiles censendi, nisi a Rege oriundi, qui propterea insignibus Regiis a sua, et a reliquis familiis distinguantur.

XIV. Regis consanguinei nobiles masculi, qui ei, qui regnat, gradu consanguinitatis tertio, aut quarto propinqui sunt, uxorem ducere prohibeantur, et si quos liberos procreaverint, illegitimi habeantur, et omni dignitate indigni, nec parentum haeredes agnoscantur, sed eorum bona ad Regem redeant.

XV. Regis praeterea Consiliarii, qui ei proximi, vel dignitate secundi sunt, plures esse debent, et non, nisi ex civibus, eligendi; nempe, ex unaquaque familia tres, aut quatuor, aut quinque (si familiae non plures, quam sexcentae, fuerint), qui simul unum hujus Concilii membrum constituent, non ad vitam, sed in tres, aut quatuor, aut quinque annos, ita ut singulis annis eorum tertia, quarta, aut quinta pars nova eligatur; in qua electione tamen apprime observandum, ut ex unaquaque familia unus ad minimum juris peritus Consiliarius eligatur.

XVI. Haec electio ab ipso Rege fieri debet, cui constituto anni tempore, quo scilicet novi Consiliarii eligendi sunt, unaquaeque familia omnium suorum civium nomina, qui ad annum quinquagesimum aetatis pervenerunt, et qui hujus officii candidati rite promoti fuerunt, Regi tradere debet, ex quibus, quem velit, Rex eliget; at eo anno, quo alicujus familiae juris peritus alteri succedere debet, juris peritorum tantum nomina sunt Regi tradenda. Qui statuto tempore officio hoc Consiliarii functi sunt, in eodem continuari nequeant, nec ad catalogum eligendorum quinquennio, aut amplius referri. Causa autem, cur necesse sit singulis annis ex unaquaque familia unum eligere, est, ne Concilium jam ex inexpertis Novitiis, jam ex Veteratis, et rerum expertis componeretur, quod necessario fieret (16), si omnes simul recederent, et novi succederent. Sed si singulis annis ex unaquaque familia unus eligatur, tum non nisi quinta, quarta, aut ad summum tertia Concilii pars ex Novitiis erit. Praeterea si Rex aliis negotiis impeditus, aut alia de causa huic electioni vacare aliquamdiu non possit, tum ipsi Consiliarii alios pro tempore eligant, donec ipse Rex vel alios eligat, vel, quos Concilium elegit, probet.

XVII. Hujus Concilii primarium officium sit, imperii fundamentalia jura defendere, consilia de rebus agendis dare, ut Rex, quid in bonum publicum decernendum sit, sciat, atque adeo, ut Regi nihil de aliqua re statuere liceat, nisi intellecta prius hujus Concilii sententia; sed si Concilio, ut plerumque fiet, non una mens fuerit, sed diversas habuerit sententias, etiam postquam bis, aut ter quaestionem de eadem re habuerint, res in longius trahenda non est, sed discrepantes sententiae ad Regem deferendae, ut Art. 25. hujus Capitis docebimus.

XVIII. Hujus praeterea Concilii officium etiam sit, Regis instituta, seu decreta promulgare, et, quid in Rempublicam decretum est, curare, totiusque administrationis imperii curam habere, tanquam Regis vicarii.

XIX. Civibus nulli ad Regem aditus pateant, nisi per hoc Concilium, cui omnes postulationes, seu libelli supplices tradendi sunt, ut Regi offerantur. Legatis etiam aliarum Civitatum non, nisi intercedente hoc Concilio, veniam Regem alloquendi impetrare liceat; Epistolae praeterea, quae ex aliis locis Regi mittuntur, ei ab hoc Concilio tradi debent, et absolute Rex censendus est veluti Civitatis mens, hoc autem Concilium mentis sensus externi, ceu Civitatis corpus, per quod mens Civitatis statum concipit, et per quod mens id agit, quod sibi optimum esse decernit.

XX. Cura filios Regis educandi huic etiam Concilio incumbat, et etiam tutela, si Rex, successore infante, seu puero relicto, obiit. Sed ne tamen Concilium interea temporis sine Rege sit, ex Nobilibus Civitatis Senior eligendus, qui Regis locum suppleat, donec legitimus successor eo aetatis pervenerit, quo imperii onus sustinere possit.

XXI. Hujus Concilii Candidati ii sint, qui regimen, fundamenta, et statum, seu conditionem Civitatis, cujus subditi sunt, norint; at qui jurisperiti locum occupare vult, is praeter regimen, et conditionem Civitatis, cujus subditus est, aliarum etiam, cum quibus commercium aliquod intercedit, scire debet; sed nulli, nisi qui ad quinquagesium aetatis annum, nullo convicti crimine, pervenerint, in catalogum eligendorum referendi sunt.

XXII. In hoc Concilio nihil de rebus imperii concludendum, nisi praesentibus omnibus membris: quod si aliquis morbi, aut alia de causa adesse nequeat, aliquem ex eadem familia, qui eodem officio functus, vel qui in catalogum eligendorum relatus est, in ipsius locum mittere debet. Quod si nec hoc fecerit, sed quod Concilium propter ejus absentiam rem aliquam consulendam in diem differre coactus fuerit, summa aliqua pecuniae sensibili mulctetur. Sed hoc intelligendum, quando quaestio est de re, quae integrum imperium spectat, videlicet de bello, et pace, de jure aliquo abrogando, vel instituendo, de commercio, etc. Sed si quaestio sit de re, quae unam, aut alteram urbem spectet, de libellis supplicibus, etc., satis erit, si major Concilii pars adsit.

XXIII. Ut inter familias aequalitas in omnibus, et ordo sedendi, proponendi, et dicendi habeatur, vices servandae sunt, ut singulae singulis sessionibus praesideant, et quae hac sessione prima, sequenti ultima sit. Sed eorum, qui ejusdem familiae sunt, is primus sit, qui prior electus fuerit.

XXIV. Hoc Concilium quater ad minimum in anno convocetur, ut rationem administrationis imperii a ministris exigant, ut rerum statum noscant, et si quid praeterea statuendum sit, videant. Nam adeo magnum civium numerum negotiis publicis continuo vacare impossibile videtur, sed, quia negotia publica interim exerceri nihilominus debent, ideo ex hoc Concilio quinquaginta, aut plures eligendi sunt, qui soluto Concilio, ejus vicem suppleant, quique quotidie congregari debeant in cubiculo, quod Regio sit proximum, atque adeo quotidie curam habeant aerarii, urbium munimentorum, educationis filii Regis, et absolute eorum omnium magni Concilii officiorum, quae modo enumeravimus, praeterquam illud, quod de rebus novis, de quibus nihil decretum est, consulere non possint.

XXV. Congregato Concilio, antequam aliquid in eo proponatur, quinque, aut sex, aut plures Jurisperiti ex familiis, quae illa sessione ordine loci priores sunt, Regem adeant, ut libellos supplices, vel epistolas, si quas habent, tradant, ut rerum statum indicent, et denique ut ex ipso intelligant, quid in suo Concilio proponere jubeat quo accepto Concilium repetant, et, qui ordine loci prior est, rem consulendam aperiat. Nec de re suffragia statim colligenda, quae aliquibus videtur alicujus esse momenti, sed in id tempus differenda, quod rei necessitas concedit. Concilio igitur ad id statutum tempus soluto, poterunt interea uniuscujusque familiae Consiliarii de ipsa seorsum quaestionem habere, et, si res iis magni momenti videbitur, alios, qui eodem officio functi, vel qui ejusdem Concilii Candidati sunt, consulere, et, si intra constitutum tempus inter ipsos convenire non poterit, illa familia extra suffragium erit (nam unaquaeque familia unum tantum ferre Suffragium poterit); alias ejus familiae Jurisperitus instructus sententiam, quam optimam judicaverint esse, in ipso Concilio ferat, et sic reliqui; et si majori parti visum fuerit post auditas cujusque sententiae rationes, rem iterum perpendere, Concilium iterum in tempus solvatur, ad quod unaquaeque familia, quaenam ultima ejus sit sententia, pronunciabit, et tum demum praesente integro Concilio suffragiis collectis ea irrita habeatur, quae centum ad minimum suffragia non habuerit, reliquae autem ad Regem deferantur a Jurisperitis omnibus, qui Concilio interfuerunt, ut ex iis, postquam uniuscujusque partis rationes intellexerit, quam velit, eligat, atque inde digressi ad Concilium revertantur, ubi omnes Regem ad constitutum ab ipso tempus exspectent, ut, quam Sententiam ex latis eligendam censet, omnes audiant, et quid faciendum, ipse decernat.

XXVI. Ad justitiam administrandam Concilium aliud ex Solis Jurisperitis est formandum, quorum officium sit lites dirimere, et poenas ex deliquentibus sumere, sed ita ut omnes sententiae, quas tulerint, ab iis, qui Concilii magni vicem supplent, probari debeant, num scilicet, servato rite in judicando ordine, prolatae fuerint, et absque partium studio. Quod si quae pars, quae causa cecidit, ostendere poterit, aliquem ex judicibus munere aliquo corruptum fuisse ab adversario, vel aliam communem causam amicitiae erga eundem, vel odii erga ipsum habere, vel denique quod communis judicandi ordo non fuerit servatus, ea in integrum restituatur. Sed haec forsan observari non possent ab iis, qui, quando quaestio de crimine est, non tam argumentis, quam tormentis reum convincere solent. Verum nec ego hic alium in judicando ordinem concipio praeter eum, qui cum optimo Civitatis regimine convenit.

XXVII. Hi judices magno etiam, et impari numero esse debent, nempe sexaginta et unus, aut quinquaginta et unus ad minimum, et ex una familia non nisi unus eligendus,nec tamen ad vitam, sed ut quotannis etiam aliqua ejus pars cedat, et alii totidem eligantur, qui ex aliis sint familiis, quique ad quadragesimum aetatis annum pervenerint.

XXVIII. In hoc Concilio nulla sententia pronuncianda, nisi praesentibus omnibus judicibus. Quod si aliquis morbi, aut alterius rei causa diu Concilio interesse non poterit, alius ad id tempus eligendus, qui ipsius locum suppleat. In suffragiis autem ferendis debebit unusquisque sententiam suam non palam dicere, sed calculis indicare.

XXIX. Hujus, et praecedentis Concilii vicariorum emolumenta sint bona primo eorum (17), qui mortis damnati sunt ab ipsis, et etiam eorum, qui summa quadam argenti plectuntur. Deinde ex unaquaque sententia, quam de rebus civilibus tulerint, ab eo, qui causa cecidit, pro ratione totius summae partem aliquotam accipiant, qua utrumque Concilium gaudeat.

XXX. His Conciliis alia subordinentur in unaquaque urbe, quorum etiam membra ad vitam eligi non debent; sed etiam quotannis pars aliqua eligenda ex solis familiis, quae in eadem habitant: sed opus non est haec latius persequi.

XXXI. Militiae stipendia nulla solvenda tempore pacis, tempore autem belli iis tantummodo quotidiana stipendia danda, qui quotidiano opere vitam sustentant. At duces, et reliqui officiarii cohortium nulla alia emolumenta ex bello exspectanda habeant praeter hostium praedam.

XXXII. Si quis peregrinus alicujus civis filiam in uxorem duxerit, ejus liberi sunt cives censendi, et in catalogo familiae matris inscribendi. Qui autem ex peregrinis parentibus in ipso imperio nati, et educati sunt, iis constituto aliquo pretio Jus civis ex Chiliarchis alicujus familiae emere liceat, et in catalogum ejusdem familiae referantur: nec imperio, tametsi Chiliarchae lucri causa aliquem peregrinum infra constitutum pretium in numerum suorum civium receperint, aliquod inde detrimentum oriri potest; sed contra media excogitanda, quibus facilius civium augeri possit numerus, et magna hominum detur confluentia. At, qui in catalogum civium non referuntur, aequum est, ut tempore saltem belli otium suum labore, aut exactione aliqua compensent.

XXXIII. Legati, qui tempore pacis ad alias Civitates pacis contrahendae, vel conservandae causa mitti debent, ex solis Nobilibus eligendi sunt, et ex Civitatis aerario sumptus iisdem suppeditandi, non autem ex Regis domestico aerario.

XXXIV. Qui aulam frequentant, et Regis domestici sunt, quibusque ex suo aerario domestico stipendia solvit, ab omni Civitatis ministerio, seu officio secludendi sunt. Dico expresse, quibus Rex ex aerario suo domestico stipendia solvit, ut corporis custodes ab iisdem secludam. Nam corporis custodes nulli praeter cives ejusdem urbis in aula, servatis vicibus, vigilare pro Rege ante fores debent.

XXXV. Bellum non nisi pacis causa inferendum, ut eo finito arma cessent. Urbibus igitur Jure belli captis, et hoste subacto pacis conditiones instituendae sunt, ut captae urbes nullo praesidio servari debeant, sed vel ut hosti, pacis foedere accepto, potestas concedatur easdem pretio redimendi, vel (si ea ratione timor semper a tergo maneat formidine loci) prorsus delendae sunt, et incolae alio locorum ducendi.

XXXVI. Regi nullam extraneam matrimonio sibi jungere, sed tantum ex consanguineis, vel civibus aliquam in uxorem ducere liceat, ea tamen conditione, si scilicet civem aliquam duxerit, ut qui uxori sanguine sint proximi, nullum Civitatis officium administrare possint.

XXXVII. Imperium indivisibile esse debet. Si igitur Rex plures liberos procreaverit, illorum major natu jure succedat, minime autem concedendum, ut imperium inter ipsos dividatur, nec ut indivisum omnibus, vel aliquibus tradatur, et multo minus, ut partem imperii dotem filiae dare liceat. Nam, filias in haereditatem imperii venire, nulla ratione concedendum.

XXXVIII. Si Rex liberis masculis orbus obierit, ille, qui ipsi sanguine proximus, haeres imperii habendus, nisi forte uxorem extraneam duxerit, quam repudiare nolit.

XXXIX. Ad Cives quod attinet, patet ex Art. 5. Ca. eorum unumquemque ad omnia Regis mandata, sive edicta a Concilio magno promulgata (vide de hac conditione Art. 18. et 19. hujus Capitis) obtemperare debere, tametsi eadem absurdissima credat, vel jure ad id cogi. Atque haec Imperii Monarchici fundamenta sunt, quibus superstrui debet, ut stabile sit, quemadmodum in seq. Cap. demonstrabimus.

XL. Ad Religionem quod attinet, nulla plane templa urbium sumptibus aedificanda, nec jura de opinionibus statuenda, nisi seditiosae sint, et Civitatis fundamenta evertant. Ii igitur, quibus Religionem publice exercere conceditur, templum si velint, suis sumptibus aedificent. At Rex ad Religionem, cui addictus est, exercendam templum in aula sibi proprium habeat.

Of Monarchy (Continuation).

AFTER EXPLAINING THE foundations of a monarchical dominion, I have taken in hand to prove here in order the fitness of such foundations. And to this end the first point to be noted is, that it is in no way repugnant to experience, for laws to be so firmly fixed, that not the king himself can abolish them. For though the Persians worshipped their kings as gods, yet had not the kings themselves authority to revoke laws once established, as appears from Daniel, and nowhere, as far as I know, is a monarch chosen absolutely without any conditions expressed. Nor yet is it repugnant to reason or the absolute obedience due to a king. For the foundations of the dominion are to be considered as eternal decrees of the king, so that his ministers entirely obey him in refusing to execute his orders, when he commands anything contrary to the same. Which we can make plain by the example of Ulysses. For his comrades were executing his own order, when they would not untie him, when he was bound to the mast and captivated by the Sirens’ song, although he gave them manifold orders to do so, and that with threats. And it is ascribed to his forethought, that he afterwards thanked his comrades for obeying him according to his first intention. And, after this example of Ulysses, kings often instruct judges, to administer justice without respect of persons, not even of the king himself, if by some singular accident he order anything contrary to established law. For kings are not gods, but men, who are often led captive by the Sirens’ song. If then everything depended on the inconstant will of one man, nothing would be fixed. And so, that a monarchical dominion may be stable, it must be ordered, so that everything be done by the king’s decree only, that is, so that every law be an explicit will of the king, but not every will of the king a law; as to which see Chap. VI. Sects. 3, 5, 6.

2. It must next be observed, that in laying foundations it is very necessary to study the human passions: and it is not enough to have shown, what ought to be done, but it ought, above all, to be shown how it can be effected, that men, whether led by passion or reason, should yet keep the laws firm and unbroken. For if the constitution of the dominion, or the public liberty depends only on the weak assistance of the laws, not only will the citizens have no security for its maintenance (as we showed in the third section of the last chapter), but it will even turn to their ruin. For this is certain, that no condition of a commonwealth is more wretched than that of the best, when it begins to totter, unless at one blow it falls with a rush into slavery, which seems to be quite impossible. And, therefore, it would be far better for the subjects to transfer their rights absolutely to one man, than to bargain for unascertained and empty, that is unmeaning, terms of liberty, and so prepare for their posterity a way to the most cruel servitude. But if I succeed in showing that the foundation of monarchical dominion, which I stated in the last chapter, are firm and cannot be plucked up, without the indignation of the larger part of an armed multitude, and that from them follow peace and security for king and multitude, and if I deduce this from general human nature, no one will be able to doubt, that these foundations are the best and the true ones (Chap. III. Sec. 9, and Chap. VI. Sects. 3, 8). But that such is their nature, I will show as briefly as possible.

3. That the duty of him, who holds the dominion, is always to know its state and condition, to watch over the common welfare of all, and to execute whatever is to the interest of the majority of the subjects, is admitted by all. But as one person alone is unable to examine into everything, and cannot always have his mind ready and turn it to meditation, and is often hindered by disease, or old age, or other causes, from having leisure for public business; therefore it is necessary that the monarch have counsellors to know the state of affairs, and help the king with their advice, and frequently supply his place; and that so it come to pass, that the dominion or commonwealth may continue always in one and the same mind.

4. But as human nature is so constituted, that everyone seeks with the utmost passion his own advantage, and judges those laws to be most equitable, which he thinks necessary to preserve and increase his substance, and defends another’s cause so far only as he thinks he is thereby establishing his own; it follows hence, that the counsellors chosen must be such, that their private affairs and their own interests depend on the general welfare and peace of all. And so it is evident, that if from every sort or class of citizens a certain number be chosen, what has most votes in such a council will be to the interest of the greater part of the subjects. And though this council, because it is composed of so large a number of citizens, must of necessity be attended by many of very simple intellect, yet this is certain, that everyone is pretty clever and sagacious in business which he has long and eagerly practised. And, therefore, if none be chosen but such as have till their fiftieth year practised their own business without disgrace, they will be fit enough to give their advice about their own affairs, especially if, in matters of considerable importance, a time be allowed for consideration. Besides, it is far from being the fact, that a council composed of a few is not frequented by this kind of men. For, on the contrary, its greatest part must consist of such, since everyone, in that case, tries hard to have dullards for colleagues, that they may hang on his words, for which there is no opportunity in large councils.

5. Furthermore, it is certain, that everyone would rather rule than be ruled. “For no one of his own will yields up dominion to another,” as Sallust has it in his first speech to Caesar. And, therefore, it is clear, that a whole multitude will never transfer its right to a few or to one, if it can come to an agreement with itself, without proceeding from the controversies, which generally arise in large councils, to seditions. And so the multitude does not, if it is free, transfer to the king anything but that, which it cannot itself have absolutely within its authority, namely, the ending of controversies and the using despatch in decisions. For as to the case which often arises, where a king is chosen on account of war, that is, because war is much more happily conducted by kings, it is manifest folly, I say, that men should choose slavery in time of peace for the sake of better fortune in war; if, indeed, peace can be conceived of in a dominion, where merely for the sake of war the highest authority is transferred to one man, who is, therefore, best able to show his worth and the importance to everyone of his single self in time of war; whereas, on the contrary, democracy has this advantage, that its excellence is greater in peace than in war. However, for whatever reason a king is chosen, he cannot by himself, as we said just now, know what will be to the interest of the dominion: but for this purpose, as we showed in the last section, will need many citizens for his counsellors. And as we cannot at all suppose, that any opinion can be conceived about a matter proposed for discussion, which can have escaped the notice of so large a number of men, it follows, that no opinion can be conceived tending to the people’s welfare, besides all the opinions of this council, which are submitted to the king. And so, since the people’s welfare is the highest law, or the king’s utmost right, it follows, that the king’s utmost right is but to choose one of the opinions offered by the council, not to decree anything, or offer any opinion contrary to the mind of all the council at once (Chap. VI. Sec. 25). But if all the opinions offered in the council were to be submitted to the king, then it might happen that the king would always favour the small cities, which have the fewest votes. For though by the constitution of the council it be ordained, that the opinions should be submitted to the king without mention of their supporters, yet they will never be able to take such good care, but that some opinion will get divulged. And, therefore, it must of necessity be provided, that that opinion, which has not gained at least a hundred votes, shall be held void; and this law the larger cities will be sure to defend with all their might.

6. And here, did I not study brevity, I would show other advantages of this council; yet one, which seems of the greatest importance, I will allege. I mean, that there can be given no greater inducement to virtue, than this general hope of the highest honour. For by ambition are we all most led, as in our Ethics we showed to be the case.

7. But it cannot be doubted that the majority of this council will never be minded to wage war, but rather always pursue and love peace. For besides that war will always cause them fear of losing their property and liberty, it is to be added, that war requires fresh expenditure, which they must meet, and also that their own children and relatives, though intent on their domestic cares, will be forced to turn their attention to war and go a-soldiering, whence they will never bring back anything but unpaid-for scars. For, as we said (Chap. VI. Sec. 31), no pay is to be given to the militia, and (Chap. VI. Sec. 10) it is to be formed out of citizens only and no others.

8. There is another accession to the cause of peace and concord, which is also of great weight: I mean, that no citizen can have immovable property (Chap. VI. Sec. 12). Hence all will have nearly an equal risk in war. For all will be obliged, for the sake of gain, to practise trade, or lend money to one another, if, as formerly by the Athenians, a law be passed, forbidding to lend money at interest to any but inhabitants; and thus they will be engaged in business, which either is mutually involved, one man’s with another’s, or needs the same means for its furtherance. And thus the greatest part of this council will generally have one and the same mind about their common affairs and the arts of peace. For, as we said (Sec. 4), every man defends another’s cause, so far as he thinks thereby to establish his own.

9. It cannot be doubted, that it will never occur to anyone to corrupt this council with bribes. For were any man to draw over to his side some one or two out of so great a number of men, he would gain nothing. For, as we said, the opinion, which does not gain at least a hundred votes, is void.

10. We shall also easily see, that, once this council is established its members cannot be reduced to a less number, if we consider the common passions of mankind. For all are guided mostly by ambition, and there is no man who lives in health but hopes to attain extreme old age. If then we calculate the number of those who actually reach their fiftieth or sixtieth year, and further take into account the number that are every year chosen of this great council, we shall see, that there can hardly be a man of those who bear arms, but is under the influence of a great hope of attaining this dignity. And so they will all, to the best of their power, defend this law of the council. For be it noted, that corruption, unless it creep in gradually, is easily prevented. But as it can be more easily supposed, and would be less invidious, that a less number should be chosen out of every clan, than that a less number should be chosen out of a few clans, or that one or two clans should be altogether excluded; therefore (Chap. VI. Sec. 15) the number of counsellors cannot be reduced, unless a third, fourth, or fifth part be removed simultaneously, which change is a very great one, and therefore quite repugnant to common practice. Nor need one be afraid of delay or negligence in choosing, because this is remedied by the council itself. See Chap. VI. Sec. 16.

11. The king, then, whether he is induced by fear of the multitude, or aims at binding to himself the majority of an armed multitude, or is guided by a generous spirit, a wish that is, to consult the public interest, will always confirm that opinion, which has gained most votes, that is (Sec. 5), which is to the interest of the greater part of the dominion; and will study to reconcile the divergent opinions referred to him, if it can be done, that he may attach all to himself (in which he will exert all his powers), and that alike in peace and war they may find out, what an advantage his single self is to them. And thus he will then be most independent, and most in possession of dominion, when he most consults the general welfare of the multitude.

12. For the king by himself cannot restrain all by fear. But his power, as we have said, rests upon the number of his soldiers, and especially on their valour and faith, which will always remain so long enduring between men, as with them is joined need, be that need honourable or disgraceful. And this is why kings usually are fonder of exciting than restraining their soldiery, and shut their eyes more to their vices than to their virtues, and generally, to hold under the best of them, seek out, distinguish, and assist with money or favour the idle, and those who have ruined themselves by debauchery, and shake hands with them, and throw them kisses, and for the sake of mastery stoop to every servile action. In order therefore that the citizens may be distinguished by the king before all others, and, as far as the civil state and equity permit, may remain independent, it is necessary that the militia should consist of citizens only, and that citizens should be his counsellors; and on the contrary citizens are altogether subdued, and are laying the foundations of eternal war, from the moment that they suffer mercenaries to be levied, whose trade is war, and who have most power in strifes and seditions.

13. That the king’s counsellors ought not to be elected for life, but for three, four, or five years, is clear as well from the tenth, as from what we said in the ninth section of this chapter. For if they were chosen for life, not only could the greatest part of the citizens conceive hardly any hope of obtaining this honour, and thus there would arise a great inequality, and thence envy, and constant murmurs, and at last seditions, which, no doubt, would be welcome to kings greedy of mastery: but also the counsellors, being rid of the fear of their successors, would assume a great licence in all respects, which the king would be far from opposing. For the more the citizens hate them, the more they will cling to the king, and be ready to flatter him. Nay, the interval of five years seems even too much, for in such a space of time it does not seem so impossible to corrupt by bribes or favour a very large part of the council, however large it be. And therefore it will be far safer, if every year two out of every clan retire, and be replaced by as many more (supposing that there are to be five counsellors of each clan), except in the year in which the jurist of any clan retires, and a fresh one is chosen in his place.

14. Moreover, no king can promise himself more safety, than he who reigns in a commonwealth of this sort. For besides that a king soon perishes, when his soldiers cease to desire his safety, it is certain that kings are always in the greatest danger from those who are nearest their persons. The fewer counsellors, then, there are, and the more powerful they consequently are, the more the king is in danger of their transferring the dominion to another. Nothing in fact more alarmed David, than that his own counsellor Ahitophel sided with Absalom. Still more is this the case, if the whole authority has been transferred absolutely to one man, because it can then be more easily transferred from one to another. For two private soldiers once took in hand to transfer the Roman empire, and did transfer it. I omit the arts and cunning wiles, whereby counsellors have to assure themselves against falling victims to their unpopularity; for they are but too well known, and no one, who has read history, can be ignorant, that the good faith of counsellors has generally turned to their ruin. And so, for their own safety, it behoves them to be cunning, not faithful. But if the counsellors are too numerous to unite in the same crime, and are all equal, and do not hold their office beyond a period of four years, they cannot be at all objects of fear to the king, except he attempt to take away their liberty, wherein he will offend all the citizens equally. For, as Antonio Perez excellently observes, an absolute dominion is to the prince very dangerous, to the subjects very hateful, and to the institutes of God and man alike opposed, as innumerable instances show.

15. Besides these we have, in the last chapter, laid other foundations, by which the king is greatly secured in his dominion, and the citizens in their hold of peace and liberty, which foundations we will reason out in their proper places. For I was anxious above everything to reason out all those, which refer to the great council and are of the greatest importance. Now I will continue with the others, in the same order in which I stated them.

16. It is undoubted, that citizens are more powerful, and, therefore, more independent, the larger and better fortified their towns are. For the safer the place is, in which they are, the better they can defend their liberty, and the less they need fear an enemy, whether without or within; and it is certain that the more powerful men are by their riches, the more they by nature study their own safety. But cities which need the help of another for their preservation are not on terms of equal right with that other, but are so far dependent on his right as they need his help. For we showed in the second chapter, that right is determined by power alone.

17. For the same reason, also, I mean that the citizens may continue independent, and defend their liberty, the militia ought to be composed of the citizens only, and none of them to be exempted. For an armed man is more independent than an unarmed (Sec. 12); and those citizens transfer absolutely their own right to another, and entrust it entirely to his good faith, who have given him their arms and the defences of their cities. Human avarice, by which most men are very much led, adds its weight to this view. For it cannot be, that a mercenary force be hired without great expense; and citizens can hardly endure the exactions required to maintain an idle soldiery. But that no man, who commands the whole or a large part of the militia, should, except under pressure of necessity, be chosen for the extreme term of a year, all are aware, who have read history, alike sacred and profane. For there is nothing that reason more clearly teaches. For surely the might of dominion is altogether entrusted to him, who is allowed enough time to gain military glory, and raise his fame above the king’s, or to make the army faithful to himself by flattery, largesses, and the other arts, whereby generals are accustomed to procure the enslavement of others, and the mastery for themselves. Lastly, I have added this point for the greater safety of the whole dominion, that these commanders of the militia are to be selected from the king’s counsellors or ex-counsellors — that is, from men who have reached the age at which mankind generally prefer what is old and safe to what is new and dangerous.

18. I said that the citizens were to be divided into clans, and an equal number of counsellors chosen from each, in order that the larger towns might have, in proportion to the number of their citizens, a greater number of counsellors, and be able, as is equitable, to contribute more votes. For the power and, therefore, the right of a dominion is to be estimated by the number of its citizens; and I do not believe that any fitter means can be devised for maintaining this equality between citizens, who are all by nature so constituted, that everyone wishes to be attributed to his own stock, and be distinguished by race from the rest.

19. Furthermore, in the state of nature, there is nothing which any man can less claim for himself, and make his own, than the soil, and whatever so adheres to the soil, that he cannot hide it anywhere, nor carry it whither he pleases. The soil, therefore, and whatever adheres to it in the way we have mentioned, must be quite common property of the commonwealth — that is, of all those who, by their united force, can vindicate their claim to it, or of him to whom all have given authority to vindicate his claim. And therefore the soil, and all that adheres to it, ought to have a value with the citizens proportionate to the necessity there is, that they may be able to set their feet thereon, and defend their common right or liberty. But in the eighth section of this chapter we have shown the advantages that the commonwealth must necessarily derive hence.

20. In order that the citizens may be as far as possible equal, which is of the first necessity in a commonwealth, none but the descendants of a king are to be thought noble. But if all the descendants of kings were allowed to marry wives, or beget children, they would grow, in process of time, to a very large number, and would be, not only burdensome, but also a cause of very great fear, to king and all. For men who nave too much leisure generally meditate crime. And hence it is that kings are, on account of their nobles, very much induced to make war, because kings surrounded with nobles find more quiet and safety in war than in peace. But I pass by this as notorious enough, and also the points which I have mentioned in Secs. 15-27 of the last chapter. For the main points have been proved in this chapter, and the rest are self-evident.

21. That the judges ought to be too numerous for a large proportion of them to be accessible to the bribes of a private man, and that they should not vote openly, but secretly, and that they deserve payment for their time, is known to everyone But they everywhere have by custom a yearly salary; and so they make no great haste to determine suits, and there is often no end to trials. Next, where confiscations accrue to the king, there frequently in trials not truth nor right, but the greatness of a man’s riches is regarded. Informers are ever at work, and everyone who has money is snatched as a prey, which evils, though grievous and intolerable, are excused by the necessity of warfare, and continue even in time of peace. But the avarice of judges that are appointed but for two or three years at most is moderated by fear of their successors, not to mention, again, that they can have no fixed property, but must lend their money at interest to their fellow-citizens. And so they are forced rather to consult their welfare than to plot against them, especially if the judges themselves, as we have said, are numerous.

22. But we have said, that no military pay is to be voted For the chief reward of military service is liberty. For in the state of nature everyone strives, for bare liberty’s sake, to defend himself to the utmost of his power, and expects no other reward of warlike virtue but his own independence. But, in the civil state, all the citizens together are to be considered as a man in the state of nature; and, therefore, when all fight on behalf of that state, all are defending themselves, and engaged on their own business. But counsellors, judges, magistrates, and the like, are engaged more on others’ business than on their own; and so it is but fair to pay them for their time. Besides, in war, there can be no greater or more honourable inducement to victory than the idea of liberty. But if, on the contrary, a certain portion of the citizens be designated as soldiers, on which account it will be necessary to award them a fixed pay, the king will, of necessity, distinguish them above the rest (as we showed. Sec. 12) — that is, will distinguish men who are acquainted only with the arts of war, and, in time of peace, from excess of leisure, become debauched, and, finally, from poverty, meditate nothing but rapine, civil discord, and wars. And so we can affirm, that a monarchy of this sort is, in fact, a state of war, and in it only the soldiery enjoy liberty, but the rest are slaves.

23. Our remarks about the admission of foreigners (Chap. VI. Sec. 32) I believe to be obvious. Besides, no one can doubt that the king’s blood-relations should be at a distance from him, and occupied, not by warlike, but by peaceful business, whence they may get credit and the dominion quiet. Though even this has not seemed a sufficient precaution to the Turkish despots, who, therefore, make a point of slaughtering all their brothers. And no wonder: for the more absolutely the right of dominion has been conferred on one man, the more easily, as we showed by an instance (Sec. 14), it can be transferred from one to another. But that in such a monarchy, as we here suppose, in which, I mean, there is not one mercenary soldier, the plan we have mentioned provides sufficiently for the king’s safety, is not to be doubted.

24. Nor can anyone hesitate about what we have said in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth sections of the last chapter. But that the king must not marry a foreigner is easily proved. For not to mention that two commonwealths, although united by a treaty, are yet in a state of hostility (Chap. III. Sec. 14), it is very much to be avoided that war should be stirred up, on account of the king’s domestic affairs, both because disputes and dissensions arise peculiarly from an alliance founded on marriage, and because questions between two commonwealths are mostly settled by war. Of this we read a fatal instance in Scripture. For after the death of Solomon, who had married the king of Egypt’s daughter, his son Rehoboam waged a most disastrous war with Shishak, king of the Egyptians, who utterly subdued him. Moreover, the marriage of Lewis XIV., king of France with the daughter of Philip IV. was the seed of a fresh war. And, besides these, very many instances may be read in history.

25. The form of the dominion ought to be kept one and the same, and, consequently, there should be but one king, and that of the same sex, and the dominion should be indivisible. But as to my saying that the king’s eldest son should succeed his father by right, or (if there be no issue) the nearest to him in blood, it is clear as well from Chap. VI. Sec. 13, as because the election of the king made by the multitude should, if possible, last for ever. Otherwise it will necessarily happen, that the supreme authority of the dominion will frequently pass to the multitude, which is an extreme and, therefore, exceedingly dangerous change. But those who, from the fact that the king is master of the dominion, and holds it by absolute right, infer that he can hand it over to whom he pleases, and that, therefore, the king’s son is by right heir to the dominion, are greatly mistaken. For the king’s will has so long the force of law, as he holds the sword of the commonwealth; for the right of dominion is limited by power only. Therefore, a king may indeed abdicate, but cannot hand the dominion over to another, unless with the concurrence of the multitude or its stronger part. And that this may be more clearly understood, we must remark, that children are heirs to their parents, not by natural, but by civil law. For by the power of the commonwealth alone is anyone master of definite property. And, therefore, by the same power or right, whereby the will of any man concerning his property is held good, by the same also his will remains good after his own death, as long as the commonwealth endures. And this is the reason, why everyone in the civil state maintains after death the same right as he had in his lifetime, because, as we said, it is not by his own power, but by that of the commonwealth, which is everlasting, that he can decide anything about his property. But the king’s case is quite different. For the king’s will is the civil law itself, and the king the commonwealth itself. Therefore, by the death of the king, the commonwealth is in a manner dead, and the civil state naturally returns to the state of nature, and consequently the supreme authority to the multitude, which can, therefore, lawfully lay down new and abolish old laws. And so it appears that no man succeeds the king by right, but him whom the multitude wills to be successor, or in a theocracy, such as the commonwealth of the Hebrews once was, him whom God has chosen by a prophet. We might likewise infer this from the fact that the king’s sword, or right, is in reality the will of the multitude itself, or its stronger part; or else from the fact, that men endowed with reason never so utterly abdicate their right, that they cease to be men, and are accounted as sheep. But to pursue this further is unnecessary.

26. But the right of religion, or of worshipping God, no man can transfer to another. However, we have treated of this point at length in the last chapters of our Theologico-Political Treatise, which it is superfluous to repeat here. And herewith I claim to have reasoned out the foundations of the best monarchy, though briefly, yet with sufficient clearness. But their mutual interdependence, or, in other words, the proportions of my dominion, anyone will easily remark, who will be at the pains to observe them as a whole with some attention. It remains only to warn the reader, that I am here conceiving of that monarchy, which is instituted by a free multitude, for which alone these foundations can serve. For a multitude that has grown used to another form of dominion will not be able without great danger of overthrow to pluck up the accepted foundations of the whole dominion, and change its entire fabric.

27. And what we have written will, perhaps, be received with derision by those who limit to the populace only the vices which are inherent in all mortals; and use such phrases as, “the mob, if it is not frightened, inspires no little fear,” and “the populace is either a humble slave, or a haughty master,” and “it has no truth or judgment,” etc. But all have one common nature. Only we are deceived by power and refinement. Whence it comes that when two do the same thing we say, “this man may do it with impunity, that man may not;” not because the deed, but because the doer is different. Haughtiness is a property of rulers. Men are haughty, but by reason of an appointment for a year; how much more then nobles, that have their honours eternal! But their arrogance is glossed over with importance, luxury, profusion, and a kind of harmony of vices, and a certain cultivated folly, and elegant villainy, so that vices, each of which looked at separately is foul and vile, because it is then most conspicuous, appear to the inexperienced and untaught honourable and becoming. “The mob, too, if it is not frightened, inspires no little fear;” yes, for liberty and slavery are not easily mingled. Lastly, as for the populace being devoid of truth and judgment, that is nothing wonderful, since the chief business of the dominion is transacted behind its back, and it can but make conjectures from the little, which cannot be hidden. For it is an uncommon virtue to suspend one’s judgment. So it is supreme folly to wish to transact everything behind the backs of the citizens, and to expect that they will not judge ill of the same, and will not give everything an unfavourable interpretation. For if the populace could moderate itself, and suspend its judgment about things with which it is imperfectly acquainted, or judge rightly of things by the little it knows already, it would surely be more fit to govern, than to be governed. But, as we said, all have the same nature. All grow haughty with rule, and cause fear if they do not feel it, and everywhere truth is generally transgressed by enemies or guilty people; especially where one or a few have mastery, and have respect in trials not to justice or truth, but to amount of wealth.

28. Besides, paid soldiers, that are accustomed to military discipline, and can support cold and hunger, are likely to despise a crowd of citizens as very inferior for storming towns or fighting pitched battles. But that my dominion is, therefore, more unhappy or less durable, no one of sound mind will affirm. But, on the contrary, everyone that judges things fairly will admit, that that dominion is the most durable of all, which can content itself with preserving what it has got, without coveting what belongs to others, and strives, therefore, most eagerly by every means to avoid war and preserve peace.

29. But I admit that the counsels of such a dominion can hardly be concealed. But everyone will also admit with me that it is far better for the right counsels of a dominion to be known to its enemies, than for the evil secrets of tyrants to be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a dominion have it absolutely under their authority, and, as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace. Now that this secrecy is often serviceable to a dominion, no one can deny; but that without it the said dominion cannot subsist, no one will ever prove. But, on the contrary, to entrust affairs of state absolutely to any man is quite incompatible with the maintenance of liberty; and so it is folly to choose to avoid a small loss by means of the greatest of evils. But the perpetual refrain of those who lust after absolute dominion is, that it is to the essential interest of the commonwealth that its business be secretly transacted, and other like pretences, which end in the more hateful a slavery, the more they are clothed with a show of utility.

30. Lastly, although no dominion, as far as I know, has ever been founded on all the conditions we have mentioned, yet from experience itself we shall be able to prove that this form of monarchy is the best, if we consider the causes of the preservation and overthrow of any dominion that is not barbarous. But this I could not do without greatly wearying the reader. However, I cannot pass over in silence one instance, that seems worth remembering: I mean the dominion of the Arragonese, who showed a singular loyalty towards their kings, and with equal constancy preserved unbroken the constitution of the kingdom. For as soon as they had cast off the slavish yoke of the Moors, they resolved to choose themselves a king, but on what conditions they could not quite make up their minds, and they therefore determined to consult the sovereign pontiff of Rome. He, who in this matter certainly bore himself as Christ’s vicar, blamed them for so obstinately wishing to choose a king, unwarned by the example of the Hebrews. However, if they would not change their minds, then he advised them not to choose a king, without first instituting customs equitable and suitable to the national genius, and above all he would have them create some supreme council, to balance the king’s power like the ephors of the Lacedaemonians, and to have absolute right to determine the disputes, which might arise between the king and the citizens. So then, following this advice, they established the laws, which seemed to them most equitable, of which the supreme interpreter, and therefore supreme judge, was to be, not the king, but the council, which they call the Seventeen, and whose president has the title of Justice This Justice then, and the Seventeen, who are chosen for life, not by vote but by lot, have the absolute right of revising and annulling all sentences passed upon any citizen by other courts, civil or ecclesiastical, or by the king himself, so that every citizen had the right to summon the king himself before this council. Moreover, they once had the right of electing and deposing the king. But after the lapse of many years the king, Don Pedro, who is called the Dagger, by canvassing, bribery, promises, and every sort of practice, at length procured the revocation of this right. And as soon as he gained his point, he cut off, or, as I would sooner believe, wounded his hand before them all, saying, that not without the loss of royal blood could subjects be allowed to choose their king Yet he effected this change, but upon this condition, “That the subjects have had and shall have the right of taking arms against any violence whatever, whereby any may wish to enter upon the dominion to their hurt, nay, against the king himself, or the prince, his heir, if he thus encroach.” By which condition they certainly rather rectified than abolished that right. For, as we have shown (Chap. IV. Secs. 5, 6), a king can be deprived of the power of ruling, not by the civil law, but by the law of war, in other words the subjects may resist his violence with violence. Besides this condition they stipulated others, which do not concern our present design. Having by these customs given themselves a constitution to the mind of all, they continued for an incredible length of time unharmed, the king’s loyalty towards his subjects being as great as theirs towards him. But after that the kingdom fell by inheritance to Ferdinand of Castile, who first had the surname of Catholic; this liberty of the Arragonese began to displease the Castilians, who therefore ceased not to urge Ferdinand to abolish these rights. But he, not yet being accustomed to absolute dominion, dared make no such attempt, but replied thus to his counsellors: that (not to mention that he had received the kingdom of Arragon on those terms, which they knew, and had most solemnly sworn to observe the same, and that it was inhuman to break his word) he was of opinion, that his kingdom would be stable, as long as its safety was as much to the subjects’ as to the king’s interest, so that neither the king should outweigh the subjects, nor yet the subjects the king; for that if either party were too powerful, the weaker would not only try to recover its former equality, but in vexation at its injury to retaliate upon the other, whence would follow the ruin of either or both. Which very wise language I could not enough wonder at, had it proceeded from a king accustomed to command not freemen but slaves. Accordingly the Arragonese retained their liberties after the time of Ferdinand, though no longer by right but by the favour of their too powerful kings, until the reign of Philip II., who oppressed them with better luck, but no less cruelty, than he did the United Provinces. And although Philip III. is supposed to have restored everything to its former position, yet the Arragonese, partly from eagerness to flatter the powerful (for it is folly to kick against the pricks), partly from terror, have kept nothing but the specious names and empty forms of liberty.

31. We conclude, therefore, that the multitude may preserve under a king an ample enough liberty; if it contrive that the king’s power be determined by the sole power, and preserved by the defence of the multitude itself. And this was the single rule which I followed in laying the foundations of monarchy.

Daniel vi. 15.

Hom. “Odys.,” xii. 156-200.

Chap. I. Sec. 4 of the speech, or rather letter,which is not now admitted to be a genuine work of Sallust.

Ethics, iii. 29, &c.

This seems to be a mistake for Sec. 4, “Id majori subditorum parti utile erit, quod in hoc concilio plurima habuerit suffragia.” “What has most votes in such a council, will be to the interest of the greater part of the subjects.”

2 Sam. xv. 31.

Tacitus, Histories, i., 7.

Antonio Perez, a publicist, and professor of law in the University of Louvain in the first part of the seventeenth century.

Chap. VI. Sec. 10.

Chap. VI. Secs. 11, 15, 16.

Chap. VI. Secs. 27, 28.

Chap. VI. Sec. 31.

Chap. VI. Sec. 36.

1 Kings xiv. 25; 2 Chron. xii.

The war between France and Spain, terminated by the first peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1665.

Chap. VI. Sec. 37.

See Hallam’s “History of the Middle Ages,” Chap. IV., for the constitutional history of Arragon. Hallam calls the Justiza the Justiciary, but the literal translation, Justice, seems warranted by our own English use of the word to designate certain judges.

Hallam says, that the king merely cut the obnoxious Privilege of Union, which he describes rather differently, through with his sword. The Privilege of Union was so utterly “eradicated from the records of the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.”

I. IMPERII MONARCHICI fundamentis explicatis, eadem hic ordine demonstrare suscepi; ad quod apprime notandum est, praxi nullo modo repugnare, quod jura adeo firma constituantur, quae nec ab ipso Rege aboleri queant. Persae enim Reges suos inter Deos colere solebant, et tamen ipsi Reges potestatem non habebant jura semel instituta revocandi, ut ex Dan. Ca. (18) patet; et nullibi, quod sciam, Monarcha absolute eligitur, nullis expressis conditionibus. Imo nec rationi, nec obedientiae absolutae, quae Regi debetur, repugnat; nam fundamenta imperii veluti Regis aeterna decreta habenda sunt, adeo ut ejus ministri ei omnino obediant, si, quando aliquid imperat, quod imperii fundamentis repugnat, mandata exequi velle negent. Quod exemplo Ulissis clare explicare possumus. Socii enim Ulissis ipsius mandatum exequebantur, quando navis malo alligatum, et cantu Syrenum mente captum, religare noluerunt; tametsi id modis multis minitando imperabat, et prudentiae ejusdem imputatur, quod postea sociis gratias egerit, quod ex prima ipsius mente ipsi obtemperaverint. Et ad hoc Ulissis exemplum solent etiam Reges judices instruere, ut scilicet justitiam exerceant, nec quenquam respiciant, nec ipsum Regem, si quid singulari aliquo casu imperaverit, quod contra institutum jus esse noverint. Reges enim non Dii, sed homines sunt, qui Syrenum capiuntur saepe cantu. Si igitur omnia ab inconstanti unius voluntate penderent, nihil fixum esset. Atque adeo imperium Monarchicum, ut stabile sit, instituendum est, ut omnia quidem ex solo Regis decreto fiant, hoc est, ut omne jus sit Regis explicata voluntas; at non ut omnis Regis voluntas jus sit, de quo vide Art. 3. 5. et 6. praec. Cap.

II. Deinde notandum, quod in jaciendis fundamentis maxime humanos affectus observare necesse est, nec ostendisse sufficit, quid oporteat fieri, sed apprime, qui fieri possit, ut homines, sive affectu, sive ratione ducantur, jura tamen rata, fixaque habeant. Nam si imperii jura, sive libertas publica solo invalido legum auxilio nitatur, non tantum nulla ejus obtinendae erit civibus securitas, ut Art. 3. Cap. praec. ostendimus, sed etiam exitio erit. Nam hoc certum est, nullam Civitatis conditionem miseriorem esse, quam optimae, quae labascere incipit, nisi uno actu, et ictu cadat, et in servitutem ruat (quod sane impossibile videtur esse), ac proinde subditis multo satius esset suum jus absolute in unum transferre, quam incertas, et vanas, sive irritas libertatis conditiones stipulari, atque ita posteris iter ad servitutem crudelissimam parare. At si imperii Monarchici fundamenta, quae in praec. Cap. retuli, firma esse ostendero, nec divelli posse, nisi cum indignatione maximae partis armatae multitudinis, et ex iis Regi, et multitudini pacem, et securitatem sequi, atque haec ex communi natura deduxero, dubitare nemo poterit eadem optima esse, et vera, ut patet ex Art. 9. Ca. et Art. 3. et 8. praec. Cap. Quod autem hujus illa naturae sint, quam paucis potero, ostendam.

III. Quod officium ejus, qui imperium tenet, sit Imperii statum, et conditionem semper noscere, et communi omnium saluti vigilare, et id omne, quod majori subditorum parti utile est, efficere, apud omnes in confesso est. Cum autem unus solus omnia perlustrare nequeat, nec semper animum praesentem habere, et ad cogitandum instituere, et saepe morbo, aut senectute, aut aliis de causis rebus vacare (19) publicis prohibeatur necesse ergo est, ut Monarcha Consiliarios habeat, qui rerum statum noscant, et Regem consilio juvent, et ipsius locum saepe suppleant; atque adeo fiat, ut imperium, seu Civitas una semper, eademque mente constet.

IV. Sed quia cum humana natura ita comparatum est, ut unusquisque suum privatum utile summo cum affectu quaerat, et illa jura aequissima esse judicet, quae rei suae conservandae, et augendae necessaria esse, et alterius causam eatenus defendat, quatenus rem suam eo ipso stabilire credit, hinc sequitur Consiliarios necessario debere eligi, quorum privatae res, et utilitas a communi omnium salute, et pace pendeant; atque adeo patet, quod, si ex unoquoque civium genere, sive classe aliquot eligantur, id majori subditorum parti utile erit, quod in hoc Concilio plurima habuerit suffragia. Et quamvis hoc Concilium, quod ex adeo magno civium numero componitur, frequentari necessario debeat a multis rudi admodum ingenio, hoc tamen certum est, unumquemque in negotiis, quae diu magno cum affectu exercuit, satis callidum, atque astutum esse. Quapropter si nulli alii eligantur, nisi ii, qui ad quinquagesimum aetatis annum usque negotia sua sine ignominia exercuerunt, satis apti erunt, ut consilia res suas concernentia dare possint, praesertim si in rebus majoris ponderis tempus ad meditandum concedatur. Adde quod longe abest, ut Concilium, quod paucis constat, a similibus non frequentetur. Nam contra maxima ejus pars ex hominibus ejusmodi constat: quandoquidem unusquisque ibi maxime conatur socios habere bardos, qui ab ipsius ore pendeant, quod in magnis Conciliis locum non habet.

V. Praeterea certum est, unumquemque malle regere, quam regi. Nemo enim volens imperium alteri concedit, ut habet Salustius in prima ad Caesarem oratione. Ac proinde patet, quod multitudo integra nunquam jus suum in paucos, aut unum transferet, si inter ipsam convenire possit, nec ex controversiis, quae plerumque in magnis Conciliis excitantur, in seditiones ire; atque adeo multitudo id libere tantummodo in Regem transfert, quod absolute in potestate ipsa habere nequit, hoc est, controversiarum diremptionem, et in decernendo expeditionem. Nam quod saepe etiam fit, ut Rex belli causa eligatur, quia scilicet bellum a Regibus multo felicius geritur, inscitia sane est, nimirum quod, ut bellum felicius gerant, in pace servire velint; si quidem pax eo in imperio potest concipi, cujus summa potestas sola belli causa in unum translata est, qui propterea virtutem suam, et quid omnes in ipso uno habeant, maxime in bello ostendere potest; cum contra imperium Democraticum hoc praecipuum habeat, quod ejus virtus multo magis in pace, quam in bello valet. Sed quacunque de causa Rex eligatur, ipse solus, ut jam diximus, quid imperio utile sit, scire nequit; sed ad hoc, ut in praec. Art. ostendimus necesse est, ut plures cives Consiliarios habeat, et quia concipere nequaquam possumus, quod aliquid de re consulenda potest concipi, quod tam magnum hominum numerum effugerit, sequitur, quod praeter omnes hujus Concilii sententias, quae ad Regem deferuntur, nulla poterit concipi ad populi salutem idonea. Atque adeo, quia populi salus suprema lex, seu Regis summum jus est, sequitur jus Regis esse unam ex latis Concilii sententiis eligere, non autem contra totius Concilii mentem quicquam decernere, vel sententiam ferre (vide Art. 25. praeced. Cap.). Sed si omnes sententiae in Concilio latae ad Regem deferendae essent, fieri posset, ut Rex parvis urbibus, quae pauciora habent suffragia, semper faveret. Nam quamvis ex lege Concilii statutum sit, ut sententiae non indicatis earum authoribus deferantur, nunquam tamen tam bene cavere poterunt, ut non aliqua effluat, ac proinde necessario statuendum est, ut illa sententia, quae centum ad minimum suffragia non habuerit, irrita habeatur, quod quidem jus majores urbes summa vi defendere debebunt.

VI. Atque hic, nisi brevitati studerem, magnas hujus Concilii utilitates alias ostenderem; unam tamen, quae maximi videtur esse momenti, adducam. Nempe, quod nullum majus ad virtutem incitamentum dari potest, hac communi spe summum hunc honorem adipiscendi: nam gloria maxime ducimur omnes, ut in nostra Ethica fuse ostendimus.

VII. Quin majori hujus Concilii parti nunquam animus gerendi bellum, sed magnum pacis studium, et amor semper futurus sit, dubitari non potest. Nam, praeterquam quod ex bello ipsis timor semper erit bona sua cum libertate amittendi, accedit, quod ad bellum novi sumptus requirantur, quos suppeditare debent, ac etiam quod ipsorum liberi, et affines curis domesticis intenti, studium ad arma in bello applicare, et militatum ire cogentur, unde domum nihil praeter gratuitas cicatrices referre poterunt. Nam, uti Art. 31. (20) praeced. Cap. diximus, militiae stipendia nulla solvenda, et Art. 10. (21) ejusdem Cap. ipsa ex solis civibus, et ex nullis aliis formanda.

VIII. Ad pacem, et concordiam aliud praeterea, quod etiam magni est momenti, accedit, nempe quod nullus civis bona fixa habeat (vid. Art. 12. praeced. Cap.). Unde omnibus ex bello par propemodum periculum est: nam omnes lucri causa mercaturam exercere, vel argentum suum invicem credere, si, ut olim ab Atheniensibus, lex lata sit, qua prohibeatur unicuique argentum suum foenere aliis, quam incolis dare; atque adeo negotia tractare debebunt, quae vel invicem intricata sunt, vel quae eadem media, ut promoveantur, requirunt; atque adeo hujus Concilii maximae parti circa res communes, et pacis artes una pierumque, eademque erit mens; nam, ut Art. 4. hujus Cap. diximus, unusquisque alterius causam eatenus defendit, quatenus eo ipso rem suam stabilire credit.

IX. Quod nemo unquam in animum inducet hoc Concilium muneribus corrumpere, dubitari non potest. Si enim aliquis ex tam magno hominum numero unum, aut alterum ad se trahat, sane nihil promovebit: nam, uti diximus, sententia, quae centum ad minimum (22) suffragia non habuerit, irrita est.

X. Quod praeterea hujus Concilii semel stabiliti membra ad minorem numerum redigi non poterunt, facile videbimus, si hominum communes affectus consideremus. Omnes enim gloria maxime ducuntur, et nullus est, qui sano corpore vivit, qui non speret in longam senectutem vitam trahere. Si itaque calculum ineamus eorum, qui revera annum quinquagesimum, aut sexagesimum aetatis attigerunt, et rationem praeterea habeamus magni istius Concilii numeri, qui quotannis eligitur, videbimus vix aliquem eorum, qui arma ferunt, dari posse, qui non magna spe teneatur, huc dignitatis ascendere; atque adeo omnes hoc Concilii jus, quantum poterunt, defendent. Nam notandum, quod corruptio, nisi paulatim irrepat, facile praevenitur; at quia facilius concipi potest, et minori invidia fieri, ut ex unaquaque familia, quam ut ex paucis minor numerus eligatur, aut ut una, aut alia secludatur, ergo (per Art. 15. (23) praeced. Cap.) Consiliariorum numerus non potest ad alium minorem redigi, nisi simul ab eo una tertia, quarta, aut quinta pars auferatur, quae sane mutatio admodum magna est, et consequenter a communi praxi omnino abhorrens. Nec mora praeterea, sive in eligendo negligentia timenda est, quia haec ab ipso Concilio suppletur. Vid. Art. 16. praeced. Cap.

XI. Rex igitur, sive multitudinis metu ductus, vel ut sibi armatae multitudinis majorem partem devinciat, sive animi generositate ductus, ut scilicet utilitati publicae consulat, illam semper sententiam, quae plurima suffragia habuerit, hoc est (per Art. 5. hujus Cap.), quae imperii majori parti est utilior, firmabit, aut discrepantes sententias, quae ad ipsum delatae sunt, si fieri potest, conciliare studebit, ut omnes ad se trahat, qua in re nervos intendet suos, et ut tam in pace, quam in bello experiantur, quid in ipso uno habeant; atque adeo tum maxime sui juris erit, et imperium maxime habebit, quando maxime communi multitudinis saluti consulit.

XII. Nam Rex solus omnes metu continere nequit; sed ipsius potentia, ut diximus, nititur militum numero, et praecipue eorundem virtute, et fide, quae semper inter homines tamdiu constans erit, quamdiu indigentia, sive haec honesta, sive turpis sit, copulantur; unde fit, ut Reges incitare saepius milites, quam coërcere, et magis eorum vitia, quam virtutes dissimulare soleant, et plerumque, ut optimos premant, inertes, et luxu perditos inquirere, agnoscere, pecunia, aut gratia juvare, prehensare manus, jacere oscula, et omnia servilia pro dominatione agere. Ut itaque cives a Rege prae omnibus agnoscantur, et quantum status civilis, sive aequitas concedit, sui juris maneant, necesse est, ut militia ex solis civibus componatur, et ut ipsi a Consiliis sint; et contra eos omni no subactos esse, et aeterni belli fundamenta jacere, simulatque milites auxiliares duci patiuntur, quorum mercatura bellum est, et quibus in discordiis, et seditionibus plurima vis.

XIII. Quod Regis Consiliarii ad vitam eligi non debeant, sed in tres, quatuor, vel quinque ad summum annos, patet tam ex Art. 10. hujus Capitis, quam ex iis, quae in Art. 9. hujus etiam Capitis diximus. Nam, si ad vitam eligerentur, praeterquam quo maxima civium Pars vix ullam spem posset concipere eum honorem adipiscendi; atque adeo magna inde inter cives inaequalitas, unde invidia et continui rumores, et tandem seditiones orirentur, quae sane Regibus dominandi avidis non ingratae essent; magnam praeterea ad omnia licentiam (sublato scilicet succedentium metu) sumerent (24), Rege minime adversante. Nam, quo civibus magis invisi, eo magis Regi adhaerebunt, eique ad adulandum magis proni erunt. Imo quinque annorum intervallum nimium adhuc videtur, quia eo temporis spatio non adeo impossibile factu videtur, ut magna admodum Concilii (quam etiam magnum sit) pars muneribus, aut gratia corrumpatur; atque adeo longe securius res sese habebit, si quotannis ex unaquaque familia duo cedant, et totidem iisdem succedant (si nimirum ex unaquaque familia quinque consiliarii habendi sunt), praeterquam eo anno, quo juris prudens alicujus familiae cedit, et novus ejus loco eligitur.

XIV. Rex praeterea nullus majorem sibi securitatem polliceri potest, quam qui in hujusmodi Civitate regnat. Nani, praeterquam quod cito perit, quem sui milites salvum esse nolunt, certum est Regibus summum semper periculum esse ab iis, qui eis proximi sunt. Quo igitur Consiliarii numero pauciores, et consequenter potentiores sunt, eo Regi majus ab ipsis periculuin est, ne imperium in alium transferant. Nihil sane Davidem magis terruit, quam quod ipsius Consiliarius Achitophel partes Absolomi elegerat. Huc accedit, si omnis potestas in unum absolute translata fuerit, quae tum longe facilius ex uno in alium transferri potest. Suscepere enim duo Manipulares imperium Romanum transferre, et transtulerunt (Tacit. Hist. lib. I.). Omitto artes, et astus callidos Consiliariorum, quibus sibi cavere debent, ne invidiae immolentur, quia nimis noti sunt, et nemo, qui Historias legit, ignorare potest, Consiliariis fidem plerumque exitio fuisse; atque adeo, ut sibi caveant, eosdem callidos, non fidos esse oportet. Sed si Consiliarii plures numero, quam ut in eodem scelere convenire possint, et omnes inter se aequales sint, nec ultra quadriennium eo officio fungantur, Regi nequaquam formidolosi esse queunt, nisi libertatem iis adimere tentet, quo omnes cives pariter offendet. Nam, (ut Ant. Perezius optime notat) imperio absoluto uti Principi admodum periculosum, subditis admodum odiosum, et institutis tam divinis, quam humanis adversum, ut innumera ostendunt exempla.

XV. Praeter haec, alia fundamenta in praec. Cap. jecimus, ex quibus Regi magna imperii, et civibus libertatis, ac pacis obtinendae securitas oritur, quae suis locis ostendemus. Nam quae ad supremum Concilium spectant, quaeque maximi ponderis sunt, ante omnia demonstrare volui, jam reliqua eo, quo ipsa proposui, ordine persequar.

XVI. Quod cives eo potentiores, et consequenter magis sui juris sint, quo majores urbes, et magis munitas habent, dubio caret: quo enim locus, in quo sunt, tutior est, eo libertatem suam melius tueri, sive hostem externum, vel internum minus timere possunt, et certum est, homines naturali ter securitati suae eo magis consulere, quo divitiis potentiores sunt. Quae autem urbes alterius potentia, ut conserventur, indigent, aequale jus cum eo non habent, sed eatenus alterius sunt juris, quatenus alterius potentia indigent. Jus enim sola potentia definiri in 2. Cap. ostendimus.

XVII. Hac eadem etiam de causa, ut cives scilicet sui juris maneant, et libertatem tueantur, militia ex solis civibus nullo excepto constare debet. Etenim homo armatus magis, quam inermis sui juris (vide Art. 12. hujus Cap.), et ii cives suum jus in alterum absolute transferunt, ejusdemque fidei omnino committunt, cui arma dederunt, et urbium munimenta crediderunt. Huc accedit humana avaritia, qua plerique maxime ducuntur: fieri enim non potest, ut auxiliarius miles sine magnis sumptibus conducatur, et cives vix pati possunt exactiones, quae sustentandae otiosae militiae requiruntur. Quod autem nullus, qui integrae militiae, vel magnae ejus parti imperet, nisi, cogente necessitate, in annum ad summum eligendus sit, norunt omnes, qui historias, tam sacras, quam (25) profanas legerunt. Ratio autem nihil hoc clarius docet. Nam sane imperii robur ei omnino creditur, cui satis temporis conceditur, ut militarem gloriam occupet, ipsiusque nomen supra Regis attollatur, vel fidum sibi exercitum faciat obsequio, liberalitate, et reliquis artibus, ducibus assuetis, quibus alienum servitium, et sibi dominationem quaerunt. Denique ad majorem totius imperii securitatem addidi, quod hi militiae imperatores eligendi sunt ex Regis Consiliariis, vel qui eodem officio functi sunt, hoc est, viris, qui eo aetatis pervenerunt, qua homines plerumque vetera, et tuta, quam nova, et periculosa malint.

XVIII. Cives inter se familiis distinguendos esse dixi, et ex unaquaque aequalem Consiliariorum numerum eligendum, ut majores urbes plures haberent pro numero civium Consiliarios, et plura, ut aequum est, adferre possent suffragia. Nam imperii potentia et consequenter jus ex civium numero aestimanda est; nec credo, quod ad hanc inter cives aequalitatem servandam aliud medium aptius excogitari potest, qui omnes natura ita comparati sunt, ut unusquisque generi suo adscribi velit, et stirpe a reliquis internosci.

XIX. Praeterea in statu naturali unusquisque nihil minus sibi vindicare, et sui juris facere potest, quam solum, et quicquid solo ita adhaeret, ut id nusquam abscondere, nec portare, quo velit, potest. Solum igitur, et quicquid ei ea, qua diximus, conditione adhaeret, apprime communis Civitatis juris est, nempe eorum omnium, qui junctis viribus, vel ejus, cui omnes potestatem dederunt, qua id sibi vendicare possit, et consequenter solum, et quicquid ei adhaeret, tanti valere apud cives debet, quantum necesse est, ut pedem eo in loco figere, et commune jus, seu libertatem tueri possint. Caeterum utilitates, quas Civitas hinc necesse est, ut capiat (26), ostendimus Art. 8. hujus Capitis.

XX. Ut cives, quantum fieri potest, aequales sint, quod in Civitate apprime necessarium est, nulli, nisi a Rege oriundi, Nobiles censendi sunt. At si omnibus ex Rege oriundis uxorem ducere, seu liberos procreare liceret, successu temporis in magnum admodum numerum crescerent, et Regi, et omnibus non tantum oneri, sed formidolosissimi (27) insuper essent. Homines enim, qui otio abundant, scelera plerumque meditantur; unde fit, ut Reges maxime Nobilium causa inducantur bellum gerere, quia Regibus, Nobilibus stipatis, major ex bello, quam ex pace securitas, et quies. Sed haec, utpote satis nota, relinquo, ut et quae ex Art. 15. usque ad 27. in praec. Capite dixi: nam praecipua in hoc Cap. demonstrata, et reliqua per se manifesta sunt.

XXI. Quod Judices plures numero esse debeant, quam ut a viro privato magna ejus pars possit muneribus corrumpi, ut et quod suffragia non palam, sed clam ferre debeant, et quod vacationis praemium mereantur, omnibus etiam notum. Sed solent ubique annuum habere stipendium; unde fit, ut non admodum festinent lites dirimere, et saepe, ut quaestionibus nullus sit finis. Deinde ubi bonorum publicatio Regum emolumenta sunt, ibi saepe non ius, aut verum in cognitionibus, sed magnitudo opum spectatur; passim delationes, et locupletissimus quisque in praedam correpti, quae gravia, et intoleranda, sed necessitate armorum excusata, etiam in pace manent. At Judicum avaritia, qui scilicet in duos, aut tres annos ad summum constituuntur, metu succedentium temperantur, ut jam taceam, quod Judices bona fixa nulla habere possunt, sed quod argentum suum lucri causa concivibus credere debeant, atque adeo iis magis consulere, quam insidiari coguntur, praesertim si ipsi judices magno, uti diximus, numero sint.

XXII. At militiae nullum decernendum esse stipendium diximus: nam summum militiae praemium libertas est. In statu enim naturali nititur unusquisque sola libertatis causa sese, quantum potest, defendere, nec aliud bellicae virtutis praemium exspectat, quam ut suus sit; in statu autem civili omnes simul cives considerandi perinde, ac homo in statu naturali, qui propterea, dum omnes pro eo statu militant, sibi cavent, sibique vacant. At Consiliarii, Judices, Praetores, etc. plus aliis, quam sibi vacant, quare iis vacationis praemium decerni aequum est. Accedit, quod in bello nullum honestius, nec majus victoriae incitamentum esse potest, quam libertatis imago; sed si contra civium aliqua pars militiae designetur, qua de causa necesse etiam erit iisdem certum stipendium decernere, Rex necessario eosdem prae reliquis agnoscet (ut Art. 12. hujus Cap. ostendimus), homines scilicet, qui belli artes tantummodo norunt, et in pace propter nimium otium luxu corrumpuntur, et tandem propter inopiam rei familiaris nihil praeter rapinas, discordias civiles, et bella meditantur; atque adeo affirmare possumus imperium Monarchicum hujusmodi revera statum belli esse, et solam militiam libertate gaudere, reliquos autem servire.

XXIII. Quae de peregrinis in civium numerum recipiendis Art. 32. praeced. Cap. diximus, per se nota esse credo. Praeterea neminem dubitare (28) existimo, quod ii, qui Regi sanguine propinqui sunt, procul ab eo esse debeant, et non belli, sed pacis negotiis distrahi, ex quibus ipsis decus, et imperio quies sequatur. Quamvis nec hoc quidem Turcarum Tyrannis satis tutum visum fuerit, quibus propterea Religio est fratres omnes necare. Nec mirum; nam quo magis absolute imperii jus in unum translatum est, eo facilius ipsum (ut Art. 14. hujus Cap. exemplo ostendimus) ex uno in alium transferri potest. At imperium Monarchicum, quale hic concipimus, in quo scilicet mercenarius miles nullus est, satis hoc, quo diximus, modo Regis saluti cautum fore, extra dubium est.

XXIV. De iis etiam, quae Art. 34. et 35. praeced. Cap. diximus, ambigere nemo potest. Quod autem Rex extraneam in uxorem ducere non debet, facile demonstratur. Nam praeterquam quod duae Civitates, quanquam foedere inter se sociatae, in statu tamen hostilitatis sunt (per Art. 14. Ca.), apprime cavendum est, ne bellum propter Regis res domesticas concitetur, et quia controversiae, et dissensiones ex societate praecipue, quae ex matrimonio fit, oriuntur, et quae inter duas Civitates quaestiones sunt, jure belli plerumque dirimuntur, hinc sequitur imperio exitiale esse arctam societatem cum alio inire. Hujus rei fatale exemplum in Scriptura legimus mortuo enim Salomone, qui filiam Regis Aegypti sibi matrimonio junxerat, filius ejus Rehabeam bellum cum Susaco (29) Aegyptiorum Rege infelicissime gessit, a quo ommino subactus est. Matrimonium praeterea Ludovici 14. Regis Galliarum cum filia Philippi quarti novi belli semen fuit, et praeter haec plurima exempla in historiis leguntur.

XXV. Imperii facies una, eademque servari, et consequenter Rex unus, et ejusdem sexus, et imperium indivisibile esse debet. Quod autem dixerim, ut filius Regis natu major patri jure succedat, vel (si nulli sint liberi) qui Regi sanguine proximus est, patet tam ex Artic. 13. praeced. Cap., quam quia Regis electio, quae a multitudine fit, aeterna, si fieri potest, esse debet; alias necessario fiet, ut summa imperii potestas saepe ad multitudinem transeat, quae mutatio summa est, et consequenter periculosissima. Qui autem statuunt, Regem ex eo, quod imperii Dominus est, idque jure absoluto tenet, posse, cui vellet, idem tradere, et successorem, quem velit, eligere, atque adeo Regis filium imperii haeredem jure esse, falluntur sane. Nam Regis voluntas tam diu vim juris habet, quamdiu Civitatis gladium tenet; imperii namque jus sola potentia definitur. Rex igitur regno cedere quidem potest, sed non imperium alteri tradere, nisi connivente multitudine, vel parte ejus validiore. Quod ut clarius intelligatur, venit notandum, quod liberi non jure naturali, sed civili parentum haeredes sunt: nam sola Civitatis potentia fit, ut unusquisque quorundam bonorum sit dominus; quare eadem potentia, sive jure, quo fit, ut voluntas alicujus, qua de suis bonis statuit, rata sit, eodem fit, ut eadem voluntas etiam post ipsius mortem rata maneat, quamdiu Civitas permanet, et hac ratione unusquisque in statu civili idem jus, quod dum in vivis est, etiam post mortem obtinet, quia, uti diximus, non tam sua, quam Civitatis potentia, quae aeterna est, de suis bonis quicquam statuere potest. At Regis alia prorsus est ratio: nam Regis voluntas ipsum jus Civile est, et rex ipsa Civitas; mortuo igitur Rege obiit quodammodo Civitas, et status Civilis ad naturalem, et consequenter summa potestas ad multitudinem naturaliter redit, quae propterea jure potest leges novas condere, et veteres abrogare. Atque adeo apparet, neminem Regi jure succedere, nisi quem multitudo successorem vult, vel in Theocratia, qualis Hebraeorum Civitas olim fuit, quem Deus per Prophetam elegerit. Possemus praeterea haec inde deducere, quod Regis gladius, sive jus sit revera ipsius multitudinis, sive validioris ejus partis voluntas, vel etiam ex eo, quod homines ratione praediti nunquam suo jure ita cedunt, ut homines esse desinant, et perinde ac pecudes habeantur. Sed haec ulterius persequi non est opus.

XXVI. Caeterum Religionis, sive Deum colendi jus nemo in alium transferre potest. Sed de hoc in duobus ultimis Capitibus Tractatus Theologico-Politici prolixe egimus, quae hic repetere superfluum est. Atque his me optimi imperi i Monarchici fundamenta satis clare, quamvis breviter, demonstrasse autumo. Eorum autem cohaerentiam, sive imperii analogiam facile unusquisque observabit, qui eadem simul aliqua cum attentione contemplari velit. Superest tantum monere, me hic imperium Monarchicum concipere, quod a libera multitudine instituitur, cui solummodo haec ex usu esse possunt; nam multitudo, quae alii imperii formae assuevit, non poterit sine magno eversionis periculo totius imperii recepta fundamenta evellere, et totius imperii fabricam mutare.

XXVII. Atque haec, quae scripsimus, risu forsan excipientur ab iis, qui vitia, quae omnibus mortalibus insunt, ad solam plebem restringunt; nempe quod in vulgo nihil modicum, terrere, ni paveant, et quod plebs aut humiliter servit, aut superbe dominatur, nec ei veritas, aut judicium, etc. At natura una, et communis omnium est. Sed potentia, et cultu decipimur, unde est, ut duo cum idem faciunt, saepe dicamus, hoc licet impune facere huic, illi non licet, non quod dissimilis res sit, sed qui facit. Dominantibus propria est superbia. Superbiunt homines annua designatione: quid nobiles, qui honores in aeternum agitant. Sed eorum arrogantia fastu, luxu, prodigalitate, certoque vitiorum concentu, et docta quadam insipientia et turpitudinis elegantia adornatur, ita ut vitia, quorum singula seorsim spectata, quia tum maxime eminent, faeda et turpia sunt, honesta, et decora imperitis, et ignaris videantur. Nihil praeterea in vulgo modicum, terrere, nisi paveant: nam libertas, et servitium haud facile miscentur. Denique quod plebi nulla veritas, neque judicium sit, mirum non est, quando praecipua imperii negotia clam ipsa agitantur, et non misi ex paucis, quae celari nequeunt, conjecturam facit. Judicium enim suspendere rara est virtus. Velle igitur clam civibus omnia agere, et me de iisdem prava judicia ferant, neque ut res omnes sinistre interpretentur, summa est inscitia. Nam si plebs sese temperare, et de rebus parum cognitis judicium suspendere, vel ex paucis praecognitis recte de rebus judicare posset, dignior sane esset, ut regeret, quam ut regeretur. Sed, uti diximus, natura omnibus eadem est; superbiunt omnes dominatione: terrent, nisi paveant, et ubique veritas plerumque infringitur ab infensis, vel obnoxiis, praesertim ubi unus, vel pauci dominantur, qui non jus, aut verum in cognitionibus, sed magnitudinem opum spectant.

XXVIII. Milites deinde stipendiarii, militari scilicet disciplinae assueti, algoris, et inediae patientes, civium turbam contemnere solent, utpote ad expugnationes, vel aperto Marte dimicandum longe inferiorem. Sed quod imperium ea de causa infelicius sit, aut minus constans, nullus, cui mens sana est, affirmabit. Sed contra unusquisque aequus rerum aestimator illud imperium omnium constantius esse non negabit, quod parta tantum tueri, nec aliena appetere potest, quodque propterea bellum omnibus modis declinare, et pacem tueri summo studio conatur.

XXIX. Caeterum fateor hujus imperii consilia celari vix posse. Sed unusquisque mecum etiam fatebitur multo fatius esse, ut recta imperii consilia hostibus pateant, quam ut prava tyrannorum arcana clam civibus habeantur. Qui imperii negotia secreto agitare possunt, idem absolute in potestate habent, et ut hosti in bello, ita civibus in pace insidiantur. Quod silentium imperio saepe ex usu sit, negare nemo potest, sed quod absque eodem idem imperium subsistere nequeat, nemo unquam probabit. At contra Rempublicam alicui absolute credere, et simul libertatem obtinere, fieri nequaquam potest; atque adeo inscitia est, parvum damnum summo malo vitare velle. Verum eorum, qui sibi imperium absolutum concupiscunt, haec unica fuit cantilena, civitatis omnino interesse, ut ipsius negotia secreto agitentur, et alia hujusmodi, quae quanto magis utilitatis imagine teguntur, tanto ad infensius servitium erumpunt.

XXX. Denique quamvis nullum, quod sciam, imperium his omnibus, quas diximus, conditionibus institutum fuerit, poterimus tamen ipsa etiam experientia ostendere, hanc Monarchici imperii formam optimam esse, si causas conservationis cujuscunque imperii non barbari, et ejusdem eversionis considerare velimus. Sed hoc non sine magno lectoris taedio hic facere possem; attamen unum exemplum, quod memoria dignum videtur, silentio praeterire nolo; nempe Aragonensium imperium, qui singulari erga suos reges fide affecti, et pari constantia regni instituta inviolata servaverunt. Nam hi simulatque servile Maurorum jugum a cervicibus dejecerant, Regem sibi eligere statuerunt; quibus autem conditionibus, non satis inter eosdem conveniebat, et hac de causa summum Pontificem Romanum de ea re consulere constituerunt. Hic, Christi profecto vicarium hac in re se gerens, eos castigavit, quod non satis Hebraeorum exemplo moniti Regem adeo obfirmato animo petere voluerint; sed si sententiam mutare nollent, suasit, ne Regem eligerent, nisi institutis prius ritibus satis aequis, et ingenio gentis consentaneis, et apprime ut supremum aliquod Concilium crearent, quod regibus, ut Lacedaemoniorum Ephori, opponeretur, et jus absolutum haberet lites dirimendi, quae inter Regem, et cives orirentur. Hoc igitur consilium sequuti, jura, quae ipsis omnium aequissima visa sunt, instituerunt, quorum summus interpres, et consequenter supremus judex non Rex, sed Concilium esset, quod septendecim vocant, et cujus praeses Justitia appellatur. Hic igitur Justitia et hi septendecim nullis suffragiis, sed sorte ad vitam electi, jus absolutum habent omnes sententias in civem quemcunque ab aliis Conciliis tam Politicis, quam Ecclesiasticis, vel ab ipso Rege latas revocandi, et damnandi, ita ut quilibet civis jus haberet ipsum etiam Regem coram hoc judicio vocandi. Praeterea olim jus etiam habuerunt Regem eligendi, et potestate privandi; sed multis post elapsis annis Rex Don Pedro, qui dicitur Pugio, ambiendo, largiendo, pollicitando, omniumque officiorum genere tandem effecit, ut hoc jus rescinderetur (quod simulac obtinuit, manum pugione coram omnibus amputavit, vel, quod facilius crediderim, laesit, addens, non sine sanguinis Regii impendio licere subditis Regem eligere), ea tamen conditione: ut potuerint, et possint arma capere contra vim quamcunque, qua aliquis imperium ingredi in ipsorum damnum velit, imo contra ipsum Regem et principem futurum haeredem, si hoc modo (imperium) ingrediatur. Qua sane conditione praecedens illud jus non tam aboleverunt, quam correxerunt. Nam ut Art. 5. et 6. Ca. ostendimus, Rex non jure civili, sed jure belli dominandi potentia privari potest, vel ipsius vim vi solummodo repellere subditis licet. Praeter hanc alias stipulati sunt conditiones, quae ad nostrum scopum non faciunt. Hi ritus (30) ex omnium sententia instructi incredibili temporis spatio inviolati manserunt, pari semper fide Regum erga subditos, ac subditorum erga Regem. Sed postquam regnum Castellae Ferdinando, qui omnium primus Catholicus nuncupatus fuit, haereditate cessit, incepit haec Arragonensium libertas Castellanis esse invisa, qui propterea ipsum Ferdinandum suadere non cessabant, ut jura illa rescinderet. At ille, nondum imperio absoluto assuetus, nihil tentare ausus, Consiliariis haec respondit: praeterquam quod Arragonensium Regnum iis, quas noverant, conditionibus acceperit, quodque easdem servare sanctissime juraverit, et praeterquam quod inhumanum sit fidem da tam solvere, se in animum induxisse, suum Regnum stabile fore, quamdiu securitatis ratio non major Regi, quam subditis esset, ita ut nec Rex subditis, nec contra subditi Regi praeponderarent; nam si alterutra pars potentior evadat, pars debilior non tantum pristinam aequalitatem recuperare, sed dolore accepti damni in alteram contra referre conabitur, unde vel alterutrius, vel utriusque ruina sequeretur. Quae sane sapientia verba non satis mirari possem, si prolata fuissent a Rege, qui servis, non liberis hominibus imperare consuevisset. Retinuerunt igitur Arragonenses post Ferdinandum libertatem, non jam jure, sed Regum potentiorum gratia usque ad Philippum secundum, qui eosdem feliciori quidem fato, sed non minori saevitia, quam Confoederatorum Provincias oppressit. Et quamvis Philippus tertius omnia in integrum restituisse videatur, Arragonenses tamen, quorum plerique cupidine potentioribus affentandi (nam inscitia est contra stimulos calces mittere), et reliqui metu territi, nihil praeter libertatis speciosa vocabula, et inanes ritus retinuerunt.

XXXI. Concludimus itaque multitudinem satis amplam libertatem sub Rege servare posse, modo efficiat, ut Regis potentia sola ipsius multitudinis potentia determinetur, et ipfius multitudinis praesidio servetur. Atque haec unica fuit Regula, quam in jaciendis imperii Monarchici fundamentis sequutus sum.

Of Aristocracy.

SO FAR OF monarchy. But now we will say, on what plan an aristocracy is to be framed, so that it may be lasting. We have defined an aristocratic dominion as that, which is held not by one man, but by certain persons chosen out of the multitude, whom we shall henceforth call patricians. I say expressly, “that which is held by certain persons chosen.” For the chief difference between this and a democracy is, that the right of governing depends in an aristocracy on election only, but in a democracy for the most part on some right either congenital or acquired by fortune (as we shall explain in its place); and therefore, although in any dominion the entire multitude be received into the number of the patricians, provided that right of theirs is not inherited, and does not descend by some law to others, the dominion will for all that be quite an aristocracy, because none are received into the number of the patricians save by express election. But if these chosen persons were but two, each of them will try to be more powerful than the other, and from the too great power of each, the dominion will easily be split into two factions; and in like manner into three, four, or five factions, if three, four, or five persons were put into possession of it. But the factions will be the weaker, the more there are to whom the dominion was delegated. And hence it follows, that to secure the stability of an aristocracy, it is necessary to consider the proportionate size of the actual dominion, in order to determine the minimum number of patricians.

2. Let it be supposed, then, that for a dominion of moderate size it suffices to be allowed a hundred of the best men, and that upon them has been conferred the supreme authority of the dominion, and that they have consequently the right to elect their patrician colleagues, when any of the number die. These men will certainly endeavour to secure their succession to their children or next in blood. And thus the supreme authority of the dominion will always be with those, whom fortune has made children or kinsmen to patricians. And, as out of a hundred men who rise to office by fortune, hardly three are found that excel in knowledge and counsel, it will thus come to pass, that the authority of the dominion will rest, not with a hundred, but only with two or three who excel by vigour of mind, and who will easily draw to themselves everything, and each of them, as is the wont of human greed, will be able to prepare the way to a monarchy. And so, if we make a right calculation, it is necessary, that the supreme authority of a dominion, whose size requires at least a hundred first-rate men, should be conferred on not less than five thousand. For by this proportion it will never fail, but a hundred shall be found excelling in mental vigour, that is, on the hypothesis that, out of fifty that seek and obtain office, one will always be found not less than first-rate, besides others that imitate the virtues of the first-rate, and are therefore worthy to rule.

3. The patricians are most commonly citizens of one city, which is the head of the whole dominion, so that the commonwealth or republic has its name from it, as once that of Rome, and now those of Venice, Genoa, etc. But the republic of the Dutch has its name from an entire province, whence it arises, that the subjects of this dominion enjoy a greater liberty. Now, before we can determine the foundations on which this aristocratic dominion ought to rest, we must observe a very great difference, which exists between the dominion which is conferred on one man and that which is conferred on a sufficiently large council. For, in the first place, the power of one man is (as we said, Chap. VI. Sec. 5) very inadequate to support the entire dominion; but this no one, without manifest absurdity, can affirm of a sufficiently large council. For, in declaring the council to be sufficiently large, one at the same time denies, that it is inadequate to support the dominion. A king, therefore, is altogether in need of counsellors, but a council like this is not so in the least. In the second place, kings are mortal, but councils are everlasting. And so the power of the dominion which has once been transferred to a large enough council never reverts to the multitude. But this is otherwise in a monarchy, as we showed (Chap. VII. Sec. 25). Thirdly, a king’s dominion is often on sufferance, whether from his minority, sickness, or old age, or from other causes; but the power of a council of this kind, on the contrary, remains always one and the same. In the fourth place, one man’s will is very fluctuating and inconstant; and, therefore, in a monarchy, all law is, indeed, the explicit will of the king (as we said. Chap. VII. Sec. 1), but not every will of the king ought to be law; but this cannot be said of the will of a sufficiently numerous council. For since the council itself, as we have just shown, needs no counsellors, its every explicit will ought to be law. And hence we conclude, that the dominion conferred upon a large enough council is absolute, or approaches nearest to the absolute. For if there be any absolute dominion, it is, in fact, that which is held by an entire multitude.

4. Yet in so far as this aristocratic dominion never (as has just been shown) reverts to the multitude, and there is under it no consultation with the multitude, but, without qualification, every will of the council is law, it must be considered as quite absolute, and therefore its foundations ought to rest only on the will and judgment of the said council, and not on the watchfulness of the multitude, since the latter is excluded from giving its advice or its vote. The reason, then, why in practice aristocracy is not absolute, is that the multitude is a cause of fear to the rulers, and therefore succeeds in retaining for itself some liberty, which it asserts and holds as its own, if not by an express law, yet on a tacit understanding.

5. And thus it is manifest that this kind of dominion will be in the best possible condition, if its institutions are such that it most nearly approaches the absolute — that is, that the multitude is as little as possible a cause of fear, and retains no liberty, but such as must necessarily be assigned it by the law of the dominion itself, and is therefore not so much a right of the multitude as of the whole dominion, asserted and maintained by the aristocrats only as their own. For thus practice agrees best with theory, as appears from the last section, and is also self-evident. For we cannot doubt that the dominion rests the less with the patricians, the more rights the commons assert for themselves, such as those which the corporations of artisans in Lower Germany, commonly called Guilds, generally possess.

6. But the commons need not apprehend any danger of a hateful slavery from this form of dominion, merely because it is conferred on the council absolutely. For the will of so large a council cannot be so much determined by lust as by reason; because men are drawn asunder by an evil passion, and cannot be guided, as it were, by one mind, except so far as they desire things honourable, or that have at least an honourable appearance.

7. In determining, then, the foundations of an aristocracy, it is above all to be observed, that they should rest on the sole will and power of the supreme council, so that it may be as independent as possible, and be in no danger from the multitude. In order to determine these foundations, which are to rest, I say, upon the sole will and power of the council, let us see what foundations of peace are peculiar to monarchy, and unsuited to this form of dominion. For if we substitute for these equivalent foundations fit for an aristocracy, and leave the rest, as they are already laid, we shall have removed without doubt every cause of seditions; or, at least, this kind of dominion will be no less safe than the monarchical, but, on the contrary, so much the more so, and of so much better a condition, as, without danger to peace and liberty, it approaches nearer than monarchy to the absolute (Secs. 3, 6). For the greater the right of the supreme authority, the more the form of dominion agrees with the dictate of reason (Chap. III. Sec. 5 ), and, therefore, the fitter it is to maintain peace and liberty. Let us run through, therefore, the points we stated in our sixth chapter, beginning with the ninth section, that we may reject what is unfit for this kind of dominion, and see what agrees with it.

8. That it is necessary, in the first place, to found and fortify one or more cities, no one can doubt. But that city is above all to be fortified, which is the head of the whole dominion, and also those that are on its frontiers. For that which is the head of the whole dominion, and has the supreme right, ought to be more powerful than the rest. But under this kind of dominion it is quite unnecessary to divide all the inhabitants into clans.

9. As for the military, since under this dominion equality is not to be looked for among all, but between the patricians only, and, in particular, the power of the patricians is greater than that of the commons, it is certain that it makes no difference to the laws or fundamental principles of this dominion, that the military be formed of others besides subjects. But it is of the first importance that no one be admitted into the number of the patricians, that has not a proper knowledge of the art of war. But for the subjects to be excluded, as some would have it, from military service, is surely folly. For besides that the military pay given to subjects remains within the realm, whereas, on the contrary, what is paid to a foreign soldiery is altogether lost, the greatest strength of the dominion is also thereby weakened. For it is certain that those fight with peculiar valour who fight for altar and hearth. Whence, also, it is manifest that those are no less wrong, who lay down that military commanders, tribunes, centurions, etc., should be chosen from among the patricians only. For with what courage will those soldiers fight who are deprived of all hope of gaining glory and advancement? But, on the other hand, to establish a law forbidding the patricians to hire foreign soldiers when circumstances require it, whether to defend themselves, and suppress seditions, or for any other reason, besides being inconsiderate, would also be repugnant to the supreme right of the patricians, concerning which see Secs. 3, 4, 5 of this chapter. But the general of a single army, or of the entire military, is to be chosen but in time of war, and among the patricians only, and is to hold the command for a year at most, without power of being continued therein, or afterwards reappointed. For this law, necessary as it is under a monarchy, is so above all under this kind of dominion. For although it is much easier, as we have said above, to transfer the dominion from one man to another than from a free council to one man; yet it does often happen, that patricians are subdued by their own generals, and that to the much greater harm of the commonwealth. For when a monarch is removed, it is but a change of tyrant, not of the form of dominion; but, under an aristocracy, this cannot happen, without an upsetting of the form of dominion, and a slaughter of the greatest men. Of which thing Rome has offered the most mournful examples. But our reason for saying that, under a monarchy, the militia should serve without pay, is here inapplicable. For since the subjects are excluded from giving their advice or votes, they are to be reckoned as foreigners, and are, therefore, to be hired for service on no worse terms than foreigners. And there is in this case no danger of their being distinguished above the rest by the patricians: nay, further, to avoid the partial judgment which everyone is apt to form of his own exploits, it is wiser for the patricians to assign a fixed payment to the soldiers for their service.

10. Furthermore, for this same reason, that all but the patricians are foreigners, it cannot be without danger to the whole dominion, that the lands and houses and the whole soil should remain public property, and be let to the inhabitants at a yearly rent. For the subjects having no part in the dominion would easily, in bad times, all forsake their cities, if they could carry where they pleased what goods they possess. And, therefore, lands and farms are not to be let, but sold to the subjects, yet on condition that they pay every year an aliquot part of the year’s produce, etc., as is done in Holland.

11. These points considered, I proceed to the foundations on which the supreme council should rest and be established. We have shown (Sec. 2) that, in a moderate-sized dominion, this council ought to have about five thousand members. And so we must look for means of preventing the dominion from gradually getting into fewer hands, and of insuring, on the contrary, that the number of members be increased in proportion to the growth of the dominion itself; and, next, that between the patricians, equality be as far as possible maintained; and, further, that there may be speed and expedition in their counsels, and that they tend to the general good; and, lastly, that the power of the patricians or council exceed the power of the multitude, yet so that the multitude suffer no harm thereby.

12. But jealousy causes a great difficulty in maintaining our first point. For men are, as we have said, by nature enemies, so that however they be associated, and bound together by laws, they still retain their nature. And hence I think it is, that democracies change into aristocracies, and these at length into monarchies. For I am fully persuaded that most aristocracies were formerly democracies. For when a given multitude, in search of fresh territories, has found and cultivated them, it retains, as a whole, its equal right of dominion, because no man gives dominion to another spontaneously. But although every one of them thinks it fair, that he should have the same right against another that that other has against him, he yet thinks it unfair, that the foreigners that join them should have equal right in the dominion with themselves, who sought it by their own toil, and won it at the price of their own blood. And this not even the foreigners themselves deny, for, of course, they migrate thither, not to hold dominion, but for the benefit of their own private business, and are quite satisfied if they are but allowed the liberty of transacting that business in safety. But meanwhile the multitude is augmented by the influx of foreigners, who gradually acquire the national manners, until at last they are distinguished by no other difference than that of incapacity to get office; and while their number daily increases, that of the citizens, on the contrary, is by many causes diminished. For families often die out, and some persons are disqualified for their crimes, and a great many are driven by domestic poverty to neglect affairs of state, and meanwhile the more powerful aim at nothing else, but to govern alone; and thus the dominion is gradually limited to a few, and at length by faction to one. And here we might add other causes that destroy dominions of this sort; but as they are well known, I pass them by, and proceed now to state the laws by which this dominion, of which we are treating, ought to be maintained.

13. The primary law of this dominion ought to be that which determines the proportionate numbers of patricians and multitude. For a proportion (Sec. 1) ought to be maintained between the multitude and the patricians, so that with the increase of the former the number of the latter should be raised. And this proportion (in accordance with our remarks in the second section) ought to be about fifty to one, that is, the inequality between the members of each should never be greater. For (Sec. 1) without destroying the form of dominion, the number of patricians may be greater than the number of the multitude. But there is no danger except in the smallness of their number. But how it is to be provided that this law be kept unbroken, I will presently show in its own place.

14. Patricians, in some places, are chosen only out of particular families. But it is ruinous to lay this down expressly by law. For not to mention that families often die out, and that the other families can never be excluded without disgrace, it is also repugnant to the form of this dominion, that the dignity of patrician should be hereditary (Sec. 1). But on this system a dominion seems rather a democracy, such as we have described in Sec. 12, that is in the hands of very few citizens. But, on the other hand, to provide against the patricians choosing their own sons and kinsmen, and thereby against the right of dominion remaining in particular families, is impossible, and indeed absurd, as I shall show (Sec. 39). But provided that they hold that right by no express law, and that the rest (I mean, such as are born within the dominion, and use the vulgar tongue, and have not a foreign wife, and are not infamous, nor servants, nor earning their living by any servile trade, among which are to be reckoned those of a wine-merchant, or brewer) are not excluded, the form of the dominion will, notwithstanding, be retained, and it will be possible to maintain the proportion between the patricians and the multitude.

15. But if it be further by law appointed that no young men be chosen, it will never happen that a few families hold the right of government in their hands. And, therefore, be it by law appointed, that no man that has not reached his thirtieth year be put on the list of candidates.

16. Thirdly, it is next to be ordained, that all the patricians must be assembled at certain fixed times in a particular part of the city, and that whoever does not attend the council, unless he be hindered by illness or some public business, shall be fined some considerable amount. For, were it otherwise, most of them would neglect the public, for the sake of their own private affairs.

17. Let this council’s functions be to pass and repeal laws, and to choose their patrician colleagues, and all the ministers of the dominion. For he, that has supreme right, as we have decided that this council has, cannot give to anyone authority to pass and repeal laws, without at the same time abdicating his own right, and transferring it to him, to whom he gives that power. For he, that has but for one day only authority to pass and repeal laws, is able to change the entire form of the dominion. But one can, without forfeiting one’s supreme right, temporarily entrust to others the daily business of dominion to be administered according to the established laws. Furthermore, if the ministers of dominion were chosen by any other but this council, then its members would be more properly called wards than patricians.

18. Hence some are accustomed to create for the council a ruler or prince, either for life, as the Venetians, or for a time, as the Genoese; but yet with such great precautions, as make it clear enough, that it is not done without great risk. And assuredly we cannot doubt but that the dominion thereby approaches the monarchical form, and as far as we can conjecture from their histories, it was done for no other reason, than that before the institution of these councils they had lived under a ruler, or doge, as under a king. And so the creation of a ruler is a necessary requisite indeed for the particular nation, but not for the aristocratic dominion considered in itself.

19. But, inasmuch as the supreme authority of this dominion rests with this council as a whole, not with every individual member of it (for otherwise it would be but the gathering of an undisciplined mob), it is, therefore, necessary that all the patricians be so bound by the laws as to form, as it were, one body governed by one mind. But the laws by themselves alone are weak and easily broken, when their vindicators are the very persons who are able to transgress them, and the only ones who are to take warning by the punishment, and must punish their colleagues in order by fear of the same punishment to restrain their own desire: for all this involves a great absurdity. And, therefore, means must be sought to preserve order in this supreme council and keep unbroken the constitution of the dominion, so that yet the greatest possible equality may exist between patricians.

20. But since, from a single ruler or prince, able also to vote in the debates, there must necessarily arise a great inequality, especially on account of the power, which must of necessity be granted him, in order to enable him to discharge his duty in safety; therefore, if we consider the whole matter aright, nothing can be devised more useful to the general welfare than the institution of another council of certain patricians subordinate to the supreme council, whose only duty should be to see that the constitution, as far as it concerns the councils and ministers of the dominion, be kept unbroken, and who should, therefore, have authority to summon to judgment and, in conformity with established law, to condemn any delinquent who, as a minister of the dominion, has transgressed the laws concerning his office. And these patricians we shall hereafter call syndics.

21. And they are to be chosen for life. For, were they to be chosen for a time, so that they should afterwards be eligible for other offices in the dominion, we should fall into the very absurdity which we have just pointed out in the nineteenth section. But lest they should become quite haughty by very long rule, none are to be elected to this office, but those who have reached their sixtieth year or more, and have discharged the duties of senator, of which below.

22. Of these, too, we shall easily determine the number, if we consider that these syndics stand to the patricians in the same relation as the whole body of patricians together does to the multitude, which they cannot govern, if they are fewer than a proper number. And, therefore, the number of the syndics should be to that of patricians as their number is to that of the multitude, that is (Sec. 13), as one to fifty.

23. Moreover, that this council may discharge its functions in security, some portion of the soldiery must be assigned to it, and be subject to its orders.

24. The syndics and other ministers of state are to have no salary, but such emoluments, that they cannot maladminister affairs of state without great loss to themselves. For we cannot doubt that it is fair, that the ministers of this kind of dominion should be awarded a recompense for their time, since the commons are the majority in this dominion, and the patricians look after their safety, while they themselves have no trouble with affairs of state, but only with their own private ones. But since, on the other hand, no man (Chap. VII. Sec. 4) defends another’s cause, save in so far as he thereby hopes to establish his own interest, things must, of necessity, be so ordered that the ministers, who have charge of affairs of state, should most pursue their own interest, when they are most watchful for the general good.

25. To the syndics then, whose duty, as we said, it is to see that the constitution is kept unbroken, the following emoluments are to be awarded: namely, that every householder that inhabits any place in the dominion, be bound to pay every year a coin of small value, say a quarter of an ounce of silver, to the syndics, that thus they may know the number of inhabitants, and so observe what proportion of them the patricians constitute; and next that every new patrician on his election must pay the syndics some large sum, for instance, twenty or twenty-five pounds of silver. Moreover, that money, in which the absent patricians (I mean those who have failed to attend the meeting of the council) are condemned, is also to be awarded to the syndics; and a part, too, of the goods of defaulting ministers, who are bound to abide their judgment, and who are fined a certain sum of money, or have their goods confiscated, should be devoted to them, not to all indeed, but to those only who sit daily, and whose duty it is to summon the council of syndics, concerning whom see Sec. 28. But, in order that the council of syndics may always be maintained at its full number, before all other business in the supreme council, when it is assembled at the usual time, inquiry is to be made about this. Which, if the syndics neglect, let it then devolve upon the president of the senate (concerning which we shall soon have occasion to speak), to admonish the supreme council on this head, to demand of the president of the syndics the reason of his silence, and to inquire what is the supreme council’s opinion in the matter. But if the president of the senate is likewise silent, let the case be taken up by the president of the supreme court of justice, or if he too is silent by some other patrician, and let him demand an explanation of their silence from the presidents of the senate and the court of justice, as well as from the president of the syndics. Lastly, that that law, whereby young men are excluded, may likewise be strictly observed, it is to be appointed that all who have reached the thirtieth year of their age, and who are not by express law excluded, are to have their names inscribed on a list, in presence of the syndics, and to receive from them, at a fixed price, some sign of the honour conferred on them, namely, that they may be allowed to wear a particular ornament only permitted to them, to distinguish them and make them to be had in honour by the rest; and, at the same time, be it ordained, that in elections none may nominate as patrician anyone whose name is not inscribed on the general list, and that under a heavy penalty. And, further, let no one be allowed to refuse the burden of a duty or office, which he is chosen to bear. Lastly, that all the absolutely fundamental laws of the dominion may be everlasting, it must be ordained that if anyone in the supreme council raise a question about any fundamental law, as of prolonging the command of any general of an army, or of diminishing the number of patricians, or the like, he is guilty of treason, and not only is he to be condemned to death, and his goods confiscated, but some sign of his punishment is to remain visible in public for an eternal memorial of the event. But for the confirming of the other general rights of the dominion, it is enough, if it be only ordained, that no law can be repealed nor new law passed, unless first the college of syndics, and then three-fourths or four-fifths of the supreme council agree thereto.

26. Let the right also of summoning the supreme council and proposing the matters to be decided in it, rest with the syndics, and let them likewise be given the first place in the council, but without the right to vote. But before they take their seats, they must swear by the safety of that supreme council and by the public liberty, that they will strive with the utmost zeal to preserve unbroken the ancient laws. and to consult the general good. After which let them through their secretary open in order the subjects of discussion.

27. But that all the patricians may have equal authority in making decrees and electing the ministers of the dominion, and that speed and expedition in all matters may be possible, the order observed by the Venetians is altogether to be approved, for they appoint by lot a certain number of the council to name the ministers, and when these have named in order the candidates for office, every patrician signifies by ballot his opinion, approving or rejecting the candidate in question, so that it is not afterwards known, who voted in this or that sense. Whereby it is contrived, not only that the authority of all the patricians in the decision is equal, and that business is quickly despatched, but also, that everyone has absolute liberty (which is of the first necessity in councils) to give his opinion without danger of unpopularity.

28. But in the councils of syndics and the other councils, the same order is to be observed, that voting is to be by ballot. But the right of convoking the council of syndics and of proposing the matters to be decided in the same ought to belong to their president, who is to sit every day with ten or more other syndics, to hear the complaints and secret accusations of the commons against the ministers, and to look after the accusers, if circumstances require, and to summon the supreme council even before the appointed time, if any of them judge that there is danger in the delay. Now this president and those who meet with him every day are to be appointed by the supreme council and out of the number of syndics, not indeed for life, but for six months, and they must not have their term renewed but after the lapse of three or four years. And these, as we said above, are to be awarded the goods that are confiscated and the pecuniary fines, or some part of them. The remaining points which concern the syndics we will mention in their proper places.

29. The second council, which is subordinate to the supreme one, we will call the senate, and let its duty be to transact public business, for instance, to publish the laws of the dominion, to order the fortifications of the cities according to law, to confer military commissions, to impose taxes on the subjects and apply the same, to answer foreign embassies, and decide where embassies are to be sent. But let the actual appointment of ambassadors be the duty of the supreme council. For it is of the greatest consequence to see that no patrician be called to any office in the dominion but by the supreme council itself, lest the patricians themselves should try to curry favour with the senate. Secondly, all matters are to be referred to the supreme council, which in any way alter the existing state of things, as the deciding on peace and war. Wherefore, that the senate’s decrees concerning peace and war may be valid, they must be confirmed by the supreme council. And therefore I should say, that it belonged to the supreme council only, not to the senate, to impose new taxes.

30. In determining the number of senators these points are to be taken into consideration: first, that all the patricians should have an equal hope of gaining senatorial rank; secondly, that notwithstanding the same senators, whose time (for which they were elected) is elapsed, may be continued after a short interval, that so the dominion may always be governed by skilled and experienced men; and lastly, that among the senators many may be found illustrious for wisdom and virtue. But to secure all these conditions, there can be no other means devised, than that it should be by law appointed, that no one who has not reached his fiftieth year, be received into the number of senators, and that four hundred, that is about a twelfth part of the patricians, be appointed for a year, and that two years after that year has elapsed, the same be capable of re-appointment. For in this manner about a twelfth part of the patricians will be constantly engaged in the duty of senator, with only short intervening periods; and this number surely, together with that made up by the syndics, will be little less than the number of patricians that have attained their fiftieth year. And so all the patricians will always have a great hope of gaining the rank of senator or syndic, and yet notwithstanding, the same patricians, at only short intervals, will always hold senatorial rank, and (according to what we said, Sec. 2) there will never be wanting in the senate distinguished men, excelling in counsel and skill. And because this law cannot be broken without exciting great jealousy on the part of many patricians, it needs no other safeguard for its constant validity, than that every patrician who has reached the age we mentioned, should offer the proof thereof to the syndics, who shall put his name on the list of candidates for the senatorial duties, and read the name before the supreme council, so that he may occupy, with the rest of the same rank, a place set apart in this supreme council for his fellows, next to the place of the senators.

31. The emoluments of the senators should be of such a kind, that their profit is greater from peace than from war. And therefore let there be awarded to them a hundredth or a fiftieth part of the merchandise exported abroad from the dominion, or imported into it from abroad. For we cannot doubt, that by this means they will, as far as they can, preserve peace, and never desire to protract war. And from this duty not even the senators themselves, if any of them are merchants, ought to be exempt; for such an immunity cannot be granted without great risk to trade, as I think no one is ignorant. Nay, on the contrary, it must be by law ordained, that no senator or ex-senator may fill any military post; and further, that no one may be declared general or praetor, which officers we said (Sec. 9) were to be only appointed in time of war, whose father or grandfather is a senator, or has held the dignity of senator within two years. Which laws we cannot doubt, that the patricians outside the senate will defend with all their might: and so it will be the case, that the senators will always have more profit from peace than from war, and will, therefore, never advise war, except the utmost need of the dominion compels them. But it may be objected to us, that on this system, if, that is, syndics and senators are to be allowed so great profits, an aristocracy will be as burdensome to the subjects as any monarchy. But not to mention that royal courts require larger expenditure, and are yet not provided in order to secure peace, and that peace can never be bought too dear; it is to be added, first, that all that under a monarchy is conferred on one or a few, is here conferred upon very many. Next kings and their ministers do not bear the burden of the dominion with the subjects, but under this form of dominion it is just the reverse; for the patricians, who are always chosen from the rich, bear the largest share of the weight of the commonwealth. Lastly, the burdens of a monarchy spring not so much from its king’s expenditure, as from its secret policy. For those burdens of a dominion, that are imposed on the citizens in order to secure peace and liberty, great though they be, are yet supported and lightened by the usefulness of peace. What nation ever had to pay so many and so heavy taxes as the Dutch? Yet it not only has not been exhausted, but, on the contrary, has been so mighty by its wealth, that all envied its good fortune. If therefore the burdens of a monarchy were imposed for the sake of peace, they would not oppress the citizens; but, as I have said, it is from the secret policy of that sort of dominion, that the subjects faint under their lord; that is, because the virtue of kings counts for more in time of war than in time of peace, and because they, who would reign by themselves, ought above all to try and have their subjects poor; not to mention other things, which that most prudent Dutchman V. H. formerly remarked, because they do not concern my design, which is only to describe the best state of every kind of dominion.

32. Of the syndics chosen by the supreme council, some should sit in the senate, but without the right of voting, so that they may see whether the laws concerning that assembly be duly observed, and may have the supreme council convoked, when anything is to be referred to it from the senate. For the supreme right of convoking this council, and proposing to it subjects of discussion, is, as we have already said, with the syndics. But before the votes of the contemporaries of the senators be taken, the president of the senate for the time being shall explain the state of affairs, and what the senate’s own opinion is on the matter in question, and why; after which the votes shall be collected in the accustomed order.

33. The entire senate ought not to meet every day, but, like all great councils, at a certain fixed time. But as in the mean time the business of the dominion must be executed, it is, therefore, necessary that some part of the senators be chosen, who, on the dismissal of the senate, shall supply its place, and whose duty it shall be to summon the senate itself, when need is; to execute its orders about affairs of state; to read letters written to the senate and supreme council; and, lastly, to consult about the matters to be proposed in the senate. But that all these points, and the order of this assembly, as a whole, may be more easily conceived, I will describe the whole matter more precisely.

34. The senators who, as we have said already, are to be chosen for a year, are to be divided into four or six series, of which let the first have the first seat in the senate for the first three or two months in the year; and at the expiration of this time, let the second series take the place of the first, and so on, observing their turns, so that that series which was first in the first months may be last in the second period. Furthermore, there are to be appointed as many presidents as there are series, and the same number of vice-presidents to fill their places when required — that is, two are to be chosen out of every series, one to be its president, the other its vice-president. And let the president of the first series preside in the senate also, for the first months; or, in his absence, let his vice-president fill his place; and so on with the rest, observing the same order as above. Next, out of the first series, some are to be chosen by vote or lot to fill the place of the senate, when it is dismissed, in conjunction with the president and vice-president of the same series; and that, for the same space of time, as the said series occupies the first place in the senate; and thus, when that time is past, as many are again to be chosen out of the second series, by vote or lot, to fill, in conjunction with their president and vice-president, the place of the first series, and supply the lack of a senate; and so on with the rest. And there is no need that the election of these men — I mean those that I have said are to be chosen for periods of three or two months, by vote or lot — should be made by the supreme council. For the reason which we gave in the twenty-ninth section is not here applicable, much less the reason stated in the seventeenth. It suffices, then, that they be elected by the senate and the syndics present at its meeting.

35. But of these persons we cannot so precisely ascertain the number. However, this is certain, that they must be too numerous to be easily susceptible of corruption. For though they can by themselves determine nothing concerning affairs of state, yet they can delay the senate, or, what would be worst of all, delude it by putting forward matters of no importance, and keeping back those that are of greater — not to mention that, if they were too few, the absence of one or two might delay public business. But as, on the contrary, these consuls are for that very reason appointed, because great councils cannot devote themselves every day to public business, a remedy must be looked for necessarily here, and their inadequacy of number be made up for by the shortness of their term of office. And thus, if only thirteen or so be chosen for two or three months, they will be too many to be corrupted in this short period. And for this cause, also, did I recommend that their successors should by no means be appointed, except at the very time when they do succeed, and the others go away.

36. We have said, that it is also their duty, when any, though few, of them think it needful, to convoke the senate, to put before it the matters to be decided, to dismiss it, and to execute its orders about public business. But I will now briefly state the order in which this ought to be done, so that business may not be long protracted by useless questions. Let, then, the consuls consult about the matter to be proposed in the senate, and what is required to be done; and, if they are all of one mind about it, then let them convoke the senate, and, having duly explained the question, let them set forth what their opinion is, and, without waiting for another’s opinion, collect the votes in their order. But if the consuls support more than one opinion, then, in the senate, that opinion is first to be stated on the question proposed, which was supported by the larger number of consuls. And if the same is not approved by the majority of senate and consuls, but the waverers and opponents together are in a majority, which is to be determined by ballot, as we have already mentioned, then let them set forth the second opinion, which had fewer votes than the former among the consuls, and so on with the rest. But if none be approved by a majority of the whole senate, the senate is to be adjourned to the next day, or for a short time, that the consuls meanwhile may see, if they can find other means, that may give more satisfaction. But if they do not succeed in finding other means, or if the majority of the senate refuses to approve such as they have found, then the opinion of every senator is to be heard; and if the majority of the senate also refuses to support any of these, then the votes are to be taken again on every opinion, and not only the affirmative votes, as hitherto, but the doubtful and negative are to be counted. And if the affirmative prove more numerous than the doubtful or negative, then that opinion is to hold good; but, on the contrary, to be lost, if the negative prove more numerous than the doubtful or affirmative. But if on every opinion there is a greater number of doubters than of voters for and against, then let the council of syndics join the senate, and vote with the senators, with only affirmative and negative votes, omitting those that signify a hesitating mind. And the same order is to be observed about matters referred by the senate to the supreme council. So much for the senate.

37. As for the court of justice or bench, it cannot rest upon the same foundations as that which exists under a monarch, as we described it in Chap. VI. Secs. 26, and following. For (Sec. 14) it agrees not with the foundations of our present dominion, that any account be made of families or clans. And there must be a further difference, because judges chosen from the patricians only might indeed be restrained by the fear of their patrician successors, from pronouncing any unjust judgment against any of the patricians, and, perhaps, would hardly have the courage to punish them after their deserts; but they would, on the other hand, dare everything against the commons, and daily carry off the rich among them for a prey. I know that the plan of the Genoese is therefore approved by many, for they choose their judges not among the patricians, but among foreigners. But this seems to me, considering the matter in the abstract, absurdly ordained, that foreigners and not patricians should be called in to interpret the laws. For what are judges but interpreters of the laws? And I am therefore persuaded that herein also the Genoese have had regard rather to the genius of their own race, than to the very nature of this kind of dominion. We must, therefore, by considering the matter in the abstract, devise the means which best agree with the form of this government.

38. But as far as regards the number of the judges, the theory of this constitution requires no peculiar number; but as under monarchical dominion, so under this, it suffices that they be too numerous to be corrupted by a private man. For their duty is but to provide against one private person doing wrong to another, and therefore to decide disputes between private persons, as well patricians as commons, and to exact penalties from delinquents, and even from patricians, syndics, and senators, as far as they have offended against the laws, whereby all are bound. But disputes that may arise between cities that are subject to the dominion, are to be decided in the supreme council.

39. Furthermore the principle regulating the time, for which the judges should be appointed, is the same in both dominions, and also the principle of a certain part of them retiring every year; and, lastly, although it is not necessary for every one of them to be of a different family, yet it is necessary that two related by blood should not sit on the same bench together. And this last point is to be observed also in the other councils, except the supreme one, in which it is enough, if it be only provided by law that in elections no man may nominate a relation, nor vote upon his nomination by another, and also that two relations may not draw lots from the urn for the nomination of any minister of the dominion. This, I say, is sufficient in a council that is composed of so large a number of men, and has no special profits assigned to it. And so utterly unharmed will the dominion be in this quarter, that it is absurd to pass a law excluding from the supreme council the relations of all the patricians, as we said in the fourteenth section. But that it is absurd is manifest. For that law could not be instituted by the patricians themselves, without their thereby all absolutely abdicating their own right, and therefore not the patricians themselves but the commons would defend this law, which is directly contrary to what we proved in Secs. 5 and 6. But that law of the dominion, whereby it is ordained that the same uniform proportion be maintained between the numbers of the patricians and the multitude, chiefly contemplates this end of preserving the patricians’ right and power, that is, provides against their becoming too few to be able to govern the multitude.

40. But the judges are to be chosen by the supreme council out of the patricians only, that is (Sec. 17) out of the actual authors of the laws, and the judgments they pass, as well in civil as criminal cases, shall be valid, if they were pronounced in due course of justice and without partiality; into which matter the syndics shall be by law authorized to inquire, and to judge and determine thereof.

41. The judges’ emoluments ought to be the same, as we mentioned in the twenty-ninth section of the sixth chapter; namely, that they receive from the losing party upon every judgment which they pass in civil cases, an aliquot part of the whole sum at stake. But as to their sentences in criminal cases, let there be here this difference only, that the goods which they confiscate, and every fine whereby lesser crimes are punished, be assigned to themselves only, yet on this condition, that they may never compel anyone to confess by torture, and thus, precaution enough will be taken against their being unfair to the commons, and through fear too lenient to the patricians. For besides that this fear is tempered by avarice itself, and that veiled under the specious name of justice, they are also numerous, and vote, not openly, but by ballot, so that a man may be indignant at losing his case, but can have no reason to impute it to a particular person. Moreover the fear of the syndics will restrain them from pronouncing an inequitable, or at least absurd sentence, or from acting any of them treacherously, besides that in so large a number of judges there will always be one or two, that the unfair stand in awe of. Lastly, as far as the commons are concerned, they also will be adequately secured if they are allowed to appeal to the syndics, who, as I have said, are by law authorized to inquire, judge, and determine about the conduct of the judges. For it is certain that the syndics will not be able to escape the hatred of the patricians, and on the other hand, will always be most popular with the commons, whose applause they will try as far as they can to bid for. To which end, opportunity being given them, they will not fail to reverse sentences pronounced against the laws of the court, and to examine any judge, and to punish those that are partial, for nothing moves the hearts of a multitude more than this. Nor is it an objection, but, on the contrary, an advantage, that such examples can but rarely occur. For not to mention that that commonwealth is ill ordered where examples are daily made of criminals (as we showed Chap. V. Sec. 2), those events must surely be very rare that are most renowned by fame.

42. Those who are sent as governors to cities and provinces ought to be chosen out of the rank of senators, because it is the duty of senators to look after the fortifications of cities, the treasury, the military, etc. But those, who were sent to somewhat distant regions, would be unable to attend the senate, and, therefore, those only are to be summoned from the senate itself, who are destined to cities founded on their native soil; but those whom they wish to send to places more remote are to be chosen out of those, whose age is consistent with senatorial rank. But not even thus do I think that the peace of the dominion will be sufficiently provided for, that is, if the neighbouring cities are altogether denied the right of vote, unless they are so weak, that they can be openly set at naught, which cannot surely be supposed. And so it is necessary, that the neighbouring cities be granted the right of citizenship, and that from every one of them twenty, or thirty, or forty chosen citizens (for the number should vary with the size of the city) be enrolled among the patricians, out of whom three, four, or five ought to be yearly elected to be of the senate, and one for life to be a syndic. And let those who are of the senate be sent with their syndic, to govern the city out of which they were chosen.

43. Moreover, judges are to be established in every city, chosen out of the patricians of that city. But of these I think it unnecessary to treat at length, because they concern not the foundations of this sort of dominion in particular.

44. In every council the secretaries and other officials of this kind, as they have not the right of voting, should be chosen from the commons. But as these, by their long practice of business, are the most conversant with the affairs to be transacted, it often arises that more deference than right is shown to their advice, and that the state of the whole dominion depends chiefly on their guidance: which thing has been fatal to the Dutch. For this cannot happen without exciting the jealousy of many of the noblest. And surely we cannot doubt, that a senate, whose wisdom is derived from the advice, not of senators, but of officials, will be most frequented by the sluggish, and the condition of this sort of dominion will be little better than that of a monarchy directed by a few counsellors of the king. (See Chap. VI. Secs. 5-7). However, to this evil the dominion will be more or less liable, according as it was well or ill founded. For the liberty of a dominion is never defended without risk, if it has not firm enough foundations; and, to avoid that risk, patricians choose from the commons ambitious ministers, who are slaughtered as victims to appease the wrath of those, who are plotting against liberty. But where liberty has firm enough foundations, there the patricians themselves vie for the honour of defending it, and are anxious that prudence in the conduct of affairs should flow from their own advice only; and in laying the foundations of this dominion we have studied above all these two points, namely, to exclude the commons from giving advice as much as from giving votes (Secs. 3, 4), and, therefore, to place the whole authority of the dominion with the whole body of patricians, but its exercise with the syndics and senate, and, lastly, the right of convoking the senate, and treating of matters affecting the common welfare with consuls chosen from the senate itself. But, if it is further ordained that the secretary, whether in the senate or in other councils, be appointed for four or five years at most, and have attached to him an assistant-secretary appointed for the same period, to bear part of the work during that time, or that the senate have not one, but several secretaries, employed one in one department, and another in another, the power of the officials will never become of any consequence.

45. Treasurers are likewise to be chosen from the commons, and are to be bound to submit the treasury accounts to the syndics as well as to the senate.

46. Matters concerning religion we have set forth at sufficient length in our Theologico-Political Treatise. Yet certain points we then omitted, of which it was not there the place to treat; for instance, that all the patricians must be of the same religion, that is, of that most simple and general religion, which in that treatise we described. For it is above all to be avoided, that the patricians themselves should be divided into sects, and show favour, some to this, and others to that, and thence become mastered by superstition, and try to deprive the subjects of the liberty of speaking out their opinions. In the second place, though everyone is to be given liberty to speak out his opinion, yet great conventicles are to be forbidden. And, therefore, those that are attached to another religion are, indeed, to be allowed to build as many temples as they please; yet these are to be small, and limited to a certain standard of size, and on sites at some little distance one from another. But it is very important, that the temples consecrated to the national religion should be large and costly, and that only patricians or senators should be allowed to administer its principal rites, and thus that patricians only be suffered to baptize, celebrate marriages, and lay on hands, and that in general they be recognized as the priests of the temples and the champions and interpreters of the national religion. But, for preaching, and to manage the church treasury and its daily business, let some persons be chosen from the commons by the senate itself, to be, as it were, the senate’s deputies, and, therefore, bound to render it account of everything.

47. And these are points that concern the foundations of this sort of dominion; to which I will add some few others less essential indeed, but yet of great importance. Namely, that the patricians, when they walk, should be distinguished by some special garment, or dress, and be saluted by some special title; and that every man of the commons should give way to them; and that, if any patrician has lost his property by some unavoidable misfortune, he should be restored to his old condition at the public expense; but if, on the contrary, it be proved that he has spent the same in presents, ostentation, gaming, debauchery, &c., or that he is insolvent, he must lose his dignity, and be held unworthy of every honour and office. For he, that cannot govern himself and his own private affairs, will much less be able to advise on public affairs.

48. Those, whom the law compels to take an oath, will be much more cautious of perjury, if they are bidden to swear by the country’s safety and liberty and by the supreme council, than if they are told to swear by God. For he who swears by God, gives as surety some private advantage to himself, whereof he is judge; but he, who by his oath gives as surety his country’s liberty and safety, swears by what is the common advantage of all, whereof he is not judge, and if he perjures himself, thereby declares that he is his country’s enemy.

49. Academies, that are founded at the public expense, are instituted not so much to cultivate men’s natural abilities as to restrain them. But in a free commonwealth arts and sciences will be best cultivated to the full, if everyone that asks leave is allowed to teach publicly, and that at his own cost and risk. But these and the like points I reserve for another place. For here I determined to treat only such matters as concern an aristocratic dominion only.

Ought not this reference to be to Chap. III. Sec. 6?

Cf. Chap. VI. Sec. 10.

“This V. H. is Pieter de la Court (1618-85), an eminent publicist, who wrote under the initials D. C. (De la Court), V. H. (Van den Hove, the Dutch equivalent). He was a friend of John de Witt, and opposed to the party of the Statholders.” — POLLOCK’S Life and Philosophy of Spinoza, towards end of Chap. X.

This promise is not kept by the author, no doubt owing to his not living to finish the work.

QUOD IMPERIUM ARISTOCRATICUM magno Patriciorum numero constare debet: de ejus praestantia, et quod ad absolutum magis, quam Monarchicum accedat, et hac de causa Libertati conservandae aptius sit.

I. Huc usque de Imperio Monarchico. Qua autem ratione Aristocraticum instituendum sit, ut permanere possit, hic jam dicemus. Aristocraticum imperium illud esse diximus, quod non unus, sed quidam ex multitudine selecti tenent, quos imposterum Patricios appellabimus. Dico expresse, quod quidam selecti tenent. Nam haec praecipua est differentia inter hoc, et Democraticum imperium, quod scilicet in Imperio Aristocratico gubernandi jus a sola electione pendeat: in Democratico autem maxime a jure quodam innato, vel fortuna adepto (ut suo loco dicemus), atque adeo, tametsi imperii alicujus integra multitudo in numerum Patriciorum recipiatur, modo illud jus haereditarium non sit, nec lege aliqua communi ad alios descendat, imperium tamen Aristocraticum omnino erit, quandoquidem nulli, nisi expresse electi, in numerum Patriciorum recipiuntur. At si hi duo tantummodo fuerint, alter altero potior esse conabitur, et imperium facile, ob nimiam uniuscujusque (31) potentiam, in duas partes dividetur, et in tres, aut quatuor, aut quinque, si tres, aut quatuor, aut quinque id tenuerint sed partes eo debiliores erunt, quo in plures ipsum imperium delatum fuerit: ex quo sequitur, in imperio Aristocratico, ut stabile sit, ad minimum Patriciorum numerum determinandum, necessario habendam esse rationem magnitudinis ipsius imperii.

II. Ponatur itaque pro mediocris imperii magnitudine satis esse, ut centum optimi viri dentur, in quos summa imperii potestas delata sit, et quibus consequenter jus competat Collegas Patricios eligendi, quando eorum aliquis vita excessit. Hi sane omni modo conabuntur, ut eorum liberi, vel qui iis sanguine proximi sunt, sibi succedant: unde fiet, ut summa imperii potestas semper penes eos erit, quos fortuna Patriciis liberos, aut consanguineos dedit, et quia ex centum hominibus, qui fortunae causa ad honores ascendunt, vix tres reperiuntur, qui arte, et consilio pollent, vigentque, fiet ergo, ut imperii potestas non penes centum, sed penes duos tantummodo, aut tres sit, qui animi virtute pollent, quique facile omnia ad se trahere, et unusquisque more humanae cupidinis viam ad Monarchiam sternere poterit: atque adeo, si recte calculum ineamus, necesse est, ut summa potestas imperii, cujus magnitudinis ratio centum optimatum ad minimum exigit, in quinquies mille ad minimum Patricios (32) deferatur. Hac enim ratione nunquam deerit, quin centum reperiantur animi virtute excellentes, posito scilicet, quod ex quinquaginta, qui honores ambiunt, eosque adipiscuntur, unus semper reperiatur optimis non inferior, praeter alios, qui optimorum virtutes aemulantur, quique propterea digni etiam sunt, qui regant.

III. Solent frequentius Patricii cives esse unius urbis, quae caput totius imperii est, ita ut Civitas, sive Respublica ex eadem habeat vocabulum, ut olim Romana, hodie Veneta, Genuensis, etc. At Hollandorum Respublica nomen ex integra Provincia habet, ex quo oritur, ut hujus imperii subditi majori libertate gaudeant. Jam antequam fundamenta, quibus hoc imperium Aristocraticum niti debet, determinare possimus, notanda est differentia inter imperium, quod in unum, et id (33), quod in satis magnum Concilium transfertur, quae sane permagna est. Nam primo unius hominis potentia integro imperio sustinendo (ut Art. 5. Ca. diximus) longe impar est, quod sine manifesto aliquo absurdo de Concilio satis magno enunciare nemo potest: qui enim Concilium satis magnum esse affirmat, simul negat idem imperio sustinendo esse impar. Rex igitur Consiliariis omnino indiget, Concilium autem hujusmodi minime. Deinde Reges mortales sunt, Concilia contra aeterna: atque adeo imperii potentia, quae semel in Concilium satis magnum translata est, numquam ad multitudinem redit, quod in imperio Monarchico locum non habet, ut Art. 25. Cap. praeced. ostendimus. Tertio Regis imperium vel ob ejus pueritiam, aegritudinem, senectutem, vel aliis de causis saepe precarium est; hujusmodi autem Concilii potentia econtra una, eademque semper manet. Quarto unius hominis voluntas varia admodum, et inconstans est: et hac de causa imperii Monarchici omne quidem jus est Regis explicata voluntas (ut in Art. 1. Cap. praeced. diximus): at non omnis Regis voluntas jus esse debet, quod de voluntate Concilii satis magni dici nequit. Nam quandoquidem ipsum Concilium (ut modo ostendimus) nullis Consiliariis indiget, debet necessario omnis ejus explicata voluntas jus esse. Ac proinde concludimus, imperium, quod in Concilium satis magnum transfertur, absolutum esse, vel ad absolutum maxime accedere. Nam si quod imperium absolutum datur, illud revera est, quod integra multitudo tenet.

IV. Attamen quatenus hoc imperium Aristocraticum nunquam (ut modo ostensum) ad multitudinem redit, nec ulla in eo multitudini consultatio, sed absolute omnis ejusdem Concilii voluntas jus est, debet omnino ut absolutum considerari, et consequenter ejus fundamenta sola ejusdem Concilii voluntate, et judicio niti debent, non autem multitudinis vigilantia, quandoquidem ipsa tam a consiliis, quam suffragiis ferendis arcetur. Causa igitur, cur in praxi imperium absolutum non sit, nulla alia esse potest, quam quia multitudo imperantibus formidolosa est, quae propterea aliquam sibi libertatem obtinet, quam, si non expressa lege, tacite tamem sibi vendicat, obtinetque.

V. Apparet itaque hujus imperii conditionem optimam fore, si ita institutum fuerit, ut ad absolutum maxime accedat, hoc est, ut multitudo, quantum fieri potest, minus timemda sit, nullamque libertatem obtineat, nisi quae ex ipsius imperii constitutione ipsi necessario tribui debet, quaeque adeo non tam multitudinis, quam totius imperii jus sit, quod soli Optimates ut suum vendicant, conservantque; hoc enim modo praxis cum theoria maxime conveniet, ut ex Art. praeced. patet, et per se etiam manifestum est: nam dubitare non possumus, imperium eo minus penes Patricios esse, quo plura sibi plebs jura vendicat, qualia solent in inferiori Germania opificum Collegia, Gilden vulgo dicta, habere.

VI. Neque hinc, quod scilicet imperium in Concilium absolute delatum est, ullum ab eodem infensi servitii periculum plebi metuendum. Nam Concilii adeo magni voluntas non tam a libidine, quam a ratione determinari potest; quippe homines ex malo affectu diversi trahuntur, nec una veluti mente duci possunt, nisi quatenus honesta appetunt, vel saltem quae speciem honesti habent.

VII. In determinandis igitur imperii Aristocratici fundamentis apprime observamdum est, ut eadem sola voluntate, et potentia supremi ejusdem Concilii nitantur, ita ut ipsum Concilium, quantum fieri potest, sui juris sit, nullumque a multitudine periculum habeat. Ad haec fundamenta, quae scilicet sola supremi Concilii voluntate, et potentia nitantur, determimandum, fundamenta pacis, quae imperii Monarchici propria, et ab hoc imperio aliena sunt, videamus. Nam si his alia aequipollentia fundamenta imperio Aristocratico idonea substituerimus, et reliqua, ut jam jacta sunt, reliquerimus, omnes absque dubio seditiomum causae sublatae erunt, vel saltem hoc imperium non minus securum, quam Monarchicum, sed contra eo magis securum, et ipsius conditio eo melior erit, quo magis quam Monarchicum absque pacis, et libertatis detrimento (vid. Art. 3. et 6. hujus Cap.) ad absolutum accedit; nam quo jus summae potestatis majus est, eo imperii forma cum rationis dictamine magis convenit (per Art. 5. Ca.), et consequenter paci, et libertati conservandae aptior est. Percurramus igitur, quae Ca. Art. 9. diximus, ut illa, quae ab hoc aliena sunt, rejiciamus, et quae ei congrua sunt, videamus.

VIII. Quod primo necesse sit, urbem unam, aut plures condere, et munire, nemo dubitare potest. Sed illa praecipue munienda est, quae totius imperii est caput, et praeterea illae, quae in limitibus imperii sunt. Illa enim, quae totius imperii caput est, jusque summum habet, omnibus potentior esse debet. Caeterum in hoc imperio superfluum omnino est, ut incolae omnes in familias dividantur.

IX. Ad militiam quod attinet, quoniam in hoc imperio non inter omnes, sed tantum inter Patricios aequalitas quaerenda est, et praecipue Patriciorum potentia major est, quam plebis, certum est, ad leges, seu jura fundamentalia hujus imperii non pertinere, ut militia ex ullis aliis, quam ex subditis, formetur. Sed hoc apprime necesse est, ut nullus in Patriciorum numerum recipiatur, nisi qui artem militarem recte noverit. Subditos autem extra militiam esse, ut quidam volunt, inscitia sane est. Nam praeterquam quod militiae stipendium, quod subditis solvitur, in ipso regno manet, cum contra id, quod militi extraneo solvitur, omne pereat accedit, quod maximum imperii robur debilitaretur. Nam certum est, illos singulari animi virtute certare, qui pro aris, et focis certant. Unde etiam apparet, illos etiam non minus errare, qui belli duces, tribunos, centuriones etc. ex solis Patriciis eligendos statuunt. Nam qua virtute ii milites certabunt, quibus omnis gloriae, et honores adipiscendi spes adimitur. Verum contra legem stabilire, ne Patriciis militem extraneum liceat conducere, quando res postulat, vel ad sui defensionem, et seditiones coërcendas, vel ob alias quascunque causas, praeterquam quod inconsultum est, repugnaret etiam summo Patriciorum juri, de quo vide Art. 3.4. et 5. huj. Cap. Caeterum unius exercitus, vel totius militiae dux in bello tantummodo, et ex solis Patriciis eligendus, qui annum ad summum imperium habeat nec continuari in imperio, nec postea eligi possit; quod jus cum in Monarchico, tum maxime in hoc imperio necessarium est. Nam, quamvis multo facilius, ut supra jam diximus, imperium ex uno in alium, quam ex libero Concilio in unum hominem transferri possit, fit tamen saepe, ut Patricii a suis Ducibus opprimantur, idque multo majori Reipublicae damno; quippe quando Monarcha e medio tollitur, non imperii, sed tantummodo Tyranni mutatio fit. At in imperio Aristocratico fieri id nequit absque eversione imperii, et maximorum virorum clade. Cujus rei funestissima exempla Roma dedit. Caeterum ratio, cur in imperio Monarchico diximus, quod Militia sine stipendio servire debeat, locum in hujusmodi imperio non habet. Nam, quandoquidem subditi tam a Consiliis, quam suffragiis ferendis arcentur, perinde ac peregrini censendi sunt, qui propterea non iniquiore conditione, ac peregrini, ad militandum conducendi sunt. Neque hic periculum est, ut a Concilio prae reliquis agnoscantur. Quinimo ne unusquisque suorum factorum iniquus, ut fit, aestimator sit, consultius est, ut Patricii certum praemium militibus pro servitio decernant.

X. Praeterea hac etiam de causa, quod omnes praeter Patricios peregrini sunt, fieri non potest absque totius imperii periculo, ut agri, et domus, et omne solum publici juris maneant, et ut incolis annuo pretio locentur. Nam subditi, qui nullam in imperio partem habent, facile omnes in adversis urbes desererent, si bona, quae possident, portare, quo vellent, liceret. Quare agri, et fundi hujus imperii subditis non locandi, sed vendendi sunt, ea tamen conditione, ut etiam ex annuo proventu partem aliquotam singulis annis numerent, etc., ut in Hollandia fit.

XI. His consideratis, ad fundamenta, quibus supremum Concilium niti, et firmari debet, pergo. Hujus Concilii membra in mediocri imperio quinque circiter millia esse debere ostendimus Art. 2. hujus Cap., atque adeo ratio quaerenda est, qua fiat, ne paulatim ad pauciores deveniat imperium, sed contra, ut pro ratione incrementi ipsius imperii eorum augeatur numerus, deinde ut inter Patricios aequalitas, quantum fieri potest, servetur, ut praeterea in Conciliis celeris detur cxpeditio, ut communi bono consulatur, et denique ut Patriciorum, seu Concilii major sit, quam multitudinis, potentia, sed ita, ut nihil inde multitudo detrimenti patiatur.

XII. Ad primum autem obtinendum maxima oritur difficultas ex invidia. Sunt enim homines, ut diximus, natura hostes, ita ut, quamvis legibus copulentur, adstringanturque, retineant tamen naturam. Atque hinc fieri existimo, ut imperia Democratica in Aristocratica, et haec tandem in Monarchica mutentur. Nam plane mihi persuadeo, pleraque Aristocratica imperia Democratica prius fuisse, quod scilicet quaedam multitudo novas sedes quaerens, iisque inventis, et cultis, imperandi aequale jus integra retinuit, quia nemo imperium alteri dat volens. Sed, quamvis eorum unusquisque aequum esse cenleat, ut idem jus, quod alteri in ipsum est, ipsi etiam in alterum sit, iniquum tamen esse putat, ut peregrinis, qui ad ipsos confluunt, aequale cum ipsis jus sit in imperio, quod sibi labore quaesierant, et sui sanguinis impendio occupaverant. Quod nec ipsi peregrini renuunt, qui nimirum non ad imperandum, sed ad res suas privatas curandum eo migrant, et satis sibi concedi putant, si modo ipsis libertas concedatur res suas cum securitate agendi. Sed interim multitudo ex peregrinorum confluentia augetur, qui paulatim illius gentis mores induunt, donec demum nulla alia diversitate dignoscuntur, quam hoc solo, quod adipiscendorum honorum jure careant; et dum horum numerus quotidie crescit, civium contra multis de causis minuitur. Quippe saepe familiae extinguuntur, alii ob scelera exclusi, et plerique ob rei domesticae angustiam Rempublicam negligunt, dum interea potentiores nihil studeant, quam soli regnare; et sic paulatim imperium ad paucos, et tandem ob factiones ad unum redigitur. Atque his alias causas, quae hujusmodi imperia destruunt, adjungere possemus; sed, quia satis nota sunt, iisdem supersedeo, et leges, quibus hoc imperium, de quo agimus, conservari debet, ordine jam ostendam.

XIII. Primaria hujus imperii Lex esse debet, qua determinatur ratio numeri Patriciorum ad multitudinem. Ratio enim (per Art. 1. hujus Cap.) inter hanc, et illos habenda est, ita ut pro incremento multitudinis Patriciorum numerus augeatur. Atque haec (per illa, quae Art. 2. hujus Cap. diximus) debet esse circiter ut I ad 50, hoc est, ut inaequalitas numeri Patriciorum ad multitudinem nunquam major sit. Nam (per Art. 1. hujus Cap.) servata imperii forma, numerus Patriciorum multo major esse potest numero multitudinis. Sed in sola eorum paucitate periculum est. Qua autem ratione cavendum sit, ut haec lex inviolata servetur, suo loco mox ostendam.

XIV. Patricii ex quibusdam tantummodo familiis aliquibus in locis eliguntur. Sed hoc expresso jure statuere perniciosum est. Nam, praeterquam quod familiae saepe extinguuntur, et quod nunquam reliquae absque ignominia excluduntur, accedit, quod hujus imperii formae repugnat, ut patricia dignitas haereditaria sit (per Art. 1. hujus Cap.). Sed imperium hac ratione Democraticum potius videtur, quale in Art. 12. hujus Cap. descripsimus, quod scilicet paucissimi tenent cives. Attamen contra cavere, ne Patricii filios suos, et consanguineos eligant, et consequenter ne imperandi jus in quibusdam familiis maneat, impossibile est, imo absurdum, ut Art. 39. hujus Cap. ostendam. Verum, modo id nullo expresso jure obtineant, nec reliqui (qui scilicet in imperio nati sunt, et patrio sermone utuntur, nec uxorem peregrinam habent, nec infames sunt, nec (34) serviunt, nec denique servili aliquo officio vitam sustentant, inter quos etiam Oenopolae et Cerevisiarii numerandi sunt) excludantur, retinebitur nihilominus imperii forma, et ratio inter Patricios, et multitudinem servari semper poterit.

XV. Quod si praeterea lege statuatur, ut nulli juniores eligantur, nunquam fiet, ut paucae familiae jus imperandi retineant; atque adeo lege statuendum, ut nullus, nisi qui ad annum aetatis trigesimum pervenit, in catalogum eligendorum referri possit.

XVI. Tertio deinde statuendum est, ut Patricii omnes in quodam urbis loco statutis certis temporibus congregari debeant, et qui, nisi morbo, aut publico aliquo negotio impeditus, Concilio non interfuerit, sensibili aliqua pecuniae poena mulctetur. Nam ni hoc fieret, plurimi ob rei domesticae curam publicam negligerent.

XVII. Hujus Concilii officium sit leges condere, et abrogare, Collegas Patricios, et omnes imperii ministros eligere. Non enim fieri potest, ut is, qui supremum jus habet, ut hoc Concilium habere statuimus, alicui potestatem det leges condendi, et abrogandi, quin simul jure suo cedat, et in illum id transferat, cui illam potestatem dedit; quippe, qui vel uno solo die potestatem habet leges condendi, et abrogandi, ille totam imperii formam mutare potest. At quotidiana imperii negotia aliis ad tempus secundum constituta jura administranda tradere, retento supremo suo jure, potest. Praeterea, si imperii ministri ab alio, quam ab hoc Concilio eligerentur, tum hujus Concilii membra pupilli potius, quam Patricii appellandi essent.

XVIII. Huic Concilio solent quidam Rectorem, seu Principem creare, vel ad vitam, ut Veneti, vel ad tempus, ut Genuenses, sed tanta cum cautione, ut satis appareat, id non sine magno imperii periculo fieri. Et sane dubitare non possumus, quin imperium hac ratione ad Monarchicum accedat, et quantum ex eorum historiis conjicere possumus, nulla alia de causa id factum est, quam quia ante constituta haec Concilia sub Rectore, vel Duce, veluti sub Rege, fuerant; atque adeo Rectoris creatio Gentis quidem, sed non imperii Aristocratici absolute considerati, requisitum necessarium est.

XIX. Attamen, quia summa hujus imperii potestas penes universum hoc Concilium, non autem penes unumquodque ejusdem membrum est (nam alias coetus esset inordinatae multitudinis), necesse ergo est, ut Patricii omnes Legibus ita astringantur, ut unum veluti corpus, quod una regitur mente, componant. At leges per se solae invalidae sunt, et facile franguntur, ubi earum vindices ii ipsi sunt, qui peccare possunt, quique soli exemplum ex supplicio capere debent, et collegas ea de causa punire, ut suum appetitum ejusdem supplicii metu frenent, quod magnum est absurdum; atque adeo medium quaerendum est, quo supremi hujus Concilii ordo, et imperii jura inviolata serventur, ita tamen, ut inter Patricios aequalitas, quanta dari potest, sit.

XX. Cum autem ex uno Rectore, vel Principe, qui etiam in Conciliis suffragium ferre potest, magna necessario oriri debeat inaequalitas, praesertim ob potentiam, quae ipsi necessario concedi debet, ut suo officio securius fungi possit, nihil ergo, si omnia recte perpendamus, communi saluti utilius institui potest, quam quod huic supremo Concilio aliud subordinetur ex quibusdam Patriciis, quorum officium solummodo sit observare, ut imperii jura, quae Concilia, et imperii Ministros concernunt, inviolata serventur, qui propterea potestatem habeant delinquentem quemcunque imperii Ministrum, qui scilicet contra jura, quae ipsius ministerium concernunt, peccavit, coram suo judicio vocandi, et secundum constituta jura damnandi; atque hos imposterum Syndicos appellabimus.

XXI. Atque hi ad vitam eligendi sunt. Nam si ad tempus eligerentur, ita ut postea ad alia imperii officia vocari possent (35), in absurdum, quod Art. 19. hujus Cap. modo ostendimus, incideremus. Sed, ne longa admodum dominatione nimium (36) superbiant, nulli ad hoc ministerium eligendi sunt, nisi qui ad annum aetatis sexagesimum, aut ultra pervenerunt, et Senatorio officio (de quo infra) functi sunt.

XXII. Horum praeterea numerum facile determinabimus, si consideremus hos Syndicos ad Patricios sese habere, ut omnes simul Patricii ad multitudinem, quam regere nequeunt, si justo numero pauciores sunt; ac proinde Syndicorum numerus ad Patriciorum numerum debet esse, ut horum numerus ad numerum multitudinis, hoc est (per Art. 13. hujus Cap.), ut 1 ad 50.

XXIII. Praeterea ut hoc Concilium secure suo officio fungi possit, militiae pars aliqua eidem decernenda est, cui imperare, quid velit, possit.

XXIV. Syndicis, vel cuicunque status ministro stipendium nullum, sed emolumenta decernenda sunt talia, ut non possint sine magno suo damno Rempublicam prave administrare. Nam, quod hujus imperii ministris aequum sit vacationis (37) praemium decerni, dubitare non possumus, quia major hujus imperii pars plebs est, cujus securitati Patricii invigilant, dum ipsa nullam Reip. sed tantum privatae curam habet. Verum quia contra nemo (ut Art. 4. Ca. diximus) alterius causam defendit, nisi quatenus rem suam eo ipso stabilire credit, res necessario ita ordinandae sunt, ut ministri, qui Reipublicae curam habent, tum maxime sibi consulant, cum maxime communi bono invigilant.

XXV. Syndicis igitur, quorum officium, uti diximus, est observare, ut imperii jura inviolata serventur, haec emolumenta decernenda sunt, videlicet ut unusquisque Paterfamilias, qui in aliquo imperii loco habitat, quotannis nummum parvi valoris, nempe argenti unciae quartam partem solvere teneatur Syndicis, ut inde numerum inhabitantium cognoscere possint, atque adeo observare, quotam ejus partem Patricii efficiant. Deinde ut unusquisque Patricius tyro, ut electus est, Syndicis numerare debeat summam aliquam magnam, ex. gr. viginti, aut viginti quinque argenti libras. Praeterea pecunia illa, qua absentes Patricii (qui scilicet convocato Concilio non interfuerunt) condemnantur, Syndicis etiam decernenda est, et insuper ut pars bonorum delinquentium Ministrorum, qui eorum judicio stare tenentur, et qui certa pecuniae summa mulctantur, vel quorum bona proscribuntur, iisdem dedicetur, non quidem omnibus, sed iis tantummodo, qui quotidie sedent, et quorum officium est Syndicorum Concilium convocare, de quibus vide Art. 28. hujus Cap. Ut autem Syndicorum Concilium suo semper numero constet, ante omnia in supremo Concilio, solito tempore convocato, de eo quaestio ha benda est. Quod si a Syndicis neglectum fuerit, ut tum ei, qui Senatui (de quo mox erit nobis dicendi locus) praeest, supremum Concilium ea de re monere incumbat, et a Syndicorum praeside silentii habiti causam exigere, et, quid de ea supremi Concilii sententia sit, inquirere. Quod si is etiam tacuerit, ut causa ab eo, qui supremo judicio praeest, vel eo etiam tacente ab alio quocunque Patricio suscipiatur, qui tam a Syndicorum, quam Senatus, et Judicum praeside silentii rationem exigat. Denique ut lex illa, qua juniores secluduntur, stricte etiam observetur, statuendum est, ut omnes, qui ad annum aetatis trigesimum pervenerunt, quique expresso jure a Regimine non secluduntur, suum nomen in catalogo coram Syndicis inscribi curent, et accepti honoris signum quoddam, statuto aliquo pretio, ab iisdem accipere, ut ipsis liceat certum ornatum, iis tantummodo concessum, induere, quo dignoscantur, et in honore a reliquis habeantur; et interim jure constitutum sit, ut in electionibus nulli Patricio quenquam nominare liceat, nisi cujus nomen in communi catalogo inscriptum est, idque sub gravi poena. Et praeterea ne cuiquam liceat officium, sive munus, ad quod subeundum eligitur, recusare. Denique, ut omnia absolute fundamentalia imperii jura aeterna sint, statuendum est, si quis in Supremo Concilio quaestionem de jure aliquo fundamentali moverit, utpote de prolonganda alicujus Ducis exercitus dominatione, vel de numero Patriciorum minuendo, et similibus, ut reus Majestatis sit, et non tantum mortis damnetur, ejusque bona proscribantur, sed ut supplicii aliquod signum in aeternam rei memoriam in publico emineat. Ad reliqua vero communia imperii jura stabiliendum sufficit, si modo statuatur, ut Lex nulla abrogari, nec nova condi possit, nisi prius Syndicorum Concilium, et deinde supremi Concilii tres quartae, aut quatuor quintae partes in eo convenerint.

XXVI. Jus praeterea supremum Concilium convocandi, resque decernendas in eodem proponendi penes Syndicos sit, quibus etiam primus locus in Concilio concedatur, sed sine jure suffragii. Verum, antequam sedeant, jurare debent per salutem supremi illius Concilii, perque libertatem publicam, se fummo studio conaturos, ut jura patria inviolata serventur, et communi bono consulatur; quo facto res proponendas ordine aperiant per ministrum, qui ipsis a Secretis est.

XXVII. Ut autem in decernendo, et in eligendis imperii ministris omnibus Patriciis aequa sit potestas, et celeris expeditio in omnibus detur, omnino probandus est ordo, quem Veneti observant, qui scilicet ad nominandos imperii ministros aliquot e Concilio sorte eligunt, et ab his ordine ministris eligendis nominatis, unusquisque Patricius sententiam suam, qua propositum ministrum eligendum probat, vel reprobat, indicat calculis, ita ut postea ignoretur, quisnam hujus, aut illius sententiae fuerit auctor: quo fit non tantum, ut omnium Patriciorum in decernendo auctoritas aequalis sit, et ut negotia cito expediantur, sed etiam ut unusquisque absolutam libertatem, quod in Conciliis apprime necessarium est, habeat suam sententiam absque ullo invidiae periculo proferendi.

XXVIII. In Syndicorum etiam, et reliquis Conciliis idem ordo observandus est, ut scilicet suffragia calculis ferantur. Jus autem Syndicorum Concilium convocandi, resque in eodem decernendas proponendi penes eorundem praesidem esse oportet, qui cum aliis decem, aut pluribus Syndicis quotidie sedeat, ad plebis de ministris querelas, et secretas accusationes audiendum, et accusatores, si res postulat, asservandos, et Concilium convocandum, etiam ante constitutum tempus, quo congregari solet, si in mora periculum esse eorum aliquis judicaverit. At hic praeses, et qui cum ipso quotidie congregantur, a supremo Concilio eligi, et quidem ex Syndicorum numero debent, non quidem ad vitam, sed in sex menses, nec continuari, nisi post tres, aut quatuor annos: atque his, ut supra diximus, proscripta bona, et pecuniarum mulctae, vel eorum pars aliqua decernenda est. Reliqua, quae Syndicos spectant, suis in locis dicemus.

XXIX. Secundum Concilium, quod supremo subordinandum est, Senatum appellabimus, cujus officium sit publica negotia agere, ex. gr. imperii jura promulgare, urbium munimenta secundum jura ordinare, diplomata militiae dare, tributa subditis imponere, eaque collocare, externis legatis respondere, et, quo legati mittendi sunt, decernere. Sed ipsos legatos eligere supremi Concilii officium sit. Nam id apprime observandum est, ne Patricius ad aliquod imperii ministerium vocari possit, nisi ab ipso supremo Concilio, ne ipsi Patricii Senatus gratiam aucupari studeant. Deinde illa omnia ad supremum Concilium deferenda sunt, quae praesentem rerum statum aliqua ratione mutant, uti sunt belli, et pacis decreta; quare Senatus decreta de bello, et pace, ut rata sint, supremi Concilii auctoritate firmanda sunt: et hac de causa judicarem, ad solum supremum Concilium, non ad Senatum pertinere, nova tributa imponere.

XXX. Ad Senatorum numerum determinandum haec consideranda veniunt: primo ut omnibus Patriciis spes aeque magna sit ordinem Senatorium recipiendi, deinde ut nihilominus iidem Senatores, quorum tempus, in quod electi fuerant, elapsum est, non magno post intervallo continuari possint, ut sic imperium a viris peritis, et expertis semper regatur, et denique ut inter Senatores plures reperiantur sapientia, et virtute clari. Ad has autem omnes conditiones obtinendas, nihil aliud excogitari potest, quam quod lege institutum sit, ut nullus, nisi qui ad annum aetatis quinquagesimum pervenit, in ordinem Senatorium recipiatur, et ut quadringenti, hoc est, ut Patriciorum una circiter duodecima pars in annum eligatur, quo elapso post biennium iidem continuari iterum possint; hoc namque modo semper Patriciorum una circiter duodecima pars, brevibus tantummodo interpositis intervallis, munus Senatorium subibit; qui sane numerus una cum illo, quem Syndici conficiunt, non multum superabitur a numero Patriciorum, qui annum aetatis quinquagesimum attigerunt, atque adeo omnibus Patriciis magna semper erit spes Senatorum, aut Syndicorum ordinem adipiscendi, et nihilominus iidem Patricii, interpositis tantummodo, uti diximus, brevibus intervallis, Senatorium ordinem semper tenebunt, et (per illa, quae Art. 2. hujus Cap. diximus) nunquam in Senatu deerunt viri praestantissimi, qui consilio, et arte pollent. Et, quia haec lex frangi non potest absque magna multorum Patriciorum invidia, nulla alia cautione, ut valida semper sit, opus est, quam ut unusquisque Patricius, qui eo, quo diximus, aetatis pervenit, Syndicis ejus rei testimonium ostendat, qui ipsius nomen in catalogum eorum, qui Senatoriis muneribus adipiscendis destinantur, reponent, et in supremo Concilio legent, ut locum in hoc supremo Concilio similibus dicatum, et qui Senatorum loco proximus sit, cum reliquis ejusdem ordinis occupet.

XXXI. Senatorum emolumenta talia esse debent, ut iis major utilitas ex pace, quam ex bello sit; atque adeo ex mercibus, quae ex imperio in alias regiones, vel quae ex aliis regionibus in imperium portantur, una centesima, aut quinquagesima pars ipsis decernatur. Nam dubitare nonpossumus, quin hac ratione pacem, quantum poterunt, tuebuntur, et bellum nunquam protrahere studebunt. Nec ab hoc vectigali solvendo ipsi Senatores, si eorum aliqui mercatores fuerint, immunes esse debent: nam talis immunitas non sine magna commercii jactura concedi potest, quod neminem ignorare credo. Porro contra statuendum lege est, ut Senator, vel qui Senatoris officio functus est, nullo militiae munere fungi possit, et praeterea ut nullum ducem, vel praetorem, quos tempore belli tantummodo exercitui praebendos diximus Art. 9. hujus Capitis, renunciare liceat ex iis, quorum Pater, vel no avus Senator est, vel Senatoriam dignitatem intra biennium habuit. Nec dubitare possumus, quin Patricii, qui extra Senatum sunt, haec jura summa vi defendant, atque adeo fiet, ut Senatoribus majus semper emolumentum ex pace, quam ex bello sit, qui propterea bellum nunquam, nisi summa imperii necessitate cogente, suadebunt. At objici nobis potest, quod hac ratione, si scilicet Syndicis, et Senatoribus adeo magna emolumenta decernenda sunt, imperium Aristocraticum non minus onerosum subditis erit, quam quodcunque Monarchicum. Sed, praeterquam quod Regiae aulae majores sumptus requirunt, qui (38) tamen ad pacem tutandam non praebentur, et quod pax nunquam nimis caro pretio emi possit, accedit primo, quod id omne, quod in Monarchico imperio in unum, aut paucos, in hoc in plurimos confertur. Deinde Reges, eorumque ministri onera imperii cum subditis non ferunt, quod in hoc contra accidit; nam Patricii, qui semper ex ditioribus eliguntur, maximam partem Reipublicae conferunt. Denique imperii Monarchici onera non tam ex Regiis sumptibus, quam ex ejusdem arcanis oriuntur. Onera enim imperii, quae pacis, et libertatis tutandae causa civibus imponuntur, quamvis magna sint, sustinentur tamen, et pacis utilitate feruntur. Quae gens unquam tot, tamque gravia vectigalia pendere debuit, ut Hollandica? atque haec non tantum non exhausta, quin contra opibus adeo potens fuit, ut ejus fortunam omnes inviderent. Si itaque imperii Monarchici onera pacis causa imponerentur, cives non premerent; sed, uti dixi, ex hujusmodi imperii arcanis sit, ut subditi oneri succumbant. Nempe quia Regum virtus magis in bello, quam in pace valet, et quod ii, qui soli regnare volunt, summopere conari debent, ut subditos inopes habeant, ut jam alia taceam, quae prudentissimus Belga V. H. olim notavit, quia ad meum institutum, quod solummodo est imperii cujuscunque optimum statum describere, non spectant.

XXXII. In Senatu aliqui ex Syndicis, a supremo Concilio electis, sedere debent, sed sine suffragii jure: nempe ut observent, num jura, quae illud Concilium spectant, recte serventur, et ut supremum Concilium convocari curent, quando ex Senatu ad ipsum supremum Concilium aliquid deferendum est. Nam jus supremum no hoc Concilium convocandi, resque in eo decernendas proponendi penes Syndicos, ut jam diximus, est. Sed, antequam de similibus suffragia colligantur, qui Senatui tum praesidet, rerum statum, et quaenam de re proposita ipsius Senatus sit sententia, et quibus de causis, docebit, quo facto, suffragia solito ordine colligenda erunt.

XXXIII. Integer Senatus non quotidie, sed, ut omnia magna Concilia, statuto quodam tempore congregari debet. Sed quia interim imperii negotia exercenda sunt, opus est ergo, ut Senatorum aliqua pars eligatur, quae dimisso Senatu ejus vicem suppleat, cujus officium sit, ipsum Senatum, quando eo opus est, convocare, ejusque decreta de Republica exsequi, Epistolas Senatui, supremoque Concilio scriptas legere, et denique de rebus in Senatu proponendis consulere. Sed, ut haec omnia, et universi hujus Concilii ordo facilius concipiatur, rem totam accuratius describam.

XXXIV. Senatores in annum, ut jam diximus, eligendi, in quatuor, aut sex ordines dividendi sunt, quorum primus primis tribus, vel duobus mensibus in Senatu sedeat, quibus elapsis secundus ordo locum primi occupet, et sic porro, servatis vicibus, unusquisque ordo eodem temporis intervallo primum locum in Senatu teneat, ita ut, qui primis mensibus primus, is secundis ultimus sit. Praeterea quot ordines, totidem Praesides, totidemque eorundem Vicarii, qui ipsorum vicem, quando opus est, suppleant, eligendi sunt, hoc est, ex quocunque ordine duo eligendi sunt, quorum alter Praeses, alter Vicarius ejusdem ordinis sit, et qui primi ordinis Praeses est, primis etiam mensibus Senatui praesideat, vel si absit, ejus Vicarius ipsius vicem gerat, et sic porro reliqui, servato ut supra ordine. Deinde ex primo ordine aliqui forte, vel suffragio eligendi sunt, qui cum Praeside, et Vicario ejusdem ordinis Senatus vicem, postquam dimissus est, suppleant; idque eodem temporis intervallo, quo idem eorum ordo primum locum in Senatu tenet: quippe eo elapso ex secundo ordine totidem iterum sorte, vel suffragio eligendi sunt, qui cum suo Praeside, et Vicario primi ordinis locum occupent, vicemque Senatus suppleant, et sic porro reliqui, nec opus est, ut horum electio, quos scilicet no sorte, vel suffragio singulis tribus, vel duobus mensibus eligendos dixi, et quos imposterum Consules appellabimus, a supremo Concilio fiat. Nam ratio, quam in Art. 29. hujus Cap. dedimus, locum hic non habet, et multo minus illa Art. 17. Sufficiet igitur, si a Senatu, et Syndicis, qui praesentes adsunt, eligantur.

XXXV. Horum autem numerum determinare non ita accurate possum. At tamen hoc certum est, plures esse debere, quam ut facile corrumpi possint: nam, tametsi de Republica nihil soli decernant, possunt tamen Senatum protrahere, vel quod pessimum esset, ipsum deludere proponendo illa, quae nullius, et illa reticendo, quae majoris momenti essent: ut jam taceam, quod si nimis pauci essent, sola unius, aut alterius absentia moram publicis negotiis adferre posset. Sed, quoniam contra hi Consules ideo creantur, quia magna Concilia publicis negotiis quotidie vacare nequeunt, medium necessario hic quaerendum est, et defectus numeri temporis brevitate supplendus. Atque adeo, si modo triginta, aut circiter in duos, aut tres menses eligantur, plures erunt, quam ut hoc brevi tempore corrumpi possint, et hac de causa etiam monui, ut ii, qui in eorum locum succedunt, nullo modo eligendi sint, nisi eo tempore, quo ipsi succedunt, et alii discedunt.

XXXVI. Horum praeterea officium esse diximus, Senatum, quando eorum aliqui, licet pauci sint, opus esse judicaverint, convocare, resque in eodem decernendas proponere, Senatum dimittere, ejusque de negotiis publicis decreta exequi. Quo autem id fieri ordine debeat, ne res inutilibus quaestionibus diu protrahantur, paucis jam dicam. Nempe Consules de re in Senatu proponenda, et, quid factu opus sit, consulant, et, si de eo omnibus una fuerit mens, tum convocato Senatu, et quaestione ordine exposita, quaenam eorum sit sententia, doceant, nec alterius sententia exspectata suffragia ordine colligant. Sed si Consules plures, quam unam sententiam foverint, tum in Senatu illa de quaestione proposita sententia prior dicenda erit, quae a majori Consulum numero defendebatur, et si eadem a majori Senatus, et Consulum parte non fuerit probata, sed quod numerus dubitantium, et negantium simul major fuerit, quod ex calculis, ut jam monuimus, constare debet, tum alteram sententiam, quae pauciora, quam prior, habuerit inter Consules suffragia, doceant, et sic porro reliquas; quod si nulla a majori totius Senatus parte probata fuerit, Senatus in sequentem diem, aut in tempus breve dimittendus, ut Consules interim videant, num alia media, quae magis possint placere, queant invenire; quod si nulla alia invenerint, vel si, quae invenerint, Senatus major pars non probaverit, tum Senatoris cujusque sententia audienda est, in quam si etiam major Senatus pars non iverit, tum de unaquaque sententia iterum suffragia ferenda, et non tantum affirmantium, ut huc usque factum, sed dubitantium etiam, et negantium calculi numerandi sunt, et si plures reperientur affirmantes, quam dubitantes, aut negantes, ut tum sententia rata maneat, et contra irrita, si plures invenientur negantes, quam dubitantes, aut affirmantes; sed si de omnibus sententiis major dubitantium quam negantium, aut affirmantium fuerit numerus, ut tum Syndicorum Concilium Senatui adjungatur, qui simul cum Senatoribus suffragia ferant, calculis solummodo affirmantibus, aut negantibus, omissis iis, qui animum ambiguum indicant. Circa res, quae ad supremum Concilium a Senatu deferuntur, idem ordo tenendus est. Haec de Senatu.

XXXVII. Ad forum quod attinet, sive tribunal, non potest iisdem fundamentis niti, quibus illud, quod sub Monarcha est, ut illud in Ca. Art. 26. et seq. descripsimus. Nam (per Art. 14. hujus Cap.) cum fundamentis hujus imperii non convenit, ut ulla ratio stirpium, sive familiarum habeatur. Deinde quia Judices ex solis Patriciis electi, metu quidem succedentium Patriciorum contineri possent, ne in eorum aliquem iniquam aliquam sententiam pronuncient, et forte ut neque eos secundum merita punire sustineant, sed contra in plebeios omnia auderent, et locupletes quotidie in praedam raperent. Scio hac de causa Genuensium consilium a multis probari, quod scilicet non ex Patriciis, sed ex Peregrinis Judices eligant; sed hoc mihi rem abstracte consideranti absurde institutum videtur, ut Peregrini, et non Patricii ad Leges interpretandas vocentur. Nam quid aliud Judices sunt, nisi Legum interpretes; quare mihi persuadeo, Genuenses in hoc etiam negotio magis suae gentis ingenium, quam ipsam hujus imperii naturam respexisse. Nobis igitur rem abstracte considerantibus media excogitanda sunt, quae cum hujus regiminis forma optime conveniunt.

XXXVIII. Sed ad Judicum numerum quod attinet, nullum singularem hujus status ratio exigit; sed, ut in imperio Monarchico, ita etiam in hoc apprime observari debet, ut plures sint, quam ut a viro privato corrumpi possint. Nam eorum officium solummodo est providere, ne quisquam privatus alteri injuriam faciat, atque adeo quaestiones inter privatos tam Patricios, quam plebeios dirimere, et poenas delinquentibus, etiam ex Patriciis, Syndicis, et Senatoribus, quatenus contra jura, quibus omnes tenentur, deliquerunt, sumere. Caeterum quaestiones, quae inter urbes, quae sub imperio sunt, moveri possunt, in supremo Concilio dirimendae sunt.

XXXIX. Temporis praeterea, in quod eligendi sunt, ratio est eadem in quocunque imperio, et etiam ut quotannis aliqua eorum pars cedat, et denique, quamvis non opus sit, ut unusquisque ex diversa sit familia, necesse tamen est, ne duo sanguine propinqui simul in subselliis locum occupent: quod in reliquis Conciliis observandum est, praeterquam in supremo, in quo sufficit, si modo in electionibus lege cautum sit, ne cuiquam propinquum nominare, nec de eo, si ab alio nominatus sit, suffragium ferre liceat, et praeterea ne ad imperii ministrum quemcunque nominandum duo propinqui sortem ex urna tollant: hoc, inquam, sufficit in Concilio, quod ex tam magno hominum numero componitur, et cui nulla singularia emolumenta decernuntur. Atque adeo imperio inde nihil erit detrimenti, ut absurdum sit, legem ferre, qua omnium Patriciorum propinqui a supremo Concilio secludantur, ut Art. 14. hujus Cap. diximus. Quod autem id absurdum sit, patet. Nam jus illud ab ipsis Patriciis institui non posset, quin eo ipso omnes absolute suo jure eatenus cederent, ac proinde ejusdem juris vindices non ipsi Patricii, sed plebs esset, quod iis directe repugnat, quae in Art. 5. et 6. hujus Cap. ostendimus. Lex autem illa imperii, qua statuitur, ut una, eademque ratio inter numerum Patriciorum, et multitudinis servetur, id maxime respicit, ut Patriciorum jus, et potentia conservetur, ne scilicet pauciores sint, quam ut multitudinem possint regere.

XL. Caeterum Judices a supremo Concilio ex ipsis Patriciis, hoc est (per Art. 17. hujus Cap.), ex ipsis legum conditoribus eligendi sunt, et sententiae, quas tulerunt tam de rebus civilibus, quam criminalibus, ratae erunt, si servato ordine, et absque partium studio prolatae fuerint, de qua re Syndicis lege permissum erit cognoscere, judicare, et statuere.

XLI. Judicum emolumenta eadem esse debent, quae Art. Ca. diximus, nempe ut ex unaquaque sententia, quam de rebus civilibus tulerint, ab eo, qui causa cecidit, pro ratione totius summae partem aliquotam accipiant. At circa sententias de rebus criminalibus haec sola hic differentia sit, ut bona ab ipsis proscripta, et quaecunque summa, qua minora crimina mulctantur, ipsis solis designetur, ea tamen conditione, ut nunquam iis liceat quenquam tormentis cogere quippiam confiteri, et hoc modo satis cautum erit, ne iniqui in plebeios sint, et ne metus causa nimium Patriciis faveant. Nam, praeterquam quod hic metus sola avaritia, eaque specioso justitiae nomine adumbrata, temperetur, accedit, quod plures sint numero, et quod suffragia non palam, sed calculis ferantur, ita ut si quis ob damnatam suam causam stomachetur, nihil tamen habeat, quod uni imputare possit. Porro ne iniquam, aut saltem ne absurdam aliquam sententiam pronuncient, et ne eorum quispiam dolo quicquam faciat, Syndicorum reverentia prohibebit, praeterquam quod in tam magno Judicum numero unus semper, aut alter reperietur, quem iniqui formident. Ad plebeios denique quod attinet, satis iis etiam cavebitur, si ad Syndicos iisdem appellare liceat, quibus, uti dixi, jure permissum sit de Judicum rebus cognoscere, judicare, et statuere. Nam certum est, quod Syndici multorum Patriciorum odium vitare non poterunt, et plebi contra gratissimi semper erunt, cujus applausum, quantum ipsi etiam poterunt, captare studebunt; quem in finem data occasione non omittent sententias contra leges fori prolatas revocare, et quemcunque judicem examinare, et poenas ex iniquis sumere; nihil enim hoc magis multitudinis animos movet. Nec obstat, quod similia exempla raro contingere possint, sed contra maxime prodest. Nam, praeterquam quod illa Civitas prave constituta sit, ubi quotidie exempla in delinquentes eduntur (ut Ca. Art. 2. ostendimus), illa profecto rarissima esse debent, fama quae maxime celebrantur.

XLII. Qui in urbes, vel provincias Proconsules mittuntur, ex ordine Senatorio eligendi essent, quia Senatorum officium est de urbium munimentis, aerario, militia, etc. curam habere. Sed, qui in regiones aliquantulum remotas mitterentur, Senatum frequentare non possent, et hac de causa ii tantummodo ex ipso Senatu vocandi sunt, qui urbibus in patrio solo conditis destinantur; at quos ad magis remota loca mittere volunt, ex iis eligendi sunt, quorum aetas a Senatorio gradu non abest. Sed neque hac ratione paci totius imperii satis cautum fore existimo, si nimirum urbes circumvicinae jure suffragii omnino prohibeantur, nisi adeo impotentes omnes sint, ut palam contemni possint, quod sane concipi nequit: atque adeo necesse est, ut urbes circumvicinae jure Civitatis donentur, et ex unaquaque viginti, triginta, aut quadraginta (nam numerus pro magnitudine urbis major, aut minor esse debet) cives electi in numerum Patriciorum adscribantur, ex quibus tres, quatuor, aut quinque quotannis eligi debent, qui ex Senatu sint, et unus ad vitam Syndicus. Atque hi, qui ex Senatu sunt, Proconsules in urbem, ex qua electi sunt, mittantur una cum Syndico.

XLIII. Caeterum Judices, in unaquaque urbe constituendi, ex Patriciis ejusdem urbis eligendi sunt. Sed de his non necesse judico prolixius agere, quia ad singularis hujus imperii fundamenta non pertinent.

XLIV. Qui in quocunque Concilio a Secretis sunt, et alii ejusmodi ministri, quia suffragii jus non habent, eligendi sunt ex plebe. Sed, quia hi diuturna negotiorum tractatione maximam rerum agendarum notitiam habent, fit saepe, ut eorum consilio plus, quam par est, deferatur, et ut status totius imperii ab eorum directione maxime pendeat; quae res Hollandis exitio fuit. Nam id sine magna multorum optimorum invidia fieri nequit. Et sane dubitare non possumus, quin Senatus, cujus prudentia non a Senatorum, sed ab administrorum consilio derivatur, maxime ab inertibus frequentetur, et hujus imperii conditio non multo melior erit, quam imperii Monarchici, quod pauci Regis Consiliarii regunt, de quo vide Ca. Art. 5. 6. et 7. Verumenimvero imperium, prout recte, vel prave institutum fuerit, eo minus, aut magis erit huic malo obnoxium. Nam imperii libertas, quae non satis firma habet fundamenta, nunquam sine periculo defenditur; quod Patricii ne subeant, ministros gloriae cupidos ex plebe eligunt, qui postea vertentibus rebus, veluti hostiae, caeduntur ad placandam eorum iram, qui libertati insidiantur. At ubi libertatis fundamenta satis firma sunt, ibi Patricii ipsi ejusdem tutandae gloriam sibi expetunt, studentque, ut rerum agendarum prudentia ab eorum tantummodo consilio derivetur: quae duo in jaciendis hujus imperii fundamentis apprime observavimus, nempe ut plebs tam a consiliis, quam a suffragiis ferendis arceretur (vid. Art. 3. et 4. hujus Cap.). Atque adeo ut suprema imperi i potestas penes omnes Patricios, auctoritas autem penes Syndicos, et Senatum, et jus denique Senatum convocandi, resque, ad communem salutem pertinentes penes Consules, ex ipso Senatu electos, esset. Quod si praeterea statuatur, ut qui a Secretis in Senatu, vel in aliis Conciliis est, in quatuor, aut quinque ad summum annos eligatur, atque ei secundus, qui a Secretis in idem tempus designatus sit, adjungatur, qui interim laboris partem ferat, vel si in Senatu non unus, sed plures a Secretis sint, quorum alius his, alius aliis negotiis detinetur, nunquam fiet, ut administrorum potentia alicujus sit momenti.

XLV. Aerarii Tribuni ex plebe etiam eligendi sunt, qui ejus rationem non tantum Senatui, sed etiam Syndicis reddere teneantur.

XLVI. Ad Religionem quae spectant, satis prolixe ostendimus in Tract. Theologico-Politico. Quaedam tamen tum omisimus, de quibus ibi non erat agendi locus. Nempe quod omnes Patricii ejusdem Religionis, sumplicissimae scilicet, et maxime Catholicae, qualem in eodem Tractatu descripsimus, esse debeant. Nam apprime cavendum est, ne ipsi Patricii in sectas dividantur, et ne alii his, alii aliis plus faveant, et deinde, ne superstitione capti libertatem subditis dicendi ea, quae sentiunt, adimere studeant. Deinde quamvis unicuique libertas dicendi ea, quae sentit, danda est, magni tamen conventus prohibendi sunt: atque adeo iis, qui alii (52) Religioni addicti sunt, concedendum quidem est, tot, quot velint, templa aedificare, sed parva, et certae cujusdam mensurae, et in locis aliquantulum ab invicem dissitis. At templa, quae patriae Religioni dicantur, multum refert, ut magna, et sumptuosa sint, et ut praecipuo ipsius cultui solis Patriciis, vel Senatoribus manus admovere liceat, atque adeo ut solis Patriciis liceat baptizare, matrimonium consecrare, manus imponere, et absolute ut templorum veluti Sacerdotes, patriaeque Religionis vindices, et interpretes agnoscantur. Ad concionandum autem, et ecclesiae aerario, ejusque quotidianis negotiis administrandis aliqui ex plebe ab ipso Senatu eligendi sunt, qui Senatus quasi vicarii sint, cui propterea rationem omnium reddere teneantur.

XLVlI. Atque haec illa sunt, quae hujus imperii fundamenta spectant, quibus pauca alia minus quidem principalia, sed magni tamen momenti addam, nempe ut Patricii veste quadam, seu habitu singulari, quo dignoscantur, incedant, et ut singulari quodam titulo salutentur, et unusquisque ex plebe iis loco cedat, et si aliquis Patricius bona sua aliquo infortunio, quod vitari nequit, amiserit, idque liquido docere poterit, ut in integrum ex publicis bonis restituatur. Sed si contra constet, eundem largitate, fastu, ludo, scortis, etc. eadem consumpsisse, vel quod absolute plus debet, quam est solvendo, ut dignitate cedat, et omni honore, officioque indignus habeatur. Qui enim seipsum, resque suas privatas regere nequit, multo minus publicis consulere poterit.

XLVIII. Quos lex jurare cogit, a perjurio multo magis cavebunt, si per salutem patriae, et libertatem, perque supremum Concilium, quam si per Deum jurare jubeantur. Nam, qui per Deum jurat, privatum bonum interponit, cujus ille aestimator est: at qui jurejurando libertatem, patriaeque salutem interponit, is per commune omnium bonum, cujus ille aestimator non est, jurat, et, si pejerat, eo ipso (39) se patriae hostem declarat.

XLIX. Academiae, quae sumptibus Reipublicae fundantur, non tam ad ingenia colenda, quam ad eadem coërcenda instituuntur. Sed in libera Republica tum scientiae, et artes optime excolentur, si unicuique veniam petenti concedatur publice docere, idque suis sumptibus, suaeque famae periculo. Sed haec, et similia ad alium locum reservo. Nam hic de iis solummodo agere constitueram, quae ad solum imperium Aristocraticum pertinent.

Of Aristocracy. Continuation.

HITHERTO WE HAVE considered an aristocracy, so far as it takes its name from one city, which is the head of the whole dominion. It is now time to treat of that, which is in the hands of more than one city, and which I think preferable to the former. But that we may notice its difference and its superiority, we will pass in review the foundations of dominion, one by one, rejecting those foundations, which are unsuited to the present kind, and laying in their place others for it to rest upon.

2. The cities, then, which enjoy the right of citizenship, must be so built and fortified, that, on the one hand, each city by itself may be unable to subsist without the rest, and that yet, on the other hand, it cannot desert the rest without great harm to the whole dominion. For thus they will always remain united. But cities, which are so constituted, that they can neither maintain themselves, nor be dangerous to the rest, are clearly not independent, but absolutely subject to the rest.

3. But the contents of the ninth and tenth sections of the last chapter are deduced from the general nature of aristocracy, as are also the proportion between the numbers of the patricians and the multitude, and the proper age and condition of those that are to be made patricians; so that on these points no difference can arise, whether the dominion be in the hands of one or more cities. But the supreme council must here be on a different footing. For if any city of the dominion were assigned for the meeting of this supreme council, it would in reality be the head of the dominion; and, therefore, either they would have to take turns, or a place would have to be assigned for this council, that has not the right of citizenship, and belongs equally to all. But either alternative is as difficult to effect, as it is easy to state; I mean, either that so many thousands of men should have to go often outside their cities, or that they should have to assemble sometimes in one place, sometimes in another.

4. But that we may conclude aright what should be done in this matter, and on what plan the councils of this dominion ought to be formed, from its own very nature and condition, these points are to be considered; namely, that every city has so much more right than a private man, as it excels him in power (Chap. II. Sec. 4), and consequently that every city of this dominion has as much right within its walls, or the limits of its jurisdiction, as it has power; and, in the next place, that all the cities are mutually associated and united, not as under a treaty, but as forming one dominion, yet so that every city has so much more right as against the dominion than the others, as it exceeds the others in power. For he who seeks equality between unequals, seeks an absurdity. Citizens, indeed, are rightly esteemed equal, because the power of each, compared with that of the whole dominion, is of no account. But each city’s power constitutes a large part of the power of the dominion itself, and so much the larger, as the city itself is greater. And, therefore, the cities cannot all be held equal. But, as the power of each, so also its right should be estimated by its greatness. The bonds, however, by which they should be bound into one dominion, are above all a senate and a court of justice (Chap. IV. Sec. 1). But how by these bonds they are all to be so united, that each of them may yet remain, as far as possible, independent, I will here briefly show.

5. I suppose then, that the patricians of every city, who, according to its size, should be more, or fewer (Sec. 3), have supreme right over their own city, and that, in that city’s supreme council, they have supreme authority to fortify the city and enlarge its walls, to impose taxes, to pass and repeal laws, and, in general, to do everything which they judge necessary to their city’s preservation and increase. But to manage the common business of the dominion, a senate is to be created on just the same footing as we described in the last chapter, so that there be between this senate and the former no difference, except that this has also authority to decide the disputes, which may arise between cities. For in this dominion, of which no city is head, it cannot be done by the supreme council. (See Chap. VI. Sec. 38.)

6. But, in this dominion, the supreme council is not to be called together, unless there is need to alter the form of the dominion itself, or on some difficult business, to which the senators shall think themselves unequal; and so it will very rarely happen, that all the patricians are summoned to council. For we have said (Chap. VIII. Sec. 17), that the supreme council’s function is to pass and repeal laws, and to choose the ministers of the dominion. But the laws, or general constitution of the whole dominion, ought not to be changed as soon as instituted. If, however, time and occasion suggest the institution of some new law or the change of one already ordained, the question may first be discussed in the senate, and after the agreement of the senate in the matter, then let envoys next be sent to the cities by the senate itself, to inform the patricians of every city of the opinion of the senate, and lastly, if the majority of the cities follow that opinion, it shall then remain good, but otherwise be of no effect. And this same order may be observed in choosing the generals of the army and the ambassadors to be sent to other realms, as also about decrees concerning the making of war or accepting conditions of peace. But in choosing the other public officials, since (as we showed in Sec. 4) every city, as far as can be, ought to remain independent, and to have as much more right than the others in the dominion, as it exceeds them in power, the following order must necessarily be observed. The senators are to be chosen by the patricians of each city; that is, the patricians of one city are to elect in their own council a fixed number of senators from their colleagues of their own city, which number is to be to that of the patricians of that city as one to twelve (Chap. VIII. Sec. 30); and they are to designate whom they will to be of the first, second, third, or other series; and in like manner the patricians of the other cities, in proportion to their number, are to choose more or fewer senators, and distribute them among the series, into a certain number of which we have said the senate is to be divided. (Chap. VIII. Sec. 34.) By which means it will result, that in every series of senators there will be found senators of every city, more or fewer, according to its size. But the presidents and vice-presidents of the series, being fewer in number than the cities, are to be chosen by lot by the senate out of the consuls, who are to be appointed first. The same order is to be maintained in appointing the supreme judges of the dominion, namely, that the patricians of every city are to elect from their colleagues in proportion to their number more or fewer judges. And so it will be the case, that every city in choosing officials will be as independent as possible, and that each, in proportion to its power, will have the more right alike in the senate and the court of justice; supposing, that is, that the order observed by senate and court in deciding public affairs, and settling disputes is such in all respects, as we have described it in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth sections of the last chapter.

7. Next, the commanders of battalions and military tribunes are also to be chosen from the patricians. For as it is fair, that every city in proportion to its size should be bound to levy a certain number of soldiers for the general safety of the whole dominion, it is also fair, that from the patricians of every city in proportion to the number of regiments, which they are bound to maintain, they may appoint so many tribunes, captains, ensigns, etc., as are needed to discipline that part of the military, which they supply to the dominion.

8. No taxes are to be imposed by the senate on the subjects; but to meet the expenditure, which by decree of the senate is necessary to carry on public business, not the subjects, but the cities themselves are to be called to assessment by the senate, so that every city, in proportion to its size, should pay a larger or smaller share of the expense. And this share indeed is to be exacted by the patricians of every city from their own citizens in what way they please, either by compelling them to an assessment, or, as is much fairer, by imposing taxes on them.

9. Further, although all the cities of this dominion are not maritime, nor the senators summoned from the maritime cities only, yet may the same emoluments be awarded to the senators, as we mentioned in the thirty-first section of the last chapter. To which end it will be possible to devise means, varying with the composition of the dominion, to link the cities to one another more closely. But the other points concerning the senate and the court of justice and the whole dominion in general, which I delivered in the last chapter, are to be applied to this dominion also. And so we see, that in a dominion which is in the hands of several cities, it will not be necessary to assign a fixed time or place for assembling the supreme council. But for the senate and court of justice a place is to be appointed in a village, or in a city, that has not the right of voting. But I return to those points, which concern the cities taken by themselves.

10. The order to be observed by the supreme council of a single city, in choosing officials of the dominion and of the city, and in making decrees, should be the same that I have delivered in the twenty-seventh and thirty-sixth sections of the last chapter. For the policy is the same here as it was there. Next a council of syndics is to be formed, subordinate to the council of the city, and having the same relation to it as the council of syndics of the last chapter had to the council of the entire dominion, and let its functions within the limits of the city be also the same, and let it enjoy the same emoluments. But if a city, and consequently the number of its patricians be so small that it cannot create more than one syndic or two, which two are not enough to make a council, then the supreme council of the city is to appoint judges to assist the syndics in trials according to the matter at issue, or else the dispute must be referred to the supreme council of syndics. For from every city some also out of the syndics are to be sent to the place where the senate sits, to see that the constitution of the whole dominion is preserved unbroken, and they are to sit in the senate without the right of voting.

11. The consuls of the cities are likewise to be chosen by the patricians of their city, and are to constitute a sort of senate for it. But their number I cannot determine, nor yet do I think it necessary, since the city’s business of great importance is transacted by its supreme council, and matters concerning the whole dominion by the great senate. But if they be few, it will be necessary that they give their votes in their council openly, and not by ballot, as in large councils. For in small councils, when votes are given secretly, by a little extra cunning one can easily detect the author of every vote, and in many ways deceive the less attentive.

12. Besides, in every city judges are to be appointed by its supreme council, from whose sentence, however, let everyone but an openly convicted criminal or confessed debtor have a right of appeal to the supreme court of justice of the dominion. But this need not be pursued further.

13. It remains, therefore, to speak of the cities which are not independent. If these were founded in an actual province or district of the dominion, and their inhabitants are of the same nation and language, they ought of necessity, like villages, to be esteemed parts of the neighbouring cities, so that each of them should be under the government of this or that independent city. And the reason of this is, that the patricians are chosen by the supreme council, not of the dominion, but of every city, and in every city are more or fewer, according to the number of inhabitants within the limits of its jurisdiction (Sec. 5). And so it is necessary, that the multitude of the city, which is not independent, be referred to the census of another which is independent, and depend upon the latter’s government. But cities captured by right of war, and annexed to the dominion, are either to be esteemed associates in the dominion, and though conquered put under an obligation by that benefit, or else colonies to enjoy the right of citizenship are to be sent thither, and the natives removed elsewhere or utterly destroyed.

14. And these are the things, which touch the foundations of the dominion. But that its condition is better than that of the aristocracy, which is called after one city only, I conclude from this, namely, that the patricians of every city, after the manner of human desire, will be eager to keep, and if possible increase their right, both in their city and in the senate; and therefore will try, as far as possible, to attract the multitude to themselves, and consequently to make a stir in the dominion by good deeds rather than by fear, and to increase their own number; because the more numerous they are, the more senators they will choose out of their own council (Sec. 6), and hence the more right (Sec. 6) they will possess in the dominion. Nor is it an objection, that while every city is consulting its own interest and suspecting the rest, they more often quarrel among themselves, and waste time in disputing. For if, while the Romans are debating, Saguntum is lost: on the other hand, while a few are deciding everything in conformity with their own passions only, liberty and the general good are lost. For men’s natural abilities are too dull to see through everything at once; but by consulting, listening, and debating, they grow more acute, and while they are trying all means, they at last discover those which they want, which all approve, but no one would have thought of in the first instance. But if anyone retorts, that the dominion of the Dutch has not long endured without a count or one to fill his place, let him have this reply, that the Dutch thought, that to maintain their liberty it was enough to abandon their count, and to behead the body of their dominion, but never thought of remoulding it, and left its limbs, just as they had been first constituted, so that the county of Holland has remained without a count, like a headless body, and the actual dominion has lasted on without the name. And so it is no wonder that most of its subjects have not known, with whom the authority of the dominion lay. And even had this been otherwise, yet those who actually held dominion were far too few to govern the multitude and suppress their powerful adversaries. Whence it has come to pass, that the latter have often been able to plot against them with impunity, and at last to overthrow them. And so the sudden overthrow of the said republic has not arisen from a useless waste of time in debates, but from the misformed state of the said dominion and the fewness of its rulers.

15. This aristocracy in the hands of several cities is also preferable to the other, because it is not necessary, as in the first described, to provide against its whole supreme council being overpowered by a sudden attack, since (Sec. 9) no time or place is appointed for its meeting. Moreover, powerful citizens in this dominion are less to be feared. For where several cities enjoy liberty, it is not enough for him, who is making ready his way to dominion, to seize one city, in order to hold dominion over the rest. And, lastly, liberty under this dominion is common to more. For where one city reigns alone, there the advantage of the rest is only so far considered, as suits that reigning city.

So the text: but the court of justice is not described till the thirty-seventh and following sections of Chap. VIII.

Livy, “Hist.,” Bk. xxi. Chaps. VI. and following.

A.D. 1672. William Henry, Prince of Orange, afterwards William III. of England, was made Statholder by a popular insurrection, consequent on the invasion of the French.

I. HUC USQUE hoc imperium consideravimus, quatenus ab una sola urbe, quae totius imperii caput est, nomen habet. Tempus jam est, ut de eo agamus, quod plures urbes tenent, quodque ego praecedenti praeferendum existimo. Sed ut utriusque differentiam, et praestantiam noscamus, singula praecedentis imperii fundamenta perlustrabimus, et, quae ab hoc aliena sunt, rejiciemus, et alia, quibus niti debeat, eorum loco jaciemus.

II. Urbes itaque, quae Civitatis jure gaudent, ita conditae, et munitae esse debent, ut unaquaeque sola sine reliquis subsistere quidem non possit, sed contra etiam, ut a reliquis deficere nequeat absque magno totius imperii detrimento; hoc enim modo semper unitae manebunt. At quae ita constitutae sunt, ut nec se conservare, nec reliquis formidini esse queant, eae sane non sui, sed reliquarum juris absolute sunt.

III. Quae autem Art. 9. et 10. praec. Cap. ostendimus, ex communi imperii Aristocratici natura deducuntur, ut et ratio numeri Patriciorum ad numerum multitudinis, et qualis eorum aetas, et conditio esse debeat, qui Patricii sunt creandi, ita ut nulla circa haec oriri possit differentia, sive imperium una, sive plures urbes teneant. At supremi Concilii alia hic debet esse ratio. Nam, si quae imperii Urbs supremo huic Concilio congregando destinaretur, illa revera ipsius imperii caput esset; atque adeo vel vices servandae essent, vel talis locus huic Concilio esset designandus, qui Civitatis jus non habeat, quique ad omnes aeque pertineat. Sed tam hoc, quam illud, ut dictu facile, ita factu difficile est, ut scilicet tot hominum millia extra Urbes saepe ire, vel ut jam hoc, jam alio in loco convenire debeant.

IV. Verum ut recte, quid in hac re fieri oporteat, et qua ratione hujus imperii Concilia instituenda sint, ex ipsius natura, et conditione concludere possimus, haec consideranda sunt, nempe quod unaquaeque Urbs tanto plus juris, quam vir privatus habeat, quanto viro privato potentior est (per Art. 4. Ca.); et consequenter unaquaeque hujus imperii Urbs (vide Art. 2. hujus Cap.) tantum juris intra moenia, seu suae jurisdictionis limites habeat, quantum potest. Deinde quod omnes urbes non ut confoederatae, sed ut unum imperium constituentes invicem sociatae, et unitae sint, sed ita, ut unaquaeque urbs tanto plus juris in imperium, quam reliquae obtineat, quanto reliquis est potentior; nam qui inter inaequales aequalitatem quaerit, absurdum quid quaerit. Cives quidem aequales merito aestimantur, quia uniuscujusque potentia cum potentia totius imperii comparata nullius est considerationis. At urbis cujuscunque potentia magnam partem potentiae ipsius imperii constituit, et eo majorem, quo ipsa urbs major est; ac proinde omnes urbes aequales haberi nequeunt. Sed ut uniuscujusque potentia, ita etiam ejusdem jus ex ipsius magnitudine aestimari debet. Vincula vero, quibus adstringi debent, ut unum imperium componant, apprime sunt (per Art. 1. Ca.) Senatus, et forum. Quomodo autem eae omnes his vinculis ita copulandae sunt, ut earum tamen unaquaeque sui juris, quantum fieri potest, maneat, breviter hic ostendam. ` V. Nempe uniuscujusque urbis Patricios, qui pro magnitudine urbis (per Art. 3. hujus Cap.) plures, aut pauciores esse debent, summum in suam urbem jus habere concipio, eosque in Concilio, quod illius urbis supremum est, summam habere potestatem urbem muniendi, ejusque moenia dilatandi, vectigalia imponendi, leges condendi, et abrogandi, et omnia absolute agendi, quae ad suae urbis conservationem, et incrementum necessaria esse judicant. Ad communia autem imperii negotia tractanda Senatus creandus est iis omnino conditionibus, quas in praeced. Cap. diximus, ita ut inter hunc Senatum, et illum nulla alia sit differentia, quam quod hic authoritatem etiam habeat dirimendi quaestiones, quae inter urbes oriri possunt. Nam hoc in hoc imperio, cujus nulla urbs caput est, non potest, ut in illo, a supremo Concilio fieri (vide Art. 38. praec. Cap.).

VI. Caeterum in hoc imperio supremum Concilium convocandum non est, nisi opus sit ipsum imperium reformare, vel in arduo aliquo negotio, ad quod peragendum Senatores se impares esse credent, atque adeo raro admodum fiet, ut omnes Patricii in Concilium vocentur. Nam praecipuum supremi Concilii officium esse diximus (Art. 17. praec. Cap.) leges condere, et abrogare, et deinde imperii ministros eligere. At leges, sive communia totius imperii jura, simulatque instituta sunt, immutari non debent. Quod si tamen tempus, et occasio ferat, ut novum aliquod jus instituendum sit, aut jam statutum mutandum, potest prius de eodem Quaestio in Senatu haberi, et postquam Senatus in eo convenerit, tum deinde legati ad urbes ab ipso Senatu mittantur, qui uniuscujusque urbis Patricios Senatus sententiam doceant, et si denique major urbium pars in sententiam Senatus iverit, ut tum ipsa rata maneat, alias irrita. Atque hic idem ordo in eligendis ducibus exercitus, et legatis in alia regna mittendis, ut et (40) circa decreta de bello inferendo, et pacis conditionibus acceptandis, teneri potest. Sed in reliquis imperii ministris eligendis, quia (ut in Art. 4. hujus Cap. ostendimus) unaquaeque urbs, quantum fieri potest, sui juris manere debet, et in imperio tanto plus juris obtinere, quanto reliquis est potentior, hic ordo necessario servandus est. Nempe, Senatores a Patriciis uniuscujusque urbis eligendi sunt; videlicet unius urbis Patricii in suo Concilio certum Senatorum numerum ex suis Civibus collegis eligent, qui ad numerum Patriciorum ejusdem urbis se habeat (vide Art. 30. praeced. Cap.), ut 1 ad 12. Et quos primi, secundi, tertii, etc. ordinis esse volunt, designabunt; et sic reliquarum urbium Patricii pro magnitudine sui numeri plures, paucioresve Senatores eligent, et in tot ordines distribuent, in quot Senatum dividendum esse diximus (vid. Art. 34. praeced. Cap.): quo fiet, ut in unoquoque Senatorum ordine pro magnitudine cujuscunque urbis plures, paucioresve ejusdem Senatores reperiantur. At ordinum praesides, eorumque Vicarii, quorum numerus minor est urbium numero, a Senatu ex Consulibus electis sorte eligendi sunt. In Judicibus praeterea supremis imperii eligendis idem ordo retinendus est, scilicet ut uniuscujusque urbis Patricii ex suis collegis pro magnitudine sui numeri plures, aut pauciores Judices eligant. Atque adeo fiet, ut unaquaeque urbs in eligendis ministris sui juris, quantum fieri potest, sit, et ut unaquaeque, quo potentior est, eo etiam plus juris tam in Senatu, quam in foro obtineat, posito scilicet, quod Senatus, et fori ordo in decernendis imperii rebus, et quaestionibus dirimendis (41) talis omnino sit, qualem Art. 33. et 34. praec. Cap. descripsimus.

VII. Cohortium deinde Duces, et militiae Tribuni e Patriciis etiam eligendi sunt. Nam quia aequum est, ut unaquaeque urbs pro ratione suae magnitudinis certum militum numerum ad communem totius imperii securitatem conducere teneatur, aequum etiam est, ut e Patriciis uniuscujusque urbis pro numero legionum, quas alere tenentur, tot tribunos, duces, signiferos etc. eligere liceat, quot ad illam militiae partem, quam imperio suppeditant, ordinandam requiruntur.

VIII. Vectigalia nulla etiam a Senatu subditis imponenda, sed ad sumptus, qui ad negotia publica peragenda ex Senatus decreto requiruntur, non subditi, sed urbes ipsae ab ipso Senatu ad censum vocandae sunt, ita ut unaquaeque urbs pro ratione suae magnitudinis sumptuum partem majorem, vel minorem ferre debeat; quam quidem partem ejusdem urbis Patricii a suis Urbanis ea, qua velint, via exigent, eos scilicet vel ad censum trahendo, vel, quod multo aequius est, iisdem vectigalia imponendo.

IX. Porro quamvis omnes hujus imperii urbes maritimae non sint, nec Senatores ex solis urbibus maritimis vocentur, possunt tamen iisdem eadem emolumenta decerni, quae Art. 31. praec. Cap. diximus; quem in finem pro imperii constitutione media excogitari poterunt, quibus urbes invicem arctius copulentur. Caeterum reliqua ad Senatum, et forum, et absolute ad universum imperium spectantia, quae in praec. Cap. tradidi, huic etiam imperio applicanda sunt. Atque adeo videmus, quod in imperio, quod plures urbes tenent, non necesse sit supremo Concilio convocando certum tempus, aut locum designare. At Senatui, et foro locus dicandus est in pago, vel in urbe, quae suffragii jus non habet. Sed ad illa, quae ad singulas urbes spectant, revertor.

X. Ordo supremi Concilii unius urbis in eligendis urbis, et imperii ministris, et in rebus decernendis idem ille, quem Art. 27. et 36. praec. Cap. tradidi, esse debet. Nam eadem hic, quam illic, est ratio. Deinde Syndicorum Concilium huic subordinandum est, quod ad urbis Concilium se habeat, ut illud Syndicorum praeced. Cap. ad Concilium totius imperii, et cujus officium intra limites jurisdictionis urbis idem etiam sit, iisdemque emolumentis gaudeat. Quod si urbs, et consequenter Patriciorum numerus adeo exiguus fuerit, ut non nisi unum, aut duos Syndicos creare possit, qui duo Concilium facere nequeunt, tum Syndicis in cognitionibus pro re nata Judices a supremo urbis Concilio designandi sunt, vel quaestio ad supremum Syndicorum Concilium deferenda. Nam ex unaquaque urbe aliqui etiam ex Syndicis in locum, ubi Senatus residet, mittendi sunt, qui prospiciant, ut jura universi imperii inviolata serventur, quique in Senatu absque jure suffragii sedeant.

XI. Urbium Consules a Patriciis etiam ejusdem urbis eligendi sunt, qui veluti Senatum illius urbis constituant. Horum autem numerum determinare non possum, nec etiam necesse esse existimo, quandoquidem ejusdem urbis negotia, quae magni ponderis sunt, a supremo ejusdem Concilio, et, quae ad universum imperium spectant, a magno Senatu peraguntur. Caeterum si pauci fuerint, necesse erit, ut in suo Concilio palam suffragia ferant, non autem calculis, ut in magnis Conciliis. In parvis enim Conciliis, ubi suffragia clam indicantur, qui aliquanto callidior est, facile cujusque suffragii auctorem noscere, et minus attentiores multis modis eludere potest.

XII. In unaquaque praeterea urbe Judices a supremo ejusdem Concilio constituendi sunt, a quorum tamen sententia supremum imperii judicium appellare liceat, praeterquam reo palam convicto, et confitenti debitori. Sed haec ulterius persequi non est opus.

XIII. Superest igitur, ut de urbibus, quae sui juris non sunt, loquamur. Hae si in ipsa imperii provincia, vel regione conditae, et earum incolae ejusdem nationis et linguae sint, debent necessario, sicuti pagi, veluti urbium vicinarum partes censeri, ita ut earum unaquaeque sub regimine hujus, aut illius urbis, quae sui juris est, esse debeat. Cujus rei ratio est, quod Patricii non a supremo hujus imperii, sed a supremo uniuscujusque urbis Concilio eligantur, qui in unaquaque urbe pro numero incolarum intra limites jurisdictionis ejusdem urbis plures, paucioresve sunt (per Art. 5. hujus Cap.). Atque adeo necesse est, ut multitudo urbis, quae sui juris non est, ad censum multitudinis alterius, quae sui juris sit, referatur, et ab ejus directione pendeat. At urbes jure belli captae, et quae imperio accesserunt, veluti imperii Sociae habendae, et beneficio victae obligandae, vel Coloniae, quae jure Civitatis gaudeant, eo mittendae, et gens alio ducenda, vel omnino delenda est.

XIV. Atque haec sunt, quae ad hujus imperii fundamenta spectant. Quod autem ejus conditio melior sit, quam illius, quod nomen ab una urbe sola habet, hinc concludo: quod scilicet uniuscujusque urbis Patricii, more humanae cupidinis, suum jus tam in urbe, quam in Senatu retinere, et, si fieri potest, augere studebunt; atque adeo, quantum poterunt, conabuntur multitudinem ad se trahere, et consequenter imperium beneficiis magis, quam metu agitare tare, suumque numerum augere: quippe quo plures numero fuerint, eo plures (per Art. 6. (42) hujus Cap.) ex suo Concilio Senatores eligent, et consequenter (per Art. eundem) plus juris in imperio obtinebunt. Nec obstat, quod, dum unaquaeque urbs sibi consulit, reliquisque invidet, saepius inter se discordent, et tempus disputando consumant. Nam, si, dum Romani deliberant, perit Sagunthus, dum contra pauci ex solo suo affectu omnia decernunt, perit libertas, communeque bonum sunt namque humana ingenia hebetiora, quam ut omnia statim penetrare possint; sed consulendo, audiendo, et disputando acuuntur, et, dum omnia tentant media, ea, quae volunt, tandem inveniunt, quae omnes probant, et de quibus nemo antea cogitasset. Quod si quis regerat, hoc Hollandorum imperium non diu absque Comite, vel Vicario, qui vicem Comitis suppleret, stetisse, hoc sibi responsum habeat, quod Hollandi ad obtinendam libertatem satis putaverunt Comitem deserere, et imperii corpus capite obtruncare, nec de eodem reformando cogitarunt; sed omnia ejus membra, uti antea constituta fuerant, reliquerunt, ita ut Hollandiae comitatus fine Comite, veluti corpus fine capite, ipsumque imperium sine nomine manserit. Atque adeo minime mirum, quod subditi plerique ignoraverint, penes quos summa esset imperii potestas. Et quamvis hoc non esset, ii tamen, qui imperium revera tenebant, longe pauciores erant, quam ut multitudinem regere, et potentes adversarios opprimere possent. Unde factum, ut hi saepe impune iis insidiari, et tandem evertere potuerint. Subita itaque ejusdem Reipublicae eversio non ex eo orta est, quod tempus in deliberationibus inutiliter consumeretur, sed ex deformi ejusdem imperii statu, et paucitate regentium.

XV. Est praeterea hoc Aristocraticum imperium, quod plures urbes tenent, alteri praeferendum, quia non opus est, ut in praecedenti, cavere, ne universum supremum ejus Concilium subito impetu opprimatur, quandoquidem (per Art. 9. hujus Cap.) eidem convocando nullum tempus, nec locus designatur. Sunt praeterea potentes cives in hoc imperio minus timendi. Nam, ubi plures urbes libertate gaudent, non sufficit ei, qui viam ad imperium affectat, urbem unam occupare, ut imperium in reliquas obtineat. Est denique in hoc imperio libertas pluribus communis. Nam ubi una sola urbs regnat, eatenus reliquarum bono consulitur, quatenus regnanti huic urbi expedit.

Of Aristocracy. Conclusion.

HAVING EXPLAINED AND made proof of the foundations of both kinds of aristocracy, it remains to inquire whether by reason of any fault they are liable to be dissolved or changed into another form. The primary cause, by which dominions of this kind are dissolved, is that, which that most acute Florentine observes in his “Discourses on Livy” (Bk. iii. Chap. I.), namely, that like a human body, “a dominion has daily added to it something that at some time or other needs to be remedied.” And so, he says, it is necessary for something occasionally to occur, to bring back the dominion to that first principle, on which it was in the beginning established. And if this does not take place within the necessary time, its blemishes will go on increasing, till they cannot be removed, but with the dominion itself. And this restoration, he says, may either happen accidentally, or by the design and forethought of the laws or of a man of extraordinary virtue. And we cannot doubt, that this matter is of the greatest importance, and that, where provision has not been made against this inconvenience, the dominion will not be able to endure by its own excellence, but only by good fortune; and on the other hand that, where a proper remedy has been applied to this evil, it will not be possible for it to fall by its own fault, but only by some inevitable fate, as we shall presently show more clearly. The first remedy, that suggested itself for this evil, was to appoint every five years a supreme dictator for one or two months, who should have the right to inquire, decide, and make ordinances concerning the acts of the senators and of every official, and thereby to bring back the dominion to its first principle. But he who studies to avoid the inconveniences, to which a dominion is liable, must apply remedies that suit its nature, and can be derived from its own foundations; otherwise in his wish to avoid Charybdis he falls upon Scylla. It is, indeed, true that all, as well rulers as ruled, ought to be restrained by fear of punishment or loss, so that they may not do wrong with impunity or even advantage; but, on the other hand, it is certain, that if this fear becomes common to good and bad men alike, the dominion must be in the utmost danger. Now as the authority of a dictator is absolute, it cannot fail to be a terror to all, especially if, as is here required, he were appointed at a stated time, because in that case every ambitious man would pursue this office with the utmost energy; and it is certain that in time of peace virtue is thought less of than wealth, so that the more haughty a man he is, the more easily he will get office. And this perhaps is why the Romans used to make a dictator at no fixed time, but under pressure of some accidental necessity. Though for all that, to quote Cicero’s words, “the tumour of a dictator was displeasing to the good.” And to be sure, as this authority of a dictator is quite royal, it is impossible for the dominion to change into a monarchy without great peril to the republic, although it happen for ever so short a time. Furthermore, if no fixed time were appointed for creating a dictator, no notice would be paid to the interval between one dictator and another, which is the very thing that we said was most to be observed; and the whole thing would be exceedingly vague, and therefore easily neglected. Unless, then, this authority of a dictator be eternal and fixed, and therefore impossible to be conferred on one man without destroying the form of dominion, the dictatorial authority itself, and consequently the safety and preservation of the republic will be very uncertain.

2. But, on the other hand, we cannot doubt (Chap. VI. Sec. 3), that, if without destroying the form of dominion, the sword of the dictator might be permanent, and only terrible to the wicked, evils will never grow to such a pitch, that they cannot be eradicated or amended. In order, therefore, to secure all these conditions, we have said, that there is to be a council of syndics subordinate to the supreme council, to the end that the sword of the dictator should be permanent in the hands not of any natural person, but of a civil person, whose members are too numerous to divide the dominion amongst themselves (Chap. IX. Secs. 1, 2), or to combine in any wickedness. To which is to be added, that they are forbidden to fill any other office in the dominion, that they are not the paymasters of the soldiery, and, lastly, that they are of an age to prefer actual security to things new and perilous. Wherefore the dominion is in no danger from them, and consequently they cannot, and in fact will not be a terror to the good, but only to the wicked. For as they are less powerful to accomplish criminal designs, so are they more so to restrain wickedness. For, not to mention that they can resist it in its beginnings (since the council lasts for ever), they are also sufficiently numerous to dare to accuse and condemn this or that influential man without fear of his enmity; especially as they vote by ballot, and the sentence is pronounced in the name of the entire council.

3. But the tribunes of the commons at Rome were likewise regularly appointed; but they were too weak to restrain the power of a Scipio, and had besides to submit to the senate their plans for the public welfare, which also frequently eluded them, by contriving that the one whom the senators were least afraid of should be most popular with the commons. Besides which, the tribunes’ authority was supported against the patricians by the favour of the commons. and whenever they convoked the commons, it looked as if they were raising a sedition rather than assembling a council. Which inconveniences have certainly no place in the dominion which we have described in the last two chapters.

4. However, this authority of the syndics will only be able to secure the preservation of the form of the dominion, and thus to prevent the laws from being broken, or anyone from gaining by transgressing; but will by no means suffice to prevent the growth of vices, which cannot be forbidden by law, such as those into which men fall from excess of leisure, and from which the ruin of a dominion not uncommonly follows. For men in time of peace lay aside fear, and gradually from being fierce savages become civilized or humane, and from being humane become soft and sluggish, and seek to excel one another not in virtue, but in ostentation and luxury. And hence they begin to put off their native manners and to put on foreign ones, that is, to become slaves.

5. To avoid these evils many have tried to establish sumptuary laws; but in vain. For all laws which can be broken without any injury to another, are counted but a laughing-stock, and are so far from bridling the desires and lusts of men, that on the contrary they stimulate them. For “we are ever eager for forbidden fruit, and desire what is denied.” Nor do idle men ever lack ability to elude the laws which are instituted about things, which cannot absolutely be forbidden, as banquets, plays, ornaments, and the like, of which only the excess is bad; and that is to be judged according to the individual’s fortune, so that it cannot be determined by any general law.

6. I conclude, therefore, that the common vices of peace, of which we are here speaking, are never to be directly, but indirectly forbidden; that is, by laying such foundations of dominion, that the result may be, that the majority, I do not say are anxious to live wisely (for that is impossible), but are guided by those passions whence the republic has most advantage. And therefore the chief point to be studied is, that the rich may be, if not thrifty, yet avaricious. For there is no doubt, that, if this passion of avarice, which is general and lasting, be encouraged by the desire of glory, most people would set their chief affection upon increasing their property without disgrace, in order to acquire honours, while avoiding extreme infamy. If then we examine the foundations of both kinds of aristocracy which I have explained in the last two chapters, we shall see, that this very result follows from them. For the number of rulers in both is so large, that most of the rich have access to government and to the offices of the dominion open to them.

7. But if it be further ordained (as we said, Chap. VIII. Sec. 47), that patricians who are insolvent be deposed from patrician rank, and that those who have lost their property by misfortune be restored to their former position, there is no doubt that all will try their best to keep their property. Moreover, they will never desire foreign costumes, nor disdain their native ones, if it is by law appointed, that patricians and candidates for office should be distinguished by a special robe, concerning which see Chap. VIII. Secs. 25, 47. And besides these, other means may be devised in every dominion agreeable to the nature of its situation and the national genius, and herein it is above all to be studied, that the subjects may do their duty rather spontaneously than under pressure of the law.

8. For a dominion, that looks no farther than to lead men by fear, will be rather free from vices, than possessed of virtue. But men are so to be led, that they may think that they are not led, but living after their own mind, and according to their free decision; and so that they are restrained only by love of liberty, desire to increase their property, and hope of gaining the honours of the dominion. But effigies, triumphs, and other incitements to virtue, are signs rather of slavery than liberty. For rewards of virtue are granted to slaves, not freemen. I admit, indeed, that men are very much stimulated by these incitements; but, as in the first instance, they are awarded to great men, so afterwards, with the growth of envy, they are granted to cowards and men swollen with the extent of their wealth, to the great indignation of all good men. Secondly, those, who boast of their ancestors’ effigies and triumphs, think they are wronged, if they are not preferred to others. Lastly, not to mention other objections, it is certain that equality, which once cast off the general liberty is lost, can by no means be maintained, from the time that peculiar honours are by public law decreed to any man renowned for his virtue.

9. After which premisses, let us now see whether dominions of this kind can be destroyed by any cause to which blame attaches. But if any dominion can be everlasting, that will necessarily be so, whose constitution being once rightly instituted remains unbroken. For the constitution is the soul of a dominion. Therefore, if it is preserved, so is the dominion. But a constitution cannot remain unconquered, unless it is defended alike by reason and common human passion: otherwise, if it relies only on the help of reason, it is certainly weak and easily overcome. Now since the fundamental constitution of both kinds of aristocracy has been shown to agree with reason and common human passion, we can therefore assert that these, if any kinds of dominion, will be eternal, in other words, that they cannot be destroyed by any cause to which blame attaches, but only by some inevitable fate.

10. But it may still be objected to us, that, although the constitution of dominion above set forth is defended by reason and common human passion, yet for all that it may at some time be overpowered. For there is no passion, that is not sometimes overpowered, by a stronger contrary one; for we frequently see the fear of death overpowered by the greed for another’s property. Men, who are running away in panic fear from the enemy, can be stopped by the fear of nothing else, but throw themselves into rivers, or rush into fire, to escape the enemy’s steel. In whatever degree, therefore, a commonwealth is rightly ordered, and its laws well made; yet in the extreme difficulties of a dominion, when all, as sometimes happens, are seized by a sort of panic terror, all, without regard to the future or the laws, approve only that which their actual fear suggests, all turn towards the man who is renowned for his victories, and set him free from the laws, and (establishing thereby the worst of precedents), continue him in command, and entrust to his fidelity all affairs of state: and this was, in fact, the cause of the destruction of the Roman dominion. But to answer this objection, I say, first, that in a rightly constituted republic such terror does not arise but from a due cause. And so such terror and consequent confusion can be attributed to no cause avoidable by human foresight. In the next place, it is to be observed, that in a republic such as we have above described, it is impossible (Chap. VIII. Secs. 9, 25) for this or that man so to distinguish himself by the report of his virtue, as to turn towards himself the attention of all, but he must have many rivals favoured by others. And so, although from terror there arise some confusion in the republic, yet no one will be able to elude the law and declare the election of anyone to an illegal military command, without its being immediately disputed by other candidates; and to settle the dispute, it will, in the end, be necessary to have recourse to the constitution ordained once for all, and approved by all, and to order the affairs of the dominion according to the existing laws. I may therefore absolutely assert, that as the aristocracy, which is in the hands of one city only, so especially that which is in the hands of several, is everlasting, or, in other words, can be dissolved or changed into another form by no internal cause.

Machiavelli.

Cic. ad Quint. Grat. iii. 8, 4. The better reading is “rumour,” not “tumour.” “The good” in such a passage means the aristocratic party.

Not by law, except before B.C. 287 and in the interval between the dictatorship of Sulla and the consulship of Pompey and Crassus. But in the golden age of the republic the senate in fact controlled the tribunes.

Ovid, “Amores,” III. iv. 17.

I. IMPERII UTRIUSQUE Aristocratici fundamentis explicatis, et ostensis, superest ut inquiramus, an aliqua causa culpabili possint dissolvi, aut in aliam formam mutari. Primaria causa, unde hujusmodi imperia dissolvuntur, illa est, quam acutissimus Florentinus Disc. 1. lib. 3. in Tit. Livium observat, videlicet quod imperio, sicuti humano corpori quotidie aggregatur aliquid, quod quandoque indiget curatione; atque adeo necesse esse, ait, ut aliquando aliquid accidat, quo imperium ad suum principium, quo stabiliri incepit, redigatur. Quod si intra debitum tempus non acciderit, vitia eo usque crescent, ut tolli nequeant, nisi cum ipso imperio. Atque hoc, inquit, vel casu contingere potest, vel consilio, et prudentia legum, aut viri eximiae virtutis. Nec dubitare possumus, quin haec res maximi sit ponderis, et quod, ubi huic incommodo provisum non sit, non poterit imperium sua virtute, sed sola fortuna permanere, et contra ubi huic malo remedium idoneum adhibitum fuerit, non poterit ipsum suo vitio, sed solummodo inevitabili aliquo fato cadere, ut mox clarius docebimus. Primum quod huic malo remedium occurrebat, hoc fuit, ut scilicet singulis lustris supremus aliquis Dictator in mensem unum, aut duos crearetur (43), cui jus esset de Senatorum, et cujuscunque ministri factis cognoscendi, judicandi, et statuendi, et consequenter imperium ad suum principium restituendi. Sed qui imperii incommoda vitare studet, remedia adhibere debet, quae cum imperii natura conveniant, et quae ex ipsius fundamentis deduci queant, alias in Scyllam incidet, cupiens vitare Charybdin. Est quidem hoc verum, quod omnes, tam qui regunt, quam qui reguntur, metu supplicii, aut damni contineri debeant, ne impune, vel cum lucro peccare liceat; sed contra certum etiam est, quod si hic metus bonis, et malis hominibus communis fuerit, versetur necessario imperium in summo periculo. Cum igitur Dictatoria potestas absoluta sit, non potest non esse omnibus formidabilis, praesertim si statuto tempore, ut requiritur, Dictator crearetur (44), quia tum unusquisque gloriae cupidus eum honorem summo studio ambiret, et certum est, quod in pace non tam virtus, quam opulentia spectatur, ita ut quo quisque superbior, eo facilius honores adipiscatur: et forte hac de causa Romani nullo constituto tempore, sed fortuita quadam necessitate coacti Dictatorem facere consueverant. At nihilominus rumor (45) Dictatoris, ut Ciceronis verba referam, bonis injucundus fuit. Et sane, quandoquidem haec Dictatoria potestas Regia absolute est, potest non absque magno Reipublicae periculo imperium aliquando in Monarchicum mutari, tametsi in tempus, quantumvis breve, id fiat. Adde quod, si ad creandum Dictatorem nullum certum tempus designatum sit, ratio tum nulla temporis intercedentis ab uno ad alium, quam maxime servandam esse diximus, haberetur, et quod res etiam vaga admodum esset, ut facile negligeretur. Nisi itaque haec Dictatoria potestas aeterna sit, et stabilis, quae servata imperii forma in unum deferri nequit, erit ergo ipsa, et consequenter Reipublicae salus, et conservatio admodum incerta.

II. At contra dubitare nequaquam possumus (per Art. 3. Ca.), quod si possit servata imperii forma Dictatoris gladius perpetuus, et malis tantummodo formidini esse, nunquam eo usque vitia invalescere poterunt, ut tolli, aut emendari nequeant. Ut igitur has omnes conditiones obtineamus, Syndicorum Concilium Concilio supremo subordinandum diximus, ut scilicet dictatorius ille gladius perpetuus esset non penes personam aliquam naturalem, sed civilem, cujus membra plura sint, quam ut imperium inter se possint dividere (per Art. 1. et 2. Ca. (46)), vel in scelere aliquo convenire: ad quod accedit, quod a reliquis imperii muneribus subeundis prohibeantur, quod militiae stipendia non solvant, et quod denique ejus aetatis sint, ut praesentia, ac tuta, quam nova, et periculosa malint. Quare imperio nullum ab iis periculum, et consequenter non bonis, sed malis tantummodo formidini esse queunt, et revera erunt. Nam, ut ad scelera peragenda debiliores, ita ad m litiam coërcendam potentiores sunt. Nam praeterquam quod principiis obstare possunt (quia Concilium aeternum est), sunt praeterea numero satis magno, ut sine invidiae timore potentem unum, aut alterum accusare, et damnare audeant, praesertim quia suffragia calculis feruntur, et sententia nomine totius Concilii pronunciatur.

III. At Romae plebis Tribuni perpetui etiam erant verum impares, ut Scipionis alicujus potentiam premerent: et praeterea id, quod salutare esse judicabant, ad ipsum Senatum deferre debebant, a quo etiam saepe eludebantur, efficiendo scilicet, ut plebs ei magis faveret, quem ipsi Senatores minus timebant. Ad quod accedit, quod Tribunorum contra Patricios auctoritas plebis favore defenderetur, et quotiescunque ipsi plebem vocabant, seditionem potius movere, quam Concilium convocare viderentur. Quae sane incommoda in imperio, quod in praecedd. duob. Capp. descripsimus, locum non habent (47).

IV. Verumenimvero haec Syndicorum auctoritas hoc solummodo praestare poterit, ut imperii forma servetur, atque adeo prohibere, ne leges infringantur, et ne cuiquain cum lucro peccare liceat; sed nequaquam efficere poterit, ne vitia, quae lege prohiberi nequeunt, gliscant, ut sunt illa, in quae homines otio abundantes incidunt, et ex quibus imperii ruina non raro sequitur. Homines enim in pace deposito metu paulatim ex ferocibus barbaris civiles, seu humani, et ex humanis molles, et inertes fiunt, nec alius alium virtute, sed fastu, et luxu excellere studet; unde patrios mores fastidire, alienos induere, hoc est, servire incipiunt.

V. Ad haec mala vitandum multi conati sunt leges sumptuarias condere, sed frustra. Nam omnia jura, quae absque ulla alterius injuria violari possunt, ludibrio habentur, et tantum abest, ut hominum cupiditates, et libidinem frenent, quin contra easdem intendant: nam nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata. Nec unquam hominibus otiosis ingenium deest ad eludenda jura, quae instituuntur de rebus, quae absolute prohiberi nequeunt, ut sunt convivia, ludi, ornatus, et alia hujusmodi, quorum tantummodo excessus malus, et ex umuscujusque fortuna aestimandus est, ita ut lege nulla universali determinari queat.

VI. Concludo itaque, communia illa pacis vitia, de quibus hic loquimur, nunquam directe, sed indirecte prohibenda esse, talia scilicet imperii fundamenta jaciendo, quibus fiat, ut plerique, non quidem sapienter vivere studeant (nam hoc impossibile est), sed ut iis ducantur affectibus, ex quibus Reipublicae major sit utili tas. Atque adeo huic rei maxime studendum, ut divites si non parci, avari tamen sint. Nam non dubium est, quin, si hic avaritiae affectus, qui universalis est, et constans, gloriae cupidine foveatur, plerique rei suae sine ignominia augendae summum ponant studium, quo honores adipiscantur, et summum dedecus vitent.

VII. (48) Si itaque ad fundamenta utriusque imperii Aristocratici, quae praeced. duobus Capp. explicui, attendamus, hoc ipsum ex iisdem sequi videbimus. Numerus enim regentium in utroque adeo magnus est, ut divitum maximae parti aditus ad regimen pateat, et ad imperii honores adipiscendos. Quod si praeterea (uti diximus Art. 47. Ca.) statuatur, ut Patricii, qui plus debent, quam sunt solvendo, ordine Patricio deturbentur, et qui bona sua infortunio perdiderunt, ut in integrum restituantur, non dubium est, quin omnes, quantum poterunt, conabuntur bona sua conservare. Peregrinos praeterea habitus nunquam concupiscent, nec patrios fastidient, si lege constituatur, ut Patricii, et qui honores ambiunt, singulari veste dignoscantur: de quo vide Art. 25. et 47. Ca. Et praeter haec alia in quocunque imperio cum natura loci, et gentis ingenio consentanea excogitari possunt, et in eo apprime vigilari, ut subditi magis sponte, quam lege coacti suum officium faciant.

VIII. Nam imperium, quod nihil aliud prospicit, quam ut homines metu ducantur, magis sine vitiis erit, quam cum virtute. Sed homines ita ducendi sunt, ut non duci, sed ex suo ingenio, et libero suo decreto vivere sibi videantur; atque adeo ut solo libertatis amore, et rei augendae studio, speque imperii honores adipiscendi retineantur. Caeterum imagines, triumphi, et alia virtutis incitamenta magis servitutis, quam libertatis sunt signa. Servis enim, non liberis virtutis praemia decernuntur. Fateor quidem homi nes his stimulis maxime incitari, sed ut haec in initio viris magnis, ita postea crescente invidia ignavis, et opum magnitudine tumidis decernuntur, magna omnium bonorum indignatione. Deinde qui parentum triumphos, et imagines ostentant, injuriam sibi fieri credunt, ni reliquis praeferantur. Denique, ut alia taceam, hoc certum est, quod aequalitas, qua semel exuta communis libertas necessario perit, conservari nullo modo possit, simulatque alicui Viro virtute claro singulares honores jure publico decernuntur.

IX. His positis, videamus jam, an hujusmodi imperia culpabili aliqua causa possint destrui. Verum, si quod imperium aeternum esse potest, illud necessario erit, cujus semel recte instituta jura inviolata manent. Anima enim imperii jura sunt. His igitur servatis servatur necessario imperium. At jura invicta esse nequeunt, nisi et ratione, et communi hominum affectu defendantur, alias si scilicet solo rationis auxilio nituntur, invalidae sane sunt, facileque vincuntur. Cum itaque utriusque imperii Aristocratici jura fundamentalia cum ratione, et communi hominum affectu convenire ostenderimus, possumus ergo affirmare, si quae ulla imperia, haec necessario aeterna fore, vel nulla culpabili causa, sed fato tantummodo aliquo inevitabili posse destrui.

X. At objici nobis adhuc potest, quod, quamvis imperii jura in praeced. ostensa ratione, et communi hominum affectu defendantur, possint nihilominus aliquando vinci. Nam nullus affectus est, qui aliquando a fortiori, et contrario affectu non vincatur; timorem namque mortis a cupidine rei alienae saepe vinci videmus. Qui hostem metu territi fugiunt, nullo alterius rei metu detineri possunt, sed sese in flumina praecipitant, vel in ignem ruunt, ut hostium ferrum fugiant. Quantumvis igitur civitas recte ordinata, et jura optime instituta sint, in maximis tamen imperii angustiis, quando omnes, ut fit, terrore quodam panico capiuntur, tum omnes id solum, quod praesens metus suadet, nulla futuri, neque legum habita ratione, probant, omnium ora in Virum victoriis clarum vertuntur, eundemque legibus solvunt, atque ipsi imperium (pessimo exemplo) continuant, totamque Rempublicam ipsius fidei conimittunt, quae res sane Romani imperii exitii fuit causa. Sed ut huic Objectioni respondeam, dico primo, quod in recte constituta Republica similis terror non oritur, nisi ex justa causa; atque adeo is terror, et confusio ex eo orta nulli caunnsae, quae prudentia humana vitari poterat, adscribi potest. Deinde notandum, quod in Republica, qualem in praeced. descripsimus, fieri non potest (per Art. 9. et 25. Ca.), ut unus, aut alter virtutis fama ita excellat, ut omniumora in se vertat. Sed necesse est, ut plures habeat aemulos, quibus plures alii faveant. Quamvis itaque ex terrore confusio aliqua in Republica oriatur, leges tamen fraudare, atque aliquem contra jus ad imperium militare renunciare nemo poterit, quin statim contentio alios petentium oriatur, quae ut dirimatur, necesse tandem erit ad semel statuta, et ab omnibus probata jura recurrere, atque res imperii secundum leges latas ordinare. Possum igitur absolute affirmare, cum imperium, quod una sola Urbs, tum praecipue illud, quod plures Urbes tenent, aeternum esse, sive nulla interna causa posse dissolvi, aut in aliam formam mutari.

Of Democracy.

I PASS, AT length, to the third and perfectly absolute dominion, which we call democracy. The difference between this and aristocracy consists, we have said, chiefly in this, that in an aristocracy it depends on the supreme council’s will and free choice only, that this or that man is made a patrician, so that no one has the right to vote or fill public offices by inheritance, and that no one can by right demand this right, as is the case in the dominion, whereof we are now treating. For all, who are born of citizen parents, or on the soil of the country, or who have deserved well of the republic, or have accomplished any other conditions upon which the law grants to a man right of citizenship; they all, I say, have a right to demand for themselves the right to vote in the supreme council and to fill public offices, nor can they be refused it, but for crime or infamy.

2. If, then, it is by a law appointed, that the elder men only, who have reached a certain year of their age, or the first-born only, as soon as their age allows, or those who contribute to the republic a certain sum of money, shall have the right of voting in the supreme council and managing the business of the dominion; then, although on this system the result might be, that the supreme council would be composed of fewer citizens than that of the aristocracy of which we treated above, yet, for all that, dominions of this kind should be called democracies, because in them the citizens, who are destined to manage affairs of state, are not chosen as the best by the supreme council, but are destined to it by a law. And although for this reason dominions of this kind, that is, where not the best, but those who happen by chance to be rich, or who are born eldest, are destined to govern, are thought inferior to an aristocracy; yet, if we reflect on the practice or general condition of mankind, the result in both cases will come to the same thing. For patricians will always think those the best, who are rich, or related to themselves in blood, or allied by friendship. And, indeed, if such were the nature of patricians, that they were free from all passion, and guided by mere zeal for the public welfare in choosing their patrician colleagues, no dominion could be compared with aristocracy. But experience itself teaches us only too well, that things pass in quite a contrary manner, above all, in oligarchies, where the will of the patricians, from the absence of rivals, is most free from the law. For there the patricians intentionally keep away the best men from the council, and seek for themselves such colleagues in it, as hang upon their words, so that in such a dominion things are in a much more unhappy condition, because the choice of patricians depends entirely upon the arbitrary will of a few, which is free or unrestrained by any law. But I return to my subject.

3. From what has been said in the last section, it is manifest that we can conceive of various kinds of democracy. But my intention is not to treat of every kind, but of that only, “wherein all, without exception, who owe allegiance to the laws of the country only, and are further independent and of respectable life, have the right of voting in the supreme council and of filling the offices of the dominion.” I say expressly. “who owe allegiance to the laws of the country only,” to exclude foreigners, who are treated as being under another’s dominion. I added, besides, “who are independent,” except in so far as they are under allegiance to the laws of the dominion, to exclude women and slaves, who are under the authority of men and masters, and also children and wards, as long as they are under the authority of parents and guardians. I said, lastly, “and of respectable life,” to exclude, above all, those that are infamous from crime, or some disgraceful means of livelihood.

4. But, perhaps, someone will ask, whether women are under men’s authority by nature or institution? For if it has been by mere institution, then we had no reason compelling us to exclude women from government. But if we consult experience itself, we shall find that the origin of it is in their weakness. For there has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth. But if by nature women were equal to men, and were equally distinguished by force of character and ability, in which human power and therefore human right chiefly consist; surely among nations so many and different some would be found, where both sexes rule alike, and others, where men are ruled by women, and so brought up, that they can make less use of their abilities. And since this is nowhere the case, one may assert with perfect propriety, that women have not by nature equal right with men: but that they necessarily give way to men, and that thus it cannot happen, that both sexes should rule alike, much less that men should be ruled by women. But if we further reflect upon human passions, how men, in fact, generally love women merely from the passion of lust, and esteem their cleverness and wisdom in proportion to the excellence of their beauty, and also how very ill-disposed men are to suffer the women they love to show any sort of favour to others, and other facts of this kind, we shall easily see that men and women cannot rule alike without great hurt to peace. But of this enough.

Justin, Histories, ii. 4.

I. TRANSEO TANDEM ad tertium, et omnino absolutum imperium, quod Democraticum appellamus. Hujus ab Aristocratico differentiam in hoc potissimum consistere diximus, quod in eo a sola supremi Concilii voluntate, et libera Electione pendeat, ut hic, aut ille Patricius creetur, ita ut nemo jus suffragii, et munera imperii subeundi (49) haereditarium habeat, nemoque id jus sibi poscere jure possit, ut in hoc, de quo jam agimus, imperio sit. Nam omnes, qui ex parentibus civibus, vel qui in patrio illo solo nati, vel qui de Republica bene meriti sunt, vel ob alias causas, ob quas Lex alicui jus civis dare jubet, ii, inquam, omnes jus suffragii in supremo Concilio, muneraque imperii subeundi jure sibi poscunt, nec denegare iis licet, nisi ob crimen, aut infamiam.

II. Si igitur jure institutum sit, ut Seniores tantummodo, qui ad certum aetatis annum pervenerunt, vel ut soli primogeniti, simulatque per aetatem licet, vel qui certam pecuniae summam Reipublicae contribuunt, jus suffragii in supremo Concilio, et imperii negotia tractandi habeant, quamvis hac ratione fieri posset, ut supremum Concilium ex paucioribus civibus componeretur, quam illud imperii Aristocratici, de quo supra egimus, erunt nihilominus hujusmodi imperia Democratica appellanda, quoniam eorum cives, qui ad regendam Rempublicam destinantur, non a supremo Concilio, ut optimi, eliguntur, sed lege ad id destinantur. Et, quamvis hac ratione hujusmodi imperia, ubi scilicet non qui optimi, sed qui forte fortuna divites, vel qui primi nati sunt, ad regimen destinantur, imperio Aristocratico cedere videantur, tamen si praxin, seu communem hominum conditionem spectemus, res eodem redibit. Nam Patriciis ii semper optimi videbuntur (50), qui divites, vel ipsis sanguine proximi, vel amicitia conjuncti sunt. Et sane, si cum Patriciis ita comparatum esset, ut liberi ab omni affectu, et solo studio publicae salutis ducti, collegas Patricios eligerent, nullum esset imperium cum Aristocratico comparandum. Sed rem contra omnino sese habere, satis superque ipsa experientia docuit, praesertim in oligarchiis, ubi Patriciorum voluntas ob defectum aemulantium maxime lege soluta est. Ibi enim studio optimos a Concilio arcent Patricii, et eos sibi socios in Concilio quaerunt, qui ab eorum ore pendent, ita ut in simili imperio multo infelicius res ejus sese habeant, propterea quod Patriciorum Electio ab absoluta quorundam libera, sive omni lege soluta voluntate pendeat. Sed ad inceptum redeo.

III. Ex dictis in praeced. Art. patet, nos posse imperii Democratici diversa genera concipere, sed meum institutum non est de unoquoque, sed de eo solummodo agere, in quo omnes absolute, qui solis legibus patriis tenentur, et praeterea sui juris sunt, honesteque vivunt, jus suffragii in supremo (51) Concilio habent, muneraque imperii subeundi. Dico expresse, qui solis legibus patriis tenentur, ut peregrinos secludam, qui sub alterius imperio esse censentur. Addidi praeterea, quod, praeterquam quod legibus imperii teneantur, in reliquis sui juris sint, ut mulieres, et servos secluderem, qui in potestate virorum, et dominorum, ac etiam liberos et pupillos, quamdiu sub potestate parentum, et tutorum sunt. Dixi denique, honesteque vivunt, ut ii apprime secluderentur, qui ob crimen, aut aliquod turpe vitae genus infames sunt.

IV. Sed forsan rogabit aliquis, num foeminae ex natura, an ex instituto sub potestate virorum sint? Nam, si ex solo instituto id factum est, nulla ergo ratio nos coegit foeminas a regimine secludere. Sed si ipsam experientiam consulamus, id ex earum imbecillitate oriri videbimus. Nam nullibi factum est, ut viri, et foeminae simul regnarent, sed ubicunque terrarum viri, et foeminae reperiuntur, ibi viros regnare, et foeminas regi videmus, et hac ratione utrumque sexum concorditer vivere. Sed contra Amazonae, quas olim regnasse fama proditum est, viros in patrio solo morari non patiebantur, sed foeminas tantummodo alebant, mares autem, quos pepererant, necabant. Quod si ex natura foeminae viris aequales essent, et animi fortitudine, et ingenio, in quo maxime humana potentia, et consequenter jus consistit, aeque pollerent, sane inter tot, tamque diversas nationes quaedam reperirentur, ubi uterque sexus pariter regeret, et aliae ubi a foeminis viri regerentur, atque ita educarentur, ut ingenio minus possent: quod cum nullibi factum sit, affirmare omnino licet, foeminas ex natura non aequale cum viris habere jus, sed eas viris necessario cedere, atque adeo fieri non posse, ut uterque sexus pariter regat, et multo minus, ut viri a foeminis regantur. Quod si praeterea humanos affectus consideremus, quod scilicet viri plerumque ex solo libidinis affectu foeminas ament, et earum ingenium, et sapientiam tanti aestiment, quantum ipsae pulchritudine pollent, et praeterea quod viri aegerrime ferant, ut foeminae, quas amant, aliis aliquo modo faveant, et id genus alia, levi negotio videbimus, non posse absque magno pacis detrimento fieri, ut viri, et foeminae pariter regant. Sed de his satis.

Reliqua desiderantur.