READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY L ^leto gorfc THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1914 cr THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO.. LIFTED LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, LTD. TORONTO READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY BY FRANCIS WILLIAM COKER, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN OHIO UNIVERSITY iJeto gorfc THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1914 COPYRIGHT, 1914 BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and electrotyped. Published December, 1914. TO WILLIAM ARCHIBALD DUNNING QOCH PREFACE In guiding college classes in the study of political theories the writer has found that the interest of students is manifested more naturally and fruitfully when they read directly from original works than when they rely solely upon historical and expository treatises. For many important works this reading at first-hand is not generally practicable, because they are not in libraries acces- sible to most readers, or because they are not available in satisfac- tory translations. The aim of this volume is to furnish a handy collection of readings from foremost political philosophers. In furtherance of this design it has seemed wise to include substantial parts of a few preeminent works rather than to cover a wide range of writings with brief passages from each. It is believed that read- ing according to the former, rather than the latter, plan will give the student the more realistic impression, and the more effective command, of fundamental political ideas, and will lead him to a more coherent, if less detailed, view of the evolution of political thought. In order to confine the matter within a single volume writers later than Bentham have been omitted; in this period, speaking generally, philosophical discussions of politics either are exhaustive disquisitions upon fragments of the subject (e.g. Thomas Hill Green) or they form subordinate parts of comprehensive sys- tems of thought (e.g. Auguste, Comte) ; for a volume of readings from works of the nineteenth century, a plan of selection somewhat different from that followed in this work would be necessary. The primary purpose of this work will be fulfilled if it supplies helpful illustrations for such general histories of political philosophy as those by Dunning, Pollock, Janet, Willoughby and Bluntschli. These and other general treatises, besides special works of exposition and criticism, are cited in references appended to each selection. The lists of references are obviously not exhaustive. They are in- tended to guide the reader to the particular works to which he may most profitably go for full discussions ; so that for each selection he may obtain a setting and interpretation more satisfactory than is provided by the slight introductions of this volume. The topics in the table of contents are headings supplied by the writer for his subdivisions of each selection. !\ Vll viii PREFACE For the purpose of this volume entirely original translations were required only for the selections from St. Thomas Aquinas, Marsiglio of Padua, and the Vindicia contra Tyrannos. The translations from Bodin and Grotius are in part original. The passages from Bodin's De Republica were translated with constant assistance from the Knolles translation of Bodin's French version of the work. For the De Jure Belli ac Pads of Grotius the Latin text was carefully worked over in order to revise the translation by Whewell. For all other selections the translations or editions cited were followed faithfully, with minor changes in a few instances. The writer desires to make grateful acknowledgment for assist- ance that has been received in the preparation of this volume. Professor William A. Dunning, of Columbia University, has generously supplied expert advice and criticism in all parts of the work, especially in the translations. Professor Edward G. Elliott, of Princeton University, contributed valuable counsel as to the general plan and scope of the work. The writer is indebted to Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons for the privilege of using the passages from Conway's edition of The Writings of Thomas Paine, and to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for the selections from Montague's edition of Beritham's Fragment on Government and from Church's edition of Book I of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. June 26, 1914. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION xiii I. PLATO i Readings from The Republic 3 1. The Origin of the State 3 2. The Governors and Protectors of the State n 3. The Three Classes of the State 18 4. Communism > 26 5. Government by Philosophers 35 H. ARISTpTLE . . . ' . 53 Readings from The Politics 55 1. The Nature, End and Origin of the State 55 2. The Definition of Citizenship 61 3. Sovereignty 64 - 4. Forms of State 71 5. The Organs of Government 89 6. Material Conditions of the Ideal State 94 7. The Cause and Prevention of Revolution 96 HI. POLYBIUS 105 Readings from The Histories 106 I. The Forms of Government and the Cycle of Constitu- tional Revolution 106 4*2. The System of Checks and Balances 113 IV. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS . . . . . ..... . . .121 T- Readings from Summa Theologica and De Regimine Principum 123 1. The Definition of Law 123 2. The Nature and Duties of Royal Authority .... 129 V. DANTE 139 Readings from De Monarchia 140 4- i. The End of the State 140 2. Universal Empire 146 3. The Divine Basis of Temporal Authority 150 VI. MARSIGLIO 159 Readings from Defensor Pads 160 ^ I. The Purpose of the State 160 2. The Supreme Legislative Authority of the People . .162 3. The Distinction between Legislative and Executive Func- tions 165 VH. MACHIAVELLI 171 Readings from The Prince 173 i. The Conduct of a Successful Ruler 173 VIE. CALVIN 189 Readings from The Institutes of the Christian Religion . . .191 1. The Nature and Function of Civil Government . . .191 2. The Duties of Magistrates ... 194 3. The Limits of Obedience Due to Civil Rulers . . . -195 ix \ x CONTENTS PAGE IX. VINDICLE CONTRA TYRANNOS 205 Readings from the Vindicia 207 1 . The Institution of the King by the People .... 207 2. The Superiority of the People to the King .... 208 ^- 3. The Contractual Basis of Royal Authority . . . .213 4. The Right of Resistance to Tyrants 215 / X. BODIN 225 Readings from De Republica 226 \ i. The Definition of the State and of Citizenship . . .226 2. The Nature and Functions of Sovereignty 230 XI. HOOKER 241 Readings from The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity .... 242 . i. The Ground and Origin of Political Society .... 242 *" 2. The Nature, Authority, and Kinds of Law .... 246 / XH. GROTIUS 257 Readings from De Jure Belli ac Pads 259 1. The Rational Basis of International Law 259 V 2. The Law of Nature 266 3. The State and Sovereignty 269 XHI. MILTON 279 Readings from The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, Areo- pagitica, and Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth 281 ** I. The Origin of Government and the Source and Limits of its Authority 281 2. Rational Liberty -?& 3. The Character of Free Government 291 /XIV. HOBBES 301 Readings from Leviathan . 302 1. The State of Nature and the Laws of Nature .... 302 2. The Origin and Nature of the State 316 3. Sovereignty 320 4. The Kinds of State 327 5. Liberty 331 6. Civil Laws 340 XV. HARRINGTON 355 Readings from Oceana 356 1. Principles of Political Power: Material Influences . .356 2. Psychological Influences in Government 365 3. The Essential Organs of Government 369 4. Institutions for Safeguarding the State 373 ^ XVI. LOCKE 33 Readings from Two Treatises of Government 385 1. The State of Nature 385 2. Political Society 393 3. Limitations upon Government 406 4. The Separations of Powers in Government . . . .411 5. The Right of Revolution 419 XVH. MONTESQUIEU 439 Readings from The Spirit of the Laws 441 1. The Nature of Laws 441 2. The Nature of the Forms of Government 446 3. The Principles of the Forms of Government .... 455 4. Political Liberty 463 CONTENTS xi PAGE XVm. ROUSSEAU 477 Readings from The Social Contract 479 1. The Problem of Political Philosophy 479 2. The Social Contract 483 3. Sovereignty and Law 486 4. Government: Its Nature and Forms 496 5. The Subordination of Government to Sovereign . . . 504 XIX. PAINE 517 Readings from Common Sense and The Rights of Man . . .518 1. The Rights of Man 518 2. The Origin and Sphere of Government 522 3. Representative and Republican Government .... 527 XX. BENTHAM - 535 Readings from A Fragment on Government 536 1. The Distinction between Political and Natural Society . 536 2. The Utilitarian Basis of Political Society 542 3. The Character of Free Government 547 BIBLIOGRAPHY 561 INDEX . . .569 INTRODUCTION Dominant interest in political science to-day is in contemporary and practical aspects of the subject. Many problems appearing within this field require for their solution, however, careful reason- ing in terms which are general and abstract; this applies not so much to definitions as to considerations of the purposes and means of government. It seems manifest, for example, that for both our national and our commonwealth politics we need deliberate discussion concerning our intent as to the functions of our political system. Such an examination is of immediate practical conse- quence; but it cannot be completed through considerations of experience alone. However fully and precisely we record, com- pare and systematize our observations of experience, we cannot speak conclusively of the success or failure of this or that govern- mental design or of the justification of the state's entrance into a proposed new sphere of action, until we attain better founded ideas than most of us now possess as to what in general we expect to accomplish through our agencies of civil government. The issue between conservatism and progressivism has, in this country as in England, come to be very much less than it once was a question of formal rights and precedents. Whether or not that issue can cease entirely to be such a question, it seems clear that discussion of differences involved in the issue will continue to be highly oppor- tunist and tentative unless we are brought to realize that the argu- ment must proceed from and tend toward general propositions as to the character and province of government. What is here said is not so much a plea for abstract speculation as for a neglected side of practical reflection concerning our expectations from politi- cal action. The American lack of political imagination has been pointed out by several critics of our public life. 1 There is probably ground for the view that we have no clear political anticipations, no comprehensive and constructive political ideals, no effective notions as to the relations of political organization to individual 1 This criticism is effectively presented in H. G. Wells' essay on "State-blind- ness" in his The Future in America (1906), and also in the introductory pages of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life (1909). xiii xiv INTRODUCTION and social welfare, no determining ideas as to the line between individual freedom and social discipline. Since the time of Plato there has been, in every philosophic age, some inquiry as to the justification of political organization in general, as to the relative merits of different political forms, and as to the appropriate position and privileges of the individual as master, member, or subject of the political order of society. Why do we have political organization? What in our present condition do we owe to it? What future benefits may we properly expect to derive from it? Are its purposes characteristically manifold and changing, or are they ultimately reducible to a few limited objects or to some single end? What is its best form? Who should control it? What is its proper relation to the ideas and sentiments of the community at its basis? What spheres of individual and social life is it incompetent to enter? Philoso- phers and publicists of various types have sought to answer these questions in abstract terms; in other words, their answers, though in many instances strongly influenced by interest in special cases within their immediate view, were intended as statements of general truth, conceived apart from such cases. The study of the reasoning in consideration of such questions is the study of political philosophy. Obviously, advocates of this study should not rest its claims for attention upon any pretension that it alone can supply the key to problems of our time, or that it can pro- vide clear projects for emendment of our political practice. As with other historical and philosophical studies, its purposes are chiefly intellectual, not technical. Moreover, in what is said above, it is not intended to imply that from a review of the political thought of the past, any complete and definite political creed can be framed for the present. But such study has practical value in that it lends aid to the formation of habits of more thorough and candid examination of the meaning and tendency of our political undertakings. The purpose of this volume is to make more accessible, for read- ing at first-hand in this field, significant parts of some greater writings in political philosophy. By supplying illustrative ma- terial the volume may serve to supplement, and at points vivify, general works in the history and exposition of political theories especially, Professor Dunning 's indispensable volumes 1 and Sir Frederick Pollock's brief survey. 2 The particular selections ^Political Theories, Ancient and Medieval and Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu. ^History of the Science of Politics, INTRODUCTION xv are the result of eliminations necessary to bring within one volume readings regarded by the writer as most adaptable, within such compass, for the purpose in hand. The space allotted to the re- spective authors could not, for obvious reasons, be measured by their relative importance. In a brief introduction preceding each selection attempt is made to state in concise form leading facts of the life of the author, and to indicate important points of his contribution to the development of political theory. Manifestly, nothing new is presented in these introductions. Following each selection are citations of works in which the author's life and times are described in detail and his doctrines authoritatively inter- preted and estimated. PLATO I. PLATO (B.C. 427-347?) INTRODUCTION In the literature of antiquity it is only in the works of the Greek philosophers that we find systematic speculation upon the nature and functions of political institutions. Among oriental peoples civil government, as well as"its particular forms and sphere of action at any time, were in general accepted as sufficiently sanctioned by religion and custom. This attitude afforded no foundation for a study of the origin or justification of the state or for an examination of the comparative excellences of different forms of government. The Greeks, on the other hand, looked more speculatively and critically upon the social relations of man, as well as upon other aspects of his environment. Moreover, the active inter-communication between a number of small but vigor- ous Greek states, and the frequent transformations in organiza- tion passed through by each, supplied from experience a stimulus to comparative and critical analysis of political institutions and practices. 1 The study of systematic political philosophy begins properly with Plato. Oriental and Greek thinkers before Plato's time took note of some of the fundamental questions of politics, and devoted some consideration to them; but in their writings discussions of such subjects held incidental and subordinate place. 2 In the works of Plato, on the other hand, the state constitutes a cardinal concept, and the philosophic examination of political questions is for the first time comprehensively devised and reasoned. To Plato political theory was an essential part of philosophy; for, 1 On the origin of political thought in Greece, cf. Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, pp. 1-16; Willoughby, Political Theories of the Ancient World, ch. iv. 2 For analysis of political ideas in legalistic and ethical writings of the Hindoos, Chinese, and other oriental peoples, cf. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 1-51 ; Willoughby, op. cit. t chs. ii and iii; Gumplowicz, Geschichte der Staatstheorien, pp. 7-22. For a view of minor political discussions in poetical and narrative works of the Greeks prior to Plato, cf. Barker, op. tit., ch. i; Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval, pp. 18-23; Willoughby, op. cit., chs. v and vi; Janet, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 53-95; Gumplowicz, op. cit., pp. 23-32. 1 2 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY with him, knowledge of perfect human life under ideal conditions was a characteristic aim of philosophical inquiry; and he con- sidered that a conception of this perfection of life was attainable only through a correct understanding of the relations which spring necessarily from the community-life of men. Thus in his scheme of thought philosophy, ethics, and politics are closely interwoven. The life of Plato is not known in great detail. For our purpose it is sufficient to note a few leading facts of his life and time. He was born of an aristocratic Athenian family. He lived during the era of political degeneration and turbulence in Athens; this is the period of the Peloponnesian War, of the ensuing wars in northern Greece, and of the beginning of the Macedonian invasion, through- out all of which Athens steadily declined in power and prestige. He was a disciple and friend of Socrates, whose execution occurred during Plato's early manhood, and whose doctrines are known to us principally through Plato's writings. Throughout the last fifty years of his life he was lecturer and teacher to a small group of pupils, who met at a pleasure-grove, called " Academe," in the vicinity of Athens. The school there originated by him was perpetuated by his disciples as a permanent "philosophical school for lectures, study, and friendly meetings of studious men;" 1 whence the philosophic successors of Plato are called "Acade- micians" or, collectively, the "Greek Academy." The basis of Plato's philosophical system is Socrates' doctrine of reality. According to this doctrine, reality inheres only in the ideas of things that is, in the perfect, permanent, immutable, self -existent entities which underlie the changing and imperfect ob- jects of perception; the latter are merely the superficial appearances of things. Plato interpreted and developed this theory and its ethical application in the identification of virtue with knowledge of absolute reality. All of his writings are in the form of " dialogues " ; these are critical and argumentative conversations which are repre- sented as having taken place between a principal speaker who is Socrates in most of the dialogues and other associates and friends of Plato. The work in which Plato's important political doctrines appear is The Republic, generally pronounced the greatest of all his works. Here particularly the conception of the state is closely involved 1 Grote, Plato and the Other Contemporaries of Socrates, Vol. I, p. 133. PLATO 3 in a general ethical and philosophical theory. The object of dis- cussion in this dialogue appears to the attainment of the correct definition of justice, as a virtue of man. Proceeding upon the hypothesis that such a definition can best be discovered through an analysis of justice as it appears in similar, though larger and clearer, outline in the 'state, Socrates leads the argument into a fundamental examination of the nature of the state. This exam- ination advances through the following main stages: the founda- tion of the state in the division of labor, which arises from the multiplicity of human wants and the naturally resulting economic distribution of the work of filling these wants; the principles de- termining the selection and training of a special protecting and governing class; the definition of the cardinal virtues of the state and of man, this definition being obtained through discovering for each class of citizens its peculiar function in the work of the body politic, and, by analogy, for each human faculty its particu- lar function in individual human conduct ; a discussion of the ideal political supremacy of philosophers, and a description of their proper education and of their segregated life with communism of family and property; finally, the explanation of the transitions from this ideal form of government through successively lower forms. Plato's exposition suffers, in succinctness and precision, from the tautology and discursiveness of his style; this is a result of the dialogue form, and of the poetical, mythical, and allegorical digressions. It is, therefore, difficult to present, by means of selected readings, the development of his ideas in logically co- herent order. However, the passages that follow, from The Republic, embody the principal conceptions of Plato's political philosophy. READINGS FROM THE REPUBLIC l 1. The Origin of the State 2 Glaucon and the rest entreated me by all means not to let the question drop, but to proceed in the investigation. They wanted 1 The selections are taken from The Republic of Plato, translated into English, by Benjamin Jowett, third edition, Oxford, 1888. Published by the Clarendon Press. 2 II, 369-374. Jowett, pp. 48-56. 4 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to arrive at the truth, first, about the nature of justice and in- justice, and secondly, about their relative advantages. I told them, what I really thought, that the inquiry would be of a serious na- ture, and would require very good eyes. Seeing then, I said, that we are no great wits, I think that we had better adopt a method which I may illustrate thus: suppose that a short-sighted person had been asked by some one to read small letters from a distance; and it occurred to some one else that they might be found in another place which was larger and in which the letters were larger if they were the same and he could read the larger letters first, and then proceed to the lesser this would have been thought a rare piece of good fortune. r Very true, said Adeimantus; but how does the illustration apply to our inquiry? I will tell you, I replied; justice, which is the subject of our inquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a state. True, he replied. And is not a state larger than an individual? It is. Then in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible. I propose therefore that we inquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the state, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them. That, he said, is an excellent proposal. And if we imagine the state in process of creation, we shall see the justice and injustice of the state in process of creation also. I dare say. When the state is completed there may be a hope that the object of our search will be more easily discovered. Yes, far more easily. But ought we to attempt to construct one? I said; for to do so, as I am inclined to think, will be a very serious task. Reflect therefore. I have reflected, said Adeimantus, and am anxious that you should proceed. A state, I said, arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of man- kind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants. Can any other origin of a state be imagined? There can be no other. Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for PLATO 5 another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered to- gether in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a state. True, he said. And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and an- other receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good. Very true. Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a state ; and yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention. Of course, he replied. Now the first and greatest of necessities is food, which is the condition of life and existence. Certainly. The second is a dwelling and the third clothing and the like. True. And now let us see how our city will be able to supply this great demand: We may suppose that one man is a husbandman, another a builder, some one else a weaver shall we add to them a shoemaker, or perhaps some other purveyor to our bodily wants? Quite right. The barest notion of a state must include four or five men. Clearly. And how will they proceed? Will each bring the result of his labors into a common stock? the individual husbandman, for example, producing for four, and laboring four times as long and as much as he need in the provision of food with which he supplies others as well as himself; or will he have nothing to do with others and not be at the trouble of producing for them, but provide for himself alone a fourth of the food in a fourth of the time, and in the remaining three-fourths of his time be employed in making a house or a coat or a pair of shoes, having no partnership with others, but supplying himself all his own wants? Adeimantus thought that he should aim at producing food only and not at producing everything. Probably, I" replied, that would be the better way; and when I hear you say this, I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations. Very true. And will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations, or when he has only one? When he has only one. 6 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Further, there can be no doubt that a work is spoiled when not done at the right time? No doubt. For business is not disposed to wait until the doer of the business is at leisure ; but the doer must follow up what he is doing, and make the business his first object. He must. And if so, we must infer that all things are produced more plenti- fully and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things. Undoubtedly. Then more than four citizens will be required; for the husband- man will not make his own plough or mattock, or other implements of agriculture, if they are to be good for anything. Neither will the builder make his tools and he too needs many; and in like manner the weaver and shoemaker. True. Then carpenters, and smiths, and many other artisans, will be sharers in our little state, which is already beginning to grow? True. Yet even if we add neatherds, shepherds, and other herdsmen, in order that our husbandmen may have oxen to plough with, and builders as well as husbandmen may have draught cattle, and curriers and weavers fleeces and hides, still our state will not be very large. That is true; yet neither will it be a very small state which contains all these. Then, again, there is the situation of the city to find a place where nothing need be imported is well nigh impossible. Impossible. Then there must be another class of citizens who will bring the required supply from another city? There must. But if the trader goes empty-handed, having nothing which they require who would supply his need, he will come back empty- handed. That is certain. And therefore what they produce at home must be not only enough for themselves, but such both in quantity and quality as to accommodate those from whom their wants are supplied. Very true. Then more husbandmen and more artisans will be required? PLATO 7 They will. Not to mention the importers and exporters, who are called merchants? Yes. Then we shall want merchants? We shall. And if merchandise is to be carried over the sea, skilfid sailors will also be needed, and in considerable numbers? Yes, in considerable numbers. Then, again, within the city, how will they exchange their pro- ductions? To secure such an exchange was, as you will remember, one of our principal objects when we formed them into a society and constituted a state. Clearly they will buy and sell. Then they will need a market-place, and a money-token for purposes of exchange. Certainly. Suppose now that a husbandman, or an artisan, brings some production to market, and he comes at a time when there is no one to exchange with him, is he to leave his calling and sit idle in the market-place? Not at all; he will find people there who, seeing the want, undertake the office of salesmen. In well-ordered states they are commonly those who are the weakest in bodily strength, and therefore of little use for any other purpose; their duty is to be in the market, and to give money in exchange for goods to those who desire to sell and to take money from those who desire to buy. This want, then, creates a class of retail-traders in our state. Is not " retailer" the term which is applied to those who sit in the market-place engaged in buying and selling, while those who wan- der from one city to another are called merchants? Yes, he said. And there is another class of servants, who are intellectually hardly on the level of companionship; still they have plenty of bodily strength for labor, which accordingly they sell, and are called, if I do not mistake, hirelings, hire being the name which is given to the price of their labor. True. Then hirelings will help to make up our population? Yes. And now, Adeimantus, is our state matured and perfected? I think so. 8 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Where, then, is justice, and where is injustice, and in what part of the state did they spring up? Probably in the dealings of these citizens with one another. I cannot imagine that they are more likely to be found anywhere else. I dare say that you are right in your suggestion, I said; we had better think the matter out, and not shrink from the inquiry. Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for them- selves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle. And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one an- other. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war. But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal. True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them. Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs, how else would you feed the beasts? But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied. Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life. People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas, and dine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modern style. Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is, not only how a state, but how a luxurious state is created; and possibly there is no harm in this, for in such a state we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the state is the one which I have described. But if you wish also to PL A TO 9 see a state at fever-heat, I have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler way of life. They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured. True, he said. Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy state is no longer sufficient. Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class have to do with forms and colors; another will be the votaries of music poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors; also makers of divers kinds of articles, including women's dresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our state, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them. Certainly. And living in this way we shall have much greater need of phy- sicians than before? Much greater. And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough? Quite true. Then a slice of our neighbor's land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like our- selves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth? That, Socrates, will be inevitable. And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not? Most certainly, he replied. Then, without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in states, private as well as public. Undoubtedly. 10 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY And our state must once more enlarge; and this time the en- largement will be nothing short of a whole army, which will have to go out and fight with the invaders for all that we have, as well as for the things and persons whom we were describing above. Why? he said; are they not capable of defending themselves? No, I said; not if we were right in the principle which was acknowledged by all of us when we were framing the state: the principle, as you will remember, was that one man cannot practise many arts with success. Very true, he said. But is not war an art? Certainly. And an art requiring as much attention as shoemaking? Quite true. And the shoemaker was not allowed by us to be a husband- man, or a weaver, or a builder in order that we might have our shoes well made ; but to him and to every other worker was assigned one work for which he was by nature fitted, and at that he was to continue working all his life long and at no other; he was not to let opportunities slip, and then he would become a good work- man. Now nothing can be more important than that the work of a soldier should be well done. But is war an art so easily ac- quired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman, or shoemaker, or other artisan; although no one in. the world would be a good dice or draught player who merely took up the game as a recreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself to this and nothing else? No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takes up a shield or other implement of war become a good fighter all in a day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops? Yes, he said, the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price. And the higher the duties of the guardian, I said, the more time, and skill, and art, and application will be needed by him? No doubt, he replied. Will he not also require natural aptitude for his calling? Certainly. Then it will be our duty to select, if we can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city? It will. PLATO 11 2. The Governors and Protectors of the State l There can be no doubt that the elder must rule the younger. Clearly. And that the best of these must rule. That is also clear. Now, are not the best husbandmen those who are most devoted to husbandry? Yes. And as we are to have the best of guardians for our city, must they not be those who have most the character of guardians? Yes. And to this end they ought to be wise and efficient, and to have a special care of the state? True. And a man will be most likely to care about that which he loves? To be sure. And he will be most likely to love that which he regards as having the same interests with himself, and that of which the good or evil fortune is supposed by him at any time most to affect his own? Very true, he replied. Then there must be a selection. Let us note among the guard- ians those who in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repug- nance to do what is against her interests. Those are the right men. And they will have to be watched at every age, in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution, and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of duty to the state. How cast off? he said. I will explain to you, I replied. A resolution may go out of a man's mind either with his will or against his will; with his will when he gets rid of a falsehood and learns better, against his will whenever he is deprived of a truth. I understand, he said, the willing loss of a resolution; the mean- ing of the unwilling I have yet to learn. Why, I said, do you not see that men are unwillingly deprived of good, and willingly of evil? Is not to have lost the truth an evil, and to possess the truth a good? and you would agree that to conceive things as they are is to possess the truth? 1 III, 412 to IV, 421. Jowett, pp. 100-109. 12 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Yes, he replied; I agree with you in thinking that mankind are deprived of truth against their will. And is not this involuntary deprivation caused either by theft, or force, or enchantment? Still, he replied, I do not understand you. I fear that I must have been talking darkly, like the tragedians. I only mean that some men are changed by persuasion and that others forget; argument steals away the hearts of one class, and time of the other; and this I call theft. Now you understand me? Yes. Those again who are forced, are those whom the violence of some pain or grief compels to change their opinion. I understand, he said, and you are quite right. And you would also acknowledge that the enchanted are those who change their minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or the sterner influence of fear? Yes, he said; everything that deceives may be said to enchant. Therefore, as I was just now saying, we must inquire who are the best guardians of their own conviction that what they think the interest of the state is to be the rule of their lives. We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected, and he who fails in the trial is to be rejected. That will be the way? Yes. And there should also be toils and pains and conflicts prescribed for them, in which they will be made to give further proof of the same qualities. Very right, he replied. And then, I said, we must try them with enchantments that is the third sort of test and see what will be their behavior: like those who take colts amid noise and tumult to see if they are of a timid nature, so must we take our youth amid terrors of some kind, and again pass them into pleasures, and prove them more thoroughly than gold is proved in the furnace, that we may discover whether they are armed against all enchantments, and of a noble bearing always, good guardians of themselves and of the music which they have learned, and retaining under all circum- stances a rhythmical and harmonious nature, such as will be most serviceable to the individual and to the state. And he who at every age, as boy and youth and in mature life, has come out of the trial victorious and pure, shall be appointed a ruler and PLATO 13 guardian of the state; he shall be honored in life and death, and shall receive sepulture and other memorials of honor, the greatest that we have to give. But him who fails, we must reject. I am inclined to think that this is the sort of way in which our rulers and guardians should be chosen and appointed. I speak generally and not with any pretension to exactness. And, speaking generally, I agree with you, he said. And perhaps the word " guardian" in the fullest sense ought to be applied to this higher class only who preserve us against foreign enemies and maintain peace among our citizens at home, that the one may not have the will, or the others the power, to harm us. The young men whom we before called guardians may be more properly designated auxiliaries and supporters of the principles of the rulers. 1 agree with you, he said. How then may we devise one of those needful falsehoods of which we lately spoke just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city? What sort of lie? he said. Nothing new, I replied ; only an old Phoenician tale of what has often occurred before now in other places (as the poets say, and have made the world believe), though not in our time, and I do not know whether such an event could ever happen again, or could now even be made probable, if it did. How your words seem to hesitate on your lips ! You will not wonder, I replied, at my hesitation when you have heard. Speak, he said, and fear not. Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you in the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers. You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the lie which you were going to tell. 14 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honor; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God pro- claims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honor, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the state, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it? Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them. I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a belief will make them care more for the city and for one another. Enough, however, of the fiction, which may now fly abroad upon the wings of rumor, while we arm our earth-born heroes, and lead them forth under the command of their rulers. Let them look round and select a spot whence they can best suppress insurrection, if any prove refractory within, and also defend themselves against enemies, who like wolves may come down on the fold from with- out; there let them encamp, and when they have encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper Gods and prepare their dwellings. Just so, he said. And their dwellings must be such as will shield them against the cold of winter and the heat of summer. I suppose that you mean houses, he replied. Yes, I said; but they must be the houses of soldiers, and not of shop-keepers. What is the difference? he said. PLA TO 15 That I will endeavor to explain, I replied. To keep watch-dogs, who, from want of discipline or hunger, or some evil habit or other, would turn upon the sheep and worry them, and behave not like dogs but wolves, would be a foul and monstrous thing in a shep- herd? Truly monstrous, he said. And therefore every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow to be too much for them and become savage tyrants instead of friends and allies? Yes, great care should be taken. And would not a really good education furnish the best safe- guard? But they are well-educated already, he replied. I cannot be so confident, my dear Glaucon, I said; I am much more certain that they ought to be, and that true education, whatever that may be, will have the greatest tendency to civilize and humanize them in their relations to one another, and to those who are under their protection. Very true, he replied. And not only their education, but their habitations, and all that belongs to them, should be such as will neither impair their virtue as guardians, nor tempt them to prey upon the other citizens. Any man of sense must acknowledge that. He must. Then now let us consider what will be their way of life, if they are to realize our idea of them. In the first place, none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary ; neither should they have a private house or store closed against any one who has a mind to enter; their provisions should be only such as are required by trained warriors, who are men of temperance and courage; they should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more; and they will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp. Gold and silver we will tell them that they have from God; the diviner metal is within them, and they have therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for that commoner metal has been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is undefiled. And they alone of all the citi- zens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviours of the state. But should they ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their 16 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citi- zens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the state, will be at hand. For all which reasons may we not say that thus shall our state be ordered, and that these shall be the regulations appointed by us for our guardians concerning their houses and all other matters? Yes, said Glaucon. Here Adeimantus interposed a question: How would you answer, Socrates, said he, if a person were to say that you are making these people miserable, and that they are the cause of their own unhappiness; the city in fact belongs to them, but they are none the better for it; whereas other men acquire lands, and build large and handsome houses, and have everything handsome about them, offering sacrifices to the gods on their own account, and practising hospitality; moreover, as you were saying just now, they have gold and silver, and all that is usual among the favorites of fortune; but our poor citizens are no better than mercenaries who are quartered in the city and are always mounting guard? Yes, I said; and you may add that they are only fed, and not paid in addition to their food, like other men; and therefore they cannot, if they would, take a journey of pleasure; they have no money to spend on a mistress or any other luxurious fancy, which, as the world goes, is thought to be happiness; and many other accu- sations of the same nature might be added. But, said he, let us suppose all this to be included in the charge. You mean to ask, I said, what will be our answer? Yes. If we proceed along the old path, my belief, I said, is that we shall find the answer. And our answer will be that, even as they are, our guardians may very likely be the happiest of men; but that our aim in founding the state was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice, and in the ill-ordered state injustice: and, having found them, we might then decide which of the two is the happier. At present, I take it, we are fashioning the happy state, not piecemeal, or with a view of making a few happy citizens, but as a whole; and by-and-by we will proceed to view the opposite kind of state. Suppose that we were painting a statue, and some one came up to us and said, PLATO 17 Why do you not put the most beautiful colors on the most beauti- ful parts of the body the eyes ought to be purple, but you have made them black to him we might fairly answer, Sir, you would not surely have us beautify the eyes to such a degree that they are no longer eyes; consider rather whether, by giving this and the other features their due proportion, we make the whole beautiful. And so I say to you, do not compel us to assign to the guardians a sort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians ; for we too can clothe our husbandmen in royal apparel, and set crowns of gold on their heads, and bid them till the ground as much as they like, and no more. Our potters also might be allowed to repose on couches, and feast by the fireside, passing round the winecup, while their wheel is conveniently at hand, and working at pottery only as much as they like; in this way we might make every class happy and then, as you imagine, the whole state would be happy. But do not put this idea into our heads; for, if we listen to you, the husbandman will be no longer a husband- man, the potter will cease to be a potter, and no one will have the character of any distinct class in the state. Now this is not of much consequence where the corruption of society, and pretension to be what you are not, is confined to cobblers; but when the guardians of the laws and of the government are only seeming and not real guardians, then see how they turn the state upside down; and on the other hand they alone have the power of giving order and happiness to the state. We mean our guardians to be true saviours and not the destroyers of the state, whereas our opponent is thinking of peasants at a festival, who are enjoying a life of revelry, not of citizens who are doing their duty to the state. But, if so, we mean different things, and he is speaking of something which is not a state. And therefore we must con- sider whether in appointing our guardians we would look to their greatest happiness individually, or whether this principle of happi- ness does not rather reside in the state as a whole. But if the latter be the truth, then the guardians and auxiliaries, and all others equally with them, must be compelled or induced to do their own work in the best way. And thus the whole state will grow up in a noble order, and the several classes will receive the pro- portion of happiness which nature assigns to them. 18 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 3. The Three Classes of the State * But where, amid all this, is justice? son of Ariston, tell me where. Now that our city has been made habitable, light a candle and search, and get your brother and Polemarchus and the rest of our friends to help, and let us see where in it we can discover justice and where injustice, and in what they differ from one another, and which of them the man who would be happy should have for his portion, whether seen or unseen by gods and men. Nonsense, said Glaucon: did you not promise to search your- self, saying that for you not to help justice in her need would be an impiety? I do not deny that I said so; and as you remind me, I will be as good as my word ; but you must join. We will, he replied. Well, then, I hope to make the discovery in this way: I mean to begin with the assumption that our state, if rightly ordered, is perfect. That is most certain. And being perfect, is therefore wise and valiant and temperate and just. That is likewise clear. And whichever of these qualities we find in the state, the one which is not found will be the residue? Very good. If there were four things, and we were searching for one of them, wherever it might be, the one sought for might be known to us from the first, and there would be no further trouble; or we might know the other three first, and then the fourth would clearly be the one left. Very true, he said. And is not a similar method to be pursued about the virtues, which are also four in number? Clearly. First among the virtues found in the state, wisdom comes into view, and in this I detect a certain peculiarity. What is that? The state which we have been describing is said to be wise as being good in counsel? Very true. And good counsel is clearly a kind of knowledge, for not by ignorance, but by knowledge, do men counsel well? 1 IV, 427-434. Jowett, pp. 116-125. PLATO 19 Clearly. And the kinds of knowledge in a state are many and diverse? Of course. There is the knowledge of the carpenter; but is that the sort of knowledge which gives a city the title of wise and good in counsel? Certainly not; that would only give a city the reputation of skill in carpentering. Then a city is not to be called wise because possessing a knowl- edge which counsels for the best about wooden implements? Certainly not. Nor by reason of a knowledge which advises about brazen pots, he said, nor as possessing any other similar knowledge? Not by reason of any of them, he said. Nor yet by reason of a knowledge which cultivates the earth; that would give the city the name of agricultural? Yes. Well, I said, and is there any knowledge in our recently-founded state among any of the citizens which advises, not about any particular thing in the state, but about the whole, and considers how a state can best deal with itself and with other states? There certainly is. And what is this knowledge, and among whom is it found? I asked. It is the knowledge of the guardians, he replied, and is found among those whom we were just now describing as perfect guard- ians. And what is the name which the city derives from the possession of this sort of knowledge? The name of good in counsel and truly wise. And will there be in our city more of these true guardians or more smiths? The smiths, he replied, will be far more numerous. Will not the guardians be the smallest of all the classes who receive a name from the profession of some kind of knowledge? Much the smallest. And so by reason of the smallest part or class, and of the knowl- edge which resides in this presiding and ruling part of itself, the whole state, being thus constituted according to nature, will be wise; and this, which has the only knowledge worthy to be called wisdom, has been ordained by nature to be of all classes the least. Most true. Thus, then, I said, the nature and place in the state of one of the four virtues has somehow or other been discovered. 20 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY And, in my humble opinion, very satisfactorily discovered, he replied. Again, I said, there is no difficulty in seeing the nature of courage, and in what part that quality resides which gives the name of courageous to the state. How do you mean? Why, I said, every one who calls any state courageous or cowardly, will be thinking of the part which fights and goes out to war on the state's behalf. No one, he replied, would ever think of any other. The rest of the citizens may be courageous or may be cowardly, but their courage or cowardice will not, as I conceive, have the effect of making the city either the one or the other. Certainly not. The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of herself which preserves under all circumstances that opinion about the nature of things to be feared and not to be feared in which our legislator educated them; and this is what you term courage. I should like to hear what you are saying once more, for I do not think that I perfectly understand you. I mean that courage is a kind of salvation. Salvation of what? Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and of what nature, which the law implants through education; and I mean by the words "under all circumstances" to intimate that in pleasure or in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves, and does not lose this opinion. Shall I give you an illustration? If you please. You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool for making the true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white color first; this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, in order that the white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeing then proceeds; and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fast color, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take away the bloom. But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you will have noticed how poor is the look either of purple or of any other color. Yes, he said; I know that they have a washed-out and ridiculous appearance. Then now, I said, you will understand what our object was in selecting our soldiers, and educating them in music and gymnastic; we were contriving influences which would prepare them to take PLATO 21 the dye of the laws in perfection, and the color of their opinion about dangers and of every other opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training, not to be washed away by such potent lyes as pleasure mightier agent far in washing the soul than any soda or lye; or by sorrow, fear, and desire, the mightiest of all other solvents. And this sort of universal saving power of true opinion in conformity with law about real and false dangers I call and maintain to be courage, unless you disagree. But I agree, he replied; for I suppose that you mean to exclude mere uninstructed courage, such as that of a wild beast or of a slave this, in your opinion, is not the courage which the law ordains, and ought to have another name. Most certainly. Then I may infer courage to be such as you describe? Why, yes, said I, you may, and if you add the words "of a citizen," you will not be far wrong; hereafter, if you like, we will carry the examination further, but at present we are seeking not for courage but justice; and for the purpose of our inquiry we have said enough. You are right, he replied. Two virtues remain to be discovered in the state first temper- ance, and then justice which is the end of our search. Very true. Now, can we find justice without troubling ourselves about temperance? I do not know how that can be accomplished, he said, nor do I desire that justice should be brought to light and temperance lost sight of; and therefore I wish that you would do me the favor of considering temperance first. Certainly, I replied, I should not be justified in refusing your request. Then consider, he said. Yes, I replied; I will; and as far as I can at present see, the virtue of temperance has more of the nature of harmony and sym- phony than the preceding. How so? he asked. Temperance, I replied, is the ordering or controlling of certain pleasures and desires; this is curiously enough implied in the say- ing of "a man being his own master;" and other traces of the same notion may be found in language. No doubt, he said. There is something ridiculous in the expression "master of him- 22 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY self;" for the master is also the servant and the servant the master; and in all these modes of speaking the same person is denoted. Certainly. The meaning is, I believe, that in the human soul there is a better and also a worse principle; and when the better has the worse under control, then a man is said to be master of himself; and this is a term of praise : but when, owing to evil education or association, the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled. Yes, there is reason in that. And now, I said, look at our newly-created state, and there you will find one of these two conditions realized; for the state, as you will acknowledge, may be justly called master of itself, if the words "temperance" and "self-mastery" truly express the rule of the better part over the worse. Yes, he said, I see that what you say is true. Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants, and in the freemen so called who are of the lowest and more numerous class. Certainly, he said. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few, and those the best born and best educated. Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our state ; and the meaner desires of the many are held down by the virtuous desires and wisdom of the few. That I perceive, he said. Then if there be any city which may be described as master of its own pleasures and desires, and master of itself, ours may claim such a designation? Certainly, he replied. It may also be called temperate, and for the same reasons? Yes. And if there be any state in which rulers and subjects will be agreed as to the question who are to rule, that again will be our state? Undoubtedly. And the citizens being thus agreed among themselves, in which class will temperance be found in the rulers or in the subjects? In both, as I should imagine, he replied. PLATO 23 Do you observe that we were not far wrong in our guess that temperance was a sort of harmony? Why so? Why, because temperance is unlike courage and wisdom, each of which resides in a part only, the one making the state wise and the other valiant; not so temperance, which extends to the whole, and runs through all the notes of the scale, and produces a har- mony of the weaker and the stronger and the middle class, whether you suppose them to be stronger or weaker in wisdom or power or numbers or wealth, or anything else. Most truly then may we deem temperance to be the agreement of the naturally superior and jnferior, as to the right to rule of either, both in states and individuals. I entirely agree with you. And so, I said, we may consider three out of the four virtues to have been discovered in our state. The last of those qualities which make a state virtuous must be justice, if we only knew what that was. The inference is obvious. The time then has arrived, Glaucon, when, like huntsmen, we should surround the cover, and look sharp that justice does not steal away, and pass out of sight and escape us ; for beyond a doubt she is somewhere in this country: watch therefore and strive to catch a sight of her, and if you see her first, let me know. Would that I could! but you should regard me rather as a follower who has just eyes enough to see what you show him that is about as much as I am good for. Offer up a prayer with me and follow. I will, but you must show me the way. Here is no path, I said, and the wood is dark and perplexing; still we must push on. Let us push on. Here I saw something: Halloo! I said, I begin to perceive a track, and I believe that the quarry will not escape. Good news, he said. Truly, I said, we are stupid fellows. Why so? Why, my good sir, at the beginning of our inquiry, ages ago, there was justice tumbling out at our feet, and we never saw her; nothing could be more ridiculous. Like people who go about looking for what they have in their hands that was the way with us we looked not at what we were seeking, but at what was far off in the distance; and therefore, I suppose, we missed her. 24 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY What do you mean? I mean to say that in reality for a long time past we have been talking of justice, and have failed to recognize her. I grow impatient at the length of your exordium. Well then, tell me, I said, whether I am right or not: You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the state, that one man should practise one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted : now justice is this principle or a part of it. Yes, we often said that one man should do one thing only. Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody; we said so again and again, and many others have said the same to us. Yes, we said so. Then to do one's own business in a certain way may be assumed to be justice. Can you tell me whence I derive this inference? I cannot, but I should like to be told. Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the state when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wis- dom are abstracted; and, that this is the ultimate cause and condi- tion of the existence of all of them, and while remaining in them is also their preservative; aa4-we'were saying that if the three were discovered by us, justice would be the fourth or remaining one. That follows of necessity. If we are asked to determine which of these four qualities by its presence contributes most to the excellence of the state, whether the agreement of rulers and subjects, or the preservation in the soldiers of the opinion which the law ordains about the true nature of dangers, or wisdom and watchfulness in the rulers, or whether this other which I am mentioning, and which is found in children and women, slave and freeman, artisan, ruler, subject, the quality I mean, of every one doing his own work, and not being a busy- body, would claim the palm the question is not so easily answered. Certainly, he replied, there would be a difficulty in saying which. Then the power of each individual in the state to do his own work appears to compete with the other political virtues, wisdom, temperance, courage. Yes, he said. And the virtue which enters into this competition is justice? Exactly. Let us look at the question from another point of view: Are not the rulers in a state those to whom you would intrust the office of determining suits at law? PLATO 25 Certainly. And are suits decided on any other ground but that a man may neither take what is another's, nor be deprived of what is his own? Yes; that is their principle. Which is a just principle? Yes. Then on this view also justice will be admitted to be the having and doing what is a man's own, and belongs to him? Very true. Think, now, and say whether you agree with me or not. Sup- pose a carpenter to be doing the business of a cobbler, or a cobbler of a carpenter; and suppose them to exchange their implements or their duties, or the same person to be doing the work of both, or whatever be the change ; do you think that any great harm would result to the state? Not much. But when the cobbler or any other man whom nature designed to be a trader, having his heart lifted up by wealth or strength or the number of his followers, or any like advantage, attempts to force his way into the class of warriors, or a warrior into that of legislators and guardians, for which he is unfitted, and either to take the implements or the duties of the other; or when one man is trader, legislator, and warrior all in one, then I think you will agree with me in saying that this interchange and this meddling of one with another is the ruin of the state. Most true. Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, any meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the state, and may be most justly termed evil-doing? Precisely. And the greatest degree of evil-doing to one's own city would be termed by you injustice? Certainly. This then is injustice; and on the other hand when the trader, the auxiliary, and the guardian each do their own business, that is justice, and will make the city just. 26 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 4. Communism 1 I do not think, I said, that there can be any dispute about the very great utility of having wives and children in common; the possibility is quite another matter, and will be very much dis- puted. I think that a good many doubts may be raised about both. You imply that the two questions must be combined, I replied. Now I meant that you should admit the utility; and in this way, as I thought, I should escape from one of them, and then there would remain only the possibility. But that little attempt is detected, and therefore you will please to give a defence of both. Well, I said, I submit to my fate. Yet grant me a little favor: let me feast my mind with the dream as day dreamers are in the habit of feasting themselves when they are walking alone; for before they have discovered any means of effecting their wishes that is a matter which never troubles them they would rather not tire themselves by thinking about possibilities; but assuming that what they desire is already granted to them, they proceed with their plan, and delight in detailing what they mean to do when their wish has come true that is a way which they have of not doing much good to a capacity which was never good for much. Now I myself am beginning to lose heart, and I should like, with your permission, to pass over the question of possibility at present. Assuming therefore the possibility of the proposal, I shall now pro- ceed to inquire how the rulers will carry out these arrangements, and I shall demonstrate that our plan, if executed, will be of the greatest benefit to the state and to the guardians. First of all, then, if you have no objection, I will endeavor with your help to consider the advantages of the measure; and hereafter the ques- tion of possibility. I have no objections; proceed. First, I think that if our rulers and their auxiliaries are to be worthy of the name which they bear, there must be willingness to obey in the one and the power of command in the other; the guardians must themselves obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any details which are intrusted to their care. That is right, he said. 1 V, 457-465. Jowett, pp. 150-160. PLATO 27 You, I said, who are their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them; they must be as far as possible of like natures with them; and they must live in common houses and meet at common meals. None of them will have anything specially his or her own ; they will be together, and will be brought up together, and will associate at gymnastic exercises. And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other necessity is not too strong a word, I think? Yes, he said; necessity, not geometrical, but another sort of necessity which lovers know, and which is far more convincing and constraining to the mass of mankind. True, I said; and this, Glaucon, like all the rest, must proceed after an orderly fashion; in a city of the blessed, licentiousness is an unholy thing which the rulers will forbid. Yes, he said, and it ought not to be permitted. Then clearly the next thing will be to make matrimony sacred in the highest degree, and what is most beneficial will be deemed sacred? Exactly. And how can marriages be made most beneficial? that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I be- seech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding? In what particulars? Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others? True. And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only? From the best. And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age? I choose only those of ripe age. And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate? Certainly. And the same of horses and of animals in general? Undoubtedly. Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species ! 28 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill? Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man. That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding? I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage. And we were very right. And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births. How so? Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion. Very true. Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of popula- tion? There are many other things which they will have to con- sider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the state from becoming either too large or too small. Certainly, he replied. We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them to- gether, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers. To be sure, he said. And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honors and rewards, might have greater facilities of inter- PLATO 29 course with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible. True. And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for offices are to be held by women as well as by men Yes The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be. Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is to be kept pure. They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers to the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognizes her own child; and other wet- nurses may be engaged if more are required. Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long; and the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attend- ants. You suppose the wives of our guardians to have a fine easy time of it when they are having children. Why, said I, and so" they ought. Let us, however, proceed with our scheme. We were saying that the parents should be in the prime of life? Very true. And what is the prime of life? May it not be denned as a period of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man's? Which years do you mean to include? A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children to the state, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may begin at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulse of life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he be fifty-five. Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigor. Any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes part in the public hymeneals shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing; the child of which he is the father, if it steals into life, will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and prayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and priests and the whole city will offer, that the new generation may 30 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY be better and more useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his child will be the offspring of darkness and strange lust. Very true, he replied. And the same law will apply to any one of those within the pre- scribed age who forms a connection with any woman in the prime of life without the sanction of the rulers; for we shall say that he is raising up a bastard to the state, uncertified and unconsecrated. Very true, he replied. This applies, however, only to those who are within the speci- fied age: after that we allow them to range at will, except that a man may not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his mother or his mother's mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibited from marrying their sons or fathers, or son's son or father's father, and so on in either direction. And we grant all this, accompanying the permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo which may come into being from seeing the light ; and if any force a way to the birth, the parents must understand that the offspring of such a union cannot be maintained, and arrange accordingly. That also, he said, is a reasonable proposition. But how will they know who are fathers and daughters, and so on? They will never know. The way will be this : dating from the day of the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call all the male children who are born in the seventh and the tenth month afterwards his sons, and the female children his daughters, and they will call him father, and he will call their children his grandchildren, and they will call the elder generation grandfathers and grandmothers. All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I was saying, will be for- bidden to inter-marry. This, however, is not to be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters ; if the lot favors them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them. Quite right, he replied. Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to which the guardians of our state are to have their wives and families in common. And now you would have the argument show that this community is consistent with the rest of our polity, and also that nothing can be better would you not? Yes, certainly. Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in PLATO 31 the organization of a state, what is the greatest good, and what is the greatest evil, and then consider whether our previous descrip- tion has the stamp of the good or of the evil? By all means. Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign ? or any greater good than the bond of unit^T""" There cannot. And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow? No doubt. Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a state is disorganized when you have one-half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens? Certainly. Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the use of the terms "mine" and "not mine," "his" and "not his." Exactly so. And is not that the best-ordered state in which the greatest number of persons apply the terms "mine" and "not mine" in the same way to the same thing? Quite true. Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the individual as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt, the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a centre and forming one kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizes all together with the part affected, and we say that the man has a pain in his finger; and the same expres- sion is used about any other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or of pleasure at the alleviation of suffering. Very true, he replied; and I agree with you that in the best- ordered state there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you describe. Then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil, the whole state will make his case their own, and will either rejoice or sorrow with him? Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a well-ordered state. It will now be time, I said, for us to return to our state and see whether this or some other form is most in accordance with these fundamental principles. 32 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Very good. Our state like every other has rulers and subjects? True. All of whom will call one another citizens? Of course. But is there not another name which people give to their rulers in other states? Generally they call them masters, but in democratic states they simply call them rulers. And in our state what other name besides that of citizens do the people give the rulers? They are called saviours and helpers, he replied. And what do the rulers call the people? Their maintainers and foster-fathers. And what do they call them in other states? Slaves. And what do the rulers call one another in other states? Fellow-rulers. And what in ours? Fellow-guardians. Did you ever know an example in any other state of a ruler who would speak of one of his colleagues as his friend and of another as not being his friend? Yes, very often. And the friend he regards and describes as one in whom he has an interest, and the other as a stranger in whom he has no interest? Exactly. But would any of your guardians think or speak of any other guardian as a stranger? Certainly he would not; for every one whom they meet will be regarded by them either as a brother or sister, or father or mother, or son or daughter, or as the child or parent of those who are thus connected with him. Capital, I said; but let me ask you once more: Shall they be a family in name only; or shall they in all their actions be true to the name? For example, in the use of the word " father," would the care of a father be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedience to him which the law commands; and is the violator of these duties to be re- garded as an impious and unrighteous person who is not likely to receive much good either at the hands of God or of man? Are these to be or not to be the strains which the children will hear repeated in their ears by all the citizens about those who PLATO 33 are intimated to them to be their parents and the rest of their kinsfolk? These, he said, and none other; for what can be more ridiculous than for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only and not to act in the spirit of them? Then in our city the language of harmony and concord will be more often heard than in any other. As I was describing before, when any one is well or ill, the universal word will be "with me it is well" or "it is ill." Most true. And agreeably to this mode of thinking and speaking, were we not saying that they will have their pleasures and pains in com- mon? Yes, and so they will. And they will have a common interest in the same thing which they will alike call "my own," and having this common interest they will have a common feeling of pleasure and pain? Yes, far more so than in other states. And the reason of this, over and above the general constitution of the state, will be that the guardians will have a community of women and children? That will be the chief reason. And this unity of feeling we admitted to be the greatest good, as was implied in our own comparison of a well-ordered state to the relation of the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or pain? That we acknowledged, and very rightly. Then the community of wives and children among our citizens is clearly the source of the greatest good to the state? Certainly. And this agrees with the other principle which we were affirm- ing, that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any other property; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive from the other citizens, and they were to have no private expenses; for we intended them to preserve their true character of guardians. Right, he replied. Both the community of property and the community of families, as I am saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will not tear the city in pieces by differing about "mine" and "not mine" ; each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house of his own, where he has a separate wife and children and private pleasures and pains; but all will be affected as far as 34 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY may be by the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion about what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towards a common end. Certainly, he replied. And as they have nothing but their persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints will have no existence among them; they will be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or relations are the occasion. Of course they will. Neither will trials for assault or insult ever be likely to occur among them. For that equals should defend themselves against equals we shall maintain to be honorable and right ; we shall make the protection of the person a matter of necessity. That is good, he said. Yes; and there is a further good in the law; viz. that if a man has a quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then and there, and not proceed to more dangerous lengths. Certainly. To the elder shall be assigned the duty of ruling and chastising the younger. Clearly. Nor can there be a doubt that the younger will not strike or do any other violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him; nor will he slight him in any way. For there are two guardians, shame and fear, mighty to prevent him: shame, which makes men refrain from laying hands on those who are to them in the relation of parents; fear, that the injured one will be succored by the others who are his brothers, sons, fathers. That is true, he replied. Then in every way the laws will help the citizens to keep the peace with one another? Yes, there will be no want of peace. And as the guardians will never quarrel among themselves there will be no danger of the rest of the city being divided either against them or against one another. None whatever. I hardly like even to mention the little meannesses of which they will be rid, for they are beneath notice: such, for example, as the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy necessaries for their household, borrowing and then repu- diating, getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands PLATO 35 of women and slaves to keep the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer in this way are mean enough and obvious enough, and not worth speaking of. 1 5. Government by Philosophers 2 We were inquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at these in order that we might judge of our own happiness and unhappiness according to the standard which they exhibited and the degree in which we resembled them, but not with any view of showing that they could exist in fact. True, he said. Would a painter be any the worse because, after having de- lineated with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was unable to show that any such man could ever have existed? He would be none the worse. Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect state? To be sure. And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner de- scribed? Surely not, he replied. That is the truth, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try and show how and under what conditions the possibility is highest, I must ask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admis- sions. * What admissions? I want to know whether ideals are ever fully realized in language? Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the actual, whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall short of the truth? What do you say? I agree. Then you must not insist on my proving that the actual state will in every respect coincide with the ideal: if we are only able to discover how a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit that we have discovered the possibility which you iV, 457-465. Jowett, pp. 150-160. 2 V, 472-473; VI, 484-490, 502-504; VII, 520-521, 536-537, 540-54L Jowett, pp. I69-I7I, I80-I88, 202-203, 220-222, 240-241, 244-246. 36 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY demand; and will be contented. I am sure that I should be con- tented will not you? Yes, I will. Let me next endeavor to show what is that fault in states which is the cause of their present maladministration, and what is the least change which will enable a state to pass into the truer form; and let the change, if possible, be of one thing only, or, if not, of two; at any rate, let the changes be as few and slight as possible. Certainly, he replied. I think, I said, that there might be a reform of the state if only one change were made, which is not a slight or easy though still a possible one. What is it? he said. Now then, I said, I go to meet that which I liken to the greatest of the waves; yet shall the word be spoken, even though the wave break and drown me in laughter and dishonor; and do you mark my words. Proceed. I said: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, no, nor the human race, as I believe, and then only will this our state have a possibility of life and behold the light of day. Such was the thought, my dear Glaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not seemed too extravagant ; for to be convinced that in no other state can there be happiness private or public is indeed a hard thing. 1 And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary way, the true and the false philosophers have at length appeared in view. I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened. I suppose not, I said; and yet I believe that we might have had a better view of both of them if the discussion could have been confined to this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaiting us, which he who desires to see in what respect the life of the just differs from that of the unjust must consider. And what is the next question? he asked. Surely, I said, the one which follows next in order. Inasmuch as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are *V, 472-473- Jowett, pp. 169-171. PLATO 37 not philosophers, I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our state? And how can we rightly answer that question? Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our state let them be our guardians. Very good. Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes? There can be no question of that. And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them are not such persons, I ask, simply blind? Truly, he replied, they are much in that condition. And shall they be our guardians when there are others who, besides being their equals in experience and falling short of them in no particular of virtue, also know the very truth of each thing? There can be no reason, he said, for rejecting those who have this greatest of all great qualities; they must always have the first place unless they fail in some other respect. Suppose then, I said, that we determine how far they can unite this and the other excellences. By all means. In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained. We must come to an under- standing about him, and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such a union of quali- ties is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the state. What do you mean? Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption. Agreed. And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all true being; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honorable, which they are willing to renounce; as we said before of the lover and the man of ambition. True. 38 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not another quality which they should also possess? What quality? Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth. Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them. "May be," my friend, I replied, is not the word; say rather, "must be affirmed": for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections. Right, he said. And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth? How can there be? Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of false- hood? Never. The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as far as in him lies, desire all truth? \ssuredly. But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be like a stream which has been drawn off into another channel. True. He whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one. That is most certain. Such a one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; for the motives which make another man desirous of having and spending, have no place in his character. Very true. Another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be considered. What is that? There should be no secret corner of illiberality; nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever long- ing after the whole of things both divine and human. Most true, he replied. Then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spec- tator of all time and all existence, think much of human life? He cannot. PLATO 39 Or can such a one account death fearful? No indeed. Then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philos- ophy? Certainly not. Or again: can he who is harmoniously constituted, who is not covetous or mean, or a boaster, or a coward can he, I say, ever be unjust or hard in his dealings? Impossible. Then you will soon observe whether a man is just and gentle, or rude and unsociable; these are the signs which distinguish even in youth the philosophical nature from the unphilosophical. True. There is another point which should be remarked. What point? Whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning; for no one will love that which gives him pain, and in which after much toil he makes little progress. Certainly not. And again, if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns, will he not be an empty vessel? That is certain. Laboring in vain, he must end in hating himself and his fruit- less occupation? Yes. Then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophic natures; we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory? Certainly. And once more, the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tend to disproportion? Undoubtedly. And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to dis- proportion? To proportion. Then, besides other qualities, we must try to find a naturally well-proportioned and gracious mind, which will move spontane- ously towards the true being of everything. Certainly. Well, and do not all these qualities, which we have been enumer- ating, go together, and are they not, in a manner, necessary to a soul, which is to have a full and perfect participation of being? They are absolutely necessary, he replied. 40 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY And must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue who has the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn, noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance, who are his kindred? The god of jealousy himself, he said, could find no fault with such a study. And to men like him, I said, when perfected by years and educa- tion, and to these only you will intrust the state. Here Adeimantus interposed and said: To these statements, Socrates, no one can offer a reply; but when you talk in this way, a strange feeling passes over the minds of your hearers : They fancy that they are led astray a little at each step in the argument, owing to their own want of skill in asking and answering questions; these littles accumulate, and at the end of the discussion they are found to have sustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear to be turned upside down. And as unskilful players of draughts are at last shut up by their more skilful adversaries and have no piece to move, so they too find themselves shut up at last; for they have nothing to say in this new game of which words are the counters; and yet all the time they are in the right. The observation is suggested to me by what is now occurring. For any one of us might say, that although in words he is not able to meet you at at each step of the argument, he sees as a fact that the vo- taries of philosophy, when they carry on the study, not only in youth as a part of education, but as the pursuit of their maturer years, most of them become strange monsters, not to say utter rogues, and that those who may be considered the best of them are made useless to the world by the very study which you extol. Well, and do you think that those who say so are wrong? I cannot tell, he replied; but I should like to know what is your opinion. Hear my answer; I am of opinion that they are quite right. Then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not cease from evil until philosophers rule in them, when philosophers are acknowledged by us to be of no use to them? You ask a question, I said, to which a reply can only be given in a parable. Yes, Socrates; and that is a way of speaking to which you are not at all accustomed, I suppose. I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagerness of my imagi- nation: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their PLATO 41 own states is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have re- course to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are pre- ferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they pro- ceed on their voyage in such manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay atten- tion to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? Of course, said Adeimantus. Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the state; for you understand already. Certainly. Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honor in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honor would be far more extraordinary. 42 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I will. Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him that is not the order of nature; neither are "the wise to go to the doors of the rich" the ingenious author of this saying told a lie but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him; although the present governors of man- kind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. Precisely so, he said. For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed. Yes. And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? True. Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majori- ty is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? By all means. And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the de- scription of the gentle and noble nature. Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy. Yes, that was said. Well, and is not this one quality, to mention no others, greatly at variance with present notions of him? Certainly, he said. And have we not a right to say in his defence, that the true lover of knowledge is always striving after being that is his nature; he will not rest in the mutiplicity of individuals which is an appearance only, but will go on the keen edge will not be PLATO 43 blunted, nor the force of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge of the true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred power in the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becoming incorporate with very being, having begot- ten mind and truth, he will have knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not till then, will he cease from his travail. Nothing, he said, can be more just than such a description of him. And will the love of a lie be any part of a philosopher's nature? Will he not utterly hate a lie? He will. And when truth is the captain, we cannot suspect any evil of the band which he leads? Impossible. Justice and health of mind will be of the company, and tem- perance will follow after? True, he replied. 1 I omitted the troublesome business of the possession of women, and the procreation of children, and the appointment of the rulers, because I knew that the perfect state would be eyed with jealousy and was difficult of attainment; but that piece of cleverness was not of much service to me, for I had to discuss them all the same. The women and children are now disposed of, but the other ques- tion of the rulers must be investigated from the very beginning. We were saying, as you will remember, that they were to be lovers of their country, tried by the test of pleasures and pains, and neither in hardships, nor in dangers, nor at any other critical mo- ment were to lose their patriotism he was to be rejected who failed, but he who always came forth pure, like gold tried in the refiner's fire, was to be made a ruler, and to receive honors and rewards in life and after death. This was the sort of thing which was being said, and then the argument turned aside and veiled her face ; not liking to stir the question which has now arisen. I perfectly remember, he said. Yes, my friend, I said, .and I then shrank from hazarding the bold word; but now let me dare to say that the perfect guardian must be a philosopher. Yes, he said, let that be affirmed. And do not suppose that there will be many of them; for the gifts which were deemed by us to be essential rarely grow to- gether; they are mostly found in shreds and patches. What do you mean? he said. *VI, 484-490. Jowett, pp. 180-188. 44 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY You are aware, I replied, that quick intelligence, memory, sagac- ity, cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow together, and that persons who possess them and are at the same time high- spirited and magnanimous are not so constituted by nature as to live orderly and in a peaceful and settled manner; they are driven any way by their impulses, and all solid principle goes out of them. Very true, he said. On the other hand, those steadfast natures which can better be depended upon, which in a battle are impregnable to fear and immovable, are equally immovable when there is anything to be learned; they are always in a torpid state, and are apt to yawn and go to sleep over any intellectual toil. Quite true. And yet we were saying that both qualities were necessary in those to whom the higher education is to be imparted, and who are to share in any office or command. Certainly, he said. And will they be a class which is rarely found? Yes, indeed. Then the aspirant must not only be tested in those labors and dangers and pleasures which we mentioned before, but there is another kind of probation which we did not mention he must be exercised also in many kinds of knowledge, to see whether the soul will be able to endure the highest of all, or will faint under them as in any other studies and exercises. 1 Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in com- pelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other states, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reason- able, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thou- sand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will 1 VI, 502-504. Jowett, pp. 202-203. PLATO 45 know what the several images are, and what they represent, be- cause you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our state, which is also yours, will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other states, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the state in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the state in which they are most eager, the worst. Quite true, he replied. And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of state, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light? Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the com- mands which we impose upon them are just ; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of state. Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered state; for only in the state which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private ad- vantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole state. Most true, he replied. And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other? Indeed, I do not, he said. And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight. No question. Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of state, and by whom the state is administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and better life than that of poli- tics? They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied. 1 1 VII, 520-521. Jowett, pp. 220-222. 46 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY And now let me remind you that, although in our former selec- tion we chose old men, we must not do so in this. Solon was under a delusion when he said that a man when he grows old may learn many things for he can no more learn much than he can run much; youth is the time for any extraordinary toil. Of course. And, therefore, calculation and geometry and all the other elements of instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, should be presented to the mind in childhood; not, however, under any notion of forcing our system of education. Why not? Because a freeman ought not to be a slave in the acquisition of knowledge of any kind. Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind. Very true. Then, my good friend, I said, do not use compulsion, but let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to find out the natural bent'. That is a very rational notion, he said. Do you remember that the children, too, were to be taken to see the battle on horseback; and that if there were no danger they were to be brought close up and, like young hounds, have a taste of blood given them? Yes, I remember. The same practice may be followed, I said, in all these things labors, lessons, dangers and he who is most at home in all of them ought to be enrolled in a select number. At what age? At the age when the necessary gymnastics are over: the period whether of two or three years which passes in this sort of training is useless for any other purpose; for sleep and exercise are unpro- pitious to learning; and the trial of who is first in gymnastic exer- cises is one of the most important tests to which our youth are subjected. Certainly, he replied. After that time those who are selected from the class of twenty years old will be promoted to higher honor, and the sciences which they learned without any order in their early education will now be brought together, and they will be able to see the natural relationship of them to one another and to true being. Yes, he said, that is the only kind of knowledge which takes lasting root. PLATO 47 Yes, I said; and the capacity for such knowledge is the great criterion of dialectical talent: the comprehensive mind is always the dialectical. I agree with you, he said. These, I said, are the points which you must consider; and those who have most of this comprehension, and who are most steadfast in their learning, and in their military and other appoint- ed duties, when they have arrived at the age of thirty will have to be chosen by you out of the select class, and elevated to higher honor; and you will have to prove them by the help of dialectic, in order to learn which of them is able to give up the use of sight and the other senses, and in company with truth to attain absolute being. 1 Suppose, I said, the study of philosophy to take the place of gymnastics and to be continued diligently and earnestly and ex- clusively for twice the number of years which were passed in bodily exercise will that be enough? Would you say six or four years? he asked. Say five years, I replied; at the end of the time they must be sent down again into the den and compelled to hold any military or other office which young men are qualified to hold: in this way they will get their experience of life, and there will be an oppor- tunity of trying whether, when they are drawn all manner of ways by temptation, they will stand firm or flinch. And how long is this stage of their lives to last? Fifteen years, I answered; and when they have reached fifty years of age, then let those who still survive and have distinguished themselves in every action of their lives and in every branch of knowledge come at last to their consummation: the time has now arrived at which they must raise the eye of the soul to the universal light which lightens all things, and behold the absolute good; for that is the pattern according to which they are to order the state and the lives of individuals, and the remainder of their own lives also; making philosophy their chief pursuit, but, when their turn comes, toiling also at politics and ruling for the pub- lic good, not as though they were performing some heroic action, but simply as a matter of duty; and when they have brought up in each generation others like themselves and left them in their place to be governors of the state, then they will depart to the Islands of the Blest and dwell there; and the city will give them public memorials and sacrifices and honor them, 1 VII, 536-537. Jowett, pp. 240-241. 48 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY if the Pythian oracle consent, as demigods, but if not, as in any case blessed and divine. You are a sculptor, Socrates, and have made statues of our governors faultless in beauty. Yes, I said, Glaucon, and of our governesses too; for you must not suppose that what I have been saying applies to men only and not to women as far as their natures can go. There you are right, he said, since we have made them to share in all things like the men. Well, I said, and you would agree (would you not?) that what has been said about the state and the government is not a mere dream, and although difficult not impossible, but only possible in the way which has been supposed; that is to say, when the true philosopher kings are born in a state, one or more of them, despising the honors of this present world which they deem mean and worthless, esteeming above all things right and the honor that springs from right, and regarding justice as the greatest and most necessary of all things, whose ministers they are, and whose principles will be exalted by them when they set in order their own city? How will they proceed? They will begin by sending out into the country all the inhabit- ants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents; these they will train in their own habits and laws, I mean in the laws which we have given them: and in this way the state and constitution of which we were speaking will soonest and most easily attain happiness, and the nation which has such a constitution will gain most. Yes, that will be the best way. And I think, Socrates, that you have very well described how, if ever, such a constitution might come into being. Enough then of the perfect state, and of the man who bears its image there is no difficulty in seeing how we shall describe him. There is no difficulty, he replied; and I agree with you in think- ing that nothing more need be said. 1 1 VII, 540-541. Jowett, pp. 244-246. PLATO 49 SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Zeller, Plato and the Older Academy, ch. i. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, Vol. I, ch. iii. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval, ch. ii, 2-6. Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, chs. ii-iv. Zeller, Plato and the Older Academy, chs. iv-vi, x-xi, xiii. Campbell, Plato's- Republic. Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, Vol. I, ch. vi; Vol. II, chs. xxvii-xxviii; Vol. Ill, chs. xxxiv-xxxvii. Willoughby, Political Theories of the Ancient World, chs. vii-ix. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 103-164. Neiileship, Lectures on the Republic of Plato. Loos, Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato, pp. 179-291. Bosanquet, A Companion to Plato's Republic. Henkel, Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Lehre vom Staat, pp. 121 et seq. Susemihl, Die genetische Entwickelung der platonischen Philosophic, Vol. II, pp. 58-312, 559-696. ARISTOTLE H. ARISTOTLE (364-322 B.C.) INTRODUCTION Aristotle is commonly called the father, or maker, of political science. Such a title is justified by the character of his political writing, as well as by the great influence which his researches in this 'field have exerted upon later political reflection. The range of his discussion is comprehensive; his analysis is systematic; his exposition is thorough and is fully illustrated from his fund of historical knowledge and contemporary observation. The in- fluence of his ideas and methods in political theory became particu- larly manifest after the revival of the study of his works in the thirteenth century. Aristotle was a younger contemporary of Plato. He was born at Stagira, in Thrace, his father being physician to Amyntas II, king of Macedonia. While a youth Aristotle came to Athens and was one of Plato's pupils for about twenty years. He next spent a few years at the court of Hermias, prince of Atarneas, in Asia Minor; he fled from that country when the brief tyranny of Hermias was terminated by revolution. Aristotle was then invited to the Macedonian court by King Philip, who made him tutor to the young Alexander. Some time after the accession of Alexander to the Macedonian throne Aristotle returned to Athens, where he conducted a school at the gymnasium called the Lyceum. The system of thought there founded came to be known as the "Peri- patetic;" this is, as some say, because Aristotle would meet his students in one of the walks of the Lyceum, or, as others say, because of his habit of strolling about while giving his lectures. Aristotle, like Plato, lived through anarchy and war in the Greek states, and witnessed the failure of any of them to establish lasting supremacy over the others. On the other hand, he saw the accom- plishment of Macedonian expansion and lived under the protection of, and for a time in close association with, the great wielder of the strong-man power in that expansion. 53 54 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Aristotle's writings cover a wide field: logic and metaphysics; mathematics and physics; the natural sciences; rhetoric and poetry; ethics and politics. There is not complete agreement among historians of philosophy as to the extent to which the metaphysical basis of Aristotle's system accords with that of his teacher, Plato. Aristotle criticised Plato's ascription of exclusive and independent reality to abstract and general qualities; and he argued that these general elements are real only as attributes at- tached to concrete objects, which are the only completely real things. This philosophical point of view is a basis for inductive reasoning; and whether or not the general theories of Plato and Aristotle are reconcilable, there are very evident differences in their methods. These differences are especially manifest in their political works; Aristotle's discussion is more practical, system- atic, and precise than that of Plato, and it is based more on history and observation, with relatively slight allegorical and poetical embellishment. Moreover, politics with Aristotle comes near to being a distinct discipline, separated from philosophy and ethics. Most of the writings of Aristotle that have come down to us are in fragmentary and disarranged form, suggesting that the earliest manuscripts may have been compiled from lecture notes of teacher or pupil. There is much repetition in The Politics, as in other works of Aristotle. None of the arrangements that have been made of the books of The Politics are such as to present his thought in clear logical sequence. The selections below embody his ideas on fundamental subjects of political theory, as follows: the nature, origin and end of the state; the justification of slavery;' the defi- nition of citizenship; the location of sovereignty; forms of state; the departments of government; the cause and prevention of changes in state-form. Following this order it is necessary at a few places to depart from the order in which the passages appear in the translation from which the selections are taken. ARISTOTLE 55 READINGS FROM THE POLITICS 1 1. The Nature, End, and Origin of the State 2 Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all com- munities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims, and in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good. Now there is an erroneous opiriion that a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the principles of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman. But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what they differ from one another, and whether any scientific distinction can be drawn between the differ- ent kinds of rule. He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place ( i ) there must be a union of those who can- not exist without each other; for example, of male and female, that the race may continue; and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves. And (2) there must be a union of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord 1 The selections are taken from The Politics of Aristotle, translated into English, by Benjamin Jowett, two volumes, Oxford, 1885. Published by the Clarendon Press. 2 1, i, ii, iii (in part), v; III, ix. Jowett, pp. 1-5, 7-9, 82-84. 56 % READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Nature, however, has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and fe- male. Wherefore the poets say, It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one. Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the family first arises, and Hesiod is right when he says, First house and wife and an ox for the plough, for the ox is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas " companions of the cupboard" and by Epimenides the Cretan, "companions of the manger." But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, then comes into existence the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, com- posed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be * 'suckled with the same milk. " And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says [of the Cyclopes] : Each one gives law to his children and to his wives. For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the gods have a king, because they them- selves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the gods, but their ways of life to be like their own. When several villages are united in a single community, per- fect and large enough to be nearly or quite self -sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and con- tinuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, ARISTOTLE 57 if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the [completed] nature is the end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best. Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either above humanity, or below it; he is the Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces the outcast who is a lover of war; he may be compared to a bird which flies alone. Now the reason why man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere sound is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no fur- ther), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. Thus the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they are no longer the same, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all ; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with the arms of 58 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY intelligence and with moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, and the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state, we must speak of the management of the household. The parts of the household are the persons who com- pose it, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its least elements; and the first and least parts of a family are master and slave, hus- band and wife, father and children. We have therefore to consider what each of these three relations is and ought to be: I mean the relation of master and servant, of husband and wife, and thirdly of parent and child. And there is another element of a household, the so-called art of money-making, which, according to some, is identical with household management, according to others, a principal part of it; the nature of this art will also have to be con- sidered by us. He who is by nature not his own but another's and yet a man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to belong to another who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor. But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule, and others be ruled is a thing, not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. And whereas there are many kinds both of rulers and subjects, that rule is the better which is exercised over better subjects for example, to rule over men is better than to rule over wild beasts. The work is better which is executed by better workmen; and where one man rules and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work. In all things which form a composite whole and which are made up of parts, whether continuous or discrete, a distinction between the ruling and the subject element comes to light. Such a duality exists in living creatures, but not in them only; it originates in the constitution of the universe; even in ARISTOTLE 59 things which have no life, there is a ruling principle, as in musical harmony. But we are wandering from the subject. We will, therefore, restrict ourselves to the living creature which, in the first place, consists of soul and body: and of these two, the one is by nature the ruler, and the other the subject. But then we must look for the intentions of nature in things which retain their nature, and not in things which are corrupted. And therefore we must study the man who is in the most perfect state both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two; al- though in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition. First then we may observe in living creatures both a despotical and a constitutional rule; for the soul rules the body with a despotical rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate is natural and expedient ; whereas the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of animals as well as of men ; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind. Where then there is such a difference as that be- tween soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do noth- ing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is another's, and he who participates in reason enough to apprehend, but not to have, rea- son, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend reason; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But this does not hold universally: for some slaves have the souls and others have the bodies of free- men. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if there is a difference in the body, > T 60 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY how much more in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. But a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only: if life only were the object, slaves and brute animals might form a state, but they cannot, for they have no share in happiness or in a life of free choice. Nor does a state exist for the sake of alliance and security from injustice, nor yet for the sake of exchange and mutual intercourse; for then the Tyr- rhenians and the Carthagenians, and all who have commercial treaties with one another, would be the citizens of one state. True, they have arrangements about imports, and engagements that they will do no wrong to one another, and written articles of alliance. But there are no magistracies common to the contract- ing parties who will enforce their engagements; different states have each their own magistracies. Nor does one state take care that the citizens of the other are such as they ought to be, nor see that those who come under the terms of the treaty do no wrong or wickedness at all, but only that they do no injustice to one another. Whereas, those who care for good government take into consideration [the larger question of] virtue and vice in states. Whence it may be further inferred that virtue must be the serious care of a state which truly deserves the name: for [without this ethical end] the community becomes a mere alliance which differs only in place from alliances of which the members live apart; and law is only a convention, "a surety to one another of justice," as the sophist Lycophron says, and has no real power to make the citizens good and just. This is obvious; for suppose distinct places, such as Corinth and Megara, to be united by a wall, still they would not be one city, not even if the citizens had the right to intermarry, which is one of the rights peculiarly characteristic of states. Again, if men dwelt at a distance from one another, but not so far off as to have no intercourse, and there were laws among them that they should not wrong each other in their exchanges, neither would this be a state. Let us suppose that one man is a carpenter, another a hus- bandman, another a shoemaker, and so on, and that their number is ten thousand : nevertheless, if they have nothing in common but ex- change, alliance, and the like, that would not constitute a state. Why is this? Surely not because they are at a distance from one another: for even supposing that such a community were to meet ARISTOTLE 61 in one place, and that each man had a house of his own, which was in a manner his state, and that they made alliance with one another, but only against evil-doers; still an accurate thinker would not deem this to be a state, if their intercourse with one another was of the same character after as before their union. It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a com- mon place, established for the prevention of crime and for the sake of exchange. These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of well-being in families and aggregations of families, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise in cities family connections, brother- hoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. They are created by friendship, for friendship is the motive of society. The end is the good life, and these are the means towards it. And the state is the union of families and villages having for an end a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life. Our conclusion, then, is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. And they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue; or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue. 2. The Definition of Citizenship l He who would inquire into the nature and various kinds of government must first of all determine "What is a state?" At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the state has done a certain act; others, no, not the state, but the oligarchy or the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely with the state; a constitution or government being an arrangement of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is com- posite, and, like any other whole, made up of many parts; these are the citizens, who compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term? For here again there may be a differ- ence of opinion. He who is a citizen in a democracy will often not be a citizen in an oligarchy. Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of 1 III, i, v (in part). Jowett, pp. 67-69, 75~76. 62 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY citizen in any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resi- dent aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Even resident aliens in many places possess such rights, although in an imperfect form; for they are obliged to have a patron. Hence they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear. Similar difficulties to those which I have mentioned may be raised and answered about deprived citizens and about exiles. But the citizen, whom we are seeking to define, is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. Now of offices some have a limit of time, and the same persons are not allowed to hold them twice, or can only hold them after a fixed interval ; others have no limit of time, for example, the office of dicast or ecclesiast. 1 It may, indeed, be argued that these are not magistrates at all, and that their func- tions give them no share in the government. But surely it is ri- diculous to say that those who have the supreme power do not govern. Not to dwell further upon this, which is a purely verbal question, what we want is a common term including both dicast and ecclesiast. Let us, for the sake of distinction, call it ' ' indefinite office," and we will assume that those who share in such office are citizens. This is the most comprehensive definition of a citizen, and best suits all those who are generally so called. But we must not forget that things of which the underlying notions differ in kind, one of them being first, another second, an- other third, have, when regarded in this relation, nothing, or hardly anything, worth mentioning in common. Now we see that governments differ in kind, and that some of them are prior and that others are posterior; those which are faulty or perverted are necessarily posterior to those which are perfect. (What we mean by perversion will be hereafter explained). The citizen then of necessity differs under each form of government; and our defini- 1 "Dicast" = juryman and judge in one: "ecclesiast" = member of the ecclesia or assembly of the citizens. J. ARISTOTLE 63 tion is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not neces- sarily to other states. For in some states the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly, but only extraordinary ones; and suits are distributed in turn among the magistrates. At Lacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors determine suits about contracts, which they distribute among themselves, while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes are de- cided by other magistrates. A similar principle prevails at Carthage; there certain magistrates decide all causes. We may, indeed, modify our definition of the citizens so as to include these states. In other states it is the holder of a definite, not of an indefinite office, who legislates and judges, and to some or all such holders of definite offices is reserved the right of deliberating or judging about some things or about all things. The conception of the citizen now begins to clear up. He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. There still remains one more question about the citizen: Is he only a true citizen who has a share of office, or is the mechanic to be included? If they who hold no office are to be deemed citi- zens, not every citizen can have this virtue of ruling and obeying which makes a citizen. And if none of the lower class are citizens, in which part of the state are they to be placed? For they are not resident aliens, and they are not foreigners. To this objec- tion may we not reply, that there is no more absurdity in exclud- ing them than in excluding slaves and freedmen from any of the above-mentioned classes? It must be admitted that we cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state; for example, children are not citizens equally with grown-up men, who are citizens absolutely, but children, not being grown up, are only citizens in a qualified sense. Doubtless in ancient times, and among some nations, the artisan class were slaves or foreigners, and therefore the majority of them are so now. The best form of state will not admit them to citizenship; but if they are admitted, then our definition of the virtue of a citizen will apply to some citizens and freemen only, and not to those who work for their living. The latter class, to whom toil is a necessity, are either slaves who minister to the wants of individuals, or mechanics and laborers who are the servants of the communitv. 64 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 3. Sovereignty l A parallel question is raised respecting the state whether a certain act is or is not an act of the state; for example, in the transi- tion from an oligarchy or a tyranny to a democracy. In such cases persons refuse to fulfil their contracts or any other obliga- tions, on the ground that the tyrant, and not the state, contracted them; they argue that some constitutions are established by force, and not for the sake of the common good. But this would apply equally to democracies, for they too may be founded on violence, and then the acts of the democracy will be neither more nor less legitimate than those of an oligarchy or of a tyranny. This question runs up into another: when shall we say that the state is the same, and when different? It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants; for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another. This, however, is not a very serious difficulty; we need only remark that the word " state" is ambiguous, meaning both state and city. It is further asked: When are men, living in the same place, to be regarded as a single city what is the limit? Certainly not the wall of the city, for you might surround all Peloponnesus with a wall. But a city, having such vast circuit, would contain a nation rather than a state, like Babylon, which, as they say, had been taken for three days before some part of the inhabitants became aware of the fact. This difficulty may, however, with advantage be deferred to another occasion; the statesman has to consider the size of the state, and whether it should consist of more than one nation or not. Again, shall we say that while the race of inhabitants, as well as their place of abode, remain the same, the city is also the same, although the citizens are always dying and being born, as we call rivers and fountains the same, although the water is always flowing away and coming again? Or shall we say that the generations of men, like the rivers, are the same, but that the state changes? For, since the state is a community and a community is made up of citizens, when the form of the government changes and becomes different, then it may be supposed that the state is no longer the same, just as a tragic differs from a comic chorus, although the members of both may be identical. And in this manner we speak of every union or composition of elements, when the form of their composition alters; for example, harmony of the same sounds 1 III, iii, x-xii, xiii (in part). Jowett, pp. 70-72, 84-93. ARISTOTLE 65 is said to be different, accordingly as the Dorian or the Phrygian mode is employed. And if this is true it is evident that the same- ness of the/state consists chiefly in the sameness of the constitu- tion, and may be called or not called by the same name, whether the inhabitants are the same or entirely different. It is quite another question, whether a state ought or ought not to fulfil engagements when the form of government changes. There is also a doubt as to what is to be the supreme forever in the state: Is it the multitude? Or the wealthy? Or the good? Or the one best man? Or a tyrant? Any of these alternatives seems to involve disagreeable consequences. If the poor, for example, because they are more in number, divide among them- selves the property of the rich, is not this unjust? No, by heaven (will be the reply), for the lawful authority willed it. But if this is not injustice, pray what is? Again, when [in the first divi- sion] all has been taken, and the majority divide anew the property of the minority, is it not evident, if this goes on, that they will ruin the state? Yet surely, virtue is not the ruin of those who possess her, nor is justice destructive of a state ; and therefore this law of confiscation clearly cannot be just. If it were, all the acts of a tyrant must of necessity be just ; for he only coerces other men by superior power, just as the multitude coerce the rich. But is it just then that the few and the wealthy should be the rulers? And what if they, in like manner, rob and plunder the people, is this just? If so, the other case [i.e. the case of the majority plundering the minority] will likewise be just. But there can be no doubt that all these things are wrong and unjust. Then ought the good to rule and have supreme power? But in that case everybody else, being excluded from power, will be dishonored. For the offices of a state are posts of honor; and if one set of men always hold them, the rest must be deprived of them. Then will it be well that the one best man should rule? Nay, that is still more oligarchical, for the number of those who are dishonored is thereby increased. Some one may say that it is bad for a man, subject as he is to all the accidents of human passion, to have the supreme power, rather than the law. But what if the law itself be democratical or oligarchical, how will that help us out of our difficulties? Not at all; the same consequences will follow. | \ Most of these questions may be reserved for another occasion. The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is capable of a satisfactory explanation, and, though 66 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them, they understand the whole. There is a similar combination of qualities in good men, who differ from any individual of the many, as the beautiful are said to differ from those who are not beautiful, and works of art from realities, because in them the scattered elements are combined, although, if taken separately, the eye of one person or some^other feature in another person would be fairer than in the picture! j Whether this principle can apply to every democ- racy, and to a!B bodies of men, is not clear. Or rather, by heaven, in some cases it is impossible of application ; for the argument would equally hold about brutes; and wherein, it will be asked, do some men differ from brutes? But there may be bodies of men about whom our statement is nevertheless true. And if so, the difficulty which has been already raised, and also another which is akin to it viz. what power should be assigned to the mass of freemen and citizens, who are not rich and have no personal merit are both solved. There is still a danger in allowing them to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates to account, but they do not allow them to hold office singly. -When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the state (just as impure food when mixed with what is pure sometimes makes the entire mass more wholesome than a small quantity of the pure would be), but each individual, left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment. On the other hand, the popular form of government involves certain difficulties. In the first place, it might be objected that he who can judge of the healing of a sick man would be one ARISTOTLE 67 who could himself heal his disease, and make him whole that is, in other words, the physician; and so in all professions and arts. As, then, the physician ought to be called to account by physicians, so ought men in general to be called to account by their peers. But physicians are of three kinds: there is the apothecary, and there is the physician of the higher class, and thirdly the intelligent man who has studied the art: in all arts there is such a class; and we attribute the power of judging to them quite as much as to professors of the art. Now, does not the same principle apply to elections? For a right election can only be made by those who have knowledge; a geometrician, for example, will choose rightly in matters of geometry, or a pilot in matters of steering; and, even if there be some occupations and arts witii which private persons are familiar, they certainly cannot judge better than those who know. So that, according to this argument, r.either the elec- tion of magistrates, nor the calling of them to account, should be intrusted to the many. Yet possibly these objections are to a great extent met by our old answer, that if the people are not utter- ly degraded, although individually they may be wors* judges than those who have special knowledge as a body they a*e as good or better. Moreover, there are some artists whose works are judged of solely, or in the best manner, not by themselves, tut by those who do not possess the art; for example, the knowledge of the house is not limited to the builder only; the user, or, in o-,her words, the master, of the house will even be a better judge thai the buil- der, just as the pilot will judge better of a rudder thai the car- penter, and the guest will judge better of a feast than the cook. This difficulty seems now to be sufficiently answeed, but there is another akin to it. That inferior persons shotld have authority in greater matters than the good would appear to be a strange thing, yet the election and calling to account of themagis- trates is the greatest of all. And these, as I was sayirg, are functions which in some states are assigned to the people, br the assembly is supreme in all such matters. Yet persons of an; age, and having but a small property qualification, sit in the assenbly and deliberate and judge, although for the great officers of sate, such as controllers and generals, a high qualification is requred. This difficulty may be solved in the same manner as the precedng, and the present practice of democracies may be really defensille. For the power does not reside in the dicast, or senator, or ecclesiat, but in the court and the senate, and the assembly, of which inci- vidual senators, or ecclesiasts, or dicasts, are only parts or member^ and for this reason the many may claim to have a higher authority 68 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY than the few; for the people, and the senate, and the courts consist of many persons, and their property collectively is greater than the property of one or of a few individuals holding great offices. But enough of this. p The discussion of the first question shows nothing so clearly as that laws, when good, should be supreme; and that the magis- trate or magistrates should regulate those matters only on which the laws are unable to speak with precision owing to the difficulty of any general principle embracing all particulars. But what are good laws has not yet been clearly explained; the old difficulty remains. The goodness or badness, justice or injustice, of laws is of necessity relative to the constitutions of states. But if so, true forms of government will of necessity have just laws, and perverted forms of government will have unjust laws. In all sciences and arts the end is a good, and especially and above all in the highest of all this is the political science of which the good is justice, in other words, the common interest. All men think justice to be a sort of equality; and to a certain extent they agree ill the philosophical distinctions which have been laid down by us about Ethics. For they admit that justice is a thing having relation to persons, and that equals ought to have equality. But there s/ill remains a question; equality or inequality of what? here is a d/mculty which the political philosopher has to resolve. For very likely some persons will say that offices of state ought to be uneqt^lly distributed according to superior excellence, in whatever tespect, of the citizen, although there is no other differ- ence betyeen him and the rest of the community; for that those who differ in any one respect have different rights and claims. But, surely, f this is true, the complexion or height of a man, or any other advantage, will be a reason for his obtaining a greater share ical rights. The error here lies upon the surface, and may ;trated from the other arts and sciences. When a number -players are equal in their art, there is no reason why those who are better born should have better flutes given to then/; for they will not play any better on the flute, and the su- (r instrument should be reserved for him who is the superior artiit. If what I am saying is still obscure, it will be made clearer as he proceed. For if there were a superior flute-player who was fa/inferior in birth and beauty, although either of these may be a iter good than the art of flute-playing, and persons gifted with tj(ese qualities may excel the flute-player in a greater ratio than excels them in his art, still he ought to have the best flutes ;iven to him, unless the advantages of wealth and birth contribute ARISTOTLE 69 to excellence in flute-playing, which they do not. Moreover upon this principle any good may be compared with any other. For if a given height, then height in general may be measured either against height or against freedom. Thus if A excels in height more than B in virtue, and height in general is more excellent than vir- tue, all things will be commensurable [which is absurd]; for if a certain magnitude is greater than some other, it is clear that some other will be equal. But since no such comparison can be made, it is evident that there is good reason why in politics men do not ground their claim to office on every sort of inequality any more than in the arts. For if some be slow, and others swift, that is no reason why the one should have little and the others much; it is in gymnastic contests that such excellence is rewarded. Where- as the rival claims of candidates for office can only be based on the possession of elements which enter into the composition of a state. And therefore the noble, or free-born, or rich, may with good reason claim office; for holders of offices must be free- men and tax-payers : a state can be no more composed entirely of poor men than entirely of slaves. But if wealth and freedom are necessary elements, justice and valor are equally sc ; for without the former a state cannot exist at all, without the latter not well. If the existence of the state is alone to be considered, then it would seem that all, or some at least, of these claims are just; but, if we take into account a good life, as I have already said, education and virtue have superior claims. As, however, those who are equal in one thing ought not to be equal in all, nor those who are unequal in one thing to be unequal in all, it is certain that all forms of government which rest on either of these principles are perversions. All men have a claim in a certain sense, as I have already admitted, but they have not an absolute claim. The rich claim because they have a greater share in the land, and land is the common element of the state; also they are generally more trustworthy in contracts. The free claim under the same title as the noble; for they are nearly akin. And the noble are citizens in a truer sense than the ignoble, since good birth is always valued in a man's own home and country. Another reason is, that those who are sprung from better ancestors are likely to be better men, for nobility is excellence of race. Virtue, too, may be truly said to have a claim, for justice has been acknowledged by us to be a so?ial virtue, and it implies all others. Again, the many may urge their claim against the few; for, when taken collectively, and compared with the few, they are stronger and richer and better. But, what if the good, the rich, the noble and the other classes who make up 70 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a state, are all living together in the same city, will there, or will there not, be any doubt who shall rule? No doubt at all in de- termining who ought to rule in each of the above-mentioned forms of government. For states are characterized by differences in their governing bodies one of them has a government of the rich, another of the virtuous, and so on. But a difficulty arises when all these elements coexist. How are we to decide? Suppose the virtuous to be very few in number: may we consider their numbers in relation to their duties, and ask whether they are enough to administer the state, or must they be so many as will make up a state? Objections may be urged against all the aspir- ants to political power. For those who found their claims on wealth or family have no basis of justice; on this principle, if any one person were richer than all the rest, it is clear that he ought to be the ruler of them. In like manner he who is very distinguished by his birth ought to have the superiority over all those who claim on the ground that they are freeborn. In an aristocracy, or government of the best, a like difficulty occurs about virtue; for if one citizen be better than the other members of the government, however good they may be, he too, upon the same principle of justice, should rule over them. And if the people are to be supreme because they are stronger than the few, then if one man, or more than one, but not a majority, is stronger than the many, they ought to rule, and not the many. All these considerations appear to show that none of the prin- ciples on which men claim to rule, and hold all other men in sub- jection to them, are strictly right. To those who claim to be masters of the state on the ground of their virtue or their wealth, the many might fairly answer that they themselves are often better and richer than the few I do not say individually, but collect- ively. And another ingenious objection which is sometimes put forward may be met in a similar manner. Some persons doubt whether the legislator who desires to make the justest laws ought to legislate with a view to the good of the higher classes or of the many, when the case which we have mentioned occurs [i.e. when all the elements coexist]. Now what is just or right is to be inter- preted in the sense of " what is equal"; and that which is right in the iense of being equal is to be considered with reference to the advantage of the state, and the common good of the citizens. An/1 a citizen is one who shares in governing and being governed. HJ6 differs under different forms of government, but in the best s^ate he is one who is able and willing to be governed and to govern yith a view to the life of virtue. ARISTOTLE 71 If, however, there be some one person, or more than one, al- though not enough to make up the full complement of a state, whose virtue is so preeminent that the virtues or the political power of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of a state ; for justice will not be done to the superior, if he is reckoned only as the equal of those who are so far inferior to him in virtue and in political power. Such a one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in power; and that for men of pre- eminent virtue there is no law they are themselves a law. Any one would be ridiculous who attended to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, jwxhe fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares ["where are your claws? "], when in the coun- cil of the, beasts the latter began haranguing and claiming equality for all. \ *And for this reason democratic states have instituted ostracism; equality is above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracise and banish from the city for a time those who seem to predominate too much through their wealth, or the number of their friends, or through any other political influence. 4. Forms of State x Having determined these questions, we have next to consider whether there is only one form of government or many, and if many, what they are, and how many, and what are the differences between them. A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a state, especially of the highest of all. The government is everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in fact the govern- ment. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say that these two forms of government are different: and so in other cases. First, let us consider what is the purpose of a state, and how many forms of government there are by which human society is regulated. We have already said, in the former part of this trea- tise, when drawing a distinction between household-management and the rule of a master, that man is by nature a political animal. And therefore, men, even when they do not require one another's help, desire to live together all the same, and are in fact brought 1 III, vi-yiii, xiv-xv (in part), xvi-xvii; IV, i, vii-viii, ix (in part), xi, xii (in part); VI, ii-iii. Jowett, pp. 77-81, 95, 97-100, 101-105, 107-109, 120-124, 126-131, 189-193. 72 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY together by their common interests in proportion as they severally attain to any measure of well-being. This is certainly the chief end, both of individuals and of states. And also for the sake of mere life (in which there is possibly some noble element) mankind meet together and maintain the political community, so long as the evils of existence do not greatly overbalance the good. And we all see that men cling to life even in the midst of misfortune, seeming to find in it a natural sweetness and happiness. There is no difficulty in distinguishing the various kinds of authority; they have been often defined already in popular works. The rule of a master, although the slave by nature and the master by nature have in reality the same interests, is nevertheless exer- cised primarily with a view to the interest of the master, but accidentally considers the slave, since, if the slave perish, the rule of the master perishes with him. On the other hand, the govern- ment of a wife and children and of a household, which we have called household-management, is exercised in the first instance for the good of the governed or for the common good of both parties, but essentially for the good of the governed, as we see to be the case in medicine, gymnastics, and the arts in general, which are only accidentally concerned with the good of the artists them- selves. (For there is no reason why the trainer may not sometimes practise gymnastics, and the pilot is always one of the crew) . The trainer or the pilot considers the good of those committed to his care. But, when he is one of the persons taken care of, he acci- dentally participates in the advantage, for the pilot is also a sailor, and the trainer becomes one of those in training. And so in poli- tics: when the state is framed upon the principle of equality and likeness, the citizens think that they ought to hold office by turns. In the order of nature every one would take his turn of service; and then again, somebody else would look after his interest, just as he, while in office, had looked after theirs. But nowadays, for the sake of the advantage which is to be gained from the public revenues and from office, men want to be always in office. One might imagine that the rulers, being sickly, were only kept in health while they continued in office; in that case we may be sure that they would be hunting after places. The conclusion is evident: that governments, which have a regard to the common interest, are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen. Having determined these points, we have next to consider how ARISTOTLE 73 many forms of government there are, and what they are; and in the first place what are the true forms, for when they are deter- mined the perversions of them will at once be apparent. The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but gov- ernments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. For citizens, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in the ad- vantages of a state. Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristoc- racy, and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or~Decause they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name, a constitution [iroAiTeux]. And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue; but of virtue there are many kinds: and as the number increases it becomes more difficult for them to attain perfection in every kind, though they may in military virtue, for this is found in the masses. Hence, in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens. Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows : of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. But there are difficulties about these forms of government, and it will therefore be necessary to state a little more at length the nature of each of them. For he who would make a philosophical study of the various sciences, and does not regard practice only, ought not to overlook or omit anything, but to set forth the truth in every particular. Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers. And here arises the first of our difficul- ties, and it relates to the definition just given. For democracy is said to be the government of the many. But what if the many 74 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY are men of property and have the power in their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be the government of the few; but what if the poor are fewer than the rich, and have the power in their hands because they are stronger? In these cases the dis- tinction which we have drawn between these different forms of government would no longer hold good. Suppose, once more, that we add wealth to the few and poverty to the many, and name the governments accordingly an oligarchy is said to be that in which the few and the wealthy, and a democ- racy that in which the many and the poor are the rulers there will still be a difficulty. For, if the only forms of government are the ones already mentioned, how shall we describe those other governments also just mentioned by us, in which the rich are the more numerous and the poor are the fewer, and both govern in their respective states? The argument seems to show that, whether in oligarchies or in democracies, the number of the governing body, whether the greater number, as in a democracy, or the smaller number, as in an oligarchy, is an accident due to the fact that the rich every- where are few, and the poor numerous. But if so, there is a mis- apprehension of the causes of the difference between them. For the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by /reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy^ and where the / poor rule, that is a democracy. ] But as a fact the rich are few % and the poor many: for few are well-to-do, whereas freedom is enjoyed by all, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the oligarchical and democratical parties respectively claim power in the state. Let us see whether in order to be well governed a state or country should be under the rule of a king or under some other form of government; and whether monarchy, although good for some, may not be bad for others. But first we must determine whether there is one species of royalty or many. It is easy to see that there are many, and that the manner of government is not the same in all of them. These, then, are the four kinds of royalty. First the monarchy of the heroic ages; this was exercised over voluntary subjects, but limited to certain functions; the king was a general and a judge, and had the control of religion. The second is that of the bar- barians, which is an hereditary despotic government in accordance ARISTOTLE 75 with law. A third is the power of the so-called ^Esymnete or Dictator; this is an elective tyranny. The fourth is the Lace- daemonian, which is in fact a generalship, hereditary and perpetual. These four forms differ from one another in the manner which I have described. There is a fifth form of kingly rule in which one has the disposal of all, just as each tribe or each state has the disposal of the public property ; this form corresponds to the control of a household. For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations. Of these forms we need only consider two, the Lacedaemonian and the absolute royalty; for most of the others lie in a region between them, having less power than the last, and more than the first. Thus the inquiry is reduced to two points: first, is it ad- vantageous to the state that there should be a perpetual general, and if so, should the office be confined to one family, or open to the citizens in turn? Secondly, is it well that a single man should have the supreme power in all things? The first question falls under the head of laws rather than of constitutions ; for perpetual generalship might equally exist under any form of government, so that this matter may be dismissed for the present. The other kind of royalty is a sort of constitution ; this we have now to con- sider, and briefly to run over the difficulties involved in it. We will begin by inquiring whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws. The advocates of royalty maintain that the laws speak only in general terms, and cannot provide for circumstances; and that for any science to abide by written rules is absurd. Even in Egypt the physician is allowed to alter his treatment after the fourth day, but if sooner, he takes the risk. Hence it is argued that a government acting according to written laws is plainly not the best. Yet surely the ruler cannot dispense with the general principle which exists in law; and he is a better ruler who is free from passion than he who is passionate. Whereas the law is passionless, passion must ever sway the heart of man. Yes, some one will answer, but then on the other hand an indi- vidual will be better able to advise in particular cases. [To whom we in turn make reply:] A king must legislate, and laws must be passed, but these laws will have no authority when they miss the mark, though in all other cases retaining their authority. When the law cannot determine a point at all, or not well, should the one 76 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY best man or should all decide? According to our present practice assemblies meet, sit in judgment, deliberate and decide, and their judgments all relate to individual cases. Now any member of the assembly, taken separately, is certainly inferior to the wise man. But the state is made up of many individuals. And as a feast to which all the guests contribute is better than a banquet furnished by a single man, so a multitude is a better judge of many things than any individual. Again, the many are more incorruptible than the few; they are like the greater quantity of water which is less easily corrupted than a little. The individual is liable to be overcome by anger or by some other passion, and then his judgment is necessarily perverted; but it is hardly to be supposed that a great number of persons would all get into a passion and go wrong at the same moment. Let us assume that they are freemen, never acting in violation of the law, but filling up the gaps which the law is obliged to leave. Or, if such virtue is scarcely attainable by the multitude, we need only suppose that the majority are good men and good citizens, and ask which will be the more incorruptible, the one good ruler, or the many who are all good? Will not the many? But, you will say, there may be parties among them, whereas the one man is not divided against himself. To which we may answer that their character is as good as his. If we call the rule of many men, who are all of them good, aristocracy, and the rule of one man royalty, then aristocracy will be better for states than royalty, whether the government is supported by force or not, provided only that a number of men equal in virtue can be found. At this place in the discussion naturally follows the inquiry respecting the king who acts solely according to his own will; he has now to be considered. The so-called limited monarchy, or kingship according to law, as I have already remarked, is not a distinct form of government, for under all governments, as, for example, in a democracy or aristocracy, there may be a general holding office for life, and one person is often made supreme over the administration of a state. A magistracy of this kind exists at Epidamnus, and also at Opus, but in the latter city has a more limited power. Now, absolute monarchy, or the arbitrary rule of a sovereign over all the citizens, in a city which consists of equals, is thought by some to be quite contrary to nature; it is argued that those who are by nature equals must have the same natural right and worth, and that for unequals to have ARISTOTLE 77 an equal share, or for equals to have an unequal share, in the offices of state, is as bad as for different bodily constitutions to have the same food and clothing or the same different. Wherefore it is thought to be just that among equals every one be ruled as well as rule, and that all should have their turn. We thus arrive at law; for an order of succession implies law. ^And the rule of the law is preferable to that of any individual On the same- principle, even if it be better for certain individuals to govern, they should be made only guardians and ministers of the law. For magistrates there must be, this is admitted; but then men say that to give authority to any one man when all are equal is unjust. There may indeed be cases which the law seems unable to deter- mine, but in such cases can a man? Nay, it will be replied, the law trains officers for this express purpose, and appoints them to determine matters which are left undecided by it to the best of their judgment. Further it permits them to make any amendment of the existing laws which experience suggests. [But still they are only the ministers of the law.] He who bids the law rule, may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. We are told that a patient should call in a physician; he will not get better if he is doctored out of a book. But the parallel of the arts is clearly not in point; for the physician does nothing contrary to reason from motives of friendship; he only cures a patient and takes a fee; whereas magistrates do many things from spite and partiality. And, indeed, if a man suspected the physician of being in league with his enemies to destroy him for a bribe, he would rather have recourse to the book. Even physicians when they are sick, call in other physicians, and training-masters when they are in training, other training-masters, as if they could not judge truly about their own case and might be influenced by their feelings. Hence it is evident that in seeking for justice men seek for the mean or neutral, and the law is the mean. Again, customary laws have more weight, and relate to more important matters, than written laws, and a man may be a safer ruler than the written law, but not safer than the customary law. Again, it is by no means easy for one man to superintend many things; he will have to appoint a number of subordinates, and what difference does it make whether these subordinates always existed or were appointed by him because he needed them? If, as I said before, the good man has a right to rule because he is 78 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY better, then two good men are better than one: this is the old say- ing, two going together; and the prayer of Agamemnon, would that I had ten such counsellors! And at this day there are some magistrates, for example judges, who have authority to decide matters which the law is unable to determine, since no one doubts that the law would command and decide in the best manner whatever it could. But some things can, and other things cannot, be comprehended under the law, and this is the origin of the vexed question whether the best law or the best man should rule. For matters of detail about which men deliberate cannot be included in legislation. Nor does any one deny that the decision of such matters must be left to man, but it is argued that there should be many judges, and not one only. For every ruler who has been trained by the law judges well; and it would surely seem strange that a person should see better with two eyes, or hear better with two ears, or act better with two hands or feet, than many with many; indeed, it is already the practice of kings to make to themselves many eyes and ears and hands and feet. For they make colleagues of those who are the friends of themselves and their governments. They must be friends of the monarch and of his government ; if not his friends, they will not do what he wants; but friendship implies likeness and equality; and, therefore, if he thinks that friends ought to rule, he must think that those who are equal to himself and like himself ought to rule. These are the principal controversies relating to monarchy. But may not all this be true in some cases and not in others? for there is a natural justice and expediency in the relation of a master to his servants, or, again, of a king to his subjects, as also, in the relation of free citizens to one another; whereas there is no such justice or expediency in a tyranny, or in any other perverted form of government, which comes into being contrary to nature. Now, from what has been said, it is manifest that, where men are alike and equal, it is neither expedient nor just that one man should be lord of all, whether there are laws, or whether there are no laws, but he himself is in the place of law. Neither should a good man be lord over good men, or a bad man over bad; nor, even if he excels in virtue, should he have a right to rule, unless in a particu- lar case, which I have already mentioned, and to which I will once more recur. But first of all, I must determine what natures ARISTOTLE 79 are suited for royalties, and what for an aristocracy, and what for a constitutional government. A people who are by nature capable of producing a race superior in virtue and political talent are fitted for kingly government ; and a people submitting to be ruled as freemen by men whose virtue renders them capable of political command are adapted for an aristocracy: while the people who are suited for constitutional freedom, are those among whom there naturally exists a warlike multitude able to rule and to obey in turn by a law which gives office to the well-to-do according to their desert. But when a whole family, or some individual, happens to be so preeminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should be the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all states, whether aristocratical, or oligarchi- cal, or again democratical, are accustomed to put forward; (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although not the same excellence), but accords with the principle already laid down. For it would not be right to kill, or ostracise, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre- eminence is in the relation of a whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. These are the conclusions at which we arrive respecting royalty and its various forms, and this is the answer to the question, whether it is or is not advantageous to states, and to whom, and how. In all arts and sciences which embrace the whole of any subject, and are not restricted to a part only, it is the province of a single art or science to consider all that appertains to a single subject. For example, the art of gymnastic considers not only the suitable- ness of different modes of training to different bodies (2), but what sort is absolutely the best (i); (for the absolutely best must suit that which is by nature best and best furnished with the means of life), and also what common form of training is adapted to the great majority of men (4). And if a man does not desire the best habit of body or the greatest skill in gymnastics, which might be attained by him, still the trainer or the teacher of gymnastic should be able to impart any lower degree of either (3). The same principle equally holds in medicine and ship-building, and the making of clothes, and in the arts generally. 80 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Hence it is obvious that government, too, is the subject of a single science, which has to consider what kind of government would be best and most in accordance with our aspirations, if there were no external impediment, and also what kind of government is adapted to particular states. For the best is often unattainable, and therefore the true legislator and statesman ought to be ac- quainted, not only with (i) that which is best in the abstract, but also with (2) that which is best relatively to circumstances. We should be able further to say how a state may be constituted under any given conditions (3); both how it is originally formed and, when formed, how it may be longest preserved; the supposed state being so far from the very best that it is unprovided even with the conditions necessary for the very best ; neither is it the best under the circumstances, but of an inferior type. He ought, moreover, to know (4) the form of government which is best suited to states in general; for political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical. We should con- sider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable by all. There are some who would have none but the most perfect; for this many natural advantages are required. Others, again, speak of a more attain- able form, and, although they reject the constitution under which they are living, they extol some one in particular, for example the Lacedaemonian. Any change of government which has to be introduced should be one which men will be both willing and able to adopt, since there is quite as much trouble in the reforma- tion of an old constitution as in the establishment of a new one, just as to unlearn is as hard as to learn. And therefore, in addi- tion to the qualifications of the statesman already mentioned, he should be able to find remedies for the defects of existing consti- tutions. This he cannot do unless he knows how many forms of a government there are. It is often supposed that there is only one kind of democracy and one of oligarchy. But this is a mis- take; and, in order to avoid such mistakes, we must ascertain what differences there are in the constitutions of states, and in how many ways they are combined. The same political insight will enable a man to know which laws are the best, and which are suited to dif- ferent constitutions; for the laws are, and ought to be, relative to the constitution, and not the constitution to the laws. A consti- tution is the organization of offices in a state, and determines what is to be the governing body, and what is the end of each com- munity. But laws are not to be confounded with the principles of the constitution: they are the rules according to which the magis- ARISTOTLE 81 trates should administer the state, and proceed against offenders. So that we must know the number and varieties of the several forms of government, if only with a view to making laws. For the same laws cannot be equally suited to all oligarchies and to all democracies, and there is certainly more than one form both of democracy and of oligarchy. There are still two forms besides democracy and oligarchy; one of them is universally recognized and included among the four principal forms of government which are said to be (i) monarchy, (2) oligarchy, (3) democracy, and (4) the so-called aristocracy or government of the best. But there is also a fifth, which retains the generic name of polity or constitutional government; this is not common, and therefore has not been noticed by writers who attempt to enumerate the different kinds of government; like Plato in his books about the state, they recognize four only. The term "aristocracy" is rightly applied to the form of government which is described in the first part of our treatise; for that only can be rightly called aristocracy [the government of the best] which is a government formed of the best men absolutely, and not merely of men who are good when tried by any given standard. In the perfect state the good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen; whereas in other states the good citizen is only good relatively to his own form of government. But there are some states differing from oligarchies and also differing from the so- called polity or constitutional government; these are termed aristocracies, and in them magistrates are certainly chosen, both according to their wealth and according to their merit. Such a form of government is not the same with the two just now men- tioned, and is termed an aristocracy. For indeed in states which do not make virtue the aim of the community, men of merit and reputation for virtue may be found. And so where a government has regard to wealth, virtue, and numbers, as at Carthage, that is aristocracy; and also where it has regard only to two out of the three, as at Lacedaemon, to virtue and numbers, and the two principles of democracy and virtue temper each other. There are these two forms of aristocracy in addition to the first and per- fect state, and there is a third form, viz. the polities which incline towards oligarchy. I have yet to speak of the go-called polity and of tyranny. I put them in this order, not because a polity or constitutional government is to be regarded as a perversion any more than the above-mentioned aristocracies. The truth is, that they all fall 82 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY short of the most perfect form of government, and so they are reckoned among perversions, and other forms (sc. the really perverted forms) are perversions of these, as I said before. Last of all I will speak of tyranny, which I place last in the series because I am inquiring into the constitutions of states, and this is the very reverse of a constitution. Having explained why I have adopted this order, I will proceed to consider constitutional government; of which the nature will be clearer now that oligarchy and democracy have been defined. For polity or constitutional government may be described general- ly as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy; but the term is usually applied to those forms of government which incline towards democracy, and the term aristocracy to those which incline towards oligarchy, because birth and education are commonly the accom- paniments of wealth. Moreover, the rich already possess the external advantages the want of which is a temptation to crime, and hence they are called noblemen and gentlemen. And in- asmuch as aristocracy seeks to give predominance to the best of the citizens, people say also of oligarchies that they are composed of noblemen and gentlemen. Now it appears to be an impossible thing that the state which is governed by the best citizens should be ill-governed, and equally impossible that the state which is ill- governed should be governed by the best. But we must remem- ber that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government. For there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws, the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey; they may obey bad laws as well as good. And there may be a further subdivision; they may obey either the best laws which are attainable to them, or the best absolutely. The distribution of offices according to merit is a special charac- teristic of aristocracy, for the principle of an aristocracy is virtue, as wealth is of an oligarchy, and freedom of a democracy. In all of them there of course exists the right of the majority, and what- ever seems good to the majority of those who share in the govern- ment has authority. Generally, however, a state of this kind is- called a constitutional government, for the fusion goes no further than the attempt to unite the freedom of the poor and the wealth of the rich, who commonly take the place of the noble. And as there are three grounds on which men claim an equal share in the government, freedom, wealth, and virtue (for the fourth or good birth is the result of the two last> being only ancient wealth and virtue), it is clear that the admixture of the two elements, ARISTOTLE 83 that is to say, of the rich and poor, is to be called a polity or constitutional government ; and the union of the three is to be called aristocracy or the government of the best, and more than any other form of government, except the true and ideal, has a right to this name. Thus far I have described the different forms of states which exist besides monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy, and what they are, and in what aristocracies differ from one another, and polities from aristocracies that the two latter are not very unlike is obvious. Next we have to consider how by the side of oligarchy and de- mocracy the so-called polity or constitutional government springs up, and how it should be organized. The nature of it will be at once understood from a comparison of oligarchy and democracy; we must ascertain their different characteristics, and taking a portion from each, put the two together, like the parts of an in- denture. Now there are three modes in which fusions of govern- ment may be effected. The nature of the fusion will be made intelligible by an example of the manner in which different govern- ments legislate, say concerning the administration of justice. In oligarchies they impose a fine on the rich if they do not serve as judges, and to the poor they give no pay; but in democracies they give pay to the poor and do not fine the rich. Now (i) the union of these two modes is a common or middle term between them, and is therefore characteristic of a constitutional government, for it is a combination of both. This is one mode of uniting the two ele- ments. Or (2) a mean may be taken between the enactments of the two: thus democracies require no property qualification, or only a small one, from members of the assembly, oligarchies a high one; here neither of these is the common term, but a mean between them. (3) There is a third mode, in which something is borrowed from the oligarchical and something from the demo- cratical principle. For example, the appointment of magistrates by lot is democratical, and the election of them oligarchical; democratical again when there is no property qualification, oli- garchical when there is. In the aristocratical or constitutional state, one element will be taken from each from oligarchy the mode of electing to offices, from democracy the disregard of qualification. Such are the various modes of combination. We have now to inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of virtue which is above ordinary persons, nor an edu- ' 84 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY cation which is exceptionally favored by nature and circum- stances, nor yet an ideal state which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which states in general can attain. As to those aristocracies, as they are called, of which we were just now speaking, they either lie beyond the possibilities of the greater number of states, or they approximate to the so-called constitu- tional government, and therefore need no separate discussion. And in fact the conclusion at which we arrive respecting all these forms rests upon the same grounds. For if it has been truly said in the Ethics that the happy life is the life according to un- impeded virtue, and that virtue is a mean, then the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by every one, must be the best. And the same principles of virtue and vice are character- istic of cities and of constitutions; for the constitution is in a figure the life of the city. Now in all states there are three elements; one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best, and therefore it will clearly be best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most ready to listen to reason. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth or wealth, or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to follow reason. Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the others into rogues and petty rascals. And two sorts of offences correspond to them, the one committed from violence, the other from roguery. The petty rogues are disinclined to hold office, whether military or civil, and their aversion to these two duties is as great an injury to the state as their tendency to crime. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home: for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school the habit of obedience. On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically; the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship tends to friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to ARISTOTLE 85 be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best governed; they are, as we say, the natural elements of a state. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors' goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich; and as they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Wisely then did Phocylides pray, Many things are best in the mean ; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city. Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered, in which the middle class is large, and larger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant. Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme, either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of a middle and nearly equal condition. I will explain the reason of this hereafter, when I speak of the revolutions of states. The mean condition of states is clearly best, for no other is free from faction; and where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be factions and dis- sensions. For a similar reason large states are less liable to faction than small ones, because in them the middle class is large; where- as in small states it is easy to divide all the citizens into two classes who are either rich or poor, and to leave nothing in the middle. And democracies are safer and more permanent than oligarchies, because they have a middle class which is more numer- ous and has a greater share in the government; for when there is no middle class, and the poor greatly exceed in number, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end. A proof of the su- periority of the middle class is that the best legislators have been of a middle condition; for example, Solon, as his own verses testify; and Lycurgus, for he was not a king; and Charondas, and almost all legislators. These considerations will help us to understand why most governments are either democratical or oligarchical. The reason is that the middle class is seldom numerous in them, and which- 86 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ever party, whether the rich or the common people, transgresses the mean and predominates, draws the government to itself, and thus arises either oligarchy or democracy. There is another rea- son the poor and the rich quarrel with one another, and which- ever side gets the better, instead of establishing a just or popular government, regards political supremacy as the prize of victory, and the one party sets up a democracy and the other an oligarchy. Both the parties which had the supremacy in Hellas looked only to the interest of their own form of government, and established in states, the one, democracies, and the other, oligarchies; they thought of their own advantage, of the public not at all. For these reasons the middle form of government has rarely, if ever, existed, and among a very few only. One man alone of all who ever ruled in Hellas was induced to give this middle constitution to states. But it has now become a habit among the citizens of states, not even to care about equality; all men are seeking for dominion, or, if conquered, are willing to submit. What then is the best form of government, and what makes it the best is evident; and of other states, since we say that there are many kinds of democracy and many of oligarchy, it is not difficult to see which has the first and which the second or any other place in the order of excellence, now that we have deter- mined which is the best. For that which is nearest to the best must of necessity be better, and that which is furthest from it worse, if we are judging absolutely and not relatively to given conditions : I say "relatively to given conditions," since a particular govern- ment may be preferable for some, but another form may be better for others. We have now to consider what and what kind of government is suitable to what and what kind of men. I may begin by assum- ing, as a general principle common to all governments, that the portion of the state which desires permanence ought to be stronger than that which desires the reverse. Now every city is composed of quality and quantity. By quality I mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity, superiority of numbers. Quality may exist in one of the classes which make up the state, and quantity in the other. For example, the meanly-born may be more in number than the well-born, or the poor than the rich, yet they may not so much exceed in quantity as they fall short in quality; and therefore there must be a comparison of quantity and quality. Where the number of the poor is more than proportioned to the wealth of the rich, there will naturally be a democracy, varying in form with the sort of people who compose ARISTOTLE 87 it in each case. If, for example, the husbandmen exceed in num- ber, the first form of democracy will then arise ; if the artisans and laboring class, the last; and so with the intermediate forms. But where the rich and the notables exceed in quality more than they fall short in quantity, there oligarchy arises, similarly assuming various forms according to the kind of superiority possessed by the oligarchs. The legislator should always include the middle class in his government; if he makes his laws oligarchical, to the middle class let him look; if he makes them democratical, he should equally by his laws try to attach this class to the state. There only can the government ever be stable where the middle class exceeds one or both of the others, and in that case there will be no fear that the rich will unite with the poor against the rulers. For neither of them will ever be willing to serve the other, and if they look for some form of government more suitable to both, they will find none better than this, for the rich and the poor will never consent to rule in turn, because they mistrust one another. The arbiter is always the one trusted, and he who is in the middle is an arbiter. The more perfect the admixture of the political elements, the more lasting will be the state. Many even of those who desire to form aristocratical governments make a mistake, not only in giving too much power to the rich, but in attempting to over- reach the people. There comes a time when out of a false good there arises a true evil, since the encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the state than those of the people. The basis of a democratic state is liberty; which, according to the common opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a state; this they affirm to be the great end of every democracy. One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn,.and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportion- ate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, and, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, 88 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it coincides with the freedom based upon equality [which was the first characteristic]. Such being our foundation and such the nature of democracy, its characteristics are as follows: the election of officers by all out of all; and that all should rule over each, and each in his turn over all; that the appointment to all offices, or to all but those which require experience and skill, should be made by lot; that no property qualification should be required for offices, or only a very low one; that no one should hold the same office twice, or not often, except in the case of military offices; that the tenure of all offices, or of as many as possible, should be brief; that all men should sit in judgment, or that judges selected out of all should judge in all matters, or in most, or in the greatest and most important, such as the scrutiny of accounts, the constitution, and private contracts; that the assembly should be supreme over all causes, or at any rate over the most important, and the mag- istrates over none or only over a very few. Of all institutions, a council is the most democratic when there is not the means of paying all the citizens, but when they are paid even this is robbed of its power; for the people then draw all cases to themselves, as I said in the previous discussion. The next characteristic of democracy is payment for services; assembly, law-courts, magis- trates, everybody receives pay, when it is to be had; or when it is not to be had for all, then it is given to the law-courts and to the stated assemblies, to the council and to the magistrates, or at least to any of them who are compelled to have their meals together. And whereas oligarchy is characterized by birth, wealth, and education, the notes of democracy appear to be the opposite of these, low birth, poverty, mean employment. Another note is that no magistracy is perpetual, but if any such have survived some ancient change in the constitution it should be stripped of its power, and the holders should be elected by lot and no longer by vote. These are points common to all democracies; but democ- racy and demos in their truest form are based upon the recognized principle of democratic justice, that all should count equally; for equality implies that the rich should have no more share in the government than the poor, and should not be the only rulers, but that all should rule equally according to their numbers. And in this way men think that they will secure equality and freedom in their state. Next comes the question, how is this equality to be obtained? Is the qualification to be so distributed that five hundred rich shall be equal to a thousand poor? and shall we give the thousand ARISTOTLE 89 a power equal to that of the five hundred? or, if this is not to be the mode, ought we, still retaining the same ratio, to take equal numbers from each and give them the control of the elections and of the courts? Which, according to the democratical notion, is the juster form of the constitution, this or one based on numbers only? Democrats say that justice is that to which the majority agree, oligarchs that to which the wealthier class; in their opinion the decision should be given according to the amount of property. In both principles there is some inequality and injustice. For if justice is the will of the few, any one person who has more wealth than all the rest of his class put together, ought, upon the oligarchi- cal principle, to have the sole power but this would be tyranny; or if justice is the will of the majority, as I was before saying, they will unjustly confiscate the property of the wealthy minority. To find a principle of equality in which they both agree we must inquire into their respective ideas of justice. Now they agree in saying that whatever is decided by the majority of the citizens is to be deemed law. Granted: but not without some reserve ; since there are two classes out of which a state is composed, the poor and the rich, that is to be deemed law, on which both or the greater part of both agree ; and if they disagree, that which is approved by the greater number, and by those who have the high qualification. For example, suppose that there are ten rich and twenty poor, and some measure is ap- proved by six of the rich and is disapproved by fifteen of the poor, and the remaining four of the rich join with the part of the poor, and the remaining five of the poor with that of the rich; in such a case the will of those whose qualifications, when both sides are added up, are the greatest, should prevail. If they turn out to be equal, there is no greater difficulty than at present, when, if the assembly or the courts are divided, recourse is had to the lot, or to some similar expedient. But, although it may be difficult in theory to know what is just and equal, the practical difficulty of inducing those to forbear who can, if they like, encroach, is far greater, for the weaker are always asking for equality and justice, but the stronger care for none of these things. 5. The Organs of Government l All states have three elements, and the good law-giver has to regard what is expedient for each state. When they are well- ordered, the state is well-ordered, and as they differ from one an- 1 IV, xiv, xv-xvi (in part). Jowett, pp. 133-136, 139-141, 142-143. 90 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY other, constitutions differ. What is the element first (i) which deliberates about public affairs; secondly (2) which is concerned with the magistrates and determines what they should be, over whom they should exercise authority, and what should be the mode of electing them; and thirdly (3) which has judicial power? The deliberative element has authority in matters of war and peace, in making and unmaking alliances; it passes laws, inflicts death, exile, confiscation, audits the accounts of magistrates. All these powers must be assigned either to all the citizens or to some of them, for example, to one or more magistracies; or different causes to different magistracies, or some of them to all, and others of them only to some, f That all things should be decided by all is characteristic of democracy; this is the sort of equality which the people desire. y^But there are various ways in which all may share in the government ; they may deliberate, not all in one body, but by turns, as in the constitution of Telecles the Milesian. There are other states in which the boards of magistrates meet and deliberate, but come into office by turns, and are elected out of the tribes and the very smallest divisions of the state, until every one has obtained office in his turn. The citizens, on the other hand, are assembled only for the purposes of legislation, and to consult about the constitution, and to hear the edicts of the magistrates. In another variety of democracy the citizens form one assembly, but meet only to elect magistrates, to pass laws, to advise about war and peace, and to make scrutinies. Other matters are referred severally to special magistrates, who are elected by vote or by lot out of all the citizens. Or again, the citizens meet about election to offices and about scrutinies, and deliberate concerning war or alliances, while other matters are administered by the magistrates, who, as far as is possible, are elected by vote. I am speaking of those magistracies in which special knowledge is required. A fourth form of democracy is when all the citizens meet to deliberate about everything, and the magistrates decide nothing, but only make the preliminary in- quiries; and that is the way in which the last and worst form of democracy, corresponding, as we maintain, to the close family oligarchy and to tyranny, is at present administered. All these modes are democratical. On the other hand, that some should deliberate about all is oligarchical. This again is a mode which, like the democratical, has many forms. When the deliberative class being elected out of those who have a moderate qualification are numerous and they ARISTOTLE 91 respect and obey the law without altering it, and any one who has the required qualification shares in the government, then, just because of this moderation, the oligarchy inclines toward polity. But when only selected individuals and not the whole people share in the deliberations of the state, then, although, as in the former case, they observe the law, the government is a pure oligarchy. Or, again, when those who have the power of delibera- tion are self -elected, and son succeeds father, and they and not the laws are supreme the government is of necessity oligarchical. Where, again, particular persons have authority in particular matters; for example, when the whole people decide about peace and war and hold scrutinies, but the magistrates regu- late everything else, and they are elected either by vote or by lot there the form of government is an aristocracy or polity. And if some questions are decided by magistrates elected by vote, and others by magistrates elected by lot, either absolutely or out of select candidates, or elected both by vote and by lot these practices are partly characteristic of an aristocratical govern- ment, and partly of a pure constitutional government. These are the various forms of the deliberative body; they correspond to the various forms of government. And the govern- ment of each state is administered according to one or other of the principles which have been laid down. Now it is for the interest of democracy, according to the most prevalent notion of it (I am speaking of that extreme form of democracy, in which the people are supreme even over the laws), with a view to better deliberation to adopt the custom of oligarchies respecting courts of law. For in oligarchies the rich who are wanted to be judges are compelled to attend under pain of fine, whereas in democracies the poor are paid to attend. And this practice of oligarchies should be adopted by democracies in their public assemblies, for they will advise better if they all deliberate together, the people with the notables and the notables with the people. It is also a good plan that those who deliberate should be elected by vote or by lot in equal numbers out of the different classes; and that if the people greatly exceed in number those who have political training, pay should not be given to all, but only to as many as would balance the number of the notables, or that the number in excess should be eliminated by lot. But in oligarchies either cer- tain persons should be chosen out of the mass, or a class of officers should be appointed such as exist in some states, who are termed probuli and guardians of the law; and the citizens should occupy themselves exclusively with matters on which these have previously 92 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY deliberated; for so the people will have a share in the deliberations of the state, but will not be able to disturb the principles of the constitution. Again, in oligarchies either the people ought to accept the measures of the government, or not to pass anything contrary to them; or, if all are allowed to share in counsel, the decision should rest with the magistrates. The opposite of what is done in constitutional governments should be the rule in oli- garchies; the veto of the majority should be final, their assent not final, but the proposal should be referred back to the magistrates. Whereas in constitutional governments they take the contrary course; the few have the negative not the affirmative power; the affirmation of everything rests with the multitude. These, then, are our conclusions respecting the deliberative, that is, the supreme element in states. I will now inquire into the appointment of offices. There are three questions to be answered, and the combinations of answers give all possible differences: first, who appoints? secondly, from whom? and thirdly, how? Each of these three may further differ in three ways: (i) All the citizens, or only some, appoint; (2) either the magistrates are chosen out of all or out of some who are distin- guished either by property qualification, or by birth, or merit, or for some special reason, as at Megara only those were eligible who had returned from exile and fought together against the democracy; (3) they may be appointed either by vote or by lot. Again, these several modes may be combined: I mean that some officers may be elected by some, others by all, and some again out of some, and others out of all, and some by vote and others by lot. Each of these differences admits of four variations, (i) Either all may elect out of all by vote, or all out of all by lot; and either out of all collectively or by sections, as, for example, by tribes, and wards, and phratries, until all the citizens have been gone through; or the citizens may be in all cases eligible indiscriminately, and in some cases they may be elected by vote, and in some by lot. Again (2), if only some appoint, they may appoint out of all by vote, or out of all by lot; or out of some by vote, out of some by lot, and some offices may be appointed in one way and some in another^" I mean if they are appointed by all they may be appointed partly by vote and partly by lot. Thus there will be twelve forms of appointment without including the two combinations in the mode of election. Of these varieties two are democratic forms, namely, when the choice is made by all the people out of all by vote or by lot, or by both, that is to say, some by lot and some by vote. The ARISTOTLE 95 cases in which they do not all appoint at one time, but some appoint out of all or out of some by vote or by lot or by both (I mean some by lot and some by vote), or some out of all and others out of some both by lot and vote, are characteristic of a polity or consti- tutional government. That some should be appointed out of all by vote or by lot or by both, is oligarchical, and still more oli- garchical when some are elected from all and some from some. '"That some should be elected out of all and some out of some, or again some by vote and others by lot, is characteristic of a con- stitutional government, which inclines to an aristocracy. That some should be chosen out of some, and some taken by lot out of some, is oligarchical though not equally oligarchical; oligarchical, too, is the appointment of some out of some in both ways, and of some out of all. But that all should elect by vote out of some is aristocratical. These are the different ways of constituting magistrates, and in this manner officers correspond to different forms of govern- ment: which are proper to which, or how they ought to be estab- lished, will be evident when we determine the nature of their powers. By powers I mean such power as a magistrate exercises over the revenue or in defence of the country; for there are various kinds of power: the power of the general, for example, is not the same with that which regulates contracts in the market. Of the three parts of government, the judicial remains to be considered, and this we shall divide on the same principle. There are three points on which the varieties of law-courts depend: the persons from whom they are appointed, the matters with which they are concerned, and the manner of their appointment. I mean, (i) are the judges taken from all, or from some only? (2) how many kinds of law-courts are there? (3) are the judges chosen by vote or by lot? Now if all the citizens judge, in all the different cases which I have distinguished, they may be appointed by vote or by lot, or sometimes by lot and sometimes by vote. Or when a certain class of causes are tried, the judges who decide them may be ap- pointed, some by vote, and some by lot. These then are the four modes of appointing judges from the whole people, and there will be likewise four modes, if they are elected from a part only; for they may be appointed from some by vote and judge in all causes; or they may be appointed from some by lot and judge in all causes ; or they may be elected in some cases by vote, and in some cases taken by lot, or some courts, even when judging the same causes, 94 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY may be composed of members some appointed by vote and some by lot. These then are the ways in which the aforesaid judges may be appointed. Once more, the modes of appointment may be combined; I mean, that some may be chosen out of the whole people, others out of some, some out of both; for example, the same tribunal may be composed of some who were elected out of all, and of others who were elected out of some, either by vote or by lot or by both. In how many forms law-courts can be established has now been considered. The first form, viz. that in which the judges are taken from all the citizens, and in which all causes are tried, is democrati- cal; the second, which is composed of a few only who try all causes, oligarchical; the third, in which some courts are taken from all classes, and some from certain classes only, aristocratical and constitutional. 6. Material Conditions of the Ideal State l In what has preceded I have discussed other forms of govern- ment; in what remains the first point to be considered is what should be the conditions of the ideal or perfect state ; for the per- fect state cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life. And therefore we must pre-suppose many purely imaginary con- ditions, but nothing impossible. There will be a certain number of citizens, a country in which to place them, and the like. As the weaver or shipbuilder or any other artisan must have the material proper for his work (and in proportion as this is better prepared, so will the result of his art be nobler), so the statesman or legislator must also have the materials suited to him. First among the materials required by the statesman is popula- tion: he will consider what should be the number and character of the citizens, and then what should be the size and character of the country. Most persons think that a state in order to be happy ought to be large; but even if they are right, they have no idea what is a large and what a small state. For they judge of the size of the city by the number of the inhabitants; whereas they ought to regard, not their number, but their power. A city, too, like an individual, has a work to do; and that city which is best adapted to the fulfilment of its work is to be deemed greatest, in the same sense of the word great in which Hippocrates might be called greater, not as a man, but as a physician, than some one else who was taller. And even if we reckon greatness by numbers, we ought not to include everybody, for there must always be in 1 VII,iv-v. Jowett, pp. 213-216. ARISTOTLE 95 cities a multitude of slaves and sojourners and foreigners; but we should include those only who are members of the state, and who form an essential part of it. The number of the latter is a proof of the greatness of a city; but a city which produces numerous artisans and comparatively few soldiers cannot be great, for a, great city is not to be confounded with a populous one. More- over, experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, / be well governed; since all cities which have a reputation for good { government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds I of reason, and the same result will follow. For law is order, and \ good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be order- J ly: to introduce order into the unlimited is the work of a divine^ power of such a power as holds together the universe. Beauty is realized in number and magnitude, and the state which combines magnitude with good order must necessarily be the most beauti- ful. To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. For example, a ship which is only a span long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long; yet there may be a ship of a certain size, either too large or too small, which will still be a ship, but bad for sailing. In like manner a state when composed of too few is not as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, it is a nation and not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government. For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he have the voice of a Stentor? A state then only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community : it may indeed somewhat exceed this number. But, as I was saying, there must be a limit. What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience. For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor are to command and to judge. But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to dis- tribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other's characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong. When the population is very large they are manifestly settled at haphazard, which clearly ought not to be. Besides, in an over- populous state foreigners and metics will readily acquire the rights of citizens, for who will find them out? Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which 96 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY suffices for the purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view. Enough concerning the size of a city. Much the same principle will apply to the territory of the state : every one would agree in praising the state which is most entirely self-sufficing; and that must be the state which is all-producing, for to have all things and to want nothing is sufficiency. In size and extent it should be such as may enable the inhabitants to live temperately and liberally in the enjoyment of leisure. Whether we are right or wrong in laying down this limit we will inquire more precisely hereafter, when we have occasion to consider what is the right use of property and wealth; a matter which is much disputed, because men are inclined to rush into one of two extremes, some into meanness, others into luxury. It is not difficult to determine the general character of the terri- tory which is required; there are, however, some points on which military authorities should be heard; they tell us that it should be difficult of access to the enemy, and easy of egress to the inhabit- ants. Further, we require that the land as well as the inhabitants of whom we were just now speaking should be taken in at a single view, for a country which is easily seen can be easily protected. As to the position of the city, if we could have what we wish, it should be well-situated in regard both to sea or land. This then is one principle, that it should be a convenient center for the protection of the whole country: the other is, that it should be suitable for receiving the fruits of the soil, and also for the bringing in of timber and any other products. 7. The Cause and Prevention of Revolution l Next in order follow the causes of revolution in states, how many, and of what nature they are; what elements work ruin in particular states, and out of what, and into what they mostly change; also what are the elements of preservation in states generally, or in a particular state, and by what means each state may be best preserved : these questions remain to be considered. In the first place we must assume as our starting-point that in the many forms of government which have sprung up there has always been an acknowledgment of justice and proportionate equality, although mankind fail in attaining them, as indeed I have already explained. Democracy, for example, arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in 1 V, i (in part), ii, iii (in part), viii-ix (in part). Jowett, pp. 144-145, 147-148, 162-165, 168-169. ARISTOTLE 97 all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be abso- lutely equal. Oligarchy is based on the notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal; being un- equal, that is, in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely. The democrats think that as they are equal they ought to be equal in all things; while the oligarchs, under the idea that they are unequal, claim too much, which is one form of in- equality. All these forms of government have a kind of justice, but, tried by an absolute standard, they are faulty; and, therefore, both parties, whenever their share in the government does not ac- cord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution. Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel (for they alone can with reason be deemed absolutely unequal), but then they are of all men the least inclined to do so. There is also a superiority which is claimed by men of rank; for they are thought noble be- cause they spring from wealthy and virtuous ancestors. Here then, so to speak, are opened the very springs and fountains of revolution; and hence arise two sorts of changes in governments; the one affecting the constitution, when men seek to change from an existing form into some other, for example, from democracy into oligarchy, and from oligarchy into democracy, or from either of them into constitutional government or aristocracy, and con- versely; the other not affecting the constitution, when, without disturbing the form of government, whether oligarchy, or mon- archy, or any other, they try to get the administration into their own hands. Further, there is a question of degree; an oligarchy, for example, may become more or less oligarchical, and a democ- racy more or less democratical ; and in like manner the character- istics of the other forms of government may be more or less strictly maintained. Or, the revolution may be directed against a portion of the constitution only, e.g. the establishment or overthrow of a particular office : as at Sparta it is said, that Lysander attempted to overthrow the monarchy, and king Pausanias, the ephoralty. In considering how dissensions and political revolutions arise, we must first of all ascertain the beginnings and causes of them which affect constitutions generally. They may be said to be three in number; and we have nbw to give an outline of each. We want to know (i) what is the feeling? and (2) what are the motives of those who make them? (3) whence arise political disturbances and quarrels? The universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling has been already mentioned; viz. the desire of equality, when men think that they are equal to others who have more 98 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY than themselves; or, again, the desire of inequality and superiority, when conceiving themselves to be superior they think that they have not more but the same or less than their inferiors ; pretensions which may and may not be just. Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions. The motives for making them are the desire of gain and honor, or the fear of dishonor and loss ; the authors of them want to divert punishment or dishonor from themselves or their friends. The causes and reasons of these motives and dispositions which are excited in men, about the things which I have mentioned, viewed in one way, may be regarded as seven, and in another as more than seven. Two of them have been already noticed; but they act in a different manner, for men are excited against one another by the love of gain and honor not, as in the case which I have just supposed, in order to obtain them for themselves, but at seeing others, justly or unjustly, engrossing them. Other causes are insolence, fear, love of superiority, contempt, disproportionate increase in some part of the state; causes of another sort are election intrigues, care- lessness, neglect about trifles, dissimilarity of elements. What share insolence and avarice have in creating revolutions, and how they work, is plain enough. When the magistrates are insolent and grasping they conspire against one another and also against the constitution from which they derive their power, making their gains either at the expense of individuals or of the public. It is evident, again, what an influence honor exerts and how it is a cause of revolution. Men who are themselves dis- honored and who see others obtaining honors rise in rebellion; the honor or dishonor when undeserved is unjust ; and just when award- ed according to merit. Again, superiority is a cause of revolution when one or more persons have a power which is too much for the state and the power of the government; this is a condition of affairs out of which there arises a monarchy, or a family oligarchy. And, therefore, in some places, as at Athens and Argos, they have recourse to ostracism. But how much better to provide from the first that there should be no such preeminent individuals instead of letting them come into existence and then finding a remedy. Another cause of revolution is fear. Either men have committed wrong, and are afraid of punishment, or they are expecting to suffer wrong and are desirous of anticipating their enemy. Thus at Rhodes the notables conspired against the people through fear of the suits that were brought against them. Contempt is also a cause of insurrection and revolution; for example, in oligarchies ARISTOTLE 99 when those who have no share in the state are the majority, they revolt, because they think that they are the stronger. Or, again, in democracies, the rich despise the disorder and anarchy of the state; at Thebes, for example, where, after the battle of (Enophyta, the bad administration of the democracy led to its ruin. 1 We have next to consider what means there are of preserving states in general, and also in particular cases. In the first place it is evident that if we know the causes which destroy states, we shall also know the causes which preserve them; for opposites pro- duce opposites, and destruction is the opposite of preservation. In all well-attempered governments there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune. The change does not take place all at once, and therefore is not ob- served; the mind is deceived, as in the fallacy which says that "if each part is little, then the whole is little.' ' And this is true in one way, but not in another, for the whole and the all are not little, although they are made up of littles. In the first place, then, men should guard against the beginning of change, and in the second place they should not rely upon the political devices of which I have already spoken, invented only to deceive the people, for they are proved by experience to be use- less. Further we note that oligarchies as well as aristocracies may last, not from any inherent stability in such forms of govern- ment, but because the rulers are on good terms both with the un- enfranchised and with the governing classes, not maltreating any who are excluded from the government, but introducing into it the leading spirits among them. They should never wrong the ambi- tious in a matter of honor, or the common people in a matter of money; and they should treat one another and their fellow-citizens in a spirit of equality. The equality which the friends of democ- racy seek to establish for the multitude is not only just but like- wise expedient among equals. Hence, if the governing class are numerous, many democratic institutions are useful; for example, the restriction of the tenure of offices to six months, that all those who are of equal rank may share in them. Indeed, equals or peers when they are numerous become a kind of democracy, and there- fore demagogues are very likely to arise among them, as I have already remarked. The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies 1 Aristotle continues with the analysis of the five other causes of revolutions. 100 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and aristocracies from falling into the hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies. For the aspirants to tyranny are either the principal men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues and in oligarchies members of ruling houses, or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure of them. States are preserved when their destroyers are at a distance, and sometimes also because they are near, for the fear of them makes the government keep in hand the state. Wherefore the ruler who has a care of the state should invent terrors, and bring distant dangers near, in order that the citizens may be on their guard, and, like sentinels in a night-watch, never relax their atten- tion. He should endeavor, too, by help of the laws to control the contentions and quarrels of the notables, and to prevent those who have not hitherto taken part in them from being drawn in. No ordinary man can discern the beginning of evil, but only the true statesman. As to the change produced in oligarchies and constitutional governments by the alteration of the qualification, when this arises, not out of any variation in the census but only out of the increase of money, it is well to compare the general valuation of property with that of past years, annually in those cities in which the census is taken annually, and in larger cities every third or fifth year. If the whole is many times greater or many times less than when the rates were fixed at the previous census, there should be power given by law to raise or lower the qualification as the amount is greater or less. Where in the absence of any such provision the standard is raised, a constitutional government passes into an oligarchy, and an oligarchy is narrowed to a rule of families; where the standard is lowered, constitutional government becomes democracy, and oligarchy either constitutional govern- ment or democracy. It is a principle common to democracy, oligarchy, and every other form of government not to allow the disproportionate in- crease of any citizen, but to give moderate honor for a long time rather than great honor for a short time. For -men are easily spoiled; not every one can bear prosperity. But if this rule is not observed, at any rate the honors which are given all at once should be taken away by degrees and not all at once. Especially should the laws provide against any one having too much power, whether derived from friends or money; if he has, he and his fol- lowers should be sent out of the country. And since innovations ARISTOTLE 101 creep in through the private life of individuals, there ought to be a magistracy which will have an eye to those whose life is not in harmony with the government, whether oligarchy or democracy or any other. And for a like reason an increase of prosperity in any part of the state should be carefully watched. The proper remedy for this evil is always to give the management of affairs and offices of state to opposite elements; such opposites are the virtuous and the many, or the rich and the poor. Another way is to combine the poor and the rich in one body, or to increase the middle class : thus an end will be put to the revolutions which arise from inequality. But above all every state should be so administered and so regulated by law that its magistrates cannot possibly make money. In oligarchies special precautions should be used against this evil. For the people do not take any great offence at being kept out of the government indeed they are rather pleased than otherwise at having leisure for their private business but what irritates them is to think that their rulers are stealing the public money; then they are doubly annoyed; for they lose both honor and profit. If office brought no profit, then and then only could democracy and aristocracy be combined; for both notables and people might have their wishes gratified. / All would be able to hold office, which is the aim of democracy, and the notables would be magistrates, which is the aim of aristocracy/ And this result may be accomplished when there is no possibility of making money out of the offices ; for the poor will not want to have them when there is nothing to be gained from them they would rather be attend- ing to their own concerns; and the rich, who do not want money from the public treasury, will be able to take them; and so the poor will keep to their work and grow rich, and the notables will not be governed by the lower class. But of all the things which I have mentioned that which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to the form of government, and yet in our own day this principle is universally neglected. The best laws, though sanctioned by every citizen of the state, will be of no avail unless the young are trained by habit and education in the spirit of the constitution, if the laws are democratical, democratically, or oligarchically, if the laws are oligarchical. For there may be a want of self -discipline in states as well as in individuals. Now, to have been educated in the spirit of the constitution is not to perform the actions in which oligarchs or democrats delight, but those by 102 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY which the existence of an oligarchy or of a democracy is made possible. Whereas among ourselves the sons of the ruling class in an oligarchy live in luxury, but the sons of the poor are hardened by exercise and toil, and hence they are both more inclined and better able to make a revolution. And in democracies of the more extreme type there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state. For two prin- ciples are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom. Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom and equality mean the doing what a man likes. In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, " according to his fancy." But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Zeller, Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics, Vol. I, ch. i. Grote, Aristotle, ch. i. Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, pp. 208-218. Blakesley, A Life of Aristotle. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Medieval, ch. iii. Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, pp. 218-496. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 15-29. Zeller, Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics, Vol. I, ch. iv; Vol. II, chs. xii and xiii. Grote, Aristotle, chs. xiii and xiv, and Appendix I. Willoughby, Political Theories of the Ancient World, ch. xi. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 165-229. Bradley, Aristotle's Conception of the State, in Hellenica, pp. 166-222. Congreve, The Politics of Aristotle, "Introduction." Loos, Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato, pp. 17-176. Lang, The Politics of Aristotle, "Introductory Essays." Oncken, Die Staatslehre des Aristotles. Henkel, Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Lehre vom Staat, pp. 74-97. POLYBIUS HI. POLYBIUS (204-122 B.C.) INTRODUCTION The fame of Polybius, a Greek author, rests upon his history of Rome; his theoretical discussion of government is incidental to his analysis of the Roman constitution which that work contains. Polybius was born in Megalopolis, in Arcadia, the leading state of the Achaean League. He was there one of a group of statesmen who directed the policy of the league during the Roman invasion which ended Macedonian power and brought Greece under Roman dominion. In that period he was of the moderate party, which sought primarily to maintain for the league a negative attitude towards Rome. With the accomplishment of the Roman conquest the eminent men of that party, suffering under false charges made by the radical pro-Roman leaders of the league, were taken as hostages to Rome; here they lived rather as dis- tinguished visitors than as prisoners. In Italy the experience and ability of Polybius were recognized and utilized. He was sent to Greece on a mission of mediation between Rome and the Achaeans. Though this mission was fruit- less he was subsequently representative of the Roman government in the reconstruction of Greece. Most of his later life, however, he spent in scholarly leisure, enjoying the friendship and patronage of Roman statesmen particularly of Scipio Africanus, the young- er. These facilities he put to good purpose by devoting them to travel, observation, and the collection of materials for a history of Rome. ff CjThe motive of his History was to explain the greatness of Rome, to trace the steps from the second Punic War to the conquest of Macedonia through which Rome became the ruling power of the world, and to describe the manner in which her control over this vast dominion had been exercised. /Of this work there are extant the first five books entire and the other thirty-five books in fragments. In the part of the sixth book that is preserved the author sets forth certain principles of government, with a view 105 106 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to indicating what elements of the governmental organization of Rome had ^nabled it to acquire and maintain its extensive sovereignty. 1 //He there presents a theory of tr-,3 origin of political society and an interpretation of its periodic revolution through a cycle of six forms, in alternate succession of good and bad forms. Upon this basis he analyzes the constitution of the Roman Republic in such a way as to show that through its combination of elements * of each of the three good forms in other words, through its system of checks and balances, it furnishes a type of mixed constitution which is secure against the decay natural to any one of the simple types.tf READINGS FROM THE HISTORIES 2 1. The Forms of Government and the Cycle of Constitutional Revolution 3 I am aware that some will be at a loss to account for my interrupting the course of my narrative for the sake of entering upon the following disquisition on the Roman constitution. But I think that I have already in many passages made it fully evident that this particular branch of my work was one of the necessities imposed on me by the nature of my original design ; and I pointed this out with special clearness in the preface which explained the scope of my history. I there stated that the feature of my work which was at once the best in itself, and the most instructive to the students of it, was that it would enable them to know and fully realize in what manner, and under what kind of constitution, it came about that nearly the whole world fell under the power of Rome in somewhat less than fifty-three years, an event certainly without precedent. This being my settled purpose, I could see no more fitting period than the present for making a pause, and examining the truth of the remarks about to be made on this con- stitution. In private life if you wish to satisfy yourself as to the badness or goodness of particular persons, you would not, if you wish to get a genuine test, examine their conduct at a time of uneventful repose, but in the hour of brilliant success or conspicu- ous reverse. iV For the true test of a perfect man is the power of 1 Cf. Strachan-Davidson, Polybius (in Evelyn Abbott's Hellenica), p. 411. 2 The selections are taken from the translation by Evelyn S. Schuckburgh; London and New York, 1889. Macmillan and Company. 3 Bk. VI, 1-9. Schuckburgh, Vol. I, pp. 458-466. POL YB I US 107 bearing with spirit and dignity violent changes of fortunes An examination of a constitution should be conducted in the? same way: and therefore being unable to find in our day a more rapid or more signal change than that which has happened to Rome, I reserved my disquisition for this place. . . . What is really educational and beneficial to students of history is the clear view of the causes of events, and thejconsequent power of choosing the better policy in a particular case, jj^ow in every practical undertaking by a state we must regard as the^most power- ful agent for success or failure the form of its constitution; for from this as from a fountain-head all conceptions and plans of action not only proceed, but attain their consummation. 1| . . Of the Greek Republics, which have again and again risen to greatness and fallen into insignificance, it is not difficult to speak, whether we recount their past history or venture an opinion on their future. For to report what is already known is an easy task, nor is it hard to guess what is to come from our knowledge of what has been. But in regard to the Romans it is neither an easy matter to describe their present state, owing to the com- plexity of their constitution ; nor to speak with confidence of their future, from our inadequate acquaintance with their peculiar institutions in the past whether affecting their public or their private life. It will require, then, no ordinary attention and study to get a clear and comprehensive conception of the distinctive features of this constitution. Now, it is undoubtedly the case that most of those who profess to give us authoritative instruction on this subject distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they designatef/kingship, aristocracy r .. democracy. But in my opinion the question might fairly be put to them, whether they name these as being, the only ones, or as the best. In either case I think they are wrong. For it is plain that we must regard as the .best constitutionjthat \ ^^ which partakes of all these three elements.]^ And this is no mere assertion, but has been proved by the example of Lycurgus, who was the first to construct a constitution that of Sparta on this principle. Nor can we admit that these are the only forms; for we have had before now examples of absolute and tyrannical forms of government, which, while differing as widely as possible from kingship, yet appear to have some points of resemblance to it; on which account all absolute rulers falsely assume and use, as far as they can, the title of king. Again there have been many instances of oligarchical governments having in appearance some analogy to aristocracies, which are, if I may say so, as different 108 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY from them as it is possible to be. The same also holds good about democracy. |jj will illustrate the truth of what I say. We_cannot hold every absolute government to be a kingship, but only that which is accepted voluntarily, and is directed by an appeal to reason rather than to fear and force. Nor again is every oligarchy to be regarded as an aristocracy; the latter exists only where the power is wielded by the justest and wisest men selected on their merits, Similarly, it is not enough to constitute a democracy that the whole crowd of citizens should have the right to do whatever they wish or propose. But where reverence to the gods, succor of parents, respect to elders, obedience to laws, are traditional and habitual, in such communities if the will of the majority prevail, we may speak of the form of government as a democracy. ^So then we enumerate six forms of government, the three commonly spoken of which I have just mentioned, anctfthree more allied forms, I mean despotism, oligarchy and mob-rule. The first of these arises without artificial aid and in the natural order of events. Next to this, and produced from it by the aid of art and adjustment, comes kingship: which degenerating into the evil form allied to it, by which I mean tyranny, both are once more destroyed and aristocracy produced. Again the latter being in the course of nature perverted to oligarchy, and the people passionately avenging the unjust acts of their rulers, democracy comes into existence; which again by its violence and contempt of law becomes sheer mob-rule^ No clearer proof of the truth of what I say could be obtained than by a careful observation of the natural origin, genesis, and decadence of these several forms of government. For it is only by seeing distinctly how each of them is produced that a distinct view can also be obtained of its growth, zenith, and decadence, and the time, circumstance, and place in which each of these may be expected to recur. This method I have as- sumed to be especially applicable to the Roman constitution, because its origin and growth have from the first followed natural causes. Now the natural laws which regulate the merging of one form of government into another are perhaps discussed with greater accuracy by Plato and some other philosophers. But their treatment, from its intricacy and exhaustiveness, is only within the capacity of a few. I will therefore endeavor to give a summary of the subject, just so far as I suppose it to fall within the scope of a practical history and the intelligence of ordinary people. For if my exposition appear in any way inadequate, owing POL YB I US 109 to the general terms in which it is expressed, the details contained in what is immediately to follow will amply atone for what is left for the present unsolved. What is the origin then -of a constitution, and whence is it pro- duced? Suppose that from floods, pestilences, failure of crops, or some such causes the race of man is reduced almost to extinc- tion. Such things we are told have happened, and it is reasonable to think will happen again. Suppose accordingly all knowledge of social habits and arts to have been lost. Suppose that from the survivors, as from seeds, the race of man to have again multiplied. In that case I presume they would T like the animals^ herd together; for it is but reasonable to suppose that bodily weakness would induce them to seek those of their own kind to herd with. And in that case, too, as with the animals, he who was superior to the rest in strength of body or courage of soul would lead and rule them. For what we see happen in the case of animals that are without the faculty of reason, such as bulls, goats, and cocks, among whom there can be no dispute that the strongest take the lead, that we must regard as in the truest sense the teaching of nature. Originally then it is probable that the condition of life among men was this, herding together like animals and following the strong- est and bravest ^s leaders. The limit of this authority would be physical strength, and the name we should give it would be despot- ism. But as soon as the idea of family ties and social relation has arisen amongst such agglomerations of men, then is born also the idea pf kmgship^.^n,d then for the first time mankind conceives the noHon of goodness and justice and their reverse. V^" The way in which such conceptions originate ana come into existence is this: The intercourse of the sexes is an instinct of nature, and the result is the birth of children. Now, if any one of these children who have been brought up, when arrived at maturity, is ungrateful and makes no return to those by whom he was nurtured, but on the contrary presumes to injure them by word and deed, it is plain that he will probably offend and annoy such as are present, and have seen the care and trouble bestowed by the parents on the nurture and bringing up of their children. For seeing that men differ from the other animals in being the only creatures possessed of reasoning powers, it is clear that such a difference of conduct is not likely to escape their observation; but that they will remark it when it occurs, and express their displeasure on the spot : because they will have an eye to the future, and will reason on the likelihood of the same occurring to each of themselves. Again, if a man has been rescued or helped in an hour J 110 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of danger, anjxynstead of showing gratitude to his preserver, seeks to do Mmharm, it is clearly probable that the rest will be displeased and offended with him, when they know it: sympathiz- ing with their neighbor and imagining themselves in his case. Hence arises a notion in every breast of the meaning and theory of duty, which is in fact the beginning and end of justice, similarly, again, when any one man stands out as the champion of all in a time of danger, and braves with firm courage the onslaught of the most powerful wild beasts, it is probable that such a man would meet with marks of favor and preeminence from the common people; while he who acted in a contrary way would fall under their I contempt and dislike, prom this, once" more, it is reasonable to suppose that there would arise in the minds of the multitude a theory of the disgraceful and the honorable, and of the difference between them; and that one should be sought and imitated for its advantages, the other shunned, j When, therefore, the leading and most powerful man among his people ever encourages such persons in accordance with the popular sentiment, and thereby assumes in the eyes of his subjects the appearance of being the dis- tributor to each man according to his deserts, they no longer obey him and support his rule from fear of violence, but rather from conviction of its utility, however old he may be, rallying round him with one heart and soul, and fighting against all who form designs against his government Ik /In this way be becomes a. king instead of a despot by imperceptfole degrees, reason tiavmg ousted brute courage and bodily strength from their supremacyft This then is the natural process of formation aii*ong man- kind of the notion of goodness and justice, and -their opposites; and this is the origin and genesis of genuine kingship : for people do not only keep up the government of such men personally, but for their descendants also for many generations; from the conviction that those who are born from and educated by men of this kind will have principles also like theirs. But if they subsequently become displeased with their descendants, they do not any longer decide their choice of rulers and kings by their physical strength or brute courage; but by the differences of their intellectual and reasoning faculties, from practical experience of the decisive im- portance of such a distinction. In old times, then, those who were once thus selected, and obtained this office, grew old in their royal functions, making magnificent strongholds and surrounding them with walls and extending their frontiers, partly for the security of their subjects, and partly to provide them with abund- ance of the necessaries of life; and while engaged in these works POL YB I US 111 they were exempt from all vituperation or jealousy; because they did not make their distinctive dress, food, or drink, at all con- spicuous, but lived very much like the rest, and joined in the every- day employments of the common people. ijFgut when their royal power became hereditary in their family, afTd they found every necessary for security ready to their hands, as well as more than was necessary for their personal support, then they gave the rein to their appetites; imagined that rulers must needs wear different clothes from those of subjects, have different and elaborate luxuries of the table, and must even seek sensual indulgence, however unlawful the source, without fear of deniaO t These things having given rise in the one- case to jealousy anpt offence,. *^ in the other to outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the kingship became a tyrann)jn the first step in disintegration was taken; and plots began torbe formed against the government, which did noTnoW proceed from the worst men but from the no-_ blest, most high-minded, and most courageous, because these, are the men who can least submit to the tyrannical acts of their rulers. But as soon as the people got leaders, they co-operated with them against the dynasty for the reasonsjfc have mentioned ; and then kingship and despotism were alike entirely abolished, and aristocracy once more began to revive and start afresh. For in tHeir immediate gratitude to those who had deposed the despots, people employed them as leaders, and intrusted their interests to them; who, looking upon this charge at first as a great privilege, made the public advantage their chief concern, and conducted all kinds of business, public or private, with diligence and caution. But when the sons of those men received the same position of authority from their fathers, having had no experience of mis- fortunes, and none at all of civil equality and freedom of speech, but having been bred up from the first under the shadow of their fathers' authority and lofty position, some of them gave them- selves up with passion to avarice and unscrupulous love of money, others to drinking and the boundless debaucheries which accom- pany it, and others to the violation of women or the forcible appropriation of boys; and so they turned an aristocracy into an oligarchy M But it was not long before they roused in the minds of the people the same feelings as before; and their fall therefore was very like the disaster which befel the tyrants. For no sooner had the knowledge of the jealousy and hatred existing in the citizens against them emboldened some one to oppose the government by word or deed, than he was sure to find 112 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the whole people ready and prepared to take his side. Having then got rid of these rulers by assassination or exile, they do not venture to set up a king again, being still in terror of the injustice to which this led before; nor dare they intrust the common in- terests again to more than one, considering the recent example of their misconduct: and therefore! as the only sound hope left them is that which depends upon themselves, they are driven to take refuge in that ; and so changed the constitution from an oli- ' garchy to a democracy, and took upon themselves the superintend- yence and charge of the state. And as long as any survive who have had experience of oligarchical supremacy and domination, they regard their present constitution as a blessing, and hold equality and freedom as of the utmost value. But as soon as a new generation has arisen, and the democracy has descended to their children's children, long association weakens their value for equality and freedom, and some seek to become more power- ful than the ordinary citizens; and the most liable to this tempta- tion are the richj^ So when they begin to be fond of office, and find themselves unable to obtain it by their own unassisted efforts and their own merits, they ruin their estates, while enticing and corrupting the common people in every possible way.f By which means when, in their senseless mania for reputation, They have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the^virtue of democracy is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government .of violence and the strong hand. ^ For the mob, habituated to feed at the expense of others, and TO have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbors, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honors, produces a reign of mere violence. ^Then . come tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, redivisions of land; until, after losing all trace of civilization, it has once more found a master and a despot^ This is the regular cycle or constitutional revolutions, and the natural order in which constitutions change, are transformed, and return again to their original stage. If a man have a clear grasp of these principles he may perhaps make a mistake as to the dates at which this or that will happen to a particular constitution; but he will rarely be entirely mistaken as to the stage of growth or decay at which it has arrived, or as to the point at which it will undergo some revolutionary change. However, it is in the case of the Roman constitution that this method of inquiry will most fully teach us its formation, its growth, and zenith, as well as the changes awaiting it in the future; for this, if any constitution ever POLYBIUS 113 did, owed, as I said just now, its original foundation and growth to natural causes, and to natural causes will owe its decay. My subsequent narrative will be the best illustration of what I say. 2. The System of Checks and Balances l As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers; and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated, with such a scrupu- lous regard to equality and equilibrium, that no one could say for certain, not even a native, whether the constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism! And no wonder: for if we confine our observation to the power>e the consuls we should be_inclined L to regard it as_desgotic;. if that of the -senate, as"arisTocratic; and if finally one looks at the power possessed by the people it would seem a clear case of democracyx What the exact powers of these several parts were, and still/ with slight modifications, are, I will now state. The consul^ before leading out the legions, remain in Rome and are supreme masters of the administration. All other magis- trates, except the tribunes, are under them and take their orders. They introduce foreign ambassadors to the senate; bring matters requiring deliberation before it; and see to the execution of its decrees. If, again, there are any matters of state which require the authorization of the people, it is their business to see to them, to summon the popular meetings, to bring the proposals before them, and to carry out the decrees of the majority. In the prep- arations for war also, and in a word, in the entire administration of a campaign, they have all but absolute power. It is competent to them to impose on the allies such levies as they think good, to appoint the military tribunes, to make up the roll for soldiers, and select those that are suitable. Besides they have absolute power of inflicting punishment on all who are under their command while on active service: and they have authority to expend as much of the public money as they choose, being accompanied by a quaestor who is entirely at their orders. A survey of these powers would in fact justify our describing the constitution as despotic, a clear case of royal government. Nor will it affect the truth of my description, if any of the institutions I have described are changed in our time, or in that of our posterity: and the same remarks apply to what follows. The senate has first of all the control of the treasury, and 1 Bk. VI, 11-18. Schuckburgh, Vol. I, pp. 468-474. 114 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY regulates the receipts and disbursements alike. For the quaestors cannot issue any public money for the various departments of the state without a decree of the senate, except for the service of the consuls. The senate controls also what is by far the largest and most important expenditure, that, namely, which is made by the censors every lustrum for the repair or construction of public buildings; this money cannot be obtained by the censors except by the grant of the senate. Similarly all crimes committed in Italy requiring a public investigation, such as treason, conspiracy, poisoning, or wilful murder, are in the hands of the senate. Be- sides, if any individual or state among the Italian allies requires a controversy to be settled, a penalty to be assessed, help or pro- tection to be afforded, all this is the province of the senate. Or again, outside Italy, if it is necessary to send an embassy to recon- cile warring communities, or to remind them of their duty, or sometimes to impose requisitions upon them, or to receive their submission, or finally to proclaim war against them, this too is the business of the senate. In like manner the reception to be given to foreign ambassadors in Rome, and the answers to be returned to them, are decided by the senate. With such business the people have nothing to do. Consequently, if one were stay- ing at Rome when the consuls were not in town, one would imagine the constitution to be a complete aristocracy: and this has been the idea entertained by many Greeks, and by many kings as well, from the fact that nearly all the business they had with Rome was settled by the senate. After this one would naturally be inclined to ask what part is left for the people in the constitution, when the senate has these various functions, especially the control of the receipts and expenditure of the exchequer; and when the consuls, again, have /absolute power over the details of military preparation, and an absolute authority in the field? There is, however, a part left the people, and it is a most important one. ^For the people is tfi'e sole fountain of honor and of punishment; and it is by these two things and these alone that dynasties and constitutions and, in a word, human society are held together: for where the distinction between them is not sharply drawn both in theory and practice, there no undertaking can be properly administered, as indeed we might expect when good and bad are held in exactly the same honor. |The people then are the only court to decide matters **- of life anodeath; and even in the cases where the penalty is money, if the sum to be assessed is sufficiently serious, and especially when the accused have held the high magistracies. And in regard to POLYBIUS 115 this arrangement there is one point deserving especial commenda- tion and record. Men who are on trial for their lives at Rome, while sentence is in process of being voted, if even only one of the tribes whose votes are needed to ratify sentence has not voted,- have the privilege at Rome of openly departing and condemning themselves to a voluntary exile. Such men are safe at Naples or Praeneste or at Tibur and at other towns with which this arrangement has been duly ratified on oath. (Again, it is the people who bestow offices on the deserving, which are the most honorable rewards of virtue. It has also the abso- . lute power of passing or repealing laws ; and, most important of all, ' * it is the people who deliberate on the question of peace or war. ) And when provisional terms are made for alliance, suspension or hostilities, or treaties, it is the people who ratify them or the reverse. These considerations again would lead one to say that the chief power in the state was the people's, and that the constitution was a democracy. Such then is the distribution of power between the several parts of the state. I must now show how each of these several parts can, when they choose, oppose or support each other. The c^ngul, then, when he has started on an expedition with the powers I have described, is to all appearance absolute in the ad- ministration of the business in hand ; still he has need of the support T^r>t>i r>f ppnplp and sf;nflf.p j and without them, ^s quite unable to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. For it is plain that he must have supplies sent to his legions from time to time; but without a decree of the senate they can be supplied neither with corn, nor clothes, nor pay, so that all the plans of a commander must be futile, if the senate is resolved either to shrink from danger or hamper his plans. And again, whether a consul shall bring any undertaking to a conclusion or not depends entirely upon the senate: for it has absolute authority at the end of a year to send another consul to supersede him, or to continue the existing one in his command. Again, even to the successes of the generals the senate has the power to add distinction and glory, and on the other hand to obscure their merits and lower their credit. For these high achievements are brought in tangible form before the eyes of the citizens by what are called "triumphs." But these triumphs the commanders cannot celebrate with proper pomp, or in some cases celebrate at all, unless the senate concurs and grants the necessary money. As for the people, the consuls are preeminently obliged to court their favor, however distant from home may be the field of their operations; for it is the people, as 116 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I have said before, that ratifies, or refuses to ratify, terms of peace and treaties; but most of all because when laying down their office they have to give an account of their administration before it. Therefore in no case is it safe for the consuls to neglect either the senate or the good-will of the people. As for the senate, which possesses the immense power I have described, in the first place it is obliged in public affairs to take the multitude into account, and respect the wishes of the people; and it cannot put into execution the penalty for offences against the republic, which are punishable with death, unless the people first ratify its decrees. Similarly even in matters which directly affect the senators, for instance, in the case of a law diminishing the senate's traditional authority, or depriving sena- tors of certain dignities and offices, or even actually cutting down their property, even in such cases the people have the sole power of passing or rejecting the law. But most important of all is the fact that, if the tribunes interpose their veto, the senate not only are unable to pass a decree, but cannot even hold a meeting at all, whether formal or informal. (Now, the tribunes are always bound to carry out the decree of^the people, and above all things to have regard to their wishes :theref ore, for all these reasons the senate stands in awe of the multitude, and cannot neglect the feelings of the peopljgjy In like 'manner the people on its part is far from being independent of the senate, and is bound to take its wishes into account both collectively and individually. For contracts, too numerous to count, are given out by the censors in all parts of Italy for the repairs or construction of public buildings; there is also the collection of revenue from many rivers, harbors, gardens, mines, and land everything, in a word, that comes under the control of the Roman government: and in all these the people at large are engaged; so that there is scarcely a man, so to speak, who is not interested either as a contractor or as being employed in the works. For some purchase the contracts from the censors for themselves; and others go partners with them; while others again go security for these contractors, or actually pledge their property to the treasury for them. Now over all these transactions the senate has absolute control. It can grant an extension of time; and in case of unforeseen accident can relieve the contractors from a portion of their obligation, or release them from it altogether, if they are absolutely unable to fulfil it. And there are many details in which the senate can inflict great hardships, or, on the other hand, grant great indulgences to the contractors: for in POLYBIUS 117 every case the appeal is to it. But the most important point of all is that the judges are taken f ram jits members in the majority of trials^ whether public or private, in which the charges are heavy. Consequently, all citizens are much at its mercy; and being alarmed at the uncertainty as to when they may need its aid, are cautious about resisting or actively opposing its will. And for a similar reason men do not rashly resist the wishes of the consuls, because one and all may become subject to their absolute authority on a campaign. [The result of this power of the several estates for mutual help or harm is a union sufficiently firm for all emergencies, and a constitution than which it is impossible to find a better. For whenever any danger from without compels them to unite and work together, the strength which is developed by the state is so extraordinary, that everything required is unfailingly carried out by the eager rivalry shown by all classes to devote their whole minds to the need of the hour, and to secure that any determina- tion come to should not fail for want of promptitude; while each individual works, privately and publicly alike, for the accom- plishment of the business in hand^ Accordingly, the peculiar constitution of the state makes it irresistible, and certain of obtain- ing whatever it determines to attempt. Nay, even when these external alarms are past, and the people are enjoying their good fortune and the fruits of their victories, and, as usually happens, growing corrupted by flattery and idleness, show a tendency to violence and arrogance, it is in these circumstances, more than ever, that the constitution is seen to possess within itself the power of correcting abuses. (For when any one of the three classes becomes puffed up T and manifests an inclination to be conten- jious and unduly encroaching, the mutual interdependency ot aH "the three, and the possibility of the pretensions of any one being checked and thwarted by the others, must plainly check this tendency: and so the proper equilibrium is maintained by the impulsiveness of the one part being checked by its fear of the other. . . .\ SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Fustel de Coulanges, Polybe ou la Grlce conquise par Us remains, in his Questions historiques, pp. 119211. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediceval, ch. iv, 4. Strachan-Davidson, Polybius, in Hellenica, pp. 353-387. Willoughby, Political Theories of the Ancient World, ch. xviii. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 251-259. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS IV. THOMAS AQUINAS (1227-1274) INTRODUCTION The next selection is from the scholastic philosophy of the late middle ages. We pass over Roman authors and the writers of the early middle ages. We include no Roman author because, except for the theoretical form giyen to jurisprudence, Roman literature furnished no great contribution to political theory. It may be roughly stated that the Roman mind was essentially legalistic rather than philosophic. Roman commentators pro- duced rationalistic expositions of their great system of law; but no writer set forth a system of political philosophy of first import- ance. It may be added that under the influence of Greek Stoic philosophy, the Stoic conception of natural law became inter- woven into the principles of Roman jurisprudence; and through discussions of natural law by Roman Stoics, ideas of fundamental significance for political theory were developed. 1 The chief points of the doctrine of natural law, in its political aspect, are, however, exhibited more clearly in the writings of later theorists, who em- ployed the idea under an interpretation more definitely dis- entangled from its ethical and metaphysical connections. We include no author of the early middle ages; political and social conditions in that period were unproductive of deep poli- tical thought. Discussions of political questions appear in the writings of jurists and of church writers, in connection with the frequent controversies that arose out of the conflicting claims of temporal and spiritual authorities. But these discussions were dogmatic or legalistic, and did not lead to any philosophic exami- nation of the foundations of the political order of society. The divine ordination of the state, as well of the church, was a major premise for both parties to the disputes. 2 l Cf. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 29-33; Willoughby, Politi- cal Theories of the Ancient World, chs. xiv-xvii; Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediceval, ch. iv, 3 and 6. 2 On the political ideas of mediaeval ecclesiastics and jurists, from the first century to the thirteenth century, cf. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, 34~37I Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediceval, chs. v-vii; L;arlyle, History of Mediaeval Political Theory, Vol. I, chs. viii-xxi, and Vol. II; Gii rierke, Political Theories of the Middle Age. 121 122 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The prevailing system of late mediaeval thought is known as "Scholasticism." (The scholastic method was formal and deduc- tive the balancing of authorities, the definition^and discrimination of words, the systematic application of the syllogism to all ques- tions. A source of authority for scholastics was, On the one hand, s Aristotle, whose writings were far more comprehensive and analy- tical than anything else in secular literature known to the mediaeval mind. On the other hand, their authorities were, first, the Scrip- tures, and, secondly, the doctrines of the church as embodied in the writings of the church fathers and in ecclesiastical decrees. The aim of scholasticism was to merge into one system human and divine philosophy, to interweave the higher tenets of human reason as set forth in Aristotle, with the doctrines of Christian theology as revealed in the Bible and the tradition of the church; where the two elements appeared incompatible, the former ,was to be adjusted to the latter. 1 \ The greatest of the scholastics was Thomas Aquinas. His writings were in general too closely governed by dogmatic theol- ogy to have comprised any consistently worked-out scheme of political theory; but his definition and classification of laws were of notable influence upon important juristic treatises by theologians and others of later periods; and the discussion of the limits of government, in his De Regimine Principum, shows independent thinking in advance of his school. Aquinas was born in the early part of the thirteenth century, in the kingdom of Naples, of a family of noble descent. He was a devoted student of philosophy and theology, and was a lecturer and teacher in these subjects at Paris, Naples, Rome, and other places. He was active and influential in the service of the church and of the Dominican order of friars, which he joined while a young man. From his teachings and writings he ranks with St. Augus- tine as one of the two most influential theologians of the Roman Catholic church. His analysis of law forms a part of his Summa Theologica, a work which was designed to cover the whole field of learning defined and interpreted according to the philosophy of Aristotle and the doctrines of the church. The Rule of Princes was intended as a distinctly political treatise; it was not completed at the author's death; the parts which he wrote deal with the origin 1 Cf. Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 355-356. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS 123 and basis of civil government, the best form of state, and the sphere of government. 1 r commit this duty to some one or few; / the latter do not, and cannot, constitute the legislator in thej strict sense of the term ; they act only in such matters and for sucn periods as are covered by the authorization from the primary legislator. Laws, and anything else established through election, require the approbation of no other authority, and need no ceremonies or solemnities that are not demanded by the electors or that are not necessary to a valid election. Through the same process should be undertaken the expansion, elimination, or modification of laws, or their interpretation and suspension, as such may be required for the common interest by the exigencies of time, place, or other circumstance. By the same authority likewise must laws, be promulgated or proclaimed after their enactment, lest any citizen or stranger, delinquent in them, should be excused through ignorance. Following Aristotle, I call citi- " zen him who participates in the political community with either deliberative or judicial authority, according to his station. 1 By this definition boys, slaves, aliens, and women are distinguished, though in different respects, from citizens. For example, the sons of citizens are potential citizens, lacking citizenship solely ^hrough defect of age. . . . Having thus defined citizenship and determined the majority of citizens, we may return to the proposed task namely, to 1 "Civem autem dico eum qui participat in communitate civili, principatu autem consiliativo vel judicativo secundum gradum suum." 164 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY demonstrate that human legislative authority pertains to the whole body, or the majority, of citizens. ... It is not easy, or even possible, to bring all persons to one opinion; for the nature of some is depraved, or divergent from the common opinion on account of malice or ignorance; the common deliberations ought not to be impeded or omitted because of the unreasonable complaints or disputes of these. Therefore, it is only to the whole body, or the majority, of citizens that the authority of making or instituting law pe tains. I have proved that only out of the deliberation and will of the whole multitude is the best law produced; as Aristotle says: the best law is that which is created / out of the common counsel of the citizens, and right (in law, that is) ; is a matter of the interest of the state and of the common well-being \ of the citizens. . . . For a majority can more readily than any less number discern the defect in a law proposed for enactment; for the whole community is greater in importance and worth than any part; and general utility is more apt to be found in law issuing from the community, since no one knowingly injures himself. Under such conditions, moreover, anyone can observe whether a proposed law tends to the advantage rather of a certain one or few than of others or of the community, and can protest; this is not possible where law is made by a single person or by a few who may seek their own rather than the common good. N\ Let us return to our principal conclusion namely, that the sple_ * legislative authority is that authority from whom the best laws will proceed and whose laws will be most readily observed. This is the whole body of citizens; it has the authority to legislate; a law is useless if it is not obeyed. The second proposition may be demonstrated as follows: since that law is better observed by any one of the citizens, which he seems to have imposed upon himself, the best law is made by the deliberation and command of the entire body of citizens. The first proposition seems almost axiomatic, since the state is a community of free men; this cannot be if a single man or a few make law by their own authority over the whole body of citizens, for those making the law would be despots over the others. In such case the remainder of the citi- zens, perhaps the majority, would endure such a law, however good, with impatience, or not at all, and bearing contempt toward the law would contend that not having been invited to share in its creation they would in no wise observe it. On the other hand, any citizen will endure and obey a law, however irksome, that is made from the deliberation and consent of the whole multitude, because he himself seems to have imposed it upon himself and, MARSIGLIO 165 therefore, cannot complain against it, but must suffer its penalties with an even mind. . . . Most of this demonstration falls among those things approxi- mately known in themselves, and among the permanent truths which are set forth in an earlier chapter. Men have come to- gether into civil association for the sake of convenience and the resulting sufficiency of life, and in order to escape the opposite conditions. The things, therefore, which can effect the advantage or disadvantage of all ought to be known and heard by all, so that they may be able to seek the beneficial and repel the injurious. Thus we get laws; for in the proper adjustment of laws a great part of general human well-being consists. Under unjust laws oppression, intolerable servitude, and other miseries of the citizens arise, resulting finally in the dissolution of the polity. Thejiuihof- ity for making laws pertains either to the whole body of citizens, or to a single one or to the few. It cannot pertain to one man, for he, looking rather to his own than to the common interest, can, through ignorance or malice, produce a bad law, whence a tyranny will arise. For the same reason it cannot pertain to the few; they likewise in making law plan for a particular interest and not for the common good ; we see this in oligarchies. For the opposite reasons, lawmaking pertains to the whole body of citizens or to a majority. For all citizens must be duly regulated by law, and no man knowingly does injury or injustice to himself; there- fore, all, or at least most, desire a law adapted to the common good of the citizens. Through the same process of reasoning it can be shown that the ratification, interpretation, and suspension of law pertain also to the sole legislative authority. This is true with respect to everything -established through election. The right of approval or disapproval must pertain to those who have the authority of election, or to whomever they may endow with that function. The part would be greater than, or at least equal to, the whole, if that which is decreed by the whole community can be nullified by some other authority. 3. The Distinction Between Legislative and Executive Functions * It now remains to show the basis of the authority to govern. This authority comes not from knowledge of the laws, from practical wisdom, or from moral virtue, although these are the qualities of a perfect governor. For many have these qualities 1 Defensor Pads, Book I, ch. xv (in part). ! 166 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and yet lack the authority to rule. . . . The effective power in the institution of a governing body, that is, in election, pertains to the legislator that is, to the citizens as a body. The latter likewise have the power of correcting the government, and even the power of deposition, should such become expedient for the common interest. For the majority rules. The manner of coming to agreement "in election or appointment may vary in different countries. But whatever these differences may be, the election or appointment must always take place by the authority of the law-making power, which is, as we have often said, the whole citizen-body, or its larger part. Now this proposition can be maintained by the same proofs by which we concluded that the power to make laws, and to change them, belonged to the entire community. We change only the lesser term of the conclusion, substituting the word "government" for the word "law." This proposition can be tested by its own truth. For whoever has the power to create a form has the power to determine its underlying substance, as may be seen in all the productive acts. ... In all things, both artificial and natural, this is apparent by induction. There is a reason for this; for the forms and their operation are the ends, the materials are the means. Since then it belongs to the whole body of citizens to create the form accord- ing to which civil acts are to be regulated that is, the law, it belongs to the same body to determine the material or subject- matter of this form. . . . From this it seems possible to infer consistently that a ruler who is elected without succession is greatly to be preferred to rulers who are hereditary. . . . Thus one part of the state institutes and determines the other parts or offices of the state. The former we call the legislative, the latter we call the instrumental or executive part; the executive rules by virtue of the authority conferred upon it* by the legis- lative and according to the form given to it by the same power- that is, according to law, in conformity to which it must always, as far as possible, perform and regulate civil acts. For though the legislative, as the first and proper source of authority, must determine who are to fulfill the various functions of the state, nevertheless, the executive (pars principans) directs, and, under proper conditions, stays the execution of these functions, as also of laws in general. For the execution of laws is more conveniently accomplished through such a body than through the entire multi- tude of citizens, since for this work one ruler or a few will suffice. In such duties the whole community would be vainly engaged and would be diverted from other necessary activities. The whole MARSIGLIO 167 community is acting when the executive acts, since the latter acts according to the decision of the community that is, according to law, which is more easily executed by a few or even one. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Medi&val, ch. ix, 5. Riezler, Die lilerarischen Widersacher der Pdpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers, pp. 30-41. Valois, "Jean de Jandun et Marsile de Padoue," in Histoire litter air e de la France, Vol. XXIII, pp. 560-567. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Medi&val, ch. ix, 6 and 8. Poole, Illustrations of Mediceval Thought, pp. 263-277. Sullivan, "Marsiglio of Padua and William of Ockam," in American His- torical Review, Vol. II (1896-7), pp. 409-426, 593-610. Riezler, Die literarischen Widersacher der Pdpste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers, pp. 193-240. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de VEurope, moyen age, pp. 135-151. Guggenheim, "Marsilius von Padua und die Staatsidee des Aristotles," in Historische Vierteljahresschrift, yol. VII (1904), pp. 343-362. Valois, "Jean de Jandun et Marsile de Padoue," in Histoire litter air e de la France, Vol. XXIII, pp. 574-587. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 457-461. MACHIAVELLI VII. MACfflAVELLI (1469-152?) INTRODUCTION In the Defensor Pads we found ideas on popular government which seemed notably in advance of the age in which they were enunciated. But Marsiglio's manner, of discourse was essentially mediaeval; his argumentation was deductive and abstract; and though his scriptural citations were less numerous than was cus- tomary among mediaeval writers, he resorted freely to Aristotle for statement of first principles and for confirmation of his con- clusions. It is two centuries later before we find the first important political book which is generally regarded as distinctively modern in method and point of view; this book is The Prince of Machia- velli. This celebrated work is called modern because, in the first place, its conclusions are sustained by observations from history and contemporary politics rather by citation of authority or by derivation from theological dogma and philosophical tra- dition; in the second place, in contrast to mediaeval methods, political questions are examined in thorough isolation from reli- gious, metaphysical, and ethical principles. The Prince treats of the means whereby a strong and adroit man may most success- fully acquire, increase, and perpetuate political dominion. Ques- tions of right and wrong, and considerations of public welfare and of conformity to religious practices, are introduced only with regard to their bearing upon the skilfulness of the autocrat. The completeness with which this detachment of method is pursued in The Prince, and the particular type of conclusions of state- craft reached, seem properly to be assigned to no special epoch or school. They seem rather the peculiar product, on the one hand, of the temperament of the author, and, on the other hand, of the character of the political events through which he lived. Machiavelli was born in Florence. He was in the public service of that city-state from the year 1494 (the year of the invasion of Charles VIII, the first expulsion of the Medici, and the temporary restoration of the Republic) until the return of the Medici in 171 172 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 1512. Following this he was in exile for nine years . It was during his banishment that he wrote The Prince, the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, and several historical and dramatic works. Through the greater part of his active political life he headed the highest diplomatic office of the Republic. He was sent on numerous missions to petty principalities and cities of Italy, and on several important embassies; thus he visited the courts of Louis XII of France, Emperor Maximilian and others. These missions afforded him opportunity for observing govern- mental practices under diverse conditions. Of peculiar signifi- cance in this regard was his mission to the camp of Caesar Borgia at the point of time when that skilful and infamous tyrant had attained his summit of success. The career of single-minded cruelty and fraud which Caesar Borgia had followed furnished Machiavelli with many suggestions in practical politics. But Machiavelli's experience and observation had provided him a broader field for examination of the efficacy of despotism. The principle of direct autocracy was dominant in the governments of the great states of Europe, and in that of the church. Further- more, recent events in Machiavelli's own city, and the general political condition of Italy, indicated to him the need for an analy- sis of the qualities of a successful monarch. From the instability which was chronic within each of the small Italian states, and from the turmoil of continually conflicting claims of territorial juris- diction, escape appeared to be possible only through the agency of a single powerful and unscrupulous despot. The Prince was completed in 1513. Machiavelli planned to dedicate the work to one of the Medici, hoping thereby to obtain recall from exile and restoration to public office and favor, and also to bring his manual into the attention of one who, by fol- lowing its doctrines, might accomplish the unification of Italy. He finally dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo de' Medici, 1 who became de facto head of the Florentine government in 1516. Machiavelli was subsequently recalled from exile and was em- ployed in the capacity of adviser and diplomatic representative of the Medici rulers in Florence and Rome. / -4- * ( v^ u*c fy\ *w Asu[ 1 Grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent. MACHIAVELLI 173 READINGS FROM THE PRINCE 1 The Conduct of a Successful Ruler * Ch. xv. Of Such Things as Render Men (especially Princes) Worthy of Blame or Applause. It remains now that we see in what manner a prince ought to comport with his subjects and friends; and because many have written of this subject before, it may perhaps seem arrogant in me, especially considering that in my discourse I shall deviate from the opinion of other men. But my intention being to write for the benefit and advantage of him who understands, I thought it more convenient to respect the essential verity, rather than an imaginary view, of the subject; for many have framed imaginary commonwealths and governments to themselves which never were seen nor had any real existence. And the present manner of living is so different from the way that ought to be taken, that he who neglects what is done to follow what ought to be done, will sooner learn how to ruin than how to preserve himself; for a tender man, and one that desires to be honest in everything, must needs run a great hazard among so many of a contrary principle. Where- fore it is necessary for a prince who is willing to subsist to harden himself, and learn to be good or 'Otherwise according to the exigence of his affairs. Laying aside, therefore, all imaginary notions of a prince, and discoursing of nothing but what is actually true, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and especially princes, who are in a higher and more eminent station, are remarkable for some quality or other that makes them either honorable or contemptible. Hence it is that some are counted liberal, others miserly; . . . some munificent, others rapacious; some cruel, others merciful; some faithless, others precise; one poor-spirited and effeminate, another fierce and ambitious; one courteous, another haughty; one modest, another libidinous; one sincere, another cunning; one rugged and morose, another accessible and easy; one grave, another giddy; one devout, another an atheist. No man, I am sure, will deny but that it would be an admirable thing and highly to be commended to have a prince endued with all the good qualities aforesaid; but because it is impossible to 1 The selections are from Henry Morley's edition of The Prince and Other Pieces, but many changes, in wording and construction, have been made. 2 Chs. xv-xix, xxi. Part of ch. xix is omitted. 174 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY have, much less to exercise, them all by reason of the frailty and grossness of our nature, it is convenient that he be so well in- structed as to know how to avoid the scandal of those vices which may deprive him of his state, and be very cautious of the rest, though their consequence be not so pernicious but that where they are unavoidable he need trouble himself the less. Again, he is not to concern himself if he incur the infamy of those vices without which his dominion is not to be preserved; for if we consider things impartially we shall find some things are virtuous in appearance, and yet, if pursued, would bring certain destruction; while others, seemingly bad, yet, if followed by a prince, procure his peace and security. Ch. xvi. Of Liberality and Parsimony. To begin, then, with the first of the above-mentioned qualities, I say, it would be advantageous to be accounted liberal; never- theless, liberality so used as not to render you formidable does but injure you; for if it be used virtuously as it ought to be it will not be known, nor secure you from the imputation of its con- trary. To keep up, therefore, the name of liberal amongst men, it is necessary that no kind of luxury be omitted, so that a prince of that disposition will consume his revenue in that kind of expenses, and be obliged at last, if he would preserve that reputation, to become grievous, and a great exactor upon the people, and do whatever is practicable for the getting of money, which will cause him to be hated of his subjects and despised by everybody else when he once comes to be poor, so that offending many with his liberality and rewarding but few, he becomes sensible of the first disaster, and runs great hazard of being ruined the first time he is in danger; which, when afterward he discovers, and desires to remedy, he runs into the other extreme, and grows as odious for his avarice. So, then, if a prince cannot exercise this virtue of liberality so as to be publicly known, without detriment to himself, he ought, if he be wise, not to dread the imputation of being covetous, for in time he shall be esteemed liberal when it is discovered that by his parsimony he has in- creased his revenue to a condition of defending himself against invasion and of engaging in enterprises upon other people without oppressing his subjects; so that he shall be accounted noble to alt from whom he takes nothing away, which are an infinite number, and near and parsimonious only to such few as he gives nothing to. In our days we have seen no great action done but by those who were accounted miserly; others have failed always. Pope MACHIAVELLI 175 Julius II made use of his bounty to get into the Chair, but to enable himself to make war with the King of France he never practised it afterwards, and by his frugality he maintained several wars without any tax or imposition upon the people, his long parsimony having furnished him for his extraordinary expenses. The present King of Spain, if he had affected to be thought liberal, could never have undertaken so many great designs nor obtained so many great victories. A prince, there- fore, ought not to be much concerned over being accounted covetous so long as he is enabled thereby to forbear from burdening his subjects, to defend himself, and to keep himself from becoming poor and despicable; covetousness is one of those vices which fortify his dominion. If any one objects that Caesar by his liberality made his way to the empire, and many others upon the same score of reputation have made themselves great, I answer: " Either you are actually a prince, or you are in a fair way to be made one. In the first case, liberality is hurtful; in the second, it is necessary; Caesar aspired to the sovereignty of Rome; when he was arrived at that dignity, if he had lived, and had not retrenched his expenses, he would have ruined that empire." If any one replies that many have been princes, and with their armies per- formed great matters, who have been reputed liberal, I rejoin that a prince spends either of his own, or his subjects', or other people's. In the first case he is to be frugal; in the second, he may be as profuse as he pleases, and baulk no point of liberality. But that prince whose army is to be maintained with free quarter and plunder and exactions from other people, is obliged to be liberal, or his army will desert him; and well he may be prodigal of what neither belongs to him nor his subjects, as was the case with Caesar, and Cyrus, and Alexander; for to spend upon another's stock rather adds to than subtracts from his reputation; it is spending of his own that is so mortal and pernicious. Nor is there anything that destroys itself like liberality; for in practising it you lose the means whereby it can be practised, and you become poor and contemptible, or, to avoid that poverty, you make your- self odious and a tyrant; and there is nothing of so much impor- tance to a prince to avoid as to be either contemptible or odious, both of which depend much upon the prudent exercise of your liberality. Upon these considerations it is more wisdom to lie under the scandal of being miserly, which is an imputation rather infamous than odious, than to be thought liberal and run yourself into a necessity of playing the tyrant, which is infamous and odious both. 176 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Ch. xvii. Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Best for a Prince to be Beloved or Feared. To come now to the other qualities proposed, I say every prince is to desire to be esteemed rather merciful than cruel, but with great caution that his mercy be not abused; Caesar Borgia was counted cruel, yet that cruelty reduced Romagna, united it, settled it in peace, and rendered it faithful: so that if well con- sidered, he will appear much more merciful than the Florentines, who rather than be thought cruel suffered Pistoia to be destroyed. A prince, therefore, is not to regard the reproach of being cruel, if thereby he keeps his subjects in their allegiance and united, seeing that by some few examples of justice he may be more merci- ful than they who by a universal exercise of pity permit several disorders to follow, which occasion rapine and murder; and the reason is, because that exorbitant mercy has an ill effect upon the whole community, whereas particular executions extend only to particular persons. But among all princes a new prince has the hardest task to avoid the scandal of being cruel by reason of the newness of his government, and the dangers which attend it: hence Virgil in the person of Dido excused the inhospitality of her government. Res dura, et regni novitas, me talia cogunt Moliri, et late fines Custode tueri. My new dominion and my harder fate Constrains me to't, and I must guard my state. Nevertheless, he is not to be too credulous of reports, too hasty in his motions, nor create fears and jealousies to himself, but so to temper his administrations with prudence and humanity that neither too much confidence may make him careless, nor too much diffidence intolerable. And hence arises a new question, Whether it be better to be beloved than feared, or feared than beloved? It is answered, both would be convenient, but because that is hard to attain, it is better and more secure, if one must be wanting, to be feared than beloved; for in general men are ungrateful, inconstant, hypocritical, fearful of danger, and covetous of gain; while they receive any benefit by you, and the danger is at a distance, they are absolutely yours, and their blood, their estates, their lives and their children, as I said before, are all at your service; but when mischief is at hand, and you have present need of their help, they make no scruple to re- volt; and that prince who leaves himself naked of other prepara- tions, and relies wholly upon their professions, is sure to be ruined; MACHIAVELLI 177 for amity contracted by price, and not by the greatness and gen- erosity of the mind, may seem a good pennyworth; yet when you have occasion to make use of it, you will find no such thing. Moreover, men do with less remorse offend against those who desire to be beloved than against those who are ambitious of being feared; the reason is that love is fastened only by a liga- ment of obligation, which the ill-nature of man breaks upon every occasion that is presented to his profit; but fear depends upon an apprehension of punishment, which is never to be dis- pelled. Yet a prince is to render himself awful in such sort that, if he gains not his subjects' love, he may escape their hatred; for to be feared and not hated are compatible enough, and he may be always in that condition if he offers no violence to their estates, nor attempts anything upon the honor of their wives, and when he has occasion to take away any man's life, if he takes his time when the cause is manifest, and he has good matter for his justification; but above all things he is to have a care of intrenching upon their estates, for men do sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony; besides, occasions of confiscation never fail, and he that once gives way to that humor of rapine shall never want temptation to ruin his neighbor. But, on the contrary, provocations to blood are more rare, and do sooner evaporate; but when a prince is at the head of his army, and has a multitude of soldiers to govern, then it is absolutely necessary not to value the epithet of cruel, for without that no army can be kept in unity, nor in disposition for any great act. Among the several instances of Hannibal's great conduct, it is one that, having a vast army constituted out of several nations, and conducted to make war in an enemy's country, there never happened any sedition among them, or any mutiny against their general, either in his adversity or prosperity. This can only be attributed to his great cruelty, which, added to his infinite virtues, rendered him both awful and terrible to his soldiers; without that all his virtues would have signified nothing. Some writers there are, but of little consideration, who admire his great exploits and condemn the true causes of them. But to prove that his other virtues would never have carried him through, let us reflect upon Scipio, a person honorable not only in his own time, but in all history whatever; nevertheless his army mutinied in Spain, and the true cause of it was his too much gentleness and lenity, which gave his soldiers more liberty than was suitable or consistent with military discipline. Fabius Maxi- mus upbraided him for it in the senate, and called him corrupter 178 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of the Roman Militia; the inhabitants of Locris having been plun- dered and destroyed by one of Scipio's lieutenants, they were never redressed, nor the legate's insolence corrected, all proceeding from the mildness of Scipio's nature, which was so eminent in him, that a person undertaking to excuse him in the senate declared that there were many who knew better how to avoid doing ill themselves than to punish it in other people; whioh temper would doubtless in time have eclipsed the glory and repu- tation of Scipio, had that authority been continued in him; but receiving orders and living under the direction of the senate, that ill quality was not only not discovered in him, but turned to his renown. I conclude, therefore, according to what I have said about being feared or beloved, that forasmuch as men do love at their own discretion, but fear at their prince's, a wise prince is obliged to lay his foundation upon that which is in his own power, not that which depends on other people, but, as I said before, with great caution that he does not make himself odious. Ch. xviii. How far a Prince is Obliged by his Promise. How honorable it is for a prince to keep his word, and act rather with integrity than collusion, I suppose everybody under- stands: nevertheless, experience has shown in our times that those princes who have not pinned themselves up to that punctuality and preciseness have done great things, and by their cunning and subtilty have not only circumvented those with whom they had to deal, but have overcome and been too hard for those who have been so superstitiously exact. For further explanation you must understand there are two ways of contending by law and by force: the first is proper to men; the second to beasts; but because many times the first is insufficient, recourse must be had to the second. It belongs, therefore, to a prince to understand both when to make use of the rational and when of the brutal way ; and this is recommended to princes, though abstrusely, by ancient writers, who tell them how Achilles and several other princes were committed for education to Chiron the Centaur, who was half man and half beast thus showing how necessary it is for a prince to be acquainted with both natures, for one without the other will be of little duration. Seeing, therefore, it is of such importance to a prince to take upon him the nature and disposition of a beast, of all the whole flock he ought to imitate the lion and the fox; for the lion is in danger of toils and snares, and the fox of the wolf; so that he MACHIAVELLI 179 must be a fox to find out the snares, and a lion to fight away the wolves, but they who keep wholly to the lion have no true notion of themselves. A prince, therefore, who is wise and prudent, cannot or ought not to keep his word, when the keeping of it is to his prejudice, and the causes for which he promised removed. Were men all good this doctrine would not be taught, but because they are wicked and not likely to be punctual with you, you are not obliged to any such strictness with them; nor was there ever any prince that lacked lawful pretence to justify his breach of promise. I might give many modern examples, and show how many confederations, and peaces, and promises have been broken by the infidelity of princes, and how he that best personated the fox had the better success. Nevertheless, it is of great consequence to disguise your inclination, and to play the hypo- crite well ; and men are so simple in their temper and so submissive to their present necessities that he that is neat and cleanly in his collusions shall never want people to practise them upon. I cannot forbear one example which is still fresh in our memory. Alexander VI never did, nor thought of, anything but cheating, and never wanted matter to work upon; and though no man promised a thing with greater asseveration, nor confirmed it with more oaths and imprecations, and observed them less, yet under- standing the world well he never miscarried. A prince, therefore, is not obliged to have all the forementioned good qualities in reality, but it is necessary he have them in ap- pearance; nay, I will be bold to affirm that, having them actually, and employing them upon all occasions, they are extremely prejudicial, whereas, having them only in appearance, they turn to better account; it is honorable to seem mild, and merciful, and courteous, and religious, and sincere, and indeed to be so, provided your mind be so rectified and prepared that you can act quite contrary upon occasion. And this must be premised, that a prince, especially if come but lately to the throne, cannot observe all those things exactly which cause men to be esteemed virtuous, being oftentimes necessitated, for the preservation of his state, to do things inhuman, uncharitable, and irreligious; and, therefore, it is convenient for his mind to be at his command, and flexible to all the puffs and variations of fortune; not forbearing to be good while it is in his choice, but knowing how to be evil when there is a necessity. A prince, then, is to have particular care that nothing falls from his mouth but what is full of the five qualities aforesaid, and that to see and hear him he appears all goodness, integrity, humanity, and religion, which last he 180 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ought to pretend to more than ordinarily, because more men do judge by the eye than by the touch; for everybody sees but few understand; everybody sees how you appear, but few know what in reality you are, and those few dare not oppose the opinion of the multitude, who have the majesty of their prince to defend them; and in the actions of all men, especially princes, where no man has power to judge, everyone looks to the end. Let a prince, therefore, do what he can to preserve his life, and continue his supremacy, the means which he uses shall be thought honorable, and be commended by everybody; because the people are always taken with the appearance and event of things, and the greatest part of the world consists of the people; those few who are wise taking place when the multitude has nothing else to rely upon. There is a prince at this time in being (but his name I shall con- ceal) who has nothing in his mouth but fidelity and peace; and yet had he exercised either the one or the other, they had robbed him before this both of his power and reputation. Ch. xix. That Princes Ought to be Cautious of Becoming either Odious or Contemptible. Since in our discourse of the qualifications of a prince we have hitherto spoken only of those which are of greatest importance, we shall now speak briefly of the rest, with the general statements that a prince should make it his business (as is partly hinted before) to avoid such things as may make him odious or contemp- tible, and that as often as he does that he plays his part very well, and shall meet no danger or inconveniences by the rest of his vices. Nothing, as I said before, makes a prince so insufferably odious as usurping his subjects' estates and debauching their wives, which are two things he ought studiously to forbear; for while the generality of the world live quietly upon their estates and un- prejudiced in their honor, they live peaceably enough, and all his contention is only with the pride and ambition of some few persons who can in many ways and with great ease be restrained. But a prince is contemptible when he is counted effeminate, light, inconstant, pusillanimous, and irresolute; and of this he ought to be as careful as of a rock in the sea; and he should strive that in all his actions there may appear magnanimity, courage, gravity, and forti- tude, desiring that in the private affairs of his subjects his sentence and determination may be irrevocable, and that he himself may stand so in their opinion that none may think it possible either to de- lude or divert him. The prince who causes himself to be esteemed in that manner shall be highly feared, and if he be feared, MACHIAVELLI 181 people will not easily conspire against him, nor readily invade him, because he is known to be an excellent person and formidable to his subjects; for a prince ought to be terrible in two places at home to his subjects, and abroad to his equals, from whom he defends himself by good arms and good allies; for, if his power be good, his friends will not be wanting, and while his affairs are fixed at home, there will be no danger from abroad, unless they be disturbed by some former conspiracy; and upon any commotion ab extra, if he be composed at home, has lived as I prescribe, and not deserted himself, he will be able to bear up against any at- tack, according to the example of Nabis the Spartan. When things are well abroad his affairs at home will be safe enough, unless they be perplexed by some secret conspiracy, against which the prince sufficiently provides if he keeps himself from being hated or despised, and the people remain satisfied of him, which is a thing very necessary, as I have shown at length before. And one of the best remedies a prince can use against conspiracy is to keep himself from being hated or despised by the multitude; for nobody plots but expects by the death of the prince to gratify the people, and the thought of offending them will deter him from any such enterprise, because in conspiracies the difficulties are infinite. By experience we find that many conspiracies have been on foot, but few have succeeded, because no man can con- spire alone, nor choose a confederate but out of those who are discontented; and no sooner shall you impart your mind to a mal- content but you give him opportunity to reconcile himself, because there is no advantage which he seeks but what he may hope to gain by betraying you. So that the gain being certain on that side, and hazardous and uncertain on the other, he must be either an extraordinary friend to you or an implacable enemy to the prince if he does not betray you; in short, on the side of the conspirators there is nothing but fear and jealousy, and apprehension of pun- ishment; but, on the prince's side, there is the majesty of the government, the laws, the assistance of his friends and state, which defend him so effectually that, if the affections of the people be added to them, no man can be so rash and precipitate as to conspire; for if, before the execution of his design, the con- spirator has reason to be afraid, in this case he has much more afterwards, having offended the people in the execution and left himself no refuge to fly to. Of this many examples may be produced, but I shall content myself with one which happened in the memory of our fathers. Hannibal Bentivoglio, grandfather to this present Hannibal, was Prince of Bologna, and was killed by 182 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the Canneschi who conspired against him, none of his race being left behind but John, who was then in his cradle; the murder was no sooner committed but the people took arms and slew all the Canneschi, which proceeded only from the affection that the house of the Bentivoglio had at that time among the populace in Bologna, which was then so great that when Hannibal was dead, there being none of that family remaining in a capacity for the government of the state, upon information that at Florence there was a natural son of the said Bentivoglio's, who till that time had passed only for the son of a smith, they sent ambassadors for him, and having conducted him honorably to that city, they gave him the government, which he executed very well till the said John came of age. I conclude, therefore, a prince need not be much apprehensive of conspiracies while the people are his friends; but when they are dissatisfied, and have taken prejudice against him, there is nothing nor no person which he ought not to fear. It has been the constant care of all wise princes and all well-governed states not to reduce the nobility to despair nor the people to discontent, which is one of the most material things a prince is to prevent. Among the best-ordered monarchies of our times France is one, in which there are many good laws and constitutions tending to the liberty and preservation of the king. The first of them is the Parliament and the authority wherewith it is vested; for he who was the founder of that monarchy, was sensible of the ambition and insolence of the nobles, and judged it convenient to have them bridled and restrained; he knew, on the other side, the hatred of the people against the nobility, and that it proceeded from fear, and he desired to protect the people; but in order to save himself from the displeasure of the nobles if he sided with the people, or from the malice of the people if he inclined to the nobles, he established a third party to be arbitrator, who, without any reflection upon the king, should keep the nobility under, and protect the people; nor could there be a better order, wiser, nor of greater security to the king and the kingdom, whence we may deduce another observation That princes are to leave things of injustice and envy to the ministry and execution of others, but acts of favor and grace are to be performed by themselves. . . . Ch. xxi. How a Prince is to Demean Himself to Gain Reputation. Nothing recommends a prince so highly to the world as great enterprises and noble expressions of his own valor and conduct. We have in our days Ferdinand, King of Aragon the present MACHIAVELLI 183 King of Spain who may, and not improperly, be called a new prince, since from one of the smallest and weakest he has become for fame and renown the greatest monarch in Christendom; and if his exploits be considered you will find them all brave, but some of them extraordinary. In the beginning of his reign he invaded the kingdom of Granada, and that enterprise was the foundation of his grandeur. He began it leisurely, and without suspicion of impediment, holding the barons of Castile employed in that service, and so intent upon that war that they dreamt not of any innovation, while in the meantime, before they were aware, he got reputation and authority over -them. He found out a way of maintaining his army at the expense of the church and the people; and by the length of that war he established such order and discipline among his soldiers, that afterwards they gained him many honorable victories. Besides this, to adapt him for greater enterprises (always making religion his pretence), by a kind of devout cruelty he destroyed and exterminated the Moors, than which nothing could be more strange or deplorable. Under the same cloak of religion he invaded Africa, made his expe- dition into Italy, assaulted France, and began many great things which always kept the minds of his subjects in admira- tion and suspense, wondering what the event of his machinations would be. And these enterprises had so sudden a spring and result one from the other that they gave no leisure to any man to be at quiet, or to continue anything against him. It is likewise of great advantage to a prince to give some rare example of his own administration at home whenever the actions, good or bad, of someone in civil life give him opportunity to reward or punish such actions in such a way as to make himself much talked of in the world. Above all, a prince is to have a care in all his actions to behave himself so as to give himself the reputation of being excellent as well as great. A prince is likewise much esteemed when he shows him- self a sincere friend or a generous enemy that is, when with- out any hesitation he declares himself in favor of one against another, which, as it is more frank and princely, so it is more profitable than to stand neutral; for if two of your potent neigh- bors be at war, they are either of such condition that you are to be afraid of the victor or not; in either of which cases it will be always more for your benefit to discover yourself freely, and make a fair war. For in the first case, if you do not declare, you shall be a prey to him who overcomes, and it will be a pleasure and satisfaction to him that is conquered to see you his fellow- 184 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY sufferer; nor will anybody either defend or receive you, and the reason is because the conqueror will never understand them to be his friends who would not assist him in his distress; and he that is worsted will not receive you because you neglected to share his fortune with your arms in your hands. . . . And those princes who are ill-advised to avoid some present danger by following the neutral way are most commonly ruined; but when you pronounce your- self courageously in favor of one party, if he with whom you join overcome, though he be very powerful, and you seem to remain at his discretion, yet he is obliged to you, and must needs have a respect for you; and men are not so wicked with signal and ex- emplary ingratitude as to oppress you after you have helped them. Besides, victories are never so clear and complete as to leave the conqueror without all sparks of reflection, and especially upon what is just. But if your confederate comes by the worst, you are received by him, and assisted while he is able, and you become a companion of his fortune, which may possibly restore you. In the second place, if they who contend be of such condition that they have no occasion to fear, let which will overcome, you are in prudence to declare yourself the sooner, because by assisting the one you contribute to the ruin of the other, whom, if your con- federate had been wise, he ought rather to have preserved; if he whom you help overcomes, he remains wholly in your power, and by your assistance he must of necessity overcome. And here it is to be noted, if he can avoid it, a prince is never to league himself with another more powerful than himself in an offen- sive war; because in that case if the latter overcomes the former remains at his mercy, and princes ought to be as cau- tious as possible of falling under the discretion of other people. The Venetians, when there was no necessity for it, associated with France against the Duke of Milan, and that association was the cause of their ruin. But where it is not to be avoided, as happened to the Florentines when the Pope and the Spaniard sent their armies against Lombardy, then a prince is to adhere for the reasons aforesaid. Nor is any prince or government to imagine that in those cases any certain counsel can be taken, because the affairs of this world are so ordered that in avoiding one mischief we fall commonly into another. But a man's wis- dom is most conspicuous where he is able to distinguish of dangers and make choice of the least. Moreover, it is a prince's wisdom to show himself a virtuoso, and honorer of all that is excellent in any art whatsoever. He is likewise to encourage and assure his subjects that they MACHIAVELLI 185 may live quietly in peace, and exercise themselves in their several vocations, whether merchandise, agriculture, or any other em- ployment whatever, to the end that no one may forbear improving or embellishing his estate for fear it should be taken from him, or forbear advancing his trade in apprehension of taxes; but the prince is rather to excite them by propositions of reward and im- munities to all such as shall any way amplify his territory or power. He is obliged, likewise, at convenient times in the year to entertain the people by feastings and plays, and spectacles of recreation; and, because all cities are divided into companies or wards, he ought to have respect to those societies, be merry with them sometimes, and give them some instance of his humanity and magnificence, but always retaining the majesty of his degree, which is never to be debased in any case whatever. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Burd, "Machiavelli," Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I, ch. vi. Villari, Niccolb Machiavelli and his Times. Mundt, Niccolb Machiavelli und das System der modernen Polilik, chs. i-iii, v. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de VEurope, moyen age, pp. 287-293. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, Ancient and Medieval, ch. xi. Franck, Reformaleurs et publicistes de V Europe, moyen age, pp. 293-335. Macaulay, "Machiavelli," in Essays, Vol. II, pp. 1-37. Morley, Machiavelli (Romanes Lectures, 1897). Figgis, Studies of Political Thought, from Gerson to Grotius, Lect. Ill: "Luther and Machiavelli," pp. 62-107. Janet, Hisloire de la science politique, Vol. I, pp. 491 et seq. Bluntschli, Geschichte der neueren Staatswissenschaft, pp. 13-26. Dyer, Machiavelli and the Modern State. Baudrillart, /. Bodin et son temps, pp. 16-24. Mundt, Niccolb, Machiavelli und das System der modernen Politik, chs. vii- xiii, xv-xxv. CALVIN . JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564) INTRODUCTION By calling Machiavelli the first "modern" writer in political theory it is not intended to suggest that after him mediaeval methods of argumentation disappeared and that from his time there was a sharp change in point of view. Even after the partially liberal- izing and humanizing effects of the Renaissance and Reformation had become manifest, the more influential writers of the sixteenth century continued to found their doctrines upon scriptural inter- pretations, and upon scholastic conceptions of natural law. One consequence of the Renaissance upon political discussion was to cause a somewhat more frequent recourse to pagan history for illustrative materials; and the destruction of ecclesiastical unity by the Protestant secession weakened, for a large number of readers, the force of church tradition as an appeal, and also helped to expel from the imagination the notion of universal empire. But the characteristic style of disputation continued to be dog- matic, not empirical. The Protestant movement of the sixteenth century did not lead ' its first champions to profound political thought. Martin Luther gave incidental consideration to certain problems of civil govern- ment. The complete separation, of spiritual and secular offices was a part of his doctrine. Moreover, in the course of his life he was confronted with certain practical political questions upon which he felt himself required to make definite pronounce- ment as to the implications of his doctrine; thus we read his declarations as to the divine sanction of secular authority and as to the duty of Christians to submit thereto. But Luther 's dominating interest was in theological and ethical questions. Me- lancthon's task was to give metaphysical basis to the Lutheran I tenets in theology and ethics. Among early Protestants only' [Calvin, the theologian of the French Reformed church, devoted attention to systematic study of political subjects. To this he 189 190 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY was led by the events of his life; and for the discussion of such matters he was better fitted, than the other dissentients of his time, by the nature of his training as well as by the quality of his mind. ^ Calvin was a native of northern France. His first preparation was for the ministry; but feeling some dissent from the Roman worship, he turned to legal study. Soon thereafter he came more directly under the influence of the new opinions that were spread- ing from Germany into France; so he withdrew from the Catholic church and aligned himself definitely with the reform movement. This movement was being attacked by the French government, and Calvin found it necessary to leave his native land. He went to Geneva, establishing himself among the religious leaders there. This community had just transformed its former governmental autonomy into full independence by saving itself from absorption by Savoy. Calvin was in time accorded autocratic^ leadership in political and ecclesiastical affairs in Geneva, and in 1542 he put in operation there a theocratic system of government which he had devised. Calvin's views of church and state-government, which he applied in Geneva, had been set forth in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which had been published in 1535. The last chapter (from which the selections below are taken) treats of civil govern- ment. The Lutheran doctrine of the supreme authority of individual conscience had proved in practice to be a more radical factor of disintegration in religion and politics than had been anti- cipated by the first proponents of the doctrine. Calvin found it important to demonstrate the indispensableness of civil govern- ment to the Christian order, as Luther had done in a more practical way. It was also a necessary part of Calvin's plan to outline the duties of jnagigt -rates, the authority and j>coge of laws, and the bounds wjtlntLjwhicj^obedience to magistrates was absolutely required of Christians. CALVIN 191 READINGS FROM THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION l 1. The Nature and Function of Civil Government* i. Having shown above that there is a twofold government in man, and having fully considered the one which, placed in the soul or inward man, relates to eternal life, we are here called to say something of the other, which pertains only to civil institu- tions and the external regulation of manners. For although this subject seems from its nature to be unconnected with the spiritual doctrine of faith, which I have undertaken to treat, it will appear, as we proceed, that I have properly connected them, nay, that I am under the necessity of doing so, especially while, on the one hand, frantic and barbarous men are furiously endeavoring to overturn the order established by God, and, on the other, the flatterers of princes, extolling their power without measure, hesitate not to oppose it to the government of God. Unless we meet both extremes, the purity of the faith will perish. We may add that it in no small degree concerns us to know how kindly God has here consulted for the human race, that pious zeal may the more strongly urge us to testify our gratitude. And first, before entering on the subject itself, it is necessary to attend to the distinc- tion which we formerly laid down, lest, as often happens to many, we imprudently confound these two things, the nature of which is altogether different. For some, on hearing that liberty is promised in the gospel, a liberty" which acknowledges no king and no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think that they can receive no benefit from their liberty so long as they see any power placed over them. Accordingly, they think that nothing will be safe, until the whole world is changed into a new form, when there will be neither courts, nor laws, nor magis- trates, nor anything of the kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty. But he who knows to distinguish between the . body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that I which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understand- ; ing that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government \are things very widely separated. Seeing, therefore, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under the elements of this world, let us, considering, as Scripture clearly 1 The selections are taken from Vol. Ill of the translation by Henry Bev- eridge. Three volumes. Edinburgh, 1845-6. _ Calvin Translation Society. The passages are from Book IV, ch. xx: Of Civil Government. 2 Bk. IV, ch. xx, 1-4. \ 192 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY teaches, that the blessings which we derive from Christ are spiritual, remember to confine the liberty which is promised and offered to us in him within its proper limits. For why is it that the very same apostle who bids us " stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage " (Gal. v. i), in another passage for- bids slaves to be solicitous about their state (i Cor. vii. 21), unless it be that spiritual liberty is perfectly compatible with civil servitude? In this sense the following passages are to be understood: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Gal. iii. 28). Again: " There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncir- cumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all " (Col. iii. n). It is thus intimated, that it matters not what your condition is among men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all consist. 2. Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fa- natics, indeed, delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that, after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestials, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien to a Christian man. To what end, they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal king- dom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in someineasurej^begins the heavenly kingdom in us f even now upon earEhYanorTn this mortal and evanes- cent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tran- quillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But ifJjLi_the will of God tfrflt while we aspire to true piety we are-pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of CALVIN 193 his humanity. As to their allegation that there ought to be such perfection in the church of God that her guidance should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can be , found in the community of men. For while the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity is so stubborn, that it can scarcely be curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would be done by -those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see perfect impunity for their wickedness? 3. But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the t . All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink and be warmed (though it includes all these, while it enables them to live together) ; this, I say, is not its only object, t>ut it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God:,' ? no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the/ public quiet be not disturbed, that every man's property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men. Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws con- cerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with// impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy. But the reader, by the help of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three: The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he governs; and the People, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let us consider then, first, What is the function of the magistrate? Is it a lawful calling approved by God? What is the nature of his duty? What the extent of his power? Secondly, What are the laws by which Christian polity is to be regulated? And, lastly, What is the use of laws as regards the people? And, What obedience is due to the magistrate? 194 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 4. With regard to the functions of magistrates, the Lord has not only declared that he approves and is pleased with it, but, moreover, has strongly recommended it to us by the very honorable titles which he has conferred upon it. ... Their functions were expressly approved by the Lord. Wherefore no man can doubt that civil authority is, in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful, but the most sacred, and by far the most honorable, of all stations in mortal life. 2. The Duties of Magistrates l g. The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here in- dicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion i and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can : be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and * consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that / this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honor of Him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favor they rule. Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges xxi. 25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administra- tion of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety. In i Bk. IV, ch. xx, 9. CALVIN 195 regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, "Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgments and righteousness, ^ and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood " (Jer. xxii. 3). To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, " Defend the poor and father- s less; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked " (Psalm Ixxxii. 3, 4). Moses also declared to the princes whom he had sub- stituted for himself, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's " (Deut. i. 1 6) 1 . . . But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power_to j curb manifest evil doers and criminals, by whose misconduct ) the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon's saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of state totters and falls to / pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honor be not paid to virtue, and the licentious- ness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction" of punishment. The two things are com- prehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute "judgment and righteousness " (Jer. xxi. 12; xxii. 3). It is righteousness (justice) to take charge of the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free : it is judgment to with- stand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence, and punish their faults. 2 3. The Limits of Obedience Due to Civil Rulers 8 22. / The first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to enter- Itain the most honorable views of their office, recognizing it as a delegated jurisdiction from God, and on that account receiving and reverencing them as the ministers and ambassadors of God. For you will find some who show themselves very obedient to 1 Other biblical quotations of similar content follow. 2 Further sections on the duties of magistrates treat of their duty to carry on war and of their right to raise revenue. a Bk. IV, ch. xx, 22-25, 29-32. 196 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY magistrates, and would be unwilling that there should be no magis- \ trates to obey, because they know this is expedient for the public good, and yet the opinion which those persons have of magistrates l is, that they are a kind of necessary evils. But Peter requires something more of us when he says, " Honor the king" (i Pet. ii. 17); and Solomon when he says, "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king " (Prov. xxiv. 21). For, under the term honor, the former includes a sincere and candid esteem, and the latter, by joining the king with God, shows that he is invested with a kind of sacred veneration and dignity. We have also the re- markable injunction of Paul, "Be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake " (Rom. xiii. 5). By this he means, that subjects, in submitting to princes and governors, are not to be influenced merely by fear (just as those submit to an armed enemy who see vengeance ready to be executed if they resist) , but because the obedience which they yield is rendered to God him- self, inasmuch as their power is from God. I speak not of the men as if the mask of dignity could cloak folly, or cowardice, or cruelty of wicked and flagitious manners, and thus acquire for vice the praise of virtue; but I say that the station itself is deserving of honor and reverence, and that those who rule should, in respect of their office, be held by us in esteem and veneration. 23. From this, a second consequence is, that we must with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens which relate to the common defence, or in executing any other orders. "Let every soul," says Paul, "be subject unto the highest powers." "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God " (Rom. xiii. 1,2). Writing to Titus, he says, " Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work " (Tit. iii. i). 1 . . . Let no man here deceive himself, since we cannot resist the magistrate without resisting God. For, although an unarmed magistrate may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed, and will signally avenge this contempt. Under this obedience, I comprehend the restraint which private men ought to impose on themselves in public, not interfering with public business, or rashly encroaching on the province of the magistrate, or attempting anything at all of a public nature./ If it is proper that anything in a public ordinance should be corrected, let them not act tumultuously, or put their hands to a work where they ought to feel that their hands are tied, but let them 1 Similar biblical quotations follow. CALVIN 197 leave it to the cognizance of the magistrate, whose hand alone here is free. My meaning is, let them not dare to do it without being ordered. For when the command of the magistrate is given, they too are invested with public authority. For as, according to the common saying, the eyes and ears of the prince are his counsellors, so one may not improperly say that those who, by his command, have the charge of managing affairs, are his hands. 24. But as we have hitherto described the magistrate who truly is what he is called, viz., the father of his country, and (as the Poet speaks) the pastor of the people, the guardian of peace, the president of justice, the vindicator of innocence, he is justly to be deemed a madman who disapproves of such authority. And since in almost all ages we see that some princes, careless about all their duties on which they ought to have been intent, live, without solicitude, in luxurious sloth, others, bent on their own interests, venally prostitute all rights, privileges, judgments, and enactments; others pillage poor people of their money, and afterwards squander it in insane largesses; others act as mere rob- bers pillaging houses, violating matrons, and slaying the innocent ; many cannot be persuaded to recognize such persons for princes, whose command, as far as lawful, they are bound to obey. For while in this unworthy conduct, and among atrocities so alien, not only from the duty of the magistrate, but also of the man, they behold no appearance of the image of God, which ought to be conspicuous in the magistrate, while they see not a vestige of that minister of God, who was appointed to be a praise to the good and a terror to the bad, they cannot recognize the ruler whose dignity and authority Scripture recommends to us. And undoubtedly, the natural feeling of the human mind has always been not less to assail tyrants with hatred and execration, than to look up to just kings with love and veneration. 25. But if we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that a ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers them- selves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of his beneficence, while those who 198 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY . , domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power. . . . We need not labor to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord's anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honor, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgment, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honor and reverence as the best of kings. 29. This feeling of reverence, and even of piety, we owe to the utmost to all our rulers, be their characters what they may. This I repeat the oftener, that we may learn not to consider the individuals themselves, but hold it to be enough that by the will of the Lord they sustain a character on which he has impressed and engraven inviolable majesty. But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already con- fessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Hus- bands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger, and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love and to spare as the weaker vessels; would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful. Nay, since the duty >f all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another, but to submit each to his own dutyj this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness' sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of CALVIN 199 our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms. "God standetl in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods." Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless. 30. Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants, and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny, and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their im- pious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things, however, were not done in the same way. The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not all violate that majesty with which kings are in- vested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts. 31. But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and over- threw their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, t 200 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although v the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to ^whom no command has been given but to s obey and suffer. I peak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, .when they hold their primary diets). So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannize and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians. 32. But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the com- mands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men ! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When He opens His sacred mouth, He alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything., ^against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree (Dan. vi. 22), because the king had ex- ceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new super- stitions (i Kings xii. 28). With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are CALVIN 201 severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hosea v. n). So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining anything imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows, or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness kings being most indignant when they are contemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death" (Prov. xvi. 14). But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men " (Acts v. 29), let us console ourselves with the thought that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires, when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional con- sideration (i Cor. vii. 23), that we were redeemed by Christ at 1 the great price which our redemption cost Him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of iien, far less do homage to their impiety. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times : Fairbairn, "Calvin and the Reformed Church," Cambridge Modern History, Vol. II, ch. xi. Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. i, I. Stahelin, Johannes Calvin. Baird, Rise of the Huguenots of France, Vol. I, pp. 193-216. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. i, 5. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 25-30. Baudrillart, /. Bodin et son temps, pp. 32-43. Osgood, "The Political Ideas of the Puritans," I, in Political Science Quar- terly, Vol. VI (1891), pp. 1-28. Kampschulte, Johann Calvin: Seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf, esp. pp. 251-278. VINDICLE CONTRA TYRANNOS IX. THE VINDICLE CONTRA TYRANNOS INTRODUCTION The doctrine of passive obedience to temporal authority was maintained by Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. Calvin par- ticularly, in teaching and practice, stood for severe religious intoler- ance on the part of those in control of government. The first substantial consequence of the Lutheran views appeared to be constraint rather than freedom. On the other hand, the original Lutheran idea of the primary worth which should be attributed to individual conscience gave a decided impetus to democratic feeling. Moreover, in a very concrete way the religious dissent engendered by the Protestant movement soon came to be pro- ductive of advanced political reasoning.^ In the internal, as well as in the international, wars of the later sixteenth century, dif- ferences in religious doctrine were strongly mixed with political rivalries as occasions for armed conflict. In each of three coun- tries France, England, and Spain the government, as supporter of a dominant politico-religious faction, pursued a policy of intoler- ant absolutism in its dealing with adherents of the opposing group. These conditions gave origin to many vigorous pamphlets written in defence of resistance to governmental tyranny as it manifested itself in persecution on religious or other grounds. In some of these pamphlets the foundations and limits of political authority were searched deeply and broadly, and radical doctrines of govern- mental responsibility were derived. This is preeminently true of the writings of French Huguenots, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. Democratic ideas are set forth most com- pletely in a tract entitled V indicia contra Tyrannos, which appeared in 1579, under the pseudonym "Stephanus Junius Brutus." * > 1 This work is generally attributed to Hubert Languet (1518-1581), who was a distinguished French diplomat and who served the Elector of Saxony on important missions; he wrote several pamphlets concerning religious and polit- ical controversies of his time. For references to discussions of the authorship of the VindicicB, cf. Encyclopedia Britannica under "Languet," and Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, p. 31, note (2). 205 I 206 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The discussion in the Vindicia is presented in the form of answers to four questions, which are as follows: (i) whether subjects are bound to obey a prince who commands what is con- trary to the law of God; (2) whether it is lawful to resist a prince who is violating the law of God and devastating the church: if so, who may resist, in what manner, and to what extent ; (3) whether and to what extent it is lawful to resist a prince who is oppressihg and destroying the state: who may resist, in what manner, and by what right; (4) whether it is the right and duty of princes to give aid to neighboring peoples who are being oppressed on account of adherence to the true religion, or by any other obvious tyranny. In the answer to the third question the author leads back to the origin of political society. He builds a doctrine of popular sovereignty upon the hypothesis that the original, natural state of mankind was one of complete freedom, and that political organization was everywhere in its beginnings a condition con- sciously and voluntarily assumed. The author's analysis of the process through which the institution of civil government came about prefigures a doctrine which furnished the foundation, in varying forms, for the systems of eminent political philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This later doctrine is embodied in the theory of the "social contract." In the Vindicia, the contract is governmental, rather than social; but the author's conclusions as to the responsibility of government and the right of resistance rest upon his statement of the stipulations of a contract by which the first ruler of any state must be assumed to have been invested with his powers. As with the social- contract theorists, the analysis here of an original contract is partly derived from certain postulates as to the primitive state of mankind. But the author is under medieval influences, and a primary source of his analysis is the biblical narrative of the setting- up of the first king over the, Israelites. His deductions are con- firmed fey frequent scriptural citations as well as by precedents in law and in political history. VINDICIM CONTRA TYRANNOS 207 READINGS FROM THE VINDICT CONTRA TYRANNOS 1 1. The Institution of the King by the People We have shown above that it is God who establishes kings, choosing them and conferring kingdoms upon them. Now we are to show that the people set up kings, commit kingdoms to them, and confirm the selection by the,ir suffrages. Indeed God has willed that it should be done in' this manner, in order that kings should acknowledge that whatever authority and power they possess have been received from the people, and that they should, therefore, devote all their thought and efforts to the interests of the people. Nor should kings think that they excel other men through some superiority of nature, as men stand above , flocks of sheep or herds of cattle. Let them remember that they are born of the same stuff as other men and have been raised from the ground to their high station by the suffrages and, as it were, upon the shoulders, of the people, in order that henceforth the burden of the commonwealth should rest in great part upon their own shoulders. Some ages before the people of Israel demanded a king of God, He had ordained the law of royal government, as indicated in the book of Deuteronomy where Moses says: When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein, and shall say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me, thou shall in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose. 2 You see here that the -selection (electio^jsLAhe Jang is attributed to - (jodjLthe investment to the people. . . . The elders of Israel, representing the whole body of the people . . . came together at Ramah to meet Samuel; and, wearied of the sons of Samuel, who were unjust judges, and believing that they could by this means wage war more successfully, demanded a king of Samuel. When Samuel asked counsel of the Lord, He made known that he had chosen Saul to rule over the people. Samuel, therefore anointed Saul. ... It might perhaps have seemed sufficient if Samuel had presented to the people the king chosen by God, and admonished them to be obedient to him. Nevertheless, in 1 The translations are made from the edition of 1595, bound with a Latin version of Machiavelli's Prince. At some points assistance has been derived from an anonymous English translation of 1689; this translation is, on the whole, crude, and is frequently incorrect. All of the selections are from the third part of the work (pp. 73-183 of the edition of 1595). 2 Deuteronomy, xvii. 14-15. 208 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY order that the king might know that he was established by the people, Samuel ordered an a ^tnblage of the people at Mizpeh, and there as if the matter nad not already been determined, and the election of Saul not already settled the lot was cast and fell, first upon the tribe of Benjamin, then upon the family of Matri, and finally upon Saul the one whom God had chosen. Then by acclamation of all the people Saul was declared the ap- pointed king. Finally lest he should attribute all these things to chance after he had given some proof of his valor in relieving Jabesh Gilead from the siege of the Ammonites, he was again in full assembly at Gilgal (a few dissenting to no purpose) con- firmed king before God. You see thus that he whom God had chosen and chance had selected from all the rest, was established as king by the suffrages of the people. | In a word, all kings were in the beginning elected. Those who to-day appear to accede to their kingdoms by inheritance were necessarily first established by the people. Although the people of certain countries are accustomed to choose their kings from a particular stock on account of its peculiar merits, nevertheless, it is the stock and not the branch that they choose. Nor do they so choose but that if that stock should degenerate they may select another. Those who are next in line for the kingship are not born kings; they rather become such: they are not deemed kings so much as candidates for the kingship. 2. The Superiority of the People to the King Now since kings are established by the people, it seems to follow certainly that the whole body of the people are superior to the dng. For it is evident that he who is established by another is accounted less than he that has established him, and that he who receives his authority from another is inferior to him from whom he derives his authority. Potiphar, the Egyptian, thus estab- lished Joseph above all his household; Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel over the province of Babylon; Darius, the hundred and twenty governors over his kingdom. Masters are said to establish their servants; kings, their ministers. In like manner the people establish the king as minister of the commonwealth. This name good kings have not disdained, and bad ones have affected it. Wherefore for several generations no Roman emperor (save perhaps some manifest tyrant, as Nero, Domitian, or Caligula) wished to be called lord (dominus). Moreover, it is clear that VINDICI^E CONTRA TYRANNOS 209 kings were instituted for the benefit of the people. You could not say that for the sake of some hundred men, inferior to most of the rest of the community, the whole community was created; rather that the former were created for the latter. Reason requires that he on whose account another exists should be deemed superior to that other. Thus for the sake of the ship the owner appoints a pilot, who sits at the helm to see that she be not dashed to pieces upon the rocks or follow the wrong course. Relying upon him in that work, the others serve him; even the owner obeys him. Nevertheless, the pilot is but a servant of the ship, differing from the common drudges only in type of work. In the . commonwealth the king has the place of pilot, the people that of owner. As long as the king is regardful of the public good the people properly submit to him, yet in such a way that he is es- teemed, as he should be, the servant of the commonwealth, in the same capacity as a judge or tribune who differs from the rest of the people only in the respect that he is expected to have greater burdens and expose himself to greater dangers. Where- fore, that which the king acquires through war, as when he occupies territory by right of conquest, or through payments into the fiscus in the administration of justice, he acquires not for himself, but for the kingdom that is, for the people who have established the kingdom, just as a servant makes acquisitions for his master. Nor can any obligation be contracted with the king save by the authorization of the people. Moreover, there are many peoples who live without a king; a king without a people, however, you cannot imagine. . . . And why are kings said to have innumerable eyes and ears, long heads, and exceptionally swift feet? Because they are similar to Argus, Gerion, Midas and others represented in legend? Not at all. It is because the people concerned lend to the king their eyes and ears, their strength and their faculties, for the use of the common- wealth. Let the people withdraw from the king, and he who seemed of good sight and hearing, robust and vigorous, will grow blind and deaf, and will suddenly collapse; he who just now triumphed in his magnificence, in one instant becomes most con- temptible of all; he who has honors almost divine is compelled to play the schoolmaster at Corinth. . . . Since, therefore, the king exists through, and for the sake of, the people, and without the people cannot stand, who will wonder at our conclusion that the people are greater than the king? Now what we have said concerning the whole body of the people we wish also to be said concerning those who in every kingdom or 210 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY city lawfully represent the body of the people, and who are com- monly deemed officers of the kingdom and not of the king. For officers of the king are created and discharged by him at his pleas- ure, and when he is dead they no longer have any authority; they are themselves counted as dead. Officers -of the kingdom, on the other hand, receive their authority from the people (at any rate they were formerly accustomed so to do) in public assembly, and can be discharged only by that same power. The former, there- fore, depend upon the king, the latter upon the kingdom: the form- er should be responsible to the supreme officer of the kingdom to the king; the latter, to the supreme sovereign the people, upon whom the king himself, and through him his officers, must depend. The function of the former is to guard the king; of the latter, to see that no harm befalls the commonwealth. The former are to aid and serve the king, as domestic servants of a master; the latter are to preserve the rights and privileges of the people and to take diligent care that the king commit or omit nothing to their damage. In fine, the former are ministers, servants, domestics of the king, instituted only to obey him. The latter, as associates of the king in the administration of justice and as partakers of royal authority, are bound, like the king himself, to administer the affairs of the commonwealth; he, as chief among them, holds first place only in degree. As the whole people is superior to the king, so their representatives, though individually inferior to him, should in the aggregate be counted superior to him. We must now inquire why kings were established in the first instance and what was their principal duty. For a thing is es- teemed good only when it fulfils the purpose for which it was instituted. In the jfirst place, it is clear that men by nature free, impatient of servitude, born rather to command than to obey, would not, save for the sake of some great profit, have chosen subjection to another and have renounced their own natural right, so to speak, to submit to the right of another. . . . Nor let us think that kings were chosen to convert to their own uses the goods obtained by the sweat of the many; for everyone loves and cher- ishes his own. Nor were they created that they might squander the public power to their own pleasure; for ordinarily any one hates, or at least envies, his superior. iThey were established to protect individuals from each other by the administration of justice, and to defend all from dangers from without by repelling force with force. Wherefore 'Augustine says that those who care for the interests of others are properly said to rule, as the husband VINDICIM CONTRA TYRANNOS 211 rules the wife, or parents their children. Those whose interests are cared for are said to obey ; although those who thus rule really serve those whom they are said to command; for, as Augustine also says, they command not for the sake of ruling but because of their duty to care for their charge ; not for the glory of domina- tion, but out of pity to guard those committed to their protection. Seneca in his ninety-first epistle says: " In the golden age govern- ment was in the hands of the wise. These repressed violence and protected the weak from the strong. They persuaded and dissuaded and pointed out what was useful and what harmful. When anything was needed their wisdom supplied it. Their valor warded off dangers, and increased and enriched the people. Their function was to govern, not to reign. No man tried to see what he could do against them, for each received from them all that he was capable of assimilating. " To govern, then, is simply to give counsel. The only end of government is the good of the people. The sole duty of governors and kings is to take care of the people. Royal dignity is, properly speaking, not an honor, but a burden; not a privilege, but a calling; not an immunity, but a duty; not a license, but a public service. Some honor indeed is attached to the office; one would hardly be willing to partake of such troubles unless they were flavored with some relish of honor. The common saying is true that if every one knew with how great annoyances the royal diadem was wreathed no one would pick it up if he found it at his feet along the wayside. When the words "mine" and " thine" had entered into the world and conflicts arose among citizens concerning ownership of things, and between neighboring peoples over boundaries, it became cus- tomary to have recourse to some one who would justly and effec- tively see that the poor suffered no violence from the rich, or the whole people from their neighbors. When such contests and wars became more violent a permanent choice was made of ^some one for whose valor and diligence all had high regard. tThus kings were first established to administer justice at home and lead the army abroad. . . . Kings were ordained by God and estab- lished by the people for the benefit of the citizens. This benefit consists principally in two things in the maintenance of justice among individuals and of security against enemies. We must proceed a little further. Does the king, because he presides in the administration of justice, administer justice accord- ing to his own free will? Does the king depend on law, or law on the king? . . . Pau^anias the Spartan answers in a word: " Au- thority pertains to laws as against men, not to men as against 212 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY laws." l . . . We must carry the matter further yet. Since the people were seeking justice through law, if this could be ob- tained from a single good and just man, they were satisfied with him. But this was hardly possible, and indeed rarely happened. In fact as long as the judgments of kings were received as the equivalent of laws it turned out that certain things were declared as laws at one time and others at another time. It thus became the function of magistrates and other wise men to discover, as it were, laws which could speak with one and the same voice to all men. Kings were then intrusted with the duty of guarding, administering and conserving laws. And because laws were not capable of providing in advance for every contingency, kings might determine certain cases by the same natural equity from which the laws themselves were derived. But lest in these cases the kings should do violence to the law, those superior men (optimates), concerning whom we have just spoken, were soon associated with the kings by the people. t Kings themselves should be obedient to law and acknowledge ( it as their superior. . . . Nor should they consider that they govern any the less because they submit to law. For law is a kind of instrument by means of which human societies are best ruled and directed to a happy end. Wherefore kings were foolish who should think it base to yield to law, just as a geometrician would be who should consider it unbecoming to use the rule and other instruments ordinarily employed by those most expert in making measurements, or as a mariner would be who would prefer to wander recklessly rather than direct the course of his ship by the nautical compass. Who will hestitate to say that it is more expedient and honorable to obey the law rather than a man? Law is the soul of the good king; in it is his inspiration, feeling, and life. The king is the organ of the law, the body through which the law exercises its power, fulfils its function and expresses Ots meaning. Now it is more reasonable to obey the soul than the body. Law is the concentrated reason and wisdom of many sages. The many are more clear-sighted and far-seeing than the one; it is, therefore, safer to follow the law than a man, however perspicacious he may be. Law is reason or intelligence unper- turbed, and free from the influence of anger, cupidity, hate, or preju- dice; nor is it deflected by tears or threats. Man, on the other hand, however well endowed with reason, is seized and overcome by wrath, vengeance and other passions; he IT so disturbed by these emotions that he is not master of himself; he is compounded 1 Cicero, De Officiis, lib. 2. -, ^ fif? VINDICIM CONTRA TYRANNOS 213 of reason and passion, and he cannot always prevent the latter from gaining the upper hand. . . . Law is the coalescence of a multitude of minds; and mind is a parcel of the divine spirit; so that he who obeys the law seems to obey God and to make Him his judge. 3. The Contractual Basis of Royal Authority We have said that in establishing a king a two-fold pact was entered into: the oj&e, concerning which we have already spoken, between God, on the one hand, and the king and people, on the other; the other, between the king and the people. We must take up the latter now. After Saul was appointed the royal law was delivered to him, according to which he was to govern. David, also, in Hebron made a covenant in the presence of the Lord that is, God being present as witness with the elders of Israel, who represented the whole people; after that he was anointed king. . . . Likewise Josias promised to observe the commandments, testimonies and precepts comprised in the book of the covenant; by these words are to be understood the laws, which relate now to piety, now to justice. In all of these passages the covenant is said to have been made with all the people, or with the entire multitude, all the elders, or all the men of Judea: whence we know that not only the chiefs of the tribes but also the captains, centurions and inferior magistrates, were present, representing the towns, so that all might individually covenant with the king. In this pact it was a matter of creating a king; for the people made the king, not vice versa. It cannot be doubted that in this contract the people had the part of stipulator, the king that of promisor. And the part of stipulator is deemed the more advan- tageous at law. The people, as stipulator, ask the king whether he will govern justly and according to the laws; the king promises that he will. The people then respond that they will faithfully obey him while he governs justly. The king, therefore, promises/ absolutely, the people conditionally ; if the condition is not fulfilled the people are lawfully absolved from every obligation. In the first covenant or contract there is an obligation to piety, in the second, to justice. In the former, the king promises dutifully to obey God, In the latter, that he will rule the people justly; in the one that he will provide for the glory of God, in the other, that he will secure the welfare of the people. In the first contract the condition is if you observe my law; in the second if you render to each his due. Failure to fulfil the first pact 214 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY is duly punished by God; failure to fulfil the second is legitimately y punishable by the whole people or by those magistrates whose/ function it is to protect the people. . . . Why is it that the king swears first, the people stipulating, unless it is that he thereby accepts a condition, tacitly or expressly? And why is a condition attached to a contract unless it be that if the condition be not fulfilled the contract is by that fact abro- gated by law? And if through non-observance of the condition a contract is made null at law, who will call that people perjured who refuse obedience to the king when he disregards the condition which he is obligated and able to fulfil and violates the law to which he has sworn? On the other hand, who would not regard such a perjured and perfidious king as unworthy of his office? 1he law frees a vassal from his bond of fealty to a lord who has committed a felony upon him, although the lord takes no oath of fealty to the vassal, but only the vassal to the lord; the law of the Twelve Tables holds criminal an advocate who has dealt fraudulently with his client; the civil law permits a freedman to bring an action against his patron for any grievous injury, and under similar circumstances the same law frees a slave from his master, though the obligation be natural, not civil. If all these things are true, is it not even more certain that the people should be absolved from the oath which they have taken to the king, if he, who first swore solemnly to them, as an agent to his principal, has broken his oath? Even if the formalities of a contract have never taken place, are we not sufficiently taught by Nature herself that kings are established by the people with the condition that they govern well; judges, that they judge justly; military leaders, that they lead forth the army against the enemy? . . . But, you may ask, what if the people, subdued by force, be com- pelled by a prince to swear allegiance according to his own terms? I reply, what if a robber, pirate, or tyrant, with whom there is considered to be no bond of justice, should, with uplifted sword, extort a promissory note from any one? Is it not well known that a prorjaise exacted by violence does not bind, especially if anything is promised against good morals or contrary to the law of nature? What is more repugnant to nature than that the people should fasten their own chains and shackles? or that they should promise the king to throw themselves upon the sword or lay violent hands upon themselves? There is, therefore, between king and people a mutual obligation which, whether it be civil or natural, tacit or express, cannot be abrogated by agreement, violated by any law, - VINDICIM CONTRA TYRANNOS 215 or rescinded by force. So great is the strength of this obligation that the prince who contumaciously violates it may be truly called a tyrant, and the people who wilfully break it, seditious. 4. The Right of Resistance to Tyrants Hitherto we have treated of kings. It now remains for us to describe somewhat more accurately the tyrant. We have said that the king is he who rules and governs a kingdom, acceding to his position either through heredity or through election confirmed by the appropriate rites. Jn contradistinction to this it follows that he is a tyrant who either has seized the government by civil means or, invested therewith in regular manner, rules contrary to right and justice and in violation of the laws and pacts to which he has solemnly bound himself. Both characters of tyrant may inhere in one and the same person. The former is commonly called the tyrant without title (tyrannus absque titulo), the latter the tyrant by practice (tyrannus exercitio) . It may easily come to pass that he who gains a kingdom by violence should rule justly, or that he upon whom a kingdom descends lawfully should rule unjustly. Inasmuch as the kingship is a law-created right rather than inherited property, an office (functio) rather than a possession, he would seem more deserving of the name of tyrant who performs his duty badly than he who enters upon his duty in irregular manner. . . . Now at last we have come by degrees to the principal point of our question. We have seen in what manner kings have been chosen by God and installed by the people; what tasks the king and the officers of the kingdom are under duty to perform; how great power is allowed the king, and how far the function and authority of the officers extend; what and how sacred are the covenants that are made in the installation of the king, and what conditions, tacit or express, are intermixed therewith; finally, who is a tyrant without .title, and who a tyrant by practice. Seeing that it is unquestionable that to the lawful king who discharges well his duty to God and the people obedience should be rendered as to God, it remains now for us to determine whether, by whom, and by what means a tyrant may be lawfully resisted. And we must speak first of him who is commonly called a tyrant without title. . . . In the first place, the law of nature teaches us to preserve and defend our life and our liberty without which life is hardly worth while, against every violence and wrong. Nature has 216 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY implanted this instinct in dogs against wolves, in bulls against lions, in doves against hawks, in young fowl against kites, and yet more strongly in man against man himself when a man be- comes a wolf to his fellow-man. Therefore, he whq_cjuestions whether it is permissible to resist seems to contend with Nature herself. The law of nations teaches the same: by this dominions are defined and boundaries established which everyone is obli- gated to defend against all invaders. It is thus no less lawful to resist Alexander when, without right and provoked by no wrong, he invades a country with a powerful fleet, than to resist Diomedes, the pirate, when he with one vessel renders dangerous the sea. In such case Alexander surpasses Diomedes not in his right but only in his security from punishment. It is as proper to oppose Alexander in ravaging the country as a footpad in purloining a clock, or a man who would subvert the city by trick- ery as a robber who would break into a private house. Furthermore, there is a civil law whereby societies of men are established under a fixed system, some being governed in one manner, some in another. Thus some are ruled by one or a few, others by the people as a whole; some exclude women from the government, others admit them; some choose their kings from a single family, others select them promiscuously. If any one attempts to violate this law by force or fraud we are all bound to resist him, because he wrongs society, to which he owes every- thing, and would undermine his country, to which we are devoted by nature, law, and solemn oath; if we neglect this duty we are traitors to our country, deserters from human society, contemners of the law. As thus the law of .nature, the law of nations, and civil Jaw command us to take arms against tyrants, no other reason can properly dissuade us. No oath or other pact, public or private, interposes to prevent us. It is, therefore, permitted to any private person to eject an intruding tyrant. Nor does the Julian law of treason which punishes those who rebel against their country or prince, apply here. For he is no prince who without lawful title invades the commonwealth or confines of another, nor he a rebel who defends his country with arms. ... To as little pur- pose can the laws of sedition be adduced here. He is seditious who undertakes to sustain the people in resisting public discipline. But he who restrains the subverter of the country and of public discipline does not create sedition; he prevents it. . . . What we have said has been about the tyrant in the process of becoming such, when he is devising and laying his plots. But VINDICI& CONTRA TYRANNOS 217 suppose that after he is possessed of the commonwealth the people, having been overcome, bind themselves to him by oath, or that the commonwealth, having been subdued, transfer authority to him, and the kingdom formally consent to the change of their law; then indeed, inasmuch as he has acquired the title which he lacked before, he seems to be in possession dejure. Though the yoke was laid upon the people by compulsion, it is nevertheless just that they submit and acquiesce peacefully in the will of God who at His pleasure transfers kingdoms from one to another. Other- wise there would be no government whose authority might not be questioned. Moreover, it may happen that he, who was before a tyrant without title, having acquired title, should gov- ern lawfully and not practise tyranny. Thus the Jewish people, under the guidance of the king, lawfully resisted Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, when he invaded Palestine. On the other hand, Zedekiah and all the people were condemned and punished because, after having sworn fealty to Nebuchadnezzar, they revolted, though they had suffered no wrong from him. When faith has once been given there is no longer opportunity for repentance. Though every man in a battle ought to fight with all his valor, yet when he is captured and has taken the oath of loyalty he is bound to keep it. Likewise the people should contend with all vigor to retain their own rights (jura) ; but when they have surrendered, willingly or unwillingly, to the right of another, they should with an even mind endure the government \pf the victor. . . . Concerning those who practise tyranny, whether having first acquired their authority lawfully or by force, it is important for us to make careful examination. In the finrt place, we should consider that all princes are born men and that their reason can as little be made free from passion as the mind can be separated from the body. Therefore, we should not hope to have only per- fect princes; ^ejshotdd rather deem ourselves fortunate if we find mediocre ones. If in certain cases the prince does not ob- serve moderation, if now and then he does not yield to reason, if he looks carelessly to the public welfare, if he becomes less diligent in administration of justice or less zealous in warding off war, he must not forthwith be called a tyrant. For he rules not as man over beasts or God over men, but as a man born, of the same condition as other men. And as a prince would be considered arrogant who sought to abuse men as if they were beasts, so the people are unjust if they expect a jgod_ in a prince or look for divinity in his imperfect nature. But if he deliberately 218 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY upsets the commonwealth, if he wantonly perverts lawful rights, or has no regard for oaths and covenants, for justice or piety, then indeed he should be adjudged a tyrant that is, an enemy of God and man. We are thus speaking not of the prince less good, but of the absolutely bad; not of one less wise, but of one who is malicious and treacherous; not of him who is ignorant of the law, but of the contemner of law; not of an unwarlike prince, but of a prince who is enemy of the people and ravager of the kingdom. The weak prince might be disposed to employ the wisdom of the senate, the praetor's knowledge of the law, the tribune's military skill; but the tyrant would be happy if the nobility, the senators and the commanders had only one neck which he might take off with one blow, for no others does he regard with more hatred than these. Although the weak prince might rightly be deposed, nevertheless he can be endured; but the longer the tyrant is tolerated the more insufferable he becomes. It is not always expedient for the people to do that which they may lawfully do. It often happens that a remedy which is applied is worse than the disease. So it becomes prudent for men to try all means before taking up the sword. If those who repre- sent the people perceive that anything is being done, through force or fraud, against the common weal, they should at once admonish the prince, not waiting until the evil becomes graver and acquires greater strength. For tyranny is like a hectic fever, which, at first easily cured but detected with difficulty, later becomes easily recognizable but almost incurable. There- fore, the representatives should withstand the prince, and not suffer the smallest beginning of tyranny to be made. If the prince persists in his tyrannous course and, though often ad- monished, does not reform but endeavors to bring matters to the point where he may with impunity do whatever he pleases, then indeed the crime of tyranny is complete, and whatever may be done, through the law or through just resistance, against a tyrant, can be done against him. For tyranny is not a crime merely, but the chiefest, and, as it were, the epitome of all crimes. The tyrant subverts the commonwealth, pillages every one and lays snares for their lives, violates any promise, despising the sanctity of a solemn oath. Therefore, he is as much more vicious than the ordinary bandit, murderer or oath-breaker, as it is more serious to offend against the many or all than against particular individuals. If these private offences are deemed infamous and are punishable by death, is it possible to devise a penalty worthy of a crime so atrocious as tyranny? VINDICI& CONTRA TYRANNOS 219 Moreover, we have already proved that kings receive their royal dignity from the people, that the whole people are greater^ than and superior to the king, and that the king or emperor is merely the highest minister and agent of the kingdom or empire. It follows that the tyrant commits a felony against the people the lord of the fief; he is guilty of treason against the kingdom or empire; he is a rebel. He has thus violated the same laws that the ordinary criminal violates and merits far severer punishment. Therefore, as Bartolus says, he may be either deposed by his superior or punished under the Julian law against public violence. The superior is the whole people, or those who represent them the electors, palatines, patricians, assembly of estates, etc. If the tyranny has proceeded so.j;ar.tliat-.it cannot be destroyed save by armed Jforce, then it is lawful for the representatives to call the people to arms, enroll an army, and employ not only the valiant strength of the nation, but even strategy and deceit, against the enemy of their country. . . . The officers of the kingdom will not thereby incur the charge of sedition. For in sedition two opposing parties are necessary one pursuing a just course, the other an unjust course. That party is right which defends the laws, supports the common welfare and preserves the kingdom. That party is wrong which violates laws, or protects violators of law, and defends the destroyers of the country. . . .(Whatever tends to the public good is lawful Wherefore Thomas says that since tyrannical government, established not for the public good but for the private good of him who rules, is unjust, its over- throw does not have the nature of sedition. Nor can the officers of the kingdom be charged with the crime of treason. This crime may, on the one hand, be committed against a legitimate prince. But the prince is simply animate law. Therefore, he who seeks with his utmost power to annihilate law cannot be called by that name, and those who take up arms against him cannot be accused of treason. On the other hand, treason may be committed against the commonwealth. But the commonwealth may be said to exist only so long as the authority of law is maintained and while the private pleasure of the ruler does not absorb the energies of the kingdom. It is, therefore, the tyrant who is guilty of treason against the commonwealth ; and those who, relying upon their own authority and sense of duty, assail the tyrant are protectors of the commonwealth. In such case the latter are acting not as individuals, but as the whole people, not as subjects, but as masters demanding from their agent an accounting of his work. . . . Everywhere there is between prince and people a mutual 220 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and reciprocal obligation: he promises that he will be a good prince; the people promise that if he is such they will obey him. The people are thus obligated to the princ^.conditionally, he to them absolutely. If the condition be not fulfilled, the people are released, the contract abrogated, the obligation ipm,,jure void. The king is faithless if he governs unjustly; the people, if they neglect to obey him while he rules justly. The people are entirely innocent of the crime of perfidy if they publicly renounce an unjust ruler or endeavor to overpower by force of arms one who without lawful right attempts to hold the kingdom. It is not merely permissible to the officers of the kingdom to repress a tyrant; it is incumbent upon them as a part of their duty. If they do not discharge this duty they can plead no con- tract as an excuse. The electors, patricians, peers and other nobles (optimates) should not think that they were instituted to exhibit themselves, clothed in their robes of state, at the coronation of the king, according to the ancient custom; as if they were acting in a Greek interlude, or playing the parts of Roland, Oliver, Renaldo and other stage personages representing the knights of King Arthur's table. Nor after the assemblage has been dismissed should they think that they have fulfilled their parts excellently. Such ceremonies are not intended to be executed perfunctorily, or designed for sport as in children's games when, as Horace describes, they make a king in play. These leaders (optimates) should rather know that they are called to a place of work as well as of honor, and that the commonwealth is intrusted to the king as its first and principal guardian and to them as co-guardians. Just other guardians are appointed to observe the acts of him who holds the place of chief guardian, to demand constant accounting of his administration and watch carefully how he acquits himself of his charge; so likewise officers are appointed to watch the king (who is master only in the sense of having the care of a ward), to see that he does nothing to the detriment of the people. The conduct of the principal guardian is imputed to the co-guardians if, when they ought and can, they do not discover his fault, es- pecially where he neglects to communicate the affairs of adminis- tration to them, or executes his guardianship faithlessly, or practises deceit, acts selfishly or ruinously for his ward, or dis- trains anything from the property of the ward; in fine, they are held to account if he acts stupidly, indifferently or unskilfully. In like manner the chief officers are held responsible for the con- duct of the king, if they do not suppress tyranny or prevent its appearance, or supplement his inefficiency by their own VINDICIAE CONTRA TYRANNOS 221 vigilance and industry. . . . The commonwealth is intrusted as much to their care as to his; their commission is not only that they serve the public interest through their particular offices, but also that they hold him to his proper function. Both he and they have promised to secure the welfare of the commonwealth. If he violates his oath they are not to imagine that they are thereby absolved from their pledge, any more than are bishops released from their vows if the Pope defends heresy or seeks to destroy the church. The more the king becomes an oath-breaker, the more should the officers consider themselves bound to keep their faith. If they act collusively they are to be accounted prevaricators; if they conspire with him, they are deserters and traitors; if they neglect to deliver the commonwealth from tyranny, they are__ tyrants themselves. On the other hand, if they undertake to save the commonwealth and defend it with all their powers, they are protectors, guardians, and, in a sense, kings themselves. ^ SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. ii, I. Baudrillart, /. Bodin et son temps, pp. i-iio. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. ii, 2. Armstrong, "Political Theory of the Huguenots" in English Historical Review, Vol. IV (1889), pp. 13-40. Figgis, Studies of Political Thought, from Gerson to Grotius, pp. 152-158. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 31-46. BODIN X. JEAN BODIN (1530-1596) INTRODUCTION Political reasoning in the sixteenth century was, in most in- stances, closely determined by some current dispute or by an immediate practical problem. Writings on questions of govern- ment were generally limited in scope, as the Huguenot pamphlets. A more extended work, like the Institutes of Calvin, would include treatment of political subjects only as a subsidiary part of a broader plan. But the century furnishes one great political work, which ranks with Aristotle's Politics and Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws in range of topics and wealth of detail. This is the Six Books Concerning the State, by the French writer, Jean Bodin. This treatise is comprehensive and systematic. Its principal doc- trines, however, reflect contemporary events very truly. One pur- pose of the author was to discover broad principles of law prin- ciples that would disclose means of deliverance from the religious and political turmoil of his time. He sought also to construct a scheme of state-theory which would be applicable to such a na- tional and territorial sovereignty as was in his lifetime coming steadily and 'clearly into full strength in France. For the task which Bodin assumed he had training in scholarship and experi- ence. He had been a student of law, and then a lecturer on juris- prudence, at Toulouse. Later he had been a practising advocate in Paris. He was a constant reader in the fields of history, econom- ics, and natural science; he wrote several minor essays on fiscal questions, and an extended and noteworthy essay in the philos- ophy of history. 1 In public life he was a leading representative of the third estate in the States-General of Blois (which met in *567), and was counsellor at the courts of Henry III and Henry IV. Though a strong supporter of the monarch's authority in the state, his normal attitude in politics was that of moderate inde- pendence; and he advocated toleration in religion. His writing l Methodus ad facilem Historiarum Cognitionem (A Method for the Easy Under- standing of History], published in 1566. 225 226 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY is fair in prevailing tone; and the wide range of his historical learning enabled him to give empirical form to his expositions. Bodin's most distinctive contribution to political theory is his doctrine of sovereignty. Perhaps no single conception of a political philosopher has been so influential on subsequent theory as this of Bodin. Sovereignty, according to this definition, is that power, in the state, which is above all limitation by positive law; it is the authority which is the original source of positive law; its existence is the criterion of the statehood of any given community. The selections below, from the Six Books Concerning the State, 1 contain the author's discussion of sovereignty, and also his pre- liminary consideration of the nature and end of the state and the definition of citizenship. Bodin's theory of revolutions and his interpretation of the influence of climate upon government con- tribute to the importance of his position in the history of political philosophy; but lack of space prevents the inclusion of passages on those topics. The work also comprises, in systematic form, enlightened discussion of numerous minor topics relating to the machinery and functions of government. READINGS FROM SIX BOOKS CONCERNING THE STATE 2 1. The Definition of the State and of Citizenship* i A state is an association of families and their common posses- / sions, governed by a supreme power and by reason. 4 We have placed this definition, omitted by writers on the state, at the beginning of our work, because it is necessary to consider the final stage of inherited enlightenment and accomplishment, before anything else is said; then when the end has been discovered and explored, we may examine the stages through which the goal was reached. For a definition is nothing but the conclusion of a problem that is propounded; 6 and unless it rests upon a firm 1 This work appeared first in French (Les Six limes de la republique, 1576) and later, with extensive revision, in Latin (De Republica Libri Sex, 1586). 2 The passages are translated from the Frankfort edition, 1641, of the Latin version. Assistance has been derived from the earlier French version, and also from an English translation, by Richard Knolles, 1606, of the French version. 8 Passages from Bk. I, chs. i and vi. 4 "Respublica est familiarum rerumque inter ipsas cornmunium, summa potestate ac ratione mpderata multitudo." 6 "Rei propositae finis." BODIN 227 and stable foundation, whatever you build upon it will collapse in one moment. . . . We first said that a state should be jregulated by reasq^: for the name of state is sacred; wherefore assemblages of pirates and robbers are to be kept absolutely distinct from the state, which should have no legal or contractual association with such bands. And in all well and wisely constituted societies, whether it be a question of keeping faith and maintaining the public safety, of entering into treaties, making war, regulating the boun- daries of the kingdom, or settling controversies between rulers, robbers and pirates are excluded from all social law. Those who govern states according to their own laws and the law of nations have always distinguished their just and lawful enemies from those who strive to overthrow commonwealths and subvert civil order. Wherefore if robbers are not paid the ransom agreed upon for a captive, no fraud is committed, since they do not share the laws of war nor enjoy the rights possessed by lawful enemies, captive or free. 1 The principles which we have discussed in relation to the house- hold, as a whole and in its individual parts, contain the elements of all political society. And just as the foundations of a house can stand by themselves before any walls have risen above them, so also a household can exist of itself without a state; and the master of a house may exercise supreme power over the members ofTrus household, without depending upon the authority of another; many such households are said to exist in Mauretania and America. But a state without households or a city without walls and build- ings can no more exist than terraces or roofs without walls and foundations. When, therefore, the head of a house goes forth from the home, where he holds domestic authority, to join with other family heads for the purpose of transacting their common affairs, he then loses the name of master and lord and becomes an associate and a citizen; in a sense, he leaves his home to enter the body politic, andQie transacts public instead of domestic business!] Indeed a citizen is no other than a free man who is bound by the supreme power of another. 2 For before any state or commonwealth took form, each pater familias had final power of life and death over his children and wives. Afterwards strength and the desire to rule, as well as avarice and the passion of revenge, 1 De Republica, pp. 1-2. 2 "Est autem civis nihil aliud quam liber homo, qui sumrnse alterius potes- tati obligatur." 228 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY armed one against the other, and the issue of war forced the con- quered to serve the pleasure of the more powerful. He who showed himself a valiant leader ruled then not only over his house- hold but also over his enemies and allies the latter as conquered friends, fc) each one of whom was given freedom to live as he please^ the former (his enemies) as slaves. Thus that complete liberty" which is derived from nature, was taken away, even from the victors, by him whom the latter had chosen as their leader; at least their liberty was diminished; for each, even in his private capacity, had to recognize the supreme authority of another. Thus we see the origin of slaves and subjects, citizens and for- eigners, prince and tyrant. Reason itself teaches us that govern- ments and states were first founded upon force, though we may learn the same thing from history. Books, antiquities and laws are full of testimonies that primitive man held nothing higher than convenience; he would rob, plunder, and kill, or enslave. . . . In this it seems to me that Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Cicero are wrong; for, following Herodotus (I think) they hold that kings first obtained preferment on account of their reputation for integrity and justice. They have thus pictured to us heroic and golden ages; this I refute elsewhere by positive arguments and evidence. For we see that the earliest communities and kingdoms, before Abraham's time, were full of slaves. Likewise the western islands superabounded in slaves when they were conquered by the Spanish. It is probable that they lost their liberty only through violence and in defiance of the laws of nature. Here is proof of my theory: The people of Gao (in Africa) in the preceding generation had heard of neither kingdoms nor the rule of tyrants, until one of them, in his wandering, saw the majestic power of the king of Timbuctu. Thereupon there came upon him the desire to rule over his people; and, being hard pressed by poverty, he began to plunder the merchants and other rich individuals; finally, having thus obtained wealth and having communicated his design to his friends, he gradually acquired control over the entire region. After him his son, calling himself king, found it necessary to preserve with equity and justice the authority which had originated in robbery. This is the origin of the Gaoian kings who in a short time have advanced so rapidly. Therefore, it may be perceived that the definition of citizen, which we gave above, is true; that is, a citizen is a free man, restrained by the authority of a supreme power. Free, I say; for although a slave far more than a free man, is subject to the authority of a supreme power, nevertheless, by common consent it is held BODIN 229 that he must be excluded from the roll of citizens. The same cannot be said of the wives and children of citizens; for though they are subject to domestic authority, and their liberty is there- by diminished, they are nevertheless citizens. In the same way something of the natural liberty of all citizens is lost, so that they become subject to the supreme power of another. 1 It is a more serious fault to say that no one is a citizen who does not participate in public authority, or who has no part in the deliberative or consultative bodies. This is Aristotle's definition, which he himself confesses has place only in a popular state. But a definition which is not general is useless, as appears from the words of Aristotle himself. It is no less illogical when he holds elsewhere that nobles and townspeople are more to be considered citizens than plebeians and peasants, or that youths require to be initiated into citizenship. A definition does not admit of divisions; it contains neither more nor less than the thing which is defined. The description of citizenship which Aristotle has given is not even applicable in a popular state; for in Athens, the most democratic of all communities, the fourth class, containing three-fourths of all the citizens, were excluded altogether from directive and judicial offices; whence those who accept Aristotle's definition must admit that Athenians were, until the time of Pericles, aliens in their own state. ... It has been more truly said by Plutarch thatjStizens are those who en- joy the benefits of the laws and privileges of a civil community, varying according to age, sex, rank, and condition, so that, for example, nobles have the rights of nobles, and plebeians the rights of plebeians. 2 Thus the true and proper distinction between citizen and alien consists in the fact that the former is subject to the local civil authority, whereas the latter can disregard the orders of the prince who is to him an alien. On the other hand, the prince is bound to protect the citizen from injury by enemies or by other citizens, whereas he is not so bound in behalf of the alien unless such protection is solicited and is granted from motives of humanity. Other rights which have relation to the privileges of citizens, such as the right to hold civil or ecclesiastical office, are not comprehended within the definition of citizenship, although almost everywhere aliens are excluded from public functions especially from the priesthood and from the magistracies. 8 1 De Republica, pp. 71-73. z lbid., pp. 80-8 1. *Ibid., p. 96. 230 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 2. The Nature and Functions of Sovereignty l Sovereignty is supreme power over citizens and subjects, un- restrained by laws. 2 . . . Since we have already defined the state as the rightful government of a number of families in their common affairs, with a supreme and perpetual power, it should now be explained what is meant by supreme and perpetual power. We say that the power must be perpetual; for supreme power over citizens may be given to some one or several not perpetually, but for a brief period at the expiration of which the authority ceases. Such persons cannot be called sovereign rulers; they are rather custodians of sovereignty until such time as the sovereign prince or people may withdraw the power intrusted, of which they are the true owners and possessors, as those who have lent or pawned their goods to another; just as those who have conferred upon others powers of judgment and command for a certain time, or to be withdrawn at will, do not cease to be masters and possessors of the jurisdiction and authority. So the jurist has said that the prefect of the Roman emperor surrendered his authority upon demand of the magistrate. It makes no differ- ence whether greater or less power is thus conferred; for if the high power conceded by a prince to his lieutenant to be withdrawn at will, be called sovereignty, the power might be used against the prince himself, to whom nothing but an empty title would then remain; so also a servant might command his master, than which nothing more absurd can be imagined. When authority is granted to a magistrate or to a private individualShe person of the prince is always exceptecp Whatever authority the sovereign gives to another is less than that which he reserves to himself by virtue of his sovereignty; and he is never so divested of his sovereignty that he may not undertake an examination of the affairs committed to his magistrates or officers, by way of prevention, concurrence, or challenge (ewcatione) , or that he may not withdraw power altogether from them. Wherefore, the Roman dictator, the harmosts of the Lacedaemonians, the esymnet of Thessaly, the archons of Malta, or the ancient bailly of Florence (when it had popular government), or those who among us are called regents, or any magistrate or officer to whom is conceded power which though supreme is not perpetual no such official can be said to have sovereignty. 3 1 Passages from Bk. I, chs. yiii and x. 2 "Maiestas est summa in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas." 3 De Republica, pp. 123-4. BODIN 231 But suppose that supreme power, unlimited by laws, and with- out protest or appeal, be granted by the people to some one or few, shall we say that the latter have sovereignty? For he has sover- eignty who, after God, acknowledges no one greater .than himself. I hold that sovereignty resides not in such persons, but in the people,' at whose pleasure they hold their power, or to whom they must return their authority at the expiration of the period desig- nated. The people cannot be considered as having divested them- selves of their power when they intrust supreme authority, un- restrained by laws, to one or a few, if the commitment is for a certain period of time, or at the pleasure of the people; for in either case the holders of the supreme authority must render account of their doings to the prince or people, who, being sover- eign, are required to give account to no one, save immortal God. What if supreme power be conferred for a period of ten years; as in Athens one archon, whom they called judge, stood thus pre- eminent in power in the city? Still the sovereignty of the state did not rest in him; he was rather curator or deputy for the people, and had to render account to them. What if the high power of which I speak be given to one or more for a year, with no require- ment that account of their actions be given to any one? So the Cnidians every year chose sixty citizens whom they called amym- ones, that is, men superior to any limitation or censure. Sover- eignty, nevertheless, was not in them, since they were compelled, at the expiration of the year, to surrender their authority. 1 But what if the people have given supreme and perpetual power to any one for lifp.? If the power is given unlimited by laws, and without the name of magistrate, deputy, governor, or guardian, and not at the pleasure of any one, certainly it must be confessed that sovereign rights have been conceded to such a one. The people in such case have despoiled themselves of their authority, in order to give to another all the privileges of sovereignty, without conditions ; in like manner as any one might by pure gift surrender to another the ownership and possession of his property; such a perfect donation contains no conditions. 2 As a prince is bound by no laws of his predecessor, much less is he bound by his own laws. One man may receive a command from another, but no man can command himself. Pomponius says that no obligation can exist if it must receive its sanction from the will of him who makes the promise; this shows conclusively that a prince can in no way be bound by his own laws and orders. 1 De Republica, p. 126. * Ibid., p. 128. 232 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY As the Pope, according to the jurists, cannot bind his own hands, so the supreme prince, or even the lowest magistrate, or a private person, cannot issue commands to himself. Thus we see at the end of every law, " because it has so pleased us," in order that all may understand that laws, however just in themselves, depend for their force solely upon the will of him who makes the law. As for the laws of God and of nature, princes and people are equally bound by them, so that no one who attempts to abrogate or weaken them can escape the judgments of divine sovereignty. What we have said as to the freedom of sovereignty from the binding force -of law does* not have reference to divine or natural law. That Pope who best of all knew the rights of sovereignty and who brought under his sway almost all Christian emperors and princes, said "sovereignty pertains to him who can derogate from ordinary law (or dinar io iuri)"; the latter expression I inter- pret to mean the -laws of the country (pair Us legibus). But is a prince bound by the laws of his country if he has sworn to observe them? Here it is necessary to make a distinction. If the prince has sworn to himself, no obligation exists; he is not bound by an oath made to himself; just as private persons are not bound by oaths which they make in mutual contract, if the contract be such as the law does not make binding, however honorably the agree- ments may have been made. If a prince swears to another ruler not to abrogate the laws made by himself or by his predecessors, he is bound, if the prince to whom he makes the promiseffaas interest in the mattef^ . . . Likewise we say that a prince who has made sworn promises to his subjects is bound by them, if the promises are reasonable; \ but this is true not because he has sworn or because he is bound by his own laws, but because any one is bound by his just cove- nants, if they are made with another who has any interest, whether the promises be made with or without oath. Moreover, as a private person may be relieved of his obligation if he has been circumvented by fraud, deceit, error, or threat, so a prince may be released not only in those cases which tend to impair his sover- eignty, but also where his private convenience and domestic affairs are disturbed. 1 This, then, I hold: A prince may abrogate, modify, or replace a law made by himself and without the consent of his subjects; such action is fully permissible where justice seems to demand it; the abrogation, modification, or substitution, however, must not 1 De Republica, pp. 134-5. BODIN 233 be obscure or ambiguous, but must be set forth in clear detail. If there is no probable reason for abrogating the law, he is acting contrary to the duty of a good prince in seeking such abrogation However, he is not bound by any obligation assumed by his prede- cessors, further than what is compatible with his own interest. . . We must not confuse laws and contracts. J-^aw depends upon the will of him who holds supreme power in can bind subjects by his law, but Callliol bin Between "a prince and his subjects has mutual biiu&ng force, so that it cannot be'^eparTCTTrcm~^ve^with~tlie consent-of-both parties; in thisrtfae- prince see'm"S"iu have nothing above his sub-/ jects, except that the purpose of a law to which he has sworn ing ceased to exist, he is no longer bound either by the law or the oath which he took with regard to the law. A well-advi prince will not suffer himself to be bound by oath to observe the laws, for in such case he does not possess the supreme authority in the commonwealth. 1 As to laws concerning the supreme power (imperil leges)* the prince cannot abrogate or modify them, since they are attached to the very sovereignty with which he is clothed; such is the Salic law, which is the foundation of our monarchy. 3 The sovereignty of a prince is manifest in the fact that when the estates and orders of the people, with humble mien, present their requests to him they are exercising no authority of commanding, forbidding, or concurring; but the prince by his own judgment and will directs everything whatever he desires and orders has the force of law. The opinion of those who in books scattered broadcast have written that the king is bound by the popular command, must be disregarded; such doctrine furnishes seditious men with material for revolutionary plots, ancfleads to disturb- ance in the commonwealth^ No reasonable ground can be adduced why subjects should control princes, or why power should be attributed to popular assemblies except in the infancy, madness, or captivity of the prince, when a guardian or deputy may be created by the suffrages of the people. If princes were restrained by laws made by these assemblies or by the commands of the people, the power of the prince would be worthless and the royal name a vain thing. 4 The approval and promulgation of laws, which is commonly l De Republica, pp. 136-7. 2 On the ambiguity of this expression, see Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, pp. 100-103. 8 De Republica, p. 139. 4 Ibid., pp. 139-40. 234 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY done in an assembly or senate, does not imply that the sovereignty of the realm resides in such assembly or senate, but only a species of authority without which laws issued by the king might be called in question at his death, or before the senate when it acts judicially. I hold, therefore, that the sovereignty of the prince is in no degree diminished by calling together the assemblies or estates, though indeed a prince grants many things to the assembled people which he would not so readily grant to individuals; this is because the voices of individuals are not heard so clearly as the voice of the multitude; or it is because the prince, accustomed to use the eyes and ears of others, in the assembly sees and hears the people directly, and so, impelled by shame, religious fear, or his own good disposition, he grants their requests. But the highest privilege of sovereignty consists primarily in giving laws not only to indi- viduals but also to the people as a whole, without their consent. 1 We may hold that a king who by lawful right assumes the king- ship is bound by the contracts and promises of his predecessors, in so far as .such contracts were made for the benefit of the common- wealth. fThis is especially true if they were made with the judg- ment ana consent of the entire people or of the greater assemblies; for their good faith is at stake, which it is not only appropriate but necessary for the king to respect, even though the state may be harmed therebyj But when a prince has contracted with strangers or with ''citizens concerning matters pertaining to the commonwealth without the consent of the people, if serious injury would come upon the commonwealth from the performance of the contracts, his successor is not bound by them, especially if he obtains his authority through election by the people or the senate; in such case he has received none of his privileges from his prede- cessor. It would be otherwise if he had acquired authority by grant from another; then he would be bound by the latter 's prom- ises, unless express exception had been made. But by whatever right a prince obtains his authority, whether by law, testament, popular election, or lot, it is just to fulfil those obligations which were undertaken for the good of the state. Otherwise it would be permissible for him, through evil practices, contrary to the laws of nature, to draw profit to himself out of hardships endured by others. It is of concern to the citizenship to keep the public faith to the best of its ability, lest when the state is in extreme danger all means of relief should be cut off. . . . But why, some one may ask, are the foregoing distinctions neces- sary, since all princes are bound by the law of nations? For in 1 De RepuUica, pp. 143-4. BODIN 235 that law compacts and testaments are included. This is not true, if we mean every kind of contract or testament. But admitting it to be true, it does not follow that a prince is more bound by the law of nations than by his own laws, except in so far as the former are in agreement with the laws of nature and of God; to these latter laws all that we have said concerning the obligation of princes must be referred. If certain of the laws of nations are unjust, the prince may abrogate them and forbid his subjects to follow them. This we showed in relation to slavery; this institu- tion was established in many states, by pernicious examples, yet in accord with the law of almost every nation; but through salu- tary decrees of several princes it has been abolished, in conformity to the laws of nature. What has been said of one thing may be extended to other things of like kind; for a proviso in the whole argumentation is that nothing be sanctioned which is contrary to the laws of God or of nature. For if justice is the end of the law, and law is the command of the prince, and the prince is the image of the almighty God, then the laws of the prince should bear the stamp of divine laws. 1 The first and principal function of sovereignty is to give laws to the citizens generally and individually, and, it must be added, not necessarily with the consent of superiors, equals, or inferiors. If the consent of superiors is required, then the prince is clearly a subject; if he must have the consent of equals, then others share his authority; if the consent of inferiors the people or the senate is necessary, then he lacks supreme authority. . . . It may be objected that custom does not get its power from the judgment or command of the prince, and yet has almost the force of law, so that it would seem that the prince is master of law, the people of custom. Custom, insensibly, yet with the full compliance of all, passes gradually into the character of men, and acquires force with the lapse of time. Law, on the other hand, comes forth in one moment at the order of him who has the power to command, and often in opposition to the desire and approval of those whom it governs. Wherefore, Chrysostom likens law to a tyrant and custom to a king. Moreover[jhe power of law is far greater than that of customjfor customs may be su- perseded by laws, but laws are not supplanted by customs; it is within the power and function of magistrates to restore the opera- tion of laws which by custom are obsolescent. Custom proposes neither rewards nor penalties; laws carry one or the other, unless 1 De Republica, pp. 166-7. ^ ' 236 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY it be a permissive law which nullifies the penalty of some other law. In short, a custom has compelling force only as long as the prince, by adding his endorsement and sanction to the custom, makes it a law. It is thus clear that laws and customs depend for their force upon the will of those who hold supreme power in the state. This first and chief mark of sovereignty is, therefore, of such sort that it cannot be transferred to subjects, though the prince or people sometimes confer upon one of the citizens the power to frame laws (legum condendarum) , which then have the same force as if they had been framed by the prince himself. The Lacedaemonians bestowed such power upon Lycurgus, the Athenians upon Solon; each stood as deputy for his state, and the fulfilment of his func- tion depended upon the pleasure not of himself but of the people; his legislation had no force save as the people confirmed it by their assent. The former composed and wrote the laws, the people enacted and commanded them. Under this supreme power of ordaining and abrogating laws, it is clear that all other functions of sovereignty are included; so that it may be truly said that supreme authority in the state is comprised in this one thing namely, to give laws to all and each of the citizens, and to receive none from them. /For to declare war or make peace, though seeming to involve what is alien to the term law, is yet accomplished by law, that is by decree of the supreme power./ It is also the prerogative of sovereignty to receive appeals from the highest magistrates, to confer authority upon the greater magistrates and to withdraw it from them, to allow exemption from taxes, to bestow other immunities, to grant dispensations from the laws, to exercise power of life and death, to fix the value, name and form of money, to compel all citizens to observe their oaths: all of these attributes are derived from the supreme power of commanding and forbidding that is, from the authority to give law to the citizens collectively and individually, and to receive law from no one save immortal God. A duke, therefore, who gives laws to all his subjects, but receives law from the emperor, Pope, or king, or has a co-partner in authority, lacks sovereignty. 1 SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Baudrillart, /. Bodin et son temps, pp. 111-221. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de V Europe, mdyen age, pp. 395-407. 1 De Republica, pp. 240-3. BODIN 237 Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. iii. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 47-56. Baudrillart, /. Bodin el son temps, pp. 222-512. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de V Europe, moyen age, pp. 408-506. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 114-127. Bluntschli, Geschichte der neuren Staatswissenschaft, pp. 26-56. Hancke, Bodin, eine Studie iiber den Begriff der Souverdnetdt. Hallam, Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Cen- turies, Vol. II, pp. 51-70. Flint, Historical Philosophy in France, French Belgium, and Switzerland, pp. 190-200. HOOKER XI. RICHARD HOOKER (1553-1600) INTRODUCTION Before the late sixteenth century no important work in political theory, of distinctively English origin, had appeared. English constitutional development had been shaped by men of practical minds and interpreted by lawyers. Controversies evoked by great political issues had been sought to be determined by dis- cussion, not of the ideas and grounds of government generally, but of English law and custom. The earliest substantial contribu- * tion to political philosophy from an English author is Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; this is the first great theo- retical work in English prose literature. It is primarily a work in theology. Questions which had been raised by the Protestant movement in the church reached England during the period of the effective absolutism of the Tudors. The movement created religious differences among the people in England as it had elsewhere; and those who dissented from whichever cult might be accepted by the monarch, were liable to persecution. 'But in England religious divisions were not at that time blended with powerful political factions among the people; and the absolutism of the crown en- joyed the support of strong national sentiment. After the definite adoption of Protestantism by Elizabeth, pamphleteers debated in somewhat broader terms than formerly, questions concerning the rights of the people or the authority of kings; and they borrowed arguments from continental disputants. But neither side pre- sented any clear or fundamental statement of political doctrine. This we find only in Hooker's work. Hooker was a learned clergyman in the Anglican church. His book was the outgrowth of a controversy on church government. In early manhood he became engaged in a dispute with a Presby- terian clergyman as to the validity of the particular organization that had been the somewhat accidental outcome of the dealings of Tudor monarchs with the ecclesiastical problems produced by 241 242 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the upheaval in the Christian church. The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity was intended to establish a broad basis for refutation of the attacks made by Presbyterians upon the polity and practices of the Anglican church. To their main charge that the episcopal organization was unscriptural, Hooker replied that no fixed polity was required by the Scriptures. Ecclesiastical laws, he main- tained, belong to that type of laws which must be shaped by the reason and other faculties of man; they are, therefore, changeable, as distinguished from immutable natural laws. The basis of the discussion in the Ecclesiastical Polity is established in the first book, which presents a fundamental examination of the origin, province, and obligation of laws in general. This analysis com- prises clear philosophic statement of certain doctrines, with respect to the ground and origin of political society and the nature and sanction of human laws, which in the two succeeding centuries were first principles with political theorists of democratic tendency. Hooker's treatise has been appropriately described as follows: vlt set the example of an attempt to exhibit in English, in a shape suited to an intelligent English reader, a serious theory of the order of the world, the principles on which it is governed, the nature of society, and the relations of its different parts: a theory which, after all the criticisms upon it, and with all its famous successors and rivals, still occupies the thought of modern inquirers. " l ) READINGS FROM LAWS OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY 2 1 . The Ground and Origin of Political Society * X. That which hitherto we have set down is (I hope) sufficient to shew their brutishness, which imagine that religion and virtue are only as men will account of them; that we might make as much account, if we would, of the contrary, without any harm unto ourselves, and that in nature they are as indifferent one as the other. We see then how nature itself teacheth laws and stat- utes to live by. The laws which have been hitherto mentioned do bind men absolutely even as they are men, although they have 1 Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I, edited by R. W. Church; introduc- tion, p. xix. 2 The selections are taken from Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I, edited by R. W. Church. Oxford, 1896. By permission of the Dele- gates of the Clarendon Press. 3 Bk. I, ch. x, 1-4. HOOKER 243 never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do or not to do. But forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others. This was the cause of men's uniting themselves at the first in politic societies; which societies could not be without government, nor government without a distinct kind of law from that which hath been already declared. Two foundations there are which bear up public societies; the one, a natural inclination, whereby all men desire sociable life and fellowship; the other, an order expressly or secretly agreed upon touching the manner of their union in living together. The latter is that which we call the law of a commonweal, the very soul of a politic body, the parts whereof are by law animated held together, and set on work in such actions as the common good requireth. Laws politic, ordained for external order and regiment amongst men, are never framed as they should be, unless presuming the will of man to be inwardly obstinate, rebellious, and averse from all obedience unto the sacred laws of his nature; in a word, unless presuming man to be in regard of his depraved mind little better than a wild beast, they do accordingly provide notwithstanding so to frame his outward actions, that they be no hindrance unto the common good for which societies are instituted: unless they do this, they are not perfect. It resteth therefore that we con- sider how nature findeth out such laws of government as serve to direct even nature depraved to a right end. 2. All men desire to lead in this world a happy life. That life is led most happily, wherein all virtue is exercised without impediment or let. The Apostle, 1 in exhorting men to content- ment although they have in this world no more than very bare food and raiment, giveth us thereby to understand that those are even the lowest of things necessary - t that if we should be stripped of all those things without which we might possibly be, yet these must be left; that destitution in these is such an impediment, as till it be removed suffereth not the mind of man to admit any other care. For this cause, first God assigned Adam maintenance of life, and then appointed him a law to observe. 2 For this cause, after men began to grow to a number, the first thing we read they gave themselves unto was the tilling of the earth and the feeding of 1 1 Tim. vi. 8. 2 Gen. i. 29; ii. 17. 244 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY cattle. Having by this mean whereon to live, the principal actions of their life afterward are noted by the exercise of their religion. 1 True it is, that the kingdom of God must be the first thing in our purposes and desires. 2 But inasmuch as righteous life presup- poseth life; inasmuch as to live virtuously it is impossible except we live; therefore the first impediment, which naturally we en- deavor to remove, is penury and want of things without which we cannot live. Unto life many implements are necessary; more, if we seek (as all men naturally do) such a life as hath in it joy, comfort, delight, and pleasure. To this end we see how quickly sundry arts mechanical were found out, in the very prime of the world. 8 As things of greatest necessity are always first provided for, so things of greatest dignity are most accounted of by all such as judge rightly. Although therefore riches be a thing which every man wisheth, yet no man of judgment can esteem it better to be rich, than wise, virtuous and religious. If we be both or either of these, it is not because we are so born. For into the world we come as empty of the one as of the other, as naked in mind as we are in body. Both which necessities of man had at the first no other helps and supplies than only domestical; such as that which the Prophet implieth, saying, Can a mother forget her child?* such as that which the Apostle mentioneth, saying, He that careth not for his own is worse than an Infidel:* such as that concerning Abraham, Abraham will command his sons and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord. 5 3. But neither that which we learn of ourselves nor that which others teach us can prevail, where wickedness and malice have taken deep root. If therefore when there was but as yet one only family in the world, no means of instruction human or divine could prevent effusion of blood; 7 how could it be chosen but that when families were multiplied and increased upon earth, after separation each providing for itself, envy, strife, contention, and violence must grow amongst them? For hath not nature furnished man with wit and valor, as it were with armor, which may be used as well unto extreme evil as good? Yea, were they not used by the rest of the world unto evil; unto the contrary only by Seth, Enoch, and those few the rest in that line? 8 We all make complaint of the iniquity of our times: not unjustly; for the days are evil. But compare them with those times wherein there were no civil societies, with those times wherein there was as yet no manner of 1 Matt. vi. 33. 4 Isa. xlix. 15. 7 Gen. iv. 8. 2 Gen. iv. 2, 26. 6 1 Tim. y. 8. 8 Gen. vi. 5; Gen. v. 8 Gen. iv. 20, 21, 22. Gen. xviii. 19. HOOKER 245 public regiment established, with those times wherein there were not above eight persons righteous living upon the face of the earth; 1 and we have surely good cause to think that God hath blessed us ex- ceedingly, and hath made us behold most happy days. 4. To take away all such mutual grievances, injuries, and wrongs, there was no way but only by growing unto composition and agreement amongst themselves, by ordaining some kind of government public, and by yielding themselves subject thereunto; that unto whom they granted authority to rule and govern, by them the peace, tranquillity, and happy estate of the rest might be procured. Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood; finally they knew that no man might in reason take upon him to determine his own right, and according to his own determination proceed in main- tenance thereof, inasmuch as every man is toward himself and them whom he greatly affecteth partial; and therefore that strifes and troubles would be endless, except they gave their common con- sent all to be ordered by some whom they should agree upon: without which consent there was no reason that one man should take upon him to be lord or judge over another; because, although there be according to the opinion of some very great and judicious men a kind of natural right in the noble, wise, and virtuous, to govern them which are of servile disposition; nevertheless for mani- festation of this their right, and men's more peaceable content- ment on both sides, the assent of them who are to be governed seemeth necessary. To fathers within their private families nature hath given a supreme power; for which cause we see throughout the world even from the foundation thereof, all men have ever been taken as lords and lawful kings in their own houses. Howbeit over a whole grand multitude having no such dependency upon any one, and consisting of so many families as every politic society in the world doth, impossible it is that any should have complete lawful power, but by consent of men, or immediate appointment of God; because not having the natural superiority of fathers, their power must needs be either usurped, and then unlawful; or, if lawful, then either granted or consented unto by them over whom they exer- cise the same, or else given extraordinarily from God, unto whom all the world is subject. It is no improbable opinion therefore 1 2 Pet. ii. 5. 246 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY which the Arch-philosopher was of, that as the chiefest person in every household was always as it were a king, so when numbers of households joined themselves in civil society together, kings were the first kind of governors amongst them! Which is also (as it seemeth) the reason why the name of Father continued still in them, who of fathers were made rulers ; as also the ancient cus- tom of governors to do as Melchisedec, and being kings to exercise the office of priests, which fathers did at the first, grew perhaps by the same occasion. Howbeit not this the only kind of regiment that hath been received in the world. The inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry other to be devised. So that in a word all public regiment of what kind soever seemeth evidently to have risen from deliberate advice, consulation, and composition between men, judging it convenient and behoveful; there being no impossibility in nature considered by itself, but that men might have lived without any public regiment. Howbeit, the corruption of our nature being presupposed, we may not deny but that the law of nature doth now require of necessity some kind of regiment; so that to bring things unto the first course they were in, and utterly to take away all kind of public government in the world, were apparently to overturn the whole world. 2. The Nature, Authority, and Kinds of Law l ^s. 5. The case of man's nature standing therefore as it doth, some kind of regiment the law of nature doth require; yet the kinds thereof being many, nature tieth not to any one, but leaveth the choice as a thing arbitrary.' At the first when some certain kind of regiment was once approved, it may be that nothing was then further thought upon for the manner of governing, but all per- mitted unto their wisdom and discretion which were to rule; till by experience they found this for all parts very inconvenient, so as the thing which they had devised for a remedy did indeed but increase the sore which it should have cured. They saw that tQ live by one man's will became the cause of all men's misery. This constrained them to come unto laws^ wherein all men might see their duties beforehand, and know the penalties of transgressing them. If things be simply good or evil, and withal universally so acknowledged, there needs no new law to be made for such things. The first kind therefore of things appointed by laws human containeth whatsoever being in itself naturally good or * Bk. I, ch. x, 5-13- HOOKER 247 evil, is notwithstanding more secret than that it can be discerned by every man's present conceit, without some deeper discourse and judgment. In which discourse because there is difficulty and possibility many ways to err, unless such things were set down by laws, many would be ignorant of their duties which now are not, and many that know what they should do would nevertheless dissemble it, and to excuse themselves pretend ignorance and simplicity, which now they cannot. 6. And because the greatest part of men are such as prefer their own private good before all things, even that good which is sensual before whatsoever is most divine; and for that the labor of doing good, together with the pleasure arising from the con- trary, doth make men for the most part slower to the one and proner to the other, than that duty prescribed them by law can prevail sufficiently with them: therefore unto laws that men do make for the benefit of men it hath seemed always needful to add rewards, which may more allure unto good than any hardness deterreth from it, and punishments, which may more deter from evil than any sweetness thereto allureth. Wherein as the general- ity is natural, Virtue rewardable and vice punishable; so the par- ticular determination of the reward or punishment belongeth unto them by whom laws are made. Theft is naturally punishable, but the kind of punishment is positive, and such lawful as men shall think with discretion convenient by law to appoint. 7. In laws, that which is natural bindeth universally, that which is positive not so. To let go those kinds of positive laws which men impose upon themselves, as by vow unto God, contract with men, or such like; somewhat it will make unto our purpose, a little more fully to consider what things are incident into the making of the positive laws for the government of them that live united in public society. Laws do not only teach what is good, but they enjoin it; they have in them a certain constraining force. And to constrain men unto any thing inconvenient doth seem un- reasonable. Most requisite therefore it is that to devise laws which all men shall be forced to obey none but wise men be admitted. Laws are matters of principal consequence; men of common capacity and but ordinary judgment are not able (for how should they?) to discern what things are fittest for each kind and state of regiment. We cannot be ignorant how much our obedience unto laws dependeth upon this point. Let a man though never so justly oppose himself unto them that are disordered in their ways, and what one amongst them commonly doth not stomach at such contradiction, storm at reproof, and hate such as would re- 248 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY form them? Notwithstanding even they which brook it worst that men should tell them of their duties, when they are told the same by a law, think very well and reasonably of it. For why? They presume that the law doth speak with all indifferency; that the law hath no side-respect to their persons; that the law is as it were an oracle proceeded from wisdom and understanding. 8. Howbeit laws do not take their constraining force from the quality of such as devise them, but from that power which doth give them the strength of laws. That which we spake before concerning the power of government must here be applied unto the power of making laws whereby to govern; which power God hath over all : < and by the natural law, whereunto he hath made all subject, the lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of men belongeth so properly unto the same entire societies, that for any prince or potentate of what kind soever upon earth to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express commission immediately and personally received from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent upon whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny. Laws they are not therefore which public approbation hath not made so. But approbation not only they give who per- sonally declare their assent by voice, sign, or act, but also when others do it in their names by right originally at the least derived from them. As in parliaments, councils, and the like assemblies, although we be not personally ourselves present, notwithstanding our assent is, by reason of others, agents there in our behalf. And what we do by others, no reason but that it should stand as our deed, no less effectually to bind us than if ourselves had done it in person. In many things assent is given, they that give it not imagining they do so, because the manner of their assenting is not apparent. As for example, when an absolute monarch com- mandeth his subjects that which seemeth good in his own discre- tion, hath not his edict the force of a law whether they approve or dislike it? Again, that which hath been received long sithence and is by custom now established, we keep as a law which we may not transgress; yet what consent was ever thereunto sought or required at our hands? Of this point therefore we are to note, that sith men naturally have no full and perfect power to command whole public multi- tudes of men, therefore utterly without our consent we would in such sort be at no man's commandment living. And to be commanded we do consent, when that society whereof we are part hath at any time before consented, without revoking the same HOOKER 249 after by the like universal agreement. Wherefore as any man's deed past is good as long as himself continueth; so the act of a public society of men done five hundred years sithence standeth as theirs who presently are of the same societies, because corpora- tions are immortal; we were then alive in our predecessors, and they in their successors do live still. Laws therefore human of what kind soever, are available by consent. 9. If here it be demanded how it cometh to pass that this being common unto all laws which are made, there should be found even in good laws so great variety as there is; we must note the reason thereof to be the sundry particular ends, where- unto the different disposition of that subject or matter, for which laws are provided, causeth them to have especial respect in making laws. A law there is mentioned amongst the Grecians whereof Pittacus is reported to have been author; and by that law it was agreed, that he which being overcome with drink did then strike any man, should suffer punishment double as much as if he had done the same being sober. No man could ever have thought this reasonable, that had intended thereby only to punish the injury committed according to the gravity of the fact: for who knoweth not that harm advisedly done is naturally less pardonable, and therefore worthy of the sharper punishment? But forasmuch as none did so usually this way offend as men in that case, which they wittingly fell into, even because they would be so much the more freely outrageous; it was for their public good, where such disorder was grown, to frame a positive law for remedy thereof accordingly. To this appertain those known laws of making laws; as that law-makers must have an eye to the place where, and to the men amongst whom: that one kind of laws cannot serve for all kinds of regiment: that where the multi- tude beareth sway, laws that shall tend unto preservation of that state must make common smaller offices to go by lot, for fear of strife and division likely to arise, by reason that ordinary qualities sufficing for discharge of such offices, they could not but by many be desired, and so with danger contended for, and not missed without grudge and discontentment, whereas at an un- certain lot none can find themselves grieved, on whomsoever it lighteth; contrariwise the greatest, whereof but few are capable, to pass by popular election, that neither the people may envy such as have those honors, inasmuch as themselves bestow them, and that the chief est may be kindled with desire to exercise all parts of rare and beneficial virtue, knowing they shall not lose their labor by growing in fame and estimation amongst the people : 250 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY if the helm of chief government be in the hands of a few of the wealthiest, that then laws providing for continuance thereof must make the punishment of contumely and wrong offered unto any of the common sort sharp and grievous, that so the evil may be prevented whereby the rich are most likely to bring themselves into hatred with the people, who are not wont to take so great an offence when they are excluded from honors and offices, as when their persons are contumeliously trodden upon. In other kinds of regiment the like is observed concerning the differ- ence of positive laws, which to be everywhere the same is impossible and against their nature. 10. Now as the learned in the laws of this land observe, that our statutes sometimes are only the affirmation or ratification of that which by common law was held before; so here it is not to be omitted that generally all laws human, which are made for the ordering of politic societies, be either such as establish some duty whereunto all men by the law of reason did before stand bound; or else such as make that a duty now which before was none. The one sort we may for distinction's sake call mixedly, and the other merely human. That which plain or necessary reason bindeth men unto may be in sundry considerations expedient to be ratified by human law. For example, if confusion of blood in marriage, the liberty of having many wives at once, or any other the like corrupt and unreasonable custom doth happen to have prevailed far, and to have gotten the upper hand of right reason with the greatest part, so that no way is left to rectify such foul disorder without prescribing by law the same things which reason necessarily doth enforce but is not perceived that so it doth; or if many be grown unto that which the Apostle did lament in some, concerning whom he writeth, saying, that Even what things they naturally know, in those very things as beasts void of reason they corrupted themselves] 1 or if there be no such special accident, yet forasmuch as the common sort are led by the sway of their sensual desires, and therefore do more shun sin for the sensible evils which follow it amongst men, than for any kind of sentence which reason doth pronounce against it; this very thing is cause sufficient why duties belonging unto each kind of virtue, albeit the law of reason teach them, should notwithstanding be prescribed even by human law. Which law in this case we term mixed, because the matter whereunto it bindeth is the same which reason necessarily doth require at our hands, and from the law of reason it differeth in the manner of binding only. For whereas 1 Jude 10. HOOKER 251 men before stood bound in conscience to do as the law of reason teacheth, they are now by virtue of human law become constrain- able, and if they outwardly transgress, punishable. As for laws which are merely human, the matter of them is any thing which reason doth but probably teach to be fit and convenient; so that till such time as law hath passed amongst men about it, of itself it bindeth no man. One example whereof may be this. Lands are by human law in some places after the owner's decease divided unto all his children, in some all descendeth to the eldest son. frlf the law of reason did necessarily require but the one of these ^two to be done, they which by law have received the other should be subject to that heavy sentence, which denounceth against all that decree wicked, unjust, and unreasonable things, woe. 1 Where- as now whichsoever be received there is no law of reason trans- gressed; because there is probable reason why either of them may be expedient, and for either of them more than probable reason there is not to be found. 11. Laws whether mixedly or merely human are made by politic societies: some, only as those societies are civilly united; some, as they are spiritually joined and make such a body as we call the church. Of laws human in this later kind we are to speak in the third book following. Let it therefore suffice thus far to have touched the force wherewith almighty God hath gra- ciously endued our nature, and thereby enabled the same to find out both those laws which all men generally are for ever bound to observe, and also such as are most fit for their behoof, who lead their lives in any ordered state of government. 12. Now besides that law which simply concerneth men as men, and that which belongeth unto them as they are men linked with others in some form of politic society, there is a third kind of law which toucheth all such several bodies politic, so far forth as one of them hath public commerce with another. And this third is the law of nations* Between men and beasts there is no possibility of sociable communion; because the well-spring of that communion is a natural delight which man hath to trans- fuse from himself into others, and to receive from others into himself, especially those things wherein the excellency of his kind doth most consist. The chiefest instrument of human communion therefore is speech, because thereby we impart mutually one to another the conceits of our reasonable understanding. And for that cause seeing beasts are not hereof capable, forasmuch as with them we can use no such conference, they being in degree, 1 Isaiah x. I. 252 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY although above other creatures on earth to whom nature hath denied sense, yet lower than to be sociable companions of man to whom nature hath given reason; it is of Adam said that amongst the beasts He found not for himself any meet companion. 1 Civil society doth more content the nature of man than any private kind of solitary living, because in society this good of mutual participa- tion is so much larger than otherwise. Herewith notwithstanding we are not satisfied, but we covet (if it might be) to have a kind of society and fellowship even with all mankind. Which thing Socrates intending to signify professed himself a citizen, not of this or that commonwealth, but of the world. And an effect of that very natural desire in us (a manifest token that we wish after a sort a universal fellowship with all men), appeareth by the wonderful delight men have, some to visit foreign countries, some to discover nations not heard of in former ages, we all to know the affairs and dealings of other people, yea to be in league of amity with them: and this not only for traffic's sake, or to the end that when many are confederated each may make other the more strong, but for such cause also as moved the Queen of Saba to visit Solomon; 2 and in a word, because nature doth presume that how many men there are in the world, so many Gods as it were there are, or at leastwise such they would be towards men. 13. Touching laws which are to serve men in this behalf; even as those laws of reason, which (man retaining his original integrity) had been sufficient to direct each particular person in all his affairs and duties, are not sufficient but require the access of other laws, now that man and his offspring are grown thus corrupt and sinful; again, as those laws of polity and regiment which would have served men living in public society together with that harmless disposition which then they should have had, are not able now to serve, when men's iniquity is so hardly re- strained within any tolerable bounds: in like manner, the national laws of mutual commerce between societies of that former and better quality might have been other than now, when nations are so prone to offer violence, injury, and wrong. Hereupon hath grown in every of these three kinds that distinction between Primary and Secondary laws; the one grounded upon sincere, the other built upon depraved nature. Primary laws of nations are such as concern embassage, such as belong to the courteous entertainment of foreigners and strangers, such as serve for commodious traffic, and the like. Secondary laws in the same 1 Gen. ii. 20. 2 i Kings x. i; 2 Chron. ix. i; Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31. HOOKER 253 kind are such as this present unquiet world is most familiarly acquainted with; I mean laws of arms, which yet are much better known than kept. But what matter the law of nations doth contain I omit to search. The strength and virtue of that law is such that no particular nation can lawfully prejudice the same by any their several laws and ordinances, more than a man by his private resolutions the law of the whole commonwealth or state wherein he liveth. For as civil law, being the act of the whole body politic, doth therefore overrule each several part of the same body; so there is no reason that any one commonwealth of itself should to the pre- judice of another annihilate that whereupon the whole world hath agreed. For which cause, the Lacedaemonians forbidding all access of strangers into their coasts are in that respect both by Josephus and Theodoret deservedly blamed, as being enemies to that hospitality which for common humanity's sake all the nations on earth should embrace. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Church, Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical, Polity, Book I, "Introduction." Lee, Sidney, "Richard Hooker," in Dictionary of National Biography. Isaac Walton, Life of Hooker, in Works of Hooker, arr. by Keble; Vol. II, Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, pp. 208-212. Dowden, Puritan and Anglican, pp. 69-76. GROTIUS XH. HUGO GROTIUS (1583-1645) INTRODUCTION So far our readings have been taken from the works of authors whose preoccupation in political reflection was with the internal constitution of the state. The major part of the treatise from which we next make selection deals with the laws governing intercourse between states. This work is The Law of War and Peace of the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, who wrote in the early part of the seventeenth century. For several centuries preceding Grotius attempts had been made to reach a rational foundation for the definition of the inter-relations of states. In particular, there had been recognition of the importance of establishing rules to restrict the actions of states during war. In such endeavors mediaeval writers had operated with two conceptions inherited from Roman jurisprudence. One of these was the conception of natural law, which had figured to such an extent in scholastic discussion. A characteristic element of the notion of natural law was the applicability of its precepts to all peoples; for natural law was regarded as a dictate of human reason, which was essential- ly the same among all people. The other conception was that of jus gentium, which denoted a body of law constituted of rules discovered to be common to the juristic practice of many different peoples. In developing the relation between these two concep- tions, several writers had given some systematic consideration to the rights and duties of political communities. But not until the sixteenth century does there appear to have been wide accepta- tion of a clear differentiation of the idea of jus gentium, in the sense of laws governing the relations between nations, from the older conception of a body of law common to different nations. In the sixteenth century questions of international ethics assumed paramount interest; this was due to many circumstances of recent history such as the discovery and colonization of new parts of the world, the relaxation in imperial and papal supervision, inter-state religious and dynastic wars, the complication in the inter-relations of the small German principalities. In the solu- tion of such questions Catholic theologians and Protestant jurists devoted special consideration to the formulation of the precepts 257 258 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of natural law. These precepts they sought to discover in the rules of civil or canon law, in the writings of earlier theologians, and also in the practices of Christian nations. In these discussions the idea of a distinct branch of law for international relations ap- peared, and certain domains of such law were sketched in detail. None of the writers clearly established his formulas either upon universal principles of human reason, or upon precedents in the intercourse of civilized states; but the distinction between the two sources was distinctly recognized by a few notably, the Spanish jurist, Suarez. 1 Grotius utilized and acknowledged the work of these predeces- sors. The great reputation and influence of his De Jure Belli ac Pads, and his title as founder of a new science, may be considered to rest, on the one hand, upon the character and life of the author, and, on the other hand, upon the qualities of the work. The work is notable for the comprehensive scope and systematic form of its analysis, for the clear separation of its proper field from the con- tiguous fields of ethics and jurisprudence, and for the author's freedom from sectarian bias in the spirit of his discussion. Grotius was born in Delft, of a family of some local social and political distinction. He was from early youth a student of classi- cal literature and philosophy, and from time to time produced many translations, besides original Latin verses. He was also a lawyer, held important positions in the city of Rotterdam and in the provincial governments of Holland and Zealand, and served on special deputations from the Confederation to France and England. He became involved in the sectarian and political con- flict in which Holland was embroiled during his lifetime. Though a strong advocate of religious toleration and a worker for concilia- tion, he held the " free-will" views of the Arminian party. When the stadtholder, Maurice of Nassau, espoused the cause of the Gomarian (Calvinistic) party (chiefly because that faction would yield stronger support for his political aims), and instituted reli- gious prosecution against adherents of the opposing faction, Grotius suffered imprisonment. Escaping from prison after a few years, Grotius went to Paris, where he was sustained by a 1 For brief sketches of the literature of international law before the time of Grotius, cf. Carmichael, "Grotius and the Literary History of the Law of Na- tions," in Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. XIV (1884); Holland, Studies in International Law, pp. 1-58; Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America, pp. 1-67. GROTIUS 259 small pension from Louis XII, supplemented by gifts from some friends. Here his De Jure Belli ac Pads was published in I625. 1 The motive of that work appears in the author's statement in the prolegomena. We appreciate better the significance of that state- ment of purpose if we recall that Grotius' life had witnessed the following events: the last twenty-five years of the war of the United Provinces against Spain; the continuation of civil war in France, with the assassination of Henry III and IV; the sectarian and political troubles in England and Holland, with the execution of Mary Stuart and the assassination of William of Orange; and the first part of the Thirty Years' War. For the history of political philosophy our interest, in The Law of War and Peace, is centered first in the prolegomena, in which the author lays the foundations of his system in his analysis of the relation of natural law to the "law of nations"; and, secondly, in the preliminary discussion, in the main body of the work, of natural law and of the nature of the state and of sovereignty; these latter subjects it was essential for the author to examine in order to reach a precise determination of what constituted the capacity for possessing international rights and duties. READINGS FROM DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS 2 1. The Rational Basis of International Law 3 i. The civil law, 4 both that of Rome and that of each nation in particular, has been treated of by many, with a view either 1 The De Jure Belli ac Pacts is an expansion of an earlier unpublished treatise, De Jure Prada (first published in 1868). This earlier work was the outcome of a case in Grotius' legal practice. The question of the case was as to the lawfulness of the capture of a Portuguese prize by a Dutch ship in eastern waters over which Portugal claimed exclusive ownership. This led Grotius to a discussion of the conditions of the lawfulness of war, and of the limits that must be put to claims of dominion over the high seas. A chapter (of the De Jure Pradce} on the latter topic formed also the basis for a third work the Mare Liber um; this was published in 1609, when the dispute between the United Provinces and Portugal over the question of the freedom of the seas was at an acute stage. 2 The translation is made from the text as 'given in Whe well's edition, Cam- bridge University Press, 1853. Whewell's abridged translation, which accom- panies that text, has been used freely and adopted verbatim in many parts; but in many instances it has seemed necessary, in the interest of clearness and correctness, to translate anew. Grotius' quotations and historical citations are generally omitted. 3 From the Prolegomena. 4 Jus will be uniformly rendered as "law" in the passages from Grotius; and wherever the word "law" appears in this translation it stands for jus in the original, save where I indicate otherwise. 260 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to elucidate it, through commentaries, or to present it in a com- pendious form. But that law which regards the relations between peoples, or between rulers of peoples, whether it proceed from nature or be instituted by divine commands or introduced by custom and tacit agreement, has been touched on by few, and has by no one been treated as a whole and in an orderly manner. And yet that this be done is of concern to the human race. 3. And such a work is the more necessary because of the fact that persons in our own time, as well as in former ages, have held in contempt what has been done in this province of jurisprudence, as if no such thing existed, except as a mere name. Every one is familiar with the saying of Euphemius in Thucydides, that for a king or city who has authority to maintain, nothing is unjust which is useful; and to the same effect is the saying that with good fortune equity is where strength is, and that the common- wealth cannot be administered without doing some wrong. To this we add that the controversies which arise between peoples and between kings commonly have war as their arbiter. But that war has nothing to do with laws is not only the opinion of the ignorant; even wise and learned men often let fall expressions which support such an opinion. For nothing is more common than to place laws and arms in opposition to each other. . . . 5. Since our discussion of law is undertaken in vain if there is no law, it will serve both to commend and fortify our work if we refute briefly this very grave error. And that we may not have to deal with a mob of opponents, let us appoint an advocate to speak for them. And whom can we select fitter than Carneades, 1 who had arrived at the point the supreme aim of his academic philos- ophy where he could use the strength of his eloquence for false- hood as easily as for truth? When he undertook to argue against justice especially, the justice of which we here treat, he found no argument stronger than this: that men had, as utility prompted, established laws, differing among different peoples as manners differed, and, among the same people, often changing with the change of times; but that there is no natural law, since all men, as well as other animals, are impelled by nature to seek their own advantage; and that either there is no justice, or if it exist, it is the highest folly, since through it one harms oneself in consulting the interests of others. 6. But what this philosopher says, and, following him, the poet "Nature cannot distinguish the just from the unjust," 2 1 A Greek skeptic philosopher of the second century, B. C. 2 "Nee natura potest justo secernere iniquum." Horat. I. Sat. iii. 113. GROTIUS 261 must by no means be admitted. For though man is indeed an animal, he is an uncommon animal, differing much more from all other animals than they differ from one another; this is evidenced in many actions peculiar to the human species. Among the attributes peculiar to man is the desire for society that is for communion with his fellow-men, and not for communion simply, but for a tranquil association and one suited to the quality of his intellect; this the Stoics called oiKaWiv. Therefore, the state- ment that by nature every animal is impelled to seek only its own advantage cannot be conceded in this general form. 7. Even in other animals their desires for their own good are tempered by regard for their offspring and for others of their spe- cies; this we believe to proceed from some intelligence outside of themselves; 1 for with regard to other acts not at all more difficult than these an equal degree of intelligence does not appear. The same is to be said of infants, in whom, previous to all teaching, there is manifested a certain disposition to do good to others, as is sagaciously remarked by Plutarch ; for example, at that age com- passion breaks forth spontaneously. A man of full age knows how to act similarly in similar cases, and he has that exceptional craving for society, 2 whose peculiar instrument, language, he alone among all animals possesses; accordingly, he has the faculty of knowing and acting according to general principles; the tendencies which agree with this faculty do not belong to all animals, but are the peculiar properties of human nature. 8. This concern for society, 3 which we have now stated in a rude manner, and which is in agreement with the nature of the human intellect, is the source of law, properly so called, of which we are speaking. It is law that determines the abstention from an- other's property; the restitution of another's goods which we have in our possession and of any gain we have derived from such posses- sion; the obligation to fulfill promises; the reparation for damage wrongfully done; and the retribution of punishments. 9. From this signification of law there has flowed another larger meaning. For man is superior to other animals not only in the social impulse, of which we have spoken, but also in his judgment in estimating what is pleasant and what is injurious not only for the present but for the future also, and the things which may lead to good or to ill. We know, therefore, that, in accordance with the quality of the human intellect, it is congruous 1 "Ex principle aliquo intelligente extrinseco." 2 "Societatis appetitu excellente." s "Societatis custodia." 262 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to human nature to follow, in such matters, a judgment rightly formed and not to be misled by fear or by the enticement of present pleasure, or to be carried away by heedless impulse; and that what is plainly repugnant to such judgment is likewise contrary to natural law, that is, to natural human law. 10. And here comes the question of a wise assignment in bestowing upon each individual and each body of men the things which peculiarly belong to them; this disposition will sometimes prefer the wiser man to the less wise, the neighbor to a stranger, the poor man to the rich man, according as the nature of each act and each matter requires. This question some have made a part of law, strictly and properly so called; though law, properly speaking, has a very different nature; for it consists in this that each should leave to another what is his and give to him what is his due. 1 1 . What we have said would still be in point even if we should grant, what we cannot without great wickedness, that there is no God, or that He bestows no regard upon human affairs. Since we are assured of the contrary, partly by our reason and partly by constant tradition, confirmed by many arguments and by miracles attested by all ages, it follows that God, as our creator to whom we owe our being and all that we have, is to be obeyed by us without exception, especially since He has in many ways shown himself to be supremely good and supremely powerful. Wherefore, He is able to bestow upon those who obey Him the highest rewards, even eternal rewards, since He himself is eternal; and He must be believed to be willing to do this, particularly if He has promised to do so in plain words; and this we as Christians believe, convinced by the indubitable faith of testimonies. 12. And here we find another origin of law, besides that natural source of which we have spoken; it is the free will of God, to which our reason indisputably tells us we must submit our- selves. But even natural law whether it be the natural social law, or law in the looser meaning of which we have spoken may yet be rightfully ascribed to God, though it proceed from the principles of man's inner nature; for it was in accordance with His will that such principles came to exist within us. In this sense Chrysippus and the Stoics said that the origin of law was not to be sought in any other source than Jove himself; and it may be conjectured that the Latins took the word jus from the name Jove. 13. It may be added that God has made these principles more manifest by the commandments which He has given in order that they might be understood by those whose minds have weaker GROTIUS 263 powers of reasoning. And He has controlled the aberrations of our impulses, which drive us this way and that, to the injury of ourselves and of others; bridling our more vehement passions, and restraining them within due limits. 15. In the next place, since it is conformable to natural law to observe compacts (for some mode of obliging themselves was necessary among men, and no other natural mode can be imagined) civil rights were derived from that very source. For those who joined any community, or put themselves in subjection to any man or men, either expressly promised or from the nature of the case must have been understood to promise tacitly, that they would conform to that which either the majority of the community, or those to whom power was assigned, should determine. 1 6. And therefore what Carneades said, and what has been said by others that utility is the mother of justice and right is, if we are to speak accurately, not true. For the mother of natural law is human nature itself, which would lead us to desire mutual society even though we were not driven thereto by other wants. The mother of civil law is obligation by compact; and since com- pacts derive their force from natural law, nature may be said to be the great-grandmother of civil law. But utility supplements (accedit) natural law. For the Author of nature ordained that we, as individuals, should be weak and in need of many things for living well, in order that we might be the more impelled to cherish society. But utility furnished the occasion for civil law; for that association or subjection of which we have spoken, was at the first instituted for the sake of some utility. Accordingly, those who prescribe laws for others ordinarily design, or should design, some utility in their laws. 17. But just as the laws of each state regard the utility of that state, so also between all states, or, at least, between most of them, certain laws could be established by consent and it appears that laws have been established which regard the utility, not of particular communities but of the great aggregate of communities. And this is what is called the law of nations (jus gentium), in so far as we distinguish it from natural law. This part of law is omitted by Carneades, who divides all law into natural law^and the civil law of particular peoples ; although as he was about to treat of that law which obtains between one people and another (for he sub- joins a discussion upon war and acquisitions by war), he was especially called upon to make mention of law of this kind. 1 8. Moreover, Carneades improperly traduces justice when he calls it folly. For since, as he himself acknowledges, the citizen 264 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY is not foolish who in a state obeys the civil law, although in conse- quence of such respect for the law he may lose some things which are useful to him, so too a people is not to be deemed foolish which does not estimate its interests so highly as to disregard the com- mon laws between peoples for the sake of its own advantage. The reason is the same in both cases. For as a citizen who disobeys the civil law for the sake of present utility destroys that in which the perpetual utility of himself and his posterity is bound up, so too a people which violates the laws of nature and of nations breaks down the bulwark of its own tranquillity for future time. Even though no utility were to be looked for from the observation of law, such a course would be one not of folly but of wisdom, to which we feel ourselves drawn by nature. 19. Wherefore, that saying that we were compelled to estab- lish laws from fear of wrong, 1 is not universally true; this opinion is explained by a speaker in Plato's dialogues, who says that laws were introduced because of the fear of receiving wrong, and that men are driven to respect justice by a certain compulsion. But this applies only to those institutions and statutes which were devised for the more easy enforcement of law; as when many, individually weak, fearing oppression by those who were stronger, combined to establish judicial authorities and to protect them by their common strength, so that those whom they could not resist singly, they might, united, control. Only in this sense may we properly accept the statement that law is that which pleases the stronger party: namely, that we are to understand that law does not attain its external end unless it has force as its servant. Thus Solon accomplished great things, as he himself said, by linking together force and law. 2 20. But even law that is unsupported by force is not destitute of all effect; for justice brings serenity to the conscience, while injustice brings torments and remorse such as Plato describes as afflicting the hearts of tyrants. The common feeling of upright men approves justice and condemns injustice. The important point is that justice has for its friend, God, while injustice has Him as an enemy; He reserves his judgments for another life, yet in such manner that He often exhibits their power in this life; we have many examples of this in history. 21. The error which many commit who, while they require justice in citizens, hold it to be superfluous in a people or the ruler of a people, is caused primarily by this fact: they are regarding 1 "Jura inventa metu injusti faleare necesse est." (Horace, I. Sat. iii.) * " 'Ofu>v pltjv re Kal Slicrjv f securing a constitution through which all elements of the state Vork toward the common interest of the whole body of the people. According to the author the solution of this problem lies in the proper form of governmental organization; the chief requirements are that the government should be fashioned in conformity to certain psychological principles, and strengthened through certain subsidiary provisions notably those establishing rotation in office and election by secret ballot. Harrington's discussion is in empirical form, and manifests his wide reading in history, his study of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli and other political theorists, and his observation of contemporary events in the European States. 1 READINGS FROM THE OCEANA 2 1. Principles of Political Power: The Material Influences* Janotti, the most excellent describer of the commonwealth of Venice, divides the whole series of government into two times or periods: the one ending with the liberty of Rome, which was the course or empire, as I may call it, of ancient prudence, first discovered to mankind by God Himself in the fabric of the commonwealth of Israel, and afterwards picked out of His foot- steps in nature, and unanimously followed by the Greeks and Romans; the other beginning with the arms of Caesar, which, extinguishing liberty, were the transition of ancient into modern prudence, introduced by those inundations of Huns, Goths, 1 Cf. Masson, Life of John Milton, Vol. V, pp. 483-4, for the efforts made by Harrington and his friends to get Parliament to adopt features of his plan. Cf. the citations of Smith and Dwight (p. 379, infra) for study of the influ- ence of Harrington's ideas in America. After the Restoration Harrington was imprisoned by order of Charles II, on an unfounded charge of conspiracy. He was finally released, but not un- j't ^.^^ !_ 1 1i_1_ 1* J t~ j_t I'll* showing the Principles of Government" (Morley, pp. 15-72). In the three other parts the details of the ideal political organization are presented. 3 Pp. 15-25. HARRINGTON 357 Vandals, Lombards, Saxons, which, breaking the Roman empire, deformed the whole face of the world with those ill features of government, which at this time are become far worse in these Western parts, except Venice, which, escaping the hands of the Barbarians by virtue of its impregnable situation, has had its eye fixed upon ancient prudence, and is attained to a perfection even beyond the copy. Relation being had to these two times, government (to define it de jure, or according to ancient prudence) is an art whereby a civil society of men is instituted and preserved upon the founda- tion of common right or interest; or, to follow Aristotle and Livy, it is the empire of laws, and not of men. And government (to define it de facto, or according to modern prudence) is an art whereby some man, or some few men, subject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their private interest; which, because the laws in such cases are made accord- ing to the interest of a man, or of some few families, may be said to be the empire of men, and not of laws. The former kind is that which Machiavel (whose books are neglected) is the only politician that has gone about to retrieve; and that Leviathan (who would have his book imposed upon the universities) goes about to destroy. For "it is," says he, "an- other error of Aristotle's politics that in a well-ordered common- wealth not men should govern, but the laws. What man that has his natural senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeys not? Or, who believes that < the law can hurt him, which is but words and paper, without the hands and swords of men?" I confess that the magistrate upon his bencfyis that to the law which a gunner upon his plat- form is to his cannon. Nevertheless, I should not dare to argue with a man of any ingenuity after this manner. A whole army, though they can neither write nor read, are not afraid of a plat- form, which they know is but earth or stone; nor of a cannon, which, without a hand to give fire to it, is but cold iron; therefore a whole army is afraid of one man. But of this kind is the ratio- cination of Leviathan, as I shall show in divers places that come in my way, throughout his whole politics, or worse; as where he says, of Aristotle and of Cicero, of the Greeks, and of the Romans, who lived under popular states, that they derived those rights not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own common- wealths, as grammarians describe the rules of language out of 358 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY poets. Which is as if a man should tell famous Harvey that he transcribed his circulation of the blood not out of the principles of nature, but out of the anatomy of this or that body. To go on therefore with his preliminary discourse, I shall divide it, according to the two definitions of government relating to Janotti's two times, in two parts. The first, treating of the principles of government in general, and according to the ancients; the second, treating of the late governments of Oceana in par- ticular, and in that of modern prudence. Government, according to the ancients, and their learned disciple Machiavel, the only politician of later ages, is of three kinds: the government of one man, or of the better sort, or of the whole people; which, by their more learned names, are called monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. These they hold, , through their proneness to degenerate, to be all evil. For whereas \they that govern should govern according to reason, if they 'govern according to passion they do that which they should not do. Wherefore, as reason and passion are two things, so /government by reason is one thing, and the corruption of govern- ^ment by passion is another thing, but not always another govern- ment: as a body that is alive is one thing, and a body that is dead is another thing, but not always another creature, though the corruption of one comes at length to be the generation of another. The corruption then of monarchy is called tyranny; that of aristocracy, oligarchy; and that of democracy, anarchy. But legislators, having found these three governments at the best to be naught, have invented another, consisting of a mixture of them all, which only is good. This is the doctrine of the ancients. But Leviathan is positive that they are all deceived, and that there is no other government in nature than one of the three; as also that the flesh of them cannot stink, the names of their corruptions being but the names of men's fancies, which will be understood when we are shown which of them was Senatus Populusque Romanus. To go my own way, and yet to follow the ancients, "the prin- ciples of government are twofold: internal, or the goods of the mind; and external, or the goods of fortune. The goods of the mind are natural or acquired virtues, as wisdom, prudence, and courage, etc. The goods of fortune are riches. There be goods also of the body, as health, beauty, strength; but these 'are not to be brought into account upon this score, because if a man or an army acquires victory or empire, it is more from their discipline, arms, and courage than from tftelrMiatural health, HARRINGTON 3o. beauty, or strength, in regard that a people conquered may have more of natural strength, beauty and health, and yet find little remedy. r The principles of government then are in the goods of the mind, or in the goods of fortune. To the goods of the mind answers authority; to the goods of fortune, power \\ or empire. Wherefore Leviathan, though he be right where hei says that "riches are power," is mistaken where he says that "prudence, or the reputation of prudence, is power;" for the learning or prudence of a man is no more power than the learning or prudence of a book or author, which is properly authority. A learned writer may have authority though he has no power ^ and a foolish magistrate may have power, though he has other4 wise no esteem or authority. The difference of these two is observed by Livy in Evander, of whom he says that he governed rather by the authority of others than by his own power. To begin with riches, in regard that men are hung upon these, not of choice as upon the other, but of necessity and by the teeth; forasmuch as he who wants bread is his servant that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his empire. Empire is of two kinds, domestic and national, or foreign and provincial. Domestic empire is founded upon dominion. Dominion is property, real or personal; that is to say, in lands, or in money and goods. Lands, or the parts and parcels of a territory, are held by the proprietor or proprietors, lord or lords of it, in some proportion; and such (except it be in a city that has little or no land, and whose revenue is in trade) as is the proportion or balance of dominion or property in land, such is the nature of the empire. If one man be sole landlord of a territory, or overbalance the people, for example, three parts in four, he is Grand Seignior; for so the Turk is called from his property, and his empire is absolute monarchy. If the few or a nobility, or a nobility with a clergy, be land- lords, or overbalance the people to the like proportion, it makes the Gothic balance (to be shown at large in the second part of this discourse), and the empire is mixed monarchy, as that of Spain, Poland, and late of Oceana. And if the whole people be landlords, or hold the lands so divided among them that no one man, or number of men, within the compass of the few or aristocracy, overbalance them, the empire (without the interposition of force) is a commonwealth. ' 3*60 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY If force be interposed in any of these three cases, it must either frame the government to the foundation, or the foundation to the government; or holding the government not according to the balance, it is not natural, but violent; and therefore if it be at the devotion of a prince, it is tyranny; if at the devotion of the few, oligarchy; or if in the power of the people, anarchy. Each of which confusions, the balance standing otherwise, is but of short continuance, because against the nature of the balance, which, not destroyed, destroys that which opposes it. But there be certain other confusions, which, being rooted in the balance, are of longer continuance, and of worse consequence; as, first, where a nobility holds half the property, or about that proportion, and the people the other half; in which case, without altering the balance there is no remedy but the one must eat out the other, as the people did the nobility in Athens, and the nobility the people in Rome. Secondly, when a prince holds about half the dominion, and the people the other half (which was the case of the Roman emperors, planted partly upon their military colonies, and partly upon the senate and the people), the govern- ment becomes a very shambles, both of the princes and the people. Somewhat of this nature are certain governments at this day, which are said to subsist by confusion. In this case, to fix the balance, is to entail misery; but in the three former, not to fix it, is to lose the government. Wherefore it being unlawful in Turkey that any should possess land but the Grand Seignior, the balance is fixed by the law, and that empire firm. Nor, though the kings often sell, was the throne of Oceana known to shake, until the statute of alienations broke the pillars, by giving way to the nobility to sell their estates. While Lacedsemon held to the division of land made by Lycurgus, it was immovable; but, breaking that, could stand no longer. This kind of law fixing the balance in lands is called Agrarian, and was first intro- duced by God himself, who divided the land of Canaan to His people by lots, and is of such virtue, that wherever it has held that government has not altered, except by consent; as in that unparalleled example of the people of Israel, when being in liberty .they would needs choose a king. But without an agrarian law, : government, whether monarchical, aristocratical, or popular, ^has no long lease. As for dominion, personal or in money, it may now and then stir up a Melius or a Manlius, which, if the commonwealth be not provided with some kind of dictatorian power, may be dangerous, though it has been seldom or never successful; because HARRINGTON 361 to property producing empire, it is required that it should have some certain root or foothold, which, except in land, it cannot have, being otherwise as it were upon the wing. Nevertheless, in such cities as subsist mostly by trade, and have little or no land, as Holland and Genoa, the balance of treasure may be equal to that of land in the cases mentioned. But Leviathan, though he seems to skew at antiquity, follow- ing his furious master Carneades, has caught hold of the public sword, to which he reduces all manner and matter of govern- ment ; as, where he affirms this opinion [that any monarch receives his power by covenant, that is to say, upon conditions] "to proceed from the not understanding this easy truth, that covenants, being but words and breath, have no power to oblige, contain, ( constrain, or protect any man, but what they have from the public sword." But as he said of the law, that without this sword it is but paper, so he might have thought of this sword, that without a hand it is but cold iron. The hand which holds this sword is the militia of a nation; and the militia of a nation is either an army in the field, or ready for the field upon occasion. But an army is a beast that has a great belly, and must be fed: wherefore this will come to what pastures you have, and what^ pastures you have will come to the balance of property, without \ which the public sword is but a name or mere spitfrog. Where- * fore, to set that which Leviathan says of arms and of contracts a little straighter, he that can graze this beast with the great belly, as the Turk does his Timariots, may well deride him that imagines he received his power by covenant, or is obliged to any such toy: it being in this case only that covenants are but words and breath. But if the property of the nobility, stocked with their tenants and retainers, be the pasture of that beast, the ox knows his master's crib; and it is impossible for a king in such a constitution to reign otherwise than by covenant; or if he break it, it is words that come to blows. "But," says he, "when an assembly of men is made sovereign, then no man imagines any such covenant to have part in the institution." But what was that by Publicola of appeal to the people, or that whereby the people had their tribunes? "Fie," says he, "nobody is so dull as to say that the people of Rome made a covenant with the Romans, to hold the sovereignty on such or such conditions, which, not performed, the Romans might depose the Roman people." In which there be several remarkable things; for he holds the commonwealth of Rome to have consisted of one assembly, whereas it consisted of the 362 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY senate and the people; that they were not upon covenant, whereas every law enacted by them was a covenant between them; that the one assembly was made sovereign, whereas the people, who only were sovereign, were such from the beginning, as appears by the ancient style of their covenants or laws "The senate has resolved, the people have decreed;" that a council being made sovereign, cannot be made such upon conditions, whereas the Decemvirs being a council that was made sovereign, was made such upon conditions; that all conditions or covenants making a sovereign, the sovereign being made, are void; whence it must follow that, the Decemviri being made, were ever after the lawful government of Rome, and that it was unlawful for the commonwealth of Rome to depose the Decemvirs; as also that Cicero, if he wrote otherwise out of his commonwealth, did not write out of nature. But to come to others that see more of this balance. You have Aristotle full of it in divers places, especially where he says, that "immoderate wealth, as where one man or the few have greater possessions than the equality or the frame of the commonwealth will bear, is an occasion of sedition, which ends for the greater part in monarchy; and that for this cause the os- tracism has been received in divers places, as in Argos and Athens. But that it were better to prevent the growth in the beginning, than, when it has got head, to seek the remedy of such an evil." Machiavel has missed it very narrowly and more dangerously; for, not fully perceiving that if a commonwealth be galled by the gentry it is by their overbalance, he speaks of the gentry as hostile to popular governments, and of popular governments as hostile to the gentry; and makes us believe that the people in such are so enraged against them, that where they meet a gentle- man they kill him; which can never be proved by any one example, unless in civil war, seeing that even in Switzerland the gentry are not only safe, but in honor. But the balance, as I have laid it down, though unseen by Machiavel, is that which interprets him, and that which he confirms by his judgment in many others as well as in this place, where he concludes, ''That he who will go about to make a commonwealth where there be many gentle- men, unless he first destroys them, undertakes an impossibility. And that he who goes about to introduce monarchy where the condition of the people is equal, shall never bring it to pass, unless he cull out such of them as are the most turbulent and ambitious, and make them gentlemen or noblemen, not in name but in effect; that is, by enriching them with lands, castles and treasures, that HARRINGTON 363 may gain them power among the rest, and bring in the rest to dependence upon themselves, to the end that, they maintaining their ambition by the prince, the prince may maintain his power by them." Wherefore, as in this place I agree with Machiavel, that a nobility or gentry, overbalancing a popular government, is the utter bane and destruction of it; so I shall show in another, that a nobility or gentry, in a popular government, not overbalancing it, is the very life and soul of it. By what has been said, it should seem that we may lay aside further disputes of the public sword, or of the right of the militia; which, be the government what it will, or let it change how it can, is inseparable from the overbalance in dominion: nor, if otherwise stated by the law or custom (as in the commonwealth of Rome, where the people having the sword, the nobility came to have the overbalance), avails it to any other end than destruction. For as a building swaying from the foundation must fall, so it fares with the law swaying from reason, and the militia from the balance of dominion. And thus much for the balance of national or domestic empire, which is in dominion. The balance of foreign or provincial empire is of a contrary nature. A man may as well say that it is unlawful for him who has made a fair and honest purchase to have tenants, as for a government that has made a just progress and enlargement of itself to have Drovinces. But how a province may be justly acquired appertains to another place. In this I am to show no more than how or upon what kind of balance it is to be held; in order whereto I shall first show upon what kind of balance it is not to be held. It has been said, that national or independent empire, of what kind soever, is to be exercised by them that have the proper balance of dominion in the nation; wherefore provincial or dependent empire is not to be exercised by them that have the balance of dominion in the province, because that would bring the government from provincial and dependent to national and independent. Absolute monarchy, as that of the Turks, neither plants its people at home nor abroad, otherwise than as tenants for life or at will; wherefore its national and provincial government is all one. But in governments that admit the citizen or subject to dominion in lands, the richest are they that share most of the power at home; whereas the richest among the provincials, though native subjects, or citizens that have been transplanted, are least admitted to the govern- ment abroad; for men, like flowers or roots being transplanted, 364 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY take after the soil wherein they grow. Wherefore the common- wealth of Rome, by planting colonies of its citizens within the bounds of Italy, took the best way of propagating itself, and naturalizing the country; whereas if it had planted such colonies without the bounds of Italy, it would have alienated the citizens, and given root to liberty abroad, that might have sprung up foreign or savage, and hostile to her: wherefore it never made any such dispersion of itself and its strength, till it was under the yoke of the Emperors, who, disburdening themselves of the people, as having less apprehension of what they could do abroad than at home, took a contrary course. The Mamalukes (which, till any man show me the contrary, I shall presume to have been a commonwealth consisting of an army, whereof the common soldier was the people, the com- mission officer the senate, and the general the prince) were foreigners, and by nation Circassians, that governed Egypt, wherefore these never durst plant themselves upon dominion, which growing naturally up into the national interest, must have dissolved the foreign yoke in that province. The like in some sort may be said of Venice, the government whereof is usually mistaken; for Venice, though it does not take in the people, never excluded them. This commonwealth, the orders whereof are the most democratical or popular of all others, in regard of the exquisite rotation of the senate, at the first institution took in the whole people; they that now live under the government without participation in it, are such as have since either voluntarily chosen so to do, or were subdued by arms. Wherefore the subject of Venice is governed by provinces, and the balance of dominion not standing, as has been said, with pro- vincial government; as the Mamalukes durst not cast their government upon this balance in their provinces, lest the national interest should have rooted out the foreign, so neither dare the Venetians take in their subjects upon this balance, lest the foreign interest should root out the national (which is that of the three thousand now governing), and by diffusing the commonwealth throughout her territories, lose the advantage of her situation, by which in great part it subsists. And such also is the govern- ment of the Spaniard in the Indies, to which he deputes natives of his own country, not admitting the Creoles to the government of those provinces, though descended from Spaniards. But if a prince or a commonwealth may hold a territory that is foreign in this, it may be asked why he may not hold one that is native in like manner? To which I answer, because HARRINGTON 365 he can hold a foreign by a native territory, but not a native by a foreign; and as hitherto I have shown what is not the provincial balance, so by this answer it may appear what it is, namely, the overbalance of a native territory to a foreign; for as one country balances itself by the distribution of property according to the proportion of the same, so one country overbalances another by advantage of divers kinds. For example, the commonwealth of Rome overbalanced her provinces by the vigor of a more excellent government opposed to a crazier; or by a more exquisite militia opposed to one inferior in courage or discipline. The like was- that of the Mamalukes, being a hardy people, to the Egyp- tians that were a soft one. And the balance of situation is in this kind of wonderful effect; seeing the king of Denmark, being none of the most potent princes, is able at the Sound to take toll of the greatest; and as this king, by the advantage of the land, can make the sea tributary, so Venice, by the advantage of the sea, in whose arms she is impregnable, can make the land to feed her Gulf. For the colonies in the Indies, they are yet babes that cannot live without sucking the breasts of their mother cities, but such as I mistake if when they come of age they do not wean themselves; which causes me to wonder at princes that delight to be exhausted in that way. And so much for the principles of power, whether national or provincial, domestic or foreign; being such as are external, and founded in the goods of fortune. 2. Principles of Political Authority: The Psychological Influences * I come to the principles of authority, which are internal, and founded upon the goods of the mind. These the legislator that can unite in his government with those of fortune, comes nearest to the work of God, whose government consists of heaven and earth; which was said by Plato, though in different words, as, when princes should be philosophers, or philosophers princes, the world would be happy. And says Solomon: "There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, which proceeds from the ruler [enimvero neque nobilem, neque ingenuum, nee libertinum quidem armis praeponere, regia utilitas est]. Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich [either in virtue and wisdom, in the goods of the mind, or those of fortune upon that balance which gives them a sense of the national interest] sit in low places. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." Sad complaints, that the principles of power 1 Pp. 25-29. 366 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and of authority, the goods of the mind and of fortune, do not meet and twine in the wreath or crown of empire! Wherefore, if we have anything of piety or of prudence, let us raise ourselves out of the mire of private interest to the contemplation of virtue, and put a hand to the removal of "this evil from under the sun;" this evil against which no government that is not secured can be good; this evil from which the government that is secure must be perfect. Solomon tells us, that the cause of it is from the ruler, from those principles of power, which, balanced upon earthly trash, exclude the heavenly treasures of virtue, and that influence of it upon government which is authority. We have wandered the earth to find out the balance of power; but to find out that of authority we must ascend, as I said, nearer heaven, or to the image of God, which is the soul of man. The soul of man (whose life or motion is perpetual contempla- tion or thought) is the mistress of two potent rivals, the one reason, the other passion, that are in continual suit; and, accord- ing as she gives up her will to these or either of them, is the felicity or misery which man partakes in this mortal life. For, as whatever was passion in the contemplation of a man, being brought forth by his will into action, is vice and the bond- age of sin; so whatever was reason in the contemplation of a man, being brought forth by his will into action, is virtue and the freedom of soul. Again, as those actions of a man that were sin acquire to himself repentance or shame, and affect others with scorn or pity, so those actions of a man that are virtue acquire to himself honor, and upon others authority. Now government is no other than the soul of a nation or city : wherefore that which was reason in the debate of a common- wealth being brought forth by the result, must be virtue; and forasmuch as the soul of a city or nation is the sovereign power, her virtue must be law. But the government whose law is virtue, and whose virtue is law, is the same whose empire is authority, and whose authority is empire. Again, if the liberty of a man consists in the empire of his reason, the absence whereof would betray him to the bondage of his passions, then the liberty of a commonwealth consists in the empire of her laws, the absence whereof would betray her to the lust of tyrants. And these I conceive to be the principles upon which Aristotle and Livy (injuriously accused by Leviathan for not writing out of nature) have grounded their assertion, "that a commonwealth is an empire of laws and not of men." HARRINGTON 367 But they must not carry it so. "For," says he, "the liberty, whereof there is so frequent and honorable mention in the histories and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the writings and discourses of those that from them have received all their learning in the politics, is not the liberty of particular men, but the liberty of the commonwealth." He might as well have said that the estates of particular men in a commonwealth are not the riches of particular men, but the riches of the commonwealth; for the equality of estates causes equality of power, and equality of power is the liberty, not only of the commonwealth, but of every man.' But sure a man would never be thus irreverent with the greatest authors, and positive against all antiquity, without some certain demonstration of truth and what is it? Why, "there is written on the turrets of the city of Lucca in great characters at this day the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence infer that a particular man has more liberty or immunity from the service of the common- wealth there than in Constantinople. Whether a commonwealth be monarchical or popular, the freedom is the same." The mountain has brought forth, and we have a little equivocation! For to say that a Lucchese has no more liberty or immunity from the laws of Lucca than a Turk has from those of Constan- tinople; and to say that a Lucchese has no more liberty or im- munity by the laws of Lucca, than a Turk has by those of Con- stantinople, are pretty different speeches. The first may be said of all governments alike; the second scarce of any two; much less of these, seeing it is known that, whereas the greatest Bashaw is a tenant, as well of his head as of his estate, at the will of his lord, the meanest Lucchese that has land is a freeholder of both, and not to be controlled but by the law, and that framed by every private man to no other end (or they may thank themselves) than to protect the liberty of every private man, which by that means comes to be the liberty of the commonwealth. But seeing they that make the laws in commonwealths are but men, the main question seems to be, how a commonwealth comes to be an empire of laws, and not of men? Or how the debate or result of a commonwealth is so sure to be according to reason; seeing they who debate, and they who resolve, be but men? "And as often as reason is against a man, so often will a man be against reason." This is thought to be a shrewd saying, but will do no harm; for be it so that reason is nothing but interest, there be divers interests, and so divers reasons. 368 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY As first, there is private reason, which is the interest of a private man. Secondly, there is a reason of state, which is the interest (or error, as was said by Solomon) of the ruler or rulers, that is to say, of the prince, of the nobility, or of the people. Thirdly, there is that reason, which is the interest of man- kind, or of the whole. "Now if we see even in those natural agents that want sense, that as in themselves they have a law which directs them in the means whereby they tend to their own perfection, so likewise that another law there is, which touches them as they are sociable parts united into one body, a law which binds them each to serve to others' good, and all to prefer the good of the whole, before whatsoever their own par- ticular; as when stones, or heavy things, forsake their ordinary wont or centre, and fly upwards, as if they heard themselves commanded to let go the good they privately wish, and to relieve the present distress of nature in common." There is a common right, law of nature, or interest of the whole, which is more excellent, and so acknowledged to be by the agents themselves, than the right or interest of the parts only. " Wherefore, though it may be truly said that the creatures are naturally carried forth to their proper utility or profit, that ought not to be taken in too general a sense; seeing divers of them abstain from their own profit, either in regard of those of the same kind, or at least of their young." Mankind then must either be less just than the creature, or acknowledge also his common interest to be common right. And if reason be nothing else but interest, and the interest of mankind be the right interest, then the reason of mankind must be right reason. Now compute well; for if the interest of popular government come the nearest to the interest of mankind, then the reason of popular government must come the nearest to right reason. But it may be said that the difficulty remains yet; for be the interest of popular government right reason, a man does not look upon reason as it is right or wrong in itself, but as it makes for him or against him. Wherefore, unless you can show such orders of a government as, like those of God in nature, shall be able to constrain this or that creature to shake off that in- clination which is more peculiar to it, and take up that which regards the common good or interest, all this is to no more end than to persuade every man in a popular government not to carve himself of that which he desires most, but to be mannerly HARRINGTON 369 at the public table, ,and give the best from himself to decency and the common interest. But that such orders may be estab- lished as may, nay must, give the upper hand in all cases to common right or interest, notwithstanding the nearness of that which sticks to every man in private, and this in a way of equal certainty and facility, is known even to girls, being no other than those that are of common practice with them in divers cases. For example, two of them have a cake yet undivided, which was given between them, that each of them therefore might have that which is due: "divide," says one to the other, "and I will choose; or let me divide, and you shall choose." If this be but once agreed upon, it is enough; for the divident, dividing unequally, loses, in regard that the other takes the better half; wherefore she divides equally, and so both have right. "O the depth of the wisdom of God!" and yet "by the mouths of babes and sucklings has He set forth His strength;" that which great philosophers are disputing upon in vain, is brought to light by two harmless girls, even the whole mystery of a commonwealth, which lies only in dividing and choosing. Nor has God (if His works in nature be understood) left so much to mankind to dispute upon as who shall divide and who choose, but distributed them for ever into two orders, whereof the one has the natural right of dividing, and the other of choosing. 3. Principles of Political Authority: The Essential Organs of Government l A commonwealth is but a civil society of men: let us take any number of men (as twenty) and immediately make a common- wealth. Twenty men (if they be not all idiots, perhaps if they be) can never come so together but there will be such a difference in them, that about a third will be wiser, or at least less foolish than all the rest; these upon acquaintance, though it be but small, will be discovered, and, as stags that have the largest heads, lead the herd; for while the six, discoursing and arguing one with another, show the eminence of their parts, the fourteen discover things that they never thought on; or are cleared in divers truths which had formerly perplexed them. Wherefore, in matter of common concernment, difficulty, or danger, they hang upon their lips, as children upon their fathers; and the influence thus acquired by the six, the eminence of whose parts are found to be a stay and comfort to the fourteen, is the au- ipp. 29-31, 35-37. 370 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY thority of the fathers. Wherefore this can be no other than a natural aristocracy diffused by God throughout the whole body of mankind to this end and purpose; and therefore such as the people have not only a natural but a positive obligation to make use of as their guides; as where the people of Israel are com- manded to "take wise men, and understanding, and known among their tribes, to be made rulers over them." The six then approved of, as in the present case, are the senate, not by heredi- tary right, or in reagrd of the greatness of their estates only, which would tend to such power as might force or draw the people, but by election for their excellent parts, which tends to the advancement of the influence of their virtue or authority that leads the people. Wherefore the office of the senate is not to be commanders, but counsellors of the people; and that which is proper to counsellors is first to debate, and afterward to give advice in the business whereupon they have debated, whence the decrees of the senate are never laws, nor so called; and these being maturely framed, it is their duty to propose in the case to the people. Wherefore the senate is no more than the debate of the commonwealth. But to debate, is to discern or put a differ- ence between things that, being alike, are not the same; or it is separating and weighing this reason against that, and that reason against this, which is dividing. The senate then having divided, who shall choose? Ask the girls: for if she that divided must have chosen also, it had been little worse for the other in case she had not divided at all, but kept the whole cake to herself, in regard that being to choose too she divided accordingly. Wherefore if the senate have any farther power than to divide, the commonwealth can never be equal. But in a commonwealth consisting of a single council, there is no other to choose than that which divided; whence it is, that such a council fails not to scramble that is, to be factious, there being no other dividing of the cake in that case but among them- selves. Nor is there any remedy but to have another council to choose. The wisdom of the few may be the light of mankind; but the interest of the few is not the profit of mankind, nor of a common- wealth. Wherefore, seeing we have granted interest to be reason, they must not choose lest it put out their light. But as the council dividing consists of the wisdom of the commonwealth, so the assembly or council choosing should consist of the interest of the commonwealth: as the wisdom of the commonwealth is in the aristocracy, so t"ie interest of the commonwealth is in the HARRINGTON 371 whole body of the people. And whereas this, in case the com- monwealth consist of a whole nation, is too unwieldy a body to be assembled, this council is to consist of such a representa- tive as may be equal, and so constituted, as can never contract any other interest than that of the whole people; the manner whereof, being such as is best shown by exemplification, I remit to the model. But in the present case, the six dividing, and the fourteen choosing, must of necessity take in the whole interest of the twenty. Dividing and choosing in the language of a commonwealth is debating and resolving; and whatsoever, upon debate of the senate, is proposed to the people, and resolved by them, is enacted by the authority of the fathers, and by the power of the people, which concurring, make a law. But the law being made, says Leviathan, "is but words and paper without the hands and swords of men;" wherefore as these two orders of a commonwealth, namely, the senate and the people, are legislative, so of necessity there must be a third to be executive of the laws made, and this is the magistracy: in which order, with the rest being wrought up by art, the commonwealth consists of "the senate proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing;" whereby partaking of the aristocracy as in the senate, of the democracy as in the people, and of mon- archy as in the magistracy, it is complete. Now there being no other commonwealth but this in art or nature, it is no wonder if Machiavel has shown us that the ancients held this only to be good; but it seems strange to me that they should hold that there could be any other: for if there be such a thing as pure monarchy, yet that there should be such a one as pure aristocracy, or pure democracy, is not in my understanding. But the magistracy, both in number and function, is different in different common- wealths. Nevertheless there is one condition of it that must be the same in every one, or it dissolves the commonwealth where it is wanting. And this is no less than that, as the hand of the magistrate is the executive power of the law, so the head of the magistrate is answerable to the people, that his execution be according to the law; by which Leviathan may see that the hand or sword that executes the law is in it and not above it. Athens consisted of the senate of the Bean proposing, of the church or assembly of the people resolving, and too often de- bating, which was the ruin of it; as also of the senate of the Areopagists, the nine archons, with divers other magistrates, executing. 372 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Lacedaemon consisted of the senate proposing, of the church or congregation of the people resolving only, and never debating, which was the long life of it; and of the two kings, the court of the ephors, with divers other magistrates, executing. Carthage consisted of the senate proposing and sometimes resolv- ing too, of the people resolving and sometimes debating too, for which fault she was reprehended by Aristotle; and she had her sujfetes, and her hundred men, with other magistrates, executing. Rome consisted of the senate proposing, the concio or people resolving, and too often debating, which caused her storms; as also of the consuls, censors, aediles, tribunes, praetors, quaestors and other magistrates, executing. Venice consists of the senate or pregati proposing, and some- times resolving too, of the great council or assembly of the people, in whom the result is constitutively; as also of the doge, the signory, the censors, the died, the quazancies 1 , and other magis- trates, executing. The proceeding of the commonwealths of Switzerland and Holland is of a like nature, though after a more obscure manner; for the sovereignties, whether cantons, provinces, or cities, which are the people, send their deputies, commissioned and instructed by themselves (wherein they reserve the result in their own power), to the provincial or general convention, or senate, where the deputies debate, but have no other power of result than what was conferred upon them by the people, or is further conferred by the same upon further occasion. And for the executive part they have magistrates or judges in every canton, province or city, besides those which are more public, and relate to the league, as for adjusting controversies between one canton, province or city, and another, or the like between such persons as are not of the same canton, province or city. But that we may observe a little further how the heathen politicians have written, not only out of nature, but as it were out of Scripture: as in the commonwealth of Israel, God is said to have been king, so the commonwealth where the law is king, is said by Aristotle to be "the kingdom of God." And where by the lusts or passions of men a power is set above that of the law deriving from reason, which is the dictate of God, God in that sense is rejected or deposed that He should not reign over them, as He was in Israel. And yet Leviathan will have it, that "by reading of these Greek and Latin (he might as well in this sense have said Hebrew) authors, young men, and all others that are i Died 11 the ten "; quazancies " the forty." HARRINGTON 373 unprovided of the antidote of solid reason, receiving a strong and delightful impression of the great exploits of war achieved by the conductors of their armies, receive withal a pleasing idea of all they have done besides, and imagine their great prosperity not to have proceeded from the emulation of particular men, but from the virtue of their popular form of government, not considering the frequent seditions and civil wars produced by the imperfection of their polity." Where, first, the blame he lays to the heathen authors, is in his sense laid to the Scripture; and whereas he holds them to be young men, or men of no anti- dote that are of like opinions, it should seem that Machiavel, the sole retriever of this ancient prudence, is to his solid reason a beardless boy that has newly read Livy. And how solid his reason is, may appear where he grants the great prosperity of ancient commonwealths, which is to give up the controversy. For such an effect must have some adequate cause, which to evade he insinuates that it was nothing else but the emulation of par- ticular men, as if so great an emulation could have been generated without as great virtue, so great virtue without the best education, and best education without the best law, or the best laws any otherwise than by the excellency of their polity. But if some of these commonwealths, as being less perfect in their polity than others, have been more seditious, it is not more an argument of the infirmity of this or that commonwealth in particular, than of the excellency of that kind of polity in general, which if they that have not altogether reached, have never- theless had greater prosperity, what would befall them that should reach? 4. Principles of Political Authority: Institutions for Safe-guarding the State l By what has been shown in reason and experience, it may appear, that though commonwealths in general be governments of the senate proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing, yet some are not so good at these orders as others, through some impediment or defect in the frame, balance, or capacity of them, according to which they are of divers kinds. The first division of them is into such as are single, as Israel, Athens, Lacedasmon, etc.; and such as are by leagues, as those of the Achasans, ^Etolians, Lycians, Switz, and Hollanders. The second (being Machiavel's) is into such as are for pres- 1 Pp. 39-44. 374 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ervation, as Lacedaemon and Venice, and such as are for in- crease, as Athens and Rome; in which I can see no more than that the former takes in no more citizens than are necessary for defence, and the latter so many as are capable of increase. The third division (unseen hitherto) is into equal and unequal, and this is the main point, especially as to domestic peace and tranquillity; for to make a commonwealth unequal, is to divide it into parties, which sets them at perpetual variance, the one party endeavoring to preserve their eminence and inequality, and the other to attain to equality; whence the people of Rome derived their perpetual strife with the nobility and senate. But in an equal commonwealth there can be no more strife than there can be overbalance in equal weights; wherefore the common- wealth of Venice, being that which of all others is the most equal in the constitution, is that wherein there never happened any strife between the senate and the people. An equal commonwealth is such a one as is equal both in the balance or foundation, and in the superstructure; that is to say, in her agrarian law, and in her rotation. An equal agrarian is a perpetual law, establishing and pre- serving the balance of dominion by such a distribution, that no one man or number of men, within the compass of the few or aristocracy, can come to overpower the whole people by their possessions in lands. As the agrarian answers to the foundation, so does rotation to the superstructures. Equal rotation is equal vicissitude in government, or succes- sion to magistracy conferred for such convenient terms, enjoying equal vacations, as take in the whole body by parts, succeeding others, through the free election or suffrage of the people. The contrary, whereunto is prolongation of magistracy, which, trashing the wheel of rotation, destroys the life or natural motion of a commonwealth. The election or suffrage of the people is most free where it is made or given in such a manner that it can neither oblige nor disoblige another, nor through fear of an enemy, or bashfulness towards a friend, impair a man's liberty. Wherefore, says Cicero, the tablet or ballot of the people of Rome (who gave their votes by throwing tablets or little pieces of wood secretly into urns marked for the negative or affirma- tive) was a welcome constitution to the people, as that which, not impairing the assurance of their brows, increased the free- HARRINGTON 375 dom of their judgment. I have not stood upon a more particu- lar description of this ballot, because that of Venice exemplified in the model is of all others the most perfect. An equal commonwealth (by that which has been said) is a government established upon an equal agrarian, arising into the superstructures or three orders, the senate debating and proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing, by an equal rotation through the suffrage of the people given by the ballot. For though rotation may be without the ballot, and the ballot without rotation, yet the ballot not only as to the ensuing model includes both, but is by far the most equal way; for which cause under the name of the ballot I shall hereafter understand both that and rotation too. Now having reasoned the principles of an equal common- wealth, I should come to give an instance of such a one in ex- perience, if I could find it; but if this work be of any value, it lies in that it is the first example of a commonwealth that is perfectly equal. For Venice, though it comes the nearest, yet is a commonwealth for preservation; and such a one, considering the paucity of citizens taken in, and the number not taken in, is externally^unequal; and though every commonwealth that holds provinces must in that regard be such, yet not to that degree. Nevertheless, Venice internally, and for her capacity, is by far the most equal, though it has not, in my judgment, arrived at the full perfection of equality; both because her laws supplying the defect of an agrarian, are not so clear nor effectual at the founda- tion, nor her superstructures, by the virtue of her ballot or rota- tion, exactly librated; in regard that through the paucity of her citizens her greater magistracies are continually wheeled through a few hands. . . . Wherefore if this in Venice, or that in Lace- daemon, where the kings were hereditary, and the senators (though elected by the people) for life, cause no inequality (which is hard to be conceived) in a commonwealth for preservation, or such a one as consists of a few citizens; yet is it manifest that it would cause a very great one in a commonwealth for increase, or consisting of the many, which, by engrossing the magistracies in a few hands, would be obstructed in their rotation. But there be who say (and think it a strong objection) that, let a commonwealth be as equal as you can imagine, two or three men when all is done will govern it; and there is that in it which, notwithstanding the pretended sufficiency of a popular state, amounts to a plain confession of the imbecility of that policy, and of the prerogative of monarchy; forasmuch as popular gov- 376 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY ernments in difficult cases have had recourse to dictatorial! power, as in Rome. To which I answer, that as truth is a spark to which objec- tions are like bellows, so in this respect our commonwealth shines; for the eminence acquired by suffrage of the people in a commonwealth, especially if it be popular and equal, can be ascended by no other steps than the universal acknowledgment of virtue: and where men excel in virtue, the commonwealth is stupid and unjust, if accordingly they do not excel in authority. Wherefore this is both the advantage of virtue, which has her due encouragement, and of the commonwealth, which has her due services. These are the philosophers which Plato would have to be princes, the princes which Solomon would have to be mounted, and their steeds are those of authority, not empire; or, if they be buckled to the chariot of empire, as that of the dictatorian power, like the chariot of the sun, it is glorious for terms and vacations or intervals. And as a commonwealth is a government of laws and not of men, so is this the principality of virtue, and not of man; if that fail or set in one, it rises in another who is created his immediate successor. And this takes away that vanity from under the sun, which is an error proceeding more or less from all other rulers under heaven but an equal commonwealth. These things considered, it will be convenient in this place to speak a word to such as go about to insinuate to the nobility or gentry a fear of the people, or to the people a fear of the nobility or gentry, as if their interests were destructive to each other; when indeed an army may as well consist of soldiers without officers, or of officers without soldiers, as a commonwealth, especially such a one as is capable of greatness, of a people without a gentry, or of a gentry without a people. Wherefore this, though not always so intended, as may appear by Machiavel, who else would be guilty, is a pernicious error. There is some- thing first in the making of a commonwealth, then in the govern- ing of it, and last of all in the leading of its armies, which, though there be great divines, great lawyers, great men in all professions, seems to be peculiar only to the genius of a gentleman. For so it is in the universal series of story, that if any man has founded a commonwealth, he was first a gentleman. Moses had his education by the daughter of Pharaoh; Theseus and Solon, of noble birth, were held by the Athenians worthy to be kings; Lycurgus was of the royal blood; Romulus and Numa princes; Brutus and Publicola patricians; the Gracchi, that lost their HARRINGTON 377 lives for the people of Rome and the restitution of that common- wealth, were the sons of a father adorned with two triumphs, and of Cornelia the daughter of Scipio, who being demanded in marriage by King Ptolemy, disdained to become the Queen of Egypt. And the most renowned Olphaus Megaletor, sole legislator, as you will see anon, of the commonwealth of Oceana, was derived from a noble family; nor will it be any occasion of scruple in this case, that Leviathan affirms the politics to be no ancienter than his book, De Cive. Such also as have got any fame in the civil government of a commonwealth, or by the leading of its armies, have been gentlemen; for so in all other respects were those plebeian magistrates elected by the people of Rome, being of known descents and of equal virtues, except only that they were excluded from the name by the usurpation of the patricians. Holland, through this defect at home, has borrowed princes for generals, and gentlemen of divers nations for com- manders: and the Switzers, if they have any defect in this kind, rather lend their people to the colors of other princes, than make that noble use of them at home which should assert the liberty of mankind. For where there is not a nobility to hearten the people, they are slothful, regardless of the world, and of the public interest of liberty, as even those of Rome had been with- out their gentry: wherefore let the people embrace the gentry in peace, as the light of their eyes; and in war, as the trophy of their arms; and if Cornelia disdained to be Queen of Egypt, if a Roman consul looked down from his tribunal upon the greatest king, let the nobility love and cherish the people that afford them a throne so much higher in a commonwealth, in the acknowl- edgment of their virtue, than the crowns of monarchs. But if the equality of a commonwealth consist in the equality first of the agrarian, and next of the rotation, then the inequality of a commonwealth must consist in the absence or inequality of the agrarian, or of the rotation, or of both. Israel and Lacedaemon, which commonwealths (as the people of this, in Josephus, claims kindred of that) have great resem- blance, were each of them equal in their agrarian, and unequal in their rotation, especially Israel, where the Sanhedrim or senate, first elected by the people, as appears by the words of Moses, took upon them ever after, without any precept of God, to substitute their successors by ordination; which having been there of civil use, as excommunication, community of goods, and other customs of the Essenes, who were many of them converted, came afterward to be introduced into the Christian Church. 378 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY una the election of the judge, suffes, or dictator, was irregular, both for the occasion, the term, and the vacation of that magis- tracy; as you find in the book of Judges, where it is often repeated, that in those days there was no king in Israel that is, no judge; and in the first of Samuel, where Eli judged Israel forty years, and Samuel, all his life. In Lacedaemon the election of the senate being by suffrage of the people, though for life, was not altogether so unequal, yet the hereditary right of kings, were it not for the agrarian, had ruined her. Athens and Rome were unequal as to their agrarian, that of Athens being infirm, and this of Rome none at all; for if it were more anciently carried it was never observed. Whence, by the time of Tiberius Gracchus, the nobility had almost eaten the people quite out of their lands, which they held in the occupation of tenants and servants, whereupon the remedy being too late, and too vehemently applied, that commonwealth was ruined. These also were unequal in their rotation, but in a contrary manner. Athens, in regard that the senate (chosen at once by lot, not by suffrage, and changed every year, not in part, but in the whole) consisted not of the natural aristocracy, nor sitting long enough to understand or to be perfect in their office, had no sufficient authority to restrain the people from that per- petual turbulence in the end, which was their ruin, notwith- standing the efforts of Nicias, who did all a man could do to help it. But as Athens, by the headiness of the people, so Rome fell by the ambition of the nobility, through the want of an equal rotation; which, if the people had got into the senate, and timely into the magistracies (whereof the former was always usurped by the patricians, and the latter for the most part) they had both carried and held their agrarian, and that had rendered that commonwealth immovable. But let a commonwealth be equal or unequal, it must consist, as has been shown by reason and all experience, of the three general orders; that is to say, of the senate debating and pro- posing, of the people resolving, and of the magistracy executing. Wherefore I can never wonder enough at Leviathan, who, without any reason or example, will have it that a commonwealth con- sists of a single person, or of a single assembly; nor can I suffi- ciently pity those "thousand gentlemen, whose minds, which otherwise would have wavered, he has framed [as is affirmed by himself] into a conscientious obedience [for so he is pleased to call it] of such a government." HARRINGTON 379 SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Smith, Harrington and his Oceana, chs. i, iv, vi. Stephen, Leslie, "James Harrington," in Dictionary of National Biography. Toland's James Harrington: The Oceana and Other Works, with an Account of his Life, pp. xi-xl. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de VEurope, dix-septieme siecle, pp. 202-212. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. vii, 6. Smith, Harrington and his Oceana, chs. ii, iii, v, vii-ix. D wight, "Harrington, and his Influence upon American Political Institutions and Political Thought," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. II (1887), p. I. Gooch, English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 285-304. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de I 1 Europe, dix-septieme siecle, pp. 212-252. Masson, Life of Milton, Vol. V, pp. 481-486. LOCKE XVI. JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) INTRODUCTION The three immediately preceding readings were from English authors who wrote during the period of the Puritan Revolution in the middle of the seventeenth century and whose theories bore close relation to the political questions brought forward by the contentions of that period. The chief political work of John Locke was written in direct reference to the Revolution of 1689. His Two Treatises of Government comprise a philosophic de- fense of the parliamentary party in that conflict; the second treatise contains one of the most thoroughly worked out and in- fluential expositions of the principles of representative govern- ment that exist. Locke was born and reared in a Puritan family; his father was an attorney and small landholder. He was a student at Oxford at a time when the Independents were in control there; he received his bachelor's degree in 1656, his master's degree a year later, and he became a tutor in Christ Church in 1 660. Though scholas- ticism was the dominant academic method of Oxford at that time, Locke soon fell under the more liberalizing influences which were beginning to be manifest in England. He studied Descartes' writings, pursued some experimental investigation in chemical sciences, and studied and practised medicine for a short period. In the late sixties he became confidential secretary to the Liberal Lord Shaf tesbury ; this introduced him to a career which broadened his experience and acquaintanceship in such way as profoundly to strengthen the liberalistic tendency of his mind. Through his connection with Lord Shaf tesbury he became the associate of many public men and scholars in England and on the Continent. He was in France with Shaf tesbury during the latter 's exile, from 1675 to 1679; and he resided in Holland from 1685 the year of Shaftes- bury's death until 1689, when he returned to England, after the success of the Revolution. In the latter year he was made Commissioner of Appeals and later he was appointed to the Board 383 384 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of Trade. His counsel was often sought by the political leaders of that time. Locke's greater works were published after 1689. Before leaving England for the first time (in 1675) he had written several essays; and he had begun his great metaphysical work the Essay concern- ing Human Understanding, which was published in 1690. In 1690 also appeared his Two Treatises of Government. In later years he published many important essays on subjects of education, Christianity, and philosophy; chief among these are the Thoughts on Education and The Reasonableness of Christianity. He also wrote numerous pamphlets in elucidation of his major ideas and in vindication of his characteristic doctrines of empiricism in psychology, toleration in religion, and liberalism in politics. The first of the Two Treatises of Government was written to show the fallacy of the doctrine that any divine prerogatives attach to the office of king; in form it is a systematic refutation of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, which was published in 1680 and which presented the theory that political sovereignty is derived solely from the original patriarchal authority transmitted, under divine auspices, through hereditary succession by primogeniture. The second treatise, Of Civil Government, contains Locke's positive theory. It is a comprehensive discussion of the origin, character and province of government. At various points in this second treatise Locke acknowledges his indebtedness to Hooker; and he attributes to Hooker authorship of the idea that men originally lived together without civil govern- ment and that political order was instituted by their voluntary and deliberate cooperation. Locke begins, as Hobbes did, with a depiction of the pre-political " state of nature" and with an analysis of the laws controlling men in that condition; and he also follows with an explanation of the origin of the state through the social contract. But according to Locke's description the laws which, as manifestations of man's natural reason, are con- trolling in the state of nature, are such as impel men to sociability and generally to voluntary respect for certain primary rights of others. Moreover, Locke formulates the social contract in such way as to establish the ultimate supremacy of the people over the government and to demonstrate that the sphere and powers of government are limited by the terms of the contract. He thus develops a statement of checks upon government and of rights LOCKE 385 reserved by the people against the government, and in general of the right of the majority to be governed as they judge best in the interest of the common welfare. READINGS FROM BOOK U OF THE TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT x 1. The State of Nature* \ 1. It having been shown in ttie foregoing discourse: First. That Adam had not, either by natural right of father- hood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended. Secondly. That if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it. Thirdly. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined. Fourthly. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam's posterity being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretense to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance. All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, "Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction;" so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against), must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us. 2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a magis- ^he selections are taken from Vol. IV of The Works of John Locke (i2th edition, London, 1824). 2 Bk. II, chs. i-iii. 386 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY trate over a subject may be distinguished from that of a father over his children, a master over his servant, a husband over his wife, and a lord over his slave. All which distinct powers happen- ing sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from another, and show the difference betwixt a ruler of a commonwealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley. 3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good. Ch. ii. Of the State of Nature. 4. To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declara- tion of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his pos- session, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and inde- pendent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipo- tent and infinitely wise Maker, all the servants of one sovereign LOCKE 387 Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business, they are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the pres- ervation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all man- kind, the execution of the law of nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and con- science dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tie which is to secure them from injury and violence being slighted and broken by him; which being a trespass against the whole species, and the 388 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature. 9. I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men; but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me by what right any prince or state can put to death or punish any alien for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promul- gated will of the legislature, reach not a stranger. They speak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority by which they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth hath no power over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France, or Holland, are, to an Indian, but like the rest of the world men without authority. And therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offenses against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country, since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another. 10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the prin- ciples of human nature and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression; in which case, he who hath received any damage has (besides the right of punishment common to him, with other men) a particular right to seek repara- tion from him that hath done it. And any other person who finds it just may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he hath suffered. 11. From these two distinct rights (the one of punishing the crime, for restraint and preventing the like offense, which right of punishing is in everybody, the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party) comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right LOCKE 389 of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offenses by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That he who hath suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit. The damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all resonable things he can in order to that end. And thus it is : that every man in the state of nature has a power to kill a mur- derer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded , , that great law of nature, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And Cain was so fully convinced that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that, after the murder of his brother, he cries out, " Every one that findeth me shall slay me," so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind. 12. By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be de- manded, with death? I answer: Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offense that can be committed in the state of nature may, in the state of nature, be also punished equally, and as far forth, as it may, in a common- wealth. For though it would be beside my present purpose to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment, yet it is certain there is such a law, and that too as intelligible and plain to a rational creature and a studier of that law as the positive laws of commonwealths, nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right as 390 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted. 13. To this strange doctrine viz., That in the state of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but it will be objected that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends; and, on the other side, that ill- nature, passion, and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will fol- low, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature, which must certainly be great where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it. But I shall desire those who make this objection to remember that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils which necessarily follow from men being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man commanding a multitude has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases without the least liberty to any one to question or control those who execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake, or passion, must be submitted to? Much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another. And if he that judges, judges amiss in his own or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind. 14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were, there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of "independent" governments all through the world are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I have named all govern- ors of "independent" communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others; for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other promises and compacts men may make with one another, and yet still be in the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, etc., between the two men in LOCKE 391 the desert island ... or between a Swiss and an Indian in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature in reference to one another; for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men as men, and not as members of society. 15. To those that say there were never any men in the state of nature, I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker (Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 10), where he says, "the laws which v have been hitherto mentioned" i.e., the laws of nature "do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do or not to do; but for as much as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man, therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men uniting them- selves at first in politic societies." But I, moreover, affirm that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so till, by their own consents, they make themselves members of some politic society, and I doubt not, in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear. Ch. iii. Of the State of War. 1 6. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has de- clared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defense, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred; and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has dis- covered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dan- gerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. 392 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 17. And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom i.e., make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it ; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that in the state of nature would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war. 1 8. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and LOCKE 393 it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow- subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defense and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be ir- reparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of nature ; force without right upon a man's person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end where there is no authority to decide between the contend- ers) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature. For where there is an authori- ty, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. . . 2. Political Society 1 Ch. vii. Of Political or Civil Society. 77. God, having made man such a creature that, in His own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination, to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children, to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added. And though all these might, and commonly did, meet together and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family, each of these, or all together, came short of "political society," as we shall see if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these. 87. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect 1 Book II, chs. vii-viii (in part), ix-x. 394 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property that is, his life, liberty, and estate against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offense deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto punish the offenses , of all those of that society, there, and there only, is political ^ society where every one of the members hath quitted his natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from agpealing for protection to "trie law established by it. And thus all private judgment of every par- ticular member being excluded, the community comes to be v umpire by settled standing rules, indifferent and the same to all parties; and by men / ""ftaving authority from the com- munity for the execution of those rules, decides all the differ- ences that may happen between any members of that society concerning any matter of right, and punishes those offenses which any member hath committed against the society with such penalties as the law has established; whereby it is easy to discern who are, and are not, in political society together. Those who f are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders, are in civil society one with \ \ another; but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being where there is J no other, judge for himself and executioner; which is, as I have before shown, the perfect state of nature. 88. And thus the commonwealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members by any one that is not of it (which is the power of war and peace) ; and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offenses against the law of nature in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences which he has given LOCKE 395 up to the legislative, in all cases where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given up a right to the commonwealth to em- ploy his force for the execution of the judgments of the common- wealth whenever he shall be called to it, which, indeed, are his own judgments, they being made by himself or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legislative and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by standing laws how far offences are to be punished when committed within the common- wealth ; and also to determine by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from with- out are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members when there shall be need. 89. Whenever, therefore, any number of men so unite into] one society as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this is done wherever any number of men in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government; or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with, any govern- ment already made. For hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him as the public good of the society shall require, to the execution whereof his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common- wealth, by setting up a judge on earth with authority to determine all the controversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth, which judge is the legislative or magistrate appointed by it. And wherever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, there they are still in the state of nature. 90. And hence it is evident that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted for the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all. For the end of civil society being to avoid and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature which necessarily follow from every man's being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority to which every one of that society may appeal upon any injury received, or controversy that may arise, and which every one of the society ought to obey, wherever any persons are who have not such an authority to appeal to for the decision of any difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature; and so is every abso- lute prince in respect of those who are under his dominion. 396 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 91. For he being supposed to have all, both legislative and executive, power in himself alone, there is no judge to be found, no appeal lies open to any one, who may fairly and indifferently, and with authority decide, and from whose decision relief and re- dress may be expected of any injury or inconveniency that may be suffered from him, or by his order. So that such a man, however entitled, Czar, or Grand Seignior, or how you please, is as much in the state of nature with all under his dominion as he is with the rest of mankind. For wherever any two men are, who have no standing rule and common judge to appeal to on earth for the determination of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of nature and under all the incon- veniences of it, with only this woeful difference to the subject, or rather slave, of an absolute prince: that whereas in the ordinary state of nature he has a liberty to judge of his right and according to the best of his power to maintain it, now when- ever his property is invaded by the will and order of his monarch, he has not only no appeal, as those in society ought to have, but, as if he were degraded from the common state of rational creatures, is denied a liberty to judge of, or defend his right, and so is exposed to all the misery and inconveniences that a man can fear from one, who being in the unrestrained state of nature, is yet corrupted with flattery and armed with power. Ch. viii. Of the Beginning of Political Societies. 95. Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest. 96. For, when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. LOCKE 397 For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way, it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority, or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that in assemblies empowered to act by positive laws where no number is set by that positive law which empow- ers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and rea- son, the power of the whole. 97. And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the deter- inination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? What new engagement, if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society than he himself thought fit and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty as he himself had . before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit. 98. For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual, nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole; but such a consent is next to im- possible ever to be had, if we consider the infirmities of health and avocations of business, which in a number though much less than that of a commonwealth will necessarily keep many away from the public assembly; to which if we add the variety of opinions and contrariety of interests which unavoidably hap- pen in all collections of men, the coming into society upon such terms would be only like Cato's coming into the theater, only to go out again. Such a constitution as this would make the mighty leviathan of a shorter duration than the feeblest creatures, and not let it outlast the day it was born in, which cannot be supposed till we can think that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved. For 398 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again. 99. Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power neces- sary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable ofamajority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is* that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. 100. To this I find two objections made: i. That there are no instances to be found in story of a company of men, in- dependent and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government. 2. It is im- possible of right that men should do so, because all men, being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are not at liberty to begin a new one* 1 01. To the first there is this to answer: That it is not at all to be wondered that history gives us but a very little account of men that lived together in the state of nature. The incon- veniences of that condition, and the love and want of society, no sooner brought any number of them together, but they presently united and incorporated, if they designed to continue together. And if we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of nature, because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them till they were men and embodied in armies. Government is everywhere^SnEecederit to record's^ an'!^ letters seldom come in amongst a people till a long continuation of civil society has, by other more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty. And then they begin to look after the history of their founders, and search into their original when they have outlived the memory of it. For it is with commonwealths as with particular persons, they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies; and if they know anything of their original, they are beholden for it to the accidental records that others have kept of it. And those that we have of the beginning of any polities in the world, excepting LOCKE 399 that of the Jews, where God Himself immediately interposed and which favors not at all paternal dominion, are all either plain instances of such a beginning as I have mentioned, or at least have manifest footsteps of it. The other objection, I find, urged against the beginning of polities, in the way I have mentioned, is this, viz. : 113. "That all men being born under government, some or other, it is impossible any of them should ever be free and at liberty to unite together and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful government." If this argument be good, I ask, How^came^so^many lawful monarchies into the world? For if anybody, upon this supposition, can show me any one man, in . any age of the world, free to begin a lawful monarchy, I will be bound to show him ten other freemen at liberty, at the same time, to unite and begin a new government under a regal or any other form. It being demonstrated that if any one born under the dominion of another may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new and distinct empire, every one that is born under the dominion of another may be so free too, and may become a ruler or subject of a distinct separate government. And so, by this their own principle, either all men, however born, are free, or else there is but one lawful prince, one lawful government in the world; and then they have nothing to do but barely to show us which that is; which when they have done, I doubt not but all mankind will easily agree to pay obedience to him. 1 14. Though it be a sufficient answer to their objection to show that it involves them in the same difficulties that it doth those they use it against, yet I shall endeavor to discover the weakness of this argument a little farther. "All men," say they, "are born under government, and there- fore they cannot be at liberty to begin a new one. Every one is born a subject to his father or his prince, and is therefore under the perpetual tie of subjection and allegiance." It is plain man- kind never owned nor considered any such natural subjection that they were born in, to one or to the other, that tied them, without their own consents, to a subjection to them and their heirs. 115. For there are no examples so frequent in history, both sacred and profane, as those of men withdrawing themselves and their obedience from the jurisdiction they were born under, and the family or community they were bred up in, and setting up new governments in other places, from whence sprang all that number of petty commonwealths in the beginning of ages, and 400 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY which always multiplied as long as there was room enough, till the stronger or more fortunate swallowed the weaker; and those great ones, again breaking to pieces, dissolved into lesser domin- ions; all which are so many testimonies against paternal sovereignty, and plainly prove that it was not the natural right of the father descending to his heirs that made governments in the beginning; since it was impossible, upon that ground, there should have been so many little kingdoms; all must have been but only one universal monarchy, if men had not been at liberty to separate themselves from their families and the govern- ment, be it what it will, that was set up in it, and go and make distinct commonwealths and other governments as they thought fit. 1 1 6. This had been the practice of the world from its first beginning to this day; nor is it now any more hindrance to the freedom of mankind, that they are born under constituted and ancient polities that have established laws and set forms of government, than if they were born in the woods amongst the unconfmed inhabitants that run loose in them. For those who would persuade us that by being born under any government we are naturally subjects to it, and have no more any title or pretense to the freedom of the state of nature, have no other reason (bating that of paternal power, which we have already answered) to produce for it, but only because our fathers or progenitors passed away their natural liberty, and thereby bound up them- selves and their posterity to a perpetual subjection to the govern- ment which they themselves submitted to. It is true that what- ever engagements or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot by any compact what- soever bind his children or posterity. For his son, when a man, being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the son than it can of anybody else. He may, indeed, annex such conditions to the land he enjoyed, as a subject of any commonwealth, as may oblige his son to be of that community, if he will enjoy those possessions which were his father's, because that estate being his father's property, he may dispose or settle it as he pleases. 119. Every man being, as has been shown, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent, it is to be considered what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's consent to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will LOCKE 401 concern our present case. Nobody doubts but an express consent of any man, entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds i.e., how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man that hath any possessions, or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it, whether this his possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week, or whether it be barely trav- eling freely on the highway; and, in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government. 1 20. To understand this the better, it is fit to consider that every man when he at first incorporates himself into any com- monwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexes also, and submits to the community, those possessions which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other govern- ment. For it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same act, therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to any commonwealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both o'f them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that commonwealth as long as it hath a being. Whoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherwise, enjoys any part of the land so annexed to, "and under the government of that commonwealth, must take it with the condition it is under that is of submitting to the government of the commonwealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as -far forth as any subject of it. 121. But since the government has a direct jurisdiction only over the land and reaches the possessor of it (before he has actually incorporated himself in the society) only as he dwells upon and enjoys that, the obligation any one is under by virtue of such enjoyment to submit to the government begins and ends with the enjoyment; so that whenever the owner, who has given nothing 402 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY but such a tacit consent to the government will, by donation, sale or otherwise, quit the said possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other commonwealth, or agree with others to begin a new one in vacuis locis, in any part of the world they can find free and unpossessed; whereas he that has once, by actual agreement and any express declaration, given his consent to be of any commonwealth, is perpetually and indispens- ably obliged to be, and remain unalterably a subject to it, and can never be again in the liberty of the state of nature, unless by any calamity the government he was under comes to be dis- solved, or else by some public act cuts him off from being any longer a member of it. 122. But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society; it is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its law extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that com- monwealth, than it would make a man a subject to another in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time, though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there. And thus we see that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government, and enjoying the privileges and protection of it, though they are bound, even in conscience, to submit to its administration as far forth as any denizen, yet do not thereby come to be subjects or members of that commonwealth. Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement and express promise and compact. This is that which, I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common- wealth. Ch. ix. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government. 123. If man in the state of nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, why will he give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man LOCKE 403 his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit a con- dition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and'' estates, which I call by the general name property. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting. First: there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them. For though the law of nature be plain and in- telligible to all rational creatures, yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases. 125. Secondly: in the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differ- ences according to the established law. For every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat in their own cases, as well as negligence and unconcernedness to make them too re- miss in other men's. 126. Thirdly: in the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offend will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice. Such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive to those who attempt it. 127. Thus mankind, notwithstanding all the privileges of the state of nature, being but in an ill condition while they remain in it, are quickly driven into society. Hence it comes to pass, that we seldom find any number of men live any time together in this state. The inconveniencies that they are therein exposed to by the irregular and uncertain exercise of the power every man has of punishing the transgressions of others, make them take sanctuary under the established laws of government, and therein seek the preservation of their property. It is this 404 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY makes them so willingly give up every one his single power of punishing to be exercised by such alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them, and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on. And in this we have the original right and rise of both the legislative and executive power as well as of the governments and societies themselves. 128. For in the state of nature, to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers. The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the law of nature; by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures; and were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and by positive agreements combine into smaller and divided associations. The other power a man has in the state of nature is the power to pun- ish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into any commonwealth sepa- rate from the rest of mankind. 129. The first power viz., of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself and the rest of that society shall require ; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature. 130. Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require. For being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies from the labor, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength, he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require, which is not only necessary but just, since the other members of the society do the like. 131. But though men when they enter into society give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of LOCKE 405 by the legislative as the good of the society shall require, yet it being only with an intention in every one the fofctej to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse), the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property by providing against those three defects above mentioned that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people. Ch. x. Of the Forms of a Commonwealth. 132. The majority having, as has been shown, upon men's first uniting into society, the whole power of the community naturally in them, may employ all that power in making laws for the community from time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing, and then the form of the government Js a perfect democracy; or else may put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men, and their heirs or successors, and then it is an oligatdiy; or else into the hands of one man, and then it is a monarchy; if to him and his heirs,Jt is a hejre^itary^rrio^iai^^; if to him only for life, but upon his"3eatlT the power only of nominating a successor to return to them, an elective monarchy. And so accordingly of these the community may malEe compounded and mixed forms of government, as they think good. And if the legislative power be at first given by the majority to one or more persons only for their lives, or any limited time, and then the supreme power to revert to them again, when it is so reverted the community may dispose of it again anew into what hands they please, and so constitute a new form of government; for the form of government depending upon the placing the supreme power, which is the legislative (it being impossible to conceive that an inferior power should prescribe to a superior, or any but the supreme make laws), according as the power of making laws is placed, such is the^form of the commonwealth. 406 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 133. By " commonwealth" I must be understood all along to mean not a democracy, or any form of government, but any independent community, which the Latins signified by the word cimtas, to which the word which best answers in our language is "commonwealth," and most properly expresses such a society of men which community or city in English does not; for there may be subordinate communities in a government, and city amongst us has quite a different notion from commonwealth. And therefore, to avoid ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word " commonwealth " in that sense, in which sense I find the word used by King James the First, and I take it to be its genuine signification, which, if anybody dislike, I consent with him to change it for a better. 8. Limitations upon Government. 1 Ch. xi. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. 134. The great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive, law of all common- wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental jiaturaL law, which is to govern even the legis- lative itself, is th~e~~preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther ifik. II, ch. xi. LOCKE 407 than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme. 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and for- tunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. 'The rules that they make for other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature-^'.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration; and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it. 136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary, arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice and decide the rights of the sub- ject by promulgated standing laws, and known authorized judges. For the law of nature being unwritten, and so nowhere to be found but in the minds of men, they who, through passion or interest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily be convinced of their mistake where there is no established judge; and so it serves not, as it ought, to determine the rights and fence the 408 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY properties of those that live under it, especially where every one is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it too, and that in his own case; and he that has right on his side, having ordinarily but his own single strength, hath not force enough to defend himself from injuries or punish delinquents. To avoid these inconveniencies which disorder men's properties in the state of nature, men unite into societies that they may have the united strength of the whole society to secure and defend their properties, and may have standing rules to bound it, by which every one may know what is his. To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the com- munity put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit; with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of nature. 137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consisifwitrTthe ends ofsociety and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the in- juries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Where- as by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed them- selves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of an hundred thousand than he that is exposed %Q the arbitrary power of an hundred thousand singte men, nobody being secure that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be an hundred thousand times stronger^ And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions; for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of nature; if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force LOCKE 409 them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the govern- ment has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to such purposes, and by such measures, as they would not have known, and own not willingly. 138. ^Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man . X. any part of his property without his own consent. For the ' preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and re- quires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take their substance or any part of it from them without their own con- sent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the com- mon laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in govern- ments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from' any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good. -. ^Sgp 410 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 139. But government into whatsoever hands it is put, being as I have before shown, intrusted with this condition, and for this end, that men might have and secure their properties, the prince or senate, however it may have power to make laws for the regulating of property between the subjects one amongst another, yet can never have a power to take to themselves the whole, or any part of the subjects' property, without their own consent; for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all. And to let us see that even absolute power, where it is necessary, is not arbitrary by being absolute, but is still limited by that reason, and confined to those ends, which required it in some cases to be absolute, we need look no farther than the com- mon practice of martial discipline. For the preservation of the army, and in it of the whole commonwealth, requires an absolute obedience to the command of every superior officer, and it is justly death to disobey or dispute the most dangerous or un- reasonable of them; but yet we see that neither the sergeant that could command a soldier to march up to the mouth of a cannon, or stand in a breach where he is almost sure to perish, can com- mand that soldier to give him one penny of his money; nor the general that can condemn him to death for deserting his post, or for not obeying the most desperate orders, can yet with all his absolute power of life and death dispose of one farthing of that soldier's estate, or seize one jot of his goods; whom yet he can command anything, and hang for the least disobedience. Because such a blind obedience is necessary to that end for which the commander has his power viz., the preservation of the rest; but the disposing of his goods has nothing to do with it. 140. It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the rotection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of govern- ment. For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself? 141. Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the common- LOCKE 411 wealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, " We will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms," nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they. have chosen and authorized to make laws for them. . . . 142. These are the bounds which the trust that is put in them by the society and the law of God and nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in all forms of govern- ment. First: They are to govern by promulgated established ^ laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plow. Secondly: These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the people. Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves. Fourthly: The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have. 4. The Separation of Powers in Government l Ch. xii. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth. 143. The legislative power is that which has a right to direct how the force of the commonwealth shall be employed for pre- serving the community and the members of it. But because those laws which are constantly to be executed, and whose force is always to continue, may be made in a little time, therefore there is no need that the legislative should be always in being, not having always business to do. And because it may be too great tempta- tion to human frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage, and thereby come to have a distinct interest from the rest of the com- munity, contrary to the end of society and government, there- 1 Bk. II, chs. xii-xiii. 412 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY fore in well-ordered commonwealths, where the good of the whole is so considered as it ought, the legislative power is put into the hands of divers persons who, duly assembled, have by themselves, or jointly with others, a power to make laws, which when they have done, being separated again, they are themselves subject to the laws they have made; which is a new and near tie upon them to take care that they make them for the public good. 144. But because the laws that are at once and in a short time made, have a constant and lasting force, and need a per- petual execution, or an attendance thereunto, therefore it is necessary there should be a power always in being which should see to the execution of the laws that are made, and remain in force. And thus the legislative_and_executive power come often to be separated^ 145. There is another power in every commonwealth which one may call natural, because it is that which answers to the power every man naturally had before he entered into society. For though in a commonwealth the members of it are distinct persons still, in reference to one another, and, as such, are governed by the laws of the society, yet, in reference to the rest of mankind, they make one body, which is, as every member of it before was, still in the state of nature with the rest of mankind. Hence it is that the controversies that happen between any man of the society with those that are out of it are managed by the public, and an injury done to a member of their body engages the whole in the repara- tion of it. So that under this consideration the whole community is one body in the state of nature in respect of all other states or persons out of its community. 146. This, therefore, contains the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all the transactions with all persons and communities without the commonwealth, and may be called federative if any one pleases. So the thing be understood, I am indifferent as to the name. 147. These two powers, executive and federative, though they be really distinct in themselves, yet one comprehending the execu- tion of the municipal laws of the society within itself upon all that are parts of it, the other the management of the security and interest of the public without with all those that it may receive benefit or damage from, yet they are always almost united. And though this federative power in the well or ill management of it be of great moment to the commonwealth, yet it is mucn less capable to be directed by antecedent, standing, positive laws than the executive, and so must necessarily be left to the prudence LOCKE 413 and wisdom of those whose hands it is in, to be managed for the public good. For the laws that concern subjects one amongst another, being to direct their actions, may well enough precede them. But what is to be done in reference to foreigners depending much upon their actions, and the variation of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the commonwealth. 148. Though, as I said, the executive and federative power of every community be really distinct in themselves, yet they are hardly to be separated and placed at the same time in the hands of distinct persons. For both of them requiring the force of the society for their exercise, it is almost impracticable to place the force of the commonwealth in distinct and not subordinate hands, or that the executive and federative powder should be placed in persons that might act separately, whereby the force of the public would be under different commands, which would be apt some time x or other to cause disorder and ruin. * ^ A Ch. xiii. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common- ' wealth. 149. Though in a constituted commonwealth standing upon its own basis and acting according to its own nature that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme power, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For all power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject. For no man or society of men having a power to deliver up their preservation, or conse- quergrfy the means of it, to the absolute will and arbitrary domin- ion of another, whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a slavish condition, they will always have a right to preserve 414 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY what they have not a power to part with, and to rid themselves of those who invade this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation for which they entered into society. And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved. \ 150. In all cases whilst the government subsists, the legisla- tive is the supreme power. For what can give laws to another must needs be superior to him, and since the legislative is no otherwise legislative of the socitey but by the right it has to make laws for all the parts, and every member of the society, prescrib- ing rules to their actions, and giving power of execution where they are transgressed, the legislative must needs be the supreme, and all other powers in any members or parts of the society derived from and subordinate to it. 151. In some commonwealths where the legislative is not \ always in being, and the executive is vested in a single person who has also a share in the legislative, there that single person, in a very tolerable sense, may also be called supreme; not that he has in himself all the supreme power, which is that of law-making, but because he has in him the supreme execution, from whom all inferior magistrates derive all their several subordinate powers, Oi^at least, the greatest part of them; having also no legislative superior to him, there being no law to be made without his con- sent, which cannot be expected should ever subject him to the other part of the legislative, he is properly enough in this sense supreme. But yet it is to be observed that though oaths of allegiance and fealty are taken to him, it is not to him as supreme legislator, but as supreme executor of the law made by a joint power of him with others, allegiance being nothing but an obe- dience according to law, which, when he violates, he has no right to obedience, nor can claim it otherwise than as the public person vested with the power of the law, and so is to be considered as the image, phantom, or representative of the commonwealth, acted by the will of the society declared in its laws, and thus he has no will, no power, but that of the law. But when he quits this representation, this public will, and acts by his own private will, he degrades himself, and is but a single private person without power and without will, that has no right to obedience ; the mem- bers owing no obedience but to the public will of the society. 152. The executive power, placed anywhere but in a person \ that has also a share in the legislative, is visibly subordinate and LOCKE 415 accountable to it, and may be at pleasure changed and displaced; so that it is not the supreme executive power that is exempt from subordination, but the supreme executive power vested in one, who having a share in the legislative, has no distinct superior legislative to be subordinate and accountable to, farther than he himself shall join and consent, so that he is no more subordinate than he himself shall think fit, which one may certainly conclude will be but very little. Of other ministerial and subordinate powers in a commonwealth we need not speak, they being so multiplied with infinite variety in the different customs and con- stitutions of distinct commonwealths, that it is impossible to give a particular account of them all. Only thus much which is necessary to our present purpose we may take notice of concern- ing them, that they have no manner of authority, any of them, beyond what is by positive grant and commission delegated to them, and are all of them accountable to some other power in the commonwealth. 153. It is not necessary no, nor so much as convenient that the legislative should be always in being; but absolutely necessary that the executive power should, because there is not always need of new laws to be made, but always need of execution of the laws that are made. When the legislative hath pui the execution of the laws they make into other hands, they have a power still to resume it out of those hands when they find cause, and to punish for any mal-administration against the laws. The same holds also in regard to the federative power, that and the executive being both ministerial and subordinate to the legislative, which, as has been shown, in a constituted commonwealth is the supreme. The legislative also in this case being supposed to consist of several persons (for if it be a single person it cannot but be always in being, and so will, as supreme, naturally have the supreme executive power, together with the legislative) may assemble and exercise their legislative at the times that either their original constitution or their own adjournment appoints, or when they please, if neither of these hath appointed any time, or there be no other way prescribed to convoke them. For the supreme power being placed in them by the people, it is always in them, and they may exercise it when they please, unless by their original constitution they are limited to certain seasons, or by an act of their supreme power they have adjourned to a certain time, and when that time comes they have a right to assemble and act again. 154. If the legislative, or any part of it, be made of representa- 416 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY tives, chosen for that time by the people, which afterwards return into the ordinary state of subjects, and have no share in the legis- lature but upon a new choice, this power of choosing must also be exercised by the people, either at certain appointed seasons, or else when they are summoned to it; and, in this latter case, the power of convoking the legislative is ordinarily placed in the executive, and has one of these two limitations in respect of time: that either the original constitution requires their assembling and acting at certain intervals, and then the executive power does nothing but ministerially issue directions for their electing and assembling according to due forms; or else it is left to his prudence to call them by new elections when the occasions or exigencies of the public require the amendment of old or making of new laws, or the redress or prevention of any inconveniencies that lie on or threaten the people. 155. It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people, without authority, and con- trary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power. For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority is to oppose force to it. The use of force without authority always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly. 156. The power of assembling and dismissing the legislative, placed in the executive, gives not the executive a superiority over it, but is a fiduciary trust placed in him for the safety of the people in a case where the uncertainty and variableness of human affairs could not bear a steady fixed rule. For it not being possible that the first framers of the government should by any foresight be so much masters of future events as to be able to prefix so just periods of return and duration to the assemblies of the legislative, in all times to come, that might exactly answer all the exigencies of the commonwealth, the best remedy could be found for this defect was to trust this to the prudence of one LOCKE 417 who was always to be present, and whose business it was to watch over the public good. Constant, frequent meetings of the legislative, and long continuations of their assemblies, without necessary occasion, could not but be burdensome to the people, and must necessarily in time produce more dangerous inconven- iencies, and yet the quick turn of affairs might be sometimes such as to need their present help; any delay of their convening might endanger the public; and sometimes, too, their business might be so great that the limited time of their sitting might be too short for their work, and rob the public of that benefit which could be had only from their mature deliberation. What, then, could be done in this case to prevent the community from being exposed some time or other to imminent hazard on one side or the other, by fixed intervals and periods set to the meeting and acting of the legislative, but to intrust it to the prudence of some who, being present and acquainted with the state of public affairs, might make use of this prerogative for the public good? And where else could this be so well placed as in his hands who was intrusted with the execution of the laws for the same end? Thus, supposing the regulation of times for the assembling and sitting of the legislative not settled by the original constitution, it naturally fell into the hands of the executive; not as an arbi- trary power depending on his good pleasure, but with this trust always to have it exercised only for the public weal, as the occur- rences of times and change of affairs might require. Whether settled periods of their convening, or a liberty left to the prince for convoking the legislative, or perhaps a mixture of both, hath the least inconvenience attending it, it is not my business here to inquire, but only to show that, though the executive power may have the prerogative of convoking and dissolving such conventions of the legislative, yet it is not thereby superior to it. 157. Things of this world are in so constant a flux that nothing remains long in the same state. Thus people, riches, trade, power, change their stations; flourishing mighty cities come to ruin, and prove in time neglected desolate corners, whilst other unfrequented places grow into populous countries filled with wealth and inhabitants. But things not always changing equally, and private interest often keeping up customs and privileges when the reasons of them are ceased, it often comes to pass that in governments where part of the legislative consists of representa- tives chosen by the people, that in tract of time, this representation becomes very unequal and disproportionate to the reasons it was at first established upon. To what gross absurdities the 418 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY following of custom when reason has left it may lead, we may be satisfied when we see the bare name of a town, of which there remains not so much as the ruins, where scarce so much housing as a sheepcote, or more inhabitants than a shepherd is to be found, send as many representatives to the grand assembly of law-makers as a whole county numerous in people and powerful in riches. This strangers stand amazed at, and every one must confess needs a remedy; though most think it hard to find one, because the constitution of the legislative being the original and supreme act of the society, antecedent to all positive laws in it, and depending wholly on the people, no inferior power can alter it. And, therefore, the people when the legislative is once constituted, having in such a government as we have been speak- ing of, no power to act as long as the government stands, this inconvenience is thought incapable of a remedy. 158. Solus populi suprema lex is certainly so just and funda- mental a rule, that he who sincerely follows it cannot dangerously err. If, therefore, the executive who has the power of convoking the legislative, observing rather the true proportion than fashion of representation, regulates not by old custom, but true reason, the number of members in all places, that have a right to be distinctly represented, which no part of the people, however incorporated, can pretend to, but in proportion to the assistance which it affords to the public, it cannot be judged to have set up a new legislative, but to have restored the old and true one, and to have rectified the disorders which succession of time had in- sensibly as well as inevitably introduced; for it being the interest as well as intention of the people to have a fair and equal representative, whoever brings it nearest to that is an undoubted friend to and establisher of the government, and cannot miss the consent and approbation of the community; prerogative being nothing but a power in the hands of the prince to provide for the public good in such cases which, depending upon unforeseen and uncertain occurrences, certain and unalterable laws could not safely direct. Whatsoever shall be done manifestly for the good of the people, and the establishing the government upon its true foundations, is, and always will be, just prerogative. The power of erecting new corporations, and therewith new representa- tives, carries with it a supposition that in time the measures of representation might vary, and those have a just right to be repre- sented which before had none; and by the same reason, those cease to have a right, and be too inconsiderable for such a privilege, which before had it. It is not a change from the present state LOCKE 419 which, perhaps, corruption or decay has introduced, that makes an inroad upon the government, but the tendency of it to injure or oppress the people, and to set up one part or party with a distinction from and an unequal subjection of the rest. What- soever cannot but be acknowledged to be of advantage to the society and people in general, upon just and lasting measures, will always, when done, justify itself; and whenever the people shall choose their representatives upon just and undeniably equal measures, suitable to the original frame of the government, it cannot be doubted to be the will and act of the society, whoever permitted or caused them so to do. & 5. The Right of Revolution* Ch. xvii. Of Usurpation. 197. As conquest may be called a foreign usurpation, so usurpation is a kind of domestic conquest, with this difference that an usurper can never have right on his side, it being no usurpation but where one is got into the possession of what another has right to. This, so far as it is usurpation, is a change only of persons, but not of the forms and rules of the government; for if the usurper extend his power beyond what, of right, belonged to the lawful princes or governors of the commonwealth, it is tyranny added to usurpation. 198. In all lawful governments the designation of the persons who are to bear rule is as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and is that which had its estab- lishment originally from the people the anarchy being much alike to have no form of government at all, or to agree that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to design the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Hence all commonwealths, with the form of government established, have rules also of appoint- ing those who are to have any share in the public authority and settled methods of conveying the right to them. . . . Whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the person the laws have ap- pointed, and consequently, not the person the people have con- sented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped. J Bk. II, chs. xvii-xviii, xix (in part). 420 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Ch. xviii. Of Tyranny. 199. As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of .jDpwer beyond right, which nobody can" have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage: when the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passiorrT"" 200. If one can doubt this to be truth or reason because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James, in his speech to the Parliament, 1603, tells them thus: "I will ever prefer the weal of the public and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine, thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant; for I do acknowledge that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant is this that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth, by the contrary, acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people." And again, in his speech to the Parliament, 1609, he hath these words: "The king binds himself, by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect, as well the people as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly by his oath at his coronation ; so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge : ' Here- after, seed-time, and harvest, and cold, and heat, and summer, and winter, and day, and night, shall not cease while the earth remaineth.' And therefore a king, governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws." And a little after: "Therefore, all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws, and they that persuade them the contrary are vipers, pests, both against LOCKE 421 them and the commonwealth." Thus, that learned king, who well understood the notions of things, makes the difference be- twixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this: that one makes the laws the bounds of his power and the good of the public the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite. 201. It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to mon- archies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as x that; for wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there.it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better. / 202. Wherever law ends t tyranny begins, if the law be trans- " gressed to'linother's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the. power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another! This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that nath authority to seize my person in the street may be opposed as a thief and a robber if he endeavors to break into my housj* to execute a writ, notwith- standing that I know he has such a warrant and such a legal authority as will empower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brother's portions? Or, that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbor? The being right- fully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason for rapine and oppression, which the endamag- ing another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation' of it. For the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest 422 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY of his brethren and is supposed, from the advantages of his ed- ucation, employment and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measure of right and wrong. 203. May the commands, then, of a prince be opposed? May he be resisted, as often as any one shall find himself aggrieved, and but imagine he has not right done him? This will unhinge and overturn all polities, and instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion. 204. To this I answer: That force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force. Whoever makes any opposi- tion in any other case draws on himself a just condemnation, both from God and man; and so no such danger or confusion will follow, as is often suggested. For ^ 205. First. As in some countries the person of the prince by the law is sacred, and so whatever he commands or does, his person is still free from all question or violence, not liable to force, or any judicial censure or condemnation. But yet opposition may be made to the illegal acts of any inferior officer or other commis- sioned by him, unless he will, by actually putting himself into a state of war with his people, dissolve the government, and leave them to that defense whiph belongs to every one in the state of nature. For of such things, who can tell what the end will be? And a neighbor kingdom has shown the world an odd example. In all other cases the sacredness of the person exempts him from all inconveniencies, whereby he is secure, whilst the government stands, from all violence and .harm whatsoever, than which there cannot be a wiser constitution. For the harm he can do in his own person not being likely to happen often, nor to extend itself far, nor being able by his single strength to subvert the laws nor oppress the body of the people, should any prince have so much weakness and ill-nature as to be willing to do it, the incon- veniency of some particular mischiefs that may happen some- times when a heady prince comes to the throne are well recom- pensed by the peace of the public and security of the government in the person of the chief magistrate, thus set out of the reach of danger; it being safer for the body that some few private men should be sometimes in danger to suffer than that the head of the republic should be easily and upon slight occasions exposed. 206. Secondly. But this privilege, belonging only to the king's person, hinders not but they may be questioned, opposed, and resisted, who use unjust force, though they pretend a com- mission from him which the law authorizes not; as is plain in the case of him that has the king's writ to arrest a man, which is a LOCKE 423 full commission from the king, and yet ne that has it cannot break open a man's house to do it, nor execute this command of the king upon certain days nor in certain places, though this commission have no such exception in it; but they are the limitations of the law, which, if any one transgress, the king's commission excuses him not. For the king's authority being given him only by the law, he cannot empower any one to act against the law, or justify him by his commission in so doing. The commission, or command of any magistrate where he has no authority, being as void and insignificant as that of any private man, the difference between the one and the other being that the magistrate has some authority so far and to such ends, and the private man has none at all; for it is not the commission but the authority that gives the right of acting, and against the laws there can be no authority. But notwithstanding such resistance, the king's person and authority are still both secured, and so no danger to governor or government. 207. Thirdly. Supposing a government wherein the person of the chief magistrate is not thus sacred, yet this doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his power will not, upon every slight occasion, endanger him or embroil the government; for where the injured party may be relieved and his damages repaired by appeal to the law, there can be no pretense for force, which is only to be used where a man is intercepted from appealing to the law. For nothing is to be accounted hostile force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal, and it is such force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the highway, when perhaps I have not i2d. in my pocket. This man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavor to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it, and when it was gone it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass. The loss was irreparable; which to prevent the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, 424 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I might have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have repara- tion for my 100 that way. 208. Fourthly. But if the unlawful acts done by the magis- trate be maintained (by the power he has got), and the remedy, which is due by law, be by the same power obstructed, yet the right of resisting, even in such manifest acts of tyranny, will not suddenly, or on slight occasions, disturb the government. For if it reach no farther than some private men's cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them, yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think them- selves concerned in it, as for a raving madman or heady malcon- tent to overturn a well-settled state, the people being as little apt to follow the one as the other. 209. But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to threaten all, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force used against them I cannot tell. This is an inconvenience, I confess, that attends all governments whatsoever, when the governors have brought it to this pass, to be generally suspected of their people, the most dangerous state they can possibly put themselves in; wherein they are the less to be pitied, because it is so easy to be avoided; it being as impossible for a governor, if he really means the good of his people, and the preservation of them and their laws together, not to make them see and feel it, as it is for the father of a family not to let his children see he loves and takes care of them. 210. But if all the world shall observe pretenses of one kind, and actions of another, arts used to elude the law, and the trust of prerogative (which is an arbitrary power in some things left in the prince's hand to do good, not harm, to the people) employed contrary to the end for which it was given; if the people shall find the ministers and subordinate magistrates chosen, suitable to such ends, and favored or laid by proportionably as they pro- mote or oppose them; if they see several experiments made of arbitrary power, and that religion underhand favored, though publicly proclaimed against, which is readiest to introduce it, LOCKE 425 and the operators in it supported as much as may be; and when that cannot be done, yet approved still, and liked the better, and a long train of acting show the councils all tending that way, how can a man any more hinder himself from being persuaded in his own mind which way things are going, or, from casting about how to save himself, than he could from believing the cap- tain of a ship he was in was carrying him and the rest of the company to Algiers, when he found him always steering that course, though cross winds, leaks in his ship, and want of men and provisions did often force him to turn his course another way for some time, which he steadily returned to again as soon as the wind, weather, and other circumstances would let him? ft: Ch. xix. Of the Dissolution of Governments. 211. He that will, with any clearness, speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the govern- ment. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of nature into one politic society, is the agree- ment which every one has with the rest to incorporate and act as one body, and so be one distinct commonwealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them. For in that case (not being able to maintain and support themselves as one entire and independent body) the union belonging to that body, which consisted therein, must necessarily cease, and so every one return to the state he was in before, with a liberty to shift for himself and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain. Thus conquerors' swords often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of and dependence on that society which ought to have preserved them from violence. The world is too well instructed in, and too forward to allow of, this way of dissolving of governments, to need any more to be said of it; and there wants not much argument to prove that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain; that being as impossible as for the frame of a house to subsist when the materials of it are scattered and displaced by a whirlwind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake. 212. Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within: READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY First, when the legislative is altered. Civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them, it is in their legislative that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined together into one co- herent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society con- sisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will. ./The constitution of the legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, whereby provision is made for the continuation of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorized thereunto, by the con- sent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws, whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute them- selves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the delegation of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place, who have no such authority or delegation. 213. This being usually brought about by such in the com- monwealth, who misuse the power they have, it is hard to con- sider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose, then, the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons: First, a single hereditary person having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. Secondly, an assembly of hereditary nobility. Thirdly, an assem- bly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed, it is evident 214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will LOCKE 427 of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended and enforced than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized, by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and over- turns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative. 215. Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to ' those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. For it is not a certain number of men no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating and leisure of perfecting what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists ; when these are taken away, or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered. For it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he who takes away the freedom or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legis- lative, and puts an end to the government. 216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the .people, there also the legislative is altered. For if others than those whom the society hath authorized thereunto do choose, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people. 217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the sub- jection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legis- lative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another. 218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident; because he, having the force, treasure, and offices of the state to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances 428 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY towards such changes under pretense of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government; whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible re- bellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never, in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet so far as the other parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder such designs, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty of one towards another. 219. There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved, and that is, when he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution; this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectually to dissolve the government. For laws not being made for themselves, but to be, by their execution, the bonds of the society to keep every part of the body politic in its due place and function, when that totally ceases, the government visibly ceases, and the people become a confused multitude without order or connection. Where there is no longer the administration of justice for the securing of men's rights, nor any remaining power within the community to direct the force, or provide for the necessities of the public, there certainly is no government left. Where the laws cannot be exe- cuted it is all one as if there were no laws, and a government with- out laws is, I suppose, a mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society. 220. In these, and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to pre- serve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it. But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of LOCKE 429 using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when, by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure. This is, in effect, no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and when their chains are on, tell them they may act like free men. This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief, and men can never be secure from tyranny if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it; and, therefore, it is that they have not only a right to get out of it, but to prevent it. 221. There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them act contrary to their trust. First: the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people. 222. The reason why men enter into society is the preserva- tion of their property; and the end while they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whenso- ever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide for their own safety and security, which is the end 430 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY for which they are in society. What I have said here concerning the legislative in general holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs, and employs them to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? For the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their repre- sentatives as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act and advise as the necessity of the commonwealth and the public good should, upon examination and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavor to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the lawmakers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punish- ments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of per- verted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust that went along with it in its first in- stitution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted. 223. To this, perhaps, it will be said that the people being ignorant and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humor of the people, is to expose it to certain ruin; and no government will be able long to subsist if the people may set up a new legislative whenever they take offense at the old one. To this I answer, LOCKE 431 quite the contrary. People are not so easily got out of their old forms as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be pre- vailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they f/ have been accustomed to. And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time or corruption, it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees ^X there is an opportunity for it. This slowness and aversion in the r people to quit their old constitutions has in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lords and commons; and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes' heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line. 224. But it will be said this hypothesis lays a ferment for frequent rebellion. To which I answer: First: no more than any other hypothesis. For when the people are made miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of abritrary power, cry up their governors as much as you will for sons of Jupiter, let them be sacred and divine, de- scended or authorized from Heaven, give them out for whom or what you please, the same will happen. The people generally ill treated, and contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish and seek for the opportunity, which in the change, weakness, and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays long to offer itself. He must have lived but a little while in the world, who has not seen examples of this in his time; and he must have read very little who cannot produce examples of it in all sorts of governments in the world. 225. Secondly: I answer, such revolutions happen not upon ~ every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected, and without which, ancient names and specious forms are so far from being better, that they are much worse than the state of nature or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies 432 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult. 226. Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it. For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who, by force, break through, and, by force, justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels. For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and intro- duced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels; which they who are in power (by the pretense they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do, the properest way to prevent the evil is to show them the danger and injustice of it who are under the greatest temptation to run into it. 227. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legis- lative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their con- troversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They who remove or change the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody can have but by the appointment and con- sent of the people, and so destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war. And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legis- lators themselves, as has been shown, can be no less esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and endeavor to take them away; and so they putting themselves LOCKE 433 into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels. 228. But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world; they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but on him that invades his neighbor's. If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what a kind of peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine, and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace and such a government, wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly to suffer themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission by representing to them of what concern- ment peace was to mankind, and by showing the inconveniencies which might happen if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them. 229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the properties of their people? 230. Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be grown general, and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their attempts sensible 434 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to the greater part, the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir. The examples of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon manifest evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intention of their governors, who is to be blamed for it? Who can help it if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion? Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would not have them thought to be as they are? I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in common- wealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people's wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers' insolence and endeavors to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people, whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure: whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly. 231. That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied ; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offense is thereby the greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust which is put into their hands by their brethren. 232. Whosoever uses force without right as every one does in society who does it without law puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all LOCKE 435 former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor. . . . 240. Here it is likely the common question will be made, Who shall be judge whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? This, perhaps, ill-affected and factious men may spread amongst the people, when the prince only makes use of his due prerogative. To this I reply, The people shall be judge; for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well and according to the trust reposed in him, but he who deputes him and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him when he fails in his trust? If this be reasonable in particular cases of private men, why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment, where the welfare of millions is concerned and also where the evil, if not prevented, is greater, and the redress very difficult, dear, and dangerous? 241. But, farther, this question, Who shall be judge? cannot mean that there is no judge at all. For where there is no judica- ture on earth to decide controversies amongst men, God in heaven is judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of the right. But every man is judge for himself, as in all other cases so in this, whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him, and whether he should appeal to the supreme Judge, as Jephtha did. 242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people in a matter where the law is silent or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I should think the proper umpire in such a case should be the body of the people. For in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law, there, if any men find themselves aggrieved, and think the prince acts contrary to, or beyond that trust, who so proper to judge as the body of the people (who at first lodged that trust in him) how far they meant it should ex- tend? But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administra- tion, decline that way of determination, the appeal then lies nowhere but to Heaven; force between either persons who have no known superior on earth, or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal lies only to Heaven; and in tnat state the injured party must judge for himself when he will think fit to make use of that appeal and put himself upon it. 243. To conclude. The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the in- dividuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY "remarri in the community; because without this there can be no community no commonwealth, which is contrary to the original agreement; so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men, to continue in them and their successors, with direction and authority for providing such successors, the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts; because, having provided a legislative with power to con- tinue for ever, they have given up their political power to the legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person or assembly only temporary; or else, when, by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the for- feiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Stephen, Leslie, "John Locke," in Dictionary of National Biography. Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, pp. 335-345. Fraser, Locke, pp. 1-78. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. x, 3-7. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 69-79. Graham, English Political Philosophy, pp. 50-87. Stephen, English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II, pp. 130-152. Franck, Reformaleurs et publicistes de I' Europe, dix-huitieme siecle, pp. 1-61. Bastide, John Locke, ses theories poliliques et son influence en Angleterre. Bluntschli, Geschichte der neueren Staatswissenschaft, pp. 198-214. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 198-220. MONTESQUIEU XVH. MONTESQUIEU (1689-1755) INTRODUCTION Our next reading is from a French work of the middle of the eigh- teenth century. It is from the Spirit of the Laws of Montesquieu. This book was not written in such close connection with sudden political transformations as were the works of the four seventeenth- century English authors whom we have just considered. It is con- cerned primarily with explaining the nature and working of political institutions in general! In some measure it reflects contempo-| rary conditions; but its aim is to reform rather than either to vindi-1 cate or condemn the existing political and social order. It deals j more with questions of governmental efficiency and practical \ justice than with dogmas as to fundamental rights of citizens or the location and prerogatives of sovereignty. In its comprehensive treatment of these more concrete subjects verification of the various doctrines set forth is sought in examples from history and from contemporary political experience. Montesquieu was born in Bordeaux of a family of the lesser nobility. He received legal training, and in early manhood he inherited the presidency of the Parliament of Bordeaux from his uncle; this office he occupied for about ten years. During this time he was a great reader of literature and history, and wrote several papers for the local academy on philosophical, scientific and political topics. In 1721 he published his first major work the Persian Letters, which is a satire (in the form of letters written by two Persians traveling through France) upon the literary, spiritual, political and social customs and traditions of the day in France. This work was exceedingly popular and immediately gave the author a wide reputation. He sold his presidency and moved to Paris, where, shortly, he was elected to the Academy. Soon thereafter he set out upon an extensive journey of observa- tion through the countries of Europe, visiting Austria and other German states, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, Holland and, finally, England; he remained about two years in England. Returning 439 440 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY then to France he resumed his residence at the family castle at Bordeaux, and soon published his next important work the v Causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans, which is one of the earliest significant works in the modern philosophy of history. Montesquieu's greatest work De V Esprit des Lois, was pub- lished in 1748, after a long period of preparation. The word "law" in this treatise is employed with a very general and flexible meaning, as appears from the definition of law as "the necessary relations springing from the nature of things." But the work is I concerned chiefly with the interpretation of the "spirit" of social ] laws. In other words, attempt is made to explain the inter- dependence among all the elements of which a political society is composed, to show the interrelations among such factors as physical environment, racial characteristics, social, economic, and religious customs, and civil institutions; in particular, the object is to show the relations between all these factors, on the one hand, and political and civil liberty, on the other hand. The most {influential part of the work is that in which politicaj_liberty is defined, and the separation of powers discussed as an indispensable safeguard for the maintenance of political liberty. Here the government of England is analyzed as an exemplification of the dependence of political liberty upon governmental checks and (balances. As indicated before, Montesquieu's method is empirical rather than rationalistic; political questions are treated not so much in relation to abstract political truth as to nearer, concrete conditions. Through the selections below, from The Spirit of the Laws, it is intended to give a view of Montesquieu's leading ideas on the following topics: the character of laws in general; the forms of government, and the social and moral ^forces which support each form; political liberty, and its relation to the separation of powers in government. Nothing is given from the author's comparative analysis of the relations between civil institutions and racial, social, and physical factors. His extended study in that field cannot be well typified in a brief selection. MONTESQUIEU 441 READINGS FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS l 1. The Nature of Laws* i . Of the Relation of Laws to Different Beings. Laws, in their most general signification, are the necessary t relations arising from the nature of things. In this sense all] beings have their laws : the Deity His laws, the material world its laws, the intelligences superior to man their laws, the beasts their laws, man his laws. They who assert that a blind fatality produced the various effects we behold in this world talk very absurdly; for can anything be more unreasonable than to pretend that a blind fatality could be productive of intelligent beings? There is, then, a prime reason; and laws are the relations sut> sisting between it and different beings, and the relations of these to one another. God is related to the universe, as Creator and Preserver; the laws by which He created all things are those by which He preserves them. He acts according to these rules, because He knows them; He knows them, because He made them; and He made them, because they are in relation to His wisdom and power. Since we observe that the world, though formed by the motion of matter, and void of understanding, subsists through so long a succession of ages, its motions must certainly be directed by in- variable laws; and could we imagine another world, it must also have constant rules, or it would inevitably perish. Thus the creation, which seems an arbitrary act, supposes laws as invariable as those of the fatality of the Atheists. It would be absurd to say that the Creator might govern the world without those rules, since without them it could not subsist. I These rules are a fixed and invariable relation. In bodies | moved, the motion is received, increased, diminished, or lost, according to the relations of the quantity of matter and velocity; each diversity is uniformity, each change is constancy. I Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making, but they have some likewise which they never made. Before there were intelligent beings, they were possible; they had there- fore possible relations, and consequently possible laws. Beforej laws were made, there were relations of possible justice. Tof x The selections are from The Spirit of the Laws, translated by Thomas Nugent. New edition, revised by J. V. Prichard. Two volumes. London, 1878. Bohn's Standard Library. George Bell and Sons. a Book I. 442 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY say that there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden by positive laws, is the same as saying that before the describing of a circle all the radii were not equal. We must therefore acknowledge relations of justice ante- to the positive law by which they are established: as, for instance, if human societies existed, it would be right to conform to their laws; if there were intelligent beings that had received a benefit of another being, they ought to show their gratitude; if one intelligent being had created another intelligent being, the latter ought to continue in its original state of dependence; if one intelligent being injures another, it deserves a retaliation; and so on. I But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical. For though the former has also its laws, which of their own nature are invariable, it does not conform to them so exactly as the physical world. This is because, on the one hand, particular intelligent beings are of a finite nature, and consequently liable to error; and on the other, their nature requires them to be free agents. Hence they do not steadily conform to their primi- tive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe. Whether brutes be governed by the general laws of motion, or by a particular movement, we cannot determine. Be that as it may, they have not a more intimate relation to God than the rest of the material world; and sensation is of no other use to them than in the relation they have either to other particular beings or to themselves. By the allurement of pleasure they preserve the individual, and by the same allurement they preserve their species. They have natural laws, because they are united by sensation; positive laws they have none, because they are not connected by knowledge. And yet they do not invariably conform to their natural laws; these are better observed by vegetables, that have neither under- standing nor sense. Brutes are deprived of the high advantages which we have; but they have some which we have not. They have not our hopes, but they are without our fears; they are subject like us to death, but without knowing it; even most of them are more attentive than we to self-preservation, and do not make so bad a use of their passions. Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly trans- gresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his MONTESQUIEU 443 own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion. Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow-creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil laws confined him to his duty. 2. Of the Laws of Nature. Antecedent to the above-mentioned laws are those of nature, so called, because they derive their force entirely from our frame and existence. In order to have a perfect knowledge of these laws, we must consider man before the establishment of society: the laws received in such a state would be those of nature. The law which, impressing on our minds the idea of a Creator, inclines us towards Him, is the first in importance, though not in order, of natural laws. Man in a state of nature would have the ] faculty of knowing, before he had acquired any knowledge. I Plain it is that his first ideas would not be of a speculative nature; he would think of the preservation of his being, before he would investigate its origin. Such a man would feel nothing in himself at first but impotency and weakness; his fears and apprehensions would be excessive; as appears from instances (were there any necessity of proving it) of savages found in forests, trembling at the motion of a leaf, and flying from every shadow. In this state every man, instead of being sensible of his equality, would fancy himself inferior. There would therefore be no danger of their attacking one another; peace would be the first law oa nature. The natural impulse or desire which Hobbes attributes to man-j kind of subduing one another is far from being well founded] The idea of empire and dominion is so complex, and depends on so many other notions, that it could never be the first which occurred to the human understanding. Hobbes inquires, For what reason go men armed, and have locks and keys to fasten their doors, if they be not naturally in a state of war? But is it not obvious that he attributes to man- kind before the establishment of society what can happen but in consequence of this establishment, which furnishes them with motives for hostile attacks and self-defense? 444 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Next to a sense of his weakness man would soon find that of his wants. Hence another law of nature would prompt him to seek for nourishment. Fear, I have observed, would induce men to shun one another; but the marks of this fear being reciprocal, would soon engage them to associate. Besides, this association would quickly follow from the very pleasure one animal feels at the approach of another of the same species. Again, the attraction arising from the difference of sexes would enhance this pleasure, and the natural inclination they have for each other would form a third law. Besides the sense or instinct which man possesses in common with brutes, he has the advantage of acquired knowledge; and thence arises a second tie, which brutes have not. Mankind have therefore a new motive of uniting; and a fourth law of nature ' results from the desire of living in society. 3. Of Positive Laws. As soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense pf his weakness; equality ceases, and then commences the state " 'of war. Each particular society begins to feel its strength, whence arises a state of war between different nations. The individuals like- wise of each society become sensible of their force; hence the principal advantages of this society they endeavor to convert to their own emolument, which constitutes a state of war between individuals. These two different kinds of states give rise to human laws. Considered as inhabitants of so great a planet, which necessarily contains a variety of nations, they have laws relating to their mutual intercourse, which is what we call the law of nations. As members of a society that must be properly supported, they have laws relating to the governors and the governed, and this we distinguish by the name of political law. They have also another sort of laws, as they stand in relation to each other; by which is understood the civil law. The law of nations is naturally founded on this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as little injury as possible, without prejudicing their real interests. The object of war is victory; that of victory is conquest; and that of conquest preservation. From this and the preceding principle all those rules are derived which constitute the law of nations. MONTESQUIEU 445 All countries have a law of nations, not excepting the Iroquois themselves, though they devour their prisoners: for they send and receive ambassadors, and understand the rights of war and peace. The mischief is that their law of nations is not founded on true principles. Besides the law of nations relating to all societies, there is a polity or civil constitution for each particularly considered. No society can subsist without a form of government. The united strength of individuals, as Gravina well observes, constitutes what we call the body politic. The general strength may be in the hands of a single person, or of many. Some think that nature having established paternal authority, the most natural government was that of a single person. But the example of paternal authority proves nothing. For if the power of a father relates to a single government, that of brothers after the death of a father, and that of cousin-germans after the decease of brothers, refer to a government of many. The political power necessarily comprehends the union of several families. Better is it to say, that the government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humor and disposi- tion of the people in whose favor it is established. The strength of individuals cannot be united without a con- junction of all their wills. The conjunction of those wills, as Gravina again very justly observes, is what we call the civil state. Law in general is human reason, inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth: the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied. They should be adapted in such a manner to the people for whom they are framed that it should be a great chance if those of one nation suit another. They should be in relation to the nature and principle of each government; whether they form it, as may be said of political laws; or whether they support it, as in the case of civil institutions. They should be in relation to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds: they should have relation to the degree of liberty which the constitution will bear; to the religion of the inhabitants, to their inclinations, riches, numbers, commerce, manners, and customs. In fine, they have relations to each other, as also to iV 446 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY their origin, to the intent of the legislator, and to the order of things on which they are established; in all of which different lights they ought to be considered. This is what I have undertaken to perform in the following work. These relations I shall examine, since all these together constitute what I call the spirit of laws. I have not separated the politicaTfrom the civil institutions, as I do not pretend to treat of laws, but of their spirit; and as I this spirit consists in the various relations which the laws may bear to different objects, it is not so much my business to follow the natural order of laws as that of these relations and objects. I shall first examine the relations which laws bear to the nature and principle of each government; and as this principle has a strong influence on laws, I shall make it my study to understand it thoroughly: and if I can but once establish it, the laws will soon appear to flow thence as from their source. I shall proceed afterwards to other and more particular relations. 2. The Nature of the Forms of Government x 1. Of the Nature of the Three Different Governments. There are three species of government: republican, monarchical, and despotic. In order to discover their nature, it is sufficient to recollect the common notion, which supposes three definitions, or rather three facts : that a republican government is thaj in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power; monarchy, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws; a despotic government, that in which a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice. This is what I call the nature of each government; we must now inquire into those laws which directly conform to this nature, and consequently are the fundamental institutions. 2. Of Republican Government, and the Laws in relation to Democracy. When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy. In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject. There can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their own will; now the sovereign's will is the sovereign himself. The laws therefore which establish the right of suffrage 1 Book II. MONTESQUIEU 447 are fundamental to this government. And indeed it is as impor- tant to regulate in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given, as it is in a mon- archy to know who is the prince, and after what manner he ought to govern. Libanius says that at Athens a stranger who intermeddled in the assemblies of the people was punished with death. This is because such a man usurped the rights of sovereignty. It is an essential point to fix the number of citizens who are j to form the public assemblies; otherwise it would be uncertain whether the whole, or only a part of the people, had given their votes. At Sparta the number was fixed at ten thousand. But Rome, designed by Providence to rise from the weakest beginnings to the highest pitch of grandeur; Rome, doomed to experience all the vicissitudes of fortune; Rome, who had sometimes all her inhabitants without her walls, and sometimes all Italy and a considerable part of the world within them; Rome, I say, never fixed the number; and this was one of the principal causes of her ruin. //The people, in whom the supreme power resides, ought to have the management of everything within their reach: that which exceeds their abilities must be conducted by their ministers. \^ But they cannot properly be said to have their ministers, without the power of nominating them: it is, therefore, a funda- mental maxim in this government, that the people should choose their ministers that is, their magistrates. They have occasion, as well as monarchs, and even more so, to be directed by a council or senate. But to have a proper con- fidence in these, they should have the choosing of the members; whether the election be made by themselves, as at Athens, or by some magistrate deputed for that purpose, as on certain occasions was customary at Rome. The people are extremely well qualified for choosing those I ^ whom they are to intrust with part of their authority. They have only to be determined by things to which they cannot be strangers, and by facts that are obvious to sense. They can tell when a person has fought many battles, and been crowned with success; they are, therefore, capable of electing a general. They can tell when a judge is assiduous in his office, gives general satis- faction, and has never been charged with bribery: this is sufficient for choosing a praetor. They are struck with the magnificence or riches of a fellow-citizen; no more is requisite for electing an sedile. These are facts of which they can have better information 448 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY in a public forum than a monarch in his palace. But are they capable of conducting an intricate affair, of seizing and improving Uthe opportunity and critical moment of action? No; this sur- passes their abilities. Should we doubt the people's natural capacity, in respect to the discernment of merit, we need only cast an eye on the series of surprising elections made by the Athenians and Romans; which no one surely will attribute to hazard. We know that though the people of Rome assumed the right of raising plebeians to public offices, yet they never would exert this power; and though at Athens the magistrates were allowed, by the law of Aristides, to be elected from all the different classes of inhabitants, there never was a case, says Xenophon, when the common people petitioned for employments which could endanger either their security or their glory. As most citizens have sufficient ability to choose, though un- qualified to be chosen, so the people, though capable of calling V others to an account for their administration, are incapable of i conducting the administration themselves. The public business must be carried on with a certain motion, neither too quick nor too slow. But the motion of the people is always either too remiss or too violent. Sometimes with a hundred thousand arms they overturn all before them; and some- times with a hundred thousand feet they creep like insects. In a popular state the inhabitants are divided into certain classes. It is in the manner of making this division that great [ legislators have signalized themselves; and it is on this the dura- tion and prosperity of democracy have ever depended. Servius Tullius followed the spirit of aristocracy in the distribu- tion of his classes. We find in Livy and in Dionysius Halicar- nassus, in what manner he lodged the right of suffrage in the hands of the principal citizens. He had divided the people of Rome into 193 centuries, which formed six classes; and ranking the rich, who were in smaller numbers, in the first centuries, and those in middling circumstances, who were more numerous, in the next, he flung the indigent multitude into the last; and as each century had but one vote, it was property rather than numbers that decided the election. Solon divided the people of Athens into four classes. In this he was directed by the spirit of democracy, his intention not being to fix those who were to choose, but such as were eligible: there- fore, leaving to every citizen the right of election, he made the judges eligible from each of those four classes; but the magistrates MONTESQUIEU 449 he ordered to be chosen only out of the first three, consisting of persons of easy fortunes. As the division of those who have a right of suffrage is a funda- mental law in republics, so the manner of giving this suffrage is another fundamental. The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy ; as that by choice is to aristocracy. The suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one, but animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country. Yet as this method is in itself defective, it has been the endeavor of the most eminent legislators to regulate and amend it. Solon made a law at Athens, that military employments should be conferred by choice; but that senators and judges should be elected by lot. The same legislator ordained that civil magistracies attended with great expense should be given by choice, and the others by lot. In order, however, to amend the suffrage by lot, he made a rule that none but those who presented themselves should be elected; that the person elected should be examined by judges, and that every one should have a right to accuse him if he were unworthy of the office; this participated at the same time of the suffrage by lot, and of that by choice. When the time of their magistracy had expired, they were obliged to submit to another judgment in regard to their conduct. Persons utterly unqualified must have been extremely backward in giving in their names to be drawn by lot. The law which determines the manner of giving suffrage is likewise fundamental in a democracy. It is a question of some importance whether the suffrages ought to be public or secret. Cicero observes that the laws which rendered them secret towards the close of the republic were the cause of its decline. But as this is differently practised in different republics, I shall offer here my thoughts concerning this subject. The people's suffrages ought doubtless to be public; and this should be considered as a fundamental law of democracy. The lower class ought to be directed by those of higher rank, and restrained within bounds by the gravity of eminent personages. Hence, by rendering the suffrages secret in the Roman republic,\ all was lost; it was no longer possible to direct a populace that sought its own destruction. But when the body of the nobles are to vote in an aristocracy, or in a democracy the senate, as 450 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the business is then only to prevent intrigues, the suffrages cannot be too secret. Intriguing in a senate is dangerous; it is dangerous also in a M body of nobles; but not so among the people, whose nature is to act through passion. In countries where they have no share in i the government, we often see them as much inflamed on account of an actor as ever they could be for the welfare of the state. The misfortune of a republic is when intrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gained by bribery and corruption: in this case they grow indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion. Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging to it, they quietly wait for -their hire. II It is likewise a fundamental law in democracies, that the , * people should have the sole power to enact laws. And yet there iare a thousand occasions on which it is necessary the senate should have the power of decreeing; nay, it is frequently proper ^ to make some trial of a law before it is established. The constitu- tions of Rome and Athens were excellent. The decrees of the m. senate had the force of laws for the space of a year, but did not become perpetual till they were ratified by the consent of the people. 1 1 > 3. Of the Laws in Relation to the Nature of Aristocracy. In an aristocracy the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a certain number of persons. These are invested both with the legislative and executive authority; and the rest of the people are, in respect to them, the same as the subjects of a monarchy in regard to the sovereign. I They do not vote here by lot, for this would be productive of inconveniences only. And indeed, in a government where the most mortifying distinctions are already established, though they '} were to be chosen by lot, still they would not cease to be odious; it is the nobleman they envy, and not the magistrate. When the nobility are numerous, there must be a senate to regulate the affairs which the body of the nobles are incapable of deciding, and to prepare others for their decision. In this case it may be said that the aristocracy is in some measure in the senate, the democracy in the body of the nobles, and the people are a cipher. It would be a very happy thing in an aristocracy if the people, in some measure, could be raised from their state of annihilation. Thus at Genoa, the bank of St. George being administered by the c MONTESQUIEU 451 people gives them a certain influence in the government, whence their whole prosperity is derived. The senators ought by no means to have the right of naming their own members; for this would be the only way to perpetuate abuses. At Rome, which in its early years was a kind of aris- tocracy, the senate did not fill up the vacant places in their own body; the new members were nominated by the censors. In a republic, the sudden rise of a private citizen to exorbitant power produces monarchy, or something more than monarchy. In the latter the laws have provided for, or in some measure adapted themselves to, the constitution; and the principle of government checks the monarch : but in a republic, where a private citizen has obtained an exorbitant power, the abuse of this power is much greater, because the laws foresaw it not, and consequently made no provision against it. There is an exception to this rule, when the constitution is such as to have immediate need of a magistrate invested with extraordinary power. Such was Rome with her dictators, such is Venice with her state inquisitors; these are formidable magis- trates, who restore, as it were by violence, the state to its liberty. But how comes it that these magistracies are so very different in these two republics? It is because Rome supported the remainsX of her aristocracy against the people; whereas Venice employs < her state inquisitors to maintain her aristocracy against the nobles. The consequence was, that at Rome the dictatorship could be only of short duration, as the people acted through passion and not with design. It was necessary that a magistracy of this kind should be exercised with luster and pomp, the business being to intimidate, and not to punish the multitude. It was also proper that the dictator should be created only for some particular affair, and for this only should have unlimited authority, as he was always created upon some sudden emergency. On the con- trary, at Venice they have occasion for a permanent magistracy; for here it is that schemes may be set on foot, continued, sus- pended, and resumed; that the ambition of a single person be- comes that of a family, and the ambition of one family that of many. They have occasion for a secret magistracy, the crimes they punish being hatched in secrecy and silence. This magis- tracy must have a general inquisition, for their business is not to remedy known disorders, but to prevent the unknown. In a \ word, the latter is designed to punish suspected crimes; whereas the former used rather menaces than punishment even for crimes I that were openly avowed. 452 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY In all magistracies, the greatness of the power must be com- pensated by the brevity of the duration. This most legislators have fixed to a year; a longer space would be dangerous, and a shorter would be contrary to the nature of government. For who is it that in the management even of his domestic affairs would be thus confined? At Ragusa the chief magistrate of the republic is changed every month, the other officers every week, and the governor of the castle every day. But this can take place only in a small republic environed by formidable powers, who might easily corrupt such petty and insignificant magistrates. The best aristocracy is that in which those who have no share in the legislature are so few and inconsiderable that the governing party have no interest in oppressing them. Thus when Antipater made a law at Athens, that whosoever was not worth two thousand drachms should have no power to vote, he formed by this method the best aristocracy possible, because this was so small a sum as to exclude very few, and not one of any rank or consideration in the city. Aristocratic families ought therefore, as much as possible, to level themselves in appearance with the people. The more an aristocracy borders on democracy, the nearer it approaches per- fection: and, in proportion as it draws towards monarchy, the more is it imperfect. But the most imperfect of all is that in which the part of the people that obeys is in a state of civil servitude to those who command, as the aristocracy of Poland, where the peasants are slaves to the nobility. 4. Of the Relation of Laws to the Nature of Monarchical Govern- ment. The intermediate, subordinate, and dependent powers con- stitute the nature of monarchical government; I mean of that. in which a single person governs by fundamental laws. I said, the intermediate, subordinate, and dependent powers. And indeed, in monarchies the prince is the source of all power, political and civil. These fundamental laws necessarily suppose the inter- mediate channels through which the power flows: for if there be only the momentary and capricious will of a single person to govern the state, nothing can be fixed, and of course there is no fundamental law. The most natural, intermediate, and subordinate power is that of the nobility. This in some measure seems to be essential to a monarchy, whose fundamental maxim is: no monarch, no MONTESQUIEU 453 nobility; no nobility, no monarch; but there may be a despotic prince. There are men who have endeavored in some countries in Europe to suppress the jurisdiction of the nobility, not perceiving that they were driving at the very thing that was done by the parliament of England. Abolish the privileges of the lords, the v clergy and cities in a monarchy, and you will soon have a popular | state, or else a despotic government. The courts of a considerable kingdom in Europe have, for many ages, been striking at the patrimonial jurisdiction of the lords and clergy. We do not pretend to censure these sage magistrates; but we leave it to the public to judge how far this may alter the constitution. Far am I from being prejudiced in favor of the privileges of the clergy; however, I should be glad if their jurisdiction werei once fixed. The question is not, whether their jurisdiction was| justly established; but whether it be really established; whether it constitutes a part of the laws of the country, and is in every respect in relation to those laws: whether between two powers acknowl- edged independent, the conditions ought not to be reciprocal; and whether it be not equally the duty of a good subject to defend the prerogative of the prince, and to maintain the limits which from time immemorial have been prescribed to his authority. Though the ecclesiastic power be so dangerous in a republic,! yet it is extremely proper in a monarchy, especially of the abso-j lute kind. What would become of Spain and Portugal, since the subversion of their laws, were it not for this only barrier against the incursions of arbitrary power? A barrier ever useful when there is no other: for since a despotic government is productive of the most dreadful calamities to human nature, the very evil that restrains it is beneficial to the subject. In the same manner as the ocean, threatening to overflow the whole earth, is stopped by weeds and pebbles that lie scattered along the shore, so monarchs, whose power seems unbounded, are restrained by the smallest obstacles, and suffer their natural pride to be subdued by supplication and prayer. The English, to favor their liberty, have abolished all the intermediate powers of which their monarchy was composed. They have a great deal of reason to 'be jealous of this liberty; were they ever to be so unhappy as to lose it, they would be one of the most servile nations upon earth. Mr. Law, through ignorance both of a republican and monarch- ical constitution, was one of the greatest promoters of absolute 454 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY power ever known in Europe. Besides the violent and extraor- dinary changes owing to his direction, he would fain suppress all the intermediate ranks, and abolish the political communities. He was dissolving the monarchy by his chimerical reimbursements, and seemed as if he even wanted to redeem the constitution. It is not enough to have intermediate powers in a monarchy; there must be also a depositary of the laws. This depositary can only be the judges of the supreme courts of justice, who promulgate the new laws, and revive the obsolete. The natural ignorance of the nobility, their indolence and contempt of civil government, require that there should be a body invested with the power of reviving and executing the laws, which would be otherwise buried in oblivion. The prince's council are not a proper depositary. They are naturally the depositary of the momentary will of the prince, and not of the fundamental laws. Besides, the prince's council is continually changing; it is neither permanent nor numerous; neither has it a sufficient share of the confidence of the people; consequently it is incapable of setting them right in difficult conjunctures, or in reducing them to proper obedience. Despotic governments, where there are no fundamental laws, have no such kind of depositary. Hence it is that religion has generally so much influence in those countries, because it forms a kind of permanent depositary; and if this cannot be said of religion, it may of the customs that are respected instead of laws. 5. Of the Laws in Relation to the Nature of a Despotic Government. From the nature of despotic power it follows that the single person invested with this power commits the execution of it also to a single person. A man whom his senses continually inform that he himself is everything and that his subjects are nothing, is naturally lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant. In conse- quence of this, he neglects the management of public affairs. But were he to commit the administration to many, there would be continual disputes among them; each would form intrigues to be his first slave; and he would be obliged to take the reins into his own hands. It is, therefore, more natural for him to resign it to a vizir, and to invest him with the same power as himself. The creation of a vizir is a fundamental law of this government. It is related of a pope, that he had started an infinite number of difficulties against his election, from a thorough conviction of his incapacity. At length he was prevailed on to accept the pon- tificate, and resigned the administration entirely to his nephew. He was soon struck with surprise, and said, 7 should never have MONTESQUIEU 455 thought that these things were so easy. The same may be said of the princes of the East, who, being educated in a prison where eunuchs corrupt their hearts and debase their understandings, and where they are frequently kept ignorant even of their high rank, when drawn forth in order to be placed on the throne, are at first confounded: but as soon as they have chosen a vizir, and abandoned themselves in their seraglio to the most brutal passions, pursuing, in the midst of a prostituted court, every capricious extravagance, they would never have dreamed that they could find matters so easy. The more extensive the empire, the larger the seraglio; and con- sequently the more voluptuous the prince. Hence the more nations such a sovereign has to rule, the less he attends to the cares of government; the more important his affairs, the less he makes them the subject of his deliberations. 3. The Principles of the Forms of Government. 1 1. Difference between the Nature and Principle of Government. Having examined the laws in relation to the nature of each government, we must investigate those which relate to its prin- ciple. There is this difference between the nature and principle of government, that the former is that by which it is constituted, the latter that by which it is made to act. One is its particular structure, and the other the human passions which set it in motion. Now, laws ought no less to relate to the principle than to the nature of each government. We must, therefore, inquire into this principle, which shall be the subject of this third book. 2. Of the Principle of different Governments. I have already observed that it is the nature of a republican government, that either the collective body of the people, or particular families, should be possessed of the supreme power; of a monarchy, that the prince should have this power, but in the execution of it should be directed by established laws; of a despotic government, that a single person should rule according to his own will and caprice. This enables me to discover their three principles, which are thence naturally derived. I shall begin with a republican government, and in particular with that of democracy. 3. Of the Principle of Democracy. There is no great share of probity necessary to support a mo- narchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and iBook III. 456 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and main- tain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is neces- sary, namely, virtue. What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular govern- ment, where the person intrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction. Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a, suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corrupt 1 tion of the republic, the state is certainly undone. * A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue, as their ambition was inflamed by the success of the most daring of their members, as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed. When Sulla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this un- happy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminish- ing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Caesar, Tibe- rius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny. The politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no other support than virtue. The modern inhabitants of that country are entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, and luxury. When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be MONTESQUIEU 457 free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigor; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the license of many. Athens was possessed of the same number of forces when she triumphed so gloriously as when with such infamy she was en- slaved. She had twenty thousand citizens, when she defended the Greeks against the Persians, when she contended for empire with Sparta, and invaded Sicily. She had twenty thousand when Demetrius Phalereus numbered them, as slaves are told by the head in a market-place. When Philip attempted to lord it over Greece, and appeared at the gates of Athens, she had even then lost nothing but time. We may see in Demosthenes how difficult it was to awaken her; she dreaded Philip, not as the enemy of her liberty, but of her pleasures. This famous city, which had with- stood so many defeats, and having been so often destroyed had as often risen out of her ashes, was overthrown at Chaeronea, and at one blow deprived of all hopes of resource. What does it avail her that Philip sends back her prisoners, if he does not return her men? It was ever after as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it had been difficult to subdue her virtue. How was it possible for Carthage to maintain her ground? When Hannibal, upon his being made praetor, endeavored to hinder the magistrates from plundering the republic, did not they complain of him to the Romans? Wretches, who would fain be citizens without a city, and be beholden for their riches to their very destroyers! Rome soon insisted upon having three hundred of their principal citizens as hostages; she obliged them next to surrender their arms and ships; and then she declared war. From the desperate efforts of this defenseless city, one may judge of what she might have performed in her full vigor, and assisted by virtue. 4. Of the Principle of Aristocracy. As virtue is necessary in a popular government, it is requisite ^ also in an aristocracy. True it is that in the latter it is not so absolutely requisite. The people, who in respect to the nobility are the same as the 458 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY subjects with regard to a monarch, are restrained by their laws. They have, therefore, less occasion for virtue than the people in a democracy. But how are the nobility to be restrained? They who are to execute the laws against their colleagues will immediately perceive that they are acting against themselves. Virtue is therefore necessary in this body, from the very nature of the constitution. An aristocratic government has an inherent vigor, unknown to democracy. The nobles form a body, who by their preroga- tive, and for their own particular interest, restrain the people; it is sufficient that there are laws in being to see them executed. But easy as it may be for the body of the nobles to restrain the people, it is difficult to restrain themselves. Such is the nature of this constitution, that it seems to subject the very same persons to the power of the laws, and at the same time to exempt them. Now such a body as this can restrain itself only in two ways: r jf pither by a very eminent virtue, which puts the nobility in some .measure on a level with the people, and may be the means of forming a great republic; or by an inferior virtue, which puts them at least upon a level with one another, and upon this their preservation depends. Moderation is therefore the very soul of this government; a /.moderation, I mean, founded on virtue, not that which proceeds I from indolence and pusillanimity. 5. That Virtue is not the Principle of a Monarchical Government. In monarchies, policy effects great things with as little virtue as possible. Thus in the nicest machines, art has reduced the number of movements, springs, and wheels. The state subsists independently of the love of our country, of the thirst of true glory, of self-denial, of the sacrifice of our dearest interests, and of all those heroic virtues which we admire in the ancients, and to us are known only by tradition. The laws supply here the place of those virtues; they are by no means wanted, and the state dispenses with them: an action performed here in secret is in some measure of no consequence. (Though all crimes be in their own nature public, yet there is a distinction between crimes really public and thqse that are private, . which are so called because they are more injurious to individuals than to the community. Now in republics private crimes are more public, that is, they attack the constitution more than they do the individuals; and MONTESQUIEU 459 in monarchies, public crimes are more private, that is, they are more prejudicial to private people than to the constitution. I beg that no one will be offended with what I have been saying: my observations are founded on the unanimous testimony of historians. I am not ignorant that virtuous princes are so very rare; but I venture to affirm that in a monarchy it is extremely difficult for the people to be virtuous. Let us compare what the historians of all ages have asserted concerning the courts of monarchs; let us recollect the conversa- tions and sentiments of people of all countries, in respect to the wretched character of courtiers, and we shall find that these are not airy speculations, but truths confirmed by a sad and melan- choly experience. Ambition in idleness; meanness mixed with pride; a desire of riches without industry; aversion to truth; flattery, perfidy, violation of engagements, contempt of civil duties, fear of the prince's virtue, hope from his weakness, but, above all, a perpetual ridicule cast upon virtue, are, I think, the characteristics by which most courtiers in all ages and countries have been constantly distinguished. Now, it is exceedingly difficult for the leading men of the nation to be knaves, and the inferior sort to be honest; for the former to be cheats, and the latter to rest satisfied with being only dupes. But if there should chance to be some unlucky honest man among the people, Cardinal Richelieu, in his political testament, seems to hint that a prince should take care not to employ him. So true is it that virtue is not the spring of this government! It is not indeed excluded, but it is not the spring of government. 6. In what Manner Virtue is Supplied in a Monarchical Gov- ernment. But it is high time for me to have done with this subject, lest I should be suspected of writing a satire against monarchical government. Far be it from me; if monarchy wants one spring, it is provided with another. Honor, that is, the prejudice of every person and rank, supplies the place of the political virtue of which I have been speaking, and is everywhere her representa- tive : here it is capable of inspiring the most glorious actions, and, joined with the forc^e of laws, may lead us to the end of govern- ment as well as virtue itself. Hence, in well-regulated monarchies, they are almost all good subjects, and very few good men; for to be a good man, a good intention is necessary, and we should love our country, 460 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY not so much on our own account, as out of regard to the com- munity. 7. Of the Principle of Monarchy. A monarchical government supposes, as we have already observed, preeminences and ranks, as likewise a noble descent. Now since it is the nature of honor to aspire to preferments and titles, it is properly placed in this government. Ambition is pernicious in a republic. But in a monarchy it has some good effects; it gives life to the government, and is at- tended with this advantage, that it is in no way dangerous, because it may be continually checked. It is with this kind of government as with the system of the universe, in which there is a power that constantly repels all bodies from the center, and a power of gravitation that attracts them to it. Honor sets all the parts of the body politic in motion, and by its very action connects them; thus each individual ad- vances the public good, while he only thinks of promoting his own interest. True it is that philosophically speaking it is a false honor which moves all the parts of the government; but even this false honor is as useful to the public as true honor could possibly be to private persons. Is it not very exacting to oblige men to perform the most difficult actions, such as require an extraordinary exertion of fortitude and resolution, without other recompense than that of glory and applause? , 8. That Honor is not the Principle of Despotic Government. Honor is far from being the principle of despotic government: mankind being here all upon a level, no one person can prefer himself to another; and as on the other hand they are all slaves, they can give themselves no sort of preference. Besides, as honor has its laws and rules, as it knows not how to submit; as it depends in a great measure on a man's own caprice, and not on that of another person; it can be found only in countries in which the constitution is fixed, and where they are governed by settled laws. How can despotism abide with honor? The one glories in the contempt of life; and the other is founded on the power of taking it away. How can honor, on the other hand, bear with despo- tism? The former has its fixed rules, and peculiar caprices; but the latter is directed by no rule, and its own caprices are sub- versive of all others, MONTESQUIEU 461 Honor, therefore, a thing unknown in arbitrary governments, some of which have not even a proper word to express it, is the prevailing principle in monarchies; here it gives life to the whole body politic, to the laws, and even to the virtues themselves. 9. Of the Principle of Despotic Government. As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honor, so f gar isTnecessary in a despotic government : with regard to virtue, there is no occasion for it, and honor would be extremely dan-|/ gerous. Here the immense power of the prince devolves entirely upon those whom he is pleased to intrust with the administration. Persons capable of setting a value upon themselves would be likely to create disturbances. Fear must therefore depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition. A moderate government may, whenever it pleases, and without the least danger, relax its springs. It supports itself by the laws, and by its own internal strength. But when a despotic prince ceases for one single moment to uplift his arm, when he cannot instantly demolish those whom he has intrusted with the first employments, all is over: for as fear, the spring of this government, no longer subsists, the people are left without a protector. It is probably in this sense the Cadis maintained that the Grand Seignior was not obliged to keep his word or oath, when he limited thereby his authority. It is necessary that the people should be judged by laws, and the great men by the caprice of the prince, that the lives of the lowest subject should be safe, and the pasha's head ever in danger. We cannot mention these monstrous governments without horror. The Sophi of Persia, dethroned in our days by Mahomet, the son of Miriveis, 1 saw the constitution subverted before this resolution, because he had been too sparing of blood. History informs us that the horrid cruelties of Domitian struck such a terror into the governors, that the people recovered themselves a little during his reign. Thus a torrent overflows one side of a country, and on the other leaves fields untouched, where the eye is refreshed by the prospect of fine meadows. 10. Difference of Obedience in Moderate and Despotic Governments. In despotic states, the nature of government requires the most passive obedience; and when once the prince's will is made known, it ought infallibly to produce its effect. Here they have no limitations or restrictions, no mediums, 1 Sufi, Mahmud, Mir Wa'iz are more common forms of these names. 462 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY terms, equivalents, or remonstrances; no change to propose: man is a creature that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign. In a country like this they are no more allowed to represent their apprehensions of a future danger than to impute their mis- carriage to the capriciousness of fortune. Man's portion here, like that of beasts, is instinct, compliance, and punishment. Little does it then avail to plead the sentiments of nature, filial respect, conjugal or parental tenderness, the laws of honor, or want of health; the order is given, and that is sufficient. In Persia, when the king has condemned a person, it is no longer lawful to mention his name, or to intercede in his favor. Even if the prince were intoxicated, or non compos, the decree must be executed; otherwise he would contradict himself, and the law admits of no contradiction. This has been the way of thinking in that country in all ages; as the order which Ahasuerus gave, to exterminate the Jews, could not be revoked, they were allowed the liberty of defending themselves. One thing, however, may be sometimes opposed to the prince's will, namely, religion. They will abandon, nay they will slay a >arent, if the prince so commands; but he cannot oblige them to ink wine. The laws of religion are of a superior nature, because ley bind the sovereign as well as the subject. But with respect the law of nature, it is otherwise; the prince is no longer sup- posed to be a man. In monarchical and moderate states, the power is limited by its very spring, I mean by honor, which, like a monarch, reigns over the prince and his people. They will not allege to their sovereign the laws of religion; a courtier would be apprehensive of rendering himself ridiculous. But the laws of honor will be appealed to on all occasions. Hence arise the restrictions neces- sary to obedience; honor is naturally subject to whims, by which the subject's submission will be ever directed. Though the manner of obeying be different in these two kinds of government, the power is the same. On which side soever the monarch turns, he inclines the scale, and is obeyed. The whole difference is, that in a monarchy the prince receives instruction, at the same time that his ministers have greater abilities, and are more versed in public affairs, than the ministers of a despotic government. ii. Reflections on the Preceding Chapters. Such are the principles of the three sorts of government: which does not imply that in a particular republic they actually are, MONTESQUIEU 463 but that they ought to be, virtuous; nor does it prove that in a particular monarchy they are actuated by honor, or in a particular despotic government by fear; but that they ought to be directed by these principles, otherwise the government is imperfect. 4. Political Liberty l 1. A General Idea. I make a distinction between the laws that establish political liberty, as it relates to the constitution, and those by which it is established, as it relates to the citizen. The former shall be the subject of this book; the latter I shall examine in the next. 2. Different Significations of the Word Liberty. There is no word that admits of more various significations, and has made more varied impressions on the human mind, than that of liberty. Some have taken it as a means of deposing a person on whom they had conferred a tyrannical authority; others for the power of choosing a superior whom they are obliged to obey; others for the right of bearing arms, and of being thereby enabled to use violence; others, in fine, for the privilege of being! p governed by a native of their own country, or by their own laws. / A certain nation for a long time thought liberty consisted in the privilege of wearing a long beard. Some have annexed this name to one form of government exclusive of others: those who had a republican taste applied it to this species of polity; those who liked a monarchical state gave it to monarchy. Thus they have all applied the name of liberty to the government most suitable to their own customs and inclinations : and as in republics the people have not so constant and so present a view of the causes of their misery, and as the magistrates seem to act only in conformity to the laws, hence liberty is generally said to reside in republics, and to be banished from monarchies. In fine, as in democracies the people seem to act almost as they please, this sort of government has been deemed the most free, and the power of the people has been confounded with their liberty. 3. In what Liberty Consists. It is true that in democracies the people seem to act as they please; but political liberty does not consist in an unlimited freedom. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will. \ 1 Book XI, chs. i-vi. ' jt 464 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY We must have continually present to our minds the difference between independence and liberty. Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they forbid he would be no longer possessed of liberty, because all his fellow- citizens would have the same power. 4. The same Subject Continued. Democratic and aristocratic states are not in their own nature \ free. Political liberty is to be found only in moderate govern- ments; and even in these it is not always found. It is there only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Is it not strange, though true, to say that virtue itself has need of limits? To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power. A government may be so constituted as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits. 5. Of the End or View of Different Governments. Though all governments have the same general end, which is that of preservation, yet each has another particular object. Increase of dominion was the object of Rome; war, that of Sparta; religion, that of the Jewish laws; commerce, that of Marseilles; public tranquillity, that of the laws of China; navigation, that of the laws of Rhodes; natural liberty, that of the policy of the Sav- ages; in general, the pleasures of the prince, that of despotic states; that of monarchies, the prince's and the kingdom's glory; the independence of individuals is the end aimed at by the laws of Poland, whence results the oppression of the whole. One nation there is also in the world that has for the direct end of its constitution political liberty. We shall presently examine the principles on which this liberty is founded; if they are sound, liberty will appear in its highest perfection. To discover political liberty in a constitution, no great labor is requisite. If we are capable of seeing it where it exists, it is soon found, and we need not go far in search of it. 6. Of the Constitution of England. In every government there are three sorts of power: the legis- lative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law. MONTESQUIEU 465 By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts tem- porary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. ^.By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between in- dividuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state. The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legis- lative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator^ Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression* There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals. Most kingdoms in Europe enjoy a moderate government because the prince who is invested with the two first powers leaves the third to his subjects. In Turkey, where these three powers are united in the Sultan's person, the subjects groan under the most dreadful oppression. In the republics of Italy, where these three powers are united, there is less liberty than in our monarchies. Hence their govern- ment is obliged to have recourse to as violent methods for its support as even that of the Turks; witness the state inquisitors, and the lion's mouth into which every informer may at all hours throw his written accusations. In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics ! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations: and as they have likewise the judiciary power in 466 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions. The whole power is here united in one body; and though there is no external pomp that indicates a despotic sway, yet the people feel the effects of it every moment. Hence it is that many of the princes of Europe, whose aim has been leveled at arbitrary power, have constantly set out with uniting in their own persons all the branches of magistracy, and J all the great offices of state. I allow indeed that the mere hereditary aristocracy of the Italian republics does not exactly answer to the despotic power of the Eastern princes. The number of magistrates sometimes moderates the power of the magistracy; the whole body of the nobles do not always concur in the same design; and different tribunals are erected, that temper each other. Thus at Venice the legislative power is in the council, the executive in the pregadi, and the judicial in the quarantia. But the mischief is, that xfthese different tribunals are composed of magistrates all belonging Jto the same body; which constitutes almost one and the same power. The judicial power ought not to be given to a standing senate; it should be exercised by persons taken from the body of the people at certain times of the year, and consistently with a form and manner prescribed by law, in order to erect a tribunal that should last only so long as necessity requires. By this method the judicial power, so terrible to mankind, not being annexed to any particular state or profession, becomes, as it were, invisible. People have not then the judges continually present to their view; they fear the office, but not the magistrate. In accusations of a deep and criminal nature, it is proper the person accused should have the privilege of choosing, in some measure, his judges, in concurrence with the law; or at least he should have a right to except against so great a number that the remaining part may be deemed his own choice. The other two powers may be given rather to magistrates or ^permanent bodies, because they are not exercised on any private subject; one being no more than the general will of the state, and the other the execution of that general will. , , But though the tribunals ought not to be fixed, the judgments " ought; and to such a degree as to be ever conformable to the letter of the law. Were they to be the private opinion of the judge, people would then live in society, without exactly knowing the nature of their obligations. MONTESQUIEU 467 The judges ought likewise to be of the same rank as the accused,/ or, in other words, his peers; to the end that he may not imagine he is fallen into the hands of persons inclined to treat him with rigor. If the legislature leaves the executive power in possession of a right to imprison those subjects who can give security for their good behavior, there is an end of liberty; unless they are taken up, in order to answer without delay to a capital crime, in which case they are really free, being subject only to the power of the law. But should the legislature think itself in danger by some secret conspiracy against the state, or by a correspondence with a foreign enemy, it might authorize the executive power, for a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons, who in that case would lose their liberty only for a while, to preserve it for ever. And this is the only reasonable method that can be substituted to the tyrannical magistracy of the ephori, and to the state in- quisitors of Venice, who are also despotic. As in a country of liberty, every man who is supposed a free agent ought to be his own governor, the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people. But since this is impossible in large states, and in small ones is subject to many inconveniences, it is fit the people should transact by their representatives what they cannot transact by themselves. The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbors than of that of the rest of their countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place a representative should be elected by the inhabitants. The great advantage of representatives is their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy. It is not at all necessary that the representatives who have received a general instruction from their constituents should wait s to be directed on each particular affair, as is practised in the diets of Germany. True it is that by this way of proceeding the speeches of the deputies might with greater propriety be called the voice of the nation; but, on the other hand, this would occasion infinite delays, would give each deputy a power of controlling the assembly; and, on the most urgent and pressing occasions, the 468 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY wheels of government might be stopped by the caprice of a single person. When the deputies, as Mr. Sidney well observes, represent a body of people, as in Holland, they ought to be accountable to their constituents; but it is a different thing in England, where they are deputed by boroughs. _ All the inhabitants of the several districts ought to have a right of voting at the election of a representative, except such as are in so mean a situation as to be deemed to have no will of their own. One great fault there was in most of the ancient republics, that the people had a right to active resolutions, such as require some execution, a thing of which they are absolutely incapable. They ought to have no share in the government but for the choosing of representatives, which is within their reach. For though few can tell the exact degree of men's capacities, yet there are none but are capable of knowing in general whether the person they choose is better qualified than most of his neighbors. Neither ought the representative body to be chosen for the executive part of government, for which it is not so fit; but for the enacting of laws, or to see whether the laws in being are duly executed, a thing suited to their abilities, and which none indeed but themselves can properly perform. In such a state there are always persons distinguished by their birth, riches, or honors: but were they to be confounded with the common people, and to have only the weight of a single vote like the rest, the common liberty would be their slavery, and they would have no interest in supporting it, as most of the popular resolutions would be against them. The share they have, there- fore, in the legislature ought to be proportioned to their other advantages in the state; which happens only when they form a body that has a right to check the license of the people, as the people have a right to oppose any encroachment of theirs. The legislative power is therefore committed to the body of the nobles, and to that which represents the people, each having their assemblies and deliberations apart^ each their separate views and interests. Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is in some measure next to nothing: there remain, therefore, only two; and ./as these have need of a regulating power to moderate them, the part of the legislative body composed of the nobility is extremely proper for this purpose. The body of the nobility ought to be hereditary. In the first place it is so in its own nature; and in the next there must be a MONTESQUIEU 469 considerable interest to preserve its privileges privileges that in themselves are obnoxious to popular envy, and of course in a free state are always in danger. But as a hereditary power might be tempted to pursue its own particular interests, and forget those of the people, it is proper that where a singular advantage may be gained by corrupting the nobility, as in the laws relating to the supplies, they should have no other share in the legislation than the power of rejecting, and not that of resolving. By the powewj[ resolving I mean the right of ordaining by their own authority, or of amending what has been ordained by others. By the power of rejecting I would be understood to mean the right of annulling a resolution taken by another; which was the power of the tribunes at Rome. And though the person possessed of the privilege of rejecting may likewise have the right of approving, yet this approbation passes for no more than a declaration that he intends to make no use of his privilege of rejecting, and is derived from that very privilege. The executive power ought to be in the hands of a monarch, because this branch of government, having need of dispatch, is better administered by one than by many: on the other hand, whatever depends on the legislative power is oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person. But if there were no monarch, and the executive power should r i be committed to a certain number of persons selected from the ? legislative body, there would be an end then of liberty; by reason ' the two powers would be united, as the same persons would sometimes possess, and would be always able to possess, a share in both. > ; Were the legislative body to be a considerable time without ; meeting, this would likewise put an end to liberty. For of two things one would naturally follow: either that there would be no / longer any legislative resolutions, and then the state would fall into anarchy; or that these resolutions would be taken by the executive power, which would render it absolute* It would be needless for the legislative body to continue always assembled. This would be troublesome to the representatives, and, moreover, would cut out too much work for the executive power, so as to take off its attention to its office, and oblige it to think only of defending its own prerogatives, and the right it has to execute. Again, were the legislative body to be always assembled, it might happen to be kept up only by filling the places of the 470 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY deceased members with new representatives; and in that case, if the legislative body were once corrupted, the evil would be past all remedy. When different legislative bodies succeed one an- other, the people who have a bad opinion of that which is actually sitting may reasonably entertain some hopes of the next: but were it to be always the same body, the people upon seeing it once corrupted would no longer expect any good from its laws; and of course they would either become desperate or fall into a state of indolence. The legislative body should not meet of itself. For a body is supposed to have no will but when it is met ; and besides, were it not to meet unanimously, it would be impossible to determine which was really the legislative body: the part assembled, or the other. And if it had a right to prorogue itself, it might happen never to be prorogued; which would Be extremely dangerous, in case it should ever attempt to encroach on the executive power. Besides, there are seasons, some more proper than others, for assembling the legislative body: it is fit, therefore, that the executive power should regulate the time of meeting, as well as the duration of those assemblies, according to the circumstances and exigencies of a state known to itself. Were the executive power not to have a right of restraining the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; for as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers. But it is not proper, on the other hand, that the legislative power should have a right to stay the executive. For as the execu- tion has its natural limits, it is useless to confine it; besides, the executive power is generally employed in momentary operations. The power, therefore, of the Roman tribunes was faulty, as it put a stop not only to the legislation, but likewise to the executive part of government; which was attended with infinite mischief. But if the legislative power in a free state has no right to stay the executive, it has a right and ought to have the means of examining in what manner its laws have been executed; an ad- vantage which this government has over that of Crete and Sparta, where the cosmi and the ephori gave no account of their ad- ministration. But whatever may be the issue of that examination, the legis- lative body ought not to have a power of arraigning the person, nor, of course, the conduct, of him who is intrusted with the execu- tive power. His person should be sacred, because as it is necessary for the good of the state to prevent the legislative body from MONTESQUIEU 471 rendering themselves arbitrary, the moment he is accused or tried there is an end of liberty. In this case the state would be no longer a_monarchy, but a kind of republic, though not a free government. But as the person intrusted with the executive power cannot abuse it without bad counsellors, and such as have the laws as ministers, though the laws protect them as subjects, these men may be examined and punished an advantage which this government has over that of Gnidus, where the law allowed of no such thing as calling the amymones to an account, even after their administration; and therefore the people could never obtain any satisfaction for the injuries done them. Though, in general, the judicial power ought not to be united with any part of the legislative, yet this is liable to three exceptions, founded on the particular interest of the party accused. The great are always obnoxious to popular envy; and were they to be judged by the people, they might be in danger from their judges, and would, moreover, be deprived of the privilege which the meanest subject is possessed of in a free state, of being tried by his peers. The nobility, for this reason, ought not to be cited before the ordinary courts of judicature, but before that part of the legislature which is composed of their own body. It is possible that the law, which is clear-sighted in one sense, and blind in another, might, in some cases, be too severe. But as we have already observed, the national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings, incapable of moderating either its force or rigor. That part, therefore, of the legislative body, which we have just now observed to be a necessary tribunal on another occasion, is also a necessary tribunal in this; it belongs to its supreme authority to moderate the law in favor of the law itself, by mitigating the sentence. It might also happen that a subject intrusted with the adminis- tration of public affairs may infringe the rights of the people, and be guilty of crimes which the ordinary magistrates either could not or would not punish. But, in general, the legislative power cannot try causes: and much less can it try this particular case, where it represents the party aggrieved, which is the people. It can only, therefore, impeach. But before what court shall it bring its impeachment? Must it go and demean itself before the ordinary tribunals, which are its inferiors, and, being composed, moreover, of men who are chosen from the people as well as itself, will naturally be swayed by the authority of so powerful an 472 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY accuser? No: in order to preserve the dignity of the people, and the security of the subject, the legislative part which represents the people must bring in its charge before the legislative part which represents the nobility, who have neither the same interests nor the same passions. Here is an advantage which this government has over most of the ancient republics, where this abuse prevailed, that the people were at the same time both judge and accuser. I The executive power, pursuant of what has been already said, Bought to have a share in the legislature by the power of rejecting, otherwise it would soon be stripped of its prerogative. But should the legislative power usurp a share of the executive, the latter would be equally undone. If the prince were to have a part in the legislature by the power of resolving, liberty would be lost. But as it is necessary he should have a share in the legislature for the support of his own prerogative, this share must consist in the power of rejecting. The change of government at Rome was owing to this, that neither the senate, who had one part of the executive power, nor the magistrates, who were intrusted with the other, had the right of rejecting, which was entirely lodged in the people. Here then is the fundamental constitution of the government I we are treating of. The legislative body being composed of* i two parts, they check one another by the mutual privilege of ' [\ rejecting. They are both restrained by the executive power, as i fl v the executive is by the legislative. These three powers should naturally form a state of repose or inaction. But as there is a necessity for movement in the \ course of human affairs, they are forced to move, but still in concert. ^jj As the executive power has no other part in the legislative ; '/than the privilege of rejecting, it can have no share in the public* * debates. It is not even necessary that it should propose, because as it may always disapprove of the resolutions that shall be taken, it may likewise reject the decisions on those proposals which were made against its will. In some ancient commonwealths, where public debates were carried on by the people in a body, it was natural for the executive power to propose and debate in conjunction with the people; otherwise their resolutions must have been attended with a strange confusion. Were the executive power to determine the raising of public MONTESQUIEU 473 money, otherwise than by giving its consent, liberty would be at an end; because it would become legislative in the most important point of legislation.- If the legislative power were to settle the subsidies, not from year to year, but for ever, it would run the risk of losing its liberty, because the executive power would be no longer dependent; and when once it were possessed of such a perpetual right, it would be a matter of indifference whether it held it of itself or of another. The same may be said if it should come to a resolution of intrusting, not an annual, but a perpetual command of the fleets and armies to the executive power. To prevent the executive power from being able to oppress, it is requisite that the armies with which it is intrusted should consist of the people, and have the same spirit as the people, as was the case at Rome till the time of Marius, To obtain this end, there are only two ways: either the persons employed in the army should have sufficient property to answer for their conduct to their fellow-subjects, and be enlisted only for a year, as was customary at Rome; or if there should be a standing army, composed chiefly of the most despicable part of the nation, the legislative power should have a right to disband them as soon as it pleased; the soldiers should live in common with the rest of the people; and no separate camp, barracks, or fortress should be suffered. When once an army is established, it ought not to depend immediately on the legislative, but on the executive, power; and this from the very nature of the thing, its business consisting more in action than in deliberation. It is natural for mankind to set a higher value upon courage than timidity, on activity than prudence, on strength than counsel. Hence the army will ever despise a senate, and respect their own officers. They will naturally slight the orders sent them by a body of men whom they look upon as cowards, and therefore unworthy to command them. So that as soon as the troops depend entirely on the legislative body, it becomes a military government; and if the contrary has ever happened, it has been owing to some extraordinary circumstances. It is because the army was always kept divided; it is because it was composed of several bodies that depended each on a particular province; it is because the capital towns were strong places, defended by their natural situation, and not garrisoned with regular troops. Holland, for instance, is still safer than Venice; she might drown or starve the revolted troops; for as they are not quartered in towns capable of furnishing 474 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY them with necessary subsistence, this subsistence is of course precarious. In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus, On the Manners} of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English havej borrowed the idea of their political government. This beautiful system was invented first in the woods. As all human things have an end, the state we are speaking of will lose its liberty, will perish. Have not Rome, Sparta and Carthage perished? It will perish when the legislative power} shall be more corrupt than the executive. It is not my business to examine whether the English actually enjoy this liberty or not. Sufficient it is for my purpose to observe / . that it is established by their laws; and I inquire no further. t- Neither do I pretend by this to undervalue other governments, nor to say that this extreme political liberty ought to give un- easiness to those who have only a moderate share of it. How should I have any such design, I who think that even the highest refinement of reason is not always desirable, and that mankind generally find their account better in mediums than in extremes? Harrington, in his Oceana, has also inquired into the utmost degree of liberty to which the constitution of a state may be carried. But of him indeed it may be said that for want of knowing the nature of real liberty he busied himself in pursuit of an imaginary one; and that he built a Chalcedon, though he had a Byzantium- before his eyes. SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Saintsbury, George, "Montesquieu," in Encyclopedia Britannica. Vian, Histoire de Montesquieu. Dedieu, Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise en France. Les sources anglaises de "V Esprit des lois." Sorel, Montesquieu. The same, translated by Gustave Masson. Dunning, Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, pp. 391-394. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu, ch. xii, 2-8. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 85-9. Flint, Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and Switzerland, pp. 262-280. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 329-399. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de I' Europe, dix-huitieme siecle, pp. 137- 283. Brunetiere, Etudes critiques sur Vhisloire de la litlerature fran^aise, 4me serie, pp. 243-265. Villemain, Tableau de litterature au X VHIme siecle, Tome I, leq ons xiv, xv. Bluntschli, Geschichle der Staatstheorien, pp. 298-316. ROUSSEAU XVHI. JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778) INTRODUCTION The Esprit des Lois, though empirical in method, was not in- tended to reflect contemporary conditions in France or to afford a solution for the social problems of the vage. The great work which in its main doctrines was directed towards the sources of political injustice in France in the eighteenth century, is the Social Co~ntract of Rousseau. Though the style of this work is abstract and dog- matic, its practical influence was unmistakable. Its doctrines of the absolute and inalienable sovereignty of the people and of the subordinacy of all governing agencies, hereditary as well as elec- tive, were stated in such clear and eloquent terms as to appeal powerfully to the imagination and emotions of the men of the French Revolution. The close influence of the SociaLo_ntract, in ideas and terminology, upon the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" is very manifest. It is impossible to summarize in a few sentences the varied life, singular character and complex work of Rousseau. He was born in Geneva of parents of French Protestant ancestry. He had no stable or practical training of any sort. He ran away from home when sixteen years of age, and thereafter, for twenty years he led a very diversified career, residing in many different places, chiefly in France, and trying many pursuits without success. During this period he was without regular occupation, spending much of his time in aimless wanderings in the country. In these journeys he took some note of the ideas and feelings of the poorer people with whom he came in contact; and in his sojourns he devoted some attention to study of philosophy and practice in writing^ In the early forties through the support of wealthy patrons and the friendship of literary men he established himself at Paris and did some miscellaneous writing, Diderot accepting him as a contributor to the Encyclopedia. He came into general literary reputation in 1 749. In that year the Academy of Dijon announced as the subject for its prize essay: "Has the restoration of the 477 478 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY sciences contributed to purify or to corrupt manners? " Rousseau competed, and secured the prize. Assuming a former state of society in which the members were in a condition of innocence, he traced the present evils of society to the thirst for knowledge and to the adulation of literary culture and of artificialities introduced by civilization. In 1754, in a similar competition, he wrote his second discourse, the subject being "What is the origin of in- equality among men, and is it authorized by natural law?" In this he committed the error, common to political writers of his time, of describing fully, without evidence, the former conditions of men in natural equality and harmony. Rousseau's great work in political theory the Contrat Social appeared in 1762. Meanwhile he had published highly successful dramatic and literary works. The Contrat Social and the mile (his celebrated work on education, published the same year aroused the opposition of the orthodox in morals, religion, politics, and philosophy. To escape threatened persecution he had to become an exile, first to Switzerland and thence to England. The last decade of his life he spent in retirement in Paris, com- pleting his Confessions. Like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau assumes a pre-political state of nature, and determines the rights and duties of the members of political society through an analysis of the contractual founda- tion of civil order. The state of nature, described in the Discourse' on Inequality, is pictured as a happy condition, and political or- ganization is represented as having been introduced as a means of conserving rights which originate in that state, and not as a means of escape from an intolerable situation. The points upon which comparison may be profitably made between Rousseau's theory and that of his predecessors of the social-contract school, are suggested in the following summary of the salient points of the Social Contract: The legitimate basis of a political society is a contract; the parties to the contract are all the members of the society; the terms are that each individual in becoming a member of the so- ciety surrenders, to the control of the general will of the members, all his natural rights which are useful to the society. In accord- ance with the origin of political society, inalienable sovereignty rests in the people. Their will is expressed in laws, the execution ROUSSEAU 479 of which is in the hands of the government a body created by, and, therefore, subordinate to, the people* READINGS FROM THE SOCIAL CONTRACT 1 1. The Problem of Political Philosophy 2 Introductory Note. I wish to inquire whether, taking men as they are and laws as they can be made, it is possible to establish some just and certain rule of administration in civil affairs. In this investigation I shall always strive to reconcile what right permits with what interest prescribes, so that justice and utility may not be severed. 1 enter upon this inquiry without demonstrating the importance of my subject. I shall be asked whether I am a prince or a legislator that I write on politics. I reply that I am not; and that it is for this very reason that I write on politics. If I were a prince or a legislator, I should not waste my time in saying what ought to be done; I should do it or remain silent. Having been born a citizen of a free state, and a member of the sovereign body, however feeble an influence my voice may have in public affairs, the right to vote upon them is sufficient to impose on me the duty of informing myself about them; and I feel happy, whenever I meditate on governments, always, to discover in my researches new reasons for loving that of my own country. Ch. i. Subject of the First Book. Man is born fr^e, and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself the master of others, and yet he is a greater slave than they. How has this change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question. If I considered only force and the results that proceed from it, I should say that so long as a people is compelled to obey and does obey, it does well; but that, so soon as it can shake off the . yoke and does shake it off, it does better; for, if men recover their freedom by virtue of the same right by which it was taken away, either they are justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for depriving them of it^j But the social order is a 1 The selections are from The Social Contract, translated by Henry J. Tozer. Third edition. London, 1902. Published by Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 2 Book I, Introductory Note, chs. i-iii, and ch. iv (in part). 480 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY sacred right which serves as a foundation for all others. This right, however, does not come from nature. It is therefore based on conventions. The question is to know what these conventions are. Before coming to that, I must establish what I have just laid down. 1 Ch. ii. Primitive Societies. The earliest of all societies, and the only natural one, is the family; yet children remain attached to their father only so long\ as they have need of him for their own preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children being freed from the obedience which they owed to their father, and the father from the cares which he owed to his children, become equally independent. If they remain united, it is no longer naturally but voluntarily; and the family itself is kept together only by convention. This common liberty is a consequence of man's nature. His first law is to attend to his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and as soon as he comes to years of discretion, being sole judge of the means adapted for his own preservation, he becomes his own master. The family is, then, if you will, the primitive model of political societies; the chief is the analogue of the father, while the people represent the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that in the family the father's love for his children repays him for the care that he bestows upon them; while in the state the pleasure of ruling makes up for the chief's lack of love for his people. Grotius denies that all human authority is established for the benefit of the governed, and he cites slavery as an instance. His invariable mode of reasoning is to establish right by fact. A juster method might be employed, but none more favorable to tyrants. It is doubtful, then, according to Grotius, whether the human race belongs to a hundred men, or whether these hundred men belong to the human race; and he appears throughout his book to incline to the former opinion, which is also that of Hobbes. In this way we have mankind divided like herds of cattle, each of which has a master, who looks after it in order to devour it. Just as a herdsman is superior in nature to his herd, so chiefs, who are the herdsmen of men, are superior in nature to their people. Thus, according to Philo's account, the Emperor Caligula ROUSSEAU 481 reasoned, inferring truly enough from this analogy that kings are gods, or that men are brutes. The reasoning of Caligula is tantamount to that of Hobbes and Grotius. Aristotle, before them all, had likewise said that men are not naturally equal, but that some are born for slavery and others for dominion. Aristotle was right, but he mistook the effect for the cause. Every man born in slavery is born for slavery; nothing is more certain. Slaves lose everything in their bonds, even the desire to escape from them; they love their servitude as the companions of Ulysses loved their brutishness. If, then, there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves contrary to nature. The first slaves were made such by force; their cowardice kept them in bondage. I have said nothing about King Adam nor about Emperor Noah, the father of three great monarchs who shared the universe, like the children of Saturn with whom they are supposed to be identical. I hope that my moderation will give satisfaction; for, as I am a direct descendant of one of these princes, and perhaps of the eldest branch, how do I know whether, by examination of titles, I might not find myself the lawful king of the human race? Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that Adam was sovereign of the world, as Robinson was of his island, so long as he was its sole inhabitant; and it was an agreeable feature of that empire that the monarch, secure on his throne, had nothing to fear from rebellions, or wars, or conspirators. Ch. iii. The Right of the Strongest. The strongest man is never strong enough to be always master, unless he transforms his power into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest a right apparently assumed in irony, and really established in principle. But will this phrase never be explained to us? Force is a physical power; I do not see what morality can result from its effects. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty? \ \Let us assume for a moment this pretended right. I say that nothing results from it but inexplicable nonsense; for if force constitutes right, the effect changes with the cause, and any force which overcomes the first succeeds to its rights. As soon as men can disobey with impunity, they may do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always in the right, the only thing is to act in such a way that one may be the strongest. But what sort of 482 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a right is it that perishes when force ceases? If it is necessary to obey by compulsion, there is no need to obey from duty; and if men are no longer forced to obey, obligation is at an end. We see, then, that this word right adds nothing to force; it here means nothing at all. \\ Obey the powers that be. If that means, Yield to force, the precept is good but superfluous; I reply that it will never be. violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but every disease comes from him too; does it follow that we are prohibited from calling in a physician? If a brigand should surprise me in the recesses of a wood, am I bound not only to give up my purse when forced, but am I also morally bound to do so when I might conceal it? For, in effect, the pistol which he holds is a superior force. Let us agree, then, that might does not make right, and that \ we are bound to obey none but lawful authorities. Thus my original question ever recurs. un. Sine k Ch. iv. Slavery. Since no man has any natural authority over his fellow-men, and since force is not the source of right, conventions remain as the basis of all lawful authority among men. J | If an individual, says Grotius, can alienate his liberty and become the slave of a master, why should not a whole people be able to alienate theirs, and become subject to a king? In this there are many equivocal terms requiring explanation; but let us confine ourselves to the word alienate. To alienate is to give or sell. Now, a man who becomes another's slave does not give himself; he sells himself at the very least for his subsistence. But why does a nation sell itself? So far from a king supplying his subjects with their subsistence, he draws his from them; and, according to Rabelais, a king does not live on a little. Do sub- jects, then, give up their persons on condition that their property also shall be taken? I do not see what is left for them to keep. It will be said that the despot secures to his subjects civil peace. Be it so; but what do they gain by that, if the wars which his ambition brings upon them, together with his insatiable greed and the vexations of his administration, harass them more than their own dissensions would? What do they gain by it if this tranquillity is itself one of their miseries? Men live tranquilly also in dungeons; is that enough to make them contented there?- The Greeks confined in the cave of the Cyclops lived peacefully until their turn came to be devoured. n ROUSSEAU 483 To say that a man gives himself for nothing is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is illegitimate and invalid, for the simple reason that he who performs it is not in his right mind. To say the same thing of the whole nation is to suppose a nation of fools; and madness does not. confer rights. Even if each person could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children; they are born free men; their liberty belongs to them, and no one has a right to dispose of it except themselves. Be- fore they have come to years of discretion, the father can, in their name, stipulate conditions for their preservation and wel- fare, but not surrender them irrevocably and unconditionally; for such a gift is contrary to the ends of nature, and exceeds the rights of paternity. In order, then, that an arbitrary govern- ment might be legitimate, it would be necessary that the people in each generation should have the option of accepting or re- jecting it; but in that case such a government would no longer be arbitrary. Vy To renounce one's liberty is to renounce one's quality as a man, the rights and also the duties of humanity. For him who re- nounces everything there is no possible compensation. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man's nature, for to take away all freedom from his will is to take away all morality from his actions. In short, a convention which stipulates absolute au- thority on the one side and unlimited obedience on the other is vain and contradictory. Is it not clear that we are under no obligations whatsoever towards a man from whom we have a right to demand everything? And does not this single condition, without equivalent, without exchange, involve the nullity of the act? For what right would my slave have against me, since all that he has belongs to me? His rights being mine, this right of me against myself is a meaningless phrase. 2. The Social Contract l Ch. v. That it is Always Necessary to go Back to a First Con- vention. If I should concede all that I have so far refuted, those who favor despotism would be no farther advanced. There will always be a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society. When isolated men, however numerous they may be, are subjected one after another to a single person, this 1 Bk. I, chs. v and vi. 484 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY seems to me only a case of master and slaves, not of a nation and its chief; they form, if you will, an aggregation, but not an association, for they have neither public property nor a body politic. Such a man, had he enslaved half the world, is never anything but an individual; his interest, separated from that of the rest, is never anything but a private interest. If he dies, his empire after him is left disconnected and disunited, as an oak dissolves and becomes a heap of ashes after the fire has consumed it. A nation, says Grotius, can give itself to a king. According to Grotius, then, a nation is a nation before it gives itself to a king. This gift itself is a civil act, and presupposes a public resolution. Consequently, before examining the act by which a nation elects a king, it would be proper to examine the act by which a nation becomes a nation; for this act, being necessarily anterior to the other, is the real foundation of the society. In fact, if there were no anterior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation upon the minority to submit to the decision of the majority? And whence do the hundred who desire a master derive the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not desire one? The law of the plurality of votes is itself established by convention, and presupposes unanimity once at least. Ch. vi. The Social Pact. I assume that men have reached a point at which the obstacles that endanger their preservation in the state of nature overcome by their resistance the forces which each individual can exert with a view to maintaining himself in that state. Then this primitive condition can no longer subsist, and the human race would perish unless it changed its mode of existence. Now, as men cannot create any new forces, but only combine and direct those that exist, they have no other means of self- preservation than to form by aggregation a sum of forces which may overcome the resistance, to put them in action by a single motive power, and to make them work in concert. This sum of forces can be produced only by the combination of many; but the strength and freedom of each man being the chief instruments of his preservation, how can he pledge them without injuring himself, and without neglecting the cares which he owes to himself? This difficulty, applied to my subject, may be expressed in these terms: "To find a form of association which may defend and protect ROUSSEAU 485 with the whole force of the community the person and property of every associate, and by means of which each, coalescing with all, may nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before." Such is the fundamental problem, of which the social contract furnishes the solution. ^^ The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would render them vain and ineffectual; so that, although they have never perhaps been formally enunciated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, the social pact being violated, each man regains his original rights and recovers his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty for which he renounced it. These clauses, rightly understood, are reducible to one only, viz. the total alienation to the whole community of each associate with all his rights; for, in the first place, since each gives himself up entirely, the conditions are equal for all; and, the conditions being equal for all, no one has any interest in making them bur- densome to others. Further, the alienation being made without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and an individual associate can no longer claim anything; for, if any rights were left to individuals, since there would be no common superior who could judge be- tween them and the public, each, being on some point his own judge, would soon claim to be so on all; the state of nature would still subsist, and the association would necessarily become tyran- nical or useless. In short, each giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is not one associate over whom we do not acquire the same rights which we concede to him over ourselves, we gain the equivalent of all that we lose, and more power to preserve what we have. If, then, we set aside what is not of the essence of the social contract, we shall find that it is reducible to the following terms: "Each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of the general will; and in return / we receive every member as an indivisible part of the whole." / / Forthwith, instead of the individual personalities of all the contracting parties, this act of the association produces a moral and collective body, which is composed of as many members as the assembly has voices, and which receives from this same act its unity, its common self (moi), its life, and its will. This public person, which is thus formed by the union of all the individual '486 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY members, formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of republic or body politic, which is called by its members state when it is passive, sovereign when it is active, power when it is compared to similar bodies. With regard to the associates, they take collectively the name of people, and are called individually citizens, as participating in the sovereign power, and subjects, as subjected to the laws of the state. But these terms are often confused and are mistaken one for another; it is sufficient to know how to distinguish them when they are used with complete precision. 5. Sovereignty and Law l Ch. vii. The Sovereign. We see from this formula that the act of association contains a reciprocal engagement between the public and individuals, and that every individual, contracting so to speak with himself, is engaged in a double relation, viz. as a member of the sovereign ^towards individuals, and as a merfiber of the state towards the tgovereign. But we cannot apply here the maxim of civil law that no one is bound by engagements made with himself; for there is a great difference between being bound to oneself and to a whole of which one forms part. V\ We must further observe that the public resolution which can bind all subjects to the sovereign in consequence of the two different relations under which each of them is regarded cannot, for a contrary reason, bind the sovereign to itself; and that accordingly it is contrary to the nature of the body politic for the sovereign to impose on itself a law which it cannot transgress. As it can only be considered under one and the same relation, it is in the position of an individual contracting with himself; whence we see that there is not, nor can be, any kind of funda- mental law binding upon the body of the people, not even the social contract. This does not imply that such a body cannot perfectly well enter into engagements with others in what does not derogate from this contract; for, with regard to foreigners, it becomes a simple being, an individual. But the body politic or sovereign, deriving its existence only from the sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to others, in anything that derogates from the original act, such as alienation of some portion of itself, or submission to another 1 Bk. I, ch. vii; Bk. II, chs. i-iv, vi. ROUSSEAU 487 sovereign. To violate the act by which it exists would be to annihilate itself; and what is nothing produces nothing. So soon as the multitude is thus united in one body, it is im- possible to injure one of the members without attacking the body, still less to injure the body without the members feeling the effects. Thus duty and interest alike oblige the two contracting parties to give mutual assistance; and the men themselves should seek to combine in this twofold relationship all the advantages which are attendant on it. Now, the sovereign, being formed only of the individuals that compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; consequently the sovereign power needs no guarantee towards its subjects, because it is impossible that the body should wish to injure all its members; and we shall see hereafter that it can injure no one as an individual. The sovereign, for the simple reason that it is so, is always everything that it ought to be. But this is not the case as regards the relation of subjects to the sovereign, which, notwithstanding the common interest, would have no security for the performance of their engagements, unless it found means to insure their fidelity, Indeed, every individual may, as a man, have a particular will contrary to, or divergent from, the general will which he has as a citizen; his private interest may prompt him quite differently from the common interest; his absolute and naturally inde- pendent existence may make him regard what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will be less harmful to others than the payment of it will be burden- some to him; and, regarding the moral person that constitutes the state as an imaginary being because it is not a man, he would be willing to enjoy the rights of a citizen without being willing to fulfill the duties of a subject. The progress of such injustice would bring about the ruin of the body politic. In order, then, that the social pact may not be a vain formu- lary, it tacitly includes this engagement, which can alone give force to the others, that whoever refuses to obey ihe general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he shall be forced to be free; for such is the condition which, uniting every citizen to his native land, guarantees him from all personal dependence; a condition that insures the control and working of the political machine, and alone renders legitimate civil engagements, which, without it, would be absurd and tyrannical, and subject to the most enormous abuses. 488 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Book II, ch. i. That Sovereignty is Inalienable. The first and most important consequence of the principles above established is that the general will alone can direct the forces of the state according to the object of its institution, which is the common good; for if the opposition of private interests has rendered necessary the establishment of societies, the agreement of these same interests has rendered it possible. That which is common to these different interests forms the social bond; and unless there were some point in which all interests agree, no society could exist. Now, it is solely with regard to this common interest that the society should be governed. I say, then, that sovereignty, being nothing but the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the, sovereign power, which is only a collective being, can be rep-, resented by itself alone; power indeed can be transmitted, but, not will. In fact, if it is not impossible that a particular will should agree on some point with the general will, it is at least impossible that this agreement should be lasting and constant; for the particular will naturally tends to preferences, and the general will to equality. ) It is still more impossible to have a security for this agreement; even though it should always exist, it would not be a result of art, but of chance. The sovereign may indeed say: "I will now what a certain man wills, or at least what he says that he wills;" but he cannot say: "What that man wills to-morrow, I shall also will," since it is absurd that the will should bind itself as regards the future, and since it is not incumbent on any will to consent to anything contrary to the welfare of the being that wills. If, then, the nation simply promises to obey, it dissolves itself by that act and loses its character as a people; the moment there is a) master, there is no longer a sovereign, and forthwith the body politic is destroyed. This does not imply that the orders of the chiefs cannot pass for decisions of the general will, so long as the sovereign, free to oppose them, refrains from doing so. In such a case the consent \ of the people should be inferred from the universal silence. This will be explained at greater length. Ch. ii. That Sovereignty is Indivisible. For the same reason that sovereignty is inalienable it is in-* divisible; for the will is either general, or it is not; it is either that of the body of the people, or that of only a portion. In the first case, this declared will is an act of sovereignty and consti- ROUSSEAU 489 tutes law; in the second case, it is only a particular will, or an act of magistracy it is at most a decree. But our publicists, being unable to divide sovereignty in its principle, divide it in its object. They divide it into force and will, into legislative power and executive power; into rights of taxation, of justice, and of war; into internal administration and power of treating with foreigners sometimes confounding all these departments, and sometimes separating them. They make the sovereign a fantastic being, formed of connected parts; it is as if they composed a man of several bodies, one with eyes, another with arms, another with feet, and nothing else. The Japanese conjurers, it is said, cut up a child before the eyes of the spectators; then, throwing all its limbs into the air, they make the child come down again alive and whole. Such almost are the jugglers' tricks of our publicists; after dismembering the social body by a deception worthy of the fair, they recombine its parts, nobody knows how. This error arises from their not having formed exact notions about the sovereign authority, and from their taking as parts of this authority what are only emanations from it. Thus, for ex- ample, the acts of declaring war and making peace have been regarded as acts of sovereignty, which is not the case, since neither of them is a law, but only an application of the law, a particular act which determines the case of the law, as will be clearly seen when the idea attached to the word law is fixed. By following out the other divisions in the same way, it would be found that, whenever the sovereignty appears divided, we are mistaken in our supposition; and that the rights which are taken as parts of that sovereignty are all subordinate to it, and always suppose supreme wills of which these rights are merely executive. It would be impossible to describe the great obscurity in which this want of precision has involved the conclusions of writers on the subject of political right when they have endeavored to decide upon the respective rights of kings and peoples on the principles that they had established. Every one can see, in chapters iii and iv of the first book of Grotius, how that learned man and his translator Barbeyrac become entangled and em- barrassed in their sophisms, for fear of saying too much or not saying enough according to their views, and so offending the interests that they had to conciliate. Grotius, having taken refuge in France through discontent with his own country, and wishing to pay court to Louis XIII, to whom his book is dedi- cated, spares no pains to despoil the people of all their rights 490 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and, in the most artful manner, bestow them on kings. This also would clearly have been the inclination of Barbeyrac, who dedicated his translation to the king of England, George I. But unfortunately the expulsion of James II, which he calls an abdi- cation, forced him to be reserved and to equivocate and evade, in order not to make William appear a usurper. If these two writers had adopted true principles, all difficulties would have been removed, and they would have been always consistent; but they would have spoken the truth with regret, and would have paid court only to the people. Truth, however, does not lead to fortune, and the people confer neither embassies, nor professor- ships, nor pensions. i\ Ch. iii. Whether the General Will Can Err. It follows from what precedes that the general will is always right and always tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow~EHaTThe resolutions ~oT"the people have always the same rectitude. Men always desire their own good, but do not always discern it; the people are never corrupted, though of ten xleceived, and it is only then that they seem to will what is evil. ; \T~ There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter regards only the common interest, while the former has regard to private interests, and is merely a sum of particular wills; but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses which cancel one another, and the general Iwill remains as the sum of the differences, \ V If the people came to a resolution when adequately informed and without any communication among the citizens; the general will would always result from the great number of slight differ- ences, and the resolution would always be goody- But when factions, partial associations, are formed to the detriment of the whole society, the will of each of these associations becomes general with reference to its members, and particular with refer- ence to the state; it may then be said that there are no longer as many voters as^ there are men, but only as many voters as there ' are associations\\ The differences become less numerous and yield a less general result. Lastly, when one of these associations becomes so great that it predominates over all the rest, you no longer have as the result a sum of small differences, but a single difference; there is then no longer a general will, and the opinion which prevails is only a particular opinion. It is important, then, in order to have a clear declaration of the general will, that there should be no partial association in the \\ ROUSSEAU 491 state, and that every citizen should express only his own opinion. Such was the unique and sublime institution of the great Lycurgus. But if there are partial associations, it is necessary to multiply their number and prevent inequality, as Solon, Numa, and Servius did. These are the only proper precautions for insuring that the general will may always be enlightened, and that the people may not be deceived. Ch. iv. The Limits of the Sovereign Power. If the state or city is nothing but a moral person, the life of which consists in the union of its members, and if the most im- portant of its cares is that of self-preservation, it needs a universal and compulsive force to move and dispose of every part in the manner most expedient for the whole. As nature gives every man an absolute power over all his limbs, the social pact gives the body politic an absolute power over all its members; and it is this same power which, when directed by the general will, bears, as I said, the name of sovereignty. But besides the public person, we have to consider the private persons who compose it, and whose life and liberty are naturally independent of it. The question, then, is to distinguish clearly between the respective rights of the citizens and of the sovereign, as well as between the duties which the former have to fulfill in their capacity as subjects and the natural rights which they ought to enjoy in their character as men. It is admitted that whatever part of his power, property, and liberty each one alienates by the social compact is only that part of the whole of which the use is important to the community; but we must also admit that the sovereign alone is judge of what is important. All the services that a citizen can render to the state he owes to it as soon as the sovereign demands them; but the sovereign, on its part, cannot impose on its subjects any burden which is useless to the community; it cannot even wish to do so, for, by the law of reason, just as by the law of nature, nothing is done without a cause. The engagements which bind us to the social body are obliga- tory only because they are mutual; and their nature is such that in fulfilling them we cannot work for others without also working for ourselves. Why is the general will always right, and why do all invariably desire the prosperity of each, unless it is because there is no one but appropriates to himself this word each and thinks of himself in voting on behalf of all? This proves that 492 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY equality of rights and the notion of justice that it produces are derived from the preference which each gives to himself, and consequently from man's nature; that the general will, to be truly such, should be so in its object as well as in its essence; that it ought to proceed from all in order to be applicable to all; and that it loses its natural rectitude when it tends to some individual and determinate object, because in that case, judging of what is unknown to us, we have no true principle of equity to guide us. Indeed so soon as a particular fact or right is in question with regard to a point which has not been regulated by an anterior general convention, the matter becomes contentious; it is a process in which the private persons interested are one of the parties and the public the other, but in which I perceive neither the law which must be followed, nor the judge who should decide. It would be ridiculous in such a case to wish to refer the matter for an express decision of the general will, which can be nothing but the decision of one of the parties, and which, consequently, is for the other party only a will that is foreign, partial, and inclined on such an occasion to injustice as well as liable to error. There- fore, just as a particular will cannot represent the general will, the general will in turn changes its nature when it has a particular end, and cannot, as general, decide about either a person or a fact. When the people of Athens, for instance, elected or de- posed their chiefs, decreed honors to one, imposed penalties on another, and by multitudes of particular decrees exercised indis- criminately all the functions of government, the people n6 longer had any general will properly so called; they no longer acteci as a sovereign power, but as magistrates. This will appear contrary to common ideas, but I must be allowed time to expound my own. From this we must understand that what generalizes the will is not so much the number of voices as the common interest which unites them; for, under this system, each necessarily submits to the conditions which he imposes on others an admirable union of interest and justice, which gives to the deliberations of the community a spirit of equity that seems to disappear in the dis- cussion of any private affair, for want of a common interest to unite and identify the ruling principle of the judge with that of the party. f By whatever path we return to our principle we always arrive I at the same conclusion, viz. that the social compact establishes I among the citizens such an equality that they all pledge them- selves under the same conditions and ought all to enjoy the ROUSSEAU 493 same rights. Thus, by the nature of the compact, every act of sovereigntv^iat is, every authentic act of the general will, binds or favors Equally all the citizens; so that the sovereign knows only the bodv of the nation, and distinguishes none of those that compose it. \\ What, then, is an act of sovereignty properly so called? It is not an agreement between a superior and an inferior, but an agreement of the body with each of its members^ a lawful agree- ment, because it has the social contract as its foundation; equi- table, because it is common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general welfare; and stable, because it has the public force and the supreme power as a guarantee. So long as the subjects submit only to such conventions, they obey no one, but simply their own will; and to ask how far the respective rights of the sovereign and citizens extend is to ask up to what point the latter can make engagements among themselves, each with all and all with each. Thus we see that the sovereign power, wholly absolute, wholly sacred, and wholly inviolable as it is, does not, and cannot, pass the limits of general conventions, and that every man can fully dispose of what is left to him of his property and liberty by these conventionsfjKso that the sovereign never has a right to burden one subject more than another, because then the matter becomes particular and his power is no longer competent. \\ These distinctions once admitted, so untrue is it that in the social contract there is on the part of individuals any real re- nunciation, that their situation, as a result of this contract, is in reality preferable to what it was before, and that, instead of an alienation, they have only made an advantageous exchange of an uncertain and precarious mode of existence for a better and more assured one, of natural independence for liberty, of the power to injure others for their own safety, and of their strength, which others might overcome, for a right which the social union renders inviolable. Their lives, also, which they have devoted to the state, are continually protected by it; and in exposing their lives for its defense, what do they do but restore what they have re- ceived from it? What do they do but what they would do more frequently and with more risk in the state of nature, when, en- gaging in inevitable struggles, they would defend at the peril of their lives their means of preservation? All have to fight for their country in case of need, it is true; but then no one ever has to fight for himself. Do we not gain, moreover, by incurring, for what insures our safety, a part of the risks that we should have 494 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY to incur for ourselves individually, as soon as we were deprived of it? Ch. vi. The Law. By the social compact we have given existence and life to the body politic; the question now is to endow it with movement and will by legislation. For the original act by which this body is formed and consolidated determines nothing in addition as to what it must do for its own preservation. What is right and conformable to order is such by the nature of things, and independently of human conventions. All justice comes from God, he alone is the source of it; but could we receive it direct from so lofty a source, we should need neither govern- ment nor laws. Without doubt there is a universal justice emanating from reason alone; but this justice, in order to be admitted among us, should be reciprocal. Regarding things from a human standpoint, the laws of justice are inoperative among men for want of a natural sanction; they only bring good to the wicked and evil to the just when the latter observe them with every one, and no one observes them in return. Con- ventions and laws, then, are necessary to couple rights with duties and apply justice to its object. In the state of nature, where everything is in common, I owe nothing to those to whom I have promised nothing; I recognize as belonging to others only what is useless to me. This is not the case in the civil state, in which all rights are determined by law. But then, finally, what is a law? So long as men are content to attach to this word only metaphysical ideas, they will continue to argue without being understood; and when they have stated what a law of nature is, they will know no better what a law of the state is. I have already said that there is no general will with reference to a particular object. In fact, this particular object is either in the state or outside of it. If it is outside the state, a will which is foreign to it is not general in relation to it; and if it is within the state, it forms part of it; then there is formed between the whole and its part a relation which makes of it two separate beings, of which the part is one, and the whole, less this same part, is the other. But the whole less one part is not the whole, and so long as the relation subsists, there is no longer any whole, but two unequal parts; whence it follows that the will of the one is no longer general in relation to the other. But when the whole people decree concerning the whole people, ROUSSEAU 495 they consider themselves alone; and if a relation is then consti- tuted, it is between the whole object under one point of view and the whole object under another point of view, without any division at all. Then the matter respecting which they decree is general like the will that decrees. It is this act that I call a law. When I say that the object of the laws is always general, I mean that the law considers subjects collectively, and actions as abstract, never a man as an individual nor a particular action. Thus the law may indeed decree that there shall be privileges, but cannot confer them on any person by name; the law can create several classes of citizens, and even assign the qualifica- tions which shall entitle them to rank in these classes, but it cannot nominate such and such persons to be admitted to them; it can establish a royal government and a hereditary succession, but cannot elect a king or appoint a royal family; in a word, no function which has reference to an individual object appertains to the legislative power. From this standpoint we see immediately that it is no longer necessary to ask whose office it is to make laws, since they are / acts of the general will; nor whether the prince is above the / laws, since he is a member of the state; nor whether the law can , be unjust, since no one is unjust to himself; nor how we are free \ and yet subject to the laws, since the laws are only registers of our wills. We see, further, that since the law combines the universality of the will with the universality of the object, whatever any man prescribes on his own authority is not a law; and whatever the sovereign itself prescribes respecting a particular object is not a law, but a decree, not an act of sovereignty, but of magistracy. I therefore call any state a republic which is governed by laws, under whatever form of administration it may be; for then only does the public interest predominate and the commonwealth count for something. Every legitimate government is republi- can; I will explain hereafter what government is. Laws are properly only the conditions of civil association. The people, being subjected to the laws, should be the authors of them; it concerns only the associates to determine the con- ditions of association. But how will they be determined? Will it be by a common agreement, by a sudden inspiration? Has a body politic an organ for expressing its will? Who will give it the foresight necessary to frame its acts and publish them at the outset? Or shall it declare them in the hour of need? How would a blind multitude, which often knows not what it 496 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY wishes because it rarely knows what is good for it, execute of itself an enterprise so great, so difficult, as a system of legisla- tion? Of themselves, the people always desire what is good, but do not always discern it. The general will is always right, but the judgment which guides it is not always enlightened. It must be made to see objects as they are, sometimes as they ought to appear; it must be shown the good path that it is seeking, and guarded from the seduction of private interests; it must be made to observe closely times and places, and to balance the attraction of immediate and palpable advantages against the danger of remote and concealed evils. Individuals see the good which they reject; the public desire the good which they do not see. All alike have need of guides. The former must be compelled to conform their wills to their reason; the people must be taught to know what they require. Then from the public enlighten- ment results the union of the understanding and the will in the social body; and from that the close cooperation of the parts, and, lastly, the maximum power of the whole. Hence arises the need of a legislator. 4. Government: Its Nature and Forms l Before speaking of the different forms of government, let us try to fix the precise meaning of that word, which has not yet been very clearly explained. Ch. i. Government in General. I warn the reader that this chapter must be read carefully, and that I do not know the art of making myself intelligible to those that will not be attentive. Every free action has two causes concurring to produce it; the one moral, viz. the will which determines the act; the other physical, viz. the power which executes it. When I walk towards an object, I must first will to go to it; in the second place, my feet must carry me to it. Should a paralytic wish to run, or an active man not wish to do so, both will remain where they are. The body politic has the same motive powers; in it, likewise, force and will are distinguished, the latter under the name of legislative power, the former under the name of executive power. Nothing is, or ought to be, done in it without their cooperation. We have seen that the legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone. On the other hand, it is easy to see from the principles already established, that the executive 1 Bk. Ill, chs. i-iii. ROUSSEAU 497 power cannot belong to the people generally as legislative or sovereign, because that power is exerted only in particular acts, which are not within the province of the law, nor consequently within that of the sovereign, all the acts of which must be laws. The public force, then, requires a suitable agent to concentrate it and put it in action according to the directions of the general will, to serve as a means of communication between the state and the sovereign, to effect in some manner in the public person what the union of soul and body effects in a man. This is, in the state, the function of the government, improperly confounded with the sovereign of which it is only the minister. What, then, is the government? An intermediate body es- tablished between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws and with the maintenance of liberty both civil and political. The members of this body are called magistrates or kings, that is, governors; and the body as a whole bears the name of Prince. Those therefore who maintain that the act by which a people submits to its chiefs is not a contract are quite right. It is absolutely nothing but a commission, an employment, in which, as simple officers of the sovereign, they exercise in its name the power of which it has made them depositaries, and which it can limit, modify, and resume when it pleases. The alienation of such a right, being incompatible with the nature of the social body, is contrary to the object of the association. Consequently, I give the name government or supreme adminis- tration to the legitimate exercise of the executive power, and that of Prince or magistrate to the man or body charged with that administration. It is in the government that are found the intermediate powers, the relations of which constitute the relation of the whole to the whole, or of the sovereign to the state. This last relation can be represented by that of the extremes of a continued proportion, of which the mean proportional is the government. The govern- ment receives from the sovereign the commands which it gives to the people; and in order that the state may be in stable equilibrium, it is necessary, everything being balanced, that there should be equality between the product or the power of the government taken by itself, and the product or the power of the citizens, who are sovereign in the one aspect and subjects in the other. Further, we could not alter any of the three terms without at once destroying the proportion. If the sovereign wishes to govern, or if the magistrate wishes to legislate, or if the subjects 498 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY refuse to obey, disorder succeeds order, force and will no longer act in concert, and the state being dissolved falls into despotism or anarchy. Lastly, as there is but one mean proportional be- tween each relation, there is only one good government possible in a state; but as a thousand events may change the relations of a people, not only may different governments be good for differ- ent peoples, but for the same people at different times. . To try and give an idea of the different relations that may exist between these two extremes, I will take for an example the number of people, as a relation most easy to express. Let us suppose that the state is composed of ten thousand citizens. The sovereign can only be considered collectively and as a body; but every private person, in his capacity of subject, is considered as an individual; therefore the sovereign is to be the subject as ten thousand is to one, that is, each member of the state has as his share only one ten-thousandth part of the sovereign authority, although he is entirely subjected to it. If the nation consists of a hundred thousand men, the position of the subjects does not change, and each alike is subjected to the whole authority of the laws, while his vote, reduced to one hundred-thousandth, has ten times less influence in their enact- ment. The subject, then, always remaining a unit, the propor- tional power of the sovereign increases in the ratio of the number of the citizens. Whence it follows that the more the state is enlarged, the more does liberty diminish. When I say that the proportional power increases, I mean that it is farther removed from equality. Therefore, the greater the ratio is in the geometrical sense, the less is the ratio in the common acceptation; in the former, the ratio, considered according to quantity, is measured by the exponent, and in the other, con- sidered according to identity, it is estimated by the similarity. Now, the less the particular wills correspond with the general will, that is, customs with laws, the more should the repressive power be increased. The government, then, in order to be effective, should be relatively stronger in proportion as the people are more numerous. On the other hand, as the aggrandizement of the state gives the depositaries of the public authority more temptations and more opportunities to abuse their power, the more force should the government have to restrain the people, .and the more should the sovereign have in its turn to restrain the government. I do not speak here of absolute force, but of the relative force of the different parts of the state. ROUSSEAU 499 It follows from this double ratio that the continued proportion between the sovereign, the Prince, and the people is not an arbi- trary idea, but a necessary consequence of the nature of the body politic. It follows, further, that one of the extremes, viz. the people, as subject, being fixed and represented by unity, when- ever the double ratio increases or diminishes, the single ratio increases or diminishes in like manner, and consequently the middle term is changed. This shows that there is no unique and absolute constitution of government, but that there may be as many govern- ments different in nature as there are states different in size. If, for the sake of turning this system to ridicule, it should be said that, in order to find this mean proportional and form the body of the government, it is, according to me, only necessary to take a square root of the number of the people, I should answer that I take that number here only as an example; that the ratios of which I speak are not measured only by the number of men, but in general by the quantity of action, which results from the combination of multitudes of causes; that, moreover, if for the purpose of expressing myself in fewer words, I borrow for a moment geometrical terms, I am nevertheless aware that geo- metrical precision has no place in moral quantities. The government is on a small scale what the body politic which includes it is on a large scale. It is a moral person en- dowed with certain faculties, active like the sovereign, passive like the state, and it can be resolved into other similar relations; from which arises as a consequence a new proportion, and yet another within this, according to the order of the magistracies, until we come to an indivisible middle term, that is, to a single chief or supreme magistrate, who may be represented, in the middle of this progression, as unity between the series of fractions and that of the whole numbers. Without embarrassing ourselves with this multiplication of terms, let us be content to consider the government as a new body in the state, distinct from the people and from the sovereign, and intermediate between the two. There is this essential difference between those two bodies, that the state exists by itself, while the government exists only through the sovereign. Thus the dominant will of the Prince is, or ought to be, only the general will, or the law; its force is only the public force concentrated in itself; so soon as it wishes to perform of itself some absolute and independent act the connection of the whole begins to be relaxed. If, lastly, the Prince should chance to have a particular will more active than that of the sovereign, 500 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and if, to enforce obedience to this particular will, it should em- ploy the public force which is in its hands, in such a manner that there would be so to speak two sovereigns, the one de jure and the other de facto, the social union would immediately disappear, and the body politic would be dissolved. Further, in order that the body of the government may have an existence, a real life, to distinguish it from the body of the state; in order that all its members may be able to act in concert and fulfill the object for which it is instituted, a particular personality is necessary to it, a feeling common to its members, a force, a will of its own tending to its preservation. This individual exist- ence supposes assemblies, councils, a power of deliberating and resolving, rights, titles, and privileges which belong to the Prince exclusively, and which render the position of the magistrate more honorable in proportion as it is more arduous. The difficulty lies in the method of disposing, within the whole, this subordinate whole, in such a way that it may not weaken the general constitu- tion in strengthening its own; that its particular force, intended for its own preservation, may always be kept distinct from the public force, designed for the preservation of the state; and, in a word, that it may always be ready to sacrifice the government to the people, and not the people to the government. Moreover, although the artificial body of the government is the work of another artificial body, and has in some respects only a derivative and subordinate existence, that does not prevent it from acting with more or less vigor or celerity, from enjoying, so to speak, more or less robust health. Lastly, without directly departing from the object for which it was instituted, it may deviate from it more or less, according to the manner in which it is constituted. From all these differences arise the different relations which the government must have with the body of the state, so as to accord with the accidental and particular relations by which the state itself is modified. For often the government that is best in itself will become the most vicious, unless its relations are changed so as to meet the defects of the body politic to which it belongs. Ch. ii. The Principle which Constitutes the Different Forms of Government. To explain the general cause of these differences, I must here distinguish the Prince from the government, as I before distin- guished the state from the sovereign. The body of the magistracy may be composed of a greater or ROUSSEAU 501 less number of members. We said that the ratio of the sovereign to the subjects was so much greater as the people were more numerous; and, by an evident analogy, we can say the same of the government with regard to the magistrates. i Now, the total force of the government, being always that of the state, does not vary; whence it follows that the more it employs this force on its own members, the less remains for operating upon the whole people. Consequently, the more numerous the magistrates are, the weaker is the government. As this maxim is fundamental, let us endeavor to explain it more clearly. We can distinguish in the person of the magistrate three wills essentially different: first, the will peculiar to the individual, which tends only to his personal advantage; secondly, the com- mon will of the magistrates, which has reference solely to the advantage of the Prince, and which may be called the corporate will, being general in relation to the government, and particular in relation to the state of which the government forms part; in the third place, the will of the people, or the sovereign will, which is general both in relation to the state considered as the whole, and in relation to the government considered as part of the whole. In a perfect system of legislation the particular or individual will should be inoperative; the corporate will proper to the government quite subordinate; and consequently the general or sovereign will always dominant, and the sole rule of all the rest. On the other hand, according to the natural order, these differ- ent wills become more active in proportion as they are concen- trated. Thus the general will is always the weakest, the cor- porate will has the second rank, and the particular will the first of all; so that in the government each member is, first, himself, next a magistrate, and then a citizen a gradation directly opposed to that which the social order requires. But suppose that the whole government is in the hands of a single man, then the particular will and the corporate will are perfectly united, and consequently the latter is in the highest possible degree of intensity. Now, as it is on the degree of will that the exertion of force depends, and as the absolute power of the government does not vary, it follows that the most active government is that of a single person. On the other hand, let us unite the government with the legis- lative authority; let us make the sovereign the Prince, and all 502 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the citizens magistrates; then the corporate will, confounded with the general will, will have no more activity than the latter, and will leave the particular will in all its force. Thus the govern- ment, always with the same absolute force, will be at its minimum of relative force or activity. These relations are incontestable, and other considerations serve still further to confirm them. We see, for example, that each magistrate is more active in his body than each citizen is in his, and that consequently the particular will has much more influence in the acts of government than in those of the sovereign; for every magistrate is almost always charged with some function of government, whereas each citizen, taken by himself, has no function of sovereignty. Besides, the more a state extends, the more is its real force increased, although it does not increase in proportion to its extent;, but, while the state remains the same, it is useless to multiply magistrates, for the government acquires no greater real force, inasmuch as this force is that of the state, the quantity of which is always uniform. Thus the relative force or activity of the government diminishes without its absolute or real force being able to increase. It is certain, moreover, that the dispatch of business is re- tarded in proportion as more people are charged with it; that, in laying too much stress on prudence, we leave too little to fortune; that opportunities are allowed to pass by, and that owing to excessive deliberation the fruits of deliberation are often lost. I have just shown that the government is weakened in pro- portion to the multiplication of magistrates, and I have before demonstrated that the more numerous the people is, the more ought the repressive force to be increased. Whence it follows that the ratio between the magistrates and the government ought to be inversely as the ratio between the subjects and the sovereign; that is, the more the state is enlarged, the more should the gov- ernment contract; so that the number of chiefs should diminish in proportion as the number of the people is increased. But I speak here only of the relative force of the government, and not of its rectitude; for, on the other hand, the more numer- ous the magistracy is, the more does the corporate will approach the general will; whereas, under a single magistrate, this same corporate will is, as I have said, only a particular will. Thus, what is lost on one side can be gained on the other, and the art of the legislator consists in knowing how to fix the point where the force and will of the government, always in reciprocal pro- ROUSSEAU 503 portion, are combined in the ratio most advantageous to the state. Ch. iii. Classification of Governments. We have seen in the previous chapter why the different kinds or forms of government are distinguished by the number of members that compose them; it remains to be seen in the present chapter how this division is made. / / The sovereign may, in the first place, commit the charge 'of the government to the whole people, or to the greater part of the people, in such a way that there may be more citizens, who are magistrates than simple individual citizens. We call this form of government a democracy. \ Or it may confine the government to a small number, so that there may be more ordinary citizens than magistrates; and this form bears the name of aristocracy. Lastly, it may concentrate the whole government in the hands of a single magistrate from whom all the rest derive their power. This third form is the most common, and is called monarchy, or royal government. We should remark that all these forms, or at least the first two, admit of degrees, and may indeed have a considerable range; for democracy may embrace the whole people, or be limited to a half. Aristocracy, in its turn, may restrict itself from a half of the people to the smallest number indeterminately. Royalty even is susceptible of some division. Sparta by its constitution always had two kings; and in the Roman Empire there were as many as eight Emperors at once without its being possible to say that the Empire was divided. Thus there is a point at which each form of government blends with the next; and we see that, under three denominations only, the government is really susceptible of as many different forms as the state has citizens. What is more, this same government being in certain respects capable of subdivision into other parts, one administered in one way, another in another, there may result from combinations of these three forms a multitude of mixed forms, each of which can be multiplied by all the simple forms. In all ages there has been much discussion about the best form of government, without consideration of the fact that each of them is the best in certain cases, and the worst in others. If, in the different states, the number of the supreme magis- trates should be in inverse ratio to that of the citizens, it follows 504 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY that, in general, democratic government is suitable to small states, aristocracy to those of moderate size, and monarchy to large ones. This rule follows immediately from the principle. But how is it possible to estimate the multitude of circumstances which may furnish exceptions? 5. The Subordination of Government to Sovereign l Ch. xii. How the Sovereign Authority is Maintained. The sovereign, having no other force than the legislative power, acts only through the laws; and the laws being nothing but authentic acts of the general will, the sovereign can act only when the people are assembled. The people assembled, it will be said; what a chimera! It is a chimera to-day; but it was not so two thousand years ago. Have men changed their nature? The limits of the possible in moral things are less narrow than we think; it is our weaknesses, our vices, our prejudices, that con- tract them. Sordid souls do not believe in great men; vile slaves smile with a mocking air at the word liberty. From what has been done let us consider what can be done. I shall not speak of the ancient republics of Greece; but the Roman Republic was, it seems to me, a great state, and the city of Rome a great city. The last census in Rome showed that there were 400,000 citizens bearing arms, and the last enumeration of the Empire showed more than 4,000,000 citizens, without reckoning subjects, foreigners, women, children, and slaves. What a difficulty, we might suppose, there would be in assem- bling frequently the enormous population of the capital and its environs. Yet few weeks passed without the Roman people being assembled, even several times. Not only did they exercise the rights of sovereignty, but a part of the functions of government. They discussed certain affairs and judged certain causes, and in the public assembly the whole people were almost as often magis- trates as citizens. By going back to the early times of nations, we should find that the majority of the ancient governments, even monarchical ones, like those of the Macedonians and the Franks, had similar councils. Be that as it may, this. single incontestable fact solves all diffi- culties; inference from the actual to the possible appears to me sound. "\^ \ I Ch. xiii. uow the Sovereign Authority is Maintained (Continued). It is not sufficient that the assembled people should have once fixed the constitution of the state by giving their sanction to a 1 Bk. Ill, chs. xii-xviiL ROUSSEAU 505 body of laws; it is not sufficient that they should have established a perpetual government, or that they should have once for all provided for the election of magistrates. Besides the extraor- dinary assemblies which unforeseen events may require, it is necessary that there should be fixed and periodical ones which nothing can abolish or prorogue; so that, on the appointed day, the people are rightfully convoked by the law, without needing for that purpose any formal summons. \\ But, excepting these assemblies which are lawful by their date alone, every assembly of the people that has not been convoked by the magistrates appointed for that duty and according to the prescribed forms, ought to be regarded as unlawful and all that is done in it as invalid, because even the order to assemble ought to emanate from the law. As for the more or less frequent meetings of the lawful assem- blies, they depend on so many considerations that no precise rules can be given about them. Only it may be said generally that the more force a government has, the more frequently should the sovereign display itself. This, I shall be told, may be good for a single city; but what is to be done when the state comprises many cities? Will the sovereign authority be divided? Or must it be concentrated in a single city and render subject all the rest? I answer that neither alternative is necessary. In the first place, the sovereign authority is simple and undivided, and we cannot divide it without destroying it. In the second place, a city, no more than a nation, can be lawfully subject to another, because the essence of the body politic consists in the union of obedience and liberty, and these words, subject and sovereign, are correlatives, the notion underlying them being expressed in the one word citizen. I answer, further, that it is always an evil to combine several towns into a single state, and, in desiring to effect such a union, we must not flatter ourselves that we shall avoid the natural inconveniences of it. The abuses of great states cannot be brought as an objection against a man who only desires small ones. But how can small states be endowed with sufficient force to resist great ones? Just in the same way as when the Greek towns of old resisted the Great King, 1 and as more recently Holland and Switzerland have resisted the House of Austria, Y If, however, the state cannot be reduced to proper limits, one /resource still remains; it is not to allow any capital, but to make l The Persian king. 506 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY the government sit alternately in each town, and also to assemble in them by turns the estates of the country. People the territory uniformly, extend the same rights every- where, spread everywhere abundance and life; in this way the state will become at once the strongest and the best governed that may be possible. Remember that the walls of the towns are formed solely of the remains of houses in the country. For every palace that I see rising in the capital, I seem to see a whole rural district laid in ruins. Ch. xiv. How the Sovereign Authority is Maintained (Continued) . So soon as the people are lawfully assembled as a sovereign body, the whole jurisdiction of the government ceases, the execu- tive power is suspended, and the person of the meanest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the first magistrate, because where the represented are, there is no longer any representative. Most of the tumults that arose in Rome in the comitia proceeded from ignorance or neglect of this rule. The consuls were then only presidents of the people and the tribunes simple orators; the senate had no power at all. These intervals of suspension, in which the Prince recognizes or ought to recognize the presence of a superior, have always been dreaded by that power; and these assemblies of the people, which are the shield of the body politic and the curb of the government, have in all ages been the terror of the chief men; hence such men are never wanting in solicitude, objections, obstacles, and promises, in the endeavor to make the citizens disgusted with the assemblies. When the latter are avaricious, cowardly, pusillani- mous, and more desirous of repose than of freedom, they do not long hold out against the repeated efforts of the government ; and thus, as the resisting force constantly increases, the sovereign authority at last disappears, and most of the states decay and perish before their time. But between the sovereign authority and the arbitrary govern- ment there is sometimes introduced an intermediate power of which I must speak. Ch. xv. Deputies or Representatives. If So soon as the service of the state ceases to be the principal business of the citizens, and they prefer to render aid with their purses rather than their persons, the state is already on the brink of ruin. Is it necessary to march to battle, they pay troops and remain at home; is it necessary to go to the council, they elect deputies and remain at home. As a result of indolence and ROUSSEAU 507 wealth, they at length have soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it. V\ It is the bustle of commerce and of the arts, it is the greedy pursuit of gain, it is effeminacy and love of comforts, that com- mute personal services for money. Men sacrifice a portion of their profit in order to increase it at their ease. Give money and soon you will have chains. That word finance is a slaves' word; it is unknown among citizens. In a country that is really free, the citizens do everything with their hands and nothing with money; far from paying for exemption from their duties, they would pay to perform them themselves. I am far removed from ordinary ideas; I believe that statute-labor (les corses) is less repugnant to liberty than taxation is. //The better constituted a state is, the more do public affairs outweigh private ones in the minds of the citizens. There is, indeed, a much smaller number of private affairs, because the amount of the general prosperity furnishes a more considerable portion to that of each individual, and less remains to be sought by individual exertions. In a well-conducted city-state every one . hastens to the assemblies; while under a bad government no one cares to move a step in order to attend them, because no one takes an interest in the proceedings, since it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail; and so at last private concerns become all-absorbing. Good laws pave the way for better ones; bad laws lead to worse ones. As soon as any one says of the affairs of the state, "Of what importance are they to me?" we must consider that the state is lost. \ \ The decline of patriotism, the active pursuit of private interests, the vast size of states, conquests, and the abuses of government, have suggested the plan of deputies or representatives of the people in the assemblies of the nation. It is this which in certain countries they dare to call the third estate. Thus the private interest of two orders is put in the first and second rank, the public interest only in the third. //Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it 'cannot be alienated; it consists essentially in the general will, and the will cannot be represented; it is the same or it is differ- ent; there is no medium. The deputies of the people, then, are not and cannot be its representatives; they are only its com- missioners and can conclude nothing definitely. Every law which the people in person have not ratified is invalid; it is not a law. The English nation thinks that it is free, but is greatly mistaken, for it is so only during the election of members of 508 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved and counts for nothing. The use which it makes of the brief moments of freedom renders the loss of liberty well deserved. |^ The idea of representatives is modern; it comes to us from feudal government, that absurd and iniquitous government, under which mankind is degraded and the name of man dis- honored. In the republics, and even in the monarchies, of antiquity, the people never had representatives; they did not know the word. It is very singular that in Rome, where the tribunes were so sacred, it was not even imagined that they could usurp the functions of the people, and in the midst of so great a multitude, they never attempted to pass of their own accord a single plebiscituml'\W Q ma Y judge, however, of the embarrass- ment which the crowd sometimes caused from what occurred in the time of the Gracchi, when a part of the citizens gave their votes on the house-tops. But where right and liberty are all in all, inconveniences are nothing. In that wise nation everything was estimated at a true value; it allowed the lictors to do what the tribunes had not dared to do, and was not afraid that the lictors would want to represent it. To explain, however, in what manner the tribunes sometimes represented it, it is sufficient to understand how the government represents the sovereign/ ; The law being nothing but the dec- laration of the general -'will, it is clear that in their legislative capacity the people cannot be represented; but they can and should be represented in the executive power, which is only force applied to law. This shows that very few nations would, upon careful examination, be found to have laws. Be that as it may, it is certain that the tribunes, having no share in the executive power, could never represent the Roman people by right of their office, but only by encroaching on the rights of the senate. //Among the Greeks, whatever the people had to do, they did themselves; they were constantly assembled in the public place. They lived in a mild climate and they were not avaricious; slaves performed the manual labor; the people's great business was liberty. \\ Not having the same advantages, how are you to pre- serve the same rights? Your more rigorous climates give you more wants; for six months in a year the public place is untenable, and your hoarse voices cannot be heard in the open air. You care more for gain than for liberty, and you fear slavery far less than you do misery. What! is liberty maintained only with the help of slavery? ROUSSEAU 509 Perhaps; extremes meet. Everything which is not according to nature has its inconveniences, and civil society more than all the rest. There are circumstances so unfortunate that people can preserve their freedom only at the expense of that of others, and the citizen cannot be completely free except when the slave is enslaved to the utmost. Such was the position of Sparta. As for you, modern nations, you have no slaves, but you are slaves; you pay for their freedom with your own. In vain do you boast of this preference; I find in it more of cowardice than of humanity. I do not mean by all this that slaves are necessary and that the right of slavery is lawful, since I have proved the contrary; I only mention the reasons why modern nations who believe themselves free have representatives, and why ancient nations had none. Be that as it may, as soon as a nation appoints representatives, it is no longer free; it no longer exists. / / After very careful consideration I do not see that it is possible Henceforward for the sovereign to preserve among us the exer- cise of its rights unless the state is very small. But if it is small, will it not be subjugated? No; I shall show hereafter how the external power of a great nation can be combined with the convenient polity and good order of a small state, ll )l f Ch. xvi. That the Institution of the Government is not a Contract. The legislative power being once well established, the question is to establish also the executive power; for this latter, which operates only by particular acts, not being of the essence of the other, is naturally separated from it. If it were possible that the sovereign, considered as such, should have the executive power, law and fact would be so confounded that it could no longer be known what is law and what is not; and the body politic, thus perverted, would soon become a prey to the violence against which it was instituted. The citizens being all equal by the social contract, all can prescribe what all ought to do, while no one has a right to de- mand that another should do what he will not do himself. Now, it is properly this right, indispensable to make the body politic live and move, which the sovereign gives to the Prince in establish- ing the government. Several have pretended that the instrument in this establish- ment is a contract between the people and the chiefs whom they set over themselves a contract by which it is stipulated be- tween the two parties on what conditions the one binds itself to rule, the other to obey. It will be agreed, I am sure, that this 510 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY is a strange method of contracting. But let us see whether such a position is tenable. First, the supreme authority can no more be modified than alienated; to limit it is to destroy it. It is absurd and contra- dictory that the sovereign should acknowledge a superior; to bind itself to obey a master is to regain full liberty. Further, it is evident that this contract of the people with such or such persons is a particular act; whence it follows that the contract cannot be a law nor an act of sovereignty, and that con- sequently it is unlawful. Moreover, we see that the contracting parties themselves would be under the law of nature alone, and without any security for the performance of their reciprocal engagements, which is in every way repugnant to the civil state. He who possesses the power being always capable of executing it, we might as well give the name contract to the act of a man who should say to another: "I give you all my property, on condition that you restore me what you please." There is but one contract in the state that of association; and this of itself excludes any other. No public contract can be conceived which would not be a violation of the first. Ch. xvii. The Institution of the Government. Under what general notion, then, must be included the act by which the government is instituted? I shall observe first that this act is complex, or composed of two others, viz. the establish- ment of the law and the execution of the law. By the first, the sovereign determines that there shall be a governing body established in such or such a form; and it is clear that this act is a law. By the second, the people nominate the chiefs who will be intrusted with the government when established. Now, this nomination being a particular act, is not a second law, but only a consequence of the first, and a function of the government. The difficulty is to understand how there can be an act of government before the government exists, and how the people, who are only sovereign or subjects, can, in certain circumstances, become the Prince or the magistrates. Here, however, is disclosed one of those astonishing properties of the body politic, by which it reconciles operations apparently contradictory; for this is effected by a sudden conversion of sovereignty into democracy in such a manner that, without any perceptible change, and merely by a new relation of all to all, ROUSSEAU 511 the citizens, having become magistrates, pass from general acts to particular acts, and from the law to the execution of it. This change of relation is not a subtlety of speculation without example in practice; it occurs every day in the Parliament of England, in which the Lower House on certain occasions resolves itself into Grand Committee in order to discuss business better, and thus becomes a simple commission instead of the sovereign court that it was the moment before. In this way it afterwards reports to itself, as the House of Commons, what it has just decided in Grand Committee. Such is the advantage peculiar to a democratic government, that it can be established in fact by a simple act of the general will; and after this, the provisional government remains in power, should that be the form adopted, or establishes in the name of the sov- ereign the government prescribed by the law; and thus everything is according to rule. It is impossible to institute the government in any other way that is legitimate without renouncing the prin- ciples heretofore established. Ch. xviii. Means of Preventing Usurpations of the Government. From these explanations it follows, in confirmation of chapter xvi, that the act which institutes the government is not a contract, but a law; that the depositaries of the executive power are not the masters of the people, but its officers; that the people can appoint them and dismiss them at pleasure; that for them it is not a question of contracting, but of obeying; and that in undertaking the functions which the state imposes on them, they simply fulfill their duty as citizens, without having in any way a right to discuss the conditions. When, therefore, it happens that the people institute a heredi- tary government, whether monarchical in a family or aristocratic in one order of citizens, it is not an engagement that they make, but a provisional form which they give to the administration, until they please to regulate it differently. It is true that such changes are always dangerous, and that the established government must never be touched except when it becomes incompatible with the public good; but this circum- spection is a maxim of policy, not a rule of right; and the state is no more bound to leave the civil authority to its chief men than the military authority to its generals. Moreover, it is true that in such a case all the formalities requisite to distinguish a regular and lawful act from a seditious tumult, and the will of a whole people from the clamors of a 512 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY faction, cannot be too carefully observed. It is especially in this case that only such concessions should be made as cannot in strict justice be refused; and from this obligation also the Prince derives a great advantage in preserving its power in spite of the people, without their being able to say that it has usurped the power; for while appearing to exercise nothing but its rights, it may very easily extend them, and, under pretext of maintaining the public peace, obstruct the assemblies designed to reestablish good order; so that it takes advantage of a silence which it pre- vents from being broken, or of irregularities which it causes to be committed, so as to assume in its favor the approbation of those whom fear renders silent and punish those that dare to speak. It is in this way that the Decemvirs, having at first been elected for one year, and then kept in office for another year, attempted to retain their power in perpetuity by no longer permitting the comitia to assemble; and it is by this easy method that all the governments in the world, when once invested with the public force, usurp sooner or later the sovereign authority. The periodical assemblies of which I have spoken before are fitted to prevent or postpone this evil, especially when they need no formal convocation; for then the Prince cannot interfere with them, without openly proclaiming itself a violator of the laws and an enemy of the state. These assemblies, which have as their object the maintenance of the social treaty, ought always to be opened with two proposi- tions, which no one should be able to suppress, and which should pass separately by vote. The first: " Whether it pleases the sovereign to maintain the present form of government." The second: " Whether it pleases the people to leave the ad- ministration to those at present intrusted with it." I presuppose here what I believe that I have proved, viz. that there is in the state no fundamental law which cannot be revoked, not even the social compact; for if all the citizens assembled in order to break this compact by a solemn agreement, no one can doubt that it would be quite legitimately broken. Grotius even thinks that each man can renounce the state of which he is a member, and regain his natural freedom and his property by quitting the country. Now it would be absurd if all the citizens combined should be unable to do what each of them can do separately. ROUSSEAU 513 SELECTED REFERENCES Life and Times: Morley, Rousseau, 2 vols. Saint-Marc-Girardin, Jean Jacques Rousseau, sa vie el ses ouvrages. 2 tomes. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de I'Europe, dix-huitieme siecle, pp. 285-300. Exposition and Criticism: Dunning, "Rousseau's Political Theories," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXIV (1909), pp. 377-408. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 79-84. Tozer, "Introduction " in Rousseau's Social Contract. Franck, Reformateurs et publicistes de I'Europe, dix-huitieme siecle, pp. 301- 379- Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 415-477. Bluntschli, Geschichle der Staatstheorien, pp. 334-362. Rpdet, Le Conlrat social et les idees politiques de J. J. Rousseau. Ritchie, "Contributions to the History of the Social Contract Theory," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI (1891), pp. 656-676. Champion, /. /. Rousseau et la revolution fran$aise. Faguet, La Politique comparee de Montesquieu, Rousseau et Voltaire. PAINE XIX. THOMAS PAINE (1737-1809) INTRODUCTION The opposition of the American colonists to the policies of the British government in the eighteenth century brought forth little in the way of original or constructive statement of abstract political theory. However, the controversies upon the eve of the Revolution were the occasion for Common Sense, the first impor- tant work of the Anglo-American political writer Thomas Paine. In a later work The Rights of Man, Paine gave a more absolute and intense expression to the doctrine of popular and limited gov- ernment than has ever been given by any English writer. Paine was born in a town of Norfolk county, England, in 1737, the son of a Quaker stay-maker. He received no academic train- ing beyond the grammar school, which he left in his fourteenth year. During the following twenty-five years he pursued several occupations with no great success at any one. After spending a few years at sea he followed his father's vocation at London and other places; and twice he held an appointment as collector of ex- cise taxes, having to relinquish each time this latter office because of the careless execution of his work. In London he attended scientific lectures; and in a small town in which he lived for a while he took part in the debates of a local Whig club. He made the acquaintance of Benjamin Franklin in London, and when he came to America in 1774 he brought with him a letter of introduction from Franklin. Paine remained in America for thirteen years and took active part in political life here. He assisted in the editorship of the "Pennsylvania Magazine," 1 and wrote in defense of woman's rights, in opposition to slavery, and in advocacy of war against England. In 1776 he published the pamphlet entitled Common Sense. In this he urged separation from England and the insti- tution of a republican government ; he demonstrated the superior- ity of republican to hereditary government from the standpoints of both justice and utility, basing his argument upon an examina- tion of the origin and purpose of civil government in general. 1 Founded in 1775. 517 518 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY This work as well as other pamphlets written along the same line at irregular intervals during the next few years under the title of " The Crisis," met with extreme popularity; and they were undoubtedly influential in stimulating and confirming the political passions of the colonists. During the war and the early years of the Confederation he served on several diplomatic missions and in other public positions. Returning to England in 1787, Paine became involved there in the controversy between radicals and conservatives, and wrote a pamphlet attacking Pitt's war plans against France. In lyfl he published the first part of the Rights of Man; this was written as a reply to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, which had appeared shortly before. The government endeavored to suppress the Rights of Man; and Paine was indicted for treason, and was subsequently tried and convicted in his absence. Meanwhile he had departed to France, where he took part in the Constitutional Convention of 1793. He suffered a brief period of imprisonment after the fall of the Girondists, having incurred the hostility of the Jacobins by reason of his opposition to their excessive policies. After the fall of Robespierre he was freed, through the intervention of Monroe, Minister from the United States, and he resumed work in the Convention. While in prison he completed his Age of Reason, which is an exposition of deism and comprises a vigorous criticism of the orthodox and ceremonial form of Christianity. Paine returned to the United States in 1802, where he spent the last five years of his life. His popularity among the American people had greatly declined by reason of a letter, written some years before, in which he strongly disparaged Washington's record as a military leader and his policies as president. Paine 's un- orthodox religious views had also affected unfavorably his repu- tation here. READINGS FROM COMMON SENSE AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN 1. The Rights of Man * The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from an- tiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go 1 The selections are taken from The Writings of Thomas Paine, collected and edited by Moncure Daniel Con way; four volumes; New York, 1894-5. By courtesy of G. P. Putnam's Sons. 2 The Rights of Man (Conway, Vol. II), pp. 303-307. PAINE 519 far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contra- dicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter. We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in which the world has been gov- erned from that day to this, it is no further any concern of ours than to make a proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns, as we are now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn. If the mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago. The fact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving everything, establish nothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the rights of man at the creation. Here our inquiries find a resting- place, and our reason finds a home. If a dispute about the rights of man had arisen at the distance of an hundred years from the creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred, and it is to this same source of authority that we must now refer. Though I mean not to touch upon any sectarian principle of religion, yet it may be worth observing, that the genealogy of Christ is traced to Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation of man? I will answer the question. Because there have been upstart governments, thrusting themselves between, and presumptuously working to un-make man. If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed forever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up. The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of 520 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary. Every history of the creation, and every traditionary account, whether from the lettered or unlettered world, however they may vary in their opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean that men are all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural right, in the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation instead of generation, the latter being the only mode by which the former is carried for- ward; and consequently every child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind. The Mosaic account of the creation, whether taken as divine authority or merely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of man. The expression admits of no controversy. "And God said, Let us make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The distinction of sexes is pointed out, but no other distinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at least historical authority, and shows that the equality of man, so far from being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record. ' It is also to be observed that all the religions known in the world are founded, so far as they relate to man, on the unity of man, as being all of one degree. Whether in heaven or in hell, or in whatever state man may be supposed to exist hereafter, the good and the bad are the only distinctions. Nay, even the laws of governments are obliged to slide into this principle, by making degrees to consist in crimes and not in persons. It is one of the greatest of all truths, and of the highest ad- vantage to cultivate. By considering man in this light, and by instructing him to consider himself in this light, it places him in a close connection with all his duties, whether to his Creator or to the creation, of which he is a part; and it is only when he for- gets his origin, or, to use a more fashionable phrase, his birth and family, that he becomes dissolute. It is not among the least of the evils of the present existing governments in all parts of Europe that man, considered as man, is thrown back to a vast distance from his Maker, and the artificial chasm filled up with a succession of barriers, or sort of turnpike gates, through which he PAINE 521 has to pass. I will quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says: "We fear God we look with awe to kings with affection to Parliaments with duty to magis- trates with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility." Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in "chivalry." He has also for- gotten to put in Peter. The duty of man is not a wilderness of turnpike gates, through which he is to pass by tickets from one to the other. It is plain and simple, and consists but of two points. His duty to God, which every man must feel; and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by. If those to whom power is delegated do well, they will be respected: if not, they will be despised; and with regard to those to whom no power is delegated, but who assume it, the rational world can know nothing of them. Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was be- fore, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights. A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right preexisting in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently com- petent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection. * From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society. The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of 522 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY those rights. The natural rights which are not retained are those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never sur- renders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right. From these premises two or three certain conclusions will follow: First. That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged. Secondly. That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus be- comes competent to the purpose of every one. Thirdly. That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself. 2. The Origin and Sphere of Government l Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an in- tolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country with- out government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we 1 Common Sense (Conway, Vol. I), pp. 69-71, and Rights of Man, Part Second (Conway, Vol. II), pp. 406-409. PAINE 523 furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to insure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.! In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing anything; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die. Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue. 524 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliber- ate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habita- tions near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legis- lative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue increasing, it will become neces- sary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed. Here then is the origin and rise of government ; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Free- dom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right. Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was PAINE 525 abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains have a greater in- fluence than the laws of government. In fine society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government. To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she in- tended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center. But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essen- tial to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being. If we examine with attention into the composition and con- stitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to pre- serve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition. Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently com- petent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government. For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it em- 526 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY braces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommo- date itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general associa- tion takes place, and common interest produces common security. So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it has committed to its government devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or con- venient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it. Formal government makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is estab- lished, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilization to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilized man it is to these things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depend. The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the prin- ciples are that first condense men into society, and what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other. Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. PAINE 527 Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the inter- course of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and recipro- cal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose. But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent. j. Representative and Republican Government l Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. The two modes of the government which prevail in the world are, first, government by election and representation: secondly, government by hereditary succession. The former is generally known by the name of republic; the latter by that of monarchy and aristocracy. Those two distinct and opposite forms erect themselves on the two distinct and opposite bases of Reason and Ignorance. As the exercise of government requires talents and abilities, and as talents and abilities cannot have hereditary descent, it is evident that hereditary succession requires a belief from man to which his reason cannot subscribe, and which can only be established upon his ignorance; and the more ignorant any country is, the better it is fitted for this species of government. On the contrary, government, in a well-constituted republic, requires no belief from man beyond what his reason can give. He sees the rationale of the whole system, its origin and its opera- tion; and as it is best supported when best understood, the human faculties act with boldness, and acquire, under this form of government, a gigantic manliness. As, therefore, each of those forms acts on a different base, the one moving freely by the aid of reason, the other by ignorance, we have next to consider what it is that gives motion to that species of government which is called mixed government, or, as 1 Rights of Man (Conway, Vol. II), pp. 382-383, 385-386, and Rights of Man, Part Second (ibid.}, pp. 421-422. 528 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY it is sometimes ludicrously styled, a government of this, that and t'other. The moving power in this species of government is, of necessity, corruption. However imperfect election and representation may be in mixed governments, they still give exercise to a greater portion of reason than is convenient to the hereditary part; and therefore it becomes necessary to buy the reason up. A mixed government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. Mr. Burke appears highly disgusted that France, since she had resolved on a revolution, did not adopt what he calls "A British Constitution"', and the regretful manner in which he expresses himself on this occasion implies a suspicion that the British Con- stitution needed something to keep its defects in countenance. .-- In mixed governments there is no responsibility; the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost ; and the corruption which moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape. When it is laid down as a maxim that a King can do no wrong, it places him in a state of similar security with that of ideots and persons insane, and responsibility is out of the question with respect to himself. It then descends upon the Minister, who shelters himself under a majority in Parliament, which, by places, pensions, and corruption, he can always command; and that majority justifies itself by the same authority with which it pro- tects the Minister. In this rotatory motion, responsibility is thrown off from the parts, and from the whole. "* What is government more than the management of the affairs of a nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expence it is supported; and though by force and con- trivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only, and not to any individual; and a nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happi- ness. The romantic and barbarous distinction of men into kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal sub- jection; and his obedience can be only to the laws. PAINE 529 When men think of what government is, they must necessarily suppose it to possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its authority is to be exercised. In this view of government, the republican system, as established by America and France, operates to embrace the whole of a nation ; and the knowledge necessary to the interest of all the parts is to be found in the center, which the parts by representation form. But the old governments are on a construction that excludes knowledge as well as happiness; government by monks, who knew nothing of the. world beyond the walls of a convent, is as consistent as gov- ernment by kings. What were formerly called revolutions, were little more than a change of persons, or an alteration of local circumstances. They rose and fell like things of course, and had nothing in their existence or their fate that could influence beyond the spot that produced them. But what we now see in the world, from the revolutions of America and France, are a renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as universal as truth and the existence of man, and combining moral with political happiness and national prosperity. "I. Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility. "II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression. "III. The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; nor can any INDIVIDUAL, or ANY BODY OF MEN, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it." It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court- governments to abuse something which they called republican- ism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case. The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristo- cratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representa- tive. What is called a republic is not any particular form of govern- ment. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, RES-PUBLICA, the public affairs, or the pub- lic good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and 530 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY business of government ; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object. Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or, in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and con- ducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it. ' Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its govern- ment has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that THIS, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of government, for a form of govern- ment; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democra- cies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple demo- cratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is sub- ject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject. It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally estab- PAINE 531 lished to any extent of territory. This is no more than an opera- tion of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into igno- rance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a sub- stitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences. Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and ideots, and all the motley insignifi- cance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man. As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them. Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge. Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon de- mocracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature. It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. 532 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy. It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of repre- sentation. France, great and populous as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy. That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concen- trates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant ma- turity. It is, as has already been observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage nor dotage. It is never in the cradle nor on crutches. It admits not of a separation between knowledge and power, and is superior, as government always ought to be, to all the accidents of individual man, and is therefore superior to what is called monarchy. / SELECTED REFERENCES Life: Con way, The Life of Thomas Paine. Two volumes. Stephen, Leslie, "Thomas Paine," in Dictionary of National Biography. Exposition and Criticism: Merriam, "Thomas Paine's Political Theories," in Political Science Quar- terly, Vol. XIV (189?), pp. 389-403. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, Vol. II, pp. 694-96. BENTHAM XX, JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832) INTRODUCTION We take our final reading from the work of a leading English philosopher of law and morals, Jeremy Bentham. His primary interest was not so much in systematic political theory, or in constitutional reform, as in revision of governmental practice. His great influence has been within the fields of ethics and juris- prudence, and, on the practical side, in reforms in methods of legis- lation and administration. Bentham was the son of a successful London attorney. His predominantly intellectual interests were revealed in his early youth. He entered Oxford in his fourteenth year, receiving his bachelor's degree three years later, and his master's degree when nineteen years of age. He engaged in legal practice for a brief period, with very little activity or interest in that work. An inherited fortune relieved him of the necessity of pursuing a regular vocation, and his long life was devoted to study, observation and writing in his favorite fields. Bentham's great practical aim was to secure the application of ethical and rational principles to governmental action as mani- fested in the formulation, expression, recording and enforcement of law. His theoretical interest in private conduct was directed chiefly to that part of private conduct that is subject to control by civil law. His fundamental idea in ethics and jurisprudence is the principle of utility, or of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. He did not originate doctrines in these domains; but he stated and expounded principles in such way as to make almost axiomatic many doctrines which before him enjoyed limited ac- ceptance and understanding. His first book was published anonymously in 1776; the design of this work is indicated in the title A Fragment on Government; Being an Examination of what is delivered, on the Subject of Government in General, in the Intro- duction to Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries; with a Preface in which is given a Critique on the Work at large. Its attack is directed primarily against the conservative temper and logical fallacies of Blackstone's Commentaries. The work in general is 535 536 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a destructive criticism of prevailing ideas in political theory and jurisprudence, particularly the doctrines of natural rights and social contract. But the principle of utility receives positive statement as the all-sufficient foundation of sovereignty and po- litical obligation. The author's numerous subsequent books and pamphlets 1 are the product of his vigorous and broad interest in legal, administrative and fiscal advancement, and in the criticism of prevailing tenets in religion and morals. In 1823 Bentham took part in the foundation of the West- minster Review, which became the leading journal of political and religious radicalism. He worked for his various projects not only through books and pamphlets, but also by more direct means, as, for example, through a very extensive correspondence. In this more direct agitation he was especially interested in the codification of law, in the improvement of the process of legislation, in the removal of abuses from legal procedure, and in prison reform. Bentham's greater influence in political theory comes from his critical discussion, from his logical method, and from his emphasis upon the utilitarian motive of political institutions and upon the utilitarian standard for judging and amending such institutions. The basis of his more important ideas was given in his Fragment on Government. Here also his precision and clearness of method and expression are seen to best effect. The readings selected from this work embody his definition of political society, his criticism of the social-contract theory, and his statement of the principle of utility as the ground and limit of sovereignty. READINGS FROM A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT 2 1. The Distinction Between Political and Natural Society 3 X. The idea of a natural society is a negative one. The idea of a political society is a positive one. 'Tis with the latter, there- fore, we should begin. When a number of persons (whom we may style subjects) are 1 For titles of these, cf. the Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 279-280. 2 The selections are from A Fragment on Government, by Jeremy Bentham. Edited by F. C. Montague. Oxford, 1891. By permission of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. A few of Bentham's foot-notes are reproduced. 3 Ch. I, pars, x-xvii, xix-xxvii. BENTHAM 537 supposed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person, or an assemblage of persons, of a known and certain description (whom we may call governor or governors) such persons altogether (sub- jects and governors) are said to be in a state of political SOCIETY. XI. The idea of a state of natural SOCIETY is, as we have said, a negative one. When a number of persons are supposed to be in the habit of conversing with each other, at the same time that they are not in any such habit as mentioned above, they are said to be in a state of natural SOCIETY. XII. If we reflect a little, we shall perceive, that, between these two states, there is not that explicit separation which these names, and these definitions might teach one, at first sight, to expect. It is with them as with light and darkness: however distinct the ideas may be, that are, at first mention, suggested by those names, the things themselves have no determinate bound to separate them. The circumstance that has been spoken of as constituting the difference between these two states, is the presence or absence of an habit of obedience. This habit, accord- ingly, has been spoken of simply as present (that is, as being per- fectly present) or, in other words, we have spoken as if there were a perfect habit of obedience, in the one case: it has been spoken of simply as absent (that is, as being perfectly absent) or, in other words, we have spoken as if there were no habit of obedience at all, in the other. But neither of these manners of speaking, perhaps, is strictly just. Few, in fact, if any, are the instances of this habit being perfectly absent; certainly none at all, of its being perfectly present. Governments accordingly, in propor- tion as the habit of obedience is more perfect, recede from, in proportion as it is less perfect, approach to, a state of nature: and instances may present themselves in which it shall be difficult to say whether a habit, perfect, in the degree in which, to consti- tute a government, it is deemed necessary it should be perfect, does subsist or not. XIII. On these considerations, the supposition of a perfect state of nature, or, as it may be termed, a state of society perfectly natural, may, perhaps, be justly pronounced, what our Author for the moment seemed to think it, an extravagant supposition: but then that of a government in this sense perfect; or, as it may be termed, a state of society perfectly political, a state of perfect political union, a state of perfect submission in the subject of perfect authority in the governor, is no less so. 1 1 It is true that every person must, for some time, at least, after his birth, necessarily be in a state of subjection with respect to his parents, or those who 538 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY XIV. A remark there is, which, for the more thoroughly clearing up of our notions on this subject, it may be proper here to make. To some ears, the phrases, " state of nature," "state of political society," may carry the appearance of being absolute in their signification : as if the condition of a man, or a company of men, in one of these states, or in the other, were a matter that depended altogether upon themselves. But this is not the case. To the expression "state of nature," no more than to the ex- pression "state of political society," can any precise meaning be annexed, without reference to a party different from that one who is spoken of as being in the state in question. This will readily be perceived. The difference between the two states lies, as we have observed, in the habit of obedience. With respect then to a habit of obedience, it can neither be understood as subsisting in any person, nor as not subsisting in any person, but with refer- ence to some other person. For one party to obey, there must be another party that is obeyed. But this party who is obeyed, may at different times be different. Hence may one and the same party be conceived to obey and not to obey at the same time, so as it be with respect to different persons, or as we may say, to different objects of obedience. Hence it is, then, that one and the same party may be said to be in a state of nature, and not to be in a state of nature, and that at one and the same time, according as it is stand in the place of parents to him; and that a perfect one, or at least as near to being a perfect one, as any that we see. But for all this, the sort of society that is constituted by a state of subjection thus circumstanced, does not come up to the idea that, I believe, is generally entertained by those who speak of a political society. To constitute what is meant in general by that phrase, a greater number of members is required, or, at least, a duration capable of a longer continuance. Indeed, for this purpose nothing less, I take it, than an indefinite duration is required. A society, to come within the notion of what is originally meant by a political one, must be such as, in its nature, is not inca- pable of continuing for ever in virtue of the principles which gave it birth. This, it is plain, is not the case with such a family society, of which a parent, or a pair of parents are at the head. In such a society, the only principle of union which is certain and uniform in its operation, is the natural weakness of those of its members that are in a state of subjection; that is, the children; a principle which has but a short and limited continuance. I question whether it be the case even with a family society, subsisting in virtue of collateral consan- guinity; and that for the like reason. Not but that even in this case a habit of obedience, as perfect as any we see examples of, may subsist for a time; to wit, in virtue of the same moral principles which may protract a habit of filial obe- dience beyond the continuance of the physical ones which gave birth to it: I mean affection, gratitude, awe, the force of habit, and the like. But it is not long, even in this case, before the bond of connection must either become im- perceptible, or lose its influence by being too extended. These considerations, therefore, it will be proper to bear in mind in applying the definition of political society above given [in par. 10] and in order to recon- cile it with what is said further on [in par. 17]. BENTHAM 639 this or that party that is taken for the other object of comparison. The case is, that in common speech, when no particular object of comparison is specified, all persons in general are intended: so that when a number of persons are said simply to be in a state of nature, what is understood is, that they are so as well with refer- ence to one another, as to all the world. XV. In the same manner we may understand how the same man, who is governor with respect to one man or set of men, may be subject with respect to another: how among governors some may be in a perfect state of nature, with respect to each other: as the KINGS of FRANCE and SPAIN: others, again, in a state of perfect subjection, as the HOSPODARS of WALACHIA and MOLDAVIA with respect to the GRAND SIGNIOR: others, again, in a state of manifest but imperfect subjection, as the GERMAN STATES with respect to the EMPEROR: others, again, in such a state in which it may be difficult to determine whether they are in a state of imperfect subjection or in a perfect state of nature: as the KING of NAPLES with respect to the POPE. XVI. In the same manner, also, it may be conceived, without entering into details, how any single person, born, as all persons are, into a state of perfect subjection to his parents, that is into a state of perfect political society with respect to his parents, may from thence pass into a perfect state of nature; and from thence successively into any number of different states of political society more or less perfect, by passing into different societies. XVII. In the same manner also it may be conceived how, in any political society, the same man may, with respect to the same individuals, be, at different periods, and on different occasions, alternately, in the state of governor and subject: to-day concurring, perhaps active, in the business of issuing a general command for the observance of the whole society, amongst the rest of another man in quality of Judge: to-morrow, punished, perhaps, by a particular command of that same Judge for not obeying the gen- eral command which he himself (I mean the person acting in character of governor) had issued. I need scarce remind the reader how happily this alternate state of authority and sub- mission is exemplified among ourselves. XIX. In the same manner, also, it may be conceived, how the same set of men considered among themselves, may at one time be in a state of nature, at another time in a state of government. For the habit of obedience, in whatever degree of perfection it be necessary it should subsist in order to constitute a government, 540 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY may be conceived, it is plain, to suffer interruptions. At different junctures it may take place and cease. XX. Instances of this state of things appear not to be unfre- quent. The sort of society that has been observed to subsist among the AMERICAN INDIANS may afford us one. According to the accounts we have of those people, in most of their tribes, if not in all, the habit we are speaking of appears to be taken up only in time of war. It ceases again in time of peace. The necessity of acting in concert against a common enemy, subjects a whole tribe to the orders of a common chief. On the return of peace each warrior resumes his pristine independence. XXI. One difficulty there is that still sticks by us. It has been started indeed, but not solved. This is to find a note of distinction, a characteristic mark, whereby to distinguish a society in which there is a habit of obedience, and that at the degree of perfection which is necessary to constitute a state of government, from a society in which there is not: a mark, I mean, which shall have a visible determinate commencement; inso- much that the instant of its first appearance shall be distin- guishable from the last at which it has not as yet appeared. 'Tis only by the help of such a mark that we can be in a condition to determine, at any given time, whether any given society is in a state of government, or in a state of nature. I can find no such mark, I must confess, anywhere, unless it be this; the establish- ment of names of office: the appearance of a certain man, or set of men, with a certain name, serving to mark them out as objects of obedience: such as King, Sachem, Cacique, Senator, Burgo- master, and the like. This, I think, may serve tolerably well to distinguish a set of men in a state of political union among them- selves from the same set of men not yet in such a state. XXII. But suppose an incontestable political society, and that a large one, formed; and from that a smaller body to break off: by this breach the smaller body ceases to be in a state of political union with respect to the larger: and has thereby placed itself, with respect to that larger body, in a state of nature What means shall we find of ascertaining the precise juncture at which this change took place? What shall be taken for the characteristic mark in this case? The appointment, it may be said, of new governors with new names. But no such appoint- ment, suppose, takes place. The subordinate governors, from whom alone the people at large were in use to receive their com- mands under the old government, are the same from whom they receive them under the new one. The habit of obedience which BENTHAM 541 these subordinate governors were in with respect to that single person, we will say, who was the supreme governor of the whole, is broken off insensibly and by degrees. The old names by which these subordinate governors were characterized, while they were subordinate, are continued now they are supreme. In this case it seems rather difficult to answer. XXIII. If an example be required, we may take that of the DUTCH provinces with respect to SPAIN. These provinces were once branches of the Spanish monarchy. They have now, for a long time, been universally spoken of as independent states: independent as well of that of Spain as of every other. They are now in a state of nature with respect to Spain. They were once in a state of political union with respect to Spain: namely, in a state of subjection to a single governor, a King, who was King of Spain. At what precise juncture did the dissolution of this political union take place? At what precise time did these provinces cease to be subject to the King of Spain? This, I doubt, will be rather difficult to agree upon. 1 XXIV. Suppose the defection to have begun, not by entire provinces, as in the instance just mentioned, but by a handful of fugitives, this augmented by the accession of other fugitives, and so, by degrees, to a body of men too strong to be reduced, the difficulty will be increased still farther. At what precise juncture was it that ancient ROME, or that modern VENICE, became an independent state? XXV. In general then, at what precise juncture is it, that persons subject to a government, become, by disobedience, with respect to that government, in a state of nature? When is it, in short, that a revolt shall be deemed to have taken place; and when, again, is it, that that revolt shall be deemed to such a degree successful, as to have settled into independence? XXVI. As it is the obedience of individuals that constitutes a state of submission, so is it their disobedience that must con- stitute a state of revolt. Is it then every act of disobedience that will do as much? The affirmative, certainly, is what can never be maintained: for then would there be no such thing as govern- ment to be found anywhere. Here then a distinction or two obviously presents itself. Disobedience may be distinguished into conscious or unconscious: and that, with respect as well to the law as to the fact. Disobedience that is unconscious with 1 Upon recollection, I have some doubt whether this example would be found historically exact. If not, that of the defection of the Nabobs of Hindostan may answer the purpose. My first choice fell upon the former; supposing it to be rather better known. 542 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY respect to either, will readily, I suppose, be acknowledged not to be a revolt. Disobedience again that is conscious with respect to both, may be distinguished into secret and open; or, in other words, into fraudulent and forcible.*- Disobedience that is only fraudulent, will likewise, I suppose, be readily acknowledged not to amount to a revolt. XXVII. The difficulty that will remain will concern such disobedience only as is both conscious (and that as well with respect to law as fact) and forcible. This disobedience, it should seem, is to be determined neither by numbers altogether (that is, of the persons supposed to be disobedient) nor by acts, nor by intentions: all three may be fit to be taken into consideration. But having brought the difficulty to this point, at this point I must be content to leave it. To proceed any farther in the en- deavor to solve it, would be to enter into a discussion of particular local jurisprudence. It would be entering upon the definition of Treason, as distinguished from Murder, Robbery, Riot, and other such crimes, as, in comparison with Treason, are spoken of as being of a more private nature. Suppose the definition of Treason settled, and the commission of an act of Treason is, as far as regards the person committing it, the characteristic mark we are in search of. 2. Criticism of the Social-contract Theory. The Utilitarian Basis of Political Society 2 XXXVI. As to the original contract, by turns embraced and ridiculed by our Author, a few pages, perhaps, may not be ill bestowed in endeavoring to come to a precise notion about its reality and use. The stress laid on it formerly, and still, per- haps, by some, is such as renders it an object not undeserving of attention. I was in hopes, however, till I observed the notice taken of it by our Author, that this chimera had been effectually demolished by Mr. Hume. I think we hear not so much of it now as formerly. The indestructible prerogatives of mankind have no need to be supported upon the sandy foundation of a fiction. XXXVII. With respect to this, and other fictions, there was 1 If examples be thought necessary, Theft may serve for an example of fraudulent disobedience; Robbery of forcible. In Theft, the person of the dis- obedient party, and the act of disobedience, are both endeavored to be kept secret. In Robbery, the act of disobedience, at least, if not the person of him who disobeys, is manifest and avowed. 2 Ch. I, pars, xxxvi-xlviii. BENTHAM 543 once a time, perhaps, when they had their use. With instruments of this temper, I will not deny but that some political work may have been done, and that useful work, which, under the then circumstances of things, could hardly have been done with any other. But the season of Fiction is now over: insomuch, that what formerly might have been tolerated and countenanced under that name, would, if now attempted to be set on foot, be censured and stigmatized under the harsher appellations of incroachment or imposture. To attempt to introduce any new one, would be now a crime: for which reason there is much danger, without any use, in vaunting and propagating such as have been introduced already. In point of political discernment, the universal spread of learning has raised mankind in a manner to a level with each other, in comparison of what they have been in any former time: nor is any man now so far elevated above his fellows, as that he should be indulged in the dangerous license of cheating them for their good. XXXVIII. As to the fiction now before us, in the character of an argumentum ad hominem coming when it did, and managed as it was, it succeeded to admiration. That compacts, by whomsoever entered into, ought to be kept; that men are bound by compacts, are propositions which men, without knowing or inquiring why, were disposed universally to accede to.. The observance of promises they had been accus- tomed to see pretty constantly enforced. They had been accus- tomed to see kings, as well as others, behave themselves as if bound by them. This proposition, then, "that men are bound by compacts'," and this other, "that, if one party performs not his part, the other is released from his," being propositions which no man disputed, were propositions which no man had any call to prove. In theory they were assumed for axioms: and in practice they were observed as rules. If, on any occasion, it was thought proper to make a show of proving them, it was rather for form's sake than for anything else : and that, rather in the way of memento or instruction to acquiescing auditors, than in the way of proof against opponents. On such an occasion the commonplace retinue of phrases was at hand; Justice, Right Reason required it, the Law of Nature commanded it, and so forth; all which are but so many ways of intimating that a man is firmly persuaded of the truth of this or that moral proposition, though he either thinks he need not, or finds he can't, tell why. Men were too obviously and too generally interested in the observance of these rules to entertain doubts concerning the force of any arguments they saw 544 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY employed in their support. It is an old observation how Interest smooths the road to Faith. XXXIX. A compact, then, it was said, was made by the King and people : the terms of it were to this effect. The people, on their part, promised to the King a general obedience. The King, on his part, promised to govern the people in such a particular manner always, as should be subservient to their happiness. I insist not on the words: I undertake only for the sense; as far as an imaginary engagement, so loosely and so variously worded by those who have imagined it, is capable of any decided significa- tion. Assuming then, as a general rule, that promises, when made, ought to be observed; and, as a point of fact, that a promise to this effect in particular had been made by the party in question, men were more ready to deem themselves qualified to judge when it was such a promise was broken, than to decide directly and avowedly on the delicate question, when it was that a King acted so far in opposition to the happiness of his people, that it were better no longer to obey him. XL. It is manifest, on a very little consideration, that nothing was gained by this maneuver after all: no difficulty removed by it. It was still necessary, and that as much as ever, that the question men studied to avoid should be determined, in order to determine the question they thought to substitute in its room. It was still necessary to determine, whether the King in question had, or had not acted so far in opposition to the happiness of his people, that it were better no longer to obey him; in order to de- termine, whether the promise he was supposed to have made, had, or had not been broken. For what was the supposed purport of this promise? It was no other than what has just been men- tioned. XLI. Let it be said, that part at least of this promise was to govern in subservience to Law: that hereby a more precise rule was laid down for his conduct, by means of this supposal of a promise, than that other loose and general rule to govern in subservience to the happiness of his people : and that, by this means, it is the letter of the Law that forms the tenor of the rule. Now true it is, that the governing in opposition to Law, is one way of governing in opposition to the happiness of the people: the natural effect of such a contempt of the Law being, if not actually to destroy, at least to threaten with destruction, all those rights and privileges that are founded on it: rights and privileges on the enjoyment of which that happiness depends. But still it is not this that can be safely taken for the entire purport of the BENTHAM 545 promise here in question: and that for several reasons. First, because the most mischievous, and under certain constitutions the most feasible, method of governing in opposition to the happi- ness of the people, is, by setting the Law itself in opposition to their happiness. Secondly, because it is a case very conceivable, that a King may, to a great degree, impair the happiness of his people without violating the letter of any single Law. Thirdly, because extraordinary occasions may now and then occur, in which the happiness of the people may be better promoted by acting, for the moment, in opposition to the Law, than in subservience to it. Fourthly, because it is not any single violation of the Law, as such, that can properly be taken for a breach of his part of the contract, so as to be understood to have released the people from the obligation of performing theirs. For, to quit the fiction, and resume the language of plain truth, it is scarce ever any single violation of the Law that, by being submitted to, can produce so much mischief as shall surpass the probable mischief of resisting it. If every single instance whatever of such a violation were to be deemed an entire dissolution of the contract, a man who reflects at all would scarce find anywhere, I believe, under the sun, that government which he could allow to subsist for twenty years together. It is plain, therefore, that to pass any sound decision upon the question which the inventors of this fiction substituted instead of the true one, the latter was still necessary to be decided. All they gained by their contrivance was the convenience of deciding it obliquely, as it were, and by a side wind that is, in a crude and hasty way, without any direct and steady examination. XLII. But, after all, for what reason is it, that men ought to keep their promises? The moment any intelligible reason is given, it is this : that it is for the advantage of society they should keep them; and if they do not, that, as far as punishment will go, they should be made to keep them. It is for the advantage of the whole number that the promises of each individual should be kept: and, rather than they should not be kept, that such individuals as fail to keep them should be punished. If it be asked, how this appears? the answer is at hand: Such is the benefit to gain, and mischief to avoid, by keeping them, as much more than compensates the mischief of so much punishment as is requisite to oblige men to it. Whether the dependence of benefit and mis- chief (that is, of pleasure and pain) upon men's conduct in this behalf, be as here stated, is a question of fact, to be decided, in the same manner that all other questions of fact are to be decided, by testimony, observation, and experience. 546 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY s^ XLIII. This then, and no other, being the reason why men 1 should be made to keep their promises, viz. that it is for the ad- vantage of society that they should, is a reason that may as well be given at once, why^Kings, on the one hand, in governing, should in general keep within established Laws, and (to speak uni- versally) abstain from all such measures as tend to the unhappi- ness of their subjects: and, on the other hand, why subjects should obey Kings as long as they so conduct themselves, and no longer; why they should obey in short so long as the probable mischiefs of obedience are less than the probable mischiefs of resistance; why, in a word, taking the whole body together, it is their duty to obey, just so long as it is their interest, and no longer. This being the case, what need of saying of the one, that he PROMISED so to govern; of the other, that they PROMISED so to obey, when the fact is otherwise? \ XLIV. True it is, that, in this country, according to ancient forms, some sort of vague promise of good government is made by Kings at the ceremony of their coronation: and let the acclama- tions, perhaps given, perhaps not given, by chance persons out of the surrounding multitude, be construed into a promise of obedience on the part of the whole multitude : that whole multitude itself, a small drop collected together by chance out of the ocean of the state : and let the two promises thus made be deemed to have formed a perfect compact: not that either of them is declared to be the consideration of the other. XLV. Make the most of this concession, one experiment there is, by which every reflecting man may satisfy himself, I think, beyond a doubt, that it is the consideration of utility, and no other, that, secretly but unavoidably, has governed his judg- ment upon all these matters. The experiment is easy and decisive. It is but to reverse, in supposition, in the first place the import of the particular promise thus feigned; in the next place, the effect in point of utility of the observance of promises in general. Suppose the King to promise that he would govern his subjects not according to Law; not in the view to promote their happiness: would this be binding upon him? Suppose the people to promise they would obey him at all events, let him govern as he will; let him govern to their destruction. Would this be binding upon them? Suppose the constant and universal effect of an observance of promises were to produce mischief, would it then be men's duty to observe them? Would it then be right to make Laws, and apply punishment to oblige men to observe them? XLVI. "No" (it may perhaps be replied); "but for this BENTHAM 547 reason; among promises, some there are that, as every one allows, are void: now these you have been supposing, are unquestionably of the number. A promise that is in itself void, cannot, it is true, create any obligation. But allow the promise to be valid, and it is the promise itself that creates the obligation, and nothing else." The fallacy of this argument it is easy to perceive. For what is it then that the promise depends on for its validity? what is it that being present makes it valid? what is it that being wanting makes it void? To acknowledge that any one promise may be void, is to acknowledge that if any other is binding, it is not merely because it is a promise. That circumstance then, whatever it be, on which the validity of a promise depends, that circumstance, I say, and not the promise itself must, it is plain, be the cause of the obliga- tion on which a promise is apt in general to carry with it. XLVII. But farther. Allow, for argument sake, what we have disproved: allow that the obligation of a promise is inde- pendent of every other: allow that a promise is binding proprid vi Binding then on whom? On him certainly who makes it. Admit this: for what reason is the same individual promise to be binding on those who never made it? The King, fifty years ago, promised my Great-Grandfather to govern him according to Law: my Great-Grandfather, y//;y years ago, promised the King to obey him according to Law. . The King, just now, promised my neigh- bor to govern him according to Law: my neighbor, just now, promised the King to obey him according to Law. Be it so What are these promises, all or any of them, to me? To make answer to this question, some other principle, it is manifest, must be resorted to, than that of the intrinsic obligation of promises upon those who make them. . XLVIII. Now this other principle that still recurs upon us, what other can it be than the principle of UTILITY? The prin- ciple which furnishes us with that reason, which alone depends not upon any higher reason, but which is itself the sole and all- sufficient reason for every point of practice whatsoever. 8. Criticism of the Theory that Laws of Nature are Limitations upon Sovereignty. The Character of Free Government l XIX. The propriety of this dangerous maxim, so far as the Divine Law is concerned, is what I must refer to a future occasion for more particular consideration. As to the LAW of Nature, if (as I trust it will appear) it be nothing but a phrase; if there be no 1 Ch. IV, pars, xix-xli; ch. V, pars, vii-viii. 548 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY other medium for proving any act to be an offense against it, than the mischievous tendency of such act; if there be no other medium for proving a law of the state to be contrary to it, than the inexpediency of such law, unless the bare unfounded disapproba- tion of any one who thinks of it be called a proof; if a test for distinguishing such laws 'as would be contrary to the LAW of Nature from such as, without being contrary to it, are simply inexpedient, be that which neither our Author nor any man else so much as pretended ever to give; if, in a word, there be scarce any law what- ever but what those who have not liked it have found, on some account or another, to be repugnant to some text of scripture; \ I see no remedy but that the natural tendency of such doctrine is to impel a man, by the force of conscience, to rise up in arms against any law whatever that he happens not to like. What sort of government it is that can consist with such a disposition, I must leave to our Author to inform us. XX. It is the principle of utility, accurately apprehended and steadily applied, that affords the only clue to guide a man through these straits. It is for that, if any, and for that alone to furnish a decision which neither party shall dare in theory to disavow. It is something to reconcile men even in theory. They are at least, something nearer to an effectual union, than when at variance as well in respect of theory as of practice. XXI. In speaking of the supposed contract between King and people, I have already had occasion to give the description, and, as it appears to me, the only general description that can be given, of that juncture at which, and not before, resistance to government becomes commendable; or, in other words, reconcilable to just notions, whether of legal or not, at least of moral, and, if there be any difference, religious duty. What was there said was spoken, at the time, with reference to that particular branch of govern- ment which was then in question; the branch that in this country is administered by the King. But if it was just, as applied to that branch of government, and in this country, it could only be for the same reason that it is so when applied to the whole of government, and that in any country whatsoever. It is then, we may say, and not till then, allowable to, if not incumbent on, every man, as_ well on the score of duty as of interest, to enter into measures of resistance; when, according to the best calculation he is able to make, the probable mischiefs of resistance (speaking with respect to the community in general) appear less to him than the probable mischiefs of submission. This then is to him, that is to each man in particular, the juncture for resistance. BENTHAM XXII. A natural question here is by what sign shall this juncture be known? By what common signal alike conspicuous and perceptible to all? A question which is readily enough started, but to which, I hope, it will be almost as readily perceived that it is impossible to find an answer. Common sign for such a purpose, I, for my part, know of none: he must be more than a prophet, I think, that can show us one. For that which shall serve a particular person, I have already given one his own internal persuasion of a balance of utility on the side of resistance. XXIII. Unless such a sign then, which I think impossible, can be shown, the field, if one may say so, of the supreme governor's authority, though not infinite, must unavoidably, I think, unless where limited by express convention, be allowed to be indefinite. Nor can I see any narrower, or other bounds to it, under this constitution, or under any other yet freer constitution, if there be one, than under the most despotic. Before the juncture I have been describing were arrived, resistance, even in a country like this, would come too soon: were the juncture arrived already, the time for resistance would be come already, under such a government even as any one should call despotic. XXIV. In regard to a government that is free, and one that is despotic, wherein is it then that the difference consists? Is it that those persons in whose hands that power is lodged which is acknowledged to be supreme, have less power in the one than in the other, when it is from custom that they derive it? By no means. Is it not that the power of one any more than of the other has any certain bounds to it? The distinction turns upon circumstances of a very different complexion: on the manner in which that whole mass of power, which, taken together, is supreme, is, in a free state, distributed among the several ranks of persons that are sharers in it: on the source from whence their titles to it are successively derived: on the frequent and easy changes of con- dition between governors and governed; whereby the interests of the one class are more or less indistinguishably blended with those of the other: on the responsibility of the governors; or the right which a subject has of having the reasons publicly assigned and canvassed of every act of power that is exerted over him: on the liberty of the press; or the security with which every man, be he of the one class or the other, may make known his com- plaints and remonstrances to the whole community: on the liberty of public association; or the security with which malcon- tents may communicate their sentiments, concert their plans, and practice every mode of opposition short of actual revolt, 550 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY before the executive power can be legally justified in disturbing them. XXV. True then, it may be, that, owing to this last circum- stance in particular, in a state thus circumstanced, the road to a revolution, if a revolution be necessary, is to appearance shorter; certainly more smooth and easy. More likelihood certainly there is of its being such a revolution as shall be the work of a number; and in which, therefore, the interests of a number are likely to be consulted. Grant then, that by reason of these facilitating circumstances, the juncture itself may arrive sooner, and upon less provocation, under what is called a free government, than under what is called an absolute one: grant this; yet till it be arrived, resistance is as much too soon under one of them as under the other. XXVI. Let us avow then, in short, steadily but calmly, what our Author hazards with anxiety and agitation, that the authority of the supreme body cannot, unless where limited by express con- vention, be said to have any assignable, any certain bounds. That to say there is any act they cannot do, to speak of any- thing of theirs as being illegal, as being void] to speak of their exceeding their authority (whatever be the phrase) their power, their right, is, however common, an abuse of language. XXVII. The legislature cannot do it? The legislature cannot make a law to this effect? Why cannot? What is there that should hinder them? Why not this, as well as so many other laws murmured at, perhaps, as inexpedient, yet submitted to without any question of the right? With men of the same party, with men whose affections are already lifted against the law in question, anything will go down: any rubbish is good that will add fuel to the flame. But with regard to an impartial bystander, it is plain that it is not denying the right of the legislature, their authority, their power, or whatever be the word it is not denying that they can do what is in question it is not that, I say, or any discourse verging that way than can tend to give him the smallest satisfaction. XXVIII. Grant even the proposition in general: What are we the nearer? Grant that there are certain bounds to the authority of the legislature : Of what use is it to say so, when these bounds are what no body has ever attempted to mark out to any useful purpose; that is, in any such manner whereby it might be known beforehand what description a law must be of to fall within, and what to fall beyond them? Grant that there are things which the legislature cannot do; grant that there are laws BENTHAM 551 which exceed the power of the legislature to establish. What rule does this sort of discourse furnish us for determining whether any one that is in question is, or is not of the number? As far as I can discover, none. Either the discourse goes on in the confusion it began; either all rests in vague assertions, and no intelligible argument at all is offered ; or if any, such arguments as are drawn from the principle of utility: arguments which, in whatever variety of words expressed, come at last to neither more nor less than this; that the tendency of the law is, to a greater or a less degree, pernicious. If this then be the result of the argument, why not come home to it at once? Why turn aside into a wilderness of sophistry, when the path of plain reason is straight before us? XXIX. What practical inferences those who maintain this language mean should be deduced from it, is not altogether clear; nor, perhaps, does every one mean the same. Some who speak of a law as being void (for to this expression, not to travel through the whole list, I shall confine myself) would persuade us to look upon the authors of it as having thereby forfeited, as the phrase is, their whole power: as well that of giving force to the particular law in question, as to any other. These are they who, had they arrived at the same practical conclusion through the principle of utility, would have spoken of the law as being to such a degree pernicious, as that, were the bulk of the community to see it in its true light, the probable mischief of resisting it would be less than the probable mischief of submitting to it. These point, in the first instance, at hostile opposition. XXX. Those who say nothing about forfeiture are commonly less violent in their views. These are they who, were they to ground themselves on the principle of utility, and, to use our language, would have spoken of the law as being mischievous indeed, but without speaking of it as being mischievous to the degree that has been just mentioned. The mode of opposition which they point to is one which passes under the appellation of a legal one. XXXI. Admit then the law to be void in their sense, and mark the consequences. The idea annexed to the epithet void is obtained from those instances in which we see it applied to a private instrument. The consequence of a private instrument's being void is, that all persons concerned are to act as if no such instrument had existed. The consequence, accordingly, of a law's being void must be> that people shall act as if there were no such law about the matter : and therefore that if any person in virtue of the mandate of the law should do anything in coercion of another 552 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY person, which without such law he would be punishable for doing, he would still be punishable; to wit, by appointment of the judicial power. Let the law, for instance, be a law imposing a tax : a man who should go about to levy the tax by force would be punishable as a trespasser: should he chance to be killed in the attempt, the person killing him would not be punishable as for murder: should he kill, he himself would, perhaps, be punishable as for murder. To whose office does it appertain to do those acts in virtue of which such punishment would be inflicted? To that of the Judges. Applied to practice then, the effect of this lan- guage is, by an appeal made to the Judges, to confer on those magistrates a controlling power over the acts of the legislature. XXXII. By this management a particular purpose might perhaps, by chance be answered: and let this be supposed a good one. Still what benefit would, from the general tendency of such a doctrine, and such a practice in conformity to it, accrue to the body of the people is more than I can conceive. A Parliament, let it be supposed, is too much under the influence of the Crown: pays too little regard to the sentiments and the interests of the people. Be it so. The people at any rate, if not so great a share as they might and ought to have, have had, at least, some share in choosing it. Give to the Judges a power of annulling its acts; and you transfer a portion of the supreme power from an assembly which the people have had some share, at least, in choosing, to a set of men in the choice of whom they have not the least imaginable share: to a set of men appointed solely by the Crown: appointed solely, and avowedly and constantly, by that very magistrate whose partial and occasional influence is the very grievance you seek to remedy. XXXIII. In the heat of debate, some, perhaps, would be for saying of this management that it was transferring at once the supreme authority from the legislative power to the judicial. But this would be going too far on the other side. There is a wide difference between a positive and a negative part in legislation. There is a wide difference again between a negative upon reasons given, and a negative without any. The power of repealing a law even for reasons given is a great power: too great indeed for Judges: but still very distinguishable from, and much inferior to that of making one. 1 1 Notwithstanding what has been said, it would be in vain to dissemble, but that, upon occasion, an appeal of this sort may very well answer, and has, indeed, in general, a tendency to answer, in some sort, the purposes of those who espouse, or profess to espouse, the interests of the people. A public and authorized debate on the propriety of the law is by this means brought on. The BENTHAM 553 XXXIV. Let us now go back a little. In denying the exist- ence of any assignable bounds to the supreme power, I added, "unless where limited by express convention:" for this exception I could not but subjoin. Our Author indeed, in that passage in which, short as it is, he is the most explicit, leaves, we may observe, no room for it. " However they began," says he (speaking of the several forms of government), " however they began, and by what right soever they subsist, there is and must be in ALL of them an authority that is absolute." To say this, however, of all governments without exception; to say that no assemblage of men can subsist in a state of government, without being subject to some one body whose authority stands unlimited so much as by convention; to say, in short, that not even by convention can any limitation be made to the power of that body in a state which in other respects is supreme, would be saying, I take it, rather too much: it would be saying that there is no such thing as govern- ment in the German Empire; nor in the Dutch Provinces; nor in the Swiss Cantons; nor was of old in the Achaean league. XXXV. In this mode of limitation I see not what there is that need surprise us. By what is it that any degree of power (meaning political power) is established? It is neither more nor less, as we have already had occasion to observe, than a habit of, and disposi- tion to, obedience: habit, speaking with respect to past acts; disposi- tion, with respect to future. This disposition it is as easy, or I am much mistaken, to conceive as being absent with regard to one sort of acts; as present with regard to other. For a body then, which is in other respects supreme, to be conceived as being with respect to a certain sort of acts, limited, all that is necessary is that this sort of acts be in its description distinguishable from every other. XXXVI. By means of a convention then we are furnished with that common signal which, in other cases, we despaired of finding. A certain act is in the instrument of convention specified, with respect to which the government is therein precluded from issuing a law to a certain effect: whether to the effect of com- manding the act, of permitting it, or of forbidding it. A law is issued to that effect notwithstanding. The issuing then of such a law (the sense of it, and likewise the sense of that part of the convention which provides against it being supposed clear) is a fact notorious and visible to all: in the issuing then of such a law artillery of the tongue is played off against the law, under cover of the law itself. An opportunity is gained of impressing sentiments unfavorable to it, upon a numerous and attentive audience. As to any other effects from such an appeal, let us believe that in the instances in which we have seen it made, it is the certainty of miscarriage that has been the encouragement to the attempt. 554 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY we have a fact which is capable of being taken for that common signal we have been speaking of. These bounds the supreme body in question has marked out to its authority: of such a de- marcation then what is the effect? either none at all, or this: that the disposition to obedience confines itself within these bounds. Beyond them the disposition is stopped from extending: beyond them the subject is no more prepared to obey the govern- ing body of his own state than that of any other. What difficulty, I say, there should be in conceiving a state of things to subsist in which the supreme authority is thus limited, what greater difficulty in conceiving it with this limitation, than without any, I cannot see. The two states are, I must confess, to me alike conceivable: whether alike expedient, alike conducive to the happiness of the people, is another question. XXXVII. God forbid, that from anything here said it should be concluded that in any society any convention is or can be made, which shall have the effect of setting up an insuperable bar to that which the parties affected shall deem a reformation: God forbid that any disease in the constitution of a state should be without its remedy. Such might by some be thought to be the case, where that supreme body which in such a convention was one of the contracting parties, having incorporated itself with that which was the other, no longer subsists to give any new modification to the engagement. Many ways might however be found to make the requisite alteration, without any departure from the spirit of the engagement. Although that body itself which contracted the engagement be no more, a larger body, from whence the first is understood to have derived its title, may still subsist. Let this larger body be consulted. Various are the ways that might be conceived of doing this, and that without any dis- paragement to the dignity of the subsisting legislature: of doing it, I mean to such effect, as that, should the sense of such larger body be favorable to the alteration, it may be made by a law, which, in this case, neither ought to be, nor probably would be, regarded by the body of the people as a breach of the convention. 1 1 In Great Britain, for instance, suppose it were deemed necessary to make an alteration in the Act of Union. If in an article stipulated in favor of England, there need be no difficulty; so that there were a majority for the alteration among the English members, without reckoning the Scotch. The only diffi- culty would be with respect to an article stipulated in favor of Scotland; on account, to wit, of the small number of the Scotch members, in comparison with the English. In such a case, it would be highly expedient, to say no more, for the sake of preserving the public faith, and to avoid irritating the body of the nation, to take some method for making the establishment of the new law, depend upon their sentiments. One such method might be as follows. Let the BENTHAM 555 XXXVIII. To return for a moment to the language used by those who speak of the supreme power as being limited in its own nature. One thing I would wish to have remembered. What is here said of the impropriety and evil influence of that kind of dis- course, is not intended to convey the smallest censure on those who use it, as if intentionally accessory to the ill effects it has a ten- dency to produce. It is rather a misfortune in the language, than a fault of any person in particular. The original of it is lost in the darkness of antiquity. We inherited it from our fathers, and, mauger all its inconveniencies, are likely, I doubt, to transmit it to our children. XXXIX. I cannot look upon this as a mere dispute of words. I cannot help persuading myself, that the disputes between con- tending parties between the defenders of a law and the opposers of it, would stand a much better chance of being adjusted than at present, were they but explicitly and constantly referred at once to the principle of UTILITY. The footing on which this principle rests every dispute, is that of matter of fact; that is, future fact the probability of certain future contingencies. Were the debate then conducted under the auspices of this principle, one of two things would happen : either men would come to an agree- ment concerning that probability, or they would see at length, after due discussion of the real grounds of the dispute, that no agreement was to be hoped for. They would at any rate see clearly and explicitly the point on which the disagreement turned. The discontented party would then take their resolution to resist or to submit, upon just grounds, according as it should appear to them worth their while according to what should appear to them the importance of the matter in dispute according to what should appear to them the probability or improbability of success according, in short, as the mischiefs of submission should appear to bear a less or a greater ratio to the mischiefs of new law in question be enacted in the common form. But let its commence- ment be deferred to a distant period, suppose a year or two: let it then, at the end of that period, be in force, unless petitioned against, by persons of such a description, and in such a number as might be supposed fairly to represent the sentiments of the people in general: persons, for instance, of the description of those who at the time of the Union, constituted the body of electors. To put the validity of the law out of dispute, it would be necessary the fact upon which it was made ultimately to depend, should be in its nature too notorious to be controverted. To determine, therefore, whether the conditions upon which the invalidation of it was made to depend, had been complied with, is what must be left to the simple declaration of some person or persons; for in- stance the King. I offer this only as a general idea: and as one among many that perhaps might be offered in the same view. It will not be expected that I should here answer objections, or enter into details. 556 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY resistance. But the door to reconcilement would be much more open, when they saw that it might be not a mere affair of passion, but a difference of judgment, and that, for anything they could know to the contrary, a sincere one, that was the ground of quarrel. XL. All else is but womanish scolding and childish alterca- tion, which is sure to irritate, and which never can persuade. "/ say, the legislature cannot do this 7 say, that it can. I say, that to do this, exceeds the bounds of its authority / say, it does not." It is evident, that a pair of disputants setting out in this manner, may go on irritating and perplexing one another for everlasting, without the smallest chance of ever coming to an agreement. It is no more than announcing, and that in an obscure and at the same time, a peremptory and captious manner, their opposite persuasions, or rather affections, on a question of which neither of them sets himself to discuss the grounds. The question of utility, all this while, most probably, is never so much as at all brought upon the carpet: if it be, the language in which it is dis- cussed is sure to be warped and clouded to make it match with the obscure and entangled pattern we have seen. XLI. On the other hand, had the debate been originally and avowedly instituted on the footing of utility, the parties might at length have come to an agreement; or at least to a visible and explicit issue. "7 say, that the mischiefs of the measure in question are to such an amount. 7 say, not so, but to a less. 7 say, the benefits of it are only to such an amount. 7 say, not so, but to a greater." This, we see, is a ground of controversy very different from the former. The question is now manifestly a question of conjecture concerning so many future contingent matters of fact : to solve it, both parties then are naturally directed to support their respective persuasions by the only evidence the nature of the case admits of; the evidence of such past matters of fact as appear to be analogous to those contingent future ones. Now these past facts are almost always numerous: so numerous, that till brought into view for the purpose of the debate, a great proportion of them are what may very fairly have escaped the observation of one of the parties: and it is owing, perhaps, to this and nothing else, that that party is of the persuasion which sets it at variance with the other. Here, then, we have a plain and open road, perhaps, to present reconcilement: at the worst to an intelligible and explicit issue, that is, to such a ground of difference as may, when thoroughly trodden and explored, be found to lead on to reconcilement at the last. Men, let them but BENTHAM 557 once clearly understand one another, will not be long ere they agree. It is the perplexity of ambiguous and sophistical discourse that, while it distracts and eludes the apprehension, stimulates and inflames the passions. VII. 1 I understand, I think, pretty well, what is meant by the word duty (political duty) when applied to myself; and I could not persuade myself, I think, to apply it in the same sense in a regular didactic discourse to those whom I am speaking of as my supreme governors. That is my duty to do, which I am liable to be punished, according to law, if I do not do: this is the original, ordinary, and proper sense of the word duty. Have these supreme governors any such duty? No: for if they are at all liable to punishment according to law, whether it be for not doing any- thing, or for doing, they are not, what they are supposed to be, supreme governors: those are the supreme governors, by whose appointment the former are liable to be punished. VIII. The word duty, then, if applied to persons spoken of as supreme governors, is evidently applied to them in a sense which is figurative and improper: nor therefore are the same conclusions to be drawn from any propositions in which it is used in this sense, as might be drawn from them if it were used in the other sense, which is its proper one. SELECTED REFERENCES Life: McDonnell, John, "Jeremy Bentham," in Dictionary of National Biography. Montague, Bentham 1 s Fragment on Government, "Introduction," pp. 1-21. Exposition and Criticism: Mill, Dissertations and Discussions, Political, Philosophical and Historical, Vol. I, pp. 355-4I7. Stephen, The English Utilitarianism, Vol. I, chs. v-vi. Maccunn, Six Radical Thinkers, ch. i. Montague, op. cit., pp. 21-90. Graham, English Political Philosophy, pp. 174-270. Pollock, History of the Science of Politics, pp. 98-111. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, pp. 125-209. 1 From ch. v. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY I. TEXTS AND EDITIONS USED FOR SELECTED READINGS Aristotle. The Politics of Aristotle, translated into English with Intro- duction, Marginal Analysis, Notes, and Indices, by B. Jowett. 2 vols. Oxford, 1888. The Clarendon Press. Bentham, Jeremy. A Fragment on Government. Edited, with an Intro- duction, by F. C. Montague. Oxford, 1891. The Clarendon Press. Bodin, Jean. De Republica Libri sex. Francofurti, 1641. Les six livres de la republique. Paris, 1599. The Six Books of a Commonweale, translated by Richard Knolles. Lon- don, 1606. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1845-6. In Calvin Translation Society Publications. Dante, Alighieri. De Monarchia, translated by F. J. Church. (Bound with Dante, an Essay, by R. W. Church.) London, 1879. Macmillan & Co. Grotius, Hugo. De Jure Belliet Pacis Libri Tres, accompanied by an abridged Translation by William Whewell. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1853. Univer- sity Press. Harrington, James. The Commonwealth of Oceana. Edited, with an Intro- duction, by Henry Morley. London, 1887. Geo. Routledge & Sons. The Oceana and Other Works, with an account of his Life by John Toland. London, 1771. Hobbes, Thomas. English Works. Edited by William Molesworth. 1 1 vols. London, 1839-1845. Leviathan, in Vol. III. Leviathan, or The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesias- tical and Civil. Edited, with an Introduction, by Henry Morley. 3d ed. London, 1887. Geo. Routledge & Sons. Hooker, Richard. Of the Laws of Ecclesiatical Polity, Book I. Edited by R. W. Church. Oxford, 1873. Clarendon Press Series: English Classics. Locke, John. Works. 9 vols. I2th ed. London, 1824. Two Treatises of Government, Vol. IV. Machiavelli, Niccolb. The Prince and Other Pieces from the Italian of Niccolb Machiavelli, with an Introduction by Henry Morley. London, 1889. Geo, Routledge & Sons. Marsiglio of Padua. Defensor Pacis. In Goldast, Monarchia, Vol. II, pp. 154-312. Marsilius von Padua, Defensor Pacis. Fur Ubungszwecke bearbeitet von Richard Scholz. Leipzig und Berlin, 1914. Milton, John. English Prose Writings. Edited by Henry Morley. London, 1889. Geo. Routledge & Sons. Montesquieu. The Spirit of Laws, by M. de Secondat, Baron de Montes- quieu, with D'Alembert's Analysis of the Work, translated by Thomas Nugent. New edition, revised by J. V. Prichard. 2 vols. London, 1878. Bohn's Standard Library. George Bell & Sons. 561 562 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Paine, Thomas. Writings. Collected and edited by Moncure Daniel Conway. 4 vols. New York, 1894-5. G - p - Putnam's Sons. Plato. The Republic of Plato, translated into English with Introduction, Analysis, Marginal Analysis, and Index, by B. Jowett. Third edition, revised and corrected throughout. Oxford, 1888. The Clarendon Press. Polybius. The Histories of Polybius, translated from the text of F. Hultsch, by Evelyn S. Schuckburgh. 2 vols. London, 1889. Macmillan & Co. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, translated with an Historical and Critical Introduction and Notes by H. J. Tozer. 3d ed. London, 1902. Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Thomas Aquinas. Opera Omnia. 34 vols. Paris, 1871-1880. Summa Theologica, in Vols. I-VI. De Regimine Principum in Vol. XXVII, opusculum 1 6. Vindiciae contra Tyrannos. In a volume entitled: Nicolai Machiavelli Florentini Princeps: ex Sylvestri Tellii Fulginatis Traductione. Adiecta sunt eiusdem argumenti aliorum quorundam contra Machiavellum Scripta, de potestate et officio Principum contra Tyrannos. Hanoviae, 1595- A Defense of Liberty against Tyrants. . . . being a Treatise written in Latin and French by Junius Brutus, and translated out of both into English. London, 1689. H. CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL WORKS ^ Armstrong, E. "The Political Theory of the Huguenots," in English His- torical Review, Vol. IV (1889), pp. 13-40. Baird, Henry M. History of the Rise of the Huguenots in France. 2 vols. New York, 1879. Barker, Ernest. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London, 1906. Bastide, Ch. John Locke. Ses theories politiques et leur influence en Angleterre. Les liberte's politiques. L'e"glise et l'6tat. La tolerance. Paris, 1906. Baudrillart, Henri J. L. J. Bodin et son temps. Tableaux des theories politiques et des ide"es 6conomiques au seizieme siecle. Paris, 1853. Baumann, J. J. Die Staatslehre des h. Thomas von Aquino. Leipzig, 1873- Blakesley, Joseph Williams. A Life of Aristotle, including a Critical Dis- cussion of some Questions of Literary History connected with his Works. Cambridge, 1839. Bluntschli, Johann Kaspar. Geschichte der neueren Staatswissenschaft, allgemeines Staatsrecht und Politik. 3te Auflage. Miinchen und Leipzig, 1881. Bosanquet, Bernard. A Companion to Plato's Republic for English Readers, being a Commentary adapted to Davies and Vaughan's Translation. London, 1895. Bradley, Andrew Cecil. Aristotle's Conception of the State, in Hellenica (q.v.), pp. 166-222. Brunetiere, Ferdinand. Etudes critiques sur 1'histoire de la litte"rature francaise. 4me se"rie. 2me e"d. Paris, 1894. BIBLIOGRAPHY 663 Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire. Revised edition. London, 1904. Burd, L. Arthur. Florence (II): Machiavelli. Cambridge Modern History, Vol. I, ch. vi. New York, 1902. Campbell, Lewis. Plato's Republic. New York, 1902. Carlyle, R. W. and A. J. A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West. Vol. I. The Second Century to the Ninth. Vol. II. The Tenth Century to the Fifteenth Century. London and New York, 1903, 1909. Carmichael, C. H. E. "Grotius and the Literary History of the Law of Nations." In Translations of the Royal Society of Literature in the United Kingdom. Second series. Vol. XIV (1884), pp. 159-181. Champion, Ed. J. J. Rousseau et la revolution francaise. Paris, 1909. Church, R. W. Dante. An Essay. London, 1879. (Bound with the translation of the De Monarchia by F. J. Church.) Congreve, Richard. The Politics of Aristotle, with English Notes. 2d ed. London, 1874. Conway, Moncure Daniel. The Life of Thomas Paine, with a History of His Literary, Political and Religious Career in America, France and Eng- land. 2 vols. New York, 1892. Dedieu, Joseph. Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise en France. Les sources anglaises de 'TEsprit des Lois." Paris, 1909. Dicey, A. V. Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century. London, 1905. Dowden, Edward. Puritan and Anglican: Studies in Literature. New York, 1901. . Dunning, William Archibald. A History of Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval. New York, 1902. . A History of Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu. New York, / 1905. "Rousseau's Political Theories," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXIV (1909), pp. 377-408. Dwight, Theodore W. ' ' Harrington and his Influence upon American Political Institutions and Political Thought," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. II (1887), p. i. Dyer, Louis. Machiavelli and the Modern State. Chapters on his " Prince," his Use of History, and his Ideas of Morals, being Three Lectures de- livered in 1899 at the Royal Institution. Boston, 1904. Faguet, Emile. La Politique compared de Montesquieu, Rousseau et Voltaire. Paris, 1902. Fairbairn, A. M. Calvin and the Reformed Church. Cambridge Modern / History, Vol. II, ch. xi. New York, 1904. Feugueray, H. R. Essai sur les doctrines politiques de Saint Thomas d'Aquin. Paris, 1857. Figgis, John Neville. Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius 1414-1625. Birbeck Lectures, 1907. Cambridge, 1907. I Flint, Robert. Historical Philosophy in France and French Belgium and Switzerland. New York, 1894. 564 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Franck, Adolphe. Re"formateurs et publicistes de 1'Europe. Moyen-age- Renaissance. Paris, 1864. The same. Dix-septieme siecle. Paris, 1881. The same. Dix-huitieme siecle. Paris, 1893. Fraser, Alexander Campbell. Locke. Edinburgh and London, 1890. Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis. "Polybe ou la Grece conquise par les romains." Pp. 119-211 of his Questions Historiques. Paris, 1893. Gierke, Otto. Political Theories of the Middle Age. Translated by F. W. Maitland. Cambridge, 1900. S Gooch, G. P. The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, 1898. S Graham, William. English Political Philosophy from Hobbes to Maine. London, 1899. Grote, George. Aristotle. Edited by Alexander Bain and G. Croom Robert- son. 2d ed. London, 1880. Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates. 2d ed. 3 vols. London, 1867. Guggenheim, M. " Marsilius von Padua und die Staatslehre des Aristoteles." In Historische Viertel-Jahresschrift. Vol. VII (1904), pp. 343-362. Gumplowicz, Ludwig. Geschichte der Staatstheorien. Innsbruck, 1905. Hallam, Henry. Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries. 5th ed. 3 vols. London, 1873. Hancke, E. Bodin, eine Studie uber den Begriff der Soverainetat. In Untersuchen zur Deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte. 47 Heft. Breslau, 1894. Hellenica. A Collection of Essays on Greek Poetry, Philosophy, History and Religion, edited by Evelyn Abbott. 2d ed. New York, 1898. Henkel, Hermann. Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Lehre vom Staat. Leipzig, 1872. Holland, Thomas Erskine. Studies in International Law. Oxford, 1898. Janet, Paul. Histoire de la science politique dans ses rapports avec la morale. 2 toms. 3me e"d. Paris, 1887. Jourdain, Charles. La Philosophic de Saint Thomas d'Aquin. 2 toms. Paris, 1858. * Kampschulte, F. W. Johann Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf. 2 Bde. Leipzig, 1869, 1899. Kelsen, Hans. Die Staatslehre des Dante Alighieri. In Wiener staats- wissenschaftliche Studie. Bd. VI, Heft 3. Wien u. Leipzig, 1905. Lang, Andrew. The Politics of Aristotle, Introductory Essays (from Boland and Lang's edition of the Politics). London, 1886. Loos, Issac Althaus. Studies in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of Plato. Bulletin of the University of Iowa: Studies in Sociology, Economics, Politics and History. Vol. I. Iowa City, 1899. Luden, Heinrich. Hugo Grotius nach seinen Schicksalen und Schriftcn. Berlin, 1806. Macaulay, Thomas B. Critical and Historical Essays. Newly arranged by A. J. Grieve (Everyman's Library). 2 vols. London, 1907. * Maccunn, John. Six Radical Thinkers. London, 1907. BIBLIOGRAPHY 565 Masson, David. The Life of John Milton: Narrated in Connexion with the Political, Ecclesiatical and Literary History of His Time. 6 vols. Cambridge, 1859-80. Merriam, C. E., Jr. "Thomas Paine's Political Theories" in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XIV (1899), pp. 389-403- Mill, John Stuart. Dissertations and Discussions, Political, Philosophical, and Historical. 4 vols. New York, 1874. Morley, John. Machiavelli. (Romanes Lectures, 1897.) London, 1897. Rousseau. 2 vols. London, 1873. Mundt, Theodor. Niccol6 Machiavelli und das System des modernen Politik. 3th Ausgabe. Berlin, 1861. Nettleship, Richard Lewis. Lectures on the Republic of Plato. Edited by G. R. Benson. London, 1898. Oncken, Wilhelm. Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles in historische-politischen Umrissen. 2 Bde. in I. Leipzig, 1870, 1875. Osgood, Herbert L. "The Political Ideas of the Puritans," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI (1891), p. I and p. 201. Pollock, Frederick. An Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics. Revised edition. London, 1911. . Poole, Reginald Lane. Illustrations of the History of Mediaeval Thought in the Departments of Theology and Ecclesiastical Politics. London, 1884. temps. Vol. I, pp. xiii-lxxvi, of his French translation of the De Jure Paf Pradier-Fodere, M. P. Essai biographique et historique sur Grotius_ et son temps. Vol. I, pp. xiii-lxxvi Belli ac Pacis. Paris, 1867. Riezler, Sigmund. Die literarischen Widersacher der Papste zur Zeit Ludwig des Baiers. Leipzig, 1874. Ritchie, David G. "Contributions to the History of the Social Contract Theory," in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI (1891), pp. 656-676. Robertson, George Croom. Hobbes. Edinburgh and London, 1886. Rodet, Henri. Le Contrat social et les ide*es politiques de J. J. Rousseau. Paris, 1909. Saint-Marc-Girardin. Jean Jacques Rousseau, sa vie et ses ouvrages, avec une introduction par Ernest Bersat. 2 toms. Paris, 1875. Smith, H. F. Russell. Harrington and his Oceana: a Study of a Seventeenth- Century Utopia and its Influence in America. Cambridge, 1914. Sorel, Albert. Montesquieu. 2me ed. Paris, 1889. The same. Translated by Gustave Masson. London, 1887. Stahelin, E. Johannes Calvin. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. 2 Bde. Elberfeld, 1863. Stephen, Leslie. The English Utilitarianism. 3 vols. London and New York, IQOO. History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century. 2 vols. 3d ed. New York and London, 1902. Strachan- Davidson, James Leigh. Polybius, in HeHenica (q.v.), pp. 353- 387. Sullivan, James. "Marsiglio of Padua and William of Ockam/' in American Historical Review, Vol. II (1896-7), pp. 409-426, 593-610. 566 READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Susemihl, Franz. Die genetische Entwickelung der platonischen Philosophic. 2 Bde. Leipzig, 1855-1860. Symonds, John Addington. An Introduction to the Study of Dante. Lon- don, 1872. Tonnies, Ferdinand. Hobbes: Leben und Lehre. Stuttgart, 1896. Uberweg, Friedrich. History of Philosophy, from Thales to the Present Time. Translated from the 4th German edition by George S. Morris. 2 vols. New York, 1874-5. Valois, Noel. "Jean de Jandun et Marsije de Padoue, auteurs du Defensor Pacis," in Histoire litteraire de la France, Vol. XXIII (1906), pp. 528-623. Vaughn, Roger William Bede. The Life and Labours of Saint Thomas of Aquin. 2d edition, abridged and edited by David Jerome Vaughn. London and New York, 1890. Vian, Louis. Histoire de Montesquieu. Paris, 1879. Villari, Pasquale. Niccolb Machiavelli and his Times. Translated by Linda Villari. 2 vols. London, 1878. Villemain, Abel Franyois. Tableau de la Iitt6rature au xviii 6 siecle. 4 toms. Paris, 1859. Walton, Isaac. Life of Hooker. Vol. I, pp. 61-99, of The Works of Richard Hooker, arranged by Rev. John Keble. New York, 1851. Wheaton, Henry. History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America, from the earliest times to the Treaty of Washington, 1842. New York, 1845. White, Andrew Dickson. Seven Great Statesmen in the Warfare of Human- .s ity with Unreason. New York, 1910. Willoughby, Westel Woodbury. The Political Theories of the Ancient World. New York, 1903. ^ Zeller, Edward Gottlob. Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics. Translated from his Philosophy of the Greeks, by B. F. C. Costelloe and J. H. Muir- head. 2 vols. London, 1897. Plato and the Older Academy. Translated by Sarah Frances Alleyne and Alfred Goodwin. London, 1876. INDEX INDEX Agrarian, Equal : Harrington, 374 ff . 450-2; 457-8- Aristotle : on the end of the state, 55 ; on the elements of the state, 55-8; on slavery, 58-60; on the purpose of the state, 60-1 ; the definition of citizenship, 61-3; on the nature of sovereignty, 64-5 ; on the location of sovereignty, 65-71; the defini- tion of a constitution, 71; on the different forms of state, 71 ff; on the true distinction between de- mocracy and oligarchy, 73-4; on royalty, 74; on the supremacy of laws, 76-9; on the relation of form of government to particular circumstances, 80- 1 ; on polity and mixed government, 81 ff; on aris- tocracy, 82, 84; on the relativity of forms of government, 83-4; on government by the middle class, 84-7; on democracy, 87-9; on the deliberative organ of government, 89-92 ; on the appointment of officers, 92-3; on the judicial part of government, 93-4; on population and territory of the ideal state, 94-6; on equality and inequality as causes of revolution, 96-8; on other causes of revolu- tion, 98^-9; on the preservation of proportionate equality as a pre- ventive of revolution, 99101; on education as a preventive of revo- lution, IOI-2. Balance of government: Harrington, 359 ff- Bentham: definition of natural soci- ety and of political society, 536- 42 ; criticism of the social-contract theory, 542-5; on utility as the basis of political obligation, 545-7 ; criticism of the theory of laws of nature as limitations upon sover- eignty, 547 ff ; on free government, 549-53; on conventions as limita- tions upon sovereignty, 553-5; on the principle of utility as a limit upon sovereignty, 555-7 ; on polit- ical duty, 557. Bodin: the definition of a state, 226^-7; definition of citizen, 227 ff; criticism of Aristotle's definition of citizen, 228-9; definition of sover- eignty, 230-1; on the limits of sovereignty, 231 ff ; on the law of nations, 234-5 ; on the power of the sovereign in the giving of laws, 235-6; on the other functions of sovereignty, 236. Calvin: on the necessity of civil gov- ernment, 191-4; on the duties of civil magistrates, 194-5; on the limits of obedience due to civil magistrates, 195-201. Checks and balances: Polybius, 113- 7; Harrington, 369-73; Montes- quieu, 464-74- Citizens: Aristotle, 61-3; Marsiglio, 163 ff; Bodin, 227-9. CiviTrights: Milton, 295-7; Paine, 521-2. Classes in the state: Plato, 18-25. Communism: Plato, 26-35. Conscience, Freedom of: Milton, 294 5. Consent of the governed: Marsiglio, 164-5; Locke, 396 ff. Constitution: Aristotle, 71, 80. Constitutional government: Aristotle, 82 ff. Contract theory of government : Vin- dicia, 213 ff; criticized by Rous- seau, 509 ff. See also Social con- tract. Dante: on the ends of civil govern- ment, 140-4; on the advantages of a temporal monarchy, 144-5; the argument for a universal mon- archy, 146-50; on the direct sanc- tion of temporal monarchy by God, 150-3; on the relations be- 569 570 INDEX tween secular and ecclesiastical authority, 153-5- Democracy: Aristotle, 73, 80 ff, 87- 9; Polybius, 112-3; Montesquieu, 446-50, 455-7; Paine, 531-2. See also Popular sovereignty; Repub- lican government. Despotism: Montesquieu, 454-5, 460- 2. See also Tyranny. Divine basis of temporal authority: Dante, 150-5. Division of labor: Plato, 4 ff. Economic conditions, Political influ- ence of: Aristotle, 83 ff ; Harring- ton* 359 ff- Education as a function of the state: Plato, 44 ff; Aristotle, 101-2. Ends (purposes) of the state: Aris- totle, 55, 57, 60-1, 71-2; Thomas Aquinas, 133-5; Dante, 140-4; Marsiglio, 160-2; Calvin, 191-5; Vindicia, 208 ff; Hooker, 242-6; Hobbes, 316-9; Locke, 402 ff; Rousseau, 484-6; Paine, 522 ff, 528 ff; Bentham, 546 ff. Equality: Aristotle, 68-70, 96-8, 99-101 ; Hobbes, 302-4; Rousseau, 492-4; Paine, 519-21. Executive, distinguished from legis- lator: Marsiglio, 165-7. Forms of government: Aristotle, 71-89; Polybius, 106-13; Thomas Aquinas, 132-3; Hobbes, 327-31; Harrington, 358 ff; Locke, 405-6; Montesquieu, 446-63; Rousseau, 500 ff. Free government: Milton, 291-7; Bentham, 547 ff. Functions of government: See Ends of the state, and Sovereignty. Government, General principles of: Plato, 11-17, 19, 26, 35; Aristotle, 79 ff; Harrington, 355 ff, 357; Montesquieu, 446 ff; Rousseau, 496 ff; departments of: Aristotle, 89-94; Polybius, 113 ff; Marsiglio, 165-7; Harrington, 369 ff; Locke, 411 ff; Montesquieu, 464 ff; con- duct of: Machiavelli, 173 ff; sub- ordination of to the state: Rous- seau, 504 ff. See also Forms of government, Origin of the state, etc. Grotius: on the natural basis of jus- tice, 260 ff ; on the divine origin of law, 262-3; criticism of the doc- trine of utility as the basis of law, 263; on the grounds of the law of nations, 263 ff; on the law of na- ture, 266-8; definition of state, 269; definition of sovereignty, 269- 70; criticism of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, 270-2 ; on the title to sovereignty, 273-4; on the limits of sovereignty, 274-5; on the division of sovereignty, 275-6. Harrington: on the nature and kinds of civil government, 357-8; on the principles of government, 358 ff; on the distinction between domes- tic and foreign empire, 359 ; on the relation between government and land-ownership, 359-65; on the supremacy of reason and law in government, 365-9; on the pro- posing, resolving, and executing organs of government, 369-73 ; on an "equal commonwealth," 373 ff; on an "equal agrarian" and "equal rotation," 374-8. Hobbes: on the natural equality of men, 302-4; on the war of all against all in the state of nature, 304-6; on the absence of justice in the state of nature, 306; on the laws of nature, 307-16; on the origin and purpose of political society, 316-20; on the incom- municable rights of sovereignty, 320-5; on the further attributes of sovereignty, 325-7; on forms of state, 327 ff ; on the advantages of monarchy, 328-31; on the liberty of subjects, 331 ; on civil laws, 340 ff; on the superiority of the sover- eign to laws, 341-4; on the publi- cation of laws, 344-7 ; on the inter- pretation of laws, 347-52. Hooker: on the origin and purpose"of political society, 242 ff; on the basis of government in consent, 245-6; on the nature of laws, 246 ff ; on the source of laws, 248 ff; on human laws, 250-1 ; on the law of nations, 251-3. Ideal state: Aristotle, International law: Grotius, 259 ff. See also Law of nations. Jus Gentium: see Law of Nations. Justice: Plato, 3-4, 8-9, 23-6; Gro- tius, 260; Hobbes, 306, 308, 311-4. INDEX 571 Land-ownership as a principle of political power: Harrington, 359- 65. Laws, Nature, source and kinds of: Thomas Aquinas, 123-8; Marsig- lio, 162 ff; Bodin, 235-6; Hooker, 246 ff; Grotius, 260 ff; Hobbes, 340 ff ; Montesquieu, 441 ff; Rous- seau, 494 ff; supremacy of laws: Aristotle, 68, 76-9; Vindicia, 211- 3; Harrington, 366-8. Laws of nations: Bodin, 234-5; Hooker, 251-3; Grotius, 259-66; Montesquieu, 444-5. Laws of nature : Bodin, 232 ; Hooker, 246 ff; Grotius, 266-8; Hobbes, 306-16, 347-9; Locke, 386 ff; Montesquieu, 443-4; Bentham, 547 ff. Legislative, Supremacy of: Marsig- lio, 165 ff; Locke, 406, 413 ff. Liberty: Aristotle, 87-8; Dante, 146-8; Grotius, 273-4; Milton, 286-97; Hobbes, 331-9; Harring- ton, 366-7; Locke, 386, 394, 396, 402, 404, 406-11; Montesquieu, 463 ff; Rousseau, 479-86, 504 ff; Paine, 5 1 8-2 2,529. See also Limi- tations upon government, Free government, Sovereignty of the people. Limitations upon government: Cal- vin, 195-201; Vindicia, 208 ff; Milton, 282 ff; Locke, 406 ff; Paine, 524-7; Bentham, 549 ff. Limitations upon sovereignty: Bodin, 2 33-5; Grotius, 273-6; Hobbes, 335-7 ; Rousseau, 491 ff; Bentham, 553-7- Locke: definition of political power, 386; on the state of nature, 386 ff; on the prevalence of reason and right in the state of nature, 386-8; on the execution of laws of nature, 388-91; on the- "state of war," 391-3; on the nature of political society, 393-6; on the origin of political society, 396-402; on the ends of political society, 402-5; on the forms of political society, 405-6; on the supremacy of the legislative, 406; on the limits of legislative power, 406-11; on the separation of powers, 411-3; on the subordination of executive to legislative power, 413-9; on usurpation and tyranny, 419-25; on the dissolution of governments and the right of resistance, 425-36. Machiavelli: on the qualities of a successful prince,, 173 ff: liberality and parsimonft 174-5 ; cruelty and clemency, 176-8; extent of the obligation of promise^ 17 8-80; the avoidance of odious dfc