either never found in such a symmetry of parts or if at any time found never long continues And therefore Tacitus speaking of such a composition saith Laudari facilius quam evenire vel si evenit haud diuturna esse potest It is of necessity that in the body there be predominant either cold or heat or dry or moyst if cold be predominant there is heat to oppose it if dry the moyst so in a Commonwealth all things must be reduced to equality for not onely they which overtop others but they also that are in misery are dangerous in like manner as it happens in buildings which come to decay as well by stones that stand too farre out as by those that stand too farre in and therefore the Mason alwaies measures the walls and fits the stones not by cutting them away but by setting them in the right place and thus our Lord God would have it be done in his holy Church and therefore when Ezechiel saw it in the top of a mountaine he stayed not long but there came a man of mettall like brasse Et Fâ—…niculus lineus in manu ejus the Septuagints read it Funiculus cimariorum in manu ejus where S. Gregory interprets it after my meaning and Aristotle also knowing this gives counsell when one part in a City is oppressed and another oppresseth that then the Magistrates should relieve the part oppressed and reduce them to equality There are three things that may beare sway in a City either the power Regall or that of the Nobles or the Authority of the People if the Regall Power be predominant then the people who are many must oppose it because one and many are contraries and and perhaps for this it is that Plato saith that a Commonwealth should be framed of two ingredients a people and a King because the people alone being many may be a bridle to the King and the King alone to the people If the Nobility be predominant then the people as being directly contrary to the Nobility must be opposed against it whereupon as we said before as long as the City of Rome used this opposition it could never be destroyed by the Nobility In this regard Sulpitius called a squadron of the youth the Senatours Treacle as opposed against them If the people be predominant then the Nobility must be set against them and as when cold is predominant in a body if another cold should be set to strive with it it would instantly Ipso facto destroy the body So when the people is predominant if the people should be set against them or when the Nobility is predominant the Nobility should oppose it the Commonwealth presently would goe to wracke as it fell out in Rome But not onely when the like is opposed against the like both a body and a Common-wealth may be ruined but as well also if a contrary be opposed and not in a due manner and therefore Galen saith that contraries may be of three sorts that is Greater lesser and equall It is a greater contrary when to a distemper hot in two degrees a remedy is applied cold in three degrees a lesser contrary is when to a distemper hot in two degrees a remedy is applied cold in one degree the equall is when to equall heat equall cold is opposed which being so saith Galen the cure of a distemper must not be by a greater contrary because this not onely takes away the distemper but introduceth the contrary as if to a distemper hot as two a remedy be applied cold as three this indeed will take away the heate but then in place of it bring in a distemper cold in one degree Neither also is a cure to be made with a lesser contrary because this would not reach to take away the distemper but the cure must be made by an equal which cannot introduce a contrary but onely reduce the distemper to a due proportion And thus is it to be done in Cities for if the people grown two degrees above their ranke should have the Nobility opposed in three degrees this would not onely take away the predominancy of the people but would bring the Nobility one degree out of just proportion and the contrary will happen if it should be lesse and therefore in the Common-wealth of Rome as long as the people were able to counterpease the power of the Nobles although it were in discord yet it continued and kept it selfe free but after the death of Tibâ—…nius and Caius Gracchus when this contrary became unable to withstand the Nobility the Commonwealth presently was endangered as well for the inability of the peoples opposition as for that it gave occasion to raise discord amongst the Nobles That the contrary in this case was not fit and able Salust sheweth where he saith Caeterum Nobilitas factione magis pollebat Plebis vis soluta atque in multitudinem dispersa minus poterat Besides the Nobles themselves opposed not well in opposing Sylla to Crassus and worse in opposing 〈◊〉 to Anthonie because as the opposition the people made was too weake so the opposition of the Nobility was too strong and was therefore the 〈◊〉 of the Commonwealth That contrary therefore which with discord shal be opposed to him that exceeds proportion ought to be such as to have no greater power nor other end but only to reduce the other to his due place but yet with waies befitting a Christian for I like not that course of Tarquinius Superbus which he intimated by cutting off the heads of the Poppies an invention used by many and related also by Aristotle For in the commonwealth of the body what worse evill then the gout in the feet or hands yet to heale it I never saw the foot or the hand cut off but purgations applied to bring them to their naturall temper Being in all evils better to oppose the beginning then be forced to 〈◊〉 off the part by letting it runne to a Gangrene or Convulsion For as this oftentimes brings death to the whole body so in a Common-wealth the dismembring of a Citizen that is growne out of order is occasion oftentimes of the ruine of the State as it fell out in Caesar. I am to advertise that I intend not to put division between men and men but between men and the actions of men for as the first is extreamly ill so the second is as good And therefore the Prophet saith Nonne qui oderunt te Domine Oderam super inimicos tuos tabescebam and of this kind of hate Christ spake when he said Non veni mittere pacem sed gladium in terra Whereupon it being an evill action for one to exceed his degree and thereby seeke to oppresse the City it ought to be hated and to seeke to bring him to proportion but that done the hate then must be laid aside and therefore all the holy Fathers agree that to know what 〈◊〉 is good and what bad there is no better way
from hearing metaphors finding the meaning of him that useth them But because Tacitus in saying that his Annals have little pleasure in them Caeterum ut profutura it a minimum oblectationis afferunt shewes to be contrary to this any opinion It is therefore to be knowne that for as much as concernes the present there may two kinds of pleasure be taken from a thing one of the senses another of the understanding as we may say in Musicke there are two pleasures may be taken one from the goodnesse of the voyces that sing another from the goodnesse of the songs that are sing the first is taken by the sense of hearing whereof the sound is object the second is taken by the understanding which finding the Composers cuming in making of Descants and helping of discords takes great delight The first pleasure is common to all that have eares the second of such onely as understand it The like happens also in painting where one kind of pleasure is taken from the daintinesse of the colours and the beauty of the picture and another that is taken from the due placing of the parts and resemblance of the Muasbles and of this the pleasure is so much the greater in that it cannot be taken but by one of understanding who therefore takes delight in anothers cunning because by it be discovers his owne Thus when Tacitus saith that his Annals are little pleasing he meanes in the pleasure which is taken by the sense and this appeares plainely by the words he addes where giving the reason why other Histories are more pleasing then this he saith Nam situs Gentium varietates Praeliorum Clari Ducum exitus retinent ac redintegrant legentium animos This difference of pleasure Seneca expressed when he said that Virgill affords one kind of pleasure being read by a Humanist and another being read by a Philosopher I conclude then that Tacitus is an Authour exceeding pleasing specially to those who studying the Histories with understanding little care whether the Latin be as good as that of Caesar. It remaines to advertise the Reader of these my Discourses that finding Hebrew or Greeke Texts cited in Latin he may be pleased to conceive I did it to avoyd cumbring the Leaves with allegations seeing if they had been brought in the foresaid Tongues they must have been againe translated for their sakes that understand not those Tongues I should I know have done more conformable to custome if I had cited them in Italian rather then in Latin but this also I avoyded that I might not take away the force of sense which the words beare in that Language Lastly I will not stand to contest with those who have a custome to be alwaies blaming because he that shall deale so with these my weake Discourses will find himselfe much deceived in his opinion for wherein he thinks to differ from me he will directly agree with me seeing I have printed them to no other end but to make my selse known a servant of the Serenissimo the Grand Duke who out of his benigne nature will be pleased to accept that little which a servant is able to present unto him Withall I advertise that to blame a Book may be the work of understanding men but to blame the Authors of Books the work of none but malignant men That I leave to every mans liberty This I conceive he deserves not that is not conceited of his owne wisdome The Contents of the severall DISCOVRSES Discourse the first OF the divers forms of government that Rome had and how it happens that Cities for the most part have their beginnings under Kings rather then under any other forme of government p. 1 Discourse second How the City of Rome came from being governed by Kings to be a free State and the difference is betweene a beginning and a cause p. 8 Discourse third A Parallell between the conspiracy of Marcus Brutus against Caesar and that of Lucius Brutus against Tarquin whereby we may see why the one brought in liberty and the other tyranny p. 21 Discourse fourth That the power of a few cannot consist in any number better then three p. 25 Discourse fifth Of what kind of discord the Authour intends to speake p. 28 Discourse sixth Whether an externall warre with the enemies of the faith be the best meanes to hinder discords among Christians p. 30 Discourse seventh What is the fittest time to proceed in discords with the enemies of the faith p. 45 Discourse eighth What discords conserve States and what corrupt them p. 60 Discourse ninth Of concordant discord and how it ought to be mannaged for the good of Cities p. 61 Discourse tenth How hard and dangerous a matter it is to write Histories when the easiest time is to finde writers and which of them deserve most credit p. 67 Discourse eleventh From whence flattery proceeds how many kinds there are of it and which of them is hurtfull to a City p. 81 Discourse twelfth What things holpe Augustus to the Empire and what meanes he used to maintaine it p. 91 Discourse thirteenth How Princes may get the peoples love how a private man ought to make use of the peoples favour and what part it hath in bestowing the Empire p. 99 Discourse fourteenth How the Donatives which are given to Souldiers are profitable to raise a man and to maintaine him in the Empire and when it is that Military discipline is corrupted by them p. 107 Discourse fifteenth How much it imports a Prince for getting the peoples love to maintaine plenty by what meanes scarcity happens and how it may be helpt and how a Prince may make use of it p. 113 Discourse sixteenth What kind of ease it is that Tacitus speakes of and how it may be reconciled with some places in other Authours p. 121 Discourse seventeenth That Cities subject to another City better like the government of a King than of a Commonwealth and that every City would gladly have their Lord to live amongst them p. 125 Discourse eighteenth What meanes a Prince may use with safety to set them in a way that are to succeed them in the government p. 137 Discourse nineteenth That old men are apt to be carried away by women and of what age a Prince should be p. 145 Discourse twentieth That to maintaine and suffer Magistrates to continue although without authority is a matter of great moment p. 155 Discourse twenty one That Tiberius was part good and part bad how it happened that he fell not into dangers as Nero did Whether it be good to be brought up in the Princes house and finally how their secret vices may be knowne p. 159 Discourse twenty two How much it imports a Prince to be chaste p. 168 Discourse twenty three How and when the government of women is odious p. 171 Discourse twenty foure That at one and the same time to make knowne the death of the Prince and the assumption of the successour is
But for as much as Aristotle shews that from the end of one circulation another begins while pursuing this Argument he saith Ex Tyrannis rursus ad Plebem he that will consider in Rome those forms of government which for their small continuance I have omitted shall find plainly that even in those also there hath been a manifest circulation For after the Regall under Romulus it came to be a free estate under Brutus from that to be a government of a few under the decemviri lastly to be in the hand of a tyrant under Appius Claudius after whose death she recovered againe her liberty and then passing under the Power of a few setled at last in a Tyranny under Augustus and if there hapned afterward no new circulation the reasons thereof shall be shewed in another discourse But conceiving it to be the fittest course for examining of these revolutions to proceed by shewing the causes of them thereby to make men the better see that the events of former times have not been casuall and hapned by chance and also the better be able to prevent the like accidents that may hereafter happen I will therefore make my beginning at the Power Regall with which it ought not to seem strange that Rome at first was governed seeing it hath been the like in the foundings almost of all Cities as both Salust witnesseth Igitur Initio Reges nam in terris Nomen Imperii id primum fuit and Justin Principio rerum Gentium Nationumque Imperium penes Reges erat and also Aristotle Fuerat enim antiqua civitatum gubernatio paucorum Regia and besides these there are many examples in the holy Scripture that shew it to have been so Cain before the flood was founder of the first City that ever was in the World and he as S. Austin writes was a King as also his successours likewise after the flood the great City Babylon was scarce built when Nintrod as the Scripture saith Coepit esse Potens in terra There being therefore no doubt of the case having so many and great authorities to confirme it the next thing is to search out the causes amongst which the first may be taken from the first founding For Cities are sometimes founded by one alone and he a Private man as Rome by Romulus sometimes by one alone but he a Lord of other Cities as Constantinople by Constantine oftentimes by many joyning together and those many either all of one Country who for shunning of danger assemble themselves into one City as the Athenians did at Athens or else such as quite leave and forsake their ancient habitations which may happen either in time of peace when men are forced by the great overswarming of people to seeke new dwellings as the French did when they built Milan or else in time of warre when men flying from a Country wasted retire themselves into fresh places and this may happen under some one that is Head or Chieftaine or without Head without a Head as Venice under a Head as Lavinium Padoua and Athens the first built by Aeneas the second by Antenor the third by Theseus Now a City which is built by one alone whether he be a Private man or a King is no sooner founded but it comes presently to be under a Power Regall Those againe that are built by many joyning together whether it be that they fly by reason of warre or whether it be that in peace to enlarge themselves they seeke new countries These also fall presently under the power Regall because these things cannot well be done but where there is a superiour that is Head as Milan did under Bellovisus Padua under Antenor Lavinium under Aenaeas and Athens under Theseus But if a City happen to be built by many that are equals and have no chiefe amongst them in this case onely it may be that Cities have not their beginning under Kings of which there may be many occasions First when the end was not first publique to build a City but rather for private commodity where menmight place their persons and goods in safety which in other places by reason of warres they could not do and in case of such danger many building houses now one and then another have thereby made as it were a Village and at last a City Which having beene built insensibly and by fits is therefore not governed by Regall power which it would have been if it had been built at once by a number of people united together a thing impossible to happen where there is not a Head as Plato in his Dialogue of Lawes hath learnedly taught And therefore Venice having beene founded in the foresaid manner hath beene able to begin is and will be able to maintaine it selfe a free City there concurring together with the wisedome of him that built it the valour of him that governes it Secondly this may happen thorough the condition of those who without a Head joyne together to the founding of new Cities for if they be pious and religious of quiet dispositions not greedy of command and such as have had their education in a Common-wealth where they have learned rather to content themselves with equality then to aspire to soveraignty there is no doubt but they will rather set up a free estate then a Regall as it was at the founding of Venice Thirdly it may happen by reason of their weakenesse who were the founders amongst whom there being none fit or worthy to be a King they are all Commanders For this reason though falsely Tarquinius speaking to the Thoscans and Veientanes would have it that the City of Rome was become a Republique Se Regem augente bello Romanum Imperium a Proximis scelerata Conjuratione pulsos eos inter se quia nemo Vnus satis dignus Regno visus sit partes Regni rapuisse These are the occasions by which it happens that sometimes Cities in their beginnings are not governed by Kings but because it is a thing that seldom hapens we may well say that the first reason why the greatest part of Cities in their beginnings are governed by Kings is their founding which without a head can ill be done A second reason we may take from the Inhabitants who in the beginning being but few are apt to tolerate the Regall Power an instruction that Aristotle gives Propter paucitatem enim hominum non crat magmis memerus mediocriâ—… itaque pauci cum essent multitudine Institutione magis ferebant ab aliis gubernari and this certainely Livie meant when he said that if Brutus had deposed any of the first Kings while the multitude was yet unfit to beare any other government then the Regall the Common-wealth had thereby been Endangered Dissipatae res nondum adultae Discordia forent quas fovit tranquilla moderatio Imperii eoque nutriendo perduxit ut bonam frugem libertatis maturis jane viribus ferre possit A third reason and like unto this may be
taken from the difficulty to finde many in the first founding of a City that are of ability and fit to governe for which reason perhaps Aristotle saith Rex ab Initio repertus est quia difficile erat viros plures excellenti virtute reperiri And so much the more the City being then as Lucius Florus saith in her childhood and consequently wanton and given to pleasures and therefore had need of such a schoolmaster as a King is to keep them in awe whom liberty else would soone corrupt And to this purpose it is that Livie speaks and that of the liberty of Rome Quid enim futuâ—…m fuit si illa Pastoriâ—…m convenarumque plebs transfuga ex suis populis sub tutela Inviolati Templi aut libertateni aut certam impunitatem adepta soluta Regio metu agitare caepta esset Tribunitiis procellis No man therefore ought to marvell that our Lord God in the time of the Mosaicall Law never gave to the Hebrews a Common-wealth as long as either immediately by himselfe or else by the meanes of Kings or Judges he governed them in feare under severe lawes where of when men came to be more perfect he abated the rigour as Saint Austin excellently expresseth saying Deus Hebraeis diversa pro qualitate temporis imposuit Praecepta erant enim sub lege quast puert sub Pedguogo incluse and therefore Saint Paul saith Sub lege custodiebamur in Christo nutriens nos tanquam parvulos sub rigore Diseiplina The last reason is because a City in its Beginning hath need of Lawes which may better be given by one alone then by a multitude where of Aristotle gives the reason Quia Vnum nancisci paucos facilius est quam â—…ltos qui recfe sentiant possint leges condere jus constituere Now having shewed that not without just cause the City of Rome was in its beginning governed by Romulus it will not be amisse to examine the scituation of the City and therein to shew the Founders wisdome in the building it First therefore the scite of a City according to Aristotle ought neither to be too remote from the sea nor yet too neer it to the end that by too much remotenes it be not deprived of many commodities which the Sea is wont to bring in and by too great neernesse it be not exposed to the danger of suddaine assaults Secondly It ought to be in a good aire as the thing which of all other can most annoy us being continually not onely about us but taken into us Thirdly it ought to be in a place of plenty without which there can never accrew any greatnesse to a City Fourthly it ought to be in a place easie for carriage and bringing in of commodities Fiftly and lastly it ought to be in a place of advantage for assaulting its neighbours and difficult it selfe to be assaulted Now that Rome was scituated according to these rules of Aristotle is related by Livie where he saith Non sine causa Dii hominesque hunc urbi condendae locum elegerant saluberrimos colles here he shewes the goodnesse of the ayre Flumen optimum quo ex Mediterraneis locis fruges advehantur Here he shewes the facility of cariage either by Land or Water Mare vicinum ad commoditates nec expositum nimia propinquitate ad pericula classium externarum Nationum Here he shewes a neerenesse to the sea in respect of profit and a remotenesse in respect of danger Italiae Medium ad Incrementuan urbis natum unice Here he shewes the difficulty for being assaulted by people farre off being in the midst of Italy and by people neere hand by reason of its own strength We may therefore conclude that a City built to grow great cannot possibly have a more excellent scituation according to Aristotle then Rome had Libertatem Lucius Brutus Instituit How the City of Rome came from being governed by Kings to be a free State and what the difference is betweene a beginning and a cause The second Discourse HAving shewed the causes for which the City of Rome was in her first beginning governed by Kings I conceave it to be no lesse necessary to make inquiry how it hapned that leaving that kind of government it came under Brutus to be a free State and seeing of the causes that may be alledged setting them aside that are supernaturall some are Philosophicall and some Politicall these consisting in the things done those in the order of number and influences of the Heavens I say first speaking as a Politician There are many of opinion that this alteration of government in Rome was caused by the ravishing of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius which opinion Aristotle seemes not much to decline while speaking of the causes by which Monarchies and States come to be changed he omits not to name for one the lust and lasciviousnesse of the Prince which as he shewes by many examples have been the cause of change in all kinds of Commonwealths and Monarchies Others may say that this change of government in Rome proceeded from this that Tarquinius had taken away all authority from the Senators and had by devises procured the utter abolishing of the Senate which also was the cause that the Monarchy of Rome passed afterwards from the house of the Caesars into that of Galba The cause likewise of the change in Syracusa from a Monarchy to a popular State when Hieronymus not following the steps of his grandfather Hieron devested the Senate of all authority and was therefore by conspiratours most miserably slaine For as the stomacke which is the seat of naturall heat as long as it hath in it any little nourishment leaves the body in peace and quiet but if it be altogether without it then drawes nourishment from the head and thereby oftentimes destroyes the body so if the Senate have but some little authority left it it then rests satisfied and contented but if it be wholly deprived of all authority it then turnes head upon their head and fals upon the Prince and oftentimes becomes the ruine of the City And even this is one reason that Octavius Augustus after the death of Caesar was able to continue in his Empire because he left to the Senate part of that authority which Caesar had before abolished at least had plotted to abolish By the examples hitherto brought I conceave it may be gathered that these were the true Politicall causes why the City of Rome changed its regall government to a free State but because to say but this would be to confound beginnings with causes it is necessary to expatiate a little that so returning backe I may leave no man uncapable of this truth We must therfore know that between a beginning and a cause there is great difference not speaking of them either Philosophically or Theologically although in each of them it might easily be shewed In Theologie because the Father is the beginning of the Sonne and
the Father and the Sonne the beginning of the Holy Ghost yet neither the Father is cause of the Sonne nor the Father and Sonne cause of the Holy Ghost as Thomas Aquinas doth learnedly demonstrate In Philosophy seeing Aristotle in his Physicks and in his books of Generation and Corruption shews manifest difference between beginnings and causes But because Aristotle in distinguishing thē takes thē not alwaies in the sense that we take them and oftentimes also confounds them as in his Metaphysicks where he shewes that a cause and a beginning are as Ens and Vnum which are convertible one with the other and in another place affirmes that all causes are beginnings and in Divinity likewise the Greeke Fathers mingle oftentimes in the Persons of the Trinity the causes with the beginnings as Saint Gregory Nazianzen and others we therefore in this place will forbeare to speak of them either Philosophically or Theologically but will frame our Discourse by way of actions shewing into how great errors those men have runne who confound causes with beginnings a thing which Tacitus is not guilty of who in his History saying Struebat jam fortuna in diversa parte terrarum initia causas Imperii shewes plainly he knew that a cause and a beginning were not both one thing We may therefore take causes to be those that are in the understanding beginnings those by whose meanes that which is in the understanding is put in execution And so a cause comes to be the first in the intention and the last in execution a beginning the last in the intention and the first in execution This Polybius well understood where he saith Causae omnibus in rebus primae sunt Principia verò ultima causarum equidem ita existimo Principia dici Primas omnium actiones in rebus quae judicatae as deliberatae sunt causas verò quae judicium deliberationemque praecedant And thereupon excellently well he saith That the cause of the second warre of the Carthaginians with the Romans was the indignation of Amilcar Hannibals father who though he were not overcome by Land of his enemies the Romans yet the Carthaginian Forces being put to the worse by them he thought it his best course to make peace and to lay downe Armes for the present reserving in his mind a perpetuall indignation which cncreased afterward by their threatning of warre at such time as the Carthaginians distracted with other discords and thereby not able to withstand them lost Sardinia Whereupon Amilear incensed with a new indignation had an intention to make warre upon them many yeeres before Hannibal passed into Italy These were the causes of the warre but the beginnings of it were afterward the siege of Saguntum and Hannibals passing over the River Hiber So you see the beginnings were not at the same time but were long before preceded by the causes To roturne now to our purpose concerning the alteration of States it is seldome seen that the cause and the beginning happen both at one time The cause that moved Caesar to change the State in Rome was an impatience of equality which being borne and bred with him was hastened in him by the threatning of his enemies pressing him to give over his Consulship and to give an account of what he had done a thing of great difficulty and danger in Common-wealths as was seen in the case of Scipio of Furius Camillus and others But the beginning was his passing over the river Rubicon So likewise the change which the Israelites made in the time of Samuel from Judges to Kings had a beginning diverse from the cause there being in their hearts sometime before a desire of Kings through an impatience of liberty as writers hold which afterward tooke beginning from the injustice of the sons of Samuel The cause then that Rome came to be a free State was Romulus and the Citizens growing to perfection Romulus because he being sole King made such lawes and ordinances in the State that shewed he had more regard to prepare the Romans for liberty then to establish the Monarchy to his successors seeing he reserved to himselfe no other authority but to assemble the Senat nor other charge but to command the Army in time of warre It may be said then that either Romulus shewed but small signe of wisdome to make ordinances contrary to himselfe whereof being afterward aware he meant with a greater error to take from the Senat that authority which being now established was soone after the cause of his death Or we may say and better that Romulus as having no children had no desire to leave Rome under a Regall government and the City having none in it but imperfit men he had no power to leave it a free State untill by being governed first by one alone they should learne to be able of themselves to hold that which to come to know they needed first to be guided by a King Just as swimming masters use to doe who beare a hand over them they teach untill such time as they grow able to governe themselves and then they leave them at their owne liberty This made Tyberius as Dion reports praise Augustus so much though not without flattcry saying he had imitated those Physitians who barring their Patient the ordering of his own body they first restore the Body to health before they allow him the ordering of it Insomuch that after the death of Romulus the people not yet grown to perfection there was not one man that once spake of liberty but all agreed to desire a King Regem tamen omnes volebant saith Livy libertatis dulcedine nondum experta It was not thus at the time of the Tarquins for the people being then growne to perfection there was in the City good store of Common wealths men fitter to governe then to be governed And so came up this government most agreeable to nature which is as the Philosopher saith that he be commander of others who is wiser then others And therefore Numa Pompilius needed no guard to safeguard his life seeing governments that are naturall are a guard to themselves From hence it was that our Lord God the first time he gave a King as the holy Scripture saith Non erat similis ei in Israel meaning to shew that he is not worthy to be ruler over others who is not wiser then others There being then in those times such excellent men in the City of Rome as ought rather to give then to take lawes from the Tarquines they had in them an ardent desire to obtaine that liberty in possession which they had now prevented with merit And therefore it appeares that Junius Brutus even from his youth had this intention for going with the sonnes of Tarquin to the Oracle to aske which of them should be Lord of Rome and the Oracle answering he that first should kisse his mother he presently kissed the Earth and yet he knew not then that Tarquin should ravish
the enterprise Obsidionem Hierusalem distulit ratus ejusmodi civilibus discordiis facilius Judaeos consumptos deleri quam armis Romanorum and after a while assaulting the City he destroyed it I observe moreover in that Chapter of Jonas that the sunne came not first upon the Prophets head but the worm that dried up the gourd so also we must dry up our adversaries with discords and then set upon them with our Armies This Coriolanus meant when he appointed his souldiers to spoile the fields of the Plebeians but to leave the fields of the Senatours untouched which he did not do for any hatred to the people but out of a further reach by this means to foment their discords The importance of this the ancient Romans knew well who after the first warre in Sicily seeing the Carthagenians I may say their naturall enemies in a great streight through the revolt of the Cities of Africke and the rebellion of their own Army yet never for this made warre upon them which would rather have brought concord to their enemies then victory to themselves but letting them tire and weary themselves with their own discords they then set upon them so wearied and without shedding of blood made themselves Lords of all Sardinia with encrease of Tribute But in case they would not stay so long till the enemy might trie out himselfe they should then do wel to bring with them in their Army some person of the blood and that hath pretension in the state but yet so as to do it without forcing When Charles the eighth had intention to make warre upon Bajaset the great Turke because he knew how vain a thing it were to beleeve that a Kingdome in Religion in customes and in language different should receive him he therefore tooke with him the brother of Bajaset and the like did Situlces King of the Thracians and Osman Basha by the commandement of Amurath going to destroy the King of the Tartars took with him Islan brother of that King and it succeeded well whereupon as Argentone relates Lewis the eleventh stood in feare of the league only because they brought his brother along with them But if the discords be inveterate and the Citizens through them grown weak it is then alwaies time to assaile them and there can be no doubt of victory Thus Greece was easily overcome by any stranger that tooke this opportunity And thus much concerning discords of Citizens between themselves or of Cities that are under one Lord in which it is sufficiently shewed how a stranger ought to carry himselfe Now we will shew what course he ought to take with other Provinces or Cities that are in discord between themselves These Cities then are either of equall force or of unequall if of equall then ought he to foment both sides and thereby they comming at last to be unequall he shall then take part with the weaker side but yet so as not to weaken himselfe as Croesus in Justin teacheth us who ayding the Babylonians against Cyrus he so much weakned his own Army that after the taking of Babylon he also himselfe was easily overcome And therefore he saith Ibi fortuna prioris praelii that is of Babylon percussum jam Croesi exercitum nullo negotio fudit The matter therefore must be so carried that if the contrary side happen to be Conquerour yet you may be able to maintaine the warre your selfe if conquered it will then be easie for you to make your selfe Lord both of the one and the other For it is not fit when a man may have need of his money and his Forces in defence of himselfe that he should rashly wast them in the service of another Such was the counsell as Thucidides relates that Nicias gave the Athenians while he disswaded them from the warre in Sicily there being no discretion to uncloath 〈◊〉 selfe to cloath another Which is so true that it is written by the Holy Ghost in Ezechiel while speaking of the foure beasts he saith Sub 〈◊〉 autem pennae eorum rectae alterius ad alterum and this as S. Gregory interprets it intends to expresse the ayd that is due from a man to his neighbour It follows after 〈◊〉 duabus alis velabat corpus suum to shew that for ayding of others it is not fit to dismantle our selves To return to our purpose in that we spake of before that is what way is to be held in ayding the weaker side a better example cannot be given then that of Phillip King of Macedon who seeing the Cities of Greece at variance between themselves he fomented the weaker side and after he had wearied the one and the other he brought them both under his Dominion Philippus Rex Macedonum saith Justin libertati omnium insidiatus dum contentiones civitatum alit auxilium inferioribus ferendo victos pariter victoresque subiâ—… Regiam servitutem coegit According to this advice Ferdinand King of Spaine fomented so well the discord between Francis King of France and him of Aragon that weakning the one and oppressing the other he made himselfe Lord of the Kingdom of Naples without wasting of either souldiers or money a Kingdom gotten before by the King of France with so much blood This also many Writers attribute to the Venetians vvho calling Lewis the tvvelfth into Italy hoped by this means to make themselves Lords of many Cities in Lombardy and Romagna with this conceit Lewis il Moro called in Charles the eighth King of France but this man endangered himselfe unhappily and the other were not far from absolute ruine Upon occasion whereof I cannot omit to shew their errour who make doubt that a third man should enjoy the benefit of their victory and what remedy there is for it Secondly how it happened that Ludovico Sforza by raising discord between the King of France and them of Aragon lost his state when Philip by raising discord between the Graecians and also Ferdinand King of Spaine got so much by it Concerning the first there can no better counsell be given to two who striving together have a third looking on to set upon the winner then to perswade them to peace or else juridically to heare their differences but because this seldome or never hath place amongst Princes and warre oftentimes for many occasions either cannot or will not be avoyded therefore I cannot better deliver my opinion then by shewing the example of Metius who being upon the point of striking battell with Tullus Hostilius and knowing that which side soever was victor must needs not having to fight with sheep exceedingly weaken it selfe with losse of souldiers whereby the Thuscans who were equall in Forces to the one and the other and by this losse of men should remain the stronger might take occasion to draw the victory of the conquering side to themselves he invited Tullus Hostilius to a parlee and with these reasons perswaded him to put the fortune of the victory upon a few that not
easie for the Lacedemonians to put a suspition of this into the Sicilians heads And therefore Vitiges being within Ravenna besieged by Delisarius and hearing by the Embassadours of the King of Austrasia that he offered to ayd him with fifty thousand French astonished at so great a succour put himselfe into the hands of Justinian Therefore weake Cities ought not to go in quest after warre because they are like either to be overcome of their enemies or to be in servitude to their friends seeing they who call to their ayd a greater power then their owne may be said to leane upon the point of a Speare or upon a broken Reed upon which he that leanes is like to find rather death then ayd And therefore our Lord God speaking in Esay to his people who had called the Aegyptians to their ayd Ecce confidis super baculum arundineum confractum istum super Aegyptum cui si innixus fuerit homo intrabit in manum ejus perforabit eam sic Pharao Rex Aegypti omnibus qui confidunt in co Which Aratus Head of the Achaeans knowing refused to receive the ayd of Antigonus Verebatur enim si forte Rex victoria potitus Cleomene ac Lacedaemoniis superatis ad extremum aliquid novi contra Rempublicam Achaeorum tentare And if these Cities find a necessity to make warre for their owne defence or otherwise and that not able of themselves it behoves them to call in others to their ayd they shall then doe well to call in more then one so the Pisans did against the Florentines who ayded by the Venetians by Lodovico Sforza by the Genouesi and by the Senesi went a long time dallying and kept them all off from getting to be Lords over them I cannot omit to advertise when one gives ayd to another and the case stands so that their Forces being joyned they are able to resist or else not that in this case he ought to come with all his Forces that if one resist not the other may and in this was the errour of the Campani in ayding the Sedicini who therefore were both of them ruined Campani magis nomen ad praesidiunt sociorum quam vires cum attulissent fluentes luxu obduratis usu armorum in Sidicino pulsi agro in se deinde molem 〈◊〉 belli verterâ—…nt and if the Romans had not ayded them they had been in manifest hazzard of destruction And therefore I cannot commend the course which the Athenians tooke in a battell of the Corfuani with the Corinthians in which having brought a squadron of Galleys in ayd of the Corfuans they gave order not to come into the fight untill they should see them routed there is no doubt but that if the Athenians had come in to fight in the beginning of the battell the Corfuans had got the victory but staying as their commission was and not giving ayd to their friends in time they added reputation to their enemies and lessened their own Forces so as either they should not have offered their ayd at all or they should have given it in the beginning Let us now come to a Citizen that aspires to make himselfe Lord of his own Countrey being held by infidels in which if the discord be between the Nobles and the Plebeians it is a hard matter to compasse yet in this case it is better he should make himselfe head of the people who have both more will and power then the Nobles as being a greater number and though they be of inferiour ranke to the great ones yet it is with them as with Buls who suffer themselves to be mastered because they know not their owne strength Which Manlius well knowing speaking to the people said Quousque tandem ignorabitis vires vestras It happens also for want of judgement and scarcity of money but all these things are helpt by making some great man Head that is wise and rich the people being like sheep where one leaps the other follows And this Moyses knew when being told by God of his own death he prayed him to provide his people a Leader that they might not be as sheepe without a shepheard Ne sint sicut oves sine ductore the people therfore are more able and the more able if they have a Head It remaines to shew that the people are more willing and more easily perswaded to raise a Plebeian to the Principality then one of the Nobility First by reason of the hope which every one naturally hath of new things specially the common people therefore Sallust saith Sed omnino cuncta plebs novarum 〈◊〉 studio Catilinae incoepta probabat Secondly because the people envies not the inequality of Honours but the inequality of Riches and this is the reason why it was never seen at least very seldome that one Noble man helps to raise another Noble man to the Principality and this Aristotle knew when he said Nam multitudo quidem graviter fert inequalitatem patrimoniorum praestantes viri honorum oequalitatem Whence it is no marvell if after the death of Romulus the Nobles found no way to make a King and if it had not been for the people it had scarce been ever done And Livy speaking of this saith Et esse igitur aliquod caput placebat nemo alteri concedere in animum inducebat It is therefore best the discord being between the Plebeians and the Nobles I meane alwaies as I said before as farre as may be done with a good conscience to make himselfe Head of the people which yet is not without great danger and very fallacious as I shall shew in another discourse upon those words Et ad tuendam Plebem Tribunitio jure contentum If the discord be between Nobles and Nobles then he that would make himselfe Prince either is head of one part or not if not he ought then to procure the concord of them that are 〈◊〉 because their discord will be a cause he can have but one side in his ayd and that but weakely 〈◊〉 where if they be made friends by this 〈◊〉 they will both of them remaine as it were obliged to him and perhaps will doe it the more because they cannot but thinke it a great matter for one man to hinder the proceeding of their enemies who will therefore afterwards without any other regard runne headlong to ayd him not caring what he be This my opinion will be sufficiently proved by the example of Caesar who seeing Pompey and Crassus at variance wrought so with them that he made them friends as knowing that to his purpose for making himselfe Prince this discord of theirs would be a great impediment But if he be head of a Faction then is the time to make himselfe Lord securely because having halfe the Nobility of his side if he can withall get the favour of the people he will undoubtedly be able to get the Empire And so is this place of Tacitus of which we speak to be
I briefly say there is great difference betweene the ease that is in a City and the ease that is of souldiers in warre because the end of a City is to live in peace whereof the ease spoken of before is a companion but the chiefe end of souldiers at the warres is to fight to which ease is contrary and an enemy and so the souldier with ease and the Citizen by warre are deprived of their ends and consequently in short time runne into danger Neque Provinciae illum rerum statum abnuebant suspecto Senatus Populique Imperio ob certamina Potentium avaritiam Magistratuum invalido legum auxilio quae vi ambitu postremo pecunia turbabantur That Cities subject to another City better like the government of a King than of a Commonwealth and that every City would gladly have their Lord to live amongst them The seventeenth Discourse COrnelius Tacitus in these words makes us know that the Provinces subject to the people of Rome liked better the government of a King than of a Commonwealth as it happens generally to all Cities that are subject to another So Guicciardine relates of Cremona that it liked better to be under the King of France than to be governed by the Common-wealth of Venice And hereof we have a manifest example in Pisa which being sold by Gabriel Maria Visconte to the Common-wealth of Florence there was scarce one Citizen that would tarry in it But more than in any other we may see the truth of this in the Lycians who having tried what it was to live under a King and under a Common-wealth they called the servitude of that in comparison of this liberty Neque miserabilis legatio Lyctorum qui crudelitatem Rhodiorum quibus ab Lucio Cornelio attributi erant quaerebantur fuisse sub ditione 〈◊〉 eam Regiam servitutem collatam cum praesenti statu pnaeelaram libertatem visam Non publico tantum se 〈◊〉 imperio sed singulos injustum pati servitium Of these points we will speake first in particular of Rome then in generall give the reasons Lastly we will shew that every City would we glad to be under a particular Prince and one that should dwell amongst them Concerning the first all those changes of State which come from a worse must needs be welcome from whence it is that after the expulsion of the Tarquins liberty was so pleasing Et ut laetior esset saith Livy proximi Regis superbia fecit That in our case the Commonwealth was corrupted even to the worst degree is sufficiently expressed by Tacitus in the foresaid words First by reason of the discord of the great ones one of which factions there was a necessity to follow and that overcome all then remained at the discretion of the other Secondly by occasion of the Magistrates who sought rather to satisfie their avarice with money than to take care for the executing of justice Thirdly because the laws had now no more place as being easily corrupted by force and mony Just cause therefore had the Provinces to be glad of the government of Augustus But because this liking of a subject City to be rather under a Prince than under a Commonwealth as we have said before is a common liking of all Provinces and Cities that are under another It will be necessary to search out the reason why it is so And for a first reason 〈◊〉 certaine politioian brings this because Commonwealths are more durable than Kingdomes and being more durable there is lesse hope to shake off their servitude and are therefore the more hated Secondly because Common-wealths having no other care but to make themselves greater and others lesse they endeavour only to weaken the subject Cities and to strengthen their own body a thing which Princes care not to doe and for this he brings the example of the Samnites who as long as they were of themselves maintained warre with the Romans a hundred yeeres a manifest signe they were then a strong people but afterwards falling in subjection to Rome they became most weake and of no force But because the first of these reasons is false and the second followes no lesse in Kingdomes than in Common-wealths with leave of so great a man I have conceived perhaps a better reason and it is because the Provinces and Cities having been at warre and by reason of the warre grown to hate one another and that hatred in processe of time become naturall as it was between the Romans and the Carthaginians between the Pisanes and the Florentines and others it happens that being overcome they are held in subjection by their naturall enemies which subjection is so much the more distastfull as being between persons that are equall and from hence it is that so gladly men seek to shake of the yoak So many times did Pisa so Spaine with the Romans who doubting the like of Greece as knowing by their continuall rebellions that they il brooked their subjection to the Commonwealth of Rome they destroyed many Cities and at last Corinth But if it happen that this Common-wealth fall into the hand of a Prince there is no doubt but the other Cities and Provinces will be glad a principall reason is because where these served and those ruled before with inequality now under a Prince they both serve equally and comming to be commanded by persons much their superiours the Dominion is so much lesse hated as the person is greater that commands and therefore we see that Pisa which under a Common-wealth was alwaies in rebellion now that it is under a Prince hath lived and doth live and is like to live in most quiet peace it is true indeed there concurres the graciousnesse of the Prince that sweetens all things Another manifest example we have in the Roman Histories and it is that Spaine as long as the City of Rome was a Commonwealth was continually in rebellion nor could ever be quieted till the said City came into the hand of a Prince under Augustus I omit the example of the Philistines who never left warring with the Israelites from the first day I may say they entered into the Land of Promise untill they were setled in a Regall government under David To come to the third head not onely Cities and Provinces cannot abide to be under the rule of a Commonwealth but neither doe they like to be under a Prince that is a stranger and that dwels not amongst them which Prince may either be of different customes and language as the King of Spaine to Naples and Milan or of the same customes and language but of divers Provinces as the King of France to Burgundy and Britaine or else of the same Province the same tongue and the same customes as many Princes of Italy to many Cities In the first case they are not well brooked but tolerated with an ill will First by reason of the difference of customes which is able to make a Prince odious though he
whom it was imputed as a great fault that he would rather call to his ayd Philip King of Macedon then put his Cities into the hands of Cleomenes a Spartan Quod si omnino saith Plutarch Cleomenes injustus fuerit atque Tyrannicus tamen Heraclidarum genere patria 〈◊〉 suisse quidem iis qui rationem aliquam Graeciae Nobilitatis 〈◊〉 Spartanorum obscurissimum potius quam primum inter Macedonas Ducem deligendum fuisse Whereupon our Lord God meaning to give the man Regall power over the woman to the end it might be tolerated with more contentment made her of a ribbe of Adam And to conclude in Deuteronomy he commanded his people they should not choose a stranger to be their King But because this my opinion is full of difficulty seeing oftentimes a City desires to be governed rather by a stranger then by one of their owne Citizens it will be necessary to use distinction either it is the first time a Kingdome is erected or else they have been used to Regall power before if it be the first time they will then rather choose to serve a stranger then one of their own Citizens First because knowing the Citizens beginning they are apt to scorne him So it fell out with the Israelites the first time they had a King for being most desirous to see who it should be when they saw it was Saul they scorned him Num salvare nos poterit iste despexerunt eum Secondly it happens often by reason of factions that are in the City for such desire rather to be governed by a stranger as a man indifferent then by a Cittizen that is an enemy Seeing such a one comming to the government would certainly sill the City with blood and slaughter Whereupon Livy saith Cum pars quae domestico certamine inferior sit externo potius se applicet quam civi cedat A third reason is drawne from envy for an envious man endeavours alwaies to obscure the worthinesse of his Countreymen as lying more in envies way then a stranger whereof S. Hierome saith Propemodum naturale est semper cives civibus invidere invidia autem est tristitia de aliena excellentia ut est proprii boni diminutiva Bonum autem absentium non 〈◊〉 nostra quia non confert eis Ideo non invidemus bona autem praesentium conferunt bonis nostris comparatione excellentiae eorum ostenditur parvum esse bonum nostrum hoc est illud Diminui And of this we have the example of our Lord Christ who being persecuted by his Countreymen was invited by Abagarus a forraine Prince that would have made him in part King with him in his City A third reason may be this that Countreymen know a man from his infancy when there is yet no vertue in him and thereupon consider him but as such a one still where strangers that come not to know a man but in his perfection cannot nor know not how to consider him other then as such So the said S. Hierome saith Quia cives non considerant praesentia viri opera sed fragilis â—…ecordantur Infantiae It is therefore no marvell that the Florentines chose rather to be governed by a French man then by one of their owne Citizens Our Lord God knowing how difficult a thing it is to choose at the first time ones own Countreyman to be Prince In the old law to the end the Israelites having a desire to have a King and not yeelding one to another might not subject themselves to a stranger he made a law they should choose none to be their King but only an Israelite Non poteris alterius generis hominem in Regem facere quod non sit frater tuus But because he knew it would be a hard matter for them to agree upon the choyce at the first time he therefore made that election himselfe Eum constitues quem Dominus Deus tuus elegerit de medio fratrum tuorum And when lastly he came to choose him to the end he might be lesse envied he tooke a course that causeth least envy and that was by Lot But if the people have been accustomed before to a Regall subjection in this case they will rather like to be governed by one of their own Countrey then a stranger and so much the more if some of his family have beene Governour before there being then no place for either envy feare or for equality It is therefore no marvell that Caesar was but ill beloved and was slaine and that 〈◊〉 lived quietly and had the love of all men seeing Caesar raised his House from equality and Augustus found it in superiority in which the Dictatour had left it whereupon when I consider how it happened that our Lord God would at the first time make a King by election and afterward would have it to goe by succession in David I cannot conceive a better reason than this that he knew after the first time the election of a King would be without difficulty In this particular let every one be of what opinion he please but for this other point I doe not thinke it will be denied me that all Cities and Provinces like better to be governed by a particular Prince that dwels amongst them then by any other how great soever he be For this cause it was that the Spaniards were not well pleased when Charles the fifth was made Emperour and were ready to rise because they feared he would leave dwelling in Spaine and make his residence in Germany This desire was the cause that the Persians to have a King in their owne Province set up Cyrus against Astyages who resided in Media and out of this desire the Brittaines covenanted with the King of France that his eldest sonne comming to the Crown his second sonne should be Duke of Brittaine whereof there can be no other reason but the desire to have a particular Prince that should dwell amongst them as being indeed of speciall benefit to the people First because living amongst them he spends those Revenues in the Country which he drawes from the Countrey Secondly because of the greater care the Prince hath of them and because of the peoples neernesse to their Lords eare to whom they can present their suites in their own persons without wasting themselves in journeys and lying at Innes Lastly because if the Prince being Lord of many Provinces reside in one of them the other must be faine to be governed by Deputies of that Province The Emperours of Rome residing in Italy governed all the Provinces by Italians a thing most distastfull to all the people because to one that is not grieved to be subject to a Prince that is a stranger yet it grieves him to be governed by men of a Province that is a stranger as many people that are content to be subject to the King of Bohemia yet refuse to be subject to the Kingdome of Bohemia And the King of France after many
without this course they were never able to live in peace So the Romans as long as the race of the Tarquins continued were never without warre And this is one of the causes I alledged why the conspiracy of Marcus Brutus against Caesar had not so good successe as the conspiracy of Lucius Brutus against the Tarquins because in this they destroyed not onely the line of the Tarquins but all those that were of the name where in that of Caesar they onely cut downe the tree but left the roote behind from which sprung up Augustus who receiving nourishment and ayd from those very men that had killed his unkle in a short time he grew to be so great a Tree that he crushed them to pieces that went about to cut him downe For this very cause in Aegypt in Cappadocia in Soria in Macedonia and in Bythinia they often changed their Kings because they tooke no care to extinguish the line of the former Lords but onely to get their places And therefore Bardanus in Tacitus is justly blamed who instead of extinguishing Gotarze the former Lord stood loosing his time in besieging the City But these and a thousand other examples which for brevity I omit it may be held for a maxime of State that whosoever gets a Kingdome from another he ought to root out the whole line of him that was Lord before But this rule cannot be thus left without some aspersion of impiety and therefore for resolution I think best to distinguish because if we speake of a Christian Prince that hath gotten the state of another who is enemy of the faith he may justly doâ—… as best pleaseth him by any way whatsoever to take them away that can pretend to the State yet not so neither unlesse he find them so obstinate in their â—…ect that there is no possible meanes to remove them from their errour and so much our Lord God himselfe by the mouth of the Prophet Samuel appointed Saul to do to Amalech 〈◊〉 ergo vade percute Amalech demolire Vniversa ejus non parcas ei non concupiscas ex rebus 〈◊〉 aliquid sed interfice a viro usque ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 atque Lactantem But if we speake of a Christian Prince that by force gets possession of a State from one of the same faith let him never goe about to destroy the line of him that possessed it before for besides that it is a thing unworthy of a Christian it seemes to me to be rather their invention who meaning to live wickedly would be glad to have no bridle for if a Prince shall carry himselfe lovingly towards his Subjects using them as children and not as servants he need not be afraid of any whomsoever For this cause the Senatours of Rome having driven out the Tarquins had more 〈◊〉 to governe the City as fathers then to extinguish the line of him that had been Lord which was indeed incomparably more for their good as in the second booke of the first Decad of Livy every one may see Rather many times it is better to bestow honours upon them from whom a state is taken and to leave them a part thereby to reteine the rest more securely So did Cyrus who having taken Lydia and dispossessed Craesus who was Lord of it before he left him at least a part of his patrimony and gave him a City to be his owne And indeed if he had done otherwise he might easily have lost all therefore Justin saith Craeso vita patrimonii partes urbs Barce concessa sunt in qua 〈◊〉 non Regiam vitam tamen proximam Majestati Regiae degeret And then shewes the benefit that comes by it where he saith Haec Clementia non minus Victori quam victo utilis fuit quippe ex Vniversa Gracia cognito quod illatum Craeso bellum esset auxilia veliâ—…t ad 〈◊〉 extinguendum incendium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Craesi 〈◊〉 apud omnes urbes erat ut passurus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belluÌ„ Gracia fuerit si quid crudelius in Craesum consuluisset If the King of France had done thus when Ferdinand of Aragon would have yeelded up the Kingdome of Naples to him if he would have left him but Lord of Calabria perhaps he had not lost both the one and the other and in truth it had been his best way to have done so at least for so long time till he might have made himselfe sure and firme in the Kingdome of Naples and then for the other he might have taken it from him againe at any time So did David who tooke away halfe of the substance which Saul had given to Mephibosheth and gave it to his servant Siba for a doubt he had lest he should desire his fathers Kingdome This interpretation Procopius made of it when he said Vt substantiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsius dejiceret ne Regnum affectaret alias enim illum qui adversus Dominum suum mendacium dixerat quem punire potius debebat nequaquam participem cumeo fecisset Alexander the Great when he waged warre with Kings farre off from Macedonia he not onely when he had overcome them never sought to extinguish their line but which is more strange to them from whom he had taken a Kingdome he restored the same Kingdome againe A great act of Magnanimity and which may and ought to be used in the like case to that of Alexander Magnus that is when Countries farre remote from the Seate of the Kingdom and in customes Iawes habit and language very different are easily overcome and so much the rather when the warre is waged more for desire of glory then for getting of ground seeing it is alwaies better to seeke to hold that by a way of clemency which by a way of force can never be held But in case it be feared least leaving the former Prince in the Countries taken from him he should practise to make a revolution he may then have states given him to governe in other places So Cirus did who having overcome the Medes and deprived Astyages of his Kingdome he would not leave him in Media and yet would not deale hardly with him neither but he made him Governour of Hyrcania and although Justin say it was done because Astyages himselfe had no mind to returne to the Medes yet to my understanding it is more likely that Cyrus did it as fearing least he who had procured his nephews death to bring himselfe to the Kingdome being now deprived of it would never be quiet when any fit occasion should be offerd to him Another way there is which others have used and it is to keepe such about themselves and to hold them in esteeme of Kings so Herod the great had begun to doe with Aristobulus and with Hyrcanes but the cruelty of his nature made him fall at last to take the same course that others doe This counsell therefore was much better followed by David who leaving Sauls patrimony to Mephibosheth the sonne of Jonathan
discoursed of in two senses the spirituall and the temporall In the spirituall it cannot be denied against Calvin and other hereticks but that a Monarchy is the best kind of government that can be given and of this there needs be no disputing being as cleare as the Sunne both by authority of Scripture by determination of Councels by consent of the Church and finally by the common opinion of all the Fathers such a Monarchy having been instituted by our Lord Christ himselfe But in the second case which is considering it in the temporall sense I hold the Question may hold disputation and be handled politically where we shall not find all the reasons that were in the former because a King as a King may erre a thousand times a day but the Pope as Pope can never erre as being assisted by the Holy Ghost Whereupon as it is undoubted that in the spirituall there cannot a better government be then a Monarchy so in the Temporall every one may be left to take which side he likes best The first question being betweene an Israelite and an Egyptian was consequently easily determined by Moses but the second betweene the Israelite and the Israelite was very hard to be determined And therefore as 〈◊〉 Gregory Nyssen well observes by killing the Egyptian Moses ended that strife but for the strife between the two Israelites he was never able to accord them So the strife which we had with Heretickes may easily be determined by killing them with the holy Scripture but with strifes that grow between our selves are left to every ones free liking and therefore very hardly can be ended He then that would hold an Aristocracy to be better then a Monarchy might easily prove it by reason and by authority By reason because as S. Thomas saith excellently well that government is the best and the most profitable that can best procure the unity of the Cittizens whereupon we must necessarily confesse that an Optimacy is the best for seeing that an univocall riseth not but from an univocall and that the unity of the Optimates is more univocall to that unity which is required in the people then the unity of a Monarch is therefore also it is more fit and able to produce it for the unity of the Prince is an unity of person and of end unity of person as much as to say unity of number as being one alone unity of end because all his cares are directed to one sole end which is the good of his subjects but the unity of the Optimates is an unity of end in plurality of persons I say plurality but not disunion because the Optimates being many persons cannot have unity of number but agreeing in the end which is the good of the City in this they are one And the unity of subjects ought to be an unity of end in plurality of persons so as by this it manifestly appearing that the unity of the Optimates is more univocall with that of the people then the unity of the King is therefore consequently it must be granted that it is more able to produce it There being two things necessary to generation as Cajetan saith first the distinction of that which is generated from that which generates the second that there be a similitude in nature between the one and the other because that which Generates intends to introduce a thing like to it selfe and therefore saith he where there is more Identity and similitude in nature betweene that which Generates and that which is generated there the generation will be perfitter and more easie and from hence it comes that the Univocall generation is more excellent then the Equiuocall and therefore seeing the Identity betweene the unity of the Optimates and that of the People is more then the unity of the Prince and that of the People it followes that the generation shall be more noble more persit and more easie and the more seeing that unity of a King which is unity of number is rather contrary to the union we speake off because as one in number is a denying of more parts So unity in number is an affirming of more parts rather that one which is of number is the ruine of a City as Aristotle prooves strongly against Plato where he saith Atqui constat quod ea si procedat ut una fiat magis Civitas non erit Est enim Civitas multitudo quâ—…dam secundum Naturam quae dum fit una magis Domus erit ex Civitate homo ex Domo Vnam enim magis Domum censemus esse quam Civitatem hominem unum quam Domum quare etiamsi posset quisâ—…iam am hoc facere tamen non esset faciendum 〈◊〉 perimit Civitatem So as a City should not make it selfe one in number but in discipline as the said Aristotle saith Oportet cum Civitas sit multitudo per Disciplinam communem facere And although to shew that the unity of a King is better then that of Optimates It might be said that the unity of number shewes Perfection God being one by reason of Perfection and many holding that in every sort of Angells there is one chiefe as that which concernes their Perfection yet I could easily answer with Saint Thomas that one as it implies Negation addes nothing to the Perfection of being and if we take one as excluding other things and as in its formall sense it signifies to be alone and solitary This of it selfe expresseth no Perfection but rather many times imperfection because in God the being alone by Essence proceeds from Perfection but if he should be one in Person it should be an imperfection So as one if you take it for solitary signifies not so much Perfection as imperfection But if we come to consider the Naturalnes of this government we cannot then have a better thing to make it manifest then the government of our body which accordingto the doctrin of Plato with the consent of Aristotle is governed by nature Aristocratically with three faculties The sensitive the Animall and the Vitall the sensitive consisting in the Braine which is the Beginning of all the sinewes the vitall in the heart the beginning of all the Arteries The Animall in the Liver the Fountaine of all the veines whereupon every member containing Arteries Nerves and veines they consequently are governed by three by the liver by the heart and by the braine and therefore that Doctrine of the heart which is brought in opposition is false which Aristotle in his workes of Physick hath many times confuted And their Reason to say a house is governed by one alone is of no force which rather is a reason that makes for us seeing that as nature amongst things that are unequall as those in a house are hath ordained the Government of one alone so betweene those that are Equall as it is in a Cittâ—…y there should be an Optimacy which by 〈◊〉 in the first of his Politicks is plainly
usurum promiscua caede This once heard by the souldiers they presently cut them all in pieces that were guilty of the mutiny and if this way yet would not have been sufficient seeing this tumult was grown out of idlenesse and he was not willing to use violence he might have taken the other Army and put himselfe in the way to go against the Enemy this course Caesar took who when the Army in France rebelled he took one Legion which he specially favoured with him and gave leave to the mutinous Legions to go home to Rome which once seen there vvas not a souldier that left not presently his mutinying follovved him a most easie vvay for if any thing hinder an Army that is in mutiny I mean not out of hatred from pacifying and appeasing it is a fear they have to be punished vvhich fear ceaseth as soon as they are taken to go against the Enemy every one hoping by some notable deed to cancell the blot of their Rebellion and therefore as soon as those first Legions vvere quieted they presently demanded to be led against the Enemy Puniret noxios ignosceret lapsis duceret in hostem Whereupon we see that after such mutinies Armies commonly shew more valour than at any time before as Livie shews in a thousand places and this Germanicus knew full well who after the slaughter the souldiers of Caecina had committed led them presently out against the Enemy Truces etiam tum animos cupido involat â—…undi in hostem piaculum furoris nec aliter posse placari Commilitonum manes quasi si pectoribus impiis honesta vulnera accepissent sequitur ardorem militum Caesar. And further if Germanicus were not willing to depart from the Army being in mutiny yet the mutiny having beene caused by a sudden motion he needed not have beene so hasty to seeke the appeasing of so new a mutiny but might have given the Souldiers deliberation and then reason taking place hee might without doubt have quieted them at his pleasure Our Lord Christ in a parable would not have the tares to be rooted out with the corne as long as it was in blade and greene but appointed to stay till they were dry and then dividing them cast the tares into the fire so should he doe with Armies that are in mutiny that seekes to preserve them and not to destroy them all He had another excellent way and most worthy for a Generall to follow and it was to threaten that whosoever did not follow him should be counted a Rebell and as a Rebell should be proceeded against a way of exceeding great force and especially in tumults where there is not a head and where they are all equally stub borne and every one feares for himselfe as was seene in Saul who being declared King was yet not followed but onely of some few whereupon an occasion falling out for relieving the Citie of Jah to the end the whole Army should follow him he caused two Oxen to be cut in pieces and be spread about all the borders of Israell threatning that whosoever did not follow him should have all his heards of cattell cut in pieces as those Oxen were Quicunque non exierit secutus fuerit Saul Samuel sic fiet bobus ejus and where the Israelites before would not all follow him now out of feare of the particular punishment there was not a man that did not follow him Invasit ergo it followes in the holy Text Timor Domini populum egressi sunt quasâ—… vir unus Now that it had beene easie for Germanicus by taking this course to have quieted the tumult is very evident seeing Menius onely by this course brought one of those Legions to returne backe into their Quarters where finding a particular punishment was designed where before they had a purpose to kill him now every one readily was content to follow him Raptum vexillum ad ripam fi quis agmine discessit pro desertore fore clamitans reduxit in Hyberna turbidos nihil ausos Germanicus also might have used another excellent way and it is he should have caused some trusty Centurion or Souldier to declare to this mutinous multitude the danger into which they were fallen and the errour they had committed for such people commonly give credit to men of such ranke as was seene in Iulius Arufpex who shewing to the people of Germany the danger they should incurre by rebelling against the Romans he easily quieted them though he had Iulius Valentinus that opposed him At Iulius Aruspex 〈◊〉 primoribus Remorum vim Romanam pacisque bona dissertans sumi bellum etiam ab ignavis strenuissimi cujusque periculo geri jamque super caput Legiones sapientissimum quemque reverentia fideque juniores periculo ac metu continuit Valentini animum laudabant confilium 〈◊〉 sequebantur So Cerealis also speaking to the Treviri after that manner appeased them as by the processe of that Oration he makes in Tacitus may be seene The very same manner Drusus used with the Legions of Illyricum imploying one Clement a Centurion in grace with the Souldiers for his meanes to pacifie that sedition Accitur Centurio Clemens 〈◊〉 qui alii bonis artibus grati in vulgus in Vigiliis stationibus custodiis portarum se inserunt spem offerunt metum intendunt And that this way would have beene available also to Germanicus is evident seeing Caecina making use hereof with two of those Legions he so wrought them that they spared not to punish the chiefe of the sedition Another way also he might have used and that was to have pretended himself their Captain in the Sedition or if not himselfe which in many respects was not fit for Germanicus at least to have caused some other principall man to feigne himself to be of their opinion and all other remedies fayling I suppose this might have stood Germanicus in great stead because men commonly give great credit to their counsels who are interessed in the matter as beleeving they speak sincerely For this cause David caused his trusty friend Chusci the Arachite to feigne himselfe of Absaloms side to the end he might hinder the counsell of Achitophel and it happily succeeded So Gamaliel standing amongst the Priests was a meanes to save Peters life Spurinna being in Placentia for defence of that Citie and seeing the Souldiers bent to fight with the Vitellians who farre exceeded them in number and in all advantages 〈◊〉 himselfe to be of their opinion seeing them in such a tumult and thereupon leading them forth hee easily made them see their errour and perceive the danger and shewing them good reasons he reduced them to obedience Fit 〈◊〉 alienae comes Spurinna primo coactus mox velle 〈◊〉 quo 〈◊〉 authoritatis inesset confiliis si seditio mitesceret And a little after Ipse postremo Spurinna non tam culpam exprobrans quam ratione ostendens relictis exploratoribus caeteros Placentiam