The six books of a common-weale

WE have before said, that a Monarchie is a kind of Commonweale, wherein the absolute soueraigntie lyeth in the power of one onely prince: which definition we are now to explaine. When we say of one, so the word Monarchie of it selfe importeth: For if we shall in the[*](A true soueraig commaundeth all others his subiects, but is himselfe by none commaunded.) government ioyne two or moe, no one of them shall have the soueraigntie: for that a soueraigne is hee which commaundeth all others, and can himselfe by none be commanded. If then there be two princes equall in power, one of them hath not the power to commaund the other, neither can hee suffer the commaund of the other his companion, if it stand not with his owne pleasure, otherwise they should not be equals. Wee may then conclude, that of two princes equall in power in the same Commonweale, and both of them in al things lords of the same people, and of the same countrey indiuisibly, neither the one nor the other hath therein the soueraigntie: but it may well be said them both together to have the soueraignty of the state comprised under the name of an Oligarchie, but is more properly

called a Duarchie, a kind of Aristocracie, which may be of continuance and durable, so long as the two princes shall well agree together. As Romulus and Tatius, one of them king of the Romans, and the other of the Sabines, after certaine conflicts, making peace entred into societie together, upon condition, that both their people vnited together, should dwell within the same walles, and by the name of Quirites by common soueraigntie be gouerned by both kings. But Romulus, who before by the slaughter of his[*](A very hard matter for two princes in one and the same commonweale long to hold the soueraigntie togeather.) brother Remus had rid himselfe of his fellow in the kingdome, could not long endure the straunger to raigne with him, but caused him to be slaine, or at leastwise held the murtherer excused, being for the fact apprehended. Long time after the Roman empire was conuerted from a Monarchy into a Binarchie: at such time as Antoninus Pius left M. Aurelius, and Aelius Verus, emperours, and both fellowes in the same empire: of which two Aelius in short time after died, and not without the suspition of poison. For it is, and alwayes hath bene a thing most hard to maintaine the equall soueraigntie of both together. And that which Lucan writeth,

Nulla fides regni socijs, omnis que potestas,

Impatiens consortis erit.

No sincere loue is to be found in partners of the soueraigne state,

And fellowship in power great, is alwaies mixt with mortall hate.

Is especially to be vnderstood of a Diumuirat, or soueraigne government of two together. For that the government of three or moe together in the soueraigntie, may bee firme, but of two not so; seeing that by nature one thing is but contrarie to one, and not to many: the third as a meane still ioyning the extreames together. And therefore the Roman emperours, when as they at the same time tooke upon them the same soueraigntie of government, least by the mutuall concurse of their power, they should violat their faith and friendship, divided the empire, the one being emperor of the East, and the other of the West; the one residing at Constantinople, and the other at Rome, in manner as if they had bene two Monarches, although sometimes the same edicts and lawes were in both empires by the common consent of both princes published. Yet so soone as they began to quarrell, the two empires were indeed divided in power lawes and estate. So might a man say of the Lacedemonian Commonweale well gouerned by one king. But when Aristodemus left the kingdome to be gouerned wholly, and divided by his two sonnes Froclus and Euristhenes both at once, they quickly fell at oddes, and had their state taken from them, by Lycurgus (beeing himselfe a prince descended of the blood of Hercules) and the soueraigntie by him giuen unto the people. The like happened unto Amphareus and Leucippus, kings of the Messians. But the Argiues least they should sal into the same troubles, to auoid the plurality of kings, at such time as Atreus and Thyestes at once seised upon their fathers kingdome, the people (I say) made choyce of the wiser, or as Lucian saith of the more learned. And the princes of the blood of Meronee and Charlemaigne, divided the kingdome amongst them. So the children of Clodoueus, of their fathers one kingdom made foure of equall power. And the three children of Lewes the Debonaire divided so many kingdomes amongst them. Neither do we read many at once long to have holden a kingdome together vndivided: for the indiuisible nature of soueraigntie, and the fellowship of government, is alwayes full of dangers, where no one hath the soueraigntie, except when a straunge prince marrieth a queene, among such as are acquainted with womens government: where commonly the pictures of the man and his wife, their names and armes are ioined together; as if the soueraigntie belonged unto them both: as it chanced

when king Ferdinand married Isabel queene of Castile, Anthonie of Burbon, Ioane queene of Nauarre, and Philip king of Spaine Marie the daughter of Henrie king of England. Howbeit the English men would not suffer him to have any part with her in the soueraigntie, or of the fruites or profis thereto belonging, but that the same should remaine wholly unto her selfe; albeit that they were contented that they should both (for fashion sake) beare the name, and both the one and the other signe charters, and commissions, but yet so, as that the signe of the queene might of it selfe bee sufficient, but that without hers the signe of king Philip should be to no purpose. Which was also agreed upon with Ferdinand king of Arragon, hauing married Isabel of Castile,[*](I the king, and I the queene.) where all the commaunds were signed, Yo el Roy, and Yo la Reyna; and by the secretarie of the state, with sixe doctors: but as for the soueraigntie it was wholly in the queene. Than which no more effectuall reason can be giuen against the Manichies, who crroneously appointed two gods of equall power; one good, & the other euil: for if it were so they being contrarie the one to the other, should either ruinat the one the other, or els being at continuall variance, should without ceasing trouble the sweet harmonie and concord that we see in this great world. And how could the world endure those two lords of equall power, and contrarie in will the one to the other, seeing that the least citie or Commonweale cannot suffer two, albeit that they were brethren, if they should fall neuer so little at variance: much more easily could it endure three such princes than two; for that the third might vnite the two, or els ioyning himselfe with the one, constraine them both to live in peace. As it happened so long as Pompee, Caesar, [*](A commonweale better gouerned by three great soueraigns then by two.) and Crassus lived, whome the people called the monster with three heads: for so long they peaceably gouerned the Roman empire, which then depended of their power. But so soone as Crassus was slaine in Caldea, straight way the other two fell in sunder, and so egerly made warre the one of them upon the other, as that to reconcile them was impossible, vntill that one of them had quite ouerthrowne the other, and made himselfe maister of all. The like happened after the death of Caesar, in the Triumuirat of Augustus, M. Antoninus, and Lepidus, who hauing of one popular Commonweale, made three Monarchies; and Lepidus vnfit for government, had submitted his authoritie unto Augustus, although Antoninus had married Augustus his sister, and that they two had equally divided the empire betwixt them, and lived in countries farre distant one from another; yet rested they not long, but that the one of them was shaken out of all, by the authoritie and power of the other. Whereafter ensued the sure state of the empire, established under one mans government. Wherefore let vs hold it as resolued upon, that it cannot be called a Monarchie, where the soueraigntie is in two mens power; neither that any government can consist in that state, if they shall fall at variance betwixt themselves.

Now Monarchie is divided into three formes: for he that hath the soueraigntie, is[*](Three sortes of monarchies. Great difference betwixt the state, and the government of the state of a commonweale.) either lord of all: or else a king, or a tyrant, which maketh no diuersitie of Common weals, but proceedeth of the diuersitie of the gouernour in the Monarchie: For there is great difference betwixt the state, and the government of the state: a rule in pollicie (to my knowledge) not before touched by any man: for the state may be in a Monarchie, and yet the government neuerthelesse popular; if the king do distribute all places of commaund, magistracie, offices, and preferments indifferently unto all men, without regard of their nobilitie, wealth, or vertue. But if the prince shall giue all commaund, honours, and offices, unto the nobilitie onely, or to the rich, or to the valiant, or to the vertuous onely, it shall be a royall Monarchie, and that simple and pure, but yet tempered in maner of an Aristocracie. So also an Aristocratique seigneurie, may gouerne their estate popularly; diuiding the honours and preferments therein unto all

the subiects indifferently: or else Aristocratically, bestowing them upon the nobilitie or richer sort onely; which varietie of government hath deceiued them which haue made a mixture of Commonweals, and so made more sorts thereof then three, without hauing regard that the state of a Commonweal is different from the administration and government of the same: But this point we will farther touch in place convenient.

Wherefore a lawfull or royall Monarchie is that where the subiects obey the lawes[*](The three sorts of Monarchies aptly described.) of a Monarque, and the Monarque the lawes of nature, the subiects inioying their naturall libertie, and proprietie of their goods. The lordly Monarchie is that where the prince is become lord of the goods and persons of his subiects, by law of armes and lawfull warre; gouerning them as the master of a familie doth his slaues. The tyrannicall Monarchie, is where the prince contemning the lawes of nature and nations, imperiously abuseth the persons of his free borne subiects, and their goods as his owne. The same difference is also found in the Aristocratique and popular estate: for both the one and the other may be lawful, lordly, and tirannicall, in such sort as I have said: for the greatest tyrannie of all other is of Tully called the rage of the furious and turbulent people.

Now as concerning the lordly Monarchie, it is convenient for vs first to intreat[*](The lordly Monarchie the first that was amongst men.) thereof, as of that which was first amongst men: for they are deciued which following the opinion of Aristotle, suppose that golden kind of men (more famous for the poets fables, then for that there were any such in deed) to have made first choice of their heroicall kings: seeing we find, and all men are perswaded that the first Monarchie was established in Assiria, under the power of Nemrod, whom the holie scripture calleth the great hunter; which is a common phrase of speach amongst the Hebrewes, by which word they signifie a theefe, or robber. For the auntient writers, viz. Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon, have put robberie among the kinds of hunting, as wee have elswhere noted. For before the time of Nemrod no man is found to have had power[*](Nemrod the first Monarkie.) and rule one over an other, all men liuing in like libertie; he being the first that tooke upon him the soueraigntie, and that caused free borne men to serue: whose name seemeth to have beene giuen him according unto his qualitie, for asmuch as Nemrod signifieth a terrible lord. Soone after the world was seene full of slaues, Sem one of the sonnes of Noe yet liuing. And in the whole course of the Bible, the scripture speaking of the subiects of the kings of Assiria and Aegipt, calleth them alwaies slaues: and not the holie scripture onely, but the Greekes also, who alwayes in their writings tearme them selues free, and the Barbarians slaues; meaning by the Barbarians the people of Asia and Aegipt. And therefore the kings of Persia denouncing warre, demaunded the earth and the waters, (as Plutache writeth) to showe that they were absolute Lords of all that was in the land and sea conteined. And that is it for which Xenophon in his Cyropaedia writeth, that it is a thing good and commondable among the Medes, that the prince should be lord and owner of all things: And thereof came the adoration which not onely the subiects, but straungers also, yea and the embassadors of forren nations used towards the kings of Persia, to showe that all was in his power. For when Themistocles, whose name euen then and long before was most famous, would after the manner of the Greeks have spoken unto the Persian king, Atabanus captaine of the kings gard, kept him from comming unto him, neither would suffer him to preferre any request unto him, vntill such time as he had after the Persian manner adored him: but afterwards when he was gon out of the kings presence, hee courteously spake unto him, and in these words excused that he had done; It is seemely O Themistocles, to follow the fashion of the countrey wherein a man is: you Grecians

make great reckning of your libertie and equalitie of commaund; but we esteeme it for the best thing in the world to reverence, serue, and honour our king, as the image of the living God. Whereunto agreeth that which Liuie writeth, Barbaris pro legibus semper dominorum imperia fuerunt. The commaund of their lords haue beene alwaies[*](A lordly Monarchie, not to be accounted a tirannie and whie.) unto the Barbarians for lawes. Neither ought this lordly monarchie to be accounted a tyrannie: for it is not inconvenient, that a soueraigne prince hauing in good and lawfull warre vanquished his enemies, should make himselfe lord of their goods and persons by the law of armes, governing them now his subiects, as doth the good housholder his seruants or slaues: as wee see it a thing receiued by the manner and custome of almost all nations. But the prince which shall by vniust warre, or other vnlawfull meanes make of freemen his slaues, and possesse himselfe of their goods, is not a lordlike Monarche, but a verie tyrant: from which Adrian the emperour was so farre, as that he would not that a slaue a player, should enioy his libertie, which his master at the request of the people of Rome had giuen him in the Theater, but left it to the discretion of his master, to be as he thought good disposed of: As had Tiberius before, and after that Marcus Aurelius Adrian his sonne in like case forbid the same: whatsoeuer consent the master had giuen at the clamour of the people; reputing it rather forced than done of good will: to the end that the full disposition should be in every mans power, of that which unto him belonged. And now although at this present there be few princes which have in their absolute power the bodies and goods of their subiects, although we see many tyrants; yet are there many in Asia and Africa: but in Europe I know none which take so much upon them, beside the Princes of the Turkes, and of the Moscouits. True it is that the Moscouits call themselves Chlopes,[*](The great Turk and the Moscouite the only lordly Monarque in Europe) that is to say, seruants, which wee corruptly call slaues. But the Fmperour of the Turkes styleth himselfe Sultan, that is to say Lord: not so much for the largenes of his possession, (seeing that the king of Spaine hath under his dominion and rule, people for their crueltie barbarous, for their multitude innumerable, in places infinite: which his kingdome is bounded with the same countries, wherewith the course of the sunne is bounded, being ten times greater then the Turkes empire) but is therefore called Lord of the Turkes, for that he is lord of their persons and goods; whom for all that he gouerneth much more courteously and freely, then doth a good housholder his seruants: for those whom wee call the princes slaues, or seruants, the Turkes call them Zamoglans, that is to say tribute children; whom the prince vseth no otherwise to instruct, then if they were his children: and to bestow on them noble preferments, which are of others desirously sought after. As for his Timariot horsmen, they hold all their possessions in fealtie of the Prince, as it were during pleasure, renewing their letters patents from ten yeares to ten yeares: neither when they dye can they leaue their children heires of their possessions, but of their moueables onely; except by the gift of the prince they keepe the possession of their fathers lands, as they doe of his goods. Other princes there are none in Europe which call themselves lords of the bodies and goods of their subiects, and fewer in auncient time then at this present: for Augustus the emperour himselfe, although he were in effect the greatest monarch in the world, yet so it was that he so abhorred to be called Lord: neither had any that held of him in fealtie and homage.

Now if one say that there is no Monarque in Europe which pretendeth not all the[*](How the goods and landes of subiects belong unto the soueraigne prince.) goods and lands of his subiects to belong unto him in right of direct soueraigntie, neither any man which confesseth not to hold his goods of his soueraigne prince: yet I say that that sufficeth not that any man should therefore of right be called lord of all, or a lordly Monarche: seeing that every subiect hath the true proprietie of his owne

things, and may thereof dispose at his pleasure: although the prince for pompe and show challenge vnto himselfe the soueraigntie thereof. And yet there are diuers lands which are called Allodial, wherein the prince hath neither proprietie, nor soueraigne[*](The Hunnes the first that brough the lordly soueraignmēt of Monarks into Europ.) right, as not holden of him. The Hunns a Tartar-like nation come from the farthest parts of Scythia, at such times as they with fire and sword destroied almost all Europe, first showed the example unto the Lombards and Almans, Germaine nations, and to the Frankes, the auncient inhabitants of Fraunce, calling themselves Lords of all, and so accustomed these nations to lord it over all: as that no man could hold a turfe of ground but by their leaue. True it is that the Romans hauing vanquished their enemies, most commonly solde them for slaues, or else condemned them to lose the[*](* Plutar in . ) seauenth part of their lands: which lands they straight waies gaue vnto their Colonies in pure proprietie. But princes and people instructed in ciuilitie, for feare of rebellion, or distrust of their owne power, reiected such lordlike soueraigntie as had the kings of Persia and Asia over their subiects: contenting themselves with the shadow of such lordly Monarchie. And albeit that the Persian kings before the time of Artaxerxes, had used to cause their great lords and magistrats to be stript starke naked before them and whipped as slaues: yet king Artaxerxes was the first that ordained that they should in deed be stript, but should not have but their cloathes and garments onely beaten: and wheras their haire was wont in dispite to be pulled off, he commaunded the wooll of their cappes onely to be so pulled. True it is that Francis Aluarez writeth, that he[*](The great Negus of AEthiopia a lordly Monarque.) hath seene in Aethiopia the great Chauncelour, and other great lords and gouernours of prouinces stript starke naked, and cast upon the ground whipped as slaues before their prince: who held the same as a great honour vnto them; by the discourse of whose hystorie, a man may easilie gather the great Negus of Aethiopia to be a Lordly Monarque. But the people of Europe more couragious, and better souldiers then the people of Africke or Asia, could neuer endure the lordly Monarques, neither had euer used them before the incursions of the Hunnes into Europe, as I have before said. And first of all Odonacre king of the Herules, who almost at the same time invaded Italie, that Attila did Germanie; hauing brought Italie under his subiection, tooke the third part of the territorie from the subiects (the punishment of all people by him vanquished,) but left their persons free, and themselves lords of their goods, without any [*](The beginning of tenants and fees, and what in auntient time they were.) tenure, or yeelding unto him of any fealtie or homage. But after that the Almans, Lombards, Frenchmen, Saxons, Burgundians, Gothes, Ostrogothes, Englishmen, and other Northren people had tasted the maners and customes of the Hunnes, they began to make themselves Lords, not of the persons, but of all the lands of them whom they had vanquished: and yet afterward reseruing unto themselves the most fruitfull part thereof, left the rest unto the auncient inhabitants, to be by them inioyed, yet as holden of them in fealtie, with paying of some small tribute if they should change the possession thereof: which for this cause are called Seigneuries, or Lordships; to show that the shadow of the auncient lordly Monarchie as yet remayneth, although greatly diminished. For these fees and lordships were in auncient time nothing else but benefits and rewards giuen to souldiors for terme of their lives, and afterward by favour continued from the father to the sonne: except dukedomes, marquisats, earledomes, and other like honours and dignities, giuen unto dukes, marqueses, earles, and such like honorable personages, and not unto the lands: a custome not yet chaunged in England and Scotland for regard of the dignities, where the dukes and counties being dead, their children and successours have their lands; but not still the dignities, prerogatives, and titles of their predecessours: for when fees or lands were giuen to souldiours for terme of their lives, they afterward obtained, that they might either by their wills, or else dying intestate, leaue them unto their children; and that if there were no heires males left, they should by law descend unto the women: excepting in Germany, where the women are excluded from the inheritance of lands in fee▪ which was the strongest argument which Fredericke countie of Vaudemont used against Renat of Aniou king of Sicilie at the counsell of Constance, demaunding of the Emperour that he might be invested in the dukedome of Loraine, considering that it was an imperial fee, and by consequent that Isabel wife to Renate was not thereof capable: although she were the duke of Lorains daughter. Howbeit that Renate the king of Sicilie, might by an other reason have defended himselfe, that is to say, that in question of fees, and seruices, we are to follow the lawes and customes of the land that oweth the seruice, and not of that whereunto the seruice is due: now by the custome of Loraine the daughters succeede in fees. But how soeuer it be, most certein it is that the marks of[*](The markes of lordly Monarchies more to be seene in the Northren countries then in any other parts of Europ.) Lordly Monarchies, have continued in Germanie, and towards the North more than in the other parts of Europe. For albeit that William the Conquerour, hauing conquered the realme of England, by force of armes, called himselfe not onely lord of that realme, but also caused it to be proclaimed, that the soueraigntie and proprietie of al his subiects goods, mouable, and immouable unto him belonged: yet neuerthelesse so it was, that he contented himselfe with the direct soueraigntie, fealtie and homage: the[*](Charls the fift made himselfe the lordly Monorque of Peru.) subiects still enioying their libertie, and full propertie of their goods. But the emperour Charles the fift, after he had subdued the great countrey of Peru, made himselfe Lordly Monarch thereof, causing all things to be holden of him, excepting the slaues, whome for that they were innumerable he caused to be set at libertie. As for the lands he left them to be enioyed by them that possessed them at his pleasure: and not to descend unto their children by inheritance. A craftie and subtill deuice, whereby Lagasca the lawyer, the emperours lieutenant in Peru (Gonsulo Pizarra, and the rest of the authors of rebellion vanquished and ouerthrowne) by a perpetuall bond to keepe the inhabitants of that country, within the compasse of their duety, compelled them for euer to aske of the king of Spaine, the possession of their goods, their kinsmen beeing dead: except the parents themselves yet liuing, had before procured the same to be graunted for their children in time to come: which was not to be obtained without a great sum of money to be paid into the kings coffers: they of greater power in the meane time being thereby kept from raising of any new sturres. For like cause whereof in one[*](All persons of what degree soeuer sorbidden by the Mahometain lawes, the great Caliph only excepted.) chapter of Mahomets, it is forbiden all persons of what degree or qualitie soeuer to call themselves in any sort lords, except the Caliph, or great bishop the successour of Mahomet, who at the first was the onely Lordly Monarch or lord of all, giuing unto kings and princes their principalities and kingdomes, during his pleasure, vntil that the Othoman princes, the Curdes, and the kings of the higher part of Asia and Afrike, by little and little exempted themselves out of their power (by reason of the diuision betwixt them and the Anticaliphes) and so tooke unto themselves the kingdomes of those countries.

But yet here might some man doubt whether the lordly Monarchie be not a Tyranny, [*](A lordly monarkie no tiranny.) considering that it seemeth to be directly against the law of nature, which reserueth unto euerie man his libertie, and the soueraigntie over his owne goods. Wherunto I aunswere, that of auntient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaues, and to possesse himselfe of other mens goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by iust warre should bee the conquerours owne, and that the vanquished should be slaues unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchie so established is tyrannicall: seeing also wee read that Iacob the Patriarch, by his testament leauing unto his children certaine lands that hee had

gotten, said that it was his owne, for that he had got it by force of armes. And that more is, the rule that willeth that the law of armes should take no place where there be superiours to do iustice (which is put in practise against the greatest princes, and imperiall cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) sheweth right well, that where there is no superiour to commaund, their force is reputed iust. For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchie, with the tyrannicall estate, we must confesse that there is no difference in warres, betwixt the iust enemie and the robber; betwixt a lawfull prince and a theefe; betwixt warres iustly denounced, and vniust and violent force; which the antient Romans called plaine robberie and theft. We also see tyrannicall states and governments, soone to fall, and many tyrants in short time slaine: whereas the seigneurelike states, and namely the Lordly Monarchies have bene both great and of long continuance, as the auntient Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians, & Aegyptians;[*](Whie the lordly monarchie is more durable then the royall monarchie.) and at this present that of Aethiopia (the most auntient Monarch of all Asia and Afrike) whereunto are subiect fiftie kings as slaues, if we may beleeue Pau. Iouius, who all are, and tearme themselves the slaues of the Grand Negus of Aethiopia. And the reason why the Lordly Monarchie is more durable than the royall, is for that it is more maiesticall, and that the subiects hold not their lives, goods, and libertie, but of the soueraigne prince, who hath by iust warre conquered them; which plucketh downe the courage of subiects, so that the slaue acknowledging his condition, becommeth humble, abiect, and hauing as they say a base and seruile hart. Where to the contrarie, men free borne, and lords of their owne goods in a royall Monarchie, if one would make them slaues, or take from them that theirs is, they would not take it, but easily rebell, bearing noble harts, nourished in libertie, and not abastardised with seruitude. And thus much concerning a Lordly Monarchie: Now let vs speake of the Monarchie Royall.