Chapter 8
Chapter 8 of Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, Book 1. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, Book 1, by Niccolo Machiavelli. Translated by Ninian Hill Thompson. Chapter 8. Chapter 8. That Calumny is as Hurtful in a Commonwealth as the Power to Accuse is Useful.
Such were the services rendered to Rome by Furius Camillius in rescuing her from the oppression of the Gauls, that no Roman, however high as degree or station, held it derogatory to yield place to him, save only Manlius Capitolinus, who could not brook such glory and distinction being given to another. For he thought that in saving the capital, he had himself done as much as Camillus to preserve Rome, and that in respect of his other warlike achievements, he was no wit behind him.
So that bursting with jealousy and unable to remain at rest by reason of the other's renown, and seeing no way to sow discord among the fathers, he set himself to spread abroad sinister reports among the commons, throwing out, among other charges, that the treasure collected to be given to the Gauls,
but which afterward was withheld, had been embezzled by certain citizens, and if recovered, might be turned to public uses in relieving the people from taxes or from private debts. These assertions so prevailed with the commons that they began to hold meetings and to raise
what tumults they liked throughout the city. But this displeasing the Senate and the matter appearing to them grave and dangerous, they appointed a dictator to inquire into it and to restrain the attacks of Manlius. The dictator forthwith caused Manlius to be cited before him, and these two were thus brought face to face in the presence of the whole city, the dictator surrounded by the nobles and
manliest by the commons, the latter being desired to say with whom the treasure of which he had spoken was to be found, since the Senate were as anxious to know this as the commons, made no direct reply, but answered evasively that it was needless to tell them what they already knew. Whereupon, the dictator ordered him to prison. In this passage, we are taught how hateful a thing is calumny in all free states, as indeed in every society, and how we must neglect no means which
may serve to check it. And there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for the heachment, which is as useful in a commonwealth as the other is pernicious. In between them there is this difference, that calumny needs neither witness nor circumstantial proof to establish it, so that any man may be calumniated by any other, but not impeached, since impeachment demands that there be substantive charges made,
and trustworthy evidence to support them. Again, it is before the magistrates, the people, or the courts of justice that men are impeached, but in the streets and marketplaces that they are calumny. Calumny, therefore, is most rife in that state wherein impeachment is least practiced and the laws least favor it, for which reasons the legislator should so shape the laws of his state that it shall be possible therein to impeach any of its citizens without fear or favor,
and after duly providing for this, should visit calumnators with the sharpest punishments. Those punished will have no cause to complain, since it was in their power to have impeached openly where they have secretly calumniated. Where this is not seen to, grave disorders will always ensue, for calumnies sting without disabling, and those who are stung being more moved by hatred of their detractors than by fear of the things they say against them seek revenge.
This matter, as we have said, was well arranged for in Rome, but has always been badly regulated in our city of Florence. And as the Roman ordinances with regard to it were productive of much good, so the want of them in Florence has bred much mischief. For anyone reading the history of our city may perceive how many calumnies have at all times
been aimed against those of its citizens who have taken a leading part in its affairs. Thus, of one it would be said that he had plundered the public treasury, of another that he had failed in some enterprise because he had been bribed, of a third that this or the other disaster had originated in his ambition. Hence, hatred sprung up on every side, and hatred growing to division. These led to factions, and these again to ruin. But had there existed in Florence some procedure
whereby citizens might have been impeached and calumnators punished, numberless disorders which have taken there would have been prevented. For citizens who were impeached, whether condemned or acquitted, would have had no power to injure the state, and they would have been impeached far seldomer than they have been calumniated. For calumny, as I have said already, is an easier matter than impeachment. Some, indeed, have made use of calumny as a means for raising themselves
to power, and have found their advantage, introducing eminent citizens who withstood their designs, for by taking the part of the people and confirming them in their ill opinion of these great men, they made them their friends. Of this, though I could give many instances, I shall content myself with one. At the siege of Lucca, the Florentine army was commanded by Messer Giovanni Giussiardini as its commissary, through whose bad generalship or ill fortune
the town was not taken. But whatever the cause of this failure, Messer Giovanni had the blame, and the rumor ran that he had been bribed by the people of Lucca, which calumny being fostered by his enemies brought Messer Giovanni to very verge of despair. And though to clear himself, he would willingly have given himself up to the captain of justice, he found he could not, there being no provision in the laws of the Republic which allowed of his doing so.
Hence arose the bitterest hostility between the friends of Messer Giovanni, who were mostly of the old nobility, Grandi, and those who sought to reform the government of Florence. And from this, and the like causes, the affair grew to such dimensions as to bring about the downfall of our republic. Manlius Capitolinus, then, was a calumnator, not an accuser. And in their treatment of him, the Romans showed how calumnators should be dealt with, by which I mean that they
should be forced to become accusers, and if their accusation be proven true, should be rewarded, or at least not punished, but if proved false, should be punished as Manlius was. End of chapter 8
