The books which are written do in their kinds represent the faculties of the mind of man: Poesy his imagination; Philosophy his reason; and History his memory. Of which three faculties least exception is commonly taken to memory; because imagination is oftentimes idle, and reason litigious. So likewise History of all writings deserveth least taxation*, as that which holdeth least of the author, and most of the things themselves. Again, the use which it holdeth to man's life, if it be not the greatest, yet assuredly is the freest from any ill accident* or quality. For those which are conversant much in poets, as they attain to great variety, so withal they become conceited; and those that are brought up in philosophy and sciences do wax (according as their nature is) some of them too stiff and opinionate, and some others too perplexed and confused. Whereas History possesseth the mind of the conceits which are nearest allied unto action, and imprinteth them so, as it doth not alter the complexion of the mind neither to irresolution nor pertinacity. But this is true, that in no sort of writings there is a greater distance between the good and the bad, no not between the most excellent poet and the vainest rhymer, nor between the deepest philosopher and the most frivolous schoolmen, than there is between good histories and those that bear the same or the like title.

The speech of Themistocles the Athenian, which was haughty and arrogant in taking so much to himself, had been a grave and wise observation and censure,* applied at large* to others. Desired at a feast to touch a lute, he said, ‘He could not fiddle, but yet he could make a small town a great city.’ These words (holpen* a little with a metaphor) may express two differing abilities in those that deal in business of estate.* For if a true survey be taken of counsellors and statesmen, there may be found (though rarely) those which can make a small state great, and yet cannot fiddle: as on the other side, there will be found a great many that can fiddle very cunningly, but yet are so far from being able to make a small state great, as their gift lieth the other way; to bring a great and flourishing estate to ruin and decay. And, certainly those degenerate arts and shifts, whereby many counsellors and governors gain both favour with their masters and estimation with the vulgar, deserve no better name than fiddling; being things rather pleasing for the time, and graceful to themselves only, than tending to the weal* and advancement of the state which they serve. There are also (no doubt) counsellors and governors which may be held sufficient* (negotiis pares), able to manage affairs, and to keep them from precipices and manifest inconveniences; which nevertheless are far from the ability to raise and amplify an estate in power, means, and fortune.

By the decease of Elizabeth, Queen of England, the issues of King Henry the Eighth failed; being spent in one generation and three successions. For that King, though he were one of the goodliest persons of his time, yet he left only by his six wives three children; who reigning successively and dying childless, made place to the line of Margaret, his eldest sister, married to James the Fourth King of Scotland. There succeeded therefore to the kingdom of England James the Sixth, then King of Scotland, descended of the same Margaret both by father and mother; so that by a rare event in the pedigrees of Kings, it seemed as if the Divine Providence, to extinguish and take away all note of a stranger, had doubled upon his person, within the circle of one age, the royal blood of England by both parents. This succession drew towards it the eyes of all men; being one of the most memorable accidents* that had happened a long time in the Christian world. For the kingdom of France having been re-united in the age before in all the provinces thereof formerly dismembered; and the kingdom of Spain being of more fresh memory united and made entire by the annexing of Portugal in the person of Philip the Second; there remained but this third and last union, for the counterpoising of the power of these three great monarchies, and the disposing of the affairs of Europe thereby to a more assured and universal peace and concord.

Shepherds of people had need know the calendars of tempests in state; which are commonly greatest when things grow to equality; as natural tempests are greatest about the Equinoctia. And as there are certain hollow blasts of wind and secret swellings of seas before a tempest, so are there in states:

Libels and licentious discourses against the state, when they are frequent and open, and in like sort, false news often running up and down to the disadvantage of the state, and hastily embraced, are amongst the signs of troubles. Virgil giving the pedigree of Fame, saith she was sister to the Giants:

As if fames* were the relics of seditions past; but they are no less indeed the preludes of seditions to come. Howsoever he noteth it right, that seditious tumults and seditious fames differ no more but as brother and sister, masculine and feminine; especially if it come to that, that the best actions of a state, and the most plausible,* and which ought to give greatest contentment, are taken in ill sense, and traduced:* for that shews the envy* great, as Tacitus saith, ‘conflata magna invidia, seu bene seu male gesta premunt’.

Neither doth it follow, that because these fames are a sign of troubles, that the suppressing of them with too much severity should be a remedy of troubles.

To the most reverend father in Christ Lord Tristan de Salazar, archbishop of Sens, Jacques Almain, humble Parisian doctor, greetings.

What I especially wished for, most reverend father in Christ, my lord archbishop of Sens, has fallen to my lot: the assignment, namely, of publishing something against the obsequious doctrines – seeking, indeed, by excessive flattery to place the supreme pontiff under an obligation [to their author] – of Brother Tommaso de Vio of Gaeta. [He is], in other respects, a man of learning – if only he had not marred his learning with the stain of flattery and striven to defame and revile with his insolent words the most holy Councils of Constance and Basel. I have undertaken to answer his arguments in some way proportionate to my small measure, so that I might roll a jar like Diogenes or a stone like Sisyphus, and thus avoid appearing to be the only slacker when so many are eagerly at work, or to be wasting away in sloth or idle ease and growing old in the obscurity of private life, while others have their attention concentrated on the matter [in hand. I have undertaken,] without toadying to anyone, without scurrilous abuse, to undermine his arguments – indeed to refute them as far as I can – and to attack his stronghold with (as the saying goes) Gallic arms.

Prologue setting out the reason, intention and order of the work

The charity of Jesus Christ and His holy Church, reverend father in Christ, protector and lord, compels me to follow in these things the example of Him Who, when He was reviled, did not revile [i Pet. 2:23], [not reviling Jacques Almain] a dangerous man, one who saps ecclesiastical power, a forger, a flatterer and a blasphemer, but to respond to his objections against the doctrine asserted on behalf of the truth in Opusculum de comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii, published by me and dedicated to your most reverend lordship. Although many of the objections might easily be resolved by the said men, for whom alone, as I bore witness there, I wrote that work, nevertheless, because we, who are debtors to the wise and the less wise, should be ready to satisfy every one that asketh us a reason of that faith which is in us [cf. 1 Pet. 3:15], therefore, [our] replies must extend to the full range of the objections. It seemed a convenient order if the objections were brought forward and answered following the order of the chapters of my book; they will be then a kind of commentary on it.

I ask, therefore, first, that all should be mindful of formal speech and the subject matter and reflect maturely before expressing an opinion, lest the important subject under discussion should be reduced, by multiplying arguments out of intellectual vainglory, to [mere] dialectical or even sophistical disputation.

To the most reverend father in Christ and lord, lord Niccolo Fieschi, cardinal presbyter of the holy Roman church of the title of Santa Prisca, Brother Tommaso de Vio of Gaeta, professor of sacred theology and master general of the whole Order of Preachers, servant of his lordship.

Even though I think, most eminent father Fieschi, that this comparison of the authority of the supreme pontiff and the whole Church, which I wrote recently, will be read, received, judged by many from dissimilar viewpoints which will differ as they are split into diverse factions in this stormy time, nevertheless, I think that they will be pleased to be informed of even the least reasons which are advanced in this affair, so extraordinary yet suitable to these times, for adversaries and rivals to assail, for friends to defend those things which belong to the truth, and for others to have at hand to read what resolution should be reached concerning such a great upheaval in our own day and such a great controversy, both frequently in the past and at the present time.

I, master general of the Order of Preachers, most zealous for the Roman church and the truth, wrote this comparison of the supreme authority in defense of the truth and the apostolic see gladly, not so that I might please men – although I would not spurn attaining that too – but to be a servant of Jesus Christ and the truth.

[A disputaion whether the pope is subject to graternal correction and the universal council]

Concerning these texts, If thy brother shall offend against thee [Matt. 18:15] and Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven [Matt. 16:19], the question is asked whether there is any one of the brethren who is not to be corrected in this way. For the affirmative it is asserted that the same argument applies to any brother; therefore, if any one is to be corrected, all should be. You can argue for the negative that we are to understand by the term “church” “the church's prelate”; but there is one prelate of the Church who does not have a superior, namely the Roman pontiff; therefore, if he should sin, we cannot denounce his sin to the Church. The question at issue here is whether the supreme pontiff is over the universal council or the universal Church, which is represented by the council.

On this question there are opposing ways of speaking, one of which holds that the pope is above the universal council. This view has been and is held by some of the cardinals and by the Thomists generally; and in Rome (it is said) no one is allowed publicly to maintain the contrary.