The division of editorial labour between us has been as follows. The Introduction was written by James Burns and revised in the light of comments and suggestions by Thomas Izbicki. The Chronology, the Note on terms and the Bibliography were compiled jointly. The translation and annotation were the work of Thomas Izbicki: successive drafts were read by James Burns and the final version was prepared on the basis of extensive consultation between the two editors.

Our thanks, as always in such undertakings, are due to many more colleagues and friends than can be listed here. However, a special word of gratitude for help in solving various problems should be addressed to Paul Pascal, Peter Stein and those who replied to queries posted on the listserves MDVLPHIL and MEDTEXTL. We are also indebted to Quentin Skinner, and to Jeremy Mynott and Richard Fisher of the Cambridge University Press for their support, encouragement and advice at various moments. At the production stage, we have been greatly assisted by Vicky Cuthill, Lyn Chatterton, Cherrill Richardson, and Frances Brown (whose copy-editing of a complex text was as helpful as it was careful).

Three of the texts translated in this volume were the immediate by-products of a sharp if short-lived crisis in the ecclesiastical politics of the early sixteenth century. Written during a period of little more than a year, the tracts by Tommaso de Vio (1468–1534: better known, and referred to below, as Cajetan) and Jacques Almain (c. 1480–1515) are essentially polemical in character, albeit highly technical in content and style. The text by John Mair (c. 1467–1550) – unlike the others, an extract from a much longer work – provides an epilogue. The echoes of the crisis of 1511–12 still indeed reverberated half a dozen years later; but Mair was not engaging in what might be called the hand-to-hand fighting of controversy when he turned, in his 1518 commentary on St Matthew's gospel, to the issues that had embroiled his brilliant pupil Almain with the master general of the Order of Preachers. And even when reading the writings of Cajetan and Almain we are not confronted only – or even mainly – with specific questions as to the status and claims of the council (or what purported to be the council) of the Church which met in Pisa and Milan at the time when those works were written.

Advertisement

I have written of the causes of the decline [decadenza] in the affairs of Spain, of the measures required for its recovery [per riordinarla], of the interests of the princes who are pretenders to that crown, and of the ease with which the prince who attains it may move towards making himself lord of the world [per insignorirsi del mondo]; not in order to favour a government as damaging to good customs and destructive of the general happiness of men, as one which is universal [un universale], and as are all governments, whether republics or monarchies, whose greatness rests on excessive wealth and power: but rather by putting all the other princes and states on their guard against whoever should pursue that ambition, to frustrate such a design, and spare the world from so much ruin. Following this line of reasoning it should be easy to show which are the best governments, which nourish the virtues [le virtu] and are of most benefit to mankind; as also to show how great an opportunity the subjects of the Spanish crown will have on the death of their King to gain those advantages, and to enjoy the benefits of peace, of liberty and of good government.

Discourse

The Empire of Spain [I'lmperio di Spagna] is so well adapted to be the foundation of that of the world that when the present King dies, an event which his ill-health makes likely within a few years, perhaps a few months, if from among all the pretenders to an empire [imperio] which is disordered rather than ruined and undone, there succeeds a wise and vigorous prince, it is most unlikely that he will restrain his ambitions. I have therefore undertaken to discuss the interests of the princes who are pretenders to the crown of Spain; the decline in the affairs of that country, and the means which will be necessary to revive it [riordinarla] and to fit it to acquire the empire of the world [I'imperio del mondo].

The first discourse

No inclination is so honourable, nor has any thing been so much esteemed in all nations, and ages, as the love of that country and society in which every man is born. And those who have placed their greatest satisfaction in doing good, have accounted themselves happy, or unfortunate, according to the success of their endeavours to serve the interest of their country. For nothing can be more powerful in the minds of men, than a natural inclination and duty concurring in the same disposition.

Nature in most men prevails over reason; reason in some prevails over nature: but when these two are joined, and a violent natural inclination finds itself owned by reason, required by duty, encouraged by the highest praises, and excited by the most illustrious examples, sure that force must be irresistible. Constrained by so great a force, and the circumstances of my affairs not allowing me to be otherwise serviceable to my country, I have in the following discourse given my opinion concerning divers matters of importance, which probably may be debated in the approaching session of parliament. I shall be very well satisfied, if any thing I say do afford a hint that may be improved by men of better judgment to the publick good. I hope I shall not be blamed, for giving my opinion in matters of publick concernment; since ’tis the right and duty of every man to write or speak his mind freely in all things that may come before any parliament; to the end that they who represent the nation in that assembly, may be truly informed of the sentiments of those they represent. Besides, we are now no more under those tyrannical reigns in which it was a crime to speak of publick affairs, or to say that the king had received bad counsel in any thing. If in this discourse I argue against some things, which perhaps may not be proposed in the ensuing session of parliament; they are neverthe- less such as persons in publick trust have in their conversation given just cause to think they were designed.

There is not perhaps in humane affairs any thing so unaccountable as the indignity and cruelty with which the far greater part of mankind suffer themselves to be used under pretence of government. For some men falsly persuading themselves that bad governments are advantageous to them, as most conducing to gratify their ambition, avarice and luxury, set themselves with the utmost art and violence to procure their establishment: and by such men almost the whole world has been trampled under foot, and subjected to tyranny, for want of understanding by what means and methods they were enslaved. For though mankind take great care and pains to instruct themselves in other arts and sciences, yet very few apply themselves to consider the nature of government, an enquiry so useful and necessary both to magistrate and people. Nay, in most countries the arts of state being altogether directed either to enslave the people, or to keep them under slavery; it is become almost every where a crime to reason about matters of government. But if men would bestow a small part of the time and application which they throw away upon curious but useless studies, or endless gaming, in perusing those excellent rules and examples of government which the antients have left us, they would soon be enabled to discover all such abuses and corruptions as tend to the ruin of publick societies. 'Tis therefore very strange that they should think study and knowledge necessary in every thing they go about, except in the noblest and most useful of all applications, the art of government.

Now if any man in compassion to the miseries of a people should endeavour to disabuse them in any thing relating to government, he will certainly incur the displeasure, and perhaps be pursued by the rage of those, who think they find their account in the oppression of the world; but will hardly succeed in his endeavours to undeceive the multitude. For the generality of all ranks of men are cheated by words and names; and provided the antient terms and outward forms of any government be retained, let the nature of it be never so much altered, they continue to dream that they shall still enjoy their former liberty, and are not to be awakened till it prove too late.

My Lords,

You desire to know the sentiments of some considerable persons of the English nation, touching our affairs, and the common interest of both kingdoms. And I think I cannot give you more satisfaction in these particulars than by an account of a conversation I lately had with the Earl of Cr-m-rty, Sir Ed. S-m-r, and Sir Chr. M-sgr-ve; in which if the defence I made for you do not give you satisfaction, I shall be glad to hear a better from yourselves. If you ask how I had the fortune to meet with men of sentiments so different from my own, that was partly owing to chance, and partly to the frank and courteous way which is so natural to the Earl of Cr-m-rty. For some days ago, walking slowly and alone in the Mell, the Earl and Sir Chr-st-ph-r overtook me: and though during the whole time I was last in Scotland, I had not waited on the Earl, he with a very obliging air said to me, that if I expected not other company, they would be glad of mine; asking me withal if I was acquainted with Sir Chr. I said I had formerly the honour of some small acquaintance with him, which I should be very willing to renew. And after some compliments passed on all sides, finding I was not engaged, he invited me to dine with him, telling me he would give me the opportunity of doing as I desired; and therefore we should pass the time together till the hour of dinner. So we presently went to his lodgings in Whitehall, and entring into a room from whence we had a full view of the Thames and city of London, You have here, Gentlemen, said the Earl, two of the noblest objects that can entertain the eye, the finest river, and the greatest city in the world. Where natural things are in the greatest perfection, they never fail to produce most wonderful effects. This most gentle and navigable river, with the excellent genius and industrious inclination of the English people, have raised this glorious city to such a height, that if all things be rightly considered, we shall find it very far to surpass any other.

Andrew Fletcher's Political Works comprise six short, precisely argued pamphlets, published between 1697 and 1704. Each was a pièce d'occasion, addressed to a particular contemporary issue: the maintenance of a standing army in Britain, the economic predicament of Scotland in the 1690s, the Spanish Succession Crisis, and the crisis in relations between Scotland and England which culminated in the Union of 1707. The pamphlets’ individuality is enhanced by their variety of form. Three were ‘Discourses’, or essays, which combined analysis of the problems addressed with specific proposals to resolve them; and of these one was composed and published in Italian. Another two were in the form of 'Speeches'. One of these was plainly imaginary, and used the rhetorical form in a manner little different from a discourse; the other, however, was a collection of speeches which Fletcher had actually delivered in the Scottish parliament. The final work took a different form again, being written as an ‘account of a conversation’, or dialogue. To this, the most sophisticated of his chosen forms, Fletcher successfully brought every appearance of realism; but no less evident is his success in using the dialogue form to develop and set off a range of opposing arguments.

Such variety of content and form, allied to an urgent, unadorned style, was (and remains) effective in engaging the reader's appreciation of Fletcher's intelligence and literary quality. But variety can also militate against intellectual coherence. The extent to which the Political Works amount to one interconnected set of writings, and were the product of a single, consistent intellectual project, is not automatically clear. In this introduction, therefore, my principal objective is to demonstrate that such a project existed, and that it had a definite intellectual identity. What unifies Fletcher's writings, I shall argue, is an attempt to understand the politics of Europe at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in terms that would do justice to the complexity of its structure - to the circumstances and interests of its many smaller states, whether princely or republican, as well as to those of its few great monarchies. And what gave conceptual coherence to this enquiry was Fletcher's distinctive choice of terms in which to pursue it.