Francesco Guicciardini was born on 6 March 1483 into one of the leading merchant families of Florence. His names reflect the influence of family tradition as well as the tradition of lay piety in Florence, since he was named Francesco after a great-grandfather Francesco de’ Nerli, and Tommaso after the saint on whose feast-day he was born, Thomas Aquinas. So his ‘special advocates and patrons', as he calls them, Francis and Thomas, associated him with the leading Mendicant Orders in Florence (Ricordanze, p. 53; for details of this and other works see Bibliographical note, p. xxxii). The choice of Marsilio Ficino, ‘the leading Platonic philosopher in the world at the time’ (ibid.), was less traditional, however. Francesco's father Piero had been a pupil of Ficino's and was the first member of his family to have a humanist education. Piero ensured that his son, too, studied the humanities as a boy, learning a little Greek as well as Latin, which would have prepared him for an ecclesiastical career. However, despite the possibility of following in the lucrative footsteps of his uncle, Bishop of Cortona, Francesco was discouraged from doing so by his father, who preferred to sacrifice the immediate profit this career would have offered his son for the sake of his conscience (Ricordanze, p. 56). Instead he studied law, initially in Florence, then in Ferrara and Padua, before returning to Florence. There he received a doctorate in civil law in 1505 (rather than the more prestigious doctorate ‘of both kinds', canon as well as civil law, which would have cost another twelve-and-a-half ducats, his education having in all cost his father more than 500 gold ducats, Ricordanze, pp. 56-7). He started work at once as a teacher in the university and as an advocate, acting for communes, private clients and for institutions like the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence.

Francesco's writing career began in 1508, the year of his marriage to Maria, daughter of Alamanno Salviati. Thanks to his patrician status and his wealth, his family relationships and his ‘infinite number of friends', Alamanno was, in Francesco's eyes, ‘incomparably the first man in the city’ when he died in 1510 (Ricordanze, pp. 58, 66- 7).

SPEAKERS: BERNARDO DEL NERO, PIERO CAPPONI, PAGOLANTONIO SODERINI AND PIERO GUICCIARDINI.

CAPPONI It has given us the greatest pleasure to come and visit this most holy place, but the chance of seeing you has made it even greater. Your absence from the Palace and the government of the city went far beyond what was called for, in our opinion, and of all the things to happen in the revolution - for such it certainly was - this seemed quite the strangest.

SODERINI It is not just we who say so, who have always loved you and revered you as a father, but all discerning people universally share the same opinion.

GUICCIARDINI Everyone is comforted, however, by knowing that the results produced at present, against all logic, by the nature of revolutions, will soon be corrected. When they realise how much they need your practical wisdom, the very same men who are now happy to see you removed from public affairs will, once they have laid aside their passions and unnecessary suspicions, be the first to recall you and want the city to benefit from your counsel.

BERNARDO The city is not so poor in men that it has at any time stood in need of my counsel, and especially now that my mind is perhaps no less reduced and consumed by old age than my body. Not only must I not think of returning to the labours of the Palace, but if I were inside it, I would have to think of removing myself from it. I am indeed sorry that what I should have done voluntarily several years ago has been brought about by the revolution and expulsion of Piero de’ Medici. This has been a source of grief to me, both on account of the affection I have always felt towards his family and much more because the experience of my long life has shown me that revolutions always do more harm than good to the city - as I could illustrate with many examples.

CAPPONI So why do you believe this revolution is harmful to the city?

BERNARDO In my experience, I tell you, changes always unsettle the city and have bad consequences.

How splendid and honourable it is to meditate on government and public administration, on which our well-being, our health and our life depend - as do all the notable deeds that are performed in this earthly life below! Quite apart from the useful and relevant material they provide for many aspects of our daily lives, the subject-matter is extremely worthy and worthwhile in itself. So that even if there were no hope at all of the things we think about or design ever happening, anyone who devotes time and mental energy to contemplating them certainly deserves to be praised - unless we believe that Plato, when he thought and wrote about the republic, did so in the hope that his imaginary government would be adopted and put into practice by the Athenians. They had become so licentious and insolent in his day that far from attempting to make them accept a good administration, he despaired of them ever governing themselves well again - as he wrote in one of his letters - and never wanted to get involved with them or wear himself out on behalf of their republic.

So it is not at all reprehensible either to think or to write about the government of our city; and much less so because of the present situation. For although the city may seem to have lost its freedom, because of the Medici's authority in Florence and the vast power of the Pope, nevertheless, thanks to the unexpected occurrences that happen daily in human affairs, a one-man regime could at any moment revert to its former liberty just as easily as the popular regime was transformed overnight into a one-man regime. This is all the more probable, as a family is clearly much less likely to perpetuate itself than a republic. If it did change back, this meditation and discussion of mine might not be totally useless, especially since its affairs do not yet seem so corrupt or neglected that we should despair of them ever being capable of this blessing - as the recent example of Piero Soderini's period of office as Gonfalonier shows, during which the city came very close to adopting a good and praiseworthy form of government.

Having spoken of the CONSTITUTION of the Kingdom of God, I shall proceed to speak of the ADMINISTRATION thereof.

1. The Law of nature in the primary most proper sence, is to be found in natura rerum, in the whole Creation that is objected to our Knowledg, as it is a Glass in which we may see the Lord, and much of his Will; and as it is a Signifler of that Will of God concerning our duty. 2. The Law of nature is sometime taken for that Disposition or Aptitude that there is in mans nature to the actual knowledg of these naturally revealed things, especially some clear and greatest Principles, which almost all the world discern. 3. And it is sometime taken for the Actual knowledge of those plain and common Principles. 4. And sometime for the Actual knowledge of all that meer Nature doth reveal. When I say God hath given man this law of nature, I mean, both that he hath made an Impress of his minde upon the Creation, and set us this Glass to see himself, and much of our Duty in, & also that he hath given to the very nature of man a Capacity of perceiving what is thus revealed, and a disposition especially to the Reception of the more obvious Principles; so that by ordinary helps, they will be quickly known; and the rest may be known if we be not wanting to our selves.

Because it is a matter of so great moment, that you pass not in impenitency to the Barre of God, (where you must all speedily appear) and that the many Thousands of this Nation, that never were actually guilty, may not make your sinnes (sinnes of such a dreadfull nature) to become their own by approbation; I thought it my duty to manifest the fallacy of all those Arguments, which I judged might most probably deceive you. And therefore supporting that thence you are likely to fetch matter of encouragement, I shall briefly discuss the wounding Answer to the Healing Question, so far as may concern your Consciences.

1. He placeth the Cause in two things; 1. p. 3, 4. ‘To have and enjoy the Freedom (by way of dutifull compliance and condescension from all the parts and members of this society,) to set up meet persons in the place of Supream Judicature, and authority amongst them.’ 2. p. 5, 6. ‘Freedom in matters of Religion, or that concern the service and worship of God.’

The former is thus enlarged, p. 10. ‘That the body of the good people in their military capacity and posture, are most properly Soveraign, and possesse their right of naturall Soveraignty.’ And p. 11. ‘Becoming one Civill or Politick Incorporation with the whole Party of honest Men, they do therein keep the Soveraignty, as Originally seated in themselves, and part with it only as by way of Deputation, and Representation of themselves, &c.’

Having spoken of the Universal Kingdom, and next in general of particular subordinate Common-wealths, that God hath by institution made the parts of it; I must First speak of the CONSTITUTION, and next of the ADMINISTRATION of these. And about the Constitution I shall first speak of the MODES (or SPECIES as commonly called) and then of the Individuation.

There is a twofold diversity of Governments: One is in the Persons Ruling; Another is in the Matter of Government: whether the former do deserve the name of Specification or not, it hath by Custome obtained that name: And so Monarchy; Aristocracie, and Democracie are called the distinct Species of Governments or Common-wealths. In the Matter of Government there is difference, in that some have greater power, and some have less: some Soveraigns are limited to certain things, and degrees of power; and some are unlimited: and some limited more, and some less. And one would think this difference were as great as the former.

I know some pretend to a Divine Institution for Monarchy, but they mean onely that it may from Scripture be proved to be best; but not that no other but it, is Lawfull.

We cannot expect the people to be good, if the Teachers be bad, unable, or negligent. It is Gods Word that's managed by them, that must reform the people, and work out their vice. As mens Laws suppose the Laws of God, and mens Government presupposeth Gods Government; so the true methodical obedience to mens Laws, presupposeth obedience to Gods Laws, and consequently some understanding of them; and a right subjection to man presupposeth subjection to God. The first work therefore being the Ministers, the true reformation of the Ministry, making them indeed Divine, is the first thing to the making a Common wealth Divine.

Much hath been done already to this of late in this Nation, through the blessing of God: (although much is yet to be done, especially for ripening the Ministry in Judgement and Charity, & bringing them to neerest Unity, which time must do.)

Because the right understanding of these commands of God, is of great use for our guidance in these weighty points, I shall stay a while upon the search of that Rom. 13 which saith most; and if we understand that, it will be the easier to understand the rest.

Many occasions concurred to make this document of the Apostle necessary to the Romans. 1. There were Hereticks crept in among them that abused the doctrine of Christian Liberty, and perswaded them that subjection to the Rule of Magistrates was against their Liberty. 2. And the weaker Christians were the easier induced to entertain this doctrine in part, because they were Heathen Magistrates that they were under. And the Christians, being (justly) prohibited by the Apostles to go to Law about personal injuries, before Heathen Judges, but to agree them among themselves, they were the readyer to have low thoughts of such Judges as useless or burdensom, or not fit to be the Governors of Christians. 3. And especially because many of the Christians had been Jews, that were hardly brought to any but a forced submission unto Gentile Rulers; and were ever prone to rebell against them, thinking it an honourable vindication of their holy state and Church, which they thought no Heathen had right to Rule over.

1. I have shewed already that it is a denying God to be God, because to be God, is to be the Governor of the world, at least in Title.

2. If God be not Governour, he is not just: For communicative Justice he cannot exercise on Creatures that are wholly his own. And distributive Justice he can have none, if he have not the Relation which Justice doth belong to. He that is not a Ruler, cannot be a just Ruler.