power to accuse is useful._
Such were the services rendered to Rome by Furius Camillus in rescuing
her from the oppression of the Gauls, that no Roman, however high his
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 Capitol, he
had himself done as much as Camillus to preserve Rome, and that in
respect of his other warlike achievements he was no whit 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, afterwards, 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 Manlius 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
impeachment, which is as useful in a commonwealth as the other is
pernicious. And 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 market places that they are
calumniated. Calumny, therefore, is most rife in that State wherein
impeachment is least practised, and the laws least favour 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 favour; and, after duly providing for this, should visit
calumniators 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 any one 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 calumniators 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 in traducing
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 Guicciardini, 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 rumour 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 calumniator, not an accuser; and in
their treatment of him the Romans showed how calumniators should be
dealt with; by which I mean, that they should be forced to become
accusers; and if their accusation be proved true, should be rewarded,
or at least not punished, but if proved false should be punished as
Manlius was.