Discourses on Livy · Chapter
V explained
This chapter examines whether the guardianship of public freedom is safer in the hands of the commons or the nobles, comparing the Roman model (where it was vested in the commons) with the Spartan and Venetian models (where it was placed wi
What happens
This chapter examines whether the guardianship of public freedom is safer in the hands of the commons or the nobles, comparing the Roman model (where it was vested in the commons) with the Spartan and Venetian models (where it was placed with the nobles). It discusses the motives of each class—the nobles' desire to dominate versus the commons' desire not to be dominated—and considers which group is more dangerous to a republic: those seeking to acquire power or those seeking to preserve it. The chapter uses the example of Marcus Menenius and the accusations against him to illustrate the tensions between the two classes.
Themes in this chapter
Class Conflict and Political Order
The chapter centers on the struggle between the nobles and the commons over who should guard public freedom, highlighting the inherent tensions and ambitions of each class.
Leadership and Moral Character
The example of Marcus Menenius illustrates how accusations and the fear of losing power can affect leaders, and the debate over whether those seeking to acquire or preserve power are more dangerous.
Ingratitude and Suspicion in Republics
The nobles' suspicion of the plebeian dictator and the ensuing accusations reflect the ingratitude and distrust that can destabilize a republic.
Characters to notice
- Marcus Menenius
A plebeian dictator appointed to investigate plots in Capua; he later laid down his dictatorship and was acquitted after being accused of corruption.
- Marius
Mentioned as a figure whose rise was enabled by the commons' factious spirit, leading to the overthrow of Rome.
Key passages
“Among the Lacedaemonians of old, as now with the Venetians, it was placed in the hands of the nobles, but with the Romans it was vested in the commons.”
In ancient Sparta and modern Venice, the nobles guarded liberty, whereas in Rome the commons held that role.
Contrasts different republican models for safeguarding freedom.
“Wherefore, when the commons are put forward as the defenders of liberty, they may be expected to take better care of it, and, as they have no desire to tamper with it themselves, to be less apt to suffer others to do so.”
Because the commons only want not to be dominated, they are less likely to abuse liberty and more likely to protect it.
Argues for the commons as more reliable guardians of freedom.
“Nor was this enough for them, but, carried away by the same factious spirit, they began after a time to pay court to such men as they thought able to attack the nobility, and so gave occasion to the rise of Marius and the overthrow of Rome.”
The commons' ambition led them to support men like Marius, which ultimately caused Rome's downfall.
Warns of the dangers of popular factionalism.