Commonwealth

part of himself... For though those activities such as eating and drinking 
by which life is supported are necessary, no thoughtful man finds in them 
his sovereign good. The habit of good deeds is of the first importance, for 
the soul that is not illumined and purified by the moral virtues cannot 
enjoy the fruits of contemplation. The moral virtues are therefore ordained 
to the intellectual. Felicity cannot be found in that imperfect state in 
which there is still some good yet to be realized; that which is less noble 
is ordained to that w hich is more noble as its final end, body to spirit, 
spirit to intellect, appetite to reason, living to right living. Therefore 
when Varro found felicity in both contemplation and action, he would have 
done better, in my opinion, to have said that a man has need of both action 
and contemplation in this life, but that bis sovereign good lies in 
contemplation. Nevertheless it is certain that a commonwealth is not rightly 
ordered which neglects altogether, or even for any length of time, mundane 
activities such as the administration of justice, the defence of the 
subject, the provision of the necessary means of subsistence, any more than 
a man whose soul is so absorbed in contemplation that he forgets to eat and 
drink can hope to live long. ...
The same principles hold good for the well-ordered commonwealth. It is 
ordained to the contemplative virtues as its final end, and those things 
which are least in order of dignity come first in order of necessity. Those 
material things necessary to the sustenance and defence of the subject must 
first be secured. Nevertheless such activities are ordained to moral 
activities, and moral activities to intellectual, or the contemplation of 

---

Page 6
the noblest subjects within the scope of men's imaginations. Thus we see 
that God allotted six days for all those labours to which the greater part 
of man's life is dedicated. But He ordained that these labours should cease 
on the seventh day, and He blessed it above all other days as the holy day 
of rest, so that men might then have leisure to contemplate His works, His 
law, and His glory. Such is the final end of well-ordered commonwealths, and 
they are the more happy the more nearly they com e to realizing it. For just 
as there are degrees of felicity among men, so are there among 
commonwealths, some greater, some less, in accordance with the end which 
each sets out to attain. It was said of the Spartans that they were 
courageous and magnanimous, but for the rest unjust and perfidious, if they 
could thereby further the public interest. The sole purpose of their laws, 
their customs, their institutions was to make men brave and indifferent to 
hardship and pain, contemptuous of ease and pleasure, and totally devoted to 
the state. The Roman Republic on the other hand was distinguished for its 
justice, and surpassed that of the Spartans, for its citizens were not only 
magnanimous, but justice was the mainspring of all their actions.
In treating of the commonwealth we must therefore try and find means whereby 
it may come as near as possible to realizing the felicity we have described, 
and conforming to the definition we have postulated. Let us continue with 
the terms of the definition and pass on to the family.
Concerning the Family [CHAPTERS II-V]
A FAM ILY may be defined as the right ordering of a group of persons owing 
obedience to a head of a household, and of those interests which are his 
proper concern. The second term of our definition of the commonwealth refers 
to the family because it is not only the true source and origin of the 
commonwealth, but also its principal constituent. Xenophon and Aristotle 
divorced economy or household management from police or disciplinary power, 
without good reason to my mind ... I understand by domestic government the 
right ordering of family matters, together with the authority which the head 
of the family has over his dependants, and the obedience due from them to 
him, things which Aristotle and Xenophon neglect. Thus the well-ordered 
family is a true image of the commonwealth, and domestic comparable with 

---

Page 7
sovereign authority. It follows that the household is the model of right 
order in the commonwealth. And just as the whole body enjoys health when 
every particular member performs its proper function, so all will be well 
with the commonwealth when families are properly regulated.
We have said that a commonwealth is the rightly ordered government of a 
number of families and of those matters which are their common concern, by a 
sovereign power. The phrase a number cannot mean just two, for the law 
requires at least three persons to constitute a college, and the same 
number to constitute a family in addition to its head, whether they be his 
children, slaves, freedmen, or free dependants w ho have voluntarily 
submitted to his authority. He is the fourth member of the group. 
Furthermore, since households, colleges and corporate bodies of all sorts, 
commonwealths, and indeed the whole human race would perish unless 
perpetuated from generation to generation, no family is complete without the 
wife, who is therefore called the mother of the family. By this reckoning, a 
minimum of five persons is required to constitute a family. I think this is 
the reason why ancient writers, such as Apuleius, said that fifteen persons 
could become a political community, meaning by that three complete 
households. Otherwise, even if the head of the family had three hundred 
wives and six hundred children, like Hermotinus, King of Parthia, or five 
hundred slaves like Crassus, if all these persons were a single household 
under the authority of a single head, they would not constitute either a 
political community or a commonwealth, but only a fam ily. ...
The law says that the people never dies, but that after the lapse of a 
hundred or even a thousand years it is still the same people. The 
presumption is that although all individuals alive at any one moment will be 
dead a century later, the people is immortal by succession of persons, as 
was Theseus' ship which lasted as long as pains were taken to repair it. But 
a ship is no more than a load of timber unless there is a keel to hold 
together the ribs, the prow, the poop and the tiller. Similarly a 
commonwealth without sovereign power to unite all its several members, 
whether fam ilies, colleges, or corporate bodies, is not a true commonwealth. 
It is neither the tow n nor its inhabitants that makes a city state, but 
their union under a sovereign ruler, even if they are only three households. 
Just as the mouse is as much numbered among animals as is the elephant, so 
the rightly ordered government of only three households, provided they are 

---

Page 8
subject to a sovereign authority, is just as much a commonwealth as a great 
empire. The principality of Ragusa, which is one of the smallest in Europe, 
is no less a commonwealth than the empires of the Turks and the Tartars, 
which are am ong the greatest in the world. ...
But besides sovereign power there must also be something enjoyed in common 
such as the public domain, a public treasury, the buildings used by the 
whole community, the roads, walls, squares, churches, and markets, as well 
as the usages, laws, customs, courts, penalties, and rewards which are 
either shared in common or of public concern. There is no commonwealth where 
there is no common interest... It is not desirable however that all things, 
including women and children, should be possessed in common as Plato 
advocated in his Republic. His intention was to banish from the city the 
words 'mine' and 'thine', since he thought them the cause of all the 
misfortunes and disasters that befall commonwealths. He forgot that even if 
this could be achieved, then the peculiar mark of a commonwealth would be 
lost. For nothing could properly be regarded as public if there were 
nothing at all to distinguish it from what was private. Nothing can be 
thought of as shared in common, except by contrast w ith what is privately 
owned. If all citizens were kings there would be no king. There can be no 
harmony if the subtle combination of various chords, which is the charm of 
harmony, is reduced to a monotone. Moreover such a commonwealth would be 
directly contrary to the law of God and of nature, for that law not only 
condemns the incests, adulteries, and parricides which would be the 
inevitable consequence of women being possessed in common, but forbids 
theft, or even the mere coveting of that which is the private possession of 
another. We see therefore that commonwealths were ordained of God to the end 
that men should render to the community that which is required in the public 
interest, and to each individual that which is proper to him. ...
It is of course possible for all the subjects of a commonwealth to live in 
common, as did the Cretans and the Spartans in ancient times... or as the 
Anabaptists attempted to do when they founded their community in the city of 
Münster. They ruled that all things should be possessed in common save only 
women and personal belongings, thinking this would promote amity and mutual 
concord. They soon discovered their mistake however. So far from 
accomplishing what they expected, and banishing quarrels and animosities, 
they destroyed affection between husband and wife, and the love of parents 

---

Page 9
for their children, the reverence of children for their parents, and the 
goodwill of parents towards one another.[1] Such are the consequences of 
ignoring the tie of blood, the strongest bond there is. It is common 
knowledge that no one feels any very strong affection for that which is 
common to all. Comm on possession brings in its train all sorts of quarrels 
and antagonisms. They deceive themselves who think that persons and property 
possessed in common will be much cared for, for it may be observed 
everywhere, that those things which are public property are habitually 
neglected, unless someone calculates that he may extract some private 
advantage from looking after them. The proper organization of the household 
requires the separation and distinction of the goods, the women, the 
children, and servants, of one family from another, and that which pertains 
to each from that which is common to all, or in other words pertains to the 
public good. ...
So much for the difference and the resemblance that there is between the 
family and the commonwealth in general. Let us now consider the members of 
the family. The government of all commonwealths, colleges, corporate bodies, 
or households whatsoever, rests on the right to command on one side, and the 
obligation to obey on the other, which arises when the natural liberty which 
each man has to live as he chooses, is exercised subject to the power of 
another. The right to command another is either of a public or a private 
character; public when vested in a sovereign who declares the law, or in the 
magistrate who executes it, and issues orders binding on his subordinates 
and private citizens generally; private w hen vested in heads of households, 
or in the collective authority which colleges and corporate bodies exercise 
over their particular members, or the minority of the whole body. Authority 
in the family rests on the fourfold relationship betw een husband and wife, 
father and child, master and servant, owner and slave. And since the 
rightful government of any society, public or private, depends on a proper 
understanding of how to command and how to obey, we will consider the 
household in the order described. 
We understand by natural liberty the right under God to be subject to no man 
living and amenable only to those commands which are self-imposed, that is 
to say the commands of right reason conformable to the will of God. The 
first of all commandments was the commandment to subordinate animal appetite 
to reason, for before a man can govern others he must learn to govern 

---

Page 10
himself, surrendering to reason the power of direction, and schooling the 
appetites to obedience. In this w ay each man will achieve that w hich truly 
pertains to his nature, which is the original and purest form of justice. 
The Hebrews expressed this proverbially in their saying 'Charity begins at 
home', meaning that one should subordinate appetite to reason in accordance 
with the first express commandment of God, laid upon him who killed his 
brother. The commandment that He had given the husband to rule over his wife 
has a double significance, first in the literal sense of marital authority, 
and second in the moral sense of the soul over the body, and the reason over 
concupiscence, which the Scriptures always identify with the woman. ...
From the mom ent a marriage is consummated the woman is subject to her 
husband, unless he is still living as a dependant in his father's house. 
Neither slaves nor other dependants have any authority over their wives, 
still less over their children. They are all subject to the head of the 
family until such time as he shall have given his married son his 
independence. No household can have more than one head, one master, one 
seigneur. If there were more than one head there would be a conflict of 
command and incessant family disturbances... wherefore a woman marrying a 
man still living in his father's house is subject to her father-in-law. ...
By a law of Romulus the husband was not only given full authority over his 
wife but could without any formal process of law take her life on four 
occasions, when she was taken in adultery, for substituting a child not his 
own, for having duplicate keys, or for being habitually drunk ... In order 
to show how general among all people has been this subjection of women, I 
will add two or three examples. We read that by the laws of the Lombards 
wives were held in the same subjection as had been customary among the 
ancient Romans, and their husbands had a power of life and death over them 
that they were still exercising when Baldus was writing, only two hundred 
and sixty years ago. As for our ancestors, the Gauls, nowhere in the world 
have husbands enjoyed a more absolute power than among them. Caesar makes 
this clear in his Memoirs when he says that they had the same absolute power 
of life and death over their wives and children as over their slaves. ...
With regard to divorce, the law of God permitted the husband to repudiate 
his wife, if she did not please him, on condition that he never took her 
back, but married another. This was at one time a custom common to all 

---

Page 11
peoples, and is still practised in Africa and throughout the East. It was a 
means of humbling proud wives, while the knowledge that he had repudiated 
one wife without sufficient provocation made it difficult for an exacting 
husband to find another. If it is objected that it does not seem right that 
a man should be able to repudiate his wife without giving any reason, I 
appeal to the common usage in the matter. There is nothing more ill-advised 
than to compel two people to go on living together unless they are willing 
to publish the reason for the separation that they desire. The honour of 
both parties is at stake, whereas it is safeguarded if no reason has to be 
alleged. ...
However great the variety, and subsequent changes in law, it has never been 
customary anywhere to exempt wives from the obedience, and even the 
reverence which they owe their husbands ... Therefore in all systems of law 
the husband is regarded as the master of his wife's actions, and entitled 
to the usufruct of any property she may have, while the wife cannot come 
into the courts either as plaintiff or defendant save with the consent of 
her husband, or should he withhold it, the permission of the magistrate. The 
power, authority, and command that a husband has over his w ife is allowed by 
both divine and positive law to be honourable and right. I know that in 
marriage alliances and settlements clauses are sometimes included exempting 
the wife from subjection to her husband. But such stipulations cannot 
detract from the authority of the husband, for they are contrary to both 
divine and positive law, as well as to the public interest. They are 
therefore invalid, and oaths to observe them cannot in consequence bind the 
husband.
The rightly ordered government of a father over his children lies first in 
the proper exercise of that power which God gives to a father over his 
natural children, and the law over his adopted ones, and second in the 
obedience, love, and reverence that children owe their father. Authority 
properly belongs to all those who have recognized pow er to command another. 
So, says Seneca, the prince commands his subjects, the magistrate the 
citizens, the master his pupils, the captain his soldiers, and the lord his 
slaves. But of all these there is none that has a natural right to command 
save only the father, who is the image of Almighty God, the Father of all 
things. Therefore Plato, having first defined the laws which touch the 
honour of God, speaks of them as an introduction to the reverence that a son 

---

Page 12
owes his father, from whom, after God, he draws his life and all he may 
expect to enjoy in this world. And just as nature impels the father to 
foster his child so long as he is defenceless, and educate him in honourable 
and virtuous principles, so the child is prompted, and by an even stronger 
impulse, to love, honour, serve, and care for his father, to be obedient to 
his commands, support him, protect him, conceal all his infirmities and 
imperfections, and to spare neither goods nor life to preserve the life of 
him from whom he draws his own. This obligation is obvious, and founded in 
nature. But if one w ishes further proof, one has only to remember that it 
was the first commandment in the second table of the law, and the only one 
of the ten commandments of the Decalogue that carried with it any promise of 
reward, for it is not usual to reward one who simply does that which he is 
under a strict obligation to do by both divine and positive law. Conversely 
we find the first curse recorded in Scripture was the curse laid on H am for 
not concealing his father's shame. ...
In any rightly ordered commonwealth, that power of life and death over 
their children which belongs to them under the law of G od and of nature, 
should be restored to parents. This most primitive of customs was observed 
in ancient times by the Persians, and people of Asia generally, by the 
Romans and the Celts; it was also recognized throughout the New World till 
the time of the Spanish conquests. If this power is not restored, there is 
no hope of any restoration of good morals, honour, virtue, or the ancient 
splendour of commonwealths. Justinian and those who have repeated him are 
wrong in saying that the Romans alone recognized such pow er of parents over 
their children. We have the testimony of the law of God which ought to be 
regarded as holy and inviolate by all peoples. We also have the evidence of 
Greek and Roman historians such as Caesar, of the customs of the Persians, 
the Romans, and the Celts. He said of the Gauls that they had power of life 
and death as much over their wives and children as over their slaves. 
Moreover by the laws of Romulus, whereas the power of life and death which a 
husband had over his wife was restricted to four occasions only, that which 
he had over his children was unqualified, being a plenary power to dispense 
life or death to them as he thought fit, and to be seized of all property 
which they might acquire. Roman fathers had such authority not only over 
their natural children, but also over their children by adoption. ...
A father is bound to educate and instruct his children, especially in the 

---

Page 13
fear of God. But if he fails of his duty, the son is not excused his, though 
Solon in his laws acquitted children from the obligation of supporting their 
father if he had failed to apprentice them to some trade by which they could 
earn a living. There is no need to enter into any discussion of this