# 8. Calumnies are as Injurious to Republics as Public Indictments are Useful

Although the virtue of Furius Camillus, who had freed Rome from the yoke of the Gauls, had caused all the citizens of Rome to give him precedence without its appearing to them that, by so doing, they were diminishing their own repute or rank, none the less Manlius Capitolinus could not bear that so much honour and glory should be ascribed to Camillus, since it seemed to him that his own merits were as great as those of Camillus, since it was he who had saved the Capitol, nor was he inferior to Camillus in other praiseworthy military exploits. Consequently, so fraught was he with envy, that he could not remain tranquil while Camillus had such glory, but, realizing that he could not sow discord among the patricians, he turned to the plebs and disseminated among them diverse sinister rumours. Among other things, he said that the treasure which had been collected to give to the Gauls, had not been given to them, but had been appropriated by private citizens, and that, if it could be recovered, it might be used to the advantage of the public either in lessening the taxation of the plebs or in the discharge of certain private debts. This speech had a considerable effect on the plebs, who began to hold meetings and to raise numerous tumults in the city as it pleased them. This displeased the senate, to whom it appeared to be a serious matter and dangerous, so they appointed a dictator who should take cognizance of the situation and restrain the impetuosity of Manlius. The dictator accordingly cited Manlius to appear in public, where they confronted one another, the dictator surrounded by the nobles and Manlius surrounded by plebeians. Manlius was asked to state in whose hands the treasure was of which he had spoken, for the senate was as desirous to be informed of this as was the plebs. In his reply Manlius gave no details, but evaded the issue, saying that it was unnecessary to tell them what they already knew. So the dictator sent him to prison.

It is clear from this incident in what detestation calumnies should be held in free cities and in all other forms of society, and how with a view to checking them no institution which serves this end should be neglected. Nor for their prevention can there be anything better than an institution which provides adequate facilities for charges to be brought, because indictments are as helpful to republics as calumnies are harmful. The difference between them is this. There is no need of witnesses or of any other corroboration of the facts to set calumnies going, so that anybody can be calumniated by anybody else. But one cannot in this way be indicted, for indictments must be corroborated and circumstances be adduced to prove the truth of the indictment. Indictments are made before magistrates, before the people, and before courts. Calumnies are circulated in the squares and the arcades. Calumnies are more prevalent in cities in which less use is made of public accusations, and in which less provision has been made for receiving them. He, therefore, who constitutes a republic should do it in such a way that charges may be brought against any citizen without fear of any kind and without respect to persons. Where provision for this has been made, and due recourse is had to it, calumniators should be severely punished. Nor can they complain of such punishment, since they had an opportunity to make charges openly against those whom they calumniated in private. But where adequate provision for this has not been made, there invariably ensue considerable disorders. For calumnies do not castigate citizens, they do but exasperate them; and, since hate is more quickly aroused than is fear, they think, when exasperated, how to get their own back for what has been said against them.

This eventuality, as has been said, was adequately provided for in Rome, but was ever badly provided for in our city of Florence. And, as in Rome such provision did much good, the lack of it in Florence did much harm. Anyone who reads the history of that city will notice how at all times calumnies have been spread against such of its citizens as were employed in important public affairs. Of one they said that he had embezzled the public funds; of another that he had failed in some undertaking because he had been bribed; of yet another that through ambition he had caused such and such an inconvenience. It thus came about that hatred arose on all sides; whence came divisions; from divisions factions, and from factions ruin. Whereas, if in Florence provision had been made for the accusing of citizens and for the punishment of calumniators, there would not have ensued the innumerable scandals that did ensue. For citizens, whether condemned or acquitted, would not have been able to harm the city, and there would have been fewer people indicted than there were calumniated, since, as I have said, it is not possible to bring an indictment against anyone as it is to calumniate anyone.

Calumnies, too, are among the various things of which citizens have availed themselves in order to acquire greatness, and are very effective when employed against powerful citizens who stand in the way of one’s plans, because by playing up to the populace and confirming the poor view it takes of such men, one can make it one’s friend. Of this it would be possible to adduce numerous examples, but I propose to confine myself to just one. The Florentine army was encamped about Lucca, under the command of Messer Giovanni Guicciardini, its commissary. Owing either to mismanagement or to misfortune, the taking of that city did not come about. Anyhow, whichever was the case, Messer Giovanni took the blame for it, since it was said that he had been suborned by the Lucchese. This calumny, fostered by his enemies, almost drove Messer Giovanni to utter despair. For, although, to justify himself, he offered to place himself in the hands of the ‘Captain’,7 he none the less was unable ever to justify himself, since in that republic there were no means of doing so. This gave rise to considerable indignation alike among Messer Giovanni’s friends, who comprised most people of standing, and among those who desired to introduce innovations in Florence. The affair, for this reason and others like it, grew to such dimensions that it led to the downfall of that republic.

Manlius Capitolinus, then, was a calumniator, not an accuser; and the Romans have shown us in his case precisely how calumniators should be punished. They should be made to bring a formal charge, and, when the charge is borne out by the facts, should be rewarded or at any rate not punished; but, when it is not borne out by the facts, they should be punished, as Manlius was.