Foreword by Daniel J. Elazar (Indianapolis: 1995 Liberty Fund).

Dedicated to the most distinguished and learned man Martin Neurath, J. U. D., Siegensian advocate and trial lawyer, my honorable relative and likewise to an excellent and learned man Jacob Tieffenbach, Cambergian advocate, my honorable relative

I have attempted, most distinguished and learned men, honorable relatives and friends, to restate in an appropriate order the many political precepts that have been handed down in various writings, and to find out whether a methodical plan of instruction according to the precepts of logicians can be followed in these matters. This plan and goal was conceived and attempted by me that I might possibly offer a torch of intelligence, judgment, and memory to beginning students of political doctrine. And in order to perform this labor with greater effect and success, I have consulted those authors of this science who seem to me to excel others in political experience and practical understanding.

In addition to these writers I have also added some others, even though they do not handle the subject professionally. I have discovered that as each of these other teachers of politics was devoted to this or that discipline and profession, so he also brought from his own profession many elements that are improper and alien to political doctrine. Indeed, now philosophers, then jurists, and still again theologians handle political questions and axioms. I have observed that philosophers have proposed from ethics many moral virtues by which they would like the statesman and prince to be equipped and informed. Jurists have introduced from jurisprudence—a cognate area closely related to politics—many juridical questions about which they have spoken with eminence in legal science and by which they would instruct the statesman. Theologians who have been of this sort have sprinkled teachings on Christian piety and charity throughout; indeed, I should even have said that they have prescribed a certain use of the Decalogue for the instruction of the statesman. I have considered that elements of this sort that are alien and useless in this art ought to be rejected and, by the dictate of justice, returned to the positions they properly hold in other sciences.

I have also noted some things that are missing in the political scientists. For they have omitted certain necessary matters that I think were carelessly overlooked by them; or else they considered these matters to belong to another science. I miss in these writers an appropriate method and order. This is what I especially seek to provide, and for the sake of which I have undertaken this entire labor. For I cannot describe how very beneficial this plan for clear teaching is to students, and even to teachers. Those who are acquainted with these matters, and have learned from experience about them, testify that this method is the fountain and nursery of memory and intelligence, and the moulder of accurate judgment.

The political precepts and examples that I set forth have been selected, for the most part, from these same political authors, and so acknowledged in proper places. And thus you have a summary of the things I reprove in a freely Socratic fashion in so many political thinkers, the things I reject, those I find inadequate, and those I approve. Whether I have done so rightly or not, you and other candid men may judge. Certainly I have attempted to flee from and avoid those things I reprove in others, and to add what I have found missing in them. If I have not completely attained this goal, nevertheless I have tried. And this I consider not reprehensible. Whatever was praiseworthy in any other place or time has been incorporated here. For each contributes in this matter, as in others, what he can. In the construction of the tabernacle in the ancient Jewish church everyone did not contribute the same or equal things. Some brought stones, some wood, some iron, some silver, some gold, some copper, some precious jewels, some cotton cloth, some purple garments, some hides, and some goats’ hair. This collection of gifts was dissimilar and very unequal. Yet even the least of these gifts should be praised. For which of them was not needed in the construction of the temple? If in political science something perchance new has been able to come forth by my efforts, however difficult this may be to accomplish in my opinion, this too I consider pleasing and welcome.

Here is the place to say something concerning two difficulties encountered in this enterprise. The first is that I have experienced difficulty in separating juridical matters from this science. For as close as the relationship is of ethics with theology, and of physics with medicine, so close—indeed I should say even closer—is the relationship of politics with jurisprudence. Where the moralist leaves off, there the theologian begins; where the physicist ends, the physician begins; and where the political scientist ceases, the jurist begins. For reasons of homogeneity, we must not leap readily across boundaries and limits, carrying from cognate arts what is only peripheral to our own. Prudence and an acute and penetrating judgment are indeed required to distinguish among similar things in these arts. It is necessary to keep constantly in view the natural and true goal and form of each art, and to attend most carefully to them, that we not exceed the limits justice lays down for each art and thereby reap another’s harvest. We should make sure that we render to each science its due (suum cuique) and not claim for our own what is alien to it. How many juridical questions taken from the midst of jurisprudence do you find in the political writings of Bodin and Gregorius? What can the beginning student of politics, who is not trained in the science of politics, make of these questions, and how can he pass judgment upon them? I say the same about the theological and philosophical questions that others have added to politics.

How far one may proceed in political science is sufficiently indicated by its purpose. This is, in truth, that association, human society, and social life may be established and conserved for our good by useful, appropriate, and necessary means. Therefore, if there is some precept that does not contribute to this purpose, it should be rejected as heteronomous.

The purpose of jurisprudence is skillfully to derive and infer right (jus)1 from fact (factum), and so to judge about the right and merit of fact in human life. Precepts that go astray from this goal, and indicate nothing about the right that arises from fact, are alien and irrelevant in this discipline. However, the facts about which right is affirmed can vary, and are selected from those that are proper to several other arts. For this reason, the jurist obtains information, instruction, and knowledge about these facts not from jurisprudence, but from those who are skilled in these other arts. From this information he is then able to judge more correctly about the right and merit of a fact. So it is that many jurists write and teach about rights of sovereignty (jura majestatis),2 even though these rights are so proper to politics that if they were taken away there would be almost nothing left to politics, or too little for it to exist. Now the political scientist properly teaches what are the sources of sovereignty (capita majestatis), and inquires and determines what may be essential for the constituting of a commonwealth. The jurist, on the other hand, properly treats of the right (jus)3 that arises at certain times born these sources of sovereignty and the contract entered into between the people and the prince. Both, therefore, discuss rights of sovereignty: the political scientist concerning the fact of them, and the jurist concerning the right of them. If the political scientist were to discourse on the right and merit of these facts that are judged necessary, essential, and homogeneous to social life, he would have overstepped the clear boundaries of his art. If the jurist were to propound political precepts, namely, how an association is to be constituted, and once constituted then conserved, what kind of commonwealth is happier, what form of it is more lasting and subject to fewer perils and changes, and other such things, he would have taught what is professionally alien to him. Nevertheless, all arts in their use and practice are often united, indeed, I should have said always united.

I have assigned the rights of sovereignty and their sources, as I have said, to politics. But I have therein attributed them to the realm, or to the commonwealth and people. I know that in the common opinion of teachers they are to be described as belonging to the prince and supreme magistrate. Bodin clamors that these rights of sovereignty cannot be attributed to the realm or the people because they come to an end and pass away when they are communicated among subjects or the people. He says that these rights are proper and essential to the person of the supreme magistrate or prince to such a degree—and are connected so inseparably with him—that outside of his person they cease to exist, nor can they reside in any other person. I am not troubled by the clamors of Bodin, nor the voices of others who disagree with me, so long as there are reasons that agree with my judgment. Therefore, I maintain the exact opposite, namely, that these rights of sovereignty, as they are called, are proper to the realm to such a degree that they belong to it alone, and that they are the vital spirit, soul, heart, and life by which, when they are sound, the commonwealth lives, and without which the commonwealth crumbles and dies, and is to be considered unworthy of the name.

I concede that the prince or supreme magistrate is the steward, administrator, and overseer of these rights. But I maintain that their ownership and usufruct properly belong to the total realm or people. This is so to the extent that, even if the people should wish to renounce them, it could no more transfer or alienate them to another than could a man who has life give it to another. These rights have been established by the people, or the members of the realm and commonwealth. They have originated through the members, and they cannot exist except in them, nor be conserved except by them. Furthermore, their administration, which has been granted to a prince by a precarium or covenant, is returned on his death to the people, which because of its perpetual succession is called immortal. This administration is then entrusted by the people to another, who can aptly be one or more persons. But the ownership and usufruct of these rights have no other place to reside if they do not remain with the total people. For this reason, they do not by their nature become articles of commerce for one person. And neither the prince nor anyone else can possess them, so much so that if a prince should wish to exercise ownership of them acquired by some title or other, he would thereby cease to be a prince and would become a private citizen and tyrant. This is evident from those matters that I have stated in Chapters VI and following, especially in Chapters XIV, XV, and XIX. 4 The celebrated Covarruvias agrees with me, as do certain others whom I have acknowledged in Chapters XIV and XV.

These problems have been the reasons for my first difficulty. The other difficulty is no less severe, namely that I have been forced at times to set forth theorems about contingent circumstances that are nevertheless alien to this art. For I have described the character, attitude, customs, and natural disposition of the people, prince, courtiers, and other subjects as they exist in various forms in political life. All these theorems are of this sort. And I realize that they occur in great numbers and are developed in relation to contingencies. For there are peoples, and one often encounters them, who change their character and customs. There are princes who, because of education, training, the goodness of nature, and the grace of God, do not copy the temper and usage that might and rule customarily bring forth in some persons. There are well-constituted princely courts. There are good and pious courtiers, and there are bad ones. But there are more of the latter than the former, as even David in his time complained in Psalms 52, 53, and 59. The same can be said about the political remedies, advice, and precepts adapted to place, time, and person that I discuss in various places. But who can propose general precepts that are necessarily and mutually true about matters so various and unequivalent? The statesman, however, should be well acquainted with these matters. And political science should not omit matters that the governor of a commonwealth should know, and by which he is shaped and rendered fit for governing.

I have already considerably digressed from my purpose of providing reasons for the labor I have undertaken. It is a pleasure to dedicate to you, most distinguished and learned relatives in the Lord, these political meditations of mine. By this means a testimony may stand forth of our friendship and affinity. If my desire is for very penetrating and fair judges of the things I discuss in this book, I rightly choose the two of you for this responsibility. You excel in erudition, excellent doctrine and precise judgment, not to mention other eminent talents with which God has equipped you. You are involved with the affairs of a commonwealth, and every day handle most of the matters I discuss. You are therefore best able to pass judgment on these matters. You can also influence me more freely and effectively than can others, and are able to recall me to the true way if I have departed from right reason in political precepts and their applications, or in the manner of arranging and ordering them.

May the supremely good and great God grant that while we dwell in this social life by his kindness, we may show ourselves pleasing to him and beneficial to our neighbor. Farewell to you, and to my relatives and friends.

Most devotedly yours,

Johannes Althusius

Endnotes [1] [The Latin word jus (pl. jura) as here employed by Althusius means both “right” and “law.” For further information on this word, see page 18, footnote 5.]

[2] [Although this phrase is consistently translated hereafter as “rights of sovereignty,” attention is called to the point that it often conveys the additional meaning of “laws of sovereignty” or sometimes of “powers of sovereignty.” ]

[3] [law.]

[4] [In the 1614 edition, which has been used in this translation, Chapter VI becomes IX, XIV and XV become XVIII and XIX respectively, and XIX becomes XXIV.]

Preface to the Third Edition (1614) Dedicated to the illustrious leaders of the estates of Frisia between the Zuider Zee and the North Sea most worthy lords

Since I understand, illustrious leaders, that my former political treatise has been read by many persons, and all copies have been sold out, I have brought forth another edition. 1 By re-examining the earlier work, and recalling it to the forge, I have intended to perform a worthwhile service. This has been done during the odd hours permitted me between responsibilities to the Commonwealth. 2

I call to your attention that these second meditations have developed into a new political work that differs from the earlier treatise in form, method, and many other respects. In this work I have returned all merely theological, juridical, and philosophical elements to their proper places, and have retained only those that seemed to me to be essential and homogeneous to this science and discipline. And I have included among other things herein, all in their proper places, the precepts of the Decalogue and the rights of sovereignty, about which there is a deep silence among some other political scientists. The precepts of the Decalogue are included to the extent that they infuse a vital spirit into the association and symbiotic life that we teach, that they carry a torch before the social life that we seek, and that they prescribe and constitute a way, rule, guiding star, and boundary for human society. If anyone would take them out of politics, he would destroy it; indeed, he would destroy all symbiosis and social life among men. For what would human life be without the piety of the first table of the Decalogue, and without the justice of the second? What would a commonwealth be without communion and communication of things useful and necessary to human life? By means of these precepts, charity becomes effective in various good works.

He who takes the rights of sovereignty away from politics destroys the universal association. 3 For what other bond does it have than these alone? They constitute it, and they conserve it. If they are taken away, this body, which is composed of various symbiotic associations, is dissolved and ceases to be what it was. For what would the rector, prince, administrator, and governor of a commonwealth be without the necessary power, without the practice and exercise of sovereignty?

By no means, however, do I appropriate those matters that are proper to theology or jurisprudence. The political scientist is concerned with the fact and sources of sovereignty. The jurist discusses the right that arises from them. The former interprets the fact, and the latter the right and merit of it. Since the jurist receives information, instruction, and knowledge about matters from those arts to which such matters belong, and about the right and merit of fact from his own science, it is not surprising that he receives knowledge of some matters from political science. Therefore insofar as the substance of sovereignty or of the Decalogue is theological, ethical or juridical, and accords with the purpose and form of those arts, so far do those arts claim as proper to themselves what they take for their use from the Decalogue and the rights of sovereignty. And so far also I do not touch the subject matter of the Decalogue or of sovereignty, but rather consider it to be alien and heterogeneous to political science. I claim the Decalogue as proper to political science insofar as it breathes a vital spirit into symbiotic life, and gives form to it and conserves it, in which sense it is essential and homogeneous to political science and heterogeneous to other arts. So I have concluded that where the political scientist ceases, there the jurist begins, just as where the moralist stops the theologian begins, and where the physicist ends the physician begins. No one denies, however, that all arts are united in practice.

I have rightly selected examples for political science from excellent and praiseworthy polities, from the histories of human life, and from past events, and have employed them in that art that ought to be the guide of an upright political life, the moulder of all symbiosis, and the image of good social life. I more frequently use examples from sacred scripture because it has God or pious men as its author, and because I consider that no polity from the beginning of the world has been more wisely and perfectly constructed than the polity of the Jews. We err, I believe, whenever in similar circumstances we depart from it.

Moreover, I have attributed the rights of sovereignty, as they are called, not to the supreme magistrate, but to the commonwealth or universal association. Many jurists and political scientists assign them as proper only to the prince and supreme magistrate to the extent that if these rights are granted and communicated to the people or commonwealth, they thereby perish and are no more. A few others and I hold to the contrary, namely, that they are proper to the symbiotic body of the universal association to such an extent that they give it spirit, soul, and heart. And this body, as I have said, perishes if they are taken away from it. I recognize the prince as the administrator, overseer, and governor of these rights of sovereignty. But the owner and usufructuary of sovereignty is none other than the total people associated in one symbiotic body from many smaller associations. These rights of sovereignty are so proper to this association, in my judgment, that even if it wishes to renounce them, to transfer them to another, and to alienate them, it would by no means be able to do so, any more than a man is able to give the life he enjoys to another. For these rights of sovereignty constitute and conserve the universal association. And as they arise from the people, or the members of the commonwealth or realm, so they are not able to exist except in them, nor to be conserved except by them. Furthermore, their administration, which is granted by the people to a single mortal man—namely, to a prince or supreme magistrate—reverts when he dies or is discharged to the people, which is said to be immortal because its generations perpetually succeed one after the other. This administration of the rights of sovereignty is then entrusted by the people to another. And so it remains with the people through a thousand years, or as many years as the commonwealth endures. I discuss this point extensively in Chapters IX, XVIII, XIX, XXIV, and XXXVIII.

To demonstrate this point I am able to produce the excellent example of your own and the other provinces confederated with you. For in the war you undertook against the very powerful king of Spain you did not consider that the rights of sovereignty adhered so inseparably to him that they did not exist apart from him. Rather, when you took away the use and exercise of them from those who abused them, and recovered what was your own, you declared that these rights belong to the associated multitude and to the people of the individual provinces. You did this with such a courageous spirit, with such wisdom, fidelity, and constancy, that I cannot find other peoples to compare with your example.

And this among other reasons leads me to dedicate these political meditations to you. It even leads me to refer very often in them, when illustrations of political precepts are used, to examples chosen from your cities, constitutions, customs, and deeds, and from other confederated Belgic provinces. I am also moved to do this by the favor, warmth, and disposition that you, together with your confederates, have expressed often towards this Commonwealth that I have served for a number of years, and indeed, even toward me when not many years ago you saw fit to call me—with very fair provisions—to profess the juristic science at your illustrious and much celebrated academy at Franeker. Wherefore I think it only just that I acknowledge and openly proclaim your kindness in this preface and dedication, and publicly commend for the imitation of others those virtues through which, by the grace of God, you not only defended and conserved your commonwealth from tyranny and disaster, but also made it even more illustrious. For the success of your admirable deeds, and those of your allies, is so abundant that it overflows into neighboring countries, indeed, into all of Germany and into France. It is even experienced by the nations of the Indies and many other realms plagued by Spanish arms that have been sustained and defended by you and the other provinces united with you. Since the published annals and histories speak of these things to the eternal glory of your name, I choose to pass over them in silence rather than to mention only a small part of them.

May the supremely good and great God grant that while we live in this political life and this symbiosis by his grace, we may make ourselves useful and beneficial to men, and so attain the purpose that has been the concern of this discipline. With this prayer I close this preface.

With reverent and humble respect and honor for your illustrious splendor

Johannes Althusius

[1] [This preface was prepared originally for the second edition (1610) and retained in the third and later editions.]

[2] [City of Emden.]

[3] [ consociatio universalis: the commonwealth; an association inclusive of all other associations (families, collegia, cities, and provinces) within a determinate large area, and recognizing no superior to itself.]

I The General Elements of Politics

[§ 1] Politics is the art of associating (consociandi) men for the purpose of establishing, cultivating, and conserving social life among them. [§ 2] Whence it is called “symbiotics.” The subject matter of politics is therefore association (consociatio), in which the symbiotes1 pledge themselves each to the other, by explicit or tacit agreement, to mutual communication of whatever is useful and necessary for the harmonious exercise of social life.

[§ 3] The end of political “symbiotic” man is holy, just, comfortable, and happy symbiosis, 2 a life lacking nothing either necessary or useful. Truly, in living this life no man is self-sufficient, or adequately endowed by nature. [§ 4] For when he is born, destitute of all help, naked and defenseless, as if having lost all his goods in a shipwreck, he is cast forth into the hardships of this life, not able by his own efforts to reach a maternal breast, nor to endure the harshness of his condition, nor to move himself from the place where he was cast forth. By his weeping and tears, he can initiate nothing except the most miserable life, a very certain sign of pressing and immediate misfortune. 3 Bereft of all counsel and aid, for which nevertheless he is then in greatest need, he is unable to help himself without the intervention and assistance of another. Even if he is well nourished in body, he cannot show forth the light of reason. Nor in his adulthood is he able to obtain in and by himself those outward goods he needs for a comfortable and holy life, or to provide by his own energies all the requirements of life. The energies and industry of many men are expended to procure and supply these things. Therefore, as long as he remains isolated and does not mingle in the society of men, he cannot live at all comfortably and well while lacking so many necessary and useful things. As an aid and remedy for this state of affairs is offered him in symbiotic life, he is led, and almost impelled, to embrace it if he wants to live comfortably and well, even if he merely wants to live. Therein he is called upon to exercise and perform those virtues that are necessarily inactive except in this symbiosis. And so he begins to think by what means such symbiosis, from which he expects so many useful and enjoyable things, can be instituted, cultivated, and conserved. Concerning these matters we shall, by God’s grace, speak in the following pages.

[§ 5] The word “polity” has three principal connotations, as noted by Plutarch. 4 First it indicates the communication of right (jus)5 in the commonwealth, which the Apostle calls citizenship. 6 Then, it signifies the manner of administering and regulating the commonwealth. Finally, it notes the form and constitution of the commonwealth by which all actions of the citizens are guided. Aristotle understands by polity this last meaning. 7

[§ 6] The symbiotes are co-workers who, by the bond of an associating and uniting agreement, communicate among themselves whatever is appropriate for a comfortable life of soul and body. In other words, they are participants or partners in a common life.

[§ 7] This mutual communication, 8 or common enterprise, involves (1) things, (2) services, and (3) common rights (jura) by which the numerous and various needs of each and every symbiote are supplied, the self-sufficiency and mutuality of life and human society are achieved, and social life is established and conserved. Whence Cicero said, “a political community is a gathering of men associated by a consensus as to the right and a sharing of what is useful.” 9 By this communication, advantages and responsibilities are assumed and maintained according to the nature of each particular association. [§ 8] (1) The communication of things (res) is the bringing of useful and necessary goods to the social life by the symbiotes for the common advantage of the symbiotes individually and collectively. [§ 9] (2) The community of services

(operae) is the contributing by the symbiotes of their labors and occupations for the sake of social life. [§ 10] (3) The communion of right (jus) is the process by which the symbiotes live and are ruled by just laws in a common life among themselves.

This communion of right is called the law of association and symbiosis (lex consociationis et symbiosis), or the symbiotic right (jus symbioticum)10, and consists especially of self-sufficiency, good order, and proper discipline. It includes two aspects, one functioning to direct and govern social life, the other prescribing a plan and manner for communicating things and services among the symbiotes.

The law of association in its first aspect is, in turn, either common or proper. [§ 11] Common law (lex communis), which is unchanging, indicates that in every association and type of symbiosis some persons are rulers (heads, overseers, prefects) or superiors, others are subjects or inferiors. [§ 12] For all government is held together by imperium and subjection; in fact, the human race started straightway from the beginning with imperium and subjection. God made Adam master and monarch of his wife, and of all creatures born or descendant from her. 11 Therefore all power and government is said to be from God. 12 And nothing, as Cicero affirms, “is as suited to the natural law (jus naturae)13 and its requirements as imperium, without which neither household nor city nor nation nor the entire race of men can endure, nor the whole nature of things nor the world itself.” 14 If the consensus and will of rulers and subjects is the same, how happy and blessed is their life! “Be subject to one another in fear of the Lord.” 15

[§ 13] The ruler, prefect, or chief directs and governs the functions of the social life for the utility of the subjects individually and collectively. He exercises his authority by administering, planning, appointing, teaching, forbidding, requiring, and diverting. Whence the ruler is called rector, director, governor, curator, and administrator. Petrus Gregorius says that just as the soul presides over the other members in the human body, directs and governs them according to the proper functions assigned to each member, and foresees and procures whatever useful and necessary things are due each member—some useful privately and at the same time to all or to the entire body, others useful publicly for the conservation of social life—so also it is necessary in civil society that one person rule the rest for the welfare and utility of both individuals and the whole group. 16 Therefore, as Augustine says, to rule, to govern, to preside is nothing other than to serve and care for the utility of others, as parents rule their children, and a man his wife. 17 Or, as Thomas Aquinas says, “to govern is to lead what is governed to its appropriate end.” 18 And so it pertains to the office of a governor not only to preserve something unharmed, but also to lead it to its end. 19 The rector and moderator so endeavors and proceeds that he leads the people by method, order, and discipline to that end in which all things are properly considered.

[§ 14] Government by superiors considers both the soul and the body of inferiors: the soul that it may be formed and imbued with doctrine and knowledge of things useful and necessary in human life, the body that it may be provided with nourishment and whatever else it needs. The first responsibility pertains to education, the second to sustentation and protection. [§ 15] Education centers on the instruction of inferiors in the true knowledge and worship of God, and in prescribed duties that ought to be performed towards one’s neighbor; education also pertains to the correction of evil customs and errors. By the former, inferiors are imbued with a healthy knowledge of holy, just, and useful things; by the latter, they are held firm in duty. [§ 16] The responsibility for sustentation of the body is the process by which inferiors are carefully and diligently guided by superiors in matters pertaining to this life, and by which advantages for them are sought and disadvantages to them are avoided. 20 [§ 17] Protection is the legitimate defense against injuries and violence, the process by which the security of inferiors is maintained by superiors against any misfortune, violence, or injury directed against persons, reputations, or properties, and if already sustained, then avenged and compensated by lawful means.

[§ 18] The inferior, or subject, is one who carries on the business of the social life according to the will of his chief, or prefect, and arranges his life and actions submissively, provided his chief does not rule impiously or unjustly.

[§ 19] Proper laws (leges propriae)21 are those enactments by which particular associations are ruled. They differ in each specie of association according as the nature of each requires.

[§ 20] The laws by which the communication of things, occupations, services, and actions is accomplished22 are those that distribute and assign advantages and responsibilities among the symbiotes according to the nature and necessities of each association. [§ 21] At times the communication regulated by these laws is more extensive, at other times more restricted, according as the nature of each association is seen to require, or as may be agreed upon and established among the members.

[§ 22] On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I agree with Plutarch that a commonwealth is best and happiest when magistrates and citizens bring everything together for its welfare and advantage, and neither neglect nor despise anyone who can be helpful to the commonwealth23 The Apostle indeed advises us to seek and promote advantages for our neighbor, even to the point that we willingly give up our own right, by which we guard against misfortune, to obtain a great advantage for the other person. 24 For “we have not been born to ourselves, inasmuch as our country claims a share in our birth, and our friends a share.” 25 [§ 23] The entire second table of the Decalogue pertains to this: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”; “whatever you wish to be done to you do also to others,” and conversely, “whatever you do not wish to be done to you do not do to others”; “live honorably, injure no one, and render to each his due.” 26 Of what use to anyone is a hidden treasure, or a wise man who denies his services to the commonwealth?

[§ 24] In light of these several truths, the question of which life is to be preferred can be answered. Is it the contemplative or the active? Is it the theoretical and philosophical life or the practical and political life? Clearly man by nature is a gregarious animal born for cultivating society with other men, not by nature living alone as wild beasts do, nor wandering about as birds. [§ 25] And so misanthropic and stateless hermits, living without fixed hearth or home, are useful neither to themselves nor to others, and separated from others are surely miserable. For how can they promote the advantage of their neighbor unless they find their way into human society? 27 How can they perform works of love when they live outside human fellowship? How can the church be built and the remaining duties of the first table of the Decalogue be performed? Whence Keckermann rightly says that politics leads the final end of all other disciplines to the highest point, and thus builds public from private happiness. 28

[§ 26] For this reason God willed to train and teach men not by angels, but by men. 29 For the same reason God distributed his gifts unevenly among men. He did not give all things to one person, but some to one and some to others, so that you have need for my gifts, and I for yours. And so was born, as it were, the need for communicating necessary and useful things, which communication was not possible except in social and political life. God therefore willed that each need the service and aid of others in order that friendship would bind all together, and no one would consider another to be valueless. [§ 27] For if each did not need the aid of others, what would society be? What would reverence and order be? What would reason and humanity be? Every one therefore needs the experience and contributions of others, and no one lives to himself alone.

Thus the needs of body and soul, and the seeds of virtue implanted in our souls, drew dispersed men together into one place. These causes have built villages, established cities, founded academic institutions, and united by civil unity and society a diversity of farmers, craftsmen, laborers, builders, soldiers, merchants, learned and unlearned men and so many members of the same body. Consequently while some persons provided for others, and some received from others what they themselves lacked, all came together into a certain public body that we call the commonwealth, and by mutual aid devoted themselves to the general good and welfare of this body. And that this was the true origin first of villages, and then of larger commonwealths embracing wide areas, is taught by the most ancient records of history and confirmed by daily experience. [§ 28] Opposed to this judgment is the life and teaching of recluses, monks, and hermits, who defend their error and heresy by an erroneous appeal to Luke 1:80; 10:41; Hebrews 11:38; I Kings 19:8. But scripture places this kind of life among its maledictions. Deuteronomy 28:64, 65; Psalms 107 and 144; Code X, 32, 26. Note also that a wandering and vagabond life was imposed upon Cain in punishment for his fratricide. Genesis 4:14. Contrary examples of pious men embracing active political life are to be found throughout sacred scripture.

[§ 29] From what has been said, we further conclude that the efficient cause of political association is consent and agreement among the communicating citizens. The formal cause is indeed the association brought about by contributing and communicating one with the other, in which political men institute, cultivate, maintain, and conserve the fellowship of human life through decisions about those things useful and necessary to this social life. [§ 30] The final cause of politics is the enjoyment of a comfortable, useful, and happy life, and of the common welfare— that we may live with piety and honor a peaceful and quiet life, that while true piety toward God and justice among the citizens may prevail at home, defense against the enemy from abroad may be maintained, and that concord and peace may always and everywhere thrive. The final cause is also the conservation of a human society that aims at a life in which you can worship God quietly and without error. [§ 31] The material of politics is the aggregate of precepts for communicating those things, services, and right that we bring together, each fairly and properly according to his ability, for symbiosis and the common advantage of the social life.

[§ 32] Moreover, Aristotle teaches that man by his nature is brought to this social life and mutual sharing. 30 For man is a more political animal than the bee or any other gregarious creature, and therefore by nature far more of a social animal than bees, ants, cranes, and such kind as feed and defend themselves in flocks. Since God himself endowed each being with a natural capacity to maintain itself and to resist whatever is contrary to it, so far as necessary to its welfare, and since dispersed men are not able to exercise this capacity, the instinct for living together and establishing civil society was given to them. [§ 33] Thus brought together and united, some men could aid others, many together could provide the necessities of life more easily than each alone, and all could live more safely from attack by wild beasts and enemies. It follows that no man is able to live well and happily to himself. Necessity therefore induces association; and the want of things necessary for life, which are acquired and communicated by the help and aid of one’s associates, conserves it. For this reason it is evident that the commonwealth, or civil society, exists by nature, and that man is by nature a civil animal who strives eagerly for association. If, however, anyone wishes not to live in society, or needs nothing because of his own abundance, he is not considered a part of the commonwealth. He is therefore either a beast or a god, as Aristotle asserts. 31

[§ 34] Furthermore the continuous governing and obedience in social life mentioned earlier are also agreeable to nature. For, as Petrus Gregorius adds, “to rule, to direct, to be subjected, to be ruled, to be governed” are natural actions proceeding from the law of nations (jus gentium). “Anything else would be considered no less monstrous than a body without a head, or a head without members of the body lawfully and suitably arranged, or even lacking them altogether. For it is especially useful to the individual member who cannot meet his own needs to be aided and upheld by another. The better member is said to be the one who meets his own needs, and is also able to help others. The greater the good he communicates with others, the better and more outstanding the member is. [§ 35] Then, this world has so great and so admirable a diversity [ … ] that unless it be held together by some order of subordination, and regulated by fixed laws of subjection and order, it would be destroyed in a short time by its own confusion. Nor can the diverse parts of it endure if each part seeks to perform its own function indifferently and heedlessly by itself. Power set over against equal power would bring all things to an end by continuous and irreconcilable discord, and would involve in its ruin things that do not belong to it, and that it does not know how to govern.” 32 As long as each part decides to live according to its own will, it may disregard the rule of discipline. 33 Finally, the conservation and duration of all things consist in this concord of order and subjection. [§ 36] “Just as from lyres of diverse tones, if properly tuned, a sweet sound and pleasant harmony arise when low, medium, and high notes are united, so also the social unity of rulers and subjects in the state produces a sweet and pleasant harmony out of the rich, the poor, the workers, the farmers, and other kinds of persons. If agreement is thus achieved in society, a praiseworthy, happy, most durable, and almost divine concord is produced. [ … ] [§ 37] But if all were truly equal, and each wished to rule others according to his own will, discord would easily arise, and by discord the dissolution of society. There would be no standard of virtue or merit, and it follows that equality itself would be the greatest inequality,” as Petrus Gregorius rightly asserts. 34 Hence, when this harmony of rulers and subjects ceases, and there are no longer servants and leaders, such a situation is considered to be among the signs of divine wrath.

[§ 38] I add to this that it is inborn to the more powerful and prudent to dominate and rule weaker men, just as it is also considered inborn for inferiors to submit. So in man the soul dominates the body, and the mind the appetites. So the male, because the more outstanding, rules the female, who as the weaker obeys. [§ 39] Thus, the pride and high spirits of man should be restrained by sure reins of reason, law, and imperium less he throw himself precipitously into ruin.

Endnotes

[1] [ symbiotici: those who live together.] [2] [ symbiosis: living together.] [3] [This sentence and the previous one are taken without acknowledgment from Juan de Mariana, The King and His Education, I, 1.] [4] “On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy,” pars. 2 and 3. [Plutarch refers therein to polity as citizenship, as statecraft, and as forms of government.] [5] [There is no precise English counterpart for the Latin word jus (pl. jura) as employed by Althusius. Often it means “right” (e. g., jus coercendi —right to coerce), sometimes “law” (e. g., jus natural —natural law), and upon occasion even “authority,” “responsibility,” “power,” “legal order,” “structure,” or “justice.” It also functions in many instances as a Janus-headed word eluding the capacity of any single English term to express (e. g., jura regni —rights and laws of the realm). Notations in text and footnotes have therefore been made from time to time to assist the reader in observing its complex usage. The general rule employed throughout is to translate jus as “right” wherever possible, to indicate by notation all places where jus has been translated by some other term, and to insert occasional footnotes that provide variant translations in critical places where the full meaning of jus cannot be expressed by a single English word. In keeping with this rule, “right” will henceforth be the most frequent translation (usually without notation) of jus. (Unless noted, “law” will always be a translation of lex.) The reader should be on guard, however, not to attribute too readily to Althusius’ understanding of “right” the connotation of a self-evident system of “public right” or the notion of “unalienable human rights.” ] [6] Philippians 3:20. [7] Politics, 1276b 17–1277b 4; 1293a 35–1294b 41. [8] [ communicatio: a sharing, a making common. Althusius sometimes uses communion (communio) and community interchangeably with communication.] [9] The Republic, I, 25. [10] [the fundamental law of living together; the demand that social life makes upon human persons both by its nature and by their agreement. This demand has some elements common to all associations, and others proper to various species of association (family, collegium, city, province, and commonwealth). In this chapter it is usually called the law of association (lex consociationis), but in later chapters symbiotic right (jus symbioticum) is the more common expression.] [11] Genesis 1:26 f.; 3:16; Ecclesiasticus 17. [12] Romans 13. [13] [Althusius employs jus naturae (or naturale) interchangeably with lex naturae (or naturalis). Both expressions are henceforth translated as “natural law.” ] [14] Laws, III, 1. [15] Ephesians 5:21. [16] De republica, I, 1, 18 f. [1, 1, 8 and 10 in the 1609 edition]. [17] The City of God, XIX, 15 [XIX, 14 in the Modern Library edition]. See also Seneca, Letters, num. 91 [num. 90 in the Loeb edition]; Marius Salomonius, De principatu, II; Giovanni Botero, The Greatness of Cities, I, 1. [18] On Princely Government, I, 13 and 14. [19] Or, as Hieronymus Osorius says, to rule is to direct toward the right end. De regis institutione, 1. [20] “Whoever presides, let him preside with care.” Romans 12:8. “If anyone does not take responsibility for his own, and especially those of his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I Timothy 5:8. [21] [as contrasted with common law (lex communis), discussed in the last four paragraphs.] [22] [the second aspect of the law of association.] [23] “Sayings of Kings and Magistrates,” [1st par.] [24] Philippians 2:4-6; I Corinthians 10:24; 12:25 f.; Galatians 1:3, 5; 5:14; Romans 12:18, 20; 13:8, 10. [25] Cicero, Duties, 1, 7. [26] Matthew 22:39; 7:12. [Shabbath 31a; Digest I, 1, 10, 1.] [27] See Ecclesiastes 4:5–8 and the Commentarius thereon of Franciscus Junius, in which are indicated the benefits of social life. [28] Bartholomaeus Keckermann, Systema disciplinae politicae. [29] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 3, 1. [30] Politics, 1252a 24–1253a38. [31] Politics, 1253a 31. [32] Petrus Gregorius, De republica, XIX; I, 1, 7 and 16 f.; I, 3, 12 f. [In the 1609 edition the precise quotation is found in VI, 1, 1 f., although the other passages indicated by Althusius are also generally relevant to the discussion. Note, however, that Gregorius says that “to rule, to direct, to be subjected, to be ruled, to be governed are agreeable to the natural law (jus naturae), and are consistent with the divine law (jus divinum), the human law of nations (jus gentium), and civil law (jus civile). Anything else” etc.

Also to be noted is that Althusius will have nothing to do, here or elsewhere, with Gregorius’ often repeated division of the corporeal world into four elements (earth, water, air, and fire), and therefore omits them from the quotation rather than attributing the diversity of the world to them, as Gregorius does. Although these four elements recur throughout his De republica, Gregorius’s best discussion of them is found in his legal work, Syntagtma juris universi, I, 1–9 Finally, the sentence immediately after this quotation is in large part borrowed, following Gregorius, from Cassiodorus, Variarum, 16.] [33] The absence of a ruler is held to be the root of evils in Judges 17:6 and 21:25. The same is considered to be a punishment in Isaiah 3. [These Biblical passages are also cited in Gregorius, De republica, VI, 1, 3.] [34] Ibid., VI, 1, 5. [Gregorius acknowledges no source for his comparison of social with musical harmony, but the same comparison in almost identical words is found in Cicero, The Republic, II, 42, and Augustine, The City of God, II, 21. Earlier Plato had compared the harmony of the inward person with musical harmony in The Republic, IV
443. In the sixteenth century Francis Hotman also employed this comparison, attributing it to Plato by way of Cicero. See his Franco-gallia (1573), 10 or (1586), 12.]

II-III The Family

II [§ 1] Thus far we have discussed the general elements of politics. We turn now to types of association or of symbiotic life. Every association is either simple and private, 1 or mixed and public. 2

[§ 2] The simple and private association is a society and symbiosis initiated by a special covenant (pactum) among the members for the purpose of bringing together and holding in common a particular interest (quid peculiare). This is done according to their agreement and way of life, that is, according to what is necessary and useful for organized private symbiotic life. Such an association can rightly be called primary, and all others derivative from it. For without this primary association others are able neither to arise nor to endure. .

[§ 3] The efficient causes of this simple and private association and symbiosis are individual men covenanting among themselves to communicate whatever is necessary and useful for organizing and living in private life. Whence arises the particular and private union and society among the covenanters, whose bond (vinculum) is trust granted and accepted in their communication of mutual aid, counsel, and right (jus).3 And such an association, because it is smaller than a public and universal one, also requires less extended communication, support, and assistance.

[§ 4] The members of the private association are individuals harmoniously united under one head and spirit, as members of the same body. For, as Petrus Gregorius says, “just as there is one end for the sake of which nature made the thumb, another the hand or foot, still another the whole man; so there is one end to which nature directs the individual man, another the family, and another the city and realm. But that end is most to be esteemed for which nature made the whole man. Accordingly, it is not to be thought that since there is a definite end for each type of assemblage there is none for the whole, nor that since there is order in the parts of human life there is only confusion in the more inclusive kind of life, nor lastly that since the parts are united among themselves by reason of their intending one end the whole itself is disunited.” 4

[§ 5] The particular interest that is communicated among the symbiotes by a special covenant of this kind, and through which they are united as by a certain bond, consists in symbiotic right (jus symbioticum),5 together with structure and good order for communicating it with consensus, mutual service, and common advantage. [§ 6] Symbiotic right is what the private symbiote fulfills on behalf of his fellow symbiote in the private association, which varies according to the nature of the association. … [§ 12] Because of this symbiotic right, the private association often performs as one person, and is acknowledged to be one person…

[§ 13] There are two types of simple and private association. The first is natural, and the second is civil. 6 [§ 14] The private and natural symbiotic association is one in which married persons, blood relatives, and in-laws, in response to a natural affection and necessity, agree to a definite communication among themselves. Whence this individual, natural, necessary, economic, and domestic society is said to be contracted permanently among these symbiotic allies of life, with the same boundaries as life itself. Therefore it is rightly called the most intense society, friendship, relationship, and union, the seedbed of every other symbiotic association. Whence these symbiotic allies are called relatives, kinsmen, and friends.

[§ 15] This simple and private natural association is nourished, fostered, and conserved by private functions and occupations through which these associated symbiotes communicate each to the other every aid and assistance needed in this symbiosis. They do this according to the judgment of the chief and the laws (leges) of good order and proper discipline prescribed by him for inferior symbiotes. These functions are either agricultural, industrial, or commercial. … 7 [§ 37] Moreover, there are two kinds of private and natural domestic association. The first is conjugal (conjugalis), and the second is kinship (propinqua).8 [§ 38] The conjugal association and symbiosis is one in which the husband and wife, who are bound each to the other, communicate the advantages and responsibilities of married life. … 9 [§ 40] The director and governor of the common affairs pertaining to this association is the husband. The wife and family are obedient, and do what is commanded.

[§ 41] The advantages and responsibilities are either proper to one of the spouses, or common to both. [§ 42] Proper advantages and responsibilities are either those the husband communicates to his wife, or those the wife communicates to her husband. The husband communicates to his wife his name, family, reputation, station in life, and economic condition. … 10 [§ 43] He also provides her with guidance, legal protection, and defense against violence and injury. … [§ 44] Finally, he supplies her with all other necessities, such as management, solicitude, food, and clothing.…

[§ 45] The wife extends to her husband obedience, subjection, trust, compliance, services, support, aid, honor, reverence, modesty, and respect. She brings forth children for him, and nurses and trains them. She joins and consoles him in misery and calamity. She accommodates herself to his customs, and without his counsel and consent she does nothing. And thus she renders to her husband an agreeable and peaceful life. …

[§ 46] There are also common advantages and responsibilities that are provided and communicated by both spouses, such as kindness, use of the body for avoiding harlotry and for procreating children, mutual habitation except when absence may be necessary, intimate and familiar companionship, mutual love, fidelity, patience, mutual service, communication of all goods and right (jus), … management of the family, administration of household duties, education of children in the true religion, protection against and liberation from perils, and mourning of the dead. …

III [§ 1] the kinship association is one in which relatives and in-laws are united for the purpose of communicating advantages and responsibilities. [§ 2] This association arises from at least three persons, but it can be conserved by fewer. Frequently it consists of a much larger number. … [§ 16] He is called the leader (princeps) of the family or of any clan of people, who is placed over such a family or clan, and who has the right to coerce (jus coercendi) the persons of his family individually and collectively. …

[§ 18] The rights communicated among the persons who are united in this natural association are called rights of blood (jura sanguinis). They consist partly in advantages, partly in responsibilities, and in the bringing together and sustaining these advantages mutually among the kinsmen. … [§ 20] Such advantages are, first, the affection, love, and goodwill of the blood relative and kinsman. [§ 21] From this affection arises the solicitude by which the individual is concerned for the welfare and advantages of his kinsman, and labors for them no less than for his own. … [§ 23] Second among the advantages of the family and kinsmen I refer to the communion in all the rights and privileges belonging to the family and relationship. [§ 24] And to this point I refer the enjoyment of the clan or family name, and of its insignia. … [§ 27] Third among the common rights of the family and relationship I refer to the provision for support in case of necessity or want. [§ 28] Fourth, a privilege granted to one of the kinsmen is extended by right of relationship to his family, wife, children, and even brother. …

[§ 34] The responsibilities of the family and relationship are services and works that the member owes to his kinsman, such as forethought, care, and defense of the family and of the members of the household. … [§ 35] The leadership in meeting these responsibilities rests upon the paterfamilias as master and head of his family. … [§ 36] Upon the older members of the family rests the duty of correcting and reprehending their younger kinsmen for mistakes of youthful indiscretion and hotheadedness. …

[§ 37] These advantages and responsibilities are intensified as the degree of relationship among the kinsmen increases. Therefore they are greater between parents and children. For parents should educate their children, instruct them in the true knowledge of God, govern and defend them, even lay up treasures for them, make them participants in everything they themselves have, including their family and station in life, provide suitable marriages for them at the right time, and upon departing born life make them their heirs and provide optimally for them. … 11

[§ 42] Certain political writers eliminate, wrongly in my judgment, the doctrine of the conjugal and kinship private association from the field of politics and assign it to economics. Now these associations are the seedbed of all private and public associational life. The knowledge of other associations is therefore incomplete and defective without this doctrine of conjugal and kinship associations, and cannot be rightly understood without it. I concede that the skill of attending to household goods, of supplying, increasing, and conserving the goods of the family is entirely economic, and as such is correctly eliminated from politics. But altogether different from this is association among spouses and kinsmen, which is entirely political and general, and which communicates things, services, rights, and aid for living the domestic and economic life piously, justly, and beneficially. Economic management, however, concerns merely household goods—how much and by what means they may be furnished, augmented, and conserved. By such management the skill is made available for cultivating fields, tending herds, ploughing, sowing, reaping, planting, pruning, and doing all kinds of agricultural work. But by politics alone arises the wisdom for governing and administering the family. It is politics that teaches what the spouses, paterfamilias, materfamilias, servants, and attendants may contribute and communicate among themselves—and what the kinsmen among themselves—in order that private and domestic social life may be piously and justly fulfilled.

So therefore economics and politics differ greatly as to subject and end. The subject of the former is the goods of the family; its end is the acquisition of whatever is necessary for food and clothing. The subject of the latter, namely politics, is pious and just symbiosis; its end is the governing and preserving of association and symbiotic life.

Furthermore, certain persons wrongly assert that every symbiotic association is public, and none private. Now this axiom stands firm and freed: all symbiotic association and life is essentially, authentically, and generically political. But not every symbiotic association is public. There are certain associations that are private, such as conjugal and kinship families, and collegia. And these are the seedbeds of the public association. Whence it follows that the private association is rightly attributed to politics.

Endnotes

[1] [family and collegium.] [2] [city, province, and commonwealth.] [3] [just structure or order.] [4] De republica, V, 5, 13. [5] [See page 19, footnote 10. ] [6] [the family and the collegium respectively.] [7] [Here follows a lengthy discussion of the functions of farmers, craftsmen, and merchants. Althusius considers farmers to be hardworking, temperate, and not given to faction, while craftsmen are argumentative, intemperate, and prone to faction. Merchants, on the other hand, are not discussed in these terms. Instead, their functions of exporting agricultural and industrial surpluses, and importing what is not found locally, are presented merely in terms of the standards of conduct they ought to observe. Moreover, merchants are acknowledged to be “the feet of the body politic” inasmuch as they provide contact with the outside world.] [8] Concerning the former see Genesis 3 and 4; concerning the latter see Genesis 10. [9] [Here follows an extended quotation from Cicero that discusses the reproduction instinct between husband and wife as giving birth to children, who in turn go forth to establish new connections, and concludes that “such propagation and offspring are the origin of commonwealths.” Duties, 1, 17.] [10] [Althusius drew heavily upon Biblical materials in support of his discussion of the communication of advantages and responsibilities between husband and wife. These paragraphs refer to eighty-two passages in the Old Testament, and sixty-nine in the New Testament.] [11] [Here follows a discussion of members of the household. Servants, children, and others who dwell under one roof are expected to obey the imperium of the paterfamilias, and of his ally the materfamilias, in all things pertaining to this social life. In turn, he has clearly defined responsibilities to them, including the sharing with them of the rights of religion and the providing for their maintenance.]

IV The Collegium [§ 1] This completes the discussion of the natural association. We turn now to the civil association, which is a body organized by assembled persons according to their own pleasure and will to serve a common utility and necessity in human life. That is to say, they agree among themselves by common consent on a manner of ruling and obeying for the utility both of the whole body and of its individuals. 1

[§ 2] This society by its nature is transitory and can be discontinued. It need not last as long as the lifetime of a man, but can be disbanded honorably and in good faith by the mutual agreement of those who have come together, however much it may have been necessary and useful for social life on another occasion. [§ 3] For this reason it is called a spontaneous and merely voluntary society, granted that a certain necessity can be said to have brought it into existence. For in the early times of the world, when the human race was increasing and, though one family, yet dispersing itself—since all persons could no longer be expected to live together in one place and family—necessity drove diverse and separate dwellings, hamlets, and villages to stand together, and at length to erect towns and cities in different places. Accordingly, “when the head of the family goes out of his house, in which he exercises domestic imperium, and joins the heads of other families to pursue business matters, he then loses the name of head and master of the family, and becomes an ally and citizen. In a sense, he leaves the family in order that he may enter the city and attend therein to public instead of domestic concerns.” 2

[§ 4] This is therefore a civil association. In it three or more men of the same trade, training, or profession are united for the purpose of holding in common such things they jointly profess as duty, way of life, or craft. Such an association is called a collegium, 3 or as it were, a gathering, society, federation, society, synagogue, convention, or synod. It is said to be a private association by contrast with the public association. 4 [§ 5] The persons who unite in order to constitute a collegium are called colleagues, associates, or even brothers. A minimum of three persons is required to organize a collegium, because among two persons there is no third person to overcome dissension. This is so even though two persons may be called colleagues so far as the power and equality of office is concerned. Fewer than three, however, are able to conserve a collegium. 5

[§ 6] Whoever among the colleagues is superior and set over the others is called the leader of the collegium, the rector or director of the common property and functions. He is elected by common consent of the colleagues, and is provided with administrative power over property and functions pertaining to the collegium. For this reason he exercises coercive power over the colleagues individually, but not over the group itself. [§ 7] Therefore the president of a collegium is superior to the individual colleague but inferior to the united colleagues, or to the collegium over which he presides and whose pleasure he must serve. …

[§ 8] We will consider first the communication of the colleagues, and their symbiotic right (jus symbioticum) in this private and civil association, then the various types of the collegium. Communication among the colleagues is the activity by which an individual helps his colleague, and so upholds the plan of social life set forth in covenanted agreements. These covenants and laws (pacta et leges) of the colleagues are described in their corporate books, which we call Zunftbücher. Such communication pertains to (1) things, (2) services, (3) right, and (4) mutual benevolence.

[§ 9] The communication of things centers in mutual contributions of the colleagues to the collegium, and in acquisitions from other sources made according to its law. These things include the building of the collegium in which the colleagues meet and deliberate on their corporate business, as well as the money, income, drinking cups, seals, coffers, books, corporate records, and other things useful and necessary to the collegium assessed from the individual members or given from some other source to the collegium. [§] The common purpose requires that all colleagues be considered participants within a common legal structure, not as separate individuals but as one body. So it is that what the collegium owes is not owed by the individuals separately, and what is owed to the collegium is not owed to the individuals separately. 6 …

[§ 12] The communication of services is determined by mutual agreement among the colleagues. The communication of skilled services consists, for the most part, in promoting the duties, business, and advantages of a craft, profession, or vocation, and in averting disadvantages. This is done according to the manner that has been tacitly or explicitly agreed upon by the colleagues. [§ 13] In this connection, the collegium bestows its approval on apprentices who have passed an appointed examination in the art, craft, or trade that the collegium professes.

Some services are more or less uniform and equally performed among the colleagues. Others, however, are dissimilar and unequal in character, and are the responsibility not of all colleagues, but either of some among them or of the one who serves as leader of the collegium. [§ 14] Among the latter services are the right and responsibility of calling the colleagues into session, 7 of proposing the things that are to be deliberated upon, of conducting the voting, of opening letters to the collegium from outside sources, of maintaining the seal, coffer, privileges, and other goods of the collegium, and of adjourning its meetings. There may be further services required by the nature and order of the functions and activities for which the collegium was organized. If so, they are either distributed on a changing and rotating basis among the colleagues, or assigned to the common procurator or syndic of the collegium by the common consent of the colleagues.

[§ 15] The colleagues are recorded in the register of the collegium according to the law and convention they have agreed upon. But if there is no such law or convention, “the status of each is to be observed so that they may be recorded in that order in which each of them has enjoyed the highest distinction. [ … ] In rendering opinions, also, the same order is to be respected that is observed in recording their names in the register.” 8

[§ 16] The communication of right among the colleagues is achieved when they live, are ruled, and are obligated in their collegium by the same right and laws (jus et leges), and are even punished for proper cause according to them, provided this is done without infringing upon the magistrate or usurping an alien jurisdiction. The problem of when a collegium or community (universitas)9 is able to establish its own statutes is discussed by Losaeus. 10 Certainly the colleagues may establish statutes obligating them in whatever pertains to the administration of their goods, to their craft and profession, and to their private business. Their jurisdiction, however, must not infringe on the public jurisdiction, nor extend to those matters that are rightfully prohibited.

[§ 17] The common right (jus commune)11 of the collegium or the colleagues, which is customarily described in the corporate books, is either received from and maintained by the common consent of the colleagues, or is conceded and granted to them by special privilege of the superior magistrate.

[§ 18] A majority of all assembled colleagues binds the minority by its vote in those matters common to all colleagues, or pertaining jointly and wholly to the colleagues as a united group, but not in matters separately affecting individual colleagues outside the corporate fellowship. So in those matters that are to be done necessarily by the collegium, a majority is certainly sufficient, provided that in making decisions two-thirds of the collegium is present. The reason is that what is common to everyone is not my private concern alone. … [§ 20] However, in matters common to all one by one, or pertaining to colleagues as individuals, a majority does not prevail. In this case, “what touches all ought also to be approved by all.” 12 Even one person is able to object. The reason is that in this case what is common to everyone is also my private concern. In these things that are merely voluntary nothing ought to be done unless all consent, not separately and at different times, but corporately and unanimously. … 13

[§ 22] The colleagues, on the basis of this right (jus)14 that is accepted by their common consent, can be fined whenever they commit anything against the laws (leges) of the collegium. Whence it comes about that one of the colleagues may exercise coercion over individuals, but not over the group itself. These fines are paid into the common chest or treasury of the collegium.

[§ 23] Mutual benevolence is that affection and love of individuals toward their colleagues because of which they harmoniously will and “nill” on behalf of the common utility. This benevolence is nourished, sustained, and conserved by public banquets, entertainments, and love feasts.

[§ 24] The types of collegia vary according to the circumstance of persons, crafts and functions. Today there are collegia of bakers, tailors, builders, merchants, coiners of money, as well as philosophers, theologians, government officials, and others that every city needs for the proper functioning of its social life. Some of these collegia are ecclesiastical and sacred, instituted for the sake of divine things; others are secular and profane, instituted for the sake of human things. The first are collegia of theologians and philosophers. The second are collegia of magistrates and judges, and of various craftsmen, merchants, and rural folk. The collegia of magistrates are of particular importance because by their public power (jus potestatis) they set bounds for each and every other collegium. … 15

‡ [§ 30] At the present time in many places the people of a provincial city, realm, or polity, by reason of their occupation or kind and diversity of organized life, customarily distributed in three orders, estates, or larger general collegia (generalia majora collegia). The first is of clergymen, the second of nobility, and the third of the people or plebs, including scholars, farmers, merchants, and craftsmen. Such general collegia and bodies contain within them smaller special collegia (specialia minora collegia). Such are the particularly important collegia of judges and magistrates, the collegia of ministers of the church, and the collegia of various workers and merchants necessary and useful in social life, which we will discuss later. … 16

Endnotes

[1] [A parallel, though briefer, discussion by Althusius of the collegium is found in a chapter entitled “Men United By Their Own Consent” in his major work on jurisprudence, Dicaelogica, I, 8.] [2] Jean Bodin, The Commonweale, I, 6. [3] [ collegium (pl. collegia): guild; corporation; voluntary association.] [4] Examples of this association can be seen in Acts 6:2 f.; 12:12; 13:15, 27; 15:21; 28:23, 30 f.; Matthew 4; 6:2; 10:24; 13; Exodus 29:42; Numbers 10:10. [5] [The discussion of the collegium in this chapter is heavily supported by references to Roman law, especially to the following three titles: Digest III, 4 (“Quod cuiuscumque universitatis”); Digest XLVII, 22 (“De collegiis”); and Code X, 32 (“De decurionibus’ ’).] [6] Digest III, 4, 7,1. [7] Bodin assigns this right to the older or more distinguished part of the collegium. [ The Commonweale, III, 7.] [8] Digest L, 3, 1. [The omission in this quotation provides further directions for the recording of rank.] [9] [Althusius employs the word universitas here (following one of the uses of Losaeus) as an alternative to collegium, which differs from his use of it in the next chapter as a public and territorial association.] [10] Nicolaus Losaeus, De jure universitatum, III, 15. See also Francis Marcus, Decisiones aurea, I, dec. 802. [11] [fundamental law or constitution of an association. This use of jus commune differs from that employed by Althusius in Chapters XXI-XXII, where it means the unchanging moral law binding upon all persons and associations, and is there compared with proper law (jus proprium), or the specific application of common law (jus commune) established in a particular association in accord with its circumstances. There Althusius follows the Digest, which says that “all peoples who are ruled by laws
(leges) and customs use partly their own law (jus proprium), and partly the common law (jus commune) of all men” (I, 1, 9). Here, however, Althusius considers common right or law (jus commune) to be the foundational right or law (jus proprium) of a particular association.] [12] Code V, 59, 5, 2. [13] [This discussion of the internal procedures of the collegium, which is altogether missing in the much briefer first edition (1603) of the Politica, has drawn especially upon the following writers: Bartolus, Commentarii (Digest I, 8, 6, 1; III, 4, 3, and 4); Andreas Gail De pignorationibus, 1, obs. 20, num. 2 ff.; Practicarum Observationum, II, obs.
56, num. 6; Nicolaus Losaeus, De jure universitatum, I, 3, 77 f. and 84; Jean Bodin, The Commonweale, III, 7; Paul Castro, Commentaria (Digest III, 4, 3, and 4); Nicolaus Tudeschi, Commentaria (Decretals III, 11, 1); and Francis Marcus, Decisiones aureae, I, dec. 1036 and 1335. [14] [law.] [15] [Here follows a lengthy discussion of the collegia and tribes in ancient Rome, Israel, and Egypt that is indebted to Alexander ab Alexandro, Genialium dierum; Theodore Zwinger, Theatrum vitae humane; Johann Rosinus, Romanarum antiquitatum; Petrus Gregorius, De republica; and Carlo Sigonio, De antiquo jure Italiae and De republica Hebraicorum. ] [16] [ See especially Chapters V, VIII, XVIII.]

V-VI The City

V

[§ 1] With this discussion of the civil and private association, we turn now to the public association. For human society develops from private to public association by the definite steps and progressions of small societies. The public association exists when many private associations are linked together for the purpose of establishing an inclusive political order (politeuma). It can be called a community (universitas),1 an associated body, or the pre-eminent political association. [§ 2] It is permitted and approved by the law of nations (jus gentium). [§ 3] It is not considered dead as long as one person is left. Nor is it altered by the change of individual persons, for it is perpetuated by the substitution of others. [§ 4] Men assembled without symbiotic right (jus symbioticum) are a crowd, gathering, multitude, assemblage, throng, or people. The larger this association, and the more types of association contained within it, the more need it has of resources and aids to maintain self-sufficiency as much in soul as in body and life, and the greater does it require good order, proper discipline, and communication of things and services.

[§ 5] Political order in general is the right and power of communicating and participating in useful and necessary matters that are brought to the life of the organized body by its associated members. It can be called the public symbiotic right. [§ 6] This public symbiotic association is either particular or universal. The particular association is encompassed by fixed and definite localities within which its rights are communicated. [§ 7] In turn, it is either a community (universitas)2 or a province.

[§ 8] The community is an association formed by fixed laws and composed of many families and collegia living in the same place. It is elsewhere called a city (civitas) in the broadest sense, or a body of many and diverse associations. Nicolaus Losaeus defines it as “a coming together under one special name of many bodies each distinct from the other.” 3 [§ 9] It is called a representational person4 and represents men collectively, not individually. Strictly speaking, however, the community is not known by the designation of person, but it takes the place of a person when legitimately convoked and congregated. 5

[§ 10] The members of a community are private and diverse associations of families and collegia, not the individual members of private associations. These persons, by their coming together, now become not spouses, kinsmen, and colleagues, but citizens of the same community. Thus passing from the private symbiotic relationship, they unite in the one body of a community. [§ 11] Differing from citizens, however, are foreigners, outsiders, aliens, and strangers whose duty it is to mind their own business, make no strange inquiries, not even to be curious in a foreign commonwealth, but to adapt themselves, as far as good conscience permits, to the customs of the place and city where they live in order that they may not be a scandal to others. 6 …

[§ 22] The superior is the prefect of the community appointed by the consent of the citizens. He directs the business of the community, and governs on behalf of its welfare and advantage, exercising authority (jus) over the individuals but not over the citizens collectively. [§ 23] An oath of fidelity to certain articles in which the functions of this office are contained stands as a surety to the appointing community. From the individual citizens, in turn, is required an oath of fidelity and obedience setting forth in certain articles the functions of the office of a good citizen.

[§ 24] Such a superior is either one or more persons who have received the prescribed power of governing by the consent of the community. … [§ 25] And so these general administrators of the community are appointed by the city out of its general and free power, and can even be removed from office by the city. They are therefore temporal, while the community or city may be continuous and almost immortal.

[§ 26] The inferiors or subjects are all the remaining citizens individually and collectively who are subjects of the community, or of those who represent it, but not of individuals as such.

[§ 27] Even though the individual persons of a community may be changed by the withdrawal or death of some superiors and inferiors, the community itself remains. It is held to be immortal because of the continued substitution and succession of men in place of those withdrawing. 7 Whence it appears that the community is different from the individual persons of a community, although it is often considered to be a representational and fictional person. 8

[§ 28] Furthermore, this community is either rural or urban. A rural community is composed of those who cultivate the fields and exercise rural functions. [§ 29] Such a community is either a hamlet, a village, or a town. [§ 30] A hamlet (vicus) is a settlement of a few houses situated around a small open place. … [§ 34] The superior of the hamlet is a leader who is elected by consent of the hamlet dwellers (vicini) and has the right of admonishing them, of calling them together, and of conducting their common business. [§ 35] The remaining hamlet dwellers are subjects. A village (pagus) consists of two or more hamlets without fortifications or surrounding wall. [§ 36] The superior of the village is called the leader of the village dwellers (pagani), or the administrator and syndic of the village. … [§ 38] A town (oppidum) is a larger village girded and fortified by a ditch, stockade, or wall. … [§ 39] If very large, it is called a city according to Losaeus. 9 The prefect of the town is the administrator and leader of the town dwellers (oppidani), and has the right of calling them together and proposing matters to them. In common consultation with them, he also has the power of collecting their votes, of issuing and executing public decrees, of dismissing the council, and of directing and administering the common affairs of the community.

[§ 40] An urban community is composed of those who practice industrial functions and pursuits while living an urban life. [§ 41] It is a large number of hamlets and villages associated by a special legal order (jus) for the advancement of the citizens, and guarded and fortified against external violence by a common moat, fortress, and wall. … 10 [§ 48] A community of citizens dwelling in the same urban area (urbs), and content with the same communication and government (jus imperii)11 is called a city (civitas) or, as it were, a unity of citizens. And they are citizens of this community or city who are partners in it, as distinguished from foreigners and aliens who do not enjoy the same standing within the city’s legal order ( jus civitatis).12

[§ 49] The prefect or superior of the city is the administrator and leader of the citizens, having authority and power over individuals by general mandate of the organized community, but not over the group. In many places he is said to be the consul. [§ 50] Associated with him are counselors and senators who give advice for the welfare of the city and constitute a senatorial collegium. The citizens are individually and collectively expected to observe his legitimate decrees. … [§ 51] The prefect of the city is called the president or leader (princeps) of the senate. Sometimes the prefect is one person, other times—in proportion to the size of the city and the extent of its business— two, three, or four persons, who continue to perform the office throughout changes in personnel. They are also called administrators of the commonwealth.

[§ 52] The senatorial collegium, composed of the president and senators, binds itself by oath at the beginning of its administration to the prescribed articles of administration, and collectively fulfills the functions of the entrusted office. [§ 53] The office of the leader of the senate, or the consul, consists in the power of calling the senate into session; the power of referring and proposing business to it; the right of seeking and gathering the judgments of individual senators; the power of caring for the seal and keys of the city, of opening letters sent to the senate, of receiving petitions, of responding in the name of the collegium; and lastly the power of carrying out the conclusions of the senate, and of dismissing it.

[§ 54] The senate is a collegium of wise and honest select men to whom is entrusted the care and administration of the affairs of the city. 13 [§ 55] This collegium, when legitimately convoked, represents the entire people and the whole city. [§ 56] It does not, however, have as much power, authority, and jurisdiction as the community, unless it is given such by law (lex) or covenant. … 14 [§ 58] In the absence of the consul or rector, this office falls to the senior senator, or to the person designated from the senate by the rector for this purpose. But, if all senators are assembled without being formally called into session, the community is nevertheless considered legitimately convoked.

[§ 59] Senators are those who have the right of delivering judgments in the senate concerning the things that have been proposed by the leader for their consideration. They are also called decurions or counselors of the city. Their names are inscribed in the register, and they enjoy certain privileges. [§ 60] Such senators are elected by the senatorial collegium, or by specified electors designated by the community. In some cities, to be sure, senators and consuls are elected in duplicate number in order that the prince or count of the province can choose and confirm certain ones among them. In other cities, however, the complete election is in the power of the collegium of the community or its guilds (collegia artificum), or in the power of specified persons designated by individual collegia of the city for this function. The senators who constitute the collegium of senators, the consistory, or the council of counselors, which we usually call the senate, are greater or fewer in number in proportion to the size of the city and the extent of the business.

[§ 61] These senators are either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary senators are those who, at agreed and appointed times, consider and decide all business matters that have arisen and come before the commonwealth. Extraordinary senators are those who, summoned for difficult problems of the commonwealth, assist the ordinary senators by their counsel and have the power of deciding with them. These extraordinary senators, who are variously named in different places, are identified for the most part by their number, such as the one hundred men, the fifty, the forty, the thirty, the twenty, the four men, and so forth.

Sometimes in the gravest matters the votes of the individual collegia of the community or city are employed, or of the individual clans or groups into which the city is divided. They are then called together by the senatorial collegium.

[§ 62] The form and method of making decisions in the consistory or senatorial collegium is by the judgment and vote of a majority of the senators, either of all senatorial colleagues without exception, or with at least two-thirds of the colleagues of the entire collegium being present. These votes, which are sought and collected in matters that are of concern to the senate, must be taken at the same time and in the accustomed place. After the proposition has been set forth by the consul or president, the individual senators make known their votes concerning the thing proposed in that order in which they are consulted, provided that the liberty and opportunity of dissenting are provided. … [§ 64] After the votes of the individual senators have been given, the consul or leader of the senate counts the affirmative votes, as well as the negative votes if there are any, and decides by them. If the gravity of the matter so demands, however, and the majority is thought to have decided incorrectly, he may order the majority to examine and ponder the votes of the dissenting minority, and to discuss the matter anew. After further discussion and examination, he again collects the judgments of individuals, and decides on the basis of the considered votes of the majority. The dissenting minority is required to submit itself to this decision, so that the decision of the majority is declared and held as the judgment of the whole senate or consistory, and binds the entire community. For a consensus, when produced at the same time and place, is sufficient in those matters that pertain to persons as a group, or that are done by the many as by everyone and the group. On the other hand, a consensus of the majority is not sufficient in those matters that are done by the many as individuals. In these matters the will of the individuals is required, and it may even be separately declared at different times and places. What touches individuals ought to be approved by individuals. … 15

VI [§ 1]

A city may be either free, municipal, mixed, or metropolitan. [§ 2] A free city is so called because it recognizes as its immediate superior the supreme magistrate, 16 and is free from the rule of other princes, dukes, and counts. It is called an imperial city in the German polity, where it has been assessed contributions or special services for the realm because of the right of participation and suffrage it enjoys in the councils of the empire and its listing as a member of the empire. And no one doubts that these cities have the rights of princes within their boundaries.

[§ 3] The municipal or provincial city is one that is subject to a territorial lord. It recognizes a superior other than the supreme magistrate.

[§ 4] A mixed city is so called because it recognizes partly the emperor and partly a duke or count as its superior, and enjoys both imperial and provincial privileges. [§ 5] There are some cities in which dukes or counts have usurped rights, even though the territory does not actually belong to them. These cities recognize them in certain respects through fixed pacts and conditions, and evidence their liberties in others. Such are Goslar, Magdeburg, Cologne, Aachen, Erfurt, and several others.

[§ 6] A metropolis is so called because it is the mother of other cities that it brings forth as colonies, or because it is pre-eminent among them and is recognized by them as a mother by whom they are ruled and defended as children. The metropolis is therefore a large and populous city. Other cities and towns of the realm follow its example because of its size, population, rank, houses of religion and justice, and temples of piety and law (jus), by means of which it displays the light of religion and justice to the other cities of the realm and presents itself in an elevated place to be seen by all. It also cultivates men distinguished in piety, doctrine, and life that others are able to consult in cases of doubt and perplexity. … 17

[§ 15] Communication among citizens of the same community for the purpose of self-sufficiency and symbiosis pertains to things, services, right, and mutual concord. Whence arises this political order, or the symbiotic right (jus symbioticum) of the city, which is called the legal order of the city (jus civitatis). [§ 16] And as man is said to be a microcosm, so also is a city or small commonwealth, for the common business of a city is conducted and managed in almost the same manner as that of a realm or province. 18

We will speak first about this communication, and then about the administration of it. [§ 17] The communication of things among the members and citizens of the same community, town, or village is so carried out that the things communicated by the common consent and covenant of each and all are set aside for the various uses of the community. This is done according to the manner, order, and procedure that was agreed upon and established among the members and citizens. And such communication of things is rightly called the sinews of the city. … 19

[§ 28] The communication of services among the citizens of the same community is the performing of functions necessary and useful to symbiosis and mutual intercourse. These are performed by one citizen for another who needs and desires them in order that love may become effectual through the observance of charity. … [§ 29] The communication of such services is especially accomplished in the execution and administration of (1) public duties and (2) private occupations necessary and useful to social life and symbiosis, the direction of which belongs to the senatorial collegium.

The administrators of public duties are those who expedite the public functions of the commonwealth or city, both political and ecclesiastical. [§ 30] The political functions of the city concern the use of this life, its self-sufficiency, and, in brief, whatever is contained in the second table of the Decalogue. These functions are administered by judges, senators, counselors, syndics, censors, treasurers, directors of public works, curators of public roads, ports, buildings, and other such things of the community, as well as superintendents of granaries, prefects of the city, the security guard, and so forth. Ecclesiastical functions, which oversee the communion of the saints, the building of the church, holy worship, and the knowledge of God, are the responsibility of ministers of the church, school teachers and headmasters, deacons, and so forth. [§ 31] There are, however, certain common services and functions of the church that are incumbent as much upon inferiors as upon superiors, such as concern and solicitude for the worship of God and promotion of the welfare of the church. …

[§ 32] Occupations are private functions inclining principally to the utility of those who perform them, and consequently to the public utility of the city or of all the citizens collectively. Such are the various industrial, agricultural, and commercial occupations that I have discussed above. 20 In order that these occupations may offer mutual services to each other for their common advantage, it is necessary that they be brought together. For thus the farmer needs the carpenter, builder, miller, shoemaker, tailor, and others. And they need the aid and communication of the farmer.

[§ 33] Mutual services are also offered by the citizens in the construction, extension, and repair of the public works, such as walls, ramparts, ditches, and gates to the city or urban community, as well as temples, theaters, courts, courtyards, roads, bridges, public water systems, water mills, and other public works. [§ 34] Citizens likewise contribute their services in guarding and defending the city or urban community, in paying expenses undertaken in the name of the community, and in sustaining its public ministers.

[§ 35] There are other services that are devoted more to private benefit than to the public utility and advantage of the community. These are performed more because of the charity and benevolence of the citizen than because the covenant of the community requires them. Examples occur when a citizen gives material help or counsel according to his ability to his fellow citizen, or promotes the advantage of his fellow citizen while removing, whenever he is able, disadvantages and perils. …

[§ 39] The rights (jura) 21 of the city, its privileges, statutes, and benefits, which make a city great and celebrated, are also communicated by the citizens. They are shared with the people in the suburbs, outposts, and surrounding villages, but not with travellers and foreigners. [§ 40] For citizens enjoy the same laws (leges), the same religion, and the same language, speech, judgment under the law, discipline, customs, money, measures, weights, and so forth. [§ 41] They enjoy these not in such manner that each is like himself alone, but that all are like each other. I also include the autonomy of the city, its privileges, right of territory, and other public rights that accompany jurisdiction and imperium. Even a city recognizing a superior can have these rights by its own authority (jus), and in other things be subject to its superior magistrate by fixed covenants. And even more certainly these rights pertain to a free city recognizing none except the emperor as its superior. [§ 42] These cities, however, cannot have the personal rights of princes, nor exercise jurisdiction beyond their territories. 22 [§ 43] But municipal tribunals of justice, similar to those the Jewish polity had, belong to this communication. 23 I also include the right and power (jus et potestas) of dwelling in the city, of setting up residences and households, or transferring one’s family and possessions thereto, of having a workshop in the same place, of being received into the collegium or sodality of one’s vocation and profession, and of engaging in commercial activity. I ascribe to this communication the power of using and enjoying all rights, advantages, and benefits that the whole city has established for all citizens, and approved by common consent.

Every city is able to establish statutes concerning those things that pertain to the administration of its own matters, that belong to its trade and profession, and that relate to the private functions of the community. … [§ 44] Also pertaining to this communication are the right of the vote (jus suffragii) in the common business and actions of managing and administering the community, and the form and manner by which the city is ruled and governed according to laws it approves and a magistrate that it constitutes with the consent of the citizens. [§ 45] When, on the contrary, these common rights of the community are alienated, the community ceases to exist. …

[§ 46] Enthusiasm for concord is the means of conserving friendship, equity, justice, peace, and honor among the citizens, and of overcoming strife, if it arises among the citizens, as soon as possible. In brief, whatever cultivates love among the citizens and conserves the common good is to be nurtured, and the causes of discord among citizens and neighbors are to be guarded against, following the examples of Abraham and Isaac. 24 “Behold how good and delightful it is for brothers to dwell in unity.” 25 And thus we see that the Lord in this manner has enjoined blessing and life continuously in the world.

[§ 47] Concord is fostered and protected by fairness (aequabilitas) when right, liberty, and honor are extended to each citizen according to the order and distinction of his worth and status. For it behooves the citizen to live by fair and suitable right with his neighbor, displaying neither arrogance nor servility, and thus to will whatever is tranquil and honest in the city. Contrary to this fairness is equality (aequalitas), by which individual citizens are levelled among themselves in all those things I have discussed. From this arises the most certain disorder and disturbance of matters.

[§ 48] The administration and direction of the communication of these rights in the community is entrusted, with the consent of the citizens, to the senatorial collegium. In the municipal cities the head or superior of the province, or his substitute serving in his name, presides over the senatorial collegium. … [§ 49] In free cities, however, the leader of the senate or the consul, who has royal privileges in connection with the territory, presides.

[§ 50] Things done by the senatorial collegium are considered done by the whole community that the collegium represents. [§ 51] Under the control of this senatorial collegium is, therefore, the power of managing and executing the business of the community and so of knowing and judging all that pertains to the community. This includes the right of holding investigations, the administration of public matters both civil and ecclesiastical, the responsibility for and assignment of public duties and offices, the planning, collection, care, and expenditure of public revenues, the right of publishing laws pertaining to good order and self-sufficiency, the care of public properties, the punishment of law breakers, the censorship of customs, the management of the urban community, and other such things.

[§ 52] Therefore, what the count is in the province, the prince or duke in the duchy, or the king in the kingdom, so this senatorial collegium is, for the most part, in the city. …

Endnotes

[1] [an association embracing all other associations within a given geographical area; a public as distinguished from a private association. It is here used as a generic name inclusive of commonwealth, province, and city. This is an occasional use for Althusius. Its more customary use is described in footnote 2 below.] [2] [a local community embracing all private associations within a municipal area; a city in its fullest associated expression, as distinguished from a province (the other kind of particular public association) and a commonwealth (the universal public association).] [3] De jure universitatum, I, 1,2. [It is noteworthy that this book by Losaeus, which was published in 1601 at Turin, was not mentioned by Althusius in the first edition (1603) of the Politica, but is referred to in the third edition (1614) sixty-two times in the chapters on the collegium and the city alone, and occasionally thereafter throughout the reminder of the work.] [4] [ persona repraesentata: literally, a person having come to represent.] [5] Digest, XLVI, 1, 22. [6] [Here follows an extended discussion of types of full and limited citizenship.] [7] Baldus de Ubaldis, Commentarii (Digest III, 4, 7, 2); Paul Castro, Commentaria (Digest III, 4,7, 2). [8] Bartolus, Commentarii (Digest XLVI, 1, 22); Andreas Gail, De pace publica, 1, 5; Nicolaus Losaeus, De jure universitatum, I, 1, 41 and 42; Code, II, 58, 2, 5. [9] De jure universitatum, 1, 2, 45. [10] [Suburbs beyond the wall, as well as open fields for cultivation within the wall, are considered by Althusius to be a part of an urban community. Thus Althusius seems to have in mind a city that includes all the inhabitants of the surrounding district under its jurisdiction and protection.] [11] [structure and power of rule.] [12] [do not exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizens.] [13] See the Digest I, 2, 2, 9, which says that because the people was able to convene in so great a crowd of men only with extreme difficulty, and therefore was not able to rule, “necessity itself brought the care of the commonwealth to the senate.” [14] [This passage is obviously derived from Losaeus, who wrote that “the council of the city does not have by common law (jus commune) the same power, authority, and jurisdiction as the total people, custom.” De jure universitatum, I, 3, 48. Althusius notes that Bartolus disagrees with this position. He apparently has in mind the opinion of Bartolus that the council of the city does have the same power as the total people. Commentarii (Code IV, 32, 5).] [15] [Here follows a discussion of the causes of the founding and growth of cities that is largely dependent upon Giovanni Botero, The Greatness of Cities, and Hippolytus a Collibus, Incrementa urbium. ] [16] [the emperor.] [17] Examples of the metropolis cited by Althusius are Nineveh, Babylon, Rome, Paris, Ghent, Prague, and London.] [18] Plato says that since no one of us is self-sufficient, but instead needs many things, the city came into being. So we take partners, fellow communicators, and helpers for our benefit, and thereby make a gathering that is called a city. For since men need many things that no isolated person is able to provide for himself, a number of them come together in one place that they may bring mutual support in life to each other. The Republic, II, 369. [19] [Here follows a discussion of the types of things communicated in the community. They may be things held in common for the use of individuals, such as fields and forests for pasture and firewood, fishing places, rivers, roads, baths, temples, schools, market places, and courts of justice. Or they maybe private things owned and operated by the community, such as granaries, armories, metal mines, breweries, civic archives, and tax collections. A distinction is also made, following Roman law, between sacred and holy things. Those things are sacred that are dedicated to divine worship, such as temples, tithes, and ecclesiastical revenues. Holy things, on the other hand, are the walls, gates, fortifications, and so forth, of the city. See the Institutes II, 1, 7–10.] [20] [ See page 29, footnote 7. ] [21] [laws.] [22] Matthew Stephani, De jurisdictione, II, pt. 1, chap. 7; II, pt. 1, chap. 1, In former times, however, in the Jewish and other polities, cities were understood to have had their own autonomy, polity, and king. Genesis 14; 19. [23] II Chronicles 19; Ruth 4; Deuteronomy 10; 16:18. [24] Genesis 13; 26. [25] Psalm 133:1.