councillor I dissent, it would certainly be no hard task to make
it as light as the day. First, that an agrarian is altogether
unnecessary; secondly, that it is dangerous to a commonwealth;
thirdly, that it is insufficient to keep out monarchy; fourthly,
that it ruins families; fifthly, that it destroys industry; and
last of all, that though it were indeed of any good use, it will
be a matter of such difficulty to introduce in this nation, and
so to settle that it may be lasting, as is altogether invincible.

"First, that an agrarian is unnecessary to a commonwealth,
what clearer testimony can there be than that the commonwealths
which are our contemporaries (Venice, to which your Highness
gives the upper hand of all antiquity, being one) have no such
thing? And there can be no reason why they have it not, seeing it
is in the sovereign power at any time to establish such an order,
but that they need it not; wherefore no wonder if Aristotle, who
pretends to be a good commonwealths man, has long since derided
Phaleas, to whom it was attributed by the Greeks, for his
invention.

"Secondly, that an agrarian is dangerous to a commonwealth is
affirmed upon no slight authority seeing Machiavel is positive
that it was the dissension which happened about the agrarian that
caused the destruction of Rome; nor do I think that it did much
better in Lacedaemon, as I shall show anon.

"Thirdly, that it is insufficient to keep out monarchy cannot
without impiety be denied, the holy Scriptures bearing witness
that the Commonwealth of Israel, notwithstanding her agrarian,
submitted her neck to the arbitrary yoke of her princes.