"What Is Government Itself, but the Greatest of All Reflections of Human Nature?"

That's a famous line in Federalist No. 51, generally attributed to James Madison—but not quite. The line is actually, in context,

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The phrase is "reflections on human nature," and I take it that "reflection" there means—to quote the Oxford English Dictionary—

9. a. Something which brings discredit on (also upon) a person or thing.

… 1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 189. ¶7 It is one of the greatest Reflections upon Human Nature that Paternal Instinct should be a stronger Motive to Love than Filial Gratitude.
1749 H. Fielding Tom Jones VI. xvi. vii. 60, I will not hear my Niece abused. It is a Reflection on my Family.
1819 Times 2 July 2/2 The honourable member … asserted, that it was a sad reflection on the house, that the Lords had paid greater attention to the security and protection of the subject than they (the House of Commons) had done….

Webster's 1828 Dictionary likewise offers, as one decision of "reflection," "Censure; reproach cast," and gives as an example, "He died, and oh! may no reflection shed its pois'nous venom on the royal dead."

Madison isn't saying that government reflects human nature, in that the structure of government stems from human nature. (Maybe that's true, and maybe it's even what Madison believed, but it's not what Madison is talking about in that particular phrase.) First, that's not what "reflection on" generally means.

Second, if we read the sentences as, "It may be a reflection [of] human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government" followed by "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections [of] human nature?," then it's not clear why he would use the "It may be/But" construction. That construction isn't generally used when one sets forth two neutral and related facts about life (separation of powers reflects human nature, and so does government).

Rather, Madison is saying, "Acknowledging the need for separation of powers does bring discredit on human nature (since if human nature weren't flawed, we wouldn't need separation of powers). But that's just a special case of the broader point that acknowledging the need for government itself brings discredit on human nature (since if human nature weren't flawed, we wouldn't need government)." Here the "It may be/But" construction makes sense: It may be that my proposal carries within it an implicit indictment of human nature, but the very existence of government carries within it that indictment.

Yet search for "the greatest of all reflections of human nature" (whether through the Internet generally, through books, or through law review articles), and you'll see plenty of references to the "of" version, e.g.,

Government and politics exist in a universe of real problems and real solutions. To quote James Madison, "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?"

Americans needed a new form of government based on this new acceptance of what people are really like. "But what is government," James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote in 1788, "but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?"

A. The Constitution Was Intended to Be a Reflection of Human Nature
In arguing for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist, Madison portrayed the plan of government as "the greatest of all reflections of human nature." The founding generation was both explicit and emphatic that the Constitution's success would turn on how well the charter got our personal basics correct.

Yet as Socrates rhetorically inquired, and the Framers dogmatically insisted, whence could a constitution derive if not from the self, "what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?"

The "reflection of human nature" reading has had some sticking power. (Indeed, that's how I had recalled the phrase until I looked closely at it.) A few thoughts:

1. "What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?" is itself a plausible statement, indeed a not very controversial one. What's more, it sounds more familiar to the modern ear than the "reflections on" reading. (The old sense of "reflection" is still sometimes used, but it's pretty rare.) Many people thus naturally misread it, and don't check themselves when they do it.

The use of "free reign" for "free rein" offers a good analogy, I think: "Free rein" refers to an activity—riding horses—with which few modern people are closely familiar; "free reign" thus sounds more natural, and many people use it without realizing that "free rein" is the original. (Of course, the analogy is limited: "free rein" is an English phrase, which can legitimately change over time, though the change hasn't yet fully taken place, at least in edited writing. "Reflection on human nature" was a specific phrase of Madison's, and when it's attributed to Madison, it should be rendered accurately.)

2. The English of 200 years ago is generally accessible to us, but some locutions aren't quite what they seem at first glance. Such misleading terms aren't as common as they are in Shakespeare, which after all is 400 years old and not just 200. Still, there is some risk of such confusion, both with legal terms (e.g., "Suits at common law" in the Seventh Amendment) and even with lay terms, such as "reflections on."

3. When you see something suspicious, look it up, and look closely at the context. The phrase is, after all, "reflections on," not "reflections of"—a signal that there's something potentially odd here. Don't just assume that "reflections on" must be an old-fashioned way of saying "reflections of"; maybe it's an old-fashioned way of saying something else.

(I was reminded of this 2015 post last week, so I thought I'd take the liberty of passing it along again.)

Comments

[Martinned2]

The problem with these kinds of writings is, of course, that they've given Americans the impression that separation of powers is not only necessary, but also sufficient to protect liberty. (And that they can therefore safely vote for a corupt authoritarian, without anything bad happening to them.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...as witnessed by Herr Starmer and friends in the Mother country?

Your allusion to the election (again) of Donald Trump is meritless.

[Martinned2]

The UK is indeed a terrible example of separation of powers, as demonstrated by the Boris Johnson governments, when Parliament and the Courts had to fight tooth and nail to put at least a little bit of a constraint on an out-of-control government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland

Just like no sane person would recommend that a new democracy adopt the US constitution, no sane person would recommend the UK constitution either. They’re two extremes, when it comes to separation of powers, and both terrible.

But none of that is relevant for my original point. Separation of powers is necessary but not sufficient to safeguard liberty. Voters actually wanting to safeguard their liberty is also essential.

[Mr. Bumble]

Government, as with any human endeavor will never achieve perfection and I agree with you on the responsibility of voters to be informed and vote wisely; however, I think you give too much weight to the election of US presidents.
We have a Congress of 535 members whose terms are staggered and as witnessed by the current election results will not give a president carte blanche.
The mid-term Congressional elections will be interesting.

[Krayt]

There are plenty of reasons sane people would want the US constitution. You'll find no admiration of your strange, with-it, cool kids virtue signal here.

I can see why the power hungry would argue against it, and use their formidable powers of charisma to convince you you're a good person for abandoning it, so they can have free reign to get in the way of things, until their spouses suddenly manifest latent investment savant powers, like Superman's sickly kid seeing mommy be attacked.

"You leave Lois, and the Constitution, alone!"

[Bob from Ohio]

"without anything bad happening to them"

Other than Covid, what "bad" things happened to Americans in 2017-2021? Low inflation, low unemployment and low interest rates?

Trump broke your brain. And you are not even American which makes it all the stranger.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The misleading word here is “greatest”. In our time it tends to mean “best”. Madison meant it in the more traditional sense, “biggest”, “most extensive”, “most impactful”.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is nothing "misleading" about the use of the word when taken in context with the whole citation. The word your referring to is GOAT which was unknown to Madison except in the context of a farm animal.

[mggaviles]

I want to note that, in Spanish, this issue does not arise. The translation uses the equivalent of the word “reproach” for “reflection”:

“El Federalista núm. LI” reads:

“Quizás pueda reprochársele a la naturaleza del hombre el que sea necesario todo esto para reprimir los abusos del gobierno. ¿Pero qué es el gobierno sino el mayor de los reproches de la naturaleza humana?”

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"government is just what we choose to do together"?

[Krayt]

I'm not sure he's even being sarcastic. He sets up the use of reflection on human nature in the context of the power hungry twisting themselves to their advantage, then declares government the greatest such reflection, which it certainly is.

What a piece of work is Man!

[NvEric]

But, our Constitution is only an incomplete 1st attempt. Any
separation of powers leaves the People adrift and, rudderless. Impotent highlights our collective fate to a system far removed from being worthy to the latest generations.

Those wallowing in the historical mantra, the past glory's rightful fire, need to understand better is yet to come if, and only if, the People chose to rise to an occasion to better themselves in a next step ... forward.

A path is always ready to be followed, the one not yet taken looks good to me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"a next step … forward"

We stand at the brink of a precipice, and we need to take a giant step forward!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps without fully realizing he is doing it, EV struggles with a contextual problem at least twice as complicated as he may suppose. In this instance—as with every instance of antique text—linguistic context is one thing, historical context another. Both inflect meaning.

EV insightfully analyzes the problem of Madison's linguistic context on the basis of a clause-by-clause review of immediately surrounding sub-texts. That seems to be the method of textualism 101.

Problem is, the historical context EV relies upon to do the analysis is mostly present-minded. It tacitly assumes a skillful modern reader's insight into how English language works is enough to get the job done. In fairness to EV, his reference to Shakespeare shows he is at least aware of the problem.

But it remains a problem. Without a parallel analysis of the historical context prevailing when Madison wrote, risk that textualist analysis will deliver results out of kilter with historical meaning increases.

That is generally true for all antique texts, but especially so in the case of Madison, who must be numbered among the most discursive writers worth paying attention to. Madison is perfectly capable to use the same word repeatedly in a text spread across many paragraphs, and to give it a subtly different meaning in each instance.

For a famous example, re-read Federalist 10. Examine the meanings of, "liberty," as they shimmer subtly from instance to instance in an ever-changing cross-light of historical and linguistic context. There are six uses of the word, and arguably not one repeated meaning. Immediately surrounding text provides useful context to distinguish some of the changes. Historical context must be added to adequately understand the entire essay.

Thus, if you do an electronic search for Federalist 10, it can be difficult to even find a clean rendition of the text. Without limiting your search to text only, you get instead an abundance of returns which compete to persuade modern readers to accept notably different interpretations. There is an evident proxy war going on, to wrench Federalist 10 out of its historical context, and to use it instead to dignify various modern political objectives.

I think Federalist 10 must rank among the most widely misinterpreted texts in the American historical canon. Present-minded motivation to contest modern political points does much to explain why. The notion of textualist analysis facilitates that mischief.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, people in government tend to act in their own self-interest (with honorable exceptions and partial exceptions).

Madison seemed to think that a politician's self-interest would include defending the powers and dignity of the specific office he occupies.

But what if he wants an easy job sucking on the public tit, and he finds it in his interest to do whatever is necessary to keep his job, even if it means abdicating the responsibilities of his office to other people?