INTRODUCTION

NICOLO MACHIAVELLI was born at Florence on May 3, 1469. He was the second son of Bernardo di Nicolo Machiavelli, a lawyer of some repute, and of Bartolommea di Stefano Nelli, his wife. Both parents were members of the old Florentine nobility.

His life falls naturally into three periods, each of which constitutes a distinct and important era in the history of Florence. His youth was concurrent with the greatness of Florence as an Italian power under the guidance of Lorenzo de' Medici, Il Magnifico. The downfall of the Medici in Florence occurred in 1494, the year Machiavelli entered the public service. During his official career Florence was free, under the government of a Republic, which lasted until 1512. Then the Medici returned to power, and Machiavelli lost his office. The Medici again ruled Florence from 1512 until 1527, when they were once more driven out. This was the period of Machiavelli's literary activity and increasing influence; but he died, within a few weeks of the expulsion of the Medici, on June 22, 1527, in his fifty-eighth year, without having regained office.

YOUTH

Age 1-25: 1469 - 1494

Although there are few records of the youth of Machiavelli, the Florence of those days is so well known that the early environment of this representative citizen may be easily imagined. Florence has been described as a city with two opposite currents of life, one directed by the fervent and austere Savonarola, the other by the splendour-loving Lorenzo. Savonarola's influence upon the young Machiavelli must have been slight, for although at one time he wielded immense power over Florence, he only furnished Machiavelli with a subject for a gibe in The Prince, where he is cited as an example of an unarmed prophet who came to a bad end. It is the magnificence of the Medicean rule during the life of Lorenzo that appears to have impressed Machiavelli strongly, for he frequently refers to it in his writings, and it is to Lorenzo's grandson that he dedicates The Prince.

In his History of Florence, Machiavelli gives us a picture of the young men he knew in his youth. He writes: - "They were freer than their forefathers in dress and living, and spent more in other kinds of excesses, consuming their time and money in idleness, gaming, and women; their chief aim was to appear well-dressed and to speak with wit and acuteness: he who could cut down others the most cleverly was thought the wisest." In a letter to his son Guido, Machiavelli shows why youth should take advantage of their opportunities for study, and leads us to infer that his own youth had been spent this way. He writes: - "I have received your letter, which has given me the greatest pleasure, especially because you told me you are quite restored to health. I could have no better news; for if God grant life to you, and to me, I hope to make a good man of you if you are willing to do your share." Then, writing of a new patron, he continues: - "This will turn out well for you, but it is necessary for you to study; since you have no longer the excuse of illness, take pains to study letters and music, for you see what honour is done to me for the little skill I have. Therefore, my son, if you wish to please me, and to bring success and honour to yourself, do right and study, because others will help you if you help yourself."

OFFICE

Age 25-43: 1494 - 1512

The second period of Machiavelli's life was spent in the service of the free Republic of Florence, which flourished, as stated above, from the expulsion of the Medici in 1494 until their return in 1512. After serving for four years in one of the public offices, he was appointed Chancellor and secretary to the second Chancery, the Ten of Liberty and Peace. Here we are on firm ground when dealing with the events of Machiavelli's life, for during this time he took a leading part in the affairs of the Republic, and we have its decrees, records, and dispatches to guide us, as well as his own writings. A mere reporting of a few of his transactions with the statesmen and soldiers of his time gives a fair indication of his activities, and supplies the sources from which he drew the experiences and characters which illustrate The Prince.

His first mission was in 1499 to Caterina Sforza, the Madonna di Forli of The Prince, from whose conduct and fate he drew the moral that it is far better to earn the confidence of the people than to rely on fortresses. This is a very noticeable principle in Machiavelli, and is urged by him in many ways as a matter of vital importance to any prince.

In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Louis XII. for continuing the war against Pisa: this was the king, in his conduct of affairs in Italy, who committed the five deadly errors in statecraft summarised in The Prince, and was consequently driven out. He also made the dissolution of his marriage a condition of support to Pope Alexander VI., which leads Machiavelli to refer those who urge that such promises should be kept, to what he has written concerning the faith of princes.

Machiavelli's public life was largely occupied with events arising out of the ambitions of Pope Alexander VI. and his son, Cesare Borgia, the Duke Valentino; and these characters fill a large space of The Prince. Machiavelli never hesitates to cite the actions of the duke for the benefit of usurpers who wish to keep the states they have seized; he can, indeed, find no counsel to offer better than the pattern of Cesare Borgia's conduct, to the extent that Cesare is believed by some critics to be the "hero" of The Prince. Yet in The Prince the duke is, in point of fact, cited as a type of the man who rises on the fortune of others, and falls with them; who takes every course that might be expected from a prudent man but the course which will save him; who is prepared for all possibilities but the one which happens; and who, when all his abilities fail to carry him through, proclaims that it was not his fault, but that of an extraordinary and unforeseen fatality.

On the death of Pius III., in 1503, Machiavelli was sent to Rome to watch the election of his successor, and there he saw Cesare Borgia cheated into allowing the choice of the College to fall on Giuliano delle Rovere (Julius II.), who was one of the cardinals that had most reason to fear the duke. Machiavelli, when commenting on this election, says that he who thinks new favours will cause great personages to forget old injuries deceives himself. Julius did not rest until he had ruined Cesare.

It was to Julius II. that Machiavelli was sent in 1506, when that pope was waging war against Bologna; which he won, as he did many of his other adventures, mainly because of his impetuous character. It is in reference to Pope Julius that Machiavelli moralises on the resemblance between Fortune and women, and concludes that it is the bold rather than the cautious man that will win and hold them both.

It is impossible to follow here the varying fortunes of the Italian states, which in 1507 were controlled by France, Spain, and Germany, with an impact that lasted four hundred more years. We are concerned with those events, and with the three great actors in them, so far only as they helped form the personality of Machiavelli. He had several meetings with Louis XII. of France, and his estimate of that monarch's character has already been alluded to. Machiavelli has painted Ferdinand of Aragon as the man who accomplished great things under the cloak of religion, but who in reality had no mercy, faith, humanity, or integrity; had he allowed himself to be influenced by such motives, he would have been ruined. The Emperor Maximilian was one of the most interesting men of the age, and his character has been drawn by many hands; but Machiavelli, who was an envoy at his court in 1507-8, reveals the secret of his many failures when he describes him as a secretive man, without force of character - ignoring the human factors necessary to carry his schemes into effect, and never insisting on the fulfillment of his plans.

The remaining years of Machiavelli's official career were filled with events arising out of the League of Cambray, made in 1508 between the three great European powers already mentioned and the Pope, with the object of crushing the Venetian Republic. This result was attained at the battle of Vaila, when Venice lost in one day all that she had won in eight hundred years. Florence had a difficult part to play during these events, complicated as they were by the feud which broke out between the Pope and the French, because friendship with France had dictated the entire policy of the Republic. When, in 1511, Julius II. finally formed the Holy League against France, and with the assistance of the Swiss drove the French out of Italy, Florence lay at the mercy of the Pope, and had to submit to his terms, one of which was that the Medici should be restored. The return of the Medici to Florence on September 1, 1512, and the consequent fall of the Republic, was the signal for the firing of Machiavelli and his friends, and thus put an end to his public career: he died without regaining office.

LITERATURE AND DEATH

Age 43-58: 1512 - 1527

On the return of the Medici, Machiavelli had vainly hoped to retain his office under the new masters of Florence, but was dismissed by decree, dated November 7, 1512. Shortly after this, he was accused of complicity in an abortive conspiracy against the Medici, imprisoned, and questioned under torture. The new Medicean Pope, Leo X., got him released, and he retired to his small property at San Casciano, near Florence, where he devoted himself to literature. In a letter to Francesco Vettori, dated December 13, 1513, he has left a very interesting description of his life at this period, which explains his methods and his motives in writing The Prince. After describing his daily occupations with his family and neighbours, he writes: - "The evening now here, I return home and go to my study; at the entrance I pull off my peasant-clothes, covered with dust and dirt, and put on my noble court dress, and thus re-clothed I pass into the ancient courts of the men of old, where, being lovingly received by them, I am fed with that food which is mine alone; where I do not hesitate to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of their actions, and they in their grace answer me; and for four hours I feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty does not dismay, death does not terrify me; I am possessed entirely by those great men. And because Dante says: -

"I have noted down what I have gained from their conversation, and have composed a small work on 'Principalities,' where I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost. And, if any of my fancies ever pleased you, this ought not to; but to a prince, especially to a new one, it should be welcome: therefore I dedicate it to his Magnificence Giuliano. Filippo Casavecchio has seen it; he will be able to tell you what is in it, and of the discourses I have had with him; nevertheless, I am still enriching and polishing it."

This "little book " suffered many revisions before attaining the form in which it has reached us. Various mental influences were at work during its composition; its title and patron were changed; and for some unknown reason it was finally dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici. Although Machiavelli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent or presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence that Lorenzo ever received or even read it: he certainly never gave Machiavelli any employment. Although it was plagiarised during Machiavelli's lifetime, The Prince was never published by him, and its text is still disputable.

Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: - "And as to this little thing [his book], when it has been read, it will be seen that during the fifteen years I have given to the study of statecraft I have neither slept nor idled; and men ought ever to desire to be served by one who has reaped experience at the expense of others. And of my loyalty none could doubt, because having always kept faith, I could not now learn how to break it; for he who has been faithful and honest, as I have, cannot change his nature; and my poverty is a witness to my honesty."

In 1520 the Florentine merchants again asked to Machiavelli to settle their difficulties with Lucca, but this year was chiefly remarkable for his re-entry into Florentine literary society, where he was much sought after, and also for the production of his "Art of War." It was in the some year that he received a commission at the instance of Cardinal de' Medici to write the "History of Florence," a task which occupied him until 1525. His return to popular favour may have caused the Medici to give him this employment, for an old writer observes that "an able statesman out of work, like a huge whale, will try to overturn the ship unless he has an empty cask to play with."

When the "History of Florence" was finished, Machiavelli took it to Rome for presentation to his patron, Giuliano de' Medici, who had in the meanwhile become pope under the title of Clement VII. It is somewhat remarkable that, in 1513, Machiavelli had written The Prince for the instruction of the Medici after they had just regained power in Florence, and in 1525, he dedicated the "History of Florence" to the head of the family when its ruin was now at hand. In that year, the battle of Pavia destroyed French rule in Italy, and left Francis I. a prisoner in the hands of his great rival, Charles V. This was followed by the sack of Rome, upon the news of which the populist party at Florence threw off the yoke of the Medici, who were once more banished.

Machiavelli was absent from Florence at this time, but hastened his return, hoping to secure his former office of secretary to the "Ten of Liberty and Peace." Unhappily he fell ill soon after he reached Florence, where he died on June 22, 1527.

THE MAN AND HIS WORKS

No-one can say where the bones of Machiavelli rest, but modern Florence has erected a stately monument in Santa Croce, by the side of her most famous sons; recognising that, whatever other nations may have found in his works, Italy found in them the idea of her unity and the seeds of her renaissance among the nations of Europe. While it is useless to protest against the world-wide and evil reputation of his name, it may be pointed out that the harsh construction of his doctrine which has made him infamous was unknown in his own day, and that the researches of recent times have enabled us to interpret him more reasonably. It is due to these inquiries that the shape of an "unholy necromancer," which so long haunted popular opinion of him, has begun to fade.

Machiavelli was undoubtedly a man of great observation, acuteness, and industry; noting with appreciative eye whatever passed before him, and with his supreme literary gift, recording it in his enforced retirement from affairs. He does not present himself, nor is he described by his contemporaries, as that rare combination, a successful statesman and author. He appears to have been only moderately prosperous in his several embassies and political appointments. He was misled by Caterina Sforza, ignored by Louis XII., over-awed by Cesare Borgia. Several of his diplomatic missions were quite barren of results; his attempts to fortify Florence failed; and the soldiery that he raised astonished everybody by their cowardice. In the conduct of his own affairs he was timid and time-serving; he dared not appear by the side of Soderini, to whom he owed so much, for fear of compromising himself. His connection with the Medici was open to suspicion, and Giuliano appears to have recognised his real forte when he set him to write the "History of Florence," rather than employ him in public service. It is on the literary side of his character, and there alone, that we find no weakness and no failure.

Although the light of almost four centuries has been focused on The Prince, its problems are still debatable and interesting, because they are the eternal problems between the ruled and their rulers. Such as they are, its ethics are those of Machiavelli's contemporaries; yet they cannot be said to be out of date so long as governments rely on material, rather than moral, forces. Its historical incidents and personages become interesting by reason of the uses which Machiavelli makes of them to illustrate his theories of statecraft and conduct.

Leaving out of consideration those counsels which are now considered tyrannical, The Prince is full of truths that can be proved at every turn. Men are still the dupes of their simplicity and greed, as they were in the days of Alexander VI. The cloak of religion still conceals the vices which Machiavelli laid bare in the character of Ferdinand of Aragon. Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them to be - and are ruined. In politics, there are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones. Then - to pass to a higher plane - Machiavelli emphasizes that, although crimes may win an empire, they do not win glory. Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are glorified when it has no other resource but to fight.

NICOLO MACHIAVELLI
TO THE
MAGNIFICENT LORENZO DI PIERO DE MEDICI

THOSE who strive to obtain the favour of a prince are accustomed to come before him with their most precious treasures in hand, or those gifts which they see he will find most delightful; one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, gifts worthy of their greatness.

Desiring therefore to present myself to Your Magnificence with some proof of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs and a continual study of the ancients; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, condensed into a little volume, to your Magnificence.

And although I may consider this work unworthy of you, nevertheless I trust much to your generosity that it may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers. This work I have not larded with glittering or magnificent words, nor stuffed with rounded periods, nor with any tinsel and gilding whatever, with which so many are accustomed to load and inflate their works; for I have wished that any honour given it should be due to the truths that it brings to light.

Nor do I hold with those who regard it as an imposition if a man of low and humble status dare to discuss and settle the concerns of princes. Just as those who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the plains sit themselves high upon the mountains, so an understanding of the nature of the people requires a prince, and to understand that of princes requires a common man.

Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit in which I send it; wherein, if it is diligently read and considered by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you should attain that greatness which Fortune and your abilities promise. And if your Magnificence, from the summit of your greatness, will sometimes turn your eyes to these lower regions, you will see how unmeritedly I suffer a great and continued curse of bad fortune.

CHAPTER I: HOW MANY KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES THERE ARE, AND BY WHAT MEANS THEY ARE ACQUIRED

ALL the States and governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Principalities. Principalities are either hereditary, in which the sovereignty is derived through an ancient line of ancestors, or they are new. New Principalities are either wholly new, as that of Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are like limbs joined onto the hereditary possessions of the Prince who acquires them, as the Kingdom of Naples is to the Kingdom of Spain. The States thus acquired have either been accustomed to live under a Prince or have been free; and he who acquires them does so either by his own arms or by the arms of others, and either by good fortune or by merit.

CHAPTER II: CONCERNING HERIDITARY PRINCIPALITIES

OF Republics I shall not now speak, having elsewhere spoken of them at length. Here I shall speak exclusively of Principalities, and, filling in the outline traced out above, shall proceed to examine how such States are to be governed and maintained.

Hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States, since all that is required is that the Prince shall not stray from the customs of his ancestors, trusting them to deal with events as they arise. So that if a hereditary Prince is of average talent, he will always maintain himself in his Principality, unless deprived of it by some extraordinary and irresistible force; and even if so deprived will recover it, should any, even the least, mishap overtake the usurper. We have in Italy an example of this in the Duke of Ferrara, who never could have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in 1484, nor those of Pope Julius in 1510, had not his authority in that State been cemented in by time. Since a Prince that inherited his Principality has fewer occasions and less need to give offence, he ought to be better loved, and will naturally be popular with his subjects unless outrageous vices make him intolerable. Moreover, the very antiquity and continuity of his rule will blot out the memories and causes which lead to innovation. One change always leaves a dovetail into which another will fit.

CHAPTER III: CONCERNING MIXED PRINCIPALITIES

NEW Principalities, though, are shot through with difficulties. First, if the Principality is not wholly new, but joined onto the ancient dominions of the Prince so as to form with them what may be called a mixed Principality, changes will come from a cause common to all new States. People, thinking to better their condition, are always ready to change masters, and in this expectation will take up arms against any ruler; they deceive themselves, and find afterwards by experience that they are worse off than before. This again results naturally and necessarily from the circumstance that the Prince cannot avoid giving offence to his new subjects, either because of the troops he sends in, or another of the numberless annoyances that accompany a new acquisition. And in this way you may find that you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing the Principality, but cannot keep the friendship of those who helped you to gain it, since you can neither reward them as they expect, nor yet use violent remedies to discipline them. You both owe these allies and need them: for however strong you may be in respect to your army, it is essential that in entering a new Province you should have the good will of its inhabitants.

Hence it happened that Louis XII. of France, speedily gaining possession of Milan, just as speedily lost it; and that on the occasion of its first capture, Ludovico Sforza was able, with his own forces only, to take it from the King. For the very people who had opened the gates to France, when they found themselves deceived in their expectations and hopes of future benefits, could not put up with the insolence of their new rulers. It is true that when a State rebels and is again pacified, it will not afterwards be lost so easily. For the Prince, using the rebellion as a pretext, will not hesitate to punish the guilty, bring the suspects to trial, and otherwise strengthen his position at the points where it was weak. So, to recover Milan from the French, it was enough on the first occasion that a Duke Lodovico should raise alarms on the frontiers; the second time, the whole world had to oppose them, and destroy the French armies and drive them out of Italy - this for the reasons above. And yet, for a second time, Milan was lost to the King. The general causes of France's first loss have been shown. It remains to note the causes of the second, and to point out the remedies which the French King had, or which might have been used by another in similar circumstances, to keep his conquest more successfully than Louis XII. did.

I say, then, that those States which, upon their acquisition, are joined onto the ancient holdings of the Prince who acquires them, either have the same language and customs as the people of the latter dominions, or they do not. When they do, it is easy to retain them when they have not been accustomed to live in freedom. To hold them securely, it is enough to have extinguished the line of the defeated Prince; because if in other respects the old condition of things is continued, and there are no discord in their customs, men live peaceably with one another, as we see to have been the case in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been united to France for ages. For, although there be some slight difference in their languages, their customs are similar, and they can easily get along together. He, therefore, who acquires such a State, if he means to keep it, must see to two things: first, that the family of the ancient line of Princes be destroyed; second, that no change be made in respect of laws or taxes; for in this way the newly acquired State quickly becomes incorporated with the hereditary.

But when States are acquired in a country with different languages, customs and laws, difficulties multiply, and great good fortune, as well as skill, is needed to overcome them. One of the best and most practical methods for dealing with such a State is for the Prince who acquires it to go and live there in person, since this will tend to make his reign more secure and lasting. This course has been followed by the Turk with regard to Greece, who, had he not (in addition to all his other precautions for securing that land) himself come to live in it, could never have kept his hold on it. For when you are on the spot, disorders are detected in their beginnings and remedies can be quickly applied; but when you are at a distance, they are not heard of until they have gathered strength and the case is past cure. Moreover, the new land which you move to is not looted by your officers; the people are pleased to have access to their Prince; and have all the more reason, if they are well disposed, to love - if rebellious, to fear - him. A foreign enemy desiring to attack that State would be cautious as to how he did so. In short, when the Prince lives there, it will be extremely difficult to remove him.

Another excellent expedient is to send colonies of loyal subjects from your old land into one or two places in the conquered territory, so that these may become, as it were, the keys of the Province; for you must either do this, or else keep up a numerous force of men-at-arms and foot soldiers. A Prince need not spend much on these kind of colonies. He can send them out and support them at little or no charge to himself, and the only persons to whom he gives offence are those whom he deprives of their fields and houses to bestow them on the new inhabitants. Those who are thus injured form only a small part of the community, and being scattered and poor can never become dangerous. All others, being left unmolested, are consequently easily quieted, and at the same time are afraid to make a false move, lest they share the fate of those who have been deprived of their possessions. In a few words: these colonies cost less than soldiers, are more faithful, and give less offence, while those who are offended, being poor and dispersed, cannot hurt. And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not heavy ones. The injury we do to a man should leave no fear of reprisals.

But if instead of colonies you send troops, the cost is much greater, and the whole revenues of the country are spent in guarding it; so the gain becomes a loss, and much deeper offence is given. In shifting the quarters of your soldiers from place to place the whole country suffers hardship, which, as all feel these, make enemies of them; and enemies who remain (though vanquished) in their own homes, have power to hurt. In every way, therefore, this mode of defence is as disadvantageous as colonizing is useful.

The Prince who establishes himself in a new Province whose laws and language differ from those of his own people, ought also to make himself the head and protector of his weaker neighbours, and try to weaken the stronger, and must ensure no stranger as powerful as himself move there. For it will always happen that such a person will be called in by those of the Province who are discontented, either through ambition or fear. As we see in ancient times, the Romans were brought into Greece by the Ętolians, and in every other country that they entered, they were invited there by its inhabitants. And the usual course of things is that as soon as a formidable stranger enters a Province, all the weaker powers side with him, due to the ill-will they bear towards their present ruler. So, in respect of these lesser powers, no trouble is needed to win them over, for at once, together, and of their own accord, they side with the government of the stranger. The new Prince, therefore, has only to see that his new people do not increase too much in strength, and that his own forces, aided by their good will, can easily subdue any who are powerful, so as to remain supreme in the Province. He who does not manage this matter well, will soon lose whatever he has gained, or if he retains it, will find in it endless troubles.

In dealing with the countries which they conquered, the Romans diligently followed the methods I have described. They planted colonies, conciliated weaker powers without adding to their strength, humbled the great, and never let a powerful stranger acquire influence. A single example will show this. In Greece, the Romans took the Achaians and Ętolians into their pay; the Macedonian monarchy was humbled; Antiochus was driven out. But the services of the Achaians and Ętolians never gained these peoples any addition to their power; no persuasions on the part of Philip could induce the Romans to be his friends on the condition of sparing him humiliation; nor could all the power of Antiochus persuade them to let him exercise any authority within that Province. The Romans did as all wise rulers, who have to consider not only present difficulties but also future ones, should. They must use all diligence to stop any potential rebellion: for if these are foreseen while distant, they are easy to solve, but if their approach is awaited, are then past cure, the disorder having become hopeless. In the beginning, such troubles are easy to cure, but hard to recognize; whereas after a time, not having been detected and treated early, they becomes easy to recognize but impossible to cure.

So it is with State affairs. The distempers of a State that are discovered while under the surface, which can only be done by a quick-witted ruler, may be easily dealt with; but when, from not being observed, they grow until they are obvious to everyone, there is no longer any remedy. The Romans, therefore, foreseeing evils while they were yet far off, always insured against them, and never let them to take their course for the sake of avoiding war. They knew that war cannot be avoided by neglect, but is only postponed to the advantage of the other side. They chose, therefore, to make war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece, so that they might not have to fight in Italy, although for a time they might have escaped both. This they did not want, nor did the saying leave it to Time, which the wise men of our own day always say, ever influence them. What they went after were the fruits of their own valour and foresight. For Time, driving all things before it, may bring evil as well as good.

But let us now go back to France and examine whether she has followed any of those methods I have mentioned. I will speak of Louis and not of Charles, because the former has held possession of Italy longer, and his manner of acting is more plainly seen. You will find, then, that he has done the direct opposite of what he should have done in order to keep a foreign State.

King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who hoped by his coming to gain for themselves half of the State of Lombardy. I will not criticize this maneuver, nor the part taken by the King, because, due to the conduct of Charles, Louis had no friends in Italy: every door was shut against him. He was driven to accept such friendships as he could get. And his designs might easily have succeeded had he not made mistakes in other particulars of conduct.

By the recovery of Lombardy, Louis at once regained the credit which Charles had lost. Genoa submitted; the Florentines came to terms; the Marquis of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivogli, the Countess of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, Pesaro, Rimini, Camerino, and Piombino, the citizens of Lucca, Pisa, and Siena, all came forward offering their friendship. The Venetians, who had made the French King master of two-thirds of Italy for the possession of a couple of towns in Lombardy, now had cause to repent their mistake.

Consider how easily King Louis might have maintained his authority in Italy if he had observed the rules noted above, and secured and protected all those weak, and fearful, friends of his - some afraid of the Church, some of the Venetians - that had to attach themselves to him, and with whose assistance, for they were many, he might have easily made himself safe against any other powerful State. But no sooner was he in Milan than he took the other course, helping Pope Alexander to occupy Romagna. He did not see that by helping the Pope he weakened himself, by alienating friends and those who had thrown themselves into his arms, while he strengthened the Church by adding great temporal power to its undoubted spiritual power and authority. Making this first mistake, he was forced to follow it up, until, in order to curb the ambition of Pope Alexander and prevent him becoming master of Tuscany, he was obliged to come personally into Italy.

And, in addition to aggrandizing the Church and stripping himself of friends in his desire to possess the Kingdom of Naples, he divided it with the King of Spain; thus bringing into Italy, where before he had been supreme, a rival to whom the ambitious and discontented in that Province might go to. He might have left in Naples a King willing to hold it as his viceroy, but he displaced him to make way for another, strong enough to effect Louis' expulsion. The wish to acquire is no doubt natural, and when men attempt things within their power they will always be praised rather than blamed. But when they persist in attempts that are beyond their power, mishaps and blame result. If France, therefore, with her own forces could have attacked Naples, she should have done so. If she could not, she ought not to have divided it. And if her partition of Lombardy with the Venetians may be excused as leading to a foothold in Italy, this other partition is to be condemned as not justified for that reason.

Louis, then, had made these five mistakes: he had destroyed weaker States; he had strengthened a Prince already strong; he had brought into the country a very powerful stranger; he had not moved there; and he had not sent colonies. And yet, all these blunders might not have proved disastrous to him while he lived, had he not added a sixth by depriving the Venetians of their dominions. Had he not aggrandized the Church and brought Spain into Italy, it might have been both necessary and possible to humble the Venetians; but after committing himself to these other courses, he should never have authorized the ruin of Venice. For while the Venetians were powerful, they would always have prevented others from attacking Lombardy, because they never would have agreed to this on any terms other than themselves being made its master; others would never have tried to take it from France in order to hand it over to the Venetians; nor would these others have ventured to defy both. And if it is said that King Louis ceded Romagna to Alexander, and Naples to Spain in order to avoid war, I answer that, for the reasons already given, you ought never back down in order to avoid war, since war is not avoided this way, but is only postponed, to your disadvantage. And if others should blame the King's promise to the Pope to do this on his behalf, in return for the dissolution of his marriage and for the Cardinal's hat conferred on d'Amboise, I will answer later, when discussing the faith of Princes and how it is to be kept.

King Louis, therefore, lost Lombardy from not following any one of those methods pursued by others who have taken Provinces with the resolve to keep them. Nor are these anything strange, but only what might reasonably be planned for. And on this very subject I spoke to d'Amboise at Nantes, at the time when Duke Valentino, as Pope Alexander's son Cesare Borgia was vulgarly called, was occupying Romagna. For, in response to the Cardinal saying to me that the Italians did not understand war, I said that the French did not understand statecraft, for had they done so, they never would have allowed the Church to grow so powerful. And the event shows that the aggrandizement of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been brought about by France, and that the ruin of France was caused by both of them. So we may draw the general axiom, which never or rarely goes wrong, that he who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone, since he must work either by stealth or force, each of which causes distrust of the person raised to power.

CHAPTER IV: WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER, DID NOT REBEL AGAINST THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER AFTER HIS DEATH

ALEXANDER the Great conquered Asia in a few years, and died before he had incorporated it. So it might have been expected, given the difficulty of holding newly acquired States, that on his death the country would rise in revolt. But his successors were able to keep it, and found in doing so no more difficulty than what arose from their own ambition and mutual jealousies.

If this seems strange, note that all the Principalities for which we have records have been governed in one of either two ways: by a sole Prince, all other rulers being his servants which he can dismiss at will; or else by a Prince with his Barons who hold their rank, not by the favour of a superior Lord, but by hereditary right, and who have States and subjects of their own who recognize them as their rulers, and are loyal to them. States governed by a sole Prince and his servants give him a more complete authority because none but he is recognized as sovereign, and if any others are obeyed, they are his ministers and officers, who are not loved personally.

Of these two forms of government we have examples in our own days in the Turk and the King of France. The whole Turkish empire is governed by a sole Prince, all others being his slaves. Dividing his kingdom into sandjaks, he sends a governor to each one, and he shifts and changes them at his pleasure. The King of France, on the other hand, is surrounded by a multitude of nobles of ancient descent, each with loyal subjects of their own, and each possessing hereditary privileges which the King cannot remove safely.

The different character of these two States show that it would be difficult to gain possession of the Turk's, but once won, it might be easily held. The obstacles to its conquest are that the invader cannot be called in by a native nobility, nor expect any defections of those whom the sovereign has around him. And this for the various reasons already given: slaves are not easily corrupted, or if corrupted, can render little assistance, for the people do not love them. Whoever, therefore, attacks the Turk must assume that he is the sovereign of a united people, and must trust in his own strength, not any divisions on the other side. But if his adversary is overcome and defeated in the field, so that he could not repair his armies, no cause for anxiety among his people would remain, except in the family of the conquered Prince: once exterminated, there would be none else for the conqueror to fear: since the people are slaves, the invader can expect no resistance once the kingdom is conquered.

But the contrary is the case in kingdoms like France. Because there are always men who are discontented and desire change, you can easily open the door by winning over some Baron of the Realm. Such persons, for the reasons already given, are able to assist you for the invasion of their country and to render its conquest easy. But afterwards, the efforts to hold your ground involve you in endless difficulties, both from those whom you have overthrown and those who helped you. Nor will it be enough to have destroyed the family of the Prince, since all those other Lords remain to put themselves at the head of new movements. You might lose the State if they decide to switch sides again.

Now, if you examine the nature of the government of Darius, you will find that it resembled that of the Turk, and, consequently, that it was necessary for Alexander, first of all, to defeat him utterly and strip him of his dominions; after Darius died, the country, for the causes above explained, was permanently secured to Alexander. And had his successors continued united they might have enjoyed it undisturbed, since there arose no disorders in that kingdom that they themselves did not create.

But kingdoms like France cannot be retained with the same ease. Hence the repeated uprisings of Spain, Gaul, and Greece against the Romans, resulting from the number of small Principalities of which these Provinces were made up. While the memory of these lasted, the Romans could never assume that their conquest was secure. But when that memory was worn out by the authority and long duration of their rule, they gained a secure hold, and each of them were able afterwards in their battles among themselves, to carry with him some portion of these Provinces, according to their acquired influence; for these, on the extinction of their old Princes' lines, came to recognize no other Lords than the Romans.

No one need wonder at the case where Alexander was able to lay a firm hold on Asia, nor that Pyrrhus and many others found difficulty in preserving other acquisitions; since this arose, not from the skill of the conquerors, but on the different character of their conquered States.

CHAPTER V: CONCERNING THE WAY TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES WHICH LIVED UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED

WHEN a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to let it keep its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends. Such a Government, since it is the creature of the new Prince, will see that it cannot stand without his protection and support, and must therefore do all it can to maintain him; and a city accustomed to live in freedom, if it is to be preserved at all, is more easily controlled through its own citizens than in any other way.

We see this in the history of the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by creating oligarchies in these cities, yet lost them in the end. The Romans, to retain Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and never lost them. On the other hand, when they thought to hold Greece as the Spartans had held it, leaving it its freedom and its own laws, they failed, and had to destroy many cities of that Province before they could secure it. For, in truth, there is no surer way of holding than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may end up being destroyed by it. For if should rebel, it can always screen itself under the name of liberty and its ancient laws, which no length of time, nor any benefits conferred, will ever cause it to forget; and do what you will, and take what care you may, the old order of things will never cease to be remembered: it will at once be turned against you whenever misfortune overtakes you, as when Pisa rose against the Florentines after a hundred years of servitude. The inhabitants may need to be scattered and dispersed.

If, however the newly acquired City or Province has been accustomed to live under a Prince, and his line is extinguished, it will be impossible for the citizens to agree upon and choose a leader from among themselves. They are used to obeying, particularly their old ruler; and as they do not know how to live as free men, and are therefore slow to take up arms, a stranger may readily gain them over and attach them to his cause. But in Republics there is a stronger vitality, a fiercer hatred, a keener thirst for revenge. Their citizens' memories of freedom will not rest, so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them.

CHAPTER VI: CONCERNING PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED BY ONE'S OWN ARMS AND ABILITY

LET no man object if, in what I am about to say concerning new Principalities, both regarding the Prince and the form of government, I cite the highest ancient examples. Since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been traveled by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour. This is like the skilful archer, who seeing that the object he would hit is distant, and knowing the range of his bow, takes aim much above the destined mark; not intending that his arrow should strike that high, but, in flying high, it may land at the point intended.

I say, then, that in entirely new Principalities where the Prince himself is new, the difficulty of maintaining possession varies with the greater or less ability of the Prince himself. And, because the mere fact of a common person rising to be a Prince presupposes either merit or good fortune, it will be seen that the presence of one or the other of these two conditions lessens, to some extent, many difficulties. And yet, he who is less favoured by Fortune has often in the end the better success; and it may be for the advantage of a Prince that, for lack of other territories, he has to live in the State which he has acquired.

Looking first to those who have become Princes by merit and not by luck, I say that the most excellent among them are Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and the like. And though perhaps I should not name Moses, he being merely an instrument for carrying out the Divine commands, he is still to be admired for those qualities which made him worthy to converse with God. But if we consider Cyrus and the others who have acquired or founded kingdoms, they will all be seen to be admirable. And if their actions and the particular institutions which they founded are studied, they will be found not to differ from those of Moses, instructed though he was by so great a Teacher. Moreover, on examining their lives and actions, we shall see that they were debtors to Fortune for nothing beyond the opportunity which enabled them to shape things as they pleased, without which the force of their spirit would have been spent in vain. But Fortune's opportunity would have been wasted if the capacity for using it had been absent. It was necessary, therefore, that Moses should find the children of Israel in bondage in Egypt, and oppressed by the Egyptians, in order that they might agree to follow him, and escape from their servitude. It was fortunate for Romulus that he had no home in Alba, but was orphaned at the time of his birth, to the end that he might become king and founder of the City of Rome. It was necessary that Cyrus should find the Persians discontented with the rule of the Medes, and the Medes passive and effeminate from a prolonged peace. Nor could Theseus have displayed his great qualities had he not found the Athenians disunited and dispersed. But while it was their opportunities that made these men fortunate, it was their own merit that enabled them to recognize these opportunities and turn them to account, to the glory and prosperity of their country.

Those who come to the Principality by virtuous paths, as these did, acquire with difficulty but keep with ease. The difficulties which they have in acquiring arise mainly from the new laws and institutions which they are forced to introduce in founding and securing their government. There is no more delicate or dangerous task, nor more doubtful in its success, than that of a leader who introduces changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the fear of adversaries who have the presently existing laws on their side, and partly from the skepticism of mankind, who will never believe in anything new until they have seen it work. The result, however, is that whenever the enemies of change make an attack, they do so with all the zeal of patriots, while the others defend themselves so feebly as to endanger both themselves and their cause.

But to get a clearer understanding of this part of our subject, we must look whether these innovators can stand alone, or whether they must depend upon others for aid: in otherwords, whether to carry out their ends they must resort to diplomacy or can prevail by force. In the former case they always fare badly and bring nothing to a successful conclusion; but when they depend upon their own resources and can employ force, they seldom fail. Hence it comes that all armed Prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed Prophets have been destroyed.

For, besides what has been said, it should be kept in mind that the temper of the masses is fickle, and that while it is easy to persuade them of a thing, they lose interest just as easily. Thus, matters should be so ordered that when men no longer believe of their own accord, they must be compelled to believe by force. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus could never have made their rules be obeyed for any length of time had they been unarmed, as was the case with the Friar Girolamo Savonarola, whose new institutions came to nothing so soon as the multitude began to waver in their faith. He lacked the real means to keep those who had been believers steadfast in their belief, or to make unbelievers believe.

Such innovators, therefore, have great difficulty in carrying out their plans; but all their difficulties are faced early, and may be overcome by courage. Having conquered these and ascending to reverence, and having destroyed all those who were jealous of their influence, they remain powerful, safe, honoured, and prosperous.

To the great examples cited above, I would add one other, less world-shaking than the above but similar, and which may stand for all others of this character: the example of Hero the Syracusan. He, from a humble station, rose to be Prince of Syracuse, and he too was indebted to Fortune only for his opportunity. The Syracusans, being oppressed, chose him to be their Captain, which office he discharged so masterfully that they made him their King. For even while a private citizen his merit was so remarkable, that one who writes of him says: he lacked nothing that a King should have except the Kingdom. Doing away with the old army, he organized a new; abandoning existing alliances, he forged new ones; and, with an army and allies of his own, was able to build the superstructure he pleased - having lots of trouble in acquiring, but none in preserving what he had acquired.

CHAPTER VII: CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE AID OF OTHERS OR BY GOOD FORTUNE

THOSE who from a commoner's birth become Princes by mere good fortune, do so with little trouble, but have much trouble to maintain themselves. They meet with no hindrance on their way, being carried as it were on wings to their destination, but all their difficulties overtake them when they land. Of this class are those on whom States are taken over either in return for money, or through the favour of he who confers them; as it happened to many in the Greek cities of Ionia and the Hellespont to be made Princes by Darius, so that they might hold these cities for his security and glory; and as happened in the case of those Emperors who, from commoner status, attained the Imperial dignity by corrupting the army. Such Princes are wholly dependent on the favour and fortunes of those who have made them great: these supports could not be less stable or secure, and the new Prince lacks both the knowledge and the power that would enable him to maintain his position. Not being of noble birth, he lacks the knowledge of command, unless he has great talent for leadership and force of character. He lacks the power, since he cannot look for support from attached and faithful troops. Moreover, States suddenly acquired, like all else that grows up rapidly, can never set down roots that the first storm which strikes them cannot rip; unless indeed, as I have said already, they who suddenly become Princes have a capacity for learning quickly how to defend what Fortune has placed in their lap, and how to lay those foundations after they rise.

Of each of these methods of becoming a Prince, namely, by merit and by good fortune, I shall select an example from my own memories: the cases of Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia. By suitable measures and great ability, Francesco Sforza rose from commoner to Duke of Milan, preserving with little trouble what it cost him infinite efforts to gain. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, known as Duke Valentino, obtained his Principality through the favourable fortunes of his father, and with these lost it, despite using every effort and practising every expedient that a prudent and able man, who desires to strike root in a State given him by the arms and fortune of another, should, to the extent of his talents. As I have already said, he who does not lay his foundations at first, may, if he is of great talent, succeed in laying them afterwards, though with inconvenience to the builder and risk to the building. And if we consider the various measures taken by Duke Valentino, we shall see how broad were the foundations he had laid.

These I think are useful to examine, since I know not what lessons I could teach a new Prince that are more useful than the example of his actions. And if the measures taken by him did not profit him in the end, it was through no fault of his own, but from the fickleness of Fortune.

In his efforts to aggrandize his son the Duke, Alexander VI had to face many difficulties, both immediate and remote. In the first place, he saw no way to make him Lord of any State which was not a State of the Church, while, if he sought to take for him a State belonging to the Church, he knew that the Duke of Milan and the Venetians would withhold their consent, Faenza and Rimini being already under the protection of the latter. Further, he saw that the arms of Italy, especially those which he might have used, were in the hands of men who had reason to fear his aggrandizement: the Orsini, the Colonnesi, and their followers. They therefore he could not trust. It was consequently necessary that the existing order should be changed, and the States of Italy thrown into confusion, in order that he might safely make himself master of some part of them; and this became easy for him when he found that the Venetians, moved by other causes, were plotting to bring the French once more into Italy. This design he accordingly did not oppose, but furthered by annulling the first marriage of the French King.

King Louis therefore came into Italy at the instance of the Venetians and with the consent of Pope Alexander. No sooner was he in Milan than the Pope got troops from him to aid him in his enterprise against Romagna: the Province, intimidated by the reputation of the French army, at once submitted. After thus obtaining possession of Romagna, and after quelling the Colonnesi, Duke Valentino sought to follow up and extend his conquests. Two causes, however, held him back: namely, the doubtful fidelity of his own forces, and the waywardness of France. For he feared that the Orsini, of whose arms he had made use, might fail him, and not merely prove a hindrance to further acquisitions, but take from him what he had gained; and, the King might do the same. How little he could count on the Orsini was made plain when, after the capture of Faenza, he turned his arms against Bologna, and saw how reluctantly they fought. The King's will was revealed when, after seizing on the Dukedom of Urbino, Valentino was about to attack Tuscany; from which design Louis compelled him to stop. So, the Duke resolved to no longer depend on the arms or help of others. His first step, therefore, was to weaken the factions of the Orsini and Colonnesi in Rome. Those of their following who were of good birth, he gained over by making them his own gentlemen, assigning them a liberal provision, and conferring upon them commands and appointments suited to their rank; so that in a few months their old partisan attachments died out, and the hopes of all rested on the Duke alone.

He then prepared to crush the chiefs of the Orsini, for those of the house of Colonna he had already scattered. A good opportunity presented itself, and he turned it to the best account. For when the Orsini came at last to see that the greatness of the Duke and the Church involved their ruin, they assembled a council at Magione in the Perugian territory, and launched the revolt of Urbino, commotions in Romagna, and an infinity of dangers to the Duke, all of which he overcame with the help of France. His credit thus restored, the Duke, trusting either the French or any other foreign aid no more, resorted to strategy, so that he would not have to confront his enemies openly. He was so able to cover his plans, that the Orsini, through the mediation of Signor Paolo (whom he failed not to secure by every friendly attention, furnishing him with clothes, money, and horses), were so won over as to be drawn, in their simplicity, into his hands at Sinigaglia. When the leaders were disposed of, and their followers made his friends, the Duke had laid sufficiently good foundations for his future power, since he held all Romagna together with the Dukedom of Urbino, and had ingratiated himself with the entire population of these States, who now began to see that they were well off.

Since this part of his conduct merits both attention and imitation, I shall not pass it over in silence. After the Duke had taken Romagna, he found that it had been ruled by feeble Lords who thought more of plundering than governing their subjects, and gave them more cause for division than for union. The country was overrun with robbery, chaos, and every kind of outrage, so he judged it necessary, with the goal of rendering it peaceful and obedient to his authority, to provide it with a good government. Accordingly he put the stern and prompt ruler, Messer Remiro d'Orco, fully in charge, who, with much credit to himself, restored it to tranquillity and order. But afterwards, fearing that such unlimited authority might become hateful, the Duke decided that it was no longer needed, and established in the centre of the Province a civil Tribunal, with an excellent President, in which every town was represented by its advocate. And knowing that past severities had generated ill-feeling against himself, he sought to show them that any cruelty which had been done had not originated with him, but in the harsh disposition of his minister. Using the pretext which this afforded, he one morning caused Remiro to be beheaded, and exposed in the market place of Cesena with a block and bloody axe by his side. The shock of this spectacle at once astounded and satisfied the populace.

But, returning to the main point, I say that the Duke, finding himself fairly strong and in a measure secured against present dangers, being furnished with arms of his own choosing and having to a great extent gotten rid of those which, if left near him, might have caused him trouble, had to consider, if he desired to follow up his conquests, how he was to deal with France. He saw that he could expect no further support from King Louis, whose eyes were at last opened to his mistake. He therefore began to look about for new alliances, and to slip away from the French, then occupied with their expedition into the kingdom of Naples against the Spaniards and at that time laying siege to Gaeta. His object was to secure himself against France, and in this he would soon have succeeded had Pope Alexander lived.

Such was the line he took to meet present contingencies. As regards to the future, he had to prepare for a new Head of the Church that might not be his friend, and might even seek to take what Alexander had given. This he thought to provide against in four ways. First, by exterminating all the kin of those Lords whose possessions he took, so that they might not become instruments in the hands of a new Pope. Second, by winning over all the Roman nobles, so as to be able with their help to put a bridle, as the saying goes, in the Pope's mouth. Third, by bringing the College of Cardinals, so much as he could, under his control. And fourth, by establishing his authority so firmly before his father's death, as to be able by himself to withstand the shock of a first onset.

Of these measures, at the time when Alexander died, he had already implemented three, and had almost carried out the fourth. He had put to death all those defeated Lords whom he could reach, and very few had escaped. He had won over the Roman nobility, and had the majority in the College of Cardinals on his side.

As to further acquisitions, his plan was to make himself master of Tuscany. He was already in possession of Perugia and Piombino, and had assumed the protectorship of Pisa, where he was about to spring. He took no heed of France, as he no longer had to, since the French had been deprived of the kingdom of Naples by the Spaniards under circumstances which made it necessary for both nations to buy his friendship. Once Pisa was taken, Lucca and Siena would soon have yielded, partly through jealousy of Florence, partly through fear, and the position of the Florentines would then have been desperate.

Had he succeeded in these designs, as he was succeeding in that very year in which Alexander died, he would have won such power and reputation that he might afterwards have stood alone, relying on his own strength and resources, without being beholden to the power and fortune of others. But Alexander died five years from the time he first unsheathed the sword, leaving his son with only the State of Romagna consolidated, with all the rest unsettled between two powerful hostile armies, and sick almost to death. And yet, the Duke he knew very well how men must either be conciliated or crushed, and so great was his fire and courage, and so solid were the foundations he had laid in that brief period, that had these armies not been upon his back, or had he been in sound health, he must have surmounted every difficulty.

How strong his foundations were may be seen from this: that Romagna waited for him for more than a month, and that although half dead, he remained in safety in Rome where, though the Baglioni, the Vitelli, and the Orsini came to attack him, they met with failure. Moreover, since he was able, if not to make whom he liked Pope, at least to prevent the election of any candidate he disliked. Had he been healthy at the time when Alexander died, all would have been easy for him. But he told me himself, on the day on which Julius II. was created, that he had foreseen and provided for everything else that could happen on his father's death, but he had never anticipated that when his father died, he too should be at death's door.

Taking all these actions of the Duke together, I can find no fault with him. It seems to me reasonable to put him forward, as I have done, as a pattern for all who rise to power by good fortune and the help of others. For with his great spirit and high aims, he could not act otherwise than he did, and nothing but the shortness of his father's life and his own illness prevented the success of his plans. Whoever, therefore, on entering a new Principality, judges it necessary to rid himself of enemies, to conciliate friends, to prevail by force or fraud, to make himself feared yet not hated by his subjects, respected and obeyed by his soldiers, to crush those who can or ought to injure him, to introduce changes in the old order, to be at once severe and affable, magnanimous and liberal, to do away with a mutinous army and create a new one, to maintain relations with Kings and Princes on such a footing that they must see it for their interest to aid him and dangerous to offend him, can find no brighter example than in the actions of this Prince.

The one thing for which he may be blamed was the creation of Pope Julius II: then, he chose badly. Because, as I have said already, though he could not secure the Pope he desired, he could have prevented any other; and he ought never to have consented to the creation of any one of those Cardinals whom he had injured, or who on becoming Pope would have reason to fear him; for fear is as dangerous an enemy as resentment. Those whom he had offended were, among others, San Pietro ad Vincula, Colonna, San Giorgio, and Ascanio; all the rest, except d'Amboise and the Spanish Cardinals (the latter from their connection and obligations, the former from the power he derived through his relations with the French Court), would on assuming the Pontificate have had reason to fear him. The Duke, therefore, ought in the first place to have laboured for the creation of a Spanish Pope; failing in which, he should have agreed to the election of d'Amboise, but never to that of San Pietro ad Vincula. He deceives himself who believes that, with the great, recent benefits cause old wrongs to be forgotten.

The Duke, therefore, erred in the part he took in this election; and his error was the cause of his ultimate downfall.

CHAPTER VIII: CONCERNING THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A PRINCIPALITY BY WICKEDNESS

A MAN from a low station may also rise to be a Prince in one or other of two ways, neither of which can be categorized wholly either as merit or as fortune, so I notice them here, though one of them may fail to be discussed more fully in my treating of Republics.

The ways I speak of are, first, when the ascent to power is made by paths of wickedness and crime; and seeond, when a private person becomes ruler of his country by the favour of his fellow-citizens. The former method I shall make clear by two examples, one ancient and the other modern, without entering further into the merits of the matter, for these, I think, should be enough for any one who is driven to follow them.

Agathocles the Sicilian came, not merely from a private station, but from the very dregs of the people, and became King of Syracuse. The son of a potter, through all the stages of his fortunes he led a foul life. His vices, however, were conjoined with so great vigour both of mind and body, that becoming a soldier, he rose through the various grades of the service to be Praetor of Syracuse. Once established in that post, he resolved to make himself Prince, and to hold by violence and without obligation to others the authority which had been spontaneously entrusted to him. Accordingly, after imparting his design to Hamilcar, who with the Carthaginian armies was at that time waging war in Sicily, he one morning assembled the people and senate of Syracuse as though to consult with them on matters of public policy, and on a preconcerted signal, caused his soldiers to put to death all the senators, and the wealthiest of the commoners. These being thus gotten rid of, he assumed and retained possession of the sovereignty without opposition on the part of the people. Although twice defeated by the Carthaginians, and afterwards besieged, he was able not only to defend his city, but to leave a part of his forces for its protection, to invade Africa with the remainder, and so in a short time to raise the siege of Syracuse, reducing the Carthaginians to the utmost extremities, and compelling them to make terms whereby they abandoned Sicily to him and confined themselves to Africa.

Whoever examines this man's actions and achievements will discover little or nothing in them which can be ascribed to Fortune, seeing, as has already been said, that it was not through the favour of any, but by the regular steps of the military service, gained at the cost of a thousand hardships and hazards, he reached the Principality which he afterwards maintained by so many daring and dangerous enterprises. Still, to slaughter fellow-citizens, to betray friends, to be devoid of honour, pity, and religion, cannot be counted as merits, for these are means which may lead to power, but which confer no glory. Wherefore, if in respect of the valour with which he encountered and extricated himself from difficulties, and the constancy of his spirit in supporting and conquering adverse fortune, there seems no reason to judge him inferior to the greatest captains that have ever lived. His unbridled cruelty and inhumanity, together with his countless crimes, forbid us to number him with the greatest men, but, at any rate, we cannot attribute to Fortune or to merit what he accomplished without either.

In our own times, during the papacy of Alexander VI., Oliverotto of Fermo, who some years before had been left an orphan and had been brought up by his maternal uncle Giovanni Fogliani, was sent while still a lad to serve under Paolo Vitelli, in the expectation that a thorough training under that commander might qualify him for high rank as a soldier. After the death of Paolo, he served under his brother Vitellozzo, and in a very short time, being of a quick wit, hardy and resolute, he became one of the first soldiers of his company. But thinking it beneath him to serve under others, with the encouragement of the Vitelleschi and the connivance of certain citizens of Fermo who preferred the slavery of their country to its freedom, he formed his plan to seize on that town.

He accordingly wrote to Giovanni Fogliani that, after many years of absence from home, he desired to see him and his native city once more, and to look a little into the condition of his patrimony; and, as his one endeavour had been to make himself a name in order that his fellow citizens might see that his time had not been misspent, he proposed to return honourably attended by a hundred horsemen from among his own friends and followers; and he begged Giovanni graciously to arrange for his reception by the citizens of Fermo with corresponding marks of distinction, as this would be creditable not only to himself, but also to the uncle who had brought him up.

Giovanni accordingly did not fail in any proper attention to his nephew, but caused him to be splendidly received by his fellow-citizens, and lodged him in his house. Oliverotto, having passed some days there, and making the necessary arrangements for carrying out his wickedness, gave a formal banquet, to which he invited his uncle and all the first men of Fermo. When the refreshments and the other entertainments proper to such an occasion had come to an end, Oliverotto artfully turned the conversation to matters of serious interest, by speaking of the greatness of Pope Alexander and Cesare his son, and of their enterprises; and when Giovanni and the others were replying to what he said, he suddenly rose up, observing that these were matters to be discussed in a more private place, and so withdrew to another chamber. His uncle and all the other citizens followed him. They had no sooner seated themselves, when soldiers rushing out from places of concealment put Giovanni and all the rest to death.

After this butchery, Oliverotto mounted his horse, rode through the streets, and besieged the chief magistrate in the palace, so that all were constrained by fear to yield obedience and accept a government of which he made himself the head. And all who, from being disaffected, were likely to stand in his way, he put to death, while he strengthened himself with new ordinances, civil and military, to the purpose that for the space of a year during which he retained the Principality, he not merely kept a firm hold of the city, but grew formidable to all his neighbours. And it would have been as impossible to unseat him as it was to unseat Agathocles, had he not let himself be overreached by Cesare Borgia on the occasion when, as has already been told, the Orsini and Vitelli were entrapped at Sinigaglia. He too was killed, one year after the commission of his parricidal crime; Oliverotto was strangled there along with Vitellozzo, whom he had assumed for his master in villany as well as valour.

It may be asked how Agathocles and some like him, after numberless acts of treachery and cruelty, have been able to live long in their own country in safety, and to defend themselves from foreign enemies, without being plotted against by their fellow-citizens. Many others, by reason of their cruelty, have failed to maintain their position even in peaceful times, not to speak of the perilous times of war. I believe that this results from cruelty being well or badly employed. Those cruelties, we may say, are well employed if it is permitted to speak well of things evil which are done under the necessity of self-preservation, and are not afterwards persisted in, but so far as possible modified to the advantage of the governed. Ill-employed cruelties, on the other hand, are those which from small beginnings increase rather than diminish with time. Those who follow the first of these methods, may, by the grace of God and man, find, as did Agathocles, that their condition is not desperate; but by no possibility can the others maintain themselves.

Hence we may learn the lesson that on seizing a state, the usurper should make haste to inflict what injuries he must, at a stroke, so that he may not have to renew them daily, but be enabled by their stoppage to reassure mens' minds, and afterwards win them over by benefits. Whosoever, either through timidity or from following bad counsels, adopts a contrary course must keep the sword always drawn, and can put no trust in his subjects, who, suffering from continued and constantly renewed severities, will never yield to him their confidence. Injuries, therefore, should be inflicted all at once so that their ill savour, being less lasting, may the less offend; whereas benefits should be conferred little by little, that so they may be more fully relished.

But before all things, a Prince should live with his subjects so that no stroke of good or bad luck shall oblige him to alter his behaviour. If a need to change comes through adversity, it is then too late to resort to severity; while any leniency you may use will be thrown away, for it will be seen to be compulsory, and gains you no thanks.

CHAPTER IX: CONCERNING A CIVIL PRINCIPALITY

I COME now to the second case, namely, of the leading citizen who, not by crimes or violence but by the favour of his fellow-citizens, is made Prince of his country. This may be called a Civil Principality, and its attainment depend not wholly on merit, nor wholly on good fortune, but rather on what may be termed a fortunate astuteness. I say the that the road to this Principality lies either through the favour of the people or of the nobles. For in every city are to be found these two opposed forces having their origin in this: that the people desire not to be domineered over or oppressed by the nobles, while the nobles desire to oppress and domineer over the people. And from these two contrary appetites there arises in cities one of three results, a Principality, or Liberty, or Licence.

A Civil Principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, according as one or other of these factions has occasion for it. For when the nobles perceive that they cannot dominate the people any more they set to work to magnify the reputation of one of their number, and make him their Prince, to the end that under his shadow they may be enabled to indulge their desire. The people, on the other hand, when they see that they cannot make head against the nobles, invest a single citizen with all their influence and make him Prince, that they may have the shelter of his authority.

He who is made Prince by the favour of the nobles has greater difficulty to maintain himself than he who comes to the Principality by aid of the people, since he finds many about him who think themselves as good as he, and whom, on that account, he cannot guide or govern as he would. But he who reaches the Principality by the popular support, finds himself alone, with none, or but a very few about him who are not ready to obey. Moreover, the demands of the nobles cannot be satisfied with credit going to the Prince, nor without injury to others, while those of the people well may, the aim of the people being more honourable than that of the nobles: the latter seeking to oppress, the former not to be oppressed. Add to this that a Prince can never secure himself against a disaffected people, their number being too great, while he may against a disaffected nobility, since their number is small. The worst that a Prince need fear from a disaffected people is that they may desert him, whereas when the nobles are his enemies he has to fear not only that they may desert him, but also that they may turn against him; because, as they have greater craft and foresight, they always choose their time to suit their safety, and seek favour with the side they think will win. Again, a Prince must always deal with the same people, but need not always deal with the same nobles, being able to make and unmake these from day to day, and give and take away their authority at his pleasure.

But to make this part of the matter clearer, I say that, as regards the nobles, there is this first distinction to be made. They either so govern their conduct as to bind themselves wholly to your fortunes, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and who are not grasping, should be loved and honoured. As to those who do not so bind themselves, there is this further distinction. For the most part they are held back by failures of daring and a natural defect of courage, in which case you should make use of them, and especially of those among them who are prudent, for they will do you honour in prosperity, and in adversity give you no cause for fear. But where they abstain from attaching themselves to you from selfish purpose and for ambitious ends, it is a sign that they are thinking more of themselves than of you, and against such men a Prince should be on his guard, and treat them as though they were declared enemies, for in his adversity they will always help to ruin him.

He who becomes a Prince through the favour of the people should always keep on good terms with them; which it is easy for him to do, since all they ask is not to be oppressed. But he who, against the will of the people, is made a Prince by the favour of the nobles, must, above all things, seek to conciliate the people, which he readily may by taking them under his protection. For men who are well treated, by one whom they expected to treat them badly, feel the more beholden to their benefactor; the people will at once become better disposed to such a Prince when he protects them on his own initiative than if he owed his Principality to them.

There are many ways in which a Prince may gain the good-will of the people, but because these vary with circumstances, no certain rule can be laid down respecting them, and I shall therefore say no more about them. But this is the sum of the matter: that it is essential for a Prince to be on a friendly footing with his people, since otherwise he will have no resource in adversity. Nabis, Prince of Sparta, was attacked by the whole hosts of Greece, and by a Roman army flushed with victory, and defended his country and crown against them; and when danger approached, there were but few of his subjects against whom he needed to guard himself, whereas had the people been hostile this would not have been enough.

And what I affirm let no one controvert by citing the old saw that 'he who builds on the people builds on mire,' for that may be true of a private citizen who uses his favour with the people, and counts on being rescued by them when overpowered by his enemies or by the magistrates. In such cases a man may often find himself deceived, as happened to the Gracchi in Rome, and in Florence to Messer Giorgio Scali. But when he who builds on the people is a Prince capable of command, of a spirit not to be cast down by ill-fortune; who, while he animates the whole community by his courage and bearing, neglects no prudent precaution. He will not find himself betrayed by the people, but will be seen to have laid his foundations well.

The most critical juncture for Principalities of this kind is at the moment when they are about to pass from the popular to an absolute form of government. These Princes exercise their authority either directly or through the agency of the magistrates; in the latter case, their position is weaker and more hazardous, since they are wholly in the power of those citizens to whom the magistracies are entrusted. They can, especially in difficult times, with the greatest ease deprive the Prince of his authority, either by opposing or by not obeying him. And in times of peril it is too late for a Prince to assume to himself an absolute authority, for the citizens and subjects who are accustomed to take their orders from the magistrates will not, when dangers threaten, take them from the Prince, so that at such times there will always be very few in whom he can trust. Such Princes, therefore, must not build on what they see in tranquil times when the citizens feel the need of the State. Then, everyone is ready to promise and, danger of death being remote, even to vow to die for the State. But in troubled times, when the State has need of its citizens, few of them are to be found. This experiment is the most risky as it can only be made once. So, a wise Prince should devise means whereby his subjects may at all times, whether good or bad, feel the need of the State and of him, and then they will always be faithful to him.

CHAPTER X: CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED

IN examining the character of Principalities, another circumstance has to be considered, namely, whether the Prince is strong enough, if occasion demands, to stand alone, or whether he needs continual help from others. To make the matter clearer, I pronounce those to be able to stand alone that can, with the men and money at their disposal, put together an army fit to take the field against any assailant; and conversely, I judge those to be in constant need of help who cannot take the field against their enemies, but are obliged to retire behind their walls, and to defend themselves there. Of the former I have already spoken, and shall speak again as occasion may require. As to the latter, there is nothing to be said, except to exhort such Princes to strengthen and fortify the towns in which they dwell, and take no heed of the country outside. For whoever has thoroughly fortified his town, and put himself on such a footing with his subjects as I have already indicated and shall hereafter speak of, will always be attacked cautiously: for men are always wary of enterprises that are carried out with difficulty, and it is impossible not to foresee difficulties in attacking a Prince whose town is strongly fortified and who is not hated by his subjects.

The towns of Germany enjoy great freedom. Having little territory, they obey to the Emperor only when so disposed, fearing neither him nor any other neighbouring power. For they are so fortified that it is plain to everyone that it would be a tedious and difficult task to humble them, since all of them are protected by moats and suitable ramparts, are well supplied with artillery, and keep their public storehouses constantly stored with food, drink and fuel, enough to last them for a year. Besides which, in order to support the poorer class of citizens without public loss, they lay in a common stock of material for these to work on for a year, in the handicrafts which are the lifeblood of such cities, and by which the common people live. Moreover, they esteem military exercises and have many regulations for their maintenance.

A Prince, therefore, who has a strong city, and who does not make himself hated, cannot be attacked, or should he be so, his assailant will likely fail. Since human affairs are so variable, it is almost impossible for anyone to keep an army posted in siege for a whole year without any interruption of some sort. It might be objected that if the citizens have possessions outside the town, and see them burned, they will lose patience, and their self-interest, together with the hardships of a protracted siege, will cause them to forget their loyalty. I answer that a capable and courageous Prince will always overcome these difficulties, by holding out hopes to his subjects that the evil will not last long; by exciting their fears of the enemy's cruelty; and, again, by dexterously silencing those who seem to him to be too forward with their complaints. Moreover, it is to be expected that the enemy will burn and lay waste to the country immediately on their arrival, at a time when men's minds are still heated and resolute for defence. And for this very reason, the Prince ought the less to fear, because after a few days, when the first ardour has abated, the injury is already done and suffered, and cannot be undone; and the people will now, all the more readily, make common cause with their Prince from his seeming to be under obligations to them, their houses having been burned and their lands wasted in his defence. For it is the nature of men to incur obligation as much by the benefits they give as by those they receive.

If the whole matter is well considered, it ought not to be difficult for a prudent Prince, both at the outset and afterwards, to maintain the spirits of his subjects during a siege; provided always that the stores of food and the other means of defence do not run short.

CHAPTER XI: CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES

IT now only remains for me to discuss ecclesiastical Principalities, and all the difficulties which precede their acquisition. For they are acquired by merit or good fortune, but are maintained without either; being upheld by the venerable ordinances of Religion, which are all of such a nature and efficacy that they secure the authority of their Princes in the way they must act or live. These Princes alone have territories which they do not defend, and subjects whom they do not govern; yet their territories are not taken from them due to not being guarded, nor are their subjects concerned at not being governed, or led to think of throwing off their allegiance; nor is it in their power to do so. Accordingly, these Principalities alone are secure and happy. But inasmuch as they are sustained by agencies of a higher nature than the mind of man can reach, I am hesitant to speak of them, for they are set up and supported by God himself. He would be a rash and presumptuous man who should venture to discuss them.

Nevertheless, should any one ask me how it comes about that the temporal power of the Church, which before the time of Alexander VI. was looked on with contempt by all the Potentates of Italy - not only by those so styling themselves, but by every Baron and Lordling however insignificant - has now reached such a pitch of greatness that even the King of France trembles before it, and that it has been able to drive him out of Italy and to crush the Venetians. Though the causes are known, it seems to me to be useful to discuss them.

Before Charles of France passed into Italy, that country was under the control of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. Two chief objects had to be kept in view by all these powers: first, that no armed foreigner should be allowed to invade Italy; seeond, that no one of their own number be powerful enough to extend his territory. Those whom it was especially needed to guard against were the Pope and the Venetians. To hold back the Venetians it was necessary that all the other States should combine, as was done for the defence of Ferrara; while to restrain the Pope, use was made of the Roman Barons, who, being divided into two factions, the Orsini and Colonnesi, had constant cause for feuding with each other, and, standing with arms in their hands under the very eyes of the Pontiff, kept the Popedom weak and insecure.

And although there arose from time to time a courageous Pope like Sixtus IV, neither his prudence nor his good fortune could free him from these embarrassments. The cause was the shortness of the reigns of the Popes. For in the ten years, which was the average duration of a Pope holding the office, he could barely succeed in humbling one of these factions. If, for instance, one Pope had almost exterminated the Colonnesi, he was followed by another, who, being the enemy of the Orsini, had no time to rid himself of them. But so far from completing the destruction of the Colonnesi, he restored them to life. This led to the temporal authority of the Popes being little respected in Italy.

Then came Alexander VI, who more than any of his predecessors showed what a Pope could effect with money and arms, achieving by the instrument of Duke Valentino his son, and by taking advantage of the coming of the French into Italy, all those successes which I have already noticed in speaking of the actions of the Duke. And although his object was to aggrandize, not the Church but the Duke, what he did turned to the advantage of the Church, which after his death, and after the Duke had been put out of the way, became the heir of his labours.

After him came Pope Julius II., who found the Church strengthened by the possession of the whole of Romagna, and the Roman Barons exhausted and their factions shattered under the blows of Pope Alexander. He found also a way opened for the accumulation of wealth, which before the time of Alexander no one had followed. These advantages Julius not only used but added to. He undertook the conquest of Bologna, the overthrow of the Venetians, and the expulsion of the French from Italy; in all of these enterprises he succeeded. The greater glory which he won for whatever he did, was done to strengthen the Church, and not to aggrandize any private person. He succeeded, moreover, in keeping the factions of the Orsini and Colinnesi within the same limits as he found them; and, though some seeds of insubordination may still have been left among them, two causes operated to hold them in check: first, the great power of the Church, which overawed them; and second, them being without Cardinals, who had been the cause of all their disorders. For these factions, when they have Cardinals among them, can never be at rest, since it is they who foment dissension, both in Rome and out of it, in which the Barons are forced to take part. The ambition of the Prelates thus gives rise to tumult and discord among the Barons.

His Holiness, Pope Leo X., has consequently found the Papacy most powerful; and from him we may hope, that as his predecessors made it great with arms, he will render it still greater and more venerable by his benignity and other countless virtues.

CHAPTER XII: HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING MERCENARIES

HAVING spoken particularly of all the various kinds of Principalities that at the outset I proposed to discuss; considered in some measure what are the causes of their strength and weakness; and pointed out the methods by which men commonly seek to acquire them, it now remains that I should discuss, in general, the means for attack and defence which each of these different kinds of Principality may make use.

I have already said that a Prince must lay solid foundations; otherwise he will inevitably be destroyed. Now the main foundations of all States, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. But since you cannot have the former without the latter, and where you have the latter, are likely to have the former, I shall here omit all discussion on the subject of laws, and speak only of arms.

I say then that the arms which a Prince defends his State with are either his own subjects, or they are mercenaries, or they are auxiliaries, or they are partly one and partly another. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are at once useless and dangerous, and he who holds his State by means of mercenary troops can never be solidly or securely seated. For such troops are disunited, ambitious, insubordinate, treacherous, insolent among friends, cowardly before foes, and without fear of God or faith with man. Whenever they are attacked defeat follows; so that in peace you are plundered by them, and in war by your enemies. And this because they have no tie or motive to keep them in the field beyond their paltry pay, in return for which it would be too much to expect them to give their lives. They are ready enough, therefore, to be your soldiers while you are at peace, but when war is declared they make off and disappear. I ought to have little difficulty in getting this believed, for the present ruin of Italy is due to no other cause than her having for many years trusted to mercenaries, who might have helped the fortunes of some one man, and made a show of strength when matched with one another, have always revealed themselves in their true colours as soon as foreign enemies appear. Hence it was that Charles of France was suffered to conquer Italy with chalk; and he who said our sins were the cause, said truly, though it was not the sins he meant, but those which I have noticed. And as these were the sins of Princes, they it is who have paid the penalty.

But I wish to demonstrate still more clearly the character of these forces. Captains of mercenaries are either able men or they are not. If they are, you cannot trust them, since they will always seek their own aggrandizement, either by overthrowing you who are their master, or by the overthrow of others, contrary to your desire. On the other hand, if your captain is not an able man the chances are that you will be ruined. And if it be said that whoever has arms in his hands will act in the some way whether he be a mercenary or no, I answer that when arms have to be employed by a Prince or a Republic, the Prince ought to go in person to take command as captain, and the Republic should send one of her citizens; if he proves incapable he should be replaced, but if he proves capable, the force of the laws should confine him within proper bounds. And we see from experience that both Princes and Republics, when they depend on their own arms, have the greatest success, but when they employ mercenaries, nothing but loss results. Moreover, a Republic trusting to her own forces presents greater difficulties to the would-be conqueror than one which relies on foreign arms brought to yield obedience to a single citizen. Rome and Sparta remained for ages armed and free. The Swiss are at once the best armed and the freest people in the world.

Of mercenary arms in ancient times, we have an example in the Carthaginians, who at the close of their first war with Rome, were well-nigh ruined by their hired troops, although these were commanded by Carthaginian citizens. So too when, on the death of Epaminondas, the Thebans made Philip of Macedon captain of their army: after gaining a victory for them, he deprived them of their liberty. The Milanese, in like manner when Duke Filippo died, took Francesco Sforza into their pay to conduct the war against the Venetians. But he, after defeating the enemy at Caravaggio, combined with them to overthrow the Milanese, his masters. His father too while in the pay of Giovanna, Queen of Naples, suddenly left her without troops, obliging her, in order to save her kingdom, to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon.

And if it be said that in times past the Venetians and the Florentines have extended their dominions by means of these arms, and that their captains have served them faithfully without seeking to make themselves their masters, I answer that, in this respect, the Florentines have been fortunate, because among those valiant captains who might have given them cause for fear, some have not been victorious, some have had rivals, and some have turned their ambition in other directions.

Among those not victorious was Giovanni Acuto, whose loyalty, since he was unsuccessful, was not put to the proof: but any one may see that, had he been victorious, the Florentines would have been entirely in his hands. The Sforzas, again, had constant rivals in the Bracceschi, so that the one force was a check upon the other. Moreover, the ambition of Francesco was directed against Milan, while that of Braccio was directed against the Church and the kingdom of Naples. Let us turn, however, to what took place lately. The Florentines chose for their captain Paolo Vitelli, a most prudent commander, who had raised himself from the commons to the highest renown in arms. Had he been successful in reducing Pisa, none can deny that the Florentines would have been completely in his power, for they would have been ruined had he gone over to their enemies, and if they had retained him, they would have submitted to his will.

Again as to the Venetians, if we consider the growth of their power, it will be seen that they conducted their affairs with glory and safety so long as their subjects of all ranks, gentle and simple alike, valiantly bore arms in their wars, as they did before they directed their enterprises landwards. But when they took to making war on land, they threw away those methods in which they excelled and were content to follow the customs of Italy.

At first, in extending their possessions on the mainland, having as yet little territory and being held in high repute, they had not much to fear from their captains; but when their lands increased, which they did under Carmagnola, they were taught their mistake. They had found him a most valiant and skilful leader when, under his command, they defeated the Duke of Milan, but when they saw him slack in carrying on the war, they made up their minds that no further victories were to be had under him. Because they feared losing what they had gained, they could not discharge him: they were forced to put him to death. After him they have had for captains: Bartolommeo of Bergamo; Roberto of san Severino; the Count of Pitigliano; and the like, under whom their danger has not been from victories, but from defeats; as, for instance, at Vaila, where they lost in a single day what it had taken the efforts of eight hundred years to acquire. For the gains resulting from mercenary arms are slow, and late, and inconsiderable, but the losses are sudden and astounding.

And since these examples have led me back to Italy, which for many years past has been defended by mercenary arms, I should go somewhat deeper into the matter, in order that the causes which led to the adoption of these arms be seen, and more readily corrected. You are to understand, then, that in these later times the Imperial control began to be rejected by Italy, and the temporal power of the Pope was more thought of: Italy suddenly split up into a number of separate States. Many of the larger cities took up arms against the nobles who, with the favour of the Emperor, had before kept their people in subjection, and these rebels were supported by the Church with a view to add to her temporal power - while, in many others of these cities, private citizens became rulers. Hence Italy, having passed almost entirely into the hands of the Church and of certain Republics - the former made up of priests, the latter of citizens unfamiliar with arms - began to take foreigners into her pay.

The first who gave reputation to this service was Alberigo of Conio in Romagna, from whose school of training in war descended, among others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. Then came all those others who, down to the present hour, have held similar commands, and to whose merits we owe our country being overrun by Charles, plundered by Louis, wasted by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Swiss.

The first object of these mercenaries was to bring foot soldiers into disrepute, in order to enhance the merit of their own followers; and this they did. Lacking territory of their own, and depending on their profession for their support, they were unable to provide a large number of foot soldiers, and the few they could raise gave them no respect. For these reasons they had recourse to horsemen, a smaller retinue of whom was thought to confer distinction, and could be more easily maintained. And the matter went to such a length, that in an army of twenty thousand men, not two thousand foot soldiers were to be found. Moreover, they spared no endeavour to relieve themselves and their men from fatigue and danger, not killing one another in battle, but making prisoners who were afterwards released without ransom. They would attack no town by night; those in towns would make no sortie by night against a besieging army. Their camps were without rampart or trench. They had no winter campaigns. All of these arrangements were sanctioned by their military rules, contrived by them, as I have said already, to escape fatigue and danger; but the result of which has been to bring Italy into servitude and contempt.

CHAPTER XIII: CONCERNING AUXILARIES, MIXED SOLDIERY, AND ONE'S OWN

THE second sort of unprofitable arms are auxiliaries, by whom I mean troops brought to help and protect you by a potentate whom you summon to your aid; as when in recent times, Pope Julius II., observing the pitiful behaviour of his mercenaries at the enterprise of Ferrara, used auxiliaries, and arranged with Ferdinand of Spain to be supplied with horse and foot soldiers.

Auxiliaries may be excellent and useful soldiers for themselves, but are always hurtful to him who calls them in; for if they are defeated, he is undone; if victorious, he becomes their prisoner. Ancient histories abound with instances of this, but I shall not pass from the example of Pope Julius, which is still fresh in men's minds. It was the height of rashness for him, in his eagerness to gain Ferrara, to throw himself without reserve into the arms of a stranger. Nevertheless, his good fortune came to his rescue, and he had to reap the fruits of his ill-considered conduct. For after the auxiliaries were defeated at Ravenna, the Swiss suddenly descended and, to their own surprise and that of everyone else, swept the victors out of the country, so that he neither remained a prisoner with his enemies, they being put to flight, nor with his auxiliaries, because victory was won by other arms than theirs. The Florentines, being wholly without soldiers of their own, brought ten thousand French men-at-arms to the siege of Pisa, thereby incurring greater peril than at any previous time of trouble. To protect himself from his neighbours, the Emperor of Constantinople summoned ten thousand Turkish soldiers into Greece, who, when the war was over, refused to leave, and this was the beginning of the servitude of Greece to the Infidel.

Let him, therefore, who would deprive himself of every chance of success, have recourse to auxiliaries: these are far more dangerous than mercenary arms, and bring ruin with them ready-made, for they are united, and wholly under the control of their own officers. Mercenaries, even after gaining a victory, cannot do you much hurt: longer time and better opportunities are needed. Because they are made up of separate companies, raised and paid by you, he whom you place in command cannot at once acquire such authority over them as will be injurious to you. In short: with mercenaries, your greatest danger is from their inertness and cowardice; with auxiliaries, from their valour. Wise Princes, therefore, have always eschewed these soldiers, and trusted their own, and have preferred defeat with the latter to victory with the former. They are sure that no true victory is gained by foreign aid.

I shall never hesitate to cite the example of Cesare Borgia and his actions. He entered Romagna with a force of auxiliaries, all of them French men-at-arms, with whom be took Imola and Forli. But it appeared to him afterwards that these troops were not to be trusted. He had recourse to mercenaries from whom he thought there would be less danger, and took the Orsini and Vitelli into his pay. But finding these troops under his command to also be fickle, false, and treacherous, he got rid of them, and fell back on troops of his own raising. And we may readily see the difference between these various kinds of arms, by observing the different degrees of reputation in which the Duke stood while be depended upon the French alone, when be took the Orsini and Vitelli into his pay, and when be fell back on his own troops and his own resources; for we find his influence always increasing, and that he was never so well thought of as when everyone perceived him to be sole master of his own forces.

I am unwilling to leave these examples, drawn from what has taken place in Italy and in recent times, and yet I must not omit to notice the case of Hero of Syracuse, who is one of those whom I have already named. He, as I have said earlier, being made captain of their armies by the Syracusans, saw at once that a force of mercenary soldiers, supplied by men resembling our Italian condottieri, was not serviceable; and as he would not retain and could not disband them, he caused them all to be cut to pieces, and afterwards made war with native soldiers only, without other aid.

And here I would call to mind a passage in the Old Testament that bears on this point. When David offered himself to Saul to go forth and fight Goliath, the Philistine champion, Saul armed him with his own armour, which David, so soon as he had put it on, rejected, saying that with these untried arms he could not prevail, and that he chose rather to meet his enemy with only his sling and his sword. In a word, the armour of others is too wide or too confining for us: it falls off us, or weighs us down.

Charles VIII., the father of Louis XI, who by his good fortune and valour freed France from the English, saw this necessity of strengthening himself with a national army, and drew up ordinances regulating the service both of men-at-arms and of foot soldiers throughout his kingdom. But afterwards his son, King Louis, did away with the national infantry, and began to hire Swiss mercenaries. This blunder has been followed by subsequent Princes, and has been the cause, as the result shows, of the dangers into which the kingdom of France has fallen; for, by enhancing the reputation of the Swiss, the whole of the national troops of France have decayed. Their infantry being done away with, their men-at-arms are now wholly dependent on foreign assistance, and are accustomed to co-operate with the Swiss; they have grown to think they can do nothing without them. Hence the French are no match for the Swiss, and without them cannot succeed against others.

The armies of France, then, are mixed, being partly national and partly mercenary. Armies thus composed are far superior to mere mercenaries or auxiliaries, but far inferior to purely national forces. This example is in itself conclusive, for the realm of France would be invincible if the military ordinances of Charles VII had been retained and extended. But from lack of foresight, men make reasonable changes which do not betray their hidden venom, as I have already observed respecting hectic fever. The ruler who cannot discern evils before they develop themselves is not truly wise: and this is a faculty given only to a few.

If we look for the causes which first led to the overthrow of the Roman Empire, they will be found to have had their source in the employment of Gothic mercenaries, for from that hour the strength of the Romans began to wane, and all the virtue which went from them passed to the Goths. And, to be brief, I say that without a national army, no Principality is safe, but on the contrary is wholly dependent on Fortune, being without the strength that could defend in adversity. And it has always been the considered opinion of the wise that nothing is so weak and fleeting as a reputation for power not founded upon a national army, one composed of subjects, citizens, and dependants, all others being mercenary or auxiliary.

The methods to be followed for organizing a national army may readily be seen, if the rules above laid down by me, and by which I myself follow, are well considered, and attention be given to the manner in which Philip, father of Alexander the Great, and many other Princes and Republics, have armed and disposed their forces.

CHAPTER XIV: THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

A PRINCE, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his specialty; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules, and is of such efficacy that it not merely maintains those who are born Princes, but often enables men to rise to that eminence from a private station; while, on the other hand, we often see that when Princes devote themselves rather to pleasure than to arms, they lose their dominions. And as neglect of this art is the prime cause of such calamities, so to be a proficient in it is the surest way to acquire power. Francesco Sforza, from his renown in arms, rose from privacy to be Duke of Milan, while his descendants, seeking to avoid the hardships and fatigues of military life, fell from being Princes back into shirtsleeves. Among other misfortunes which not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised as a weakling, and this is one of those labels against which, as shall presently be explained, a Prince ought most carefully to guard.

An armed and an unarmed man are never equal, and it is contrary to reason to expect that the armed man should voluntarily submit to those who are unarmed, or that the unarmed man should stand secure among armed retainers. For with contempt on one side, and distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well together, espeically if the one held in contempt is the one in charge. Therefore, as has already been said, a Prince who is ignorant of military affairs, besides other disadvantages, can neither be respected by his soldiers, nor can he trust them. A Prince, therefore, ought never to allow his attention to be diverted from warlike pursuits, and should occupy himself with them even more in times of peace than in war. This he can do in two ways, by practice or by study.

As to the practice, he ought, besides keeping his soldiers well trained and disciplined, to be constantly engaged in the hunt, the chase, that he may strengthen his body to endure hardships and fatigue, and gain at the some time a knowledge of places, by observing how the mountains slope, the valleys open, and the plains spread; acquainting himself with the characters of rivers and marshes, and giving the greatest attention to this subject. Such knowledge is useful to him in two ways: first, he learns to study his own country, and to understand better how it may be defended; and next, from his familiar acquaintance with its localities, he readily understands the character of other districts when obliged to observe them for the first time. For the hills, valleys, plains, rivers, and marshes of Tuscany, for example, have a certain resemblance to those elsewhere; so that from a knowledge of the natural features of that province, similar knowledge of other provinces may readily be gained. The Prince who is wanting in this kind of knowledge, is also lacking in the first qualification of a good captain, for this study teaches him how to surprise an enemy, how to choose an encampment, how to lead his army on a march, how to array it for battle, and how to post it to best advantage for a siege.

Among the commendations which Philopoemon, Prince of the Achaians, has received from historians is this: that in times of peace he was always thinking of methods of warfare, so that when walking in the country with his friends he would often stop and talk with them on the subject. 'If the enemy,' he would say, 'were posted on that hill, and we found ourselves here with our army, which of us would have the better position? How could we most safely and in the best order advance to meet them? If we had to retreat, what direction should we take? If they retired, how should we pursue?' In this way, he put to his friends, as he went along, all the contingencies that can befall an army. He listened to their opinions, stated his own, and supported them with reasons; and from his being constantly occupied with such meditations, it resulted that, when in actual command, no wrinkle could ever present itself with which he was not prepared to deal.

As to the mental training of which we have spoken, a Prince should read histories, and in these should note the actions of great men, observe how they conducted themselves in their wars, and examine the causes of their victories and defeats, so as to avoid the latter and imitate them in the former. And above all, he should, as many great men of past ages have done, assume for his models those persons who before his time have been renowned and celebrated, whose deeds and achievements he should constantly keep in mind, just as Alexander the Great sought to resemble Achilles, Cęsar Alexander, and Scipio Cyrus. And anyone who reads the life of this last-named hero, written by Xenophon, recognizes afterwards, in the life of Scipio, how much this imitation was the source of his glory, and how nearly in his chastity, affability, kindliness, and generosity, he lived up to the character of Cyrus as Xenophon describes it.

A wise Prince, therefore, should pursue these methods, never resting idle in times of peace, but strenuously seeking to turn them to advantage, so that he may derive strength from them in the hour of danger, and find himself ready, should Fortune turn against him, to resist her blows.

CHAPTER XV: THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

IT now remains for us to consider what ought to be the conduct and bearing of a Prince in relation to his subjects and friends. And since I know that many have written on this subject, I fear it may be thought presumptuous of me to write of it also; the more so, because in my treatment of it I depart from the views that others have taken.

But since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Principalities have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and the way we ought to live, are things so far apart, that he who quits the one to take up the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself, since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined by the many who are not good. It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to learn how to be other than good, and to use or not to use his goodness as necessity requires.

Let us lay aside, therefore, all fictional notions concerning a Prince, and consider those only that are true. I say that all men, when they are spoken of, and Princes more than others from their being set so high, are characterized by some of those qualities which attach either praise or blame. Thus one is accounted liberal, another miserly (which word I use, rather than avaricious, to denote the man who is too sparing of what is his own, avarice being the disposition to take wrongfully what is another's); one is generous, another greedy; one cruel, another tender-hearted; one is faithless, another true to his word; one effeminate and cowardly, another high-spirited and courageous; one is courteous, another haughty; one impure, another chaste; one simple, another crafty; one firm, another facile; one grave, another frivolous; one devout, another unbelieving; and the like. Every one, I know, will admit that it would be most ideal for a Prince to be endowed with all of the above qualities that are reckoned good; but since it is impossible for him to possess or constantly practise them all, the conditions of human nature not allowing it, he must be discreet enough to know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would deprive him of his government, and, if possible, be on his guard also against those which might not deprive him of it, though if he cannot wholly restrain himself, he may with less scruple indulge in the latter. He need never hesitate, however, to use those vices without which his authority can hardly be preserved; for if he considers the whole matter, he will find that there may be a line of conduct that appears virtuous, which following would lead to his ruin, and that there may be another course having the appearance of vice, by following which his safety and well-being are seeured.

CHAPTER XVI: CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS

BEGINNING, then, with the first of the qualities above listed, I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed liberal, but liberality without the reputation of it is hurtful; because, even though it be worthily and rightly used, if it be not known, you do not escape the reproach of its opposite vice. Hence, to have credit for liberality with the world at large, you must neglect no circumstance of sumptuous display; the result being that a Prince of a liberal disposition will consume his whole substance in things of this sort, and, after it all, be still obliged, if he would maintain his reputation for liberality, to burden his subjects with extraordinary taxes, and to resort to confiscations and all the other expedients whereby money is raised. But in this way he becomes hateful to his subjects, and growing impoverished is held in little esteem by any. So in the end, having by his liberality offended many and obliged few, he is worse off than when he began, and is exposed to all his original dangers. Recognizing this, and resolving to retrace his steps, he at once incurs the infamy of miserliness.

A Prince, therefore, since he cannot without injury to himself practise the virtue of liberality so that it may be known, will not, if he is wise, greatly concern himself if he is called miserly. Because in time he will come to be regarded as more and more liberal, when it is seen that through his parsimony his revenues are sufficient, that he is able to defend himself against any who make war on him, that he can engage in enterprises against others without burdening his subjects, and thus exercise liberality towards all from whom he does not take, whose number is infinite, while he is miserly in respect of those only to whom he does not give, whose number is few.

In our own days we have seen no Princes accomplish great results except those who have been called miserly. All others have been ruined. Pope Julius II., after availing himself of his reputation for liberality to arrive at the Papacy, made no effort to preserve that reputation when making war on the King of France, but carried on all his numerous campaigns without levying from his subjects a single extraordinary tax, providing for the increased expenditure out of his long-continued savings. Had the present King of Spain been accounted liberal, he never could have engaged or succeeded in so many enterprises.

A Prince, therefore, if he is enabled thereby to avoid plundering his subjects, to defend himself, to escape poverty and contempt and the necessity of becoming rapacious, ought to care little if he incurs the reproach of miserliness, for this is one of those vices which enable him to reign.

And should any object that Cęsar by his liberality rose to power, and that many others have been advanced to the highest dignities from their having been liberal and so reputed, I reply, 'Either you are already a Prince or you seek to become one. In the former case liberality is hurtful; in the latter, it is very necessary that you be thought liberal. Cęsar was one of those who sought the sovereignty of Rome; but if after obtaining it he had kept on without reducing his expenditure, he must have ruined the Empire.' And if it be further urged that many Princes reputed to have been most liberal have achieved great things with their armies, I answer that a Prince spends either what belongs to himself and his subjects, or what belongs to others; and that in the former case he ought to be sparing, but in the latter ought not to refrain from any kind of liberality. Because for a Prince who leads his armies in person and maintains them by plunder, pillage, and forced contributions, dealing as he does with the property of others, this liberality is necessary, since otherwise he would not be followed by his soldiers. If the property you have acquired does not belong to you or to your subjects, you should, therefore, be a lavish giver, as were Cyrus, Cęsar, and Alexander, for to be liberal with the property of others does not take from your reputation, but adds to it. What injures you is to give away what is your own. And there is no quality so self-destructive as liberality; for while you practise it you lose the means whereby it can be practised, and become poor and despised, or else, to avoid poverty, you become rapacious and hated. For liberality leads to one or other of these two results, against which, beyond all others, a Prince should guard.

It is wiser to put up with the name of being miserly, which breeds dislike without hate, than be obliged, from the desire to be reckoned liberal, to incur the charge of rapacity, which breeds hate as well as ignominy.

CHAPTER XVII: CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

PASSING to the other qualities above referred to, I say that every Prince should desire to be accounted merciful and not cruel. Nevertheless, he should be on his guard against the abuse of this quality of mercy. Cesare Borgia was reputed cruel, yet his cruelty restored Romagna, united it, and brought it to order and obedience; so that if we look things in their true light, it will be seen that he was in reality far more merciful than the people of Florence, who, to avoid the imputation of cruelty, suffered Pistonia to be torn to pieces by factions.

A Prince should therefore disregard the reproach of being thought cruel where it enables him to keep his subjects united and obedient. For he who quells disorder by a very few loud examples will in the end be more merciful than he who from too great leniency permits things to take their course and so to result in rapine and bloodshed; for these hurt the whole State, whereas the severities of the Prince injure individuals only.

And for a new Prince, above all others, it is impossible to escape a reputation for cruelty, since new States are full of dangers. This is why Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the harshness of her reign on the plea that it was new, saying: -

Nevertheless, the new Prince should not be too ready to believe, nor too easily set in motion; nor should he himself be the first to raise alarms; but should so temper prudence with kindliness that too great confidence in others shall not throw him off his guard, nor groundless distrust render him insupportable.

And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far better to be feared than loved. For of men, it may generally be conceded that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you only when danger is distant; but in the hour of need they turn against you. The Prince, therefore, who without otherwise securing himself, builds wholly on their promises is undone. For the friendships which we buy with a price, and do not gain by greatness and nobility of character, though they be fairly earned, are not durable, but fail us when we have occasion to need them.

Moreover, men more easily offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.

Nevertheless a Prince should inspire fear in such a fashion that, if he do not win love, he may escape hate. For a man may very well be feared and yet not hated, and that will be the case so long as he does not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens and subjects. And if the need arises to put any to death, he should do so only when there is manifest cause or reasonable justification. But, above all, he must abstain from taking the property of his subjects. For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Moreover, pretexts for confiscation are easy to find, and he who has begun to live by rapine always finds reasons for taking what is not his; whereas reasons for shedding blood are fewer, and sooner exhausted.

But when a Prince is with his army, and has many soldiers under his command, he almost needs the reproach of cruelty, for without such a reputation in its Captain, no army can be held together or kept under any kind of control. Among other things remarkable in Hannibal this must be noted: that having a very great army, made up of men of many different nations and brought to fight in a foreign country, no dissension ever arose among the soldiers themselves, nor any mutiny against their leader either in his good times or in his bad. This we can only ascribe to his transcendent cruelty, which, joined with numberless other great qualities, rendered him at once venerable and terrible in the eyes of his soldiers - for without this reputation for cruelty these other virtues would not have produced the like results.

Unreflecting writers, while praising his achievements, have condemned the chief cause of them; but that his other merits would not by themselves have been so effective, we may see from the case of Scipio. One of the greatest Captains, not only of his own time but of all times of which we have record, his armies rose against him in Spain from no other cause than his too great leniency in allowing them a freedom inconsistent with military strictness. With which weakness Fabius Maximus indicted him in the Senate, calling him the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. Again, when the Locrians were humiliatingly outraged by one of his lieutenants, he neither avenged them nor punished the insolence of his officer; and this from the natural easiness of his disposition. It was said in the Senate, by one who sought to excuse him, that there were many who knew better how to refrain from doing wrong themselves than how to correct the wrong-doing of others. This temper, however, must in time have marred the name and fame even of Scipio had he continued in it and retained his command. But living as he did under the control of the Senate, this hurtful quality was not merely disguised, but came to be regarded as a glory.

Returning to the question of being loved or feared, I sum up by saying that since his being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself, a wise Prince should build on what is his own, and not on what rests with others. Only, as I have said, he must do his utmost to escape hatred.

CHAPTER XVIII: CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

EVERY one understands how praiseworthy it is for a Prince to keep faith, and to live uprightly and not craftily. Nevertheless, we see from what has taken place in our own days that Princes who have not kept their word, and have known how to overreach men by their cunning, have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealing.

Be it known, then, that there are two ways of contending: one in accordance with the laws, the other by force; the first of which is proper to men, the second to beasts. But since the first method is often ineffectual, it becomes necessary to resort to the second. A Prince should, therefore, understand how to use well both the man and the beast. And this lesson has been covertly tought by the ancient writers, who relate how Achilles and many others of these old Princes were given over to be brought up and trained by Chiron the Centaur. The only meaning of their having an instructor who was half man and half beast is that it is necessary for a Prince to know how to use both natures, and that the one without the other has no stability.

But a Prince should know how to use the beast's nature wisely. He ought to emulate both the lion and the fox; for the lion cannot guard himself from the net of Liliput, and the fox cannot guard himself from wolves. He must therefore be a fox to discern these nets, and a lion to drive off the wolves.

To rely wholly on the lion is unwise; and for this reason a prudent Prince neither can nor ought to keep his word when to keep it is hurtful to him and the causes which led him to pledge it are removed. If all men were good, this would not be good advice, but since they are dishonest and do not keep faith with you, you, in return, need not keep faith with them; and no prince was ever at a loss for plausible reasons to cloak a breach of faith. Of this, numberless recent instances could be given, and it might shown how many solemn treaties and engagements have been rendered inoperative and idle through want of faith in Princes, and that he who was best known to play the fox has had the best success.

It is necessary, indeed, to put a good colour on this nature and to be skilful in simulating and dissembling. But men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes. Here is one recent example. Pope Alexander VI. had no care or thought but how to deceive, and always found material to work on. No man ever had a more effective manner of pledging, or made promises with more solemn protestations, or observed them less. And yet, because he understood this side of human nature, his frauds always succeeded.

It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above, but it is essential that he should seem to have them; I will venture to affirm that if he has and invariably practises them all, they are hurtful, whereas the appearance of having them is useful. Thus, it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, religions, and upright, and also to be so; but the mind should remain so balanced that were it needful not to be so, you should be able and know how to change to the contrary.

And you are to understand that a Prince, and most of all a new Prince, cannot observe all those rules of conduct in respect whereof men are accounted good, being often forced, in order to preserve his Principality, to act in opposition to good faith, charity, humanity, and religion. He must therefore keep his mind ready to shift as the winds and tides of Fortune turn, and, as I have already said, he ought not to quit good courses if he can help it, but should know how to follow evil courses if he must.

A Prince should therefore be very careful that nothing ever escapes his lips which is not replete with the five qualities above named, so that to see and hear him, one would think him the embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion. And there is no virtue which it is more necessary for him to seem to possess than this last; because men in general judge rather by the eye than by the hand, for every one can see but few can touch. Every one sees what you seem, but few know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many who have the majesty of the State to back them up.

Moreover, in the actions of all men, and most of all of Princes, where there is no tribunal to which we can appeal, we look to results. Wherefore if a Prince succeeds in establishing and maintaining his authority, the means will always be judged honourable and be approved by every one. For the vulgar are always taken by appearances and by results, and the world is made up of the vulgar, the few only finding room where the many no longer wish to stand.

A certain Prince of our own days, whose name it is as well not to mention, is always preaching peace and good faith, although he is the mortal enemy of both; and both, had he practised them as he preaches them, would, more than once, have lost him his kingdom and authority.

CHAPTER XIX: THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED

HAVING now spoken of the chief of the qualities above referred to, the rest I shall dispose of briefly with these general remarks, that a Prince, as has already in part been said, should consider how he may avoid such courses which would make him hated or despised, and that whenever he succeeds in keeping clear of these, he has performed his part and runs no risk, though he incur other infamies.

A Prince, as I have said before, sooner becomes hated by being rapacious and by interfering with the property and with the women of his subjects, than in any other way. From these, therefore, he should abstain. For so long as neither their property nor their honour is touched, the mass of mankind live contentedly, and the Prince has only to cope with the ambition of a few, which can in many ways and easily be kept within bounds.

A prince is despised when he is seen to be fickle, frivolous, effeminate, pusillanimous, or irresolute, against which defects he ought therefore most carefully to guard, striving so to bear himself that greatness, courage, wisdom, and strength may appear in all his actions. In his private dealings with his subjects his decisions should be irrevocable and his reputation such that no one would dream of overreaching or cajoling him.

The Prince who inspires such an opinion of himself is greatly esteemed, and against one who is greatly esteemed conspiracy is difficult; nor, when he is known to be an excellent Prince and held in reverence by his subjects, will it be easy to attack him. For a Prince is exposed to two dangers, from within in respect of his subjects, from without in respect of foreign powers. Against the latter he will defend himself with good arms and good allies, and if he have good arms he will always have good allies; and when things are settled abroad, they will always be settled at home, unless disturbed by conspiracies; and even should there be hostility from without, if he has taken those measures, and has lived in the way I have recommended, and if he never abandons hope, he will withstand every attack. What I have said was done by Nabis the Spartan.

Regarding his own subjects, when affairs are quiet abroad, he has to fear they may engage in secret plots; against which a Prince best secures himself when he escapes being hated or despised, and keeps on good terms with his people; and this, as I have already shown at length, it is essential he should do. Not being hated or despised by the body of his subjects is one of the surest safeguards that a Prince can have against conspiracy. For he who conspires always reckons on pleasing the people by putting the Prince to death; but when he sees that instead of pleasing he will offend them, he cannot summon the courage to carry out his design. For the difficulties that conspirators have to face are infinite, and we know from experience that while there have been many conspiracies, few of them have succeeded.

He who conspires cannot do so alone, nor can he take in as his companions any except those whom he believes to be discontented; but as soon as you impart your design to a discontented man, you also supply him with the means of removing his discontent - by betraying you. He can win for himself every advantage if he does so; so he sees on the one hand a certain gain, and on the other a doubtful and dangerous risk, so he must either be a close friend to you, or the mortal enemy of his Prince, if he keep your secret.

To put the matter shortly, I say that the conspirator has to face distrust, jealousy, and dread of punishment which deter him, while on the side of the Prince there are the laws, the majesty of the throne, the protection of friends, and of the government to defend him; to which if the general good-will of the people are added, it is hardly possible that any should be rash enough to conspire. In ordinary cases, the conspirator has grounds for fear only before the execution of his villainy; in this case, he must also have cause for fear after the crime has been perpetrated, since he has the people for his enemy, and is thus cut off from every hope of shelter.

Endless instances of this might be given, but I shall content myself with one that happened within the recollection of our fathers. Messer Annibale Bentivoglio, Lord of Bologna and grandfather of the present Messer Annibale, was conspired against and murdered by the Canneschi, leaving behind none belonging to him save Messer Giovanni, then an infant in arms. Immediately upon the murder, the people rose and put all the Canneschi to death. This resulted from the general goodwill with which the House of the Bentivogli was then regarded in Bologna; which feeling was so strong, that when upon the death of Messer Annibale no one was left who could govern the State. There being reason to believe that a descendant of the family (who up to that time had been thought to be the son of a smith) was living in Florence, the citizens of Bologna came there for him, and entrusted him with the government of their city; which he retained until Messer Giovanni was old enough to govern.

To be brief, a Prince has little to fear from conspiracies when his subjects are well disposed towards him; but when they are hostile and detest him, he has then reason to fear everything and everyone. Well-ordered States and wise Princes have taken extreme care that the nobility shall not be driven to desperation, and that the commoners shall be kept satisfied and contented; for this is one of the most important matters that a Prince has to look to.

Among the well-ordered and governed Kingdoms of our day is that of France, where we find an infinite number of wise institutions, upon which depend the freedom and the security of the King, and of which the most important are the Parliament and its authority. For he who gave its constitution to this Realm, knowing the ambition and arrogance of the nobles, and judging it necessary to bridle and restrain them, and on the other hand knowing the hatred, originating in fear, entertained against them by the commoners, and desiring that they should be safe, was unwilling that the responsibility for this should rest on the King; and to relieve him of the ill-will which he might incur with the nobles by favouring the commoners, or with the commoners by favouring the nobles, appointed a third party to be arbitrator, who without committing the King, might depress the nobles and uphold the commoners. Nor could there be any better, wiser, or surer safeguard for the King and the Kingdom. And hence we may draw another notable lesson, namely, that Princes should devolve on others those matters that entail responsibility, and reserve to themselves those that relate to grace and favour. And again I say that a Prince should esteem the great, but must not make himself odious to the people.

To some it may perhaps appear, if the lives and deaths of many of the Roman Emperors are considered, that they offer examples opposed to the views expressed by me; since we find that some among them who had always lived good lives, and shown themselves possessed of great qualities, were nevertheless deposed and even put to death by their subjects who had conspired against them.

In answer to such objections, I shall examine the characters of several Emperors, and show that the causes of their downfall were in no way different from those which I have said. In doing this I shall submit for consideration only those matters which must strike every one who reads the history of these times; and it will be enough for my purpose to take those Emperors who reigned from the time of Marcus the Philosopher to the time of Maximinus, who were, inclusively, Marcus, Commodus his son, Pertinax, Julianus, Severtis, Caracalla his son, Macrinus, Heliogabalus, Alexander, and Maximinus.

In the first place, we have to note that, while in other Principalities the Prince has only to contend with the ambition of the nobles and the insubordination of the people, the Roman Emperors had a further difficulty in the cruelty and rapacity of their soldiers, which were so distracting as to cause the ruin of many of these Princes. For it was hardly possible for them to satisfy both the soldiers and the people: the latter loved peace and therefore preferred sober Princes; while the former preferred a Prince of a warlike spirit, however harsh, haughty, or rapacious, and were willing that he should exercise these qualities against the people, as the means of procuring for themselves double pay and indulging their greed and cruelty.

It followed that those Emperors who had not inherited or won for themselves such authority which could enable them to keep both people and soldiers in check, were always ruined. Most of them, and those especially who came to the Empire new and without experience, seeing the difficulty of dealing with these conflicting constituencies, set themselves to satisfy the soldiers, and worried little about offending the people. For them, this was a necessary course to take: if Princes cannot escape being hated by some, they should, in the first place, be hated by a class; failing in this, they must do all they can to escape the hatred of that class which is the stronger. Therefore those Emperors who, by reason of their newness, stood in need of extraordinary support, sided with the soldiery rather than with the people; a course which turned out advantageous or otherwise according as the Prince knew, or did not know, how to maintain his authority over them.

From these causes, it resulted that Marcus, Pertinax and Alexander, being Princes of a temperate disposition, lovers of justice, enemies of cruelty, gentle and kindly, had all, save Marcus, an unhappy end. Marcus alone lived and died honoured in the highest degree; and this because he had succeeded to the Empire by right of inheritance, and not through the favour either of the soldier or of the people; and also because, being endowed with many virtues which made him revered, he kept, while he lived, both factions within bounds, and was never either hated or despised.

But Pertinax was chosen Emperor against the will of the soldiery, who being accustomed to a licentious life under Commodus, could not tolerate the stricter discipline to which his successor sought to bring them back. And having thus made himself hated, and being at the some time despised by reason of his advanced age, he was ruined at the very outset of his reign.

And here it is to be noted that hatred is incurred as well from good actions as well as bad; for which reason, as I have already said, a Prince who would maintain his authority is often compelled to be other than good. For when the class, be it the people, the soldiers, or the nobles, on whom you judge it necessary to rely for your support are corrupt, you need to adapt yourself to this, and satisfy them, in which case virtuous conduct will only attract their hostility.

Let us now come to Alexander, who was so just a ruler that among the praises ascribed to him it is recorded that, during the fourteen years he held the Empire, no man was ever put to death by him without trial. Nevertheless, being accounted effeminate and thought to be governed by his mother, he fell into contempt, and the army conspiring against him, slew him.

When we turn to consider the characters of Commodus, Severus, and Caracalla, we find them all to have been most cruel and rapacious Princes, who to satisfy the soldiery, did not hesitate to inflict every kind of wrong upon the people. And all of them, except Severus, came to a bad end. But in Severus there was such strength of character, that he kept the soldiers his friends, and he was able, although he oppressed the people, to reign on prosperously to the end. Because his great qualities made him so admirable in the eyes both of the people and the soldiers, the former remained amazed and awestruck, while the latter were respectful and contented.

And because his actions, for one who was a new Prince were thus remarkable, I will point out shortly how well he understood to play the part both of the lion and of the fox, each of which natures, as I have observed before, a Prince should know how to assume.

Knowing the indolent disposition of the Emperor Julianus, Severus persuaded the army which he commanded in Illyria that it was their duty to go to Rome to avenge the death of Pertinax, who had been slain by the Praetorian guards. Under this pretext, and without disclosing his design on the Empire, he put his army in march, and reached Italy before it was known that he had set out. On his arrival in Rome, the Senate, through fear, elected him Emperor and put Julianus to death. After taking this first step, two obstacles remained to his becoming sole master of the Empire: the first in Asia, where the commander of the armies of the East, Niger, had caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor; the other in the West, where Albinus, who also aspired to the Empire, was in command. And as Severus judged it dangerous to declare open war against both, he resolved to proceed against Niger by arms, and against Albinus by strategem. To the latter, accordingly, he wrote, that having been chosen Emperor by the Senate, he desired to share the dignity with him; that he therefore sent him the title of Caesar, and in accordance with a resolution of the Senate assumed him as his colleague. All of these statements Albinus accepted as true. But as soon as Severus had defeated and slain Niger, restored tranquillity in the East, and returned to Rome, he complained in the Senate that Albinus, unmindful of the favours he had received from him, had treacherously sought to destroy him; for which cause he was compelled to go and punish his ingratitude. Whereupon he set forth to seek Albinus in Gaul, where he at once deprived him both of his dignities and his life.

Whoever examines carefully the actions of this Emperor, will find in him all the fierceness of the lion and the craft of the fox, and will note how he was feared and respected by the people, yet not hated by the army, and not be surprised that, though a new man, he was able to maintain his hold of so great an Empire. For the splendour of his reputation always shielded him from the odium which the people might otherwise have conceived against him by reason of his cruelty and rapacity.

Caracalla, his son, was likewise a man of great parts, endowed with qualities that made him admirable in the sight of the people and those which endeared him to the army, being of warlike spirit, most patient of fatigue, and condemning all luxury in food and every other effeminacy. Nevertheless, his ferocity and cruelty were so extravagant and unheard of (he having put to death a vast number of the inhabitants of Rome at different times, and the whole of those of Alexandria at a stroke), that he came to be detested by all the world, and so feared even by those whom he had about him, that he was slain by a centurion in the midst of his army.

And here let it be noted that deaths like this, which are the result of a deliberate and fixed resolve, cannot be escaped by Princes, since any one who disregards his own life can effect them. A Prince, however, need not fear them that much as they are seldom attempted. The only precaution he can take is to avoid doing grave wrong to any of those who serve him, or whom he has near him as officers of his Court, a precaution which Caracalla neglected in putting to a shameful death the brother of this centurion, and in using daily threats against the man himself, while nevertheless retaining this centurion as one of his bodyguard. This, as the event showed, was a rash and fatal course.

We come next to Commodus, who, as he took the Empire by hereditary right, ought to have held it with much ease. For being the son of Marcus, he had only to follow in his father's footsteps to content both the people and the soldiery. But being of a cruel and brutal nature, he sated his rapacity at the expense of the people; he sought support from the army, and indulged it in every kind of excess. On the other hand, with an utter disregard of his dignity, he frequently descended into the arena to fight with gladiators, and by other base acts, wholly unworthy of the Imperial station, he became contemptible in the eyes of the soldiery. Being on the one hand hated, on the other despised, he was at last conspired against and murdered.

The character of Maximinus remains to be touched upon. He was of a very warlike disposition, and on the death of Alexander, of whom we have already spoken, he was chosen Emperor by the army who had been displeased with the effeminacy of the previous Prince. But this dignity he did not long enjoy, since two causes concurred to render him at once odious and contemptible; the first being the baseness of his origin, he having at one time herded sheep in Thrace, a fact well known to all and which led all to look on him with disdain; the other that, on being proclaimed Emperor, he delayed to return to Rome and take possession of the Imperial throne. He incurred the reputation of excessive cruelty by reason of the many atrocities perpetrated by his prefects in Rome and other parts of the Empire. The result was that the whole world, stirred at once with scorn of his mean birth and with the hatred which the dread of his ferocity inspired, combined against him; Africa leading the way, the Senate and people of Rome and the whole of Italy following. This conspiracy his own army joined. For they, being engaged in the siege of Aquileja and finding difficulty in reducing it, became disgusted with his cruelty, and less afraid of him when they saw so many against him, put him to death.

I need say nothing of Heliogabalus, Macrinus, or Julianus. All of them were utterly despicable; all came to a speedy downfall. But I shall conclude these remarks by observing that the Princes of our own days are less troubled with the difficulty of having to make constant efforts to keep their soldiers in good humour. For though they must treat them with some indulgence, the need for doing so is soon over, since none of these Princes possesses a standing army which, like the armies of the Roman Empire, has strengthened with the growth of his government and the administration of his State. If it was then necessary to satisfy the soldiers rather than the people, because the soldiers were more powerful than the people, now it is more necessary for Princes, except the Turk and the Soldan, to satisfy the people rather than the soldiery, since the former are more powerful than the latter.

I except the Turk because he has always about him some twelve thousand foot soldiers and fifteen thousand horses, on whom depend the security and strength of his kingdom, and with whom he needs to keep on good terms; all regard for the people is subordinate. The government of Soldan is similar; he too is wholly in the hands of his soldiers, and must stay in their good books without regard to the people.

Here you should note that the State of the Soldan, while it is unlike all other Principalities, resembles the Christian Pontificate in this: that it can neither be classed as new nor as hereditary. For the sons of a Soldan who dies do not succeed to the kingdom as his heirs: the new Soldan is one who is elected to the post by those who have authority to make such elections. Since this is the ancient and established order of things, the Principality cannot be counted as new, since none of the difficulties that attend new Principalities are found in it. For, although the Prince is new, the institutions of the State are old, and are so contrived that the elected Prince is accepted as though he were a hereditary Sovereign.

But returning to the matter in hand, I say that whoever reflects on the above reasoning will see that either hatred or contempt was the ruin of the Emperors whom I have named; and will also understand how it happened that, with some taking one way and others the opposite, one road only came to a happy end, and all the rest of them brought grief. Because for Pertinax and Alexander, they being new Princes, would have only hurt themseves by trying to imitate Marcus, who was an hereditary Prince; and similarly for Caracalla, Commodus, and Maximinus: it was a fatal error to imitate Severus, since they lacked the qualities that would have enabled them to tread in his footsteps.

In short, a Prince new to the Principality cannot imitate the actions of Marcus, nor is it necessary that he should imitate all those of Severus; but he should borrow from Severus those parts of his conduct which are needed to serve as a foundation for his government, and from Marcus those suited to maintain it, and render it glorious when established.

CHAPTER XX: ARE FORTRESSES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO WHICH PRINCES RESORT, ADVANTAGEOUS OR HURTFUL?

To govern more securely, some Princes have disarmed their subjects, and others have kept the towns subject to them divided by factions; some have fostered hostility against themselves, others have sought to win over those who at the beginning of their reign were looked on with suspicion; some have built fortresses, others have dismantled and destroyed them; and though no definite judgment can be pronounced respecting any of these methods, without regard to the special circumstances of the State to which it is proposed to apply them, I shall nevertheless speak of them in as comprehensive a way as the nature of the subject will admit.

It is never seen that any new Prince has disarmed his subjects. On the contrary, when he has found them unarmed he has always armed them. For the arms thus provided become yours, those whom you suspected grow faithful, while those who were faithful at the first, continue so, and from your subjects become your partisans. And though all your subjects cannot be armed, if those of them whom you arm are treated with marked favour, you can deal more securely with the rest. For the difference which those whom you supply with arms perceive in their treatment, will bind them to you, while the others will excuse you, recognizing that those who incur greater risk and responsibility merit greater rewards. But by disarming, you at once give offence, since you show your subjects that you distrust them, either doubting their courage or doubting their fidelity, each of which imputations begets hatred against you. Moreover, as you cannot maintain yourself with arms, you must rely on mercenary troops. What these are I have already shown, but even if they were good, they could never avail to defend you, against both powerful enemies abroad and against subjects whom you distrust. Wherefore, as I have said already, new Princes in new Principalities have always provided for their subjects being armed; and of instances of this history is full.

But when a Prince acquires a new State, which thus becomes joined on like a limb to his old possessions, he must disarm its inhabitants, except those of them who have allied with him while he was acquiring it; and even these, as time and occasion serve, he should seek to render soft and effeminate; and he must so manage matters that all the arms of the new State shall be in the hands of his own soldiers who have served under him in his old dominions.

Our forefathers, even those among them who were judged wise, were inclined to say that 'Pistoja was to be held by feuds, and Pisa by fortresses,' and using this principle, promoted dissentions in various subject towns with a view to retain them with less effort. At a time when Italy was in some measure in equilibrium, this may have been a prudent course to follow; but at the present day it seems impossible to recommend it as a general rule of policy. For I do not believe that divisions purposely caused can ever lead to good; on the contrary, when an enemy approaches, divided cities are lost at once, for the weaker faction will always side with the invader, and the other will not be able to stand alone.

The Venetians, influenced as I believe by the reasons above mentioned, fostered the factions of Guelf and Ghibelline in the cities subject to them; and though they did not want blood to be shed, fomented feuds, in order that the citizens whose minds were occupied with these disputes would not conspire against them. But this, as we know, did not turn out to their advantage, for after Venice's defeat at Vaila, one of the two factions, suddenly taking courage, deprived the Venetians of the whole of their territory.

Methods like these show weakness in a Prince, for under a strong government such divisions would never be permitted, since they are profitable only in time of peace as an expedient whereby subjects may be more easily managed; but when war breaks out their insufficiency is quickly shown.

Princes become great by vanquishing difficulties and opposition, and Fortune, on that account, when she desires to aggrandize a new Prince, who has more need than an hereditary Prince to win a reputation, causes enemies to spring up, and urges them on to attack him. This gives him opportunities to overcome them, and make his ascent by the very ladder which they have planted. For this reason, many are of the opinion that a wise Prince, when he has the occasion, ought skillfully to promote hostility to himself in certain quarters, in order that his greatness may be enhanced by crushing it.

Princes, and new Princes especially, have found greater fidelity and helpfulness in those whom, at the beginning of their reign, they have held in suspicion, than in those who at the outset have enjoyed their confidence. Pandolfo Petrucci, Lord of Siena, governed his State by the instrumentality of those whom he had at one time distrusted, in preference to all others. But on this point it is impossible to lay down any general rule, since the course to be followed varies with the circumstances. This only I will say: that those men who at the beginning of a reign have been hostile, if they require support to maintain them, may always be won over by the Prince with much ease, and are the more bound to serve him faithfully because they know that they have to wipe out by their conduct the unfavourable impression he had formed of them; and in this way a Prince always obtains better help from them than from those who, serving him in too complete security, neglect his affairs.

And since the subject suggests it, I must not fail to remind the Prince who acquires a new State through the favour of its inhabitants, to weigh well what the causes were which led those who favoured him to do so; and if it be seen that they have acted, not from any natural affection for him, but merely out of discontent with the former government, that he will find the greatest difficulty in keeping them his friends, since it will be impossible for him to satisfy them. Carefully considering the cause of this, with the aid of examples taken from times ancient and modem, he will perceive that it is far easier to secure the friendship of those who, being satisfied with things as they stood, were for that very reason his enemies, than of those who sided with him and aided him in his usurpation only because they were discontented.

It has been customary for Princes, with a view to hold their dominions more securely, to build fortresses which might serve as a curb and restraint on those that have designs against them, and as a sole refuge against a first attack. I approve of this custom, because it has been followed from the earliest times. Nevertheless, in our own days, Messer Niccolo Vitelli thought it prudent to dismantle the fortresses, in Cittą di Castello, in order to secure that town: and Guido Ubaldo, Duke of Urbino, on returning to his dominions, whence he had been driven by Cesare Borgia, razed to their foundations the fortresses throughout the Dukedom, judging that if these were removed, it would not again be so easily lost. A like course was followed by the Bentivogli on their return to Bologna.

Fortresses, therefore, are useful or not, according to circumstances, and if in one way they benefit, in another they injure you. We may state the case thus: the Prince who is more afraid of his subjects than of strangers ought to build fortresses, while he who is more afraid of strangers than of his subjects, should leave them alone. The citadel built by Francesco Sforza in Milan, has been, and will hereafter prove to be, more dangerous to the House of Sforza than any other disorder of that State. On the whole, the best fortress you can have is in not being hated by your subjects. If they hate you, no fortress will save you; once the people take up arms, foreigners are always willing to assist them.

Within our own time it does not appear that fortresses have been of service to any Prince, except to the Countess of Forli after her husband Count Girolamo was murdered; for by this means she was able to escape the first onset of the insurgents, and awaiting aid from Milan, to recover her State, the circumstances of the times not allowing any foreigner to lend assistance to the people. But afterwards when she was attacked by Cesare Borgia, and the people, out of hostility to her, sided with the invader, her fortresses were of little avail. So, both on this and on the former occasion, it would have been safer for her to have had no fortresses, than to have had her subjects for enemies.

All considerations taken into account, I shall applaud him who builds fortresses, and him who does not; but I shall blame him who, trusting in them, reckons it a light thing to be held in hatred by his people.

CHAPTER XXI: HOW A PRINCE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF SO AS TO GAIN RENOWN

NOTHING makes a Prince so well thought of as to undertake great enterprises and give striking proofs of his capacity.

Among the Princes of our time, Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain, may almost be accounted a new Prince, since from one of the weakest he has become, for fame and glory, the foremost King in Christendom. And if you consider his achievements you will find them all great and some extraordinary.

In the beginning of his reign he made war on Granada, which enterprise was the foundation of his power. At first, he carried on the war leisurely, without fear of interruption, and kept the attention and thoughts of the Barons of Castile so completely occupied with it, that they had no time to think of changes at home. Meanwhile he subtly acquired reputation among them and authority over them. With the money of the Church and of his subjects he was able to maintain his armies, and during the prolonged contest to lay the foundations of that military discipline which afterwards made him so famous. Moreover, to enable him to engage in still greater undertakings, always covering himself with the cloak of religion, he had recourse to what may be called pious cruelty, in driving out and clearing his Kingdom of the Moors: this exploit was his most wonderful or uncommon one. Using the same pretext, he made war on Africa, invaded Italy, and finally attacked France; and being thus constantly busied in planning and executing vast designs, he kept the minds of his subjects in suspense and admiration and occupied with the results of his actions, which arose one out of another in such close succession as left neither time nor opportunity to oppose them.

Again, it greatly profits a prince, in conducting the internal government of his State, to follow striking methods, such as are recorded of Messer Bemabo of Milan, whenever the remarkable actions of any one in civil life, whether for good or for evil, afford him occasion; and to choose such ways of rewarding and punishing as cannot fail to be much spoken of. But above all, he should strive by all his actions to inspire a sense of his greatness and goodness.

A Prince is likewise esteemed who is a staunch friend and a thorough foe, that is to say who without reserve openly declares for one against another, this being always a more advantageous course than to stand neutral. Suppose that two of your powerful neighbours come to blows: it must either be that you have, or have not, reason to fear the one who comes off victorious. In either case it will always be well for you to declare yourself, and join in explicitly with one side or another. Should you fail to do so you are certain, in the former of the cases put, to become the prey of the victor to the satisfaction and delight of the vanquished, and no reason or circumstance that you may plead will avail to shield or shelter you; for the victor dislikes doubtful friends, and such as will not help him at a pinch; and the vanquished will have nothing to say to you, since you would not share his fortunes sword in hand.

When Antiochus, at the instance of the Ętolians, passed into Greece in order to drive out the Romans, he sent envoys to the Achaians, who were friendly to the Romans, exhorting them to stand neutral. The Romans, on the other hand, urged them to take up arms on their behalf. The matter coming to be discussed in the Council of the Achaians, the legate of Antiochus again urged neutrality, whereupon the Roman envoy answered - 'Nothing can be less to your advantage than the course which has been recommended as the best and most useful for your State, namely, to refrain from taking any part in our war, for by standing aloof you will gain neither favour nor fame, but remain the prize of the victor.' And it will always happen that he who is not your friend will invite you to neutrality, while he who is your friend will call on you to declare yourself openly in arms. Irresolute Princes, to escape immediate danger, commonly follow the neutral path, in most instances to their destruction. But when you pronounce valiantly in favour of one side or other, if he to whom you give your adherence conquers, although he be powerful and you are at his mercy, still he is under obligations to you, and has become your friend; and none are so lost to shame as to destroy, with manifest ingratitude, one who has helped them. Victories are never so complete that the victor can afford to disregard all considerations whatsoever, more especially considerations of justice. On the other hand, if he with whom you take part should lose, you will always be favourably regarded by him; while he can he will aid you, and you become his companion in a cause which may recover.

In the second case, namely, when both combatants are of such limited strength that the party who wins you have no cause to fear, it is all the more prudent for you to take a side, for you will then be ruining the one with the help of the other. If he whom you help conquers, he remains in your power, and with your aid he cannot but conquer.

And let it be noted here that a Prince should be careful never to join with one stronger than himself in attacking others, unless, as already said, he is driven to it by necessity. For if he whom you join prevails, you are at his mercy; and Princes, so far as in them lies, should avoid placing themselves at the mercy of others. The Venetians, although they might have declined the alliance, joined with France against the Duke of Milan, which brought about their ruin. But when an alliance cannot be avoided, as was the case with the Florentines when the Pope and Spain together led their armies to attack Lombardy, a Prince, for the reasons given, must take a side. Nor let it be supposed that any State can choose for itself a perfectly safe line of policy. On the contrary, it must reckon on every course which it may take being doubtful; for it happens in all human affairs that we never seek to escape one mischief without falling into another. Prudence therefore consists in knowing how to distinguish degrees of disadvantage, and in accepting a less evil as a good.

Again, a Prince should show himself a patron of merit, and should honour those who excel in every art. He ought accordingly to encourage his subjects by enabling them to pursue their callings, whether mercantile, agricultural, or any other, in security, so that this man shall not be deterred from beautifying his possessions from the apprehension that they may be taken from him, or that others refrain from opening a trade through fear of taxes; and he should provide rewards for those who desire so to employ themselves, and for all who are disposed in any way to add to the greatness of his City or State.

He ought, moreover, at suitable seasons of the year entertain the people with festivals and shows. And because all cities are divided into guilds and companies, he should show attention to these societies, and sometimes take part in their meetings; offering an example of courtesy and munificence, but always maintaining the dignity of his station, which must under no circumstances be compromised.

CHAPTER XXII: CONCERNING THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES

THE choice of Ministers is a matter of no small importance to a Prince. Whether they shall be good or not depends on his prudence, so that the readiest conjecture we can form of the character and society of a Prince, is from seeing what sort of men he has about him. When they are at once capable and faithful, we may always account him wise, since he has known to recognize their merit and to retain their fidelity. But if they be otherwise, we must pronounce unfavourably of him, since he has committed a first fault in making this selection.

There was none who knew Messer Antonio of Venafro as Minister of Pandolfo Petrucci, Lord of Siena, but thought Pandolfo a most prudent ruler in having him for his servant. And since there are three scales of intelligence, one which understands by itself, a second which understands what is shown it by others, and a third which understands neither by itself nor on the showing of others - the first of which is most excellent, the second good, but the third worthless - we must admit that if Pandolfo was not in the first of these degrees, he was in the second; for when one has the judgment to discern the good from the bad in what another says or does, though he be devoid of creativity, he can recognize the merits and demerits of his servant, and can commend the former while he corrects the latter. The servant cannot hope to deceive such a master, and will continue to be good.

As to how a Prince is to know his Minister, this unerring rule may be laid down. When you see a Minister thinking more of himself than of you, and in all his actions seeking his own ends, this man can never be a good Minister or one that you can trust. For he who has the charge of the State committed to him, ought not to think of himself, but only of his Prince, and should never bring to the notice of the latter what does not directly concern him. On the other hand, to keep his Minister good, the prince should be considerate of him, dignifying him, enriching him, binding him to himself by benefits, and sharing with him the honours as well as the burdens of the State, so that the abundant honours and wealth bestowed upon him may divert him from seeking them through other hands. The great responsibilities which with such a Minister is charged may lead him to dread change, knowing that he cannot stand alone without his master's support. When Prince and Minister are upon this footing they can mutually trust one another; but when the contrary is the case, it will always fare ill with one or other of them.

CHAPTER XXIII: HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

ONE error into which Princes, unless they are very prudent or very fortunate in their choice of friends, are apt to fall, is of so great importance that I must not pass it over. I mean in respect of flatterers. These abound in Courts, because men take such pleasure in their own concerns, and so deceive themselves with regard to them, that they can hardly escape this plague; while even in the effort to escape it there is risk of their incurring contempt.

For there is no way to guard against flattery but by letting it be seen that you take no offence in hearing the truth: but when everyone is free to tell you the truth respect falls short. So a prudent Prince should follow a middle course, by choosing certain discreet men from among his subjects, and allowing them alone the freedom to speak their minds on any matter on which he asks their opinion, and on none other. But he ought to ask their opinion on everything, and after hearing what they have to say, should reflect and judge for himself. And with these counsellors collectively, and with each of them separately, his bearing should be such that each and all of them may know that the more freely they declare their thoughts the better they will be liked. Besides these, the Prince should hearken to no others, but should follow the course determined on, and afterwards adhere firmly to his resolves. Whoever acts otherwise is either undone by flatterers, or from continually vacillating as opinions vary, comes to be held in light esteem.

With reference to this matter, I shall cite a recent instance. Father Luke, who is attached to the Court of the present Emperor Maximilian, in speaking of his Majesty told me that he seeks advice from none, yet never has his own way; and this from his following a course contrary to that above recommended. Being of a secret disposition, he never discloses his intentions to any, nor asks their opinion; and it is only when his plans are to be carried out that they begin to be discovered and known, and at the same time they begin to be thwarted by those he has about him, when he, being facile, gives way. Hence it happens that what he does one day, he undoes the next; that his wishes and designs are never fully ascertained; and that it is impossible to build on his resolves.

A Prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but at such times that he himself wishes only, and not when it pleases others; nay, he should discourage everyone from obtruding advice on matters on which it is not sought. But he should be free in asking advice, and afterwards, with regard to the matters on which he has asked it, be a patient hearer of the truth, and be displeased should he perceive that any one, from whatever motive, keeps it back.

But those who think that every Prince who has a reputation for prudence owes it to the wise counsellors he has around him, and not to any merit of his own, are certainly mistaken; since it is an unerring rule of universal application that a Prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others, unless by chance he surrenders himself to be wholly governed by some one adviser who happens to be supremely prudent; in which case he may, indeed, be well advised; but not for long, since such an adviser will soon deprive him of his government. If he listens to a multitude of advisers, the Prince who is not wise will never have consistent counsels, nor will he know of himself how to reconcile them. Each of the sovereign's counsellors will press his own advantage, and the Prince will be unable to detect or correct them. Nor could it well be otherwise, for men will always grow into rogues in your hands unless they find themselves under a necessity to be honest.

Hence it follows that good counsels, irregardless of where or when they come, have their origin in the prudence of the Prince, and not the prudence of the Prince in wise counsels.

CHAPTER XXIV: WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES

THE lessons above taught, if prudently followed, will make a new Prince seem like an old one, and will soon seat him in his place more firmly and securely than if his authority had the sanction of time. For the actions of a new Prince are watched much more closely than those of an hereditary Prince; and when seen to be good are far more effectual than antiquity of blood in gaining men over and attaching them to his cause. For men are more motivated by things present than by things past, and when they find themselves well off as they are, they enjoy their good fortune and seek no further; nay, are ready to do their utmost in defence of the new Prince, provided he is not lacking in other respects. In this way there accrues to him a twofold glory, in having laid the foundations of the new Principality, and in having strengthened and adorned it with good laws and good arms, with faithful friends and great deeds; as, on the other hand, there is a double disgrace in one who has been born to a Principality losing it by his own lack of wisdom.

And if we contemplate those Lords who in our own times have lost their dominions in Italy, such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and others, in the first place we shall see, that in respect of arms they have, for reasons already dwelt on, been all alike defective; and next, that some of them have either had the people against them, or if they have had the people with them, have not known how to secure themselves against their nobles. For without such defects as these, the States that are powerful enough to keep an army in the field are never overthrown.

Philip of Macedon, not the father of Alexander the Great but he who was vanquished by Titus Quintius, had no great State as compared with the strength of the Romans and Greeks who attacked him. Nevertheless, being a Prince of a warlike spirit, and skilful in gaining the good will of the people and in securing the fidelity of the nobles, he maintained himself for many years against his assailants, and in the end, though he lost some towns, succeeded in saving his Kingdom.

Let those Princes of ours, therefore, who after holding their lands for a length of years have lost their dominions, blame not Fortune but their own inertness. Never having reflected in tranquil times that there might come a change (and it is human nature when the sea is calm not to think of storms), when adversity overtook them, they thought not of defence but only of escape, hoping that their people, disgusted with the arrogance of the conqueror, would some day recall them.

This course may be a good one to follow when all others fail, but it is the height of folly to trust in this maneuver and to abandon every other; since none would wish to fall in the hope of someone else being found to lift him up. It may not happen that you are recalled by your people, or if it happens, it gives you no security. It is an ignoble resource, since it does not depend on you for its success. Those modes of defence are good, certain and lasting which depend upon yourself and your own worth solely.

CHAPTER XXV: WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND HOW TO WITHSTAND HER

I AM not ignorant that many have been and are of the opinion that human affairs are so governed by Fortune and by God, that men cannot alter them by any prudence of theirs, and indeed have no remedy against them; and for this reason have come to think that it is not worth while to labour much about anything. They must leave everything to be determined by chance.

Often when I turn the matter over, I am in part inclined to agree with this opinion, which has had the readier acceptance in our own times from the great changes in things which we have seen; every day, we see events happen contrary to all human expectation. Nevertheless, that our free will be not wholly set aside, I think it may be the case that Fortune is the mistress of one half of our actions, and yet leaves the control of the other half, or a little less, to ourselves. And I would liken her to one of those wild torrents which, when angry, overflow the plains, sweep away trees and houses, and carry off soil from one bank to throw it down upon the other. Every one flees before them, and yields to their fury without the least power to resist. And yet, though this be their nature, it does not follow that in seasons of fair weather, men cannot, by constructing dams and levees, take such precautions as will cause a future flood to pass through by some artificial channel, or at least prevent its course from being so uncontrolled and destructive. And so it is with Fortune, who displays her might where there is no organized strength to resist her, and directs her onset to where she knows there is neither barrier nor embankment to confine her.

If you look at Italy, which has been at once the seat of these changes and their cause, you will perceive that it is a field without embankment or barrier. If, like Germany, France and Spain, it had been guarded with sufficient skill, this inundation, if it ever came upon us, would never have wrought the violent changes which we have witnessed.

This I think is enough to say concerning resistance to Fortune. But confining myself more closely to the matter at hand, I note that one day we see a Prince prospering and the next day overthrown, without detecting any change in his nature or character. This, I believe, comes chiefly from a cause already dwelt upon, namely that a Prince who rests wholly on Fortune is ruined when she changes. Moreover, I believe that he will prosper most whose mode of acting best adapts itself to the character of the times; and conversely, that he will be unprosperous if his mode of acting does not accord with the times. For we see that men in the matters which lead to the end that each has before him, namely, glory and wealth, proceed by different ways: one with caution, another with impetuosity; one with violence, another with subtlety; one with patience, another with its contrary; and that by one or other of these different courses each may succeed.

Again, of any two who act cautiously, you shall find that one attains his end and the other does not, and that two of different temperament, one cautious and the other impetuous, are equally successful. All from no other cause than the character of the times according or not according with their methods of acting. And hence it comes, as I have already said, that two operate differently arrive at the same result, and two operate similarly with one succeeding and the other not. They all depend on the whimsical nature of Fortune. If one conducts himself with caution and patience, and the times and circumstances favor this so that his method of acting is good, he goes on prospering; but if these change he is ruined, because he does not change his method of acting.

No man is so prudent as to know how to adapt himself to these changes, both because he cannot deviate from the course to which nature inclines him, and because, having always prospered while adhering to one path, he cannot be persuaded that it would be well for him to forsake it. And so when occasion requires the cautious man to act impetuously, he cannot do so and is undone: whereas, had he changed his nature with time and circumstances, his fortune would have been unchanged.

Pope Julius II. proceeded with impetuosity in all his undertakings, and found time and circumstances in such harmony with his mode of acting that he always obtained a happy result. Witness his first expedition against Bologna, when Messer Giovanni Bentivoglio was yet living. The Venetians were not favourable to the enterprise; nor was the King of Spain. Negotiations respecting it with the King of France were still open. Nevertheless, the Pope with his usual hardihood and impetuosity marched in person on the expedition, and by this movement brought the King of Spain and the Venetians to a check: the latter through fear, the former from his eagerness to recover the entire Kingdom of Naples. At the same time, he dragged after him the King of France, who, desiring to have the Pope for an ally in humbling the Venetians, found him already in motion, and saw that he could not refuse Julius his soldiers without openly offending him. By the impetuosity of his movements, therefore, Julius accomplished what no other Pontiff endowed with the highest human prudence could. For had he, as any other Pope would have done, put off his departure from Rome until terms had been settled and everything duly arranged, be never would have succeeded. For the King of France would have found a thousand pretexts to delay him, and the others would have menaced him with a thousand alarms. I shall not touch upon his other actions, which were all of a like character and all of which had a happy result, since the shortness of his life did not allow him to experience reverses. But if the times had overtaken him, rendering a cautious line of conduct necessary, his ruin must have ensued, since he never could have departed from those methods to which nature inclined him.

To be brief, I say that since Fortune changes and men stand fixed in their old ways, they are prosperous so long as there is congruity between character and trends, and the reverse when there is not. Of this, however, I am well persuaded: it is better to be impetuous than cautious. For Fortune is a woman who to be kept under must be beaten and roughly handled; and we see that she suffers herself to be most readily mastered by those who treat her so than by those who are more timid in their approaches. And always, like a woman, she favours the young, because they are less scrupulous and fiercer, and command her with greater audacity.

CHAPTER XXVI: AN EXHORTATION TO LIBERATE ITALY FROM THE BARBARIANS

TURNING over in my mind all the matters which have above been considered and debating with myself whether in Italy at the present hour the times are such that might serve to confer honour on a new Prince, and whether a fit opportunity is now offered for a prudent and valiant leader to bring about changes glorious for himself and beneficial to the whole Italian people, it seems to me that so many conditions combine to recommend such an enterprise, that I know of no time so favourable to it than the present. And if, as I have said, it was necessary in order to display the valour of Moses that the children of Israel should be slaves in Egypt, and to know the greatness and courage of Cyrus that the Persians should be oppressed by the Medes, and to illustrate the excellence of Theseus that the Athenians should be scattered and divided, so at this hour, to prove the worth of some Italian hero, it is required that Italy should be brought to her present abject condition, to be more a slave than the Hebrew, more oppressed than the Persian, more disunited than the Athenian, without a head, without order, beaten, spoiled, torn in pieces, over-run and abandoned to destruction in every shape.

But glimmerings may have been discerned in this man or that, from which it might be conjectured that he was ordained by God for his country's redemption. Nevertheless, it has afterwards been seen in the further course of his actions that Fortune has disowned him; so that our country, left almost without life, still waits to know who it is that will heal her bruises, and put an end to the devastation and plunder of Lombardy, to the exactions and imposts of Naples and Tuscany, and to heal those wounds of hers which long neglect has changed into running sores.

We see how she petitions God to send someone to rescue her from these barbarous cruelties and oppressions. We see too how ready and eager she is to follow any standard, were there only someone to raise it. But at present we see no one except in your illustrious House (pre-eminent by its virtues and good fortune, and favoured by God and by the Church whose headship it now holds), who could undertake the part of a deliverer.

For you, this will not be too hard a task, if you keep before your eyes the lives and actions of those whom I have named above. For although these men were singular and extraordinary, they were after all but men, not one of whom had so great an opportunity as now presents itself to you. For their undertakings were not more just than this I have identified, nor more easy, nor was God more their friend than yours. The justice of the cause is conspicuous; for it is necessary, and those arms from which we derive our only hope are sacred. Everywhere there is the strongest disposition to engage in this cause; and where the disposition is strong the difficulty cannot be great, provided you follow the methods observed by those whom I have set before you as models.

But further: we see here extraordinary and unexampled proofs of Divine favour. The sea has been divided; the cloud has attended you on your way; the rock has flowed with water; the manna has rained from heaven; everything has concurred to promote your greatness. What remains to be done must be done by you; since in order not to deprive us of our free will, and such share of glory that belongs to us, God will not do everything himself.

Nor is it to be puzzled over if none of those Italians I have named have been able to effect what we hope to see effected by your illustrious House; or that amid so many revolutions and so many warlike movements it should always appear as though the military virtues of Italy were spent; for this comes from her old system being defective, and from no one being found among us capable to strike out a new. Nothing confers such honour on the reformer of a State as do the new laws and institutions which he devises; for these, when they stand on a solid basis and have a greatness in their scope, make him admired and venerated. And in Italy, material is not wanting for improvement in every form. If the head is weak, the limbs are strong; and we see daily in single combats, or where few are engaged, how superior are the strength, dexterity, and intelligence of Italians. But when it comes to armies, they are nowhere, and this from no other reason than the defects of their leaders. For those who are skilful in arms will not obey, and everyone thinks himself skilful, since hitherto we have had none among us raised by merit or by fortune to a sufficient height above his fellows that they should yield him the palm. And hence it happens that for the long period of twenty years, during which so many wars have taken place, whenever there has been an army purely Italian it has always been beaten. To this, the first testament comes from Taro; then Alessandria, Capua, Genoa, Vaila, Bologna, Mestri.

If your illustrious House should seek to follow the example of those great men who have delivered their country in past ages, it is before all things necessary, as the true foundation of every such attempt, to be provided with national troops, since you can have no braver, truer, or more faithful soldiers; and although every single man of them be good, collectively they will be better, seeing themselves commanded by their own Prince, and honoured and esteemed by him. That you may be able, therefore, to defend yourself against the foreigner with Italian valour, the first step is to provide yourself with an army such as this.

And although the Swiss and the Spanish infantry are each esteemed formidable, there are yet defects in both: troops trained on a different system might not merely withstand them, but be certain of defeating them. For the Spaniards cannot resist cavalry and the Swiss will give way before infantry if they find them as resolute as themselves at close quarters. It has been seen, and may be seen again, that the Spaniards cannot sustain the onset of the Frenchmen-at-arms and that the Swiss are broken by the Spanish foot. And although of the last we have no complete instance, we have yet an indication of it in the battle of Ravenna, where the Spanish infantry confronted the German companies who have the same discipline as the Swiss. On this occasion, the Spaniards, by their agility and with the aid of their bucklers, forced their way under the pikes, and stood ready to close with the Germans, who were no longer in a position to defend themselves; and had they not been charged by cavalry, they were sure to have put the Germans to utter rout. Knowing, then, the defects of each of these kinds of troops, you can train your men on some different system, to withstand cavalry and not to fear infantry. To effect this will not require the creation of any new forces, but simply a change in the discipline of the old. And these are reforms by which a new Prince acquires reputation and importance.

This opportunity then, for Italy at last to look on her deliverer, ought not to be allowed to pass away. With what love he would be received in all those Provinces which have suffered from the foreign inundation, with what thirst for vengeance, with what fixed fidelity, with what devotion, and what tears, no words of mine can declare. What gates would be closed against him? What people would refuse him obedience? What jealousy would stand in his way? What Italian would not yield him homage? This barbarian tyranny we live under stinks in all nostrils.

Let your illustrious House therefore take upon itself this enterprise with all the courage and all the hopes with which a just cause is undertaken; so that under your standard this, our country, may be ennobled, and under your auspices be fulfilled the words of Petrarch: -