The Prince - 06

the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew
much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This
disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have
destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the
control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed
itself, but contributed to his glory.
Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the
conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing
according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself
on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must
endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.


CHAPTER XVIII.[1]
CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

[1] “The present chapter has given greater offence than any other
portion of Machiavelli’s writings.” Burd, “Il Principe,” p. 297.
Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and
to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience
has been that those princes who have done great things have held good
faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect
of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on
their word. You must know there are two ways of contesting,[2] the one
by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the
second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient,
it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is
necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast
and the man. This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient
writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were
given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his
discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who
was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know
how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not
durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the
beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot
defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against
wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares
and a lion to terrify the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do
not understand what they are about. Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor
ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him,
and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer. If
men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they
are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to
observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance. Of this endless
modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and
engagements have been made void and of no effect through the
faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the
fox has succeeded best.
[2] “Contesting,” _i.e_. “striving for mastery.” Mr Burd points out
that this passage is imitated directly from Cicero’s “De Officiis”:
“Nam cum sint duo genera decertandi, unum per disceptationem, alterum
per vim; cumque illud proprium sit hominis, hoc beluarum; confugiendum
est ad posterius, si uti non licet superiore.”
But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic,
and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and
so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will
always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent
example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander the Sixth did nothing
else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he
always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power
in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would
observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to
his wishes,[3] because he well understood this side of mankind.
[3] “Nondimanco sempre gli succederono gli inganni (ad votum).” The
words “ad votum” are omitted in the Testina addition, 1550.
Alexander never did what he said,
Cesare never said what he did.
Italian Proverb.
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities
I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And
I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe
them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear
merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with
a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able
and know how to change to the opposite.
And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one,
cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often
forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,[4]
friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him
to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and
variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to
diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then
to know how to set about it.
[4] “Contrary to fidelity” or “faith,” “contro alla fede,” and “tutto
fede,” “altogether faithful,” in the next paragraph. It is noteworthy
that these two phrases, “contro alla fede” and “tutto fede,” were
omitted in the Testina edition, which was published with the sanction
of the papal authorities. It may be that the meaning attached to the
word “fede” was “the faith,” _i.e_. the Catholic creed, and not as
rendered here “fidelity” and “faithful.” Observe that the word
“religione” was suffered to stand in the text of the Testina, being
used to signify indifferently every shade of belief, as witness “the
religion,” a phrase inevitably employed to designate the Huguenot
heresy. South in his Sermon IX, p. 69, ed. 1843, comments on this
passage as follows: “That great patron and Coryphaeus of this tribe,
Nicolo Machiavel, laid down this for a master rule in his political
scheme: ‘That the show of religion was helpful to the politician, but
the reality of it hurtful and pernicious.’”
For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything
slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five
qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether
merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing
more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as
men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it
belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.
Every one sees what you appear to be, few really 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 defend them; and in the actions of all
men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge,
one judges by the result.
For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding
his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be
praised by everybody; because the vulgar are always taken by what a
thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are
only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have
no ground to rest on.
One prince[5] of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never
preaches anything else but peace and good faith, and to both he is most
hostile, and either, if he had kept it, would have deprived him of
reputation and kingdom many a time.
[5] Ferdinand of Aragon. “When Machiavelli was writing _The Prince_ it
would have been clearly impossible to mention Ferdinand’s name here
without giving offence.” Burd’s “Il Principe,” p. 308.


CHAPTER XIX.
THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED

Now, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I
have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss
briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has
been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him
hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will
have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other
reproaches.
It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious,
and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from
both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor
their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has
only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease
in many ways.
It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous,
effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince
should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in
his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his
private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are
irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can
hope either to deceive him or to get round him.
That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself,
and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for,
provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by
his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. For this reason a
prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his
subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers. From
the latter he is defended by being well armed and having good allies,
and if he is well armed he will have good friends, and affairs will
always remain quiet within when they are quiet without, unless they
should have been already disturbed by conspiracy; and even should
affairs outside be disturbed, if he has carried out his preparations
and has lived as I have said, as long as he does not despair, he will
resist every attack, as I said Nabis the Spartan did.
But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has
only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can
easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by
keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for
him to accomplish, as I said above at length. And one of the most
efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not
to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a
prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the
conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have
the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a
conspirator are infinite. And as experience shows, many have been the
conspiracies, but few have been successful; because he who conspires
cannot act alone, nor can he take a companion except from those whom he
believes to be malcontents, and as soon as you have opened your mind to
a malcontent you have given him the material with which to content
himself, for by denouncing you he can look for every advantage; so
that, seeing the gain from this course to be assured, and seeing the
other to be doubtful and full of dangers, he must be a very rare
friend, or a thoroughly obstinate enemy of the prince, to keep faith
with you.
And, to reduce the matter into a small compass, I say that, on the side
of the conspirator, there is nothing but fear, jealousy, prospect of
punishment to terrify him; but on the side of the prince there is the
majesty of the principality, the laws, the protection of friends and
the state to defend him; so that, adding to all these things the
popular goodwill, it is impossible that any one should be so rash as to
conspire. For whereas in general the conspirator has to fear before the
execution of his plot, in this case he has also to fear the sequel to
the crime; because on account of it he has the people for an enemy, and
thus cannot hope for any escape.
Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content
with one, brought to pass within the memory of our fathers. Messer
Annibale Bentivogli, who was prince in Bologna (grandfather of the
present Annibale), having been murdered by the Canneschi, who had
conspired against him, not one of his family survived but Messer
Giovanni,[1] who was in childhood: immediately after his assassination
the people rose and murdered all the Canneschi. This sprung from the
popular goodwill which the house of Bentivogli enjoyed in those days in
Bologna; which was so great that, although none remained there after
the death of Annibale who was able to rule the state, the Bolognese,
having information that there was one of the Bentivogli family in
Florence, who up to that time had been considered the son of a
blacksmith, sent to Florence for him and gave him the government of
their city, and it was ruled by him until Messer Giovanni came in due
course to the government.
[1] Giovanni Bentivogli, born in Bologna 1438, died at Milan 1508. He
ruled Bologna from 1462 to 1506. Machiavelli’s strong condemnation of
conspiracies may get its edge from his own very recent experience
(February 1513), when he had been arrested and tortured for his
alleged complicity in the Boscoli conspiracy.
For this reason I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies
of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is
hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear
everything and everybody. And well-ordered states and wise princes have
taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation, and to keep
the people satisfied and contented, for this is one of the most
important objects a prince can have.
Among the best ordered and governed kingdoms of our times is France,
and in it are found many good institutions on which depend the liberty
and security of the king; of these the first is the parliament and its
authority, because he who founded the kingdom, knowing the ambition of
the nobility and their boldness, considered that a bit to their mouths
would be necessary to hold them in; and, on the other side, knowing the
hatred of the people, founded in fear, against the nobles, he wished to
protect them, yet he was not anxious for this to be the particular care
of the king; therefore, to take away the reproach which he would be
liable to from the nobles for favouring the people, and from the people
for favouring the nobles, he set up an arbiter, who should be one who
could beat down the great and favour the lesser without reproach to the
king. Neither could you have a better or a more prudent arrangement, or
a greater source of security to the king and kingdom. From this one can
draw another important conclusion, that princes ought to leave affairs
of reproach to the management of others, and keep those of grace in
their own hands. And further, I consider that a prince ought to cherish
the nobles, but not so as to make himself hated by the people.
It may appear, perhaps, to some who have examined the lives and deaths
of the Roman emperors that many of them would be an example contrary to
my opinion, seeing that some of them lived nobly and showed great
qualities of soul, nevertheless they have lost their empire or have
been killed by subjects who have conspired against them. Wishing,
therefore, to answer these objections, I will recall the characters of
some of the emperors, and will show that the causes of their ruin were
not different to those alleged by me; at the same time I will only
submit for consideration those things that are noteworthy to him who
studies the affairs of those times.
It seems to me sufficient to take all those emperors who succeeded to
the empire from Marcus the philosopher down to Maximinus; they were
Marcus and his son Commodus, Pertinax, Julian, Severus and his son
Antoninus Caracalla, Macrinus, Heliogabalus, Alexander, and Maximinus.
There is first to note that, whereas in other principalities the
ambition of the nobles and the insolence of the people only have to be
contended with, the Roman emperors had a third difficulty in having to
put up with the cruelty and avarice of their soldiers, a matter so
beset with difficulties that it was the ruin of many; for it was a hard
thing to give satisfaction both to soldiers and people; because the
people loved peace, and for this reason they loved the unaspiring
prince, whilst the soldiers loved the warlike prince who was bold,
cruel, and rapacious, which qualities they were quite willing he should
exercise upon the people, so that they could get double pay and give
vent to their own greed and cruelty. Hence it arose that those emperors
were always overthrown who, either by birth or training, had no great
authority, and most of them, especially those who came new to the
principality, recognizing the difficulty of these two opposing humours,
were inclined to give satisfaction to the soldiers, caring little about
injuring the people. Which course was necessary, because, as princes
cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to
avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they
ought to endeavour with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the
most powerful. Therefore, those emperors who through inexperience had
need of special favour adhered more readily to the soldiers than to the
people; a course which turned out advantageous to them or not,
accordingly as the prince knew how to maintain authority over them.
From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being
all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane,
and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died
honoured, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title,
and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterwards,
being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always
kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated
nor despised.
But Pertinax was created emperor against the wishes of the soldiers,
who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus, could not
endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; thus,
having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt
for his old age, he was overthrown at the very beginning of his
administration. And here it should be noted that hatred is acquired as
much by good works as by bad ones, therefore, as I said before, a
prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil; for
when that body is corrupt whom you think you have need of to maintain
yourself—it may be either the people or the soldiers or the nobles—you
have to submit to its humours and to gratify them, and then good works
will do you harm.
But let us come to Alexander, who was a man of such great goodness,
that among the other praises which are accorded him is this, that in
the fourteen years he held the empire no one was ever put to death by
him unjudged; nevertheless, being considered effeminate and a man who
allowed himself to be governed by his mother, he became despised, the
army conspired against him, and murdered him.
Turning now to the opposite characters of Commodus, Severus, Antoninus
Caracalla, and Maximinus, you will find them all cruel and
rapacious-men who, to satisfy their soldiers, did not hesitate to
commit every kind of iniquity against the people; and all, except
Severus, came to a bad end; but in Severus there was so much valour
that, keeping the soldiers friendly, although the people were oppressed
by him, he reigned successfully; for his valour made him so much
admired in the sight of the soldiers and people that the latter were
kept in a way astonished and awed and the former respectful and
satisfied. And because the actions of this man, as a new prince, were
great, I wish to show briefly that he knew well how to counterfeit the
fox and the lion, which natures, as I said above, it is necessary for a
prince to imitate.
Knowing the sloth of the Emperor Julian, he persuaded the army in
Sclavonia, of which he was captain, that it would be right to go to
Rome and avenge the death of Pertinax, who had been killed by the
praetorian soldiers; and under this pretext, without appearing to
aspire to the throne, he moved the army on Rome, and reached Italy
before it was known that he had started. On his arrival at Rome, the
Senate, through fear, elected him emperor and killed Julian. After this
there remained for Severus, who wished to make himself master of the
whole empire, two difficulties; one in Asia, where Niger, head of the
Asiatic army, had caused himself to be proclaimed emperor; the other in
the west where Albinus was, who also aspired to the throne. And as he
considered it dangerous to declare himself hostile to both, he decided
to attack Niger and to deceive Albinus. To the latter he wrote that,
being elected emperor by the Senate, he was willing to share that
dignity with him and sent him the title of Caesar; and, moreover, that
the Senate had made Albinus his colleague; which things were accepted
by Albinus as true. But after Severus had conquered and killed Niger,
and settled oriental affairs, he returned to Rome and complained to the
Senate that Albinus, little recognizing the benefits that he had
received from him, had by treachery sought to murder him, and for this
ingratitude he was compelled to punish him. Afterwards he sought him
out in France, and took from him his government and life. He who will,
therefore, carefully examine the actions of this man will find him a
most valiant lion and a most cunning fox; he will find him feared and
respected by every one, and not hated by the army; and it need not be
wondered at that he, a new man, was able to hold the empire so well,
because his supreme renown always protected him from that hatred which
the people might have conceived against him for his violence.
But his son Antoninus was a most eminent man, and had very excellent
qualities, which made him admirable in the sight of the people and
acceptable to the soldiers, for he was a warlike man, most enduring of
fatigue, a despiser of all delicate food and other luxuries, which
caused him to be beloved by the armies. Nevertheless, his ferocity and
cruelties were so great and so unheard of that, after endless single
murders, he killed a large number of the people of Rome and all those
of Alexandria. He became hated by the whole world, and also feared by
those he had around him, to such an extent that he was murdered in the
midst of his army by a centurion. And here it must be noted that
such-like deaths, which are deliberately inflicted with a resolved and
desperate courage, cannot be avoided by princes, because any one who
does not fear to die can inflict them; but a prince may fear them the
less because they are very rare; he has only to be careful not to do
any grave injury to those whom he employs or has around him in the
service of the state. Antoninus had not taken this care, but had
contumeliously killed a brother of that centurion, whom also he daily
threatened, yet retained in his bodyguard; which, as it turned out, was
a rash thing to do, and proved the emperor’s ruin.
But let us come to Commodus, to whom it should have been very easy to
hold the empire, for, being the son of Marcus, he had inherited it, and
he had only to follow in the footsteps of his father to please his
people and soldiers; but, being by nature cruel and brutal, he gave
himself up to amusing the soldiers and corrupting them, so that he
might indulge his rapacity upon the people; on the other hand, not
maintaining his dignity, often descending to the theatre to compete
with gladiators, and doing other vile things, little worthy of the
imperial majesty, he fell into contempt with the soldiers, and being
hated by one party and despised by the other, he was conspired against
and was killed.
It remains to discuss the character of Maximinus. He was a very warlike
man, and the armies, being disgusted with the effeminacy of Alexander,
of whom I have already spoken, killed him and elected Maximinus to the
throne. This he did not possess for long, for two things made him hated
and despised; the one, his having kept sheep in Thrace, which brought
him into contempt (it being well known to all, and considered a great
indignity by every one), and the other, his having at the accession to
his dominions deferred going to Rome and taking possession of the
imperial seat; he had also gained a reputation for the utmost ferocity
by having, through his prefects in Rome and elsewhere in the empire,
practised many cruelties, so that the whole world was moved to anger at
the meanness of his birth and to fear at his barbarity. First Africa
rebelled, then the Senate with all the people of Rome, and all Italy
conspired against him, to which may be added his own army; this latter,
besieging Aquileia and meeting with difficulties in taking it, were
disgusted with his cruelties, and fearing him less when they found so
many against him, murdered him.
I do not wish to discuss Heliogabalus, Macrinus, or Julian, who, being
thoroughly contemptible, were quickly wiped out; but I will bring this
discourse to a conclusion by saying that princes in our times have this
difficulty of giving inordinate satisfaction to their soldiers in a far
less degree, because, notwithstanding one has to give them some
indulgence, that is soon done; none of these princes have armies that
are veterans in the governance and administration of provinces, as were
the armies of the Roman Empire; and whereas it was then more necessary
to give satisfaction to the soldiers than to the people, it is now more
necessary to all princes, except the Turk and the Soldan, to satisfy
the people rather the soldiers, because the people are the more
powerful.
From the above I have excepted the Turk, who always keeps round him
twelve thousand infantry and fifteen thousand cavalry on which depend
the security and strength of the kingdom, and it is necessary that,
putting aside every consideration for the people, he should keep them
his friends. The kingdom of the Soldan is similar; being entirely in
the hands of soldiers, it follows again that, without regard to the
people, he must keep them his friends. But you must note that the state
of the Soldan is unlike all other principalities, for the reason that
it is like the Christian pontificate, which cannot be called either an
hereditary or a newly formed principality; because the sons of the old
prince are not the heirs, but he who is elected to that position by
those who have authority, and the sons remain only noblemen. And this
being an ancient custom, it cannot be called a new principality,
because there are none of those difficulties in it that are met with in
new ones; for although the prince is new, the constitution of the state
is old, and it is framed so as to receive him as if he were its
hereditary lord.
But returning to the subject of our discourse, I say that whoever will
consider it will acknowledge that either hatred or contempt has been
fatal to the above-named emperors, and it will be recognized also how
it happened that, a number of them acting in one way and a number in
another, only one in each way came to a happy end and the rest to
unhappy ones. Because it would have been useless and dangerous for
Pertinax and Alexander, being new princes, to imitate Marcus, who was
heir to the principality; and likewise it would have been utterly
destructive to Caracalla, Commodus, and Maximinus to have imitated
Severus, they not having sufficient valour to enable them to tread in
his footsteps. Therefore a prince, new to the principality, cannot
imitate the actions of Marcus, nor, again, is it necessary to follow
those of Severus, but he ought to take from Severus those parts which