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, 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.
Everyone agrees that a prince deserves praise for keeping his word and living honestly rather than through deception. Yet experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have placed little value on keeping their word. They have known how to outwit others through cunning. In the end, they have defeated those who relied on their promises. You must understand that there are two ways to fight, one through law, the other through force. The first belongs to humans, the second to beasts. But because the first is often not enough, a prince must turn to the second. A prince must therefore know how to use both his human and his animal nature. Ancient writers taught princes this lesson through a story. They described how Achilles and many other ancient princes were entrusted to Chiron the Centaur, who raised and trained them. Their teacher was half beast and half human. This means simply that a prince must know how to use both natures. Neither can endure without the other. Since a prince must knowingly act as a beast, he should choose the fox and the lion. The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot protect himself from wolves. So a prince must be a fox to spot traps and a lion to frighten wolves. Those who rely only on the lion do not understand what they are doing. A wise ruler therefore cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so would work against him. This applies when the reasons for making his promise no longer exist. If all people were good, this rule would not apply. But they are bad and will not keep their word to you. So you are not bound to keep yours to them. Nor will a prince ever lack legitimate reasons to excuse breaking his word. Countless examples from modern times could show how rulers’ broken promises have made treaties and agreements worthless. Those who have best known how to act as the fox have been the most successful.
“Contesting” means “striving for mastery.” Mr Burd notes that this passage directly imitates 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, because he well understood this side of mankind.
But you must know how to hide this trait well and be skilled at pretending and concealing your intentions. People are so simple and so driven by immediate needs that deceivers will always find someone willing to be deceived. I cannot leave out one recent example. Alexander VI did nothing but deceive people, and he never thought of doing otherwise. He always found victims. No one was more forceful in his claims or swore greater oaths to confirm them, yet no one kept them less. Nevertheless, his deceptions always succeeded as he wished, because he understood this side of human nature well.
“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.
A prince does not need all the good qualities I have listed, but he must appear to have them. I will even dare to say that having them and always acting on them is harmful. Appearing to have them is useful. You should appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and honest, and actually be so. But you must be ready and know how to act in the opposite way when necessary.
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, 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.
You must understand that a prince, especially a new one, cannot practice all the virtues people admire. To preserve the state, he is often forced to act against faithfulness, friendship, humanity, and religion. He must therefore be ready to change his approach as the winds and shifts of fortune demand. Yet, as I said above, he should not turn away from good if he can avoid it. But if forced to do so, he must know how.
“Contro alla fede” means “contrary to fidelity” or “faith.” In the next paragraph, “tutto fede” means “altogether faithful.” Notably, both phrases, “contro alla fede” and “tutto fede,” were omitted from the Testina edition. That edition was published with the approval of the papal authorities. Perhaps “fede” was understood as “the faith,” i.e. the Catholic creed, rather than “fidelity” and “faithful,” as translated here. Notice that “religione” was allowed to remain in the Testina text. It could refer equally to any shade of belief. An example is “the religion,” a phrase invariably used to describe the Huguenot heresy. South comments on this passage in his Sermon IX, p. 69, ed. 1843, 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 this reason, a prince must make sure that everything he says reflects the five qualities named above. To everyone who sees and hears him, he must appear merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious. Nothing is more necessary than appearing to have this last quality. People generally judge more by what they see than by what they experience firsthand. Everyone can see you, but few come into close contact with you. Everyone sees what you seem to be, but few really know what you are. Those few dare not challenge the opinion of the many, who have the state's authority backing them. People judge the actions of all men by their results, especially those of princes, which are unwise to challenge.
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.
For that reason, let a prince gain credit for conquering and holding his state. His methods will always be considered honorable, and everyone will praise him. Ordinary people are always swayed by appearances and results. And the world consists only of ordinary people. The few have a place in it only when the many have no firm ground to stand on.
One prince 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.
One prince of our time, whom it is best not to name, preaches nothing but peace and good faith. Yet he is deeply hostile to both. Had he honored either, he would have lost his reputation and kingdom many times over.
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.