Nothing makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example. We have in our time Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain. He can almost be called a new prince, because he has risen, by fame and glory, from being an insignificant king to be the foremost king in Christendom; and if you will consider his deeds you will find them all great and some of them extraordinary. In the beginning of his reign he attacked Granada, and this enterprise was the foundation of his dominions. He did this quietly at first and without any fear of hindrance, for he held the minds of the barons of Castile occupied in thinking of the war and not anticipating any innovations; thus they did not perceive that by these means he was acquiring power and authority over them. He was able with the money of the Church and of the people to sustain his armies, and by that long war to lay the foundation for the military skill which has since distinguished him. Further, always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors; nor could there be a more admirable example, nor one more rare. Under this same cloak he assailed Africa, he came down on Italy, he has finally attacked France; and thus his achievements and designs have always been great, and have kept the minds of his people in suspense and admiration and occupied with the issue of them. And his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him.
Nothing earns a prince greater respect than great undertakings and setting an outstanding example. In our own time, we have Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain. He can almost be called a new prince. Through fame and glory, he has risen from an insignificant king to the foremost king in Christendom. If you consider his deeds, you will find that all are great and some are extraordinary. At the beginning of his reign, he attacked Granada. This campaign laid the foundation of his power. At first, he acted quietly and without any fear of interference. He kept the barons of Castile focused on the war, so they expected no changes at home. They therefore failed to see that he was gaining power and authority over them. With money from the Church and the people, he was able to support his armies. That long war also laid the foundation for the military skill that has since distinguished him. Further, he always used religion as a pretext for greater undertakings. With pious cruelty, he devoted himself to driving out the Moors and ridding his kingdom of them. There could be no more admirable example, nor a rarer one. Under the same religious cover, he attacked Africa, invaded Italy, and finally attacked France. His achievements and plans have thus always been great. They have kept his people in suspense and admiration, their minds occupied with the outcome. His actions have followed one another in such a way that no one has had time to organize sustained opposition.
Again, it much assists a prince to set unusual examples in internal affairs, similar to those which are related of Messer Bernabo da Milano, who, when he had the opportunity, by any one in civil life doing some extraordinary thing, either good or bad, would take some method of rewarding or punishing him, which would be much spoken about. And a prince ought, above all things, always endeavour in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.
It also greatly helps a prince to set striking examples in domestic affairs, as Messer Bernabo of Milan reportedly did. Whenever someone in civilian life did something extraordinary, good or bad, he took the opportunity to respond. He rewarded or punished that person in a way that people would talk about widely. Above all, a prince should always strive in every action to earn a reputation as a great and remarkable man.
A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that is to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of him who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.
A prince also earns respect by being either a true friend or an outright enemy. This means openly supporting one side against the other, without holding anything back. This will always serve you better than staying neutral. Suppose two powerful neighbors go to war. If one wins, you will either have reason to fear him or you will not. In either case, you will always be better off taking a side and fighting vigorously. In the first case, if you do not take a side, you will inevitably become the winner’s prey. This will please and satisfy the loser. You will have no excuse to offer and nothing to protect you or give you shelter. The winner does not want unreliable friends who refuse to help him in times of trouble. The loser will not shelter you either, because you did not willingly take up arms and share his fate.
Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Ætolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, exhorting them to remain neutral; and on the other hand the Romans urged them to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: “As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or consideration, the guerdon of the conqueror.” Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will entreat you to declare yourself with arms. And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions on a fortune that may rise again.
Antiochus entered Greece at the invitation of the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, urging them to remain neutral. The Romans, meanwhile, urged them to take up arms. The Achaean council debated the question, and Antiochus’s envoy urged them to remain neutral. The Roman envoy replied: “You have been told that staying out of our war is better and more advantageous for your state. Nothing could be more mistaken. By staying out, you will become the conqueror’s prize, with no claim to favor or consideration.” So it will always happen that anyone who is not your friend will demand your neutrality. Your friend, however, will urge you to take up arms on his side. Indecisive princes generally choose neutrality to avoid immediate dangers, and they are generally ruined. But when a prince boldly declares himself for one side, his position is different. If his ally wins, the victor owes him a debt, and a bond of friendship is formed. This holds even if the victor is powerful and has the prince at his mercy. Men are never so shameless as to make themselves examples of ingratitude by oppressing you. After all, victories are never so complete that the victor can disregard all other concerns, especially justice. But if your ally loses, he may offer you shelter and help you as long as he can. You become companions in a shared misfortune from which you may rise again.
In the second case, when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer, so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied, because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not do with your assistance, he remains at your discretion. And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purposes of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one. The Venetians joined with France against the Duke of Milan, and this alliance, which caused their ruin, could have been avoided. But when it cannot be avoided, as happened to the Florentines when the Pope and Spain sent armies to attack Lombardy, then in such a case, for the above reasons, the prince ought to favour one of the parties.
In the second case, neither side in the conflict poses a threat to you, no matter who wins. Then it is even wiser to form an alliance. You help one side destroy the other, though a wise victor would have kept that rival safe. With your help, your ally is certain to win and will then be at your mercy. Here it should be noted that a prince must avoid allying with a stronger power to attack others. He should do so only if necessity forces him, as explained above. If his ally wins, the prince will be at that ally’s mercy. Princes should avoid being at anyone’s mercy as much as possible. The Venetians joined France against the Duke of Milan. They could have avoided this alliance, which brought about their ruin. Sometimes, however, such an alliance cannot be avoided. This happened to the Florentines when the Pope and Spain sent armies to attack Lombardy. In such cases, for the reasons given above, the prince should support one side.
Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; rather let it expect to have to take very doubtful ones, because it is found in ordinary affairs that one never seeks to avoid one trouble without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil.
No government should ever imagine it can choose a completely safe course. Instead, it should expect to take highly uncertain ones. In everyday affairs, avoiding one trouble always means running into another. Good judgment means understanding the nature of these troubles and choosing the lesser evil.
A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability, and to honour the proficient in every art. At the same time he should encourage his citizens to practise their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture, and in every other following, so that the one should not be deterred from improving his possessions for fear lest they be taken away from him or another from opening up trade for fear of taxes; but the prince ought to offer rewards to whoever wishes to do these things and designs in any way to honour his city or state.
A prince should also support talented people and honor those who excel in every art. He should also encourage his citizens to work peacefully in commerce, agriculture, and every other occupation. No one should fear improving their property because it might be taken away. Nor should anyone fear starting a business because of taxes. Instead, the prince should offer rewards to anyone who wants to do these things. He should also reward anyone who seeks in any way to bring honor to his city or state.
Further, he ought to entertain the people with festivals and spectacles at convenient seasons of the year; and as every city is divided into guilds or into societies, he ought to hold such bodies in esteem, and associate with them sometimes, and show himself an example of courtesy and liberality; nevertheless, always maintaining the majesty of his rank, for this he must never consent to abate in anything.
He should also entertain the people with festivals and spectacles at suitable times of year. Every city is divided into guilds or societies, and he should treat these groups with respect. He should sometimes spend time with them and set an example of courtesy and generosity. Still, he must always maintain the dignity of his rank. He must never agree to diminish it in any way.
“Guilds or societies,” “in arti o in tribu.” “Arti” were craft or trade guilds. See Florio: “Arte . . . a whole company of any trade in any city or corporation town.” Mr Edgcumbe Staley describes Florence’s guilds exceptionally well in his work on the subject (Methuen, 1906). Somewhat similar institutions, called “artel,” existed in Russia at the time of writing. See Sir Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,” ed. 1905: “The sons . . . were always during the working season members of an artel. In some of the larger towns there are artels of a much more complex kind— permanent associations, possessing large capital, and pecuniarily responsible for the acts of the individual members.” Despite the apparent similarity, Mr Aylmer Maude assures me that “artel” has no connection with “ars” or “arte.” Its root comes from the verb “rotisya,” meaning to bind oneself by an oath. It is generally accepted as another form of “rota,” which now means a “regimental company.” Both words express the idea of a group of men united by an oath. “Tribu” were possibly kinship groups united by common descent, including people related by marriage. Perhaps “sects” or “clans” would be the most appropriate English words.