The Essential Writings Of Machiavelli Part 7

I therefore disagree with the common opinion that a populace in power is unstable, changeable, and ungrateful, and maintain that a populace can be as guilty of this as an individual prince. If one were to accuse both populace and prince of these shortcomings, one would probably be right. But it would be deceiving oneself to accuse the populace and not the prince: because a well-regulated populace that is in power will be stable, prudent, and grateful, just like a prince, or even better than a prince, even if that prince is considered particularly wise. The prince, on the other hand, unchecked by laws, will be more ungrateful, unstable, and imprudent than a populace. The instability of his conduct does not arise from his having a different nature, because all men have the same nature. If there is a greater amount of good, it lies with the populace, because the populace will more or less keep to the laws by which it lives. If we consider the Roman populace, we will see that for four hundred years the people were hostile to the very name of king and championed the glory of the city's common good, and there are a great number of examples that testify to this. If someone were to point out the ingrat.i.tude of the Roman populace toward Scipio, I would respond with the same argument I have already made at length concerning this matter, where the people showed themselves less ungrateful than the princes.147 But in matters of prudence and stability, I propose that a populace is more prudent, more stable, and has better judgment than a prince. It is not without reason that the voice of the people has been compared to the voice of G.o.d. One sees public opinion making surprising prognostications, so that it seems that the populace, as if by some hidden skill, can foresee their good and bad fortune. As for judging things, it is rare that a populace hearing two orators of equal skill arguing for opposing sides will not understand the truth it is hearing and choose the better side. And if the people err in matters of action that are bold or appear to be useful, as I have already discussed, a prince will often be misled by his own pa.s.sions, which are more numerous than those of the populace.

We also see that in the appointment of magistrates the populace will make far better choices than a prince, nor can one ever persuade a populace that it is good to elect a wicked man with corrupt ways to public office. This is something a prince can easily be persuaded to do in a thousand ways. We also see that when a populace begin to detest something, they can do so for many centuries. This does not happen with princes. In both these matters I would like the Roman populace to suffice as example: In so many elections of consuls and tribunes over the centuries, they did not make four choices that they had cause to repent. And the populace had, as I have said, so much hatred for the name of king that no citizen, however meritorious, who aspired to that name could avoid the deserved punishment. We also see that states ruled by the populace are able to expand their territories quite remarkably in the shortest period, much more so than states that have always been under a prince. Rome proved to be such a state after the expulsion of its king, as was Athens after it freed itself from Pisistratus. This can mean only that a government of the populace is better than that of a prince. Nor do I want all that Livy says in the pa.s.sage I have cited, or in any other, to be set against my argument, because if we compare all the disorder caused by the populace with all the disorder caused by princes, and all the glories of the populace with all those of princes, we will see that the populace is far superior in goodness and glory. And if princes are superior to the populace in establishing laws, creating civic orders, and organizing statutes and new inst.i.tutions, the populace has been so much superior in maintaining inst.i.tutions in an orderly way, that without doubt they add to the glory of those who established them.

Finally, in conclusion, I propose that the states of princes have endured for a long time, as have republics, and that both the one and the other have had to be regulated by laws: A prince who can do as he pleases will prove himself mad, just as a populace who can do as they please will prove themselves unwise. Therefore, if one looks at a prince and a populace who are bound by laws, one will see that there is more skill in the populace than in the prince. If one looks at a prince and a populace who are not bound by laws, one will see fewer mistakes in the populace than in the prince, and these will be less serious and easier to resolve. A good man can speak to an unruly and riotous mult.i.tude and easily set it on the right path, but there is no one who can speak to an evil prince, nor is there any other remedy than the blade of a knife. From which one can a.s.sess the gravity of the populace's or the prince's disorder: To cure that of the populace one needs only words, while to cure that of the prince requires a blade-and here one can only conclude that where one needs a more incisive cure, there are greater ills.

When the people are completely unchecked by laws, their foolish acts are not feared, nor is one afraid of any present evil, but rather of the evil that might arise, since so much confusion can bring forth a tyrant. But with evil princes the opposite happens: One fears the present evil and has hope for the future, since men persuade themselves that the prince's evil life can give rise to liberty. Hence you can see the difference between the one and the other as a difference between the things that are and the things that will be. The cruelty of the populace is directed against those who the populace fears will seize public property, while the cruelty of the prince is directed against those he fears will take his property. But the bad opinion one has of the populace arises because, even while it is in power, everyone will speak badly about it quite openly, without fear of reprisal, while of princes one always speaks with a thousand fears and a thousand cautions.

144. Machiavelli is quoting Livy (Book VI, chapter 20) in Latin: Machiavelli is quoting Livy (Book VI, chapter 20) in Latin: Populum brevi, posteaquam ab eo periculum nullum erat, desiderium eius tenuit Populum brevi, posteaquam ab eo periculum nullum erat, desiderium eius tenuit.145. Machiavelli is quoting Livy (Book XXIV, chapter 25) in Latin: Machiavelli is quoting Livy (Book XXIV, chapter 25) in Latin: Haec natura mult.i.tudinis est: aut humiliter servit, aut superbe dominatur. Haec natura mult.i.tudinis est: aut humiliter servit, aut superbe dominatur.146. In a drunken fit, Alexander the Great killed Cleitus, one of his foremost commanders, after which he was inconsolable. King Herod had his wife Mariamne put to death in a fit of jealousy. In a drunken fit, Alexander the Great killed Cleitus, one of his foremost commanders, after which he was inconsolable. King Herod had his wife Mariamne put to death in a fit of jealousy.147. See chapter 29 above, t.i.tled "On Who Is More Ungrateful, a Populace or a Prince," and also chapter 30. See chapter 29 above, t.i.tled "On Who Is More Ungrateful, a Populace or a Prince," and also chapter 30.

BOOK II.

PREFACE.

Men praise the old times and find fault with the present, though not always with justification. They so admire things of the past that they esteem not only what they have come to know through accounts that historians have left us, but also the times that they as old men remember from their youth. When their opinion is flawed-as it is more often than not-I feel certain that this happens for a number of reasons. The first reason, in my view, is that no one knows the whole truth about the past, since in most cases incidents that would have brought disgrace upon earlier times have been concealed, while glorious incidents are rendered fully and are described as having been quite magnificent. This is because most historians bow to the fortunes of conquerors, and in order to make their victories glorious they aggrandize not only what the conquerors have skillfully achieved but also the exploits of the enemy, so that anyone born later, either in the land that was victorious or the land that was defeated, has reason to marvel at those men and those times and is compelled to admire and praise them.

Furthermore, men hate either from fear or from envy. Consequently, two most compelling reasons for hating things of the past are eliminated: Things of the past cannot harm you, nor is there any cause to envy them. Yet the opposite is true of things you can see, or in which you are involved. As these things are not in any way hidden from you, you can understand them fully and can discern precisely what you like as well as many things you dislike. As a result, you judge these things inferior to those of the past, even if in fact the things of the present deserve far more fame and glory. I do not mean matters concerning the arts, which are so brilliantly clear that time cannot diminish their glory or give them more glory than they deserve, but matters connected to life and customs, in which one cannot see such clear testimony.

I would like to point out, however, that though men tend to praise the past and find fault with the present, they are not always wrong to do so. Sometimes it is necessary for us to arrive at such a judgment, as human affairs are always in motion and will consequently either rise or fall. We see a city or country founded with a vital political order by an excellent man, and see it continue to develop toward the better, for a time, through the skill of its founder. Anyone who is born in such a land and praises ancient more than modern times is deceiving himself, which is caused by the issues that I pointed out above. But men born later in that city or country, during the period of its decline, do not deceive themselves.

As I contemplate how these things develop, I judge the world as having always been in the same condition: that there has always been as much good as evil, with the good and evil varying from country to country. We can see this from what we know of ancient kingdoms that differed from one another because of the variety of their customs, while the world remained the same. The only thing different in those times was that the world initially channeled all its resourcefulness first into a.s.syria, then into the land of the Medes, and then Persia, until it reached Italy and Rome. After imperial Rome, no empire has lasted, nor has there been a single place where the world has channeled all its resourcefulness, and yet this resourcefulness can be seen scattered among many nations where men lived worthily. This was true of the kingdom of the Franks, the Turks, the Mamluk sultans of Egypt, and today the peoples of Germany, and before them in the Saracen sect that accomplished such great feats and occupied so much of the world that it destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire.148 Thus, after the Romans came to ruin, this resourcefulness continued in all these countries and sects, and still exists in some of them, where it is cherished and much prized. Whoever is born in these lands and praises the past more than the present may be deceiving himself. But whoever is born in Italy or Greece and has not joined the foreign invaders (if he is Italian) or turned Turk (if he is Greek) has reason to blame his own times and praise the past. The past could boast of much that was admirable, while the present has nothing that can raise it out of the greatest misery, infamy, and shame, with no observance of religion, laws, or military traditions, and stained by every kind of filth. These vices are all the more detestable when they are found in men who sit as judges, command others, and strive to be honored. Thus, after the Romans came to ruin, this resourcefulness continued in all these countries and sects, and still exists in some of them, where it is cherished and much prized. Whoever is born in these lands and praises the past more than the present may be deceiving himself. But whoever is born in Italy or Greece and has not joined the foreign invaders (if he is Italian) or turned Turk (if he is Greek) has reason to blame his own times and praise the past. The past could boast of much that was admirable, while the present has nothing that can raise it out of the greatest misery, infamy, and shame, with no observance of religion, laws, or military traditions, and stained by every kind of filth. These vices are all the more detestable when they are found in men who sit as judges, command others, and strive to be honored.

But to return to our argument: If the judgment of men is distorted in a.s.sessing whether the present or the past is superior, it is because men cannot know the past as well as they know the present, owing to the pa.s.sage of time. Old men, too, should not let their judgment be distorted when they compare the days of their youth with those of their old age, even though they have in fact seen and experienced both. Such a comparison would be sound if a man's judgment and desires were the same throughout his life, but as these vary, even if the times do not, the times cannot appear the same to a man when in old age he has different desires, pleasures, and considerations than he did in his youth. As men grow old, they lose strength but gain in judgment and prudence, so it is unavoidable that what appeared bearable and good when they were young later becomes unbearable and bad. In this they ought to blame their judgment, but instead they blame the times. Furthermore, human appet.i.tes are insatiable because nature gives us the ability and the will to desire everything, while Fortune gives us the ability to acquire only little. The result is continuous discontent in the minds of men, and dissatisfaction with the things that they possess. This leads them to blame the present, praise the past, and long for the future, even though they have no reasonable grounds for doing so.

Consequently, if in these Discourses Discourses I praise the times of ancient Rome too highly and find fault with our times, I do not know whether I deserve to be numbered among those who deceive themselves. Without doubt, if the worthiness that held sway then and the vice that holds sway now were not clearer than the sun, I would speak more cautiously for fear of being duped in the same way as those I have just blamed. But as the matter is so clear to whoever considers it, I shall be bold and say openly what I understand of past and present times, so that the minds of the young who will read my work can avoid the mistakes of our times and be prepared to imitate ancient times whenever Fortune gives them the opportunity. For it is the duty of a good man to teach others the goodness that, because of Fortune and the malignity of the times, he himself has not been able to achieve; among the many who are capable of good actions, those more favored by heaven might be able to accomplish them. In the previous book I spoke of the Romans' decisions concerning the internal affairs of their city; in this book I shall speak of the decisions that the people of Rome made concerning the expansion of their empire. I praise the times of ancient Rome too highly and find fault with our times, I do not know whether I deserve to be numbered among those who deceive themselves. Without doubt, if the worthiness that held sway then and the vice that holds sway now were not clearer than the sun, I would speak more cautiously for fear of being duped in the same way as those I have just blamed. But as the matter is so clear to whoever considers it, I shall be bold and say openly what I understand of past and present times, so that the minds of the young who will read my work can avoid the mistakes of our times and be prepared to imitate ancient times whenever Fortune gives them the opportunity. For it is the duty of a good man to teach others the goodness that, because of Fortune and the malignity of the times, he himself has not been able to achieve; among the many who are capable of good actions, those more favored by heaven might be able to accomplish them. In the previous book I spoke of the Romans' decisions concerning the internal affairs of their city; in this book I shall speak of the decisions that the people of Rome made concerning the expansion of their empire.

148. Saracen sect: the Muslim Ottoman Turks who invaded and ultimately destroyed the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Saracen sect: the Muslim Ottoman Turks who invaded and ultimately destroyed the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

CHAPTER ONE.

ON WHETHER THE EMPIRE THE R ROMANS ACQUIRED WAS A RESULT OF SKILL OR OF F FORTUNE.

Many have been of the opinion-among them Plutarch, a writer of great importance-that in acquiring its empire the Roman populace was favored more by Fortune than by skill.149 One of Plutarch's arguments is that the Romans plainly attributed all their victories to Fortune, since they built more temples to Fortune than to any other deity. It seems that Livy was of the same opinion, because he rarely has a Roman speak of skill without adding to it the role that Fortune played. I, however, reject this view entirely, as I do not believe it can be sustained. If no republic was as successful in expanding its territories as Rome, this is because there has never been a republic better organized than Rome to accomplish such expansion. It is the skill of Rome's armies that enabled it to acquire its empire, while the organization and procedures established by Rome's founder enabled it to maintain what it acquired, as I shall discuss later in greater detail. One of Plutarch's arguments is that the Romans plainly attributed all their victories to Fortune, since they built more temples to Fortune than to any other deity. It seems that Livy was of the same opinion, because he rarely has a Roman speak of skill without adding to it the role that Fortune played. I, however, reject this view entirely, as I do not believe it can be sustained. If no republic was as successful in expanding its territories as Rome, this is because there has never been a republic better organized than Rome to accomplish such expansion. It is the skill of Rome's armies that enabled it to acquire its empire, while the organization and procedures established by Rome's founder enabled it to maintain what it acquired, as I shall discuss later in greater detail.

The historians claim that if Rome never fought two major wars at the same time, it was due to Fortune, not to the skill of its populace. The Romans did not fight a war against the Latins before the Romans crushed the Samnites so totally that they then had to wage a war to defend them.150 The Romans did not have to fight the Etruscans until they had subjugated the Latins and almost entirely crushed the Samnites. If two of these powers had joined forces when they were whole and strong, one could easily imagine them destroying Rome. Be that as it may, it never came about that the Romans had to fight two major wars at the same time: In fact, it always seemed that when one war began, another ended, and when one war ended, another began. This is clear from the sequence of the wars they fought, because if we set aside the wars before Rome was taken by the Gauls, The Romans did not have to fight the Etruscans until they had subjugated the Latins and almost entirely crushed the Samnites. If two of these powers had joined forces when they were whole and strong, one could easily imagine them destroying Rome. Be that as it may, it never came about that the Romans had to fight two major wars at the same time: In fact, it always seemed that when one war began, another ended, and when one war ended, another began. This is clear from the sequence of the wars they fought, because if we set aside the wars before Rome was taken by the Gauls,151 we see that while the Romans battled the Aequi and the Volsci, no other state waged a war against the Romans while the Aequi and the Volsci were still powerful. It was only after Rome was victorious that the war against the Samnites began, we see that while the Romans battled the Aequi and the Volsci, no other state waged a war against the Romans while the Aequi and the Volsci were still powerful. It was only after Rome was victorious that the war against the Samnites began,152 and though the Latins rebelled against the new Roman dominion before the Samnite War was over, by the time the rebellion took place the Samnites had already allied themselves with Rome, which then used Samnite soldiers to curb the Latins' insolence. and though the Latins rebelled against the new Roman dominion before the Samnite War was over, by the time the rebellion took place the Samnites had already allied themselves with Rome, which then used Samnite soldiers to curb the Latins' insolence.153 Once the Latins were crushed, the Samnite War resurged, Once the Latins were crushed, the Samnite War resurged,154 and after the Samnites were beaten by constant routs, the war against the Etruscans began. When this war was over, the Samnites rose again when King Pyrrhus arrived in Italy and after the Samnites were beaten by constant routs, the war against the Etruscans began. When this war was over, the Samnites rose again when King Pyrrhus arrived in Italy155 After King Pyrrhus was repulsed and sent back to Greece, the Romans initiated their first war against the Carthaginians, a war that had barely ended when all the Gauls, from both sides of the Alps, conspired against the Romans until they were finally defeated after a great ma.s.sacre between Popolonia and Pisa, where today the tower of San Vincenti stands. After King Pyrrhus was repulsed and sent back to Greece, the Romans initiated their first war against the Carthaginians, a war that had barely ended when all the Gauls, from both sides of the Alps, conspired against the Romans until they were finally defeated after a great ma.s.sacre between Popolonia and Pisa, where today the tower of San Vincenti stands.

Once this war was over, for the next twenty years there were wars of minor importance, because the Romans fought only the Ligurians and whatever Gauls were left in Lombardy This period continued until the beginning of the Second Punic War, which kept Italy engaged for sixteen years. When the Punic War ended with supreme glory for Rome, the Macedonian War began, and when that war ended there was another with Antiochus and Asia.156 After this victory there was no prince or republic in all the world who could oppose the Roman forces, alone or in joint effort. After this victory there was no prince or republic in all the world who could oppose the Roman forces, alone or in joint effort.

Yet even before this last victory, anyone who considers the sequence of these wars and how they were conducted will see great skill and wisdom linked with Fortune. The reason for this good fortune is quite clear, because it is most certain that when a prince or populace reaches such powerful standing that all neighboring princes or populaces are afraid of attacking them individually and of being attacked by them, it is inevitable that no one will a.s.sault them unless they are forced to do so. The powerful prince or republic can choose what neighbor to engage in battle while attentively calming the others, who can be a.s.suaged easily enough because of their deference to power and the deceptiveness of the methods used to a.s.suage them. Other states that are more distant and do not have much contact with the powerful prince or republic will regard the matter as far off and of little concern. These distant states will continue in their mistaken view until the blaze of war reaches them. By that time their only means of extinguishing it will be with their own forces, which will no longer be sufficient, as the enemy will have become too powerful.

I would like to pa.s.s over how the Samnites stood by and watched the Romans conquer the Volsci and the Aequi, and, in order not to be too long-winded, will begin with the Carthaginians, who, in the days when the Romans were battling the Samnites and the Etruscans, were very powerful and greatly revered, as Carthage already held all of Africa, Sardinia, and Sicily and parts of Spain. Carthage, because of its power and its distance from the provinces of Rome, never sought to attack the Romans or come to the aid of the Samnites or the Etruscans. The Carthaginians, in fact, acted as one does when everything is progressing in one's favor, even forming alliances with the Romans. Nor did they realize their mistake until the Romans had subjugated all the territories between the Roman provinces and those of Carthage and began fighting Carthage for its possessions in Sicily and Spain. The Carthaginians fell into the same trap as had the Gauls, Philip of Mace-don, and Antiochus, who had all been convinced that the Romans would be vanquished by one of the others, and that they themselves would have ample time to defend themselves from the Romans through either peace or war. Hence I believe that the Romans' good fortune in this matter is of the kind that any prince would have who proceeds as they did and is as skillful as they were.

Here I would have liked to discuss the ways the Romans had of entering the territories of others, had I not discussed this at great length in my treatise on princ.i.p.alities.157 So I will say only that in new territories, the Romans always did their best to have allies who could serve as a door or ladder enabling them to enter and retain these territories. We see that the Romans entered Samnium with the help of the Campanians, and Etruria with the help of the Camertines; the Mamertines helped them enter Sicily, the Saguntines Spain, the Ma.s.sinissa Africa, the Aetolians Greece; Eumenes and other princes helped Rome enter Asia, and the Ma.s.silienses and the Aedui helped them enter Gaul. The Romans never lacked this kind of support, which facilitated their campaigns and helped them acquire and keep new provinces. States that follow the Roman example will find they need Fortune less than states that do not. To clarify how skill more than Fortune can lead a state to such an empire, we will discuss in the following chapter the character of the peoples whom the Romans engaged in battle, and how determined these peoples were in defending their liberty. So I will say only that in new territories, the Romans always did their best to have allies who could serve as a door or ladder enabling them to enter and retain these territories. We see that the Romans entered Samnium with the help of the Campanians, and Etruria with the help of the Camertines; the Mamertines helped them enter Sicily, the Saguntines Spain, the Ma.s.sinissa Africa, the Aetolians Greece; Eumenes and other princes helped Rome enter Asia, and the Ma.s.silienses and the Aedui helped them enter Gaul. The Romans never lacked this kind of support, which facilitated their campaigns and helped them acquire and keep new provinces. States that follow the Roman example will find they need Fortune less than states that do not. To clarify how skill more than Fortune can lead a state to such an empire, we will discuss in the following chapter the character of the peoples whom the Romans engaged in battle, and how determined these peoples were in defending their liberty.

149. Plutarch writes in Plutarch writes in De fortuna Romanorum De fortuna Romanorum, chapter 11: "The smooth course of events, and Rome's swift expansion and progress to supreme power, proves to all who weigh this matter that Rome's rule did not arise from the toils and tactics of man but was sped on by divine escort and the winds of Fortune."150. The Samnites were a group of tribes of the southern Apennines who united to repel Roman expansion. The Samnites were a group of tribes of the southern Apennines who united to repel Roman expansion.151. The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 The Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BCE BCE. The Aequi, an Italic people hostile to Rome, were repulsed by the Romans in 431, but not entirely subdued until the end of the Second Samnite War (304 BCE BCE).152. The First Samnite War was fought from 343 to 341 The First Samnite War was fought from 343 to 341 BCE BCE.153. The Romans and the Samnites fought the Latins between 340 and 338 The Romans and the Samnites fought the Latins between 340 and 338 BCE BCE.154. The Second Samnite War (326304 The Second Samnite War (326304 BCE BCE).155. In 281 In 281 BCE BCE the Samnites asked Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, for a.s.sistance against Rome. He crossed to Italy with some twenty-five thousand men, and won a series of costly victories against the Romans. In 275, however, he suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Beneventum and returned to Epirus. the Samnites asked Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, for a.s.sistance against Rome. He crossed to Italy with some twenty-five thousand men, and won a series of costly victories against the Romans. In 275, however, he suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Beneventum and returned to Epirus.156. The Second Macedonian War, 200196 The Second Macedonian War, 200196 BCE BCE, and the war against Antiochus the Great of the h.e.l.lenistic Syrian Empire.157. Machiavelli is referring to Machiavelli is referring to The Prince The Prince, chapters 3 and 5.

CHAPTER TWO.

ON THE PEOPLES THE R ROMANS HAD TO FIGHT, AND HOW THOSE PEOPLES RESOLUTELY DEFENDED THEIR LIBERTY.

For the Romans, nothing presented a greater obstacle in their drive to conquer the peoples surrounding them, as well as those in more distant lands, than these peoples' love for liberty. In fact, they defended their liberty so resolutely that they would never have been subjugated had not the Romans been exceptionally skillful. There are many examples of the dangers to which these peoples exposed themselves in order to keep their liberty or regain it, and of their acts of vengeance against those who had occupied them. We also know from reading the histories how these people and cities suffered on account of their servitude to Rome. In our times there is only one land where there are states one can call free,158 while in ancient times all lands had peoples living in freedom. It is clear that in Italy, in those ancient times we are now discussing, from the mountains that divide present-day Tuscany and Lombardy to the southern tip of Italy, all the peoples were free: the Etruscans, Romans, Samnites, and many others that populated the rest of Italy. Nor is it ever argued that there were any kings, other than those of Rome or the Etruscan king Porsena, of whom history does not tell us how their lineage was extinguished. But we can see that during the era when Rome besieged Veii, the Etruscan lands were free and pa.s.sionate about their freedom, hating the word "king" so much that when the people of Veii appointed a king for their defense against the Romans, and then called upon the Etruscans for help, the Etruscans, after much deliberation, decided against helping a people that lived under a king. The Etruscans decided that they would not come to the defense of a people that had already allowed itself to be subjugated by a ruler. while in ancient times all lands had peoples living in freedom. It is clear that in Italy, in those ancient times we are now discussing, from the mountains that divide present-day Tuscany and Lombardy to the southern tip of Italy, all the peoples were free: the Etruscans, Romans, Samnites, and many others that populated the rest of Italy. Nor is it ever argued that there were any kings, other than those of Rome or the Etruscan king Porsena, of whom history does not tell us how their lineage was extinguished. But we can see that during the era when Rome besieged Veii, the Etruscan lands were free and pa.s.sionate about their freedom, hating the word "king" so much that when the people of Veii appointed a king for their defense against the Romans, and then called upon the Etruscans for help, the Etruscans, after much deliberation, decided against helping a people that lived under a king. The Etruscans decided that they would not come to the defense of a people that had already allowed itself to be subjugated by a ruler.159 It is easy enough to understand how a people's love of freedom arises, because we have seen from experience that states have grown in land and wealth only if they are free: The greatness that Athens achieved within a century of liberating itself from the tyranny of Pisistratus160 is astonishing, and even more astonishing the greatness that Rome achieved after it freed itself from its kings. The reason these cities flourished is easy to understand, because it is the pursuit of the public interest, not private interest, that will make a city great. Without doubt, the pursuit of the public interest is seen as crucial only in a republic, because everything vital to the republic is carried out. During this process harm is done to this or that private individual, but there are so many who benefit from the common good that the majority sees to it that it is carried out despite the resistance of the few who are harmed. The opposite occurs when there is a prince, because more often than not what he does in his own interest will harm the city, and what he does for the city will harm his interests. Consequently, the moment a tyranny replaces freedom, the least harm that can be expected for that state is that it no longer progresses, and stops growing in power and wealth. But in most cases-in fact, always-these states begin to regress. Even if by chance the tyrant proves capable, expanding his dominions through courage and military skill, it will not result in any benefit to the state but only to him. He will not be able to honor any of the good and valorous citizens under his yoke, as he does not want to have to be suspicious of them. Nor can he subjugate the states he conquers into offering tribute to the state of which he is tyrant, because cause it is not to his advantage to make his own state powerful. It is in fact to his advantage to keep the territories under his control divided, each recognizing him alone. As a result it is the tyrant who benefits from his new dominions, not his state. Anyone who wishes to confirm this opinion can find many examples in Xenophon's treatise is astonishing, and even more astonishing the greatness that Rome achieved after it freed itself from its kings. The reason these cities flourished is easy to understand, because it is the pursuit of the public interest, not private interest, that will make a city great. Without doubt, the pursuit of the public interest is seen as crucial only in a republic, because everything vital to the republic is carried out. During this process harm is done to this or that private individual, but there are so many who benefit from the common good that the majority sees to it that it is carried out despite the resistance of the few who are harmed. The opposite occurs when there is a prince, because more often than not what he does in his own interest will harm the city, and what he does for the city will harm his interests. Consequently, the moment a tyranny replaces freedom, the least harm that can be expected for that state is that it no longer progresses, and stops growing in power and wealth. But in most cases-in fact, always-these states begin to regress. Even if by chance the tyrant proves capable, expanding his dominions through courage and military skill, it will not result in any benefit to the state but only to him. He will not be able to honor any of the good and valorous citizens under his yoke, as he does not want to have to be suspicious of them. Nor can he subjugate the states he conquers into offering tribute to the state of which he is tyrant, because cause it is not to his advantage to make his own state powerful. It is in fact to his advantage to keep the territories under his control divided, each recognizing him alone. As a result it is the tyrant who benefits from his new dominions, not his state. Anyone who wishes to confirm this opinion can find many examples in Xenophon's treatise On Tyranny On Tyranny.61 Hence it is not surprising that the ancients, in their desire to live in freedom, persecuted tyrants with such vigor, and held the word "liberty" in such high esteem. An example is when Hieronymus, Hiero's grandson, was a.s.sa.s.sinated in Syracuse.162 As soon as the news of his death reached his army, which was not far from Syracuse, the soldiers took up arms against his a.s.sa.s.sins, but when they heard all Syracuse shouting the word "liberty," they relented, enthralled by that word. Hieronymus's army put aside their anger against the tyrannicides and began to consider how a free government might be set up in that city. As soon as the news of his death reached his army, which was not far from Syracuse, the soldiers took up arms against his a.s.sa.s.sins, but when they heard all Syracuse shouting the word "liberty," they relented, enthralled by that word. Hieronymus's army put aside their anger against the tyrannicides and began to consider how a free government might be set up in that city.

Nor is it surprising that populaces have been known to undertake extraordinary feats of revenge against those who deprived them of their liberty. I could cite many examples, but will limit myself to one that occurred during the Peloponnesian War in Corcyra, a Greek city. Greece was divided, some of the states supporting the Athenians, others the Spartans. One result was that opposing cla.s.ses within many Greek cities sought support from Sparta or Athens to further their cause. In Corcyra the n.o.ble faction prevailed, and deprived the populace of its freedom. But the populace, with the help of the Athenians, regained power, rounded up the n.o.bles, and locked them in a prison large enough to hold them all. From there they brought out nine or ten men at a time under the guise of sending them into exile to different places, but instead slaughtered them in many cruel ways.163 When the remaining n.o.bles realized what was awaiting them, they decided to avoid an ignominious death and armed themselves as best they could. They repulsed all who tried to enter the prison. They defended the gate until the populace, roused by the clamor, came running and knocked down the roof of the prison, crushing the n.o.bles beneath the ruins. There were many other such terrible and notable cases in Greece, which shows that man will seek greater vengeance for liberty that is taken from him than for liberty that someone intends to take from him. When the remaining n.o.bles realized what was awaiting them, they decided to avoid an ignominious death and armed themselves as best they could. They repulsed all who tried to enter the prison. They defended the gate until the populace, roused by the clamor, came running and knocked down the roof of the prison, crushing the n.o.bles beneath the ruins. There were many other such terrible and notable cases in Greece, which shows that man will seek greater vengeance for liberty that is taken from him than for liberty that someone intends to take from him.

If one reflects on why in those ancient times men were greater lovers of liberty than in our times, one will conclude that it is for the same reason that men today are less strong. The reason is, I believe, the difference between our upbringing and that of ancient times, which is caused by the difference between our religion and that of the ancients. Though our religion has revealed the truth to us and the true path, it has made us value worldly honor less, while the pagans valued it greatly, considering it to be the highest good, and consequently were fiercer in action. This is evident in many of their customs, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices in comparison to the humbleness of ours, whose ceremonies are subdued rather than magnificent and have no action that is fierce or bold. The ceremonies of the ancients, on the other hand, had great pomp and magnificence, and also had sacrifices filled with blood and ferocity, countless animals slaughtered, a terrible sight that made men ferocious. Furthermore, ancient religion beatified only men who were filled with worldly glory, such as generals and princes, while our religion glorifies men who are humble and contemplative rather than men of action. Our religion also places the highest value on humility, debas.e.m.e.nt, and disdain for worldly matters, while ancient religion placed the highest value on greatness of spirit, strength of body, and on everything that makes men strong. If our religion does demand that you be strong, it is so that you will be able to bear suffering rather than carry out feats of strength. It is this way of life that seems to have rendered the world weak, delivering it to wicked men to be ransacked. And these men have no trouble in doing so, since mankind, its eyes set on paradise, strives to endure pain rather than avenge it. If the world seems to have become effeminate, and heaven disarmed, this doubtless arises more from the cowardice of men who have interpreted our religion through the prism of indolence, and not through that of skill and valor. Were they to consider how our religion permits the exaltation and defense of one's native land, they would see how it also wants us to love and honor it, and to prepare ourselves to be the kind of men who can defend it. Our upbringing and the false interpretation of our religion has resulted in there no longer being as many republics in the world today as there were in ancient times, nor do we consequently see as great a love for liberty. Another compelling reason for this, however, is that with its arms and grandeur the Roman Empire destroyed all the republics and free states it occupied. Even though the Roman Empire later collapsed, very few of its provinces have been able to regroup or reorganize themselves into free states. Be this as it may, in every corner of the earth the Romans had encountered alliances between states which were heavily armed and fought doggedly to defend their liberty. This demonstrates that the Romans would never have been able to overcome them without their own exceptional skill.

As an example of a state within such an alliance I would like to limit myself to the Samnites. It is amazing, and Livy himself admits this, that they were so powerful, and their army so effective, that they were able to resist the Romans until the days when Papirius Cursor, the son of Papirius the Elder, was consul-a period of forty-six years-despite the routs and the devastation of their lands and all the carnage in their territories.164 It seems all the more amazing that today the former Samnite lands, where there were so many cities and such great populations, are almost uninhabited, whereas in ancient times there was so much order and power that Samnium would have been unconquerable had it not been a.s.saulted by Roman skill. It is easy to understand where such order came from and where such disorder: It all came from their having first lived freely and then in slavery. All lands and countries that live freely, as I said above, prosper. In them one finds thriving populations, with marriage easier and more desirable because any man will gladly procreate sons when he believes he can feed them, without worrying that their patrimony will be seized, and knowing that they will not only be born free and not slaves, but that they can, through their own skill, become rulers. Riches are seen to multiply more swiftly, both from agriculture and from crafts. Everyone gladly works to increase these things, seeking to obtain the goods he believes he can enjoy once he has acquired them. As a result, men will vie to think about private and public benefit, with the result that both grow quite miraculously. It seems all the more amazing that today the former Samnite lands, where there were so many cities and such great populations, are almost uninhabited, whereas in ancient times there was so much order and power that Samnium would have been unconquerable had it not been a.s.saulted by Roman skill. It is easy to understand where such order came from and where such disorder: It all came from their having first lived freely and then in slavery. All lands and countries that live freely, as I said above, prosper. In them one finds thriving populations, with marriage easier and more desirable because any man will gladly procreate sons when he believes he can feed them, without worrying that their patrimony will be seized, and knowing that they will not only be born free and not slaves, but that they can, through their own skill, become rulers. Riches are seen to multiply more swiftly, both from agriculture and from crafts. Everyone gladly works to increase these things, seeking to obtain the goods he believes he can enjoy once he has acquired them. As a result, men will vie to think about private and public benefit, with the result that both grow quite miraculously.

The opposite happens in the states that live in slavery. The more they recede from the good to which they were accustomed, the harsher their slavery becomes. And of all harsh servitude, the harshest is to be subjugated by a republic: first, because it is more lasting and one cannot hope to escape; second, the aim of a republic is to enervate and weaken all the bodies around it so that its own body will grow. A prince who subjugates you, on the other hand, will not enervate and weaken you, unless he is a barbarian prince and a destroyer of lands and civilizations, as oriental princes are. But if the prince has an ordinary and humane disposition, more often than not he will love his subject states as his own and leave their crafts and almost all their old inst.i.tutions intact, so that even if these states cannot grow as they would if they were free, they will not come to ruin as if they were slaves: By this I mean the slavery the states fall into when they are subjected to a foreign prince, as I have already discussed those which had one of their own citizens as prince.

Anyone who weighs all the things I have said will not be surprised at the power the Samnites had when they were free, and the weakness into which they declined once they were enslaved. Livy testifies to this on many occasions, most of all when he discusses Hannibal's war, when the Samnites, oppressed by a Roman legion stationed in Nola, sent emissaries to Hannibal pleading with him to rescue them.165 These emissaries proclaimed in their speeches that the Samnites had fought the Romans for a hundred years with their own soldiers and generals, often withstanding two consular armies and two consuls, but that they had now fallen so low that they could barely defend themselves against a small Roman legion stationed in Nola. These emissaries proclaimed in their speeches that the Samnites had fought the Romans for a hundred years with their own soldiers and generals, often withstanding two consular armies and two consuls, but that they had now fallen so low that they could barely defend themselves against a small Roman legion stationed in Nola.

158. Machiavelli is referring to Germany. Machiavelli is referring to Germany.159. Livy (Book V, chapter 1), however, writes: "The Etruscans were offended, as they hated kingship as much as they did the new king himself. They found him odious for his wealth and pride. He had once sacrilegiously broken up the games of a solemn religious festival in fury that another man had been preferred to himself as priest." Livy (Book V, chapter 1), however, writes: "The Etruscans were offended, as they hated kingship as much as they did the new king himself. They found him odious for his wealth and pride. He had once sacrilegiously broken up the games of a solemn religious festival in fury that another man had been preferred to himself as priest."160. Pisistratus and his sons ruled Athens from 546 to 510 Pisistratus and his sons ruled Athens from 546 to 510 BCE BCE, after which Athens entered its Golden Age, which lasted until it was defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BCE BCE.161. In Xenophon's treatise In Xenophon's treatise On Tyranny On Tyranny, also known in English as Hieron Hieron, the tyrant Hiero of Syracuse and the poet Simonides argue over the benefits and disadvantages of exercising tyranny.162. Hieronymus was a.s.sa.s.sinated in 215 Hieronymus was a.s.sa.s.sinated in 215 BCE BCE, "stabbed many times before help could be called" (Livy Book XXIV, chapter 7).163. Machiavelli follows Thucydides's dexcription in Machiavelli follows Thucydides's dexcription in The Peloponnesian War The Peloponnesian War, Book IV, chapters 4648.164. Livy (Book X, chapter 31) writes: "I will not now recount the destruction of all those years that overtook both peoples, and the troubles they endured, and yet all this was powerless to break the resolution or the spirit of the Samnites." Livy (Book X, chapter 31) writes: "I will not now recount the destruction of all those years that overtook both peoples, and the troubles they endured, and yet all this was powerless to break the resolution or the spirit of the Samnites."165. Livy in Book XXIII, chapters 41 and 42, describes these incidents and their speech to Hannibal, which begins: "We fought the Romans for a century without aid from a foreign general or army." Livy in Book XXIII, chapters 41 and 42, describes these incidents and their speech to Hannibal, which begins: "We fought the Romans for a century without aid from a foreign general or army."

CHAPTER THREE.

ON HOW R ROME BECAME A GREAT STATE, DESTROYING THE STATES THAT SURROUNDED IT, AND HOW IT TOOK FOREIGNERS INTO ITS RANKS.

"All the while Rome grows on the ruins of Alba."166 Those who intend their city to become a great empire must endeavor to fill it with inhabitants, because without an abundance of men it will never become a great city. This can be done in two ways: through love or through force. If it is through love, one must keep the roads open for foreigners who aspire to come live in one's city, everyone living there willingly. If it is through force, one will destroy the neighboring cities and send their inhabitants to live in one's own city. Rome followed this practice so diligently that by the time of their sixth king, Rome had eighty thousand men capable of bearing arms. The Romans wanted to adopt the ways of the good farmer who will prune the first branches that a tree sprouts so that it will grow well and produce ripe fruit, and so that the power remaining in the roots can with time make it grow more lushly and bear more fruit. The examples of Sparta and Athens demonstrate that this way of enlarging a state and creating an empire is effective: These two states had powerful armies and the best laws, and yet they did not reach the greatness of the Roman Empire, even if by comparison Rome seemed unruly and disorganized. No other reason for Rome's greatness can be put forward than the one I have already suggested: Rome had enlarged the body of its state in both these ways and was able to arm eighty thousand men, while Sparta and Athens never surpa.s.sed twenty thousand each. This was not the result of Rome's having a more advantageous location, only that it had a different way of proceeding. Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan state, believed that nothing would corrupt his laws more than introducing new inhabitants into Sparta, and consequently did his utmost to prevent foreigners mixing with Spartans. Not only did he forbid intermarriage, citizenship, and other interaction that brings people together, but he decreed that only money made of leather could be used in his state. He did this in order to discourage merchants from coming to Sparta with goods or crafts. The result was that the city could never grow in inhabitants. And as all of our actions imitate nature, it is neither possible nor natural that a delicate trunk will be able to sustain heavy branches. Therefore a small republic cannot occupy cities and kingdoms that are more effective or bigger than it is, and if it does, it will meet the same fate as a tree whose branches are larger than its trunk: holding them up with difficulty, the trunk will break in the slightest breeze. This was the case of Sparta, which successfully occupied all the city-states in Greece. And yet the moment Thebes rebelled, all the other cities followed suit and the trunk remained alone and without branches. This could not happen to Rome, as its trunk was so thick that it could support branches of any size. This and other ways of proceeding that I shall describe are what made Rome powerful and great. Livy demonstrated this in his well-chosen phrase: "All the while Rome grows on the ruins of Alba." Those who intend their city to become a great empire must endeavor to fill it with inhabitants, because without an abundance of men it will never become a great city. This can be done in two ways: through love or through force. If it is through love, one must keep the roads open for foreigners who aspire to come live in one's city, everyone living there willingly. If it is through force, one will destroy the neighboring cities and send their inhabitants to live in one's own city. Rome followed this practice so diligently that by the time of their sixth king, Rome had eighty thousand men capable of bearing arms. The Romans wanted to adopt the ways of the good farmer who will prune the first branches that a tree sprouts so that it will grow well and produce ripe fruit, and so that the power remaining in the roots can with time make it grow more lushly and bear more fruit. The examples of Sparta and Athens demonstrate that this way of enlarging a state and creating an empire is effective: These two states had powerful armies and the best laws, and yet they did not reach the greatness of the Roman Empire, even if by comparison Rome seemed unruly and disorganized. No other reason for Rome's greatness can be put forward than the one I have already suggested: Rome had enlarged the body of its state in both these ways and was able to arm eighty thousand men, while Sparta and Athens never surpa.s.sed twenty thousand each. This was not the result of Rome's having a more advantageous location, only that it had a different way of proceeding. Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan state, believed that nothing would corrupt his laws more than introducing new inhabitants into Sparta, and consequently did his utmost to prevent foreigners mixing with Spartans. Not only did he forbid intermarriage, citizenship, and other interaction that brings people together, but he decreed that only money made of leather could be used in his state. He did this in order to discourage merchants from coming to Sparta with goods or crafts. The result was that the city could never grow in inhabitants. And as all of our actions imitate nature, it is neither possible nor natural that a delicate trunk will be able to sustain heavy branches. Therefore a small republic cannot occupy cities and kingdoms that are more effective or bigger than it is, and if it does, it will meet the same fate as a tree whose branches are larger than its trunk: holding them up with difficulty, the trunk will break in the slightest breeze. This was the case of Sparta, which successfully occupied all the city-states in Greece. And yet the moment Thebes rebelled, all the other cities followed suit and the trunk remained alone and without branches. This could not happen to Rome, as its trunk was so thick that it could support branches of any size. This and other ways of proceeding that I shall describe are what made Rome powerful and great. Livy demonstrated this in his well-chosen phrase: "All the while Rome grows on the ruins of Alba."

166. Machiavelli quotes Livy (Book I, chapter 30) in Latin: Machiavelli quotes Livy (Book I, chapter 30) in Latin: Crescit interea Roma Albae ruinis Crescit interea Roma Albae ruinis.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN.

ON HOW ONE RISES FROM LOW TO HIGH ESTATE THROUGH DECEPTION MORE THAN THROUGH FORCE.

I consider it true that men of low fortune rarely if ever reach high rank without using either force or deception, though such rank can also be reached by gift or heredity. I also believe that force alone is never enough, though deception alone can be. Anyone who reads about the lives of Philip of Macedon, Agathocles of Sicily167 and many other such men will see that those of the lowest or at least limited fortune have gained kingdoms or great empires through deception. Xenophon in his life of Cyrus also demonstrates the necessity of deception. and many other such men will see that those of the lowest or at least limited fortune have gained kingdoms or great empires through deception. Xenophon in his life of Cyrus also demonstrates the necessity of deception.168 If one considers Cyrus's first expedition against the king of Armenia, one will see that it is marked by deception, and that Cyrus occupied that kingdom through trickery, not force. If one considers Cyrus's first expedition against the king of Armenia, one will see that it is marked by deception, and that Cyrus occupied that kingdom through trickery, not force.169 One can only conclude that a prince who aspires to great deeds must learn to deceive. Cyrus also deceived his maternal uncle Cyaxares, the king of the Medes, in many ways, and Xenophon demonstrates how Cyrus would not have been able to achieve the greatness that he did without this deception. One can only conclude that a prince who aspires to great deeds must learn to deceive. Cyrus also deceived his maternal uncle Cyaxares, the king of the Medes, in many ways, and Xenophon demonstrates how Cyrus would not have been able to achieve the greatness that he did without this deception.

Nor do I believe that any man of low fortune who attained great power managed to do so through sincerity and open force, but only through deception. Giovanni Galeazzo's seizing power and control of Lombardy from his uncle, Messer Bernabo, is another example.170 And what a prince is compelled to do as he begins to expand his state, a republic must also do until it has become powerful enough to use force alone. Rome prevailed because by choice or chance it always used any means necessary to achieve greatness. As Rome began to expand, it could not have resorted to greater deception than it used in acquiring allies, which I have described above, because through these alliances it made these allies its slaves, which was the fate of the Latins and the other peoples surrounding Rome. First Rome used these peoples' armies to subjugate the peoples living adjacent to their territories and strengthen Rome's standing and prestige, and then, having subjugated them, Rome grew to such an extent that it could vanquish anyone. And all the while, the Latins did not realize they had become slaves until they saw the Samnites twice defeated and forced into a treaty And what a prince is compelled to do as he begins to expand his state, a republic must also do until it has become powerful enough to use force alone. Rome prevailed because by choice or chance it always used any means necessary to achieve greatness. As Rome began to expand, it could not have resorted to greater deception than it used in acquiring allies, which I have described above, because through these alliances it made these allies its slaves, which was the fate of the Latins and the other peoples surrounding Rome. First Rome used these peoples' armies to subjugate the peoples living adjacent to their territories and strengthen Rome's standing and prestige, and then, having subjugated them, Rome grew to such an extent that it could vanquish anyone. And all the while, the Latins did not realize they had become slaves until they saw the Samnites twice defeated and forced into a treaty171 Through this victory, the Romans increased their standing with distant princes, who now encountered Rome's prestige though not Rome's armies. But this victory also generated envy and suspicion among those who did encounter and experience Rome's armies, among them the Latins. This envy and fear were so great that not only the Latins, but also their colonies in Latium, along with the Campanians, who had only recently been defended by the Romans, all conspired against Rome. The Latins started the war, as I have already mentioned, in the way most wars are started: They did not attack the Romans, but defended the Sidicini against the Samnites, who were fighting with the sanction of the Romans. Livy shows us that the Latins attacked once they became aware of the Roman deception. He has Annius Setinus say: "For under the semblance of a treaty between equals we have already been enslaved." Through this victory, the Romans increased their standing with distant princes, who now encountered Rome's prestige though not Rome's armies. But this victory also generated envy and suspicion among those who did encounter and experience Rome's armies, among them the Latins. This envy and fear were so great that not only the Latins, but also their colonies in Latium, along with the Campanians, who had only recently been defended by the Romans, all conspired against Rome. The Latins started the war, as I have already mentioned, in the way most wars are started: They did not attack the Romans, but defended the Sidicini against the Samnites, who were fighting with the sanction of the Romans. Livy shows us that the Latins attacked once they became aware of the Roman deception. He has Annius Setinus say: "For under the semblance of a treaty between equals we have already been enslaved."172 So it is clear that in their initial expansions the Romans were ready enough to resort to deception, which has always been necessary for those wanting to reach sublime heights from small beginnings. This deception is less deserving of vituperation the more it is concealed, as was the deception of the Romans. So it is clear that in their initial expansions the Romans were ready enough to resort to deception, which has always been necessary for those wanting to reach sublime heights from small beginnings. This deception is less deserving of vituperation the more it is concealed, as was the deception of the Romans.

167. Machiavelli also refers to Philip of Macedon (360336 Machiavelli also refers to Philip of Macedon (360336 BCE BCE) and Agathocles (361-289 BCE BCE) in The Prince The Prince. In chapter 12: "The Thebans had made Philip of Macedon their general after the death of Epaminondas, but once Philip was victorious in battle he took away the Thebans' liberty." And in chapter 8: "One morning Agathocles called together the people and the senate of Syracuse as if to discuss important issues concerning the republic, and then at a signal to his soldiers had them kill all the senators and the richest men of the city." (See also note 30 in The Prince. The Prince.)168. Machiavelli is referring to Xenophon's Machiavelli is referring to Xenophon's Cyropaedia: Cyropaedia: In Book I, chapter 6, young Cyrus asks his father how one overcomes the enemy in battle, to which the father answers: "My son, this is not a simple question you are asking. He who intends to do this must be a plotter, cunning, deceitful, a cheat, a thief, and rapacious, and outdo his enemy in everything." In Book I, chapter 6, young Cyrus asks his father how one overcomes the enemy in battle, to which the father answers: "My son, this is not a simple question you are asking. He who intends to do this must be a plotter, cunning, deceitful, a cheat, a thief, and rapacious, and outdo his enemy in everything."169. Xenophon in Xenophon in Cyropaedia Cyropaedia, Book II, chapter 4, has Cyrus explain his tactics of organizing hunting expeditions with his men near the borders of Armenia. When the day comes for him to invade, his presence with a large force of men will not arouse the suspicions of the Armenians.170. Gian Galeazzo Visconti (13511402), ruler of Pavia, seized Milan and other territories of Lombardy from his uncle after imprisoning and executing him. Gian Galeazzo Visconti (13511402), ruler of Pavia, seized Milan and other territories of Lombardy from his uncle after imprisoning and executing him.171. Livy describes these incidents in Book VII, chapters 33, 36, and 37. Livy describes these incidents in Book VII, chapters 33, 36, and 37.172. Machiavelli is quoting Livy, Book VIII, chapter 4, in Latin: Machiavelli is quoting Livy, Book VIII, chapter 4, in Latin: Nam si etiam nunc sub umbra foederis aequi servitutem pati possumus Nam si etiam nunc sub umbra foederis aequi servitutem pati possumus.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN.

WEAK STATES HAVE ALWAYS WAVERED IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS, AND SLOW DELIBERATIONS ARE ALWAYS HARMFUL.

If one considers the beginning of the war between the Latins and the Romans, one can see how important it is in an a.s.sembly to keep to the matter at hand and not waver or be uncertain about the issue. This became apparent in the a.s.sembly the Latins called together when t