<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0009" id="link2HCH0009"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER IX — CONCERNING A CIVIL PRINCIPALITY </h2>
<p>But coming to the other point—where a leading citizen becomes the
prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but
by the favour of his fellow citizens—this may be called a civil
principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to
it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is
obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the
nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and
from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed
by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and
from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three
results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.</p>
<p>A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles,
accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles,
seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of
one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow
they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot
resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and
make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains
sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more
difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the
former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his
equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his
liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself
alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.</p>
<p>Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others,
satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is
more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress,
while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also
that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because
of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as
they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile
people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only
to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they,
being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in
time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect
to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same
people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and
unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.</p>
<p>Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be
looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their
course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do
not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be
honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in
two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural
want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially
of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you
honour them, in adversity you do not have to fear them. But when for their
own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they
are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to
guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because
in adversity they always help to ruin him.</p>
<p>Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought
to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not
to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes
a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to
win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them
under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom
they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus
the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised
to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their
affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances
one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is
necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no
security in adversity.</p>
<p>Nabis,(*) Prince of the Spartans, sustained the attack of all Greece, and
of a victorious Roman army, and against them he defended his country and
his government; and for the overcoming of this peril it was only necessary
for him to make himself secure against a few, but this would not have been
sufficient had the people been hostile. And do not let any one impugn this
statement with the trite proverb that "He who builds on the people, builds
on the mud," for this is true when a private citizen makes a foundation
there, and persuades himself that the people will free him when he is
oppressed by his enemies or by the magistrates; wherein he would find
himself very often deceived, as happened to the Gracchi in Rome and to
Messer Giorgio Scali(+) in Florence. But granted a prince who has
established himself as above, who can command, and is a man of courage,
undismayed in adversity, who does not fail in other qualifications, and
who, by his resolution and energy, keeps the whole people encouraged—such
a one will never find himself deceived in them, and it will be shown that
he has laid his foundations well.</p>
<p>(*) Nabis, tyrant of Sparta, conquered by the Romans under<br/>
Flamininus in 195 B.C.; killed 192 B.C.<br/>
<br/>
(+) Messer Giorgio Scali. This event is to be found in<br/>
Machiavelli's "Florentine History," Book III.<br/></p>
<p>These principalities are liable to danger when they are passing from the
civil to the absolute order of government, for such princes either rule
personally or through magistrates. In the latter case their government is
weaker and more insecure, because it rests entirely on the goodwill of
those citizens who are raised to the magistracy, and who, especially in
troubled times, can destroy the government with great ease, either by
intrigue or open defiance; and the prince has not the chance amid tumults
to exercise absolute authority, because the citizens and subjects,
accustomed to receive orders from magistrates, are not of a mind to obey
him amid these confusions, and there will always be in doubtful times a
scarcity of men whom he can trust. For such a prince cannot rely upon what
he observes in quiet times, when citizens have need of the state, because
then every one agrees with him; they all promise, and when death is far
distant they all wish to die for him; but in troubled times, when the
state has need of its citizens, then he finds but few. And so much the
more is this experiment dangerous, inasmuch as it can only be tried once.
Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens
will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state
and of him, and then he will always find them faithful.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0010" id="link2HCH0010"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER X — CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED </h2>
<p>It is necessary to consider another point in examining the character of
these principalities: that is, whether a prince has such power that, in
case of need, he can support himself with his own resources, or whether he
has always need of the assistance of others. And to make this quite clear
I say that I consider those who are able to support themselves by their
own resources who can, either by abundance of men or money, raise a
sufficient army to join battle against any one who comes to attack them;
and I consider those always to have need of others who cannot show
themselves against the enemy in the field, but are forced to defend
themselves by sheltering behind walls. The first case has been discussed,
but we will speak of it again should it recur. In the second case one can
say nothing except to encourage such princes to provision and fortify
their towns, and not on any account to defend the country. And whoever
shall fortify his town well, and shall have managed the other concerns of
his subjects in the way stated above, and to be often repeated, will never
be attacked without great caution, for men are always adverse to
enterprises where difficulties can be seen, and it will be seen not to be
an easy thing to attack one who has his town well fortified, and is not
hated by his people.</p>
<p>The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country
around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them,
nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because
they are fortified in such a way that every one thinks the taking of them
by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches
and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public
depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond
this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always
have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are
the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people
are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover
have many ordinances to uphold them.</p>
<p>Therefore, a prince who has a strong city, and had not made himself
odious, will not be attacked, or if any one should attack he will only be
driven off with disgrace; again, because that the affairs of this world
are so changeable, it is almost impossible to keep an army a whole year in
the field without being interfered with. And whoever should reply: If the
people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not
remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget
their prince; to this I answer that a powerful and courageous prince will
overcome all such difficulties by giving at one time hope to his subjects
that the evil will not be for long, at another time fear of the cruelty of
the enemy, then preserving himself adroitly from those subjects who seem
to him to be too bold.</p>
<p>Further, the enemy would naturally on his arrival at once burn and ruin
the country at the time when the spirits of the people are still hot and
ready for the defence; and, therefore, so much the less ought the prince
to hesitate; because after a time, when spirits have cooled, the damage is
already done, the ills are incurred, and there is no longer any remedy;
and therefore they are so much the more ready to unite with their prince,
he appearing to be under obligations to them now that their houses have
been burnt and their possessions ruined in his defence. For it is the
nature of men to be bound by the benefits they confer as much as by those
they receive. Therefore, if everything is well considered, it will not be
difficult for a wise prince to keep the minds of his citizens steadfast
from first to last, when he does not fail to support and defend them.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0011" id="link2HCH0011"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER XI — CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES </h2>
<p>It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching
which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are
acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without
either; for they are sustained by the ancient ordinances of religion,
which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities
may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes
alone have states and do not defend them; and they have subjects and do
not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from
them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have
neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such
principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to
which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because,
being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous
and rash man to discuss them.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if any one should ask of me how comes it that the Church has
attained such greatness in temporal power, seeing that from Alexander
backwards the Italian potentates (not only those who have been called
potentates, but every baron and lord, though the smallest) have valued the
temporal power very slightly—yet now a king of France trembles
before it, and it has been able to drive him from Italy, and to ruin the
Venetians—although this may be very manifest, it does not appear to
me superfluous to recall it in some measure to memory.</p>
<p>Before Charles, King of France, passed into Italy,(*) this country was
under the dominion of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the
Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These potentates had two principal
anxieties: the one, that no foreigner should enter Italy under arms; the
other, that none of themselves should seize more territory. Those about
whom there was the most anxiety were the Pope and the Venetians. To
restrain the Venetians the union of all the others was necessary, as it
was for the defence of Ferrara; and to keep down the Pope they made use of
the barons of Rome, who, being divided into two factions, Orsini and
Colonnesi, had always a pretext for disorder, and, standing with arms in
their hands under the eyes of the Pontiff, kept the pontificate weak and
powerless. And although there might arise sometimes a courageous pope,
such as Sixtus, yet neither fortune nor wisdom could rid him of these
annoyances. And the short life of a pope is also a cause of weakness; for
in the ten years, which is the average life of a pope, he can with
difficulty lower one of the factions; and if, so to speak, one people
should almost destroy the Colonnesi, another would arise hostile to the
Orsini, who would support their opponents, and yet would not have time to
ruin the Orsini. This was the reason why the temporal powers of the pope
were little esteemed in Italy.</p>
<p>(*) Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494.<br/></p>
<p>Alexander the Sixth arose afterwards, who of all the pontiffs that have
ever been showed how a pope with both money and arms was able to prevail;
and through the instrumentality of the Duke Valentino, and by reason of
the entry of the French, he brought about all those things which I have
discussed above in the actions of the duke. And although his intention was
not to aggrandize the Church, but the duke, nevertheless, what he did
contributed to the greatness of the Church, which, after his death and the
ruin of the duke, became the heir to all his labours.</p>
<p>Pope Julius came afterwards and found the Church strong, possessing all
the Romagna, the barons of Rome reduced to impotence, and, through the
chastisements of Alexander, the factions wiped out; he also found the way
open to accumulate money in a manner such as had never been practised
before Alexander's time. Such things Julius not only followed, but
improved upon, and he intended to gain Bologna, to ruin the Venetians, and
to drive the French out of Italy. All of these enterprises prospered with
him, and so much the more to his credit, inasmuch as he did everything to
strengthen the Church and not any private person. He kept also the Orsini
and Colonnesi factions within the bounds in which he found them; and
although there was among them some mind to make disturbance, nevertheless
he held two things firm: the one, the greatness of the Church, with which
he terrified them; and the other, not allowing them to have their own
cardinals, who caused the disorders among them. For whenever these
factions have their cardinals they do not remain quiet for long, because
cardinals foster the factions in Rome and out of it, and the barons are
compelled to support them, and thus from the ambitions of prelates arise
disorders and tumults among the barons. For these reasons his Holiness
Pope Leo(*) found the pontificate most powerful, and it is to be hoped
that, if others made it great in arms, he will make it still greater and
more venerated by his goodness and infinite other virtues.</p>
<p>(*) Pope Leo X was the Cardinal de' Medici.<br/></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />