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