CHAPTER XXI.

HOW A PRINCE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF SO AS TO GAIN RENOWN

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,[1] 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.

[1] “Guilds or societies,” “in arti o in tribu.” “Arti” were craft or

trade guilds, _cf_. Florio: “Arte . . . a whole company of any trade

in any city or corporation town.” The guilds of Florence are most

admirably described by Mr Edgcumbe Staley in his work on the subject

(Methuen, 1906). Institutions of a somewhat similar character, called

“artel,” exist in Russia to-day, _cf_. 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.” The word “artel,” despite its apparent

similarity, has, Mr Aylmer Maude assures me, no connection with “ars”

or “arte.” Its root is that of the verb “rotisya,” to bind oneself by

an oath; and it is generally admitted to be only another form of

“rota,” which now signifies a “regimental company.” In both words the

underlying idea is that of a body of men united by an oath. “Tribu”

were possibly gentile groups, united by common descent, and included

individuals connected by marriage. Perhaps our words “sects” or

“clans” would be most appropriate.