Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Prince
The Prince
The Prince
Ebook188 pages2 hours

The Prince

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

HarperCollins is proud to present its new range of best-loved, essential classics.

‘We have declared before that it is not only expedient but necessary for a prince to take care his foundations be good, otherwise his fabric will be sure to fail.’

Considered one of the first works of modern philosophy, Machiavelli’s The Prince is an intense study on the nature of power and the course it should take when ruling a country and expresses the author’s strong and unyielding ideals and beliefs on using force rather than law to achieve your aims.

Responsible for the widely-used phrase ‘Machiavellian’, with all of its negative connotations, his extreme treatise remains a classic text to this day.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateMay 31, 2012
ISBN9780007477463
Author

Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, diplomat, founding father of political science, and author of the preeminent political treatise, The Prince. Born in Florence, Italy, Machiavelli held many government posts over his lifetime and often took leading roles in important diplomatic missions. During his time visiting other countries and nation states, Machiavelli was exposed to the politics of figures like Ceasare Borgia and King Louis XII, experiences which would inform his writings on state-building and politics. Machiavelli’s political career came to an abrupt end when the Medici overthrew Florence, and he was held as a prisoner under the new regime. Tortured for a short time, he was released without admitting to any crime or treason. At this point, Machiavelli retired and turned to intellectual and philosophical pursuits, producing his two major works, The Prince and Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. He died in 1527 at the age of 58.

Read more from Niccolo Machiavelli

Related to The Prince

Related ebooks

Social Science For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for The Prince

Rating: 3.718520623803933 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

3,407 ratings80 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Interesting
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Et klassisk værk om hvorledes en fyrste bør regere.Indeholder 26 kapitler: "Om forskellige arter af fyrstevælder og måder at erhverve dem på", "Om de arvelige fyrstevælder", "Om blandede fyrstevælder", "Hvorfor Darius' rige, som Alexander erobrede, ved dennes død ikke gjorde oprør mod hans efterfølger", "Hvorledes man skal styre de byer og fyrstevælder, der før erobringen havde egne love", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved egne våben og dygtighed", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved fremmede våben og lykkens hjælp", "Om fyrster, der når herredømmet ved forbrydelser", "Om folkefyrster", "Hvordan alle fyrstevælders kraft skal måles", "Om gejstlige fyrstevælder", "Om forskellige arter stridskræfter og om lejetropper", "Om hjælpetropper, blandede og egne tropper", "Om en fyrstes militære opgaver", "Hvad der skaffer menneskene og især fyrsterne ros eller dadel", "Om gavmildhed og gerrighed", "Om grusomhed og mildhed, og om at det er bedre at blive frygtet end elsket", "Hvorvidt en fyrste altid skal stå ved sit ord", "Man må undgå ringeagt og had", "Om fæstninger eller andre forholdsregler, der træffes af fyrsten, er til nytte eller skade", "Hvorledes en fyrste skal optræde for at vinde anseelse", "Om fyrsternes statssekretærer", "Hvorledes man skal undgå smiger", "Hvorledes Italiens fyrster har tabt deres stater", "Hvad skæbnen formår i de menneskelige anliggender, og hvorledes man skal kæmpe imod den", "Opråb om at befri Italien fra barbarerne".I denne bog behandler forfatteren kun fyrstedømmer. Han indleder med at sige at arvestater er meget lettere at bevare end nyerhvervede stater. Han betoner at folkets gunst er vigtig at bevare og at man bør bosætte sig i en nyerobret stat. Man bør svække de stærke naboer og støtte de svage uden at styrke dem.Udmærket læsning. Machiavelli argumenterer for sine synspunkter, fx at lejetropper og hjælpetropper kun er af det onde, og har mange underbyggende eksempler.En manual for at opnå og bevare magt
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Fascinating historical perspective.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A Great Book!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

    I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

    So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

    I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

    So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

    Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

    Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

    That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

    I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

    Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

    I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I read this because it is one of those books everyone says should be read. It wasn't terribly long, the translation was easily understandable and I thought I would give it a try.What surprised me, was that I enjoyed it. I found Machiavelli's teaching style very good. He sets forth a principle, then illustrates it with examples from both ancient history and his times. It was easy to go from there and find examples in our modern times of most of the principles he set forth. I found myself marveling at his insight into human nature and the practicalities of leadership in a fallen world.Needless to say, I now feel myself prepared to take on the leadership of any minor principality which would have me. World, beware!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Now understand why it's a classic 
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    If I were more of a historian I would have been able to dive deeper into this book. Missing some context, I struggled with a few bits and pieces of Machiavelli's statements, but the rest of his ideas and examples are pretty easy to follow. I see how this book, in the hands of the wrong person, could lead to cruelties, however, I also totally see what the book is getting at, and I enjoyed reading it.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a book that has been sitting on the shelf of my set of Great Books of the Western World since before I started college. That and the fact that it was written in the 1500's surely qualify it as a TOME. It is a very short book which made great changes in the thinking about political statecraft. His book is a frank discussion of the use of immoral means to achieve the goals of The Prince.For Machiavelli the sole goal of the Prince was to obtain power and hold it. Using historical models he sets out the most effective means to attain this end. The nobles and the people are the two forces that hold political power in the State as he sees it. Machiavelli goes into detail about how to deal with each of these. The nobles have their own bases of power and act in their pursuit of their own interests. For this reason it is important for the Prince that they fear him rather than love him.In his discussion on fortresses he makes the statement that the best fortress is the love of the people. A state that is prosperous and ruled fairly is the best way to achieve the love of the people. The Prince must also cultivate the love of the people through great achievements building a charisma that draws them to him.The art of war is a very important part of Machiavelli's discussion. Mercenaries are the most dangerous troops to use. They fight for their own reasons and are only loyal to the Prince as long as he is able to pay them. Auxiliary troops drawn from the people are more likely to remain loyal as long as their love for the Prince is constant.Machiavelli's ideas inaugurated modern politics and statecraft. His was original and unencumbered by the ideas of the past. He established new rules for the practice of statecraft. He was excoriated for his immorality but his ideas quickly gained precedence. Last year I read The Thirty Years War. Many of the principles set forth by Machiavelli appeared in the actions of the rulers in that war. They used mercenaries to a great extent and were often ruined by them. Morality was absent in their dealings with each other. They practiced the code of attaining power that Machiavelli established.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    His very name has become, like that of Hobbes and Nietzsche, a byword for a cold, brutal ruthlessness. It's even said on the Wiki that he helped make "Old Nick" a term for the Devil (something the introduction to my edition denies) and political philosopher Leo Strauss called him "the teacher of evil." His book The Prince is one of the most influential books of all time and is known as the Bible of realpolitik, and Machiavelli is seen by some as the father of political science. In a letter Machiavelli claimed his "little work" (it's less than a hundred pages in paperback) was designed to examine the state, "discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost." The heart of his advice to the ruler is to be "prepared to vary his conduct as the winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him and … not deviate from right conduct if possible, but be capable of entering upon the path of wrongdoing when this becomes necessary." Thus The Prince can be said to be at the other end of the scale to utopian thinking; it's utterly pragmatic. And given my lack of sympathy for utopian schemes, you'd think this would be more to my taste. Yet in some ways I see both approaches as similar. Both sorts of thinking believe that ends justify the means. Utopian schemes from Plato to Mao willingly bend humans like pretzels to fit their ideals--Machiavelli wants his rulers to manipulate, deceive, and force his subjects to his ends, without worrying about whether the means are moral. Without caring about principles, what's left is just naked power. So why rate this so high? Well, I at least appreciate Machiavelli's style compared to that of so many political thinkers. One thing at least all commentators agree on is that his writing is succinct and lucid--and memorable. Hard to forget such precepts as "politics has no relation to morals" and "it is better to be feared than loved" and "a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" and "Fortune is a woman, and if you want to stay on top of her, you have to knock her around." The man can turn a phrase. Fun and chilling to read at the same time--and great insight into politics and the minds of many politicians. And given Machiavelli's experience as a diplomat and head of a militia, and his deep pragmatism, it's not like even principled statesman working for their ideals should ignore his advice--if only as a warning.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    The Prince is filled with advice for leaders hoping to hold on to their positions. This book does a great job at describing situations of power and statesmanship. From political and corporate power struggles to attaining advancement, influence and authority over others, Machiavelli’s observations apply. He gives advice based on the example of many leaders who came before, especially those in Italy. I loved reading this while watching Game of Thrones. So much of the advice is applicable. The show is all about vying for the throne and multiple people desperately maneuvering to get closer to the power. The book is all about the different ways of ruling, gaining favor, ruling with fear, etc. I loved seeing how the advice in The Prince was so perfectly mirrored in the different actions of characters on GOT. Every Lord or Prince in GOT takes a different route in their struggle for power and each one is like an example acting out the pros and cons of the advice in The Prince. So much of the book deals with the tightrope leaders must walk between being loved and feared…“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?”Just like being a parent, the ruler must decide which is more important to him. If he is only feared there is always the chance of disloyalty and revolt. If he is only loved than people might not respect his leadership and will rise against him. It is a difficult decision to make. BOTTOM LINE: Ruling has always been a cutthroat profession. One must almost always chose between making your subjects love you or fear you and that decision is at the heart of this book. I enjoyed reading about the different ruling styles and once again realized that not much has changed in politics. “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.”“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.”“But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former”“A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired.”
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Pretty illustrations intermingled with the text to show the period during which this is written. Not terribly fond of the translation, will have to try another one to get a better feel for the text, probably a good historical and close to the original style of the book but feels a bit forced. It's an interesting look at power and how power is won or lost and while many people have taken inspiration from it to take power not many of them seem to have read the portions on keeping power.I believe I read this years ago in college but it was interesting to go back and read it again for no purpose other than pleasure. Many authors could get inspiration for how to set up governments and how to keep power in the hands of both the good and bad guys.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    The definitive classic in binary political logic. But then as someone once said, there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    My job requires me to function in a highly politicized work environment. I work with a large group of department heads, providing counsel on issues pertaining to the fine art of people management. Some of them are philosopher kings and others are callous despots. I have found that rereading THE PRINCE every few years reminds me of the basics. Whether the princes are in the courts of the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance or in the offices of a large corporation at the dawn of the 21st century, people with authority act in similar ways. There is much to be learned from this amazing little book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Could it be that we have Machiavelli wrong? Is he really the devil? Having read his short treatise on what he suggests a newly crowned prince to do to maintain control of his territory, I admit that some of what he suggests is harsh, but I don't think he's evil. Not by a long shot.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    It would be absurd to "review" the most important book on politics ever written. Go read it if you haven't already. It is very funny too.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Extremely Machiavellian. But actually tamer than one expects.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    It's scary how informative this is. If you want to know what it's like to put aside your conscience and be a_real_politician, then reading this will not disappoint. It's prudent and insightful as to what was possible for a prince. (4 1/2)

Book preview

The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli to the Most Illustrious Lorenzo, Son of Piero De’ Medici

Those who desire the favour of a prince do commonly introduce themselves by presenting him with such things as he either values much or does more than ordinarily delight in; for which reason he is frequently presented with horses, arms, cloth of gold, jewels, and such ornaments as are suitable to his quality and grandeur. Being ambitious to present myself to your Highness with some testimony of my devotions towards you, in all my wardrobe I could not find anything more precious (at least to myself) than the knowledge of the conduct and achievements of great men, which I learned by long conversation in modern affairs and a continual investigation of old. After long and diligent examination, having reduced all into a small volume, I do presume to present to your Highness; and though I cannot think it a work fit to appear in your presence, yet my confidence in your bounty is such, I hope it may be accepted, considering I was not capable of more than presenting you with a faculty of understanding in a short time, what for several years, with infinite labour and hazard, I had been gathering together. Nor have I beautified or adorned it with rhetorical ornations, or such outward embellishments as are usual in such descriptions. I had rather it should pass without any approbation than owe it to anything but the truth and gravity of the matter. I would not have it imputed to me as presumption, if an inferior person, as I am, pretend not only to treat of, but to prescribe and regulate the proceedings of princes; for, as they who take the landscape of a country, to consider the mountains and the nature of the higher places do descend ordinarily into the plains, and dispose themselves upon the hills to take the prospect of the valleys, in like manner, to understand the nature of the people it is necessary to be a prince, and to know the nature of princes it is as requisite to be of the people. May your Highness, then, accept this book with as much kindness as it is presented and if you please diligently and deliberately to reflect upon it you will find in it my extreme desire that your Highness may arrive at that grandeur which fortune and your accomplishments do seem to presage; from which pinnacle of honour, if your Highness vouchsafes at any time to look down upon things below, you will see how unjustly and how continually I have been exposed to the malignity of fortune.

CHAPTER 1

The several sorts of Governments, and after what manner they are obtained

There never was nor is at this day any government in the world by which one man has rule and dominion over another, but it is either a commonwealth, or a monarchy. Monarchies are either hereditary, where the ancestors of the sovereign have been a long time in possession, or where they are but new. The new are either so wholly and entirely (as Milan was to Francis Sforza), or annexed to the hereditary dominions of the conqueror (as the kingdom of Naples to the kingdom of Spain). These territories thus acquired are accustomed either to be subject to some prince, or to live at liberty and free, and are subdued either by his auxiliaries or own forces, by his good fortune or conduct.

CHAPTER 2

Of Hereditary Principalities

I shall omit speaking of commonwealths, as having discoursed of them largely elsewhere, and write in this place only of principalities, and how, according to the foregoing division, the said principalities may be governed and maintained. I do affirm, then, that hereditary states, and such as have been accustomed to the family of their prince, are preserved with less difficulty than the new, and because it is sufficient not to transgress the examples of their predecessors, and next to comply and frame themselves to the accidents that occur. So that, if the prince be a person of competent industry, he will be sure to keep himself in the throne, unless he be supplanted by some great and more than ordinary force; and even then, when so supplanted, fortune can never turn tail, or be adverse to the usurper, but he will stand fair to be restored. Of this Italy affords us an example in the Duke of Ferrara, who supported bravely against the invasion of the Venetians in 1484, and afterwards against Pope Julius X, upon no other foundation but his antiquity in that government; for a natural prince has not so much occasion or necessity to oppress his subjects, whereby it follows he must be better beloved, and retain more of the affections of his people, unless some extraordinary vices concur to make him odious; so that the succession and coherence of his government takes away the causes and memory of innovations; for one new change leaves always (as in buildings) a toothing and aptitude of another.

CHAPTER 3

Of Mixed Principalities

But the difficulties consist in governments lately acquired, especially if not absolutely new, but as members annexed to the territories of the usurper, in which case such a government is called mixed. The tumults and revolutions in such monarchies proceed from a natural crossness and difficulty in all new conquests; for men do easily part with their prince upon hopes of bettering their condition, and that hope provokes them to rebel; but most commonly they are mistaken, and experience tells them their condition is much worse.

This proceeds from another natural and ordinary cause, necessitating the new prince to overlay or disgust his new subjects by quartering his army upon them, taxes, or a thousand other inconveniences, which are the perpetual consequents of conquest. So that you make them your enemies who suffer, and are injured by your usurpation, but cannot preserve their friendship who introduced you, because you are neither able to satisfy their expectation, or employ strong remedies against them, by reason of your obligations; wherefore, though an usurper be never so strong, and his army never so numerous, he must have intelligence with the natives if he means to conquer a province. For these reasons Louis XII of France quickly subdued Milan, and lost it as quickly; for the same people which opened him their gates, finding themselves deceived in their hopes, and disappointed in the future benefits which they expected, could not brook nor comport with the haughtiness of their new sovereign: it is very true countries that have rebelled and are conquered the second time are recovered with more difficulty; for the defection of the people having taken off all obligation or respect from the usurper, he takes more liberty to secure himself by punishing offenders, exposing the suspected, and fortifying wherever he finds himself weak; so that Count Lodovick having been able to rescue Milan out of the hands of the French the first time only by harassing and infesting its borders, the second time he recovered it it was necessary for him to arm and confederate the whole world against the said king, and that his army should be beaten and driven out of Italy; and this happened from the aforesaid occasions: nevertheless the French were twice dispossessed. The general reasons of the first we have already discoursed, it remains now that we take a prospect of the second, and declare what remedies the said King Louis had, or what another may have in his condition, to preserve himself better in his new conquests than the King of France did before him. I say, then, that provinces newly acquired, and joined to the ancient territory of him who conquered them, are either of the same country, or language, or otherwise. In the first case they are easily kept, especially if the people have not been too much accustomed to liberty; and to secure the possession there needs no more than to extirpate the family of the prince which governed before; for in other things maintaining to them their old condition, there being no discrepancy in their customs, men do acquiesce and live quietly, as has been seen in the cases of Burgundy, Bretagne, Gascoigne, and Normandy, which have continued so long under the government of France; for though there be some difference in their language, nevertheless, their laws and customs being alike, they do easily consist. He therefore who acquires anything, and desires to preserve it, is obliged to have a care of two things more particularly; one is, that the family of the former prince be extinguished; the other, that no law or taxes be imposed: whereby it will come to pass, that in a short time it may be annexed and consolidated with his old principality. But where conquest is made in a country differing in language, customs and laws, there is the great difficulty; their good fortune and great industry is requisite to keep it. And one of the best and most efficacious expedients to do it would be for the usurper to live there himself, which would render his possession more secure and durable, as the great Turk has done in Greece, who, in despite of all his practices and policies to keep it in subjection, had he not fixed his imperial residence there would never have been able to have effected it. For being present in person, disorders are discovered in the bud and prevented, but being at a distance in some remote part, they come only by hearsay, and that, when they are got to a head, are commonly incurable. Besides, the province is not subject to be pillaged by officers, by reason of the nearness and accessibleness of their prince, which disposes those to love him who are good, and those to dread him who are otherwise; and if any foreigner attacks it, he must do it with more care and circumspection, in respect that the prince’s residence being there it will be harder for him to lose it.

There is another remedy, rather better than worse, and that is, to plant colonies in one or two places, which may be as it were the keys of that State, and either that must be done of necessity, or an army of horse and foot be maintained in those parts, which is much worse; for colonies are of no great expense; the Prince sends and maintains them at very little charge, and intrenches only upon such as he is constrained to dispossess of their houses and land for the subsistence and accommodation of the new inhabitants, who are but few, and a small part of the State; they also who are injured and offended, living dispersed and in poverty, cannot do any mischief, and the rest being quiet and undisturbed, will not stir, lest they should mistake and run themselves into the same condition with their neighbours.

I conclude, likewise, that those colonies which are least chargeable are most faithful and inoffensive, and those few who are offended are too poor and dispersed to do any hurt, as I said before; and it is to be observed, men are either to be flattered and indulged or utterly destroyed—because for small offences they do usually revenge themselves, but for great ones they cannot—so that injury is to be done in such a manner as not to fear any revenge. But if instead of colonies an army be kept on foot, it will be much more expensive, and the whole revenue of that province being consumed in the keeping it, the acquisition will be a loss, and rather a prejudice than otherwise, by removing the camp up and down the country, and changing their quarters, which is an inconvenience every man will resent and be ready to revenge, and they are the most dangerous and implacable enemies who are provoked by insolences committed against them in their own houses. In all respects, therefore, this kind of guard is unprofitable, whereas on the other side colonies are useful. Moreover, he who is in a province of a different constitution, as is said before, ought to make himself head and protector of his inferior neighbours, and endeavour with all diligence to weaken and debilitate such as are more powerful, and to have a particular care that no stranger enters into the said province with as much power as he; for it will always happen that somebody or other will be invited by the malcontents, either out of ambition or fear. This is visible in the Etolians, who brought the Romans into Greece, who were never admitted into any province but by the temptation of the natives. The common method in such cases is this: as soon as a foreign potentate enters into a province, those who are weaker or disobliged join themselves with him out of emulation and animosity to those who are above them, insomuch that in respect of these inferior lords, no pains is to be omitted that may gain them; and when gained, they will readily and unanimously fall into one mass with the State that is conquered. Only the conqueror is to take special care they grow not too strong, nor be entrusted with too much authority, and then he can easily with his own forces and their assistance keep down the greatness of his neighbours, and make himself absolute arbiter in that province. And he who acts not this part prudently shall quickly lose what he has got, and even whilst he enjoys it be obnoxious to many troubles and inconveniences. The Romans in their new conquests observed this course, they planted their colonies, entertained the inferior lords into their protection without increasing their power; they kept under such as were more potent, and would not suffer any foreign prince to have interest among them. I will set down only Greece for an example. The Etolians and Achaians were protected, the kingdom of the Macedonians was depressed and Antiochus driven out; yet the merits and fidelity of the Achaians and Etolians could never procure them any increase of authority, nor the persuasions and applications of Philip induce the Romans to be his friends till he was overcome, nor the power of Antiochus prevail with them to consent that he should retain any sovereignty in that province: for the Romans acted in that case as all wise princes ought to do who are to have an eye not only upon present but future incommodities, and to redress them with all possible industry; for dangers that are seen afar off are easily prevented, but protracting till they are at hand, the remedies grow unseasonable and the malady incurable. And it falls out in this case, as the physicians say of an hectic fever, that at first it is easily cured and hard to be known, but in process of time, not being observed or resisted in the beginning, it becomes easy to be known but very difficult to be cured. So it

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1