马基雅维里 君主论英文prince-第2章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



did　the　persuasions　of　Philip　ever　induce　the　Romans　to　be　his　friends

without　first　humbling　him；　nor　did　the　influence　of　Antiochus　make　them

agree　that　he　should　retain　any　lordship　over　the　country。　Because　the

Romans　did　in　these　instances　what　all　prudent　princes　ought　to　do；　who

have　to　regard　not　only　present　troubles；　but　also　future　ones；　for

which　they　must　prepare　with　every　energy；　because；　when　foreseen；　it　is

easy　to　remedy　them；　but　if　you　wait　until　they　approach；　the　medicine

is　no　longer　in　time　because　the　malady　has　bee　incurable；　for　it

happens　in　this；　as　the　physicians　say　it　happens　in　hectic　fever；　that

in　the　beginning　of　the　malady　it　is　easy　to　cure　but　difficult　to

detect；　but　in　the　course　of　time；　not　having　been　either　detected　or

treated　in　the　beginning；　it　bees　easy　to　detect　but　difficult　to

cure。　Thus　it　happens　in　affairs　of　state；　for　when　the　evils　that　arise

have　been　foreseen　（which　it　is　only　given　to　a　wise　man　to　see）；　they

can　be　quickly　redressed；　but　when；　through　not　having　been　foreseen；

they　have　been　permitted　to　grow　in　a　way　that　every　one　can　see　them。

there　is　no　longer　a　remedy。　Therefore；　the　Romans；　foreseeing　troubles；

dealt　with　them　at　once；　and；　even　to　avoid　a　war；　would　not　let　them

e　to　a　head；　for　they　knew　that　war　is　not　to　be　avoided；　but　is　only

put　off　to　the　advantage　of　others；　moreover　they　wished　to　fight　with

Philip　and　Antiochus　in　Greece　so　as　not　to　have　to　do　it　in　Italy；　they

could　have　avoided　both；　but　this　they　did　not　wish；　nor　did　that　ever

please　them　which　is　for　ever　in　the　mouths　of　the　wise　ones　of　our

time：　Let　us　enjoy　the　benefits　of　the　time　　but　rather　the　benefits　of

their　own　valour　and　prudence；　for　time　drives　everything　before　it；　and

is　able　to　bring　with　it　good　as　well　as　evil；　and　evil　as　well　as　good。



But　let　us　turn　to　France　and　inquire　whether　she　has　done　any　of　the

things　mentioned。　I　will　speak　of　Louis　＇XII＇　（and　not　of　Charles

＇VIII＇）　as　the　one　whose　conduct　is　the　better　to　be　observed；　he　having

held　possession　of　Italy　for　the　longest　period；　and　you　will　see　that

he　has　done　the　opposite　to　those　things　which　ought　to　be　done　to

retain　a　state　posed　of　divers　elements。



King　Louis　was　brought　into　Italy　by　the　ambition　of　the　Venetians；　who

desired　to　obtain　half　the　state　of　Lombardy　by　his　intervention。　I　will

not　blame　the　course　taken　by　the　king；　because；　wishing　to　get　a

foothold　in　Italy；　and　having　no　friends　there　　seeing　rather　that

every　door　was　shut　to　him　owing　to　the　conduct　of　Charles　　he　was

forced　to　accept　those　friendships　which　he　could　get；　and　he　would　have

succeeded　very　quickly　in　his　design　if　in　other　matters　he　had　not　made

some　mistakes。　The　king；　however；　having　acquired　Lombardy；　regained　at

once　the　authority　which　Charles　had　lost：　Genoa　yielded；　the

Florentines　became　his　friends；　the　Marquess　of　Mantua；　the　Duke　of

Ferrara；　the　Bentivoglio；　my　lady　of　Forli；　the　Lords　of　Faenza；　of

Pesaro；　of　Rimini；　of　Camerino；　of　Piombino；　the　Lucchesi；　the　Pisans；

the　Sienese　　everybody　made　advances　to　him　to　bee　his　friend。　Then

could　the　Venetians　realize　the　rashness　of　the　course　taken　by　them；

which；　in　order　that　they　might　secure　two　towns　in　Lombardy；　had　made

the　king　master　of　two…thirds　of　Italy。



Let　any　one　now　consider　with　what　little　difficulty　the　king　could　have

maintained　his　position　in　Italy　had　he　observed　the　rules　above　laid

down；　and　kept　all　his　friends　secure　and　protected；　for　although　they

were　numerous　they　were　both　weak　and　timid；　some　afraid　of　the　Church；

some　of　the　Venetians；　and　thus　they　would　always　have　been　forced　to

stand　in　with　him；　and　by　their　means　he　could　easily　have　made　himself

secure　against　those　who　remained　powerful。　But　he　was　no　sooner　in

Milan　than　he　did　the　contrary　by　assisting　Pope　Alexander　to　occupy　the

Romagna。　It　never　occurred　to　him　that　by　this　action　he　was　weakening

himself；　depriving　himself　of　friends　and　those　who　had　thrown

themselves　into　his　lap；　whilst　he　aggrandized　the　Church　by　adding　much

temporal　power　to　the　spiritual；　thus　giving　it　great　authority。　And

having　mitted　this　prime　error；　he　was　obliged　to　follow　it　up；　so

much　so　that；　to　put　an　end　to　the　ambition　of　Alexander；　and　to　prevent

his　being　the　master　of　Tuscany；　he　was　himself　forced　to　e　into

Italy。



And　as　if　it　were　not　enough　to　have　aggrandized　the　Church；　and

deprived　himself　friends；　he；　wishing　to　have　the　kingdom　of　Naples；

divides　it　with　the　King　of　Spain；　and　where　he　was　the　prime　arbiter　of

Italy　he　takes　an　associate；　so　that　the　ambitious　of　that　country　and

the　malcontents　of　his　own　should　have　where　to　shelter；　and　whereas　he

could　have　left　in　the　kingdom　his　own　pensioner　as　king；　he　drove　him

out；　to　put　one　there　who　was　able　to　drive　him；　Louis；　out　in　turn。



The　wish　to　acquire　is　in　truth　very　natural　and　mon；　and　men　always

do　so　when　they　can；　and　for　this　they　will　be　praised　not　blamed；　but

when　they　cannot　do　so；　yet　wish　to　do　so　by　any　means；　then　there　is

folly　and　blame。　Therefore；　if　France　could　have　attacked　Naples　with

her　own　forces　she　ought　to　have　done　so；　if　she　could　not；　then　she

ought　not　to　have　divided　it。　And　if　the　partition　which　she　made　with

the　Venetians　in　Lombardy　was　justified　by　the　excuse　that　by　it　she　got

a　foothold　in　Italy；　this　other　partition　merited　blame；　for　it　had　not

the　excuse　of　that　necessity。



Therefore　Louis　made　these　five　errors：　he　destroyed　the　minor　powers；

he　increased　the　strength　of　one　of　the　greater　powers　in　Italy；　he

brought　in　a　foreign　power；　he　did　not　settle　in　the　country；　he　did　not

send　colonies。　Which　errors；　if　he　had　lived；　were　not　enough　to　injure

him　had　he　not　made　a　sixth　by　taking　away　their　dominions　from　the

Venetians；　because；　had　he　not　aggrandized　the　Church；　nor　brought　Spain

into　Italy；　it　would　have　been　very　reasonable　and　necessary　to　humble

them；　but　having　first　taken　these　steps；　he　ought　never　to　have

consented　to　their　ruin；　for　they；　being　powerful；　would　always　have

kept　off　others　from　designs　on　Lombardy；　to　which　the　Venetians　would

never　have　consented　except　to　bee　masters　themselves　there；　also

because　the　others　would　not　wish　to　take　Lombardy　from　France　in　order

to　give　it　to　the　Venetians；　and　to　run　counter　to　both　they　would　not

have　had　the　courage。



And　if　any　one　should　say：　King　Louis　yielded　the　Romagna　to　Alexander

and　the　kingdom　to　Spain　to　avoid　war；　I　answer　for　the　reasons　given

above　that　a　blunder　ought　never　be　perpetrated　to　avoid　war；　because　it

is　not　to　be　avoided；　but　is　only　deferred　to　your　disadvantage。　And　if

another　should　allege　the　pledge　which　the　king　had　given　to　the　Pope

that　he　would　assist　him　in　the　enterprise；　in　exchange　for　the

dissolution　of　his　marriage　and　for　the　hat　to　Rouen；　to　that　I　reply

what　I　shall　write　later　on　concerning　the　faith　of　princes；　and　how　it

ought　to　be　kept。



Thus　King　Louis　lost　Lombardy　by　not　having　followed　any　of　the

conditions　observed　by　those　who　have　taken　possession　of　countries　and

wished　to　retain　them。　Nor　is　there　any　miracle　in　this；　but　much　that

is　reasonable　and　quite　natural。　And　on　these　matters　I　spoke　at　Nantes

with　Rouen；　when　Valentino；　＇1＇　as　Cesare　Borgia；　the　son　of　Pope

Alexander；　was　usually　called；　occupied　the　Romagna；　and　on　Cardinal

Rouen　observing　to　me　that　the　Italians　did　not　understand　war；　I

replied　to　him　that　the　French　did　not　understand　statecraft；　meaning

that　otherwise　they　would　not　have　allowed　the　Church　to　reach　such

greatness。　And　in　fact　it　has　been　seen　that　the　greatness　of　the　Church

and　of　Spain　in　Italy　has　been　caused　by　France；　and　her　ruin　may　be

attributed　to　them。　From　this　a　general　rule　is　drawn　which　never　or

rarely　fails：　that　he　who　is　the　cause　of　another　being　powerful　is

ruined；　because　that　predominancy　has　been　brought　about　either　by

astuteness　or　else　by　force；　and　both　are　distrusted　by　him　who　has　been

raised　to　power。



1。　So　called　　in　Italian　　from　the　duchy　of　Valentinois；　conferred

on　him　by　Louis　XII。



CHAPTER　IV



WHY　THE　KINGDOM　OF　DARIUS；　CONQUERED　BY　ALEXANDER；　DID　NOT　REBEL　AGAINST

THE　SUCCESSORS　OF　ALEXANDER　AT　HIS　DEATH



CONSIDERING　the　difficulties　which　men　have　had　to　hold　a　newly　acquired

state；　some　might　wonder　how；　seeing　that　Alexander　the　Great　became　the

master　of　Asia　in　a　few　years；　and　died　whilst　it　was　yet　scarcely

settled　（whence　it　might　appear　reasonable　that　the　whole　empire　would

have　rebelled）；　nevertheless　his　successors　maintained　themselves；　and

had　to　meet　no　other　difficulty　than　that　which　arose　among　themselves

from　their　own　ambitions。



I　answer　that　the　principalities　of　which　one　has　record　are　found　to　be

governed　in　two　different　ways：　either　by　a　prince；　with　a　body　of

servants；　who　assist　him　to　govern　the　kingdom　as　ministers　by　his

favour　and　permission；　or　by　a　prince　and　barons；　who　hold　that　dignity

by　antiquity　of　blood　and　not　by　the　grace　of　the　prince。　Such　barons

have　states　and　their　own　subjects；　who　recognize　them　as　lords　and　hold

them　in　natural　affection。　Those　states　that　are　governed　by　a　prince

and　his　servants　hold　their　prince　in　more　consideration；　because　in　all

the　country　there　is　no　one　who　is　recognized　as　superior　to　him；　and　if

they　yield　obedience　to　another　they　do　it　as　to　a　minister　and

official；　and　they　do　not　bear　him　any　particular　affection。



The　examples　of　these　two　governments　in　our　time　are　the　Turk　and　the

King　of　France。　The　entire　monarchy　of　the　Turk　is　governed　by　one　lord；

the　others　are　his　servants；　and；　dividing　his　kingdom　into　sanjaks；　he

sends　there　different　administrators；　and　shifts　and　changes　them　as　he

chooses。　But　the　King　of　France　is　placed　in　the　midst　of　an　ancient

body　of　lords；　acknowledged　by　their　own　subjects；　and　beloved　by　them；

they　have　their　own　prerogatives；　nor　can　the　king　take　these　away

except　at　his　peril。　Therefore；　he　who　considers　both　of　these　states

will　recognize　great　difficulties　in　seizing　the　state　of　the　Turk；　but；

once　it　is　conquered；　great　ease　in　holding　it。　The　causes　of　the

difficulties　in　seizing　the　kingdom　of　the　Turk　are　that　the　usurper

cannot　be　called　in　by　the　princes　of　the　kingdom；　nor　can　he　hope　to　be

assisted　in　his　designs　by　the　revolt　of　those　whom　the　lord　has　around

him。　This　arises　from　the　reasons　given　above；　for　his　ministers；　being

all　slaves　and　bondmen；　can　only　be　corrupted　with　great　difficulty；　and

one　can　expect　little　advantage　from　them　when　they　have　been　corrupted；

as　they　cannot　carry　the　people　with　them；　for　the　reasons　assigned。

Hence；　he　who　attacks　the　Turk　must　bear　in　mind　that　he　will　find　him

united；　and　he　will　have　to　rely　more　on　his　own　strength　than　on　the

revolt　of　others；　but；　if　once　t