The Most-Read Classics
Catalogue  /  The Prince  /  Why The Princes Of Italy Have Lost Their States
The Prince · Niccolò Machiavelli

Why The Princes Of Italy Have Lost Their States

The previous suggestions, carefully observed, will enable a new prince

to appear well established, and render him at once more secure and

fixed in the state than if he had been long seated there. For the

actions of a new prince are more narrowly observed than those of an

hereditary one, and when they are seen to be able they gain more men

and bind far tighter than ancient blood; because men are attracted

more by the present than by the past, and when they find the present

good they enjoy it and seek no further; they will also make the utmost

defence of a prince if he fails them not in other things. Thus it will

be a double glory for him to have established a new principality, and

adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good allies,

and with a good example; so will it be a double disgrace to him who,

born a prince, shall lose his state by want of wisdom.

And if those seigniors are considered who have lost their states in

Italy in our times, such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and

others, there will be found in them, firstly, one common defect in

regard to arms from the causes which have been discussed at length; in

the next place, some one of them will be seen, either to have had the

people hostile, or if he has had the people friendly, he has not known

how to secure the nobles. In the absence of these defects states that

have power enough to keep an army in the field cannot be lost.

Philip of Macedon, not the father of Alexander the Great, but he who

was conquered by Titus Quintius, had not much territory compared to

the greatness of the Romans and of Greece who attacked him, yet being

a warlike man who knew how to attract the people and secure the

nobles, he sustained the war against his enemies for many years, and

if in the end he lost the dominion of some cities, nevertheless he

retained the kingdom.

Therefore, do not let our princes accuse fortune for the loss of their

principalities after so many years' possession, but rather their own

sloth, because in quiet times they never thought there could be a

change (it is a common defect in man not to make any provision in the

calm against the tempest), and when afterwards the bad times came they

thought of flight and not of defending themselves, and they hoped that

the people, disgusted with the insolence of the conquerors, would

recall them. This course, when others fail, may be good, but it is

very bad to have neglected all other expedients for that, since you

would never wish to fall because you trusted to be able to find

someone later on to restore you. This again either does not happen,

or, if it does, it will not be for your security, because that

deliverance is of no avail which does not depend upon yourself; those

only are reliable, certain, and durable that depend on yourself and

your valour.

CHAPTER XXV

WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS AND HOW TO WITHSTAND HER

It is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the

opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by

fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and

that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us

believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let

chance govern them. This opinion has been more credited in our times

because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may

still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes

pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion.

Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true

that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions,[*] but that

she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little

less.

[*] Frederick the Great was accustomed to say: "The older one gets the

more convinced one becomes that his Majesty King Chance does

three-quarters of the business of this miserable universe."

Sorel's "Eastern Question."

I compare her to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood

overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away

the soil from place to place; everything flies before it, all yield to

its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it; and yet,

though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when

the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both with defences

and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass

away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so

dangerous. So it happens with fortune, who shows her power where

valour has not prepared to resist her, and thither she turns her

forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised

to constrain her.

And if you will consider Italy, which is the seat of these changes,

and which has given to them their impulse, you will see it to be an

open country without barriers and without any defence. For if it had

been defended by proper valour, as are Germany, Spain, and France,

either this invasion would not have made the great changes it has made

or it would not have come at all. And this I consider enough to say

concerning resistance to fortune in general.

But confining myself more to the particular, I say that a prince may

be seen happy to-day and ruined to-morrow without having shown any

change of disposition or character. This, I believe, arises firstly

from causes that have already been discussed at length, namely, that

the prince who relies entirely on fortune is lost when it changes. I

believe also that he will be successful who directs his actions

according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not

accord with the times will not be successful. Because men are seen, in

affairs that lead to the end which every man has before him, namely,

glory and riches, to get there by various methods; one with caution,

another with haste; one by force, another by skill; one by patience,

another by its opposite; and each one succeeds in reaching the goal by

a different method. One can also see of two cautious men the one

attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different

observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other

impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they

conform in their methods to the spirit of the times. This follows from

what I have said, that two men working differently bring about the

same effect, and of two working similarly, one attains his object and

the other does not.

Changes in estate also issue from this, for if, to one who governs

himself with caution and patience, times and affairs converge in such

a way that his administration is successful, his fortune is made; but

if times and affairs change, he is ruined if he does not change his

course of action. But a man is not often found sufficiently

circumspect to know how to accommodate himself to the change, both

because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to do, and

also because, having always prospered by acting in one way, he cannot

be persuaded that it is well to leave it; and, therefore, the cautious

man, when it is time to turn adventurous, does not know how to do it,

hence he is ruined; but had he changed his conduct with the times

fortune would not have changed.

Pope Julius the Second went to work impetuously in all his affairs,

and found the times and circumstances conform so well to that line of

action that he always met with success. Consider his first enterprise

against Bologna, Messer Giovanni Bentivogli being still alive. The

Venetians were not agreeable to it, nor was the King of Spain, and he

had the enterprise still under discussion with the King of France;

nevertheless he personally entered upon the expedition with his

accustomed boldness and energy, a move which made Spain and the

Venetians stand irresolute and passive, the latter from fear, the

former from desire to recover the kingdom of Naples; on the other

hand, he drew after him the King of France, because that king, having

observed the movement, and desiring to make the Pope his friend so as

to humble the Venetians, found it impossible to refuse him. Therefore

Julius with his impetuous action accomplished what no other pontiff

with simple human wisdom could have done; for if he had waited in Rome

until he could get away, with his plans arranged and everything fixed,

as any other pontiff would have done, he would never have succeeded.

Because the King of France would have made a thousand excuses, and the

others would have raised a thousand fears.

I will leave his other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they

all succeeded, for the shortness of his life did not let him

experience the contrary; but if circumstances had arisen which

required him to go cautiously, his ruin would have followed, because

he would never have deviated from those ways to which nature inclined

him.

I conclude, therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind

steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are

successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I

consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because

fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary

to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be

mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more

coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men,

because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity

command her.

CHAPTER XXVI