The Prince (6 page)

One has no way of knowing whether this is exactly what Machiavelli meant, but the sentence now gives an internal cohesion to the passage that was lacking in other versions. And if we return to our word-for-word translation of the original - ‘and part I will put in consideration those things that are important to people who read the events of those times' - we see that it can indeed be read in the way we have chosen to render it.

 

One particularly pernicious problem a translator faces as he grapples with
The Prince
is the book's reputation. Machiavelli is a scandal, every schoolboy knows, because he puts the ends before the means to the point of condoning acts of violence, cruelty and betrayal, something Christian and modern western ethics consider unacceptable: we don't condone a brutal killing just because it puts an end to a riot and we are no longer at ease with the idea of torture, even when it might prevent a terrorist atrocity. The climax of this scandal comes with the author's discussion of Cesare Borgia, a man who rose to power and kept it with the use of extraordinary treachery and cruelty. The temptation for the translator is to play to the reputation of the book, underlining Machiavelli's extreme views and making sure the text doesn't ‘disappoint', even when its tone and subtlety are not, perhaps, exactly what readers were expecting.

At the end of the discussion of Borgia, having recounted how he eventually lost power when his father, Pope Alexander, suddenly and unexpectedly died and a pope hostile to Borgia was elected, Machiavelli writes: ‘Raccolte io adunque tutte le azioni del duca, non saprei riprenderlo.' Literally, we have: ‘Having gathered then all the actions of the duke, I would not know how to reproach him.'

Bull gives: ‘So having summed up all that the duke did, I cannot possibly censure him.' Here the word ‘censure' has a strong moral connotation, and the statement is made stronger still by the introduction of ‘can't possibly', which seems a heavy interpretation of the standard Italian formula ‘I wouldn't know how to'. In Bull's version it seems that Machiavelli is making a point of telling us that he has no moral objections to anything Cesare Borgia did, this in line with the author's reputation for cynicism.

Marriot more cautiously gives: ‘When all the actions of the duke are recalled, I do not know how to blame him', and both Italian translations take the same line. The fact is that just as the word ‘
virtù
' is rarely used in a strictly moral context, so the word ‘
riprendere
', ‘reproach', refers not to moral behaviour, but to the question: did the duke get something wrong, did he make a mistake? A key to reading the word comes at the opening to the next paragraph where we have: ‘Solamente si può accusarlo nella creazione di Iulio pontefice, nella quale lui ebbe mala elezione', which, more or less literally, gives us: ‘The only thing Borgia can be accused of is his role in the election of Pope Julius, where he made a bad choice' (that is, as far as his own interests were concerned, he backed the wrong man).

Here we approach the subtler scandal of Machiavelli's text: it is not that the author is
insisting
that Borgia's immoral acts should not be censured, rather that Machiavelli is just not interested in discussing the moral aspect of the question at all, or not from a Christian point of view. For him it is a case of shrewd or mistaken choices, not of good or evil. When he proposes Borgia as a model, neither morality nor immorality come into it, only the fact that this man knew how to win power and hold it and build a strong state.

 

Finally, one can't help noticing a certain Victorian bashfulness in previous translations. Machiavelli was a notorious womanizer and in writing
The Prince
he believed he was addressing an audience of men who had no worries about political correctness. When he says ‘la fortuna è donna, et è necessario, volendola tenere sotto, batterla et urtarla' - literally: ‘fortune is woman and it is necessary wanting to keep her underneath to beat her and shove her' - there is an obvious sexual reference. The phrase comes in the last paragraph of
The Prince
proper (the closing exhortation is very much a piece apart) and Machiavelli wants to go out on a strong but, as he no doubt saw it, witty note.

Here is Marriot's version of the whole last paragraph:

And Bull's:

I hope I am getting closer to the spirit of the thing and, for better or worse, the kind of man Machiavelli was, offering this:

Letter to Lorenzo de' Medici

People trying to attract the good will of a sovereign usually offer him something they care a lot about themselves, or something they've seen he particularly likes. So rulers are always being given horses, arms, gold brocades, jewels and whatever finery seems appropriate. Eager myself to bring Your Highness some token of my loyalty, I realized there was nothing more precious or important to me than my knowledge of great men and their doings, a knowledge gained through long experience of contemporary affairs and a constant study of ancient history. Having thought over all I've learned, and analysed it with the utmost care, I've written everything down in a short book that I am now sending to Your Highness.

And though this gift is no doubt unworthy of you, I feel sure the experience it contains will make it welcome, especially when you think that I could hardly offer anything better than the chance to grasp in a few hours what I have discovered and assimilated over many years of danger and discomfort. I haven't prettified the book or padded it out with long sentences or pompous, pretentious words, or any of the irrelevant flourishes and attractions so many writers use; I didn't want it to please for anything but the range and seriousness of its subject matter. Nor, I hope, will you think it presumptuous that a man of low, really the lowest, station should set out to discuss the way princes ought to govern their peoples. Just as artists who draw landscapes get down in the valley to study the mountains and go up to the mountains to look down on the valley, so one has to be a prince to get to know the character of a people and a man of the people to know the character of a prince.

Your Highness, please take this small gift in the spirit in which it is given. Study it carefully and you will find that my most earnest wish is that you should achieve the greatness that your status and qualities promise. Then if, from the high peak of your position, you ever look down on those far below, you will see how very ungenerously and unfairly life continues to treat me.

1

Different kinds of states and how to conquer them

All states and governments that ever ruled over men have been either republics or monarchies. Monarchies may be hereditary, if the ruler's family has governed for generations, or new. New monarchies can either be entirely new, as when Francesco Sforza captured Milan, or they could be territories a ruler has added to his existing hereditary state by conquest, as when the King of Spain took Naples. An additional territory won by conquest will be accustomed either to living under a monarch or to the freedom of self-government and may be conquered by the new ruler's own army or that of a third party, by luck or deservedly.

2

Hereditary monarchies

I won't be considering republics since I've written about them at length elsewhere. Instead I'll concentrate on monarchies, taking the situations mentioned above and discussing how each kind of state can best be governed and held.

So I'll begin by noting that hereditary monarchies where people have long been used to the ruler's family are far easier to hold than new ones; all a monarch need do is avoid upsetting the order established by his predecessors, trim policies to circumstances when there is trouble, and, assuming he is of average ability, he will keep his kingdom for life. Only extraordinary and overwhelming force will be able to take it off him and even then he'll win it back as soon as the occupying power runs into trouble.

An example of this situation in Italy is the Duchy of Ferrara. In 1484 and 1510 the Duchy was briefly conquered by foreign powers, first the Venetians, then Pope Julius, but these defeats had nothing to do with the territory's having a well-established ruling family. A ruler who inherits power has less reason or need to upset his subjects than a new one and as a result is better loved. If he doesn't go out of his way to get himself hated, it's reasonable to suppose his people will wish him well. When a dynasty survives for generations memories fade and likewise motives for change; upheaval, on the contrary, always leaves the scaffolding for building further change.

3

Mixed monarchies

When a monarchy is new, things are harder. If it's not entirely new but a territory added to an existing monarchy (let's call this overall situation ‘mixed') instabilities are caused first and foremost by what is an inevitable problem for all new regimes: that men are quick to change ruler when they imagine they can improve their lot - it is this conviction that prompts them to take up arms and rebel - then later they discover they were wrong and that things have got worse rather than better. Again this is in the normal, natural way of things: a ruler is bound to upset the people in his new territories, first with his occupying army and then with all the endless injustices consequent on any invasion. So not only do you make enemies of those whose interests you damaged when you occupied the territory, but you can't even keep the friendship of the people who helped you to take power, this for the simple reason that you can't give them as much as they expected. And you can't get tough with them either, since you still need them; because however strong your armies, you'll always need local support to occupy a new territory. This is why Louis XII, King of France, took Milan so quickly and equally quickly lost it. The first time this happened Duke Ludovico was able to retake the city with his own forces, because the people who had previously opened the gates to Louis saw their mistake, realized they wouldn't be getting the benefits they'd hoped for and didn't want to submit to the harsh conditions imposed by the new king.

Of course, when a king returns to win back a territory that has rebelled like this, he is less likely to lose it a second time. Having learned from the rebellion, he'll have fewer scruples when it comes to punishing troublemakers, interrogating suspects and strengthening any weak points in his defences. So while the first time Louis invaded Milan it took no more than a little sword-rattling along the borders from Ludovico to force a retreat, the second time it would take the whole world to defeat his armies and drive them out of Italy. This for the reasons listed above. All the same, they were driven out both times.

The general reasons behind the first French defeat have been discussed. It remains to explain why Louis lost Milan the second time and to see what counter-measures he could have taken and what options a ruler has in a situation like this if he wants to hold on to his conquest.

Needless to say, any territory annexed to the realm of a conquering ruler may or may not be in the same geographical region and share the same language. If it is and the language is shared, the territory will be much easier to hold on to, especially if its people are not used to the freedom of self-government. In that case all you have to do is eliminate the family of the previous ruler and your hold on power is guaranteed. Everything else in the territory can then be left as it was and, given that there are no profound differences in customs, people will accept the situation quietly enough. Certainly this has proved true in Burgundy, Brittany, Gascony and Normandy, all of which have now been under French rule for many years. Even where there is some difference in language, the customs of these territories are similar and people can get along with each other. So a ruler who has taken territories in these circumstances must have two priorities: first, to eliminate the family of the previous rulers; second, to leave all laws and taxes as they were. In this way the acquired territory and the king's original possessions will soon form a single entity.