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！
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 the Turk has been conquered； and routed
in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies； there is
nothing to fear but the family of the prince； and； this being
exterminated； there remains no one to fear； the others having no credit
with the people； and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his
victory； so he ought not to fear them after it。
The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France； because
one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom；
for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change。 Such men；
for the reasons given； can open the way into the state and render the
victory easy； but if you wish to hold it afterwards； you meet with
infinite difficulties； both from those who have assisted you and from
those you have crushed。 Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated
the family of the prince； because the lords that remain make themselves
the heads of fresh movements against you； and as you are unable either
to satisfy or exterminate them； that state is lost whenever time brings
the opportunity。
Now if you will consider what was the nature of the government of
Darius； you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk； and
therefore it was only necessary for Alexander； first to overthrow him in
the field； and then to take the country from him。 After which victory；
Darius being killed； the state remained secure to Alexander； for the
above reasons。 And if his successors had been united they would have
enjoyed it securely and at their ease； for there were no tumults raised
in the kingdom except those they provoked themselves。
But it is impossible to hold with such tranquillity states constituted
like that of France。 Hence arose those frequent rebellions against the
Romans in Spain； France； and Greece； owing to the many principalities
there were in these states； of which； as long as the memory of them
endured； the Romans always held an insecure possession； but with the
power and long