The essential writings of Machiavelli (18 page)

CHAPTER NINE
O
N THE NECESSITY TO ACT ALONE IF ONE WISHES TO FOUND A STATE OR ENTIRELY REFORM ITS OLD INSTITUTIONS

Some might argue that I have gone too deeply into Roman history without having yet discussed its founders or military and religious institutions. As I do not want to keep in suspense any readers who wish to hear something about this, I will first say that many might judge it a bad example that a founder of a state, such as Romulus, would first have killed his brother, and then consented to the death of Titus Tatius, the Sabine, whom he had chosen as co-ruler of the Kingdom of Rome.
⁴⁰
The reader will judge from this that the citizens of such a state might follow the example of their prince and harm those who oppose their own ambition and desire for power. This opinion would be correct, if one did not consider the aim that led Romulus to these murders.

It is a general rule that rarely, if ever, has a republic or kingdom been set up well from the beginning, or had its old institutions entirely reformed, unless this was done by a single man. In fact, it is necessary that one man alone give it form. Its organization must depend entirely on his ideas. But the prudent organizer of a republic who does not seek to benefit himself but rather the people, not his own heirs but his whole state, must do his utmost to keep all the power to himself. Nor will a wise man ever reproach him for acting outside the law in order to set up a kingdom or establish a republic. While his actions might accuse him, the result excuses him, and when the result is good, as it was in the case of Romulus, the result will always justify his actions. Only the man who is violent in order to ruin things should be reproached, not the man who is violent in seeking to repair things. The founder of a state must be prudent and skillful enough not to leave his power for another to inherit, because as men are more prone to evil than to good, his successor might use with greed what the founder used with skill. A single man might be capable of establishing a state, but the state established tends not to last long if it remains on the shoulders of one man, while it does last when it remains under the control of many and relies on many to maintain it. For just as many men are not able to establish something from the start, as they are unable to recognize the good in it since they all hold conflicting opinions, once they do recognize the good they will not let go of it. It is clear that Romulus was one ruler who deserves to be pardoned for the death of his brother and his co-ruler. What he did was for the common good and not for his own ambition, as he immediately set up a senate which he always consulted, making decisions with the senate’s views in mind. If one weighs the authority that Romulus reserved for himself, one sees that he only kept for himself the power to command the armies when war had been declared, and to convene the senate. This was apparent when Rome became free after the Tarquins
⁴¹
were driven out and the Romans did not reform any of the old institutions, except that in place of a king for life there were two annual consuls. This proves that all the original institutions of Rome were more fitting for a free state than an absolute and tyrannical one.

One could give countless examples to support the matters I have written about above, such as Moses, Lycurgus, Solon, and other founders of kingdoms and republics, who could make laws for the common good because they had seized absolute power. But I would like to pass over them, as they are well known, and put forward only one, not so renowned, but worthy of consideration by those who might wish to be the legislators of good laws. Agis, King of Sparta, wanted to return the Spartans to the boundaries that the laws of Lycurgus had set for them, for it seemed to him that they had deviated from these laws, and that Sparta had consequently lost much of its ancient prowess, and also strength and power. But the Spartan ephors
⁴²
killed Agis during his initial endeavors, since they perceived him to be a man who wanted to establish a tyranny. But Cleomenes became king after him, and he was resolved to follow Agis’s example, after he found Agis’s memoirs and writings in which his thoughts and intentions were clearly described. Cleomenes, too, realized that he could not help Sparta if he did not become the sole authority. He recognized that men being ambitious, he would not be able to do good for the many against the will of the few. Waiting for an opportune moment, he had all the ephors killed, and anyone else who might oppose him. Then he reformed all the laws of Lycurgus. This decision would have resuscitated Sparta and afforded Cleomenes a reputation comparable to that of Lycurgus had there not been the power of the Macedonians and the weakness of the other Greek states. After Cleomenes’s reforms, the Macedonians attacked, and as he was inferior in strength and finding himself without allies, he was defeated. And so his design, though just and praiseworthy, remained incomplete.
⁴³

Having considered all these things, I conclude that in setting up a republic it is necessary to act alone, and that Romulus deserves pardon, not blame, for the deaths of Remus and Titus Tatius.

40.
Livy (Book I, chapter 14) writes: “Romulus is said to have been less distressed at [Tatius’s murder] than he should have been, either because of the suspicion inherent in joint sovereignty, or because he thought that Tatius had deserved his fate.”

41.
Tarquin the Proud, who according to tradition reigned from 534 to 510
BCE
, was the last of the seven legendary kings of Rome.

42.
The ephors were a group of five magistrates who, with the kings, formed the executive branch of the Spartan state.

43.
Plutarch describes these incidents in a section on Agis and Cleomenes in
Parallel Lives
.

CHAPTER TEN
O
N HOW THE FOUNDERS OF A REPUBLIC OR KINGDOM ARE AS MUCH TO BE LAUDED AS FOUNDERS OF A TYRANNY ARE TO BE REBUKED

Among all the men who are praised, those praised most highly are the founders and heads of religions. Following closely are men who have founded republics or kingdoms, who in turn are followed in status by military men who have enlarged their own dominions or those of their state, and men of letters who are of so many kinds that they are each celebrated according to their quality. All other men, their number infinite, merit some praise according to their craft and the skill with which they practice it. In contrast, infamous and detestable are the men who are destroyers of religion, who dissipate kingdoms and republics, and enemies of accomplishment, letters, and all the crafts that bring value and honor to mankind. Such men are impious, violent, ignorant, worthless, idlers, and cowards. No one will be so foolish or so wise, so bad or so good that, when faced with the choice of two qualities in man, he will not praise what is praiseworthy and blame what is blamable. Nevertheless, in the end, almost all rulers, beguiled by a false good and a false glory, allow themselves to slip either voluntarily or unaware into the ranks of those who merit more blame than praise. Though to their everlasting honor they are able to found a republic or kingdom, they turn to a tyranny, not seeing how much fame, glory, honor, security, tranquillity, and peace of mind they are rejecting, and how much infamy, vituperation, blame, danger, and insecurity they are bringing upon themselves. It is unthinkable that men living as private citizens in a republic, even if they become princes by fortune or skill, would prefer to be a Scipio rather than a Caesar after they have read the histories and have benefited from the records of ancient things.
⁴⁴
It is unthinkable that if they are already princes they would prefer to live as Agesilaus, Timoleon, or Dion, rather than as Nabis, Phalaris, or Dionysius, because they would see that the former have been accorded the highest praise, and the latter the strongest opprobrium.
⁴⁵
They would also see how Timoleon and the others had more authority in their states than Dionysius or Phalaris in theirs, and more security over a long period.

And let no one be deceived by Caesar’s glory just because historians showered him with the highest praise. Those who praised him were beguiled by his good fortune and intimidated by the duration of the empire which, ruled as it was under his name,
⁴⁶
did not permit historians to write freely about him. If one wishes to gauge what free historians would have said of Caesar, one need only look at what has been written about Catiline.
⁴⁷
Caesar is all the more detestable, since a man who does a deed is more blameworthy than a man who intends to do one. One will also see with how much praise the historians showered Brutus: Unable to blame Caesar because of his power, they celebrated his enemy.

Anyone who has become the prince of a state should consider how much more praise is merited by emperors who lived as good rulers according to the law after Rome became an empire than by emperors who did not. Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus did not need the Praetorian Guard or whole legions to defend them. They were defended by their conduct, the goodwill of the populace, and the love of the senate. On the other hand, Caligula, Nero, Vitellius, and so many other wicked emperors found that their eastern and western armies were not enough to save them from the enemies their evil ways had generated. A new prince who considers their history carefully will find it excellent training, showing him the path to glory or to blame, the path to security or fear. Of the twenty-six emperors between Caesar and Maximinus, sixteen were murdered and ten died of natural causes. If among the murdered emperors there was a good one—like Galba or Pertinax—he was murdered on account of the corruption that his predecessors had instilled in the soldiers. And if among the emperors who died of natural causes there was one who was evil—as Severus was—this arose from his exceptional good fortune and skill, two things that are rarely found together in one man. A new prince reading this history will also see how a good kingdom can be set up, because all the emperors who came to power through a hereditary line, except for Titus, were evil, while all those who came to power through adoption were good, as were the five emperors from Nerva to Marcus. When the empire fell back into a hereditary line, it was destined once more for ruin.

Let a prince, therefore, first consider the times from Nerva to Marcus and compare them to those before and after, and let him choose in which era he would have liked to have been born, or in which he would have wanted to rule. Because in the era of a good emperor he will see a ruler secure among steadfast citizens, and the world steeped in peace and justice. He will see the Senate with its authority, the magistrates with their honors, wealthy citizens enjoying their wealth and seeing their nobility and skill exalted. He will see tranquillity and well-being and the eradication of all rancor, licentiousness, corruption, and ruthless ambition. He will see a golden age in which everyone can have and defend any opinions. He will see the triumph of a world filled with reverence and glory for the prince, and love and security for the populace. The prince should then carefully weigh the times of the other emperors, and will see in them terrible strife, discord, and sedition, and cruelty both in war and peace. So many princes dead by the sword, so many civil wars and wars with outside powers, Italy afflicted and filled with novel disasters, her cities sacked.
⁴⁸
He will see Rome torched, the Capitol torn down by its citizens, the ancient temples devastated, the rites corrupted, the cities rife with adulteries, the sea teeming with exiles, the shores covered in blood. He will see untold cruelty in Rome, and noble rank, riches, past honors, and above all excellence, charged as capital sin. He will see slanderers rewarded, corrupted servants turning against their masters, freedmen against their patrons, and those without enemies will be overpowered by their friends. He will see clearly then what debt Rome, Italy, and the world owe to Caesar.

And without doubt, if the prince is of human birth he will be troubled by the idea of imitating evil times, and will be inspired by an immense desire to follow those who were good. In fact, if a prince seeks the glory of the world, he should desire to possess a corrupt city: not in order to ruin it entirely, as Caesar did Rome, but to reorganize it, as Romulus did. Truly, the heavens cannot give man greater prospect for glory, nor can man wish for a greater glory. Should a prince have to jeopardize his position in order to set up his state properly, it would be better for him to refrain. But there is no excuse if he can keep his principality and organize the state well, but does not do so. In conclusion, he to whom the heavens give such an opportunity should consider that there are two paths: one that will make him secure during his lifetime and glorious after his death, and the other that will make him live in constant anguish and after his death leave behind a legacy of everlasting infamy.

44.
Machiavelli compares Scipio Africanus (who defeated Hannibal), as a champion of the Roman Republic, to Caesar, as founder of imperial Rome.

45.
Plutarch in
Parallel Lives
praises Agesilaus of Sparta, Timoleon of Corinth, and Dion of Syracuse as heroic rulers. Nabis was the last ruler of independent Sparta; Phalaris, tyrant of Acragas, was alleged to have roasted his victims alive in a bronze bull; Dionysius the Elder was tyrant of Syracuse.

46.
Machiavelli is referring to the Roman emperors who adopted Caesar as a title.

47.
Catiline was a Roman politician of the first century
BCE
who is best known for the Catilinian conspiracy, an attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic.

48.
In this paragraph Machiavelli is paraphrasing a passage from Tacitus’s
Histories
(Book I, chapter 2) that begins: “I am entering a period of history replete with brutal war, discord, and sedition, torn by civil strife, savage even in peace. […] Italy was brought to her knees by disasters that were entirely novel.”