Pausing at this point in his speech, while sitting pensively there for a moment, he continued: “If I thought I would offend you, I would not give you my opinion on such matters; but I could not offend you, for I am speaking with friends and for the sake of argument, not in order to criticize. How much better off those princes would have been (God rest their souls) had they tried to equal the ancients in strong and rugged matters instead of delicate and soft ones, in those things done in the heat of the sun and not in the shade, taking their course of action from a true and perfect antiquity, not from that of a false and corrupted one; for when such activities began to please my Romans, my country fell into ruin.” To this Cosimo replied—to avoid the inconvenience of having to repeat constantly “he said” and “the other answered,” only the names of the speakers will be noted, without repeating anything else. Therefore: cosimo: You have opened the way to an argument that I had hoped for, and I beg you to speak without restraint, since I shall question you without reservations; and if in questioning or responding I excuse or blame anyone, it will not be for the sake of excusing or blaming but to learn the truth from you.
FABRIZIO: And I shall be very happy to tell you what I know about all you ask; as to whether what I say is true or not, I leave that to your judgment. And I shall be very happy if you ask, for I am as ready to learn from your questions as you are from my replies; for a wise interrogator often causes one to reflect upon a number of things and to learn about many others which, without the benefit of questions, one might never have learned.
cosimo: I’d like to return to what you said first, that my grandfather and those princes of yours would have been wiser to imitate the ancients in manly matters rather than in delicate ones; for I wish to make excuses for my ancestors, leaving excuses for the others to you. I do not believe that there ever was, in his time, a man who detested soft living so much as my grandfather did, or who was ever so fond of that rugged life about which you spoke; nevertheless, he recognized that neither he nor his sons could follow such a life, having been born in a corrupt century where anyone who wished to depart from common customs would be criticized and villified by everyone. For if a man stretched out naked on the sand in the summer under the noonday sun, or upon the snow in the coldest of winter months, as Diogenes did, he would be considered mad. If anyone, like the Spartans, reared his children in the country, making them sleep in the open, go about with their heads uncovered and without shoes, bathe in cold water to induce them to bear up under stress and to make them love life less and to fear death less, he would be ridiculed and considered more of an animal than a man. If anyone, moreover, lived on vegetables and despised gold, as Fabricius Luscinus did, he would be praised by few and followed by none. Therefore, although disgusted by current ways of living, my grandfather abandoned the examples of the ancients in this and followed them only in matters that would attract less attention.
FABRIZIO: You have defended him admirably in this matter, and you certainly speak the truth; but I was not talking so much about such severe ways of life as about other, more humane ways that have more in common with the life of today; these, I believe, would not be difficult for anyone who is counted among a city’s leading citizens to introduce. I shall never depart from my Roman friends in recommending examples for anything. If one considers their life and the organization of their republic, one will see that many things there could be introduced into a government that is not totally corrupt.
COSIMO: What are these things that you would like to introduce in imitation of the ancients?
FABRIZIO: To honor and reward ability; not to despise poverty; to value the methods and the institutions of military discipline; to make citizens love one another; to live without factions; to value the public interest over private interests; and other similar principles that could easily suit our times. It is not difficult to be persuaded about these matters when one thinks about them enough and studies them in the correct way, for so much truth can be seen in them that any common intelligence may grasp it. Anyone who institutes such a way of life plants trees under whose shade one can live with greater happiness and prosperity than under this one.
cosimo: I shall not reply to what you have said in any way (I would rather leave this to the judgment of those who can easily judge it); rather, I shall address myself to you, who accuse those who are not imitators of the ancients in serious and important matters, for I believe that in this manner my intention will be more easily fulfilled. I should like, therefore, to know from you why it is that, on the one hand, you castigate those who do not follow the ancients in their actions while, on the other, in your own art of war, in which you are reputed to be most excellent, you evidently have not made use of any ancient methods or anything similar to those methods.
FABRIZIO: You have landed just where I thought you would, for my remarks deserved no other question, nor did I desire any other one. And although I could save myself with a facile excuse, I would rather, since the time is right, engage in a longer argument for the greater satisfaction of both of us. Men who wish to accomplish an undertaking ought first to prepare themselves with care so that when the opportunity arises they will be able to carry out what they have proposed to do. Since preparations, if they are made carefully, remain unknown, no one can be accused of negligence if his plan is not discovered before that opportunity arises; but when it arrives and he does not act, it becomes obvious that he either did not prepare himself enough or did not have enough foresight. And since I have not yet had the opportunity to be able to demonstrate the preparations I have drawn up to lead military arts back to their ancient institutions, if I have not led them back I cannot be criticized either by you or by others. I believe that this excuse should suffice as a reply to your accusation.
COSIMO: It would more than suffice if I were certain that the opportunity had not arisen.
FABRIZIO: But since you question whether or not this opportunity has arisen, I wish, if you will bear with me, to discuss at length what kind of preparations should be made first, what sort of opportunity must arise, and which difficulties keep the preparations from working and the opportunity from arising. This matter is both very difficult and extremely easy to accomplish, although it may seem to be a contradiction. cosimo: You could not please me and these others more than by doing this; and if it does not bother you to talk, it will never annoy us to listen to you. But since this discussion must be lengthy, I ask, with your permission, that these friends of mine assist me; we ask only one thing of you: that you will not be irritated if, from time to time, we interrupt you with some important questions.
FABRIZIO: I would be very happy if you, Cosimo, and these other young men question me, for I believe that youth is more amenable to military affairs and is more inclined to believe what I shall say. Older men, with white hair and blood frozen in their veins, are usually partly averse to war and partly beyond correction, for they believe that the times, not defective institutions, force men to live as they do. Therefore, feel free to ask questions of me; I wish you would, not only because it would give me a chance to rest, but also because it pleases me not to leave any doubts in your minds. I’d like to begin with your own words: you told me that in war, my profession, I had not used any of the methods of the ancients. On this topic I maintain that since this is a profession by means of which men cannot live honestly at all times, it cannot be carried on as a profession except in a republic or in a kingdom; neither of these governments, when it is well organized, has ever allowed any of its citizens or subjects to practice it as a profession; nor has any good man ever taken it up as his own particular profession. For a man will never be judged good who, in his work—if he wants to make a steady profit from it—must be rapacious, fraudulent, violent, and exhibit many qualities which, of necessity, do not make him good. Nor can men who practice war as a profession—great men as well as insignificant men—act in any other way, since their profession does not prosper in peacetime. Therefore, such men must either hope for
no peace or must profit from times of war in such a manner that they can live off that profit in times of peace. Neither of these thoughts is found in a good man, for the desire to be able to support oneself at all times leads to theft, acts of violence, and the murderous deeds that such soldiers perpetrate on their friends and foes alike. From not desiring peace come the treacherous deeds that military leaders commit against their employers to keep a war going; and if peace does come, it often happens that the leaders, having been deprived of their salary and their living, set up their standards as soldiers of fortune and illegally sack a province without mercy. Do you not remember, in your own affairs, how countless numbers of soldiers, finding themselves unemployed in Italy after the end of the wars, joined together in many brigades, which were called companies, and went about holding up towns for ransom and sacking the countryside, and no one was able to find a remedy? Have you not read that the Carthaginian soldiers, at the end of the first war with the Romans-under Matho and Spendius (two leaders chosen by them from the mob)—waged a more dangerous war against the Carthaginians than they had just finished waging against the Romans? In the times of our fathers, Francesco Sforza, in order to live honorably in times of peace, not only tricked the Milanese who hired him but also took away their liberty and became their prince. All the other professional soldiers of Italy have been like him; and if they have not, through their evil deeds, become dukes of Milan, they deserve to be blamed even more, for without so much profit they all have the same drawbacks as he—this is evident if one examines their lives. Sforza, the father of Francesco, forced Queen Giovanna of Naples to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon when he abandoned her suddenly and left her unarmed in the midst of her enemies, his only purpose being to satisfy his ambition and to extort money from her or to take the kingdom away from her. Andrea Braccio da Montone sought to occupy the Kingdom of Naples by the same means; had he not been routed and slain at Aquila, he would have succeeded. Similar disorders are born from no other reason except that there have been men who used the trade of a soldier as their profession. Do you not have a proverb that reinforces my arguments? “War produces thieves and peace hangs them.” For those who do not know how to live by another means and cannot find anyone who will hire them, not having enough ability to join together to commit an honorable act of evil, are forced by necessity to become highway robbers, and justice is forced to execute them.
COSIMO: You have made this military profession of yours seem worthless, and I had thought it to be the most excellent and the most honorable profession there was. Therefore, if you do not explain yourself better, I shall remain unsatisfied, for if what you say is true, I do not know from whence arises the glory of Caesar, Pompey, Scipio, Marcellus, and so many other Roman leaders who are celebrated as gods.
FABRIZIO: I have not yet finished what I proposed to say regarding two matters: first, that a good man cannot make this trade his profession; second, that a republic or a kingdom that is well organized has never permitted her subjects or citizens to make it their profession. Concerning the first statement, I have said all that has come to my mind. There remains the second, and with it I shall respond to your last question. Let me say that Pompey, Caesar, and practically all those leaders after the last Carthaginian war acquired fame as brave men, not as good ones; and those who lived before them acquired glory as both brave and good men. This came about because the latter did not take up the exercise of war as their profession, while the former did make it their profession. While the republic thrived in an uncorrupted state, no great citizen ever presumed, by such a means, to increase his power during peacetime, to break the laws, despoil the provinces, usurp and tyrannize his country or in any manner to increase his station; nor did anyone of low rank think of violating his oath, entering into private conspiracies, not fearing the senate, or perpetrating some tyrannical injury in order to be able to live at all times by means of the art of war. Those who were leaders, content with their triumphs, returned willingly to private life; and those who were regular soldiers laid down their arms more willingly than they had taken them up; and each man returned to the profession that had earned him his living before; nor was there anyone who hoped to make his living by plundering or by means of a military profession. One thinks, when talking about great citizens, of the obvious case of Regulus Atilius, captain of the Roman armies in Africa, who, after nearly defeating the Carthaginians, demanded permission from the senate to return home in order to take care of his lands, which had been ruined by his workers. Now, it is clearer than the sun that if that man had practiced war as his profession, and had thought to make a profit by means of it, having in his grasp so many provinces, he would never have asked permission to return home to care for his fields; for on any one day he could have made much more money than the total worth of all his lands.
But since these good men, who did not practice war as their profession, did not wish to gain anything from it but toil, dangers, and glory, when they had become renowned enough they only wanted to return to their homes and to their professions. And as for men of lower estate and common soldiers, it is clear that they followed the same practice, for each of them gladly left such an occupation; when he was not fighting, he was willing to do so, and when he was fighting, he wanted not to fight. This can be proved in a number of ways, particularly when we observe how among the major privileges the Roman people bestowed upon its citizens was that of not being forced, against one’s will, to become a soldier. As long as she was well organized (which she was until the time of the Gracchi), Rome did not have a single soldier who assumed that duty as a profession; because of this she had few bad soldiers, and those who were bad were severely punished. Therefore, a well-organized city must desire that this study of warfare be pursued as an exercise in peacetime and as a necessity and for glory in wartime; it must allow only its citizens to practice it as a profession, as Rome did. And any citizen who, in practicing this profession, does so with another purpose in mind, is not a good citizen; and any city that is governed otherwise is not well organized. cosimo: I am very pleased and satisfied with what you have said until now, and this conclusion which you have drawn pleases me as well; as far as a republic is concerned, I believe that your opinion is correct, but as far as kings are concerned, I am uncertain, for I would suppose that a king might wish to have around him men who would make just such a pursuit their profession.
FABRIZIO: A well-instituted kingdom should avoid such professional soldiers even more, since they alone are the source of the corruption of its king and, in sum, the ministers of tyranny. And do not cite as a contrary example any present kingdom, for I shall deny that those are well-organized kingdoms. Kingdoms that have good institutions do not give absolute authority to their kings except in the command of their armies; for only in this institution are sudden decisions necessary; because of this, a single individual must be in charge. In other matters the king cannot do anything without advice, and his advisers would have to live in fear that he has around him in times of peace those who desire war, for they make their living from it.
But I want to consider this question at greater length. I do not wish to select a kingdom that is completely good but one that is like some we have today, where those who practice war as their profession are still to be feared by kings. Since the nerve of any army, without question, lies in the infantry, if a king does not arrange things in such a way that his infantrymen are content to return home and to live off their trades during times of peace, he will of necessity come to ruin; for there exists no more dangerous sort of infantry than one composed of men who make war their profession, since you are forced either to make war constantly and repeatedly pay these men, or run the risk that they will take your kingdom from you. To wage war constantly is not possible; one cannot pay them repeatedly either; therefore, of necessity one runs the risk of losing the state.
As I have mentioned, as long as my Roman friends were wise and good, they never permitted their citizens to choo
se this activity as their profession, notwithstanding the fact that they would have been able to employ them continuously since they constantly made war. But in order to avoid the dangers that can arise from the continuous practice of war, they varied the men, since the circumstances did not vary, and acted in such a fashion that every fifteen years they rotated the ranks of their legions; thus, they took advantage of men in their prime, which lasts from eighteen to thirty-five years of age, during which time their legs, hands, and eyes are in perfect accord ; nor did they wait until their strength grew weaker and their maliciousness grew stronger, as they did later during corrupt times. For first Octavian, and after him Tiberius—both of whom were concerned more for personal power than for the public welfare—began to disarm the Roman people in order to be able to command more easily and to keep those same armies at the frontiers of the empire. And since they thought that such measures as these would not be sufficient to keep the people and the Roman senate in check, they instituted another army, called the Praetorian Guard, which stayed close to the walls of the city and turned it into a stronghold. And because they allowed the men who were selected for this army to make it their profession, these men immediately became insolent and posed a threat to the senate as well as a danger to the emperor. As a result of the guards’ unruly nature many emperors were put to death, for these men could give the empire to, or take it from, whomever they chose; and sometimes it would happen that a number of emperors were created by various armies at the same time. These things first led to the division of the empire and finally to its ruin. Therefore, if kings want to live securely, they must be sure that their foot soldiers are made up of men who go to war of their own accord and, when the time comes, return home when peace arrives even more willingly than when they left. This will always occur when the king chooses men who know how to live better by any profession other than a military one. Thus, he must want his subordinates to come back to rule their own people when peace returns, his gentlemen to return to the administration of their properties, and his foot soldiers to return to their own particular trades; and each of these groups will willingly wage war in order to have peace and will not seek to disturb the peace in order to wage war.
The Portable Machiavelli Page 49
