The Portable Machiavelli

by Niccolo Machiavelli

  He asked an envious man who was laughing: “Are you laughing because you are doing well or because someone else is in trouble?”

  While he was still under the guidance of Messer Francesco Guinigi, one of his friends said: “What must I give you for you to let me slap your face?” Castruccio replied: “A helmet.”

  Having executed a citizen of Lucca who had been one of the reasons for his greatness, and subsequently being told that it was wrong to kill one of his old friends, he replied that this was mistaken, since he had killed a new enemy.

  Castruccio praised greatly those men who picked wives and then did not marry them, as well as those who wanted to go to sea but never went.

  He said that he was always amazed at how men, when buying a vase of earthenware or of glass, always sounded it out to find out if it were good, yet when choosing a wife were content only to see her.

  When a person asked him, as he was about to die, how he wished to be buried, he replied: “With my face downward, since I know that this country will turn upside down when I am gone.”

  Asked if he had ever considered becoming a monk to save his soul, he replied that he had not, since it seemed strange to him that Brother Lazarus should go to Heaven and Uguccione della Faggiuola to Hell.

  Asked when one should eat to stay healthy, he answered: “If you are rich, when you are hungry; if you are poor, when you can.”

  Seeing one of his gentlemen being buttoned up by his servant, he remarked: “I hope to God he also spoon-feeds you.”

  Noticing that someone had written over his doorway in Latin letters “May God guard this house from the wicked,” he quipped: “That means that the owner cannot go in there himself!”

  Passing through a street where there was a small house with a huge door, he said: “That house is going to run away through that door.”

  When he had been informed that a foreigner had corrupted a young boy, he said: “He must be from Perugia.”

  Once, when he asked what town had a reputation for cheaters and charlatans, he was answered, “Lucca,” since everyone there was naturally that way, except for Bonturo Dati.86

  When Castruccio was arguing with an ambassador of the King of Naples about the property of exiles, he became rather angry. The ambassador said to him: “So you don’t fear the king?” Castruccio replied: “Is he good or evil, this king of yours?” Hearing that he was good, Castruccio replied to the ambassador: “Then why should you want me to be afraid of a good man?”

  I could recount many other things, all of which reflect his wit and his seriousness, but let these sayings suffice as proof of his great qualities.

  He lived forty-four years, and he was like a prince no matter what Fortune dealt him. And as there were many evidences of his good luck, he also wished there to be some tokens of his bad fortune. Because of this, the hand-cuffs with which he was chained in prison can still be seen in the tower of his home, where he himself placed them in order that they might always testify to his adversity. And because he was, when living, inferior neither to Philip of Macedonia, Alexander’s father, nor to Scipio of Rome, he died at the same age as both of them; and without a doubt he would have surpassed the one and the other if instead of Lucca he had had Macedonia or Rome for his native land.

  From THE HISTORY OF FLORENCE

  EDITORS’ NOTE

  Although Machiavelli never obtained a post with the Medici rulers of Florence that matched his own estimation of his political talents, he was finally given a commission from the university (the Studio fiorentino) in 1520 to compose a history of Florence. When he presented the manuscript, totaling eight books, of this history to Pope Clement VII (Giulio de’ Medici) in 1525, he joined a tradition of humanist historiography that originated in the Florentine chancery in the fifteenth century and culminated in the masterful History of Italy written by Machiavelli’s friend Francesco Guicciardini and published in Florence in 1561. Early Renaissance humanists had revived the art of historical narrative, taking Livy’s history of republican Rome as their model for similar treatments of their own cities. Several of Machiavelli’s predecessors in the Florentine chancery—Leonardo Bruni (1374-1444), Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), and Bartolommeo della Scala (1428-1497)—produced Latin histories which Machiavelli knew and studied along with his favorite classical authors. His own History of Florence, first published in 1532, was widely circulated throughout Renaissance Europe. It received a French translation in 1557 that was reprinted several times, three editions of a Latin version that first appeared in 1564, and an English edition in 1594.

  In addition to a dedication and a preface, the history was divided into eight books covering Florentine affairs from the city’s earliest days until 1492. Machiavelli apparently intended to continue the narrative, but the task was never completed. Unlike the earlier Latin works, which had stressed Florentine foreign relations and the republic’s struggle for survival against the Visconti tyrants of Milan, Machiavelli’s history applies a spirit of civic humanism to internal affairs, civil discord, and conspiracies, in keeping with the importance he gives these topics in his theoretical analyses of politics in The Prince and, especially, The Discourses. It is possible to view The History of Florence as a casebook illustrating, in the particular instance of a single modern city, the truth of the more abstract concepts derived from the classical example of Rome in The Discourses. The comparison between the ancient model of civic excellence and the contemporary model of civic corruption, treated directly in one chapter of the history, is implicit throughout. The original eight books of the work are divided into the following broad subjects: Florence from the decline of the Roman empire to 1434 (I); the origins of Florence and its early history to 1353 (II); Florence from 1353 until 1414 (III); Florentine affairs from 1414 until 1434 (IV); the rule of Cosimo de’ Medici until the battle of Anghiari, 1434-1440 (V); Cosimo’s hegemony, 1440-1463 (VI); Florentine affairs from Cosimo’s death until the early years of the rule of Lorenzo de’ Medici, II Magnifico, 1463-1478 (VII); Florence under Lorenzo, from the Pazzi conspiracy until his death, 1478-1492 (VIII).

  The present translation contains the following selections: the complete dedication and preface to the work, which explains Machiavelli’s view of history; chapter one of book three, which compares Rome to Florence; chapter one of book five, which outlines Machiavelli’s views on historical cycles (this should be compared to a similar passage in The Discourses, II, 2); and chapters one through six of the seventh book and the last chapter of the eighth book, which contain the very famous portraits and political evaluations of Cosimo de’ Medici and Lorenzo il Magnifico that were to influence generations of future historians.

  To the Most Holy and Blessed Father,

  Our Lord Clement VII, from

  His Humble Servant Niccolò Machiavelli

  Since Your Holiness, Most Blessed and Holy Father, commissioned me while you were still a cardinal to write about the deeds accomplished by the Florentine peoples, I have used all the diligence and skill that has been granted me by nature and experience in order to satisfy you. And since I have reached that point of time in my writing when, as a result of the death of the Magnificent Lorenzo de’ Medici, the shape of Italy was changed, and since the affairs which then followed were greater and of more consequence, and must consequently be described with a greater and loftier spirit, I thought it best to bind all that I have written up until those times in one volume and to present it to Your Most Blessed Holiness in order that you may begin to taste the fruits of your seeds and of my labors in some small measure.

  As you read, Your Holiness will see, after the Roman empire began to lose strength in the West, how many disasters and how many rulers Italy endured for centuries as she changed her governments; you will observe how the Pope, the Venetians, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Duchy of Milan seized the hegemony and territories of that province; you will see how your native city, withdrawing her allegiance from the emperors as a result of internal division, continued to remain d
ivided until she began to fall under the shadow of your family. And, since Your Blessed Holiness commissioned and commanded me, in particular, to write about the deeds of your ancestors in such a way that I should be far removed from any intent to flatter (for however much it pleases you to hear the true praises of men, so much more do false and obsequious ones displease you), I am very much afraid that I may appear to Your Holiness to be disobeying your orders in describing the kindness of Giovanni, the wisdom of Cosimo, the humanity of Piero, and the magnificence and prudence of Lorenzo. I beg forgiveness from Your Holiness for this if these descriptions or others displease you because they are inaccurate. But, discovering how much praise there was for them in other histories written at various times, I was forced either to describe them as I found them or to be silent. And if beneath their distinguished deeds there lay hidden some ambition contrary to the public welfare, as some men contend, I am not obliged to write about it if I cannot recognize it; for in all of my works I have never allowed a dishonest act to be concealed by an honest cause, nor have I wanted a praiseworthy deed to be obscured and appear as if it had been done for another reason.

  But how far removed I am from flattery can be seen in all of the aspects of my history, and most particularly in the public speeches and the private remarks (both those quoted directly and those reported by others), which retain the ideas and the order suitable for a person who speaks without any hesitation. I avoid, nevertheless, offensive words in all places, since they are neither necessary nor do they suit the dignity and the truth of history. No one, therefore, who rightly examines my writings can accuse me of flattery, especially when one notices that I have said little about the accomplishments of Your Holiness’s father. This is due to the brevity of his life, during which he had no chance to make a name for himself; as a result, I have not glorified him in my writing. Nonetheless, his accomplishments were most grand and magnificent, for he engendered Your Holiness, an action that counterbalances those of his ancestors, one that will bestow more fame upon him than the years of his life malicious Fortune stole from him. And so, Most Holy and Blessed Father, I have tried in this history of mine to satisfy everybody without staining the truth. Perhaps I have not satisfied anyone. If this be the case, it would not surprise me, for I think it is impossible to describe the affairs of one’s own times without offending many people. Nevertheless, I enter the battle with cheer, hoping that just as I am honored and supported by the kindness of Your Holiness, so also shall I be assisted and defended by the armed legions of your most holy judgment. And I shall continue my undertaking with that same spirit and confidence with which I have written up to this time, as long as my life and the favor of Your Holiness do not abandon me.

  PREFACE

  When I first decided to write about the internal and external affairs of the Florentine peoples, my intention was to begin my narration the year of the Christian Era, 1434, at which time the Medici family, because of the merits of Cosimo and Giovanni, his father, had gained more authority than any other family in Florence. I believed that Messer Leonardo Bruni d’Arezzo and Messer Poggio Bracciolini, two most excellent historians, had narrated, in detail, all the events that occurred until that time. But after I had read their writings with great care, for the purpose of studying their technique of organization and style so that in imitating them I might render my own history more pleasing to readers, I found that they were very diligent historians in describing the wars carried on by the Florentines with foreign princes and peoples; however, concerning civil discord, internal conflicts, and the effects these have had, I find that they are totally silent about one part of them, whereas the other part they describe so briefly that their readers can derive no profit or pleasure therefrom. They did this, I believe, either because they felt that these affairs were so unimportant as to be unworthy of preservation for posterity in writing or because they feared that they might offend the descendants of those whom they would have to treat in their writings. These two reasons, with due respect to them, seem to me unworthy of great men, for if anything delights or instructs in history it is that which is described in detail; if any lesson is useful to the citizens who govern republics it is that which demonstrates the causes of the hatreds and the factions of a city in order that these men may preserve their unity through the wisdom gained from the sufferings of others. And if the example of any state is moving, that which treats of a man’s own native city is even more moving and more useful when he reads about it; and if internal strife was ever worthy of note in a republic, that of Florence is extremely noteworthy, for most other republics about which we have any record have been satisfied with one single division, which, according to the circumstances, has either expanded or ruined its government. Not content with one faction, Florence has produced a number of them. In Rome, as everyone knows, after the kings were exiled a breach occurred between the nobility and the common people which continued until the city’s downfall. In like manner, the same thing occurred in Athens and in all the other republics that flourished in those days. But Florence’s factions were first divided among the nobles, then between the nobles and the middle classes, and finally between the middle classes and the masses; and it frequently happened that when one of these factions triumphed it split in two. These factions resulted in many deaths, exiles, and the destruction of many families—as many as ever occurred in any city of which we have a record. And truly, in my judgment, it seems that no other example demonstrates the vigor of our native city so well as does the strength of these factions, which would have had enough power to ruin the greatest and most powerful city. Nevertheless, our city seemed to become ever greater because of this. The ability of those citizens and the strength of their intelligence and spirit, which enabled them to make themselves and their native city great, was such that those who remained free of evil influence could achieve more with their ability to exalt Florence than the evil nature of those circumstances which might have weakened her could do to destroy her. And without a doubt, if Florence, after she had liberated herself from the Holy Roman Empire, had been fortunate enough to have instituted a form of government that might have kept her united, I do not know what republic, modern or ancient, would have been superior to her, for she would have been blessed with much military genius and civilian skill. For it is evident that even after she had expelled as many Ghibellines as could fill all of Tuscany and Lombardy, one year before the battle of Campaldino, the Guelfs and those who remained in the city produced on the field of battle, from among their own citizens, twelve hundred knights and twelve thousand infantrymen in the war against Arezzo. Afterward, in the war against Filippo Visconti, Duke of Milan, Florence was forced to make use of her economic strength and not her own troops (since they had by that time been destroyed); in fact, the Florentines, during the five-year duration of the war, spent 3.5 million florins. Not content with peace, when this war ended, the Florentines attacked Lucca in order further to demonstrate the power of their city.

  Therefore, I cannot see any reason why these factions are not worthy of being described in detail. And if those very noble historians were reluctant to offend the memory of those they were tc discuss, they were mistaken and showed that they understood very little about human ambition and man’s desire to perpetuate his name and that of his ancestors; nor did they remember that many men have tried to acquire fame through unworthy deeds when they did not have the opportunity to do so by means of some praiseworthy deed; nor did they consider how matters of intrinsic importance, such as those of government and affairs of state, no matter how they are carried on or whatever goal they have, are always considered more in terms of honor than of censure by those who carry them out. Having considered these things myself, I changed my plan and decided to begin my history with the foundation of our city. And because it is not my intention to duplicate the work of others, I shall describe in detail only those affairs which occurred inside the city until 1434, and I shall speak of external affairs only insofar as it is necess
ary to explain internal ones. Then, for events occurring after 1434, I shall describe both in detail. Furthermore, in order that this history be better understood for all times, before I deal with Florence I shall describe how Italy came under the rule of the powers that governed her at that time. All these matters, both Florentine and Italian, will fill four books: the first will briefly describe all the events that took place in Italy from the decline of the Roman Empire until 1434; the second will begin with the foundation of the city of Florence and continue up to the war that Florence waged against the Pope after the expulsion of the Duke of Athens; the third will end in 1414 with the death of King Ladislaus of Naples; and with the fourth book we shall have reached the year 1434. From that time on, affairs, both inside and outside of Florence, will be described in detail up to our present day.

  BOOK III

  CHAPTER I [ROME AND FLORENCE COMPARED]

  The serious and natural enmity that exists between the common people and the nobility, resulting from the desire of the latter to command and the former not to obey, is the cause of all the evils that arise in cities; for from this clash of dispositions everything that disturbs a republic takes its nourishment. This kept Rome disunited; this kept Florence divided as well (if it be permitted to compare lesser things to greater ones); and it happened to have produced different effects in both cities. For the early disputes in Rome between the people and the nobility were settled by argument, while those in Florence were settled by fighting. In Rome they were resolved by laws, in Florence by the exile and the death of many citizens. The Romans continually improved their military skill, while the Florentines continually lost it. These disputes in Rome led that city to shift from a state of equality for all citizens to an extreme inequality, while those in Florence led her from a state of inequality into a remarkable condition of equality. These different results must have come from the different goals these two peoples had in mind; for the Roman people wanted to enjoy the principal honors together with the nobility, while the Florentine people fought so that they could govern themselves without the participation of the nobility. And because the desire of the Roman people was more reasonable, their offenses against the nobility were more bearable, so that the nobility easily conceded without resorting to force of arms. As a result, after some arguments the nobles agreed upon a law that satisfied the common people and preserved the dignity of the nobility. On the other hand, the desire of the Florentine people was injurious and unjust, so that the nobility prepared to defend itself more forcefully; thus, from this came bloodshed and exile for her citizens; those laws which were then instituted were not for the common good but for the benefit of the victor.