the prince(王子)-第6部分
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！
having committed this prime error； he was obliged to follow it up； so much
so that； to put an end to the ambition of Alexander； and to prevent his
becoming the master of Tuscany； he was himself forced to come into Italy。
And as if it were not enough to have aggrandized the Church； and
deprived himself of friends； he； wishing to have the kingdom of Naples；
divides it with the King of Spain； and where he was the prime arbiter in
Italy he takes an associate； so that the ambitious of that country and the
malcontents of his own should have somewhere to shelter； and whereas he
could have left in the kingdom his own pensioner as king； he drove him
out； to put one there who was able to drive him； Louis； out in turn。
The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common； and men
always 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
22
… Page 23…
The Prince
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； had he 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 become 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 to 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 cap to Rouen；＇＋＇ to that I reply
what I shall write later on concerning the faith of princes； and how it ought
to be kept。
＇*＇ Louis XII divorced his wife； Jeanne； daughter of Louis XI； and
married in 1499 Anne of Brittany； widow of Charles VIII； in order to
retain the Duchy of Brittany for the crown。
＇＋＇ The Archbishop of Rouen。 He was Georges d'Amboise； created a
cardinal by Alexander VI。 Born 1460； died 1510。
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
23
… Page 24…
The Prince
Rouen； when Valentino； 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 is 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 becoming 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。
24
… Page 25…
The Prince
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 to 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 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
25
… Page 26…
The Prince
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 this 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
s
