Niccolò Machiavelli to Giovan Battista Soderini
Perugia, 13-21 September 1506

A letter came to me from you wearing a mask; yet, after ten words, I recognized it and can well believe in the crowds at Piombino, since I know you; and I am certain of the obstacles you and Filippo encountered, because I know one of you is impeded by too little "light" - the other by too much. I do not find January a nuisance, as long as I can count on holding onto February's support. I am sorry about Filippo's apprehensions and await the outcome in suspense.Your letter was short, but rereading it I made it longer. [He who does not know how to fence can entangle one who does.] I was grateful for it because it gave me an opportunity to do what I was hesitating about doing and what you remind me not to do - the only part of your letter that I admit is to no purpose. This would surprise me if it were not for the fact that my fate has shown me so many and such varied things that I am forced rarely to be surprised or to admit that I have not savored - either through reading or through experience - the actions of men and their ways of doing things. I know you and the compass of your navigation; even if it could be blamed, which it cannot be, I should not, since I see what ports it has guided you to and what hopes it may foster in you. (Hence I think not according to your perspective, wherein nothing but prudence is visible, but to the perspective of the many, which must see the ends, not the means, of things.) And I see that steering along a variety of routes can bring about the same thing and that acting in different ways can bring about the same end - whatever this conviction may have lacked has been filled in by this pope's actions and their outcomes. [In fine, advise no one and accept advice from no one, except for a general suggestion that each man must do what his mind prompts him to - and do it with daring.] Take Hannibal and Scipio: in addition to their military training, in which they were equally preeminent, the former kept his armies in Italy united through cruelty, treachery, and impiety and made himself admired by the populace, who, in order to follow him, rebelled against the Romans [men tire of the good and complain about the bad; bitter things irritate the taste, sweet things cloy it]; the latter achieved the identical result among the populace in Spain with compassion, loyalty, and piety: both achieved victory upon victory. [To try Fortune, who is the friend of youth, and to change according to the times. But it is impossible both to have fortresses and not to have them; it is impossible to be both cruel and compassionate, etc.] But, because it is not customary to bring in the Romans as evidence, Lorenzo de' Medici disarmed the populace to hold on to Florence, Messer Giovanni Bentivoglio armed them to hold on to Bologna; the Vitelli in Città di Castello and the current duke of Urbino in his territory tore down fortresses in order to hold on to those territories, Count Francesco in Milan and many others constructed fortresses in their territories in order to secure them for themselves. Emperor Titus believed that he would lose his realm on any day that he did not do good to someone; another person might believe that he would lose his on any day when he did do good to someone. Many people [do not] succeed in their plans because they calculate and deliberate everything. [When Fortune slacks off it follows that a man, a family, and a city crumbles; each person's fortune is based upon his way of doing things, and each person's fortune slacks off, when it is slack, it must be regained by some other means.] This pope, who has no scales or measuring stick in his house, obtains through chance - and disarmed - what ought to be difficult to attain even with organization and with weapons. We have seen, and continue to see, in all the examples mentioned above - and in countless other examples that could be brought in as evidence in analogous instances - that kingdoms are conquered, or are subdued, or have fallen, as unforeseen events would have it. Sometimes the way of doing things that was praised when it led to conquest is vilified when it leads to defeat, and sometimes when defeat comes after long prosperity [the comparison of the horse and bit concerning fortresses], people do not blame anything of their own but rather indict heaven and the will of the Fates. But the reason why different actions are sometimes equally useful and sometimes equally detrimental I do not know - yet I should very much like to; so, in order to learn your view, I shall be presumptuous enough to give you mine. I believe that just as Nature has created men with different faces, so she has created them with different intellects and imaginations. As a result, each man behaves according to his own intellect and imagination. And, on the other hand, because times change and the pattern of events differs, one man's hopes may turn out as he prayed they would. The man who matches his way of doing things with the conditions of the times is successful; the man whose actions are at odds with the times and the pattern of events is unsuccessful. Hence, it can well be that two men can achieve the same goal by acting differently: because each one of them matches his actions to what he encounters and because there are as many patterns of events as there are regions and governments. But because times and affairs often change - both in general and in particular - and because men change neither their imaginations nor their ways of doing things accordingly, it turns out that a man has good fortune at one time and bad fortune at another. And truly, anyone wise enough to adapt to and understand the times and the pattern of events would always have good fortune or would always keep himself from bad fortune; and it would come to be true that the wise man could control the stars and the Fates. But such wise men do not exist: in the first place, men are shortsighted; in the second place, they are unable to master their own natures; thus it follows that Fortune is fickle, controlling men and keeping them under her yoke. I want the examples mentioned above to suffice as proof of this view; I have based it on them and so I should like the one to support the other. Cruelty, treachery, and impiety are effective in providing a new ruler with prestige in that region where human kindness, loyalty, and piety have long been common practice, just as human kindness, loyalty, and piety are effective where cruelty, treachery. and impiety reigned for a while: for just as bitter things irritate the taste and sweet things cloy it, so men become impatient with the good and complain about the bad. These causes, among others, opened Italy up to Hannibal and Spain to Scipio, and thus each one made time and affairs consistent with his pattern of doing things. In those days a Scipio would have made less progress in Italy and a Hannibal would have made less progress in Spain than each did in his own area.

Transl. J.B Atkinson and David Sices

© 2002 Mikael Hörnqvist

Den florentinska renässansen