Annotation

Author of the book deduces laws of governing, uniform for the different countries, different times and societies. Action and the identity of modern sovereigns – presidents, prime ministers, leaders of parties influence millions of citizens. In the book it is shown, what logic is followed by actions of the first person of the state, how he considered position of the country and society in the changing world. Close up the behavior of the ruler as persons is considered. "President" is written based on Nicolo Machiavelli's work "The Prince" created 500 years ago. In addition, Machiavelli's "The Prince" the book council addressed to rulers and telling how it is necessary to operate the state is in parallel published. www.2machiavelli.com

- Due Machiavelli

- Due Machiavelli

- Introduction

- Part one

- Chapter I. Types of the modern states

- Chapter II. About acceleration of changes in the world and how societies and the states have to correspond to them

- Chapter III. State, society and power

- Chapter IV. Conditions of the Supreme power

- Chapter V. Modern wars

- Chapter VI. Reforms of the president and successful development of the country

- Chapter VII. Democracy and the sovereignty for the president

- Part two

- Chapter VIII. Friends and enemies for the president

- Chapter IX. About the government and public institutions, on which the president can lean in governing

- Chapter X. Special organizations and advisers to the president

- Chapter XI. How the president can use time and place

- Chapter XII. Danger to the highest governing. Infantility

- Chapter XIII. New trends. Internet

- Chapter XIV. What advantages the president has to possess

- Chapter XV. For what reasons there is a change of the ruler and his course

- Appendix

- Conclusion

- Nicсolo Machiavelli

- DEDICATION

- CHAPTER I. HOW MANY KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES THERE ARE, AND BY WHAT MEANS THEY ARE ACQUIRED

- CHAPTER II. CONCERNING HEREDITARY PRINCIPALITIES

- CHAPTER III. CONCERNING MIXED PRINCIPALITIES

- CHAPTER IV. WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER, DID NOT REBEL AGAINST THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER AT HIS DEATH

- CHAPTER V. CONCERNING THE WAY TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES WHICH LIVED UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED

- CHAPTER VI. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED BY ONE'S OWN ARMS AND ABILITY

- CHAPTER VII. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE ARMS OF OTHERS OR BY GOOD FORTUNE

- CHAPTER VIII. CONCERNING THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A PRINCIPALITY BY WICKEDNESS

- CHAPTER IX. CONCERNING A CIVIL PRINCIPALITY

- CHAPTER X. CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED

- CHAPTER XI. CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES

- CHAPTER XII. HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING MERCENARIES

- CHAPTER XIII. CONCERNING AUXILIARIES, MIXED SOLDIERY, AND ONE'S OWN

- CHAPTER XIV. THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

- CHAPTER XV. CONCERNING THINGS FOR WHICH MEN, AND ESPECIALLY PRINCES, ARE PRAISED OR BLAMED

- CHAPTER XVI. CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS

- CHAPTER XVII. CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

- CHAPTER XVIII(*). CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

- CHAPTER XIX. THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED

- CHAPTER XX. ARE FORTRESSES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO WHICH PRINCES OFTEN RESORT, ADVANTAGEOUS OR HURTFUL?

- CHAPTER XXI. HOW A PRINCE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF SO AS TO GAIN RENOWN

- CHAPTER XXII. CONCERNING THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES

- CHAPTER XXIII. HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

- CHAPTER XXIV. WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES

- CHAPTER XXV. WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS AND HOW TO WITHSTAND HER

- CHAPTER XXVI. AN EXHORTATION TO LIBERATE ITALY FROM THE BARBARIANS

- notes

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 5

- 6

- 7

- 8

- 9

- 10

- 11

- 12

- 13

- 14

- 15

- 16

- 17

- 18

- 19

- 20

- 21

- 22

- 23

- 24

- 25

- 26

- 27

- 28

- 29

- 30

Due Machiavelli

The President

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Prince

Due Machiavelli

The President

Introduction

I did not care here neither of beauty of a syllable, nor of splendor and sonority of words, of any external jewelry and inventions … because I wished that my work remained in obscurity or gained recognition only for singularity and importance of a subject.

Niccolo Machiavelli

I wrote this work to consider on historical and modern examples essence and tasks of the Supreme power.

No matter, who heads it: monarch, president, chancellor, prime minister, gray cardinal… The main thing that is the person who is actually leading the state[1]. A main purpose of my book is to show that his work, actions and decisions in domestic and foreign policy have a quite concrete logic.

In attempt of comprehension of this logic, I addressed to the well-known work "The Prince" of Nicсolo Machiavelli who brought up the same questions 500 years ago.

As well as in "The Prince", I consider various countries and rulers, their actions and consequences of these actions to reveal the general, not time-dependent and places of a condition which push the Supreme power to those or another other steps. Moralizing reasonings are for this purpose obviously insufficient.

Approaches of the great pragmatist Machiavelli are used to consider working conditions of the president, how there are relations of the government and society. To find the general operating conditions of the Supreme power at which violation work of the ruler becomes inefficient.

We live in three times – past, present and future. However, least of all – in the future. This book will give opportunity, expecting political weather, to find the best way to the future among verbal fog and imperious demagogy.

One more thing: inserts are added to the book. In one cases inserts confirm idea that is introduced in the main text, in others – disprove. You can decide for yourself what is more exact – confirmation or a disproval.

Part one

State and power

Chapter I. Types of the modern states

… To comprehend essence of the people it is necessary to be the sovereign, and to comprehend the nature of sovereigns it is necessary to belong to people.

Niccolo Machiavelli

The states of the modern world can be divided into three types. Distinctions are defined by how strongly their internal processes influence world around, their opportunities to control world financial and information streams are how great.

It is simplest to determine type of the country by news of the international media. So, the storm on the American Hawaii, in the country of the first type, will be discussed practically around the world, and here the "Great African war" of 1998–2002 which claimed about four million lives almost didn't find reflection in TV news as it was conducted in the countries of the third type. It is possible to carry those states which internal affairs are only sometimes noticeable for the international community to the second type, infringe on interests of the remote countries. So, change of an economic situation in China has impact on many economies, in difference, let's say, from changes of trade in to the western Africa.

The state is artificial political, economical and sometimes military device, not connected with concept of mankind and not having to it any connection.

Muammar al-Gaddafi

Of course, president can make events in the country important for the whole world – for example, developing or threatening to use nuclear weapon, as it was done it by the head of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in 2013.

But, to rise in a world rating, it is not enough. The main thing that the country was in a waterway of movements, financial and technological, which unite and will organize our world.

According to position of the countries, their actual rulers, secret and obvious, also can be divided on three types. And the respect for the president, attention for him of his foreign colleagues, financial, political, military circles will depend on what type his country belongs to.

The countries of the first type via the presidents can specify to the countries of the second and third that to do to them; the countries of the second type – specify by the third, but only if not against the first; all violations are punished.

For example, in 1993 the parliament of Belgium, the country of the first type, allowed to conduct prosecution of citizens of the other and strange states suspected of commission of war crimes. Under distribution the prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon got even. However, in ten years of action of the law not of races – the crimes occurring in the African colonies of Belgium – Congo (Zaire) and others though their many participants are still living were followed. By the way, it is difficult to present that the present Democratic Republic of Congo, the country of the third type, founded similar tribunal; apparently, her president Joseph Kabila has a self-preservation instinct. The Belgian law was cancelled, as soon as group of human rights activists appealed to court with the claim against the U.S. President. In the state relations both earlier, and now it is impossible to punish strong, but there is a right strong to punish the weak.

It can seem that the ruler of the country of the third type should get up in a political wake to the country with more high rank that this action will bring also to him and his state protection and the help. Nevertheless, it's not so. In due time the president of Georgia Shevardnadze made much to drop to the USA as to the hand giving. What is result? There was even more tender and even more faithful Saakashvili who became the new president of Georgia, having displaced Shevardnadze. But also it was not helped by infinite expression of devotion to the suzerain: once he in 2008 tried to intrude in South Ossetia before killed to Georgia as his army reformed on the American sample was disseminated by the Russian troops. Saakashvili did not receive any military aid.

Even more sadly destiny of the loyal friend of the USA Hosni Mubarak who appeared after revolutionary events in Egypt in life imprisonment. After all, he made the country the best, after Israel, the ally of the USA in the Middle East, in 1991 supported the military operation "Storm in the Desert" and sent for this purpose to a conflict zone the considerable military contingent.

Why faithful actions of presidents of the countries of the lowest type are inefficient? It's because from them another is also not waited. It is more favorable to punish the turncoat (presidents of Belarus and Venezuela will be derelicts, will not restrain arrogance yet), than to support the one who will please so. Therefore, irrespective of type, the president always has to count only on himself, the power, the people and the country.

Chapter II. About acceleration of changes in the world and how societies and the states have to correspond to them

God executes not everything by himself to not to deprive us of free will and the part of glory which we decerve.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Earlier the ruler often compared to the chess player doing the courses in multidimensional chess external and domestic policy. Work of the modern president is not similar to game any more in the field where only provisions of figures change, and rules are constant. Now during short time both the field, and rules of the game changes. Perhaps, it is better to assimilate the ruler to the surfer. Sliding on the rolled wave, besides the bravery and experience necessary in all centuries, demands ability "to feel a wave", constantly to move and keep stability.

The concept of stability too received new sense today. Earlier the situation was considered stable if in the foreseeable future of anything in it does not change or changes will be slightly noticeable: weak actions caused a weak response. In the XXI century stability is a special type of long accident when the country is on the verge of chaos, but this side does not pass. Let's follow the same example with the surfer. His movement on a wave is a continuous falling; but he, changing an inclination, the provision of the governing on a crest, does so that the wave he makes up for all the time and it appears under it. This is also an example of modern stability. If the athlete takes a little aside, will slow down or will be accelerated concerning a wave crest, accident will be inevitable, and accident fast and final. Therefore time of low-active decrepit rulers at a wheel of the state left (unfortunately, as for the state the most serious test is a young initiative leader), now time of those who can head constantly the state ship downwind of changes and keep most.

The world is ruled by the young – when they grow old.

George Bernard Shaw

What changed for the last centuries, what forced to consider as the main force in the state not will of the sovereign disposing of destiny of citizens, and the certain wave forcing the ruler to balance in attempt to keep on a crest? And what it for a wave, what it for the stream subordinating to himself the power?

Let's look at changes which happened in societies for the last century. In the XIX century represented that in the future working hours will be shortened till three-five o'clock, physical activity will decrease by the person, there will be more time for free creativity. Passed one and a half eyelids: achievements of a civilization led to labor productivity growth, to reduction of the working day small (on average), to reduction of hard physical work – and to the enormous growth of the competition, mental load of all segments of the population. People began to live better financially, but did not begin to live easier. In a present civilization of people if he wants to live and consume the benefits, has to refuse tranquility. Because the more society gets, the more it requires[2].

Whether there are models on which it would be possible to study consequences of such evolution? Yes, there is a mathematical Theory of self-organized criticality; it describes the system which is constantly in a condition of crisis, in result of that there is a seeming stability at continuous accident, it is possible to say – sliding on a chaos edge. The theory of self-organized criticality describes, in particulars, a situation when the condition of rest interrupts flashes of high activity. If to apply these provisions to development of a world civilization, crises, social accidents are an obligatory price for the accelerated development of economy, for material benefits, finally for big life expectancy.

Modern production demands from various economies of a adjusting to a uniform world rhythm; for this purpose there is a set of the international funds, banks, associations, the WTO including. Such production cooperation in scales of the whole world – both a consequence, and the motor of world association, general sliding on a chaos edge.

Along with acceleration of life there is other process – distinctions between the states, the countries, public groups are washed away. At the beginning of the last century different social classes so differed in education level that hardly understood each other, speaking one language. Also at all outlooks on life at the official who looked for did not coincide, than to take free time, and from the worker who worked 14-hour labor change. In addition, the peasant from a deaf small village, getting to the capital European city, had the stress reaching shock level.

Presently new computers, blockbusters, news of the countries – world leaders – almost at the same time reach both Paris, and Kuala Lumpur. Acceleration of development of a civilization is followed by averaging, bigger similarity of the societies making it. Economically and politically the world turns from meeting of various unlike countries into something like "the United States of the World", states-governments of the same type. In this new world association everyone acts for himself, and nobody is going to help the poor "states" to be built in it. Of course, there are interstate unions, but, as a rule, the equal enter into them. Thus the experience of life, survival, traditions acquired in this or that country in former time play the lesser role, at best become in the new world ethnic addition.

Our civilization is more and more uniform therefore development of the different countries and, respectively, action of presidents is not chaotic, they remind the movement of cars in rush hour on the street without marking and traffic lights rather. Boor’s drivers on enormous jeeps cut easy mini cars, mopeds keep behind if you wish to survive. In such auto-stream it is impossible to twist sharply a wheel. It is impossible to brake sharply, and at the same time going ahead will not allow to be accelerated. A certain stream – a mainstream of the general movement – is created.

The people will allow a lot of things and a lot of things they will forgive to the ruler if they feel stability in the country, including political, will feel that it moves with a good speed in the general race and even leaves behind other countries. For ordinary citizens it means a high standard of living, wider choice of opportunities of self-realization, positive prospects on the future for himself and children. As the rule, people are ready to suffer some inconveniences while the ruler overtakes or cuts ahead or nearby going "cars" if only it was succeeded to take more convenient and more advanced place in the general stream.

Perhaps, of course, that this stream attracts us in anywhere that in some decades or even years all of us will be covered by so strong world crisis that the civilization in the development will make a peculiar loop. It already was in the IV century of our era when, after heights of the Greek-Roman civilization, Europe on one thousand years plunged into the Middle Ages. Perhaps. However, the history shows that human society constantly self-organizes and finds way out of seemingly desperate situations. As a rule, everything somehow is arranged, as a last resort, crises and wars free the road for further races. If there's an abyss in front of you, very many people will fall down there, and it is doubtful that some president will be responsible for the world accident. Nevertheless, here tactical lag in current races on a survival does not escape punishment to none of those who is in power.

Our world reached a critical stage. Children don't obey the parents anymore. Probably, the end of the world is already not really far away.

inscription of the XII century BC, Ancient Egypt

Need to the ruler in the activity was important to correspond to a vector of development of society and in antiquity, sometimes it was expressed even more accurately, than presently. Genghis Khan, being the dull commander, it was crushed in the first big fight with the joint army Mongolian teyps[3]. But surprise: winners – Uruds and Manguds, the best soldiers of the steppe, – came over to the his side right after defeat. Than it was caused – mass insanity or splash in philanthropy to lost? No, they passed from the one that won fight, but the fateful breeding steppe to a new order. By the end of the XII century, in the conditions of a tribal system, tens of thousands of families of nomads appeared out of the stagnated teyps, without the rights for a cattle pasture, without the rights for the war. In Genghis Khan's army state there were already other relations: all were equal before the head, all could take production on accurate, uniform conditions. For Mongols there were clear prospects of the new power. As a result, Genghis Khan had both right troops, and talented commanders.

So, actions of all citizens of this or that country, developing, do not counterbalance each other, and create the general direction of development. It is influenced also by a total vector of development of other people, all our civilization. It is impossible to speak about absolutely independent way for the certain country already. The state will be able to sustain race in the general stream when and if the Supreme power provides successful development of the country and directs this development to a civilization mainstream. Let's call this double condition the First law of governing.

Chapter III. State, society and power

People are so foolish that they often do not notice poison in things, good in appearance.

Niccolo Machiavelli

In any society there are people revolting and the people obedient to the power, only their proportion changes. However, in lately around the world the number of those to whom "not all the same", sharply increases, turn out to be consequence of that politicization of society and surge in activity of the population: wars, revolts, change of rulers.

In the countries of the first type accumulation of discontent is removed elections or reforms, in the countries of the second type there are also peaceful changes of the power, both deep reforms, and revolutions. Here I will note that revolts and revolutions are too a form of public administration, too a form of the power – only more rigid.

Revolt, riot, revolution give the chance to change, regulate the governing which became intolerable. Also this means to fill a lack of the power, having replaced it another meeting the requirements of time. Such uncivilized way of change of rulers in the countries of the second and third type is explained with "backwardness", backwardness of the people, genetic humility, social system and so forth. I will not rely on ethical concepts as I consider that differences between societies have the natural reasons connected with features of their formation, development and current existence.

In the lawful government superiority is in artillery.

Carel Capek

So, in England at the beginning of the XIII century and in Russia at the beginning of XVII there were similar situations. The monarchy for a number of the internal and external reasons weakened, and the power passed to large feudal lords – barons in England and boyars in Russia. In the first case of the risen barons supported clergy, knights and citizens so almost all segments of the population were interested in outcome of the case. The Great charter of liberties which gave rise to the constitutional acts and in general a parliamentary system was as a result accepted.

In Russia by 1614, after the Time of Troubles, population and its most active part – a national militia, having expelled – a neck of Poles from Moscow, demanded not parliament, and the tsar. And it is clear: because of weakening of the central power, going in eight years, the population in the country reduced on a quarter. It is enormous figure if to consider that in 40 years of wars and Ivan the Terrible's repressions this reduction made no more than fifteen percent. In the Time of Troubles because of paralysis of the Supreme power enemy armies passed Russia almost through: the Crimea-Tatar cavalry from the South, Poles and Swedes from the West and North. Transportation of the food, necessary in the conditions of risky agriculture, from one regions in others stopped. Regional barter decayed as traffic on roads because of enormous number of robbers almost stopped, local princes, having stood apart, were engaged in robbery. In this situation the simple person, to keep the life and to remain the resident of Russia, had to be part of the government, the tsar's citizen. Any ethical preferences were given on the last place. The Supreme power in Russia as a fur coat in the winter: and it is inconvenient in it, and it is heavy, and you sweat, and you will remove – you will die. It is felt and now especially as on a global scale we have a certain time of troubles and now.

The Lord helps those who helps himself; the government – all the rest.

American saying

It should be noted also present high politicization of Russians. In Russia there are a lot of people who can not only tell the names of the former rulers of the country, but also give the characteristic to their actions that is very problematic for citizens The USA and England, and even for rather politized France. Americans can tell more often: "I think of the authorities a little. I mind my own business, and they – their own". In Russia citizens infrequently can dare to "think nothing" of the power as his actions directly influence their everyday life. Here performance against the existing power is a performance also against the existing way, and against the working model of economy, as in other countries the press of counterfeit money.

Of course, not everywhere the state is a frame of economic life. Weak or strong dependence of production and trade on the government arises not because of the morals accepted in society, and for the historical and geographical reasons. During the Renaissance epoch, prosperity of England was provided by sale of sheep wool. The country was covered by the stone fences protecting pasture places, – they became a visible embodiment of concept of a private property. Thus, the royalty on places was limited to the power of lords. The state was necessary rather for development and observance of laws, on which misters and simple inhabitants solved the problems independently or at the local level. Approximately matter and in the USA since colonization – without lords, certainly also was. Embedding of the state in private life was not comprehensive.

Opposite example – Ancient Egypt. After flood of Nile river there was perfectly fertilized earth, but frequency of floods prevented to create capital stone fences to designate borders of personal fields. For a repeated marking after leaving of Nile water geometry specialists were necessary, and adequately the private peasant could not pay their work. For preservation of water channels and reservoirs – difficult engineering constructions which needed to be built in strictly certain terms were necessary, differently the next flood of Nile threatened to wash away them. The engineering structure of channels could be only uniform, and the farmer had no opportunity rigidly to define the property right to water – the main value in North Africa. Therefore, Egyptians needed the state training and supporting officials and engineers, builders and military. Life, the economic relations forced people to be part of the state. Without it – hunger and death. By the outcome of the New kingdom Egypt became a granary of all antique civilization whereas without irrigational constructions, without the state in general and the Pharaoh in particular, fields along Nile could not support also 200 thousand people.

There was a similar situation in China: during the period of anarchy which came after falling of the empire the largest in the world technogenic accident on river Yangtze dams in 1931 claimed the lives of 140 thousand people. 5,5 million houses were destroyed, about 60 million citizens suffered, many of which died of diseases and hunger after destruction of fields. It is unlikely even the weak central power would allow dilapidations of so important dams. However, the tangerines occupied with civil war were anxious only the results of fights. In 1954, already at communists, the situation nearly repeated. But then, at threat of flooding on the appeal of the central government more than 300 thousand people built a dam hundred kilometers long and stopped water; one more national tragedy managed to be prevented.

Existence of China is impossible without the pervasive power which is the survival tool for this difficult, overpopulated country. And progress of modern rapid development of China is also impossible without the power which serves as the most important, but not additional mechanism of economy.

In his time George Bush Jr. declared that after the tragedy on September 11, 2001 the world changed. Incorrectly: the world changed much earlier for this reason there could be these acts of terrorism. Training of terrorists for fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan in which CIA was engaged, led eventually to blows to the American cities. New terrorists were trained in the same camps also by the same Mujahedeen who were prepared by the American advisers. Development of a civilization made both economy, and water resources, and terrorists the uniform global phenomena. The world becomes uniform and at the same time all less steady. Current trends are that that to the individual, "the little person", in any country it is already impossible to sit out behind any stone fences, and it is the extremely important fact – citizens of any country can appear in position of the ancient Egyptians waiting for flood of Nile. Therefore all of us are compelled even more often appeal to forces operating at the highest political level.

Any power is magnificent, and absolute power is absolutely magnificent.

Kenneth Tynan, English critic and writer

I will provide the statement of the American political scientists investigating the modern international situation: "Neither real Existing national governments, nor regional managing can not Provide an effective discipline without speaking about ensuring control over the autonomous financial and economic Universe formed by globalization, "Internetization" and deregulation".

Who then can provide "control over … to the Universe" and protect people? If not to hope for a miracle, there are after all national governments which only received for the solution of so complex challenges big, than earlier, the power. I will remind that since crisis of 2008 only in the USA in economy about three trillion "printed" and, generally, provided by nothing dollars were injected[4]. So more and more "an invisible hand of the market" operates the state: orders of its economic departments in general and the president in particular influence millions of residents of the country and the whole world. Importance for citizens of the power, the president increases in all countries, and first of all in the countries of the first type. As a result, politicization of society grows practically everywhere.

Chapter IV. Conditions of the Supreme power

Who relied on favor of destiny less, that kept the power for more long.

Niccolo Machiavelli

The essence of presidential work can be explained on the example of control of airplane. If flight is normal, autopilot is turned on (it, by the way, started to be used in large quantities by planes still in the fifties of the last century). More difficult actions where the probability of emergence of emergency situations is great, – take-off and landing, – pilots carry out in the manual mode. These functions of this time are not transferred to automatic equipment in spite of the fact that they are worked on hundreds of thousands of similar maneuvers, – the behavior of the pilot is more difficult than algorithm of the program of the autopilot. Like it in the state – besides laws, numerous rules, the personality with a free will to which control levers are reduced by internal forces of the country is necessary.

The one who wishes to lead the people, is compelled to follow the crowd.

Oscar Wilde

Whether it is possible to replace the dominating ruler (I mean one-man management administrative, not monarchic or dictatorial; any business concern also copes in monocracy) any public council, the parliamentary commission or, at the worst, junta, anyway, to come to collective management? No, it will not turn out. The relations at all levels of the power in the state, in the financial and economic spheres controlled by the state always have to be such that forces operating in society and out of it were counterbalanced. Internal forces most often reflect features of local economic development in society. External forces are coordinated with development of a civilization, world economy, the interstate relations.

Only one-man management can put together these vectors of forces. It is the president's task. Multidirectional vectors will tear apart the state, society, will bring it to decomposition, is not excluded – before civil war if are attached to friable objects and weak subjects of the power. In the situation, the world economic, martial law is more difficult, the Supreme one-man management is more important.

The parliamentary republics, whether it be Bulgaria or Pakistan where the joint body appoints the government, the management of the state bank, generals, all the same is if not the politician, then the financier, if not the businessman, the general, without consultations with which, secret or obvious, no decisions on key questions of foreign and domestic policy are made.

One-man management replacement with cooperation is impossible for one reason. Any pyramid of managers stiffens, as the principles of administrative work are that that everyone is responsible for the site and, having led it to a good indicator, at best supports in such situation. There is a stagnation. However, change now, even unsuccessful, it is better, than stagnation.

Then, maybe, it is worth "shaking up" artificially the Supreme joint body for prevention of stagnation? In Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito's death, country's presidential post was abolished, and at the head of the country there was a Presidium. Members of Presidium (the head of federal republics and autonomous regions) annually replaced each other. Such form of governing ended with a total failure and bloody civil war. In other countries constant political instability leads to emergence of force operating society is reserved. An example of that Italy where in 65 post-war years the government was replaced nearly forty times, and the Supreme governing was to some extent conditional. Then the role of mafia, his influence on all public structures and entry into them grew. Really, the weak power – fertilizer for organized crime, the strong power always the competitor mafia[5].

The even developed parliamentarism does not guarantee to the country of equal evolutionary development at all. To that we see proofs in Western Europe. Very important and painful immigration problems, questions connected with destruction of historical relationship in Europe are solved in "manual regime" heads of the countries. In October, 2010 the German chancellor Angela Merkel declared that attempts to construct multicultural society in Germany "completely failed". Then it was recognized by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy. The situation developed so sharp that in Brussels, the capital of the EU and NATO, the local police sometimes does not risk to look in the Arab quarters. I do not claim after these politicians that multiculture it is bad, but I want to emphasize that the hand against one of the most important foundations of modern western society was raised by leaders, but not political structures. Unless did not know in parliaments of the Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany what disgust for idea and policy of multiculturalism grows in Europe? However to call things by their proper names and began to solve the ripened problems only after leaders took the responsibility to declare them. This, by the way, reminds Mass enlightenment after the leader's decisions in totalitarian countries. So, inhabitants of North Koreas begin in large quantities to damn actions the Western countries after performances of Kim Jong Un.

"The ruler is the wind, citizens are the grass: where the wind will blow, there the grass bends"

Confucius

* * *

What distinguishes words, intentions and actions of the person who holds the Supreme post, from words, intentions and actions of the other mortal? Let's remember expression "levers of the power". In equipment the lever allows to lift very big weight. Also and with the power – owning his levers of influences the course of the most serious events in the country and in the international affairs, one person receives economic and political influence, special on the importance, becomes independent political force. Problems arise when levers of the power obediently increase influence of the weak or mistaking ruler.

Give me control over money of the state, and it won't interest me, who in this state writes laws.

Amshel Rothschild

Of course, the policy was and remains under power of to economy. But in the last decades there is a reverse dependence – subordination of economical tasks to state policy. It seems president cannot usually change the budget which is under control of parliament, government, bigwigs of business… Nevertheless, he can declare, for example, attraction of the private capital to the solution of national objectives, privatize state ownership. The president can begin war – and to have an opportunity to redistribute millions in departments and the companies of the, and even foreign countries. And that is important even if he discussed these or those actions with owners of economy before the coming to power, very significant trifles in implementation of these decisions depend in many respects on him. "Trifles" can ruin the initiatives declared earlier, change their direction, redirect financial streams and to leave the president the owner of a situation. Deng Xiaoping, working in the Central Committee of a PDA at Maoists, managed slowly, little changes to direct an economic course of China on the most radical modernization. By the way, he – when did not hold a post of the Supreme head, but was the actual ruler of the enormous country since the end of the 1970th to the 1990th years. The history knows a set of examples when the appointee disaccorded with the of the benefactors and passed into other party, adjoined other part of elite or society. Therefore, are as if powerful there were those who nominated the president, brought him into the power or allowed to win it, he starts resisting to dependence from the proteges, and only his conscious decision, his will defines whether he will be it loyal to them or not.

Of course, remembering a sad joke that the fool-commander is more terrible than the enemy, citizens of the country have to have opportunity to influence the commander and to replace it. The power, the more terrible it incorrect decisions is stronger. Democratic institutes of the state are important including for the fortress of the presidential power, they do not allow self-destructive actions of the first person of the country.

However, feedback of the Supreme power and the people exists in all countries, irrespective of, democratic they or totalitarian: and to appoint the president in the totalitarian countries, and it is possible to rake over the coals in the pre-election companies of the countries democratic, only if the president provides to the country good situation in a mainstream. This one of consequences of the First law of governing formulated above. I will explain: speed of changes is felt by simple citizens. The medieval peasant saw less people for all life, than the resident of the modern large city sees for an hour. The international news, world prime ministers, new goods, their availability, production in this country, dynamics of access to the benefits transfers "to places" certain information on, whether the country correctly develops, whether in the necessary direction state machinery moves, whether it is worth changing or supporting the president, his course. All people have some kind of collective intuition. And the president is obliged to feel it and to react to "the general desires" of people, to define according to them the direction of the activity, differently he will not be president. It will be displaced or financial circles, whose representatives lose money on delay of rate of development of the state, or party fellows, to the political movement, junta (an example of that can be events of the last years in Myanmar – Burma).

All people accept easier changes which intuitively consider necessary for the successful movement in a mainstream. Sometimes, that the state disgracefully did not lag behind in the race, the people agree to serious changes. So, reaction of the population to Hugo Ch #225;vez's reforms shows, as in Venezuela, and in its immediate environment most of poor people (and it is 90 % of the population of Latin America) accepted to his politician, including and rigid anti-Americanism[6]. Increase of a standard of living, acceleration and diversification of economy, raising of self-esteem of the people and foreign policy interest in the country – here opportunities which give to the state the best positions in a world mainstream. For it citizens supported Chavez when he carelessly "cut" the USA, the terrible leader of race.

Relative progress of opposition of Venezuela after Hugo Ch #225;vez's death too is clear. Redistribution of the income from richness of the country in favor of the poor majority reduced quantity of underclass sectors of society; citizens to whom already is what to lose, do not want constant alarm because of the intense relations with the USA. They already look for in policy of those who would help the country to take a place not on an edge of revolutionary changes, and some quieter. Perhaps, known expression about constancy of interests of England can be modified like this: "The people have no constant leaders, the people have constant interests".

On the one hand, people intuitively tear away all new, in the best case take with caution, being afraid that will be worse. Can seem that I contradict myself, as I noted earlier that society and certain citizens demand continuous changes. Yes, they do – and are still afraid of them. The nature of most of people such is that all want to change something, but thus wish that changed nothing. Let's remember, what furious requirements and promises of reforms sound on any political meetings in any countries, but even more furious and ruthless criticism falls on any steps which are taken for realization of reforms. It is clear: results of changes in the state do not coincide with subjective hopes of people. Everyone waits for the solution of the problems, and receives public changes that are not always pleasant to it. It is good still if eventually does not become worse.

From this it is possible to deduce the Second law of governing: a contradiction between public character of the power and private hopes of citizens for its results.

Chapter V. Modern wars

The sovereign should not have neither other thoughts, nor other cares, another matter, except war … because war is the only duty which the ruler cannot assign to another.

War is sweet to the one who didn't know it.

Niccolo Machiavelli

I will go back to the example with the autopilot. It works according to the program very difficult, but having final number of possible actions. The president, being part of government of management, has to follow also laws, resolutions of parliament as a peculiar program. What sense from it in the emergency and difficult cases when it is necessary to make the decisions which are not stated in laws? Especially as it can work for anticipation of dangerous situations? Such events in our life, especially in big policy, world economy, more and more.

To be exempted from restrictive fetters to be above laws, the president needs to conduct actions, which in some way imitate wars.

Here I suggest the reader to accept that war for the Supreme power is the any political action changing ratios of forces in the country or between the states and therefore changing the laws and rules which were established between them. As before, to conduct military operations, laws are not necessary, but process of fights it is possible to develop new rules.

The power is disgusting, as hands of the barber.

O. Mandelstam

The XX century enriched "repertoire" of wars. It appeared that exist not only wars ancient and modern, aggressive and defensive, civil and religious, but there is whola series of "not unfortunate sneeze" wars: cold, trade, information, financial, diplomatic…

The purposes of wars moved from capture and deduction of territories, consolidations of the power of the sovereign to capture and deduction of places in a mainstream, the power over local and world financial, information, technological streams. Cruelty of wars also changed: from blood, murders, genocide – to crises, uncertainty, general nervousness. These acts and their consequences are also opposite to a human nature, as well as wars bloody but what to do … It is possible to screw up the face from the words "war", "cruelty" and to urge to exclude them from our life and a lexicon, it is possible to deny new wars from heights of the refined ethics. However, having only accepted existence in our world of the conflicts, confrontations (from "front"), it is possible to take them under control and to take steps to better future.

For ruler’s war always last argument, continuation of policy other means. Here it is important, what exactly other means. Held down, apparently, on hands and feet by the legislation, parliament, dispersion of the sovereignty in the international associations and the unions, the ruler nevertheless can be at war. War allows him to be the real commander-in-chief, to lift limits of laws of peace life, to operate financial streams and social obligations.

It is possible to declare a war to poverty, to budget deficit, terror. Even to smoking. Let it will be even political fight for any Arctic shelf what now goes between Denmark and Canada[7], – the main thing to declare war. New war (new reform) is a chance of the new and bigger power. In general, for the president there is nothing more usefully and more reliable than war which time came. Quite so, the president can execute the most important task – to correspond to the First law of governing – to provide development of the country in a mainstream. In this case he is not limited by old laws; when there is a war, to it opportunities what monarchs of the past had, up to application of armed forces can open. It, of course, is reached for time and mentions only part of the political relations, but after all wars, reforms can go without stopping. Presently the set of wars goes constantly, only their forms change.

By the way, for this reason now inhabitants so poorly react to scary information from next "hot spot" as now bashfully call wars bloody. How journalists in naturalistic reporting on bloody events tried "from there" to force the world to shudder and be terrified, we simply physically cannot react also to these events: ourselves in the war, ourselves constantly feel threats and alarms, are not sure in tomorrow, we are afraid for the future of children and of ourselves.

Let's consider some types of modern wars and how the president can conduct them.

Wars happen for and against something. And wars "against" usually shorter, and pro – long as it is quickly possible to break but to build, and well to build, it will not turn out.

Of course, the president should not neglect neither that, nor other wars if only their results corresponded to the First law of governing. Also it is necessary to remember: the victory in short war is attributed to the ruler, and in the long – to the people. Defeat is always attributed to the ruler.

Preparation for war is part of war too. It is sometimes more significant than military operations. Let's take a micro example: war against smoking. The enemy accurately is defined. Cannot revenge. Brings death. Result of a victory – increase in life expectancy. Here too there is a place to promotion (healthy lifestyle) and propaganda (for refusal of smoking). War with smoking demands and directly actions: drawing up and adoptions of acts, instructing of police and work of the services watching implementation of instructions. However, it in the developed countries. In the countries of BRIKS[8], for example, you should not begin similar war – a barren scheme. In them most of people smoke and do not intend to throw. To use police – means even more to incite the people against it, and police – against those who forces it to be engaged in similar business, in general – to give a reason of additional small corruption. In these conditions it is necessary to declare determination wars only.

It is always better to begin the war, than to finish strangers as hardly the purposes of others wars coincide with yours. All that about them forgot is better to try to freeze or make the wars begun by predecessors. An exception are, of course, wars hot, and also army or police operations. Here it is necessary to remember that human blood is quite often used for a gain of the power, but the victims seeming severe need during one era look awful and inexcusable in another. First of all, it concerns revolutions as without blood they usually are not made, and mentality of people change, and can happen so that literally in some decades new society will unfriendly estimate rough events of the past which and created it.

To stop war isn't the good decision too, and capitulation can bring points even to the person, who begun it. So, public recognition of defeat of the American mercenaries in the Bay of Pigs in military adventure against Cuba, strangely enough, did not reduce, and added popularity to the president Kennedy. His words that at a victory is a lot of parents and only defeat – the orphan, became political classics.

Thus, any war it is necessary to think over and have carefully opportunity to inform to all that war is won. Often it and a victory – same.

The different countries, competing with each other because of one purposes, unite in war for others. So, the same Canada and Denmark are allies in fight for performance of the Kyoto protocol. The president as the equilibrist, is obliged to trace sometimes before ten wars going in the neighboring and remote countries, and influence of these wars on his state.

The type of war to which the president gravitates, characterizes both president and society. Now, for example, wars in the twitter and Facebook are more perspective, than battles with the help of special troops and cruise missiles, are showed also the beginning of a revolution in Egypt in 2011, and war in Libya when the protest movements were organized and coped through international social networks. It is especially important for the countries of the first type where the main political battles are conducted on the Internet, and, apparently, for this reason the U.S. President now is "computerized" Obama, but not McCain or Romney who psychologically remained in the fifties the last century.

Who kills, will be killed too. Who orders to kill, will be killed by order too.

inscription of the XII century BC, Ancient Egypt

If the president considers these or those territories as part of the country, military intervention takes a form of the internal conflict. Besides it is not only about military operations, but first of all about wars economic, information, trade … all of them. The main thing is only that other countries, first of all leaders of a world mainstream, agreed with the president's claims for these territories, then at it are given a free hand. The world community will agree with such "internal" conflict if it corresponds to alignment of forces in a world stream. So, the strike against Libya of the American cruise missiles in 2011 kept within the known, accepted by the majority of the governments representations that the USA have interests worldwide, and means, and in Libya, and that fight for freedom and democracy has to go everywhere. The same reasons are explained why Italy and France bombarded Libya: North Africa is included into a zone of their interests.

The most effective incentive to start war is fear. The fear that differently will be worse will be intolerable. Then citizens will agree with the war declared by the president and will support her. To wage wars, the president can play on deep problems of society: nationalism, economic injustice, the production and gender conflicts, and, of course, to use the most important – property questions. In general, everything that distinguishes people from each other is a source to enormous energy for wars.

How the modern ruler can operate property if he is not the absolute monarch? Too through war. For example, it can begin privatization of the state or municipal ownership. As show examples with destruction of economies of a former communist block, such war affects all (someone receives property, the others – ruin). If it is about privatization or conversion that was actual after Cold war, there is a choice between simple corruption, when large business already divided everything among themselves and the government in advance, or mega corruption when all divide under way.

Of course, force of property, monetary circulation needs to be used very carefully. It is possible to awaken deep activity of society, and then it, as alkaline metal in water, will light up and will set fire to everything round himself. It is enough to remember really volcanic processes which arose in the Russian society at almost continuous nationalization after October revolution. I believe, it will even more be splashed out energy in the USA if the dollar collapses and the financial address in the world will change. Whether only there will be then a president who will be capable to control this energy…

Questions of gender policy will be suitable for wars as well. In 2012 in twelve key states which as the rule, also decide destiny of the American elections, most of the interrogated women voted for Barack Obama. The democratic party of the USA wins war for women, for example, achieving adoption of law which has to reduce the level of domestic violence in the country. Thus, the party receives more female votes as a trophy.

I will note that in the BRICS countries there is opportunity to easily receive trust and political sympathies of women. In Russia after disintegration of the Soviet Union the idea of the International Women's Day was rejected, having assured themselves that and anybody in the world it does not celebrate this holiday, which became obsolete. Apparently, the habit to spit in the past already became part, and disgusting, modern Russian mentality. Meanwhile on March 8 is a symbol of fight for the rights of women, for protection against violence. Around the world on an appeal of UNESCO this day women become publishing editors of mass media, in Western Europe meetings and events of women's societies are timed to this date. Therefore, it is remarkable and really international holiday. It is easy to politicize it again and from obligatory flowers to pass to declaration of war to violence in a family, wars against discrimination and humiliation of women.

What a brilliant war it could be! Moreover, it will become at once international, as violence and discrimination of women is the lead problem Of quickly developing countries, inclusding BRICS. The president, who let – slogans of International Women Day closer in reality, will get appreciation of millions of women in the country and abroad.

All politics consists in three words: circumstances, assumption, accident.

Catherine II

There are wars, which the president does not begin and does not control, for example world crises, natural disasters. Alas, whatever external objective circumstances caused them; the ruler will always be guilty of them. He will be surely accused and in a world economic crisis, and in consequences of an earthquake it (was badly prepared), and in other misfortunes, we will remember avalanche change of the governments in Europe after crisis of 2008. What to do in such cases? At once to begin war – already the, it is obligatory with a support on the people; as, for example, the prime minister of Japan Noda Yoshihiko after the tragedy on Fukushima made. Having bowed to fellow citizens at performance on the air, he urged them to replace urgently in houses cheap bulbs of an old sample on expensive new, energy saving. It is unlikely it solved a problem of deficiency of the electric power after accident on the NPP, but everyone could bring the contribution in war with accident.

Also it is worth remembering "We can" – the brilliant slogan of Barack Obama which in time sounded at the beginning of 2008. It became some kind of counterstroke in fight with the economic and structural problems of America approaching then. (Unfortunately, further the slogan business did not go, but it already other question.)

Important and that war usually rallies business and the society round the power. Let's remember how heads of huge international corporations obediently gathered to Barack Obama at the end of 2008. Obediently listened to his reproaches about use of private planes by them by which arrived to ask subsidies from the state. Came to the president, not to bankers and not to parliamentarians. The parliament has the power, but is obliged to follow the law, the president in case of a "lawless" situation – aggression or crisis – acts on circumstances. So also unplanned war can serve for the benefit to the president.

I will separately mention wars, which wages the USA. This country after 1945 participated in about fifty conflicts in which about two million people died, and four times more bombs, than in the Second world were dropped. It is worth mentioning wars in Korea, in Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, bombings of Yugoslavia in 1946 and 1999, the help to the Chinese and Cuban counter-revolutionaries and many other things. A set of times Americans imposed economic sanctions, and sometimes such that destroyed economy of the countries against which were directed, – we will remember at least Chile, Cuba; only sanctions against Iraq in 1990–2002 led to that about one million people suffered from lack of medical care.

Popular belief that the USA in the last decades wage wars for democracy and for oil. No, the USA – a superpower and it wages wars to remain a superpower that as a result means both control of prices of oil, and issue of world currency, and economic superiority. The provision of a superpower demands from the USA of control of the interests in any point of terrestrial sphere[9], so, collision with others interests will constantly happen, and the conflicts will go worldwide all the time. Now any manifestation of weakness, even simply disinterest in foreign affairs can cause an avalanche of attempts at the American hegemony, therefore continuous demonstration forces – pledge of existence of the USA as it stands. The similar situation was in the Roman Empire. When by the IV century of our era power of the empire fell, tribes and the states along borders began to take its parts; the provinces won earlier separated one by one. Each not beaten off attack led to an avalanche of the new. As a result the enormous state in the territory of which lived about twenty percent of the population of Earth, collapsed less than in hundred years.

Politicians of the USA cannot allow repetition of such scenario especially as dollars, these legions of modern "Roman Empire", are provided with assets only for some percent. Present that ancient Roman cohorts consist of dummies which some living soldiers move. Such army is terrible only from a distance. Therefore, influence of the American currency should be supported military power. The provision of a superpower for which preservation all means are good, demands from the American management along with wars trade, cold, diplomatic, wars and the conflicts bloody. But, I will notice, all people living in the interdependent world are interested in the American Goliath's preservation and control of the little Davids, wishing to fill up it as falling of the USA as the world empire will pull for itself in a chasm of crisis and the majority of other countries.

So, our world is full of wars – old and modern, financial, trade, humanitarian, cold, religious, wars of diasporas and regions, wars pro and wars contra … Modern internal wars are often known under the name "reforms". After all their task not to destroy the government, and to make it is stronger. Wars obvious (cold, trade, for democracy and other) establish new laws whereas serious reforms have to change old laws. Reforms are carried out so that all building of the state carefully settled or rose in the right places, having strengthened a place of the ruler. In more detail as a special type of wars, I will consider radical reforms in the following chapter.

Chapter VI. Reforms of the president and successful development of the country

… There is no business which structure would be more difficult, maintaining – more dangerous, and the success – more doubtful, than replacement of old regimes by new ones.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Reform is a war as it allows the president to rise over the laws limiting his work. Reforms, as well as all other wars, have to rely on fear and hope, but in the most serious social changes it is worth relying only on fear. To inspire that will be worse, is the best means and to come to the power and in order that to hold it. Sometimes, to advance reforms, the hope for the best is useful, but the fear is more reliable. Therefore, speaking about reforms, it is worth convincing that without them it will be awful. Only in this case people can agree to resolute changes in the life.

All reforms have to begin with criticism of the previous power, it is better – the identity of the previous ruler. So, before – elective campaign of Barack Obama in 2008 was in many respects constructed on criticism of presidency of George Bush Jr. – it is possible to tell, violent criticism of his domestic and foreign policy. It allowed the new president to leave in a natural way odious figures even not of one, but several former administrations, and to call new reformers, new economists (who, by the way, now and will be accused of a failure of anti-crisis measures). Though the beginning of governing of Obama was the share of a heat of world crisis, it did not become in representation of voters as responsible for their downward position, as earlier directly blamed the previous administration in failures and even in a future financial trouble. Such charges are always useful, as if there was no crisis, governing of a new president by contrast could be already considered as at least as the quite good.

The announcement in Electoral Comission: Chosen president is not a subject for an exchange and return.

Also on an extent of election campaign Obama acted for fast termination of Iraqi war, energy independence and universal health care. He led as well as war contra (in particular, Bush), and war pro, and responsible for a victory in this war were citizens of the USA. Thanks to that, social proposals of the new president were sounded during economic recession, and after all, it usually is followed by appeals to tighten belts, it turned out that the regime of economy coincided with discussion of wide social privileges – general medical insurance and others that Barack Obama promised earlier. It smoothed discontent with falling of a standard of living and maintained hopes for successful work of the new president.

On the other hand, the negative example of activity of Vladimir Putin that, lifting Russia destroyed by Yeltsin Family[10] is characteristic did not finish influence of her bosses, left opportunity to run business "on concepts". The country recovered, welfare of citizens increased (pensions from 20 dollars a month in 1998 rose to 220 in 2008, the internal gross product trebled, nominal GDP was almost decupled), but thus also unrestricted tumors grew: oligarchy, corruption, bureaucracy. Salaries and pensions grew in a much bigger proportion, than. In result from hardly live ugly duckling of the end of the 90th years, Russia in ten years became not a fine swan, but a swan with ulcers, a bad metabolism, with the same, only strongly expanded tumors. Besides, all these diseases are attributed to Putin's governing, but not the former president. It occurs because in memory of people all bad is descended the new power, and good – no. To good quickly get used, it is considered natural, and people remember it only in case of loss of the income, privileges, opportunities. The positive opinion always should be won anew.

From all rulers of Russia in the XX century the most positive emotions in Russians (56 % of respondents) are caused by Leonid Brezhnev, the head of the Soviet Union in 1964–1982.

"Levada Center" of 2013

By the way, therefore the gratitude from the people should not wait. The ruler if is good, by contrast with the bad present; the subsequent will be worse that corresponds to the Second law of governing: people wait for the solution of the problems, and receive (or do not receive) the decision public and blame for that their hopes did not come true, the state and the president, whatever ideal it was. For the same reason people can be sincerely grateful only to the died ruler and only for hopes which he in them seeded. Therefore still considerable social groups in the different countries consider light images both Lenin, and Kennedy, seeing in them rulers who knew and wanted to make "as it is better", but were not in time.

Having come to the power, it is also necessary to replace symbols of the previous governing and team of the high-ranking government officials. It is possible touch not all of heads of State Departments, and even not to dismiss them, but to castle so that they did not consider themselves irreplaceable. There's no need to stay close for old personnel for the sake of idea of continuity of the power, – the government and so has a continuity while there is this state.

So, removal of the remains of the former power, the critic of its actions are very important and are some kind of reform of reforms.

Any government should burn the old speeches at once after coming to power.

Philipp Snowden (not to confuse to Edward Snowden)

Even if the president was not replaced, to him nothing prevents to replace team of reformers who, certainly, on light are guilty of everything, and thus to "air" the power from within. It is necessary to make it. The announcement of a shift reduces at ordinary citizens a difference between expectations and reality. They have a belief that society will change according to their personal hopes. The people become more loyal at this time. Therefore changes, unpleasant for people, or as they say, "unpopular reforms", it is simpler to carry out at the beginning of new governing. So it is necessary to speak about reforms as soon as the president, this or that party appeared in power. However, until this moment – only the general wishes! Otherwise, having learned a reality, people will be disappointed in advance. By the way, it is always necessary to remember that a task of any economist, adviser for reforms – it is not successful to carry out the offered innovations, and to explain why they failed. Unfortunately, it is not a joke.

Declaring the reforms aimed at the development of the country, the president should be limited to good wishes. If changes to the best are shown, it will go to it to offset. If is not present, people will be happy that the declared reforms did not spoil their life, after all the general wishes can be treated somehow. In general, the more loudly and not more particularly speak about reforms, the better. Behind a crash of speeches of reformers (but not the president!), it should not be clear, whether that something becomes and becomes in general. In this case those who consider themselves deceived, will not be able accurately to formulate a claim.

I will notice that muffled orders in the higher authority are necessary, checked for centuries mean. But president has to fight against muffled orders of subordinate instances rigidly: if in the first case indistinctness – part of policy, in the second – sloppiness.

The president should aspire to that in a case of failures national indignation did not affect personally him always: it is impossible that he was responsible for all failures only. Then the president will be able to begin new wars, new reforms, for example, against the old.

There is one more way to secure themselves when carrying out reforms – to use known brands. It is necessary to remember that most of people do not like to learn, they like to learn that is already known. Therefore, it is expedient to refer in changes to former or others experience. For example, in Canada declared not reform of the bank sphere in due time, and about introduction of the Swiss methods in bank management – nevertheless know about success of the Swiss bankers. In addition, some countries of Latin America to unite used a name of the victorious general and politician Bol #237;var – the new union received the name Bolivarian alliance.

There are cases when the president has to participate in realization of the long-term difficult reforms begun by his predecessors, reforms, which considerably influence society. They need to be conducted whenever possible quietly, slowly, but, the main thing, constantly. The leaderships of China, Vietnam work now. Slow, but steady change of political and economic structure of society, change for the sake of own country, but not for the sake of implementation of plans of advisers from other continents, – an important condition of stability of the state.

There are no universal councils how to conduct such reforms that adjust the government and society on a confident movement in the general course. The insight of the president has to prompt to it how to make so that changes went, and the power building because of them did not collapse. Here that is important: as it is impossible to know the direction of development of societies and a civilization in general, reliability and stability (in its critical understanding – as sliding on an edge of chaos) the authorities in today's vortex world are the important indicator of the correct movement of the country. Both profitability is an indicator of productivity of economy, and durability is an indicator of productivity of the Supreme power. Durability not in dictatorial, and in the broadest sense – content of the population, foreign policy tranquility and so on. The care of preservation of the power is the part of work of the president, necessary for all. The successful ruler has to stand surely on a governing for political surfing. To the contrary, unreliability and instability of the power – an indicator of the wrong movement of all country in a mainstream.

So, reforms should be divided into three groups. Firstly, against former governing; secondly, which are necessary for the president to remain in power, without which "it won't be worse"; at last, the third group – real reforms, which should be carried out in silence, masking them under routine.

Chapter VII. Democracy and the sovereignty for the president

It is better to lose with friends, than to win with strangers because that victory which is got by someone else's weapon is not real.

Niccolo Machivelli

There can be an impression that the monocracy power in essence contradicts spirit of democracy and pluralism. It absolutely is not true. First, we should not forget about war for democracy and human rights. The true president of the country of the first type always battles for freedom.

In the modern world this necessary condition. The president even if he directly does not bomb anybody, is obliged to be at war for democracy, will be at war differently for it with him, – he cannot refuse participation in actions for strengthening of freedom, for human rights. It is necessary to create the relevant funds and to give out awards for it. It is desirable for the same people whom the world community recognized as true fighters for freedom, differently it is possible to be trapped.

In the modern world democracy is not so much a type of a political regime, as a lifestyle giving to middle class the chance to feel protected from local elite, from the power and money having, and in policy – to change authorities.

Democracy merit that it allows to protect a phenomenon of dissimilarity both from society, and from the state. In the changing world nobody knows, what phenomena, nowadays seemingly unacceptable, will become norm and, perhaps tomorrow, will help a civilization to avoid the next accident. So, in the 1960th the group of Beatles and in general a rock'n'roll, even on their homeland in England seemed many embodiment of chaos and decline of culture. Gentlemen of the Award of the empire threw out the awards after handed them to the Liverpool four. Now there are philosophers and culturologists who prove that Beatles the creativity prevented the Third World War. Therefore, the ruler should not forget about danger of control of public life as in this case, there is an opportunity to suppress something that differs from present standards, but it can be important for the future.

Eulogizing democracy, it is necessary to remember that initially it was created for equality of misters in the slaveholding state.

If we remember the main task of the Supreme power – to do everything that the country corresponded to a world mainstream, then collaboration of the president and all political institutes is very important for his decision. Continuous contacts between presidential party and "the active public" are necessary. In practice it means adjustment by presidential support group – allied to it politicians, bankers, trade-union bosses, – feedback with those who finances opposition parties, not presidential political funds, national associations.

It is considered that the democracy does not allow seizing power to some small group of rich and superrich people. However, I think, it not so. Despite democratic achievements, the population even the countries – world leaders consists of superrich minority which part are the highest statesmen and politicians, and all of the increasing majority poor. So, in the USA more than a third of all national wealth belongs to the richest surnames, and it is 1 % of the population of the country while 90 % of other population all together own no more than a quarter of national wealth. Influence of elite on the demographic majority happens not directly, as a century ago, and, so to speak, statistically.

Statistical distributions are well known in the nature: if to put on fire a pan with water, the speed of motion of the molecules of water on average will start increasing, strengthened heating – more fast molecules, made fire under pan weaker – the most part of molecules, but not every one, will move more slowly. At that velocity of the molecules are not identical, always there are also faster, vigorous, and more the slow. So, Dependence of velocities of the molecules from heating exists, but static. Every molecule of water in a pan is free and can theoretically have any speed.

It is good that the people don't understand-

How ourbank system works, otherwise tomorrow there would be a revolution.

Henry Ford

Same with control of financiers over modern society: they raised a rate of the bank credits – thousands of business owners are ruined and go in hired workers; they lowered – open the business and work for return of bank debts. Thus each person separately is free personality and can arrive as him it is necessary. Thanks to such method to business elite any democratic institutes anywhere not a hindrance, she exercises the political power in the purposes and is always oligarchy.

Though the president and oligarchy is different forces, but the president too can use methods of statistical submission and even has to. I will quote Niccolo Machiavelli: "The prince should not cause hatred or contempt of citizens; other defects do not represent for him any danger". It is easy to tell it – not to cause hatred, not to cause contempt. On the one hand, colleagues often urge the ruler to be rigid, to put more thieves (and if carefully to consider, thieves it will appear much everywhere), to dismiss the confidants who did not cope with business, to toughen punishments to those who does not observe laws. It can cause rejection of elite and active part of society too, of everyone who is afraid of any rigid actions from the government. You will not harness a whip in a cart, modern processes of self-organization of economy and societies are very sensitive to pressure from the outside. On the other hand, if the president sentimentalizes, considering that slowly everything will be corrected himself, – he will achieve contempt of the subordinate. There is nothing more despised by the people and decomposing elite, than adoption of the necessary laws which are not observed because of a disorganization or weakness of the power.

How to pass between Scylla's rigidity and Charybdis’ spinelessness? Here "statistical" management helps. It is simple to order to all citizens is soy instead of meat – that. To subsidize through the lowered bank percent of sellers of soy, to cause thus squall of the advertisements forcing to eat soy to all and always, – quite democratic method. In addition, if the president needs to change the banking sector, it is enough to begin campaign for the state stimulation of credit cooperatives in different parts of the country. It will force to the knees banks with the developed filial system – and quite authoritative result will be reached in the liberal way. Moral restrictions do not give me the chance to give other examples of impact already on a family, on private and even intimate life of people.

Weakness of the Supreme power – the most terrible of national disasters.

Napoleon Bonaparte

The more long and more democratically, let's say so, levers of the presidential power are, the more softly, but also more effectively they act: it is less than direct violence at the predicted result. It is more convenient for overwhelming number of citizens, for elite, but especially for the president, because similar softness does not remind people weakness.

For developing countries this approach is not always good as in them such levers of influence as advertizing campaigns, public associations, financial mechanisms for business and the population, often simply is not present or they are weak and do not suit for management. Then an important task of the president – to create and strengthen similar levers, to involve the business elite, parliament, the state funds in their creation. In this case and after leaving from a post the former president still will have methods of impact on the country, that is it, upon, remains the ruler.

I will add that the concept of democracy is generally not really politized in life of ordinary people if, of course, it is not used in foreign policy wars. And here the concept of freedom strongly depends on policy. For example, in Russia freedom is when it is possible to abuse the government. The higher rank of the one who is abused, the more free the one who abuses feels. It is clear: the power in Russia is an important component of everyday life, and the president is perceived almost like the family member so the criticism of the power is to some extent similar to a family quarrel.

In the USA, on the contrary, the mention of freedom is when praise the country before the citizens. People, so to speak, render glory to themselves and the political system. In this country constantly, repeated mantra about freedom has special political and public value. It that connects diverse American society. Any organisms living in society have to give a signal "I the" not to be the attacked people around. Ants, for example, constantly allocate special substances – pheromones that security ants-guards did not kill them as strangers. In human society the role of pheromones is played by the uniting symbols, such as a nationality, a political system, religion, the general history, the general enemies. In the USA, society of emigrants, anything similar is not present. As result, the idea of freedom serves as a magnificent symbol of unity of the people, a symbol, which any politician is, obliged to mention as often as possible, to signal people around: "I am a member".

* * *

Concepts of the sovereignty and patriotism underwent in lately big changes. Above I in detail wrote about modern wars, I will repeat once again: not to wage the war means for the president to participate in others, on others conditions and in the subordinated situation. For this reason, not – looking neither at any international division of labor, nor at any joint democratic institutes, the major business for rulers both earlier, and now is maintenance of the political and economic sovereignty, need of the declaration of some kind of economic patriotism. Its essence: the production, than any foreign even if it gives better products is better. For example, The European space agency – ESA, and first of all the French authorities refused in the early nineties front lines for that time of the Soviet development of a space shuttle "Buran" though they then could be got practically for nothing. ESA decided to give better tasks to the engineers, than to use someone else's ready decisions. As a result, the project of the European space shuttle "Hermes" was failed and closed, but independence of the European designers was protected. Therefore, the example of Russia reviving the space and aviation production is correct. Even if it is followed by failures and accidents as with some space projects and new airliners, it is the smaller price, than decomposition of the experts and their transformation into workers, only and able that to wind a nut on a bolt according to the foreign license.

To be the internationalist, it is necessary at first to have the homeland.

Georges Duhamel, French prose writer

At the same time patriotism now became an international concept. The president can patriotically speak about better conditions of life in the country, only meaning Its integrity with the universal mainstream. All countries already, anyway, depend On each other, therefore real patriot is the one who wishes good not only to the to his people, but also to neighbors, the close and remote. It is even impossible to overtake "cars" of other countries at any cost. Here as on an auto racing – the rigid conflict can end with mass accident.

In turn, the anti-patriotic behavior, the mean relation to the country, to the people, the history turns from political and moral into a problem of economic development. Patriotism for the state – as oil for the engine, as endorphin, a pleasure hormone for a brain. Without lubricating oil the engine will burn down, and the person without productions of endorphins will die by torment a clinical depression. Pride of the country, history and finally for the president – is necessary for the countries of the first type and is obligatory for the countries wishing to leave in leaders of world development. Without it, society can start degrading, especially if there is a large number of migrants, patriotic feelings to this country of not having. Respect of citizens for the homeland, self-education of society – the key to success in the general development of the country. However, trying to impart respect for the country by administrative methods, it is possible to roll down in jingoistic patriotism and it all the same that to replace the endorphins developed by a brain, a kvass injection there…

However, in some interstate associations, first of all the European Union, strong washing out of responsibility of the governments for the future of the countries is observed. There is it because of reduction of the sovereignty of the states that entered into the EU that means reduction of a choice of wars, which the certain president can conduct. For example, decisions on important questions are consolidated to actions of leaders – France and Germany. It turns out, in the union equal they most exactly so one-man management exists and in this extremely liberal association. As a result the future of a set of the countries of the Southern, Eastern Europe depends on decisions of heads of France and Germany, and unless they will consider all hopes and expectations unfamiliar to them the people? In such unions there is, of course, an opportunity to became frondeurs, but it is frivolous. In the EU the role of euro-sceptics is played habitually by the authorities of the Czech Republic, often Poland. However, this fluctuation considerably depends on decisions of the Union, it goes with the same frequency, only, so to speak, in an antiphase. All steps, both in internal, and in foreign policy the majority of EU countries upon should coordinate with Brussels. To some governments of Eastern Europe from all foreign policy activity that is only independently authorized to spit on the East, but also not very much not to get to China. In internal affairs reached before that bureaucrats from Brussels specify, which bulbs need to be twisted in public places.

It is terrible to assume what would be if in the 80th years the Soviet Union began to indicate it to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. Probably, would reach revolt as against the USSR, and against the government.

So, in the first part the most general living conditions and developments of the state, a condition that generate the Supreme power are considered. The role of the power in general and the ruler in particular increases in conditions of the accelerated development of a civilization. Working tools of the power, a political and economic background of actions of the ruler are considered. Now, using the output laws of governing, I will consider the tactical actions of the president necessary for his successful work.

Part two

People and president

Chapter VIII. Friends and enemies for the president

… The wise prince has, when circumstances allow, to skillfully creating enemies for himself that, having won over them, to be in even bigger greatness.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Far in the past there were times when sovereigns on joint feasts found out who whom respects. There are no already dynastic marriages turning sovereigns of the different countries into relatives, and their troops in allies. Structured the principle of a choice of enemies and associations for fight against them became thinner, so, the relations the friend – the enemy too changed.

"Friend" and "enemy" for the president – not the same that friend and enemies for the ordinary person: the friend of the ruler is a rival, and the rival is an enemy. But they should not be personal; in actions of the president there has to be as little as possible personal because in the Supreme power at first it is necessary to choose as to be at war, and then – the enemy, and that only because what war without opponent?

If the president correctly chooses the wars, and enemies, and – that is very important – enemies of enemies too will be chosen correctly. In general, enemies play too significant role lives of any person to leave their choice on will of a case. But it is necessary to remember: war and president's enemy Become, war and enemy for all the country or, at least, for that part of society which supports him. On the first time, society cannot share opinions of the president, but it has to define the opponent and, having come to the power, to start fighting against it. When the president uses for this purpose the state institutes, the enemy becomes public enemy.

Love, friendship, respect don't bind as good as common hatred.

A.P. Chekhov

It happens, however, that society chooses or in other way allows to the power of the president to be at war with the evil, which was already defined by former rulers. In this case, it is necessary to find such party of this famous enemy who is not familiar to fellow citizens yet. Then it is possible to struggle with the opponent new means that the president chooses.

The enemy is not necessarily a person. The certain far, but spiteful enemy allowing keeping the country in, so to speak, sports suspense too is very necessary. For example, for the USA the Soviet Union in the years of Cold war was it. It just that enemy whom many American presidents received, so to tell, by inheritance. Different administrations differently battled to the USSR – both policy of "nuclear control", and local wars, and "star wars"; his image changed from Truman to Kennedy, from Nixon to Reagan.

Choosing the enemy, the ruler should remember that the basic rule here same, as in a choice of wars: has to seem to all that the enemy can bring losses more, than will leave on fight against it. It is good if it is associated with threat for life or enslavement. Against such evil, of course, it is not a pity for neither forces, nor money.

In former times individual enemies were destroyed morally and physically; modern political realities allow to destroy them morally, for example, using sex scandal. All remember affairs of the director of the International Monetary Fund Strauss-Kahn or the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange (everyone can remember other similar cases for himself irrespective of, in what country lives). Each representative of electorate that provides full success to similar political and public murder has primary and secondary genitals. Such compromise – the strong weapon, and, just as an atomic bomb, is more reasonable to leave it only for threats.

Both political enemies and enemies as political associations it is good to accuse in corruption, help to terrorism, lack of talent or in communistic ideas. Charges are now more pertinent than the two first as modern policy and corruption – things very close, and helped terrorists or all help, depending on war of this or that president for these or those purposes. Here the main thing not to be trapped: it is impossible to accuse of the help to terrorism of proteges of presidents of the countries – world leaders. So, Bin Laden and his first group "Black Stork" was in the eighties supported by CIA. Also not a secret that the rebels who were at war against the Libyan tyrant for democracy proteges of Al-Qaeda often operated. Fight for the western values in Syria went and goes in many respects under the leadership of successors besides of Bin Laden. The same personality can be both the terrorist, and the fighter for freedom, and at the same time.

Of course, the former ruler has to be the enemy surely. Politically it is necessary to destroy the former masters, differently they will quickly return. They, generally, and so will return: eventually that group (party, financial group, army) which brought the former candidate to power, will make new attempt. Why to simplify it a task?

Eulogizing democracy, it is necessary not to forget that initially it was created for equality of misters in the slaveholding state.

Even if the old ruler was succeeded by the person from the political group, the critic is required, and with instructions of persons. It is not obligatory to criticize the former president, but at least his careless advisers, and it is better, as I already said, reformers. For example, Obama found very successful whipping boy: the chief economic adviser Larry Summers became responsible for failures at recovery from the crisis. The guru of economy declared the resignation in the middle of 2010, he was replaced by less famous Gene Sperling. It is clear to everyone that if the excellent economist did not cope with a situation, and you should not blame the president too much.

* * *

I will tell the following about presidential friendship: as the wife after a wedding has to be on friendly terms first of all with the husband if wants to keep marriage, and the president has to be on friendly terms only with the power if wants it to keep. Here the president can have different allies.

As they say, a politic stacks different people in one bed. However, that in your political bed did not appear foreign, unnecessary and even harmful people, you should realize clearly, who from the powers that be, known and unknown to general public, can become your allies and why.

I see three options. Those who sympathizes the president or it is obliged by something to him personally; those to whom the course chosen by the president is favorable; and, at last, enemies of enemies of the president whom any person in power has enough.

Whether it is worth approaching to yourself the first and to lean on them in daily works? As on electorate, of course. They should noting, not to forget be thanked, invited especially to official celebrations and other. However, it is not necessary to share with them daily cares: the permanent hard work in power, not on the first roles, will quickly erase gilding from them attachment chains to the president. Besides the former friend can be more terrible than the enemy can.

After intoxication with a victory the feeling of great loss always arises: our enemy, our enemy is dead! Even about loss of the friend we are sorry not so deeply, as about loss of the enemy.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Allies at the general course are more convenient as a support, but in real life, there is a problem: how to operate them? Continuous verification of desires, balance of interests even in the small is necessary. Many of them – direct competitors to the president and if he gives them the chance to solve important tasks, they can have a chance anyway to replace the power, to push aside the president's supporters from real government. Whatever developed was the democracy, whatever rigid was authoritarianism, big money and forces should be spent that that part of elite which supports the president (and it – it), returned after "friendly" revolution on administrative positions.

Therefore, for a support the president still has the enemy of the enemy. His right choice – the most reliable. Always it is necessary to remember that, choosing enemies, you choose also allies. The same rule extends and on a choice of allies by foreign policy: and here the enemy of enemy can only be the friend.

When, for example, the president declares ruthless war to terrorism, the countries anyway affected by this illness of a civilization declare themselves allies of this president. If in modern conditions, the ruler declares a crusade against communism or, we will put, will begin fight for peace around the world, it will appear in difficult situation. In the first case, it should deal with China and quickly developing Vietnam. In addition, the majority of the countries, which are trade partners of these socialist states, will not understand it. In the second case the president should react to wars which conduct the USA, and to be let in frank backscratching, explaining as far as peaceful is their Cruise Missiles, or to criticize wars in general and by that to set up himself under criticism of a pro-American lobby in the country.

If the president positions the foreign policy like if around there are only friends, only enemies will soon surround him. Of course, it is possible to speak about friendship to all around, especially when you go to the power, but it is impossible to follow these own words by no means. To speak: "Around friends" – means to make concessions to the former opponents and concessions do not happen much. Them happens a little, and it causes rage. Moreover, here the ally, seeing that the enemy of the enemy becomes the friend of the enemy becomes if not the obvious, then potential opponent.

I expect objections that it was earlier that the democratic countries (if it is about them) are not at war. As! Hot war between them, maybe, is also not present, but wars other: trade, for resources, migratory, financial – though take away. It is in the developed democracies what to speak about the countries that are not among world leaders?

Let's assume that the president of a certain North African country, having been delighted with the European democracies, will decide to help new friends with their war with illegal emigration. It will bring to police officers and even to army operations on his southern borders, from where there is a flow of illegal immigrants from "black" Africa. Further, to stop their transportation on the South of Europe, the president should strengthen boundary fleet, and it is violation of military balance. Such actions will cause strain of relations with the African neighbors. Moreover, it will be necessary to return the caught migrants, and means, there will be refugee camps. The European states will accuse the president of cruelty and creation of prerequisites for a humanitarian disaster with migrants, – so the fan of friendship a circle will be guilty.

The choice of enemies and allies is, thus, one of the most important actions of the president defining a course of development of the country.

Chapter IX. About the government and public institutions, on which the president can lean in governing

… In any state two ways to deserve a national arrangement are represented to citizens: the first way – public service, the second – the personal relations and communications.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Undoubtedly, stability of the state and presidential power is based on stability of society. In the words of American writer O'Genri: «The trust can only explode from within”.

The people, the elite and power are major forces in society, their interaction in many respects define domestic and external policy of the state. If as citizens to consider the main unprivileged part of the population, and the president – as a state ruler, maybe, hidden, but real, responsible for development, and solving state problems, more difficult to decide on the concept "elite". As the elitism subject for the last hundred years is worked, still there are opposite points of view. I won't deep in similar questions, I will assume that the elite, on the one hand, is the part of society owning means of production, finance (so as I showed above, and the power, that is oligarchy), and with another is a head of parties, movements, labor unions (political elite)[11]. One of the most important tasks of the president is to control relations between him, elite and the people.

Public finances is the art of transferring money from hand to hand until they do not disappear.

Robert Sarnoff, American businessman.

Unfortunately, uniform methods, which would help to expect result of interaction of these three forces, no. As well as in is unresolved still physical task about an attraction of three bodies, it is possible to receive answers only for special cases here – for example if one of the centers of force is weak. So, if weakly the government and the president, arises fight between these or those clans of elite having or persons interested to have the power, and national, often the rebellious movements. In certain cases such opposition can affect army, police, and from here nearby and before civil war.

In other case if it is apolitical and the bulk of the people is generally satisfied with the life, the president appears face to face with business elite, first of all financial oligarchy and political elite where the opposition as colleagues is not so dangerous. It is characteristic for the countries of the first type. If society full, stable, opportunities for a cabal and conducting wars at the president sharply decrease.

Usually in such states the two-party system – the remarkable invention of the authorities works. It also provides stability – such parties not enough differ from each other, and provides a choice, an intrigue: it is interesting to guess, whose person will add gallery of presidential portraits. Thus, the majority prefers known old – one of two parties – to the unknown to the third new; it nullifies possibility of carrying out serious internal reforms. Nevertheless, continuous changes are necessary, and not to conduct they are death is similar. Without them, for example, even the quiet rich countries can come to a peculiar internal rotting at external tranquility and material prosperity. Result is Breivik and his terror, attempts of acts of terrorism in Stockholm and in Copenhagen at the end of 2010, pelting grenades of a market square in the Belgian Liege, shooting random people in the US that is repeated so often in recent years, both other, and other.

Any political power proceeds from the people; and never comes back to them.

Gabriel Laub, Polish journalist

Therefore, for the president it is necessary to provide, for normal life, constant creative tension to elite, business, ordinary citizens and the state device that is to organize the general for all wars in which the most part of the people and elite will be to him allies. Such actions can cause in people satisfaction and pride of, the society, the state, so, and the ruler. Otherwise, force of development of society will be directed on political changes will also turn back against the president.

It is necessary to remember that the people are seldom grateful, do not draw conclusions and are predictable cope only within separate groups. This the fact does not belittle the concept "people", sacred for many. The people – as the sea. Anybody, being let in swimming, does not demand from the sea of gratitude, but also does not wait for evil memory. The same it is impossible to demand from the people of it.

In recent years there was fashionable in addition to the known three "a power – elite – the people" to add so-called "a creative class". There was even a popular social philosophical doctrine – elitism. Creativity, that is creative approach, it, of course, remarkably. It is clear that at fast change of the technologies changing the world at the updated behavior stereotypes, new fashion, at simplification of contacts between people – everything who participate in this updating, draw to himself special attention. Especially, if results of creativity bring to their founders billions of dollars moreover in youth, – all have very famous names of Bill Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg. Tens of thousands young (and not really) active, ambitious people rush to a pursuit of wealth and self-realization. Whether it should be taken into account them as independent public and political force? No, already proceeding from the following reason: usually from all projects offered to financing, "startups", inventions, no more than their twentieth part receive money, are realized and make profit. It on average. In some cases, it can be profitable and every tenth new offer – for example, development of computer games that are created by serious programmers; and here in model business the successful can appear less than a percent from all offered projects. It turns out, from hundred creative producers ninety-five – losers. Losers, of course, concerning "a creative class"; they can become or remain programmers on the project, administrators of firms, journalists on a task, technologists, generally, to be good people and experts. They can be also interested in creativity at work (or the employer forces to work creatively), but by a separate class, they will not call: it, as well as last centuries, the employed workers, simply the type of hired workers now changed. Cannot be allocated public, with special political preferences of "a creative class" if the vast majority of his representatives has to leave this class. Yes, happens that the ruined owners become workers, employees open the business, and trade-union heads go to policy. Migration from a class in a class, in elite and back – a commonplace, but not ninety five percent leaves the social place…

The president is obliged to give every possible help to the people creating new and whenever possible to involve them in the work, but he has to pay not smaller attention to those who keeps the working old. For development of economy, decrease in corruption and other important tasks not crowds of designers, and long and persistent work are necessary.

Still I will merge lands, a support of the power are those who go to work day by day, systematically carry out certain actions, i.e. "to hollow at one point". The improbable image of Homer Simpson, the main hero of a long-term American cartoon serial is remembered. Homer is silly, thick, and lazy; he is the beer alcoholic and is not able to remember two phrases in a row. From five to eleven evenings it sits in the bar. But provides a family, loves the wife, brings up three children, goes to work on nuclear power plant, has the house. Simpson, on (creative) idea of screenwriters – contrast of creativity. One of its slogans: "Attempt is a first step to a failure". But millions of similar Gomers Simpson are far from any ambitions created everything, become material and spiritual[12] a basis of our world; and, though they have dim eyes and not light faces, such people continue to contain and develop our civilization. Vast majority of representatives of «a creative class», by the way, also adjoins them, eventually.

* * *

Now I will stop on policy of the president on the relation to the most socially significant social groups: to nationalists, youth, believers, security officers and public administration.

The power belongs to calm one.

Maximilian Robespierre

For any country nationalism – dangerous, strong political means. It is obvious that wars that are waged with use of ideas of nationalism, very quickly can become hot even if to begin them as trade, for example, for protectionism in foreign trade. The concept of "the another» is one of the most ancient, and number of the problems connected with it only increases with a growth of the international division of labor (when often to one countries work, and another – the income) and ease of movement of labor gets. In many countries, nationalist moods are shown in the form of hostility to migrants and refugees, on the one hand, and to more successful neighbors, with another. Intensity even in the relations between Diasporas in one country amplifies. It is trouble of the whole world. The Europeans living in the countries of the Pacific Rim often are surprised when learn, nationalist sentiments at the people in this part of the world are how strong; perhaps, they are now much more intense, than even in the first to a half of the XX century in Europe.

What to do with threat of growing nationalism to the president? On the one hand, such problems can you sooner or later to flow in mass demonstrations or even terror, examples – in any release of the international news. From other party, publicly to mention nationalist moods it is unsafe. They usually mention concepts of the nation which many people nervously treat. Danger increases because interests of citizens of other countries are infringed.

More or less successful example is shown by modern Malaysia: very much excites indigenous Malayans that the share of Chinese and Hindus in their country exceeded 40 %, and that and others is the economically active part of the population controlling trade and finance. It is clear that similar situation can lead to a civil war. Therefore, in Malaysia since the end of the 60th years pursue quite successful policy, which is under construction on seemingly mutually exclusive provisions. On the one hand, it was headed for creation of "the new Malaysian" – the citizen for whom the homeland is more important than a national identity. Thus are appointed to key administrative posts, as a rule, only ethnic Malayans: it prevents possibility of complete economic and political control of the country by visitors, at least, until the generation of "new Malaysians" is brought up. The third factor of success – the modern rapid economic growth which results smooth possible discontent.

In policy the worst decision is to decide nothing.

Zachariah Gloska, Israeli politician

On this example it is possible to formulate three basic principles to which the Supreme power has to follow to constrain nationalism: to use and promote only concepts of nationality, but not a nationality ("Malaysian", but not "Malayan", "Kazakhstan citizen", but not "Kazakh"), thus advantage in appointment to responsible state positions to provide to radical citizens and, of course, to do everything for acceleration of economic development of the country, its successful movement in a civilization mainstream.

In other cases, council "is good do as all": time in the countries of the first type before – esteem not to notice the growing nationalist problems and are limited to mantras about equality of the people, and any other president should apply some drastic measures only in case of a situation exit from under control, at explosion of mass discontent. To do something anticipatory it is inexpedient: it is possible to run into the international condemnation and sanctions.

However, the president can use nationalism force as means, but not as the purpose of the wars at all. Only, if it has a cover. As cover interstate associations are very convenient, they give to the president the chance to decline all responsibility for adoption of not clean, obviously unfair decisions, whether there is a speech about deportation of Gypsy from France or about differentiations of the population in the Baltic countries by the language principle. These actions are carried out at acquiescence of various commissions of the European Union, so, are allowed. Although this with the fact that formally European liberal democracy – the antagonist to nationalism.

However, it is impossible to forget that any national movement, though national socialists though national democrats, leans in depth the on one type of the citizens supporting him: national idiots. Idiots in policy – one of the most destructive forces.

It is difficult to talk youth politics first of all its carrying out is influenced by the number of the youth in the different countries. For example, in east regions of young people, until 20 years, it is more than a half, whereas in their Western Europe on average only 16 %. Therefore, probability of that collision of youth groups with police will develop into revolt or revolution, of course, more in the east. There student's pickets can end with Takhrir whereas clashes with the police, burning of thousands of cars in suburbs of Paris in 2006–2007, riots in London in 2011, in Stockholm in the spring of 2013 led unless to changes in police system.

Youth in policy, of course, the destabilizing factor (but not the most important) because ideas of property, laws are a little interesting to it, and anybody in youth groups is not concerned by questions of predictability of the Supreme power. Actions of young people are directed from opposite, mean need of a basic change of everyone and everything, and there are no special levers with which it would be possible to influence youth. Therefore, by the way, inventions with various nurseries and youth parliaments, in particular, from the nursery of the UN and the similar organizations which were popular turned out a complete fiasco in 80th years in the different countries.

All clever people practise the same religion. What? Clever people never speak about it.

Benjamin Disraeli

In general, problems of youth need to be considered together with the processes happening in society in general. It is not worth it to consider influence of youth movements as independent forces. It is especially necessary to pay attention to interaction of the president with such important public institute as church. I mean not the temple, but religious structure, irrespective of faith. Only the correct behavior of any ruler (if he is not the religious leader of the nation), is and publicly, and in private communication to thank church and to bow to her leaders, to bow and thank, without passing to cooperation at all. It is useful to bow to spiritual leaders; to thank church will always be for what. However, to enter closer interaction with it means to enter wars which it wages long since. It is necessary to remember that the main religious faiths exist centuries and the millennia throughout which between them and in them there were many wars of different type, including hot, it is a lot of splits and revolutions. Therefore, even the easy movements from the outside cause a wave of interactions that change a configuration of forces and in the church, and in its relations with other faiths.

Especially difficult situation can arise if in the country some ancient religions, it is fraught with split society by the religious principle. Moreover, church, as a rule, the closed structure in which destructive processes can happen. Usually they are exhausted inside and break outside heavy scandals. All have very famous charges of pedophilia brought against Catholic priests. The corruption scandals which took place in 2005–2006 in patriarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church, which that is dangerous to the power are also known, is not separated from the Greek state. Unless such additional problems are necessary to the president? Why he need in domestic and foreign policy to rely on force, to affect on which it is impossible and which in big degree is unpredictable? Especially you should not use religious questions at coming to power. Deeply believing people of any faiths a priori with mistrust treat the state structures and their representatives. To the believing person the spiritual power in many respects replaces civil, and other people have an interpenetration of the state and church can cause irritation. I do not speak already about jealousy of believers of other faiths of that, which was treated more kindly by the government. Therefore, the top officials of the state always have to show equal political nearness to all spiritual institutes of the country. Nearness that is equal gratitude and bows to all of them, but not equal neglect as in this case the president can be reproached with atheism. At the beginning of the XXI century in the majority of the countries this serious charge equivalent to a theomachism.

Official visit of the temple certainly pertinently only on big religious holidays. It is better for president to resolve financial and legal issues with church strictly through parliament, according to the legislation. It is necessary to speak about spirituality with spiritual leaders, but to conduct work follows with, state, department of culture or department of education: they are subordinated to the government, they can be controlled, they can order, and if something happens – to punish their employees. Work with church through State departments costs also to heads of the states religious where or the church is not separated from the state, or religion values have decisive impact on the power. If there is no office constitutional – be divided officially. Such division is favorable to both the state, and church. As the Gospel said “Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's”.

One more issue is the relations with means of mass information. Opportunity to inform the thoughts to electorate and to some extent it is extremely important to operate it by means of mass media for a president. However, whether it is necessary "to bow and thank" residents of this fourth power? No way. It is necessary to cooperate with those who stands behind journalists as non-party (or unincorporated) political journalism does not exist. Therefore, having thanked journalists for their work, fundamental issues the president has to resolve not in halls of press conferences before television cameras, and in advance, in a narrow circle of oligarchs or leaders of political parties.

Force of the word is boundless. The successful word was often enough to stop the army which addressed in run, to turn defeat into a victory and to save the country.

Emile de Girarden, French journalist

Of course, the president needs to communicate with reporters as often as possible and thus carefully to trace personal and others' statements. It is especially important for the applicant for the top state post. The future president is closer to the Supreme power, the more he wants to talk to journalists and the less follow their advice. That for Franklin Roosevelt the journalist Walter Lippman was priceless as the adviser – the exception only confirming the rule.

Whether it is necessary to consider Online – Community as the fourth power; bloggers and leaders of "a world web"? Answer unambiguous: no. Of course, the time of paper editions will end soon, but the epoch of media corporations does not end. Each Internet user can compare – now in the large countries the sites even not really known newspapers attract more than hundred thousand visitors a day, and how many people read texts of famous bloggers? 10 times less. In any case, on the Internet or in paper form, corporate or party, mass media are more popular. Anyway, since 2012 in popularity blogs are inferior to all directions of the Internet, except unless even less popular meta-games.

The ruler, certainly, is not able to afford to leave army, intelligence services and police without special attention. On the one hand, Dwight Eisenhower's precept: "Be not got involved in land occupational wars, and concentrate on maintenance of force of the American economy", it is useful everywhere, and not just to the USA where it is not followed, by the way. Nevertheless, a problem that various wars go everywhere, it is necessary to be got involved in them, and security officers – a factor of maintaining and a victory in wars, including internal political and trade. Therefore costs, as it is possible to use more widely special services in silent, not hot wars.

А Here fighting special operations can already be unimportant and unnecessary. So, Bin Laden's destruction, leaders of Al-Qaeda, generally, did not strengthen safety of the USA – did not relieve of terrorism as the phenomena, to the place of each killed leader there is ten new. Other example: In the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), intelligence service caught almost all serious American and West German agents by the end of the 80th. In 1990, in days of performances and demonstrations against a socialist system, for association with Germany, to the American authorities it was simple there is nobody to receive information on situation in political tops of East Germany. However, it did not help GDR to keep itself as the state.

Any, even the most successful, actions of intelligence services in itself will not strengthen the state and will not weaken the others. Only compliance of the power to development of the state, under the First law of governing, provides it safe existence, otherwise it is waited by gloomy prospects.

Participating in interstate associations, building the allied relations with the different countries, the president is obliged to remember that, whatever close and confidential were contacts in the unions, financing and army command has to remain behind him. It is impossible to forget truth: if financing of army and police goes not from the uniform state center, if supply of intelligence services and military it is carried out from several and even external sources – at the ruler are not present neither army, nor police, intelligence services. Moreover, in his territory there is foreign army, foreign police and a legal foreign intelligence service.

One-man management has to remain and in military blocks, even between allies during wars. So, in 2011 France, Italy and the USA in Libya were at war separately. Here English troops at attack on Iraq in 2003 acted as part of the American group, as a result – neither valor, nor fame did not win. On the contrary, the whole world remembered that Great Britain was the satellite of the USA in this disgraceful war.

I will notice that during joint bombings of Libya fifty thousand fighting departures of bombers and starts of cruise missiles on government troops – on one on each soldier of the Libyan army were made. In the USA one and a half million military; I think if to make one and a half million meek fighting departures and starts of rockets across the territory of the USA, in this country it will be possible to establish any form of government, though a monarchy, though anarchy, and the American people (those who will survive) with pleasure of its signs if only did not bomb any more. Without any sarcasm I consider that it is quite possible when and if America descends from an edge of a vector of world economic and social development, his interests are in a conflict with interests of other countries, and it will disturb the general development of a civilization. To bomb, always somebody will be.

Well and, of course, it is impossible to forget about state as administrative device. Any administration and government institutions in general are fundamentally wasteful. They spend public funds, but do not earn them and feedback have only with the higher administration. Thus, government institutions are in two states – "quagmire" and reorganization. "Quagmire" is when financing arrives, accustoms, tasks become complicated, control amplifies for what the financing, and so around again increases; reorganization – when it is necessary to optimize, reduce the inflated office of management.

The genius chained to an official table has to die or go crazy.

M. Yu. Lermontov

It must be kept in mind that the device of public administration should not appear the joint venture of president and the high-ranking officials. The administration should not be considered as force which on an equal basis with the president, in lots, business influences events in the country. Otherwise, the principle of one-man management is broken, and amendments of more petty officials can distort or shield decisions of the ruler. There is nothing more blackening the power in the opinion of the people and decomposing elite, than the situation when "fan of the king, but does not favor huntsman".

The best way to prevent this problem is to transfer the most part of national objectives to the lower, regional level. Thus, the political pressure upon the president from outside both unorganized dissatisfied, and opposition political forces will decrease. The ruler can suggest the critics to work in "an administrative quagmire" – so he will kill with one shot two hares: will remove from himself some problems and will shift responsibility for their decision to the dissatisfied. Work at the regional level of the power, on places makes sober at once; nine of ten politicians turn sour, facing need to make even the simplest decisions for which at once it is necessary to bear responsibility. However, for this purpose the power in regions has to be transparent, it is simple to omit financing "on places" means to create enormous corruption and to finance the enemies.

Chapter X. Special organizations and advisers to the president

Hide that you speak by yourself, learn that others speak, and you will become the true prince.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Solving the main tasks of the Supreme power, the president should not make a mistake that is made quite often by heads of developing countries. Accurately to declare the real priorities, sharply not the leader, not his political party and not force, which supports him needs to speak on these or those questions. The political funds, public organizations, concerns of mass media created and operating for the account and for a political top have to be engaged in it. Future president, going to the power, it is obliged to know and supervise such organizations well. Even if the ruler comes to the power because of revolution or coup d’ #233;tat, he is obliged to support, buy or if there was nothing suitable, to create them. They bring benefit considerable, and the president does not bear responsibility for their actions almost any.

Let's look at policy of Western Europe. The review of news sometimes leaves impression that representatives of the British Council, Sakharov's fund, the structures urged to render the help of democracy, than associations of sexual minorities or independent movements of journalists it is more, than officials of all states of the European Union of together taken. Such associations remarkably approach for a role of long fingers and the president's language in domestic and foreign policy, without setting up directly him. The set of the non-governmental organizations exists for the same purposes and in the USA. No wonder that in recent years their budgets strongly increased.

The president has to become the among managers of one or several similar structures, but not mix up with them, to pay them, but not cash, to support them, but it is not loud, and it is better presence of the representatives at their meetings.

If we remember it, hatred of association of the European farmers to the Chinese products will prompt that actually the president of France thinks of a trade policy of China. On news about picketing of the Polish Embassies by representatives of movements of sexual minorities, we will understand how Berlin behavior of Warsaw is angry. Any president of the developed country cannot tell directly anything of that kind that cry out and write on slogans on such pickets and demonstrations, but it is more pleasant to that to hear after all to him it moreover in different languages in reporting of means of mass information.

The similar organizations are not less important for domestic policy. The example of the USA where the enormous number of various associations of youth, the unions of businesspersons, funds of freedom and many others successfully works is characteristic. It is a reliable support of the power. Judge for yourself: what total number of graduates of Eton, Harvard, Yale and other well-known universities, which generally deliver shots for the government and the highest figures of administration? At best, some tens of thousands and only some hundreds from them actively work in management and policy. Public organizations and funds unite hundreds of thousands active (within the city quarter) voters. They – an excellent support of the power and the conductor of modern wars. For example, the National association of industrialists acts as a link between private business community and the government. Such associations are very influential in the USA and solve problems, actual for business, providing contacts of the highest corporate managers (oligarchy) with the government.

When the range of the similar organizations in the country is wide, the future president can use them including for at – the course to the power. It has possibility of a message safe (for himself) hardware games in the management of these organizations – to unite or divide them under these or those slogans, to learn to choose enemies, to perfect methods of conducting future wars in these structures. All these actions distinguish at once the perspective ruler… If, of course, he does not play and will not drown the career in a quagmire of puny policy of "public figures" and "independent journalism".

Rulers need wise men much more, than wise men in rulers.

Foma Akvinsky

I will separately tell about advisers to the president. Now any leader, even the head of small labor union, does not do without consultants. Many of them are necessary only to show the weight and authority of this or that leader. Sometimes they simply part of the device. However, for the president advisers – an urgent need as he simply physically cannot embrace all processes that demanding it attention.

Advisers happen obvious and secret. Obvious are actually part of administration. It is worth reporting about appointment as the chief advisers some the most known to society of persons, by whose ideas the president is guided. It is the good course as the failures it will be able to justify them with bad work. For example, English prime minister Cameron, entering a post, told about the new guru – Florida; it is American philosophy of elitism, promotes creativity as the engine of economy growth. Now it is clear, who will be guilty of bad preparation of the country for the next stage of world crisis.

By the way, also lords of the past also acted. Niccolo Machiavelli told story of Ramiro de Orco, the assistant duke Cesare Borgia. De Orco pacified the won territory, having caused the rigidity discontent of the people. Borgia instead of gratitude finished with him: "One morning on the square in Chezene on his order put a body of a messir of Ramiro de Orco cut in half near a deck and a blood-stained sword. Ferocity of this show at the same time satisfied and stunned the people". Perhaps, the main thing in this description – which the people remained it, is satisfied…

It is important to president to find privy councilors, about which nobody should be told. The best adviser – secret, and from secret – the one who does not know that he is an adviser. The president should select several economists, political, public figures, both public, and little known, and to use their works to trace success or a failure of the actions. These people have to have different belief. Thus, it is very important to see a source of financing of their daily activity. Only knowing who pays these people, the president will be able to isolate information, useful to himself from their articles, lectures, performances, doing the amendment "on the customer".

I will notice that councils of secret consultants can be received and from private conversations. Also good option – to give from a certain fund behind which there is the president's person, to the chosen expert the order on, we will put, monitoring of the current economic situation, and its reports to send only to the president.

Having spent time for search of such hidden advisers, the president for a year – two will provide himself with a quantity of really independent opinions, an objective view on occurring in the country and the world of an event. He will receive peculiar markers of a situation, will be able adequately to judge as far as its work corresponds to development of the country that demands and what society at this stage needs.

Chapter XI. How the president can use time and place

… The sovereign will hardly lose the won country if he moves there on a residence.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Time and place are two Assistants to the President. Here quite the old saying approaches: "To be in the right place in due time". Difference of the Supreme power is that the president himself can create a place where it is more convenient to it to cope with the duties, and to appoint important events to that time which suits it. First, I mean the capital city, location of the ruler, so, a decision-making place, knot of a texture of political, economic and public forces. However, now the concept "the capital" became more difficult, than earlier.

Many believe that in the developed democracies the capital has purely administrative function. It would seem if corruption were almost destroyed, why to executives to be wiped in the corridors of power, if they solve affairs among themselves in the offices, and taxes pay far off. Nevertheless, business follows the power. Even such weak and seemingly far from lobbying by business of structure as the official establishments of the European Union (all its budget in 2011 was less than 130 billion euros that is almost twice less than the budget of one Belgium) located in Brussels too are the center of gravity for business. Over the last ten years in this city, representations of 90 largest companies of the world, and not boutiques and the shops, and official branches opened. Would begin corporation to spend very serious money for new representations if did not feel obvious return from possibility of their directors to be crossed in the nearest cafe with incorruptible politicians Of the EU, and that important economic problems are resolved in Berlemona place, in several quarters from having opened divisions of the majority of corporations?

Only that statistics is reliable which was forged by you.

Winston Churchill

For a long time a change of position of the capital, it is considered very important and necessary act of rulers. Machiavelli noted that transfer of the capital of poses – drags to strengthen the power in remote lands. In the book "History of Florence" he writes: "If there is no opportunity to move part of the population from there where it in excessive abundance, there, where it is not enough, all country falls into decay: places where there is not enough to people, turn into the desert, places where there is too much, grow poor. As the nature cannot eliminate these adverse circumstances, human activity is necessary here".

For many countries and now transfer of an administrative center is opportunity to control a situation in poor areas, or where there is a danger of external capture, or in the provinces seeking to be separate. In this case, the administrative and military capacity of the power will be for such regions the supporting factor. In general, transfer of the capital in "a painful point" of the country is of very great importance. It also shows readiness of the president face to face to meet difficulties, and is that readiness. Officials, of course, will be against, to them and it is so good, and they will find a set of the reasons that anywhere from familiar spots not to move. Well, it is a problem of political will of the president – to specify by the subordinate, where their place in literal sense of this word.

Transfer of the capital is useful both to the leading countries, and for the countries developing. The last in general, as a rule, keep all government institutions in one place. The capital there – certain super city, the center of all economic and political life. Here it is usually located not only all of Supreme power, but also central prison, gold reserves, General Staff, lead cultural agencies. The state is weaker; the capital in comparison with the province is stronger. In this case, transfer of the capital allows using financial and administrative opportunities of the country for poor territories, to break the barriers disturbing to their development. The transfer considerably affects structure of the state device, so, helps the president to be exempted from former bureaucratic fetters, gives the chance as if to move away from oligarchy, and also to clean administration without scandals, usual for reductions, "having forgotten" someone from the high-ranking officials on a former place.

Presently transfer of the capital can be virtual. Perspective work in this direction goes to the USA where so-called "the Government 2.0 – radical updating of those channels on which Americans communicate with the authorities will be organized. Interaction with establishments becomes same simple, as well as with the private companies. It too in some way moving of the government on a new place (in the Internet) where it appears well to everyone. People can observe work of state structures directly now. Moreover, the number dissatisfied with the president as any user can trace decreases, what government institution works insufficiently well, or even to the detriment of society. Ordinary citizens still have less bases to accuse only one president of the unsatisfactory solution of this or that problem. Wars for reforms also get the new status as any public organization can offer optimization of these or those processes, – problems are transferred to concrete execution. What can be better? However, not virtual, but real moving of the capital is very important for developing countries and for some countries of the first type. It can just accelerate process of creation of the open "electronic" government behind which work everyone will have an opportunity to observe on the Internet. Transfer of the capital allows beginning movement of the state structures but not to form them on a new place, and to transfer them functions in a network for interaction with the population and departments.

It is considered that transfer of the capital is extremely expensive. No, here as in business, the spent money is an investment in new technologies, including administrative; they come back at development by commercial structures of the new city, remote territories, attracting the capital there.

For the last decades, the capital was changed by such different countries as Turkey, India, Brazil, Kazakhstan. Government agencies of Germany moved to Berlin after reunification of Germany. It is important that examples of unsuccessful transfers of the capitals in the world are not present! Preparation for transfer of the capitals in South Korea, Iran, Argentina is conducted. Anyway, this action always positively affects development of remote territories and, respectively, economy, public administration. Transfer of the capital – not the unprofitable, but perspective financial project for the state and profitable political for the president.

At last, time as Assistant to the President. I will give an example when the head of state precisely used time for carrying out important actions. In 2011 Cristina Kirchner, the president of Argentina, appointed presidential elections to October 23 – the day following after the Mother's Day which voters carried out in shops, buying gifts. For the next day, they amicably voted for mother of two children, the beautiful and sexy woman. Of course, to voters was on what to buy gifts, and in not smaller, but big, than earlier, quantities in what there was a considerable merit personally Kirsch – not river.

I will mention important influence on public life of the periodic natural phenomena. Vital processes, from productivity to incidence of people and their mental mood are changed in periods of the active Sun (a large number of spots and flashes on it). Here only some significant coincidence: time of high sun activity was on The French-revolution of 1789, revolution in 1905 and both revolutions in 1917 in Russia, and also for the beginning of World War II in 1939. In 1968, also in a year of the active Sun, tear gas for dispersal of demonstrators New York was flooded, and in Paris on student's barricades there were real fights with police. In 1991, Soviet Union[13] broke up; in 2001, there were terrorist attacks in the USA. Even more correlation with a solar cycle of epidemics and pandemics of plague and cholera in the Middle Ages, flu in the last hundred years, increase in mortality from heart attacks, number of executions by mentally unbalanced people of people around impresses.

Both again and again ascended Also sober minds were saddened, Both the throne fell, and were not repugnant Hungry pestilence and horrors of plague.

A.L. Chizhevsky

It is clear that, solar activity – one of the factors increasing the internal movement in society, not mainly. If because of a magnetic storm the number of badly feeling, nervous people grows, the meeting held at this time with bigger probability will come to an end aggression. The ripened economic, political problems become aggravated because of growth of nervousness, diseases that are caused by frequent and strong magnetic storms. Respectively, the president should not neglect influence of our star and if it is possible, he should solve serious and painful problems during the periods of the quiet Sun, when there is no additional irritants for society.

It is especially important for a present cycle, when after abnormally long quiet period, the Sun with 2011 began a thicket to become covered by spots, the number of flashes and emissions of plasma grew. It is simple to remember the social explosions that began from now on.

Researchers assume reduction of activity from 2016.

Chapter XII. Danger to the highest governing. Infantility

In affairs of the state: if in due time to find the arising illness, easy to get rid of it but if it is started so that to everyone it is visible, no medicine will help any more.

Niccolo Machiavelli

The ruler should remember that from the part of society, which got used to receive that not earned it is impossible to wait for fidelity and gratitude, how many give. The electorate will be always dissatisfied: those who received, – that to them is not enough a distance; those who did not receive, – that deprived them. At many people relationship of cause and effect "work – the result – money" is not developed. The rupture of this chain decomposes society, parasitism and infantilism is cultivated. Thus, those who receives good money, and works not so much, do not feel gratitude for it to the state – them and so it is not heavy. Those who got used to work, ask a question why they have to work much when others are not even tired? It is clear that infantilism – the beginning of centrifugal forces in the state, each group of the population considers that can receive threatening with disorders and disintegration more if presses on the government one way or another, as a rule, countries. That is it becomes favorable to people to be engaged in political extortion. The principle "to receive without work" is bases for nationalism, as citizens say: "We have to be richer as our nation is better, more important"; or on the contrary: "All offended us, so let now pay for offense". These circumstances increased at each other conduct to riots.

To learn problems of any-state is very easy. All of them are listed in its anthem.

Obvious danger of social infantility is shown where government makes advances with separate social groups, or better to say – pays off from them. Similar practice exists in the countries of the first type, where Diasporas of emigrants often form the state in the state. In addition, the states where widely use a natural rent, for example, the rich countries of the Arab world are subject to this evil. So, after splash in protests, the authorities of Saudi Arabia since 2011 intend to invest 385 billion dollars in creation of social infrastructure of the kingdom – the enormous sum on only 30 million indigenous people which already have the highest standard of living! Nevertheless, it is sure, all the same will be a little.

The quicker rates of development of the country, the more money there are in a purse at the ordinary citizen – the less he notices the further growth of economy and the more slowly degree of his satisfaction with life grows. Similar rule works both at individual level, and at the level of the whole countries. The Financial Times gives an example: the average resident of India in 2011 began to receive 450 dollars more, than in the 2009th, thus only 1 % of the population became happier for these years. Only in three of five countries of BRICS – Brazil, China and India – the most part of citizens is happy with the life. In such conditions citizens will test satisfaction not at still in a growth of the benefits but in case they are able independently to solve the problems and will feel confidence in the forces. It will give conviction that the standard of living will not worsen at these or those perturbations in the world and people control the future. The person is, as a rule, more often happy with himself, than is dissatisfied so in this case and the general background of content in the state will be higher. To help citizens with self-development, self-realization, so, and with achievement of a personal liberty by them – a task for government and the president. So modern concepts of freedom and the power connect.

To carry out this task, it is necessary to direct as much as possible forces to public demonstration of the help to the people wishing to change the financial and social situation: job search over all country – at the expense of the state, retraining – at the expense of the state, working migration – at the expense of the state. The credits for business development percent on which too pays the state have to be available. It is impossible to save on it. At festive meetings in honor of opening of modern labor exchanges, moving agencies, schools of retraining and professional development presence of the president is obligatory. Similar activity has to be connected in consciousness of citizens with activities of the state for social protection of children, pensioners, patients.

Also it is impossible to promise working growth of salaries directly. All have to to know – about it follows to declare in loud – that a salary a cart – will thaw, only if grows productivity of labour. It is possible to declare that civil servants will receive more if the efficiency of their work if society (inhabitants of the region) see successful implementation of the programs directed on support of children, patients and old men in the country (the certain region) increases.

It is simple to do what people want if competently to explain to the people that they want.

Dwight Eisenhower

Further, before giving a final assessment to an infantilism in political life of society, has to tell: I for the broadest social help. It is necessary to remember a difference between the help and a freeloading. The president must trace a difference between the help without which modern society cannot exist, and an egalitarianism when at the expense of those who works, loafers are fed. Of course, now not the thirtieth years of the last century, it is also impossible to fall into another extreme – to preach economic independence of the private person, to repeat a liberal mantra that hungry, having received a rod, it will be always full. It is known that catch places belong to someone for a long time and, having taken in hand a rod, hungry the hungry can remain.

Other side of infantilism is hope that there will be a certain personality who will resolve all heavy vital issues. For the boss this danger was and will be as in behavior of each person there are many things from the small child, and even strong, morally steady people often subconsciously wish to see the clever father or kind mother who will always support in the ruler, will console, will punish enemies. Thus, it will not be necessary to solve the problems. Only now infantile hopes for the kind master are fed with the constant economic help of the state and amplify because of complexity of the modern world, because of series of crises, changes of rules of behavior. When uncertainty in the future gains general character, people want to see in the president of the kind parent, to which all troubles on a shoulder even more.

The slogan of true democracy is not "Let the government do it", and "Let us do it".

Dwight Eisenhower

Protests, denial of everyone and everything, anarchical and other destructive movements also reflection of the infantile requirements of a strong hand. Many have a psychological inversion – replacement of idea of the all-powerful kind father with certain absolutely angry uncle. Without having found object of worship, many people look for object for hatred. Habitually when for a role of the absolute villains who are liable to destruction people of other nationality or race get out. Presently general politicization the Supreme ruler, who always on a look and for people psychologically defenseless is guilty by definition, always appears an evil embodiment often in everything. There is the same absolutization of the personality, only with the return sign. Here if this ruler is not, they consider if him and everything who supports him, to destroy, get rid in any way, then the good will win automatically and everything it will become good. Notice, it is a lot of and it is heavy to work in order that kind times came, in this case too it is optional. From destruction of the bad uncle the same result, as from appearance of the kind parent, – disposal of all troubles is expected. Happens, people in this case suffer from any actions, any mentions of a name of the president who became for them the incarnate evil, in the same way as usual infantiles suffer from lack of a firm hand of the kind father.

To suffer because everything develops not as we imagined is not only useless occupation, but also an infantility sign.

Jorge Bucay, Argentina psychotherapist

К To regret, even more often infantility gets into the groups of the population occupied with productive work. Was considered earlier that to the working people, middle class, there is no time to express discontent: their affairs. Only disturbing public events force them to pay attention to policy in improper time. However, with growth of a standard of living the situation changes: the bored chocolate can cause not smaller rage, than lack of bread. Beggars suffer from a lack of food, they if become dangerous, from them it is easy to pay off, having distributed them the same bread. Even having distributed chocolate eager for something brand new and expensive, you will not get off their new and new requirements. Let's remember who battled to police on the Parisian student's barricades in 1968? Full and successful children of those French who after World War II, refusing to himself everything, restored the country. Then the senior generation of French, including the president, the war hero and the generation, General de Gaulle, received a slap in the face instead of the expected gratitude.

Infantility generated also public forces, which should already be noticed. Now the president has to trace requirements of new important groups of the population – office and prison plankton. Office plankton is mentioned often are numerous small employees, which salary is a little connected with result of their work. I mean those who, without being bandits by a prison plankton, lives on a side or beyond the law. It is possible to remember riots in London in 2011. The groups plundering shops and houses consisted of a typical prison plankton. There is a lot of them. Now even in the developed countries their number reaches 15 % of population. These are people who practically do not work; nevertheless, modern society allows them to live very much even not bad. This is some kind of "yuppie lumpens".

Both groups of a plankton normally (in their opinion) to live, do not need activity of the state. They – destructive force: the power in general and the president in particular are not necessary to them. The plankton receives the allowance in a different way. It has no habitual system of social coordinates "work – money – property", in which power – a reference point. It has free time and opportunity destructively to participate in domestic policy, to smash, revolt in an occasion and without cause.

Such infantility is a nutrient medium for easy riders, provokers and dumping politicians[14]. In order that to justify the inaction, they use primitive philosophy and demagogy. Of course, without a certain dose of demagogy no wars, especially modern, are conducted, it as journalism without advertizing. Nevertheless, the demagogy in the help – to whom – or to business is one, and demagogy as an activity basis, instead of work, instead of results – another. To struggle with politicians very difficult; on the one hand, to contact them is more expensive to himself, with another – and it is not possible not to notice them anymore. The best exit – as much as possible to use the presidential "noncommercial" and "independent" organizations of influence; it is good if it is possible to catch for this purpose large international fund or the movement. Let them also argue, battle and damn each other, shielding thus the president.

The president and at the state level should not give any tips. So, the USA sponsored Cuba to the middle of the fiftieth, army of Egypt from eightieth years, at Hosni Mubarak Egypt received to one and a half billion dollars a year. Russia sponsored Ukraine approximately for the same sum everything the ninetieth years of the last century. As result, what sponsors received at change of the mode? War or spittle. That no wonder if to look who got this help. In a case with the Cuban dictator Batista the American money was appropriated by junta. In Ukraine the difference in the price of the resold Russian gas – about one billion dollars a year, went to pockets of local oligarchs, and it embittered those to whom it did not get. If the help big, all consider that and it is necessary and to demand still.

On the other hand, absolutely infantile actions, such as leaving from responsibility, attempt to postpone the solution of problems for the future, – a usual thing in modern policy that often facilitates life to the ruler.

The most known example – crisis of the EU in general and the Eurozone in particular, thrown on all new countries. Unless problems began in 2009? Unless it was not clear in 2003 or even in the 1997th that impetuous expansion and acceptance the general financial mechanisms for ill-matched association by good will not come to an end? However, in the European Union the arising tasks can be not solved, and to leave them for later, assuming, something "itself will resolve", or "elder brothers" – heads of the countries locomotives of the EU, will solve everything. There is a washing out of responsibility at external pluralism. Well, it is very convenient for many presidents; they have an opportunity to dominate, without governing. Really, why to clang bells, declaring the future problems, and to begin unpopular measures of economy if all the same help? Here also there are series of crises – from Spain and Hungary to Greece and Cyprus, crises, which come seemingly unexpectedly for presidents and for all heads of the EU.

I want to pay special attention that infantility growth – a consequence of quite objective conditions. Everywhere the standard of living, availability of the benefits grows, and the political structure remains former. Here also there are seemingly absolutely unlike problems having irresponsibility and a freeloading in a basis: extortion of privileges by separate groups of society, formation of subclasses of "plankton", infantile-protest movements. As it is paradoxical, the infantility which is often correlated to laziness appeared a basis of very active political forces. Well, it is the next call of time – time there are new technologies, the relations in society change, there have to be new political realities.

Chapter XIII. New trends. Internet

… A wise sovereign should take measures to that citizens always and under any circumstances had a need for the sovereign and for the state.

Niccolo Machiavelli

It makes sense to the president to pay the closest attention to the Internet and network technologies. Thus, he should not interfere in this sphere without special representatives and support groups at all. At most that it is worth doing in this direction, – to keep (through PR managers) the records on social networks, and direct communication with an Internet users to carry out strictly to time of certain official actions. On the Internet the president is balanced in the rights and opportunities with other users, and comparison with professional participants of Internet community will be not in his advantage.

The matter is that on the Internet there is a special kind of active users. They professionally conduct communication in a network, they are mobile, and many of them have numerous support groups. The virtual world is their territory where they are not nobody's allies. It is very simple to them to be organized in network team that will block actions of any user, despite his dignity. If they decide to attack, it will be very difficult to resist to them – all the same "as to the school student to fight with inveterate punks".

It is necessary to consider that economically many constant users of the Network – and not owners employers, and not hired workers, but some kind of transvestites from property. As I already noticed, the modern level of a civilization allows considerable number of people in the countries of the first type and quite big in the countries of the second tolerably to exist, not having continuous business when the power in general and the president in particular are not necessary to them. In Russia, such Internet users can be called "network hamsters". Thus just as one thief is a thief, and is already mafia a little, one inter – no, – the idler it is simple "hamster", and united in a network is a political force. It is dangerous to forget about them, thus directly to contact them it is useless.

However except "political" Internet users in a network there is a lot of also users "economic" which, anyway, earn money in a world wide web and are interested in habitual power structures: without stability and constant rules of the game no economy, including network, functions. The number of economic and political users strongly differs in the different countries.

So, for example, in China the Internet economy makes 5,5 % of GDP, in Russia – 1,9 %. Thus the share Internet users in Russia is more (about 45 % of all population), than in China (about 35 %)[15]. It turns out; in Russia, it is the share of one thousand users of worldwide network three times less than those who in it earns money, than in China. In this case, what to do clever, active Internet users, if they are not in business? They are engaged in games, public life, and party construction. They have an energy! For the time being, they enter associations in network games, forums, but then go to associations political. The Internet policy tightens also strongly as the business, only demands responsibility less. The financial result, as well as property, is not important for men of virtual politic. Powerful demonstrations in 2011–2012 gathered in Moscow with the help and often under the auspices of bloggers. Of course, the bases for performances were not virtual, but it is difficult to overestimate influence of Internet community.

Similar situation in Turkey. The Internet economy makes 1,5 % of GDP there, even it is less, than in Russia, and the share of internet-users is more, than in China. It means that issues, problems of this country will be resolved by associations in the Network and a splash on streets of the people rallied through Internet resources soon. Moreover, to agree with them it will be difficult: most of virtual men (I will continue to refer to them simply virtuals) live out of habitual social coordinates of modern society and the claims stated by them to the power do not reflect that the main part of the population demands. Virtuals can trace discontent and use it, but state it the standard concepts – no. They will say that most gets game public, it is habitual and interesting.

In general, fundamentals of network policy is infantility. It is considered – if to overthrow this power and to put new good, all problems will be solved somehow by himself. For the Network, including for policy in the Network, the infantile mentality, teenage behavior, slogans and actions – for example, stateliness, inconsistency, maximalism, fast change of priorities, orientation not on positive result (it is long and uninteresting), and on result destructive is characteristic: to define guilty, to punish, to change everything (it is heroic and quickly, similar to network game). Still the extremely important requirement which is satisfied by network policy, – possibility of personal participation in affairs without some intermediaries in the form of political parties, their bureaucracy, without tiresome debate and other virtues of the sedate bourgeoisie.

It is also necessary to note that infantiles are not always loafers. They often are engaged in different activities, but they differ from ones that provide food, housing, money – they already have this or they will have if require. Their activity is measured not in money, but in emotions, which are the brightest in joint political actions.

Bright to that an example – the movement "Seize the Wall Street". It protest thanks to the Internet unites supporters worldwide. Their requirements cannot obviously be executed – partially because are radical, partially because are infantile, – ridiculously to hope that the oligarchy will start itself limiting, having heard shouts of students. By the way, participants of this movement are convinced that they are supported by 99 % of the population; in many respects this feeling arises because they – active visitors and commentators of the political sites and it turns out that meet in communication generally colleagues. However even at peak of protests supported an action in the USA no more than a half of inhabitants.

It is interesting that the stocks "Take…" began in Obama's presidency. It seemed to protesters that he would make the certain heroic affairs connected with real life, economy and finance. Obama's election in presidents for the first term, in 2008, strengthened hopes that it will adopt laws for regulation of a banking system, "to take these financial swindlers and to make them responsible". However externally heroic the new president did not make anything and at all the feeling appeared and got stronger that he is a little shy. It is curious that these charges have something in common with the protests in Russia, which ripened in presidency also of rather soft and "computer" Medvedev who for some reason did not realize on wave of a magic wand or a computer mouse of hopes of middle class and office plankton.

Watching the network political movements, it is possible to see the general feature: they unite irreconcilable enemies, it was seemed. There often the ultra-left and far right act together[16]. There is no wonder: habitual division into political groups for similar movements simply a past rudiment. It depends on the relation to property, and property questions as I already mentioned, are not something fundamental neither for virtuals, nor for "hamsters", for dumping politicians. Small differences between different groups in network policy speak unless objects, which they choose for hatred: is those who hates people on national sign, and left – those who hates other layers of the population. It is clear that in such conditions of duplicity and falsity in new political structures will be not less, than in old.

In total the political parties eventually die, having choked own lie.

Mark Twain

I will note that protest performances of "the Arab spring", though were conducted in many respects by means of new means of communication, first of all smartphones and simpler cell phones, to Internet policy no relation have. The number of young people in the poor Arab countries reaches 60 % of total number of the population, unemployment among them reaches 70 %, the economy lags behind in the development, nervousness and sense of hopelessness amplifies, – such situation in much and provoked protests.

Neither the president, nor the applicant for the top state post should not use network policy. Of course, PR managers and authorized representatives of the president should not neglect any opportunities, including a world wide web as elective race and presidential wars exist for a victory, but not for participation. To rely on virtuals in important things – all the same what to lean on water. The virtual world will play a dirty trick eventually with that who accepts it too seriously.

Nevertheless, the president as the head of state, can reformulate and transfer protest processes to Internet on language of society; societies capitalist, socialist, industrial or postindustrial … not very well what, the main thing – real. Most of citizens for whom the power is both a reality, and life need, will be against perturbations of Internet politicians. The president, thus, will receive an opportunity without battling at all, without opposing itself to network users (it is harmful as it is useless), to head their protest movement, but under the slogans. To intercept an initiative, to begin or continue the wars, reforms, to work from their name.

It is also necessary to use that fact that many "hamsters", especially those who matured who passed from network game into network economy, do not want to be "hamsters". They will be glad to transition to real. It opens for the president additional opportunities for maneuver. He has to pursue policy of the working Internet, working networks, show itself (himself) as coherent, as communicator between the state and Internet business.

It is visible that the virtual policy and political infantility as the public phenomena are close. They were quite issued, continue to develop quickly, and to call marginal them it is already impossible. Therefore, the president is faced by a task carefully to trace dynamics of virtual life, her public and, the main, economic function. Thus to do everything to transfer possibilities of the Internet to the economic plane, the plane put. But to listen and the more so to use councils of Internet community in government – all the same, what to read and take into account to an inscription on the wall[17].

Chapter XIV. What advantages the president has to possess

… The destiny sent them only a case that is supplied with material, which could give any form: be not such case, their valor would die away, without having found applications; do not possess they valor, the case vainly would be.

Niccolo Machiavelli

The first that it should be noted, speaking about personal qualities of the president, they have to correspond to his work – conducting wars which send society and the state to a mainstream of world development, the organization of creative intensity for the people and elite, reduction of infantility and creation of conditions of self-realization for everyone. Then the most part of the population will support the adopted laws, the conducted reforms, and actions of external forces will be predictable. If such situation is associated with the identity of the president, he can constantly speak himself at official actions to the applause of people around or for months to have a rest in the residences, without being shown on public, all the same progress of society will proceed. So, Ronald Reagan who was calling himself the idler and, really, not suffering from workaholism entered the five of the most popular U.S. Presidents. Since 1980, at coming to power, it began carrying out the reforms, a so-called Reaganomics stimulating a final demand. Then, after many years of crisis in the USA economic expansion began, inflation fell from 12 % to 4 %, many Americans again believed in the opportunities. Anyway, these reforms were demanded by many people, large business, military industrial complex. New round of Cold war, begun by the president, set tension to the state and military device of the USA. At such situation, Reagan quite could work only four hours in day and long you – to go on the ranches in California.

Only the few are given rise for the power; such, having received it, remain joyful and healthy.

Hermann Hesse, German writer

Even successfully waging the necessary wars, having avoided hatred or contempt of the people, the president to neglect not a dale wives personal influence. It has authority already because on – is gone at top of the power, it is unimportant, whether he is chosen by the people, parliament, whether came to the power as a result of a military coup, or even is appointed occupation troops. Something in it is such that allocates it from other applicants. The main thing – constantly to support this authority. It will fall, according to the Second law of governing, – the political power deals with requirements of society as whole, and everyone wants from whole something own. Therefore, presidential race does not end, and, in fact, begins with arrival to the power. As the Black Queen in "Through the Looking-Glass" reminds: "To remain on a place, it is necessary to run and to go forward, it is necessary to run twice quicker". Even monarchic or other totalitarian governing demands continuous advance.

Personal courage, energy, the drive distinguish future ruler from among possible applicants. President in any way not the servant of these or those forces or, more precisely, not only servant. Courage is more than that, valor are necessary that effect of one personality were had among with actions of the major internal and external forces. Only then, the president has an opportunity to operate people, to begin the wars, reforms which are partially exempting him from laws and putting him above ordinary citizens. Truly and the return. From all possible applicants levers of the higher authority have only a person who can operate them.

When you rise up, you will meet many different people. Do not offend them because you will meet all of them once again when you fall down.

Ozzie Ozborn

However, valor is a necessary, but insufficient condition for the ruler. One of the most famous characters in stories – the Lion-Heart was the great knight, the bad military leader and the dull king of England. Judge, what bravery and force it possessed if a smog, at a city siege in Cyprus, together with other knight, at night to take city gate, to open them and to protect from enemy soldiers until his own troops did not get for walls. Thus, having appeared at the head of the enormous joint Christian army of the Third crusade, he not only did not win Jerusalem, but also anything strategic did not make to keep Middle Eastern lands. The king got money for the campaigns, devastating treasury and ruining the state, he actually sold England to minions – the former clerk Lonshan and his relatives.

The sovereign has to be a strategist, and Richard was to tactics; persistence is necessary for it, and the king was stubborn; the endurance is necessary, and Lion's Heart was hardy only physically. He smashed enemies in a set of duels, won some victories in fights and did not win any war.

In that case, what else qualities except valor are necessary for the president? Inhabitants usually consider that a necessary component of success – luck. Thus, believe that good luck is blind and only incidentally to the person the necessary chance for which it is necessary to wait drops out. This cardinal error. If good luck does not see someone, it does not mean that it is blind. Certainly, if you play on money in a lottery, it is difficult for it to make out names – but you among thousands and thousands of others, so to say, very thoughtless people. But if you work – and work hard – twelve hours in day seven days in not – I divide within several years; good luck cannot but come to you.

The politician has to be able to foretell that will occur tomorrow, in a week, in a month and in a year; and then to explain why it did not occur.

Winston Churchill

Also and with presidency: good luck sees only the one who wants and can see it. The prize in presidential race, success in a military coup, advance in ruling party to a post of the chairman are results of many years of hard work at office, headquarters, a military staff … The reasons of personal success of the leaders of China who are replaced according to the plan and, for example, the elected presidents of France are identical in the sense that leadership crystallizes long before arrival of the person to the power. It is perfected in internal fight, in interparty, in fight in clans, in staffs, in work in a revolutionary underground or emigres, and never – in public places. On streets, in pothouses, on the Internet revolt can be born, but the leader cannot be created. There simply are no conditions for long-term work, there is no opportunity to temper valor in silent, but cruel fights on the way up.

Especially brightly, it is visible on the example of the highest government of the USA, where whether more eyelids presidents becomes congressmen, or rulers of states. Their former posts mean long-term experience in the highest government, as each state of the USA – actually small developed country with the law, the budget and internal problems. And no wonder that how election programs differed, after inauguration presidents make similar actions at the new position. Experience prompts them the unique, pragmatically acts.

By the way, therefore "the third force" in the countries with the developed two-party system seldom comes to the power: her leaders simply have no necessary experience, are weaker than hardworking competitors.

Let many petty and dumping politicians wait for a case that will uplift them on top of an imperious Olympus. This empty occupation as the case looks for nobody, and himself waits for the valorous. Only valor has to be expressed including in permanent, long and successful job. It is possible to call these indispensable conditions the Third law of governing.

Known example – brothers Ulyanov. Alexander, the brilliant student of the Petersburg university, received a gold medal for scientific work on zoology, studying on a third year of physical and mathematical faculty, thus was unanimously chosen as the chief secretary of the Petersburg scientific and literary (!) society, also created and headed a student biological circle … Perhaps, the desire to solve everything and at once and in policy led it to thought of attempt at the tsar Alexander III in 1887. He sold the gold medal to buy explosive[18], but was arrested and executed.

His brother Vladimir Ulyanov (alias Lenin) of a bomb did not begin to do. External having graduated from the same Petersburg university, it began the political activity with theoretical works on political economy, with adjustment of contacts with Marxist circles; further there were more than twenty years of work – organizational, underground, emigrant, creation and split of parties, political movements, a gap with old and finding of new allies. And so, "some other way", but not through revolts and meetings, it is possible to become valid the leader – the leader of revolution, the government, state.

Of course, there are also exceptions. During crisis of a governing which happens practically in any country, in power there can be very strange and not so valorous people. Let's take Ancient Rome – there during decline by emperors there were such persons as Heliogabalus, who established human sacrifices on all empire, or Didius Julianus who got a throne of Caesars for a bribe big, than could give others. And dissolute private life, and shameful death of these and many other emperors of the II–III century AD show fading of the empire. In the contemporary history it is necessary to remember Gorbachev and Yushchenko who used the office situation for payment of credibility issued to them by some countries of the first type. Practically it is not visible the European Council president. It, it seems, has to take in a world rating a place near leaders of the USA, China, Japan as the high-ranking official of the EU. That fact that about it not only very few people know, but also, the main thing very few people want to know something, shows political friability of the European Union.

It should be noted that always conditions of the First law of governing are stronger than the Third. There are cases when the valorous sovereign can make nothing if his country is doomed: affect or external factors (strong conquerors, natural disasters), or historically the country does not fit into the general stream. At the end of the XII century the Jerusalem kingdom created on the lands seized by Christians of the Middle East collapsed because of blows of armies of Salаdin[19] and internal conflicts. The kingdom did not become the homeland for most of Muslims as they perceived Christian barons as oppressors strangers. There was no it native and for knights Templars, Teutons, Hospitaliers who served, first of all, the award. As a matter of fact, there was a deficiency of the patriots wishing to serve the state. On a twist of fate at this time Baldwin IV who was also decaying alive from leprosy became the king in Jerusalem. However fatally sick young man (he came to the throne in 14 years) showed character worthy the ruler. He rushed about over all country, giving battle behind battle to armies of Muslim lords; sent embassies for the help to Europe, tried to stop arbitrariness of barons. When at it from leprosy phalanxes of fingers disappeared, it reeled up horse reins on wrists. When face skin was finally spoiled, put on a veil. The destiny has a kind feeling to courage, and the dying Baldwin IV got chance to break Saladin. When that with small army appeared far from the borders, the king who already went blind from leprosy managed to collect big army. It be able to head personally it, years of life of the well-known Saladin would be perhaps shorter, and Jerusalem would remain with Christians still some time. However both the country, and Baldwin's army too were weakened, there was a political decomposition. Barons shamefully missed chance to destroy the main enemy of the kingdom. In two years after this king's death Saladin's army took Jerusalem.

Generally speaking, the power does not spoil people, but fools when they in power, spoil the power.

Bernard Shaw

Only if the first person of the country considers all laws of governing and a consequence from them, it can become really successful, only then the period of his governing can call safe.

* * *

Now we will consider incentive motives for the person to hold the top post of the state. To what it is possible to compare I lust after the Supreme power? Whether is it a certain force, removes all human and giving rise the monsters ready on everything for the sake of the power? At least, such having appeared often ordinary citizens remember, discussing actions of rulers. Here comparison with large business will help. Whether thirst of money, riches the main is a main reason of activity of billionaires? Whether absolutely their desire to serve a golden calf? Most of the richest people for example entering lists of the magazine Forbes, nevertheless adequately treat wealth, use it for self-realization and self-affirmation. The Supreme power provides to the personality a scope for self-realization and self-affirmation.

Influence of the Supreme power on the identity of her owner can be shown and on other example. Presidency is impossible without this or that war. Veterans of bloody wars, for example World War II, often say that at the front all best and worst traits of character are shown. If there is a rottenness in the person, it either disappears, or absorbs him entirely. Also and power: it increases deep qualities of the personality, and hardly the person controls this process. Here as will carry…

It is necessary to tell some words about charisma of the president. Absolutely not necessarily the head of state has to sit important at meetings, thoughtfully and wisely smile to fellow citizens. Let's imagine, for example, the pugnacious ruler. It is quite possible. Such bright leader as Hugo Ch #225;vez quite could call the American president a devil and publicly be christened when heard his name. But notice, these actions – part of a political image. The president of Venezuela even did not begin to come so far in communication with other leaders during the Ecuadorian-Colombian crisis when heads of the countries of Latin America exchanged rough mutual recriminations and there was a threat of close war. And unless it is possible to present that it was publicly called and the prime minister of Japan behaved extremely directly, for example? For it such behavior would be madness whereas for Chavez it was demonstration of independence of the course chosen by it. A variety of characters of the state leaders in the modern world is quite admissible within their personal culture. Now presidents results of their actions equalize among themselves not expression of persons at the summits, and. The results developing in the general stream of world political and economic development.

The most ridiculous desire is a desire to be pleasant to all.

I.V. Goethe

Important component of charisma of any president – the conviction stated to them publicly in correctness of the actions. On the other hand, doubts are necessary to make a right choice. Therefore have the right to doubt and even advisers to the president have to, they can represent different options of actions, however the president to call obliged the decision to the best.

The head of state definitely should use rare grains of the general positive spirit – to be before television cameras during fixing of sports victories, opening of productions, exhibitions. And if to the identity of the president the spiteful criticism is distributed, it is necessary to be positive to it and even most publicly to speak about it. It is necessary to remember Confucius's words: "If they spit in your back, you ahead".

I will separately stop on a question of a monetary allowance and remuneration of the president. It at all is not expressed – and this main thing – in finance or in other capital especially received when rendering illegal services to business (that is corruption), or in privileges which he to himself appointed during presidency. The widespread mistake of many rulers of the countries of the third type which seized upon the power – to drag under himself, in the family everything what the president can only reach as though he is the mercenary shopkeeper who appeared before a heap of coins. To the state leader who behaves as the shopkeeper, and the relation in the world and in the country, will be as to the shopkeeper, irrespective of his achievements in another matters. Almost any ruler is already rich with the power which puts him on the level of world elite (of course, depending on type, from the importance of his country, but after all in world elite), and it means that it has access to all benefits and chance which the modern civilization gives.

And that is important, such non-financial capital remains and quite often increases and after presidency. So, Jimmy Carter after resignation received Nobel Peace Prize and is now better known and we accept in the different countries, even in Asia, than during the quite dim presidency.

Chapter XV. For what reasons there is a change of the ruler and his course

People, believing that the new ruler will be better, willingly rise against old, but soon they learn by experience that were deceived because the new ruler is always worse than the old.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Rulers change both in democratic, and in the authoritative states. To understand why the president is displaced, we will look why he is supported.

It would seem, voters, as a rule, do not read an election program. Pre-election rollers eulogize all applicants. Why trust one ruler, and to another is not present? Again we come back to the main function of one-man management in the modern world – to provide the accelerated development of the country, the best place in a civilization mainstream. When the people ready to work, interested in normal life see correctness of a course, success of the happening changes, they can forgive flaws of the power and choose further and even to protect the leader, hoping for the further positive course of affairs in the country.

Of course, progress in development of the country provides not only president, but first of all people, all society. However the president in some sense vitamin for society. Just as at a lack of vitamins the organism if the president is weak, too under control to parliament decays, cannot control political forces, generally, if it small is necessary, the probability of emergence peculiar "a social scurvy" is high. Acts of terrorism in the quietest countries of Northern Europe, the long unstable provision of the governments in East Europe (around 2011) are symptoms of an illness of society. On the other hand, the reality such is that the successful president, strong "vitamin", tries to remain for a long time, and society, as well as a live organism, gets used to it and starts demanding the new.

If the old ruler was good, new, naturally, it seems by contrast bad and if old was bad, by that are laid hopes on the new. All this consequences of the Second law of governing. And unless it is possible to equal all hopes? Expectations of people influence process of change of the ruler and his course. Earlier the monarch of years forty could rule the country. Happened successfully. But now even ten years of constant governing are already much as even if life in the country is good, in roughly changing world simply good life satisfies not everyone. Many think: what would be if the power was another? Start dreaming of even better life which, undoubtedly, would come if the new ruler came.

Helmut Kohl was in power 16 years, the prime minister of Canada William King with a small break spent quarter of the century to positions. In France the five-year term of governing is legislatively established (earlier – seven years), but thus presidency can last beyond all bounds, so, Charles de Gaulle remained a ruler actually 30 years. The wheel of the state of nearly 17 years had Silvio Berlusconi. And what is a result? Simply were tired of them: from one person, even so strong as Kohl, in 16 years will be tired any people, even such stable as Germans.

In life of the certain person there are peculiar reference points – events on which, looking back, he estimates the life. It most often school, first work, creation of a family… It is possible to be rather poor, but happy with the destiny if in the past there was for the sake of what it was worth living or if the result is accurately defined: house, children, own business. Otherwise the person, it is as if good he lived, rolls down in a depression.

You can be not politicize, all the same the policy is still engaged in you.

Charles Montalamber, French writer and politician

V. S. Chernomyrdin

The same happens and to society. The events dividing a life stream into pieces which can be compared, for example – before war and after, to and during an era of the Internet before crisis are necessary for the people. Earlier, during an era of wars, revolutions, epidemics which were considerably changing life, such problems were not. Now there is not a lot of bloody wars affecting the population of the countries of the first type, and emergence of technical achievements is perceived already around the world as something self-evident. Therefore often there is a feeling of stagnation, and society rolls down in a peculiar political depression. From possible sign changes people need to wait first of all for change of the Supreme power.

Therefore the president can govern most long, not causing rapid growth of discontent, only, if there are memorable positive events at this time. Helmut Kohl such event had a reunification of Germany. If is not present bright political successes, it is necessary to give the political color to technological breaks, financial progress if only they allowed ordinary citizens to a thicket to divide the past on "to" and "after".

However, often the president pushes to change of the power society. Military know that at the observer who is long watching the opponent "sight is hackneyed". He does not notice obvious changes in a picture, habitual for it, but sees phantoms which are generated by his own consciousness.

If you hold an elephant by a hind leg, and he is trying to escape, that best is to set him free.

Abraham Lincoln

Only the new person can estimate a new view the happening changes. As well the politician who is long in power: he can fight against the phenomena, in effect safe for the power in general and presidential in particular, and not to notice direct danger. The ruler creates something that works. And then circumstances change, and it should consider changes to force society and government to work further, and it so is occupied with it that does not understand that it would be better to organize new system to cope with new circumstances.

The most experienced politician, Italian prime minister Berlusconi up to the end did not want to see the crisis phenomena in the economy and society of Italy which became aggravated at the end of 2009. He considered that his country well leaves crisis of 2008, and persistently declared to the people: "There is a lot of tourists, restaurants are full, the salary is stable". Of course, position of Italy, in comparison with Spain and the more so Greece, was better at that date, but the clouds condensed over it saw, seemingly, everything how many – be shrewd politicians, except the head of state. Yes that Berlusconi, somewhat night blindness struck all rulers of the European Union, in an emphasis who were not noticing in the middle of zero years of the approaching financial crisis of the EU and the Eurozone.

On the other hand, often the president begins active fight against politically harmless oppositional, religious or youth trends. He often sincerely hopes to protect the state from their influence. But battles to phantoms in war which advantage, on – troubles does not bring. So, the course of the last presidents of Poland on upholding of Catholic values, constant desire to limit sexual minorities, to forbid abortions and to that similar, will bother most of citizens sooner or later, not speaking already about constant friction with the super liberal commissions of the EU in Brussels.

In the modern world even more often change of the leader of the state results from revolts, revolutions, performances against the mode and against the president, even duly elected. While it concerns only the countries of the third type, there is a danger to the countries of the second type, but the general tendency on increase in radical actions can extend and on the countries of the first type soon. There the movement of antiglobalists, and now and the movement "Occupy the Wall Street" which gave clones "Occupy something", you will not call especially peace any more.

Performances will be always, in this or that look, in catacombs or barracks, on meetings or on the Internet. The main issue – whether they are dangerous to the power? How to understand, protests against activity of the president are powerless, let and spiteful concussions of air or not? And support of the Supreme power this or that part of society – whether a structure on sand?

There is a peculiar marker which can be applied to sectors of society and certain people to define their relation to sharp change of the power. It is necessary to induce the social majority to answer a question: whether they have thanks to this or that politician, party, something what will not refuse, once it having received? So, the French revolution destroyed a class inequality, and it will not return back any more; opportunity to live, be enriched irrespective of the right of the birth was need of people of Modern times. For the sake of such freedom French supported even dictatorship and mad wars of Napoleon.

By the way, I will note that revolution legalizes all evolutional changes which in the present world are saved quickly. Therefore, the ruler has to conduct the revolution, that is, in our terminology, wage the wars legalizing evolutional changes. It too compliance to the First law of governing, and conducting such continuous revolution (not to confuse to idea of permanent revolution of Trotsky) – one of basis tasks of the president if he wants to remain a president. At last, it is necessary to remember that not only the spiritual beginning directs people. In many cases also the animal part human "I" is shown. If to consider society as big pack, the president irrespective of, the man it or the woman, is in it a leader. It means that at the subconscious level many other members of pack (subject the monarch, citizens of the republic) comfortably perceive themselves as subordinates, only if feel strength of the leader. If it does not show it – behavior, new wars, charisma, "subject citizens" subconsciously feel need to displace it, to finish with it. And the power is stronger and the ruler, the more this desire is weaker. Let's remember at least a classical example of politically weak cardinal Mazarini. The accruing sneering and spiteful attitude to it became one of the pushes which called Opposition (somebody would try to show contempt for his predecessor – to the cardinal Richelieu …). Mazarini was the actual ruler of France during an absolutism era, but on leadership skills did not correspond to an absolutism.

Eventually, laws of pack mention apolitical segments of the population and even those to whom the governing of the president brings benefit. So, by the time of coming to power of Hosni Mubarak, in the early eighties the last century, in Egypt was no more than a third competent. By the time of the sad end of his governing of 90 % of the population was able to read and write. That now will be with the state education system in this country – unclear. In days of economic and political perturbations the animal feeling can become stronger than logic, and each president has to remember it.

Of course, democratic elections seldom allow to bring a situation to physical violence with the weak or weakened head of state as, for example, it happened in Libya to Gaddafi (for the reasons, of course, objective). But even the president of the democratic country is not insured from punishment which can expect him in his own party or group which brought him to power when it will weaken. And such silent dismantling break the former president and his relatives, is not worse, than physical torture.

The worthless person always fascinates common people Euripedes In this way successfully Bill Clinton after an adventure from Monica Lewinski, stories which consequences threatened with resignation behaved: it began the real hot war in Yugoslavia, on other continent, war with blood, corpses and a grief, let small, but victorious "machismo" was confirmed, Americans calmed down.

By the way, the Third law of governing can be added – the president has to seize instincts of his society, use them for the movement of society in a mainstream which too in many respects develops subconsciously.

In general emotionally intense attitude towards the leader – an indicator of infantilism of society. The hope, "here will arrive the ruler, the ruler will judge us", forces the people to estimate work of the president, to define, whether it suits for a role of the owner responsible for subordinates, by means of instincts, but not reason.

Emotionally not intense attitude towards the president – an indicator of a public maturity. Thus in our difficult, dynamic days the close attention to his work, behavior, an image is inevitable.

Appendix

Let's define the general conditions of removal of the president, for example, during the next elections and arrival to the Supreme power of opposition forces.

It is possible to deceive part of the people all the time, and all people some time, but it is impossible to deceive all people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

It is necessary to estimate, whether the incumbent president promotes presence of the country at a civilization mainstream. Whether wars for acceleration of economic development are waged, whether each citizen or, at least, active part of society has opportunity to take in them part. Whether it is subjected to criticism previous power. Respectively, the opposition party (the national movement, the army preparing revolution) has to put forward ideas which implementation will improve position of the country in a stream of development and will unite society. Let it will be the most general ideas, but they have to be.

Simply on naked criticism not to receive the power. At least because not to receive funds for his achievement: no financial institution within the country will be put in business which will damage it to development because assumes return of invested funds. If the new president is professionally unsuitable, those who is put in him, will lose more, than having put on former ruler[20].

Further, having defined possibilities of acceleration of the country in the general stream of development, the opposition has to declare, without reality of course, about the planned wars pro, wars with fast result. It is extremely desirable to show examples of the positive work. It is good if it is unambiguously successful experience of the ruler, the large businessman. But, generally, also the victory in this or that war, successful party construction will approach. War contra – against the acting ruler, has to go constantly, on the accruing.

The problem of change of the power is facilitated by rather long finding of the incumbent president at a wheel. Under the Second law of governing of the critic of his actions will only accrue. However, the president can intercept an initiative, having become himself opposition, having headed the revolution on introduction of the collected changes, the benefit, he has more than opportunities.

It is extremely necessary to consider percent of infantiles among those who supports opposition. If there is a lot of them, the opposition should reflect on change of slogans and style of work. It is necessary that bulk of citizens, and not just participants of network policy would agree with consequences of wars and reforms which will begin in new governing.

At last, the Third law of governing demands from opposition to offer the skilled politician for a role of future president. The people feel, whether there corresponds a personality to that post for which she applies, and in one way or another, democratic or power, will tear away improper candidates for sovereigns, even on the forced populism or even on bayonets they long will not keep.

Conclusion

We attract on ourselves hatred, doing both kind, and evil.

Niccolo Machiavelli

"Very rich people are not similar to us", – Scott Fitzgerald wrote. Whether it is possible to carry these words to presidents, whether "very masterful men" are similar to ordinary citizens? A question not idle – in our quickly darkening times of action and results of actions of the Supreme power have the strongest impact on the state, on private life, on our destiny. We need to know that stands behind decisions of the person – the ruler and to foresee possible consequences, then it will only be possible to look more surely in the future and to meet changes, whatever they were.

That is necessary for us after the end of cold war, is obviously terrible ideological enemy… which would unite us in opposition to it.

Irving Kristol, founder of the American neoconservatism

As shown in the book, the main influence on actions of sovereigns and the past and the present renders laws of governing: The first law – the president has to promote the successful movement of his country in a mainstream of development of a civilization, he is obliged to act so that society maintained world race. By and large, it does not differ from a task of lords of former centuries – to expand and strengthen the power.

Only the power amplifies not others territories, but involvement of the country in world financial, technological, information streams now. Growth of a standard of living, opportunity for self-realization of citizens, more light contacts between people in and out of the country is a consequence of it.

According to the Second law, "in policy on all you will not please". In other words, always there is a discrepancy between general result of the state actions and private hopes for it. And eventually the number unsatisfied only grows. Consequences of the Second law – need of criticism of predecessors, searches guilty, objectively increasing force of oppositional currents, an ingratitude of the people.

The third law – the leader of the state has to correspond on personal qualities to the post, consider the changes happening in world around and to study himself. The condition this, it seems, very simple, means that incidentally people rulers do not become. Experience accumulation to some extent guarantees that, even starting the most serious wars and reforms, the ruler will consider interests of various layers of the society. In it is hope for sanity of the power.

The third law also cuts big group of the people wishing to saddle fate from the power; it both note rebels, and the small people with big ambitions who are going to escape hurriedly "in napoleons". They are in any society. Anything, except dully carried out mutinies, bloody revolts, from this it is impossible.

Separately has to tell that consequences from laws of governing resolve an issue of criterion of moral in the highest governing. It would seem if the moral and political practice do not coincide, what showed Machiavelli five hundred years ago how it is possible to compare the different modes, times do not exist a human measure of the political relations? We speak, totalitarian Hitlerite Germany it is bad. Badly in relation to what? In relation to the British empire, by the XX century which saddled the half-world? The name of Machiavelli therefore is used usually in negative sense as his pragmatic approach to the power excludes application to policy and politicians of universal concepts "well" and "badly"…

But if we start using concept of a mainstream about what I wrote from chapter 2, – a stream of the general development, unreliable, and, so bad, is that power which does not correspond to it.

The tsar has to remember three things: that he controls people, that he is obliged to control them according to laws, and that he will have power not eternally.

Euripedes

The same totalitarianism long since was the usual mode of governing at the different people – a monarchy, oligarchical dictatorship. Throughout centuries the absolute majority considered natural division of people under the terms of the birth: on free and slaves, noblemen, bourgeoisie, serfs, on skin color or on religion of their families. But eventually the civilization changed, the division of people which is foreordained since the birth began to contradict its development. The value of the personality increased, concepts of humanity gained the big public, economic and political importance. Therefore when totalitarianism arose in the XX century in the center advanced (for that time) European continent, dividing people on a nationality into the highest and the lowest, it appeared a medieval rudiment. It existence did not meet new conditions of a mainstream of a civilization, and it had to be destroyed.

I will note that division of concepts of moral of the person and moral of the person invested by the Supreme power follows from the existence of laws of governing. Words, attempts and actions are covering a person in colours of moral evaluation. But for the ruler the moral assessment belongs not to actions, and to results of his actions on society. These results depend not only on intentions and executions, but also from objective laws of governing. Therefore estimates – the human person and the head of the Supreme power, generally, do not coincide. The good, kind person and the good, kind ruler are not same. Moreover, under the Second law of governing the assessment of the ruler anyway changes eventually. For this reason I tried to show working conditions of the president without instruction in the book on that, what he is as the person and what views he adheres: sacred it or rascal, liberal or anarchist…

Unlike Machiavelli considering that "people are angry and will always behave according to the malicious nature as soon as such chance is presented to them", I am sure that a voice of the people – the God's voice. God – the highest morals therefore any actions of the president if he aspires to that most of his citizens and now, and lived in distant prospect as are positive it is possible better, thus lived with feeling of safety, self-realization. Then it is absolutely unimportant what exactly pushes the ruler on performance of these tasks: love to mankind, desire as it is possible to remain more long in the authorities or dictatorial bents. We do not have business to his thoughts before going to bed.

Laws of governing are necessary, but are insufficient for successful governing. So, knowledge of laws of aerodynamics and equipment are still insufficient to be the good pilot. Therefore the most part of the book is occupied by the description of levers of the power and conditions of their application.

So, in the treatise I considered actions and that is important, results of actions of the president during the work with different political forces, in the different states and in different situations. I described methods thanks to which it is possible to find the reasons and to define consequences of political events. Therefore I consider that the task of this book – to give the chance of objective and productive understanding of actions of modern sovereigns – is executed. And who can be guided in rough events of our hard time, that is armed against his adversities.

Nicсolo Machiavelli

The Prince

DEDICATION

To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are

accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most

precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one

often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and

similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness.

Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with

some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among

my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so

much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by

long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of

antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and

prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to

your Magnificence.

And although I may consider this work unworthy of your

countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity that it

may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a

better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in

the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and

with so many troubles and dangers; which work I have not

embellished with swelling or magnificent words, nor stuffed with

rounded periods, nor with any extrinsic allurements or adornments

whatever, with which so many are accustomed to embellish their

works; for I have wished either that no honour should be given it,

or else that the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the

theme shall make it acceptable.

Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presumption if a man

of low and humble condition dare to discuss and settle the

concerns of princes; because, just as those who draw landscapes

place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of

the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the

plains place themselves upon high mountains, even so to understand

the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to

understand that of princes it needs to be of the people.

Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit in

which I send it; wherein, if it be diligently read and considered

by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you should attain

that greatness which fortune and your other attributes promise.

And if your Magnificence from the summit of your greatness will

sometimes turn your eyes to these lower regions, you will see how

unmeritedly I suffer a great and continued malignity of fortune.

CHAPTER I. HOW MANY KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES THERE ARE, AND BY WHAT MEANS THEY ARE ACQUIRED

All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.

Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.

The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.

Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

CHAPTER II. CONCERNING HEREDITARY PRINCIPALITIES

I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.

I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.

We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in '84, nor those of Pope Julius in '10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.

CHAPTER III. CONCERNING MIXED PRINCIPALITIES

But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition.

In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.

For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico's own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was enough for the Duke Lodovico[21] to raise insurrections on the borders; but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.

Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.

Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and, although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.

But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.

The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.

Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to those subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.

The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with[22] the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. This it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them, there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is for ever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time:-Let us enjoy the benefits of the time-but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.

King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a foothold in Italy, and having no friends there-seeing rather that every door was shut to him owing to the conduct of Charles-he was forced to accept those friendships which he could get, and he would have succeeded very quickly in his design if in other matters he had not made some mistakes. The king, however, having acquired Lombardy, regained at once the authority which Charles had lost: Genoa yielded; the Florentines became his friends; the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivogli, my lady of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, of Pesaro, of Rimini, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucchese, the Pisans, the Sienese-everybody made advances to him to become his friend. Then could the Venetians realize the rashness of the course taken by them, which, in order that they might secure two towns in Lombardy, had made the king master of two-thirds of Italy.

Let any one now consider with what little difficulty the king could have maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and kept all his friends secure and protected; for although they were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church, some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have been forced to stand in with him, and by their means he could easily have made himself secure against those who remained powerful. But he was no sooner in Milan than he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And 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 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[23] 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.

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 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 it 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.

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 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 successors had been united they would have enjoyed it securely and at their ease, for there were no tumults raised in the kingdom except those they provoked themselves.

But it is impossible to hold with such tranquillity states constituted like that of France. Hence arose those frequent rebellions against the Romans in Spain, France, and Greece, owing to the many principalities there were in these states, of which, as long as the memory of them endured, the Romans always held an insecure possession; but with the power and long continuance of the empire the memory of them passed away, and the Romans then became secure possessors. And when fighting afterwards amongst themselves, each one was able to attach to himself his own parts of the country, according to the authority he had assumed there; and the family of the former lord being exterminated, none other than the Romans were acknowledged.

When these things are remembered no one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the Empire of Asia, or at the difficulties which others have had to keep an acquisition, such as Pyrrhus and many more; this is not occasioned by the little or abundance of ability in the conqueror, but by the want of uniformity in the subject state.

CHAPTER V. CONCERNING THE WAY TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES WHICH LIVED UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED

Whenever those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his friendship and interest, and does it utmost to support him; and therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.

There are, for example, the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes, establishing there an oligarchy, nevertheless they lost them. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. So to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as Pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the Florentines.

But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to reside there.

CHAPTER VI. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED BY ONE'S OWN ARMS AND ABILITY

Let no one be surprised if, in speaking of entirely new principalities as I shall do, I adduce the highest examples both of prince and of state; because men, walking almost always in paths beaten by others, and following by imitation their deeds, are yet unable to keep entirely to the ways of others or attain to the power of those they imitate. A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it. Let him act like the clever archers who, designing to hit the mark which yet appears too far distant, and knowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim much higher than the mark, not to reach by their strength or arrow to so great a height, but to be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish to reach.

I say, therefore, that in entirely new principalities, where there is a new prince, more or less difficulty is found in keeping them, accordingly as there is more or less ability in him who has acquired the state. Now, as the fact of becoming a prince from a private station presupposes either ability or fortune, it is clear that one or other of these things will mitigate in some degree many difficulties. Nevertheless, he who has relied least on fortune is established the strongest. Further, it facilitates matters when the prince, having no other state, is compelled to reside there in person.

But to come to those who, by their own ability and not through fortune, have risen to be princes, I say that Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and such like are the most excellent examples. And although one may not discuss Moses, he having been a mere executor of the will of God, yet he ought to be admired, if only for that favour which made him worthy to speak with God. But in considering Cyrus and others who have acquired or founded kingdoms, all will be found admirable; and if their particular deeds and conduct shall be considered, they will not be found inferior to those of Moses, although he had so great a preceptor. And in examining their actions and lives one cannot see that they owed anything to fortune beyond opportunity, which brought them the material to mould into the form which seemed best to them. Without that opportunity their powers of mind would have been extinguished, and without those powers the opportunity would have come in vain.

It was necessary, therefore, to Moses that he should find the people of Israel in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians, in order that they should be disposed to follow him so as to be delivered out of bondage. It was necessary that Romulus should not remain in Alba, and that he should be abandoned at his birth, in order that he should become King of Rome and founder of the fatherland. It was necessary that Cyrus should find the Persians discontented with the government of the Medes, and the Medes soft and effeminate through their long peace. Theseus could not have shown his ability had he not found the Athenians dispersed. These opportunities, therefore, made those men fortunate, and their high ability enabled them to recognize the opportunity whereby their country was ennobled and made famous.

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it rise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.

If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long-as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe. Therefore such as these have great difficulties in consummating their enterprise, for all their dangers are in the ascent, yet with ability they will overcome them; but when these are overcome, and those who envied them their success are exterminated, they will begin to be respected, and they will continue afterwards powerful, secure, honoured, and happy.

To these great examples I wish to add a lesser one; still it bears some resemblance to them, and I wish it to suffice me for all of a like kind: it is Hiero the Syracusan[24]. This man rose from a private station to be Prince of Syracuse, nor did he, either, owe anything to fortune but opportunity; for the Syracusans, being oppressed, chose him for their captain, afterwards he was rewarded by being made their prince. He was of so great ability, even as a private citizen, that one who writes of him says he wanted nothing but a kingdom to be a king. This man abolished the old soldiery, organized the new, gave up old alliances, made new ones; and as he had his own soldiers and allies, on such foundations he was able to build any edifice: thus, whilst he had endured much trouble in acquiring, he had but little in keeping.

CHAPTER VII. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE ARMS OF OTHERS OR BY GOOD FORTUNE

Those who solely by good fortune become princes from being private citizens have little trouble in rising, but much in keeping atop; they have not any difficulties on the way up, because they fly, but they have many when they reach the summit. Such are those to whom some state is given either for money or by the favour of him who bestows it; as happened to many in Greece, in the cities of Ionia and of the Hellespont, where princes were made by Darius, in order that they might hold the cities both for his security and his glory; as also were those emperors who, by the corruption of the soldiers, from being citizens came to empire. Such stand simply elevated upon the goodwill and the fortune of him who has elevated them-two most inconstant and unstable things. Neither have they the knowledge requisite for the position; because, unless they are men of great worth and ability, it is not reasonable to expect that they should know how to command, having always lived in a private condition; besides, they cannot hold it because they have not forces which they can keep friendly and faithful.

States that rise unexpectedly, then, like all other things in nature which are born and grow rapidly, cannot leave their foundations and correspondencies[25] fixed in such a way that the first storm will not overthrow them; unless, as is said, those who unexpectedly become princes are men of so much ability that they know they have to be prepared at once to hold that which fortune has thrown into their laps, and that those foundations, which others have laid BEFORE they became princes, they must lay AFTERWARDS.

Concerning these two methods of rising to be a prince by ability or fortune, I wish to adduce two examples within our own recollection, and these are Francesco Sforza[26] and Cesare Borgia. Francesco, by proper means and with great ability, from being a private person rose to be Duke of Milan, and that which he had acquired with a thousand anxieties he kept with little trouble. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, called by the people Duke Valentino, acquired his state during the ascendancy of his father, and on its decline he lost it, notwithstanding that he had taken every measure and done all that ought to be done by a wise and able man to fix firmly his roots in the states which the arms and fortunes of others had bestowed on him.

Because, as is stated above, he who has not first laid his foundations may be able with great ability to lay them afterwards, but they will be laid with trouble to the architect and danger to the building. If, therefore, all the steps taken by the duke be considered, it will be seen that he laid solid foundations for his future power, and I do not consider it superfluous to discuss them, because I do not know what better precepts to give a new prince than the example of his actions; and if his dispositions were of no avail, that was not his fault, but the extraordinary and extreme malignity of fortune.

Alexander the Sixth, in wishing to aggrandize the duke, his son, had many immediate and prospective difficulties. Firstly, he did not see his way to make him master of any state that was not a state of the Church; and if he was willing to rob the Church he knew that the Duke of Milan and the Venetians would not consent, because Faenza and Rimini were already under the protection of the Venetians. Besides this, he saw the arms of Italy, especially those by which he might have been assisted, in hands that would fear the aggrandizement of the Pope, namely, the Orsini and the Colonnesi and their following. It behoved him, therefore, to upset this state of affairs and embroil the powers, so as to make himself securely master of part of their states. This was easy for him to do, because he found the Venetians, moved by other reasons, inclined to bring back the French into Italy; he would not only not oppose this, but he would render it more easy by dissolving the former marriage of King Louis. Therefore the king came into Italy with the assistance of the Venetians and the consent of Alexander. He was no sooner in Milan than the Pope had soldiers from him for the attempt on the Romagna, which yielded to him on the reputation of the king. The duke, therefore, having acquired the Romagna and beaten the Colonnesi, while wishing to hold that and to advance further, was hindered by two things: the one, his forces did not appear loyal to him, the other, the goodwill of France: that is to say, he feared that the forces of the Orsini, which he was using, would not stand to him, that not only might they hinder him from winning more, but might themselves seize what he had won, and that the king might also do the same. Of the Orsini he had a warning when, after taking Faenza and attacking Bologna, he saw them go very unwillingly to that attack. And as to the king, he learned his mind when he himself, after taking the Duchy of Urbino, attacked Tuscany, and the king made him desist from that undertaking; hence the duke decided to depend no more upon the arms and the luck of others.

For the first thing he weakened the Orsini and Colonnesi parties in Rome, by gaining to himself all their adherents who were gentlemen, making them his gentlemen, giving them good pay, and, according to their rank, honouring them with office and command in such a way that in a few months all attachment to the factions was destroyed and turned entirely to the duke. After this he awaited an opportunity to crush the Orsini, having scattered the adherents of the Colonna house. This came to him soon and he used it well; for the Orsini, perceiving at length that the aggrandizement of the duke and the Church was ruin to them, called a meeting of the Magione in Perugia. From this sprung the rebellion at Urbino and the tumults in the Romagna, with endless dangers to the duke, all of which he overcame with the help of the French. Having restored his authority, not to leave it at risk by trusting either to the French or other outside forces, he had recourse to his wiles, and he knew so well how to conceal his mind that, by the mediation of Signor Pagolo-whom the duke did not fail to secure with all kinds of attention, giving him money, apparel, and horses-the Orsini were reconciled, so that their simplicity brought them into his power at Sinigalia[27]. Having exterminated the leaders, and turned their partisans into his friends, the duke laid sufficiently good foundations to his power, having all the Romagna and the Duchy of Urbino; and the people now beginning to appreciate their prosperity, he gained them all over to himself. And as this point is worthy of notice, and to be imitated by others, I am not willing to leave it out.

When the duke occupied the Romagna he found it under the rule of weak masters, who rather plundered their subjects than ruled them, and gave them more cause for disunion than for union, so that the country was full of robbery, quarrels, and every kind of violence; and so, wishing to bring back peace and obedience to authority, he considered it necessary to give it a good governor. Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d'Orco[28], a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success. Afterwards the duke considered that it was not advisable to confer such excessive authority, for he had no doubt but that he would become odious, so he set up a court of judgment in the country, under a most excellent president, wherein all cities had their advocates. And because he knew that the past severity had caused some hatred against himself, so, to clear himself in the minds of the people, and gain them entirely to himself, he desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practised, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister. Under this pretence he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed.

But let us return whence we started. I say that the duke, finding himself now sufficiently powerful and partly secured from immediate dangers by having armed himself in his own way, and having in a great measure crushed those forces in his vicinity that could injure him if he wished to proceed with his conquest, had next to consider France, for he knew that the king, who too late was aware of his mistake, would not support him. And from this time he began to seek new alliances and to temporize with France in the expedition which she was making towards the kingdom of Naples against the Spaniards who were besieging Gaeta. It was his intention to secure himself against them, and this he would have quickly accomplished had Alexander lived.

Such was his line of action as to present affairs. But as to the future he had to fear, in the first place, that a new successor to the Church might not be friendly to him and might seek to take from him that which Alexander had given him, so he decided to act in four ways. Firstly, by exterminating the families of those lords whom he had despoiled, so as to take away that pretext from the Pope. Secondly, by winning to himself all the gentlemen of Rome, so as to be able to curb the Pope with their aid, as has been observed. Thirdly, by converting the college more to himself. Fourthly, by acquiring so much power before the Pope should die that he could by his own measures resist the first shock. Of these four things, at the death of Alexander, he had accomplished three. For he had killed as many of the dispossessed lords as he could lay hands on, and few had escaped; he had won over the Roman gentlemen, and he had the most numerous party in the college. And as to any fresh acquisition, he intended to become master of Tuscany, for he already possessed Perugia and Piombino, and Pisa was under his protection. And as he had no longer to study France (for the French were already driven out of the kingdom of Naples by the Spaniards, and in this way both were compelled to buy his goodwill), he pounced down upon Pisa. After this, Lucca and Siena yielded at once, partly through hatred and partly through fear of the Florentines; and the Florentines would have had no remedy had he continued to prosper, as he was prospering the year that Alexander died, for he had acquired so much power and reputation that he would have stood by himself, and no longer have depended on the luck and the forces of others, but solely on his own power and ability.

But Alexander died five years after he had first drawn the sword. He left the duke with the state of Romagna alone consolidated, with the rest in the air, between two most powerful hostile armies, and sick unto death. Yet there were in the duke such boldness and ability, and he knew so well how men are to be won or lost, and so firm were the foundations which in so short a time he had laid, that if he had not had those armies on his back, or if he had been in good health, he would have overcome all difficulties. And it is seen that his foundations were good, for the Romagna awaited him for more than a month. In Rome, although but half alive, he remained secure; and whilst the Baglioni, the Vitelli, and the Orsini might come to Rome, they could not effect anything against him. If he could not have made Pope him whom he wished, at least the one whom he did not wish would not have been elected. But if he had been in sound health at the death of Alexander[29],(*) everything would have been different to him. On the day that Julius the Second(+) was elected, he told me that he had thought of everything that might occur at the death of his father, and had provided a remedy for all, except that he had never anticipated that, when the death did happen, he himself would be on the point to die.

When all the actions of the duke are recalled, I do not know how to blame him, but rather it appears to be, as I have said, that I ought to offer him for imitation to all those who, by the fortune or the arms of others, are raised to government. Because he, having a lofty spirit and far-reaching aims, could not have regulated his conduct otherwise, and only the shortness of the life of Alexander and his own sickness frustrated his designs. Therefore, he who considers it necessary to secure himself in his new principality, to win friends, to overcome either by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, to be followed and revered by the soldiers, to exterminate those who have power or reason to hurt him, to change the old order of things for new, to be severe and gracious, magnanimous and liberal, to destroy a disloyal soldiery and to create new, to maintain friendship with kings and princes in such a way that they must help him with zeal and offend with caution, cannot find a more lively example than the actions of this man.

Only can he be blamed for the election of Julius the Second, in whom he made a bad choice, because, as is said, not being able to elect a Pope to his own mind, he could have hindered any other from being elected Pope; and he ought never to have consented to the election of any cardinal whom he had injured or who had cause to fear him if they became pontiffs. For men injure either from fear or hatred. Those whom he had injured, amongst others, were San Pietro ad Vincula, Colonna, San Giorgio, and Ascanio[30]. The rest, in becoming Pope, had to fear him, Rouen and the Spaniards excepted; the latter from their relationship and obligations, the former from his influence, the kingdom of France having relations with him. Therefore, above everything, the duke ought to have created a Spaniard Pope, and, failing him, he ought to have consented to Rouen and not San Pietro ad Vincula. He who believes that new benefits will cause great personages to forget old injuries is deceived. Therefore, the duke erred in his choice, and it was the cause of his ultimate ruin.

CHAPTER VIII. CONCERNING THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A PRINCIPALITY BY WICKEDNESS

Although a prince may rise from a private station in two ways, neither of which can be entirely attributed to fortune or genius, yet it is manifest to me that I must not be silent on them, although one could be more copiously treated when I discuss republics. These methods are when, either by some wicked or nefarious ways, one ascends to the principality, or when by the favour of his fellow-citizens a private person becomes the prince of his country. And speaking of the first method, it will be illustrated by two examples-one ancient, the other modern-and without entering further into the subject, I consider these two examples will suffice those who may be compelled to follow them.

Agathocles, the Sicilian,(*) became King of Syracuse not only from a private but from a low and abject position. This man, the son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes always led an infamous life. Nevertheless, he accompanied his infamies with so much ability of mind and body that, having devoted himself to the military profession, he rose through its ranks to be Praetor of Syracuse. Being established in that position, and having deliberately resolved to make himself prince and to seize by violence, without obligation to others, that which had been conceded to him by assent, he came to an understanding for this purpose with Amilcar, the Carthaginian, who, with his army, was fighting in Sicily. One morning he assembled the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had to discuss with them things relating to the Republic, and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people; these dead, he seized and held the princedom of that city without any civil commotion. And although he was twice routed by the Carthaginians, and ultimately besieged, yet not only was he able to defend his city, but leaving part of his men for its defence, with the others he attacked Africa, and in a short time raised the siege of Syracuse. The Carthaginians, reduced to extreme necessity, were compelled to come to terms with Agathocles, and, leaving Sicily to him, had to be content with the possession of Africa.

(*) Agathocles the Sicilian, born 361 B.C., died 289 B.C.

Therefore, he who considers the actions and the genius of this man will see nothing, or little, which can be attributed to fortune, inasmuch as he attained pre-eminence, as is shown above, not by the favour of any one, but step by step in the military profession, which steps were gained with a thousand troubles and perils, and were afterwards boldly held by him with many hazardous dangers. Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Still, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, together with his greatness of mind in enduring and overcoming hardships, it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or genius.

In our times, during the rule of Alexander the Sixth, Oliverotto da Fermo, having been left an orphan many years before, was brought up by his maternal uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, and in the early days of his youth sent to fight under Pagolo Vitelli, that, being trained under his discipline, he might attain some high position in the military profession. After Pagolo died, he fought under his brother Vitellozzo, and in a very short time, being endowed with wit and a vigorous body and mind, he became the first man in his profession. But it appearing a paltry thing to serve under others, he resolved, with the aid of some citizens of Fermo, to whom the slavery of their country was dearer than its liberty, and with the help of the Vitelleschi, to seize Fermo. So he wrote to Giovanni Fogliani that, having been away from home for many years, he wished to visit him and his city, and in some measure to look upon his patrimony; and although he had not laboured to acquire anything except honour, yet, in order that the citizens should see he had not spent his time in vain, he desired to come honourably, so would be accompanied by one hundred horsemen, his friends and retainers; and he entreated Giovanni to arrange that he should be received honourably by the Fermians, all of which would be not only to his honour, but also to that of Giovanni himself, who had brought him up.

Giovanni, therefore, did not fail in any attentions due to his nephew, and he caused him to be honourably received by the Fermians, and he lodged him in his own house, where, having passed some days, and having arranged what was necessary for his wicked designs, Oliverotto gave a solemn banquet to which he invited Giovanni Fogliani and the chiefs of Fermo. When the viands and all the other entertainments that are usual in such banquets were finished, Oliverotto artfully began certain grave discourses, speaking of the greatness of Pope Alexander and his son Cesare, and of their enterprises, to which discourse Giovanni and others answered; but he rose at once, saying that such matters ought to be discussed in a more private place, and he betook himself to a chamber, whither Giovanni and the rest of the citizens went in after him. No sooner were they seated than soldiers issued from secret places and slaughtered Giovanni and the rest. After these murders Oliverotto, mounted on horseback, rode up and down the town and besieged the chief magistrate in the palace, so that in fear the people were forced to obey him, and to form a government, of which he made himself the prince. He killed all the malcontents who were able to injure him, and strengthened himself with new civil and military ordinances, in such a way that, in the year during which he held the principality, not only was he secure in the city of Fermo, but he had become formidable to all his neighbours. And his destruction would have been as difficult as that of Agathocles if he had not allowed himself to be overreached by Cesare Borgia, who took him with the Orsini and Vitelli at Sinigalia, as was stated above. Thus one year after he had committed this parricide, he was strangled, together with Vitellozzo, whom he had made his leader in valour and wickedness.

Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities(*) being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is possible to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one's security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves.

(*) Mr Burd suggests that this word probably comes near the

modern equivalent of Machiavelli's thought when he speaks of

"crudelta" than the more obvious "cruelties."

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you for them.

CHAPTER IX. CONCERNING A CIVIL PRINCIPALITY

But coming to the other point-where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens-this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.

A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority. He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not prepared to obey him.

Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because of their being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself, as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles, being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away authority when it pleases him.

Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them, especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in prosperity you honour them, in adversity you do not have to fear them. But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you, and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him.

Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.

Nabis,(*) Prince of the Spartans, sustained the attack of all Greece, and of a victorious Roman army, and against them he defended his country and his government; and for the overcoming of this peril it was only necessary for him to make himself secure against a few, but this would not have been sufficient had the people been hostile. And do not let any one impugn this statement with the trite proverb that "He who builds on the people, builds on the mud," for this is true when a private citizen makes a foundation there, and persuades himself that the people will free him when he is oppressed by his enemies or by the magistrates; wherein he would find himself very often deceived, as happened to the Gracchi in Rome and to Messer Giorgio Scali(+) in Florence. But granted a prince who has established himself as above, who can command, and is a man of courage, undismayed in adversity, who does not fail in other qualifications, and who, by his resolution and energy, keeps the whole people encouraged-such a one will never find himself deceived in them, and it will be shown that he has laid his foundations well.

(*) Nabis, tyrant of Sparta, conquered by the Romans under

Flamininus in 195 B.C.; killed 192 B.C.

(+) Messer Giorgio Scali. This event is to be found in

Machiavelli's "Florentine History," Book III.

These principalities are liable to danger when they are passing from the civil to the absolute order of government, for such princes either rule personally or through magistrates. In the latter case their government is weaker and more insecure, because it rests entirely on the goodwill of those citizens who are raised to the magistracy, and who, especially in troubled times, can destroy the government with great ease, either by intrigue or open defiance; and the prince has not the chance amid tumults to exercise absolute authority, because the citizens and subjects, accustomed to receive orders from magistrates, are not of a mind to obey him amid these confusions, and there will always be in doubtful times a scarcity of men whom he can trust. For such a prince cannot rely upon what he observes in quiet times, when citizens have need of the state, because then every one agrees with him; they all promise, and when death is far distant they all wish to die for him; but in troubled times, when the state has need of its citizens, then he finds but few. And so much the more is this experiment dangerous, inasmuch as it can only be tried once. Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful.

CHAPTER X. CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED

It is necessary to consider another point in examining the character of these principalities: that is, whether a prince has such power that, in case of need, he can support himself with his own resources, or whether he has always need of the assistance of others. And to make this quite clear I say that I consider those who are able to support themselves by their own resources who can, either by abundance of men or money, raise a sufficient army to join battle against any one who comes to attack them; and I consider those always to have need of others who cannot show themselves against the enemy in the field, but are forced to defend themselves by sheltering behind walls. The first case has been discussed, but we will speak of it again should it recur. In the second case one can say nothing except to encourage such princes to provision and fortify their towns, and not on any account to defend the country. And whoever shall fortify his town well, and shall have managed the other concerns of his subjects in the way stated above, and to be often repeated, will never be attacked without great caution, for men are always adverse to enterprises where difficulties can be seen, and it will be seen not to be an easy thing to attack one who has his town well fortified, and is not hated by his people.

The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that every one thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year's eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them.

Therefore, a prince who has a strong city, and had not made himself odious, will not be attacked, or if any one should attack he will only be driven off with disgrace; again, because that the affairs of this world are so changeable, it is almost impossible to keep an army a whole year in the field without being interfered with. And whoever should reply: If the people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget their prince; to this I answer that a powerful and courageous prince will overcome all such difficulties by giving at one time hope to his subjects that the evil will not be for long, at another time fear of the cruelty of the enemy, then preserving himself adroitly from those subjects who seem to him to be too bold.

Further, the enemy would naturally on his arrival at once burn and ruin the country at the time when the spirits of the people are still hot and ready for the defence; and, therefore, so much the less ought the prince to hesitate; because after a time, when spirits have cooled, the damage is already done, the ills are incurred, and there is no longer any remedy; and therefore they are so much the more ready to unite with their prince, he appearing to be under obligations to them now that their houses have been burnt and their possessions ruined in his defence. For it is the nature of men to be bound by the benefits they confer as much as by those they receive. Therefore, if everything is well considered, it will not be difficult for a wise prince to keep the minds of his citizens steadfast from first to last, when he does not fail to support and defend them.

CHAPTER XI. CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES

It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ancient ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them; and they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.

Nevertheless, if any one should ask of me how comes it that the Church has attained such greatness in temporal power, seeing that from Alexander backwards the Italian potentates (not only those who have been called potentates, but every baron and lord, though the smallest) have valued the temporal power very slightly-yet now a king of France trembles before it, and it has been able to drive him from Italy, and to ruin the Venetians-although this may be very manifest, it does not appear to me superfluous to recall it in some measure to memory.

Before Charles, King of France, passed into Italy,(*) this country was under the dominion of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These potentates had two principal anxieties: the one, that no foreigner should enter Italy under arms; the other, that none of themselves should seize more territory. Those about whom there was the most anxiety were the Pope and the Venetians. To restrain the Venetians the union of all the others was necessary, as it was for the defence of Ferrara; and to keep down the Pope they made use of the barons of Rome, who, being divided into two factions, Orsini and Colonnesi, had always a pretext for disorder, and, standing with arms in their hands under the eyes of the Pontiff, kept the pontificate weak and powerless. And although there might arise sometimes a courageous pope, such as Sixtus, yet neither fortune nor wisdom could rid him of these annoyances. And the short life of a pope is also a cause of weakness; for in the ten years, which is the average life of a pope, he can with difficulty lower one of the factions; and if, so to speak, one people should almost destroy the Colonnesi, another would arise hostile to the Orsini, who would support their opponents, and yet would not have time to ruin the Orsini. This was the reason why the temporal powers of the pope were little esteemed in Italy.

(*) Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494.

Alexander the Sixth arose afterwards, who of all the pontiffs that have ever been showed how a pope with both money and arms was able to prevail; and through the instrumentality of the Duke Valentino, and by reason of the entry of the French, he brought about all those things which I have discussed above in the actions of the duke. And although his intention was not to aggrandize the Church, but the duke, nevertheless, what he did contributed to the greatness of the Church, which, after his death and the ruin of the duke, became the heir to all his labours.

Pope Julius came afterwards and found the Church strong, possessing all the Romagna, the barons of Rome reduced to impotence, and, through the chastisements of Alexander, the factions wiped out; he also found the way open to accumulate money in a manner such as had never been practised before Alexander's time. Such things Julius not only followed, but improved upon, and he intended to gain Bologna, to ruin the Venetians, and to drive the French out of Italy. All of these enterprises prospered with him, and so much the more to his credit, inasmuch as he did everything to strengthen the Church and not any private person. He kept also the Orsini and Colonnesi factions within the bounds in which he found them; and although there was among them some mind to make disturbance, nevertheless he held two things firm: the one, the greatness of the Church, with which he terrified them; and the other, not allowing them to have their own cardinals, who caused the disorders among them. For whenever these factions have their cardinals they do not remain quiet for long, because cardinals foster the factions in Rome and out of it, and the barons are compelled to support them, and thus from the ambitions of prelates arise disorders and tumults among the barons. For these reasons his Holiness Pope Leo(*) found the pontificate most powerful, and it is to be hoped that, if others made it great in arms, he will make it still greater and more venerated by his goodness and infinite other virtues.

(*) Pope Leo X was the Cardinal de' Medici.

CHAPTER XII. HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING MERCENARIES

Having discoursed particularly on the characteristics of such principalities as in the beginning I proposed to discuss, and having considered in some degree the causes of their being good or bad, and having shown the methods by which many have sought to acquire them and to hold them, it now remains for me to discuss generally the means of offence and defence which belong to each of them.

We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand;(*) and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

(*) "With chalk in hand," "col gesso." This is one of the

bons mots of Alexander VI, and refers to the ease with

which Charles VIII seized Italy, implying that it was only

necessary for him to send his quartermasters to chalk up the

billets for his soldiers to conquer the country. Cf. "The

History of Henry VII," by Lord Bacon: "King Charles had

conquered the realm of Naples, and lost it again, in a kind

of a felicity of a dream. He passed the whole length of

Italy without resistance: so that it was true what Pope

Alexander was wont to say: That the Frenchmen came into

Italy with chalk in their hands, to mark up their lodgings,

rather than with swords to fight."

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of a captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

Of ancient mercenaries, for example, there are the Carthaginians, who were oppressed by their mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans, although the Carthaginians had their own citizens for captains. After the death of Epaminondas, Philip of Macedon was made captain of their soldiers by the Thebans, and after victory he took away their liberty.

Duke Filippo being dead, the Milanese enlisted Francesco Sforza against the Venetians, and he, having overcome the enemy at Caravaggio,(*) allied himself with them to crush the Milanese, his masters. His father, Sforza, having been engaged by Queen Johanna(+) of Naples, left her unprotected, so that she was forced to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon, in order to save her kingdom. And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto,(%) and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion. Sforza had the Bracceschi always against him, so they watched each other. Francesco turned his ambition to Lombardy; Braccio against the Church and the kingdom of Naples. But let us come to that which happened a short while ago. The Florentines appointed as their captain Pagolo Vitelli, a most prudent man, who from a private position had risen to the greatest renown. If this man had taken Pisa, nobody can deny that it would have been proper for the Florentines to keep in with him, for if he became the soldier of their enemies they had no means of resisting, and if they held to him they must obey him. The Venetians, if their achievements are considered, will be seen to have acted safely and gloriously so long as they sent to war their own men, when with armed gentlemen and plebians they did valiantly. This was before they turned to enterprises on land, but when they began to fight on land they forsook this virtue and followed the custom of Italy. And in the beginning of their expansion on land, through not having much territory, and because of their great reputation, they had not much to fear from their captains; but when they expanded, as under Carmignuola,(#) they had a taste of this mistake; for, having found him a most valiant man (they beat the Duke of Milan under his leadership), and, on the other hand, knowing how lukewarm he was in the war, they feared they would no longer conquer under him, and for this reason they were not willing, nor were they able, to let him go; and so, not to lose again that which they had acquired, they were compelled, in order to secure themselves, to murder him. They had afterwards for their captains Bartolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the count of Pitigliano,(amp;) and the like, under whom they had to dread loss and not gain, as happened afterwards at Vaila,($) where in one battle they lost that which in eight hundred years they had acquired with so much trouble. Because from such arms conquests come but slowly, long delayed and inconsiderable, but the losses sudden and portentous.

(*) Battle of Caravaggio, 15th September 1448.

(+) Johanna II of Naples, the widow of Ladislao, King of

Naples.

(%) Giovanni Acuto. An English knight whose name was Sir

John Hawkwood. He fought in the English wars in France, and

was knighted by Edward III; afterwards he collected a body

of troops and went into Italy. These became the famous

"White Company." He took part in many wars, and died in

Florence in 1394. He was born about 1320 at Sible Hedingham,

a village in Essex. He married Domnia, a daughter of Bernabo

Visconti.

(#) Carmignuola. Francesco Bussone, born at Carmagnola about

1390, executed at Venice, 5th May 1432.

(amp;) Bartolomeo Colleoni of Bergamo; died 1457. Roberto of

San Severino; died fighting for Venice against Sigismund,

Duke of Austria, in 1487. "Primo capitano in Italia."-

Machiavelli. Count of Pitigliano; Nicolo Orsini, born 1442,

died 1510.

($) Battle of Vaila in 1509.

And as with these examples I have reached Italy, which has been ruled for many years by mercenaries, I wish to discuss them more seriously, in order that, having seen their rise and progress, one may be better prepared to counteract them. You must understand that the empire has recently come to be repudiated in Italy, that the Pope has acquired more temporal power, and that Italy has been divided up into more states, for the reason that many of the great cities took up arms against their nobles, who, formerly favoured by the emperor, were oppressing them, whilst the Church was favouring them so as to gain authority in temporal power: in many others their citizens became princes. From this it came to pass that Italy fell partly into the hands of the Church and of republics, and, the Church consisting of priests and the republic of citizens unaccustomed to arms, both commenced to enlist foreigners.

The first who gave renown to this soldiery was Alberigo da Conio,(*) the Romagnian. From the school of this man sprang, among others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. After these came all the other captains who till now have directed the arms of Italy; and the end of all their valour has been, that she has been overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis, ravaged by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Switzers. The principle that has guided them has been, first, to lower the credit of infantry so that they might increase their own. They did this because, subsisting on their pay and without territory, they were unable to support many soldiers, and a few infantry did not give them any authority; so they were led to employ cavalry, with a moderate force of which they were maintained and honoured; and affairs were brought to such a pass that, in an army of twenty thousand soldiers, there were not to be found two thousand foot soldiers. They had, besides this, used every art to lessen fatigue and danger to themselves and their soldiers, not killing in the fray, but taking prisoners and liberating without ransom. They did not attack towns at night, nor did the garrisons of the towns attack encampments at night; they did not surround the camp either with stockade or ditch, nor did they campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their military rules, and devised by them to avoid, as I have said, both fatigue and dangers; thus they have brought Italy to slavery and contempt.

(*) Alberigo da Conio. Alberico da Barbiano, Count of Cunio

in Romagna. He was the leader of the famous "Company of St

George," composed entirely of Italian soldiers. He died in

1409.

CHAPTER XIII. CONCERNING AUXILIARIES, MIXED SOLDIERY, AND ONE'S OWN

Auxiliaries, which are the other useless arm, are employed when a prince is called in with his forces to aid and defend, as was done by Pope Julius in the most recent times; for he, having, in the enterprise against Ferrara, had poor proof of his mercenaries, turned to auxiliaries, and stipulated with Ferdinand, King of Spain,(*) for his assistance with men and arms. These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive.

(*) Ferdinand V (F. II of Aragon and Sicily, F. III of

Naples), surnamed "The Catholic," born 1542, died 1516.

And although ancient histories may be full of examples, I do not wish to leave this recent one of Pope Julius the Second, the peril of which cannot fail to be perceived; for he, wishing to get Ferrara, threw himself entirely into the hands of the foreigner. But his good fortune brought about a third event, so that he did not reap the fruit of his rash choice; because, having his auxiliaries routed at Ravenna, and the Switzers having risen and driven out the conquerors (against all expectation, both his and others), it so came to pass that he did not become prisoner to his enemies, they having fled, nor to his auxiliaries, he having conquered by other arms than theirs.

The Florentines, being entirely without arms, sent ten thousand Frenchmen to take Pisa, whereby they ran more danger than at any other time of their troubles.

The Emperor of Constantinople,(*) to oppose his neighbours, sent ten thousand Turks into Greece, who, on the war being finished, were not willing to quit; this was the beginning of the servitude of Greece to the infidels.

(*) Joannes Cantacuzenus, born 1300, died 1383.

Therefore, let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms, for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy is most dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with the others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.

I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.

I was not intending to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan, he being one of those I have named above. This man, as I have said, made head of the army by the Syracusans, soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted like our Italian condottieri, was of no use; and it appearing to him that he could neither keep them not let them go, he had them all cut to pieces, and afterwards made war with his own forces and not with aliens.

I wish also to recall to memory an instance from the Old Testament applicable to this subject. David offered himself to Saul to fight with Goliath, the Philistine champion, and, to give him courage, Saul armed him with his own weapons; which David rejected as soon as he had them on his back, saying he could make no use of them, and that he wished to meet the enemy with his sling and his knife. In conclusion, the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast.

Charles the Seventh,(*) the father of King Louis the Eleventh,(+) having by good fortune and valour liberated France from the English, recognized the necessity of being armed with forces of his own, and he established in his kingdom ordinances concerning men-at-arms and infantry. Afterwards his son, King Louis, abolished the infantry and began to enlist the Switzers, which mistake, followed by others, is, as is now seen, a source of peril to that kingdom; because, having raised the reputation of the Switzers, he has entirely diminished the value of his own arms, for he has destroyed the infantry altogether; and his men-at-arms he has subordinated to others, for, being as they are so accustomed to fight along with Switzers, it does not appear that they can now conquer without them. Hence it arises that the French cannot stand against the Switzers, and without the Switzers they do not come off well against others. The armies of the French have thus become mixed, partly mercenary and partly national, both of which arms together are much better than mercenaries alone or auxiliaries alone, but much inferior to one's own forces. And this example proves it, for the kingdom of France would be unconquerable if the ordinance of Charles had been enlarged or maintained.

(*) Charles VII of France, surnamed "The Victorious," born

1403, died 1461.

(+) Louis XI, son of the above, born 1423, died 1483.

But the scanty wisdom of man, on entering into an affair which looks well at first, cannot discern the poison that is hidden in it, as I have said above of hectic fevers. Therefore, if he who rules a principality cannot recognize evils until they are upon him, he is not truly wise; and this insight is given to few. And if the first disaster to the Roman Empire(*) should be examined, it will be found to have commenced only with the enlisting of the Goths; because from that time the vigour of the Roman Empire began to decline, and all that valour which had raised it passed away to others.

(*) "Many speakers to the House the other night in the

debate on the reduction of armaments seemed to show a most

lamentable ignorance of the conditions under which the

British Empire maintains its existence. When Mr Balfour

replied to the allegations that the Roman Empire sank under

the weight of its military obligations, he said that this

was 'wholly unhistorical.' He might well have added that the

Roman power was at its zenith when every citizen

acknowledged his liability to fight for the State, but that

it began to decline as soon as this obligation was no longer

recognized."-Pall Mall Gazette, 15th May 1906.

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own strength. And one's own forces are those which are composed either of subjects, citizens, or dependents; all others are mercenaries or auxiliaries. And the way to make ready one's own forces will be easily found if the rules suggested by me shall be reflected upon, and if one will consider how Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and many republics and princes have armed and organized themselves, to which rules I entirely commit myself.

CHAPTER XIV. THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, through being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his thoughts this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its exercise than in war; this he can do in two ways, the one by action, the other by study.

As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of localities, and gets to find out how the mountains rise, how the valleys open out, how the plains lie, and to understand the nature of rivers and marshes, and in all this to take the greatest care. Which knowledge is useful in two ways. Firstly, he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defence; afterwards, by means of the knowledge and observation of that locality, he understands with ease any other which it may be necessary for him to study hereafter; because the hills, valleys, and plains, and rivers and marshes that are, for instance, in Tuscany, have a certain resemblance to those of other countries, so that with a knowledge of the aspect of one country one can easily arrive at a knowledge of others. And the prince that lacks this skill lacks the essential which it is desirable that a captain should possess, for it teaches him to surprise his enemy, to select quarters, to lead armies, to array the battle, to besiege towns to advantage.

Philopoemen,(*) Prince of the Achaeans, among other praises which writers have bestowed on him, is commended because in time of peace he never had anything in his mind but the rules of war; and when he was in the country with friends, he often stopped and reasoned with them: "If the enemy should be upon that hill, and we should find ourselves here with our army, with whom would be the advantage? How should one best advance to meet him, keeping the ranks? If we should wish to retreat, how ought we to pursue?" And he would set forth to them, as he went, all the chances that could befall an army; he would listen to their opinion and state his, confirming it with reasons, so that by these continual discussions there could never arise, in time of war, any unexpected circumstances that he could not deal with.

(*) Philopoemen, "the last of the Greeks," born 252 B.C.,

died 183 B.C.

But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former; and above all do as an illustrious man did, who took as an exemplar one who had been praised and famous before him, and whose achievements and deeds he always kept in his mind, as it is said Alexander the Great imitated Achilles, Caesar Alexander, Scipio Cyrus. And whoever reads the life of Cyrus, written by Xenophon, will recognize afterwards in the life of Scipio how that imitation was his glory, and how in chastity, affability, humanity, and liberality Scipio conformed to those things which have been written of Cyrus by Xenophon. A wise prince ought to observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortune chances it may find him prepared to resist her blows.

CHAPTER XV. CONCERNING THINGS FOR WHICH MEN, AND ESPECIALLY PRINCES, ARE PRAISED OR BLAMED

It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.

Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly, using a Tuscan term (because an avaricious person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.

CHAPTER XVI. CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS

Commencing then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly.

Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.

We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. Pope Julius the Second was assisted in reaching the papacy by a reputation for liberality, yet he did not strive afterwards to keep it up, when he made war on the King of France; and he made many wars without imposing any extraordinary tax on his subjects, for he supplied his additional expenses out of his long thriftiness. The present King of Spain would not have undertaken or conquered in so many enterprises if he had been reputed liberal. A prince, therefore, provided that he has not to rob his subjects, that he can defend himself, that he does not become poor and abject, that he is not forced to become rapacious, ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern.

And if any one should say: Caesar obtained empire by liberality, and many others have reached the highest positions by having been liberal, and by being considered so, I answer: Either you are a prince in fact, or in a way to become one. In the first case this liberality is dangerous, in the second it is very necessary to be considered liberal; and Caesar was one of those who wished to become pre-eminent in Rome; but if he had survived after becoming so, and had not moderated his expenses, he would have destroyed his government. And if any one should reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies, who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects' or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the prince who goes forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is neither yours nor your subjects' you can be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you.

And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

CHAPTER XVII. CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.(*) Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.

(*) During the rioting between the Cancellieri and

Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503.

And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:

"Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt

Moliri, et late fines custode tueri."(*)

Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

(*). against my will, my fate

A throne unsettled, and an infant state,

Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,

And guard with these severities my shores.

Christopher Pitt.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And short-sighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.

CHAPTER XVIII(*). CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

(*) "The present chapter has given greater offence than any

other portion of Machiavelli's writings." Burd, "Il

Principe," p. 297.

Every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word. You must know there are two ways of contesting,(*) the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man. This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about. Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer. If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance. Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.

(*) "Contesting," i.e. "striving for mastery." Mr Burd

points out that this passage is imitated directly from

Cicero's "De Officiis": "Nam cum sint duo genera decertandi,

unum per disceptationem, alterum per vim; cumque illud

proprium sit hominis, hoc beluarum; confugiendum est ad

posterius, si uti non licet superiore."

But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander the Sixth did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes,(*) because he well understood this side of mankind.

(*) "Nondimanco sempre gli succederono gli inganni (ad

votum)." The words "ad votum" are omitted in the Testina

addition, 1550.

Alexander never did what he said,

Cesare never said what he did.

Italian Proverb.

Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,(*) friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.

(*) "Contrary to fidelity" or "faith," "contro alla fede,"

and "tutto fede," "altogether faithful," in the next

paragraph. It is noteworthy that these two phrases, "contro

alla fede" and "tutto fede," were omitted in the Testina

edition, which was published with the sanction of the papal

authorities. It may be that the meaning attached to the word

"fede" was "the faith," i.e. the Catholic creed, and not as

rendered here "fidelity" and "faithful." Observe that the

word "religione" was suffered to stand in the text of the

Testina, being used to signify indifferently every shade of

belief, as witness "the religion," a phrase inevitably

employed to designate the Huguenot heresy. South in his

Sermon IX, p. 69, ed. 1843, comments on this passage as

follows: "That great patron and Coryphaeus of this tribe,

Nicolo Machiavel, laid down this for a master rule in his

political scheme: 'That the show of religion was helpful to

the politician, but the reality of it hurtful and

pernicious.'"

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.

For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody; because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.

One prince(*) of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never preaches anything else but peace and good faith, and to both he is most hostile, and either, if he had kept it, would have deprived him of reputation and kingdom many a time.

(*) Ferdinand of Aragon. "When Machiavelli was writing 'The

Prince' it would have been clearly impossible to mention

Ferdinand's name here without giving offence." Burd's "Il

Principe," p. 308.

CHAPTER XIX. THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED

Now, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches.

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get round him.

That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. For this reason a prince ought to have two fears, one from within, on account of his subjects, the other from without, on account of external powers. From the latter he is defended by being well armed and having good allies, and if he is well armed he will have good friends, and affairs will always remain quiet within when they are quiet without, unless they should have been already disturbed by conspiracy; and even should affairs outside be disturbed, if he has carried out his preparations and has lived as I have said, as long as he does not despair, he will resist every attack, as I said Nabis the Spartan did.

But concerning his subjects, when affairs outside are disturbed he has only to fear that they will conspire secretly, from which a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish, as I said above at length. And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a conspirator are infinite. And as experience shows, many have been the conspiracies, but few have been successful; because he who conspires cannot act alone, nor can he take a companion except from those whom he believes to be malcontents, and as soon as you have opened your mind to a malcontent you have given him the material with which to content himself, for by denouncing you he can look for every advantage; so that, seeing the gain from this course to be assured, and seeing the other to be doubtful and full of dangers, he must be a very rare friend, or a thoroughly obstinate enemy of the prince, to keep faith with you.

And, to reduce the matter into a small compass, I say that, on the side of the conspirator, there is nothing but fear, jealousy, prospect of punishment to terrify him; but on the side of the prince there is the majesty of the principality, the laws, the protection of friends and the state to defend him; so that, adding to all these things the popular goodwill, it is impossible that any one should be so rash as to conspire. For whereas in general the conspirator has to fear before the execution of his plot, in this case he has also to fear the sequel to the crime; because on account of it he has the people for an enemy, and thus cannot hope for any escape.

Endless examples could be given on this subject, but I will be content with one, brought to pass within the memory of our fathers. Messer Annibale Bentivogli, who was prince in Bologna (grandfather of the present Annibale), having been murdered by the Canneschi, who had conspired against him, not one of his family survived but Messer Giovanni,(*) who was in childhood: immediately after his assassination the people rose and murdered all the Canneschi. This sprung from the popular goodwill which the house of Bentivogli enjoyed in those days in Bologna; which was so great that, although none remained there after the death of Annibale who was able to rule the state, the Bolognese, having information that there was one of the Bentivogli family in Florence, who up to that time had been considered the son of a blacksmith, sent to Florence for him and gave him the government of their city, and it was ruled by him until Messer Giovanni came in due course to the government.

(*) Giovanni Bentivogli, born in Bologna 1438, died at Milan

1508. He ruled Bologna from 1462 to 1506. Machiavelli's

strong condemnation of conspiracies may get its edge from

his own very recent experience (February 1513), when he had

been arrested and tortured for his alleged complicity in the

Boscoli conspiracy.

For this reason I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody. And well-ordered states and wise princes have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation, and to keep the people satisfied and contented, for this is one of the most important objects a prince can have.

Among the best ordered and governed kingdoms of our times is France, and in it are found many good institutions on which depend the liberty and security of the king; of these the first is the parliament and its authority, because he who founded the kingdom, knowing the ambition of the nobility and their boldness, considered that a bit to their mouths would be necessary to hold them in; and, on the other side, knowing the hatred of the people, founded in fear, against the nobles, he wished to protect them, yet he was not anxious for this to be the particular care of the king; therefore, to take away the reproach which he would be liable to from the nobles for favouring the people, and from the people for favouring the nobles, he set up an arbiter, who should be one who could beat down the great and favour the lesser without reproach to the king. Neither could you have a better or a more prudent arrangement, or a greater source of security to the king and kingdom. From this one can draw another important conclusion, that princes ought to leave affairs of reproach to the management of others, and keep those of grace in their own hands. And further, I consider that a prince ought to cherish the nobles, but not so as to make himself hated by the people.

It may appear, perhaps, to some who have examined the lives and deaths of the Roman emperors that many of them would be an example contrary to my opinion, seeing that some of them lived nobly and showed great qualities of soul, nevertheless they have lost their empire or have been killed by subjects who have conspired against them. Wishing, therefore, to answer these objections, I will recall the characters of some of the emperors, and will show that the causes of their ruin were not different to those alleged by me; at the same time I will only submit for consideration those things that are noteworthy to him who studies the affairs of those times.

It seems to me sufficient to take all those emperors who succeeded to the empire from Marcus the philosopher down to Maximinus; they were Marcus and his son Commodus, Pertinax, Julian, Severus and his son Antoninus Caracalla, Macrinus, Heliogabalus, Alexander, and Maximinus.

There is first to note that, whereas in other principalities the ambition of the nobles and the insolence of the people only have to be contended with, the Roman emperors had a third difficulty in having to put up with the cruelty and avarice of their soldiers, a matter so beset with difficulties that it was the ruin of many; for it was a hard thing to give satisfaction both to soldiers and people; because the people loved peace, and for this reason they loved the unaspiring prince, whilst the soldiers loved the warlike prince who was bold, cruel, and rapacious, which qualities they were quite willing he should exercise upon the people, so that they could get double pay and give vent to their own greed and cruelty. Hence it arose that those emperors were always overthrown who, either by birth or training, had no great authority, and most of them, especially those who came new to the principality, recognizing the difficulty of these two opposing humours, were inclined to give satisfaction to the soldiers, caring little about injuring the people. Which course was necessary, because, as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavour with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful. Therefore, those emperors who through inexperience had need of special favour adhered more readily to the soldiers than to the people; a course which turned out advantageous to them or not, accordingly as the prince knew how to maintain authority over them.

From these causes it arose that Marcus, Pertinax, and Alexander, being all men of modest life, lovers of justice, enemies to cruelty, humane, and benignant, came to a sad end except Marcus; he alone lived and died honoured, because he had succeeded to the throne by hereditary title, and owed nothing either to the soldiers or the people; and afterwards, being possessed of many virtues which made him respected, he always kept both orders in their places whilst he lived, and was neither hated nor despised.

But Pertinax was created emperor against the wishes of the soldiers, who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus, could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; thus, having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt for his old age, he was overthrown at the very beginning of his administration. And here it should be noted that hatred is acquired as much by good works as by bad ones, therefore, as I said before, a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil; for when that body is corrupt whom you think you have need of to maintain yourself-it may be either the people or the soldiers or the nobles-you have to submit to its humours and to gratify them, and then good works will do you harm.

But let us come to Alexander, who was a man of such great goodness, that among the other praises which are accorded him is this, that in the fourteen years he held the empire no one was ever put to death by him unjudged; nevertheless, being considered effeminate and a man who allowed himself to be governed by his mother, he became despised, the army conspired against him, and murdered him.

Turning now to the opposite characters of Commodus, Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Maximinus, you will find them all cruel and rapacious-men who, to satisfy their soldiers, did not hesitate to commit every kind of iniquity against the people; and all, except Severus, came to a bad end; but in Severus there was so much valour that, keeping the soldiers friendly, although the people were oppressed by him, he reigned successfully; for his valour made him so much admired in the sight of the soldiers and people that the latter were kept in a way astonished and awed and the former respectful and satisfied. And because the actions of this man, as a new prince, were great, I wish to show briefly that he knew well how to counterfeit the fox and the lion, which natures, as I said above, it is necessary for a prince to imitate.

Knowing the sloth of the Emperor Julian, he persuaded the army in Sclavonia, of which he was captain, that it would be right to go to Rome and avenge the death of Pertinax, who had been killed by the praetorian soldiers; and under this pretext, without appearing to aspire to the throne, he moved the army on Rome, and reached Italy before it was known that he had started. On his arrival at Rome, the Senate, through fear, elected him emperor and killed Julian. After this there remained for Severus, who wished to make himself master of the whole empire, two difficulties; one in Asia, where Niger, head of the Asiatic army, had caused himself to be proclaimed emperor; the other in the west where Albinus was, who also aspired to the throne. And as he considered it dangerous to declare himself hostile to both, he decided to attack Niger and to deceive Albinus. To the latter he wrote that, being elected emperor by the Senate, he was willing to share that dignity with him and sent him the title of Caesar; and, moreover, that the Senate had made Albinus his colleague; which things were accepted by Albinus as true. But after Severus had conquered and killed Niger, and settled oriental affairs, he returned to Rome and complained to the Senate that Albinus, little recognizing the benefits that he had received from him, had by treachery sought to murder him, and for this ingratitude he was compelled to punish him. Afterwards he sought him out in France, and took from him his government and life. He who will, therefore, carefully examine the actions of this man will find him a most valiant lion and a most cunning fox; he will find him feared and respected by every one, and not hated by the army; and it need not be wondered at that he, a new man, was able to hold the empire so well, because his supreme renown always protected him from that hatred which the people might have conceived against him for his violence.

But his son Antoninus was a most eminent man, and had very excellent qualities, which made him admirable in the sight of the people and acceptable to the soldiers, for he was a warlike man, most enduring of fatigue, a despiser of all delicate food and other luxuries, which caused him to be beloved by the armies. Nevertheless, his ferocity and cruelties were so great and so unheard of that, after endless single murders, he killed a large number of the people of Rome and all those of Alexandria. He became hated by the whole world, and also feared by those he had around him, to such an extent that he was murdered in the midst of his army by a centurion. And here it must be noted that such-like deaths, which are deliberately inflicted with a resolved and desperate courage, cannot be avoided by princes, because any one who does not fear to die can inflict them; but a prince may fear them the less because they are very rare; he has only to be careful not to do any grave injury to those whom he employs or has around him in the service of the state. Antoninus had not taken this care, but had contumeliously killed a brother of that centurion, whom also he daily threatened, yet retained in his bodyguard; which, as it turned out, was a rash thing to do, and proved the emperor's ruin.

But let us come to Commodus, to whom it should have been very easy to hold the empire, for, being the son of Marcus, he had inherited it, and he had only to follow in the footsteps of his father to please his people and soldiers; but, being by nature cruel and brutal, he gave himself up to amusing the soldiers and corrupting them, so that he might indulge his rapacity upon the people; on the other hand, not maintaining his dignity, often descending to the theatre to compete with gladiators, and doing other vile things, little worthy of the imperial majesty, he fell into contempt with the soldiers, and being hated by one party and despised by the other, he was conspired against and was killed.

It remains to discuss the character of Maximinus. He was a very warlike man, and the armies, being disgusted with the effeminacy of Alexander, of whom I have already spoken, killed him and elected Maximinus to the throne. This he did not possess for long, for two things made him hated and despised; the one, his having kept sheep in Thrace, which brought him into contempt (it being well known to all, and considered a great indignity by every one), and the other, his having at the accession to his dominions deferred going to Rome and taking possession of the imperial seat; he had also gained a reputation for the utmost ferocity by having, through his prefects in Rome and elsewhere in the empire, practised many cruelties, so that the whole world was moved to anger at the meanness of his birth and to fear at his barbarity. First Africa rebelled, then the Senate with all the people of Rome, and all Italy conspired against him, to which may be added his own army; this latter, besieging Aquileia and meeting with difficulties in taking it, were disgusted with his cruelties, and fearing him less when they found so many against him, murdered him.

I do not wish to discuss Heliogabalus, Macrinus, or Julian, who, being thoroughly contemptible, were quickly wiped out; but I will bring this discourse to a conclusion by saying that princes in our times have this difficulty of giving inordinate satisfaction to their soldiers in a far less degree, because, notwithstanding one has to give them some indulgence, that is soon done; none of these princes have armies that are veterans in the governance and administration of provinces, as were the armies of the Roman Empire; and whereas it was then more necessary to give satisfaction to the soldiers than to the people, it is now more necessary to all princes, except the Turk and the Soldan, to satisfy the people rather the soldiers, because the people are the more powerful.

From the above I have excepted the Turk, who always keeps round him twelve thousand infantry and fifteen thousand cavalry on which depend the security and strength of the kingdom, and it is necessary that, putting aside every consideration for the people, he should keep them his friends. The kingdom of the Soldan is similar; being entirely in the hands of soldiers, it follows again that, without regard to the people, he must keep them his friends. But you must note that the state of the Soldan is unlike all other principalities, for the reason that it is like the Christian pontificate, which cannot be called either an hereditary or a newly formed principality; because the sons of the old prince are not the heirs, but he who is elected to that position by those who have authority, and the sons remain only noblemen. And this being an ancient custom, it cannot be called a new principality, because there are none of those difficulties in it that are met with in new ones; for although the prince is new, the constitution of the state is old, and it is framed so as to receive him as if he were its hereditary lord.

But returning to the subject of our discourse, I say that whoever will consider it will acknowledge that either hatred or contempt has been fatal to the above-named emperors, and it will be recognized also how it happened that, a number of them acting in one way and a number in another, only one in each way came to a happy end and the rest to unhappy ones. Because it would have been useless and dangerous for Pertinax and Alexander, being new princes, to imitate Marcus, who was heir to the principality; and likewise it would have been utterly destructive to Caracalla, Commodus, and Maximinus to have imitated Severus, they not having sufficient valour to enable them to tread in his footsteps. Therefore a prince, new to the principality, cannot imitate the actions of Marcus, nor, again, is it necessary to follow those of Severus, but he ought to take from Severus those parts which are necessary to found his state, and from Marcus those which are proper and glorious to keep a state that may already be stable and firm.

CHAPTER XX. ARE FORTRESSES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO WHICH PRINCES OFTEN RESORT, ADVANTAGEOUS OR HURTFUL?

1. Some princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects; others have kept their subject towns distracted by factions; others have fostered enmities against themselves; others have laid themselves out to gain over those whom they distrusted in the beginning of their governments; some have built fortresses; some have overthrown and destroyed them. And although one cannot give a final judgment on all of these things unless one possesses the particulars of those states in which a decision has to be made, nevertheless I will speak as comprehensively as the matter of itself will admit.

2. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependents, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.

3. Our forefathers, and those who were reckoned wise, were accustomed to say that it was necessary to hold Pistoia by factions and Pisa by fortresses; and with this idea they fostered quarrels in some of their tributary towns so as to keep possession of them the more easily. This may have been well enough in those times when Italy was in a way balanced, but I do not believe that it can be accepted as a precept for to-day, because I do not believe that factions can ever be of use; rather it is certain that when the enemy comes upon you in divided cities you are quickly lost, because the weakest party will always assist the outside forces and the other will not be able to resist. The Venetians, moved, as I believe, by the above reasons, fostered the Guelph and Ghibelline factions in their tributary cities; and although they never allowed them to come to bloodshed, yet they nursed these disputes amongst them, so that the citizens, distracted by their differences, should not unite against them. Which, as we saw, did not afterwards turn out as expected, because, after the rout at Vaila, one party at once took courage and seized the state. Such methods argue, therefore, weakness in the prince, because these factions will never be permitted in a vigorous principality; such methods for enabling one the more easily to manage subjects are only useful in times of peace, but if war comes this policy proves fallacious.

4. Without doubt princes become great when they overcome the difficulties and obstacles by which they are confronted, and therefore fortune, especially when she desires to make a new prince great, who has a greater necessity to earn renown than an hereditary one, causes enemies to arise and form designs against him, in order that he may have the opportunity of overcoming them, and by them to mount higher, as by a ladder which his enemies have raised. For this reason many consider that a wise prince, when he has the opportunity, ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may rise higher.

5. Princes, especially new ones, have found more fidelity and assistance in those men who in the beginning of their rule were distrusted than among those who in the beginning were trusted. Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena, ruled his state more by those who had been distrusted than by others. But on this question one cannot speak generally, for it varies so much with the individual; I will only say this, that those men who at the commencement of a princedom have been hostile, if they are of a description to need assistance to support themselves, can always be gained over with the greatest ease, and they will be tightly held to serve the prince with fidelity, inasmuch as they know it to be very necessary for them to cancel by deeds the bad impression which he had formed of them; and thus the prince always extracts more profit from them than from those who, serving him in too much security, may neglect his affairs. And since the matter demands it, I must not fail to warn a prince, who by means of secret favours has acquired a new state, that he must well consider the reasons which induced those to favour him who did so; and if it be not a natural affection towards him, but only discontent with their government, then he will only keep them friendly with great trouble and difficulty, for it will be impossible to satisfy them. And weighing well the reasons for this in those examples which can be taken from ancient and modern affairs, we shall find that it is easier for the prince to make friends of those men who were contented under the former government, and are therefore his enemies, than of those who, being discontented with it, were favourable to him and encouraged him to seize it.

6. It has been a custom with princes, in order to hold their states more securely, to build fortresses that may serve as a bridle and bit to those who might design to work against them, and as a place of refuge from a first attack. I praise this system because it has been made use of formerly. Notwithstanding that, Messer Nicolo Vitelli in our times has been seen to demolish two fortresses in Citta di Castello so that he might keep that state; Guido Ubaldo, Duke of Urbino, on returning to his dominion, whence he had been driven by Cesare Borgia, razed to the foundations all the fortresses in that province, and considered that without them it would be more difficult to lose it; the Bentivogli returning to Bologna came to a similar decision. Fortresses, therefore, are useful or not according to circumstances; if they do you good in one way they injure you in another. And this question can be reasoned thus: the prince who has more to fear from the people than from foreigners ought to build fortresses, but he who has more to fear from foreigners than from the people ought to leave them alone. The castle of Milan, built by Francesco Sforza, has made, and will make, more trouble for the house of Sforza than any other disorder in the state. For this reason the best possible fortress is-not to be hated by the people, because, although you may hold the fortresses, yet they will not save you if the people hate you, for there will never be wanting foreigners to assist a people who have taken arms against you. It has not been seen in our times that such fortresses have been of use to any prince, unless to the Countess of Forli,(*) when the Count Girolamo, her consort, was killed; for by that means she was able to withstand the popular attack and wait for assistance from Milan, and thus recover her state; and the posture of affairs was such at that time that the foreigners could not assist the people. But fortresses were of little value to her afterwards when Cesare Borgia attacked her, and when the people, her enemy, were allied with foreigners. Therefore, it would have been safer for her, both then and before, not to have been hated by the people than to have had the fortresses. All these things considered then, I shall praise him who builds fortresses as well as him who does not, and I shall blame whoever, trusting in them, cares little about being hated by the people.

(*) Catherine Sforza, a daughter of Galeazzo Sforza and

Lucrezia Landriani, born 1463, died 1509. It was to the

Countess of Forli that Machiavelli was sent as envy on 1499.

A letter from Fortunati to the countess announces the

appointment: "I have been with the signori," wrote

Fortunati, "to learn whom they would send and when. They

tell me that Nicolo Machiavelli, a learned young Florentine

noble, secretary to my Lords of the Ten, is to leave with me

at once." Cf. "Catherine Sforza," by Count Pasolini,

translated by P. Sylvester, 1898.

CHAPTER XXI. HOW A PRINCE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF SO AS TO GAIN RENOWN

Nothing makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example. We have in our time Ferdinand of Aragon, the present King of Spain. He can almost be called a new prince, because he has risen, by fame and glory, from being an insignificant king to be the foremost king in Christendom; and if you will consider his deeds you will find them all great and some of them extraordinary. In the beginning of his reign he attacked Granada, and this enterprise was the foundation of his dominions. He did this quietly at first and without any fear of hindrance, for he held the minds of the barons of Castile occupied in thinking of the war and not anticipating any innovations; thus they did not perceive that by these means he was acquiring power and authority over them. He was able with the money of the Church and of the people to sustain his armies, and by that long war to lay the foundation for the military skill which has since distinguished him. Further, always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors; nor could there be a more admirable example, nor one more rare. Under this same cloak he assailed Africa, he came down on Italy, he has finally attacked France; and thus his achievements and designs have always been great, and have kept the minds of his people in suspense and admiration and occupied with the issue of them. And his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him.

Again, it much assists a prince to set unusual examples in internal affairs, similar to those which are related of Messer Bernabo da Milano, who, when he had the opportunity, by any one in civil life doing some extraordinary thing, either good or bad, would take some method of rewarding or punishing him, which would be much spoken about. And a prince ought, above all things, always endeavour in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.

A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that is to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of him who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.

Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, exhorting them to remain neutral; and on the other hand the Romans urged them to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: "As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or consideration, the guerdon of the conqueror." Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will entreat you to declare yourself with arms. And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions on a fortune that may rise again.

In the second case, when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer, so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied, because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not do with your assistance, he remains at your discretion. And here it is to be noted that a prince ought to take care never to make an alliance with one more powerful than himself for the purposes of attacking others, unless necessity compels him, as is said above; because if he conquers you are at his discretion, and princes ought to avoid as much as possible being at the discretion of any one. The Venetians joined with France against the Duke of Milan, and this alliance, which caused their ruin, could have been avoided. But when it cannot be avoided, as happened to the Florentines when the Pope and Spain sent armies to attack Lombardy, then in such a case, for the above reasons, the prince ought to favour one of the parties.

Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; rather let it expect to have to take very doubtful ones, because it is found in ordinary affairs that one never seeks to avoid one trouble without running into another; but prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil.

A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability, and to honour the proficient in every art. At the same time he should encourage his citizens to practise their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture, and in every other following, so that the one should not be deterred from improving his possessions for fear lest they be taken away from him or another from opening up trade for fear of taxes; but the prince ought to offer rewards to whoever wishes to do these things and designs in any way to honour his city or state.

Further, he ought to entertain the people with festivals and spectacles at convenient seasons of the year; and as every city is divided into guilds or into societies,(*) he ought to hold such bodies in esteem, and associate with them sometimes, and show himself an example of courtesy and liberality; nevertheless, always maintaining the majesty of his rank, for this he must never consent to abate in anything.

(*) "Guilds or societies," "in arti o in tribu." "Arti" were

craft or trade guilds, cf. Florio: "Arte. a whole

company of any trade in any city or corporation town." The

guilds of Florence are most admirably described by Mr

Edgcumbe Staley in his work on the subject (Methuen, 1906).

Institutions of a somewhat similar character, called

"artel," exist in Russia to-day, cf. Sir Mackenzie Wallace's

"Russia," ed. 1905: "The sons. were always during the

working season members of an artel. In some of the larger

towns there are artels of a much more complex kind-

permanent associations, possessing large capital, and

pecuniarily responsible for the acts of the individual

members." The word "artel," despite its apparent similarity,

has, Mr Aylmer Maude assures me, no connection with "ars" or

"arte." Its root is that of the verb "rotisya," to bind

oneself by an oath; and it is generally admitted to be only

another form of "rota," which now signifies a "regimental

company." In both words the underlying idea is that of a

body of men united by an oath. "Tribu" were possibly gentile

groups, united by common descent, and included individuals

connected by marriage. Perhaps our words "sects" or "clans"

would be most appropriate.

CHAPTER XXII. CONCERNING THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES

The choice of servants is of no little importance to a prince, and they are good or not according to the discrimination of the prince. And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

There were none who knew Messer Antonio da Venafro as the servant of Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena, who would not consider Pandolfo to be a very clever man in having Venafro for his servant. Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehended; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless. Therefore, it follows necessarily that, if Pandolfo was not in the first rank, he was in the second, for whenever one has judgment to know good and bad when it is said and done, although he himself may not have the initiative, yet he can recognize the good and the bad in his servant, and the one he can praise and the other correct; thus the servant cannot hope to deceive him, and is kept honest.

But to enable a prince to form an opinion of his servant there is one test which never fails; when you see the servant thinking more of his own interests than of yours, and seeking inwardly his own profit in everything, such a man will never make a good servant, nor will you ever be able to trust him; because he who has the state of another in his hands ought never to think of himself, but always of his prince, and never pay any attention to matters in which the prince is not concerned.

On the other hand, to keep his servant honest the prince ought to study him, honouring him, enriching him, doing him kindnesses, sharing with him the honours and cares; and at the same time let him see that he cannot stand alone, so that many honours may not make him desire more, many riches make him wish for more, and that many cares may make him dread chances. When, therefore, servants, and princes towards servants, are thus disposed, they can trust each other, but when it is otherwise, the end will always be disastrous for either one or the other.

CHAPTER XXIII. HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

I do not wish to leave out an important branch of this subject, for it is a danger from which princes are with difficulty preserved, unless they are very careful and discriminating. It is that of flatterers, of whom courts are full, because men are so self-complacent in their own affairs, and in a way so deceived in them, that they are preserved with difficulty from this pest, and if they wish to defend themselves they run the danger of falling into contempt. Because there is no other way of guarding oneself from flatterers except letting men understand that to tell you the truth does not offend you; but when every one may tell you the truth, respect for you abates.

Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.

I wish on this subject to adduce a modern example. Fra Luca, the man of affairs to Maximilian,(*) the present emperor, speaking of his majesty, said: He consulted with no one, yet never got his own way in anything. This arose because of his following a practice the opposite to the above; for the emperor is a secretive man-he does not communicate his designs to any one, nor does he receive opinions on them. But as in carrying them into effect they become revealed and known, they are at once obstructed by those men whom he has around him, and he, being pliant, is diverted from them. Hence it follows that those things he does one day he undoes the next, and no one ever understands what he wishes or intends to do, and no one can rely on his resolutions.

(*) Maximilian I, born in 1459, died 1519, Emperor of the

Holy Roman Empire. He married, first, Mary, daughter of

Charles the Bold; after her death, Bianca Sforza; and thus

became involved in Italian politics.

A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage every one from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired; also, on learning that any one, on any consideration, has not told him the truth, he should let his anger be felt.

And if there are some who think that a prince who conveys an impression of his wisdom is not so through his own ability, but through the good advisers that he has around him, beyond doubt they are deceived, because this is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice, unless by chance he has yielded his affairs entirely to one person who happens to be a very prudent man. In this case indeed he may be well governed, but it would not be for long, because such a governor would in a short time take away his state from him.

But if a prince who is not inexperienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counsellors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.

CHAPTER XXIV. WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES

The previous suggestions, carefully observed, will enable a new prince to appear well established, and render him at once more secure and fixed in the state than if he had been long seated there. For the actions of a new prince are more narrowly observed than those of an hereditary one, and when they are seen to be able they gain more men and bind far tighter than ancient blood; because men are attracted more by the present than by the past, and when they find the present good they enjoy it and seek no further; they will also make the utmost defence of a prince if he fails them not in other things. Thus it will be a double glory for him to have established a new principality, and adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good allies, and with a good example; so will it be a double disgrace to him who, born a prince, shall lose his state by want of wisdom.

And if those seigniors are considered who have lost their states in Italy in our times, such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and others, there will be found in them, firstly, one common defect in regard to arms from the causes which have been discussed at length; in the next place, some one of them will be seen, either to have had the people hostile, or if he has had the people friendly, he has not known how to secure the nobles. In the absence of these defects states that have power enough to keep an army in the field cannot be lost.

Philip of Macedon, not the father of Alexander the Great, but he who was conquered by Titus Quintius, had not much territory compared to the greatness of the Romans and of Greece who attacked him, yet being a warlike man who knew how to attract the people and secure the nobles, he sustained the war against his enemies for many years, and if in the end he lost the dominion of some cities, nevertheless he retained the kingdom.

Therefore, do not let our princes accuse fortune for the loss of their principalities after so many years' possession, but rather their own sloth, because in quiet times they never thought there could be a change (it is a common defect in man not to make any provision in the calm against the tempest), and when afterwards the bad times came they thought of flight and not of defending themselves, and they hoped that the people, disgusted with the insolence of the conquerors, would recall them. This course, when others fail, may be good, but it is very bad to have neglected all other expedients for that, since you would never wish to fall because you trusted to be able to find someone later on to restore you. This again either does not happen, or, if it does, it will not be for your security, because that deliverance is of no avail which does not depend upon yourself; those only are reliable, certain, and durable that depend on yourself and your valour.

CHAPTER XXV. WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS AND HOW TO WITHSTAND HER

It is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let chance govern them. This opinion has been more credited in our times because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion. Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions,(*) but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.

(*) Frederick the Great was accustomed to say: "The older

one gets the more convinced one becomes that his Majesty

King Chance does three-quarters of the business of this

miserable universe." Sorel's "Eastern Question."

I compare her to one of those raging rivers, which when in flood overflows the plains, sweeping away trees and buildings, bearing away the soil from place to place; everything flies before it, all yield to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it; and yet, though its nature be such, it does not follow therefore that men, when the weather becomes fair, shall not make provision, both with defences and barriers, in such a manner that, rising again, the waters may pass away by canal, and their force be neither so unrestrained nor so dangerous. So it happens with fortune, who shows her power where valour has not prepared to resist her, and thither she turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defences have not been raised to constrain her.

And if you will consider Italy, which is the seat of these changes, and which has given to them their impulse, you will see it to be an open country without barriers and without any defence. For if it had been defended by proper valour, as are Germany, Spain, and France, either this invasion would not have made the great changes it has made or it would not have come at all. And this I consider enough to say concerning resistance to fortune in general.

But confining myself more to the particular, I say that a prince may be seen happy to-day and ruined to-morrow without having shown any change of disposition or character. This, I believe, arises firstly from causes that have already been discussed at length, namely, that the prince who relies entirely on fortune is lost when it changes. I believe also that he will be successful who directs his actions according to the spirit of the times, and that he whose actions do not accord with the times will not be successful. Because men are seen, in affairs that lead to the end which every man has before him, namely, glory and riches, to get there by various methods; one with caution, another with haste; one by force, another by skill; one by patience, another by its opposite; and each one succeeds in reaching the goal by a different method. One can also see of two cautious men the one attain his end, the other fail; and similarly, two men by different observances are equally successful, the one being cautious, the other impetuous; all this arises from nothing else than whether or not they conform in their methods to the spirit of the times. This follows from what I have said, that two men working differently bring about the same effect, and of two working similarly, one attains his object and the other does not.

Changes in estate also issue from this, for if, to one who governs himself with caution and patience, times and affairs converge in such a way that his administration is successful, his fortune is made; but if times and affairs change, he is ruined if he does not change his course of action. But a man is not often found sufficiently circumspect to know how to accommodate himself to the change, both because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to do, and also because, having always prospered by acting in one way, he cannot be persuaded that it is well to leave it; and, therefore, the cautious man, when it is time to turn adventurous, does not know how to do it, hence he is ruined; but had he changed his conduct with the times fortune would not have changed.

Pope Julius the Second went to work impetuously in all his affairs, and found the times and circumstances conform so well to that line of action that he always met with success. Consider his first enterprise against Bologna, Messer Giovanni Bentivogli being still alive. The Venetians were not agreeable to it, nor was the King of Spain, and he had the enterprise still under discussion with the King of France; nevertheless he personally entered upon the expedition with his accustomed boldness and energy, a move which made Spain and the Venetians stand irresolute and passive, the latter from fear, the former from desire to recover the kingdom of Naples; on the other hand, he drew after him the King of France, because that king, having observed the movement, and desiring to make the Pope his friend so as to humble the Venetians, found it impossible to refuse him. Therefore Julius with his impetuous action accomplished what no other pontiff with simple human wisdom could have done; for if he had waited in Rome until he could get away, with his plans arranged and everything fixed, as any other pontiff would have done, he would never have succeeded. Because the King of France would have made a thousand excuses, and the others would have raised a thousand fears.

I will leave his other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they all succeeded, for the shortness of his life did not let him experience the contrary; but if circumstances had arisen which required him to go cautiously, his ruin would have followed, because he would never have deviated from those ways to which nature inclined him.

I conclude, therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

CHAPTER XXVI. AN EXHORTATION TO LIBERATE ITALY FROM THE BARBARIANS

Having carefully considered the subject of the above discourses, and wondering within myself whether the present times were propitious to a new prince, and whether there were elements that would give an opportunity to a wise and virtuous one to introduce a new order of things which would do honour to him and good to the people of this country, it appears to me that so many things concur to favour a new prince that I never knew a time more fit than the present.

And if, as I said, it was necessary that the people of Israel should be captive so as to make manifest the ability of Moses; that the Persians should be oppressed by the Medes so as to discover the greatness of the soul of Cyrus; and that the Athenians should be dispersed to illustrate the capabilities of Theseus: then at the present time, in order to discover the virtue of an Italian spirit, it was necessary that Italy should be reduced to the extremity that she is now in, that she should be more enslaved than the Hebrews, more oppressed than the Persians, more scattered than the Athenians; without head, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn, overrun; and to have endured every kind of desolation.

Although lately some spark may have been shown by one, which made us think he was ordained by God for our redemption, nevertheless it was afterwards seen, in the height of his career, that fortune rejected him; so that Italy, left as without life, waits for him who shall yet heal her wounds and put an end to the ravaging and plundering of Lombardy, to the swindling and taxing of the kingdom and of Tuscany, and cleanse those sores that for long have festered. It is seen how she entreats God to send someone who shall deliver her from these wrongs and barbarous insolencies. It is seen also that she is ready and willing to follow a banner if only someone will raise it.

Nor is there to be seen at present one in whom she can place more hope than in your illustrious house,(*) with its valour and fortune, favoured by God and by the Church of which it is now the chief, and which could be made the head of this redemption. This will not be difficult if you will recall to yourself the actions and lives of the men I have named. And although they were great and wonderful men, yet they were men, and each one of them had no more opportunity than the present offers, for their enterprises were neither more just nor easier than this, nor was God more their friend than He is yours.

(*) Giuliano de Medici. He had just been created a cardinal

by Leo X. In 1523 Giuliano was elected Pope, and took the

title of Clement VII.

With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them. Here there is the greatest willingness, and where the willingness is great the difficulties cannot be great if you will only follow those men to whom I have directed your attention. Further than this, how extraordinarily the ways of God have been manifested beyond example: the sea is divided, a cloud has led the way, the rock has poured forth water, it has rained manna, everything has contributed to your greatness; you ought to do the rest. God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.

And it is not to be wondered at if none of the above-named Italians have been able to accomplish all that is expected from your illustrious house; and if in so many revolutions in Italy, and in so many campaigns, it has always appeared as if military virtue were exhausted, this has happened because the old order of things was not good, and none of us have known how to find a new one. And nothing honours a man more than to establish new laws and new ordinances when he himself was newly risen. Such things when they are well founded and dignified will make him revered and admired, and in Italy there are not wanting opportunities to bring such into use in every form.

Here there is great valour in the limbs whilst it fails in the head. Look attentively at the duels and the hand-to-hand combats, how superior the Italians are in strength, dexterity, and subtlety. But when it comes to armies they do not bear comparison, and this springs entirely from the insufficiency of the leaders, since those who are capable are not obedient, and each one seems to himself to know, there having never been any one so distinguished above the rest, either by valour or fortune, that others would yield to him. Hence it is that for so long a time, and during so much fighting in the past twenty years, whenever there has been an army wholly Italian, it has always given a poor account of itself; the first witness to this is Il Taro, afterwards Allesandria, Capua, Genoa, Vaila, Bologna, Mestri.(*)

(*) The battles of Il Taro, 1495; Alessandria, 1499; Capua,

1501; Genoa, 1507; Vaila, 1509; Bologna, 1511; Mestri, 1513.

If, therefore, your illustrious house wishes to follow these remarkable men who have redeemed their country, it is necessary before all things, as a true foundation for every enterprise, to be provided with your own forces, because there can be no more faithful, truer, or better soldiers. And although singly they are good, altogether they will be much better when they find themselves commanded by their prince, honoured by him, and maintained at his expense. Therefore it is necessary to be prepared with such arms, so that you can be defended against foreigners by Italian valour.

And although Swiss and Spanish infantry may be considered very formidable, nevertheless there is a defect in both, by reason of which a third order would not only be able to oppose them, but might be relied upon to overthrow them. For the Spaniards cannot resist cavalry, and the Switzers are afraid of infantry whenever they encounter them in close combat. Owing to this, as has been and may again be seen, the Spaniards are unable to resist French cavalry, and the Switzers are overthrown by Spanish infantry. And although a complete proof of this latter cannot be shown, nevertheless there was some evidence of it at the battle of Ravenna, when the Spanish infantry were confronted by German battalions, who follow the same tactics as the Swiss; when the Spaniards, by agility of body and with the aid of their shields, got in under the pikes of the Germans and stood out of danger, able to attack, while the Germans stood helpless, and, if the cavalry had not dashed up, all would have been over with them. It is possible, therefore, knowing the defects of both these infantries, to invent a new one, which will resist cavalry and not be afraid of infantry; this need not create a new order of arms, but a variation upon the old. And these are the kind of improvements which confer reputation and power upon a new prince.

This opportunity, therefore, ought not to be allowed to pass for letting Italy at last see her liberator appear. Nor can one express the love with which he would be received in all those provinces which have suffered so much from these foreign scourings, with what thirst for revenge, with what stubborn faith, with what devotion, with what tears. What door would be closed to him? Who would refuse obedience to him? What envy would hinder him? What Italian would refuse him homage? To all of us this barbarous dominion stinks. Let, therefore, your illustrious house take up this charge with that courage and hope with which all just enterprises are undertaken, so that under its standard our native country may be ennobled, and under its auspices may be verified that saying of Petrarch:

Virtu contro al Furore

Prendera l'arme, e fia il combatter corto:

Che l'antico valore

Negli italici cuor non e ancor morto.

Virtue against fury shall advance the fight,

And it i' th' combat soon shall put to flight:

For the old Roman valour is not dead,

Nor in th' Italians' brests extinguished.

notes

Примечания

1

Further for simplicity he is called as the president or the ruler.

2

It is possible that such state of affairs is a consequence of system of capitalism in which basis continuous growth of the capital and impetuous growth of consumption are put. Perhaps, on the contrary, capitalism still exists as best of all corresponds only to the acceptable way of existence of a civilization – on a production limit, on a consumption limit, on a limit of environmental pollution, on a limit of load of mentality.

3

Then the end would come to him, but his opponents adhered to the old, tribal relations. For them the enemy was concept personal, but not public or state so captivated spared. Genghis Khan did not spare anybody. Natural cruelty coincided with requirements of new political association.

4

Result of three programs of so-called "quantitative mitigation".

5

I will notice that for more than 17 years of Silvio Berlusconi leading, and his government fulfilled full term, on invincible, apparently, organized crime the heaviest were put – economic – blows which led to defeat of financial structure of mafia, possibility of money laundering, payment of fighters.

6

And from the personal point of view of the Venezuelan leader, and from the point of view of many heads of the region, the USA it deserved: their proteges as a result of revolution overthrew Chavez in 2002, and only counteraction of the people failed putsch.

7

Denmark owns Greenland and, respectively, enormous water area of this island; at global warming this territory gains very great economic and political value.

8

BRICS – the abbreviation made of the first letters of names five the most influential and dynamically developing countries of the world: Brazil, Russia, India, China, Republic of South Africa. The English transcription of BRICS is very similar to the English word bricks – "bricks" which reflects idea of this five as about the countries due to which growth future growth of world economy will be provided in many respects.

9

For the same reason the Soviet Union was got involved in the conflicts on other continents in due time.

10

the criminal group which seized power and economy of Russia in the 90th years. The name became stronger in the press by analogy with the name of communities of the Italian mafia.

11

there is an opinion, it is quite widespread and everything extends more widely that it is pseudo-elite. The true elite is people who answer two criteria – education and high moral, altruistic public service.

12

Yes, spiritual too because for them and for their money the mass culture in which also originally creative works sometimes are born is created.

13

In that cycle high activity proceeded two more years after the first maximum in 1989. It might, maybe the Soviet Union survived and would if recession of activity began in the 1990, but not in the 1992 year.

14

Dumping politicians – those who is fed (figuratively, of course) on boondocks of embassies, large parties and (or) the international funds.

15

Data of the World bank for 2011.

16

it is improbable: in May-June, 2013 the protest movement in Turkey united fans of various football clubs who considered as the major tasks fights among themselves before.

17

Can seem that here I contradict myself. Earlier, speaking about democracy, mentioned that the unclear new can become rescue from the next accidents, citing as an example subculture of a rock'n'roll and group of Beatles which were rejected earlier by Puritan society. Maybe, the network policy, this some kind of subculture, – that "unclear new" which can become rescue from the approaching accidents, why fights against them? There is no contradiction. Perhaps, it is valid "network hamsters" – a prototype of the new person in the world without violence. Perhaps, is also not present. It is also quite probable that in our quickly darkening times those who, "absorbing a plankton" will appear a ray of light will create a sheaf between network business and real policy. We in principle cannot know it. So everyone has to go about the own business, the main thing that the situation did not get out of the control of the power and the only judge in this competition would be the future, but not crowd or censorship.

18

Explosive to him was sold by Bronislav Pilsudsky, the brother and Jozef Pilsudsky's (Poland's first president) colleague. The history sometimes wonderfully crosses destinies of people which become its cards later.

19

it is more correct – Salah ad-Din. However, it not a real name, but the honorable nickname meaning "piety of belief". The well-known Arab sovereign was called simply Yusuf

20

It, of course, does not belong to external forces which can have the income from destruction of the country.

21

Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco

Sforza, who married Beatrice d'Este. He ruled over Milan

from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.

22

See remark in the introduction on the word

"intrattenere."

But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the things mentioned. I will speak of Louis(Louis XII, King of France, "The Father of the People," born 1462, died 1515.) (and not of Charles)(Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.) as the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a state composed of divers elements.

23

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.

24

Hiero II, born about 307 B.C., died 216 B.C.

25

"Le radici e corrispondenze," their roots (i.e. foundations) and correspondencies or relations with other states-a common meaning of "correspondence" and "correspondency" in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

26

Francesco Sforza, born 1401, died 1466. He married Bianca Maria Visconti, a natural daughter of Filippo Visconti, the Duke of Milan, on whose death he procured his own elevation to the duchy. Machiavelli was the accredited agent of the Florentine Republic to Cesare Borgia (1478–1507) during the transactions which led up to the assassinations of the Orsini and Vitelli at Sinigalia, and along with his letters to his chiefs in Florence he has left an account, written ten years before "The Prince," of the proceedings of the duke in his "Descritione del modo tenuto dal duca Valentino nello ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli," etc., a translation of which is appended to the present work.

27

Sinigalia, 31st December 1502.

28

Ramiro d'Orco. Ramiro de Lorqua.

29

Alexander VI died of fever, 18th August 1503.

Julius II was Giuliano della Rovere, Cardinal of San Pietro ad Vincula, born 1443, died 1513.

30

San Giorgio is Raffaello Riario. Ascanio is Ascanio Sforza.

Table of Contents

Due Machiavelli The President Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince

Due Machiavelli The President

Introduction

Part one State and power

Chapter I. Types of the modern states

Chapter II. About acceleration of changes in the world and how societies and the states have to correspond to them

Chapter III. State, society and power

Chapter IV. Conditions of the Supreme power

Chapter V. Modern wars

Chapter VI. Reforms of the president and successful development of the country

Chapter VII. Democracy and the sovereignty for the president

Part two People and president

Chapter VIII. Friends and enemies for the president

Chapter IX. About the government and public institutions, on which the president can lean in governing

Chapter X. Special organizations and advisers to the president

Chapter XI. How the president can use time and place

Chapter XII. Danger to the highest governing. Infantility

Chapter XIII. New trends. Internet

Chapter XIV. What advantages the president has to possess

Chapter XV. For what reasons there is a change of the ruler and his course

Appendix

Conclusion

Nicсolo Machiavelli The Prince

DEDICATION

CHAPTER I. HOW MANY KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES THERE ARE, AND BY WHAT MEANS THEY ARE ACQUIRED

CHAPTER II. CONCERNING HEREDITARY PRINCIPALITIES

CHAPTER III. CONCERNING MIXED PRINCIPALITIES

CHAPTER IV. WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER, DID NOT REBEL AGAINST THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER AT HIS DEATH

CHAPTER V. CONCERNING THE WAY TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES WHICH LIVED UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED

CHAPTER VI. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED BY ONE'S OWN ARMS AND ABILITY

CHAPTER VII. CONCERNING NEW PRINCIPALITIES WHICH ARE ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE ARMS OF OTHERS OR BY GOOD FORTUNE

CHAPTER VIII. CONCERNING THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A PRINCIPALITY BY WICKEDNESS

CHAPTER IX. CONCERNING A CIVIL PRINCIPALITY

CHAPTER X. CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED

CHAPTER XI. CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES

CHAPTER XII. HOW MANY KINDS OF SOLDIERY THERE ARE, AND CONCERNING MERCENARIES

CHAPTER XIII. CONCERNING AUXILIARIES, MIXED SOLDIERY, AND ONE'S OWN

CHAPTER XIV. THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

CHAPTER XV. CONCERNING THINGS FOR WHICH MEN, AND ESPECIALLY PRINCES, ARE PRAISED OR BLAMED

CHAPTER XVI. CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS

CHAPTER XVII. CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

CHAPTER XVIII(*). CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

CHAPTER XIX. THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID BEING DESPISED AND HATED

CHAPTER XX. ARE FORTRESSES, AND MANY OTHER THINGS TO WHICH PRINCES OFTEN RESORT, ADVANTAGEOUS OR HURTFUL?

CHAPTER XXI. HOW A PRINCE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF SO AS TO GAIN RENOWN

CHAPTER XXII. CONCERNING THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES

CHAPTER XXIII. HOW FLATTERERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED

CHAPTER XXIV. WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES

CHAPTER XXV. WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS AND HOW TO WITHSTAND HER

CHAPTER XXVI. AN EXHORTATION TO LIBERATE ITALY FROM THE BARBARIANS

Примечания

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30