History Of Florence And Of The Affairs Of Italy

N >> Niccolo Machiavelli >> History Of Florence And Of The Affairs Of Italy

HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY

FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE DEATH OF LORENZO THE MAGNIFICENT

By Niccolo Machiavelli




With an Introduction by

HUGO ALBERT RENNERT, Ph.D. Professor of Romanic Languages and
Literature, University of Pennsylvania.


PREPARER'S NOTE

This text was typed up from a Universal Classics Library edition,
published in 1901 by W. Walter Dunne, New York and London. The
translator was not named. The book contains a "photogravure" of
Niccolo Machiavelli from an engraving.




INTRODUCTION

Niccolo Machiavelli, the first great Italian historian, and one of
the most eminent political writers of any age or country, was born
at Florence, May 3, 1469. He was of an old though not wealthy Tuscan
family, his father, who was a jurist, dying when Niccolo was sixteen
years old. We know nothing of Machiavelli's youth and little about
his studies. He does not seem to have received the usual humanistic
education of his time, as he knew no Greek.[*] The first notice of
Machiavelli is in 1498 when we find him holding the office of Secretary
in the second Chancery of the Signoria, which office he retained till
the downfall of the Florentine Republic in 1512. His unusual ability was
soon recognized, and in 1500 he was sent on a mission to Louis XII.
of France, and afterward on an embassy to Caesar Borgia, the lord of
Romagna, at Urbino. Machiavelli's report and description of this and
subsequent embassies to this prince, shows his undisguised admiration
for the courage and cunning of Caesar, who was a master in the
application of the principles afterwards exposed in such a skillful and
uncompromising manner by Machiavelli in his _Prince_.

The limits of this introduction will not permit us to follow with any
detail the many important duties with which he was charged by his native
state, all of which he fulfilled with the utmost fidelity and with
consummate skill. When, after the battle of Ravenna in 1512 the holy
league determined upon the downfall of Pier Soderini, Gonfaloniere of
the Florentine Republic, and the restoration of the Medici, the efforts
of Machiavelli, who was an ardent republican, were in vain; the troops
he had helped to organize fled before the Spaniards and the Medici were
returned to power. Machiavelli attempted to conciliate his new masters,
but he was deprived of his office, and being accused in the following
year of participation in the conspiracy of Boccoli and Capponi, he was
imprisoned and tortured, though afterward set at liberty by Pope Leo
X. He now retired to a small estate near San Casciano, seven miles from
Florence. Here he devoted himself to political and historical studies,
and though apparently retired from public life, his letters show the
deep and passionate interest he took in the political vicissitudes
through which Italy was then passing, and in all of which the singleness
of purpose with which he continued to advance his native Florence, is
clearly manifested. It was during his retirement upon his little estate
at San Casciano that Machiavelli wrote _The Prince_, the most famous of
all his writings, and here also he had begun a much more extensive work,
his _Discourses on the Decades of Livy_, which continued to occupy him
for several years. These _Discourses_, which do not form a continuous
commentary on Livy, give Machiavelli an opportunity to express his own
views on the government of the state, a task for which his long and
varied political experience, and an assiduous study of the ancients
rendered him eminently qualified. The _Discourses_ and _The Prince_,
written at the same time, supplement each other and are really one work.
Indeed, the treatise, _The Art of War_, though not written till 1520
should be mentioned here because of its intimate connection with these
two treatises, it being, in fact, a further development of some of
the thoughts expressed in the _Discorsi_. _The Prince_, a short work,
divided into twenty-six books, is the best known of all Machiavelli's
writings. Herein he expresses in his own masterly way his views on the
founding of a new state, taking for his type and model Caesar Borgia,
although the latter had failed in his schemes for the consolidation of
his power in the Romagna. The principles here laid down were the natural
outgrowth of the confused political conditions of his time. And as in
the _Principe_, as its name indicates, Machiavelli is concerned chiefly
with the government of a Prince, so the _Discorsi_ treat principally
of the Republic, and here Machiavelli's model republic was the Roman
commonwealth, the most successful and most enduring example of popular
government. Free Rome is the embodiment of his political idea of the
state. Much that Machiavelli says in this treatise is as true to-day and
holds as good as the day it was written. And to us there is much that
is of especial importance. To select a chapter almost at random, let us
take Book I., Chap. XV.: "Public affairs are easily managed in a city
where the body of the people is not corrupt; and where equality
exists, there no principality can be established; nor can a republic be
established where there is no equality."

No man has been more harshly judged than Machiavelli, especially in
the two centuries following his death. But he has since found many able
champions and the tide has turned. _The Prince_ has been termed a manual
for tyrants, the effect of which has been most pernicious. But were
Machiavelli's doctrines really new? Did he discover them? He merely had
the candor and courage to write down what everybody was thinking and
what everybody knew. He merely gives us the impressions he had received
from a long and intimate intercourse with princes and the affairs of
state. It was Lord Bacon, I believe, who said that Machiavelli tells us
what princes do, not what they ought to do. When Machiavelli takes Caesar
Borgia as a model, he in nowise extols him as a hero, but merely as a
prince who was capable of attaining the end in view. The life of the
State was the primary object. It must be maintained. And Machiavelli has
laid down the principles, based upon his study and wide experience,
by which this may be accomplished. He wrote from the view-point of
the politician,--not of the moralist. What is good politics may be bad
morals, and in fact, by a strange fatality, where morals and politics
clash, the latter generally gets the upper hand. And will anyone contend
that the principles set forth by Machiavelli in his _Prince_ or his
_Discourses_ have entirely perished from the earth? Has diplomacy been
entirely stripped of fraud and duplicity? Let anyone read the famous
eighteenth chapter of _The Prince_: "In what Manner Princes should keep
their Faith," and he will be convinced that what was true nearly four
hundred years ago, is quite as true to-day.

Of the remaining works of Machiavelli the most important is the _History
of Florence_ written between 1521 and 1525, and dedicated to Clement
VII. The first book is merely a rapid review of the Middle Ages, the
history of Florence beginning with Book II. Machiavelli's method has
been censured for adhering at times too closely to the chroniclers like
Villani, Cambi, and Giovanni Cavalcanti, and at others rejecting their
testimony without apparent reason, while in its details the authority of
his _History_ is often questionable. It is the straightforward, logical
narrative, which always holds the interest of the reader that is the
greatest charm of the _History_. Of the other works of Machiavelli we
may mention here his comedies the _Mandragola_ and _Clizia_, and his
novel _Belfagor_.

After the downfall of the Republic and Machiavelli's release from prison
in 1513, fortune seems never again to have favoured him. It is true that
in 1520 Giuliano de' Medici commissioned him to write his _History of
Florence_, and he afterwards held a number of offices, yet these
latter were entirely beneath his merits. He had been married in 1502 to
Marietta Corsini, who bore him four sons and a daughter. He died on June
22, 1527, leaving his family in the greatest poverty, a sterling tribute
to his honesty, when one considers the many opportunities he doubtless
had to enrich himself. Machiavelli's life was not without blemish--few
lives are. We must bear in mind the atmosphere of craft, hypocrisy, and
poison in which he lived,--his was the age of Caesar Borgia and of Popes
like the monster Alexander VI. and Julius II. Whatever his faults may
have been, Machiavelli was always an ardent patriot and an earnest
supporter of popular government. It is true that he was willing to
accept a prince, if one could be found courageous enough and prudent
enough to unite dismembered Italy, for in the unity of his native land
he saw the only hope of its salvation.

Machiavelli is buried in the church of Santa Croce at Florence, beside
the tomb of Michael Angelo. His monument bears this inscription:

"Tanto nomini nullum par eulogium."

And though this praise is doubtless exaggerated, he is a son of whom his
country may be justly proud.

Hugo Albert Rennert.

[*] Villari, _Niccolo Machiavelli e i suoi tempi_, 2d ed.
Milan, 1895-97, the best work on the subject. The most
complete bibliography of Machiavelli up to 1858 is to be
found in Mohl, _Gesch. u. Liter. der Staatswissenshaften_,
Erlangen, 1855, III., 521-91. See also _La Vita e gli
scritti di Niccolo Machiavelli nella loro Relazione col
Machiavellismo_, by O. Tommasini, Turin, 1883 (unfinished).

The best English translation of Machiavelli with which I am
acquainted is: The Historical, Political, and Diplomatic
writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, translated by Christian E.
Detmold. Osgood & Co., Boston, 1882, 4 vols. 8vo.




THE FLORENTINE HISTORY OF NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI




BOOK I



CHAPTER I

Irruption of Northern people upon the Roman
territories--Visigoths--Barbarians called in by Stilicho--Vandals
in Africa--Franks and Burgundians give their names to France and
Burgundy--The Huns--Angles give the name to England--Attila, king of the
Huns, in Italy--Genseric takes Rome--The Lombards.

The people who inhabit the northern parts beyond the Rhine and the
Danube, living in a healthy and prolific region, frequently increase to
such vast multitudes that part of them are compelled to abandon their
native soil, and seek a habitation in other countries. The method
adopted, when one of these provinces had to be relieved of its
superabundant population, was to divide into three parts, each
containing an equal number of nobles and of people, of rich and of poor.
The third upon whom the lot fell, then went in search of new abodes,
leaving the remaining two-thirds in possession of their native country.

These migrating masses destroyed the Roman empire by the facilities for
settlement which the country offered when the emperors abandoned
Rome, the ancient seat of their dominion, and fixed their residence at
Constantinople; for by this step they exposed the western empire to
the rapine of both their ministers and their enemies, the remoteness of
their position preventing them either from seeing or providing for
its necessities. To suffer the overthrow of such an extensive empire,
established by the blood of so many brave and virtuous men, showed no
less folly in the princes themselves than infidelity in their ministers;
for not one irruption alone, but many, contributed to its ruin;
and these barbarians exhibited much ability and perseverance in
accomplishing their object.

The first of these northern nations that invaded the empire after the
Cimbrians, who were conquered by Caius Marius, was the Visigoths--which
name in our language signifies "Western Goths." These, after some
battles fought along its confines, long held their seat of dominion upon
the Danube, with consent of the emperors; and although, moved by various
causes, they often attacked the Roman provinces, were always kept in
subjection by the imperial forces. The emperor Theodosius conquered them
with great glory; and, being wholly reduced to his power, they no longer
selected a sovereign of their own, but, satisfied with the terms which
he granted them, lived and fought under his ensigns, and authority. On
the death of Theodosius, his sons Arcadius and Honorius, succeeded to
the empire, but not to the talents and fortune of their father; and
the times became changed with the princes. Theodosius had appointed a
governor to each of the three divisions of the empire, Ruffinus to the
eastern, to the western Stilicho, and Gildo to the African. Each of
these, after the death of Theodosius, determined not to be governors
merely, but to assume sovereign dominion over their respective
provinces. Gildo and Ruffinus were suppressed at their outset; but
Stilicho, concealing his design, ingratiated himself with the new
emperors, and at the same time so disturbed their government, as to
facilitate his occupation of it afterward. To make the Visigoths their
enemies, he advised that the accustomed stipend allowed to this people
should be withheld; and as he thought these enemies would not
be sufficient alone to disturb the empire, he contrived that the
Burgundians, Franks, Vandals, and Alans (a northern people in search of
new habitations), should assail the Roman provinces.

That they might be better able to avenge themselves for the injury
they had sustained, the Visigoths, on being deprived of their subsidy,
created Alaric their king; and having assailed the empire, succeeded,
after many reverses, in overrunning Italy, and finally in pillaging
Rome.

After this victory, Alaric died, and his successor, Astolphus, having
married Placidia, sister of the emperors, agreed with them to go to
the relief of Gaul and Spain, which provinces had been assailed by
the Vandals, Burgundians, Alans, and Franks, from the causes before
mentioned. Hence it followed, that the Vandals, who had occupied that
part of Spain called Betica (now Andalusia), being pressed by the
Visigoths, and unable to resist them, were invited by Boniface, who
governed Africa for the empire, to occupy that province; for, being in
rebellion, he was afraid his error would become known to the emperor.
For these reasons the Vandals gladly undertook the enterprise, and under
Genseric, their king, became lords of Africa.

At this time Theodosius, son of Arcadius, succeeded to the empire; and,
bestowing little attention on the affairs of the west, caused those who
had taken possession to think of securing their acquisitions. Thus the
Vandals ruled Africa; the Alans and Visigoths, Spain; while the Franks
and Burgundians not only took Gaul, but each gave their name to the part
they occupied; hence one is called France, the other Burgundy. The good
fortune of these brought fresh people to the destruction of the empire,
one of which, the Huns, occupied the province of Pannonia, situated upon
the nearer shore of the Danube, and which, from their name, is still
called Hungary. To these disorders it must be added, that the emperor,
seeing himself attacked on so many sides, to lessen the number of his
enemies, began to treat first with the Vandals, then with the Franks;
a course which diminished his own power, and increased that of the
barbarians. Nor was the island of Britain, which is now called England,
secure from them; for the Britons, being apprehensive of those who had
occupied Gaul, called the Angli, a people of Germany, to their aid; and
these under Vortigern their king, first defended, and then drove them
from the island, of which they took possession, and after themselves
named the country England. But the inhabitants, being robbed of their
home, became desperate by necessity and resolved to take possession of
some other country, although they had been unable to defend their own.
They therefore crossed the sea with their families, and settled in the
country nearest to the beach, which from themselves is called Brittany.
The Huns, who were said above to have occupied Pannonia, joining with
other nations, as the Zepidi, Eurili, Turingi, and Ostro, or eastern
Goths, moved in search of new countries, and not being able to enter
France, which was defended by the forces of the barbarians, came into
Italy under Attila their king. He, a short time previously, in order to
possess the entire monarchy, had murdered his brother Bleda; and having
thus become very powerful, Andaric, king of the Zepidi, and Velamir,
king of the Ostrogoths, became subject to him. Attila, having entered
Italy, laid siege to Aquileia, where he remained without any
obstacle for two years, wasting the country round, and dispersing the
inhabitants. This, as will be related in its place, caused the origin
of Venice. After the taking and ruin of Aquileia, he directed his course
towards Rome, from the destruction of which he abstained at the entreaty
of the pontiff, his respect for whom was so great that he left Italy and
retired into Austria, where he died. After the death of Attila, Velamir,
king of the Ostrogoths, and the heads of the other nations, took arms
against his sons Henry and Uric, slew the one and compelled the other,
with his Huns, to repass the Danube and return to their country; while
the Ostrogoths and the Zepidi established themselves in Pannonia, and
the Eruli and the Turingi upon the farther bank of the Danube.

Attila having left Italy, Valentinian, emperor of the west, thought of
restoring the country; and, that he might be more ready to defend
it against the barbarians, abandoned Rome, and removed the seat of
government to Ravenna. The misfortunes which befell the western empire
caused the emperor, who resided at Constantinople, on many occasions to
give up the possession of it to others, as a charge full of danger
and expense; and sometimes, without his permission, the Romans, seeing
themselves so abandoned, created an emperor for their defense, or
suffered some one to usurp the dominion. This occurred at the period
of which we now speak, when Maximus, a Roman, after the death of
Valentinian, seized the government, and compelled Eudocia, widow of the
late emperor, to take him for her husband; but she, being of imperial
blood, scorned the connection of a private citizen; and being anxious to
avenge herself for the insult, secretly persuaded Genseric, king of the
Vandals and master of Africa to come to Italy, representing to him the
advantage he would derive from the undertaking, and the facility with
which it might be accomplished. Tempted by the hope of booty, he came
immediately, and finding Rome abandoned, plundered the city during
fourteen days. He also ravaged many other places in Italy, and then,
loaded with wealth, withdrew to Africa. The Romans, having returned
to their city, and Maximus being dead, elected Avitus, a Roman, as his
successor. After this, several important events occurred both in Italy
and in the countries beyond; and after the deaths of many emperors
the empire of Constantinople devolved upon Zeno, and that of Rome upon
Orestes and Augustulus his son, who obtained the sovereignty by fraud.
While they were designing to hold by force what they had obtained by
treachery, the Eruli and the Turingi, who, after the death of Attila, as
before remarked, had established themselves upon the farther bank of
the Danube, united in a league and invaded Italy under Odoacer their
general. Into the districts which they left unoccupied, the Longobardi
or Lombards, also a northern people, entered, led by Godogo their king.
Odoacer conquered and slew Orestes near Pavia, but Augustulus escaped.
After this victory, that Rome might, with her change of power, also
change her title, Odoacer, instead of using the imperial name, caused
himself to be declared king of Rome. He was the first of those leaders
who at this period overran the world and thought of settling in Italy;
for the others, either from fear that they should not be able to hold
the country, knowing that it might easily be relieved by the eastern
emperors, or from some unknown cause, after plundering her, sought other
countries wherein to establish themselves.



CHAPTER II

State of the Roman empire under Zeno--Theodoric king of the
Ostrogoths--Character of Theodoric--Changes in the Roman empire--New
languages--New names--Theodoric dies--Belisarius in Italy--Totila takes
Rome--Narses destroys the Goths--New form of Government in Italy--Narses
invites the Lombards into Italy--The Lombards change the form of
government.

At this time the ancient Roman empire was governed by the following
princes: Zeno, reigning in Constantinople, commanded the whole of the
eastern empire; the Ostrogoths ruled Mesia and Pannonia; the Visigoths,
Suavi, and Alans, held Gascony and Spain; the Vandals, Africa; the
Franks and Burgundians, France; and the Eruli and Turingi, Italy. The
kingdom of the Ostrogoths had descended to Theodoric, nephew of Velamir,
who, being on terms of friendship with Zeno the eastern emperor, wrote
to him that his Ostrogoths thought it an injustice that they, being
superior in valor to the people thereabout, should be inferior to them
in dominion, and that it was impossible for him to restrain them within
the limits of Pannonia. So, seeing himself under the necessity of
allowing them to take arms and go in search of new abodes, he wished
first to acquaint Zeno with it, in order that he might provide for them,
by granting some country in which they might establish themselves, by
his good favor with greater propriety and convenience. Zeno, partly
from fear and partly from a desire to drive Odoacer out of Italy, gave
Theodoric permission to lead his people against him, and take possession
of the country. Leaving his friends the Zepidi in Pannonia, Theodoric
marched into Italy, slew Odoacer and his son, and, moved by the same
reasons which had induced Valentinian to do so, established his court at
Ravenna, and like Odoacer took the title of king of Italy.

Theodoric possessed great talents both for war and peace; in the former
he was always conqueror, and in the latter he conferred very great
benefits upon the cities and people under him. He distributed the
Ostrogoths over the country, each district under its leader, that he
might more conveniently command them in war, and govern them in peace.
He enlarged Ravenna, restored Rome, and, with the exception of military
discipline, conferred upon the Romans every honor. He kept within
their proper bounds, wholly by the influence of his character, all the
barbarian kings who occupied the empire; he built towns and fortresses
between the point of the Adriatic and the Alps, in order, with the
greater facility, to impede the passage of any new hordes of barbarians
who might design to assail Italy; and if, toward the latter end of his
life, so many virtues had not been sullied by acts of cruelty, caused
by various jealousies of his people, such as the death of Symmachus and
Boethius, men of great holiness, every point of his character would have
deserved the highest praise. By his virtue and goodness, not only
Rome and Italy, but every part of the western empire, freed from the
continual troubles which they had suffered from the frequent influx
of barbarians, acquired new vigor, and began to live in an orderly and
civilized manner. For surely if any times were truly miserable for
Italy and the provinces overrun by the barbarians, they were those which
occurred from Arcadius and Honorius to Theodoric. If we only consider
the evils which arise to a republic or a kingdom by a change of prince
or of government; not by foreign interference, but by civil discord (in
which we may see how even slight variations suffice to ruin the most
powerful kingdoms or states), we may then easily imagine how much Italy
and the other Roman provinces suffered, when they not only changed their
forms of government and their princes, but also their laws, customs,
modes of living, religion, language, and name. Any one of such changes,
by itself, without being united with others, might, with thinking of
it, to say nothing of the seeing and suffering, infuse terror into the
strongest minds.

From these causes proceeded the ruin as well as the origin and extension
of many cities. Among those which were ruined were Aquileia, Luni,
Chiusi, Popolonia, Fiesole, and many others. The new cities were Venice,
Sienna, Ferrara, Aquila, with many towns and castles which for brevity
we omit. Those which became extended were Florence, Genoa, Pisa,
Milan, Naples, and Bologna; to all of which may be added, the ruin and
restoration of Rome, and of many other cities not previously mentioned.

From this devastation and new population arose new languages, as we see
in the different dialects of France, Spain and Italy; which, partaking
of the native idiom of the new people and of the old Roman, formed a
new manner of discourse. Besides, not only were the names of provinces
changed, but also of lakes, rivers, seas, and men; for France, Spain,
and Italy are full of fresh names, wholly different from the
ancient; as, omitting many others, we see that the Po, the Garda, the
Archipelago, are names quite different from those which the ancients
used; while instead of Caesar and Pompey we have Peter, Matthew, John,
etc.