WHILST the conduct of the prince is crucial to his success, Machiavelli states that those around him must also be of a particularly high standard:

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.

He cites the example of Antonio da Venafro (1459-1530), who served as a loyal minister in Pandolfo Petrucci’s (1452-1512) Siena government and who is said to have occupied the second of three categories:

There are three classes of minds: one which understands by itself, another which appreciates what others understood, and a third which neither understands by itself nor through the explanation of others. The first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.

In many ways, perhaps, this categorisation implies that Venafro possessed little in the way of his own mind and this is evidenced by Machiavelli’s subsequent observation concerning

someone 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. He should always think of his prince and never pay any attention to matters in which the prince is not concerned.

A servant must also be rewarded for his loyalty, but in order to retain that loyalty the prince must demonstrate to the servant that he cannot possibly survive without him. In other words, those around the prince are made to feel completely dependent on him and him alone.

Frederick opens his reply to these assertions with the notion that there

are two species of princes in the world: those which see all by their own eyes, and control their States by themselves; and those who rest on the good faith of their ministers, and hand off some control to those who are inspired by the prince’s spirit.

The former, being in control of their own affairs, are clearly more capable than those who have come to rely on the servants around them. Furthermore, if the head of a principality is made greater by one of his underlings then surely it suggests that he must have a personal defect of some kind? Frederick agrees, however, that loyalty itself is absolutely priceless:

It seems to me that a prince cannot reward fidelity enough for those which serve him with zeal; there is a certain feeling of justice in us which leads us to this recognition, and which should be followed. But the general interest requires absolutely that the princes reward with as much generosity as they punish with leniency; because the ministers who realize that the virtue will be the instrument of their fortune, will not have recourse to the crime, and they will naturally prefer the benefits of their Master to foreign corruptions.

It is not difficult, he suggests, for a prince to detect some form of dissension amongst those who are closest to him. The true prince must also show patience and tolerance towards the defects of his servants, so as not to alienate them or lose them completely. Frederick compares this to a musician who knows which instruments he can rely on and which will best serve his needs.

TO BE CONTINUED…