but after one weak Prince no Kingdom can stand a second._
When we contemplate the excellent qualities of Romulus, Numa, and
Tullus, the first three kings of Rome, and note the methods which they
followed, we recognize the extreme good fortune of that city in having
her first king fierce and warlike, her second peaceful and religious,
and her third, like the first, of a high spirit and more disposed to
war than to peace. For it was essential for Rome that almost at the
outset of her career, a ruler should be found to lay the foundations of
her civil life; but, after that had been done, it was necessary that
her rulers should return to the virtues of Romulus, since otherwise the
city must have grown feeble, and become a prey to her neighbours.
And here we may note that a prince who succeeds to another of superior
valour, may reign on by virtue of his predecessor’s merits, and reap
the fruits of his labours; but if he live to a great age, or if he be
followed by another who is wanting in the qualities of the first, that
then the kingdom must necessarily dwindle. Conversely, when two
consecutive princes are of rare excellence, we commonly find them
achieving results which win for them enduring renown. David, for
example, not only surpassed in learning and judgment, but was so
valiant in arms that, after conquering and subduing all his neighbours,
he left to his young son Solomon a tranquil State, which the latter,
though unskilled in the arts of war, could maintain by the arts of
peace, and thus happily enjoy the inheritance of his father’s valour.
But Solomon could not transmit this inheritance to his son Rehoboam,
who neither resembling his grandfather in valour, nor his father in
good fortune, with difficulty made good his right to a sixth part of
the kingdom. In like manner Bajazet, sultan of the Turks, though a man
of peace rather than of war, was able to enjoy the labours of Mahomet
his father, who, like David, having subdued his neighbours, left his
son a kingdom so safely established that it could easily be retained by
him by peaceful arts. But had Selim, son to Bajazet, been like his
father, and not like his grandfather, the Turkish monarchy must have
been overthrown; as it is, he seems likely to outdo the fame of his
grandsire.
I affirm it to be proved by these examples, that after a valiant prince
a feeble prince may maintain himself; but that no kingdom can stand
when two feeble princes follow in succession, unless, as in the case of
France, it be supported by its ancient ordinances. By feeble princes, I
mean such as are not valiant in war. And, to put the matter shortly, it
may be said, that the great valour of Romulus left Numa a period of
many years within which to govern Rome by peaceful arts; that after
Numa came Tullus, who renewed by his courage the fame of Romulus; and
that he in turn was succeeded by Ancus, a prince so gifted by nature
that he could equally avail himself of the methods of peace or war; who
setting himself at first to pursue the former, when he found that his
neighbours judged him to be effeminate, and therefore held him in
slight esteem, understood that to preserve Rome he must resort to arms
and resemble Romulus rather than Numa. From whose example every ruler
of a State may learn that a prince like Numa will hold or lose his
power according as fortune and circumstances befriend him; but that the
prince who resembles Romulus, and like him is fortified with foresight
and arms, will hold his State whatever befall, unless deprived of it by
some stubborn and irresistible force. For we may reckon with certainty
that if Rome had not had for her third king one who knew how to restore
her credit by deeds of valour, she could not, or at any rate not
without great difficulty, have afterwards held her ground, nor could
ever have achieved the great exploits she did.
And for these reasons Rome, while she lived under her kings, was in
constant danger of destruction through a king who might be weak or bad.