In connection with what has been said above, it seems proper to
consider whether more notable instances of ingratitude are supplied by
princes or peoples. And, to go to the root of the matter, I affirm that
this vice of ingratitude has its source either in avarice or in
suspicion. For a prince or people when they have sent forth a captain
on some important enterprise, by succeeding in which he earns a great
name, are bound in return to reward him; and if moved by avarice and
covetousness they fail to do so, or if, instead of rewarding, they
wrong and disgrace him, they commit an error which is not only without
excuse, but brings with it undying infamy. And, in fact, we find many
princes who have sinned in this way, for the cause given by Cornelius
Tacitus when he says, that “_men are readier to pay back injuries than
benefits, since to requite a benefit is felt to be a burthen, to return
an injury a gain_.”[3]
[3] Proclivius est injuriæ quam beneficio vicem exsolvere, quia gratia
oneri, ultio in quastu habetur. _Tacit. Hist._ iv. 2.
When, however, reward is withheld, or, to speak more correctly, where
offence is given, not from avarice but from suspicion, the prince or
people may deserve some excuse; and we read of many instances of
ingratitude proceeding from this cause. For the captain who by his
valour has won new dominions for his prince, since while overcoming his
enemies, he at the same time covers himself with glory and enriches his
soldiers, must needs acquire such credit with his own followers, and
with the enemy, and also with the subjects of his prince, as cannot be
wholly agreeable to the master who sent him forth. And since men are by
nature ambitious as well as jealous, and none loves to set a limit to
his fortunes, the suspicion which at once lays hold of the prince when
he sees his captain victorious, is sure to be inflamed by some arrogant
act or word of the captain himself. So that the prince will be unable
to think of anything but how to secure himself; and to this end will
contrive how he may put his captain to death, or at any rate deprive
him of the credit he has gained with the army and among the people;
doing all he can to show that the victory was not won by his valour,
but by good fortune, or by the cowardice of the enemy, or by the skill
and prudence of those commanders who were with him at this or the other
battle.
After Vespasian, who was then in Judæa, had been proclaimed emperor by
his army, Antonius Primus, who commanded another army in Illyria,
adopted his cause, and marching into Italy against Vitellius who had
been proclaimed emperor in Rome, courageously defeated two armies under
that prince, and occupied Rome; so that Mutianus, who was sent thither
by Vespasian, found everything done to his hand, and all difficulties
surmounted by the valour of Antonius. But all the reward which Antonius
had for his pains, was, that Mutianus forthwith deprived him of his
command of the army, and by degrees diminished his authority in Rome
till none was left him. Thereupon Antonius went to join Vespasian, who
was still in Asia; by whom he was so coldly received and so little
considered, that in despair he put himself to death. And of cases like
this, history is full. Every man living at the present hour knows with
what zeal and courage Gonsalvo of Cordova, while conducting the war in
Naples against the French, conquered and subdued that kingdom for his
master Ferdinand of Aragon; and how his services were requited by
Ferdinand coming from Aragon to Naples, and first of all depriving him
of the command of the army, afterwards of the fortresses, and finally
carrying him back with him to Spain, where soon after he died in
disgrace.
This jealousy, then, is so natural to princes, that they cannot guard
themselves against it, nor show gratitude to those who serving under
their standard have gained great victories and made great conquests on
their behalf. And if it be impossible for princes to free their minds
from such suspicions, there is nothing strange or surprising that a
people should be unable to do so. For as a city living under free
institutions has two ends always before it, namely to acquire liberty
and to preserve it, it must of necessity be led by its excessive
passion for liberty to make mistakes in the pursuit of both these
objects. Of the mistakes it commits in the effort to acquire liberty, I
shall speak, hereafter, in the proper place. Of mistakes committed in
the endeavour to preserve liberty are to be noted, the injuring those
citizens who ought to be rewarded, and the suspecting those who should
be trusted. Now, although in a State which has grown corrupt these
errors occasion great evils, and commonly lead to a tyranny, as
happened in Rome when Cæsar took by force what ingratitude had denied
him, they are nevertheless the cause of much good in the republic which
has not been corrupted, since they prolong the duration of its free
institutions, and make men, through fear of punishment, better and less
ambitious. Of all peoples possessed of great power, the Romans, for the
reasons I have given, have undoubtedly been the least ungrateful, since
we have no other instance of their ingratitude to cite, save that of
Scipio. For both Coriolanus and Camillus were banished on account of
the wrongs which they inflicted on the commons; and though the former
was not forgiven because he constantly retained ill will against the
people, the latter was not only recalled, but for the rest of his life
honoured as a prince. But the ingratitude shown towards Scipio arose
from the suspicion wherewith the citizens came to regard him, which
they had not felt in the case of the others, and which was occasioned
by the greatness of the enemy whom he had overthrown, the fame he had
won by prevailing in so dangerous and protracted a war, the suddenness
of his victories, and, finally, the favour which his youth, together
with his prudence and his other memorable qualities had gained for him.
These qualities were, in truth, so remarkable that the very
magistrates, not to speak of others, stood in awe of his authority, a
circumstance displeasing to prudent citizens, as before unheard of in
Rome. In short, his whole bearing and character were so much out of the
common, that even the elder Cato, so celebrated for his austere virtue,
was the first to declare against him, saying that no city could be
deemed free which contained a citizen who was feared by the
magistrates. And since, in this instance, the Romans followed the
opinion of Cato, they merit that excuse which, as I have said already,
should be extended to the prince or people who are ungrateful through
suspicion.
In conclusion it is to be said that while this vice of ingratitude has
its origin either in avarice or in suspicion, commonwealths are rarely
led into it by avarice, and far seldomer than princes by suspicion,
having, as shall presently be shown, far less reason than princes for
suspecting.