the leaders of Roman republic—whom Machiavelli indicates did not go to live in their
acquisitions but stayed in Rome (cf. D I 53)—saw disorders arise from afar. They did not
depend on the circumstance of proximity to make plain to them what any fool could see
up close, but rather enjoyed “the benefit of their virtue and prudence.”
Of course, what is more important than merely having knowledge is what one has
knowledge of. Machiavelli indicates here that the most important or at least useful
knowledge is knowledge of causes,
be the way that natural and ordinary necessities operate on men: these necessities, for
instance, caused Louis’ first loss of Milan. Knowledge of causes is what enables the
effective use of power. Knowing how to use power is to have a remedy. In other words,
neither knowledge nor power alone is enough. It would appear that the former by itself is
impotent and the latter by itself stupid or at least heedless. Machiavelli appears to dispute
the classical contention that knowledge is primarily a matter of understanding and not of
Chapter 4 continues the discussion of “nature.” Machiavelli uses the word twice: first
seemingly to reiterate what he says about the hereditary prince being “natural” in Ch. 2,
second when he asks the reader to “consider … the nature of Darius’s government.” The
first use is not what it seems to be: Machiavelli does not in fact repeat his invocation of
“natural prince,” a term he subsequently undermines in Chapter 3 when he speaks of the
“natural and ordinary desire to acquire.” Here he speaks instead of the “natural
affection” that peoples have for their hereditary lords. Thus he is discussing here not the
101
Cf. note 97 above.
102
“Power” in one form or another appears 52 times in The Prince (if one includes the one instance of
impotente). (We recall that “acquire” also appears 52 times; cf. pp.23- 24 above). 21 of those uses occur in
Chapter 3, by far the highest density of usage in any chapter; and 13 of those 21 appear in the paragraphs
that discuss the Romans.
103
Cf. note 61 above.
104
Cf. de Alvarez commentary pp. 16, 139-140.
59
Convention