he is also the greatest of our countrymen in full possession of a national Italian consciousness.  To liberate Italy, which was in his day “enslaved, torn and pillaged,” and to make her more powerful, he would use any means, for to his mind the holiness of the end justified them completely.  In this he was sharply rebuked by foreigners who were not as hostile to his means as they were fearful of the end which he propounded.  He advocated therefore the constitution of a strong Italian state, supported by the sacrifices and by the blood of the citizens, not defended by mercenary troops; well-ordered internally, aggressive and bent on expansion.  “Weak republics,” he said, “have no determination and can never reach a decision.” (Disc.  I. c. 38).  “Weak states were ever dubious in choosing their course, and slow deliberations are always harmful.” (Disc.  I. c. 10).  And again:  “Whoso undertakes to govern a multitude either in a regime of liberty or in a monarchy, without previously making sure of those who are hostile to the new order of things builds a short-lived state.” (Disc.  I. c. 16).  And further on “the dictatorial authority helped and did not harm the Roman republic” (Disc.  I. c. 34), and “Kings and republics lacking in national troops both for offense and defense should be ashamed of their existence.” (Disc.  I. c. 21).  And again:  “Money not only does not protect you but rather it exposes you to plundering assaults.  Nor can there be a more false opinion than that which says that money is the sinews of war.  Not money but good soldiers win battles.” (Disc.  I. II. c. 10).  “The country must be defended with ignominy or with glory and in either way it is nobly defended.” (Disc.  III. c. 41).  “And with dash and boldness people often capture what they never would have obtained by ordinary means.” (Disc.  III. c. 44).  Machiavelli was not only a great political authority, he taught the mastery of energy and will.  Fascism learns from him not only its doctrines but its action as well.

Different from Machiavelli’s, in mental attitude, in cultural preparation, and in manner of presentation, G.B.  Vico must yet be connected with the great Florentine from whom in a certain way he seems to proceed.  In the heyday of “natural law” Vico is decidedly opposed to ius naturale and in his attacks against its advocates, Grotius, Seldenus and Pufendorf, he systematically assails the abstract, rationalistic, and utilitarian principles of the XVIII century.  As Montemayor justly says:[4] “While the ‘natural jurists’, basing justice and state on utility and interest and grounding human certitude on reason, were striving to draft permanent codes and construct the perfect state, Vico strongly asserted the social nature of man, the ethical character of the juridical consciousness and its growth through the history of humanity rather than in sacred history.  Vico therefore maintains that doctrines must begin with those subjects which take up and explain the