of his essay.  The first instance he discusses is that of a prince who has conquered a dominion which he wishes to unite as firmly as possible to his hereditary states.  The new territory may either belong to the same nationality and language as the old possession, or may not.  In the former case it will be enough to extinguish the whole line of the ancient rulers, and to take care that neither the laws nor the imposts of the province be materially altered.  It will then in course of time become by natural coalition part of the old kingdom.  But if the acquired dominion be separate in language, customs, and traditions from the old, then arises a real difficulty for the conqueror.  In order to consolidate his empire and to accustom his new subjects to his rule, Machiavelli recommends that he should either take up his residence in the subjugated province, or else plant colonies throughout it, but that he should by no means trust merely to garrisons.  ‘Colonies,’ he remarks, ’are not costly to the prince, are more faithful, and cause less offense to the subject states; those whom they may injure, being poor and scattered, are prevented from doing mischief.  For it should be observed that men ought either to be caressed or trampled out, seeing that small injuries may be avenged, whereas great ones destroy the possibility of retaliation; and so the damage that has to be inflicted ought to be such that it need involve no fear of vengeance.’  I quote this passage as a specimen of Machiavelli’s direct and scientific handling of the most inhuman necessities of statecraft, as conceived by him.[1] He uses no hypocritical palliation to disguise the egotism of the conqueror.  He does not even pretend to take into consideration any interests but those of the ambitious prince.  He treats humanity as though it were the marble out of which the political artist should hew the form that pleased his fancy best.  He calculates the exact amount of oppression which will render a nation incapable of resistance, and relieve the conqueror of trouble in his work of building up a puissant kingdom for his own aggrandizement.

[1] It is fair to call attention to the strong expressions used by Machiavelli in the Discorsi, lib. i. cap. 18 and cap. 26, on the infamies and inhumanities to which the aspirant after tyranny is condemned.

What Machiavelli says about mixed principalities is pointed by a searching critique of the Italian policy of Louis XII.  The French king had well-known claims upon the Duchy of Milan, which the Venetians urged him to make good.  They proposed to unite forces and to divide the conquered province of Lombardy.  Machiavelli does not blame Louis for accepting this offer and acting in concert with the Republic.  His mistakes began the moment after he had gained possession of Milan, Genoa, and the majority of the North Italian cities.  It was then his true policy to balance Venice against Rome, to assume the protectorate