# 29. Which is the more ungrateful, a People or a Prince?

With respect to the topic under discussion it seems to me relevant to inquire whether ingratitude is better exemplified by a people or by a prince. The better to discuss this I premise that the vice of ingratitude arises either from avarice or from suspicion. For when a people or a prince has entrusted the command of an important enterprise to one of their generals and he is victorious and so acquires much glory, that prince or that people is under an obligation to reward him for this. Hence if, instead of rewarding him, they are discourteous to him or give him offence, and it be avarice that moves them to it in that it is greed that restrains them from giving effect to their desire to satisfy him, in acting thus they commit an error for which there is no excuse, and which is attended with lasting infamy. Yet there are found many princes who offend in this way. Cornelius Tacitus tells us the cause of this when he says ‘One is more inclined to repay injuries than benefits; for it is burdensome to grant favours, but revenge is profitable.’

But when their motive for not rewarding him, or rather for giving him offence, is not avarice, but suspicion, there is in that case some excuse both for a people and a prince. Of ingratitude arising from this cause numerous examples are to be found in history, for the general who by his valoura has extended his lord’s dominions, vanquished his enemies, won glory for himself and riches for his troops, must needs acquire such a reputation alike with his troops, with the enemy, and with that prince’s own subjects, that the victory may not look so good to the lord under whose orders he acted. And because men are by nature both ambitious and suspicious, and know not how to use moderation where their fortunes are concerned, it is impossible that the suspicion aroused in a prince after the victory of one of his generals should not be increased by any arrogance in manner or speech displayed by the man himself. This being so, the prince cannot but look to his own security, and to this end consider putting him to death or depriving him of the standing he has thus obtained with his army and with his people by industriously pointing out that the victory was not gained by the general’s valour, but by luck, or by the cowardice of the enemy or by the prudence of other officers associated with him in the action.

When Vespasian, then in Judea, was proclaimed emperor by his army, Antonius Primus, who found himself with another army in Illyria, took Vespasian’s part and came to Italy to attack Vitellius, who was ruling in Rome. With the utmost virtuosity he broke two of Vitellius’s armies and occupied Rome. Hence Mucianus, Vespasian’s deputy, found that through Antonius’s valour everything had been acquired and all difficulties overcome. The reward which Antonius got was at once to be deprived of his command of the army by Mucianus, and step by step to be reduced to a position of no authority in Rome. When he went to see Vespasian, who was still in Asia, his reception was such that before long he became just a nobody and died in despair.

History is full of such cases. Everybody at present alive knows how in our time Gonsalvo Ferrante, when fighting against the French in the kingdom of Naples on behalf of Ferdinand, king of Aragon, by his industry and valour conquered and overcame that kingdom; and how the reward he got for his victory was that, when Ferdinand left Aragon and came to Naples, he relieved him of his command of the army in the field, then took from him the fortresses and brought him with him to Spain, where shortly afterwards he died in ignominy. This natural suspicion is, therefore, in princes so intense that there is no defence against it, and it is impossible for princes to show gratitude to those who by victory have made great conquests under the flag of their prince.

Since a prince cannot help himself in this matter it is not to be marvelled at, nor is it a matter more worthy of remark, if a people cannot help itself. Because a city in which freedom prevails has two ends in view. One is to enlarge its dominions; the other is to keep itself free. In both it can err by excess. The errors made in expanding will be discussed hi their proper place.22 The errors made in the cause of liberty are, among others, these: giving offence to citizens who should be rewarded, and the suspecting of citizens in whom confidence should be placed. Both lines of conduct in a republic which is already corrupt may occasion great evils and the coming of tyranny is thereby often accelerated, as happened in Rome when Caesar took by force what ingratitude had denied to him. Nevertheless in a republic which is not corrupt they are highly beneficial and promote the cause of freedom, for owing to the fear of punishment men stay better and less ambitious for a longer time.

Of all peoples who have ever had an empire, Rome was the least ungrateful for the reasons given above, of its ingratitude but one instance can be cited, that of Scipio. For Coriolanus and Camillus were banished on account of the injuries which in each case they had done to the plebs. Moreover, though one of them was not pardoned owing to his having always maintained a hostile attitude towards the populace, the other was not only recalled, but during the rest of his life was treated like a prince. The ingratitude with which Scipio was treated, on the other hand, arose from the suspicion which the citizens began to have of him, but which they had not felt towards others. This was due to the greatness of the enemy which Scipio had defeated, to the reputation which he had acquired by his victory after so long and so dangerous a war, to the speed with which he had gained it, and to the favours which his youth, his prudence, and his other remarkable virtues were winning for him. All this was so striking that to say the least the magistrates grew afraid of his authority. This displeased the wiseheads since it was a thing to which Rome was unused. So extraordinary, indeed, did his career seem to be that Cato the Elder, reputably a holy man, was the first to criticize him on the ground that a city could not be called free in which there was a citizen of whom the magistrates were afraid. Hence, if the people of Rome took in this matter the same view as Cato, there is some excuse for them, as I have said above of those peoples and those princes whose ingratitude is due to suspicion.

In bringing this discourse to a close, then, I say that since this vice of ingratitude is occasioned either by avarice or by suspicion, it will be found that peoples never display it owing to avarice, and that, owing to suspicion, they display it much more rarely than do princes, because peoples have less ground for suspicion, as will be explained later.23