Commonwealth

party brought ruin on others. The Spaniards thought it very unfitting
that Alexander VI, himself a Spaniard by birth, should ally with Louis
XII against them. But when the Spaniards themselves had the mastery, he
said to the French ambassador that he considered it his role to remain
neutral. But it was a little late to try and extinguish the fire he had
kindled by putting on a show of piety. ...[19]
Good faith is little regarded by many princes in the alliances which
they make with one another. What is more, there are those so perfidious
that they only enter into solemn engagements with the intention of
deceiving, in this emulating the captain Lysander, who boasted that he
cheated adults by his sworn assurances, and children by his conjuring.
But God punished his perfidy according to his merits. Perjury is more to
be detested than atheism. Since the atheist does not believe in God, he
cannot sin so gravely against one in whose existence he does not
believe, as the man who does believe, and mocks God in perjuring
himself. Perjury therefore alw ays implies impiety and a wicked heart,
for he who sw ears in order to deceive evidently mocks God, fearing only
his enemy. It would be better never to call God to witness, or that

---

Page 183
power one believes to be God, only to mock Him, but only call oneself to
witness. That is what Richard, Count of Poitiers, son of the King of
England did when he confirmed the privileges of La Rochelle, he simply
added the words teste meipso.
Since faith is the sole foundation and prop of that justice on which all
commonwealths, alliances, and associations of men whatsoever, is
founded, it should be preserved sacred and inviolable in all cases where
no injustice is contemplated. This applies most particularly to the
relations between princes, for seeing that they are the guarantors of
good faith and sworn engagements, what assurance will those subject to
them have of their ow n mutual undertakings if the rulers themselves are
the principal breakers and violators of good faith? I have added, 'in
all cases where no injustice is contemplated', for it is a double sin to
engage one's faith to do an evil act. In such a case he who fails of his
promise, so far from being perfidious, is to be commended. In like case,
if the prince promises not to do something permitted by natural law, he
is not perjured if he breaks his oath. Even the subject is not foresworn
who breaks his oath regarding any action permitted by the law. But wise
princes should never bind themselves by oath to other princes to do
anything forbidden by natural law, or the law of nations, nor should
they ever compel princes weaker than themselves to swear to an agreement
quite unreasonable in its terms... Not that princes who fail to carry
out promises to their disadvantage, which have been exacted from them by
their conquerors, escape the dishonour of perjury, as certain doctors
argue. These doctors are as ill-informed about the character of the
commonwealth as they are about past history, and the true foundations of
justice. They treat engagements between sovereign princes as if they
were of the same order as contracts and agreements between private
citizens. The consequences have been most unfortunate. During the last
two to three hundred years this opinion has gained ground, with the
result that there has been no treaty, however beneficial, which has not
been infringed. It is remarkable that the first legislators and jurists,
and the Romans who were models of justice, never thought of such
subtleties. For it is very obvious that most treaties of peace are made
under constraint, from fear of the victor, or of him who is the stronger