Further, he ought to entertain the people with festivals
and spectacles at convenient seasons of the year;
and as every city is divided into guilds or into societies,(*)
he ought to hold such bodies in esteem, and associate
with them sometimes, and show himself an example of
courtesy and liberality; nevertheless, always maintaining
the majesty of his rank, for this he must never consent
to abate in anything.
(*) “Guilds or societies,”
“in arti o in tribu.” “Arti”
were craft or trade guilds, cf. Florio:
“Arte . . . a whole company of any trade
in any city or corporation town.” The guilds
of Florence are most admirably described by Mr Edgcumbe
Staley in his work on the subject (Methuen, 1906).
Institutions of a somewhat similar character,
called “artel,” exist in Russia to-day,
cf. Sir Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,”
ed. 1905: “The sons . . . were always during
the working season members of an artel.
In some of the larger towns there are artels
of a much more complex kind— permanent
associations, possessing large capital, and pecuniarily
responsible for the acts of the individual members.”
The word “artel,” despite its apparent
similarity, has, Mr Aylmer Maude assures me,
no connection with “ars” or “arte.”
Its root is that of the verb “rotisya,”
to bind oneself by an oath; and it is generally
admitted to be only another form of “rota,”
which now signifies a “regimental company.”
In both words the underlying idea is that of a body
of men united by an oath. “Tribu”
were possibly gentile groups, united by common
descent, and included individuals connected by
marriage. Perhaps our words “sects”
or “clans” would be most appropriate.
CHAPTER XXII — CONCERNING THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES
The choice of servants is of no little importance
to a prince, and they are good or not according to
the discrimination of the prince. And the first
opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding,
is by observing the men he has around him; and when
they are capable and faithful he may always be considered
wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable
and to keep them faithful. But when they are
otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for
the prime error which he made was in choosing them.
There were none who knew Messer Antonio da Venafro
as the servant of Pandolfo Petrucci, Prince of Siena,
who would not consider Pandolfo to be a very clever
man in having Venafro for his servant. Because
there are three classes of intellects: one which
comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what
others comprehended; and a third which neither comprehends
by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is
the most excellent, the second is good, the third is
useless. Therefore, it follows necessarily that,
if Pandolfo was not in the first rank, he was in the
second, for whenever one has judgment to know good
and bad when it is said and done, although he himself
may not have the initiative, yet he can recognize
the good and the bad in his servant, and the one he
can praise and the other correct; thus the servant
cannot hope to deceive him, and is kept honest.
