Inconsiderate writers have, on the one hand, admired his great deeds, and, on the other, condemned the principal cause of the same. And the proof that his other virtues would not have sufficed him may be seen from the case of Scipio, who was one of the most remarkable men, not only of his own time, but in all history. His armies revolted in Spain solely in consequence of his extreme clemency, which allowed his soldiers more licence than comports with proper military discipline. This fact was censured in the Roman senate by Fabius Maximus, who called Scipio the corrupter of the Roman soldiers. The tribe of the Locrians having been wantonly destroyed by one of the lieutenants of Scipio, he neither punished him for that nor for his insolence – simply because of his own easy nature; so that, when somebody wished to excuse Scipio in the senate, he said `that there were many men who knew better how to avoid errors themselves than to punish them in others'. This easy nature of Scipio's would in time have dimmed his fame and glory if he had persevered in it under the empire; but living as he did under the government of the senate, this dangerous quality of his was not only covered up, but actually redounded to his honour.

To come back now to the question whether it be better to be beloved than feared, I conclude that, as men love of their own free will, but are inspired with fear by the will of the prince, a wise prince should always rely upon himself, and not upon the will of others, but above all should he always strive to avoid being hated, as I have already said above.