The Greatness of Cities [27]
yet draw such a number of people to it as it hath made that place, of a village, one of the most populous places now of Spain. Cracow and Vilna are the most populous cities of Poland. The reason is because Cracow was the seat of the Duke of Poland and Vilna the seat of the great Duke of Lithuania. In the Empire of the Muscovites there are three great and famous cities, Vladimir, the great Novgorod, and Moscow, which have gotten their reputation because they have been all three of them the seats of great dukes and princes of great dominions. The most renowned of them at this day is Moscow, through the residence the Duke holdeth there. It is in length five miles, but not so wide. There is unto it a very great castle that serves for a court and palace to that same prince, and it is so populous that some have reckoned it amongst the four cities of the first and chiefest ranks of Europe, which to their judgments are Moscow itself, Constantinople, Paris and Lisbon. In Sicily, in ancient times past the greatest city there was Syracuse which, as Cicero doth write, consisted of four parts divided asunder, which might be said to be four cities. And the cause of her greatness was the residence of the kings, or of the tyrants (as they were termed in times past), call them as you will. But when the commerce with the Africans did fail them afterward, through the deluge of the infidels, and that the royal seat was removed to Palermo, Palermo did then increase apace her glory and Syracuse did lose as fast her lustre. Palermo is a city equal to the cities of the second rank of Italy, beautified with rich temples and magnificent palaces, with divers relics and goodly buildings made by the Saracens. But two things chiefly made of late are worthiest to be noted. The one is the street made throughout the whole city, which for straightness, breadth, length and beautifulness of buildings is such as I know not in what city of Italy a man should find the like. The other is the pier, edified with an inestimable expense and charge, by the benefit whereof the city hath a very large and spacious port: a work in truth worthy of the Romans' magnanimity. But what mean I to wander through other parts of the world to show how much it doth import the greatness of a city to residence and abode of a prince therein? Rome, whose majesty exceeded all the world, would she not be more like a desert than a city if the Pope held not his residence therein? If the Pope, with the greatness of his court and with the concourse of ambassadors, of prelates and of princes did not ennoble it and make it great? If with an infinite number of people that serve both him and his ministers he did not replenish and fill the city? If with magnificent buildings, conduits, fountains and streets it were not gloriously adorned? If amongst so many rich and stately works, belonging as well to God's glory as the service of the commonwealth he spent not there a great part of the revenues of the Church? And in a word, if with all these means he did not draw and entertain withal such a number of merchants, tradesmen, shopkeepers, artificers, workmen, and such a multitude of people, for labour and for service?
Book Three
1. Whether it be expedient for a city to have few or many citizens
The ancient founders of cities, considering that laws and civil discipline could not be easily conserved and kept where a mighty multitude of people swarmed (for multitudes do breed and bring confusion) they limited the number of citizens beyond which they supposed the form and order of government they sought to hold within their cities could not else be maintained. Such were Lycurgus, Solon and Aristotle. But the Romans, supposing power (without which a city cannot be long maintained) consisteth for the most part in the multitude of people, endeavoured all the ways and means they might to make their country great and to replenish the same with store of people, as we have before and more at full declared in our books Della Ragion di Stato. If the world would be governed by
Book Three
1. Whether it be expedient for a city to have few or many citizens
The ancient founders of cities, considering that laws and civil discipline could not be easily conserved and kept where a mighty multitude of people swarmed (for multitudes do breed and bring confusion) they limited the number of citizens beyond which they supposed the form and order of government they sought to hold within their cities could not else be maintained. Such were Lycurgus, Solon and Aristotle. But the Romans, supposing power (without which a city cannot be long maintained) consisteth for the most part in the multitude of people, endeavoured all the ways and means they might to make their country great and to replenish the same with store of people, as we have before and more at full declared in our books Della Ragion di Stato. If the world would be governed by