Lehal Library

Here Marriot gives: . . . they are of such a character that, if one of them con- quers, you have either to fear him or not. And Bull: . . . either they are such that, if one of them conquers, you will be in danger, or they are not. Here it’s clear that Bull is closer to modern prose, yet one still feels that nobody writing down this idea today in English would introduce the second part of Machiavelli’s alternative as Bull does by tagging that ‘or they are not’ on to the end of the sentence after the introduction of an ‘if ’ clause. If we follow Bull’s general structure but move the alternative forward – ​thus, ‘either they are or they aren’t such that if one of them conquers, you will be in danger’ – ​the sentence gains in fluency. In the end, however, the simplest solution seemed to me to shift the alternative aspect towards the verb ‘fear’ and away from a description of the two states; this leaves the sense of the sentence intact and allows us to get closer to the original’s telegraphic delivery. . . . you may or may not have reason to fear the winner afterwards.