Chapter V: Part 5

XXXVII. We come now to the quintessence of the venom of ambition, to those pests of society, abandoned politicians; to those concealed Atheists, those devils in disguise, who without the least scruple to attain their base purposes, practise the most deformed vices; who to lay their hands on benefits, set their feet on, and trample upon the laws; who with the fine accomplishments, of perjury, ingratitude, and treachery, are galanting fortune night and day. These, of all politicians are the most blind, because the road by which they think to arrive at happiness and honour, leads them directly to misfortune and disgrace. Who, by such sort of means, was ever made happy? Machiavel himself, the grand master of this infernal policy, passed the last years of his life in extreme misery; and he would long before his dissolution happened have died on a gibbet, if he had not denied in the torture, his participation in the conspiracy against the family of the Medicis. If one or two, have happened to raise themselves by the dint of wicked practices, their elevation may be compared to that of Simon Magus, who was lifted up, that his legs might be crushed to pieces with his fall. Sejanus, in consequence of a similarity in their habits and dispositions, gained such a degree of favour with Tiberius, and came to have such an ascendant over him, that he directed and control’d him with an absolute sway. And what did all these smiles of fortune end in? Nothing more, than that no culprit was ever put to death with greater ignominy. Petronius Arbiter, by flattering the lascivious disposition of Nero, arrived at being superintendant of his turpitudes, or regulator of his brutalities; so that in all which related to criminal pleasures, the Prince obeyed his subject; nor would he taste of any thing, but what Petronius prescribed; notwithstanding which, the criterion arrived, when Nero condemned him to death; which Petronius anticipated, by opening his veins. It is very remarkable that out of all the people Nero most hated, Seneca was the last who died by his order. The arm of the Prince, was restrained by the virtue of the philosopher, notwithstanding that same virtue made the Prince’s life unpleasant, and was an irksome monitor to him; and after all, the philosopher did not die without a crime, for he was privy to the conspiracy of Pison. If virtue enjoys these immunities under bad Princes, what may it not expect from good ones?

XXXVIII. It would be strange delirium in him who is making war against heaven, to expect, the stars should be favourable to his designs. A Frenchman, reminding an Englishman of the time, when in the reign of Henry the Sixth, the English were almost absolute masters of France, said sneeringly to him, “When do you think you shall return again to be Lords of our kingdom?” to which the Englishman made him this admirable reply, _When your iniquities shall be greater than ours_. Little different from this was the saying of Agislaus; who (when Tisaphernes finding himself superior in force, in violation of the peace he had sworn to observe, began hostilities,) spoke thus: _I am very happy at this event, because Tisaphernes by his perfidy, has engaged the Gods on my side._ The issue was, that Agislaus came off triumphant, and Tisaphernes lost the battle and his life.

XXXIX. But to illustrate how much God takes part with the enemies of him, who hopes to succeed in his undertakings, by violating the oaths sworn by his holy name, there is not a more memorable instance in history, than may be seen in the case of Ladislaus the fourth, king of Hungary. This Prince, after gaining some victories, agreed upon a truce with Amurat the Second; but in a short time afterwards, instigated by the indiscreet zeal of the Pontifical legate, he began the war afresh: Worldly policy taught him, that the opportunity was favourable, as the Turks had not recovered from the consternation of their late defeats. Ladislaus had excellent troops, and for his General, John Huniades, who was esteemed the most skillful warrior the world knew in that age. They came to a battle, which in the beginning, was much in favour of the Hungarians. Amurat, when he saw his troops ready to betake themselves to flight, drew out from his bosom the instrument containing the truce, which Ladislaus had sworn to observe; and lifting his eyes to heaven, in a loud voice, addressed our Saviour, in words to this effect: _Jesus Christ, if thou art the true God, as the Christians believe you to be, chastise the affront offered to you by these people, in breaking a truce, which they have sworn by thy holy name to keep sacred_; and wonderful to relate, at this instant the gale of fortune veer’d about, the Mahometans defeated the Christians with a bloody slaughter, and to compleat the whole, Ladislaus himself was among the slain:

_Discite justitiam moniti, & non temnere Divos._

SECT. XI.

XL. One of the most common effects of infamous policy, is, the author’s own maxims being often turned upon, and brought to militate against himself. Jeroboam, when the kingdom of Israel was divided, having made himself master of the ten tribes, spun, as it appeared to him, a most exquisite fine thread of policy; for observing, that from a religious motive, the hearts of his subjects were attached to the Temple of Jerusalem; and that, if he could not separate them from the Jews in point of worship, he was not secure in the possession of his portion of the empire; he raised two idols, and insisted the ten tribes should worship them, forsaking the true God, who was worshiped in the Temple of Jerusalem; but this keen piece of policy, as we read in the Book of Kings, was the very cause, which deprived his posterity of the succession to the crown; his son Nadab in consequence of it, having lost the kingdom and his life by the hands of the rebellious General Baassa. In the death which the Jews inflicted on our Saviour, they pretended, that political precaution made it necessary they should deprive him of life, for otherwise, the Romans would demolish them for having acknowledged any other King but Cæsar; but for their having carried this cursed maxim into execution, heaven ordained as their punishment, that these very Romans, should afterwards be the people to destroy them.

XLI. Thus Providence disposes, that the very same means which Machiavilian politicians apply for their exaltation, or their security, become the instruments of their destruction. Haman, is hang’d on the same gallows, which he prepared for Mordecai. Perillus, is burnt in the same brazen ox, which he fabricated to indulge the cruelty of Phalaris. Callipus, tyrant of Sicily, has his throat cut by the same knife, with which he took away the life of the generous Dion. Isaac Aaron, a Greek by nation, whose eyes were put out by order of the Emperor Emanuel Comenus, as a punishment for his evil deeds, afterwards advised the usurper Andronicus, not only to put out the eyes of his enemies, but to cut their tongues out also; because, that after being deprived of their sight, they could do mischief with their tongues. The Emperor Isaac Angelo, succeeded Andronicus, and ordered, that the tongue of the infamous counsellor who had before lost his eyes, should be cut out likewise. Perrin, Captain General of Geneva, the great persecutor of the Catholics, when in the year 1535, that republic changed their religion, caused the stone of the great altar in the Cathedral to be transported to the place of execution, that it might serve as a scaffold to dispatch delinquents on; and father Maimburgus, in his History of Calvinism, tells us, that the blood of Perrin, who was beheaded for his crimes, was the first which stained the stone. Thomas Cromwell, whom Henry the Eighth, when he erected himself into head of the English church, constituted his supreme vicar in all ecclesiastical matters, was a man extremely false, cruel, and avaricious. To furnish pretences for persecuting the ecclesiastics, that he might enrich himself with their spoils, he prevailed on Henry to make that most iniquitous law, that sentences of death, and confiscations, pronounced on people for high treason, should be good and valid, although they had not been heard in their defence; but Cromwell himself, was the first man this law was put in practice against; Henry having caused him to be beheaded, without his being heard or permitted to make any defence:

_--------Nec lex est æquior illa,_
_Ut necis artifices arte perirent sua._

XLII. Finally, and to sum up the whole, if we search history, we shall hardly find one among a thousand of those politicians, who have sought to exalt themselves by means of wicked arts and practices, that have not come to an unhappy end. Thus it has ever been till this time, and so it will ever continue to be from henceforward. What blindness then is it, to persevere in following a path, by pursuing which, you can only by a miracle of chance avoid a precipice? What can this be but delirium, the infallible symptom of the fever of ambition? which is a flame that cannot burn with violence in any man, without his being affected with a phrensy of the brain.

SECT. XIII.

XLIII. All we have said of policy, as it relates to private people, may be applied to princes, or superiors, who govern every kind of state; and with respect to these also, the division of policy into the high and the low, is apt and proper, as the first is secure, and the second hazardous in them, in the same proportion, which it is with respect to subjects or private men. Any ruler whatever, who is endued with the three virtues, of prudence, justice, and fortitude, will be a singular good politician, without ever having read any of those books, which treat of reasons of state. The true arts of governing, are, to chuse such ministers as are wise and upright, to reward merit, and to punish crimes; to watch over, and attend to the interest of the public, and to be faithful in promises. By these means, the respect, the love, and the obedience of subjects, will be much more effectually secured, than by all that compound farrago of political subtilties, called reasons of state; a mystery, deposited in the minds of privy counsellors, which, as if it was a most sacred thing, they never suffer to be totally displayed; nor ever to go forth to the public, unless covered with a thick veil; and is for the most part, no more than a ridiculous phantom, or vain idol, which under the title of a Deity, they exhibit for the adoration of the ignorant vulgar. Reason of state, is the universal agitator, or primum mobile of a kingdom, and is the reason for every thing, without being the reason of any thing. If it is asked, why was such a thing done, the answer is, for reasons of state; very well, but why was such another thing omitted to be done, why for reasons of state also. Would it not be better to say, it was done because justice required it, or because religion, clemency, or some moral virtue dictated the doing it? The reason of the directions of a minister to his inferiors, in all matters, is, that they are the King’s commands. The reason why a Prince orders any thing to be done, should be this, and this only, because the commandments and laws of God, require it; for a Prince in a more rigorous sense, is the minister of God, than his subalterns are ministers to him.

XLIV. If we are to understand, that reason of state means political prudence, why not call it by that name? because the phrase political prudence, implies or signifies a moral virtue, but the term, reason of state, we don’t know the meaning of. This expression, _ragioni di stato_, took its rise in Italy, but it does not seem as if they entertained a high veneration for it there, since we are told, that the holy Pontif Pius, could not bear to hear it mentioned; and was used to say, that reasons of state were the inventions of perverse men, and the very reverse of religion and the moral virtues. It was observable, that Pope Pius, in no case stood in need of these political subtilties; for without their aid, he was not only a great saint, but a distinguish’d and exemplary ruler.

XLV. It was a remark of the celebrated Bacon, that the most desirable governments which the church has in all times experienced, were under those Popes, who having passed the greatest part of their lives in monasteries, were reputed ignorant of political business; and that these made excellent Princes, and recommended themselves much more to the good opinion of posterity, by their wise regulations, than those, who had been bred in the schools, and had exercised themselves all their lives, in the management of public affairs; instancing as examples of the truth of this assertion, Pius V. and Sextus V. who both reign’d in the same age: _Imò convertamus oculos ad regimen pontificium ac nominatim Pij V. vel Sixti V. nostro sæculo, qui sub initiis habiti sunt pro fraterculis rerum imperitis, inveniemusque acta paparum ejus generis magis esse solere memorabilia, quam eorum, qui in negotiis civilibus, & principum aulis enutriti ad papatum ascenderint_ (_Lib._ I. _de Augment. Scient._) This testimony to the truth, is given by a Calvinist Heretic, although abstracted from his religion, he was in every sense a great, and most enlightened man, and one, who was not more remarkable for his incomparable talents, than for his candour and ingenuity.

XLVI. The reason he gives why the Popes, who before their elevation to the throne, had lived in holy retirement, excelled in the mode and goodness of their government, those, who before their rise, had always been exercised in public business, entitles him to the appellations we have just bestowed on him. He says, the want of civil instruction in those Pontiffs, was more than compensated for by their virtues; because Princes, who follow steadily, the plain and safe road of religion, justice, and the other moral virtues, readily and expertly, without the aid of studied policy, put in train, and dispatch all sorts of business that may occur to them. They are sound and robust souls, who have no more occasion for civil arts, than men who are healthy, and blessed with good constitutions have for physic. _In eo tamen abundè fit compensatio, quod per tutum, planumque iter religionis, justitiæ, honestatis, virtutumque moralium, prompte, atque expedite incedant, quam viam, qui constanter tenuerint, illis alteris remediis non magis indigebunt, quam corpus sanum medicina._

XLVI. I almost blush, that a Heretic should talk in this strain, when among the Catholics, we find so many politicians who abound in very different maxims. But the case is, that the subtilties and artifices which compose what is commonly called worldly policy, are a sort of remedies, which sickly souls only, stand in need of. A vicious government, which he who has the management of turns and winds to answer his private purposes, cannot exist without the help of such medicaments, which may with as much propriety be called drugs, as those that are sold in an apothecary’s shop. But a sound understanding, endued and justly tempered with the four elemental qualities, of prudence, justice, fortitude, and sobriety, with only the assistance of these virtues, will, without the succour of other arts, and without embarrassment, surmount all the difficulties that can occur in government.

XLVII. And since Bacon has mentioned him, let us take a cursory view of the reign of Sextus the Vth. This spirit, so truly incomparable, that it seems as if God had formed him for the purpose of governing the whole world; in whom, the magnanimity of Cæsar, the prudence of Augustus, and the justice of Trajan were joined, and who, in these virtues, even excelled them; in a few months after his mounting the throne, had gained the respect of all the Princes of Europe, and had put the whole ecclesiastical state in better order, and under better regulation, than it had been known to be blessed with or enjoy, for many antecedent ages. Thefts, cheating, murders, subornations, and licentious insolence, were so effectually rooted out and banished from that great city, that it never till then, could with so much propriety be called Holy Rome. All dread of extortion and injustice was lost, and nobody feared, only God and the Pope; and as Gregory Leti tells us, in his History of Sextus, women, and other defenceless persons, could walk the streets at all hours of the night, as safely, as they could walk in the cloisters of a Capuchin Convent. In the five years which he reigned, he embellished Rome with many noble edifices, and left the treasury some millions richer than he found it. I ask now, by what political arts, and what ingenious devices, he performed all these wonders? He knew no arts, save those of an indefatigable vigilance and attention to the concerns of government; a fervent zeal for the public good, and an unalterable rectitude and justice. I cannot tell, whether what has been so much rumoured about Sextus having put on false appearances before his advancement to the throne, be true, but I believe it is not; and it is certain, that after he found himself seated in the Papal chair, he was a man void of all dissimulation; always generous, open, free and sincere, and one, who that his designs should not appear occult, frankly exposed and laid them open; and unless the virtue of prudence dictated caution, or the character of the prelate demanded reserve, he concealed the purposes of his heart from no man. This frankness, was natural to his genius, and he was the same in that respect while he was a religious; and therefore, I cannot give credit, to what is said of his practising duplicity while a Cardinal, in order to obtain the Popedom. It is more probable, that they mistook what was the real effect of his virtue, for dissimulation. They also charge him with doing violence to his nature, by bearing all sorts of injuries patiently, that he might acquire the character of a meek and gentle man; but why should not all this be imputed, to his desire, in obedience to the gospel precept, of imitating our Saviour? The severity he observed when he was Pope, proves nothing to contradict this sentiment; because bearing with offences that are merely personal, and those which are committed against dignities, are very different things. They also say, he feigned himself decrepid and worn out with age and infirmities, to excite in his favour, the choice of the Cardinals; from the prospect that his would be a short pontificate, and that they should have a quick return of another conclave. But notwithstanding what people say, I don’t believe the Cardinals are so much influenced by this sort of policy as the world imagine, from their having so often chosen Popes of good constitutions, and not far advanced in years, provided at the time of their election, their judgment was arrived at that state of maturity, which it is not common to attain but in a more advanced age. On the other hand, it is probable, that Sextus who was seventy-four when he ascended the Papal chair, was much broke. If he afterwards seemed more robust, it might be, because having charged himself with such weighty obligations, he used extraordinary exertions to comply with what he had undertaken; and besides this, the before cited Leti informs us, that to enable him to discharge the duties incumbent on him, he fed more copiously, and took more nourishing aliment, both with respect to meat and drink, when he was a Pope, than he did while he was a Cardinal.

XLVIII. I have dwelt with pleasure on the eulogium of this singular man, who was always the object of my admiration, although some have been unjust enough, not to render him the praise due to his merit. And here by the way, I cannot forbear congratulating the seraphic religion, on having produced in the person of this Pontif, and in that of Cardinal Cisneros, two politicians so eminent, that in my opinion the world never saw greater; though neither the one or the other have been without their enemies, who, envious of their merit, have strove to tarnish their glories; but what I most admire in this particular is, that so able a man as Don Antonio de Solis, should in the third Chap. of his History of Mexico, paint the Cardinal, as a man deficient in point of political abilities; notwithstanding he in all other respects, heaps on him the highest encomiums. Foreign authors do him more justice, and particularly, Flechier, Bishop of Nimes, who with great judgment and discretion wrote his life, celebrates him, as a most eminent and brilliant politician: and another modern French author, having drawn a parallel of the characters of the two Cardinals, Cisneros, and Richlieu, gives the preference to our countryman; acknowledging, that he was equal to the other as a politician, and much preferable to him as a devout man; though by the way, when he says this, he pays no great compliment to the sanctity of Cisneros.

XLIX. From all that has been said on this subject, it is evident and plain, that with an equality of talents, those politicians who proceed upon the principles of honesty, and who pursue the road of rectitude and truth, will with greater certainty, and more ease, attain their ends, than those, who follow the rout of artifice and deceit; for the first, is the sound or true policy, the other, the rotten or false.

THE MACHIAVELIANISM OF THE ANCIENTS.

SECT. I.

I. As we are about to treat in this discourse of the tyrannic doctrine of Machiavel; I believe it will be agreeable to the greatest part of our readers, to have some particular information respecting this man, of whom all the world talks, and whom all the world detests; for by whatever means men make themselves famous, they excite a curiosity to know who and what they were.

II. Nicholas Machiavel, who was a native of Florence, lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was a man of more than middling ingenuity. He wrote the Tuscan language with elegance and propriety, although his knowledge of the Latin was but moderate. He had a good genius for writing comic poetry, which he manifested in various pieces which he wrote for the theatre; and more particularly in one of them, that was represented at Florence with such great applause, that it excited Pope Leo the tenth, as Paulus Jovius informs us, to cause it to be acted at Rome by the same players, and with the same dresses and decorations, with which it had been exhibited at Florence. When the unhappy conspiracy against the family of the Medicis, was set on foot by the Soderinis, Machiavel, who was impeached as an accomplice in it, was put to the question by torture; but either his fortitude, or his innocence, caused him to resist the rigour of that trial without making the least confession. I do not know whether it was before, or after this event, that he was made secretary to the republic, but it is certain, that for the title of historian to it, which was conferred on him together with a good salary, he was totally indebted to the favour of the Medicis; but whether they did this from a conviction of his innocence with respect to the late conspiracy, and were disposed to recompence him by this honourable emolument, for the injury he suffered in the torture; or whether they did it from considering him as an able man whom they had a mind to keep under obligations to them, in order to avail themselves of so good a pen as Machiavel’s in their favour; I say, whichever of these motives they were actuated by, is not quite certain.

III. The conferring this benefit on him, did not prevent new suspicions being entertained of his fidelity, and of his having concurred in another plot concerted by some private individuals, to take away the life of cardinal Julius de Medicis, who afterwards ascended to the popedom, by the name of Clement the seventh. This suspicion was founded entirely, on the repeated applauses, with which both in his writings and private conversations, he had celebrated Brutus and Cassius, as the defenders and vindicators of the liberty of the Roman republic; which at that time, was interpreted as an indirect exhortation to the Florentines to defend their liberty, which the Medicis either in reality or appearance, meditated to suppress. But with all this, either from mere motives of policy, or because the suspicions seemed lightly founded, no proceedings were had against Machiavel. It is confirmed however, that after this time, he passed the remainder of his days in misery and poverty. Perhaps the Medicis, who were secretly displeased with him, thought it more adviseable, instead of bringing him to open punishment, to accomplish their dark revenge, by occult ways and means. It might also happen, that he brought himself to poverty by his own misconduct; but, be this as it will, he hastened his death as many other people have hastened theirs before him, by taking a precautionary medicine to prolong his life, which instead of lengthening, shortened it, and brought him to an untimely end in the year 1530.

IV. Machiavel was of a jocose and satyrical disposition, and was believed to have little or no religion. There are some who say, that when he was near dying, they were under a necessity of employing the authority of the civil magistrate to oblige him to receive the sacraments. We read in many authors, a wanton and insolent impiety of his, under the colour of a joke; that is, his having said, that he had much rather go to hell than heaven; because in heaven he should only meet with fryars, mendicants, and other miserable and groveling people; but that in hell, he should enjoy the company of popes, cardinals, and princes, with whom he could converse of state affairs. Others substitute, for his saying popes, cardinals, and princes, the most eminent philosophers and political writers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Tacitus.

V. He published a variety of books, and among them, the life of Castrucius Castracani, and the history of Florence, which do not obtain the greatest credit with the critics. But the work that made him jointly the most famous and infamous man in the world, was a political tract, intituled, “The Prince;” in which he teaches and recommends to all sovereigns, to reign tyrannically, and to govern their people, without regarding either equity, law, or religion, but sacrificing them all three, together with the public good, to his interest, his will, his caprice, and his own particular grandeur.

SECT. II.

VI. But notwithstanding the principles of this book are so pernicious, there have not been wanting those, who have patronized both the book and the author. Abraham Nicholas Amelot de Houssaye, defends it in the most odious point of view, which is approving his maxims as beneficial to the public, and asserting, that they are only reprobated by ignorant men, who know nothing of politics or reasons of state; and adds, that the same people who now live as private men, and are unacquainted with the management of public business, and at present condemn them, were they by any great and unexpected change of fortune, to arrive at being princes or prime ministers, would approve, and practise them.

VII. There are others, who, although they acknowledge the maxims of Machiavel are pernicious, sanctify the intention of the author. They say, that so far from intending to instruct princes against their people, he only meant to caution the people against the proceedings and arts of tyrants, to the end that princes, seeing the tendency of their schemes liable to be exposed, should be more circumspect in their behaviour, and that the people, by being aware of the arms with which the attacks were made upon liberty, might be the better able to parry the blows. They add further, that Machiavel was under a necessity of using this artful method of warning the people, and of couching his cautions to them, under the veil and figure of teaching princes how to make themselves absolute, because these last, would not have permitted his book to be licenced, if he had openly declared himself inimical to their total independency.

VIII. They endeavour to prove the probability of this sentiment, by urging, that Machiavel was an utter enemy to tyranny, and a strenuous advocate for the liberty of the republic; and that the whole tenor of his words and actions, conspire to manifest these were his inclinations. His two great and favourite heroes, were Brutus and Cassius, who killed Cæsar to restore Rome to her liberty. He also quotes the tenth chapter of the first book of his discourses, where he speaks strongly against tyrants; and urges further, that he was accused of being an accomplice with the Soderinis in their conspiracy against the family of the Medicis, who were thought at that time, to have an intention of tyrannizing over the republic of Florence; and that he was afterwards, not exempt from being suspected, of having a finger in the conspiracy against the life of cardinal Julius de Medicis. Nardi, a Florentine author who was a contemporary with him, says, that he was closely connected with the contrivers of that plot and design, and also with the rest of the faction, who were in opposition to the Medicis. He then proceeds to say, what view or intention could a man have in favouring and abetting tyrants, who had given so many proofs of his abhorrence of them? or how could the man be suspected of designing to extend the power of princes above their natural sphere, who had always manifested himself an admirer of democracy? he next says, it must follow then of course, that his intention must be different, and very contrary to what the ordinary and superficial sense of his words seem to import. This is the way those reason, who support this opinion.

IX. Finally, there are others, who admit that the maxims of Machiavel are detestable, but waiving the question about what was his intention, they limit their excuse of the author, by affirming, there has not, nor can there arise, any general inconvenience from the publication of them. These say, that Machiavel has broached nothing new; and that his maxims are the same with those you will find inserted in various histories, and which were practised by an infinite number of princes; and what more pernicious effect can they have on him who reads them in Machiavel’s book, than on him who reads them in any other?

X. This is the very excuse which Bocalini puts in the mouth of Machiavel, when he supposes him to be speaking in his own defence before Apollo. He says, I do not pretend to defend my works, but rather to arraign, and condemn them as impious, and full of cruel and execrable documents for the government of states; but provided the doctrine I have written shall appear to be new, or the invention of my brain, I am ready at this moment, to submit to the execution of any sentence, the judges shall think proper to fulminate against me. On the other hand, if my writings contain nothing more than those political precepts, and those rules of state, which I have deduced from the actions and conduct of some princes, the speaking ill of whom would formerly have been punished with death, and, if you will be pleased to permit me, I can now name; I say if this be the case, what justice, what reason can there be, for respecting those as little less than divinities, who have been the authors and inventors of all the furious and desperate maxims of policy which appear in my writings; and of treating me, who have done nothing more than republish them, as an abandoned vagabond, and an Atheist I certainly cannot conceive, why the original should be adored as a saint, and the copy execrated; nor why I deserve to be so persecuted, when the reading of histories, not only tolerated, but recommended, are sufficient to convert to Machiavels, all those who peruse them with a political view.

SECT. III.

XI. But not to leave the reader in suspence, or not to give him occasion to think that I propose these three opinions as problems, I will here declare the judgement I entertain of them. The first is false, shocking, abominable, and only worthy of a second Machiavel. What reason, I won’t say can dictate, but even endure the detestable maxims, that a prince owes more to himself than to the republic? that this last was instituted by nature for the convenience of the prince, and not the prince for the good of the republic? that the right to govern with tyrannic sway, is an appendage, appertaining to the prerogative of the crown? that the untimely and disgraceful deaths of tyrants, ought to be attributed to chance, and not to the divine vengeance or judgements? with others of the same sort.

XI. The second apology, is contradicted by the literal and natural sense of the author’s writings; for if he intended to convey a meaning which was different from these, it is not easy to ascertain what that meaning was. I will admit as good and conclusive, all the arguments that are used to prove Machiavel was an enemy to tyranny. There is no man whatever who does not abhor tyranny, while he contemplates it as a restraint on his own person, or while he is apprehensive part of the weight of it may be loaded on his own shoulders. But many of those who abhor it in general, are friends to it in particular, and especially, if they entertain hopes that the favour of the tyrant will better their fortunes. It is very natural to suppose, this was the state and situation of Machiavel’s mind when he wrote his book. The Medicis at that time ruled the city of Florence; and he imagined that he should sooth and flatter them, by approving and recommending a government, that dispensed with all law, as the means the best calculated to pave the way for the introduction and establishment of despotic power. Perhaps also, he might entertain hopes, that some prince who read his book, might be induced to make him his prime minister, from an expectation, that by having the author of these maxims at his elbow, he might be able to raise his power to the highest pitch of uncontroul and grandeur.

XIII. The excuse, with which it is attempted to defend Machiavel by the third supposition, is manifestly sophistical. It cannot be denied, that we read in a variety of authors, of numbers of princes who have put in practice the doctrine of Machiavel, but there is this great difference between those authors and Machiavel, that they condemn the doctrine, which he adopts and enforces. They, at the same time that they inform you of the fact, inspire you with horror of the maxim; he, when he teaches the maxim, exhorts to the execution of it. How great must his zeal have been to recommend and persuade tyranny, when he had the presumption to propose Moses and David, as examples of tyrannic government? but to this execrable degree of impiety, did Machiavel carry his daring blasphemy.

XIV. With regard to the peculiar defence which Bocalina makes for Machiavel, it is easy to see, at whom his malignant expressions point; which he might very well have omitted, because without alluding to any one in so elevated a form of life, he had very near at hand in the person of Cæsar Borgia[2], a man furnished with all the requisites for his purpose, and whom he did not run much hazard of announcing. I mean, that in order to excuse Machiavel from being the inventor of the maxims he published, and to point out some person under whom he had studied and learned them, he could have fixed on no one more proper than that prince, because Cæsar Borgia was without doubt, a man of most iniquitous and tyrannic politics, and capable of committing all sorts of wickedness, provided his doing it would contribute to advance his grandeur; for he was fiery, daring, and cruel, and was besides so furiously ambitious, that were it in his power, he was capable of burning the whole world, for the sake afterwards of domineering absolutely over the ashes of it.

XV. Hermanus Coringius, a protestant author, says, that Machiavel was some time in the service of this prince. If this be true, it is easy to guess from whom he learned what he afterwards committed to writing; and I believe the Italians would not disdain to acknowledge, that their Florentine politician had been instructed by a Spanish master.

XVI. But the truth is, that Machiavel had no occasion to seek for an example, either in him, or in any other of the princes of his own time; for as he was a man pretty well read in history, every age had furnished him with examples in plenty. They mistake little less, who suppose Machiavel learned his maxims from the politicians of his day; than those do, who believe the politics, posterior to Machiavel, were taken from his doctrines.

XVII. But notwithstanding all that can be urged in opposition to it, this second opinion is much entertained and received by people of little reading and short reflection, in which group we may suppose to be comprehended the bulk of mankind. Not a few, when they converse upon this subject, add with a mysterious gravity, and as if they were extracting a profound apophthegm from the inmost recesses of their understandings, that although Machiavel was the master who introduced this doctrine, it has since his time been so much improved upon in courts, that if the master could now come back into the world, he would find it necessary to go to school again.

XVIII. I cannot refrain from laughter, when I hear men discourse in this manner, who, from their education, ought to know and reason better. The maxims of tyrannic policy are as antient in the world, as government or dominion. Machiavelianism owes its first existence to the most antient princes of the earth, and only to Machiavel its name. It is rooted in our nature, and it does not require ages, as moments, when fit occasions present themselves, are equal to bring forth its malignant productions. Nor is the passion of domineering more natural to man, than that of amplifying and extending his dominion. An ambitious man, by attaining to be a prince, does not find his ambition satisfied; but is always desirous of extending his power, exteriorly with respect to the subjects of other states, and interiorly with regard to his own. The love of independence can seldom be contained within reasonable bounds. He who is free from all subjection to other men, aspires at being independent of the laws also.

SECT. IV.

XIX. I am so far from thinking that Machiavel has made the world worse in this respect, or from supposing that the princes of these times, have refined upon the iniquitous politics of Machiavel, that I firmly believe, if we limit our enquiries precisely to Europe, we shall find the sovereigns of it in general, much better than those of the remote ages.

XX. Now-a-days, if it is in contemplation to impose some new burthen on the subject, or to wage war with a neighbouring state, divines and lawyers are consulted upon the justice and propriety of the measure; an enquiry is made, how the laws stand with respect to the subject matter in question, and the archives and records are examined and turned over; and although it often happens, that from the ambitious adulation of the people consulted, a right is attributed to their prince, which in reality does not belong to him, their malice does not impeach his good faith. In former times this was not the case. If a prince was disposed to trample on the rights of his subjects, or to subdue his neighbours, he consulted nobody, nor made any other enquiry or examination, than whether he had force and power sufficient to accomplish what he meditated; and the question was always decided, by his ability or inability to execute what he designed. In times not very distant from our own, and even in the most polished kingdoms, where the true religion has humanized people’s minds, when the person invaded by a powerful prince his neighbour, has represented to him, that his pretensions to what he possesses are just and legal; the invader has laughed at the representation, and answered savagely, in the language that was then become proverbial in the mouths of kings and ministers of state, that the rights of princes were not to be determined by old rolls of parchment, but by burnished arms.

SECT. V.

XXI. The further our memories carry us back through the series of past times, we find this evil the greater; and from hence proceeds that ill opinion, which in early ages was generally entertained of kings. The Romans were struck with amazement, to find the Cappadocians, upon their offering to make their country a free republic, instantly request, that they would permit them to remain under kingly government; which amazement, was occasioned by their considering in a rigorous or strict sense, that mode of rule, as a mark or type of slavery. Cato said, this animal which is called a king, is a great devourer of human flesh; _Hoc animal rex carnivorum est._ And Flavius Vopiscus, tells us of a Roman buffoon, who pleasantly and keenly remarked, that the effigies of all the good kings that had ever been known in the world, might be carved on a ring. Plato, in his Georgiac dialogue, represents kings as appearing before Rhadamanthus in hell, loaded for the most part with injustices, perjuries, and other wickedness. Aristotle, in his third book on politics, recognizes as tyrannical, the exercise of the regal power, by all, or nearly all, the Asiatic princes; and Livy says, that the most sagacious and penetrating Hannibal, never confided in the promises of kings: _fidei regum nihil sane confisus_; a legate of the Rhodians also, according to the said Livy, observed, that kings were always desirous of making slaves of their subjects. Thus we have the greatest reason to conclude, that it was a common practice with the princes of those times, to pay no regard to any law, whenever an opportunity offered of augmenting their authority.

SECT. VI.

XXII. But we should not conclude that this was all done by main force, without the intervention of art or stratagem. The same contrivances, the same artifices, which we read of in Machiavel, and which have been practised by the most crafty tyrants of these latter ages, were exerted in the early ones. Cast your eyes on Romulus, seeking for a specious pretence of justice for taking away the life of his brother, in order to remove this obstacle to his reigning without the danger of a rival, and in security: view his successor, Numa Pompilius also, who was a most consummate hypocrite, affecting exteriorly to appear religious and devout, and to pay a great respect to rites and ceremonies. He pretended to receive visions and revelations from the goddess Egeria, in order that the Roman people, looking upon him as a man favoured in an especial manner by heaven, should not only not dare to entertain thoughts of dethroning him, but permit him to aggrandize himself at his discretion; we have another example of the same sort of policy, in Tullius Hostilius, who succeeded Numa, and introduced with great art, those ostentatious outside appearances, which dazzle the eyes of the world, and are the most efficacious means to make majesty formidable and respectable; for he likewise sought out deceitful pretences, for making war on the neighbouring states: we see Tarquin the Proud also, availing himself of the stratagem of his son Sextus, who, under the pretence of being a fugitive from his father’s cruelty, fled to, and entreated refuge among the Gabians, on whom, after their receiving him kindly, he artfully prevailed to make him their generalissimo, veiled with an absolute power; in consequence of which, he was enabled to fell and betray them. He did so, and they became an easy prey to the Romans.

XXIII. Is not that famous precept of Machiavel’s, that with an enemy reduced to great straits or difficulties, you should take no middle course, but, according as you find it most for your interest, should either ruin him totally, or give him your hand to extricate him out of his danger; punctually conformable to the advice which Herennius gave to his son Pontius, who was general of the Samnites? When this general had shut up the Roman army within the Caudine Forks, he sent information of it to his father, and at the same time desired to have his advice, respecting how he should act by them. The old man answered, that he should generously open the pass, and let them go free, without any condition or limitation whatever, that might be injurious to, or affect either their lives, their liberty, or their honour. Pontius, and all the principal people of the republic who were with the army, believed, that Herennius had not well understood or considered the information that had been sent him, nor apprehended, that the whole Roman army were entirely at their mercy. They therefore sent other messengers or deputies, with instructions to inform him minutely, of the unhappy situation and state of the Roman army, whose lives, without remedy, were at their discretion and disposal. To this he answered, that they should cut all their throats, and not spare a single man of them. Two answers so diametrically opposite, made some of them suspect that the old man was not in his right senses; but notwithstanding this suspicion, as they had for many years respected him as the oracle and soul of the republic, the major part of them began to conjecture, and not without reason, that there was some mystery contained in these contradictory replies, which they did not comprehend, or were not aware of; and they therefore desired, that he would come to the camp and explain himself. He came accordingly, and told them his sentiments; which were, that they should adopt one or other of the extremes, and either gain their affections by an heroic act of generosity, or extirpate them totally, to prevent their ever being able to revenge themselves for whatever indignity they should impose on them. Pontius did not follow the advice of the old man, but took a middle way, which was, to spare their lives, but dismiss them with the loss of their honour, by obliging consuls, officers, and soldiers, to submit to the signal disgrace of _passing under the yoke_. The result of this was, what might easily have been foreseen and expected, the Romans, stung with the ignominy they had undergone, could not divert their thoughts from meditating revenge, which they after a while determined to take; and breaking through the stipulated conditions, they renewed the war with stronger army, and totally routed and overthrew the Samnites.

XXIV. We must allow, that the determination Pontius took was imprudent; but it does not follow from thence, that we should approve the advice of Herennius; for although the first was insecure, the other was cruel in extreme. He might have fallen upon other expedients, better suited and proportioned to the nature of the case; such as taking hostages, and before permitting the army to depart, obliging them to deliver into their possession, certain towns and districts as pledges, for the faithful performance of their engagements; but the supposing that the faith of stipulations or compacts, would have more influence upon a vain, proud, warlike people, than the indignation conceived for a gross affront offered to their honour, was very idle, and very silly confidence.

XXV. Neither, as I have already said, do I think there was any security in the extreme benign advice of Herennius; for with the Romans, ambition was more powerful than public faith, or the obligations of gratitude. A good testimony to this truth, was their behaviour to the Numantians, which was a true sample of the politics of those times.

SECT. VII.

XXVI. I say of those times, to avoid censuring the Romans singly; for in Greece also, the not performing a promise given, or even sworn to, when the observance of it clashed with the interest of the state, was so common, that a sovereign for having done it, was hardly looked upon to have impeached his character as a just prince, or an honest man.

XXVII. Agesilaus, king of Sparta, was one of the most celebrated princes of antiquity; and although he was an eminent warrior, placed his principal glory in being thought a lover of virtue and justice. To one who called the sovereign of Persia the great monarch, he answered sharply, _he who is not better than me, is not a greater king than myself_. He was exceedingly sober, patient of labour, and such a respecter of the Gods, that he would not permit even his enemies, who had taken refuge in the temples, to be forced from their sanctuary; and was besides, so averse to dress and finery, that there was scarce a soldier in his army, more humbly or simply cloathed than himself. But this saint of Paganism, made not the least scruple of violating the public faith, when by the violation he expected to derive some advantage to the state. By means of one of his emissaries he, in profound peace, surprized and seized on the city of Thebes; and although in Sparta, the justice of the action was somewhat disputed, as soon as it was shewn, that the keeping the place was of importance to the kingdom, they immediately consented to send a garrison to maintain the citadel. In his expedition to Egypt, he abandoned king Taco, in whose pay and service he and his Lacedæmonian troops were engaged, and joined the rebel Nectanebus, without making any other excuse for this treachery, than that he found it for the interest of his country.

XXVIII. Aristides, the Cato of the Athenians, who by way of eminence they called the Just, having caused his country to swear to a certain thing, and having in the name of it sworn to it himself likewise, persuaded them afterwards to violate the oath, because the observance of it would be productive of some inconvenience to them. Plutarch, who cites Theophrastus as his author, adds, that to serve his country he did many iniquitous things. Such were the just men of Greece, and such was their policy.

SECT. VIII.

XXIX. I well know, that in the opinion of many people, this political money is current in our times, and that it is frequently said, the words and promises of those who have the supreme management of affairs, should not remain in force for any longer time than they are found not to clash with the interests of the state. I have read of an Italian prince, who, when he was negotiating a peace with a powerful monarch, requested among other conditions, the restitution of a large part of his territories, which had been taken from him during the war, to which request, the ambassador of the monarch answered, _what reliance can the king my master place on the fidelity of your highness, in case he gives you all you ask?_ to which the prince replied:--Assure him, that I will pledge my word to him to fulfil my engagements, not in quality of a sovereign, for in that capacity, whenever favourable opportunities offer, it behoves me to sacrifice every thing to my grandeur, and the interests of my state; but as a gentleman, and a man of honour.