MACHIAVEL.

(Strictures on his “Prince.”)

This author’s maxims are very pernicious; the world is so persuaded of it, that Machiavelism, and the art of reigning tyrannically, are terms of the same import. “The Prince” of Machiavel was translated into French by Mr Amelot de la Houssaye. The author of the News from the Republic of Letters, Bayle himself. ⁷⁴ speaking of the third edition of this translation, makes the following remark. “The preface is full of reflections which are very judicious; we there read amongst other things this thought of Mr de Wicquefort; Machiavel says almost every where what princes do, and not what they ought to do. It is strange there are so many people, who believe,

that Machiavel teaches princes dangerous politics; for on the contrary princes have taught Machiavel what he has written. It is the study of the world, and the observation of the transactions in it, and not a fanciful closet meditation, that have been Machiavel’s masters. Let his books be burned, answered, translated, and commented, it will be all one with respect to government. By an unhappy and fatal necessity, politics set themselves above morality; they do not confess it, but yet they do like Achilles, jura negat sibi nata. A great philosopher of this age cannot bear it should be said, that it was necessary man should sin; I believe, however, that he owns, with respect to princes, that sin is now become a necessary thing, although it does not make them excusable; for besides that there are few who content themselves with what is necessary, they would not be under this wretched condition, if they were all good men.” To this may be added the saying of an ancient poet, that by the bare exercise of royalty, the most innocent would learn to be guilty, without any tutor: “Ut nemo doceat fraudis et scelerum vias, regnum docebit. Seneca in Thyeste, Act ii, ver. 313. ⁷⁵ Though no one were to teach the ways of fraud and wickedness, a kingdom will teach them.” Every body has heard that maxim, qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare, and he who denies the truth of it, must be very ignorant of affairs of state. Boccalini cunningly gives us to understand, that the reign of some popes taught Machiavel the politics of his prince, and pretends, that since the reading of history is both permitted and recommended, the reading of Machiavel is unjustly condemned. The meaning of which is, that the same maxims are found in history, as in this author’s prince. This does not excuse Machiavel: he advances maxims which he does not blame; but a good historian, who relates the practice of these maxims, condemns it. This makes a great difference between this Florentine’s book and history; and yet it is certain, that, by accident, the reading of history is very apt to produce the same effect, as the reading of Machiavel.

There are people, who make the apology of Machiavel, by saying, that those who attack him, shew their ignorance of matters of policy. “Whoever have hitherto undertaken to confute Machiavel, if I may speak the truth, have too plainly discovered their ignorance of politics. You will find them almost all disputing, as if there were no other republics, than such as principally, if not solely, regard the good of the people, or aim at a full and exact happiness of human life; and therefore that a politician ought solely to confine himself to them: hence they condemn all doctrine, as without the limits of politics, which does not regard such republics, as they think ought alone to be inquired into by men.” You will find several reflexions of this nature, in the preface which the learned Conringius has prefixed to Machiavel’s “Prince.” Observe, that our Florentine is accused of enriching himself with the spoils of Aristotle: his political maxims therefore have for a long time been in books. It is the same Conringius who thus charges him. “Nicolas Machiavel, that cymbal of the arts of politics, could teach his prince no secret spring of government, which Aristotle had not long ago observed, for the preservation of power, in the fifth book of his politics. Nay, perhaps this cunning doctor of iniquity transcribed his whole doctrine from Aristotle, without confessing the theft; yet with this difference, that Machiavel impiously and imprudently recommends to all princes, that, which, according to Aristotle, is applicable only to tyrants.” Gentillet accuses him of being Bartolus’s plagiary. I wonder they do not say, that he has stolen his maxims from

the angelic doctor, the great St Thomas Aquinas. See in Naudé’s State Politics, a long passage of Thomas Aquinas’s commentary upon the fifth book of Aristotle’s Politics. Mr Amelot proves, that Machiavel was but the disciple or interpreter of Tacitus, and he makes use of the same observation as Conringius. “Of all those,” says he, “that censure Machiavel, you will find that some confess they never read him; and the others who have read him, have never understood him; as appears by their taking several passages in a literal sense, which the politicians know how to interpret otherwise. So that, to tell the truth, he is censured only because he is ill understood; and he is ill understood by many, who are capable of understanding him better, only because they read him with prejudice: whereas, if they read him as judges, that is, holding the balance even between him and his adversaries, they would see, that his maxims are for the most part absolutely necessary to princes, who, as the great Cosmo de Medicis said, cannot always govern their states with their beads in their hand. The prince in question observed, that it is no wonder, that Machiavel is censured by so many people; since there are so few that understand reasons of state, and who, consequently, are qualified to be competent judges of his precepts and maxims. And I will say by the way, that there are abundance of ministers and princes, that study them, and even practise them in every point, who had condemned and detested them, before they came to the ministry, or the throne. So true it is that a man must be a prince, or at least a minister, to know, I say not the usefulness, but the absolute necessity of these maxims.” This is applying to Machiavel, what another had said of Tacitus: “They who accuse him of holding impious maxims, and opposite to morality, must pardon me, if I tell them, that never politician handled state-maxims more reasonably than he; and that the most scrupulous who have blamed diem, whilst they were private persons, have studied and practised them, when they were called to the management of public affairs.” Mr Amelot has cited these words from Mr de Chanvalon. It is said, that Machiavel’s “Prince” was translated into the Turkish tongue, and read by Sultan Amurath IV, in that language.—Art. Machiavel.