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.