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.