Essays, or discourses, vol. 1 (of 4)

by Benito Jerónimo Feijoo

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.