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.