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.