XXXIII. But our surprize will cease at their acting in this manner,
when we reflect, that that great philosopher and oracle of antiquity,
the divine Plato, by his doctrine, taught, that it was lawful for
those who had the management of public affairs, to lye, whenever it
could be of use to the interests of the state. _Igitur rempublicam
administrantibus præcipue, si quibus aliis, mentiri licet, vel hostium,
vel civium, causa ad communem civitatis utilitatem. Reliquis autem à
mendacio abstinendum est._ (lib. III. de Repub.) If the princes of
antiquity had so able a master, and one of so great authority, what
loss could they be at for want of a Machiavel?
XXXIV. It is true, that Plato only allowed lying to be lawful, in cases
where it might be conducive to advance the public good; Machiavel
advises it, whenever it can be useful to serve the particular interests
of a tyrant. Thus Plato was a bad moralist, and Machiavel a bad man.
But this difference in the character of the matters, does not prevent
tyrants from making the same use of the doctrine of Plato, for the
purpose of serving their particular conveniencies, that disinterested
princes may do for the good of the public, because a tyrant, always
endeavours to make the people believe, that every thing he does to
advance his own grandeur, is transacted with a view of promoting their
interest; and if at any time he is detected in a lye, he will pretend
that he lyed for the public good, and quote the doctrine of Plato to
justify his conduct; but in case this doctrine of Plato’s should appear
too limited or confined for tyrants, as in truth it is, they may be
supplied with a much more copious and enlarged system, in the writings
of Plato’s disciple Aristotle.
XXXV. I do not mean to say, that Aristotle was an abettor of perverse
policy, or that he wrote with a design of instructing tyrants in the
methods by which they might make themselves absolute, and support
themselves by tyrannic rule, but only mean to declare, that in the
fifth book of his Politics, cap. 11. he did it without intending it,
or without being aware that he was doing it. In this chapter, which
is a pretty long one, not only those two famous maxims, _Oderint dum
metuant, Divide ut imperes_, are exactly pointed out and applied; but
all, or very near all the others, which are published by the Florentine
author, in his book intitled Il Principe, are to be found in this
chapter of Aristotle’s. I have never seen Machiavel’s book, but only
the capital maxims of it, as they are cited by other authors; but hear
Hermanus Conringius, who has read both that and Aristotle. He says,
Nicholas Machiavel, that trumpeter of political arts, cannot, nor
does not, teach his prince any arcana or secrets, for promoting or
maintaining tyrannic dominion, which many hundred years before, had
not been taught by Aristotle in his fifth book of Politics; and it is
not improbable, but that cunning teacher and promoter of wickedness,
transcribed from Aristotle, although he concealed the plagiary, all
that he published in his own book; but there is a remarkable difference
in the application the two masters make of their doctrine, which is,
that Machiavel advises all princes without distinction, to pursue
and practise what he teaches; whereas Aristotle declared more justly
and frankly, his to be fit and necessary for tyrants only. (Conring.
Introduct. ad Politic. Aristotelis, cap. III.)
XXXVI. But let the truth prevail. I say the same of both Aristotle and
Machiavel, which is, that neither of them were the inventors of systems
of perverse policy; for that they copied them, from the actions of the
kings of Persia and Egypt; from the Archelaus’s and Philips of Macedon;
from the Phalaris’s, the Agathocles’s, the Hierones, and Dionysius’s
of Sicily; from the Perianders, from the Pisistratus’s, and other
political pests of Greece.