XLVI. I would not have it understood by what I have said, that I think
the reading of Machiavel would not be pernicious; for it would without
doubt be so to many, and especially if their dispositions incline
them to the side of ambition. There have been, and ever will be, an
infinite number of tyrants, who never heard of, or read Machiavel’s
book, intituled The Prince; but that book may probably have made
tyrants of many, who never would have been such without perusing it;
and it would have the same effect in the hands of a weak prince, that
the mouth of an evil counsellor would have applied to his ear.
XLVII. One of the most atrocious and treacherous acts ever recorded in
history, and one that has made the greatest noise in the world, was,
the unworthy putting to death of the great Pompey, which was occasioned
intirely, by young Ptolemy who was then king of Egypt, having at the
time it was committed, a Machiavel by his side, in the person of the
depraved Theodotus.
XLVIII. Pompey, after being routed in the battle of Pharsalia, and
becoming a fugitive from Cæsar and his fortune, thought no asylum could
be more convenient and safe for him, than the kingdom of Egypt; because
the prince who then reigned there, was indebted to him, for the great
favour of having reinstated his father on that throne, from whence
he had been cast down by his own subjects. On the confidence of this
service, he steered for Alexandria, and upon entering the port, sent
to inform the king of his arrival, and beg that protection from him,
which he had so just a right to demand. The king summoned a council
to deliberate on the matter, in which the majority of votes, were for
doing what was honourable and right, and gave it as their opinion,
that the unfortunate hero should be entertained and protected. But
Theodotus, who had got the ascendency over the young king, and who had
more influence with him than every body else, suggested to him, that
he should not only not grant Pompey his protection, but that he should
take away his life also.
XLIX. But let us hear from Lucan, the reasons of convenience, on which
that depraved politician grounded his advice for perpetrating so horrid
and atrocious an act of treachery, in order, that by comparing them
with those of Machiavel, we may discern, whether the principles of
the Florentine master were well understood in those times. But it is
proper to observe, that Lucan makes the eunuch Photinus the author of
the advice, instead of Theodotus; whereas other writers do not make
Photinus the adviser, but assisted by the general Aquilas, the executor
of the wickedness; and some others again, attribute to this last, a
great part, if not the whole of the suggestion.
L. But whether Theodotus, Aquilas, or Photinus, was the first who
suggested the treacherous cruelty, is not material to the main
question. The arguments used with Ptolemy, to incite him to the
deed, were as follow: That great as his father’s obligations were to
Pompey, he ought to consider, that he owed more to himself than he
did to him; that Fortune had declared itself in favour of Cæsar, and
against Pompey, and that it would be the height of imprudence to take
part with that side, to whom Fortune was averse; that although it was
true, the affording Pompey an asylum had the appearance of an honest
action, still, princes ought not to attend to what was honest, but to
what was useful; that the monarch, who is desirous of confining his
operations within the limits of justice, is more a slave of the laws,
than a master of his dominions; that the supreme power is paramount to
all law, nor can it acknowledge any subjection; that it was beyond a
doubt, the affording Pompey protection in his kingdom, would soon bring
on him, the invincible arms of Cæsar, and the power of the whole Roman
empire; against which attack, he would be unable to make the slightest
resistance; that he already, as far as his ability went, had complied
with his obligations to Pompey, by wishing that he might be victorious;
but now that Cæsar had won the day, he ought to attach himself to
die conqueror, and endeavour to court his favour, by taking away the
life of Pompey; that pursuing the medium, of neither receiving nor
destroying him, would be the worst resolution they could take, for that
by such a determination, they would lose the useful, without attaining
the honest; that Cæsar would always look upon him as an enemy, who
having had it in his power, should neglect to destroy his rival,
although all the rest of the world should regard him as ungrateful,
for refusing to protect his benefactor. It was also suggested, that
it would not be difficult to assign a religious motive for destroying
Pompey, and to cover the cruelty of the action under that pretence; for
it might be alledged, that he was sacrificed to the goddess of Fortune,
who had already declared herself adverse to the unhappy hero; that this
sacrifice seemed not only to be dictated by religion, but justice also;
for that protecting Pompey under such circumstances, in the kingdom
of Egypt, and in the manner he wished, would infallibly, by provoking
the indignation of Cæsar, bring on it ruin and desolation, and that he
ought therefore to be proceeded against with fire and sword, as against
an avowed enemy of the state.
LI. I ask now, if Nicholas Machiavel, placed at the ear of the king
of Egypt in that conjuncture, and under the like circumstances, could
have said more? Thus there always were Machiavels, and they were always
pernicious and did mischief, when concerned in the administration of
public affairs, not only to the people at large, but most commonly to
the princes themselves, whose exaltation or security they endeavoured
to promote, by the practice and adoption of impious and cruel maxims.
LII. I believe, that although all who read the relation we have
just been discussing, will abominate the advice of Theodotus, as
base, tyrannical, violent, inhuman, and atrocious; there are many of
those who attend to nothing but temporal convenience, will think it
salutary; but observe, that instead of this, it was extremely hurtful
and injurious. They perpetrated the murder of the great Pompey, by
adding to the act of cruelty, another of treachery, which was coaxing
him to come ashore, by an assurance, that the king had engaged his
royal word that his life should be safe. What was the result of all
this? That Ptolemy obtained the hoped for friendship of Cæsar? That
Theodotus, Aquilas, and Photinus, were rewarded for the great service
they had done him, by freeing him for ever from the apprehension of
so formidable an enemy as Pompey? No, nothing of this sort fell out
in consequence of the base act; but it happened, that in a few days
after, Ptolemy in a most tragical manner, lost his kingdom and his
life, and that the three authors and executors of the murder of Pompey,
Theodotus, Aquilas, and Photinus, died miserably; which consequences
are produced, either by impious maxims tending naturally to bring on
misfortunes, or by the interposition of the Supreme Providence, which
superintends and watches over human affairs, and with an especial
design, fulminates his wrath on the authors of such wickedness, in a
manner, that serves to make them scarecrows to terrify, as well as
examples to warn others.