The national movement which united, first Italy and then Germany, opened

a new era for Machiavelli. He had come down, laden with the distinctive

reproach of abetting despotism; and the men who, in the seventeenth

century, levelled the course of absolute monarchy, were commonly known

as _novi politici et Machiavellistae_. In the days of Grotius they are

denounced by Besold: "Novi politici, ex Italia redeuntes qui quavis

fraude principibus a subditis pecuniam extorquere fas licitumque esse

putant, Machiavelli plerumque praeceptis et exemplis principum, quorum

rationes non capiunt, ad id abutentes." But the immediate purpose with

which Italians and Germans effected the great change in the European

constitution was unity, not liberty. They constructed, not securities,

but forces. Machiavelli's time had come. The problems once more were his

own: and in many forward and resolute minds the spirit also was his, and

displayed itself in an ascending scale of praise. He was simply a

faithful observer of facts, who described the fell necessity that

governs narrow territories and unstable fortunes; he discovered the true

line of progress and the law of future society; he was a patriot, a

republican, a Liberal, but above all this, a man sagacious enough to

know that politics is an inductive science. A sublime purpose justifies

him, and he has been wronged by dupes and fanatics, by irresponsible

dreamers and interested hypocrites.

The Italian Revolution, passing from the Liberal to the national stage,

at once adopted his name and placed itself under his invocation. Count

Sclopis, though he declared him _Penseur profond, ecrivain admirable_,

deplored this untimely preference: "Il m'a ete penible de voir le

gouvernement provisoire de la Tuscane, en 1859, le lendemain du jour ou

ce pays recouvrait sa liberte, publier un decret, portant qu'une edition

complete des oeuvres de Machiavel serait faite aux frais de l'etat." The

research even of our best masters, Villari and Tommasini, is prompted by

admiration. Ferrari, who comes so near him in many qualities of the

intellect, proclaims him the recorder of fate: "Il decrit les roles que

la fatalite distribue aux individus et aux masses dans ces moments

funestes et glorieux ou ils sont appeles a changer la loi et la foi des

nations." His advice, says La Farina, would have saved Italy. Canello

believes that he is disliked because he is mistaken for a courtier:

"L'orrore e l' antipatia che molti critici hanno provato per il

Machiavelli son derivati dal pensare che tutti i suoi crudi insegnamenti

fossero solo a vantaggio del Principe." One biographer, Mordenti, exalts

him as the very champion of conscience: "Risuscitando la dignita dell'

umana coscienza, ne affermo l' esistenza in faccia alla ragione." He

adds, more truly, "E uno dei personaggi del dramma che si va svolgendo

nell' eta nostra."

That is the meaning of Laurent when he says that he has imitators but no

defenders: "Machiavel ne trouve plus un seul partisan au XIXe

siecle.--La posterite a voue son nom a l'infamie, tout en pratiquant sa

doctrine." His characteristic universality has been recognised by

Baudrillart: "En exprimant ce mauvais cote, mais ce mauvais cote, helas,

eternel! Machiavel n'est plus seulement le publiciste de son pays et de

son temps; it est le politique de tous les siecles.--S'il fait tout

dependre de la puissance individuelle, et de ses facultes de force,

d'habilete de ruse, c'est que, plus le theatre se retrecit, plus l'homme

influe sur la marche des evenements." Matter finds the same merits which

are applauded by the Italians: "Il a plus innove pour la liberte que

pour le despotisme, car autour de lui la liberte etait inconnue, tandis

que le despotisme lui posait partout." And his reviewer, Longperier,

pronounces the doctrine "parfaitement appropriee aux etats d'Italie."

Nourrisson, with Fehr, one of the few religious men who still have a

good word for the Secretary, admires his sincerity: "_Le Prince_ est un

livre de bonne foi, ou l'auteur, sans songer a mal, n'a fait que

traduire en maximes les pratiques habituelles a ses contemporains."

Thiers, though he surrendered _The Prince_, clung to the _Discorsi_--the

_Discorsi_, with the pointed and culminating text produced by Mr. Burd.

In the archives of the ministry he might have found how the idea struck

his successful predecessor, Vergennes: "Il est des choses plus fortes

que les hommes, et les grands interets des nations sont de ce genre, et

doivent par consequent l'emporter sur la facon de penser de quelques

particuliers."

Loyalty to Frederic the Great has not restrained German opinion, and

philosophers unite with historians in rejecting his youthful moralities.

Zimmerman wonders what would have become of Prussia if the king had

practised the maxims of the crown prince; and Zeller testifies that the

_Anti-Machiavel_ was not permitted to influence his reign: "Wird man

doch weder in seiner Staatsleitung noch in seinen politischen

Grundsaetzen etwas von dem vermissen, worauf die Ueberlegenheit einer

gesunden Realpolitik allem liberalen oder conservativen, radikalen oder

legitimistischen, Doktrinarismus gegenueber beruht." Ahrens and

Windelband insist on the virtue of a national government: "Der Staat ist

sich selbst genug, wenn er in einer Nation wurzelt,--das ist der

Grundgedanke Machiavelli's." Kirchmann celebrates the emancipation of

the State from the moral yoke: "Man hat Machiavelli zwar in der Theorie

bekaempft, allein die Praxis der Staaten hat seine Lehren immer

eingehalten.--Wenn seine Lehre verletzt, so kommt diess nur von der

Kleinheit der Staaten und Fuersten, auf die er sie verwendet.--Es spricht

nur fuer seine tiefe Erkenntniss des Staatswesens, dass er die

Staatsgewalt nicht den Regeln der Privatmoral unterwirft, sondern selbst

vor groben Verletzungen dieser Moral durch den Fuersten nicht

zurueckschreckt, wenn das Wohl des Ganzen und die Freiheit des

Vaterlandes nicht anders vorbereitet und vermittelt werden kann." In

Kuno Fischer's progress through the systems of metaphysics Machiavelli

appears at almost every step; his influence is manifest to Dr. Abbott

throughout the whole of Bacon's political writings; Hobbes followed up

his theory to the conclusions which he abstained from; Spinoza gave him

the benefit of a liberal interpretation; Leibniz, the inventor of the

acquiescent doctrine which Bolingbroke transmitted to the _Essay on

Man_, said that he drew a good likeness of a bad prince; Herder reports

him to mean that a rogue need not be a fool; Fichte frankly set himself

to rehabilitate him. In the end, the great master of modern philosophy

pronounces in his favour, and declares it absurd to robe a prince in the

cowl of a monk: "Ein politischer Denker und Kuenstler dessen erfahrener

und tiefer Verstand aus den geschichtlich gegebenen Verhaeltnissen

besser, als aus den Grundsaetzen der Metaphysik, die politischen

Nothwendigkeiten, den Charakter, die Bildung und Aufgabe weltlicher

Herrschaft zu begreifen wusste.--Da man weiss, dass politische

Machtfragen nie, am Wenigsten in einem verderbten Volke, mit den Mitteln

der Moral zu loesen sind, so ist es unverstaendig, das Buch vom Fuersten zu

verschreien. Machiavelli hatte einen Herrscher zu schildern, keinen

Klosterbruder."

Ranke was a grateful student of Fichte when he spoke of Machiavelli as a

meritorious writer, maligned by people who could not understand him:

"Einem Autor von hoechstem Verdienst, und der keineswegs ein boeser

Mensch war.--Die falsche Auffassung des _Principe_ beruht eben darauf,

dass man die Lehren Machiavells als allgemeine betrachtet, waehrend sie

bloss Anweisungen fuer einen bestimmten Zweck sind." To Gervinus, in

1853, he is "der grosse Seher," the prophet of the modern world: "Er

errieth den Geist der neuern Geschichte." Gervinus was a democratic

Liberal, and, taken with Gentz from another quarter, he shows how widely

the elements of the Machiavellian restoration were spread over Europe.

Gentz had not forgotten his classics in the service of Austria when he

wrote to a friend: "Wenn selbst das Recht je verletzt werden darf, so

geschehe es, um die rechtmaessige Macht zu erhalten; in allem Uebrigen

herrsche es unbedingt" Twesten is as well persuaded as Machiavelli that

the world cannot be governed "con Pater nostri in mano," and he deemed

that patriotism atoned for his errors: "Dass der weltgeschichtliche

Fortschritt nicht mit Schonung und Gelindigkeit, nicht in den Formen des

Rechts vollzogen werden koennte, hat die Geschichte aller Laender

bestaetigt.--Auch Machiavellis Suenden moegen wir als gesuehnt betrachten,

durch das hochsinnige Streben fuer das Grosse und das Ansehen seines

Volkes." One censor of Frederic, Boretius, makes him answerable for a

great deal of presuming criticism: "Die Gelehrten sind bis heute in

ihrem Urtheil ueber Machiavelli nicht einig, die oeffentliche Meinung ist

hierin gluecklicher.--Die oeffentliche Meinung kann sich fuer alle diese

Weisheit beim alten Fritz bedanken." On the eve of the campaign in

Bohemia, Herbst pointed out that Machiavelli, though previously a

republican, sacrificed liberty to unity: "Der Einheit soll die innere

Freiheit--Machiavelli war kurz zuvor noch begeisterter Anhaenger der

Republik--geopfert werden." According to Feuerlein the heart of the

writer was loyal, but the conditions of the problem were inexorable; and

Klein detects in _The Prince_, and even in the _Mandragola_, "die

reformatorische Absicht eines Sittenspiegels." Chowanetz wrote a book to

hold up Machiavelli as a teacher of all ages, but especially of our own:

"Die Absicht aber, welche Machiavel mit seinem Buche verband, ist

trefflich fuer alle Zeiten." And Weitzel hardly knows a better writer, or

one less worthy of an evil name: "Im Interesse der Menschheit und

gesetzmaessiger Verfassungen kann kaum ein besseres Werk geschrieben

werden.--Wohl ist mancher in der Geschichte, wie in der Tradition der

Voelker, auf eine unschuldige Weise um seinen verdienten, oder zu einem

unverdienten Rufe gekommen, aber keiner vielleicht unschuldiger als

Machiavelli."

These are remote and forgotten names. Stronger men of the imperial epoch

have resumed the theme with better means of judging, and yet with no

harsher judgment. Hartwig sums up his penetrating and severe analysis by

confessing that the world as Machiavelli saw it, without a conscience,

is the real world of history as it is: "Die Thatsachen selbst scheinen

uns das Geheimniss ihrer Existenz zu verrathen; wir glauben vor uns die

Faeden sich verknuepfen und verschlingen zu sehen, deren Gewebe die

Weltgeschichte ist." Gaspary thinks that he hated iniquity, but that he

knew of no righteousness apart from the State: "Er lobte mit Waerme das

Gute und tadelte mit Abscheu das Boese; aber er studirte auch dieses mit

Interesse.--Er erkennt eben keine Moral, wie keine Religion, ueber dem

Staate, sondern nur in demselben; die Menschen sind von Natur schlecht,

die Gesetze machen sie gut.--Wo es kein Gericht giebt, bei dem man

klagen koennte, wie in den Handlungen der Fuersten, betrachtet man immer

das Ende." The common opinion is expressed by Baumgarten in his _Charles

the Fifth_, that the grandeur of the purpose assures indulgence to the

means proposed: "Wenn die Umstaende zum Wortbruch, zur Grausamkeit,

Habgier, Luege treiben, so hat man sich nicht etwa mit Bedauern, dass die

Not dazu zwinge, sondern schlechtweg, weil es eben politisch zweckmaessig

ist und ohne alles Bedenken so zu verhalten.--Ihre Deduktionen sind uns

unertraeglich, wenn wir nicht sagen koennen: alle diese schrecklichen

Dinge empfahl Machiavelli, weil er nur durch sie die Befreiung seines

Vaterlandes zu erreichen hoffte. Dieses erhabene Ziel macht uns die

fuerchterlichen Mittel annehmbar, welche Machiavelli seinem Fuersten

empfiehlt." Hillebrand was a more international German; he had swum in

many European waters, and wrote in three languages. He is scarcely less

favourable in his interpretation: "Cette dictature, il ne faut jamais le

perdre de vue, ne serait jamais que transitoire, et devrait faire place

a un gouvernement libre des que la grande reforme nationale et sociale

serait accomplie.--Il a parfaitement conscience du mal. L'atmosphere

ambiante de son siecle et de son pays n'a nullement oblitere son sens

moral--Il a si bien conscience de l'enormite de ces crimes, qu'il la

condamne hautement lorsque la derniere necessite ne les impose pas."

Among these utterances of capable and distinguished men, it will be seen

that some are partially true, and others, without a particle of truth,

are at least representative and significant, and serve to bring

Machiavelli within fathomable depth. He is the earliest conscious and

articulate exponent of certain living forces in the present world.

Religion, progressive enlightenment, the perpetual vigilance of public

opinion, have not reduced his empire, or disproved the justice of his

conception of mankind. He obtains a new lease of life from causes that

are still prevailing, and from doctrines that are apparent in politics,

philosophy, and science. Without sparing censure, or employing for

comparison the grosser symptoms of the age, we find him near our common

level, and perceive that he is not a vanishing type, but a constant and

contemporary influence. Where it is impossible to praise, to defend, or

to excuse, the burden of blame may yet be lightened by adjustment and

distribution, and he is more rationally intelligible when illustrated by

lights falling not only from the century he wrote in, but from our own,

which has seen the course of its history twenty-five times diverted by

actual or attempted crime.

VIII

MR. GOLDWIN SMITH'S IRISH HISTORY[322]

When Macaulay republished his Essays from the _Edinburgh Review_, he had

already commenced the great work by which his name will be remembered;

and he had the prudence to exclude from the collection his early paper

on the art of historical writing. In the maturity of his powers, he was

rightly unwilling to bring into notice the theories of his youth. At a

time when he was about to claim a place among the first historians, it

would have been injudicious to remind men of the manner in which he had

described the objects of his emulation or of his rivalry--how in his

judgment the speeches of Thucydides violate the decencies of fiction,

and give to his book something of the character of the Chinese

pleasure-grounds, whilst his political observations are very

superficial; how Polybius has no other merit than that of a faithful

narrator of facts; and how in the nineteenth century, from the practice

of distorting narrative in conformity with theory, "history proper is

disappearing." But in that essay, although the judgments are puerile,

the ideal at which the writer afterwards aimed is distinctly drawn, and

his own character is prefigured in the description of the author of a

history of England as it ought to be, who "gives to truth those

attractions which have been usurped by fiction," "intersperses the

details which are the charm of historical romances," and "reclaims those

materials which the novelist has appropriated."

Mr. Goldwin Smith, like Macaulay, has written on the study of history,

and he has been a keen critic of other historians before becoming one

himself. It is a bold thing for a man to bring theory so near to

execution, and, amidst dispute on his principles and resentment at his

criticism, to give an opportunity of testing his theories by his own

practice, and of applying his own canons to his performance. It reminds

us of the professor of Cologne, who wrote the best Latin poem of modern

times, as a model for his pupils; and of the author of an attack on

Dryden's _Virgil_, who is styled by Pope the "fairest of critics,"

"because," says Johnson, "he exhibited his own version to be compared

with that which he condemned." The work in which the professor of

history and critic of historians teaches by example is not unworthy of

his theory, whilst some of its defects may be explained by it.

The point which most closely connects Mr. Goldwin Smith's previous

writings with his _Irish History_ is his vindication of a moral code

against those who identify moral with physical laws, who consider the

outward regularity with which actions are done to be the inward reason

why they must be done, and who conceive that all laws are opposed to

freedom. In his opposition to this materialism, he goes in one respect

too far, in another not far enough.

On the one hand, whilst defending liberty and morality, he has not

sufficient perception of the spiritual element; and on the other, he

seems to fear that it would be a concession to his antagonists to dwell

on the constant laws by which nature asserts herself, and on the

regularity with which like causes produce like effects. Yet it is on the

observation of these laws that political, social, and economical science

rests; and it is by the knowledge of them that a scientific historian is

guided in grouping his matter. In this he differs from the artist, whose

principle of arrangement is drawn from himself, not from external

nature; and from the annalist, who has no arrangement, since he sees,

not the connection, but the succession of events. Facts are intelligible

and instructive,--or, in other words, history exhibits truths as well

as facts,--when they are seen not merely as they follow, but as they

correspond; not merely as they have happened, but as they are

paralleled. The fate of Ireland is to be understood not simply from the

light of English and Irish history, but by the general history of other

conquests, colonies, dependencies, and establishments. In this sort of

illustration by analogy and contrast Mr. Goldwin Smith is particularly

infelicitous. Nor does Providence gain what science loses by his

treatment of history. He rejects materialism, but he confines his view

to motives and forces which are purely human.

The Catholic Church receives, therefore, very imperfect measure at his

hands. Her spiritual character and purpose he cannot discern behind the

temporal instruments and appendages of her existence; he confounds

authority with influence, devotion with bigotry, power with force of

arms, and estimates the vigour and durability of Catholicism by

criterions as material as those of the philosophers he has so vehemently

and so ably refuted. Most Protestant writers fail in approbation; he

fails in appreciation. It is not so much a religious feeling that makes

him unjust, as a way of thinking which, in great measure, ignores the

supernatural, and therefore precludes a just estimate of religion in

general, and of Catholicism in particular. Hence he is unjust rather to

the nature than to the actions of the Church. He caricatures more than

he libels her. He is much less given to misrepresentation and calumny

than Macaulay, but he has a less exalted idea of the history and

character of Catholicism. As he underrates what is divine, so he has no

very high standard for the actions of men, and he is liberal in

admitting extenuating circumstances. Though he never suspends the

severity of his moral judgment in consideration of the purpose or the

result, yet he is induced by a variety of arguments to mitigate its

rigour. In accordance with the theory he has formerly developed, he is

constantly sitting in judgment; and he discusses the morality of men and

actions far oftener than history--which has very different problems to

solve--either requires or tolerates. De Maistre says that in our time

compassion is reserved for the guilty. Mr. Goldwin Smith is a merciful

judge, whose compassion generally increases in proportion to the

greatness of the culprit; and he has a sympathy for what is done in the

grand style, which balances his hatred of what is wrongly done.

It would not be fair to judge of an author's notion and powers of

research by a hasty and popular production. Mr. Goldwin Smith has

collected quite enough information for the purpose for which he has used

it, and he has not failed through want of industry. The test of solidity

is not the quantity read, but the mode in which the knowledge has been

collected and used. Method, not genius, or eloquence, or erudition,

makes the historian. He may be discovered most easily by his use of

authorities. The first question is, whether the writer understands the

comparative value of sources of information, and has the habit of giving

precedence to the most trustworthy informant. There are some vague

indications that Mr. Goldwin Smith does not understand the importance of

this fundamental rule. In his Inaugural Lecture, published two years

ago, the following extravagant sentence occurs: "Before the Revolution,

the fervour and the austerity of Rousseau had cast out from good society

the levity and sensuality of Voltaire" (p. 15). This view--which he

appears to have abandoned, for in his _Irish History_ he tells us that

France "has now become the eldest daughter of Voltaire"--he supports by

a reference to an abridgment of French history, much and justly esteemed

in French schools, but, like all abridgments, not founded on original

knowledge, and disfigured by exaggeration in the colouring. Moreover,

the passage he refers to has been misinterpreted. In the _Irish History_

Mr. Goldwin Smith quotes, for the character of the early Celts, without

any sufficient reason, another French historian, Martin, who has no

great authority, and the younger Thierry, who has none at all. This is a

point of very little weight by itself; but until our author vindicates

his research by other writings, it is not in his favour.

The defects of Mr. Goldwin Smith's historic art, his lax criticism, his

superficial acquaintance with foreign countries, his occasional

proneness to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of rhetorical effect, his

aversion for spiritual things, are all covered by one transcendent

merit, which, in a man of so much ability, promises great results.

Writers the most learned, the most accurate in details, and the soundest

in tendency, frequently fall into a habit which can neither be cured nor

pardoned,--the habit of making history into the proof of their theories.

The absence of a definite didactic purpose is the only security for the

good faith of a historian. This most rare virtue Mr. Goldwin Smith

possesses in a high degree. He writes to tell the truths he finds, not

to prove the truths which he believes. In character and design he is

eminently truthful and fair, though not equally so in execution. His

candour never fails him, and he is never betrayed by his temper; yet his

defective knowledge of general history, and his crude notions of the

Church, have made him write many things which are untrue, and some which

are unjust. Prejudice is in all men of such early growth, and so

difficult to eradicate, that it becomes a misfortune rather than a

reproach, especially if it is due to ignorance and not to passion, and

if it has not its seat in the will. In the case of Mr. Goldwin Smith it

is of the curable and harmless kind. The fairness of his intention is

far beyond his knowledge. When he is unjust, it is not from hatred;

where he is impartial, it is not always from the copiousness of his

information. His prejudices are of a nature which his ability and

honesty will in time inevitably overcome.

The general result and moral of his book is excellent. He shows that the

land-question has been from the beginning the great difficulty in

Ireland; and he concludes with a condemnation of the Established Church,

and a prophecy of its approaching fall. The weakness of Ireland and the

guilt of England are not disguised; and the author has not written to

stimulate the anger of one nation or to attenuate the remorse of the

other. To both he gives wise and statesman-like advice, that may soon be

very opportune. The first American war was the commencement of the

deliverance of Ireland, and it may be that a new American war will

complete the work of regeneration which the first began. Agreeing as we

do with the policy of the author, and admiring the spirit of his book,

we shall not attempt either to enforce or to dispute his conclusions,

and we shall confine our remarks to less essential points on which he

appears to us in the wrong.

The History of Freedom, and Other Essays · 第 24 / 63 段