MAOHttua m
dpe", and the theories therein esploil«d were further eUborated in his "Discorsi aopra Livio". To under- stand the " I'riiicipe" ri^t it must be borne in miod that tlie work ia Dot a treatise on foreign politics. It aims solely at examining how a kingdom may be best built upandeatabliabed; nor is it a mere abstract diacuBaion, but it Is carried oa in the light of on ideal long held by Machiavelli, that a United Italy waa poesible, and in the last chapter of tiie work he exhorta the Medici of Florence (Giuliano and Lorenzo] to its reaJination. Hia aim was to point out the beat way for bringing it about; he did not deal with abstract principles and arguments, but collected examples from classical an- tiquity and from recent events, especially from the career of CKsar Borgia. 80 that the " Principe" is a political tract with a definite aim and intended for a particular locality. To gain the end in view results are to be the only criteria of the methods employed, and even the teach- ings of the moral law must give way to secure the end in view. Good faith, clemency, and moderation
boa
e. Flop
, but he
teaches thai the
interests of the
atate are above
all individuiil vir-
tues. These vir-
tues may be use-
ful, and when tbey
arc a prince ought
to exercise them,
but more often in
dealing with an
opponent they are
a nindranoe, not in
themselves, but
by reason of the
crookedness (rf
others.
Whosoever would prevail against the treacheiy,
crime, and cruelty of others, must himself be before-
hand in misleading and deceiving his opponent and
even in getting rid of him, as Cssar Borgia had done.
WUle on the other hand Gian Paolo Ba^ione made a
tniatoke, by omitting to imprison or put to death
Julius II, in I50S, on the occasion of his unprotected
entry to Perugia {Discorsi aopra Livio, I, xxvii).
Again, a prince must keep clear of crime not only when
it is hurtful to his interests but when it is useless. He
should try to win the love of hia aubjecta, by aimulat-
icg virtue if he doea not possess it; he ought to en-
courage trade so that his people, busied in getting rich,
may have no time for politics; he ought to show con-
cern for religion, because it is a potent means for keep-
ing his people submissive and obedient. Such is the
general teaching of the "Principe", which has been
often refuted. As a theory Machiavellisra may per-
haps be called an innovation ; but as a practice it is as
on as political society. It was a most immoral work,
in that it cuts politics adrift from all morality, and it
was rightly put on the Index in 1559. It is worth
noting that the " Principe" with its glorification of
■bsolutism is totallv opposed to its author's ideas of
democracy, which led to his ruin. To explain the
difficulty It is not necess.iry to claim that the book is a
satire, nor that it is evidence of how easily the writer
could change his political views provided he could
itand well with the Medici. Much as Machiavelli
loved liberty and Florence he dreamed of a "larger
Italy" of the Italians. As a practical man he saw ttot
his (Ireara could be realized only through a prince of
eharacter and energy who would walk in the steps of
CECsar Borgia, and be conceded that the individual
when be deals with what happened under his eyes at
the various embaasies; but it should be remen^>ered
that he gives everything a more or less unconscious
what he had heard or read, and serves to explain the
discrepancies in the letters he wrot« during his em-
bassies to Cffisar Borgia, the "DescriEione", etc., the
ideal picture he drew S affairs in Germany, and his life
of Castruccio Castracane, which is rather an historical
romance modelled on the character of Agathocles in
Plutarch. He knew nothing of historic^ criticism,
yet he showed how events in history move in obedience
to certain general laws; and this is his great merit as
an historian. His natural bent was politics, but in his
dealings with mihtary matters he showed such skill as
would amaze us even if we did not know be had never
been a soldier. He recognized that to be strong a
state must have its standing army, and he upholds uiis
not only in the " Principe" and the "Discorsi'i but ia
his vanous military writings. The broad and stable
laws of military tactics he lays down in masleriy
fashion ; yet it is curious to note that he lays no great
stress on firearma.
His style is always clear and crisp and his reasomng close and onierly. What poetry he has left gives no proof of poetic talent; rather, the comedies are clever and successful as compositions and only too often bear undisguised traces of the moral laxity of the author (this is shown also in hia letters to his friends) and of the a^ in which he lived. His " Mandragola" and "Cli«ia" are notlung more or less than pochades and lose no opportunity of acorinif against religion. Machia- velli did not disguise his dislike for Chriatianity which bjr exalting humility, meekness, and patience had, he said, weakened the social and patriotic instincts of moiJrind. Hence, he mocked at Savonarola though he waa the saviour of democracy, and he had a special dislike for the Holy See as a temporal power, as he saw in it the greatest obstacle to ItaUan unity; to use bis own expression, it was too weak to control the whole peninsula, but too strong to allow of any other state bringing about unity. This explains why he has no words of praise for Julius II and his Italian policy. It was merely as an opportunist that he courted the favour of Leo X and Clement VII. On the other hand, when death came bis way he remembered that he was a Christian and be died a Christian death, though his life, habits, and ideals "bad been pagan, and himself a typical representative of the Itt^an
E MlLlMBSI
Maahiautlli, ed. FAaaEWNi F*nf
^ ols,, Florence, 1873-771; Tl<r WorkiofNie
Faithfullii Englulicd (Laodon. 1685); Lrltrre famigliari. ed. Alvibi (FlorEDce, 1SS3): NlTa.Mati/iiavelli neUa vUa e ndU ofurt (Naples. 1878); VitLABi, MocfcinnrfJi and Au Tima (tr. London, 18B21 ; Hanke, Znr Kntili nrutnr aarhithUnhTe^rr (1824); Macaulay. CnJi^aiulAudiruiiJfiHviCEdinbuiBli. 1827); UoHi. Die AfoeeAwivIfi LiUerofur in OtKhichtr and Littratur dtr BlaaUmttenicliaflen. Ill (Erlanno, 1855-8)^ Pabtoh, Hulorv of thi Poprt, tr. Atitrobub. V. VI (SI. Louis. 1902), pasaiffl; T)tza, ilackiattlli and thr Madtm ^ati (Bos- ton, ims): VaO(ihan, Nicoll, Uachxav^li in DiMirt Rrricw (April. IWW): UORLET, MiKtUaniei (London, 1907). Works MDunM MnahiavelU were written by: CAimniAL Polk; Cata- HIHo; the Calvinirt Oentil,lbt. DtuDur) iFEilal. , , . eonire Nicol. Machiavd (1578); OeoBiUB, De nobililali cftnjdono (Home, 15921; Forsevino, JuiHrium de mmlm/r acTiplnrrbiu (Rome. 1593): Fheoerick II of Phusiua. wtione Anli-Mae)ii- mti wu e<lit«ii by Voltaire (Amsterdam. 1711). Machiavelli
N. H. Thoiibon has ttaoslaied into English The Pnnet (Oifoidi 1BS7) and Maehiaveni'i Diieovrm (London, 1883).
U. Beniqni,
HkchMUb, the burial-place in the vicinity of an- cient Hebron which Abraham bought from Ephron
