Part 10

_--------Nec lex est æquior illa,_ _Ut necis artifices arte perirent sua._

XLII. Finally, and to sum up the whole, if we search history, we shall hardly find one among a thousand of those politicians, who have sought to exalt themselves by means of wicked arts and practices, that have not come to an unhappy end. Thus it has ever been till this time, and so it will ever continue to be from henceforward. What blindness then is it, to persevere in following a path, by pursuing which, you can only by a miracle of chance avoid a precipice? What can this be but delirium, the infallible symptom of the fever of ambition? which is a flame that cannot burn with violence in any man, without his being affected with a phrensy of the brain.

SECT. XIII.

XLIII. All we have said of policy, as it relates to private people, may be applied to princes, or superiors, who govern every kind of state; and with respect to these also, the division of policy into the high and the low, is apt and proper, as the first is secure, and the second hazardous in them, in the same proportion, which it is with respect to subjects or private men. Any ruler whatever, who is endued with the three virtues, of prudence, justice, and fortitude, will be a singular good politician, without ever having read any of those books, which treat of reasons of state. The true arts of governing, are, to chuse such ministers as are wise and upright, to reward merit, and to punish crimes; to watch over, and attend to the interest of the public, and to be faithful in promises. By these means, the respect, the love, and the obedience of subjects, will be much more effectually secured, than by all that compound farrago of political subtilties, called reasons of state; a mystery, deposited in the minds of privy counsellors, which, as if it was a most sacred thing, they never suffer to be totally displayed; nor ever to go forth to the public, unless covered with a thick veil; and is for the most part, no more than a ridiculous phantom, or vain idol, which under the title of a Deity, they exhibit for the adoration of the ignorant vulgar. Reason of state, is the universal agitator, or primum mobile of a kingdom, and is the reason for every thing, without being the reason of any thing. If it is asked, why was such a thing done, the answer is, for reasons of state; very well, but why was such another thing omitted to be done, why for reasons of state also. Would it not be better to say, it was done because justice required it, or because religion, clemency, or some moral virtue dictated the doing it? The reason of the directions of a minister to his inferiors, in all matters, is, that they are the King’s commands. The reason why a Prince orders any thing to be done, should be this, and this only, because the commandments and laws of God, require it; for a Prince in a more rigorous sense, is the minister of God, than his subalterns are ministers to him.

XLIV. If we are to understand, that reason of state means political prudence, why not call it by that name? because the phrase political prudence, implies or signifies a moral virtue, but the term, reason of state, we don’t know the meaning of. This expression, _ragioni di stato_, took its rise in Italy, but it does not seem as if they entertained a high veneration for it there, since we are told, that the holy Pontif Pius, could not bear to hear it mentioned; and was used to say, that reasons of state were the inventions of perverse men, and the very reverse of religion and the moral virtues. It was observable, that Pope Pius, in no case stood in need of these political subtilties; for without their aid, he was not only a great saint, but a distinguish’d and exemplary ruler.

XLV. It was a remark of the celebrated Bacon, that the most desirable governments which the church has in all times experienced, were under those Popes, who having passed the greatest part of their lives in monasteries, were reputed ignorant of political business; and that these made excellent Princes, and recommended themselves much more to the good opinion of posterity, by their wise regulations, than those, who had been bred in the schools, and had exercised themselves all their lives, in the management of public affairs; instancing as examples of the truth of this assertion, Pius V. and Sextus V. who both reign’d in the same age: _Imò convertamus oculos ad regimen pontificium ac nominatim Pij V. vel Sixti V. nostro sæculo, qui sub initiis habiti sunt pro fraterculis rerum imperitis, inveniemusque acta paparum ejus generis magis esse solere memorabilia, quam eorum, qui in negotiis civilibus, & principum aulis enutriti ad papatum ascenderint_ (_Lib._ I. _de Augment. Scient._) This testimony to the truth, is given by a Calvinist Heretic, although abstracted from his religion, he was in every sense a great, and most enlightened man, and one, who was not more remarkable for his incomparable talents, than for his candour and ingenuity.

XLVI. The reason he gives why the Popes, who before their elevation to the throne, had lived in holy retirement, excelled in the mode and goodness of their government, those, who before their rise, had always been exercised in public business, entitles him to the appellations we have just bestowed on him. He says, the want of civil instruction in those Pontiffs, was more than compensated for by their virtues; because Princes, who follow steadily, the plain and safe road of religion, justice, and the other moral virtues, readily and expertly, without the aid of studied policy, put in train, and dispatch all sorts of business that may occur to them. They are sound and robust souls, who have no more occasion for civil arts, than men who are healthy, and blessed with good constitutions have for physic. _In eo tamen abundè fit compensatio, quod per tutum, planumque iter religionis, justitiæ, honestatis, virtutumque moralium, prompte, atque expedite incedant, quam viam, qui constanter tenuerint, illis alteris remediis non magis indigebunt, quam corpus sanum medicina._

XLVI. I almost blush, that a Heretic should talk in this strain, when among the Catholics, we find so many politicians who abound in very different maxims. But the case is, that the subtilties and artifices which compose what is commonly called worldly policy, are a sort of remedies, which sickly souls only, stand in need of. A vicious government, which he who has the management of turns and winds to answer his private purposes, cannot exist without the help of such medicaments, which may with as much propriety be called drugs, as those that are sold in an apothecary’s shop. But a sound understanding, endued and justly tempered with the four elemental qualities, of prudence, justice, fortitude, and sobriety, with only the assistance of these virtues, will, without the succour of other arts, and without embarrassment, surmount all the difficulties that can occur in government.

XLVII. And since Bacon has mentioned him, let us take a cursory view of the reign of Sextus the Vth. This spirit, so truly incomparable, that it seems as if God had formed him for the purpose of governing the whole world; in whom, the magnanimity of Cæsar, the prudence of Augustus, and the justice of Trajan were joined, and who, in these virtues, even excelled them; in a few months after his mounting the throne, had gained the respect of all the Princes of Europe, and had put the whole ecclesiastical state in better order, and under better regulation, than it had been known to be blessed with or enjoy, for many antecedent ages. Thefts, cheating, murders, subornations, and licentious insolence, were so effectually rooted out and banished from that great city, that it never till then, could with so much propriety be called Holy Rome. All dread of extortion and injustice was lost, and nobody feared, only God and the Pope; and as Gregory Leti tells us, in his History of Sextus, women, and other defenceless persons, could walk the streets at all hours of the night, as safely, as they could walk in the cloisters of a Capuchin Convent. In the five years which he reigned, he embellished Rome with many noble edifices, and left the treasury some millions richer than he found it. I ask now, by what political arts, and what ingenious devices, he performed all these wonders? He knew no arts, save those of an indefatigable vigilance and attention to the concerns of government; a fervent zeal for the public good, and an unalterable rectitude and justice. I cannot tell, whether what has been so much rumoured about Sextus having put on false appearances before his advancement to the throne, be true, but I believe it is not; and it is certain, that after he found himself seated in the Papal chair, he was a man void of all dissimulation; always generous, open, free and sincere, and one, who that his designs should not appear occult, frankly exposed and laid them open; and unless the virtue of prudence dictated caution, or the character of the prelate demanded reserve, he concealed the purposes of his heart from no man. This frankness, was natural to his genius, and he was the same in that respect while he was a religious; and therefore, I cannot give credit, to what is said of his practising duplicity while a Cardinal, in order to obtain the Popedom. It is more probable, that they mistook what was the real effect of his virtue, for dissimulation. They also charge him with doing violence to his nature, by bearing all sorts of injuries patiently, that he might acquire the character of a meek and gentle man; but why should not all this be imputed, to his desire, in obedience to the gospel precept, of imitating our Saviour? The severity he observed when he was Pope, proves nothing to contradict this sentiment; because bearing with offences that are merely personal, and those which are committed against dignities, are very different things. They also say, he feigned himself decrepid and worn out with age and infirmities, to excite in his favour, the choice of the Cardinals; from the prospect that his would be a short pontificate, and that they should have a quick return of another conclave. But notwithstanding what people say, I don’t believe the Cardinals are so much influenced by this sort of policy as the world imagine, from their having so often chosen Popes of good constitutions, and not far advanced in years, provided at the time of their election, their judgment was arrived at that state of maturity, which it is not common to attain but in a more advanced age. On the other hand, it is probable, that Sextus who was seventy-four when he ascended the Papal chair, was much broke. If he afterwards seemed more robust, it might be, because having charged himself with such weighty obligations, he used extraordinary exertions to comply with what he had undertaken; and besides this, the before cited Leti informs us, that to enable him to discharge the duties incumbent on him, he fed more copiously, and took more nourishing aliment, both with respect to meat and drink, when he was a Pope, than he did while he was a Cardinal.

XLVIII. I have dwelt with pleasure on the eulogium of this singular man, who was always the object of my admiration, although some have been unjust enough, not to render him the praise due to his merit. And here by the way, I cannot forbear congratulating the seraphic religion, on having produced in the person of this Pontif, and in that of Cardinal Cisneros, two politicians so eminent, that in my opinion the world never saw greater; though neither the one or the other have been without their enemies, who, envious of their merit, have strove to tarnish their glories; but what I most admire in this particular is, that so able a man as Don Antonio de Solis, should in the third Chap. of his History of Mexico, paint the Cardinal, as a man deficient in point of political abilities; notwithstanding he in all other respects, heaps on him the highest encomiums. Foreign authors do him more justice, and particularly, Flechier, Bishop of Nimes, who with great judgment and discretion wrote his life, celebrates him, as a most eminent and brilliant politician: and another modern French author, having drawn a parallel of the characters of the two Cardinals, Cisneros, and Richlieu, gives the preference to our countryman; acknowledging, that he was equal to the other as a politician, and much preferable to him as a devout man; though by the way, when he says this, he pays no great compliment to the sanctity of Cisneros.

XLIX. From all that has been said on this subject, it is evident and plain, that with an equality of talents, those politicians who proceed upon the principles of honesty, and who pursue the road of rectitude and truth, will with greater certainty, and more ease, attain their ends, than those, who follow the rout of artifice and deceit; for the first, is the sound or true policy, the other, the rotten or false.

THE MACHIAVELIANISM OF THE ANCIENTS.

SECT. I.

I. As we are about to treat in this discourse of the tyrannic doctrine of Machiavel; I believe it will be agreeable to the greatest part of our readers, to have some particular information respecting this man, of whom all the world talks, and whom all the world detests; for by whatever means men make themselves famous, they excite a curiosity to know who and what they were.

II. Nicholas Machiavel, who was a native of Florence, lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was a man of more than middling ingenuity. He wrote the Tuscan language with elegance and propriety, although his knowledge of the Latin was but moderate. He had a good genius for writing comic poetry, which he manifested in various pieces which he wrote for the theatre; and more particularly in one of them, that was represented at Florence with such great applause, that it excited Pope Leo the tenth, as Paulus Jovius informs us, to cause it to be acted at Rome by the same players, and with the same dresses and decorations, with which it had been exhibited at Florence. When the unhappy conspiracy against the family of the Medicis, was set on foot by the Soderinis, Machiavel, who was impeached as an accomplice in it, was put to the question by torture; but either his fortitude, or his innocence, caused him to resist the rigour of that trial without making the least confession. I do not know whether it was before, or after this event, that he was made secretary to the republic, but it is certain, that for the title of historian to it, which was conferred on him together with a good salary, he was totally indebted to the favour of the Medicis; but whether they did this from a conviction of his innocence with respect to the late conspiracy, and were disposed to recompence him by this honourable emolument, for the injury he suffered in the torture; or whether they did it from considering him as an able man whom they had a mind to keep under obligations to them, in order to avail themselves of so good a pen as Machiavel’s in their favour; I say, whichever of these motives they were actuated by, is not quite certain.

III. The conferring this benefit on him, did not prevent new suspicions being entertained of his fidelity, and of his having concurred in another plot concerted by some private individuals, to take away the life of cardinal Julius de Medicis, who afterwards ascended to the popedom, by the name of Clement the seventh. This suspicion was founded entirely, on the repeated applauses, with which both in his writings and private conversations, he had celebrated Brutus and Cassius, as the defenders and vindicators of the liberty of the Roman republic; which at that time, was interpreted as an indirect exhortation to the Florentines to defend their liberty, which the Medicis either in reality or appearance, meditated to suppress. But with all this, either from mere motives of policy, or because the suspicions seemed lightly founded, no proceedings were had against Machiavel. It is confirmed however, that after this time, he passed the remainder of his days in misery and poverty. Perhaps the Medicis, who were secretly displeased with him, thought it more adviseable, instead of bringing him to open punishment, to accomplish their dark revenge, by occult ways and means. It might also happen, that he brought himself to poverty by his own misconduct; but, be this as it will, he hastened his death as many other people have hastened theirs before him, by taking a precautionary medicine to prolong his life, which instead of lengthening, shortened it, and brought him to an untimely end in the year 1530.

IV. Machiavel was of a jocose and satyrical disposition, and was believed to have little or no religion. There are some who say, that when he was near dying, they were under a necessity of employing the authority of the civil magistrate to oblige him to receive the sacraments. We read in many authors, a wanton and insolent impiety of his, under the colour of a joke; that is, his having said, that he had much rather go to hell than heaven; because in heaven he should only meet with fryars, mendicants, and other miserable and groveling people; but that in hell, he should enjoy the company of popes, cardinals, and princes, with whom he could converse of state affairs. Others substitute, for his saying popes, cardinals, and princes, the most eminent philosophers and political writers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Tacitus.

V. He published a variety of books, and among them, the life of Castrucius Castracani, and the history of Florence, which do not obtain the greatest credit with the critics. But the work that made him jointly the most famous and infamous man in the world, was a political tract, intituled, “The Prince;” in which he teaches and recommends to all sovereigns, to reign tyrannically, and to govern their people, without regarding either equity, law, or religion, but sacrificing them all three, together with the public good, to his interest, his will, his caprice, and his own particular grandeur.

SECT. II.

VI. But notwithstanding the principles of this book are so pernicious, there have not been wanting those, who have patronized both the book and the author. Abraham Nicholas Amelot de Houssaye, defends it in the most odious point of view, which is approving his maxims as beneficial to the public, and asserting, that they are only reprobated by ignorant men, who know nothing of politics or reasons of state; and adds, that the same people who now live as private men, and are unacquainted with the management of public business, and at present condemn them, were they by any great and unexpected change of fortune, to arrive at being princes or prime ministers, would approve, and practise them.

VII. There are others, who, although they acknowledge the maxims of Machiavel are pernicious, sanctify the intention of the author. They say, that so far from intending to instruct princes against their people, he only meant to caution the people against the proceedings and arts of tyrants, to the end that princes, seeing the tendency of their schemes liable to be exposed, should be more circumspect in their behaviour, and that the people, by being aware of the arms with which the attacks were made upon liberty, might be the better able to parry the blows. They add further, that Machiavel was under a necessity of using this artful method of warning the people, and of couching his cautions to them, under the veil and figure of teaching princes how to make themselves absolute, because these last, would not have permitted his book to be licenced, if he had openly declared himself inimical to their total independency.

VIII. They endeavour to prove the probability of this sentiment, by urging, that Machiavel was an utter enemy to tyranny, and a strenuous advocate for the liberty of the republic; and that the whole tenor of his words and actions, conspire to manifest these were his inclinations. His two great and favourite heroes, were Brutus and Cassius, who killed Cæsar to restore Rome to her liberty. He also quotes the tenth chapter of the first book of his discourses, where he speaks strongly against tyrants; and urges further, that he was accused of being an accomplice with the Soderinis in their conspiracy against the family of the Medicis, who were thought at that time, to have an intention of tyrannizing over the republic of Florence; and that he was afterwards, not exempt from being suspected, of having a finger in the conspiracy against the life of cardinal Julius de Medicis. Nardi, a Florentine author who was a contemporary with him, says, that he was closely connected with the contrivers of that plot and design, and also with the rest of the faction, who were in opposition to the Medicis. He then proceeds to say, what view or intention could a man have in favouring and abetting tyrants, who had given so many proofs of his abhorrence of them? or how could the man be suspected of designing to extend the power of princes above their natural sphere, who had always manifested himself an admirer of democracy? he next says, it must follow then of course, that his intention must be different, and very contrary to what the ordinary and superficial sense of his words seem to import. This is the way those reason, who support this opinion.

IX. Finally, there are others, who admit that the maxims of Machiavel are detestable, but waiving the question about what was his intention, they limit their excuse of the author, by affirming, there has not, nor can there arise, any general inconvenience from the publication of them. These say, that Machiavel has broached nothing new; and that his maxims are the same with those you will find inserted in various histories, and which were practised by an infinite number of princes; and what more pernicious effect can they have on him who reads them in Machiavel’s book, than on him who reads them in any other?

X. This is the very excuse which Bocalini puts in the mouth of Machiavel, when he supposes him to be speaking in his own defence before Apollo. He says, I do not pretend to defend my works, but rather to arraign, and condemn them as impious, and full of cruel and execrable documents for the government of states; but provided the doctrine I have written shall appear to be new, or the invention of my brain, I am ready at this moment, to submit to the execution of any sentence, the judges shall think proper to fulminate against me. On the other hand, if my writings contain nothing more than those political precepts, and those rules of state, which I have deduced from the actions and conduct of some princes, the speaking ill of whom would formerly have been punished with death, and, if you will be pleased to permit me, I can now name; I say if this be the case, what justice, what reason can there be, for respecting those as little less than divinities, who have been the authors and inventors of all the furious and desperate maxims of policy which appear in my writings; and of treating me, who have done nothing more than republish them, as an abandoned vagabond, and an Atheist I certainly cannot conceive, why the original should be adored as a saint, and the copy execrated; nor why I deserve to be so persecuted, when the reading of histories, not only tolerated, but recommended, are sufficient to convert to Machiavels, all those who peruse them with a political view.

SECT. III.