(March 1827)
Oeuvres completes de MACHIAVEL, traduites par J.V.PERIER Paris:
1825.
Those who have attended to the practice of our literary tribunal are well aware that, by means of certain legal fictions similar to those of Westminster Hall, we are frequently enabled to take cognisance of cases lying beyond the sphere of our original jurisdiction.We need hardly say, therefore, that in the present instance M.Perier is merely a Richard Roe, who will not be mentioned in any subsequent stage of the proceedings, and whose name is used for the sole purpose of bringing Machiavelli into court.
We doubt whether any name in literary history be so generally odious as that of the man whose character and writings we now propose to consider.The terms in which he is commonly described would seem to import that he was the Tempter, the Evil Principle, the discoverer of ambition and revenge, the original inventor of perjury, and that, before the publication of his fatal Prince, there had never been a hypocrite, a tyrant, or a traitor, a simulated virtue, or a convenient crime.One writer gravely assures us that Maurice of Saxony learned all his fraudulent policy from that execrable volume.Another remarks that since it was translated into Turkish, the Sultans have been more addicted than formerly to the custom of strangling their brothers.Lord Lyttelton charges the poor Florentine with the manifold treasons of the house of Guise, and with the massacre of St.Bartholomew.
Several authors have hinted that the Gunpowder Plot is to be primarily attributed to his doctrines, and seem to think that his effigy ought to be substituted for that of Guy Faux, in those processions by which the ingenious youth of England annually commemorate the preservation of the Three Estates.The Church of Rome has pronounced his works accursed things.Nor have our own countrymen been backward in testifying their opinion of his merits.Out of his surname they have coined an epithet for a knave, and out of his Christian name a synonym for the Devil.
[Nick Machiavel had ne'er a trick, Tho' he gave his name to our old Nick.
Hudibras, Part iii.Canto i.
But, we believe, there is a schism on this subject among the antiquarians.]
It is indeed scarcely possible for any person, not well acquainted with the history and literature of Italy, to read without horror and amazement the celebrated treatise which has brought so much obloquy on the name of Machiavelli.Such a display of wickedness, naked yet not ashamed, such cool, judicious, scientific atrocity, seemed rather to belong to a fiend than to the most depraved of men.Principles which the most hardened ruffian would scarcely hint to his most trusted accomplice, or avow, without the disguise of some palliating sophism, even to his own mind, are professed without the slightest circumlocution, and assumed as the fundamental axioms of all political science.
It is not strange that ordinary readers should regard the author of such a book as the most depraved and shameless of human beings.Wise men, however, have always been inclined to look with great suspicion on the angels and daemons of the multitude: and in the present instance, several circumstances have led even superficial observers to question the justice of the vulgar decision.It is notorious that Machiavelli was, through life, a zealous republican.In the same year in which he composed his manual of King-craft, he suffered imprisonment and torture in the cause of public liberty.It seems inconceivable that the martyr of freedom should have designedly acted as the apostle of tyranny.Several eminent writers have, therefore, endeavoured to detect in this unfortunate performance some concealed meaning, more consistent with the character and conduct of the author than that which appears at the first glance.
One hypothesis is that Machiavelli intended to practise on the young Lorenzo de Medici a fraud similar to that which Sunderland is said to have employed against our James the Second, and that he urged his pupil to violent and perfidious measures, as the surest means of accelerating the moment of deliverance and revenge.Another supposition which Lord Bacon seems to countenance, is that the treatise was merely a piece of grave irony, intended to warn nations against the arts of ambitious men.It would be easy to show that neither of these solutions is consistent with many passages in The Prince itself.But the most decisive refutation is that which is furnished by the other works of Machiavelli.In all the writings which he gave to the public, and in all those which the research of editors has, in the course of three centuries, discovered, in his Comedies, designed for the entertainment of the multitude, in his Comments on Livy, intended for the perusal of the most enthusiastic patriots of Florence, in his History, inscribed to one of the most amiable and estimable of the Popes, in his public despatches, in his private memoranda, the same obliquity of moral principle for which The Prince is so severely censured is more or less discernible.We doubt whether it would be possible to find, in all the many volumes of his compositions, a single expression indicating that dissimulation and treachery had ever struck him as discreditable.
After this, it may seem ridiculous to say that we are acquainted with few writings which exhibit so much elevation of sentiment, so pure and warm a zeal for the public good, or so just a view of the duties and rights of citizens, as those of Machiavelli.Yet so it is.And even from The Prince itself we could select many passages in support of this remark.To a reader of our age and country this inconsistency is, at first, perfectly bewildering.
