BOOKS.

MACHIAVELLIANISM.* Tills handsome edition of the principal works of Machiavelli is the completest and the most accurate that has yet appeared in an English dress. It has evidently been a labour of love to the translator, and be has laid the English-reading public under a great obligation. We have compared the translation in a variety of passages with the original, and can bear testimony to the general accuracy with which the sense is preserved, even where the translation is somewhat free. The errors which we have detected are few, and of no great importance, and we only refer to them in order that the translator, by correcting them, may make a good book still better in the second edition, which we have no doubt the work will reach. We give one specimen. In the fifty-fifth chapter of the first book of the Discorsi, Machiavelli denounces two classes of " gentlemen " who in- fested Italy at that time :—" Those who live idly on their abundant possessions, without taking any trouble to earn a living, either by engaging in agriculture or any other useful pursuit. Such men are pernicious in every Republic and in every province. But even more pernicious are those who, in addition to their other possessions, have castles at their com- mand, and subjects in obedience to them." Then follows this senter.ce :—" Di questi due sorti di uomini ne sono pieni ii regno di Napoli, terra di Roma, In Romagna, c la Lombardia." Mr. Detmold's translation is :—" This class of men abound in the Kingdom of Naples, in the Roman territory, and in the Romagna." Of course, it ought to be, "these two classes of men." Mr. Detmold has prefixed a useful introduction to his translation, and we trust that his work will help to give English readers a better knowledge and appreciation of the character and writings of Machiavelli than the traditional opinion which makes the great Florentine's name a proverb for political perfidy and cruelty.

Machiavelli was not only a baly and versatile actor in one of the most turbulent periods of Italian history ; he was also a voluminous and versatile writer, and achieved distinction in various fields of literature. His History of Florence is a master- piece of historical composition, concise,. yet lucid, critical and philosophical, but never tedious. His despatches from the Courts and camps to which he had been at various times sent as envoy are models of what such compositions should be. His comedies were highly popular, and are not more coarse than the taste of his contemporaries. His essay on The Art of War proves not only the ardour of his patriotism, but also a rare in- sight into military tactics. And whatever judgment may be passed on the political morality of his Prince, that famous trea- tise is an enduring monument of Machiavelli's genius as a statesman, as are also his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy.

While the judgment of posterity has been tolerably unan- imous with respect to the other works of Machiavelli, his Prince still remains a problem for critics and moralists. Authorities like Alberico Gentile, Wicquefort, Rousseau, and Alfieri have passed a favourable judgment on The Prince. Frederick the Great, strange to say, condemned the book as strongly as did Voltaire and Dugald Stewart. Between these two extremes come critics like Lipsius, Artaud, and our own Macaulay, who mixes praise with blame, and, on the whole, saves the moral character of Machiavelli at the expense of the general morality of Italy in that age. Others, again, have adopted a more subtle style of advocacy, and have endeavoured to show that The Prince is not a serious book at all, but a refined satire by a sincere Republican (as Machiavelli un- doubtedly was), having for its object the unmasking of kingcraft, in order to make it odious to the multitude. To this it is obvious to object that the satire is so well concealed that it was much better calculated to instruct Princes in the art of maintaining their power than their subjects in the art of re- covering their liberty. But we are not left to speculation in the matter. In a letter written from his rural retreat at San Casciano to his intimate friend Vettori, Machiavelli ex- plains the aim and purpose of The Prince, in the composition of which he was then engaged. The title which he then in- tended to give to the treatise was "Do Principatibus," and he says .that his object was to discuss "what a principality is ;

• The .11;sio.i.at, Poli•ical, and Diplomatic Writirgs tf ;icc4o Translate:I from the Iteran by Chri,tian E. Detmold. 4 vols. Boston: Osgood and Co. London; Trubnor and Co. 1E032,

what kinds there are; how they are acquired; how maintained ; and how lost." The letter was a private one, addressed to a bosom friend. There is also a letter on record from another of Machiavelli's confidants, Biagio Bonaccorsi, which leaves no reasonable doubt that The Prince was written as a serious politi- cal manual, without any arriere-pens6e whatever. And, indeed,. Machiavelli himself, in some of his subsequent works, quotes The Prince as an authoritative exposition of his political opinions. No passage in The Prince has done more damage to. time reputation of its author than the eighteenth chapter, where he discusses "the manner in which princes ought to keep their' faith." In a passage in the Discorsi, after remarking that princes were in the habit of violating as soon as they coul& promises which were extorted from them by force, and made no scruple even of breaking all promises, without exception, when the reasons which induced them to make them no longer existed, he adds,—" How far such conduct is praiseworthy or the reverse, or whether a prince can be justified in so acting, we have dis- cussed so fully in oar treatise of The Prince, that there is no- need to say anything more here."

Undoubtedly, then, The Prince must be regarded as the frank

expression of Machiavelli's deliberate opinion on the subjects of which it treats. So far we agree with Macaulay ; nor do we- question the general accuracy of his view of Machiavelli's character. But we can by no means accept the premisses which, conducted Macaulay to his conclusion. His theory, briefly stated, is as follows. He draws a sharp contrast between the- moral obliquity and moral elevation of sentiment which are- conspicuous in the writings of Machiavelli. But even here Macaulay's passion for antithesis betrayed him into exaggera- tion. "We doubt," he says, 'whether it would be possible to- find, in all the many volumes of his compositions, a single ex- pression indicating that dissimulation and treachery had ever- struck him as discreditable." And he adds :— "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, and 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. The whole marts seems to be an enigma, a grotesque assemblage of incongruous quali- ties, selfishness and generosity, cruelty and benevolence, craft and simplicity, abject villany and romantic heroism. One sentence is such as a veteran diplomatist could scarcely write in cipher for the direction of his most confidential spy ; the next seems to be extracted from a theme composed by an ardent schoolboy on the death of' Leonidas. An act of dexterous perfidy and all act of patriotic self- devotion call forth the same kind and the same degree of respectful. admiration. The moral sensibility of the writer seems at once to be morbidly obtuse and morbidly acute. Two characters altogether- dissimilar are united in him. They are not merely joined, but inter- woven The explanation might have been easy, if he had been a very wesk or a very affected man. Bat he was evidently neither the one nor the other. His works prove, beyond all contra- diction that his understanding was strong, his taste pure, and his.

• sense of the ridiculous exquisitely keen."

This is an excellent example of Macaulay's proneness to subordinate strict accuracy to picturesque effect. It is an ex- aggeration to say that in all the writings of Machiavelli there cannot be found "a single expression indicating that dissimu- lation and treachery had ever struck him as discreditable." The- first sentence of the famous eighteenth chapter of The Prince, where Machiavelli defends violation of plighted faith on the- part of Princes, asserts the self-evident superiority morally of good-faith and integrity over craft; and passages might be- quoted from other parts of his writings which entirely refute Macaulay's accusation. Take the following, from the Thoughts of a Statesman, a collection of maxims from Machiavelli's writings, which we only know in Mr. Detmold's translation :— " Even in war, but little glory is derived from any fraud that involves the breaking of a given pledge and of agreements made." "An ally should prefer his pledged faith to advantages, or [? escape from] perils." "No law should ever stain the pledged faith of public engagements." "Fraud is de- testable in every action." There is all the less excuse for Macaulay's exaggeration, because there is undoubtedly matter enough in Machiavelli's works to justify the most startling con- trasts. Macaulay's explanation of these contrasts contains a great deal that is true. But it is not the whole truth, and it is in some respects the reverse of true. So that the general effect is to save Machiavelli's character at the expense of the character of his nation. Macaulay's view is, in brief, as follows :—While in other European countries in the middle-ages a feudal aristocracy trampled on the people and overawed the

central government, the peculiar circumstances of Italy placed a check on the power of the nobles on the one hand, and of the ruling princes on the other. The municipal franchises of the old Italian towns survived the fall of the Roman Empire, and created a powerful middle-class, which was tolerably independent both of the nobles and of the ruling powers. The importance of this middle-class was further enhanced by the policy of the Papacy, which created dissensions between the ecclesiastical and civil power on the one hand, and between different princes on the other. Thus it happened that, outside the Kingdom of Naples and the Estates of the Church, the nobles and petty princes became gradually merged in the class of mercantile -citizens. This was especially the case in Lombardy and Tuscany. So that while the annals of France and of England exhibit only a scene of barbarous ignorance and misery, not only did liberty flourish under the democratic development of northern and -central Italy, but literature also, and science, and the fine arts, —in a word, all the results which usually follow in the wake of prosperity and luxury. But "untimely decrepitude was the

penalty of precocious maturity." The sedentary habits of the desk and of the loom rendered the exertions and hardships of war insupportable." Instead of fighting their own battles, the Italians hired armies of foreign mercenaries to light for them ; and these mercenaries naturally lacked the -virtues and courage inspired by patriotism. Hiring themselves out to the highest bidder, the enemy of to-day might be the employer of the morrow. These mercenary troops therefore opposed and betrayed their employers in turns, and became the -scourge of the country. The consequence was two kinds of morality. Among other European races, courage and violence, tempered with scorn for fraud, were the predominant character- istics. The Italians, on the other hand, had recourse to the tradi- tional arts employed by the weak against the oppressor. The -qualities in repute were fraud, hypocrisy, dissimulation, cruelty by deliberate purpose and calculation, not less than love of country and elevation of mind. Machiavelli was thus a type of his countrymen, and a very favourable and elevated type. His virtues, which were conspicuous, were his own ; his detestable -doctrines were but the methodical reflection of the morality -current around him. Such is Macaulay's theory in bare out- line, and there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in it. His Essay, moreover, deserves the praise of being the first English attempt by a great writer to do justice to Machiavelli, and to

• make a complete statement of the case. Yet we are obliged to dissent from some of the most important of the brilliant essayist's conclusions, which appear to us to be drawn from inaccurate premisses. In the space at our command we can of -course do no more than indicate some of the errors which, as we think, are mixed up with his very effective sketch.

Macaulay's description would leave the uninstructed reader under the erroneous impression that in Italy—at least, outside the Papal States—there was in the time of Machiavelli a tolerably uniform system of government, namely, a powerful -democratic middle-class, dominating both an enfeebled aris- tocracy and a number of petty princes. The fact, how- -ever, is that the political condition of Italy at that time was of the most various character. There were heredi- tary aristocracies and pure democracies ; hereditary princi- palities and elective principalities ; feudal oligarchies and feudal monarchies, like that of Spain or France. Moreover, the same kind of government produced totally different results in different parts of Italy. The hereditary aristocracy which led Venice to so much power and glory made Genoa the theatre of chronic disorder. Under the princely house of Sforza, on the other hand, Milan was distinguished by its progress in the fine arts, in literature, and in material wealth ; while the cities of the Romagna for the most part languished in wretchedness, under a form of government similar to that of Milan. All these differences are lost in Macaulay's picturesque generalisation, and his conclusion is consequently fallacious. The several States of Italy were then separated from each other by differ- ences as great as those which divided some of them from Trans- alpine Governments It is absurd, therefore, to reduce them all morally, as Macaulay does, to one common denominator. Nor is there any reason to suppose that a democracy addicted to com- merce, literature, and the fine arts loses thereby its aptitude for war, and forms and develops a disposition to employ mercenary troops in defence of its territory. Piedmont, the kingdom of Naples, and the Pontifical States employed mercenary troops ; yet they remained feudal. On the other hand, Venice, Genoa,

Pisa were in the van of civilisation and commerce, and not less distinguished in arms. Nor was the decline of the Italian Re- publics in material and moral prosperity due, as Macaulay imagined, to any natural law of decay resulting from precocious maturity. It was due to the invasion and domination of alien rulers, and to the malign influence of the Spaniards in particular. The simple truth is that there was not that radical difference on which Macaulay insists between the political morality of the Italians of the fifteenth century and the political morality of other European countries. For fraud and breach of faith, Ferdinand the Catholic could not have been easily surpassed by any Italian prince of that age. Louis X lI. of France made a traffick of his alliances, and our own Richard III. could have been with difficulty matched in perfidy and cruelty by any con- temporary Italian ruler. The Borgias arc probably more respon- sible than all other Italian princes collectively for the evil reputation of Italian political morality in the middle-ages. But it is only fair to add- that the Borgias were a purely Spanish family. Macaulay is right in saying that Machiavelli did but draw out frankly and exhibit in his Prince the political doctrines which were current in his time. But they were neither indigenous nor confined to Italy; they pervaded European society in general.

We are thus brought to what seems to us the true solution of the bewildering contrast between the elevated and the debased morality which are taught, sometimes side by side, in Machia- velli's political treatises. He recognised the higher morality as the true standard ; but he saw it everywhere set at naught. On the other band, he saw his beloved Italy torn into factions and reduced to misery by the oppressive rule of the stranger ; and he yearned and laboured for a United Italy. Republican

though he was, he saw that Italy could only be made free by the strong arm of a single ruler; and The Prince is a manual of political statecraft, to help such a ruler to defeat the foes of a unified Italy with their own weapons. Machiavelli does not attempt to justify the doctrines of 2'he Prince on moral grounds ; but he thought them justifiable as instruments of political

strategy. All that need be said on that point is that Machia- velli was not in advance of his age. And is it quite certain that our

own age and country are as far in advance of Machiavelli's age

in this respect as they seem ? Has there not been within the last few days a remarkable recrudescence in the London Daily Press of the kind of political morality which goes under the name of Machiavellianism? If ever a Government was pledged to respect public right and private property in Egypt, that Govern- ment is the present Liberal Government of England. Yet the lead- ing organs of the Daily Morning Press in London,with the honour-

able exception of the Standard, have been abasing the Govern- ment for maintaining its good-faith and respecting the rights and property of men who are supposed to be at its mercy. It is evidently far easier to condemn Machiavellianism than to eschew it. The political immorality of Machiavelli had, after all, for its aim the liberation of his cruelly-oppressed country. Our modern ldachiavellis, on the other hand, have no nobler end than the enriching of some respectable traders and a handful of speculators. The ardour of Machiavelli's patriotism and his yearning for the unity of Italy is shown in the passionate out- burst of musical eloquence with which he concludes The Prince, and with which we may fittingly conclude this article :— " Non si dere, adunque, homier passare quests occasions, accioch4 In Italia vegga dopo tonto tempo apparire un suo redontoro. Ne pose° osprimere con quill° more ci fusel ricevoto in tutto quelle provincie cim hanno patito per quests illuvioni ostorne ; con qual seta di vendetta, con clic ostinata retie, con dm pica, on cho lacrime. Quell ports se gli serrerebbono ? Quali popolo gli negberebbono la obbedienza ? Qualo invidia so gli opporrobbe ? Qualo Italian° gli negherebbe Possequio? A ognuno puzza queato barharo dominio ? Pigli, adunquo, Ia illustro cam vostra [he is ad- dressing Lorenzo the Magnificent, to whom The Prince is dedicated] quest° meant° con quell°, animo o con quello speranze che si pigliano rimprese giuste, acciochi: sotto Is sun insegna e questa patria no sia nobilitata, o sotto i suoi auspicii si verifichi qua detto del Petrarca • Virtit contra furore Prendera l'arme ; o ilia 'I cotnbatter corto; Cho IIIILICO valore

Nell' Italici cor non C ancor morto.' "