* * *
Innocent Gentillet: As for Machiavelli's assertion that the
prince is feared according to his will and pleasure, this would be very well
for him if it were true, since this way he would always be feared to the extent
that no one would oppose his commands and wishes and everyone would simply obey
and submit to his yoke. But experience shows us the contrary, and we are forced
to see and recognize that the prince cannot maintain obedience if the commands
he gives are disagreeable and found to be unjust by the people . . . Now
concerning Machiavelli's utterance that it is very difficult for a prince to be
both feared and loved simultaneously: this is completely erroneous, for there
is nothing easier for a prince than to obtain them both, as sound reason will
attest . . . Friendship ( said Cicero ) is the true bond of all human society
and whosoever wishes to do away with good will among men ( as Machiavelli did
among princes) will succeed in eliminating all the pleasure, consolation,
contentment, and security that exists among men (Discourse . . . Against Machiavelli, 1576).
Jean Bodin: In a matter of State, it is seriously
incongruous, and dangerous, to teach princes the rules of injustice in order to
assure their power (The Republic,
1576).
Francis Bacon: We are much beholden to Machiavel and others,
that write what men do, and not what they ought to do. For it is not possible
to join serpentine wisdom with the columbine innocency, except men know exactly
all the conditions of the serpent . . . For without this, virtue lieth open and
unfenced. Nay, an honest man can do no good upon those that are wicked, to
reclaim them, without the help of the knowledge of evil (On the Advancement of Learning, 1605).
Traiano Boccalini: All who understood matters of State knew
that princes often were forced to engage in actions that were not praiseworthy
in order to insure the peace and quiet of the kingdom; [therefore it was bad to
open the people's eyes to these] necessary means (Report on Parnassus, 1612-13
).
Ludovico Zuccolo: To teach ex professo the ways and means of operating by Reason of State in
corrupt governments is the work not of honorable men but of iniquitous and
impious writers, like Machiavelli and his followers (Moral and Political Considerations, 1621).
Pierre Bayle: It is the princes who taught Machiavelli what
he wrote. It is the study of the world, the observation of what takes place
there, and not an empty studio meditation, that were Machiavelli's teachers . .
. Through an unfortunate and lamentable necessity, politics must rise above
morality . . . The maxims of this author are very bad: the public is so
convinced of them that Machiavelism and the art of ruling tyrannically are
synonymous (Critical and Historical
Dictionary, article "Machiavel," 1697, 1738 ed.).
Frederick the Great: Machiavelli's The Prince is to matters of morality what Spinoza's works are to
matters of faith. Spinoza sapped the foundation of faith, stopping at nothing
short of overturning the whole edifice of religion, while Machiavelli corrupted
politics, thereby hoping to destroy the very precepts of sound morality . . . I
venture now to take up the defense of humanity against this monster who wants
to destroy it; with reason and justice I dare oppose sophistry and crime (The Anti-Machiavel, 1740).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: In pretending to give lessons to
kings, he gave great lessons to peoples. The
Prince . . . is the book of republicans (The Social Contract, 1762 ).
Giuseppe Baretti: Being such a big, desperate republican is
what induced him to write the book of the "Prince," through which his
fame became so soiled and his name made par
excellence the designation of every evil man. With that book, if we knew
the whole story, he perhaps thought to kill two birds with one stone, as it
were: on the one hand he presented his Florentines, as pure and natural, a
charged and monstrous portrait of an absolute sovereign, that they might
resolve never to have one like him; on the other hand, he tried insidiously to
draw the Medici into such a style of rule, following his fraudulent precepts .
. . laid down in that confounded work of his, so that they might hang
themselves (Preface to All the Works of
Machiavelli, 1772 ).
Denis Diderot: It's as if he had told his fellow-citizens:
"Read this work well. If you ever accept a master, he will be as I
describe him to you: there's the wild beast to which you will abandon
yourselves." So it was the fault of his contemporaries if they
misunderstood his purpose: they mistook satire for encomium (Encyclopedia, article
"Machiavelism," 1773 ed. )
Johann Gottfried von Herder: [The Prince] is neither a satire nor a moral treatise, nor is it
something in between; it is a masterpiece of pure politics for the Italian
princes of that time, written according to their tastes and principles with the
purpose . . . of liberating Italy from the barbarians (and also surely from the
inept apprentices of the art of government who afflicted Italy with their
unruliness). This he did without passion or hatred, without adulation or blame.
Inasmuch as he considered all History the exposition of humanity's natural
phenomena, so here he describes even the prince as a creature of a particular
species, according to those tendencies, instincts, and habits which are his (Letters for the Promotion of Humanity,
1795)
Ugo Foscolo: [My conclusions are: ] 1) That the bad idea we
have of Machiavelli derived from and was maintained by religious parties,
though great men of every period honored Machiavelli's genius and soul . . . 2)
That the life of Machiavelli and his character . . . are in manifest
contradiction with The Prince's
maxims, which shows that he did not write them obliquely [with ulterior motives
in mind]. 3) . . . that he aimed at freeing the cities of Italy, especially
Florence, his homeland, from the yoke of the little princes and the arrogance
of the Church which pressed and supported them. 4) That given the character of
the time, one sees the impossibility of having a new prince occupy and govern
independently all of Italy (Of the Homeland,
Life, Writings, and Fame of Niccolo Machiavelli, 1811 ).
Friedrich Schlegel: It's not Machiavelli's [patriotism] that
strikes us the most, nor his often debated maxim that ends justify means; it's
the fact that he taught modern Christian Europe politics, as if Christianity or
a Divinity or divine justice did not exist (History
of Ancient and Modern Literature, 1815).
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: This book has often been cast
away with horror . . .; but Machiavelli, highly cognizant of the necessity of a
State's formation, showed the principles by which States could be formed under
the circumstances. The single Signori and Signorie had to be overthrown, and if
we cannot reconcile our idea of liberty with the means he offers us as the only
and perfectly justified ones . . we still must recognize that the dynasts that had
to be overthrown could only be fought this way, given their uncontrollable lack
of conscience and complete abjectness (Philosophy
of History, 1837/40).
Edgar Quinet: What gives him immortality . . is his intrepid
view into the abyss of good and evil, is his dauntless mind amid desperate
affairs, is his conscience of the general laws of States . . . We have only
seen the fox in Machiavelli; now let's see the lion in him. Of all the authors
of the XVIth century, he is the only one who understands heroism. He abhors
Christian resignation and expects everything from human strength. He believes
that intelligence and courage combined can save all. He leaves nothing to Fate.
He arms man as if he were alone in the world, without the protection and the
fear of the gods (The Revolutions of
Italy, 1852).
Alessandro Manzoni: Machiavelli did not want injustice,
either shrewd or violent, as the first or sole means to his goal. He wanted
utility, and wanted it whether with justice or with injustice, according to the
case. We cannot doubt that his soul inclined toward the former . . . Such an
ugly mixture in the writings of such a great genius stemmed from nothing more
than his having put utility in the supreme position which belongs to justice (Observations on Catholic Morality,
1854).
Giuseppe Mazzini: The great work of that illustrious man
spreads over us all the veil of his dissolving analysis, which begins with
science and ends with negation and discomfort, and that kind of science
becomes, in mediocre intellects (who are the majority), a wretched habit of
petty calculation, which is the opposite of any magnanimous undertaking (The Situation, 1857).
Pasquale Villari: [The] prince always appeared to him in the
likeness of Cesare Borgia, as a strong and intelligent will, capable of organizing
and disorganizing, making and unmaking nations at his pleasure. This incarnated
will-power is almost a natural force . . . It was in this way that the mind of
Machiavelli gradually wrought out its conception of the organic unity of the
State, and it was in the same way that the modern State afterwards took shape
in real history. This demonstrates the great value of his conception, and
explains the singular fascination it has exercised, all calumnies
notwithstanding, on the minds of thinkers and politicians. It was the
scientific character of the work that led the author to examine with equal
indifference both the virtuous and the wicked prince, and offer to either the
counsels suited to the achievement of his end . . . [But] at the close of The Prince, Machiavelli's patriotism is
vented with an eloquence bordering on sublimity. In such moments his character
gains elevation in our eyes, his figure assumes heroic proportions, and still
more so when we remember that his patriotism not only inspired his intellect,
but guided the conduct of his entire life (Niccolò
Machiavelli and his Times, 1877-82).
Giuseppe Toffanin: Situated between the rhetoric of the
humanists and the desperate nihilism of the lords, he redeems himself in a new
study of history . . . He discovers that every finalism in politics has
collapsed, that the myths of papal and imperial universalisms, which in effect
died two centuries before, are dying even in form, that the world is getting
ready to abandon them, leaving standing only one naked reality, one sole
reality: the "State": the State as an end in itself, the
pre-Christian State. The man who will reveal the new age will be the one who
has the courage and the strength to give all of this a concrete expression (Machiavelli
and Tacitism, 1921).
Benito Mussolini: The question is raised: at a distance of
four centuries, what is still alive in The
Prince? Could Machiavelli's advice be of any use even to the heads of
modern States? Is the value of The
Prince's political system limited to the period in which the volume was
written . . . or is it universal and current? . . . I maintain that
Machiavelli's doctrine is more alive today than four centuries ago, for if the
exterior aspects of our life have changed greatly, there have not been profound
alterations in the spirit of individuals and peoples . . . The antithesis
between prince and people, between State and individual, is fated in
Machiavelli's concept . . . While individuals, pushed by their egoisms, tend
toward social atomization, the State represents an organization and a
limitation . . . There exists immanently, then, a variance between the
organized force of the State and the fragmentism of the single persons or
groups. Exclusively consensual regimes have never existed, do not exist, and
probably never will (Prelude to The
Prince, 1924 ).
T. S. Eliot: Machiavelli has been called a cynic; but there
could be no stronger inspiration to `cynicism' than the history of
Machiavelli's reputation. No history could illustrate better than that of the
reputation of Machiavelli the triviality and irrelevance of influence ("Niccolò
Machiavelli," in Times Literary
Supplement, June 16, 1927).
Richard Lodge: I imagine a destructive critic maintaining
that the Principe . . . reveals a
scheme so chimerical in itself, and proved to be so chimerical by subsequent
events, that it can never have been seriously put forward by a man with such an
acute intellect and so much practical experience as Machiavelli possessed. I do
not accept the conclusion. Machiavelli very probably underestimated certain
difficulties, but, even if he had been less sanguine, he would not be the first
advocate of a great cause who believed that it would be more advanced by
unsuccessful effort than by passive acquiescence ( "Machiavelli's Il principe," 1930).
Jacques Maritain: Machiavellianism is an illusion, because
it rests upon the power of evil, and because, metaphysically, evil as such has
no power as a cause of being; practically, evil has no power as a cause of any
lasting achievement . . . As a rule, Machiavellianism and political injustice,
if they gain immediate success, lead states and nations to misfortune or catastrophe
in the long run; in cases where they seem to succeed even in the long run, this
is not by virtue of evil and political injustice but by virtue of some inner
principle of misfortune already binding [its] victim to submission, even if the
latter did not have to face such iniquitous enemies. “The End of
Machiavellianism,” 1942
George P. Gooch: However lofty our political ideals, however
firm our moral principles, we cannot shirk the rude challenge of The Prince. Can rulers, must rulers,
invariably attempt to apply the moral law . . . Or is the art of government, to
borrow a phrase of Nietzsche, beyond good and evil? . . . I believe that Machiavelli
is unfair to mankind. The professed realist only saw a limited portion of the
vast field of experience . . . With a longer and wider experience than
Machiavelli, we have learned to recognize the solid core of truth in the old
adage that honesty is the best policy . . . The great Italian completely
ignored the ultimate potency of moral forces. (Studies in Diplomacy and Statecraft, 1942).
* * *
One of the best commentaries on Machiavelli, omitted by Baricelli, is that of David Hume. The passage, from his essay "Of Civil Liberty," discloses a profound gap between Renaissance and Enlightenment:
Machiavelli’s The Prince:
Text and Commentary, Presentation and Analysis of the Treatise on Power
Politics, ed., Jean-Pierre Barricelli (Barron’s Educational Series, 1968),
pp. 278-311.One of the best commentaries on Machiavelli, omitted by Baricelli, is that of David Hume. The passage, from his essay "Of Civil Liberty," discloses a profound gap between Renaissance and Enlightenment:
MACHIAVEL was certainly a great
genius; but having confined his study to the furious and tyrannical governments
of ancient times, or to the little disorderly principalities of ITALY, his
reasonings especially upon monarchical government, have been found extremely
defective; and there scarcely is any maxim in his Prince, which subsequent experience has not entirely refuted. A weak prince, says he, is incapable of receiving good counsel; for
if he consult with several, he will not be able to choose among their different
counsels. If he abandon himself to one, that minister may, perhaps, have capacity;
but he will not long be a minister: He will be sure to dispossess his master,
and place himself and his family upon the throne. I mention this, among
many instances of the errors of that politician, proceeding, in a great measure,
from his having lived in too early an age of the world, to be a good judge of
political truth. Almost all the princes of EUROPE are at present governed by
their ministers; and have been so for near two centuries; and yet no such event
has ever happened, or can possibly happen. SEJANUS [of the praetorian guard] might
project dethroning the CÆSARS; but FLEURY [a French minister of the 18th
century], though ever so vicious, could not, while in his senses, entertain the
least hopes of dispossessing the BOURBONS.
Trade was never esteemed an
affair of state till the last century; and there scarcely is any ancient writer
on politics, who has made mention of it. Even the ITALIANS have kept a profound
silence with regard to it, though it has now engaged the chief attention, as
well of ministers of state, as of speculative reasoners. The great opulence,
grandeur, and military achievements of the two maritime powers [Holland and
England] seem first to have instructed mankind in the importance of an
extensive commerce.
* * *
David Hume, Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, “Of Civil Liberty,” Miller, ed., 88-89.
