HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND DIPLOMATIC WRITINGS OF NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI TRANSLATED FROM THB ITALIAN BY CHRISTIAN E. DETMOLD IN FOUR VOLUMES VOL. I. BOSTON JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY I882 Copynghf, 1882, CHRISTIANE. DETMOLD. BY - All rights reserved. UNIVERSITYPRESS: JOHN WILSONAND SON, CAMBRIDGS. C 0 R RI G EN’D A. -----t VOLUMEI. Page 143, lines 9 and 10 from top, instead of “ state their wishes to the rioters,” read, “learn the wishes of the rioters.” VOLUME11. Page 52. ‘1 THE PRINCE?”chapter 16, 3d line, instead of the words, ‘1 indulged in so that you will no longer be feared, will prove injurious. For liberality worthily exercised, as it should he, will not be recognized,” read, ‘1 practised so that you are not repufed liberal, will injure you. For iibitralit’y worthily exercised, as it should he, will not be known ,’ ’ &c. * K0.m. * This erroneous translation resulted from a difference in the text of the Testine Edition (1550),which wah used by me in the translation of “The Prince.” Page 39, chap. 16, 2d and 3d lines, read “ Knndimnnco la liheralita usata in modo, ahe tu non sia tem~to,ti offeiitle.” It should be, ‘I che tu non sia tenato.” c. E. I). TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. INoffering the present translation of Machiavelli’s principal historical, political, and diplomatic writings, my original object was simply to afford to the general reader the opportunity of judging for himself of the character of the man, and of those of his works upon which his reputation for good or for evil mainly depends. I had no intention of entering the lists of the detractors and defenders of Machiavelli, or of adding to the number of his commentators. Enough of these have written in almost every European tongue, making volumes sufficient 2 nearly to constitute a respectable library by themselves. Nevertheless, as certain views and conclusions touching the more prominent of the seeming contradictions in Machiavelli’s writings suggested themselves to me whilst engaged in this translation, I venture briefly to present them, although they may differ materially from those taken by leading critics and commentators. No writer perhaps has been more variously judged than Machiavelli; regarded by some as the very em- bodiment of the spirit of evil, especially by the earlier critics ; and by others looked upon as a pure, unflinching patriot, mis- understood and misinterpreted. The manifest contradictions, real or apparent, in his writings, have naturally given rise to widely differing commentaries, aiming less to explain and reconcile these contradictions to each other, than to make the favorable or unfavorable estimate of the author prevail. None of Machiavelli’s writings, except his treatise “On the Art of War,” mere printed during his lifetime. A few years after iv TRAiVSLATOR ’S PREFACE. his death, however, the 6‘ Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Li~us,”the Florentine History, and “ The Prince,” were printed at Rome with the authorization of Pope Clement VII. But disregarding this previous papal permission, Pope Paul IT. ordered these works to be placed in the Index Expurgatorius, which order was confirmed by the Council of Trent in 1564. Eight years later, the commission on the Index proposed to the descendants of Machiavelli to publish an expurgated edition of his works, on condition that the author’s name should be sup- pressed. This offer, however, was indignantly rejected by his grandsonel, Giuliano de’ Ricci, son of the daughter, and Niccolo Machiarelli, son of one of the sons ; and thus for centuries his writings remained utterly discredited in Italy. Bayle in his Dictionary obserr-es that ‘(Nachiavellism ” and the art of “ governing tyrannically by violence and fraud are “terms of the same significance ”; thus creating the word ‘‘ Machiavellism,” which has been generally adopted in Euro- pean languages. Later, no less a personage than Freder- ick the Great, while Crown Prince of Prussia, published his “ Anti Machiavelli,” which, it is said, he somewhat regretted after having become king ; and of which a Frenchman said, with as much wit perhaps as truth, that “ the greatest homage “~hichany prince had ever paid to the doctrines of Jlachia- “velli was to have refuted him, so that he might follow his “ precepts with the greater impunity.” The writings and reputation of Machiavelli became early known in England. Lord Bacon refers to him several times in his Essays, but makes no unfarorable reflections upon him. Shakespeare mentions him three times, and of course takes the then prevailing popular view of his character. First, in the Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 111. Sc. 1, the host of the Gar- ter inn exclaims : “ Peace, I say ! hear mine host of the Garter. Am I politic ? am I subtle 1 am I a Machiavel ? ’’ Secondly, iu the First Part of King Henry VI., Act V. Sc. 4, ahen the captive Maid of Orleans pleads for her life on the ground of being with child, and says, “It was Alenson that enjoyed my love,” the Duke of York exclaims, “ Alenson ! that noto- TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. V rious Machiavel! ” And thirdly, in the Third Part of King Henry VI., Act 111. Sc. 2, when Richard, Duke of Gloster, resolves to make himself king of England, he ends his long soliloquy, in which he recounts his various qualifications for deceit and murder, by the following climax : - “I can add colors to the chameleon, Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, And set the murderous Machiavel to, school. Can I do this, and cannot get a crown ? Tut ! were it farther off, I’ll pluck it down! ” Upon one point the modern reviewers and commentators of iflachiavelli are pretty much agreed ; namely, that his morality must be judged of by that prevailing at the time of his writing, and that the principles of conduct laid down by him in ‘‘ The Prince )’ are more the reflex of the perversity of the period in which he lived, than that of his own mind. It was the period of the Renaissance, a time of great interest and great troubles for Italy, and perhaps the most interesting period that any people ever passed through ; and fruitful of the most important events, discoreries, and progress in nearly all human achieve- ments. It was marked at the same time by contradictions similar to those noted in Rlachiavelli, -with the developments of human genius at their highest, and that of the moral sense, if not at its lowest, yet at a very low point. It was then that Alexander VI., the father of Cesare and Lucretia Borgia, mas Pope, and shocked the world by his gross sensuality and licen- tiousness ; and mas succeeded in the Pontificate, after a brief interval of less than a month, by Julius II., who was more sol- dier than priest, and exceeded even the Borgia in the display of craft and violence in his efforts to recover and enlarge tlie possessions and temporal power of the Church. In dedicating his little volume of ‘‘ The Prince ” to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Machiavelli makes no pretence of offering a moral treatise ; but simply, as the result of his reading and personal experience, a collection of the actions of great men, by which they succeeded in acquiring and preserving states. It is by the examde of these that he attemDts to instruct the Mamifi- vi TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. cent Lorenzo as to the qualities and conduct neceasary for a prince to achieve similar success. Modern English writers have judged Machiavelli differently, and some of them, perhaps, have gone to the other estreme ; as may possibly be said of Byron in Childe Harold’s Pilgrim- age (Canto IV. St. 54,55) : - “In Santa Croce’s holy precincts lie Ashes which make it holier, dust which is Even in itself an immortality. Here repose Angelo’s, Alfleri’s bones, and his, The starry Galileo, with his woes ; Here Machiavelli’s earth returned to whence it rose. “ These are four minds, rrhich, like the elements, Might furnish forth creation.” Prominent, homever, amongst modern reviews of Machiavelli stands Macaulay’s masterly, brilliant, though not always just essay, vhich appeared in the Edinburgh ReTiew, March, 1827. This came like a revelation upon the reading public, and cer- tainly did more than any other literary production to spread a more correct knowledge and juster views of Machiavelli in England and America. I abstain from referring to the many most interesting and instructive works on Machiavelli, in Italian, French, and Ger- man, that have appeared within the last thirty years; but should be unjust were I not to mention specially that very able and exhaustive work, ‘‘ Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,” by Professor Pasquale Villari of Florence. Two volumes of this have appeared simultaneously in Italian and in English (1877, ISSI), and the third is looked for with eager interest. The great experience in public affairs which Machiavelli had acquired during his many years’ employment in the service of the state at home and in his various missions abroad, coupled with his natural gifts of quick perception and keen penetration, soon taught him that the constant resort to dissembling and treachery by the rulers and governments of the different states of Italy in their dealings with each other, as well as with their 1 TRANSLA TOR’S PREFACE. vii more powerful neighbors north of the Alps, was the conse- quence of their own weakness and fear. This weakness was the natural result of the subdivision of Italy into so many small principalities, forever warring against each other by means of mercenary soldiers of fortune. Several of the more important of these principalities had in turn invoked the aid of their powerful Transalpine neighbors, France, Germany, and Spain, who in their turn had invaded, pillaged, and devastated Italy from one end to the other.