The Sincerity of Machiavelli in this Essay—­Machiavellism—­His deliberate Formulation of a cynical political Theory—­Analysis of the Prince—­Nine Conditions of Principalities—­The Interest of the Conqueror acknowledged as the sole Motive of his Policy—­Critique of Louis XII.—­Feudal Monarchy and Oriental Despotism—­Three Ways of subduing a free City—­Example of Pisa—­Principalities founded by Adventurers—­Moses, Romulus, Cyrus, Theseus—­Savonarola—­Francesco Sforza—­Cesare Borgia—­Machiavelli’s personal Relation to him—­Machiavelli’s Admiration of Cesare’s Genius—­A Sketch of Cesare’s Career—­Concerning those who have attained to Sovereignty by Crimes—­Oliverotto da Fermo—­The Uses of Cruelty—­Messer Ramiro d’ Orco—­The pessimistic Morality of Machiavelli—­On the Faith of Princes—­Alexander VI.—­The Policy of seeming virtuous and honest—­Absence of chivalrous Feeling in Italy—­The Military System of a powerful Prince—­Criticism of Mercenaries and Auxiliaries—­Necessity of National Militia—­The Art of War—­Patriotic Conclusion of the Treatise—­Machiavelli and Savonarola.

After what has been already said about the circumstances under which Machiavelli composed the Principe, we are justified in regarding it as a sincere expression of his political philosophy.  The intellect of its author was eminently analytical and positive; he knew well how to confine himself within the strictest limits of the subject he had chosen.  In the Principe it was not his purpose to write a treatise of morality, but to set forth with scientific accuracy the arts which he considered necessary to the success of an absolute ruler.  We may therefore accept this essay as the most profound and lucid exposition of the principles by which Italian statesmen were guided in the sixteenth century.  That Machiavellism existed before Machiavelli has now become a truism.  Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Louis XI. of France, Ferdinand the Catholic, the Papal Curia, and the Venetian Council had systematically pursued the policy laid down in the chapters of the Prince.  But it is no less true that Machiavelli was the first in modern times to formulate a theory of government in which the interests of the ruler are alone regarded, which assumes a separation between statecraft and morality, which recognizes force and fraud among the legitimate means of attaining high political ends, which makes success alone the test of conduct, and which presupposes the corruption, venality, and baseness of mankind at large.  It was this which aroused the animosity of Europe against Machiavelli, as soon as the Prince attained wide circulation.  Nations accustomed to the Monarchical rather than the Despotic form of government resented the systematic exposition of an art of tyranny which had long been practiced among the Italians.  The people of the North, whose moral fiber was still vigorous, and who retained their respect for established religion, could not tolerate the cynicism with which Machiavelli analyzed his subject from the merely intellectual point of view.  His name became a byword.  ‘Am I Machiavel?’ says the host in the Merry Wives of Windsor.  Marlowe makes the ghost of the great Florentine speak prologue to the Jew of Malta thus—­