hypocrites Machiavelli can think of none more excellent than Alexander VI.  ’He never did anything else but deceive men, nor ever thought of anything but this, and always found apt matter for his practice.  Never was there a man who had greater force in swearing and tying himself down to his engagements, or who observed them less.  Nevertheless his wiles were always successful in the way he wished, because he well knew that side of the world.’  It is curious that Machiavelli should have forgotten that the whole elaborate life’s policy of Alexander and his son was ruined precisely by their falling into one of their own traps, and that the mistake or treason of a servant upset the calculations of the two most masterly deceivers of their age.[1] Following out the same line of thought, which implies that in a bad world a prince cannot afford to be good, Machiavelli asserts:  ’It is not necessary that a prince should be merciful, loyal, humane, religious, just:  nay, I will venture to say, that if he had all these qualities and always used them, they would harm him.  But he must seem to have them, especially if he be new in his principality, where he will find it quite impossible to exercise these virtues, since in order to maintain his power he will be often obliged to act contrary to humanity, charity, religion.’  Machiavelli does not advise him to become bad for the sake of badness, but to know when to quit the path of virtue for the preservation of his kingdom.  ’He must take care to say nothing that is not full of these five qualities, and must always appear all mercy, all loyalty, all humanity, all justice, all religion, especially the last.’  On the advantage of a reputation for piety Machiavelli insists most strongly.  He points out how Ferdinand the Catholic used the pretext of religious zeal in order to achieve the conquest of Granada, to invade Africa, to expel the Moors, and how his perfidies in Italy, his perjuries to France, were colored with a sanctimonious decency.

    [1] Perhaps this is an indirect argument against the legend of
    their death.

After reading these passages we feel that though it may be true that Machiavelli only spoke with scientific candor of the vices which were common to all statesmen in his age—­though the Italians were so corrupt that it seemed hopeless to deal fairly with them—­yet there was a radical taint in the soul of the man who could have the heart to cull these poisonous herbs of policy and distill their juices to a quintessence for the use of the prince to whom he was confiding the destinies of Italy.[1] Almost involuntarily we remember the oath which Arthur administered to his knights, when he bade them ’never to do outrage nor murder, and always to flee treason; also by no means to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asked mercy, upon pain of forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore.’  In a land where chivalry like this had ever taken root, either as an ideal or as an institution, the chapters of Machiavelli could scarcely have been published.  The Italians lacked the virtues of knighthood.  It was possible among them for the philosophers to teach the princes that success purchased at the expense of honor, loyalty, humanity, and truth might be illustrious.