yere, the great feares, the sodaine flightes and the marveilous losses:  and so three most mighty states which were in Italie, have bene dievers times sacked and destroyed.  But that which is worse, is where those that remaine, continue in the very same errour, and liev in the verie same disorder and consider not, that those who in olde time would keepe their states, caused to be done these thinges, which of me hath beene reasoned, and that their studies were, to prepare the body to diseases, and the minde not to feare perills.  Whereby grewe that Caesar, Alexander, and all those men and excellent Princes in olde time, were the formost amongst the fighters, going armed on foote:  and if they lost their state, they would loose their life, so that they lievd and died vertuously.’

Such was the clay that waited the moulding of the potter’s hand.  ’Posterity, that high court of appeal, which is never tired of eulogising its own justice and discernment,’ has recorded harsh sentence on the Florentine.  It is better to-day to let him speak for himself.

[Sidenote:  The Prince.]

The slender volume of The Prince has probably produced wider discussion, more bitter controversy, more varied interpretations and a deeper influence than any book save Holy Writ.  Kings and statesmen, philosophers and theologians, monarchists and republicans have all and always used or abused it for their purposes.  Written in 1513, the first year of Machiavelli’s disgrace, concurrently with part of the Discorsi, which contain the germs of it, the book represents the fulness of its author’s thought and experience.  It was not till after Machiavelli’s death, that it was published in 1532, by order of Clement vii.  Meanwhile, however, in manuscript it had been widely read and favourably received.

[Sidenote:  Its purpose.]

The mere motive of its creation and dedication has been the theme of many volumes.  Machiavelli was poor, was idle, was out of favour, and therefore, though a Republican, wrote a devilish hand-book of tyranny to strengthen the Medici and recover his position.  Machiavelli, a loyal Republican, wrote a primer of such fiendish principles as might lure the Medici to their ruin.  Machiavelli’s one idea was to ruin the rich:  Machiavelli’s one idea was to oppress the poor:  he was a Protestant, a Jesuit, an Atheist:  a Royalist and a Republican.  And the book published by one Pope’s express authority was utterly condemned and forbidden, with all its author’s works, by the express command of another (1559).  But before facing the whirlwind of savage controversy which raged and rages still about The Prince, it may be well to consider shortly the book itself—­consider it as a new book and without prejudice.  The purpose of its composition is almost certainly to be found in the plain fact that Machiavelli, a politician and a man of letters, wished to write a book upon the subject which had been his special study and lay nearest