, 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
fa