His lesser prose works are the of Castruccio Castracani,> and the of War,' a treatise anticipating much of our modern tac tics. A more ambitious undertaking, and his largest is the of Florence. At the suggestion of the Cardinal de Medici, the directors of the studio of Florence commis sioned Machiavelli to employ himself in writing a history of Florence, whatever period he might think fit to select, and either in the Latin or the Tuscan tongue, according to his taste He was to receive 100 florins a year for two years to enable him to pursue the work. He chose his native tongue; and revised and pol ished his work until it became a model of style, and in its best passages justifies his claim to the title of the best and most finished of Italian prose writers.
Bin though Machiavelli had the historical style, he lacked historical perspective; he ar ranged his matter not according to objective value, but placed in the boldest relief those events that best lent support to his own theories of politics and statecraft. He makes his facts to be as he wishes them, rather than as he knows them to be. To Machiavelli history was largely to be written as a manufactured to point a preconceived moral, Though Machiavelli wrote history, poetry and comedy, it is not by these he is remembered. The works that have made his name a synonym, and given it a place in every tongue, were writ ten almost in the first year of his retirement from political life: Prince> and the (Dis courses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius.' Each is a treatise on statecraft; to gether they form a complete and unified treatise, and represent an attempt to formulate induc tively a science of politics. The 'Discourses) study republican institutions, Prince) monarchical ones. The first is the more elemen tary and would come first in logical arrange ment. But in the writing of them Machiavelli had in view more than the foundation of a science of politics. He was anxious to win the favor of the Medici; and as these were not so much interested in how republics are best built up, he completed Prince' first, and sent it forth dedicated "to the magnificent Lorenzo, son of Piero de' Medici?) In the courses,' the author essays "a new science of statesmanship, based on the experience of human events and In that day of wor ship of the ancient world, Machiavelli endeavors to draw men to a study of its politics as well as its art. In Livy he finds the field for this study.
In his commentary on the course of Romulus in the founding of Rome, we find the keynote of Machiavelli's system of political science. His one aim is the building of a state; his one thought, how best to accomplish his aim. Means are therefore to be selected, and to be judged, solely as regards their effectiveness to the busi ness in hand. Ordinary means are of course to be preferred but extraordinary must be used when needed.
In 'The Prince,) a short treatise of 26 chap ters, and making little more than a hundred octavo pages, Machiavelli gives more succinct and emphatic expression to the principles of his new political science. It is the best known of
all his works. It is the one always connected with his name, and which has made his name famous. For thq model of his prince, Machia velli took Cesare Borgia and cites him as an example worthy of imitation; and he has shared in the execration that posterity has heaped upon Borgia. The strangest moral contradictions abound throughout
Shakespeare, reflecting English thought, uses his name as the superlative for craft and mur derous treachery. But later years have raised tip defenders for him, and his rehabilitation is still going on. He has been lauded as "the noblest and purest of patriots?' and more ardent admirers could "even praise his generosity, no bility, and exquisite delicacy of mind, and go so far as to declare him an incomparable model of public and private virtue?) His rehabilitation proceeds from two causes. Later research has shown that perhaps he only reflected his time; and his works breathe a pas sionate longing for that Italian unity which in our day has been realized. He may be worthy canonization as a national saint; but those who are more interested in the integrity of moral standards than in Italian unity will doubtless continue to refuse beatification to one who in deed knew the Roman virtus, but was insensible to the nature of virtue as understood by the fol lowers of Christ. And no amount of research into the history of his age can make his princi ples less vicious in themselves. A better under standing of his day can only lessen the boldness of the relief in which he has heretofore stood out in history. He was probably no worse than many of his fellows. He only gave a scientific formulation to their practices. He dared openly to avow and justify the principles that their actions implied. They paid to virtue the court of hypocrisy, and like the Pharisee of the earlier time, preached righteousness and did evil; but Machiavelli was more daring, and when he served the devil, disdained to go about his business in the livery of heaven. (See PRINCE, THE). Among the editions of the col lective works of Machiavelli may be mentioned those of Milan, 1810-11; Florence, 1813; Milan, 1821-22; Florence, 1826, 1843; and Florence (6 vols., 1873-77); Boston English translation (1891). The rendering of the of War' and (The Prince) (in the Translations) Vols. XXXIX and XL, London 1905), with Cust's introduction, is an admirable piece of work. Consult Dyer, and the Modern State' (Boston 1904) ; Morley, John, (London 1898) ; Mourrisson, (Paris 1883) • Tommasini, (La vita e gli scritti di Niccolo Machiavelli' (Turin 1882) ; Villari, Machiavelli e i suoi tempi) (Florence 1877-82), and Burd's study (in the Modern History) Vol. I, Cambridge 1902), with bibliography.