is of especial importance. To select a chapter almost at random, let us
take Book I., Chap. XV.: "Public affairs are easily managed in a city
where the body of the people is not corrupt; and where equality
exists, there no principality can be established; nor can a republic be
established where there is no equality."

No man has been more harshly judged than Machiavelli, especially in
the two centuries following his death. But he has since found many able
champions and the tide has turned. _The Prince_ has been termed a manual
for tyrants, the effect of which has been most pernicious. But were
Machiavelli's doctrines really new? Did he discover them? He merely had
the candor and courage to write down what everybody was thinking and
what everybody knew. He merely gives us the impressions he had received
from a long and intimate intercourse with princes and the affairs of
state. It was Lord Bacon, I believe, who said that Machiavelli tells us
what princes do, not what they ought to do. When Machiavelli takes Cæsar
Borgia as a model, he in nowise extols him as a hero, but merely as a
prince who was capable of attaining the end in view. The life of the
State was the primary object. It must be maintained. And Machiavelli has
laid down the principles, based upon his study and wide experience,
by which this may be accomplished. He wrote from the view-point of
the politician,--not of the moralist. What is good politics may be bad
morals, and in fact, by a strange fatality, where morals and politics
clash, the latter generally gets the upper hand. And will anyone contend
that the principles set forth by Machiavelli in his _Prince_ or his
_Discourses_ have entirely perished from the earth? Has diplomacy been
entirely stripped of fraud and duplicity? Let anyone read the famous
eighteenth chapter of _The Prince_: "In what Manner Princes should keep
their Faith," and he will be convinced that what was true nearly four
hundred years ago, is quite as true to-day.