henry frowde oxford university press warehouse amen corner, ec

THE PURPOSE OF 'THE PRINCE.' z 7
regarded as a moral being : he merely declined to allow moral
considerations to interfere, as he believed they did, with the
logical discussion of the subject in hand. It was not his purpose
to press further, and ask whether a political morality might not
after all exist, differing perhaps from the morality of the
individual in society in its greater complexity, and the larger
number of cases of conscience which it presents for solution,
but none the less binding because a simple necessity, a 'sine
qua non ' for the existence of the state.
Machiavelli, then, while writing The Prince, kept before
him one object alone, and deliberately selected to disregard
everything else, neither asking what was the relation of
his doctrines to other departments of enquiry, nor what
their effect would be upon the life of society or of the
individual. But each of the critics who came after him
immediately raised the question, What will the application
of such theories do to human life? and more specifically,
What will they do to my own life? in other words, they
suggested considerations, which it was not part of Machiavelli's
business to enquire into, and in order to argue against him,
they were forced to begin by missing his point. Finding that
he did not regard men from the point of view of the moral
philosopher, they concluded that his silence was equivalent to
the denial by implication of the value of moral action altogether.
Hence they remained for a long time mere controversialists,
and lost sight of the legitimate objects of criticism in the desire
to refute an antagonist. And an examination of the causes
which produced the misunderstanding shows that it was in
large part due to the form in which Machiavelli wrote : had he
qualified his statements or been less consistently clear and
distinct, he could hardly have been regarded as a monster of
iniquity, or the master of those who do not know.
There is, however, much to be said for the earlier critics : with
so many chances of going wrong, it was hard to go right ; they
were quite unfamiliar with Machiavelli's point of view, and their
mistakes were not due to any dishonest intention. Most of
those whose writings have contributed to make Machiavelli's
name a synonym for unscrupulous dishonesty wrote with a
serious intention and in good faith : but it soon happened that
the word got out of their control altogether, and beginning an
C