take any part in politics: but the morality of the Essays, which are eminently practical, and intended as the Author says to come into the business and bosoms of men—is the pure and simple morality of Machiavelli. The new art of 'policy' had superseded the old reign of force, and Machiavelli was the recognised master of the mysteries of policy. It fell in with Bacon's nature readily to admit that in politics, no less than in science, knowledge is power; and the politician must base action on knowledge. But knowledge in politics seemed to mean knowledge of men, and that, not knowledge of what men ought to be, but of men as men are. Moreover, the dangers besetting a politician arise, not from the virtues, but from the vices and weaknesses of men. These therefore it seemed that the politician must take as his special study—human weaknesses and human vices; and what man was likely to know these so well as the historian and politician who had sounded all the depths of Italian villainy? Some men might find fault with Machiavelli for undertaking so odious a task as that of describing the dark side of human nature: not so Bacon. As in science a man must take things as they are, not as though they were what he would like them to be; so in politics the scientific politician must take men as they are, ignoring none of their faults, however inconvenient and disagreeable ; so that we are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class, who openly and unfeignedly declare and describe what men do and not what they ought to do for, without this, virtue is open and unfenced.1 In one respect the morality of Bacon is inferior to that of Machiavelli. The latter is writing for States and Commonwealths, not for individuals; or, if for individuals, for individuals regarded as Princes, as public

Works, Vol. v. p. 17.

characters. Now, as we have seen above, States and individuals are regarded as dwelling in different spheres of morality: consequently Machiavelli's morality is entirely unaffected by Christianity. On the morality of individuals or private morality he rarely touches, except to deplore the general treachery, falsehood, self-seeking, and insubordination of modern times as compared with the truthfulness, the religious reverence, the unselfish patriotism, and the strict discipline of the old Roman Republic. Clearly, had Machiavelli written on the morality of an Italian citizen, he would not have written as he wrote for his Italian prince. Princes are above laws, and have no conscience (or rarely can afford to have one); but citizens are on a different footing. In justice to Machiavelli, we are to remember that, when he speaks of right or wrong, of 'cruelty,' for example, 'well or ill applied,' he has in his mind either a State or a ruler who is bound to act like a State, and whose mind is to be so full of his duty towards his country that he can spare no time to think of his duty towards himself or towards individuals. Now the rules that Machiavelli has laid down for Princes and Commonwealths Bacon transfers to private life, or tries to transfer, not always successfully. The panoply of the Machiavellian morality is sometimes too massive and weighty, and hampers the free English nature. It is the simple shepherd boy unable to move easily in the royal armour which he has not proved. The native English sense of the power of truth and righteousness will at times rebel against and discard the rigid logic of the morality of selfishness. The divine power of goodness betrays the student of Machiavellian policy at times into language not strictly Machiavellian. But, in spite of these righteous inconsistencies, it is scarcely possible to read the Discourses and the Essays together without feeling that the latter stand on the lower level of morality.

Machiavelli delineates with an unflinching hand the Art of Advancement for an Empire or a Prince; Bacon applies these rules to the mere vulgar object of Advancement in Life for individuals, but applies them neither thoroughly nor consistently. Machiavelli has always in the background of his Prince the hopes of a redeemed and united Italy; in the background of the Essays there is nothing but Self.

Through Machiavelli we shall arrive at so clear an understanding of the relation between Bacon's morality and Bacon's religion, that it is quite worth while to spend a few moments in considering the attitude of the Author of the Discourses towards the Christianity of his time. Both Christianity and Papacy seem to Machiavelli responsible for much evil. The Italian patriot has a keen sense of the evils brought upon 'poor Italy' by the Papal Court, 'by the corruption of which Italy has lost all its religion and all its devotion . . . so that we Italians have this obligation to the Church and its ministers, that by their means we are become heathenish and irreligious.' But it is not the Papal Court alone that is to blame. Christianity itself, or at all events the current form of Christianity, is accused of encouraging effeminacy, of alienating the choice spirits of the age from active political duties, of giving prominence to the wicked and unscrupulous, and of unfitting the whole nation for military service. 'In our religion the meek and humble, and such as devote themselves to the contemplation of divine things, are esteemed more happy than the greatest tyrant and the greatest conqueror upon earth; and the summum bonum which the others placed in the greatness of the mind, the strength of the body, and whatever else contributed to make men active, we have determined to consist in humility and abjection and contempt of the world; and if our religion requires any fortitude, it is rather to enable

us to suffer than to act. So that it seems to me this way of living, so contrary to the ancients, has rendered the Christians more weak and effeminate, and left them as a prey to those who are more wicked and may order them as they believe; the most part thinking of Paradise than of preferment, and of enduring rather than revenging of injuries, as if heaven was to be won, rather by idleness than by arms.' Justly wroth with 'the poor and pusillanimous people more given to their ease than to anything that was great,' he indignantly declares that ‘if the Christian religion allows us to defend and exalt our country, it allows us certainly to love it and honour it, and prepare ourselves so as we may be able to defend it.'1

In this earnest protest against the parody of Christianity afforded by the religious life of his day many sincere Christians will heartily concur with Machiavelli. But his inferences are more open to objection when he proceeds to discuss the source whence men are to expect the Redemption of Italy. Goodness being, as he says, 'ineffectual,' force, mechanical force is the only hope of salvation: not brute force, it is true, but force directed and controlled by reason: still, for all that, force. Force has ruled the world in past ages: so at least it seems to him as he turns the pages of history. The flash of the armour of the Roman legions dazzles his eyes to the purer brightness of the Star of Israel. Even the history of the Chosen People, as read by the light of Roman history, presents itself to him in strange distortions. 'The Scripture shows us that those of the Prophets whose arms were in their hands and had power to compel, succeeded better in the reformation which they designed, whereas those who came only with exhortation and good language suffered martyrdom and banishment,

'Discourses ii. 2.

:

as in our day it happened to Friar Jerome Savonarola, who ruined himself by his new institutions as soon as the people of Florence began to desert him. For he had no means to confirm those who had been of his opinion, nor to constrain such as dissented.' What then must that Prince do who desires a prosperous reign? He must take the ways of the world.1 'Those ways are cruel and contrary, not only to all civil, but to Christian and indeed human conversation; for which reason they are to be rejected by everybody for certainly 'tis better to remain a private person than to make oneself king by the calamity and destruction of one's people. Nevertheless, he who neglects to take the first good way, if he will preserve himself, must make use of the bad; for though many Princes take a middle way betwixt both, yet they find it extreme, difficult, and dangerous. For being neither good nor bad, they are neither feared nor beloved, and so, unlikely to prosper.' And, as 'the first good way' is very seldom adopted, the conclusion at which Machiavelli at last arrives, and which embodies the practical morality of Bacon's Essays, is expressed in these memorable words: 'The present manner of living is so different from the way that ought to be taken, that he who neglects what is done to follow what ought to be done, will sooner learn how to ruin than how to preserve himself. For a tender man and one that desires to be honest in everything, must needs run a great hazard among so many of a contrary principle. Wherefore it is necessary for a Prince that is willing to subsist, to harden himself and learn to be good or otherwise, according to the exigence of his affairs.' 2 This is a summary of Machiavelli's morality for Princes, and what Machiavelli meant for Princes Bacon transfers to individuals.