The Prince (Byerley)/Preface
Preface.
IN presenting to the public a new translation of the grand work of an author, universally reprobated as one of the most dangerous and immoral political writers of any age or nation, the translator is aware that some prejudiced individuals may think him liable to censure for reviving doctrines which are considered inimical to every principle of moral duty or religion.
If the translator esteemed the common opinion of Machiavelli correct, he should feel himself culpable indeed: but when he avows sentiments directly the reverse; that he believes Machiavelli to have been a patriot in the true sense of the word; that his doctrines evince the soundest policy, and a profound knowledge of the human heart; that he was, if not the author, at least the prophet of the glorious reformation under Luther; and that his memory was loaded with infamy in consequence only of his exposing the iniquities and denouncing the temporal power of the church of Rome, he may surely be excused for raising his voice in favour of him. In another age, and in any other nation, he would have been worshipped with divine honours, and adored as the saviour of his country:—such has not been the fate of Machiavelli!!!
To do justice to the manes of this great man was not the only motive of the translator. When upwards of three years since he announced a new translation of "The Prince," from a repeated perusal of that work it occurred to him that he had discovered a key to the cabinet of Buonaparte. Pursuing this idea, and attentively examining the line of conduct he had pursued from the commencement of his career, they afforded indisputable evidence of the truths he expected to establish, viz. that Machiavelli furnished the model of his (Buonaparte's) general system of policy: and even of his conduct in private life, the proofs are many and striking; his attachment to the chace, becoming the patron of arts and sciences, wearing the semblance of religion, the choice of his cabinets, leading his armies in person, making peace in the moment of victory, and forming a barrier to the empire of vassal states, even to the abolition of the pope's temporal power, for which Buonaparte assigns exactly the reasons given by Machiavelli three hundred years ago.
Having pointed out these coincidences, which are sufficient confirmation of the assertion before made, the translator conceived it would be an acceptable service to his country to translate "The "Prince" as a model of policy for future ministers in the government of his country, and to give a commentary pointing out the secret spring which had regulated the actions of our great enemy.
The lapse of three years, the additional proofs of the truth of these observations which that period has afforded, and the uniform opinion of the political friends to whom the idea has been submitted, have only tended to confirm the translator in the great utility of the work, and decided in his mind the propriety of publication. After bestowing all his attention on the work for the period already stated, the translator compared it with two French versions which he was advised to procure for that purpose, as the style and man- ner of Machiavelli are frequently obscure, and the Italian language at the period he wrote was far from being fixed.
These translations are by Amelot de Houssaye and Guiraudet: the former is only excellent on account of the notes; it professes, indeed, to be "so faithful a translation, that it would be very difficult to give one more so;" its principal fidelity is, however, the adoption of the author's mode of speaking in the second person, a manner which agrees very well with the idioms of the Italian and French languages, but is extremely harsh and inelegant in the English. The translation of Guiraudet is much superior; and avoiding the shackles of the former, is at once faithful and elegant, and contains many excellent notes, of which the reader will find the translator has frequently availed himself, as well as in correcting several passages on which the obscurity of the original induced him to hesitate. The manuscript was also submitted to one of the most elegant scholars of the age, who compared it with the original, and noted his remarks: the consequence of this mode of proceeding has been, that what might have been finished in a few weeks has been more than three years in hand.
Instead of a commentary, it has been recommended to throw the parallel into the form of an Introduction, wherein the translator has dwelt at some length on the principles of his author, his motives for writing, the consideration he was held in by the family of Medici, and the cause of his being universally denounced; and if it would not have occupied too much space, he would have shewn not only that Buonaparte has reduced the theory of Machiavelli to practice, but that Machiavelli himself formed his system on the opinions of Tacitus (vide Annals); and, indeed, the doctrines and principles of these two great men bear so close an analogy, that we cannot justly bestow either praise or censure on the one, without passing a similar judgment on the other: yet Tacitus is universally admired, Machiavelli invariably condemned,—a striking proof of the fallibility of general opinion.
To remove these errors, and by unfolding the political system of Buonaparte to enable us with more successful effect to resist him, have been the objects sought to be obtained: whether the endeavour has succeeded, the intelligent and candid reader must determine.
London, March 15, 1810.