But how can we explain the advice which Macchiavelli gives tohis proposed usurper respecting the republics, considering his ownrepublican sentiments? And must it be solely attributed to a designon his part to ingratiate himself with the Prince to whom his bookis dedicated, and thus to gain private advantages, when he, thezealous republican, the great thinker and literary genius, thepatriotic martyr, advised the future usurper utterly to destroy thefreedom of the Italian republics? It cannot be denied thatMacchiavelli, at the time when he wrote the 'Prince,' waslanguishing in poverty, that he regarded the future with anxiety,that he earnestly longed and hoped for employment and support fromthe Medici.A letter which he wrote on October 10, 1513, from hispoor dwelling in the country to his friend Bettori, at Florence,places that beyond doubt.(4*)Nevertheless, there are strong reasons for believing that he bythis book did not merely design to flatter the Medici, and to gainprivate advantage, but to promote the realisation of a plan ofusurpation; a plan which was not opposed to hisrepublican-patriotic ideas, though according to the moral ideas ofour day it must be condemned as reprehensible and wicked.Hiswritings and his deeds in the service of the State prove thatMacchiavelli was thoroughly acquainted with the history of allperiods, and with the political condition of all States.But an eyewhich could see so far backwards, and so clearly what was aroundit, must also have been able to see far into the future.A spiritwhich even at the beginning of the sixteenth century recognised theadvantage of the national arming of Italy, must also have seen thatthe time for small republics was past, that the period for greatmonarchies had arrived, that nationality could, under thecircumstances then existing, be won only by means of usurpation,and maintained only by despotism, that the oligarchies as they thenexisted in the Italian republics constituted the greatest obstacleto national unity, that consequently they must be destroyed, andthat national freedom would one day grow out of national unity.
Macchiavelli evidently desired to cast away the worn-out liberty ofa few cities as a prey to despotism, hoping by its aid to acquirenational union, and thus to insure to future generations freedom ona greater and a nobler scale.
The earliest work written specially on Political Economy inItaly, is that of Antonio Serra of Naples (in 1613), on the meansof providing 'the Kingdoms' with an abundance of gold and silver.
J.B.Say and M'Culloch appear to have seen and read only thetitle of this book: they each pass it over with the remark that itmerely treats of money; and its title certainly shows that theauthor laboured under the error of considering the precious metalsas the sole constituents of wealth.If they had read farther intoit, and duly considered its contents, they might perhaps havederived from it some wholesome lessons.Antonio Serra, although hefell into the error of considering an abundance of gold and silveras the tokens of wealth, nevertheless expresses himself tolerablyclearly on the causes of it.
He certainly puts mining in the first place as the directsource of the precious metals; but he treats very justly of theindirect means of acquiring them.Agriculture, manufactures,commerce, and navigation, are, according to him, the chief sourcesof national wealth.The fertility of the soil is a sure source ofprosperity; manufactures are a still more fruitful source, forseveral reasons, but chiefly because they constitute the foundationof an extensive commerce.The productiveness of these sourcesdepends on the characteristic qualifications of the people (viz.
whether they are industrious, active, enterprising, thrifty, and soforth), also on the nature and circumstances of the locality(whether, for instance, a city is well situated for maritimetrade).But above all these causes, Serra ranks the form ofgovernment, public order, municipal liberty, political guarantees,the stability of the laws.' No country can prosper,' says he, '
where each successive ruler enacts new laws, hence the States ofthe Holy Father cannot be so prosperous as those countries whosegovernment and legislation are more stable.In contrast with theformer, one may observe in Venice the effect which a system oforder and legislation, which has continued for centuries, has onthe public welfare.' This is the quintessence of a system ofPolitical Economy which in the main, notwithstanding that itsobject appears to be only the acquisition of the precious metals,is remarkable for its sound and natural doctrine.The work of J.B.
Say, although it comprises ideas and matter on Political Economy ofwhich Antonio Serra had in his day no foreknowledge, is farinferior to Serra's on the main points, and especially as respectsa due estimate of the effect of political circumstances on thewealth of nations.Had Say studied Serra instead of laying his workaside, he could hardly have maintained (in the first page of hissystem of Political Economy) that 'the constitution of countriescannot be taken into account in respect to Political Economy; thatthe people have become rich, and become poor, under every form ofgovernment; that the only important point is, that itsadministration should be good.'
We are far from desiring to maintain the absolutepreferableness of any one form of government compared with others.