foliage, ranges of natural pillars, set one above the other, with umbrageous architraves of differing device.

And such is the picture that the limner Nature has hanged in the hall of my Memory. Scantily described though it be, those who have seen the original need not be told how time and distance can never efface its lines.

D. G. B.

"The Everlasting Jew."

"Der Ewige Jude-which is the commmon German expression for The Wandering Jew." DE QUINCEY,

Lucio. A very superficial, ignorant, unweighing fellow. Duke. Either this is envy in you, folly, or mistaking; the very stream of his life, and the business he hath helmed, must, upon a warranted need, give him a better proclamation. Let him be but testimonied in his own bringings forth, and he shall appear to the envious, a scholar, a statesman, and a soldier: Therefore you speak unskillfully; or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darken'd in your malice.

66

MEASURE FOR Measure.

Or all names that appear in Political History, to that of Niccolo Machiavelli, has fallen the greatest share of odium. For more than three centuries it has been the synonym of fraud, dissimulation and deceit, and even to-day, we stigmatize a dishonest politician, by calling him a second Machiavelli." Clement VIII condemned The Prince, and excommunicated its readers. Frederic II, of Prussia, backed by a preface by Voltaire, brought out a work against it-and in more acts than one followed its maxims. Cardinal Pole, the first assailant, condemns The Prince without benefit of clergy. Mr. Roscoe thinks the same work recommends the crimes and deceit it attributes to new rulers, because its tone is not one of irony, and because just such maxims are put forth in "The Discourses." In fact, from the day of its publication

down to the present hour, The Prince has not wanted assailants whose judgments, to say the least, have lacked the spirit of Christian charity. It is well to note who the most violent of Machiavelli's critics are, for though we find them among all nations, and under all governments, yet-and it is a most significant fact-the majority belong, by far, to those who support the decaying claims of absolute monarchy. We can hence infer, that Machiavelli did not entertain the same political opinions as themselves, and, in fact, a perusal of The Prince will show us, that, not only was such the case, but that he was, moreover, an out and out Republican. As it is from principles laid down in his Prince, that his character is derived, we shall discuss that work alone, and, since the history of the world tells us that its judgment is not always to be relied on, we shall try to find out for ourselves whether Machiavelli has received a just character or not.

Though we often see or hear used the term "Machiavelism," we may well doubt if our author or orator has ever investigated its meaning. He has probably taken for granted, that he is using just the word that expresses his idea of political trickery, but neither has he the right to take for granted anything that may be the cause of false ideas, nor should the public be content to receive, without examination, everything it reads or hears. The character of Machiavelli has, in America, suffered from both these errors. The people have had their notions formed by the casual mention made by their writers or speakers, and these have received theirs from the hands of the Europeans.

But Europe has, in general, herself erred in her estimate of the Secretary's character, and from two causes. The first was the condemnation of The Prince and its readers by the bull of Clement VIII, by which, at so early a date, the world of Catholicism was deceived as to the real state of the case. For, of course, all good Catholics ceased reading the book, and mentioned it only with abhorrence. And as there are men in every community ready to attack, without examination, that upon which the "evil eye "of government rests, so, when Clement issued his bull, there arose over Christendom numbers who sought Papal favor by denunciations of The Prince. Many a critic loudly inveighed against that which he had never read, and it has been proved conclusively, that even Possevin, the Jesuit who composed the bull, had never given its object so much as a perusal.

The Protestants, too, occupied in maintaining the position they had but lately taken, and in spreading their doctrines, gave more time to the study of Greek and the Scriptures, than to profane and modern litera

ture. The consequence was, the writings of the Florentine received but little, if any, of their attention, and, perhaps, they too, carried away by religious fervor, agreed with the Catholics in condemning the book.

The second and far more influential cause, has been the political character of Machiavelli's assailants. We have already said, that the majority of the most violent have belonged to the supporters of absolute monarchy. That this is the case may be seen by a glance at the list of critics. In this little work lay the seed, which, well sown, might bring to the famishing body politic of the Republican school, invigorating nourishment. These, therefore, attacked with might and main that which so directly opposed them. Irony, they made earnestness, fiction fact, and having a right idea of the author's intention themselves, they strove to impress the contrary upon the mind of the reading public. The supporters of pure monarchy were not slow in receiving the ideas advanced, and as, till within a century, they have been the most numerous, the majority of voices have been against the Secretary of Florence. Thus was Machiavelli the object of the hate and oppression of those two powers, which, for so long, ruled the minds and actions of men-the Pope of Rome, and the Absolute Monarch, while the third and greatest power, through ignorance or inattention, likewise gave him the cold. shoulder.

It must not be thought, however, that no voices have been raised in palliation of Machiavelli. As early as 1550, Gentilis, an Italian, defended The Prince. Lord Bacon remarks, "We are indebted to Machiavelli and those writers, who openly and undisguisedly relate what men commonly do, not what they ought to do." Rousseau said, the Court of Rome proscribed the Italian's works, "because it is described in them too truly," while Clarendon, the first Premier after the Restoration, asserts that Machiavelli "was as great an enemy to tyranny and injustice in any government, as any man then was, or now is." In our estimate of a character, the opinions of Bacon, Rousseau, and Clarendon, should not be overlooked, for they are founded upon observation and reflection, and such men commit nothing to posterity that they do not believe to be true, well knowing, that on the foundation of Truth stands the Temple of Fame. If, then, we look well into the proscribed work of the Florentine, we shall see that their opinions have upon them the stamp of Truth, however much it may be rusted over by the prejudices of the times.

In 1512, at the instigation of the future Leo X, the army of the Holy League marched against Florence. The city, filled with consternation

at the invasion of its territories, allowed its government to be overthrown by a small band of young men, and immediately concluded a treaty by which the Medicis were admitted as private citizens. It was not long, however, before this ambitious family placed itself at the head of affairs by fraud and violence. But the spirit of liberty had not yet fled from Florence. In the following February, a revolution broke out, in which many young men of the highest class were implicated. It failed. Some were executed, others imprisoned. Machiavelli, on suspicion of encouraging the revolt, was thrown into prison. Here he endured the torture of the cord, and remained till the accession of Leo X.

On his release, he retired to his country-seat, but only to meet with the trials of poverty, and the still more depressing trouble-the thought that he had lived in vain. But he was here left to himself, his solitude was unbroken, and as, like Scipio, he could say, that he was never less alone, than when alone, we find him busy with those occupations which characterize the man of education and refinement. His days were

spent in out-door exercises, his evenings with his books. After giving Vittori a pleasant description of his snaring thrushes, cutting wood, and playing games with the peasantry of the neighborhood, he thus writes: "But when evening comes I return home, and shut myself up in my study. Before I make my appearance in it, I take off my rustic garb, soiled with mud and dirt, and put on a dress adapted for courts and cities. Thus fitly habited I enter the antique resorts of the ancients; where, being kindly received, I feed on that food which alone is mine, and for which I was born. For an interval of four hours I feel no annoyance; I forget every grief, I neither fear poverty nor death, but am totally immersed." It was in the midst of such scenes and influences, that he wrote The Prince.

This work has for its subject Principalities. These the author divides into hereditary and newly acquired—the latter, are those wholly new, or those annexed to the hereditary. To continue in the words of the first chapter, "States so acquired either become subject to the dominion of a prince, or they enjoy their liberty. The conqueror subdues them either by his own powers or through the intervention of foreign arms, from some fortunate event, or by means of his own personal courage and talents." Such is a sketch of the main portion of The Prince. The author afterwards considers the different relations in which the ruler stands to the subject, the modes of overcoming the difficulties an ambitious prince will have to encounter, and occupies the re