Page:Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1919).djvu/44

22 which, blended with that chivalry and disinterestedness which marked his character, rendered him one of the most popular, as he was one of the most able statesmen of the age.’

Is there anything in all this to suggest that diplomacy must be Machiavellian? Machiavelli himself does not require that it be so, except in so far as human nature, in general, and the nature, more especially, of particular men and particular circumstances, impel it to assume devices that have vulgarly taken name, rather than derived qualities, from one of the most powerful of all writers and thinkers. What Machiavelli did was to insist on prudence and efficiency. He would say, if to interpret him in brief—not from The Prince alone—be not impossible:

Be not deceived by mere appearance. Discover men, things, and conditions as they are. It may be that in deriding sentimentalism and emotionalism, in warring against uncalculating benevolence, in the conduct of public and international affairs, I shall seem to many to despise sentiment itself and all idealism even I who love books, and cherish Dante, and rank him imperishably with the immortals of Greece and Rome. But the times are rough and full of strange mutations. Fidelity to bonds, and gratitude for services, let no man count on who would face the facts and seek security. Be not timid of counsel, nor slothful in execution. Thucydides and the ancient Romans (especially should I value Tacitus, although I comment on Titus Livius) have uttered their warnings and their rebuke: nor are men, nor the heavens, the sun, the elements altered from what of old they were, in their motion, their ordering and power. The maxim, ‘Leave it to time’, did not commend itself to the ancients. Be not too late. Uncontrolled forces there are; forces uncontrollable there may be. With these we must do our best to reckon.