In many points Lao-tzŭ seems to us to be giving bad advice to the ruler, and his general notions about a state are very unlike those to which we are accustomed. That the people should be kept ignorant, advancement in mechanical skill discountenanced, and that the standards of political excellence should be the ideal sages of an ideal antiquity, are doctrines to which we would refuse to adhere, and which we would condemn, as savouring of despotism. Yet Lao-tzŭ’s conception of the ruler is not of him as a despot, but rather as a sort of dictator during good conduct. He is raised to his high position by the concurrent wishes of heaven and the people, and on his observance of the duties of his office depends his stability on the throne. It is interesting and instructive to compare Lao-tzŭ’s ideas on politics with those of Machiavelli, who somewhat resembles him also in his fortunes. Each lived in times of national disaster and misery and each wished for peace in the land. Each longed to see one ruler installed, and honoured with absolute power. During life neither seems to have been appreciated by his fellows; and after death so ill were the merits of both recognised, that the abbreviated form of the Christian name of the one became, as some suppose, a familiar term for the original Devil;[42] and the other has been confounded by his enemies with charlatans and impostors. The counsels which each gave to the chiefs of the time were those which he deemed useful and practicable, though in many cases, if judged by a general standard, they must be condemned. The patriotic fire of the Florentine Secretary led him to make rather reckless statements about the license allowed to the man who makes and keeps himself an absolute and independent prince.[43] So the Chinese moralist, deprecating the evils wrought in his country by unprincipled but clever and ambitious men, recommends a general state of ignorance. The serpent wisdom of the professional statesman, however, is far removed from the guileless simplicity of the philosopher. The latter abhors the idea of war, and recoils from the thought of force and ostentation; but the former, with more earthly prudence, recommends above all things a good native army, serviceable military skill, and splendid enterprises.[44] Machiavelli allows the prince to break his word when it suits him for state purposes[45] (unless this be ironical), but Lao-tzŭ requires of the king good faith, at least to his subjects. Each of them advises that the ruler should be, or at least appear to be, clement and liberal, sparing of the people’s possessions and a fosterer of their material prosperity.[46] Many other points of similarity or contrast in the political opinions of these two eminent men might be adduced, but the above must suffice as examples.