Machiavelliana : The Living Machiavelli in Modern Mythologies [1 ed.] 9789004365513, 9789004365476

Citation preview

Machiavelliana

Value Inquiry Book Series Founding Editor Robert Ginsberg Executive Editor Leonidas Donskis† Managing Editor J.D. Mininger

Volume 317

Philosophy, Literature, and Politics Edited by J.D. Mininger

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vibs and brill.com/plp

Michael Jackson and Damian Grace. Photograph: Emlyn Crockett

Machiavelliana The Living Machiavelli in Modern Mythologies By

Michael Jackson Damian Grace

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: Impression of Machiavelli’s influence and legacy. All the objects and books shown relate to Machiavelli. Photograph by Emlyn Crockett. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Grace, Damian, author. Title: Machiavelliana : the living Machiavelli in modern mythologies / by Damian Grace, Michael Jackson. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill-Rodopi, 2018. | Series: Value inquiry book series, ISSN 0929-8436 ; Volume 317. Philosophy, literature, and politics | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018011580 (print) | LCCN 2018012549 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004365513 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004365476 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527. Classification: LCC DG738.14.M2 (ebook) | LCC DG738.14.M2 G68 2018 (print) | DDC 320.1092--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018011580

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0929-8436 isbn 978-90-04-36547-6 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-36551-3 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For Kathlyn Bernadette and To the memory of Leonidas Donskis (1962–2016)

∵

Contents Preface xi List of Illustrations xiv Introduction 1 1

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli? 12

2

The Hand of Satan 40

3

Machiavelli in Management: The Enterprise of Sir Antony Jay, Ltd. 78

4

Theory M for Machiavelli 95

5

The Science of Machiavellianism 114

6

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli 154

7

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power 167

8

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War 189

9

Machiavelli Ubiquitous 212

10

The Second Time is Farce 235

Bibliography 259 Discography 323 Filmography 326 Index 327

Preface While Niccolò Machiavelli’s name is common coin in the popular culture, that currency is foreign to serious scholars in political theory, Renaissance history, or Italian language and culture. Many professors of history, political theory, and Italian language and literature have written on Machiavelli’s life, times, and work without a single mention of the impact he has had beyond the borders of those scholarly domains. In our own experience, even calling attention to this vulgar Machiavelli strikes some of these specialists as frivolous. Be that as it may, Machiavelli’s name appears in a vast other literature that spans both popular culture and distant scholarly fields and that literature has not been cataloged and examined. There are, to be specific, two ‘literatures,’ the first is produced by professional scholars who take Machiavelli as the subject matter in the fields named above and others close to them, and the second deploys his name multifariously. This other, second literature ranges from research into management and primates, to popular books on dating or card playing, to newspaper op-ed essays, and more. Much of this second literature trades on the aura of his name as a brand. Akin to this second literature are all manner of other uses of Machiavelli’s name in games, on restaurants, on playing cards and more. These two literatures co-exist side-by-side, each ignoring the other, the dedicated scholars of Machiavelli’s life, works, and times regarding the vulgar Machiavelli as an imposter, while the exponents of Machiavelli in popular culture see no need to consider the findings of scholars. Yet it is the vulgar Machiavelli that has entered the collective unconscious of much of Western culture, and like many weeds in an otherwise well-kept garden, there it flourishes. The evidence of Machiavelli’s absorption into the collective unconscious is found in the frequency with which his name is used in newspapers, books, restaurants, and other commercial enterprises that have nothing to do with him. When we realized just how often and how freely his name is used far and wide, the research for this book began. At the outset we thought it would be a simple matter to compile an inventory of his use and misuses beyond academia in wider society, and we set out to compile a comprehensive catalog. Now, perchance wiser, we have reduced our ambitions from a comprehensive account to one that is substantial, farreaching, detailed, and as complete as we can make it to document these other Machiavellis who constitute the second literature. Yet each passing week brings ever more instances of the use of his name on establishments, products, websites, and books. It is hard to keep up with the profusion of references to Machiavelli, the more so now that direct-publishing, i.e., self-publishing, or

xii

Preface

print on demand publishing, has become easier: many of the works we have compiled fall into that category. What is it about Machiavelli that drives people far and wide to use his name, sometimes investing much of themselves and their resources in doing so? Why Machiavelli? That is the master question we pursue in these pages. Though routinely classified with other political thinkers like Thomas Hobbes or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Machiavelli has a mystique accorded to none of them. Everyone, it seems, knows about him. Individuals, who maintain a circumspect silence when the names of Plato or Hobbes arise, freely use Machiavelli’s name. This peculiar aspect of Machiavelli’s reputation is the subject of this study. We do not set out to offer an interpretation of Machiavelli’s political theory, though in the last chapter we do try to set right some of the more astonishing assertions, common misapprehensions, and plain mistakes made about the man and his works. Though our purpose is serious, the tone and temper of our prose lacks – we hope – the lead weights that often manacle scholarly discourse, our discussions necessarily involve aspects of contemporary popular culture and this is reflected in references to contemporary novels and films, and asides that seemed suitable to engage with Machiavelli’s cultural diffusion. We have talked about Machiavelli and seen his shadow everywhere for years, and many people have patiently listened, encouraged us, and added to our stock of Machiavelliana. Our thanks to them one and all. David Band Francisco Borghese Donatella Cannova Jarno Florusse Graeme Gill Don Harwin Julie Kalitis Michael Lambert Chris McGillion Mark McDonnell Nerida Newbigin Marianne Noble Denise North Bram Oudenampsen Ros Pesman Lukasz Swiatek Eric van Broekhuizen Colin Wight

Preface

xiii

We also pause to thank the many individuals with whom we have worked at the publishing firms of Rodopi and Brill, particularly those who provided assessments and feedback, for their solicitude and stimulation to complete the task. This project has taken some time to come to fruition, as the families of the authors know well. Everything has passed through the keyboard of each ­author, though the research for the early and late chapters began with Damian Grace while the catalog of Machiavelli miscellany was collected and curated by ­Michael Jackson. Finally, the authors would also like to acknowledge each other’s forbearance and patience in seeing this project through to the finish. It is indeed a joint work. We anticipated that seeking permission to incorporate into this book reworked material from earlier publications would be a time consuming and exacting process. Instead, we found it to be a speedy and positive experience. Accordingly we give thanks to these sources with pleasure. ‘Machiavellian Monkey Business: Machiavellian Intelligence in Primates and Machiavelli.’ Montréal Review, December 2012. Thanks to the editor of the Montréal Review. ‘Machiavelli’s Echo in Management,’ Management and Organizational H ­ istory, 8 (2013) 4: 400–414, Thanks to Taylor & Francis. ‘Machiavelli’s Shadows in Management, Social Psychology and Primatology,’ Theoria 62 (2015) 142: 67–84. Thanks to Berghahn. ‘Reflections on the Misrepresentation of Machiavelli in Management: The Mysterious Case of the mach iv,’ Philosophy of Management, 13 (2014) 3: 51–72, Thanks to Springer. The editors and anonymous reviewers for these journals steered us away from many a rocky coast.

List of Illustrations



Frontispiece Michael Jackson and Damian Grace. Photograph: Emlyn Crockett

Tables

1 Web of Knowledge References to Thoughts on Machiavelli and Management and Machiavelli 88 2 Hits for The Prince, Thoughts on Machiavelli, and Management and Machiavelli 88 3 Mach iv Studies, a selection 137 4 References to Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Hitler in two research journals 194 5 Word counts in New York Times for Machiavelli and derivations 213

Introduction Although Niccolò Machiavelli died in 1527, he has provided employment to many since his death. While he became persona non grata in his beloved Florence for an important part of his life, today the tourist to the jewel on the Arno finds coffee shops, hotels, chocolates, and more named for him. Though the house he lived in on the southside of the Arno has long since been demolished, creative entrepreneurs will sell the traveller tours of it. He is a commodity in this city of trade and commerce, remaining in death a servant of his city. Beyond Florence, Machiavelli’s eminence offers a reference point to all Italians and to many things Italian from businesses to schools and street names. At one time the Machiavelli Hotel in Milan featured his portrait in reception, though Milan and Florence were antagonists in Machiavelli’s time. Now his reflected glory shines in Milan. More strangely, similar examples can be found around the globe. His name has recognition value. XBox for example, offers a game called Machiavelli’s Ascent. In its iPhone version this game is a pinball exercise with a jellyfish as the protagonist. What has this jellyfish to do with ­Niccolò? There is no obvious answer to this question, but in the following ­chapters we have cataloged many such extraneous, dare we say wacky, uses of Machiavelli’s name. In this book we document the widely divergent and dispersed ways in which Machiavelli has been pressed into service well ­beyond the pale. The frame of reference has been the English-speaking world, but to confirm that the phenomenon is general we have looked beyond that world  to similar uses of his good name made in German, French, Spanish, R ­ ussian, ­Chinese, and other languages. Our purpose is in large part to bring to light the extensive misuse that has been made of his name, reputation, and works, in the hope that specialists in Italian letters, Renaissance history, and  political theory will address these erroneous uses directly in order to restore his intellectual and moral heritage. We say restore because we shall argue throughout that his reputation has been soiled, maligned, and damaged by the many uses to which his name has been put. Niccolò Machiavelli, the Florentine public official and diplomat who championed republican liberty in works that became models of Italian literary style is now less well known than his alter ego, the fabled schemer and author of The Prince.1 This latter Machiavelli, who has somehow lent his name 1 When quoting from Machiavelli’s works we integrate a chapter and, where relevant, a book number into the text. This is done for two reasons. First, this reference will allow a reader to refer to a copy of the work at hand; and second, it reduces the blizzard of distracting f­ ootnotes.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_002

2

Introduction

to a ­computer-generated jellyfish, is also known as the infamous instructor of ­tyrants and the enemy of good morals and religion. It is this dark Machiavelli, the simulacrum, who has become notorious, better known outside Italy than his twin, the historic defender of liberty. At the heart of the Machiavel’s reputation is The Prince. From its first appearance in handwritten copies it has been a cause of controversy, so much so that now it is sufficient merely to mention the work to indicate a method of politics. In the pages that follow, we show how this simulacrum gained presence and permanence in our culture. We survey ground well-trodden by historians but do not give a detailed ­account of the changing fortunes of Machiavelli’s reputation over the centuries. Our focus is on the fate of The Prince and the reputation of its author, Niccolò ­Machiavelli, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. We discuss this fate – or rather, these fates – across a number of domains, to show that the Machiavelli ­exploited there is a figure of myth, and that The Prince that justifies so much of the myth is misrepresented if, indeed, it is read much at all. We have no wish to judge the intrinsic worth of the domains in any way but we do wish to discourage the trivial and eroding use of Machiavelli’s name in them. Most of the uses of his name in these domains have little connection to the historical man or the book that brought him notoriety. To learn of Machiavelli through these works, as many people do, is akin to studying the history of Spanish America by watching Zorro on television. Popular culture has appropriated Machiavelli, and he has been represented rather than interpreted; in scholarship, the reverse is true. Frank Ankersmit has argued that interpretation and representation are separated by an unbridgeable gap.2 Interpretation is an explanation of a representation of reality. Academics have stayed mainly on the interpretative/explanatory side of this gap, looking intently at the whole body of Machiavelli’s works, and less at The Prince in isolation as a source of axioms in political science. Machiavelli’s popular profile is just the opposite. Most uses of his name and most references to The Prince are not i­ nterpretative There is a plethora of translations of The Prince and the Discourses. We have worked from, and recommend, The Prince by Machiavelli and Related Documents, translated and edited by William Connell (New York City: St Martins, 2005) and The Discourses of ­Niccolò Machiavelli (London: Routledge, 1950) translated with notes by Leslie Walker. This latter ­volume has provided the basis for other, more recent, editions, and is often used in abridgements. We have done the same in the few references to his History of Florence. In Chapter 10, where there are many references to Cicero’s De officiis, we also integrate ­references to the work into our text, again to allow reference to any edition and to avoid distractions. The edition we used and recommend is that translated by Walter Miller (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1913). 2 Frank Ankersmit, Meaning, Truth, and Reference in Historical Representation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012).

Introduction

3

but represent him in terms that amount to historical caricature. At worst, Machiavelli is not represented at all, but is a dead metaphor used to market a product like the XBox. His name can be found in political advice, management practice, sporting failure, personal relationships, retailing, warfare, computer games, and primate ethology. His name sells books, pasta, education, choco­ lates, and self-help schemes. Typically, none of these twenty-first century concerns have much if anything to do with the historical Machiavelli and his times, but that is not their point: they use a name of myth and power to brand and sell their wares. Representations of Machiavelli, no matter how improved by scholarship, will not be the intellectual equivalents of photographs. Such a belief is mistaken. Representation, as Bas van Fraassen points out, is not a hologram of the thing represented.3 In order to represent some objects recognizably or intelligibly, distortion is necessary. For example, foreshortening in the depiction of a painted figure enables it to be seen in correct proportion from a distance. Close up, the figure will appear distorted. An example of constructive distortion in Machiavelli’s time is anamorphosis, a distorted perspective that may even require a special viewing device to make sense. It was used by Hans Holbein the Younger in his famous picture The Ambassadors. A similar kind of distortion seems to have been at work very early with respect to Machiavelli to show aspects of his character and works to greater effect. Unfortunately, when perspective is lost, as it quickly was in his case, all that remains is the distortion itself. Thus was created the Machiavel, Machiavelli’s distorted twin. Just as we point to the modern distortions of Machiavelli, which have taken on a life of their own, quite detached from the man and what he wrote, so must we acknowledge that his early critics represented him in particular ways. Yet, as van Fraassen has pointed out, misrepresentation is still a form of representation. Machiavelli’s contemporaries and near contemporaries read and represented him in particular contexts. Greater faithfulness to texts and better translations – the equivalents of attempting ever closer resemblances between the thing represented and the representation – cannot make good the neglect of those contexts. The new representations we discuss in later chapters originate with the early readers of Machiavelli. They found in him resources to suit their purposes and, in the process, formed a mythology that has proved exploitable over five centuries. They called attention to some aspects of his works and suppressed others, but they were not interpreting Machiavelli: they were

3 Bas C. van Fraassen, Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008).

4

Introduction

using him in ways that would present his novelty as an affront to the values and familiar political understandings of their audiences. Although Machiavelli had enemies in his own time, many of the things that troubled his initial opponents are not those that spur contemporary ones. His instrumental view of religion, for example, is not held against him today as it was 500 years ago, but manipulation is. Machiavelli’s sinister reputation was made surprisingly quickly, and once made, it stuck fast. Yet, this reputation has proved endlessly adaptable. Thanks to his early critics, the man has been identified with his book, and The Prince is still taken to express its author’s own corrupt character. While the foundations for Machiavelli’s modern status lie in early reactions to his works – mainly The Prince but also the Discourses – ­outside the academy these books are little known or appreciated at first hand today. As John Najemy points out, ‘“Machiavellian” has taken on a life of its own as a universally recognized proper adjective.’4 Moreover, it retains an expressive force lost by other epithets – such as Platonic, Freudian, and Marxist – which have acquired connotations of quaintness. The construction of Machiavelli’s myth is without comparison among theorists of political life. Thomas Hobbes’s thinly disguised atheism did not make his name a synonym for heinous crimes. Nor did his recommendation of authoritarian government in the Leviathan (1641) burn his name into public consciousness. Still less did Hobbes sire a cultural stereotype by arguing that government has the right to take the lives of its citizens in the name of its own survival. The same is true of other notable historical figures much closer to Machiavelli, like Thomas More and Jean Bodin. Even Cesare Borgia’s bloody deeds have not made his name a commonplace epithet for evil. If any Borgia is remembered today, it is probably Cesare’s sister, Lucrezia, whose infamy, ­deserved or not, is periodically revived by lurid filmmakers. In similar vein, Henry viii and his six wives provide reliable licentious ­material for novelists and documentary producers who focus on the ­women and seldom say anything about Henry’s murder of at least 50,000 of his ­Catholic countrymen and women. Henry’s tactics to free England from the interference of the Church, in part by murdering Catholics, has not tainted his ­popular ­image as a larger than life champion of the liberties of Englishmen. His d­ aughter, Mary, on the other hand has become the bloodthirsty crazy Tudor for her murder of about 284 Protestants. Mary had John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to accuse her; her father had history on his side. Machiavelli was not so fortunate. His early critics began a case against him that became orthodoxy, 4 John Najemy, Introduction, Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 5.

Introduction

5

relying mainly on his most famous book, The Prince. The main contributors to Machiavelli’s myth appear in Chapter 2. In the chapters that follow are those who have used this mythology to transport the Machiavel into the modern era. We will sometimes refer to this distorted image as Machiavel and to the man himself as Machiavelli. The Prince is a classic. Classic texts acquire their status through interpretation and use, not merely as items placed in a venerated canon. Indeed, a classic belongs to a canon precisely because it remains in use, alive and contemporary, as though the author were sitting across from us in conversation. Classic texts are always to hand, available for citation or use in contexts where they confer authority. This kind of availability in scholarship leads, of course, to anachronism, and that misfortune has fallen upon Machiavelli, not only in politics but also across the diverse areas we discuss below. The sustaining interest in The Prince as a living book has inevitably distorted both it and its author’s reputation. What have scholars made of this? Many believe The Prince is a prophetic text in calling for a liberator of Italy from foreign domination. Had The Prince been less ‘prophetic,’ historical obscurity might have been its fate. Had it been part of some grand design, like many other books of political theory, there might not have been so much profitless debate about Machiavelli’s intentions. Instead, writes Najemy, ‘Machiavelli has been assigned … the status of a prophet whose revelations concerning what is constant in human nature and politics are still and always valid … because they are believed to have foretold our condition.’5 Reputations built on this basis are not discarded lightly. Indeed, many classics have acquired such notoriety that they pass into common usage even without being read: examples from literature at large include The Republic, Utopia, The Communist Manifesto, The Origin of Species, War and Peace, and A Brief History of Time. Popular status can prevail over informed readings. Evidence of this is the way a century of solid scholarship has been unable to redefine Machiavelli’s place in popular culture. Part of the reason for this is due, no doubt, to the absorption of terms like ‘Machiavellian’ into common usage. Whereas some misconceptions are susceptible to correction, ­others persist because correction is otiose, as in idiomatic usage. The situation has not been helped by the fact that some political scientists and historians have shared the assumptions of popular culture, thus reinforcing common misconceptions. Academics writing in this vein are more likely to model than reprove unsupported allegations of Machiavellianism in common usage. 5 Ibid., 8.

6

Introduction

Among the scores of superb studies of Machiavelli’s life, times and works by historians, and students of Renaissance life and literature, very few notice the Machiavel who roams the highways and byways of popular culture. Hence another purpose here is to demonstrate the degree to which those who claim a special knowledge of him ignore this wider public presence. We started in the most obvious of places with editions of The Prince that have appeared since his name started to be used far and wide, consulting those by Brian Richard­ son (1979), Daniel Donno (1981), James Atkinson (1985), Harvey Mansfield, Jr (1985), Quentin Skinner and Russell Price (1988), Leo Alvarez (1989), Angelo Codevilla (1997), George Bull (1999), William Connell (2005), Cary Nederman (2007), Rob McMahon (2008), Peter Constantine (2009), Tim Parks (2009) and W.K. ­Marriott (2011).6 In not one introduction, foreword, afterword, note or interpretative essay in these twelve current translations and editions of The Prince is there a reference to the popular Machiavelli to alert students to its existence as a cultural token. New editions appear constantly but most are revisions of one or another of those above. Since Machiavelli is so closely identified with politics, we next surveyed a battery of textbooks on the history of political thought written by some of the greatest exponents of political theory, the source of knowledge about Machiavelli for many students: William Bluhm, Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, John Plamenatz and Robert Wokler, George Sabine and T.L. Thorson, J.S. ­McClelland, William Ebenstein and Alan Ebenstein, Sheldon Wolin, Bruce Haddock, and Alan Ryan.7 Though these tomes make many claims about 6 Brian Richardson, Il Principe (Oxford, England: Alden Press, 1979); Daniel Donno, The Prince (New York: Bantam, 1981); James Atkinson, The Prince (New York: Macmillan, 1985); Harvey Mansfield, Jr, The Prince (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Quentin Skinner and Russell Price, The Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Leo Paul de Alvarez, The Prince (Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland, 1989); Angelo Codevilla, The Prince, Rethinking the Western Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997); George Bull, The Prince (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1999); William Connell, The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli with related documents (New York: St Martins, 2005); Cary Nederman, The Prince; On the art of power, the New illustrated edition of the Renaissance masterpiece on leadership (London: Duncan Baird, 2007); Rob McMahon, Machiavelli’s The Prince: Bold-faced Principles on Tactics, Power, and Politics (New York City: Sterling, 2008); Peter Constantine, The Prince (London: Vintage, 2009); Tim Parks, The Prince (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 2009); and W.K. Marriott, The Prince (London: HarperCollins, 2011). New printings appear every year. The Bull edition has been used in very many classrooms over two generations. We will use the Connell edition because we find it accessible and sensible. 7 William T. Bluhm, Theories of the Political System: Classics of Political Thought and Modern P­ olitical Analysis (Third ed.) (Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978); Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy (Third ed.) (Chicago: University of ­Chicago

Introduction

7

­ achiavelli’s continued political importance and relevance to the reader, we M found in them not one single reference to Machiavelli’s afterlife in such fields as management, social psychology or primatology, let alone in restaurant names, board games, hotels, children’s books, and the many other places we have found him. We also examined the specialist encyclopedias on political science and ­political theory as authoritative sources designed for students and general readers. Such works have an entry on Machiavelli and those we examined made no mention of this large swath he cuts in the culture.8 These general references might attract a larger and more diverse readership than the specialist ones to which we now turn. Finally there are the scholarly reference books of political theory, because this a field where Machiavelli is a fixture: the Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, the Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy.9 They, too, are mute on the alternative Machiavelli, with two exceptions. The first is in the introduction to The Portable Machiavelli where the editors, ­Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, note that ‘Machiavelli’s ideas … have, for instance, inspired a recent bestseller by Antony Jay on business management and corporate politics.’ And they observe also that he has been used to justify Press, 1987); George Sabine and T.L. Thorson, A History of Political Theory (Fourth ed.) (Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden, 1993); J.S. McClelland, A History of Western Political Thought (London: Routledge, 1998); William Ebenstein and Alan O. Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present (Fort Worth, tx: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1999); John Plamenatz and Robert Wokler, Man & Society: Political and social theories from Machiavelli to Marx, 3 vols. (New York City: Longmans. 1992); Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Expanded ed.) (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 2006); Bruce Haddock, A History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Polity, 2008); and Alan Ryan, On Politics: A History of Political Thought (New York City: Liveright, 2012). Some of these texts have been in use for generations, such is their sway. 8 Jérémie Barthus, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolô,’ International Encyclopedia of Political Science, edited by Bernard Badie, Dirk Berg-Scholosser and Leonardo Molino (Los Angeles, ca: Sage, 2011), v, 1479–1481; Edward King, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolò,’ Encyclopedia of Political Science, edited by George Kurion (Washington, dc: CQ Press, 2011), iii, 87; and Diego van Vacano, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolò,’ Encyclopedia of Political Theory, edited by Mark Bevir (Los Angeles, ca: Sage, 2010), viii, 835–840. 9 J.H. Burns and Mark Goldie, eds., The Cambridge History of Political Thought: 1450–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); John Dryzak, Bonnie Honig, and Ann Phillips, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Cary Nederman, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’ (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2009). Accessed 4 July 2011. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/; and George Klosko, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

8

Introduction

‘an ­empirical psychological test measure, “Machiavellianism,” and its relationship to interpersonal relations.’10 They cite these instances as proof of the continued relevance of Machiavelli to our world. We will have a great deal more to say about these domains of management and personal relations in the pages that follow. The second voice is a brief reference in the editor’s introduction to the Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli. There Najemy notes that ‘Machiavelli’s ­relevance to business is claimed in an astonishing number of books.’11 Najemy, a renowned historian of Florence and exegete of Machiavelli’s writings, makes no reference to the works in social psychology and primatology. Nor does he advert to restaurants and computer games. Bondanella and Musa mentioned the social psychological scale, which they refer to as ‘ideologically loaded,’ yet they do not deny that it owes its paternity to Machiavelli. They imply that this example of Machiavelli’s relevance is perhaps, undesirable, rather than e­ ntirely spurious. Such academic niceties do no service to truth. Najemy also refers to the books that apply Machiavelli’s ideas as ‘purportedly’ demonstrating his relevance.12 That one word – ‘purportedly’ – is charitable: the ­psychological instrument that bears Machiavelli’s name owes very little – if anything – to his thought. We note that John Scott’s authoritative commentary passes the second Machiavelli in silence.13 It seems then that the second Machiavelli of the popular culture passes unnoticed by the curators of Machiavelli’s testament in specialist fields. The role of scholars is to demythologize the past and to question accepted assumptions. This happens, for example, about the importance of slavery as a cause of the American Civil War, or the effects of individuals like Confederate General James Longstreet at Gettysburg, or Pope Pius xii and the Holocaust. Yet the teleported Machiavelli, an a historical figure whose name has graced social psychology, management studies and popular culture, passes without note or comment from the specialists, some of whom have added to the mythology. Examining only the life and circumstances of Cinquecento Machiavelli, the historical figure, without taking account of his fate in subsequent centuries attempts only half the job of demythologization. The public and popular mythologizing of Machiavelli that goes on continuously outside the halls of ­academe is largely unnoticed therein. 10 11 12 13

Peter Bondanella, and Mark Musa, eds., The Portable Machiavelli (New York City: Viking, 1981), 39–40. Najemy, 6. Ibid. John Scott, Machiavelli’s Prince (London: Routledge, 2016).

Introduction

9

While there are several Machiavellis, they may be grouped under two headings: the first is the figure of scholarship and history, dissected by the various academic disciplines placed under the headings of Renaissance history, I­ talian language and literature, and political theory. The other is a Machiavellian ­spirit, who lives on in other ways that we shall parade through the pages of Chapters 3 through 9 in a carnival of color and oddity. This Machiavelli, ever facing the future, is now a cultural artifact and a commercial product. If an image is useful let us say that Machiavelli is Janus-faced, one Machiavelli looking backward, the preserve of specialists, and an other Machiavel who faces the future in the wider and popular culture. In these pages we bring the two together. In cataloging the uses that revivify Machiavelli’s animus, we will be using the work of specialists in history, literature, and political theory to show how detached these lay uses of Machiavelli are from the words and deeds of the man himself. In that respect this is a work of rehabilitation, but one that cuts both ways, bringing the animus into scholarly focus even as we criticize its presentation and dissemination in popular culture. Many students of history and political theory coming across Machiavelli’s name and work look only briefly at text and leave it at that, sometimes relying heavily on the editor’s or translator’s introduction. Thereafter references to him are ritualistic, often made, dare we say it, without reading the original texts. In short, Machiavelli’s name is often invoked for some simple nostrums in academia as well as in other fields and popular culture. What is less well known is how often his name is applied to other more mercantile and distant professional purposes. This second Machiavel has spawned cottage industries in a number of fields, which, taken together, comprise Vulgar ­Machiavellianism. Karl Marx once said in exasperation at the way his complex theories of economics were reduced to mechanistic inevitabilities by some zealots whom he termed Vulgar Marxists, that he was not a Marxist. Machiavelli was not a M ­ achiavellian but – to borrow from Marx – there are many Vulgar M ­ achiavellians who have created and recreated the Machiavel whom we trace in these pages. To set the scene we return to the man himself in C ­ hapter 1, ‘Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?’ There we will trace the development of Machiavelli’s reputation as a teacher of evil and the connotations that have accrued around that reputation. Chapter 2, ‘The Hand of Satan,’ will investigate how ­Machiavelli’s reputation for evil was established by Il Principe, and trace this reputation through many of its turns to its becoming a cultural token of the twentieth century. This reputation is the cornerstone of nearly all that follows for the second Machiavelli. Chapter 3, ‘Machiavelli in Management: The Enterprise of Sir Antony Jay, Ltd,’ reveals how Machiavelli has become a major figure in one of the most

10

Introduction

influential intellectual domains of our times, management. This chapter concentrates on the first steps in annexing Machiavelli to this world in Sir Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli. Chapter 4, ‘Theory M,’ continues this examination of the uses and abuses of Machiavelli in the popular literature and those of business, commerce, and management in more detail. The flow of titles in books and articles in this ­domain that take Machiavelli’s name continues unabated and, although our survey ends in June 2017, will surely continue. As the doppelgänger Machiavel was being revivified in management, he was also at about the same time lending his spirit to social psychology with the ­development of a personality construct called Mach, short for Machiavellianism. This was quite a process and it remains a white-hot area of research. A search on the Web of Science in any three-month period will deliver dozens of studies using it from around the world. We consider this field, its range, and implications in Chapter 5, ‘The Science of Machiavellianism,’ referring to the scales used to identify kinds and degrees of Machiavellianism. Chapter 6, ‘Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli,’ explores the migration of Machiavelli to the study of primates. The Machiavellian personality construct inspired the concept of the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis in primate studies, and that in turn has migrated to the study of other creatures, and even some robots. The distorted Machiavel is active indeed and up to date for the twenty-first century. Chapter 7, ‘The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power,’ concerns the way proponents and practitioners of political power are associated, and sometimes associate themselves, with Machiavelli. In this chapter we survey some of the more recent and visible ways in which Machiavelli is conjured into popular discussions of power. Chapter 8, ‘The Reluctant Leader,’ examines the way in which Machiavelli’s alleged ‘hand of Satan’ figures in leadership studies, a growth industry since the 1990s. Everywhere we look there are people proclaiming themselves l­eaders; few organizations today are any longer content to have managers; instead they have leaders. Among other things, in this chapter we insist on distinguishing leadership from management. Not everyone is a leader. After all, there have to be some followers and some managers. We examine closely one exposition of leadership lessons ostensibly derived from Machiavelli, and to round out the picture, we also consult some of the academic research on leadership that ­refers to Machiavelli to show that is it not immune to Machiavel. In Chapter 9, ‘Machiavelli Ubiquitous,’ we gather a diffuse number of other references to Machiavelli in the popular culture, from board games to books about insults or poker, fantasy and romance novels, and rap music. The result

Introduction

11

is a menagerie of references, implications, and the like from plays and music to films and books with incongruous titles, like Tennis by Machiavelli. This is quite an exercise in cat-herding: the patience of the reader might be tested. Chapter 10, ‘The Second Time is Farce,’ ends the book with an account of Machiavelli in light of the use and abuse he has been put to. The title of this chapter is another derivation from the fecund Karl Marx, who discussing Georg Hegel in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon remarked that ­History ­repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. Machiavelli has had one contextomy after another as his words have been cut out of context and, thus shorn, attributed to him without qualification.14 Our bibliography sets forth in lengthy detail the many places where ­Machiavelli has been appropriated. We are confident that there is no other such bibliography of works exploiting Machiavelli. Many mention Machiavelli in the title, while saying little or nothing about him in the text. We hasten to add that ours is not a bibliography of scholarly works by experts in political theory, Italian history, language, and literature. To supply this need, we wish some ­Hercules would update Silvia Ruffo-Fiore’s magisterial 1990 bibliography.15 Let it be understood that we neither wish to confine Machiavelli to the Florence of his day, nor to license his aphorisms for eternity. But we do advocate moderation, caution, and qualification in the embrace of his words, arguments, and examples and their spread far and wide. With Machiavelli it is best to take nothing for granted, to inspect every egg before buying the dozen, as some Italians say. Machiavelli took maxims from ancient Rome with enthusiasm and r­ evised them for his own purposes. He was a creative thinker. Just as we read the works of Williams Shakespeare and Faulkner to reflect on the ­human condition and our own experiences of it, so we can read Machiavelli. But as we show in the chapters that follow, many contemporary writers have gone far b­ eyond those reflective purposes, claiming to take Machiavelli’s work as a manual for action and then applying his words to a carnival of domains and topics. This book is not an attempt to confine Machiavelli to the special and rarefied groves of academia, but we do wish to separate the man from the vulgar uses made of his reputation, and in so doing to take him seriously. The popular use made of his name is a disfiguring distortion and, at the very least, it should be recognized for what it is.

14 15

The term ‘contextomy’ comes from Paul Boller, Jr and John George, They Never Said It (New York City: Oxford University Press, 1989), 7. Ruffo-Fiore, Silvia, Niccolo Machiavelli: An Annotated bibliography of modern criticism and scholarship (New York: Greenwood, 1990).

Chapter 1

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli? Niccolò Machiavelli’s reputation has been sustained and contested for the past five hundred years because of one short book that he did not publish, The Prince. Originally a treatise on principalities, The Prince took on a transformed life as a book of instructions for new rulers, only to be adapted far more ambitiously in the twentieth century as a guide to managing a range of h ­ uman ­activities not directly connected with politics. The reward for its author has been a double reputation for cynicism and amorality, on the one hand, and for a scientific approach to politics and human conduct generally on the other. Machiavelli’s modern appropriators beyond the specialist fields have been little concerned with his intentions or the circumstances in which The Prince originated. Many have taken him to be addressing perennial political questions, as though he were writing about the timeless realms of astronomy or geometry. In this they unconsciously follow a tradition begun shortly after Machiavelli’s death. That early tradition was the shaper and carrier of Machiavelli’s reputation and that of his most famous work. Machiavelli lived in turbulent times. The Prince is a response to that turbulence and reflects rapid changes in the Italian Peninsula, Florence and ­Machiavelli’s own life. He refers constantly to sudden change in his books. How far these circumstances remove the man and his creation from modern stereotypes we show in this and succeeding chapters. We sketch the context in which The Prince was written, and the genesis of the reputation for cynicism and amorality it conferred upon its author.

The Times

Niccolò Machiavelli was born on 3 May 1469 in the Republic of Florence, the third child of Bernardo and Bartolomea. In the same year Lorenzo the Magnificent became leader of Florence. Nominally a republic, Florence had been ­effectively ruled by the Medici family since 1434, but the city, like the Peninsula, was politically unstable throughout the fifteenth century. In 1458, members of Machiavelli’s extended family were detected in a plot to overthrow the Medici. Another plot to unseat Lorenzo’s father, Piero de’ Medici, almost ­succeeded in 1466, and Piero had to fight off an attack by the Republic of Venice the following year. In 1478 the Pazzi, rival bankers to the Medici, plotted with the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_003

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

13

Archbishop of Pisa, a nephew of Pope Sixtus iv, to murder Lorenzo and his brother, Giuliano, at Mass. Giuliano was killed but Lorenzo escaped with slight injuries. The conspirators, including the Archbishop, were caught and swiftly executed. Unable to arrest Lorenzo, the Pope excommunicated him and threw in all of Florence for good measure. Sixtus then persuaded the King of Naples to declare war on Florence. After two years of expensive combat, Lorenzo took the courageous step of going to Naples to deal directly with his enemy. He persuaded the king that warring for the Pope was not in his interest, whereupon a peace treaty was concluded and twelve years of relative stability ensued. These events were reality for Machiavelli. He wrote about them in terms rather sympathetic to the Pazzi in Book viii of the Florentine Histories and also in the Discourses. Yet, the factional politics of Florence faded with the tumults in store. In 1492 Lorenzo died, and his less politically able son, Piero, succeeded him. The death of the King of Naples in 1494 encouraged Charles viii of France, with the support of Ludovico Sforza of Milan, to renew his claim to the ­Neapolitan throne, and he invaded Italy. Thus began over sixty years of warfare in the Peninsula often called the Italian Wars. Charles wanted approval to march his troops through Florence on his way to Naples, and Piero, seeking to emulate his f­ ather in dealing with the King of Naples, went to meet him. Lacking his father’s skills, he conceded the ports of Pisa and Livorno to the French for the duration of their campaign, an act that caused the Florentines to depose him and loot the Medici Palace. The French progress to Naples and the sacking of that city ­announced an alarming new factor in Italian politics, for they were soon to be countered by the League of Venice, which brought other foreign powers, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, into the Peninsula. This is, of course, the foreign domination so famously denounced in the last chapter of The Prince. The ­invaders brought a different scale of conflict to Italy. Machiavelli’s great contemporary Francesco Guicciardini noted the difference. He wrote in his History of Italy that in the year 1490, the Peninsula ‘had never enjoyed such prosperity, or known so favorable a situation.’1 But great changes were close. Before the year 1494 wars were protracted, battles bloodless, the methods followed in besieging towns slow and uncertain; and although ­artillery was already in use, it was managed with such want of skill that it caused little hurt. Hence it came that the ruler of a state could hardly be dispossessed. But the French, on their invasion of Italy, infused so much 1 Francesco Guicciardini, The History of Italy, trans. and ed. Sidney Alexander (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 4.

14

Chapter 1

l­ iveliness into our wars, that up to the year 1521, whenever the open country was lost the state was lost with it.2 After the overthrow of Piero, a new republican government was installed in Florence with the Dominican friar Savonarola its effective head. Savonarola interpreted the French invasion as God’s punishment for the wickedness of Florence, and exhorted its citizens to give up luxuries and do penance. This zealotry undid him. His trenchant attacks on Pope Alexander vi were met with heresy charges, ex-communication and support for his overthrow. In 1498 ­Savonarola was tried, tortured, hanged and burned in the Piazza della Signoria. He was succeeded by a republican government led by Piero Soderini, who was made Gonfalonier – head of the Florentine administration – for life. That same year, 1498, Niccolò Machiavelli accepted a position as head of the Florentine Second Chancery. His work in the Second Chancery gave him broad political experience, and brought him into close contact with political intrigue, unpredictability and ­upheaval in Italy, and abroad in France, the Tyrol, and Switzerland.3 As Guicciardini observed, a new kind of disorder came with the French ­descent into Italy in 1494. After that invasion, the peninsula looked less like a collection of ordered polities and more like a state of nature. Pope Alexander vi and his French allies gained control of the Romagna, with Cesare Borgia leading the papal armies. Alexander died in 1503. Within a month of his accession the new pope, Pius iii, a supporter of Cesare, followed. His successor, Giuliano della Rovere, Pope Julius ii, imprisoned Cesare, restored papal control of the ­Romagna and demanded that Venice return cities taken from the papacy. When Venice refused, Julius allied himself against it with the French. As this alliance did not yield the expected result, Julius turned his attention to restoring newly independent Bologna and Perugia to papal control. That done, he returned to d­ emands on Venice, and formed an anti-Venetian alliance with Emperor Maximilian i. The Venetians repelled the emperor’s attacks and forced Maximilian to make peace. The Pope then formed the League of Cambrai with Louis xii of France, the Holy Roman Empire and Ferdinand i of Spain to subdue Venice. In 1509 the French routed the Venetians, with the support of the Empire, and Julius occupied the Romagna. Venice sued for peace despite tough terms set by the Pope, but regarded the truce as nugatory because it was exacted under p ­ ressure. Despite this rapprochement between papacy 2 Guicciardini, Ricordi, 64. 3 J.R. Hale provides a concise overview of Machiavelli’s works in Chapters 2–7 of Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972).

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

15

and ­republic, the French invaded the Venetian city of Vicenza. Julius was now wary of the French, and acquired Swiss mercenaries to attack their stronghold, ­Milan. He also made an alliance with his former enemy, Venice, against his recent ally, Louis. These tactics were of no avail against the French, and by 1511 they had taken the Romagna. In response, the Pope formed the Holy League, which included Spain, the Holy Roman Empire – and England. The French were e­ xpelled from Italy by the end of 1512, the Sforza were restored to Milan, and the Medici to Florence, with Giuliano as their leader. Venice expected the return of territory, but the Emperor was unwilling to surrender gains so ­recently acquired, and agreed with the Pope to remove Venice from the division of spoils. Venice responded by making an alliance once again with the French, who returned in May 1513. The conflict widened to include English attacks on French soil and Scottish attacks on the English. With the death of Julius in February 1513 the League declined. It effectively ended in 1516 with the concession of Milan to France and Naples to Spain. Machiavelli’s summary account of the success of Pope Julius ii in Chapter xxv of The Prince is written against this background in the detached and analytical style of an official. It is curious because it attributes Julius’ success not to his virtù but instead to his lack of it – to an impetuousness, which enabled him to master fortune. Machiavelli’s message, then, is that a prince whose nature suits the times will be fortunate even if he is imprudent, and that impetuosity is better than caution. In 1513, Machiavelli’s friend Francesco Vettori had written to him voicing skepticism about understanding the actions of princes. In the midst of sudden change, Vettori doubted that politics could be rational for actors or intelligible to observers. Najemy points out that while Machiavelli’s correspondence deflected the issues raised by Vettori, The Prince takes them up in Chapter xxv. Machiavelli acknowledges that events are so various and, it seems, ‘beyond human conjecture,’ that human action seems futile. The shadow of the times falls upon the works of those who consider them. Reflecting on the contingency of life, position and wealth, Guicciardini wrote: When I consider to what risks and perils of sickness, accident, violence, and numberless other ills, the life of man is open, and call to mind how many circumstances must combine throughout the year to ensure a good harvest, nothing fills me with more wonder than that any man should live to be old, or any year be fruitful.4 4 Guicciardini, Ricordi, 161.

16

Chapter 1

The urgency lent to politics by such reflections is not readily intelligible to the citizens of stable Western democracies. Yet this tumultuous history is the background and context of The Prince. To Machiavelli, formed amid instability and working in a political environment subject to sudden changes of fortune, it was all troublingly familiar. It informs his works, as in the famous discussion of conspiracies in the Discourses, where the failure of the Pazzi conspiracy is described in clinical detail in Book iii. These events were confounding, but Machiavelli did not try to understand them by moralizing. He pursued ‘new modes’ to recommend a prudence that would make politics intelligible and, in the right hands, manageable.

The Man

The Machiavelli were an old Florentine family without wealth or high status. Machiavelli’s father, Bernardo, was born between 1426 and 1429. He had a doctorate in law, but did not practice. In 1457 he made a politically inopportune match in marrying Bartolomea Benizi, the very young widow of N ­ iccolò di ­Girolamo Benizi, whose family was anti-Medici. Bernardo’s own family had also been implicated in plots against the Medici through his cousin, ­Girolamo Machiavelli, who was exiled and eventually imprisoned for his activities. These tainted political connections effectively put an end to Bernardo’s hopes to practice law in Florence.5 It did not help that he was a serial debtor and maintained very few useful and active political connections. Effectively compelled to choose an apolitical life, Bernardo was excluded from practising law.6 I­ronically, Bernardo’s apolitical background might have helped secure ­Niccolò a position as head of the Second Chancery.7 Bernardo, himself a reputable scholar, had given his son a good education, the necessary passport to advancement in Florentine public administration.8 Niccolò’s education was steeped in Latin authors, most notably Cicero, Sallust and Livy, an index to whose Decades was prepared by his father.9 5 Some of what we know about Machiavelli comes from one of his father’s notebooks, see Catherine Atkinson, Debts, Dowries, Donkeys: The Diary of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Father (Berlin: Peter Lang, 2002). 6 For Machiavelli’s family background and especially the biography of his father, see Robert Black, Machiavelli (London: Routledge, 2013), Chapter One. 7 Niccolò Capponi, An Unlikely Prince: The Life and Times of Machiavelli (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2010), 38. 8 Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 4–5. 9 Black, Machiavelli, 12–13.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

17

Paul Rahe has argued that Machiavelli reflects little of this education in ­ oman authors and nothing of the Greeks so central to humanism because he R rejects their shared assumption that the purpose of government is to produce good communities and good people rather than to project power. Rahe allows one exception: the Roman Epicurean poet and natural philosopher, L­ ucretius.10 Appraised against the standards of professional humanism, ­Machiavelli might seem wanting.11 He was not a scholar like Giovanni Pico and Angelo P ­ oliziano, but he was nonetheless steeped in classical texts, concerned for the purity of language, and he evinced in his political vocation the literary credentials of humanist courtiers of his time.12 And, pace Hale, he was more than a copyist. Manuscript copies of Terence’s Eunuch and Lucretius’ De rerum natura in ­Niccolò’s hand are held in the Vatican Library, and Robert Black argues that Machiavelli wanted to produce an edition of Lucretius more critical than previous versions.13 How much Machiavelli absorbed from De rerum natura is difficult to tell, but Celenza relates it to the ethos of La Mandragola, and finds echoes of its doctrines in The Prince.14 Rahe goes even further: Machiavelli is not a classical republican, so the Roman stress on character is irrelevant to him. His republicanism is built on the perpetual efforts of men to secure their interests and is informed by the Epicureanism of Lucretius.15 Perhaps if a single strand of thinking and its begetters were at stake this would be plausible, but it is not necessary to allege ‘influence’ here: Lucretius, Terence and other ancient writers were reference points for Renaissance thinkers in ways that require sensitive reading. A figure like Thomas More, whose status was fixed by his martyrdom, could use the ancients without entailing problems for his reputation.16 Pagan authors such as Lucian were relegated by his ­Recusant ­promoters 10

Paul Rahe, Against Throne and Altar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 31–32. 11 J.R. Hale argues his humanism was limited. He ‘was not a professional humanist: he could not edit a Latin text.’ Renaissance Europe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 276. 12 See e.g., James Hankins, ‘Humanism and Modern Political Thought’ in Jill Kraye (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 134. 13 Christopher Celenza, Machiavelli: A Portrait (Cambridge Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 2015), 136–137 and Black, Machiavelli, 19. 14 To the contrary see Anthony Parel, ‘Farewell to Fortune,’ The Review of Politics 75, 2013, 587–604. 15 Rahe, Against Throne and Altar, 32–36. 16 Even allowing for the substantial impact on his reputation in Protestant circles by Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1563).

18

Chapter 1

to the uncontroversial areas of intellectual and stylistic background. With a contested writer, like Machiavelli, the situation is otherwise: it is easier to read the direct influence of contentious authors like Lucretius into his works. That ease of interpretation can be highly misleading and we take the ancients not as lenses through which to view Machiavelli, but as part of the intellectual environment in which he composed and his audience read his works. Machiavelli’s appointment to the Second Chancery was a piece of good fortune for a young man whose expectations cannot have matched his family pride. He declared his family the equal of the Pazzi, but the political disfavor of the Medici and his father’s persistent debts had damaged his prospects.17 A change of fortune saw Machiavelli translated into the Second Chancery, whose affairs were basically domestic but included relations with Florence’s territories. The First Chancery dealt with foreign relations. Less than two months ­after his appointment, Machiavelli took on the additional job of secretary to the magistracy called the Dieci, when it merged with the Second Chancery. While the Signoria conducted full-blown diplomacy with other powers, the Dieci or the Ten on Peace and Liberty handled relations with local areas and lesser ­Italian cities. In this role he distinguished himself. He was never a full ambassador because that distinction was reserved for the nobility and would never be his.18 He was a cautious diplomat, always wary of those with whom he dealt, and always candid with his Florentine masters about the wiles ­employed to outwit him. In 1505–6 Soderini allowed Machiavelli to raise a militia from the Florentine territories as a replacement for the unreliable mercenaries the city had been using for its defense.19 In 1509, after 15 unsuccessful years, these Florentine forces were finally able to retake their old possession, Pisa. Some credit for this was directly due to Machiavelli, but his career took a sudden reversal when Pope Julius ii organized a Holy League to drive France, F­ lorence’s ally, out of Italy. After losing the battle of Ravenna in 1512, the League succeeded in pushing the French from Tuscany, drove Soderini from Florence, and restored the Medici. In securing their victory, the Spaniards sacked the city of Prato which they ‘filled with rape and sacrilege.’ Prato was defended by Machiavelli’s hapless militia. Machiavelli blamed their defeat on cowardice.20 17 Black, Machiavelli, 10. 18 See Christopher Celenza, Machiavelli: A Portrait, 37–38. 19 John M. Najemy, A History of Florence, 1200–1575 (Malden, ma: Blackwell, 2008), 84–85; James Atkinson, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: a portrait’ in John M. Najemy (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 19. 20 ‘To an unidentified lady,’ September 1512, letter 115, in Gilbert, Chief Works and Others, vol. 2, 893.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

19

With the collapse of Florentine resistance to the Pope and Soderini’s sub­ sequent flight, Guiliano de’ Medici became briefly the new master of Florence, and Machiavelli lost his job. His achievements after fourteen years in office are difficult to identify. Although he was well regarded by his superiors, he was not the complete man of political affairs. He seemed oblivious to the fact that he was envied and resented, and he could be incautious in his political ­utterances.21 In 1509 his friend Filippo Casavecchia had warned him to heed the signs of danger: ‘Niccolò, this is a time when if ever one was wise it should be now. I do not believe your ideas will ever be accessible to fools, and there are not enough wise men to go around…’22 By 1512 friends, such as Giovanni Folchi (later arrested and imprisoned by the Medici), began avoiding him, and Paolo Vettori warned that his indiscretions would be noticed. Machiavelli was confined to Florentine territory for a year.23 Early the following year his name was found on a list of conspirators and he was imprisoned and tortured. Released as part of a general pardon when Giovanni de’ Medici was elected Pope Leo x, he retreated to his farm at Sant’Andrea in Percussina. Here, fifteen kilometers south-west of Florence, he whiled away the time corresponding with friends and writing his reflections on politics. His letters to his friend the diplomat, Francesco Vettori, constitute a treasure of commentary on contemporary politics. At the end of 1513, he commenced writing a small book with the Latin title, De principatibus (Concerning Principalities). This title was changed much later by its first publisher to Il Principe, The Prince. Unlike some other political casualties of the Medici restoration, Machiavelli was not recalled to service. His letters to Francesco Vettori reveal his frustration at this exclusion. He longed to return to affairs of state. His deprivation was real, but perhaps he exaggerated his misery.24 In December 1513, he wrote the most famous of his letters to Vettori in Rome about the mundane distractions of his exile on his farm. He attended to agricultural affairs and consorted with the locals at the inn, where he gossiped and played games. In the evening, however, he retired to his books and, shedding the raiments of a farmer, ‘put on garments regal and courtly,’ and so arrayed, entered the company of his equals, the captains and leaders of antiquity. Only in such company could he feel himself: ‘I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am

21 Black details his incaution well in Machiavelli, 76. 22 Correspondence 181–182 quoted by Atkinson, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: a portrait,’ 20. 23 Black, Machiavelli, 76. 24 Capponi paints a more congenial picture of Machiavelli’s exile. An Unlikely Prince, 208.

20

Chapter 1

not frightened by death.’25 Thus was Machiavelli for many years compelled to live. Those years were not wasted. Between 1513 and 1515, he composed The Prince and, with greater deliberation and polish, the Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy. He also wrote the plays La Mandragola (1518) and Clizia (1525), and the Histories of Florence (1521–25). Only The Art of War (1521) was written for publication and published in his lifetime. The Discourses, like The Prince, was published in 1532, four years after his death. These literary pursuits filled Machiavelli’s hours and days. He was partly rehabilitated in 1520 when his friends persuaded Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici to commission from him a history of Florence, but by the time he had completed it in 1525 the Cardinal had moved to Rome to become Pope Clement vii. Machiavelli died of peritonitis on 22 June 1527, without realizing his dream of a return to public service. Fortune brought Machiavelli to the Second Chancery and to service of the Ten, then cast him aside. Yet Fortune was kinder than he realized. As a servant of Florence, Machiavelli would have written mainly legations, reports to his superiors. Perhaps as a public official, he might never have set down his conversations with ancient authors or recorded his reflections on contemporary power struggles. The world would have forgotten Machiavelli the public administrator and author of diplomatic briefs, but Machiavelli the writer e­ ndures and his works have become classics. Machiavelli’s life was framed by his attachment to Florence. In 1527, near the end of his life, he is alleged to have written in a letter to his friend Vettori, ‘I love my native city more than my own soul.’26 Machiavelli frequently exaggerated for effect, but there is no reason to question his love of his native city. That attachment is significant: his letters dealing with the affairs of Florence, like his other works, reflect the concerns of a man formed in a small world who has become a fascinated spectator of a larger one.27 Even as a practical diplomat, Machiavelli was busy interpreting court politics and the conduct 25 26

27

‘To Francesco Vettori,’ 10 December 1513, letter 137, in Allan Gilbert (ed. and trans.) Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 2 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989), 1010. To Francesco Vettori, 16 April 1527, letter 225 in Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 2, 1010. James Atkinson notes that ‘than my own soul’ is a conjecture because words have been erased from this letter. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: a portrait’ in John M. Najemy (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 27. This affection for Florence did not prevent him from imploring Vettori to procure him a favorable hearing with the Pope and other potential Roman employers. To Francesco Vettori, 9 April 1513, letter 120 in Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 2, 900–901. Alessandro Arienzo and Alessandra Petrina write in their introduction to Machiavellian Encounters in Tudor and Stuart England (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 5, that Machiavelli,

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

21

of rulers to his masters in Florence. Those years of diplomacy made him familiar with the problem of sudden political change. How does a government deal with unanticipated changes of circumstance and the disruption of plans and expectations? How can one be skilled in politics when Fortune is capricious? His responses to these questions are grounded in a very particular kind of experience, and he views contemporary events and history through it. This has not prevented interpreters from making him a universal figure, a philosopher or political scientist, whose insights dissolve immense differences of time and  place.28 Machiavelli was a theorist in the original meaning of one who observes to understand, but no philosopher.29 He drew lessons from his experiences but these lessons met the demands of a particular time. Even though some of his maxims about human nature and power seem general, they were not the abstract speculations of a philosopher and he was notoriously inconsistent and even messy in his thinking. In early sixteenth-century terms, he was an anti-philosopher. As Charles Schmitt points out, he ‘upset the clear rational categories of Aristotelian political theory.’30 Machiavelli’s temperament was at odds with philosophical argument, and his concerns were far too immediate and grounded in his experience in office to be philosophical. Philosophical distinctions would have impeded his torrent of observations. Practical concerns and practical objects drove these, his theoretical ghiribizzi (caprices). Hence when Machiavelli’s ‘philosophy’ is discussed, it is often his ‘outlook’ that is meant.31 Machiavelli is a rhetorical thinker and writer. The rhetoric that carried his message also possessed him: he was both its author and its creature, ambiguous and ironic, and able to be read in contradictory ways.32

28 29

30 31

32

‘at least as concerns The Prince, would seem almost exclusively concerned with very local politics.’ See, for example, Piero Ottone’s Foreword to Elena and Luigi Spagnol, Machiavelli Per i Manager, 2nd Ed. (Milano: Ponte alle Grazie, 1999). Harvey Mansfield, Jr offered a subtle interpretation of Machiavelli as philosopher in ‘Machiavelli’s Enterprise,’ in Timothy Fuller (ed.) Machiavelli’s Legacy: The Prince after Five Hundred Years (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). Celenza, for example, disputes that The Prince is ‘a work of political theory notionally valid for all time, to be permanently memorialized in print.’ Machiavelli: A Portrait, 71. Charles Schmitt, John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England (Kingston: ­McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983), 185. Such is Alison Brown’s usage in coming to terms with his inconsistencies and vagaries of thought, ‘Philosophy and religion in Machiavelli’ in Najemy, Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, Chapter 10. See Condren, The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts, 219–225.

22

Chapter 1

No thinker avoids abstraction, especially in laying down precepts, but ­ achiavelli was not a disinterested or a speculative thinker. Relentlessly didacM tic he squeezes an event – ancient or modern – for its tactical and ­instructional value. His attitude to politics was cynical; his attitude to political knowledge was not. His approach was to search out some event in Roman or Greek history and fit it into an explanation of contemporary events. Sydney Anglo ­argues that observation governed Machiavelli’s analysis and that the examples drawn from ancient authors, like Livy, were ornamental, ‘an elaborate and ­irrelevant superstructure.’33 Mistaken judgments did not incline him to revise this method because he was not aware that he had one – at least, not as we would ­understand the term. Hence, readings of Machiavelli as some kind of early philosophical prophet of modernity misunderstand and misrepresent his ­relation to his times. Louis Althusser, for example, offers a history-free interpretation of The Prince that makes Machiavelli a stranger to himself.34 Whether or not Machiavelli was a philosopher is not a pedantic question, and resolving it is important to interpreting what he has to say. He was not somehow a bad ­philosopher; he did not fail to be something he was not trying to be. He was writing a work of imagination, no less experimental than More’s Utopia. The Prince is a literary work that succeeds, not a philosophical one that fails. That Machiavelli was not a philosopher does not mean he did not have an impact on political philosophy. Indeed, it is clear that he did, and on religious polemics too. The shock value of The Prince carried a moral message far beyond politics and the establishment of new principalities. Machiavelli’s intention to instruct new rulers in prudence, with its untethering of politics from conventional moral instruction, encouraged the assimilation of the maxims of The Prince into social life. Machiavelli did do something of philosophical significance: he changed prudence from its received meaning of right reason applied to action into what Soll calls, ‘a method of pure political effectiveness.’35 He was recognized posthumously as a moral philosopher, and The Prince earned a place in the philosophical canon, if not in many philosophy department ­reading lists. He figures both in histories of Renaissance philosophy and in the general histories of Bertrand Russell, Frederick Copleston and Anthony Kenny.36 Indeed, genuine philosopher or not, it now seems impossible to leave him out. 33 34 35 36

Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli (London: Paladin, 1971), 243. Louis Althusser, Machiavelli and Us (London: Verso, 2001). Jacob Soll, ‘The Reception of The Prince 1513–1700, or Why We Understand Machiavelli the Way We Do,’ Social Research, 81 (2014) 1, 32. See, for example, Heinrich Kuhn, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’ in Paul Blum ed., Philosophers of the Renaissance (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010); Brian C ­ openhaver

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

23

There is a penalty to pay for abstracting from The Prince. Understanding a text written five centuries ago is not accomplished merely by reading a ­modern rendering of it. Modern interpreters should not simply ignore the circumstances of past writers and discuss their works as if they were composed in a ­transcendent eternal present, free of the particulars of time and place. Unhistorical readings engender mistakes, such as Machiavelli’s celebrated use of lo stato as ‘state.’ The modern concept of the state developed from usages like Machiavelli’s, which became reified in the new secular entity after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). But Machiavelli and his contemporaries did not use the term to indicate this modern impersonal, abstract, and secular entity possessed of a legal personality and sovereignty over a particular territory and people.37 Sixteenth-century Florentines did not have such a concept available to them. Quentin Skinner argues that Machiavelli, ‘never talks about the person of the state, and there is no evidence that he had any grasp of the idea of state personality.’38 In some instances, all that Machiavelli means by a ruler maintaining his state (mantenere lo stato) is a prince keeping his standing. The ‘state’ familiar to modern readers is an actor, but for Machiavelli and his contemporaries it was passive.39 Lo stato could be a republic or a principality but it also resembled an estate, a territory possessed by a ruler. William Connell points out that once this possessive aspect of lo stato is understood, ‘one can see that Machiavelli’s language is more immediate and much less abstract and impersonal’ than is often rendered in translation.40 Indeed, claims to territory

37 38

39 40

and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992) and also Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (London: Routledge Classics, 2008); Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. iii, Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, 1998); Anthony Kenny, A New History of Western Philosophy, vol. iii The Rise of Modern Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006). Harvey Mansfield, Jr, Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 288 ff.; Black, Machiavelli, 100–101. Skinner, ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’ Cf. Skinner, ‘The state’ in Terence Ball, James Farr, Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 90–131. For a critique of Skinner and an argument for the long development of the concept of the state, see Alan Harding, ‘The Origins of the Concept of the State,’ History Of Political Thought, 15 (1994) 1, 57–72. Harding’s argument would be more persuasive if he did not discuss the concept of the state for there have been and are many concepts of the state. Erica Benner, Machiavelli’s Prince: A New Reading (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 11. William J. Connell, ‘A note about the text and translation’ in his edition of The Prince (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), xi. Philip Bobbitt puts the contrary case, traditional

24

Chapter 1

based on ancient donations, like that of Pepin, or dynastic rights, marriages and conquest, so little resemble the state that the anachronism surprises. Sensitivity to such nuances should be expected of scholars, but popular culture is another matter. If The Prince can be regarded as a handbook for political ­intriguers, perhaps it is not too surprising that it has also become an authority for enterprises that have little, if anything, to do with Machiavelli or his book. The historical Machiavelli has become more, not less, obscure as his notoriety has increased. His absorption into popular culture has made him familiar without making him better known. How has this happened?

The Book

Christopher Celenza has characterized The Prince as akin to an engagement in a conversation in which Machiavelli drew extensively, indeed almost ­exclusively, on direct experience.41 Celenza thought The Prince conversational despite ­being one-sided: the interlocutor – a prince – is assumed. James ­Atkinson finds Machiavelli’s ability to immerse himself in conversation – real or i­magined – as ‘intrinsic to his virtuosity as a writer and originality as a p ­ olitical theorist.’42 Although this view is somewhat at odds with the suggestion that a prince’s virtù (power as much as prudence) would be compromised by listening to other voices,43 it does accord with the use of dialogue in the fifteenth century and humanist rhetorical practice in the sixteenth century. In placing weight on ­Machiavelli’s discursive style, Atkinson recognized that politics is a kind of conversation, a rational consideration of choices in utramque partem. in histories of political theory, that Machiavelli regarded the state as an entity in its own right which is not to be identified with the personal property or power of the prince, The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World that He Made (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2013). This view is endorsed with qualifications by Quentin Skinner, ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’ New York Review of Books, 5 June 2014. Skinner notes that the opening chapter of The Prince distinguishes principalities from republics, ‘thereby separating the general idea of the state from the different constitutional forms in which it can be embodied.’ But he later adds, ‘Machiavelli … never talks about the person of the state, and there is no evidence that he had any grasp of the idea of state personality.’ 41 Christopher Celenza, Machiavelli: A portrait (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2015), 71. Cf. Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 114–117. 42 James Atkinson, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: a portrait,’ in Najemy, The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, 14–15. 43 Najemy, Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513–1515 (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1993), 195–197.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

25

­ achiavelli used dialogue to weigh both sides of the question in The Art of M War, reflecting on motives and causes, and envisioning possible futures. In his personal and diplomatic letters Machiavelli tamed the upheavals of his time in prose. In transposing these reflections to more literary modes he does the same thing. This does not make Machiavelli different from many other writers and nor does it make him the first political or social scientist. Those who claim this status for him might mistake the sixteenth-century use of the term, ‘science’ (scientia) meaning ‘knowledge,’ for its restricted modern uses; or they might believe that Machiavelli actually discovered and recorded, through observation and reading, what modern political scientists have confirmed through statistical analysis and numerical modeling. Neither interpretation of political science fits the historical Machiavelli and neither is plausible when unpacked. Machiavelli’s claims about general principles of human nature and history are no more scientific in a modern sense than those presented by Lucretius. Machiavelli was certainly not an objective and dispassionate writer, displaying the characteristics of modern (impartial) science, but partisan, a committed republican.44 This does not mean that Machiavelli is without science. On the contrary, his prudence agrees with Peter Harrison’s explication of scientia before the seventeenth century. Scientia then referred to an agent’s disposition as well as a body of knowledge in propositional form. Indeed, scientia encompassed both a moral end and personal wisdom, or habit or disposition, and could not have been impersonal and objective.45 According to these criteria of science, Machiavelli would have felt well qualified to pronounce on politics. Yet these same standards also disqualify him from the status frequently attributed to him of first political scientist (in a modern sense). Harrison dates the current meaning of ‘science’ to the nineteenth century, when the term’s reference had narrowed to the natural sciences.46 For these reasons, Machiavelli could not have been the founder of modern political science, yet his near contemporaries criticized him for being unscientific, as we shall presently see, precisely because he lacked the right habit of mind. Jacob Burckhardt entitled the first part of his seminal book, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, ‘The Renaissance State as a Work of Art.’ The Prince might well, on this analogy, be called the first expressionist work of p ­ olitical theory. Capponi remarks that Machiavelli, ‘always considered ­himself first and

44 Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), vol. 1, 153. 45 Harrison, Territories of Science and Religion, 12–13. 46 Ibid., 14.

26

Chapter 1

foremost a man of letters rather than a political theorist.’47 Making the appropriate historical allowances, there is a great deal of truth in this ­remark. In some ways, Il Principe resembles that other great contemporary work of ­political imagination, Utopia. Heinrich Kuhn claims that Machiavelli’s ‘impetus (was) to set up an ideal state’ – but not a Utopia.48 Both Machiavelli and More wrote their master works in a period of ‘enforced idleness,’ and both sundered traditional genres of political writing in favor of forms expressive of their new visions of politics.49 Both figure in the history of Western philosophy. Moreover, soon after their deaths their reputations were shaped, in part, by Cardinal Pole – Machiavelli’s for the worse and More’s for the better. And the epithets ‘Machiavellian’ and ‘Utopian’ became variously terms of praise and disapproval over the course of five hundred years. Both The Prince and Utopia, are originating masterpieces, at least partly because of the opportunities they offered to readers across the centuries to adapt them creatively – if not always faithfully. Machiavelli’s fame and his infamy rest unquestionably on The Prince. This small book of twenty-six short chapters has, like Utopia and the Communist Manifesto, made an impact disproportionate to its size. Indeed, that impact seems largely due to just four chapters – xv to xxviii – which focus on the moral qualities of the prince and contain its most cited passages. The chapters on types of principalities, their acquisition and administration, their defense with mercenaries and fortresses, the differences between Ottoman and French bureaucracy seem to hold little interest for modern readers. Yet, Machiavelli’s theme is itself unfamiliar to those readers, namely the ways in which a new prince (or ruler) may secure legitimacy and authority over subjects and territories, lo stato, to possess the ‘state.’ Hereditary possessions do not raise the same questions of legitimacy as new ones, and it is principalities and their problems, not republics, that Machiavelli addresses in The Prince. In the modern democratic world where states are not personal possessions and governments change regularly without much fuss, this theme might ­appear puzzling. In Machiavelli’s time – and in particular, given the circumstances of Florence set forth above – it was a question of some urgency. Machiavelli ­offers to solve it for the potential ruler – who is not necessarily the dedicatee of his book. The Prince was putatively destined for presentation to Giuliano 47 Capponi, An Unlikely Prince, 12. 48 Heinrich Kuhn, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’ in Paul Blum ed., Philosophers of the Renaissance (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 117–118. 49 This usage of the term is Dominic Baker-Smith’s, More’s Utopia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 31.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

27

de’ ­Medici, the only Medici with whom Machiavelli had a personal relationship, but when Giuliano died in 1516, Machiavelli substituted the name of his nephew and successor, Lorenzo.50 Though conventional in some respects, this dedication is unconventional in others. Desiring … to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence. As Viroli has pointed out, had The Prince been an appeal for Medici favor, it would have been replete with praise for their achievements; it would have flattered them. But it does not. Machiavelli ‘was not a follower of the ­Medici; he wanted the Medici to follow him.’51 Another unconventional aspect of the ­dedication is that Machiavelli does not appeal to the traditional catalog of Christian and classical virtues to instruct the prince but rather to his own ­authority as an experienced observer of contemporary politics informed by his study of antiquity. If, as Anglo argues, antiquity is decorative in The Prince, then the weight of authority actually falls upon Machiavelli himself – not a conventionally modest form of dedication. Despite the original title, De principatibus, declaring it to be a book about principalities, The Prince fits the genre of politico-moral instruction for ­rulers called speculum principis, mirror of princes.52 Yet, as the dedication to L­ orenzo shows, Machiavelli’s work marks a radical departure from the genre. He must 50 See Black, Machiavelli, 24–26. 51 Viroli, Redeeming The Prince, 49. 52 This is most fully explored in Allan Gilbert, Machiavelli’s Prince and Its Forerunners: The Prince as a typical book de regimine principum (Durham; Duke University Press, 1938). Philip Bobbitt, The Garments of Court and Palace, argues that The Prince does not belong to this tradition, that Machiavelli was not familiar with it and had no interest in challenging it. He argues that The Prince and the Discourses are not written in different genres, but together form a coherent constitutional treatise. Reviewing Bobbitt, Quentin Skinner affirms that The Prince clearly falls into the mirror of princes tradition while agreeing with Bobbitt that it is a constitutional treatise. ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’ New York Review of Books, 5 June 2014. Bobbitt’s reply is printed in the September 25, 2014 issue of the New York Review of Books, together with Skinner’s response. One factor supporting Gilbert’s and Skinner’s position is the easy adoption of De principatibus into

28

Chapter 1

truly have believed his Prince a gift more precious than jewels, and a demonstration of the skill he could bring to an appointment in the prince’s administration. Thus arose the explanation of Machiavelli’s motive in writing The Prince as a job application. A display of credentials was typical of mirror of princes books, but why would a man so recently driven from office, a­ rrested and tortured believe that the regime responsible would find such a work persuasive?53 Was it ‘a cri du coeur born of suffering and despair’ written in the manner of Josef Stalin’s victims defending their own persecution at show trials ‘in the hope of securing favor?’54 Hale believes ‘The book was written … primarily for its own sake, not for use as a testimonial.’55 Black suggests that Machiavelli’s youthful friendship with Guilio might explain his hope of rehabilitation under a Medici regime.56 Viroli revives an old interpretation of The Prince as an oration calling for a man who can effect the liberation of Italy.57 For Garrett ­Mattingly, the issue of legitimacy arises precisely because ‘new prince’ is code for a very nasty type of ruler: the tyrant.58 Mattingly suggests that Machiavelli is satirizing monarchical rule as tyrannical. Although difficult to credit, this suggestion has historical precedent: Cardinal Pole anticipated it by four centuries.59 The Prince is such an apparent volte-face from an ardent republican that it is not unreasonable to read it as satirizing the conduct of princes. Others have suggested Machiavelli drew portraits of evil to deter princes from infamous conduct. Modern critics, such as Erica Benner, adapt this interpretation and see The Prince as an ironic unmasking of brutal politics and the rhetoric that hides it.60 These alternative explanations undermine the plausibility of the job application theory. Accepting what the author wrote, foreign as it might be to the concerns of the twenty-first century, could dispel some of the mystery.

the ­conventional instruction format by Nifo in his De regnandi peritia. Clearly Nifo saw Machiavelli’s work as fitting that genre. 53 See Lisa Jardine’s Introduction to Erasmus’ Education of a Christian King, trans. N. Cheshire and M. Heath, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xx–xxiv. 54 Alexander Lee, ‘Machiavelli: Not So Machiavellian?’ History Today, 26 February 2013, accessed 30.9.14 at http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/02/machiavelli-not-so-machiavellian. 55 Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 119 and 121. 56 Black, Machiavelli, 25. 57 Maurizio Viroli, Redeeming the Prince (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014). 58 Garrett Mattingly, ‘Machiavelli’s Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?’ The American Scholar, 27 (1958)4, 482–491. 59 Isaiah Berlin said of Mattingly’s suggestion that ‘no work seems to me to read less like [a satire].’ ‘The Question of Machiavelli,’ New York Review of Books, 4 November, 1971, 1. 60 Erica Benner, Machiavelli’s Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

29

From its earliest circulation in manuscript form, it was clear that The Prince was a potent book. Some of its early readers, like Pisan ­philosopher and ­Medici client, Agostino Nifo (1473–1538), tried to temper its more ­inflammatory sections. Many manuscript versions of The Prince had circulated before ­Machiavelli’s works were first published in 1532. That is how a copy of De p­ rincipatibus must have come into the hands of Nifo, who was probably known to Machiavelli. Nifo plundered De principatibus without acknowledgment in his own De regnandi peritia (On Skill in Ruling) published in 1523. It parallels much of Machiavelli’s work, at times translating word-for-word his Tuscan into Latin. Though De regnandi peritia derives from a manuscript of The Prince, it also omits much, such as the detailed accounts of Cesare Borgia. It is in fact a cleaned up version, one suited to counseling Emperor Charles v. Nifo consciously departed from mirror of princes books to emphasize the skill of ruling, and Machiavelli provides an unusual choice of model.61 Just as medical books warn of poisons by describing them, so Nifo draws upon Machiavelli to warn Charles against the crimes of tyrants and kings.62 Niccolò Capponi suggests that Machiavelli’s sensitivity to literary theft makes it is likely that he was complicit in Nifo’s use of his material.63 Nifo’s work could have tested the extent of hostility to some of the more confronting aspects of Machiavelli’s original.64 According to this view, De principatibus breached the decorum of advice to princes and Machiavelli knew it would attract criticism. Time proved him right and so did the early reaction of his friends. When Biagio Buonaccorsi sent Pandolfo Bellaci a sample from the book around 1516, he told Bellacci ‘to be prepared to utterly defend it against those who, out of malice or envy, might desire … to rip and tear it apart.’65 Perhaps Machiavelli did collaborate with Nifo, but a more plausible explanation is that, like Buonaccorsi and Bellaci, Nifo came across De principatibus as it circulated in manuscript. Whatever the case, Nifo clearly recognized that his sanitized version of the book would resonate positively with its audience and bring credit to its author. As Machiavelli’s works became more widely known in print, reactions ranged from denunciations to praise for his insights. Even a wide appreciation 61

Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 47–48. 62 Paul Larivaille and Simone Pernet-Beau, trans., Une Reecriture Du Prince De Machiavelli: Le De Regnandi Peritia De Agostino Nifo, trans. Simone Pernet-Beau, Documents du ­c rlli, Vol. 37 (Paris: Université Paris X-Nanterre, 1987), 7. 63 Machiavelli’s anxiety about the theft of his work is recorded in his famous letter to Vettori in December 1513. See Connell’s translation, The Prince, 139. 64 Capponi, An Unlikely Prince, 224; Connell, The Prince, 21. 65 Capponi, An Unlikely Prince, 221–222.

30

Chapter 1

of those insights was, however, no match for the intense opposition of a few. ­Machiavelli’s principal detractors – on the Catholic side, Reginald Cardinal Pole, and on the Protestant, Innocent Gentillet – exercised an ­extraordinary and ­far-­reaching power over his reputation. For they were largely responsible for turning the obscure sometime secretary of the Second Chancery of ­Florence,  into that stock figure of propagandists, religious polemicists and dramatists, the Machiavel. Pole blamed The Prince for Henry viii’s rupture with Rome and Gentillet blamed it for the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. These audacious claims and their progeny significantly shaped the reputation of Machiavelli and his text from the sixteenth century to the Twenty-First. The polemical usages of Pole and Gentillet are recalled in texts that implicate M ­ achiavelli in Jesuit maneuvers, the French Revolution, the strategy of ­Bismarck, and the fascist, Soviet and Nazi regimes.66 Machiavelli points out that his advice departs from that usually offered to princes in instruction manuals (The Prince, Chapter xv), which aimed at inducing restraint rather than justifying force and violence. Erasmus, for example, in his Education of a Christian Prince (1518), declared that he ‘had the idea of setting forth the ideal of a perfect prince for the general good’ because a king is endowed with regal qualities that fit him to rule, ‘namely wisdom, a sense of justice, personal restraint, foresight, and concern for the public wellbeing.’67 Machiavelli views such encouragements to virtue as misguided, the fruits of imagination rather than experience, for ‘how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation’ (Chapter xv). Note that here Machiavelli is speaking to the prince as a ruler who must secure his domain, not to a prince of established legitimacy, as Erasmus was, and certainly not to a private person securing his advantage; and he speaks to him as the guardian of lo stato, his people and territory, whose protection is his direct interest and responsibility. Pace interpreters like Robert Black, he does not stand in contrast to writers such as Erasmus in advocating a prince’s personal aggrandizement at the expense of his subjects, but points to the necessity of taking even evil measures to protect himself and his domain.68 In The Prince at Chapter xvii, we read that

66

All of these associations and more are discussed in E.A. Rees, Political Thought From ­ achiavelli To Stalin: Revolutionary Machiavellism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, M 2004). 67 Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince, trans. Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath, edited by Lisa Jardine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 3–5. 68 Black, Machiavelli, 101–102.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

31

a prince, and especially a new prince cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good, since to maintain the state he is often required to act against faith, against charity, against humaneness, and against religion. This is the kind of quotation from The Prince that is so striking that its qualification can pass unnoticed: a prince should ‘not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained.’ Of course, Machiavelli regards some of the very same qualities ­advocated by Erasmus – for example, self-restraint and foresight – as central to a prince’s virtù, his ability to command events and to secure lo stato. If the contrary ­qualities attract more attention, that is because Machiavelli, unlike E ­ rasmus, writes from a disorderly environment of insecurity, incivility and ­unpredictability. Let us sample what Machiavelli seems to say about some of the un-­Erasmian attributes necessary in a new prince. When Machiavelli writes in Chapter xiv of The Prince that ‘a prince must have no other object or thought, nor take anything for his art save warfare and its institutions and training,’ he seems to be advocating that princes think of war for expansion by conquest. This is the interpretation offered by Mikael Hornqvist.69 Yet, a few lines later Machiavelli writes, ‘one sees … that when princes think more of luxury than of arms, they lose their state.’ In other words, Machiavelli is not advocating military monomania but the avoidance of the distractions of luxury. Moreover, underlying this view is the conviction that arms secure a polity and enable it to enact good laws – and to observe morality. There is a temporal sequence implied here. As we note in the chapters that follow, such qualifications to dramatic declarations tend to be ignored by those seeking to use Machiavelli to support their positions. Machiavelli should be construed as advocating preparedness for war as an insurance policy for peace and order rather than advocating militarism. Style must be distinguished from substance in The Prince. The book has struck many as utterly novel, but it draws upon Machiavelli’s classical education, his dispatches from embassies undertaken for Florence, and reports sent back to The Ten from Rome, France or Germany. J.R. Hale observed that, ‘There is hardly a year from Machiavelli’s career in the chancery’ that did not help ‘to shape The Prince.’70 A number of passages in the book reproduce earlier ­writings, including his letters to Vettori. Hence, advice destined for Giuliano, and then redirected to Lorenzo, had been given already to their Republican predecessors, and The Prince repeats sentiments already expressed to the 69 Mikael Hornqvist, Machiavelli and Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 70 Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 115.

32

Chapter 1

Medici early in their return to power.71 Moreover, the text of The Prince had been substantially rehearsed in letters to Machiavelli’s friend Vettori, then in Rome.72 Machiavelli was often sent to monitor rapidly changing events and it is hardly surprising that the author of The Prince and the Discourses should give prominence to the kind of politics that can overwhelm a ruler insufficiently flexible or prepared for sudden change. Nor is it strange that descriptions of affairs drawn from dispatches should dispense with moralizing and focus instead on opportunities, the application of power and the mercurial role of Fortune in political affairs. Machiavelli drew upon conversational insights with those active in politics, such as Cardinal Soderini and Pandolfo Petrucci, Lord of Sienna. When, for example, Florence sent Machiavelli to find out why ­Pandolfo had dealt with them so faithlessly, Pandolfo told him this: ‘to make as few mistakes as possible, I conduct my government day by day, and arrange my affairs hour by hour; because the times are more powerful than our brains.’73 The same sentiments expressed in The Prince have been greeted with horror. It cannot be denied that Machiavelli breached the decorum of advice books, but his doing so enabled his work to survive the fate of the genre. The extraction of a contemporary message from these political writings by later generations at the expense of ignoring the background that supports them misreads the man as much as his texts. Machiavelli’s descendant, the contemporary Florentine historian Capponi, describes The Prince as a ‘beautifully written collection of different thoughts, put together in some haste and often in contradiction with each other.’ This ‘unsystematic construction’ provided fertile material for centuries of interpretation ‘to pull it in one direction or another.’74 Capponi argues that ideas similar to Machiavelli’s were circulating in Italy well before he committed his thoughts to paper. Perhaps, but ­Machiavelli’s confronting style was another matter.

Virtù and Fortuna

Two terms used frequently by Machiavelli have been endowed with enigmatic significance by historians and political theorists: virtù and fortuna. 71 See, respectively, Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli, Chapter 1 and Black, Machiavelli, 74. 72 Ibid., 81–84. 73 Quoted in Skinner, Machiavelli, 16. 74 Capponi, An Unlikely Prince, 221. This interpretive tug of war in the modern era is copiously documented in Eric Cochrane, ‘Machiavelli: 1940–1960.’ The Journal of Modern H ­ istory, 33 (1961) 2: 113–136.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

33

Read in context, these paired terms reflect a concern with the importance of prudence, strategy, decisiveness and flexibility.75 They are very much of their time and have not been considered as general explanatory principles, either in Machiavelli’s time or later. In fact, there has been an almost total lack of interest in these central items of Machiavelli’s political vocabulary except in modern ­political theory. These terms speak of the political framework of a previous age, not to philosophical concerns that might transcend time and place. Machiavelli portrays fortune in traditional terms, as a woman who must be subdued. He abandons Divine Providence, arguing instead that a leader ­possessing virtù will anticipate the wiles of Fortune and plan against their destructiveness. A ­ ccording to Lucretius’s De rerum natura, fortune plays a part even in a universe governed by the laws of nature. Machiavelli is dealing with the constancy of human nature and the repetition of historical circumstances and these regularities make Lucretius relevant to his reflections on politics. Yet, writes Machiavelli, ‘I judge … that fortune is the arbiter of half of our actions, but that she allows us to govern the other half’ (Chapter xxv). He personifies but does not deify chance. Machiavelli concedes that divine favor in maintaining ecclesiastical polities is unfathomable, but he makes clear that the successes of Pope Julius ii are attributable to good luck rather than Providence. The pope’s impetuousness suited the times, and his success was not the result of his virtù. Nor was it providential. Reliance on Providence in a changeable world is folly. Jacob Soll goes further, taking Machiavelli’s use of history to indicate an abandonment of religion and tradition as guides to government in favor of a ‘practical political science,’ that is, knowledge of the causes of political action and skill in dealing with those causes.76 This is the prudential core of The Prince. Religion, of course, served a political purpose for Machiavelli and in the subsequent Tacitean economy of prudence detailed by Soll. Machiavelli did not discard either religion or morality – he does not call vice virtue or deny that some acts are wicked – so much as reject a world-view of dependence on an underlying order for one of autonomous choice. He did not assume that God, one’s community or even one’s friends would provide in time of need: Machiavelli knew he could expect little help from Vettori to secure a position in Rome. The world of contingencies, St Augustine’s saeculum, was for Machiavelli apparently without divine grace; the fickleness, wickedness and venality 75

Conal Condren has noted that of the seventy times virtù appears in The Prince, it is linked more with fortuna (twelve times) than with any other term. The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts, 221–222. 76 Soll, Publishing The Prince, 25.

34

Chapter 1

of humanity was unredeemed; and self-reliance was necessary if one hoped to govern not merely one’s own life but lo stato.77 Apart from dealing with ecclesiastical polities in Chapter 11 of The Prince, and finding the ‘higher causes’ that support them impenetrable, God does not figure in Machiavelli’s Prince. Virtù and fortuna are the foremost examples of Machiavelli’s unruly u ­ sage. These terms are tied to the traditions of Christendom and the classical ­heritage, but their meanings in the Florentine vernacular, and particularly in Machiavelli’s hands, were unstable. Far from pulling them into line in order to make his argument more persuasive, Machiavelli blurs them further. Machiavelli’s ambiguous usage does not account fully for his adoption by later writers in search of an authority, but it opens the way to the range of interpretations documented in this book. Fortuna is more malleable than fate or some independent force in ­human affairs. Fortune’s malevolence seems to spring both from the limitations of human rationality, and the problems of constancy in human nature. The ­fickleness of humanity is a central reason why conventional morality is part of politics but cannot always be applied to it.78 Cicero had written in Book iii of De officiis that the right and the expedient could never be in conflict. This opinion had considerable authority, not only from its Roman source, but also from Christian authors like St Ambrose, who wrote a treatise of the same name. The problem is that expediency can be at odds with moral duty, with what one ought to do. To say that the two can never be in conflict is to dispose a priori of the problem. As Machiavelli sees it, all people care about is appearances and as long as a ruler keeps up appearances, he will be safe. He must appear liberal, just and religious, but be prepared to act to the contrary when adherence to principles is inimical to success. Even today, this is not a ­doctrine that is ­welcome, and there was, of course, a price to pay for proposing it: M ­ achiavelli’s reputation rapidly became a byword for political villainy and was then blackened further as uncomprehending and opportunistic appropriators heaped calumny upon it. We re-visit these matters in Chapter 10.

77

78

Though not conventionally religious – Machiavelli was anti-clerical in the commonplace way of his time and had no time for divine justifications of rule in secular principalities – he still invoked the name of Christ in writing to his family. Whether this was merely conventional or a blessing saved for private expression is hard to tell: Guicciardini mentions his contrarian convictions (contraria professione) in a letter to him in 1521. John Najemy translates this as ‘different beliefs’ and suggests that Machiavelli did not believe in the soul. ‘Introduction,’ Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, 2. See, for example, Ch. xviii of The Prince.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

35

The scandal of The Prince for many scholars is that it makes vice normal in  politics. John Hale argues that, ‘Machiavelli does not simply endorse the use of bad faith in case of necessity – the lie that diverts the killer from his victim – but as a natural part of statecraft.’79 William Connell points out that The Prince ‘does not claim to be a manual for extraordinary times. It does not come with a label that reads “Warning: Emergency Use Only.”’80 We take the view that The Prince was a response to the crisis of foreign intervention in Italy and the ruptures of Florentine politics.81 This was not a book that needed to declare an emergency: the reader is assumed to be familiar with the events that provide its background. Machiavelli’s emphasis on circumstances is pivotal. If all men were good, a prince could be good, and should be. If all rulers kept faith, then a prince who did not would be reprehensible. But rulers do not keep faith, and it would be imprudent for a prince to imperil his state by doing so. Echoing Cicero, Machiavelli wrote in Chapter xviii, ‘there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. The first one is proper to man, the second is proper to beasts.’ Alas, although the first is ‘laudable,’ the second prevails in Machiavelli’s world. Such apparent cynicism is easy to understand against the background outlined earlier in this chapter. Recall the words of Pandolfo Petrucci, Lord of Sienna: ‘I conduct my government day by day, and arrange my affairs hour by hour; because the times are more powerful than our brains.’82 Machiavelli is not pitching a politics of continuous amorality, let alone immorality but abstracting from experience a notion of virtú responsive to the necessities of the time. The particular problem faced by new princes, ‘innovators,’ is establishing their legitimacy. In a passage in Chapter vi, he asserts that when such new princes ‘rely on themselves and they are able to use force, then rarely is it that they are imperiled.’ Faced with the contrast between the order imposed by the strength of the ancient Romans and the chaotic times engendered by the softness of the Italians in the Christian era, Machiavelli declares for ancient methods – and ancient virtues – to defend Florence against its enemies. Machiavelli’s prudence means observing morality when times permit and abandoning it when circumstances change. Thus Machiavelli ascribes Hannibal’s success in Chapter xvii to the unity in his army achieved by his cruelty, while on the other hand, Scipio’s compassion almost ruined him. Machiavelli is openly equivocal in Chapter viii about A ­ gathocles of Syracuse, who ‘always led a wicked life through each step of his career. Nonetheless, 79 Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 114–115. 80 Connell, Introduction to his edition of The Prince, 9. 81 Cf. Alejandro Barcenas, Machiavelli’s Art of Politics (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 50–52. 82 Quoted in Skinner, Machiavelli, 16.

36

Chapter 1

he accompanied his wicked deeds with such great virtue of spirit and body that … he rose … to be governor of Syracuse.’ He seized power by murder and maintained it with violence and force and shrewd treaties. He owed nothing to ­others, but nor did he owe his success to fortune. In short, he was the prince to emulate in seizing and holding a kingdom because he exhibited the qualities appropriate to doing this in a hostile environment. But then Machiavelli says this: And yet one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without compassion, without religion. These modes may be used to acquire rule (imperio) but not glory. Machiavelli presents Agathocles as the equal of any prince in virtù, but then decries his ‘bestial cruelty and inhumanity’ in the same passage. He is not being ironic. Indeed, he concludes with the moral judgment that Agathocles should not be ‘celebrated among the most excellent men.’ Were The Prince a critique or satire of contemporary practices, such inconsistencies would not matter, but clearly the work presents a serious attempt to bring control to the flux of politics, and to impart the wisdom of doing so. ­Trying to set forth a coherent theory – if it crossed his mind at all – was far less important to Machiavelli than showing that ruling requires its own virtuosity day by day and hour by hour.83 Hence, a reputation for compassion must be used properly: it is not an end in itself. Cesare Borgia had a reputation for cruelty, but used it to gain the Romagna and lead it ‘back to peace and to faith.’ Machiavelli then inverts the usual view of compassion in Chapter xvii, for it is clear that Cesare ‘was much more compassionate than the Florentine people, who, to avoid the name of cruelty, allowed the destruction of Pistoia.’ This ­modification of the traditional political vocabulary, supplemented by new items, such as virtù and fortuna, grandezza and gran cose, attempts to exert some control of political uncertainty. These grand deeds may be accomplished by expansion of lo stato, which commentators and translators from the sixteenth century – such as Guillaume Cappel and Gaspard d’Auvergne – to the t­wentieth, like Hornqvist, have identified as an important aspect of The Prince.84 Skinner emphasizes the importance of a ruler’s greatness for Machiavelli.

83 84

See Phillip Bobbitt for an argument that it did in The Garments of Court and Palace. On the myth of coherence see Condren, The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts, Chapter 6. See Hornqvist, Machiavelli and Empire. C.f. Skinner, Foundations, 171.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

37

Machiavelli never asserts in The Prince that the sole or even the most important duty of rulers is that of maintaining the state. Machiavelli consistently declares that this goal should be regarded as subordinate to a higher purpose, that of doing great things (gran cose) of such a kind as will bring glory and greatness to the prince and benefit to the people as a whole.85 Skinner’s point is that glory is also an interest for a prince.86 Yet, without taking whatever means are available to maintain the state, glory will elude him. The Prince is not a book for halcyon days or long-established princes. It is a book for a would-be ruler coming into a new principality, a volatile situation by definition. Of course, that would not make it less scandalous to Machiavelli’s contemporaries, but it does put the book into perspective. Florence was at war with the invaders, often with other principalities, such as Milan and Naples, and sometimes with itself. This is the context from which Machiavelli writes and this context shapes his advice. The necessity of establishing his state requires a founding prince to have powers sufficient to master these circumstances. Necessity regulates the extent of these powers, not convention or morals, which come later. In the Discourses (Book iii, Chapter xli), Machiavelli cited imperatives to defend the res publica: ‘Lucius Lentulus the Roman legate, announced that he did not believe any plan for saving their country should be rejected … he believed in saving (Rome) by any means, for one’s country is well defended by any means which defends it, whether by disgrace or glory.’ There is another aspect to Machiavelli’s works that disturbed his earliest readers, and that is his attitude to religion. This blighted Machiavelli’s reputation in its earliest years and has helped sustain its dark hues into the present. Victoria Kahn argues that, ‘Machiavelli was shocking to his contemporaries ­because he forced them to confront the unresolved tensions between antiquity and Christianity.’87 As we noted above, Machiavelli has no use for Providence, assigning life’s reversals and unpredictable elements to fortune. The rest is, as Lucretius argued, explicable in human terms. This is, perhaps, an unresolved tension in Machiavelli himself. But here we must be careful: Peter 85

86 87

Quentin Skinner, ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’, New York Review of Books, 5 June 2014. Accessed 15 February 2017 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/05/ what-should-you-learn-machiavelli/. Cf. Alan Ryan, On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory (New York: Liveright, 2013). Victoria Kahn, ‘Machiavelli’s afterlife and reputation to the eighteenth century,’ The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, Najemy (ed.) (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 252.

38

Chapter 1

Harrison has argued that religio and scientia, as understood before the early modern period, could not clash in the ways that have become familiar since.88 ­Neither Lucretius nor Machiavelli was using science to beat religion, but each in his own way redefined the boundaries of religion. Alison Brown argues that Machiavelli was influenced by Lucretius’ doctrines and suggests that Marcello di Virgilio Adriani, a professor who lectured on Lucretius at the University of Florence in the 1490s, might also have affected him. We discuss the difficulties of attributing influence in the next chapter, but the case for Machiavelli’s use of Lucretius is strong. Brown cites numerous instances from the Discourses and relates them to his annotations of De rerum natura.89 Machiavelli’s use of ­Lucretius, who is hostile to the supernatural and to received religion, would make sense in coming to grips with a world of political flux.90 In defending rational enquiry against superstition in De rerum natura, Lucretius pronounces a verdict on religion that has echoed to the present: tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.91 He instanced Agamemnon’s murder of his daughter, Iphigenia, in order to secure fair winds from the goddess Artemis for his fleet. This is the power of religious superstition – the power to persuade to wrongdoing. Set against this is the power of rational investigation, of understanding the world not as wrought by gods but as made of matter that can be studied on its own terms. Machiavelli might well have taken such words to heart while annotating Lucretius in his father’s library as popes and cardinals, wrapped in the trappings of piety, determined the fate of his beloved city.92 Machiavelli died in 1527 when he was but fifty-eight. His works were published five years later and have remained in print since, though in some times and some places clandestinely. His renown has grown and now, in the great 88 89 90

91

92

Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015). Alison Brown, ‘Philosophy and Religion in Machiavelli,’ 160–163; and The Return Of Lucretius To Renaissance Florence (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), Chapter 4. Anthony Parel (‘Farewell to Fortune’) doubts that Machiavelli was susceptible to Lucretius’s views and suggests that the Ptolemaic account of the universe was more important to his worldview. De rerum natura, line 101, which may be rendered (somewhat glibly) in Stephen Weinberg’s dictum: ‘With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.’ Carey Goldberg, ‘Crossing Flaming Swords over God and Physics,’ New York Times, 20 April 1999. Alison Brown (The Return Of Lucretius, 80–82) discounts any regard in Machiavelli for religious belief except as a political tool. In Machiavelli’s God Viroli argues that Machiavelli had unconventional religious beliefs and rejects claims of his atheism.

Who was Niccolò Machiavelli?

39

mediaeval church of Santa Croce in Florence, his remains lie among monuments to many illustrious Italians, including Michelangelo, Donatello, G ­ alileo, Alberti and Rossini. Among these memorials to some of history’s greatest ­figures is a marble sarcophagus graced with the inscription, tanto nomini nullum par elogium – ‘No praise is adequate for so great a name.’ That name is Niccolò ­Machiavelli. This champion of pagan virtue and the achievements of the Romans would no doubt be wryly amused to find himself installed, some centuries after his death,93 in such a tomb within the holy walls of a church – well after he had been called an atheist and his works had been placed on the Index. School children ritually escorted through Santa Croce, are told that Machiavelli was an instigator of Florentine unity, a savior of Tuscany or a precursor of Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour. Such praise and celebrity would have confirmed for Machiavelli the strange workings of fortuna, especially as his reputation took such a tortuous development in the decades and centuries after his death. It is to the making of that reputation at the hands of others that we turn in the next chapter.

93

According to Miles Unger, Machiavelli was buried in a humble grave and relocated to Santa Croce in the eighteenth century. Machiavelli: A Biography (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 335–336. No source is cited.

Chapter 2

The Hand of Satan In this chapter we will review the origin and development of Niccolò Machiavelli’s reputation from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. This history is the foundation for his emergence in the amazing array of guises in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which we shall treat in the succeeding chapters. As might be expected, this history takes two broad courses. The first is that of the Machiavel, the devil’s apprentice who teaches corruption, manipulation, and political deceit. The second course is the less w ­ ell-known Machiavelli, republican defender of liberty and model of civic probity. That Machiavelli has many rivals and has been substantially displaced in the popular imagination by various expressions of the devious and manipulative Machiavel. Machiavelli stands in the front row of great Italian Renaissance figures. His fame far exceeds that of Castiglione and his distinguished contemporary Guicciardini, but being well known is very different from being known well. Soon after his death Machiavelli’s name became detached from his biography and made into a byword for deviousness, malice and bad faith. This was markedly so in sixteenth-century England, at first among the learned and then in popular culture. Henry Parker, Baron Morley, wrote to Cromwell that from Machiavelli’s account of Italians in The Prince and Florentine Histories, he did ‘not skant account them amongest Chrysten men.’1 Roger Ascham’s Report of the Affaires and State of Germany (1570) implied Machiavelli was a libertine and teacher of those who, ‘with consciences confirmed with Machiauelles doctrine … thincke say and do what soeuer may serue best for profite or pleasure.’2 John Case, Fellow of St John’s Oxford, argued that Machiavelli defended tyranny, that tyranny is the enemy of free enquiry, and that because universities engage in free enquiry, Machiavelli is therefore the enemy of universities. Worse: ‘­Machiavelli is thought to be one of the major threats to the continued peace, stability, and prosperity of the Age of Astrea.’ This danger was expounded in several works (Lapis philosophicus and Thesaurus oeconomicae) but especially in Sphaera c­ ivitatis (1588), which deplored the spread of the viper’s venom from Florence 1 Quoted in Anglo, Machiavelli: The First Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 97–98. 2 Roger Ascham, Report of the Affaires and State of Germany in English Works, ed. William Aldis Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), 160.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_004

The Hand of Satan

41

to France and other nations.3 In the peroration to this work, Case, who took his cues from Gentillet, contrasts the viciousness of Machiavelli with the virtue of Aristotle: ‘Your faith is very bad, Machiavelli, for it gives rise to treachery; your teaching, which casts its followers into Hell, is blasphemous and dangerous…’ Aristotle, though a pagan, held ‘that only that city is genuine in which there is virtue.’4 Although the notoriety of The Prince and Discourses ‘remained a coterie attitude’ limited to academic circles, mainly in Cambridge, other currents were moving in popular culture that were far stronger forces in shaping Machiavelli’s reputation.5 Barely sixty years after his death, Machiavellian characters began appearing on the Elizabethan stage as the representatives of villainy. Edward Meyer found 395 references to Machiavelli in his survey of Elizabethan literature, though not all of them are hostile.6 Undeniably, the most famous were. Christopher Marlowe, for example, put Machiavelli’s name before the public in the prologue to The Jew of Malta (1589), where the narrator says this is: The story of a rich and famous Jew Who liv’d in Malta: you shall find him still, In all his projects, a sound Machiavill He continues, ‘I count religion but a childish toy/And hold there is no sin but ignorance.’ Marlowe plays on Machiavelli’s animosity to the Catholic Church but generalizes it to religion itself. Marlowe captures Machiavelli’s ambition to know, to understand how the world works in that rather gratuitous coda: ‘no sin but ignorance.’7

3 Charles Schmitt, John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England (Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1983), 185; Alessandra Petrina Machiavelli in the British Isles, AngloItalian Renaissance Studies (London: Ashgate, 2009), 22; and Sydney Anglo M ­ achiavelli – The First Century: Studies in Enthusiasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance (Oxford: ­Oxford University Press, 2005), 369. 4 Schmitt, John Case and Aristotelianism, 184. But N.W. Bawcutt questions Case’s familiarity with Machiavelli’s works: ‘Case’s summary of Machiavellian doctrine seems to me to owe at least as much to Gentillet as to Machiavelli himself,’ ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered: an aspect of Elizabethan Machiavellianism,’ The Modern Language Review, 99 (2004) 4, 871. 5 Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 22. 6 Edward Meyer, Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama (New York: Burt Franklin, 1969 [1897]), xi. 7 Machiavelli did like duty in French drama and fiction, see Heather Ingman, Machiavelli in Sixteenth-Century French Fiction (New York City: Peter Lang, 1988).

42

Chapter 2

Anne Dowriche referred to ‘That divel of Florence, Machivel,’ in The French Historie (1589) and drew upon Innocent Gentillet’s Discours contre ­Machiavel, for material.8 In the 1590s William Shakespeare referred to him as ‘notorious Machiavel’ in Henry iv Part i. In the Third Part of Shakespeare’s Henry vi (1591), Richard, Duke of Gloucester (the future King Richard iii) teems with so much hatred and ambition that he could ‘set the murderous Machiavel to school.’ Machiavelli is also mentioned rhetorically in The Merry Wives of Windsor: ‘Am I politic? am I subtle? am I a Machiavel?’ Shakespeare did not create these meanings for Machiavelli, but harnessed those readily available to him. He is reflecting a popular perception, not creating it, and in so doing sending it down the ages to us. Thomas Nashe’s Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Divell (1592) alleges that ‘Fraunce, Italy, and Spaine, are all full of those false hearted Machiuillions’ and refers to ‘Nicalao Maleuolo, great Muster maister of hell.’ Nashe places ‘vnder hypocrisie, all Machiauilisme, puritanisme, and outward gloasing with a mans enemie, and protesting friendship to him that I hate’ and ­similar ‘Italionate conueyances.’ In an amorous vein, Juniper in ­Jonson’s The Case is Altered (1597) calls Rachel ‘sweet mathavel’ (Act iv, ­Scene iv), the manipulator of his heart. This is a mere sampling of the popular deployment of Machiavelli’s name, and while the general tone is derogatory, it is not uniformly so. In 1632 English playwright Ben Jonson used his name in passing in Magnetic Lady, and does so without evoking any of Pole’s malice. In Act i, Scene vii Sir Moate Interest, a usurer, introduces his friend Mr Bias, a vi-politick subsecretary saying: He’s a fit Pendant for a Ladies tip! A Chrysolite, a Gem: the very Agate Of State, and Polity: cut from the Quar Of Machiavel, a true Cornelian, As Tacitus himself! and to be made The broach to any true State-cap in Europe! Perhaps re-wording helps: ‘Bias is a gem cut from the quarry of Machiavelli, a true carnelian,’ we might say. Jonson must have supposed that Machiavelli’s name would be known to his audience, but what is striking here is that he does not trade on Machiavelli’s reputation for deceit, cruelty, or a sulphurous 8 Bawcutt, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ 872, citing R.W.F. Martin, ‘Ann Dowriche’s ‘The French Historie and Innocent Gentillet’s Contra-Machiavel,’ Notes and Queries, 242 (1997), 40–42.

The Hand of Satan

43

Satanic presence. Indeed, the association of Machiavelli with Tacitus suggests an appreciation of the Florentine’s style of prudence. How did the name of a mid-level Florentine official, distinguished for his writing more than his administrative or political achievements, become a ­byword for duplicity, villainy and political treachery? How did his reputation in the popular mind come to be bracketed with the great tyrants and dictators of modern history, while his gifts as a writer and champion of liberty were largely forgotten outside the halls of scholarship? How did Machiavelli become a Machiavel? The answers to these questions lie not in Machiavelli’s words or deeds but in his afterlife as an author. In the decades following his death, his notoriety grew with the fervor of the times. Polemicists, dramatists and philosophers had hands in the creation of his myth. Machiavelli had become an international figure in the European conflict between Catholics and Protestants though, as we noted, far from befriending him, Protestants competed with Catholics in condemning him. To an alert and suspicious Catholic mind that Protestant condemnation was disinformation. Not to be outdone, Protestants likewise may have supposed Catholics condemnations were a smoke screen behind which they practiced the Machiavellianism they dared not preach. W. Gordon Zeeveld, drawing on association and perceived similitude, argued that ‘there is no longer room for doubt’ about the influence of Machiavelli on Thomas Cromwell.9 Geoffrey Elton, nonetheless, found that room. Indeed, he was ‘certain that he (Cromwell) did not learn his statecraft from any book.’10 Reginald Cardinal Pole was one of the great figures of Tudor religious conflict. Scholar, diplomat, polemicist, cardinal, papal legate and eventually priest, Pole spent most of his life in Italy. He was substantially responsible both for the Recusant veneration of Thomas More and for its depreciation of Erasmus. Most famously, he was an early critic of Machiavelli. He was a cousin of Henry viii, but also a Plantagenet, which put him in a privileged but dangerous position. His mother was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence. Her brother, Pole’s uncle, succeeded as Duke of Clarence, but Henry vii had him executed in 1499 as a potential rival with strong claims to the throne. Pole’s father died when he was five and Henry viii became his patron, educating him at Oxford and later Padua. Pole was clearly grateful for this patronage and applied himself diligently to his books. The execution of his uncle left Pole bitter, but his loyalty 9

10

W. Gordon Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1948), 184–185. In similar vein, Zeeveld held that Marsilius of Padua influenced Thomas Starkey. Geoffrey Elton, England Under the Tudors, 3rd edn. (London: Routledge, 1991), 128.

44

Chapter 2

was unquestioned until 1529, when Henry asked him to sound out opinions at the University of Paris about his proposed divorce from Katherine of Aragon. According to Donaldson, Pole’s initial preparedness to do so shows that at this stage he had no settled or ‘uncompromising’ view of the matter.11 This is probably true, but when Henry offered him the See of York, an office he clearly wanted, in return for his advice on the divorce, Pole was unable to moderate his condemnation of it. The king continued to support Pole, but the breach with his cousin deepened when Pole became more intensely religious. In 1535, Henry sent Thomas Starkey to try to convince Pole of the legitimacy of the Supremacy, but found Pole committed to orthodox Catholicism. Pole’s answer was a tract called De unitate ecclesiae (1536), which caused a complete break with Henry.12 Small wonder: De unitate warned the king that his actions were unlawful and would bring retribution. Four years later, in 1539, Pole defended De unitate in a treatise addressed to the emperor, Charles v, the Apologia ad Carolum Quintum. In it, Pole recounts how he came to read The Prince, and it is quoted at length to give its full flavor. I chanced upon that book which Cromwell had highly praised to me. That book, which I saw after our conversation, was not sent by him, for I believe he regretted having exposed so much of his policies in my company. Having been alerted, however, to the nature of Cromwell’s studies by those who knew about this secret leisure reading, I attempted to get my hands on this material… The book was, as I discovered, written by an enemy of the human race. …I had scarcely begun to read the book, when I recognized the hand of Satan, even though it bore the name of a human author and was written in a discernibly human style. … Not to keep you in suspense any longer, the book is inscribed with the name of Machiavelli, a certain Florentine, entirely unworthy to have been born in that noble city. But just as Satan’s progeny are everywhere, intermingling with the sons of God … so this son of Satan, trained in all forms of wickedness in the midst of the many sons of God, was born in that noble city and has written things which stink of Satan’s every wickedness.13 11 12 13

P.S. Donaldson, Machiavelli and Mystery of State (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 4. Donaldson, 5. An English version of De unitate is Reginald Pole, Defense of the Unity of the Church, trans. Joseph G. Dwyer (Westminster, md: Newman Press, 1965). ‘Reginald Pole, Apology: Selections’ trans. Nicholas Webb in Jill Kraye (ed.) Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, Volume 2: Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 274–275.

The Hand of Satan

45

Thus we have Pole’s judgment. Cromwell’s leisure was to peruse a book, ‘written by an enemy of the human race,’ an amanuensis of Satan, Niccolò Machiavelli whom we style Machiavel. The Apologia foreshadows the detection of secret and Satanic doctrines that were to make The Prince a source of fascination even into the twenty-first centu­ ry. It contains all the familiar elements that compose the effigy Machiavel, and is often cited as seminal in establishing Machiavelli’s reputation as a c­ ounsellor of evil.14 It was not, however, published until the mid-eighteenth century. This does not mean that its opinions were not known or that others did not share Pole’s views. After all, the initial fame of De principatibus in M ­ achiavelli’s own lifetime came from private circulation. Pole accused Thomas Cromwell, ­Henry’s Lord Chancellor, of using Machiavellian strategies to bring about the marriage with Anne Boleyn and assert royal supremacy over the Church. Pole was the first to recognize the polemical potential of The Prince. This polemical emphasis originated an anti-Machiavellian type that runs through English ­Renaissance literature and ramifies in the popular imagination thereafter. Pole’s sometime protégé in Padua, Richard Morison, later turned against him and became a pamphleteer for Cromwell. One of Morison’s tracts, the ­Invective against the Great and Detestable Vice, Treason, was directed against Pole. Its discussion of conspiracy draws upon the Discourses. David Berkowitz has ­remarked on the irony of this, ‘for it must have been in Pole’s household that he first became acquainted with the works of the Florentine and Pole’s strong hostility to him.’15 Although Pole is targeting Thomas Cromwell (in De unitate it is Henry’s courtiers, not the king, he excoriates), in the Apologia he goes out of his way to paint Machiavelli as an irreligious exemplar of wickedness. ­Perhaps he recognized traces of Lucretius in Machiavelli’s treatment of religion, but surely the memory of his murdered uncle must have been aroused when he read in Chapter iii of The Prince about the elimination of the bloodline of potential challengers (previous rulers).16 That Pole was able 14

See, for example, Cary Nederman, ‘Pole seems to have initiated a tradition of anti-­ Machiavellian writing during the middle of the sixteenth century…,’ Machiavelli: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford: One World, 2009), 116; and Rodolfo de Mattei who, according to Berkowitz (Humanist Scholarship and Public Order, 79), nominates Pole as the first to sound the alarm about Machiavelli (‘il primo campanello di allarme che squilla nel secolo xvi a carico del Machiavelli’), Dal premachiavellismo all’ anti-machiavellismo (­Florence: Sansoni, 1969), 222. 15 Berkowitz, Humanist Scholarship and Public Order (Washington, dc: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1984), 79. 16 Perhaps Pole was also familiar with the Discourses, where Machiavelli discusses prudential murder, especially in Book iii, where the brief Chapter iv is entitled, ‘A Prince cannot live securely in a principality while those from whom he has taken it are still alive.’

46

Chapter 2

to use Machiavelli to blacken Cromwell suggests that The Prince attracted notice quickly. Indeed, in the Giunta edition of 1532, the work is already referred to as a classic.17 Pole, however, was in Italy and English views of Machiavelli were yet to darken. A ­ lessandra Petrina’s examination of English manuscript translations of The Prince shows it was ‘treated as an authoritative political text’ with respectful marginalia that suggest it would repay ‘careful study rather than heated debate.’18 The text was confronting and some, like Pole, responded by denouncing its author. Others responded differently, including the English translators discussed by Petrina. Indeed, to be associated with ­Machiavelli’s acuity could be an accolade. In 1551, Morison paid a compliment to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton’s superior political discernment by calling him a ‘Machiavellist.’19 Pole, of course, needed a demon to blame for Henry viii’s separation from Rome. Who better to embody the disregard for law, morality and religion in English rule than the author of The Prince?20 Chapter xv of The Prince is titled ‘On those things for which men and especially princes are praised and blamed.’ Such statements might convey the ­ impression that he was addressing his imperatives to mankind rather than specifically to rulers. The traditional morality that Pole wishes to protect is not alien to Machiavelli, but it is beside the point when a ruler’s overriding responsibility is to the welfare of the lands and people who comprise lo stato. Followers of Pole have missed this point: four hundred years later Leo Strauss made similar claims with equal vehemence.21 Some writers in fields other than politics (management, marketing, social psychology, game theory) who are not given to moralizing have followed this line, thereby reinforcing the myth of Machiavelli as the unscrupulous advocate of ‘necessity.’ In ­Chapter xv, ­Machiavelli writes, ‘it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to be not good, and to use this faculty and not to use 17 18

19 20

21

Alessandra Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 6. Alessandra Petrina, ‘A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court,’ in Roberto De Pol, (ed.) The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince: From the Sixteenth to the First Half of the Nineteenth Century (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010), 83–115; cf. her Machiavelli in the British Isles, 15. Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 101–102. Victoria Kahn suggests Pole did not read The Prince until after he had condemned its author in ‘Machiavelli’s afterlife and reputation to the eighteenth century’ in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, John Najemy, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010), 245, but Thomas Mayer has argued convincingly that Pole’s judgment was based on his familiarity with Machiavelli in Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 80. Thoughts on Machiavelli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 34–35.

The Hand of Satan

47

it according to necessity.’ The thing to note is that defense of lo stato is close to fundamental. It is not wholly fundamental because, as Skinner, Ryan and Hornqvist argue, great and glorious deeds make lo stato worth defending. A prince must do deeds worthy of commemoration, and since the first office of a prince is to hold his realm, that forms part of his grandezza. But Machiavelli is ambiguous: grandezza, a prince’s accomplishments, exempt him from common moral appraisal, but not from all morality. Skinner has claimed that Machiavelli defends virtue and deplores vice but not as generally understood in his political environment: ‘if you properly appreciate the virtues of clemency and liberality, as opposed to following the prevailing but corrupt understanding of what they prescribe, you may find that these qualities help you to maintain rather than undermine your state.’22 Hence, far from endorsing the policies of Agathocles, Machiavelli condemned his treachery and violence in Chapter viii of The Prince. And yet one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without compassion, without religion. These modes may be used to acquire rule (imperio) but not glory. Note that Machiavelli explicitly refers to virtue here. Agathocles held and ­expanded his kingdom but his methods did not bring him glory and he is not numbered among the great. Skinner observes that, ‘Far from urging us to do anything that may seem necessary to maintain the state, Machiavelli is asking us to reserve a special contempt for those who execute this task in a despicably inglorious style.’ Those who seek to use Machiavelli to endorse or justify the sociopathic conduct of leaders of states or private organizations should heed Skinner’s comment: ‘If we want a Machiavelli for our times, we could do a lot worse than … give some further consideration to the high value he always sets on maintaining our reputation in the world.’23 Indeed, it is not clear why Machiavelli includes Agathocles in his discussion of those who rise to power by virtue or fortune except as an example of excess. As Machiavelli says, ­Agathocles was aided by neither but succeeded by sheer wickedness. Nifo was not the last writer to soften aspects of The Prince. The preface to the first printed edition of the work by Giunta in 1532 echoed Nifo, and so did the 1553 French translation of Guillaume Cappel. He, like Nifo, invoked the medical topos in excusing Machiavelli: ‘One might accuse him of portraying an excessively severe prince, and yet we may excuse him through the parallel of a 22 23

Skinner, ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’ Ibid.

48

Chapter 2

good doctor, who looks not to his patient’s pleasure but to his sickness, and so prescribes strong medicine.’24 In 1560, just a year after the proscription of The Prince by the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Pietro Perna, a Basle Protestant, published a Latin translation by Sylvestro Tegli. If obedience to the prescript of the Index was not necessary, some justification for publishing such a contentious book was. Tegli argued that the reader was able to distinguish the good from the evil elements of the text, and should approach it by clearing his mind of preconceptions.25 By the time Francis Bacon mentioned Machiavelli in the Advancement of Learning, gratitude rather than controversy had become the convention in England. Machiavelli, writes Bacon, exposes evil so that we may take precautions against it and, consequently, ‘we are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do’ for ‘an honest man can do no good upon those that are wicked, to reclaim them, without the help of the knowledge of evil.’26 This is one of ten mentions of Machiavelli in this work, and they are, as is to be expected from a man who kept his place in the topsy-turvy world of Queen Elizabeth’s court, careful. Bacon explains that we need to know the ways of the serpent in order to combat them, and here Machiavelli is commended. But while ingenious he was corrupt. That said, Machiavelli’s condemnation of the venality of the Catholic Church is taken as read. Here Bacon’s enemy’s enemy is his friend. Machiavelli’s judgments of historical figures are sometimes underlined as wise, though not in the case of Cesare Borgia, who is entirely omitted. Nor does Bacon make any reference to Cardinal Pole. Significantly, Bacon refers, like many others of his time, to ‘honest men’ and not only to princes. Gentillet had blackened Machiavelli by applying his text beyond the confines of court and palace into the byways of society. Bacon acclaims that same book, as Gentillet damned it, by taking it beyond formal politics. His essay, ‘On Simulation and Dissimulation’(1612), cites Tacitus, the touchstone for political prudence, in recommending graduations of disclosure according to circumstances. For discretion and discernment are not only the ‘arts of state,’ but also the ‘arts of life, as Tacitus well calleth them.’ This short essay treats secrecy, simulation and dissimulation as both social and political defenses: ‘The best composition and temperature is to have ­openness 24 25 26

Quoted in Kelley, ‘Murd’rous Machiavel in France: A Post Mortem,’ Political Science Quarterly, 85 (1970)4, 549. Caterina Mordeglia, ‘The First Latin Translation,’ Ian Harvey, trans., in Roberto De Pol, The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010), 69. Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), Book ii, xxi, 9.

The Hand of Satan

49

in fame and opinion; secrecy in habit; dissimulation in seasonable use; and a power to feign, if there be no remedy.’27 Jacob Soll has shown that this line of reasoning had already been developed by the great Dutch Tacitist Justus Lipsius (1547–1606), who defended The Prince in his Politicorum sive civilis ­doctrinæ libri sex (1589). At the core of this defense was Machiavelli’s concept of prudence, judgments about action in uncertain, changeable circumstances. Gabriel Harvey wrote to Edmund Spenser that, ‘Matchiauell (was) a great man’ of letters, and to Richard Remington, a Fellow of Peterhouse, ‘you remember I was in hand with you not long agoe for your Machiavell, ye greate founder and master of pollicies.’28 Petrina takes such references to indicate ‘a popularity that goes well beyond the stereotype of the wicked politician.’29 William Thomas plundered Machiavelli at will (and mostly without acknowledgment) in writing his Hystorye of Italye (1549). ‘Nicolas Macchiauegli, a notable learned man … I determined to take … for myne onely auctour.’30 According to Petrina, English commentaries on Machiavelli show that by the 1590s ‘the Principe could be read and quoted as a political textbook, without bothering with its moral (or immoral) overtones.’31 It could be so used and was, but there remained ambivalence about using Machiavelli as an authority. Marchamont Needham, Commonwealth spy turned propagandist for Charles ii, provides one example. His defense of republicanism, The Excellencie of a Free State (1656), argues Vickie Sullivan, is ‘clearly Machiavellian as it is modeled on the Discourses on Livy’ and draws upon Machiavelli’s insights.32 In a previous work, The Case of the Commonwealth (1650), Machiavelli is treated as an authority, even as author of The Prince.33 Yet, by the time he wrote ­Excellencie, he had become cautious. When he (bogusly) quotes Machiavelli his ambivalence is clear: ‘It was a noble saying, (though Machiavel’s)…’34 Finally, Needham ­repudiates Machiavelli’s faithlessness and opportunism, with The Prince as his target. So, Machiavelli could be useful in political argument, but whether he 27

Francis Bacon, ‘On Simulation and Dissimulation,’ in Francis Bacon: A Critical Edition of the Major Works, ed. Brian Vickers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 349 and 351. 28 Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 17. 29 Ibid. 18. 30 Thomas, William, Clerk of the Council to Edward vi The historie of Italie, (London, 1549; reprinted Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum & Norwood: Walter J. Johnson, 1977), 140. 31 Alessandra Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 31–32. 32 Vickie Sullivan, Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Formation of Liberal Republicanism in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 128. 33 Ibid., 122, ff. 34 Ibid., 131.

50

Chapter 2

emerged with his authority intact as a republican champion or was yet again denigrated as unscrupulous depended very much on the needs of his users.

Sixteenth-century France

The first French translation of The Prince by Jacques de Vintimille was a presentation piece for Anne de Montmorency, Great Constable of France in 1546, but this probably did not circulate.35 The first printed translations were published in 1553 by Guillaume Cappel and Gaspard d’Auvergne. As Petrina notes, ‘There was nothing clandestine or subversive about these translations.’36 Indeed, style rather than controversy was often to the fore in their prefaces: ‘Besides being a politically charged text, the Principe was also a piece of beautiful and clear ­Italian prose, and its tightness and brevity constituted a decisive advantage over the Discorsi.’37 Guillaume Cappel wrote a preface in which he says: Our author Machiavelli applies everything to the way of government of his own times, and of his country, which is almost ours, since the real aim of a writer and of a political prince is to preserve and increase the estates: an excellent manner of proceeding, a style appropriate to the matter, a knowledge of history, a confirmed experience.38 D’Auvergne says much the same thing in his Dedicatory Epistle. The ‘whole purpose’ of The Prince is ‘the acquisition, and the preservation of one’s possessions.’ D’Auvergne distinguishes Machiavelli’s approach from that enshrined in mirror of princes texts, which ‘have shown … an undefined perfection of the Prince, which is unattainable by human beings, given the fragile condition of our nature.’39 ‘La necessite naturelle nus contraint vivre les uns avec les autres, par une societe politique approuvee des saintes lettres,’ that is bare natural necessity forces us to live with each other in a political society approved by the holy scriptures. Machiavelli’s path to public controversy began in France in the 1550s. Hitherto his reputation had been neither large nor especially controversial. Early 35

Nella Bianchi Bensimon, ‘La première traduction française,’ in De Pol, The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince, 25. 36 Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 10. 37 Ibid., 11. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 13 n. 50.

The Hand of Satan

51

readers recoiled from his view of religion and his elevation of the place of fortune in human affairs, but they do not appear to have regarded him as scandalous. The French translation of the Discourses, published in 1544, was well received, and the translator, Jacques Gohory, praised Machiavelli highly: I assure you that once you have come to know him you would not have missed him for anything in the world; for he is an honest and reliable man…. His merchandise is neither disguised nor embellished.40 Gohory’s translation proved popular, even though his readers did not always share his enthusiasm for Machiavelli. The Prince appeared nine years later in a translation by Gaspard d’Auvergne who, like Gohory, extolled Machiavelli’s political insights and his ability to unmask the ‘malice and deceit of men.’41 This praise was tempered by the usual excuses for Machiavelli’s bluntness on questions of faithfulness, veracity and religion, but some readers were clearly shocked by his texts. As yet, however, Machiavelli’s reception in France gave no hint of the vilification soon to follow.42 The public reversal began when The Prince was placed on the Roman Indexes of 1557 and 1559, the very first papal lists of prohibited books, and the Tridentine Index of 1564, a legacy of the Council of Trent that endured until 1966.43 Luigi Firpo suggested that Pole’s condemnation of the work was behind its official prohibition.44 While this ban was significant – Dominic Baker-Smith directly attributes the epithet ‘Machi­ avellian’ to it – it was not fatal.45 By the late sixteenth century, say from 1570 on, Machiavelli’s name, along with its adjectival and noun derivations, was in use as a synonym for atheism, trickery, evil, and the anti-religious, and because religion and the divine monarch were tied together, to be anti-religious was to be disloyal. The Oxford English Dictionary adduces many examples of such uses. Yet the first publication of The Prince in English came only after these uses were broadcast. Perhaps having his name in common parlance stimulated 40

Edmond Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (1982) 1, 36; cf. Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 204–213. 41 Ibid., 37. 42 Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 325–336. 43 See ‘Machiavelli, the Inquisition and the Index,’ in Peter Godman’s From Poliziano To Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism In The High Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1998). 44 Firpo is cited by Alessandra Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 15 n. 57. 45 Dominic Baker-Smith, Introduction, The Prince (London: Everyman’s Library, 1992), 10. It did not apply in France or England or take hold in Spain until 1583–84. K.D. Howard, The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain (Woodbridge: Tamesis, 2014), 7.

52

Chapter 2

or even legitimated translating it into English and publishing it. Machiavelli’s remarks about religion are invariably directed at the Catholic Church in Rome and the baleful effects he thought it had had on Italy. Even so, English Protestants were as eager as Catholics to condemn him, though they lacked the enemies list of the Index to codify their damnations. Il Principe continued to circulate for, as Alessandra Petrina points out, while it was possible to inhibit publication, ‘censorship against reading is at any time … fraught with difficulties bordering on the impossible.’46 It was the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572 that really caused Machiavelli’s stocks to dive. Throughout the 1560s, France had been plagued by conflicts between Protestants (Huguenots) and Catholics. On 23 August 1572, the eve of St Bartholomew, an attempt was made on the life of the Huguenot leader, Admiral Cologny. The assassination failed (Cologny was killed by agents of the Duke of Guise two days later), but in Paris and then elsewhere, Catholics went on an orgy of violence against Protestants. While many Catholics were appalled by the massacres, many others, including members of the clergy, rejoiced. These celebrations shocked people almost as much as the murders. The king’s mother, Catherine de’ Medici, was widely held to be the instigator of the massacres. She had become notorious for political intrigue after the death of her husband, Henri ii. She had not endeared herself to her subjects by populating her court with Italians. After St Bartholomew’s Day, Italians were vilified as bloodthirsty masters of intrigue, and Machiavelli became the embodiment of all that was hateful about the Italians. A torrent of Huguenot tracts ­denouncing Catholic atrocities culminated in 1576 in the Discours contre Machiavel or Anti-­Machiavel, by ­Huguenot magistrate Innocent Gentillet, ­published ­anonymously in Geneva.47 Gentillet’s summation of the Huguenot literature took aim at familiar ­targets  – Machiavelli’s defense of arbitrary government, his atheism, and his inversion of traditional virtues – but it was also the first large study of the Discourses and The Prince.48 Gentillet declared that the aim of his book was to show that Machiavelli has used maxims of wickedness to construct not a political science but a science of tyranny.49 Little known before he penned 46 Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 22. 47 A. D’Andrea and P.D. Stewart, Introduction to Innocent Gentillet, Discours contre Machiavel (Firenze: Casalini Libri, 1974), li-lii; Bawcutt, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ 864. 48 Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 43. The Art of War and History of Florence were added in later editions. Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 302. 49 Discours contre Machiavel ed. D’Andrea and Stewart, 10.

The Hand of Satan

53

­ nti-Machiavel, Gentillet had already written one anti-Machiavellian work, the A Remonstrance (1574), in which he piled the discontents of France upon ‘the greatest liar and imposter that had ever been,’ Niccolò Machiavelli.50 The repetition of these sentiments in the Anti-Machiavel so excited the I­ talian community of Geneva that Gentillet was asked to explain himself by the city’s Council. He had to append a Declaration to his book exempting his fellow citizens from his criticisms of Italians. This tactic failed, and Gentillet was subsequently beaten up by an Italian-Genevan.51 Gentillet could have been in no doubt that his book had made an impact, if not always the one he intended. This tide of anti-Machiavellism in France was sudden and engulfing.52 Although its proximate cause was the Discours contre Machiavel, published in 1576,53 both sides in the French wars of religion appropriated Machiavelli, each attributing to him a reputation for evil that stuck.54 Louis Le Roy warned that The Prince ‘must be read with great discretion, since it was written by an author without conscience or religion, who thought only of power and worldly glory, and deceived many people.’55 Pierre de Ronsard issued a similar warning from the Catholic side, but it was the Huguenot claim that Machiavelli guided the policy of Catherine de’ Medici that did him most reputational damage.56 Such historical stains have been difficult to shift. Machiavelli’s association with great crimes set fast. He became notorious because ‘he was turned into a Machiavellian.’57 Thus did Gentillet transform Machiavelli from a controversial author read by cognoscenti into a ‘stinking atheist’ and abettor of tyranny. The disciples of this evil eminence had taken hold of the court and must be eliminated so that France may return to its native tradition of good and pious government. 50 Howard, The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain, 281. 51 D’Andrea and Stewart, Introduction to Innocent Gentillet, Discours contra Machiavel, lv–lvii. 52 Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 45 and Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 337. 53 Anglo identifies quite a few direct borrowings from Gentillet, but also many other texts whose connection with Anti-Machiavel he attributes to ‘inherent historical probability.’ Machiavelli – The First Century, 337. Bawcutt has addressed this question in order to give appropriate recognition to Gentillet as a source. ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered.’ 54 Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 41 and 45. For an overview see Kelley, ‘Murd’rous Machiavel in France,’ 545–559 and in more detail, Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century. 55 W.L. Gundersheimer, The Life and Works of Louis Le Roy (Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1966), 54; c.f. Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 41. 56 Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 41. 57 Ibid., 33.

54

Chapter 2

­ ecause Machiavelli was but a middle official in the city of Florence with no B real experience of governing, he is unsuited to instruct others in political science. He lacks ‘firm and solid natural judgment,’ and his knowledge of history is weak and poorly used.58 Like Bodin, Gentillet distinguished between s­ outhern and northern nations: The French were not duplicitous, did not lightly engage in violence and took their religion very seriously. The Italians were the opposite in every way. The Italian style of politics has no place in the French court.59 ‘Of whom have the Frenchmen learned “atheisme, sodomie, treacherie, crueltie, usurie,” and such other vices, but of Machiavell and them of his nation?’ At the end of Anti-Machiavel, Gentillet reiterates his warning of the evils of Machiavelli’s influence on French politics: for so may they know how wicked, impious and detestable the doctrine of that most filthie Atheist is, who hath left out no kind of wickednesse to build a tyrannie accomplished of all abhominable vices.60 Gentillet’s complaints resembled those of Cardinal Pole. Like Pole, Gentillet crafted the image of a cynical corruptor of virtue whose evil counsel led to disaster. Machiavelli becomes the figure of Italian depravity upon which ­Gentillet pins all the ills of Catherine de’ Medici’s regime.61 Gentillet, like other ­Huguenots, took rhetorical licence, but they were writing against ideas as much as evil counsellors.62 The ideological battles have been mostly forgotten. After Gentillet, Machiavelli’s works and his reputation were more widely available for exploitation by polemicists and writers needing a ready-made ­villain. It is not necessary to give sole credit to Gentillet to grasp his importance in c­ reating the myth. Machiavelli’s book was quite capable of exciting critics without the attributions made by Gentillet and the Huguenots, but after them, the notorious reputation of Machiavelli did not rely upon acquaintance with his works. Indeed, such an acquaintance became unnecessary. Allegations of Machiavellism by unknown polemicists against the courtiers of Catherine de’ Medici’s son, Henri iii, illustrate the use of Machiavelli as a weapon of first resort. Henri’s policy of accommodation toward Protestants was criticized as the Machiavellian craft of his counsellors, the ‘crafty disciples 58 Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, respectively 301 and 285. 59 Ibid., 282. 60 Ibid., 294. 61 Ibid., 288. 62 Richard Tuck, Philosophy and Government 1572–1651 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 42–44.

The Hand of Satan

55

of the Florentine secretary.’63 France’s problems were caused by the ‘damnable advice of the Evangelist of the Court, Machiavelli,’ by which princes are taught to have contempt for ‘all justice, peace, equity, law, faith, and religion.’64 ­Henri’s murders of the Duke of Guise and his brother, the Cardinal of Guise, were ­characterized by shocked Parisians as Machiavellian. In the words of Michel de L’Hopital, Henri was the ‘atheist son of a Florentine (Catherine de’ Medici) … imbued with the religion of Machiavelli.’65 The easy repetition of these charges against Machiavelli indicate that they had become accepted. By the late sixteenth century, The Prince was widely seen as a publicity piece for atheism, a perdurable indictment. Even then, atheism denied the reality of God, but this was not a post-Enlightenment position on a question that demanded a rational support for personal belief. Rather, the force of atheism was squarely in the public restriction of the place of religion and religious authorities in matters we would now call secular, most notably politics. Often damned as irreligious, Machiavelli did not advocate the abandonment of religion or even Christianity, which he disdained for its meekness, as in the Discourses, Book ii, Chapter v. Christopher Celenza has it that ­Machiavelli was simply indifferent to God and even, to some extent, religion.66 Of course, following Roman tradition, Machiavelli notoriously advocates the use of religion by a ruler to secure his position. The crown of immortality, appropriated from the Romans by the Church, is restored by Machiavelli to the prince worthy of historical celebration. For those without belief in an after-life, historical reputation is immortality. Yet Machiavelli was not some Renaissance cypher for Roman customs: his references to glory and greatness mirror values current among Renaissance princes and popes. Michelangelo’s tomb of Pope Julius ii celebrates this notion of glory, discarding Christian values to immortalize a prince. Machiavelli had a well-developed capacity to see the expedience of any value or institution. For example, one of the values central to The Prince is honour, but it can be appropriated for political advantage, something Machiavelli is quite capable of observing with a detachment that does not prejudice his esteem for it.67 The charge of atheism, however, is more complex than a simple denial of God and true religion. It was easily fixed on Machiavelli 63 64 65 66 67

Quoted by Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 48. Quoted in ibid., 48–49. Ibid., 49. Christopher Celenza, Machiavelli: A Portrait (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2915), 78. In the stratagems of Liverotto to make himself prince of Fermo. The Prince, Chapter viii, Connell, 66–67.

56

Chapter 2

by those who saw in him the harbinger of political ruin. In William Covell’s Polimanteia (1595), Religion answers Machiavelli: Atheisme hath perswaded the world of my (Religion’s) death, & tolde Princes that there was no religion. Can any counsell bee more pernicious to a Commonwealth? More dangerous to a Countrie? More fatall to a Prince? then onely to relie in causes of greatest importance vpon his owne wisedome? to seeme to haue that religion in shew, which he neuer meaneth to imbrace in trueth? to preferre Heathens before me?68 Atheists attacked a vital support for political legitimacy, but that was hardly Machiavelli’s intention in The Prince. His view of religion was strategic, requiring of a ruler the suspension of personal devotion in the cause of protecting lo stato. His critics could only see this view as dangerous because it attacked the divine basis of government. This told against him, especially in an era of political crisis.69 The conduct of rulers might have been less than divinely inspired, but their status was nonetheless sacred. To suggest otherwise, to point to their exploitation of religion to control their subjects was shocking and politically destabilising. Jean Bodin in Les Six Livres de la République gives ­exemplary ­expression to this understanding of kingship: the person of one’s native ruler is even more sacred, and should be ­regarded as more inviolable even than that of one’s father, for he is ordained and set over his subjects by God. I conclude then that the subject is never justified in any circumstances in attempting anything against his sovereign prince, however evil and tyrannical he may be. It is however permissible to fail to obey him in any commands contrary to the law of God and of nature, but one must then seek refuge in flight, go into

68

69

Quoted in Bawcutt, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ 869. For a discussion of how historical foreshortening affected the reading of other Renaissance thinkers leading to unfounded suggestions of free thinking atheists see Paul Oskar Kristeller, ‘The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free Thought,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy, 6, (1968)2, 233–243. Quentin Skinner traces the manufacture of Machiavelli’s satanic reputation to the view that princes ought to depart from the traditionally expected virtues when necessary, and while this is undoubtedly true, greater stress needs to be given to his depiction as an atheist. The literature of the time is emphatic about his being irreligious and it followed that such a man must be vicious. See his Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 136.

The Hand of Satan

57

­ iding or suffer death rather than attempt anything against his life or his h honour.70 Machiavelli’s treatment of the most secure ideological footing for Christian princes was inevitably offensive, no matter what he intended. In France, his works seemed to embody the reasons for the collapse of authority, and his imagined persona was hung with all the misgivings and grievances brought by the politico-religious crisis.71 A year after its publication in France, Gentillet’s Anti-Machiavel was issued in an anonymous Latin edition (1577), then in German (1580) and an English translation by Simon Patericke (or Patricke) in 1602. A Dutch translation was published in 1637.72 Machiavelli’s works were already circulating in England by the time that Patericke’s translation became available. A Latin edition of the Discourses, produced in Geneva expressly for the English market, had more of an impact than Patericke’s translation.73 Patericke did, however, add his own peculiar touches to the portrait of Machiavelli’s malevolence. One of the earliest uses of Gentillet in England has been identified by N.W. Bawcutt. In 1578, John Stockwood preached a sermon against Machiavelli, which was subsequently published. He accused this ‘Town-cleark of Florence’ of being an ‘vnpure Atheiste’ who teaches princes to feign religious commitment even as they despise it, and worse.74 Such a sermon would have been pointless had ­Machiavelli been unknown. A Cambridge stationer, John Denys, stocked a copy of the Commentariorum de regno adversus Machiavellum before 1578, and two other copies have purchase dates before 1589. Bawcutt also cites evidence of a consignment of books, including the work of Gentillet and The Prince and D ­ iscourses, dispatched from London to Cambridge in 1584. The Bishop of ­Orkney, Adam Bothwell, who died in 1593, owned works by Machiavelli and a copy of Gentillet in French. The preface of Thomas Rogers’s 1580 translation of The Imitation of Christ mentions Machiavelli (unfavorably) and Gentillet (favorably).75 This preface contrasted the forgiveness of God, with the hardness of ‘Atheists, as Machiauel, & his fauorers, who think that iniuries receaued 70 71 72 73 74 75

Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth, trans. M.J. Tooley (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 68. Beame, ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli,’ 51–53. D’Andrea and Stewart, Introduction to Innocent Gentillet, Discours contra Machiavel, xiv and lii–lxviii. See Bawcutt, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ passim. Quoted from Stockwood’s A Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse (59–60) by Bawcutt, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ 866. Ibid., 867.

58

Chapter 2

should neuer be forgiuen.’76 The reference given here is to Anti-Machiavel, Book iii, where Gentillet paraphrases Chapter vii of The Prince fairly accurately.77 Bawcutt shows that Gentillet’s portrait of Machiavelli was current in England soon after its Latin translation was made.78 In other European countries too, Machiavelli’s reputation is largely a reaction to the attitude to the Church in The Prince. France was the principal source of that reputation but in Spain also Machiavelli was known early and had his critics. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda criticizes Machiavelli’s view that ­Christianity makes men weak, implicitly in the published version of his Democrates primus (1535) and explicitly in the manuscript of this book.79 So does Jerónimo Osório da Fonseca, the ‘Portuguese Cicero,’ in his De nobilitate christiana written in the same decade.80 In 1550, Girolamo Muzio da Capodistria sent a ­report of M ­ achiavelli’s heretical tendencies to the Roman Inquisition. In 1552, ­Ambrogio Catarino Politi published his Enarrationes, which called Machiavelli an atheist.81 The received image of Machiavelli as a cynical operator is so strong that the alternative versions of earlier times are all but invisible. Gentillet’s portrait of him was replicated and embellished for centuries after he wrote. M ­ achiavelli’s legend – certainly his myth – has been shaped by and transmitted in these received versions. They predominate today, defying a century of solid scholarship that has not yet succeeded in toppling them. This dominant ­Machiavelli notwithstanding, other Machiavellis were in hiding, not lost. A plethora of texts, from Nifo’s inoculated interpretation of The Prince in De regnandi peritia (1523), to the writings of Richard Morison in the 1530s, and then to Parker (1537), Sansovino (1542), Cardano (1544) and Segni (1550), Louis Le Roy’s De l’origine, anti­ quité, progrès, excellence et utilité de l’art politique (1567) in s­ ixteenth-century France, to Machon’s Apologie in the seventeenth century, and to Diderot’s equivocal approval in the eighteenth and Macaulay in the nineteenth, reveals the depiction of Machiavelli as a choice, whether deliberate or tacit. Gentillet’s defining portrait attracted a great deal of attention – as Bawcutt shows, it was a major second-hand source of knowledge about ­Machiavelli – but it did not 76 77 78

Ibid., 866. Ibid., 867. It was not the case, however, that acquaintance with Machiavelli’s works was solely through Gentillet, as Bawcutt shows, ‘The “Myth of Gentillet” reconsidered,’ 870–871. Some writers directly compared Machiavelli’s works and Gentillet’s account of them. 79 Howard, The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain, 48. 80 Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 143–145. 81 Howard, op cit., 48.

The Hand of Satan

59

efface other presentations of Machiavelli and The Prince.82 Petrina points out that ‘sympathetic and attentive readings were just as numerous’ as condemnations in the vein of Gentillet.83 D’Auvergne promoted The Prince as a ­useful book in a reading that Petrina takes as ‘the  turning point of ­Machiavellian reading in France’ and even Scotland.84 There were choices at work in the appropriation of Machiavelli. Gentillet made those choices necessary by identifying him as a member of the band of Lucifer. The praise and denunciation of Machiavelli mirror the issues of those invoking him. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Catholicism is widely attacked as superstitious, and licentious. As a critic of the Church of Rome, Machiavelli is on the side of the Reformers. But then, he is an open atheist who would use religion blasphemously. He thus represents the worst of ­Catholicism. He is a difficult and ambiguous figure whose name can be invoked in the emphatic censures of Gentillet or applauded for its harmony with Christianity by Louis Machon. In 1642, Machon was commissioned by Cardinal Richelieu to write an exculpation of Machiavelli, Catherine de’Medici, and the King of France from any association with the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, but the Apology for Machiavelli appeared in print only in 1668.85 ­Machon’s replies to Machiavelli’s critics were that Machiavelli did not say (some of) the things attributed to him, he did not mean those that he did say in the way the brim-stoners said, and, in any event, his overall teaching is consistent with Christian teaching about politics, including the Bible and Church councils. Machon takes a dozen passages from The Prince and twenty-three from the Discourses to exculpate Machiavelli. This prefigures much of the modern 82

Respectively, Anglo, Machiavelli – The First Century, 97–98 and Howard, The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain, 6. According to Howard, ‘Le Roy considers himself and Machiavelli as exceptions to the general negligence of the study of politics in comparison to other sciences … because in their writings they both combined knowledge with experience,’ The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain, 7. 83 Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 10. 84 Ibid., 13. Yet the Secretary of Mary Queen of Scots, William Maitland, was attacked by Buchanan as ‘Mitchell Wylie’ and by Robert Sempill as ‘A Scurvie Scholler of Machiavellis lair,’ Morna Fleming ‘Machiavelli at the Court of James vi’ in Janet Hadley Williams, and Derrick J. McClure (eds.) Fresche fontanis: Studies in the Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Scotland (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013), 354. 85 Raymond Celeste, Louis Machon: Apologiste de Machiavel et de la politique du Cardinal de Richelieu. Nouvelles recehrches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (1600–1672) (Bordeaux: de G. Gounouilhou, 2010). For the circumstances see Butler, K.T. ‘Louis Machon’s ­“Apologie Pour Machiavelle” (1643 and 1668),’ Journal of The Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1940)3/4, 208–227.

60

Chapter 2

c­ ommentary on Machiavelli in popular culture: he did not say it, it does not mean what it seems, and in any case, his teaching accords with what most people believe. In 1649 Edward Dacres obtained permission to print The Prince in England. As we have seen, English-readers could have come across Machiavelli’s name long before in the theatre, and also from his religious critics. Further, Englishreaders may have read his work in French or Latin translations as well as I­ talian while abroad, and some of them may even have risked importing these foreignlanguage copies into England when the book was unlicensed. Earlier manuscript translations of part or all of The Prince into English might have been ­circulating, but Dacres’ was the first to appear openly and in print.86 Dacres was well aware of Machiavelli’s reputation and went to some pains at the outset to distance himself from the guilt by association attached to it. In the epistle to the reader he roundly condemns Machiavelli ‘as pernicious to all Christian states,’ but sets forth his translation because Machiavelli is ‘much practiced by those that condemn him.’ Reading Machiavelli, he continues, equips the reader to espy his mischief in the same way that a judge examining miscreants learns their ways.87

Enlightenment France and Romantic Germany

A turning point in the way The Prince was read came with the publication of the Spanish Jesuit Balthasar Gracián’s Oráculo manual y Arte de prudencia (The Oracle of Prudence) in 1647. This work transformed Machiavelli’s civic ­prudence from the political sphere into a personal form of practical knowledge that could be employed to protect individual interests. This transformation of reason of state into a form of prudence directed to personal ends contained the seeds of the extensive growth of Machiavellianism found in the modern appropriations we document in the following chapters, especially in justifying ambition and the pursuit of personal gain. Gracián’s maxims reference Machiavelli in familiar ways: personal success, for example, might require the use of ‘dissimulation’ in order to ‘gain profit.’ The popularity of the Oráculo grew and it became, after Don Quixote, the second most published book in Spanish.88

86 87 88

See Petrina, ‘A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court.’ Edward Darces, Prince (London: Bishop, 1649), 1–2. Jacob Soll, ‘The Reception of The Prince 1513–1700, or Why We Understand Machiavelli the Way We Do,’ Social Research, 81(2014) 1, 50–51.

The Hand of Satan

61

The connection with Machiavelli was made explicit, however, by another writer, Abraham-Nicolas Amelot de La Houssaye (1634–1706). A year after his translation of The Prince (1683) he published a French translation of the Oráculo which rendered Machiavelli’s prudence as ‘reason of state of the self.’ Into this translation he inserted quotations from The Prince, thereby explicitly linking Machiavelli with this new conception of prudence.89 Amelot’s edition of The Prince was the French version through which eighteenth-century philosophers, such as Pierre Bayle, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Voltaire, became acquainted with the text, not as the unadorned work of Machiavelli, but as ­presented by Amelot. His views were re-presented in Bayle’s Dictionary and Frederick the Great’s Anti-Machiavel (embellished by Voltaire), and it was translated into other languages. It was probably the edition Jean-Jacques ­Rousseau used in his republican reading of the work.90 Soll argues that Amelot’s translations and critiques of Machiavelli’s works were exercises in political criticism which, under plain cover, exposed the mysteries of state formerly reserved to princes. Amelot’s presentation of ­Machiavelli put a kind of political bible before the public so that it too could judge matters of state.91 While this was not Machiavelli’s intention, Amelot used him for this purpose, at once claiming to let each man use Machiavellian political insights to decide for himself, and yet claiming that Machiavelli was a subtle author who could only be understood with the assistance of a suitable guide.92 Thus is Machiavelli made to speak dangerous political messages to the French reading public at the time of Louis xiv.93 Soll argues that when the French state substituted political prudence for religion and tradition as a justification for policy, ‘the state’s very legitimacy became earthly,’ and therefore open to criticism by those armed with the knowledge of pragmatic government imparted through Machiavelli’s maxims.94 If this were obvious to Amelot’s readers, it was hardly hidden from the authorities. Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie, effectively the king’s police chief, remarked, ‘the Sieur Amelot has also translated from Italian 89 90

Ibid. 51–52. According to Rousseau, Machiavelli ‘professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.’ See his, Du Contrat Social, Ronald Grimsley, ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), Book iii, Chapter 6, 169. 91 Soll, Publishing the Prince (Ann Arbor, mi: University of Michigan Press, 2008), 94, 99–100. 92 Ibid., 96. 93 Soll describes and illustrates extensively the technique by which Amelot used Machiavelli to present his own political messages in order to offer a measure of protection from the authorities. ‘Through prefatory texts, footnotes, concordances, and commentaries, Amelot hijacked the texts presented in his books,’ Publishing the Prince, 13. 94 Ibid., 25.

62

Chapter 2

The Prince by Machiavelli … filled with notes, in which he has mixed ­maxims that are so dangerous that they deserve to be condemned for the good of M ­ orals and Politics.’95 Soll borrows from Max Weber the notion of d­ isenchantment and applies it to the politics of prudence, formed in history rather than ­political theology. The development of this prudential, ends-directed politics he ascribes above all others to Amelot.96 Through Amelot’s annotated editions of The Prince, the Enlightenment world became acquainted with Machiavelli and decided that he lay in the line of Tacitus, like Diderot, or that he should be denounced either in part – Diderot again – or utterly, as Frederick the Great and his philosophical advisor, Voltaire argued. In 1765, Diderot included an entry on Machiavellianism in the Encyclopédie, describing it as an abhorrent type of political tyranny. Yet the complete text of the entry credits Machiavelli with a repugnance of despotic rule. How Machiavelli’s transformation from an enemy of despotism to an apologist for tyranny occurred does not detain Diderot who was equivocal about him. Diderot rejected Machiavelli’s arguments for political prudence. While for Machiavelli grandezza justified a ruler’s departure from common morality, for Diderot, a crime remains a crime, and virtue must still be distinguished from glory.97 Frederick the Great (1712–1786) of Prussia, before he became ‘the Great,’ laid into Machiavelli with the hired quill of Voltaire. The result was Anti-­Machiavel of 1740, which was no sooner completed than Frederick, in the search for greatness, started his first war of conquest in Silesia. Thus was Dacres’s contention confirmed: those who denounce the loudest often practice what they ­denounce. Anti-Machiavel follows the chapters of Machiavelli’s Prince, missing no opportunity to denounce him. Full of falsehoods and distortions though it is, the Anti-Machiavel sparkles with the wit of Voltaire. It was a time when many European intellectuals wanted to play philosopher to a king or queen, and create a despotisme éclairé, a despot to impose the enlightened few on the unenlightened many. They also say that Voltaire’s stay suited Frederick more than Voltaire, but once in the gilded cage, he could not very well flounce out. Machiavelli, says Frederick, showed contempt for the subjects, all to be sacrificed at the whim of the tyrant whom Machiavelli celebrates. Cesare Borgia is the model of Machiavelli, whereas Frederick wraps himself in Marcus ­Aurelius. Frederick accuses Machiavelli of choosing monsters as exemplars. It follows that in choosing an exemplar such as Borgia, Machiavelli has a coldblooded hatred of mankind. Indeed, he teaches crime, offering ‘a curriculum 95 96 97

Ibid., 18. Ibid., 82. Ibid., 119.

The Hand of Satan

63

of ­faithlessness in a university of traitors.’98 Another role model he offers is Agathocles. Machiavelli treats the life and death of subjects with whimsy, preferring, like Borgia, cruelty to leniency. Beyond such models, Frederick finds Machiavelli’s advice impractical because the gulf between his world and ­Machiavelli’s is such that the modern age ‘is almost unrecognizable any more to someone of his century.’ Hence, ‘the majority of Machiavel’s maxims (are) inapplicable to our modern policy.’99 Frederick spent much time showing that Machiavelli is irrelevant to considerations of state in the eighteenth century. Machiavelli advised a prince to hunt in order to learn the lay of the land. Ferdinand responds that a kingdom is too big and varied for a king to do this. Likewise, he dismissed Machiavelli’s advice for a prince to live among his people on the same grounds. In many practical ways, such as warfare, Frederick’s observations are obvious, but the intriguing thing is that his exertions and those of his editor, Voltaire, are wasted: they directed their criticisms at the wrong target – concrete recommendations for political stability – but in the process showed how foolish anachronism can be. It is hardly surprising that they found Machiavelli wanting. That he was not prescient about conditions in Prussia two centuries later is not surprising. Frederick takes Machiavelli to be generalizing about all times and all places. At the end of this book we offer a few thoughts on placing Machiavelli in context, but for now it must suffice to say this: Cesare Borgia struck Machiavelli as a remarkable man and he tried to draw lessons from his observations and experiences in Borgia’s company. Borgia suits Frederick’s purpose. Machiavelli’s condemnation of the needless cruelty of Agathocles is an inconvenient truth he overlooked. Suffice it to say, Frederick’s and Voltaire’s criticisms were no more successful than others in relegating The Prince to the recesses of collective memory. If anything, perhaps, they stimulated interest in him and the book. There were too many admirers who read the book in a different light. In ­Germany, Goethe, Fichte and Hegel took a very different view of Machiavelli from Frederick. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s play Egmont (1788), like much of Goethe’s drama, follows the trajectory of a Shakespearean tragedy, but whereas the Bard used Machiavelli as a topos of malevolence, Goethe uses the name for a courtier who is mentioned forty-five times. The story concerns Egmont, a Flemish nobleman who rebels against Spanish rule in the Low Countries and comes to a bad end because the people whom he would lead into rebellion are 98

99

Frederick the Great, Anti-Machiavel (Newark, nj: Newark Press, 2013[1740]) Chapter viii. However, Voltaire does not deign to mention Machiavelli in his own Philosophical Dictionary (New York: Knopf, 1924 [1764]). Frederick the Great, Anti-Machiavel, Chapter x.

64

Chapter 2

not as enthusiastic for the cause as he is. One of the Spanish Regent’s underlings is Machiavelli, who counsels caution and moderation and who obeys orders (Acts ii and iv). The main theme of the play is national liberty combined with stoic fatalism. Though the character is present, he says little and does less, and in neither saying nor doing does he embody the stereotype of the conniving Machiavelli. While Goethe makes no effort to distance this Machiavelli from those stereotypes, he must have known that the name Machiavelli would be familiar to audiences – the more so thanks to Frederick the Great’s burlesque of Machiavelli two generations earlier. Frederick had died but two years before the play was complete, and perhaps his death called to Goethe’s mind the Anti-Machiavel of 1740. Like Frederick, the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1794–1814) recognized that Machiavelli’s thought could not be plundered at will for contemporary guidance. Modern states differed greatly from the Italian cities of Machiavelli’s time. Yet for Fichte, Machiavelli is a protean figure in abandoning sentimentality in politics, adopting rational principles and showing how morality cannot apply in the relations of states.100 By the time Georg Hegel mentioned Machiavelli in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy (1825), Machiavelli was treated as a minor figure in Italian history, no longer the fearful nemesis that Frederick had battled on behalf of German people everywhere. Hegel dismissed objectionable features of The Prince as accidental to the times but, like Fichte, admired Machiavelli’s supposed drive to unify Italy. What did Fichte and Hegel find in Machiavelli? Carl Schmitt suggests ideological comfort. Noting that Machiavelli wrote at a time when Italy was subject to ­German, French, Spanish and Turkish attacks, Schmitt points to his utility to the ­Germans under threat. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the situation of the ideological defensive was repeated in Germany – during the revolutionary and Napoleonic invasions of the French. When it became important for the German people to defend themselves against an expanding enemy armed with a humanitarian ideology, Machiavelli was rehabilitated by Fichte and Hegel.101 At the time Hegel wrote, Machiavelli had an English defender in Thomas Babington Macaulay, parliamentarian, judge and essayist. He attempts to 100 Douglas Moggach, ‘Fichte’s Engagement with Machiavelli,’ History of Political Thought, 14 (1993)4, 573–589. 101 The Concept of the Political (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 66.

The Hand of Satan

65

­rescue Machiavelli from the erroneous interpretations heaped on him by moralists, religious commentators and others who should have known better, but cut the cloth to fit the times. His essay made Machiavelli something of a celebrity in the England of his time, as a man misunderstood. Of Machiavelli ­Macaulay wrote in 1827, ‘We doubt whether any name in literary history be so generally odious as that of the man whose character and writings we now propose to consider.’102 It is said that ‘he was the Tempter, the Evil Principle, the discoverer of ambition and revenge, the original inventor of perjury, and that, before the publication of his fatal Prince, there had never been a hypocrite, a tyrant, or a traitor, a simulated virtue, or a convenient crime.’ No one lied, stole, or betrayed before Machiavelli, according to the Vulgar Machiavellians, ­Macaulay pointedly remarks. The crimes of others blamed on Machiavelli range from those of the Turkish sultan, to Guy Fawkes, and the St B ­ artholomew’s Day massacre.103 His name is an epithet for knave and synonym for evil. Yet, ­Macaulay continues, ‘It is notorious that Machiavelli was, through life, a zealous republican. In the same year in which he composed his manual of King-craft, he suffered imprisonment and torture in the cause of public liberty. It seems inconceivable that the martyr of freedom should have designedly acted as the apostle of tyranny.’104 Having thus set the scene, Macaulay avers that ‘few writings … exhibit so much elevation of sentiment, so pure and warm a zeal for the public good, or so just a view of the duties and rights of citizens, as those of Machiavelli. Yet so it is. And even from The Prince itself we could select many passages in support of this remark.’105 Machiavelli was a man whose public conduct was upright and honourable, whose views of morality, where they differed from those of the persons around him, seemed to have differed for the better, and whose only fault was, that, having adopted some of the maxims then generally received, he arranged them more luminously, and expressed them more forcibly, than any ­other writer.106 102 Thomas Babington (Lord) Macaulay, ‘Machiavelli’ in Critical and Historical Essays (­London: Longmans, 1827), 1. 103 Lord Salisbury, using the hapless Fawkes’s mysterious and foreign sounding name, Guido, referred to him as the ‘Machiavellian with a match,’ James Shapiro, William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 2015) in the Kindle version. 104 Macaulay, 2. 105 Ibid., 3. 106 Ibid.

66

Chapter 2

As for Borgia, Macaulay suggests that Machiavelli saw in him ‘the only leader who could have defended the independence of Italy against the confederation of spoilers surrounding it.’107 This is a conclusion with which we h ­ eartily agree and which we will flesh out in the last chapter. Machiavelli accepted the ­return of the Medici, because he was ‘inclined to support any government which might preserve her [Florence’s] independence.’108 We might add that he also accepted that return as a fact, one which there is no point in trying to fight, the goal being to survive and try again. The end is the independence from the plundering armies of France and Spain traversing Italy. Once understood, the means to that end is a programmatic study of policy and politics such as The Prince offers. Like Dacres, Macaulay notes that Machiavelli was most strongly attacked by some of those who practiced the political arts he studied in the Prince. He puts it this way: The character of Machiavelli was hateful to the new masters of Italy; and those parts of his theory which were in strict accordance with their own daily practice afforded a pretext for blackening his memory. His works were misrepresented by the learned, misconstrued by the ­ignorant, censured by the Church. …The name of the man whose genius had ­illuminated all the dark places of policy, and to whose patriotic wisdom an oppressed people had owed their last chance of emancipation and revenge, passed into a proverb of infamy.109 In 1862 Victor Hugo published Les Misérables. Deep into this massive work, Hugo ruminates about the distortions born of the passage of time: If you would ascertain at once what degree of ugliness the fact may reach, seen in the distance of the centuries, look at Machiavelli. Machiavelli is not an evil genius, nor a demon, nor a cowardly and miserable writer; he is nothing but the fact. And he is not merely the Italian fact, he is the European fact, the fact of the sixteenth century. He seems hideous, and he is so, in presence of the moral idea of the nineteenth.110 Hugo means, it seems, that viewed with our sensibilities he is hideous. It is rare that a popular writer should so pause to exculpate Machiavelli instead of using 107 108 109 110

Ibid., 17. Ibid., 20. Ibid., 25. Emphasis added. Victor Hugo, Les Misérables (New York: Modern Library. 1992[1862]), 715.

The Hand of Satan

67

his name as a byword for villainy. This was only the beginning of Le Grand Victor’s work with Machiavelli. Hugo dabbled with spiritualism while in exile on Guernsey Island, where he wrote that mighty tome, and he communed with Machiavelli’s ghost at a séance or two in December 1853. Table rapping was a common pursuit of the time and there was much of it chez Hugo who, with his fellow spiritualists, transcribed their séances. Some of them wrote of their experiences, though most of the transcripts have joined the spirits on the other side of the veil, i.e., they are lost. The records show three references to Machiavelli, and he, like the other spirits who visited Hugo, heaped praise on him as the sage of the ages. And they rapped about politics in the first two visits, the transcripts of which have been lost, in the third reincarnation, which is summarized by Chambers.111 As a victim of Napoleon iii’s tyranny, as he saw it, Hugo would have had a lot to say to Machiavelli, but then he had a lot to say to all the spirits who visited him…. It is tempting to disport further but best not. Yet another example is found in a work of the following year, 1863, in George Eliot’s fourth novel, Romola, a period drama set in Florence. The story starts in 1492, when Lorenzo de’ Medici ruled, and continues to the execution of Girolamo Savonarola. Machiavelli is one of the supporting players in the ensemble cast. He looks and sounds like Machiavelli and not a stereotype, and toward the end of the book he is appointed secretary to the Committee of Ten, the executive council of Florence. Machiavelli provides a commentary on the turbulent events in the city leading up to the death of Savonarola. In the foreground, Romola marries a handsome cad and comes to regret it. What is interesting is how innocently Machiavelli is portrayed. He is smart; he follows the politics of the city intently; he is loyal to his friends. This is a Machiavelli very unlike the figure censured by Reginald Pole. In 1864 one Maurice Joly, a French lawyer, published a book called Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu). Observing contemporary nineteenth-century France, Joly’s fictional Machiavelli lays out a plan for world domination, which his Montesquieu tries to contest on moral, strategic, and tactical grounds. This Machiavelli presents himself as an observer of those who seek political power when he sets out what an unscrupulous power-seeker would do and how it would be done. He does not recommend, applaud, or even like any of it, but it is what happens and what could happen. Against Machiavelli’s rather fatalistic conclusion that these things happen, Montesquieu argues that nowadays it could not happen here. Why not, asks 111 John Chambers, Victor Hugo’s Conversations with the Spirit World (Merrimac, ma: Destiny Books, 2008), 224.

68

Chapter 2

Machiavelli? Because we have laws, because in nineteenth-century France there is a constitution, because there is a division of powers, because there is a fearless press, because there are engaged citizens. Machiavelli dissects each of these defenses as more illusory than real. What counts is not institutions or laws, but the will of men, and one determined, cunning man can impose his will on others who are distracted by the toil of living. Such a man will use laws, institutions, divisions of powers, and all that other paraphernalia as weapons to achieve his goal, rather than be thwarted by them.112 Joly was clever, but not as clever as he thought. The Dialogue was an indictment of Louis Napoleon iii – Victor Hugo’s nemesis – who was doing all the things Machiavelli said an autocrat would do. Joly thought he was clever by shrouding the indictment in a harmless dispute between two long dead men talking in generalities, and publishing it over the Jura mountains in faraway Geneva without his name. Louis Napoleon’s secret police, in the manner of the dogged Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, had no trouble getting the book, getting the message, and getting the author – fifteen months in the slammer and a fine. A generation after his death in 1878, Maurice Joly became a posthumous recruit to another cause: anti-Semitism. It is a tangled story and there is more than one version of it, but here is the essence: Joly’s Dialogue was cited as evidence for the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the beginning of the twentieth century. This latter was the foundation text for much twentieth-century anti-Semitism. There is nothing in the Dialogue or Joly’s biography to suggest anti-Semitism, though it was common in his time and place. His hostility to Louis Napoleon was inspired by his adherence to and fear for liberalism, not monarchism, not nationalism, not Bourbonism, and not anti-Semitism. Suffice it to say the tenuous link between the Protocols and the Dialogue was three passages, which were probably retro-fitted in the former to parallel those in the latter to give the whole thing plausibility. In the end Joly, and thereby Machiavelli, is tarred with anti-Semitism.113 As far as we can tell, those who have dismembered the Protocols have not been tempted to blame Machiavelli for them in the way Gentillet blamed Machiavelli for the Huguenot massacre.114

112 Maurice Joly, The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2002 [1864]). 113 Ibid. 63, 71, and 121. These passages refer to the press, bankers, and those who rule in a secret alliance to confuse and manipulate the public, the very stuff of conspiracy theory. 114 On the recent history of the Protocols, see David Dunlap, ‘Exposing the “Protocols” as Fraud,’ New York Times, 27 October 2016.

The Hand of Satan

69

One of the several nineteenth-century translations and editions of The Prince demands attention because it is adorned by an introductory essay by none other than Lord Acton, he of that oft quoted aphorism about power and corruption. In the essay Acton proclaims that Machiavelli’s essential teaching was that ‘extraordinary objects cannot be accomplished under ordinary rules.’ Acton says the obvious. Kings, princes, and even religious prelates, had long used dubious methods, such as spies, bribes, or assassination, to secure political ends. He dwells on the self-righteous Venetians who congratulated themselves on both their republican government and religious piety, while regularly employing murder and bribery as state policy. Machiavelli, says Acton, has had many imitators and very few defenders.115 Acton’s comment was, like many of his other observations, prescient. In 1894, the first entry in the world of Machiavelliana in the United States appeared, The Boss: An Essay upon the Art of Governing American Cities by Henry Champernowne. ‘Champernowne’ is a pseudonym, referring perhaps to an English nobleman in the time of Elizabeth i. The author is David MacGregor Means (1847–1931). At the outset the fictitious Champernowne writes, ‘I nowhere contradict Machiavelli, nor even venture to differ with him. I have felt it necessary to extend and adapt his plan to make it applicable to present time.’116 The book, though considerably longer than The Prince, mimics its layout in short chapters with long titles such as, ‘Of the Modern Municipality in the United States of America.’ It opens with a dedicatory letter to the Boss of New York City, and goes on to such topics as sources of revenue, management of elected officials, rewards for ward healers, and relations with the Republican machine. Students of the history of the United States might recall that this was a period of rapacious corruption in American politics, and Champernowne had plenty of material for his satire. Did Teddy Roosevelt, a voracious reader, peruse it while he was trying to clean up New York City? American Frank Stearns published Napoleon and Machiavelli, subtitled Two Essays in Political Science in 1903.117 In fact, the little volume is six essays: the first three on Napoleon, then one on Goethe, and a final one on Dante, and before that seventeen pages on Machiavelli, whom Stearns terms one of the puzzles of Medieval history. Machiavelli, writes Stearns, was a man whose ­personal 115 L. Arthur Burd, Il Principe of Niccolò Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1891). The Foreword by Lord Acton runs from xix to xl, these points are made respectively at xix, xx, and xxxv. 116 Henry Champernowne, The Boss (New York City: Richmond, 1894), 3. 117 Frank Preston Stearns, Napoleon and Machiavelli (Memphis, tn: General Books llc, 1903).

70

Chapter 2

character was never stained, who devoted his life to the service of his native city, who endured torture, and died in poverty. In contrast his Prince recommends cruelty and cynicism. How can we square the man with the work, asks Stearns. His answer is that in the Prince, but not in his other works, Machiavelli spoke his mind about politics with especial reference to his hopes for Italian unity. In the course of his exposition Stearns mentions George Eliot’s version of Machiavelli and Macaulay’s rehabilitation of his reputation, interesting evidence of the power of literature to shape or reshape a reputation.118 In 1906, muckraker Ida Tarbell published an essay called ‘Commercial Machiavellianism’ in McClure’s Magazine.119 At the time McClure’s was the top of the publishing hierarchy. Her essay is polemical, and related the unscrupulous cynicism associated with the term Machiavellism in the contemporary business world. In 1910, that very busy writer Herbert George Wells published The New Machiavelli, a novel, in instalments issued as a book the following year. In its pages the protagonist endures a self-imposed internal exile because of his sexual dalliances and writes his memoirs. Wells’s new Machiavelli is Richard ‘Dick’ Remington, who has a lifelong passion for statecraft and who dreams of recasting the social and political form of the English nation. He compares himself to Machiavelli in his Florentine exile. He has read most of Machiavelli and is struck by the humanity of his politics. Remington is brilliant, insightful, charming, much admired, and irresistible to women – much like Wells himself. For all his reading, for all his brilliance, Remington, has nothing to say about Machiavelli and he himself is but a stick-figure. Still the book is evidence of the assimilation of Machiavelli into popular culture.120 In 1915 Franklin Norton published a play called Machiavelli, a Drama, which recounts some of Niccolò’s life, and his death reconciled to the Church.121 There is no reference to Machiavelli’s reputation. It is rather like Eliot’s Romola in using Florence as a romantic backdrop, although in this case Machiavelli is the central figure. The narrative spans the period from the death of Lorenzo to that of Girolamo Savonarola, using the boy-man Machiavelli as a bridge between the two events. In Edward Larocque Tinker’s Machiavellian Madam of Basin Street and other Tales of New Orleans (1916), a prostitute leaves a will which is published in a ­local newspaper, proclaiming that the estate will pay $250 each to a list of men 118 119 120 121

Ibid., 23. Ida Tarbell, ‘Commercial Machiavellianism,’ McClure’s Magazine, 26 (1906)5, 453–463. Herbert George Wells, The New Machiavelli (London: Dent, 1911). Franklin Pierce Norton, Machiavelli, a Drama (Memphis, tn: General Books llc, 1915).

The Hand of Satan

71

(who were her clients) to attend her funeral. They are hypocrites who deny knowing her, but go anyway to collect the money. ‘The dead had reached from the grave and struck. Machiavelli could have done no better.’122 Why Mr Tinker invoked Machiavelli in this tale remains a mystery, but again, it shows the absorption of his name into popular culture. Antonio Gramsci, a communist imprisoned by the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini for eight years (1926–1934), wrote in jail his Prison Notebooks, and a work subsequently published separately under the title The Modern Prince.123 In it Gramsci likens the Communist Party to Machiavelli’s prince. In Machiavelli’s hands the prince could, would, and should create a collective identity, Italy, and use that to expel foreigners and to unite the elements antagonistic to the peninsula. The prince overcomes the false consciousness that sets these ­elements against each other so that they can oppose their common enemy. The prince in The Prince is a myth to embody a political vision, strategy, and the tactics both to create and to free Italy. The New Jerusalem of communism, a workers’ state, Gramsci hoped, requires just such transformative leadership and in a complex industrial society a single man, a prince on horseback cannot do that. In place of the prince Gramsci puts the Communist Party. As ­Machiavelli delineated the qualities of a successful prince, so Gramsci sets out to detail the necessary qualities of such a successful revolutionary party in Italy. Gramsci did not scruple to mention Machiavelli’s name. He did not labor under any stereotypes hostile to Machiavelli and did not assume anyone who learned of his notes would either.124 We will resume the threads of subsequent uses and abuses of Machiavelli in the chapters that follow, some in the thematic chapters, which take up issues glossed in this chapter. One of them – leadership – will bring us back to Gramsci’s jailer, Mussolini.

Guilt by Association

Once established, the Machiavel became a versatile figure in the hands of dramatists and ideologues. As we have shown, after the French wars of religion Machiavelli’s reputation carried its own message. Where his works were consulted, they were read largely through his reputation as a theorist of i­ llegitimate 122 Edward Larocque Tinker, The Machiavellian Madam of Basin Street and other Tales of New Orleans (Austin, Texas: Encino Press, 1969 [1916]), 6. 123 Antonio Gramsci, The Modern Prince (New York City: International, 1957), 135–188: 124 Ibid., 146ff.

72

Chapter 2

power. That reputation above all has kept his works in print, and has continued to attract attention especially to The Prince. Political scientists and historians have seldom troubled to correct uses of Machiavelli in popular culture, and one reason is not hard to find: at times they have read Machiavelli in similar ways, particularly in the history of political thought. Quentin Skinner has quipped, ‘Hobbes … is said to have been influenced by Machiavelli, by whom indeed everyone is said to have been influenced.’125 Though subject to decades of astringent criticism, this somewhat naive approach to influence and its history persists.126 It is not difficult to see how the mythology arose. Confirmation bias and unexamined assumptions predispose many political theorists and historians to mistake linguistic similarities for doctrinal continuities and influences. Another form of anachronism is that concepts in Machiavelli’s world are smaller scale versions of our own and can without difficulty, be enlarged, as if intellectual history is the application of a conceptual pantograph. The foremost example of this is lo stato being effortlessly up-scaled to ‘the state.’ ‘There is always the danger,’ wrote Skinner, ‘that the historian may conceptualize an argument in such a way that its alien elements are dissolved into an apparent but misleading familiarity.’127 The history of political thought is replete with examples of silent transposition where historical differences pass unnoticed. Yet the more we attend to linguistic and historical differences, the less plausible are the assumptions underlying modern uses of Machiavelli’s conceptual vocabulary. Instead, we become aware of the distinctiveness of Machiavelli’s world and its distance from our own, and of the fact that Machiavelli is not the actor – the influencer – but is being used by others. That passive voice is important in recognizing Machiavelli’s fate in both modern scholarship and popular culture. A typical example of the use of Machiavelli to get a point across in the scholarly literature is Koppel Pinson’s standard history of Germany. Pinson wrote in general gestures of the ‘Machiavellian tradition of the supremacy of power and force’ being ‘deeply ingrained in German leaders’ of the early twentieth century.128 That malign influence received its ultimate expression in the Nazi 125 Quentin Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,’ History and Theory, 8, 1 (1969), 3–53. 126 In a series of seminal articles culminating in ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,’ Skinner attacked this chain approach, 25–26. In particular, he criticized a ‘mythology of doctrines’ in which a procession of thinkers is identified, or a root idea is developed or modified over time, ibid., 7. 127 Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding,’ 27. 128 Koppel Pinson, Modern Germany, 2nd. Edn. (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 301.

The Hand of Satan

73

dictatorship: ‘One book was apparently read by Hitler with the avowed aim of making it his political vade mecum. This was Machiavelli’s The Prince.’129 Timothy Ryback tells us that when American soldiers entered the ruin of Hitler’s Berghof, they found the remains of his library scattered around. Among the three books mentioned by name in the report of this inspection is Machiavelli’s Prince.130 A more recent and more extensive example is E.A. Rees’ study of modern political thought. Rees takes the connection beyond fascism and Nazism to communism: ‘each, in part, drew some inspiration from Machiavelli.’131 ‘The ­ affinities between the practices and policies of Lenin and Stalin and those advocated by Machiavelli are also very significant.’132 Like Hitler, Stalin is supposed to have read The Prince.133 Rees refers to Machiavelli more substantively than many we discuss in the following chapters, but his putative influences amount to little more than likenesses, allegedly shared attitudes, echoes, familiarity, supposed traditions, reminiscences, consistency with, affinities, sameness, and mirroring.134 These attempts to establish Machiavelli’s influence on Soviet leaders do not, however, meet the basic criteria for establishing influence set out by Skinner many decades ago. These criteria are, (i) a strong similarity between the doctrines of the thinker influencing and the thinker influenced (assuming that genuine doctrines could be established); (ii) that the relevant doctrine was unique to the influencing thinker; and (iii) that the resemblance between doctrines has a very low probability of being accidental.135 Conceding that ‘direct influences are the most difficult to substantiate,’ Rees adventurously proposes tracing the indirect influence of Machiavelli’s thought on individuals and movements. But this tactic raises rather than lowers the bar of evidence: if direct influence is difficult to detect, indirect influence must approach the unattainable. Conal Condren identifies various qualifications of 129 Ibid., 482; cf. 491. 130 Timothy Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library (London: Bodley Head, 2009), 224. 131 Edward Rees, Political Thought From Machiavelli To Stalin (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004), 235. 132 Ibid., 238. 133 ‘Robert Tucker, Robert Conquest and R. Medvedev confidently assert that Stalin had read Machiavelli,’ Rees, Political Thought From Machiavelli To Stalin, 222. 134 ‘This is the nearest we come in Stalin’s work to an engagement with “Machiavellism” in politics. What is notable is how many of his critics before 1941 had spoken of Stalin in these self-same terms;’ ‘Machiavelli’s advice with regard to how the prince should deal with successful military commanders is mirrored closely in Stalin’s demotion of Marshall Zhukov in 1945,’ ibid., 229. 135 Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding,’ 26.

74

Chapter 2

influence, such as ‘possible,’ ‘pervasive’ and ‘indirect,’ which he calls ‘emptying qualifications,’ that is, so hollow as to be applicable to a text merely in virtue of its chronological precedence.136 This is the case with Rees’s attribution of ‘indirect influence’ to Machiavelli on French revolutionaries, Italian fascists, German Nazis and Russian communists. Skinner argues that the conditions necessary for demonstrating influence are so seldom met that it is ‘scarcely an exaggeration’ to reduce the study of influence in the history of ideas to ‘the capacity of the observer to foreshorten the past by filling it with his own reminiscences.’137 Rees does, however, have a fallback position that he calls ‘Machiavellism.’ This he finds in the ‘affinities between both the thoughts and actions of political actors and the advice offered by Machiavelli.’138 For Rees, this, and the opinions of Russian contemporaries, justify elisions such as, ‘In Machiavelli and Stalin’s thought…’139 Such elisions raise questions of observer bias. As Skinner observed, the resemblance of an argument in a later work to that in an earlier one might lead a historian ‘to suppose that it was the intention of the later writer to refer to the earlier, and so may come to speak misleadingly of the “influence” of the earlier work.’140 While Skinner thinks evidence for influence is elusive, he does not believe influence is ‘empty of explanatory force.’141 Condren doubts even this, arguing that in order to attribute the influence of a writer’s ideas on events, an event has to be presented as ideationally naked. Hence, while Rees believes that ‘Machiavelli’s thought acquired a new significance with the French Revolution,’ (while conceding that Machiavelli’s intellectual contribution to the revolutionary movement is difficult to isolate),142 Condren shows that this belief entails a difficulty. In trying to ascertain in general what role ideas played in the French Revolution, we have to abstract from the historical situation (a compound of events, writings, speeches, their dissemination and transmission) a situation in which some components that define the whole are absent – we 136 Conal Condren, Status and Appraisal, 135. Rees’s discussion of influence falls directly into Condren’s critique of the concept as applied to classic texts, 131–138. 137 Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding,’ 27. 138 Rees, Political Thought From Machiavelli To Stalin, viii. 139 Ibid., 228. 140 Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding,’ 25. 141 Ibid., 25. 142 Rees, Political Thought From Machiavelli To Stalin, 19.

The Hand of Satan

75

have to picture a French Revolution without its ‘ideas’ in order to see how the ‘ideas’ influenced it, what role they played, whether they can be numbered among its causes.143 This objection seems fatal to the kind of case mounted by Rees. If influence is not an empty concept, detecting it is problematic. Connections identifiable in the sixteenth century, such as manuscripts drawing upon The Prince found by Alessandra Petrina,144 become more difficult to discern with the passing of time and the spread of Machiavelli’s reputation. Assertions of the influence of The Prince on Napoleon, Stalin or Hitler face formidable evidentiary obstacles, but their implausibility has not dispelled stereotypes about Machiavelli or redeemed his reputation.

Conclusion

Machiavelli’s reputation as a theorist of policy and political power was substantially formed by the middle of the sixteenth century. Until the twentieth century, Machiavellian controversies centered on his political ethics – or lack of them – and questions about how the author of The Prince could also be a passionate republican. As the twentieth century drew on, however, Machiavelli found himself increasingly occupying foreign territories, not as an interloper like the French or Spanish kings of his time, but as an invited guest. He became celebrated as an analyst of human nature, of management techniques and primate behaviour, in the manner of mathematicians, like Bayes, who have left a legacy for others to use. But Machiavelli is not a Bayes of the human and primate sciences. Stated so baldly, it is obvious that attributing modern analytical methods and concerns to a sixteenth-century Florentine public administrator and political theorist is anachronistic, not at all on a par with the legacy of Bayes. Machiavelli’s co-option by various enterprises of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is only possible because anachronism is paid as little attention as the writings that supposedly underpin his relevance. It is not the historical Machiavelli who is welcomed by the moderns, but his simulacrum, a product of the appropriative power of popular culture. This culture shapes 143 Condren, Status and Appraisal, 137. 144 One instance she gives is Tractatus de Monarchia, which ‘seems to draw its inspiration, directly or indirectly, from Machiavelli’s Principe, and to propose a sort of simplified summary of it, making explicit reference to the Italian writer,’ Alessandra Petrina, Machiavelli in the British Isles, 31.

76

Chapter 2

beliefs from misconceptions: Frankenstein has become his monster, the theory of relativity means that everything is relative, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Popular culture has put about such myths, and among them is the reputation of Machiavelli, author of a book allegedly dealing with the secret art of manipulating self-interested and acquisitive human beings. The Prince was written at a time of political crisis that had intensified personally for Machiavelli with his loss of office in the Second Chancery. Machiavelli wrote the book quickly, drawing on his experience in the Second Chancery and his close observations of domestic and foreign politics. The Prince reflects life in the turbulent trenches of politics as Machiavelli found it. Intellectually its background reflects Machiavelli’s interests in the Roman historians and Lucretius. This makes him pre-Christian, not a protean post-Christian. The work was ostensibly directed to one family, the Medici, first through Machiavelli’s onetime friend, Giuliano de’ Medici, and then through his nephew, Lorenzo. Still, Machiavelli thought sufficiently of it to circulate it among his friends. It was written for an audience on which Machiavelli wanted to make a good impression, not by flattery but by showing his acuteness. The problem the book addressed was new principalities and how a ruler might acquire and retain them. This is not a problem addressed by most works in the mirror of princes genre with which The Prince has parodic affinities. Indeed, it challenges that tradition, which is built on the key assumptions that a king’s duty is to uphold existing laws and follow true religion. Machiavelli does, however, confront a problem that was important for the Medici in establishing new principalities for the family, most likely a new one for Giuliano in the Romagna. Carving out a new principality is the work of a man of virtù. The virtues needed for such a task are not those in the traditional catalog, but those suited to the times: military prowess and courage; a disposition that does not recoil from inspiring fear; a readiness to change position when opportunities arise and disasters threaten, even if one must break faith; the cultivation of appearances, particularly appearances of goodness and religiosity. A territory will not be held by a man on his knees, but by one who seizes the moment, controls what he can control and resists Fortune when she seeks to undermine him. Such a man will also be fit to drive the foreign barbarians from Italy and provide security for its peoples and regimes – its stati. It is not immediately clear how such a book would be relevant to politics generally, let alone other activities remote from this context. Deceptively simple to read, The Prince requires an adequate historical scaffolding to make its raison d’être and context intelligible. That, of course, might then make it irrelevant to the purposes of later users. Pointing to the necessity of reading the work contextually is not an argument for univocal interpretation, but a

The Hand of Satan

77

claim that there can be no authentic interpretation of The Prince without it. ­Appearances to the contrary, this is not a book that is accessible to the casual reader. Machiavelli’s aphorisms are straight, acute and memorable, the dramatic effect of which is undoubted. We suspect that part of the explanation for the scope and range of Machiavelli’s reputation is because he is so easy to quote. But without the limitations imposed by context, an important restraint on quoting The Prince inappropriately is removed. Knowledge of Machiavelli’s context goes a long way to dispelling the distorted Machiavel of popular myth, a myth originated by polemicists but embellished in countless ways in popular culture. Myths permeate scholarship as well, giving scholars good reason to enter the lists on behalf of the historical Machiavelli and his book. We delineate in summary form the myth in its modern form in Chapter 10. In the fields we discuss in the chapters following, scholarly intervention is regrettably missing. If The Prince is deployed in contemporary popular political analysis, management studies, social psychology and primatology in order to lend its authority to these endeavours, what is that authority worth if the work is misrepresented? The Machiavel of popular imagination, the legacy of Pole and Gentillet, is a dubious patron for serious work in the areas we discuss; he does them no credit and they would be better off disassociating themselves from him. Our advice to do so should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Machiavelli. Political scientists and historians have been less than forceful in urging this reform, but we aim to make amends for this quiescence here. We turn next to one of the first resurrections of Machiavelli in the contemporary world when that writer of wit and wisdom Antony Jay inducted him into the annals of business management, where he has stayed ever after. In Chapter 3 we review Machiavelli in Management, the origins, but as there is so much misuse of Machiavelli under the banner of management, another chapter is needed, and so, in Chapter 4 we will deal with Theory M.

Chapter 3

Machiavelli in Management: The Enterprise of Sir Antony Jay, Ltd. Niccolò Machiavelli’s career as a management consultant began in 1967, a mere four hundred and forty years after his death. Until that time, apart from those who used and abused his name in the popular culture as reviewed in Chapter 2, Machiavelli had largely been the property of the specialists in history, political theory, and literature. However Machiavelli’s greatest claim to fame from the twentieth century has been in, of all things, management. This man, who never managed anything, has come to be an oracle of management, managers, business, commerce, career, and all that goes with a life in business. The transformation did not occur all at once, but occur it did. There were a few false starts on the track and to provide a context we will observe the chronology of the conversion. But the upshot is that ‘Machiavelli’ escaped the ­clutches of the academic specialties and went over the wall, where he made a new name for himself on the street, starting with management, and what a name it has become. But there were those false starts first. That remarkable activist and scholar James Burnham set before an uncertain world two formidable books in quick succession. It was an uncertain world because World War ii was in the offing. The first of these, by this communist turned virulent anti-communist, was The Managerial Revolution in 1941. In this book Burnham argued that the owners of the means of production in corporations no longer managed them. Rather, corporations were m ­ anaged by professionals at management.1 This trend had emerged as corporations ­increased in size since 1917 and was greatly to be accelerated in the years ­before World War ii. He predicted this trend would increase into the future. It followed in his reasoning that the new ruling elite would be comprised of ­managers, not owners, whether the corporations were private, public, or state owned. ‘What has this to do with Niccolò?’ asks the reader. The answer lies in Burnham’s second book, which followed within eighteen months.

1 James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution or What is Happening in the World Now (London: Putnam, 1941).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_005

Machiavelli in Management

79

In 1943, in the midst of World War ii, Burnham published The ­Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom.2 This book finds realism at the heart of Machiavellian works and argues that only a clinical analysis can equip societies to maximize and protect freedom. Thus, in quick succession he published two books, one about management and one about Machiavelli. Ergo, those with a general knowledge that these two books exist, and no great interest in the subject, may be forgiven for running the two together à la Georges Braque in a double vision. Speaking of this project along the way, be it over the dinner table or at a seminar, many a well-informed interlocutor has brought up Burnham. To be sure, we thought of this connection, too, when we started on this project and so we have examined Burnham’s books closely. What we found is this: Machiavelli is mentioned in The Management Revolution in this way. Across from the title page there is this epigram from a letter by Machiavelli: I come now to the last branch of my charge: that I teach princes villainy, and how to enslave. If any man will read over my book … with impartiality and ordinary charity, he will easily perceive that it is not my intention to recommend that government, or those men there described, to the world; much less to teach men how to trample upon good men, and all that is sacred and venerable upon the earth, laws, religion, honesty, and what not. If I have been a little too punctual in describing these monsters in all their lineaments and colours, I hope mankind will know them, the better to avoid them, my treatise being both a satire against them, and a true character of them. Striking as this quotation is, it is the first and last, the only mention of Machiavelli in The Management Revolution. There is not a single word about him in the text. Nor is there a single instance of that word ‘management’ in the Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (1943). Pas un mot. Not at least that these two readers could find without the search power of a digital copy. Both of these titles are impressive and informative books that still breathe fire, but they do not illuminate our subject, though by coincidence, taken together, they do prefigure it. Management is a profession these days and it has all the accouterments of one, including a stratified literature, from the popular books on airport bookshelves and the Kindle equivalent, to multi-volume reference works, and technical subdivisions like Operations Research, Human Resources, Accounting, 2 James Burnham, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1943).

80

Chapter 3

Strategy, as well as learned journals and higher degree programs with departments, faculties, and schools to teach it in seats of learning great and small; it is in all a far cry from 1943, when the very word ‘management’ had novelty value. Between the appearance of these two much-heralded works by Burnham another more modest book appeared. It was not reviewed in Time magazine, as were Burnham’s books, but it also recruited Machiavelli as a management cadet.3 Aimee Buchanan published The Lady Means Business. That is a fine book, to be sure, but the end of the subtitle is what catches the eye: How to Reach the Top in the Business World, the Career Woman’s Own Machiavelli.4 All we know about Buchanan comes from the author’s note in the book. There Mrs Buchanan is described as the Director of the Research Bureau of the Encyclopedia Britannica, who hires, trains, and directs its numerous research staff.5 Her inspiration to write the book, continued the note, came from interviewing scores of bright women college graduates who were ill equipped for employment and had no conception of how to develop a career once in business. Her aim was to strip away the pious platitudes about women and business to reveal the truth and offer realistic advice. Impressive as her credentials and her purpose are, as well as the achievement of the book itself, she does not appear in Wikipedia, otherwise so catholic. Nor has the Sisterhood yet embraced her as a forerunner, as far as our searches indicate. Now is the time! Buchanan’s title has in it the name ‘Machiavelli,’ but it is in the subtitle, which is a long one, and at the end of that. Many bibliographies and catalogs do not show the subtitle with the result that the allusion to Machiavelli would not always be found. Such a hidden reference to Machiavelli is not something a publisher would do today. No, today the title of this book would more likely be something like this: The Lady Meets Machiavelli: How to Reach the Top in the Business World. Of such titles more will follow below. Then there is the book itself. It is, according to its dust jacket, aimed at the ‘budding career woman’ and refers to the opportunities in business that the turmoil of the war has offered to women. Remember the publication date is 1942 in the middle of World War ii and by coincidence falls between Burnham’s two books. The book itself is terse and businesslike. It is as spare and pointed as a business letter and recommends, inter alia, concentration, focus, hard work, commitment, long-term planning, and consideration of others. Unlike so many self-help books and 3 Time named The Managerial Revolution one of the six most important books of 1941 in its issue of 15 December 1941. Time Reviewed The Machiavellians in its issue of 17 May 1943. 4 Aimee Buchanan, The Lady Means business: How to Reach the Top in the Business World, the Career Woman’s Own Machiavelli (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942). 5 Ibid., 306. The note refers to her as ‘Mrs’ and we respect and accept that expressed preference.

Machiavelli in Management

81

manuals we see on the shelves or advertized on daytime television it promises no painless remedies. Instead it counsels patience and personal responsibility. It is very easy to respect and to like the author when reading these messages. Where does Machiavelli come in? He enters with uncharacteristic modesty, but consistent with the subtitle, for he is cited at the end of each chapter, where there is a deracinated passage attributed to him. This practice begins with the introduction, which reviews the opportunities open to women in the United States at that time, and encourages women to aim high, at executive positions. At the end of these five pages there follows an aphorism from Machiavelli, to wit: Hence it happened that all the armed prophets conquered, all the unarmed perished. machiavelli

Readers will recognize this passage from The Prince, Chapter vi. Buchanan does not cite The Prince or give a chapter in any of these afterthoughts. Neither here nor anywhere else in the 318 pages of the book is there any discussion of Machiavelli. She does not even give Machiavelli his first name. This is common practice, as if there has never been and will never be another Machiavelli, though there certainly are others who bear this name.6 Her Chapter 1 addressed getting started in business. It recommended using the mundane office jobs usually assigned to women as the springboards to further advancement by showing wit and initiative. We show the sources below each passage as a convenience to readers. It concludes with this passage: Fortune is a woman, and therefore friendly to the young, who can with audacity command her. The Prince, Chapter xxv, machiavelli

There are eleven chapters after the introduction, therefore, twelve passages in total are cited, in addition to the two already quoted above. They are: It is by conquering difficulties that princes raise themselves to power. The Prince, Chapter xx

6 See Chapter 9 for our findings of other Machiavellis, e.g., film actor, cookery writer. Moreover, Machiavelli had a contemporary cousin with the same name.

82

Chapter 3

For as laws are necessary that good manners may be preserved, so there is need of good manners that laws may be maintained. Discourses, Book 1, Chapter xviii

War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing time which gives him leisure to contrive and furnishes ability to execute military plans. The Prince, Chapter xiv

I have already said that princes who wish their power to be durable should fix it on a solid foundation. The Prince, Chapter xii

It has sometimes been asked whether it is better to be loved than feared, to which I answer that one should be both. The Prince, Chapter xvii

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. The Prince, Chapter xi

From the fox, therefore, a prince will learn dexterity in avoiding snares; and from the lion, how to employ his strength to keep the wolves in awe. The Prince, Chapter xviii

Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised. The Prince, Chapter xiv

All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration. Everyone sees your exterior, but few can discern what you have in your heart. The Prince, Chapter xviii

A prince should also invest his actions with a character of greatness and, above all things, avoid weakness and indecision. The Prince, Chapter xix

Machiavelli in Management

83

In a way this book anticipates many that follow generations later, though there is no evidence whatever that it influenced – whatever influence means – any of those books, for it is never cited in the titles we review in this and the following chapter. We first identified it and then acquired it by successive and compulsive searching on the internet with a variety of search engines and using contacts with a number of book dealers. It is not cited in the standard reference books on business and management mentioned elsewhere in our pages. It has nearly disappeared from view, and more is the pity. It anticipates these subsequent works in three ways. (1) It assumes in silence that Niccolò Machiavelli’s words have purchase on the contemporary business context. No time is spent, no time is wasted, explaining or justifying the references to Machiavelli. He is so well-known, it seemed to have been assumed, that no first name is required for recognition. (2) Eleven of these passages come from The Prince, and one only from the Discourses. This emphasis on the former, too, is common, and indeed it is often these very same passages that others excerpt later. It is rare for the Discourses to be cited at all. Finally (3), the quotations are stripped of context and offered as eternal verities. They are at once deracinated and universalized. It was another twenty-five years before there was a second ripple on the waters from which this Managerial Machiavelli would emerge. Claude S. George, then a professor of management at the University of North Carolina, published The History of Management Thought.7 This is a sober and sensible review of the history of management theory. There we read that, ‘Though Thomas More was canonized, posterity has paid Niccolò Machiavelli the greater tribute of emulation. These two Renaissance contemporaries are an interesting study in contrast.’8 George goes on to opine that, ‘It is unfortunate that over the years Machiavelli has acquired such an unsavory reputation. … His name, to most persons, connotes evil shrewdness.’9 George offers a brief biography of Machiavelli with a stress on his political career, noting his many and varied books, plays, and poems. George notes that 7 Claude S. George, The History of Management Thought (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968). 8 Ibid., 41. Later, on page 45, George refers to More and Machiavelli as writing in the Medieval period. The pedant within each of us demands that the Renaissance and the Medieval be distinguished. This blurring of lines occurs more than it should elsewhere, as we shall see. 9 Ibid., 42.

84

Chapter 3

the principles of leadership and power that occupied Machiavelli are applicable to almost every endeavor which is organized and purposeful. Were he writing today he would probably be analyzing the power structures of our large corporations in order to advise young executives how to reach the top of the corporate hierarchy. His principles apply equally well to our academic and religious institutions.10 Let us stop and dwell on this passage. Here is the explicit statement that Machiavelli’s analysis of politics applies readily to business, to the corporation. It also gives way to some speculation in claiming that a contemporary Machiavelli would examine corporations, rather than public administration and public policy. This was said at the height of the Cold War spy game while there was a hot war in Southeast Asia. We rather think a new Machiavelli would have been more interested in these conflicts than in the boardroom. This is a point to bear in mind later. However, George is clear-sighted enough to say that ‘Machiavelli set forth management precepts for the successful operation of a state, not a chain of stores. But in his principles of reliance on consent, cohesiveness, leadership, and the will to survive we find one of the first published pronouncements of fundamentals basic to all organized endeavors.’11 Keep that reference to chain stores in mind, too, because it does come to that. We note that organized religions had known for millennia the importance of cohesive consent with ­renewed leadership, even if it were corrupted in the Catholic Church of ­Machiavelli’s day. Though George speculated on the fit of Machiavelli to contemporary corporations, he did not pronounce upon it. That task was left to another who, across the Atlantic Ocean, had published his thunderbolt the year before, but in those days before the internet and Amazon, George most likely had not heard the crash of this bolt from the publishing blue. That shaft was none other than Management and Machiavelli (1967) by ­Antony Jay.12 Before Antony Jay gave television viewers Yes, Minister and its successor, Yes, Prime Minister, he published this groundbreaking and vastly successful book. Though Niccolò Machiavelli never managed anything, and 10 11 12

Ibid., 43. Ibid., 45, We emphasize the words, ‘state’ and ‘stores’ to draw attention to them. Antony Jay, Management and Machiavelli: Discovering a new science of management in the timeless principles of statecraft (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967). George does not cite Jay and Jay does not cite George. A case of simultaneous discovery, it would seem, if discovery it be.

Machiavelli in Management

85

said nary a word about business or commerce, he has become a frequently invoked spirit in management study thanks mainly to the labors of Antony Jay. Machiavelli’s dna now allegedly marks a good deal of both the popular and professional literature in management following Jay’s book. A steady stream of other works has since kept Machiavelli toiling in management, commerce, and business, as the next chapter will amply demonstrate. By means of parallels, analogies, metaphors, long bows, sleights of hand, and other literary tropes, including fictions, alternative facts, and even some downright fabrications, he has been resurrected in the corporate world’s book trade. Whatever the means, Machiavelli now occupies a place in the pantheon of management thinkers. There sits he somewhere between the likes of Peter Drucker and Rosabeth Moss Kantor. Comprehensive encyclopedias and crisp dictionaries of management feature an entry on the Florentine, and an impressive number of trade books bear his name, as do articles in major business research journals. Despite the number and variety of references to Machiavelli in the management literature, this conscription of Machiavelli passes all but unnoticed by students of political science, Italian letters, and history. In this chapter we concentrate on the start of this recreation of Machiavelli in the image of Management which has become so prominent and important in the last generations. Some cynics say that management is now an end in itself. Machiavelli’s induction into management came when Antony Jay published Management and Machiavelli, ten years before turning his hand to politics. With that book Machiavelli was reborn, and since then this M ­ achiavel has known no rest. The passing interest aroused by the books of James Burnham, Aimee ­Buchanan, and Claude George did not disturb the purgatory where ­Machiavelli awaited eternity, but Jay’s did. For a start Management and M ­ achiavelli has remained in print since then, and that is now more than fifty years; and it has gone through an astounding array of editions. If Jay had published his books the other way around, with Yes, Minister first, he might have capitalized on the success of that title by at least subtitling Management and M ­ achiavelli with Yes, Prince. Jay’s obituary in the New York Times referred to him as a Machiavelli scholar and its lead paragraph suggests that his knowledge of Machiavelli informed Yes, Minister.13 Jay has certainly been a rainmaker for management publishers and writers. With our admittedly ecumenical definition of the management literature, we

13

William Grimes, ‘Antony Jay, a Machiavelli Scholar and a Creator of “Yes Minister,” Dies at 86,’ New York Times, 29 August 2016.

86

Chapter 3

have compiled three hundred items into a bibliography of management and Machiavelli. It is safe to say that Jay’s book had no precedent; it is equally safe to say that it was itself a precedent quickly followed. Once Machiavelli was re-born others followed Jay, integrating him still further into the service of management. It is a credit to Jay’s ingenuity and wit, and no doubt to his salesmanship, that he connected Machiavelli to management in the first place and convinced a major British publisher to produce and market the book. Burnham’s, Buchanan’s, and George’s books were mirages in comparison to the impact that Jay’s book made. Our efforts to compile the metadata of his book have yielded six editions to date. The first edition had no subtitle and neither does the current Kindle edition. Between those bookends, four subtitles have been used. They have been: An inquiry into the politics of corporate life (1976), Power and authority in business life (1987), Discovering a new science of management in the timeless principles of statecraft (1994), and A Prescription for success in your business (2000). Subtitles both attract the interest of prospective buyers and readers, and indicate the intentions of the author and publisher. Subtitles usually sharpen the focus of a work. In this case the focus is management; though ‘politics’ and ‘statecraft’ are mentioned, they are in a lesser key, and then there is that word ‘power.’ We found no changes in the substance of the book through these editions. Short, new forewords were inserted and pagination changed from one edition to another but not the content. The subtitles and other metadata came from searches of online catalogs of the Library of Congress, the Canadian National Library, the Australian National Library, and the British Library. The cover of the 1994 paperback edition claimed that 250,000 hardcover copies had been sold by that time. We may safely assume many more copies have been sold since then. Moreover, that total refers to hardcover only, and the book has been available in paperback for generations. Subsequent hardcover sales along with paperbacks must add considerably to that figure. We can as yet find no reference to an electronic version of the book, but can that be far away? In addition, the cover also claims it has been translated into twelve languages, though they are not nominated. Translations of the book appear in the online catalogs for the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris, Biblioteca Italiana in Milan, and Deutsche National Bibliotek in Leipzig. Perhaps that is enough to make the point that though the rebirth of Machiavelli in ­management began

Machiavelli in Management

87

in English, it has echoed in other European languages. (We suspect an enterprising Chinese publisher will capitalize on that gigantic market. After all, Machiavelli is often associated with the Chinese sage Sun Tzu as we shall see more about later.) Management and Machiavelli has indeed been a very successful book in this respect, too. Few, if any, of the learned works on Machiavelli’s political thought, like Leo Strauss’s magisterial Thoughts on Machiavelli, can have equaled such sales figures. The dissemination they imply stands as a surrogate measure of readership and impact more generally. Many of the hardcover copies of Jay’ s book are no doubt in libraries. We found Management and Machiavelli in many university library online catalogs, too many to list, starting with our own University of Sydney library and others in the city of Sydney. The book has also been successful in another sense. It has made a major impact on the literature and study of management: (1) citations in social science literature, (2) references in the popular press, (3) mentions of Jay’s book in standard reference works in business and management, and (4) the flood of subsequent titles that press Machiavelli into the service of management, though not all of the subsequent works cite Jay, and some claim themselves to have discovered the pertinence of Machiavelli to management! Such is the fate for prophets, as Niccolò Machiavelli said. This last point (4) will be examined the following chapter, the first three are treated in what now follows. (1) We did a Cited Reference Search on the Web of Knowledge. Of course, the Thomson databases that underlie the Web of Knowledge have limitations yet they are used as a measure of everything, as those engaged in research ­evaluation exercises well know. The Web of Knowledge is only one tool, but it ­suffices to indicate the impact of Management and Machiavelli. To provide context we compared it to The Prince by Machiavelli and Leo Strauss’s Thoughts on ­Machiavelli, as one of the seminal studies of Machiavelli in political theory, only counting citations for each book after the publication of Management and Machiavelli in 1967.14 We set out the comparison in Tables 1 and 2 below. Jay’s Management and Machiavelli has about a quarter of the citations of Machiavelli’s The Prince itself. This would seem to be noteworthy. Likewise, it has nearly half the hits of Strauss’s landmark work on Machiavelli. The serious students of Machiavelli can take comfort in the fact that the book itself and one of the most serious studies of it have more citations in publications included in Web of Knowledge. But we would do well to remember that there is much outside the Thomson world. Our point is that Thomson databases most likely undercount references to Jay’s book in the broader culture. 14

Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).

88

Chapter 3

Table 1

Web of knowledge references to Thoughts on Machiavelli and Management and Machiavelli

Author

Title

Hits

Niccoló Machiavelli Leo Strauss Antony Jaya TOTAL

The Prince (1532) Thoughts on Machiavelli (1959) Management and Machiavelli (1967)

425 244 118 787

a Any edition of Jay’s Management and Machiavelli was included. This process is cumbersome, and so the counts are subject to a slight error. We noticed increases in citations for Machiavelli in years when new translations appeared. We did this count in July 2016. Table 2

Hits for The Prince, Thoughts on Machiavelli, and Management and Machiavelli

Author

Title

Hitsa

Niccoló Machiavelli Leo Strauss Antony Jay TOTAL

The Prince (1532) Thoughts on Machiavelli (1959) Management and Machiavelli (1967)

395,000 154,000 124,000 673,000

a We did this exercise in July 2016.

We ventured outside the tramlines of scholarship and mimicked this very serious and scientific search on Google by using quotation marks about the author and title with the Boolean operator AND between and found a similar pattern in Table 2. In this more popular and accessible domain, the relationship between The Prince and Jay’s book is about the same, 4 : 1, but the hits for Jay come much closer to equaling the total for Strauss’s book. Jay’s book gets a great number of hits. (2) There are references to Jay in popular press and media. For one example, Ken Roman in the Wall Street Journal in 2007 names Jay’s Management and Machiavelli as one of the five best business books, listing it second of five.15 This seems to mean best, period, of all times and places: a Platonic standard outside time and place. The book is also recognized in the academic world. 15

Ken Roman, ‘Five of the best,’ Wall Street Journal, 17 March, 2007.

Machiavelli in Management

89

Online course descriptions at Indiana University and the University of Essex in the United Kingdom have featured Jay’s book, but these listings are transitory from one semester to the next. (3) More enduring are a number of important reference works in the study and practice of management and business. Invariably these mention Machiavelli and in so doing they also mention Jay. Since nearly all of these reference works have appeared since the publication of Jay’s book, we conclude that Jay midwifed Machiavelli into the world of management. Of course, reasoning from a hypothetical counterfactual is risky but our reasoning is nonetheless that had Jay not published his book, Machiavelli would not have been deemed important enough to be included in most of the management reference works in which he is now included. One of the earliest endorsements of Antony Jay’s discovery of the everrelevant Machiavelli was offered by the scholar Richard Calhoon, writing in the pages of the prestigious and influential Academy of Management Journal.16 There Calhoon identifies Machiavelli as a teacher for twentieth-century administrators, and acknowledges Jay’s discovery of him. Even more singular is, a generation later, the inclusion of Machiavelli with reference to Jay in the weighty three-volume reference work the International Encyclopedia of Business and Management.17 This tome is a well-recognized and authoritative reference work found in the libraries of universities and colleges great and small. Further examples include John Swain in the Handbook of Organization Theory and Management and Stuart Crainer in The Ultimate Business Guru Book : 50 Thinkers Who Made Management.18 As for (4), the flood of subsequent publications following the wake created by Management and Machiavelli, continue to Chapter 4. Surely these points are enough to indicate the impact and importance of Jay’s book. Would that a book by a humble scholar would sell so many copies, be in print continuously for two generations, be so widely cited and in authoritative reference works, be toasted in the Wall Street Journal, and included on the syllabi of major universities. That would secure promotion for any midcareer senior lecturer to the heady heights of professor. 16 17 18

Richard Calhoon, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator,’ Academy of Management Journal, 12(1969)2, 205–212. Russell Price, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolo,’ International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, edited by Malcolm Warner (London: Routledge, 1996), 2607–2613. John Swain. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and Modern Public Administration,’ Handbook of Organization Theory and Management, edited by Thomas Lynch and Todd Dicker (New York City: Marcel Dekker, 1998), 71–95 and Stuart Crainer, The Ultimate Business Guru Book : 50 Thinkers Who Made Management (Oxford: Capstone, 1998), 135–138.

90

Chapter 3

We have then established that Sir Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli proved to be the first of a rapidly increasing number of works that claimed to apply the wit and wisdom of Machiavelli to management. The impact of Jay’s book was in no way impaired by the withering review Chris Argyris, gatekeeper extraordinaire, gave it in Administrative Science Quarterly.19 Argyris acknowledged the creativity, zest, and engaging style of the author, and so do we, but he noted that it relied on a few anecdotes and hearsay. Its prescriptions were inconsistent where they were not too vague to understand. We have nothing to add to that judgment. Reviews in popular business publications were and still are far more laudatory, and the book has indeed been a success. It is now routinely accorded the status of classic. Russell Price, in a very sensible and literate account of Machiavelli in the International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, writes that the similarities Jay adduces between Machiavelli’s account of politics and of business are ‘striking and illuminating.’20 There is an equally restrained two pages on the Florentine by John Dryden in the massive one-volume compendium Business: The Ultimate Resource, which recommends reading Jay before reading Machiavelli, triggering our suspicion that few in fact read Machiavelli.21 We would say someone who has read Machiavelli has no need of Jay’s or anyone else’s gloss on him. In contrast, The Best Business Books Ever lists The Prince along with such luminaries as Herbert Simon, and mentions Jay’s book as an afterthought.22 Now that the scene is set, the time has come to turn to the pages of Management and Machiavelli. Jay wrote that having found few authoritative works about management, when reading Machiavelli’s The Prince he saw the relevance of much of what Machiavelli discussed to the contemporary business world in Great Britain. That led him to reflect on the nature of research and writing about business and management in the 1960s, which he found to be unrealistic and, at times, impractical, ‘fact-free,’ he said. In Machiavelli he found an antidote to this. He put it this way, ‘I have called this book Management and Machiavelli not because it is based on Machiavelli’s arguments but 19 20 21 22

Chris Argyris, ‘Review of Management and Machiavelli by Antony Jay,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1968)1, 189–192. Price, ‘Machiavelli,’ 2611. John Dryden, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: The Patron Saint of Power,’ Business: The Ultimate Resource, edited by Warren Bennis et al. (Cambridge, ma: Perseus, 2002), 1016. The Best Business Books Ever (New York: Basic, 2007), 159 and 160. Strangely no one takes credit for this tome.

Machiavelli in Management

91

because it is based on his method, the method of taking a current problem and then examining it in a practical way in the light of experiences of others who have faced a similar problem in the past.’23 Though Machiavelli figures in the title, his name is mentioned only four times in the two hundred and fifty pages of the book. In comparison Shakespeare is mentioned five times, but perhaps a title like Management and Shakespeare lacked the magic Jay wanted to sell his book. Once again it is evidence of Machiavelli’s brand-name recognition. Many who followed Jay have adopted the Machiavellian ‘method’ – styled realism – but some have also based their books on Machiavelli’s arguments, as we shall see. This point will emerge in the next chapter. Like many others, Jay supposes that Machiavelli called ‘his book The Prince because he saw the success or failure of states to stem directly from the qualities of the leader.’24 But as explained in Chapter 1, Machiavelli did not give this title to his work; it was re-titled The Prince after his death at the instigation of others. Nor did he publish the work. Jay is just one of many writers who invest significance into the title which was unknown to Machiavelli. After the conclusion of this discussion of Machiavelli’s method, he is not mentioned again in the remaining 200+ pages of Management and Machiavelli. What we see in Jay’s Management and Machiavelli is the genesis of two master narratives that, as they gestated, have continued to shape Machiavelli’s place in management. The first is that Renaissance Florence equates to contemporary society, so that lessons learned in that time and place apply to the here and now. For those impressed by equations we can express it thus: F=T where F = Renaissance Florence and T = today. The second narrative is that politics is the same as business which is the same as politics, or P=B=P where P = politics and B = business. Though these two narratives may be put into play separately, they frequently travel together and that looks like this: (F = T) + (P = B = P) = L 23 Jay, Management and Machiavelli, 28, emphasis added. 24 Ibid., 29.

92

Chapter 3

Where L = lessons for today. This notation is not essential to explain these narratives, but it adds a formal touch that makes the points very clear. Once we have established the groundwork for these narratives, we will flush them out more in the following chapter. Jay implicitly generates the first narrative by invoking Machiavelli and he is explicit about the second in his pages. He wrote that Management is the great new preoccupation of the Western World. General Motors has a greater revenue than any state in the union, and the fifty biggest corporations in the United States have greater revenues than the sum of the fifty states. The giant corporations have far bigger revenues than the governments of most countries.25 He spoke the truth about management. It is the decisive factor in most organizations today in ways never before the case. Managers are managing these days, for better or worse. Far more so than Jay could possibly have foreseen in 1967. Two years without a management reorganization, review, or restructure is … only a dream. Thus does Jay prepare the way for equating corporate management to politics. That equation becomes more explicit on the next page where we read, The new science of management is in fact only a continuation of the old art of government, and when you study management theory side by side with political theory, and management case histories side by side with political history, you realize that you are only studying two very similar branches of the same subject.26 This message is re-stated a few pages later: ‘A corporation, in fact, is not something different from a state with some interesting similarities: It is a state, with some unimportant differences.’27 While we often hear of corporate governance referred to metaphorically, Jay is going further literally to equate business with government (and politics). Was Cesare Borgia really a boardroom ceo? All organizations have features in common, but this does not make them one and the same. Living creatures have unities, yet it is their differences that give them identity. Both a turtle and a horse have four legs and breathe oxygen, but not even Jules Verne’s Dr Moreau tried to mate them. We suggest that for 25 26 27

Ibid., 2. Amen to that, Brother Jay! Ibid., 3. Ibid., 19.

Machiavelli in Management

93

all their very superficial similarities government and business are profoundly different, a point to be explained more fully in the last chapter. Suffice it to say here that the chief differences concern mortal security and coercion. The former is a responsibility of the state and the latter is one of its chief instruments to discharging that responsibility. Corporations are not on this plane in any sense. They can only exist if the state offers a secure environment for them. To return to the world as Antony Jay saw it: ‘Machiavelli is not at the moment required reading in business colleges or for management training courses.’28 That has certainly changed. As Morgen Witzel has written, ‘Over the last thirty years Machiavelli has increasingly been studied from a management perspective, and he is now regarded as an important precursor to modern strategic and organization theory.’29 It all started with Jay! Reading about Machiavelli now seems to be required in business and management education, but it is not clear that reading Machiavelli is also required. He is all too often seen through a glass darkly as portrayed by others, per Dryden’s recommendation cited above: read Jay first (and perhaps only). But Jay continues: ‘And yet Machiavelli … is bursting with urgent advice and acute observations for top management of the great private and public corporations all over the world.’30 We reserve our options on this conclusion. Jay described reading The Prince and realizing, as he read Chapter iii on colonies, how Machiavelli’s suggestions for controlling newly acquired territories applied to corporate mergers. ‘In other words: Put small management teams of your own into one or two key factories, because otherwise you’ll use up half your staff in giving orders … and checking that they are properly fulfilled.’31 Thus is The Prince was made into a management manual. Since that Damascus moment, Jay said, ‘I have tried out Machiavelli’s principles on several managers who have had to cope with takeovers; they all agree with him.’32 What more proof does anyone need? A chat in an elevator is enough. We will spare readers further comment and instead cite the review mentioned above by Chris Argyris who found the evidence and cases Jay produced decidedly unconvincing. We might add that Machiavelli’s own efforts to practice what he preached were none too successful. On that more later.

28 29

Ibid., 4. Morgen Witzel, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli,’ Fifty Key Figures in Management (London: Routledge, 2003), 194. 30 Jay, Management and Machiavelli, 4. 31 Ibid., 6. 32 Ibid., 7.

94

Chapter 3

In bringing Machiavelli into play in the field of management, Jay initiated two of the master narratives, briefly outlined above, that continue to reverberate in that genre and beyond. In Jay’s case THE insight is to examine reality, what happens, the facts only, and to do so with clinical detachment. That is the method implied, even if Argyris is right that Jay fails in achieving that in his meditations on such corporations as the bbc and the British Foreign Office in the remainder of his book. (Atypical corporations one might think, if the latter is a corporation by any definition.) Nor do any of these pettifogging criticisms undercut the commercial success of the book. John Swain wrote in the journal Management Decision in 2002 that, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’s influence on modern management is generally little-understood in contemporary times.’33 That has changed. Neil Hartley argued that little or no history is taught in management.34 We agree with Hartley that management seems free of its own past. Accordingly, management specialists seem unaware of its history and only too ready to reinvent it in both the classroom and the boardroom. Machiavelli is forgotten and then periodically rediscovered and re-employed, as the next chapter will show. That is the fate of consultants, the work dries up completely or is overwhelming. In this chapter we have shown how, after some false starts, Machiavelli entered the Zeitgeist of management, propelled there single-handedly by Sir Antony Jay. The impact of Jay’s book has been far reaching and we have examined the surrogate indicators for that infusion of Machiavelli among the mbas, which could be twisted into Machiavellian Business Administration. By investing Machiavelli with management nous, Jay exemplifies the two master narratives that enter the trade in Machiavelli among management writers, consultants, and practitioners and which have seeped into other intellectual domains, like the study of the Machiavellian personality in social psychology. The next chapter brings Machiavelli and management up to date by examining scores of subsequent management sages who have put him to work in books, articles, newspapers, blogs, training packages and the like since Jay singlehandedly opened the crypt and let Machiavelli’s ghost wander.

33 34

John Swain, ‘Machiavelli and modern management,’ Management Decision, 40(2002)3, 281. Neil Hartley, ‘Management and history,’ Journal of Management History, 12(2006)3, 280.

Chapter 4

Theory M for Machiavelli The title of this chapter derives from Douglas McGregor’s 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise, which referred to Theory X as an approach to management based on fear, control, penalties, manipulation, and the like, which he argued typified far too much management.1 Given the way Machiavelli must carry the negative stereotypes of the words ‘Machiavellian’ and ‘Machiavellianism,’ Theory M for Machiavelli would seem to be a progenitor of Theory X. Neil Hartley made the same comparison in the authoritative pages of the Journal of Management History.2 We dwell so long in the house of management in Chapters 3 and 4 because of all the arenas in which Machiavelli has been put to work outside the carefully tended specialist fields in academia, it is only in management that he is subjected to such extensive description, quotation, repetition, and explanation.3 As we shall see in later chapters on the Machiavelli personality construct in social psychology or the application of the Machiavellian Intelligence ­Hypothesis in primatology, his name is taken with little or no reference to the man himself, his labors, his works, or his times. The adjective and noun are taken as givens and put to work. It is thus that management demands pride of place in this exposition of the distortions of Machiavelli’s name. Management writers, at times, seem to be directly channeling the avatar Machiavelli, as when Richard Calhoon, in one of the most widely cited and earliest contributions, writes that ‘Machiavelli would applaud the widespread application of his precepts on leadership in today’s organizations.’4 Peter Kreeft brings Machiavelli to life on the page in his Socrates meets Machiavelli (2003), where his papier-mâché Machiavelli acknowledges his perceived relevance to management.5 Well, maybe, but what we are sure of is that little of human avarice and self-delusion would surprise Machiavelli. Published in 1969 1 Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York City: McGraw-Hill, 1960). 2 Neil Hartley, ‘Management and History,’ Journal of Management History, 12(2006)3, 281. 3 Peter Galie and Christopher Bopst, ‘Machiavelli & Modern Business: Realist Thought in Contemporary Leadership Manuals,’ Journal of Business Ethics 65(2006), 235–250. They scratched the surface in 2006; here we strip-mine it. 4 Richard Calhoon, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator,’ Academy of Management Journal, 12(1969)2, 205. 5 Peter Kreeft, Socrates meets Machiavelli: The Father of Philosophy Cross-examines the Author of the Prince (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003), 70.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_006

96

Chapter 4

in the United States in the Academy of Management Journal, the very Mount Everest of scholarly management research, Calhoon’s article appeared but two years after publication in the United Kingdom of Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli, yet it cites this book, so fast did its influence spread even in that age before the internet. Its impact was not only wide-ranging, but it was also speedy. As important as Jay’s book is among management books that entwine themselves to Machiavelli as a vine to a fence, it is sometimes ignored as when Richard Funk wrote, fully twenty years after Management and Machiavelli and its many editions with all their accolades and encomiums, that ‘nothing has been written I have read restating in current terms, the concepts expressed by ­Niccolò Machiavelli.’6 We will take this to mean that Funk, contra Jay, concentrates on the substance of Machiavelli rather than the method, as does this chapter. Funk does not mention Jay’s book. The two master narratives that emerge from Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli combine to assert the significance of Machiavelli’s words to the contemporary worlds of business, commerce, career, and management. This assertion has been taken up with great energy and wit by a host of writers. Machiavelli is whisked into the corporate headquarters of ibm in New York, or a Goodyear tire factory in China. With that in mind, we now demonstrate the means by which this stereotype Machiavelli is programmed in these two equations, and what the results are. We will work through each in turn. Calhoon was first in this context to state explicitly that sixteenth-century Florence and our times are commutative, and it has been repeated ever after. They are alike in being full of ­competition and  ­rivalries.7 The claim that the bridge that leads from sixteenth-century Florence to the contemporary world is made from competition and rivalry is routine, rediscovered by subsequent management writers, even if they slide between similitude and identity: Gerald Griffin says it, as does Richard Hill and Ian Demack.8 If competition alone makes Machiavelli relevant, he is ever relevant. 6 Richard D. Funk, The Corporate Prince: Machiavelli Reviewed for Today (New York City: ­Vantage Press, 1986), vii. 7 Calhoon, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator,’ 210. 8 Gerald R. Griffin, Machiavelli on Management: Playing and Winning the Corporate Power Game (New York City: Prager, 1991), 8 and 20; Richard Hill, The Boss: Machiavelli on Managerial Leadership (Geneva, Switzerland: Pyramid Media Group, 2000), 6–7; and Ian Demack, The Modern Machiavelli: The Seven Principles of Power in Business (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2002), ix–x.

Theory M for Machiavelli

97

Griffin says that Machiavelli is as applicable today as then.9 Hill’s preface reads: ‘Today’s competitive environment puts as much pressure and stress on leaders as did the endless small-scale warring of the independent states of Renaissance Italy.’10 Demack wrote that ‘Machiavelli was much like us.’11 Demack suggested that today’s workplace resembles a principality, a sentiment also to be found in Lynn Gunlicks’s book and in The Best One Hundred Business Books of All Time.12 In each case the author refers to the power of a superior over a subordinate. It is evident that these writers never served Cesare ­Borgia, few of whose subordinates survived the tenure of their service to write memoirs. Another set of management scribes simply presents Machiavelli as a man of our times without explanation. Qass Aquarius, which we assume is a nom de plume, evokes Machiavelli but never mentions his name in The Corporate Prince: A Handbook of Administrative Tactics.13 Why add that word ‘prince’ if not to call forth Machiavelli’s spirit, be it ever so softly? The list of names of business writers who cite Machiavelli but do not belabor the reasons for his relevance includes: Carlo Pacifico, Fritz Mervil, Joseph Badaracco, Daniel Wren and Ronald Greenwood, Michael Thomas, Daniel Diehl, Tim Phillips, Hooman Attar, Martin Ferreri, Ralf Lisch, Tina Nunno, Irene Prete, Stephen Brennan, and Max Stirner.14 9 10 11 12

13 14

Griffin, viii Hill, 7. Demack, ix. Ibid., 75 and Lynn Gunlicks, The Machiavellian Manager’s Handbook for Success (Bloomington, in: iUniverse, 2000), xiv and Jack Covert and Todd Sattersten, The Best One ­Hundred Business Books of All Time (New York City: Portfolio, 2009), 200. Machiavelli is surprisingly absent from the pages of Franz Johansson, The Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us about Innovation (Cambridge, ma: Harvard Business Review Press, 2004). Though there seems to be no particular reason to refer to the Medici in this sensible book. Qass Aquarius, The Corporate Prince: A Handbook of Administrative Tactics (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971). Carlo Pacifico, Machiavelli on Business (Baltimore [no publisher given], 1975); Fritz ­Lawrence Mervil, The Political Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli as It Applies to Politics, the Management of the Firm, and the Science of Living (Albuquerque, nm: American Classical College Press, 1980); Joseph Badaracco, Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose between Right and Right (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1997); Daniel Wren and ­Ronald G. Greenwood, Management Innovators: The People and Ideas that Have Shaped Modern Business (New York City: Oxford University Press, 1998); Michael Thomas, ‘Niccolò ­Machiavelli as Relationships Guru,’ Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, edited by Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees (London: Routledge, 2000), 67–80

98

Chapter 4

Phillips returned to Machiavelli with some friends in Strategy Power Plays: Winning Business Ideas from the World’s Greatest Strategic Minds, SunTzu, N ­ iccolo Machiavelli, and Samuel Smiles.15 Machiavelli’s name appears in such books as Alan Bartlett, Profile of the Entrepreneur, or Machiavellian M ­ anagement, and also his Machiavellian Economics; Joseph Badaracco, Defining ­Moments: When Managers must Choose between Right and Right; Gaylen ­Bunker, Power Tools: Move over Machiavelli; Lewis Schiff, Business Brilliant; Malcom Coxall and Guy Caswell, Machiavellian Management: A Chief Executive’s Guide; and Stephen Brennan, Machiavelli on Busine$$.16 The titles indicate the range and nature of some of the books. The publishers vary from great houses in New York City to others that are far less well-known, including much direct publication, i.e. self- or on-demand publishing. This easy assimilation of Machiavelli to business is not limited to writers in English. For example, in German there is Rudolph Brenner, in French there is Luc Brababdere, Jean-Michel Besnier, and Charles Handy, and in Spanish

15

16

and ­Michael Thomas, ‘Princely Thoughts on Machiavelli, Marketing, and Management,’ ­European ­Journal of Marketing, 34 (2000) 5/6, 524–537; Daniel Diehl, Management Secrets from History: Historical Wisdom for Modern Business: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, H.J. Heinz, E­ lizabeth i, Confucius (Stroud: Sutton, 2007); Tim Phillips, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: A 52 Brilliant Ideas Interpretation (Warriewood, nsw: Woodslane, 2008); Hooman Attar, Dial M for Machiavelli: Machiavellian Metaphors for Management (Gordon, nsw: Xlibris, 2013); Martin Ferreri, The Machiavelli Model: A 21st Century Strategic Management Guide from the 15th Century Italian Mastermind (Oxford, uk: Management Books 2000, Ltd, 2013); Ralf Lisch, Ancient Wisdom for Modern Management: Machiavelli at 500 (Farnham, uk: Gower, 2012); Tina Nunno, The Wolf in cio’s Clothing: A Machiavellian Strategy for Successful it Leadership (Brookline, ma: Bibliomotion, 2015); Irene Prete, ‘Machiavellism’, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, Volume ix, edited by Cary Cooper (New York City: Wiley, 2014), 301–302; and Max Stirner, ‘Fake Resume: The Machiavellian Guide to Getting a Job’ (2012). Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.fakeresume.com. Karen McCredie, Tim Phillips, and Steve Shipside. Strategy Power Plays: Winning Business Ideas from the World’s Greatest Strategic Minds, Sun-Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Samuel Smiles (Oxford: Infinite Ideas, 2009). Alan F. Bartlett, Machiavellian Economics (Bristol, uk: Schumacher, 1987) and also Bartlett, Profile of the Entrepreneur, or Machiavellian Management (Sheffield: Ashford Press, 1988); Joseph L. Badaracco, Jr, Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose between Right And Right (1997); Gaylen Bunker, Power Tools: Move over Machiavelli (Salt Lake City, ut: Businessallstars, 2012); Lewis Schiff, Business Brilliant: Surprising Lessons from the Greatest Self-Made Business Icons (New York City: Harper, 2013); Malcom Coxall and Guy Caswell, Machiavellian Management: A Chief Executive’s Guide (Andalusia, Spain: Cornelio Books, 2013); and Stephen Brennan, Machiavelli on Busine$$: Strategies, Advice, and Words Of Wisdom on Business and Power (New York City: Skyhorse Publishing, 2014).

Theory M for Machiavelli

99

Carlos Alberto Rios.17 Peter Mulina Mutua instructs the African small business entrepreneur in the use of Machiavelli in his short volume.18 There are surely Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi, and Chinese efforts as well.19 Expositions of Machiavelli’s relevance to the twenty-first century take many forms. McGuire and Hutchings have it that ‘the longevity of Machiavellian thinking underlines the constancy of human behavior’ and ‘Machiavelli’s … world has much in common with the modern … business world.’20 Ours is a less expansive explanation. Those without imagination keep recycling Machiavelli, who made himself an easy target with his simple, memorable, unencumbered style in what was in good part a private notebook that he never published. Sheila Marsh in her book The Feminine in Management Consulting writes that Machiavelli worked with ‘men who in their day were the Renaissance equivalent of Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei.’21 Equating Bill Gates to C ­ esare Borgia gives one pause. Perhaps Marsh has yet to read about Renaissance ­Italian princes, who were so numerous because their life spans were often cut short by the dagger or blade. Just as Machiavelli thought Roman examples of previous millennia should inform words and deeds of his own time, so these authors have it that ­Machiavelli applies to the contemporary world. Machiavelli rested the eternal relevance of the Eternal City Rome on an unchanging human nature. Management writers are not always as explicit, and to foreshadow what will be argued in Chapter 10, our world differs from Machiavelli’s in the most important ways, especially the world of business and commerce. These are differences in degree that have become differences in kind. We do not suppose that F = T. 17

18 19

20 21

Rudolph Berner, Machiavelli 2000: Ich bin der Boss und will es bleiben : eine heiter-ernste Fuhrungs- und Lebenshilfe fur alternde Manager (Zurich: Organisator, 1985); Luc De Brabandere, Jean-Michel Besnier, and Charles Handy, Erasme, Machiavel, Et More: Trois Philosophes Pour Les Managers D’aujourd’hui (Paris: Village Mondial, 2000); Carlos Alberto Rios, Maquiavelo aplicado a los negoscios: El arte de ganar dinero como supremo bien (Buenos Aires, Argentina: Lea, 2008). Peter Mulina Mutua, The African Prince; Lessons from Machiavelli for the African Family Business (No publishing information and no date given). Available from Amazon. We have acquired a Chinese book from Amazon where it is titled Wisdom from the Prince of Machiavelli teach you to business competition. All of the book itself is in Chinese which we cannot read. David McGuire and Kate Hutchings, ‘A Machiavellian Analysis of Organizational Change,’ Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19 (2006)2, 192. Sheila Marsh, The Feminine in Management Consulting (London: Palgrave, 2009), 30. She cites there Michael White, Machiavelli: A Man Misunderstood (Boston: Little Brown, 2004), 51.

100

Chapter 4

The second narrative merges Florentine politics with business as though they are one and the same: P = B = P. This conflation is expressed rather consistently through the forest of management cicerones. Calhoon was among the first to be explicit when he said that though pressures in a corporation differ from a Renaissance city-state it is only in severity.22 Richard Buskirk wrote, ‘I suggest that Machiavelli’s basic advice is not only applicable to the ruling of a state but is also germane to the problems of managing any organization.’23 He goes on to make many references to football. (It is difficult to imagine C ­ esare Borgia as a sportsman; the games he played involved steel or poison.) On the back cover of W.T. Brahmstedt’s book we read that ‘The Prince by ­Machiavelli can be considered the first book on management,’ thereby suggesting that ­Machiavelli was really writing about generic management and not Italian ­politics.24 John Legge wrote, ‘in modern times the methods described by M ­ achiavelli, and used by the Medici, are not an entirely appropriate way to run most types of business.’25 We take that to mean those methods are somewhat appropriate, though, in fact few of Machiavelli’s references are to any member of the Medici family. A very similar remark is to be found in Alistair M ­ cAlpine’s The New ­Machiavelli.26 Do these two writers mean to imply that some of ­Borgia’s ­methods are relevant? One writer with a long string of publications has it that The Prince advises the reader ‘to build success on the bodies of other people.’27 The echo goes on in Joseph DiVanna, who asserts that ‘­Machiavelli talks about a prince and principalities, as we, in modern terms, talk about ceos and corporations in the state of mergers and acquisitions. Machiavelli’s observations of how a principality is formed, governed, and ruled can be applied to modern merger and acquisition strategies with striking precision.’28 Daniel Wren and Ronald Greenwood say that many of Machiavelli’s observations apply still, while Richard Hill has written, ‘I have freely substituted ­business-related words for words related to the politics of the Renaissance state,’ and that while ‘Machiavelli speaks of laws and armies. I have ­translated this as 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Calhoon, 210. Richard Buskirk, Modern Management & Machiavelli: The Executive’s Guide to the Psychology and Politics of Power (New York City: New American Library, 1974), xx1. W.T. Brahmstedt, Memo To: The Boss From: Mack: A Contemporary Rendering of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (Palm Springs, California: etc Publications, 1986), back cover. John Legge, The Modern Machiavelli: The Nature of Modern Business Strategy (Hawthorn, vic: Swinburne College Press, 1991), 37. Alistair McAlpine, The New Machiavelli: Renaissance Realpolitik for Modern Managers (London: Aurum, 1997), 28. Tom Butler-Bowdon, 50 Success Classics (London: Nicholas Brearley, 2004), 133. Joseph Divanna, Thinking Beyond Technology: Creating New Value in Business (London: Palgrave, 2003), 113.

Theory M for Machiavelli

101

organizations and sales people…’29 Thus do sales representatives b­ ecome generals. We should note that many of these titles take the form of re-writing The Prince, paralleling its chapters, and otherwise affecting its style, though none achieve it. Examples that have already been mentioned for other purposes are Buskirk, Brahmstedt, Griffin, Hill, and McAlpine. Midas Jones is another example.30 We also note that some of these books offer salutary a­ dvice, comment, and counsel; but why do they have to drape Machiavelli over it all? While McAlpine’s book is full of reasoned reflection it does include this passage: ‘clearly, it is not possible at the turn of the twentieth century to behead a managing director.’31 We also read that, ‘In Machiavelli’s time the knife came in the night, our times demand subtler methods.’32 What seems a ludicrous joke to those in safe ordered worlds of the West, like McAlpine, is the reality in some parts of the word. Michael Thomas applies Machiavelli to marketing.33 Henry Borger is even more explicit than many others when he writes that The Prince is equivalent to any autocratic ruler like a ceo.34 He adds that ceos live and work in a highly competitive world like Machiavelli’s prince.35 It is all rather breathtaking to see the European wars fought across Italy for a century reduced to boardroom plotting, but there it is. Borger has allies, like Ian Demack, to whom we referred earlier, who asks what the workplace more resembles than a principality?36 Buttery and Richter return to the dictum bruited by Antony Jay way back in the beginning in 1967 that business enterprises rival the power of a national state.37 Machiavelli is often essential reading for executives, they aver.38

29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Wren and Greenwood, 193 and Hill, 20 and 70. Cf. Daniel Wren, The History of Management Thought (New York City: Wiley, 2005). Midas Jones, The Modern Prince: Better Living through Machiavellianism (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2008). McAlpine, 28. Cf. McAlpine, ‘Machiavelli: Renaissance realpolitik for modern management, in Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, edited by Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees (London: Routledge, 2000), 85–107. Ibid., 45. Thomas, 2000a, 524. cf. Thomas, 2000b for more of the same. Henry Borger, The Corporate Prince: Machiavelli’s Timeless Advice Adapted for The Modern ceo (Bloomington, in: Authorhouse, 2002), 2. Ibid., 4. We have known executives who thought they were God, but none who thought they were Cesare Borgia. Demack (2002), 75. Cf. an even more explicit assertion in Demack (2008). Ernest Buttery and Ewa Richter, ‘On Machiavellian Management,’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24 (2003) 8, 426. Ibid., 434.

102

Chapter 4

We are sure that Machiavelli’s name and the adjective and the noun that are made from it are directed at executives by the writers reviewed here and the myriad of websites, blogs, training programs that make use of them copyright-free, but we can only wish that executives might read Machiavelli’s books, ­because they would learn how distant the complexity and depth of his observations and conclusions are from their own world. If Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli was a remarkable achievement in bringing Machiavelli into management, equally remarkable in a different way is Stanley Bing’s What would Machiavelli Do? The Ends Justify the Meanness.39 Of the many books that make mileage from Machiavelli and, in the course of so doing, treat him and his works with little or no respect, Bing’s book wins all prizes. It combines in just under 150 pages the worst features of the distorted Machiavel. For that reason we now concentrate on this book. We will start with its iconography, which features a shark on the title page and a shark’s fin at the bottom of each of its 148 pages. This book is replete with fourletter words. Before we leave the cover, there is one more point to note. There it is labeled a ‘National Bestseller’ and the pseudonymous author is credited with another ‘National Bestseller.’ We do not know the number of sales that stimulates this claim, but we do know that the book was praised, at least through the selective quotations on the back cover, by Don Imus, the radio shock-jock; the New Yorker, Time, the New York Times, and the New York Post. If we believe all that, it seems to be very New York City, New York, New York. The praise of such authoritative New York sources, along with the redoubtable Time magazine, the nationally syndicated Imus, and the status of being a bestseller, altogether ­warrant giving this book a thorough dissection. Bing’s tone is set, never to vary, with this dedication: In the spirit of the master, I’m going to suppress the impulse to dedicate this book to my family, my friends, my bosses, the people who have influenced my thoughts and shaped my path as I make my way toward its completion. Instead, I’m going to do what Machiavelli would tell me to do, and dedicate this book to myself.40 We suppose that the master is Niccolò Machiavelli. We also divine that such blatant selfishness is not consistent with the conniving selfishness that Bing 39 40

Stanley Bing, What would Machiavelli Do? The Ends Justify the Meanness (New York: HarperCollins, 2000). Ibid., v.

Theory M for Machiavelli

103

recommends. If we accept dictionary definitions of these terms, ‘blatant’ is not ‘conniving’ nor vice versa. Bing joins some other authors in claiming at first to be a benefactor of the fortunate reader by warning of the ‘the gigantic Machiavellian monsters that shape our working environment in every industry every day.’41 Lynn Gunlicks made a parallel claim in The Machiavellian Manager’s Handbook for Success, as did Jill Carroll.42 The latter two writers stick to that claim, but the pages of Bing’s book soon show a truer color. There we read that the super-powerful, the truly successful are guided by the basic teaching of the bureaucrat from Florence who spoke to us five h ­ undred years ago.43 Thus in a single sentence does Bing imbibe the two master narratives identified in Chapter 3. Florence is a part of today and Machiavelli applies beyond politics to (all) other spheres. In other words, we are always in Florence and when in Florence, do as Machiavelli would do. Though neither assumption is made explicit, both become ever more clear through the remainder of the book. Bing says to his reader that the choice is to do things the mediocre way or Machiavelli’s way. What would Machiavelli do? Why whatever is necessary.44 The only goal ever stated by Bing is personal power, though he seems to equate wealth with power and power with wealth. We are sure most readers can think of many instances of wealthy people with no interest in power, however that is defined, e.g., Warren Buffet, and also many powerful people without wealth, if ‘power’ is defined as influencing what others do, e.g., Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Defining terms and sticking to them is not the modus operandi of Bing’s book. Bing wrote that Machiavelli was the ‘first truly modern amoral thinker.’45 Again we are puzzled. Machiavelli certainly would not have been the first to think in an immoral or amoral way, not that he did by the way, but the point 41 42

43 44 45

Ibid., xi. Gunlicks, xiv and B. Jill Carroll, Machiavelli for Adjuncts: Six Lessons in Power for the Disempowered (Chula Vista, ca: Aventine Press, 2004), 2. See also Wess Roberts and Justin ­Roberts, Machiavelli’s Lion & Fox : Strategies for Power in Life at Work (No City Given: ­Mandevilla Press, 2012) and E.R. Vernor and Corivs Nocturnum, Hail Thyself! A Modern Machiavelli in the Making (San Bernardino, ca: Create Space, 2016), this latter is a selfhelp workbook to motivate and direct the subject rather like a homemade McKinsey seminar. It one of a series of workbooks from these authors, including The Secrets of Control, of Wealth, and of Power. This one alone declares a link Machiavelli. One that is not overt. Bing, xiiii. Ibid., xv. Ibid., xviii.

104

Chapter 4

is immoral and amoral deeds had occurred in human history long before baby Niccolò’s birth in May 1469. In fact, examples of such deeds in the past figure in Machiavelli’s own books. And we may presume that those who did the deeds thought about them, before the fact, if not after it. Ergo there were amoral and immoral thinkers before Machiavelli. What the word ‘modern’ adds to the passage, we cannot say. Does Bing imply that there were ancient amoral thinkers, taking ‘ancient’ to be the polar opposite of ‘modern?’ What Bing may mean, but we are left to guess, is that Machiavelli is the first systematically to spell out amorality on the pages of a book. We will certainly give Machiavelli credit for setting forth things like few others. Still in the front matter, Bing explains the need for his book and gives a very short account of Machiavelli’s career. We will comment on both of these later. Suffice it to say here that the justification for the book is paper-thin, and the account of Machiavelli’s career is largely imaginative (read fiction). What is worthy of emphasis is how short the exposition of both of these points is. They seem to rest on another silent assumption, which is that the reader already has a predisposition to react to Machiavelli’s name. ‘Amusing’ said the New Yorker and ‘sly humor’ opined Time. These claims adorn the back cover. The subtitle, ‘The End Justifies the Meanness’, seems to be an example of that humor.46 ‘Sly’ might not be the word we would choose. Rather it has a very loud laugh track but it sounds very old and scratched. In Machiavelli’s name, Bing recommends that one be selfish, narcissistic, and manipulative.47 Bing notes that the Machiavelli he has summoned from the other side in his own version of a séance, would exploit others and he would be unpredictable and so disarm others.48 He would also be paranoid.49 He would always be at war.50 How can one always be at war and yet be unpredictable, one might ask? Bing goes on to say that Machiavelli would kill people.51 He follows this statement with a few references to Pol Pot as though he is a Machiavellian exemplar.52 Is this yet another example of ‘sly humor?’ Between one and three million Cambodians died under that regime. The book goes on in this vein for another twenty plus pages. Bing says ­Machiavelli would, after a merger, ‘take out’ consultants, those old enough to

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Ibid., xxii. Ibid., xxvi. Ibid., 4. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 12. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 33–34.

Theory M for Machiavelli

105

be skeptical of new claims, Board members, losers, boomers, and c­ onsultants.53 We speculate that Bing’s favorite manager was Al ‘Chainsaw’ Dunlap in his prime, until the accounting got too creative.54 Before long Saddam Hussein is cited as another Machiavellian.55 Remember this is in 2000, while Hussein was still on top of the world, receiving bribes from The Australian Wheat Board, among others. The New York Times once credited Hussein with the murder of one million of his fellow countrymen, so in Bing’s terms, he is definitely second rate to Pol Pot. Bing says Machiavelli would lie; he would have no conscience.56 He would follow the money.57 Bing says his spectral Machiavelli would think BIG.58 By thinking big Bing means, not finding a cure for cancer, achieving equality for all, or reconciling Arab and Jew, but rather having a really big car, a gold plated Hummer. It seems Bing supposes this is what is going to motivate his readers to turn the page. In sum, ‘the real Machiavellian … believes there is nothing bigger or more important than him or herself.’59 How Bing might square this bald assertion with Machiavelli’s declared love for she who then did not exist, proclaimed in the last chapter of The Prince, Lady Italia, we can only guess. As for that slyly humorous subtitle, ‘The End justifies the Meanness,’ Machiavelli never said ‘the end justifies the means.’ He had seen too many fools to think anything was that simple. We will forsake comment on Bing’s ghastly efforts at Comedy Club humor. In sixteenth-century Florence Machiavelli certainly recommended preparation for war because that was the reality. He personally did not kill anyone, nor is there any reason whatever to suppose he ever recommended that action to anyone. He did say in The Prince that one way to remove one’s enemies, as history shows, is to murder them. We endeavor to exculpate Machiavelli from such charges and their kin in the last chapter. It does not have to be like this. Qass Aquarius’s The Corporate Prince: A Handbook of Administrative Tactics mentions Machiavelli only once but that, together with the title, calls to mind the Florentine.60 This book is amusing, 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Ibid., 35. It was at this point that we began to suspect that Bing might have been a speechwriter for Donald Trump. For the colorful career of Albert Dunlap see John Byrne, Chainsaw: The Notorious Career of Al Dunlap in the Era of Profit-at-Any-Price (New York: HarperBusiness, 1999). Ibid., 64. It was at this point that we began to suspect that Bing might have been a speechwriter for Donald Trump. Ibid., 77 and 117. Ibid., 127. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 117. Aquarius, vii.

106

Chapter 4

if long-winded, and makes all the points of substance in Bing, and many more. It covers tactics for dealing with rivals in business with an emphasis on taking the initiative. Among the many titles associated with Niccolò Machiavelli, it is The Prince that is most often quoted in management. A few of the authors show that they know he penned other works, but time after time attention goes to the eminently quotable The Prince. The ratio is like that we found in Chapter 3 above with Aimee Buchanan, ten to one in favor of The Prince. The focus narrows further because it is only a few passages that are repeatedly cited. To review a selection of these shows how the second master narrative equates Machiavellian politics with contemporary business. Chapters v, vi, and vii of The Prince examine the acquisition of new territories, which management writers liken to corporate mergers and acquisitions. Jay led the way in focusing on these passages and his lead has been followed by Brahmstedt, Funk, Crainer, Hill, Dryden, Buttery and Richter, and DiVanna.61 Cesare Borgia’s bloody conquest of Romagna is thus compared to the corporate buyout of Netscape by America On Line or Turner Broadcasting by Time Warner. Only those who have, by good fortune, never seen blood on the floor can speak airily and metaphorically of blood on the floor of a boardroom at such times. The comparison ends before it begins for anyone with a sense of ­realism harder than reality tv. How those who rush to embrace the title of ­realist can then see even the most hostile corporate takeover as comparable to ­Borgia’s march through the mountains is beyond belief. Another oft cited adage from Niccolò is his remark on the difficulty of bringing change. Those comfortable with the existing arrangements will be no friend to change for very material reasons, while those who might benefit from change have only the weak reed of hope upon which to act. Applying this reasoning to the business world holus bolus is done by, among others: B ­ artlett, Biais and Perotti, Buttery and Richter, Easley and Swain, and McGuire and Hutchings.62 Machiavelli is also conscripted to some very special fields of management like school principals, public parks, performing arts, libraries, and ministers

61 62

Jay, 31. Cf. Brahmstedt, 17–19; Funk, 5; Crainer, 136; Hill, 109; Dryden, 1016; Buttery and Richter, 427; and DiVanna, 113. Bartlett (1987), 5; Bruno Biais and Enrico Perotti, ‘Machiavellian Privatization,’ American Economic Review, 92 (2002) 1, 240; Buttery and Richter, 427; C.A. Easley and John Swain, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli: Moving through the Future as We Learn from the Past,’ International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6 (2003) 1, 120; and McGuire and Hutchings, 192.

Theory M for Machiavelli

107

of ­religion.63 Two short treatises aimed at clergy, A Machiavellian View of the Ministry and Machiavellian Ministry: What Faith Filled Leaders can Learn from a Faithless Politician, offer tips from Machiavelli, sometimes likened to the devil incarnate. What would Cardinal Pole say? Perhaps the most frequently cited passage from Machiavelli is his conclusion that it is better to be feared than loved. It is a conclusion arrived at reluctantly, and heavily qualified in Chapter xvii, about which we will say more at the end. Enthusiastic management writers, more often than not, take that conclusion as a guide to life. Like yellow journalists they are only too happy to be the ones to proclaim the bad news: fear rules. We have found this passage put to work by Funk, Griffin, Janet Greenlee and Charles Cullinan, Gunlicks, Terrell Carter, Michael Franzese, and Jeffrey Pfeffer.64 Striking fear into others then becomes a part of Theory M management. Bing is one of the loudest voices to celebrate fear.65 More will be said about Machiavelli’s meaning in Chapter 10. These are the kind of bridges that the equation of politics to business to politics travels over. The Theory M manager celebrated by the likes of Bing yells, threatens, and ‘takes out’ people. In their haste to make Machiavelli something he was not, a management consultant, some writers contrive their own facts. Wren and Greenwood averred that Machiavelli served as a soldier in a war between Florence and Pisa.66 He did not, if serving as a soldier means carrying or using a weapon. Machiavelli certainly took part in the planning and was often present during the execution of these plans in this war, but he wielded no steel. 63

64

65 66

Respectively, R.C. Boucher and J.C. Fortin, ‘Machiavelisme et Stress Chez le Dirigeant,’ Education Canada, 35 (1995)3, 22–26; Louise Burletson and Keith Grint, ‘The Deracination of Politics: Outdoor Management Development,’ Management Learning, 27 (1996) 2, :187–202; Terrell Carter, Machiavellian Arts Management: 21st Century Advice for Contemporary Arts Managers (St Louis, mo: ccd Publishing, 2002); Melissa Aho and Erika ­Bennett, The Machiavellian Librarian: Winning Allies, Combating Budget Cuts, and Influencing Stakeholders (Philadelphia, pa: Chandos, 2014); Brandon L. Lovely, A Machiavellian View of the Ministry: A Guide for Professional Leaders of Organizations (New York City: Vantage. 1988); and Terrell Carter, Machiavellian Ministry: What Faith Filled Leaders can Learn from a Faithless Politician (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2015). Funk, 29; Griffin, 84; Janet S. Greenlee and Charles Cullinan, ‘Machiavellianism and Public Accountants,’ Accounting Enquiries 7 (1997) 1, 125; Gunlicks, xiv; Carter (2002), 14; M ­ ichael Franzese, I’ll Make You an Offer You Can’t Refuse: Insider Business Tips from a Former Mob Boss (London: Nelson, 2009), 32; and Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t (New York City: HarperBusiness, 2010), 87. Bing, 118ff. Wren and Greenwood, 191. Hilary Mantel implies the same in Wolf Hall (London: Fourth Estate, 2009), 105 but she has a novelist’s license to do so.

108

Chapter 4

If he had, his odd ideas about military organization set out in The Art of War might have been amended. Even more common is the mistake of supposing that Machiavelli had a career working for a prince. Borger, for example, says Machiavelli knew about princes, because he worked for them.67 Bing likewise has it that Machiavelli was a princeling’s ‘toady.’68 He manages to imply that The Prince was written while Machiavelli was imprisoned. Not so. Bing also suggests that ­Machiavelli worked for a princely government before imprisonment and secured r­ e-employment there with The Prince. Again, not so. Bing is not alone in having Machiavelli work for a prince, for Demack says Machiavelli wrote The Prince, ‘hoping it would be his passport back to the Florentine court.’69 Having never been a part of the Medici court, Machiavelli could not go back to it even with a passport. Bing even says the Medici prince ‘liked what he read.’70 All of these assertions are erroneous. Here are a few of the more obvious points. If Machiavelli was imprisoned and tortured as he says he was, the torture would have involved arm twisting, then he did not write the one hundred pages of The Prince in such circumstances. We know from his own letters and other sources that he wrote the manuscript later, while in rustic retreat. More importantly, Machiavelli did not work for a principality before his imprisonment. To say that, even to imply it, denies the man’s whole career as a servant of the Florentine Republic. His only government service, between 1498 and the end of 1512, was for the republican government of Florence led by Piero Soderini. Nor did he ever secure a government post after his imprisonment. Although he had a few short-term contracts toward the end of his life, he was not restored to the chancellery. If The Prince was ever presented to a Medici, we have no evidence whatever to believe it was read by one. An innocent turning of the pages of What would Machiavelli Do? would disclose none of this crucial, albeit complicated, detail. Machiavelli cites Cesare Borgia more than once, and this has led ­Daniel Diehl to write that ‘Machiavelli allied himself with the notorious w ­ arlord ­Cesare Borgia.’71 His book, Management Secrets from History, includes M ­ achiavelli in a section titled ‘Dictators, Despots, and Rogue Thinkers.’ At best, Diehl has ­Machiavelli as a rogue thinker. Borgia was, of course, a major figure in Machiavelli’s day and Niccolò found his successes fascinating in the way Alan ­Bullock did Adolf Hitler’s successes in his Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. No reviewer 67 68 69 70 71

Borger, 1. Bing, xx–xxi. Demack, ix. Emphasis added. Bing, xxi. Diehl, 29.

Theory M for Machiavelli

109

s­ upposed Bullock had allied himself with Hitler. Machiavelli has not benefited from a like courtesy. These management writers shout that Machiavelli speaks to this time and this place. Yet they also say, nearly as loudly, read my book rather than his, as we saw earlier regarding Jay’s book. To explain this disjunction they offer this sort of reasoning: ‘The Prince is not an easy book to read because it is somewhat tedious and refers to events and people unfamiliar to modern readers.’ Borger says that he repackaged The Prince and added contemporary references and omitted irrelevant parts.72 By the same token, Brandon Musk complains about ‘the density of the original work’ (The Prince), drops Machiavelli’s ‘historical references, which the modern reader does not understand, and dense, heavily stylistic signature.’73 Another example is Buskirk, who admitted that ‘I have edited from the Prince and Discourses material not relevant to the management of men.’74 Much of Machiavelli’s text goes then, including the paean to Lady Italia at the end. We find in Funk that ‘Machiavelli’s The Prince needed to be re-examined in order to establish a better understanding … for the corporate executive (or prince).’75 Griffin had it that, ‘The writings of Machiavelli cover thousands of pages of detailed analysis of the concepts of leadership, the keys to management success, the functioning of organizations, and the various styles of management.’76 Thereinafter only The Art of War, Discourses, and Prince are cited. Using the Modern Library edition that combines The Prince and Discourses and the Neal Wood edition of The Art of War, we find these three volumes total 752 pages. That is, not even one thousand let alone several ‘thousands of pages’ in the plural. Griffin continued, ‘This book offers a concise guide to the principles of management filtered through Machiavellian thought.’77 ‘However, you cannot “just read” Machiavelli’s words, which were written in the environment of sixteenth-century political life; his words must be interpreted in the context of today’s corporate world.’78 Calum ­Roberts solves this problem to his satisfaction by excerpting quotations from ­Machiavelli in a complete contextomy.79 Demack adds that ‘The Prince remains as relevant and 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Borger, 3–4. Brandon Musk, The New Machiavelli: New Improved Machiavellian Concepts for the Modern Age (Jersey City, nj: Make Profits Easy llc, 2015), 9. Buskirk, xxi. Funk, vii. Griffin, x. Emphasis added. Ibid., xi. Ibid., 4. Calum Roberts, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: Timeless Concepts for Today (New Maiden, uk: Media Eight, 2013).

110

Chapter 4

provocative today as it was in 1513. But many find it difficult to read.’80 Roth Stanton also holds The Prince is pertinent but difficult to read.81 No evidence is cited by either regarding the difficulty in reading The Prince, which we suggest is among the most easily read books on any shelf, and which is why it has been so widely exploited. These writers seem to want it both ways. F = T, Florence is akin to Today but not so congruent that The Prince can be read without their assistance. All in all, Machiavelli has become a fixture in management language and literature.82 Some writers cite him as an authority on office politics, though, because of its verisimilitude we much preferred John Hoover, How to Work for an Idiot, who does not mention Machiavelli at all in a refreshing change.83 Other writers are as diverse as Carroll, who advises junior faculty members on the care needed to foster advancement, Jones who denounces much of the modern world, and Gunlicks who warns us of the evil Machiavellians around us with leaden gravity. Carroll, Jones, and Gunlicks offered books that had been through an editorial process, but then there are the blogs and tweets most of which are best left in silence. Perhaps the most relevant to management is Jay Onwukwe’s Corporate ­Machiavelli 2: How to get that promotion or pay-raise you want with ease! and Corporate Machiavelli 3: Two strategies that get you promotion and power at your workplace.84 What follows for each of these entries is sensible advice concerning preparation, hard work and the like, in the same vein as Aimee Buchanan’s ­counsel reviewed in Chapter 3. We take no exception to anything Onwukwe 80

81 82

83

84

Demack, x. The desire to explain Machiavelli has also led others to explain this most direct of writers, e.g., Catherine Jaime, A Brief Look at Machiavelli and the Prince (Madison, wi: Creative Learning Connection, 2013). Roth Stanton, The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli’s 200 Most Important Quotes: The Prince and The Discourses (San Bernardino, ca: CreateSpace, 2014), 3. Morgen Witzel, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli,’ Fifty Key Figures in Management (London: Routledge, 2003), 194–198 and Witzel, A History of Management Thought (London: Routledge, 2012). John Hoover, How to Work for an Idiot (Pompton, nj: Career Press, 2011). See Michael S, Dobson and Deborah S. Dobson, Enlightened Office Politics (New York City: American Management Association, 2001); James Oliver, Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks. (London: Vermillion, 2013); and Andreas Eppink, Crisis, Power, Sustainability & Ethics: It’s All Machiavelli and Hidden Goals: A Manager’s Guide (San Bernardino, ca: Montaigne House, 2014). Jay Onwukwe, Corporate Machiavelli 2: How To Get That Promotion Or Pay-Raise You Want With Ease! (2013). Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle .asp?AuthorID=165295&id=69108.

Theory M for Machiavelli

111

says, what we do take exception to is Machiavelli’s relevance to it. It would seem that N ­ iccolò’s name is taken, as is so often the case, on the assumption it will capture the attention of readers. Still more do we object to Max Stirner’s advice on preparing a fake résumé called The Machiavellian Guide to Getting a Job, a work that advocates lying and nowhere quotes a line from Machiavelli apart from a few chapter titles.85 This practice of gratuitously including ­Machiavelli has a longer history than one might have thought, for in 1932 H ­ enry Whitehead published a piece in Popular Fiction Magazine called ­‘Machiavelli – The Salesman,’ a tale of a poor immigrant boy made good. It has two r­ eferences to the Florentine: ‘to do a Machiavelli’ which meant ‘going at things slick, smooth, kind of underhanded … get there by a roundabout way – the way wops went at things’; and, ‘Veronica was educated and she knew about this here guy Machiavelli.’86 That was enough for the editor to lead the title with Machiavelli. Another example is the eMachiavelli: The Official Site (which seems to offer training of trainers) in PRINCE2® which is about project management. It is linked to Blue Maple Consulting in Brisbane (Australia). PRINCE2® and MSP® are Registered Trade Marks of the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom and other countries.87 There are links to online versions of texts, and also to the songs from Machiavelli the Musical, which seems to feature Savonarola a lot. Perhaps calling a training package PRINCE2 suggests an immersion in management sagacity, but that is a guess. The opening lines of the online brochure say that: The PRINCE2 course provides students with in-depth knowledge and understanding on the practical application of the PRINCE2 method. Upon completion of the Foundation level students should be ­comfortable working as part of a project team. Students who complete the Practitioner level should be comfortable managing projects using PRINCE2. The details of the PRINCE2 method are revealed only to paying customers, a number that does not include us. We are left to guess that it is along the lines of the advice offered by the many writers reviewed in this chapter. We also

85 86 87

Max Stirner, Fake Resume: The Machiavellian Guide to Getting a Job (2012). Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.fakeresume.com. Henry S. Whitehead, ‘Machiavelli – Salesman,’ Popular Fiction Magazine (1932), 1–13. Anonymous. 2011. ‘eMachiavelli: The Official Site’ (2011). Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www .emachiavelli.com.

112

Chapter 4

came across the use of his name in teaching law students in something called Machiavelli’s Workshop at a nearby university.88 All these writers, and there are others, say that following Machiavelli’s advice is the path to success. If so, then how ironic is Dame Fortune because Machiavelli found little success. He certainly never enjoyed the big car that is all-important to Bing’s target readers, or whatever the Florentine sixteenthcentury equivalent was. He never got tenure if that is the goal of Carroll’s ­advice. He did not elude the evil ones around him per Gunlicks’s and Jones’s express purposes, but rather fell prey to them in prison, perhaps under torture, and in exile. The composite Machiavelli that emerges from these many references to him in the management literature is little more than a cardboard cut-out, a prop to allow the author a license to say a piece. The 2011 television series The Borgias has three episodes in which a character named Niccolò Machiavelli appears. While historically inaccurate overall, it does capture something of Machiavelli the man, patriot, seer, wit, which is altogether deeper and more complex than any of the fatuous spirits summoned by these management invocations. We are neither the first, nor alone in recognizing the mauling M ­ achiavelli takes from those who have befriended him. Michael Macaulay and Alan ­Lawton tried to calm the waters a decade ago.89 In contrast to that sober effort, ours is a more thoroughgoing and robust critique. It is also more comprehensive than the survey of Peter Galie and Christopher Bopst.90 We acknowledge that here and there among the books and articles we have read and cited are writers who offer a qualified appraisal of Machiavelli. We have not quoted them because our interest is in the profusion of exaggerations and distortions. We also note that some of the books contain wise counsel. Our plaint does not concern that but rather the press-ganging of Machiavelli into service when the wisdom itself should be the focus. On the bright side, we note that Machiavelli is not mentioned at all in Managing for Dummies.91 88

89 90 91

Eric Wilson, ‘Insights into the Art of Negotiation,’ The Age (Melbourne), 16 N ­ ovember 2004. Accessed 9 August 2016 http://www.theage.com.au/news/In-Training/Insights-into -the-art-of-negotiation/2004/11/15/1100384481302.html. We tracked down the lecturer who ran the workshop using a computer simulation and asked him why he ascribed it to ­Machiavelli. He said that it was to show how hard it is to negotiate. He also said many of his students had never heard of Machiavelli. That put our labors in some perspective. Michael Macaulay and Alan Lawton, ‘Misunderstanding Machiavelli in Management: Metaphor, Analogy and Historical Method,’ Philosophy of Management 3 (2003)3, 17–30. Galie and Bopst, passim. Bob Nelson and Peter Economy, Managing for Dummies (New York City: Wiley, 1999).

Theory M for Machiavelli

113

The persistent application of Machiavelli to management perhaps is not surprising when one considers all the others recruited to the popular management literature, too, though few of them as widely as Machiavelli. The bookshelves bulge with the management advice, counsel, and wisdom of many who never managed a business from Aristotle to Robert E. Lee, and even Winnie the Pooh, that bear of very little brain. As last words we bow to David McGuire and Kate Hutchings who wrote that The Prince has ‘acquired a life of its own.’92 While we would like to modify that fact, we know that the world is unlikely to obey this wish. Even while Machiavelli was being copyrighted by management writers hither and thither, he was also appropriated by other specialists, most notably social psychology, which found in his texts, if not in the man himself, a personality type, of the sort implied by some of the titles reviewed in this chapter, particularly that of Stanley Bing. This thread is taken up in the next chapter. 92

McGuire and Hutchings, 194.

Chapter 5

The Science of Machiavellianism Just five years after the appearance of Management and Machiavelli in 1967, two social psychologists, Gary Gemmill with W.J. Heisler, wrote that ‘Machiavelli’s advice on how to manage others has long been a subject of interest and controversy to management theorists and practitioners.’1 They cited Calhoon’s article as the authority for this claim to longevity of citations.2 Other social psychology researchers, Dora Dien and H. Fujisawa, cited in their opening paragraph Antony Jay’s Management and Machiavelli before describing their experiments and results.3 By serendipity it seems, while management writers were consulting Machiavelli to renew and to refresh the supply of common sense, social psychologists devised the concept of the Machiavellian Personality Construct. It has been applied with energy and creativity to all kinds of folks, including managers and others in business and commerce.4 Between the camps of management and psychology there is a mutual awareness, though each marches to its own beat. But in the beat of social psychologists there are two familiar refrains: that Machiavelli’s Florence illuminates our time, or F = T; and that politics is business by another name, or P = B. Shelby Hunt and Lawrence Chonko wrote in 1984 that ‘although Machiavelli wrote for political leaders in sixteenth-century Italy, many analysts believe that his ideas are applicable to modern business management.’5 Both the master narratives are present in this short passage, Florence enlightens today and politics is business. 1 Gary Gemmill and W.J. Heisler, ‘Machiavellianism as a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, Job Satisfaction, and Upward Mobility,’ Academy of Management, 15 (1972) 1, 51. Likewise, see Nizam, Fairuz, Organization Behaviour: An Introductory Study on Machiavellianism & the Big Five Personality Traits on Job Satisfaction (Amazon Kindle. 2012). 2 Richard Calhoon, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator,’ Academy of Management Journal, 12(1969)2, 205–212. 3 D.S. Dien and H. Fujisawa, ‘Machiavellianism in Japan: A Longitudinal Study,’ Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 10 (1979)4, 508. 4 Russell Price, ‘Machiavelli, Niccolo,’ International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, edited by Malcolm Warner (London: Routledge, 1996), 2607–2613. 5 Shelby Hunt and Lawrence Chonko, ‘Marketing and Machiavellianism,’ Journal of Marketing, 48 (1984)1, 30. Emphasis added. Does the word ‘modern’ imply that it is not applicable to the practices of other times, we wonder?

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_007

The Science of Machiavellianism

115

We find similar sentiments implied by Myron Gable and Frank Dangello, another pair of social psychologists examining job performance by store m ­ anagers. They say that ‘interpretations of books by Machiavelli have c­ ulminated in the incorporation into our vocabulary of the term ­“Machiavellianism” and that has led to the exploration of the Machiavellian personality who lives among us.’6 We do not think the incorporation of the term came about through an interpretation of Machiavelli’s books. Putting it that way would make the ­invocation of Machiavelli sound both rational and reasonable, when it was rather the summoning of a convenient myth. We very much doubt that the Florentine ­Machiavellian is alive and well and working as a store manager near us. His fall from the status of titan in the management literature to that of a Willy Loman here must be attributed to factors other than any interpretation of his books. George Nelson and Diane Gilbertson decried the sloth with which ‘The field of management has had difficulty embracing the concept of Machiavellianism despite the myriad of studies’ of it in social psychology.7 They go on to say that this personality can be examined in the ‘complex world of organizations.’ They note that ‘the application of [Machiavelli’s] medieval maxims to contemporary times carries with it an ensemble of difficulties,’ and then they proceed to do what they cautioned against. (Note that word ‘medieval’ for future reference.) Paul Finlay’s widely-used textbook, Strategic Management (2000), discusses Machiavelli as a mentor of managers and then concludes with the Machiavellian personality.8 Under the heading of ‘The Machiavellian view of business’ John Graham, in introducing a study of the Machiavellian personality in engineers, writes that ‘apart from the field of government, is there a profession where Machiavelli’s wisdom can be applied today?’9 Like so many of the management writers reviewed in Chapter 4, Graham has a ready answer: ‘The modern corporation (which) can be viewed not as something different from a state with some interesting similarities, but as a state with some unimportant differences,’ paraphrasing Jay and citing Calhoon. ‘The comparison between the mediaeval state and the modern corporation has led writers to suggest that the use of Machiavellian tactics is related to success for the chief executive.’ 6 Myron Gable and Frank Dangello, ‘Locus of Control, Machiavellianism and Managerial Job Performance,’ Journal of Psychology, 128 (1994)5, 599. 7 George Nelson and Diana Gilbertson, ‘Machiavellianism Revisited,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (1991)8, 634. 8 Paul Finlay, Strategic Management (Edinburgh: Pearson Education, 2000), 104-108. 9 J.H. Graham, ‘Machiavellian Project Managers: Do They Perform Better?’ International Journal of Project Management, 14 (1996) 2, 67.

116

Chapter 5

Mediaeval again, this time in tandem with the state, a concept only to emerge fully in 1648, but leaving that to one side, the point is that Graham also encapsulates the two narratives: F = T, and P = B. But what of this Machiavellian Personality Construct? Biographers of ­Niccolò know him to have been playful, erudite, a man who liked women, clever, well read in Roman works as befits a man of the Renaissance (not the Middle Ages), careless with money, little motivated by status or prestige, iconoclastic, curious, temperamental at times, inconsistent, impatient with fools.10 Is this the Machiavellian Personality? Alas, no. The Machiavellian Personality Construct has nothing to do with Niccoló the man, and though it claims the paternity of Machiavelli through his written work, we shall leave readers to judge this dna claim for themselves after we have set forth the matter below. This construct is usually referred to as ‘the Mach Scale.’ This personality construct and the scale upon which it is built is a global phenomenon, as we shall presently demonstrate. Searching Dissertations and Theses Global via ProQuest in May 2016 we found more than three hundred PhD dissertations that mentioned the Machiavellian personality or the Mach scales in the title or abstract. It doubtlessly figures in the texts of still others that we did not disinter. We also found in our searches hundreds of empirical studies that applied the Mach Scale around the world. We will describe the contours of this body of research below, but now we provide this brief overview to establish the importance of treating this social psychological research in these pages. In 1971, two leading exponents, Richard Christie and Florence Geis, published Studies in Machiavellianism.11 The book features a profile on the front cover of a man, who is not named, though the title together with the dedication inside on the fly page to ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’ imply we are to take it as Machiavelli. With the black background and the blood-red face it is dramatic. The book is a collection of papers reporting on some of the very first empirical applications of the Mach scales measuring Machiavellianism. This was pretty exciting stuff at the time, and it has made a mark in the research literature of psychology, as we will show. The first chapter, however, is a reflective essay by Christie titled, ‘Why Machiavelli?’ Earlier Christie and Geis have also published a longer and more informative account of the early development of the 10

11

Among the host of biographies we have found two that stand out, namely Roberto Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli (London: Routledge, 1963) and Niccolò Capponi, An Unlikely Prince: The Life and Times of Machiavelli (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2010). Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (New York: Academic Press. 1970).

The Science of Machiavellianism

117

Machiavellianism Scale in the Handbook of Personality Theory and Research in 1968 called ‘Some consequences of taking Machiavelli seriously.’12 This latter essay is fuller and more personal than the lead chapter of Studies in Machiavellianism, which, like all the subsequent chapters ‘adhere[s] to the currently approved canons of social psychology reporting’ and is the poorer of the two essays for it, being deracinated and uninflected, robotic even.13 Nothing of the author is glimpsed in it, but the essay in the Handbook of Personality Theory and Research is more revealing. According to Christie, he began to take Machiavelli seriously in 1954 when he was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies at Princeton University. There he had the time for some original thinking, away from the press of daily business, a sabbatical in short. In that atmosphere Christie returned, he says, to first principles and pondered, in the aftermath of World War ii, political ­power. He reports reading far and wide on the subject, and of course ­Machiavelli came to his notice. He also reports ranging over such authors as Kung-sun Yang from China, and Kautilya from India. Whatever each of these two sages offered it was not the instant recognition (with attendant baggage) that the name ­‘Machiavelli’ presents. A volume entitled Studies in Kung-sun Yangism or ­Studies in Kautilyaism would likely have sunk without a trace. While Christie does not say it, the choice of Machiavelli guarantees recognition of a sort. What Christie does say is that since the appearance (he says ‘publication’ but that term conjures up print runs and sales, and the earliest days of The Prince were handwritten copies) of The Prince, ‘the name of its author has come to designate the use of guile, deceit, and opportunism in interpersonal relations. The “Machiavellian” is someone who views and manipulates others for his own purposes.’14 So automatic is this association with the word ‘Machiavellian’ that Christie makes sport of it in the opening paragraph of the essay in the Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. One aim of his essay is to ‘dispel certain false rumors about the reasons’ for his study of the manipulative personality, lest it be thought he aimed to practice what he studied.15 If only he had made the same concession to Machiavelli who also studied the phenomenon without practicing it. Christie’s purpose was to understand such

12

Christie and Geis. ‘Some Consequences of Taking Machiavelli Seriously,’ Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, edited by Edgar Borgotta and W. W. Lambert (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968), 959–973. 13 Christie and Geis, Studies, 1. 14 Ibid. 15 Christie, Handbook, 959.

118

Chapter 5

people, not to learn how better how to manipulate others. His focus was on the manipulator rather than the manipulated. What Machiavelli offered that his Chinese and his Indian rivals did not, wrote Christie, was an explicit and thematic style.16 That style, marked by the short declarative sentences shorn of qualification, hesitation, or doubt makes the point. Though each one of Machiavelli’s sentences is best understood in the larger context that frames it, Christie dispensed with this encumbrance and ‘scanned’ The Prince and the Discourses for statements that lent themselves to psychometric scale items.17 We stress that word ‘scanned.’ It does not mean ‘read.’ It means picking the eyes out of the text in the way an unprepared student going to class may flick through an assignment for passages to leap out in the hope of having something in mind if necessary. It does not bespeak a leisurely year spent reading Machiavelli’s several works, his letters, his plays, or in reading anything about Renaissance Italy and the near continuous wars that played over its geography from North to South. This removal of context in which Machiavelli wrote seems to drop the social dimension from social psychology. There is a defensive shrug of the shoulders here when Christie says he did not consider accuracy to Machiavelli and his times to be important because his goal was to understand those who ‘gravitate to power positions’ today.18 Indeed. Christie says he ‘took statements from Machiavelli’ that might fit into a short item on a scientific instrument, that is, a questionnaire. How does subtlety fare if subjected to this tailoring in which ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ are the answers. The result is that current references to the Mach iv scale that Christie created are retrospectively fitted to the man Machiavelli. One active researcher wrote, Niccolo Machiavelli, a political advisor to the Medici family in Florence, introduced in his book Il Principe (The Prince) suggestions for rulers to obtain and maintain power: One should exploit the simple, fallible, and manipulable nature of (wo)men…. His portrait of an effective ruler is incarnated in the personality dimension of Machiavellianism, introduced by Christie and Geis.19 16 Ibid., 961. 17 Christie and Geis, Studies, 8. 18 Christie, Handbook, 962. 19 John Rauthmann, ‘Investigating the MACH-IV With Item Response Theory and Proposing the Trimmed MACH,’ Journal of Personality Assessment 95 (2013)4: 388. A similar remark heads Tamàs Bereczkei’s, ‘The Manipulative Skill: Cognitive Devices and Their Neural ­Correlates Underlying Machiavellians’ Decision Making.’ Brain and Cognition, 99(2015), 24.

The Science of Machiavellianism

119

In this way, the distorted and vulgar Machiavel takes on a life of its own. The composite derived, albeit implicitly, from the Mach iv scale becomes Machiavelli for those who use the scale. Most of the statements Christie selected from Machiavelli come from The Prince, though he does not say this. He says that these statements were a core. These Machiavellian bons mots are good, to be sure, but are they enough to illuminate the drive to power that he seeks to uncover? Alas, no, and to supplement them he even invokes (of all people), P.T. Barnum.20 In the Handbook essay Christie says women consistently scored lower on the Mach scale he had made than men.21 Why? Well it may be they are more likely to stick with the socially acceptable responses even on an anonymous questionnaire, he says.22 Or it may be, he writes, because Machiavelli wrote about men, princes, and not princesses. ‘[H]is titles suggest this: The Prince rather than The Princess;23 The Discourses rather than The Gossip.’24 Princesses may well be women, but women could also be princes, as Queen Elizabeth i ­famously demonstrated. Is gossip the sole reserve of women? Perhaps we might ask, for example, whether men like to brag about being bad as a perverted form of machismo, and so they may exaggerate on the questionnaire, an effect not considered in Studies. Just as men sometimes boast and ­exaggerate about their alcohol consumption, perhaps well brought up young women overstate their probity. It is all speculation. For the record, the legion of subsequent empirical studies do not show a robust gender difference. One of the last chapters in Studies in Machiavellianism has a section on the interplay between the laboratory and the outside world, and in it Christie and Geis modestly claim their book is a tribute to the astuteness of Machiavelli.25 They also speculate in this section that all those bearded and beflowered college students of the 1960s are Machiavellians in their suspicion and hostility to authority, and even Authoritarian personalities in their know-it-all desire to tell other people what to do. The bulk of Christie’s discussion in both essays falls on the technical aspects of the study of personality. We have selected from these chapters only a few passages that raise questions about what Machiavelli has to do with Machiavellianism of the Mach scale. Likewise, the remainder of Studies in 20 21 22 23 24 25

Christie, Handbook, 962. Christie mentions the index cards. Ibid., 963. Ibid. But a book with this title now exists and will be discussed in Chapter 7. Ibid, 964. Christie and Geis, Studies, 339.

120

Chapter 5

M ­ achiavellianism consists of fifteen studies of the implementation of the ­Machiavellianism scale(s). Many of these experiments are cleverly conceived and elegantly written. Our purpose is not to cast doubt on the validity of the personality construct, but to question what it has to do with Machiavelli. The evolution of the Mach scales led to two versions, termed iv and v. We shall present and comment on them in turn, and then show how they spawned a global industry of replication studies in which thousands upon thousands of respondents have been implicitly taught what Machiavelli meant. It is standard operating procedure, now required by the American Psychological Association, to debrief participants and to come clean at that time. In this case that means, at the least, explaining the name of the Mach scale. One of the unintended consequences of these studies has been to disseminate a negative interpretation of Machiavelli among Greek, Rumanian, Turkish, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, and Chinese speakers. Christie and Geis do ponder whether labeling the scale ‘Machiavellianism’ gives the scale a bad name. Whereas we contend the problem is the reverse, the scale has given Machiavelli a bad name. It has been suggested that we not use the term ‘Machiavellianism’ in referring to our research because of its pejorative connotations. It is our feeling that this would be a Machiavellian tactic. Since most of the scale items and some of our research notions came from The Prince and The Discourses, it seems only candid to give credit where credit is due. Perhaps this book can be viewed as a partial vindication of Machiavelli’s astuteness.26 We shall dispute the first claim, that ‘most’ of the scale traces from Machiavelli’s two books and thus we also dispute the second, that credit is due to ­Machiavelli. Nor do we see any vindication for Machiavelli, rather we would say he is due an apology. Mach iv is a twenty-item instrument with each item geared to a Likkert scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, to strongly disagree. In its original form the Mach iv scale contains the following items. • Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to you. • The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. • One should take action only when sure it is morally right. • Most people are good and kind. 26

Ibid., 339.

The Science of Machiavellianism

121

• It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. • Honesty is the best policy in all cases. • There is no excuse for lying to someone else. • Generally speaking, people won’t work hard unless they are forced to do so. • All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest. • When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons that carry more weight. • Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives. • Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. • The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught. • Most people are brave. • It is wise to flatter important people. • It is possible to be good in all aspects. • P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute. • It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. • People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. • Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property. Now we examine each of these twenty propositions in turn. We shall indicate which Christie and company have judged to be the Machiavellian answer and we shall then compare that to Machiavelli’s own words. We indicate the Machiavellian answer per Christie and company first and then Machiavelli’s relevant text, if any. Looking ahead, we will find an affinity with some of Machiavelli’s words but very few of them. We go on to show that there are many other words in The Prince that do not correspond at all to this Machiavellianism and they surely characterize the man as much as the few Christie chose. 1.

2.

Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to you. The Machiavellian answer to this question is YES. Machiavelli does not comment on this point, though in Chapter xviii of The Prince Machiavelli notes that liars sometimes prevail. We see nothing distinctive of ­Machiavelli on this point. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. The Machiavellian answer to this question is YES. Machiavelli did not recommend flattery, but he knew that flattery did work; see The Prince,

122

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Chapter 5

Chapter xxiii where he recommended that a prince shun flatterers, although he can hardly be credited with this discovery for the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament warns against flatterers, book 26, verses 24–28. Moreover, it was a commonplace warning in mirror of princes texts, such as Erasmus’s.27 It is proverbial rather than Machiavellian! One should take action only when sure it is morally right. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. We are sure Machiavelli would agree that this is a preposterous premise but we do not find that he said anything like it himself. Machiavelli knew that action might be necessary even if one is morally unsure, and he also knew that sometimes evil actions were necessary, that the bad may yield the good. In Chapter xviii he says a prince may be forced to act in defiance of good faith to secure the state. As Max Weber observed, reality has no straight dividing lines.28 Most people are good and kind. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Machiavelli certainly agreed for he warned that men are complicated and changeable when in pursuit of political purposes and it is wise to remember that. See Chapter xv, The Prince. One cannot assume that all those persons around a prince are good and kind. But Machiavelli did not write of most people, he wrote only of those forty or fifty individuals in a city who comprised the political world, as he said in the Discourses, Book i, Chapter xvi. It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance. The Machiavellian answer is YES. In part, Machiavelli would agree, but not with generalizing from the assumption that not all are good and kind to the conclusion that all are bad and vicious. This overstatement is not something Machiavelli needed to say for his argument. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Machiavelli would agree. However, unlike his many admirers Machiavelli seldom recommended anything without a qualification. Nothing is best in all cases in his frangible world. But again we do not suppose this hedging is Machiavelli’s alone. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO, for there are reasons to lie, namely preservation of the state. Machiavelli several times repeats that the needs of the state may force a prince to act immorally, including lying. See The

27 Erasmus, Education of a Christian Prince, e.g. 2, 11, 55, 56. 28 Max Weber, ‘Politics as a Vocation,’ From Max Weber, edited by Hans Gerth and C.W. Mills (New York City: Oxford University Press, 1946 [1919]), 122.

The Science of Machiavellianism

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

123

Prince, Chapter xviii. Please note that he is talking about a prince and no one else. Generally speaking, people won’t work hard unless they are forced to do so. The Machiavellian answer is YES. Not even a fertile imagination could see any connection between this statement and anything Machiavelli wrote, but we do see in this an early signal of Theory M management that spawned Theory X, discussed above in Chapter 4. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Machiavelli did not agree with this proposition. Even very few princes are equipped for great things. The typical respondents to a social psychology instrument are not in the race. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons that carry more weight. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Lie to get what one wants. But we do not find Machiavelli recommending lying in general. His admission that a prince may have to do it is heavily qualified. Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Most others are wicked, which excuses one’s own wickedness is the reasoning. Again we find no such generalization in Machiavelli. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. The Machiavellian answer is YES. Machiavelli recommended against trusting everyone, but he did recommend trusting some, The Prince xv. This qualification is too subtle for many scanners of The Prince. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught. The Machiavellian answer is YES. No text from Machiavelli applies here. None. Most people are brave. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. But again no text from Machiavelli applies to such a broad statement. It is wise to flatter important people. The Machiavellian answer is YES. Flattery again. As we saw with regard to item (2) above, Machiavelli recommends that the prince shun flatterers. He knew that flattery can work, and that is why he warns against it. It is possible to be good in all aspects. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. Machiavelli’s answer is in The Prince, xviii, where Machiavelli wrote, ‘a new prince cannot observe all

124

17.

18.

19.

20.

Chapter 5

those things which give men a reputation for virtue’ because of the needs of the state which transcend his personal proclivities. P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute. Here the Machiavellian answer is NO. The Machiavellian agrees with Mr. Barnum that there is a sucker born every minute, or more often. Alas, Machiavelli had no knowledge of this terse insight and was seldom inclined to generalize. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. The Machiavellian answer is YES. The Machiavellian would enthusiastically recommend cutting corners or anything else that gets in the way. We find no words from Machiavelli that apply here. If anything he counsels thoroughness and getting things done effectively the first time. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. We admit it. We do not know what the Machiavellian answer is. But Christie says it is YES. This item has attracted some comment from those testing the validity of the scale, namely Jason Dahling, Brian Whitaker, and Paul Levy, but none of these discussions go back to anything Machiavelli did or even might have said.29 Item (19) seems to be one of those items added along with P.T. Barnum’s one-liner. Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property. The Machiavellian answer is YES. Machiavelli did say this based on his observations of Florentines, The Prince, Chapter xvii. Like item (19) this one is singled out by other social psychologists on technical grounds as too personal, but it is certainly one Machiavelli said.

In reading over this list of items bear two things in mind. There is repetition among them. This is a common practice in such research as a check on the consistency of the answers given. Consistency is taken to mean that the answers reflect the inner person who has answered. In addition, the items are two-tailed. That means for some the answer, ‘Yes’ indicates Machiavellianism and in others it is ‘No’ that is the Machiavellian answer. This also is a common technique to check for robustness in the answers, namely whether the respondent is reading and responding to the items individually or just drawing the

29

J.J. Dahling, B.G. Whitaker, and P.E. Levy, ‘The Development and Validation of a New ­Machiavellianism Scale,’ Journal of Management, 35 (2009)2, 219–257.

The Science of Machiavellianism

125

pencil down the paper in a minimum expenditure of time and effort to escape the process. We find one – only one! – of these twenty items that maps exactly onto a passage from The Prince and that is item twenty (20). We concede items 1–7 are prima facie akin to some of Machiavelli’s thoughts. We might even go so far as to acknowledge that ten of the items have some affinity with the overall themes of The Prince. But we stress that Machiavelli was talking about a prince, not a student in a freshman psych class. While that is but half of the Mach iv scale, it is from that half it gets its name. The 750 pages of Machiavelli’s three major political treatises of The Prince, the Discourses, and The Art of War boil down to ten lines. Such is the power of scanning. What author would like the whole of a lifetime oeuvre reduced to this? This version of the questionnaire remains much in use in personality research, a vigorous domain of psychological inquiry, and is routinely included in studies of the Dark Triad.30 However, as Christie says in Studies in Machiavellianism there were some who thought the instrument insufficient. The criticisms had to do with response-set bias, socially acceptable answers, and personal discomfort occasioned by the forced choices of YES and NO. These are recurrent concerns in all questionnaire research, but for our purposes they are technical. None of the concerns relate to the naming and shaming of ­Machiavelli before the court of social psychology respondents as a Villain with a capital ‘V.’ But these technical concerns did lead to the development of the Mach v scale. The Mach v retains the twenty items as above, but embeds them as one possible choice from among three in a structured choice questionnaire. In this version the respondents are directed to pick the response that best reflects their own position. Since we have already discussed the twenty items we will only illustrate how this is set out rather comment further on the substance. We will refer to the last item since it does map onto a passage from Machiavelli. In Mach v it is set out like this: A. It takes more imagination to be a successful criminal than a successful businessman.

30

We note that David Pace’s grim Dark Psychology 101 (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2015) compares Machiavelli to Adolf Hitler, yet does not mention the Mach scale. Nor is the general, educated public safe from this anti-Machiavelli virus, for our local adult education centre has offered to reveal the ‘Dark Triad with its Mach scale,’ Workers Education Association, Spring Catalogue (Sydney: 2016), 3.

126

Chapter 5

B.

The phrase ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ contains a lot of truth. C. Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property. Alternative (C) represents the Machiavellian mind.31 It is rooted in Chapter xvii of The Prince. The respondent to Mach v has to choose one of three options offered on each of twenty points. This version remains in use today. However, readers of The Prince will notice, as apparently scanners do not, that there is in Chapter xv a passage very similar to that of (B) where Machiavelli dismisses discussion of dreamed up republics. There is an even more vivid reference to imagined republics as the road to hell in one of Machiavelli’s extant private letters.32 Option (B) might reflect traditional wisdom, but it has a presence in Machiavelli missed by Christie and Geis. We could just as easily ‘scan’ – remember that was Christie’s term – The Prince for twenty passages, not just one, that show another, far more humane and complicated side to Machiavelli’s thought. The Roman letters after each remark indicate the Chapter in The Prince. 1. 2.

Disorders can be quickly healed if they are seen well in advance, iii. Follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding, vi. 3. One needs the goodwill of the inhabitants, viii. 4. To betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious, these are not glory, viii. 5. His brutal cruelty and inhumanity, his countless crimes, forbid his being honored among eminent men, viii. 6. It is necessary for a prince to have the friendship of the people, ix. 7. The people are more honest in their intentions than the nobles are, ix. 8. Do what eminent men have done before him, xiv. 9. It would be splendid to have a reputation for generosity, xvi. 10. If all men were good, this precept would not be good, xviii. 11. One can be hated just as much for good deeds as for evil ones, xix. 12. Keep the people satisfied, xix. 13. Commodus did other ignoble things, xix. 31 32

Christie and Geis, Studies, 18. Private letter to Guicciardini, 17 May 1521, see James Atkinson, Machiavelli and His Friends: Their Personal Correspondence (Dekalb, il: Northern Illinois University Press, 2004), 336–337.

The Science of Machiavellianism

127

14. Choose wise men for government and allow them to speak the truth ­freely, xxiii. 15. Win prestige by being a true friend, xxi. 16. If someone accomplishes something exceptional for the good in civil life he should be rewarded, xxi. 17. Men are never so unprincipled as to deal harshly and ungratefully with you in this instance [when you have acted honestly], xxi. 18. All possible courses of action are risky, xxi. 19. Nothing brings a man greater honor than the new laws and new institutions he establishes, xxvi. 20. There is great justice in our cause, xxvi. We will spare the reader our comment on each passage, but we suggest that each can be interpreted to show a Machiavelli who is not Machiavellian in the stereotype that Mach iv and Mach v have reified, perpetuated, and disseminated around the world for three generations. In the list above there are moral judgments, as in items 4, 5, and 13. There is a priority on achieving a stable and comfortable regime as in 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16. There is wise counsel to take precautions as in 1, 10, 14, and 15. Machiavelli also cautions a leader not to expect things to be easy or clear cut or even pleasant as in 9, 10, 11, and 18. Moreover at the end there is his aria for Madonna Italia in items 19 and 20. If we did the same exercise with the Discourses, the list would be much longer. It is hard to square this Machiavelli with the one Christie and Geis found when they wrote, ‘even Machiavelli recognized legitimate authority, although he implicitly minimized its importance.’33 The problem was there was very little legitimate authority in his time and place. The practice of quilt quotation is a tried-and-(un)true method of attack among intellectuals.34 Since Mach v embodies Mach iv in all but name, we shall refer to the latter to keep it simple. The Mach iv personality construct is a stitched together account of a very few things Machiavelli wrote. There was no interest in faithfulness to Machiavelli, as Christie said, but there was a willingness to take his name for the construct.

33 34

Christie and Geis, Studies, 343. Walter Kaufmann shows in some detail how quilt quotations have been used to demonize Georg Hegel, in ‘The Hegel Myth and Its Methods,’ From Shakespeare to Existentialism (Boston: Beacon,1959), 117–171. See also Michael Jackson, ‘The Real and the Rational,’ in The Hegel Myths and Legends, edited by Jon Stewart (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996), 19–25.

128

Chapter 5

We have thrice above referred to the worldwide diffusion of the Mach iv scale and the Machiavellian personality construct it reveals. There are hundreds of empirical studies using the Mach iv scale. Perhaps a third of these studies have been done in the United States. The remainder are to be found in many other countries, including Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all), Germany (West and united), Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and Switzerland. The diffusion of this research is certainly global across the generations since its creation. For a summary see the table at the end of the chapter, placed there so as not to interrupt this discussion. We noticed no especial sensitivity to Machiavelli, his time or his place in even the Italian studies, though we examined them closely. The titles of the six studies with Italian subjects conform with the nature of Mach iv research more generally.35 There is nothing distinctive in them. Nor do any of these six articles mention Niccolò Machiavelli the man, his times, or Florence. The contextomy remains in place. There is one more point to be made about the Italian studies. Carla Poderic’s ­research was focused on children, and it used an adaptation of the Mach iv scale, the Kiddie Mach scale. The Kiddie Mach scale translates the alleged ­Machiavellian dicta into examples school children can understand. This version was devised by Christie to assess children’s perception of human nature and attitudes of trust.36 It follows Mach iv very closely but is somewhat less formal in its wording. It uses direct address, ‘You’ should or should not is the way it is put, in the belief, we suppose, that this way of putting it is less abstract. It replaces references to property with the word ‘money’ which again

35

36

Ida Galli and G. Nigro, ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism and External Control Among Italian Undergraduates,’ Psychological Reports 53(1983): 1081–1082. Giovanna ­Nigro and I. Galli. ‘On the Relationship between Machiavellianism and Anxiety among ­Italian Undergraduates,’ Psychological Reports 56 (1985): 37–38. Giovanna ­Nigro and Ida Galli. ‘Sex-role Identity and Machiavellianism,’ Psychological Reports 56(1985): ­863–866. Galli, Nigro, and Güinter Krampen, ‘Multidimensional Locus of Control and Machiavellianism in Italian and West German Students: Similarities and Differences,’ International Review of Applied Psychology, 35 (1986)4 :453–461. Carla Poderic, ‘­Machiavellianism and Anxiety among Italian Children,’ Psychological Reports 60(1987): 1041–1042. Gianluca Gini, Albiero, B. Benelli, and G. Altoe, ‘Does Empathy Predict Adolescents’ Bullying and Defending Behavior?’ Aggressive Behavior, 33 (2007)5: 467–476. Christie and Geis, Studies, 327–328.

The Science of Machiavellianism

129

seems to be a move from the abstract to the concrete.37 There is more about juvenile Machiavellis to come in Chapter 8. Of course, all parents know how readily small children learn to manipulate them long before being able to read The Prince. Beverly Fehr, Deborah Samsom, and Delroy L. Paulhus wrote that ‘the vast quantity of literature … [on] the concept and measure of Machiavellianism’ shows that it ‘captured considerable attention among researchers.’38 They referred to two bibliographies adding up to more than five hundred references at the time of publication. The use of the instrument continues, and we have compiled many more references than that. We have entered these empirical studies onto an Excel spread-sheet, finding that nearly 170,000 respondents took part in the studies we identified. A selection of that list is included at the end of this chapter as a table. These subjects will likely have been told afterward that Machiavelli is the source for the manipulative personality type. The absolute number is impressive. Perhaps half of the studies have been with so-called ‘opportunity samples.’ That bland term refers to students who are captured in a psychology class and complete the instrument as part of the course requirements. About half the studies are of students, from pre-school to grade school, high school, college or post-graduate in such countries as those listed above. The students were both men and women, and engaged in a variety of studies, though the largest single group is made up of psychology students, as one might expect. Another recurrent sort of student, in keeping with Machiavelli’s role in management, is the business student. The third largest group compromises medical and nursing students. The number of psych students who complete the Mach scale is probably larger than the number of students who read Machiavelli’s The Prince with some historical context in political theory, history, or Italian classes. Thus does the distorted Machiavell reproduce itself and harden into myth. Long before most of these experiments were done, Christie and Geis had argued that the statistical testing of the questionnaire when translated into other languages, was itself evidence that the Machiavellian personality is universal.39 We would happily nod in agreement if only it were called the Manipulative Personality construct styled Mani iv and v. 37

Loren Abell, et al., ‘Why Machiavellianism Matters in Childhood: The Relationship between Children’s Machiavellian Traits and Their Peer Interactions in a Natural Setting,’ Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(2015) 3, 484–493. 38 Beverley Fehr, Deborah Samsom, and Delroy L. Paulhus. ‘The Construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty Years Later,’ Advances in Personality Assessment, edited by C.D. Spielberger and J.N. Butcher (Hillsdale, nj: Erlbaum, 1992), 78. 39 Christie, Studies, 340.

130

Chapter 5

Other studies have administered the questionnaire to a host of mid-career professionals. We have found studies reporting on the Machiavellian personality construct in bankers, accountants, car salesmen, realtors, engineers, managers, executives, drug users, physicians, technicians, Alzheimer patients, schizophrenics, and more. Some of the studies have a dozen respondents and others have a couple of thousand, and the largest online study has many thousands. Together they make quite a tapestry. Some of the studies are technical, testing the validity and robustness of the items and the scale. Others are correlation studies, searching for patterns with other personality types. Still others associate High and Low Mach scores with gender, age, and other demographic characteristics. No consistent pattern has emerged, and when something is not working, one powerful impulse is to keep doing it until it does, so this research continues with yet more contradictory and inconclusive studies. For example, women are not consistently Low Mach scorers compared to men in these studies. Most of the studies are focused on other psychological dispositions, like narcissism, and not on social features. We have examined these empirical and technical studies to find mentions of Machiavelli, the better to answer the question, ‘Why Machiavelli?’ – the question that Christie set in 1971. In most cases the empirical studies said nothing at all about Machiavelli or his books. Fewer than one in ten even mention his name. So readily have the Mach iv scale and the Machiavellian personality construct it creates been accepted that no one bothers with their namesake. It seems that most scientists who administer the Mach iv instrument and debrief subjects say it reveals a Machiavellian personality. Machiavelli might as well be a mythical figure. Other articles make mention of Machiavelli, and nothing more. For example, 1980 Amos Drory and Uri Gluskins, reporting on a study with Mach iv with Israeli engineers, wrote: ‘The concept of Machiavellianism, as introduced by Christie and Geis (1970), pertains to cognitive agreement with the basic ideas of Nicollo [sic] Machiavelli, for example, mistrust of human nature, lack of conventional morality, opportunism, and the lack of affect in interpersonal relationships.’40 A few other examples make the point. Daniel Martinez wrote in his first paragraph, When Niccolo Machiavelli published The Prince and The Discourses in 1532 (Modern edition, 1940) he structured and formalized a social philosophy of guile, deceit, and opportunism that have flavorfully served as 40

Amos Drory and Uri Gluskinos, ‘Machiavellianism and Leadership,’ Journal of Applied P­ sychology, 65 (1980)1, 81.

The Science of Machiavellianism

131

a theme for many critical works on the corruptibility and decadence of mankind.41 The discussion segues from there quickly to the Christie-Geis scale. We note that Machiavelli did not publish either work, and no reader of the Discourses could say it ‘formalized a social philosophy of guile, deceit, and opportunism.’ Martinez invokes a distorted stereotype whom we have christened Machiavel. A more neutral and less imaginative reference was made by Shirley Moore and Barry Katz when they wrote, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli, in his major works, The Prince and The Discourses, described his view of the nature of man.’42 Of course, that view was Machiavellian. It is certainly true that Machiavelli strove to analyze the enduring nature of man and that is why Roman examples are as valid to him as his own contemporaries. Moore has done quite a number of studies with health professionals, and found Machiavellians, as defined by Mach iv, among them. Gwen Jones and Michael Kavanagh add another brick to the Machiavelli myth that divides the complicated thinker from the hardy and handy stereotype by writing: ‘Machiavellianism is a personality construct based on the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1966/1513), who advocated principles for behavior that are opportunistic and influential of others in interpersonal relations.’43 More recently Kurt Stellwagen wrote that Machiavelli is ‘best known for his advocacy of … manipulating strategies and techniques.’44 We invite attention to that word ‘advocate.’ He reported and described these actions and noted that they at times succeeded. From this fact it is concluded he advocated these practices. John Hunter, David Gerbing, and Franklin Boster take the stereotype to absurd heights:

41 42 43

44

Daniel C. Martinez, ‘On the Morality of Machiavellian Deceivers.’ Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 24 (1987)1, 47. Shirley Moore and Barry Katz, ‘Machiavellian Scores of Nursing Faculty and Students,’ Psychological Reports, 77(1995). 383. Gwen E. Jones and Michael J. Kavanagh. 1996. ‘An Experimental Examination of the ­Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (1996)5, 514. Kurt Stellwagen, 2011. ‘Psychopathy, Narricissism, and Machiavellianism: Distinct yet intertwining Personality Constructs.’ Narcissism and Machiavellianism in youth, edited by Christopher Barry, Patricia Kerig, Stellwagen and Tammy Barry (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2011), 35.

132

Chapter 5

Machiavelli advocated an extreme prescription for success in a socially competitive and status-oriented society. In his 1513 treatise, The Prince, he prescribed that a ruler’s behavior be cruel, exploitive, and deceitful. He recommended that a ruler perceive other people as vicious, lazy, and untrustworthy.45 Years of reading The Prince have not led us to this conclusion, but for some even such a nasty characterization is no indictment: Dora Dien went so far as to say that erecting the Machiavellian Personality Construct is a tribute to Niccolò.46 One of the most prolific contributors to the study of the Machiavellian personality is John McHoskey who wrote with William Worzel and Christopher Szyarto that ‘MACH is, of course, originally traceable to the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1513/1981; The Prince and The Discourses), a 16th-century Italian political strategist.’47 ‘Of course,’ as if to say it is obvious. This remark is typical of many others which we pass in silence.48 Some writers do more than identify Machiavelli. Among them are those like David Wilson, David Near, and Ralph Miller who tell us about Machiavelli’s motives in writing: Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) … wrote The Prince (Machiavelli, 1513/1966) to ingratiate himself with the new ruler. …Machiavelli failed to gain favor with the new prince, but his name has come to represent a strategy of social conduct in which others are regarded entirely as means toward personal ends. As a historical aside, Machiavelli himself was not very Machiavellian, displaying an uncommon devotion to his city. Some

45

46 47 48

John Hunter, David Gerbing, and Franklin Boster, ‘Machiavellianism Beliefs and Personality: Construct Invalidity of the Machiavellianism Dimension,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (1982)6, 1293. Dora Dien, ‘Parental Machiavellianism and Children’s Cheating in Japan,’ Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 5 (1974)3, 259. John McHoskey, William Worzel, and Christopher Szyarto, ‘Machiavellianism and Psychopathy,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1998)1, 193. Simon Sherry, Paul L. Hewitt, Avi Besser, Gordon L. Flett, and Carolin Klein, ‘Machiavellianism, Trait Perfectionism, and Perfectionistic Self-Presentation,’ Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (2006)4, 829-839; J.J. Dahling, B.G. Whitaker, and P.E. Levy, ‘The Development and Validation of a New Machiavellianism Scale,’ Journal Of Management, 35 (2009)2, 219–257; and Robin Wakefield, Robin, ‘Accounting and Machiavellianism,’ Behavioral Research in Accounting 20 (2008)1, 115–129.

The Science of Machiavellianism

133

of his other works, such as Discourses (Machiavelli, 1513/1950), also stress non-manipulative themes.49 These writers do distance Machiavelli from Machiavellianism, and while they are not alone in so doing, they are definitely in a tiny minority. Myron Gable, another frequent contributor to this literature, and his associate Martin Topol, accept Machiavellianism as spawn of Machiavelli but note that he ‘himself did not advocate lying in his two famous works, The Prince (1513) and Discourses on the first the books of Titus Livy (1531), he assumed its necessity in an imperfect world.’50 Here is an exception to that charge of advocacy. Lois Oksenberg (1971) employed the stereotype to make a point about stereotypes: A common stereotype among Americans is that Chinese are sly and deceitful. They are reputedly masters of the art of saying yes and meaning no. Since these adjectives could be used to describe Machiavellian as well, the stereotypic view of Chinese character would lead one to hypothesize that Chinese are relatively Machiavellian.51 Oksenberg might well be right about American stereotypes of Chinese but the unacknowledged stereotype at work here that is of concern is that of Niccolò Machiavelli. Mach iv has been so fecund as to generate monographs as well. There are three within our purview. Two we but mention so that we may engage with the third, which is the first chronologically. The titles say far more than can we about the technical nature of each study. The first is Individual Difference Effects on Negotiation Strategies and Outcomes: The Role of Machiavellianism, Perspective Taking, and Emotional Intelligence Components in Negotiations.52 It reads as earnestly and humorlessly as any dissertation we have examined, and they are many. The second, bearing the imprint of the American Psychological 49 50 51

52

D.S. Wilson, D. Near, and R.R. Miller, ‘Machiavellianism: A Synthesis of the Evolutionary and Psychological Literatures,’ Psychological Bulletin 119(1996), 285. Myron Gable and Martin Topol, ‘Machiavellian Managers: Do They Perform Better?’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 5 (1991)3, 355. Lois Oksenberg, ‘Machiavellianism in Traditional and Westernized Chinese Students,’ Comparative Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by W.W. Lambert and R. Weisbrod (Boston: Little Brown, 1971), 92. Nataliya Baytalskaya and Susan Mohammed, Individual Difference Effects on Negotiation Strategies and Outcomes: The Role of Machiavellianism, Perspective Taking, and Emotional Intelligence Components in Negotiations (Saarbrúcken: Verlag Dr. Múller, 2009).

134

Chapter 5

Association, bends under the title Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior.53 As usual Niccolò barely figures in these pages. His name is indexed four times in this book’s 281 pages, its thirteen chapters, and their twenty-nine authors. An epigram is quoted, and it is averred that he is the source of the Mach iv instrument three times.54 Stanley Guterman is an exception in his monograph, The Machiavellians: A Social Psychological Study of Moral Character and Organizational Milieu.55 Unlike all those others who take up Machiavellianism and set to work, Guterman pauses to reflect on its parentage, albeit briefly. I myself deplore the label, since Machiavelli deserves more praise than he gets. If a prince of his day had in fact followed his advice, they would undoubtedly have enjoyed longer reigns, and their subjects would have been more content. Nevertheless, the social psychologists who developed the various forms of the “Mach scales” were correct in part, since Machiavelli did implicitly urge that a wise ruler take stock of his situation, rationally calculate his own advantages, manipulate people for his own best ends, and not hesitate to use force or fraud if the profit were high enough. Thus, a person who ranks high on a scale of Machiavellianism will treat others as pawns, as things, and will feel less bound than others to the moral beliefs of his group.56 This is the only reference to Niccolò the man but then it nevertheless far exceeds the norm and it is far more measured than even those few other explicit comments on Niccolò. Of course, we disagree with Guterman’s assessment of Machiavelli, whose interest was not the prince’s ‘own best ends’ but those of the polity. In a world torn by great powers, France and Spain, and fickle lesser ones, Venice and the vestigial Holy Roman Empire, the security of Florence first and Italy second, was paramount. Like most Venetians then and some now, Machiavelli did not regard Venice as Italian.57 53

54 55 56 57

Christopher Barry, Patricia Kerig, Kurt Stellwagen, and Tammy Barry, Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior (Washington, dc: American Psychological Association, 2010). Ibid., 25, 35, 55, and 193–194. Stanley Guterman, The Machiavellians: A Social Psychological Study of Moral Character and Organizational Milieu (Lincoln, ne: University of Nebraska Press, 1970). Ibid., vii. Venice became Italian in 1805 when Napoleon joined it to the Kingdom of Italy he created for his brother.

The Science of Machiavellianism

135

There is only the most general and distant connection between Machiavelli and the artefacts of Mach iv and v. The references that exponents of these instruments make to Machiavelli are tangential to his books, and his times, but conform to the Machiavellian myth. The few who separate Machiavelli from the construct are overwhelmed by the vast majority who apply that construct without pause. Social psychologists who do comment on Machiavelli and his works in the main regurgitate the trite stereotype of Machiavelli as an enthusiastic Machiavellian. Here is an example from Daniel Goleman’s Social Intelligence, trumpeted on the cover as a national bestseller: When Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince, the sixteenth-century manual for seizing and holding political power through cunning manipulation, he took for granted that the aspiring ruler had only his own interest at heart, caring not at all about the people he ruled nor those he crushed to gain power. For the Machiavellian, the ends justify the means….58 That the end justifies the means is also attributed directly to Machiavelli, and not just the Machiavellians he ostensibly sired.59 Thus do students and the general public encounter the distorted myth of Machiavelli. Goleman rehearses the familiar memes we have encountered in different combinations before: The Prince is a manual, it preaches cunning, and self-interest is its purpose. This is wrong in every respect, as we have indicated, and will do so again in Chapter 10. We also acknowledge that some of the contributors to his mountain of studies do separate Machiavelli from the construct, noting that he never advocated lying, only describing what he saw, but they are, however honorable, a quiet minority. The vast majority apply the construct without pause. While that is unobjectionable, when respondents are told directly or indirectly that the personality construct derives from Machiavelli, that is less benign. The influence of this body of research does not stop at the borders of social psychology. It has reached further and further.60 Indeed this personality construct is the Pole star for research in a variety of other fields now. Once Mach iv and v went into the world, their influence was no longer confined to social psychology. Sociologists, economists, philosophers, and political scientists have 58 59 60

Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence (London: Bantam, 2007), 125. Jessica Carre and Daniel Jones, ‘Decision Making, Morality, and Machiavellianism: The Role of Dispositional Traits in Gist Extraction,’ Review of General Psychology, 21(2017) 1, 24. See, for example, Richard C.S. Trahair’s From Aristotelian to Reaganomics : a dictionary of eponyms with biographies in the social sciences (1994), 382.

136

Chapter 5

wasted no time on the paternity of Mach iv and Mach v: they just get on with it!61 Moreover, Mach iv can be found on many websites where the treatment is far from circumspect, but as these websites have proven transitory, we have not included any links to them. Intellectual honesty requires some recognition of the gap we have shown between Machiavelli and Machiavellianism. This would be honest to Machiavelli, the historical figure who neither exemplified nor recommended the traits identified in Mach iv; and it would be honest to social psychology and the integrity of academic research. Freeing social psychology from a mistaken stereotype would enhance the standing of that discipline. Alas, the story fares no better in other areas of research laying claim to Machiavelli’s authority, as we shall show in the next chapter. Appendix In the table below we have compiled empirical studies using the Mach instrument in order to show how extensive the propagation of Machiavelli’s bad name is in this

61

Philip W. Blumstein and Eugene A. Weinstein. ‘The Redress of Distributive Injustice,’ American Journal of Sociology 74 (1969)4, 408–418; Sally L. Hacker and Charles M. Gaitz, ‘Interaction and Performance Correlates of Machiavellianism,’ Sociological Quarterly, 11 (1970)1, 94–102; Arthur Bochner, V. Di Salvo, and T. Jonas. ‘A Computer-­Assisted Analysis of Small Group Process: An Investigation of Two Machiavellian Groups,’ Small Group B ­ ehavior, 6 (1975)2, 187–203; Hans-Dieter Meyer, ‘Norms and Self-Interest in Ultimatum Bargaining: The Prince’s Prudence,’ Journal of Economic Psychology, 13 (1992)2, 215–232; Anna Gunnthorsdottis, Kevin McCabe, and Vernon Smith. ‘Using the M ­ achiavellianism Instrument,’ Journal of Economic Psychology, 23 (2002)1, 49–66; Kenneth Bass, Tim ­Barnett, and Gene Brown. ‘Individual Difference Variables, Ethical Judgments, and Ethical Behavioral Intentions,’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 9 (1999)2, 183–205; Sean Valentine and Gary Fleischman, ‘The Impact of Self-Esteem, Machiavellianism, and Social Capital on ­Attorneys’ Traditional Gender Outlook,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 43 (2003)4, 323–335; John Orbell, ‘Evolution, Cooperation, and Ethics,’ Politics and the Life Sciences 15 (1996)1, 121–124; Orbell, Tomonori Morikawa, Hartwig Jason, James Hanley, and Nicholas Allen, ‘“Machiavellian” Intelligence as a Basis for the Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions,’ American Political Science Review 98 (2004)1, 1–15; and Christian Montag, Jeremy Hall, and Thomas Plieger, ‘The DRD3 Ser9Gly Polymorphism, Machiavellianism, and Its Link to Schizotypal Personality,’ Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 8 (2015)1, 48–57.

137

The Science of Machiavellianism

research. We note the number of respondents and their nationalities. Each new search on the Web of Knowledge produced new entries.62 Those studies that included two nationalities are shown twice to allow the nationalities to be identified separately. Table 3 below shows more than three hundred empirical studies from around the world. The full citation of each entry can be found in the bibliography.

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Abell and Brewer Abell and Brewer Abell et al. Abell et al. Kiddie MacH Abramson Ahmed; R.A. Stewart Al Ain et al. Al-Khatib et al.

England England England England usa Canada France Belgium Egypt Japan Russia Saudi Arabia usa usa Belgium China Egypt

2016 2014 2016 2015 1973 1981 2013 2016

197 243 407 34 40 122 107 995

Women Women Women Primary school children Students Students Adults Executives

2011 2011 2007 1997

259 153 300 500

Adults Adults Adults Students

usa

1997

400

Consumers

Al-Khatib, et al. Al-Khatib, et al. Al-Khatib, Vollmers, Liu Al-Khatib; Scott J. Vitell; M Rawwas Al-Khatib; Scott J. Vitell; M Rawwas

62

Subjects

In addition to empirical studies there are also interpretative ones like, Tamàs ­Bereczkei, ‘The Manipulative Skill: Cognitive Devices and Their Neural Correlates Underlying ­Machiavellians’ Decision Making,’ Brain and Cognition, 99(2015): 24-3.

138

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Alfimova at al. Alfimova et al. Ali; Amorim, I.S.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T. Ali; Tomas; Chamorro-Premuzic Allsopp; H J Eysenck; S B Eysenck Ames; A.H. Kidd Andreou Andreou; I. Marmarinos Andrew; Cooke, M.; Muncer, S.J. Angell Arrington Ashton; Kibeom Lee; Chongnak Son Atari and Chegeni Austin; et al. Aziz Aziz Aziz; Daniel Vallejo Aziz; Kim May; John Crotts Babiak et al. Bacon and Regan Bageac, Furrer, and Reynaud Bageac, Furrer, and Reynaud Bagozzi at al. Bagozzi et al. Bakir; et al. Bakir; U. Reha Yilmaz; Isamil Yavas

Russia Russia England

2015 2015 2009

508 371 84

Patients Patients Students

England

2010

290

Students

England

1991

1154

Students

usa Greek Greek England

1979 2004 1999 2008

60 186 489 250

Women Children Teachers and children Students

Scotland usa South Koreans

1988 1978 2000

8 80 610

Patients Party activitists Students

Iran Scotland usa usa usa usa Poland England France

2016 2007 2004 2005 2007 2002 2016 2016 2011

523 199 80 72 51 110 810 252 102

Students Students Car salesmen Real estate agents Students Stockbrokers Students Adults Students

Romania

2011

118

Students

usa usa Turkey Turkey

2013 2013 2003 2005

265 43 361 658

Employees Adults Physicians Adults

139

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Barber Barlow; Pamela Qualter; Maria Stylianou Barnett; Shannon Thompson Bass; Tim Barnett; Gene Brown Baytalskaya and Mohammed Becker; Dan O’Hair Beller, and Bosse Belmi and Laurin Belschak, Den Hartog, and Kalshoven Bereczkei and Czibor Bereczkei et al. Bereczkei, Szabo, and Czibor Berger Bet, Brossat, and Ducamp Biberman Biggers Birkas et al. Biscardi; Thomas Schill Bloodgood, Turnley, and Mudrack Blumstein Blumstein and Weinstein Bochner; V. di Salvo; T. Jonas Bogart Bogart, Geis Levy Zimbardo Bogart; Pascal Scoles Bradley; K.I. Klohn Braginsky

usa England

1994 1994

323 109

Students Children

usa

1985

117

Children

usa

1999

602

Marketing managers

usa

2009

176

Students

usa International usa Netherlands

2007 2017 2013 2015

606 51,183 479 512

Hungary Hungary Hungary

2014 2015 2015

150 620 144

Students Students Students

usa France usa usa Hungary usa usa

1977 2015 1985 1977 2015 1984 2010

8 56 71 183 130 97 230

Students Students mba students Students Students Students Students

usa usa usa

1973 1969 1975

64 32 60

usa usa usa Canada usa

1971 1970 1971 1987 1970

105 61 86 32 96

Working adults Online respondents Mechanical Turk Employees

Students Students Students Students Students Women students Students Children

140

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Brewer and Abell Brewer et al. Brewer, Abell, and Loren Brewer, Gl Abell, L Brown; Rebecca F. Guy Bucknell et al. Burgoon; Gerald R. Miller; Stewart L. Tubbs Burton, Hegarty, and Harvey Cairncross et al. Campbell et al. Capezio et al. Castille, Kuyumcu, and Bennett, Chabrol et al. Chen Cherulnik; J H Way; S Ames; D B Hutto Chonko Chonko Christie and Geis Christie and Lehman Christie and Lehmann Christie Cloetta Corral Corzine et al Corzine; Gabriel Buntzman; Ed Busch Corzine; George Hozier Cronen; Nancy Mihevc Cyriac; R Dharmaraj Czibor and Bereczki

England England England England usa Canada usa

2017 2015 2016 2015 1983 2015 1972

266 102 226 282 166 248 125

Students Women Women Students Students Health care professionals Students

usa

1999

219

Students

Canada usa Australia usa

2013 2009 2017 2017

232 236 172 170

Twins Adult twins mba students Employees

France usa usa

2015 2013 1981

615 359 18

High school students Students Students

usa usa usa usa usa usa Switzerland Spain usa usa

1982 1982 1970 1970 1970 1970 1983 2000 1993 1988

122 500 21 1782 1482 1196 6000 346 194 90

Purchasing officers Purchasing managers Students Students Adults Students Students Students Bankers it managers

usa usa India Hungary

2005 1974 1994 2012

168 60 33 150

Bank officers Students Students Students

141

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Czibor, Vincze, and Bereczkei Dahling, J.J.; Whitaker, B.G.; Levy, P.E. Dalton and Radtke Danielian Daniels Daunt and Harris David Christoffersen; Clifton Stamp de Miguel reported Christie de Vries, Jehn, and Terwel Deak at al. Delia and O’Keefe Den Hartog and Belschak Dien Dien; H. Fujisawa Dingler-Duhon; Barbara Brown Domelsmith; J.T. Dietch Drake Drory; Uri Gluskinos Duffy Shiflett Downey Duke Durkin Dussault, Hojjat, and Boone Edelstein Effelsberg, Solga, and Gurt Effler Epstein Esperger Exline et al. in Christie Exline; Clark Eldridge Exline; Clark Eldridge Fanti

Hungary

2014

150

Students

usa

2009

499

Employed students

usa usa usa England usa

2013 1964 1967 2011 1995

116 105 160 380 150

mba students Students Students Customers Students

Spain Dutch Hungary usa Dutch Japan Japan usa

1970 2012 2017 1976 2012 1974 1979 1987

425 151 38 74 367 127 76 216

Students Employees Students Students Employees Children Children Students

usa usa Israel usa usa usa usa usa Germany Germany usa Hungary usa usa usa Greek-Cypriots

1978 1995 1980 1977 1988 1970 2013 1966 2014 1983 1969 2010 1970 1963 1970 2016

135 84 84 275 233 92 123 149 600 1255 80 112 48 81 69 419

Students mba students Students Adults, army reservists Students Students Students Students Employees Students Students Children Students Counselors Students Students

142

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Farah Ali; Ines Amorim; Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic Feiler Flynn; Reichard, M.; Slane, S. Fontana Forgas, Joseph P. Fraedrich; O.C. Ferrell; William Pride Fraedrich; O.C. Ferrell; William Pride Fry Gable; Charles Hollon; Frank Dangello Gable; Charles Hollon; Frank Dangello Gable; Frank Dangello Gable; Martin Topol Gable; Martin Topol Gable; Martin Topol Gable; Martin Topol Galli; G. Nigro Galli; Giovanna Nigro; Güinter Krampen Galli; Giovanna Nigro; Güinter Krampen Galli; Giovanna Nigro; Güinter Krampen Geis; Tae Moon Geis and Leventhal Geis Geis Geis Geis, Krupat, and Berger Geis; Richard Christie; Carnot Nelson

England

2009

84

Students

usa usa

1967 1987

58 91

Students Students

usa usa usa

1971 1998 1989

145 72 2017

usa

1989

126

usa usa

1985 1990

74 60

Students Store managers

usa

1992

48

Store managers

usa usa usa usa usa Italian Italian

1994 1987 1988 1989 1991 1983 1986

48 218 218 60 60 148 171

Male store managers Store executives Store executives Retail executives Sales managers Students Students

W German

1986

176

Students

W Germans

1986

176

Students

usa usa usa usa usa usa usa

1981 1966 1970 1970 1968 1988 1970

64 62 143 60 298 41 81

Students Students Students, males Students Students Students Students

Students Students National sample Managers

143

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Gemmill; W. Heisler Gkorezis, Petridou, and Krouklidou Gleason; F.J. Seamen; E.P. Hollander Graham Grams; R.W. Rogers Granitz Greenbaum at al. Greenlee and Charles Cullinan Greenlee; Charles Cullinan; David Morand Grzeskowiak and Al-Khatib Gu, Wen, and Fan Gunnthorsdottis; Kevin McCabe; Vernon Smith Gupta Gupta Gurbuz and Eris Guterman reported Christie Hacker; Charles M. Gaitz Hambrook, D. and Tchanturia, K. Hansen and Hansen Harrell Harrell; Timothy Hartnage Harvey Hawley Hegarty, W. Heinze et al. Henning, Bernd Hodson; Sarah M. Hogg; Cara C. MacInnis Hogue, Levashina, and Hang

usa Greece

1972 2015

150 122

Manufacturing managers Hospital employees

usa

1978

214

Male students

usa usa usa usa usa

1996 1990 2003 2014 1995

96 217 44 687 360

Project managers Students Sales reps Students cpas

usa

1995

231

Accounting majors

usa China usa

2009 2017 2002

259 219 126

Adults in logistics Online social networks Econ students

India India Turkey usa usa England

1986 1987 2016 1970 1970 2008

120 80 500 483 70 63

Students Professionals Voters Adult hotel employees Patients Adult over eaters

usa usa usa usa usa usa usa Germany usa

1991 1980 1976 1983 2003 1978 2010 1977 2009

102 48 80 86 1700 120 66 206 197

Students Students Students Managers, (56 pub ad) Children Students, grad business mba students Students Students

usa

2013

125

Students

144

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Hollon Hollon Hollon Hren; et al. Hunt; Lawrence Chonko Hunter; David Gerbing; Franklin Boster Hutter Hwang; Anthony Marsella Hwang; Anthony Marsella Ickes; S. Reidhead; M. Patterson Inansci, Lang, and Bereczkei Inansci, Lang, and Bereczkei Issa et al. J Burnett; S.D. Hunt; Lawrence Chonko Jaffe; I.D. Nebenzahl; H. Gotesdyner Jagers et al. James M. Comer James M. Comer Jirmanova and Pechova Johnson Johnson et al.

usa usa usa Croatia usa usa

1875 1983 1996 2006 1984 1982

211 75 65 208 1076 351

Faculty members Employees Managers Med students Marketing association Students

Austria China usa usa

2015 1977 1977 1986

2400 64 64 80

Employees Students Students Students

Hungary

2016

143

Students

Hungary

2015

185

Students

Lebanon usa

2017 1986

186 1076

Israel

1989

125

Students

usa usa usa Czech usa Australia Brazil Hungary Japan Russia usa Six countries usa usa

1997 1985 1980 2014 1980 2014

161 71 72 170 25 57

Children Sales managers Students Students Students Students

2017 1983

1469 115

Students Students

1996

83

Students

Jonason, Foster, and Oshio Jones; C S White Jones and Daugherty

Subjects

Students Marketing professionals

145

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Jones; A Schmitt Jones; Gergen; Davis Jones; Kavanagh, Michael J. Kaestner; L Rosen; P Appel; S Sofer Kajonius et al. Kapoutsis, Volkema, and Nikolopoulos Karbalaei, Abdollahi, and Abdullah, Keenan; Valerie Clarkson Kiazad et al. Kibeom; Michael C. Ashton Klein Kline; Colin Cooper Kline; Colin Cooper Krampen Kraut; J.D. Price Kraut; J.D. Price Krishnakumar, and Robinson, Kuyumcu, Dahling, and Jason Laemmle, Oedl, and Ziegler Lake Lamdan; M. Lorr Lamm; David G. Myers Lang Lang Lang and Birkas Lang and Birkas Lang and Lenard Larsen; Ommundsen, R; Elder, R Larsen; Ommundsen, R; Elder, R

usa usa usa usa

1971 1962 1996 1977

109 40 138 60

usa Greece

2016 2013

3698 115

Online Students

Malaysia

2015

210

Students

Scotland Australia usa usa England England German usa usa usa

1977 2010 2005 1969 1983 1984 1980 1976 1976 2015

79 199 164 22 94 126 80 53 66 224

Students Employees Students Psychiatrists Students Students Alcoholics Children Parents Students

usa

2014

110

Students

Denmark usa usa Germany Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Norway

2014 1967 1975 1976 2015b 2014 2015 2014 2015 1991

172 80 100 88 225 252 376 366 247 220

Students Students Students Students Adults Adults Adults Adolescents Parents Students

usa

1991

129

Students

Students Students Students Drug users

146

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Larsen; Ommundsen, R: Elder, R Latif Latorre; Emily McLeoad Leary; Paul Knight; Byron Barnes Leone; V Corte Lester Liu, C.C. Lopes, J.; Fletcher, C. Lopes, J.; Fletcher, C. Lowe and Reckers Lyons and Blanchard Lyons and Simeonov Macrossan; J.H. Semple Macrosson; D.J. Hemphill Madonna; A Wesley; G Bailey; H Anderson Maier; Robert Ernest Mandal and Horak Mandal and Kocur Marcinkowska, Helle, and Lyons Marcinkowska, Lyons, and Helle Marco; Paul Wilhelm Maria Richardson; Yves Thépaut Marin Maroldo; et al. Maroldo; L.C. Flachmeier Maroldo; L.C. Flachmeier Martin; Scott Myers; Timothy Mottet Martin; Scott Myers; Timothy Mottet

Denmark

1991

89

usa usa usa

2000 1978 1986

53 40 119

Pharmacy students Geriatric patients Students

usa usa Taiwan Portugal England usa England England Scotland Scotland usa

1994 1995 2008 2004 2004 2012 2013 2016 2001 2001 1987

102 29 325 82 81 63 564 365 120 50 93

Students Students Students Students Students Managers Women Women online Students mbas Students

usa Poland Poland Finland

1978 2016 2013 2015

50 111 97 1962

Students Patients Patients Women

Poland

2013

2370

Online women

usa Greece

1973 2007

137 304

Students Students

usa usa German usa usa

1995 1976 1978 1978 1981

55 115 97 59 210

Students Students Students Students Students

usa

2006

233

Students

Students

147

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez; Mark Magliery; Richard Wair Mazza et al. McCutcheon McHoskey McHoskey McHoskey; et al. McHoskey; W Worzel; C Szyarto McLean; Brian Jones Meisler and Vigoda-Gadot Merrill; et al. Metze Meyer Midlarsky; Hannah, M; Corley, R Milburn reported by Christie Miller, Smart, and Rechner Mohamad Monaghan, Bizumic, and Sellbom Montag et al. Montrares Rada Moore Moore et al. Moore; Barry Katz Moore; Barry Katz Moore; Barry Katz Moore; Barry Katz; James Holder

usa usa usa usa

1980 1981 1987 1981

333 214 324 101

Students Students Students Children

usa usa usa usa usa usa

2007 2003 1995 2001 1999 1998

42 119 419 287 209 99

Schizophrenics Students Students half and half Students 2 to 1 women Students Students, 3 to 1 women

Canada Israel usa usa France usa

1992 2014 1995 1967 1992 1995

206 368 15 60 62 202

Business majors Employees Medical faculty members Students mbas at isead Children

usa

1970

66

Students

usa Egypt usa Australia Germany Spain usa England usa usa usa usa

2015 2007 2016

282 482 1686

Students Students Students

2015 2004 1995 2012 1995 1996 1997 1995

630 66 77 1124 138 21 51 73

Students Psychiatric patients Nursing professionals mba students Students of nursing Psychiatrists Surgeons Students in medicine

usa

1998

47

Moore; M Ward; B Katz

Adults

148

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Moore; Ward, Michael D.; Katz, Barry

usa

1996

113

Radiographic technicians

Moss; John Barbuto Mudrack Mudrack Mudrack, Bloodgood, and Turnley Mudrack; Sharon Mason

usa usa Canada usa

2004 1992 1989 2013

305 115 252 263

Adults Adults Adults Students

Canada

1995

308

Nigro; I. Galli Nigro; Ida Galli Novgorodoff Novielli O’Connor; Christopher M. Simms O’Hair; M.J. Cody O’Hair; M.J. Cody; M.L. McLaughlin O’Kelly; Diana Solar Okanes; John Stinson Okanes; L.W. Murray Okanes; L.W. Murray

Italy Italy usa usa Ireland

1985 1985 1974 1968 1990

182 177 144 128 56

Adults from Canada and usa Students Students Students Students Students

usa usa

1987 1981

791 72

Students Students

usa usa usa usa, Algeria, Iran, Phillipines and Taiwan usa usa usa Hong Kong usa, Norway, and Denmark Canada usa Hungary India India

1971 1974 1980 1982

27 120 102 185

Children Students Adults managers Students

1980 1964 1968 1971 1999

52 146 120 213 531

Hospital professionals Students Students High school students Students

2013 2004 2007 1981 1987

420 50 127 162 72

Twins Students Students Students Students

Okanes; William Murray Oksenberg Oksenberg Oksenberg Ommundsen; Kud Larsen Onley et al. Orbell Paal; Bereukei, T. Pandey Pandey; Purnima Singh

Subjects

149

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Pandey; Renu Rastogi Panitz Paulhus; Kevin M Williams Pfattheicher Pilch Pinaire-Reed Pinto; Kanekar, Suresh Poderic Primavera; Margaret Higgins Prociuk; Lawrence Breen Quednow et al. Rai; M.D. Gupta Ralston; et al. Ralston.; et al. Ralston.; et al. Ramanaiah; A Byravan; F Detwiler Rauthmann Rauthmann and Kolar Rauthmann and Kolar Rauthmann, Kappes, and Lanzinger Rawwas Rawwas; Patzer, G; Klassen, M Rawwas; Patzer, G; Klassen, M Ray Rayburn; Rayburn, L. G Richard Christie and Virginia Boehm Richard Christie Relationships Richard Christie; Kenneth Gergen; David Marlowe Ricks; John Fraedrich Rogers; Gun R. Semin

India usa usa Germany Poland usa India Italy usa

1979 1989 2002 2013 2012 1979 1990 1987 1973

32 350 245 129 81 202 218 182 104

Students Adults Students Students Adults Students Students Children Students

Canada Switzerland India Hong Kong usa China usa

1976 2017 1989 1993 1993 1993 1994

97 105 90 182 62 82 185

Students Drug users Students Managers Managers Managers Students

Germany Germany Austria Germany

2013 2013 2012 2014

528 370 213 1395

Austria Hong Kong

1995 1995

149 192

Adults Adults

Northern Ireland Australia usa usa

1995

193

Adults

1983 1996 1970

87 123 144

Students Students in business Students

usa

1970

676

Students

usa

1970

420

Students

usa England

1999 1973

225 228

Sales reps Students

Adult Students Students Women

150

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Rosenthal

usa

1978

69

Students-women

Ruiz-Palomino and Banon-Gomis Russell Sakalaki; Sofia Kanellaki; Clive Richardson Schepers Shea; James Beatty Shen and Dickson Sheppard; Neil Vidmar Shepperd; Robert Socherman Sherry; et al. Shipilov et al. Shome; Hema Rao Shultz Siegel Simmons, Shafer, and Snell Simon; P L Francis; J P Lombardo Singer Singhapakdi Siu and Tam Skinner Skinner Skinner Skinner Skinner; J Giokas; H A. Hornstein Smith Smith; J. E Griffith Smith and Webster Smith; George Madjarov Smith; George Madjarov Snavely Solar; B. Bruehl

Spain

2017

436

Bank employees

Canada Greece

1974 2009

40 175

Adults Students

usa usa usa usa usa

2003 1983 2001 1980 1997

68 123 127 206 264

mbas Business managers Students Students Students

usa Ukraine Canada usa Canada Hong Kong usa

2006 2014 2009 1993 1973 2013 1990

483 459 71 101 122 132 80

Students 3–1 women Civil servants Accountants Sales reps mbas and Exec Students Students

usa usa hk Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada

1964 1988 1995 1981 1982 1982 1988 1976

1029 529 50 60 148 346 113 110

England usa usa usa Bulgaria usa usa

1976 1978 2017 2008 2008 1978 1971

77 66 363 125 101 84 67

Students Marketing professionals Bankers Students Students Students Students Students Students Students Employees Students Students Students Students

151

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Sorem; Kenneth Ketola Sparks Stanescu and Mohorea Starr Steininger; E. Eisenberg Stone; R. Russ Strauss; Michael Fiore Strien; T.J. Duijkers; L.J. VanderKamp Strien; T.J. Duijkers; L.J. vanderKamp Stylianou et al. Sullivan; J.S. Allen Sutton, J.; Keogh, E. Sypher; et al. Szijjarto and Bereczkei Tang and Chen, Y.J. Tang; Chen, Y.J.; Sutarso, T. Teven Teven Thornton Touhey Touhey Touhey Turnbull Turner; D.C. Martinez Valentine; Gary Fleischman

Canada usa Rumania Lebanon usa usa usa Dutch

1977 1994 2015 1975 1976 1976 1965 1982

26 1023 122 50 195 206 58 197

Dutch

1982

85

usa New Zealand Scotland usa Hungary usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa

2013 1999 2000 1981 2015 2008 2008 2007 2006 1967 1973 1973 1973 1976 1977 2003

77 144 198 143 157 298 298 28 114 24 105 99 216 201 1482 106

2003

127

Professionals

1982

127

Students

2013

94

1967 1991

80 394

Students Elderly consumers

1979

118

Students

Valentine; Gary Fleischman; usa Lynn Godkin Van der Kloot, Brouwer, and Dutch Willemsen Van Der Wal Netherlands usa Vejio and Wrightsman usa Vitell; James Lumpkin; usa Mohammed Rawwas Vleeming Dutch

Subjects Students Marketing pros Employees Students Students Students and half adults Engineers (half pub ad) Students Students Employees Schizophrenics Children Students Students Students Students Professors Adults Students Students Adults Parents Salesmen Adults nationwide Lawyers

Public servants

152

Chapter 5

Table 3 Mach iv studies, a selection. (cont.) Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Subjects

Vleeming

Dutch

1981

72

Vleeming Volp and Willower W. Harvey Hegarty Wahlin Wakefield Walderlauth and Scherer Walter; C M. Anderson; M M. Martin Wastell; A Booth Webster and Harmon Webster and Jonason Weinstein, Beckhouse, Blumstein, Stein Weinstock in Christie Wertheim Widom Wortzel Whitaker and Dahling White Williams; Vincent Hazelton; Steve Renshaw Wilson; D C Near; R R Miller Wilson; Kenneth Prabucki Winter; Antonis Stylianou; Robert A. Giacalone Wischniewski and Bruene Wolfson Wrighsman Y. Rim Yong Zagenczyk et al. Zagenczyk et al. Zenker; Ann Wolfgang Zetter and Solga

Dutch usa usa usa usa Germany usa

1984 1977 1995 1967 2008 1993 2005

123 57 87 69 700 39 319

Australia usa usa usa

2003 2002 2013 1968

100 1782 1024 48

Hungary usa usa usa usa

1970 1978 2013 1993 1975

50 248 273 122 246

Adult refugees Students Students Students Students

usa

1998

122

Students

usa usa

1983 2004

60 290

Students Students

Germany usa usa Israel usa usa Philippines usa Germany

2013 1981 1966 1996 1994 2013 2014 1982 2013

30 168 56 70 169 262 1300 135 235

Students Students Adults, school principals Students Students Accountants Students Adults Students Students Students Students

Patients Students Students Students Children Students Employees Students Employees

153

The Science of Machiavellianism Author(s)

Nation

Year

Number

Zettler, Friedrich, and Hilbig Zhang and Gowan Zhang and Ortmann Znakov Zook; Gary J. Sipps

Germany

2011

154

Adults

usa Australia Russia usa

2012 2016 2000 1987

287 167 710 133

Students Students Adults Students

Total

167,195

Subjects

Chapter 6

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli We have charted the growth of the Machiavelli myth, first in management, and then coincidentally in social psychology. The appropriation of Machiavelli in management and in social psychology seem to have begun independently, but in maturing they have intersected and interacted, each legitimating the other. Management scholars impose the Mach iv questionnaire on captive students. Social psychologists have become management consultants to administer the instrument in search of a correlation between Machiavellianism and, well, almost anything in vogue. Many practitioners, in both fields, probably use ­Machiavelli’s name as an innocuous label, a dead or perhaps dormant metaphor, seeing no need to enquire into its origins. Yet when a dormant metaphor is deployed in a new area, it cannot remain in slumber. Its very use as a metaphor implies deliberation and a sense of its fittingness. Hence, when we turn to yet another field of research, a little later than management and social psychology, to find Machiavelli invoked, we can expect to find the stereotype. And so it proves, this time in primate studies or primatology. Primates have long fascinated humans, and these days Machiavelli is part of that story, too. Frans de Waal, a Dutch primatologist then at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands, observed chimpanzees with interest, care, diligence, and insight and published a book called Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among the Apes.1 It treats its subjects with respect and brings out fascinating aspects of primate behavior. It also maligns Machiavelli, though not nearly as libelously as was to follow when other primatologists got to work. De Waal began innocently enough when he wrote that ‘entire passages of Machiavelli seem to be directly applicable to chimpanzee behavior’ and refers to the constant struggle for power.2 If we take that to mean that the world of the chimpanzees he observed was turbulent with ambitious contenders, there is no objection to be made. It was heartening to read that ‘Unfortunately, his [Machiavelli’s] admirably realistic analysis has often been mistaken for a moral justification for these practices.’3 He thus did what so few others do, distinguish Niccolò from Machiavellianism, the man from the myth. Alas, he went 1 Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1982]). 2 Ibid., 4. 3 Ibid., 208.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_008

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

155

on to say he felt ‘uncomfortable labeling’ his chimpanzees as Machiavellian. This discomfort was not the result of respect for Machiavelli but rather affection for the monkeys. De Waal put it this way: An adult male waiting for the right moment to reconcile with his rival … [is] not exactly ‘Machiavellian’ in the usual sense. Sensitivity to others, conflict resolution, and reciprocal exchange all demand a great deal of intelligence but are left out of our terminology that one-sidedly emphasizes one-upmanship.4 Of course, de Waal is right about the stereotype of Machiavellianism, but we also are right in stressing yet again that the myth has virtually nothing to with Machiavelli but that the distorted myth is invoked because it is seen as apposite. That Machiavelli recommended repeatedly that a ruler should search for common ground with rivals, try to befriend enemies, and offer good will, all of these make no difference, because it is the mythical Machiavelli of the stereotype that de Waal summons forth. It is the Machiavelli of dark imagination that can only manipulate for the sake of manipulating, but again, it is this Machiavelli with his cognate terms that has been ushered into primate studies, not as dead metaphors but as living stereotypes, dispersing in yet another form a reputation for malevolence that is totally undeserved. A few short years later, Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten made its inclusion into the lexicon of primatology official in the title of their magisterial book, Machiavellian Intelligence: The Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans.5 Here we have the first breaths of what has since been termed the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, which has worked its way deeply into primate studies and gone on from there to other fields attentive to cognitive evolution in both other animals and machines.6 If de Waal was equivocal because he took Machiavelli to be a fellow analyst and because he respected his subjects, that equivocation eroded quickly enough. Let us see what happened. In the preface to their book Byrne and Whiten raised our very question:

4 Ibid., 218 N5. 5 Richard W. Byrne and Andrew Whiten, eds., Machiavellian Intelligence: The Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1988). 6 For a very simple description of the Hypothesis, see Michael Jackson, ‘The Machiavellian Intelligence Hyothesis,’ in The Springer Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Norbert Seel, ed. (Berlin: Springer, 2011), 2081–2082.

156

Chapter 6

Why did we call the book ‘Machiavellian Intelligence? We expect to be criticized for appearing to emphasize the nastier side of primate social behavior by the use of Machiavelli’s name, which conjures up the use of superior knowledge and skill to deliberately manipulate, exploit, and deceive social companions, In most cases the evidence is that primates do ‘what Machiavelli would have advised.’7 Once again scientists are worried about guilt by association with Niccolò. The distance between Machiavelli the man and Machiavellianism is thus dissolved. Machiavellianism is what Machiavelli ‘would have advised.’ They end the preface of the book with this passage from the Florentine: [The prince] must be a great simulator and dissimulator. So simple-­ minded are men and so controlled by immediate necessities that a prince who deceives always finds men who let themselves be deceived. For a prince, then, it is not necessary to have all the [virtuous] qualities, but it is very necessary to appear to have them … [It] is useful, for example, to appear merciful, trustworthy, humane, blameless, religious – and to be so – yet to be in such measure prepared in mind that if you need to be not so, you can do change to the contrary.8 This is very like a passage in Chapters xv and xviii of The Prince but, as we showed above in Chapter 5, there are plenty of other passages to pluck from that book that tell a different story. Here it is a hanging quotation, for nothing follows it to integrate it into the subject matter and the reader is left to guess what Byrne and Whiten concluded from it. Nothing more is said by way of clarification of the ‘Machiavellian’ aspect of the intelligence of simians in this volume. Byrne and Whiten, like de Waal before them, fear only that calling apes Machiavellian insults the apes, not Machiavelli. Like Jay and Christie and Geis, Byrne and Whiten founded a school of thought. They went on to promulgate the Machiavellian Intelligence ­Hypothesis in p ­ ublication after publication.9 Elsewhere Bryne with co-author Lucy Bates wrote, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli famously recommended politicians to use social manipulation for individual profit, hence the term “Machiavellian intelligence” for the idea that social manipulation has been favored in animal 7 Byrne and Whiten, op cit., iv. 8 The primatologists do not give a source, hence our effort to do so. 9 For example, Richard W. Byrne, The Thinking Ape: Evolutionary Origins of Intelligence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

157

evolution.’10 That Machiavelli recommended princely profit we shall dispute in due course. The first edition of Byrne and Whiten’s Machiavellian Intelligence was such a success that a second international colloquium was convened at Oxford University in 2007.11 This produced Machiavellian Intelligence ii: Extensions and evaluations. Byrne and Whiten thus succeeded in making the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis part of the vocabulary of primate studies. The dust jacket of this second volume features a simian in Renaissance garb with a furtive look, feigning concealment behind a blue robe with one foot raised in movement that bespeaks sneakiness. He carries a knife on his hip, and being a monkey, has a banana in hand. The three wise monkeys of tradition see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. We take the cover image of Machiavellian Intelligence II to be Machiavelli made over into a monkey, the fourth monkey who advocates evil. There are some interesting things about this book, but the references to ­Machiavelli are not among them. It recycles its own past. The opening chapter by Byrne and Whiten reiterates the pertinent question, ‘What does ­Machiavellian mean?’ and again they answer that Machiavellianism is a social psychology personality type that manipulates others for personal gain. The Rubicon that divided social psychology from primatology was thus crossed. They go on to quote the same passage from Machiavelli about appearances and nothing more. One chapter in the collection by the troika of Shirley Strum, Deborah Foster, and Edwin Hutchins bears the exciting title, ‘Why Machiavellian intelligence may not be Machiavellian.’12 What we found there was that Machiavelli’s basic premise is to do what works. This about a man who preferred farmer militia to cannons, who tried to change the course of the Arno River with shovels, and who thought Italy existed four hundred years before anyone else did. ­Machiavelli spent a lot of time doing what did not work. If we may say that Machiavelli’s contemporary Leonardo da Vinci was a dreamer who could make some of his dreams come true, then Machiavelli was a dreamer who o­ ften could not.

10 11 12

Richard W. Byrne and L.A. Bates, ‘Sociality, Evolution and Cognition,’ Current Biology 17 (2007)16: 715. Emphasis added. Andrew Whiten and Richard W. Byrne, eds., Machiavellian Intelligence ii: Extensions and Evaluations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Shirley Strum, Deborah Foster, and Edwin Hutchins, ‘Why Machiavellian intelligence may not be Machiavellian,’ Machiavellian Intelligence, ii, 50–85.

158

Chapter 6

Strum, Foster, and Hutchins, having summoned Machiavelli, the shriveled myth, go on to exonerate the monkeys. They say it might be a misnomer to call primates Machiavellian because ‘primate communities are complex’ and ‘seeing primates through Machiavelli’s eyes limits and simplifies our vision of the challenges of social life.’13 The implication is that simian society is more fraught and complex than the world Machiavelli knew. Anyone who knows anything about Machiavelli’s own life, the events and people that he observed, and the conditions of Renaissance Italy would regard this comparison as ludicrous. It is as if to say the monkeys live in a complicated world but Niccolò did not. What would he know of complications? Well when he is shrunken into a severed head of the mythical Machiavelli, not very much, but of course the very reason he is invoked is to simplify explanations, not complicate them. Later in the book Anne Russon wrote, His notorious book, The Prince, promotes the use of intimidation for social power and suggests who to take as the best models for seizing and keeping political power. Machiavelli even practiced what he preached. He copied many of the book’s ideas as well as its structure from other works popular at the time.14 This passage can only be interpreted to mean that Machiavelli plagiarized others. As substantiation for this charge, Russon cites two exemplary historical studies of Machiavelli, but gives no page number, no quotation, and no paraphrase from their texts. These books are Allan Gilbert, Machiavelli’s Prince and its Forerunners and J.H. Whitfield, Machiavelli.15 Odd that Russon cites them, since both Gilbert and Whitfield emphasize Machiavelli’s originality and singularity. True, they refer extensively to the genre of advice to princes and to the common set of topics these books covered. Erasmus is especially mentioned in both. They note that any practice Machiavelli refers to was well known and well used, but both stress the distinctive features of The Prince, and both remind us that Machiavelli wrote more than that one unpublished manuscript. Moreover, some of the genre books they mention came after Machiavelli’s lifetime and did not include comments that some readers found shocking, e.g., that lying sometimes is necessary and it works – something every king already 13 14 15

Ibid., 73. Anne Russon, ‘Exploiting the Expertise of Others,’ Ibid., 178. Allan Gilbert, Machiavelli’s Prince and its Forerunners: The Prince as a Typical de Regimini Principum (Raleigh, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1938) and J.H. Whitfield, Machiavelli. (New York City: Russell & Russell. 1965 [1947]).

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

159

knew, but which no one before Machiavelli wrote into an advice book, though it could be found in the works of historians like Thucydides, Livy, or Tacitus. Among the advice books mentioned is that of Augustino Nifo which, as noted earlier, is a near word-for-word lift of The Prince. If Machiavelli is the thief Russon claims, why does he bear the opprobrium and not those from whom he plagiarized? In any event plagiarism was a meaningless concept in the Renaissance. To invoke it is rather like chastening a Renaissance physician for not washing his hands in ignorance of germs. Then we come to the substance of the remark. In the pages of The Prince Machiavelli ‘promotes’ distasteful practices. To promote is to further, encourage, or initiate such practices. We suggest Machiavelli did none of these in The Prince and we are confident anyone who reads the book with a fresh eye will agree. He was an analyst, who observed, dissected, categorized, and probed for causation behind what he saw. From these beginnings the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis took shape. It gives an answer to a question that is so obvious few notice it: Why do we humans have such large brains?16 Compared to other animals with similar biological features, our brain is big for our bodies. And brains are expensive to run. Moreover, brains are fragile. A thump on the head that would not be noticed by our physical parallels in the animal kingdom – think of a stoat – and we are severely injured. Why then do we have such an expensive and fragile brain? The primatologist’s explanation refers to our relationship to our nearest cousins, in the animal world who are primates and they, too, have big brains for their bodies compared to many other animals. The answer is that the brain helps us live in the company of others of our kind – it is useful for social relations – and it does not just store data about social relations but allows us to make judgments about our social relations.17 A crude example suffices, the brain means we remember that hunting with others works better than hunting alone, and we remember the techniques for such hunting, but also that we see, learn, and remember that Squiggly is an inept hunter and we will shun Squiggly’s company in future hunts. Observe the behavior of young children and it is evident that they use their brains to decide how to fit in, and even to decide whether they want to fit. Primatologists are well aware of the relevance of their

16 17

Louise Barrett and Peter Henzi, ‘The Social Nature of Primate Cognition,’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272 (2005) 1575, 1865–11. Robin Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip and The Evolution Of Language (London: Faber and ­Faber, 1996), 60.

160

Chapter 6

work to children.18 (There are prior questions here about what the self is that is making decisions but we must leave those for another time.) Machiavellianism enters on the assumption that we each use our brains selfishly to chart what is best for ourselves alone, and at the expense of others. The primatologists study zero-sum events like sexual mating and consumption of food among their oft imprisoned subjects. The term ‘Machiavellian Intelligence’ evolved into ‘Social Intelligence’ to achieve greater scope and acceptance. ‘Social’ rather than ‘Machiavellian’ is neutral, avoiding the negative connotations of ‘Machiavellian.’19 It seems to us that associating the word ‘Hypothesis’ with it denotes the tentative nature of the assertion that primates possess this kind of intelligence.20 We notice the importance of this point when we read fire-fights between scientists who observe apes in zoos and those who follow David Attenborough to the jungles to observe them in the wild. Suffice it to say that each practitioner thinks the other sees a distorted image rather than a reality. It does not occur to any of these scientists to vindicate Machiavelli from the charge of being M ­ achiavellian, to separate the man from the myth. He, too, remains imprisoned – in the stereotypes promoted by too many other scientists. Others have followed the transfer of Machiavel into primate studies and the light it sheds on evolution. John Skoyles and Dorion Sagan write that Machiavelli ‘was the ultimate ruthless political manager.’21 Sarah Hrdy compares the Florentine to Karl Rove.22 We shall speak more of Rove and his kind later in Chapter 7 on power. Skoyles and Sagan go on to say that Machiavelli was an 18

19 20

21 22

Peter Gärdenfors, How Homo Became Sapiens: On the Evolution of Thinking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 105 and Dario Maestripieri, Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 110. Gerd Gigerenzer, Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002), 226. Thomas Knecht, ‘What is Machiavellian Intelligence? Views on a Little Appreciated Side of the Psyche,’ Psychiatrische Klinik Munsterlingen (2004) Switzerland, Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www.nootropics.com/social-intelligence/machiavellian.html, The original is Knecht, Thomas, ‘Was ist machiavellische Intelligenz?’ Der Nervenarzt 75 (2004)1: 1–5. See also Hawley, Patricia, ‘Evolution and Personality: A New Look at Machiavellianism,’ Handbook of Personality Development, eds. Daniel Mroczek and Todd Little (Mahwah, nj: Erlbaum, 2006), 148. John R. Skoyles and Dorion Sagan, Up from Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 81. Sarah Hrdy, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2009), 45.

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

161

accurate observer rather than an advocate thereafter, but that is too late, the damage has already been done. Torkel Klinberg says Machiavelli ‘taught the art of domination through manipulation.’23 This teaching is nowhere to be found in Machiavelli’s Discourses. However, all that has come so far pales in comparison to Dario Maestripieri’s book Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World.24 No, that is not a misprint. ‘Macachiavellian’ is what he meant, for his is a study of macaque monkeys and their Machiavellian Intelligence. Like de Waal’s, Maestripieri’s book is a pleasure to read in every respect except for the references to Machiavelli. He welds Machiavelli to the monkeys with these words: ‘Niccolò Machiavelli wrote his famous book The Prince in 1513 to instruct Lorenzo ii de Medici, his patron and the ruler of Florence, in the art of politics.’25 It is a book about power, exploitation, and war, he added. That Italy was a place of power, exploitation, and war at the time is not mentioned. An innocent reader is left to conclude that Machiavelli settled on these topics for his own reasons. We cite our previous objections to the claim that The Prince was ‘to instruct’ Lorenzo, but we cannot remain silent about the claim that Lorenzo was Machiavelli’s patron. Lorenzo was not then nor was he later a supporter of Niccolò in any way. Maestripieri continues, ‘Following Machiavelli, social opportunism came to be referred to as Machiavellian intelligence, rhesus macaques had already been using Machiavelli’s recommendations in their daily lives for thousands of years.’26 It is quite a vexed story from Machiavelli to Machiavellian(ism) to be sure. That the macaques were already doing it simply underscores the point that Machiavelli observed, as does Maestripieri himself. Like de Waal, Maestripieri is respectful of his monkeys and he presents a story, which we will not reproduce here, the moral of which is that it is not politically correct to call a dark-skinned person a macca. We agree that likening people to monkeys is not socially acceptable. Maestripieri quite properly wishes to respect both the monkey and dark-skinned people, as do we, but he has no interest in respecting Machiavelli. He will not malign the monkeys, but he will malign Machiavelli. However, he goes some way to achieving mitigation when he adds, ‘If politicians knew more about the Machiavellian intelligence of rhesus macaques, they would probably call one another macaque all the time, but mean 23

Torkel Klinberg, The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 86. 24 Maestripieri, op cit. 25 Ibid., 4. 26 Ibid.

162

Chapter 6

it as a compliment.’27 Maestripieri’s touch is light and he does not extemporize on Machiavelli as so many others among the primatologists do when they malign Machiavelli. This light touch shows when later in the book he compares the macaques to children. ‘The Prince was about military power, politics, and war, but if he were alive today and wrote a new edition of his book, l’ll bet he would include a chapter about power struggles between parents and children, as well.’28 As we noted in Chapter 5, parents know the capacity of children to manipulate them, and Machiavellianism in children had already been explored by social psychologists. We will comment further on Machiavelli and children in Chapter 7, on power. Many others have added to primate research on Machiavellian Intelligence, mostly without gratuitously maligning Machiavelli.29 This research agenda is worldwide and so is the attendant disparagement of Machiavelli, from Mexico to Japan.30 For one may suppose the many authors and editors involved in 27 28 29

30

Ibid., 9. Ibid, 110. John Kihlstrom and Nancy Cantor, ‘Social Intelligence,’ Handbook of Intelligence, ed, Robert J. Sternberg Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2000), 359–379; Ron Vannelli, Evolutionary Theory and Human Nature (Boston: Kluwer, 2001); Peter M. Kappeler and Carel van Schaik, Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution (Berlin: Springer, 2005); Mark Leary and Rick Hoyle, eds., Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (New York City: Guildford Press, 2009); Minnia Lyons, ‘Cry Baby, Cry, Make Your Mother Buy? Evolution of Tears, Smiles, and Reciprocity Potential,’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32 (2009)5, 399; and Amanda Seed, Nicola Clayton, Peter Carruthers, Anthony Dickens, Paul Glimcher, Onur Güntükün, Robert Hampton, Alex Kacelnik, Murray Shanahan, Jeffrey Stevens, and Sabine Tebbich, ‘Planning, Memory, and Decision Making,’ Animal Thinking: Contemporary Issues in Comparative Cognition, eds. Rudolf Menzel and Julia Fischer (Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2011), 120–147. We listed each author and both editors rather than use et al. partly to make the point that each of these several individuals may have and may disseminate the stereotype of Machiavelli we are trying to arrest. Ricardo Mondragon-Ceballos, ‘Machiavellian Intelligence of Primates and Evolution of Social Brain,’ Salud mental, 25 (2002)5: 29–39 and Masaki Tomonaga, Masako MyowaYamakoshi, Yuu Mizuno, Sanae Okamoto, Masami Yamaguchi, Daisuke Kosngi, Kim Bard, Masayuki Tanaka, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa. 2006. ‘Chimpanzees Social Cognition in Early Life,’ Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence, eds. Edward Wasserman and Thomas Zentall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 639–650; Katie Hall, Mike W., Oram Matthew W. Campbell; et al., ‘Chimpanzee Uses Manipulative Gaze Cues to Conceal and Reveal Information to Foraging Competitor,’ American Journal of Primatology 79 (2017)3, Article Number: e22622; Christele Borgeaud, Erica van de Waal, and Redouan Bshary, ‘Third-Party Ranks Knowledge in Wild Vervet Monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops pygerythrus),’ PLoS One 8 (2013) 3, Article Number: e58562; and Wheeler,

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

163

these studies will, if inadvertently, disseminate the Machiavelli stereotype to students and colleagues. Along the way some scholars try out different twists on the argument by marrying social intelligence with emotional intelligence into a Machiavellian Emotional Intelligence.31 This line of research has shaded off into other fields, notably evolutionary biology. That is partly looking back at the evolution of primates, but also looking sideways at other beasts in the Animal Kingdom, and forward to future developments. We note only those parts of these developments that refer to Machiavelli. Richard Byrne led the way with a thoughtful monograph called The Thinking Ape, and the evolution of intelligence with a chapter on ­Machiavellian Intelligence.32 It generously acknowledges the work of others in conceptualizing social intelligence. Machiavelli escapes comment. He has resumed his status as a dead metaphor in this context, and reference to him is no longer necessary. Yet the assumption in using his name is that its significance will be instantly recognized. Once the concept of Machiavellian Intelligence gained scientific credibility, it spread. Joyce Poole and Cynthia Moss study elephants.33 They note Machiavellian Intelligence in these land giants, saying that ‘elephants are contenders for rank among those species possessing Machiavellian intelligence in every respect.’34 In their chapter, Machiavellian intelligence is simply social intelligence. There is no mention of selfish manipulation and exploitation of others. Elephants would not do that! Rather the emphasis is on the sense of the herd and social relations within it. Richard Connor and Janet Mann wrote of ‘Machiavellian Dolphins’ with deadly seriousness.35 We find the Bernd and Melany Wuersig study of dolphins Brandon, Barbara Tiddi, and Michael Heistermann. ‘Competition-induced Stress Does Not Explain Deceptive Alarm Calling in Tufted Capuchin Monkeys,’ Animal Behaviour 93(2014), 49–58. Again, we suppose the many authors and editors involved in these studies will, if inadvertently, disseminate the Machiavelli stereotype to students and colleagues. 31 Paul Griffiths, ‘Towards a “Machiavellian” Theory of Emotional Appraisal,’ Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality, eds. Dylan Evans and Pierre Cruse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 89–106. 32 Byrne, The Thinking Ape, 195–209. 33 Joyce Poole and Cynthia Moss, ‘Elephant Sociality and Complexity,’ Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, eds. Christian Wemmer and Catherine Christen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2008), 69–98. 34 Ibid., 88. 35 Richard Connor and Janet Mann, ‘Social Cognition in the Wild: Machiavellian Dolphins,’ in Rational Animals? ed. by Susan Hurley and Matthew Nudds (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006), 329–367.

164

Chapter 6

referring to Machiavelli’s shrewd methods and eighty pages later these m ­ ethods are termed ‘Political Intelligence.’36 Even in their most expansive moments, proponents of the ubiquity of politics never thought to include dolphins. While in the aquatic domain, Redouan Bshary found Machiavellian Intelligence in fish.37 Bshary refers to tactical deception and strategic gain as ­Machiavellian characteristics. Confirming the deadness of the metaphor, he fails to mention Niccolò. John Bonner looks to Moby Dick, suggesting the blue whales may also have Machiavellian Intelligence.38 Juliette Arnaud reports on Machiavellian mollusks.39 We have yet to find insects indicted for their ­Machiavellianism, but surely that is only a matter of time. These excursions into evolution wend their way back to humanity and its nature. Eternal questions about human nature arise anew. We are social beings from first to last. Is what appears to be human nature instead but early and deeply learnt behavior, and so social? It is the first line of the creed of social science, yet it is hardly settled doctrine and those who contest it have summoned Machiavelli for guidance. Larry Arnhart in a paper called ‘Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature’ cites Machiavelli, Christie and Geis, and Machiavellian Intelligence.40 Gad Saad in joining evolution to political marketing in the book Human Nature and Public Policy refers in passing to Machiavellian Intelligence.41 Others pondering human nature have also included Machiavellian Intelligence in the equation.42 John Orbell is one 36 37

38 39 40 41 42

Bernd Wuersig and Melany Wuersig, The Dusky Dolphin: Master Acrobat Off Different Shores (New York City: Academic Press, 2009), 349 and 420. Redouan Bshary, ‘Machiavellian Intelligence in Fishes,’ Fish Cognition and Behavior, ed. Culum Brown, Kevin Laland and Jens Krause (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 223–242 and Bshary, Felice Di Lascio, Ana Pinto, and Erica van de Waal. 2011. ‘How Intelligent Is Machiavellian Behavior?’ in Animal Thinking: Contemporary Issues in Comparative Cognition, ed. Randolf Menzel and Julia Fischer (Boston: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Press, 2011), 209–222. For more on fish, see Dominika Chojnacka, et al., ‘Relative Brain and Brain Part Sizes Provide Only Limited Evidence that Machiavellian Behaviour in Cleaner Wrasse Is Cognitively Demanding,’ PLoS One 10(2015) 8, Article Number: e0135373. John Bonner, Why Size Matters: From Bacteria to Blue Whales (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 2006). Juliette Arnaud, La stratégie du mollusque, un plan machiavélique (Paris: Bourin, 2008). Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Philosophy and Biology (Binghamton, ny: State University of New York Press, 1998), 221. Gad Saad, ‘Evolution and Political Marketing,’ Human Nature and Public Policy, eds. Albert Somit and Steven Petersen (London: Palgrave, 2003), 127. John Cartwright, Evolution and Human Behavior: Darwinian Perspective on Human Nature, (Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2000); John Cartwright, Evolutionary Explanations of Human Behavior (London: Routledge, 2001); Arthur Robson,

Niccolò of the Apes, or Aping Machiavelli

165

who has produced a series of studies of human nature in political science. In them he sometimes referred to Machiavelli and in one of the most substantial, later papers published in the American Political Science Review, he discussed the Machiavellian Intelligence paradigm.43 However, Niccolò Machiavelli does not appear in the text of the article. He is not mentioned nor are his books. The term is sheeted home to Bryne and Whiten and left at that, though Thomas Hobbes is in the bibliography. Orbell’s paper reports an experimental study, which evidently has little to do with Machiavelli. Again it is apparent that ­Machiavelli’s name has become a convenient myth. Machiavelli as the ghost in the machine of Machiavellian Intelligence has also had a spectral presence in the science fiction future. Sergey Gavrilets and Aaron Vose have discussed it in a mathematical model to track the development of artificial intelligence.44 John F. Bradley, Alan N. Martin, Bianca Schoen, Gregory O’Hare, and Brian R. Duffy bring Machiavellian Intelligence into the core of artificial intelligence.45 Andrew Gordon proposed to play chess with Machiavelli to prepare a robot for the game.46 He refers directly to The Prince in so doing, though that book does not appear in his bibliography.47 While among the mathematicians we note David Gale and Marilda Sotomayor’s paper, ‘Ms Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem.’48 We found Gale had

43

44

45 46

47

48

‘The Evolution of Rationality and the Red Queen,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 111 (2003)1, 1–22; ­Arthur Robson, ‘Evolution and Human Nature,’ Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2002)2, 89–106; and Zhang, Le and Andreas Ortmann, ‘Pro-social or Anti-social, or Both? A Within- and Between-subjects Study of Social Preferences,’ Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 62(2016), 23–32. John Orbell, ‘Evolution, Cooperation, and Ethics,’ Politics and the Life Sciences 15 (1996)1, 121–124; Orbell, Tomonori Morikawa, Hartwig Jason, James Hanley, and Nicholas Allen, ‘“Machiavellian” Intelligence as a Basis for the Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions,’ American Political Science Review 98 (2004)1: 1–15. Sergey Gavrilets and Aaron Vose, ‘The Dynamics of Machiavellian Intelligence.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (2006) 45, 16823–16826. John F. Bradley, Alan N. Martin, Bianca Schoen, Gregory O’Hare, and Brian R. Duffy, ‘Future Reasoning Machines: Mind and Body,’ Kybernetes 34 (2005) 9/10, 1404–1417. Andrew Gordon, ‘Playing Chess with Machiavelli: Improving Interactive Entertainment with Explicit Strategies,’ aaai Technical Report SS-01-02 (2001). Accessed 20 May 2016, https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2001/SS-01-02/SS01-02-009.pdf. When writers do this, drop Niccolò’s name but do not do him the courtesy of a spot in the bibliography, it is evidence that the mythical Machiavelli is part of the general lexicon, giving further reason to purse this effort to rehabilitate him. David Gale and Marilda Sotomayor, ‘Ms Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem.’ American Mathematical Monthly 92 (1985)4, 261–268.

166

Chapter 6

form with Machiavelli when we read L.E. Dubins and D.A. Freedman’s (1981) earlier paper ‘Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapely Algorithm.’49 We also noticed that Sylvain Lhullier’s book on mathematical and logical puzzles gave a titular role to Machiavelli.50 From a few clichés in management to the Machiavellian Personality in social psychology to the Planet of the Apes and a colorful trope in mathematics, Machiavelli the myth has been freely used to fill intellectual cavities. His works are truly classic in that devastatingly accurate definition of Mark Twain’s  – widely cited and not read. The Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis may be the sine qua non of primate studies, but we prefer to think of it as Social Intelligence and leave Niccolò Machiavelli out of it altogether. Let the simians do what they do, but Machiavelli should no longer be associated with their antics or ethology. Machiavelli’s trials are far from over, for in the next chapter we consider how popular ideas of power draw upon his name and fame with little regard for the facts of the matter. The arduous power struggles chimpanzees have over food and sex pale compared to those of the human animal. 49 50

L.E. Dubins and D.A. Freedman, ‘Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley Algorithm,’ American Mathematical Monthly, 88 (1981)7, 485–494. Sylvain Lhullier, Enigmes mathématiques machiavéliques (Paris: Marabout, 2009). There is nary a word about Machiavelli in his tome. We also noted his name on Eric Berger, 100 sudokus machiavéliques (Paris: Larousse, 2016). While the merits of the Sudoku are announced in this pocketbook, there is no word on Machiavelli.

Chapter 7

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power In previous chapters we have encountered those who see Machiavelli only as a theorist of power. Such was Stanley Bing’s view in his advice to managers in Chapter 4. As we noted then, Bing ran together money and power as though they were one and the same thing. They often go together, true enough, but like cloud and rain, not always. Likewise, that Machiavellian Personality construct from Christie and Geis has a whiff of power to it in the enjoyment of dominating others in the Dark Triad, not just dominating others, but enjoying the domination. Even the monkeys do it, for Frans de Waal’s book has power in the subtitle on the zero-sum contests of the chimpanzees. If Machiavelli has been applied to domains like management and to creatures like monkeys with some mighty stretches of the imagination, then how much easier has it been to daub him about the political world of power and leadership. He has been splashed about with the ferocity of a Jackson Pollock squirting paint to create ‘Blue Poles.’ The use, abuse, and misuse of the name ‘Machiavelli,’ the adjective ‘Machiavellian’ and the noun ‘Machiavellianism’ in politics are overwhelming. It has been much harder to survey Machiavelli’s deployment in politics than in management, social psychology, and primatology, because the literature is so much more diverse. A search on Google for ­‘Machiavelli AND power’ yields more than 400,000 hits.1 Thomson’s Web of Knowledge and the Web of Science help to track down references to M ­ achiavelli in the scientific and professional literature of management, social psychology, and primatology, but power and leadership are not as well defined fields of research, so there is no obvious starting point. Yet the references abound and we have sampled some of them.2 We have concentrated on the popular media and not social science, though a few of the latter are mentioned.

1 We did these searches three times on 18 August 2016 for each combination using Safari, Firefox, and Chrome and the results from each platform were nearly the same. Putting ‘and’ in upper case makes it a Boolean operator rather than a search term. 2 Machiavelli has even been declared a Green avant le mot by Tony Brenton, The Greening Of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International Environmental Politics (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1994), 5–6; and also Dallas Hanson and Stuart Middleton, ‘The Challenges of Eco-Leadership: Green Machiavellianism,’ Green Management International, 5 (2000), 95–108.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_009

168

Chapter 7

The association of Machiavelli with power and the common acceptance of the first master narrative – that Machiavelli’s insights offered in sixteenthcentury Florence apply in the here and now – leads to the publishing o­ ddity of The Prince being rebranded for a contemporary readership. Take, for e­ xample, re:Organizing (sic) America, which describes itself on the back cover as a practical guide to addressing and achieving the change that America hopes for. Originally written by one of the great civil servants of all time, re:Organizing America outlines a specific agenda centered on the proper role of government in American life. From this basis general concepts are outlined, including the need for a stable civic structure, the centrality of ethical ideas, and the proper use of the military. This seminal work will open your mind to a new understanding of what is and what could be.3 Its cover features a likeness of President Barack Obama to show readers how up to date it is. Opening the book we found a new version of The Prince without a word of explanation or apology. This is a ploy we encountered with some  of the management books, which were nothing more than cut-down versions of the original. The translation is credited to W.K. Marriott. There is another version of The Prince on the market crediting him as translator and, having read it through to the end, we noticed on the last page ‘Edward Dacre [sic], 1640’ which is the first published English translation which we treated in Chapter 2.4 A comparison of this Marriot with a facsimile of the Dacres edition showed them not to differ, so we conclude, though nothing is said between the covers of re:Organizing America, that Marriott worked from Dacres. That is common practice, but leaving us to guess should not be common practice, nor practiced at all. In any event, we wondered what President Obama had to learn from M ­ achiavelli’s observations on sixteenth-century Spanish infantry, ­Turkish administration, or Swiss taxes. Of the same ilk is the anonymous pocket book Power: Get it. Use it. Keep it.5 It consists of sixteen unnumbered chapters like ‘Winning popularity’ with one paragraph excerpted from somewhere in The Prince. No author’s or editor’s name appears on the cover or title 3 W.K. Marriott, re:Organizing America: A Plan for the 21st Century: Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2010). The Marriott translation has long been out of copyright and so can be used by one and all. Another example which is also based on the Marriott translation is Rob McMahon, Machiavelli’s Prince: Bold-faced Principles on Tactics, Power, and Politics (New York: Sterling, 2008). 4 W.K. Marriott, The Prince (London: Harper Collins, 2011 [1512]). 5 Anonymous, Power: Get it. Use it. Keep it (London: Profile Books, 2001).

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

169

page. The book has stable mates in something called the Illumination series, e.g., Love, Happiness, and Faith. If nothing else, this little book shows how readily Machiavelli is joined to commonplace ideas of power. Then there is the gratuitous reference to him in such titles as Machiavelli’s Children. There are two books with that intriguing title. The first, published in 1995 by Edward Pearce, is a rant about all those nasty people in British politics by a journalist who specialized in such works. The references to Machiavelli are few. They start and end with these passages: ‘his message is that if you want something, then to do this and these are the best ways of getting it’ and ‘so for a little amusement … I have set about illustrating The Prince for students and general readers with examples drawn from our own times.’6 The tone throughout is sour, cynical, and negative. The second book bearing that curious title is by Richard Samuels, and its full title is Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan. This is a fine work of research into the leadership of post war Japan and Italy. Samuels invokes the spirit of Machiavelli because of stress on the leaders, and says in passing ‘notwithstanding his reputation, Machiavelli was concerned with the greater good.’ He also notes that Mussolini cited Machiavelli at times.7 As a scholarly work, this book is much more self-conscious about referring to Machiavelli, but apart from that comment about leadership no explanation of the title is offered. One might, on cultural, geographic, and historic grounds, nod at the Italian connection, but Japan? If leadership is the bridge between Machiavelli and Japan, then why not Plato and the philosopher-rulers? The answer lies in the idiomatic association of Machiavelli with power. Dear Prince: The Unexpurgated Counsels of N. Machiavelli to Richard Milhous Nixon is a rather labored re-working of The Prince to make it relevant to American politics in the 1960s.8 Its satire falls flat because its dedicatee, Nixon, was more truly a byword for the politics of that era than Machiavelli. Although the book is full of advice on Latin America, China, youth, and more, there is not a word about the Vietnam War. Not one. That is like Machiavelli failing to mention the Papacy in his own times. The cover features a two-faced eagle which is a parody of the eagle symbol that features on so much of the iconography of the United States. We recognize Nixon on the right and must suppose that on the left is Niccolò. 6 Edward Pearce, Machiavelli’s Children (London: Gollancz. 1995), 9 and 11. 7 Richard Samuels, Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), 8, 344, 15, and 74. 8 Edward L. Greenfield and Charles L. Mee, Jr, Dear Prince: The Unexpurgated Counsels of N. Machiavelli to Richard Milhous Nixon (New York City: American Heritage Press, 1969).

170

Chapter 7

While among the Republicans, note Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove by Paul Alexander, a hatchet job on Mr Rove.9 Machiavelli is mentioned twice in the book, first in making the claim that, For years, Rove had told people the book he read regularly, perhaps as often as once a year, was The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th-century political thinker whose devious theories lurked behind the elegant prose of The Prince: The end justifies the means. One must win at all costs. It is better to be feared than loved.10 Rove must have been a slow learner if he truly had to re-read this unforgettable little book annually. Machiavelli is mentioned again with the first invasion of Iraq, which, it is implied, was dictated by electoral considerations.11 If so, dare we observe that the same considerations figure in President Obama’s continuation of that commitment? Fictional works that profess to expose the workings of power include John O’Byrne’s O’Machiavelli: Or How to Survive in Irish Politics (1996), a primer on Irish politics.12 It contains the purported memoirs of W.B. O’Carolan about the advice he gave to Eamon de Valera through the years. Despite the amusing title, Machiavelli is there only as a shade. He is thanked in the acknowledgements, most of the twenty-two chapters open with an aphorism from The Prince, and a brief biography of Machiavelli concludes the book. In 2015 John Drennan published Paddy Machiavelli: How to Get Ahead in Irish Politics.13 It has a cover with an ostensible Machiavelli wearing a flat cap (perhaps in Donegal tweed) and holding a hurley. Niccolò Machiavelli is mentioned on page vii for the first and last time. The book recounts the experiences of Paddy Machiavelli in Irish politics. It has some of the form of The Prince with chapter epigraphs, seemingly from Machiavelli but that is not said, nor is there any attribution. It is clever; it is witty; it has nothing substantive to do with Machiavelli. Somewhat misleadingly, Jonathan Powell called his memoir, The New ­Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in the Modern World.14 The cover of this book 9 10 11 12 13 14

Paul Alexander, Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove (Emmaus, pa: Rodale Books, 2008). Ibid., 13. Ibid., 145. John O’Byrne, O’Machiavelli: Or How to Survive in Irish Politics (Dublin: Leopold Publishing, 1996). John Drennan, Paddy Machiavelli: How to Get Ahead in Irish politics (Dublin: Gill & ­Macmillan, 2014). Jonathan Powell, The New Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in The Modern World (London: Bodley Head, 2010).

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

171

features Niccolò facing the microphones, but the book is about his time with ­British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Powell has a good knowledge of Machiavelli and refers to him sagely, but the book is an insider’s reflection on the ­British ­Labour Party that contrasts the idealistic endeavors of Tony Blair with the Borgia-like skullduggery of Gordon Brown. The Tories hardly come into the ­picture. As always with the Labour Party, the enemies are within. This partisan, numbingly detailed work leads only to the conclusion that hindsight is wonderful. For all that, Powell’s book is more entertaining in its alleged insights than the Canadian comedian Dick Bourgeois-Doyle’s labored attempts at humor in Il Principio: The Principle, where ‘Piccolò Mochiavelli’ pokes fun at ideology, people, and processes that make up government and politics.15 ­Sweden has also been subjected to the Machiavelli treatment.16 Comparable to the foregoing titles, but less forced, is Alan Reid’s The ­Bandar Log: A Labor Story of the 1950s, which remained unpublished at the author’s passing.17 Reid was long a fixture in the parliamentary press gallery in ­Canberra. When an eager biographer came across the manuscript in Reid’s papers, it was published, making it very apparent why it had heretofore gone unpublished. In it one Macker Kalley comments on the machinations of the Australian ­Labor Party in the early 1950s during the height of the Cold War. Even in the Antipodes, Labor politics does not change; the enemies are within. Historically one of the major players was a publicity-shy protagonist with an Italian name, Robert Santamaria, and perhaps that is what inspired journalist Reid to reach for Machiavelli. The odd title of Reid’s book comes from Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book and the reference is to the Monkey people, in a strange echo of the ground covered in Chapter 6. As we noted in Chapter 2, Machiavelli has long been associated with unsavory politicos. When from London Napoleon was viewed as the scourge of Europe, Machiavelli was used to explain his devious success with massed cannon.18 Benito Mussolini referred to Machiavelli, no doubt animated in part by patriotism as well as opportunism. Indeed he wrote a thesis about him for the University of Bologna in which he described Machiavelli’s book as the statesman’s supreme guide in a very temperate commentary on Italian politics of 15 16 17 18

Dick Bourgeois-Doyle, Il Principio: The Principle (Ottawa, Canada: Stubbornbooks, 2012). This passage is from the back cover. Staffan Persson, The Prince 2.0: Revelations from Machiavelli: a Timeless Book about Political Power in The Modern World (San Bernardino, ca: No publisher given, 2014). Alan Reid, The Bandar Log: A Labor Story of the 1950s (Ballarat, Australia: Connor Court, 2015 [1959]). See Frank Preston Stearns, Napoleon and Machiavelli (New York City: General Books llc, 1903), as mentioned above in Chapter 2. It alleges that Bony learned from Machiavelli.

172

Chapter 7

1924.19 Mussolini’s later sins are regularly sheeted home to the infection he got while reading Niccolò. Arnold Lien does not attribute influence to Machiavelli, but explains Mussolini’s regime through apparent similarities with The Prince. Lien, like so many others, then and now, considers that ‘the conditions in Italy (in 1922) were not in their fundamental nature different from those which moved Machiavelli in 1513.’20 Even the militarism of Tojo’s government in Japan has been connected to Machiavelli.21 Stalin, in breaks between purging millions, supposedly read and annotated The Prince, though the picture of Comrade Stalin, head bent, reading by lamp light with pencil stub in hand somehow does not ring true.22 More metaphorically there is Arnold Petersen’s book titled Stalinist Corruption of Marxism: A Study in Machiavellian Duplicity.23 Corine Dupont lined up Machiavelli with Hitler in Auschwitz ou le Sadisme Machiavélique Hitlérien.24 What possible parallels, analogies, or comparisons could there be between Auschwitz and Niccolò? No doubt somewhere is a scribe who has asserted that Adolf Hitler schooled himself with The Prince: recall from Chapter 2 that this was one of but three books named by American soldiers in the ruins of Hitler’s library. In 1938 Stephen Roberts called Goebbels the most dangerous man in Europe precisely because he is so diabolically clever and so frankly Machiavellian in his views of mankind and the methods he would employ. Throughout the length and breadth of Germany, I heard nobody speak of him with affection.25 And, of Nazi banker and economics minister, Hjalmar Schacht, Roberts wrote, ‘He is of a race apart; in fact, he seems to have stepped out of medieval ­Florence, 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

Benito Mussolini, ‘Prelude to Machiavelli,’ The Living Age, (November 1924): 420–423. Reprinted and translated from La Revue de Genève, September 1924. Arnold J. Lien, ‘Machiavelli’s Prince and Mussolini’s Facism.’ Social Science, 4 (1029)4, 435–441. Victor Rine, Machiavelli of Nippon (New York City: Wandering Eye, 1932). Robert Tucker, Stalin As Revolutionary: A Study in History and Personality (London: Chatto & Windus, 1974), p. 212; Erik van Ree, The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism (London: Routledge: Curzon, 2002), 332 N28; and Robert Service, Stalin (London: Macmillan, 2004), 10. Arnold B. Petersen, Stalinist Corruption of Marxism: A Study in Machiavellian Duplicity (New York: New York Labor News Co, 1953). Corine Dupont, Auschwitz ou le Sadisme Machiavélique Hitlérien (Nantes: Amalthée, 2006). Stephen Roberts, The House that Hitler Built (New York: Harper, 1938), 20.

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

173

a Machiavelli with a complete mastery of twentieth-century technique.’26 More recently, the Machiavellian dna of Fidel Castro has been analyzed by Alfred Cuzán.27 More than one earnest African has claimed that Idi Amin learned the little he knew from The Prince. Saddam Hussein was likened to Machiavelli as if that proved something about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sometimes we are so hard-pressed to explain evil that we blame a book on the shelf, as if Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Amin, or Hussein were book-worms. Writing in ‘the spirit of the original Prince,’ Dick Morris presents The New Prince: Machiavelli Updated for the Twenty-First Century, as a remedy for the ills of American politics.28 Morris takes credit for much of the electoral success of Bill Clinton. Machiavelli gets mentioned on the front cover and front flap of the dust jacket, and after that is mentioned again exactly twice in garbled prose flung over 252 pages. Oddly, Morris takes the view that Machiavelli would recommend idealism as the pragmatic course, a remark not explained in what follows. He mentions that Machiavellianism has become identified unfairly with ‘skulduggery, manipulation and deceit,’ but does not enlarge on these observations. Machiavelli’s comment that it is better to be feared than loved gets trotted out but, not being integrated with either idealism or pragmatism, it is unintelligible.29 In contrast, Machiavelli also gets marquee time in an American government textbook by Bernard W. Wishy called Good-Bye, Machiavelli: Government and American Life.30 This is a sober account of the historical evolution of the institutions and practices of American national government suitable for a college course. It mentions Machiavelli eight times, not many for a title role. The foundation of American politics is described as leaving European cunning and cruelty (read Machiavelli) behind.31 Machiavelli’s complexity is acknowledged, but neither Machiavelli nor John Pocock are found in the extensive b­ ibliography.32 Pocock applied Machiavelli to the creation of the American constitution as the

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Ibid., 183. Alfred Cuzán, Is Fidel Castro a Machiavellian Prince? (Miami, fl: Endowment for Cuban American Studies, 1999). Dick Morris, The New Prince: Machiavelli Updated for the Twenty-First Century (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 1999), xv and 76. Ibid., vii 147. Bernard W. Wishy, Good-Bye, Machiavelli: Government and American Life (Baton Rouge, la: Louisiana State University Press. 1995). Ibid., viii. J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

174

Chapter 7

triumph of virtú over fortuna, an application found in Wishy’s book, which is unexceptionable except for this omission and its gratuitous title. Then there is The Princely Press: Machiavelli on American Journalism by John Merrill, which offers a critique of contemporary American media.33 It does so in the form of an interview with Machiavelli who, like many a well-paid consultant, agrees with his employer, author Merrill, about the perilous state of the free press. Earlier in Chapter 2 we noted that in nineteenth-century France, Maurice Joly had high hopes for a free press in his dialogue between M ­ achiavelli and Montesquieu. Merrill does a very good job of bringing M ­ achiavelli to life, but it is unclear quite why he chose Machiavelli to fill the role of interlocutor. More alarming is Merrill’s view that Machiavelli could give lessons on selfishness to Ayn Rand, something of an astonishing claim.34 Surely no one could or would dare try to give Rand a lesson on selfishness. Furthermore, any claim that Machiavelli endorses selfishness and greed is unfounded. Last in this review of the uses of Machiavelli’s name is what appears to be have started as an undergraduate thesis entitled Machiavelli Meets Mayor ­Quimby: Political Commentary in the First Season of The Simpsons. The only ­reference to Machiavelli in its sixty-nine pages is this: While the title of this thesis is Machiavelli Meets Mayor Quimby: An Analysis of the Political Commentary of The Simpsons 1989–1990 please note this title was selected because it symbolically encapsulates the scope of the paper with a representation of politics in the form of Machiavelli and a representation of politics within ‘The Simpsons’ in the form of its corrupt, Kennedy-accented Mayor Quimby, and not because it will provide a Machiavellian analysis of the content of the television program.35 In other words, the title is used to attract attention, not because it describes the content. Many of the analysts and authors whose works we reviewed in Chapters 3 and 4 on management referred to Machiavelli and power.36 There are others 33 34 35 36

John Merrill, The Princely Press: Machiavelli on American Journalism (Lanham: University Press of America. 1998). Ibid., 62. Nathan Thoms, Machiavelli Meets Mayor Quimby: Political Commentary in the First Season of The Simpsons (Raleigh, nc: Lulu.com, 2006), 3. Instances include Richard Buskirk, Modern Management & Machiavelli: The Executive’s Guide to the Psychology and Politics of Power (New York City: New American Library, 1974); Gerald R. Griffin, Machiavelli on Management: Playing and Winning the Corporate Power Game (New York City: Prager, 1991); Ken Simmonds, ‘Corporate Governance: Real Power,

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

175

who also refer to power and Machiavelli together but without detail.37 While most of these references are transitory, some writers have troubled to go into the matter more deeply. In 1998 Robert Greene produced The 48 Laws of Power, which bears this description: Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this piercing work distills three thousand years of the history of power into forty-eight well explicated laws. As attention-grabbing in its design as it is in its content, this bold volume outlines the laws of power in their unvarnished essence, synthesizing the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun-tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and other great thinkers.38 This book is in its third edition and has appeared in hardback, a full size paperback, and a pocket edition for ready reference. The cover of a recent printing of the paperback edition proclaims it to be a National Bestseller. We include it because, though Machiavelli does not figure in the title, he is a specter haunting its pages. He is indexed thirty-three times. How does that compare to other big names in power? Napoleon, conqueror of most of Europe, gets twenty mentions and his territorial twentieth-century counterpart, Adolf Hitler, a mere two. That oft cited and seldom read Chinese general Sun-Tzu gets ten references and Carl von Clausewitz but four. J. Edgar Hoover gets but one. Then

37

38

Cecil King and Machiavelli,’ Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, edited by Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees (London: Routledge, 2000), 122–135; Ian Demack, The Modern Machiavelli: The Seven Principles of Power in Business (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2002); John Dryden, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: The Patron Saint of Power,’ Business: The Ultimate Resource, edited by Warren Bennis et al., (Cambridge, ma: Perseus, 2002), 1016–1017; and Dwayne Winseck, ‘Netscapes of Power: Convergence, Consolidation and Power in the Canadian Mediascape,’ Media Culture Society, 24(2002)6, 795–819. Though this latter entry does not take Machiavelli’s name in the title, it is freely used as an adjective to describe the media in the text. Troy Bruner and Philip Eager, Modern Machiavelli: 13 Laws of Power, Persuasion and Integrity (No city stated: Changemakers Books, 2017) and Agent Dmitri Ignaschewitsch, The Law of Power (Machiavelli of the New Age): How to Gain and Maintain It (Independently Published, available from Amazon usa, 2017). This latter work is part of series that includes titles about Online Dating, Relationships, Networking, and one’s Ex. These titles bring to mind Nick Casanova of whom we will see more in Chapter 9. Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power (New York City: Penguin, 2000[1998]). That description comes from the back cover, a good place to judge a book, contrary to the old saying. Greene gives no pages or chapters. His bibliography lists the one-volume Modern Library edition of The Prince and The Discourses in its 1940 printing.

176

Chapter 7

there are the omissions. We found no entry for Thomas Hobbes, who some say advocated, nay celebrated, absolute power. This book is designed for browsing and entertainment, says Greene.39 From Green’s collection of 48 laws we offer a few that echo Machiavelli to indicate their character. • • • • • • •

Law 1 Never outshine the master. Law 2 Never put too much trust in friends; learn how to use enemies. Law 3 Conceal your intentions. Law 4 Always say less than necessary. Law 5 So much depends on reputation. Guard it with your life. Law 6 Court attention at all costs. Law 7 Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit.

Going over the forty-eight laws, we found Niccolò mentioned in association with fourteen of them. That is more than any other figure named in the book and thus explains why it warrants attention here. Nearly all of the references to Machiavelli are to The Prince. The exception is a letter. We could not trace any of the quotations to the Discourses. Like many others, for Greene ­Machiavelli is a one-book author. While much of Greene’s discussion is measured and makes sense, it does no service to Machiavelli who is called as an expert witness and limited to answering the questions Greene puts to him. Any hedging, any qualification, any context that Machiavelli might have, say in the Discourses, is ignored. This cross examination begins on the opening page with this observation: ‘as the great Renaissance diplomat and courtier Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, “any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.”’40 Greene seems to believe that M ­ achiavelli served at the court of a noble or royal personage, thus describing him as courtier. As we have pointed out more than once, he did not. A casual reader, nevertheless, might conclude that he did from the way in which it is said. The Preface concludes by quoting the same passage again. If it is worth quoting, it is worth quoting twice in quick succession. Thereafter Machiavelli is obliged to answer when Greene demands. Consider a few examples. At Law 11, ‘Learn to keep people dependent on you,’ Machiavelli is quoted to the effect that a wise prince will keep people dependent on him.41 This law also occasions a ­reference to one of the hoariest chestnuts in the Machiavelli basket, namely that it is better 39 40 41

Ibid., xxiii. Ibid., xvii. Ibid., 85.

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

177

to be feared than loved.42 As usual, Machiavelli’s conclusion is quoted but not the reasoning that led him to it, its Ciceronian resonance, or the qualifications he himself put on that conclusion. In the handbook market, things are best kept simple.43 Law 24 is ‘Play the perfect courtier.’ Quoting Machiavelli, Greene makes the point that we can learn from the past and that those who dismiss lessons from the past reason ‘as though heaven, the sun, the elements, and men had changed the order of their motions and power, and were different from what they were in ancient times.’44 Why does Greene quote Machiavelli for this exercise and not Hitler, Goebbels, Mao, or a host of other possibilities that come and go in his book without the persistence of Machiavelli? This is the same question we have asked of the other authors in other genres that we have reviewed. Machiavelli’s study of Cesare Borgia is noted along the way and emphasized in Law 26, ‘Keep your hands clean,’ where Greene writes that ‘Cesare Borgia was a master player in the game of power.’45 Always planning several moves ahead, he set his opponents the cleverest traps. For this ‘Machiavelli honored him above all others in The Prince.’46 Honored? This is a most unusual reading of Machiavelli, especially as Cesare never seemed bothered about clean or dirty hands. Greene’s tone and temper are refined compared to the clumsy efforts of Stanley Bing, but these authors are alike in making repeated references to power without pausing to define the term.47 We have no such reticence: power is the capacity get others to do as one wants them to do, leading to consequences one prefers. Others are more likely to do these things if we try to influence them than if we do not. The capacity to do so includes words and deeds. This is the atomistic definition used in most social science. One can lead others to do things that are benefits to third parties, that are good for the doers, that are 42 43

44

45 46 47

Ibid., 87. For keeping it simple nothing can beat David Bader’s summary of The Prince in One Hundred Great Books in Haiku (New York City: Penguin, 2010), 15: What I learned at court: Being more feared than loved – good. Getting poisoned – bad. Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power (New York City: Penguin, 2000[1998]). That description comes from the back cover, a good place to judge a book, contrary to the old saying. Greene gives no pages or chapters. His bibliography lists the one-volume Modern Library edition of The Prince and The Discourses in its 1940 printing. Ibid., 109. Ibid., 202. See Peter Belmi and Kristin Laurin, ‘Who Wants to Get to the Top? Class and Lay Theories about Power,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111(2016)4, 505–529.

178

Chapter 7

ills to third parties, and the like. The definition is neutral. The use of power is not necessarily aimed at acquiring money or material wealth for the user, outside Bing’s tiny world. Nor does wealth always endow one with the capacity to affect others. Many wealthy individuals make no effort to influence others. The phenomenally wealthy Howard Hughes was a recluse who had no interest in anyone else. Others of wealth do try to influence the wide world, and then complain about the little effect their efforts have. The examples include George Soros. Only in the pages of an airport book is the world so simple that wealth equals power equals wealth. Greene’s is one volume in a series called, ‘Amoral, be ruthless. Reign ­supreme,’ as it is styled on the inside back cover of The 48 Laws of Power. There is also a video on YouTube.48 The companion volumes are The Art of Seduction, The 33 Strategies of War, and Mastery.49

Machiavelli and Women

Greene touches on the subject of women but there are more extensive attempts to link Machiavelli and women. A delightful subject, we imagine Niccolò would say, for he certainly loved women, but more doubtful would be his delight at the connections attempted by researchers. In one study of women and power in the Public Administration Review, Machiavelli is mentioned only in the title.50 Once again an author has exploited Machiavelli’s name to stand for a particular kind of politics – and perhaps to attract attention. As to power styles, one empirical study is cited, that of Dorothea Braginsky using a sample of ninety-six fifth graders, half of them boys and half girls. The boys scored higher on Mach iv than the girls.51 From this finding, Karen van Wagner and Cheryl Swanson offer the opinion that women and men differ in expressions of power.52 It is not so simple; Lucrezia Borgia was with Cesare all the way and may have been ahead of him at times. A great many other studies with the Mach iv and v scales put paid to such simple conclusions, both after Braginsky and before the publication of the Wagner and Swanson article. They do 48 Accessed on 1 June 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_USBCFQzXM. 49 Greene, The Art of Seduction (New York City: Penguin 2003); The 33 Strategies of War (New York City: Penguin, 2006); and Mastery (New York City: Penguin, 2014). 50 Karen van Wagner and Cheryl Swanson, ‘From Machiavelli to Ms: Differences in MaleFemale Power Styles,’ Public Administration Review, 39 (1979) 1, 66–72. 51 Dorothea Braginsky, ‘Machiavellianism and Manipulative Interpersonal Behavior in Children,’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6 (1970) 1, 77–99. 52 Wagner and Swanson, ‘From Machiavelli to Ms.’, 70.

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

179

not confirm Braginsky’s conclusions.53 There followed others which could not find it either.54 Some studies do find a sex difference, but it is not found time after time by different researchers.55 Sometimes it is found, sometimes it is not found. A conclusion in the pages of the prestigious journal par based on one study invites doubt. But women have had the last word. Harriet Rubin’s The Princessa: Machiavelli for Women purports to be the work of Machiavella. It mimics the layout and style of The Prince and offers advice on how a woman can become powerful without becoming a man.56 She [be it Rubin or Machiavella] urges her acolytes to be honest, truthful, courageous, and feminine, assuring them that they can do it and have it all. It reads like an update of Aimee Buchanan’s 1942 advice to women noted in Chapter 3. She cites Hillary Clinton more than once as an example of what not to do. Her main theme is the use of one’s own abilities and making the strengths of one’s rivals into assets. The examples of how to do the latter are not iron-clad. For example, to moderate a powerful person in a meeting, sit next to ‘him’ (the powerful person is always a ‘him’ in this book). She claims this will throw ‘him’ off his game.57 Despite its title, Jolene Koester’s 1982 article ‘The Machiavellian Princess: rhetorical dramas for women managers’ makes no mention of Machiavelli.58 The approach of Princessa was prefigured by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in Benigna Machiavelli in 1914.59 This short novella tells of the eponymous character maneuvering and manipulating her way through and out of the restricted world available to women at the time. When her school is short of supplies she 53

54

55 56 57 58 59

Jerome Singer, ‘The Use of Manipulative Strategies: Machiavellianism and Attractiveness,’ Sociometry, 27 (1964) 2, 128–150 and C.F. Turner and D.C. Martinez, ‘Socioeconomic Achievement and Machiavellian Personality,’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 40(1977) 4, 325–336. Marvin Okanes and William Murray, ‘Manipulative Tendencies and Social Insight in a Hospital Setting,’ Psychological Reports, 47(1980), 991–994 and Florence Geis and Tae Moon, ‘Machiavellianism and Deception,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1981) 4, 766–775. Gerald Porter, Moral Judgment and the Conceptualization of Justice (Albany, State University of New York, PhD dissertation, 1990). Harriet Rubin, The Princessa: Machiavelli for Women (London: Bloomsbury, 1997). See the spirited review of this book in Anne Fisher, ‘What Women Can Learn from ­Machiavelli,’ Fortune 137 (1997) 7, 162. Jolene Koester, ‘The Machiavellian Princess: Rhetorical Dramas for Women Managers,’ Communication Quarterly, 30(1982) 3, 165–172. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Benigna Machiavelli (Santa Barbara, ca: Bandana Books, 1994 [1914]).

180

Chapter 7

gets them by hook and crook. She saves her sister from seduction, and deals with her abusive father. All that is just the beginning. It is all carried off with understated wit and panache. Books by men on power relations between the sexes contrast badly with these two vigorous books by women. Reluctantly, we start with Thomas ­Lundmark’s Niccolò Machiavelli: The Return of the Prince (Il ritorno dei Principe), dedicated to W. Clinton.60 We assume this Clinton is the one-time President. In a little over one hundred pages this monograph airs a host of misogynist grievances and offers remedies of the same kind. It is couched as a second volume by ­Machiavelli written the year after The Prince. The editor, Lundmark, claims only to have modernized the spelling and some of the references (some of which are certainly very shrewd). Less pleasing is the content of the book. The back cover declares that, ‘God created woman for man’s pleasure, so man should enjoy her. If she no longer pleases him, he should discard her.’ It refers to striking women down, and commanding them: we probably do not need to go on. Comic relief to the misogynist aggression of Lundmark is Nick Casanova’s The Machiavellian’s Guide to Womanizing. In the foreword, Casanova mentions Machiavelli, and that is the last mention in the 150 pages of the book. In the sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book, The Prince, about how to gain and keep political power through devious means. He has since received more than his fair share of vilification. In the popular mind, Machiavelli’s name has become synonymous with duplicity and evil. Whether this is justified is debatable. What is beyond debate is that those who have followed his teachings in the intervening centuries have met with great success. Had Machiavelli focused his energies on womanizing, this is the book he would have written.61 Had Casanova stopped at ‘more than his fair share of vilification!’ he would have made sense. Regrettably he did not. He soon abandons Machiavelli but remains long enough, like Lundmark, to blame it all on Niccolò. The first short chapters begin with an aphorism from Machiavelli, but even that ends on page eleven. The book offers advice on how to meet women (go to places where they are – video stores, supermarkets, art galleries, jogging paths), and what 60 61

Thomas Lundmark, Niccolò Machiavelli: The Return of the Prince (Il ritorno dei Principe) (Munster, Germany: Lit Verlag, 1998). Nick Casanova, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Womanizing (New York City: Castle Books, 1995), xiii. For a more serious take, see Haig Patapan, Machiavelli in Love: The Modern Politics of Love and Fear (Lanham, md: Lexington, 2006) but it nonetheless supposes Machiavelli applies to the manners and mores of today.

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

181

to say (start with hello). It does not treat rape as a joke, though it does slightly equivocate on whether ‘No’ means ‘Try harder’ or ‘No.’ Whatever else we may say about Casanova, we salute his industry for, as we shall show in Chapter 9, he has a string of Machiavellian guides to his credit. With Casanova in mind, note that social psychologists have unintentionally tested some of his advice. ‘In a large naturalistic field-study, 59 men romantically advanced 1395 women on the street’ in Berlin to see how the women reacted. Intriguing, as that summary is, in the text it is put more prosaically with assurances that all ethical protocols were strictly observed.62 Then there is Sheila Marsh’s The Feminine in Management Consulting, which mentions Machiavelli as an advisor and consultant.63 She notes that consulting and advising have a history that is ignored, and names Plato and Machiavelli as consultants avant le mot. The few references to Machiavelli in this book seem to be exclusively from The Prince. Accordingly she writes, ‘Machiavelli is ­concerned entirely with the leader staying in power. But even  ­Machiavelli  is  concerned with social stability and the common good, holding strong personal views on the desirability of republicanism.’64 ‘Even?’ She ignores the Discourses and its discussion of republics, and thus does not appreciate that Machiavelli is not ‘concerned entirely with the leader staying power.’ In some ways though, that is beside the larger point that both books have stability as a goal. With foreign armies on the march, stability was not something Machiavelli could take for granted. Michael Korda’s Power! How to Get It, How to Use It, claims on the front cover to be ‘the bestselling manual of corporate warfare…’ Machiavelli’s appearance in these pages is brief. Well into the book Korda urges his readers to ‘fear everything and everybody.’65 This quotation from chapter xix of The Prince was often set reading in many an undergraduate education in the United States, which may explain the frequency of its mention. Korda has a distorted text, which reads, ‘a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody.’ As Cicero said, only princes hated by their subjects should, reasonably enough, fear conspiracies, but those qualifications would not suit Korda.66 62

John Rauthmann, Marlit Kappes, and Johannes Lanzinger, ‘Shrouded in the Veil of Darkness: Machiavellians but not Narcissists and Psychopaths Profit from Darker Weather in Courtship,’ Personality and Individual Differences 67(2014), 57–63. 63 Sheila Marsh, The Feminine in Management Consulting (London: Palgrave, 2009), 7. 64 Ibid., 65. 65 Michael Korda, Power! How to Get It, How to Use It (New York City: Ballantine, 1975), 107. 66 Cicero, De officiis, Book. ii, vii, 24.

182

Chapter 7

Machiavelli never goes out of date, it seems, for much more recently Jeffrey Pfeffer published Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t. Pfeffer refers to the Machiavellian adage that while it is desirable to be both loved and feared, fear is best to keep power.67 Of course, Niccolò thought love and fear could be combined, and he did not give fear the absolute preference contextless that Pfeffer does. Pfeffer adorns this claim with scientific evidence by citing one study that shows negative evaluations are taken more seriously than positive ones by subjects. ‘According to Pfeffer, we need to stop seeing the world as a just and fair place, and actively develop those qualities needed to achieve power,’ said David Siegried in Booklist, and that seems – dare we say it – a just and fair summary.68 The back cover of Michael Shea’s Influence: How to Make the System Work for You; A Handbook for the Modern Machiavelli declares this is The ultimate guide book on how to influence your boss to make decisions in your favour. Starting from the recommendation to work out the company’s informal system (ie the way it really works), Michael Shea divulges the secret skills of influence, here defined as ‘the capability to change the minds or decisions of others without having the final authority, so to do.’ The techniques he presents include creating a cause, creating a conflict, the mother-in-law factor, committeemanship, out of ­committeemanship,  the use of facts, hype, the adoption of options, the three options approach and playing on stress. Michael Shea ­illustrates them from his own experience in business, in politics and in dealing with the media.69 While still on the back cover, we note that the heading there is ‘Power is never what it seems.’ While this is not the ultimate guide, since there have been many others since 1988, let us turn to Machiavelli’s presence in this text. The index has thirty-eight entries against his name. No other individual has more than three. That concentration on Machiavelli affirms his place in the subtitle, as does the author’s comments in the preface, where he writes, ‘The Prince, along with his [­Machiavelli’s] other writings, is not a blueprint for this book, but has had a 67 68 69

Jeffrey Pfeffer, Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t (New York City: HarperBusiness, 2010), 87. Quoted on the back cover of ibid. Michael Shea, Influence: How To Make the System Work for You; A Handbook for the Modern Machiavellian (London: Century, 1988).

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

183

seminal influence on it. Apart from when in pursuit of some obscure ­quotation, I have used no other books or references.’70 Shea’s comments on Machiavelli in this half page preface are sensible and suggest that Machiavelli’s chief ­interest was in stable and secure government, a sound conclusion. However, nowhere in the remaining pages of the book is Machiavelli discussed. Rather the a­ pproach is the Machiavelli myth supermarket for quotations. Aphorisms are quoted in various chapters amounting to those thirty-eight references. Some come from The Prince and others from the Discourses, and others bear no attribution. They include the usual epigrammatic remarks about fear, alliances, and fortune. Written in England at the zenith of Margaret Thatcher’s administration, the book breathlessly reveals how to win at negotiation (conceal one’s goal), manipulate committees (feed information in by increments), and dominate others (ridicule and sexism are commended). Of course ­Machiavellianism as a thoughtless idiom for political chicanery has expanded into new domains since the twentieth century and, as we have seen, Machiavelli’s name has become a myth for the dark side of politics. To associate him with cheap conduct and sexism adds an undeserved hue to his already stained reputation. He has, it seems, become a secular surrogate for another myth, the devil. A primer for aspiring little devils is Claudia Hart’s A Child’s Machiavelli: A Primer on Power, which describes itself as: Darkly comic Enticingly designed Primer for survival Sweetly pastel images Tongue-in-cheek Savage Mischievous format Ruthlessly instructive Schoolyard language A gift book.71 The book has both French and German translations.72 It is a pink ‘children’s’ book that, in Jonathan Swift’s manner, recommends theft and murder. The 70 71 72

Ibid., ix. Claudia Hart, A Child’s Machiavelli : A Primer on Power (New York City: Penguin Studio, 1998). For more detail see the website accessed on 6 May 2017 at http://www.claudiahart.com/ portfolio/machiavelli.html.

184

Chapter 7

book speaks for itself: ‘if you want to take over some place don’t forget to kill not just the boss but also all his kids!’73 Turn the page, and the advice is, ­‘either be really nice to people or kill ’em. If you don’t kill ’em and you’re not so nice, then they’re gonna come after you.’ The text goes on in this allegedly darkly comic vein, referring to beating up people and getting on top of others. Then at page twenty, Hart writes, ‘a gun is man’s best friend.’ Images rise up of ­Charlton Heston’s smiling NRA presidential face. A few pages later, it reads ‘if you wanna give presents to people make sure it is other people’s stuff.’ That is called stealing in most schoolyards. Hart writes, ‘people who cheat are always more successful than people who are honest at about page thirty. The book rates well with reviewers on Amazon for its subtlety and insight – ‘a truly inspired work of genius.’ – but none of them say what needs to be said. There is NO ­Machiavelli for children. Altogether different is a charming little picture book featuring cute kids with no discernable connection to Machiavelli, but the title is Christopher Land’s Machiavelli for Babies.74 Before we leave the playground, one other voice answered the roll call. ­Michael Scott has written a series of books on sorcery for adolescents called ‘The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel.’75 Niccolò Machiavelli features as a villainous immortal. He is made to say he was at Stalingrad on the German side. He is depicted as head of the French secret service, wearing fine Italian suits, and riding around in a Lancia doing evil in the best tradition of a mafia prince. He is nonetheless personable, even likeable. Scott also has it that Niccolò Machiavelli had always been a careful man. He had survived and even thrived in the dangerous and deadly Medici court in Florence in the fifteenth century, a time when intrigue was a way of life and violent death and assassination was commonplace.76 It is tiresome to repeat that Niccolò was never a courtier, though by repetition he seems to be morphing into one. Dav Pilkey’s Capitaine Bobette et la machination machiavélique du professeur K.K. Prout, a Canadian children’s book ­featuring an underpants clad superhero, is sheer fun.77 We also note an article 73 74 75

76 77

Note that the pages in this book have no number so we numbered them. Christopher Land, Machiavelli for Babies (No City Given: Shaka Shaka Publishing, 2015). Michael Scott, The Magician, The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (New York City: Delacorte Books for Young Readers, 2009). The historical Nicholas Flamel (1330–1418) had a considerable reputation as an alchemist. Ibid., 279. Dav Pilkey, Capitaine Bobette et la machination machiavélique du professeur K.K. Prout (Markkam, Ontario: Scholastic, 2001).

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

185

in the Journal of Play by David Lancy and Annette Grove called ‘Marbles and Machiavelli.’ about children’s games, which refers to Mach iv studies.78 Suzanne Evans’s book for parents, Machiavelli for Moms: Maxims on the ­Effective Governance of Children, Because Sometimes Ends Do Justify Means, is a ­pastiche on The Prince, which stretches a very long bow in comparing brats to Borgias. But Evans knows her Machiavelli and, unlike most of those who pillage The Prince for dramatic maxims, she treats the text with respect. She writes, for example, that Machiavelli may not have written the infamous phrase often associated with him: ‘the ends justify the means.’ She added that his goal was not to acquire power for its own sake, but to use it as a tool for securing the safety and stability of the state. What he really says is subtler: that others will ultimately judge actions by results.79 While the question is, as always, why the publisher, marketers, and all the other people involved in bringing this book before the reading public thought using Machiavelli’s name enhanced it, we are left in no doubt about the reasons of the author. She tells us that, at her wit’s end coping with four young children and academic duties, she took refuge in her study and came across an old copy of The Prince. Hence, while her publishing team might have domesticated Machiavelli, making him harmless for the family, Evans treats him as an inspiration. This is a book, which despite its translation into other languages, is about American parenting, a parent’s discovery of the importance of imposing boundaries upon the demands of children rather than indulging them. It is more about authority than power, but it is about power, too. The irony of such domestications is their stark contrast with the dangerous uses of The Prince, claimed by those who link it causally to the worst crimes of the past two centuries or the bloody era in which he himself lived. Among those who now invoke Machiavelli’s patronage are lobbyists. Most noteworthy is Rinus van Schendelen, author of Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the eu, superseded by a second edition, More Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the eu.80 On the back cover, the title is justified in these words: 78 79

80

David Lancy and Annette Grove, ‘Marbles and Machiavelli: The Role of Game Play in Children’s Social Development,’ Journal of Play, iii(2011)4, 489–499. Suzanne Evans, Machiavelli for Moms: Maxims on the Effective Governance of Children, Because Sometimes Ends Do Justify Means (New York City: Touchstone, 2013), 12. Cf. Suzanne Evans, ‘How Machiavelli Saved My Family,’ Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2013, accessed 15 April 2016 at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873236466045784008040350 71688. Rinus van Schendelen, More Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the eu. Revised edition (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010).

186

Chapter 7

Niccolò Machiavelli is a model for both sciences [public administration and political science]. He was the early modern scientist in his field, and was focused on the two questions of how influence is really exerted and how it can be made more effective. His answer to the second question is, in short: by intelligent and prudent behavior. With those fifty-two words Machiavelli is placed in the title. Machiavelli is mentioned in passing nine times. The following instance is representative of the other eight: ‘In his Il Principe, Machiavelli gives both free advice to his ruler, Lorenzo dei Medici, on how to survive politically and, more implicitly, a code of conduct to his fellow citizens on how to approach Lorenzo successfully.’81 Most of the other eight mentions are less substantial, say where his name is included in a list of Renaissance thinkers. V.S.M.D. Guinzbourg’s The Eternal Machiavelli in the United Nations World: A Treatise on Diplomacy is a privately published collection of typescript copies of correspondence, not a treatise.82 The letters are about international affairs, the United Nations, and much else. The introduction neither explains nor justifies the volume. The book is dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the birth of ­Niccolò Machiavelli. Yet is only in the Preface to Part ii we read: The author feels justified in having given to this book on modern diplomacy the title, ‘The Eternal Machiavelli.’ The clear-sighted presentation of axioms of diplomacy by this 15th Century commentator, and the basic motivation of leaders and people of all ages as exemplified by him, remain, as they must, the only effective guidelines for the study of the contemporary scene as well.83 There follows hundreds of pages of letters un diplomats sent to Guinzbourg. It seems the first half consists of copies of his letters to these diplomats and the second half is what they sent in reply. What is the point? None emerges. It is an oddity among oddities. Combining discussions of marketing with lobbying, Phil Harris has offered the reading public many publications on Machiavelli. Each of Harris’ publications starts with some reference to Machiavelli and then discusses the particulars of a lobbying case study. The industry and efficiency with which 81 82 83

Ibid., 150. Victor S.M.D. Guinzbourg, The Eternal Machiavelli in the United Nations World: A Treatise on Diplomacy (Published privately in typescript, 1969). Ibid., 487.

The Perennial Pairing: Machiavelli and Power

187

these papers have appeared over the years is impressive. To read them as a set is to notice the wide dissemination. The full references can be found in the bibliography. Harris, P. and A. Lock (1996). ‘Machiavellian Marketing: The Development of Corporate Lobbying in the uk.’ Journal of Marketing Management Harris, P., D. Moss, et al. (1999). ‘Machiavelli’s Legacy to Public Affairs: a Modern Tale of Servants and Princes in uk Organisations.’ Journal of Communication Management Harris, P. (2001). ‘Machiavelli, Political Marketing and Reinventing Government.’ European Journal of Marketing Harris, P. (2007). ‘Machiavelli, Marketing and Management: Ends and Means in Public Affairs.’ Journal of Public Affairs Harris, P., C. McGrath, et al. (2009). Machiavellian Marketing: Justifying Ends and Means in Modern Politics. Routledge Handbook of Political Management. Harris, P. (2010). Political Marketing. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Harris does not turn Machiavelli into a one-dimensional character. In fact, he defends Machiavelli from the caricatures of many of the works we have reviewed here, however, he does not explain what Machiavelli has to do with his own work. That is broken-backed: there is Machiavelli, and then there is marketing or lobbying without any explicit and articulated connection between the two, that is, apart from the author’s assertion that they are connected. Then there is the collection of papers published under the title Machiavelli, Marketing and Management.84 In it, and no doubt thinking about James Carville, George Stephanopoulos, and Dick Morris, all noted campaign managers, Dominic Wring wrote of ‘Machiavellian communication: the role of spin doctors and image makers in early and late twentieth-century British politics.’85 Finally, Harris also features Machiavelli on his website.86 While not contributing to the Machiavelli myth, these works travel with it. 84 85

86

Harris, Andrew Lock, and Patricia Rees, eds., Machiavelli, Marketing and Management (London: Routledge, 2000). Dominic Wring, ‘Machiavellian Communication: The Role of Spin Doctors and Image Makers in Early and Late Twentieth-Century British Politics,’ Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, edited by Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees (London: Routledge, 2000): 82–92. Accessed 2 June 2017 (http://www.phil-harris.com/?category_name=machiavelli).

188

Chapter 7

In sum, in this chapter we have gathered together a range of material that brings Machiavelli into discussions of power. Some discuss power in the abstract, like Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, and others focus on the specifics of the relations between men and women, among children, or between parents and children. Many of these works are popular, commonly claiming to be national best sellers, and well beyond the pale of political science, for example, lobbying, marketing, and parenting. The frequency with which Machiavelli is drawn into these works is testament to the vitality of the myth. Indeed, at times authors just say the magic word, ‘Machiavelli’ like an incantation, and go no further. In the course of putting Machiavelli to work on the topic of power, these authors concentrate largely on The Prince. They take Machiavelli’s conclusions out of his text, where the discussion is often qualified and finely judged. Likewise his judgments, so carefully construed in the lawless Italian badlands of the sixteenth century, are stripped of context, and broadcast as maxims for all times and places, even the kindergarten playground. This double deracination from his texts and from his era is what we had in mind much earlier when we used that neologism ‘contextomy’ in the Introduction. At times in these tomes reasonable arguments and suggestions are wrapped in Machiavelli’s myth for no reason. The only conclusion we can draw is that attaching his name to something routine and even banal, like a case study, provokes curiosity and makes a work stand out on the shelf. Whatever else it does, such labeling seldom takes Machiavelli seriously and, worse, it perpetuates the mythical Machiavel.

Chapter 8

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War In Chapter vii of The Prince, Machiavelli analyzed the achievements of C ­ esare Borgia, whom he regarded as strategic, decisive, bold, discreet – and lucky. He was a man who could manipulate others, whose political acumen encompassed the skillful use of violence. He was pitiless, but not gratuitously cruel. He was a model for a ruler in difficult times, a new ruler, one who has not previously possessed a state, or one who is making a new state, as Borgia attempted to do in the Romagna. Machiavelli wrote of him in Chapter vii as a model: ‘I would not know what better precepts to give to a new prince than the example of his actions.’ Machiavelli ended the account of this ruthless and ambitious man, who at times threatened Florence, with this accolade: ‘Thus, having summarized all of the actions of the duke, I would not know how to reproach him. On the contrary, I would like to put him forward … as one to be imitated by all those who have risen to rule.’ These passages have led many observers to believe that Machiavelli modeled some or all of The Prince on Cesare Borgia.1 Some, like the New York Times cruciverbalist, state it as a fact that would be obvious to a seasoned crossword solver. Others, however, place great significance upon it, as we have already seen in the fields of management, primate studies, and social psychology. Moreover, according to this enthymeme, it is the final proof of Machiavelli’s ex-communication from decent society: All Borgias are evil Machiavelli associated with a Borgia Ergo Machiavelli is evil This association usually takes a truncated form that links Machiavelli to ­Cesare’s guilt, mostly by people with no historical safety belt to stop them leaping to conclusions. Machiavelli’s message in Chapter vii is that this dangerous man was, for all his unpleasant features, able to succeed where others failed because he knew how intelligently to use the means he had to achieve realistic ends. The contrast is not with leaders who are not cruel and violent but with those who are imprudent, careless, and place trust where it ought not to be;

1 Such a belief has found its way into the popular culture as evidenced by Paula Gamache’s New York Times daily crossword for 20 February 2010.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_010

190

Chapter 8

and with those who do not know how to secure themselves or their state by commanding an army. At the beginning of Chapter xiv of The Prince, Machiavelli writes, ‘a prince must have no other object or thought, nor take anything for his art save warfare and its institutions and training.’ As we remarked in Chapter 2, this declaration is often presented without Machiavelli’s qualification. What he meant was that proper preparations to fight a war are necessary to secure peace. This is but one aspect of a prince’s preparation. Cutting away Machiavelli’s flourishes, a close reading is necessary. It is clear from the discussion of Borgia that laying good foundations for rule is the very thing that recommended him to Machiavelli, not battlefield prowess alone. Thus did Borgia secure the Romagna. In discussing fortresses in Chapter xx, Machiavelli wrote, ‘the best fortress there is is not to be hated by the people.’ These passages are seldom read carefully by the authors we survey in this book. How are Machiavelli’s reflections on leadership and strategy understood in modern readings? In the 1920s Italian communist Antonio Gramsci thought the age of he­ roic leadership had passed to political parties in The Modern Prince, but time has proved him wrong.2 Leadership is much in vogue these days, and many people boast it as a job description, a key performance indicator, an essential criterion of appointment, a self-management goal, and more. The organizational charts for many companies, universities, and associations now have a leadership team, not a management team, at the top. Yet management is different from leadership. While largely responsible for attaching Machiavelli to management, Antony Jay’s fame rests substantially on his half of the authorship of a series on leadership: Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, written for television, then later adapted for print and stage. Although reviewers were quick to see a Machiavellian hand in Sir Humphrey Appleby’s wily manipulations, we have not found any mention of Niccolò Machiavelli in Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister. Management is about the organization and delivery of resources, whereas leadership is about deciding what to do and how to do it.3 Making that decision about ends rests in part on management capability but it is also differs from it. Of course, the same person may perform both roles, for what we distinguish is the actions, not the positions of the persons performing them. Many people resist this distinction, but it is important. Managers reading spreadsheets sometimes think that is a leadership activity, and leaders spouting off about impossible goals seem to think management just happens. 2 Antonio Gramsci, The Modern Prince (London: International, 1957 (1924)). 3 One of the best expositions of this distinction remains John Kotter, Force For Change: How Leadership Differs from Management (New York City: Free Press, 1990).

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

191

Consider that the manager plans and husbands resources, while the leader sets goals and motivates action using those resources. The former seeks order and routine, but the latter promotes change or redoubled effort. The leader deals in strategy, and the manager in tactics. Both are important, while different from one another. As for the term ‘strategy,’ so often pinned to Machiavelli’s lapels as a badge of honor, as we found in the discussion of management above, we need to make another distinction.4 The word ‘strategy’ is routinely misused to mean tactics. Thus we notice people almost never use the word ‘tactics’ but refer to the s­ implest, short-term move as strategy. Strategy is the big, bigger, and biggest picture. It is forward-looking, over the horizon. It is about ends, whereas tactics concerns means to those ends. Machiavelli was by no means as exclusively occupied with strategy as those who trade on his name seem to imply. He knew full well that grand designs are implemented by those with their feet on the ground, and there is much about tactics in The Prince, the Discourses, and The Art of War. Our survey of Machiavelli on leadership starts near to home with The Prefect, a short satire on the administration of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser – the prefect in question – by Steve Crabb, sometime Victorian Government minister.5 Malcolm Fraser was the object of savage criticism in Australia following the dismissal of the government of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. In this cause, Crabb cites Nick Machiavelli as his co-author because material from The Prince is juxtaposed with quotations from Fraser to the disadvantage of the latter. Again, this is a case of the distortion of Machiavelli and The Prince, deployed as weapons of controversy. In turn, the association of those criticized with Machiavelli confirms and perpetuates his unsavoury myth. Alistair McAlpine, whom we have encountered in management territory, had an earlier book called The Servant. It is a spare 98 pages dedicated ‘to the most magnificent, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, Prime Minister of Great Britain 1979–1990, from one of her many servants, who believes she could have been better served.’ There is no doubt that Thatcher saw herself as a leader, not a manager. McAlpine notes, as so few do, that ‘The Prince governs for the benefit of the people. The Prince governs only for this reason.’6 In this spirit 4 He figures in and is given a fair treatment in J. Boone Bartholomes, ed., u.s. Army War College, Guide to National Security Issues, Volume i, Theory of War and Strategy, 4th ed. (Carlisle, pa: Strategic Studies Institute, 2o10.) 5 Steve Crabb, The Prefect (Camberwell, vic: Widescope, 1975). 6 Alistair McAlpine, The Servant (London: Faber and Faber, 1992), 2.

192

Chapter 8

he mentions Machiavelli half-a-dozen times in the book. In its one-eyed admiration for its subject, it compares to Jonathan Powell on Tony Blair in The New Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in the Modern World.7 If that is the case, then the old equation must apply: Machiavelli’s times are the same as ours. The author clearly has read Machiavelli but the purpose of the book is to exonerate Blair and blacken his rivals. Machiavelli even pops up in the study of public policy in Beryl Radin’s Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Alas, apart from the title, ­Machiavelli is mentioned only twice in the text regarding advisors.8 This book is indeed well beyond Machiavelli. Machiavelli is often mentioned in connection with political advisors, but to put his name in the title arouses the expectation of more than a mention.9 In an article that asserts that Machiavelli is not only one of the founders of modernity but also the source for the solutions to its problems, C.A. Easley and John Swain equate Machiavelli’s times with ours. In their words: This article lays out the argument that we may best cope with the unfolding of the future by learning from the past. Here, the past represented by Niccolo Machiavelli’s world and thoughts are juxtaposed with the questions and issues raised by postmodern organization theorists. ­Machiavelli’s thought contributed to the creation of the world that concerns post-modern theorists and us. Both Machiavelli and postmodern organization theorists address change and strategies for dealing with change, including looking to needs and emotions for working with individuals in change situations and the importance of widespread involvement in governance structures.10 ‘The unfolding of the future by learning from the past,’ might be poor strategy. The French Army certainly learned from the past when it built the Maginot Line only to discover that the past does not always predict the future. Such ruminations are in any case likely to be nothing more substantial than 7 8 9 10

Jonathan Powell, The New Machiavelli: How to Wield Power in The Modern World (London: Bodley Head, 2010). Beryl Radin, Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age (Washington, d.c.: Georgetown University Press, 2000), 12 and 144. An example is Dennis Thompson, ‘Ascribing Responsibility to Advisors in Government.’ Ethics 93 (1983) 3, 546–560. C.A. Easley and John Swain, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli: Moving through the Future as We Learn from the Past,’ International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 6 (2003) 1, 119.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

193

r­uminations. Reading the present into the past has a long and disreputable pedigree; reading the past into the future lacks even that. Saddling Machiavelli with founding modernity, as Easley and Swain do, is an accolade bestowed on him by all manner of writers, and each betrays a lack of historical perspective. Niccolò gets this crown despite his rejection of modernity as he experienced it when he thought cannons and fortifications were unmanly; when he turned to ­Ancient Roman myths for nearly all his examples of what to do with cannons and fortifications. At least Easley and Swain completely ignore Machiavelli’s reputation for evil. Jarle Brosveet’s ‘Translation Terrain and Pied Piper Detour: How Experts Eliminated a Norwegian Digital City Project’ alleges ‘nonexperts … [assumed the] dominating position in the Machiavellian tradition’ in the committee process and killed what the author thought was a good idea.11 In the context, the nefarious non-experts seemed to be the taxpayers who lacked the vision required to pay the bill for the vision. In ‘The Common Good as an Invisible Hand: Machiavelli’s Legacy to Public Management,’ Claude Rochet turns to Machiavelli, somewhat needlessly, to discuss the shortcomings of leadership in New Public Management. Even though he avoids the vulgarities of those who believe that Machiavelli advocated tyranny and modeled his prince entirely on Cesare Borgia, Rochet invokes Machiavelli’s notion of a republican leader (architect, law-giver and physician of the body politic) as relevant to leadership today. He wrote, ‘public management has been dominated by the quest for efficiency and has left us with fundamental ethical questions that remain unresolved.’ He seeks M ­ achiavelli’s help in solving them. As the lessons he draws are not unique to Machiavelli, and (pace Rochet) Machiavelli’s times are not our times, his introduction into the argument can only be to give it the authority, as Rochet believes, of ‘classical political philosophy.’12 Rochet goes on to refer to Machiavelli on the need to explore and test alternatives by argument and action. What we take from this admonition is that leadership is necessary as well as management.

11 12

Jarle Brosveet, ‘Translation Terrain and Pied Piper Detour: How Experts Eliminated a Norwegian Digital City Project,’ Science Technology Human Values 29(2004) 2, 215–216. Claude Rochet, ‘The Common Good as an Invisible Hand: Machiavelli’s Legacy to Public Management,’ International Review of Administrative Sciences 74(2008) 3, 497 and 514. The Machiavellian personality research has found its way into public administration, e.g., Z ­ eger Van Der Wal, ‘Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Differences between Work ­Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites,’ Public Administration Review 73(2013)5, 749–759.

194

Chapter 8

Why is Machiavelli being invoked as an authority by these authors when what is drawn from him is hardly distinctive or revelatory? What is attributed to him bears little resemblance to anything he wrote, but that seems to be beside the point: he is seen as a potent authority to sustain a range of assertions and intentions from criticism to advocacy for change. We searched for Machiavelli in the Journal of Leadership & Organization and the Leadership Quarterly along with other theorists who discussed leadership, i.e., Plato and Thomas Hobbes, and also Adolf Hitler. Plato conceived of ­all-knowing philosopher-rulers, while Hobbes was an advocate of strong central government and Hitler practiced a debased form of that. The result of the searches is set out in Table 4 below to make comparison easy.13 In these scholarly leadership journals, Hitler leads the way, followed by Plato and then Machiavelli, with Hobbes a distant fourth. It is heartening to see this recognition of Plato and Hobbes, because they seldom get a word in the popular references to leadership. We then turned to each article where Machiavelli’s name appeared. Most were mere references to The Prince and sometimes to the Discourses. Another distinct group concerned Mach iv and v personality scales reviewed in Chapter 5, and in this sub-set seldom was to be found a word about the man himself. However, some scholars did have things to say about Machiavelli that cannot be taken as read. Richard Barker wrote that ‘the feudal paradigm was best described by Machiavelli, who was the first to study the traits and behaviors of Table 4

References to Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Hitler in two research journals.

Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies since 1993 Leadership Quarterly since 1990 Total

13

Plato

Machiavelli

29

26

3

24

30

19

9

65

59

45

12

89

We last did this comparison on 6 June 2016.

Hobbes

Hitler

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

195

successful and unsuccessful leaders to derive a theory of effective leadership.’14 The theory placed a powerful male ruler at the top of a hierarchy. Barker praises Machiavelli for describing ‘the feudal paradigm.’ Machiavelli certainly does describe incidents, but the focus is always on dissecting events to find the underlying causes, that is, analysis. Even his recommendations are made in analytical contexts. No paradigm, feudal or otherwise is to be found. Then there is that word ‘feudal’, which refers to the medieval world so readily found in management writing. Medieval Europe was passing in Machiavelli’s day, and nowhere more quickly than in Florence. That is why this period is called the Renaissance – the rebirth of classical knowledge, with all that that entailed for longheld conventions. Cesare Borgia was certainly no medieval prince on his knees waiting patiently in the snow for God’s will to be done. Moreover, we fail to see what insight can be attributed to Machiavelli in his own time for saying strong men lead. It seems comparable to betting that the Pope is a Catholic. Nor was Machiavelli the first to consider leadership: Plato had written of philosopherrulers 2000 years earlier. Too much can be made out of passing references, but too little can be made of them also: they do indicate how casually Machiavelli is treated by writers unconcerned with historical accuracy or the potential of their observations to mislead. There is more of the same in Jack Burns’s article ‘A River Runs through It: A Metaphor for Teaching Leadership Theory.’ Machiavelli advised that the primary job of the prince was to first become and then remain the prince by whatever means it took to do so. It did not matter if the prince had to break the people’s silly ‘moral’ laws like murder or perjury.15 We know of no passage in any of Machiavelli’s works and letters to support the phrase, ‘silly “moral” laws.’ Burns does not cite a source for this remark. It may be supposed, though we are by no means sure, that Burns means the quotation marks about the word ‘moral’ to indicate Machiavelli’s degradation of morality. As we have said in passing above, an unbiased reader will find many moral judgments in The Prince, and many recommendations to accept and follow the moral law in that book and even more in the Discourses. That murder and

14 15

Richard A. Barker, ‘If a Leader’s Role is Not to Manage, then What is It?’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3(1996) 1, 38. John S. Burns, ‘A River Runs through It: A Metaphor for Teaching Leadership Theory,’ Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(2000)3, 46.

196

Chapter 8

perjury are put on the same level is also puzzling. Burns’s solecisms are not idiosyncratic but widespread. Ronald Deluga asserts that Machiavelli ‘advocated an extreme prescription for acquiring and maintaining power in socially competitive situations.’ Machiavelli’s recommendations ‘were based on expediency for personal gain. He endorsed manipulative, exploitative, and deceitful behavior.’ For M ­ achiavellians ‘the end justifies the means.’16 There are several points to be made about this passage. Machiavelli was no advocate of the practices he observed. But more importantly, whatever he said it was never aimed at personal gain for a prince, let alone for himself. To say otherwise is to have missed the purpose of The Prince, which is to establish and maintain a civic order in a chaotic world, building a stable realm where ordinary people could go about their business. Comments like Deluga’s also miss the additional point, found in the D ­ iscourses, about how to extend this order into a republic. The image of a greedy prince stuffing figs into his face while watching enslaved dancing girls is a Hollywood fantasy and very distracting, but it has nothing to do with Machiavelli. Nor does the work of authors content to base their judgments of Machiavelli on the word of other writers. Thus Joyce Thompson Heames and Michael Harvey say Machiavelli penned the first ‘how-to’ book for rulers, citing as authority John Swain but not Machiavelli himself.17 This secondary quotation is not a practice much recommended. Elsewhere John Barbuto and Jennifer Moss averred that Machiavellianism is the willingness to do what it takes to get what one wants. ‘Grounded in the principles of power and economic theory, Machiavelli described the political savvy leaders must demonstrate to maintain their standing and be effective.’18 What ‘economic theory’? The authors do not nominate one, much less mention a passage in Machiaveli to justify their claim. Machiavelli had no interest in anything that might possibly come with a definition of the word ‘economic’ with its supply and demand and has been criticized for ignoring issues of

16 17

18

Ronald J. Deluga, ‘American Presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for Charismatic Leadership and Rated Performance,’ Leadership Quarterly, 12 (2001) 3, 341. Joyce Thompson Heames and Michael Harvey, ‘The Evolution of the Concept of the “Executive” from the 20th Century Manager to the 21st Century Global Leader,’ Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2006) 2, 30. Cf. John Swain, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and Modern Public Administration,’ Handbook of Organization Theory and Management, edited by Thomas Lynch and Todd Dicker (New York City: Marcel Dekker, 1998), 282. John E. Barbuto and Jennifer Moss, ‘Dispositional Effects in Intra-Organizational Influence Tactics: A Meta-Analytic Review,’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2006) 1, 33.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

197

­production and consumption. This is the same Moss who has applied Mach iv to political leaders, and found it a hard fit.19 The most exciting article we found in the Journal of Leadership & O ­ rganization and the Leadership Quarterly was by Katrina Bedell, Samuel Hunter, Amanda Angie, and Andrew Vert with the title, ‘A Historiometric Examination of ­Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership,’ combining history and numbers with Machiavelli and leaders. This piece applies the Mach iv scale to more than one hundred historic leaders. The method is explained in detail in the article. The gist of it is that student panels scored leaders on various qualities based on reading biographies about them and the speeches they made. It called to mind articles where a dentist in 1999 offers a diagnosis of George Washington’s teeth based on Washington biographies – purely speculative. Even if we find this approach somewhat dubious, ­Machiavelli fares worse. The Mach scale is there to be used – a given – and used it is. The Machiavellian behavior of a panorama of historical figures from Lenin to Mother Teresa is adjudicated because ‘Machiavelli advocates a number of behaviors necessary for acquiring and maintaining power in socially competitive situations.’20 For the Machiavellian, they continued, the end justifies the means. Again, Machiavelli is said to be advocating, even though he does not say the ends justify each and every means, as other contributors to these journals know.21 The student ­panels compared biographies of historical figures to Mach iv items to assess Machiavellianism. It is an ingenious teaching technique whatever else it is. Allegedly in Mach iv ‘the items were developed to be theoretically congruent with statements from Machiavelli in The Prince and in The Discourses.’22 We have disputed this congruence above in Chapter 5. This 19

20

21

22

Jennifer Moss, ‘Race Effects on the Employee Assessing Political Leadership: A Review of Christie and Geis’ (1970) Mach iv Measure of Machiavellianism,’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2004) 2, 26–28. Studies of leaders using the Mach Scales continues, e.g., Frank Belschak, Deanne Den Hartog, and Karianne Kalshoven, ‘Leading Machiavellians: How to Translate Machiavellians’ Selfishness into Pro-Organizational Behavior,’ Journal of Management 41(2015) 7, 1934–1956. Alessandra Capezio et al. ‘To Flatter or To Assert? Gendered Reactions to Machiavellian Leaders,’ Journal of Business Ethics 141(2017) 1, 1–11. Katrina Bedell, Samuel Hunter, Amanda Angie, and Andrew Vert, ‘A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership,’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2006) 4, 54. J.M. Reimers and J.E. Barbuto, ‘A Frame Exploring the Effects of Machiavellian disposition on the Relationship between Motivation and Influence Tactics,’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2002) 2, 29–41. Bedell, Hunter, Angie, and Vert, ‘A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership,’ 56.

198

Chapter 8

fundamental ­misconstruction notwithstanding, who scored high on Machiavellianism in this exercise? The top four were Richard Nixon, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and Martha Stewart.23 (But not Adolf Hitler.) At first we thought perhaps the students were prejudiced, since they knew whom they were reading about and must have brought their existing reactions to the examples. We speculated that students from south Florida would see things in Fidel Castro not seen from Sydney in Australia. But Fidel has before been demonized by comparison to Machiavelli.24 Martha Stewart had been in the news at the time the study was done for a charge of trading on inside information. The authors hypothesized in a scientific manner that Machiavellianism would correlate with success and found that it did not.25 Perhaps they should have known that, based on a multitude of previous empirical studies.26 The research literature on leadership confirms that Machiavelli’s distortion occurs there as well as in popular domains. Whatever the editorial processes of these two journals, accuracy regarding Niccolò has not been among them. If an author’s peers are satisfied with the commonplace myth of Machiavelli, then the rigorous peer-review of journal submissions will simply confirm these prejudices and harden them into a conventional wisdom that does not need to be examined. Ching Ping and Dennis Bloodworth, The Chinese Machiavelli: 3000 Years of Chinese Statecraft extends the reach of Machiavelli. The first words in the book are: Niccolò Machiavelli was the very devil, men have said. But this book is not about some rival prince of darkness in Peking, nor does it set out to damn the Chinese for a race of unscrupulous schemers. The title sprang to mind because the name Machiavelli marvelously evokes the whole world of statecraft that he described, the policies of princes and the maneuvers of generals….27 23 24 25 26

27

Ibid., 60. Alfred Cuzán, Is Fidel Castro a Machiavellian Prince? (Miami: Endowment for Cuban American Studies, 1999). Bedell, Hunter, Angie, and Vert, ‘A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership,’ 54, 61, and 65. Here are a few: Amos Drory and Uri Gluskinos, ‘Machiavellianism and Leadership,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1980)1, 81–86; Myron Gable and Martin Topol, ‘Machiavellian Managers: Do They Perform Better?’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(1991)3, 355–365; J.H. Graham, ‘Machiavellianism Project Managers: Do They Perform Better?’International Journal of Project Management, 14(1996)2, 67–79. Ching Ping and Dennis Bloodworth, The Chinese Machiavelli: 3000 Years of Chinese Statecraft (Piscataway, nj: Transaction Publishers, 2004), ix.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

199

They continue that Our ‘Machiavelli’ is not one Chinese but the sum of all Chinese and their experience, assembled from the identikit of Chinese history, as Machiavelli himself drew the feature of ‘Machiavellianism’ from men and events in ancient Greece and Rome and Renaissance Italy.28 That it should take many Chinese to add up to one Machiavelli is strange. Ping and Bloodworth then reach for the inevitable cliché: The Prince ‘is an amoral book, [and] we have tried to emulate the open-minded analytical spirit of ­Machiavelli, so rare in an age corrupted by “involvement.”’29 The Prince is analytical. It is also full of moral judgments and, despite Niccolò’s efforts to be ­detached and distant, he broke his own rule, a common failing. Ping and Bloodworth say that ‘The Italian world of Machiavelli was a distorted miniature of the Chinese world of Han Fei and Sun Tzu – a jigsaw puzzle of warring states that formed a single culture rather than a single realm.’30 Just as management sages updated Machiavelli because his world was simple and theirs is complex, so cultural differences should be reconsidered in terms of resemblances. Not only are Machiavelli’s times ours too, but his experience also embraces the sweep of history over 2,500 years and even cultural differences present no barrier to his relevance. The myth has no limit. An increasing variation on Machiavelli involving China is to couple him with the military theorist Sun Tzu. It is ironic to find advocates of modernity appropriating first Machiavelli, and then reaching back even further to sixth century b.c. China to do the same with Sun Tzu. Karen McCredie, Tim Phillips, and Steve Shipside exemplify this alliance in their book, Strategy Power Plays: Winning Business Ideas from the World’s Greatest Strategic Minds, SunTzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Samuel Smiles.31 Sometimes another theorist of war, the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz, is brought in as well.32 But Sun Tzu is more popular than the dour Prussian in this association, perhaps because his 28 29 30 31

32

Ibid., xviii. Ibid., xxi. Ibid., 306. Karen McCredie, Tim Phillips, and Steve Shipside, Strategy Power Plays: Winning Business Ideas from the World’s Greatest Strategic Minds, Sun-Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Samuel Smiles (Oxford: Infinite Ideas, 2009). See also Bill Dewees, Strategic Thinking Trilogy: The Book of 5 Rings, The Art Of War & The Prince. Miyamoto Musashi, Sun Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli. (Newark, nj: Audible, 2012) or Anthony Jensen, Sun Tzu & Machiavelli: Leadership Secrets (San Bermardino, ca: Make Profits Easy, 2016). Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power (New York City: Penguin, 2000 [1998]).

200

Chapter 8

Art of War is a ­quarter the length of Clausewitz’s unfinished On War of 1831. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz both emphasized the moral and social dimensions of the military world and of war. Clausewitz, like his companions, is pared down to suit modern needs. Historical details, such as his Romanticism, would be inconvenient to those who crown him with the laurel of Realism. Sun Tzu’s book is direct. It could be presented in dot points and so fits the needs of those used to reading only an executive summary. More questionable than the use of Sun Tzu or Clausewitz to illuminate leadership or management is the focus on war as the appropriate location of insight. Does the extreme case of war tell us anything about normal times or does it tell us about war? Albert Madansky’s ‘Is War a Business Paradigm? A Literature Review’ found thirty books that associate war with business and leadership.33 They include such uplifting titles as The Corporate Warriors (1987) by Donald Ramsay, The Basic Principles of Marketing Warfare (1987) by Robert Durö and Colonel Björn Sandström, and The Genius of Sitting Bull: Thirteen Heroic Strategies for Today’s Business Leaders (1992). There is also Robert Kaplan’s Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos.34 The vast majority of the titles Madansky assembled attributed their advice to a military leader who had never said anything about business or who had failed at it, the former being exemplified by Robert E. Lee and the latter by U.S. Grant. Given the frequency with which Sun Tzu is paired with Machiavelli, he must have a claim to being considered ‘The Chinese Machiavelli.’ He is mentioned in nine titles, though four are by Gary Gagliardi.35 Machiavelli is in ten, though Jay is listed twice. If we cut the repetitions, then Sun Tzu is in six and Machiavelli in nine and, accordingly, the crown goes to Niccolò. In Chapter 4 we examined all the ­business texts that mentioned Machiavelli and noted that, despite the fiery references to war and strategy, these books usually do no more than slice a few quotations out of The Prince to decorate some very basic points. The underlying theme in the thirty books Madansky reviewed is that doing business is like making war. Madansky notes that business can only occur in a stable society or between businesses from stable societies in a stable international order. This is something Machiavelli, born in the merchant city of 33

34 35

Albert Madansky, ‘How to Read a Business Book,’ The University of Chicago Magazine (2011). Acessed 20 May 2016. https://magazine.uchicago.edu/0102/features/read.html and also Albert Madansky, ‘Is War a Business Paradigm? A Literature Review,’ Journal of Private Equity 8(2005) 3, 7–12. Robert D. Kaplan, Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos (New York City: Random House, 2002). His website was accessed on 6 June 2016 is http://www.garygagliardi.com/.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

201

Florence, well knew. War offers no parallel to either. Madansky suggests that the simplifications involved in comparing business to war are far reaching and vitiate the comparison. In so doing he notes that the analogy inevitably makes a business person equivalent to a general, and then identifies that newly promoted general with a notable historical figure. Perhaps that meets a need in some readers. Madansky suggests that it would be far more fruitful to emphasize the l­ ayers of cooperation that underwrite business. This theme is explicitly and systematically examined in ‘Metaphors for leadership: Military Battle and friendship’ by Gerri Perreault.36 Even direct competitors cooperate in much the same way as bridge players compete and cooperate at the same time. If cooperation needs to be personified to appeal to readers, she suggests Socrates or Sherlock Holmes but closes with the thought that these figures lack the pizzazz that seems to be much needed in such trade books. One can but agree. There are many other studies of leadership where Machiavelli is m ­ entioned.37 But those are mere mentions. It is Michael Ledeen’s 1999 book, M ­ achiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries ago, that concentrates on Machiavelli. Ledeen has had many u.s. government appointments, and has been a consultant with the Italian government as well. His research is on foreign policy with particular reference to state-sponsored terrorism. He has also appeared on innumerable television talk shows, especially those in the Fox stable. One of his ten books is this one: Machiavelli on Modern Leadership. It follows the practice, found 36 37

Gerri Perreault, ‘Metaphors for Leadership: Military Battle and Friendship,’ Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1996) 1, 50–63. Jack L Jackman and Michael von Irvin, Lead Your Way To Riches Like Machiavelli: ‘The Secret to Being A Great Leader, Is Simply Knowing How To Lead.’ The Machiavelli Way (No city given: Little Guys Way to Riches, 2014); A. Marshall, D. Baden, and M. Guidi, ‘Can an Ethical Revival of Prudence within Prudential Regulation Tackle Corporate Psychopathy?’ Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2013) 3, 559–568; Larry Wharton, The Secrets to Real Leadership: Machiavelli’s Undiscovered Manuscript (Scotts Valley, ca: Amazon Digital, 2012); B. Acevedo, ‘The Screaming Pope: Imagery and Leadership in Two Paintings of the Pope Innocent X,’ Leadership, 7(2011) 1, 27–50; M. Barisione, ‘Valence Image and the Standardization of Democratic Political Leadership,’ Leadership, 5(2009) 1, 41–60; P. Gronn, ‘Leading Questions: Questions about Autobiographical Leadership,’ Leadership 1 (2005) 4, 481–490; A. Gaunder, ‘Reform Leadership in the United States and Japan: A Comparison of John McCain and Ozawa Ichiro,’ Leadership, 3 (2007) 2, 173–1990; K. Morrell, ‘Aphorisms and Leaders’ Rhetoric: A New Analytical Approach,’ Leadership, 2(2006) 3, 367–382; D. Tourish and N. Vatcha, ‘Charismatic Leadership and Corporate Cultism at Enron: The Elimination Of Dissent, the Promotion of Conformity and Organizational Collapse,’ Leadership, 4(2005) 1, 455–480; and many more.

202

Chapter 8

also among contemporary historians, of speaking of the past in the present tense. In Ledeen’s work the effect is to propel Machiavelli from the sixteenth ­century into the present. Ledeen begins with a very compelling description of the training of Delta Force, a highly selective unit in the us Army.38 After a page and a half recounting the grueling training these men endure, Ledeen reveals that they are required to read The Prince, a claim we were unable to verify. To the enduring question, ‘Why Machiavelli?’ Ledeen answers, because of his brutal clarity about power.39 There is no doubt that Ledeen sees in ­Machiavelli a prophet for our times, not just in the field of leadership but in the understanding of human nature. Machiavelli’s works are mined for suitable passages that confirm the author’s views. This approach gives Ledeen an authority for his theme, which is the necessity of struggle in the world and with one’s own baser instincts. He goes on, ‘My Italian edition of The Prince has a long ­introduction by Hegel, a great fan of Machiavelli’s…’40 Reference to the Italian edition might enhance Ledeen’s credentials, but no bibliographic details are supplied to enable us to see what Georg Hegel said about Machiavelli. Hegel did not write introductions to books for publishers, so it appears that an enterprising Italian publisher took something from Hegel’s works for the purpose. There is a passing mention of Machiavelli in the Lectures on the History of Philosophy in a list of Renaissance thinkers. He is absent entirely from The Philosophy of Right. However, in Hegel’s essay ‘The German Constitution,’ there is a two-page account of the dire straits of Italian city-states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In this context, Hegel saw Machiavelli as a man rooted in his time and place.41 Unlike Ledeen, Hegel does not see a universal in that particular. Ledeen notes the many interpretations of Machiavelli from satirist to scientist to toady, but he concluded that Machiavelli’s work ‘is intended for men and women of action.’ Ledeen says Machiavelli ‘spent most of his time in combat on the battlefield or in the courtroom or the legislative chamber.’42 Did he? According to his biographies, Machiavelli only witnessed combat once, at 38 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries ago (New York City: St Martins. 1999), vi+. 39 Ibid., ix. 40 Ibid. 41 Georg Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol 3, E.H. Haldane and Francis Simson, trans. (London: Routledge(1896 [1804–1805])), 146 and Hegel, ‘The German Constitution,’ Hegel’s Political Writings, T.M. Knox, ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1964 [1802]), 219–200. 42 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, ix–x.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

203

Pisa, and never wielded a weapon himself.43 His role at Pisa lay in organizing, directing, and motivating troops, and in seeing to the logistics of the last stages of the siege.44 The claim about the courtroom does not fit with Machiavelli’s occupation. He was not a lawyer and had a layman’s contempt for lawyers.45 Finally, we are ambivalent about even the reference to the legislative chamber. Machiavelli spent no time in one and his position in the Florentine Signoria involved writing reports for such a body, but he was not a member of it. He certainly spoke to members of the Signoria upon invitation, but since they were amateurs who served very short terms, there was not much point in cultivating them. These matters do not detain Ledeen, who goes on to say that, ‘he [Machiavelli] preferred the company of military commanders, captains of industry, and men of state, and they reciprocated his esteem.’46 Alas, M ­ achiavelli despised the paid mercenary captains who dominated military life in his day. For their part, we doubt few, if any of them, had ever heard of him and it is very unlikely that they read his book The Art of War. As for captains of industry, well the Florentine equivalent were members the Medici family or their rivals and they knew little or nothing of him. Machiavelli thought a lot about the Medici, but the Medici (save for Guiliano, a childhood friend) had no reason even to know of his existence. Then there are the men of state. One of the most

43

Such as Valeriu Marcu, Accent on Power: The Life and Times of Machiavelli, Richard Winston, trans. (New York City: Kessigner. 1939); Roberto Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli, Cecil Grayson, trans. (London: Routledge, 1963); Giuseppe Prezzolini, Machiavelli (New York City: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1967); Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (London: Harvester, 1989); Maurizio Viroli, Niccolò’s Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1998); Michael White, Machiavelli: A Man Misunderstood (Boston: Little Brown, 2004); Ross King, Machiavelli: Philosopher of Power (New York City: Harper, 2007); Niccolò Capponi, An Unlikely Prince: The Life and Times of Machiavelli (Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2010); Miles J. Unger. Machiavelli: A Biography (New York City: Simon & Schuster, 2011); Paul Oppenheimer, Machiavelli: A Life beyond Ideology (London: Continuum, 2011); Robert Black, Machiavelli (London: Routledge, 2013); Corrado Vivanti, Niccolò Machiavelli: An Intellectual Biography (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 2013); Christopher Celenza, Machiavelli: A Portrait (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2015); and Erica Benner, Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli’s Lifelong Quest for Freedom (London: Allen Lane, 2017). 44 For this reason we object to Hilary Mantel’s fiction that Machiavelli carried steel in battle in Wolf Hall (London: Fourth Estate, 2009), 105. He certainly carried a knife for self-­ protection, but in those times so did the Pope, and had she been alive then so would have Mother Teresa. 45 Machiavelli’s father had qualified as a lawyer but did not practice law. 46 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, x.

204

Chapter 8

f­ormidable rulers Machiavelli ever encountered was the remarkable Katerina Sforza, whom he praises highly in the Art of War. She was no man of state. In Ledeen’s rich imagination, titans of arms, industry, and state reciprocated Machiavelli’s esteem. Somerset Maugham in his convincingly imaginative novel Then and Now has it that Cesare Borgia tried to use Machiavelli to involve Florence as an ally.47 The basis for Ledeen’s assertion is Machiavelli’s famous letter describing his life in retirement, where after a day attending to the mundane chores of farm life in the company of rustics, he figuratively retires to his quarters and passes the evening in the company of great captains. The great captains he had in mind, per Ledeen, equate to the leaders of Delta Force or Neo-Con leaders.48 According to Ledeen, Machiavelli’s job was like that of the White House chief of staff. If so then comparisons to Karl Rove might have some edge to them.49 Ledeen adds that Machiavelli negotiated ‘treaties and other ­agreements’ with popes and kings.50 Not so, on all counts in the biographies in footnote 43 above. Machiavelli never had, and there is nothing in his letters to suggest he ever wanted, the authority and responsibility to negotiate treaties on behalf of Florence. As we pointed out in Chapter 2, he lacked the social status to be appointed an ambassador. At least once he was held back from a foreign mission on the grounds of his lowly social status, and at other times was subordinated to a socially superior ambassador to whom he acted as an assistant. On the many occasions when he visited kings, popes, and princes alone his job was to observe, temporize, and report, not to make decisions or conclude treaties. He did conduct business for Florence with some of the lesser, nearby cities, but not the great powers that Ledeen suggests. The historical record does not support Ledeen’s claims (widely reiterated and accepted) that ‘Machiavelli rose to a position of great political power in the government of Florence.’51 They are even less plausible given that Ledeen defines power as dominating others. Niccolò exercised no such dominion, whatever Ledeen (or common opinion) might believe. Ledeen agrees with the management wizards reviewed above who hold that Machiavelli applies today and he applies to leadership in just about any 47 Somerset Maugham, Then and Now (Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1946). 48 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, xiii. 49 Paul Alexander, Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove (Emmaus, pa: Rodale Books, 2008) as referred in Chapter 7. In a similar vein, see Thomas Block, Machiavelli in America (New York City: Algora, 2014). 50 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, xii. 51 Ibid., xvi.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

205

area one might desire: ‘the rules are the same for leaders in all walks of life,’ including business, sports, soldiers, politicians, clerics.52 The word ‘rules’ is used here metaphorically to mean how things work. So, Ledeen runs together the two master narratives we identified in Chapter 4. Renaissance Florence is equivalent to contemporary life, or F = T, and Renaissance politics (exemplified in Borgia) is the template for everything – war, politics, and religion, and not just business, because ‘human nature does not change.’53 As we have noted, Machiavelli certainly thought this and, if his references to Roman history are more than ornamental, sought guidance from the ancients. Yet Machiavelli’s assumptions are not Ledeen’s. In what ways could the everyday lives of people in the Renaissance be identical with those of people today? In what ways does Renaissance Florence map onto any contemporary society? Ledeen does well to note that Machiavelli preferred free institutions and scorned dictators.54 This point is so obvious to any reader of The Prince, let alone the Discourses, The Art of War, or The History of Florence, that it can only be by not reading these texts that it escapes those who miss it. Regrettably, Ledeen joins countless others in bestowing upon Machiavelli the crown of realism: ‘Ever the realist, he [Machiavelli] knows that leaders will sometimes have to violate religious strictures.’55 His first chapter begins with the telling line, ‘If you’re going to be a leader, you’ve got to fight.’56 If fighting is a figure of speech for having determination, stamina, persistence, and tolerating criticism and the like, then this statement is innocuous. These qualities are not rare: they are needed in a civil society that wants to accomplish anything. We suspect Ledeen would not concur, and would denounce us for watering down his distillation. He chose the metaphor of fighting because it reinforces his wider view about struggle, competition and winning, yet such putative princes as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do not seem pugnacious. Steve Jobs was allegedly combative, as are many others, such as Al ‘ChainSaw’ Dunlap. These might be better models of Ledeen’s businessmen, but they do not particularly represent Machiavelli’s ideals of leadership. Ledeen refers throughout to what Machiavelli said, but he does not always cite a text. For example, he quotes Machiavelli as saying ‘men are more ready 52 53 54 55

56

Ibid., xiv and xvi. Ibid., xiv. Ibid., xx. Ibid., xxi. To the contrary see Michael Jackson and Thomas Moore, ‘Machiavelli’s Walls: The Legacy of Realism in International Relations Theory,’ Internatonal Politics, 63 (2016) 4, 447–465. Ibid., 1.

206

Chapter 8

for evil than for good,’ but does not say in which of Machiavelli’s books this can found. We traced it to his Florentine Histories, where he comments on a particular incident at Volterra, which reads more like a passing comment than a commandment.57 In another unreferenced citation Ledeen makes this observation on leadership: ‘the goal is power, which means the domination of others, and the winners revel in it, savoring what Machiavelli calls “the sweetness of domination.”’58 This latter expression is taken from Machiavelli’s letter to Vettori of 10 August 1513, which is usually translated as the ‘sweetness of power.’59 That informal letter to a friend contains none of the triumphal lust that Ledeen’s phrasing calls to mind. In the early pages of his book Ledeen includes women, as when he writes that ‘It therefore behooves the man or woman of action (Machiavelli is well aware of the greatness of women).’60 Indeed he was. Ledeen’s conclusion is this: ‘Machiavelli insists that the differences between the sexes are so great as to impose different obligations on men and women.’61 Ledeen gives no source for Machiavelli’s insistence, nor for the view that, ‘Machiavelli believes w ­ omen are not as prone to evil as men.’62 Of course, Machiavelli knew Lucrezia Borgia. Ledeen continues, ‘while women can be as psychologically tough as men, they cannot match men’s physical prowess.’63 We could not substantiate that ­Machiavelli made such observations. While acknowledging women ­political leaders, Ledeen keeps coming back to fighting, where ‘strength, speed, ­stamina … favor men by a very wide margin.’64 Perhaps he does not know of the women who were instrumental in, say, the Viet Cong, and helped North Vietnam to victory over the Delta Force and its brethren. Then comes the discussion on pages 80–82 when the argument is that women in the army or navy weaken it. After all they use hairspray!65 War is normal, peace is not: this is Ledeen’s overarching message.66 Would anyone who has lived in the Gaza Strip, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, or Venezuela be so happy to say that? For Ledeen, life is a constant battle.67 It is 57 Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, Book vii, Chapter v, the closing lines. 58 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, 2. 59 James Atkinson and David Sices, eds., The Sweetness of Power (De Kalb. il: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007). 60 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, 7. 61 Ibid., 74. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid., 81. 66 Ibid., 15. 67 Ibid., 18.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

207

all about winning, and in that spirit he refers to professional football coach, Vince Lombardi, of the Green Bay Packers [1959–1968] as a leading Machiavellian.68 Lombardi made famous the phrase, ‘winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.’ Coach Lombardi might better be remembered for his pursuit of talented athletes regardless of race, creed, color, or sexuality, and his aggressive zero tolerance of such prejudices in all others whether fans, hoteliers, players, restaurateurs, sports writers, and assistant coaches. We doubt that he mistook football for war. No doubt once the game began, Lombardi wanted to win. Military metaphors are central, however, to Ledeen’s view of leadership. Leaders, he writes, ‘must constantly be on a war footing.’69 He goes on to say, ‘If our leaders had paid more attention to Machiavelli, they might have avoided the Pearl Harbor disaster…’70 Apparently, the leaders of the United States should have known that the Japanese were driven by the need to dominate and would stop at nothing. In the film The Great Santini (1979), Robert Duvall gave a memorable performance as an Alpha Male with no war to fight, so he fought everyone else, including his wife and son. It is disturbing to think Ledeen would likely take Santini to be the model to follow. Women are soon forgotten when Ledeen writes of ‘men of destiny.’71 He glibly equates power with military force, proffering the adage that ‘if you lose you are a bum’ in the public eye.72 It was inevitable that Ledeen would then turn to Leo Durocher, ‘a tough-minded and successful leader who said bluntly, “Nice guys finish last.”’73 Did he? Ledeen quotes it as a maxim of cause and effect: those who are nice, will (because they are nice) finish last. In this rendering, it is a causal statement. What did Leo ‘The Lip’ say?74 At the beginning of the 1948 baseball season while he was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, a journalist asked Durocher about the forthcoming season. The Lip gave a rundown of the strengths and weaknesses of each team in the league. After assessing crosstown rivals the New York Giants’ chances of success as small, he said ‘Take a look at them. All nice guys. They’ll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last.’75 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Ibid., 18–19. Ibid., 24, 68, with accompanying locker room celebrations of ‘manly vigor,’ 70. Ibid., 22. Ibid., 34. Ibid., 27. Ibid., 106. He was called ‘The Lip’ because he was a motor mouth. See Paul Dickson, Leo Durocher: Baseball’s Prodigal Son (New York City: Bloomsbury, 2017). See Kenneth Calkins, ‘As Someone Famous Probably Once Said,’ Wall Street Journal, 7 January 1988, 14 and Paul Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 23. The Wall Street Journal piece asserts that sportswriter Jimmy Cannon coined the phrase ‘Nice

208

Chapter 8

He was saying two things and he made no causal connection between them. As a group, they are nice guys. As a team of baseball players, they will finish last. So much for the causal effect of being nice. Ledeen makes business into war when he writes of ‘…taking back market share inch by bloody inch.’76 Happily there is no blood in business, but saying there is might spark the interest of book buyers. A contested beachhead is bloody, not a mercantile spreadsheet or a coldcall. One of the frustrations of reading Machiavelli on Modern Leadership is that the author has clearly read and understood Machiavelli’s books, and that puts him streets ahead of most of the authors whose comments on Machiavelli we have analyzed to this point. For example, he writes, Machiavelli is commonly taken to be saying that the ends always justify the means, but he does not believe this. Quite the contrary. He simply recognizes the reality that there are times when a leader must accept dreadful responsibility in serving the common good.77 Ledeen’s book is not, of course, an interpretation of Machiavelli in a sustained way, but stretches him to other purposes. To wit, Ledeen notes that for Machiavelli only extreme situations justify extreme measures.78 But that has nothing to do with ‘market share inch by bloody inch.’79 Machiavelli talked about the basic political order of the state, not healthcare reform, says Ledeen (but he nevertheless attacks President Clinton).80 Ledeen then undoes this point by writing that while Machiavelli stressed extreme situations, ‘most of his rules of power are for leaders in ordinary circumstances.’81 He continues, ‘Any state, any organization … requires strong leadership.’82 And remember that strong means power, domination, and force to Ledeen. He enumerates generals, businessmen, and coaches as though they are all on the same plane.83 We notice that he omits politicians from this litany. In a voice rather reminiscent of guys finish last’ and applied it retrospectively to Durocher who accepted it on the grounds that all publicity is good publicity. He then used it as the title of his autobiography, Leo Durocher and Ed Linn, Nice Guys Finish Last (New York City: Simon and Schuster, 1975). 76 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, 71. 77 Ibid., 93. 78 Ibid., 98. 79 Ibid., 71. 80 Ibid., 104. 81 Ibid., 185. 82 Ibid., 112. 83 Ibid., 113.

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

209

Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel Starship Troopers, where citizenship is earned by killing enemies, Ledeen is expansive about patriotism and risk of life in war.84 By contrast, General Charles De Gaulle, when he was president of France, observed that the greatest challenge, the one we had yet to master, the one that would take all our brains and strength to meet, was living together in peace.85 He had seen plenty of blood, some of it his own, and he did not demean it by referring to market share. The cliché that it is better to be feared than loved appears in Ledeen’s chapter, ‘Machiavelli “The Macho Man.”’86 He writes that ‘Fear enhances discipline.’87 He continues, ‘To be an effective leader, the most prudent method is to ensure that your people are afraid of you.’88 He does not mention Cicero, but leaving that aside, neither does he mention historical generals like George Washington or Robert E. Lee, both of whom avoided punishing their soldiers because, as each said at the time, they were all volunteers. Even Ledeen seems to contradict his own exhortation when he goes on to list unarmed prophets who prevailed. They are Pope John Paul ii, Lee Kwan Yew, Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, and Vaclav Havel. He adds to this noble crew the leaders of NeoConservatism, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. While Ledeen may be extreme, he is only saying in one place, very directly what others say, and that is why we have given his book an extensive rendering. He wraps Machiavelli around these pronouncements with as little intrinsic justification as Antony Jay in conjoining Machiavelli with his fifty-three management anecdotes. Ledeen represents in addition to his own view of the world, the penchant of many others to integrate Machiavelli into their concerns. In contrast, Carnes Lord’s The Modern Prince offers a ­carefully judged and finely modulated account, as do some others who mention ­Machiavelli on the subject of leadership.89 Lord’s book offers no quick fixes. Complex matters 84

Ibid., 116. There are several films derived from it but we return to the source, Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers (New York City: Putnam, 1959). 85 In a short speech at a Thyssenkrupp Steel factory in Duisburg West German on 6 September 1962 in halting German. He was talking about France and Germany. He learned some German while a prisoner of war. Included in news report in the Bundsarchiv. Accessed 6 June 2016. https://www.thyssenkrupp-steel.com/en/company/history/­highlights/charles -de-gaulle/charles-de-gaulle.html. 86 Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, 122ff. 87 Ibid., 118. 88 Ibid., 126. 89 Carnes Lord, The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004); Miguel Pina e Cuna, Stewart Clegg, and Arménio Rego, ‘Lessons for Leaders: Positive Organization Studies Meets Niccolò Machiavelli,’ Leadership, 9(2013) 4, 450–465;

210

Chapter 8

yield complex responses in its pages. That is why it is more likely that those in need of quick guidance are readily inclined to turn to M ­ ichael ­Ledeen. The difference between the two books is this: Carnes Lord is restrained, where Michael Ledeen is extreme. Lord sees satire in Machiavelli at times, while L­ edeen is a literal reader. Lord is alive to Niccolò’s habit of exaggeration for effect, while Ledeen takes abnormal cases to be normal. Lord sees how deeply rooted ­Machiavelli’s words are in his time and place, but Ledeen sees a universal in those particulars. Lord parses and qualifies Machiavelli’s assertions where Ledeen takes them as read. The latter slashes and chops along the dotted lines on a diagram pinned to the wall, while the former probes, a­ ssesses, compares, confers, samples, and dissects, and thinks again. One hacks at things, while the other cuts so finely that the scar is barely ­noticed. One meditates and tests, the other knows and asserts instantly manufactured truths. One is a professional controversialist who seeks to shock, not to ­enlighten, and the other is a thinker who sees nearly to the bottom. To conclude, writers, researchers, and others do graft Machiavelli onto the subject of leadership. Some who use Machiavelli to argue for a particular style of leadership do so with restraint, but many others misuse him as vigorously as do the management theorists, social psychologists, primatologists, and power popularizers, we have canvassed above. In the course of convincing themselves and others that Machiavelli is relevant, they take his words out of context, and though at times caution and qualification are stated, these soon wither. We have concentrated on the propensity for some leadership writers to focus on war as the model of leadership, and here Michael Ledeen’s Machiavelli on Modern Leadership is an example without equal. Hence it has merited careful examination, concentrating at times on minor points because, like traces at a crime scene, they gradually reveal a larger picture. A certain ambiguity can sometimes be seen in discussions of leadership, and we came across an example in the French news magazine Le Point in 2014. Much of an issue was devoted to the early days of President François Hollande’s ascendency.90 His image was superimposed on Machiavelli’s. That is the temper of much that follows: Hollande is just too nice to be the Machiavelli needed to steer France. It is embellished with the usual media tricks, like selecting photographs that are unflattering. But of course, if he had been Machiavellian, then Le Point would have been quick to denounce him. It is lose-lose, as it often

90

Raymond Belliotti, Machiavelli’s Secret: The Soul of the Statesman (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015). Roger-Pol Droit, ‘Machiavel: L’art de la manipulation,’ Le Point (July, 2014), 42–49

The Reluctant Leader: Leadership and War

211

is with the media in politics. The references to Machiavelli in the magazine are straightforward and accurate, for once. In the next chapter we gather together a whole host of mentions and uses of the distorted Machiavel from popular culture, commerce, newspapers, film, music and more. These references are scattered far and wide, and taken together they show the breadth of this doppelgänger effect. Examined individually they reveal how deeply the misconceptions have penetrated the consciousness of otherwise well-informed and intelligent people across a gamut of activities.

Chapter 9

Machiavelli Ubiquitous This chapter is an inventory of the many other uses that Machiavelli has served here, there, and everywhere. We have done our best to organize the material, but much of it is so idiosyncratic that it defies taxonomy. What follows is divided into these parts: a survey of the media, news and social, film and television, and music; the adventures of Machiavelli in works of fiction and some non-fiction; the games that appropriate the name Machiavelli; mercantile investment in Machiavelli; a brief report on the iconography of Machiavelli; and then a review of Goggle Ngram estimates of the use of Machiavelli’s name in books. ­Machiavelli is indeed ubiquitous and as a result this chapter is partly a miscellany that gathers together evidence of his presence across many domains. The variety of objects, books, and the very red briefcase in the cover photograph all bear the name Machiavelli.

Media, Mass and Social

The news media often refer to Machiavellian and Machiavellianism. We take as an example the Huffington Post. This is a sample of what is to be found on its website. ‘Nicola Sturgeon denies she has “Machiavellian” wish for Brexit in order to engineer Scottish Independence.’ 24 January 2016. While Sturgeon used the term ‘Machiavellian,’ the editors of the Post chose to put it in the headline. ‘Kourtney and Khloe take on Machiavelli while taking the Hamptons,’ 30 December 2014. The title refers to the Kardashians of reality television fame, briefly. ‘Obama’s Machiavellian Moment,’ 5 September 2013 Musings on conflict in the Middle East during the Syrian crisis with gratuitous references to Machiavelli. ‘Machiavelli and the Rough Realities of Power Politics,’ 7 April 2012. More musings of a general kind.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_011

213

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

‘Lessons from Machiavelli,’ 18 August 2011. A few quotations from The Prince and The Discourses strung together by a regular contributor. ‘7 Cause Marketing Lessons from Machiavelli,’ 23 June 2011. A tie in to the contributor’s tome Cause Marketing for Dummies (2011), which makes no mention of Machiavelli in its text. There are many others, but these suffice to show how flimsy the pretext can be to use Machiavelli’s name. We also tried the New York Times. We searched on 9 June 2017 and got 1,752 hits from the archives. The first mention was in 1869. Among the mentions in the year 2017 were articles about alienated youth in the Parisian banlieues, the corporate machinations of Volkswagen, President Vladimir Putin of Russia as the Slavic Machiavelli, the business clans of South Korea, and electoral scandals in Brazil. Other items that referred to Machiavelli were book, film, and theatre reviews, some of which we will return to later in this chapter. We did a count of the uses of the terms in the online archives as in Table 5 below. Leaving aside the details of each reference, the obvious conclusion is that a free use of his name and the adjective and noun derived from it in the pages of this august publication. In the Netherlands there is an annual Machiavelli Prize awarded to a person or organization that has excelled in public communication. Those recognized by this award have included fire services, blood donation societies, and other good causes. The panel that makes the award consists of journalists, public relations advisors, retired politicians, and celebrities. The causes are indeed good ones but nowhere can be found any explanation of why it is called in the Dutch Machiavelliprijs.1 No further enlightenment came when we consulted the Dutch edition of Wikipedia. Table 5

Word counts in New York Times for Machiavelli and derivations.

Term

Number of hits

Machiavelli Machiavellian Machiavellianism Total

1752 2006 74 3832

1 We consulted the website in May 2017, http://www.stichtingmachiavelli.nl/nl/.

214

Chapter 9

For a decade or more, closer to home, the Australian Financial Review featured on the back page of its Saturday weekend edition a column titled ‘The Prince’ that retailed street gossip in the rarefied world of big business. We once asked the journalist charged with the column why it was called that and the immediate reply was that he did not know or care. The bbc has a large website where we tried the simplest of searches and got a mix of book reviews, political diatribes, and descriptions of soccer games. We also noticed a story of 25 July 2012 about an auction of a 1640 English translation of Machiavelli’s Prince failing to meet the reserve price of £25,000. It must be the Dacres edition we discussed earlier but there was insufficient information to be sure. While interrogating the bbc website we discovered a 2011–2012 children’s television series called Leonardo, featuring a young and black Machiavelli.2 Earlier in passing we have already noted some of Machiavelli’s other screen appearances, in The Borgias (2011+ ) and The Medici (2004 and 2016). That led to a search on the Internet Movie Database turning up Machiavelli in period dramas like Egmont by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, touched on in Chapter 2. Perhaps the most intriguing entry of these films was Destination Downing Street (1957) in which Richard Molinas plays Machiavelli in five episodes. In that same year, the bbc also aired Sword of Freedom set in the Medici’s Tuscany. We do not know if Niccolò is portrayed as a lackey of the evil Medici, or an ally of the hero Marco del Monte, but the odds have to be on the former. Like so much else from the bbc in that era, neither of these programs is now available. Finally, we noted films of Mandragola, a play that Machiavelli wrote and from which he made some money. He also had a writer’s credit for this play in a 1966 feature production. It was remade with some changes in 2008 as The Mandrake Root. There are also a number of people in show business with the name Machiavelli, perhaps a dozen. There were also some Machiavellis listed in the Milano telephone book once, back in the day, when there were telephone books. What follows is a catalog of Machiavelli in cinema. The summary and comments about each suggest how Machiavelli and Machiavel figure in each. For those we have seen, we add our own remarks. Machiavelli Rises (2000), described as a comedy of ninety minutes, ‘He’s pure evil. He’s returning to life.., and he wants to stay at your place.’ Credited to Ephraim Horowitz and reviewed in the New York Times with Rocco Sisto as Machiavelli. This from the Times:

2 For the convenience of the reader all the television programs and movies mentioned in this chapter are listed in the filmography that complements the bibliography in the back matter.

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

215

Ephraim Horowitz’s wild imagination places the 17th century power broker Machiavelli in 20th century America in this fantastical comedy about the lost notebook of Leonardo De Vinci mysteriously appearing in a New York auction house. The book is worth $30 million, but the couple who found it must reveal how they have acquired it. Their story involves academic research, phantasmal mysticism, and even love. In summary, ‘Machiavelli told them.’ An entertaining picture that offers some food for thought.3 So wrote Gönül Dönmez-Colin, a film scholar. Efforts to see this film have failed. Machiavelli’s The Prince (2010) is a thirty-minute short film from the imagination of Julio Ponce Palmieri described thus on the Internet Movie ­Database website: ‘After the death of his father, a man must learn how to maintain his power and enlists the aid of two very unique forces.’ This film can be streamed from  IndieReign, and in it there is to be seen no explicit connection to Machiavelli. Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli? (2013) runs for sixty minutes with Peter Capaldi talking about the backbiting world of politics with much archival footage of parliamentarians, presidents, and prime ministers. We rather thought it was meant to update Memo from Machiavelli (1994) subtitled How to succeed in British Politics made during the high tide of Margaret Thatcher. This does not return on an Internet Movie Database search. Nor does The Mind of a Leader Animation Series which devotes one segment to Niccolò Machiavelli, which is available through the Canopy educational media service. Machiavellian Boys (2004) is a nineteen-minute short. A small-time criminal is forced to take on a much larger task, after losing the dog of his mob boss employer. Directed by and starring Billie Redieck. We could not access this one. Machiavelli & Company (2011) is a twenty-four-minute short by Taner Tumkayo. On the Internet Movie Database it is described as a crime drama in which ‘A young and successful corporate employee kills his wife as her birthday present.’ Again we cannot comment further. A character named Machiavelli has also put in an appearance in these films: Dinner in Purgatory (1994) and A Season of Giants (1991). It is said that Lorenzo Raveggi will release a feature-length biopic of Niccolò called Machiavelli. It has an entry on the Internet Movie Database to create a climate of expectation. Razgovor na onom svetu izmedju Makijavelija i Monteskejea (1990) is a fortyseven-minute Croatian film. Google Translate renders that title into English

3 A film review on the New York Times website, accessed June 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/ movies/movie/175981/Machiavelli-Rises/overview.

216

Chapter 9

as ‘Talk to the other world between Machiavelli and Monteskejea.’ No further comment can be made. Machiavelli’s name pops up in a dozen or more television programs and episodes reaching back to distant 1957 and as recently as Family Guy. But so far not in ‘The Simpsons’ with Mayor Quimby.4 Even more instances of Machiavelli and movies are set out in Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The Prince through Television and Film, which very cleverly matches chapters of Machiavelli’s The Prince with scenes, events, themes from movies.5 The purpose is serious and the treatment is ­faithful to the text, and it is a lot of fun. The aim, the authors say, is to engage students with Machiavelli by illustrating his themes in cinema since the 1980s. To illustrate: one chapter is, ‘The Use of Cruelty’ and it is explained by reference to the films ‘Hoffa’ (1992), ‘Wag the Dog’ (1997), and ‘The Untouchables’ (1987). Turning now to the theatre, in addition to Egmont (1787), he has also appeared in other plays like the formidable Anne Paolucci’s The Actor in Search of His Mask which offers us Machiavelli in the throes of composing The Mandragora.6 Later Robert Cohen offered The Prince, Tragicomedy with a Machiavelli in exile pining for past glory.7 Then Richard Vetere gave us Machiavelli.8 The stage directions for this play say, ‘play it like a comedy,’ but there are two murders on stage and two off, each allegedly instigated by Machiavelli, and it makes light of historical fact by putting Machiavelli (yet again) in the employ of the Medici. Machiavelli also has resonance among the many worlds of music. Though he wrote poetry, he did not write music, unlike Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but he is nonetheless invoked by musicians. In 1947 Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (1892–1988), London music critic and composer, published Mi contra Fa: The immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician.9 It is a book that reflected on music, and it offers this explanation for including the Florentine in the title: ‘What then is a Machiavellian? A sinister swarthy gaunt cinque-cento-faced personage in a long black habit … slithering noiselessly about in oddly shaped shoes … [which are now back in fashion,

4 Though it is said his specter is there in Nathan Thoms, Machiavelli Meets Mayor Quimby: Political Commentary in the First Season of The Simpsons (Raleigh, nc: Lulu.com, 2006). 5 Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma, Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The Prince through Television and Film (Lanham, md: Lexington Books. 2015). 6 Anne Paolucci, The Actor in Search of His Mask (Whitestone, ny: Griffon, 1987). 7 Robert Cohen, The Prince, Tragicomedy (Woodstock, il: Dramatic Arts., 2003). 8 Richard Vetere, Machiavelli (Woodstock, il: Dramatic Arts, 2007). 9 Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Mi contra Fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician (London: Porcupine Press, 1947).

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

217

just look down]. Those of little knowledge label him many things.’10 Sorabji continued, The Machiavellian, as the serious student of his work sees him – the tiny minority, as opposed to the vast number who know nothing of him, but who, like Roebuck Ramsden, have their opinions (ready-made for them by other people who know even less) – as Gaetano Mosca, as [Vilfredo] Pareto and James Burnham see him, one who insists on confining his ­attention strictly to the ways in which men act and speak, in relation of their speaking to their actions as groups of human beings, and how they have acted and spoken in similar contexts in the past.11 It is a learned passage that invokes Mosca, Pareto and Burnham along with ­Roebuck Ramsden, a character in George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman. Sorabji concludes that Machiavelli was a realist and not a romantic. ‘I will not try to lay down laws about music but observe what people do.’12 The Internet Movie Database has an entry for Machiavelli live at the C ­ oliseum and that led to Machiavel, a Belgian Eurorock band, which has been making music since 1976.13 There are about twenty cds and forty MP3 tracks on Amazon. We previewed a few and none seemed to have anything to do with Machiavelli. On the band’s official website it is asserted that the band is named after Niccolò Machiavelli without a word of explanation in the very long statement. The rap artist Tupac Amaru Shakur (1971–1996) named himself ‘Makaveli.’ Tupac was murdered and his death has spawned a conspiracy industry about what happened and why. His biographer, Michael Dyson, says Tupac was an avid reader.14 Perhaps that is the answer. At the Internet Archives we found Vincent Bergeron’s Machiavélisme Magnifique, a thirty-eight-minute long instance of experimental music.15 There is no entry for the composer on Wikipedia Français. Zekwe Ramos’s MP3 file on Machiavelique on Amazon France is a four-­ minute track for Euros 0.79. The free sample sounds like more rap music, if rap be music. There was no explicit reference to Machiavelli. 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ibid., 13. Ibid., 14. Ibid. For details of all the music discussed in what follows see the discography that complements the bibliography and filmography in the back matter. Michael Dyson, Holler If You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur (New York: Basic, 2003). http://www.archive.org/details/artdudesarroi2005.

218

Chapter 9

We found many more musical connections to Machiavelli, including these: The Scene is Now gave us Songbirds Lie (2004) with a track called ­Machiavelli, self-described as Alternative. It is on iTunes in a 3:21-minute track. The lyrics do, in fact, connect to Machiavelli: A man must know how to act like a beast Or a half-man and a half-beast But foxiness should be well concealed What is your plan? Whisper, you sly Niccolo I’ll let myself be deceived It is safer to be feared than loved So I come before you as a lion My foxiness should be well concealed I have a plan Listen, my sweet Niccolo Please let yourself be deceived Good reasons can always be found To call a pact null and void Such as the size of my kingdom Men are naïve Sadly my poor Niccolo There’s nothing else to believe This is one of the few musical trails that is linked to Machiavelli, but the ­connection is slight. To continue in the catalog there is Lore, Glass Winged Angel (2006) with a track called Machiavelli. This work describes itself as ‘chart-topping’ and is an on-demand cd-r from Amazon. The iTunes version makes no mention of Machiavelli. In the same vein, we found Franky the Fly with Machiavelli on Lord of the Flies (2008), which offers no free samples. Mo Dougly, Machiavelli vs. Lao Tseu (2009) is to be found on iTunes bearing the warning in red letters EXPLICIT. There is no explicit mention of Machiavelli.

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

219

Equally EXPLICIT and equally vague as to the connection to Machiavelli is Zekwe Ramo’s 2009 work Machiavelique, available for Euros 0.89 on Amazon.FR. It is rap music, rhythm and poetry, that does not mention Machiavelli. The Peep Tempel in 2012 recorded Thank you, Machiavelli. It can be found on iTunes with no mention of Machiavelli. Machiavelli (2013) is by Bart Classen and Sir Adrian from Big & Dirty Recordings. The artists are Dutch and the music is said to be Electro-House. Again there is no discernable connection to Machiavelli. We have proceeded into the realm of music by chronology saving this one item for last, namely tism and its 1995 album Machiavelli and the Four Seasons. tism stands for This is Serious Mum. ‘Mum’, not Machiavelli. It is an Australian ensemble. We were able to examine this album front and back, because we found a copy of the lp. There is nothing anywhere about Niccolò on the album cover, still less in the music on the disk. Then there is Machiavelli the opera, called The New Prince, which premiered in March 2017 in Amsterdam, before going on to the United States. The New York Times review from Amsterdam told us that it has resonance with the new administration in Washington, though the opera is set in year 2032. While ­Machiavelli as manipulator plays a part in the opera, the librettist is quoted as saying that Machiavelli was the ‘ultimate truth-teller’ in his account of politics and power.16 Machiavelli is also active in social media. There is a Facebook page with 305,647 Likes on 8 June 2017 and rising. In addition, there are a number of individuals on Facebook who include Machiavelli in their user name. They include: Vicky Machiavelli Machiavelli Sam Machiavelli Muya Seang Mengsang Niccolò Machiavelli Machiavelli Trevino Moebius Guido Machiavelli Leroy Machiavelli Kazama Second Life also has hosted a number of Machiavellis. The profiles of these digital Machiavellis say nothing at all about Niccolò, but for the record they were in June 2016:

16

Nina Siegal, ‘A Machiavellian Opera for Trump-Era Issues of Truth and Lies,’ New York Times, 15 April 2017. There are many more press and media stories about this opera.

220

Chapter 9

Machiavelli Maksukami Machiavelli iii Fierzenza Machi (Machiavelli Caeran) Prince Machiavelli Machiavelli iii Gaspanni Machiavelli00 Brother Prohit (Machiavelli47Zanzibar) Lynx Machiavelli Pandora MachiaVelli NekoMachiavelli MauricioMachiavelli ErosMachiaveli Syn(Machiavellios Jigsaw) There were still other avatars that quote a passage from Machiavelli on the profile, but we did not bother to include them here. This is proof enough that Machiavelli existed in digital Second Life. We also searched YouTube to find 140,000 hits on 9 June 2017. We checked a number of them, but not all. Many, many, many of them were comments on or explanations of something about Machiavelli by scholars and the laity, too. But the true gold was a series of very short videos called, ‘Ask Machiavelli.’ Recommended for amusement. There is a Titus Machiavelli much in evidence on iTunes podcasts and also on Facebook and Twitter. It seems, however, that there is simply his name and not any effort to evoke Niccolò. We also note here that Amazon usa features a reviewer self-styled as Nicole O’Machiavelli and our web searches have even produced two swains on dating websites using the cover name ‘Machiavelli.’

Fiction and More

This section concentrates on works of fiction, but it also includes some other works that are harder to categorize. We have already referred to some novels and plays in Chapter 2 when we mentioned George Eliot’s Romola.17 Since then Machiavelli has appeared in period pieces like Somerset Maugham’s Then and Now.18 We think Maugham captured the personality of Machiavelli better than many of his biographers. Others have done almost as well, like Jean 17 18

George Eliot, Romola (London: Penguin, 1999 [1863]). Somerset Maugham, Then and Now (Garden City, ny: Doubleday, 1946).

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

221

DuMont in Machiavelli, a telling of Machiavelli’s life from the death of Lorenzo to his own imprisonment, written with verve, told with insight, and some dark ­humor, too.19 Then there is the Zorro version of Machiavelli offered by Joseph ­Markulin’s door-stopper Machiavelli: A Renaissance Life.20 Sarah Dunant wrote an insightful novel in which Machiavelli plays a role, observing Cesare Borgia.21 In Derek Wilson’s The Swarm of Heaven: A Renaissance Mystery being Certain Incidents in the Life of Niccolo Machiavelli,22 Machiavelli is merely a plot device. Machiavelli is, however, a central character in Michael Ennis’s The Malice of Fortune. Like too few others, Ennis closed by noting that the term ‘Machiavellian’ described behavior that Machiavelli spent his life opposing, and is today perhaps the most misunderstood and misused adjective in the lexicon.’23 Salman Rushdie used him as a supporting actor in The Enchantress of Florence.24 As noted in passing above, he also figures, off stage as an influence on Thomas Cromwell per Cardinal Pole, in Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall.25 His name adorns the cover of Steve Perry’s The Machiavelli Interface.26 This last volume is one of a series of science fiction adventure stories. There is not a single word about what Machiavelli has to do with an interface in the text, though two epigrams are quoted from him about fortifications and injuries to others. Likewise in the sci-fi genre we came across Grace Pennington’s Firmament: Machiavellian, which has not a word about Niccolò, but is dedicated to Jesus Christ.27 Lawrence Uhlin’s potboiler, Machiavelli’s Desert, is also silent on Machiavelli.28 Though Machiavelli is in the title, there is nothing about Niccolò in the book, though we note that the corrupt Canadian Prime Minister portrayed in it is named Plato. Akin to that book is John Greaves’s The Fist of Machiavelli, a tale of political intrigue in West Africa with one mention of Machiavelli, a quotation of that comment about fear and love.29 Nicholas Borelli’s The Machiavelli

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Jean DuMont, Machiavelli (Seattle: Bestreaders, 2013). Joseph Markulin, Machiavelli: A Renaissance Life (Amherst, ny: Prometheus, 2013). Sarah Dunant, In the Name of the Family: A Novel of Machiavelli & the Borgia. (London: Virago, 2017). Derek Wilson, The Swarm of Heaven: A Renaissance Mystery being Certain Incidents in the Life of Niccolo Machiavelli (London: Allison & Busby, 2001). Michael Ennis, The Malice of Fortune (New York City: Random House, 2012), p 393. Salman Rushdie, The Enchantress of Florence (New York City: Random House, 2009). Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall (London: Fourth Estate, 2009). Steve Perry, The Machiavelli Interface, Matador Trilogy, No 3 (New York City: Ace, 1986). J. Grace Pennington, Firmament: Machiavellian (Grand View, mo: Penoaks Publishing, 2013). Lawrence Uhlin, Machiavelli’s Desert (Surrey, bc: Libros Libertad, 2010). John Milton Greaves, The Fist of Machiavelli (Baltimore: Publish America, 2011).

222

Chapter 9

Imperative put his alter ego in the wilds of redneck Alabama.30 And there are still other novels that relate him to the Irish Republican Army and more.31 His name is also taken in vain in two thrillers: Allan Folsom, The Machiavelli Covenant and Michael White, The Medici Secret.32 The latter makes a perfunctory reference to Machiavelli as a Medici retainer, while Machiavelli exits the former book after the title page. A Machiavelli appears now and again in the series of mystery novels by George Herman featuring Leonardo da Vinci as a sleuth, e.g., The Florentine Mourners.33 Leonardo also figures in another period mystery series by Diane A.S. Stuckart, e.g., The Queen’s Gambit.34 In a similar genre, Machiavelli has a larger role in Maryann Philip, A Borgia Daughter Dies, where Machiavelli is reunited with a lovechild, as it was termed in Victorian novels, an illegitimate daughter.35 The series continues in Da Vinci Detects.36 Penelope Rosa’s book, Introduction to Niccolo Machiavelli: A Novel, begins with the assertion that few readers who start The Prince ever finish it.37 Although the back cover says it is a novel, the pages are about innovation and how useful Machiavelli is to teach students the art of innovation. Laramanda Williams’s Machiavelli: Pastor or Pimp?, which is certainly a novel, charts the rocky course of true love made difficult by the many Machiavellian machinations of magnates in the private sector.38 Such gratuitous references to Machiavelli had occurred before in Freda Michel’s The Machiavellian Marquess: A Georgian Romance.39 Comparable to these titles is Nina Szabo’s 30

31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39

Nicholas Borelli, The Machiavelli Imperative (San Bernadino, ca: No Publisher Given, 2012). This is the fourth in a series but the only one to mention Machiavelli, and it is just a mention. Tom Faulkner, The Machiavellian Legacy (Sussex, uk: Book Guild, 1994) and Wilf Nussey, The Machiavellian Affair. (Detroit: Rebel ePublishers, 1999). Allan Folsom, The Machiavelli Covenant (Toronto: Forge, 2007) and Michael White, The Medici Secret (New York City: Arrow, 2008). George Herman, The Florentine Mourners, Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Pavia (New York City: Toexcel, 1996). Diane A.S. Stuckart, The Queen’s Gambit: A Leonardo da Vinci Mystery (New York City: Berkley, 2008). Maryann Philip, A Borgia Daughter Dies (Real History Mystery Press.com, 2003). Maryann Philip, Da Vinci Detects: Murder and Sex: A Mystery of Homosexual Persecution in Renaissance Italy. A Nicola Machiavelli Mystery (No City given: Real History Mystery Press, 2011). Penelope Rosa, Introduction to Niccolo Machiavelli: A Novel (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2011). Laramanda Williams, Machiavelli: Pastor or Pimp? (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2006). Freda Michel, The Machiavellian Marquess: A Georgian Romance (London: Troubadour, 1977).

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

223

Machiavellian, which opens with a dictionary definition of that word, and says nary a one about Machiavelli himself.40 The myth has displaced the man. There are the Machiavelli Chronicles by Greg Sheehan, which has four titles: Snakes, Buzzards, and Inbreds; A Dim View; Night Chase: and Hubcaps and Chopsticks.41 Each is about fifty pages on Kindle; each opens with a passage from Machiavelli, including, of course, the one about fear and love. That is the only reference to Machiavelli in these four that we could see. Nor do there seem to be any continuing characters or settings across the four. There are a few French novels on Amazon France that seem to be romance novels à la Mills and Boon. These include Marion D’Aubois’s Machiavélique Harcèlement.42 The title refers to the harassment or pestering of a pretty, young girl. Then there is Nicole Lefèvre and Bernard Caillères’s Machiavélique revanche (2010) or Machiavellian revenge, a tale of sibling rivalry.43 We grew even more curious when we realized two novels originally published in English had, when translated into French, taken on the label ‘­machiavélique.’ Irene Wempe’s Come to My Funeral became Le Lit ­machiavélique (1968), or The Machiavellian Bed.44 Equally, Barbara Smith’s Seduced by a Scoundrel (1999) ­became in French Un plan machiavélique (2001), or A Machiavellian Plot.45 Also in French is the roman policier with Alain Eymer’s Dérive machiavélique, or the Machiavellian Drift.46 It is a tale of high crimes and misdemeanours on Wall Street. We found nothing about Machiavelli in these French works, apart from the title page. Some of the books to be found defy classification, which is why earlier we refered to fiction and non-fiction. Here is one example, Francesco Dimeo’s In Triumph: The story of an ordeal and triumph, Prince Machiavelli.47 There is no mention of Machiavelli in the text, though the back cover says ‘Prince Machiavelli is the nom de plume for Mr Francesco Dimeo. We thought noms de plume had the purpose of concealing the author’s identity. The book reads like 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

Nina Szabo, Machiavellian (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2016). Greg Sheehan, Machiavellian Chronicles (Seattle, wa: Amazon Digital, 2015–2016). Sheehan has many other titles on other subjects. Marion Latour D’Aubois, Machiavélique Harcèlement (Nantes: Amalthée, 2008). Nicole Lefèvre and Bernard Caillères, Machiavélique revanche (Paris: Theles, 2010). Irene Wempe, Come to My Funeral (New York City: Ballantine, 1967) became Irene Wempe, Le Lit machiavélique (Paris: Gallimard, 1968). Barbara Dawson Smith, Seduced by a Scoundrel (New York City: St. Martin’s Press, 1999) became Barbara Dawson Smith, Un plan machiavelique (Paris: Aventures et passion, 2001). Alain Eymer, Dérive machiavélique (Paris: Edilivre Edition Classique, 2010). Francesco Dimeo, In Triumph: The Story of an Ordeal and Triumph, Prince Machiavelli (Devon: Stockwell, 1994).

224

Chapter 9

a non-fiction account of the survival of a plane crash. The back cover has Machiavelli advising Lorenzo ‘Il Magnifico’ di Medici, who died in 1492 when Machiavelli was 22 years old, but Machiavelli did not enter office until he was 29. Another idiosyncratic title is Simon Ramo, Tennis by Machiavelli.48 A very amusing book set forth as volume ii of The Prince on playing and winning at tennis for the scratch player. It starts with the translator’s comments about The Prince being recognized as the definitive text on manipulating people. The translator claims to have found this manuscript in a rented Tuscan villa.49 Thereafter Machiavelli disappears from the game in favor of diagrams of foot-faults and other esoterica. We also found Machiavelli on skates in ‘Machiavellianism…in Ice Hockey.’50 There is also a grim account of clerical child abuse under the title of The Machiavellian Minister.51 It makes no mention of Machiavelli in the text. Another very serious title is George Harpole’s The Machiavellian Murders, which seems to be an autobiographical account of the author’s experiences with divorce, child custody, and a family court decision. There is no mention of Machiavelli to be found after the title page.52 Far sunnier is David Apostolico’s Machiavellian Poker Strategy: How to Play Like a Prince and Rule the Poker Table, where we read: Mention Machiavelli and five words immediately come to mind: the end justifies the means. Throughout the centuries since Machiavelli first penned The Prince, countless people in various cultures and walks of life have interpreted and analyzed his work. Many have used his advice to rationalize their ruthless behavior.53 But Apostolico gives Machiavelli a better account than many a more pretentious author when he goes on to say, In truth, Machiavelli never intended his advice for a prince to serve as a justification for the complete abandonment of morality. Machiavelli did struggle with questions of morality and ethics, but he believed that 48 49 50 51 52 53

Simon Ramo, Tennis by Machiavelli (New York City: Rawson Associates, 1984). Ibid., x and xii. Gordon Russell, ‘Machiavellianism, Locus of Control, Aggression, Performance and Precautionary Behavior in Ice Hockey,’ Human Relations, 27 (1974) 9, 825–837. Charlie Frémaux, The Machiavellian Minister (Seattle: Createspace, 2009). George Harpole, The Machiavellian Murders (Seattle: Createspace, 2012). David Apostolico, Machiavellian Poker Strategy: How to Play Like a Prince and Rule the Poker Table (New York City: Lyle Stuart, 2005), ix.

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

225

q­ uestionable behavior on the part of leaders would be forgiven or ignored if the people benefited. His Machiavelli is a man of weak flesh and blood who has to struggle, not a cardboard stereotype. Each of Apostolico’s chapters starts with an insight from Machiavelli, and not just a brief passage but a discussion, even a very small essay. The chapters are thematic and end with reference to this initial discussion. Bluffing, calculating odds, and so on are treated. We did wonder how Ledeen might react to Apostolico’s advice on cards. The social psychologists have also had a look at poker players.54 We can also add to this assortment Mark Crick’s Machiavelli’s Lawn: The Great Writers’ Garden Companion, a very clever book with a dozen chapters, each in the style of a great writer – Henrik Ibsen, Emile Zola, etc. – but conveying basic gardening advice.55 The introduction is a parody of Machiavelli’s putative dedication in The Prince. There follows later in the volume a chapter ‘On the Art of Mowing’, paralleling garden mowing to taxing principalities. Crick manages to do this without maligning Machiavelli. Yet we ask why name it after Machiavelli when it could have been one of the other writers imitated, like Raymond Carver, Isabel Allende, or Mary Shelley? Also difficult to put into a category is Cauchy3-Book-63-poems: Machiavellian by Cheung Shun Sang. It is a collection of poems about the tyranny of Mao.56 The poet has many other titles available on Amazon from Createspace. Nick Casanova, whom we met earlier in passing, offered three titles in 2008: The Machiavellian’s Guide to Flirting: For Both Men and Women, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Insults, and The Machiavellian’s Guide to Charm: For Both Men and Women.57 This last book had this to say about the eponymous Machiavelli:

54

55 56 57

To wit, Jussi Palomäki, Jeff Yan, and Michael Laakasuo, ‘Machiavelli as a Poker Mate – A Naturalistic Study on Strategic Deception,’ Personality and Individual Differences 98(2016) 2, 266–271. Mark Crick, Machiavelli’s Lawn: The Great Writers’ Garden Companion (London: Granta, 2011). Cheung Shun Sang, Cauchy3-Book-63-poems: Machiavellian (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2013). Nick Casanova, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Womanizing (New York City: Castle Books, 1995) and Casanova, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Charm: For Both Men and Women (Bloomington, in: iUniverse, Inc., 2008); Casanova, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Flirting: For Both Men and Women (Bloomington, in: iUniverse, Inc., 2008); and Casanova, The Machiavellian’s Guide to Insults (Bloomington, in: iUniverse, Inc., 2008).

226

Chapter 9

In the sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book, The Prince, about how to gain and keep political power through devious means. Since then his name has become synonymous with dishonesty and evil. But using a touch of subterfuge in an effort to charm is not necessarily bad. Charm is, after all, mostly a way to make people feel good about themselves.58 This statement comes straight from the distorted Machiavelli myth. His The Guide to Insults is less expansive and more conjectural. There we find that ‘Niccolo Machiavelli, had he written a book on insults, would have told you to make sure they suited your opponent, to deliver them without a trace of anger in your voice.’59 The Guide to Flirting makes no mention of him at all, but the back cover bears the claim that Nick Casanova and Machiavelli have the same birthday, 3 May. There are also treasures to be found in pursuing such odds and ends as the foregoing. We found one in Nicholas Antongiavanni’s The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style.60 It is a parody with a serious point about masculine dress. It is well written with advice on suits, ties, cuff links, and more. Very Esquire or Gentlemen’s Quarterly before these standard setters fell to celebrity grunge. The back flap of the dust jacket declares the name to be a pseudonym. It opens with a dedicatory letter to John Elkann, who inherited the Fiat Empire. In the foreword we read that, ‘Men in general judge more by their eyes than by their hands, because seeing is given to everyone, touching to few. Everyone sees how you appear, few touch what you are,’ a paraphrase of a passage in The Prince in chapter xviii. Machiavelli is not mentioned further in the text or the index. We have to agree with the blurb on the back cover from the estimable Machiavelli scholar, Harvey Mansfield, Jr., that this book is a ‘brilliant imitation of Machiavelli’s The Prince that entertains and informs …’ Deadly serious is Jules J. Berman’s Machiavelli’s Laboratory: A Satire. It is a direct published work on scientific fraud in medical research and education. Machiavelli figures in the title. He is not mentioned nor is Machiavellian(ism) in the 355 pages of the pdf file.61 While on the subject of scientific corruption, we note that Machiavelli has been put to work on this subject before by D.A. Pragay in a paper called 58 Casanova, Charm, xiii. 59 Casanova, Insults, p. xiv. 60 Nicholas Antongiavanni, The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style (New York City: HarperCollins. 2006). 61 Jules J. Berman, Machiavelli’s Laboratory: A Satire I (2010). Accessed 20 May 2016. http:// www.julesberman.info/integ/machfree.htm.

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

227

‘­Lysenko’s Biology – Machiavellianism in Scientific Life.’62 There is no mention of Machiavelli in the body of the paper, just the title. There are a number of books that make use of his name without any reference to him within the pages, as we have seen above in management, leadership, and power. There are others that do form part of a group like those, and in the interest of completion we note them here: Andrew Hatfield, Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travels and Colonial Writing in English 1550–1830.63 Daniel Burstein, Turning the Tables, A Machiavellian Strategy for Dealing with Japan.64 Bob Gillespie, Machiavelli and the Mayflower: How to Understand Europeans.65 Roger Fisher, Elizabeth Kopelman, and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, B ­ eyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict.66 One can also find learned journal articles sporting Machiavelli’s name with nary a word about him in the text, e.g., Ned Parker’s ‘Machiavelli in Mesopotamia: Nouri al-Maliki builds the Body Politics.’67 One of the more noteworthy titles is The Cosmic Machiavelli, credited to B.S. Thejendra. It is best to quote the book itself at length to provide readers with its flavor: [A] sk the Cosmic Machiavelli because, – he is the only brilliant person in the entire universe who knows the correct reasons for the chaos and problems on earth, and also why our world’s movers and shakers can do nothing about it.

62 63 64 65

66 67

D.A. Pragay, ‘Lysenko’s Biology – Machiavellianism in Scientific Life,’ Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society (1971). Andrew Hatfield, Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travels and Colonial Writing in English 1550–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Daniel Burstein, Turning The Tables: A Machiavellian Strategy for Dealing with Japan (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993). Bob Gillespie, Machiavelli and the Mayflower: How to Understand the Europeans (Paris: La Rémige sarl. 2009). This book does mention Machiavelli’s name in the text but less often than Rousseau’s, yet there Machiavelli is in the title. Roger Fisher, Elizabeth Kopelman, and Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping with Conflict (New York City: Penguin, 1996). Ned Parker, ‘Machiavelli in Mesopotamia: Nouri al-Maliki Builds the Body Politics,’ World Policy Journal, 26 (2003)1, 17–25.

228

Chapter 9

– he is the dream teacher you were eagerly waiting for since childhood who can effortlessly explain why that dullest kid in your kindergarten is now a successful millionaire, while that smartest kid is now in prison. – he has also scribed a few books, none of which have won any popular literary awards. And without even a website, blog or an email id, he has more fans, friends and followers than every blogger on the entire World Wide Web. – he is the only guy who can enlighten you with the technical, political, and business justifications for the eternal dance of feast-famine merrymayhem, good-bad, peace-chaos, wealth-poverty, etc., around us. – finally, without even a formal authority he can bring anyone down to their knees, irrespective of geographical boundaries, political clout, diplomatic immunity or muscle power. Want to know who that marvelous person is? Just flip the pages. This from the back cover.68 We found but one reference to Machiavelli, on page x.

Games

We previously mentioned the Machiavelli workshop on Facebook, a strategy game. Other games include Machiavelli the Prince (a.k.a. Merchant Prince) (1993) which describes itself as ‘THE best medieval strategy games ever released, Machiavelli: The Prince is a superb trading game set in the Renaissance, where you assume the role of a merchant who aspires both to monetary wealth and political power.’69 Historians will note the equation of medieval with Renaissance. William Possidente offers tips to players in the book Machiavelli the Prince: The Official Secrets & Solutions (Game Buster).70 Nothing is said about Niccolò. Finally we come to Machiavelli’s Ascent mentioned at the outset. The biggest game of all for young boys is Assassin’s Creed.71 This is a roleplaying video game in its ninth iteration in 2016. One of the principal characters in it is Niccolò Machiavelli. He is described, in this way:

68 B.S. Thejendra, The Cosmic Machiavelli (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2012). 69 The url on 6 June 2016 was: http://free-game-downloads.mosw.com/abandonware/pc/ strategy_games/games_m_n/machiavelli_the_prince_a_k_a_merchant_prince_.html. 70 William Possidente, Machiavelli the Prince: The Official Secrets & Solutions (Game Buster: Prima Publishing, 1995). 71 Accessed on 6 June 2016: http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-au/home/.

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

229

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469–1527) was an Italian philosopher and writer, and a member of the Italian Brotherhood of Assassins. Considered one of the main founders of modern political science, he was a diplomat, political philosopher, musician, and playwright, but foremost, he was a civil servant of the Florentine Republic. With the Assassin Order, Niccolò primarily worked with his ally Ezio Auditore da Firenze, and helped him with driving the Orsi brothers from Forlì and with removing the monk Girolamo Savonarola from power in Florence to obtain the ‘Apple of Eden’ – an ancient artifact – from him. Two years later, Machiavelli took up the position of leader of the Italian Assassins, after the death of previous leader Mario Auditore. Once again joined by Ezio, they fought against the corrupted Borgia family, which ruled over Rome. Eventually successful in their goal, Machiavelli joined Ezio and Leonardo da Vinci in chasing Cesare Borgia in Valencia. This is a very widely played game that embodies the evil Machiavel of myth and could well leave even more thousands of youngsters with the stereotype of Machiavelli than the subjects of the Mach iv and v personality tests. We also include here under the games people play the cocktail party cheat sheet from Mental Floss. The cheat sheet has taken book form, is refreshingly brisk and separates Machiavelli the man from the many erroneous things said about him.72 It does not superimpose the medieval on the Renaissance; it does not imply The Prince is the only book he wrote; it does not suppose that ­Machiavelli held a major government office; it does not confuse the republic with Medici hegemony, and it does not mistake observation for advocacy. This survey would not be complete without a mention of one more item. Sports trading cards are big business these days, and Niccolò has a baseball card!73 It can be located by simply typing into a web search engine ‘Machiavelli baseball card.’ It is described as: ‘2010 Topps Allen & Ginter Baseball Card # 103 Niccolo Machiavelli – Philosopher & Writer – mlb Trading Card in Screwdown Case’ – and that is what arrived in the fullness of time. Although a search of the Topps Allen & Ginter website did not reveal it, we did find another noteworthy inclusion, a baseball card for Gandhi. When searching novelty websites like Zazzle and Cafè Press, we came across a deck of cards called ‘Machiavelli,’ an Italian card game derived from Rummy played by two to five players. 72 73

Will Pearson, Mangesh Hattikudur, and John Green, Mental_Floss: Cocktail Party Cheat Sheets (New York City: Collins, 2006). The link on 4 June 2016 was http://www.amazon.com/Topps-Ginter-Baseball-Niccolo -Machiavelli/dp/B003URKYRE.

230

Chapter 9

We found that a race-horse is named Machiavelli, stabled in Scone, New South Wales.74 Born in 2008, Machiavelli has run in thirty-two races, won five, and last changed hands for $A30,000.

Merchants

Machiavelli’s name is taken for many businesses, particularly hotels and restaurants, as well as the Chianti wine grown on or near his country residence. The cantina La Fonte del Machiavelli is in his home village of San Casciano in the hills where he spent the years he was banned from Florence. The Machiavelli Palace Hotel in Florence once featured a picture of the man himself in the lobby. It is a converted nunnery that once was an aristocratic palazzo, which had nothing to do with Niccolò. Three stars is its rating. nh Machiavelli Hotel in Milan, likewise features a painting allegedly of Machiavelli in the lobby. The meeting rooms listed on the website are called: Principe, Mandragola, and Clizia, but not Discorsi. Four stars is its rating. For those who cannot decipher that coy nh, our travels lead us to the belief that it is the North Holland hotel group, fired by such global ambition as to mask its parochial origins. Outside Italy, in St. Petersburg, Russia, there was for a time the Machiavelli Grand Hotel Europe, which was owned by the Machiavelli Luxury Group. One of its other holdings was the Machiavelli Luxury Boutique.75 When we tried to navigate this Cyrillic website with the help of a Russian-speaking colleague, we were left with the impression it was indeed luxurious. Medici Leather in Firenze puts the name ‘Machiavelli’ on some of its wares. It offers a splendid attaché case called Machiavelli in black, ochre, or red. Not just red: Medici Red. As to restaurants we found on Trip Advisor in 2016 the following: Machiavelli, Upper West Side of New York City with Northern Italian c­ uisine, and plenty of pictures of Niccolò; Sernicolo Machiavelli in Ghent, Belgium; Machiavelli Restaurant in Montreal, Quebec; Machiavelli’s Italian Restaurant. Southington, Connecticut; Machiavelli Ristorante, Seattle, Washington; and Machiavelli Restaurant in Sydney, a meeting place for members of the inner circle of the Australian Labor Party. It has an offshoot cafe for lesser mortals. 74 75

On 10 June 2016 the url was https://www.racenet.com.au/horse/Machiavelli. The Russian website was examined in 2014, but it has since disappeared. http://www .machiavelli.ru/loader.swf?sept=1.

231

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

In London there was Machiavelli Kitchen & Dining Room, affiliated with Machiavelli Food in Covent Garden. This self-proclaimed importer of fine Italian food and wine features a series of wall pictures of Niccolò. Machiavelli Chocolatier of Manila, in the Philippines, had a very amusing website that contrasts some of those oft-quoted lines from ­Machiavelli, e.g., better to be feared than loved, with rejoinders or commentaries about chocolate.76 The knowledge of Machiavelli, and the humorous parallels are noteworthy. More often than not, all that the use of Machiavelli’s name means is an Italian connection, as with the restaurants. Occasionally, the reference to Machiavelli goes further as with the chocolatier in Manila. Of course, it may be that in some cases Machiavelli is the name of the proprietor, and this coincidence is just what we discovered with a real estate salesman in Hobart in insular Tasmania.

...

While compiling a library of cultural references to Machiavelli, two thousand in number, we have come across many representations of the man himself. What surprised us is the many faces attributed to Machiavelli. Representations can be found on book covers, novelty items, an Italian Lira, postage stamps from Senegal, websites like cnn, blogs by enthusiasts, iPhone cases, board game boxes, Assassin’s Creed videos, or a San Marino coin. There are images on the covers of books with Machiavelli in the title wearing an eighteenthcentury tricorn hat, another who is surely Francis Bacon in Elizabethan court clothing. As the assiduous biographer Roberto Ridolfi has pointed out, the representations at the Uffizi in Forence – a bust and two paintings – were labeled with his name in the nineteenth century with no provenance.77 Ridolfi implies that when English tourists, inspired by Macaulay’s brief rehabilitation of Machiavelli’s reputation, went to Florence, they created a demand for Machiavelliana, which Florentines were ready to supply. Even the alleged death mask, which influenced the statute of Machiavelli outside the Uffizi, emerged only many years after his death. Patrick Curry and Oscar Zarate’s first edition of Machiavelli for Beginners has on its cover a likeness of Machiavelli adorned with devil horns.78 Is this the long-term influence of Cardinal Pole? 76 Easiest to find on Facebook, last accessed June 2016, https://www.facebook.com/ Machiavelli-Chocolatier-116007414610/. 77 Roberto Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli (London: Routledge, 1963), 260 N35. 78 Patrick Curry and Oscar Zarate, Machiavelli for Beginners (Trumpington, England: Icon Books, 1995).

232

Chapter 9

It is implied in Machiavelli: A Graphic Guide, by that same combination of Curry and Zarate, that the reference to the Devil as Old Nick is derived from Niccolò Machiavelli.79 The Oxford English Dictionary declares the term Old Nick pre-dated Machiavelli. Finally, we have already commented on Stanley Bing’s shark fin motif in Chapter 4 and we will not spend any more ink on that book. Shane Clester’s Machiavelli recounts The Prince in story-boards in a sober way.80 It does not feature dripping blood, but shows a detached Machiavelli observing and commenting on the mayhem around him. Then there is Morim Kang’s The Prince, mentioned in passing above, in which this Korean cartoonist offers a version of Machiavelli’s The Prince for Korean sensibilities.81 And still among the cartoonists, Cullen Bunn applies precepts from The Prince, he claims, to contemporary office work without the deadly accuracy of Scott ­Adams in Dilbert.82 These many images confirm the myth of Machiavelli all around us, and in many parts of the world. They also show that sometimes the real Machiavelli emerges. Finally in this miscellany, Google Ngrams chart the use of words over the books scanned into it. We performed searches for (Thomas) ‘Hobbes,’ ‘Hobbesian,’ and ‘Hobbesianism’ as well as ‘Plato,’ ‘Platonic,’ and ‘Platonism’ to compare to ‘Machiavelli,’ ‘Machiavellian,’ and ‘Machiavellianism.’ These Ngram searches produce timeline charts without numerical values from 1800 to 1962. They represent Machiavelli’s frequency among all names as tiny percentages. Of greater interest are the fluctuations in Machiavelli’s mentions. There is a spurt of mentions in books between 1800–1810, another from 1840, and rising curves in 1880 that descend in 1890, only to recur in 1920 from which it has since ascended with a drop back in the decade of he 1940s. The term ‘Machiavellian’ has enjoyed a steady usage and an upward trend since 1840, and seems to have as large a volume of mentions as Machiavelli himself. ‘Machiavellianism’ hardly figures. There are many anomalies. For example, Arthur Upfield mentions ­Machiavelli and uses ‘Machiavellian’ in two of his crime novels set in the Australian outback: The Sands of Windee (1931) and Mr Jelly’s Business

79 80 81 82

Patrick Curry and Oscar Zarate, Introducing Machiavelli: A Graphic Guide (London: Icon Books, 2012). Shane Clester, Machiavelli (Mundelein, il: Roundtable Comics, 2011). Morim Kang,The Prince (Netcomics, Kindle edition. 2014). Cullen Bunn, The Prince from SmarterComics, Machiavelli (Palo Alto, ca: SmarterComics, 2011).

Machiavelli Ubiquitous

233

(1937).83 ­Upfield was not given to gratuitous references to demonstrate his learning, and his characters are the salt of the earth, not bookish dons, and it is unlikely that his readers would have been expected to know of Machiavelli. Yet there the name is. We know not why. Returning to the Ngrams, Plato enjoyed a great deal more celebrity than Machiavelli, especially in the Victorian era between 1840 and 1900. Hobbes seems to have had a more constant, though small, following from 1840. But ‘­Hobbesian’ is nearly absent and ‘Hobbeianism’ is altogether gone. This Ngramology is a rough measure of the occurrence of words, nothing more. Some of the books that include Machiavelli’s name are serious works of scholarship that we have set aside. Just as the Papal Index was a book about books, there are other books that guide readers. Horace Shipp in Books that Changed the World omits Machiavelli, but Robert Downs puts him into his Books that Changed the World, listing The Prince ninth in a chronological list.84 He notes that the sinister connotations of his name are probably undeserved, a reaction to his forthright window on brutal reality, adding that Machiavelli might be compared to a contemporary whistle-blower in a corporation. Those who scapegoat a whistle-blower reason that there was no problem until the whistle-blower came along, so let us gather around and blame the whistleblower. Downs ends by concluding that no one else but Karl Marx has had such an impact on intellectuals as Machiavelli. One might wonder about Plato or Einstein. There is also Benjamin Wiker, whose 10 Books that Screwed up the World, and 5 Others that Didn’t Help devotes the first of his several intemperate chapters to The Prince.85 Thus do we conclude this miscellany of Machiavelliana. It has ranged as far as possible to show just how widely and distantly Machiavelli’s name and visage are used in the wider world. He is a ready-made stock character in fictional works and much fiction is told about him even in books of non-fiction. In periodic revivals of the Medici story, he reappears. When filmmakers want to condemn the political world, a good few turn to Machiavelli. In the same register when journalists want to convey an opinion about politics and politicians, his name and its derivatives come forth. Merchants, too, have embraced .

83 84

85

Arthur Upfield, Mr Jelly’s Business (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1937) and Arthur Upfield, The Sands of Windee (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1931). Horace Shipp, Books that Changed the World (London: Evans Brothers Ltd, 1945) and Robert Downs, Books That Changed the World (Second Ed.) (Chicago: American Library Association, 1978), 7 and 163. Benjamin Wiker, 10 Books that Screwed up the World, and 5 Others that Didn’t Help (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 2008).

234

Chapter 9

him, sometimes to deepen the reference to Florence, Tuscany, or Italy, and sometimes merely in jest. The next is the last chapter and in it we draw together the threads of the survey of Machiavelliana and its myths. There we redress some of the most common distortions of Machiavelli in the myth. This is a task we hope to stimulate others to continue.

Chapter 10

The Second Time is Farce Looking back at the ground covered in previous chapters, it is clear that the myth of Machiavelli, reinforced through idiomatic usage and dispersed in popular culture, consists of a number of stereotypes based mainly on impressions of The Prince. Those impressions subordinate most of the book to a few passages, and from these lines the familiar Machiavelli emerges. This is the Machiavelli who argues that it is more important to appear virtuous than to be virtuous; that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved; that a ruler should not keep faith; and that the end justifies the means. This Machiavelli is often called a political operator, sometimes a high-ranking employee of the Medici or an associate of Cesare Borgia, all of which qualify him to offer insights on his times, and make him a prophet for ours. That prophetic status has engendered a malign influence on modern dictators like Mussolini, on the one hand, and a realism about human nature and politics that allows the separation of facts and values, on the other. These are touchstones of the mythical Machiavelli. This chapter offers correction and qualification to some of the most often repeated and mistaken tropes of the distorted mythical Machiavel. The Prince is a book of wisdom for new princes in turbulent times in Florence and Italy. Its guiding principle is political prudence. That simple fact has not engaged the interest of modern appropriators who prefer to see it as a handbook justifying mendacity and self-interest – but it should have. It is likely Machiavelli believed that morality, like law, followed security, and that security was won and defended by arms and cleverness, as made plain in The Prince, Chapter xii: ‘good laws cannot exist where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there should be good laws.’ The Prince is not a text to excuse human animals from acting with the cunning of a fox and the claws of a lion. Rather, it is a study in how a Renaissance prince might secure his (new) territory. This is not to be achieved solely by brute force, deception or cruelty. If such measures are to be employed, they will be only part of the story. Yet, for many of the works using Machiavelli’s authority that we have cited above, they are the whole story. The larger story, so frequently ignored, is how prudence, the sagacious reading of circumstances, can be applied at a time of rapid political change and uncertainty. If difficult decisions contrary to received morality are necessary, clothing those decisions with moral and religious legitimacy might shock, but greater shocks will ensue if the state is not preserved. And if the people are as likely to misjudge a ruler’s intentions as

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi 10.1163/9789004365513_012

236

Chapter 10

to read them correctly, it is part of his responsibility to engender confidence by keeping up appearances. What is left out of quotations from Machiavelli in most of the works we have surveyed – not just the full context of passages that might qualify the pithy maxim but his concerns with military matters, such as fortifications and militias – tells us as much about his use as what is quoted. Selective quotation from The Prince is easy: Machiavelli’s text is replete with pithy turns of phrase. It is not surprising that the term ‘Machiavellian’ has found a place in the vernacular yet it is an accusation justified by a myth. Is Machiavelli’s myth, the view that he was a scheming manipulator who, in the service of the Medici, advocated cruelty, amorality, and authoritarian rule to stand uncorrected? Machiavelli departs radically from the conventions of Christianity and Classical morality, and in particular, from the catalog of princely virtues found in the mirror of princes literature: faithfulness, liberality, compassion, truthfulness and justice. In making this breach from tradition, Machiavelli’s inversion of these virtues seems to recommend undesirable and objectionable commitments for rulers. Bertrand Russell allegedly called The Prince ‘a handbook for gangsters.’1 Like so much in the Machiavellian myth, this often quoted, cited, and repeated line might be apocryphal, but it reinforces popular opinion with a stamp of authority.2 Machiavelli did depart from the ‘orders’ of other writers, and was conscious of doing so. In a famous passage in Chapter xv of The Prince, he wrote: since my intent is to write a thing that is useful for whoever understands it, it seemed to me more appropriate to go after the effectual truth of the thing than the imagination of it. And many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in truth. For there is such a distance from how one lives to how one ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns what 1 In this spirit The Prince is referred to by these cancer researchers as a handbook for despots and tyrants, Bryan Oronsky et al., ‘Medical Machiavellianism: the trade-off between benefit and harm with targeted chemotherapy,’ Oncotarget 7(2016)8:, 9041. 2 The remark is inconsistent with the tone, temper and treatment of Machiavelli in Russell’s The History of Western Philosophy, and tracking down its source yielded just one reference: Isaiah Berlin’s famous essay of 1972, ‘The Originality of Machiavelli.’ Berlin puts the Russell remark in a list of comments on The Prince without a footnote. Hence, those few who give a source when quoting this bon mot of Russelliana give but Berlin and Berlin gives nothing. Our conclusion is that Russell probably said but did not write it, and Berlin made a note of it. Russell liked to provoke, and perhaps this is one example of that.

The Second Time is Farce

237

will ruin him rather than what will save him, since a man who would wish to make a career of being good in every detail must come to ruin among so many who are not good. This passage has long been regarded as scandalous, but consider Machiavelli’s rival authority for Renaissance political morality, Cicero: occasions often arise, when those duties which seem becoming to the just man … undergo a change and take on a contrary aspect. … it may become right and proper sometimes to evade and not to observe what truth and honor would usually demand. For we may well be guided by those fundamental principles of justice which I laid down at the outset: first, that no harm be done to anyone; second, that the common interests be conserved. When these are modified under changed circumstances, moral duty also undergoes a change …3 This is simple prudence to Cicero. Being able to judge a situation requires the ability to be detached, to understand the situation so that you do no deliberate harm, and include the common good in deliberation. This is not a loosening of restraint but, on the contrary, a recognition that the abandonment of judgment in the name of morality is also the abandonment of duty. Machiavelli echoes Cicero when he says in The Prince, Chapter xviii: ‘Therefore a prudent lord cannot, nor should he, observe faith when such observance turns against himself, and when the reasons that made him promise it are eliminated.’ Cicero, who holds steadfastly to a natural law position, writes: ‘the function of wisdom (prudentia) is to discriminate between good and evil …’4 In this he is much closer to Machiavelli than is often acknowledged. Machiavelli writes in The Prince, Chapter xxi: ‘prudence consists in knowing how to recognize the qualities of the inconveniences and choosing the less bad as if it were good.’ Princely prudence is not a license to act immorally, but the requirement to exercise judgment: ‘the new prince must be weighty in giving credence and taking action, and he should not create fear of himself, but proceed in a manner tempered with prudence and humanity, lest too much confidence make him incautious’ (The Prince, Chapter xvii). It is no surprise that Machiavelli should have defined his work against a dominant authority in political ­literature and a dominant genre, the mirror of princes books. As Marcia Colish

3 Cicero De officiis, x, 31. 4 Ibid. iii, xvii, 71.

238

Chapter 10

argues, ­Machiavelli used De officiis to structure his arguments in The Prince.5 This usage shows how far he departed from the conventions of that literature. As Quentin Skinner has pointed out, Machiavelli’s forebears, like Latini, ‘insist that the dictates of prudence and virtue will always turn out to be the same.’6 Cicero is the ultimate authority for this conviction, and it prevailed among Machiavelli’s contemporaries, like Erasmus. Machiavelli questions it in The Prince: a ruler simply cannot possess the virtues of the good man and survive. That means he must prudently avoid the charge of infamy and viciousness. Hence, in considering the questions found in De officiis about liberality and frugality, cruelty and mercy, keeping faith and the relative merits of engendering love or fear in subjects, Machiavelli considers the effectual truth of the matter, not desiderata that will never be found in politics. These questions were quite conventional in the discussion of political prudence, but Machiavelli took that discussion in an unconventional direction which has emerged in a confused way in modern contexts. He was not novel in asking them, but he was novel in the answers he gave, particularly with respect to prudence. But that is not the whole story. Machiavelli delivers specific answers to specific questions raised in The Prince and those questions are then taken to characterize the man and his thought. There are many passages in the Discourses which do, indeed, support maxims in The Prince, but it would be arbitrary to read Machiavelli through only part of his oeuvre. In terms resembling Erasmus’ book, Machiavelli wrote a death-bed speech for Giovanni de’ Medici to his sons. In it Giovanni recommends the virtues of the model prince from the many books in the mirror of princes literature. Nothing does so much to make me die happy as to remember that I have never injured anyone. In the government, if you wish to live in security, take as much part as is given you by the laws and by men. This will not bring on you either envy or danger … And you will always have much more authority than those who, wishing the share of others, lose their own … Then Machiavelli praises Giovanni in similar terms. He was charitable, and not merely was in the habit of giving alms to those who asked them, but many times without being asked he supplied the needs of the poor. He loved everybody; the good he praised, and the 5 Marcia Colish, ‘Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince,’ Sixteenth Century Journal, 9 (1978)4, 82. 6 Skinner, Foundations, vol. 1, 48.

The Second Time is Farce

239

­ icked he pitied. Never did he ask for offices, and he held them all. … w He loved peace, avoided war. In times of adversity, he gave men support; in times of prosperity, he gave them aid. He was far from plundering the treasury, and to the common good he made additions.7 So much for stamping Machiavelli’s character with a few selective passages from The Prince. Venturing too far into Machiavelli’s writings would destroy the illusion of the Machiavel so usefully conjured by Pole and Gentillet. It must be stressed that Machiavelli was a high context writer.8 He fit his words to the time and place which he observed and altogether the words of his many reflections combine his insights. Moreover, he did not write finished manuscripts for publication, apart from one exception, but rather crystalized his thought in main for himself as many a blogger does today. His first and foremost audience was himself. For these reasons we used that neologism contextomy earlier to call attention to context. If context is important in coming to terms with Machiavelli, then context is important in reading those who have used him. When those contexts of use are examined, as we have above, Machiavelli becomes a curiosity. His name is there, as in the Mach scales or in primatology, but that is all. In these modern contexts he is a caricature whose relevance rests upon a limited number of passages from a few select chapters in one book – The Prince. When people speak of the Phillips head screwdriver, or Pasteurization, or when engineers employ the Fourier transformation, they seldom think of those who have lent their names to them. There is no similar detachable process with which Machiavelli is associated. Removed from his context of sixteenth-century Florence, it is not clear where else he belongs. He had no knowledge of any of the areas that claim him in the pursuits we have documented. Unlike Phillips, Pasteur, and Fourier he did not produce a device that could be applied across a number of contexts. Indeed, comparing him with scientists and engineers would be otiose were it not for the fact that he has been so employed, however implausibly, in scientific contexts where he sits very awkwardly. Who better to remind us of this than Michael A. Ledeen. In a Bradley lecture to the American Enterprise Institute, he declared: There are several reasons for his continuing relevance. The first is his pitiless view of mankind. Like Galileo, who pointed his telescope at the ­planets instead of reasoning from abstract religious or p ­ hilosophical 7 Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 3, 1024. 8 For an exposition of the importance of context, see the adept rendering of Edward Hall, B ­ eyond Culture (New York: Random, 1976), 85ff.

240

Chapter 10

­ rinciples, Machiavelli is interested in facts. His generalizations are p based on the record of human behavior from the beginning. It isn’t good enough to read the newspapers, or watch television, and try to understand today all by itself. The serious study of the past provides the raw material for wise decisions today and tomorrow, since we are prone to the same kinds of mistakes our predecessors made, and we can emulate the great acts of past heroes.9 Again, the unstated assumption is that human nature is everywhere and at all times invariant. Ledeen assumes Machiavelli’s relevance to the present and seeks to explain, not to question that relevance. The first reason given is that Machiavelli has an unsentimental view of humanity. Our insistent question must again be: why Machiavelli and not, say, Aristotle? Secondly, Machiavelli is supposed, like Galileo, to have attended only to the facts and not relied upon abstract principles. Of course, Copernicus arrived at the heliocentric model of the solar system mathematically and observationally – but without a telescope. Thirdly, actions today are the same as those of our predecessors and we can avoid their mistakes while emulating their greatness. The master narratives identified in Chapter 3, and elsewhere, assert themselves unnoticed. Ledeen’s assertions defy the very approach for which he praises Machiavelli, for he works from assumptions not backed with evidence. That evidence is supplied by historical scholarship. Such is the irony.

Judging by Appearances

When one of us (Jackson) walks the dog around the park he occasionally comes across a pair of Bedlington terriers. Because these two Bedlingtons a­ lways attack his harmless mutt, he diverts to avoid these bad dogs. One day, coming around a corner there were two Bedlingtons and he froze, expecting the worst, but no, these two Bedlingtons were calm, forbearing, polite, and nothing happened. This was not because the bad Bedlingtons had reformed but because this was a second pair of Bedlingtons. One cannot tell the good Bedlingtons from the bad Bedlingtons by looking, so prudence dictates a protocol of avoidance. Machiavelli faced a Bedlington problem with the Florentine political class. Among the forty to fifty individuals who played the political game in any 9 Michael A. Ledeen, ‘Machiavelli for Moderns’ May 12, 1997 aei Bradley Lecture Series, ­retrieved 29 April, 2016 at http://www.aei.org/publication/machiavelli-for-moderns/

The Second Time is Farce

241

city some will want the top job and a few of them will use any means to get it.10 At the beginning of the Discourses (Book 1, Chapter 3) Machiavelli offers a c­ aution: ‘whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with ­assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.’ What precautions can a prince take? Sometimes he cannot tell by looking at a person what that person is thinking, whether that person is to be trusted or not. Who is friend and who is enemy is not transparent and can change with time and tide. Who can be sure merely by looking what a person will do in changed circumstances? Even those we know well can surprise us. There is no obvious way to be sure and so precautions are in order. In a given time, perhaps none of the politically active citizens are plotting against the prince. At a different time, perhaps each of the fifty would have a plot to topple him. Though few might aspire to be prince, all might conspire for change. The lesson is to be very careful, as one fictional Cold War secret agent advised a protégé: ‘Values are different out there: let a man show friendship for you and you’ve got to deny him, mistrust him, suspect him, and nine times out of ten you’ll be wrong but it’s the tenth time that’ll save you from a dirty death ….’11 Machiavelli’s advice is far less brutal than this, but it carries the same freight. Appearances can deceive. In that world it is better to deceive than be deceived. And that is the moral: thinking ahead and acting accordingly may avert problems. Yet, Machiavelli’s caution about appearances has counted against, not for him. True, his prudence mocked traditional authority. Discussing forms of wrong, Cicero writes that it may be done by force or fraud. Force belongs to the lion and fraud to the fox, and while neither is acceptable, fraud is worse: ‘of all forms of injustice, none is more flagrant than that of the hypocrite who, at the very moment when he is most false, makes it his business to appear virtuous.’12

Necessity and Glory

Even if black deeds are sometimes necessary, Machiavelli draws moral lines, as did Cicero who wrote, ‘justice without wisdom (iustitia sine prudentia) will not be able to do much; wisdom without justice will be of no avail at all.’13 Practical 10 Discourses, 1.16. 11 Adam Hall, The Warsaw Document (London: Heineman, 1971), 16. 12 Cicero, De officiis, i.xiii.41. 13 Cicero, De officiis, ii, ix, 34.

242

Chapter 10

sagacity is stressed in The Prince, but as we have noted many times, justice is not absent. Where Machiavelli differs from classical and Christian discussions is in detaching the virtues of the ruler from each other in a way Cicero rejects.14 Take the exemplary case of Agathocles of Syracuse, whose deeds Machiavelli discusses in Chapter viii of The Prince. Agathocles did what was needed to secure his country, but he did it with such cruel excess that it cannot be called glory. Necessity might ‘require’ (or justify) cruelty but it must be done correctly, and that means doing it quickly and all together and then converting it ‘into as much utility for the subjects as possible’. If necessity requires this, it requires also another departure from Cicero – the simulation of virtue. Cicero believes that the virtues cannot be simulated; Machiavelli holds the contrary. Whatever a ruler’s deficiencies, he must appear to have all the virtues.15 Ironically, both Cicero and Machiavelli marry virtue to utility, but their different emphases give different outcomes. For Skinner one of the keys to Machiavelli’s psyche and one that sets him apart from us is ‘glory,’ that antique Roman virtú that we can barely fathom; Glory, to be so magnificent that others are in awe.16 This sentiment would not have been foreign to Cicero.

Feared or Loved; Compassionate or Cruel?

One of the most frequently cited passages in The Prince is in Chapter xvii where Machiavelli concludes that it is better to be feared than loved. That conclusion is cited time and again without a word about the painful discussion that issues it.17 Still less is notice given to the classical background of that discussion or its place in Italian political literature.18 In this chapter, Machiavelli is directly contradicting Cicero’s De officiis, not on some abstract consideration but on the immediate question of security: ‘of all motives, none is better adapted to secure influence and hold it fast than love; nothing is more foreign to that 14 Cicero, De officiis, ii, x, 35. 15 Colish, ‘Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince,’ 90–91. 16 Benner points to Machiavelli’s use of the word altezza (height) as closer to hubris than aiming high. We believe that Machiavelli’s metaphor of an archer aiming high is a counsel against minimalism that would serve many who essay the instruction of others well. 17 One example is Eric Michael Moberg, Machiavelli Was Wrong: It is Better to be Loved (San Bernardino, ca: CreateSpace, 2016) who takes the injunction to be a commandment and then strives to correct Machiavelli. 18 See, for example, Skinner on Latini who argues that ‘any ruler who indulges in ‘fierce pains and sharp torments’ will be making a prudential as well as a moral mistake,’ Foundations, vol. 1, 47.

The Second Time is Farce

243

end than fear.’ According to Cicero, ‘fear is a poor safeguard of lasting power; while affection … may be trusted to keep it safe for ever.’ Those who ‘deliberately put themselves in a position to be feared are the maddest of the mad’ (De officiis., Book. ii, vii). This background makes all the difference. Considering Cicero’s rather sanguine view of the security won by affection and answering it according to the effectual truth of the matter is very different from despising love and valorizing fear. Just as General Sherman’s mournful admonition that war is hell and not some glorious pursuit, so Machiavelli’s lament that fear is better than love sometimes is taken to be an imperative trumpet call. Fear is better than love! It is easy in taking this view of Machiavelli’s precepts to forget his use of irony and rhetorical strategy. In Chapter xv he writes of his concern that he should be thought presumptuous because, ‘in debating this material I shall depart from the orders of others.’ It is easy to miss the word ‘debate.’ Machiavelli is discussing the virtues, not proclaiming the simplified slogan with which he has become associated. Much has been written about this but the message has not got through to those intent on labeling him as callous.19 Machiavelli’s oftquoted conclusion about fear over love is a heavily qualified derivation from a circuitous argument around which more qualifications are piled. It is not the bold assertion: it is always better to be feared than loved, as it is so often said to be. Machiavelli’s starting point is that for a prince being loved is best. However, there is no straight line for a prince to follow to nurture this love, not only among the populace but also among those forty to fifty politicos in the elite. Some actions that win the love of many will alienate others in the populace, while popular measures may alienate the elite. Making all the people happy all the time is beyond mortal capacities, yet that seems to be the assumed standard of Machiavelli’s critics. Moreover, love is a gift of the lover: as it can be given so it can be taken. A prince may love the people but they may not return that love, and if they do, at some future time they may withdraw it: ‘since men love at their own pleasure, and fear at the pleasure of the prince, a wise prince must found himself on that which is his, and not on that which belongs to others’ (The Prince, Chapter xvii). Piero Soderini was elected leader for life by the Florentines and promptly abandoned by them when the going got tough.

19

According to Victoria Kahn, Machiavelli uses argument in utramque partem – on both sides of the case – because circumstances do not allow adherence to a moral template. Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 24–25. She also said Machiavelli’s near contemporaries read him in this spirit, ‘not a shockingly original political thinker,’ 237.

244

Chapter 10

No sooner does Machiavelli arrive at this conclusion, than he qualifies it again. Be feared if necessary, but if and only if it is necessary, and here it is well to remember Machiavelli’s central theme of the establishment of new domains. Where order does not prevail and must be established, fear might be necessary. That is the first qualification; it might not be necessary. This is another matter of judgment, certainly. Second, generate that fear in such a way as not to become hated. To be hated is to lose right then and there. No one will follow a prince they hate. No one will want to pay taxes to one hated. The followers will have to be compelled and that is exhausting and expensive. Taxes will have to be extracted the hard way and that is even more exhausting and expensive. It is a downward spiral. This fact escapes most writers looking for a cheap shot. ‘Fear’ is not hatred, according to Machiavelli. Are fear and love the contraries that is often implied in references to this passage? Not at all: the two intertwine like a vine over a fence. One can both fear and love the same person. John Stuart Mill says in his Autobiography that he feared his father and that he loved him and honored him.20 There is no contradiction in this combination. Mill feared his father’s exacting judgments and his unending demands for excellence, which young John felt he could never satisfy. Fear can be alloyed with respect, affection, and love. When Machiavelli praises the virtù of Cesare Borgia as worthy of emulation by others, he refers to the Duke’s ability ‘to make himself loved and feared’ (The Prince, Chapter vii). Equally subtle is the discussion of liberality and parsimony in Chapter xvi, which follows in form Cicero (De officiis, i.xiv). Machiavelli recommends parsimony because liberality will destroy a prince’s security and beggar his people. Machiavelli’s discussion, however, is easily placed into a catalog of his vices, as though he were assembling Russell’s manual for gangsters. The Ciceronian background does not even register.

Keeping Faith

A ‘prudent lord cannot, nor should he, observe faith when such observance turns against himself, and when the reasons that made him promise it are eliminated.’ This famous maxim from Chapter xviii of The Prince has excited general condemnation from Frederick the Great to the present. The tactics of a prince like Pope Julius ii must have been instructive for Machiavelli, who 20

On the complexities of Mill’s case, see Nicholas Capaldi, John Stuart Mill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

The Second Time is Farce

245

overcame his dislike of this pope to pay him grudging tribute (The Prince, Chapter xxv). He discusses Julius’s impetuous nature, but interestingly not his faithlessness. Julius broke faith as circumstances and his advantage dictated. Clearly this was not very Christian, but nor was it in accordance with the classical virtues. And yet, Cicero had this to say about keeping faith: For a given promise or agreement may turn out in such a way that its performance will prove detrimental either to the one to whom the promise has been made or to the one who has made it. … Promises are, therefore, not to be kept, if the keeping of them is to prove harmful to those to whom you have made them; and, if the fulfillment of a promise should do more harm to you than good to him to whom you have made it, it is no violation of moral duty to give the greater good precedence over the lesser good (De officiis, i, x, 32). To hold otherwise, says Cicero, is to ‘have a false conception of duty.’ In Chapter 1 we outlined the faithlessness of Pope Julius ii to show the turbulent world in which Machiavelli lived. What stands out in that sorry sketch of war and treachery is not so much the inconstancy of the pope, but the worthlessness of treaties and the uncertainty of alliances. Thomas More wrote in Utopia that treaties were so little observed by princes of the time that the Utopians declined to make them.21 Machiavelli does not instance Julius’ bad faith, but the pope exemplifies his dictum that when circumstances change then so should a ruler’s commitments. Julius typifies one of those among whom a prince would be foolish to keep faith. In discussing such matters, Machiavelli’s concerns are local and specific to government. He is not making a comment about business or personal relationships. The classic exemplar of good faith that Machiavelli does not mention in The Prince is Marcus Atilius Regulus. Cicero relates this story in De officiis. Taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, Regulus was sent back to Rome on parole to secure the release of Carthaginian prisoners of war. Although it appeared personally expedient for him to break his word and remain in Rome with his family, ‘greatness of soul and courage’ persuaded him otherwise. These virtues, says Cicero, ‘rise superior to all the vicissitudes of earthly life, and … count nothing intolerable that can befall a human being.’ Regulus argued before the Senate that returning brave young Carthaginian prisoners was not in Rome’s interest.

21

Thomas More, Utopia eds. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams, revised edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 83–84.

246

Chapter 10

Then he returned to Carthage to a death by torture. Neither fear, nor the loss of his country and family could divert him. Keeping faith was his sacred duty.22 Machiavelli would have been familiar with this story. He mentions Regulus in Book ii (Chapter 18) of the Discourses on the deployment of infantry, and again in iii (Chapter 25), in the central discussion of the poverty of Cincinnatus. He does not mention Regulus in The Prince. But Nifo does.23 It would not suit Machiavelli’s purposes to cite Regulus in the context of good faith because he is trying to show – contrary to Cicero – how faithfulness restricts the courses open to a ruler. For Cicero, what is expedient is ethical.24 For Machiavelli, the relationship is contingent. The heroic good faith of Regulus – who was a general, not a consul at the time – is not the kind of constancy he wishes to recommend to a prince. Nifo proposed a middle way, arguing that a ruler should keep faith except when compelled to break it. As such compelling circumstances will be very rare, such a breach will not be judged harshly by the many. Yet this supposed middle way suggests more of a distance between Cicero and Machiavelli than is the case. Clearly Machiavelli challenged Cicero on many questions but they agree that prudence demands choosing the lesser of two evils.25 This is not how Machiavelli has been presented in, say, manuals of business strategy. They have no interest in this background, and their historical nakedness must raise this question: do they really wish to invoke Machiavelli to defend faithlessness as a justifiable way to operate? Further, can it really be claimed that normal animal or human behavior resembles the responses to crisis witnessed by Machiavelli?

Ends and Means

The relation of ends to means is probably the central issue in The Prince for modern users. Machiavelli’s co-option by management, social psychology and the myriad other pursuits we mention tends to be subsumed under it. He has been made to justify the amoral or immoral pursuit of ends ranging from personal self-interest to war. Of course, it should be uncontroversial that good ends must justify the use of licit means, but the very question has the bias of a post-Kantian sensibility: in principle, ends can never justify means! Scholarship has clarified the meaning of Machiavelli’s text, but his amorality is still 22 Cicero, De officiis, iii. 23 Nifo, De regnandi peritia, Book iv, 11. 24 Cicero, De officiis, iii, xv, 64. 25 Cicero De officiis, iii, xxviii, 102; The Prince, Chapter xxi.

The Second Time is Farce

247

regarded as self-evident and thus self-evidently to be exploited. The myth continues to outrun the evidence. Stanley Bing, discussed in Chapter 4, and Daniel Goleman in Chapter 5, are instances of this flood beyond facts. Machiavelli did not say the end justifies the means. The meaning of what he did say is illuminated by context, as John Najemy has shown. In 1513, Machiavelli’s friend and sometime patron Francesco Vettori had written to him voicing skepticism about understanding the actions of princes. Vettori expressed a strong doubt that politics could be rational. Najemy points out that while Machiavelli’s correspondence deflected the issues raised by Vettori, The Prince takes them up, most pointedly in Chapter xviii where he famously declares: And men as a whole judge more with their eyes than their hands, because everyone is permitted to see, but few are permitted to touch. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few feel what you are – and those few do not dare to oppose the opinion of the many … And in the actions of all men, and especially of princes (where there is no judge to whom to protest), one looks to the end. The first sentence of this quotation alludes to a fifteenth century proverb and answers Vettori’s political skepticism. Most people misread politics because they rely on appearances but ‘the truth of things is to be discovered in works, actions, and results, not in words.’26 Yet, despite the inadequacies of the many, it is given to princes to know their ends and aim for them and for the few who understand these ends to have knowledge of politics. In writing ‘one looks to the end,’ Machiavelli was not stating, ‘the end justifies the means’ but that the science of politics lies in understanding the end at which the prince was aiming in his actions. Najemy points out that ‘fine’ is ‘the word Vettori had used to refer not to “final result” but to the purpose or aim of each prince, which, he insisted, is only partly accessible from “parole” and “dimostrazioni” and whose … truth remains largely a “secret.”’27 Not only does the famous phrase, ‘si guarda al fine’ not announce an ethical issue almost four hundred before Kant gave it its ultimate formula, but it is an observation of a state of affairs, not an injunction. It does not recommend that results are what count. It is a concession to Vettori that he is right in the main about politics, but also corrects him and others who might be tempted to believe that politics is unintelligible. 26 27

John M. Najemy, Between Friends: Discourses Of Power And Desire In The Machiavelli-­ Vettori Letters of 1513–1515, (Princeton, n.j.: Princeton University Press, c1993), 186–187. Ibid., 187.

248

Chapter 10

But what of Machiavelli’s emphasis on results, even when cruelty is involved? As we point out above, Machiavelli does say that cruelty might be necessary to secure the state but that it should be done quickly and not excessively. Sometimes, as Benner points out, the end is the only measure, but not always. Ends do matter and do differ but, contrary to many commentators, The Prince and the Discourses are replete with ethical judgments about both ends and means. Benner argues that virtú cannot be judged ‘by asking only whether a person attained whatever ends he happened to have’.28 The question for Machiavelli is not whether a ruler achieved his ambitions but whether the means he used brought security to his stato and glory to himself. The discussion of cruelty makes this clear: it must be ‘converted into as much utility for the subjects as possible’. In deliberating about this, how far is Machiavelli really removed from Cicero’s admonition to ‘become good calculators of duty, able by adding and subtracting to strike a balance correctly’ (De officiis. i, xviii, 59).

The Pernicious Influence

Antonio Gramsci died in prison in brutal conditions while contemplating Machiavelli’s application to his age. The irony is that his warder, Benito Mussolini, was also an admirer of Machiavelli. It is an example that has a parallel in the Soviet Union. Lev Kamenev was a leader of the Bolsheviks, and a ruthless enemy of the old regime, sending many of its adherents to their deaths. While he broke with Leon Trotsky, he never quite sided with Joseph Stalin. In 1934, Stalin purged Kamenev and he was arraigned at the first of the so-called show trials. Only six weeks before his appearance in the dock he had published a Russian translation of Machiavelli’s The Prince with editorial comments.29 The prosecutor, Andrey Vyshinsky, referred several times to Kamenev’s affinity with Machiavelli, as a schemer, a plotter, a deceiver, a liar, a fraud… The conclusion was foregone. Kamenev was executed and part of the public justification for it was his Machiavellianism, born from reading The Prince. The irony is that Stalin himself is alleged, by those we have referred to in Chapter 2 (particularly Rees), to have learned his tyranny from reading Machiavelli. Like Frederick the Great, he then applied what he denounced. Along the way we have noted that others with far more discreditable deeds to their names have escaped the historical opprobrium heaped on ­Machiavelli. 28 29

Erica Benner, Machiavelli’s Prince: A New Reading (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 303. Chimen Abransky, ‘Kamenev’s Last Essay,’ New Left Review 15 (1962), 34–42.

The Second Time is Farce

249

Henry viii, for example, murdered at least 50,000 Catholics in his Reformation purge. Leonardo da Vinci built destructive weapons for tyrants like Il Moro, Ludovico Sforza of Milan. That none of them was ever put to the test is not due to Leonardo’s conscience. Yet while Leonardo’s military assignments are diminished in the admiration for his genius, no such indulgence is granted to Machiavelli. What is worse is that he is routinely accused of being a Medici retainer himself, hence the many references to him as a creature of a court, although that often repeated claim is plainly wrong. Machiavelli did not serve the Medici and they were not princes. Only a century after Machiavelli’s time did the family secure noble elevation so that for a time the head of the family was the Grand Duke of Tuscany. We have stressed Machiavelli’s independence of the Medici several times in the text, though now is the time to enter a small qualification. After he was displaced, he did later secure some other commissions from members of the Medici family. He was commissioned to write a history of Florence by the Florentine Studio, with the approval of Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici. This was a tricky assignment since it would inevitably involve references to the Medici. Ever skillful with his pen, Machiavelli handled this hazardous commission, apparently to mutual satisfaction. He was also commissioned to write a consultant’s report for the incoming Medici family on the constitution of Florence, and this he did. Like all consultants’ reports it is short. In it he urges the returning Medici to accept the republican ways of Florence and to see to it that Florence resumes its republicanism. Rather bold, and unwanted advice but couched sufficiently diplomatically to be palatable, if not digestible. Finally, in 1526, Machiavelli was restored to a small public office as secretary to the committee on the maintenance of the walls, the main component of the city’s defenses. The committee was charged to inspect, evaluate, and recommend restoration, renovation, and improvements, a charge that Machiavelli, as secretary (executive officer) took seriously and applied himself to.

Alleged Sycophancy and Service

We noted in Chapter 1 that Machiavelli did not wish to ingratiate himself with the Medici but wanted the Medici to follow him. It is worth noting, then, that in a work commissioned by the Medici, The Florentine Histories, nothing had changed. Machiavelli writes of the failings of the great historians of a century earlier, Leonardo Bruni and Poggio Bracciolini, in giving insufficient if any attention to the factional conflicts of Florence.

250

Chapter 10

either because they felt that these affairs were so unimportant as to be unworthy of preservation for posterity in writing or because they feared they might offend the descendants of those whom they would have to treat in their writings. These two reasons … seem to me unworthy of great men … (Preface to the Histories). The most commonly cited proof of his sycophancy is the prefatory letter to The Prince, addressed to Lorenzo, the wastrel who succeeded Giuliano de’ Medici as head of the family. Giuliano, a competent man, was a schoolboy friend of Machiavelli’s. Serious biographers, like Roberto Ridolfi, make the case that if Machiavelli intended to interest a Medici in The Prince, then it was Giuliano. Note that ‘if’. Before Machiavelli completed the work, Giuliano was killed in a hunting accident, and Lorenzo became the senior male heir. It is likely that Machiavelli composed the preface and then substituted the name at the last minute. Did he ever present it to the Medici family? According to the myth, he composed The Prince as a job application for a return to office. Nothing in his correspondence while the book germinated or while he wrote it supports that interpretation. Nor does the title help, for he called the manuscript ‘Of Principalities.’ And the only source for the assertion that he presented it is one of Machiavelli’s own letters in which he says Lorenzo tossed it aside and took more interest in some dogs. There is no corroboration for this account. Maybe Machiavelli said this as a joke, for he was a prankster. Maybe Machiavelli is saying that it would have been pointless to present the book to Lorenzo since he would certainly have been more interested in hunting dogs, perhaps even Bedlingtons, than wisdom. Like many jokes, it would have been more amusing for being told deadpan. As we said in Chapter 1, it is best to take nothing for granted with Machiavelli and to check everything more than once. Our readings of his biographies and his works lead us to conclude that the preface involves some self-indulgent humor on his part, that it is unlikely he would have tried to enter the Medici Palace to submit it, and even less likely that he would have been admitted. The preface to The Prince may reveal another intention, beyond mocking Lorenzo. In the text of the preface, Machiavelli says to the putative reader that the following book contains all he knows about politics. Does it in fact contain all he knows? No. The Discourses, which even the cheap-shooters recognize as different, is a series of ruminations on republican government stimulated by the safely distant Roman Republic. In it he is very clearly an admirer and advocate of republican government, though he makes no systematic case for it. His correspondence indicates he started the Discourses as an entertainment,

The Second Time is Farce

251

and broke off part the way through commenting on Livy30 to write the manuscript that became The Prince, and then returned to work on Livy.31 He also prepared a preface for the Discourses, dedicated to two republicans who had suffered from the Medici restoration, and in the text says this book contains all he knows about politics! There are, then, two autobiographical statements affirming each of these different books as his complete political testament. What is to be made of that? Of the various possibilities, we believe that The Prince sets out what has to be done to establish security for a realm, and the Discourses canvass how, once founded and secure, the realm can best perpetuate itself. A good citizen of Florence can be both a supporter of a prince, when a prince is needed, and republican when that time passes. Establishment is one time a prince is needed and there may be external threats that also require a prince. In times of crisis, democratic political parties can cooperate, as when the British parliament accepted Winston Churchill as Prime Minister with nearly authoritarian powers in 1940. The French, who had been unable and unwilling to pull together in 1940, presented an object lesson in the fate of republican dissension. Another and venerable reconciliation of the two texts is that The Prince harbors a subversive message. Erica Benner is only the most recent interpreter to argue that Machiavelli encoded a republican message within The Prince. The cumulative effect of these ‘scattered’ remarks is that the ‘prince is most secure who can trust his own subjects. And to trust his subjects, he needs to treat them more like citizens.’ She argues rightly that this is more plausible than the view that ‘he wrote a thoroughly pro-monarchical book to please the Medici.’32

High Rank

Many of those who capitalize on Machiavelli, such as Michael Ledeen and Stanley Bing, refer to him as a high-ranking official. As we have detailed in Chapter 1, Machiavelli’s origins limited his role, even in the commercial society 30 31

32

Phillip Bobbitt suggests that this was because ‘he saw an opportunity to create a new principality in the center of Italy,’ The Garments of Court and Palace, Chapter 7. Dating the Discourses is a problem. We do not endorse Bobbitt’s integration of the works and remain agnostic about the solution offered by Baron. For a concise and clear overview of the controversy see William J. Landon, Politics, Patriotism & Language, (New York, Peter Lang, 2005), 8–13. Like Bobbitt, Landon suggests that there was a ‘brief window of opportunity’ in which Roman and Florentine interests might be united to rid Italy of foreign occupation. Erica Benner, Machiavelli’s Prince: A New Reading, 314; cf. 72.

252

Chapter 10

of Florence, and he was consequently appointed a secretary, not an ambassador. He represented his city but he never had the authority to negotiate for Florence. He went on many diplomatic missions, often because more highly ranked individuals did not want to risk the hazards of travel and an unwelcome reception upon arrival, or the frustrations of being unable to gain a favorable outcome. At other times, an ambassador led the delegation and Machiavelli wrote the dispatches. It is true that the merits of his work, his insights into people and events, and his terse style earned the respect of many and the trust of some. It is also true that he erred. While he was in the court of the French king, he failed to notice that France was negotiating an arrangement to the detriment of Florence and so did not alert the city to it. It is also true, it seems, that Cesare Borgia manipulated him to spread misinformation, while Machiavelli thought all the attention he was getting was because he was such good company. For those predisposed to condemn Machiavelli, his interest in Cesare Borgia is another confirmation. There is no doubt that Borgia was ambitious and selfish and lacking in any moral sense. Yet he cut a swath through the Italian political world that no observer could ignore. Just as contemporaries were impressed by the order and enthusiasm Adolf Hitler brought to Germany before World War ii, so Machiavelli was impressed by Borgia’s anticipation of the actions of others, and his ability to work on several levels at once, planning ahead and yet remaining flexible, decisiveness in action, and his readiness to scapegoat others for his own crimes. In the world of Italian politics at the time, it was perhaps just such a man who might, just might, be able to drive out the French from the north and the Spanish from the south, and to forge some kind of unity among Italians. This was not necessarily Borgia himself, but someone like him. Those who equate business and politics have seen too little of either. The more so when they enthusiastically extend the equation to war. Anyone interested in grasping the context in which Machiavelli lived, worked, and wrote can sample it today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, and any one of a dozen other failed and failing states. If the business analyst thinks Machiavelli’s insights apply to business, that analyst might take study tours to the Middle East to see the reality. In that world, a man like Borgia might stand out and something might be learned from him. Yet Machiavelli is condemned by no more than association with Borgia’s crimes. Plato went to Syracuse in Sicily twice to educate a prince into his philosophy. This prince, like his father, was a tyrant and ultimately preferred to be that rather than to follow Plato. Even after realizing what kind of man he was, Plato went back a second time to try again. Yet he is not blackened either by his failure to restrain the tyrant or by the misdeeds of Dionysius ii. Should

The Second Time is Farce

253

Machiavelli’s admiration of the tactical and strategic ability of an unscrupulous warrior like Borgia condemn him? Machiavelli does not conceal his crimes or minimize his ultimate failure in allowing the election of Giuliano della Rovere as Pope Julius ii. Still, in a time of disarray, Machiavelli emphasizes Cesare’s ability to generate unity and bring security to his state, his combining of all the qualities necessary in a ruler. Does someone drowning reject a lifeline thrown by an immoral rescuer? Italy was drowning in the rivalries of great and lesser powers and someone like Borgia might have a lifeline. The image of The Prince and its author, from Cardinal Pole in the sixteenth century to the present, is an exercise in myth construction. ‘I had scarcely begun to read the book, when I recognized the hand of Satan, even though it bore the name of a human author and was written in a discernibly human style,’ wrote Pole. The book and its author took on a twinned existence expressed in a mythology abridged by the nouns ‘Machiavel’ and ‘Machiavellianism,’ and the adjective ‘Machiavellian.’ We have shown the flimsy basis for this mythology in The Prince, its disregard for historical and literary context, its dependence on selective quotation, and its indifference to Machiavelli’s other works. Machiavelli’s biographers differ about his character and intentions and it is not our purpose here to arbitrate among different opinions, but some answer to the foulest charges might be made on his own behalf by the man himself. Reverse selective quotation softens the received image of the Machiavel, and shows Machiavelli to have been a humane and compassionate man. Machiavelli has an Augustinian view of humanity. In the Florentine Histories, he gives a resigned, but not cynical, account of how Niccolo da Uzzano was persuaded to attack Lucca. Although Niccolo believed the attack was unjust, dangerous and likely to bring more harm than benefit, and although ­Lucca had never injured Florence but, on the contrary, had always been friendly to its citizens, yet Uzzano yielded to the contrary arguments of Rinaldo degli Albizzi, ‘since we were living today in such a manner that not much account was taken of just and unjust, (and Niccolo) would let that matter go and deal only with Florence’s advantage.’ Machiavelli was an advocate for restraint. He praised good rulers not only for their efficacy in ruling but also for their goodness. Those claiming to follow Machiavelli in pursuit of the domination of others should pay attention to the Florentine Histories. Machiavelli places into the mouth of Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici, father of Lorenzo the Magnificent, this speech addressed to ambitious citizens of Florence: in the midst of peace Florence was severely tormented by her citizens, for Piero, hindered by his sickness, could not resist their ambition. ­Nonetheless … to see if he could make them ashamed, he called them all to his house and spoke to them to this effect: ‘… I thought I had as

254

Chapter 10

a­ ssociates men who would set some limit or measure to their greed, and that it would be enough for them to live in their native city secure and honored and, besides, revenged on their enemies. … I little realized the natural ambition of all men, and still less yours. …You plunder your neighbor of his goods, you sell justice, you escape civil lawsuits, you ­oppress peaceful men …’33 Machiavelli praises Piero for his ‘ability and goodness’. Admittedly, Machiavelli wrote the Histories for the Medici, but as we have seen above, but he was not inclined to sycophancy. Moreover, he had much earlier expressed similar sentiments in other writings. We have already mentioned Machiavelli’s letter, of September, 1512, ‘To an unidentified lady’. In that letter he spares the recipient many details but says enough to indicate his horror at the fall of Prato: news came that Prato was taken, for the Spaniards, having broken part of the wall, pressed back those who defended it and frightened them, so that after not much resistance, all fled, and the Spanish occupying the town, sacked it and killed the people in a miserable scene of distress. … I shall not repeat the details in order not to cause you any depression of spirits. I shall say merely that more than four thousand men were killed and the others were prisoners and in different ways were forced to ransom themselves; and they did not spare virgins who were cloistered in the holy places, all of which they filled with rape and sacrilege.34 This is not an observer who happens to find war distressing. His concern for arms and fortifications is to ensure that wars will not be fought. Even earlier, in 1509, Machiavelli had composed verses that unequivocally moralize about the failings of human nature. Everywhere Ambition and Avarice penetrate … Envy, Sloth, and Hatred are their companions, and with their pestilence they fill the world, and with them go Cruelty, Pride, and Deceit. Oh human spirit insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting, and above all else malignant, iniquitous, violent, and savage …35

33 Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 3, 1366. 34 No. 115, ‘To an unidentified lady’ in Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 2., 893. 35 ‘Tercets on Ambition’ in Gilbert, Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, vol. 1, 735–736.

The Second Time is Farce

255

And he castigates Italy for lack of discipline and succumbing to ‘savagery’: A man is weeping for his father dead and a woman for her husband; another man, beaten and naked, you see driven in sadness from his own dwelling. Oh how many times, when a father has held his son tight in his arms, a single thrust has pierced the breasts of them both! Oh, strange events such as never have happened before in the world! Every day many children are born through sword cuts in the womb.36 This Machiavelli, exhibiting compassion about the tragedies of foreign occupation and the impotence of the Italians to resist it, is not the man who wrote with Satan’s hand. Machiavelli’s other political writings differ greatly from the work usually coupled with The Prince, namely the Discourses, but they too are part of the context in which The Prince must be considered. They show a writer averse to violence, coercion, ambition, greed and lack of self-control. It is an unfortunate irony that The Prince has been used in the modern era to justify amoral positions that are far removed from its author’s true position.

Conclusion

We have surveyed some strange appropriations of Machiavelli and a host of applications of the terms ‘Machiavellian’ and ‘Machiavellianism’ in order to show how alien these modern uses are to anything that concerned Machiavelli. We have outlined the political instability in which he lived and wrote, and the intellectual background that made his work intelligible to his contemporaries. And we have traced the construction of his mythic reputation from the sixteenth century to the present. The current myths have connections with the past – especially in what Soll calls ‘reason of state of the self’ – but the gap between them and the historical Machiavelli could hardly be wider. Forcing Machiavelli into modern applications shows a reliance, frequently lazy, on two persistent assumptions: first that Machiavelli’s times are somehow equivalent to our times; and second, that what Machiavelli wrote of politics and war may be applied to apes, social psychology, and management. In Chapter 3 we put these narratives into equations to drive home the point, the first being that F =T, that Florence is the equal of today and vice versa, while the second was that the politics Machiavelli examined was equal to business and vice versa, expressed as P = B. This latter now has expanded to e­ ncompass 36

Ibid., 737–738.

256

Chapter 10

other matters, too. Neither of these equations bears much resemblance to twenty-first century concerns, political or social let alone commercial or academic. Lessons may indeed be drawn from The Prince, but what might they be when Machiavelli wrote about the small world of politics in an Italian city, not a philosophical treatise for all times and all places? He does not rise above particulars in the way Plato did, but rather digs into them.37 In that small world, as he wrote in the Discourses, only forty or fifty men, will take an interest in politics. This limitation is of little interest to Machiavelli’s later appropriators who have used his name to sell, to warn, to vilify and, occasionally, to praise. Accused of myth making they will respond that Machiavelli’s intentions and the significance of his work for his contemporaries are irrelevant. For them he is the realist in politics, a master tactician, the legitimizer of sharp practice and manipulation in human affairs. Whether or not this is history or myth is irrelevant to them: Machiavelli is known for these things and his name has become a commonplace for them. But that is not good enough. What we have documented is not only Machiavelli’s authority misapplied, but also that authority coming to rely on his misapplication. His initial reputation, built on his ‘new orders’ – his radical notion of princely prudence – has been wrenched from the contexts in which it made some sense and applied to a disparate array of items from psychological instruments to fine leatherwear. Amid it all, a new persona has emerged, endowed with an authority, undeserved and unfounded, as the prophet of excess and amorality. Eponymous bywords may simply be accidents of history, but in Machiavelli’s case the bywords abridge the mythology we have illustrated in these pages. The persistence of his myth in popular culture and in distant scholarly pursuits, supported by the unthinking invocation of his name, is a slight not only on the man and his works, but also on the interaction of ­scholarship with 37

Machiavelli’s intentions are the important thing here. Nathan Tarcov has argued that his intentions understood historically (contextually) do not exclude the possibility that Machiavelli had wider aspirations for this text than a local commentary. ‘Quentin Skinner’s “Method and Machiavelli’s Prince,” Ethics, 92, 4, 1982, 692–709. No one can deny that philosophy itself is subject to temporal conditions. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant wrote as if addressing an incorporeal audience from lecterns set in eternity, but we agree with Paul Crittenden when he writes: ‘Philosophy has characteristically aspired to break free of time and space and to assume an Olympian perspective. The philosopher, according to Plato, is a “lover of the vision of truth,” one who has his eye fixed on “the eternal and unchangeable” and contemplates “all time and all existence.” But of course the practice of philosophy necessarily takes place at a particular time and in a particular cultural setting, and every philosophy emerges as an expression of its surrounding culture.’ Changing Orders (Blackheath: Brandl & Schlesinger, 2008), 101.

The Second Time is Farce

257

that culture. As we noted in Chapter 1, misrepresentation is a form of representation. That is why the various guises in which Machiavelli is said to appear should not pass uncorrected. We have tried to interpret and explain the misrepresentations of Machiavelli in popular culture and unfamiliar scholarly settings, such as primatology. That is basic to the academic enterprise. To put aside the truth as bothersome is to relinquish all claims to be taken seriously, and that is the judgment we have arrived at with most of the authors cataloged in this book. They have not drawn lessons from Machiavelli, but instead redrawn his elusive likeness better to resemble themselves. This lamentable state of affairs has largely passed unnoticed by the specialists who curate Machiavelli’s life and works in history, Italian studies, and political theory but who do not deign to recognize and confront the Vulgar Machiavelli. Although the distorted stereotype of Machiavel is deeply rooted in popular culture, it is not limited to the popular mind, but is to be found in learned discourse as well. The extensive bibliography that follows this concluding chapter is itself evidence for our argument that Machiavelli has entered the wider culture. The range, the variety, and the sheer volume of references from that wider world are proof of that assertion. While scholars are at pains in these times of research evaluation to show the impact of their work, few turn their knowledge to identifying, challenging, and rebutting the caricature of Machiavelli that we have cataloged far and wide. A good part of our purpose in mapping the contours of this inflated cartoon Machiavel has been to stimulate such specialists to turn their attentions to it. That is the spirit of the front cover which shows an array of objects bearing Machiavelli's name.

Bibliography Lengthy as this bibliography is, we omitted more than three hundred Ph.D. and Masters theses we found in a search on ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global based on the Machiavellian personality construct (Mach iv). This number seemed to i­ncrease every week. The bibliography includes only the few historical and analytic studies of Machiavelli that we cited in the text. It does not, for example, include the evergreen literature in the field of international relations that cites Machiavelli. Abell, Loren, Gayle Brewer, and Pamela Qualter. 2015. ‘Why Machiavellianism Matters in Childhood: The Relationship Between Children’s Machiavellian Traits and Their Peer Interactions in a Natural Setting.’ Europe’s Journal of Psychology 11(3): 484–493. Abell, Loren and Gayle Brewer. 2016. ‘Machiavellianism, Perceived Quality of Alternative Mates, and Resistance to Mate Guarding.’ Personality and Individual Differences 101: 236–239. Abell, Loren and Gayle Brewer. 2014. ‘Machiavellianism, Self-monitoring, Selfpromotion and Relational Aggression on Facebook.’ Computers In Human Behavior 36: 258–262. Abell, Loren, Gayle Brewer, and Pamela Qualter. 2016. ‘Machiavellianism, Emotional Manipulation, and Friendship Functions in Women’s Friendships.’ Personality and Individual Differences 88: 108–113. Abramson, Edward E. 1973. ‘The Counselor as a Machiavellian.’ Journal of Clinical P­ sychology 29 (3):348–349. Abransky, Chimen. 1962. ‘Kamenev’s last Essay.’ New Left Review (15):34–42. Acevedo, B. 2011. ‘The Screaming Pope: Imagery and Leadership in Two Paintings of the Pope Innocent X.’ Leadership 7 (1):27–50. Adams, William Lee. 2007. ‘Machiavelli’s Misery.’ Time, 12 September 2007. Ahmed, S.M. and R.A. Stewart. 1981. ‘Factor Analysis of the Machiavellian Scale.’ Social Behavior and Personality 9 (1):113–116. Ahn, T.K. and Justin Esarey. 2008. ‘A Dynamic Model of Generalized Social Trust.’ ­Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (2):151–180. Aho, Melissa and Erika Bennett. 2014. The Machiavellian Librarian: Winning Allies, Combating Budget Cuts, and Influencing Stakeholders. Philadelphia, pa: Chandos. Al Ain, Syrina, Arnaud Carre, Carole Fantini-Hauwel, Jean-Yves Baudouin, and Chrystel Besche-Richard. 2013. ‘What is the Emotional Core of the Multidimensional ­Machiavellian Personality Trait?’ Frontiers in Psychology 4. Article Number: 454. Al-Khatib, Jamal, Mohammed Al-Habib, and Naima Bogart. 2016. ‘The Ethical Profile of Global Marketing Negotiators.’ Business Ethics – A European Review 25 (2): 172–186.

260

Bibliography

Al-Khatib, J.A., A. Malshe, J.J. Sailors, and I. Clark. 2011. ‘The Impact of Deceitful Tendencies, Relativism and Opportunism in Negotiation Tactics: A Comparative Study of us and Belgian Managers.’ European Journal of Marketing 45 (1–2):133–152. Al-Khatib, Jamal A., Scott J. Vitell, and Mohammed Y.A. Rawwas. 1997. ‘Consumer ­Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Investigation.’ European Journal of Marketing 31 (11/12):750–767. Al-Khatib, Jamal A., Stacy M. Vollmers, and Yusin Liu. 2007. ‘Business-to-Business Negotiating in China: The Role of Morality.’ Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 22 (2 ):84–96. Alexander, Paul. 2008. Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove. Emmaus, pa: Rodale Books. Alfimova, M.V., V. Golimbet, G. Korovaitseva. 2015a. ‘Association between Serotonin Receptor 2C Gene Cys23Ser Polymorphism and Social Behavior in Schizophrenia ­Patients and Healthy Individuals.’ Russian Journal of Genetics 51(2): 198–203. Alfimova, M.V., T.V. Lezheiko, G.I. Korovaitseva, G.I.; et al. 2015b. ‘Psychological and Molecular-Genetic Mechanism of Machiavellianism Reduction in Schizophrenia.’ Psychology-Journal of The Higher School Of Economics 12(2): 70–92. Ali, F., I.S. Amorim, and T. Chamorro-Premuzic. 2009. ‘Empathy Deficits and Trait Emotional Intelligence in Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 47 (7):758–762. Ali, Farah, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. 2010a. ‘The Dark Side of Love and Life Satisfaction: Associations with Intimate Relationships, Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 48 (3):228–233. Ali, Farah, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. 2010b. ‘Investigating Theory of Mind Deficits in Nonclinical Psychopathy and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 49 (3):169–174. Allen, J.W. 1928 (1960). A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London: Methuen. Allen, Roger E. 2011. Winnie-the-Pooh on Management: In Which a Very Important Bear and his Friends are Introduced to a Very Important Subject. Harmndsorth: Penguin. Allsopp, J.H., H.J. Eysenck, and S.B. Eysenck. 1991 ‘Machiavellianism as a Component in Psychoticism and Extraversion.’ Personality and Individual Differences 12(1):29–41. Althusser, Louis. 1995. Machiavelli and Us. London: Verso. Alvarez, Leo Paul de. 1989. The Prince. Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland. Amelia, William. 2008. ‘Machiavelli’s Daring Gift.’ Wall Street Journal, 30 August. Ames, M. and A.H. Kidd. 1979. ‘Machiavellianism and Women’s Grade Point Average.’ Psychological Reports 44:223–228. Andreou, E. 2004. ‘Bully/Victim Problems and Their Association with Machiavellianism and Self-Efficacy in Greek Primary School Children.’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 74 (2): 297–309.

Bibliography

261

Andreou, E. and I. Marmarinos. 1999. ‘Self-Esteem, Machiavellianism and Locus of ­Control as Determinants of Children’s Behavioural Problems.’ Sociální Studia 4: 77–90. Andrew, J., M. Cooke, and S.J. Muncer. 2008. ‘The Relationship between Empathy and Machiavellianism: An Alternative to Empathizing-systemizing Theory.’ Personality and Individual Differences 44 (5):1203–1211. Angell, E.F. 1988. ‘Differential-Effects of Social Skills Training for 2 Levels of Machiavellianism.’ British Journal of Clinical Psychology 27:175–176. Anglo, Sydney. 1971. Machiavelli. London: Paladin. Anglo, Sydney. 2005. Machiavelli – The First Century: Studies in Enthusiasm, Hostility, and Irrelevance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ankersmit, Frank. 2012. Meaning, Truth, and Reference in Historical Representation. ­Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Anonymous. 1968. ‘Management: An Ancient Art.’ Time, 23 February. Anonymous. 1985. ‘New Study Finds High Level of Cynicism Among u.s. and European Workforces.’ International Management: Europe 40 (10):76–77. Anonymous. 2001. Power: Get it. Use it. Keep it. London: Profile Books. Anonymous. 1998. ‘Machiavelli an Overused Hero.’ Times Higher Education Supplement, 22 May. Accessed 10 May 2016 http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp? storyCode=107436§ioncode=26. Anonymous. 2007–2014. ‘The Prince.’ Australian Financial Review. Anonymous. 2011a. ‘eMachiavelli: The Official Site.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www .emachiavelli.com. Anonymous. 2011b. ‘Machiavelli’s workshop.’ Accessed 29 August 2011. No longer available. http://www.machiavellisworkshop.com/. Anonymous. 2011c. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. https://www.facebook .com/#!/pages/Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/109321529086160. Anonymous. 2013. ‘Machiavellian Personality Test.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. http:// personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php. Anonymous. 2010. Wisdom from the Prince of Machiavelli teach you to business competition. Accessed 5 June 2017, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wisdom-Machiavelli-business -competition-Chinese/dp/7806457119. Antongiavanni, Nicholas. 2006. The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men’s Style. New York City: HarperCollins. Apostolico, David. 2005. Machiavellian Poker Strategy: How to Play Like a Prince and Rule the Poker Table. New York City: Lyle Stuart. Aquarius, Qass. 1971. The Corporate Prince: A Handbook of Administrative Tactics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Argyris, Chris. 1968. ‘Review of Management and Machiavelli by Antony Jay.’ Administrative Science Quarterly 13 (1):189–192.

262

Bibliography

Arienzo, Alessandro and Alessandra Petrina. 2013. Machiavellian Encounters in Tudor and Stuart England. Farnham: Ashgate. Arnaud, Juliette. 2008. La stratégie du mollusque, un plan machiavélique. Paris Bourin. Arnhart, Larry. 1998. Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Philosophy and Biology. Binghamton, ny: State University of New York Press. Arrington, Theodore. 1978. ‘Machiavellianism of Political Activists.’ gpsa Journal: The Georgia Political Science Association 6 (1):99–110. Ascham, Roger. 1904. Report of the Affaires and State of Germany in English Works ed. William Aldis Wright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ashton, Michael C., Kibeom Lee, and Chongnak Son. 2000. ‘Honesty as the Sixth Factor of Personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, Primary Psychopathy, and Social Adroitness.’ European Journal of Personality 14 (4):359–368. Association, American Psychological. 2010. ‘Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.’ Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Atari, Mohammad and Razieh Chegeni. 2016. ‘Assessment of dark personalities in Iran: Psychometric evaluation of the Farsi translation of the Short Dark Triad (SD3-F).’ Personality and Individual Differences 102: 111–117. Atkinson, Catherine. 2002. Debts, Dowries, Donkeys: The Diary of Niccolo Machivelli’s Father, Messer Bernardo, in Quattrocento Florence. New York City: Peter Lang. Atkinson, James. 1985. The Prince. New York: Macmillan. Atkinson, James. 2010. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: a portrait’ in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, ed. John M. Najemy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, James and David Sices, eds. 2004. Machiavelli and His Friends: Their Personal Correspondence. DeKalb, il: Northern Illinois University Press. Atkinson, James and David Sices, eds. 2007. The Sweetness of Power: Machiaveli’s Discourses and Guicciardini’s Considerations. DeKalb, il: Northern Illinois University Press. Attar, Hooman. 2013. Dial M for Machiavelli: Machiavellian Metaphors for Management. Gordon, nsw: Xlibris. Aureli, Filippo, Marina Cords, and Carel P. van Schaik. 2002. ‘Conflict Resolution Following Aggression in Gregarious Animals: A Predictive Framework.’ Animal Behaviour 64 (3):325–343. Austin, Elizabeth, Daniel Farrelly, Carolyn Black, and Helen Moore. 2007. ‘Emotional Intelligence, Machiavellianism and Emotional Manipulation: Does ei Have a Dark Side.’ Personality and Individual Differences 43 (1):179–189. Aziz, Abdul. 2004. ‘Machiavellianism Scores and Self-Rated Performance of Automobile Salespersons.’ Psychological Reports 94:464–466. Aziz, Abdul. 2005. ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism Scores and Performance of Real Estate Salespersons.’ Psychological Reports 96:235–238.

Bibliography

263

Aziz, Abdul. 2006. ‘An Exploratory Study of Machiavellianism and Self-Perceived Performance of Accountants.’ International Journal of Management Practice 2 (3):250–254. Aziz, Abdul, Kim May, and John Crotts. 2002. ‘Relations of Machiavellian Behavior with Sales Performance of Stockbrokers.’ Psychological Reports 90:451–460. Aziz, Abdul, and Daniel Vallejo. 2007. ‘An Exploratory Study of The Facets of Type A Personality and Scores on the Machiavellian Behavior (MACH-B) Scale.’ Psychological Reports 101:555–560. Baar, P. and T. Wubbels. 2011. ‘Machiavellianism on Children on Dutch Elementary Schools and Sports Clubs: Prevalence and Stability According to Context, Sport Type, and Gender.’ Sport Psychologist 25 (4):444–464. Babiak, Jolanta. Beata Bajcar, and Czelaw Nosal. 2017. ‘Heterogeneity of Leadership Styles as Behavioral Units: The Role of Personality in Searching for Leadership Profiles.’ In Advances In Human Factors, Business Management, Training And Education, J.I. Kantola, T. Barath, S. Nazir, et al., eds,: 107–120. Accessed 1 June 2017, https://link .springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7_11. Bacon, Alison and Lisa Regan. 2016 ‘Manipulative relational behaviour and delinquency: sex differences and links with emotional intelligence.’ Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 27(3): 331–348. Bacon, Francis. 1951. Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis. London: Oxford University Press. Bacon, Francis. 1996. ‘On Simulation and Dissimulation,’ in Francis Bacon: A Critical Edition of the Major Works, ed. Brian Vickers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Badaracco, Joseph L. Jr 1997. Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose between Right And Right. Boston: Harvard Business School. Bader, David. 2010. One Hundred Great Books in Haiku. New York City: Penguin. Bagby, Laurie and James Franke. 2001. ‘Escape from Politics: Philosophic Foundations of Public Administration.’ Management Decision 39 (8):623–633. Bageac, D., O. Furrer, and E. Reynaud. 2011. ‘Management Students Attitudes Toward Business Ethics: A Comparison between France and Romania.’ Journal of Business Ethics 98 (3):391–406. Bagozzi, R.P., Verbeke Wjmi, R.C. Dietvorst, F.D. Belschak, W.E. van den Berg, and W.J.R. Rietdijk. 2013. ‘Theory of Mind and Empathic Explanations of Machiavellianism: A Neuroscience Perspective.’ Journal of Management 39 (7):1760–1798. Baker-Smith, Dominic, 1992. ‘Introduction’ to Machiavelli, The Prince trans. W.K. ­Marriott. London: Everyman’s Library. Baker-Smith, Dominic. 2000. More’s Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bakir, Bilal, Mustafa Ozer, Muharrem Uaear, Mahir Gilec, Cesim Demir, and Metin Hasde. 2003. ‘Relation between Machiavellianism and Job Satisfaction in a Sample of Turkish Physicians.’ Psychological Reports 92:1169–1175.

264

Bibliography

Bakir, Bilal, Mustafa Ozer, and Muharrem Ucar. 2005. ‘Reliability of the Turkish version of MACH iv Scale: Results Obtained from Two Previously Published Studies.’ ­Psychological Reports 96:889–890. Bakir, Bilal, U. Reha Yilmaz, and Isamil Yavas. 1996. ‘Relating Depressive Symptoms to Machiavellianism in a Turkish Sample.’ Psychological Reports 78:1011–1014. Ballerini, Edoardo. 2007. Machiavelli: The Prince. iTunes: Precision Talent Audio Production. Barber, N. 1994. ‘Selfishness and altruism: Effect of Relatedness of Target Person on Machiavellian and Helping Attitudes.’ Psychological Reports 75:403–422. Barbuto, John E., and Jennifer A. Moss. 2006. ‘Dispositional Effects in ­Intra-Organizational Influence Tactics: A Meta-Analytic Review.’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 12(1):30–48. Barcenas, Alejandro. 2015. Machiavelli’s Art of Politics. Leiden: Brill. Barisione, M. 2009. ‘Valence Image and the Standardisation of Democratic Political Leadership.’ Leadership 5 (1):41–60. Barker, Richard A. 1996. ‘If a Leader’s Role is not to Manage, then What is it?’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 3 (1):37–53. Barlow, Alexandra, Pamela Qualter, and Maria Stylianou. 2010. ‘Relationships between Machiavellianism, Emotional Intelligence and Theory of Mind in Children.’ Personality and Individual Differences 48 (1):78–82. Barnes, John A. 1994. A Pack Of Lies: Towards a Sociology Of Lying. Cambridge: ­Cambridge University Press. Barnett, Mark, and Shannon Thompson. 1985. ‘The Role of Perspective Taking and Empathy in Children’s Machiavellianism, Pro-Social Behavior, and Motive for Helping.’ Journal of Genetic Psychology 146:295–305. Barrett, Louise, and Peter Henzi. 2005. ‘The Social Nature of Primate Cognition.’ ­Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 (1575):1865–1875. Barry, Christopher, Patricia Kerig, Kurt Stellwagen, and Tammy Barry. 2011. Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Maladaptive B ­ ehavior. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Bartholomes, J. Boone. Ed. 2010. u.s. Army War College, Guide to National Security I­ ssues, Volume i, Theory of War and Strategy. 4th ed. Carlisle, pa: Strategic Studies Institute. Barthus, Jérémie. 2011. ‘Machiavelli, Niccolô.’ In International Encyclopaedia of Political Science, ed. Bernard Badie, Dirk Berg-Scholosser and Leonardo Molino. Los Angles, ca: Sage. Bartlett, Alan F. 1987. Machiavellian Economics. Bristol, England: Schumacher. Bartlett, Alan F. 1988. Profile of the Entrepreneur, or Machiavellian Management. Sheffield: Ashford Press.

Bibliography

265

Bass, Kenneth, Tim Barnett, and Gene Brown. 1999. ‘Individual Difference Variables, Ethical Judgments, and Ethical Behavioral Intentions.’ Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (2):183–205. Bawcutt, N.W. 1971. ‘“Policy,” Machiavellianism, and the Earlier Tudor Drama.’ English Literary Renaissance 1 (3):195–209. Bawcutt, N.W. 2004. ‘The Myth of Gentillet Reconsidered: An Aspect of Elizabethan Machiavellianism.’ Modern Language Review 99 (4):863–874. Baytalskaya, Nataliya, and Susan Mohammed. 2009. Individual Difference Effects on Negotiation Strategies and Outcomes: The Role of Machiavellianism, Perspective Taking, and Emotional Intelligence Components in Negotiations. Saarbrűcken: Verlag Dr Műller. Beame, Edmond M. 1982. ‘The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli: The Sixteenth-Century French Adaptation.’ Journal of the History of Ideas 43 (1):33–54. Becker, Jennifer A, and Dan OHair. 2007. ‘Machiavellians’ Motives in Organizational Citizenship Behavior.’ Journal of Applied Communication Research 35 (3):246–267. Bedell, Katrina, Samuel Hunter, Amanda Angie, and Andrew Vert. 2006. ‘A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership.’ Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 12 (4):50–72. Beller, Johannes and Stefanie Bosse. 2017. ‘Machiavellianism has a dimensional latent structure: Results from taxometric analyses.’ Personality and Individual Differences 113: 57–62. Belliotti, Raymond. 2015. Machiavelli’s Secret: The Soul of the Statesman. Albany: State University of New York Press. Belloti, Raymond. 1978. ‘Machiavelli and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Thought 13 (4):293–300. Belmi, Peter and Kristin Laurin. 2016. ‘Who Wants to Get to the Top? Class and Lay Theories About Power.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111(4): 505–529. Belschak, Frank D; Deanne Den Hartog; and Karianne Kalshoven. 2015. ‘Leading Machiavellians: How to Translate Machiavellians’ Selfishness Into Pro-Organizational Behavior.’ Journal of Management 41(7): 1934–1956. Bénéton, Philip. 2012. The Kingdom suffereth Violence: The Machiavelli/Erasmus/ More Correspondence and Other Unpublished Documents. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine Press. Benner, Erica. 2009. Machiavelli’s Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Benner, Erica. 2013. Machiavelli’s Prince: A New Reading. New York: Oxford University Press. Bensimon, Nella Bianchi. 2010. ‘La première traduction française,’ in The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince: From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Roberto De Pol. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

266

Bibliography

Bereczkei, Tamàs. 2015. ‘The Manipulative Skill: Cognitive Devices and Their ­Neural Correlates Underlying Machiavellians’ Decision Making.’ Brain and Cognition 99:24–31. Bereczkei, T., B. Birkas, and Z. Kerekes. 2007. ‘Public Charity Offer as a Proximate Factor of Evolved Reputation-Building Strategy: An Experimental Analysis of a Real-Life Situation.’ Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (4):277–284. Bereczkei, Tamas and Andrea Czibor. 2014. ‘Personality and situational factors differently influence high Mach and low Mach persons’ decisions in a social dilemma game.’ Personality and Individual Differences 64: 168–173. Bereczkei, Tamas, Peter Papp, and Peter Kincses. 2015a. ‘The neural basis of the ­Machiavellians’ decision making in fair and unfair situations.’ Brain and Cognition 98: 53–64. Bereczkei, Tamas, Zsolt Peter Szabo, and Andrea Czibor. 2015b. ‘Abusing Good Intentions: Machiavellians Strive for Exploiting Cooperators.’ Sage Open 5(2): Article Number: 2158244015593119. Berger, R.E. 1977. ‘Machiavellianism and Detecting Deception in Facial Nonverbal Communication.’ Towson State University Journal of Psychology 1 (1):25–31. Berkowitz, David c. 1984 Humanist Scholarship and Public Order. Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library. Berlin, Isaiah. 1971. ‘The Question of Machiavelli,’ New York Review of Books, 4 November. Berlin, Isaiah. 1972. ‘Studies on Machiavelli ’ In The Originality of Machiavelli, ed. Myron P. Gilmore, 149–206. Florence: Samsoni. Berman, Jules J. 2010. ‘Machiavelli’s Laboratory: A Satire.’ Accessed 20 May 2016. http:// www.julesberman.info/integ/machfree.htm. Berner, Rudolph. 1985. Machiavelli 2000: Ich bin der Boss und will es bleiben : eine heiterernste Fuhrungs- und Lebenshilfe fur alternde Manager. Zurich: Organisator. Berrow, Terry. 2000. ‘Machiavelli, Politics and Modern Language Use in Modern ­Management.’ In Machiavelli, marketing and management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 139–146. London: Routledge. Barry, Christopher, Patricia Kerig, Kurt Stellwagen, and Tammy Barry. 2010. Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior. New York City: American Psychological Association. Bet, R., E. Brossat, and C. Ducamp. 2015. ‘Sexe, mensonge et personnalité : les paroles  et  le regard des machiavéliques, des psychopathes et des narcissiques que vous côtoyez (Sex, lies and personality: The words and gaze of those Machiavellians, ­psychopaths and narcissists around you).’ Psychologie Française 60(3): 191–207. Bhole, L.M. 2001. ‘Which Leadership Model – Gandhian or Machiavellian?’ Journal of Human Values 7 (2):131–145. Biais, Bruno and Enrico Perotti. 2002. ‘Machiavellian Privatization.’ American Economic Review 92 (1):240–258. Biberman, Gerald. 1985. ‘Personality Characteristic Work Attitudes of Persons with High, Moderate, and Low Political Tendencies.’ Psychological Reports 57:1303–1310.

Bibliography

267

Biggers, Julian. 1977. ‘Machiavellianism in a Prospective Teacher Group.’ Education 98:91–96. Bing, Stanley. 2000. What would Machiavelli do? The Ends Justify the Meanness. New York: HarperCollins. Birkas, Bela, Arpad Csatho, and Boroka Gacs. 2015. ‘Nothing ventured nothing gained: Strong associations between reward sensitivity and two measures of Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 74: 112–115. Biscardi, David, and Thomas Schill. 1985. ‘Correlations of Narcissistic Traits with ­Defensive Style, Machiavellianism, and Empathy.’ Psychological Reports 57:354 Black, Robert. 2013. Machiavelli. London: Routledge. Blass, Thomas. 2004. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books. Block, Thomas. 2014. Machiavelli in America. New York City: Algora. Bloodgood, J.M., W.H. Turnley, and P.E. Mudrack. 2010. ‘Ethics Instruction and the Perceived Acceptability of Cheating.’ Journal of Business Ethics 95 (1):23–37. Bloom, Richard W. 1984. ‘Comment on Measuring Machiavellianism With Mach v: A Psychometric Investigation.’ Journal of Personality Assessment 48. Bluhm, William T. 1978. Theories of the Political System: Classics of Political Thought & Modern Political Analysis. Third ed. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Blumstein, Philip W. 1973. ‘Audience, Machiavellianism, and Tactics Of Identity ­Bargaining.’ Sociometry 36 (3):346–365. Blumstein, Philip W., And Eugene A. Weinstein. 1969. ‘The Redress of Distributive ­Injustice.’ American Journal of Sociology 74 (4):408–418. Bobbitt, Philip. 2013. The Garments of Court And Palace: Machiavelli and The World He Made. New York City: Grove Press. Bochner, Arthur, V. Di Salvo, And T. Jonas. 1975. ‘A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Small Group Process: An Investigation of Two Machiavellian Groups.’ Small Group B ­ ehavior 6 (2):187–203. Bodin, Jean. 1955. Six Books of the Commonwealth trans. M.J. Tooley. Oxford: Blackwell. Bogart, Karn. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism and Individual Differences in Response y=to ­Cognitive Inconsistency.’ Journal of Social Psychology 85:111–119. Bogart, Karen, Florence Geis, Marguerite Levy, And Philip Zimbardo. 1970. ‘No Dissonance for Machiavellians.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, Richard Christie And Florence Geis, eds., 236–259. New York: Academic. Bogart, Karen, And Pascal Scoles. 1971. ‘Endorsement of Machiavellian Attitudes and Mental Health Status.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology 27 (3):315–317. Bokina, John. 1991. ‘Deity, Beast, and Tyrant: Images of The Prince in the Operas of Monteverdi.’ International Political Science Review/ Revue Internationale De Science Politique 12 (1):48–66. Boller, Paul and John George. 1989. They never said it: a book of fake quotes, misquotes, & misleading attributions. New York: Oxford University Press.

268

Bibliography

Bondanella, Peter, and Mark Musa, Eds. 1981. The Portable Machiavelli. New York City: Viking. Bonner, John. 2006. Why Size Matters: From Bacteria to Blue Whales. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Borgatta, Edgar, Ed. 1968. Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Borgeaud, Christele, Erica van de Waal, and Redouan Bshary. 2013. ‘Third-Party Ranks Knowledge in Wild Vervet Monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops pygerythrus).’ PLoS One 8 (3): Article Number: e58562. Borger, Henry. 2002. The Corporate Prince: Machiavelli’s Timeless Advice Adapted for The Modern ceo. Bloomington, in: Authorhouse Borelli, Nicholas. 2012. The Machiavelli Imperative. San Bernadino, ca:No Publisher Given. Bos, René Ten. 2002. ‘Machiavelli’s Kitchen.’ Organization 9 (1):51–70. Boucher, R.C. and J.C. Fortin. 1995. ‘Machiavelisme et Stress Chez le Dirigeant.’ Education Canada 35 (3):22–26. Boughner, Daniel Cliness. 1976 (1966). Devils Disciple: Ben Jonson’s Debt To Machiavelli. Greenwood Press. Bourgeoise-Doyle, Dick. 2012. Il Principio: The Principle. Ottawa: Stubbornbooks. Brabandere, Luc De, Jean-Michel Besnier, and Charles Handy. 2000. Erasme, Machiavel, Et More: Trois Philosophes Pour Les Managers Daujourdhui. Paris: Village Mondial. Bradley, M.T. And K.I. Klohn. 1987. ‘Machiavellianism, the Control Question Test and The Detection Of Deception.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 64:747–757. Bradshaw, John. 1998. Human Evolution: A Neuropsychological Perspective. London: ­Psychology Press. Braginsky, Dorothea. 1970a. ‘Parent-Child Correlates of Machiavellianism and Manipulative Behavior.’ Psychological Reports 27: 927–932 . Braginsky, Dorothea. 1970b. ‘Machiavellianism and Manipulative Interpersonal Behavior in Children.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 6 (1):77–99. Brahmstedt, W.T. 1986. Memo To: The Boss From: Mack: A Contemporary Rendering of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. Palm Springs, California: etc Publications. Bramston, Troy. 2014. ‘Machiavelli’s Shrewd Advice for Ambitious Still Stands.’ The A ­ ustralian, 4 January 2014, 14. Brass, Daniel. 2005. ‘Intra-Organizational Power and Dependence.’ In Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Joel Baum, ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Brennan, Stephen. 2014. Machiavelli on Busine$$: Strategies, Advice, and Words Of ­Wisdom on Business and Power. New York City: Skyhorse Publishing. Brenton, Tony. 1994. The Greening Of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International Environmental Politics. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Bibliography

269

Brewer, Gayle and Loren Abell. 2017. ‘Machiavellianism and romantic relationship dissolution.’ Personality and Individual Differences 106: 226–230. Brewer, Gayle, Loren Abell, and Minna Lyons. 2016. ‘Machiavellianism, pretending orgasm, and sexual intimacy.’ Personality and Individual Differences 96: 155–158. Brewer, Gayle, Danielle Hunt, Gail James. 2015. ‘Dark Triad traits, infidelity and romantic revenge.’ Personality and Individual Differences 83: 122–127. Brewer, Gayle And Loren Abell. 2015. ‘Machiavellianism and Sexual Behavior: Motivations, Deception and Infidelity.’ Personality and Individual Differences 74 (1–2): 186–191. Brosveet, Jarle. 2004. ‘Translation Terrain and Pied Piper Detour: How Experts Eliminated a Norwegian Digital City Project.’ Science Technology Human Values 29 (2): 213–241. Brown, Alison. 1986. ‘Platonism in Fifteenth-Century Florence and Its Contribution to Early Modern Political Thought.’ Journal of Modern History 58 (2):383–413. Brown, Alison. 2010a. The Return Of Lucretius To Renaissance Florence. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press. Brown, Alison. 2010b. ‘Philosophy and religion in Machiavelli’ in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, ed. John Najemy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Eva C., And Rebecca F. Guy. 1983. ‘The Effects of Sex and Machiavellianism on Self-Disclosure Patterns.’ Social Behavior and Personality 11 (1):93–96. Brune, M. 2001. ‘Social Cognition and Psychopathology in an Evolutionary Perspective – Current Status and Proposals For Research.’ Psychopathology 34 (2):85–94. Bruner, Troy and Philip Eager. Modern Machiavelli: 13 Laws of Power, Persuasion and Integrity. No city stated: Changemakers Books, 2017. Bshary, Redouan. 2006. ‘Machiavellian Intelligence in Fishes.’ In Fish Cognition and Behavior, by Culum Brown, Kevin Laland and Jens Krause, eds., 223–242. Oxford: Blackwell. Bshary, Redouan, Felice Di Lascio, Ana Pinto, And Erica Van De Waal. 2011. ‘How ­Intelligent Is Machiavellian Behavior?’ In Animal Thinking: Contemporary Issues in Comparative Cognition, Randolf Menzel and Julia Fischer, eds., 209–222. Boston: ­Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Press. Buchanan, Aimee. 1942. The Lady Means Business: How to Reach the Top in the Business World, the Career Woman’s Own Machiavelli. New York, New York: Simon And Schuster. Bucknall, Vittoria, Suendoss Burwaiss, and Deborah MacDonald. 2015. ‘Mirror mirror on the ward, whos the most narcissistic of them all? Pathologic personality traits in health care.’ Canadian Medical Association Journal 187(18): 1359–1363. Bull, George. 1999 [1961] The Prince, George Bull, trans. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

270

Bibliography

Bunker, Gaylen. 2012. Power Tools: Move over Machiavelli. Salt Lake City, Utah: Businessallstars. Bunn, Cullen. 2011. The Prince from SmarterComics, Machiavelli. Palo Alto, ca: SmarterComics. Burd, L. Arthur. 1891. Il Principe Of Niccolò Machiavelli. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Burgoon, Michael, Gerald R. Miller, And Stewart L. Tubbs. 1972. ‘Machiavellianism, ­Justification, and Attitude Change Following Counter Attitudinal Advocacy.’ Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology 22 (3):366–371. Burletson, Louise, And Keith Grint. 1996. ‘The Deracination of Politics: Outdoor ­Management Development.’ Management Learning 27 (2):187–202. Burnett, J.J., S.D. Hunt, And Lawrence Chonko. 1986. ‘Machiavellianism across Sexes: An Examination of Marketing Professionals.’ Psychological Reports 59:991–994. Burnham, James. 1941. The Managerial Revolution or What Is Happening in the World Now. London: Putnam. Burnham, James. 1943. The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom. Chicago: Henry Regency. Burns, J.H., And Mark Goldie, Eds. 1991. The Cambridge History of Political Thought: 1450–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, James McGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York City: Harper. Burns, John S. 2000. ‘A River Runs through It: A Metaphor for Teaching Leadership Theory.’ Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies 7 (3):41–55. Burstein, Daniel. 1993. Turning The Tables: A Machiavellian Strategy for Dealing With Japan. New York: Simon & Schuster. Burton, Brian K., And W. Harvey Hegarty. 1999. ‘Some Determinants of Student Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation.’ Business & Society 38 (2):188–205. Busino, G. 1995. ‘The Life and Works of Machiavelli, Nicolo In Their Relationship To Machiavellianism – History And Critical-Examination – Italian – Tommasini,O.’ Bibliotheque De Humanisme Et Renaissance 57 (1):215. Buskirk, Richard. 1974. Modern Management & Machiavelli: The Executives Guide to the Psychology and Politics of Power. New York City: New American Library. Butler, K.T. 1940. ‘Louis Machons “Apologie Pour Machiavelle” (1643 and 1668).’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (3/4):208–227. Butler-Bowdon, Tom. 2004. 50 Success Classics. London: Nicholas Brearley. Butler-Bowdon, Tom. 2010. The Prince, the Original Classic. London: Capstone. Butters, H.C. 1985. Governors and Government in Early Sixteenth-Century Florence, 1502–1519. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Buttery, Ernest, And Ewa Richter. 2003. ‘On Machiavellian Management.’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24 (8):421–435.

Bibliography

271

Byrne, John A. 1999. Chainsaw: The Notorious Career of Al Dunlap in the Era of Profitat-Any-Price. New York: HarperBusiness. Byrne, Richard W. 1995. The Thinking Ape: Evolutionary Origins of Intelligence. ­Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, Richard W., And L.A. Bates. 2007. ‘Sociality, Evolution and Cognition.’ Current Biology 17 (16):R714–R723. Byrne, Richard W., And Andrew Whiten, Eds. 1988. Machiavellian Intelligence: The Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Cairncross, Molly, Livia Veselka, and Julie Aitken Schermer. 2013. ‘A Behavioral Genetic Analysis of Alexithymia and the Dark Triad Traits of Personality.’ Twin Research and Human Genetics 16 (3): 690–697. Calhoon, Richard. 1969. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator.’ Academy of Management Journal 12 (2):205–212. Calkins, Kenneth. 1988. ‘As someone famous probably once said.’ Wall Street Journal, 7 January: 14. Call, J., F. Aureli, and F. Amici. 2008. ‘Fission-Fusion Dynamics, Behavioral Flexibility, and Inhibitory Control in Primates.’ Current Biology 18 (18):1415–1419. Campbell, J., J.A. Schermer, V.C. Villani, B. Nguyen, L. Vickers, and P.A. Vernon. 2009. ‘A Behavioral Genetic Study of the Dark Triad of Personality and Moral Development.’ Twin Research and Human Genetics 12 (2):132–136. Capaldi, Nicholas. John Stuart Mill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Capezio, Alessandra, et al. 2017. ‘To Flatter or To Assert? Gendered Reactions to ­Machiavellian Leaders,’ Journal of Business Ethics 141(1) 1–11. Capponi, Niccolò. 2010. An Unlikely Prince: The Life and Times of Machiavelli. ­Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. Carre, Jessica and Daniel Jones. 2017. ‘Decision Making, Morality, and Machiavellianism: The Role of Dispositional Traits in Gist Extraction,’ Review of General P­ sychology, 21(1): 23–29. Carroll, B. Jill. 2004. Machiavelli for adjuncts: Six lessons in power for the disempowered. No City given: Aventine Press. Carter, Terrell. 2002. Machiavellian Arts Management: 21st Century Advice for Contemporary Arts Managers. St Louis, mo: ccd Publishing. Carter, Terrell. 2015. Machiavellian Ministry: What Faith Filled Leadrs can Learn from a Faithless Politician. Seattle: CreateSpace. Cartwright, John. 2000. Evolution and Human Behavior: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Cartwright, John. 2001. Evolutionary Explanations of Human Behavior. London: Routledge.

272

Bibliography

Casanova, C., R. Mondragon-Ceballos, and P.C. Lee. 2008. ‘Innovative Social Behavior in Chimpanzees.’ American Journal of Primatology 70 (1):54–61. Casanova, Nick. 1995. The Machiavellian’s Guide to Womanizing. New York City: Castle Books. Casanova, Nick. 2008a. The Machiavellian’s Guide to Charm: For Both Men and Women. Bloomington, in: iUniverse, Inc. Casanova, Nick. 2008b. The Machiavellian’s Guide to Flirting: For Both Men and Women. Bloomington, in: iUniverse, Inc. Casanova, Nick. 2008c. The Machiavellian’s Guide to Insults. Bloomington, in: ­iUniverse, Inc. Cavico, Frank, and Bahaudin Mujtaba. 2004. ‘Machiavellian values “The Prince”: Bullying. Beguiling, Backstabbing, and Bargaining in the Twenty First Century Management.’ The Association on Employment Practices and Principles (aepp) Proceedings. 12th Annual International Conference. Fort Lauderdale Beach, Florida, October. Celeste, Raymond. 1668. Louis Machon: Apologiste de Machiavel et de la politique du Cardinal de Richelieu. Nouvelles recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (1600–1672). ­Bordeaux: de G. Gounouilhou. Celenza, Christopher. 2015. Machiavelli: A Portrait. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press. Champernowne, Henry (pseudonym for D.F. Means). 1894. The Boss. New York City: Richmond. Chabrol, Henri, Tiffany Melioli, and Nikki Van Leeuwen. 2015. ‘The Dark Tetrad: ­Identifying personality profiles in high-school students.’ Personality and Individual Differences 83: 97–101. Chen, Y.J. and T.L.P. Tang. 2013. ‘The Bright and Dark Sides of Religiosity Among University Students: Do Gender, College Major, and Income Matter?’ Journal of Business Ethics 115 (3):531–553. Cherulnik, P.D., J.H. Way, S. Ames, and D.B. Hutto. 1981. ‘Impressions of high and low Machiavellian men.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (4):388–400. Chojnacka, Dominika, et al. 2015. ‘Relative Brain and Brain Part Sizes Provide Only Limited Evidence that Machiavellian Behaviour in Cleaner Wrasse Is Cognitively Demanding.’ PLoS One 10 (8), Article Number: e0135373. Chonko, Lawrence. 1982a. ‘Machiavellianism: Sex differences in the Profession of ­Purchasing Management.’ Psychological Reports 51:645–646. Chonko, Lawrence. 1982b. ‘Are Purchasing Managers Machiavellian?’ Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 18 (4):15–20. Christie, Richard. 1970a. ‘Scale Construction.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 10–34. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard. 1970b. ‘Relationships between Machiavellianism and Measures of Ability, Opinion, and Personality.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 35–52. New York: Academic.

Bibliography

273

Christie, Richard. 1970c. ‘Social Correlates of Machiavellianism.’ In Studies in M ­ achiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 314–338. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard. 1981. The Machiavellians: Who They are and Why They’re Out to get You. New York: Addison-Wesley. Christie, Richard, and Virginia Boehm. 1970. ‘Machiavellians meet Miss Rheingold.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 96–105. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard, and Florence Geis. 1968. ‘Some consequences of Taking Machiavelli Seriously.’ In Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, ed. Edgar Borgotta and W.W. Lambert, 959–973. Chicago: Rand McNally. Christie, R., and F. Geis. 1970a. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Christie, Richard, and Florence Geis. 1970b. ‘The Ten Dollar Game.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 161–172. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard, and Florence Geis. 1970c. ‘Implications and Speculations.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 339–358. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard, Kenneth Gergen, and David Marlowe. 1970. ‘The Penny-Dollar Caper.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 173–189. New York: Academic. Christie, Richard, and Stanley Lehmann. 1970. ‘The Structure of Machiavellian Orientations.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 359–387. New York: Academic. Christoffersen, David, and Clifton Stamp. 1995. ‘Examining the Relationship between Machiavellianism and Paranoia.’ Psychological Reports 76:67–70. Cicero. 1913. De officiis,. Walter Miller, trans. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press. Clark, Jason. 2013. ‘Integrating Basic and Higher-Cognitive Emotions within a Common Evolutionary Framework: Lessons from the Transformation of Primate Dominance into Human Pride.’ Philosophical Psychology 26 (3): 437–460. Clester, Shane. 2011. Machiavelli. Mundelein, il: Roundtable Comics. Cloetta, Bernhard. 1983. ‘Der fragebogen zur erfassung von Machiavellismus und konservatismus mk.’ Schweizerische zeitschrift fur psychologie 42 (2/3):127–159. Clough, Cecil. 1983. ‘Machiavelli’s Epistolario and Again What did Machiavelli wear in the Country.’ Bulletin of the Society for Renaissance Studies 1:7–18. Cochrane, Eric. 1961. ‘Machiavelli: 1940–1960.’ The Journal of Modern History, 33, 2. Codevilla, Angelo. 1997. The Prince, Rethinking the Western Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cohane, Ondine. 2014. ‘Footsteps.’ New York Times, 7 December 2014. Cohen, Roger. 2003. The Prince, Tragicomedy. Woodstock, il: Dramatic Arts.

274

Bibliography

Cole, D.L. 1972. ‘Machiavellianism and political behavior.’ Journal of Social Psychology 87 (1):159. Colin, Walters. 1996. ‘Rediscovering the prince in Machiavelli.’ 2 Edition, B.6-0. Colish, Marcia. 1978. ‘Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince, ’Sixteenth Century Journal, 9(4): 81–93. Comer, James M. 1980. ‘Machiavellianism and Spontaneous Cheating in Competition.’ Journal of Research in Personality 14 (1):70–75. Comer, James M. 1985. ‘Machiavellianism and Inner vs. Outer-Directedness: A Study of Sales Managers.’ Psychological Reports 56:81–82. Condren, Conal. 1985. The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Connell, William J. 2005. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli with Related Documents. New York: St Martins. Connor, Richard and Janet Mann. 2006. ‘Social Cognition in the Wild: Machiavellian Dolphins.’ In Rational Animals? ed. Susan Hurley and Matthew Nudds, ­329–367. London: Oxford University Press. Conroy, Pat. 1976. The Great Santini. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. Constantine, Peter. 2009. The Prince. London: Vintage. Cooper, Rachel, David Hands, and Andrew Wooton. 2003. ‘Machiavelli and Innovation: The Politics of Design.’ Texvn, 5th International Conference, Barcelona, Spain. ­Accessed 16 May 2016. http://www.ub.edu/5ead/PDF/2/CooperHands.pdf. Cooper, Sloan, and Christopher Peterson. 1980. ‘Machiavellianism and Spontaneous Cheating in Competition.’ Journal of Research on Personality 14 (1):70–75. Copenhaver, Brian and Charles B. Schmitt 1992. Renaissance Philosophy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Copleston, Frederick. 1998. A History of Philosophy vol. 3, Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing. Corey, Paul. 2008. Messiahs and Machiavellians: Depicting Evil in the Modern Theatre. North Bend, in: University of Notre Dame Press. Corral, S., and E. Calvete. 2000. ‘Machiavellianism: Dimensionality of the Mach iv and its Relation to Self-monitoring in a Spanish Sample.’ Spanish journal of psychology 3 (1):3–13. Corzine, Janice, Gabriel Buntzman, and Edgard Busch. 1988. ‘Machiavellianism and Careers at Plateau.’ Psychological Reports (63):243–246. Corzine, Janice Baker. 1997. ‘Machiavellianism and Management: A Review of SingleNation Studies Exclusive of The usa and Cross-National Studies.’ Psychological R ­ eports 80:291–304. Corzine, Janice Baker, Gabriel F. Buntzman, and Edgar T. Busch. 1993. ‘Machiavellianism in u.s. Bankers.’ International Journal of Organizational Analysis 7 (1):72–83. Corzine, Janice Baker and George Hozier. 2005. ‘Exploratory Study of Machiavellianism and Bases of Social Power in Bankers.’ Psychological Reports 97: 356–362.

Bibliography

275

Covert, Jack and Todd Sattersten. 2009. The Best One Hundred Business Books of All Time. New York City: Portfolio. Coxall, Malcom and Guy Caswell, 2013. Machiavellian Management: A Chief Executive’s Guide. Andalusia, Spain: Comelrio Books. Crabb, Steve. 1975. The Prefect. Camberwell, Victoria: Widescope. Craddock, Maggie. 2011. Power Genes: Understanding Your Power Persona- and How to Wield It at Work. Cambridge, ma: Havard Business Review. Crainer, Stuart. 1998. The Ultimate Business Guru Book : 50 Thinkers Who Made Management. Oxford: Capstone. Crick, Mark. 2011. Machiavelli’s Lawn: The Great Writer’s Garden Companion. London: Granta. Crittenden, Paul. 2008. Changing Orders. Blackheath, nsw: Brandl & Schlesinger. Cronen, Vernon and Nancy Mihevc. 1974. ‘Effects of Group Conflict, ­Problem-Relevance, Manipulative Success And Decision-Satisfaction On Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 35:691–694. Crow, T.J. 1977. ‘Sexual Selection as the Mechanism of Evolution of Machiavellian Intelligence.’ Journal of Psychopharmacology 10 (1):77–87. Crow, T.J. 1993. ‘Sexual Selection, Machiavellian Intelligence, and The Origins of ­Psychosis.’ Lancet 342 (8871):594–598. Cunha, Miguel Pina e, Stewart Clegg, and Arménio Rego. 2013. ‘Lessons for Leaders:  ­ Positive Organization Studies Meets Niccolò Machiavelli.’ Leadership 9 (4):450–465. Curry, Patrick and Oscar Zarate. 1995. Machiavelli for Beginners. Trumpington, ­England: Icon Books. Curry, Patrick and Oscar Zarate. 2012. Introducing Machiavelli: A Graphic Guide. ­London: Icon Books. Cuzán, Alfred. 1999. Is Fidel Castro a Machiavellian Prince? Miami: Endowment for ­Cuban American Studies. Cyriac, K. and R. Dharmaraj. 1994. ‘Machiavellianism in Indian management.’ Journal of Business Ethics 13 (4):281–286. Czibor, Andrea and Tamas Bereczkei. 2012. ‘Machiavellian Peoples Success Results from Monitoring Their Partners.’ Personality and Individual Differences 53 (3): 202–206. Czibor, Andrea, Orsolya Vincze, and Tamas Bereczkei/ 2014. ‘Feelings and motives underlying Machiavellian behavioural strategies; narrative reports in a social dilemma situation.’ International Journal of Psychology 49(6): 519–524. Dacres, Edward. 1649. Prince. Trans. and ed. By Edward Dacres. London: Bishop. dAmato, Antony. 1972. ‘The Relevance of Machiavelli to Contemporary World Politics.’ In The Political Calculus; Essays on Machiavelli’s Philosophy, by Anthony Parel, ed., 209–224. Toronto: University Of Toronto Press. D’Aubois, Marion Latour. 2008. Machiavélique Harcèlement. Nantes: Amalthée.

276

Bibliography

D’Hondt, U. 1986. ‘The Challenge of Machiavellianism.’ Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 48 (1):3–20. Dahling, J.J., B.G. Whitaker, And P.E. Levy. 2009. ‘The Development and Validation of a New Machiavellianism Scale.’ Journal Of Management 35 (2):219–257. Dalton, D., and R.R. Radtke. 2013. ‘The Joint Effects of Machiavellianism and Ethical Environment on Whistle-Blowing.’ Journal of Business Ethics 117 (1):153–172. Daniels, Victor. 1967. ‘Communication, Incentive, and Structural Variables in Interpersonal Exchange and Negotiation.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3 (1):47–74. Daunt, K.L. And L.C. Harris. 2011. ‘Customers Acting Badly: Evidence from the Hospitality Industry.’ Journal of Business Research 64 (10):1034–1042. Dautenhahn, Kerstun. 2007. ‘A Paradigm Shift in Artificial Intelligence.’ In Fifty Years of Artificial Intelligence: Festschrift, M. Lungarella et al. eds., 288–302. Berlin: Springer. Dawson, Samuel E. 1899 The Lines of Demarcation of the Pope Alexander vi and the Treaty of Tordesillas, 1493 And 1494. Memphis, TN: General Books. Deak, Anita, Barbara Bodrogi, Brigitte Biro, et al. 2017. ‘Machiavellian emotion regulation in a cognitive reappraisal task: An fMRI study.’ Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 17 (3): 528–541. De Corte, Marcel. 1961. ‘The Machiavellian Revolution.’ Diogenes 9 (35):60–77. De Vries, G., K.A. Jehn, And B.W. Terwel. 2012. ‘When Employees Stop Talking and Start Fighting: the Detrimental Effects of Pseudo Voice in Organizations.’ Journal Of Business Ethics 105 (2):221–230. De Waal, Frans. 1998 [1982]. Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Delia, J.G., And B.J. OKeefe. 1976. ‘The Interpersonal Constructs of Machiavellians.’ British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15:435–436. Deluga, Ronald J. 2001. ‘American Presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for Charismatic Leadership and Rated Performance.’ Leadership Quarterly 12 (3):339–363. Demack, Ian. 2002. The Modern Machiavelli: The Seven Principles of Power in Business. Sydney: Allen And Unwin. Demack, Ian. 2008. ‘Why Machiavelli Matters.’ Forbes, 24 September. Den Hartog, D.N. and F.D. Belschak. 2012. ‘Work Engagement and Machiavellianism in the Ethical Leadership Process.’ Journal of Business Ethics 107 (1):35–47. Déniz, O., M. Castrillón, J. Lorenzo, And M. Hernández. 2007. ‘Casimiro: The Sociable Robot.’ Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4739:1049–1056. Dewees, Bill. 2012. Strategic Thinking Trilogy: The Book of 5 Rings, The Art Of War & The Prince. Miyamoto Musashi, Sun Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli. Newark, nj.: Audible. Dickson, Paul. 2017. Leo Durocher: Baseball’s Prodigal Son. New York City: Bloomsbury. Diderot, Denis. 1765. ‘Machiavelisme.’ In Encyclopédie Du Dictionnaire Raisonné. Vol. ix.: 793. Paris.

Bibliography

277

Diehl, A.K., V. Kumar, A. Gateley, J.L. Appleby, and M.E. OKeefe. 2006. ‘Predictors of Final Specialty Choice by Internal Medicine Residents.’ Journal of General Internal Medicine 21 (10):1045–1049. Diehl, Daniel. 2007. Management Secrets from History: Historical Wisdom for Modern Business: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, H.J. Heinz, Elizabeth i, Confucius. Stroud: Sutton. Diehl, Elke. 2005. Machiavelli Paradox: Unternehmensführung, Mitarbeiterführung, Systemisches Coaching. Stoughton, wi.: Books On Demand. Dien, D.S. 1974. ‘Parental Machiavellianism and Childrens Cheating in Japan.’ Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 5 (3): 259–270. Dien, D.S., And H. Fujisawa. 1979. ‘Machiavellianism in Japan: A Longitudinal Study.’ Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 10 (4):508–551. Dimeo, Francesco. 1994. In Triumph: The Story of an Ordeal and Triumph, Prince M ­ achiavelli. Devon: Stockwell. Dingler-Duhon, Melissa and Barbara Brown. 1987. ‘Self-Disclosure as an Influence ­Strategy: Effects of Machiavellianism, Androgyny, and Sex.’ Sex Roles 16 (3–4): 109–123. Dionisotti, C. 1975. ‘Machiavellianism.’ Rivista Storica Italiana 87 (2):242–267. Divanna, Joseph. 2003. Thinking Beyond Technology: Creating New Value in Business. London: Palgrave. Dobson, Dawn. 2001. ‘Big Change Programmes.’ Journal of Change Management 2 (1):7–22. Dobson, Michael S. and Deborah S. Dobson. 2001. Enlightened Office Politics. New York City: American Management Association. Domelsmith, D.E., And J.T. Dietch. 1978. ‘Sex Differences in The Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Self-Disclosure.’ Psychological Reports 42:715–721. Donaldson, P.S. 1988. Machiavelli and Mystery of State. New York: Cambridge University Press. Donno, Daniel. 1981. The Prince. New York: Bantam. Durocher, Leo and Ed Linn, 1975. Nice Guys Finish Last. New York City: Simon and Schuster. Downs, Robert. 1978. Books That Changed the World. Second Ed. Chicago: American Library Association. Drake, Daniel. 1995. ‘Assessing Machiavellianism and Morality-Conscience Guilt.’ Psychological Reports 77:1355–1359. Dreher, Barbara. 2003. ‘Machiavellian Philosophy and Alzheimers.’ American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias 18 (4):197–198. Drennan, John. 2014. Paddy Machiavelli: How to get Ahead in Irish Politics. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. Droit, Roger-Pol. 2014. ‘Machiavel: L’art de la Manipulation.’ Le Point, 10 July.

278

Bibliography

Drory, Amos and Uri Gluskinos. 1980. ‘Machiavellianism and Leadership.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (1):81–86. Drucker, Peter. 2001. The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Druckers Essential Writings on Management. New York City: Harper. Dryden, John. 2002. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli: The Patron Saint of Power.’ In Business: The Ultimate Resource, Warren Bennis et al. eds., 1016–1017. Cambridge, ma: Perseus. Dryzak, John, Bonnie Honig, And Ann Phillips, Eds. 2006. The Oxford Handbook of P­ olitical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dubins, L.E. And D.A. Freedman. 1981. ‘Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley Algorithm.’ American Mathematical Monthly 88 (7):485–494. Duffy, Paul, Samuel Shiflett, And Ronald Downey. 1977. ‘Locus of Control: Dimensionality and Predictability Using Likert Scales.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (2):214–219. Duke, J.D. 1988. ‘Sex Differences in Self-Perceptions among a Sample of College Students.’ Psychological Reports 62:993–994. DuMont, Jean. 2013. Machiavelli. Seattle: Bestreaders. Dunant, Sarah. 2017. In the Name of the Family: A Novel of Machiavelli & the Borgia. London: Virago. Dunbar, Robin. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and The Evolution Of Language. London: Faber And Faber. Dunbar, Robin. 2003. ‘The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary Perspective.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 32:163–181. Dunlap, David. 2016. ‘Exposing the ‘Protocols’ as Fraud.’ New York Times, 27 October. ­Accessed 2 June 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/insider/1920-21 -exposing-the-protocols-as-a-fraud.html. Dupont, Corine. 2006. Auschwitz Ou le Sadisme Machiavélique Hitlérien. Nantes: Amalthée Durkin, James. 1970. ‘Encountering: What Low Machs Do.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, by Richard Christie And Florence Geis, eds., 260–284. New York: Academic. Dussault, Matthew, Mahzad Hojjat, and R. Thomas Boone. 2013. ‘Machiavellianism and Dating: Deception and Intimacy.’ Social Behavior and Personality 41 (2):283–294. Dyson, Michael. 2003. Holler If You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur. New York: Basic. Easley, C.A. and John Swain. 2003. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli: Moving Through the Future as We Learn from the Past.’ International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 6 (1):119–130. Ebenstein, William and Alan O. Ebenstein. 1999. Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present. Fort Worth, tx: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Economist. 2009. The World of Business. London: The Economist. Edmonds, Bruce, Emma Norling, and David Hales. 2009. ‘Towards the evolution of ­Social Structure.’ Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 15:78–98.

Bibliography

279

Effelsberg, D., M. Solga, and J. Gurt. 2014. ‘Transformational Leadership and Followers Unethical Behavior for the Benefit of the Company: A Two-Study Investigation.’ Journal of Business Ethics 120 (1):81–93. Effler, M. 1983 ‘Konservatismus, Machiavellianismus: validitäts- und reliabilitätsuchungen.’ Zeitschrift fur differentielle und diagnostiche psychologie 4 79–85. Eliot, George. 1999 [1863]. Romola. London: Penguin. Elton, Geoffrey. 1991. England Under the Tudors 3rd edn. London: Routledge. English, Fenwick. 1992. ‘The Principal and the Prince: Machiavelli and school leadership.’ nassp Bulletin 76 (540):10–15. Ennis, Michael. 2012. The Malice of Fortune. New York City: Random House. Eppink, Andreas. 2014. Crisis, Power, Sustainability & Ethics: It’s All Machiavelli and ­Hidden Goals: A Manager’s Guide. San Bernadino, ca: Montaigne House. Epstein, Gilda. 1969. ‘Machiavelli and the Devil’s Advocate.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11 (1):38–41. Erasmus, Desiderius. 1997. The Education of a Christian Prince, trans. Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath, trans. and Lisa Jardine, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erdal, David, Andrew Whiten, Christopher Boehm, and Bruce Knauft. 1994. ‘On Human Egalitarianism: An Evolutionary Product of Machiavellian Status Escalation?’ Current Anthropology 35 (2):175–183. Esperger, Zsofia and Tamas Bereczkei. 2012. ‘Machiavellianism and Spontaneous Mentalization.’ European Journal of Personality 26 (6):580–587. Evans, Suzanne. 2013a. ‘How Machiavelli Saved My Family,’ Wall Street Journal, April 5, accessed 15 April 2016 at. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323646604 578400804035071688. Evans, Suzanne. 2013b. Machiavelli for Moms: Maxims on the Effective Governance of Children, Because Sometimes Ends Do Justify Means. New York City: Touchstone. Exline, Ralph and Clark Eldridge. 1963. ‘Machiavellian Scores of Volunteer Student Counselors and Student Government Officers.’ Psychological Reports 13:853–854. Exline, Ralph, John Thibaut, Carole Hickey, and Peter Gumpart. 1970. ‘Visual ­Interaction  in Relation to Machiavellianism and an Unethical Act.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 53–76. New York: Academic. Eymer, Alain. 2010. Dérive machiavélique. Paris: Edilivre Edition Classique. Fairhurst, G.T. and F. Cooren. 2009. ‘Leadership as the Hybrid Production of Presence(s).’ Leadership 5 (4):489–490. Fanti, Kostas, Meilina Kyranides, and Laura Drislane. 2016. ‘Validation of the Greek Cypriot Translation of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure.’ Journal of Personality Assessment Volume: 9 (2): 146–154. Faulkner, Tom. 1994. The Machiavellian Legacy. Sussex, England: Book Guild Publishing Ltd.

280

Bibliography

Fehr, Beverley, Deborah Samsom, and Delroy L. Paulhus. 1992. ‘The construct of ­Machiavellianism: Twenty Years Later.’ In Advances in Personality Assessment, ed. C.D. Spielberger and J.N. Butcher, 77–116. Hillsdale, nj: Erlbaum. Ferreri, Martin. 2013. The Machiavelli Model: A 21st Century Strategic Management Guide from the 15th Century Italian Mastermind. Oxford, u.k.: Management Books 200, Ltd. Fialkowski, K.R. 1994. ‘On The Evolution of Language.’ Current Anthropology 35 (4):445–448. Finlay, Paul. 2000. Strategic Management. Edinburgh: Pearson Education. Fisher, Anne. 1997. ‘What Women can Learn from Machiavelli.’ Fortune 137 (7):162. Fisher, Roger, Elizabeth Kopelman, and Andrea Kupfer Schneider. 1996. Beyond ­Machiavelli: Tools for coping with Conflict. New York City: Penguin. Flamini, Roland. 2013. ‘All Hail “The Prince”.’ Washington Times. Fleming, Morna. 2013. ‘Machiavelli at the Court of James vi’ in Janet Hadley Williams, and Derrick J. McClure, eds., Fresche fontanis: Studies in the Culture of Medieval and Early Modern Scotland. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Flynn, S., M. Reichard, and S. Slane. 1987. ‘Cheating as a Function of Task Outcome and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Psychology 121 (5):423–427. Folsom, Allan. 2007. The Machiavelli Covenant. Toronto: Forge. Fontana, Alan F. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism and Manipulation in the Mental Patient Role.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (2): 252–263. Forgas, Joseph P. 1998. ‘On feeling good and getting Your Way: Mood Effects on Negotiator Cognition and Bargaining Strategies.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (3):565–578. Forsman, R.B. 2003. ‘Machiavelli and Me: Strategies for Sidestepping the Budget Axe During Tough Times.’ Colorado libraries 29 (3):9–11. Fraassen, Bas C. van. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fraedrich, John, O.C. Ferrell, and William Pride. 1989. ‘An Empirical Examination of Three Machiavellian Concepts: Advertisers vs. the General Public.’ Journal of Business Ethics 8 (9):687–694. Franzese, Michael. 2009. Ill Make You an Offer You Cant Refuse: Insider Business Tips from a Former Mob Boss. London: Nelson. Frederick the Great. 2013 [1740]. Anti-Machiavel. Newark Press. Freeman, Jeffrey. 2009. ‘If Machiavelli had been an emergency physician.’ Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 11 (5):508. Frémaux, Charlie. 2009. The Machiavellian Minister. Seattle: Createspace. Fry, W R. 1985. ‘The Effect of Dyad Machiavellianism and Visual Success in Integrative Bargaining Outcomes.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11 (1):51–62. Fuentes, Carlos. 2008. ‘On Leadership and Niccolo Machiavelli.’ Revista Actuari@: 1–11. Funk, Richard D. 1986. The Corporate Prince: Machiavelli Reviewed for Today. New York City: Vantage Press.

Bibliography

281

Gable, Myron, and Frank Dangello. 1994. ‘Locus of Control, Machiavellianism and Managerial Job Performance.’ Journal of Psychology 128 (5):599–608. Gable, Myron, Charles Hollon, and Frank Dangello. 1990. ‘Relating Locus of Control to Machiavellianism and Managerial Achievement.’ Psychological Reports 67:339–343. Gable, Myron, Charles Hollon, and Frank Dangello. 1992. ‘Managerial Structuring of Work as a Moderator of the Machiavellianism and Job Performance Relationship.’ Journal of Psychology 126 (3):317–325. Gable, Myron, and Martin Topol. 1987. ‘Job Satisfaction and Machiavellian Orientation among Department Store Executives.’ Psychological Reports 60:211–216. Gable, Myron, and Martin Topol. 1988. ‘Machiavellianism and the Department Store Executive.’ Journal of Retailing 64 (1):68–84. Gable, Myron, and Martin Topol. 1989. ‘Machiavellianism and Job Satisfaction of ­Retailing Executives in a Specialty Retail Chain.’ Psychological Reports 64:107–112. Gable, Myron, and Martin Topol. 1991. ‘Machiavellian Managers: Do They Perform ­Better?’ Journal of Business and Psychology 5 (3):355–365. Gagliardi, Gary. http://www.garygagliardi.com/. Gale, David, and Marilda Sotomayor. 1985. ‘Ms Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem.’ American Mathematical Monthly 92 (4):261–268. Galie, Peter, and Christopher Bopst. 2006. ‘Machiavelli & Modern Business: Realist Thought in Contemporary Leadership Manuals.’ Journal of Business Ethics 65:235–250. Galli, Ida, Giovanna Nigro, and Güinter Krampen. 1986a. ‘Multidimensional Locus of Control and Machiavellianism in Italian and West German Students: Similarities and Differences.’ International Review of Applied Psychology 35 (4):453–461. Galli, Ida, Giovanna Nigro, and Güinter Krampen. 1986b. ‘Multidimensional Locus of Control and Machiavellianism in Italian and West German Students: Similarities and Differences.’ Applied Psychology 35 (4):453–460. Galli, L., and G. Nigro. 1983. ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism and External Control Among Italian Undergraduates.’ Psychological Reports 53:1081–1082. Gallieni, M. 2007. ‘Machiavelli and Urinalysis.’ Kidney International 72 (7):896–897. Gamache, Paula. 2010. ‘Crossword Puzzle.’ New York Times (20 February). Gärdenfors, Peter. 2003. How Homo Became Sapiens: On the Evolution of Thinking. ­Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaunder, A. 2007. ‘Reform Leadership in the United States and Japan: A Comparison of John McCain and Ozawa Ichiro.’ Leadership. 3 (2):173–190. Gauss, Christian. 1952. The Prince. New York: Mentor. Gavrilets, Sergey, and Aaron Vose. 2006. ‘The dynamics of Machiavellian Intelligence.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (45):16823–16826. Geis, Florence. 1968. ‘Machiavellianism in a Semi-Real World.’ American Psychological Association.

282

Bibliography

Geis, Florence. 1970. ‘The Con Game.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 106–129. New York: Academic. Geis, Florence. 1978. ‘Machiavellianism.’ In Dimensions of personality, ed. Harvey London and John E. Exner. New York City: Wiley. Geis, Florence, Richard Christie, and Carnot Nelson. 1970a. ‘In search of Machiavel.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 76–95. New York: Academic. Geis, Florence, and Tae Moon. 1981. ‘Machiavellianism and Deception.’ Journal of ­Personality and Social Psychology 41 (4):766–775. Geis, Florence, Sidney Weinheimer, and David Berger. 1970b. ‘Playing Legislature: Cool Heads and Hot Issues.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 190–209. New York: Academic. Gemmill, Gary, and W. Heisler. 1972. ‘Machiavellianism as a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, Job Satisfaction, and Upward Mobility.’ Academy of Management 15 (1):51–62. Gentillet, Innocent. 1576a [1968]. Anti-Machiavel. C. Edward Rathe, ed. Geneva: Droz. Gentillet, Innocent. . 1576b [1974]. Discours contre Machiavel: A New Edition of the Original French Text with Selected Variant Readings, Introduction, and Notes, A. dAndrea and P.D. Stewart, eds. Firenze: Casalini Libri. George, Claude S.1968. The History of Management Thought. Engelwood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Gerard, A. Callanan. 2004. ‘What would Machiavelli think? An Overview of the Leadership Challenges in Team-Based Structures.’ Team Performance Management 10 (3/4):77. Gerenstein, Grigori. 2014. Machiavelli’s Boss Boris. Bloomington, in: AuthorHouse. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2002. Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, Allan. 1938. Machiavelli’s Prince and its Forerunners: The Prince as a Typical de Regimine Principum. Raleigh, n.c.: Duke University Press. Gilbert, Allan. 1989. (ed. and trans.) Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, 3 vols. ­Durham, nc: Duke University Press. Gilbert, Felix. 1939. ‘The Humanistic Concept of the Prince and the Prince of Machiavelli.’ Journal of Modern History 9 (4):449–483. Gilbert, Felix. 1973. Machiavellianism. In Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. Philip Wiener. New York City: Scribners. Gill, John. 2001. ‘A Much-maligned Machiavelli.’ Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 20–21. Gill, Roger. 2003. ‘Change Management – or Change Leadership.’ Journal of Change Management 3 (4):307–308. Gillespie, Bob. 2009. Machiavelli and the Mayflower: How to understand the Europeans. Paris: La Rémige sarl.

Bibliography

283

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. 1994 (1914). Benigna Machiavelli. Santa Barbara, ca: ­Bandana Books. Gini, G., P. Albiero, B. Benelli, and G. Altoe. 2007. ‘Does Empathy Predict Adolescents’ Bullying and Defending Behavior?’ Aggressive Behavior 33 (5):467–476. Gkorezis, Panagiotis, Eugenia Petridou, and Theodora Krouklidou. 2015. ‘The Detrimental Effect of Machiavellian Leadership on Employees Emotional Exhaustion: Organizational Cynicism as a Mediator?’ Europe’s Journal of Psychology 11 (4): 619–631. Gleason, J.M., F.J. Seamen, and E.P. Hollander. 1978. ‘Emergent Leadership Processes as a Function of Task Structure and Machiavellianism.’ Social Behavior and Personality 6 (1):33–36. Godman, Peter. 1998. From Poliziano To Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism In The High Renaissance. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Goethe, Johann von. 1788 [1929]. Egmont. James Hatfield, ed. New York City: Heath. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 1808. Doctor Faustus. Goldberg, Carey. 1999. ‘Crossing Flaming Swords Over God and Physics,’ New York Times, 20 April. Goldstein, D.S. 1982. ‘Machiavellianism and Its Relationship to Attitudes towards caring for Elderly Relatives.’ Gerontologist 22:223. Goleman, Daniel. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York City: Bantam. Goleman, Daniel. 2007. Social Intelligence. London: Bantam. Goodin, Robert and Hans-Dieter Klingmann. 1996. A New Handbook on Political S­ cience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Andrew. 2001. Playing chess with Machiavelli: Improving Interactive Entertainment with Explicit Strategies. In aaai Technical Report SS-01-02. Accessed 20 May 2016. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2001/SS-01-02/SS01-02-009 .pdf. Gouzoules, Harold. 2000. ‘Machiavellian Intelligence ii (Book Review).’ Human Biology 72 (2):390–392. Graham, J.H. 1996. ‘Machiavellian Project Managers: Do They Perform Better?’ International Journal of Project Management 14 (2):67–79. Grams, W.D. and R.W. Rogers. 1990. ‘Power and Personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, Need for Approval, and Motivation on U=use of Influence Tactics.’ Journal of General Psychology 117 (1):71–82. Gramsci, Antonio. 1957 [1924]. The Modern Prince. London: International. Granitz, Neil A. 2003. ‘Individual, Social and Organizational Sources of Sharing and Variation in the Ethical Reasoning of Managers.’ Journal of Business Ethics 42 (2):101–125. Grazia, Sebastian de. 1989. Machiavelli in Hell. London: Harvester. Greaves, John Milton. 2011. The Fist of Machiavelli. Baltimore: Publish America.

284

Bibliography

Greenbaum, Rebecca, Aaron Hill, Mary Mawritz, and Matthew Quade. 2014. ‘Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior.’ Journal of Management 40 (5):1–25. Greene, Robert. 2000 [1998]. The 48 Laws of Power. New York City: Penguin. Greene, Robert. 2003. The Art of Seduction. New York City: Penguin. Greene, Robert. 2006. The 33 Strategies of War. New York City: Penguin. Greene, Robert. 2014 Mastery. New York City: Penguin. Greenfield, Edward L. and Charles L. Mee Jr 1963. Dear Prince: The Unexpurgated Counsels of N. Machiavelli to Richard Milhous Nixon. Winter Park, fl.: American Heritage Press. Greenfield, Edward L. and Charles L. Mee Jr 1969. Dear Prince: The Unexpurgated counsels of N. Machiavelli to Richard Milhous Nixon. New York City: American Heritage Press. Greenlee, Janet, Charles Cullinan, and David Morand. 1995. ‘Machiavellianism among Business School Students: A Multi-Institution Comparison.’ Psychological Reports, 76:375–378. Greenlee, Janet S., and Charles Cullinan. 1997. ‘Machiavellianism and Public Accountants.’ Accounting Enquiries 7 (1):125–130. Greenstein, Fred, and Nelson Polsby, eds. 1975. Handbook of Political Science. Nine vols. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Griffin, Gerald R. 1991. Machiavelli on Management: Playing and Winning the Corporate Power Game. New York City: Prager. Griffiths, Paul. 2004. ‘Towards a Machiavellian Theory of Emotional Appraisal.’ In Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality, ed. Dylan Evans and Pierre Cruse, 89–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffiths, Sian. 2013. ‘The Last of the Plantagenets.’ The Australian, 4 February. Grimes, William. 2016. ‘Antony Jay, a Machiavelli Scholar and a Creator of “Yes Minister,” Dies at 86.’ New York Times, 29 August. Accessed on 2 June 2017, https://www .nytimes.com/2016/08/30/arts/television/antony-jay-a-machiavelli-scholar-and-a -creator-of-yes-minister-dies-at-86.html?_r=0. Gronn, P. 2005. ‘Leading Questions: Questions about Autobiographical Leadership.’ Leadership 1 (4):481–490. Grzeskowiak, Stephan and Jamal A. Al-Khatib. 2009 ‘Does morality Explain Opportunism in Marketing Channel Negotiations? The Moderating Role of Trust.’ International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 37 (2):142–160. Gu, Honglei, Zhonglin Wen, and Xitao Fan. 2017. ‘Structural validity of the Machiavellian Personality Scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach.’ Personality and Individual Differences 105: 116–123. Guicciardini, Francesco. 1890. Ricordi or Counsels and Reflections, Ninian Thomson trans. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Bibliography

285

Guicciardini, Francesco. 1968. The History of Italy, trans. and ed. Sidney Alexander. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Guinzbourg, Victor S.M.D. 1969. The Eternal Machiavelli in the United Nations World: A Treatise on Diplomacy. Pubished privately in typescript. Gundersheimer, W.L. 1966. The Life and Works of Louis Le Roy. Genève: Librairie Droz. Gunlicks, Lynn. 2000. The Machiavellian Manager’s Handbook for Success. Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse. Gunnthorsdottis, Anna, Kevin McCabe, and Vernon Smith. 2002. ‘Using the Machiavellianism Instrument.’ Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (1): 49–66. Gupta, M.D. 1986. ‘Effects of Age and Family Structure on Machiavellianism.’ Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research 1: 95–100. Gupta, M D. 1987. ‘Machiavellianism of Different Occupational Groups.’ Indian Journal Of Psychometry and Education 18 (2):61–65. Gurbuz, Esen and Esra Eris. 2016. ‘The Effect of Personal Idealism, Relativism, and Machiavellianism on Voting Tendency: A Turkish Study.’ Journal of Political Marketing 15 (1): 45–69. Guterman, Stanley. 1970. The Machiavellians: A Social Psychological Study of Moral Character and Organizational Milieu. Lincoln, ne: University of Nebraska Press. Hacker, Sally L. and Charles M. Gaitz. 1970. ‘Interaction and Performance Correlates of Machiavellianism.’ Sociological Quarterly 11 (1):94–102. Haddock, Bruce. 2008. A History of Political Thought. Cambridge, England: Polity. Hadfield, Andrew. 2001. Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travel and Colonial Writing in English, 1550–1630: An Anthology. London: Oxford University Press. Hadreas, Peter. 2005. ‘Aristotle and Machiavelli Interviewed on Wall Street Week under Review.’ Business Ethics: A European Review 14 (3):223–230. Hale, J.R. 1961. Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hale, J.R. 1977. Renaissance Europe. Berkeley, ca: University of California Press. Hales, David, Bruce Edmonds, and Emma Norling. 2009. ‘Towards the Evolution of ­Social Structure.’ Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 15 (2): 78–17. Hall, Adam. 1971. The Warsaw Document. London: Heinemann. Hall, Edward. 1877. Beyond Culture. New York: Random. Hall, Katie. Mike Oram, Matthew Campbell, et al. 2017. ‘Chimpanzee uses manipulative gaze cues to conceal and reveal information to foraging competitor.’ American Journal of Primatology 79 (2017)3: Article Number: e22622. Halty Barrutieta, Lucia, and Maria Prieto Ursua. 2011. ‘Subclinical Psychopathy and the ‘Dark Triad’ of Personality.’ Behavioral Psychology-Psicologia Conductual 19 (2):317–331.

286

Bibliography

Hambrook, D. and K. Tchanturia. 2008. ‘A Pilot Study Exploring Machiavellianism in Anorexia Nervosa.’ Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia Bulimia and Obesity 13 (3):137–141. Hankins, James. 1996. ‘Humanism and Modern Political Thought’. In Jill Kraye (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hansen, C.H., And R.D. Hansen. 1991. ‘Constructing Personality and Social Reality through Music: Individual Differences among Fans.’ Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 35 (3):335–351. Hanson, Dallas And Stuart Middleton. 2000. ‘The Challenges of Eco-Leadership: Green Machiavellianism.’ Green Management International 5:95–108. Harding, Alan. 1994. ‘The Origins Of The Concept Of The State.’ History Of Political Thought, 15 (1), 57–72. Hardman, R. 2011.’ How The Queen Defined Her Role, with a Little Help from Sir Humphrey.’ Spectator, 20 October 2011. Accessed 16 May 2016 Http://Www.Spectator .Co.Uk/2011/10/Yes-Maam/. Harpole, George B. 2012. The Machiavellian Murders. Seattle: Createspace. Harrell, W. Andrew. 1980. ‘Retaliatory Aggression by High and Low Machiavellians against Remorseful and Non-Remorseful Wrongdoers.’ Social Behavior and Personality 8 (2):217–220. Harrell, W. Andrew and Timothy Hartnagel. 1976. ‘The Impact of Machiavellianism and the Trustfulness of the Victim on Laboratory Theft.’ Sociometry 39(2):157–165. Harris, Phil. 2001. ‘Machiavelli, Political Marketing and Reinventing Government.’ ­European Journal Of Marketing 35 (9/10):1136–1154. Harris, Phil. 2002. ‘Machiavelli Brussels.’ Journal Of Public Affairs 2 (4):300. Harris, Phil. 2007. ‘Machiavelli, Marketing and Management: Ends and Means in Public Affairs.’ Journal of Public Affairs 7 (2):181–191. Harris, Phil. 2010. ‘Political Marketing.’ In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Cary Cooper, ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Harris, Phil. 2016. Website Accessed 3 June 2016. Http://Www.Phil-Harris.Com/? Category_Name=Machiavelli. Harris, Phil, And Andrew Lock. 1996. ‘Machiavellian Marketing: The Development of Corporate Lobbying in the uk.’ Journal of Marketing Management 12 (4) 313–328. Harris, Phil, Andrew Lock, And Patricia Rees. 2000. Machiavelli, Marketing and M ­ anagement. London: Routledge. Harris, Phil, Conor Mcgrath, and Irene Harris. 2009. ‘Machiavellian Marketing: Justifying Ends and Means in Modern Politics.’ In Routledge Handbook of Political Management, Dennis W. Johnson, ed., 537–554. New York City: Routledge. Harris, Phil, Danny Moss, and Nadja Vetter. 1999. ‘Machiavelli’s Legacy to Public Affairs: A Modern Tale Of Servants and Princes in uk Organisations.’ Journal of Communication Management 3 (3):201–217.

Bibliography

287

Harrison, Peter. 2015. The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. Hart, Claudia. 1998. A Child’s Machiavelli: A Primer on Power. Expanded Edition New York City: Penguin Studio. Hart, Claudia. 2011. ‘Claudia Hart.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. Http://Www.Claudiahart .Com/Portfolio/Machiavelli.Html. Hartley, Neil. 2006. ‘Management and History.’ Journal of Management History 12 (3):278–292. Hatfield, Andrew. 2001. Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travels and Colonial Writing in English 1550–1830. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawley, Patricia. 2003. ‘Pro-Social and Coercive Configurations of Resource Control in Early Adolescence: A Case for the Well-Adapted Machiavellian.’ Merrill – Palmer Quarterly 49 (3):279–309. Hawley, Patricia. 2006. ‘Evolution and Personality: A New Look at Machiavellianism.’ In Handbook of Personality Development, Daniel Mroczek and Todd Little, eds., ­­147–162. Mahwah, nj: Erlbaum. Heames, Joyce Thompson, and Michael Harvey. 2006. ‘The Evolution of the Concept of the Executive from the 20th Century Manager to the 21st Century Global Leader.’ Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13 (2):29–41. Hegarty, W. Harvey and Henry P. Sims. 1978. ‘Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: an Experiment.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (4):451–457. Hegarty, W. Harvey. 1995. ‘Effects of Group Norms and Learning on Unethical Decision Behavior.’ Psychological Reports 76:593–594. Hegel, G.W.F. (1964 [1802]). ‘The German Constitution,’ Hegel’s Political Writings, ed. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hegel, G.W.F. (1896 [1804–1805]). Lectures on the History of Philosophy, Volume 3, Trans. E.H. Haldane and Francis Simson. London: Routledge. Heinlein, Robert, 1959. Starship Troopers. New York City: Putnam. Heinze, Peter, Rhianon Allen, Carol Magai, and Barry Ritzler. 2010. ‘Let’s Get Down To Business: A Validation Study of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory among a Sample of mba Students.’ Journal of Personality Disorders 24 (4):487– 498. Heisler, W.J. And G.R. Gemmill. 1977. ‘Machiavellianism, Job Satisfaction, Job Strain, and Upward Mobility: Some Cross-Organizational Evidence.’ Psychological Reports 41:592–594. Henning, H.J. And Bernd Six. 1977. ‘Structure of Machiavellianism Scale.’ Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie 8 (5): 185–198. Herman, George. 1996. The Florentine Mourners, Leonardo da Vinci and Niccolo Pavia (New York City: Toexcel). Herring, Hubert B. 1999. ‘Business Authors bring Machiavelli back to Life.’ The Globe And Mail, M2-0.

288

Bibliography

Hexter, Jack. 1973. The Vision Of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation. New York City: Basic Books. Hibbert, Chirstopher. 1993. Florence: The Biography of a City. New York City: Viking. Hill, Richard. 2000. The Boss: Machiavelli on Managerial Leadership. Geneva, Switzerland: Pyramid Media Group. Hodson, Gordon, Sarah M. Hogg, and Cara C. Macinnis. 2009. ‘The Role of “Dark ­Personalities” (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy), Big Five Personality Factors, and Ideology in Explaining Prejudice.’ Journal of Research in Personality 43 (4):686–690. Hogue, M., J. Levashina, and H.L. Hang. 2013. ‘Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-Monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews.’ Journal of Business Ethics 117 (2):399–411. Hollingshead, Stephen. 2005. Shakespeare’s Answer to Machiavelli. Durham, nc: Carolina Academic Press. Hollon, Charles. 1975. ‘Professional Machiavellian Orientation, Academic Rank, and Tenure.’ Psychological Reports 36:222. Hollon, Charles. 1983. ‘Machiavellianism and Management Work Attitudes and Perceptions.’ Psychological Reports 52:432–434. Hollon, Charles. 1996. ‘Machiavellianism and Perceived Managerial Job Environment Dimensions.’ Psychological Reports 79 (1):65–66. Hoover, John. 2011. How to Work for an Idiot. Pompton, nj: Career Press. Hornqvist, Mikael. 2004. Machiavelli and Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horsten, Leon and Philip Welch. 2013. ‘The Aftermath.’ The Mathematical Intelligencer 35 (1):16–20. Howard, K.D. 2014. The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain. Woodbridge: Tamesis. Hrdy, Sarah. 2009. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Hren, Darko, Ana Vujaklija, Ranka Ivaniević, Josip Knežević, Matko Maruić, and Ana Maruić. 2006. ‘Students’ Moral Reasoning, Machiavellianism and Socially Desirable Responding: Implications for Teaching Ethics and Research Integrity.’ Medical E­ ducation 40 (3):269–277. Hugo, Victor. 1862 (1992). Les Misérables. Trans. Charles E. Wilbour. New York City: Modern Library. Hunt, Shelby, and Lawrence Chonko. 1984. ‘Marketing and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Marketing 48 (1):30–42. Hunter, John, David Gerbing, and Franklin Boster. 1982. ‘Machiavellianism Beliefs and Personality: Construct Invalidity of the Machiavellianism Dimension.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (6):1293–1305.

Bibliography

289

Hutter, Katja, Johann Fueller, and Julia Hautz, 2015. ‘Machiavellianism or Morality: Which Behavior Pays Off In Online Innovation Contests?’ Journal of Management Information Systems 32(3): 197–228. Ickes, W., S. Reidhead, and M. Patterson. 1986. ‘Machiavellianism and Self-Monitoring: As Different as “Me” and “You.”’ Social Cognition 4 (1): 58–74. Ignaschewitsch, Agent Dmitri. 2017. The Law of Power (Machiavelli of the new age): How  to gain and maintain it. Independently Published, available from Amazon usa. Inancsi, Tamas, Andras Lang, and Tamas Bereczkei. 2015. ‘Machiavellianism and Adult Attachment in General Interpersonal Relationships and Close Relationships.’ ­Europe’s Journal of Psychology 11(1): 139–154. Inancsi, Tamas, Andras Lang, and Tamas Bereczkei. 2016. ‘A Darker Shade of Love: ­Machiavellianism and Positive Assortative Mating Based on Romantic Ideals.’ ­Europe’s Journal of Psychology 12(1): 137–152. Ingman, Heather. 1988. Machiavelli in Sixteenth-Century French Fiction. New York City: Peter Lang. Irungu, Kiunjuri Edward. 1999. The Machiavellian Art of Political Manipulation: The K ­ enyan Experience. Thika, Kenya: House Of Hedges. Issa, Marie-Anne, Diana Falkenbach, Gabriele Trupp, et al.‘Psychopathy in Lebanese college students: The ppi-r considered in the context of borderline features and aggressive attitudes across sex and culture.’ Personality and Individual Differences 105: 64–69. Jackman, Jack L and Michael von Irvin. 2014. Lead Your Way To Riches Like Machiavelli: ‘The Secret to Being A Great Leader, Is Simply Knowing How To Lead.’ The Machiavelli Way. No city given: Little Guys Way to Riches. Jackson, Michael. 1996. ‘The Real and the Rational,’ In The Hegel Myths and Legends, Jon Stewart, ed. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 19–25. Jackson, Michael. 2011. ‘The Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis’ in Norbert Seel, ed., Springer Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Berlin: Springer, 2081–2082. Jackson, Michael and Thomas Moore. 2016. ‘Machiavelli’s Walls: The Legacy of Realism in International Relations Theory,’ International Politics, 63 (4): 447–465 Jacobs, Jane. 1992. Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics. New York: Random House. Jaffe, Eugene, and Israel Nebenzahl. 1992. ‘Researchers’ Responsibility and Science.’ Psychological Reports 70:593–594. Jaffe, E.D., I.D. Nebenzahl and H. Gotesdyner. 1989. ‘Machiavellianism, Task Orientation, and Team Effectiveness.’ Psychological Reports 64:819–824. Jagers, Robert J., Paula Smith, Lynne Owens Mock, and Ebony Dill. 1997. ‘An Afro-­ Cultural Social Ethos: Component Orientations and Some Social Implications.’ Journal of Black Psychology 23 (4):328–343.

290

Bibliography

Jay, Antony. 1994 (1967). Management and Machiavelli: Discovering a New Science of Management in the Timeless Principles of Statecraft. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Jensen, Anthony. 2016. Sun Tzu & Machiavelli: Leadership Secrets. San Bernardino, ca: Make Profits Easy. Jirmanova, Eliska and Olga Pechova. 2014. ‘Love Styles and Personality Of University Students.’ In ‘Czech-Slovak Psychology Conference (not only) for and about PhD Students, Maierova, E., R. Prochazka, M. Dolejs. Olomouc, Czech Republic’ 151–156. From Web of Knowledge. Johansson, Franz. 2004. The Medici Effect: What Elephants and Epidemics Can Teach Us About Innovation. Cambridge, ma: Harvard Business Review Press. John, F. Bradley, N. Martin Alan, Schoen Bianca, M.P. OHare Gregory, and R. Duffy Brian. 2005. ‘Future Reasoning Machines: Mind and Body.’ Kybernetes 34 (9/10): 1404–1417. Johnson, P.B. 1980. ‘Need Achievement and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 46:466. Johnson, Curtis L. (V). 1996 (1991). The Mafia manager: A Guide to the Corporate ­Machiavelli. New York City: St Martins. Johnson, Megan, Kelly Caron, and Amy Mikolajewski. 2014. ‘Psychopathic Traits, ­Empathy, and Aggression are Differentially Related to Cortisol Awakening ­Response.’ Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 36(3): 380–388. Joly, Maurice. 2002 [1864]. The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Jonason, Peter, Joshua Foster, Atsushi Oshio, et al. 2017. ‘Self-construals and the Dark Triad traits in six countries.’ Personality and Individual Differences 113: 120–124. Jones, Daniel and Delroy L. Paulhus. 2014. ‘Introducing the Short Dark Triad: A Brief Measure of Dark Personality Traits.’ Assessment 21 (1):28–41. Jones, E.E. and B.N. Daugherty. 1959. ‘Political Orientation and the Perceptual E ­ ffects of an Anticipated Interaction.’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59 (3):340–349. Jones, E.E., K.J. Gergen, and K.E. Davis. 1962. ‘Some Determinants of Reactions to being Approved or Disapproved as a Person.’ Psychological Monographs 76 (2). Jones, Gwen E. and Michael J. Kavanagh. 1996. ‘An Experimental Examination of the Effects of Individual and Situational Factors on Unethical Behavioral Intentions in the Workplace.’ Journal of Business Ethics 15 (5):511–513. Jones, John E. 1978. ‘A Review of Richard Christies Mach v Attitude Inventory.’ Group Organization Management 3 (1):120–122. Jones, Midas. 2008. The Modern Prince: Better Living through Machiavellianism. Seattle: CreateSpace. Jones, R E, and C S White. 1983. ‘Relationships between Machiavellianism, Task Orientation and Team Effectiveness.’ Psychological Reports 53:859–866.

Bibliography

291

Jones, Warren, Ted Nickel, and Alan Schmitt. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism and Self-­ Disclosure.’ Journal of Psychology 102 (1):33–41. Julius, Daniel, Victor Baldridge, and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1999. ‘Memo from Machiavelli.’ Journal of Higher Education 70 (2):113–133. Kaestner, Elisabeth, Linda Rosen, Philip Appel, and Stephen Sofer. 1977. ‘Manipulativeness among Drug Abusers: Reliability and Validity of the Mach iv Scale.’ Addiction 72 (3):245–249. Kahn, Victoria. 2010. ‘Machiavelli’s afterlife and reputation to the eighteenth ­century’ in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, John Najemy, ed. New York City: ­Cambridge University Press. Kahn, Victoria. 1994. Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Kajonius, Petri, Bjorn Persson, Patricia Rosenberg, et al. 2016.’The (mis)measurement of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: exploitation at the core of the scale.’peerj 4: Article Number: e1748. Kang, Morim. 2014. The Prince. Netcomics, Kindle edition. Kaplan, Robert D. 2002. Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos. New York City: Random House. Kapoutsis, I., R.J. Volkema, and A.G. Nikolopoulos. 2013. ‘Initiating Negotiations: The Role of Machiavellianism, Risk Propensity, and Bargaining Power.’ Group Decision and Negotiation 22 (6):1081–1101. Kappeler, Peter M. and Carel van Schaik. 2005. Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution. Berlin: Springer. Karbalaei, Samaneh, Abbas Abdollahi, and Sabrina Abdullah. 2015. ‘Machiavellianism and Spiritual Intelligence as Predictors of Waste-Prevention Behaviours among Malaysian University Students.’ Pertanika Journal Of Social Science And Humanities 23(3): 623–638. Kasper, Eric, and Troy Kozma. 2015. Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The Prince through Television and Film. Lanham, md: Lexington Books. Kauffmann, Duane, Brenda Chupp, Kent Hershberger, Lisa Martin, and Ken Eastman. 1987. ‘Learning vs Grade Orientation.’ Psychological Reports 60:145–146 Keenan, A., and Valerie Clarkson. 1977. ‘Machiavellianism and Attitudes towards the Police.’ Journal of Occupational Psychology 50 (1):15–22. Kellerman, Barbara. 1999. Reinventing Leadership. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press. Kellerman, Barbara. 2001. ‘Required Reading: Leadership.’ Harvard Business Review 79 (11):15–24. Kellerman, Barbara. 2004. Bad Leadership. Harvard, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Kelley, Donald R. 1970. ‘Murdrous Machiavel in France: A Post Mortem.’ Political Science Quarterly, 85(4): 545–559.

292

Bibliography

Kelley, Trish, Jeff Higdon, and Steven Ferguson. 2014. ‘Large testes and brain sizes in odontocetes (order Cetacea, suborder Odontoceti): the influence of mating system on encephalization.’ Canadian Journal of Zoology 92 8: 721–726. Kennedy, Carol. 2003. ‘Hidden gem: Management and Machiavelli.’ Director 56 (8): 46–51. Kenny, Anthony. 2006. A New History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3 The Rise of Modern Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kessler, S.R., A.C. Bandelli, P.E. Spector, W.C. Borman, C.E. Nelson, and L.M. Penney. 2010. ‘Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of Machiavellianism in the Workplace.’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40 (8):1868–1896. Kiazad, K., S.L.D. Restubog, T.J. Zagenczyk, C. Kiewitz, and R.L. Tang. 2010. ‘In ­Pur­suit of Power: The Role of Authoritarian Leadership in the Relationship between ­Supervisors Machiavellianism and Subordinates Perceptions of Abusive Supervisory Behavior.’ Journal of Research in Personality 44 (4):512–519. Kihlstrom, John and Nancy Cantor. 2000. ‘Social Intelligence.’ In Handbook of I­ ntelligence, ed. Robert J. Sternberg, 359–379. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. King, Edward. 2011. ‘Machiavelli, Niccolò.’ In Encyclopaedia of Political Science, ed. George Kurion. Washington, D.C: CQ Press. King, Ross. 2007. Machiavelli: Philosopher of Power. New York City: Harper. Klein, Edward. 1969. ‘Machiavellianism and Other Personality Attributes of Psychiatry Residents.’ International Journal of Social Psychiatry 15 (3):216–222. Klinberg, Torkel. 2009. The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kline, Paul and Colin Cooper. 1983. ‘A Factor-Analytic Study of Measures of Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual Differences 4 (5):569–571. Kline, Paul and Colin Cooper. 1984. ‘An Investigation of the Items in the Machiavellian Scales.’ Journal of Social Psychology 124 (2):251–252. Kloot, W.A. van der, O.P. Brouwer, and T.M. Willemsen. 1982. ‘Machiavellisme: ­Normering en validatie van de Mach v schaal.’ Gedrag-Tijdschrift voor psychologie 10 (4):265–281. Klosko, George, ed. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy. ­Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Knecht, Thomas. 2004a. ‘Was ist machiavellische Intelligenz?’ Der Nervenarzt 75 (1): 1–5. Knecht, Thomas. 2004b. ‘What is Machiavellian Intelligence? Views on a Little ­Appreciated Side of the Psyche.’ Psychiatrische Klinik Munsterlingen, Switzerland. ­Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www.nootropics.com/social-intelligence/machiavellian .html. Koester, Jolene. 1982. ‘The Machiavellian Princess: Rhetorical Dramas for Women Managers.’ Communication Quarterly 30 (3):165–172.

Bibliography

293

Koliscak, Jared. 2012. ‘Review of Christopher Barry, Patricia Kerig, Kurt Stellwagen, and Tammy Barry (Eds), Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth: Implications for the Development of Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior.’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41:1691–1694. Korda, Michael. 1975 Power! How to get It, How to Use It. New York City: Ballantine. Kotter, John. 1990. Force For Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. (New York City: Free Press). Krampen, Guenter. 1980. ‘Generalized Expectations of Alcoholics: Multidimensional Locus of Control, Hopelessness, and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology 36 (4):1022–1023. Kraut, R.E. and J.D. Price. 1976. ‘Machiavellianism in Parents and Their Children.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (6):782–786. Kreeft, Peter. 2003. Socrates meets Machiavelli: The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Author of the Prince. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Krishnakumar, Sukumarakurup and Michael Robinson. 2015. ‘Maintaining An Even Keel: An Affect-Mediated Model of Mindfulness and Hostile Work Behavior.’ ­Emotion 15(5): 579–589. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1968. ‘The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free Thought,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy, 6(3): 233–243. Kuhn, Heinrich. 2010. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli,’ in Paul Blum ed., Philosophers of the R ­ enaissance. Washington, dc: Catholic University of America Press. Kuo, Hwang and Anthony Marsella. 1977. ‘The Meaning and Measurement of Machiavellianism in Chinese and American College Students.’ Journal of Social Psychology 101 (2):165–173. Kuyumcu, Daniel and Jason Dahling. 2014. ‘Constraints for Some, Opportunities for Others? Interactive and Indirect Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Constraints on Task Performance Ratings.’ Journal of Business and Psychology 29(2) : 301–310. Laemmle, Lena, Christina Oedl, and Matthias Ziegler. 2014.’Dont threaten me and my dark side or even self-harm wont stop me from hurting you.’ Personality and Individual Differences 67: 87–91. Lamdan, S. and M. Lorr. 1975. ‘Untangling the Structure of Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology 31 (2):301–302. Lamm, Helmut and David G. Myers. 1976. ‘Machiavellianism, Discussion Time, and Group Shift.’ Social Behavior and Personality 4 (1): 41–48. Lancy, David and Annette Grove. 2011. ‘Marbles and Machiavelli: The Role of Game Play in Children’s Social Development.’ Journal of Play iii (4):489–499. Land, Christopher. 2015. Machiavelli for Babies. No City Given: Shaka Shaka Publishing. Landon, William J. 2005. Politics, Patriotism & Language, (New York, Peter Lang). Lang, Andras. 2015a. ‘Borderline Personality Organization predicts Machiavellian ­interpersonal tactics.’ Personality and Individual Differences 80: 28–31.

294

Bibliography

Lang, Andras. 2014. ‘Machiavellianism and personality disorder: their relationship in the mirror of interpersonal attitudes.’ Orvosi Hetilap 155(40) : 1584–1588. Lang, Andras and Bela Birkas. 2014. ‘Machiavellianism and Perceived Family Functioning in Adolescence.’ Personality and Individual Differences 63: 69–74. Lang, Andras. 2015b. ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism and emotional and ­behavioral difficulties in adolescence.’ Orvosi Hetilap 156(26): 1054–1058. Lang, Andras and Bela Birkas. 2015. ‘Machiavellianism and Parental Attachment in Adolescence: Effect of the Relationship With Same-Sex Parents.’ Sage Open 5 (1): Article Number: 2158244015571639. Lang, Andras and Kata Lenard. 2015. ‘The relation between memories of childhood psychological maltreatment and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual D ­ ifferences 77: 81–85. Larsen, Knud S., Reidar Ommundsen, and Robert Elder. 1991. ‘Acquired Immune ­Deficiency Syndrome: International Attitudinal Comparisons.’ Journal of Social P­ sychology 131 (2):289–291. Latif, D.A. 2000. ‘The Relationship between Pharmacy Students’ Locus of Control, Machiavellianism, and Moral Reasoning.’ American Journal of Pharmaceutical ­ E­ ducation 64 (1):33–37. Latorre, Ronald A. and Emily McLeoad. 1978. ‘Machiavellianism and Clinical Depression in a Geriatric Sample.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology 34 (3):659–660. Leary, Mark, and Rick Hoyle, eds. 2009. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York City: Guildford Press. Leary, Mark R, Paul Knight, and Byron Barnes. 1986. ‘Ethical Ideologies of the Machiavellian.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12 (1):75–80. Ledeen, Michael A.1997. ‘Machiavelli for Moderns’ May 12, aei Bradley Lecture Series, ­retrieved 29 April, 2016 at http://www.aei.org/publication/machiavelli-for-moderns/. Ledeen, Michael. 1999. Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries ago. New York City: St Martins. Lee, Kibeom and Michael C. Ashton. 2005. ‘Psychopathy, Machiavelliansm and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the nexco Model of Personality Structure.’ Personality and Individual Differences 38 (7):1571–1582. Lee, Alexander. 2013. ‘Machiavelli: Not So Machiavellian?’ History Today, 26 February, accessed 30.9.14 at http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2013/02/machiavelli -not-so-machiavellian. Leerssen, J.T. 1996. ‘Machiavelli: Figure-Reputation.’ Yearbook of European Studies, Menno Spiering, ed. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V. Editions. Lefèvre, Nicole and Bernard Caillères. 2010. Machiavélique revanche. Paris: Theles. Legge, John. 1991. The Modern Machiavelli : The Nature of Modern Business Strategy. Hawthorn, vic.: Swinburne College Press.

Bibliography

295

Leone, C, and V. Corte. 1994. ‘Concern for Self-Presentation and Self-Congruence: Self-Monitoring, Machiavellianism, and Social Contracts.’ Social Behavior and P­ ersonality 22 (3):305–312. Lester, David. 1995. ‘Personality Correlates of Correctly Identifying Genuine Suicide Notes.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 80:890. Lhullier, Sylvain. 2009. Enigmes mathématiques machiavéliques. Paris: Marabout. Lien, Arnold J. 1929. ‘Machiavelli’s Prince and Mussolini’s Facism,’ Social Science, 4(4): 435–441. Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke. 2003. ‘Social Situatedness of Natural and Artificial Intelligence: Vygotsky and Beyond.’ Adaptive Behavior 11 (2):79–96. Lisch, Ralf. 2012. Ancient Wisdom for Modern Management: Machiavelli at 500. ­Farnham, uk: Gower. Liu, C.C. 2008. ‘The Relationship between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Sharing Willingness.’ Journal of Business and Psychology 22 (3):233–240. Lopes, J., and C. Fletcher. 2004. ‘Fairness of Impression Management in Employment Interviews: A Cross-Country Study of the Role of Equity and Machiavellianism.’ ­Social Behavior and Personality 32 (8):747–768. Lord, Carnes, 2004. The Modern Prince: What Leaders need to know. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lorenzen, Michael. 2008. ‘Applying Machiavellian Ideas on Leadership to Libraries.’ mla forum vi 6. Lovely, Brandon L. 1988. A Machiavellian View of the Ministry: A Guide for Professional Leaders of Organizations. New York City: Vantage. Lowe, D.J. and P.M.J. Reckers. 2012. ‘An Examination of the Contribution of Dispositional Affect on Ethical Lapses.’ Journal of Business Ethics 111 (2):179–193. Lucas, J.C. and M.S. Hyde. 2012. ‘Men and Women Lobbyists in the American States.’ Social Science Quarterly 93 (2):394–414. Lundmark, Thomas. 1998. Niccolò Machiavelli: The Return of The Prince (Il ritorno dei Principe). Munster, Germany: Lit Verlag. Lyons, Minnia. 2009. ‘Cry baby, Cry, make Your Mother Buy? Evolution of Tears, Smiles, and Reciprocity Potential.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5): 399. Lyons, Minna and Alyson Blanchard. 2016. ‘“I could see, in the depth of his eyes, my own beauty reflected”: Women’s assortative preference for narcissistic, but not for Machiavellian or psychopathic male faces.’ Personality and Individual Differences 97: 40–44. Lyons, Minna and Louise Simeonov. 2016. ‘The undesirable Dark Triad? Women dislike Dark Triad male faces across different mating context and socio-ecological conditions.’ Personality and Individual Differences 90: 338–341. Lyons, M. and H. Rice. 2014. ‘Thieves of Time? Procrastination and the Dark Triad of Personality.’ Personality and Individual Differences 61–62:34–37.

296

Bibliography

Macaulay, Michael and Alan Lawton. 2003. ‘Misunderstanding Machiavelli in Management: Metaphor, Analogy and Historical Method.’ Philosophy of Management 3 (3):17–30. Macaulay, Thomas Babington Lord 1827. ‘Machiavelli.’ In Critical and Historical Essays, 1–25. London: Longmans. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 2004. The Prince by Machiavelli and Related Documents. Trans. and ed. William Connell. New York City: St Martins. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1950. The Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli. Trans. with notes by Leslie Walker. London: Routledge. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1990. Florentine histories. Trans. with introduction by Harvey Mansfield, Jr. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Macperson, James. 1970. ‘Annotated Bibliography of Studies Referred to in Table ­X V-1.’ In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. Richard Christie and Florence Geis, 3­ 88–399. New York: Academic. Macrossan, W.D. and J.H. Semple. 2001. ‘Fer0-B, Machiavellianism, and Teams.’ Psychological Reports 88:1187–1193. Macrosson, W. and D.J. Hemphill. 2001. ‘Machiavellianism in Belbin Team Roles.’ ­Journal of Managerial Psychology 16 (5/6):355. Madansky, Albert. 2005. ‘Is War a Business Paradigm? A Literature Review.’ Journal of Private Equity 8 (3):7–12. Madansky, Albert. 2011. ‘How to Read a Business Book.’ The University of Chicago Magazine. Acessed 20 May 2016. https://magazine.uchicago.edu/0102/features/read.html. Madonna, Stephen. 1989. ‘Situational and Dispostional Social Cues that Define the ­Machiavellian Orientation.’ Journal of Social Psychology 129 (1):79–83. Madonna, Stephen, Andrea Wesley, Glenda Bailey, and Howard Anderson. 1988. ‘­Machiavellianism as a Strategy of Power Attainment in College Freshmen, Upperclass men, and Graduate Students in Psychology.’ Psychological Reports 62:953–954. Maestripieri, Dario. 2007. Macachiavellian intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and ­Humans have conquered the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Magedanz, Stacy. 2001. On Machiavelli’s The Prince. Cliff Notes. New York City: Wiley. Maier, Richard, and Robert Ernest. 1978. ‘Sex Differences in the Perception of Touching.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 46:577–578. Manchester, William. American Caesar, 2 vols. Boston: Little Brown, 1978. Mandal, Eugenia and Adam Horak. 2016. ‘Manipulation tactics of patients with ­neurotic  disorders in everyday life and during therapy.’ Psychiatria Polska 50(1): 65–76. Mandal, Eugenia and Dagna Kocur. 2013. ‘The Machiavellianism and Manipulation Tactics used by Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder in Everyday Life and in Therapy.’ Psychiatria Polska 47 (4). Mansfield, Harvey Jr. 1985. The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bibliography

297

Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr 1996. Machiavelli’s Virtue. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr 2016. ‘Machiavelli’s Enterprise,’ in Timothy Fuller (ed.) Machiavelli’s Legacy: The Prince after Five Hundred Years. Philadelphia, pa: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mantel, Hilary. 2009. Wolf Hall. London: Fourth Estate. Mantel, Hilary. 2012. Bring up the bodies. New York City: Holt. Marchant, Leslie R. 2008. The Papal Line of Demarcation and its Impact in the Eastern Hemisphere on the Political Division of Australia 1479–1829. Perth, wa: Woodside ­Valley Foundation. Marcinkowska, Urszula, Samuli Helle, and Minna Lyons. 2015. ‘Dark traits: Sometimes hot, and sometimes not? Female preferences for Dark Triad faces depend on ­sociosexuality and contraceptive use.’ Personality and Individual Differences 86: 369–373. Marcinkowska, Urszula, Minna Lyons, and Samuli Helle. 2016. ‘Womens reproductive success and the preference for Dark Triad in mens faces.’ Evolution and Human B ­ ehavior 37 (4): 287–292. Marco, Nicholas di, and Paul Wilhelm. 1973. ‘Relationship between Self-Actualization and Manipulation.’ Psychological Reports 33:633–634. Marcu, Valeriu. 1939. Accent on Power: The Life and Times of Machiavelli. Trans. Richard Winston. New York City: Kessigner. Margulis, Lynn, and Eduard Punset, eds. 2007. Mind, Life, and Universe. London: ­Chelsea Green. Marin, Gerardo. 1973. ‘Behavioral Interchange and the Dogmatism and Machiavellianism Scales.’ Revista Latinoamericano de Psicologia 5:257–262. Markulin, Joseph. 2013. Machiavelli: A Renaissance Life. Amherst, ny: Prometheus. Marlowe, Christopher. 1589/1590. The Jew of Malta. Maroldo, G.K. and L.C. Flachmeier. 1978. ‘Machiavellianism, External Control, and Cognitive Style of American and West German Co-eds.’ Psychological Reports 42:1315–1317. Maroldo, G.K., L.C. Flachmeier, L.K. Johnston, J.L. Mayer, M.I. Peter, E.J. Reitan, and K.L. Russell. 1976. ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism, External Control, and Cognitive Style Among College Students.’ Psychological Reports 39:805–806. Marriott, W.K. 2010. re:Organizing America: A Plan for the 21st Century: Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince. Seattle: CreateSpace. Marriott, W.K. 2011 [1512]. The Prince. London: HarperCollins. Marsh, Sheila. 2009. The Feminine in Management Consulting. London: Palgrave. Marshall, A., D. Baden, and M. Guidi. 2013. ‘Can an Ethical Revival of Prudence within Prudential Regulation Tackle Corporate Psychopathy?’ Journal of Business Ethics 117 (3):559–568.

298

Bibliography

Martin, Mathew, Scott Myers, and Timothy Mottet. 1981. ‘Differences among Chicano and White Students on Items of Machiavellianism Scale.’ Psychological Reports 48:433–434. Martin, Mathew, Scott Myers, and Timothy Mottet. 2006. ‘Students M ­ achiavellianism and Motives for Communicating with Instructors.’ Psychological Reports 98: 861–864. Martinelli, Candida. 2011. ‘Candida Martinellis Italophile Site.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. http://italophiles.com/machiavelli.htm. Martinez, Daniel C./, Mark Magliery, and Richard Wair. 1981. ‘Geographical Mobility and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 49:103–105 Martinez, Daniel C. 1980. ‘Factorial Structure of the Mach v scale for Chicano and White college students.’ Psychological Reports 47:1139–1142. Martinez, Daniel C. 1981. ‘Group Composition and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological R ­ eports 49:783–793. Martinez, Daniel C. 1987. ‘On the Morality of Machiavellian Deceivers.’ Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior 24 (1):47–56. Mathews, Nieves. 1996. Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Mattingly, Garrett. 1958. ‘Machiavelli’s Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?’ The American Scholar, Vol. 27(4):482–491. Maugham, W. Somerset. 1946. Then and Now. Garden City, ny: Doubleday. Maxwell, J. 1992. ‘Whether It is Better to be Loved or Feared: Acquisitions Librarianship as Machiavelli might have described It.’ Library Acquisitions 16 (2):113–117. Mayer, Thomas. 2000. Reginald Pole: Prince & Prophet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazza, M., C. Costagliola, V. Di Michele, V. Magliani, R. Pollice, A. Ricci, E. Di Giovanbattista, R. Roncone, M. Casacchia, and R.J. Galzio. 2007. ‘Deficit of Social Cognition in Subjects with Surgically Treated Frontal Lobe Lesions and in Subjects Affected by Schizophrenia.’ European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 257 (1):12–22. Mazza, Monica, Alessandro De Risio, Carola Tozzini, Rita Roncone, and Massimo ­Casacchia. 2003. ‘Machiavellianism and Theory of Mind in People Affected by Schizophrenia.’ Brain and Cognition 51 (3):262–269. McAlpine, Alistair. 1992. The Servant. London: Faber and Faber. McAlpine, Alistair. 1997. The New Machiavelli: Renaissance Realpolitik for Modern Managers. London: Aurum. McAlpine, Alistair. 2000. ‘Machiavelli: Renaissance Realpolitik for Modern Management.’ In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management. London: Routledge, ed. Phil ­Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 85–107. London: Routledge. McArthur, Peter. 1999. ‘The Pope’s Line: Dividing the World and its Ramifications for Australia.’ Carnovan, wa: Isaacher Ministry. Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www .dailybread.com.au/e-books/Peter_McArthur/The%20Popes%20Line.pdf.

Bibliography

299

McClelland, J.S. 1998. A History of Western Political Thought. London: Routledge. McCormack, Ade. 2008. ‘Machiavellian advice for Todays cios.’ Financial Times, 2. McCredie, Karen, Tim Phillips, and Steve Shipside. 2009. Strategy Power Plays: Winning Business Ideas from the World’s Greatest Strategic Minds, Sun-Tzu, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Samuel Smiles. Oxford: Infinite Ideas. McCutcheon, Lynn E. 2003. ‘Machiavellianism, Belief in a Just World, and the Tendency to Worship Celebrities.’ Current Research in Social Psychology 8 (9): 131–138. McGrane, Christopher. 2010. ‘Is Machiavelli’s The Prince still relevant in the 21st ­Century?’ Australian Political Studies Association, Melbourne. McGrath, David. 2000. Machiavelli’s Guide to Benchmarking. Solihull, West Midlands: Link Support Services. McGuire, David, and Kate Hutchings. 2006. ‘A Machiavellian Analysis of Organizational Change.’ Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 (2):192–209. McHoskey, John. 1995. ‘Narcissism and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 77:755–759. McHoskey, John. 2001a. ‘Machiavellianism and Personality Dysfunction.’ Personality And Individual Differences 31 (5):791–798. McHoskey, John. 2001b. ‘Machiavellianism and Sexuality: On the Moderating Role of Biological Sex.’ Personality And Individual Differences 31 (5):779–789. McHoskey, John, Brian Hicks, Terri Betris, Chris Szyarto, William Worzel, Kristen Kelly, Tamarra Eggert, Adam Tesler, Jenny Miley, and Trav Suggs. 1999. ‘Machiavellianism, Adjustment, and Ethics.’ Psychological Reports 85:138–142. McHoskey, John, William Worzel, and Christopher Szyarto. 1998. ‘Machiavellianism and Psychopathy.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (1):192–210. McLaughln, B. 1970. ‘Incidental Learning and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Social P­ sychology 82 (1):109–116. McLean, P.A., and D.G.B. Jones. 1992. ‘Machiavellianism and Business Education.’ ­Psychological Reports 71 (1):57–58. McMahon, Rob, ed. 2008. Machiavellis The Prince: Bold-faced Principles on Tactics, Power, and Politics. Sydney: Sterling. McMurry, Robert. 1973. ‘Power and the Ambitious Executive.’ Harvard Business Review 51:140–145. McNally, L., S.P. Brown, and A.L. Jackson. 2012a. ‘Cooperation and the evolution of i­ntelligence.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 279 (1740):3027–3034. McNally, Luke, Sam P. Brown, and Andrew L. Jackson. 2012b. ‘Cooperation and the Evolution of Intelligence.’ Proceedings: Biological Sciences 279 (1740):3027–3034. Meisler, G., and E. Vigoda-Gadot. 2014. ‘Perceived Organizational Politics, Emotional Intelligence and Work Outcomes Empirical Exploration of Direct and Indirect ­Effects.’ Personnel Review 43 (1):116–135.

300

Bibliography

Merrill, Joseph, Lila Laux, Ronald Lorimor, John Thornby, and Carlos Vallbona. 1995. ‘Measuring Social Desirability among Senior Medical Students.’ Psychological R ­ eports 77:859–864. Merrill, John Calhoun. 1998. The Princely Press: Machiavelli on American Journalism. Lanham: University Press of America. Mervil, Fritz Lawrence. 1980. The Political Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli as It Applies to Politics, the Management of the Firm, and the Science of Living. Albuquerque, nm: American Classical College Press. Meyer, Edward. 1969 [1897]. Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama. New York: Burt Franklin. Meyer, Hans-Dieter. 1992. ‘Norms and Self-Interest in Ultimatum Bargaining: The Princes Prudence.’ Journal of Economic Psychology 13 (2):215–232. Michel, Freda. 1977. The Machiavellian Marquess: A Georgian Romance. London: Troubadour. Midlarsky, Elizabeth, Mary Elizabeth Hannah, and Robin Corley. 1995. ‘Assessing Adolescent’s Pro-Social Behavior: The Family Helping Inventory.’ Adolescence 30 (117):141–156. Miller, A.G. and H.L. Minton. 1969. ‘Machiavellianism, Internal-External Control, and Violation of Experimental Instructions.’ Psychological Record 19 (3):369–380. Miller, Brian K., Dennis L. Smart, and Paula L. Rechner. 2015. ‘Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Machiavellian Personality Scale.’ Personality and Individual Differences 82:120–124. Minogue, Kenneth. 1996. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli.’ In The Social Science Encyclopedia, ­ed. Adam Kuper and Jessica Kuper, 486–487. London: Routledge. Moberg, Eric Michael. 2016. Machiavelli Was Wrong: It is Better to be Loved. San ­Bernardino, ca: CreateSpace. Moggach, Douglas. 1993. ‘Fichte’s Engagement with Machiavelli.’ History of Political Thought, 14,(4): 573–589. Monaghan, Conal, Boris Bizumic, Martin Sellbom. 2016. ‘The role of Machiavellian views and tactics in psychopathology.’ Personality and Individual Differences 94: 72–81. Mondragon-Ceballos, R. 2002. ‘Machiavellian Intelligence of Primates and Evolution of Social Brain.’ Salud mental 25 (5):29–39. Mont, Jean du. 2013. Machiavelli: A Novel. Seattle: Bestreaders.de. Montag, Christian, Jeremy Hall, and Thomas Plieger. 2015. ‘The DRD3 Ser9Gly Polymorphism, Machiavellianism, and Its Link to Schizotypal Personality.’ Journal of ­Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 8 (1):48–57. Moore, C., J.R. Detert, L.K. Trevino, V.L. Baker, and D.M. Mayer. 2012. ‘Why Employees Do Bad Things: Moral Disengagement and Unethical Organizational Behavior.’ ­Personnel Psychology 65 (1):1–48. Moore, Shirley. 1995. ‘Machiavellian Characteristics among Nurses.’ Nursing Management 26 (5):58–61.

Bibliography

301

Moore, Shirley and Barry Katz. 1995. ‘Machiavellian Scores of Nursing Faculty and ­Students.’ Psychological Reports 77:383–386. Moore, Shirley and Barry Katz. 1996. ‘Psychiatric Residents’ Scores on Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 78:888–890. Moore, Shirley and Barry Katz. 1997. ‘Surgical Residents’ Scores on Measures of Machiavellianism and Physicians’ Uncertainty.’ Psychological Reports 80: 456–458. Moore, Shirley, Barry Katz, and James Holder. 1995. ‘Machiavellianism and Medical ­Career Choices.’ Psychological Reports 76:803–807. Moore, Shirley, Michael Ward, and Barry Katz. 1998. ‘Machiavellianism and Tolerance of Ambiguity.’ Psychological Reports 82:415–418. Moore, Shirley, Michael D. Ward, and Barry Katz. 1996. ‘Machiavellianism and Radiographer Job Satisfaction.’ Radiologic Technology 68 (2):122(5). Mordeglia, Caterina. 2010. ‘The First Latin Translation,’ trans. Ian Harvey in The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince: From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century, Roberto De Pol, ed. Amsterdam: Rodopi. More, Thomas. 2002. Utopia. George M. Logan and Robert M. Adams, eds. Revised ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morrell, K. 2006. ‘Aphorisms and Leaders’ Rhetoric: A New Analytical Approach.’ Leadership 2 (3):367–382. Morris, Dick. 1999. The New Prince: Machiavelli updated for the Twenty-First Century. Los Angeles: Renaissance Books. Moss, Jennifer. 2004. ‘Race Effects on the Employee Assessing Political Leadership: A Review of Christie and Geis (1970) Mach iv Measure of Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 11 (2):26–28. Moss, Jennifer, and John Barbuto. 2004. ‘Machiavellianism’s Association with Sources of  Motivation and Downward Influence Strategies.’ Psychological Reports 94:933–943. Mostafa, M.M. 2007. ‘A study of Machiavellian Orientation among Marketing Students in Egypt.’ College Student Journal 41 (1): 223–238. Mudrack, Peter. 1992. ‘Additional Evidence of Age-Related Differences in Machiavellianism in an Adult Sample.’ Psychological Reports 70:1210. Mudrack, Peter and Sharon Mason. 1995. ‘More on the Acceptability of Workplace Behaviors of a Dubious Ethical Nature.’ Psychological Reports 76:639–648. Mudrack, P.E. 1989. ‘Age Related Differences in Machiavellianism in an Adult Sample.’ Psychological Reports 64:1047–1050. Mudrack, P.E. 1990. ‘Machiavellianism and Locus of Control: A Meta-Analytic Review.’ Journal of Social Psychology 130 (1):125–126. Mudrack, Peter E. 1994. ‘Are the Elderly really Machiavellian? A Reinterpretation of an Unexpected Finding.’ Journal of Business Ethics 13 (9):757–759. Mudrack, P.E., J.M. Bloodgood, and W.H. Turnley. 2012. ‘Some Ethical Implications of Individual Competitiveness.’ Journal of Business Ethics 108 (3):347–359.

302

Bibliography

Murphy, Frederic. 1993. ‘The First MS/OR Practitioner: Niccolo Machiavelli.’ Interfaces 23 (2):49–50. Murphy, P.R. 2012. ‘Attitude, Machiavellianism and the Rationalization of Misreporting.’ Accounting Organizations and Society 37 (4):242–259. Murray, L.W., and M.M. Okanes. 1980. ‘On Age and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 46:1006. Musk, Brandon. 2015. The New Machiavelli: New Improved Machiavellian Concepts for the Modern Age. Jersey City, nj: Make Profits Easy llc. Mussolini, Benito. 1924, ‘Prelude to Machiavelli,’ The Living Age, (November 1924): ­420–423. Reprinted and translated from La Revue de Genève of September. Mutua, Peter Mulina No Date given. The African Prince; Lessons from Machiavelli for the African Family Business. No publishing information given, but available from Amazon usa . Najemy, John. 1993. Between Friends: Discourses Of Power And Desire In The MachiavelliVettori Letters Of 1513–1515. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Najemy, John M. 2008. A History of Florence, 1200–1575. Malden, ma: Blackwell. Najemy, John, ed. 2010. Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nederman, Cary. 2007. The Prince; On the Art of Power, the New Illustrated Edition of the Renaissance Masterpiece on Leadership. London: Duncan Baird. Nederman, Cary. 2009a. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli.’ Palo Alto, ca: Stanford University Press. Accessed 10 May 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/. Nederman, Cary. 2009b. Machiavelli: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: One World. Nelson, George and Diana Gilbertson. 1991. ‘Machiavellianism Revisited.’ Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8): 633–639. Nifo, Agostino, and Paul Larivaille. 1987. Une reecriture du Prince de Machiavel : le De Regnandi Peritia de Agostine Nifo: Edition bilingue. Trans. Simone Pernet-Beau. ­Nanterre, France: Université Paris X. Nigro, G., and I. Galli. 1985a. ‘On the Relationship between Machiavellianism and Anxiety among Italian Undergraduates.’ Psychological Reports 56:37–38. Nigro, Giovanna, and Ida Galli. 1985b. ‘Sex-role Identity and Machiavellianism.’ ­Psychological Reports 56:863–866. Nizam, Fairuz. 2012. Organization Behaviour: An Introductory Study on Machiavellianism & the Big Five Personality Traits on Job Satisfaction. Amazon Kindle. Norton, Franklin Pierce. 1915. Machiavelli, a Drama. Memphis, tn: General Books llc. Novgorodoff, B.D. 1974. ‘Boy meets Girl: Machiavellianism and Romantic Attraction.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1(1):307–309. Nunno, Tina. 2015. The Wolf in cio’s Clothing: A Machiavellian Strategy for Successful it Ledership. Brookline, Massachusetts: Bibliomotion. Nussey, Wilf. 1999. The Machiavellian Affair. Detroit: Rebel ePublshers.

Bibliography

303

O’Byrne, John. 1996. O’Machiavelli: Or How to survive in Irish Politics. Dublin: Leopold Publishing. O’Connor, Elinor, and Christopher M. Simms. 1990. ‘Self-revelation as Manipulation: The Effects of Sex and Machiavellianism on Self-Disclosure.’ Social Behavior and Personality 18 (1):95–99. O’Hair, Dan, and Michael Cody. 1987. ‘Machiavellian Beliefs and Social Influence.’ ­Western Journal of Speech Communication 51:279–303. O’Hair, H.D., M.J. Cody, and M.L. McLaughlin. 1981. ‘Prepared lies, Spontaneous Lies, Machiavellianism, and Nonverbal Communication.’ Human Communication R ­ esearch 7 (4):325–339. O’Kelly, Victoria and Diana Solar. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism in Parents and Children.’ ­Psychological Reports 29:265–266. O’Machiavelli, Nicole. 2009. ‘Amazon reviewer.’ Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www .amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1TJJJM1OPU5LE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pdp?ie=UTF8. Okanes, Marvin, and William Murray. 1980a. ‘Manipulative Tendencies and Social ­Insight in a Hospital Setting.’ Psychological Reports 47:991–994. Okanes, Marvin and John Stinson. 1974. ‘Machiavellianism and Emergent Leadership in a Management Simulation.’ Psychological Reports 35:255–259. Okanes, M.M., and L.W. Murray. 1980b. ‘Achievement and Machiavellianism among Men and Women Managers.’ Psychological Reports 46:783–788. Okanes, M.M., and L.W. Murray. 1982. ‘Machiavellian and Achievement Orientations among Foreign and American Masters Students in Business Administration.’ Psychological Reports 50:519–526. Oksenberg, L. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism in Traditional and Westernized Chinese Students.’ In Comparative Perspectives on Social Psychology, ed. W.W. Lambert and R. Weisbrod, 92–99. Boston: Little Brown. Oliver, James. 2013. Office Politics: How to thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks. London: Vermillion. Olschki, Leonardo. 1945. Machiavelli: The Scientist. Berkeley, California: Gillick Press. Ommundsen, Reidar and Kud Larsen. 1999. ‘Attitudes toward Illegal Immigration in Scandinavia and United States.’ Psychological Reports 84:1331–1338. Onley, Michael, Livi Veselka, Julie Aitken Schermer, and P.A. Vernon. 2013. ‘Survival of the Scheming: A Genetically Informed Link Between the Dark Triad and Mental Toughness.’ Twin Research and Human Genetics 16 (6):1087–1095. Onwukwe, Jay. 2013. Corporate Machiavelli 2: How To Get That Promotion Or Pay-Raise You Want With Ease! Accessed 10 May 2016. http://www.authorsden.com/visit/ viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=165295&id=69108. Oppenheimer, Paul. 2011. Machiavelli: A Life beyond Ideology. London: Continuum. Orbell, John. 1996. ‘Evolution, Cooperation, and Ethics.’ Politics and the Life sciences 15 (1):121–124.

304

Bibliography

Orbell, John, Tomonori Morikawa, Hartwig Jason, James Hanley, and Nicholas Allen. 2004. ‘“Machiavellian” Intelligence as a Basis for the Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions.’ American Political Science Review 98 (1):1–15. Oronsky, Bryan, Corey Carter, and Anna Scicinska. 2016. ‘Medical Machiavellianism: the tradeoff between benefit and harm with targeted chemotherapy.’ Oncotarget 7(8): 9041–9045. Osland, Joyce. 2004. ‘Building Community through Change.’ In Blackwell Handbook of Global Management, ed. Henry Land, Martha Maznevski, Mark Mendenhall and Jeanne McNett. Oxford: Blackwell. Ottone, Piero. 1999. ‘Foreword’ to Elena and Luigi Spagnol, Machiavelli Per i Manager, 2nd Ed. Milano: Ponte alle Grazie. Overman, Steven J. 1994. ‘“Winning Isn’t Everything. It’s the Only Thing”: The Origin, ­Attributions and Influence of a Famous Football Quote.’ Football Studies, 2(2): 77–98. Paal, T. and T. Bereukei. 2007. ‘Adult theory of Mind, Cooperation, Machiavellianism: The Effect of Mind-Reading on Social Relations.’ Personality and Individual Differences 43 (3):541–551. Pace, David. 2015. Dark Psychology 101. Seattle: CreateSpace. Pacifico, Carlo. 1975. Machiavelli on Business. Baltimore [no publisher given]. Palomäki, Jussi, Jeff Yan, and Michael Laakasuo. 2016. ‘Machiavelli as a Poker MateA Naturalisti Study on Strategic Deception.’ Personality and Individual Differences 98(2):266–271. Pandey, J. 1981. ‘Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organizational formalization on ingratiation.’ Psychologia: an International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 24:41–46. Pandey, Janak, and Renu Rastogi. 1979. ‘Machiavellianism and Ingratiation.’ Journal of Social Psychology 108 (2):221–226. Pandey, Janak, and Purnima Singh. 1987. ‘Effects of Machiavellianism, Other-Enhancement, and Power-Position on Affect, Power Feeling, and Evaluation of the Ingratiator.’ Journal of Psychology 121 (3):287–300. Panitz, E. 1989. ‘Psychometric Investigation of the MACH iv Scale measuring Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 64:963–968. Paolucci, Anne. 1987. The Actor in Search of His Mask. Whitestone, ny: Griffon. Parel, Anthony. 2013. ‘Farewell to Fortune.’ Review of Politics 75(4), 587–604. Parker, Ned. 2003. ‘Machiavelli in Mesopotamia: Nouri al_Maliki builds the Body Politics.’ World Policy Journal 26 (1):17–25. Parkhouse, Gerald C. 1990. ‘An Interview with Niccolo Machiavelli.’ Business Horizons 33 (3):3–4. Parks, Tim. 2009 [1512]. The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics. Patapan, Haig. 2006. Machiavelli in Love: The Modern Politics of Love and Fear. Lanham, md: Lexington.

Bibliography

305

Paul, Annie M. 1994. ‘One mean Renaissance Man.’ Accessed 10 March 2016. http:// www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machiavelli. Paulhus, Delroy L, and Kevin M Williams. 2002 ‘The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy.’ Journal of Research in Personality 36 (6):556–563. Pearce, Edward. 1995. Machiavelli’s Children. London: Gollancz. Pearson, Will, Mangesh Hattikudur, and John Green. 2006. Mental_Floss: Cocktail party Cheat Sheets. New York City: Collins. Pein, Corey. 2014. ‘Mouth breathing Machiavellians Dream of a Silicon Reich.’ Accessed 10 May 2016. http://thebaffler.com/blog/2014/05/mouthbreathing_machiavellis. Pennington, J. Grace. 2014. Firmament Machiavellian. No publication information ­given. Available from Amazon usa. Perez, A., and I.R. del Bosque. 2013. ‘Customer Personal Features as Determinants of the Formation Process of Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions.’ Psychology & Marketing 30 (10):903–917. Perinat, Adolfo. 2007. ‘Comparative Development of Communication.’ In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology, ed. Jann Valsiner, 140–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perreault, Gerri. 1996. ‘Metaphors for Leadership: Military Battle and Friendship.’ Journal of Leadership Studies 3 (1):50–63. Perry, Steve. 1986. The Machiavelli Interface, Matador Trilogy, No 3. New York City: Ace. Persson, Staffan. 2014. The Prince 2.0: Revelations from Machiavelli: a Timeless Book about Political Power in The Modern World. San Bernardino, ca: No publisher given. Petersen, Arnold B. 1953. Stalinist Corruption of Marxism: A Study in Machiavellian Duplicity. New York: New York Labor News Co. Petrina, Alessandra. 2009. Machiavelli in the British Isles, Anglo-Italian Renaissance Studies. London: Ashgate Petrina, Alessandra. 2010. ‘A Florentine Prince in Queen Elizabeth’s court,’ in The First Translations of Machiavelli’s Prince: From the Sixteenth to the first Half of the Nineteenth Century, Roberto De Pol, ed. Amsterdam & New York : Rodopi, 2010. Pfattheicher, Stefan. 2016. ‘Testosterone, cortisol and the Dark Triad: Narcissism (but not Machiavellianism or psychopathy) is positively related to basal testosterone and cortisol.’ Personality and Individual Differences 97: 115–119. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 2010. Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t. New York City: HarperBusiness. Philip, Maryann. 2003. A Borgia Daughter Dies. Real History Mystery Press.com. Philip, Maryann. 2011, Da Vinci Detects: Murder and Sex: A Mystery of Homosexual Persecution in Renaissance Italy. A Nicola Machiavelli Mystery. No City given: Real History Mystery Press. Phillips, Tim. 2008. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: A 52 Brilliant Ideas Interpretation. Warriewood, nsw: Woodslane.

306

Bibliography

Pierpont, Claudia. 2008. ‘The Florentine: The Man Who taught Rulers how to rule.’ New Yorker. Pilch, Irena. 2008. ‘Machiavellianism and the Characteristics of Friendship in SameSex Couples of Friends.’ International Journal of Psychology 43 (3–4):510–510. Pilch, Irena. 2012. ‘Machiavellianism and Problem-Solving Strategies in a Marriage ­Relationship.’ New Educational Review 27( 1):324–336. Pilkey, Dav. 2001. Capitaine Bobette et la machination machiavélique du professeur K.K. Prout. Markkam, Ontario: Scholastic. Pina e Cuna, Miguel, Stewart Clegg, and Arménio Rego. 2013. ‘Lessons for Leaders: Positive Organization Studies meets Niccolò Machiavelli.’ Leadership 9 (4):450–465. Pinaire-Reed, J.A. 1979. ‘Personality Correlates of Predisposition to Fashion: Dogmatism and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 45:269–270. Ping, Ching, and Dennis Bloodworth. 2004. The Chinese Machiavelli: 3000 Years of C ­ hinese Statecraft. Piscataway, nj: Transaction Publishers Pinson, Koppel. 1966. Modern Germany, 2nd. Ed. New York City: Macmillan. Pinto, Anita J, and Suresh Kanekar. 1990 ‘Social Perception as a Function of Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Social Psychology 130 (6):755–762. Plamenatz, John and Robert Wokler. 1992. Man & Society: Political and Social Theories from Machiavelli to Marx, Volume One. New York City: Longmans. Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Poderic, C. 1987. ‘Machiavellianism and Anxiety among Italian Children.’ Psychological Reports 60:1041–1042. Pol, Robert De, ed. 2005. The First Translations of Machiavellis Prince: From the Sixteenth Century to the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pole, Reginald 1965. Defense of the Unity of the Church. Joseph G. Dwyer, trans. Westminster, md: Newman Press. Pole, Reginald. 1997 [1537]. ‘Apolopia ad Carolum Quitum (Apology to Charles v).’ In Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, ed. Jill Kraye, 274–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poole, Joyce and Cynthia Moss. 2008. ‘Elephant Sociality and Complexity.’ In Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, ed. Christian Wemmer and Catherine Christen, 69–98. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Porter, Gerald. 1990. Moral judgment and the conceptualization of justice: Sex differences in content preference (Albany, State University of New York, PhD dissertation). Possidente, William. 1995. Machiavelli the Prince: The Official Secrets & Solutions (Game Buster): Prima Publishing. Powell, Jonathan. 2010. The New Machiavelli: How to wield Power in The Modern World. London: Bodley Head. Pragay, D.A. 1971. ‘Lysenko’s biology – Machiavellianism in Scientific Life.’ Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society.

Bibliography

307

Praz, Mario. 1973. Machiavelli and the Elizabethans, Folcraft, pa: Folcroft Library. Prete, Irene. 2014. ‘Machiavellism’ Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, Volume ix, ­ed. Cary Cooper. New York City: Wiley: 301–302. Prezzolini, Giuseppe. 1967. Machiavelli. New York City: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Price, Russell. 1996. ‘Machiavelli, Niccolo.’ In International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, ed. Malcolm Warner, 2607–2613. London: Routledge. Primavera, Louis and Margaret Higgins. 1973. ‘Non-Verbal rigidity and Its Relationship to Dogmatism and Machiavellianism.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 36:356–358. Prociuk, Terry and Lawrence Breen. 1976. ‘Machiavellianism and Locus of Control.’ Journal of Social Psychology 98 (1):141–142. Quednow, Boris, Lea Hulka, Katrin Preller, et al.2017. ‘Stable self-serving personality traits in recreational and dependent cocaine users.’ PLoS One 12(3): Article Number: e0172853. Rada, F. Montañés, M.T. de Lucas-Taracena, and M.A. Martín Rodríguez. 2004. ‘­Assessment of Machiavellian Intelligence in Antisocial Disorder with the MACHIV Scale.’ Actas Espanolas de Psiquiatria 32 (2):65–70. Radin, Beryl. 2000. Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age. Washington, d.c.: Georgetown University Press. Rai, S.N., and M.D. Gupta. 1989. ‘Verbal Conditioning as a Function of Degree of ­Machiavellianism and Verbal Reinforcement Combinations.’ Psycho Lingua 19: 33–41. Rahe, Paul. 2008. Against Throne and Altar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ralston, David A., David J. Gustafson, Fanny M. Cheung, and Robert H. Terpstra. 1993a. ‘Differences in managerial values: a study of u.s., Hong Kong and prc managers.’ Journal of International Business Studies 24 (2):249–276. Ralston, R.H., D.J. Gusafson, R.H. Terstra, D.A. Holt, F.M. Cheung, and B.A. Ribbens. 1993b. ‘The Impact of managerial values on decision-making behavior: a comparison of the United States and Hong Kong.’ Asia Pacific Journal of Management 10 (1):21–37. Ramanaiah, Nerella, Anuppama Byravan, and Fred Detwiler. 1994. ‘Revised Neo-Personality Profiles of Machiavellian and Non-Machiavellian People.’ Psychological Reports 75:937–938. Ramo, Simon. 1984. Tennis by Machiavelli. New York City: Rawson Associates. Ramsay, Maureen. 2000. ‘Are Machiavellian tactics still appropriate or defensible in politics.’ In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 148–162. London: Routledge. Rauthmann, John and Gerald Kolar. 2013. ‘Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive M ­ achiavellian, and hostile-dominant psychopath?’ Personality and Individual Differences 54(5): 622–627.

308

Bibliography

Rauthmann, John, and Gerald Kolar. 2012. ‘How “Dark” are the Dark Triad Traits? ­Examining the Perceived Darkness of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.’ Personality and Individual Differences 53 (7):884–889. Rauthmann, John F. 2012. ‘Towards multifaceted Machiavellianism: Content, Factorial, and Construct Validity of a German Machiavellianism Scale.’ Personality and Individual Differences 52 ( 3 ):345–351. Rauthmann, John F. 2013. ‘Investigating the MACH-IV With Item Response Theory and Proposing the Trimmed MACH.’ Journal of Personality Assessment 95 (4):388–397. Rauthmann, John; Marlit Kappes, and Johannes Lanzinger. 2014. ‘Shrouded in the Veil of Darkness: Machiavellians but not narcissists and psychopaths profit from darker weather in courtship.’ Personality and Individual Differences 67: 57–63. Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A. 1996. ‘Consumer Ethics: An Empirical Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Austrian Consumers.’ Journal of Business Ethics 15 (9): Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A., Gordon L. Patzer, and Michael L. Klassen. 1995. ‘Consumer Ethics in Cross-Cultural Settings: Entrepreneurial Implications.’ European Journal of Marketing 29 (7):62–79. Ray, John J. 1982. ‘Machiavellianism, Forced-Choice Formats and the Validity of the F Scale: A Rejoinder to Bloom.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology 38 (4):779–782. Ray, John J. 1983. ‘Defective Validity of the Machiavellianism Scale.’ Journal of Social Psychology, 119(2):291–292. Rayburn, J.M., and L.G. Rayburn. 1996. ‘Relationship between Machiavellianism and Type A Personality and Ethical-Orientation.’ Journal of Business Ethics 15(11):1209–1219. Ree, Erik van. 2002. The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth-Century Revolutionary Patriotism. London: Routledge Curzon. Rees, E.A. 2004. Political Thought From Machiavelli To Stalin: Revolutionary Machiavellism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reid, Alan. 2015 [1959]. The Bandar Log: A Labor Story of the 1950s. Ballarat, Victoria: Connor Court. Reimers, J.M. and J.E. Barbuto. 2002. ‘A Frame Exploring the Effects of Machiavellian disposition on the Relationship between Motivation and Influence Tactics.’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9 (2,):29–41. Repacholi, Betty, Virginia Slaughter, Michelle Pritchard, and Vicki Gibbs. 2003. ‘Theory of Mind, Machiavellianism, and Social Functioning.’ In Individual Differences in the Theory of Mind: Implications for Typical and Atypical Development, ed. Betty Repacholi and Virginia Slaughter, 67–98. New York: Psychology Press. Richards, Tim. 1997. The Prince. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Richardson, Brian. 1979. Il Principe. Oxford, England: Alden Press. Ricks, James, and John Fraedrich. 1999. ‘The Paradox of Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism May Make for Productive Sales but Poor Management Reviews.’ Journal of Business Ethics 20 (2):197–205.

Bibliography

309

Ridolfi, Roberto. 1963. The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli. Trans. Cecil Grayson. ­London: Routledge. Riggio, Ronald. 2004. ‘Intelligences, Other.’ In Encyclopedia of Leaders, ed. George Goethals, Georgina Sorenson and James McGregor Burns, 733–735. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rim, Y. 1966. ‘Machiavellianism and Decisions Involving Risk.’ British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 5:30–36. Rim, Y. 2001. ‘Coping, Hopelessness and Machiavellianism = Faire face au désespoir et au machiavélisme.’ Scientia paedagogica experimentalis 38 (2): 209–214. Rine, Victor. 1932. Machiavelli of Nippon. New York City: Wandering Eye. Ringer, Robert. 1973. Winning through Intimidation. Second ed.. New York City: Funk & Wagnalls. Rios, Carlos Alberto. 2008. Maquiavelo aplicado a los negoscios: El arte de ganar dinero como supremo bien. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Lea. Roberts, Calum. 2013. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: Timeless Concepts for Today. New Maiden, uk: Media Eight. Roberts, Stephen. 1938. The House that Hitler Built. New York City: Harper. Roberts, Wess and Justin Roberts. 2012. Machiavelli’s Lion & Fox : Strategies for Power in Life at Work. No City Given: Mandevilla Press. Robson, Arthur. 2003. ‘The evolution of rationality and the Red Queen.’ Journal of E­ conomic Theory 111 (1):1–22. Robson, Arthur J. 2002. ‘Evolution and Human Nature.’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (2):89–106. Rochet, Claude 2008. ‘The Common Good as an Invisible Hand: Machiavelli’s Legacy to Public Management.’ International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (3): 497–521. Rogers, Rex S., and Gun R. Semin. 1973. ‘Mach v: An Improved Scoring System Based an a Triadic Choice Model.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27 (1):34–40. Roman, Ken. 2007. ‘Five of the Best.’ Wall Street Journal, 17 March. Ronson, Jon. 2015. ‘Overnight, everything I loved was gone: the internet shaming of ­Lindsey Stone.’ The Guardian, 21 February, accessed 4 April 2016 at https://www .theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone -jon-ronson. Rosa, Penelope. 2011. Introduction to Niccolo Machiavelli: A Novel. Seattle: Create Space. Rosenthal, Saul. 1978. ‘The Female as Manipulator: A Replication.’ Psychological ­Reports 42:157–158. Ross, Don. 2005. Economic theory and cognitive science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1972 [1762]. The Social Contract, Ronald Grimlsely, trans, and ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rubin, Harriet. 1997. The Princessa: Machiavelli for women. London: Bloomsbury.

310

Bibliography

Ruffo-Fiore, Silvia. 1990. Niccolò Machiavelli: An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism and Scholarship. New York City: Greenwood Press. Ruiz-Palomino, Pablo and Alexis Banon-Gomis. 2017. ‘The negative impact of chameleon-inducing personalities on employees ethical work intentions: The mediating role of Machiavellianism.’ European Management Journal 35 (1): 102–115. Rushdie, Salman. 2009. The Enchantress of Florence. New York City: Random House. Russell, Bertrand. 2008. A History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge. Russell, Gordon. 1974. ‘Machiavellianism, Locus of Control, Aggression, Performance and Precautionary Behavior in Ice Hockey.’ Human Relations 27 (9):825–837. Russon, Anne. 1997. ‘Exploiting the Expertise of Others.’ In Machiavellian Intelligence ii, ed. Andrew Whiten and Richard Byrne, 174–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ryan, Alan. 2013. On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory. New York City: Liveright Classics. Ryback, Timothy. 2009. Hitler’s Private Library. London: Bodley Head. Saad, Gad. 2003. ‘Evolution and Political Marketing.’ In Human Nature and Public P­ olicy, ed. Albert Somit and Steven Petersen. London: Palgrave. Sabine, George, and T.L. Thorson. 1993. A History of Political Theory. Fourth ed. Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden. Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de. 1943. Le Petit Prince. New York City: Harcourt. Sakalaki, Maria, Sofia Kanellaki, and Clive Richardson. 2009. ‘Is a Manipulator’s ­Externality Paradoxical? The Relationship Between Machiavellianism, Economic Opportunism, and Economic Locus of Control.’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39 (11):2591–2603. Sakalaki, M., C. Richardson, and P. Sotiriou. 2013. ‘Group Membership Overrides Dispositional Variables in the Determination of Reciprocation of Trust in a Game Situation.’ Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale-International Review of Social P­ sychology 26 (4):79–92. Sakalaki, Maria, Clive Richardson, and Yves Thépaut. 2007. ‘Machiavellianism and Economic Opportunism.’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (6):1181–1190 Samuels, Richard. 2003. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Sang, Cheung Shun. 2013. Cauchy3-Book-63-poems: Machiavellian. Seattle: CreateSpace. Schendelen, Rinus van. 2002. Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the eu. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schendelen, Rinus van. 2010. More Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the eu. Revised edition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Schepers, Donald. 2003. ‘Machiavellianism, Profit, and the Dimensions of Ethical Judgment: A Study of Impact.’ Journal of Business Ethics 42 (4):339–352. Scherer, K.T., M. Baysinger, D. Zolynsky, and J.M. LeBreton. 2013. ‘Predicting counterproductive Work Behaviors with Sub-Clinical Psychopathy: Beyond the Five Factor Model of Personality.’ Personality and Individual Differences 55 (3):300–305.

Bibliography

311

Schiff, Lewis. 2013. Business Brilliant: Surprising Lessons from the Greatest Self-Made Business Icons. New York City: Harper. Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, Charles. 1983. John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England. Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. Schmitt, Charles. 1992. Renaissance Philosophy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Scott, John T. 2016. The Routledge Guidebook to Machiavelli’s The Prince. London: Routledge. Scott, Michael. 2009. The Magician, the Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel. New York City: Delacorte Books for Young Readers. Seed, Amanda, Nicola Clayton, Peter Carruthers, Anthony Dickens, Paul Glimcher, Onur Güntükün, Robert Hampton, Alex Kacelnik, Murray Shanahan, Jeffrey Stevens, and Sabine Tebbich. 2011. ‘Planning, Memory, and Decision Making.’ In Animal Thinking: Contemporary Issues in Comparative Cognition, ed. Rudolf Menzel and ­Julia Fischer, 120–147. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Service, Robert. 2005. Stalin: a biography. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Shea, Michael. 1988. Influence: How to Make the System Work for You; A Handbook for the Modern Machiavellian. London: Century. Shea, Michael T., and James Beatty. 1983. ‘Measuring Machiavellianism with Mach v: A Psychometric Investigation.’ Journal of Personality Assessment 47 (5):509–513. Sheehan, Greg, Machiavellian Chronicles (Seattle, WA: Amazon Digital, 2015–2016). Shen, Dong, and Marsha A. Dickson. 2001. ‘Consumers Acceptance of Unethical Clothing Consumption Activities: Influence of Cultural Identification, Ethnicity, and ­Machiavellianism.’ Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 19 (2):76–87. Sheppard, Blair H., and Neil Vidmar. 1980. ‘Adversary Pretrial Procedures and Testimonial Evidence: Effects of Lawyers Role and Machiavellianism.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (2):320–332. Shepperd, James, and Robert Socherman. 1997. ‘On the Manipulative Behavior of Low Machiavellians: Feigning Incompetence to “Sandbag” an Opponent.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (6):1448–1459. Sherry, Simon B., Paul L. Hewitt, Avi Besser, Gordon L. Flett, and Carolin Klein. 2006. ‘Machiavellianism, Trait Perfectionism, and Perfectionistic Self-Presentation.’ Personality and Individual Differences 40 (4):829–839. Shipilov, Andrew, Giuseppe Labianca, and Valentyn Kalnysh. 2014. ‘Network-building behavioral tendencies, range, and promotion speed.’ Social Networks 39: 71–83. Shipp, Horace. 1945. Books that Changed the World. London: Evans Brothers Ltd. Shome, Anamitra, and Hema Rao. 2009. ‘Machiavellianism in Public Accountants: Some Additional Canadian evidence.’ Business Ethics: A European Review 18 (4):364–371.

312

Bibliography

Shortland, Michael. 1988. ‘Setting Murderous Machiavel to School: Hypocrisy in Politics and the Novel.’ Journal of European Studies 18 (2):93–119. Shultz, J.S. 1993. ‘Situational and Dispositional Predictions of Performance: A Test of the Hypothesized Machiavellianism X Structure Interaction among Sales Persons.’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (6):478–498. Siegel, Jacob. 1973. ‘Machiavellianism, mbas and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects.’ Academy of Management Journal 16 (3):404–417. Siegal, Nina. 2017. ‘A Machiavellian Opera for Trump-Era Issues of Truth and Lies.’ New York Times, 15 April. Accessed 2 June 2017 at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/ arts/a-machiavellian-opera-for-trump-era-issues-of-truth-and-lies.html?_r=0. Silvester, J., M. Wyatt, and R. Randall. 2014. ‘Politician Personality, Machiavellianism, and Political Skill as Predictors of Performance Ratings in Political Roles.’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 87 (2):258–279. Simmonds, Ken. 2000. ‘Corporate governance: Real Power, Cecil King and Machiavelli.’ In Machiavelli, marketing and management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 122–135. London: Routledge. Simmons, R.S., W.E. Shafer, and R.S. Snell. 2013. ‘Effects of a Business Ethics Elective on Hong Kong Undergraduates Attitudes Toward Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility.’ Business & Society 52 (4):558–591. Simon, L J., P.L. Francis, and J.P. Lombardo. 1990. ‘Sex, sex-role, and Machiavellianism as Correlates of Decoding Ability.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills 71 (2):243–247. Singer, Jerome E. 1964. ‘The use of manipulative strategies: Machiavellianism and ­Attractiveness.’ Sociometry 27 (2):128–150. Singhapakdi, Anusorn. 1993. ‘Ethical Perceptions of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Culture.’ Journal of Business Ethics 12 (5):407–418. Siu, Wai-sum, and Kam-chuen Tam. 1995 ‘Machiavellianism and Chinese Banking ­Executives in Hong Kong.’ International Journal of Bank Marketing 13 (2 ):15–21. Skinner, Nicholas F. 1981a ‘Personality Correlates of Machiavellianism: ii. Machiavellianism and Achievement Motivation in Business.’ Social Behavior and Personality 9 (2):155–157. Skinner, Nicholas F. 1982a ‘Machiavellianism: iii. A Simulation Procedure for Identifying High Machs.’ Social Behavior and Personality 10 (2):197–199. Skinner, Nicholas F. 1982b ‘Personality Correlates of Machiavellianism: iv. Machiavellianism and Psychopathology.’ Social Behavior and Personality 10 (2):201–203. Skinner, Nicholas F. 1988. ‘Personality Correlates of Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism and Psychopaths.’ Social behavior and personality 16 (1):33–37. Skinner, Nicholas F., John A. Giokas, and Henry A. Hornstein. 1976. ‘Personality Correlates of Machiavellianism: I. Consensual validation.’ Social Behavior and Personality 4 (2):273–276.

Bibliography

313

Skinner, Quentin. 1969. ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,’ History and Theory, 8(1): 3–53. Skinner, Quentin. 1978. Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skinner, Quentin. 1981b. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skinner, Quentin. 1989. ‘The state,’ in Terence Ball, James Farr, Russell L. Hanson, eds. Political Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–131. Skinner, Quentin. 2014. ‘What Should You Learn from Machiavelli?’ New York Review of Books, 5 June. Accessed 15 February 2017 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/ 06/05/what-should-you-learn-machiavelli/. Skinner, Quentin, and Russell Price. 1988. The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skoyles, John R., and Dorion Sagan. 2002. Up from Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Smith, Barbara Dawson. 1999. Seduced by a Scoundrel. New York City: St. Martin’s Press. Smith, Barbara Dawson. 2001. Un plan machiavelique. Trans. Elizabeth Luc: Paris: Aventures et passion. Smith, Chris. 1976. ‘Machiavellianism and Achievement Motivation.’ British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15:327–328. Smith, Mickey and Brian Webster. 2017. ‘A moderated mediation model of Machiavellianism, social undermining, political skill, and supervisor-rated job performance.’ Personality and Individual Differences 104: 453–459. Smith, Robert, and George Madjarov. 2008. ‘Machiavellianism and Psychopathy: An East-West Note.’ Social Behavior and Personality 36 (2):255–256. Smith, R.J., and J.E Griffith. 1978. ‘Psychopathy, the Machiavellian, and Anomie.’ Psychological Reports 42:258. Snavely, William B. 1978. ‘Inoculation and Machiavellianism as Predictors of Resistance to Persuasion.’ Ohio Speech Journal 16:13–19. Sobral, Daniel, Isabel Machado, and Ana Pavia. 2003 ‘Machiavellian Characters and the Edutainment Paradox.’ In Intelligent Virtual Agents, eds. Thomas Rist, Ruth Aylett, Daniel Ballin, and Jeff Rickel, 330–340. Frankfurt: Springer. Sofer, Cyril. 1971. ‘The Machiavellians, a Social Psychological Study of Moral Character and Organizational Milieu.’ Sociology 5 (3):425–426. Solar, D., and B. Bruehl. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism and Locus of Control.’ Psychological Reports 29:1079–1082. Soll, Jacob. 2008. Publishing the Prince: History, Reading, and the Birth of Political Criticism. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Soll, Jacob. 2014. ‘The Reception of The Prince 1513–1700, or Why We Understand ­Machiavelli the Way We Do,’ Social Research, Vol. 81(1): 30–60.

314

Bibliography

Sorabji, Kaikhosru Shapurji. 1947. Mi contra Fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician. London: Porcupine Press. Sorem, Anthony, and Kenneth Ketola. 1977. ‘Machiavellianism and Evaluation of ­Cognitively Balanced/Unbalanced Situations.’ Psychological Reports 40:663–665. Spagnol, Elena, and Luigi Spagnol. 1985. Machiavelli per i manager. Milano: Ponte alle Grazie. Sparks, John R. 1994. ‘Machiavellianism and Personal Success in Marketing: The ­Moderating Role of Latitude for Improvisation.’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (4):393–400. Spence, Rick. 2009. ‘Be a Little Machiavellian.’ Financial Post (Toronto). Stanescu, Dan and Laura Mohorea. 2015. ‘The Dark Triad of Personality in Organizational Life a Correlational Study with Counterproductive Work Behaviour and Work Locus of Control.’ In Tritonic Strategica: Local Versus Global (Romania), C. Bratianu, A. Zbuchea, and F. Pinzaru: 555–561. Accessed 2 June 2017 https://www.researchgate .net/publication/289905071_Strategica_2015_Local_versus_Global. Stanford, Craig. 2001. Significant Others: The Ape-Human Continuum. New York City: Basic Books. Stanton, Roth. 2014. The Prince Niccolo Machiavellis 200 Most Important Quotes: The Prince and The Discourses. San Bernardino, ca: CreateSpace. Starr, Paul. 1975. ‘Machiavellianism among Traditional and Westernized Arab students.’ Journal of Social Psychology 96 (2): 179–185. Stearns, Frank Preston. 1903. Napoleon and Machiavelli. New York City: General Books llc. Steininger, M., and E. Eisenberg. 1976. ‘On Different Relationships between Dogmatism and Machiavellianism among Male and Female College Students.’ Psychological ­Reports 38:779–782. Stellwagen, Kurt. 2011. ‘Psychopathy, Narricissism, and Machiavellianism: Distinct yet intertwining Personality Constructs.’ In Narcissism and Machiavellianism in youth, ed. Christopher Barry, Patricia Kerig, Kurt Stellwagen and Tammy Barry, ­25–45. Washington d.c.: American Psychological Association. Stendhal. 2003 [1830]. The Red and the Black. New York City: Modern Library. Stirner, Max. 2012. Fake Resume: The Machiavellian Guide to getting a job. Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.fakeresume.com Stone, Brian, and Jayne Pashley. 2000. ‘From the Dark to the Light: Ranges of the Real Skills of Management.’ In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 109–120. London: Routledge. Stone, David. 2000. ‘Machiavelli on clinical management.’ British Medical Journal 320: 548. Stone, W.F., and R. Russ. 1976. ‘Machiavellianism as Tough-Mindedness.’ Journal of S­ ocial Psychology 98 (2):213–220.

Bibliography

315

Strathern, Paul. 2010. The Artist, the Philosopher, and the Warrior: Leonardo, Machiavelli, Borgia, a Fateful Collusion. London: Vintage. Strauss, Leo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Leo and Joseph Cropsey. 1987. History of Political Philosophy. Third edition ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Strauss, Paul, and Michael Fiore. 1965. ‘Machiavellianism and industrial behavior.’ ­Psychological Reports 17:825–826. Strien, T. T. Van J. Duijkers, and L.J. Van der Kamp. 1982. ‘Machiavellianism: Differences between Woman and Man.’ Gedrag Tijdschrift Voor Psychologie 10:252–264. Stuckart, Diane A.S. 2008. The Queen’s Gambit: A Leonardo da Vinci Mystery. New York City: Berkley. Strum, Shirley, Deborah Foster, and Edwin Hutchins. ‘Why Machiavellian intelligence may not be Machiavellian, In Machiavellian Intelligence, II, eds. Andrew Whiten, and Richard Byrne, 50–85 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stylianou, A.C., S. Winter, Y. Niu, R.A. Giacalone, and M. Campbell. 2013. ‘Understanding the Behavioral Intention to Report Unethical Information Technology Practices: The Role of Machiavellianism, Gender, and Computer Expertise.’ Journal of Business Ethics 117 (2):333–343. Sullivan, R.J., and J.S. Allen. 1999. ‘Social Deficits Associated with Schizophrenia Defined in Terms of Interpersonal – Machiavellianism.’ Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica 99:148–154. Sullivan, Vickie, 2006. Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Formation of Liberal Republicanism in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutton, J. and E. Keogh. 2000. ‘Social Competition in School: Relationships with ­Bullying, Machiavellianism and Personality.’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 70:443–456. Sutton, Jon and Edmund Keogh. 2001. ‘Components of Machiavellian Beliefs in Children: Relationships with Personality.’ Personality and Individual Differences 30 (1):137–148. Swain, John. 1998. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli and Modern Public Administration.’ In Handbook of Organization Theory and Management, ed. Thomas Lynch and Todd Dicker, 71–95. New York City: Marcel Dekker. Swain, John. 2002. ‘Machiavelli and Modern Management.’ Management Decision 40 (3):281–287. Sypher, H.E., J.P. Nightingale, M.E. Vielhaber, and B.D. Snyder. 1981. ‘The interpersonal Constructs of Machiavellians.’ British Journal of Social Psychology 20:219–220. Szabo, Nina. 2016. Machiavellian. Seattle: CreateSpace. Szijjarto, Linda and Tamas Bereczkei. 2015. ‘The Machiavellians’ Cool Syndrome They Experience Intensive Feelings but Have Difficulties in Expressing Their Emotions.’ Current Psychology 34 (2): 363–375.

316

Bibliography

Tang, T.L.P., and Y.J. Chen. 2008a. ‘Is the Love of Money the Root of Evil? Machiavellianism as a Mediator and College Major and Gender as Moderators.’ International Journal of Psychology 43 (3–4):121–121. Tang, T.L.P., and Y.J. Chen. 2008b. ‘Intelligence vs. Wisdom: The Love of Money, ­Machiavellianism, and Unethical Behavior Across College Major and Gender.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1):1–26. Tang, T.L.P., Y.J. Chen, and T. Sutarso. 2008. ‘Bad apples in Bad (Business) Barrels – The Love of Money, Machiavellianism, Risk Tolerance, and Unethical Behavior.’ ­Management Decision 46 (1–2):243–263. Tang, T.L.P. and H. Liu. 2012. ‘Love of Money and Unethical Behavior Intention: Does an Authentic Supervisors Personal Integrity and Character (aspire) Make a Difference?’ Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):295–312. Tang, T.L.P., and T.L.N. Tang. 2010. ‘Finding the Lost Sheep: A Panel Study of Business Students Intrinsic Religiosity, Machiavellianism, and Unethical Behavior Intentions.’ Ethics & Behavior 20 (5):352–379. Tang, T.L.P., and T.L.N. Tang. 2012. ‘The Love of Money, Pay Satisfaction and Academic Tenure: Professors in a Public Institution of Higher Education.’ Public Personnel Management 41 (1):97–126. Tarbell, Ida. 1906. ‘Commercial Machiavellianism.’ McClure’s Magazine, March 453–463. Tarcov, Nathan. 1982. ‘Quentin Skinner’s Method and Machiavelli’s Prince,’ Ethics, 92(4): 692–709. Teven, Jason. 2007. ‘Teacher Machiavellianism and Social Influence in the College Classroom: Implications for Measurement.’ Communication Research Reports 24 (1):341–352. Teven, Jason J., James C. McCroskey, and Virginia P. Richmond. 2007. ‘Communication Correlates of Perceived Machiavellianism of Supervisors: Communication Orientations and Outcomes.’ Communication Quarterly, 54:2: 127–142. Thejendra, B.S. 2012. The Cosmic Machiavelli. Seattle: CreateSpace. Thomas, Michael. 2000a. ‘Princely Thoughts on Machiavelli, Marketing, and Management.’ European Journal of Marketing 34 (5/6):524–537. Thomas, Michael. 2000b. ‘Niccolò Machiavelli as Relationships Guru.’ In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 67–80. London: Routledge. Thomas, William, 1977 [1549]. Clerk of the Council to Edward vi The historie of Italie. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum & Norwood: Walter J. Johnson. Thompson, D. 1983. ‘Ascribing Responsibility to Advisors in Government.’ Ethics 93 (3):546–560. Thoms, Nathan. 2006. Machiavelli Meets Mayor Quimby: Political Commentary in the First Season of The Simpsons. Raleigh, nc: Lulu.com Tinker, Edward Larocque. 1916 [1969]. The Machiavellian Madame of Basin Street and Other Tales of New Orleans. Austin, Texas: Encino Press.

Bibliography

317

Tobena, A. 2009. ‘Lethal Altruists: Itineraries along the Dark Outskirts of Moralistic Pro-sociality.’ In Values, Empathy, and Fairness across Social Barriers, ed. S. Atran, A.  ­Navarro, K. Ochsner, A. Tobena and O. Vilarroya, 5–15. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Todorovic, Elimir William, and Francine K. Schlosser. 2007. ‘An Entrepreneur and A Leader!: A Framework Conceptualizing the Influence of Leadership Style on a Firms Entrepreneurial Orientation – Performance Relationship.’ Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 20 (3):289–308. Tomonaga, Masaki, Masako Myowa-Yamakoshi, Yuu Mizuno, Sanae Okamoto, Masami Yamaguchi, Daisuke Kosngi, Kim Bard, Masayuki Tanaka, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa. 2006. ‘Chimpanzees Social Cognition in Early Life.’ In Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence, ed. Edward Wasserman and Thomas Zentall, 639–650. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Topol, Martin, and Myron Gable. 1988. ‘Job Satisfaction and Machiavellian Orientation among Discount Store Executives.’ Psychological Reports 62:907–912. Touhey, J. 1971. ‘Machiavellianism and Social Mobility.’ Psychological Reports 29 (650). Touhey, John. 1973a. ‘Machiavellianism, Intelligence and Social Mobility.’ British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 12 (1):34–37. Touhey, John. 1973b ‘Child-Rearing Antecedents and the Emergence of Machiavellianism.’ Sociometry 36 (2):194–206. Tourish, D. and N. Vatcha. 2005. ‘Charismatic Leadership and Corporate Cultism at Enron: The Elimination Of Dissent, the Promotion of Conformity and Organizational Collapse.’ Leadership 4 (1):455–480. Trahair, Richard C.S. 1994. From Aristotelian to Reaganomics: A Dictionary of Eponyms with Biographies in the Social Sciences. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Trend, Nick. 2014. ‘Date with the Devil.’ Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January. Tuck, Richard. 1993. Philosophy and Government 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tucker, Robert. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary: A Study in History and Personality. London: Chatto & Windus. Turnbull, Allen. 1976. ‘Selling and the Salesman: Prediction of Success and Personality Change.’ Psychological Reports 38:1175–1180 Turner, C.F., and D.C. Martinez. 1977. ‘Socioeconomic Achievement and Machiavellian Personality.’ Social Psychology Quarterly 40(4):325–336. Uhlin, Lawrence. 2010. Machiavelli’s Desert. Surrey, bc: Libros Libertad. Unger, Miles J. 2011. Machiavelli: A Biography. New York City: Simon & Schuster. Upfield, Arthur. 1937. Mr Jelly’s Business. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. Upfield, Arthur. 1931. The Sands of Windee. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. Ussinovsky, Igor. 1969. ‘Thomas More’s Utopia in Russia.’ Moreana 22:33–37. Vacano, Diego van. 2010. ‘Machiavelli, Niccolò.’ In Encyclopedia of Political Theory, ­ed. Mark Bevir, 835–840. Los Angeles, ca: Sage.

318

Bibliography

Valentine, Sean, and Gary Fleischman. 2003. ‘The Impact of Self-Esteem, Machiavellianism, and Social Capital on Attorneys’ Traditional Gender Outlook.’ Journal of Business Ethics 43 (4):323–335. Valentine, Sean, Gary Fleischman, and Lynn Godkin. 2003. ‘Work Social Agency as a  Function of Self-Esteem and Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 93: 855–858. Van Der Wal, Zeger. 2013. ‘Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Differences between Work Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites.’ Public Administration R ­ eview 73(5): 749–759. Vanderkamp, L.J.T. 1982. ‘Machiavellianism – an Introduction.’ Gedrag Tijdschrift Voor Psychologie 10 (4). Vannelli, Ron. 2001. Evolutionary Theory and Human Nature. Boston Kluwer. Vejio, C.K., and L.S. Wrightsman. 1967. ‘Ethnic-Groups Differences in the Relationship of Trusting Attitudes to Cooperative Behavior.’ Psychological reports 20:563–571. Vernor, E.R. and Corivs Nocturnum. 2016. Hail Thyself! A Modern Machiavelli in the Making. San Bernardino, ca: Create Space. Veselka, Livia, Julie Aitken Schermer, and Rod Martin. 2010. ‘Relations between Humor Styles and the Dark Triad Traits of Personality.’ Personality and Individual Differences 48 (6):772–774. Vetere, Richard. 2007. Machiavelli. Woodstock, il: Dramatic Publishing. Vettori, Francesco. 1972 (1512). Scritti Storici e politici. Bari: Laterza. Vickers, Brian. 1992. ‘Bacon and the Progress of Knowledge.’ Journal of History of Ideas 53 (3):495–518. Viroli, Maurizio. 1998. Niccolò’s Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli. New York City: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Viroli, Maurizio. 2008. How to read Machiavelli. London: Granta. Viroli, Maurizio. 2010. Machiavelli’s God, Antony Shugaar, trans. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Viroli, Maurizio. 2014. Redeeming the Prince. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Vitell, Scott, James Lumpkin, and Mohammed Rawwas. 1991. ‘Consumer Ethics: An ­Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers.’ Journal of Business Ethics 10 (5):365–375. Vivanti, Corrado. 2013. Niccolò Machiavelli: An Intellectual Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Vleeming, R.G. 1979. ‘Machiavellianism: Some problems with a Dutch Mach v scale.’ Psychological Reports 45:715–718. Vleeming, R.G. 1981. ‘Some Sources of Behavioral Variance as Measured by an S-R ­Inventory of Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 48:359–368. Vlemming, R.G. 1979. ‘Machiavellianism: A Preliminary View.’ Psychological Reports 44:295–310.

Bibliography

319

Volp, F.D., and D.J. Willower. 1977. ‘School Superintendent and Machiavellianism.’ ­Education 97 (3):257–262. Wagner, Cynthia. 2006. ‘Would you want Machiavelli as your ceo? The Implications of Autocratic versus Empowering Leadership Styles to Innovation.’ Creativity and Innovation Management 4 (2):120–127. Wagner, Karen van, and Cheryl Swanson. 1979. ‘From Machiavelli to Ms: Differences in Male-Female Power Styles.’ Public Administration Review 39 (1):66–72. Wakefield, Robin. 2008. ‘Accounting and Machiavellianism.’ Behavioral Research in A ­ ccounting 20 (1):115–129. Walderlauth, M., and K.R. Scherer. 1983. ‘Interpersonal-Communication of Machiavellianism – the Importance of Communication Channels and Situation Factors.’ Zeitschrift Fur Experimentelle Und Angewandte Psychologie 30 (2):311–345. Walle, Alf. 2001. ‘Machiavelli. Humanistic empiricism and marketing research.’ Management decision 39 (5):403–406. Walter, Heather L., Carolyn M. Anderson, and Matthew M. Martin. 2005. ‘How subordinates’ Machiavellianism and motives relate to satisfaction with superiors.’ ­Communication Quarterly 53 (1):57–71. Washburn, David A., and Dalila Bovet. 2003. ‘Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta ) ­Categorize Unknown Conspecifics According to Their Dominance Relations.’ Journal of Comparative Psychology 117 (4):400–405. Wastell, C, and A Booth. 2003. ‘Machiavellianism: An Alexithymic Perspective.’ Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 22 (6):730–744. Watson, Don. 2005. Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Clichés, Cant and Management Jargon. Sydney: Vintage. Watson, Don. 2009. Bendable Learnings: The Wisdom of Modern Management. Sydney: Knopf. Weber, Jutta. ‘Ontological and Anthropological Dimensions of Social Robotics.’ ­Accessed 10 May 2016. https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/zis/weber/ weber_aisb_05.pdf. Webster, Gregory D., and Peter K. Jonason. 2013. ‘Putting the “irt” in “Dirty”: Item ­Response Theory Analyses of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen—An Efficient Measure of Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.’ Personality and Individual D ­ ifferences 54 (2):302–306. Webster, Robert L., and Harry A. Harmon. 2002. ‘Comparing Levels of Machiavellianism of Todays College Students with College Students of the 1960s.’ Teaching B ­ usiness Ethics 6 (4):435–445. Weinstein, E.A., L S Beckhouse, P W Blumstein, and R B Stein. 1968. ‘Interpersonal Strategies under Conditions of Gain or Loss.’ Journal of Personality 36:616–634. Wells, Herbert George. 1911. The New Machiavelli. London: Dent. Wempe, Iréne. 1967. Come to My Funeral. New York City: Ballantine.

320

Bibliography

Wempe, Iréne. 1968. Le Lit Machiavélique. Paris: Gallimard. Wertheim, Edward, Cathy Widom, and Lawrence Wortzel. 1978. ‘Multivariate Analysis of Male and Female Professional Career Choice Correlates.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (2):234–242. Wharton, Larry. 2012. The Secrets to Real Leadership: Machiavelli’s Undiscovered Manuscript. Scotts Valley, ca: Amazon Digital (Kindle). Wheeler, Brandon, Barbara Tiddi, and Michael Heistermann. 2014. ‘Competition-induced stress does not explain deceptive alarm calling in tufted capuchin monkeys.’ Animal Behaviour 93: 49–58. Whitaker, B.G., and J.J. Dahling. 2013. ‘The Influence of Autonomy and Supervisor ­Political Skill on the Use and Consequences of Peer Intimidation in Organizations.’ Human Performance 26 (5):353–373. White, Charles. 1993. ‘Relationships between Assertiveness, Machiavellianism, and Interviewing Success in a Screening Interview.’ Psychological Reports 73:1209–1210. White, Leonard. 1955. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. Fourth ed. New York City: Macmillan. White, Michael. 2004. Machiavelli: A Man Misunderstood. Boston: Little Brown. White, Michael. 2008. The Medici Secret. New York City: Arrow. White, Nicholas. 1997. ‘Reginald Pole.’ In Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts: Volume 2, Political Philosophy, ed. Jill Kraye, 274–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, Henry S. 1932. ‘Machiavelli – Salesman.’ Popular Fiction Magazine 1–13. Whiten, Andrew, and Richard Byrne. 1997. Machiavellian Intelligence ii: Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whiten, Andrew and P. van Schaik Carel. 2007. ‘The Evolution of Animal Cultures‚ and Social Intelligence.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362 (1480):603–618. Whitfield, John. 2013. ‘In Retrospect: The Prince.’ Nature 499 (18):280–281. Whitfield, J.H. 1965 [1947]. Machiavelli. New York City: Russell & Russell. Wiker, Benjamin. 2008. 10 Books that Screwed up the World, and 5 Others that didnt help. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Wikipedia. 2013. ‘Political appointees across party lines.’ Accessed 20 May 2016. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party _lines. Williams, Laramanda. 2006. Machiavelli: Pastor or Pimp? Seattle: CreateSpace. Williams, M. Lee, Vincent Hazelton, and Steve Renshaw. 1975. ‘The Measurement of Machiavellianism: A Factor Analytic and Correlational Study of Mach iv and Mach v.’ Speech Monographs 42 (2):151–159. Wilson, Derek. 2001. The Swarm of Heaven: A Renaissance Mystery being Certain ­Incidents in the Life of Niccolo Machiavelli. London: Allison & Busby.

Bibliography

321

Wilson, D.S., D. Near, and R.R. Miller. 1996. ‘Machiavellianism: A Synthesis of the Evolutionary and Psychological Literatures.’ Psychological Bulletin 119:285–299. Wilson, D.S., D.C. Near, and R.R. Miller. 1998. ‘Individual Differences in Machiavellianism as a Mix of Cooperative and Exploitative Strategies.’ Evolution and Human Behavior 19(3):203–212. Wilson, John and Kenneth Prabucki. 1983. ‘Psychosocial Antecedents of Narcissistic Personality Syndrome.’ Psychological Reports 53:1231–1239. Winder, Rita. 2003. ‘Strategic Management.’ Futurics 27 (1/2):30. Winseck, Dwayne. 2002. ‘Netscapes of Power: Convergence, Consolidation and Power in the Canadian Mediascape.’ Media Culture Society 24 (6):795–819. Winter, Susan, Antonis Stylianou, and Robert A. Giacalone. 2004. ‘Individual Differences in the Acceptability of Unethical Information Technology Practices: The Case of Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology.’ Journal of Business Ethics 54 (3): 275–296. Wischniewski, Julia, and Martin Bruene. 2013. ‘How do People with Borderline Personality Disorder Respond to Norm Violations?’ Journal of Personality Disorders 27 (4):531–546. Wishy, Bernard W. 1995. Good-Bye, Machiavelli: Government and American Life (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press). Witzel, Morgen. 2003. ‘Niccolo Machiavelli.’ In Fifty Key Figures in Management, ed. Witzel, 194–198. London: Routledge. Witzel, Morgen. 2012. A History of Management Thought. London: Routledge. Wolfson, S.L. 1981. ‘Effects of Machiavellianism and Communication on Helping Behavior during an Emergency.’ British Journal of Social Psychology 20:189–195. Wolin, Sheldon. 2006. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Expanded ed. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Wren, Daniel. 2005. The History of Management Thought. New York City: Wiley. Wren, Daniel, and Ronald G. Greenwood. 1998. Management Innovators: The People and Ideas that have shaped Modern Business. New York City: Oxford University Press. Wren, Daniel A. 1997. Early Management Thought. Aldershot, England: Dartmough. Wrightsman, L S. 1966. ‘Personality and Attitudinal Correlates of Trusting and Trustworthy Behaviors in a Two-Person Game.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:328–332. Wring, Dominic. 2000. ‘Machiavellian Communication: The Role of Spin Doctors and Image Makers in Early and Late Twentieth-Century British Politics.’ In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management, ed. Phil Harris, Andrew Lock and Patricia Rees, 82–92. London: Routledge. Wuersig, Bernd, and Melany Wuersig. 2009. The Dusky Dolphin: Master Acrobat Off D ­ ifferent Shores. New York City: Academic Press.

322

Bibliography

Yong, Fung Lan. 1994. ‘Self-Concepts, Locus of Control, and Machiavellianism of ­Ethnically Diverse Middle School Students Who Are Gifted.’ Roeper Review 16 (3):192–194 Zagenczyk, T.J., K.S. Cruz, A.M. Woodard, J.C. Walker, W.T. Few, K. Kiazad, and M. Raja. 2013. ‘The Moderating Effect of Machiavellianism on the Psychological Contract Breach-Organizational Identification/Disidentification Relationships.’ Journal of Business and Psychology 28 (3):287–299. Zagenczyk, T.J., S.L.D. Restubog, C. Kiewitz, K. Kiazad, and R.L. Tang. 2014. ‘­Psychological Contracts as a Mediator Between Machiavellianism and Employee Citizenship and Deviant Behaviors.’ Journal of Management 40 (4):1098–1122. Zeeveld, W. Gordon. 1948. Foundations of Tudor Policy. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Zenker, S.I., and Ann Wolfgang. 1982. ‘Relationship of Machiavellianism and Locus of Control to Preferences for Leisure Activity by College Men and Women.’ Psychological Reports 50:583–586. Zettler, I., N. Friedrich, and B.E. Hilbig. 2011. ‘Dissecting Work Commitment: The Role of Machiavellianism.’ Career Development International 16 (1):20–35. Zettler, I. and M. Solga. 2013. ‘Not Enough of a Dark Trait? Linking Machiavellianism to Job Performance.’ European Journal of Personality 27 (6):545–554. Zhang, Le and M.A. Gowan. 2012. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility, Applicants Individual Traits, and Organizational Attraction: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective.’ Journal of Business and Psychology 27 (3):345–362. Zhang, Le and Andreas Ortmann. 2016. ‘Pro-social or anti-social, or both? A w ­ ithinand between-subjects study of social preferences.’ Journal of Behavioral and E­ xperimental Economics 62: 23–32. Znakov, V V. 1995. ‘Machiavellianism and the Fib Phenomenon.’ Voprosy psychologii 6 (1):59–70. Znakov, V.V. 2000. ‘The Machiavellianism: The Psychological Personal Trait and the Method of Research.’ Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 21 (5):16–22. Znakov, V.V. 2002. ‘Machiavellianism, Manipulative Behaviour and Mutual Understanding In Interpersonal Communication.’ Voprosy Psikhologii (6):45–54+156. Zook, Avery. 1985. ‘On Measurement of Machiavellianism.’ Psychological Reports 57:982. Zook, Avery, and Gary Sipps. 1986. ‘Reliability Data and Sex Differences With a GenderFree Mach iv.’ Journal of Social Psychology 126 (1):131–133. Zook, Avery and Gary J. Sipps. 1987. ‘Machiavellianism and Dominance: Are Therapists in Training Manipulative?’ Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training 24 (1):15–19.

Discography This discography includes all the music referred to in the text. We relied on Amazon usa to verify most of these, but some are so elusive as to avoid even that omnivorous reference, and for these we turned to Spotify or iTunes. Much of this music does not comply with genteel conventions for citation specified by The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. In some cases Machiavelli figures in the name of the musician(s) and in others the name of the piece of music. The documentary and dramatic films about the musicians we have reserved for the filmography. Bergeron, Vincent. Machiavélisme Magnifique – Sans emprisonment, Les Salauds. ­Duration 6:54 minutes, L’Art du Déssaroi. Reseau Musical Sincever, 2005. Amazon Standard Identification Number B000QPQVIE. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QPQVIE?ie=UTF8&keywords =Bergeron%2C%20Vincent.%202006.%20Machiavélisme&qid=1462588728&ref _=sr_1_fkmr0_1&sr=8-1-fkmr0. Brown, Ephraim. Dance the Machiavellian. Duration: 8 minutes. Bloody Mayhem, 2010c. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. asin: B004H4XMG4. http://www .amazon.com/Dance-Machiavellian-Ephraim-Brown/dp/B004H4XMG4. Claessen, Bart and Adrian Feat. Machiavelli. Duration 5:52 minutes. Big and Dirty, BADR221, 2013. Available at these web links on 7 May 2016. https://pro.beatport .com/track/machiavelli-original-mix/4700658, https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/ machiavelli-single/id780315456. Destroyer, Pig. Machiavellian. Duration 1:12 minutes. Relapse Records, 2012. Amazon Standard Identification Number B009L33676. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016.https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009L33676?ie=UTF8&keywords= Destroyer%2C%20Pig.%202012.%20Machiavellian.%20In%20Book%20Burner .&qid=1462502334&ref_=sr_1_fkmr0_1&sr=8-1-fkmr0. Dougly, Mo. Machiavelli vs Lao Tseu. Mister Modo & Ugly Mac Beer. Duration 2:18 minutes. Weird Stories. Diess Productions and Beatsqueeze, 2007. Amazon Standard Identification Number B009RJQ1PS. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016.https:// www.amazon.com/Machiavelli-Tseu-feat-Mike-Explicit/dp/B009RJQ1PS/ref=sr_1 _fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462502441&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Dougly%2C+Mo. +2009.+Machiavelli+VS+Lao+Tseu.+In+Mo+Dougly+%26+Ugly+Beer. Fly, Franky the. Machiavelli. Duraton 3:32 minutes. Lord of the Flies. Domination Records, 2008. Available on this web link on 7 May 2016.https://play.spotify.com/ album/0FjzmAfY6oEzlLKrJ6zn66?play=true&utm_source=open.spotify.com& utm_medium=open.

324

Discography

Laboratories, Aperture Science Psychoacoustic. Machiavellian Bach. Duration 4:02 minutes. Songs to Test by. Ipecac Recordings, 2015. Amazon Standard Identification Number B00WNPRZXU https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WNPR ZXU?ie=UTF8&keywords=Aperture%20Science%20Psychoacoustic.%202015.% 20Machiavellian%20Bach&qid=1462503363&ref_=sr_1_fkmr0_1&sr=8-1-fkmr0. Lore. Machiavelli. Duration 3:51 minutes. Glass Winged Angel. acm Records, 2006. Compact Disc. Amazon Standard Identification Number B001R23I6I. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. http://www.amazon.com/Glass-Winged-Angel-Lore/dp/ B001R23I6I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462503680&sr=8-1&keywords=Lore-Glass+ Winged+Angel. Machiavel. Machiavel. Duration 45:13 minutes. Moonzoo Music, 2015 Compact Disc Amazon Standard Identification Number B0131AE0PG. See also Available at thse web links on 7 May 2016. http://machiavel.be, http://www.amazon.com/Machiavel -MACHIAVEL/dp/B0131AE0PG/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1462758602& sr=1-4. Machiavellian. Impossibility of Death in the Minds of the Living. 2009. Compact Disc. asin: B01ABAD4NS. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. Amazon Standard Identification Number B001R23I6I http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-Death -Living-Machiavellian-2009-06-02/dp/B01ABAD4NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid= 1462503760&sr=8-1&keywords=Machiavellian.+2009.+Impossibility+of+Death. Machiavelli and the Four Seasons. tism [This is serious, Mum]. Festival Productions, 1995. Compact Disc. Amazon Standard Identification Number B00005RVRC. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. http://www.amazon.com/Machiavelli-4 -Seasons-TISM/dp/B00005RVRC/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=146258 9548&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Machiavelli+and+the+Four+Seasons.+1995.+TISM. Makaveli. 7 Day theory. Koch/Death Row. Compact Disc, 2005 [1996]. Amazon Standard Identification Number B0008237BO. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. asin: B001R23I6I http://www.amazon.com/7-Day-Theory-Exp-MAKAVELI/dp/ B0008237BO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462503842&sr=8-1&keywords=Makaveli. Javi, R. Machiavellian. Duration 5:05 minutes. In Machiavellian ep. KeyBreak, 2013. Amazon Standard Identification Number B00F5PR86Y. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. asin: B001R23I6I https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ B00F5PR86Y?ie=UTF8&keywords=R%2C%20Javi.%202013.%20Machiavellian% 20Ep.%20In%20Machiavellian&qid=1462504528&ref_=sr_1_fkmr0_1&sr=8-1-fkmr0. Ramos, Zekwe. Machiavelique. Duration: 4:01 minutes. Néochrome, 2009. Amazon Standard Identification Number B00IPI1CTC. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. https://www.amazon.com/Machiavélique/dp/B00IPI1CTC/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1 ?ie=UTF8&qid=1462504610&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Ramos%2C+Zekwe.+2009. +Machiavelique.

Discography

325

Scene is Now, The. Songbirds Lie. Duration 3:21 minutes, Machiavelli. Tonguemaster, 2004. Amazon Standard Identification Number B0181NO7J2. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. asin: B001R23I6I. https://www.amazon.com/Songbirds -Lie-Scene-Now/dp/B0181NO7J2/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462504691& sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=Scene+is+Now%2C+The.+2004.+Songbirds+Lie. Scuffs, The. Machiavellian Eyes. Duration: 3:09 minutes, Midtown. Ardent Music, 2013 [1999]. Amazon Standard Identification Number B00ENKF5NA. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. https://www.amazon.com/Machiavellian-Eyes/dp/B00 ENKF5NA/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462504930&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords =Schuffle+Machiavellian+Eyes. Tempel, Peep. Thank You Machiavelli. Duration: 3:20 minutes, The Peep Tempel. Wing Sing Records, 2012. Amazon Standard Identification Number B01CULNP9Y. Available at this web link on 7 May 2016. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01 CULNP9Y?ie=UTF8&keywords=Tempel%2C%20Peep%20Thank%20You%20 Machiavelli&qid=1462505127&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1.

Filmography We rely on the Internet Movie Database for cataloging and follow its practice of identifying works by the title. Biggie and Tupac. Directed by Nick Broomfield. dvd Razor and The Theatric, 107 minutes, 2002. Accessed 20 May 2016.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303356/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. Borgias, The. Produced by Neil Jordan. dvd Showtime, 2011-2013, 29 episodes of 50 minutes. Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1582457/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. Dinner in Purgatory. Produced by Kerry Kiernan. A dinner in Purgatory Production, 1994. 79 minutes. Accessed 20 May 2016.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109626/? ref_=fn_al_tt_1. The Little Prince as told by Machiavelli @ The FRINGE-For-All/ Joseph Ste. Marie Photography. 2012. Accessed on 30 May 2016. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=y57Xe-hEQ6E. Machiavelli. Produced by Lorenzo Raveggi (also known as Lawrence Raw). jc Productions, 2016. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2400403/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3. Machiavelli Rises. Produced by Ephraim Horowitz. Central City Films. 90 minutes, 2000. Accessed 20 May 2016. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265302/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1. Machiavelli’s The Prince. Produced by Julio Ponce Palmieri. Indie Reign, 30 minutes, 2010. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1709685/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.

Index Acton, John Emerich Edward Dalbert (Lord) 69 Actor in Search of His Mask, The (Paolucci) 216 Adrian, Sir 219 Adriani, Marcello di Virgilio 38 Advancement of Learning (Bacon) 48 Agamemnon 38 Agathocles of Syracuse 35–36, 47, 63, 242 Alberto Rios, Carlos 99 Alexander, Paul 170 Alexander vi, Pope 14 altezza 242n16 Althusser, Louis 22 Amazons, Savages and Machiavels (Hatfield) 227 Ambassadors, The (Holbein the Younger) 3 Ambrose, Saint 34 Amelot de La Houssaye, Abraham-Nicolas 61–62 Amin, Idi 173 anamorphosis 3 ancient writers, Machiavelli’s use of 17–18, 22, 45, 76, 159, 193, 205 Angie, Amanda 197 Anglo, Sydney 22, 27 Ankersmit, Frank 2 Anti-Machiavel (Frederick the Great) 61–64 Anti-Machiavel (Gentillet) 42, 52–53, 57–58 Antongiavanni, Nicholas 226 Apologia ad Carolum Quintum (Pole) 44–45 Apologie (Machon) 58–59 Apostolico, David 224–225 Aquarius, Qass 97, 105–106 Argyris, Chris 90, 93–94 Arienzo, Alessandro 20n27 Aristotle 41, 240 Arnaud, Juliette 164 Arnhart, Larry 164 Art of War, The (Machiavelli) 20, 25, 108–109, 191, 203–205 Art of War (Sun Tzu) 199 artificial intelligence, Machiavellian ­Intelligence and 165

Ascham, Roger 40 ‘Ask Machiavelli’ 220 Assassin’s Creed 228–229 atheism, Machiavelli and 55–58 Atkinson, James 20n26, 24 Attar, Hooman 97 Auditore da Firenze, Ezio 229 Augustine, Saint 33 Auschwitz ou le Sadisme Machiavélique H ­ itlérien (Dupont) 172 Autobiography of John Stuart Mill 244 Bacon, Francis 48, 231 Badaracco, Joseph 97–98 Bader, David 177n43 Baker-Smith, Dominic 26n49, 51 Bandar Log, The (Reid) 171 Barbuto, John 196 Barker, Richard 194–195 Barnum, P.T. 119, 121, 124 Bartlett, Alan 98, 106 baseball cards, Machiavelli and 229 Basic Principles of Marketing Warfare, The (Durö and Sandström) 200 Bates, Lucy 156 Bawcutt, N.W. 41n4, 53n53, 57–58 Bayes, Thomas 75 Bayle, Pierre 61 Bedell, Katrina 197 Bellaci, Pandolfo 29 Benigna Machiavelli (Gilman) 179–180 Benizi, Bartolomea 16 Benner, Erica 28, 242n16, 248, 251 Bergeron, Vincent 217 Berkowitz, David 45 Berlin, Isaiah 28n59, 236n2 Berman, Jules J. 226 Besnier, Jean-Michel 98 Best Business Books Ever, The 90 Best One Hundred Business Books of All Time, The (Covert and Sattersten) 97 Beyond Machiavelli (Radin) 192 Beyond Machiavelli (Fisher, Kopelman and Schneider) 227 Biais, Bruno 106

328 Bing, Stanley 102–105, 107–108, 112–113, 167, 177, 232, 247, 251 Black, Robert 17, 28, 30 Blair, Tony 171, 192 Bloodworth, Dennis 198–199 Bobbitt, Philip 23n40, 27n52, 36n83, 251n30, n31 Bodin, Jean 4, 54, 56 Boleyn, Anne 45 Boller, Paul, Jr. 11n14 Bondanella, Peter 7–8 Bonner, John 164 Book of Martyrs (Foxe) 4 Books that Changed the World (Downs) 233 Books that Changed the World (Shipp) 233 Bopst, Christopher 112 Borelli, Nicholas 221 Borger, Henry 101, 108–109 Borgia, Cesare 4, 14, 229 comparisons of business and politics  and 92, 97, 99–100, 106, 205 Machiavelli and 204, 221, 235, 252–253 as model in The Prince 29, 36, 48, 62–63, 66, 177, 189–190, 193, 244, 252–253 Borgia, Lucrezia 4, 178, 206 Borgia Daughter Dies, A (Philip) 222 Borgias, The 112, 214 Boss, The (Champernowne) 69 Boster, Franklin 131–132 Bothwell, Adam (Bishop of Orkney) 57 Bourgeois-Doyle, Dick 171 Brababdere, Luc 98 Bracciolini, Poggio 249 Bradley, John F. 165 Braginsky, Dorothea 178 Brahmstedt, W.T. 100–101, 106 Braque, Georges 79 Brennan, Stephen 97–98 Brenner, Rudolph 98 Brenton, Tony 167n2 Brosveet, Jarle 193 Brown, Alison 21n31, 38 Brown, Gordon 171 Bruni, Leonardo 249 Bshary, Redouan 164 Buchanan, Aimee 80–83, 85, 106, 110, 179 Buffet, Warren 103 Bullock, Alan 108–109 Bunker, Gaylen 98

Index Bunn, Cullen 232 Buonaccorsi, Biagio 29 Burckhardt, Jacob 25 Burnham, James 78–79, 80, 85–86, 217 Burns, Jack 195–196 Burstein, Daniel 227 business equation of with politics 91–93, 100–101, 107, 114–116, 252, 255 war and 200–201, 252 See also management Business (Dryden) 90, 93, 106 Business Brilliant (Schiff) 98 Buskirk, Richard 100, 109 Buttery, Ernest 101, 106 Byrne, Richard 155–158, 163, 165 Caillères, Bernard 223 Calhoon, Richard 89, 95–96, 100, 114–115 Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli (Najemy) 8 Capaldi, Peter 215 Capitaine Bobette et la machination machiavélique du professeur K.K. Prout (Pilkey) 184 Cappel, Guillaume 36, 47, 50 Capponi, Niccolò 25, 29, 32 Cardano, Girolamo 58 Carroll, Jill 103, 110, 112 Carter, Terrell 107 Carville, James 187 Casanova, Nick 175n37, 180–181, 225–226 Casavecchia, Filippo 19 Case, John 40–41 Case is Altered, The (Jonson) 42 Case of the Commonwealth, The (Needham) 49 Castiglione, Baldassare 40 Castro, Fidel 173, 198 Caswell, Guy 98 Cauchy3-Book-63-poems: Machiavellian (Sang) 225 Celenza, Christopher 17, 21n29, 24, 55 Champernowne, Henry 69 Charles v, Emperor 29, 44 Charles viii of France 13 children, Machiavellianism and 128–129, 159–160, 162, 184–185 Child’s Machiavelli, A (Hart) 183–184

329

Index Chimpanzee Politics (de Waal) 154–155 Chinese Machiavelli, The (Ping and Bloodworth) 198–199 Chonko, Lawrence 114 Christie, Richard 116–120, 125, 164, 167 See also Kiddie Mach scale; Mach scale Cicero, Marcus Tullius 16, 35, 209, 237–238, 241, 242 De officiis 2n1, 34, 181, 237–238, 242–245, 248 Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, The (Burckhardt) 25 Classen, Bart 219 Clausewitz, Carl von 175, 199–200 Clement vii, Pope See Medici, Cardinal Giulio de’ Clester, Shane 232 Clinton, Bill 173, 180, 208 Clinton, Hilary 179 Clizia (Machiavelli) 20 Cohen, Robert 216 coherence, myth of 36n83 Colish, Marcia 237 Cologny, Admiral 52 Come to My Funeral (Wempe) 223 Commentariorum de regno adversus M ­ achiavellum (Gentillet) 57 ‘Commercial Machiavellianism’ (Tarbell) 70 ‘Common Good as an Invisible Hand, The’ (Rochet) 193 communism, Machiavelli’s The Prince and 30, 73–75 Condren, Conal 33n75, 36n83, 73–74 Connell, William 23, 35 Connor, Richard 163 constructive distortion 3 contextomy historical 23, 109, 128, 158, 188, 246, 255 textual 11, 118–119, 177, 188, 205–206, 210, 236, 238–239 Copernicus, Nicolaus 240 Copleston, Frederick 22 Corporate Prince, The (Aquarius) 97, 105–106 Corporate Warriors, The (Ramsay) 200 corporation as state See P = B (politics = business) Cosmic Machiavelli, The (Thejendra) 227–228

Covell, William 56 Coxall, Malcolm 98 Crabb, Steve 191 Crainer, Stuart 89, 106 Crick, Mark 225 Crittenden, Paul 256n37 Cromwell, Thomas 40, 43–46, 221 Cullinan, Charles 107 Curry, Patrick 231–232 Cuzán, Alfred 173 da Vinci, Leonardo 157, 222, 229, 249 Dacres, Edward 60, 62, 66, 168, 214 Dahling, Jason 124 Dangello, Frank 115 Dante 69 Dark Triad 125, 167 ‘Darwinian Natural Right’ (Arnhart) 164 D’Aubois, Marion 223 D’Auvergne, Gaspard 36, 50–51, 59 De Gaulle, Charles 209 De l’origine, antiquité, progrès, excellence et utilité de l’art politique (Le Roy) 58 De nobilitate christiana (Osório da Fonseca) 58 De officiis (Cicero) 1n1, 34, 181, 237–238, 242–245, 248 De principatibus See Prince, The (Machiavelli) De regnandi peritia (Nifo) 27n52, 29, 47, 58, 159, 246 De rerum natura (Lucretius) 17–18, 33, 38, 45 De unitate ecclesiae (Pole) 44–45 de Valera, Eamon 170 de Waal, Frans 154–156, 167 Dear Prince (Greenfield and Mee) 169 Defining Moments (Badaracco) 98 Deluga, Ronald 196 Demack, Ian 96–97, 101, 108–109 Democrates primus (Sepúlveda) 58 Denys, John 57 Dérive machiavélique (Eymer) 223 despotisme éclairé 62 Destination Downing Street 214 Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et M ­ ontesquieu (Joly) 67–68, 174 Diderot, Denis 58, 62 Diehl, Daniel 97, 108 Dien, Dora 114, 132 Dimeo, Francesco 223–224

330 Dinner in Purgatory 215 Dionysius ii 252 Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy (Machiavelli) conspiracy and 45 dating of 251n31 on ends and means 248 Gentillet on 52 on keeping faith 246 Lucretius’ De rerum natura and 38 Mach scale and 118, 120, 122, 125, 127, 197 management and 109 misrepresentation of 131, 161, 205 moral judgments in 195 neglect of 4, 83, 176, 181, 230, 238, 255 as part of the oeuvre of Machiavelli 20, 27n52, 50, 238–239, 250–251, 255 Pazzi conspiracy and 13, 16 on politics 256 The Prince and 50, 238, 250–251 on prudence 241 reception of 51, 57 rehabilitation of Machiavelli and 59 on religion 55 republicanism and 49 on republics 37, 181, 196, 250–251 reputation of Machiavelli and 41 on tactics 191 translations of 2n1, 51 distortion (as concept) 3 See also Machiavelli, distortion of DiVanna, Joseph 100, 106 dolphins, Machiavellian Intelligence in 163 Donaldson, P.S. 44 Dönmez-Colin, Gönül 215 Dougly, Mo 218 Downs, Robert 233 Dowriche, Anne 42 Drennan, John 170 Drory, Amos 130 Drucker, Peter 85 Dryden, John 90, 93, 106 Dubins, L.E. 166 Duffy, Brian R. 165 DuMont, Jean 221 Dunant, Sarah 221 Dunlap, Al 105 Dupont, Corine 172 Durö, Robert 200

Index Durocher, Leo 207–208 Duvall, Robert 207 Dyson, Michael 217 Easley, C.A. 106, 192–193 Education of a Christian Prince, The (­Erasmus) 30–31, 122 Egmont (Goethe) 63–64, 214 Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, The (Marx) 11 Einstein, Albert 233 elephants, Machiavellian Intelligence in 163 Eliot, George 67, 70, 220 Elkann, John 226 Elton, Geoffrey 43 Enarrationes (Politi) 58 Enchantress of Florence, The (Rushdie) 221 Encyclopédie (Diderot) 62 ends justify the means 196–197, 208, 224–225, 235, 246–248 Ennis, Michael 221 Erasmus, Desiderius 30–31, 43, 122, 158, 238 Eternal Machiavelli in the United Nations World, The (Guinzbourg) 186 Eunuch, The (Terence) 17 Evans, Suzanne 185 evil Machiavelli as representative of 4, 9, 45, 51, 53–54, 65–66, 83, 173, 189 Machiavelli on the subject of 28, 30–31, 48, 56–57, 122, 206 evolutionary biology 163–164 Excellencie of a Free State, The (Needham) 49 Eymer, Alain 223 F = T (Florence = today) in leadership 192–193, 199, 201–202, 204–205 in management 91, 96–99, 103, 109–110, 114, 255 in social psychology 114 faith, keeping Cicero on 245 Machiavelli on 35, 55, 76, 122, 235, 244–246 Family Guy 216 feared or loved, whether it is better to be Cicero on 243

331

Index Machiavelli on 107, 177, 182, 209, 235, 238, 242–244 Fehr, Beverly 129 Feminine in Management Consulting, The (Marsh) 99, 181 Ferdinand i of Spain 14 Ferreri, Martin 97 feudal paradigm 194–195 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 63–64 fine 247 Finlay, Paul 115 Firmament (Pennington) 221 Firpo, Luigi 51 fish, Machiavellian Intelligence in 164 Fisher, Roger 227 Fist of Machiavelli, The (Greaves) 221 Flamel, Nicolas 184 Florentine Histories (Machiavelli) 2n1, 13, 20, 40, 206, 249–250, 253–254 Florentine Mourners, The (Herman) 222 Folchi, Giovanni 19 Folsom, Allan 222 fortuna 32–34, 36–37, 39, 51, 76, 174 48 Laws of Power, The (Greene) 175–178 Foster, Deborah 157–158 Foxe, John 4 Fraassen, Bas van 3 Franky the Fly 218 Franzese, Michael 107 Fraser, Malcolm 191 Frederick the Great 61–64, 244, 248 free press, Machiavelli and 174 Freedman, D.A. 166 French Historie, The (Dowriche) 42 French Revolution, Machiavelli’s The Prince and 30, 74–75 Fujisawa, H. 114 Funk, Richard 96, 106–107, 109 Gable, Myron 115, 133 Gagliardi, Gary 200 Gale, David 165–166 Galie, Peter 112 Galileo Galilei 239–240 Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand 103 Gavrilets, Sergey 165 Geis, Florence 116–120, 125, 164, 167 Gemmill, Gary 114 Gentillet, Innocent 30, 41, 48, 77, 239

Anti-Machiavel 42, 52–54, 57–58 Remonstrance 53 George, Claude S. 83–86 George, John 11n14 Gerbing, David 131–132 ‘German Constitution, The’ (Hegel) 202 Gilbert, Allan 27n52, 158 Gilbertson, Diane 115 Gillespie, Bob 227 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins 179–180 glory, Machiavelli on 36–37, 47, 242, 248 Gluskins, Uri 130 Goebbels, Joseph 172 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 63–64, 69, 214 Gohory, Jacques 51 Goleman, Daniel 135, 247 Good-Bye, Machiavelli (Wishy) 173–174 Gordon, Andrew 165 Gracián, Balthasar 60–61 Graham, John 115–116 Gramsci, Antonio 71, 190, 248 gran cose 36, 37 grandezza 36, 47, 62 Great Santini, The 207 Greaves, John 221 Greene, Robert 175–178 Greenlee, Janet 107 Greenwood, Ronald 97, 100, 107 Griffin, Gerald 96–97, 101, 107, 109 Grove, Annette 185 Guicciardini, Francesco 13–15, 34n77, 40 Guinzbourg, V.S.M.D 186 Gunlicks, Lynn 97, 103, 110, 112 Guterman, Stanley 134 Hale, J.R. 17, 28, 31, 35 Han Fei 199 Handbook of Organization Theory and M ­ anagement (Swain) 89 Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (Christie and Geis) 117–119 Handy, Charles 98 Hannibal 35 Harding, Alan 23n38 Harpole, George 224 Harris, Phil 186–187 Harrison, Peter 25, 38 Hart, Claudia 183–184

332 Hartley, Neil 94–95 Harvey, Gabriel 49 Harvey, Michael 196 Hatfield, Andrew 227 Havel, Vaclav 209 Heames, Joyce Thompson 196 Hegel, Georg 11, 63–64, 127n34, 202 Heinlein, Robert 209 Heisler, W.J. 114 Henri ii (husband of Catherine de’ Medici) 52 Henri iii (son of Catherine de’ Medici) 54–55 Henry iv (Shakespeare) 42 Henry vi (Shakespeare) 42 Henry viii (king of England) 4, 30, 43–44, 46, 249 Herman, George 222 Hill, Richard 96–97, 100–101, 106 ‘Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership, A’ (Bedell, Hunter, Angie, and Vert) 197 History of Italy, The (Guicciardini) 13 History of Management Thought, The (George) 83–86 History of Western Philosophy, The (Russell) 236n2 Hitler (Bullock) 108–109 Hitler, Adolf 73, 75, 172–173, 175, 194, 198, 252 Hobbes, Thomas xii, 4, 72, 165, 176, 194, 232–233 Hobbesian 232–233 Holbein, Hans, the Younger 3 Hollande, Francois 210 Hoover, J. Edgar 175 Hoover, John 110 Hornqvist, Mikael 31, 36, 47 Horowitz, Ephraim 214–215 How to Work for an Idiot (Hoover) 110 Howard, K.D. 59n82 Hrdy, Sarah 160 Hugo, Victor 66–67, 68 human nature Machiavelli and 5, 11, 33–34, 99, 164–165, 205, 235, 239–240, 254–255 Machiavellian Intelligence and 164–165 Human Nature and Public Policy (Saad) 164

Index Human Side of Enterprise, The (McGregor) 95 Hunt, Shelby 114 Hunter, John 131–132 Hunter, Samuel 197 Hutchings, Kate 99, 106, 113 Hutchins, Edwin 157–158 Hystorye of Italye (Thomas) 49 Imitation of Christ, The (Rogers) 57 Imus, Don 102 In Triumph (Dimeo) 223 Individual Difference Effects on Negotiation Strategies and Outcomes (Baytalskaya and Mohammed) 133 Influence (Shea) 182–183 influence, establishing 73–75 See also political influence of Machiavelli Introduction to Niccolo Machiavelli (Rosa) 222 Invective against the Great and Detestable Vice, Treason (Morison) 45 Iphigenia (daughter of Agamemnon) 38 ‘Is War a Business Paradigm?’ (Madansky) 200–201 Italian fascism, Machiavelli’s The Prince and 30, 74, 235 Italian unity 64, 70, 76, 252 Italian Wars 13 Jay, Sir Antony 7, 10, 77, 200 Management and Machiavelli 10, 84–94, 96, 101–102, 114–115, 209 Yes, Minister 84–85, 190 Yes, Prime Minister 84–85, 190 Jew of Malta, The (Marlowe) 41 John Paul ii, Pope 209 Joly, Maurice 67–68, 174 Jones, Gwen 131 Jones, Midas 101, 110, 112 Jonson, Ben 42 Journal of Leadership & Organization 194–198 Julius ii, Pope 14–15, 18–19, 33, 244–245, 253 Kahn, Victoria 37, 46n20, 243n19 Kalley, Macker 171 Kamenev, Lev 248 Kang, Morim 232

333

Index Kant, Immanuel 246–247, 256n37 Kantor, Rosabeth Moss 85 Kaplan, Robert 200 Katherine of Aragon 44 Katz, Barry 131 Kaufmann, Walter 127n34 Kautilya 117 Kavanagh, Michael 131 Kenny, Anthony 22 Kiddie Mach scale 128–129 Klinberg, Torkel 161 Koester, Jolene 179 Kopelman, Elizabeth 227 Korda, Michael 181 Kreeft, Peter 95 Kuhn, Heinrich 26 Lady Means Business, The (Buchanan)  80–83, 85, 106, 110, 179 Lancy, David 185 Land, Christopher 184 Landon, William 251n31 Lapis philosophicus (Case) 40 Latini 238, 242n18 Lawton, Alan 112 Le Roy, Louis 53, 58, 59n82 leadership equation of sixteenth-century Florence with today and 192–193, 199, 201–202,  204–205 Machiavelli and 10, 189–211 management and 190–191, 193 warfare and 190, 199–202, 206–210 Leadership Quarterly 194–197 Lectures on the History of Philosophy (Hegel) 64, 202 Ledeen, Michael 201–210, 239–240, 251 Lee Kwan Yew 209 Lee, Robert E. 209 Lefèvre, Nicole 223 Legge, John 100 Lenin, Vladimir 73 Lentulus, Lucius 37 Leonardo 214 Leo x, Pope See Medici, Giovanni de’ Leviathan (Hobbes) 4 Levy, Paul 124 L’Hopital, Michel de 55

Lien, Arnold 172 Lipsius, Justus 49 Lisch, Ralf 97 Lit machiavélique, Le (Wempe) 223 Livy 16, 22, 159 lobbyists, Machiavelli and 185–187 Lombardi, Vince 207 Lord, Carnes 209–210 Lore 218 Lorenzo the Magnificent 12–13, 224 Louis xii of France 14, 15 Lucian 17 Lucretius 17–18, 25, 33, 37–38, 45, 76 Lundmark, Thomas 180 ‘Lysenko’s Biology – Machiavellianism in Scientific Life’ (Pragay) 226–227 Macachiavellian Intelligence (Maestripieri) 161–162 macaque monkeys, Machiavellian Intelligence and 161–162 Macaulay, Michael 112 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 58, 64–66, 70, 231 Machiavel (band) 217 Machiavelique (Ramos) 217 Machiavélique Harcèlement (D’Aubois) 223 Machiavélique revanche (Lefèvre and Caillères) 223 Machiavélisme Magnifique (Bergeron) 217 Machiavelli 215 Machiavelli (Classen and Sir Adrian) 219 Machiavelli (Clester) 232 Machiavelli (Curry and Zarate) 232 Machiavelli (DuMont) 221 Machiavelli (Franky the Fly) 218 Machiavelli (Lore) 218 Machiavelli (Markulin) 221 Machiavelli (The Scene is Now) 218 Machiavelli (Vetere) 216 ‘Machiavelli’ (Whitehead) 111 Machiavelli (Whitfield) 158 Machiavelli (Williams) 222 Machiavelli, Bernardo 12, 16, 18 Machiavelli, Niccolò American constitution and 173 amorality and 12, 35, 103–104, 246–247, 255–256

334 Machiavelli, Niccolò (cont.) ancient writers, use of 17–18, 22, 45, 76, 159, 193, 205 as anti-philosopher 21–22 anti-Semitism and 68 Art of War, The 20, 25, 108–109, 191, 203–205 biography of 12, 14, 16–21, 39, 116, 249, 251–252 distortion of 108, 184, 202–204, 216, 224, 229, 235, 249, 251–252 for children 183–185 Clizia 20 as commodity 1, 3, 9, 230–231 Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy See main entry distortion of anachronism and 66 biography 108, 184, 202–204, 216, 224, 229, 235, 249, 251–252 in books 221, 224, 225–226 leadership and 191–198, 206 Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis and 154–162 Mach scale and 118–135 management and 95, 102–112 power and 176–181 selective reading of The Prince and  124–127, 156, 177, 183, 235–246, 255 dramatic references to 41–42, 63, 70, 216 on ends justifying means 196–197, 208, 224–225, 235, 246–248 evil as representative of 4, 9, 45, 51, 53–54, 65–66, 83, 173, 189 on the subject of 28, 30–31, 48, 56–57, 122, 206 evolutionary biology and 163–164 on fear and love 107, 177, 182, 209, 235, 238, 242–244 Florentine Histories 2n1, 13, 20, 40, 206, 249–250, 253–254 French Revolution and 30, 74–75 on glory 36–37, 47, 242, 248 goodness and 253–255 and human nature 5, 11, 33–34, 99, 164–165, 205, 235, 239–240, 254–255 humanism and 17, 24

Index Italian fascism and 30, 74, 235 on keeping faith 35, 55, 76, 122, 235, 244–246 leadership and 10, 189–211 equation of sixteenth-century Florence with today 192–193, 199, 201–202, 204–205 warfare and 190, 199–202, 206–210 lobbyists and 185–187 management and 7–8, 10, 78–113, 154, 190 equation of politics and business  91–93, 100–101, 107, 114–116, 255 equation of sixteenth-century Florence with today 91, 96–99, 103, 109–110, 114, 255 Mandragola, La 17, 20, 214, 216 manipulation and 4, 40, 76, 104, 161, 189–190, 196, 224, 236, 256 Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis and 155–157, 163 Mach scale and 117–118, 129, 131–134 Medici, the and dedication of The Prince and 26–27, 76, 161, 186, 250 disfavor of 12, 16, 18–20, 27 distortion of biography and 203, 214, 216, 224, 235, 249–250 Florentine Histories and 20, 249 rehabilitation of and 20, 28, 249 modernity, as founder of 192–193 myth creation of 2–5, 8–9, 40–77, 83, 253 spread of Mach scale and 117, 120, 124–136 Machiavellian Intelligence and 154–166 management and 115 popular culture and 223, 225–226, 229 selective quotation of Machiavelli and 156, 183, 188, 235–247, 253 works on power and 167–188 works on leadership and 189–211 name recognition value of 1, 83, 91, 111, 117, 163, 174 as synonym for villainy 40–43, 51

Index use of xi–xii, 1–5, 9–11, 72, 75, 239–240, 256 in artificial intelligence 165 in card games 224–225, 229 in cartoons 232 in fiction 70–71, 220–223 in film and television 214–216 in games 228–229 for hotels 230 in leadership 192, 194 in the Mach scale 116–120, 127, 129–130, 134–136 in the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis 154–161, 165 in management 78–83, 91, 95, 97–98, 102, 104, 111 in maths 165–166 in music 216–219 in news media 212–214 in non-fiction 224–228, 233 in politics 167, 169–170, 173–174, 178–188 for restaurants 230–231 in social media 219–220 in theatre 41–42, 63, 216 Nazism and 30, 74–75, 172–173 on necessity 30–31, 35, 37, 46–47, 122, 241–242, 244 oeuvre of 20, 31, 109, 125, 238–239, 250–251, 254–255 See also Art of War, The; Clizia; Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy; Florentine Histories; Mandragola, La; Prince, The pictorial representations of 169–171, 231–232 as philosopher 21–22, 64, 202, 236n2, 256 plagiarism, accusations of and 158–159 political influence of 72–75, 171–174, 233, 235, 248 as political theorist 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 21–22, 24–37, 71–77 on political uncertainty 15, 21, 31–32, 35–36, 38, 49 politics, modern and 167–173 popular culture appropriation of 2–3, 6–11, 24, 41–42, 63, 70–72, 75–76, 212–234 power and 10, 168–188, 202

335 primatology and 7–8, 10, 154–162 Prince, The See main entry as prophet 5, 22, 202, 235 prudence and 16, 22, 25, 33, 35, 48–49, 60–62, 235, 237–238, 246 quotability of 77, 106–107, 183, 236 re-burial of 39 rehabilitation by the Medici 20, 28, 249 of reputation 64–70 religion, views on 4, 33, 34n77, 37–39, 41, 45, 51–52, 55–59, 76 religious conflict and 43, 52–53 republicanism of 17, 28, 49–50, 65, 181, 249, 250–251 reputation of development of 40–77 criticism of 3, 4–5, 40–45, 48, 50–63 defense of 42–43, 45, 47–51, 59, 63–70 in France 50–57, 61–62 in England 40–46, 48–49, 57–58, 65 in Germany 63–64 in Spain 58 religion, views on and 37–38, 51–59 in the United States 69–70 satanic reputation of 40, 44–45, 56n69, 59, 183, 198, 231–232, 253 scholarship and xi, 2, 5–6, 8–9, 24, 58, 72, 77, 256–257 Second Chancery, appointment to 14, 16, 18, 20 selective quotation of 118–119, 124–127, 156, 177, 183, 235–239, 253, 255 social psychology and 8, 10, 114–154, 157 Soviet communism and 30, 73–75 strategy and 33, 93, 190–192 sycophancy, allegations of 249–250, 254 Ten on Peace and Liberty and 18, 20 tyranny and 28–29, 40, 43, 52–54, 62, 65, 248 vilification of association with Cesare Borgia and 189, 252–253 Mach scale and 125 reception of The Prince and 4, 9, 40–46, 51–65 villainous politicians and 171–173, 175 on war 254 women and 178, 206

336 Machiavelli, a Drama (Norton) 70 Machiavelli & Company 215 Machiavelli and the Four Seasons (tism) 219 ‘Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapely Algorithm’ (Dubins and Freedman) 166 Machiavelli and the Mayflower (Gillespie) 227 Machiavelli Chronicles (Sheehan) 223 Machiavelli Covenant, The (Folsom) 222 Machiavelli for Babies (Land) 184 Machiavelli for Beginners (Curry and Zarate) 231 Machiavelli for Moms (Evans) 185 Machiavelli Goes to the Movies 216 Machiavelli Imperative, The (Borelli) 221 ‘Machiavelli in Mesopotamia’ (Parker) 227 Machiavelli Interface, The (Perry) 221 Machiavelli, Marketing and Management (Harris, Lock and Rees) 187 Machiavelli Meets Mayor Quimby (Thoms) 174, 216n4 Machiavelli on Busine$$ (Brennan) 98 Machiavelli on Modern Leadership (Ledeen) 201–210 Machiavelli Rises 214 Machiavelli the Musical 111 Machiavelli the Prince 228 Machiavelli the Prince (Possidente) 228 Machiavelli vs. Lao Tseu (Dougly) 218 Machiavelli Was Wrong (Moberg) 242n17 Machiavellian (Szabo) 223 Machiavellian, as epithet 4, 5, 26, 51, 117, 253, 255 frequency of usage 213, 232–233 Machiavellian Boys 215 Machiavellian Economics (Bartlett) 98 Machiavellian Guide to Getting a Job, The (Stirner) 111 Machiavellian Intelligence (Byrne and Whiten) 155–157 Machiavellian Intelligence ii (Byrne and Whiten) 157–158 Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis 10, 155–166 Machiavellian Madam of Basin Street and other Tales of New Orleans (Tinker) 70–71 Machiavellian Management (Coxall and Caswell) 98 Machiavellian Manager’s Handbook for Success, The (Gunlicks) 103, 110, 112

Index Machiavellian Marquess, The (Michel) 222 Machiavellian Minister, The (Frémaux) 224 Machiavellian Murders, The (Harpole) 224 Machiavellian Personality Construct See Mach scale Machiavellian Poker Strategy (Apostolico) 224–225 ‘Machiavellian Princess, The’ (Koester) 179 Machiavellianism in children 128–129, 159–160, 162, 184–185 as a concept 4, 5, 51, 53, 62, 213, 232–233 leaders and 171–173, 196–198 Machiavelli and 9, 132–133, 135–136, 154–157, 160–161, 221, 253 in politics 167, 171–173, 183 in primates 154–166 social psychology personality  type 115–134 Machiavellians, The (Burnham) 79, 80n3 Machiavellians, The (Guterman) 134 Machiavellian’s Guide to Charm, The (Casanova) 225–226 Machiavellian’s Guide to Flirting, The (Casanova) 225–226 Machiavellian’s Guide to Insults, The (Casanova) 225–226 Machiavellian’s Guide to Womanizing, The (Casanova) 180–181 Machiavelliprijs 213 Machiavelli’s Ascent 1–3, 228 Machiavelli’s Children (Pearce) 169 Machiavelli’s Children (Samuels) 169 Machiavelli’s Desert (Uhlin) 221 Machiavelli’s Laboratory (Berman) 226 Machiavelli’s Lawn (Crick) 225 Machiavelli’s Prince and its Forerunners (Gilbert) 158 Machiavelli’s Shadow (Alexander) 170 Machiavelli’s The Prince 215 Machiavelli’s Workshop 112 Machiavellism 54, 70, 74 See also Machiavellianism Machon, Louis 58, 59 Mach scale 8, 10, 115–153, 167, 194 children and 185 distortion of Machiavelli and 118–135 gender and 119, 178–179 global diffusion of 116, 120, 128

Index Mach iv 118–125, 127–153, 178–179, 185, 197 Mach v 120, 125–127, 135 politicians and 197–198 studies on 119, 128–153 See also Kiddie Mach scale Madansky, Albert 200–201 Maestripieri, Dario 161–162 Magnetic Lady (Jonson) 42 Maitland, William 59n84 Malice of Fortune, The (Ennis) 221 Man and Superman (Shaw) 217 management equation of politics with business  and 91–93, 100–101, 107, 114–116, 255 equation of sixteenth-century Florence with today and 91, 96–99, 103, 109–110, 114, 255 Machiavelli and 7–8, 10, 78–113, 154, 190 Management and Machiavelli (Jay) 10, 84–94, 96, 114–115 Management Secrets from History (Diehl) 108 Managerial Revolution, The (Burnham) 78– 79, 80n3, 85–86 Mandela, Nelson 209 Mandragola, La (Machiavelli) 17, 20, 214, 216 Mandrake Root, The 214 manipulation, Machiavelli and 4, 40, 76, 104, 161, 189–190, 196, 224, 236, 256 Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis  and 155–157, 163 Mach scale and 117–118, 129, 131–134 Mann, Janet 163 Mansfield, Harvey, Jr. 21n29, 226 Mantel, Hilary 107n66, 203n44, 221 Mao Zedong 225 ‘Marbles and Machiavelli’ (Lancy and Grove) 185 Markulin, Joseph 221 Marlowe, Christopher 41 Marriott, W.K. 168 Marsh, Sheila 99, 181 Marsilius of Padua 43n9 Martin, Alan N. 165 Martinez, Daniel 130–131 Mary i (Queen of England) 4 Marx, Karl 9, 11, 233

337 maths, Machiavellian Intelligence and 165–166 Mattei, Rodolfo de 45n14 Mattingly, Garrett 28 Maugham, Somerset 204, 220 Maximilian i, Emperor 14 McAlpine, Alistair 100–101, 191–192 McCredie, Karen 199 McGregor, Douglas 95 McGuire, David 99, 106, 113 McHoskey, John 132 Means, David MacGregor See Champernowne, Henry Medici, the dedication of The Prince and 26–27, 76, 161, 186, 250 disfavor of Machiavelli 12, 16, 18–20, 27 distortion of Machiavelli’s biography and 203, 214, 216, 224, 235, 249–250 Florentine Histories and 20, 249 rehabilitation of Machiavelli and 20, 28, 249 restoration of 15, 18–19, 66 Medici, Catherine de’ 52–55, 59 Medici, Giovanni de’ 19, 238–239 Medici, Giuliano de’ 13 Medici, Giuliano de’, duc de Nemours 15, 19, 26–27, 31, 76, 203, 250 Medici, Cardinal Giulio de’ 20, 28, 249 Medici, Lorenzo de’ 27, 31, 67, 70, 76, 250 Medici, Piero de’ 13–14 Medici, Piero di Cosimo de’ 12, 253–254 Medici Secret, The (White) 222 Medicis, The 214 Memo from Machiavelli 215 Merchant Prince See Machiavelli the Prince Merrill, John 174 Merry Wives of Windsor, The (Shakespeare) 42 Mervil, Fritz 97 ‘Metaphors for Leadership’ (Perreault) 201 Meyer, Edward 41 Mi contra Fa (Sorabji) 216–217 Michel, Freda 222 Mill, John Stuart 244 Miller, Ralph 132–133 Mind of a Leader Animation Series, The 215 mirror of princes genre 27–29, 50, 76, 236–238

338 Misérables, Les (Hugo) 66, 68 misquotes 207–208 Moberg, Eric Michael 242n17 Modern Prince, The (Gramsci) 71, 190 Modern Prince, The (Lord) 209–210 modernity, Machiavelli as founder of 192–193 Molinas, Richard 214 Montesquieu 61, 67–68, 174 Montmorency, Anne de 50 Moore, Shirley 131 More, Thomas 4, 17, 43, 83 Utopia 22, 26, 245 More Machiavelli in Brussels (Schendelen) 185–186 Morison, Richard 45–46, 58 Morris, Dick 173, 187 Mosca, Gaetano 217 Moss, Cynthia 163 Moss, Jennifer 196–197 Mr Jelly’s Business (Upfield) 232 ‘Ms Machiavelli and the Stable Matching Problem’ (Gale and Sotomayor) 165 Musa, Mark 7–8 Musk, Brandon 109 Mussolini, Benito 71, 169, 171–173, 198, 235, 248 Mutua, Peter Mulina 99 Muzio da Capodistria, Girolamo 58 Najemy, John 4, 5, 8, 15, 34n77, 247 Napoleon i (Bonaparte) 69, 75, 134n57, 171, 175 Napoleon iii (Louis) 67–68 Napoleon and Machiavelli (Stearns) 69–70 Narcissism and Machiavellianism in Youth (Barry, Kerig, Stellwagen and Barry) 134 Nashe, Thomas 42 Nazism, Machiavelli’s The Prince and 30, 74–75, 172–173 Near, David 132–133 necessity, Machiavelli on 30–31, 35, 37, 46–47, 122, 241–242, 244 Nederman, Cary 45n14 Needham, Marchamont 49 Nelson, George 115 New Machiavelli, The (Powell) 170–171, 192 New Machiavelli, The (Wells) 70 New Prince, The 219

Index New Prince, The (Morris) 173 Niccolò Machiavelli (Lundmark) 180 Nifo, Agostino 27n52, 29, 47, 58, 159, 246 Nixon, Richard 169, 198 Norton, Franklin 70 Nunno, Tina 97 Obama, Barack 168, 170 O’Byrne, John 170 O’Carolan, W.B. 170 O’Hare, Gregory 165 Oksenberg, Lois 133 O’Machiavelli (O’Byrne) 170 ‘On Simulation and Dissimulation’ (Bacon) 48 On War (Clausewitz) 200 One Hundred Great Books in Haiku (Bader) 177n43 Onwukwe, Jay 110 Oráculo manual y Arte de prudencia (Gracián) 60–61 Orbell, John 164–165 ‘Originality of Machiavelli, The’ (Berlin) 236n2 Osório da Fonseca, Jerónimo 58 P = B (politics = business) 91–93, 100–101, 107, 114–116, 252, 255 Pace, David 125n30 Pacifico, Carlo 97 Paddy Machiavelli (Drennan) 170 Paolucci, Anne 216 Paulhus, Delroy L. 129 Parel, Anthony 38n90 Pareto, Vilfredo 217 Parker, Henry (Baron Morley) 40, 58 Parker, Ned 227 Patericke, Simon 57 Pazzi, the 12–13, 16 Pearce, Edward 169 Pearl Harbor 207 Peep Tempel, The 219 Pennington, Grace 221 Perna, Pietro 48 Perotti, Enrico 106 Perreault, Gerri 201 Perry, Steve 221

Index Petersen, Arnold 172 Petrina, Alessandra 20n27, 46, 49–50, 52, 59, 75 Petrucci, Pandolfo 32, 35 Pfeffer, Jeffrey 107, 182 Philip, Maryann 222 Phillips, Tim 97–98, 199 Philosophy of Right, The (Hegel) 202 Pico, Giovanni 17 Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Divell (Nashe) 42 Pilkey, Dav 184 Ping, Ching 198–199 Pinson, Koppel 72 Pius iii, Pope 14 plan machiavélique, Un (Smith) 223 Plato 194, 195, 232–233, 252, 256 Platonic/Platonism 232 Pocock, John 173 Pol Pot 104–105 Pole, Reginald 26, 28, 43–46, 51, 77, 231, 253 Apologia ad Carolum Quintum 44–45 De unitate ecclesiae 44–45 Polimanteia (Covell) 56 Politi, Ambrogio Catarino 58 political influence of Machiavelli 72–75, 171–174, 233, 235, 248 political uncertainty, Machiavelli on 15, 21, 31–32, 35–36, 38, 49 Politicorum sive civilis doctrinæ libri sex (Lipsius) 49 politics, Machiavelli and 167–173 Poliziano, Angelo 17 Ponce Palmieri, Julio 215 Poole, Joyce 163 popular culture appropriation of ­Machiavelli 2–3, 6–11, 24, 41–42,  63, 70–72, 75–76,  212–234 Portable Machiavelli, The (Bondanella and Musa) 7–8 Possidente, William 228 Powell, Jonathon 170–171, 192 power 103, 177–178 Machiavelli and 168–188, 202 wealth and 178 women and 178–181 Power (Pfeffer) 182

339 Power: Get it. Use it. Keep it 168 Power! How to Get It, How to Use It (Korda) 181 Power Tools (Bunker) 98 Pragay, D.A. 226–227 Prato, defeat of 18, 254 Prefect, The (Crabb) 191 Prete, Irene 97 Price, Russell 90 primatology, Machiavelli and 7–8, 10, 154–162 Prince, The (Kang) 232 Prince, The (Machiavelli) on Agathocles 35–36, 47, 63, 242 Amelot and 61–62 ancient writers, influence of on 22, 38, 45 applicability of to today 84, 100–101, 109–110, 240 atheism and 55–58 as call for liberation of Italy 5, 28 on Cesare Borgia 29, 36, 48, 62–63, 66, 177, 189–190, 193, 244, 252–253 Cicero’s De officiis and 237–238, 242–245, 248 citations of on internet 87–88 as classic 5, 46, 166 communism and 30, 73 Communist Party of Italy and 71 context of biographical 14, 16–21, 31–32, 76, 108 historical 12–16, 76 importance of 12, 21n29, 23, 26, 31, 35, 37, 63, 64, 76–77, 239, 255 contextomy and 23, 109, 118, 188, 238–239 as conversation 24 criticism of 3, 4–5, 40–45, 48, 50–63 dedication of 26–28, 76, 161, 186, 250 defense of 42–43, 45, 47–51, 59, 63–70 distortion, selective reading of and 124– 127, 156, 176–177, 181, 183, 205, 235–247, 253, 255 on ends justifying means 196–197, 208, 224–225, 235, 246–248 Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince and 30–31 on evil 28, 30–31, 48, 56–57, 122 fascism and 30, 73

340 Prince, The (cont.) on fear and love 107, 177, 182, 209, 235, 238, 242–244 focus on and neglect of other works by Machiavelli 2, 26, 83, 106, 176, 158, 181, 238–239, 255 on fortuna 32–34, 36–37, 39, 51, 76, 174 Frederick the Great on 62–64 French Revolution and 30, 74–75 Gentillet on 30, 48, 52–54, 57–59, 77, 239 on glory 36–37, 47, 242, 248 Gracián’s Oráculo manual y Arte de p­ rudencia and 60–61 Hitler and 73, 75, 172, 173 influence of 72–75, 171–174, 233, 235, 248 intentions of Machiavelli in writing to ingratiate himself with Medici rulers 27, 108, 132, 250–251 to instruct new rulers 12, 22, 26–28, 37, 161, 186, 196, 235–236 intended audience 76, 256n37 on Italian unity 64, 70, 76, 252 as job application 28, 108, 250 on keeping faith 35, 55, 76, 122, 235, 244–246 leadership and 189–192 as leadership manual 196 Lucretius’ De rerum natura and 17–18, 33, 38, 45 Mach scale and 8, 117–127 management and  81–83, 90, 93, 97, 99–113 as management book 90, 93, 100–106 mirror of princes genre and 27–29, 50, 76, 236, 237–238 misrepresentation of 2, 159, 177, 196, 199 anachronism and 5, 22–23, 66, 103 contextomy and 91, 188, 235–247, 255 myth of Machiavelli and 77, 135 moral judgments in 16, 22, 26, 31–37, 46–47, 62, 64–65, 195, 199, 235–247 More’s Utopia and 22, 26, 245 Mussolini and 169, 171–173, 235 Nazism and 30, 73–75, 172–173 on necessity 30–31, 35, 37, 46–47, 122, 241–242, 244 Nifo’s De regnandi peritia and 27n52, 29, 47, 58, 159, 246

Index as philosophic work 21–22, 64, 202, 236n2, 256 plagiarism and 158–159 Pole on 43–46, 51, 77, 231, 253 political theory, as work of 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 21–22, 24–37, 71–77 on political uncertainty 15, 21, 31–32, 35–36, 38, 49 power and 176, 182–183, 202 prohibition of 48, 51–52 prophetic nature of 5, 22, 202, 235 on prudence 16, 22, 25, 33, 35, 48–49, 60–62, 235, 237–238, 246 quotability of 77, 106–107, 183, 236 reactions to 29–30, 40–77 criticism of 4–5, 30, 40–45, 48, 50–63 defense of 42–43, 45, 47–51, 59, 63–70 in France 50–57, 61–62 in England 40–46, 48–49, 57–58, 65 in Germany 63–64 in Spain 58 religion, views on and 37–38, 51–59 in the United States 69–70 reinterpretations of as cartoon 232 Nifo’s De regnandi peritia 27n52, 29, 47, 58, 159, 246 for management 101, 109 for parenting 185 for political leadership 69, 168–171, 173, 179–180 as sartorial guide 226 religion and 34, 37–38, 51, 55–59 religious conflict and 52–53 reputation of Machiavelli and 2, 4–5, 9, 12, 26, 37–38, 40–77, 253, 255 republicanism and 49, 75, 251 as satire 28, 36 selective quotation from 31, 118, 124–127, 156, 177, 183, 200, 235–239, 253 shock value of 22, 29, 31–32, 35, 37, 51, 56, 236–238 Stalin and 73–75, 172–173, 248 style of 21–26, 31–32, 50 television and film and 216 title, change of 19, 27, 91, 250 translations of Amelot 61–62 Cappel 47, 50

341

Index

Queen’s Gambit, The (Stuckart) 222 quilt quotation 127

re:Organizing America (Marriott)  168 Report of the Affaires and State of Germany (Ascham) 40 republicanism, Machiavelli and 17, 28, 49–50, 65, 181, 249, 250–251 Reynie, Gabriel Nicolas de la 61–62 Richelieu, Cardinal 59 Richter, Ewa 101, 106 Ridolfi, Roberto 231, 250 Rinaldo degli Albizzi 253 ‘River Runs through It, A’ (Burns) 195–196 Roberts, Calum 109 Roberts, Stephen 172 Rochet, Claude 193 Rogers, Thomas 57 Roman, Ken 88 Romola (Eliot) 67, 70, 220 Ronsard, Pierre de 53 Roosevelt, Theodore 69 Rosa, Penelope 222 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques xii, 61, 216, 227n65 Rove, Karl 160, 170, 204 Rovere, Giuliano della See Julius ii, Pope Rubin, Harriet 179 Rushdie, Salman 221 Russell, Bertrand 22, 236, 244 Russon, Anne 158–159 Ryan, Alan 47 Ryback, Timothy 73

Radin, Beryl 192 Rahe, Paul 17 Ramo, Simon 224 Ramsay, Donald 200 Ramsden, Roebuck 217 Raveggi, Lorenzo 215 Ravenna, battle of (1512) 18 Razgovor na onom svetu izmedju Makijavelija i Monteskejea 215 Reagan, Ronald 209 Redieck, Billie 215 Rees, E.A. 73–75, 248 Regulus, Marcus Atilius 245–246 Reid, Alan 171 religion, Machiavelli and 4, 33, 34n77, 37–39, 41, 45, 51–52, 55–59, 76 Remington, Richard 49 Remonstrance (Gentillet) 53

Saad, Gad 164 Saddam Hussein 105, 173 saeculum 33 Sagan, Dorion 160 Sallust 16 Samsom, Deborah 129 Samuels, Richard 169 Sands of Windee, The (Upfield) 232 Sandström, Björn 200 Sang, Cheung Shun 225 Sansovino, Francesco 58 Santamaria, Robert 171 Savonarola, Girolamo 14, 67, 70, 229 Scene is Now, The 218 Schacht, Hjalmar 172 Schendelen, Rinus van 185–186 Schiff, Lewis 98 Schmitt, Carl 64

Dacres 60, 168, 214 D’Auvergne 50–51, 59 Giunta 46–47 Gohory 51 Marriott 168 modern 2n1, 6 tyranny and 28–29, 40, 52–54, 56, 62, 65, 248 on virtù 15, 24, 30–37, 47, 62, 76, 235, 238, 244, 248 on war 31, 82, 104–105, 190 Prince, Tragicomedy, The (Cohen) 216 Princely Press, The (Merrill) 174 Princessa, The (Rubin) 179 PRINCE2 111 Principe, Il See Prince, The (Machiavelli) Principio, Il (Bourgeois-Doyle) 171 Prison Notebooks (Gramsci) 71 Profile of the Entrepreneur, or Machiavellian Management (Bartlett) 98 Protocols of the Elders of Zion 68 prudence Machiavelli on 16, 22, 25, 33, 35, 48–49, 60–62, 235, 237–238, 246 Cicero on 237–238, 246 psychology See social psychology, Machiavelli and

342 Schmitt, Charles 21 Schneider, Andrea Kupfer 227 Schoen, Bianca 165 scientia 25, 37–38 Scipio 35 Scott, John 8 Scott, Michael 184 Season of Giants, A 215 Second Life 219–220 ‘Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel, The’ (Scott) 184 Seduced by a Scoundrel (Smith) 223 Segni, Bernardo 58 Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de 58 Servant, The (McAlpine) 191–192 Sforza, the 15 Sforza, Katerina 204 Sforza, Ludovico 13, 249 Shakespeare, William 42, 91 Shakur, Tupac Amaru 217 Shaw, George Bernard 217 Shea, Michael 182–183 Sheehan, Greg 223 Shipp, Horace 233 Shipside, Steve 199 Siegried, David 182 Simon, Herbert 90 Sisto, Rocco 214 Six Livres de la République, Les (Bodin) 56 Sixtus iv, Pope 13 Skinner, Quentin 23, 27n52, 36–37, 47, 56n69, 72–74, 238, 242 Skoyles, John 160 Smith, Barbara 223 Social Intelligence (Goleman) 135, 247 social psychology, Machiavelli and 8, 10, 114–153 Socrates meets Machiavelli (Kreeft) 95 Soderini, Francesco 32 Soderini, Piero 14, 18–19, 108, 243 Soll, Jacob 22, 33, 49, 61–62, 255 Sorabji, Kaikhosru Shapurji 216–217 Sotomayor, Marilda 165 speculum principis See mirror of princes genre Spenser, Edmund 49 Sphaera civitatis (Case) 40–41 St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre 30, 52, 59, 65

Index Stalin, Josef 28, 73–75, 172–173, 248 Stalinist Corruption of Marxism (Petersen) 172 Stanton, Roth 110 Starkey, Thomas 43n9, 44 Starship Troopers (Heinlein) 209 state, the, concept of 23n38 stato, lo 23–24, 26, 47, 72 Stearns, Frank 69–70 Stellwagen, Kurt 131 Stephanopoulos, George 187 stereotypes 133 Stewart, Martha 198 Stirner, Max 97, 111 Stockwood, John 57 Strategic Management (Finlay) 115 strategy, and tactics 191 Strategy Power Plays (McCredie, Phillips and Shipside) 98, 199 Strauss, Leo 46, 87–88 Strum, Shirley 157–158 Stuckart, Diane A.S. 222 Studies in Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis) 116–120 Suit, The (Antongiavanni) 226 Sullivan, Vickie 49 Sun Tzu 87, 175, 199–200 Swain, John 89, 94, 106, 192–193, 196 Swanson, Cheryl 178 Swarm of Heaven, The (Wilson) 221 Sword of Freedom 214 Szabo, Nina 222 Szyarto, Christopher 132 Tacitus 42–43, 48–49, 62, 159 tactics, and strategy 191 Tarbell, Ida 70 Tarcov, Nathan 256n37 Tegli, Sylvestro 48 10 Books that Screwed up the World, and 5 Others that Didn’t Help (Wiker) 233 Tennis by Machiavelli (Ramo) 224 Terence 17 Thank you, Machiavelli (The Peep Tempel) 219 Thatcher, Margaret 191, 209, 215 Thejendra, B.S. 227–228 Then and Now (Maugham) 204, 220

343

Index Theory M 10, 95–113, 123 Theory X 95, 123 Thesaurus oeconomicae (Case) 40 Thinking Ape, The (Byrne) 163 Thomas, Michael 97, 101 Thomas, William 49 Thomas Aquinas 256n37 Thoughts on Machiavelli (Strauss) 87–88 Throckmorton, Nicholas 46 Thucydides 159 Tinker, Edward Larocque 70–71 tism (This is Serious Mum) 219 Tojo Hideki 172 Topol, Martin 133 ‘Translation Terrain and Pied Piper Detour: How Experts Eliminated a Norwegian Digital City Project’ (Brosveet) 193 Trotsky, Leon 248 Tumkayo, Taner 215 Turning the Tables, A Machiavellian Strategy for Dealing with Japan (Burstein) 227 Twain, Mark 166 tyranny, Machiavelli and 28–29, 40, 52–54, 56, 62, 65, 248 Uhlin, Lawrence 221 Ultimate Business Guru Book: 50 Thinkers Who Made Management, The (Crainer) 89 Upfield, Arthur 232–233 Utopia (More) 22, 26, 245 Uzzano, Niccolo da 253 Vert, Andrew 197 Vetere, Richard 216 Vettori, Francesco 15, 19–20, 31, 33, 247 Vettori, Paolo 19 Vintimille, Jacques de 50 Viroli, Maurizio 27, 28 virtù 15, 24, 30–37, 47, 62, 76, 235, 238, 244, 248 Voltaire 61–63 Vose, Aaron 165 Vyshinsky, Andrey 248 Wagner, Karen van 178 Walesa, Lech 209 war business and 200–201, 252

changing nature of in Machiavelli’s  time 13–14 Clausewitz on 199–200 leadership and 190, 199–202, 206–210 Machiavelli and 31, 82, 104–105, 107–108, 190, 202–203, 254 Sun Tzu on 199–200 Warrior Politics (Kaplan) 200 Washington, George 197, 209 Weber, Max 62, 122 Weinberg, Stephen 38n91 Wells, H.G. 70 Wempe, Irene 223 What Would Machiavelli Do? (Bing) 102–105, 107–108, 112–113, 167, 177, 232, 247, 251 Whitaker, Brian 124 White, Michael 222 Whitehead, Henry 111 Whiten, Andrew 155–158, 165 Whitfield, J.H. 158 Whitlam, Gough 191 Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli? 215 Wiker, Benjamin 233 Williams, Laramanda 222 Wilson, David 132–133 Wilson, Derek 221 Wishy, Bernard W. 173–174 Witzel, Morgen 93 Wolf Hall (Mantel) 107n66, 203n44, 221 women, Machiavelli and 178–181 Worzel, William 132 Wren, Daniel 97, 100, 107 Wring, Dominic 187 Wuersig, Bernd 163 Wuersig, Melany 163 Yang, Kung-sun 117 Yes, Minister (Jay) 84–85, 190 Yes, Prime Minister (Jay) 84–85, 190 Zarate, Oscar 231–232 Zeeveld, W. Gordon 43