Editing Niccolò Machiavelli (section)

==Influence==
[[File:Machiavel Offices Florence.jpg|thumb|upright|Statue at the [[Uffizi]]]]
To quote Robert Bireley:<ref>Bireley, Robert (1990), ''The Counter Reformation Prince'', p. 14.</ref>

{{blockquote|...there were in circulation approximately fifteen editions of the ''Prince'' and nineteen of the ''Discourses'' and French translations of each before they were placed on [[Index Librorum Prohibitorum|the Index]] of [[Paul IV]] in 1559, a measure which nearly stopped publication in Catholic areas except in France. Three principal writers took the field against Machiavelli between the publication of his works and their condemnation in 1559 and again by the Tridentine Index in 1564. These were the English cardinal [[Reginald Pole]] and the Portuguese bishop [[Jeronymo Osorio]], both of whom lived for many years in Italy, and the Italian humanist and later bishop, [[Lancelotto Politi|Ambrogio Caterino Politi]].}}

Machiavelli's ideas had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. During the first generations after Machiavelli, his main influence was in non-republican governments. Pole reported that ''The Prince'' was spoken of highly by [[Thomas Cromwell]] in England and had influenced [[Henry VIII]] in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during the [[Pilgrimage of Grace]].<ref name="BireleyP15">{{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|p=15}}</ref> A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperor [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles V]].<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Haitsma Mulier|1999|p=248}}</ref> In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated with [[Catherine de' Medici]] and the [[St. Bartholomew's Day massacre]]. As {{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|p=17}} reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers "associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic". In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings.<ref>While Bireley focuses on writers in the Catholic countries, {{Harvcoltxt|Haitsma Mulier|1999}} makes the same observation, writing with more of a focus upon the Protestant [[Dutch Republic|Netherlands]].</ref>

One of the most important early works dedicated to criticism of Machiavelli, especially ''The Prince'', was that of the [[Huguenot]], [[Innocent Gentillet]], whose work commonly referred to as ''Discourse against Machiavelli'' or ''Anti Machiavel'' was published in [[Geneva]] in 1576.<ref>The first English edition was ''A Discourse upon the meanes of wel governing and maintaining in good peace, a Kingdome, or other principalitie'', translated by Simon Patericke.</ref> He accused Machiavelli of being an atheist and accused politicians of his time by saying that his works were the "Koran of the courtiers", that "he is of no reputation in the court of France which hath not Machiavel's writings at the fingers ends".<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|p=17}}</ref> Another theme of Gentillet was more in the spirit of Machiavelli himself: he questioned the effectiveness of immoral strategies (just as Machiavelli had himself done, despite also explaining how they could sometimes work). This became the theme of much future political discourse in Europe during the 17th century. This includes the Catholic [[Counter Reformation]] writers summarised by Bireley: [[Giovanni Botero]], [[Justus Lipsius]], Carlo Scribani, [[Adam Contzen]], [[Pedro de Ribadeneira]], and [[Diego de Saavedra Fajardo]].<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|p=18}}</ref> These authors criticized Machiavelli, but also followed him in many ways. They accepted the need for a prince to be concerned with reputation, and even a need for cunning and deceit, but compared to Machiavelli, and like later modernist writers, they emphasized [[Economic growth|economic progress]] much more than the riskier ventures of war. These authors tended to cite [[Tacitus]] as their source for realist political advice, rather than Machiavelli, and this pretence came to be known as "[[Tacitism]]".<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|pp=223–230}}</ref> "Black tacitism" was in support of princely rule, but "red tacitism" arguing the case for republics, more in the original spirit of Machiavelli himself, became increasingly important. Cardinal [[Reginald Pole]] read The Prince while he was in Italy, and on which he gave his comments.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ip1oAgAAQBAJ&dq=found+this+type+of+book+to+be+written+by+an+enemy+of+the+human+race.+It+explains+every+means+whereby+religion,+justice+and+any+inclination+toward+virtue+could+be+destroyed%22&pg=PR20|title=Machiavelli's Prince: A New Reading|last=Benner|first=Erica|date=2013-11-28|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=9780191003929|language=en}}</ref> [[Frederick the Great]], king of [[Prussia]] and patron of [[Voltaire]], wrote [[Anti-Machiavel]], with the aim of rebutting ''The Prince''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anti-Machiavel|title=Anti-Machiavel {{!}} treatise by Frederick the Great|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en|access-date=2019-04-16}}</ref>

[[File:British - Francis Bacon - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|left|[[Francis Bacon]] argued the case for what would become [[modern science]] which would be based more upon real experience and experimentation, free from assumptions about metaphysics, and aimed at increasing control of nature. He named Machiavelli as a predecessor.]]
Modern [[materialist]] philosophy developed in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, starting in the generations after Machiavelli. Modern political philosophy tended to be republican, but as with the Catholic authors, Machiavelli's realism and encouragement of innovation to try to control one's own fortune were more accepted than his emphasis upon war and factional violence. Not only was innovative economics and politics a result, but also [[modern science]], leading some commentators to say that the 18th century [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] involved a "humanitarian" moderating of Machiavellianism.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Kennington|2004}}, {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}</ref>

The importance of Machiavelli's influence is notable in many important figures in this endeavour, for example [[Jean Bodin|Bodin]],<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bireley|1990|p=17}}: "Jean Bodin's first comments, found in his ''Method for the Easy Comprehension of History'', published in 1566, were positive."</ref> [[Francis Bacon]],<ref>Bacon wrote: "We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class who openly and unfeignedly declare or describe what men do, and not what they ought to do." {{Citation|title=Of the Advancement of Learning|chapter=II.21.9}}. See {{Harvtxt|Kennington|2004}} Chapter 4.</ref> [[Algernon Sidney]],<ref>{{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}} chapter 6.</ref> [[James Harrington (author)|Harrington]], [[John Milton]],<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Worden|1999}}</ref> [[Spinoza]],<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=Spinoza's Political Philosophy|url= http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-political/#IntBac|encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|access-date=19 March 2011|publisher= Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|year= 2013}}</ref> [[Rousseau]], [[David Hume|Hume]],<ref>Danford "Getting Our Bearings: Machiavelli and Hume" in {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}.</ref> [[Edward Gibbon]], and [[Adam Smith]]. Although he was not always mentioned by name as an inspiration, due to his controversy, he is also thought to have been an influence for other major philosophers, such as [[Montaigne]],<ref>{{Harvtxt|Schaefer|1990}}</ref> [[Descartes]],<ref>{{Harvtxt|Kennington|2004}}, chapter 11.</ref> [[Hobbes]], [[John Locke|Locke]]<ref>Barnes Smith "The Philosophy of Liberty: Locke's Machiavellian Teaching" in {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}.</ref> and [[Montesquieu]].<ref>Carrese "The Machiavellian Spirit of Montesquieu's Liberal Republic" in {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}</ref><ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Shklar|1999}}</ref> Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is associated with very different political ideas, viewed Machiavelli's work as a satirical piece in which Machiavelli exposes the faults of a one-man rule rather than exalting amorality.

<blockquote>In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli's ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection{{snd}}of the writings of the [[Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke|Bolingbroke]] circle and of [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]] and of early parliamentary radicals{{snd}}but a stimulus to the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Worden|1999}}</ref></blockquote>

[[File:John Adams A18236.jpg|thumb|John Adams admired Machiavelli's rational description of the realities of statecraft. Adams used Machiavelli's works to argue for [[mixed government]].]]
Scholars have argued that Machiavelli was a major indirect and direct influence upon the political thinking of the [[Founding Fathers of the United States]] due to his overwhelming favouritism of [[republicanism]] and the republican type of government. According to John McCormick, it is still very much debatable whether or not Machiavelli was "an advisor of tyranny or partisan of liberty."<ref>John P. McCormick, ''Machiavellian democracy'' (Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 23.</ref> [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[James Madison]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]] followed Machiavelli's republicanism when they opposed what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they feared [[Alexander Hamilton]] was creating with the [[Federalist Party]].<ref>{{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}</ref> Hamilton learned from Machiavelli about the importance of foreign policy for domestic policy, but may have broken from him regarding how rapacious a republic needed to be in order to survive.<ref>Walling "Was Alexander Hamilton a Machiavellian Statesman?" in {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}.</ref><ref>{{Harvtxt|Harper|2004}}</ref> [[George Washington]] was less influenced by Machiavelli.<ref>Spalding "The American Prince? George Washington's Anti-Machiavellian moment" in {{Harvtxt|Rahe|2006}}</ref>

The Founding Father who perhaps most studied and valued Machiavelli as a political philosopher was [[John Adams]], who profusely commented on the Italian's thought in his work, ''A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America''.<ref name="thompson">{{Harvtxt|Thompson|1995}}</ref> In this work, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney and [[Montesquieu]], as a philosophic defender of mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by passions. He also accepted Machiavelli's belief that all societies were subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay. For Adams, Machiavelli lacked only a clear understanding of the institutions necessary for good government.<ref name="thompson" />

===20th century===
The 20th-century Italian Communist [[Antonio Gramsci]] drew great inspiration from Machiavelli's writings on ethics, morals, and how they relate to the State and revolution in his writings on [[Passive Revolution]], and how a society can be manipulated by controlling popular notions of morality.<ref>Marcia Landy, "Culture and Politics in the work of Antonio Gramsci," 167–188, in ''Antonio Gramsci: Intellectuals, Culture, and the Party'', ed. James Martin (New York: Routledge, 2002).</ref>

[[Joseph Stalin]] read ''The Prince'' and annotated his own copy.<ref>Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'', p.10.</ref>

In the 20th century there was also renewed interest in Machiavelli's play ''[[La Mandragola]]'' (1518), which received numerous stagings, including several in New York, at the [[New York Shakespeare Festival]] in 1976 and the [[Riverside Shakespeare Company]] in 1979, as a musical comedy by [[Peer Raben]] in Munich's Anti Theatre in 1971, and at London's [[Royal National Theatre|National Theatre]] in 1984.<ref name="Jann Racquoi 1979">Review by Jann Racquoi, ''Heights/Inwood Press of North Manhattan'', 14 March 1979.</ref>

{{Anchor|Machiavellian}}

=== "Machiavellian" ===
[[File:Cesareborgia.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|''[[Portrait of a Gentleman (Melone)|Portrait of a Gentleman]]'' ([[Cesare Borgia]]), used as an example of a successful ruler in ''The Prince'']]
Machiavelli's works are sometimes even said to have contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words ''politics'' and ''politician'',<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bireley|1990|p=241}}</ref> and it is sometimes thought that it is because of him that ''Old Nick'' became an English term for the [[Devil]].<ref>{{Harvtxt|Fischer|2000|p=94}}</ref> The adjective ''Machiavellian'' became a term describing a form of politics that is "marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith".<ref>{{Cite dictionary|title=Definition of MACHIAVELLIAN|dictionary=[[merriam-webster.com]]|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Machiavellian|access-date=17 October 2018}}</ref> The word [[Machiavellianism (politics)|''Machiavellianism'']] is also a term used in political discussions, often as a byword for bare-knuckled political realism.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Rahe|first=Paul A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqroV-TkIhgC&q=paul%20a%20rahe&pg=PR36|title=Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy|year=2005|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1139448338|page=xxxvi|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Meinecke |first=Friedrich |date=1957 |title=Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'État and Its Place in Modern History |page=36 |url=https://archive.org/details/machiavellismdoc00mein |publisher=Yale University Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ | title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | chapter=Political Realism in International Relations | date=2023 | publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }}</ref>

While Machiavellianism is notable in the works of Machiavelli, scholars generally agree that his works are complex and have equally influential themes within them. For example, J. G. A. {{Harvtxt|Pocock|1975}} saw him as a major source of the [[republicanism]] that spread throughout England and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries and Leo {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1958}}, whose view of Machiavelli is quite different in many ways, had similar remarks about Machiavelli's influence on republicanism and argued that even though Machiavelli was a teacher of evil he had a "grandeur of vision" that led him to advocate immoral actions. Whatever his intentions, which are still debated today, he has become associated with any proposal where "[[the end justifies the means]]". For example, Leo {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1987|p=297}} wrote:
{{blockquote|Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics, which exists and will continue to exist independently of his influence, a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends{{snd}}its end being the aggrandizement of one's country or fatherland{{snd}}but also using the fatherland in the service of the self-aggrandizement of the politician or statesman or one's party.}}

{{anchor|Machiavel}}

===In popular culture===
{{main|Machiavelli in popular culture}}

Due to Machiavelli's popularity, he has been featured in various ways in cultural depictions. In [[English Renaissance theatre]] (Elizabethan and Jacobian), the term "[[:wikt:Machiavel|Machiavel]]" (from 'Nicholas Machiavel', an "anglicization" of Machiavelli's name based on French) was used for a stock antagonist that resorted to ruthless means to preserve the power of the state, and is now considered a synonym of "Machiavellian".<ref>Kahn, V. (1994). Machiavellian rhetoric: From the counter-reformation to Milton. Princeton University Press.</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=31 December 2021|title=Machiavel|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100122752|website=Oxford Reference}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|access-date=31 December 2021|title=MACHIAVEL English Definition and Meaning {{!}} Lexico.com|url=https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/machiavel|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516180221/https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/machiavel|url-status=dead|archive-date=16 May 2021|website=Lexico Dictionaries }}</ref>

[[Christopher Marlowe]]'s play ''[[The Jew of Malta]]'' (ca. 1589) contains a prologue by a character called Machiavel, a [[Seneca the Younger|Senecan]] ghost based on Machiavelli.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://player.fm/series/jew-of-malta-the-by-marlowe-christopher |title=Jew of Malta, The by MARLOWE, Christopher |work=Player FM |year=2016 |access-date=12 May 2018}}</ref> Machiavel expresses the cynical view that power is amoral, saying:
{{blockquote|<poem> 
   "I count religion but a childish toy, 
   And hold there is no sin but ignorance."
</poem>}}

Shakespeares titular character, ''[[Richard III (play)|Richard III]]'', refers to Machiavelli in ''[[Henry VI, Part III]]'', as the "murderous Machiavel".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/henry-vi-part-3/read/ | title=Henry VI, Part 3 - Entire Play &#124; Folger Shakespeare Library }}</ref>