American

Political
Science Review
Review
Science
American Political

Vol.
No. 3 September
2001
Vol. 95, No.
September 2001~~~~~~~

Machiavelli
Lionizing

TIMOTHY J. LUKES Santa Clara University

M

/fachiavelli scholarship
isprolificbutclaustrophobic.
Eventhoughchapter
18of The Princeadvises

the aspiringleaderto emulateboth lion and fox, commentatorsignoreor devaluethe lion and
focus on thefox. Machiavelliis therebydepictedas a championof clevemessand deception,and
not much else. Thisarticletakesup the lion. It arguesthatMachiavelli'slion is not a simpleand violent
beast,butis rathera complextutorthatcomplementsclinicaland lonelyfoxinesswithcrucialinjectionsof
virilityand community.

why did Plato write The Republic?Was the

Academy failing to recruit the most promising
youngsters?Or was it just an easy way to extract
eighty talents from Dionysiusthe Younger?Perhaps Plato was merelyindulginga nascentpassionfor
spelunking?Of course,we do not ask these questions
of our icon of metaphysics.Niccolo Machiavelli,in
contrast, suffers incessantly the indignity of similar
suspicions.Variously,he is the sycophantwho solicits
his republicansoul for aristocraticpatronage(Godman
1998). He is the nerd whose revenge is delivered
vicariouslyin the form of macho prose (Pitkin 1984).
Or he is a feeble lecher tryingto impress a fetching
youngactress(Ridolfi1954,312). It is hardlysurprising
that we impute Machiavelli'smotives. A scholar by
default, he could not help but educate his cloistered
forebearsas to the advantagesof hidden agendasand
false promises.Understandablystupefiedby his venality, commentatorsregroup,whisperingexotic speculations regardinghis true intentions.
FriedrichMeinecke(1965,25-48) leads a contingent
that detects a moral residue in Machiavelli'sunprecedented dissimulation(see also Chabod 1980; Dotti
1979; Foscolo 1972; Russo 1983;Zanini 1984). Troubled by the incompatibilityof the normativeand the
feasible, Machiavelliis said to dilute a nonetheless
sincere attachmentto moral behavior, or "universal
norm"(Derla 1980,35), for emergencyreasons.Gramsci (1966, 10), for instance,refutes the alleged "scienin Machiavelli,claimingthat his
tific disinterestedness"
true intention is to leak proprietarystrategiesof the
privilegedto "the revolutionaryclass of the time, the
'people'and the 'Italiannation,'the democraticcitizen
who feels in his breast the Savonarolasand the Pier
Soderinisand not the Castrucciosandthe Valentinos"1
(1966, 10). More recently,Dietz (1986) arguesthat The
Prince is diabolicalto end the diabolical,a sophisticated trap into which an unsuspectingMedici boob
mightfall, thus openinga republicanwindowof opporJust

Timothy J. Lukes is Professor of Political Science, Santa Clara

University, Santa Clara, CA 95053 (tlukes@scu.edu).
The author thanks professors John Bokina, Elizabeth Dale, and
Luigi Ventura for their helpful comments. Thanks also to the faculty
and staff of the Loyola University of Chicago Rome Center for their
generous assistance.
"disinteressata attivita scientifica," "la classe rivoluzionaria del
tempo, il 'popolo' e la 'nazione' italiana, la democrazia cittadina che
esprime dal suo seno i Savonarola e i Pier Soderini e non i Castruccio
e i Valentino."

tunity.Wolin (1960, 207) detects "an essentiallymoral

response inspiredby a concern for man in an age of
politicalcorruption"(see also Derla 1980,27-8; Sasso
1980, 293-327; Struever1992, 164-81). Berlin (1982,
55-6) ventures that Machiavelli's endorsement of
power politicsis no less than an alternativemorality.
The opposing position promotes a more literal,
morallyunclutteredreceptionof Machiavelli'scalculations and is often associated with Benedetto Croce
([1914] 1993; see also Cassirer1944, 167; de Sanctis
1956, 511; Gentile 1968, 118; Hulliung 1983; Kahn
1986;Mansfield1985). Croce arguesthat Machiavelli
has little interestin a conceptof goodnesstranscendent
of the will of the strongest. His politics precedes
moralityas base precedessuperstructure,and morality
is no more than a luxury afforded the politically
comfortable.But where Croce detects anguishin Machiavelliregardingthe sacrifice,Cassirer'sMachiavelli
is more venal. And Strauss(1958, 11), of course, goes
so far as to say that Machiavelliis a "teacherof evil."
That scholarshipis limitedto variationson Machiavelli'smoralstatusis tributeto the strangecharismaof
his meditationson expediency.Whetherone embraces
the more sensitive Machiavelliof Meinecke or the
more clinical Machiavelliof Croce, a claustrophobic
element persistsin an investigativefocus that presupposes compromiseas Machiavelli'soverweeninginterest. We obsess over the extent to which such exquisite
human qualities as integrityand charitysuccumbto
trickeryand deceit. The debate is over whether the
moral justification is only highly leveraged or just
nonexistent.Sasso (1964, 47-51) arguesthat the only
significantexchange among modern scholars of Machiavelli regardsthe extent to which he laments his
unprecedentedduplicity.
Due to this focuson concessionandclevernessin the
face of difficultsurroundings,Machiavelliis a magnet
for criticsof modernity,who indicthis claimsof success
by exposingwhat are thoughtto be his shallowaspirations. By focusingon expediency,Machiavelliis credited with turningpoliticstowardits eventualdepiction
as "who gets what when how" (Laswell 1936). The
"why,"which for Machiavelli'sGreek and Latin foils
providespoliticsits essence,is left to the "historian,the
lawyer,or the philosopher"(Laswell1936,23). According to his critics,Machiavelliescorts politics down to
the Piraeusneverto returnto the rarefiedatmosphere
of the Acropolis.His contemptfor the good and the
frail in favor of the commonercurrencyof selfishness
561

2001
September 2001

LionizingMachiavelli
MachiavelliSeptember
Lionizing
and force is seen as a minor revision from the banality
of Hobbes and Locke. Chance can be eliminated from
human life by pursuing an existence of not taking
chances.2
This is the ironic sense in which Machiavelli is
labeled the founder of the Enlightenment, the first
modern.3 The indictment is bipartisan. From the Right,
Strauss (1962) identifies Machiavelli as charter concertmaster of the modern orchestra that fiddles while
Rome burns.4 From the Left, Horkheimer (1982) accuses Machiavelli of orchestrating the stifling regimentation of industrial reason. Whether one attributes to
him the loss of philosophy (Strauss) or the loss of
poetry (Horkheimer), Machiavelli is said to have abandoned the exquisite in favor of "statecraft"(Butterfield
1940); he is the precursor to Lasswell's political "science,"5 the purported value neutrality of which masks a
craven surrender to vulgar, perfunctory, or even evil
"whys."
So, notwithstanding a secondary debate about the
relative importance of a remote moral interest, Machiavelli has come to represent the quintessential tactician. Political success, we are told, depends upon the
prince's ability to hide in the bushes, studying and
countering the ambitions of malefactors. We are drawn
to that most famous passage in that most famous
chapter,6 in which Machiavelli advises his prince to
emulate the fox, the cleverest of animals. The fox
ratifies the underlying consensus in Sasso's scholarly
dichotomy. The fox is sly, not above employing its
intelligence in service of the ignoble.
Machiavelli also asks his prince to consider the
demeanor of the lion, but that is dismissed by his
analysts as an uninteresting or unimportant accessory,
even though Machiavelli grants equal proportions to
both of the animals in his hybrid. Kahn (1986, 65), for
2 For J. G. A. Pocock
(1975, 31-80), the "Machiavellian moment"

occurs when human ingenuity is of such confidence that it is willing

to assume the responsibility of human destiny. Thus, for Pocock, virtu
consists of the extent to which human cleverness can avoid or
overcome the vicissitudes of fortuna.
3 Admittedly, the extent to which analysts recognize an irony is
variable. The treatments by Strauss and Horkheimer are at the
extremes, whereas some are almost congratulatory that Machiavelli
can be linked to nationalism, or science, or liberalism. Mansfield
(1975, 373) argues that these authors do not raise the question of
Machiavelli's modernity "in sufficiently broad and uncompromising
terms." Perhaps the most categorical depiction of Machiavelli as the
quintessential modern is that of Robert Hariman who, employing
postmodernist vernacular, accuses Machiavelli of imposing a disembodied metanarrative of cold power that not only envelops constituent "texts" but human desire too (Hariman 1989, 28). A good
repository of bibliographic information on Machiavelli's modernism
is, Viroli 1990.
4 Of
course, Strauss's (1962, 327) famous indictment of the "science"
of politics is even more severe, since political science "does not know
that it fiddles and it does not know that Rome burns." Strauss (1959)
holds Machiavelli responsible for endorsing the abdication of considerations of the "why"to expediency.
5 Cochrane
(1970, 170, translation mine) can say unreservedly that
"he is everywhere recognized founder of another discipline, that of
political science."
6
According to Sasso (Machiavelli 1963, 150, n. 1, translation mine),
"chapter 18 of The Prince is perhaps the text most tortured, studied,
vilified, and disparaged among those numbered not only in the entire
work of Machiavelli, but all of modern political thought."

562

instance, finds a "particularly forceful articulation in

chapter 18" of "the aim of The Prince as a whole,"
which is nothing more than the "redefinition of representation as ruse and thus of mimesis as power";
Machiavellian virtuis tantamount to "mere cleverness."
Dietz (1986, 78) mentions only the fox in her depiction
of The Prince: "In short, whether the subject is love,
war, or politics, Machiavelli recognizes the advantages
of crafty assault in any form, be it trickery, stratagem,
or artifice." Hulliung (1983, 214) at least admits the
lion's existence but asserts that Machiavelli reserves his
deepest admiration for those who are able to dominate
by resorting to "the subtle methods of the fox rather
than the crude methods of the lion." Similarly, Sasso
(Machiavelli 1963, 152, n. 7) associates the fox with
"shrewdness and cunning prudence" (astuzia e accorta
prudenza), the lion with only primitive traits of "impetuosity and violence" (impeto e violenza) (see also Bacon
[1869] 1973, 84). Pitkin (1984, 46) argues that "the lion
is not a standard of manhood Machiavelli ever takes
seriously, either for himself or for those he admires."
Although Rebhorn (1988) suggests equal treatment in
the title of his book, Foxes and Lions, he immediately
undertakes an expose of Machiavelli's "trickster figures ... in short, foxes of every species" (p. x). Machiavelli's heros, according to the book's subtitle, are no
more than "confidence men."
In this article, I consider the lion. I show that the
successful prince needs more than trickery, stratagem,
and artifice. In our haste to sensationalize Machiavelli's foxy reduction of the classical attachment to
exquisite moral standards, we overlook the extent to
which the lion represents a widening rather than a
lowering, a recognition that Socrates' contemplative
priorities helped him die well but did not always help
him live well. Politics is about life, and Machiavelli,
invoking the lion, would counsel escape from prison.
Although the escape involves a foxy plan, it demands
some of the virility, comradery, and innocence of the
lion. Ironically, Machiavelli anticipates and addresses
the same deficiencies of modernity for which he is held
responsible, as an examination of the lion will show.
A BEASTLY HUMANISM
Machiavelli prepares for the lion, and the fox for that
matter, with preliminary discussions that establish the
importance of animal traits in princely comportment.
Indeed, as respected editions of The Prince remind us
(Borsellino 1989, 99, n. 1; Burd 1891, 301, n. 1;
Machiavelli 1960, 72, n. 2, and 1963, 151, n. 2),
Machiavelli's ratification of princely animalism is reinforced with allusions to a classical humanist source, the
De Officiis of Cicero, in which the Roman aristocrat
informs his departing son that there may come a time
when the human method for settling disputes may not
be available to him, and he may need to resort to tactics
of the beast (beluarum) (Cicero 1913, 37 [De Officiis
1.11.34]). Although there may be scholarly consensus
regarding the involvement of Cicero and classical humanism in chapter 18, there is controversy regarding
the nature of that involvement. This controversy is

American Political Science Review

American
Political
Science
Review

Vol. 95, No.

No. 3
Vol.

informativeregardingwhat I believe to be a misinter- substantialthan detectedby analystspreoccupiedwith

pretationof the scope of Machiavelli's"princelyani- the moralityissue.
That Machiavelli'sprincelyanimalismis more commalism"and thus the scope of traitsattributableto the
lion.
plex than enhancedfoxinessshouldbe clear, given his
On the one hand,Colish(1978) arguesthat Machia- employmentof the centaurto introduceit. The juxtavelli's references to Cicero are straightforwardand position of appropriateanimalismwith centaursis an
deferential(see also Gentile 1968, 365-72; Allan Gil- allusion Cicero does not make. By emphasizingthe
bert 1938, 2; Felix Gilbert 1939, 464; Merleau-Ponty parity between the human and the animal in the
1964; Olschki 1970; Skinner 1981, 36-41; Toffanin prince's curriculum,8Machiavellithoroughlybetrays
1921;Viroli 1998,54). She maintainsthat the pragma- the humanisthierarchy,in whichthe animalis a much
tism of classicalhumanismremainsmostlyunappreci- less significanthuman component. Although Cicero
ated, due to the analyticalresidue of medievalinter- recommendsresortingto the animalin the resolution
pretations, and that Machiavelli'sconcern for verita of disputes,he never gives the animaland the human
traits equal billing. The human approach,discussion
effettualeis not that far from a similarinterestfound in
classical humanism,which considers the moral good
(disceptationem),is always preferableto the animal,
force
in
terms
of
the
constraints
of
(vim). Furthermore,resortingto the animalhas
(honestum)
feasibility
to
be
Machiavelli's
to
the
reference
is
a
justifiedwithin the context of the human.The
beast,
then,
(utile).7
concessionto a practicalitythat he shareswith classical centauris not an appropriateimagefor Cicero'sdistrihumanism.On the other hand, Hexter (1973, 210) bution of human and animaltraits, and Machiavelli's
claims that Machiavelliinvokes Cicero in order to
employmentof the image leaves little doubt as to the
whereas
Cicero
diunprecedented
importanceof animalismto princely
pervert him;
might intermittently
success.9
vert his moralinterestwith questionsof practicality,he
Machiavelli'sdivergencefrom Cicero does not end
never considersthe Machiavellian"dislocationof virtue and reason and naturefrom their customaryrela- with a disputeover the zoologicalhierarchy,however.
tions with each other" (see also Hulliung 1983, 213; More important,Machiavelliredrawsthe very boundMansfield 1996, 35; Paparelli 1970, 86; Raimondi aries ratifiedby Cicero between the human and the
1972). For using Cicero'svernacularto such a diver- animal. Following his Greek mentors, Cicero places
gent purpose(Raimondi[1972,266] callsit a "deforma- reason (rationis)exclusivelyin the humandomainand
zione"), Machiavelliis accused of "one of the most then deduces that only humans are endowed with a
efficientperversionsof a writer'sintentionin the long historicalconsciousness,in which events can be linked
to analyticalcontinua (Cicero 1913, 13 [De Officiis
historyof literaryhocus-pocus"(Hexter 1973, 208).
If nothingelse, this discrepancysubstantiatesSasso's 1.4.11]). In addition, reason facilitatesspeech, which
assertion regardingthe pervasivenessof the debate promotes community,which then promotes public
about moral compromise.The extent of Machiavelli's assembliesalongwith unusualtendernessand love for
one's children (p. 15 [De Officiis 1.4.12]). Animal
humanismis depicted as dependent solely upon the
degree to which both he and Cicero adjustnormative behavior, for Cicero, is reserved for the likes of
commitmentsin the face of pragmaticconcerns.The
Thrasymachus,who intrude on civility "like a wild
centers
on
whether, and to what extent, beast" (Plato 1968, 13 [Republic336b]) and scare
controversy
there is room in humanismfor the occasionalsuspen- people out of their wits. Machiavelli is much less
sion of moralconstraints.Restrictingthe debate about generous to the realm of the human. The human
Machiavelli's humanism to such familiar territory environmentis one of laws (moral,political,religious),
yieldssmugconclusions.Skinner(1981,37-8, emphasis not intellectualor emotional superiority:"You must
in original),for instance,identifiesa "simple"Machi- then know how there are two means of combat:one
with the laws,the other with force"(Machiavelli1960,
avelliandivergence,namely,that "if a rulerwishes to
72 [Prince18]).10The animal dwells in the realm of
reach his highest goals, he will not always find it
rational to be moral." Viroli (1998, 54), similarly
8 Machiavelli
focused, argues that Machiavellimerely "restrictsthe
(1960,72 [Prince18]) is quite precisein describingthe
centaur
as "onehalfbeastandhalfman"(unomezzobestiaet mezzo
of
Cicero's
moral
comhumanism,admitting
range"
Viroli(1998,54),who craveshumanismin Machiavelli,hones
promise to a wider variety of political pursuits.But uomo).
in on the intermittentdepictionsof princelyanimalismas "detestMachiavelli'sdeparturefrom humanismis simple and able," to be alwaysavoided when "laudable"human recourse is
restrictiveonly to those whose analysesare spellbound available.Evenif Machiavelli'sdepictionsare sincere,whichis highly
by traits associatedwith the fox. Analystswho debate doubtful,the fact remainsthat introducingprincelyanimalismwith
whetherthere is a place for the fox in classicalhuman- the image of the centaur sends a strong message regardingits
importanceto appropriateprincelycomportment.
ism may miss in Machiavellia significantexpansionof
9 That Machiavelli'sintention in
the centaur is to deflate
animalismin generalas it pertainsto princelycomport- anthropocentrismis reinforcedbyusing
passagesin the GoldenAss, in
ment. That expansionis wide enough to enhance the which the boar chides humanityfor its silly self-aggrandizement
domain of the lion, and it is wide enough to detach (Machiavelli1965,299 [GoldenAss 8.37-9]). Cicero,however,is not
only target.Pico's ([1496] 1942, 101-65) De hominus
Machiavellifromhumanismin waysmore complexand Machiavelli's
dignitatais similarlyself-absorbedand may be assumedto be yet
Toffanin (1921) makes a similar connection of Machiavelli and
humanism, using Tacitus in place of Cicero.

anotherobjectof Machiavelli'sderision.
10"Doveteadunquesaperecome sono dua generazionedi combat-

tere: l'uno con le leggi, l'altro, con la forza." The translations of

Machiavelli are mine and purposely favor clumsy accuracy over

563

Lionizing Machiavelli

Machiavelli
Lionizing

"force,"which now includes all extralegalforms of

coercion and persuasion.There is little similaritybetween Cicero's vim and Machiavelli's forza.1

At first, this expansionof the animal realm, both

hierarchicallyand behaviorally,may not troublethose
who focus on Machiavelli'scleverness. In fact, that
animalsmightmetaphoricallybe endowedwith speech
and a sense of history-with at most a half-hearted
obeisance to moral, political, and religious lawsseems to prepareus perfectlyfor the fox, who is more
sophisticatedthan the impetuousThrasymachus.Yet,
given Machiavelli'sequal partitioningof fox and lion,
we are justified in exploringthe possibilitythat the
expandedrealm of princelyanimalism,preparedby a
discussionof centaurs,includes an enhancedartillery
for the lion, too. If forzaincludesreason,then mightit
not also include an extreme tenderness toward offspring,a trait more suited to a lion, who prefers the
company of the pride to the loneliness of the fox?
There is good reasonto believe that Machiavelli'slion
is capable of more than Sasso's "impetuosityand
violence." And there is good reason to believe that
Machiavelli'sprince benefitsnot only from unencumbered clevernessbut also fromunencumberedphysical
magnificence.

Our suspicionthat the expandedrealm for animals

in generalmay extendspecificallyto the realmof lions
is reinforced by the particularcentaur selected to
introduceprincelyanimalism.MachiavellichoosesChiron,the complexand compellingtutorto Achilles"and
many others of those ancient princes" (Machiavelli
1960, 72 [Prince 18]).12 Chiron is no garden variety

centaur.His parentageis of Cronosand Philyras,and

his morerowdycousinsare descendantsof Ixion.While
other centaursare wreakinghavoc,13Chiron teaches
Achilles the finer points of medicine and music. For
those who transportPlato'scontemptfor the animalto
Machiavelli's treatment, the choice of Chiron as
princelymodel is strange;any of his more rambunctious associates would be better prototypes, it is
thought.In the traditionof Dietz (1986), the selection
of Chiron is viewed as a trick, one more instance in
which "Machiavellidoes not mean what he says"
(Arieti 1995, 389). Chiron, we are informed, could
never qualifyas a quintessentialanimal. "How apt a
fluidity. The original Italian, from the Feltrinelli editions, is included
in footnotes.
1 I am not the first to recognize the modesty of Machiavelli's
exclusively human aptitudes. Appreciating what he describes as a
compelling honesty, Merleau-Ponty (1964, 212) apprehends Machiavelli's less special human by focusing on the distinction of chapter 18.
Although she succumbs to the humanist bias that laws are superior to
force, Pitkin (1984, 46) also notices Machiavelli's reduction of the
human domain. Indeed, his less exquisite humans reflect a medieval
bias, which held that the differences between animals and humans lay
in their relative tameness, not relative intelligence (Yamamoto 2000,
24-5). Tameness is akin to "law-abidingness."
12 "e molti altri di
quelli principi antichi."
13 The contrast is best
preserved in art. The western pediment of the
Temple of Zeus at Olympia depicts the abduction of the Lapith
women by the vulgar centaurs. Yet, when Chiron is depicted without
his boorish associates (Roman fresco, National Archeological Museum of Naples, no. 9109), he is seen with a harp and in affectionate
embrace with Achilles.

564

September
2001
September 2001~~~~~~~~~~
symbolis Chiron?"asksArieti. "Theansweris that he

is totally, completely, and entirely inapt. Machiavelli is

rightthat Chironwas the tutorof Achilles,butwhathe

taught Achilles was medicine. Throughout ancient
literature,Chironis the kindly,poetic, artistic,peaceloving centaur,the very antithesisof beast-likequalities" (p. 387, italics in original).
Lookingat Chironin Machiavelli'sterms, however,
one begins to see an animalpar excellence.Chironis
an apt model for forza broadlyunderstood,as extralegal persuasion and coercion. Achilles lacked not
ferocitybut the subtletyof the animal,which tutoring
in medicine and music could provide. "The son of
Philyramade the boy Achilles accomplishedon the
lyre, and by his peaceful art subdued those savage
passions"(Ovid 1929, 13 [Artof Love, 1.11-2]). Chiron'sanimalismis a sophisticatedforce,whichinvolves
both thinkingand acting.Achilles learns how to plan
an attack,how to execute it, how to enjoy the victory
properly,and how to lament defeat.14As his name
suggests ("Chiron"is an affectionate derivative of
cheirosophos,"skilledin hand crafts"),Chironteaches
Achilles the most complex of the "touching"arts:
music and medicine.15Achilles' physical presence is
renderedformidableand versatile.He can seduce and
heal as well as he can fight.
The choiceof Chironfromamongthe othercentaurs
is not the only telling component of the tutoring
scenario.By alludingto others but not namingthem,
MachiavellidistinguishesAchilles from Chiron'sother
formidablestudents.Had Machiavelliwantedto focus
on strength,he mighthavementionedChiron'sstudent
Hercules;had his context called for only a healer, he
might have employedyet another student,Asclepius.
But if the intention is to highlightthe sophistication
and breadthof the Chironcurriculum,then Achillesis
the apt choice. Of these three, only Achilles receivesa
balancededucationin the sensualarts,usinghis hands
to heal and to performas well as to slay (see Mackie
1997).
It is no surprisethat Machiavellichose Chironfor
the cover of his comedy,Mandragola.If Chironrepresents a muchbroaderconceptof sensualitythanthatof
bruteforce, then it makessense to have him introduce
Machiavelli'sliterarymasterpiece.Fido (1977, 10922), although convinced that Machiavellipersonally
offers multiplecomplex
chose the cover illustration,16
explanationsof how Machiavellimighthold two simul14
"Lighten every ill with wine and song, sweet consolations for
unlovely sorrow" (Horace 1914, 397 [Epodes 13]). Chiron also
showed unusual tenderness (for Cicero a human trait) for his
daughter and wept upon hearing of her forced metamorphosis. And
this: "The Centaur was rejoicing in his foster-child of heavenly stock,
glad at the honour which the task brought with it" (Ovid 1916, v. 1,
107, 105 [Metamorphoses2.676, 2.633]).
15 As for Chiron
teaching music to Achilles, the tutoring is implied in
The Iliad (see Mackie 1997, 8) and is explicit in Horace (1914, 397
[Epodes 13]) and Ovid (1929, 13 [Artof Love 1.11]). As for medicine,
see Homer 1924, 543 (Iliad 11.832).
16 That Machiavelli did indeed make the choice is not as certain as
Fido would have it, however. For an excellent treatment of the
publication history of Mandragolaand Machiavelli's other works, see
Bertelli and Innocenti 1979, esp. xxi-xxviii.

AmericanPolitical
PoliticalScience
Science Review
Review
American
taneous visions of Chiron, one the fierce tutor of
Achilles, the other the musical accompanimentto
comedy.He does not considerthe possibilitythat the
Chiron of The Prince is precisely the musician of
Mandragola.

CHIRON'SOBSOLESCENCE
Althoughmy ultimateintentionis to link Machiavelli's
lion to the sophisticatedsensualityof Chironinsteadof
the anthropocentrismof Cicero and classicalhumanism,a preliminarydiscussionof Machiavelli'stransition
from centaur to lion (and fox) is in order. Why is
Chiron,an appropriateteacher for Achilles, not sufficient to explainappropriateanimalismto the budding
prince?Why, after exploitingthe centaurto establish
the importance of animal traits, does Machiavelli
choose to dissect his ancient prototypeinto the more
specific constituent elements of lion and fox? Of
course, a simple and pertinentinfluencewould be the
popularityof lions and foxes in Renaissanceimagery,
and I will returnto that issue. Here I want to discussa
more profoundinstigationfor Machiavelli'schoice of
these particularimages.I want to show that the insufficiency of Chiron and Achilles is related to a more
formidablediscrepancybetween simple and complex
societies,between ancientRome and RenaissanceItaly.'7 I also want to show that the discrepancynecessitates even closer attentionto the lion traits.
In chapter 19, just after the discussionof animals,
Machiavelliintroducesthe concept of corruptionwith
the advicethat it be attendedby princelyscrutiny.He
goes on to arguethat in ancienttimes princelyscrutiny
was best directedat the military,but now the common
civilianclass is more in need of it, since "theycan do
more" (possonopiu) than the armedforces (Machiavelli 1960,83 [Prince19]). Corruptionhas afflictedthe
people and made them more formidable,threatening
princelyendeavors.I believe it is this new climate of
popularcorruptionthat compels Machiavellito subdivide his ancient tutor. The prince must hone some
particularbehaviorsthat, althoughthey mayhavebeen
part of Chiron'sarsenal,can drawundistractedattention when isolated in the image of the lion.
As for how it is that corruptionis precipitatedand
thereby necessitates a keener attention to leonine
traits,ThePrincerespondsonly with an evasive,tantalizing latinism,quodammodo(somehow) (Machiavelli
1960, 80 [Prince19]). Why The Prince is so blatantly
unanalyticalwill be discussedlater. Only in consulting
the Discourses and the Art of War do we learn that the

17 The disconnection is not

often recognized and is part of a much
wider syndrome that mistakenly assumes Machiavelli's admiration
for the past demonstrates his interest in reviving it. Machiavelli is
said to have been "indoctrinated" in the pagan revival (Sabine and
Thorson 1973, 335; see also Plamanatz 1963, 1:32; Skinner 1978,
1:182; Strauss and Cropsey 1972, 281). Russo (1983, 15) does not
even notice the switch from centaur to lion and fox, claiming that
Machiavelli intended the centaur to be the appropriate model for the
modern individual. I will show that Machiavelli recognizes contemporary developments that make a return impossible. For a systematic
treatment of the distinction between admiration and revival regarding religion, see Lukes 1984.

Vol. 95, No.

No. 3
Vol.

corruptionof the people is the result of communal

experience,in both the political and naturalenvironments.18Civilizationhas chippedawayat the people's
innocence,19and they have taken on characteristics
that are resistantto princelyinfluence.Numa has an
easier time of it, as would a prince among mountain
dwellers, since civilizationis for both in a primitive
state (Machiavelli1960, 161-2 [Discourses1.11]). The
inhabitantsof mature civilizations,however, suffer a
potentiallydebilitatingcynicism.ReferencingPlutarch
(1909), who is considered "the most serious writer"
(gravissimoscrittore)(Machiavelli 1960, 275 [Discourses

2.1]), and quotingLivydirectlyon the subject(p. 164

[Discourses1.12]), Machiavellidescribesa decline of
innocence:People havegone fromeager acceptanceof
leaders'nobilityto a crass skepticismof anythingbut
mundaneclaimsto leadership.
Perhaps the most intriguing analysis of popular
corruptionappearsin theArtof War,in whichMachiavelli directlyconnectstwo phenomena:the tendencyof
ancient populationsto fear eclipses and earthquakes,
and the abilityof militaryleaders to exploit that fear
with cleverinterpretationsattached"to theirpurpose"
(Machiavelli 1961a, 487 [Art of War 6]).20 Recalling a

humorousanecdote from The TwelveCeasars(Suetonious 1957,35 [sec. 59]), Machiavelliexposes an audience so simple that it can be hoodwinkedby Caesar's
cute recoverywhen he fell downupon disembarkingin
Africa and decreed:"'Africa,I have taken you"'(Machiavelli 1961a, 487 [Art of War 6]).21

Thingsare differentin Machiavelli'sItaly,where the

blunders of Caesar's descendants are received with
cynicalsmugness.To believe that an earthquakeportends a political disaster,the populace needs to trust
the statementof the leadermakingthe connection,and
it needs to be ignorantof the scienceof earthquakes.In
the case of Italy,both requisitesare missing.As for the
issue of trust,Machiavellicomplainsthat leaders now
use their powers of deception indiscriminately.
Whereas ancient rulers invoked augers and oracles
during times of militarycrisis, modern Italian rulers
have stretchedtheircredibilitybeyondall limits.In the
Romagna,beforethe interventionof AlexanderVI and
Valentino,rulersresortedto venaltrickerycasuallyand
frequently,and it did not take many such episodes to
alienate the population (Machiavelli1960, 465 [Dis18
Although I do not believe that the Discourses or any other of
Machiavelli's works can be considered mere chatty versions of The
Prince, to be casually exploited for clarification of the shorter work,
connections can be made cautiously, especially when linking unequivocal assertions in The Prince to more reserved analyses elsewhere. In fact, I will argue that special attention to traits of the lion
in The Prince precludes Machiavelli's employment of lengthy analytical treatments. Because I can only offer that explanation after an
examination of the lion's curriculum, I will postpone the discussion
that justifies consultation of works outside The Prince.
19"A sculptor will create more easily a beautiful statue of rough
marble than of one poorly hewn by others" (Machiavelli 1960, 162
[Discourses 1.11]). (Uno scultore trarra piu facilmente una bella
statua d'un marmo rozzo, che d'uno male abbozzato da altrui.)
20 "a loro
proposito."
21
"Affrica, io t'ho presa."

565

September
2001
September 2001

LionizingMachiavelli
Machiavelli
Lionizing
courses 3.29]). Modern Italy has succumbed to an
imbalanceof cleverness,of foxiness.22
In a strikingadmission,Machiavelliidentifies the
otherpartof the cynicismequation,that issuingfroma
moreeducatedperceptionof naturalphenomena.In so
doing,he objectsto the facet of modernityfor whichhe
is accused of being unthinkinglyresponsible.He notices that people become cynicaland lethargic"when
more knowledgeableabout natural things"(Machiavelli 1960, 164 [Discourses1.12]).23 Science is no panacea;it can sap practitionersof theirenergy.Lightning
and earthquakesare more likely to be inspirational
when they are thoughtto issue from angrygods. This
disruptsthe depictionof Machiavellias a paragonof
clevernessand founderof the scientificstudy of politics. If the sourceof the debilitatingpopularcorruption
is cynicism,which comes from more clever apprehensions of leadersand nature,foxinesscannotbe enough
to succeedin a politicalenvironmentthat suffersfrom
growing corruption. By giving the lion a separate
identity,Machiavelliattemptsto addressthe deficiencies of the fox and isolate the necessarycountervailing
traits.
We may now appreciate the importance of the
dissectionof Chiron.The constituentparts may have
been in harmonyin the ancient(or mountain)setting,
but recenthistoryrevealsa discontinuity.Thinkingand
acting, seeing and touching,clevernessand vigor are
not always,indeed not often, in equilibrium.Achilles
representsa simpler,morenoble,past,in whichprinces
such as Camillusneed only request sacrificesof their
subjects,and complianceis forthcoming(Machiavelli

what they concede is a necessaryascent of the fox

ratherthan deal with the complexityof Machiavelli's
response to popular corruption.The cynicismattendanton politicalexposesand the decipheringof nature
is mostly immune to foxy therapy and is in fact its
byproduct.To succeed,foundersand theirconstituents
mustbe "happy"(Machiavelli1960,31 [Prince6]), and
thus they require some freshness and emotion not
found in the fox.
Even though foxinessis in need of refinement,and
Machiavellicertainlyoffershis suggestions,ThePrince
is not just about foxiness. It is not just an introductionto Lasswell'spoliticalscience and to classical
liberalism.Indeed, Machiavelliprecedes Straussand
Horkheimer in lamenting a politics that has been
detached from its "why."The corruptionMachiavelli
identifies,particularlycitizen cynicism,puts the "why"
in jeopardy.And rather than endorse a method that
exacerbatesthe loss, Machiavellioffersthe lion and its
affectivearsenalin an attemptto rescue politics from
an excess of foxiness.
As to why the lesson of the lion may not be as
accessible,or at least as "visible,"as that of the fox,
Nietzsche, whose connection to Machiavellihas not
gone unnoticed,25may have something to say. That
analystsbypassthe wideningof the Platonicagendafor
its loweringis a tributeto Plato'sseductiveness,not a
sign of his defeat.26In addition, if the lion is more
sensual than intellectual,we may have to look elsewhere than to systematicprose for the lessons. Inspirationis not a matterfor traditionalinstruction,and it
1960, 254 [Discourses 1.55]); or in which Pompilus
be containedmore in impressionsthan in specifiNuma can claim to be on friendlytermswith a nymph may
cations. Indeed, the brevityof ThePrinceis evidence
(p. 161 [Discourses1.11]). Clever leaders could count that its messagemaybe as muchin what is not said as
on the good "feelings"of their constituentsand thus
in what is said. But I am not offeringjust one more
couldelicit devotioneven whenemployingintermittent
about hidden meanings and secret mesdeception.Modernprincesencounterno suchenviron- conjecture
The
lessons
concerningthe lion are in ThePrince
sages.
ment. Crude and excessiveclevernessnow prevails,24
I
will identifya few of them.If the fox
for
all
to
and
see,
to
the
affective
resources
available
and before the
of
that is intellectual,then the lion
is
the
forza
part
princeare overwhelmed,Machiavelliisolates and proheld
to representthe sensualpart.
can
be
reasonably
tects them in the image of the lion.
if
of
And
the
lion
Chiron's
is
ancestry,then there is
Otherscholarshavepaidspecialattentionto modern
than ferocity.27
more
to
the
lion's
sensuousness
much
corruption. Moravia (1964, 125), Paparelli (1970),
Sasso (1980), and Wolin (1960) all resist Machiavelli's
reputationas the cool and clinical political scientist;
instead,they tracehis drasticsuggestionsto a fear that 25 Of course, there is Nietzsche's (1966, 230-1 [Beyond Good and
the environmentin which humans must survive is
Evil 28]) famous tribute to Machiavelli that celebrates his particularly
allegrissimo. Adams (Machiavelli 1977) includes pasgrowingever more inhospitable,and thereforeserious non-German
his edition of The Prince, but he connects the
tacticalmeasuresmust be taken to ensure functional- sages frominNietzsche intheir
dissection of morality. Hulliung (1983)
two only
terms of
ity. But these scholarstend to bemoan or rationalize devotes a good deal of discussion to comparison of the two.
The Platonic agenda is maintained in Berlin's (1953) famous essay,
"The Hedgehog and the Fox," in which nary a mention of the lion
occurs in a discourse that locks political philosophy in a continuum
characterized by intellectual rather than active, affective relations
with reality.
27 Oblivious to Machiavelli's connection of Chiron and the lion,
Allen Gilbert (1938, 120-1), in a single passage, underestimates both
the aptitudes and the importance of the lion: "Nor is the lion here the
lion accompanying the virtue of Fortitude, as the portal of the
cathedral of Amiens; it is the lion of inhuman cruelty such as might
typify Hannibal, who succeeded by detestable measures. But the
concern of Machiavelli is not so much with force as with another sort
of brutish conduct, characterized by craft."
26

Machiavelli discusses one of Aesop's fables in a letter to Vettori.

It concerns the fox's encounters with the lion: "The first time he was
dying of fear, the second he stopped himself to observe him from
behind a bush, the third he spoke to him" (Machiavelli 1961b, 292
[Letters 138, 26 August 1513]). (La prima volta fu per morire di
paura, la seconda si ferm6 a guardarlo drieto un cespuglio, la terza
gli favell6.)
23
"quanto pii conoscitori delle cose naturali."
24
Merleau-Ponty (1964, 217) seems to recognize the imbalance
when he emphasizes Machiavelli's interest in emotional reward:
"The prince must have a feeling for these echoes that his words and
deeds arouse."
22

566

Amrcn
American Political
oiialSinc
eiw
Science Review

Vol.
o.9595, No.
o 3

MACHIAVELLI'S
LION

tudes, reverberatein the lion's capacityto resuscitate

Even though I focus on the image of the lion, my stillborncubs with an invigoratinglick (George and
1991, 48). Perhaps most interesting for my
primaryintentionis to identifyin Machiavelliconcerns Yapp
thatwill challengehis reputationas simplya proponent purposes,however,is that by the late MiddleAges the
of deception and violence. A demonstrationthat Ma- violent and impetuousqualitiesfirst attributedto the
lion had been mostlytransferredto the panther,which
chiavelliintendsall his departuresfrom foxinessto be
"a means of isolating and channeling the
provided
associatedwith the lion is less important,or feasible,
than a recognitionof the inadequaciesof only tactical aggressivecharacteristicstraditionallyattributedto the
lion" (Haist 1999, 11). The leopardis describedas so
advice in princely comportment.It certainlycan be
established that Machiavelli'sRenaissance audience impatient that it can tolerate only three or four
before seeking alternativeprey (McKenzie
might be disposed to associate the lion with complex pounces
1905,
394). In Machiavelli'stime, the authorityof the
sensualcharacteristics(like those associatedwith Chilion
was
linkedmore to courage,respect,and integrity
ron), instead of with mere ferocity.The lion had long than to
aggression and cruelty, thus solidifyingthe
since livedup to its regaletymologicalroots, especially
lion's
heraldic
identity(Yamamoto2000, 75-131). The
for Florentines,whose "Davidian"28
insecuritieswere
Machiavelli'saudience for a lion
bestiary
prepared
teased
the
frequently
by
imperialisticVenetians,whose whose
could
be temperedand enhancedwith
ferocity
mascotwas the wingedlion of San Marco.29Of course,
the
same
sensual
traits detected, albeit less
complex
the Florentines could respond with their own lion,
in
Chiron.
distinctly,
Marzocco,and Machiavellimade certain of the ramThe more commonlycited source of inspirationfor
pant lion's image on the parade groundsof the city's Machiavelli's
lion metaphor,however,is the Fablesof
militia (Bayley 1961, 255). Even on the cosmic level,
one
of
whichis mentionedin a letter to Vettori
Aesop,
the lion assumed prominence in Machiavelli'stime
292 [Letters138,26 August 1513]).
1961b,
(Machiavelli
throughlinkingthe nurturingsun to the constellation
notes the similarityof MachiaNajemy
(1993,
510-1)
Leo (Klingender1971, 456).
More pervasive,however,are two literarytraditions velli's renditionto that of the Latinversion published
that provide Machiavelliand his readersrich leonine by Ermolao Barbaro(1977). He fails to mention the
influence of a more famous edition, the exquisite
depictions.30The first is that of the bestiary, the
"Medici Aesop," a Greek language version almost
intriguingsynthesisof biology and mythologycontainilluminatedby the esteemed artistGherardo
certainly
ing picturesand descriptionsof animalsthat combine di Giovanni.
Although Machiavelliprobablydid not
the clinical with the whimsical.Descended from the
read
it
is impossiblethat he was unawareof the
Greek,
Greek and LatinPhysiologus,the continentalbestiaries
which
was
assembledto teach the ancient lantext,
were remarkablyconsistent(Barber1993, 12). Italian
to
the
children
of Lorenzo the Magnificent
guage
versionsappearedin the thirteenthcentury(Dardano
The
fable
in the Vettoriletter, on the
1989,
(Fahy
10).
a
subdivision
of
has
which
come to be known
1967,29),
lion
and
the
is
contained
in the MediciAesop and
fox,
as the bestiariotoscanoand a connectionwith Machiais
similar
to
it.
remarkably
velli hasbeen noted (Haist 1999,8). Even Machiavelli's
The importanceof the fables in the education of
purportedcollaborator,Leonardoda Vinci (see Mas- Machiavelli's
potentialpatronsand protege,then, sugters 1996),tried his hand at a bestiary(da Vinci [1939]
a
connection
to his lion. And, as in the bestiaries,
gests
1974), and Machiavelli'sown robust appreciationof
the
Tuscan
versions
of which actuallyinclude select
animal tropes is reinforced in his Dell'asino d'oro
fables
and
Wendriner1892),it is clearthat
(Goldstaub
(Machiavelli1965, 267-302). The lion in that poem is
the
lion's
is
as muchupon characteras
based
authority
firstdescribedas fierce and bestial (p. 275 [GoldenAss
muscle.
One
fable
in
the
Medici edition depicts
2.58]),but it is later revealedto be susceptibleto great upon
an
infirm
in
his
cave"
lion,
"dying
(Aesop 1989,93). All
pride and sadness(pp. 300-1 [GoldenAss 8.79-81]).
the
animals
come
one
to
theirrespects.The
except
pay
The bestiariesare clearin theirdepictionsof the lion
is
the
immune
to memories
fox,
exception
apparently
as a versatileand complexentity.The texts establishits
status as king of beasts and discuss the lion's affect. of the lion's magnetism.The limits of deception are
revealed in another
when a donkey disguises
Snakes, fire, and loud noises are among the lion's himself under a lion fable,The
skin.
ruse is exposed by the
phobias,which reinforcesthe image of a creatureof
"who
knew
the
difference
between
a donkey'sbray
fox,
complex and sympatheticemotions. The formidable and a lion's roar"
In
another
fable, an
(p.
136).
yet
of
sensuality Chiron, along with his medicinal aptilion
turns
to
in
when
aging
guile hunting
sappedof his
and strength (p. 161). The lions of
youthful
speed
28
Michelangelo's David is often associated with the Florentine
Aesop, and of the Medici version in particular,are
self-image: small and ingeneous, courageous in the face of giants.
charismaticas well as fierce. Their qualities are such
29 Even the biblical
lion contributes to the complexity. The lion's
that
association with Saint Mark regards not only the "royal dignity of
they cannot be imitated,and they are capableof
Christ" but also "a voice crying" (Mark 1:3). Regalness is complefoxiness when constrainedby loss of virility.For the
mented by pathos and loneliness. See Appleton and Bridges 1959, 60.
king of beasts, clevernessis more a retirementdiverFor the diversity of leonine depictions in the Venetian Republic, see
sion than a rare and inaccessibleaptitude.
Rizzi 2000.
These discussionsof Renaissancelions prepare us
30
If I were to explore both metaphors instead of just that of the lion,
for a returnto chapter18 and a revisedapprehension
I would need to add a third influence, that of Reynard the fox. See
Best 1983.
of the commentarythat immediatelyfollows Machia567

September2001
2001
September

Machiavelli
Lionizing
Lionizing Machiavelli
velli'smentionof the animalhybrid.Machiavelliintroduces two senses, sight and touch. Clearly,he means
touch in the figurativesense of "feeling,"since he says
that most people are capableonly of seeing, and that
the prince must therefore attend to appearance.Appearanceis the purviewof the fox, who in the fables is
unaffectedeven by the imminentdepartureof the lion,
andwhosecoldnessfacilitatesseemingoverbeing.And
the discussionis invariablyinterpretedto supportthe
preeminenceof cleverness in Machiavelli'sthinking.
Since manymore people can see things than can feel
them, the argumentgoes, the aptitudesattendanton
the visiblemustof necessitybe the most important(see
Blanchard1984;Feaver 1984;Marolda1979).
Touch is a rarer but no less importantaptitude;31
however, the lion's relative obscurityfacilitates the
faulty syllogismthat links importancewith frequency.
Althoughindividualcitizens may not often touch the
prince,the capableprincehas the capacityto touchthe
collectiveand be touchedby it. Sight is a sense, but it
is not sensual.The observantfox lives a lonelylife, dies
a lonely death, and is not a fully politicalanimal.It is
left to the lion side of the princeto undertakethe less
accessible but nonetheless crucial sensual aspect of
politics, to cultivate the inclinationto touch, and to
receive and revel in the touch of loyal adherents.
But beyondbrutestrengthand an impreciseconnection to the tactile,preciselywhatsensualelementsdoes
Machiavelli'slion bring to the political setting? I
suggestthat the lion standsfor virilityand community,
traits that are consistentwith Machiavelli'sgenerous
distributionof aptitudesto animals,with the inclusion
of Chironin the lineage of princelymodels, and with
the animalmythologythat surroundsMachiavelliand
his audience. They are also traits that appear frequentlyin ThePrincebut receiveinadequateattention.
AlthoughI will dividemy discussionof communityand
virility,in the end I will show they are quite interdependent.

Virility
Thatphysical,sensualprowess,the kindthat cannotbe
simulated,is importantto the princemay be linkedto
Machiavelli'spreoccupationwith the phenomenonof
time. The first substantivediscussionof virtu in The
Princeis associatednot withclevernessbutwithtime:It
cannot be wasted. Referringto the ancient Romans,
Machiavelli (1960, 22 [Prince

3])32

writes: "Never

wouldit havepleasedthem thatwhichis in the mouths

of all the expertsof our time, to relish the benefit of
time, so much better was their virtue and prudence;
Although the details must be saved for another essay, I would say
that Machiavelli's interest in moving from a principality to a republic
is dependent upon the extent to which the sense of touch can be
inspired and transferred from the princely few to the republican
many. For a detailed treatment of the sense of touch in Machiavelli,
see Blanchard 1996.
32 "Ne
piacque mai loro quello che tutto di e in bocca de' savii de'
nostri tempi, di godere el benefizio del tempo, ma si bene quello
della virt6 e prudenzia loro; perch6 el tempo si caccia innanzi ogni
cosa, e pu6 condurre seco bene come male e male come bene."
31

568

becausetime eventuallyovertakeseverything,and can

bringwith it good as well as bad and bad as well as
good."
In TheRepublic,Plato is not verykindto the warrior
character,Polemarchus,who is dismissedas a sweet
but gullible bumpkin.In Machiavelli'sdialogue, The
Art of War,Luigi,the counterpartto Plato'swarrior,is
given more sincere respect. Fabrizio, Machiavelli's
Socrates, chooses Luigi as interlocutorbecause his
youth predisposeshim to action (Machiavelli1961a,
398 [Artof War3]).33That he is more likely to carry out

(eseguire)the advicemakes him more fit to receive it.

Thereis a connectionbetweenyouthandaction,action
andpolitics.A cleverplan needs a vigorousproponent.
I believe Machiavelli'sdistastefor the normative,contemplativeapproachto politicsstems as muchfrom its
undesirabilityas from its infeasibility.Glory,courage,
and even more common appetitiveinterests are not
"settledfor," as self-preservationmay have been for
HobbesandLocke.Luigihas qualitiesandperspectives
thatarejust as importantto politicalsuccessas those of
the intellectual,and the intellectualdoes not have the
capacityto appreciatethat fully. Hobbes and Locke
may have chosen their prioritieson the basis of what
can be "trusted."Machiavelli'schoicesare not madeby
default.
The Prince is written for a Luigi. It is the most
optimistic of Machiavelli'sworks with regard to the
susceptibilityof fortune to human cleverness.In the
Discourses,humans are said to be restrictedby their
natural stubbornnessand the comfort they receive
from actinghabitually.Pocock (1972, 173), relyingon
these and similarcomments,attributesfortune'sultimate superiorityto humaninertia:"Wecannotchange
our naturesas fast as our circumstanceschange."Yet,
we are told that the princeis to have "a spiritdisposed
to changeitself accordingto the windsandto variations
of fortune that command"(Machiavelli1960, 73-4
[Prince 18]).34And this is immediatelyprecededby the
famous admonitionto simulate rather than embrace
conventionalvirtues.The simulator,the fox, is capable
of avoidinginertiaby remainingemotionallyaloof.
It appears that princely vulnerabilityissues more
from physicalfrailtythan intellectualdeficiencies.After all, Machiavelli'sancient heroes, Moses, Cyrus,
Romulus, and Theseus, owed to fortune only their
occasione,thatis, the time andplacepropitiousenough
to showcase their talents. Had they the abilities to
overcome the limitationsof time and space, our impressionis that theywouldhave owed fortunenothing.
Theywouldhave found an appropriatevenue for their
brilliance.Being mortals,however,they depended on
fortunefor the coincidenceof cause andcharisma.The
associationof time with Machiavelli'sconceptof virtue
is thus established.Whereasclevernessmay accumulate over time, virilityrequirestimelyexploitation.
33

Just as the young Callimaco "burnswith desire" (Machiavelli 1965,

62 [Mandragola1.1]), so does Luigi in his conversation with Fabrizio
(Machiavelli 1961a, 408 [Art of War 3]).
34 "un animo disposto a volgersi secondo ch'e' venti e le variazioni
della fortuna li comandono."

ceceRve
Review
Political Science
American
AeiaPoitia
Similarly,in Machiavelli'ssetting, the hero of the
day,CesareBorgia,found "onlyopposedto his designs
the brevity of Alexander'slife and his own illness"
(Machiavelli 1960, 39 [Prince 7]).35Even Borgia's mon-

umentalmistakein judgment,endorsingdella Rovere

for pope, was subtlylinked to his health rather than
deficiencies in cleverness.Just before discussingthe
"mistake"that was the cause of Borgia's demise,
Machiavellimentions a discussionwith Valentino in
which the duke claimedhe had consideredhis father's
prematuredepartureandwas readywith a cleverplan.
What Borgiacould not have anticipated,or overcome
even if he had anticipatedit, was his ownmortality:"To
everythinghe had found remedy,except that he never
thought, upon his [Alexander's]death, to be also
himself dying" (Machiavelli 1960, 39 [Prince 7]).36
Borgia'sclevernesswas compromisedby his mortality,
not by debilitatingintellectualdeficiencies.
In these discussionswe encountera sense of urgency.
Borgiais of "greatspirit,"and he has "greatintention"
as well as "so much fierceness"(Machiavelli1960, 39
[Prince 7]).37 These are transitory elements in his
princelyarsenal.Machiavelliis hesitantto distracthis
young students with merciless analyticalscrutinyof
Borgia, like those included in Legazioni(Machiavelli
1964, 599 [Legations 1]).38 Luigi and his ilk (Lorenzo)

are inspired to act, to take advantageof what is a

limited window. A few errors in cleverness are not
nearly as disabling as an occasion lost in analytical
paralysis.
It is not surprising,given the scholarlyfocus on
Machiavelli'sfoxiness,that some commentatorsassert
that Machiavelli'snemesis, fortune, can be overcome
by literary fame. Although Moses, Cyrus, Romulus,
and Theseus may depend upon "occasione"for their
successes, Machiavelli'seventual triumph is guaranteed as long as he has readers(Strauss1958, 168; see
also Flaumenhaft1978). Clevernessis cumulative,and
all one needs is eyes to take it in and an intellectual
aptitudeto employit. It can be passedfromgeneration
to generation,perhapsmost effectivelyin the form of
books. Even death, it is argued,can be outfoxed.
Yet, althoughPlato and his acolytes might suggest
that talking and thinkingabout wine are superiorto
drinkingit (Strauss1959, 31), Machiavelliinsists that
the thought is deficientwithout proximateaction. In
appreciatingthe youth of Luigi,and the corresponding
qualitiesof spiritand courage,Machiavelli,ratherthan
escape intellectualism,addresses its limitations.The
lion feels, and a victorywithoutthe abilityto be present
to revel in it is hollow indeed (see Machiavelli1965,
300 [GoldenAss 8.76]). Until Machiavelli'sbanishment, writingwas ancillaryto his political endeavors.
Prowesscannotbe experiencedvicariously,and unlike
"solo si oppose alli sua disegni la brevita della vita di Alessandro
e la malattia sua."
36 "a tutto aveva trovato
remedio, eccetto che non penso mai, in su
la sua morte, di stare ancora lui per morire."
37 "l'animo grande e la sua intenzione alta," "tanta ferocia."
38 For a full treatment of Machiavelli's various
positions on Borgia,
see Sasso 1966. Gilbert (1965, 170) also discusses the treatment of
Borgia in The Prince compared to other of Machiavelli's works.
35

Vol.
ol 95,
5 No.
o 3

cleverness, is not cumulative.Rather, prowess is a

perishablecommodity.It is powerfulonly when it is
fresh, and it is difficult,if not impossible,to simulate
freshness.As his friendsjoked and worriedabout the
depth of Barbera'saffections,Machiavellihimself, in
the autobiographicalcharacterof Clizia's Nicomaco
and in his poem to Barbera,considers the limits of
simulation.In this context,then, even the bawdiestof
Machiavelli'sletters may be consulted with motives
more respectablethan salacious.
Machiavelli(1960, 101 [Prince25]) states that fortune favorsthe young;he does not write"hewho seems
to be young."The advantageof seemingover being is
reservedfor the foxy characteristics.In terms of the
lion, beingyoungis preferableto seemingyoung,39and
the passion and vigor of youth, and youth'sfollowers,
cannotbe replicatedin lifeless fame. Pertinax,regardless of his leadershipskills, drew not just hatred but
"contempt" (disprezzo)from a constituency disenchantedwith his advancedyears(pp. 79-80 [Prince6]).
In this sense, then, politics involves more than the
Socraticrather than less. Certainly,Machiavelligave
up on TheRepublic,but as much because of deficiencies of the model as because of deficienciesof the raw
materials.For Machiavelli,intellectualrewardsare not
especially compelling, and they certainly are insufficient to sustain a vibrantpolity or an effectivepolitician.

I now may addressjust why Machiavelli'sanalytical

discussions(in the case of this article,the corruptionof
modern societies) must often be sought outside The
Prince. Helpful are the works of those scholarswho
resist the mainstreamnotion that The Princeand the
Discoursestogether form a seamless, synthetictreatment of comparativeregimes(see Mansfieldand Tarcov 1996, xx-xxvii; Strauss 1958, 17-53). Especially
helpful are the insightsof Felix Gilbert (1953, 153-6;
see also Dionisotti 1980, 257), who shows that The
Princeis a timelydiscussionof contemporaryconcerns,
whereasthe Discoursesis more reservedand historical
in focus. Gilbert'sanalysis,however, attempts to explainMachiavelli'smigrationto historicalanalysiswith
biographicaldetails (see also Godman1998). Machiavelli turns to history, we are told, because of the
influenceof his comradesin the Orti Oricellari.
I believe Machiavelli'sapproach changes not because of the influenceof his audiencebut because of
his recognitionthatpotentialprincesrequirea message
differentfromthat neededby the eruditebut politically
impotentaristocratsof Machiavelli'sgardenconversations. ThePrinceis a handbookof action addressedto
those capable of acting; the Discoursesis a work of
reflectionaddressedto those whose opportunitiesbetraytheir intelligence.Reflectionalone can be dreary,
counterproductiveto princelyinspiration.There may
be at least some accuracyto Machiavelli'sfacetious
Machiavelli's two plays, Mandragola and Clizia, make the point.
Clizia, an adaptation of Plautus's Casina, enhances the wit of the
main character, Nicomaco (Stalino in Casina), and emphasizes his
age. This leaves no doubt that the operative distinction between the
successful Callimaco in Mandragola and the humiliated Nicomaco of
Clizia is the difference in their ages. See Lukes 1981.

39

569

September
2001
September 2001

LionizingMachiavelli
Machiavelli
Lionizing
claimsregardingthe tediumof the Discoursesand that
he was "forced"to write them.40
But when Machiavellisees in his audiencea potential for action, he tempersthe lengthy,dry, historical
analysisappropriatefor the intellectualaudienceof the
Discourseswith the "spirited"policyrecommendations

prince to read history, suggests that Machiavelli

"makesthe humanistclaim for textualimitationeven
more forcefullyby comparingskill in governmentto
skill in reading,by makingthe ruler'slandscapeinto a
text and the text into a realm of forces. The prince is
advised to read the terrain (impararela natura de' siti)."

Indeed, the prince is to learn about nature by

subjectinghis body to nature'sinconveniences(disagi)
the Discourses. Machiavelli (1960, 274 [Discourses
(Machiavelli1960, 63 [Prince14]). But imparare(to
2.Preface])is quite sincere when he states that even learn), Machiavelli'sterm, is rendered "to read" by
though older men are more prudent, their physical Kahn.To conflatethe readingof historyand trudging
weaknessclouds their judgment.Full "cognition"can throughthe bush into one type of exercise is to miss
be achieved only when affairs can be "handled" the counterpositionof the fox and the lion. Machiavelli
(p. 63 [Prince14]), after all, encouragesthe prince to
(maneggiare) as well as seen (p. 272 [Discourses 2.Preface]). Politics,a balanceof fox and lion, shirksanalysis learn the countrysideby huntingin it, a far cry from
when it disruptsor deflatesaction.In the Discourseswe
readingaboutit. For him, landscapeis not a text to be
encounter the ambiguityof two competing theories read and manipulatedto fit some princelymetanarraregardingthe founding of Rome (p. 128 [Discourses tive. Rather, the landscape provides limitations to
1.1]),but princelyresolveis boosted in ThePrincewith clevernessanddemandsthe less fungibletraitsof youth
only one (p. 31 [Prince6]). Ambivalenceis intellectu- and vigor.43It takes more than an intellectual plan to
allysophisticated;politically,it can be deadly.It should bringdown a wolf and maintaina domain.The prince
not be surprisingthatthe scholarmustleave ThePrince is not just consummatecleverness. He is, rather, a
to find a more analyticaltreatmentof the corruption difficultsynthesisin which youth and vigor must parthat I argue provokes Machiavelli'smigration from ticipate.
This perspectiveactivatesthe "muchdebated quescentaurto lion and fox. It is importantfor the budding
princeto adopt lion behavior.Preciselywhy two sepa- tion whetherthe Italiannationalismof the last chapter
forms an integral part of Machiavelli'spolitical outrate animals are more appropriatemodels than one
mythicalcreature is a discussion left for the other, look"(Gilbert1939,483). All too often, the sincerityof
more contemplative,audienceof the Discourses.
chapter26 is dismissedby those who cannotreconcile
Fromthis perspective,ThePrincedoes not "forgive" the apparenthyperbolewith the intellectualaptitudes
Borgiahis impetuosity.Thatis an aspectof his princely of Lorenzo, Machiavelli'ssecond choice (Borsellino
1989, 111; Godman 1998, 300; Prezzolini1954, 168).
character,of his virility.AlthoughMachiavellimaynot
he
could
when
have
he
believe
Yet, Machiavellimakes it clear that a good prince is
says
Borgia
necessarily
Machiavelli
does
enjoy hearing not so much brilliantas opportunistic.Takingadvanconqueredeverything,
him say it, and he is certainthat Borgia'sfollowersand tage of an opportunityelicits a communal"enjoyment"
even Fortuna herself, who prefers the "audacious" (si godono) that is capable of distractinghim from
(Machiavelli1960, 101 [Prince25]), are equally im- analyticaldissection (non cercanoaltro) (Machiavelli
1960,97 [Prince24]). And to take such advantage,the
pressedwithhis hubris.MachiavelliadmiresBorgianot
prince needs vigor and virility,traits of the lion, as
only because he is clever but also because he has the
much as he needs cleverness.Indeed, Machiavelli(p.
strengthand inclinationfor tactile experienceof the
and
103 [Prince26]) findsa "genius"(ingegno)in the Italian
the
the
the
the
rivers,
"hills,
plains,
valleys,
These
are
63
citizenry,and he is not exaggerating.He detects in the
princely
swamps" (p.
[Prince 14]).42
not an intellectualbrilliancebut an emotional,
those
often
mentioned
not
by
preoccupeople
specifications
pied with Machiavelli'sfocus on cleverness.Whenthey communalinclinationthat is in suspendedanimation.
are mentioned, interesting maneuvers ensue. Kahn To the lion falls the responsibilityof awakeningthem
from dormancy.
(1986, 64), who notes the foxy recommendationto the
Machiavelli(1960, 102 [Prince26]), having intro40 Gilbert
the healing arts through Chiron, exploits the
duced
Francesco
Machiavelli's
Guicthat
friend,
argues
(1965)
surname of The Prince's recipient with a medical
ciardini, turned away from politics and toward history in response to
the disappointments of the optimism and humanism of the early
analogyin the last chapter:"As if without life, [Italy]
Renaissance. Gilbert argues that Machiavelli retained an interest in
No
awaits that which can be cures to its injuries."44
politics because the collapse of Florence was not so imminent when
doubt the physicianneed be clever, but the capable
he wrote. Yet, surely, Machiavelli experienced the ambiguities of
Renaissance life as intensely as Guicciardini. A trusted advisor to the
practitioneralso must carrya supremeconfidenceto
leaders of the Florentine Republic, Machiavelli suffered six drops of
the task. Expertisemust be balancedwith "feeling,"
the strappado and banishment from Florence at the hands of the
with
the belief that the patient is worthy of the
resurgent Medici. He was immersed in the cultural achievements of
and the physicianis supremelyqualifiedto
treatment
to
the
its
he
lamented
Florence, yet
embarrassing vulnerability
of The Prince.41 That The Prince is a shorter, less

analyticalwork does not mean it is less profoundthan

invading French. Gilbert does not fully recognize that history is not
the only recourse to the ambiguity of the present. As a politico,
Machiavelli strikes a delicate balance between consulting history and
ignoring or reformulating it for the sake of confident action.
41 Machiavelli
(1960, 14 [Prince Dedicatory]) literally imbues his gift
to Lorenzo with his "spirit" (animo).
42 "li
poggi, le valli, e' piani, e' fiumi, e' paludi che sono."

570

Machiavelli (1960, 16-25 [Prince 3]) reinforces the limitations of

cleverness yet again by encouraging the prince to go and live,
physically, in conquered territories.
44 "Come sanza vita,
espetta qual possa esser quello che sani le sua
ferite."

43

American
PoliticalScience
Science Review
Review
American Political
act on the patient'sbehalf,not to mentionthe requisite
confidence the patient must hold in the practitioner.
These are the traits of the sophisticatedlion, and if
those traitsare promulgatedin the body of the text, as
I demonstrate,then the last chapteris less anomalyand
more parting inspiration.In a book normallyinterpreted as an homage to cleverness,the closing reference to love (p. 105 [Prince26]) mayseem incongruous.
If the lessons about clevernessare balancedwith the
references to urgency,vitality, and virility, however,
then the references to love and being loved are not
surprising.

Vol. 95, No. 3

Vol.
py?" (Machiavelli 1965, 112 [Mandragola 5.6]).45 In-

deed, with few exceptions,46the scholarlyconsensusis

that LiguriorepresentsMachiavelli.47
But Liguriois a
sad and deficient character,described as a parasite,
who exploitsand manipulatesCallimaco'scourageand
initiative,which are qualitieshe lacks. In fact, Ligurio
is a paragonof those who "proceedcoldly" (freddamente procedono) (Machiavelli 1960, 101 [Prince 25])

and thus fail to seduce fortune. How can Liguriobe

considered a quintessentialMachiavellianwhen Machiavelli speaks so vehementlyof the deficienciesof
mercenariesand cynics?
In fact, Machiavelli'sdisdain for mercenaries is
difficultto explain in the context of a preoccupation
Community
with cleverness.Machiavellimakesthe point in chapter
Youth and vigor may be necessary components of
12 that mercenariesare immuneto foxy manipulation.
princely love, but they are not sufficient.The lion's Indeed,if theywere susceptible,princeswouldbe given
virility is complementedby its comradery.The lion
strategicadvice as to how to manufacturefealty. Inis young and strong but, unlike the fox, is a social stead,the princeis counseledto avoidthe employment
animalwhose poweris charismaticas well as muscular. of mercenarieslike the plague. That the prince is to
Achillesdistinguisheshimselfamongfellowwarriorsby rely on a native militia betrays the limitations of
sharing his emotions, even suffering,in captivating cleverness.What a native armycan provide,both for
itself and for its princelyleader,is a feeling of common
song (Homer1924,395, 397 [Iliad9.186,189]).Musicis
a shared experience; it reveals vulnerabilitiesthat purpose, which in soldiers inspires courage and in
lesserwarriorsmust sequester.The lion sharesloyalty, leaders inspires ambition and tenacity. Machiavelli
love, and passionwith its community,whereasthe fox
(1960, 54 [Prince12]) wantsto maintainthe passionof
remainscold and lonely. Whereas the unappreciated politics, despite its intermittentvenality,and the emfox may seek redemptionin posthumousrecognition, ployment of mercenaries debilitates that passion:
the lion and his communitythrive on shared experi- "Theyhave no other love or cause on the battlefield
ence.
than their stipend,which is not enough to make them
In an otherwiseexcellent biographyof Machiavelli, want to die for you."48The retentionof fearlesstroops
Sebastiande Grazia(1989)mustersonly a weaktribute is, of course, paramountto militarysuccess. But the
to his motivations.Obviouslytroubledby Machiavelli's feelingof the princethat his troopsare preparedto die
reputation for compromise and banality, de Grazia for him is also crucialto inspiredleadership.In both
(p. 175)putsforth"thecommongood"as Machiavelli's cases, clevernessis insufficient,and the comraderyand
true and compellingpassion. But having alreadyde- virilityof the lion are crucial.
scribed Machiavelli as the life of the party at the
De Grazia is partly right, but the common good
PalazzoVecchio, whose absencesare sorelymissedby oughtto be accompaniedby a verypersonalfeelingone
his less livelycompatriots,as a masterequestrianwho
can derive from the common good being served.Macould ride tirelesslyfor days on importantdiplomatic chiavelli'sappreciationfor the republicis founded on
missions,and as an oratorwhose skillsare not reserved its capacityto conditionits participants,with laws and
for charmingalliances of only the politicalvariety,it
religion, to appreciate something larger than thembecomes even more difficultto acceptthat for Machiavelli the point of it all is some uncertainand delayed 45 "Chi non sarebbe allegra?"
46 Dionisotti
(1984,644) is not so anxiousto equateMachiavelliwith
gratificationof a distant and nebulous cause. Having
he notes the similarlife experiencesof Machiavelliand
Ligurio;
"The
of
Point
It
with
All"
titled
preceded
chapters
which complicatesthe issue. Cavallini(1973, 79) states
"Irreverentand on the Go" and "The Fool in Love," Callimaco,
that the princein Mandragolais "nessunoin particolare."Although
we are asked not to allow "these biographicalques- Barber(1984) linksLiguriowith Machiavelli'sassociationof radical
withprincelyvirtu,he is not preparedto equateLigurio
tions... [to prevent us] from confrontingthe teleoadaptability
with the prince.But ambivalenceis the exception.Mansfield(2000,
issue"
There
is
no
in
logical
(p. 158).
apparently place
offersan unusualvindicationof Nicia, the cuckold.
the teleology of politics for "the sorrow Niccolo ex- 27-8)
47 Sasso (1988,vol. 3, 118) equatesMachiavelliwith Ligurio,who is
pressedat being out of politics,when in it he musthave able to succeed in the "artificial"environmentat what evaded
enjoyed it" (pp. 157-8). Essentially,de Graziajoins Machiavelliin the "serious"world.Lord(1979,817) recognizingthe
influenceof Hale (1961,186),simplystates:"Liguriois Machiavelli's
the Meinecke (1965) camp. Machiavelli'slife, like his
Pitkin (1984, 30) writes:"If one were to select one
self-portrait."
bad
contains
and
and
we
writings,
distractingthings,
characterin thisplaywithwhomMachiavellimightbestbe identified,
are askedto suspendour knowledgeof them in favorof
the choiceseems clearenough.It is not, despitethe possiblepun on
a more noble concern.
his name,Nicia,nor, as one mightconventionallysuppose,the hero
Callimaco.Instead,it is Ligurio,the authorof the plot." See also
If the common good were sufficientreason to do
Baldan (1980, 389), who arguesthat "Liguriois the projectionof
politics,then Machiavelli'shero would be Ligurio,the
Machiavelli."
clevertricksterof his play,Mandragola.After all, it was 48
"Chele non hanno altro amoren6 altra
che le tenga in
the successful implementation of his plan that campo,che un poco di stipendio,il qualenoncagione
e sufficientea fareche
promptedSostratato crow:"Whowould not be hap- voglinomorireper te."
571

vl
Machiavelli
Lionizing
io

selves. Not only is the common good served,but also

there is induced the kind of emotion that inspires a
citizen-soldierto riskhis life. Identifyingin Machiavelli
some hidden attachmentto humanist morality, and
thus to some nebulous "comunitaspirtuale"(Olschki
1970, 187) is not enough. The commongood must be
reinforcedby a sense of personalworth,contribution,
and grandeur.49
An importantpassage in The Princeseems to contradict an interpretationof the lion as complex and
communal:"Fortuneis woman, and it is necessary,
wantingto take her under, to beat her and knock her
around" (Machiavelli 1960, 101 [Prince 25]).50 Of
course, our modernsensitivitiesdrawus, mostlycritically,to the rhetoricof male domination.At firstblush,
this is quintessentialmachismo,and the lion is a stock
character.Certainly,HannaPitkinbelieves it to be so.
For her, the Renaissance is defined by a sense of
autonomyin rebellionagainstthe dependentmentality
of the MiddleAges. Machiavelli'sapparentmachismo,
then, is said to represent the hubris of Renaissance
autonomy.
The lion prevails,however,becausefortune"allows"
it (lasciare). Autonomy is not the key to the lion's force.

The lion relies more on a visceralattractivenessthat

accompaniesvirility,impetuosity,and sensuality.Fortune, like the rest of the lion's constituency,allows
herselfto be influenced.This is a muchmore complex
and tenuous matterthan sheer machismoor "autonomy,"and Machiavelliis not the Renaissanceman that
Pitkinclaims.Cleverness,the fox, may producea kind
of autonomy,but the lion, crucialto princelysuccess,is
actuallyquite vulnerable.The lion's audienceis fickle
and transitory,but it is willing to forgive mistakesof
clevernessamongits favorites.Ligurio,the epitome of
freddezza,despitehis superbfoxiness,is nevergoing to
conquerfortune,not because he is not smartenough,
but because he is not erotic enough. At least one
perceptivescholarhas recognizedthat the real source
of powerin Mandragolalies withLucrezia;like fortune,
she "allows"herself to be won over by Callimaco
(D'Amico 1984), and his princely success depends
upon Lucrezia's unpredictable,perhaps impetuous,
inclinations.He can only hope he has the sensual
characteristics,of which youth is perhaps the most
indispensable,to elicit her favors.
Lions are not autonomous. They are communal
animalsthat demandthe respectof their enemies and
the loyaltyof theirfriends.Autonomywouldmeanthat
the lion rapes fortune in ThePrince,which is Pitkin's
impression.But rape is enjoyableto neither assailant
nor victim,and both fortuneand the prince'scitizenry
would soon rebel. In fact, Machiavellifrequentlydiscusses,figurativelyand literally,the devastatingreperIt is Locke, not Machiavelli, who has trouble in this regard. Locke
can only advise his self-interested soldiers that a certain death for
deserting is more dreadful than an uncertain death for holding firm
in battle. See Locke 1960, 407 (Second Treatise,sec. 139).
50 "Io iudico bene
questo, che sia meglio essere impetuoso che
respettivo, perch6 la fortuna & donna; et e necessario, volendola
tenere sotto, batterla et urtarla. E si vede che la si lascia piu vincere
da questi, che da quelli che freddamente procedono."
49

572

September 2001

cussions of rapaciousbehavior(Machiavelli1960, 46,

75, 149 [Prince 9, 19; Discourses 1.7]).

The lion's aversionto rape may help clarifya puzzling section of The Prince,regardingthe differences
between Cesare Borgia and Agathocles the Sicilian.
Kahn, stressingcleverness,argues that Machiavelliis
testing his audience when he distinguishesthe two
leaders.The basis for her positionis her identification
of "striking analogies" in their respective careers
(Kahn 1986, 73). The clever reader will see that in
condemningAgathoclesfor his excessivecruelty,Machiavelliis conveyingthe same messageto his readers
thatBorgiasent to the people of Cesenawhenhe killed
his fall guy, Remirro,and left him in two pieces in the
piazza.The lesson to the clever is that all actions are
amenableto the mollificationof cleverness.
Kahn'sargumentis more compellingthan those of
scholarswho excavatethe historicalrecordfor factual
distinctionsthat were never mentionedby Machiavelli
(Price 1977; Wooton 1994). In fact, it seems that
Machiavelliintentionallycorrelatesthe deeds of the
two men. Nevertheless,we should not overlook the
largerdiscussionin which Agathoclesand Borgia are
found. There is a third individualin the comparison,
Oliverottoda Fermo, who is advertisedas a modern
Agathocles and whose power issues not only from a
parricidebut also from a massacrethat eliminates"all
of the first men of Fermo" (Machiavelli 1960, 43
[Prince8]).51Oliverotto does no less than erase the
entire context in which his newly gained power could
be relishedand celebrated.We learnthat the fatherhe
kills is not his naturalfatherbut a generousuncle who
had come to love Oliverottovoluntarily.How doubly
sweet the celebrationwould have been had Oliverotto
the opportunityto returnall the favors.
Although Borgia, Agathocles, and even Oliverotto
may have committedsimilardeeds, we detect distinctions in the portrayalsof how they felt about those
deeds. If the lion is important, then Machiavelli's
prince needs to be able to commitjudiciousand foxy
cruelty(even murder)withoutsuccumbingto, or instigating,debilitatingcynicism.He needs to do so quickly
and then return to an appreciative and receptive
audience.Borgiaendsup killingOliverotto,cruelly,but
we are content with the deed. And our happiness
allowsBorgiato maintainan identitynot fully defined
by his intrigues.As Merleau-Ponty(1964, 213) notes,
"pureviolence can only be episodic."
The difficultyin distinguishingAgathoclesfromBorgia, then, stems directlyfrom the difficultyin seeing
ThePrinceas morethana handbookon cleverness.The
deeds maybe strategicallysimilar,but the wayin which
the perpetratorcontemplatesthem is not. Machiavelli
needs the princeto believe he can commitcrimesand
still feel pride and respect.And regardlessof historical
detail,MachiavelliportraysAgathoclesas a superbfox,
who indeedowes nothingto fortune.But in his cruelty,
like Oliverotto with whom he is linked, Agathocles
depriveshimselfof the very reason to pursuepolitics.
The interests and aptitudes of the lion must be ac51

"tutti li primi uomini di Fermo."

American Political Science Review

knowledged, especially when the environment is

fraughtwithfoxiness.Agathoclesis a rapist,so beneath
the civilityof his constituentslies at best a resentful
resignationto the authorityof a lonesomedeviant.The
lion, conversely,may be macho,but he is not isolated.
His machismo demands of his audience a voluntary
infatuation,and thus he is dependenton his audience
in ways the fox is not.

CONCLUSION
Whereas the Discoursesmore thoroughlydissect the
who, what, when, and how of politics, ThePrincealso
entertainsthe why. Recognizingthat clevernessalone
is not enough to inspire the political enterprise,Machiavelliintroducesthe lion as accompanimentto the
more famous fox. In response to the why of politics,
Plato's "idea of the good" is utterlyuninspiring,and
the "commongood" is insufficient.Rather, the lion
representsa more satisfyingphysicalcomponentin the
political equation. The successfulprince may be tutored to avoid recklessness,but he is also young and
impetuous,infatuatedwith his position and attractive
to his constituents.He reads books, but he is also
restless,travelingand huntingthroughouthis domain.
He studieswarfare,but he also relishesjoining battle
amid an intimate fraternityof compatriots.He seeks
fame and glory,but he is also happyin doing so, not
driven.
These considerationsmodify standard interpretations of Machiavellianvirtui,at least thatwhichapplies
to princes.Clearly,fortunecan outwitthe earnest,and
the princeneeds to cultivatean aloof mutability.This
adviceis given soberlyand systematically.But fortune
is also contemptuousof the lonely and infirm,preferring the companyof the alpha. The leonine interests
are undertakenwithin a less programmaticbut more
pervasiveaura of gratification.The depiction of the
Italianpopulacein the last chapterof ThePrinceis that
of an unrequitedcourtesan,aching for a connection
with a young and compelling partner. Unlike the
precisionof his advice regardingthe establishmentof
fortresses or the selection of advisers, Machiavelli
(1960, 105 [Prince26]) "cannot express" (Ne posso
esprimere)the emotion awaitingreleasein this compelling combination.And this crescendois precededby a
promise in chapter6 that capablefounders,pursuant
tacticalsuccess,can look forwardto honor, happiness,
and venerazione (p. 32 [Prince 6]).

Princelyvirtue is a balance,then, of the clever and

the charismatic.Given the sophisticationand cynicism
of Machiavelli'scontemporaries,the balanceis difficult
to achieve. Clevernessmust be superblycamouflaged
and judiciouslyexploited,lest it dampenthe intoxication attendanton charisma.This is the complexmessage of Machiavelli'squintessentialpoliticalwork. To
impartthe messagehe chooseshis metaphorscarefully.
For the Italianprince the targetedimages of fox and
lion are superior to the more blurry image of the
centaur. With this enhanced precision, Machiavelli
recognizesand embracesthe prospectof shapingmar-

Vol. 95, No. 3

ble that has already been poorly begun by others

(Machiavelli1960, 162 [Discourses1.11]).
In ThePrince,Machiavellioften employsthe informal pronoun to address his buddingprince. Puzzled
scholars,seduced by the cleverness motif, invariably
concludethat this is no more than another"formadi
manipolazione"
(Di Maria1984,78; see also Chiappelli
1969,80; Raimondi1972, 266). Yet, tu is employedin
Italian when speaking to the young as well as to
intimates.I thinkMachiavellihas in mind a youngand
proximate individual,drawn to the prospect of the
imminent adulation of intimates. By addressinghis
young, aristocraticaudience in the familiar,Machiavelli is not employingjust anotherclevertrick.Rather,
he is displayingan honestywhose breadthis not always
foundin his scholarlytracts.Politics,for Machiavelli,is
a delicatebalanceof acumenand boldness,of knowing
and feeling. So it is hardlya trickwhen he moderates
his scholarlyinclinationsfor inspirationalreasons.In so
doing,he does not simplifyor censorwhathe knows.It
is neither ironic nor paradoxicalthat Machiavellican
claim to have put "allI know"aboutpoliticsinto such
a short work.52The princelyingredientsderivedfrom
the lion may necessitatea shorteningof his message,
but that hardlypreventsthe complicationsoften overlooked by his interpreters.There is more to Machiavelli than a debate about just how much he betrays
Plato.
52

Machiavelli has puzzled scholars by introducing both The Prince

and the Discourses with some sort of statement that what follows is
"all I know" about politics (Machiavelli 1960, 13, 121 [Prince
Dedicatory, Discourses Dedicatory]). In The Prince the verb employed is conoscere, rather than the sapere of the Discourses. Because

ThePrincecontainsthe enhancementsof the lion perspective,it is

not surprisingthat Machiavelliemploysthe verb that encompasses
sensualand personalperceptionsas well as intellectualknowledge.
He wroteto his friendFrancescoVettori,in his most famousletter,
that in ThePrincehe was "as profoundas I can be" (mi profondo
quantoio posso) (Machiavelli1961,304 [Letters140, 10 December
1513]).

REFERENCES
Aesop. 1989.TheMediciAesop,trans.BernardMcTigue.New York:
HarryN. Abrams.
Appleton, LeRoy H., and Stephen Bridges. 1959. Symbolismin
Art. New York:CharlesScribner'sSons.
Liturgical
Arieti,JamesA. 1995."TheMachiavellianChiron:Appearanceand
Reality in The Prince." Clio 24 (4): 381-97.
Bacon, Francis. [1869] 1973. TheAdvancement of Learning, ed. G. W.

Kitchin.London:J. M. Dent and Sons.

Baldan,Paolo. 1980."Sullavera naturadellaMandragolae dei suoi
personaggi."II Ponte34 (March-April):387-407.

Barbaro, Ermolao. 1977. Hermolai Barbariet GregoriiCorraii Fabu-

laeAesopicae,trans.JosephR. Berrigan.Lawrence,KS:Coronado.
Barber,Joseph A. 1984. "La strategialinguisticadi Ligurionella
Mandragola di Machiavelli." Italianistica 13 (September-Decem-

ber): 387-95.
Barber,Richard,ed. and trans. 1993. Bestiary.Woodbridge,UK:
Boydell.
Bayley, C. C. 1961. Warand Society in Renaissance Florence. Toronto:

Universityof TorontoPress.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1953. The Hedgehog and the Fox:An Essay on Tolstoy's

Viewof History.New York:Simonand Schuster.

Berlin,Isaiah.1982."TheOriginalityof Machiavelli."InAgainstthe
Current,ed. HenryHardy.New York:Penguin.Pp. 25-79.

573

LionizingMachiavelli
Bertelli, Sergio, and Piero Innocenti. 1979. BibliografiaMachiavelliana. Verona: Valdonega.
Best, Thomas W. 1983. Reynard the Fox. Boston: Twayne.
Blanchard, Kenneth C. 1996. "Being, Seeing, and Touching: Machiavelli's Modification of Platonic Epistemology." Review of Metaphysics 49 (3): 577-607.
Blanchard, Marc E. 1984. "The Lion and the Fox: Politics and
Autobiography in the Renaissance." Notebooks in CulturalAnalysis
1:53-86.
Borsellino, Nino. 1989. Niccolb Machiavelli. Bari: Laterza.
Burd, L. Arthur, ed. 1891. II Principe. Oxford: Clarendon.
Butterfield, Herbert. 1940. The Statecraftof Machiavelli. London: G.
Bell.
Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. "The Myth of the State." Fortune 29 (June):
165-206.
Cavallini, Giorgio. 1973. Interpretazionedella Mandragola. Milan:
Marzorati.
Chabod, Federico. 1980. Scrittisu Machiavelli. Torino: Einaudi.
Chiappelli, Fredi. 1969. Nuovi studi sul linguaggio del Machiavelli.
Florence: Le Monnier.
Cicero. 1913. De Officiis, trans. Walter Miller. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library.
Cochrane, Eric C. 1970. "Machiavelli visto dagli studiosi di scienza
politica in America." In Machiavellismo e antimachiavellici nel
Cinquecento. Florence: Olschki. Pp. 170-3.
Colish, Marcia L. 1978. "Cicero's De Officiis and Machiavelli's
Prince." SixteenthCenturyJournal 9 (4): 81-93.
Croce, Benedetto. [1914] 1993. Cultura e vita morale: Intermezzi
polemici, ed. Maria Antonietta Frangipani. Naples: Bibliopolis.
D'Amico, Jack. 1984. "The Virtuiof Women: Machiavelli's Mandragola and Cliza." Interpretation12 (May and September): 26173.
Dardano, Maurizio. 1967. "Note sul bestiario toscano." Italia dialettale 30: 29-117.
da Vinci, Leonardo. [1939] 1974. "Bestiario." In Scritti letterari,ed.
Augusto Marinoni. Milan: Rizzoli Editore. Pp. 97-114.
De Grazia, Sebastian. 1989. Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Derla, Luigi. 1980. "Machiavelli moralista (II)." Italianistica 10
(January-April): 21-35.
De Sanctis, Francesco. 1956. Storia della letteraturaitaliana, 2 vols,
ed. Maria Teresa Lanza. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Dietz, Mary G. 1986. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the
Politics of Deception." American Political Science Review 80 (September): 777-99.
Di Maria, Salvatore. 1984. "La struttura diologica nel Principe di
Machiavelli." Moder Language Notes 99 (January): 65-79.
Dionisotti, Carlo. 1980. Machiavellerie.Turin: Giulio Einaudi.
Dionisotti, Carlo. 1984. "Appunti sulla Mandragola." Belfagor 39
(November): 621-44.
Dotti, Ugo. 1979. Niccolo Machiavelli: La fenomenologia del potere.
Milano: Feltrinelli.
Fahy, Everett. 1989. "Introduction" to Aesop, The Medici Aesop,
trans. Bernard McTigue. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Pp. 7-15.
Feaver, George. 1984. "The Eyes of Argus: The Political Art of
Niccolo Machiavelli." Canadian Journal of Political Science 17
(September): 555-76.
Fido, Franco. 1977. Le metamorfosi del centauro: Studi e letture da
Boccaccio a Pirandello. Rome: Bulzoni.
Flaumenhaft, Mera J. 1978. "The Comic Remedy: Machiavelli's
Mandragola."Interpretation7 (May): 33-74.
Foscolo, Ugo. 1972. Edizione nationale delle opere di Ugo Foscolo, vol.
8: Prose politiche e letterarie dal 1811 al 1816, ed. Luigi Fass6.
Florence: Le Monnier.
Gentile, Giovanni. 1968. Studi sul Rinascimento. Vol. 15 of Opere
Complete. Florence: Sansoni.
George, Wilma, and Brunsdon Yapp. 1991. The Naming of the Beasts:
Natural History in the Medieval Bestiary. London: Gerald Duckworth.
Gilbert, Allan H. 1938. Machiavelli'sPrince and Its Forerunners:The
Prince as a Typical Book de Regimine Principum. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Gilbert, Felix. 1939. "The Humanist Concept of the Prince and The
Prince of Machiavelli." Journal of Modem History 11 (December):
449-83.

574

September 2001
Gilbert, Felix. 1953. "The Composition and Structure of Machiavelli's Discorsi." Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (January): 136-56.
Gilbert, Felix. 1965. Machiavelliand Guicciardini:Politics and History
in Sixteenth-CenturyFlorence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Godman, Peter. 1998. From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine
Humanism in the High Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Goldstaub, Maximilian, and Richard Wendriner, eds. 1892. Ein
tosco-venezianischerBestiarius. Halle, Germany: M. Niemeyer.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1966. Note sul Machiavelli sulla politica e sullo
Stato. Torino: Einaudi.
Haist, Margaret. 1999. "The Lion, Bloodline, and Kingship." In The
Markof the Beast: The MedievalBestiaryin Art, Life, and Literature,
ed. Debra Hassig. New York and London: Garland. Pp. 3-16.
Hale, J. R. 1961. Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy. London: English
Universities Press.
Hariman, Robert. 1989. "Composing Modernity in Machiavelli's
Prince."Journal of the History of Ideas 50 (January-March): 3-29.
Hexter, J. H. 1973. The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation: More, Machiavelli, Seyssel. New York: Basic Books.
Homer. 1924. The Iliad, 2 vols., trans. A. T. Murray.London: William
Heinemann, Loeb Classical Library.
Horace. 1914. The Odes and Epodes, trans. C. E. Bennett. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library.
Horkheimer, Max. 1982. "Egoism and the Freedom Movement: On
the Anthropology of the Bourgeois Era," trans. David J. Parent.
Telos 54 (Winter): 10-60.
Hulliung, Mark. 1983. Citizen Machiavelli. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kahn, Victoria. 1986. "Virtu and the Example of Agathocles in
Machiavelli's Prince." Representations13 (Winter): 63-83.
Klingender, Francis. 1971. Animals in Art and Thought. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lasswell, Harold D. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When,How. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, John. [1698] 1960. Two Treatisesof Government. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lord, Carnes. 1979. "On Machiavelli's Mandragola." Journal of
Politics 41 (August): 806-27.
Lukes, Timothy J. 1981. "Fortune Comes of Age (in Machiavelli's
Literary Works)." Sixteenth CenturyJournal 11 (Autumn): 33-50.
Lukes, Timothy J. 1984. "To Bamboozle with Goodness: The Political Advantages of Christianity in the Thought of Machiavelli."
Renaissance and Reformation 8 (November): 266-77.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1960. II Principe e Discorsi sopra la prima deca
di Tito Livio, ed. Sergio Bertelli. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Machiavelli, Niccol6. 1961a. Arte della guerra e scrittipolitici minori,
ed. Sergio Bertelli. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1961b. Lettere, ed. Franco Gaeta. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1963. It principe e altri scritti, ed. Gennaro
Sasso. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1964. Legazioni e commissarie, 3 vols., ed.
Sergio Bertelli. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1965. RI teatro e tutti gli scritti letterari, ed.
Franco Gaeta. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Mackie, C. J. 1997. "Achilles' Teachers: Chiron and Pheonix in the
Iliad." Greece and Rome 44 (April): 1-10.
Mansfield, Harvey C. 1975. "Strauss'sMachiavelli." Political Theory3
(4): 372-405.
Mansfield, Harvey C. 1985. "An Introduction to The Prince." In
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. vii-xxvii.
Mansfield, Harvey C. 1996. Machiavelli's Virtue.Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Mansfield, Harvey C. 2000. "The Cuckold in Machiavelli's Mandragola." In The Comedy and Tragedyof Machiavelli:Essays on the
Literary Works, ed. Vickie B. Sullivan. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. Pp. 1-29.
Mansfield, Harvey C., and Nathan Tarcov. 1996. "Introduction" to
Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pp. xvii-xlvii.

American Political Science Review

i

Vol. 95, No. 3

Marolda,Paolo. 1979."Le radicineoplatonichedel 'savio'machia-

Raimondi, Ezio. 1972. Politica e commedia: Dal Beroaldo al Machia-

velliano." La Rassegna della letteraturaitaliana 7: 95-116.

Masters, Roger D. 1996. Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of

Rebhorn, Wayne A. 1988. Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli's Confidence

Power.Notre Dame, IN, and London:Universityof Notre Dame

Press.
McKenzie, Kenneth. 1905. "UnpublishedManuscriptsof Italian
Bestiaries." Publications of the Modem Language Association of

America20: 380-433.

Meinecke, Freidrich. 1965. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison

d'Etat and Its Place in Modem History. New York: Praeger.

Merleau-Ponty,Maurice.1964."A Note on Machiavelli."In Signs,

trans.RichardC. McCleary.Evanston,IL: NorthwesternUniversity Press.Pp. 211-23.
Moravia, Alberto. 1965. L'uomo come fine e altri saggi. Milan:

Bompiani.

velli.Bologna:Mulino.
Men. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.

Ridolfi, Roberto. 1954. Vitadi Niccolb Machiavelli. Rome: Belardetti.

Rizzi, Alberto. 2000. I leoni di San Marco: il simbolo della Repubblica,

2 vols. Venice:Arsenale.
Russo, Luigi.1983.Machiavelli.Bari:Laterza.
Sabine,George, and ThomasThorson.1973.A Historyof Political
Theory,4th ed. Hinsdale,IL: Dryden.
Sasso, Gennaro. 1964. 11 pensiero politico di Niccolo Machiavelli.

Torino:RadiotelevisioneItaliana.

Sasso, Gennaro. 1966. Machiavelli e Cesare Borgia: Storia di un

guidizio. Roma: Ateneo.
Sasso, Gennaro. 1980. Niccolo Machiavelli: Storia del suo pensiero

politico.Bologna:Il Mulino.

Najemy, John M. 1993. Between Friends: Discourses of Power and

Desire in the Machiavelli-VettoriLetters of 1513-1515. Princeton,

Sasso, Gennaro. 1988. Machiavelli e gli antichi e altri saggi, 3 vols.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1966. Basic Writingsof Nietzsche, trans. Walter

Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modem Political

NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kaufmann.New York:Moder Library.

Olschki, Leonardo. 1970. "Machiavelliscienziato."In Machiavellismo e antimachiavellici nel Cinquecento. Florence: Olschki. Pp.

181-207.
Ovid. 1916. Metamorphoses,2 vols., trans. Frank Justus Miller.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, Loeb ClassicalLibrary.
Ovid. 1929. The Art of Love and Other Poems, trans. J. H. Mozley.

Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, Loeb ClassicalLibrary.

Paparelli,Gioacchino.1970. "Virtu e fortuna nel medioevo, nel
renascimentoe in Machiavelli."
Culturae scuola9 (33, 34):76-89.
Pico della Mirandola,Giovanni.[1496] 1942.De hominisdignitate,
Heptaplus, De ente et uno. Florence: Vallecchi.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1984. Fortune Is a Woman: Gender and
Politics in the Thoughtof Niccolo Machiavelli. Berkeley: University

of CaliforniaPress.
Plamenatz,John.1963.Manand Society,2 vols. New York:McGraw
Hill.
Plato. 1968. TheRepublicof Plato, trans.Allan Bloom. New York:
BasicBooks.
Plutarch.1909."Lifeof NumaPompilius."In Plutarch'sLives,trans.
A. H. Clough.Boston:Little,Brown.Pp. 127-59.
Pocock,J. G. A. 1972. "Customand Grace,Form and Matter:An
Approachto Machiavelli'sConceptof Innovation."In Machiavelli
and the Nature of Political Thought,ed. Martin Fleisher. New York:

Antheneum.Pp. 153-74.

Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. The MachiavellianMoment: FlorentinePolitical

Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, NJ:

PrincetonUniversityPress.
Prezzolini,Giuseppe.1954.Machiavellianticristo.Rome: Gherardo
Casini.

Milan:Ricciardi.

Thought,2 vols. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Skinner,Quentin.1981.Machiavelli.New York:Hill and Wang.
Strauss,Leo. 1958.Thoughtson Machiavelli.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Strauss,Leo. 1959. "What Is Political Philosophy?"In WhatIs
Political Philosophy? and Other Studies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pp. 9-55.
Strauss, Leo. 1962. "An Epilogue" In Essays on the Scientific Study of

Politics,ed. HerbertJ. Storing.New York: Holt, Rinehartand

Winston.Pp. 307-27.
Strauss,Leo, and Joseph Cropsey,eds. 1972. Historyof Political
Philosophy,2d ed. Chicago:Rand McNally.
Struever, Nancy S. 1992. Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the

Renaissance.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Suetonius.1957. The TwelveCaesars,trans. Robert Graves.Middlesex,England:Penguin.

Toffanin, Giuseppe. 1921. Machiavelli e il "Tacitismo":la "politica

storica" al tempo della Controriforma.Padua: Draghi.

Viroli, Maurizio.1990. "Machiavelliand the RepublicanIdea of

Politics." In Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. Gisela Bock,

Quentin Skinner,and MaurizioViroli. Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Pp. 143-71.
Viroli, Maurizio.1998. Machiavelli.New York: OxfordUniversity
Press.
Wolin, Sheldon. 1960. Politics and Vision: Continuityand Innovation
in WesternPolitical Thought. Boston: Little, Brown.

to Niccolo Machiavelli,SeWootton, David. 1994. "Introduction"

lected Political Writings,trans. David Wootton. Indianapolis, IN:

Hacket.Pp. xi-xliv.

Yamamoto, Dorothy. 2000. TheBoundaries of the Human in Medieval

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
EnglishLiterature.
Zanini,Adelino. 1984. "Machiavelli,l'etica contro il politico."Belfalgor39 (January):31-40.

575