Dan Snow's History Hit - Machiavelli

Episode Date: July 3, 2020

Since the release of Alexander Lee's masterly new work on Niccolò Machiavelli, I just had to get him on the pod to hear about this infamous man directly from the expert. Alex revealed the man behind the myth - his father’s penury, abuse he suffered at a teacher’s hands, his chaotic love life, political triumphs and an eventual fall from grace. By delving into the Renaissance world swirling through the courts of Borgia popes and the dungeons of the Stinche prison, Alex has taken time tot review Machiavelli's invidious reputation. Was this man really as sinister as he is often thought to be? Might he have been a more sympathetic figure, prone to political mishaps and personal dramas? An individual who is perhaps easier to love than be feared. Subscribe to History Hit and you'll get access to hundreds of history documentaries, as well as every single episode of this podcast from the beginning (400 extra episodes). We're running live podcasts on Zoom, we've got weekly quizzes where you can win prizes, and exclusive subscriber only articles. It's the ultimate history package. Just go to historyhit.tv to subscribe. Use code 'pod1' at checkout for your first month free and the following month for just £/€/$1.

Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. He has a reputation for being one of the most cynical, devious, brutal, immoral politicians in history. He did not have time, so the story goes, for niceties, being popular. He cares not what the public actually thought about their leaders he is interested only in the exercise of leadership of gaining power of climbing the greasy pole and cementing yourself to the top of it if that is a metaphor i don't think it is anyway i am of course not talking about anyone in the contemporary world i know what you're thinking i'm talking about machiavelli and there is a fantastic new biography out by Alexander Lee. He is a research fellow at the University of Warwick.

He's a fantastic communicator. He's a total ledge. And he's talking about the life and times of Niccolo Machiavelli. Why does this person have such a unique hold over the popular imagination? And are we right in ascribing to him all these sinister motives and techniques? This is so fun. this was the live podcast subscribers to history hit tv can come on once a week to the live podcast this week i was at stonehenge among the stones i had the giant sarsen stones i was sheltering behind the sarsen stones from that icy westerly wind that was howling across salisbury plain and i was talking

to one of the team who has helped to make some remarkable discoveries on that Stonehenge Neolithic landscape that you'll have all read about. So that podcast will be coming soon. That was great. So thanks to everyone who joined that one. This one was with Alexander Lee a couple of weeks ago. I thought what I'd do would be really clever and sneak out on my boat. It was a lovely hot night and do it from my boat using mobile telephony, mobile internet. That plan collapsed when I couldn't get my earphones to talk to my laptop, to talk to my phone, to talk to anything. So I had to go into the local boat club and record it in the corridor leading to the toilets. So if the sound quality is average, that's why. That's why.

This is, you're behind the curtain now everyone you're by i'm letting you in behind the curtain but alexander lee was an absolute legend i hope to get him doing more on history hit because i think it's such a wonderful subject and he is such a passionate communicator if you want to become a subscriber to history at tv join those weekly zoom calls or just watch the netflix of history please go to history hit dot tv use the code pod one pod one and you get a month for free. Then you get one month for just one pound, euro or dollar. I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's a sweet deal. In the meantime, here's Alexander Lee. Enjoy. Alex Lee, thank you very much for coming on the podcast.

Well, thank you very much for having me. Let's start with not his political philosophy and how important it was. What do we know about the man that was Machiavelli? Where did he come from? Well, we actually know a colossal amount about Machiavelli, largely because he left behind a very large number of fantastically vivid letters to his friends, to his family, to all the major personalities of the day in fact and from these letters we get a hugely clear picture of his origins, his life, his loves, his concerns, his failures, his successes, everything

in short. He was born on the 3rd of May 1469 in Florence to a family which was very proud of its origins. They like to say they were rich nobles from the countryside south of Florence, but they'd kind of fallen, not on hard times, but they certainly weren't living up to their pretensions. The family Palazzo, just south of the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, a beautiful location, pretty run down. Sadly, it's been destroyed. It was destroyed in the Second World War, but we know that it was divided into lots of different houses and Machiavelli's dad, a guy called Bernardo, lived in one

of the little houses that form part of it with his family. Bernardo was a lovely guy, really nice, very well educated, knew pretty much everybody in Florence, but he was also a bit of a duffer. He never really achieved the potential that he obviously had, although he did a lot of important things and wrote, for example, a topographical index to Livy's history of Rome. He never practiced a profession. He trained as a lawyer lawyer but he doesn't seem to have practiced and this was partly because he was a public debtor if you owed money to the state in Renaissance Florence then you were forbidden for example to hold public office and you couldn't be a member of another association of a professional nature another reason was that one of his kinsmen a little way

back had been involved in a rather silly plot against Florence's de facto rulers, the Medici. And a third reason was that there was some kind of question about his legitimacy. And of course, at the time, illegitimate people were also precluded from a certain place in society. So Machiavelli's dad didn't really amount to very much but he did obviously love his kids very much. He had a number of children of which Niccolo Machiavelli was one and he gave Niccolo Machiavelli a reasonably good education and we know quite a bit about that education as well because helpfully Machiavelli's dad Bernardo kept a diary which has survived and which gives us loads of great information about his life.

Was Florence at the time a place where well-educated young men of not enormous wealth and connection could rise into positions of importance? Absolutely, and that's part of the reason that Machiavelli's dad was so keen for him to receive a good education. At the time in Florence, learning was highly prized. The city had a kind of strange constitutional arrangement. It was notionally a republic but there were a family called the Medici who were fairly very rich and through a network of clients and associates and family members they exercised a kind of unofficial influence over the city. They

led the city without necessarily holding office. They were great patrons of art, as were a number of other important families at the time, and they also patronised literature. So if you were good at anything cultural production, if you were very talented at Latin composition, if you wrote poetry, if you could paint well or sculpt, you stood a good chance of attracting the attention of these wealthy patrons. So too, because it was a republic and had a very elaborate bureaucracy, if you were a skilled man of letters, you stood a chance of getting a pretty good job, if not in law, then in what we today would call the civil service. So Machiavelli's dad really takes care with his education to make sure that he has the best prospects he possibly could have. So he gives Machiavelli an education

in grammar, he learns how to speak, read and write well in Latin, although Machiavelli himself later didn't write very much in Latin. He is trained in something called abaco, which is kind of like a rudimentary mathematics for business purposes. It was very rough and ready though. And then he received a fuller training in rhetoric and poetry, the kind of thing that was expected of learned young men. Is the geopolitical context of northern Italy at the time important? What's going on with Florence? Are we allowed to talk about the Renaissance? What relationships are the cities? It's external aggressors like the French. What's happening? In short, Machiavelli's life coincides with one of the most turbulent periods in Italy's history ever. Kind of difficult to give a overview of this across his whole existence.

whole existence. It's probably best if we actually start at one particular moment and consider how Florence was placed at that time. So Machiavelli wasn't a great student but when he's going to be of age, 20, 21, 22 years old when he's just starting to go away to study possibly at the rudimentary University of Florence, the Medici are starting to attract his attention. He tries to get in with them, but in what will be a foretaste of everything that comes later, he chooses the wrong moment. Just at that time, in 1494, the King of France, Charles VIII, decides that he would like to conquer the Kingdom of Naples,

to which he has a claim. And so he invades Italy, he marches across the Alps and down through the peninsula to Naples. He's a very impetuous character. This catalyzes a huge conflict involving every single major Italian power, all of the myriad little statelets of which the peninsula was composed and draws in many of the major European powers at various points. From Florence's point of view the immediate impact of Charles' invasion is that it creates chaos.

Charles comes down. The Medici are absolutely terrified. They try to appease him so he doesn't cause too much damage to Tuscany on his way down. But in doing so, the Medici, that is Piero de' Medici, who's the head of the family, really botches it up badly. While Charles is in Tuscany, he allows Florence's major port, Pisa, to rebel, which means that Florence's economy has dealt a real body blow and in horror at what is happening, the Florentine elite kick the Medici out. So Florence is in turbulence. At that moment a religious firebrand called Savonarola Girolamo,

Savonarola comes to power in Florence. He stays in power for about four years but eventually when he tumbles out of power Machiavelli is elected to public office for the first time, largely because he is a bit of an outsider. Florence finds itself in the midst of a huge conflict that has been left behind by Charles VIII, who by this time has died in a rather silly way. You've got a huge conflict in the south of Italy between France and Spain now. The papacy is involved. Alexander VI, whom everybody knows from the Borgia series, is desperately concerned about the French presence. He wants to get French heads or maybe work with them. He's a little bit ambivalent about this. Venice is anxious to grab as much land in northern Italy as it can and Florence is kind of stuck in the middle. So Florence's task is essentially one of recuperating its losses and surviving amidst a sea of troubles.

And Machiavelli's in the hot seat. Why is Machiavelli in the hot seat? What job is he doing at this point? In 1498, Machiavelli was elected to what was called the Second Chancellorship of Florence. to what was called the Second Chancellorship of Florence. At the time, Florence had lots and lots of elected councils, which were changing personnel every few months, but it also had a really sophisticated bureaucracy. Two main posts, a first chancellor,

who handled domestic affairs mostly, and a second chancellor who dealt relations with the subject cities in Tuscany. He's elected to this not because he's particularly good, because really in his youth he actually isn't. He's a bit average, to be honest. But because Florence has gone through so much turbulence after the military's fall, the fact that he is outside of everything recommends him to everybody. So he's elected to this position of second chancellor, and then a little while later he's elected to be secretary to what's effectively its defence ministry, its war ministry, a group called the Dieci di Baglia, the Ten of War.

So he's really running military affairs and relations with territories over which France rules. In terms of how he fits into political thinkers throughout history, you know, you think of, you know, Rousseau, Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, Hobbes. It sounds to me like, in terms of hands-on experience, Machiavelli, he has had his hands on the levers of power, unlike some of those other thinkers. Well, that's a really good point, actually.

Machiavelli, as you rightly say, and like a lot of political theorists, has a huge amount of experience. Between 1498, when he's elected second chancellor, and he's kept out of office in 1512, but he's imprisoned in 1513, he's almost constantly on the job. He's rushing around Europe,

trying to negotiate with different European powers, with the French, with the emperor, with different Italian potentates, with the pope etc. He's setting up an army for Florence, a citizen militia for the first time in about a century or so. He's writing letters to people all over the place and trying to ensure Florence's survival. Now this really can be seen reflected in his emphasis in all of his writings on realism, on what actually works. But there's also an irony in it, because although you're absolutely right to say that unlike a lot of political philosophers, Machiavelli had practical experience, that isn't to say that he was any good. He wasn't completely useless. Don't get me wrong. His achievements are many and various. Setting up the citizen militia on its own was a tremendous achievement. And in some cases, he does save Florence from a lot of bother, allows it to keep its head above water for a number of moments.

But he also makes a huge number of mistakes. But he also makes a huge number of mistakes. And this is one of the things that I was really very keen to draw attention to in the biography. At so many points in Machiavelli's career, we find him just getting it wrong, just fundamentally mucking things up. Because, to go back to that point that we were discussing at the very beginning, he's a really human character. Despite his reputation for brilliance, he's just like you and me. He's a flawed guy. He doesn't have a lot of experience to start with. He doesn't have any formal training in diplomacy, in war, in administration. He has to

make things up as he goes along and learn on the job. And he doesn't always do that terribly well. We've got some brilliant questions in, one from Armand Dangeaux and one from Christy, but we'll come to those in a second. Let's now ask about his writing. I always think this. If you fail in your life, which I'm on the way to doing, you can write a brilliant book almost about that kind of failure, a brutally, scathingly honest book.

And that's my big kind of plan in life, influenced by Machiavelli. What's the genesis of his writing? And is it something that was designed for policy makers in his contemporary world or was it like peeps in? Was it a kind of a gift to posterity? Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on Echoes of History, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed.

We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows, where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only to survive, but to conquer. Whether you're preparing for Assassin's Creed Shadows or fascinated by history and great stories, listen to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hits. There are new episodes every week.

To answer that, I think it's necessary to distinguish between the different types of works that Machiavelli writes. Although we all know his most important ones, the Prince, the Discorsi, the Art of War, they constitute a relatively small part of his oeuvre in general. In the early part of his career, that's to say the time when he is second chancellor of France and secretary of the DHG, he writes a large number of effectively policy papers, really. They are reports on diplomatic missions to France, to the German lands. They are reflective works on the role of fortune, how to combat the invidious effects of fate. They are pieces of advice on how to deal with rebels like the rebels of Pisa or the rebellious

cities of Arezzo and the towns of the Val di Chiana which rebel as a result of Cesare Borgia's intervention. These are really focused on practical measures. Machiavelli is looking to recommend to people in office, legislators, important citizens, a course of action for how to put Florence on a good course. After he is ejected from office, and I'm sure we'll talk a little bit later about those dramatic moments when he's kicked out of office, he changes tack. dramatic moment when he's kicked out of office, he changes tack because he's come from a relatively humble background and because he doesn't have a huge number of reserves to draw on. When he loses his job in 1512, he's actually on his uppers. He doesn't have a great deal of cash and he needs to make a living. He needs somehow to get back in with the powers that be. And so he devotes many, many years to trying to do that.

Works like The Prince are written with this in mind. The Prince is written in rather affecting circumstances on his farm in the countryside, Sant'Andrea in Parcocina, when he is really looking for a job. And it can best be read as a job application, telling the Medici, look I know the difficulties you're facing at this moment having just returned to Florence after being in exile for 20 years or so and here I'm going to tell you how you can deal with it best and in doing so you're going to see what a great advisor I could be. There's another body of works as well those can really be thought of as works for friends if you like. These comprise a large body of poetry, quite funny poems, some of which are written to his many mistresses,

some of which are carnival songs, which are very, very wickedly funny. We don't want to think of Machiavelli as a funny guy, but actually he's got a great sense of humour, and I really loved looking at that in the book. We have two complete surviving plays, and we know he wrote at least two more. He also did a couple of translations as well. And these are comedies.

They're remarkable works. They're designed to be performed by friends for friends in a garden. They're both tales of sexual misadventure and naughtiness. They're full of ribald jokes. And interestingly, they are thought to be the first pieces of theatre which constructively use sung musical interventions in a programmatic way and thus foreshadow I understand the development of opera now that's not my field so I defer to greater expertness the final kind of group is works like the discorsi this is written for friends it's written in specific circumstances

I'm sure we'll talk a little bit more about these gardens. He's a member of two gardens, but one in particular is very important called the Orti Argyllari. The Discorsi is a piece of advice for these young friends in a variety of different circumstances. It's a reflection on political matters, but he's kind of starting to play the role of elder statesman and advisor. Does he have an eye to posterity? I think at times he probably does. Certainly in the Discourse he has that in mind in the Florentine Histories, which is another work that is written for the powers that be. He's commissioned to write that by one of the Medici directly, a future Pope, Clement VII. So yeah, he's writing for posterity,

but he's also writing for a number of different purposes. And it's, I think, not terribly helpful to try and fit all his writings into one pigeonhole, if I can put it that way. Let's come on to those writings. He has such a powerful reputation. It's a reputation for being a brutal realist. Is the reputation for his sort of savage realism fair? How would he have characterised his political philosophy? I'm not completely certain that Machiavelli would have thought of himself as a political philosopher in the same terms that we do today, actually. I think he would have seen his major political works,

the ones which we're most familiar with, The Prince, The Discourse, as I said earlier, just as a work of advice to rulers. He thought of himself as a practical man. The works were intended to perform practical function. If we take the Prince, this is started in the summer, the autumn of Dean XIII. Machiavelli's been cast out of office. He's been arrested. He's been tortured.

He's really outside everything. He needs a job. So he thinks, well, what's happening with the Medici now? They have returned to Florence, as I said, after about 20 years. They have relied not on their own merits, really, as he says in the Prince, they have relied on other people to put them back where they are. In this case, he's relied on an essentially Spanish army to put him and the Pope Julius II to put them back in power. They've also relied on good luck. It just so happened that France's previous head of state, a guy called Piero Soderini, had rather mishandled his relations with the people. So the Medici are

there almost by accident accident as it were, not through any merits of their own. They inherit a very, very divided city which is very sensitive to external pressures, very vulnerable to being swept away by the tides of war which are still rushing back and forwards across Italy. So he sets himself the challenge of trying to back and forwards across Italy. So he sets himself the challenge of trying to divine what a ruler in Florence should do to keep his state in these circumstances. And yes, of course he's going to be practical, because what use is fine theorising in such circumstances? And he even says, you know, loads of people have written about this question before. It's been written about as long as people have been writing, in fact. Advice to princes, advice to rulers goes back to Greek philosophy, to the Romans as well. But most of these figures,

not all, but most of the figures who've written on this before, have been very keen on the idea of being good, goodness being the key to good rulership. And Machiavelli says, you know, this is all very nice, but actually it can end up getting you into terrible, terrible trouble. If you want to keep hold of your state, you need to have two things. Number one, you need a means of defending it. You need a jolly good army. Mercenaries are dangerous, so make sure you use your own people as soldiers, a citizen militia. The next thing you need is to have some means of controlling the people, of keeping them on side. If you try to do all the things that, you know, the classical moralists tell us, be honest, be generous, be merciful etc, you are going to be in

trouble fast. What do you do if a conspiracy comes along? Are you going to try and be so kind that everyone forgets all about the conspiracy? It's not going to work. So the best thing to do, he says, is to know how not to be good. When he talks about virtue he means not the classical sense of moral virtue but the sense of being a vir, being a tough guy, being a man. So he says you don't have to be honest. He's not saying lie all the time but he says just be prepared to be selective with the truth. Generosity is nice but if you give away all your money you're going to have to ask the people for more cash and they're gonna hate you for that so be stingy and mercy is nice but you can't rely on the love of a

people. If you build on love there's a chance that it could disappear. It's a very evanescent sentiment. So far better if you have to choose to instil fear. And that's not an unusual thing. It's often said that this is really, really radical. But actually it isn't that radical at all. Other Florentines known to Machiavelli had been saying the same thing for a considerable time. Back in 1499, Florence, while it was trying to recover Pisa, the port city that it had lost in 1498, it employed a nursery general called Paolo Vitelli, who had a thing so badly that he could only be

an idiot or a traitor. And so the Florentines, they have a big debate about whether to execute him or not. And one guy at that debate called Bernardo Ruccellai says look, in matters of state you can't deal in love, you have to deal in fear. Kill this guy now, put the fear of God into whoever comes next. So it's an established line of thought but what makes it unusual is that it is a part of a bigger program of rulership. Certainly very few people had tried to build this sentiment into a bigger structure where honesty is qualified, where generosity is treated with scepticism. Now, if you've got a piece of writing which says fear is in some ways a more reliable foundation on which to build a regime than love. It's very easy

to look at that as a sentiment that's been written by quite a nasty piece of work and certainly in the years after Machiavelli's death when the reformation is in full swing and Catholics at the head of the counter-reformation are very preoccupied with the idea of the relationship between ethics and government. This kind of sentiment looks like the exact opposite of what they're trying to do. So it's no surprise that just reading the text on its own, someone like Reginald Pole, the English Cardinal who was very close to Bloody Mary, wrote that it was a work that had been written by Satan's hand. So too, when sometime later, after the St Bartholomew's Day massacre in France,

a Huguenot, a French Protestant writer, was trying to describe the actions of the King of France and his mother, Catherine de' Medici. He says, this is the result of Machiavellianism in practice. So if you take Machiavelli's sentiments kind of as bare statements out of their context they can look pretty savage, pretty ruthless and unkind. Now that's not to say that everyone read them that way. In fact pretty soon after Machiavelli finished writing it a number of his first readers assumed that this was such a shocking thing to say that actually he must have meant it ironically. There are certainly some scholars today who have also made this case and it's an interesting one but I think if you sit it against the background of what Machiavelli is doing or trying to do when

he writes the text it's actually quite a practical piece of advice. It's realistic, it's grounded in the needs of the Medici at that moment. I accidentally stole Claire Little, a History Hit subscriber, Claire Little's question when I asked about him receiving notoriety in his lifetime, but this time I'm going to credit Christy, who's got a question I wanted to enlarge on. Why do you think it endures to this day? I remember studying Machiavelli when I was at high school, in the politics of late 20th century Britain and America. We didn't find it particularly dark. We found it amusing that it was regarded as so heretical by some subsequent scholars. Is it because the sort

of realism feels more akin to the way that we expect politicians to operate now? I just hope their ambition and the interest of the state kind of coincide. I'm not expecting them to be particularly pious or driven by anything other than sort of practical advancement of the national project. Do you think that's why he endures today? I think I'm going to be venturing very much outside my field when I give my answer, so please treat what I'm saying as slightly informed speculation as much as anything else. I think Machiavelli endures for a variety of reasons. Number one, because, as I said, although many of the ideas with which he deals in The Prince, for example, are not hugely original, the way they're put together is distinctive. And the

fairly clear-headed pragmatism is not unknown but certainly extremely clearly stated and well stated. So that sets him apart tremendously from many of his contemporaries and certainly from many other humanistic writers on history and politics in the 15th and the 14th centuries. A second reason is that partly as a result of Machiavelli's own writings, and partly not, there emerges in the decades after his death an idea of reason of state, which is kind of connected with the idea that the state as an abstract entity inhabits a different moral universe to that of individuals or even groups, and so is not bound by the same moral restraints and this idea does start to become the bedrock of western political thought it's not

universally accepted it's not something that to which all authors appeal or even acknowledge but it comes part of the fabric of our thought and it certainly becomes part of the fabric of how we operate on a daily basis i think a third reason that Machiavelli is influential, and we often forget this actually, is the role of printing. Machiavelli is one of the very first generation of historians, theorists, writers of any variety who can have their works printed either during their lifetime or shortly afterwards. Now, Machiavelli himself actually doesn't put many of his works into print and I noticed that one of your subscribers actually asked this question a minute ago about how come the prints wasn't printed for the first

time until after his death. Machiavelli got burnt with printing the first time he tried it. Somebody nicked his book the Decinelli Primo so he only did it once again and then very unwillingly with The Art of War. But his friends, his executors, etc., his admirers, ensured that in the years shortly after his death, more and more of his works make it into print, and translations happen very quickly. The market for printed books in Italy at this time, in the mid-16th century, is tremendously vivid and active. A lot of people are very, very keen to read and absorb new texts, and particularly given that Italy is still going through a period of huge turbulence after his death, any advice that anyone can offer about how to stabilise your state is of interest. So those, I think, are the main kind of practical reasons, but I think maybe I'd like to add a fourth one.

Influence is, of course, easy to treat in terms of the impact of particular ideas and thoughts on later figures, views of the world. But we can also think of it, I think, rather more broadly as a sense of a cultural valency. How is it that Machiavelli looms so large in our imagination? Not everyone who talks about a Machiavelli or Machiavellianism today necessarily has studied the Decennale Prima or the Discorsi very closely. And there's no need to do so either. It's become part of compliance. So how did Machiavelli become that kind of figure? And how did he become this diabolical bogeyman who looms over political discourse every day? You can't open the paper these days without finding the word Machiavellian

somewhere. It's a bit curious because as I alluded to a little while ago readers of Machiavelli's works in the decades and centuries after his death had very different views of his thought. People read it in different ways. They read his works through the lens of their own times. They found in his writings what they wanted to find in them effectively. So I should say that that actually does help to embed him in everyday speech, if you like. But he does soon come to find a place in drama too. Regardless of whether or not people always agreed about how to read works like The Prince, when he appears first in drama he is turned into this diabolical figure. And so if we read for example Henry VI Part III, Shakespeare has Richard

III exclaim that he could change colours more than a chameleon, he could shift shapes more than a proteus, he could teach Machiavelli a thing or two. And it's in this guise, I think, of a kind of dramatic cipher that he really is cemented in popular imagination. I could listen to you talking all day I love your enthusiasm thank you very much indeed this has been a bumper episode about Machiavelli as it deserves to be really good luck with the book what is it called? Thank you it's called Machiavelli his life and time sorry to do the plug but there it is it's as the saying goes available for more good bookshops now. Well really good luck with it thank you for coming on the pod thank you

hope you enjoyed the podcast just before you go bit of a favor to ask i totally understand if you want to become a subscriber or pay me any cash money makes sense but if you could just do me a favorites for free go to itunes or wherever you get your podcast if you give it a five star rating and give it an absolutely glowing review, purge yourself, give it a glowing review, I'd really appreciate that. It's tough weather, the law of the jungle out there, and I need all the fire support I can get. So that will boost it up the charts.

It's so tiresome, but if you could do it, I'd be very, very grateful. Thank you. you