Ada Palmer – Machiavelli is the most misunderstood thinker of all time

So I'm gonna give a two part answer to that. Although, of course, with any granular history, there can be many parts. But the papacy is part of it, and then the city state structure of Italy is another part of it.

And I'll start with the city state structure. There's a principle in politics that when there's long continuity of a government and the government has been in power a long time, that government has a lot of legitimacy. People believe in its institutions.

People are used to it. Even if you complain about it, it's the government, etcetera. When you break that, when you overthrow the ruler, when you dissolve the republic, when you put in a new thing, it doesn't have that same staying power.

And so it's very common when there's one regime change for there then be five regime changes rapid fire over and over. We see this with how many iterations the French Republic goes through. The French Republic and then restored monarchy and then republic and then monarchy.

When a long thing cracks, boom boom boom boom boom, you get chaos. England's Wars of the Roses are similar. There was one stable dynasty for a long time.

The moment that a king is overthrown, then you have overthrow, overthrow, overthrow, overthrow for a long time because the thread of continuity was cut. In Machiavelli's lifetime, that thread of continuity is cut for the majority of cities in Italy. And that guarantees from his perspective that there's gonna be more and more and more and more overthrows in those governments.

Because if when Machiavelli was born, there were six or seven city states in Italy that had had their governments uprooted recently, by the time he's writing The Prince, it's dozens, and in fact, the majority of these places. Mhmm. So it's volatile.

Almost no government has staying power. Almost every government is ripe for yet another replacement, yet another replacement, yet another replacement. That's half the answer of why he perceives there to be this urgency and this guarantee that there cannot be stability.

The other half is the papacy. And the papacy, of course, is a long and evolving organism. Right?

The papacy is one of the oldest institutions in the world. Now, it was one of the oldest institutions of the world even then, even though this is five hundred years ago. And as we all know, when you have power centralized in an authority, especially an executive, there can be changes in how that executive uses that power.

And each one sets norms for the next one. And over the course of Machiavelli's lifetime and just before, a bunch of consecutive popes expanded executive power and especially the military side and launched more wars or did more arbitrary overthrow of governments. Because you have a number of city states that are directly ruled by the papacy.

And in theory, the pope can appoint anybody to be ruler of that city. And here's a pope. He has an illegitimate son.

He wants his illegitimate son to be ruler of something, so he overthrows the government of a city and puts in his son. The next pope does it to three cities. The next pope does it to five.

And soon, we have a precedent that every new pope feels he has the authority to knock down every pawn upon the chessboard if he feels like it. Once that is the norm, even a fairly nice pope still inherits the idea that the pope is going to overthrow and replace governments. And this creates a unique instability within Italy that no other part of Europe is subject to because there is no predictability to who's gonna be pope next.

It isn't hereditary. You can't plan for it. The next pope is elected.

As is often the case with elections, very frequently, the next pope will be elected by a coalition of all the people who hate the current pope. Mhmm. And one of the things that electoral politics does is that it tends to swing, in which those outside of power work hard to get into power with the next regime.

Which means if we assume that an the average length of a papacy is ten years in this period, every ten years, you suddenly have a completely unpredictable new monarch who's almost guaranteed to be one of the enemies of the old monarch and will therefore rip up and replace all of the things that that monarch tried to do with new things. So Machiavelli, when he's writing the last chapter of The Prince, is looking around and saying, okay, we have a perfect storm of practically every polity in this region has just had the threat of legitimacy cut. Its institutions have no traditions.

Its people have no investment in its current rulers. These are all pawns that have been knocked over before and barely stood up again. They're ready to fall.

And meanwhile, nothing will stop the turnover of popes. The only thing that could stop the turnover of popes would be one person gaining enough power and ascendancy near this region who has staying power, who has sons at heredity, that he can do what Cesar Borgia tried to do and have enough power near the papacy to strongly influence the next pope to create a kind of stability that's otherwise impossible.

not unify Italy, but stabilize Italy at the very least. Exactly. By having conquered enough of a chunk.

Yes. That the papacy fears them and must negotiate with them as opposed to the papacy being surrounded by small weakened powers that will constantly be turned over and turned over and turned over. And the pope now is a Medici.

Right? At that moment, yes.

I wanna know what he made of Cesare Borgia. Yeah. He spends a lot of the prints, in fact, trying to veil how much more he cares about Chisarmores than everyone else.

It's so interesting. He tries to be balanced. He tries to talk about this example and this example and this example and Valentino and this example.

And and and sometimes he just can't. Right? And there's that incredible magical moment when he's discussing Valentino's fall.

And the moment when he has amassed all this power, he successfully conquered almost everything within Italy. And then suddenly, both his father, the pope, and him fall ill at once. And when describes this, and he's saying, you know, everything Cesare Borgia did, he did right.

He conquered this kingdom. He would have kept it. The only reason he lost it was fortune.

And what Machiavelli should say is, Valentino had planned for every contingency at his father's death except the possibility that he would also be on death's door. But that's not what Machiavelli says. What Machiavelli says is he told me that he had planned.

The first person breaks in. Our historian cannot veil himself anywhere. He cares too much.

He told me, first person, that he had prepared for everything at the event of his father's death except the possibility that he himself would also be incapacitated at the moment. And it's such a magical moment where the veil between the author and the reader breaks for just that moment. And we're like, oh, yes.

All of these others he observed from a distance. But Machiavelli was in the room next to Valentino. I had Valentino's side through this and had the most incredible life changing first person view of this man so unique and charismatic and terrifying that when you read accounts of him, they range from this was the most incredible charismatic leader I've ever met to this man was supernaturally charismatic to the degree that he must be literally the antichrist or an incarnation of the angel of death on earth because I have no other explanation of how he could be so persuasive and charismatic.

And Machiavelli was in the room. And every so often, you just feel that he's still in the spell of this incredible figure at whose side he had the scariest job in the world. Right?

Because Machiavelli's job dealing with Cesare Borgia is it's very clear that the Borgia plan is to conquer the Papal states in the middle of Italy. And Tuscany, Florence's dominion, is this little notch like a puzzle piece out of the side of the papal states. And anybody with a map looking at it is like, you gotta conquer that.

You just have to conquer this. You can't have a kingdom without it. You have to.

There is no way to stop it. So what do you do? Machiavelli's advice to his polity is, this time we're not gonna succeed and persuade this conqueror to pass us by.

We can't bribe him into doing something else permanently. But we can buy time. And we can absolutely and abjectly swear to do anything he wants.

So we can give him our forces. And we can give him our money. We can pay him and help him conquer the rest of it.

And betray our allies, betray Bologna, which Florence had had a three hundred year alliance to defend Bologna. And he said, we have to break it. The whole world is broken right now.

We have to break every promise and every hereditary alliance we had. We must be at the side of this man, and the only possible surreal mechanism is to win from him through loyalty, through support, and through Machiavelli being at his ear, whispering forever, Florence is loyal. Florence is loyal.

By that, we buy the boon of Polyphemus, the terrifying promise of the conqueror. I like you, my guest. I'll eat you last.

That's the Republic's only hope. And that's Machiavelli's job, is to stand next to the scariest man who has lived in Europe since Frederick Barbarossa and whisper constantly in his ear, the Florentine Republic will support you and will give your grace anything you ask. Just eat us last.

you have empowered somebody who's stronger than you and whose mercy you're at? I mean, this is not Florence aiming to rise. This is not Florence expecting that it will gain anything by this.

This is Florence knowing it will lose. And Machiavelli is very open about the fact that if Alexander had lived another year, Valentino would have finished his conquest and taken Florence and taken it at last, it would have been over. But popes are mortal, and buying time is sometimes the survival mechanism.

And so Machiavelli has this incredible firsthand experience of being with Valentino through all of these decisions, being with him at the massacre at Senegalia when, you know, rumor had reached Valentino that some of his people were terrified of him and plotting to overthrow him. And then they were so scared of him, they decided to abandon the plot. And he heard and he met with them and told them, I forgive you.

It's okay. You know, you've renewed your loyalty to me. You've passed the test.

I trust you all is well. And then he invites them to the banquet and then massacres them all. The forgiveness is false.

The betrayals are punished. There's this amazing letter that's a couple months afterward for Immaculi's loved ones are writing from Florence because they've received a letter from him after the massacre at Synagogue. And they say, oh, thank god.

You're alive. We had no idea. All we heard was that he had massacred a large number of the people who were with him.

We didn't know if you were alive because it took months in the chaos. The postal system had completely break broken down. Right?

It took months for them to get word that Machiavelli was still alive. They didn't know whether he had been caught up in the conspiracy. He easily could have been on a list of names of people the conspirators intended to recruit and and be gone.

So his wife and his loved ones back at home, his children had to wait months to find out whether he too had been slaughtered, and it felt to them like a miracle that he hadn't. But it meant that he watched these incredible deeds of you encounter them, you forgive them, you renew vows of amity, sacred vows taken in the cathedral, and then you slaughter them at dinner violating the laws of hospitality. Right?

That Dante would say if you do that, you've committed such a grave sin that you're not just regular damned. A devil comes up out of hell and takes your soul out of your body and inhabits you, and that you're actually already in hell even though your body is still alive on earth because that's how heinous a sin this is. And yet, it works.

And all the rest of Valentino's men are more loyal to him afterward than ever before and won't even whisper to each other about dissatisfaction because even the faintest whiff of conspiracy might result in death. So why does Valentino's kingdom, for which he did everything right, ultimately fall apart? Because he happens to eat the same thing that gives him food poisoning as his father and happens to be ill at the wrong moment.

And also, the puppet that he manages to get in power, Pius the third, dies too fast and then he's outmaneuvered by Julius. If all those things hadn't gone wrong in a row, the kingdom would have stood and indeed he would have conquered Florence. So Machiavelli is constantly reminding us that, yes, we have all of these things we can try to do.

We can remember it's better to be feared than loved. We can remember not to be hated. We have power over maximum half of what causes outcomes.

The other half is always gonna be fortune. Right? Because we look at Machiavelli.

We know he's the origin of utilitarian thought and that he says we need to evaluate people's deeds based on outcome. But he doesn't just say we need to evaluate their deeds based on outcome. We he says we need to evaluate their deeds based on what the most probable outcome was before fortune intervened.

And so he says, people look at Valentino Borgia and say, but the Borgias fell. They were feared and then they were hated and then they fell and then their enemies took power and then chiseled their coats of arms off of every surface in Rome so that to this day, you're walking through Rome and you sit down at a pizzeria and there's a weird scar on the wall and that scar is where the Borgia Bowl is no more. Right?

And people want to make the moral of that be don't do what the Borgias did. They fell. Machiavelli is like, no.

They did not fall because of their choices. They fell because half of what happens in the world is never in our control.

if you are someone who breaks your word and you break it this way, it'll bite you in the ass. Yes. And if you break it these ways, it'll be okay.

Yeah. Because he also does analysis of figures like Savanna Rola, who would make prophecies and promises, then some of them would happen and some of them wouldn't. And then he would make new ones and sort of correct what he said yesterday.

And he handled his manipulation and untruths badly in Machiavelli's analysis in a way that did turn people against him and make him lose power, partly because Savanna Rola, as a religious demagogue, the core of his power was people believing that he was divinely inspired and that he wouldn't make mistakes and wouldn't And so his power base was fragile vis a vis untruth. And for him, because of the specific shape of his power and then the specific way he handled his contradictions, that did hurt him. Whereas, if it's somebody like Cesare Borgia who will make an alliance and work with that ally for a while and then betray them.

Because meanwhile, he was such an effective conqueror and he was so scare scary and everyone was so afraid of him. Even when he would betray an ally, his other allies would say, I gotta be more faithful to him so that the next person to be betrayed isn't me. Mhmm.

And and try to work hard to be at the good graces of the prince so that I'm not next as opposed to turning on him because he was so scary. So Anarola was not scary. Sivanarola was charismatic and persuasive and, you know, had one of these voices that made you made crowds thrill and women swoon.

And decades later, when people asked Michelangelo what Savonarola had been like when Savonarola had been dead for decades. Right? Michelangelo's answer was, I still hear his voice.

Right? He had one of those charismatic presences that wasn't enough when he started flip flopping on policy and truth. Whereas Valentino was so scary that he could betray his top general and seize his lands and overthrow his city, and all of his other generals would say, better step even further into lying.

Yeah. So it's not just that lying is okay. It's that lying is sometimes okay if you check these other boxes.

And it's not if you don't. So this is even more reinforcement of he zooms in so much on the means. And if you do a and b, you're okay.

But if you do a and c, you're not. Looking at the minutiae of different ways you can wield power and different reasons people can have to follow you. If you're a prince who's decided to invest it in being loved, you have to keep it up or cultivate being feared alongside it.

If you've invested heavily in being feared, there are things you can then do that you can't do if you're a prince whose power depends on being loved.

in the European tradition to suggest that it could be viable for there to be more than one political party in a state at the same time. Mhmm. And that they would compete against each other and sort of vent the society's tension through competition and vie to try to dominate an election and then the next one.

This is what we're used to. This is innovative, Immacciabelli. Immacciabelli talks about how competition within a city, if the parties are kind of stable, he's observing Siena as one of the examples of this, can vent local tensions and allow interior adjustments of who has power.

And the norm, the standard attitude toward political parties is if there are two political parties in a polity, it will not be stable until one of those political parties is dead, and their heads have been cut off and put on spikes and their houses have been burned down and paved over. That has been Florence's solution to political parties before. Florence massacred its Ghibellines and killed all of them and raked salt into the earth where the houses used to be, so nothing can grow there.

Nothing still grows there. And then when the black Guelphs and the white Guelphs split into two sub parties, they immediately started slaughtering each other as well. The standard was one party must wipe out the other party for there to be stability.

And there are comparatively few examples, although Florence's neighbor Sienna is one, where political parties managed to not only coexist side by side, but be politically helpful.

Right. Thing than preparing to actually fight against them. Your family's lands get trampled by soldiers.

You suffer economically. So it's an old Florentine tactic. It's not a new thing that Maximilian is threatening to invade Italy and trying to extract a bribe.

Florence basically every year is like, okay. Who do we need to bribe this year to not invade us? Right.

Here's this year's bribing a king budget. And every To whom does it go? Is Maximilian a serious threat, or are we saving this money in case there's a threat from somebody more serious like the king of Naples or the king of France or Milan or or the Venetians or something?

geographic proximity is everything. Because from the perspective of if you're far from Rome, right, when you're Denmark or Iceland and the pope is all the way over there, and the way you interact with him is that occasionally, an incredibly impressive papal legate will visit, and there'll be vast pomp and circumstance, and the city will rename a street in honor of the fact that somebody sent by the pope has visited. And he has this great power to say yes or no to petitions.

And, you know, different countries have been trying to petition for specific things for ages, and the pope's legate is here to, you know, interview the emperor to judge whether the queen can be queen or not, and it feels like a big deal. And the pope is very abstract. It's easy to have a lot of respect for that pope because what do you see that pope do?

You see that pope in pomp and circumstance. You see that pope make judgments about fates of popes and kings. You see that pope put out papal bulls and edicts that give theological answers to questions.

You see that pope exercise judgment of life or death over people at a distance. He's very abstract, and the difference between one pope and the next pope is kind of small from your perspective. You don't see their policy If you're in Italy, the pope is that asshole who went to college with your brother Mhmm.

And beat him up when they were at college and then, you know, was drunken and irresponsible at middle age, and you've been negotiating with him in these other jobs. And you know this jerk. You know his family.

You know the other jerks who are also competitors for this. You're allied with him. You're not allowed with him.

His ancestors are allies of yours or not allies of yours. He's a specific dude. And you're much more likely to judge a pope based on, hey, he's that guy.

Right? This is not pope Julius the second. This is Giuliano della Rovarae.

And I judge him based on his uncle who put him in power and the actions of his friends and the actions of the city he's from. And you know all of his dirty laundry and you are subject to the fact that when he moves into power, everyone who's related to him is gonna get promoted within Italy. Everybody who's not is gonna get removed from Italy.

So it's much easier for an Italian to see this pope. And that's actually quite hard to see the papacy. And that's how you have these fascinating wars where even the cities that are hereditary, incredibly loyal to the papacy will sometimes be fighting a war against the papacy.

Mhmm. So all Italy is divided into these two factions, the Guelphs and Ghibellines. Theoretically, what these two factions mean is that Guelph powers, Guelph families, Guelph cities, they believe the correct successor to the Roman emperors is the pope.

The pope is the emperor. He has the right to be the ruler of Italy and indeed of everything that was once Rome's. He is the ultimate political, the ultimate military power, and he is the rightful and only rightful overlord of Italy.

The Ghibellines believe that in August, when Charlemagne conquered a bunch of stuff and made the empire that we now refer to as the Holy Roman Emperor Empire, when the pope crowned Charlemagne, he delegated the political and military side of his authority to that emperor and made himself be the spiritual authority, but the emperor be the political and temporal authority. Right? And therefore, the rightful ruler of Italy is the emperor of the successors of Charlemagne.

These are the two factions for which these parties fought originally. Three hundred years ago. These days, what these factions actually mean is those jerks murdered uncle Tybalt, and we will never forgive them.

So they are the team that is our enemy, and we are this team, and they are that team, and we hate them. And we want to crush them because they want to crush us, which means that sometimes a pope will be elected who's from a hereditary Ghibelline family. And the pope will start promoting people from the anti papal faction, and the pro papal faction will unite against the pope, which makes no rational sense when until we remember that they are serving the pope abstractly.

Yes and no. Again, when you're far away, yes. When you're close-up, you know too much of dirty dirty laundry of these people.

Right? So let me use what a fun example. The most passive aggressive letter ever written in the entire history of Ty, in my opinion.

There's a type of ceremony that happens when the new pope is elected, which is the giving of oaths of obedience. A major ambassador from every polity in Christendom comes to Rome, and they wait in line for a long time, and then they give a speech, a long winded speech about how great the monarch is that they're there to represent and how vast his power is blah blah blah blah, and how pious he is, and how how glad he is, your holiness, that you're the pope. Now congratulations on behalf of my wonderful king.

When you're supposed to send, like, the highest status possible person who can leave your polity without it falling down. You might send a younger son of the king. You might send the lord chancellor.

In the case of Florence, you're gonna send the most prominent citizen you can. So when Pope Sixtus was elected, it was Lorenzo de Medici himself, not the dedicatee of the prince, the grandfather and namesake of the dedicatee of the prince who went to deliver this oration of obedience, which means literally frustrating yourself in front of the pope, literally kissing his feet, and giving this oath. Lorenzo did this for Pope Sixtus, with whom he was negotiating to try desperately to get a cardinalship for his brother.

Pope Sixtus instead organized the Pazzi conspiracy to try to butcher the Medici family, killed Lorenzo's brother, killed a number of his allies as well, and attempted to have a coup to take over Florence. When the next pope was elected, after Sixtus, Pope Innocent, who was, as everyone knew, a puppet of the same faction that Sixtus was from. So we go from this very dangerous pope who had tried to wipe out Lorenzo's family to a puppet of the same faction.

Lorenzo sent his son instead of himself to go give this oath and had his son go to deliver the message, apologize to his holiness that I could not come myself. But the last time this duty fell upon me, I had a brother upon whom I could leave the, the burden of the state in my absence. Since now I have no brother, I cannot come in person.

It's a very respectful letter, but it's also very overt about the fact that he does not trust and will not again trust this faction. Right? So they negotiate very carefully how to deal with the fact that the popes have this great spiritual power, but sometimes the popes are acting as horrifically selfish warlords.

That's also something which has worsened over time. And it's important for us to remember that the papacy becomes gradually more corrupted over time. This is because with every generation, more people leave donations of wealth to the church.

You know, a widow who has no son and has property decides to piously leave this to a monastery. The church gets wealthier and wealthier. As the church gets wealthier, with wealth comes power, more and more power is in the state.

This makes a stronger and stronger incentive for every ambitious family to send their second son to the church. And this goes all the way down. Right?

We have personal letters of Machiavelli writing to and from relatives of his where they're debating what is the correct sized bribe to offer to buy a priesthood for his little brother Toto. They don't wanna offer too big a bribe because it would improvise the family. They don't wanna offer too small a bribe.

They've heard that another family that's after this priesthood offered an extra big bribe. That's kinda not fair. How did they respond to being out bribed?

They just write about this as the most everyday normal thing in the world. And this is a, you know, wealthy merchant prince level family. They are in the top 5% of wealth and power in Florence, but not in the top 1%.

Right? But for them too, it's normal to talk about paying a bribe to get a priesthood. That's just how it works.

And every generation sees the church get wealthier and have more power, and therefore the incentives to corrupt it are even greater. It even becomes a kind of a prisoner's dilemma system because if you're the duke and you don't manipulate the papacy, if you don't bribe the pope, if you don't work hard to get your brother to be bishop and your enemies do, you're screwed. So you even see it as defensive.

I must manipulate the church. It's the only way my people will be safe. If I don't manipulate the church, my enemies may manipulate the church, and then, there's danger.

And this happens all the way up on the scale of kings where popes can make your enemy the most powerful bishop in your kingdom or can deny you the right to marry because inevitably the person you wanna marry is a cousin, and you're gonna need a special dispensation to marry them. And the pope can prevent that and mess with your marriage alliances. You need the pope very desperately if you're a king.

You also need the pope all the way down. And that means bribes and other kinds of incentives make the papacy more corrupt with each generation. So the papacy is worse in everyone's lived experience than it used to be even a few popes ago.

And you see every generation for a hundred years say popes are much worse now than popes used to be when I was young. Right? Everybody says that.

Dante says that in 1300. Machiavelli's grandparent generation are saying that in 1400. Machiavelli is saying that in 1500, in everybody's lived experience, the popes are getting more secular, more military, and more corrupt over time.

It's a gradual accumulation. And it comes to a peak as such things do, triggering the Reformation when it come becomes so bad that there has to be a massive move against it. And Machiavelli, in an interesting way, anticipates this because Machiavelli says all institutions are gradually corrupted and need to be reformed and returned to their foundations or they will collapse under the weight of their corruption.

He says he thinks that the papacy has been undergoing this and that Christianity has been undergoing this, And that if not for the fact that Saint Francis of Assisi, also to some extent Saint Dominic, a couple century before his time, reformed the church and brought in a lot more popular support, Christianity would already have cracked under the weight of its own corruption two hundred years before. And that it will need such a restoration again as any institution needs, as city governments need, as republics need, as corruption accumulates over time.

of the society as opposed to one of several glues of the society. And, you know, patronage, which was also familial and therefore entangled with nepotism, was so fundamental that, you know, for example, when Alessandro Farnese was elected Pope Paul the third in the middle of the fifteen hundreds, he didn't corruptly make one of his kinsmen commander of the papal armies. He instead appointed a really competent, experienced general instead of his own not very competent, illegitimate son.

And there were riots in Rome. Your Holiness, the people demand more nepotism. You must appoint your illegitimate son to command your armies because your illegitimate son will never betray you.

And we will know we can trust the papal armies not to turn on Rome if the pope's son is the commander. And we don't know that about this other commander. He might turn against your holiness.

And there might be a rift between the pope and the papal armies if he's not somebody that rises and falls with you the way your son does. Therefore, by popular demand, the people want more an epitism because the system depends on it. Mhmm.

Right? And that's how you see how the system depends on. There are levels of trust that the patronage system creates because it involves multigenerational entanglement of families where if these families rise, they rise together.

If they fall, they fall together, which creates levels of trust that can sustain things like this world where the oath of a soldier is to his commander, not to the polity that he serves. And in modernity, we realize another solution to that is the oath of the soldier is not to the commander. The oath of the soldier is to the constitution or to the country, or to the people.

But in this period, the oath of the soldier is to the commander mostly because communications are so slow that the commander has to be able to give speedy field commands. But it means you're creating an army and you're handing it to a man. And if you cannot trust that man, then the people will be terrified that there could be a rift between Rome and its own armies or between Rome and its treasurer or between Rome and its other allies.

Patronage is the glue that makes things work all the way down. All the way down to the level of if you need a defense attorney, that's done through patronage. The outcomes of trials are really great way to see patronage.

So we're all familiar with the fact that law codes in the Middle Ages are really cruel. Right? And it's like death for everything, death for theft, death for adultery, death for homosexuality, death for setting fire to the prince's beehive, whatever it is.

You know, that's the sentence on the books. And then you look at the actual trial records, and maybe one in a 100 convictions for that crime actually ends in a capital sentence. And almost all of the other ones end in a fine or a public flogging, but not in the sentence that's on the books.

And we say, why and how is that happening? Patronage is the answer. So if it's the Middle Ages of the Renaissance and you're a carpenter And your teenage son gets drunk and he punches somebody in a brawl and breaks the guy's nose in that way that makes him die and accidentally kills a guy in a drunken brawl and your son is now on trial for murder.

You're a carpenter. You therefore have worked for the rich family whose family carpenter you are. Right?

Let's say it's the Medici family. Whenever they need new pews for the family church or new furniture or repairs for the family gates, they go to you. So you go to them and you say, my son is in danger.

He's on trial. Please put in a good word. And your patron has the ability to then influence the judges.

And they will put in a good word for you, and then you will get a lighter sentence. This is a sort of an ancestor of what having a character witness is to say, but so and so is such a good person. They should have the milder punishment, not the more severe one.

But the norm is you're accused of a severe crime. You're put on trial for your life. Your patron intervenes and you get a lighter sentence.

And this is how justice is supposed to work. And this is a very severe line that changes in this eighteenth century with the enlightenment. Because we now think of proportional justice.

The sentence for the crime should be this and ideal justice is everyone who is guilty of the crime gets that sentence. That is fair. It doesn't matter who you know.

It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor. The sentence should be the same. This is the ideal of enlightened justice.

The ideal of this period's justice, which is much more shaped by Christianity, is the purpose of the trial is the spiritual interior correction of the soul of the sinner. And therefore, the ideal outcome is for them to fear for their life. They're before a terrifying judge who is the earthly representation of God.

And they're before who they know that they're guilty and they deserve to be thrown into the, the pits of hell. But miraculously, they are given grace, and they are pardoned. And the process of being put on trial, fearing for your life, begging to the patron, and then receiving mercy is supposed to sort of be an earthly preview of the process your soul will undergo when you are before divine judgment.

And therefore, should make you come out the other end a good person. And the goal of the justice system is the spiritual improvement of the sinner and the hope that they will come out the other end better and more likely to go to heaven. Even when people are being sentenced to death, there are religious organizations who sit with them overnight, having a final prayer group and walk with them to the gallows holding their hand and and holding a painting of the Virgin Mary in front of their face so that to the very last moment, the person who's about to be executed is thinking about heaven.

And the ideal outcome of the execution is that the soul goes to heaven. So the whole structure of the justice system expects the intervention of a patron who represents the intervention of a patron saint, persuading the judge who is God to give you mercy. So when we see a 100 trials end in 99, the person paid a small fine and one, the person was executed.

What that actually means is 99, their patron stepped in. And somebody persuaded somebody who put in a good word who got the light sentence and won, that person had fallen out of the patronage network. That person had angered their boss, their protector.

That's why it went all the way to being a capital offense. Probably a lot of people listening are familiar with Giordano Bruno, very famous as a martyr for science because he was burnt at the stake by the inquisition. Fewer people know that that was not his first inquisition trial.

He was investigated a number of times by the inquisition for doing various radical forms of thought. The earlier trials had the usual outcome for that kind of trial of he had a patron, the rich people that he worked with or for the university was hosting him. They put in a good word.

He's fine. The Inquisition tells him be good, and things continue as they are. That time, he had angered the person he worked for.

He pissed off his patron. And it's his patron who turns him into the Inquisition and says, this guy is a charlatan. He promised he could teach me these things that he can't.

I don't trust him. He's no good. Throw the book at him.

And the reason that trial goes all the way to a capital sentence is that he doesn't have a patriot. He's the ninety ninth case that time. And if he had had a patriot protecting him despite how radical his stuff was, he would have been okay.

And we see that in the trial of Giovanni Pico della Morandola, who was candidly substantially more radical than Giordano Bruno. But when Pico is on trial, Lorenzo de' Medici and other powerful people really care about Pico, and they pull it out all the stops. And, you know, Lorenzo talks to his brother-in-law who's an Orsini.

The Orsini have enormous influence in Rome. They get permission for Pico to be let go and sent home to Lorenzo to sort of live under house arrest under Lorenzo's promise that he'll be good from then on. Or, Marcilio Ficino, right, who is this radical Platonist who publishes a book on how to project your soul outside of time and summon angels and arguing for the existence of reincarnation and and is very clearly being extremely theologically weird.

This is the man who wrote the best letter of recommendation ever written in the history of time when he was recommending a young scholar for a job with the king of Hungary. And he writes in the recommendation letter, this young man is the reincarnation of Saint Thomas Aquinas, so you should give him a job. Now that is a letter of recommendation.

But you're like, the reincarnation of Saint Thomas Aquinas. And the Inquisition comes knocking on Ficino's door, he's like, reincarnation? And Ficino's like, oh, no.

Help. Talk to Lorenzo. Lorenzo talks to his brother, cardinal Orsini.

Cardinal Orsini shuts it down. And Fattino is told, maybe lay off talking quite so overtly about the about the reincarnation. And Fritino says, yes, of course, and I will only teach very pious people how to summon angels and project their souls out of their bodies.

I promise I won't teach it to anybody who will use these powers irresponsibly. The inquisition is like, okay, and goes home. Because patronage kicked in.

Patronage is the glue that makes everything work. Because you can't even stay in a hotel or buy an apple. I'm not kidding without a patron.

Because you, you know, you arrive at a city, nobody knows you, you're a stranger. What you have is a letter of recommendation from your patron who's friends with some important person there. You present that at the hotel.

That's why they let you stay.

everyone is surprised by is that when Valentino Borgia this is that when Cesare Borgia Valentino is much more what he's called in the period. When Cesare Borgia conquers these cities in Central Italy, and he goes in and he massacres the ruling family, and he works hard to kill every member of them that he can so that there isn't a potential rival claimant to come displace him. And he implements neutral justice because he and his cronies have no side in that city.

They aren't connected with one group of families against another. And when they implement justice, they do so neutrally because they aren't interested in the local backstory of factions. And as a result, to everyone's surprise, he moves into a city.

He massacres the rulers. He implements an authoritarian regime, and he's incredibly popular and beloved by the people. And everyone says, why are they like this man?

He is a cruel murdering tyrant. And the answer is, for the first time in generations, they have had something close to fair justice. Meaning, it used to be that there was one faction in power, there was another faction out of power, which meant in our scenario where a carpenter's son gets drunk and kills someone in a broken brawl, if that carpenter's son is the carpenter of the power that's in power, then there will be no justice and there will be no consequences for this murder, maybe the smallest of fines.

And if that carpenter works for the families that are out of power, then throw the book at him, he'll be executed for that death. And there will be no fair justice. The outcome of the sentence will be entirely who's in power and out of power and not, the fairness of the case.

But when both of those ruling fellows have been wiped out and an outside power is here and a homicide takes place, the neutral judge hears this neutrally and gives the same answer regardless of whose family's carpenter that is. And the people who have lived in generations of there is justice for some and injustice for others suddenly having equitable justice, are delighted by this and find that wrongs are finally being punished. The people that they've resented and hated for so long who are in power are finally being punished for the crimes that they commit.

And this makes Valentino's conquering and violent regime incredibly popular with the everyday people of these cities who are therefore willing to sign up for his armies and help defend his conquests and keep them in power and man his fortresses. So Machiavelli and others are startled by this. They had expected that if a conqueror moves in, massacres the rulers of a city, everyone in the city will hate and fear that conqueror.

Machiavelli is very adamant that if you live such that there is somebody who can have you summarily executed, he can walk by you in the street and point at you and say, him, kill him, And it happens. Then you are not free. In his vocabulary in the text, if you live in a state of, where there is an arbitrary power who can have you put to death, you are a slave.

And if instead you live in a system where there must be a trial and there must be a process and this must be examined and public. Right? If there is a system, then you have liberty.

That system may be unfair. It may be biased. It may be, in Machiavelli's case, the very system that tortured and exiled him.

But there was a system, and he considers that difference to be enormously important. So if Valentino conquers Florence, it's not going to be that system anymore. There will be a man who can walk down the street and point at a Florentine citizen and say, kill him, and they will kill him.

And will that tyrant be fair? Maybe. Will that tyrant exercise this power well?

Perhaps. Will his successor be worse or better than him? We don't know.

We can't predict it's a monarchy. It's vulnerable to good successors and bad successors. But the people of Florence are not free if there exists a man who can say, execute him.

That meant a lot to Machiavelli, and it meant a lot to the Florentine people. And it's kind of hard for us to see how few liberties and how little franchise they had and yet how much they cared. Right?

Florentines are constantly willing to go into the street and risk their lives flying the banner that says Libertas across it, Liberty. Right? And the banner Libertas is the coat of arms of the senoria, the senate, which is selected from the 1% super mega elite tiny minority of the city that is eligible to be in government.

They aren't rioting to defend their right to participate in the republic. They're rioting to defend their boss' boss' right to be in the republic. And yet they care so deeply about it, and they consider it fundamentally different from the situation in which there is a man who can walk down the street and point at you and say, him, kill him.

Right? And that tradition of liberty means a lot and would be gone even if the most beneficent tyrant in the world took the city. So that's half of the answer.

Can I ask about that Sure? Real quick? So when Lorenzo de Piero de Medici takes over, is he not that guy?

So that's the second half of the answer. So there is a huge difference between when the conqueror is from your city, loves your city, and wants to take care of your city, and when the conqueror is from the outside. Because when the Medici take over Florence, they want Florence, and they want Florence to be Florence.

And they want all of its beauty and all of its treasures to still exist and be theirs. They would never consider razing important parts of it to the ground. They would never consider threatening the Florentines with we will destroy your city walls or we will destroy your cathedral if you rebel.

Any outsider would. Yeah. So Florence looks more like Florence under a Medici duke than Milan looks like Republican Milan under a Visconti or Sforza duke than Ferraro, which has no remnants of its republic, does under the dukes de este who can do anything they want, including murderously gouging each other's eyes out, and the city will never, take one step against them.

So Machiavelli is aware that Florence, if it has to fall, falling to the Medici is gentlest, most volatile perhaps, because they aren't going to be feared as much as an outside conqueror would be feared, but certainly gentlest. And that you preserve some important rights when you're conquered from inside that you don't when you're conquered from outside.

So half of that answer is finance is incredibly profitable. And if you're the banking center, the amount of money that is flowing in is staggering. Big wool, the big industry, for Floyd's is also incredibly, incredibly wealthy.

So in the same way that Harold Ford becomes incredibly rich, in a period when a suit of clothing is something you save up for like buying a car and everybody needs one. You can get very rich that way. So a, there's lots of money.

But b, do you remember how it's often said that the biggest impact per dollar for US defense spending is the Fulbright program. Mhmm. Because diplomacy is cheaper than war.

And sending a, you know, bright eyed, bushy tailed young graduate student out to a country to enthuse about its culture and make connections and make everyone feel positively does a lot more to avoid conflict and also get help in conflict than the same amount of spending on the actual army does. Right? And the dollar for dollar diplomacy is cheaper than war.

They're using the art to do diplomacy. And so in one sense, if you're not doing the art, you would have to spend more on the war. It's not that the art is being made from a surplus of the war.

It's, oh, no. We can't afford enough armies to actually defend us against France. Even if we spent every penny we have on armies, it would not defend us against France.

But we sure can spend it on painting fleur de lis all over our seat of government and creating beautiful expensive gifts for the king of France. That when the king of France comes, he will feel like we are friends, that we are giving him all of this cultural output. And if we fought him, we would lose.

But if we play the culture victory game, that's cheaper.

power evaluating Florence at the time. Yeah. Yeah.

It's it's it's we have to remind ourselves that these are high-tech achievements as well as historic achievements. And also that this is a period in which backwards is forwards, which is to say this is not a period that, like us, thinks of the future as where potential is, and humanity might get better and better over time. The potential of humanity is recapturing Rome.

Right. Backwards is forwards. If we can get more and more like that, that'll be better.

That's what we aspire to. And they do debate, can we surpass the Romans? Yeah.

Can we make things even better than the Romans? But it's an if. It's a debate.

It's not a definitely of course. For us, it's a definitely of course. We're moving forward.

We're trying to build bigger and more impressive things. Even for people who are cynical about progress, people will say, yeah, we will be more powerful in the future. We'll be able to do more.

We may use it to stab ourself in the foot, but we will be more powerful in future. And for them, it's very much, will we ever be as powerful as the Romans were? We don't know.

We can debate it. We hope so. We aspire to it.

Will there be another Pax Romana? Will there be another universal peace someday? Will we ever achieve that again?

So when we look at something that is like Florence's cathedral or Florence's neoclassical buildings, you know, we look at it, and we know they're imitating the past. And so we don't think of it as cutting edge technology. But for them, cutting edge technology is imitating the past.

Yeah.

Our society might be better off if we did. Yeah. Right?

But, you know, the dramatic emperors where there's lots of stabbing and lots of orgies make for good television. But everybody curates our history. And often when you're writing the history of your own culture, you pick the heroes.

Right? And no matter you know, you look at a middle school history textbook, it's gonna celebrate the heroes of that country. And if it's trying hard to be unbiased, it will also acknowledge the faults, but the heroes are gonna be in there.

When they are trying to create a handbook of what was, what stands out for them is what's different from their present. Their present has plenty of tyrants. Their present has plenty of orgies.

Their present has plenty of massacres. The present does not have seventy years of peace. So that's what stands out as different.

Right. And I think for us, some of the orgies and massacres stand out more because we don't have as many orgies of massacres now or at least not publicly that we know about. And when we do expose that our leaders have been involved in scandalous orgies, we get very upset about it.

But, you know, to them, they read about all of this, and they read about the successes, and they read about the stability from Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius. And they they say that is alien to us. That we haven't had.

It's so long. That is what we want to have again.

than during the great the The Pax Romana. And the five good emperors. Yeah.

Well and and to the degree that medieval Europe can't cope with the idea that these good emperors were also pagans and are therefore in hell. Right? And which is where you get this gorgeous legend that Pope Gregory the Great summoned the ghost of Trajan and baptized his ghost so that he can go to heaven.

Even though Trajan is a you know, during the persecution of the Christians But they just love him so much. They can't handle the idea that he would be in hell despite being a great Caesar. So the medieval world, it is canon that emperor Trajan was posthumously baptized so that he could go to heaven because he's such a good emperor.

And Dante centers him in Paradiso as the ideal Christian ruler. And you're like, but he wasn't Christian. He was persecuting the Christians.

But this is medieval and Renaissance Europe are very good at having their cake and eating it too in terms of getting to pick and choose the best parts of the pagan world and the best part of the Christian world when constructing their imagined antiquity to have both and celebrate both at once.

Romero de Orco. Yeah.

something that this period really wrestles with, and everybody is sinning and breaking their rules all the time and, you know, killing for honor and committing usury, right, lending money at interest. They're all sinning all the time, and they're all doing these things that are against the rules all the time. And people in the period do bring that up and say, hey, this is not okay.

And this is one of the big focuses of Dante's Commedia. Mhmm. And Dante in it says, look, when you do these things, you will go to hell for them.

And he fills his hell with Florentines. Right? And there's that wonderful line where he meets yet another group of Florentines, and he says, congratulations, Florence, a city famous in hell.

Because he considers his Florentine peers to be particularly hypocritical. And as he goes through, we see Florentines, especially in the sections for usury and for sodomy, but also, you know, heretics and unbelievers and all through his encounter in his countrymen, including people he himself loves and respects. Because Dante is making this painful point of Geis.

It says that if we do this, we go to hell. I'm make a book where that's literally true. And one of the chapters of Inferno that hits extra hard in his period and in ours is canto three where he's encountering the lustful, and we see Paolo and Francesca.

Paolo and Francesca, this is a story that was incredibly popular love story at the time. There was a young, beautiful noblewoman who had a, you know, older, horrible husband. And while he was away, there was also this wonderful, handsome, young nobleman who visited him and her.

And they read the romantic stories about, King Arthur and Guinevere and Lancelot. And one thing led to another, and they committed adultery together. And then her husband came home and found them and murdered them both.

And everyone loves this story. It is the ubiquitous love story. It's their cultural equivalent to Romeo and Juliet.

Right? And it's a touchstone story. People sing songs about it.

Everyone knows this exciting love tragedy. And he puts them in hell because they were guilty of adultery. And it's really shocking to everyone who has celebrated this love story and then like, no.

If this is true, this is our religion, that this is where they would be. And Dante is very stern and very strict and very unusual and starts a lot of discussion of this question of we're breaking these rules all the time. Should we just take this more than we have?

And he says, repent or you will all go to hell, my fellow citizens. So they're worried about that. But another part of it is Christianity as practiced then has a much, much less focus on purity than the Christianity that especially America is used to and also the Protestant dominated parts of Europe.

And there was a big change in Christianity that comes in the course of the Reformation primarily from Calvin, Calvinism, and then Puritanism, which has a greater focus on trying to live an unspotted and pure life. And the idea of, you know, we're gonna create a community of people who are all going to stick to the rules and live by them. And if you are a sinner and have broken these rules, you should be expelled from this community.

This is going you are impure. You are stained. That is not the way Christianity thinks in this period.

The assumption is everybody sins all the time. There is no such thing as purity. Everybody sins every five minutes.

Everybody is envious. Everybody is lustful. Everybody is slothful.

Everybody will make these mistakes, and then you repent of them, and you feel sorry, and you do penance, and you make spiritual progress, and you are forgiven, and then you sin again. Everybody sins. Saint Francis of Assisi sins.

He was a big focus on his himself as a sinner and was constantly self actually despite being in many ways the both virtuous man in all of Europe, but stressing his own sin. So one saint who's super popular in the Renaissance, who is not very popular today, is Saint Julian, the hospital or patron saint of murderers. And he is the patron saint of murderers, because his legend is sort of an Oedipus like legend that when he was born, he was cursed by a witch, that when he grew up, he would slay his parents.

And he runs far away hoping that he will never encounter his parents and so not meet them, but, eventually feels homesick and comes home and is tricked by the devil into slaughtering his parents, and he slaughters his parents, and then he spends the rest of his life trying to make up for it and going on pilgrimage and then dedicating his life to running pilgrim hostels to help others be pilgrims. And he is the patron saint for people who have committed murder and feel really sorry and need to live with it and repent of it. And that's not the attitude we have toward murderers right now.

Right? Our cultural attitude toward murderers is that person is a murderer. They should be shunned.

They should be locked in a box without the key or they should be executed. They should be removed from the society. There is no turning back from homicide.

But the Renaissance's idea is sometimes you gotta commit homicide. And then what's important is that you feel sorry, and you need to have a patron saint whose job it is to be a spiritual mentor for you. He too committed homicide.

He committed a worse homicide than you did because he killed his parents. And if he went on a spiritual journey to recover from being a murderer, so can you. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of icons of Saint Julian all over Renaissance Florence everywhere you go in.

And you see when you're like, mhmm. That was commissioned by somebody who committed a homicide and is trying to live with it. This is a society that really thinks about sin as something you do and then you pay for it afterward.

And people like Dante and Sabanarola come to people and say, no, this is not okay. You are perverting these things. No, you cannot put your family's coat of arms all over the inside of a church, turning the church into an advertisement for your banking business when it should be a place of God.

That's inappropriate, and and no, God will not forgive you for it. And the society says, yeah. Well, but God forgives maybe anything if we repent a lot.

Right? And so it's a complicated, sophisticated hypocrisy that builds up a lot of apparatus to let the society's actions be at odds with its religious precepts to that degree.

how somebody we were talking about his diplomatic career, how he ends up in exile, and what his plan is once he's there. Yeah. And and, I mean, here, have to start with everybody who's anybody in the intellectual tradition lives in exile for a while.

Right? Dante does. Voltaire does.

Rousseau does. Thomas Hobbs does. Machiavelli does.

And more importantly, exile is a very common thing in Florence and isn't the permanence that one expects. In Florence, exile means the people who are in charge of the regime distrust you right now. They want you out of the city, but they are testing your loyalty.

They are testing whether you will stay true to them. And you're told not get out of the city like a Roman exile, but go to a specific place. Go to London.

Go to Bruges. Go here. Stay there, and we will send you instructions.

And then you're expected to act as a kind of unofficial official emissary for the government of Florence while in your exile. And you'll be asked to do diplomatic missions after a while, and they'll say, you know, go talk to this person on our behalf or go deliver this trusted letter. And if you're good and you behave, then after some years of service to the republic, you'll be recalled.

So it's a sort of a provisional exile. And they pick a specific place to send you. And if you go and are good and do what they say, then after a while, they consider bringing you home.

If you don't, if you leave and you don't stay where they sit, if you run off to work for someone else, then okay, you're not allowed back in Florence anymore. You're you're an exile at this point. Machiavelli's exile is unusual because they really don't trust it.

And so they don't send him to Bruges or London or Barcelona or the Germanys or any number of other places where he actually has political contacts or doesn't. They send him to a middle of nowhere hamlet in the countryside outside of Florence in Tuscany where there is nobody important and there is nothing to do. And this isn't a go wait for instructions.

This is a go rot. And we're testing whether you will faithfully stay and do basically nothing and be forbidden to talk to important people, be in isolation. When that exile is given, everybody expects that Machiavelli's response will be okay.

They're not giving me even a second chance. I'm gonna run off and work for somebody else because there are a jillion people in Europe who would love to employ a skillful, classicist historian with military and diplomatic capacities who has political contacts in Rome and in France and has visited the court of the emperor. He could have worked for any number of cardinals.

He could have gotten a very prestigious diplomatic job in any of a number of a dozen courts. A Florentine historian, especially, is something that you absolutely want to hire to write a history, a flattery history of your own family. And for even a century before this, kings as far away as as England had been trying to hire Florentine historians to come write about them.

So he could easily do this, and this is what is expected, and he doesn't. Because Machiavelli says, no, I'm gonna stay and I'm gonna rot. And I'm gonna write the prints, which is my job application, begging the new regime to bring me back and let me work for them and demonstrating my loyalty.

And I'm gonna send it to them and only them, them and my immediate friends. I'm not gonna share it with anybody else. Because Machiavelli is a patriot, and he will not serve any cause that is not his country.

No matter whether the pay at a royal court somewhere would be three times what he would ever get at home, that doesn't matter to him. No matter whether this is the regime that just arrested, tortured, and exiled him despite him not having plotted against him. He wants to work for that because Machiavelli fundamentally is possibly one of the most patriotic patriots in Earth's history.

And he will faithfully sit in the countryside and rot while begging to work for the people who ordered his torture so long as they will recall him so that he can serve his country. And this connects to the question we always ask about the target audience of the prince. Because his other work, his discourses, his histories, his comedic play, those were for public circulation.

Those increased his fame. Those made important arguments. His history of Florence joined other important histories of Florence circulating, influencing the way people thought about politics, not the prince.

The prince is secret proprietary, the secret sauce of how to maintain power. And he will not let any other power have that. Right?

It's like a nuclear scientist with diplomatic secrets who is faithful to his country and will not sell out and let those secrets fall into other hands. Machiavelli knows that he has the beginnings of a new world of political science. And he will only share that with the government of his country because he wants it to protect his country, and he will not serve any other cause.

This is why it's so weirdly ironic to me that the reputation, the word Machiavellian, right, means self serving. Well, Machiavelli himself is one of the most selfless men I've ever read about in the history of the earth, who will give up on sacrifice, career, diplomacy, fame, friends, the opportunity to even be at a city and have a nice day, to rot in the countryside, to be faithful to his country. And he would rather serve nothing and no one than give an hour of his time to advancing anything that is not Florence.

Exactly. And he doesn't let it copies of it circulate to anybody but the rulers of Florence and his immediate scholarly social intimate circle of friends. Right?

People that he's known for decades who are scholar peers who have discussed his ideas with him. That's the audience of the prince during his lifetime.

Well, we have to remember this is a moment of transition from the manuscript to the print period, and also therefore an important moment of transition from what makes a written work important and how that written work is important to the career of someone who's written it. So it's a normal thing in Machiavelli's use for a major important scholar like, say, Pontano, one of the greatest scholars of the previous generation, to be hired to write a handbook of princes that will exist in just one copy or three or four copies that are written for a specific prince. Right?

So for example, King Alfonso of Naples, the Spanish king who conquered Naples, Alfonso the Magnanimous, made famous for his vast patronage of arts and letters and for carefully cultivated personal anecdotes, like the moment that he was in the middle of fighting a war and a messenger rushed in to his room, sweaty and covered with things, to interrupt the king's morning time with his scholar friends discussing Plato. And the king turned angrily on the messenger and said, get out. This is a place for men in togas, not for men in armor, and refused to listen to the urgent message until he'd finished his hour of scholarly contemplation of the soul.

As a result of which, lost that battle, but actually won the war. And his reputation cultivated by anecdotes like that make him beloved. Right?

He will pay a salary five times what the Republic of Florence will pay to hire somebody like Machiavelli. And what does he hire them to do? He has a lot of children, princes and princesses, and he commissions a scholar to write a unique bespoke handbook of how to rule and use power for each of his children.

And these exist in manuscript only in one copy or three copies, and the addressee is the duchess of Ferrara, who is a daughter of King Alfonso. And that book is never intended to circulate. It's intended to be private guidance for her and for her to perhaps pass on to her sons and daughters.

But meanwhile, the author's fame is magnified by being told the special bespoke handbook of princes cultivated secretly for this important princess was written by so and so. That's so cool. And letters circulate and let you know that it's happening.

So in the same way that a scientist might become famous because we know he's developing cool proprietary technology that only his government has, but we know that it's happening, we have to think of these books as proprietary technology. And in that sense that it's not an unusual thing to write a book with a audience of one or an audience of one and her immediate circle. And this is also one of the moments where handbook of prince also means for women.

Right? So the title of that book for the princess who becomes duchess for for of Ferrara, addresses her as a prince, and as a handbook of princes because prince is a gender neutral word at this point. It's, you know, lexically masculine in terms of masculine and ending and feminine endings on the word the same way a table is feminine.

But prince is used for men and women. Yeah. And even queen Elizabeth is prince Elizabeth at this period of her of her, of her life.

That is so fascinating.

not capable of writing something which I think would be a literary masterpiece that everybody would want to read if they had access to it just yet. But eventually it will be. And so it's interesting to consider that as this knowledge progresses, it would bring us back to this era of bespoke scholars dedicated to a particular prince.

It's it's sort of important to remember that that never went away. I mean, so two two halves of that. One, for ages, it's been true that half of the words we read every day are bespoke only for us because they're email.

Yeah. Right? They're They're the the correspondence back and forth, which has the audience of one, the addressee.

And that's the majority of what all of us read and write in our lives. It's also always been the case that in the halls of power, there are book long things with an audience of one or an audience of five. Right?

There are historians and other scholars and scientists whose job is to provide that 100 page report on here is the history of Syria to be given to a committee of congress where these nine senators or these nine congresspeople need background on what's happening so that they can understand the current events thing. Right? And there are historian friends of mine, who work for the Department of Defense Intelligence who produce these book length research projects with an audience of five or an audience of eight or an audience of a couple dozen because it is the bespoke proprietary knowledge needed by government in that moment.

And sometimes it's technological knowledge, but just as often, it's going to be historical knowledge of here are the important rivers where military things are likely to happen, says historian who knows the history of this stuff. Yeah.

So I'll be I'll give the zoomed out and then the zoomed in answer to that question. It is often the case that a work which contains radically unusual ideas will drift along being not particularly zoomed in on by society and not widely read until it hits a moment that the new questions being asked in that century or that decade are answered by something in that text. And then suddenly everyone will start reading it.

A different example of this probably well known to the audience because everyone here is a cool, smart, learned person. Lucretius is On the Nature of Things De Rareum Natura, which is our best capsule of ancient atomism and the atoms and vacuum theory of matter. Right?

Which is written in around the BCAD term and drifts along being not very important for ages until the sixteen hundreds when we're getting the first ideas of germ theory of disease, very interested in new science. And suddenly, it gets 30 print editions and then is all over the place and influences science and is even more influential than in the nineteenth century when we're interested in atoms and cells. Right?

And so a book can exist for literally two thousand years or close to. And then suddenly answer the questions of that decade. Right?

So in that sense, the prince will drift along and be not very important for a while. And, you know, why is it first published? It's first published when Machiavelli's still surviving relatives want fame for the family and fame for their beloved, now dead kinsmen.

Here is a work of his that hasn't been published yet. They ask for permission because this can spread his fame. It's also dedicated to members of the Medici family.

So the Medici are like, yeah, we get fame for publishing this thing too. They don't think as seriously about the power of its contents as its author did. And so it's one more book that can spread the fame both of the Machiavelli family and of the Medici family.

And it is around, and people are like, oh, that's actually full of fairly scandalous ideas, which is how it then ends up on the index as book censorship kicks up as a result of the printing press. And, you know, mini thesis, every time there's a new information technology, there's a subsequent wave of censorship to try to censor the new technology and a bajillion books get banned all at once. Machiavelli's is not a particularly prominent, example among this.

Right? The index of banned books that's, that contains his work that's put out, carefully differentiates between the dangerous books by arch heretics and the, like, slightly dangerous books by meh people. And arch heretics are in all caps.

I remember when I was first reading through one of these indexes, I was so excited to flip through and find Machiavelli, and there he was, not in all caps. And I was so angry. I was like, what's wrong with that?

He should be in all caps. But all the all caps people are Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, a bajillion Yeah. Protestant theologians you've never heard of.

All caps, our heretic status is reserved for Protestantism in this period. Machiavelli doesn't doesn't catch on until later. So he's censored in a wave of censoring like everything, when there's a big censorious wave and then it diminishes and goes up and down.

The second zoomed in half of that, if we say Lucretius becomes exciting when people want to know about the germ theory of disease, when does Machiavelli become exciting? Machiavelli becomes exciting first in the aftermath of the publication of Hobbes's Leviathan. Because Hobbes' Leviathan hits European thought like a truck full of bricks and has this incredibly persuasive, gorgeous reasoning that lands you on a terrifying vision of what humanity is and a terrifying vision of what God is that people find very scary, but also incredibly persuasive.

And it's no exaggeration to say that in the aftermath of publishing Leviathan, there's a forty year period where the sole goal of Western European philosophy is coming up with a good way to refute Hobbes. And in that moment, they say, okay, Hobbes is using a lot of logics about politics and about history that sound like Machiavelli. He's doing these utilitarian consequentialist analysis of if we do this, there's that result.

He's analyzing the origins of government as if there's no divinity setting it up. Right? He has this man in a state of nature invents government instead of god from on high tells Adam, here is how you should organize the world.

And so they say, okay. You know, Hobbes is the monster. Hobbes is Leviathan the Great or the Beast of Malmsbury as as newspapers call him during his lifetime.

How do we refute refute the monster? Let's look at the daddy monster that spawned the baby monster. If we can read Machiavelli and find holes in Machiavelli, maybe we can use those through a few tops.

And so Machiavelli is suddenly useful not to people who sympathize with him, but to people who see him as an enemy, but want to use him to try to defeat what to them is the greater enemy. So he surges in popularity at that point. And then a different surge happens actually in the nineteenth century, and it's not until the nineteenth century that Michael Bellis Prince becomes a major global staple that you would put in a great book series.

And in the nineteenth century, in the aftermath of the enlightenment and the enlightenment's revolutions, right, so the American Republic, the French Republic, the transformations and democratic movements that are happening in lots of other governments, people want new ways to think about politics, and they want to think about politics in separation of church and state. And if you want to think about separation of church and state, which is a new enlightenment era value, what do you need? You need an apparatus for thinking about politics and ethics that doesn't depend on God being part of it.

And the vast majority of political treatises available to humanity at that point have some sort of entanglement of religion with politics at their root, but Machiavelli doesn't. Machiavelli is this early foundational, what if we think about government in in a box without plugging into religion? What if we just think about government operating by itself and its earthly consequences is incredibly useful in the nineteenth century for developing a statecraft, for separation of church and state.

It's also useful for then Italian nationalism to celebrate and claim, hey. We invented separation of church and state. Here's Machiavelli, the first modern man.

He's our bid at, it's Italian culture invented modernity via Machiavelli. At the same time that England is saying Francis Bacon is the first modern man because he invented the scientific method. At the same time that France is saying Rene Descartes is the first modern man because he invented, logical reasoning and and modern principles of logical deduction.

There's a competition in the nineteenth century, a nationalist one, of different threat different countries that want to claim their cool thinker as the first modern man. And and Machiavelli becomes one of Italy's big bids for first modern man because he came up with separation of church and state, a phrase that Machiavelli would not have recognized if he said it to him, but would have thought about for a long time, decided it was cool, and then written letters about. Can can I can I try out a counter thesis just so you can dispel my confusion?

Definitely.

of religion from psychological effect of religion on the populace. The useful exemplar here is Thomas Paine. Right?

Mhmm. We all know Thomas Paine's common sense. Thomas Paine who does a lot of thinking that about the foundation of the institutions of of The US.

And Thomas Paine is a deist and a radical, and he has lots of treatises about how the most destructive force in the world is institutional religion. And whether it's Catholicism or the Church of England, these institutions are giant, centuries old or millennia old conspiracies to control your mind and steal your money and are incredibly pernicious to everything. However, he says, religion is vital to citizenship because it is what makes people be good and is what make people fear laws and want to obey the laws.

So says Thomas Paine, every country must have religion and religious education must be mandatory in schools, but it doesn't matter which religion. Thomas Paine advocated mandatory religion in total indifference to what religion it is with the idea that fearing God and posthumous punishment is necessary to make a citizen in a practical sense willing to obey law. Notice how that is pain thinking in a utilitarian way about the psychological effects of religion being there, which is very different from the older the state and a state religion are entangled with each other, and the state promotes this state religion because it believes it to be true.

And we're gonna have a, you know, Christian nationalist or Catholic nationalist or Roman paganism nationalist, right, religion that advances acts against others. So Machiavelli is absolutely thinking about the psychological effects of a religion on the people, And he has that wonderful analysis in the discourse of the utility of Roman religion. He talks, in one really striking and memorable passage about how, because Roman religion says that your ghost depends on being remembered.

Right? This is, out of the Homeric tradition. Your ghost only retains its identity to the degree you are still remembered on earth.

If on earth your name is forgotten, your ghost forgets its name. This is not a your ghost is okay forever like in Christianity. It is a your ghost depends on being honored by your descendants on earth.

When you are forgotten, your soul becomes an empty, mindless wandering shade. Therefore, you have an incredibly strong incentive to be remembered by doing great deeds, sacrificing yourself for your country because then your name will be honored for as long as your country lasts. And Machiavelli says this is one of the big motivators that makes people sacrifice themselves for the state in ancient Rome because then they're guaranteeing their good afterlife.

While Christianity, he points out, says all that matters for a good afterlife is being pious and then ideally like dying, being, being murdered. You have no incentive to sacrifice yourself for your state. The safety of your afterlife is guaranteed by your interiority.

This is going to encourage a citizen to sit in a box and be a monk, not to sign up for the military and defend his country. So says Machiavelli, Roman religion was much better for patriotism and political stability than Christianity. But he says at the end of the chapter, Christianity has the advantage of being true, period.

End of chapter. Then you say, hello, Machiavelli. We know that you had the mandatory mandatory subscript there.

But so think about Thomas Paine and Machiavelli in parallel. They're thinking about the utility of religion for forming a citizen, but they're not thinking about, you know, this religion is true. We are doing God's work.

We need to craft our state to match the values of our religion, which is what a theocrat would argue. So you you have is separation of church and state with the expectation that religiosity will be there. It will affect the people.

It will affect the citizenry and their behavior. You need to think about it. You decide whether to cultivate it, but you need to think about it in the same neutral way you think about cultivating literary literacy skills or math skills in your citizenry.

What skills do we want our citizenry to have for them to be well informed citizens? What do we need? We need religion, and we need good newspapers so that people are up on the news and can vote prudently.

You are evaluating those things side by side from a utilitarian standpoint. Instead of this religion is true, it is the obligation of our government to advance it, and our government expects to receive divine blessings if we advance the correct religion and divine curses if we don't. Right.

you know, in the infancy of printing, books are scarce and few. So for example, one of my favorite manuscripts ever that I've worked with is a copy of Lucretius, that in Machiavelli's hand, he copied out the entire poem. This is in the Vatican Library.

But what's really neat is he copied the text from a printed copy. But as he copied it, integrated into it corrections and improvements of errors in that one taken from a manuscript copy so that what he produced was better than either the printed version or the manuscript version. And then he made his marginal comments as he went.

But notice this is somebody who even though print copies of this book exist, is so much in the manuscript world that he's happy to spend months probably copying out and making his own custom improved version of this text that he can then work from. Yeah. Even though inevitably new print copies will come out in a few years that may have the very corrections that he's working with.

But he isn't gonna wait for that, and he's not sure. So he makes his version. And so he's from this moment when print and manuscript are parallel technologies that we're using at the same time.

Yeah. And the very people who are buying the first printed books are also producing manuscripts, imitating those printed books and influenced by those printed books.

and understanding how scholarship and intellectual thought must have been different at that time as compared to now. I mean, you know, Machiavelli can easily access other books by visiting friends, by asking to go to the library of his Medici patrons when he's working for the Medici, of his Soderini patrons when he's working for the Soderini. But that's different from having it at home and being able to have it at your bedside and and look at it at all hours and have this intimacy with it and it's your father's copy and it's your copy.

Another part of that though, and this is kind of weird for modern people to understand. In the Renaissance, there is so much enthusiasm for antiquity. Antiquity is the cutting edge thing.

Antiquity is where it's at. Antiquity is, how we're going to end the chaos of the previous world and have this new world where we're basing everything on ancient Rome. There's gonna be peace.

There's gonna be a golden age. It's all coming from imitating antiquity. Therefore, if your book is a comment on an ancient, it is gonna be way more popular and sell way better and people will care more and think more of you than if your ideas are original.

Nobody wants original ideas. Original ideas are out of vogue. Original ideas are dead.

All ideas need to be from the ancients. And so a Renaissance scholar will bend over backwards to pretend that his beautiful original ideas are actually Livy or are actually Plato or to couch them as a commentary on these things because that's gonna have a way bigger audience and be more popular and taken more seriously than if it's original. Right?

So there are points where Giordano Bruno in his commentaries on Aristotle claims that Aristotle says things absolutely Aristotle does that. It's the opposite of what Aristotle But if he claims it's Aristotle, people will take it more seriously. The most extreme version of this is is the brilliant and fascinating figure of Aeneas of Viterbo, who, Tony Grafton has a great book about.

Aeneas of Viterbo had this radical vision of how he wanted to rethink history and faked ancient texts. He made them up. And he faked archaeological digs.

He would secretly bury artifacts and then dig them up to great drama and forged antiquities to create this book that advanced his visionary original idea of ancient history. Because if he pretended he got it from antiquity, people would take it more seriously than if it was an original book. So Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy are his big bid to have a popular important prestigious thing because discourses on Livy are a bigger deal Mhmm.

And more important and more interesting to everybody and more likely to sell and get attention than a Florentine history or a treatise of original thought on princess. Who wants that? That's a very niche kind of thing.

Discourses on Livy. Oh, exciting. We have to have this.

And this goes on for the next century. So, for example, huge amounts of radical political thought, including, believe it or not, commentaries on Machiavelli happen in the footnotes in editions of Seneca and Livy, where the text of Seneca will be, you know, a small square in the middle of the page, and then there'll be these masses of footnotes and commentary and huge original moments of political thought for the entirety of the sixteen hundreds are going on in wars in footnotes and editions of Seneca. But it's not original thought.

It's all about Seneca because that was was in vogue then. And the vogue of scholarly stuff is shifts fast and is very interesting. And this is one of the weird reasons that Renaissance philosophy and Renaissance innovative thought with the exception of a couple of oddball works like The Prince gets sort of pushed out of the history of philosophy, especially in the nineteenth century.

Because when you get to the nineteenth century, the vogue is everything has to be original. The philosopher should be born you know, his idea should be born like Athena, fully formed from the head of Zeus. The ideal philosopher lives in a cabin by the raging sea contemplating in the wilderness.

And what they want is original treatises. And if you look at a nineteenth century historian of philosophy, they'll say, you know, in the Renaissance, was almost no original thought. There was Machiavelli's Prince, and there was maybe a little bit of Giovanni Pico della Moranilla's Oration on the Dignity of Man.

Parenthesis, we have since proved it's not an oration, and it's not about the dignity of man. And these things are like the the few lights in the darkness. And everything else in Renaissance philosophy is here's a quote from a philosophy department person who actually said this to me.

The Renaissance is two hundred years of people being wrong about Plato. And a lot of people look at it, and you read it. And and you pick up Ficino, and he's like, Plato said these things.

And you're like, no. Plato totally did say those things at all. That's absolute gibberish.

No. Plato didn't say that. What are you saying, Ficino?

And if you think Ficino is what he says he is, a commentary on Plato, then indeed, the Renaissance is two hundred years of people being wrong about Plato, being wrong about Livy, being wrong about Aristotle. But if you realize that what it is is their style guide requires original thought to be presented in the form of a commentary on an ancient. What it is is two hundred years of original thought using the ancients as the trellis up which the rose climbs in order to bloom.

And when you restore that and realize that and recognize that in order to get at the real Renaissance, you need to not read the goofy outlier works like Machiavelli's prints, present themselves as original, which is a weird thing to do. But read the commentaries on Livy. That's where the original stuff is hidden, by pretending and claiming and sometimes sincerely convincing themselves that this is the secret coded true meaning of the ancient thing.

Like Ficino, the translator of Plato, definitely genuinely believes that all of the incredibly original cosmology and magic that he's figured out is secretly coded in Plato. And he's wrong. It's not.

It's so adorable that he really, really believes it is. But what it is is an incredibly original, vision of the universe that he got from reading Plato and thinking hard about it and combining it with other things. So he presents it as commentary on Plato, commentary on Diogenes, the Areopagite.

So that's that's core to why this is a discourse on Livy because this is what a scholar is supposed to be doing is a discourse on Livy. And all the other things Machiavelli does are sort of second tier weird things for a scholar to be doing on the side of discourses on Livy. Mhmm.

Okay. So adult Machiavelli is now seeing some of his work start to get mass produced.

At first, excitement, but also horror Because Machiavelli is facing this fascinating moment in the history of being an author when printing has come into being, but there isn't copyright yet. So in the manuscript period, there's no such thing as copyright. And if you find out that someone has made a copy of your book, you say, oh, thank god.

There's another copy of my book, that reduces the chances of it being completely destroyed in a fire. Making one copy of a book is six months of incredibly difficult labor. You're just grateful every time a a text is reproduced.

But when it comes printing, then you have this experience, which Machiavelli is one of the first men ever to have, of finding out that the local printer is printing a work of his without ever having asked it, without ever having talked to him. And he looks at it, and it's full of typos and minor errors. And he's panicking in these letters and saying, oh, no.

Everyone's gonna think I'm a bad scholar. There are all these little mistakes in the text. They aren't me.

They're the compositor having made typos when setting it up. And no one will know that. They'll blame me and it'll destroy my reputation.

What do I do? There's nothing I can do because there's no legal process and no legal recourse. Printing has just come into being.

And it's neat seeing him and friends writing to each other about like, what can I do about the fact that this printer has printed my book without asking me? There is no law. There is no apparatus.

There is no anything. And his friends are like, well, write letters to everybody who matters and tells tell them that the typos aren't you. That's all I could suggest because they don't have, the idea of authorial copyright yet.

It's going to come in in the next couple decades. And the weird thing is that how this gets entangled with censorship. And copyright and censorship are born together in Machiavelli's world counterintuitively from the inquisition.

Because when the inquisition begins book censorship after 1515, which is during Machiavelli's lifetime, you know, their policy that the Catholic church promulgates is before you must take it to an authority licensed by the church to do this, meaning an inquisitor or a bishop, and they must read it and give permission for it to be printed. And this is so that they can make sure there isn't heresy in it. So all books are effectively born pre banned until you get permission for them to be printed.

And in return for this, you get a monopoly license and only the printer that did the process of taking the book through the process can print it. And you may now use the actual inquisition record of you having gone through censorship as the document to prove that you and only you have the right to print the book and therefore you can sue people for plagiarizing it or printing an unauthorized edition. And so the very first version of copyright is the inquisition.

And places outside the Catholic world then, like England, look at this, and there's actually popular demand in England for censorship When they say, hey, we need what the inquisition does because inquisition is so cool. They let printers have a monopoly on printing a book and they let authors deny print permission. We need something like that.

And the very first version of what is not yet copyright passed in England, which is of course the ancestor of what applies in all Commonwealth nations and in The US, was originally an imitation of, the opposition. And it was, okay, you need a license before you can print your thing, and then in return you get monopoly. Later, when there was freedom of the press push and I'm by later, I mean, this is happening over the course of the first half of the sixteen hundreds.

So a bit less, but about a century after Machiavelli's death. So it takes a century for all this to get ironed out. The first version of copyright law is them basically saying, okay.

Well, we're gonna keep the copyright half of censorship while getting rid of the censorship half of censorship or changing the censorship half of censorship. But it's all born out of the inquisition having met this weird demand that you feel in Machiavelli where he's like, they printed my book. They did a bad job.

There's nothing I could do. Help authorities. Give me some way to do something about this.

And so that's where you could feel Machiavelli as one of the first generation that that needs copyright that will then be born in the aftermath.

does it because that encourages authors to come to them. It makes people much more willing to collaborate with their process. But also, think of an individual inquisitor as an individual person who lives in a place and needs to have relationships in that place and needs to have an income and who is not usually getting enough to live on from the inquisition itself.

If you're working for the inquisition, you're an officer of the inquisition, you're probably a Dominican monk, you get some support from the monastery, but you have reason to want money, and you have family, they want money. You're as pragmatic and self serving as any other average human. So, the fact that people want to have this positive relationship with you, they might gift you some bottles of wine in return for you being extra generous in your reading of their text.

They also have to negotiate with authorities. One thing, the inquisition wants us to think of it as very centralized and very monopolar. Right?

The inquisition, the Vatican, it controls everything, which is completely untrue and is propagandistic. The inquisition is overseen by a whole bunch of isolated guys who are in isolated towns, and it takes weeks or months to even communicate with the Vatican. They're making their own decisions.

And for the most part, they don't have their own large amount of funding. They don't have their own officers to jail people. They don't have their own jails.

They don't have their own authority to arrest directly. They get all of those from the local government. They collaborate with the local government, which means if the local government likes them and is pleased by them and is like, oh, the Inquisition.

I can use this to scapegoat my enemies. Then the local government will drown the Inquisition in funding and give them all the guards and all the incentives they could want. So when we hear about the infamous Spanish Inquisition, which everyone was expecting me to mention, the Spanish Inquisition is infamous because Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain really want to scapegoat the, Jewish and Muslim populations that they're anxious about.

So they throw money at their inquisition and really cultivate and make it big. And that's coming from them. It's not coming from Rome.

Meanwhile, if you're in somewhere like Florence where the duke, if it's early Medician, ducal Florence, right, when this is happening, is, you know, a Medici. He's in deep with the weird, Fittinian, Platonic, soul projection magic people. He's a intellectual radical descended from intellectual radicals.

His court is full of intellectual radicals. And here you are, the inquisitor, and you're like, your grace, can I arrest this guy? And he's like, no, that guy works for me.

You can't touch him. And, you can only arrest as many people as the duke will give you funding for or the local republic will give you funding for. So you need to please the local government if you're the inquisitor.

And we have letters of Inquisitors complaining, you know, this is a really liberal duke. He's protecting all of these heretics around him, and there's nothing I can do about it because I depend on the local authority for my ability to do stuff. So this is a really bizarre comparison, but think of the Inquisition operating kind of like Doctors Without Borders.

It's not the government. It's an international organization that's set up to try to achieve a goal that it believes is beneficial in different places, but it's only as strong as or as weak as the government's willingness to collaborate with it. And if the government collaborates with it, it can be enormously powerful in an area and do a lot.

If the government is hostile to it and starves it of resources and doesn't let its people in and insists on pushing it out, then you can get bubbles where the inquisition is nearly impotent. And every time they want to arrest someone, they have to go to the duke's agents. And if the duke's agents keep saying no, they can't do anything.

What this really creates is bubbles of privileged access where if you're in with the government, you can be as heretical as you like, and the inquisition can't touch you. This is also a lot of how homosexuality operates at the time. If you are in the protection of a powerful person, they can prevent the inquisition or other officers of the church from getting at you.

They just won't do it, and they're more powerful than those agents are, so they can't touch you. There's a really neat letter where Machiavelli and some of his gay friends, Machiavelli was, I would say, very definitely solidly bisexual in that this is a man who recreationally had boyfriends and girlfriend throughout his life that he writes to. Poetry.

We have heterosexual poetry. He's definitely very excited by both sexes. And he has a lot of gay friends.

And he and his gay friends are writing back and forth about how at this particular moment in Rome, one of the agents in charge of Rome's sort of enforcement is really cracking down on homosexuality. And therefore, all of their gay scholar and artist friends are rushing to get jobs working for cardinals. Because if you work for a cardinal, nobody can touch you.

And that almost all of their friends have succeeded in getting jobs working for cardinals except for one. So he has resorted to hiring two female prostitutes to hang out with him all the time and make him seem straight by having him hang out with with, with sexy courtesans, to defend himself against charges of homosexuality. Heresy and homosexuality operate very similarly in this period.

They're both sort of forbidden by the same things and policed by the same structures. And so if you work for the cardinal or you work for the duke, you can be doing very radical magic, radical philosophy, radical politics, radical sexuality, and nobody in authority can touch you because authority is trumped by a higher authority that is protecting you. This is part of the patronage system.

And and how does that come back to the copyright? So the way that comes back to copyright stuff is the Inquisition needs to please local authorities in order to get to operate at all. And so the Inquisition will therefore try to figure out things that will please local authorities.

And if a book is being presented for publication that has a, recommendation letter at the beginning written by an important political figure, the inquisition will push it through. And when printing presses and authors say, hey, can we have this be a monopoly license? Figures like Machiavelli realize we could ask for, hey, you're giving us permission.

Can you deny everyone else permission? The inquisition immediately realized this is a great way to get publishers on our side, to get authors on our side, and to get their bosses on our side because we are protecting the book that is important to the duke because it's dedicated to the duke or dedicated to his grandfather. Remember, the Medici give permission to print the prints partly because it's dedicated to a member of the family and it celebrates their fame.

They want to be able to control its quality and make sure that it's published in good quality and that it always has that dedicatory letter at the front. They have an incentive to control what we now think of copyright. The inquisition wanting to please them has an incentive to give them that control.

So sometimes in the history of thought, there are authors who become separated from their work and you have a parallel where there is the actual content of what the person did and said. And separately, there is the idea of this person. In the case of Machiavelli, right, we have Machiavelli the patriot.

Machiavelli did all this work. And separately, we have Machiavellian, right, the murderous Machiavell as Shakespeare calls him. Old Nick, which is a nickname for the devil, but become popular because Niccolo Machiavelli, Old Nick, literally a synonym for the devil.

And he splits so that the idea of Machiavelli, the Machiavellian villainous figure that, you know, Shakespeare's Richard the third invokes as someone he's modeling himself on is useful to people as a character, as an idea. The idea of the scheming politician who is probably atheistic, definitely self serving, and who wants nothing but to advance himself in power, which of course isn't the the the real Machiavelli if you read the work. The real Machiavelli is not about advancing yourself.

It's not a manual for getting ahead. Right? It shouldn't shouldn't be shelved next to how to win friends and influence people because it's a manual not of how to gain power, but of how to keep power.

If you have a government and want it to be stable and protect the people's lives, do this. But the idea of the murderous Machiavell is very exciting. And this happens at other times to other intellectual figures.

So it happens to Thomas Hobbs in the phase that Thomas Hobbes is the beast of Malmsbury. And the idea of Thomas Hobbes sort of separates. It happens fascinatingly to Spinoza.

Spinoza, an important radical Jewish thinker of the later seventeenth century. And Spinoza is a neat one because when you actually read Spinoza, he's a lot he's really warm and sweet and like Machiavelli, passionate and cares about people. And in his case, is incredibly pious theist.

He's a monist. He believes the entire universe is the the body of God. You are part of God.

The table is part of God. The camera is part of God. Everything is God.

Isn't that great? But a fact about Spinoza, and I know this feels tangential, but it's not. A fact about Spinoza was that he was the first person in ages and ages to be, targeted with the Jewish equivalent of excommunication.

These sort of ceremonial, your radicalism is too radical. We are expelling you from the community of Jews. A such a rare ceremony that the Jews of his region actually had to send somebody traveling all around Europe to find a Jew who knew the ceremony because it was so incredibly rarely done.

And the fact of that spread around, and people had the idea of, oh, Spinoza must be even more weird and and heretical than any heretic if even the Jews would expel him. And the idea of Spinoza, the arch heretic, becomes a character. And everyone talks about Spinoza, arch heretic.

And then you read him, and it's nothing like it. But sometimes the character is useful. Right?

The idea, the thought experiment figure of Machiavelli, the villain, is useful for our philosophy. We'd like to talk about what is a Machiavellian self serving politician? What would they do?

And this has a separate life from Machiavelli's real ideas, right, To the degree that all the way through the sixteenth century, there's these amazing discussions of Machiavellianism in Spain, where they're talking about the Jews as Machiavellian and Machiavelli as the prince of the Jews. And you're like, Machiavelli was in no way a Jew at all? But what they mean by Machiavellian and by Jewish is like somehow the political thought that is undermining our good Catholic Spain.

Right? And so Jewish and Machiavellian can become synonyms, mad as that is for us. Because for them, both of these are labels for the sinister underground of thought, and now we're talking about the sinister underground of thought.

The idea of Machiavelli as the villain is itself enchanting and interesting. And as we look at when Machiavelli is invoked in the modern day, when the prince sits on the shelf and it feels like something exciting to buy and to read and to, think of as a manual of getting ahead, when having it on your shelf makes it feel like you're participating in the idea of strategic advancement and rationalism, that's much more Machiavelli the character, you know, old Nick, than it is the Niccolo Machiavelli who faithfully sat in exile, willing to give up wealth, fame, society, the ability to visit his wife, anything, in order to serve his country. And to me, I think even more fascinating than looking at either Old Nick, the fictitious Machiavellian villain villain or Machiavelli the patriot, is to look at how did we double image this?

And what is the fascinating tendency of our society to take something real powerful, exciting, intimate, and then say, but we can also make the character. And the character is itself interesting. So if you take away a main message from this, with Machiavelli, it's Machiavelli, the character of thought experiment, is an important backbone of our society.

We use him as we think about politics. Machiavelli, the actual innovator, is a different backbone of our society and how we think about politics. And if Machiavelli can be two such different things, Old Mick and Machiavelli, patriot, So many other things we encounter in life have actually been teased apart by our social utility and made into multiple things which are useful to us in different context.

So that and if you have the prints on your shelf, read it and remember it was written by somebody who was willing to give up anything to serve his country, and you'll see a very different Machiavelli come through.

I hope it won't be the last time. I hope so too.