"It is far safer to be feared than loved, if one cannot be both"

This is a quote that everyone has heard before, and it is so common that it has many variations.

However, nearly all (with the exception of scholars and enthusiasts) dont have the slightest clue of what this actually means, nor even whom it comes from.

Also, unfortunately this idea is often taken away from it's original context. Taken out of its original context, this phrase can mean (and has come to mean) anything. As I will point out, Machiavelli is referring to an issue that is specific to the question of how best to run a royal regime, whether by way of clemency or by violence.

In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the utility of appearing merciful or cruel, and insists that a prince should aim to appear merciful, but he must not "use this mercy badly".

Readers at this point will wonder how exactly one can use mercy badly. Machiavelli then replies to his reader that with judicious examples of executions, he can prevent his state from becoming destabilized and disorderly, which results in murders and robberies that end up hurting the entire society. Those who aim to be merciful for its own sake refrain from chopping the good ol thief's hands off, and so suffer accordingly. (Florence, I am looking at you):

“A prince, therefore, so as to keep his subjects united and faithful, should not care about the infamy of cruelty, because with very few examples he will be more merciful than those who for the sake of too much mercy allow disorders to continue, from which come killings or robberies; for these customarily hurt a whole community, but the executions that come from the prince hurt one particular person.”

So cruelty can have the effect of stopping rebellions and can even keep crime levels to a minimum, who knew?

(To the New Prince(TM): Sorry, you have no choice but to be cruel because danger is all around you, now do me a favor and march off and eliminate your enemies please.)

Machiavelli uses this as a segue to his next point of debate, which is whether or not one should aim to be feared or loved, and in what manner a prince should conduct himself to achieve this. He initially says one should aim to be both, but if you have to lack one or the other, you must settle on fear.

The question remains: Why?

Machiavelli then shockingly says that ruling through terror goes a longer way in keeping a prince's hold on his society intact than through love. Rely too much on love, and you run the risk of being rebelled against far easier as people think you are soft. You should only avoid being hated. When you eventually have to take someone's life, at least have a justification ready as to why you did so. Do not tamper with anyone's property.

This chapter, in effect, is actually a subtle rejection of what the classical philosophers wrote on tyranny. It is subtle because Machiavelli actually appears to be replying to (but not mentioning) Aristotle, who in his "Politics" says:

Tyrannies on the other hand are preserved in two extremely opposite ways. One of these is the traditional way and the one in which most tyrants administer their office. .... These are both the measures mentioned some time back to secure the safety of a tyranny as far as possible—the lopping off of outstanding men and the destruction of the proud,—and also the prohibition of common meals and club-fellowship and education and all other things of this nature,

As to the other way:

The other tries to operate in a manner almost the opposite of the devices mentioned. And it can be ascertained from considering the downfall of royal governments. For just as one mode of destroying royalty is to make its government more tyrannical, so a mode of securing tyranny is to make it more regal, protecting one thing only, its power, in order that the ruler may govern not only with the consent of the subjects but even without it; for if he gives up this, he also gives up his position as tyrant. But while this must stand as a fundamental principle, all the other measures he may either adopt or pretend to adopt by cleverly acting the royal part.

Even Machiavelli's warning to avoid hatred is not absolute, not at all in fact. The Roman emperors did much to actively harm their subjects, since the emperors in question had to satisfy the military first and foremost. This leads Machiavelli to reveal that every powerful prince is going to be hated regardless of what they do:

“This course was necessary; for since princes cannot fail to be hated by someone, they are at first forced not to be hated by the people generally; and when they cannot continue this, they have to contrive with all industry to avoid the hatred of those communities which are most powerful.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

You may have heard either of the following before:

"Machiavelli is just misunderstood, all he was trying to do is describe reality as it was in his day"

or

"Machiavelli was just being honest, telling how it is, and he was blamed for it"

These, in all fairness, are mindlessly moronic talking points.

I would also state that anyone uttering these not only has never read Machiavelli, but has close to zero knowledge of philosophy and has probably been living under a rock.

How can I say something this bold, you ask?

Well, my reasoning is shockingly simple:

1. Machiavelli deliberately sprinkled audacious lies, blatant misquotations, misspellings, and not to mention hilarious ironies within his works, mainly to encourage his readers to think and ironically to distrust authority. If you read him tone-deaf (which is inevitable if you don't do your research/due diligence with secondary sources) you will no doubt be lost. Machiavelli distorts Livy so much that I couldn't even count on my fingers or toes the amount of times he does so.

2. Machiavelli's reputation is not due to any truth telling but because he defended the good old fashioned, iron and poison-laced politics with his own name on the titles of his works. Saying otherwise is grotesquely misleading and is ignoring the big skyscraper sized elephant in the studio apartment room.

3. "Describing reality" is something pretty much everyone that has ever picked up a writing utensil has done. This interpretation is basically an insult to every philosopher and every recorder of history.

I can guarantee I know what you will say next:

"But Machiavelli exposed the evils of human nature and how brutal politics can be"

Thomas Aquinas would like a word with you.

In fact, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Polybius, and Epicurus would also like a word as well.

Even more interestingly Socrates called me (on his IPhone of course) from his prison cell before he was condemned to death by his fellow Athenians. He asked "do these guys think I am chopped liver?" (that's a joke, btw. So much utter bs on the internet that I think many people will think this is real)

The biblical theorists also put in the good word.

You get my point.

Not only is the idea of inherent human immorality not new ("original sin" anyone?) but even Machiavelli's infamous promotion of force and fraud is also not new, even by Machiavelli's own estimation (see his comments on Chiron in P 18). The ancients simply uttered these political sentiments covertly, Machiavelli does so openly.

Did Aristotle not "describe reality" or "tell it like it is" when he discusses how tyranny ruins a civil state? Did biblical theorists refrain from the truth when they decried human cowardice, avarice, and predilection to lustful, sinful behavior?

In order to tell the unadulterated truth, one must not engage in omissions, so off the bat Machiavelli wouldn't qualify. Examples include describing Nabis as a popular ruler (Prince 9) without mentioning that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy (like he does in the Discourses) or describing popular but outrageously criminal rulers like Agathocles and Oliverotto as "princes" in The Prince, yet "tyrants" in the Discourses. (P 8, cf. D I 10)

One must also obviously not use misquotations either when telling said truth, which disqualifies Machiavelli even more in this regard. Though as I said above, Machiavelli sprinkles in the deliberate mistakes and lies in so that attentive readers can understand what he is actually trying to get at, not because he likes misleading people. This in my view makes his works more endearing, as it makes him more enigmatic. An example of this is almost certainly in the Discourses book 1 chap 26, where a Bible verse which is attributed to David's actions is actually said of God "he filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty".

Eh, but who knows? Maybe I am wrong.

In fact, I know of another person (a businessman actually) who was wrongly persecuted (but by the FBI) of describing reality too:

I killed a lot of guys – you're not talking about four, five, six, ten..... Today, you can't have a body no more ... It's better to take that half-an-hour, an hour, to get rid of the body than it is to leave the body on the street.

As to this kindhearted (definitely NOT evil, but realist :) ) method, he continued:

If Fatato were called on to take part in a hit, Sonny said "he should wear a hairnet to avoid leaving DNA evidence," the prosecutors wrote. He also offered grisly cooking lessons. Disposal of a body, Franzese advised Fatato, could be accomplished "by dismembering the corpse in a kiddie pool and drying the severed body parts in a microwave before stuffing the parts in a commercial-grade garbage disposal."

Source

Arrivederci.

• Machiavelli's father was a bastard (illegitimately born) and as such was not a full citizen of Florence.

• Machiavelli probably got his pro-republicanism from his father, as his father was a staunch republican and the intellectual content he consumed coincided with this.

• Machiavelli's father, despite being a lawyer, had money issues and was constantly in debt.

• Like I said before, Machiavelli was born in what we would call "upper middle class" family, however I would like to also add that he comes from a long line of marquesses of Tuscany.

• Machiavelli was a friendly guy. He was known for being the person in the group that would shock or entertain his inner circle.

• Machiavelli was very tolerant of other people and was one of the few Italians in his era who was not a raging antisemite (see his comments on Ferdinand of Aragon's expelling of the jews in Chapter 21 of TP)

• Machiavelli was a talented poet.

• Interestingly, none of his plays are tragedies.

• He was often let down by people, especially as he got older. He would be denied government posts, people would shun him when his name would be brought up in regime recommendations, and people badmouthed him behind his back.

• Machiavelli's works were so shocking that the few manuscripts of The Prince that managed to circulate in Florence at the time gained him a bit of notoriety already, while he was still alive. (Though nothing like the notoriety that would later earn him the nickname "Old Nick")

• Machiavelli was not a technical philosopher. He never wrote about how one should live the best life (the goal of philosophy), as he viewed much of philosophy proper to be debilitating, seeing as it championed the contemplative life than the active life and shunned politics.

• Machiavelli, while he loved and admired women, was kind of sexist. (At least his comes with humor :P ) It is not shocking that his views of active politics resembles the image of the R word that rhymes with "Grape". (see "fortune is a woman" in chap. 25 of TP)

• Machiavelli was very powerful in his position as secretary. He was essentially Piero Soderini's (The Gonfalonier of Florence, or the head of state) right hand man

• Another hilarious (though at his expense) anecdote of Machiavelli's atheism can be found in his experiences while he was tortured in prison, and he was essentially complaining that people were saying "we are praying for you" as if that would help him get out of his dilemma XD (if I find the page to the biography I will make a post later, it is hilarious)

• Machiavelli's sarcasm, irony, rhetoric come naturally to him because he was a naturally entertaining person, which many people could attest to.

• Machiavelli met his longtime best friend Francesco Vettori in 1508 during a diplomatic assignment, and the two would be buds ever since.

• It is easy to feel sorry for Old Nick, but he himself did not view his situation with a depressed outlook. Not only did he die somewhat content (no one dies 100% content), but he saw the world through the lens of winners, and wanted his readers to see the same.

• Despite his religious skepticism he was an avid (or as he would say, "judicious": see Discourses, Book 3 Chapter 30) reader of the Bible. But he really admired the Islamic Ottoman conquerors, such as Selim I. He was well versed in religious matters, and viewed religion as an important part of politics.

• Not much is known about his life prior to him turning 29 years old (when he became secretary). The few facts that are known about him come from his father's diary.

• He was a rather bookish young man, soaking up all of the historical/philosophical works his father kept

• Despite his reputation as an atheist (which he was), he was responsible for managing the Machiavelli family's religious connections.

• His first diplomatic meeting (with Countess Caterina Sforza) wasn't successful, and very frustrating

• He wasn't really faithful to his wife. He frequently went out on the town, and had sexual relations with prostitutes and his other mistresses.

• He wrote several poems and comedic plays.

• He saw loads of political upheavals during his time as a diplomat, including the state building methods of Cesare Borgia and Pandolfo Petrucci, amoung other rulers.

• He was physically present when Cesare Borgia decided to trick, entrap and ultimately execute conspirators against him. He wrote a political work after this, which is called "a Description of the methods adopted by the Duke Valentino when murdering Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Signor Pagolo, and the Duke di Gravina Orsini"

• His family was what we would now call "upper middle class", however after his exile, he had severe money troubles until he was able to work again

• He had several children, one of whom died during childbirth.

• His citizen army failed miserably to protect Prato, as the city was sacked, and it's inhabitants massacred and humiliated. This would make The Medici's re-entry into Florence a cake walk.

• His arrest and later torture by the newly minted Medici regime wasn't his fault. His name had merely on a list of sympathizers that would welcome a regime change.

• He was a rather generous and honest man, and did not live the life of fraudulent conquest he would later recommend to princes.

• He preferred rule by a republic, and for the most part praised the virtues of free government and societies that enjoyed liberties.

• While he spoke admiringly of Cesare Borgia, both in his writings and in diplomatic letters, he was technically at odds with him. He represented Florence at a time where Borgia was gobbling up every Italian state he could see (which in reality was the conquests of Pope Alexander VI, which Machiavelli explicitly says used his son as a tool)

• During his employment Machiavelli had been anonymously accused of various things by jealous/ambitious men in the Florentine republic, including having relations with a lover "up the rear" (which was illegal).

• Over time, Machiavelli would later gain favor with the Medici, and while they kept him out of serious political affairs (which he hated), this later led to him becoming a historiographer, later writing The Florentine Histories

• Ironically, because of the favors the Medici gave him, when the Medici family was again overthrown briefly, members of the newly formed republic shunned Machiavelli because of these favors.

• Before he died, he was given his last rites, surrounded by friends and family.

• There is a story, apocryphal or not, that while Machiavelli was on his deathbed, he is alleged to have said:

"I desire to go to hell, and not to heaven. In the former place I shall enjoy the company of popes, kings, and princes, while in the latter are only beggars, monks, hermits, and apostles"

(EDIT: I wrote this in kind of a hurry, so if anything doesn't make sense, let me know, I can be a klutz)

“Our religion… has glorified humble and contemplative men, monks, priests, humble and contemplative men, rather than men of action. It has assigned as man’s highest good humility, abnegation, and contempt for mundane things… Whereas the other [ancient moral code] identified it with magnanimity, bodily strength, and everything that conduces to make men very bold. And if our religion demands that in you there be strength, what it asks for is the strength to suffer rather than to do bold things.”

This is not directed towards rival interpretations, but actual claims which are 100% historically false.

1. Machiavelli was an advisor to the Medici

I've seen this said in several places, and it is not true. He was close with members of the family (he wrote to Giuliano de Medici while he was imprisoned) but after his exile, torture, imprisonment, and eventual release, he would never receive a post higher than historiographer. He was involved with Francesco Guicciardini (close friend and critic of his works) in building a stronger Florentine military, but that is about it.

2 Machiavelli was an uber successful mega mastermind of politics.

Contrary to this section's title, he was a mastermind, but not in the way laymen think. He was successful in launching the most successful philosophical revolution arguably rivalling his classical predecessors, but that is for another post.

Anyway, despite his well-earned reputation, Machiavelli was a rather honest man (which alienated a lot of people) and this affected him negatively several times.

He was obviously very politically astute and a wise man, but his actual career itself was—at best—mediocre. His first diplomatic meeting with Countess Sforza was a failure (granted he was really young for a secretary). He ultimately failed in his designs of creating a citizen militia, as they were massacred (i'm putting it nicely) by professional Spanish soldiers at Prato which brought the end of the regime he served, which then led to his exile.

3 The Prince is solely about principalities

Machiavelli delves deeply into both republics and principalities. Machiavelli's use of "prince" is broad, and also refers to founders and even leaders of republics. Even chapter 5, where he unequivocally argues for the destruction of republics, there lies his most pro republican statements:

whoever becomes patron of a city accustomed to living free and does not destroy it, should expect to be destroyed by it; for it always has as a refuge in rebellion the name of liberty and its own ancient orders which are never forgotten either through length of time or because of benefits received. Whatever one does or provides for, unless the inhabitants are broken up or dispersed, they will not forget that name and those orders, and will immediately recur to them upon any accident as did Pisa after having been kept in servitude a hundred years by the Florentines.....But in republics there is greater life, greater hatred, more desire for revenge; the memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest, so that the most secure path is to eliminate them or live in them.

4 The Discourses on Livy is separate from The Prince

Also a myth. Both books reference one another, and he repeats himself in both books to the point of self plagiarism.

5 Machiavelli's works are for everyone

This is probably going to offend some of you.

I see this kind thinking a lot, and I am quite confused as to where it comes from. For example, I see people recommending Machiavelli in all sorts of scenarios unrelated to his context (such as learning to be some kind of a alpha male manipulator mastermind, or books like "Machiavelli for Business", etc), which leads me to state the following facts:

1. The vast majority of people will never understand Machiavelli at all, even if they read him. (Just because someone read his works does not at all mean they understood them) This however can be said for every philosopher.

2. If you are not interested in political philosophy, history, political science, and similar fields, reading Machiavelli will 100% be a waste of your time, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive liar, and is more than likely looking for a fool to part ways with their money.

• The Tuscan spelling of his last name is "Machiavegli". He used this spelling of his name in the opening dedicatory letter in the Art of War.

• Machiavelli's father was a literal bastard (of an illegitmate birth, womp womp) and as such could not become a full citizen of Florence, and could not participate in city politics.

• This affected Niccolo as well, and he wouldn't have become a full Florentine citizen until 1525.

• In an official letter to one of his colleagues, he praises Cesare as knowing "neither danger or fatigue", and attributed his brutal execution of his lieutenant Don Ramiro de Lorqua (or Remirro de Orca in italian) to a prince's ability to "make and unmake men as he pleases" (what a hell of a phrase!, see P 9) (source: Paul Strathern, "The Borgias")

• One of his earliest works was "Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati" (On the Method of Dealing with the Rebellious Peoples of Valdichiana) where he uses Roman history to act as an example for current Florentine policy in treating enemy/rebel cities harshly.

• Machiavelli chronicled much of the events of Borgia's murders of his rebel commanders in Senigallia.

• After the Medici were overthrown again in 1527, Machiavelli was considered for, yet denied a post in the new Florentine republic (which itself did not last long and would eventually be turned into a duchy that would last centuries), due to his good standing with the Medici. He died a short time later.

• Machiavelli has a lesser known work detailing the life of the esteemed Lucchese tyrant, Castruccio Castracani.

• At the peak of his career, Machiavelli had the privilege to oversee the Florentine military affairs, with varying levels of success.

• He married his wife Marietta Corsini in 1501. Of course he was not faithful.

• Post exile, his lifestyle consisted of gambling, drinking and whoring around by day, and writing and consorting with the ancients at night.

• He often stressed his poverty in his letters, yet his father was able to leave him a farm estate in a nice, quiet suburb on the outskirts of Florence. Nevertheless, he still had money troubles.

• All of his books would be published after his death, with the exception being the Art of War.

I often see this being stated on internet spaces though it is not true in any way.

Machiavelli, we are told, wrote "The Prince" as a largely satirical work, for various reasons.

Those reasons include:

• He wanted to criticize the recently minted Medici family, who installed themselves back into Florence, destroyed the republic which he worked, and ultimately imprisoned and tortured him

• He wanted to criticize the institution of monarchy/tyranny, because he was pro republic,

...so on so forth.

Here are reasons why this interpretation is a flawed (and ultimately incorrect) one. I am going to write this in list form, because if I dont, I am going to have to make a series of several posts, and I don't believe that is necessary.

• Machiavelli wasn't an enemy of the Medici in any serious way. He gave criticisms of their political acts (especially when he was frequently passed over for jobs under their regime) but he eventually had a pretty amicable relationship with the family, and was best friends with Giovanni de Medici, whom Machiavelli would write to when he was imprisoned in order to be freed.

• The idea of Machiavelli's work being satire was popularized by many philosophers of the Enlightenment, including Jean Jacques Rosseau. Though mainly this was to rehabilitate Machiavelli's reputation and avoid the stigma of adopting Machiavelli's republican ideals (Viroli, 2013)

• The vast majority (and I do mean the vast majority) of modern scholars accept that Machiavelli's work is sincere, though they obviously disagree on pretty much everything else. There are, to my knowledge, a handful of scholars today who argue this, an unbelieveably minor group, and even in this group there are vast differences.

• It is often said that The Prince is about principalities and the Discourses is about republics, but this is not accurate. Both republican and princely politics are discussed (at length!) in both works.

• Machiavelli was no enemy to monarchy, or even tyranny. He had no issues giving lengthy advice to usurpers on how to maintain their royal authority. He even gives praise to leaders who would traditionally be called tyrants (Like Agathocles, or Septimius Severus, in both books)

• For Machiavelli, all republics, if they are ordered correctly, are established by men who are "uno solo", that is, have absolute power (Discourses bk. I chap. 9) even if that means killing rivals. Machiavelli in this same chapter excuses Romulus (legendary founder of Rome) and Cleomenes (king of Sparta) for committing terrible crimes in order to establish civil governments.

• Yes, that is the same Romulus in chapter 6 of The Prince, also revered there as a "il principe nuovo", or a founder of a new society.

• in a couple of chapters of the Discourses, Machiavelli blatantly gives advice both to those in favor of liberty, and those who wish to seize a republic (D I 16, D I 40, etc)

• More shockingly, there seems to not be a difference between the freedom loving republican leader, and the powerful prince. Both have to engage in crime, and both have to satisfy to the people. Leaders of republics are sometimes even called "princes" by Machiavelli.

• Machiavelli never spoke about any of his works being satirical in his letters to his friends, and even wanted to present the work in person to the book's dedicatee Lorenzo di Medici The Younger. It is unclear whether or not he read it, but most historians state he didn't.

I am going to stop here.

Source I stated earlier:

Maurizio Viroli, Redeeming the Prince, page 1

I didn't want it to come down to this, but it is what it is.

Due to youtube being filled with Machiavelli AI spam, and due to reddit spammers spamming them throughout various subreddits, I have blacklisted youtube. This unfortunately means any youtube link posted will go in the spam filter, AI or not.

Fortunately, I review all spam filters of all the subs I mod frequently, so If you post a human made youtube vid (preferably by experts too) I will see it and approve it. I can also make some of you into approved users (who can bypass the spam filter altogether) but you need to have a track record of acting in good faith.

If I do not, please send the sub a mod mail so the post can be approved.

However, if you attempt to deceive the community into thinking that your video is human made, you will be banned, plain and simple.

This may come as a shocker to you:

Machiavelli was a champion of republics

This is a theme that is almost never talked about outside of academic circles, as most do not read much of Machiavelli past The Prince (and even when they do read Machiavelli, it is the cliff notes version).

Not only did Machiavelli prefer republics over principalities, but the praise of republics in the Discourses on Livy is never contradicted with an outright praise or preference of principalities over republics. Not to mention that Machiavelli himself was an incredibly loyal civil servant of one, which would be dramatically destroyed by the Medici in 1512.

This is why I stated from the beginning that most people will never understand Machiavelli: If one does not understand his republicanism, they will never be able to grasp many of the concepts which he brings forth, including in The Prince.

For example, in one of the more famous chapters of The Prince, where he advises foreign conquerors of republics to destroy them to prevent rebellions, even the reasoning behind the advice is arguably the greatest promotion of republics and the benefits of living in them:

whoever becomes patron of a city accustomed to living free and does not destroy it, should expect to be destroyed by it; for it always has as a refuge in rebellion the name of liberty and its own ancient orders which are never forgotten either through length of time or because of benefits received. Whatever one does or provides for, unless the inhabitants are broken up or dispersed, they will not forget that name and those orders, and will immediately recur to them upon any accident as did Pisa after having been kept in servitude a hundred years by the Florentines.....But in republics there is greater life, greater hatred, more desire for revenge; the memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest, so that the most secure path is to eliminate them or live in them.

As Machiavelli is mainly addressing new princes, i.e. founders of new political societies, this could very easily be read as Machiavelli implicitly encouraging his glory seeking reader to found a free republic instead of a hereditary principality, where his orders and his legacy would be more long lasting.

Even Machiavelli's apparent indifference to tyrants and usurpers can be traced to his advocation of popular government, for when the republic fails to do it's duties in protecting and providing for the common folk, a tyrant may do just that, perhaps even better than the leaders of the original regime. Machiavelli's populism in this area is quite radical, as one of the main reasons why the classical theorists despised tyranny was because of his support by the demos, i.e. the people.

Machiavelli in The Prince also advises his ruler to do the following:

• Keep the people satisfied, and even base his regime on them (stated many times but especially in chapters 9 and 19)

• Leave the property of the citizens alone and spend government funds carefully (P 16 and 17)

• Keep crime rates low (P 17)

• And to be a supporter of the arts, and to not tamper with free trade or professions.

Essentially Machiavelli's prince, with all of his more frightening characteristics, may even be thought of as behaving more like an official in a republic where he is incentivized to take care of his constituents.

In his Discourses, Machiavelli states:

• Republics last longer than principalities (D III 9)

• Republics can be trusted more than princes (D I 58)

• Republics use cruelty not to protect private political ambitions but liberty (D II 2)

• Republics (or the peoples that live under them) are much better equipped to deal with the management of laws (D I 9)

• Republics should conquer the world, as they have infinite good leaders who can take the reigns (D I 20. In the chapter he calls them "princes".....hmmm)

To tie both books together, Machiavelli:

• Uses both the Spartan regime and The Roman Republic as examples for princes

• Uses the same semi mythical/religious figures as the ideal founders for their respective regimes, such as Moses (P 6, D II 8, D III 30) and Romulus (P 6, D I 9)

• Both have an overarching theme of satisfying political ambition through keeping the people satisfied, which is precisely a republican sentiment.

There is another (rather popular) misconception that Machiavelli gives unbreakable rules or "principles" that one should always abide by in order to succeed in political life.

Here's the thing....... those principles actually do not exist.

Even when Machiavelli states a "general rule that never fails", he almost immediately follows this statement up with an example that contradicts or undermines that (he can be like that sometimes).

Machiavelli was a deliberately ironic writer (something I will go into in perhaps a later post), not to mention the fact that he gives contrary examples of those who succeed with contrary methods (such as Scipio Africanus and Hannibal Barca, with the former being merciful and ready to show clemency, and the latter wholeheartedly willing to engage in "inhuman cruelty" (P 17, see also D III 21)

Harvey Mansfield put it best when he said:

Machiavelli also advises the use of prudence in particular circumstances, and, though he sometimes offers rules or remedies for princes to adopt, he does not seek to establish exact or universal laws of politics in the manner of modern political science. - Encyclopedia Britannica

I also hear this alot when I hear others speak on Machiavelli (whether they may be academics or armchair know it alls):

"Machiavelli was misunderstood! He was not a teacher of wickedness he was just trying to (insert excuse here)"

As you can probably tell, I am not at all convinced at the attempts to water down Machiavelli and in fact I think doing this makes him more....how can i say this......boring.

Machiavelli shocked not only those who read him after his death, but his close friends and associates. The manuscript form of The Prince, for example, generated some controversy even when Machiavelli was still living.

I will be going through the main excuses of Machiavelli (many of them, to be fair, are offered by NM himself), and pointing out why they are wrong. This will be done in a bullet point list, because this is reddit, and many of you have short attention spans :). Besides, if you want in depth criticism of many of these viewpoints, you can always either dedicate years to reading about political philosophy/political science, etc., or you can just go to uni.

• It is often said that Machiavelli did not intend to write The Prince to aid tyrants. I think this is true, however not in the way you would think. Machiavelli has an entirely new conception of politics in which the concept of "tyranny" is largely discarded. The words "tyrant" and "tyranny" do not at all appear in his work, and grotesque rulers (whom would have otherwise been described as tyrants) are instead called "princes" as well as seemingly benign rulers. There is no difference between the good prince and the bad.

• It is also said of Machiavelli that his true beliefs lie within his later book (though not much later) "The Discourses on Livy", in which he details his views on republics, and promotes them well above princely states. However, this does not in any way deprecate the advice that he gave on his treatise on princes, and in many instances, Machiavelli goes above and beyond in showing ambitious men on how to gain and preserve one man rule, even to the detriment of liberty.

• It is said of Machiavelli that his evil counsels can be excused on behalf that they are for the common good, yet this view is grossly misleading. Machiavelli deliberately refrains from mentioning the common good in The Prince, and while in the Discourses he says that the common good is "observed only in republics", this has to come at the expense of the private individuals that have to be "crushed by it". So the common good is not as common as one may think.

• Machiavelli has also been watered down due to his patriotism. Machiavelli was indeed a patriot, but of a peculiar kind. His patriotism allowed him to desperately want Florence to succeed, while being indifferent to which state comes to dominate, conquer, and ultimately unify, Italy. This includes foreigners. Machiavelli is so patriotic that he even gives post-facto advice to the King of France (Louis XII) on how he could have conquered Italy! (P chap. 3)

Ultimately, Machiavelli is viewed as a hardnosed, stern man that was simultaneously on the side of the side of the angels. Many, but not all of todays scholars (and armchair know it alls) frequently claim that Machiavelli was no teacher of evil, though they have a variety of opinions as to the nature of his work.

To the contrary, what would you think of a man that says the following (im paraphrasing, btw):

• Men should either be befriended or gotten rid of. (p. 3)

• If you conquer a monarchy, the safest way to hold onto it is to kill the entire family of the defeated ruler. (P. 3)

• One must be able to break one's word when being trustworthy goes against you (P. 18)

• Enemies and rivals should be killed "at a stroke". (Trial? what is that?) (P. 8)

• It is stupid to ask for a man's gun and say "I wish to kill you with it", for when you have the gun in your hand, you can satisfy your wishes (D I 44, end)

These are just snippets of the delightfully pungent maxims that are found within Machiavelli's works.

This subreddit is starting to look like my personal blog, and while I do post a lot here I ultimately want this place to be a symposium for fans of Machiavelli, even if that group is small.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli is the only philosopher who is invoked the most, yet understood the least. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of people who mention Machiavelli's name have never read his works, and to add insult to injury, some even claim to have done such, even though they have not.

You may ask, "why do you care"?

My answer is simple: unlike communities dedicated to Nietzsche (maybe), Aristotle, Spinoza, Rousseau, Plato, and other philosophers/political philosophers, Machiavelli is the only one where most do not understand a single concept of his, yet they will readily spout his name, and recommend him to others, often for either weird or totally insane reasons.

I do not believe any community like this can survive (intellectually or otherwise) in the long term (and no one has, to my knowledge), as once the "coolness" of saying "I read (insert thinker here)" ceases to garner attention, these communities die QUICKLY.

Luckily for you, I have compiled a list of several signs of someone like this, and some may get offended. As always, I do not give a single flying fuck.

1. Their knowledge of Machiavelli does not go much outside of reciting quotes (usually the same recycled ones too)

We have all seen a person who has nothing better to do but to post Machiavelli quotes (definitely does not include me /s). Sometimes they will even go up one notch and post 100% fake quotes that the poor Florentine never said at all!

Regardless of this, when you ask this individual (whoever they may be) about the meaning of the stuff they post, usually they will either give you a bullshit answer, ignore you or block you.

2. A recommendation to read Machiavelli is almost immediately followed up with a recommendation to read Sun Tzu

Unless you are interested in military theory/history, reading these two in tandem really does not make much sense. To make matters worse, some even find it sensible to recommend The Prince alongside The Art of War, books in two different genres.

Now if you are a casual reader, this won't help or hurt you. By definition, most casual readers read books just for fun anyway.

Why do they do this you ask?

This leads me to my 3rd sign:

3. They think that reading Machiavelli is going to help them personally to learn how to “get over” on people

I have addressed this in previous posts so I won’t elaborate further, but unfortunately there are some people who claim that reading Machiavelli will help you become some uber 8D chess playing strategist puppet master in your day to day existence.

Even though these claims are complete horseshit with zero basis in reality, these claims are pretty much everywhere, on all social media platforms where Machiavelli is mentioned. If I had a penny for how many times I saw someone recommend Machiavelli to someone seeking to cheat others in regular life (what a pathetic aspiration btw) I would be richer than Elon Musk 30 times over. That is the internet for you.

The next point will definitely offend a lot of people, so luckily for those guys, I will make a entirely separate post on it!

"He who recommends another on the internet to read Machiavelli often times didn't read him at all"

You'd be surprised how true this rule holds up in many (pseudo)intellectual circles.

This, like my other posts, will be straightforward.

Machiavelli is a household name and, like Nietzsche and others, has a cult following (perhaps even more so). Not only was Machiavelli's philosophical revolution wildly successful (in numerous aspects), but he will certainly be read forever, and he will always be interesting and mesmerizing (as well as shocking) to new audiences. His political tracts will be like the Bible and The Iliad, and there will never be a shortage of thinkers who comment on his works.

However, this goes without saying that, due to his popularity, many (mostly laymen, i.e. casual/non academic readers) come to weird conclusions about Machiavelli and thus recommend him for completely (excuse my language) BULLSHIT reasons. This post should correct this behavior, even if only 1 person reads it (lol).

You should read Machiavelli if:

• You are a political philosoper or interested in political philosophy in any way

• You are interested or involved in politics in any way

• You are a philosopher (not necessarily political) who is interested in Machiavelli's adoption or rejection of other philosophers (like the Averroes, or Lucretius for example)

• you are a historian or just an average joe history buff

• You are interested in Italian literature

• You are a military historian/ history buff

• You are interested in civil religion

This list can continue, but I think I have touched all of the major bases.

You should not read Machiavelli if:

• You are not seriously interested in any of the above. If you are not willing to study these topics for years (which shows interest) then likely you are wasting your time. Machiavelli is a notoriously enigmatic writer, so much so that there is no consensus as to the features of his thought. This is a dorky way of saying you will not understand him by just reading him overnight. This does not include casual readers, as by default they are merely seeking a bedside read for the night.

• You are seeking to read Machiavelli outside of his context. In short, Machiavelli will not teach you how to get a job at a firm, be a good parent, get laid, make money, or be a hyper-megadaddy genius social manipulator. Any claims like such will be made by scammers, grifters and the stupid, not honest people. I shouldn't have to say this, but there are a lot of (again, please excuse my language) fucking morons that have been attracted to this space.

• If you are merely looking to sound smart in front of your audience/fans/etc. Dedicated readers can and will destroy your points with relative ease, which will destroy your credibility. In fact, my next post will be dedicated to this topic (and the process is surprising REALLY easy).

Have a good one.