u/Fickle-Buy6009

▲ 16 r/Machiavellianism+1 crossposts

Re: Are We Reading Machiavelli Wrong?

Is Machiavelli misunderstood after all?

In an interview with Vox, Erica Benner, a distinguished Machiavelli scholar, aims to answer that question.

Erica Benner is the leader of the minority of modern scholars (if one can even call it a minority) that believes Machiavelli wrote The Prince to mock the despot rather than teach him. I have read snippets of her works during my studies, and I have listened to her speak in a lecture, so I am familiar with her arguments.

I am also aware that she is perhaps the only one who views both Il Principe and the Discorsi to have an ironical objective in mind (which should come as a complete spit in the face to those who think that Machiavelli's "TrUE PhILOsopHY" lies in the Discourses) so reading what she says in this interview should be interesting.

To be clear, I entirely disagree with her thesis, but I still want to give her views a fair hearing.

The interview is titled "Are We Reading Machiavelli Wrong" (the original is paywalled)

Before the interview begins, the author writes a brief introduction. He begins by giving an overview of Machiavelli's evil reputation, and asks:

>But is this fair to Machiavelli, or has he been misunderstood? And if he has been, what are we missing in his work?

To answer his questions:

  1. No. In fact the caricature of Machiavelli is less Machiavellian than the true Machiavelli, to the point where I can confidently say that many of his earlier readers during the Elizabethan era did not go far enough. And....

  2. nothing.

I will only be covering a few of her interview answers, as I don't want to make this post too long.

When asked if why The Prince is not "well understood", she replies that she used to be of the opinion that Machiavelli's magnum opus was just a handbook for tyranny. However, she began to question this view in light of The Discourses, which she says is a very republican book. She then asked herself:

>How could he have switched so quickly from writing The Prince to being a super-republican writing the Discourses?

That would have been a legitimate question to ask if The Prince and The Discourses were two different books, and if Machiavelli did not direct the audience of the former to read the latter book. As we know, this obviously is not true, as the author The Prince reveals that he has "reasoned on republics" in a "another place", and this is the second chapter of the book.

She then explains further that:

>When I started seeing some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally and they say it. They say he’s a moral writer. Rousseau says, “He has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.” If you ever pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don’t read them that carefully because they’re kind of boring, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom.

Rousseau, like many of the figures in the Enlightenment, mainly proposed this theory due to their desire to avoid gaining a bad reputation from associating themselves with Machiavelli, who at that time people reflexively rejected. Even still, he is also misrepresenting the meaning of the text. She does not mention Montesquieu here at all, nor does she mention Machiavelli's younger friend Francesco Gucciardini, who opined that Machiavelli "was always partial to extraordinary and violent methods".

She continues:

> And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cruel, cold analysis of what you should do. Then you get to chapter five and it’s like, Wow! It’s about how republics fight back, and the whole tone changes. Suddenly republics are fighting back and the prince has to be on his toes because he’s probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up.

I actually agree with her here, (somewhat) but I want you guys to please note this statement. I will explain why I disagree with this later.

When asked who is Machiavelli actually addressing in The Prince, she answers that he was:

>....taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable, in a low-key way because you can’t be too brutally satirical about it. But I think he’s really writing to expose the ways of tyrants.

Here she is referencing Machiavelli being tortured at the hands of the Medici, but she omits that his relationship with the family got better, and they even became his patron. She says that he is being "low key" about his satire because of the dangers he recently encountered, while not taking into account that nothing in The Prince is "low key". Reading her statement here has me confused as it is coming from a scholar who is trying to stress the comical outrageousness of Machiavelli's work. If she can detect this, so can his enemies. They are not dumb.

When asked if Machiavelli has an ideology, she explains:

>He’s a republican. And again, this is something that, if you just read The Prince, you’re not going to get.

This is so blatantly wrong that I was quite disappointed when I read it, and that it came from a scholar of Benner's stature. When I told you guys to remember her earlier statement of chapter 5 of the Prince being about freedom, this is why. Not only does she completely contradict what she said earlier, but she is wrong in general. What she does not mention is that Chapter 5 of the Prince it is the Roman Republic that is the model for princes to emulate, not some violent prince. In fact, Machiavelli actually seems to think that absolute monarchies are more merciful to cities that they conquer, since they "love" their subject cities, and that the "harshest slavery" is being conquered by a republic! (D II 1). This is not even mentioning the fact that the ideal new prince in the next chapter of the book (Chapter 6) was Romulus, who murdered his brother to found the city of Rome by himself, with Machiavelli excusing him as he created civil orders suitable for a republic. (D I 9). I can continue further, but I can stop here.

She goes on to state:

But if you read the Discourses, which was written around the same time as The Prince, it’s very, very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly. Whereas The Prince never once uses the words “tyrant” or “tyranny.”

She is right about the timeline of the composition of Machiavelli's books, and that he never mentions those words. She is also correct in that The Discourses openly criticizes "tyrants". However, I wonder what she thinks of the Machiavelli giving post facto advise to the would be tyrant of Rome, Appius Claudius, explaining that he could have succeeded if he "eliminated the nobles" before subjugating the commonfolk, and that his (and the republic's) mistake can instruct those who wish to save, as well as those who want to seize, republics (D I 41). Seems we will never know!

> Machiavelli was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad of a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, The key to stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. You might want to speak a little bit more for yourself and the rich guys, but in the end, everyone’s got to have a share.

I am going to have to read a bit more of her works, because she doens't necessarily explain what is meant by "egalitarian". Machiavelli's works are chock full of the ruling class using methods to entrench their partisans politically, and he gives them methods to do so (e.g. the electoral manipulation in D I 48). I personally haven't gained the sense of Machiavelli being an egalitarian from reading him.

She is asked various questions about Trump, etc. but I found what she says here quite interesting:

>Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere in the long term. You’re going to get pure hate. So if you think it’s ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again.

He does not come anywhere near saying this in The Prince. Agathocles (P 8) committed barbarous cruelties and ruled safely until his death, never being conspired against (which is true, per Machiavelli's reading of the roman historian Justin). Severus kept the people "astonished and stupefied" despite the fact that he committed terrible crimes (he came to power and maintained it by a series of murders), robbed the people persistently, and supported the soldiers, whom treated the people badly.

I am going to stop here.

I did not make this post to solely poke holes in Benner's interpretation. I think she represents herself much more clearer in her books. Though I disagree with her interpretation, she has no doubt contributed much to the Machiavelli scholarship. She has the wisdom to accept (unlike those who persistently peddle Machiavelli as a "no nonsense realist who keepz it real") that much of what Machiavelli says is outrageous. However, she doesn't seem to realize that Machiavelli's irony is in many cases not consoling, and she sometimes omits certain aspects of Machiavelli's thought that would contradict her view. Regardless, whether you agree or disagree with her, you should give her your undivided attention.

u/Fickle-Buy6009 — 13 days ago
▲ 83 r/Niccolo_Machiavelli+1 crossposts

The “new politics” invented by Machiavelli, as Mansfield puts it, promised to manage and reduce conflict, dependence, and slavery, making humans strong by making them free.

lawliberty.org
u/Fickle-Buy6009 — 16 days ago
▲ 4 r/Machiavellianism+1 crossposts

No, The Prince is NOT merely a "job application": Refuting a persistent MYTH

I hear this talking point a lot too:

#"The Prince is just a job application to get back into the graces of the Medici"

I know what you may be asking:

If this is technically true (which it is), then how is this interpretation wrong, and why does it matter?

I will tell you why:

This interpretation (if one can call it that) is a way to deprecate the importance of the book. Machiavelli indeed dedicated The Prince as a gift to impress the newly minted lord of Florence, but he certainly was not being insincere.

Many scholars have given their thoughts on why this is ultimately incorrect, but I wanted to throw my dunce hat in the lot.

If Machiavelli's Prince is merely a job application, then that would mean that you cannot take anything he says seriously in the book, because it was merely a way for him to ingratiate into the new Medicean regime. According to the people who peddle this myth, history's most radical work of political philosophy and political history was basically the work of a brown-noser.

Here is why that is wrong:

  • Machiavelli openly critiqued Medicean rule, to their faces. He viewed that they straddled the fence too much between running a republic and establishing a monarchy, and urged them to pick one or the other. When the Medici overturned the Soderini regime (which Machiavelli worked under) he openly wrote a letter stating that their biggest enemies were those nobles who were against Soderini (Ricordo Al Palleschi), which did not earn him any favors. To be clear, Machiavelli was not in any way an enemy of the family--he was close with several members of the Medici (such as Pope Leo X) and they even became his patron as his relationship with the family mended. but he was no mere yes-man either (He couldn't have been even if he tried, he wasn't that high up in the Florentine hierarchy in the latter stages of his life post 1520, he wrote about this once in a letter with much frustration).

  • Most importantly, much of these myths (that he wrote satire, or he didn't mean what he said, etc) usually hinge upon a HIGHLY SELECTIVE reading of the Discourses on Livy, that is to say, usually those believing in these myths are not making past the Table of Contents. As I have made clear in previous posts, The Prince is a book that was meant to be read in conjunction with The Discourses, and compliment each other like identical twins.

  • The ironic part is, this interpretation, if taken seriously, does the opposite at rehabilitating Machiavelli. Even if this myth were true, this would mean that if he did gain political employment in this hypothetical scenario (which he did not) he would have been even more incentivized to recommend vicious policies to expand royal authority.

  • There is a big debate on when Machiavelli began working on The Prince, and when he stopped. Nevertheless, he had several manuscripts which he gave out to friends and associates, not just the Medici. Also, it is possible that he continued to work on later drafts after he dedicated the work to Lorenzo.

  • The Medici (particularly Lorenzo (1492-1519) ) are not the sole addressee of The Prince. Outside of the dedicatory letter, the only chapter they are specifically mentioned or addressed is chapter 26, where Machiavelli (ostensibly) yearns for a redeemer to take over Italy by force and liberate her from foreigners and their political sins. They are not mentioned anywhere otherwise. (also see the previous bullet point)

reddit.com
u/Fickle-Buy6009 — 17 days ago
▲ 1.3k r/Manipulation+1 crossposts

“Listen, um, I gather you didn't pick up because you thought it was me. Consider this from this day forward. Thank you for uh my my father's day, but as of today, you're an orphan. you're an orphan. You don't have a mother, you don't have a father. You basically do not have parents anymore. Forget about us. live your own life. Do whatever the fuck you want to do with your life. Leave us the fuck alone. Don't bother with us anymore. Don't bother calling me. Don't bother anything. I will not pick up. Okay? So as of today, consider yourself an orphan, bury us, put us on the ground, consider us 6 feet under. You no longer have parents. I hope I make this perfectly clear to you. You are no longer loved or wanted. You are done. You are not, you are no longer our child. You have proven today that you have no feelings. For anyone but yourself. So you can go fuck yourself. You can go fuck everything of yourself. I don't care. I never wanna hear your fucking name again. Okay? You're delusional, if you think, that what you did today is in any way, shape or form, a happy Father's Day for me. You might as well, have not shown up, you're a fucking asshole. You, you know, you, you don't deserve shit from anyone, because all you do is give grief. So come this point forward. consider yourself an orphan, you no longer have a father or a mother. Okay? Understand that. Have a nice fucking life.”

Transcript from voicemail via iPhone.

------ Update (May 1st) -----

Wow. I didn't not expect this amount of engagement. I posted that before I went to bed and was floored by the kind words and support. Thank you. This has helped more than I can explain. Yesterday was a rough day, mother's day is just around the corner. I posted this out of anger and needed to vent to what I expected was a void. I'm happy I was wrong. I wish you all the best and hope my experience proves that you are not alone. I thought I was, until today. Respectfully - A dude on the internet.

------ Question Asked ------
-- "This sounds a bit extreme. What’s the story behind it, besides a dance that didn’t happen?" --

Here’s the best way I can explain it: My family went to a museum on Father’s Day (2016). I am usually stressed during these types of holidays because I tend to avoid spending long periods of time with my family. Before we went, I took a Xanax. It is something I am prescribed, but I rarely use it unless I am heading into a situation that I know may be difficult for me.

My wife was with me. We did not have a child yet. I was unusually quiet that day. Again, I was not used to taking Xanax, and that is typically how I react to it. I was not rude or agitated. I was just quiet and not as engaged as I normally might be. The museum visit itself was uneventful. I did not notice anything especially wrong with anyone’s demeanor, but with my family it can be difficult to gauge whether they are upset or why they are upset.

Afterward, we went to a Spanish restaurant. A salsa song came on, and my mother grabbed me to dance. I said "no." She was insistent and literally tried to pull me out of my chair. I do not remember if I was eating at the time, but honestly, it did not matter. I did not want to dance. No one else was dancing, and it would have felt awkward. I may have said “no” more assertively than I intended, but I do not remember exactly. Not enough to cause a scene at the very least.

My wife and I left early and went home. That night was the season finale of Game of Thrones, so I did not check my phone until it was over, around 10 p.m. When I finally picked up my phone, I saw that I had missed a call and had a voicemail from my father. That was the voicemail. My father left the message, but I know my mother encouraged it. I do not know for sure, but based on the family dynamic, I'm sure she was upset and that my father was reacting to her emotions and anger. In my experience, my father is not really allowed to have relationships that are not fully aligned with my mother’s feelings. My mother has often been the catalyst for these kinds of fights. Even though he left the message, I believe it was a joint effort.

This dynamic has existed for a long time. My sister absorbed a lot of this when she was younger and has followed the path my mother wanted for her. She had children young, got married young, and has stayed very close to my parents’ household and has lived with them her whole life. Since I was young, it has often felt like three against one. The family narrative has always been that my sister is the “good child” and I am the “bad one.” My mother has said opening and often that if I was born first, she would have never had a second child.

Now my sister is 40, married with children, and still living with my mother and father. I can see that her children are having a difficult time in that environment. They seem quietly aware of the chaos in the home. I try to be the cool uncle for them, and when they get older, I imagine they may come around more often as a way to get some space from it. But at the end of the day, I wish them well. I want them to be happy. But I was living in a fantasy. It will never change. I will not and can not change them or enlighten them of their behavior. It took me a long time to learn that.

The most recent disownment (2025) was over poop. Literal dog poop. My wife forgot to pick up dog poop from their yard. She may have done this a few times, but it was easier for them to blame me. From there, the conversation quickly turned into a rehashing of things I did as a teenager.

The boiling point came when I brought up a childhood trauma from when I was around 10 or 12. That incident changed how I saw my mother and made me understand the cruelty she was capable of. At the time, she accused my father of cheating on her. In reality, he had received a reply-all email that included a newspaper cartoon with a nude cartoon man in it. His female assistant was included in that email with his other co-workers. This was the 1990s, and I do not expect someone unfamiliar with email to fully understand what “reply all” meant. But she interpreted it as infidelity.

The last time I spoke to them, almost a year ago (2025), I brought up that incident as an example of her exaggerations, emotional instability, and abusive behavior. She tried to rewrite the story again, claiming it had been a handwritten note and a photo of a woman. Before we could even discuss it, my father became violent. All I heard over the phone was a loud, violent thump. My wife called my sister, and we later learned that my father had punched several holes in the wall. My sister told us he became upset because my mother was lying. In that moment, my mother finally exposed herself.

But it did not matter. She called my cell phone and told me I was trying to ruin our family. The last thing I told her was that she needed to get help. Then she hung up. We have not spoken since.

reddit.com
u/Fickle-Buy6009 — 21 days ago