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

1. 0:00 – 15:08

   How Florence bargained with Cesare Borgia for survival

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel0:00

      Okay. I'm back with Ada Palmer, who's a science fiction author-

   2. APAda Palmer0:02

      Mm

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel0:02

      ... composer, historian at the University of Chicago. Ada, this time I wanna talk to you about Machiavelli.

   4. APAda Palmer0:08

      Yes.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel0:09

      So he writes The Prince, he dedicates it to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, and, uh, gives it to him 1513, and he says in the final chapter, "You're the only person who can bring Italy from its current place of ruin and ravage." Why were things so bad? What is the historical context-

   6. APAda Palmer0:23

      Yes

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel0:23

      ... in which he's writing The Prince?

   8. APAda Palmer0:25

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

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel0:37

      Mm.

   10. APAda Palmer0:37

       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, et cetera. 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.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14

       Mm.

   12. APAda Palmer1:15

       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. Uh, England's Wars of the Roses are similar. There was one stable dynasty for a long time.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:26

       Mm.

   14. APAda Palmer1:26

       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.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel2:03

       Mm-hmm.

   16. APAda Palmer2:03

       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. Uh, 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 [laughs] of the world even then, even though this is 500 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.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel4:08

       Mm-hmm.

   18. APAda Palmer4:09

       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 10 years in this period, every 10 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 thread 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 and heredity, that he can do what Cesare 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."

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel5:28

       Mm. So he wants the Medicis basically to not unify Italy, but stabilize Italy at the very least.

   20. APAda Palmer5:35

       Exactly, by having conquered enough of a chunk-

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel5:38

       Yes

   22. APAda Palmer5:38

       ... that the papacy fears them and must negotiate with them, as opposed to the papacy being surrounded by small, weakened powers-

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel5:46

       Yeah

   24. APAda Palmer5:46

       ... that will constantly be turned over and turned over and turned over.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel5:49

       Right. And the pope now is a Medici, right?

   26. APAda Palmer5:51

       At that moment, yes.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel5:53

       So it, it makes it even more plausible. Let, let's lay down a little more historical context. So before Machiavelli writes The Prince, he's a sort of bureaucratic diplomat, and he meets through his career- ... a lot of these famous figures. I wanna know what he makes, for example, of King Louis of France, of Maximilian of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire. I wanna know what he made of Cesare Borgia.

   28. APAda Palmer6:16

       Yeah. He spends a lot of The Prince, in fact, trying to veil how much more he cares about Cesare Borgia 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.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel6:32

       [laughs]

   30. APAda Palmer6:33

       And, and, and sometimes he just can't, right? And there's that incredible, magical moment when he's discussing Valentino's fall, uh, 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 Machiavelli describes this, and he's saying, you know, everything Cesare Borgia did, he did right. He conquered this kingdom. He would've kept it. The only reason he lost it was fortune. Now, what Machiavelli should say is, uh, "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 anymore. 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, at 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, 'cause 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? 'Cause 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 in persuading 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, and we can give him our forces, and we can give him our money, and we can pay him and help him conquer the rest of it, and betray our allies, betray Bologna," which Florence had had a 300-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 survival 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 at his ear, "The Florentine Republic will support you and will give your grace anything you ask. Just eat us last."
2. 15:08 – 23:58

   Machiavelli’s analytical innovations

   1. APAda Palmer15:08

      right."

   2. DPDwarkesh Patel15:09

      I think one misconception of Machiavelli that I had, because I had not r- read these books before, um, is that he says the means don't matter, the end matters. And there's a se- virtue ethic sense in which maybe he doesn't think the means matter, but, like, he is way more concerned about the means than I would have maybe thought. He thinks the means are incredibly important because the means by which you achieve power determine how stable and how fruitful that power will be.

   3. APAda Palmer15:32

      Right.

   4. DPDwarkesh Patel15:33

      Um, in the context of military conflicts, he says if you achieve some power with the help of mercenaries or with the help of great powers, people will become stronger than you as a result of you achieving power. That is a very precarious spot to be in. But speaking of Julius, he makes another point that if you achieve your power by lying, by breaking oaths, by being unfaithful, that this is okay because his view is that people will forget that you are not faithful. They, they will just take you at your, at your word the next time they encounter you. And so it's, um, it's, it's actually a very interesting meditation on what, by what means can you achieve power that will make that power stable-

   5. APAda Palmer16:12

      Yeah

   6. DPDwarkesh Patel16:12

      ... versus not, and the fact that he thinks breaking your word is totally fine-

   7. APAda Palmer16:17

      Well, it's more-

   8. DPDwarkesh Patel16:18

      ... as long as you-

   9. APAda Palmer16:19

      ... it's subtler

   10. DPDwarkesh Patel16:19

       Yeah.

   11. APAda Palmer16:19

       It's, it's even subtler than that.

   12. DPDwarkesh Patel16:20

       Yeah.

   13. APAda Palmer16:20

       Because it's if you are someone who breaks your word and you break it this way, it'll bite you in the ass.

   14. DPDwarkesh Patel16:27

       Yes.

   15. APAda Palmer16:27

       And if you break it these ways, it'll be okay.

   16. DPDwarkesh Patel16:29

       Yeah.

   17. APAda Palmer16:30

       Because he also does analysis of figures like Savonarola, uh, who would make prophecies and promises, and then some of them would happen and some of them wouldn't.

   18. DPDwarkesh Patel16:38

       Mm.

   19. APAda Palmer16:38

       And then he would s- 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 Savonarola, as a religious demagogue, the core of his power was people believing that he was divinely inspired and that he wouldn't make mistakes-

   20. DPDwarkesh Patel17:04

       Mm

   21. APAda Palmer17:04

       ... and wouldn't err. And so his power base was fragile vis-à-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 [laughs] so that the next person to be betrayed isn't me."

   22. DPDwarkesh Patel17:43

       Mm-hmm.

   23. APAda Palmer17:44

       Uh, and, and try to work hard to be in the good graces of the prince so that I'm not next, as opposed to turning on him because he was so scary. Savonarola was not scary. Savonarola 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 a- asked Michelangelo what Savonarola had been like when Savonarola had been dead for decades, right, Michelangelo's answer was, "I still hear his voice."

   24. DPDwarkesh Patel18:14

       Mm.

   25. APAda Palmer18:14

       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 line."

   26. DPDwarkesh Patel18:33

       Yeah.

   27. APAda Palmer18:34

       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, uh, 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 p- prince whose power depends on being loved.

   28. DPDwarkesh Patel19:12

       Hmm. And this actually gets ... So, the, the, the famous quote in The Prince, "It is better to be feared than loved," um, th- what he's getting at there is I think he's just, like, very cynical about people's nature, and if people make you a promise, they'll just go back on it. If your p- power base depends on people's promises and loyalties, as soon as you, your rule seems tattering, they'll go back on it, whereas if your rule depends on people just having expectation that if they break their oath to you, they'll be punished.

   29. APAda Palmer19:39

       Hmm.

   30. DPDwarkesh Patel19:39

       That's much more stable. But h- his, um, his cynicism about ... He, he basically thinks people will act as badly as they are allowed to. I mean, yeah, the, hi- his whole justification on checks and balances is not dissimilar to the founders of the US and their reason for wanting checks and balances and wanting to put different factions against each other. It's just like, he's just quite, kind of cynical and thinks people will just act as badly as you allow them to.
3. 23:58 – 36:13

   Why popes became warlords

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel23:58

      At this time, the, um, the pope is not just a spiritual leader but a temporal power.

   2. APAda Palmer24:04

      Very much.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel24:04

      So he's like, him and his son are literally fighting wars against other Catholics, but the other Catholics are fighting them back. Like, what is it... W- what does it mean to be a Catholic who is fighting a war against the pope?

   4. APAda Palmer24:15

      So here is where 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, um, uh, 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 differences. If you're in Italy, the pope is that asshole who went to college with your brother-

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel25:38

      Mm-hmm

   6. APAda Palmer25:38

      ... and beat him up [laughs] when they were at college and then, you know, was drunken and irresponsible at middle age, and you've been negotiating with him at 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 allied with him. Uh, 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, "He's that guy," right? This is not Pope Julius II. This is Giuliano della Rovere, 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 it's actually quite hard to see the papacy. And that's how you have these fascinating wars where even the cities that are hereditarily incredibly loyal to the papacy will be sometimes be fighting a war against the papacy.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel26:50

      Mm-hmm.

   8. APAda Palmer26:50

      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 800 AD 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, the successors of Charlemagne. These are, uh, the two factions for which these parties fought originally 300 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 hereditarily 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. So you get multiple situations where there's a war between Rome and Florence over the fact that Florence wants to defend papal authority in papal land-

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel28:54

      And-

   10. APAda Palmer28:54

       ... against the pope itself because that individual pope was from the anti-papal faction.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel29:00

       Do they not believe that he is the vicar of Christ on Earth? I mean, it, it makes sense in a normal political state for you to think-

   12. APAda Palmer29:09

       Yeah

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel29:09

       ... I believe in America, but I don't like the president or something. But, like, isn't the pope supposed to be...

   14. APAda Palmer29:14

       Yes and no. W- Again, when you're far away, yes. When you're close up, you know too much of their d- dirty laundry of these people, right? So let me use o- a fun example, the most passive-aggressive letter ever written in the entire history of time, 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, blah, and how pious he is and how pr- how glad he is, Your Holiness, that you're the pope now. Congratulations on behalf of my wonderful king. And 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 prostrating yourself in front of the pope- Literally kissing his feet, uh, 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, kill Lorenzo's brother, uh, 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 accom- had his son go to deliver the message, uh, "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, uh, 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. A, 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 into 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. Uh, they don't wanna offer too big a bribe because it would impoverish 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 do 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, uh, 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. Uh, 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 100 years say, "Popes are much worse now than popes used to be when I was young."

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel34:52

       Hmm.

   16. APAda Palmer34:53

       Right? Everybody says that. Dante says that in 1300. Um, uh, Machiavelli's, uh, 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, uh, triggering the Reformation-

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel35:21

       Hmm

   18. APAda Palmer35:21

       ... 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 St. Francis of Assisi, also to some extent St. Dominic, a couple centuries 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 200 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.

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel36:12

       Hmm.

4. 36:13 – 47:57

   Why the common people demanded nepotism

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel36:13

      One big way in which our world is different from 500 years ago is this, um, the focus on patronage and that being the basis of political power. It was much more prominent, right? So I, that, that is something I think would be interesting to understand.

   2. APAda Palmer36:23

      Yeah. Well, it's, it's not that it was m- just more prominent, but it was the fundamental glue-

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel36:29

      Mm-hmm

   4. APAda Palmer36:29

      ... of the society as opposed to one of several glues-

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel36:32

      Yeah

   6. APAda Palmer36:33

      ... of the society. And, you know, patronage, which was also familial and therefore entangled with nepotism, uh, was so fundamental that, you know, for example, when Alessandro Farnese was elected Pope Paul III in the middle of the 1500s, 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-

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel37:12

      Why?

   8. APAda Palmer37:12

      "... 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 y- somebody that rises and falls with you the way your son does." Therefore, by popular demand, the people want more nepotism because the system depends on it.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel37:42

      Mm-hmm.

   10. APAda Palmer37:43

       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 multi-generational entanglement of families where if these families rise, they rise together.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel37:57

       Yeah.

   12. APAda Palmer37:57

       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, uh, 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. Uh, patronage is the glue that makes things work all the way down.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel38:48

       Mm.

   14. APAda Palmer38:49

       Uh, all the way down to the level of if you need a defense attorney. That's done through patronage. The outcomes of trials are a 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. Uh, 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 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 or 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. Uh, he's on trial. Please put in a good word." And your patron has a- 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, uh, to say, "But so-and-so is such a good person, they should have the milder punishment, not the more severe one."

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel40:42

       Yeah.

   16. APAda Palmer40:42

       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 18th 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 Enlightenment 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 him, and they know that they're guilty, and they deserve to be thrown into the, uh, the pits of hell, but miraculously, they are given grace, uh, 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, uh, 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, uh, there are religious organizations who sit with them overnight, having a final prayer group, and walk with them to the gallows, holding their hand, uh, and, and holding a b- P- 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. Uh, 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, uh, persuading the judge, who is God, to give you mercy. So when we see 100 trials and in 99 the person pa- 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 one, 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.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel43:21

       Mm.

   18. APAda Palmer43:22

       Probably a lot of people listening, uh, are familiar with Giordano Bruno, very famous as a martyr for science because he was burnt at the stake by the Inquisition. Uh, fewer people know that that was not his first Inquisition trial. He was investigated a number of times by the Inquisition, uh, for doing various, uh, radical, uh, forms of thought. The earlier trials had the usual outcome for that kind of trial of he had a patron, there was rich people that he worked with or for, the university was hosting him. They put in a good word, he's fine. Uh, the Inquisition tells him, "Be good," uh, 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 patron. He's the 99th case that time.

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel44:23

       Mm.

   20. APAda Palmer44:23

       And if he had had a patron protecting him, despite how radical his stuff was, he would've been okay. And we see that in the trial of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who was candidly substantially more radical than Giordano Bruno. Uh, but when Pico is on trial, Lorenzo de' Medici and other powerful people really care about Pico, and they pull 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, uh, Marsilio 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. Uh, and he writes in the recommendation letter, "This young man is the reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas, so you should give him a job." Now, that is a letter of recommendation.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel45:33

       [laughs]

   22. APAda Palmer45:33

       But you're like, "The reincarnation of St. Thomas Aquinas, huh?" And the Inquisition comes knocking on Ficino's door, and he's like, "Hm, uh, reincarnation?" And Ficino's like, "Oh, no, uh, help. Talk to Lorenzo." Lorenzo talks to his brother, Cardinal Orsini. Cardinal Orsini shuts it down, and Ficino is told, "Maybe lay off talking quite so overtly about the, uh, uh, about the reincarnation." And Ficino 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." And the Inquisition is like, "Okay", and goes home. Because patronage kicked in, uh, and ca- patronage is the glue that makes everything work.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel46:15

       Mm.

   24. APAda Palmer46:15

       'Cause you can't even stay in a hotel or buy an apple, I'm not kidding, without a patron. Um, 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.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel46:37

       Okay, I'm here with Ricson, who is an ML researcher at Jane Street. Ricson, I'm sure you saw that there were many viral memes on Twitter about the hiring process at Jane Street.

   26. SPSpeaker46:46

       Oh, yeah.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel46:46

       And so I wanted to see for myself, what is the hiring process at Jane Street actually like?

   28. SPSpeaker46:49

       Yeah, so here's one of our, uh, retired puzzle questions. Here we've got an image dataset, but half the images in it have been corrupted. But they've been, like, scrambled in a consistent way. Like, if the pixel on the top right got, like, swapped with the pixel in the middle, like, the same swap happened for, like, all of the images in the second half of the dataset.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel47:07

       Uh, a super naive thing then would just be, like, train and classifier on corrupted versus uncorrupted images.

   30. SPSpeaker47:12

       Yeah, so you could have, like, a, a learned model of, like, how the image looks, and then, like, optimize for that.
5. 47:57 – 57:55

   Cesare Borgia brought terror to rulers and justice to the people

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel47:57

      Okay, so just to tie a couple of, uh, threads we were talking about together, The Prince is painting a picture of just r- regime is incredibly unstable. You gotta worry about foreign powers. You gotta worry about, uh, rival factions within your own country. Um, you gotta worry about mercenaries. You gotta worry about lots of different things. And so any given regime is very unstable, and so what had to happen for things to get more stable, basically? And we're talking about a couple of the ways in which people owed their loyalties not to the regime, but to others within the regime a- which created instability. So in Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli talks about the Roman Empire One of the reasons that its fall was, um, instigated is that these generals who are months away in the frontier fighting these wars because the empire was so big-

   2. APAda Palmer48:46

      Yeah

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel48:47

      ... had to amass for the periods of years, or in sometime cases, for Caesar, of course, decades, the command of so many men who have, for decades, just basically been listening to this guy tell them what to do, who to fight next. This is the person who they're loyal to. Um, w- as opposed to, say, if the consuls could be giving dictates every single day, uh, then the loyalty could be to the regime in Rome. And same with patronage. If there's not a system of both deterministic justice that we have-

   4. APAda Palmer49:19

      Mm-hmm

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel49:19

      ... in the modern world today. So a lot of The Prince is dedicated and Discourse on Livy on, well, how do you make sure that some fa- a family is not pissed off that their son got killed and it wasn't avenged or whatever.

   6. APAda Palmer49:29

      Yeah.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel49:29

      And if you just have a reliable criminal justice system, that problem goes away. And same with, uh, the welfare state and getting rid of the patronage system. Basically, if you don't have to rely on this family, then this d- this intermediates them, and the state can have your loyalty. So it's interesting to connect all these threads together of, um, communication time, impartial justice system, impartial welfare state, uh, as being what is required for the regime to have enough legitimacy and then, as a result, enough stability to have modern Asian states.

   8. APAda Palmer50:01

      Yeah. You know, one thing that 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. Uh, 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, uh, 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 liking 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.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel51:11

      Hmm.

   10. APAda Palmer51:12

       Meaning it used to be that there was one faction in power and there was another faction out of power, which meant in our scenario where a carpenter's son gets drunk and kills someone in a drunken 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, uh, the fairness of the case. But when both of those ruling families 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, uh, 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. But if the conqueror is feared and not hated because he wiped them out but then was fair toward the people, then it works.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel53:05

       So why would it have been so bad if, um, Valentino took over Florence and he had survived and it, it... He would have massacred maybe the ruling regime at the time, the, the republic. But Mag- I don't know what Machiavelli is especially concerned about, but, like, the cultural treasures of Florence and everything.

   12. APAda Palmer53:22

       No, no, no. So-

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel53:24

       Would they have survived?

   14. APAda Palmer53:24

       ... again, in the discourse, it's not, it's... The, the cultural treasures of Florence would potentially have been okay. Um, there's two answers to that. One of them is 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. Um, in his vocabulary in the text, if you live in a state of, uh, where there is an arbitrary power who can have you put to death, you are a slave. Uh, 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. [laughs] 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 wi- risk their lives flying the banner that says, "Libertas" across it, liberty, right? And the banner Libertas is the coat of arms of the Signoria, the Senate, which is selected from the 1% super mega elite, [laughs] 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's boss's 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.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel56:12

       Can I ask about that-

   16. APAda Palmer56:13

       Sure

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel56:13

       ... real quick? So when Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici takes over, is he not that guy?

   18. APAda Palmer56:19

       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.

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel57:02

       Yeah.

   20. APAda Palmer57:03

       So Florence looks more like Florence under a Medici duke than Milan looks like Republican Milan under a Visconti or Sforza duke, uh, than Ferrara, which has no remnants of its republic does under the dukes d'Este, who can do anything they want, including murderously gouging each other's eyes out, and the city will never, uh, take one step against them. So Machiavelli is aware that Florence, if it has to fall, falling to the Medici is gentlest, uh, most volatile perhaps, uh, because they aren't going to be feared as much as an outside conqueror would be feared, but certainly gentlest.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel57:47

       Mm.

   22. APAda Palmer57:48

       And that you preserve some important rights when you're conquered from inside that you don't when you're conquered from outside.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel57:54

       Mm.

6. 57:55 – 1:06:41

   Art as a proxy for war

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel57:55

      So obviously we remember this period producing all these great cultural artifacts, all these amazing buildings, all this art.

   2. APAda Palmer58:01

      Yeah.

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel58:01

      And then we're talking about the precariousness of the prince, the constant wars, how they're literally fighting all the time. How is there this surplus that is available for all these different projects? You write in your book about how the older Lorenzo de' Medici s- spends what would be today, because of the expense of, uh, ma- you know, building libraries and buying books, what would be today $30 million to build a library to educate his grandsons. So how is there all the surplus available for education and arts and so forth in a period where everybody's fighting everybody, and if you lose a war, your city will get, if not razed, at least the ruling faction will get killed?

   4. APAda Palmer58:43

      So half of that answer is finance is incredibly profitable. [laughs]

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel58:47

      Mm.

   6. APAda Palmer58:48

      And if you're the banking center, the amount of money that is flowing in is staggering. Uh, big wool, the big industry-

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel58:55

      Mm

   8. APAda Palmer58:56

      ... uh, for Florence 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, uh, 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?

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel59:24

      Mm-hmm.

   10. APAda Palmer59:25

       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 that 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 so that when the King of France comes, he will feel like we are friends and 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

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:32

       Yeah

   12. APAda Palmer1:00:32

       And we can try to win.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:33

       We talked about this last time, the experience of what it must have been like for a French diplomat to arrive at Florence and look at these people he considered to be, I don't know, no, n- nothing, uh, nothings who are not even descended from the Caesars and so forth -

   14. APAda Palmer1:00:46

       Yeah, yeah

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel1:00:46

       ... and they're producing all this stuff. One, um, wh- when, w- when one goes to visit Florence now, the interest is in part because these are historical artifacts, right? Because somebody made them 500 years ago. But if you're seeing them at the time, this would be something either you thought only the Romans could have done that we can't do anymore, or something that even the Romans couldn't have done.

   16. APAda Palmer1:01:07

       Right. I mean, they're, they're high tech then.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:09

       Yeah.

   18. APAda Palmer1:01:09

       They're like when we look at a incredibly impressive skyscraper that's taller and more precarious and amazing than any-

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:15

       Right

   20. APAda Palmer1:01:15

       ... past skyscraper.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:17

       I think that that is a sort of underrated aspect of what it must have been like to v-

   22. APAda Palmer1:01:20

       Yeah

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:20

       ... uh, be a foreign power evaluating Florence at the time.

   24. APAda Palmer1:01:25

       Yeah, yeah. It's, it's, it's... We have to remind ourselves that these are high tech achievements as well as historic, uh, 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 -

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:44

       Yeah

   26. APAda Palmer1:01:44

       ... and that humanity might get better and better over time. The potential of humanity is recapturing Rome.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:48

       Right.

   28. APAda Palmer1:01:49

       Uh, backwards is forwards. If we can get more and more like that, that'll be better. That's what we aspire to.

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel1:01:55

       Yeah.

   30. APAda Palmer1:01:55

       And they do debate, can we surpass the Romans?
7. 1:06:41 – 1:15:57

   Florence, a city famous in hell

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:41

      here's something I'm confused about. Machiavelli makes a point of pointing out Cesare Borgia's betrayals-

   2. APAda Palmer1:06:50

      Yes

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:50

      ... because of how remarkable they are. Um, for example -

   4. APAda Palmer1:06:54

      Romiro de Orco

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:55

      Yeah.

   6. APAda Palmer1:06:55

      Yeah.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:06:55

      So slaying the very deputy that he had tasked with being harsh and-

   8. APAda Palmer1:07:00

      Yeah

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:00

      ... as a result, b- bringing peace to a region for that harshness that he had delegated or, you know, inviting as a gesture of goodwill some people who are gonna do a revolution against him and then killing them all at the banquet. Um, but should we take the fact that he's making a special point that, "Hey, actually take this kind of betrayal or take this kind of deed as something you should consider doing," as evidence that this was actually rare at the time? Um, maybe another way to ask the question is to the extent that they are all Christians at the time, surely they really did believe they're gonna go to hell if they betray people or if they lie or break their oaths or something.

   10. APAda Palmer1:07:38

       Mm.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:38

       Right? So just as you were saying a second ago about how capital punishment was actually less prominent at the time-

   12. APAda Palmer1:07:43

       Yeah

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:43

       ... than we, we in retrospect think it to be, are these kinds of crazy political intrigues or whatever less common than-

   14. APAda Palmer1:07:48

       Right. So, so two-

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:49

       ... these stories make it out to be?

   16. APAda Palmer1:07:50

       Two halves to that answer, and I'll do the second one first, the second one being about the religious one, right? 'Cause they all believe in this religion that says, "If you do this, you're gonna go to hell," and then they all do this.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel1:07:59

       Yeah.

   18. APAda Palmer1:07:59

       And that's 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, uh, committing, uh, usury, right? Me- 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.

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:32

       Mm.

   20. APAda Palmer1:08:33

       Uh, 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.

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel1:08:41

       [laughs]

   22. APAda Palmer1:08:41

       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. Uh, and as he goes through, we see Florentines i- especially in the sections for usury and for sodomy, uh, but also, you know, heretics and unbelievers, and all through, he's encountering his countrymen, including people he himself loves and respects. Because Dante is making this painful point of, "Guys, it says that if we do this, we go to hell. I'm gonna 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 i- is, uh, Canto III, where he's encountering, uh, the lustful, and we see Paolo and Francesca. Paolo and Francesca, this is a story that was incredibly popular love story at the time. Um, 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, uh, 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. Uh, 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 [laughs] . And it's really shocking to everyone who has celebrated this love story, and then like, "No, if this is true, and this is our religion, then 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, uh, we're breaking these rules all the time. Should we just take this more seriously 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, uh, 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. Um, 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. Uh, 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. St. Francis of Assisi sins. He was a big focus on his himself as a sinner, uh, and was constantly self-flagellating, despite being, in many ways, the most 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 St. Julian the Hospitaller, patron saint of murderers, and he is the patron saint of murderers, uh, because his legend is a 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, uh, eventually feels homesick and comes home, and, uh, um, uh, 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 'cause 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 St. Julian all over, uh, Renaissance Florence. Everywhere you go in and you see one, you're like, "Mm-hmm, uh, that was commissioned by somebody who committed a homicide [laughs] and is trying to live with it." Um, 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 Savonarola 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?

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:24

       Mm.

   24. APAda Palmer1:14:24

       And so it's a complicated, sophisticated hypocrisy-

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:28

       Mm

   26. APAda Palmer1:14:28

       ... that builds up a lot of apparatus to let the society's actions be at odds with its religious precepts to that degree.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel1:14:38

       We're gonna need dozens and eventually hundreds of gigawatts of new AI data centers. The only way to achieve this at scale is to turn the data center buildout into an industrial process, basically manufacturing modular components that you can literally slide into position wherever there's power. Crusoe is furthest along at making this happen. Crusoe has a 350,000 square foot factory in Colorado where they assemble their Spark units, these modular AI data centers with everything already pre-built, high density racks, power, cooling, fire suppression, you name it. Crusoe actually manufactures a lot of these components in-house. This allows them to sidestep long lead times on components like switchgear and power distribution centers. All of this, of course, would be moot if Crusoe still had to wait years to connect each module to the grid. But they don't. Crusoe has a ton of experience connecting their data centers to alternative energy sources. For example, Crusoe has a site in Nevada powered by Redwood Materials that runs completely on solar and used EV batteries. They're actually in the process of expanding it, adding in a couple dozen more Spark units from their Colorado facility. So if you want AI capacity that's not fully dependent on grid availability or strained supply chains, you should reach out to Crusoe. Go to crusoe.ai/dwarkesh to learn more.

8. 1:15:57 – 1:41:39

   The Prince was a job application to Machiavelli’s torturers

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:15:57

      Okay, I couldn't get enough of Ada or of Machiavelli, and so-

   2. APAda Palmer1:16:00

      [laughs]

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:16:00

      ... there are a few more questions I wanted to ask you. Thanks for hopping on again.

   4. APAda Palmer1:16:02

      Oh, my treat.

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:16:03

      We didn't talk last time, I think, about the fact that Machiavelli was exiled, and he's writing these books in exile. Maybe you can give a bit of context around how somebody... We were talking about his diplomatic career, how he ends up in exile, and what his plan is once he's there.

   6. APAda Palmer1:16:17

      Yeah, and, and I mean, here we have to start with everybody who's anybody in the intellectual tradition lives in exile for a while, right? Dante does.

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:16:24

      Yeah.

   8. APAda Palmer1:16:24

      Voltaire does. Rousseau does. Thomas Hobbes 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 said, 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 him, and so they don't send him to Bruges or London or Barcelona or the Germanies 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 [laughs] Europe who would love to employ a skillful, a 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. Uh, a Florentine historian especially is something that you absolutely want to hire to write a history, a flattering history of your own family. And for even a century before this, uh, 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, uh, because Machiavelli says, "No, I'm gonna stay, and I'm gonna rot, uh, and I'm gonna write The Prince, 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 [laughs] cause that is not his country. Um, 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 them, he wants to work for that because Machiavelli fundamentally is possibly th- one of the most patriotic [laughs] patriots in Earth's history. Uh, 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 m- 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, where Machiavelli himself is one of the most selfless [laughs] men I've ever read about in the history of the Earth, uh, who will give up and sacrifice career, diplomacy, fame, friends, uh, the opportunity to even be in a city and have a nice day, uh, 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.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:21:38

      You're making the point that he is advocating a viciousness and a realism and a cynicism, but in service of protecting Florence, not in service of a generic prince of any generic principality.

   10. APAda Palmer1:21:52

       Exactly, and he doesn't let it, copies of it circulate to anybody but the rulers of Florence and his immediate-

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:21:58

       Hmm

   12. APAda Palmer1:21:58

       ... 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, uh, during his lifetime.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:22:10

       D- does he expect that at some point it will be more widely distributed? Is he writing in a way that suggests that ... I mean, i- if you ... It is a literary masterpiece as well. I d- I mean, I've only read obviously the translation, so I don't know what it's, what it's like in, in the original Italian. But, but somebody putting in that much literary effort into something that is just supposed to be a very pragmatic manual for a particular person seems a bit weird.

   14. APAda Palmer1:22:33

       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 youth 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, uh-

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel1:23:08

       Hmm

   16. APAda Palmer1:23:08

       ... three or four copies that are written for a specific prince.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel1:23:12

       Mm-hmm.

   18. APAda Palmer1:23:12

       Right? So for example, King Alfonso of Naples, the Spanish king who conquered Naples, Alfonso the Magnanimous, uh, 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, uh, 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 p- men in armor," and refused to listen to the urgent message until he'd finished his hour of scholarly contemplation of the soul. Um, as a result of which, he lost that battle.

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel1:23:52

       [laughs]

   20. APAda Palmer1:23:52

       Uh, 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. Uh, 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-

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel1:24:55

       Mm-hmm

   22. APAda Palmer1:24:55

       ... that only his government has, but we know that it's happening, we have to think of these books as proprietary technology.

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel1:25:02

       Huh.

   24. APAda Palmer1:25:02

       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, uh, 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 in ending, and feminine endings on the word the same way a table is feminine.

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel1:25:32

       Yeah.

   26. APAda Palmer1:25:32

       Uh, but prince is used for men and women. Um, yeah, and even Queen Elizabeth is Prince Elizabeth at this period of her, of her, uh, of her life.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel1:25:40

       That is so fascinating.

   28. APAda Palmer1:25:42

       Because we have trouble wrapping our heads around the idea of writing a book for an audience of one. It's just not what a book-

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel1:25:46

       That's right. Yeah, yeah

   30. APAda Palmer1:25:47

       ... is to us.
9. 1:41:39 – 1:50:44

   During the Renaissance, original ideas had to be couched in antiquity

   1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:41:39

      That makes sense. So last episode, we were talking about the s- psychological impact on scholarship of having books be so expensive-

   2. APAda Palmer1:41:47

      Nice

   3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:41:47

      ... and having then to meditate on the same copies that are available in one library. And maybe Machiavelli is maybe the strongest example of this-

   4. APAda Palmer1:41:53

      Mm

   5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:41:53

      ... where maybe through his life we're seeing the impact of the printing press diffusing and making printing cheaper. But early on in his life-

   6. APAda Palmer1:42:00

      Yeah, yeah

   7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:42:00

      ... it's still, um, not been that long since the, uh, Gutenberg came up with the first printing press.

   8. APAda Palmer1:42:05

      Yeah.

   9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:42:06

      And as a result, he has... Uh, tell m- correct this story for me, but his dad has to do, like, months of drudge work indexing Livy in order to get a copy of Livy.

   10. APAda Palmer1:42:15

       Yeah, and, and, and Machiavelli himself, in order to get books when... 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, uh, that, m- in Machiavelli's hand. He copied out the entire poem. Uh, this is in the Vatican Library.

   11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:42:33

       Hmm.

   12. APAda Palmer1:42:34

       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, uh, is so much in the manuscript world that he's happy to spend m- months probably [laughs] copying out and making his own custom improved version of this text that he can then work from.

   13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:43:14

       Yeah.

   14. APAda Palmer1:43:14

       Uh, 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.

   15. DPDwarkesh Patel1:43:32

       Yeah.

   16. APAda Palmer1:43:32

       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.

   17. DPDwarkesh Patel1:43:40

       Hmm. I wanna think about the impact that having this copy of Livy-

   18. APAda Palmer1:43:46

       Yeah

   19. DPDwarkesh Patel1:43:46

       ... which presumably is one of the very few books that young Machiavelli had access to, influences his intellectual development. And basically, yeah, we have this m- mode of scholarship at the time where y- you know, why does he spend, like, two decades writing discourses on Livy? Well, presumably, unlike us, where we can listen to, go through an audiobook a week or something-

   20. APAda Palmer1:44:04

       Mm

   21. DPDwarkesh Patel1:44:05

       ... or have our Kindle at night that we're reading and so forth, he's just, like, reading this book again and again and again, and is trying to connect it to the events he's seeing in his own life-

   22. APAda Palmer1:44:13

       Yeah

   23. DPDwarkesh Patel1:44:13

       ... um, on his, like, 10th reread. That I feel is v- very interesting, psychologically, in understanding how scholarship and intellectual thought mu- must have been different at that time-

   24. APAda Palmer1:44:23

       Yeah

   25. DPDwarkesh Patel1:44:23

       ... as compared to now.

   26. APAda Palmer1:44:24

       I mean, you know, Machiavelli can easily access other books by visiting friends, uh, 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, right? Antiquity is the cutting edge thing. Antiquity is where it's at. Antiquity is, uh, 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 an- in- 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.

   27. DPDwarkesh Patel1:45:24

       [laughs]

   28. APAda Palmer1:45:24

       Original ideas are out of vogue. Original ideas-

   29. DPDwarkesh Patel1:45:26

       Interesting

   30. APAda Palmer1:45:26

       ... 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-
10. 1:50:44 – 2:02:12

    Why copyright began with the Inquisition

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel1:50:44

       Okay, so adult Machiavelli is now seeing some of his work start to get mass-produced. Uh, what is his reaction to this?

    2. APAda Palmer1:50:52

       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. Uh, 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."

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel1:51:10

       [laughs]

    4. APAda Palmer1:51:10

       "There's another copy of my book. Uh, that reduces the chances of it being completely destroyed in a fire." Uh, 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's one of the first men ever to have, of finding out that a local printer is printing a work of his without ever having asked him, 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, and they aren't me. They're the compositor having made typos when setting it up, and no one will know that. Uh, 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. Uh, 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 can suggest," 'cause they don't have, uh, the idea of authorial copyright yet. It's going to come in in the next couple decades. And, uh, the weird thing is how this gets entangled with censorship, and copyright and censorship are born together, uh, 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, um, Catholic Church promulgates is before you may print any text, you must take it to an authority licensed by the church to do this, uh, 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, uh, look at this, and there's actually popular demand in England for censorship when they say, "Hey, we need what the Inquisition does 'cause the Inquisition is so cool. They let printers have a monopoly on printing a book, and they let authors-"

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel1:54:05

       Mm-hmm

    6. APAda Palmer1:54:05

       ... uh, deny print permission. Uh, 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, uh, the Inquisition, 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 1600s, so a l- bit less, but about a century after Machiavelli's death. So it takes a century for all this to get ironed out. Um, 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 can do. Help. Authorities, give me some way to do something about this." And so that's where you can feel Machiavelli a- as one of the first generation that, that needs copyright, um, that will then be born in the aftermath.

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel1:55:19

       Fascinating. And what was the Inquisition's incentive, uh, to enforce the author's prerogative on the text?

    8. APAda Palmer1:55:23

       Partly, the Inquisition does it because that encourages authors to come to them. Uh, it makes people much more willing to collaborate with their process.

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel1:55:32

       Ah.

    10. APAda Palmer1:55:32

        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. Uh, 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, uh, 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. Um, they also have to negotiate with authorities. Um, 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.

    11. DPDwarkesh Patel1:56:31

        Mm.

    12. APAda Palmer1:56:32

        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, "Ooh, 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, uh, the Spanish Inquisition is infamous because Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain really want to scapegoat the, uh, 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.

    13. DPDwarkesh Patel1:57:24

        Mm.

    14. APAda Palmer1:57:25

        Meanwhile, if you're in somewhere like Florence, where the duke, uh, if it's early Medici and ducal Florence, right, when this is happening, is, you know, a Medici. He's in deep with the weird Ficinian 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." Um, and, uh, 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 a, it's not the government. It's an international organization that's set up to try to a- 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, uh, 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, um, uh, 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 girlfriends throughout his life that he writes to. We have homoerotic poetry. We have heterosexual poetry. He's definitely very excited by both sexes. Uh, 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 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, 'cause if you work for a cardinal, nobody can touch you. Uh, and, uh, that almost all of their friends have succeeded in getting jobs working for cardinals except for one. So he has resorted to hiring two pros- female prostitutes to hang out with him all the time and make him seem straight, uh, by having him hang out with, with, uh, with sexy courtesans, uh, 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, rad- radical politics, radical sexuality, and nobody in authority can touch you because authority's trumped by a higher authority that is protecting you. This is part of the patronage system.

    15. DPDwarkesh Patel2:00:55

        And, and how does that come back to the copyright?

    16. APAda Palmer2:00:57

        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, you know, recommendation letter at the beginning written by an important political figure, the Inquisition will, you know, 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 'cause it's dedicated to the duke, or it's dedicated to his grandfather." Uh, m- the Medici give permission to print The Prince 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.

11. 2:02:12 – 2:08:20

    Machiavelli wasn't Machiavellian

    1. DPDwarkesh Patel2:02:12

       To close off on, uh, do you have some sense of how to think about why Machiavelli's remembered so differently from, um, not only what he wrote, but why he was writing?

    2. APAda Palmer2:02:21

       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.

    3. DPDwarkesh Patel2:02:37

       Hmm.

    4. APAda Palmer2:02:38

       In the case of Machiavelli, right, we have Machiavelli the patriot, Machiavelli who did all this work, and separately we have Machiavellian, right, the murderous Machiavel

    5. DPDwarkesh Patel2:02:45

       Yeah

    6. APAda Palmer2:02:46

       ... as Shakespeare calls him. Old Nick, uh, which is a nickname for the devil, but become popular because Niccolò 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 III 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 [laughs] 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. Uh, 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 Machiavel is very exciting, and this happens at other times to other intellectual figures. So it happens to Thomas Hobbes in the phase that Thomas Hobbes is the Beast of Malmesbury, and the idea of Thomas Hobbes sort of separates. It happens fascinatingly to Spinoza. Um, uh, Spinoza, an important radical Jewish thinker of the, um, later 17th century. And, uh, Spinoza is a neat one 'cause when you actually read Spinoza, he's a lot... He's really warm and sweet and, like Machiavelli, passionate and cares about people. Uh, and in his case, is incredibly pious theist. Uh, he's a monist. He believes the entire universe is the l- the body of God. You are a part of God. The table is part of God. The camera is part of God. Everything is God. Isn't that great? Um, 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, uh, targeted with the Jewish equivalent of excommunication, the sort of ceremonial, "Your radicalism is too radical. We are e- 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, ooh, Spinoza must be even more weird and, and, and heretical than any heretic if even the Jews would expel him. And the idea of Spinoza the arch heretic, uh, becomes a character, and everyone talks about Spinoza the arch heretic. And then you read him, and it's nothing like it. Um, but sometimes the character is useful, right? The idea, the thought experiment figure of Machiavelli the villain is useful for our philosophy, and we like to talk about what is a Machiavellian self-serving politician. What would they do? Um, and this be- has a separate life from Machiavelli's real ideas, right? To the degree that all the way through the 16th 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, uh, 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, uh, and rationalism, that's much more Machiavelli the character, you know, Old Nick, than it is the Niccolò Machiavelli who faithfully sat in exile, uh, willing to give up wealth, fame, society, the ability to visit his wife, anything, uh, in order to serve his country. Um, 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 s- then say, "But we can also make the character," and the character is itself interesting. Um, 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 Nick and Machiavelli the 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.

    7. DPDwarkesh Patel2:07:59

       Hmm.

    8. APAda Palmer2:07:59

       So that and if you have The Prince 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.

    9. DPDwarkesh Patel2:08:11

       I think that's an excellent place to close. Ada, thanks so much for hopping on.

    10. APAda Palmer2:08:15

        This was a pleasure as always. I hope it won't be the last time.

    11. DPDwarkesh Patel2:08:19

        I hope so too.

Episode duration: 2:08:20