Name: マキャベリアン」の使い方が間違っている｜グレーゾーン (You're using "Machiavellian" wrong | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T17:17:30.000Z
Duration: 42 min 44 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Hey, this is Sean, host of the Gray Area. For the show this week, I talked to Erica

こんにちは、グレーゾーンのホストのショーンです。今週の番組では、エリカに話を聞いた。

Binner. She's a political philosopher and the author of a great book called Be Like the Fox.

ビナー。彼女は政治哲学者で、『狐のようになれ』という素晴らしい本の著者だ。

程度の副詞

We talk about the infamous philosopher Machiavelli and why he's both incredibly influential and incredibly misunderstood. Hope you enjoy. Erica Binner, welcome to the show.

悪名高き哲学者マキャベリについて、そしてなぜ彼がとてつもなく影響力があり、またとてつもなく誤解されているのかについて語る。お楽しみください。エリカ・ビナー、ようこそ。

こんにちは、ショーン。お招きいただきありがとうございます。

There is the popular caricature of Machiavelli, with which I think most people are familiar, you know, the conniving, manipulative, sneaky figure. And then there's the real

マキアヴェッリという人物の風刺画は、ほとんどの人が知っていると思うが、狡猾で、人を操り、卑劣な人物だ。そして、本当の

Machiavelli. Tell me about the gap between those two.

マキャベリこの2つのギャップについて教えてください。

It's massive, because if you go and you read, like, Machiavelli's correspondence, they're hilarious. Like, he's the funniest guy on the first kind of literary piece that we've got notes about, but we don't actually have anymore because it was kind of concealed.

マキアヴェッリの書簡を読むと、とても面白いんだ。マキアヴェッリは最初の文学作品の中で一番面白い男で、それについてのメモがあるんだけど、隠されていたようなものだから、実際にはもうないんだ。

And then the Pope's banned everything he wrote. But one of the first things he wrote was a satirical play about, like, the powers that be in Republican Florence. So he's a satirist. I mean, one of the things I just always want to kind of bring out about the gap between this cold, calculating advisor to princes saying, you know, better to be feared than loved is this guy is hilarious all the time. And he's a dramatist. Like, he's a brilliant writer of plays and dramas.

その後、ローマ教皇は彼が書くものすべてを禁止した。でも、彼が最初に書いたもののひとつは、共和制フィレンツェの権力者たちを風刺した戯曲だった。だから彼は風刺作家なんだ。つまり、私がいつも指摘したいのは、この冷徹で打算的な王侯顧問が、愛されるより恐れられる方がいい、と言うのと、この男は常に陽気である、というギャップについてだ。彼は劇作家だ。戯曲やドラマの素晴らしい脚本家なんだ。

And so that's one gap that when you read, when you come to the prince, I kind of urge people always to kind of bear in mind that before he wrote The Prince, and then after he wrote The

そのため、『プリンス』を読むとき、あるいは『プリンス』に触れるとき、私はいつも、彼が『プリンス』を書く前、そして『プリンス』を書いた後のことを心に留めておいてほしいと思う。

Prince, he was writing political satires. And I think we're in a kind of atmosphere now in the world where that might be easier to see for a lot of people. Because if you imagine somebody who doesn't want to be too direct and preach to people in criticizing the great leaders, but still wants to kind of take the piss out of them, he just does that in a very, very subtle Florentine way.

プリンスは政治風刺を書いていた。そして今、私たちは、それが多くの人々にとって見やすくなるような世界の雰囲気の中にいると思う。なぜなら、偉大な指導者を批判する際に、あまり直接的で説教じみたことはしたくないが、それでも彼らを小馬鹿にしたいような人物を想像してみてほしい。

I don't know if that kind of answers your question.

質問の答えになっているかどうかわからないけど。

No, no, it does. So, you know, when I was in graduate school for political theory,

いや、そうなんだ。大学院で政治理論を専攻していたときのことだ、

Machiavelli is introduced as kind of like the first truly modern political scientist, sort of like the Galileo of politics. Is that how you think of him? Is that how we should think of him?

マキアヴェッリは、最初の真に近代的な政治学者、政治におけるガリレオのようなものとして紹介されている。あなたは彼のことをそう考えているのだろうか？私たちは彼をそう考えるべきなのでしょうか？

Unequivocally no. Machiavelli was somebody whose main examples and main interests when it comes to like, you know, thinking about how politics should work, his main interest is in ancient history.

明確に違う。マキアヴェッリは、政治がどのように機能すべきかを考える上で、彼の主な例や主な関心は古代史にあった。

That's clear. He's somebody who's really, really grounded in ancient history, like most of the people who are educated in his times. His, you know, second big, big book is called The Discourses on Livy. That is a commentary on ancient Rome, which is trying to draw from history examples that can, you know, serve as cautionary, you know, warnings to people of his own times and for the future, but also help us to think about what is actually, you know, what is a good leader in politics? What is prudent? And what kind of sometimes seems like a prudent policy, like something could actually achieve some good. But then if you really, really think ahead and look at history as well, and realize what people have done before along those lines, you kind of see the problems. I don't think he's a scientist in a political science way at all, thank goodness.

それは明らかだ。彼は、彼の時代に教育を受けた人々のほとんどがそうであったように、本当に、本当に古代史に根ざした人物なんだ。彼の2冊目の大著は『リヴィ論』と呼ばれている。これは古代ローマについての注釈書で、歴史から、彼の時代の人々や未来への警告となるような例を引き出そうとしている。慎重さとは何か？そして、時には慎重な政策のように見えるもの、何か実際に良いことを成し遂げそうなもの。しかし、本当に、本当に先のことを考え、歴史にも目を向け、その線で以前の人々が何をしてきたかを理解すれば、問題が見えてくる。彼は政治

Maybe you could replace political scientist with just political thinker. Maybe that's a little broader. But you're right, he is very interested in the past. And he seems to have a bit of a beef with a lot of these ancient philosophers, you know, the Plato's and the

政治学者を政治思想家と言い換えてもいいかもしれない。その方が少し幅広いかもしれない。しかし、あなたの言う通り、彼は過去に非常に興味を持っている。そして、彼は多くの古代の哲学者、つまりプラトンや

Aristotle's. He seemed to think that they were naive, if that's the right word, that they weren't looking at the political world the way it actually is. But instead, they were projecting their own ideals and fantasies onto the political world, and then dreaming up a kind of politics in light of that. What was his beef with the ancients? What did he think they misunderstood, or got wrong, or ignored about actual life? The kind of view that you just outlined,

アリストテレスの言葉だ。アリストテレスは、彼らが世間知らずであり、政治世界の現実を正しく見ていないと考えているようだった。その代わりに、自分たちの理想や幻想を政治世界に投影し、それに照らしてある種の政治を夢想しているのだと。古代人に対する彼の不満は何だったのだろうか？彼らが実際の生活について何を誤解していたのか、間違っていたのか、無視していたのか。今あなたが説明したような見方だ、

I don't want to get nerdy and too academic about this, but that is looked out...

あまりアカデミックなことは言いたくないが、それはそれで......。

You're about to tell me why I'm wrong, aren't you?

私が間違っている理由を教えてくれるんだろう？

Out of a couple of lines, where he says things like, oh, you know, philosophers have imagined ideal republics. But in reality, that's just one quote. And then there's some other little quotes you can pluck out, and you can turn into a big modernist system, which quite a few of my very esteemed Machiavelli scholar colleagues have done. But actually, you know, in context, it's a lot more complicated than that. Because he also has many quotes elsewhere, where he said, the greatest thing you can do, if you can't actually create a republic, is to imagine one.

哲学者たちは理想的な共和国を想像してきた。しかし、実際には、それは1つの引用に過ぎない。私の尊敬するマキアヴェッリ研究者の同僚たちはそうしてきた。しかし実際には、文脈からするともっと複雑なのです。というのも、マキャベリは別の場所でも多くの名言を残しているからです。「共和制を実際に作ることができなくても、できる最大のことは、共和制を想像することだ」と。

He has that in one of his pieces, it's called The Discourses on Government of Florence, where he's trying to advise them on how to save their flailing, fragile new non-republic, and saying, maybe you should turn this non-republic back into a republic. And he says,

フィレンツェの政体論』と呼ばれる作品の中で、フィレンツェは、もがき苦しんでいる新しい非共和国を救う方法について助言しようとしている。そして彼は言う、

I'm not in position anymore to help do that in practice, like I used to be. So I'm trying to go in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle and imagine one where you can't have one.

私はもう、以前のようにそれを実践する手助けをする立場にはない。だから、プラトンやアリストテレスの足跡をたどりながら、1つしかないものを想像しようとしているんだ。

There is no sharp contrast in Machiavelli properly understood between his ideals and his realism.

マキャベリの理想と現実主義の間には、正しく理解されるような鋭いコントラストはない。

And realism, you know, realism and idealism don't have to be opposite. That idea in itself is something I think people are really waking up to more and more that if we try to go, you know, if you imagine that you can follow a realistic path towards a better world without having an ideal or two to guide it. You know, he sort of has the same problem Nietzsche has, in that there's so much irony in so many different voices in his work that it practically begs you to misinterpret it. Or at the very least, it makes it very easy for the reader to project whatever they want onto the work. And so it's his fault, I guess is what I'm saying.

現実主義と理想主義は対立するものではないんだ。その考え自体、人々がますます目覚めてきていることだと思う。ニーチェが抱えているのと同じような問題が、彼の作品には多くの皮肉が込められている。少なくとも、読者が作品に自分の好きなものを投影するのは非常に簡単だ。だから彼のせいだ、と私は言いたいのだ。

Yeah, but this is what they did. I mean, this is another thing that I hope we will, I mean,

ああ、でもこれが彼らがやったことなんだ。つまり、これも私が望んでいることなんだ、

I was just reading something today about AI and why, you know, somebody like a professor saying, don't we still want students to learn how to read difficult, ambiguous works, and that reading one of the reasons we want students to keep reading and not to filter everything to interpret it through a machine, is that reading is like a practice in listening, and a practice in hearing things that are subtly off, or that you could work with. And that's what you need in politics, right? Especially in a democracy or a republic, you need people not to just to go by hard rules, but to hear the subtleties and be able to judge for themselves. That's what he's trying to get us to do, like, as you know, part of recovering the republic is readers have to see, you know, he's telling you all these shocking things that you ought to do and that princes ought to do.

今日、AIについて読んだんだけど、ある教授が言っていたんだ。難解で曖昧な作品の読み方を学生に学ばせたい、学生に読み続けてほしい、機械を通して解釈するためにすべてをフィルターにかけるのではなく、読書をしてほしいという理由のひとつは、読書は聞く練習のようなもので、微妙にズレていること、あるいはうまくいきそうなことを聞く練習になる。それが政治に必要なことなんだ。特に民主主義や共和制では、人々がただ難しいルールに従うのではなく、微妙なニュアンスを聞き取り、自分自身で判断できるようになる必要がある。ご存知のように、

And readers are supposed to be kind of saying, hang on, hang on, let me judge that for myself.

そして読者は、ちょっと待て、ちょっと待て、自分で判断させてくれ、と言うはずだ。

All right, well, look, let's set about the work of cutting through some of these.

よし、じゃあ、この中のいくつかを切り開く作業に取り掛かろう。

ショーン、私のことを信じていないでしょう？

No, I do. I do. I mean, I think, I think once you get into the business of trying to distinguish, you know, what is the wink wink, and what is meant to be taken literally, it's very difficult, but you are, you are a much closer reader of Machiavelli than I am. So I'm not going to challenge you on that. And I think your reading is actually very interesting and very persuasive.

いや、する。そうだね。何がウインクウインクなのか、何が文字通りに受け取られることを意図しているのか、それを見分けようとするのはとても難しいことですが、あなたは私よりもずっとマキャベリに近い読者です。だから、それについてあなたに挑戦するつもりはない。あなたの読みは実に興味深く、説得力がある。

Part of what I'm doing here is, because the popular image of him is so cemented, as this, you know, deceptive figure. I'm really trying to set that up so that you can, you can challenge it kind of, you know, piece by piece. So let's start right. I mean, I think one of the certainly the conventional popular view of Machiavelli is that he is someone who wanted to draw this neat, clear line between morality and politics. They wanted to sever these things. But you write in the book that that's not true, that he simply wanted to put and now I'm quoting, he simply wanted to put morality on firmer, purely human foundation. So what does that mean? How is it different from what people think?

私がここでやっていることのひとつは、一般的な彼のイメージが、このように、人を欺くような人物として固まってしまっているからです。そのイメージに一個一個挑戦できるような仕掛けを作りたいんだ。では、さっそく始めましょう。つまり、マキャベリに対する従来の一般的な見方のひとつは、彼は道徳と政治の間にきちんとした明確な線を引きたかった人物だというものだと思います。これらのものを断ち切りたかったのです。しかし、あなたは本の中で、それは真実ではない、彼は単に道徳をより強固な、純粋に人間的な基盤の上に置きたかっただけだ、と

What is true is that he often criticizes the morality that of the, of the, let's say, the hyper kind of hyper Christianity or spirituality that, you know, takes morals into the, puts morals and what, you know, judgments of right and wrong into the hands of priests and popes and, and, and some abstract kind of God that, that, you know, he, he may or may not believe in, but doesn't think it's something we can totally access as humans.

モラルや善悪の判断を司祭や教皇や抽象的な神の手に委ねるような、言ってみれば超高度なキリスト教やスピリチュアリティのモラルを、彼はしばしば批判している。

We can't, you know, so that we, if we want to think about morality, both on a personal level, but certainly in politics, we've got to kind of go back to basics. Think about what is the behavior of human beings? What is human nature? What are the drives that kind of propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad? And that's one of the fundamentals. I think he's, he wants to say, we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn't think that human beings can ever be angels. And we shouldn't see them as devils when they behave badly until they really behave badly. Then we can call them evil. And sometimes he does, he calls people cruel, inhuman, and evil sometimes, but very seldom. But the basic is, if you want to develop a human morality, you, you study yourself, you study other humans, you don't put yourself above other humans because you're just one too. And, and then you kind of start from there and say, right, what kind of politics is going to make such people coexist in ways that are not going to aim at some like divine order, you know, something that's going to bring higher and higher kind of godly ethics into human life. We've got to be more modest and just talk about, we're all going to be arguing. We're all going to be difficult. Let's have rules and laws that help us coexist. Well, let's talk about The Prince. I take it, you do not think this book is very well understood in the popular imagination. Is that, is that about right? Do you think we, do you think most people have this book wrong? And if they do, tell me what you think is the, the most glaring, obvious misinterpretation of what he's actually up to there. Because I think what people think he's up to is giving this handbook to tyrants. I think that is what most people think. Tell me how that's wrong. I mean, I used to think that too. I used to have to teach Machiavelli as part of the courses on lots of different thinkers. And I would just say, well, it's a handbook for tyrants. But then he wrote The Discourses, which is a very, very Republican book, very openly. So, so there's first, that's the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, well, how could he have switched so quickly from being a super

道徳について考えるなら、個人的なレベルでも、政治においても、基本に立ち戻る必要がある。人間の行動とは何か？人間の本質とは何か？人間が善悪と呼ばれる行動をとる原動力は何なのか？それが基本中の基本だ。彼が言いたいのは、人間を根本的に善とか悪とかいうものとして見るべきでないということだ。人間が天使になれると考えるべきではない。そして、本当に悪い行いをするまでは、悪い行いをする人間を悪魔と見なすべきではない。そうすれば、彼らを悪と呼ぶことができる。彼は時々、人を残酷、非人間的、邪悪と呼ぶが、ごく稀だ。でも基本的な

Republican as a political actor to writing The Prince to suddenly writing The Discourses. So that's a kind of warning sign. And then that got me thinking. And then I kept coming across earlier authors who I trust deeply, like Rousseau. I mean, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in the 18th century, a great, I think a very great philosopher and a deep Republican, has a footnote in his social contract saying, The Prince has been totally misunderstood.

政治家としての共和党、『プリンス』の執筆、そして突然の『談話』の執筆。つまり、これは一種の警告なんだ。それで私は考えるようになった。そして、ルソーのような、私が深く信頼している初期の作家に出会い続けたのです。つまり、18世紀のジャン＝ジャック・ルソーは、偉大な、私は非常に偉大な哲学者であり、深い共和主義者だと思うのですが、その社会契約書の脚注に、『王子』は完全に誤解されている、と書いているのです。

これはマキャベリの......そうなのか？

Yeah. I didn't, I mean, I've read that book, but-

ええ、その本は読みましたけど...。

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is what set me off. So this isn't just me making it up. I mean,

そう、そう、そうなんだ。これが僕を怒らせたんだ。だから、これは僕の作り話じゃないんだ。つまりね、

I have to say, I'm not like a, I mean, I'm a very, like, I was very uncertain about this too.

正直言って、僕は、つまり、僕はとても、この件に関してもとても不安だったんだ。

But then when I started seeing that some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from Republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally. And they say it, they say he's a moral writer. Rousseau says he has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.

しかし、マキアヴェッリの初期の読者や、共和党の著者の初期のコメントを見ていると、彼らは皆、マキアヴェッリを同盟者として見ている。彼は道徳的な作家だと。ルソーは、彼には今まで表面的で堕落した読者しかいなかったと言っている。

If you pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don't read them that carefully, because they're kind of boring modern readers. The exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality. But like the first one you go, and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom. And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cool, cold analysis of this is what you should do. Chapter five.

もしあなたが『プリンス』を手に取り、最初の4章を読むとしたら、ほとんどの人はそこまで注意深く読まないだろう。刺激的なのは、道徳と不道徳についての中間の章だ。でも、最初の章を読んで、自由についての第5章に来るんだ。そして第4章までは、かなりクールで冷徹な、こうあるべきだという分析に聞こえる。第5章

Wow. It's like how republics fight back. And the whole tone, and remember, he's a literary guy, and he's a dramatist. The whole tone changes. Suddenly, fire. Republics are fighting back, and the prince has to be on his toes, because he's probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up.

ワオ。まるで共和国の反撃みたいだ。彼は文学者であり、劇作家なんだ。全体のトーンが変わる。突然、火がつく。共和国は反撃に転じ、王子は気を引き締めていなければならない。

So who is he talking to? Who's he really talking to in The Prince? Is he talking to the people, or is he talking to future princes? I mean, I see it as, you know, imagine somebody who's been kicked out of his job and has a big family to support. He had a lot of kids, and who loved his job and was passionate about the republic. He's been tortured. He doesn't know what's going to happen next, and he's absolutely gutted that Florence's republican experiment, renewing the republic experiment, has failed. And he can't speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? So number one motivation is it makes you feel better, you know? I mean, you're just like taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable in a low-key, you know, way, because you can't be too brutally satirical about it. It makes you feel a little bit better.

では、彼は誰と話しているのか？プリンス』の中で、彼は本当は誰に語りかけているのだろう？国民に語りかけているのか、それとも未来の王子に語りかけているのか？つまり、仕事を追い出され、大家族を養っている人物を想像してみてほしい。彼にはたくさんの子供がいて、自分の仕事を愛し、共和国に情熱を注いでいた。彼は拷問を受けた。彼は次に何が起こるかわからない。フローレンスの共和制の実験が、共和制の実験の更新が、失敗に終わったことに、絶対に失望している。そして自由に発言することもできない。では、ドラマや風刺を書いたことのある

But I think he's really writing it in a way to kind of expose the ways of tyrants.

でも、彼は本当に暴君のやり方を暴露するような書き方をしていると思う。

Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools. Tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S., from household names like Mattel and Gymshark, to brands just getting started, like Dr.

番組のサポートはShopifyから。起業とは、アイデアを現実にすることです。そして、それをやり遂げるためには、適切なツールが必要です。Shopifyのようなツールです。Shopifyは、世界中の何百万ものビジネスを支えるコマース・プラットフォームです。マテルやジムシャークのような有名企業から、Dr.Dr.のような起業したばかりのブランドまで、アメリカにおけるeコマースの10％を占めているという。

Sean Elling's Drillings and Fillings, and the gray area soul patch dye for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big, beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify.com slash Vox. Go to Shopify.com slash Vox. Shopify.com slash Vox.

ショーン・エリングの「ドリル＆フィリングス」、そして若々しさを求めるヒップ・キャットのためのグレーゾーン・ソウル・パッチ染め。Shopifyのデザインスタジオを使えば、あなたのブランドスタイルに合った大きくて美しいオンラインストアを構築することができる。また、AIツールを使ってコンテンツ制作をステップアップさせることもできる。さらに、顧客がどこにいても対応できるよう、Eメールやソーシャルメディアキャンペーンも簡単に作成できます。Shopifyを利用することで、販売の準備が整います。Shopifyを味方につ

I think one of the more famous sentiments in The Prince is this idea that fear is more powerful than love. That from the perspective of a ruler, fear is more dependable than love.

プリンス』の中でより有名な感情のひとつに、恐怖は愛よりも強力であるという考え方があると思う。支配者の立場からすれば、恐怖は愛よりも頼りになる。

What do you make of that? Do you think it's true? Did he actually believe that?

どう思う？本当だと思いますか？彼は本当にそう信じていたのだろうか？

Yeah. He says it's good to be feared and loved, but if you have to choose, it's better to be feared than loved. So that's the context. And then he gives you examples of what kind of fear should be used. And what he really means when you look at his examples of the best kind of fear is just like fear of the laws. He gives examples that actually relate to transparency and legality. I'm sorry, but this is true. If you go to the chapter where he says that, he says it's better to be transparent and regular and not to do things in an irregular, arbitrary way. Do not arbitrarily take people's property. Do not take their wives. Do not do this.

恐れられるのも愛されるのもいいことだが、どちらかを選ぶなら、愛されるより恐れられる方がいい、と。そういうことだ。そして、どのような怖れを使うべきかを例示している。そして、どのような怖れを使うべきかという例を挙げているのだが、彼が本当に言いたいのは、最善の怖れとは法律に対する怖れのようなものだということだ。透明性と合法性に関連する例を挙げている。申し訳ないが、これは事実だ。彼がそう言っている章を見ると、透明で規則的である方がよく、不規則で恣意的なやり方をしない方がいいと言っている。恣意的に人の財産を奪っては

He gives you these lists. That's the kind of fear you want people to have. And it could be fear of you, the ruler, or it could be fear of a legal constitutional ruler as well. So what he's not saying is you should just use random terror. Arbitrarily scaring people, that is a disaster.

彼はこれらのリストをあなたに与える。これこそ、人々に抱いてもらいたい恐怖心だ。それは支配者であるあなたに対する恐怖かもしれないし、合法的な憲法上の支配者に対する恐怖かもしれない。彼が言っているのは、ただ無差別に恐怖を与えればいいということではない。恣意的に人々を恐怖に陥れることは大失敗だ。

He's really clear about that in The Prince. Yeah. He says, if you do have to be feared, do not be feared in such a way as to produce hatred. That's a very important qualification.

彼は『プリンス』の中でそのことをはっきりと述べている。もし恐れられなければならないとしても、憎しみを生むような方法で恐れられるべきではない、と。それはとても重要な条件だ。

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And look, I know part of what you do in the book is you're resisting this idea that Machiavelli is very simplistically driving a wedge between politics and morality. But God, there are these incredible lines, like you've been pointing out, right? And here's one. He says, therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good and to use knowledge and not use it according to the necessity of the case.

そうだね。そうだ。そう、その通り。そうだね。マキャベリが政治と道徳の間に楔を打ち込むという単純な考え方に抵抗しているのは、この本であなたがしていることの一部でしょう。でも、あなたが指摘しているように、信じられないようなセリフがあるんですよ。そのひとつがこれだ。それゆえ、自らを維持したいと願う王子は、いかに善良でないかを学ぶことが必要である。

So what is the meaning of a line like that for you? Is he just saying politics is a dirty business and you can't survive it without getting your hands dirty? Or is it more complicated than that?

では、あなたにとってそのようなセリフの意味は何ですか？政治は汚れ仕事であり、自分の手を汚さなければ生き残れない、と言っているだけなのか？それとも、もっと複雑なことなのだろうか？

Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, this is what the thing about Machiavelli that makes him so susceptible to the kind of reading that's become popular is he's got these amazing lines. Oh, wow.

つまり、残念ながら、マキャベリのこういうところが、世間で流行しているような読み方に影響されやすいんだ。おお、すごい。

とてもおいしいよ、エリカ。とてもおいしいわ。

And they're so cool. I know. They're so cool. And if you're a teacher or professor who teaches political theory, it is kind of sad to kind of think about my Machiavelli being the right one instead of the one that we've all grown to kind of hate, love hate, because, you know, he's such a different, it's such a different view of politics than what we're used to in ethics.

そして、彼らはとてもクールだ。そうだね。とてもクールだ。もしあなたが政治理論を教える先生や教授なら、私たちが憎んできたマキアヴェッリではなく、私のマキアヴェッリが正しいと考えるのは、ちょっと悲しいことです。

But I'm sorry to tell you that he's fantastic because he really is spelling out how human beings really behave and how leaders often behave. But what he does in that sentence is he's setting the stage for a series of chapters about what do people think is good and are they right?

というのも、彼は人間が本当はどのように行動するのか、そして指導者がしばしばどのように行動するのかについて、きちんと説明しているからだ。しかし、彼がこの文章でやっていることは、人々が何を良いと考え、それが正しいのかについて、一連の章の舞台を整えているということだ。

That's what the next few chapters about. And he has discussion of cruelty. What do people think is cruel or harsh? And are they right? And using money. When is kind of using money to get ahead okay? And when is it not okay for you? Because it's actually going to get you in deep trouble.

次の数章はそれについてだ。そして彼は残酷さについて議論している。人々は何を残酷だと思うのか？そしてそれは正しいのか？そしてお金の使い方。出世のためにお金を使うのはいつがいいのか？そして、それはいつあなたにとって良くないことなのか？なぜなら、それは実際にあなたを深いトラブルに巻き込むことになるからだ。

So what he's doing with that is trying to get you to sort of think there's good and there's good is what I, what is what is conventionally thought of as good, the way to go. And sometimes he says that we have this angelic idea of how leaders should behave, which isn't suitable, but that's not saying that you should compromise like your basic standards of transparency and decent, you know, decent rule. It's just, it's very hard sometimes to know when he's merely describing something and when he's endorsing it. He's deliberately ambiguous. He's ambiguous on purpose. A lot of ancient writers were deliberately ambiguous. We are the ones who are kind of aberrations, modern people who think that everything has to be straightforward, blunt and clear. Uh, in, in ancient writers, you find loads of loads of writers, including

だから、彼がやっているのは、良いこと、良いことというのは、私が、慣習的に良いと思われていること、進むべき道だと考えさせようとしているんだ。リーダーがどう振る舞うべきかについて、天使のような考えを持っていると言うこともあるが、それは適切なことではない。ただ、彼が単に何かを説明しているのか、それとも支持しているのかを見極めるのは非常に難しい。彼は意図的に曖昧にしている。わざと曖昧にしている。多くの古代の作家は意図的に曖昧にしている。私たち現代人は、すべてがストレートで、ぶっきらぼうで明確でなければならないと考

Plato and all the historians who were deliberately ambiguous because they're trying to get us to think. Well, and part of what is very persuasive about, about your book, um, is that you really get to understand what he's up to. Um, when you see some of his correspondence, some of his private correspondence with, you know, letters to friends and that sort of thing where he's being much more honest. And with that context, it, it gives you, um, a much better insight into what he's actually doing in his, in his work. Um, you know, and that's the work that you do. One of the things he says in the print is that, you know, the ruler must imitate the lion and the fox. And the book of yours we're talking about is called Be Like the Fox. I have it right here. Um, why that title? What do you mean? What does it mean to be like the fox?

プラトンやすべての歴史家は、私たちに考えさせようとして、わざと曖昧にしたんだ。あなたの本に説得力があるのは、彼が何をしようとしていたのかがよくわかるからです。彼の私的な手紙や、友人への手紙など、彼がもっと正直になっているものを見るとね。そのような背景を知ることで、彼が仕事において実際に何をしているのか、より深く理解することができる。そして、それがあなたの仕事なのです。彼が活字の中で言っていることのひとつに、支配者はライオンとキツネの真似をしなければならない、というものがある。私たちが話しているあなたの本は

Yeah. I mean, foxes, again, he's playing with us because we think of the classical image of, you know, the trope of the, the fox is associated with cunning, sly, sneaky Machiavellian.

つまり、キツネは、私たちが古典的なキツネのイメージを思い浮かべるように、私たちを翻弄しているのだ。

Hard to pin down. Hard to pin down. Yeah. But if you look at the context, again, you look at what he says, he says, the fox recognizes snares. He said, people, the ruler should imitate the fox and the lion, the lion, because the lion can scare wolves and the fox because the fox recognizes traps. So the skill of the fox he's highlighting isn't being shrewd and cunning. It's recognizing when someone's being shrewd and cunning towards you and building up defenses, cognitive and, and physical, whatever you need so that that person or doesn't pull you in.

突き止めるのは難しい。難しい。そうだね。でも、文脈を見るなら、もう一度、彼が言っていることを見るなら、彼は、狐は罠を見分ける、と言っている。支配者はキツネとライオンを真似るべきだ、ライオンはオオカミを怖がらせることができるし、キツネは罠を見分けるからだ、と。つまり、彼が強調するキツネの技とは、抜け目がなく狡猾であることではない。誰かがあなたに対して抜け目なく狡猾であることを認識し、その人があなたを引きずり込まないように、認知的、物理的、必要なあらゆる防御を構築することなのだ。

Tell me if I'm wrong. I remember, and I don't know where I read this. It was a long time ago, but I recall reading about this story that Machiavelli loved and apparently referenced quite a bit. And the story was of a, some ruler, I don't know who, who sends a man to some principality to put down an insurgency with just brutal force, right? And the guy does the job, but the people left behind in that principality are really pissed off and they resent him.

間違ってたら言ってね。覚えているのだが、どこで読んだのかわからない。ずいぶん前のことだが、マキアヴェッリが大好きで、かなり参考にしていたらしい話を読んだ記憶がある。その話とは、どこかの支配者（誰かは知らない）が、反乱を残忍な力で鎮圧するために、ある公国に男を送り込むというものだった。でも、その公国に残された人々は本当に腹を立てていて、彼を恨んでいた。

So the prince has the guy who did it, the guy that he ordered to do the job killed and then strung up in the public square. And then he makes a big show of how outraged he is by this man's criminal act of defiance. And Machiavelli apparently said to have loved that story because it demonstrates how flexible and cunning a prince can and should be and how effective it can be if he's doing that well. I think what you're talking about is chapter seven of The

そこで王子は、自分が仕事を命じた犯人を殺させ、公衆の面前で縛り首にした。そして、この男の反抗的な犯罪行為にどれほど憤慨しているかを大々的にアピールする。マキアヴェッリはこの物語が大好きだったらしい。なぜなら、王子がいかに柔軟で狡猾でありうるか、またそうあるべきかを示しており、またそれがうまくいっていればいかに効果的であるかを示しているからだ。あなたが言っているのは、『マキャベリ』の第7章のことだと思う。

Prince where he talks about Cesare Borgia, who was the son of Pope Alexander VI, who was a brilliant deceiver. And Cesare Borgia, he's the Prince of Fortune. Chapter seven is about how to become a prince, not by virtue, but by fortune. And Cesare Borgia is a really ambivalent figure in The Prince, but he does something along the lines you suggested. He's got a guy called

チェーザレ・ボルジアは教皇アレクサンデル6世の息子で、見事な詐欺師だった。チェーザレ・ボルジアは「幸運の王子」だ。第7章は、徳によってではなく、幸運によって王子になる方法について書かれている。チェーザレ・ボルジアは『プリンス』の中では実にアンビバレントな人物ですが、あなたが示唆したようなことをやっています。彼は

Ramiro de Urco and he sets him up in this small town to be the police guy, the big sheriff on the block. And then he scapegoats him, basically. He gets Ramiro to be brutal and suppress all discontent. And then when all the people start getting upset about this, he goes, hey, I'm just going to like... And so he doesn't even... Machiavelli just describes this. He did love telling this story. He told it in several different places, actually. But he says, one day the people go into the plaza at dawn and there's the pieces of Ramiro de Urco, like in pieces, with a coltello, a knife by his side. And, you know, this is the image.

ラミロ・デ・ウルコは、この小さな町で彼を警察官、つまり街の大物保安官に仕立て上げた。そして、基本的に彼をスケープゴートにした。彼はラミロに残忍な態度をとらせ、すべての不満を抑圧する。そして、人々がこのことに腹を立て始めると、彼はこう言うんだ。それで彼は...マキアヴェッリはこのように描写している。彼はこの話をするのが好きだった。マキャベリはこの話をするのが好きだった。ある日、人々が夜明けに広場に行くと、そこにはラミロ・デ・ウルコの死体がバラバラになっていて、傍らにはコルテッロと呼ばれるナイフがあった。そし

And then it says the people were so stupefied that they didn't dare rebel anymore.

そして、民衆は茫然自失となり、もう反抗する勇気がなかったと書かれている。

And then if you end it there and you say, that's the end of the story, you say, okay,

そして、そこで終わりにして、それで話は終わりだと言えば、オーケーと言うんだ、

Machiavellian, isn't that? But... That's pretty cynical. It's pretty cynical, Erica.

マキャベリ的でしょう？でも...皮肉ねかなり皮肉ね エリカ

Pretty cynical. It is. It's very cynical. Read on. Don't get stuck. My one advice, don't get stuck on one thing. Keep reading on. What were the consequences for Cesare Borgia?

かなり皮肉っぽい。そうだね。とてもシニカルだ。続きを読む行き詰まらないように。一つ忠告しておくと、一つのことに囚われるな。読み進めてください。チェーザレ・ボルジアの結末は？

What happened to him after that? Well, everyone starts leaving Cesare, like all the people who are giving him troops and who supported him, all his allies. They all say, okay, this guy's crazy.

その後、彼はどうなったのか？みんなチェーザレから離れ始めたんだ。彼に軍隊を与えていた人たち、彼を支持していた人たち、彼の同盟者たちみんながね。みんな、こいつは狂っていると。

He's out of control. They start dropping out. The French pull back their troops that they were giving him. All his closest mates, they conspire against him. He finds this out. He brutally slaughters them. And then everyone else hates him. So within a few months, he's like really in trouble. He doesn't actually die immediately, but he's out.

彼は手に負えない。彼らは脱落し始めた。フランスは彼に与えていた兵力を引き揚げる。親しい仲間は皆、彼に陰謀を企てた。それを知った彼は...彼は残忍にも彼らを虐殺した。そしてみんなに嫌われた。だから数ヶ月のうちに、彼は本当に困ったことになる。実際にはすぐには死なないが、アウトだ。

And that's it. So if you go to the end of the story, you don't just start and say, wow, what a cool thing. Because, I mean, we can see examples of this all over the world today.

それで終わり。だから、物語の最後まで行ったとしても、ただ始めて、うわあ、なんてクールなんだ、と言うのではない。というのも、このような例は今日、世界中で見ることができるからだ。

Wow. That was a cool thing. Somebody did that. That was tough. Wait till the story continues because doing that is going to make you feared and hated. You're mad at me for not finishing the reading, aren't you? Yeah. Oh, you didn't even read that chapter in my book. That is such a good chapter. I read your book all the way through when I read it the first time and I didn't reread it cover to cover this time. I did revisit it, but I didn't reread the whole thing. But I did at one point read the whole thing. There's clearly a pragmatism to Machiavelli. Would you say that he has something like an ideology or is he just a clear eyed realist?

ワオ。クールだったね。誰かがやったんだ。タフだったね。そんなことしたら、恐れられて嫌われることになるから、話が続くまで待ってて。最後まで読まなかったから怒ってるんでしょ？そうだよ。あら、私の本のあの章も読んでないのね。あんなにいい章なのに。あなたの本を最初に読んだときは最後まで読んだし、今回は隅から隅まで読み直したわけじゃない。再読はしたけど、全部は読んでいない。でも、一度は全部読んだんだ。マキャベリには明らかにプラグマティズムがある。彼にはイデオロギーのようなものがあるのでしょうか、それとも単なる明晰な

He's a Republican. And again, this is something that if you just read The Prince, you're not going to get that. But if you read Machiavelli, even just read The Discourses, which, as I say, was written around the same time as The Prince, it's very, very similar in almost every way, except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly, whereas The Prince never once uses the tyrant or the word tyranny. So if there's a guiding set of political views, whether you call ideology or not, it's Republican. Republican ideology, if you like, is shared power. It's all the people in a city, all the male people in this case.

彼は共和党員だ。繰り返しますが、これは『プリンス』を読んだだけでは理解できないことです。しかし、マキアヴェッリを読むと、『王子』と同時期に書かれた『言行録』を読むだけでも、共和制を賛美し、専制君主を公然と批判していることを除けば、ほとんどすべての点で非常によく似ている。イデオロギーと呼ぶかどうかは別として、政治的見解の指針となるものがあるとすれば、それは共和党である。共和党のイデオロギーは、権力の共有です。それは都市のすべての人々、この場合はすべての男性である。

In Machiavelli's case, he was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, the key to kind of stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. I know you just said he's a Republican. He's defending Republicanism.

マキアヴェッリの場合、彼はかなり平等主義的だった。彼は明らかに、男性人口のできるだけ広い範囲を市民とすることを望んでいた。彼ははっきりと、権力を安定させる鍵は憲法を変え、すべての人に分け前を与えることだと言っている。みんなに分け前を与えなければならない。今、彼は共和党員だと言いましたね。彼は共和党を擁護している。

But do you think of him as a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today? If you see the main principle of democracy is also sharing power among all the people equally, which is how I understand democracy. Yeah, he'd totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say democracy has to have? He's pretty clear in the discourses. He tells you, you don't want a long-term executive. You need to always check power. So anyone who's in a position of a magistracy, a political office of any kind, needs to have very strict limits, needs to be under very strict laws, even stricter laws when they're in the office than they would be as private citizens. Can I pause you for a second?

しかし、あなたは彼を民主主義の理論家だと思いますか？今日私たちが民主主義と呼んでいるものを擁護するような人物だと思いますか？民主主義の大原則は、すべての国民が等しく権力を共有することです。ええ、彼はそれに完全に同意するでしょうね。民主主義にはどのような制度が必要なのでしょうか？彼は言説の中でかなり明確だ。長期政権を望んではいけない。常に権力をチェックする必要がある。だから、あらゆる種類の政治的役職にある者は、非常に厳格な制限を受ける必要があり、非常に厳格な法律の下に置かれる必要がある。ちょっと話を中断して

Why is he a critic of people being in power for a long time? Why does he want limits, term limits?

なぜ彼は長期政権を批判するのか？なぜ彼は任期制限を求めるのか？

It's simple. He's doing this all through Roman history. So he makes his arguments not by just kind of abstract setting out. These are the kind of constitutional principles you need.

単純なことだ。彼はローマの歴史を通してこのようなことをしている。つまり、彼は抽象的な議論ではなく、こう主張しているのです。このような憲法原則が必要なのです。

He's saying, this is what the Romans did when they got rid of the kings and they started building a republic. They did some really good things. And then they did some things not so well. And they had to then kind of go back to the drawing board and rewrite some of the institutions and add some laws that were especially strict for against people trying to come back and create a dictatorship. So he goes through lots of different kind of things that the Romans did that are now kind of reflected also in the US constitution or in other democracies around the world, because the founding fathers drew on Machiavelli and others, you know, authors who'd built on him. The rule of law is really super important. If you don't have laws that are kind of constraining everybody and institutions that make sure that the more powerful are not held in check, you're going to have trouble soon, because people are always, always in conflict. This is another thing I think is really more interesting about Machiavelli's view of democracy than a lot of democratic theories you get today. He stresses how much democracy is turbulent. Even in a stable democracy, people are going to be fighting all the time about what kind of, you know, where do they want to go? What kind of values do you want in there? Rich and poor, you know, how much should people get taxed? That's an eternal problem of democracy, eternal. And he says, you need to have institutions where everyone can debate that. And, you know, checks on people getting too powerful, also economically. Why did he think rule of law was so perilously fragile?

彼は、ローマ人が王を追い出して共和制を築き始めたときにやったことだと言っているんだ。彼らは本当に良いことをした。しかし、その後、あまりうまくいかないこともあった。そして、また振り出しに戻って、いくつかの制度を書き直し、また戻って独裁体制を作ろうとする人々に対して特に厳しい法律を追加しなければならなかった。ローマ人が行ったさまざまなことが、今では合衆国憲法や世界中の民主主義国家にも反映されている。法の支配は本当に重要だ。すべての人を束縛するような法律や、より強力な権力者が抑制されないようにする制度がなければ

Because people don't want to be equal all the time. And that's just the thing. That's what he said. This is what I would say Machiavelli is a realist. It's this kind of human nature realism that isn't, it's not, you know, good and evil. It's that's, that's the wrong lens to read Machiavelli.

人々は常に平等であることを望んでいるわけではないからだ。それが問題なんだ彼はそう言った。マキャベリは現実主義者だ。善と悪ではなく、人間の本質をリアリズムとして描いている。それはマキャベリを読むための間違ったレンズです。

He's going back to this old ancient pre-Christian, you know, traditions that say, look, human beings are bloody messy. We're always doing these things that upset the orders we create with all our great ideas. And people don't all want to be equal. You know, you're not going to turn people into angels who are happy, just saying, let's all just share power. You've got to have institutions and laws that do that for them. And if you're going to talk about what kind of democracy would help us, you know, get more stability, he thinks it would make sense just to have it up front, that we're not idealizing human nature. We're not idealizing what a democracy is. Democracy is like hard work. It's hard work. And it means that some people are not going to be happy all the time, but fight for it because it's a lot better than the alternatives.

彼はキリスト教以前の古い伝統に立ち返ろうとしている。私たちはいつも、偉大なアイデアで作り上げた秩序をひっくり返すようなことをしている。人は皆、平等であることを望んでいるわけではない。みんなで力を分かち合いましょうと言ったところで、人々を幸せな天使に変えることはできないんだ。そのための制度や法律が必要なんだ。そして、どのような民主主義がより安定をもたらすかについて話すのであれば、人間の本性を理想化するのではなく、それを前面に押し出すことに意味があると彼は考えている。民主主義とは何かを理想化しているわけではな

Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality. And to see it through, you need the right tools, tools like Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started like Dr. Sean Elling's drillings and fillings and the gray area sole patch dye for hip cats who want to look as young as they feel. Shopify's design studio lets you build a big, beautiful online store that matches your brand style. You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation. Plus, you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are. If you're ready to sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify.com slash box. Go to Shopify.com slash box. Shopify.com slash box. If we were looking at Machiavelli for, for insights into, well, now, where do we start?

番組のサポートはShopifyから。ビジネスを始めるということは、アイデアを現実にすることです。そして、それをやり遂げるためには、適切なツール、Shopifyのようなツールが必要です。Shopifyは、世界中の何百万ものビジネスを支えるコマース・プラットフォームです。マテルやジムシャークのような有名企業から、ショーン・エリング博士のドリルや詰め物のような始めたばかりのブランドや、若く見られたいヒップキャットのためのグレーゾーンの足裏パッチ染めのようなブランドまで、米国内のEコマース全体の10％を占めている

What do you think makes him a useful, relevant guide to understanding contemporary politics, particularly American politics? This is a really Machiavellian moment because, you know, I did, I taught, I talked about the situation he was in, in, in Florence. If you read the prints, kind of looking, not just for those outstanding, great course, you know, quotes, but look for the criticisms. And sometimes they're subtle. You start to see that he's, he's often like exposing a lot of the stuff that we're seeing today. And he's got a chapter nine in the prints where he talks about how you can rise to be the kind of ruler of a, of a Republic and how much resistance you might face. And he says that the resistance that you're going to, people might be kind of quite passive at first and not do very much, but at some point when they see you start to attack the law, the courts, especially, and the magistrates, that's when you're going to clash. And he says, that's when you as leader, he's playing like I'm on your side leader. That's when you got to decide, are you going to get really, really tough? Or are you going to have to kind of find other ways to kind of soften, soften things up a bit?

現代の政治、特にアメリカの政治を理解する上で、彼が有用で適切なガイドである理由は何だと思いますか？というのも、私はフィレンツェで、彼が置かれた状況について話したからです。活字を読むなら、優れた名言を探すだけでなく、批判を探すんだ。そして、時には微妙な批判もある。彼はしばしば、今日私たちが目にしているような多くのことを暴露しているのだ。プリントの第9章では、共和国の支配者になるにはどうすればいいか、そしてどれだけの抵抗に直面するかについて語っている。しかし、ある時点で、あなたが法律や裁判所、特に判事を攻撃し

彼はトランプをどう評価するだろうか？

He would put Trump in two categories. He's got different classifications of Prince. He's got the Prince of Fortune, who's somebody who relies on wealth, money, and big impressions to get ahead and on other people's arms. He would say Trump has a lot of qualities of that because of the wealth question, relying on a massive wealth to help him campaign. But he would also call him, what Machiavelli has this word, astucia, astuteness, which doesn't really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means like calculating shrewdness.

彼はトランプを2つのカテゴリーに分類するだろう。彼は王子を2つに分類している。富、金、大きな印象に頼って出世し、他人の腕に乗る人だ。彼は、トランプにはその資質がたくさんあると言うだろう。富の問題から、選挙運動のために巨額の富に頼っている。しかし、彼はまた、マキアヴェッリにあるastucia（鋭敏さ）という言葉を使って、彼をこう呼ぶだろう。

Somebody who's, his great talent is being able to kind of shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can kind of, and people's weaknesses and dissatisfactions and exploit them. And that's what he also thought the Medici were good at. And his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will kind of see this, the good appearances and hope that you would be able to achieve the things that you can. But in the long term, people who do that don't know how to build a solid state. That's what he would say on a domestic front. Let's also say, if people are interested, chapter 21 is the most Machiavellian chapter in a way for our times because it's about foreign alliances and people's behavior on the international stage. And he's got this example of Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain, who was like super hyperactive. Like he comes to power and he's immediately going out and like doing things that shock and horrify everyone, beating up Jews, beating up Arabs, beating up, doing this and that, and taking neighboring countries around him. And Machiavelli kind of is very, very funny in the way he describes his behavior.

彼の偉大な才能は、抜け目なく操り、人の弱点や不満を利用できるような小さな穴を見つけて、それを利用することができることだ。メディチ家が得意としていたのもそれだった。そして彼の分析によれば、それは長い間あなたを覆い隠すことができるということだ。人々は、このような良い外見を見て、あなたが成し遂げられることを期待する。しかし、長期的に見れば、そのようなことをする人は、確固たる状態を築く方法を知らないのだ。国内ではそう言うだろう。第21章は、外国との同盟関係や国際舞台での人々の行動について書かれているからだ。彼はス

But then he ends up in the chapter saying, look, if you don't have stable alliances, you're dead. You know, stable alliances, thick and thin, transparency. That is the key to kind of study long term government. Well, just going back to Trump.

しかし、彼はその章で、安定した同盟関係を築かなければ、あなたは死んでしまう。安定した同盟関係、厚かましさ、透明性。それが長期政権を研究する鍵なんだ。さて、トランプに話を戻そう。

Mm hmm. Okay. I didn't mention him directly.

そうだね。彼のことは直接言っていないんだ。

I'm not, we're not running away from this, Erica. I'm sorry.

エリカ、私たちは逃げたりしないわ。ごめんなさい.

No, look, I think there's an unsophisticated way to look at the Trump administration as Machiavelli. I mean, again, there are these lines in The Prince about knowing how to deploy cruelty, knowing when to be ruthless, that thing, that whole thing.

いや、トランプ政権をマキャベリと見るのは素朴な見方だと思う。つまり、繰り返しますが、『プリンス』には、残酷さをどう展開するか、いつ冷酷になるかを知っているというセリフがあります。

But to your point, I don't think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty's sake. And this is my personal opinion, but I think Trump cruelty is often the point. And that's not really Machiavellian. It's just cruel.

しかし、マキャベリが残酷さのための残酷さを推奨しているとは思いません。これは私の個人的な意見ですが、トランプの残酷さはしばしばポイントになると思います。そして、それは本当のマキャベリではない。ただ残酷なだけだ。

So I think calling him Machiavellian is too generous.

だから、彼をマキャベリストと呼ぶのは寛大すぎると思う。

Exactly. No, no, I wouldn't say Trump is Machiavellian. I mean, quite honestly, since the beginning of the Trump administration, I've often felt like he's getting advice from a lot of young people who haven't really read Machiavelli or fed, you know, put Machiavelli into chat GPT and got some pointers and got all the wrong ones because the ones that they're picking out that he and his guys are acting on, especially at the beginning, were just so crude.

その通りだ。いやいや、私はトランプがマキャベリストだとは言わない。つまり、正直なところ、トランプ政権が始まって以来、私はしばしば、彼がマキャベリを読んだことのない、あるいはマキャベリをチャットGPTに入れていくつかの指南を受け、間違った指南を受けている多くの若者からアドバイスを受けているように感じてきた。

They're just, yeah, they're crude, but they sounded Machiavellian. But cruelty, you're absolutely right. Cruelty is, I think, for me too, it's been the thing that made me most, wow. This is something that's very hard to process. And Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere. You're going to get pure hate.

彼らはただ、ええ、粗野ですが、マキャベリ的に聞こえました。でも、残酷さは、まったくその通りだ。残酷さは、私にとっても、最も私を苦しめたものだと思う。これは処理するのがとても難しいことです。マキアヴェッリは『プリンス』の中で、残酷なことをしても何も得られないとはっきり言っている。純粋な憎しみを得るだけだ。

So if you think it's ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again.

だから、超残酷であることが有益だと思うなら、考え直してほしい。

Again, I'm being a little American centric here, but obviously one of the problems of our time is polarization and negative partisanship. Did he have a lot to say about the dangers of partisanship in democracies? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And that was, again, something that the Romans talked about a lot. So he's drawing on a whole history of talking about partisanship. He talks about divisions developing to such a point that it doesn't even really matter that much if the other side is telling the truth or introducing a specific policy that is justifiably going to annoy the other side. It's just that there's so little trust that conflict is bound to escalate. And he calls this kind of thing a sickness that you've got to catch as early as possible, because if you let it grow too big, it's going to be really, really hard to pull back. Something I hear a lot in my life, from people around me, is some version of the argument that, you know, the system is so broken.

ここでも少しアメリカ中心的な話になるが、明らかに現代の問題のひとつは分極化と否定的な党派性である。民主主義国家における党派性の危険性について、彼は多くのことを語っていましたか？ああ、そうだね。そうだね。ローマ人がよく話していたことだ。だから、彼は党派性について語る歴史全体を参考にしているんだ。彼は、党派の分裂が、相手側が真実を言っているか、あるいは相手側を困らせるような特定の政策を導入しているかどうかが、それほど重要でないところまで発展していることについて話している。ただ、信頼関係が希薄なため、対立がエス

Things are so messed up. We need someone to come in here and smash the system in order to save it.

事態はめちゃくちゃだ。このシステムを救うためには、誰かがここに来てシステムを破壊する必要がある。

We need political dynamite. Trump. And I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility. And maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to get done what has to get done in order to preserve the Republic.

政治的ダイナマイトが必要だ。トランプだ。政治には柔軟性が必要だとマキャベリは繰り返し言っている。そして、共和制を維持するためになすべきことをなすためには、少しばかり現実的な冷酷さも必要なのかもしれない。