[klodolph]

I've heard it explained by analogy as,

> Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian".

That's Machiavelli.

[keiferski]

But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way. He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though.

A better modern example might be: imagine a mid-level office worker at the New York Office of Public Records writes a book about politics and sends it to the mayor, hoping to get a job. He uses examples from contemporary NYC and past political history to illustrate his points. Years after his death, his book becomes read across the world and NYC is simply seen as a temporary setting for the broader ideas.

[nl]

He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though.

This is just wrong!

He was Florence's ambassador to the Vatican (the major power in Italy), then ambassador to France (the major power in Europe) and Spain.

After this he trained and led a Florentine army to victory against Pisa, and then lost to a Papal and Medici funded army and was banished from Florence.

It was at this point he wrote his book.

It's more like if Henry Kissenger had been a Marine as well.

[keiferski]

Maybe my example wasn't quite perfect, but I think Florence at the time could be compared to a city-state like New York City today. Florence certainly wasn't a superpower on the world stage, so I'm not sure Kissinger and the United States is really a better comparison. Machiavelli also made a militia and as far as I can tell, had no military service himself.

A better modern example might be a high-level office worker in the police department that was sent to other states. In either case, at some point, the comparison becomes stretched.

But yeah, you’re probably right in saying that my statement was wrong.

[RobertKerans]

> But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way

How does being a writer of popular satirical plays and novels not count?

[galfarragem]

A better analogy would be a top coach that had a mediocre career as a player.

[nl]

That's... wrong.

Machiavelli was the chief diplomat of Florence. He negotiated treaties with France (the superpower of the time) and with the (crazy!!) Borgias, and dealt with their fall.

[goto11]

I don't get this analogy? Are you suggesting Machiavelli was a random person that didn't know anything about governing? Or that he was a comedian?

[elliekelly]

He was a comedian.[1] A lot of his comedy wouldn’t be considered funny in 2020 but I would guess most comedy doesn’t age well.

[1]https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/machiavelli-comedian

[goto11]

Great, I didn't know that! Truly a renaissance man.

That said, he was also an experienced diplomat, military commander and politician, so the comparison to Jerry Seinfeld is a bit off (unless there is also things about Seinfelds career I don't know about). He wasn't just a comedy writer who out of left field wrote a treatise on government.

[afiori]

It would me more accurate if Seinfeld worked many years of his life as political consultant and/or ambassador.

[marshray]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if 500 years from now Seinfeld is considered essential reading to (mis-)undersand our age.

[bryanrasmussen]

"The people of that time thought a lot about the discomforts and idiocies of plane travel."

sounds legit.

[eru]

Compare https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...