Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question addressed by this article is whether esotericism or secret teachings exist in Machiavelli’s writings. This question has been a major point of contention between the commentators of Machiavelli, with many denying the existence of esoteric teaching in the Machiavellian corpus. This article will explore the controversy by studying Machiavelli’s own works, and on this basis it will be contended that there are many references and elements present in Machiavelli’s works that justify an esoteric interpretation. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that Machiavelli has esoteric intentions that are different from the surface meaning of his texts. It is therefore necessary for commentators to go beyond the surface of his writings to uncover his deeper teachings. Cet article se penche sur la question de la présence d’éléments ésotériques ou d’enseignements secrets dans l’oeuvre de Machiavel. Le sujet est un point de désaccord important parmi les commentateurs de l’oeuvre de Machiavel, puisque plusieurs nient l’existence d’un tel enseignement. L'article explore cette controverse en examinant l’oeuvre de Machiavel, pour ensuite montrer qu’il s’y trouve plusieurs références et éléments justifiant une interprétation ésotérique. En conséquence, il est vraisemblable que Machiavel ait eu des intentions ésotériques différentes du propos apparent de ses écrits. Il s’avère donc nécessaire que les commentateurs aillent plus loin que la surface de son oeuvre afin de découvrir ses enseignements cachés.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".