Comptes rendus PFSCL XLVI, 91 (2019) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2019-0031 414 Jean-Pierre Cavaillé et Cécile Soudan (éds.) : Louis Machon, Apologie pour Machiavelle, éd. Jean-Pierre Cavaillé en collaboration avec Cécile Soudan. Paris, Champion, 2016. 737 p. Thanks to this remarkable edition of the Apologie pour Machiavelle, the life and writings of Louis Machon are finally coming out of the shadows. There have been occasional brief studies (an earlier one by Cavaillé, P. Donaldson, and W. F. Church deserve mention), but they are now superseded by this edition, which has a preface that presents all that is currently known about Machon. There is also a bibliography of his works (many of them unpublished); identifications of the approximately 200 works that Machon cites in the Apologie; and an index containing all the names mentioned in the book. After at least twenty years of service in minor offices in Lorraine, his native province, Machon undertook a search for protectors, and found them among long-robe judges in Metz, Bordeaux, and Paris. Machon claims that he had conversations with Richelieu, and it is possible that the Cardinal really did encourage him to write an apology for the supposedly wicked Florentine. From the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, and from the Prince, Machon selected thirty-three of Machiavelli’s most reputedly dangerous maxims. He quotes Machiavelli’s own words, translates them from Italian into French, after which he typically and categorically states that each is morally upright and can be found in such highly respected works as the Bible, ancient Greek and Roman histories, and, albeit less frequently, contemporary commentators on politics. The different articles range in length from five pages to ninety-nine. The highly respected authority that has about the same meaning as the maxim is also quoted. Most of these authorities are in Latin, so the editors not only translate these passages into French but they also comment about Machon’s accuracy. There are errors, errors that are difficult to evaluate. Was Machon merely being sloppy, or is his pro-Machiavellian stance so strong that he misreads his sources? Jean- Pierre Cavaillé, with the highest possible scruples as editor, does not speculate on the reasons for the errors. But we cannot be disappointed because so much has always been done to help the reader. For example, Maxim 13 states: “Qu’il est permis de fausser sa foy pour le bien de l’Estat” (407). There follows a quotation from Machiavelli that is supposed to contain this maxim. In fact it does not. Nothing is said about religion in the Machiavelli quotation. There are forty-seven brief quotations from a variety of authors that in general have to do with the use of force to extract commitments or promises from citizens or subjects. Indeed, promises Comptes rendus PFSCL XLVI, 91 (2019) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2019-0031 415 are the subject of Machiavelli’s quotation - they usually are not kept when they have been made under coercion. Machon has quotations that are more related to the Machiavellian quotation at the beginning; and then he frequently carries on with material that he finds interesting. Regarding Maxim 13, he ends with passages from Seneca, Ecclesiastes, Augustine, Grotius, and Cicero: “Que le salut public soit la loi la plus haute.” If the reader still remembers the maxim, could it be interpreted positively, and from an Erastian point of view? Machiavelli’s thought tends to become what it is: common-place, in a sea of commentary. Machon’s Apologie is a major contribution to the reception of Machiavelli’s thought, in inventory form. To my knowledge, there is no other earlymodern reading of the “murderous” Florentine, so complete and accessible. The place of religion in society, and whether or not it should be used by the prince to enhance his own power, or to impede rebellion, is at the heart of Machon’s project. For him, religion must serve to sustain monarchical power, and it is at this point that the question of Machon’s intent comes into play. There are so many sources and commentaries that Machon’s stance on the question becomes unclear. He is fond of double negatives when he decides to come down in favor of a well-known doctrine or moral value. It is tempting to infer that the longer the commentary about a maxim, the more questionable it might appear to clergy, theologians, jurists, and philosophers. But this is by no means certain. Machon wanders off from the subject, and he frequently recounts anecdotes larded with moral ambiguity. He likes to shock and then bring his reader back to an obvious truth or virtue. The women of Babylon, even those of high rank, can occasionally take off all their clothes. The situation in which they do this remains largely unexplored! The causal frames are also often very weak, or else simply so general or so inapplicable as to be perverse, notably in his citations from the Old Testament. Machon does not have a coherent skeptical perspective. His descent into history gave him pleasure, a jeu d’esprit without the discipline of a Gassendi or a Mersenne. Nevertheless, the shadows on the walls produced a historically-grounded relativism. Thanks to the enormous labor of Jean-Pierre Cavaillé and Cécile Soudan, Machon at last has the potential to have many more readers than he did in his lifetime. Orest Ranum