An Assassins Cloak - Machiavelli's Fox & Cicero's Lion

C a i n M i c h a e l T i b e r i u s H a y w a r d - H u g h e s 1

D i s s e r t a t i o n I l P r i n c i p e & D e O f f i c i i s

A n A s s a s s i n ’ s C l o a k

M a c h i a v e l l i ’ s F o x

&

C i c e r o ’ s L i o n



C o n t e n t s

A b s t r a c t I I I

I n t r o d u c t i o n I V

P a r t O n e P r o p o s i t i o n [ a ]

C h a p t e r I L e x i c o l o g y b e i n g S h a d o w s a n d D u s t 0 8

C h a p t e r I I R e p u b l i c a n V i r t ú a n d T h e C o m p a r i s o n s 1 8

P a r t T w o P r o p o s i t i o n [ b ]

C h a p t e r I I I O f C e n t a u r s , F o x e s a n d L i o n s 3 3

C h a p t e r I V E c h o e s o f t h e P a s t 4 6

B i b l i o g r a p h y 5 1



A b s t r a c t

Al though the para l l e l s be tween Machiave l l i ’ s I l Princ ipe (The

Pr ince ) and Cice ro’s De Of f ic i i s (On Obl iga t ions ) have o f t en been

drawn they have in frequen t ly been s tud ied and rare ly a t grea t

l ength or depth . A c r i t ica l r eading of these pa ra l le l s seems to

sugges t tha t Machiave l l i i n t ended I l Pr inc ipe as a re sponse to

Cicero’s views on mora l i ty, an improvement o f h i s de fence o f the

act ive l i fe . Indeed I l Pr inc ipe , in p laces , dive rges f rom the

Cice ron ian t radi t ion ; Machiave l l i acknowledges tha t l ibe ra l i ty,

c lemency, insp i r ing a ffec t ion , and keep ing fa i th a r e admi rab le

t ra i t s , bu t s t re sses tha t Realpol i t ik f inds i t necessa ry to d i sca rd

them. 1 Machiave l l i thus comple tes Cicero’s in tent ion in De Of f i c i i s

t o t rea t pol i t ica l l i fe on i t s own t erms , independent o f ph i losophy. 2

In do ing so , he na tura l ly uncovers inc ons i s t encies and t ensions in

t he Cice ronian account o f the ‘ in te rmedia te ’ v i r tues of the

s t a t e sman , tensions tha t a re the produc t o f the c la ss ica l f ramework

wi thin which Cice ro i s work ing. 3 Cice ro and Machiave l l i both

be l ieved tha t a s ta te sman’s ac t iv i ty c ould secure the good of the

po l i ty, bu t to ach ieve th i s good a s t a te sman must know wha t i s

good . For Cice ro , the s tudy of and dependence on phi losophy

provided the s t a te sman wi th knowledge of the good . Machiavel l i ,

by b r ing these t ens ions to the fo re in I l Pr inc ipe , shows how the y

may be reso lved. 4

1 C i c e r o . , M a r c u s T u l l i u s , . D e O f f i c i i s . T r a n s l a t i o n b y P . G . W a l s h . C i c e r o , O n O b l i g a t i o n s . I n t r o d u c t i o n p . X L I V . O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S . H e n c e f o r t h D e O f f i c i i s

2 B a r l o w . , J . J , . T h e F o x a n d t h e L i o n : M a c h i a v e l l i r e p l i e s t o C i c e r o . 1 9 9 9 . H i s t o r y o f

P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t . p . 6 2 7 . V o l . X X . I s s u e . 4 . W i n t e r . I M P R I N T A C A D E M I C 3 i b i d . 4 i b i d .



I n t r o d u c t i o n

This d i sser ta t ion offers an analyt ica l compar i son of I l

Pr incipe with De Of f ic i i s to demonst ra te tha t Niccolò

Machiavel l i c rea ted h is polemic pol i t i ca l work f rom his

phi losophical bel iefs concerning moral i t y and h is s tudy o f

ancient c lass ica l phi lo logy. My argument is tha t an assessment

of h i s canon i s not poss ib le wi thout fu l ly recognis ing the

inf luence that Marcus Tul l ius Cicero’s tex t , De Off ic i is , he ld

over Machiavel l i . This inf luence , when coupled wi th

Machiavel l i ’ s own love of l iber ty, became h is f inal pol i t i ca l

t rea t i se . Speci f ica l ly I in tend to explore the two -fo ld propos i t ion

that De Of f ic i i s (be ing phi lo logy) and v i r tú (being born of

phi losophical moral i t y) are essent ia l to Machiavel l i ’ s wr i t ing in

the sense that , th rough the para l le l s and d i f ferences of the two

tex ts :

a ) t he i ncorpora t i on of Ciceron ian e l ement s ( spec i f ica l l y t he

Fox and L ion ana logy) i n to h i s overa rching po l i t i ca l

t hough t t hrough h idden semblance was , f or Mach iave l l i , an

a t t empt a t r ecove r ing a l o s t pas t

and

b ) Machiavel l i ’ s I l Pr inc ipe i s capable of s erv ing a s quas i -

scr ip tu re and t hus obt a ins a k ind of cu l t ura l au thor i t y .



Par t One of th i s s tudy, compris ing of two chapters wi l l be

d i rec ted towards propos i t ion [a] .

Chapter One inves t igates and def ines the lex icology employed

by Cicero as mas ter rhetor ic ian and Machiavel l i as counsel lor to

pr inces – speci f ica l ly def i n ing republ icanism and vir tú .

The second chapter looks a t the pos i t ion of Machiavel l i ’ s

mythoi in re la t ion to Cicero’s moral ins t ruct ion and how

Machiavel l i makes use of universa l h i s tor ic themes in h is

humanist ic expos i t ion of moral i t y and the republ ican t rad i t ion

regard ing the vir tues – de ta i l ing the expl ic i t para l lels and

d i f ferences between the two tex ts .

Par t Two of thi s s tudy, compris ing of two chapters wi l l be

d i rec ted towards propos i t ion [b] .

The f i rs t e lement of Par t Two, the th i rd chapte r , t akes the

h i s toric and mythical analogy of Cicero’s ‘The Fox and the Lion’

ident i f ied in chapter two and, analys ing i t in depth , focuses on

the way Machiavel l i incorporated i t in to h i s narra t ive . M y

concern res t s , p r imar i ly, wi th Machiavel l i ’ s use of fo rm in h is

imita t ion of the Class ica l Greek and Roman mythologies –

speci f ica l ly the use of Chi ron the centaur .

The for th and f inal chapter cons t i tu tes Par t Two, and i s

pr imar i ly concerned wi th the précis ing of , what I have ca l led

above, Propos i t ion [ b] ; in i t I inves t igate the Class ica l Roman

a l lus ions of I l Pr incipe and how they asp i re towards the s ta tus

of quas i -scr ipture .



Here I have used the term quas i -scrip ture as def ined by D.P .

Armst rong:

t h e y [ h e r e , I l P r i n i c ip e ] n o t o n l y f u n c t i o n a s s c r i p t u r e wi t h i n

[ F l o r e n c e ] , b u t a l s o th a t t h e y a r e c a p a b l e o f o p e r a t i n g o n t h e

r e a d e r t h r o u g h a s u b t l e q u a l i t y b y -a s s o c i a t i n g t e c h n i q u e 5 ,

s u b l i mi n a l l y e v o k i n g t h e f e e l , o r a mb i e n c e o f c a n o n i c a l s c r i p t u r e

a n d t h e r e b y a p p r o p r i a t i n g s o me o f i t s i mme n s e c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y ,

a n d ye t w i t h o u t e v e r a c t u a l l y r e f e r r i n g d i r e c t l y t o t h e m i n a

ma n n e r t h a t wo u l d p r o v e i n t r u s i v e wi t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e

fu n c t i o n a l i t y o f [ M a c h i a v e l l i ’ s ] wo r k 6

[ m y a d d i t i o n ]†

A precise explication of a republic is paramount to any serious

discussion dealing with the themes identified in De Officiis and Il

Principe . Machiavelli’s admiration for the ancient past of the

Roman republic demonstrates his interest in reviving it .

Machiavelli’s adherence to De Officiis , the parallels between the

two texts and the resurrection of Cicero’s ‘Fox and Lion’ which

help us to understand the role the ‘virtues’ played in the attainment

of the ‘good life’. Without a republic, Cicero argues, the attainment

of the ‘good life’ is not possible.

5 Th e p h ra s e h er e i s Gid d in gs ’ , v id e J .R .R To lk i en : Th i s Fa r Lan d . 1 9 9 0 . LO N D O N : R O M A N A N D

L I T T L E F I E L D P U B G R O U P 6 D .P . Arm s t r on g , Th e Re l i g iou s Asp ec t s o f t h e Wo rk s o f J .R .R . To lk i en . 1 9 9 4 D U R H A M . p . 2

† H e n c e f o r t h , a l l s q u a r e b r a c k e t s ‘ [ ] ’ a r e m y a d d i t i o n



P a r t O n e

P r o p o s i t i o n [ a ]



C h a p t e r I

L e x i c o l o g y

B e i n g

S h a d o w s a n d D u s t



There i s a danger (as there a lways i s wi th such focal i sed

cr i t i c i sm) of being seen as subscr ib ing too much impo rtance to a

par t icu lar aspect of an au thor’s work (here the phi losophical and

phi lological l ineamenta of Machaivel l i ’ s canon) . In laying such

impor tance on these two e lements I am by no means saying that

these are the only two inf luences ( the genes i s ) for Machiavel l i ’ s

wri t ing – I acknowledge the v iews of those who see h im as

pr imar i ly a pol i t i ca l or a l legor ica l wr i ter .

He i s granted a pol i t i ca l wr i ter in the t rues t sense of the word ,

as wel l as an a l legor ica l mythographer but both of these, as I

shal l demonst ra te below, have deep roots in h i s phi losophical

and phi lo logical awareness .

It may appear , th rough Machiavel l i ’ s unique cannon, tha t I l

Pr incipe 7 was the resu l t o f some ‘phi lo logical game’ ; an a t tempt

by Machiavel l i to create a wor ld in which h is republ ican

l anguage could be spoken. As I shal l show, even th i s ‘game’

s temmed f rom his Wel tanschauung (be ing bound up wi th hi s

ideas of l iber ty and moral i t y) . At tempt ing to t i e Machiavel l i ’s

work to a wider phi losophy, a s tudent of pol i t i ca l phi losoph y

invar iab ly encounters the v iew that Machiavel l i was s impl y

creat ing the k ind o f romant ic pol i t i ca l t rea t i se that he h imsel f

en joyed reading. There i s some t ru th in th i s , even i f i t i s on ly a

par t of the whole : Machiavel l i and h is Renaissance

contemporar ie s , d i ssa t i s f ied wi th the avai lab i l i t y of republ ican

tex ts of the k ind they enjoyed, decided to wri te thei r own.

7 M a c h i a v e l l i . , N i c c o l ò , . T h e P r i n c e . 1 9 9 9 T r a n s l a t i o n b y G e o r g e B u l l . O r i g i n a l d a t e o f I l P r i n c i p e c . 1 5 1 3 . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S . H e n c e f o r t h r e f e r r e d t o a s I l P r i n c i p e .



It is beneficial to begin with a brief summation, in précis of the two

central texts.

Il Principe

Niccolo Machiavelli , in dedicating his book to Lorenzo

de’ Medici, urges the young prince of Florence to read his work and

follow his advice 8 . He also asks the prince to consider his bad turn

of fortune (his exile from Florentine politics). Having made his

case, Machiavelli lays out the main focus of his polemical treatise –

how principalities can be acquired, governed and prese rved. 9

Machiavelli identifies three main types of principalities: hereditary,

new, and mixed. The hereditary principality passes down power

through the ruling family. 1 0 It is not difficult to maintain as long as

the hereditary prince continues to rule as b efore. New principalities

are created through mili tary or civil acquisition. 1 1 Mixed

principalities (new territories added to an existing one) are of two

kinds. 1 2 If the new territory shares the same language and customs

as the old one, the prince must ext inguish the former ruling line and

rule as before. 1 3 If the new territory does not share the language and

customs, the prince should either reside in it or set up colonies

consisting of his own citizens or soldiers. 1 4

Regarding how a prince should rule and act, Machiavelli states

that in an ideal world, it is virtuous for a prince to be good. But in

reality, princes who distance themselves from ethical concerns and

do whatever it takes for the benefit of their states rule best . 1 5

8 - 1 5 I l P r i n c i p e ( r e f e r e n c e t o a r g u m e n t / t h e m e ) – 8 In t r o . X X .

9 Ch . V . 1 0 Ch . I I . 1 1 Ch . V I & V I I .

1 2 Ch . I I I . 1 3 Ch . I I I & I V . 1 4 Ch . V . 1 5 Ch . X V I I & X I X & X X I



Space prohibits a summation along the l ines of Il Principe, due to

the arrangement of Cicero’s work being divided betwe en three

books. As such the following précis is taken from the recto of

Walsh’s 1 6 t ranslation entitled Cicero On Obligations . In addit ion to

this Cicero deals explicitly with, what he terms, the four cardinal

virtues (prudence, justice, courage, temperance ) and the human

condition being – the honourable , the useful and the conflicts

between the honourable and the apparently useful .

De Officiis

On Obligations (De Officiis) was writ ten by Cicero in

late 44BC after the assassination of Julius Caesar to pro vide

principles of behaviour for aspiring poli t icians. It explores the

apparent tensions between honourable conduct 1 7 and the

expediency in public l ife 1 8 , and the right and wrong ways of

at taining poli t ical leadership 1 9 . The principles of honourable

behaviour are based on the Stoic virtues of wisdom, justice,

magnanimity, and propriety; 2 0 in Cicero’s view the intrinsically

useful is always identical with the honourable. 2 1

Cicero’s famous t reatise has played a seminal role in the

foundation of ethical values in western Christendom. Adopted by

the fourth-century Christ ian humanists, i t became transmuted

into the moral code of the high Middle Ages. Thereafter, in the

Renaissance, and in the Age of Enlightenment that followed, i t

was given central prominence in discussion of the government of

states.

1 6 De Of f i c i i s . Rec t o [ d u p l i ca t i on i n wh o le] o f p lo t su m mat ion . 1 7 - 2 1 De Of f i c i i s ( r e f er en c e t o a rgu m en t / t h em e) – 1 7 Book 1 . T H E H O N O U R A B L E .

1 8 Bo ok 2 . T H E U S E F U L . 1 9 B ook 3 . C O N F L I C T B E T W E E N T H E H O N O U R A B L E

A N D T H E A P P A R E N T L Y U S E F U L . 2 0 B ook 1 . Wisd o m 1 8 -1 9 , Ju s t i ce 2 0 -4 1 , Bene f i cen ce 42 -6 0 ,

Ma g n an imi t y 6 1 -92 . 2 1 Book 3 . p a r t i cu la r l y 1 9 -3 9 & 7 3 -7 8 & 7 9 -8 8



Both tex ts fervent ly encourage the reader to pursue an ac t ive l i fe

in publ ic af fa i rs – th i s they expla in i s only poss ib le under a

republ ic . Cicero s ta ted thi s message expl ic i t l y whi le Machiavel l i

bur ied i t impl ic i t ly. A c lear expos i t ion of the meaning and

context of the term ‘ republ ic’ , as Cicero and Machiavel l i

unders tood i t , i s essent ia l - i t sheds l igh t on the para l le l themes

and not ions of vi r tue in the two tex ts .

The lex icology o f republ ic f inds i t s meaning formed from two

Latin words res (thing) and publica (public); it literally means the

public thing(s) . In the Latin context, it means affairs affect ing the

state , the state itself, or the constitution of the state . The Latin

word republic is similar in meaning to the Greek word politea . Both

words constituting the meaning of state; the state being one that is

made up of different classes of people and all involved in the

governing of the polity under constitution. In précis a republic can

be seen as mixed constitutional government .

C icero , be l ieved that a t r i -par t i t e government was the bes t

form of ru le , and he drew his rhetor ic f rom Pla to’s phi los ophical

school and i t s subsequent influences :

T h i s t yp e o f d i s c u s s i o n , wh i c h I a m u n d e r t a k i n g , d e r i v e s mo s t o f

i t s ma t e r i a l f r o m t h a t o t h e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l s ch o o l , o f wh i c h P l a t o ,

wa s t h e l e a d e r . [ …] M o r e o v e r , a s yo u k n o w, [ … ] a n o t h e r o f

Ar i s t o t l e ’ s p u p i l s , D i c a e a r c h u s , wa s a c t i v e i n t h e s a me f i e l d o f

s t u d y 2 2

2 2 C i ce ro . On Go vern men t . T ran s la t i on b y Mich ae l Gra n t . l9 9 3 . O N L A W S ( I I I ) . p .1 9 9 -2 0 0 . P E N G U I N

B O O K S . H en c ef or th r e f er r ed t o a s On Go vern men t .



Cicero was searching for the bes t fo rm of government us ing

phi losophical inqui ry. He l ighted on the idea of a Republ ic :

When ho wever , ins tead, a group of men seize the state by exp loi t ing

their wealth or noble bi r th or some o ther resource, tha t i s a pol i t ica l

upheaval , though they call themselves conserva ti ves. I f , on the o ther

hand , the people gain the supremacy, and the whole government i s

conducted according to the ir wishes, a s tate o f a ffa ir s has ar isen which

is ha iled as l iber ty, but is , in fact , chaos. But when there i s a si tua tio n

of mutua l fear , wi th one person or one class fear ing another , then

because nobody has suff icient confidence in his won s trength a kind of

bargain i s s truck between the ord inary people and the men who are

powerful . The result , in tha t case, i s the mixed const i tut ion which

Scipio reco mmends. Which means that weakness, no t nature or good

intention, i s the mother of just ice. 2 3

Cicero was proposing a type of government that was made up of a

mixture of elements from three other kinds of government:

monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This model had a civil ian

head, and an aristocratic body comprising the Senate 2 4 . This

classical republic was considered by its proponents to be the best

compromise between the interests of the aristocracy (the wealthy

elite) and those of the people.

Machiavelli’s understanding of a republic stems directly from his

reading of De Officiis . Indeed, the brevity of Il Principe is evidence

that its message may be as much in what is not said as in what is

said.

2 3 On Go vern men t . O N T H E S T A T E ( I I I ) . p .1 8 0 . 2 4 i b id . p .1 8 1 .



Taking the Republic of Rome as his anlage, Machiavelli laid down

the two fundamental prerequisites for the foundation of a successful

state:

The main foundat ions o f every sta te , new states as wel l as anc ient or

composite ones, are good laws and good arms; and because you cannot

have good laws wi thout good arms, and where there are good arms,

good laws inevitably fo l low.. . 2 5

Machiavelli clearly believed that the ‘Roman’ republic was

superlative; as Bull explains in his introducti on to his translation of

Il Principe :

Eterna lly cur ious, he also came to see how Florence and o ther large

states were go ing about the business o f making themselves more

powerful , and made himsel f into an ar t iculate , pungent cr i t ic o f

Florent ine polices, o ne whose memoranda, in the t radi t ion of the

Florent ine chancery, o ften br ist led wi th examples fro m Roman his tory,

carefully chosen to shed l ight on the present . 2 6

Haakonssen 2 7 explains how Machiavell i’s understanding of the

Roman republic came to embody t he ideal of a modern republic. At

the heart of a consummate Roman res publica was a concentration

on the people. Essentially, Haakonssen illustrates, the people had

to have a decisive voice in the organisation of the public realm and

that this understanding linked the idea of an organised public realm

in general to that of a specific form, or source of organisation – the

populus – thus creating the basis for the modern concepts of

‘republic’. 2 8

2 5 I l P r i n c i p e . C h . X I I . p . 3 9 2 6 i b i d . I n t r o d u c t i o n . X V I I I 2 7 H a a k o n s s e n . , K n u d , . A C o m p a n i o n t o C o n t e m p o r a r y P o l i t i c a l P h i l o s o p h y . 1 9 9 5 . f r o m P a r t I I I . R e p u b l i c a n i s m . P . 5 6 9 . e d . G o o d i n & P e t t i t . B L A C K W E L L S P U B L I S H I N G 2 8 i b i d .



Machiavelli presents the republic system of government with

elected representatives in power, power that is ultimately derived

from the people (liberty being self rule) - a message that is expertly

hidden within the pages of Il Principe .

Machiavelli’s thoughts on republics and republicanism naturally

led to ideas concerning the virtues and t he parts they play in the

pursuit of the good (active) life:

Many have dreamed up republics and pr inc ipa li t ies which have never

in truth been kno wn to exis t ; the gul f between how one should l ive and

ho w one does l ive is so wide that a man who neglec ts wha t is actual ly

done for what should be done moves towards se l f -destruct ion rather

than se l f -preservat ion. The fact i s that the man who wants to ac t

vi r tuously in every way necessar i ly comes to gr ie f among so many

who are no t vir tuous. Therefore i f a p r ince wants to maintain his rule

he must be p repared not to be vir tuous, and to make use o f this or no t

accord ing to need. 2 9

The virtuous action’s, to which Machiavelli alludes, are a direct

reference to the teachings in De Offici is . Cicero identifies four

virtues, cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, courage, temperance),

which he believes have to be inherent in Man † in order to lead an

active and good life – in respect of the public sphere.

The Renaissance linguistic tradition, to which Machiavell i

subscribed, sought to instil in humanity a moral responsibil ity and

self-realisation.

2 9 I l P r i n c i p e . C h . X V . p . 5 0

† Ap olo g y i s o f f e r ed f or ma scu l i n e p ron ou n s ; En g l i sh la ck s a n eu t er s i n gu la r p e rs on a l p r on ou n . As a

t e r t i a r y t h ou gh t b o th C ic er o an d Mach iavel l i ad d re ss t h emse lv es t o a mascu l i n e au d i en ce – C i ce r o t o

h i s Son , Marcu s an d Machiave l l i , t o Lo r en zo d i Med ic i . On t h e imp or t an ce o f mascu l i n i t y t o Mach iavel l i , s ee P i t k in 1 9 84



Machiavelli through his homage of Cicero hoped Florence might

recover some semblance of the greatness held in the ancient

republics of Rome by the knowledge of virtú . Virtú, Machiavelli

believed, as an amalgamation of Cicero’s cardinal virtues, could

enrich and nourish the soul. As such this republican mimesis took

the form of the common good, or the pursuit of the good life – to

pursue the good life was to envelop yourself in the common good.

In the Discorsi di Nicolo Machiavelli. . . sopra la prima deca di Tito

Livio, a Zanobi Buondelmonte, et a Cosimo Rucellai (published as

Discourses upon the First Decade of T. Livius ) Machiavelli states

that , only under a republic, can the common good thrive:

. . .and i t is beyond question that i t is only in republics that the

common good is looked to properly in that a l l that promotes i t is

carried out ; and, however much this or that private person may

be the loser on this account, there are so many who benefit

thereby that the common good can be realized in spite of those

few who suffer in consequence. 3 0

Machiavelli, showing his humanist side, argue d that the common

good ought to be accompanied by a personal feeling derived from

the common good being served. This is acutely apparent when Il

Principe is taken as a whole. The common good is fully the

maximum good for the majority of people. 3 1

2 9 M a c h i a v l l i . D i s c o u r c e s . 1 9 8 3 . O r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n c 1 5 3 2 . I I . 2 , p .2 7 5 . ed . Be rn a rd Cr i ck .

T ran s . Les l i e Walk e r . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S . H en c ef or th Dis co u rses . 3 0 Mach iavel l i . Th e Hi s to ry o f F lo ren ce a nd o f t h e A f fa i r s o f I t a l y f ro m th e Ea r l i e s t T imes t o t h e

Dea t h o f Lo ren zo t h e Ma gn i f i cen t . 1 99 5 . Or ig in a l p u b l i ca t i on c1 5 3 2 . B o o k . V I I . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .



Machiavelli’s appreciation for the republic is founded on its

capacity to condition its participants, with laws and religion, to

appreciate something larger than themselves. 3 2

Machiavelli focusing on good arms rather than laws, understood

that in this appreciation of the state, not only is the common good

served, but also that there is induced the kind of emotion that

inspires citizen-soldiers to risk their lives. The common good is

therefore necessari ly reinforced by a sense of personal worth,

contribution, and grandeur. 3 3

C icero bel ieved that wi th a c lose adherence to the card inal

v i r tues man would gain a pure knowledge and natura l ly develop

an appos i te und ers tanding of moral i t y. Machiavel l i bel ieved that

through the adherence to cer ta in jus t values and vir tues ,

F lorence might gain some semblance of the Roman world ly glor y

found in the Ancient Republ ics .

P lato and the S to ic phi losophers wrote regard ing t he

impor tance of knowledge and educat ion in the hope that i t s

a t ta inment might enr ich the soul .

E d u c a t i o n i s n ’ t wh a t s o me p e o p l e d e c l a r e i t t o b e , n a me l y , p u t t i n g

k n o wl e d g e i n t o s o u l s t h a t l a c k i t , l i k e p u t t i n g s i g h t i n t o b l i n d e ye s

[ … ] Ed u c a t i o n t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d t h a t s i g h t i s t h e r e b u t t h a t i t i s n ’ t

t u r n e d t h e r i g h t wa y o r wh e r e i t o u g h t t o l o o k , a n d i t t r i e s to

r e d i r e c t i t a p p ro p r i a t e ly . 3 4

3 2 L u k e s . , T i m o t h y , . L i o n i z i n g M a c h i a v e l l i . 2 0 0 1 . A m e r i c a n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e R e v i e w . p . 5 7 1 .

V o l . 9 5 . N o . 3 . S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 1 . N E W Y O R K 3 3 i b i d . p . 5 7 2 .

3 4 P la to . Th e Rep u b l i c . F r o m P l a t o . T h e C o m p l e t e W o r k s . 1 9 9 7 . T h e R e p u b l i c . Bo ok V I I .

p .1 1 32 . 5 18 b l i n e 7 -c2 & l i n e d 5 -7 . E d i t e d b y J . M . C o o p e r . H A C K E T T P U B L I S H I N G C O M P A N Y .



Machiavel l i bel ieved that educat ion was paramount in the

pursu i t o f thi s good l i f e . The good l i f e for Machiavel l i res ted on

publ ic ac t iv i ty in pol i t i cs , adminis t ra t ion and moral ins t ruct ion .

To unders tand the inf luences , which Cicero had on Machiavel l i ’ s

thoughts in deal ing wi th the vir tues and the good l i fe , the

republ ican ideals of v i r tue need to be examined, as do the

expl ic i t para l lel s between the two tex ts . By drawing out these

para l le l s and d ivergences i t i s c lear Cicero great ly inf luenced

the wri t ing of Machiavel l i ’ s I l Pr incipe . Each para l le l conta ins a

message wrought f rom the card inal v i r tues ident i f ied by Cicero .

Ident i fying these card inal v i r tues and amel iora t ing the para l le l s

and content ions helps to shed l ight on Machiavel l i ’ s

inveiglement of the pr ince to ac t l ike both the fox and t he l ion .



C h a p t e r I I

R e p u b l i c a n V i r t ú

&

T h e C o m p a r i s o n s



Throughout De Off ic i is there is an immediate ly ident i f iab le

Republ ican l inguis t ic t rad i t ion present . Cer ta in terms pre sent in

De Of f ic i is , which have los t the i r meaning and gravi ty in modern

t imes , are echoed wi th in the pages of I l Principe . The

Renaissance phi losophers and wri ters fervent ly sought to rev ive

th i s Republ ican l inguis t ic s tyle and in I l Principe , Machiavel l i ,

a lover of l iber ty, weaves a h idden republ ican language in to i t s

fabr ic for c landes t ine consumpt ion .

This republ ican message took the form of the good l i f e .

Machiavelli , therefore echoes the cardinal virtues wrought in De

Officiis in his ethical thought, or more precisely, his notion of

virtú. A sustained analysis of the De Officiis in comparison with Il

Principe shows that Cicero’s work provided Machiavelli with a way

of defending his ethical terminology as well as a structural

framework for the analysis of the ethics of public life. Machiavell i

could, and, as argued here, did apply this Ciceronian bequest in a

positive as well as in a negative way, conscious of how his

simultaneously straightforward and ironic uses of Cicero would

resonate in the ears of his contemporaries. 3 5

Cicero’s influence outstripped that of all other classical authors

on topics such as social utility, civic virtue, the application of

moral rules to times, places, and circumstances, and the relations

between virtue and expediency. 3 6

3 5 Col i sh . , Mari ca L. , . Cicero ’s De Of f ic i i s and Mach ia vel l i ’ s Prin ce . 197 8 . Six t een th Cen tu ry Jou rna l .

Vol . 9 . No.4 . Cent ra l Rena is sa nce Confe rence (Win te r ) . p .8 2 . TH E S I X T E E N T H C E N T U R Y J O U R N A L . 3 6 i b id . p .8 3



To fully understand the vir tues played out in Il Principe , the active

life as promoted in De Officiis , has to be delineated. One of the

most impressive features of the use of the De Officiis from the

Middle Ages up through the quattrocento, a feature of this tradition

that has sometimes been ignored,

is i ts preservat ion of the va lues o f po li t ica l real i sm and expediency,

i t s stress on the act ive l i fe o f publ ic service, and i ts concep tion of

vi r tue as decis ive and energe tic ac t ivi ty and not merely as an inner

menta l in tentional i ty. 3 7

What is important, above all else, is Cicero’s overall argument in

the De Officiis , the way he defines his terms, and the resonances

with Cicero’s personal situation which Machiavelli may have felt at

the point in his own life when he was writing Il Principe .

Cicero begins by defining each of the four cardinal virtues:

Prudence , also termed wisdom is best exemplified by the quest for

truth, and has its application in the avoidance of creduli ty and

excessive concern for subjects that are obscure or useless.

Firs t , we must not regard as known things that are unkno wn, and give

rash credence to them. The person who wishes to avo id this fault - and

everyone should wish to avo id i t – wil l take t ime and trouble to re f lec t

on such matters. There is a secon d fault to which people fal l vic t im:

they devote too much energy and effor t on matters which are no t

merely arcane and taxing, but a lso unnecessary. 3 8

3 7 Col i sh . p .8 4 . Th es e h av e a ls o b een n ot ed b y B er l i n , Geerk en , Wh i t f i e ld an d Wo od . See b ib l i o grap h y . 3 8 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 8 .1 8 -1 9



Rather than judging what is useful, Cicero understands wisdom

itself as subjected to the norm of utili ty. In précis, Machiavelli

understands prudence thus:

… whenever one tr ies to escape one danger one runs into ano ther .

Prudence consists in being able to assess the nature o f a par t icular

threa t and in accep ting the lesser evi l . 3 9

Machiavelli views this knowledge as borne of a moral judgement –

the weighing up of any particular action in accordance to i ts ends

and its means.

Justice , for Cicero, is the paramount virtue. Cicero combines the

traditional Platonic and Aristotelian suum cuique formula with the

defense of private rights drawn from Roman law.

Just ice prevents us from injur ing o thers, excep t when we are punishing

injur ies, and i t leads us to use common possessions for the common

good and pr ivate proper ty for pr iva te interests . 4 0

Thus Cicero adjusts virtue to expediency. In applying these

principles Cicero stresses at some length that circumstances alter

cases. 4 1 This can be directly paralleled with Machiavelli’s al lusions

to Moses, Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus 4 2 – each of these

‘mythic/historical’ figures owed a tremendous amount to the

circumstances in which they found themselves. Fortune, for

Machiavelli , was an immensely powerful guiding force, which acted

on and through every part of life.

3 9 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X X I . P . 7 4 4 0 op . c i t . Co l i sh . p .8 7 4 1 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 2 .3 2 4 2 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . V I . p .1 8 .



Machiavelli lays a lot of his polit ical treatise at the feet of fortun e,

telling the young prince that with practice a person may gain the

requisite virtues (or their appearance) and with patience learn to

subdue the unruly fortune:

I conclude, therefore that as for tune is changeable whereas men are

obst ina te in the ir ways , men prosper so long as for tune and policy are

in accord, and when there is a clash they fai l . I hold s trongly to this:

that i t i s bet ter to be impetuous than ci rcumspect; because for tune i s a

wo man and i f she is to be submissive i t i s necessary to beat an d coerce

her . 4 3

After all , Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus, owed to fortune

only their occasione, the time and place propitious enough to

showcase their talents.

Machiavelli firmly believes that there are some occasions when

cruelty is in order and some occasions when there are exclusions

from the normal obligations of trust, truthfulness, and good faith. In

this respect Machiavelli is turning Cicero’s assumptions about the

good life , from a moral standpoint, on its head. I explore this point

in more detail below.

Courage , for Cicero, is practical not only because it endows its

possessor with equanimity but also because it enhances his wealth

and family position. 4 4 While for Machiavelli, courage is personified

and used to great affect in his lio n and fox analogy ( see my C H AP TE R

I I I – OF CEN TAURS , FOX ES AN D L IO NS ) .

4 3 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X X V . P . 8 2 4 4 op . c i t . Co l i sh . p .8 8



Temperance , also termed decorum , in De Officiis governs the

exercise of the former three, and is oriented to physical exertion

and not solely mental activity:

An ordered exis tence, holding fast to pr incip les , restrained behaviour ,

and such l ike are qual i t ies demanding no t merely mental appl ica t ion

but so me physica l ac t ion as well , for by applying a cer tain measure

and order to eve ryday act ivi t ies we shal l maintain decency and

decorum. 4 5

It is clear from Cicero’s definitions and applications of these four

cardinal virtues that he does not regard them as ends in themselves

or as their own rewards. Machiavelli agrees with this – arguing that

the appearance of virtue is almost as beneficial as the actual

possession of that virtue – part icularly in CH AP . xv THE TH IN GS FOR

WH IC H ME N , AND ESPEC IA LLY PR INCE S , ARE PR A ISED OR B LAME D

Some are held to be benefac tors, o thers are cal led gr asp ing; some

cruel , some compassionate ; one man fai thless, ano ther fai thful ; one

man effeminate and cowardly, another f ierce and courageous; one man

cour teous, ano ther proud; one man lascivious, ano ther chaste ; one

gui le less, ano ther craf ty; one s tubborn, another flexib le; one grave,

ano ther fr ivolous; one rel igious, ano ther scep tical ; and so for th. I

kno w everyone wi l l agree that i t would be most laudable i f a pr ince

possessed al l the quali t ies deemed to be good among those I have

enumera ted. But , because of condit ions in the wor ld, pr inces canno t

have those qual i t ies, or observe them co mple te ly. So a pr ince has o f

necessi ty to be so prudent that he knows how to escape the evil

reputa t ion a t tached to those vices which could lose him his state , and

ho w to avo id those vices which are not so dangerous, i f he poss ibly

can; but i f he cannot , he need not worry so much about the lat ter . 4 6

4 5 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 8 .1 7 4 6 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch X V . p .5 0



T h e p a r a l l e l s , co m p a r i s o n s a n d co n te n t io n s

The s imi la r i t i es between the two books are apparent . The most

f requent ly noted 4 7 i s Machiavel l i ’ s reference to the l ion and the

fox , under the pre tex t of the ru ler ’s need to p lay the ro le of the

beas t on occas ion . An in depth d i scuss ion of th i s s imilari t y i s

the focus of the th i rd chapter in th i s d i sser ta t ion .

Nex t in prevalence i s the para l le l tha t ci rcumstances a l ter

cases , suspending a t t imes the moral ru les tha t would o therwise

be b inding. Cicero , in del ineat ing h is pos i t ion on ci rcumstance ,

t a lks about h inds ight and base pr incip les .

When these pr inc ip le s a r e a f fec t ed by c i r cums tances , ou r

ob l iga t ion i s l i kewi se a f f ec ted , and does no t a lways s t ay the

same . 4 8

C icero unders tands that c i rcumstances can have an af fec t on the

moral d imens ion of a case . To co unter th i s , Cicero adds

p l iab i l i ty to h i s moral judgement , a l lowing i t to ebb with the

t ide of events .

So on t he one hand , p romises which a re no t advan tageous t o

t he rec ip i en t should not be kep t ; and on t he o ther , i f

f u l f i lmen t of a p romise which you have made i s more harmfu l

t o you […] you do not cont ravene your ob l iga t ion i f the

grea t er good i s pr efer red t o the le s ser . 4 9

4 7 Not ed b y C o l i sh ( op . c i t ) ; Ba r lo w (op . c i t ) ; Lu k es ( op . c i t ) an d Die t z ( see f oo tn ot e 7 0 Diet z - p .3 4 ) 4 8 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 2 .3 2 4 9 i b id . 1 .12 .3 1 -3 2



Machiavel l i agrees wi th Cicero that pr incip les and promises

should not be kept i f c i rcumstances change beyond recogn i t ion.

Machiavel l i ’ s ideas regard ing moral i t y are more lucid than

Cicero’s , in the sense that Machiavel l i be l ieves c i rcumst ances

can d ic ta te any outcome, inc luding a complete abandonment of

vir tú .

I f a p r ince wants t o ma in ta in h i s ru l e he mus t be p repa red not

t o be v i r t uous , and t o make use of t h i s o r not according to

need . 5 0

Cicero f i rmly bel ieves that man should cons tant l y opera t e some

level of moral i t y in l ine with the card inal v i r tues . 5 1 Machiavel l i

a l lows for s i tua t ions when a l l morals may be ca l led in to

ques t ion. Necess i ty, for Machiavel l i , i s the overr id ing concern

when presented with a moral chal lenge. Al though Cicer o and

Machiavel l i both accept tha t c i rcumstances can a l ter a response

to an event , i t i s Machiavel l i who takes the f inal s tep and

overcomes any moral object ions by ru l ing them out of cour t . 5 2

Other para l lel s inc lude the not ion of whether i t i s be t ter fo r a

ru ler to be loved or feared . Machiavel l i and Cicero d iverge

great l y on th i s point . The reasons behind thei r d ivergence can be

seen as the def in ing poin ts in thei r t ex ts . Cicero bel ieves that

men subject themselves to the dominion and power for severa l

reasons .

5 0 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch X V . p .5 5 1 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 6 .1 1 -9 2 5 2 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X V I I & X I X



After l i s t ing 5 3 h is reasons ; goodwi l l , generos i ty, rank ,

promot ion , fear , en t icement and br ibery, Cicero s ta tes tha t above

a l l the best is the one des igned to win af fec t ion .

Of a l l t hese poss ib i l i t i e s , none i s more ca l cula ted t o secure

and t o re t a in i n f luence t han winning a f f ec t i on , and none i s

more repugnan t than be ing feared . 5 4

Machiavel l i tu rns Cicero’s propos i t ion on i t s head .

I t i s f a r be t te r to be fear ed than loved . 5 5

When he came , the Senate , out o r fear , e lec t ed h im empero r

and put J u l i an t o dea th . […] So whoeve r ca re fu l l y s tudi es

what th i s man d id wi l l f i nd t ha t he had t he qual i t i es of a

f e roc ious l ion and a ve ry cunn ing fox , and t ha t he was fear e d

and r espec t ed by everyone , ye t not ha ted by t he t roops . 5 6

Many, therefore , be l ieve tha t when he has t he chance an ab le

p r ince should cunningly fos t e r some oppos i t i on to h imsel f so

t ha t by ove rcoming i t he can enhance h i s s t a tur e . 5 7

The d i f ference betwe en the two tex ts i s unmis takable . This

d ivergence s tems f rom each authors unders tanding of human

nature . Cicero bel ieves that man i s ul t imate ly moral and as such

a lways opera tes on some moral l evel . 5 8

5 3 De Of f i c i i s . 2 . 6 1 .2 2 5 4 i b id . 2 .61 .2 3 5 5 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X V . p . 5 4 5 6 i b id . Ch . X I X . p . 6 4 5 7 i b id . Ch . X X . p . 6 9 5 8 De Of f i c i i s . 3 .1 2 4 .1 16 -1 2 0



Machiavel l i , in I l Pr incipe , i s diamet r ica l ly opposed to th i s

pos i t ion . Al though he bel ieves that an adherence to the no t ion of

vir tú could enr ich the soul and lead t o a moral ly jus t l i fe , th i s is

not what he advises to a new pr ince . Machiavel l i ins tead te l l s

the pr ince that a l l men are

Ungra tefu l , f i ck le , l i a r s , and dece ive rs , they shun danger and

a re gr eedy fo r p ro f i t . 5 9

This c lear ly goes agains t the gra in of the R enaissance humanis t

t rad i t ion . Machiavel l i has to jus t i fy why i t i s be t ter to be feared

than loved and in doing so he necessar i l y makes a huge

genera l i sa t ion about mankind . The reason for th i s i s to pro tect

the pr ince f rom the people around h im that may be of th i s

nature . By pro tect ing agains t men of vacuous vir tú the pr ince

minimises any threa t to hi s pos i t ion .

Men worry le ss abou t do ing an i n jury t o one who makes

h imsel f l oved t han t o one who makes h imse l f f ea red . 6 0

Another para l le l i s the not ion of whether and how a ru ler should

exerc i se l ibera l i t y and why he should ref ra in f rom seiz ing o thers

proper ty. Machiavel l i and Cicero come to very d i f ferent

conclus ions on these topics . Cicero on thi s point notes three

prerequis i tes tha t a ru ler mus t possess

5 9 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X V . p . 5 4 6 0 i b id .



We mus t ensure f i r s t tha t our benevo lence does no t p rove

de l e t e r ious e i ther to r ec ip ient s of wha t wi l l seem to be a

k ind ly ges ture , or t o any o ther s ; s econd, t ha t such

benevo lence does not go beyond our means ; and th i rd , tha t i t

i s appor t i oned to each rec ip i en t according t o h i s wor th . 6 1

Cicero’s ideas of l ibera l i t y are drawn f rom Aris to t le’s pr incip le

in h i s Nicomachean Eth ics 6 2 regard ing generos i ty. 6 3 C icero

bel ieves that only the wises t can give according to thei r n eeds

and that to be k ind through generos i ty i s a noble vi r tue .

Machiavel l i however d i scourages a pr ince f rom being

generous .

A pr ince mus t t r y t o avo id , above a l l e l s e , be ing despi sed and

ha t ed; and generos i t y r esul t s i n your be ing both . 6 4

By doing t h i s Machiavel l i hopes to counsel the pr ince in the

dangers wrought f rom the ac t of being generous . Machiavel l i

explains that there is nothing more se l f -defeat ing as generos i ty

In t he ac t of p rac t i c ing i t , you l ose the ab i l i t y to do so , and

you become e i t h e r poor and despi sed or , s eeking t o escape

pove r ty , rapac ious and ha ted . 6 5

I t i s obvious , f rom reading De Of f ic i is , that Machiavel l i d idn’t

bel ieve a pr ince was a lways wise enough to be generous wi th in

h i s means .

6 1 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 7 .4 2 6 2 Ar i s t o t l e . Ni co ma ch ea n E th i c s . 1 9 98 . t r an s . David . , Ro ss , . 1 1 2 0 b . O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S 6 3 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 7 .4 2 -6 0

6 4 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X V I . p . 5 3 6 5 i b id .



Where both texts agree is on the opposite of generosity. Cicero and

Machiavelli advise restraint in seizing other peoples’ property. 6 6

Cicero defends this claim by liking it to the damage done to some in

order to be generous to another. This can be seen as a balancing

judgement; no one should be generous to the direct detriment of

themselves or others or cause, throu gh their generosity, the

acquisition of another’s property.

Again, persons who infl ict damage on some in order to be

generous to others perpetrate the same injustice as if they were

to make the property of others their own. 6 7

Cicero, again links this argument to morality and the cardinal

virtues, incorporating the virtues of prudence and justice.

Machiavelli , agrees with Cicero regarding property, he however

arrives at his conclusions in a wholly different manner.

Machiavelli does not argue from a moral standpoint, rather he

argues that in order to keep control over his people, a prince must

not rob the majority of them.

As long as he does not rob the great majority of their property

[…] they remain content. 6 8

Clearly Machiavelli sees the prince’s appearance to be in

possession of morali ty and virtue often above that of his actually

being moral or virtuous – appearance over substance. This position

is explicated in the following section.

6 6 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 7 .4 2 -6 0 - I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I X

6 7 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 7 .4 3

6 8 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I X . p . 5 8



Cicero and Machiavel l i d raw s imi lar conclus ions to the themes

ident i f ied above, despi te ar r iving a t them in very d i f ferent ways .

The most s t r ik ing of the para l le l s in De Of f ic i i s and I l Principe

i s the Lion and Fox analogy. This analogy has of ten been drawn

as i t deals with many and var ied facet s of v i r tues and moral i t y.

As such Par t Two offers an in depth analys i s of th i s analogy.



P a r t T w o

P r o p o s i t i o n [ b ]



C h a p t e r I I I

O f

C e n t a u r s , F o x e s

&

L i o n s



As Machiavel l i has shown, pr incely v i r tue i s a balance , of the

c lever and the char i smat ic . Given the sophis t ica t ion and

cynic i sm of Machiavel l i ’ s contemporar ies , Lukes explains , t his

balance i s d i f f icu l t to achieve . 6 9 C leverness must by subt ly

unders ta ted and shrewdly explo i ted les t i t mar the begui l ing

ef fec t s of char i sma. The teaching of th i s balance can be seen as

the complex message of I l Pr incipe . Machiavel l i in del iver ing

th i s message chose h i s metaphors del ica te ly, ins t i l l ing in the

pr ince the analogy of the l ion and the fox .

So , a s a pr ince i s for ced t o know how to ac t l i ke a beas t , he

mus t l ea rn f rom the fox and the l i on; because t he l i on i s

de fence l es s aga ins t t raps and a fox i s de fence l es s aga ins t

wo lves . Therefore one mus t be a fox in o rde r t o recogn ise

t raps , and a l i on to f r i gh ten of f wolves . 7 0

Die tz 7 1 a rgues that l ion and fox analogy i s d iabol ica l to end

the d iabol ica l , a sophis t ica ted t rap in to which an unsuspect ing

Medic i pr ince might fa l l , thus opening a republ ican window of

oppor tuni ty. However , in l ik ing man to beas t , Machiavel l i i s

go ing agains t the S toic v iews concern ing the d i f ferences

between man and the lesser beas t s . The S toic phi losophers ,

inc luding Cicero , saw man as super ior to beas t . Machiavel l i ,

converse ly, uses the beas t as a model for man.

6 9 o p . c i t . L u k e s . p . 5 7 3 7 0 I l P r i n c i p e . C H . X V I I I . p . 5 6 . 7 1 D i e t z . , M a r y , . T r a p p i n g t h e P r i n c e : M a c h i a v e l l i a n d t h e P o l i t i c s o f D e c e p t i o n . 1 9 8 6 .

A m e r i c a n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e R e v i e w . V o l . 8 0 . S e p t e m b e r . p . 7 7 7 . N E W Y O R K .



Machiavelli can therefore be seen as escorting politics down to

Piraeus never to return to the rarefied atmosphere of the

Acropolis. 7 2 Machiavelli has since come to represent the

quintessential tactician. By reading the passage concerning the lion

and fox the reader is drawn into a world where only the most

cunning and powerful survive.

Machiavelli portions equal emphasis on both animal traits in his

Chimera, advising the prince to emulate the fo x, the cleverest of

animals, and the lion, the strongest of animals. As such Il Principe

is peppered with analogies and can be seen as a text that uses

representation to redefine definition – skilful word play that casts a

shadow of equivalence in mimesis of power. This being the case,

Machiavelli’s virtú becomes indistinguishable from mere

cleverness. In short, Dietz argues, whether the subject is love, war,

or polit ics, Machiavelli recognises the advantages of crafty assault

in any form, be it trickery, s tratagem, or artifice. 7 3 Dietz, Khan 7 4 ,

Hulliung 7 5 , and Sasso 7 6 , in there depiction of the fox and lion

analogy, only focus on the fox. This is a common oversight amongst

the current literature on Machiavelli and as such, I will present the

case that it is in the lion of Machiavelli that his republicanism

comes to the fore. This chapter, almost uniquely, ameliorates the

position and purpose of the centaur Chiron as a precursor for the

republican lion.

7 2 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 1 7 3 op . c i t . Die t z . p .7 7 8 7 4 Kh an . , Vic to r i a , . Vir tú a n d t h e Exa mp le o f Ag a th oc l e s i n Ma ch ia ve l l i ’ s Pr in ce . 1 9 8 6 .

Rep resen ta t i on s . Vo l .1 3 (Win t e r ) . 6 3 -6 8 . C O R N E L L U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S 7 5 Hu l l i u n g . , Mark , . Ci t i zen Ma ch ia vel l i . 19 8 3 . p .2 14 . P r in ceton , NJ . P R I N C E T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

7 6 Sa ss o . Ma ch ia ve l l i . , N i cco ló , . I l Pr in c ip e e a l t r i s c r i t t i . p .1 5 2 . n o t e .7 . F lo r en ce . L A N U O V A IT A L I A .



Hexter 7 7 a rgues that Machiavel l i invokes Cicero in order to

perver t h im; whereas Cicero might in termit ten t ly d ive r t h i s

moral in teres t wi th ques t ions of p ract ica l i t y, he never cons iders

the Machiavel l ian d i s locat ion of v i r tue , reason and nature f rom

thei r cus tomary re la t ions wi th one another . In th i s sense Cicero

sees v i r tue , reason and nature as bound up wi th one another .

Machiavel l i at tempts to separa te t hem. Using the fox and the

l ion , Machiavel l i ’ s humanism i s depic ted as dependent so le l y

upon the degree to which both he and Cicero ad jus t normat ive

commitments in the face of pragmat ic concerns . The cont rovers y

cent res on whether , and to what ex tent , ther e i s room in

humanism for the occas ional suspens ion of moral cons t ra in t s . 7 8

Machiavel l i ’ s depar ture f rom the k ind of humanism inherent in

Cicero i s s igni f icant in widening the poss ib i l i t y for the t ra i t s

associa ted with the fox to be appl ied to a wid er varie ty o f

pol i t i ca l pursui t s . Analys t s who debate whether there i s a p lace

for the Machiavel l ian fox in c lass ica l humanism, as argued b y

Lukes 7 9 , may miss a s igni f icant expans ion of an imal i sm in

genera l as i t per ta ins to pr incely comportment . This

Machiavel l ian expans ion of humanism i s l ibera l enough to

enhance the domain of the l ion, and wide enough to detach

Machiavel l i f rom his contemporary Renaissance humanis t s .

7 7 H e x t e r . J . H . T h e V i s i o n o f P o l i t i c s o n t h e E v e o f t h e R e f o r m a t i o n : M o r e , M a c h i a v e l l i ,

S e y s s e l . 1 9 7 3 . p . 2 1 0 . N e w Y o r k . B A S I C B O O K S . 7 8 o p . c i t . L u k e s . p . 5 6 3 7 9 i b i d .



Machiavelli’s ratification of princely animalism is reinforced with

allusions to De Officiis .

There are two types of mili tary dispute, the one sett led by

negotiation and the other by force. Since the first is

characterist ic of human beings and the second of beast , we must

have recourse to the second only if we cannot exploit the first . 8 0

This classical humanist source, in which Cicero informs his

departing son that there may come a time when the human method

of settling disputes may not be available to him, and he may need to

resort to tactics of the beast captured Machiavell i imagination. 8 1

Machiavelli’s lion is largely overlooked as academic study

focuses on the sensationalisation of Machiavelli 's fox as a reduction

of the classical attachment to moral standards.

The l ion represents a widening rather than a lowering, a

recognition that that Socrates’ contemplative priori t ies helped

him die well but did not always help him live well . 8 2

Machiavelli is a pragmatist and understands that poli tics is about

life.

Machiavell i , invoking the l ion, would counsel escape from

prison. Although the escape would involves a foxy plan, i t

demands some of the viri l i ty, comradery, and innocence of the

l ion. 8 3

8 0 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 3 .3 4 8 1 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 2 . 8 2 i b id . 8 3 i b id .



That Machiavelli’s princely animalism is more complex than

enhanced foxiness should be clear, given his employment of the

centaur to introduce it:

So a prince must understand how to make a nice use of the beast and

the man. The ancient writers taught princes about this by an allegory,

when they described how Achilles and many other princes of the

ancient world were sent to be brought up by Chiron, the centau r, so

that he might train them his way. 8 4

The juxtaposition of appropriate animalism with centaurs is an

allusion that Cicero does not make. 8 5 By emphasising the parity

between the human and the animal in the prince’s curriculum,

Machiavelli wholly betrays both the Stoic and the humanist

hierarchy, in which the animal is a much less significant human

component. 8 6

All the allegory means, in making the teacher half beast and half

man, is that a prince must know how to act according to the

nature of both, and that he cannot survive otherwise. 8 7

Cicero, although he recommends acting like ‘the beast’ 8 8 in the

settlement of disputes, never portions equal weight to the traits of

the human or the animal. Cicero believes that the human quality of

discussion is always preferable to the animal force (vim) – resorting

to the animal, therefore has to be justified within the context of the

human. 8 9

8 4 I l Pr in c ip e 8 5 op . c i t . Lu k es p .5 6 3 8 6 i b id . 8 7 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I I I . p . 5 6 8 8 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 3 .3 4 8 9 i b id . Lu k es .



Machiavelli completely redraws the limits permitted by Cicero

regarding the differences between the human and the animal .

Cicero’s understanding of Ancient Greek philology shaped his

understanding of reason as far as the human/animal † contention is

concerned. Lukes explains that Cicero places reason (rationis)

exclusively in the human domain and then deduces that only humans

are endowed with a historical consciousness, in which events can be

linked to analytical continua . 9 0

Our start ing point is that al l species of l iving creatures are

endowed by nature with the capacity to protect their l ives and

their persons, to avoid things l ikely to harm them, and to seek

out and procure all l ife’s necessit ies such as food, hidden lairs,

and the l ike. […] but between man and beast there is one crucial

difference: the beast under sense -impulses applies i tself only to

what l ies immediately before i t , with quite minimal awareness of

past or future, whereas man is endowed with reason, which

enables him to visualize consequences, and to detect the cause of

things. 9 1

This type of animal behaviour, for Cicero, is likened to men of

Thrasymachus caliber, who intrude on civility ‘l ike a wild beast’ 9 2

and scare people out of their wits. 9 3

Machiavelli , especially in Chapter Eigh teen of Il Principe , is far

less generous to the realm of the human than Cicero.

†Th e S to i c v i ew of t h e fu n d amen ta l d i f f e r en ces b e t ween man an d t h e le s s er an ima l s i s ad ap t ed f rom

Ari s t o t l e ’ s Po l i t i c s (1 2 5 3 a ) an d mor e ex t en s i ve ly f r om h i s De a n ima . 9 0 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 3 . 9 1 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 6 .1 1 9 2 op . c i t . P la to . B ook V I I . Th e Rep u b l i c . Lin e 3 3 6 b . 9 3 i b id . Lu k es .



Machiavelli tells the young prince that the human domain is one of

laws (moral, political, religious), not one of intellectual or

emotional superiorty. 9 4

You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of

fighting: by law or by force [ forza] . 9 5

In this sense there is little corollary between Cicero’s vim 9 6 and

Machiavelli’s forza 9 7 .

Machiavelli draws out the fox and l ion analogy to demonstrate the

weaknesses of each of the animal traits if taken as a singular

attribute. One of the animal traits alone is not enough for a prince

to succeed.

Those who simply act l ike l ions are stupid. 9 8

If the source of the debili tat ing popular corr uption is cynicism,

which comes from more clever apprehensions of leaders and nature,

foxiness cannot be enough to succeed in a political environment that

suffers from growing corruption. 9 9 Uniquely, by giving the lion a

separate identity, Machiavelli attempts to address the deficiencies

of the fox and isolate the necessary countervailing traits . The

differences between the lion and the fox can be understood along

the same lines as the differences between Cicero’s vim and

Machiavelli’s forza .

9 4 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 3 . 9 5 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I I I . p . 5 6 9 6 De Of f i c i i s . 1 . 1 3 .3 4 9 7 i b id . I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I I I . p . 5 6 9 8 i b id .

9 9 i b id . Lu k es . p .5 6 6 .



If the fox is the part of forza that is intellectual, then the lion can

reasonably can he held to represent the sen sual part – from Chiron’s

ancestry there is more to the lion’s sensuousness than ferocity. 1 0 0

The aptitude and importance of the lion is often underestimated:

Nor is the l ion here the l ion accompanying the virtue of

Forti tude, as the portal of the cathedr al of Amiens; i t is the l ion

of inhuman cruelty such as might typify Hannibal, who

succeeded by detestable measures . But the concern of

Machiavell i is not so much with force as with another sort of

brutish conduct, characterised by craft . 1 0 1

The sensual aspect of Machiavelli’s lion can be understood to

represent the republican side of his writings. The expansion of

the animal realm, both hierarchically and behaviourally, is a

conscious effort by Machiavelli to incorporate a republican

message into his treatise. This message is largely ignored as the

focus of study naturally turns to the fox and i ts inherent

cleverness. Hulliung, in Lukes 1 0 2 admits the lion’s existence but

asserts that Machiavelli reserves his deepest admiration for

those who are able to dominate by resorting to

The subtle methods of the fox rather than the crude methods of

the l ion. 1 0 3

This view neglects the importance of forza to Machiavelli.

1 0 0 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 6 . 1 0 1 Gi lb er t . , Ala in , . Ma ch iave l l i ’ s Pr in ce a n d I t s Fo re ru n n ers : Th e Pr in ce a s a Typ i ca l Bo o k d e

Reg immin e Pr in c ip u m. 1 98 3 . p .1 2 0 -1 . Du rh am, NC: D U K E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S . 1 0 2 Ib id . Lu k es . p .5 6 2 . 1 0 3 Hu l l i u n g . , Mark , . Ci t i zen Ma ch ia vel l i . 19 8 3 . p .2 14 . P r in ceton , NJ . P R I N C E T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .



Given Machiavelli’s equal partiti oning of fox and lion naturally

leads to the possibility that the expanded realm of princely

animalism, prepared by a discussion of centaurs, includes an

enhanced artillery for the lion also. 1 0 4 This enhanced artil lery is the

forza . If forza includes raison d'être , then might it not also include

an extreme tenderness towards offspring? 1 0 5 This trait is inherently

more suited to the lion, who prefers the company of the pride to the

loneliness of the fox. The lion as a powerful force under which the

more noble virtues might thrive is capable of more than Sasso’s

‘impetuosity and violence.’ 1 0 6 The physical magnificence of the lion

benefits the prince just as much as the unencumbered cleverness of

the fox.

Machiavelli’s reinforces the idea that the lion is a republican

force by the particular centaur selected to introduce princely

animalism. Chiron is the tutor of Achilles, and ‘many other princes

of the ancient world’ 1 0 7 Machiavelli’s preference for Chiron may

seem a strange choice for the education of a pri nce, which

Machiavelli advises study trickery, stratagem and artifice. Chiron

parentage is of Cronos and Phliyras and while other centaurs are

roaming wild and causing mischief Chiron teaches Achilles the finer

points of medicine and music. Chiron is the k indly, poetic, artistic,

peace-loving centaur, the very antithesis of beast -like qualit ies. 1 0 8

1 0 4 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 4 . 1 0 5 i b id . 1 0 6 i b id . Sasso . p 1 5 2 . 1 0 7 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X V I I I . p . 5 6 . 1 0 8 Ar t e t i . , J am es , . Th e Ma ch ia ve l l i an Ch i ron : Ap p ea ran ce a n d Rea l i t y i n Th e Pr in ce . C i lo . 1 99 5 . Vol . 2 4 . (4 ) . p .3 8 7 . C L I O .



Looking at Chiron in Machiavelli’s terms, however, it is clear to see

that he is an animal par excellence – an apt model for forza broadly

understood, as extra legal persuasion and coersion. 1 0 9 Achilles, like

the young prince, lacked not ferocity but the subtlety of the animal.

The son of Philyra made the boy Achilles accomplished on the

lyre, and by his peaceful art subdued those savage passions. 1 1 0

The lion can be directly paralleled with Machia velli’s understanding

of a republic. Only under a republic is the attainment of the good

life possible – Chiron seeks the nourishment of the soul in his

teachings of knowledge to Achilles. This knowledge is ultimately

intended to instil virtú into the neophyte.

Machiavelli , however, further dissects his ancient prototype into

the more specific constituent elements of the lion and the fox to

bring to the fore the contrasts between ancient Roman

republicanism and Renaissance Italy. The focal difference i s

centered on Machiavelli’s introduction of the concept of corruption.

Machiavelli fervently suggests that corruption should be attended to

by princely scrutiny. 1 1 1 In ancient times princely scrutiny was best

directed at the mili tary – in Renaissance Italy scrutiny is best

directed to the common civilian classes. 1 1 2 This is why I believe

Machiavelli is compelled to subdivide his ancient tutor.

1 0 9 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 4 . 1 1 0 O vid . Th e A r t o f Lo ve a n d Oth er Po ems . 1 9 2 9 . t r an s . J .H. Mo z ley , Camb r id g e . Po e m 1 3 . 1 .1 1 -2 .

H A R V A R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S . 1 1 1 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I X . 1 1 2 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . X I X



It is only with this subdivision that we can appreciate the

importance of the dissection of Chiron. The constitute parts may

have been in harmony in the ancient (or mo untain) setting, but

recent history reveals a discontinuity – thinking and acting, seeing

and touching, cleverness and vigour are not always, indeed not

often, in equilibrium. 1 1 3

This debilitating popular corruption is cynicism, which comes

from more clever apprehensions of leaders and nature, foxiness

cannot, therefore cannot be enough to succeed in a political

environment that suffers from growing corruption. The l ion is the

natural alternative. Modern princes live in a time of corruption and

as such crude and excessive cleverness now prevail – before the

affective resources available to the prince are overwhelmed,

Machiavelli isolates and protects them in the image of the lion. 1 1 4

As the lion is more sensual than intellectual the reader of the Il

Principe cannot simply look at systematic prose for the lessons.

Inspiration is not a matter for traditional instruction, and it may be

contained more in impressions that in specifications. 1 1 5 Hence the

idea of a republic is not explicitly drawn in Il Principe – more, it is

suggested in the magnificence and sensuality of the lion, the grace,

compassion and auspices of Chiron. Machiavelli necessari ly

presents the lion and its image in an attempt to liberate the prince

from an over indulgence in foxiness.

1 1 3 op . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 6 6 . 1 1 4 i b id . 1 1 5 i b id .



Machiavelli highlights that the greatest princely vulnerabilities

issue more from physical frailty than intellectual deficiencies. 1 1 6

For the Ital ian prince the targeted images of the fox and lion are

superior to the blurrier image of the centaur. With this enhanced

precision, Machiavelli recognises and embraces the prospect of

shaping marble that has already been poorly begun be others. 1 1 7 The

lion therefore embodies all the attributes akin to the civic vi rtue

found in De Officiis - Cicero’s conception of the honestum 1 1 8 and the

utile 1 1 9 .

In an effort to locate this virtue pre -eminently in republican

constitutions Machiavelli has difficulty envisioning it in the case of

the Medici ruler for whom he intended Il Principe . Machiavell i

therefore buries this civic virtue in the lion – an apt master for a

prince. The similarit ies in conceptualisation and argument between

De Officiis and Il Principe are too striking and too extended to be

dismissed. They are cer tainly substantial enough to refute the view

that he was referring to Cicero merely in order to turn him inside

out. 1 2 0 The lion is a conscious attempt by Machiavelli at gaining

some semblance of the lost glory of the ancient republics of Rome.

1 1 6 I l Pr in c ip e . Ch . V I . p . 1 8 . 1 1 7 Disco u rses . 1 . 1 1 . p .1 6 2 . o r g . c i t . Lu k es . p .5 7 3 . 1 1 8 De Of f i c i i s . Bo ok I 1 1 9 De Of f i c i i s . Bo ok I I 1 2 0 op .c i t . Co l i sh . p .9 3 .



C h a p t e r I V

E c h o e s

o f

T h e P a s t



In the first part of this study I have argued that the De Officiis was

fundamental to Machiavell i in his laying out of Il Principe on two

counts, first, the attempt to establish (or re -establish in mimesis) a

unity between Renaissance Italy and the ancient Republics of Rome,

and second, that his personal understanding of politics and virtú

was an amalgamation of the cardinal virtues as laid out by Cicero.

I wish now to turn to the final part of this study and explore the

notion that Machiavelli’s Il Principe aspires to the status of, and to

some extent succeeds in functioning, as a quasi -scriptural text.

Investigated also is the cultural authority that goes with such an

achievement.

Before proceeding further it will be necessary to agree on what is

meant by the term ‘scripture’ and further, ‘quasi -scripture’.

Derrida’s claim that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ 1 2 1 that carries

the implication that everything is écriture , or ‘writing’. This is too

broad a definition. A parochial definition of scripture, then,

confines the term to specific holy texts within the Judeo-Christian

tradition. On a societal level scripture becomes scripture when it is

presented to the public in canonical form so that it can establish a

social context for i tself. A text becomes a scared text because

society permits to do so. Gabriel Josipovici has drawn attention to

the importance of the social foundation of scripture, stressing the

continuity of response from childhood to maturity:

1 2 1 D e r r i d a . , J acq u es , . Of Gra mma to lo g y . 1 9 7 4 . t r an s . Sp ivak . p . 1 3 4 . B a l t im or e . J O H N H O P K I N S

U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .



The Bible is unique in that i t is the only book in our culture

where the child’s relations to books is perpetuated into

adulthood. Because the Bible is used for public worship the

transit ion we all experience in our l ives from an oral to a writ ten

culture is blurred. Think how it would effect our response to the

stories of Arthur and his knights if we l ived in a community

which recounted such stories in public every week. 1 2 2

Josipovici identifies two important f eatures of scriptural

authority: the unique unchallenged acceptance of authority that is

carried from childhood, and the social pervasiveness of that

authority. How then does Machiavelli’s work measure up to these

cri teria? Firstly Machiavelli’s work is no t scripture but often

historical treatise dealing with mythical figures. If a post -

apocalyptic society, emerging with only half -memories of lost

civil isation, were to find surviving editions of Il Principe and the

Discourse they would find within these works, a deluge myth

accompanied by other accounts of cataclysmic upheavals and

destroyed civilisations, culminating in a hand -book for the budding

prince. The works could conceivably, within a generation or two,

achieve the status of sacred texts. The crux i s that any literary text

may become scripture if a society chooses to adopt it as such and

accord it commensurate authority. Though Machiavelli’s work, by

its form and content, is particularly well suited to such an adoption

- of course our society is far from according Machiavell i such

status.

1 2 2 Jo s ip o vi c i . , Gab r i e l . , Th e Bo o k o f Go d . 1 9 88 . p . 53 . Y A L E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .



As I said in the introduction Giddings is right to suggest that

Machiavelli’s works are capable of operating on the reader through

a subtle quality-by-associating technique, subliminally evoking the

feel , or ambience of canonical scripture and thereby appropriating

some of its immense cultural authority. There is hardly a child in

the western world who is unfamiliar with the sonorous cad ences, the

stilted syntax, repetitions, inversions, and evocative nomenclature

of scripture, be they Christian, Judaic or Islamic. The Authorised

King James Version of the Bible was translated into a form of

English predating the translation by one hundred and fifty years;

there was a deliberate attempt to introduce archaisms into the text

because there was an understanding that the ‘old tongue’ confers a

measure of cultural authority. Machiavelli wished to insti l in his

work a measure of that cultural auth ority. I suggest that the devises

by which he does this are principally two. First, the technique that

characterises the ‘ancient’ (forgotten) glory of Rome is one of

association of content, that is, of coincidence and manipulation of

republican imagery. Second, the technique that characterises the De

Officiis (philology) of Il Principe is the use of deliberately

‘Classical-style’ language, that is , the use of such archaisms as

mentioned above in dealing with the cardinal virtues.

The parallels of style are clear and Machiavelli maintains this

tone throughout Il Principe . In the richness of Cicero’s De Officiis ,

Machiavelli found a ready source of inspiration, a myriad of

imagery that spawned a fantastic and polemic treatise that spanned

ancient empires, mythical creatures and vacuous morality.



Thus, by the incorporation of traditional mythic elements into his

overarching mythology through the act of mimesis Machiavelli

attempted a recovery of the ancient glory of republican Rome and in

this attempt his major treatise Il Principe became capable of serving

as quasi-scripture and thus obtaining a kind of cultural authority.



W o r d C o u n t : 1 0 4 2 7 w o r d s a p p r o x .

B i b i l o g r a p h y

W o r k s b y C i c e r o

D e O f f i c i i s . 2 0 0 0 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y P . G . W a l s h . O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

On Go vern men t . l9 9 3 . T ran s l a t i on b y Mich ae l Gran t . P E N G U I N B O O K S .

On Th e Go o d L i f e . 1 9 71 . Tra n s la t i on b y Mich ae l Gran t . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

T h e N a t u r e o f t h e G o d s . 1 9 7 2 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y H o r a c e C . P . M c G r e g o r . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

W o r k s b y M a c h i a v e l l i

D i s c o u r c e s . 1 9 8 3 . Ed i t ed b y Bern a rd Cr i ck . Tran s la t i on b y Les l i e Wa lk er . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

I l P r i n c i p e . 1 9 9 9 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y G e o r g e B u l l . T h e P r i n c e . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

Th e Hi s to ry o f F lo ren ce an d o f t h e A f fa i r s o f I t a l y f ro m th e Ea r l i e s t T imes t o t h e Death o f Lo ren zo th e Ma g n i f i cen t . 19 9 5 . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

C r i t i c a l W o r k s o f C i c e r o

C i c e r o , S e l e c t e d W o r k s . 1 9 7 1 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y M i c h a e l G r a n t . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S

C i c e r o , T h e L e t t e r s o f J a n u a r y t o A p r i l 4 3 B C . 1 9 9 5 . E d i t e d b y W i l l c o c k . A r i s a n d P h i l l i p s .

J o u r n a l s a n d A r t i c l e s

Ar t e t i . , J am es , . Th e Ma ch ia ve l l i a n Ch i ro n : Ap p ea ra n ce an d Rea l i t y i n Th e Pr in ce . C i lo . 1 9 9 5 . Vol . 2 4 .

(4 ) . C L I O .

Col i sh . , Mar ica L. , . Cicero ’s De Of f ic i i s an d Ma chiavel l i ’ s Pr ince . 1978 . S ix teen th Cen tu ry Jo u rna l .

Vol . 9 . No.4 . Cent ra l Rena is sa nce Confe rence (Win te r ) . TH E S I X T E E N T H C E N T U R Y J O U R N A L . L u k e s . , T i m o t h y , . L i o n i z i n g M a c h i a v e l l i . 2 0 0 1 . A m e r i c a n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e R e v i e w . V o l . 9 5 . N o . 3 . S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 1 . N E W Y O R K

C l a s s i c a l W o r k s

Ar i s t o t l e . Nico ma ch ea n E th ic s . 1 9 9 8 . Tran s la t i on . David . , Ross , . O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

T h e A t h e n i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n . 2 0 0 2 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y P . J R h o d e s . P E N G U I N C L A S S I C S .

H e r o d o t u s . T h e H i s t o r i e s . 1 9 9 8 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y G e o r g e R a w l i n s o n . E V E R Y M A N .

H o m e r . T h e L l i a d . 1 9 9 7 . E d i t e d b y R o b e r t F a g l e s . T H E S O F T B A C K P R E V I E W .

Ovid . Th e Ar t o f Lo ve a nd Oth er Po ems . 1 9 29 . t r ans la t i on . J . H. Mo z ley, Camb r id g e . H A R V A R D

U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

P l a t o . T h e C o m p l e t e W o r k s . 1 9 9 7 . E d i t e d b y . J . M . C o o p e r . H A C K E T T P U B L I S H I N G C O M P A N Y .

L i v y . T h e E a r l y H i s t o r y o f R o m e . 2 0 0 2 . T r a n s l a t i o n b y A u b r e y D e S e l i n c o u r t . P E N G U I N

C L A S S I C S



G e n e r a l B i b l i o g r a p h y

Arms t r on g . Th e Re l i g io u s Asp ec t s o f t h e Wo rks o f J .R .R . To l k i en . 1 99 4 D U R H A M .

B a r l o w . , J . J , . T h e F o x a n d t h e L i o n : M a c h i a v e l l i r e p l i e s t o C i c e r o . 1 9 9 9 . H i s t o r y o f P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t . V o l . X X . I s s u e . 4 . W i n t e r . I M P R I N T A C A D E M I C

Ber l i n . , Isa i ah . Th e Or ig in a l i t y o f Ma ch ia ve l l i . 1 9 72 . Stu d i e s i n Ma ch ia ve l l i . Ed i ted b y. M yron P . Gi lm o r e . F I R E N Z E .

D i e t z . , M a r y , . T r a p p i n g t h e P r i n c e : M a c h i a v e l l i a n d t h e P o l i t i c s o f D e c e p t i o n . 1 9 8 6 . A m e r i c a n P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e R e v i e w . V o l . 8 0 . S e p t e m b e r . N E W Y O R K

Gee rk en . , Hero ic V i r tu e : An In t ro d u c t io n to th e Or ig in s a n d Na tu re o f a S tu d y o f th e Ren ai s sa n ce Co n cep t . 1 9 67 . Y A L E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

Gi lb er t . , Ala in , . Ma ch ia vel l i ’ s Pr in ce a nd I t s Fo rerun n ers : Th e Pr in ce a s a Typ i ca l Bo o k d e

Reg immin e Pr in c ip u m. 1 98 3 . Du rh am, NC : D U K E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

H e x t e r . J . H . T h e V i s i o n o f P o l i t i c s o n t h e E v e o f t h e R e f o r m a t i o n : M o r e , M a c h i a v e l l i , S e y s s e l . 1 9 7 3 . N e w Y o r k . B A S I C B O O K S .

Hu l l i u n g . , Mark , . Ci t i zen Mach ia ve l l i . 1 9 83 . P r in ceton , N J . P R I N C E T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Kh an . , Vic to r i a , . Vir tú a n d th e Exa mp le o f Ag a th o c l e s in Ma ch ia vel l i ’ s Pr in ce . 1 98 6 . Rep resen ta t i on s .

Vo l .1 3 (Win t e r ) . C O R N E L L U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Sa ss o . Ma ch ia ve l l i . , N i cco ló , . I l Pr in c ip e e a l t r i s c r i t t i . Flor en c e . LA N U O V A IT A L I A .

To lk i en . J .R .R . Th i s Fa r La n d . 1 9 90 . LO N D O N : R O M A N A N D L I T T L E F I E L D P U B G R O U P

Wh i t f i e ld . Ma ch ia ve l l i . 1 9 47 . O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

Wo od . Ma ch ia ve l l i ’ s Co n cept o f V i r tú . 19 6 7 . Pol i t i ca l S tu d i e s . P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S P R E S S .

W o r k s o f R e f e r e n c e

Derr id a . , J acq u es , . Of G ra m ma to lo g y . 1 97 4 . t r an s la t i on . Sp ivak . Ba l t imo re . J O H N H O P K I N S U N I V E R S I T Y

P R E S S .

H a a k o n s s e n . , K n u d , . A C o m p a n i o n t o C o n t e m p o r a r y P o l i t i c a l P h i l o s o p h y . 1 9 9 5 . E d i t e d b y .

G o o d i n & P e t t i t . B L A C K W E L L S P U B L I S H I N G

H a m p s h i r e - M o n k , I . , A H i s t o r y O f M o d e r n P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t . 2 0 0 1 . O x f o r d : B L A C K W E L L

P U B L I S H E R S L T D .

Jos ip o vi c i . , Gab r i e l . , Th e Bo o k o f Go d . 19 8 8 . Y A L E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S .

R a y o r . , D . J . , a n d B a t s t o n e . , W . W . , 1 9 9 5 . , L a t i n L y r i c a n d E l e g i a c P o e t r y . N E W Y O R K .

T h e O x f o r d E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y . , 1 9 8 9 . , S e c o n d E d i t i o n . , I & I I , . E d i t e d b y B u r c h f i e l d . , R . W . , C l a r e n d o n P r e s s . O X F O R D .

Documents

An Assassins Cloak - Machiavelli's Fox & Cicero's Lion