Discussion 7

Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XVI, 2014, 2, pp. 506-515

506

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two

Educational Projects Compared

Giovanni Giorgini Università di Bologna

Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of Cicero’s writings or his historical significance

as an example in politics and in rhetoric for Italian Humanist and Renaissance culture.

Machiavelli, well-educated in the classics, drew from Cicero the inspiration for embarking on a

project of education of a new ruling class: Machiavelli’s “principe nuovo” is new when compared

to his contemporary counterparts, imbued with Christian and Humanist notions of virtue;

however, the “principe nuovo” has an old soul, since the new notion of prudence elaborated by

Machiavelli has its roots in classical images of ethical and political virtue, in Plato, Aristotle and

Cicero. Machiavelli, just like Cicero, felt that what he had not been able to do in deeds with his

political action at the service of the Florentine republic, he could do through his writings:

putting his knowledge of men and politics, his expertise gained through practical experience and

constant reading of ancient authors at the service of his fellow-countrymen and of his patria.

The novelty of Machiavelli’s teaching consists in advocating a new kind of prudence, which

consists in the capacity to do evil in view of a good and elevated purpose: to save, preserve and

aggrandize the State.

KEYWORDS

Cicero, Machiavelli, Renaissance

1. Prologue

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of Cicero’s writings or his

historical significance as an example in politics and in rhetoric for Italian

Humanist and Renaissance culture. Cicero’s influence was both direct (through

his works) and indirect (through authors who had read him and appropriated his

ideas and style); it exerted itself both theoretically (his philosophical and political

ideas) and stylistically. Quentin Skinner remarked that in Humanism and

Renaissance Cicero was the best known and most widely quoted author of classical

antiquity; Marcia Colish recalled that more than 600 hundred manuscripts of the

De officiis survive to testify the importance of this text.1 A well-read person such

as Niccolò Machiavelli could not avoid being exposed to the ideas and writings of

1 Q. Skinner, Visions of Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, vol. 2, p. 2;

M.L. Colish, “Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince”, Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978)

pp. 81-93.

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two Educational Projects Compared

507

Cicero which, as I shall try to show, had a profound impact on him and were

instrumental in enabling him to elaborate some of his most original views. More

specifically, Machiavelli drew from Cicero, a man who lived in troubled times in a

troubled republic similar to his own, the inspiration for embarking on a project of

education of a new ruling class: Machiavelli’s “principe nuovo” is new when

compared to his contemporary counterparts, imbued with Christian and

Humanist notions of virtue; however, the “principe nuovo” has an old soul, since

the new notion of prudence elaborated by Machiavelli has its roots in classical

images of ethical and political virtue, in Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. Machiavelli,

just like Cicero, felt that what he had not been able to do in deeds with his

political action at the service of the Florentine republic, he could do through his

writings: putting his knowledge of men and politics, his expertise gained through

practical experience and constant reading of ancient authors at the service of his

fellow-countrymen and of his patria. Amidst the civil wars which ravaged the

Roman republic and which would soon put an end to it, Cicero wrote his last

political works both as a testimony to something that was about to disappear and

as a legacy for future generations of politicians: both authors were looking at the

future because they could not detect any political personality who could work for

the common good in their present factional circumstances; both were thinking of

prospective young readers endowed with a sense of patriotism who could be

educated in order to rise up to the supreme task ahead.

2. Machiavelli’s education in the classics

Carlo Dionisotti’s opinion about Machiavelli’s classical education is well known

and I fully subscribe to it:

Machiavelli, among his other qualities, happened to be a well educated man

in letters, endowed with a refined ear and an expert hand at the art of

writing.2

Machiavelli received a traditional education in the classics for a man of his time

and status: as a boy he learnt Latin, which he used interchangeably with the

Italian vernacular as an adult, even in his private letters to his friends as well as in

his official missives.3 We know the names of some of his early teachers and from

2 C. Dionisotti, Machiavellerie, Torino, Einaudi, 1980, p. 113: “Machiavelli, fra le altre sue doti,

anche ebbe quella di essere uomo letterariamente bene educato, che aveva orecchio fino e mano

addestrata all’arte dello scrivere”. 3 For Machiavelli’s education see R. Black, Machiavelli, Oxford, Routledge, 2013. Black

maintains that Machiavelli had a good Humanist education and compares his Latin writings to

those of some contemporaries, like his friend Biagio Bonaccorsi, in order to maintain that

GIOVANNI GIORGINI

508

his father’s diary we learn which books were in his house and which other were

borrowed or somehow circulated in the house and we can infer some of his possible

readings.4 We also know that after his forced retirement from active politics,

caused by the return of the Medici family to Florence in 1512, Machiavelli

attended the literary meetings held in the Orti Oricellari, the gardens of Bernardo

Rucellai’s house, which hosted the Florentine Platonic Academy after its move

from the Medici’s villa of Careggi. This participation testifies, in case that his

literary output was not evidence enough, that Machiavelli was genuinely

interested in literary, philosophical and political questions which he liked to

debate with his literary friends. We can therefore surmise that sometimes he did

not have a first hand knowledge of certain texts, which he knew through these

conversations.

This image of a man of letters in constant conversation with ancient authors

is confirmed by what Machiavelli himself tells us about his free time. We know,

for instance, that in the years of forced political inactivity he found consolation in

reading Latin poets such as Ovid and Tibullus, as is testified by his famous letter

to Francesco Vettori dated December 10, 1513: “

I have a book with me, either Dante or Petrarch, or one of these minor poets,

such as Tibullus, Ovid and the like: I read of their amorous passions and their

loves, I remember mine, I take a lot of pleasure in this thought.5

This impression is confirmed by the way Machiavelli writes, which is

strongly influenced by the example and the style of Greek and Latin authors.6 To

Machiavelli was not at all inferior to well-educated men of his time. For a similar opinion see U.

Dotti, Machiavelli rivoluzionario, Rome, Carocci, 2003. On Machiavelli and his use of the classics

see also E. Benner, Machiavelli’s Ethics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2009. 4 B. Machiavelli, Libro di ricordi, edited by C. Olschki, Florence, Le Monnier, 1954. On this book

see the interesting work by C. Atkinson, Debts, Dowries, Donkeys: The Diary of Niccolò

Machiavelli’s Father, Messer Bernardo, in Quattrocento Florence, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang,

2002. 5 Letter of Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori, December 10th, 1513: “Ho un libro sotto, o Dante

o Petrarca, o un di questi poeti minori, come Tibullo, Ovidio et simili: leggo quelle loro amorose

passioni et quelli loro amori, ricordomi de’ mia, godomi un pezzo in questo pensiero”. This letter

may have been inspired by Petrarch, Metrica I 6 to Iacopo Colonna: see S. Larosa,

“Autobiografia e tradizione letteraria nella ‘giornata’ di Niccolò Machiavelli”, Interpres 22

(2003) pp. 223-75. 6 This is a well-known fact, which has been systematically studied, with astonishing erudition,

by L.A. Burd (ed), Il Principe by Niccolò Machiavelli, Oxford, Clarendon, 1891 (with an

excellent introduction by Lord Acton); see also L.J. Walker (ed), The Discourses of Niccolò

Machiavelli, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1950. C. Triantafillis, Nicolò Machiavelli e gli

scrittori greci, Venezia, Tipografia del Giornale “Il Tempo”, 1875 is still an interesting reading

for his extremist thesis: Triantafillis was persuaded that Machiavelli knew ancient Greek and

therefore read Greek authors in the original and imitated them.

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two Educational Projects Compared

509

take only one instance: the famous dedicatory letter of the Prince is full of

classical suggestions and borrowings. Its opening is taken after Isocrates’ oration

To Nicocles 1-2. Machiavelli’s statement there that he did not make use of “other

allurements or extrinsic adornments” (“qualunque altro lenocinio o ornamento

estrinseco”) is again a reprise of Isocrates, this time Philip 27-28; his choice not to

use “bombastic or magnificent words” (“parole ampullose o magnifiche”) refers to

Horace, Ars Poetica 97, where it is said that the ampullae are bombastic

expressions; while “varietà della materia e gravità del subietto” refers to the

Rhetorica ad Herennium and to Cicero’s De Oratore, where varietas and gravitas are

described as the two qualities which should always be present in a public

discourse; the humble style which follows from these prescriptions is the style

suited to teaching according to Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria, XII, 10, 59).7 We

may provisionally conclude that Machiavelli was a genuine literary person, who

borrowed from the classics a style and certain expressions for rhetorical reasons, in

order to make his prose more elegant and suited to his audience.

More substantially and to the point, Machiavelli was in constant dialogue

with classical authors, from whom he drew inspiration and against whom he

elaborated some of his most famous ideas. There is thus a twofold influence of

classical authors on Machiavelli, one positive and one negative. This influence is,

however, remarkably strong and I think we should take Machiavelli seriously

when he states that the ancients were superior in most departments to the

moderns and when he consequently advocates a return to ancient modes and

ways, in politics, religion, morality and military art: his ‘revolution’ is in fact a

return to the ancient.

3. Machiavelli and Cicero

Such twofold influence can be distinctly detected in Machiavelli’s relation to such

a fundamental author for the Humanist culture as Cicero.8 Machiavelli

appropriated certain insights of Cicero while he openly rejected other ideas of his,

which he found mistaken; he debated subjects that had been examined and given

a classic solution by Cicero (such as whether it is better to be loved or feared; or

the pros and cons of liberality in politics). The relation between the two thinkers is

strong and polemical –and therefore worth exploring. Since both authors were also

first rank politicians in their respective countries, we may start from their opinion

on the importance of political education. As Ezio Raimondi observed, Humanist 7 See B. Richardson, The Prince and Its Early Italian Readers in M. Coyle (ed), Niccolò

Machiavelli’s The Prince. New Interdisciplinary Essays, Manchester-New York, Manchester

University Press, 1995, pp. 18-39. 8 Colish too maintains that Cicero exerted a positive as well as a negative influence on

Machiavelli: p. 82.

GIOVANNI GIORGINI

510

culture followed Cicero in making the orator a paradigmatic hero: Cicero, for his

part, had found in the eloquentia which follows from ratio the defining feature of

our shared humanity.9 For Cicero the orator, the statesman, is the epitome of a

capacity which is unique of human beings, that of creating laws and operating for

the common good through eloquence;10 the statesman is both a man of letters and

of action, a vir bonus dicendi peritus (where the accent is not only on the bonus as it

was the case for Cato);11 the flourishing of eloquentia brings human beings out of

their initial bestial condition where violence stands in place of eloquence and the

strongest rules.12 The condottiere Francesco Colonna in the Art of War is exactly

some such complex character, a general who is also a man of letters and an orator,

capable to quote Frontinus, Plutarch and Xenophon, dexterous on the battlefield

as well as eloquent in spurring the soldiers to fight.

The great Victorian editor of the Prince Lawrence A. Burd had already

drawn the readers’ attention to the dependence of certain ideas of Machiavelli

from topics examined by Cicero in his works. For instance, Machiavelli’s

treatment “on liberality and thriftiness” in Prince 16 is strongly influenced by

Cicero’s considerations “de beneficentia ac liberalitate” in the De officiis. This

work was particularly congenial to Machiavelli and “operates like a shadow text

for parts of Il Principe”:13 it contained a lengthy praise of political life, together

with famous arguments in support of a possible reconciliation or rather

harmonization and identification of utile (the individual interest) and honestum

(the common good). The possible reconciliation of honestas and utilitas, the

honourable and the expedient, was not a novel idea for Cicero, who had already

argued for it in his De inventione (written about 86 BCE) and in the De oratore (55

BCE). In the De officiis (44 BCE) Cicero went on to state that there is one simple

“rule” (regula) for all cases in this matter, namely “that which seems expedient

must not be morally wrong (turpe); or, if it is morally wrong, it must not seem

expedient”.14 In the De officiis Cicero also maintained that liberality, when

supported with one’s personal wealth, destroys its own source, causes

impoverishment and forces to rob other people, thereby becoming a source of

hatred instead of love for a politician; these considerations are obviously very

9 E. Raimondi, Politica e commedia: Il centauro disarmato, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1998, p. 148, who

refers to the studies of Hannah N. Gray. 10 See for instance De officiis I, 13 where Cicero says that only human beings possess the veri

inquisitio atque investigatio, which arouses the desire to be governed only by just people who

care about the common good. 11 See Quintilian, Institutio oratoria XII, 1. See also the observations by W.L. Grant, “Cicero on

the Moral Character of the Orator”, The Classical Journal 38 (1943) pp. 472-478. 12 See Cicero, De inventione I, 2 and, in general, the De legibus and the De officiis. 13 J.A. Roe, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, Martlesham, D.S. Brewer, 2002, p. 76. 14 Cicero, De officiis III, 81. On this see the interesting G. Remer, “Rhetoric as a Balancing of

Ends: Cicero and Machiavelli”, Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2009) pp. 1-28.

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two Educational Projects Compared

511

similar to those put forth by Machiavelli on this subject.15 It is at this level,

however, that the two authors part way, for Cicero goes on to link true liberality

with moral duty (officium) and right (iustum); whereas Machiavelli is notoriously

uninterested in the moral consequences for the individual and looks at the

practical and political result of liberality: he therefore suggests to the prince, if he

is “prudent”, not to care about being considered thrifty, “non si curare del nome

del misero”.

On the other hand, it is against Cicero’s teaching that Machiavelli’s famous

admonishment concerning the duty to keep one’s word is directed. In examining

this topic in a passage in the De officiis, Cicero maintained that it was imperative

to stand by what one had sworn even in war; he condemned at the same time

those who commit injustice through fraud (fraus) and violence (vis), which he

personified with the fox and the lion, respectively, which he judged “utrumque

hominum alienissimum”.16 In the final lines of Book I, then, Cicero concluded his

account by vehemently stating that the political community (communitas) should

not have priority over everything, including temperance and moderation: for

there are certain actions which are so deplorable or so evil that the wise man

(sapiens) would never commit them, not even to save his country. For Cicero the

question can in practice be set aside because he cannot conceive of situations in

which the country may ask the wise man to do such actions.17 It seems evident

that the part of chapter 18 devoted to the “dua generazioni di combattere” of the

Prince aims at refuting Cicero’s doctrine, which would have come to mind to all

contemporary readers. This is even more evident because the beginning of the

chapter, the topic examined and structure of the argument clearly refer to Cicero’s

treatment of loyalty and the prohibition of fraud, which should not be used even

in war. Machiavelli, on the contrary, after stating that there are “two ways of

fighting”, one through laws the other through force, one typical of men the other

of beasts, goes on to say that the constraints of politics force the prince “to know

how to use the beast”. The clear tribute to Cicero, although it is devised to refute

his argument and actually to overturn it, serves the purpose to confer a dramatic

tone to the subject at hand: Machiavelli seems to be saying that when the

statesman is faced with the possibility of the destruction of the State, he is

entitled to use all sort of means to avoid this end; contra Cicero, namely against

the authority of tradition. It may be interesting to note that Cicero, in his turn,

was accused to have used glib, if not illegal means to have Catilina and his cronies

declared enemies of the Roman republic. Machiavelli would have commented that

15 See Cicero, De officiis I, 42-44 and II, 52-58. 16 Cicero, De officiis I, 41. 17 Cicero, De officiis I, 159.

GIOVANNI GIORGINI

512

“the country is well defended in whatever way it is defended, either with

ignominy or with glory”.18

Similarly, the question of what makes the statesman more influent and

capable “ad opes tuendas ac tenendas”, whether love or fear, is thoroughly

examined first by Cicero. Quoting his beloved Ennius, Cicero had stated that there

is nothing more suited to preserve one’s power and the State than the love of one’s

fellow-countrymen; while there is nothing more alien than fear, because fear

generates hatred and thus the desire to see the hated statesman dead. Cicero went

on to produce the case of Caesar (without mentioning his name) in order to show

that the people’s hatred brings about death, even in the case of a most powerful

person: “multorum autem odiis nullas opes posse obsistere, si antea fuit ignotum,

nuper est cognitum”.19 In chapter 17 of the Prince Machiavelli examines this

subject but deems very important to make a significant correction: he separates

fear from hate and famously maintains that what is important is “not to be hated

by the people (lo universale)”; this will remain one of his deepest convictions as it

is repeated in many places and in many works. On the other hand, Machiavelli is

persuaded that fear constitutes a stronger bond than love, in consideration of

men’s notorious unreliability and selfishness; most times –he considers in a sad

vein in Discourses III, 21- people follow and obey those who make themselves

feared more than those who make themselves loved. Being loved, feared or hated

depends on the qualities of the statesman and here the visions of the two thinkers

diverge completely. For Cicero is adamant in maintaining that pretence and

appearance are not conducive to real glory because they are soon discovered;

whereas Machiavelli overturns completely Cicero’s argument and utters one of his

most famous statements: since human beings judge by the appearances and

“everyone sees what you look like but few touch what you are” what matters is to

appear virtuous; indeed, he adds with unabashed consistency, if one actually

possesses certain virtues cannot refrain from exercising them; in politics, however,

it is better to “seem to possess them” so that one can exercise them or not

according to the necessity of the circumstances.20 It is important to notice that

Machiavelli is not replacing Cicero’s virtues with a “technique” –as most

commentators still argue- here;21 rather, he is replacing Cicero’s virtues with a

18 Machiavelli, Discourses III, 41. 19 Cicero, De officiis II, 23. 20 Cicero, De officiis II, 43; cfr. Machiavelli, Prince 17. 21 See J.J. Barlow, “The Fox and the Lion: Machiavelli replies to Cicero”, History of Political

Thought 20 (1999) pp. 627-645: “Cicero is thinking of virtues, Machiavelli of techniques” (p.

634); Barlow finds Cicero to be altogether incoherent and this fact explains such contrasting

interpretations of his text (p. 644). D.J. Kapust, “Acting the Princely Style: Ethos and Pathos

in Cicero’s On the Ideal Orator and Machiavelli’s The Prince”, Political Studies 58 (2010) pp. 590-

608; Kapust maintains that Machiavelli overturns completely Cicero’s vision and that even if

the prince possesses a virtue, this is certainly not the moral virtue and decency of Cicero.

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two Educational Projects Compared

513

different virtue, a new kind of prudence which consists in the capacity to do evil in

view of a good and elevated purpose, nay the most important purpose: to save,

preserve and aggrandize the State. This new virtue is the result of a process of

political education which starts with the identification of the final goal of political

activity, its summum bonum –the preservation of the State; which is different

from the preservation of the ruler’s own power, although the two ends may

sometimes coincide. Having a grim view of human nature, Machiavelli believes

that without the authority of the State and the law and order it guarantees, no

good life, no virtuous or ethical life of any kind, indeed no life at all is possible.

This virtue enables the (new) statesman to remain ‘good’ even when he commits

evil deeds; namely, it enables him to identify correctly those dramatic

circumstances in which there are no honourable or straight means to preserve the

State and therefore it is necessary to use unjust, illegal and immoral means. Isaiah

Berlin identified very well this point in Machiavelli, whom, in his opinion,

uncovered an insoluble dilemma: he realized that not all ultimate values are

necessarily compatible with one another and therefore recognized that ends

equally ultimate, equally sacred, may contradict each other.22 Machiavelli

therefore warns his prospective new statesman that by entering politics he may

wind up damning his soul. This is because the virtues and ends of Christian

morality are different from those requested by responsible politics, a realm in

which there is an element of necessity which Machiavelli brings to the fore and

emphasizes repeatedly: the new prince, in order to preserve the State, is often

forced “to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, against religion”.

He must therefore be able to “enter evil, if necessitated”.23 Evil remains evil in

Machiavelli’s vision and human beings face thus a tragic choice: if they want to

follow the injunctions of Christian religion, they should refrain from entering

politics; if they do enter this realm, they must be aware that it might be required

from them to act in a way incompatible with the salvation of their soul.

Machiavelli unveiled how politics is the realm of tragic existential choices.24

The contrast between the two thinkers on this subject is exemplified by

their different judgment on Romulus and the killing of his brother Remus. For

Cicero, when Romulus “decided that it was more expedient for him to reign alone

than to share the throne with another, he slew his brother”: blinded by a false

appearance of utility, he showed no piety or humanity and committed a terrible

Kapust concludes, echoing Cicero’s definition of the orator, that Machiavelli’s prince “is

certainly not a good man, skilled in speaking” (p. 606). 22 I. Berlin, “The Originality of Machiavelli” in Against the Current, Oxford, Clarendon, 1979,

pp. 45-79. 23 Machiavelli, Prince 18. 24 See G. Giorgini, “Machiavelli e il problema delle «mani sporche». Considerazioni sul male in

politica”, Biblioteca della Libertà 49 (2014) pp. 19-35.

GIOVANNI GIORGINI

514

crime.25 Machiavelli, on the contrary, while still considering Romulus’ action a

crime, excuses it on the ground that it was committed to create a new political

arrangement, a republic and a vivere civile, and therefore for the well-being of the

country and the common good: “it follows therefore that, while the deed accuses

him, the effect excuses him” –he concludes.26

Another Ciceronean influence can be detected in Machiavelli’s idea that the

princes are responsible for the behaviour of their subjects and, more generally,

that their example has a very significant impact on the citizens. In the De legibus

III, 32 Cicero had stated that:

Hence vicious princes are the more pernicious in their effects on a republic, in

that they not only themselves introduce vices, but impregnate the citizens

with them: so that they are nuisance not merely because they themselves are

corrupt, but because they corrupt others and by example do more harm than

they do by sinning.

Machiavelli, besides continuously encouraging the prince to give “great examples”

to his citizens,27 comments that in the States where there are robberies the blame

falls on the princes and their “wickedness” (tristitia), not on the natura trista of the

peoples.28 Conversely, Machiavelli argues that the example of a “good man” can

bring a republic to its original good condition and can therefore preserve it. This is

because institutions need to be ‘vivified’ by the virtue and work of a good man;

other good men will follow his example. Indeed, if a republic was so lucky to have

someone who from time to time renovated the laws with his example, it would not

only escape the inevitable ruin, it would last forever (la sarebbe perpetua).29

4. Cicero and Machiavelli: Two conflicting educational projects

We may conclude that notwithstanding their different takes on important

subjects, Cicero and Machiavelli had two important features in common. Both

lived in very troubled times for their countries, characterized by prolonged civil

wars and neglect for the common good by all parties involved. In this grim

situation both believed that the only way out consisted in educating a new

generation of statesmen who had their priorities straight and who therefore cared

for the common good, the respublica, above all other things. They were both

achingly aware of the desperate situation their countries were living in and they 25 Cicero, De officiis III, 41. 26 Machiavelli, Discourses I, 9. 27 See Machiavelli, Prince 21. 28 Machiavelli, Discourses III, 29. 29 Machiavelli, Discourses III, 1 and III, 22.

Cicero and Machiavelli: Two Visions of Statesmanship and Two Educational Projects Compared

515

both had an acute sense of personal failure for not having been able to be more

effective in their political action. Indeed, by looking at Cicero’s inability to save

the Roman republic from the ambitions of such politicians as Caesar, Pompey,

Antony and Octavian Machiavelli was prompted to elaborate his own ideas about

how a “well-ordered republic” should deal with extremely ambitious personalities:

it should welcome citizens who gain their reputation “publicly”, who are honoured

for their services and good counsels to the republic; it should forbid all attempts to

gain reputation “privately”, namely through marriages, lending money and doing

other things which create partisans.30

As a result, Cicero and Machiavelli both fell back on the project of creating

a new kind of statesman through their writings; indeed, writing replaced political

action, as they both candidly declare.31 Being both practical men, their eyes were

certainly on the current situation but their mind was looking at the future, at

those future politicians who could be created, moulded through education.32

Replying to Atticus in his dialogue De legibus, Cicero states very clearly that his

discourse on laws and education is not conceived for the present men or the

current senate but rather addresses future statesmen (de futuris: III, 29). As for

Machiavelli, he states many times in the works he wrote post res perditas that his

intention was to instil virtue in the young people who read his writings:

For it is the office of a good man to teach others that good which because of

the malignity of the times and of fortune, he has not been able to accomplish,

so that, many being capable, some of those more loved by Heaven can

accomplish it.33

“Many being capable”: Machiavelli’s project was to educate in the art of State

many young readers and turn them into the statesmen of the future. Interestingly

enough, in order to do so he deemed it necessary to teach the prospective

politicians the virtue of the ancients so that they could avoid the vices of the

moderns.

30 Machiavelli, Discourses III, 28. Interesting considerations on this subject in A.S. Duff,

“Republicanism and the Problem of Ambition: The Critique of Cicero in Machiavelli’s

Discourses”, The Journal of Politics 73 (2011) pp. 980-992. 31 In De officiis III, 3 Cicero says that he learnt from educated men that “among evils one ought

not only to choose the least, but also to extract even from these any element of good that they

may contain”. This notion is very similar to Machiavelli’s advice to pick the less bad course as

good in Prince 21. 32 See the very interesting observations on the use of rhetoric in this context by V. Kahn,

Machiavellian Rhetoric: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton, Princeton, Princeton

University Press, 1994. 33 Machiavelli, Discourses II, Preface.