{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019971469329529243, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.324324324324325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two Ciceronian Traditions in the Aftermath of Machiavelli

This chapter examines two parallel tracks on which Cicero’s influence was set during the seventeenth century. On the one hand, new natural law philosophers, Hugo Grotius and Samuel von Pufendorf, sought to vindicate a political order based on Ciceronian natural law. But in doing so, they tended to diminish the role of the people as ultimately politically sovereign. At the same time, English republicans such as James Harrington and John Milton sought to reconcile Ciceronian and Machiavellian republicanism, while minimizing the place of natural law. In short, the two pillars of Cicero’s original republican formulation became bifurcated.