However else they may have felt about Machiavelli's views, reason of state theorists found themselves in the awkward position of having to concede, if only tacitly, the validity of his fundamental concern with the survival of the state. Yet, acceptance of this goal put many of these theorists in a difficult position. In Burke's words, these were “men who could neither accept reason of state nor do without it.” If the survival of the state is necessary, how far can one go to ensure it? When do measures of the kind proposed in The Prince become unacceptable? In some cases, such as those examined above, responses to Machiavelli's challenge took the form of essential agreement clothed in vocal polemic. In yet others, more innocuous theories with similar views were used as proxies. The most widespread tendency of this kind was the increasing interest in the histories of Tacitus, which had yielded a new variety of reason of state thought and, by the end of the sixteenth century, had led to the almost mechanical association of Tacitus with Machiavelli recorded by Botero in his dedication of The Reason of State.