The political education Niccoló Machiavelli provides the readers of his Discourses on Livy is a means to achieve his larger political end. First, Machiavelli’s Discourses attempt to convince readers that he has a knowledge that they themselves lack, a knowledge that is concerned with the proper way to read, interpret, and apply the lessons of history. Through doing so, Machiavelli hopes to cultivate a calculative nature and ambitious spirit in his politically astute readers so that they can become more prudent, active, and historically conscious participants of their own political times. Second, Machiavelli intends to use these students he instructs as a means to achieve his larger end. This end, which I will attempt to demonstrate, is Machiavelli’s effort at establishing a new political order that strives to transcend the limits placed on ambitious men by Christianity through a return to a political culture that rewards the active and virtuous rather than the docile and contemplative. The achievement of this project is left to posterity and the people he instructs through an engagement and critique of Titus Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita. As Machiavelli writes in the preface to his second book, “it is the duty of a good man to teach others the good that you could not work because of the malignity of the times and of fortune, so that when many are capable of it, someone of them more loved by heaven may be able to work it.” With this philosophy, Machiavelli establishes the foundation for the modern project of republican politics that has radically transformed our contemporary world through creating more robust and meritocratic political regimes.
Machiavelli begins the preface of the first book in his Discourses by claiming to take “a path untrodden” which he believes “will bring common benefit to everyone.” Such a path is a reinterpretation of ancient political life and institutions as well as their relevance in contemporary political affairs. As Machiavelli observes, “much honor is awarded to antiquity” during the burgeoning Renaissance, with many going great lengths to obtain and imitate fragments of ancient artworks. However, he laments that when it comes to reading about “the most virtuous works […] done by ancient kingdoms and republics, by kings, captains, citizens, legislators, and others who have labored for their fatherland,” such labors are admired rather than imitated.  This is a result of what Machiavelli calls a lack of “true knowledge of histories,” as one reads ancient history simply to “take pleasure in hearing the variety of accidents contained in them” and thus fails to “[get] from reading them that sense nor tasting that flavor that they have in themselves.” Therefore, Machiavelli strives to break his readers away from this particular method of historic evaluation by showing the benefits that one can acquire through a proper education in interpreting history and applying its lessons. Claiming a superior knowledge “of ancient and modern things” that his readers lack, Machiavelli strives to direct his readers down a path which he asserts will allow one to draw “utility” from history.  The promised benefit is a systemic political education. It begins with a discussion of the virtues of the domestic order of the Roman regime which in turn teaches one about the nature of laws, political necessity, and the inconstant desires of the people.
The primary intent of the first book in Machiavelli’s Discourses is to begin to explain the importance of recognizing and adhering to political necessity in founding and maintaining republics. For Machiavelli, recognition of political necessity can be seen through a discussion of the nature of the laws and their principal intent. Laws and their effects are a primary concern for Machiavelli since they regulate one’s actions, preserve political stability, and shed light on what he believes is man’s nature. Machiavelli begins his discussion of laws by describing their indispensability as a result of man’s inherent malevolency. He writes that it is essential for any lawmaker “to presuppose that all men are bad, and that they always have to use the malignity of their spirit whenever they have a free opportunity for it.” Therefore, to restrain this malicious spirit and move men towards acting for the public interest, laws must be created to check man’s deviant ambitions and keep a republic well ordered. Laws bind men to obey them through social restraint in addition to fear of punishment and thus limit men’s license and tendency to disorder. These regulations, he claims, are needed when good custom is lacking and produce political stability for a polity, allowing for future prosperity and progress. While this is the intent of foundational laws, Machiavelli notes how essential it is to have laws that adapt to fluctuating circumstances so that a republic can sustain order in the most contentious times. The ability to do just this was a reason why Machiavelli venerated both the founding and the adaptability of the Roman regime, specifically in their creation of the plebian tribunes, and is why he uses their example in instructing one on the balanced nature of a well-ordered republic.
Adherence to necessity in law making for Machiavelli is both in accordance with supposed natural laws as well as political circumstance. As we have seen, Machiavelli holds that the laws should both check and restrain man’s devious character, but they should also adapt to political circumstance in order to strengthen and maintain political rule. In the case of Rome, Machiavelli praises the virtue of Romulus’s founding yet notes that it included only “the counsels and the senate in that republic” and thus only two qualities of a mixed regime. Accordingly, Machiavelli uses this observation as a way to teach one about the proper order of a mixed republic, one that integrates different classes and characters in the process of governing. This is done by citing the virtue of the Romans, and the accidents that befell them, which allowed for their ability to create a perfected mixed regime that was not initially instated at the founding.
Republics, Machiavelli claims, come in many species as noted in the title of his second discourse of Book One: “Of How Many Species Are Republics, and Which Was the Roman Republic.” Such republics have “diverse laws and orders” in line with their “diverse beginnings” and they are rarely able to be changed or reformed after established. The various species of the republics revolve around who governs and creates the laws. They are, according to Machiavelli and his citation of prior political theorists, “of three states – called by them principality, aristocrats, and popular” that can all be “good in themselves but so easily corrupted that they too come to be pernicious.” It is, as Machiavelli asserts, “in this cycle that all republics are governed and govern themselves.” This political lesson in republican politics that Machiavelli provides here is an education in Aristotle’s classifications of regimes where a republic transitions from monarchy to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, polity to democracy, and thus back to monarchy once more. Such a cycle is a result of the temperaments of the common people as well as the nobles and it is important for one to observe and recognize this tension when thinking through all political matters. As Aristotle shows, each is willing to act towards the common benefit when it is fortuitous to oneself yet both classes are always tempted to turn towards their own class interests and assault the others. This is why Machiavelli advocates for a regime founded on the institutional incorporation of these tendencies so that it will not fall prey to narrow-minded class politics.
Through recognizing these possible ensnarements, Machiavelli claims that prudent political founders should recognize the defects in each and thus avoid the three modes by themselves to “choose one that share[s] in all.” In combining all three modes, that being of the principality, aristocratic, and popular orders, in a mixed regime, he asserts that “it would seem that a republic would be capable of revolving for an infinite time in these [three] governments.” This is what he believed befell the Romans as their republic was led to perfection through the revolt of the plebs after the consuls and senate, the only two modes established at the founding, became insolent and disrespected the rights of the people. The consequence of this uprising was the creation of the plebian tribune, displaying the adaptability of the Roman regime through incorporating all three modes into its political order and thus further strengthening its polity. Such a circumstance Machiavelli admits is rare, since republics are often ruined before brought to a perfect order. However, he cites this example in order to develop a later point about the nature of the common people and how they can be regulated as the basis for a republic’s civic virtue.
Understanding the nature of the people as well as their political tendencies is important to any political person since they are both the majority of civil society and one of the three active modes of the republican regime. Despite this fact, Machiavelli moves his readers to think beyond this simple analysis in having one appreciate the people’s role in preserving a republic’s free way of life. He does this by showing how the Romans were wise in placing the guardianship of freedom in the hands of the plebs, claiming “one should put on guard over a thing those who have less appetite for usurping it.” As the common people leave politics as a secondary concern, they are to be less feared in seizing political power and wielding it to their direct advantage as would the nobles. In fact, as Machiavelli argues, “the desires of the people are never pernicious to freedom because they arise either from being oppressed or from suspicion that they are oppressed.” Therefore, the Romans were wise in exploiting the spirit of the plebs in order to maintain their republic’s regard for freedom. While one can take away numerous lessons from this piece of Roman history, the other, more concealed, lesson Machiavelli intends to show his readers is the way in which the Roman’s regulated and redirected the spirit of the plebs in various ways in order to guarantee that the republic remained cognizant of political necessity. Such opportunities for diversion were only possible, Machiavelli claims since if the “opinions [of the people] are false, there is for them the remedy of assemblies where some good man gets up who in orating demonstrates to them how they deceive themselves” and thus directs them back to the truth. By being able to moderate and redirect the passions of the people, Machiavelli claims that the Romans maintained their commitment to freedom as well as their political unity. No better example can be seen than in Roman leaders interpreting religious teachings and auspices with a view towards necessity.
Not only does Machiavelli praise the political and legal foundations of the Roman regime by Romulus but he also celebrates the prudent actions taken by Numa, the second king of the republic, who established the religion of the Romans. This early founding of a religious order made it so that “the people of Rome altogether and of many Romans by themselves […] feared to break an oath much more than the laws.” Such a phenomenon displays great political utility in Machiavelli’s eye as it is another way to bind men to necessity and thus have them labor towards the common benefit. Further, Machiavelli celebrates the Roman’s exploitation of this phenomenon and encourages his students to heed notice of it so that one can synthesize his teachings on political necessity, the spirits of the people, and the nature of a well-ordered regime. All of this can be seen in his fourteenth discourse through citing a historic example that Titus Livy details in his work.
Machiavelli’s fourteenth discourse of his first book describes a germane example in which the Roman elite used religion and the oaths of their armies to move the people towards actions that both protected and profited the republic as a whole. This was such a possibility because, as Machiavelli explains, the Romans invoked the gods in all their actions, both civil and military. The prime example cited in this discourse is the Roman military’s use of the chicken-men in predicting the auspices of battle. Although an odd custom in the modern eye, the chicken-men of the Romans would bring out chickens before each battle and see if they would eat. If the chickens did, portents were good and the Romans would engage in battle; if they did not, the Romans would abstain from the fight. This often was done in secret, allowing the council and military leaders to interpret the actions of the chickens according to military necessity. However, under the council of Papirius, soldiers were told that the chickens had eaten when they, in fact, had not and the chicken-men began to spread distrust throughout the Roman ranks by exposing this falsehood. Machiavelli, through a citation of Livy’s description of the events, praises the actions taken by Papirius in accusing the chicken-men of lying and spreading sedition amongst the troops. Papirius turns the blame around on the chicken-men and places them at the front of the ranks when, fortuitously, “a javelin thrown by a Roman soldier by chance killed the prince of the chicken-men.” Papirius then goes on to interpret this as providential event and leads the Roman army to victory over the enemy. This historic example offers a pertinent opportunity for Machiavelli to contextualize some of his major political lessons of his first discourse. It shows how the Romans interpreted auspices as well as religious law according to necessity while appearing as to revere religious customs. It is a quintessential example of his first book of discourses as it outlines the main points of Machiavelli’s introductory political education.
In the first book of his Discourses, Machiavelli instructs his readers on preliminary lessons regarding political life. Discussion of what makes a republic strong, stable, and able to withstand internal dissent is a large focus of this section. In this first book, Machiavelli begins to use historical examples mentioned by Titus Livy in his work Ab Urbe Condita, like the one listed above, to provide context for the lessons that he intends to provide. This introductory section aims at educating political novices on how to begin to think through political matters, not with an idealized view towards the good but through a grounding in reality that makes one more cognizant of the pressures of necessity, which if not properly accounted for, can lead to a regimes demise. He frequently cites virtuous Roman actors and the political foundation of Rome as well as the customs and mores that these laws instilled. He does this because he believes the Romans exemplified a type of human virtue and political aptitude that has been lost in his contemporary world. Such a loss he credits to Christianity and thus writes the second book of discourses with a view toward critiquing his contemporary times in addition to beginning to elucidate the larger political intent of his project.
Machiavelli begins the preface to his second book of discourses by reflecting on the numerous motivations for one to critique his contemporary times. As he says, it seems that “men always praise ancient times […] and accuse the present.” This results from what he claims is a lack of an “entire knowledge” of the past, thus making our judgments on diverse epochs faulty from the start. Machiavelli mentions this in order to protect himself against the charges of being one who simply accuses the present and praises the past, readily admitting that he “judges the world always to have been in the same mode and there to have been as much good as wicked in it.” However, Machiavelli asserts there is an apparent difference between the ancients and his contemporaries in their customs and modes of life. As he says, “if the virtue that then used to reign and the vice that now reigns were not clearer than the sun, I would go on speaking with more restraint.” Here, Machiavelli begins to show both the outline and intent of his political project to the careful reader. He speaks directly to those impressionable students whom he is attempting to educate and constructs the second section of discourses to teach his readers of a knowledge lost as a result of “the weakness into which the present religion has led the world.” He writes that he “will be spirited in saying manifestly that which I may understand of the former and of the latter times so that the spirits of youths who may read these writings of mine can flee the latter and prepare themselves to imitate the former at any time fortune may give them opportunity for it.” Hence, in this preface, Machiavelli lays out what he desires his students to transcend, the loss of noble action and human virtue in contemporary political life. He aspires to motivate them to carry out a project which he admits he cannot work alone as a result of political circumstance, or what he refers to as his lack of fortune.
As promised in both the first and second prefaces, Machiavelli shows himself willing to educate his readers on the way to read ancient histories for the ‘utility’ which they have in themselves in teaching one about matters of politics, thus allowing one to better understand his contemporary world. However, in this second section of Discourses, Machiavelli chooses to cite many more examples of recent Italian history than he does in his first book. He does this to contrast the times of the ancient Romans with that of 16th century Italy, providing further context for his critique of the Catholic Church and their unskilled use of political power. In doing so, Machiavelli mentions the defects of modern Italian political life in addition to the customs and habits that he believes must be restored to establish a more robust political order. He aims at making his students more critical of their own times and therefore more eager to have an orientation beyond them.
The cause that Machiavelli believes makes the ancients lovers of freedom more than men of his day “arises from” what he says is “the same cause that makes men less strong” and that is “the difference between our education and the ancient, founded on the difference between our religion and the ancient.” The ancients possessed both a stronger respect for their freedom and a greater willingness to fight to defend it. Machiavelli laments the absence of such a spirit in his modern times and critiques the Christian education that rewards the docile and contemplative rather than the energetic and virtuous, which has resulted in degrading political matters to that of a secondary concern. As he says,
Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative more than active men. It has placed the highest good in humility, abjectness, and contempt of things human; the other placed it in greatness of spirit, strength of body, and all other things capable of making every man strong. And if our religion asks that you have strength in yourself, it wishes you to be capable more of suffering than of doing something strong.
Such an education has direct effects on political matters, as Machiavelli will attempt to show. The weakness cultivated by Christianity makes men “think more of enduring their beatings than of avenging them,” all the while devaluing their freedom and human agency. With this, these new Christians, through their religion and corresponding education, lose an understanding of historic human virtue and excellence that allows one to hold freedom in high regard. Machiavelli criticizes this emerging and proliferating spirit not only because it dominates his times but also because he realizes that it will dominate the spirit of generations to come. He critiques the Christian ethic so that his students can move beyond it, offering advice in foreign affairs that they should imitate in order to begin to understand his political venture.
Machiavelli demonstrates the weakness of his own times through discoursing on the difference between the order of soldiers in ancient and modern times as well as the indecisiveness of his contemporary Italian regimes. In his sixteenth discourse of his second book, Machiavelli describes the way in which soldiers of his time deviate from the order of the Romans. In describing the Roman army’s organization for battle, Machiavelli, through the text of Livy, cites how the Roman soldiers would orient themselves in three separate battle lines, one behind the other, so as to reinforce their fellow troops ahead. Through doing so, the Romans were prepared to defend themselves from an enemies’ thrusts three separate times. Such a method of forethought and organization was valued by Machiavelli in contrast to the modern armies he observed that “lacked the ability to recover three times [through] having lost the mode of receiving one line into another.” These armies have little leadership and “line shoulder to shoulder” all because military theory and virtue is no longer studied, emulated, or respected. Few spend time thinking of military matters in a Christian republic and this is due to a passive nature that corrupts a regime and constrains its proper methods of expansion.
While Machiavelli admits that there can be no certainty of results when formulating political decisions, he notes that ambiguity, indecisiveness, and neutrality can impede and counteract the intent of any political decision. Such a phenomenon he saw as common in Italian politics, citing a historic episode in Florence between Ludovico, the duke of Milan, and King Louis XII of France in his fifteenth discourse. In this circumstance, Ludovico and his advisors entered negotiations with the French with a moderate and neutral disposition, which later allowed the French to gain concessions from the Italians in their desperation to quickly ratify an agreement. Such indecisiveness “cost the city of Florence very much money” and risked the loss of their state because of the weakness of the city’s leadership. Rather than being strong and assertive in negotiations and diplomatic conduct, the Italians were tentative and uncertain, a policy Machiavelli admits the Romans always avoided. He cites this example to show how the political decisions of a republic’s leadership can have real and direct consequences on the regime as a whole. Through devaluing politics, making it a secondary concern, and removing passion from man’s breast in political action, Machiavelli condemns Christianity for weakening modern man. In his eyes, this softening leads to an absence of virtue, and through describing the virtue of the Romans, those humans in which he believed in many ways to be the embodiment of human excellence, Machiavelli encourages his readers to imitate the example of these great men, especially in their esteem for freedom and ambition for expansion so as for one to develop an orientation beyond the weakness of his own times.
The praise Machiavelli lends towards the virtue of the Romans in his second discourse is in regards to both their conduct in military affairs as well as their ability to expand yet still maintain their republic. The Romans he claims, did this by always having a friend to watch over their newly acquired territory, “never [lacking] supports to make their enterprises easier, both in acquiring providences and in holding them.” Further, they preserved such a high esteem for their freedom that they would “take extraordinary revenges against those who […] seized their freedom” and made sure that they would “[avenge] with greater vehemence than that which [was] wished to be taken away.” They remained devoted to the common good and the centrality of politics in “increasing the inhabitants of [their] city, getting partners not subjects, […] subduing the enemy with raids and battles and not with sieges, […] and maintaining military exercises with the highest seriousness,” exemplifying the characteristics that Machiavelli believes will lead all republics to success. Here, Machiavelli rearticulates and redefines conceptions of citizenship closer to its ancient form. He inspires his students to see the importance of adopting a great seriousness in thinking through matters of politics. Rather than encouraging an ascetic life like the Catholic Church, Machiavelli opens one up to a world of action and the exercise of strength. This entices many of his impassioned readers, which is, in fact, his goal, and he finally attempts to harness this energy by encouraging his students to establish the new political order that he has shrewdly and systematically advocated for over the course of his work.
In the third book of Discourses, Machiavelli leaves his readers to interpret his last political lessons on their own by not including a preface or any introductory remarks. Rather than doing so, Machiavelli begins his concluding section of discourses by discussing how one must prudently navigate a political landscape that he seeks to transform. He does this through offering the examples of Junius Brutus and displaying to them the necessity of cautious action. The intent of this section is to finally guide his students in applying the political lessons they have obtained over the course of their readings. He aims at defending both himself and his students from political persecution and thus teaches them how to function in a political regime that they desire to overcome.
For instance, in the third book, Machiavelli displays how the art of hiding and manipulating one’s own image can be used for righteous intent. In the example of Junius Brutus, a man whose actions guaranteed Rome’s commitment to a republican order, he “pretended to be a half-wit” in order to avoid the fate of other political elites, including his brother, who lost their lives during the usurpation of power by the Tarquin king. Machiavelli claims that rather than just using this “simulation of craziness” to “be able to live more securely and to maintain his patrimony,” by acting in such a manner, Junius Brutus was able “to be less observed and [had] more occasion for crushing the kings and freeing his own fatherland whenever opportunity would be given.” The opportunity arose when Sextus Tarquins, the king, raped Lucretia, a woman of great beauty and chastity, and she resulted to suicide to defend both her honor and purity. Through observing this wicked act by Sextus Tarquins, Brutus was able to “unveil his mask” by giving a great speech that condemned the nature of kingship and thus laid the foundation of republican Rome: “By this girl’s blood […] and by the gods, I swear that with sword and fire […] I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius the Proud […] and never again will I let them or any other man be King in Rome.” By deceiving others of his true intelligence, Junius Brutus was able to preserve his life and produce a greater effect than he would have if he did not conceal his true nature. This offers a strong example to Machiavelli’s students on the virtue of patience and its ability to achieve political change.
Machiavelli exploits this story, the tale of Junius Brutus, told by Livy, to teach his politically astute students two lessons. The first is that one can make more significant change for his fatherland if he conceals himself over a long period of time so as to achieve one strong and meaningful act. This proves that one wise and calculated action can be more effective than hundreds of well-intentioned ones. The second lesson is that men can never be neutral. While one might try to be, Machiavelli claims that men of ability will always be forced into politics and political relations even if he makes well-argued excuses: “For these excuses are heard and not accepted; nor can men who have quality choose to abstain even when they choose it truly and without any ambition.” This coercion into politics occurs because men of wise character are rarely believed and “so if they wish to abstain, they are not allowed by others to abstain.” Since there is no neutrality, we are forced to deceive others, even if we do not want to or even if we believe it is not in our nature. We must do it to survive and safely associate in any political community. A lesson such as this, although discussed in such a short discourse, proves extremely important when looking at the larger venture Machiavelli takes on throughout his book. This point, the point of the inevitability of deception and lack of neutrality, coincides with his advice to any political man who finds himself trapped in the confines of a Christian world. Therefore, Machiavelli not only critiques this world, as I have shown but provides his students with lessons on how to incrementally bring about progress to a political venture without being the victims of reactionary political violence.
As I have attempted to display, the education Machiavelli provides to his readers seeks to achieve two intrinsically connected ends. First, it attempts to cultivate a calculative nature and ambitious spirit in the future generations so that these newly educated political persons can be more knowledgeable, calculative, and active participants of their times. The people he cultivates through this education are used to achieve the second end. By nurturing more virtuous and active characters, Machiavelli attempts to have his students move beyond the limitations Christianity has placed on those who have the possibility for greatness. He educates those who have the capacity for exercising a political mind, or as he says in the dedicatory letter, “not those who are princes but those who for their infinite good parts deserve to be.” In so doing, he initiates a new political project of the republican tradition.
As Machiavelli notes offhandedly, “fraud is always necessary for those who wish to climb from small beginnings to sublime ranks.” In the prefaces of his work, he admits to be a man who desires to climb, mainly by instructing political students on the “utility for which one should seek knowledge of histories” and to “teach others the good that [he] could not work because of the malignity of [his] times and of fortune.” Therefore, Machiavelli’s education can be seen as the tool of fraud that will bring his political project to these “sublime ranks.” Through systematically instructing his readers on introductory lessons of political necessity, critiquing his contemporary politics, and offering advice to students who desire to reform the 16th-century political order, Machiavelli shows himself to be a profound political educator with a concealed political intent. He revitalizes the relevancy of the ancients and aims at reawakening human agency in the hope of reclaiming human excellence. Such a project has transformed our contemporary world and through reading Machiavelli and considering his intellectual influence, we can begin to uncover his continued relevance in our modern lives.
Aristotle. Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Livy, Titus. The Early History of Rome: Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundations. Translated by Aubrey De Selincourt. London: Penguin Books, 2002.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
 Niccoló Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy. trans by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), II Preface.1
 Ibid., I Preface.1
 Ibid., Preface.2
 Ibid., I Preface.2
 Ibid., I Preface.2
 Ibid., I Preface.2
 Ibid., I 3.1
 Ibid., I 3.2
 Ibid., I 2.7
 Ibid., I 2.1
 Ibid., I 2.2
 Ibid., I 2.4
 Aristotle, Politics. trans. by Carnes Lord (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 1279a25-b10
 Ibid., 1279a25-b10
 Niccoló Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy. trans by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), I 2.5
 Ibid., I 2.4
 Ibid., I 2.4
 Ibid., I 2.7
 Ibid., I 2.1
 Ibid., I 5.2
 Ibid., I 4.1
 Ibid., I 4.1
 Ibid., I 11.1
 Ibid., I 14.1
 Ibid., I 14.1
 Ibid., I 14.2
 Ibid., I 14.2
 Ibid., II Preface.1
 Ibid., II Preface.1
 Ibid., II Preface.2
 Ibid., II Preface.3
 Ibid., I Preface.2
 Ibid., II Preface.3
 Ibid., II 2.2
 Ibid., II 2.2
 Ibid., II 2.2
 Ibid., II 16.1
 Ibid., II 16.2
 Ibid., II 2.2
 Ibid., II 15.2
 Ibid., 15.2
 Ibid., 15.2
 Ibid. II 1.3
 Ibid., II 2.1
 Ibid. II 19.1
 Titus Livy, The Early History of Rome: Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundations. Trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt (London, UK: Penguin Press, 2002), I 1.56
 Niccoló Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy. trans by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), III 2.1
 Titus Livy, The Early History of Rome: Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundations. Trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt (London, UK: Penguin Press, 2002), I 1.59
 Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy. trans by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), III 3.1
 Ibid., III 3.1
Ibid., Dedicatory Letter, 3
 Ibid., II 14.2
 Ibid., I Preface.2
 Ibid., II Preface.3