VIII. They endeavour to prove the probability of this sentiment, by urging, that Machiavel was an utter enemy to tyranny, and a strenuous advocate for the liberty of the republic; and that the whole tenor of his words and actions, conspire to manifest these were his inclinations. His two great and favourite heroes, were Brutus and Cassius, who killed Cæsar to restore Rome to her liberty. He also quotes the tenth chapter of the first book of his discourses, where he speaks strongly against tyrants; and urges further, that he was accused of being an accomplice with the Soderinis in their conspiracy against the family of the Medicis, who were thought at that time, to have an intention of tyrannizing over the republic of Florence; and that he was afterwards, not exempt from being suspected, of having a finger in the conspiracy against the life of cardinal Julius de Medicis. Nardi, a Florentine author who was a contemporary with him, says, that he was closely connected with the contrivers of that plot and design, and also with the rest of the faction, who were in opposition to the Medicis. He then proceeds to say, what view or intention could a man have in favouring and abetting tyrants, who had given so many proofs of his abhorrence of them? or how could the man be suspected of designing to extend the power of princes above their natural sphere, who had always manifested himself an admirer of democracy? he next says, it must follow then of course, that his intention must be different, and very contrary to what the ordinary and superficial sense of his words seem to import. This is the way those reason, who support this opinion. IX. Finally, there are others, who admit that the maxims of Machiavel are detestable, but waiving the question about what was his intention, they limit their excuse of the author, by affirming, there has not, nor can there arise, any general inconvenience from the publication of them. These say, that Machiavel has broached nothing new; and that his maxims are the same with those you will find inserted in various histories, and which were practised by an infinite number of princes; and what more pernicious effect can they have on him who reads them in Machiavel’s book, than on him who reads them in any other?