diversities which stimulated spiritual energy were a fatal source of
national instability. The pride of the Italians in their local
independence, their intolerance of unification under a single head, the
jealousies that prevented them from forming a permanent confederation,
rendered them incapable of coping with races which had yielded to the
centripetal force of monarchy. If it is true that the unity of the
nation under a kingdom founded at Pavia would have deprived the world of
much that Italy has yielded in the sphere of thought and art, it is
certainly not less true that such centralization alone could have
averted the ruin of the sixteenth century which gives the aspect of a
tragedy to each volume of my work on the Renaissance.

[1] See Guicciardini (_Op. Ined._ vol. i. p. 28) for an eloquent
demonstration of the happiness, prosperity, and splendor conferred
on the Italians by the independence of their several centers. He is
arguing against Machiavelli's lamentation over their failure to
achieve national unity.

[2] This was the point urged by Machiavelli, in the _Principe_, the
_Discorsi_, and the _Art of War_. With keener political insight than
Guicciardini, he perceived that the old felicity of Italy was about
to fail her through the very independence of her local centers,
which Guicciardini rightly recognized as the source of her
unparalleled civilization and wealth. The one thing needful in the
shock with France and Spain was unity.

Without seeking to attack the whole problem of Italian history, two main
topics must be briefly discussed in the present chapter before entering
on the proper matter of this work. The first relates to the growth of
the Communes, which preceded, necessitated, and determined the