the example of their democratic neighbours appears to have invested with no charm. We may therefore fairly conclude that the self-governed citizens of Ancona, Assisi, and San Marino, enjoyed no envied advantages over those of the surrounding principalities, which unquestionably outshone them in historical and literary illustration.
Since, then, the peculiar quality which infused extraordinary mental vigour into the Italian commonwealths, and imparted to them a social influence beyond their real importance, consisted neither in personal security nor in self-sovereignty, it must have chiefly depended upon the only remaining description of freedom, their nationality. By this phrase we mean not that mere independence of foreign and barbarian sway, which it was long the papal policy to vindicate by oceans of blood and treasure, but the maintenance in each community of a separate and supreme political status, frequently co-existent with municipal franchises and local administration, but always irresponsible to neighbours or to nominal over-lords, whether emperor or pope. The elevation of sentiment which such a position infused, both into communities and individuals, forms the noblest feature in Italian mediæval history. The honours, the privileges, and the responsibilities of citizenship were thus maintained in more immediate contact with those of the commonwealth, whereof the humblest might boast himself a participator. Besides this, there ensued many advantages of a more material description. By giving each small state its own capital, the wealth and patronage belonging to a seat of government, and in most instances to a court, were secured for it. The residence of its sovereign and officials retained in home circulation not only the revenues of the principality, but the income drawn by him from foreign fiefs and from military adventures. It kept up a permanent aristocracy of talent and genius as well as of rank and wealth, such as it was the pride of most of these courts to encourage and protect. The practical operation of these causes may be illustrated from the condition of Romagna and La Marca during the fifteenth century. About one half of the present papal territory there was then divided among the following independent states:—
| Ferrara, | held as a | Marquisate | by the | d'Este. |
| Bologna | " | Seigneury | " | Bentivoglii. |
| Ravenna | " | " | " | Polenta. |
| Imola | " | " | " | Alidosii and Sforza. |
| Faenza | " | " | " | Manfredi. |
| Forlì | " | " | " | Ordelaffi and Riarii. |
| Cesena | " | " | " | Malatesta. |
| Rimini | " | " | " | Malatesta. |
| Pesaro | " | " | " | Malatesta and Sforza. |
| Fano | " | " | " | Malatesta. |
| Urbino | " | Dukedom | " | Montefeltro. |
| S. Angelo, &c. | " | Seigneury | " | Brancaleoni. |
| Città di Castello | " | " | " | Vitelli. |
| Perugia | " | " | " | Baglioni. |
| Assisi | " | Republic. | ||
| Foligno | " | Republic. | ||
| Spoleto | " | Dukedom, | not hereditary. | |
| Camerino | " | Seigneury | by the | Varana. |
| Fermo | " | " | " | Fogliani. |
| Ancona | " | Republic. | ||
| Sinigaglia | " | Seigneury | by the | della Rovere. |
| Mercatello | " | Countship | " | Brancaleoni. |
It may seem strange that a territorial arrangement which, unless cemented by a confederacy, is condemned by the publicist as fatal to national strength, should have formerly ensured to Italy, as it had done to ancient Greece, no ordinary measure of those benefits which national independence is supposed to secure. But it is still more remarkable that the nationality prescribed by political empiricists nowadays as a remedy for all her woes should be directly opposed to the system under which she became the harbinger of European improvement and civilisation. This subject, if followed out, would lead to disquisitions, for which these pages are no place. Enough to observe, that the centralisation which united these twenty-two commonwealths under the papal sway, is still, after two centuries, their standing grievance. A spirit of discontent now broods over that district, although government is mildly administered, and taxation is moderate for a land so productive. But twenty-two capitals have been absorbed, and consequently humbled and empoverished. Hinc illæ lacrymæ! Yet theorists, sweeping away ancient landmarks, and overstepping natural boundaries, would begin their speculative ameliorations of the Ausonian peninsula by provincialising nine of her ten remaining capitals; they would diffuse desolation, propagate discontent, and call them nationality. The projects of union and strength that tinge such day-dreams are met by a perhaps insurmountable barrier, in the abundant local jealousies which have survived the independence of multitudinous petty states, and which, as in Spain, often amusingly startle strangers in that country.16 When an Italian talks with ardour of his patria, or devotes his energies to illustrate its history or its heroes, he means not Dante's land,
"Circled by sea and Alps, parted by Apennine,"
but the village which gave him birth, or, at most, the province in which he dwells. Such is the boasted and burning patriotism of Young Italy, however her advocates may gloss over the fact.
These are, however, matters belonging rather to speculation than to history, and from which it is time to return. That we have not unreasonably