attempt to create new
_gentes_ by effacing the distinctions established by nature and
tradition. To parallel a scheme so artificial in its method, we must go
back to the history of Sicyon and the changes wrought in the Dorian
tribes by Cleisthenes.

[1] See Varchi, _St. F._ lib. vii. cap. 3.

Short of such violent expedients as these, the whole history of towns
like Florence reveals a succession of similar attempts. When, for
example, the Medici had been expelled in 1494, the Florentines found
themselves without a working constitution, and proceeded to frame one.
The matter was at first referred to two eminent jurists, Guido Antonio
Vespucci and Paolo Antonio Soderini, who argued for and against the
establishment of a Grand Council on the Venetian model, before the
Signory in the Palazzo. At this juncture Savonarola in his sermon for
the third Sunday in Advent[1] suggested that each of the sixteen
Companies should form a plan, that these should be submitted to the
Gonfaloniers, who should choose the four best, and that from these four
the Signory should select the most perfect. At the same time he
pronounced himself in favor of an imitation of the Venetian Consiglio
Grande. His scheme, as is well known, was adopted.[2] Running through
the whole political writings of the Florentine philosophers and
historians, we find the same belief in artificial and arbitrary
alterations of the state. Machiavelli pronounces his opinion that, in
spite of the corruption of Florence, a wise legislator might effect her
salvation.[3] Skill alone was needed. There lay the wax; the scientific
artist had only to set to his hand and model it.

[1] December 12, 1494.

[2] Segni (pp. 15, 16) says that Savonarola deserved to be honored
for this Constitution by the Florentines no less than Numa by the
Romans. Varchi (vol. i. p. 169) judges the Consiglio Grande to have
been the only good institution ever adopted by the Florentines. We
may compare Giannotti (_Sopra la Repubblica di Siena_ p. 346) for a
similar opinion. Guicciardini, both in the _Storia d' Italia_ and
the _Storia di Firenze_, gives to Savonarola the whole credit of
having passed this Constitution. Nardi and Pitti might be cited to
the same effect. None of these critics doubt for a moment that what
was theoretically best ought to have been found practically
feasible.

[3] _St. Fior._ lib. iii. 1. 'Firenze a quel grado e perv