d had to bear the brunt
of the League of Cambray alone.[2] Her selfish prudence had been a
source of dread long before this epoch: when she became aggressive, she
was recognized as a common and intolerable enemy.

[1] De Comines, in his _Memoirs of the Reign of Charles VIII._ (tom.
ii. p, 69), draws a striking picture of the impression made upon his
mind by the good government of the state of Venice. This may be
compared with what he says of the folly of Siena.

[2] See Mach. _1st. Fior._ lib. i. 'Avendo loro con il tempo
occupata Padova, Vicenza, Trevigi, e dipoi Verona, Bergamo e
Brescia, e nel Reame e in Romagna molte citta, cacciati dalla
cupidita del dominare vennero in tanta opinione di potenza, che non
solamente ai principi Italiani ma ai Re oltramontani erano in
terrore. Onde congiurati quelli contra di loro, in un giorno fu
tolto loro quello stato che si avevano in molti anni con infiniti
spendii guadagnato. E benche ne abbino in questi ultimi tempi
racquistato parte, non avendo racquistata ne la riputazione, ne le
forze, a discrezione d'altri, come tutti gli altri principi Italiani
vivono.' It was Francesco Foscari who first to any important extent
led the republic astray from its old policy. He meddled in Italian
affairs, and sought to encroach upon the mainland. For this, and for
the undue popularity he acquired thereby, the Council of Ten
subjected him and his son Jacopo to the most frightfully protracted
martyrdom that a relentless oligarchy has ever inflicted [1445-57].

The external security of Venice was equaled by her internal repose.
Owing to continued freedom from party quarrels, the Venetians were able
to pursue a consistent course of constitutional development. They in
fact alone of the Italian cities established and preserved the character
of their state. Having originally founded a republic under the
presidency of a Doge, who combined the offices of general and judge, and
ruled in concert with a representative council of the chief citizens
(697-1172), the Venetians by degrees caused this form of government to
assume a strictly oligarchical character. They began by limiting the
authority of the Doge, who, though elected for life, was in 1032
forbidden to associate his son in the supreme office of the state. In
1172 the election of the Doge was transferred from the people to the
Grand Council, who, as a co-opting body