[619] Details in Perrens' Histoire de Florence, Eng. trans. of vol. viii, pp. 268, 284-88, 291, 307, 310.
[620] Cp. Perrens, trans. cited, pp. 276-80.
[621] M. Perrens indeed pronounces the two Councils set up by Savonarola's party to be much superior to the former bodies (La civilisation florentine, p. 61); but he admits that "at bottom and from the start the system was vitiated by the theocracy which presided over it."
[622] Cp. Armstrong, in Cambridge Modern History, 1902, i, 171.
[623] The constancy of Pisa in resisting the yoke of Florence, and the repeated self-expatriation of masses of the inhabitants, is hardly intelligible in view of the submission of so many other cities to worse tyrannies. It would seem that the sting lay in the idea that the rule of the rival city was more galling to pride than any one-man tyranny, foreign or other.
[624] Sismondi, Républiques, xvi, 71-76, 158, 159, 170, 217; Short History, p. 336.
[625] As to the misery of Florence after the siege, see Napier, Florentine History, iv, 533, 534.
[626] Smith, Wealth of Nations, bk. iii, ch. iii. citing Sandi.
[627] Review of Mitford, Miscellaneous Writings, ed. 1868, p. 74.
[628] Macaulay doubtless proceeded on the history of Daru, now known to be seriously erroneous. Compare that of W.C. Hazlitt, above cited, pref.