now succeeded by an almost universal discord between families and persons.  Each province, each city, each village became the theater of private feuds and assassinations.  Each household was the scene of homicide and empoisonment.  Italy presented the spectacle of a nation armed against itself, not to decide the issue of antagonistic political principles by civil strife, but to gratify lawless passions—­cupidity, revenge, resentment—­by deeds of personal high-handedness.  Among the common people of the country and the towns, crimes of brutality and bloodshed were of daily occurrence; every man bore weapons for self-defence, and for attack upon his neighbor.  The aristocracy and the upper classes of the bourgeoisie lived in a perpetual state of mutual mistrust, ready upon the slightest occasion of fancied affront to blaze forth into murder.  Much of this savagery was due to the false ideas of honor and punctilio which the Spaniards introduced.  Quarrels arose concerning a salute, a title, a question of precedence, a seat in church, a place in the prince’s ante-chamber, a meeting in the public streets.  Noblemen were ushered on their way by servants, who measured distances, and took the height of dais or of bench, before their master committed his dignity by advancing a step beyond the minimum that was due.  Love-affairs and the code of honor with regard to women opened endless sources of implacable jealousies, irreconcilable hatreds, and offenses that could only be wiped out with blood.  On each and all of these occasions, the sword was ready to the right hand; and where this generous weapon would not reach, the harquebuss and knife of paid assassins were employed without compunction.[183] We must not, however, ascribe this condition of society wholly or chiefly to Spanish influences.

[Footnote 183:  The lax indulgence accorded by the Jesuit casuists to every kind of homicide appears in the extracts from those writers collected in Artes Jesuiticae (Salisburgi, 1703, pp. 75-83).  Tamburinus went so far as to hold that if a man mixed poison for his enemy, and a friend came in and drank it up before his eyes, he was not bound to warn his friend, nor was he guilty of his friend’s death (Ib. p. 135, Art. 651).]

It was in fact a survival of mediaeval habits under altered circumstances.  During the municipal wars of the thirteenth century, and afterwards during the struggle of the despots for ascendency, the nation had become accustomed to internecine contests which set party against party, household against household, man against man.  These humors in the cities, as Italian historians were wont to call them, had been partially suppressed by the confederation of the five great Powers at the close of the fifteenth century, and also by a prevalent urbanity of manners.  At that epoch, moreover, they were systematized and controlled by the methods of condottiere warfare, which offered a legitimate outlet to the passions of turbulent