These words show clearly how the matter stood, and justify the opinion which Francesco Guicciardini[181] puts into the mouth of one of his interlocutors. ‘The government of the Medici,’ says Bernardo del Nero, ‘was a party government, usurped by the party, preserved by tyranny, neither violent nor cruel, except in a few cases in which they were constrained by necessity, but founded upon the policy of favouring the lower classes, uniting the interests of the stronger with their own interests, and suppressing all who seemed inclined to go their own way. As the power passed from father to son, the memory of ancient rivalry and enmity lived on. The Medici had always more their private advantage at heart than the general good. But as they had neither any position nor Signoria abroad, their interest was generally one with that of the commonwealth, whose glory and fame were likewise theirs. But even with so keen-sighted a man as Lorenzo, such a position might easily lead to errors, and we shall see what mistakes he did make in important cases to the great disadvantage of the State, either by allowing himself to be carried away by passion or by regarding only his personal position and advantage, always under the pretext that his greatness and that of his family was necessary to the common good. Lorenzo had taken so large a share in the conduct of affairs in his father’s last years, and displayed such capabilities, that we need not be surprised if, after the authority of the Medici had been acknowledged now for two generations, all eyes should have been directed towards him, notwithstanding his youth, which excluded him from offices of State. Without an understanding between the heads of the party, however, he could not have been offered the responsible position of which he has told us. Piero had, on his death-bed, recommended his two sons to his brother-in-law, Tommaso Soderini, on whose prudence and attachment he placed great reliance. Since Tommaso had essentially contributed to save the cause of the Medici in the conspiracy of 1466, he had been in constant activity. He had not been able to persuade the Venetians to hinder Colleone’s proceedings, but, as member of the magistracy of war, and during the fourth year that he was elected Gonfaloniere in 1467, he had exercised a favourable influence on the conduct of affairs, and honestly exerted himself for the restoration of peace with Borso d’Este, first in Venice and afterwards in Milan. The opinion of him was so high in Florence that he could easily have raised himself to the leadership of the ruling party. But whether it was that he would not betray the confidence reposed in him, or that he was of opinion that the preservation of this family in the position they had held now for thirty-five years was at the same time the preservation of the peace and safety of the State at home, as well as of its connections with foreign states, he abstained from following Diotisalvi Neroni’s example.