No single Despotism, either in Church or State, could by itself have broken that well-knit system of old Spanish liberties. It was the growth of an oppressive caste, who by their spirit of disunion made Despotism possible, and by their spirit of turbulence made it necessary. The next nation in which I would show the working of a caste with traditions of oppression is ITALY. Man-owners had cost Italy dear already. Roman serf-culture had withered all prosperity in the country; slave service had eaten out all manliness from the city. It is one of the most pregnant facts in history, and one which, so far as I know, has never been noted, that whereas the multitude who have written upon the subject have assigned innumerable causes for the decline and downfall of the Roman nation, _not one of any note has failed to name, as a cause, Roman slavery_. As to other causes they disagree--on this alone all agree. The philosophers Montesquieu[14] and Gibbon,[15] the economist Sismondi,[16] the _doctrinaire_ Guizot,[17] the republican Michelet,[18] the eclectic Schlosser,[19] high tory Alison,[20] moderate Merivale,[21] democrat Bancroft,[22] _quasi_ conservative, _quasi_ liberal Charles Kingsley,[23] wide apart as the poles on all else, agree to name as a cause of Roman ruin the system of forced labor. But after the Roman downfall the straggle of Italy with her upper caste seems singularly fortunate. At an early day her cities by commerce became rich and strong. Then in the natural course of things--first, free ideas, next, free institutions, next, war upon the nobles to make them respect these ideas and institutions. The war of municipalities against nobles was successful. Elsewhere in Europe cities sheltered themselves behind lords; in Italy lords sheltered themselves in cities. Elsewhere the lord dwelt in the castle _above_ the city; in Italy the lord was forced to dwell in his palace _within_ the city.[24] The victory of freedom seemed complete. The Italian republics were triumphant; the nobility were, to all appearance, subdued. But those republics made a fearful mistake. They had a great chance to destroy caste and lost it. They allowed the old caste spirit to remain, and that evil leaven soon renewed its work. The republics showed generalship in war, but in peace they were outwitted. First, the nobles insisted on pretended rights within the city, and stirred perpetual civil war to make these rights good.[25] Beaten at this they had yet a worse influence. Those great free cities would not indeed allow the nobles to indulge in private wars, but gradually the cities caught the infection from the nobles. The cities caught their aristocratic spirit of jealousy,--took nobles as leaders,--ran into their modes of plotting and fighting, and what I have called the _Vitriolic_ period set in.