_THE ORIGIN OF THE FLORENTINE COMMUNE._[82]
I.
When the Longobards became masters of nearly the whole of Italy, and
subjected it to their long and cruel sway, they are known to have
appointed a duke to every one of the principal cities they occupied.
Rome remained free from them, having a Pope; Ravenna also escaped
because an Exarch was soon to hold rule there, and almost all the
cities by the sea were likewise exempted, inasmuch as the Longobards
were ignorant of navigation, and needed assistance for their maritime
trade. It was for the same reason that republics such as Venice,
Amalfi, Pisa, Naples, and Gaeta, were of earlier origin than the rest.
The dukes enjoyed great authority and independence; indeed, some of the
duchies, especially on the borders, became so extended as to resemble
small kingdoms--_e.g._, the dukedoms of Friuli, Spoleto, and Benevento.
This circumstance greatly contributed to the decomposition of the
kingdom and to the fall of the Longobards, whose strength and daring
were never conjoined with any real political capacity.
On the arrival of the Franks, counts took the place of dukes, but with
less power and smaller territories. Charlemagne, with his genuine
talent for statesmanship, refused to maintain lords who, in seeking
their own independence, might endanger the existence of his empire.
Nevertheless, as it was indispensable to keep his borders more strongly
defended, he constituted _marches_, on the pattern of the greater
Longobard duchies, and entrusted them to margraves, or marquises
(_Mark-grafen_--frontier counts, marquises, or margraves). Thus too the
marquisate of Tuscany was formed and the government centred in Lucca;
for this city having had a duke of its own ever since the times of
the Longobards, was already of considerable importance, while, as we
have seen, Florence had fallen so low that the documents of the period
merely refer to it as a suburb of Fiesole. Nearly all the margraves
acquired great power, and aspired to still higher dignities. From their
ranks in fact came men such as Hardouin and Berengarius, who, aspiring
to form an Italian kingdom, became formidable opponents of the Empire,
often wrought it much harm, and involved it in sanguinary wars.
Hence it is not surprising if, later on, the policy of the German
emperors should have constantly aimed at the enfeeblement of the
leading Italian counts and margraves, and, by granting exemptions and
benefices to prelates or lesser feudatories, and making all benefices
conceded to the latter hereditary estates, rendered these independent
of all greater and more dangerous potentates. Therefore, particularly
in Lombardy, this class rose to importance, and so, too, the political
authority of the bishops, who in point of fact held the position of
counts. But in Tuscany things took a different turn. Whether feudalism
there, having smaller strength and power of expansion, seemed less
formidable to the Empire; whether the country, being more distant,
proved less easy to govern; or because a strong state in central
Italy was felt to be needed to arrest the growing power of the Papacy;
whether the latter may have favoured its formation, as a possible
check to the Empire; or again, as seems probable, for all these
reasons combined, it is certain that the dukes or marquises of Tuscany
(either title was borne by them) increased in power and consequence,
and afterwards, in their turn, became a danger to the Empire. But in
Tuscany the power of bishops and counts suffered more reduction than
in Lombardy from the growing strength of the margraves, whose sway was
extending on all sides, so that they sometimes appear to be virtual
sovereigns of central Italy. The same reasons served to delay the rise
of cities, and specially hindered that of Florence.
Already, from the second part of the tenth century, a Marquis Ugo,
surnamed the Great, of Salic descent, ruled over Tuscany, the duchy
of Spoleto and the _march_ of Camerino. He reigned in Lucca almost in
the guise of an independent monarch, and enjoyed the favour of the
Othos. His successors continued to govern with much the same authority
as the dukes of Benevento; and Bonifazio III. extended his State even
to Northern Italy, thus giving umbrage to Henry III., whom he often
outrivalled in cunning. Bonifazio being voracious for power, and of
tyrannical temper, stripped many prelates, counts, and monasteries of
their possessions, either to seize them in his own grasp or give them
to better trusted vassals. He also tightened his grasp on all cities
which, having risen to some importance, coveted increased freedom. This
was specially the case with Lucca and Pisa. The former had prospered
through being long the chief seat of the duchy, while the latter owed
its prosperity to the sea, on which, as Amari happily phrased it, Pisa
was already a free city, while still a subject city on land. Florence,
however, still existed in humble obscurity, trading in a small way,
and girt about on all sides by feudal strongholds.
In 1037 Bonifazio had taken to wife Beatrice of Lorraine, who in
1046 gave birth to a daughter, Matilda, the celebrated countess or
_comitissa_, as she is entitled by the chroniclers. After the death
of Bonifazio, by assassination, in 1052, Matilda was soon associated
with her mother in the government of Tuscany and of the whole duchy,
and when left an orphan in 1076, became sole ruler of those extensive
dominions. Beatrice had remarried, and as she was very religious, and
her second husband, Goffredo of Lorraine, was brother to Pope Stephen
IX., this served to increase their common zeal for the papal policy,
afterwards so devotedly pursued by Matilda. When this high-minded,
energetic woman became sole ruler, she held the reins of government in
a firm grasp, and was often seen on battle-fields with a sword at her
side. Her political position was one of great peril, for she was driven
to take part in the fierce quarrel, recently begun, between the Church
and the Empire. At first the great, high-tempered Hildebrand conducted
the struggle as the inspiring genius of various Popes; later on, when
raised to the pontifical Chair as Gregory VII., he fought in person
against Henry IV. of Germany, and found Matilda his strongest and best
ally. In this conflict, stirring and dividing all Europe, it was only
natural that many opposing passions should be excited in Italy. All
cities that, like Pisa and Lucca, considered themselves wronged by
Duke Bonifazio, now declared for the Empire, and the Empire sided with
them against Matilda. The same course was followed by all dissatisfied
feudatories, especially by those whom Bonifazio had stripped of their
possessions. More than once, it is true, Countess Matilda seized
estates which had been arbitrarily alienated; but she seldom restored
them to their original owners, preferring instead to bestow them on
churches, convents, and trusty adherents of her own. This added fresh
fuel to the flame. Hence an increasingly tangled web of opposing
passions, of conflicting interests, from which at last some profit
accrued to Florence. The Guelph spirit of the city and its commercial
position, on the highway to Rome, had from the outset inclined it to
the Church, and now, as a declared ally, was actively favoured by
Beatrice and Matilda.
II.
It was long believed that Florence had had Consuls, and consequently
an independent government, from the year 1102, since Consuls are
mentioned in a treaty of that date, whereby the inhabitants of Pogna
swore submission to the city. But it was difficult to reconcile this
fact with the clearly proved dependence of Florence on Countess
Matilda at the time. It was afterwards ascertained that the document
in question bore a wrong date, and that the correct one was 1182,
when the submission of Pogna really took place. Accordingly, the
independence of the city was transferred to after 1115, the year of
the countess's death. But it was still difficult to explain the wars
previously carried on by the city on its own account, and other events
of a like nature. The fact is that no fixed year can be assigned to
the birth of the Florentine Commune, which took shape very slowly,
and resulted from the conditions of Florence under the rule of the
last dukes or marquises. We have already recorded the popular riots
of 1063-68 against the bishop Mezzabarba, when accused of simony,
and we have related how they ended with the ordeal of fire, braved
by Pietro Igneo in 1068. On this head we have cited the letters of
St. Pier Damiano addressed _civibus florentinis_. We also referred
to a document[83] in which the _clerus et populus florentinus_ made
appeal to the Pope, and, in narrating what had occurred, mentioned
a _municipale praesidium_, a _praeses_ of the city, and a superior
_potestas_. This proved, before all, that the civic body of the period
was already conscious of its personality, and that there was already an
embryo local government within the city walls. Doubtless the supreme
_potestas_ was the Duke Goffredo, husband to Beatrice; the _praeses_,
his representative in Florence. It was before him that, as we have
seen, the bishop threatened to drag his adversaries, whose property was
to be confiscated should they persist in disobedience. This _preside_
commanded the _praesidium_, designated _municipal_ even before the
municipality had come into being, and at least the name shows that the
majority of the _praesidium_ must have consisted of citizens. But all
this makes it equally plain that, while Florence was still an integral
part of the margraviate, Roman forms, traditions, and ideas already
prevailed there to the extent of assigning Roman names to institutions
of feudal origin. We must pause to consider this fact, since it gave
rise to a question, not only of form, but of genuine historical
importance.
[Illustration: A ROMAN HYPO-CAUST, PARTLY CONSTRUCTED.]
[Illustration: EXTERIOR VIEW OF CALIDARIUM AND FURNACE.
[_To face page 85._]
The employment of Roman terms need cause little surprise when we
remember that the study of elementary Roman law, as well as of
rhetoric,[84] the _ars dictandi_ then formed part of the _Trivium_,
and was therefore widely taught in Italy. In the first half of the
eleventh century a still more advanced study of law already flourished
at the school of Ravenna, and as its influence increased, extended
through Romagna into Tuscany. This system of law seemed to spring
to life again spontaneously from the midst of Latin populations,
with whom it had never entirely died out, and now in its new vigour
brought modifications and changes into the different institutions
and legislations with which it came in contact.[85] In fact, in the
sentences pronounced by Beatrice and Matilda, we find occasional
quotations from the _Digesto_, or Code, that, according to the
procedure of the time, was carried to the tribunals by those basing
their rights on its clauses.[86] The works of St. Pier Damiano afford
satisfactory proof that the Florentines pursued the same study, and set
great value on Roman law. The saint mentions a juridical dispute of
the Florentines, regarding which, towards the middle of the eleventh
century, they had asked the opinion of the _sapientes_ of Ravenna,
who, much to his own disgust, presumed to alter the prescriptions of
canonical law on the authority of the _Digesto_. Among those wise men,
he adds, the most impetuous and subtle chanced to be a Florentine.[87]
Another proof might be deduced from the remark previously made by
Ficker,[88] namely, that the courts held in Florence and its territory
were seldom attended by the Romagnol assessors, or _causidici_,
frequenting other Tuscan tribunals. This would seem to imply that in
this respect Florentines had no need to recur to Romagna. Later--that
is towards the end of the century--the school of Irnerius (Werner)
began to flourish at Bologna, the which school aimed at an exact
reproduction of Roman law and promoted its genuine revival. But at the
time of which we speak the Ravenna school represented, on the contrary,
a continuation of the ancient jurisprudence, partly decayed and partly
changed by the diverse elements of civilisation in the midst of which
it had survived, and in which it was now producing radical changes.[89]
One of these changes--leading to very remarkable consequences of a
political as well as a legal kind--took place in the constitution and
attributes of the margravial tribunal.
We know that Matilda, after the fashion of her predecessors,
administered justice in the name of the Empire, presiding in state
over the tribunals. Indeed, this was one of her chief functions. Some
sentences given by her have survived, and serve to show us how her
tribunal was composed. Certain high feudatories had seats flanking
her throne; next came the judges, assessors, pleaders (_causidici_),
and witnesses, and lastly, the notary. Prof. Lami has observed that
the judges, and more particularly the assessors, were changed as
the countess moved from city to city, which would prove that not a
few of them were inhabitants of the towns wherein they administered
justice.[90] In fact, what names do we find among them in Florence?
Those of the Gherardi, Caponsacchi, Uberti, Donati, Ughi, and a few
others.[91] These were already the first and most influential citizens,
the _boni homines_, the _sapientes_, the men we afterwards find
officiating as Consuls. Thus there were certain families who first
formed part of the margravial tribunal, and were afterwards at the head
of the Commune.
Political changes were facilitated and prepared by a juridical change,
followed by the increased action of the revived Roman law. What was
the nature of this change? The exact definition of the functions
respectively assigned by the Germanic code to the president of the
tribunal who gave sentence, or to the judges who led up to the same
by administering the law, had been gradually lost sight of. Sometimes
the countess pronounced sentence without the aid of judges; but more
often they conducted the trial, applied the law, and formulated the
verdict, to which the countess merely gave assent. Thus, as Ficker
states, her office was reduced to that of a passive president.[92]
This is confirmed on seeing that tribunals sometimes sat in her
absence, when the trials were entirely managed by the judges. A method
of this kind once adopted, Matilda's grave and numerous affairs of
State, together with the continual warfare in which she was involved,
must have augmented the number of the cases settled by local judges.
This must have been a matter of weighty importance at a time when
the administration of justice was one of the principal attributes of
political sovereignty. Hence these citizen tribunals are a precursory
sign of civic independence before the Commune had asserted its real
autonomy and individual position. The strange dearth of documents
certifying that any tribunal in Florence was presided over by Matilda
during the last fifteen years of her life, serves to confirm our
remarks. A similar fact is also verified in the Tuscan cities remaining
faithful to the Empire; for these too had tribunals in which justice
was administered, not by feudal potentates, but by citizens invested
by the emperor with judicial authority.[93] These, too, served as a
preliminary to communal independence, although hardly forming, as some
thought, its actual beginning.
[Illustration: DESCENT TO A ROMAN WELL.
_Discovered beneath the Campidoglio, Florence_
[_To face page 89._]
It is certain that in this and other ways, during the contest between
Henry IV. and Matilda, many Tuscan cities, siding either with the
Empire or the Church, and therefore highly favoured by the one or the
other, were able to achieve a commencement of freedom. After Henry IV.
had defeated Matilda near Mantua in 1081 he granted large privileges to
Pisa and Lucca, in return for their proofs of goodwill to his cause. In
a letter patent issued at Rome June 23, 1081, he not only guaranteed
to Lucca the integrity of its walls, but also authorised it to forbid
the construction of any castles in the city or territory within a
circuit of six miles, and promised to exempt it from building an
Imperial palace. He likewise declared that no Imperial envoy should be
sent to give judgment in Lucca, but made a reservation in case of the
personal presence there of the emperor, or his son, or his chancellor.
In conclusion, he annulled the "evil customs" (_perverse consuetudini_)
imposed by Bonifazio III.[94] to the hurt of Lucca, and granted it full
permission to trade in the markets of San Donnino and Capannori, from
which he expressly excluded the Florentines. This final clause not only
proves the hostility of the Empire to Florence, but the importance
the latter's trade must have assumed by that time. In the same year
Pisa received a patent guaranteeing the maintenance of its ancient
rights, and Henry declared that no Imperial envoy belonging to another
territory should be sent to plead suits within the walls, or within the
boundaries of its _contado_. And, what was still more to the point,
he also declared that no marquis should be sent into Tuscany without
the consent of twelve _buoni uomini_ chosen by the popular assembly,
summoned in Pisa by sound of bell.[95] Here, if no Consuls yet appear
on the scene, we already find their precursors in these worthies, or
_sapientes_, elected of the people, and we have already a popular
assembly. Even though the Commune be still unborn, its birth is now, as
it were, in sight. Further (provided nothing was interpolated in the
document), it is most remarkable to find the appointment of an Imperial
margrave subject to the sanction of the people. There is also a hinted
desire--unattainable during Matilda's life--to assume the government of
the margraviate in person; after her death an attempt to this effect
was actually made, but, as we shall see, with very brief and partial
success.
III.
Nevertheless the condition of Florence was considerably different from
that of Pisa or Lucca. These two cities, as we have seen, had long
enjoyed greater prosperity. They had often fought against each other;
Pisa, haughty and daring by sea, had begun, even in the middle of the
tenth century, a long and arduous war against the Mussulmans[96] of
Sicily, Spain, and Africa. Florence, on the other hand, in siding with
Matilda, became necessarily the foe of all the great feudal nobles of
the _contado_, surrounding the city on all sides, and who, disgusted
by their treatment at the hands of the marquises of Tuscany, since the
time of Bonifazio III., now, for the most part, adhered to the Empire.
Their antagonism towards the Florentines was not only heightened by
the fact of these nobles being of Germanic origin, even as feudal
institutions were Germanic, whereas the population of Florence,
consisting chiefly of artisans, was of Roman origin and full of Roman
traditions; but it was likewise increased by the geographical position
of the city. Had Florence been situated in a plain like Pisa and Lucca,
or like Sienna and Arezzo on a height, the feudal nobility could have
promoted their interests better by settling within its walls. But it
lay in a valley in the midst of a girdle of hills bristling with feudal
turrets, whence the nobles threatened it on all sides, raiding its
lands and closing all outlets for its commerce.
These geographical conditions had no slight effect on the future
destiny of Florence; and, in fact, largely contributed to form the
special character of its history. As a primary result, conflict between
the feudal nobles and the city was more inevitable and more sanguinary
than elsewhere, while the city being, from the first, of far more
democratic temper than the rest, was therefore longer prevented from
asserting its independence, since this result could only be achieved
when Florence had gained sufficient strength to cope with the numerous
enemies girding it about. Until that moment arrived its interests
were best forwarded by remaining friendly and submissive to Countess
Matilda, the only power able to hold the barons in check, and the loss
of whose aid would have left Florence a prey to its foes. This explains
not only the city's delay in asserting its independence, but also the
total lack of documents concerning the origin of a commune that had
already risen to considerable strength, and started wars on its own
account before its existence was officially recognised. These wars
were still carried on in the name of the Countess, who occasionally
visited the camp in person; the city was unmentioned in public
documents, because it had as yet no personal existence. Nevertheless,
we are forced to recognise the first signs of its communal life in
the campaigns undertaken by Florence in defence of its trade against
the nobles of the _contado_; the which campaigns were continued on
an increasing and more vigorous scale until they ended in the total
annihilation of the feudal lords. This was both the starting point and
the aim of all Florentine history.
[Illustration: IMPLUVIUM OF ROMAN HOUSE, FLORENCE.]
[Illustration: ROMAN CALIDARIUM, FLORENCE.
[_To face page 96._]
From the very beginning, it is true, we find that even Florence
possessed some families that may be called noble. Such were the Donati,
Caponsacchi, Uberti, Lamberti, and others whose names were included on
the lists of the judges and soon to be found on those of the Consuls.
These were the ruling, governing families at the head of the city.
But they were neither counts, marquises, nor dukes; they were not as
the Counts Cadolingi, Guidi, and Alberti, who dwelt in the outlying
territory or _contado_; nor did they belong to those _Cattani Lombardi_
so-called at the time, in remembrance of their Germanic descent. Rather
than veritable nobles, they were "worthies" (_boni homines_), "great
ones" (_grandi_),[97] owning no feudal titles; natives of the city
risen to high fortune, or scions of petty feudal lines, who, unable
to hold their own against greater neighbours of the country side,
had sought safety within the town. They quickly amalgamated with the
people, sharing and taking the lead in all the latter's expeditions
against the strongholds outside the city. Nor, as will be shown, was
it a rare case, later on, to find some of these nobles engaged in
trade, or heads of trade guilds, as soon as the latter became more
firmly established. And it is by no means an insignificant fact that
during disturbances at Pisa, Sienna, and elsewhere, we often see the
names of real citizen-nobles, counts, viscounts, and so on, never to
be met with in Florence. In documents concerning the Florentines the
word _nobiles_ seldom occurs, whereas it is often used in speaking of
the Pisans, Siennese, &c. The term _milites_, it is true, frequently
occurs in Florentine records; but although the _milites_ could not
be _popolani_, since the lower classes were not then admitted to
knighthood, neither could they be feudal nobles in Florence: they were
the leading citizens who exercised no trade, the _grandi_, in fact, to
whom we have previously alluded. They were members of Matilda's courts,
were employed by her in various ways; they commanded the _municipale
praesidium_, probably filled the office of _praeses_, and they were
leaders of the army. Richer, more cultivated and better fitted than
other citizens for politics and warfare by their freedom from daily
toil, they were the _boni viri_, the _sapientes_, the _milites_ found
more or less in all cities, but of a separate stamp in Florence.
Notwithstanding our knowledge of this _preside_ and _presidio_ and of
these Florentine tribunals, very little is known as to the government
and administration of the social body already beginning to prosper and
to have varied interests of its own. Matilda's sway in Florence must
have been of a shadowy kind, when the city was able to start wars on
its own account and to its own profit, albeit still undertaken in her
name. As its commercial prosperity increased and Matilda became more
absorbed in her struggle with the Empire, the city must have been left
more to itself. Consequently this is the time when the associations
serving to classify and organise the citizens were formed, which we
presently find flourishing and strongly established. Thus, being
almost without a central government, a local one could assert its
existence, and the strength of the Commune be developed long before its
independence was proclaimed. The same fact explains why the Commune,
its individuality once declared, should have made such rapid progress
and leapt to the headship of Tuscany. At any rate, by the second half
of the twelfth century we find on the one side the _grandi_, or
nobles--if we prefer to give them that name--formed in Societies of
Towers (_Società delle torri_), with statutes soon to be made known
to us; while, on the other we find trade guilds or associations not
only in existence, but sometimes with sufficient political importance
to entitle them to the honour of representing the Republic. Can we
possibly suppose that such results could be achieved without a long,
preliminary course of preparation? Did not the _scholae_, progenitors
of the guilds, survive during the Lower Empire and throughout the
Middle Ages? do we not find them dividing all society, including both
the soldiery and foreigners in Rome and in Ravenna? How could they be
destroyed by barbarians ignorant of crafts which were nevertheless
indispensable to their own needs?
Florentine commerce and industry undoubtedly increased during the
rule of Countess Matilda. This has been proved by the patent of 1081,
and the first wars undertaken by the Florentines in the interest of
their trade afford sure confirmation of the fact. Were we to exclude
trade associations from the conditions of the period, we should have
to admit the existence, at that day, of the modern workman, isolated
and independent: a decided impossibility in the Middle Ages. Those
were times in which every trade was exercised by distinct groups
of families, and handed down by them as a tradition from father to
son. Frequently, even offices of the State were the monopoly of
certain families. It was from a society split into groups and castes
that the Commune eventually developed the modern State, but in old
times the very idea of the latter was unconceived. It is absurd to
suppose--though a few writers accept the notion--that the guilds only
began when they had regular statutes. These statutes only formulated
what had already existed for some time, and undoubtedly in Florence
everything conduces to the belief that the associations of the trades
and of the towers, though still embryonic, must have preceded the
formation of the Commune evolved in their midst.
IV.
For on all sides, if in diverse modes, we perceive that a long period
of incubation was needed to form the Commune, which naturally owed its
birth to pre-existing elements. The celebrated agreement or _concordia_
made at Pisa by Bishop Daiberto, about 1090, or even, perhaps, a year
or so earlier,[98] shows that the nobles were organised and waging
fierce war against one another from their towers. The bishop induced
them to partly demolish these towers, and solemnly vow never to carry
them above the height of thirty-six braccia (about one hundred feet),
as previously decreed by the patent of Henry IV. in 1081.[99] And the
agreement proceeded to set forth that any man believing his houses
to have been unjustly damaged was to bear his complaint _ad commune
Colloquium Civitatis_; nor could the dwelling of the offender be
demolished without the general consent of the citizens.[100]
[Illustration: MOUTH OF ROMAN FURNACE,
_Discovered beneath the Mercato Vecchio._]
[Illustration: CALIDARIUM.
_Ibid._
[_To face page 96._]
The whole tenor of this document not only proves that the Pisan
nobles were already an organised body, but that they also boasted
a civic importance never attained by the nobles of Florence.[101]
Evidently Pisa had no Consuls as yet, or they would have been
certainly mentioned in the document. But all the elements destined to
make it a far more aristocratic commune than that of Florence were
already existent.[102] We see that there was a _commune consilium_
of _sapientes_ or _boni homines_, which was a species of senate,
and a _commune colloquium_, a general assembly of all the citizens,
afterwards developing into a parliament or _arrengo_. Five _sapientes_,
whose names are given, sat in council with the bishop.[103] These
were the immediate precursors or, as Pawinski rightly calls them, the
_vorbilder_ of the Consuls, who are actually mentioned shortly after
this time, in 1094, in another agreement (_concordia_), also drawn up
by Daiberto. He makes an explicit appeal to their authority (_huius
civitatis consulibus_) in decreeing that all smiths engaged on work
required for the Duomo should be left unmolested.[104] Thus the rise
of the Pisan Commune was preceded by a conflict waged by belligerent
nobles from their respective towers, and the Consuls of the town were
first named as the protectors of the smiths.
The existence of guilds in Venice as far back as the ninth century is
certified by the Altino Chronicle, proving that, even then, there were
some leading industries exercised by certain families only, and that
humbler trades, or _ministeria_, were already constituted, as it were,
in associations, the members of which pursued their avocation according
to traditional and definite rules. These craft-guilds or _ministeria_
implied certain accompanying obligations, since all members of them
were bound to yield some gratuitous service to the State. On the
other hand, the higher trades, such as mosaic work, architecture,
and so on, requiring more culture and talent, were exercised by the
leading families, and members of these guilds remained eligible for
the political offices of the State.[105] There is a document of the
eleventh century showing that the guild of smiths was constituted
under the rule of a _gastaldo_ (or steward), against whom one of the
members appealed for justice to the doge, according to a custom as
yet unwritten.[106] All this compels us to believe that the existence
of art and trade guilds, and in general of all the associations into
which the citizens of the communes were afterwards divided, dates from
a very remote period, and that in Florence, as elsewhere, all similar
associations were constituted before the Commune had proclaimed its
independence. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the existence
of a city that, almost without any visible government, was already
prosperous in commerce and able to make war on its own account. For
otherwise all the ensuing facts, although beyond the reach of doubt,
would remain unexplained.
V.
Therefore, even in the days of Countess Matilda, we find the mass of
the citizens divided and arranged in groups. We see on the one side the
ancient _scholae_ transformed into associations of arts and trades,
containing the germ of future greater and lesser guilds; on the other,
family associations and clans of the _grandi_ or leading citizens,
embryos of future societies of the towers. All these associations
already formed the practical government of the city, in which the
principal offices were filled by _grandi_ of Matilda's choice. It is
quite probable that the post of _preside_ was reserved, in accordance
with mediæval usage, to a single family or clan, perhaps to that of
the Uberti, who were, as we shall see, among the most powerful in the
city, and boasting a Germanic descent. Nevertheless, there was then
no hostility, no separation between the great folk or _grandi_ and
the people, all being united by common bonds and interests. In fact,
as we have said, there will be soon documentary evidence that some of
the _grandi_ engaged in commerce were chiefs of guilds, and already
beginning to fight, side by side with the people, against the outlying
nobility. It is true that they owned lands and herds, but these were
then the main source of that Florentine trade and commerce in defence
of which the first wars were undertaken. The castles surrounding the
city barred all outlets for commerce; armed men were always swooping
down from them to attack and maltreat all pack trains issuing from the
city to convey its products and merchandise to neighbouring towns.
With continual wars on her hands, the Countess Matilda could seldom
afford any help, and consequently the Florentines, although fighting
in her name, were practically left to their own resources. It was this
alliance of all classes of citizens, united by identity of interests
and singleness of purpose against a common foe, that then constituted
the strength of that Florentine people whose loyalty, purity, and
valour were so fervently praised by Dante and the chroniclers. This was
the moment when virtue laid the foundations of the Commune's future
freedom and wealth.
Villani is given to exaggerate, but there is a basis of truth in his
words when he states in the year 1107 (iv. 25) that "the city being
much risen and increased in population, men, and power, the Florentines
determined to extend their outlying _contado_, and widen their
authority, and that war should be waged against any castle refusing
obedience." This year, in fact, they began military operations by
attacking the fortress of Monte Orlando, near Lastra a Signa, also
described by the chroniclers as the castle of Gangalandi or Gualandi,
a fief of the Counts Cadolingi,[107] then a very powerful family,
and soon becoming bitterly hostile to Florence. During the same year
they captured and demolished the stronghold of Prato, owned by the
Counts Alberti, also very formidable enemies. But as on this occasion
the Countess was present in the camp, their success is more easily
explained.[108]
In 1110 we hear of another war. "Florentini iuxsta Pesa comites
vicerunt," we read in the "Annales," i. which start with this event
and date it the 26th of May. The _comites_ here mentioned cannot be
the Counts Guidi, then on friendly terms with Matilda and Florence,
although, when fighting against both at a much later date, they were
specially designated as "The Counts." In 1110 Florence attacked and
conquered the Cadolingi, also known as the _Cattani Lombardi_, whose
lands extended from Pistoia, by the Val di Nievole, towards Lucca, and
by the Lower Val d'Arno to the vicinity of Florence. If the city could
rout these nobles, it must have acquired great strength, even admitting
the probability that on this occasion also it had the aid of Matilda's
troops.
In 1113 there were two other military campaigns which, owing to the
very different accounts narrated by the chroniclers, have given rise
to an infinity of learned disputes. First of all came the assault and
destruction of Monte Cascioli, assigned by some to the year 1113, by
others to 1114, and postponed by a few to 1119, when it was supposed
to have been defended by an Imperial German vicar named Rempoctus
or Rabodo, who perished in the fight. Other chroniclers assign the
overthrow of the castle to three different years, and Villani puts
a climax to the confusion by jumbling together the various assaults
described, assigning them all to 1113, and saying that the castle
had revolted against Robert the German, vicar of the Empire, holding
residence at San Miniato al Tedesco (iv. 29). But in 1113--that is,
before the Countess's death--there was no Imperial vicar in Tuscany,
and consequently none could be installed at San Miniato, to which the
appellation "al Tedesco" was not yet applied. But the confusion can be
cleared, the chroniclers made to agree, and the different narratives
easily explained, if it is admitted that only the first attack upon
Monte Cascioli took place in 1113, when the castle was held by the
Cadolingi and could be vigorously defended.[109] As the walls on that
occasion were only partially destroyed, it was necessary to renew
the assault in 1114, when they were totally demolished. They were
afterwards rebuilt by the Cadolingi, and therefore, in 1119, when
Florence had achieved independence, two more attempts were made to
capture the stronghold; the Imperial envoy was killed while assisting
in its defence, and the building was finally demolished and burnt
to the ground. But without anticipating events we may conclude that
even before Matilda's death the Florentines had succeeded, by their
expeditions against Monte Orlando, Prato, Val di Pesa, and Monte
Cascioli, in opening the highways of Signa, Prato, and Val d'Elsa to
their trade.
Another event, likewise occurring in the years 1113-15, although
dated by the chroniclers in 1117, namely, the Pisan expedition to the
Balearic Isles, also led to a somewhat complicated dispute. As already
related, the Pisans began to make war on the Mussulmans from the
middle of the tenth century, and during the latter half of the next
century the strife was pursued more hotly than ever. In 1087 Pisa and
Genoa combined, displayed a fleet of forty sail in battle array before
Mehdia, and in 1113 both cities joined in the more important expedition
to the Balearic Isles. They were also accompanied by many counts
and marquises from Lombardy and Central Italy, likewise including a
few from the Florentine territory. Then, combining with the Counts
of Barcelona and Montpellier, the Viscount of Narbonne, and others,
they attacked the Balearic Isles, and, in spite of a very obstinate
resistance, seized the castle of Majorca, and captured young Burabe,
the last scion of the ruling dynasty there. Villani, in alluding to
this war of 1113-15, assigns it, like the other chroniclers, to the
year 1117, adding that the Pisans fearing, when about to set sail, that
the Lucchese might, as once before, take advantage of their absence
to attack their city, entrusted the Florentines with its defence. The
latter immediately encamped two miles from the walls and forbade their
men to enter Pisa, under penalty of death; for, seeing that scarcely
any males were left in the city, they feared some attempts might be
made on the honour of its women, to the grave discredit of Florentine
loyalty. And this decree was rigorously enforced. One soldier who
dared to violate the rules of discipline was condemned to death,
notwithstanding the prayers of the Pisans, who, as the only chance of
saving the man's life, protested that they could not permit a capital
sentence to be executed on their territory. Whereupon the Florentines,
showing even in this matter their scrupulous regard for others' rights,
purchased a scrap of land, and there put the culprit to death.
Meanwhile, the Pisans returning from Majorca, laden with spoil,
offered in token of gratitude to their faithful friends the choice
of accepting either two bronze doors or two porphyry columns. The
Florentines preferred the latter. The columns were consigned to them
wrapped in scarlet cloth, in token of their value, and now stand in
the chief portal of San Giovanni. However, when the cloth was stripped
off, it was seen that some envious person had injured the columns with
fire. Evidently part of this account is legendary, and we also discern
that something must have been added to it afterwards, when Pisa and
Florence were separated by long and inextinguishable animosity.[110]
But the wrong date repeated in Villani and many other chroniclers,
regarding a war that lasted several years, and was apparently only
recommenced in 1117, does not justify us in denying a fact so
constantly affirmed by many writers.[111] The Balearic expedition
certainly took place, and there is equal certainty that it was led by
the Pisans, with the help of various friends and allies. Their fear
lest the city should be attacked by the Lucchese in their absence
was justified by the fact that this had really happened in former
times. The Pisans were now foes of Lucca and friends of Florence,
whose loyalty during that early period was very generally recognised.
Why should it be incredible that these friendly Pisans should have
entrusted the city to their care, or that they should have proved
worthy of the confidence reposed in them? Paolino Pieri not only
repeats the story as told by all the other chroniclers, but also adds
that the bit of ground upon which the guilty soldier was executed had
been purchased with the help of Bello the Syndic, and that even in his
own day he saw that it was still left uncultivated in memory of the
deed: "it was on the fourth day of July, three hundred and two years
more than one thousand, when I saw that ground untouched." At any rate,
this is a proof that the tradition of the fact still survived in the
fourteenth century, and that every one had the fullest belief in it.
VI.
The death of Countess Matilda, in 1115, was followed by a period
of so much disorder as to mark the beginning of a new era for all
Central Italy, and more especially for Florence. The countess, as
we know, left a will bequeathing all her possessions to the Church;
but this donation could only affect her allodial estates, since
all those held in fief naturally reverted to the Empire. It was
not always easy to precisely distinguish these from those; often,
indeed, impossible: hence an endless succession of disputes. And such
disputes became increasingly complicated by the pretensions of the
Pope and the emperor, each of whom asserted his right to the whole
inheritance, the one as Matilda's universal legatee, and the other as
the supreme head of the margraviate. Then, too, as we have seen, many
considered themselves to have been unjustly deprived of their estates,
in favour of others with no rightful claim. All this led to a real
politico-social crisis that brought the disorder to a climax. Thereupon
the emperor, Henry IV., sent a representative, bearing the title of
_Marchio, Iudex, Praeses_, to assume the government of Tuscany in his
name. Of course, no one could legally contest his right to do this;
but the Papal opposition, the attitude of the cities now asserting
their independence, and the general disorder split the margraviate into
fragments. Accordingly the representatives of the Empire could only
place themselves at the head of the feudal nobility of the various
_contadi_ and, by gathering them together, form a Germanic party
opposed to the cities. In the documents of the period the members
of this party are continually designated by the name of Teutons
(_Teutonici_).[112]
Florence, surrounded by the castled nobility occupying her hills, could
only decide on one of two courses. Either to yield to those who had
always been her mortal enemies, and were now emboldened by Henry's
favour, or to combat them openly, and thus declare enmity to the
Empire, the which, in the present state of affairs, would amount to a
proclamation of independence; and the latter was the course adopted.
Florence was now conscious of her own strength, and recognised that
safety could only be gained by force. The change was accomplished in
a very simple and almost imperceptible way. The same worthies who had
administered justice, governed the people, and commanded the garrison
in Matilda's name, now that she was dead, and no one in her place,
continued to rule in the name of the people, and asked its advice
in all grave emergencies. Thus these _grandi_ became Consuls of the
Commune that may be said to have leapt into existence unperceived. This
is why no chroniclers mention its birth, no documents record it, and a
plain and self-evident fact is made to appear extremely complicated and
obscure. In endeavouring to discover unknown events and lost documents
which had never existed, the solution of a very easy problem was hedged
round with difficulties, while evident and well-established particulars
best fitted to explain it were entirely lost sight of.
Nevertheless, we are not to believe that the event was accomplished
without any shock, for the change was of a very remarkable kind. It is
true that the actual government remained almost intact; but its basis
was altered, since it was now carried on in the name of the people,
instead of that of the Countess. This, in itself, signified little,
inasmuch as for some time past the city had been practically, if not
legally, its own master, and the people beginning to feel and make felt
its personality. But the social and political results of the change
were neither few nor inconsiderable. Naturally, during Matilda's reign,
the governing authorities were men of her choice; and although all
official and judicial posts changed hands from time to time, they
became increasingly monopolised by a small cluster of families, chief
among whom, as we have already said, were most probably the Uberti and
their clan. Now, however, that the authorities were to be elected by
the people, there was a broader, although still somewhat limited, range
of choice. Accordingly, there was more change of office, and men were
removed in turn from one to another. This custom already prevailed in
other communes, and had been adopted even in Florence both by popular
associations and those of the _grandi_. Hence it necessarily prevailed
in the formation of the new government.
Nor can we believe that those always to the front in former times
could have now withdrawn without resistance, or without attempting to
maintain their position by favour of the Empire and the _Teutonici_;
nor is it credible that those now entitled to a larger share in the
government should have refrained from relying, in their turn, on the
strength of the popular favour, backed by the most vital interests
of the city. Friction between the leading families seems inevitable
to us in this state of things, and Florence must have witnessed some
such conflict as at Pisa in Daiberto's day, and in almost all other
Italian communes. We learn from Villani (v. 30), from the "Annales,"
and many other works, that there was a great fire in Florence in 1115,
a similar one in 1117, and that "what was left unburned in the first
fire was consumed in the second." It was certainly an exaggeration to
say that the whole city was destroyed, but the fact of the fire is
generally affirmed.[113] We also know that in those times, before
gunpowder was invented, fire and arson were the most efficacious
weapons in popular riots. Villani says, farther, that "fighting went on
among the citizens ... sword in hand, in many parts of Florence." It
is true, that, in his opinion, the fight was _for the faith_, seeing
that the city being given over to heresy, licence, and the sect of
the Epicureans, God therefore chastised it with pestilence and civil
war. But, although we find no certain traces in history of any widely
diffused heresy in Florence at the time, it is undoubted that from 1068
the earliest gleams of Florentine freedom were mixed and confused, as
we have seen, with a religious movement, and it is also certain that
the "Annales," i., of the year 1120 record the fact of one named Petrus
Mingardole being condemned for heresy to the ordeal by fire,[114] and
also add that, between 1138 and 1173, the city was thrice smitten by an
interdict, all of which goes to prove a continued religious agitation.
Besides, Florence, and particularly her people, remained constantly
faithful to the Church party, while the Uberti and their adherents,
who sided with the Empire, were opposed to it, and consequently, in
those days, may have easily incurred the charge of heresy. Even in
Villani's time the general name of _Paterini_ was bestowed not only
upon all heretics, but on Ghibellines as well.[115] Besides, as he had
placed the origin of Florence before Charlemagne's day, and then
again immediately after the imaginary destruction of Fiesole in 1010,
he naturally refused to recognise that origin for the third time at
the moment of the Commune's real birth. Accordingly, slurring over the
political movement, that was undoubtedly the main factor in the change,
he tried to exaggerate the religious movement that played a very minor
part in it.
At any rate, since it appears certain that the Uberti asked the
support of the Empire, they must have been now necessarily driven to
prove themselves foes of the Church. Therefore, it cannot have been
unusual for them to be styled heretics or _Paterini_, especially by so
pronounced a Guelph as Villani. We know that the Uberti were already
powerful in Matilda's time, from the frequent appearance of their name
in contemporary documents. That they also enjoyed a lion's share of
the government, and that the revolt was chiefly directed against them,
is explicitly proved by the words of a chronicler--so far little read,
we might almost say unknown--whose work being derived from different
sources than that of Villani, shows some events in a new light. The
pseudo Brunetto Latini, in fact, agrees with the other chroniclers in
ascribing the first fire to the year 1115, saying that it began at the
Santi Apostoli, and spread as far as the bishop's palace, "whereby
the greater part of the city was burnt, and many folk perished in the
flames." He says nothing concerning heresy, but touching the second
fire of 1117, he adds: "In this year a fire broke out in Florence in
the houses of the Uberti, who _ruled_ the city, whereof little was
saved from the burning, and many folk perished by fire and sword."[116]
It is evident that there was a real outbreak, almost a revolution waged
with fire and sword, against the Uberti, rulers of the city.
Can we be surprised at the hatred roused by the Uberti, or at the civil
war of which they were the cause? As we know, they were traditionally
supposed to have come with the Othos from Germany; and we have seen how
the legend of the _Libro fiesolano_, while refusing credence to this,
spoke of them as descended from "the most noble race of Catiline,"
the enemy of Florence. Even on historical evidence, were they not the
forefathers of those Uberti, who afterwards, in 1177, proved the first
to attack the Consular government and begin the civil warfare by which
the city was so long torn asunder? Were they not the forefathers of the
Schiatta Uberti, ringleaders of the band that stabbed Buondelmonti to
death, by the statue of Mars on the Ponte Vecchio, in 1215? Were they
not the ancestors of the celebrated Farinata, who routed the Guelphs
at Montaperti, and attended that Council of Empoli where such fierce
measures were proposed against Florence, the perpetual nest of the
Guelphs--the same Farinata described by Dante among the heretics in the
bog of hell?[117]
VII.
Meanwhile, which party conquered in the struggle following Matilda's
death? Facts prove it clearly enough. In the year 1119 the Florentines
made that final assault on the castle of Monte Cascioli, to which
reference has been already made. This is the moment when the
before-mentioned _Rempoctus_,[118] or Rabodo, really comes upon the
scene, although Villani (iv. 29) and other chroniclers make him
appear in 1113, under the name of Robert the German, Imperial vicar,
and suppose him to have fallen in fight that year while defending
the castle. We have shown that there could be no Imperial vicar in
Tuscany at that date, seeing that none was sent until after Matilda's
decease. In fact, no documents mention any vicar before then, and only
on September 11, 1116, we find one recorded as "Rabodo ex largitione
Imperatoris Marchio Tuscia,"[119] and then in 1119, "Rabodo Dei gratia
si quid est,"[120] the identical formula that had been employed in
Matilda's patents. In 1120 Rabodo's name disappears, and is replaced
by that of the Margrave Corrado. It may therefore be taken for
granted that Rabodo really perished in 1119 during the defence of
Monte Cascioli against the Florentines, who now succeeded in finally
demolishing the stronghold and burning it to the ground.[121] Thus
their first achievement, after Matilda's decease, was the destruction
of a Cadolingi castle, together with the defeat and death in battle of
the first Imperial vicar then established in Tuscany. This is more than
enough to show the nature of their attitude with regard to the Empire
and the Teutonic party.
Shortly after, an event of even greater significance occurred in the
capture and sack of Fiesole during 1125. Sanzanome, whose so-called
modern history of Florence starts with this war, describes it at much
length, in flights of wordy rhetoric. The gist of it is that the chief
cause of the conflict was a commercial dispute. The people of Fiesole
would seem to have maltreated and plundered a Florentine trader who was
quietly passing through the city with his goods. This incident, added
to the remembrance of past rancours and other recent depredations,
seems to have stirred the Florentines to war. Instantly, "factum est
Consilium per tunc dominantes Consules de processu." One of the leading
citizens harangued the people, beginning his speech with these words:
"Si de nobili Romanorum prosapia originem duximus ... decet nos patrum
adherere vestigiis." Thereupon, "illico a Consulibus exivit edictum." A
man of Fiesole, on the other hand, began his address by alluding to the
legendary origin of his city: "Viri, frates, qui ab Ytalo sumpsistis
originem, a quo tota Ytalia dicitur esse derivata." Although so much
learned rhetoric in a writer of the early part of the thirteenth
century is another proof of the strong influence of Roman tradition on
ancient Florentines, both before and after the rise of their Commune,
it cannot conceal the real cause of the war, as proved even by the
evidence of Villani, whose chronicle begins to acquire greater historic
value at this point. The latter relates that Fiesole had become a
veritable nest of _Cattani_ and brigands, who infested the Florentine
highways and territories.[122] As usual, the feudal barons were
swooping down from their strongholds to hinder the trade and traffic of
the Commune.
At this moment also there were special causes tending to provoke a
war of an unusually sanguinary kind. The counties, or _contadi_, of
the two cities, as sometimes occurred elsewhere, had been carved out
of the territories of bishoprics, based, in their turn, on ancient
Roman partitions of the soil. Accordingly, these counties being not
only adjacent, but wedged in and almost tangled one with the other,
and their respective bishops having never wielded, as in Lombardy,
the authority or power of counts they had ended by forming a single,
combined jurisdiction. In fact, many documents refer to the county or
jurisdiction of Fiesole and Florence, as though it were one and the
same thing. Hence it was only natural that on becoming an independent
Commune, after Matilda's death, Florence should seek to dominate over
both counties, and equally natural that Fiesole should be violently
opposed to the idea, and, notwithstanding the inferior size of the
town, should have trusted to the superior strength of its fortified
position, and, making alliance with the nobles of the _contado_, should
have harboured them in the citadel, and joined them in continual
attacks on Florentine traders or in raiding Florentine lands. This
was the beginning of the war. Its details are unknown to us, those
supplied by Sanzanome being too extravagant for belief,[123] and other
chroniclers furnishing none at all. Seeing the strength of Fiesole's
position, the campaign could have been neither short nor easy, and
undoubtedly ended in cruel slaughter and the almost total destruction
of the town. The chroniclers are not the only authorities for this
fact. Shortly afterwards, the Abbot Atto of Vallombrosa implored a
pardon from Pope Honorius II., _pro Florentinorum excessibus_, urging
in their favour that there were many aged persons, women, and children,
in Florence, who had assuredly taken no part in the _destruccio
fesulana_, and also that many participants in the war now confessed
the error of their ways, and sincerely repented all the excesses that
"non meditata nequitia commisere."[124] The event was long remembered
in Florence, is frequently recorded in documents,[125] and, together
with the rout of the Imperial vicar at Monte Cascioli, undoubtedly
contributed to establish the independence of the Commune on a firmer
basis.
VIII.
It is certain that Florence now had a separate government under Consuls
of her own, although there is no documentary proof to this effect
earlier than 1138. Sanzanome, however, makes explicit allusion to it
at the time of the Fiesole campaign, when, as we have seen, war was
declared by the Consuls. But what was the real nature and origin of
this new magistracy? Formerly it was opined by many writers that the
Consuls were an institution derived in general from the judges of
older days. In Lombardy they would have been merely another form of
the Frankish _scabini_, and accordingly in Florence it was natural
to suppose them to be an altered survival of those judges of the
margravial tribunal to whom, for some time before her death, Matilda
had accorded the right to give sentence. But this view can be no longer
maintained, since it does not comprise the whole truth of the matter.
For even when the Consuls are seen in the exercise of their functions,
what are they, what do they do, according to chronicles and documents?
They conduct wars, conclude treaties in the name of the people, of whom
they are the representatives; they govern the city; they administer
justice. And at Florence, as elsewhere, the latter is only one of
their duties, and only undertaken by them because so closely connected
with the exercise of the political power that is, above all, their
genuine and principal function. Besides, what was it that really led
to the birth of the Florentine Commune? What save the lack of the
higher political authority hitherto ruling Tuscany, and the necessity
of making war against old and new foes! Accordingly the military and
political elements unavoidably prevailed.
We are further confirmed in this idea by examining the constitution
of the Consular bench. At first it would seem that all or some of the
Consuls presided without distinction, while later, three members were
chosen in turn, and entitled _Consules super facto iustitiae_, or even
_Consules de iustitia_, to preside for one month; at a still later date
two Consuls presided for a term of two months, and finally, after the
nature of the primitive government has been changed, we find a single
Consul acting as president throughout a whole year.[126]
They might be, but were not necessarily, legal experts, since they
only pronounced and confirmed the judgment decided upon without either
preparing or formulating it. This duty fell to a real _iudex ordinarius
pro Comune_, together with three proveditors or _provisores_, who
examined the case and wrote the sentence. The Consuls merely sat as
presidents of the tribunal, and when, as sometimes occurred, they
failed to appear, the tribunal acted on its own account. Therefore
their office was practically the same as that of Countess Matilda
herself--_i.e._, to represent sovereignty without filling the place of
judges.[127]
The real nature of the new government will be best understood after
investigating the different elements of the civic body from which
that government was necessarily evolved. As we are aware, there were
two leading classes and interests dividing the city between them--that
is, the trade guilds, and the associations of worthies, or of the
Towers. In numerical strength the people had greatly the advantage;
but the worthies (_grandi_) were far more cultivated, trained to arms
and politics, and already somewhat versed in the art of government.
Therefore, the Consuls were recruited from this class, and at first
always chosen from so small a number of families, that the office
appeared to be almost an hereditary one. The misfortune of Florence,
as indeed of all the other communes, Venice excepted, was that the
_grandi_ were never agreed among themselves. Feudal nobility in Italy
resembled an exotic plant transferred to uncongenial soil. Elsewhere,
being of German origin, it formed part of an entire political system;
it was under the orders of the emperor to whom it adhered; it had
certain heroic qualities; it created a special form of civilisation,
and a literature that flourished in France and Germany, but it never
throve in Italy, and in Tuscany least of all. Our feudal lords, being
solely dominated by personal interests, leant on the Empire, the better
to combat the Pope; on the Pope, to combat the Empire; on the one or
the other indiscriminately to combat the cities. Even on Florentine
territory the same thing continually occurred. The _grandi_ established
within the city walls were, it is true, of a very different temper, and
much nearer to the people, whose life they shared; but they comprised
very discordant elements; for whereas some of these _grandi_ had risen
from the people, others were descended from feudal houses, with whom
they maintained friendly relations and on whose aid they could rely.
Thirst for power was a speedy cause of division among them, and the
ease with which one party gained favour with the working classes,
while the other was backed by the nobles of the _contado_, fostered the
growth of civil strife. Then, later on, as more nobles deserted their
castles for the city, a regularly aristocratic and Ghibelline party
was formed in opposition to the Guelph and popular side. This point,
however, was still far removed, for the common necessity of making head
against the baronage of the _contado_ long prevailed over all other
interests, since the very life of the Commune was involved in that
struggle.
All that we have so far related serves to show with increasing
clearness that two quite distinct classes of citizens already existed
in Florence--namely, that of the people or trades (_arti_), and that
of the worthies (_grandi_). Had the new government been evolved from
the trades alone, it would have assumed a form constituted on the basis
of a trade guild. Had it issued from the _grandi_ alone, it would have
given rise to a regional and local constitution, corresponding with
the _sestieri_ of the city over which their abodes were scattered.
In all Italian communes this double tendency is to be found. In
Rome the constitution by districts, or _rioni_, prevailed; while
at Florence, after a time, the constitution by guilds obtained in
consequence of the enormous prosperity of commerce and industry in
that city. Meanwhile, however, the moral predominance of the _grandi_
and the pressing exigencies of war favoured a division of the city
in _sestieri_, whereby the first assembling and organising of the
army was greatly facilitated. It was for this reason that the Consuls
were elected by their respective _sestieri_.[128] That the _grandi_
were already organised in "Societies of the Towers" there is written
evidence to prove. A document of 1165 alludes to these societies as
having been in existence for some time,[129] and the parchments of the
Florence Archives comprise actual fragments of their statutes dated
only a few years later on.[130] The "Tower" was possessed in common
by the partners or associates, and no share in it could be bequeathed
to any one outside the society, or to any member elected by less
than all votes save one. Women were naturally excluded. The expense
of maintaining and fortifying the Tower, which always communicated
with the houses of neighbouring members, and served for their common
defence, was divided among them all. Three or more rectors, also
sometimes called Consuls, managed the society, settled disputes, and
named their own successors. These rectors and their companions are
the men we now find at the head of the government; and there is clear
documentary evidence that the Consuls of the Commune were almost
invariably chosen from families belonging to the Societies of the
Towers. When, too, we observe that some of them were occasionally
nominated Consuls of the guilds,[131] as Cavalcanti, for example,
and several others, we gain an undoubted proof of the friendly terms
preserved, as we have previously noted, between these nobles and the
people. The societies were organised somewhat after the fashion of the
guilds, by which they may have been originally inspired, and were not
on a strictly feudal basis.[132]
Had the more aristocratic Uberti achieved sole predominance in the
city, things would have assuredly taken a different turn; but these
patricians were compelled, although reluctantly, to yield to the
force of events frequently opposed to their views. In fact, they were
seldom Consuls before the year 1177, when, after exciting a genuine
revolution, they were more frequently named to that post. This confirms
the fact of their previous defeat in 1115. The consular government had
then fallen into the hands of several noble families on good terms
with the people. And it was the popular voice that prevailed in the
assemblies where all the chief questions and interests of the State
were decided.
The Consuls[133] were elected at the beginning of the year, two for
each _sestieri_. At least, this seems to have been the ordinary
number, although we cannot be quite certain, since the number was
not invariably the same. Two of the twelve, chosen in rotation, acted
as heads of the college, and were styled _Consules priores_. For
this reason the chroniclers only mentioned two Consuls as a rule,
and sometimes one alone. In documents two, three, or even more are
mentioned, but always as representing the rest of their colleagues,
whose names are often added. Most rarely and only at exceptional
moments do we find record of a higher number than twelve.[134] Then
perhaps because the retiring Consuls continued in office with the new
ones for a few days, or from some other passing cause that is unknown
to us. Such variations are not surprising if it is kept in mind that
the constitution of Florence, being then in course of formation, must
have been liable to uncertainty and change, as will often be seen
further on.
IX.
Attention should now be called to the popular element in the
constitution. That the guilds were solidly established by the early
part of the twelfth century is indubitably proved. Villani says that
towards the year 1150 the Consuls of the Merchants, or rather of the
"Calimala Guild," were entrusted by the Commune of Florence with the
building works of "San Giovanni" (i. 60). Of still greater significance
is the fact that on February 3, 1182, the men of Empoli, in making
submission to Florence, were bound to make a yearly payment of fifty
pounds of "good money" (_buoni denari_) to the Consuls or Rectors
of the city, and, failing these officials, to the Consuls of the
Merchants,[135] as representing the Commune. Now, if these Consuls
had reached so high a degree of importance in 1182, we are entitled
to believe that the guild was of no recent origin. And remembering
that the guild in question was the Calimala--_i.e._, that of finishers
and dyers of woollen cloths manufactured abroad, and more especially
in Flanders, imported by Florence, and thence despatched to foreign
markets--we shall understand that Florentine commerce must have
already attained a prodigious development, and consequently that many
of the guilds must have been already long established. A solitary
instance would naturally afford little proof, since it might be open
to various interpretations; but others can be adduced to the same
effect. In a treaty between Lucca and Florence of July 21, 1184, we
find a stipulation according to which the terms might be modified by
the Florentine Consuls _comuni populo electi_, and by twenty-five
counsellors, provided, as was expressly declared, the Consuls of the
merchants were comprised in the number.[136] Likewise, when the men of
Trebbio made submission on July 14, 1193, the power of incorporating
the agreement in the City Statutes was exclusively reserved to the
seven _Rectores qui sunt super Capitibus Artium_.[137]
But a final observation occurs to us at this point, again showing the
very uncertain and changeable nature of this consular government. In
mentioning the chief authorities of the Commune, almost all documents
refer to them as "_Consules seu rectores vel rector_," with the
addition, at a later date, of "_Potestas sive dominator_."[138] All
these terms had a very general meaning at the period. Nevertheless,
there must have been some reason for employing the formula--Consuls
or Rectors or _Potestà_--in treaties of peace, or alliance, or state
documents of high importance; and probably a special reason, seeing
that we often find the formula ending as follows: "_Consules qui pro
tempore erint, et si non erint_," the Rectors or the _Potestà_ or
the Consuls of the guilds were to act in their stead. Why so much
vagueness in indicating the chief magistrate of the Republic? Only one
explanation is possible. The real practical government of the city was
carried on by the various associations; the office of Consul had few
attributes and never attained the power and importance due to a central
government, as conceived in the modern sense. The same remark may be
also applied to the Priors, the Ancients, and other officers of later
date; but it is specially true as applied to the consuls, under whom
the various civic societies were first united in a single government.
Therefore, to meet the eventuality of no Consuls being in office at the
moment, it was provided that the Rectors of the Towers or of the guilds
should naturally assume the power directly emanating from them. But as
no public acts performed in the name of the Rectors are extant, we may
conclude that the contingency arranged for seldom arose.
Frequent mention occurs of _counsellors_ (_consilarii_), and we note
that representatives of the guilds were comprised among them. We know,
in fact, that there was a council in Florence, as in other Italian
communes, and Villani tells us (iv. 7, and v. 32) that this council was
called a senate "according to the custom given by the Romans to the
Florentines," and composed of one hundred worthies (_Buoni Uomini_).
In documents, however, they are nearly always entitled _consiliarii_,
the term "senator"[139] only occurring once; but in those days the
term _senato_ or _consiglio_, _senatori_ or _consiglieri_, were often
indiscriminately applied, particularly with regard to the limited or
_Special_ Council, as it was afterwards called. No documents supply
us with the precise number of the councillors; but we believe the
one hundred recorded by Villani must be somewhat under the exact
figure, since a form of oath sworn by 133 councillors is extant.[140]
Perhaps each _sestiere_ elected about twenty or twenty-five members,
without this being the invariable rule, and thus the Council might be
approximately designated as that of the "Hundred." Then, too, there was
the parliament, also known as the _Arengo_,[141] which was a general
assembly of the people, held on great occasions for the gravest affairs
of the State.
X.
Thus the Florentine Commune resembled a confederation of Trade Guilds
and Societies of the Towers. Its directing authorities for affairs of
war, finance, justice, and other matters of the highest importance,
were the Consuls, elected yearly, with a senate or council of about a
hundred worthies, likewise elected yearly, and lastly a parliament. The
Consuls were almost invariably chosen from members of the Companies of
the Towers, and if, for any reason, no election of Consuls took place,
the rectors of the Towers or of the guilds were provisionally empowered
to act in their stead. But the guilds predominated in the Council, and
as a natural consequence the government assumed a popular character
from that time, and the whole policy of Florence always tended to
promote the trade and commerce of the city.
Nevertheless, to obtain a still clearer idea of a government of this
kind, it would be requisite to ascertain exactly who and what were the
citizens entitled to a share in it, and this point is still somewhat
doubtful. The outlying territory (_contado_) was entirely excluded
from citizenship, nor was this privilege granted to all dwellers within
the walls, the lower class of artisans and the populace being excluded
from it.[142] Hence the government was concentrated in the hands of a
few powerful families, the heads of the guilds, and their principal
adherents. In fact, even down to the last days of the Republic real
citizenship--the possessors of which alone were eligible to political
posts--was a privilege conceded to few, and even in 1494 the number
of citizens scarcely exceeded three thousand. For this reason, even
at the present day, we may find a few humble families asserting their
inheritance of old Florentine civic rights, as a rare privilege and
almost as a title of nobility. At Venice, even in the eighteenth
century, to the last days of the Republic there still existed different
grades of citizenship, and the right of government was restricted to a
small caste. This is one of the points in our history demanding closer
investigation. It is true that the whole people met indistinctly in
parliament; but such assemblies were mostly of a purely formal kind.
For, seeing that the parliament was convoked either in some square,
often of small extent, or inside a church, we are bound to infer that
the privilege accorded to all the inhabitants of the city was nominal
rather than real.
It were likewise superfluous to add that the exact division of power,
as in modern constitutions, was entirely ignored in those days.
Affairs were divided according to their importance and the quality
of the individuals concerned in them, rather than according to their
nature. The Council of the Hundred was not, as might be supposed,
at this day, a legislative assembly, nor was the executive power
vested in the Consuls. The latter gave judgment, administered affairs,
commanded armies, executed the will of the people, and occasionally
completed legislative acts even without the aid of the Council. This,
however, was always consulted regarding very important reforms, but
often voted for or against them without any discussion. On questions
of extraordinary moment the parliament gave its _placet_ without
always understanding the nature of the question. On the other hand,
not only affairs of some gravity, and particularly those for which
money was needed, were referred to the Council; but this could also be
consulted, at the Consul's pleasure, on any question whatever, from the
proposed execution of some political offender to granting some citizen
permission to transfer his abode from one _sestiere_ to another.[143]
Although a question of the latter kind seems very insignificant to
us nowadays, it was an important one then, since it altered the
distribution of the inhabitants in different parts of the city, and
consequently the relative strength of these parts and the proportional
right of the citizens to fill public offices--a point that was very
jealously watched.
[Illustration: BELFRY OF S. ANDREA, MERCATO VECCHIO, FLORENCE.
[_To face page 130._]
Such was the first form of government adopted by the Florentine
Commune. But the Commune was not yet consolidated nor sufficiently
sure of its strength. The territory beneath its sway was very limited
in extent, with ill-defined, disputable and disputed frontiers. Even
within these borders the Commune had very little power, inasmuch as
the castled nobility not only vaunted their independence of the city,
refusing to acknowledge any authority save that of the Empire, to
which they were not always submissive, but waged constant war on the
Commune, and perpetually incited neighbouring lands to rebellion.
Accordingly, the first thing to be done at this juncture was to seize
the _contado_ by force of arms, reduce it to subjection and govern it,
the which, as we shall see, led to many new and serious complications,
both within and without the walls. These vicissitudes constitute the
real civil history of Florence, which finally starts from this moment.
[Illustration]