CHAPTER VIII.

_THE ENACTMENTS OF JUSTICE._[418]

I.

There are many reasons why the history of Florence in the closing

years of the thirteenth century should demand our fullest attention.

It was the period of the very important political revolution resulting

in the establishment of those Enactments of Justice of which the

authorship is attributed to Giano della Bella, and which Bonaini has

entitled the Magna Charta of the Florentine Republic. Even should

this comparison seem strained, it is certain that those enactments,

sometimes strengthened, sometimes modified, and occasionally suspended,

remained in vigour nevertheless for more than a century--a fact of no

small weight in so mutable a commonwealth as that of Florence. Sooner

or later many neighbouring cities imitated these enactments, and in

1338 the Romans sent to request a copy of them, in order to re-organise

their city by the same means. On this subject Villani wrote as follows:

"It is known how times and conditions change, for the Romans, who of

old built the city of Florence and gave it their own laws, now, in

our days, have sent to ask laws from the Florentines."[419] It is

likewise during this period that we behold arts and letters suddenly

blossoming to the greatest splendour in the bosom of the Republic.

Language, poetry, painting, architecture, sculpture had already put

forth their first shoots in various Italian cities; but all are now

permanently rooted in Florence, and initiating a new era in the

history of the national intellect, suddenly flash forth into a glory

of light, irradiating all Europe as well as Italy. Hence it behoves us

to investigate most minutely the nature of the favourable conditions,

both political and social, which rendered Florence the centre of such

marvellous activity and the focus of all those far-spreading beams.

The remark might certainly occur, that although this period has such

undoubted claims upon our attention, its history is already very

familiar to us; it has been recounted by contemporary writers such as

Compagni and Villani, who were not only eye-witnesses, but often active

participants in the events they described; it has been corroborated by

many original documents, and recently expounded afresh by some most

illustrious modern writers. Nevertheless, the attentive student is

compelled to recognise that those times are less well known than might

be supposed; for even in perusing the works of the newest historians we

are perplexed by numerous difficulties and doubts. In point of fact,

what is it we learn from Machiavelli, Ammirato, Sismondi, and Napier,

and even from Vannucci, Giudici, and Trollope, who wrote subsequently

to the publication of many newly discovered original documents? That,

after the battle of Campaldino the arrogance of the nobles in Florence

exceeded all bounds; that they insulted, oppressed, and trampled on

the people; that there arose a daring and generous man named Giano

della Bella, a noble devoted to the popular party, who when holding

the office of Prior proposed a new law as a permanent remedy for these

evils; that this law was passed and sanctioned under the name of

Enactments of Justice, and that it excluded the nobles--or, rather,

the magnates--from every political post; that it only permitted those

really engaged in some trade or craft to share in the government of

the Republic; that it punished every grave offence against the people,

on the part of the nobles, with exceptionally severe sentences and

penalties, such as chopping off hands, death at the block, and, more

frequently, by confiscation of property; that slighter offences were

only punished by fines; that the magistrates were empowered to chastise

any man of the people (_popolano_) showing hostility to the Republic or

breaking its laws, by proclaiming him a noble, and that this sentence

immediately excluded him from the government and placed him under the

same restrictions to which aristocrats were subject. Furthermore,

that if any magnate convicted of offence should escape justice, one

of his relations or associates would have to expiate the crime in his

stead.[420]

"A fact without parallel in the world's history!" Giudici exclaims.

For truly, although a fundamental law of the Republic, this decree

seems rather a freak of revenge solely inspired by the blindest party

spirit. Accordingly almost every word of the decree excites our

suspicion. How can it be explained that Dante was one of the Priors

in office at the time, together with others who undoubtedly were not

artisans, or only so in name, if it were true that the enactments

excluded all who were not _practically exercising_ some trade? And

apart from a thousand lesser doubts, the fact that innocent men were

then condemned to death merely because they were relations or fellow

associates of criminals who had escaped justice, is a point that we

cannot possibly understand. In a period of the densest barbarism,

it would be barely comprehensible; in Dante's age, it is a mystery

and a contradiction, confusing all our ideas concerning those times.

Therefore renewed investigation of the subject cannot be altogether

futile. It is requisite to penetrate the true nature of the revolution

that had then been accomplished, and of the law that resulted from it,

and to bring both into harmony with the times and with the history of

Florence.

II.

Towards the end of the thirteenth century the Republic had acquired

very high importance throughout Italy as well as Tuscany. The fall

of the Hohenstauffens, the coming of the Angevins, the vacancy of

the Imperial throne had given an enormous ascendancy to the Guelph

party which in Florence was that of the democracy. Its three great

Ghibelline rivals, Pisa, Sienna, and Arezzo, had been humiliated and

conquered by the subtle diplomacy of Florence and Florentine arms; and

these victories had not only re-established the Republic's political

authority in Tuscany, but opened and secured to it all the chief

highways of commerce. Through Pisa it had access to the sea; through

Sienna and Arezzo, to Rome, Umbria, and Southern Italy; it could pass

to the north through distant Bologna, peopled with friendly Guelphs.

Accordingly the commerce of Florence was then rapidly increased, and

this republic of merchants, surrounded by other republics equally

devoted to trade and industry, stood at the head of all Tuscany. On the

other hand, however, the augmented power of the Angevins was beginning

to excite the jealousy of the Popes who had first called them to Italy,

and who now turned their eyes towards Germany in order to revive the

Imperial pretensions, and thus check the growing ambition of the French

king. For Charles of Anjou, whom they had named Senator of Rome and

Vicar-Imperial of Tuscany, now seemed determined to follow the daring

policy of the Swabian line by aspiring to supremacy over Italy.

During this state of things, the Florentines managed to keep their

balance with marvellous _finesse_, and by leaning this way, or that,

frequently turned the scales on the side they preferred. They utilised

the king's soldiery to crush Ghibelline cities and Ghibelline nobles;

they leaned on the Pope, to check Charles's arrogance; and they showed

readiness to favour the Empire, when the Pope tried to assert temporal

supremacy, as though, in the present _interregnum_, he were the natural

inheritor of the imperial rights. By this means, the Republic not only

preserved its independence, but became a State commanding the fear and

respect of all Italy.[421] This was all the result of the shrewdness,

energy, and intelligence of its burghers, who governed with so much

thriftiness and wisdom as to achieve an unparalleled prosperity. "It

is a known thing," says Villani, "that down to this time and for long

past, such was the tranquillity of Florence, that the City gates

stood unlocked by night,[422] no duties were exacted in Florence;[423]

and rather than impose burdens, when money was needed, old walls and

bits of land within and without the City were sold to the owners of

conterminous portions of the soil."[424] With few taxes and no debts,

the administration was excellently conducted; it left the citizens

unhampered, and increased the general well-being.

III.

Nevertheless, beneath this tranquil surface the seeds of deep-rooted

discord lurked in the bosom of the State, and occasionally broke forth

in sanguinary conflicts, of which the discontent of the nobles was the

principal cause. It would be a serious mistake to believe that they

were first excluded from the government in virtue of the Enactments

of Justice. The measure had been prepared long before, and although

not then rigorously carried out, may be said to have been already

sanctioned in 1282, by the decree placing the Priors of the Guild at

the head of the Republic. But it should not be thought on this account,

that the nobles had lost all actual power in the city at the time.

First of all, the new system of warfare, in which municipal armies,

composed of artisans, unprovided with cavalry or men-at-arms, proved

very incompetent, had made the assistance of the nobles indispensable,

and also began to render it necessary to employ foreigners: soldiers

of adventure from Germany, France, and Spain, who earned their

living by war alone. At Montaperti (1260) the terrible defeat of the

Republic's Guelph host had been achieved by Manfred's Germans, and

the Ghibelline nobles banished from Florence. At Campaldino (1289) it

was Corso Donati, Vieri de' Cerchi, and other Florentine nobles or

potentates who had decided the fate of the day. The nobles knew this,

and constantly boasted of it, in their contempt for the artisans and

people. Being trained to arms, and undisturbed by commercial cares,

they sorely chafed against being excluded from the government by

rougher folk far less fitted for war than themselves. Accordingly,

political animosities became more and more heated; the nobles could

neither be still nor leave others in peace.

It should also be remarked that the nobles of the period were no longer

the feudal lords of former times, who, isolated in their well-guarded

strongholds, like so many sovereigns, depended solely from the Empire

and were foes to the Republic. Having been ousted from the territory,

and obliged for some time back to reside in the city, they now clung to

the latter, but desired to hold rule over it. Being surrounded on all

sides by a powerful population banded in trade guilds and masters of

the Government; being forcibly made subject to Republican laws refusing

all recognition of feudal rights, the nobles had been obliged, in

self-defence, to form Associations or Societies of the Towers, which

being ruled by custom rather than law, were all the more firmly knit

together. Originally, the nobles had been chiefly united by family ties

which were still more closely respected on the disintegration of the

feudal order, when, in order to maintain their strength, kinsmen banded

together in separate castes or associations and gave admittance to a

widening circle of members. They clustered together in neighbouring

palaces, often lining one or more of the city streets; they lived in

the midst of their adherents, squires, domestics, and grooms, and in

moments of danger even summoned to their aid the peasantry of their

rural estates. Their possessions were always handed down to their

families or the Society to which they belonged, and their disputes

were settled by chosen arbiters.[425] Besides all this, their deeds of

vengeance were decided upon in common, and the individuals charged to

execute them were always placed in safety by their comrades, the whole

association assuming the responsibility of every deed of this kind.

Often, between one house and another, or in one of their palace yards,

there was an archway under which they administered torture to any one

they chose. In fact, speaking of the Bostichi family, Compagni tells

us that: "They committed many evil deeds, and continued to do them for

long. In their own palaces, situated in the New Market, in the centre

of the city, they would string men up, and put them to the torture at

mid-day. And it was a common saying in the land that there were too

many tribunals; and in counting the places where torture was applied,

people said: 'In the Bostichi house, by the Market.'"[426] All this

continued to be done, notwithstanding the very severe laws already

promulgated against the nobles. A man of the people could be flogged,

stabbed, or tortured, without the author of the misdeed being brought

within the grasp of the law. Out in the country these same nobles used

all sorts of devices to perpetuate serfdom, although for many years it

had been legally abolished, and by threats or open violence induced

their peasants, by means of fictitious contracts, to acknowledge

obligations from which they were lawfully exempt.[427]

Thus citizens, already powerful in virtue of their social position,

contrived to retain much strength and great political influence in the

Republic, notwithstanding the laws designed to keep them in check.

Being excluded from the Signory they could neither enter the Council

of One Hundred nor the Councils of the Captain, in which the more

important questions were discussed. But they were admitted to those

of the Podestà, and this official, being of necessity a knight, often

gave judgment in favour of the nobles. Also, they were continually

employed as ambassadors, and given the first posts in war; but they

enjoyed most prominence in the institution entitled the Guelph

Society (_Parte Guelfa_), and were specially appointed to all its

chief offices. This Society, founded, as we have previously shown, in

1267, after the expulsion of Count Guido Novello, was charged with

the administration of all confiscated Ghibelline property which had

been formed into a _monte_ or _mobile_, or, as would now be said,

capitalised. This property was to be employed for the subjection of

the Ghibellines and the support of the Guelphs, of whom Florence was

the Tuscan headquarters. It was on this account that Cardinal Ottavio

degli Ubandini had exclaimed: "Now that the Guelphs have formed a fund

in Florence, the Ghibellines will never return there;" and his prophecy

was fulfilled.[428] In fact, the Ghibelline party was gradually

swept away by the steady persecution to which it was subjected on the

complete overthrow of the Suabian line; and Florence, having become

exclusively Guelph, was divided between the parties of burghers and

populace, and that of the nobles and magnates or _grandi_. The latter,

although excluded from the government, or from _honours_, to use the

phraseology of the time, could never be ousted from the Guelph Society,

and continued to administer its large revenues. This Society was

ordered in the fashion of a miniature republic, and notwithstanding

numerous attempts to introduce an increasing burgher element within

its pale, these efforts proved so fruitless and were so invariably

thwarted, that the statutes compiled in 1335, and now extant in print,

record the fact that money premiums were offered to promote the

nomination of new knights. To each of the six knights elected during

the year the sum of fifty gold florins were awarded, "so that a city

of such great magnificence may be duly glorified by the number of its

knights." Thus while, on the one hand, every means was taken to abase

the great nobles, almost to the extent of securing their extermination,

on the other, this threatened class continually gained reinforcement

and support.[429]

IV.

With all these advantages, had the nobles been united, they might

have regained their position even after the defeats of '66 and '82

and succeeded in dominating the people. But they were divided, and

hotly at strife even among themselves. "There was much warfare"

(Villani says) "between the Adimari and Tosinghi, between the Rossi

and Tornaquinci, between the Bardi and Mozzi, between the Gherardini

and Manieri, between the Cavalcanti and Buondelmonti, and likewise

between certain of the Buondelmonti and Giandonati; between the

Visdomini and Falconieri, between the Bostichi and Foraboschi, between

the Foraboschi and Malespini, and among the Frescobaldi themselves,

and between the members of the Donati family, and also among those of

many other houses."[430] Nor is it surprising that such strong and

powerful cliques should have felt jealous of one another. Added to

this, the Guelph nobles included the remains of the Ghibelline party,

which cherished Imperial tendencies; thus another germ of discord was

sown that encouraged and excited the people to prosecute the war of

extermination it had already set on foot. The popular party was far

better organised and united; it was banded in various guilds forming

part of the general constitution of the State, and on every occasion

showed an energy and singleness of purpose never possessed by nobles.

It is true, that even at this juncture, some seeds of jealousy were

beginning to be discernible between the greater and lesser guilds

and the populace; but open discord was long delayed. For the moment

there was no hint of it. Certain special conventions, drawn up in

regular documentary form, had been arranged between the members of one

or more of the guilds, and these agreements were designated at the

time _Legbe_, _Posture_, or _Convegni_. But their object was chiefly

commercial, being designed to keep the price of certain commodities up

to a forced standard, and create illegal monopolies, and was seldom the

result of political interests or animosities. They were not sanctioned

by law, they certainly did not promote concord, but their importance

was slight.

Thus the city became increasingly divided and subdivided into groups,

and was apparently in danger of falling to pieces. The lower classes

were still undoubted rulers of the government, but the nobles were

also powerful, if in a different way; hence unity and concord were

continually and seriously imperilled. Necessarily, therefore, the

chief aim to be pursued, in order to avert a catastrophe, was the

attainment of greater equality among the citizens, of greater union and

strength in the various societies as well as in the government itself.

In fact, for a long time past, Florentine legislation and successive

revolutions had alike kept this object in view. The law of August 6,

1289, abolishing serfdom in order to emancipate the peasantry, was also

another step towards equality. Those of June 30, and July 3, 1290,

prohibited all agreements in any way opposed to the lawful constitution

of the guilds. The law of January 31, 1291, imposed a fresh check on

the nobles, by obliging all citizens, without any exception, to submit

to the jurisdiction of the regular courts, and decreeing the severest

penalties on any one asserting, or trying to obtain, the privilege of

trial by special tribunals.[431]

But a more notable point is the fact that every fine decreed in such

cases fell upon the fellow-associate or relation of the criminal,

should the latter contrive to evade justice. However strange this rule

may appear to the modern mind, its explanation is to be found in the

account we have already given of the mode in which property was held at

the time, and of the constitution of families and associations. When

almost the whole of the patrimony was shared by the family in common,

it would have been very difficult, and even dangerous, to inflict a

fine on any one member of the house while exempting the rest, and

for this reason the invariable tendency of the law was to insist on

their solidarity. This principle seemed still more logical when it

was a question of inflicting fines on nobles banded in closely united

associations, and who, keeping all their interests in common, decided

on acts of vengeance, and proved their intention of holding all things

in common and dividing one another's responsibilities. Where property

belonged to the whole family, it was only just that the whole family

should be liable for the fine; where an act of vengeance was done in

common, and the gravest offences committed in the name, and with the

sanction, of the whole kindred, there could be nothing extraordinary

in the law compelling one associate or kinsman to be mulcted in lieu

of another, beginning with his nearest relations. Precisely for these

reasons, it had long been customary in drawing out the list of the

nobles, for the law to compel the said nobles to _sodare_, that is,

to compel every one of them to stand surety not merely for himself

alone, but also for his relations, by depositing the sum of two

thousand _lire_. In this way, since money-penalties seldom exceeded

the said amount, whenever a noble was fined he could use the money he

had already deposited, or it could be employed for the same end by

the kinsman bound surety for him, in case he should have escaped or

contrived to evade the law by some unauthorised device.[432] These

were exclusively and precisely the principles upon which the Enactments

of Justice were also founded. Accordingly it is impossible to consider

them the personal invention of Giano della Bella, seeing that they were

merely a logical consequence and natural result, inevitably evolved

from preceding revolutions, institutions, and laws. Indeed, for the

most part they only sum up and arrange older laws, so as to accentuate

more plainly their primary and enduring intent.

V.

Giano della Bella was neither a legislator nor a politician, but a man

of action. A noble by birth, he had fought at Campaldino, where his

horse was killed under him; he afterwards joined the popular side, by

reason, it was averred, of a quarrel at San Piero Scheraggio with Piero

Frescobaldi, who had dared to strike him in the face, and threaten

to cut off his nose.[433] Whether this tale were true or not, it is

certain that Giano was a man of violent disposition, great daring,

small prudence, and disinterested love of freedom; but he was by no

means devoid of the passion for revenge that even his admirers laid to

his charge. "A forcible and very spirited man" (says Compagni), "he was

so daring, that he defended matters forsaken by others, said things

others left unspoken, did his utmost to bring justice to bear on the

guilty, and was so much feared by the Rectors that they dared not

conceal evil deeds."[434] According to Villani "he was a most loyal and

upright _popolano_, and more devoted to the public good than any man

in Florence, one that gave help to the Commune without seeking his own

profit. He was overbearing and obstinate in wreaking revenge, and also

achieved some deeds of vengeance on his neighbours, the Abati, by using

the authority of the Commune,"[435] for which the worthy chronicler

severely blames him.

When appointed Podestà of Pistoia, he immediately plunged into

party strife, persecuting one side and favouring the other, with so

much ardour that, instead of fulfilling his duty of pacifying the

different factions, he inflamed their hatred to such a pitch that it

was impossible for him to remain there to the end of his official

term.[436] The whole course of his conduct in Florence proves, as we

shall see, that he must have been a man of scant prudence and great

impulsiveness. It was precisely these characteristics which made

him a leader of the people instead of a legislator, and likewise an

implacable enemy of the nobles.

After the battle of Campaldino the latter showed more audacity and

growing insolence. "It was we who won the victory at Campaldino," they

continually repeated, "and yet you seek our ruin." Bent on forcing

their way to the front and gaining command, they daily insulted or

injured some man of the people. The law was powerless against them,

inasmuch as the offenders could never be unearthed; the latter were

carefully sheltered, and no one desired or dared to testify against

them. A _popolano_ could be surrounded, attacked, even stabbed, yet

nobody had seen the doer of the crime. Or some one would be dragged

into the houses of an association, maltreated, beaten or tortured on

the cord, yet all that occurred in those places remained unrevealed.

If some noble was condemned to a fine, he made haste to declare that

he possessed no separate estate, and by his own negligence, or that

of the magistrates, had failed to give surety, while his relations

repeated the same story.[437] Hence it was necessary to recall the

old laws into vigour, make them still stricter, and decide on new and

sterner measures. So at last the priors in office from the 15th of

December, 1292, to the 15th of February, 1293, urged on by the public

voice, under Giano's guidance, commissioned three citizens, Donato

Ristori, Ubertino della Strozza, and Baldo Aguglioni, to frame a new

law fitted, not only to meet present dangers, but to assure greater

stability to the Republic in the future. On the 10th of January, the

Bill being then drawn up, the Captain of the People assembled the

Council of One Hundred, and proposed that the required Councils should

be asked to grant them full powers (_balìa_)[438] to proclaim it, if it

were approved by the magistrates and by certain citizen worthies. Some

proposed, in amendment, that it should be first read and discussed by

the councils; but this would have entailed a risk of the whole thing

coming to nothing. Accordingly the more practical course was chosen,

and by seventy-two votes, against two negatives only, the requested

_balìa_ was granted. On the 18th of January the new law, entitled

"Ordinamenti," or "Ordini di Giustizia," was proclaimed in the names of

the Podestà, captain, and priors, and with the concurrence of the Heads

of the Twenty-one Guilds and certain citizen worthies.[439] There is

every reason to believe that Giano della Bella was one of the worthies

in question; but although historians suppose him to have been the

creator and initiator of the law, since, as leader of public opinion,

he compelled the Signory to pass it, yet he was not in the government

at the time, nor does his name appear in any official decree.[440]

Therefore he was by no means the sole author or compiler of the new law.

VI.

What, then, are these enactments? In replying to this question it is

requisite to leave the historians aside and turn to the law itself. But

there are several old compilations of it, differing so much from each

other, that one form only comprises twenty-two rubrics, whereas some

have more than a hundred. Accordingly, the first thing to be done is to

ascertain which is the genuine and primary law passed on the 18th of

January, 1293, since on this alone can an accurate judgment be based,

and no other starting-point is possible. There are six of these very

different compilations--four in print, and two still inedited. Two of

the number may be summarily dealt with as unnecessary to our purpose.

One is included in the general collection of Florentine statistics,

formed in 1415 by Bartolommeo Volpi and Paolo de Castro, and printed

with the false date of Friburg, towards the close of the eighteenth

century (1778-1783). This consists of laws of entirely different

periods arranged haphazard, without regard to chronology, and including

the enactments, but these are given with all the modifications and

changes introduced at a later date, and are also confusedly jumbled.

No historian engaged on the times of Giano della Bella can make any use

of a collection of this kind, since it shows no proof of authenticity.

For the same reason we may also reject the Miscellany preserved in the

Florence Archives, and that Bonaini calls "a _huge medley_," containing

unconnected laws of different periods, and different tendencies, some

enforcing and others modifying the Enactments of Justice. Hence,

while possibly of some importance with regard to the history of the

"Ordinamenti," this Miscellany cannot help us to discover their primary

form.

Four other compilations remain, one of which only is inedited.

Examination quickly shows that the one brought out by Bonaini comprises

no more than twenty-one rubrics, and that the last of these, forming a

general summary, is mutilated; the other compilations contain a greater

number of rubrics, but, in all three, the general special enactments

of January, 1293, are invariably given under the first twenty-eight

rubrics.[441] In fact, from the twenty-ninth forward, appendices and

posterior laws begin to occur, often separately dated, and seemingly

tacked on to the enactments, in order sometimes to modify, sometimes to

strengthen them, or again to diminish their effect, or because of their

relation to cognate matters. All the laws and statutes of the Republic

suffered more or less the same fate. Thus the notable divergences

found in the various compilations are reduced to very narrow limits as

regards the original body of enactments. Certain doubts still assail

us, however, seeing that we not only find twenty-two rubrics on the

one hand against twenty-eight on the other, but because these rubrics

clash on various points. First of all, then, let us remark that the

oldest compilation is undoubtedly the one published by Bonaini in

1855, from the original MS. in the State Archives. The editor felt

assured of having discovered the original document of the enactments,

but conscientiously preferred to entitle it the original draft,[442]

seeing that, as Hegel has since ascertained, it is not the actual law

that was approved and proclaimed by the magistrates. The codex is of

great antiquity, and may be ascribed to Giano della Bella's day. In

fact, in one heading, first inscribed and then cancelled, we find the

date of 1292 _de mense ianuarii_ (1293, new style).[443] The usual

formula heading all decrees of the Republic is missing, and the said

formula not only gave the date and title, but occasionally added the

names of the magistrates promulgating the law. The codex is of small

size, full of erasures, alterations, and additions written by different

hands: often, too, there are empty spaces left between one rubric and

another to allow room for future additions or corrections. Everything

plainly shows that this old codex is only a rough copy of the law,

standing exactly as it was drawn up, at the request of the magistrates,

by the three previously mentioned citizens, and before it had been cast

in its final form, or legally sanctioned by those charged to discuss

and approve it, prior to its promulgation. Accordingly it is impossible

to decide with any certainty whether it was modified at all, or in

what degree. But although this rough draft is somewhat anterior to the

actual law itself, the existing compilations are all posterior to it,

and may consequently include later appendices and modifications. Thus,

on examining the Latin compilation edited by Fineschi in 1790, and the

Italian one brought out by Giudici in 1853, both derived from old and

authentic manuscripts, we find each to have all the characteristics

of a regularly proclaimed law. Both begin with the official formula,

and are dated the 18th of January, 1292 (1293, new style). On reading

the rubrics appended to the second (the Italian copy), which is much

longer than the other, we find various dates given, including that

of 1324; whereas the first (the Latin version) contains none later

than the 6th of July, 1295. Therefore the latter is the older of the

two, and the occasional divergences existing even among its first

twenty-eight rubrics are undoubtedly caused by amendments introduced at

a subsequent time. Nevertheless, even the first rubrics of the Latin

compilation evidently contain modifications of an earlier date than the

6th of July, 1295. For instance, in rubric vi. we find the number of

witnesses--a point left undecided in the rough draft (rubric v.)--fixed

at three in the two posterior compilations, and this point (as we shall

see) can be proved on documentary evidence to have been settled by law

in July, 1295. Therefore we are justified in concluding that it is the

Latin and older compilation that gives the enactments as they stood in

July, 1295; while the Italian copy, although proved, by examination

of the codex, to be an official translation, occasionally includes

alterations of even a later date than 1295. If, however, we only keep

in view their first twenty-eight rubrics, and collate these with

Bonaini's draft, it will be seen that, saving for the non-appearance

in the latter of six rubrics, chiefly of a very insignificant kind,

all other divergences are rather formal than substantial. In any

case, wherever the three versions are found to agree, we may be sure

of possessing the law passed on the 18th of January, 1293, in the

precise shape it wore at the time; but wherever, on the contrary,

divergences exist, we must seek the aid of the chroniclers and of any

new documents, should such be found, before arriving at a definite

conclusion.

Following these rules, we may therefore proceed to examine the

law.[444]

VII.

What, then, were these Enactments of Justice, as originally framed, and

what is to be learnt from them? They work a political and social change

in the Republic, for the evident purpose of promoting civil equality,

giving greater unity to the government and increased strength to the

guilds; also of assuring the harmony and concord of the people, and

curbing the arrogance of the nobles. The more strictly political reform

is confined to establishing safe rules for the election of Priors,

and creating a new and more powerful magistrate, the Gonfalonier of

Justice, to sit in junction with the Priors.

By request of the Captain of the People, the Priors authorised him

to call a meeting of the Heads, or Consuls of the Twelve Guilds,

in order to deliberate as to the safest and most fitting mode of

choosing their own successors. All candidates to the priorate had to

be enrolled in some guild, and to exercise its trade, as the surest

means of proving that they were not of the aristocracy--always the

chief point to be ascertained. In fact no one remaining a noble could

be eligible to the Signory, even if engaged in trade.[445] By means of

subtle and often quibbling interpretations of the law, it was possible

to compromise as to the actual practice of a craft, but never as to

being absolutely free from all taint of aristocracy.[446] Thus Giano

della Bella, in spite of merely having, as Villani relates, some slight

commercial interests in France, was qualified, on discarding his rank

and becoming one of the people, to enter the Signory in February,

1293. In July, 1295, as we shall see, the enactments were modified,

and it was sufficient for candidates to be enrolled in some guild

without practically exercising its trade, always providing they did not

belong to the nobility. Many regulations were added to assure an equal

division of public posts among all the Sestieri of the city and all the

guilds, while prohibiting the nomination of several Priors belonging

to the same Sestiere, family, or guild. None leaving office could be

re-elected to it within two years, and this prohibition was extended

to his relations as well. The office of Prior was held for two months;

no one was allowed to ask or intrigue for it, but neither might one

refuse to accept it. The Priors had to dwell altogether in one house,

where they lived and ate in common, without accepting invitations

elsewhere or giving private audiences.[447]

The next subject considered was the election of the new magistrate,

namely, the Gonfalonier of Justice. He was chosen every two months from

a different Sestiere of the city, and his electors were the incoming

Priors, captains, and guild-masters, with the addition of two worthies

of each Sestiere. He was elected on precisely the same terms as the

Priors, saving that he might return to office after one year instead

of two; he lived with the Priors as _primus inter pares_; he received

the same honorarium of ten _soldi_ per day, expenses included, so that

he was practically unremunerated. But having higher attributes in the

eyes of the law, he became speedily and of necessity the chief of the

Signory.[448] At the public parliament the Gonfalon of the People

was solemnly consigned to him, and one hundred _pavesi_, or shields,

and twenty-five cross-bows with bolts were placed at his disposal,

for the better equipment of part of the thousand _popolani_ yearly

selected to serve under him, the Podestà and Captain to preserve

order and enforce the execution of the new laws.[449] No relation

of the Priors in office could be elected to the Gonfaloniership. The

creation of this new post certainly serves to prove that the necessity

of giving increased unity and supremacy to the Government was already

acknowledged. But at that period Republican jealousy was too strong to

sanction anything more than a mere show of supremacy. Accordingly, the

Gonfalonier was only the most influential of the Priors, and liable

to be changed on the same terms, albeit the fact of having the free

disposal, at given moments, of the citizen army undoubtedly endued him

with higher authority.

In treating of the branch of the enactments bearing on social rather

than political cases, we should remark first of all that to these

enactments was owed the settled constitution of the Florentine guilds,

which now hastened to reframe or renew their own special statutes.

The normal number of the guilds was likewise established by the

enactments, and from that moment remained fixed at twenty-one.[450]

In fact, the first rubric decreed that the guilds should take a

solemn oath to maintain union and concord among the people. The second

rubric annulled and forbade, under heavy penalties, all _companies_,

_leagues_, _promises_, _conventions_, _obligations_, and _sworn pacts_,

that is, all agreements among the people unprovided or unsanctioned

by the laws, and opposed or alien to the constitution of the guilds.

Both procurators and stipulators of similar agreements were liable

even to capital punishment; and any guild known to be concerned in

such agreement would be mulcted in one thousand _lire_; the consuls of

the said guild, and the notary who had drawn the deed, in five hundred

_lire_.[451] All this plainly proves that the law was not devised, as

once believed and asserted, for the sole purpose of wreaking vengeance

on the nobles, but was also framed with the intent of reforming the

city and government by solidly organising the guilds and granting them

higher political importance. Nevertheless, the humiliation of the

leading nobles was certainly one of the principal objects of the law.

Therefore we may now proceed to examine the clauses directed to that

end.

VIII.

First of all, to punish the nobles for their continual attacks on

the people it was requisite to make them guarantee their collective

responsibility, since, in defiance of preceding laws, they frequently

contrived to shirk that obligation. Most offences being punishable by

fines, persons bound by no guarantees could easily evade the prescribed

penalty on some pretext or another: therefore the enactments were

framed to prevent such evasion of justice.[452] They likewise gave

fresh force to old laws which had been too often violated. "Further, to

prevent the numerous frauds daily committed by certain leading nobles

of the city and territory of Florence with regard to the guarantees

pledged, or rather, bound to be pledged by the said nobles according to

the terms of the statute of the Florentine Commune, as decreed under

the rubric: 'De la securtadi che si debbono fare da' grandi de la città

di Firenze,' and beginning with the words: 'Acciò che la isfrenata

spezialmente de' grandi,' &c.--it is provided and ordained," &c.[453]

Consequently, all the nobles already enumerated in the above-mentioned

statute, and of whom a new list was then made, were ordered to give

guaranty, from the age of fifteen years to seventy, without exception,

by the payment of two thousand _lire_, a sum generally sufficient to

cover the highest fines exacted, apart from confiscation, which penalty

was not only commonly, but abusively employed. The fact of being

enrolled in a guild did not suffice to exempt any of these nobles from

the duty of giving guarantees; the privilege of exemption being solely

granted to him whose entire family, for this or that reason, even by

special indulgence, had been spared the duty of giving guarantees for

five years at least, or declared absolutely free (_francata_). In

either case the family was considered to be thoroughly of the people,

and entitled to all the advantages deriving therefrom. The Signory was

empowered to reduce the sum guaranteed (_il sodamento_) in the case

of the poorer nobles, but it was precisely this clause that opened

the door to partiality and fraud.[454] The law proceeded to state

that the fixed time for giving guarantees was the month of January

or February at the latest: any one refusing or delaying obedience,

no matter in what way, would be banished, and his nearest kin in the

male line compelled to give surety in his stead. The penalty of any

crime committed by an unguaranteed person was to fall on that person's

relations. But when the penalty was death, and the criminal had fled,

his relations must pay three thousand _lire_ instead of the guaranteed

two thousand. But in case of mortal feud between the members of a

family their obligation of giving surety for one another was cancelled.

This plainly shows that when community of interests and passions

had ceased to exist the law no longer insisted on the collective

responsibility of kinsmen or associates. This assists our better

comprehension of the real scope of the enactment.[455]

When, however, the members of associations acted in common, as one

entity, the law framed for the purpose of dissolving those associations

made the members reciprocally responsible, obliging them to guarantee

and pay for one another. But no penalties save fines, and these

only within certain limits, were exacted from relations and fellow

associates, since an association was only fined as a collective

body. This will explain what Compagni and Villani meant by saying

that according to the enactments, "one associate was bound for the

other."[456] We may see how Machiavelli blundered, or at least

exaggerated, in his interpretation of their words when he stated in

general terms that "the associates of a criminal were made to suffer

the same penalty to which the latter was condemned;"[457] and we can

also note the mistake committed by modern writers in clinging to an

interpretation, that is totally contradicted by the terms of the

enactments, which would be otherwise in opposition to the culture of

the period and the most fundamental principles of law. The measures

specially directed against the nobles may be reduced to two leading

clauses, namely the revival in a more rigorous shape of the old laws

excluding the nobles from office and obliging them to guarantee and

pay one another's fines; and the increased severity of the punishments

inflicted on them by--to use Villani's words--"a different mode of

doubling ordinary penalties."[458] Let us now see what these penalties

were in their aggravated form.

According to the enactments, should a noble murder or procure the

murder of one of the people, both the noble and the doer of the deed

are to be condemned to death by the Podestà, and their property

destroyed and made confiscate.[459] Should they escape by flight, they

are to be sentenced in contumacy, and their property confiscated.

Nevertheless their guarantor will have to pay the sum for which he

stood surety, but with right of reimbursement from the confiscated and

demolished property of the fugitive criminal. All other nobles who,

without being direct accomplices in the crime, have had any share in

it, are sentenced to a fine of two thousand _lire_; if failing to pay

this, their property is confiscated, and their kinsmen or guarantors

bound to pay it in their stead. But when the crime in question was

that of inflicting serious bodily hurt, the doer of the deed and

its instigators were sentenced to a fine of two thousand _lire_. If

refusing to pay the penalty, their hands were chopped off; if escaping

the reach of justice, their possessions were sacked, their funds

confiscated, and their guarantors bound to pay the fine, but with the

usual right of reimbursement from the sums confiscated by the State.

For slighter offences, slighter penalties were adjudged. In every case

the guilty were forbidden to hold any public office until five years

had elapsed. For murderous attempts, the sworn testimony of the injured

person or his nearest relation, together with that of two witnesses

to the public voice on the matter (_testimoni di pubblica fama_), was

considered sufficient proof of the crime; nor was it necessary for

the two witnesses to have seen the crime actually committed. This was

the clause most obnoxious to the nobles. In general they were little

disturbed by threatened punishment, even of the severest kind, since

they always hoped to escape it. But they were roused to fury as well

as alarm, when measures were taken for the rigorous enforcement of

the penalties prescribed. And this was precisely the chief intent and

soul of the enactments. The whole course of procedure enjoined by

them was almost as summary as that of martial law, and allowed much

weight to public opinion, which, in the midst of party strife, was

no trustworthy guide. The close union prevailing in associations had

made ordinary legal procedure very difficult, if not impossible. Hence

it was ordained that whenever a crime was perpetrated, the Podestà

was bound to discover its author within five, or at most eight days,

according to the gravity of the deed, under pain, in case of neglect of

loss of office and a fine of five hundred _lire_ for minor offences.

In such case, however, the Captain was charged to take the matter in

hand, and subject to the same penalties. All shops were then to be

closed, the artisans called to arms, and the Gonfalonier to be on

the alert to punish all recusants. But when the Podestà discovered

the criminal, and it was a case of homicide, he and the Gonfalonier

together were to ring the tocsin without waiting for the sentence of

the court, and assembling the thousand select men, proceed to demolish

the houses belonging to the criminal. The guild-masters were prompt to

obey the Captain's summons. When slighter offences were in question

the criminal's houses were not destroyed until sentence had been

passed.[460] It should be remarked that this pulling down of houses

was never carried to the point of total demolition, and, particularly

in cases of petty crimes, the Gonfalonier and Podestà always settled

beforehand what damage should be wrought.[461]

Very severe penalties were imposed both on injured persons failing to

denounce crime,[462] and on the makers of false accusations.[463] When

one of the people received hurt through joining in some quarrel of the

nobles, or in cases of conflict between master and man, the enactments

were not applied, and the common law was again enforced.[464] Other

clauses followed touching unjust appropriation of the people's property

on the part of the nobles, and obstacles interposed by them to bar the

former from due receipt of income, for which offences, fines varying

between one thousand and five hundred _lire_ were prescribed in the

customary way.[465] A noble sentenced to any fine was forbidden to beg

or collect the amount from others, since this would have made it easier

to commit deeds of vengeance in common and pay the penalty by means of

a general subscription. Therefore any noble begging contributions from

others was condemned to a special fine of five hundred _lire_; while

all trying to collect money for him, as well as those supplying it,

were mulcted in one hundred _lire_.[466]

No appeal of any sort was permitted against sentences pronounced

according to the enactments,[467] since these overruled all ordinary

statutes, and it was forbidden either to prorogue, suspend, or alter

them, under penalty of incurring the severe punishment prescribed in

the _General Conclusion_.[468]

IX.

Thus the Enactments of Justice were framed. As already stated, their

object was to fortify the guilds, give greater unity to the Government

and the people, humble the nobles, and promote the dispersal of

associations. Only it was to be doubted whether a law of this kind

could be fully carried out, or would not rather be violated by the

nobles, thus sharing the fate of many earlier laws promulgated for

the same purpose. Giano della Bella used his best efforts to avert

this danger. He had not compiled the enactments, nor was he in office

when they were discussed and passed; but he undoubtedly assisted in

promoting them. On the 15th of February, 1293, shortly after they

were proclaimed, he was elected to the "Priors," and on the 10th of

April--namely, ten days before his term of office expired--we find that

a new law, devised for the purpose of "fortifying" the enactments among

which it was subsequently incorporated, was presented, discussed, and

passed by all the State Councils.

This additional law, one decidedly accordant with the spirit of action

rather than of debate, possessed by Giano della Bella, was of a very

simple kind. It ordained that another thousand men, together with

one hundred and fifty _magistri de lapide et lignamine_ and fifty

_piconarii fortes et robusti, cum bonis picconibus_,[469] should be

added to the force of one thousand _popolani_ at the disposition of

the Gonfalonier of Justice, of the Captain and Podestà. The object

of this new measure was self-evident: it was intended to inflict

real punishment; to thoroughly confiscate the property and demolish

the abodes of all nobles doing injury to the people. Accordingly the

aristocrats were provoked to fury, and their hatred of Giano could no

longer be restrained. But he was nowise alarmed; on the contrary, it

spurred him to new efforts, and he planned another measure, that, if

carried into effect, would have proved a deathblow to the nobles.

As we have seen, the latter's position as magistrates of the Guelph

Society still kept their power intact; so, in order to humble them,

Giano proposed to deprive their captains "of the Seal of the Society,

and of its property, which was considerable, and hand these over to

the Commune. Although a Guelph, and of Guelph nationality, he hoped,

by this measure, to humble the power of the magnates."[470] In fact,

once deprived of the seal, that was the symbol, as it were, of their

separate entity; once their movable property, or funds, transferred

to the Commune, their caste would have been notably enfeebled, if not

destroyed, and the last stronghold of nobility lost. Giano's proposal

was likewise justified by a law established by the Guelph Society,

decreeing the latter to be only entitled to one-third of the property

confiscated from the Ghibellines, while as matter of fact it had

appropriated the whole. Hence there was some reason for compelling the

Society to disgorge at least the two-thirds it had unduly usurped. To

what extent Giano's plan was fulfilled, the absence of documents leaves

us in ignorance. Although the incident is recorded by historians,[471]

the Guelph Society long continued to exercise tyrannous rule. At any

rate the mere fact of proposing this law suffices to explain the

increasing hatred developed against Giano, and the speedily visible

signs of approaching disaster in the city.

X.

Thereupon the people rose to the emergency, and in order to be prepared

for events, hastened to avert all risk of foreign war by concluding

peace with the Pisans, in spite of the latter being already reduced

to such extremities, that the continuation of the war would have

certainly led to their still deeper humiliation and abasement. But the

Florentines decided for peace in order to "fortify the position of the

people, and lower the power of nobles and potentates, who often acquire

renewed strength and vitality by war."[472]

Negotiations were set on foot during the Gonfaloniership of Migliore

Guadagni (April 15 to June 15, 1293), and concluded soon afterwards

during that of Dino Compagni. The terms arranged were: the restitution

of prisoners; free passage through Pisa for the merchandise of all

communes included in the Tuscan League, and the same right of passage,

free of duty, for Pisan merchandise through the States of the League.

For the term of four years the Pisans were to contrive the election

of their Podestà and Captain, in such wise that one of the pair

should always belong to one of the communes of the League, the other

to some house not rebelled against the same, and no member of the

family of the Counts of Montefeltro was ever to be chosen. Now the

Pisan leader who had defended the city so valiantly, and filled the

offices of Podestà, Captain of the people and of war, was precisely

Count Guido Montefeltro. Hence, by the terms of the treaty, he was now

forced to leave Pisa, together with all the foreign Ghibellines; and

twenty-five leading citizens were also to be given in hostage. Thus

the Pisans were compelled to behave with the harshest ingratitude. The

count, indeed, might have made them pay dearly for it, being still in

command of a numerous and most devoted army; but he preferred to bear

the insult with dignity. Appearing before the Council, he recounted

his services to Pisa, the ill return made for them, and then, having

received the monies due to him, instantly went away. The Pisans were

likewise pledged to dismantle the walls of the fortress of Pontedera,

and to fill up the trenches; farther, to recall to the city all the

leading Guelph exiles. On the other hand, Florence was to give back

their castle of Monte-Cuccoli, and all their other possessions in Val

d'Era.[473]

Having thus put an end to what seemed for the moment their wealthiest

concern, the Florentines devoted more energy to the less important

undertakings on hand. Various districts or castles, such as Poggibonsi,

Certaldo, Gambassi, and Cutignano were reduced to submission. The

Counts Guidi were deprived of jurisdiction over numerous domains in

the upper valley of the Arno. Also possession was resumed of many

others in the Mugello, which had been illegally usurped by the said

Counts Guidi, the Ubaldini, and other powerful lords. A commission

of three burghers of the lower class was then appointed to estimate

all possessions appertaining to the city and its territory. These

commissioners likewise cleared the lands of the St. Eustachio Hospital,

near Florence, of many unlawful occupants, and put the estate under the

direct protection of the Consuls of the Calimala Guild.[474] Another

fact should also be noted, if only to prove what universal energy was

displayed at this juncture by the Florentine people who, as Villani

phrases it, "were heated with presumption and consciousness of power."

A certain man fled to Prato after committing some crime, and was given

refuge there. The Republic immediately demanded his extradition, and on

Prato's refusal, sentenced the Commune to a fine of ten thousand _lire_

and the surrender of the criminal, despatching a single messenger

with a letter to this effect. As the authorities of Prato were still

recalcitrant, war was promptly declared, horse and foot called to arms,

and the town was finally compelled to yield the point. "And this is

how the hot-blooded Florentines managed their affairs."[475]

XI.

Just when all was safe and tranquil outside the walls, the worst of

dangers began in the city. The nobles were determined to prevent the

Enactments of Justice from taking effect, and accordingly contrived

that after all attacks upon the people, the offenders should be cited

before judges belonging to their own party. These conducted the trial

to their advantage, and thus the Podestà, without being aware of it,

punished the innocent instead of the guilty. For the nobles sheltered

evildoers, protected their fellow associates, and on every attempt to

enforce the law, did their best to raise riots. All these proceedings

were fiercely combated by the people, under the guidance of Giano della

Bella, who was always reiterating the cry, "Perish the city rather than

justice!" Accordingly public feeling became so inflamed that the most

sanguinary measures were threatened in retaliation on the nobles. The

first family to incur the worst penalties decreed by the enactments

were the Galli. One of that line having mortally wounded a Florentine

merchant in France, their dwellings in Florence were demolished.[476]

This instance easily prepared the way for sterner measures. The people

clamoured for new and more vigorous sentences; therefore it was

feared, says Compagni, "that were the accused left unpunished, the

rector would be left to bear the brunt, and thus no accused person was

granted impunity." The fury of the nobles reached its climax, and they

complained, with some show of reason, that "if a horse at full gallop

chanced to whisk its tail in the face of a _popolano_, or some one in

a crowd pushed against another man's breast, or small children came to

blows, there was no reason why their property should be ruined on such

slender pretext."[477]

Accordingly they conceived the idea of conspiring to the bodily hurt

of Giano, the ringleader and head of the people, and thus getting

rid of him for ever. To compass his assassination seemed easy, by

reason of his straightforward impetuosity and incautiousness. He had

great influence over the populace, but even this was a point open to

attack. As we have seen, the Lesser Guilds and the populace lived by

petty industry and small trades carried on within the city; and their

chief profits being derived from noble customers, the latter had much

ascendancy over them and no few adherents in their ranks. Besides this,

a certain amount of jealousy had already sprung up between the lowest

class and the well-to-do burghers, who, being mainly concerned in the

export and import trade,[478] were independent of the nobles, hated

them, and sought their destruction. Nevertheless these burghers could

not approve of Giano's attempts to rouse the ambition and increase the

strength of the lowest class, which was disgusted at being excluded

from the Government and yearning to have a share in it.

Another element of strife was soon to be introduced by the election of

Pope Boniface VIII. (December, 1294). This Pontiff had an immoderate

appetite for temporal power, and believed that owing to the interregnum

of the Empire, its rights could now be assumed by the Papacy throughout

Italy and Europe. He was particularly anxious to increase his power in

Florence, the leading city of Tuscany, where his own predecessors had

appointed Charles of Anjou to the post of imperial vicar. Therefore

he quickly began to open negotiations with the nobles, whose present

weakness increased their readiness to come to terms with him, and who

would have willingly resumed the government of the city in his name,

just as their Ghibelline ancestors had often held it in the name of

the emperor. But this was naturally opposed by the burghers, who being

determined, on the contrary, to maintain the liberty and independence

of the Republic, could not, albeit staunch Guelphs, side with the Pope

at that moment.

Secret intrigues between Boniface and the nobles were now carried on

through the Spini, rich Florentine merchants, who, as bankers to the

Curia, had agents in Rome. The first step hazarded was to call to

Tuscany a certain Giovanni di Celona,[479] who was already on the march

towards Italy with several hundred men, in response to a summons from

the Pope and the nobles. The latter, intending to use his force for

their own ends, had made him many promises, and with the concurrence,

it would seem, of certain of the burghers. But the affair dragged, and

men's passions were now outstripping the political manoeuvres employed

to feed the flame. Accordingly, without further delay, it was decided

to hatch a scheme for the murder of Giano della Bella. "The shepherd

struck down, his flock will be scattered," so said the nobles.

Only, as it fell out, the party in favour of craft prevailed over the

side preferring violence. At this moment frequent excesses, perpetrated

by the people, remained unpunished through the pusillanimity of the

judges. The butchers in particular, led by one Pecora, an audacious

ruffian, who had publicly threatened the Signory, committed worse

outrages from day to day. Hence, at the popular meetings frequently

held by Giano, the nobles, knowing his love of justice, would whet his

indignation by saying, "Dost not see the violence of the butchers? Dost

not see the insolence of the judges, who, by threatening to punish

the rectors when the time of investigation arrives,[480] wrest unjust

favours from them? Suits are suspended for three or four years, and

sentences never pronounced." Thereupon the loyal Giano would promptly

reply, "May the city perish, rather than this state of things be

continued! Let laws be framed to repress all this wickedness." And then

the nobles would maliciously hasten to inform judges and butchers that

Giano meant to crush them with new laws.[481] In pursuance of this

cunning scheme, they suggested a law against exiles, in the hope of

soon being able to apply it to Giano himself. It seems that he was on

the point of falling into the trap, but received timely warning. So

then, refusing to hear another word, either from friends or foes, he

forbade that any law whatever should be proposed, and threatened his

enemies with death. Accordingly the meeting only served to increase the

general heat and ferment.[482]

The nobles were not to be checked so easily. Seeing that Giano still

retained many friends, and that there was no hope of conquering

by craft, they held a private sitting in the church of San Jacopo

Oltrarno, to discuss what should be done; and violent measures were

once more suggested. Giano's personal enemy, Betto Frescobaldi, the

same who had once struck him in the face at San Piero Scheraggio, spoke

to this effect: "Let us cast off this slavery; let us arm and rush

to the Piazza; let us kill both friends and enemies of the popular

class, as many as we find of them, so that neither ourselves nor our

sons may ever be crushed by them." But the promoters of intrigue

were again in opposition, and Baldo della Tosa replied very quietly,

"The wise knight's counsel is good, but too risky, since, should the

scheme fail, we should all perish. First let us conquer (our enemies)

by cunning, and excommunicate them with soft words.... And when thus

excommunicated, let us harry them in such sort that they can never lift

their heads again."[483]

But quite suddenly a fitting opportunity for violence spontaneously

arose. Corso Donati, one of the most powerful and arrogant of

Florentines, induced some of his followers to assault Messer Simone

Galastroni, and a riot ensued in which one man was killed and two

wounded. Both sides laid complaints; but when the affair was brought

before the judges charged to try the case, one of them, influenced

by the usual party spirit, arranged that the notary should reverse

the depositions of the witnesses. When the case, thus garbled, was

brought before the Podestà, Giano di Lucino, he acquitted Donati, and

condemned Galastroni. Thereupon the people who had witnessed the riot,

and knew all the circumstances, rose to arms, shouting through the

streets: "Perish the Podestà; he shall perish by fire!" They made for

the palace, faggots in hand, to burn down the door, and expecting to be

actively assisted by Giano della Bella. But, on the contrary, he sided

with the magistrates, whose authority he invariably held in respect.

Nevertheless, the door of the Podestà's palace was consumed, his horses

and chattels were stolen, his men captured, and his papers scattered

and torn. And as many persons knew him to possess indictments against

them, they took care to destroy his official documents. He and his wife

contrived to escape to an adjoining house, and obtained refuge there.

Corso Donati, who was in the palace at the time, saved his life by

flying from roof to roof.

The Councils assembled the next day, and for the honour of the Republic

decided to restore all the Podestà's stolen property to pay him his

salary and send him away. Thus order was re-established at once, but

public feeling was still very inflamed, and the nobles saw that the

moment for wreaking vengeance on Giano had finally arrived. In fact,

some of the people were his foes, owing to the numerous calumnies

purposely launched against him, and among others the charge of having

promoted decrees to the hurt of the judges and butchers; some, again,

were furious because he had sided with the Podestà, while others

denounced him as the author of the riot. Accordingly, profiting by the

general confusion and uncertainty, his enemies succeeded in obtaining

the premature election of a Signory opposed to his views; and he was

speedily cited before the new magistrates on the charge of having

caused the disturbance. At this the whole city rose in tumult. Some

desired his condemnation; but the populace hastened to assume his

defence. Thereupon he decided to go away, and left Florence on the 5th

of March, 1295, for he shrank from being the cause of civil strife,

hoped that his departure would open the eyes of the wiser citizens,

and that the latter would speedily procure his recall. However, in

this his calculations were at fault, for he had many more enemies than

he imagined. Accordingly he was sentenced in contumacy in the name

of the enactments he had urged, and of which he was held to be the

author. The Pope hastened to congratulate the Florentines, and Giano

realised that his star had set. So, acting with his usual impetuosity,

he unhesitatingly removed to France, where he possessed some share in

the Pazzi bank, and died there in exile. His Florentine houses were

demolished, his friends and relations condemned to punishment, but

the Enactments of Justice long remained in force.[484] With regard

to Giano, Villani remarks that "every one who became a leader of the

people or the masses in Florence was invariably deserted." He adds that

"on account of this novelty, there was great perturbation and change in

the people and city of Florence, and that henceforth the artisans and

populace had little power over the Commune; and that the government

remained in the grasp of rich and powerful burghers."[485]

[Illustration: SCENE IN CORN MARKET, FLORENCE.

(_From early XIV. Century MS. in the Laurentian Library._)

[_To face page 475._]

XII.

These concluding words from the chronicle of a skilled observer such as

Villani enable us to understand more completely the general character

of the revolution described; for as this was the natural outcome of

many preceding disturbances, its study throws a new light on earlier

events.

When the Florentines succeeded in destroying the castles of feudal

and Ghibelline nobles scattered over their territory, and in forcing

the conquered to inhabit the city, the Republic became split, as we

have seen, in two parties, constantly at strife: the one composed

of Ghibelline lords, the other of Guelph _popolani_. When the

Hohenstauffens of Naples and Palermo called all the Ghibellines of

Italy to arms, the magnates of the party took the lead in Tuscany,

with Frederic and Manfred to back them, again dominated Florence and

drove out the Guelphs. But when the Swabians fell and were replaced

by the House of Anjou, the Empire became weakened, and Italian policy

took a new turn. The Guelphs once more triumphed in Florence, and the

democratic element, already constituting the real strength of the

State, wreaked vengeance on the Ghibellines, who seemed to be almost

annihilated. Only as it chanced, at this moment, the Guelphs were split

into two factions, the nobles on one side, the people on the other; and

this division led to another and equally bitter struggle, undertaken

for the purpose of crushing the magnates outright. Thus the latter

were driven to crave admission to the guilds, to assume democratic

habits, and even to discard their old family names, unless resigned to

exclusion from the government. After a prolonged series of different

legal measures and revolutions, the Enactments of Justice finally

achieved the aim that the Florentine Republic had so long--and, indeed,

from its birth--kept in view, namely, the triumph of democracy.

[Illustration: RIOT IN CORN MARKET, FLORENCE.

(_From an old MS. in the Laurentian Library._)

[_To face page 476._]

But the Republic comprised the populace as well as the people; and

although both orders were united in fighting the nobles, they split

apart as soon as their common victory was assured. Thus the party of

the rich burghers, or Greater Guilds, gradually sprang into being. At

first there were twelve of these guilds, and they seemed to be at one

with the nine Lesser Trades, afterwards increased to fourteen; but, as

time went on, these fell more widely apart from the remaining seven,

and strictly Greater, Guilds, and began to struggle against them, thus

constituting the party of the rich burghers or _popolo grasso_. The

formation and successful career of this party, so long at the head of

the Government, dates, as Villani tells us, from the defeat of Giano

della Bella, whose downfall was caused by the temporary alliance of the

nobles and the more powerful section of the people. The latter soon

divided both from the nobles and lower class, was equally victorious

over either party, and constituted one of the most energetic,

sharp-witted, and intelligent democracies of which history has record.

It comprised the richest and most vigorous section of the people, known

for that reason as the _popolo grasso_, and gradually became master

of the city. And albeit this state of things was a natural result of

past revolutions, it was undoubtedly precipitated by the Enactments of

Justice. These had been promoted by Giano, with the aid of the people,

to be used as a weapon against the nobles. He fell a victim to the

latter, when they hoodwinked the people by feigning to unite with them

for the nonce. It was certainly altogether against his own will that

Giano helped to promote the formation of a party, that, issuing from

the wreck of the nobles and populace, finally excluded both alike from

all participation in the government of Florence.

For a long time, at any rate, this party raised the power of the

Republic to a very lofty height, and directed its policy for more than

a century. The moment of its consolidation coincided with that in which

Florence became the seat of Italian culture, and hence of the general

culture of Europe. Nor is there any cause to be surprised by the vast

intellectual, political, and moral success of the commercial democracy

of Florence. In the days of the Hohenstauffen, the Italian aristocracy

undoubtedly constituted the most cultivated and civilised part of

the nation; all great political questions, and the great struggles

between the Papacy and the Empire, in which the whole of Europe took

so lively a share, were alike carried on by that class. The Court of

Frederic II. had been the headquarters of those contests, and the most

dazzling centre of mental light in the world at the time. The language

spoken there was the language of courtiers; the Court was sceptical,

and the first poets were princes or barons. The Emperor Frederic, his

son Enzo, and his secretary, Pier della Vigna, gave voice to the first

notes of the Italian muse. It was a privileged and limited order, in

which literature and science still retained the characteristics of

chivalry and scholasticism. In imitation of their French and Provençal

masters, these poets lauded some imaginary woman or some fantastic and

unreal love in obstinately artificial verse. They were never able to

cast off mediæval and conventional forms. At the same time, however,

the merchants and working men of our republics, more especially of

Florence, were scouring the world, founding banks and business firms

throughout the East and the West; they were studying jurisprudence,

always and everywhere demonstrating a special aptitude for framing

laws, creating new institutions, and directing vast concerns. By

this means they acquired that practical knowledge of mankind and the

universe, that sense of truth and reality, so entirely absent from

pre-existent literatures, and precisely required to originate the first

literature of the modern world.

Naturally, however, those merchants, solely versed in commerce and

petty local politics, lacked the breadth and loftiness of thought, the

mental culture and refinement needed to solve the hard problem without

help. At the same moment, Florence, the most active and intelligent

of Italian republics, was enduring the series of great and radical

changes, already described, which after much sanguinary strife and

a new rearrangement of social conditions, suddenly raised her to a

truly fortunate position. Owing to her successes in war, Florence

now commanded every highway of commerce, and, by the amazingly rapid

extension of her trade, was enabled to acquire mighty and no longer

contested preponderance in Tuscany and become its chief as well as

its central city. The actual antagonism between the Pope and the

Angevins, together with the altered conditions of the Empire, enabled

her to steer cautiously between those rival powers and assume for the

first time great and genuine political importance in Italy. Thus the

extent of her concerns and the circle of her ideas were simultaneously

enlarged. The two most intelligent and most hostile classes of her

citizens, namely, the now powerful traders and the nobles now reduced

to equality with them, became transformed and definitely fused in one

class during the course of their fierce conflict, excluding, on the one

hand, the lowest order of the people, and on the other, those of the

nobles who, whether aspiring to absolute rule or obstinately clinging

to feudal customs and the authority of the Empire, remained blindly

opposed to municipal institutions which were nevertheless predestined

to triumph. Need we then feel surprised if at this moment art and

literature put forth their fairest blossoms, and in the life-giving air

of freedom were seen to expand their leaves and shed their fragrance

through the world? It is enough to read the records and glance at the

laws of the Republic in order to discern that in the closing years of

the fourteenth century a new spirit was stirring the people and a new

sun, as it were, rising in the sky.

Every page of the chronicles records the undertaking of very important

public works, the erection of city squares, canals, bridges, and walls.

And simultaneously with these, the most enduring monuments of modern

art were springing up from the ground. During the same period Arnolfo

di Cambio worked on the Baptistery, began the church of Santa Croce,

and, according to the chroniclers, received from the Signory a solemnly

worded order to reconstruct the old cathedral from the foundations

by erecting a new one "of the most magnificent design the mind of

man could conceive, rendering it worthy of a heart expanded to much

greatness by the union of many spirits in one."[486] Undoubtedly it

was then that Arnolfo laid the first stone of the fane considered by

many the finest church in the world. At the same time a great number of

monumental buildings and public works were being also carried on: Santo

Spirito, for instance, Orsammichele, and Santa Maria Novella. In 1299

Arnolfo likewise began the Palace of the Signoria, another marvel of

modern architecture, that seems to be so thoroughly in character with

the Republic and expressive of the youthful vigour then animating the

Florentine people. In the same year the construction of new walls,

suspended since 1285, was also resumed. And while churches, public

buildings, and private palaces were rising on all sides, Giotto's brush

was employed to cover their walls with a lavish profusion of lofty

and immortal compositions; sculpture rivalled painting in decorating

temples with imperishable works, and gave birth to the Tuscan school

that was afterwards to culminate in Donatello, Ghiberti, the Della

Robbia, and Michelangelo. What, too, are the names most frequently

occurring in the records of those times, and amid the struggles

promoting or following the Enactments of Justice? At every turn, among

the Priors, the Gonfaloniers, and ambassadors, or at hot debates in

council, we meet with Dante Alighieri, Brunetto Latini, Giovanni

Villani, Dino Compagni, and Guido Cavalcanti, the creators of Italian

poetry and prose. The Divine Comedy bristles with continual allusions

to the events, amid which it was conceived, and which all seem to be

informed by the same spirit, since, even in a thousand varying garbs,

it always asserts its identity. Therefore the Enactments of Justice are

neither the work of a single individual, nor suddenly improvised by

Giano della Bella, but rather the outcome of many revolutions: a body

of statutes proving and explaining the definite form and character of

the Florentine Republic. The same character, albeit less splendidly

displayed, appertained in varying degree to the other Italian communes.

But of them all Florence was ever the most original and brilliant

example.

NOTE TO CHAPTER VIII.

At this point it is necessary to allude to a question that has recently

arisen concerning the Enactments of Justice. Signor Salvioli and

Prof. Pertile, when describing certain Bolognese statutes of 1271 for

keeping the nobles in check, took it for granted that the Florentine

enactments of 1293 had been copied from those. But the Bolognese

statutes of 1271 having never been unearthed, the hypothesis met with

little favour. When Prof. Gaudenzi edited the "Ordinamenta sacrata et

sacratissima" of Bologna in 1282-84 (Bologna, the Merlani Press, 1888),

he noted their marked resemblance to the Enactments of Justice of 1293,

and considered it to be beyond a doubt that the latter had been derived

from the former. Indeed, he went to the point of asserting as a fact

"Che in genere i rivolgimenti e gli ordini di Firenze non furono che

l'imitazione di quelli di Bologna" (Preface, p. v.).

The decided injustice of this last assertion has been already pointed

out by Dr. Hartwig, in his recent precious work on Florentine history

("Ein Menschenalter Florentinische Geschichte, 1250-1293" (Freiburg,

1889-91), extracted from vols. i., ii., and v. of the "Deutsche

Zeitschrift für Geschichtwissenschaft"). For in truth Florentine laws

and institutions issue very directly from the history of Florentine

society and Florentine revolutions, which are very different from those

of Bologna.

As to the other question, that is, whether the Florentine enactments,

of 1293 were really derived from the Bologna statutes of 1282, I

feel considerable doubt, and believe that no definite solution can

be reached until fresh researches in the Florence Archives have

corroborated the result of Prof. Gaudenzi's studies of Bolognese

documents. Meanwhile I need merely remark--That the people's struggles

with the magnates, and the harsh and often cruel laws promulgated

against them, were not exclusively confined to Florence, but

incidents of very common occurrence in the history of our communes.

Notwithstanding many points of general resemblance, these conflicts

and laws varied very much in different communes. Hence, in order to

prove to what extent the Bolognese enactments served as models for

those of Florence, it is not enough to compare the two codes and

note their respective dates. As plainly proved by the events we have

related, and additionally confirmed by all the later researches of

Hartwig, Del Lungo, and Perrens, the Florentine ordinances are found

to be a synthesis of other and much earlier laws against the nobles,

and sometimes literal reproductions of them. The enactments themselves

quote a law of 1286 frequently mentioned by historians, and, as we

have seen, even the "Consulte" of 1282 refer to an earlier law against

the nobles. These anterior laws are the veritable source of the

Florentine enactments, which, however, are not solely designed, like

the Bolognese ordinances, for the repression of the nobles, but to

promote the transfer of the government to the Greater Guilds, a change

already inaugurated in Florence as far back as 1250. It is this double

purpose that constitutes their specific character. It behoves us to

unearth more of these laws in the Florence Archives and collate them

with those of Bologna before deciding that the Enactments of Justice,

so peculiarly connected with the whole course of Florentine history,

were mere copies of the Bolognese ordinances. Professor Gaudenzi's

publications do honour to his historical research. But I venture to

repeat that, in my opinion, the question cannot be really settled

without fresh investigation of the Florentine rolls. This task is now

being carried on by Signor Salvemini, and I hope that he may make some

new and profitable discovery. The problem is interesting enough to

claim solution.

DOCUMENTO.[487]

V.

In nomine domini amen. Liber defensionum et excusationum Magnatum

Civitatis et comitatus Florentie, qui se excusare volunt a

satisdationibus Magnatum non prestandis, receptarum per me Bax. de

Amgnetello notarium nobilis Militis domini Amtonii de Fuxiraga de

Laude, potestatis Florentie.

In anno currente Millesimo ducentesimo ottuagesimo septimo.

Ad defensionem

Absoluti { Dardoccii quondam domini Uguicionis } de Sachettis

{ Manni fratris sui } producta fuit

intentio singnata per Credo (_sic_), et ad ipsam probandam

producti fuerunt infradicti testes.

Baldus Brode populi sancti Stephani de Abatia, iuratus die suprascripta

de veritate dicenda, et lecta sibi intentione per me Bax., dixit quod

bene vidit dictum Dardocium et Mannum eius fratrem facere artem cambii

in Civitate Florentie, iam sunt xx anni, et ab eo tempore citra, et

credit eos fecisse. Set propter guerram et brigam quam nunc habent,

predicti fratres Dardocci non tenent tabulam in mercato, set stat in

doma sua, et ibi facet (_sic_) artem canbii. Interrogatus si ipsi

palam tenent banchum et tapetum ante dischum domus sue sicut faciunt

alii campsores, respondit non, quia est consuetudo prestatorum et non

campsorum tenere tapetum. Interrogatus, dixit quod predictus senper

cotidie exercuit.

Lapus Benvenuti qui vocatur Borrectus populi sancti Petri Maioris

iuratus die suprascripto (?) ut supra, lecta sibi intentione per Be.,

dixit quod ipse testis est consocius predictorum Dardoccii et fratris

in arte canbii; et vidit dictum Dardoccium et fratrem dictam artem in

civitate Florentie continue [exercere], et predictum Mannum vidit in

Borgongna facere dictam artem per decem annos et plus, quibus stetit in

Borgongna; set dixit quod predictus Dardocius[488] propter guerram quam

ad presens habet, non audet uti ipsa arte in mercato sive in pubblico,

set ea continue utitur in domo sua, et vidit ipse testis; et vox et

fama est in populo dictorum fratrum et in civitate Florentie, quod ipsi

fratres fuerunt et sunt campsores.

L. S. Ego Ruffus Guidi notarius predicta ex actibus Communis

Florentie exemplando transcripsi, pubblicavi rogatus.