CHAPTER X.[548]

_DANTE, FLORENTINE EXILES AND HENRY VII._

I.

After Valois's departure and the events by which it was followed, the

history of Florence enters on a new phase. The exiles united with

the nobles of the territory and the Ghibelline cities in raising a

rebellion against the Republic, in order to pave the way for their own

recall. This naturally brought about a temporary reconciliation and

agreement between the magnates of the Black party, who made greater

boast than ever of being the only genuine Guelphs, and stigmatised all

the exiles as Ghibellines. Pistoia and the fortress of Piantravigne

were the first to revolt, but were speedily reduced to submission.

Then, on the 8th of June, 1302, the leading exiles, of whom Dante

Alighieri was one, assembled in the church of St. Godenzio among the

Apennines, and arranged explicit terms of alliance with the Ubaldini,

undertaking to compensate them at their own expense for the injuries

caused by the war to that family's possessions in the Mugello,

where the stronghold of Montaccenico was to serve as headquarters

for the adversaries of Florence. Thereupon the Florentines at once

proceeded to ravage all the lands of the Ubaldini on either side of

the Apennines.[549] By tremendous exertions, and with the support of

Pisa and Bologna, the exiles managed to collect an army of 800 horse

and 6,000 foot, and in the spring of 1303 beleaguered the Castle of

Pulicciano, appertaining to the Florentines. But even there they had

little success. The "people and knights" of Florence took arms and

hastily marched against them. The Pisans failed to send the promised

succour, the Ubaldini remained inert, and as the Bolognese withdrew

declaring themselves betrayed, the Bianchi, being left unassisted,

ignominiously dispersed. So the Neri returned to the city in triumph,

after taking many prisoners, some of whom were killed on the way and

others beheaded by the Podestà. They afterwards surprised the Castle of

Montale near Pistoia, and ravaged the surrounding territory. Thus the

war seemed at an end, and the hopes of the exiles fallen.

But at this juncture discord again broke out in Florence. Preliminary

manifestations of turbulence and rebellion had already led to some

fresh sentences of exile and a few executions. But matters now grew

more serious. Corso Donati's arrogance once more produced its usual

results. By disgusting his friends he drove them to side with the

rich burghers they despised. Being alienated from the nobles of the

territory who had made common cause with the exiles, he tried again

to become the leader of the more intolerant section of the magnates,

and curried favour with the populace, declaring it to be unjustly

overtaxed, merely to fill the pockets of certain fat burghers. "Let the

people see where that great sum has gone, for no such amount can have

been expended on the war." And he demanded an inquiry, thus beginning,

as Villani remarks, "to sow discord by a feint of justice and

compassion."[550] Much discussion, great turmoil ensued, but nothing

was done, although a law was actually passed (24th of July, 1303)

granting the Podestà and captain full powers of inquiry and decision.

Meanwhile much irritation was felt by the "fat burghers" against whom

the accusation had been launched, and in order to strike a fresh blow

at the magnates, they obtained the recall of certain exiles belonging

to the popular party, who had not broken bounds. They likewise recalled

a few of the Cerchi family, thereby gaining the approbation of the

Pope, who was much troubled by the disturbances the Bianchi were

exciting on all sides and even in cities belonging to the Church.[551]

Thus, as Del Lungo happily expresses it, "by dint of fishing magnates

out of the crucible,"[552] Corso Donati was enabled to gather about

him more than thirty families, including some of the burgher class

and a few returned exiles. Several members of the Tosinghi house were

adherents of the Bianchi, and amongst them the valiant Baschiera della

Tosa was one of the exiles. There were also Donati's former foes, the

Cavalcanti, a very wealthy and numerous clan, comprising members of all

parties, although more Bianchi than Neri, and who, as the owners of

a mass of houses, shops, and magazines in the centre of the city and

tenanted by merchants, were naturally on good terms with the trading

class. Accordingly the Donati no longer commanded a party, but rather

an ill-assorted crowd, only united by the common bond of hatred against

the people. In fact, Messer Corso was wont to say that they were all

"captive and enslaved to a herd of fat burghers, or rather dogs, who

tyrannised over them and robbed them of power."[553] Nevertheless, the

real magnates, namely, noblemen by birth and temper, mostly leaned

to his side, while those unable to tolerate his insolence preferred

to play the part of spectators. Another of Corso's allies was Messer

Lottieri della Tosa, Archbishop of Florence, who was making warlike

preparations within the walls of his palace. In opposition to these

confederates, several families, such as the Spini, Pazzi, Gherardini,

and certain of the Frescobaldi had banded together under the lead of

Messer Rosso della Tosa, another man of soaring ambition, who, in

pursuance of the policy formerly employed by Vieri dei Cerchi, inclined

to the burghers' side. And by means of some of his bravest followers,

more particularly certain democrats of the Neri party, named Bordoni,

"serving him," Compagni says, "as pincers to seize hot iron,"[554] he

daily harassed the Donati in the councils of the State.

II.

Thus matters seemed again at the same point as before the arrival of

Valois. In fact, we see Rosso della Tosa and his following combining

with the people in defence of the Signory; while, on the other

hand, Donati, backed by the captains of the party, was continually

threatening and attacking it. Again, the citizens daily drew swords and

came to blows; again, robbery, bloodshed, murder, and arson were rife

in the town and throughout the territory. Even from the tower of the

bishop's palace a mangonel hurled stones on Corso Donati's foes. Both

the Signory and Podestà were reduced to impotence. Things reached at

last such a pitch that recourse was had to the very strange plan of

transferring the government to the Lucchese for sixteen days to see

whether they could succeed in quieting the city. They re-established

order, but without punishing the guilty; consequently, as soon as

they were gone everything went on as before. It was even endeavoured

to choose a Signory (solely of the people, however) approved by both

parties, but the attempt came to nothing.[555] What brought the

confusion to a climax, and rendered it permanent, was the fact that

whereas the split between the magnates and the people had caused two

genuine parties to be formed, the division among the magnates now

convulsing the city, solely proceeded from the ambition of Corso Donati

and a few others, had no political motive, and no basis of general

principle or general interest. As we have seen, in fact, Donati's

following comprised magnates of every shade, returned exiles owning

friends and relations still in banishment, together with a sprinkling

of the lower class. Nor could there be much cohesion in the ranks of

the adverse party supporting the Signory, since this was also made

up of aristocrats and men of the people, conflicting elements whose

union could never be permanently assured. If the foes of the Signory

were held together by Corso's energy and ambition, its supporters were

chiefly united by their common hatred for him. Therefore, owing to this

predominance of the personal element, both the parties were exposed to

perpetual division, subdivision, and change, to a perpetual shifting

of the pieces, and restless passing and repassing from one group to

another.

Confusion was now to be heightened by the death of Boniface VIII.

(October 11, 1303) and the election of Pope Benedict XI., a man

of gentler fibre and uncertain will. The new pontiff yearned to

re-establish peace in Florence at all costs, and procure the recall of

its exiles; for the latter were keeping his own states in a turmoil,

and even in Rome itself he had already encountered so much opposition

from the nobles and people, that shortly after his election he had

been compelled to seek refuge at Perugia, namely, on the borders of

disturbed, restless Tuscany. Nor was it now possible, amid all these

calamities, to count on any help from France, inasmuch as he had

brought a suit against the authors of the criminal attempt at Anagni

causing the death of Pope Boniface, that had been actually devised

by the king of the French. For these reasons, and at the earnest

solicitation of the Bianchi in Florence and elsewhere, Pope Benedict

dispatched a peacemaker to the city on the 31st of January, 1304, in

the person of Cardinal da Prato, a supposed Ghibelline. The Cardinal

arrived on the 10th of March, and tried to conciliate all alike;

magnates, people, exiles, Bianchi, the Neri led by Corso Donati and the

Neri under Rosso della Tosa. But what chiefly disturbed public feeling

and brought confusion to a climax was his scheme of recalling banished

men and reconciling them with the city. Nevertheless the popular class

was less opposed than others to the plan, discerning in it a possible

means of enfeebling the magnates by promoting fresh discord in their

ranks. Rosso della Tosa, on the contrary, was decidedly hostile to the

exiles' return, considering that this would strengthen the opposite

party, which was already favourable to many of the banished men. These

views were shared by some of his faction. On the excuse of suffering

from an attack of gout, Corso Donati remained a passive spectator for

the nonce. But the Cavalcanti warmly approved of the suggested treaty,

and were seemingly the first to promote it.

Having received full powers from the people, the Cardinal at once

began to arrange reconciliations, and with success as regarded the

Bishop and his former comrade, Messer Rosso della Tosa. He next

appointed Corso Donati Captain of the Guelph Society, and reorganised

the old popular militia, on the original plan, under nineteen

Gonfaloniers of Companies. But in spite of bestowing commands on some

of the magnates, the latter murmured bitterly against his reforms,

saying that they tended to increase the people's strength, that the

Cardinal was a Ghibelline, would end by leaving the city in the hands

of the Bianchi, and that the latter would forthwith claim restitution

of all property and estates made confiscate for the benefit of the

Guelph Society. Regardless of these complaints, the Cardinal persisted

in holding meetings to ratify the agreement. In fact, on the 26th of

April, several Neri of the Donati and Tosa factions exchanged pledges

of amity in the Square of Santa Maria Novella. Great festivities were

given in honour of the occasion, among others a grand performance

arranged by the Company of Borgo San Frediano, who announced throughout

Florence that all persons desiring news of the other world might

obtain it by assembling on the banks of the Arno on the evening of

the 1st of May. Blazing fireworks represented the infernal regions,

while boatloads of masks figured as condemned souls undergoing various

torments. The people flocked in vast numbers to the river and on to the

Carraia Bridge, which being only a wooden structure at the time, gave

way beneath their weight. Many were seriously injured, and many others

really went to the next world. The catastrophe was regarded by all as a

bad omen, and was truly the prelude of fresh calamity.

III.

Meanwhile, those most opposed to the recall of the exiles craftily

advised the Cardinal to begin by undertaking a mission of peace to

Pistoia, declaring that so long as that city remained in the power

of the Bianchi, Florence could never be really pacified. But the

Pistoians resisted his efforts so vigorously, that not only was he

compelled to leave the town without concluding any arrangement, but

on seeking to enter Prato, found the gates of his native city closed

in his face. The Pope, being highly enraged by all this, addressed an

indignant letter to the Florentines on the 29th of May.[556] But they

were in so disorderly and riotous a state, that after imploring the

Pontiff to find them a Podestà, they refused to accept either of the

four individuals proposed by him. Yet the Cardinal obstinately clung

to his idea of re-establishing peace. At his instance, safe conducts

were given to twelve delegates from the exiles, six Ghibellines and six

Bianchi, in order that they might come to Florence to settle terms with

as many representatives appointed by the City, each Sesto contributing

one of the Donati and one of the adverse faction.[557] These

twenty-four citizens were all magnates, and felt so much reciprocal

distrust that the twelve exiles, although well received by the people

and quartered under State protection in the Cardinal's own residence

at the Mozzi Palace, were most anxious to depart, fearing to be cut to

pieces at any moment. But they were advised by their friends to take

arms and seek refuge in the houses of the Cavalcanti, seeing that with

the latter's help they would be enabled, if necessary, to repulse and

overcome their enemies by force. The Cavalcanti seemed well disposed

to the plan, and began to arrange preliminaries. But after thus rousing

the suspicion and increasing the animosity of their foes, they suddenly

drew back, thereby disgusting even their friends. Accordingly on the

8th of June, 1304, the exiles hurried away from Florence as though

flying for their lives.[558] Thereupon there was a loud outcry against

the Cardinal; he was charged with having betrayed the city by his

stealthy manoeuvres, and it was even added that he had encouraged the

exiles to appear before the walls in warlike array. Letters bearing

his seal were shown, and it was affirmed that the exiles had marched

from the Mugello as far as Trespiano, and only beaten a retreat on

learning the failure of the meditated scheme. Villani declares that

these reports were mere slanders;[559] but even the epistles attributed

to Dante Alighieri lead us to infer that the Cardinal really desired

the exiles' return and had negotiated with them to that effect.[560]

But his patience being now exhausted, he departed on the 10th of

June, again leaving the city under interdict, and exclaiming: "Since

ye prefer to be at war and accursed, will neither hear nor obey the

messenger of God's Vicar, nor be at rest and at peace among yourselves,

remain under the curse of Heaven, under the curse of Holy Church."[561]

At this moment the Cavalcanti and their friends were at a truly

terrible pass. Their present junction with the Donati was insufficient

to blot out old animosities, which had been only laid aside for a while

in order to second the return of the Bianchi, at the expense of the

Tosinghi faction. The latter remained practically isolated, forsaken

even by the rich trading class, who, wearied of perpetual civil war,

had been persuaded by the Cardinal to promote a reconciliation between

the Cavalcanti and Donati. But the former's unexpected withdrawal at

the last moment, and when all seemed arranged, had stirred the old

hatred to new fury, and the Cavalcanti were now between two fires.

Messer Corso, being unwilling to join hands with the Tosinghi, kept his

rage in check for the nonce, and feigning to be ill with gout, still

remained passive, leaving his followers to do as they chose. But Rosso

della Tosa was a ferocious enemy of the Cavalcanti, by whom he had been

brought to the verge of ruin, and his hatred was not to be restrained.

So the Cardinal had scarcely disappeared before a catastrophe became

imminent in Florence. The Cavalcanti recognised their peril; but they

were numerous, courageous, and powerful. They could count on the

Gherardini, Pulci, and Cerchi del Garbo; they owned many friends even

outside the walls and among the exiled Bianchi; they had also adherents

of the burgher class, no few of whom tenanted their houses in the

centre of Florence. The foes now arming against the Cavalcanti were

aristocrats, not _popolani_. The Cerchi del Garbo began to scuffle day

and night with the Giugni. The Cavalcanti and their friends hastened

to the former's assistance, and so effectively as to be able to press

on from Or San Michele to Piazza San Giovanni almost unopposed. But

while at this distance from their own quarter a serious fire broke

out there. Their enemies had set the Cavalcanti houses ablaze with

combustibles kept in readiness for some days past. The first man to

start the fire, beginning with the dwellings of fellow associates, was

Neri degli Abati, prior of San Piero Scheraggio; and his incendiary

example was followed by many accomplices, including Simone della Tosa

and Sinibaldo Donati, Messer Corso's son.[562] It was the 10th of

June, 1304, and a strong north wind was blowing. Accordingly, the fire

spread with great rapidity to the Calimala street, the Old Market, and

Or San Michele, thus destroying the whole centre of Florence as well

as the Cavalcanti houses--in fact, as Villani expresses it, "all the

marrow, the yolk, and dearest spots of our city of Florence."[563] He

adds, that the palaces, houses and towers consumed amounted to more

than seventeen hundred, with enormous loss of property and merchandise,

seeing that everything saved from the fire was stolen when carried

away, and that fighting and pillage went on even in the midst of the

flames.[564] Paolino Pieri relates in his chronicle, that one-tenth

of the city was burnt, and one-sixth of its whole property. Many

families and associations were ruined, but the worst sufferers were the

Cavalcanti, who seemed paralysed with terror on beholding all their

possessions devoured by the flames. Yet so ferocious was the hatred

cherished against them, that even after these cruel calamities they

were driven from Florence as rebels.

IV.

Let us see what were the political consequences of these events. The

Donati and Della Tosa factions having combined for the undoing of

the Cavalcanti and their friends, it was decided at first that the

magnates, emboldened by union and victory, should next attempt to

annul the Enactments of Justice, and take the government in their

hands. And, in the midst of the General dismay, the project might have

succeeded, Villani says, had the nobles been really in unison. Instead,

"they were all at strife, and split into sects, wherefore either side

courted the people so as not to lose ground."[565] The division of

parties remained substantially the same. That is, on the one hand,

there were the quarrelsome magnates seeking support from the people

against their personal foes, and, on the other, the people trying to

profit by the magnates' dissensions. Of course the merchants had also

suffered heavily by the fire; but their wealth was of a kind to be

rapidly replaced, whereas the nobles had no means of repairing their

still greater losses. For the prosperity of the Florentine people was

so prodigious at the time that, even after this wholesale destruction,

their riches seemed nowise diminished. But there was a notable decline

in the power of the magnates, who disappeared almost entirely from the

first circuit, or centre of the city, where the old families had their

dwellings. Therefore Capponi has some reason to say in his history:

"From that moment the supremacy of the nobles seems to have been

uprooted, and new social orders established."[566] Thus, as always

happened in Florence, even this great calamity proved advantageous to

the people.

In consequence of these lamentable events, added to the reports sent

by Cardinal da Prato to the Pope in Perugia, the Holy Father cited

twelve leading magnates of Florence to appear before him there. Among

the persons thus summoned were Corso Donati and Rosso della Tosa, once

bitter enemies but now friends for the moment. They set out towards

Perugia with a great train of followers, forming a mounted company

of five hundred men in all. So the exiles considered this a most

favourable opportunity for making a fresh attempt to re-enter their

native city. As usual, it was rumoured that the Cardinal had encouraged

them to expect a good reception; and it was further announced that he

had instigated Pisa, Bologna, Arezzo, Pistoia, and the whole of Romagna

to come to their aid. But although some of the exiles' direst foes

were absent from Florence at the time, on the other hand, the position

of their adversaries must have been considerably strengthened by the

slaughter of the Cavalcanti and Gherardini. Likewise, although the

Greater Guilds had once been induced to favour the return of banished

men, and particularly those of the popular class, it was not to be

expected that they would now be disposed to welcome exiles advancing on

Florence under the wing of the Pisans, and joined with the Ghibellines

of Tuscany and Romagna. This league with the enemies of the State

naturally roused all Florence against them.

Nevertheless the exiles seemed very hopeful. Thanks to their new

allies, they had contrived to collect an army of 9,000 foot and 1,600

horse, and on the 19th of July marched into Lastra, to await other

reinforcements from Pistoia. These were to be commanded by Tolosato

degli Uberti, a valiant Ghibelline leader, of an ancient Florentine

house, persistently hated by the Guelphs, in memory of the rout at

Montaperti. As Uberti failed to appear, the exiles resolved to move on

without him; but the twenty-four hours' delay had sufficed to destroy

their chance of taking Florence by surprise. In fact, only twelve

hundred horse rode to the city in peaceful array, bearing olive boughs

in their hands; and passing the unfinished girdle of new walls, halted

beneath the old bastions, in the Cafaggio fields, between St. Mark's

and the Church of the Servi. There, on the 20th of July, panting from

fatigue, without water, and exposed to the burning sun, they vainly

waited for the gates to be opened to them. Meanwhile a small band of

their men had managed to enter the city by forcing the Spadai gate,

and advanced as far as Piazza San Giovanni. But instead of finding

friends there, they were met by 200 horse and 500 foot, who drove them

back, capturing some of their number, and leaving a good many wounded

and slain. This gave the signal for a retreat, soon converted into a

general flight. The force waiting at Cafaggio, exhausted from hunger

and heat combined, had already thrown down their weapons and dispersed

with "bands of volunteers" in pursuit. Many were killed or died of

fatigue, others were stripped, seized and strung up on trees. News of

the defeat reached Lastra before the fugitives returned; accordingly

those encamped there took to flight, and although Tolosato degli Uberti

met them on the way, he found it impossible to rally them to the

attack. Among other narratives of the affair we have that of Villani,

who witnessed all that occurred in Florence.[567] Dante Alighieri was

not with the army at Lastra, having separated from his companions in

exile shortly before, and almost in anger. He was probably disgusted

by their hybrid alliance with all the enemies of Florence, by the

secret agreements set on foot between Donati and the Cavalcanti, and

saddened by the internecine slaughter so blindly provoked in the vain

expectation of compassing the recall of a few banished men.[568]

The victory at Lastra must have undoubtedly augmented the daring and

power of the magnates. It may have been on this account that certain

of their number now insisted on their names being erased from the

rolls of the guilds.[569] Additional proof to this effect is furnished

by another important event occurring on the 5th of August, 1304. One

of the Adimari having perpetrated a crime, was brought before the

Podestà to be judged. But his associates made a violent assault on that

magistrate as he was leaving the Priors' palace, and after wounding

or killing several of his escort, broke into the prison and rescued

the criminal. Thereupon the Captain of the People, Messer Gigliolo da

Prato, temporarily acting as Podestà (since the continual disturbances

in the city had deterred every one from assuming that office), departed

from Florence in high indignation. Accordingly, to provide for the due

administration of justice, the Florentines were obliged to elect a

committee of twelve citizens, one noble and one _popolano_, from every

Sesto, to fulfil the duties of a Podestà.[570] Presently, however, the

resumption of hostilities outside the walls reduced the city to quiet

for a time.

V.

The exiles had again begun to scour the land, stirring neighbouring

strongholds to revolt; and the Florentines instantly marched against

them. The first place to be attacked was the castle of Stinche, which

had been incited to rebel by the Cavalcanti. Its reduction was easily

effected (August, 1304), and all the captives were lodged in the new

prisons, henceforth entitled the "Stinche." A more serious expedition

had to be undertaken in 1305 against Pistoia, when it rose to arms in

the Bianchi cause, aided by Arezzo and Pisa, and under the command of

Tolosato degli Uberti. A long and vigorous siege was the result. The

beleaguering force of Florentines and Lucchese was led by Duke Robert

of Calabria, who, as Captain of the League, had furnished a large

contingent of foot and 300 Catalan horse.[571] The town held out during

the whole winter, but in April, 1306, the Pistoiese were compelled to

surrender from famine. Their walls and towers were demolished, their

territory divided between the Florentines and Lucchese. Pope Clement V.

had vainly endeavoured to put an end to this war which dealt another

cruel blow to the Tuscan Ghibellines. He was a native of France, had

transferred the papal see to Avignon, and had no knowledge of Italy.

Nor could Italy feel any love for an alien Pope who had deserted Rome.

In fact, the Florentines declined to listen to the messengers of peace

he despatched to their camp, and paid no heed to the interdict he

launched against them. For although the Duke of Calabria withdrew,

this was only a feint, seeing that he left them all his men under the

command of Captain Pietro de la Rat. So the campaign was carried on to

the end.

Nor did the other envoy of peace, Cardinal Napoleon Orsini, meet

with any better fortune, for he was not only ill received in Tuscany

and Romagna, but robbed of his goods and even in danger of his life.

As for his excommunications, interdicts, and counsels of peace,

every one laughed at them. The Florentines were determined to do

the work thoroughly, and even before the conclusion of the war with

Pistoia, started another expedition against the formidable castle of

Montaccenico, chief stronghold of the Ubaldini, dominating the whole

of the Mugello and serving as the exiles' headquarters. By dint of

scattering bribes among the Ubaldini themselves, the Florentines

finally won the castle by treason, and, after reducing it to ruin,

immediately resolved to plant the towns of Scarperia and Firenzuola in

its vicinity, "to serve as scarecrows to the Ubaldini, and harbours

of refuge to faithful subjects." All willing to inhabit the little

town founded for that purpose, were to be exempt from every form of

vassalage. The first stone of Scarperia was laid, without delay, on

the 7th of September, 1307; but the construction of Firenzuola was

postponed to a much later date (1332).

We must now consider what was the object the Republic had in view,

and what it achieved by means of these continual campaigns, in which

even the magnates took a part; what too by the reduction of Ghibelline

cities, and the destruction of castles throughout the whole territory?

On the one hand, its political predominance in Tuscany was rapidly

increased, and new outlets of commerce acquired; while, on the other,

the power of the magnates outside Florence was overthrown by the

aid of those within the walls, who, in their blind fury against the

exiles, did not realise what they were doing. The Florentines of old

had demolished the castles, which at one time reached nearly to their

gates; they had forced the barons to dwell in the city, had subjected

them to republican laws, and lowered their pride by excluding them

from the government. Profiting by their disputes, the citizens had

next spurred them to destroy one another; and, in conclusion, were

now making them turn their weapons against more distant nobles, and

overthrow the latter's strongholds in the Casentino, Mugello, and

valley of the Arno. All this was invariably advantageous to the guilds

and the people. Therefore, in 1306, while the Pistoian campaign was

still going on, the Florentines reorganised citizen-armed bands under

nineteen Gonfalonieri. This was the constitution of "the good Guelph

people," a reform made, according to Villani, "in order to prevent

the 'Grandi' and other powerful folk from presuming to show arrogance

on the strength of having gained many victories over the Bianchi and

Ghibellines."[572]

But this was not all, for the real gist of the new reform consisted

in the law of the 23rd of December, 1306, by which the enactments

were strengthened and an Executor of Justice was appointed to enforce

their more rigorous application. The object of the law was clearly

expressed by the introductory words explaining that it was intended "to

preserve the liberties of the Florentine people, and break the pride of

iniquitous men, which has swollen to such extent that our eyes fail to

discern its limits."

In point of fact, the guilds showed no mercy to the magnates, even when

fighting side by side with them against common foes. The "Executor" was

required to be a Guelph, a man of the people, and a foreigner, _i.e._,

of non-Tuscan birth, from some city or place, subject to no lord,

and not less than eighty miles from Florence. He was neither to be a

knight nor a _law judge_, a prohibition caused by the growing hatred

against _perverse judges_ and fatal experience of recent Podestàs.

The "Executor" was to remain in office for six months, and he was

to bring with him one judge, two notaries, twenty _masnadieri_, or

guards--all of whom were to be Guelphs and aliens--and two war-horses.

His office was to protect the people and all the weak against powerful

personages, and to call the companies to arms whenever any crime should

be committed, for the prompt enforcement of the penalties prescribed.

It was to be his special duty to ensure the due execution of the

Enactments of Justice, and whenever the Podestà or Captain failed to

do their part, he was instantly to assume their functions according

to the rules minutely laid down in the new law, that was henceforth

an integral portion of the enactments.[573] He was likewise to deal

punishment on all frauds and dishonest tricks practised in the offices

of the Commune. Should the Podestà fail to demolish buildings (churches

always excepted) in which conventicles or meetings had been illegally

held, he was to enforce the said demolition, and impose a fine of 500

_lire_ on the Podestà. Capital punishment was to be inflicted on all

who held meetings, to plot treason against liberty or the popular

government. In such case, if nobles were concerned the penalty was to

be adjudged by the Podestà, and should the Podestà hesitate to act,

the Executor was to mulct him as usual, and assume his functions. When

the guilty were _popolani_ the Executor alone was to condemn them to

death and degrade their descendants to the rank of nobles. Likewise

all _popolani_ accessory to crimes perpetrated by nobles were to be

condemned by the Executor to double the penalty prescribed by the

common law. It was also the Executor's task to examine the actions of

the outgoing Podestà and Captain, and he, in due turn, was subjected to

investigation by persons appointed by the Priors and Gonfaloniers of

the Companies.[574]

VI.

Meanwhile the Pope's anxiety being stirred by the increasing agitation

provoked by the Florentine exiles, throughout Romagna and the Marches,

as well as in Tuscany, again began to insist upon peace. But the person

charged to open negotiations to this effect was Cardinal Orsini, a man

of strong party feeling and doubtful integrity. For when at Arezzo

in 1307, he had called there, in addition to the Florentine exiles,

many adherents of his own from the adjoining States of the Church,

thus assembling a force of 1,700 cavalry and a great number of foot

soldiers. It appears that he had come to terms with Corso Donati and

received money from him for the undertaking in view. Messer Corso,

whose ambition was still unassuaged, had married a third time, and was

now related, through his wife, with the Ghibelline lord, Uguccione

della Faggiuola. This circumstance naturally exposed him to much

suspicion on the part of the Guelphs, and accordingly, being even more

angered and discontented than before, he was again bitterly hostile to

Messer Rosso della Tosa and his followers, who in their turn, and as an

inevitable consequence, had again combined with the wealthier burghers.

Hence, the latter, on noting the Cardinal's preparations, and Donati's

new manoeuvres, speedily collected an army of 3,000 horse and 15,000

foot, and without further hesitation marched towards Arezzo, ravaging

the enemies' lands by the way. Thereupon, by way of displaying his

military tactics, the Cardinal directed his march on Florence through

the Casentino. But as the Florentines outwitted him, by doubling back

and reaching the city before him, he was obliged to retreat to Arezzo

in a very crestfallen mood. He then opened negotiations with the

Florentines, who, feigning willingness to entertain his proposals,

despatched two ambassadors to gull him with fair words. Compagni

remarks that "no woman was ever more flattered and then abused by

betrayers than he (the Cardinal) by those two knights."[575] So that

all he could do was to go off with his tail between his legs, once more

leaving the city under sentence of excommunication.[576] In revenge

for this, the Florentines imposed fresh taxes on the clergy, punishing

those who refused to pay.[577]

The worst sufferer was Corso Donati, for the Cardinal, after extracting

money from him by promising to come to Florence to crush Della Tosa

and his Black faction, had not even dared to approach the walls. But

without acknowledging his defeat, Donati immediately plunged into

fresh and more daring schemes. After a short absence from Florence,

probably to gain funds and allies, he returned there in 1308.

Increasingly blinded by party passion, counting on assistance from

his father-in-law, Uguccione della Faggiuola, now lord of Arezzo, as

well as from Prato and Pistoia, he called a meeting of his adherents

in Florence. After explaining his hopes and vowing to do away with the

Enactments of Justice, he urged them to draw their swords and make

an end of those Neri, who, after receiving so much help from him and

gaining victory by his means, now treated him so iniquitously. But the

rumour being already abroad that he expected aid from that bitterest

foe of Florence--the formidable Uguccione--the popular feeling against

him was excited to the highest pitch.[578] After being repressed for

some time the general fury burst out all at once, and took Donati

unawares. Suddenly, on the 6th of October, 1308, the Signory sounded

the alarm-bell, and the people, rising to arms, united with the Della

Tosa faction, other friendly magnates, and De la Rat's Catalan troops.

Donati was denounced to the Podestà, Piero della Branca of Gubbio, as a

traitor to his country, and in less than an hour he was accused, tried,

and condemned. Immediately afterwards, the Signory, Podestà, Captain,

and Executor, with their respective familiars, the Catalan troops,

knights, and citizen-trained bands, marched to St. Piero Maggiore to

attack the Donati houses. But Messer Corso and his friends resisted so

valiantly, that had Uguccione and the others fulfilled their promise

of coming to the rescue in time, the affair might have taken an ugly

turn. It is supposed that the Aretines were already on the march, when,

hearing that all Florence had risen against Donati, they decided to

turn back. At all events, no succour arrived, and Messer Corso soon

found that even many of his Florentine friends had ceased to defend the

chain barricades, and relinquished the struggle. Thereupon the people

broke through, and soon demolished the houses he had been forced to

abandon. Accompanied by a few devoted adherents, he fled from the town

by the Croce gate, with the citizens and Catalans in hot pursuit. The

first man captured on the banks of the Africo was Gherardo dei Bordoni,

who was instantly slain. Next, the crowd cut off his hand and nailed

it on the door of the Adimari house, because Tedici degli Adimari had

first instigated the dead man to join with Donati. A few moments later

the Catalans overtook Donati himself at San Salvi, and in obedience

to orders killed him on the spot. According to another version of the

tale, he first tried to bribe them to spare his life, but without

success; so, to avoid falling into the hands of his Florentine foes,

he cast himself on the ground and was dispatched by a spear-thrust in

the throat. The monks of San Salvi bore away his dead body, and the

following day buried him in the Badia without any pomp for fear of

provoking the public wrath.[579]

The cause of this sudden and irresistible burst of popular fury is

clearly explained by the letters which the Commune shortly addressed

to the Lucchese, in whose territory the Bordoni had found refuge.

"It is known to all Tuscany that the Donati had planned a war to the

death, in order to give the city of Florence and the Guelph party

into the hands of the Ghibellines, and subject to their yoke, to the

utter extermination and destruction of the Guelph Government. Those

rebels intended to break all bounds, and subdue the city to their

rule, although Messer Corso and his followers shamelessly styled the

Signory Ghibelline instead."[580] These words were written by the

Signory in March, 1309. In fact, the Neri being split into Donati and

Tosinghi factions, and the latter having united with the wealthier

burghers, from whom could the Donati hope assistance, save from the

Ghibellines? The lower class of the people was weak, and the distant

Pope increasingly urged the return of the exiles. The latter had now

combined with Donati's whilom allies, the nobles of the _contado_,

standing aloof from many of the burgher Bianchi, who had been expelled

at the same moment, but were gradually permitted to return; and they

had also separated from all independent men, such as Dante Alighieri.

The poet, in fact, being opposed to Donati, and a promoter of the

Enactments of Justice, had been finally driven to adopt an individual

attitude. Thus the Bianchi, though exiled for having sided with

the people, were now on the side of the magnates, the Ghibellines,

Uguccione, and even of Corso Donati, the only person likely to profit

by so hybrid an alliance. Accordingly his death had the immediate

result of giving another terrible shock to the magnates' power, both

within and without the city. Speedy proof was afforded of this when, at

the beginning of 1309, the proud Ubaldini came to make submission to

the Florentine Commune, promising to guard the passes of the Apennines,

and supporting their offer by fitting guarantees of good faith. In

consequence of this they were accepted as friends, with the condition,

"that in every act and deed they should behave as good subjects and

citizens."[581]

Throughout the whole of its history the Florentine Commune invariably

adopted this plan when admitting nobles to its midst. But it had

also the effect of enabling conquered and subject magnates to gain

increased strength in the city itself. Therefore, first without and

then within the walls, they unceasingly combated the people and the

Republic, down to the distant time when they were finally crushed

by the State. If Florentine prosperity as yet showed no signs of

diminution during the sanguinary struggle now described, it was for two

reasons which should be duly kept in mind. The successive conflicts we

have narrated, all proceeded from the constant necessity of preserving

the merchant-republic from the impact of the extraneous feudal body

threatening to check its natural growth. These civil wars, however,

were carried by a comparatively small number of citizens, eager to gain

possession of a government that had far less influence on society than

is generally supposed. The true motive-power of the Republic proceeded

less from the Signory, which was changed every two months, than from

the commercial and political constitution of the guilds, which were

firmly organised and, so far, thoroughly in unison. The conditions of

an all-absorbing modern State, wherein every shock affects society

at large, had not yet sprung to life in the Middle Ages. The Italian

republics were miniature confederacies of separate associations, under

a central government of so feeble a kind, that even when totally

suppressed for a time, no great harm seemed to result from its loss.

VII.

Corso Donati's death put an end to the tragedy of which the expulsion

of the Bianchi had formed the first act; and now the condition of all

Italy, as well as Florence, was changed by a new event. This was the

murder of Albert of Hapsburg by his nephew, on the 1st of May, 1308.

Therefore the election of a new king of the Romans and future emperor

was now imminent. Philip the Beautiful aspired to win the Imperial

crown, if not for himself, at least for his brother, Charles of Valois,

through the help of Clement V. As the Pope was residing in France, he

could not directly oppose the design, but had certainly no intention of

favouring it. With the Angevins at Naples, the Holy See transferred to

Avignon, and Rome in revolt against him, the choice of a French emperor

would have placed him entirely at Philip's mercy. Accordingly he gave

secret support to Henry of Luxembourg, who was elected to the throne

as Henry VII. on the 27th of November, 1308. This emperor, born on the

French frontier, and educated in France, presented a combination of

Germanic and Latin characteristics. As lord of a petty State, he had

no real strength or power of his own; but having great nobility of

mind and an imagination disposed to mysticism, he had formed a lofty

idea of the dignity and might of the universal Empire that he hoped

to restore to Rome. He seemed totally unable to comprehend that the

feudal union of Germany and Italy, which had missed success even at the

beginning of the Middle Ages, had become totally impossible now that

feudalism itself, the principal basis of the Holy Roman Empire, was

almost annihilated in Italy. Nevertheless, when Henry first raised the

Imperial flag, enormous hopes were conceived by the Ghibellines, and

rapidly spread throughout the peninsula. All men seemed to be suddenly

stirred to genuine enthusiasm.

The Ghibellines of that day were no longer the Ghibellines of old, and

in Italy the conception of the Empire had undergone a total change.

The hostile attitude of the Popes towards republican freedom and

independence; their persistent struggle against the Roman Commune;

the fact of Clement V. being at a distance, in France, and weakly

dependent on the French monarch; the necessity, now beginning to

be generally recognised, of building up, from the ruins of old

municipalities, new forms of government, such as were now arising in

France and elsewhere; the revival of classical studies, enabling men

to glean from the Republic and Empire of ancient Rome some literary

conception of the unity and strength of the secular State required

to meet present needs;--had all combined to transform the mediæval

idea of the Empire. For now that France and other countries were

detached from it, the Empire was no longer universal, but simply

Germanico-Roman; while to Italian eyes it was beginning, though still

very vaguely, to seem a revival of the old Rome that had always been

the spiritual head of the civilised world, and the possible centre

of an Italian confederated State. This idea was clearly expressed

for the first time in Dante's "Monarchia," which then served as the

manifesto of the Ghibelline party. The same idea was afterwards more

widely developed in the "Defensor Pacis" of Marsilio da Padova, and

at a subsequent date inspired the fantastic enthusiasm of Cola di

Rienzo. The latter's attempt--so lauded by Petrarch--to create a new

Roman, Italian, Imperial Republic was a confused dream of scholastic,

classico-humanistic, feudal, and mediæval ideas, but nevertheless a

dream containing in embryo some vague conception of the future Italian

State as it was already dimly foreseen, although with no comprehension

of its real nature. Such as it was, however, this incoherent jumble of

ideas became the standard of the Italian Ghibellines.

The Guelphs had no philosophical programme of their own to flaunt in

return. The force of events, and the pressing need of maintaining the

independence of Italian cities against Pope and emperor, was then the

war-cry of the Florentine Guelphs. To Florence, the coming of the

emperor signified the revival of the old Ghibelline party, consequently

the revival of Arezzo, Pistoia, Pisa, and other hostile cities, all

ready to compress her within a circle of steel, and strangle her

commerce. For this reason she called on the Guelph cities, and all

seeking to preserve freedom and escape foreign tyranny, to join in an

Italian confederation, with herself at its head. It was, therefore, at

this moment that the small merchant-republic initiated a true national

policy, and became a great power in Italy. So, in the mediæval shape

of a feudal and universal Empire, on the one hand, and in that of a

municipal confederation on the other, a gleam of the national idea

first began to appear, though still in the far distance and veiled in

clouds. Both sides fought eagerly for the interests of the moment, and

both were inspired with the presentiment of a new future; but neither

discerned that this future was only to be attained by the destruction

of both parties alike.

At this juncture the Pope seemed favourable to Henry VII., for he

encouraged his project of going to Rome to assume the Imperial crown,

and urged the Italians to accord him a good reception. Nevertheless--as

the Florentines had known from the first--he could not wish to see

Italy subject to the Empire, having too keen a remembrance of all

that the Church had endured at the hands of Frederic II. Following,

therefore, the traditional policy of the Roman Court, he simultaneously

encouraged Robert of Naples, formerly Duke of Calabria, who, having

succeeded to the throne at the death of King Charles II. (May 3, 1309),

was naturally prepared to resist Henry's pretensions to the utmost.

At first the Florentines appeared disposed to be passive lookers on,

but were not deceived by the Pope's pretence of encouraging Emperor

Henry. They desired a closer alliance with Clement, but he too was very

resentful with regard to their past conduct, and with some reason,

secretly echoed the words of Benedict XI.: "Who could imagine that

those men" (the Florentines) "should presume to be sons of the Church,

while fighting against her?" But nowise dismayed by this, they treated

with King Robert, who still allowed them to retain the services of

Captain De la Rat and his Catalan horse, and now sent them his flag

in addition. With the help of this contingent the Florentines made

repeated attacks on Arezzo, refusing to desist even when Henry warned

them to respect that city as a fief of the Empire. Their attacks were

invariably successful, and they even forced their way into the town,

but were prevented from holding it by the treachery of the magnates, as

it was rumoured at the time.[582] All acts and decrees of the Commune

bore the heading: "In honour of Holy Church and His Majesty King

Robert, and to the defeat of the German king."[583]

VIII.

In 1310 Henry set out for Italy, leaving the affairs of Germany to his

son's care. Louis of Savoy, the newly elected Senator of Rome, was sent

on in advance, and reached Florence on the 3rd of July, accompanied

by two German prelates. The latter were admitted to the council; but

in answer to their request that Florence should prepare to receive

the emperor with due honour, Betto Brunelleschi replied: "That the

Florentines had never lowered their horns before any lord whatsoever;"

and this somewhat indecorous response was sufficiently indicative of

the public feeling. In fact, the Imperial envoys, though everywhere

well received, obtained nothing from Florence, and even failed to put

a stop to the war with Arezzo. And when ambassadors from nearly every

city of Italy sought audience of Henry at Lausanne, no Florentine

envoys appeared. On the contrary, Florence was energetically preparing

for defence; the new walls were raised about sixteen feet higher, and

surrounded by moats from the Prato gate to that of San Gallo, and

thence to the Arno.[584] On the 30th of September Robert arrived in

Florence from Avignon, where the Pope had crowned him King of Naples,

and likewise appointed him Vicar of Romagna, to prevent Henry from

seizing that province which had recently seceded from the Empire.

King Robert soon came to an understanding with the Florentines, and

arranged measures with them for their common defence. Notwithstanding

this, Henry continued to advance, heading all his decrees with the

phrase, _in nomine regis pacifici_, and assuming the part of a just and

impartial judge. He summoned both Guelphs and Ghibellines to his side,

promising equal welcome to all. He reached Susa by the 24th of October,

and on the Feast of the Epiphany (January 6, 1311) assumed the Iron

Crown in the Church of St. Ambrogio at Milan.

But in this city his dream of peace was disturbed by a sudden outburst

of civil war. The Guelph Torriani were expelled by the Visconti before

his eyes; and from that moment, being forcibly dragged into the vortex

of party strife, Henry renounced his mission as peacemaker, and was

again a German, foreign, and _barbarian_ emperor. It was averred that

the Florentines had bribed Guido della Torre to raise a rebellion,

and that this was the cause of his expulsion. We have no certainty

that this was the case, but it is an ascertained fact that they sent

money, despatches, and envoys to Cremona, Lodi, Brescia, Pavia, and

other Lombard cities, and succeeded in stirring them to rise against

Henry.[585] They also sent ambassadors to Naples, France, and more

particularly to Avignon, where they lavished heavy bribes on the

officials of the Curia, for the purpose of learning when the Pope spoke

truly or falsely. On all sides they displayed such feverish activity

that one day the Cardinal da Prato exclaimed in the presence of the

French king: "How great is the insolence of these Florentines in daring

to tempt every lord with their lousy small coin!"[586]

Even in crises such as these the magnates of Florence could not lay

aside their animosities, but continued to disturb the city by fresh

riots now and then. In February, 1311, the Donati murdered Betto

Brunelleschi, whom they considered responsible for Messer Corso's

death, and immediately afterwards disinterred the latter's corpse

at San Salvi, and reburied him with due pomp now that he had been

avenged.[587]

Nevertheless, order was quickly restored, since there was little

leisure for private feuds, and men's minds were absorbed in graver

concerns. At the beginning of June, 1311, Florence, Pisa, Lucca,

Sienna, and Volterra gave their formal adherence to the Guelph

League, and swore to combine in armed defence against Henry. On the

26th of June, the Florentines despatched De la Rat to Bologna with

400 Catalan horse, while the Siennese and Lucchese forwarded another

contingent to King Robert in Romagna, where that monarch was harrying

and incarcerating all the Ghibellines and exiled Florentine Bianchi

who were then trying to stir the Papal cities to revolt.[588] And when

it was rumoured that the king was seeking to make terms with Henry,

the Florentines wrote to him, insisting on his entering Rome at once,

according to his promise, and likewise warning him that they would

stand no half-measures, and that if he delayed, or attempted any pact

with the emperor, they would instantly withdraw their forces from the

League. "Inasmuch as your Royal Majesty has repeatedly promised us to

make no terms with the German king, but to supply us with an armed

force and go in person to Rome to exterminate our common foe."[589]

This missive had some effect, for Robert speedily despatched 400 horse

to Rome under his brother John, who, with the help of the Orsini, soon

won the chief vantage-points of the city. The king still feigned to

act in the interests of the Empire; but no one was deceived by this

pretence, and the Florentines were satisfied.

Meanwhile Henry, still faithful to his original plan, and quite

unconscious of the extraordinary change that was going on, had reduced

Cremona to submission, and was now besieging Brescia, which opposed a

more stubborn resistance. The "peaceful" monarch vented his rage on

his prisoners and put one of the Guelph leaders to a most atrociously

cruel death. But the Brescians still refused to surrender; the flower

of the German army was perishing from sickness and wounds, and Henry's

brother died of his hurts. During these days of slaughter, Florence

wrote to the Brescians, saying, "Remember that the safety of all Italy

and all Guelphs depends on your resistance. The Latins must always hold

the Germans in enmity, seeing that they are opposed in act and deed, in

manners and soul; not only is it impossible to serve, but even to hold

any intercourse with that race."[590] At the same time they wrote to

encourage other cities to make a stand and rise to arms. They summoned

the Perugians "to shake off their bonds of vassalage, and proclaim

the sweets of liberty"; repeating to all that, for their own part,

they would unceasingly devote their arms, men, and gold to the task of

resistance.[591] Also, for the greater reinforcement of the citizens

and the Guelph party, they removed the ban from all exiles, probably

well disposed to the Guelphs, only maintaining it against several

hundred supposed Ghibellines, Dante Alighieri among the number. This

modification of the Law of Banishment was known as the Amendment of

Baldo d'Aguglione, one of the Priors by whom it was passed on September

2, 1311.[592]

Meanwhile, after an heroic defence, Brescia was forced to accept

terms of surrender, whereupon Henry immediately set out towards

Genoa, entering that city on October 21, 1311. Here, though deeply

grieved by the death of his wife, he allowed no delay in the necessary

preparations for continuing his journey to Rome by the Pisan route.

And, being informed of this, the Florentines redoubled their efforts.

They strengthened the garrison of San Miniato al Tedesco, recalled from

Bologna De la Rat and his troops, despatched reinforcements to Lucca,

Sarzana, Pietrasanta, and the fortresses in Lunigiana, and the western

Valdarno.[593] But remarkable as it may seem, they never neglected the

interests of their trade, even at this critical time. In fact, they

chose this moment to address the King of France, explaining the serious

difficulties in which Henry's descent had involved them, and lamenting

that the present war should have led His Majesty to take measures

hurtful to the interests of their merchants, upon whom the prosperity

of Florence so largely depended, "_cum Civitas nostra ex predictis

Florentinis ex maiori parte consistat_. You have always hitherto

protected them," they said in conclusion, "and our chief hopes are

placed, after God, in your Majesty, especially now that Henry threatens

to go to Pisa and march against us, _qui firmavimus et parati sumus

nostram quam a vobis et a vestris recognovimus, defendere libertatem_."

They likewise besought the king to order matters in such wise, that

their trade with France might be pursued without interruption, even

during the war.[594]

Meanwhile the emperor had despatched another embassy to Florence,

composed of Bishop Niccolò of Botrintò, and Pandolfo Savelli; but when

these envoys finally reached Lastra, after encountering many mishaps by

the way, they were not only robbed, but placed in mortal danger. The

bells rang the alarm at their approach, armed men poured into their

lodging, and the Podestà and Captain of Florence arrived barely in time

to save their lives. Accordingly, by the advice of those functionaries,

the strangers quitted the town in the utmost haste.[595] Thereupon

(20th of November, 1311) the emperor cited the Florentines to appear

before him in Genoa to tender apology and submission. Then, finding

that--as was to be expected--they disregarded his summons, he placed

their city under the ban of the Empire.[596] Even this was received

with the same indifference as the interdicts of the Pope. But recalling

their merchants from Genoa, they hastened their preparations for war.

The magnates now gave another proof of their irrepressible turbulence.

Precisely at this moment, and heedless of the grave danger menacing

the Republic, they plunged the city in disorder with their private

feuds. On the 11th of January, 1312, Pazzino de' Pazzi, one of the

leading men, and much beloved by the people, was set upon and killed,

as he rode to the chase, by Paffiera dei Cavalcanti, to avenge the

loss of Masino de' Cavalcanti and Betto Brunelleschi, whose murder

was attributed to Pazzi. The victim's body was carried to the Priors'

Palace, and the indignant people rising to arms, marched under their

own banner to the Cavalcanti houses, and burnt them to the ground.

As the speediest way of checking these tumults, the Signory exiled

the Cavalcanti at once, conferred knighthood on four of the Pazzi

family, and presented them with certain lands and property in the

gift of the Commune.[597] Thus, even at this juncture, order was soon

re-established.

IX.

During this time Henry was preparing to go to Rome. In the Imperial

camp minstrels were chanting the piteous tale of Conradin's death,

and the popular muse of the Ghibellines continued to shower laudatory

greetings on the just judge, the celestial peacemaker. Men of letters,

poets, jurisconsults, and philosophers persisted in regarding Henry

as the new redeemer who was to restore the Imperial crown to Rome,

give Italy freedom and peace. Cino da Pistoia cried, "Nunc dimittis

servum tuum, Domine, quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum."[598] But

Dante Alighieri was the most exultant of all, for at this moment he

was virtually the chief representative of the Imperial party in Italy.

On Henry's first approach to the Alps he had addressed an epistle to

the princes and governments of Italy, exclaiming, "Hosanna to thee,

suffering Italy, now wilt thou be envied of all, for 'Sponsus tuus et

mundi solatium et gloria plebis tuæ, clementissimus Henricus, Divus et

Augustus et Cæsar, ad nuptias properat.' Let the oppressed rejoice, for

their redemption draweth near. Let all who have endured injuries like

unto mine forgive and grant pardon, for now the Shepherd that cometh

from God will lead us all back to the fold."[599]

Afterwards, however, when Henry was about to march on Cremona, and

the Florentines had already declared openly against him, Alighieri's

joy turned to wrath, and from the source of the Arno in the Casentino

hills, he wrote another epistle, dated 31st of March, 1311, and

addressed, "_Scelestissimis Florentinis._ Know ye not, God hath

ordained that the human race be under the rule of one emperor, for the

defence of justice, peace, and civilisation, inasmuch as Italy was

always a prey to civil war whenever the Empire lapsed? Do ye dare,

ye alone, to cast off the yoke of freedom and seek for new kingdoms,

even as though _alia sit florentina civitas, alia sit romana_? Most

foolish and insensate men, ye shall succumb perforce to the Imperial

eagle. Know ye not that true liberty consisteth in voluntary obedience

to Divine and human laws? Yet while presuming to claim liberty, ye

conspire against all laws!"[600]

Then, when instead of marching forward, Henry tarried in Lombardy, to

attack the cities stirred to revolt against him by Florence, Dante's

indignation rose to its highest pitch, and on the 16th of April of the

same year he addressed another epistle to the emperor, saying, "Men

declare that thou dost waver in thy purpose, and wouldst turn back from

it, disheartened. Art not, then, the man expected by us all? When my

hands touched thy feet, I exultantly cried, 'Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui

abstulit peccata mundi.' Why tarriest thou? If thine own glory move

thee not, let thy son's, at least, stir thee.

"Ascanium surgentem, et spes hæredis Tuli

Respice, cui _regnum Italiæ_, romanaque tellus

Debetur.... (Æn. iv. 272.)

What may it profit thee to subdue Cremona? Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia, and

other cities will continue to revolt until thou hast extirpated the

root of the evil. Art ignorant mayhap where the rank fox lurketh in

hiding? The beast drinketh from the Arno, polluting the waters with its

jaws. Knowest thou not that Florence is its name? Florence is the viper

that stings its mother's breast, the black sheep that corrupts the

whole flock, the Myrrha guilty of incest with her father. In fact it is

Florence who rends the bosom of the mother--Rome, that created her in

the likeness of herself, and violates the commands of the Father of the

Faithful, who is agreed with thee. And Florence, while contemning her

own sovereign, sides with an alien monarch and others' rights. Delay no

more, but haste to slay the new Goliath with the sling of thy wisdom

and the stone of thy might."[601]

This semi-scholastic, semi-Biblico-classical, and often inflated

language, admirably represents the ideas of the period, and proves

the excited state of Dante's mind. He was undoubtedly the first

to put clearly into words the new Ghibelline theory that had been

gradually developing and maturing in his mind ever since he had

indignantly parted from his fellow-exiles, and turned to solitary

study. Although, as we have already remarked, this new conception--more

amply developed in Dante's "Monarchia"--was certainly theoretical and

literary rather than practical, it was deeply rooted nevertheless in

the thought of the period, and the work devoted to its disclosure

already shows, by unmistakable signs, that the spirit of the age was

about to be transformed. In reading the "Monarchia" we are often

plunged back in the Middle Ages, but the pale gleaming of a new dawn

often shimmers before our eyes. "The Empire represents the law upon

which human society is firmly based; it is derived accordingly from

God, the source of the Imperial, as of the Papal power." In this we

may already discern the conception of an independent secular society

emancipated from the Church, and thus the idea of a State founded upon

law--an idea inspired by ancient Rome, and suggested by new practical

needs--is first put into words at the close of the Middle Ages which

had denied its possibility. But even Dante failed to see that the new

State must be intrinsically national, neither could he perceive that

the universal Empire he invoked, and now represented by Henry VII.,

was precisely what made it impossible for that State to be formed.

Thus the novel and almost prophetic portion of his book is neutralised

by its theoretic and scholastic elements. The independent secular

State, foreseen by his lofty intellect, was indeed bound to triumph;

but its victory implied the destruction of the mediæval Empire of

which his book was intended to be the apotheosis. On the contrary,

the "Monarchia" became its epitaph, as some one has justly remarked.

Nevertheless, some vaguely distant conception of the State, and even of

the national State, occasionally flashes forth in Dante's book, though

still battling with the mists of revived classic lore. The Empire is

not, in fact, to be separated from the Eternal City that gave it birth,

and of which it is the heir. Rome, the natural and permanent seat of

empire, was to be restored to her ancient grandeur by the coming of the

emperor. Also, were not Rome and Italy one and the same thing? Henry

VII. was the representative, not only of law but of peace, freedom, and

civilisation, therefore by him Italy's woes would be brought to an end,

and Italy's freedom guaranteed. Was not Henry the master of the world?

Hence he could desire nothing more, and could not fail to be the just

lord and father of all, respecting every legally acquired right and

jurisdiction. But it was precisely the emperor's yearning to be lord

of all men and all things that was so opposed to the national spirit

that was already beginning to stir many minds, and that--if almost

unawares--Alighieri was so earnestly lauding, while practically denying

it by imploring the resurrection of the Empire.

This contradiction gave a truly tragic hue to Dante's mental state at

the time. He was profoundly sincere, profoundly persuaded of the truth

of his ideas. Inflamed with holy wrath against all supporters of the

Pope and the Angevins, mindful of the deeds he had seen committed in

Florence by Boniface VIII. and Charles of Valois, he had a premonition,

amounting almost to second sight, of the numerous calamities to be

wrought upon all Italy by the obstinacy of his opponents. But he failed

to see that his own political theory would have thrust Italy back

into the feudal Middle Ages, neutralising the work of the communes

and the result of the prolonged struggles, in which he himself had

been recently involved. The conflicting emotions stirring within him

found vent in the "Divine Comedy" depicting two different and often

contrasting worlds, and wherein the past is touched and transformed by

a new spirit, made the source of a new future, new art, new literature

and new civilisation. In this great poem the reality of human passion

and human life breaks through the mystic clouds of the Middle Ages, and

finally disperses them for ever. Therefore philosophers and historians

may find in the poem all the constituents of an age in which one form

of society was dying out, and another springing, almost visibly, to

life. But although the conflict of thought in Dante's mind might

produce immortal verse, it could not possibly create any efficient

political system.

On the latter point the advantage lay with the Florentines, inasmuch

as they always clung to actualities and the needs of the moment. They

weighed and counted their bales of silks and woollens, and calculated

the probable damage to their import and export trade from the triumph

of the Empire in Italy. They saw that it would inevitably ruin their

commerce; and by assuring victory to their foes, _i.e._, to the

magnates, Pisans, and many petty Italian tyrants, would overthrow their

own freedom and the government of the guilds. Was not this belief

justified by the fate of Milan, Cremona, and Brescia? This was why the

Florentines called the Guelph cities to their side, and in the name

of Italy, freedom, and their common independence, united them all in

a defensive alliance against the foreign foe. Nevertheless they had

also leagued with King Robert and espoused the cause of France and the

Pope, whose triumph was destined to prove fatal to Italian liberty and

independence. As we have previously shown, the nation could only be

built up on the ruins and by the destruction of both parties. The long

and difficult course of historic evolution requisite to prepare the

way for a distant future was then unknown to all. The Florentines only

thought of securing present safety, and in this they were well advised

and fortunate.

X.

Meanwhile that "crowned victim of his own fate," as Del Lungo calls

Henry VII., continued his advance with untroubled self-confidence.

The royal peacemaker felt no remorse at having drenched Italian

cities in blood and disseminated discord. Not even the loss of wife

and brother, the slaughter of his best soldiers, the desertion of

numerous adherents, nor the scathing contempt of his foes availed to

shake his self-assurance and certainty of success. Calm and composed

as ever, he entered Pisa on the 6th of March, 1312, was welcomed with

great pomp, and remained amid this truly friendly population until

the 23rd of April. While at Lausanne he had already received sixty

thousand florins from the Pisans, and they now showed the sincerity

of their submission to him by accepting new magistrates at his hands

and promising a second gift of money equal to the first.[602] Neither

did he feel the slightest alarm on hearing that the army of Robert's

brother, Prince John, had gained reinforcements in Rome.

That prince had brought with him a force of over six hundred Catalan

and Apulian horse, and had now been joined by two hundred of the best

Florentine cavalry, led by De la Rat, who, in addition to his Catalan

troops, had also collected one thousand foot. Fresh contingents had

poured in from Lucca, Sienna, and other towns. The Capitol, the Castle

of St. Angelo, and Trastevere, and all the fortresses were therefore

held by the prince. And as a final stroke, the Neapolitan king, after

first stating that he occupied Rome for the Empire, now declared openly

against Henry. Nevertheless the latter continued his march with only

one thousand horse and a body of infantry, and on the 7th of May, 1312,

entered the Eternal City. He quickly attacked and won the Capitol; but

in seeking to force his way to St. Peter's to grasp the Imperial crown,

a real battle took place in the streets; and a _sortie_ from Castle

St. Angelo repulsed him with heavy loss. Nor would his coronation have

been accomplished at all, had not the Roman people declared in his

favour and by threats of violence compelled the prelates to disregard

custom and perform the solemn rite in the Lateran Church on the 29th

of June. But Henry was now obliged to recognise that even the Pope

was adverse, when the latter commanded him to refrain from attacking

Naples, to make a twelvemonth's truce with the king, to leave Rome on

the day of his coronation, to renounce all rights over the Eternal

City, and never re-enter it without permission. At last the Pope had

dropped his mask, and the Florentines were proved good prophets. But at

the very moment in which their Guelph policy triumphed, and the breach

between Pope and emperor was so plainly revealed, the people proclaimed

Rome an Imperial city and their Capitol the permanent seat of the

emperor, whose authority was to be acknowledged as emanating from

the Roman people alone. "Dum sola tribunitia, exterminatis Patribus,

potestas adolevisset illo sub magistratu ... omnia hæc parari Cæsari,

ipsum evocandum in Urbem, vehendumque triumphaliter in Capitolium,

principatum ab sola plebe recogniturum."[603]

Dante's own idea was now uttered by the voice of Rome.

At last, and after much hesitation, Henry decided to adopt the advice

proffered by the great poet some time before, and went to lay siege to

Florence. Crossing the Roman Campagna in August, his army was decimated

by fever, and after the capture of Montevarchi and San Giovanni, he

halted at Figline.[604] The Florentines, without good commanders and

with most disorderly haste, marched a large force of infantry and 1,800

horse to the Castle of Incisa. But they then declined to accept battle,

and the emperor continued his journey by another route, vigorously

repulsing every _sortie_ made from Incisa for the purpose of arresting

his passage. On the 19th of September he invested Florence on all

sides, establishing his headquarters at San Salvi. The citizens, having

received no news from the army, were almost taken by surprise, but,

snatching their weapons, hurried to the walls under the banners of

the people, and accompanied by their bishop, sword in hand, together

with all his clergy. Two days later the troops sent to take the field

against the emperor made their way back to Florence across country;

reinforcements arrived from Lucca, Sienna, Pistoia, Bologna, Romagna,

and in short from all the cities of the League. Thus, Villani tells

us, an army was collected of 4,000 horse and innumerable infantry.

The emperor having only a force of 800 German knights, 1,000 Italian

horse, and a considerable body of foot, was merely able to ravage the

land. Fortunately for him, the year's harvest had been so abundant

that there was no difficulty in provisioning his troops. Even now,

in spite of their great numerical superiority, the Florentines still

shrank from attempting a pitched battle; but inside the town they

felt so completely secure that they only closed the gates facing the

emperor's camp, leaving the others open to traffic as in times of

peace. This state of things lasted to the month of November, but then

Henry's patience being altogether exhausted, he raised the siege and

set out for Poggibonsi and Pisa. The Florentines started in pursuit,

and attacked him several times on the road, with varying results.

The emperor tarried at Poggibonsi to the 6th of March, 1313, without

provisions, or funds, and his army was so reduced that his cavalry

had dwindled to 1,000 horse. Nevertheless he continued his march, and

although, according to Villani, his assailants were four to one, he

contrived to fight his way to Pisa, and arrived there on the 9th of

March.

At this time, although his health was ruined by mental worry and bodily

hardship, his purse emptied, and his army melted away, the emperor

was still calm and hopeful. In Pisa he made many attempts to pursue

the war by legal devices: depriving the Florentines of their judicial

rights, dismissing their judges and notaries, imposing heavy fines,

and condemning many of their citizens to confiscation and punishment.

And regardless of the fact that these sentences had no effect, he

continued to launch them as before. He prohibited the Florentines from

coining money, while permitting Ubizzo Spinola of Genoa and the Marquis

of Monferrato to fabricate within their own territories false florins

marked with the Florentine stamp. Naturally an act so damaging to the

public credit provoked severe blame.[605] He condemned King Robert as

a traitor to the Empire, and made alliance with Frederic of Sicily and

the Genoese. He also determined to march against Naples, although the

Pope had threatened excommunication on any one attacking that kingdom,

which was considered a fief of the Church. Burning with zeal for this

new enterprise, he demanded money and men from Lombardy and Germany.

He was thus enabled to collect 2,500 foreign and 1,500 Italian horse,

besides an army of foot soldiers. Seventy galleys were equipped by the

Genoese; fifty by King Frederic. The Pisans, who had already sacrificed

everything to his cause, managed to furnish twenty galleys. He also

obtained a certain amount of money, and set off on the 8th of August,

1313, with some reasonable hope of success. But his sudden death at

Buonconvento, on the 24th of May, brought everything to an end.

On the 27th of the same month the Florentines exultantly announced to

their allies that "Jesus Christ had procured the death of that most

haughty tyrant, Henry, entitled King of the Romans and Emperor, by

the rebel persecutors of Holy Church, to wit, your Ghibellines and

our foes."[606] During Henry's life they had conferred the lordship

of Florence on Robert for five years, and now stretched the term to

three more, on the well-understood condition that their free, Guelph,

and popular government should be left intact. All they asked from him

was a military leader bearing the king's flag, acting in his name,

contributing a few sturdy men at arms, and competent to take command of

the citizen army in order to protect the Republic from possible attacks

on the part of Pisa or Genoa, and against Ghibelline captains such as

Uguccione della Fagguiola and others. Pisa and Uguccione were their

most dreaded foes. The latter, indeed, had already hired one thousand

of Henry's soldiers, composing the first of those Free Companies

destined to speedily become the real scourge of Italy.[607]

The Pope, now reduced to be the slave of France, threw himself into the

arms of King Robert, and named him Senator of Rome, thus causing the

return thither of Angevin vicars. As the Pontiff hoped to be able to

assume the authority of the Empire during the interregnum, he annulled

Henry's decree against Robert, and appointed him Imperial Vicar in

Italy for a term extending to two months after the election of the next

emperor.

Notwithstanding Robert's augmented power and his lordship over their

city, the Florentines were now vastly improved in strength, both

morally and materially, since they had foreseen future events far more

accurately than others, had been the chief authors of all that had

occurred, and were the friends and allies of those who had triumphed

with them. The people were substantially supreme; the magnates were

overthrown; and trade which had gone on uninterruptedly during the

war, attained more vigorous development now that peace was restored.

But what had become of the Guelph Federation, and of the name of Italy

invoked to call it into being? All had vanished in a flash. The very

fact of the Florentines now feeling compelled to crave protection from

a king, clearly proves that their vast prosperity, notwithstanding the

Republic, had neither sufficient self-reliance nor strength to preserve

its independence unaided. This state of things necessarily involved new

complications and new dangers which could be in no case long averted.

The Italian Commune was doomed to decay; the modern State destined to

be born; but the moment of its birth lay beyond a period of oppression.

The same fate was already distantly impending over Florence.

After Henry VII. was dead, both the nature of the Empire and its

relations with Italy were changed. So, too, the Pope's alliance with

France radically transformed the attitude of the Papal power towards

the Italian communes, for it became increasingly hostile to their

freedom and independence. The Middle Ages had come to an end, and an

entirely new epoch was now opening in the history of Florence and of

Italy in general.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Originally published in the Milan _Politecnico_, March, 1866.

[2] "Lettres sur l'hist. de France." close of Letter xxv.

[3] See, for example, Goro Dati's "Storia di Firenze."

[4] Since this paper first appeared many important researches have

been made on the origin of Florence and its Commune, particularly by

Professor D. O. Hartwig, of whose estimable work we shall speak later

on. Several general histories of Florence have also been published, of

which the more noteworthy are the "Storia della Repubblica di Firenze,"

by the Marquis Gino Capponi (Florence, Barbera, 1875, 2 vols.), and

"L'Histoire de Florence," by Mons. Perrens (Paris, 1877-90, 9 vols.),

both to be mentioned farther on.

[5] At the time when this sentence was written Malespini was held to be

anterior to Villani, and the latter his plagiarist. Later, the contrary

was proved by Scheffer-Boichorst, many of whose arguments admit of no

reply. But Marchese G. Capponi refused to be convinced, on the strength

of certain indications establishing, as he thought, that Malespini

had written at an earlier date than Villani. Later again the diligent

researches begun by Professor Lami confirmed the fact that Malespini's

work is a compilation, chiefly, from Villani, and perhaps, though only

here and there, from some other chronicler of possibly earlier date.

The latter hypothesis would explain the deductions of Gino Capponi.

[6] Published in Florence, 1838, 2 vols., at "The Sign of Dante"

printing office. See also Gervinus, "Geschichte der florentinischen

Historiographie." Frankfurt, 1833.

[7] Capellæ, "Commentarii," of which eleven editions appeared between

1531 and 1542. Ranke, "Zur Kritik neurer Geschichtschreiber." I may now

add that in my opinion Ranke was exaggeratedly hostile to Guicciardini,

whose historic merits are proved by documentary evidence. _Vide_ my

work on Machiavelli, end of vol. iii.

[8] Here allusion is made to Capponi's "History," which was still

unpublished at the time.

[9] _Vide_ "Discorso Storico," chap. i.

[10] Gino Capponi, "Lettere sui Longobardi."

[11] Everything connected with the division of the land has been the

theme of much dispute, both in Italy and abroad. It was learnedly

treated by Troya, in his work on the "Condizione dei Romani vinti

dai Longobardi"; Capponi and Capei discussed it with much subtlety

in their "Lettere sui Longobardi" (appendix of the "Archivio Storico

Italiano," vols. i. and ii.); so too Manzoni, Balbo, &c. The question

turns on the interpretation of two passages in "Paulus Diaconus."

The passage alluding to the first division made, when the Longobards

seized one-third of the revenues of the land, is clear enough: "His

diebus multi nobilium Romanorum ob cupiditatem interfecti sunt. Reliqui

vero per hospites divisi, ut terciam partem suarum frugum Langobardis

persolverent, tributarii efficiuntur." But the other is much less

clear, and has been variously interpreted. This is the reading most

generally adopted: "Hujus in diebus" (_i.e._, in Autari's reign)

"ob restaurationem Regni, duces qui tunc erunt, omnem substantiarum

suarum mediatatem regalibus usibus tribuunt; populi tamen agravati per

langobardos hospites, partiuntur." But a tenth-century version, in the

Ambrosian Codex, runs as follows: "Aggravati pro Longobardis, hospitia

partiuntur." The division of the land (_hospitia_), and not of the

fruits of the land, would seem more clearly indicated in this second

reading, accepted by Balbo. Prof. Capei, on the other hand, while

accepting the first reading, asserts that the word _partiuntur_ should

be interpreted in an active sense. The conquered _divided_ their lands

with their conquerors, and therefore were oppressed (_aggravati_),

being compelled to yield one-half of their estates, but they had at

least the advantage of retaining the other half in their own possession.

[12] Among other authorities, _vide_ Gino Capponi, note to doc. 3, vol.

i. of the "Archivio Storico Italiano."

[13] Codex 772 of the Vatican Palatine Library, containing the

so-called Lombard collection of Longobard laws. The discovery of the

Florentine annals on the back of sheet 71 is owed to the librarian

Foggini. He communicated his find to Professor Lami, who published

part of the fragment, with notes. The whole was afterwards edited by

Professors Pertz and Hartwig, and finally Professor C. Paoli issued an

exact photo-type of the fragment in No. 1 of the "Archivio paleografico

Italiano," edited by Prof. Monaci, of Rome.

[14] This is a codex from Santa Maria Novella, now No. 776, E. A.

(Suppressed Monasteries section), of the Magliabecchian Library. It

consists of forty-six records, part of which (the first twenty-five,

down to the year 1217) were published by Fineschi in his "Memorie

Storiche degli uomini illustri di S. M. Novella," vol. i. pp. 330-332.

[15] D. O. Hartwig, "Quellen und Forschungen zur Altesten Geschichte

der Stadt Florenz." Part i. of this work was published in Marburg,

1875; part ii., containing both series of annals, at Halle, 1880.

[16] First published by Fineschi (op. cit., vol. i. p. 257) and

afterwards by Hartwig (ii. 185 and fol.), with many notes and

additions. Some new names of Consuls are contained in the so-called

"Chronicle" of Brunetto Latini, to be mentioned later on.

[17] One was discovered by Pro. C. Paoli in the Laurentian Library,

Codex xxviii. 8, _vide_ his paper "Di un libro del Dr. O. Hartwig,"

in the "Archivio Storico It.," tom. ix., anno 1882. Other copies were

discovered by the late Prof. Lami, who intended to mention them in an

essay on Malespini.

[18] Discovered, but not published, by Follini, the editor of

Malespini, in a codex of the Magliabecchian Library at Florence, shelf

ii. No. 67.

[19] In the Archives of Lucca, in a codex of the Orsucci Collection, O.

40.

[20] This date (Hartwig i. 64) is not found in the Latin version, which

is consequently held to be of earlier date.

[21] "Appendice alle Letture di famiglia," vol. i. Florence: Cellini,

1854.

[22] Hartwig, "Quellen und Forschungen," etc.

[23] _Vide_ Professor Santini, in pt. i. doc. 18 of his forthcoming

work, gives a document dated June 14, 1188, with the signature, "Ego

Sanzanome index et notarius." In the Acts of the Tuscan League of 1197

(Santini, vol. i. 21, p. 37) we find the name of "Sanzanome de Sancto

Miniato" among the signatures following that of the Consul of San

Miniato.

[24] Professor Paoli makes the same statement in his before-mentioned

work. The Codex in question is the Magliab.-Strozz., Cl. xxv. 571. The

"Gesta" were published about the same time by Hartwig (op. cit.) and by

the Tuscan "Deputazione di Storia patria" (Cellini, 1876).

[25] Just at this point there are several gaps in the Codex.

[26] _Vide_ Weiland's edition in the Mon^{ta.}-Germ^{a.} xxii. 377-475,

and the same editor's remarks in the "Archiv. der Gesellschaft für

ältere deutsche Geschichte," vol. xii. p. 1 and fol.

[27] Ciampi, the editor of one part of it, and Scheffer Boichorst in

his "Florentiner Studien."

[28] Prof. Santini, who gave much attention to the subject, discovered

in Florence twelve copies of Martin Polono, and three of its

translations, all of the fourteenth century. Other copies have been

found since by Prof. Lami.

[29] "Impressum Florentiæ apud Sanctum Jacobum de Ripoli, Anno Domini

mcccclxxviii." Other editions were produced in the sixteenth century.

Prof. Santini has discovered three fourteenth-century MSS. of this work

in Florence.

[30] The Naples Codex is marked xiii.-F. 16. A similar codex of the

fifteenth century, carried down to the death of Henry of Luxemburg, is

in the Laurentian-Gaddiano Collection, cxix.

[31] In pt. ii. of his "Quellen," &c., where these extracts are given

under the title of "Gesta Florentinorum und deren Ableitungen und

Fortsetzungen."

[32] In mentioning certain Saracen nobles, sent as prisoners that year

_alla Chiesa di Roma_, he adds: "_et io gli viddi_" ("and I beheld

them").

[33] It comes down to 1303, but the concluding paragraph seems to be

written by a later hand. But the preceding paragraph narrates events of

1297, and Brunetto Latini certainly died before then (1294).

[34] Florence National Library, cl. xxv. Cod. 566.

[35] This has also been clearly proved by Prof. Santini's numerous

verifications.

[36] Two very short records, or rather notes, were added by another

hand where the gap occurs, namely: "Pope Adrian V., born of the Fiesco

family of Genoa, 1276, reigned as Pope thirty days; the Chair vacant

twenty-eight days. Pope Innocent VI. elected, who came from Portugal."

The second note is certainly erroneous. Innocent VI. (Etienne d'Albert)

was a Frenchman of Limousin birth, and was raised to the Papacy in

1352. But Adrian's successor was John XXI., a Portuguese. The author

mistook _Johannes_ (probably written in an abbreviated form) for

_Innocentius_, XXI. for VI. Even in other chronicles the two records

stand together, and almost in the same words, but without the same

blunder.

[37] Codex Laur. Gadd. 77. On the back are these words: "Cronica

romanorum Pontificum et Imperatorum." This title explains the

connection of the Chronicle with Martin Polono, and why the MS. so long

escaped the researches of students of Florentine history. The work of

Professor Santini from which we have quoted being an essay sent in for

his B.A. examination, was discussed at the Istituto Superiore, and an

account given of it in the "Arch. Stor. It.," Series iv. vol. xii. No.

iv. p. 483 and fol., 1883. The paper itself has remained unpublished,

as Alvisi's discovery made its demonstrations superfluous. Santini

regarded the Chronicle as one of great importance, since it records the

names of certain consuls, omitted in all the others, but contained in

newly discovered documents, now in type, and forming part of the work

that will soon, we hope, be published by Signor Santini.

[38] Baluzio Manzi, "Miscellanea," tom. iv. This Orsucci Codex, in

the Lucca Archives, has been very minutely described by Hartwig (vol.

i. xxx. and fol.), who, as before mentioned, brought out the Italian

version of the legend he had extracted from it.

[39] VIII. 36.

[40] I. 1.

[41] VIII. 36.

[42] In the Acta Sanctorum.

[43] "L'estoire de Eracles empereur, et la conqueste de la terre

d'outremer (Receuil des historiens des Croisades)," translated into

Latin, Greek, German, Spanish, Italian. For the sources consulted by

Villani, _vide_ Busson, "Die florentinische Geschichte der Malespini"

(Innsbrück, 1869), and Scheffer-Boichorst, "Die Geschichte Malespini,

eine Fälschung," in his "Florentiner Studien."

[44] _Vide_ Paoli's article on Hartwig's work.

[45] "II y en eut (des consuls) tout au moins en 1101." And after

quoting the document he adds this note:--"Devant de fait si positif,

il serait oiseux de S'arrêter aux conjectures des auteurs même presque

contemporains," p. 209.

[46] Perrens, pp. 152-4.

[47] Borghini, "Discorsi," vol. ii. pp. 27 and 93. Florence, 1755.

[48] The ninth and last volume is now published, and extends to the

fall of the Republic (1530-32).

[49] Concerning the numerous errors contained in this first volume, Dr.

Hartwig has written at some length in Sybil's "Historiche Zeitschrift,"

vol. iii. No. 3, anno 1868. Of the other volumes nothing need be said

at this point.

[50] Servius writes, in his Commentary on the Ænead (bk. iii. v. 104):

"Dardanus Iovis filius et Electrae, profectus de Corytho [Cortona],

civitate Tusciae, primus venit ad Troyam." And farther on (Com.,

bk. iii. v. 187), he says that "Dardanus et Iasius fratres ... cum

ex Etruria proposuissent sedes exteras petere ecc." In tracing the

genealogy of Æneas, he begins thus: "Ex Electra Atalantis filia et

Iove Dardanus nascitur." This must have partly inspired the legend,

although, according to the latter, Electra is the wife of Atlas and the

daughter of Jove. _Vide_ Hartwig, vol. i. xxi.

[51] Even Brunetto Latini, in bk. i. of his "Tesoro," makes the

Catiline legend relate to the origin of Florence, records the great

slaughter occurring at the battle wherein Catiline was routed, and also

the subsequent pestilence. "E per quella grande peste di quella grande

uccisione, fu appellata la città di Pistoia" (bk. i. chap. 37, in the

vulgate of Bono Giamboni). The principal authorities for the historical

information in the "Tesoro" are Dictys of Crete, and the "De excidio

Troie," attributed to Dares the Phrygian. Undoubtedly the latter is

also one of the sources of our legend. _Vide_ Thor Sundy, "Della vita

e delle opere di Brunetto Latini," translated, with many additions, by

Prof. R. Renier. Florence: Le Monnier, 1884.

[52] The "Libro fiesolano" styles them Africans instead of Franks,

_una compagnia venuta d'Africa_, as elsewhere, instead of _Ottone_

or _Otto_, it says _Ceto_, a blunder also found in the MS. that was

printed. The blunders probably originated from some ignorant copyist

of the legend, and were frequently repeated by later scribes. John of

Salisbury ("Polikratikus," vi. 17, edit. Giles), in mentioning the

cities built by Brennus, according to history, repeats the same story

of Siena contained in the legend. He remarks that all this is not real

history, _sed celebris traditio est_, adding, however, that tradition

is confirmed by the fact that in their constitution, beauty and

customs, the Siennese resemble "ad gallos et Britones a quibus originem

contraxerunt." John of Salisbury's words are also recorded by Benvenuto

da Imola in his Commentary on the "Divina Commedia," where he mentions

that Dante intended to allude to this resemblance ("Inferno," xxix.

121) in the lines:

"Or fu giammai

Gente si vana come la senese?

Certo non la francesca si d'assai."

Boccaccio's "Commento" gives the same explanation of these lines.

[53] The Latin compilation says: _quingentos annos et plus_; the

Italian, and more modern versions, merely say, "five hundred years."

[54] Even history tells us that Totila was in Tuscany towards the

middle of the sixth century.

[55] "Libro fiesolano", chap. xv.

[56] This is also mentioned by Hartwig, i., xxiv., and fol.

[57] The first to note this was Hegel: "Ueber die Anfange der

florentinischen Geschichtschreibung," in Sybel's Historical Journal,

No. 1, anno 1876.

[58] Chaps. xvi. and xvii. of Follini's edition.

[59] Villani, i. 41.

[60] Villani, iii. 3.

[61] _Vide_ G. Rosa, "Delle Origini di Firenze," in the "Archivio

Storico Ital.," Series iii., vol. ii. p. 62 and fol. Hartwig, op. cit.,

and Milani, "Scavi di Mercato Vecchio," in the "Notizie degli scavi nel

mese d' Aprile, 1887, Atti dell' Accademia dei Lincei."

[62] In digging a sewer in the street called Borgo dei Greci, in

1886, the discovery was made in Professor Milani's presence, "at the

depth of about three metres beneath the street level, and exactly

beneath the pavement of the first circuit of the Amphitheatre,

... of a half _asse onciale_, weighing 12 grammes 25, undoubtedly

coeval with the construction of the Florentine Amphitheatre. This

kind of coin assuredly dates from 89 B.C., and was issued after the

Plautian-Papirian decree reducing the weight of the aes from 1 oz. to

1/2 oz. The aes cut with a chisel were only in currency for a short

time, and were withdrawn when the new coins were issued. Accordingly

they must have ceased by the date of the second triumvirate (43

B.C.), when the aes was further reduced to the third of an ounce. We

may therefore accept the conclusion that the Florence Amphitheatre

was of the Sullian period. Opposed to this conclusion is the fact

that, according to the report of Dione (li. 23), the first stone

amphitheatre built in Rome was that of Taurus, dating from anno 30

B.C. But recalling how Cicero accused Sulla of having wasted treasures

on magnificent buildings, exactly when he was under Fiesole, one is

justified in assigning the construction of the Florence amphitheatre,

and also of that of Pompei, to Sulla's day. Likewise the basements of

the _Tuscanic_ columns, found _in situ_ near the Amphitheatre, and some

architectural fragments discovered in 1887 on the south side of Santa

Maria del Fiore, confirmed the opinion that some of the chief public

buildings of Florence were connected with the times of Sulla and also

with the last days of the Republic." (From a letter by Prof. Milani

addressed to myself.)

[63] The inscription (now lost) beginning thus: "Col[_onia_] Iul[_ia_]

Aug[_usta_], Flor[_entia_]", should be differently interpreted,

according to Mommsen, as referring to Vienne in Dauphiny. _Vide_

"Hermes," 1883, p. 176 and p. 180, note 1. Prof. Milani takes the same

view regarding the new and important inscription recently found in the

excavation of the Mercato Vecchio, containing the following words:

"... Genio Coloniae

... Florentiae."

_Vide_ "Scoperte epigrafiche nel Centro di Firenze," in the "Nazione,"

April 15, 1890.

[64] Milani, "Relazione degli scavi," &c.

[65] Villani, ii. 1 and 2, and also the "Chronica de Origine Civitatis."

[66] Ibid., ii. 1, 2, 3.

[67] _Vide_ Hodgkin, "Italy and her Invaders," vol. iv. p. 446 and fol.

[68] Lami, "Lezioni," pt. i. p. 293. From a document also quoted by

Maratori and Tiraboschi, it would seem that Florence was included, as

it were, in the _city of Fiesole_; and therefore some of the Florentine

churches were described as being in Fiesole. _Vide_ also pt. ii. p. 429

of the same work.

[69] This is described in detail by Lami, Borghini, and Hartwig.

[70] Villani, iii. 3.

[71] Ibid., iv. 1.

[72] Lami, "Lezioni," at preface to pts. cvi.-viii; Hartwig, i. 85, 86.

[73] Villani, iv. 6.

[74] Villani, iv. 7.

[75] It is related by St. Pier Damiano in the letter quoted farther on.

[76] Petri Damiani, "Epistolarum libri viii." Parisiis ex-officina

nivelliana, 1610, _vide_ p. 727. The epistle (p. 721 and fol.) is

addressed: "Dilectis in Christo civibus florentinis, Petrus peccator,

monachus, fraternae charitatis obsequium."

[77] Tocco, "L'Eresia nel Medio Evo," bk. i. chap. iii. pp. 207-228.

[78] Passerini, "Arch. Storico Italiano," New Series, vol. iii. pp. 43,

44; Perrens, i. 85 and fol.; Hartwig, i. 88, 89; Capecelatro, "Vita di

S. Pier Damiano," bk. vii. two vols. Florence: Barbera, 1862.

[79] "Ad hec ille se inquit, neutrum jubere, neutrum velle, neutrum

recipere. Quin etiam edictum a Preside per legatos suos impetravit, ut

quicumque laicorum, quicumque clericorum se ut episcopum non coleret

suique imperio non obediret, ad Presidem victus non duceretur, sed

traeretur: si quis autem his minis territus, de civitate fugeret,

ad dominium Potestatis assumeretur quicquid possedisset." Thus runs

the letter dated _Millesimo lxviii idus februari_, and beginning,

"Alexandro prime sedis reverentissimo, ac universali episcopo,

clerus et populus Florentinus sincere devotionis obsequium." It was

repeatedly, but incorrectly printed (_vide_ Brocchi, "Vite di Santi

e Beati," p. 145. Florence, 1742; "Acta Sanctorum," iii. luglio, pp.

359, 379), in the two lives of St. G. Gualberto; included in the

Laurentian Cod. xx. 22, in sec. xi. The letter placed at the end of

the Codex itself is written in a different and somewhat later hand;

but, according to the opinion of Prof. Paoli, who examined it at my

request, the writing has every characteristic of the eleventh century,

"and could not possibly be of later date than the first half, or rather

first quarter of the twelfth century." It more resembles a narrative

in an epistolary form than a genuine letter. The title given it in the

Codex also supports this view: "Incipit textus miraculi quod Dominus,"

&c. We shall have to recur to the subject later on.

At any rate, it is plain that the _Potestas_ above-mentioned has no

relation with the Podestà of a later period. Here the term signifies

_superior authority_--_i.e._, that of the Duke Goffredo. The _Preside_

I consider to mean Goffredo's representative in Florence. Both are

old-fashioned, rhetorical terms, similar to those afterwards employed

by Sanzanome.

[80] The same letter, after narrating how certain persons, having taken

refuge in an oratory, were threatened with expulsion, "extra Civitatem

pellerentur," unless they made submission, also adds that those persons

refused to obey. "Hincque factum est ut ... municipal. presid ... illos

extra emunitatem oratori ... eiceret." The two abbreviated words in the

Codex were printed in many different ways, changing the verb and often

altering the whole phrase, to the reader's great confusion. Several

colleagues I have consulted agree with my view, that the words should

be rendered _municipale praesidium_.

[81] This description is also taken from the same document.

[82] The _Nuova Antologia_ of Rome, June 1, 1890.

[83] In the Laurentian Codex previously referred to.

[84] _Rhetor_ was then synonymous with _causidicus_.

[85] Ficker's work pays great attention to this point, and is also

treated by Fitting. _Vide_ "Die Anfänge der Rechtsschule zu Bologna."

Berlin and Leipzig, 1888.

[86] "Lege Digestorum libris inserta, considerata." So styled in a

_placito_ of 1076, pronounced by an envoy of Beatrice at Marturi,

near Poggibonsi ("prope plebem Sancte Marie, territurio fiorentino"),

where the presence is also noted of Pepone, the precursor of Irnerius

(Werner). A Florentine, who was contesting certain lands with the

monastery, adduced the _temperis praescripto_, on the authority of the

Digest, that, according to the legal custom of the time, he produced in

court. _Vide_ Fitting, op. cit., p. 88. Zdekauer, "Sull' Origine del

manoscritto Pisano delle Pandette Giustiniane." Sienna: Torrini, 1890.

In a document of 1061, treating of a dispute between two Florentine

Churches (_vide_ Della Rena e Camici, vols. ii. 2, p. 99), we find

"Indices secundum romanae legis tenorem, utramque ceperunt inquirere

partem." According to Ficker, the judges in question were Florentines:

"und zwar schienen das die gewöhnlichen städtischen Iudices von Florenz

zu sein." Ficker, iii. par. 469, at p. 90. Goro Dati, a chronicler who

died at the beginning of the fifteenth century, stated in his Chronicle

that the Florence notaries were the best reputed of all, although the

most celebrated doctors of law were those of Bologna. _Vide_ Dati,

"Storia di Firenze," Florentine edition of 1735, at p. 133.

[87] Petrus Damiani, "De parentelae gradibus," in his "Opera, Opusc,

viii," chaps. i. and vii. He combats here the opinion expressed by

the _sapientes_ of Ravenna, in contradiction to the canonical law, as

to the degrees of relationship prohibiting marriage. Touching a wise

man he asserts to be a Florentine, he adds: "promptulus cerebrosus ac

dicax, scilicet acer ingenio, mordax eloquio vehemens argumento."

[88] Ficker says, in mentioning the before-quoted document of 1061:

"Diese Romagnolen scheinen nun weiter kaum nur zufällig zu Florenz

gewesen zu sein."

[89] As regards the ever-increasing action of Roman law in Tuscany

there is a very remarkable passage in the Pisan Statutes of 1161, in

which it is said of that city, "a multis retro temporibus, vivendo lege

romana, retentis quibusdam de lege longobarda." In a Siennese document

of 1176, edited by Ficker (vol. iv. doc. 148), the Consuls declare:

"Item nos professi sumus lege romana cum tota Civitate vivere." The

mixture of Roman with Longobard or other legal systems is very frequent

throughout the whole of the eleventh century, and even later on. Often,

women who professed to live according to the Roman law, declared

themselves at the same time as being under the _mundium_ of their sons

or of others.

[90] Lami, "Lezioni," preface, p. cxv and fol. _Vide_ also

the documents published in Fiorentini's "Memorie delle gran

Contessa Matilde" (Lucca, 1756); Della Rena e Camici, "Serie

cronologica-diplomatica degli antichi duchi e marchesi di Toscana," pt.

ii. These documents clearly show in what manner Matilda's tribunal was

composed.

[91] _Vide_ Fiorentini, doc. at p. 168; Della Rena e Camici, pt. ii.

vol. ii. docs. xv. and xvi. pp. 106 and 108; vol. iii. p. 9; vol. iv.

doc. xiv. p. 61.

[92] "_Unthätiger Vorsitzende_," says Ficker, when clearly proving this

fact. Vol. iii. par. 573, p. 294 and fol.

[93] On this head Ficker remarks: "Dass schon früher die

Gerichtsbarheit in der Stadt nicht durch die Feudalgewalt, sondern

durch Bürger der Stadt als rechtskundige Königsboten geübt wurde." Vol.

iii. par. 584, pp. 315-16.

[94] "Consuetudines etiam perversas a tempore Bonifactii Marchionis

duriter eisdem impositas, omnino interdicimus." Ficker, vol. i. par.

136, pp. 255-6, and the text of the document in vol. iv. pp. 124-5;

Pawinski, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Consulats in den Comunen Nord

und Mittel-Italiens." Berlin, 1867, p. 29.

[95] "Nec Marchionem aliquem in Tusciam mittemus sine laudatione

hominum duodecim electorum in Colloquio facto sonantibus campaniis."

Murat., "Antiq." iv. 20. Also _vide_ Ficker and Giesebrecht, before

cited, and Pawinski at p. 31.

It has been suggested that some interpolations have been made in these

patents (of which only an ancient copy survives, not the original), and

especially in the second, but Ficker and Pawinski oppose this view. At

any rate, the substance of both documents is now accepted by all the

most competent writers. _Vide_ Ficker, vol. iii. p. 408; Giesebrecht

(4th ed.), vol. iii. pp. 537-8.

[96] Amari, "Storia dei Musulmani in Sicilia," vol. iii. p. 1 and fol.

[97] We use the word _grandi_ here for the sake of clearness, although

in this particular sense it only came into general use in Florence at

a later date, and more particularly in 1293 in the days of Giano della

Bella.

[98] Pawinski, p. 31, note 3.

[99] "Nec domum in predictis terminis relevari, neque ad triginta sex

brachia interdici, permittemus" (Pawinski, p. 34).

[100] Bonaini, "Statuti inediti della città di Pisa," vol. i. p. 16.

[101] Frequent mention is made of counts and viscounts of whom, so far,

there was no record in Florence. Later on, from causes that will be

related, some few were found there.

[102] But I cannot agree with Pawinski when, in noting this

characteristic of Pisa and other similar communes, he neglects the

popular, commercial element, that even in Pisa, as elsewhere, was very

influential, and considers that the birth of the Italian Commune should

be solely attributed to the nobles.

[103] "Nisi fortitan communi Consilio Civitatis, vel maioris

partis Bonorum vel Sapientum ... ad commune Colloquium Civitatis

... supra-dictorum hominum consensu et omnibus Pisae habitantibus"

(Bonaini, op. cit., vol. i. p. 16).

[104] Murat., "Antiq.," iii., 1099. A poem attributed to Guido da Pisa

narrates the campaign of 1087 carried on by the Pisans, in alliance

with Genoa, Amalfi, and Rome, against the Saracens in Africa, and cites

the names of four Pisans:--

"Vocat ad se Petrum et Sismundum

Principales Consules,

Lambertum et Glandulfum

Cives cari [clari?] nobiles."

This, however, is a poetical work, and in order to accept it as a proof

that these Consuls existed in 1087 it would be necessary to carry back

to that year, at least, the first _concordia_ of Bishop Daiberto. This

might not be impossible, seeing that he held the bishopric from 1085

to 1092, when he was named archbishop. _Vide_ Pawinski, p. 31, note

3. Leonardo Vernese recounts the expedition to the Balearic Isles

(1113-15) in his "Carmen," and says:--

"Inde duo et denos de culmine nobilitatis

Constituere viros, quibus est permissa potestas

Consulis atque ducis."

But the existence of Consuls at that time has been already proved by

other documents. _Vide_ Pawinski, pp. 38-9.

[105] The chronicler designates the chief families as _anteriores_,

possibly because they were the first to settle in Venice; he represents

them as a supreme and governing class, and in the list he gives of them

mentions what trades they carried on. "Cerbani de Cerbia venerunt,

anteriores fuerunt de omni artificio ingeniosi. Signati (variant:

Cugnati) Tribuni Ianni appellati sunt, anteriores fuerunt, mirabilia

artificia facere sciebant caliditate ingenii. Aberorlini ... anteriores

fuerunt; non aliud operabantur nisi negocia, sed advari et increduli."

And so on regarding other families exercising from generation to

generation the same trade, commerce, or liberal profession. As to the

guilds or _ministeria_, we find many expressions affording hints of

their embryo organisation. "Hetolus autem appellatus est, quia ipse

erat princeps de his qui ministerii erant retinendis." They were

sadlers, cattle-herds, &c. Many more of these families are named in the

list given in the Chronicle, and all seems to denote the continuation

of a state of things that had existed during the lower Empire.

[106] This document is in the Vatican (Urb. 440), and has also been

examined by Gfrôrer. The ironsmith, Giovanni Sagornino, "insimul cum

cunctis meis parentibus," appeals first to the Doge Pietro Barbolano

(1026-31), and then to the Doge Domenico Flabiabico (1032-43), against

the _gastaldo_ of the guild, who sought to compel him to labour at

iron-work for the prisons in the palace yard, whereas Sagornino

asserted his right, according to custom, of making the iron-work at his

own house, when fulfilling his gratuitous task for the State. A regular

suit was carried on; and being decided in favour of the appellant, the

latter was permitted to do the work in his own shop. All this proves

that well-defined traditional customs prevailed before the guild

possessed written statutes (sec. xiii.), since these would have been

mentioned had they existed at the time.

The document we have quoted speaks at one point of the _gastaldo of

the doge_, and at another alludes to him as the _gastaldo of the

smiths_, because the director of the guild held his nomination from the

doge. This is clearly evidenced in the thirteenth century by a decree

(_pro-missione_) of the Doge Jacopo Tiepolo, dated March 6, 1229, and

by another of the Doge Marco Morosini (June 13, 1249). Thus we see,

on the one hand, how much the organisation of the Venetian guilds

differed from that of the Florentine, while, on the other, we note how

ancient and persistent in all Italian communes was the character of

their institutions in general and of the trade guilds in particular.

For the details given in this and the preceding note we are indebted to

Prof. Monticolo, a man of great learning, and now engaged in important

researches on Venetian history, of which the results will soon be

published. Meanwhile we seize this occasion to express our thanks in

print.

P.S.--We may now add that Prof. Monticolo has already begun to publish

his discoveries in "Le Fonti della Storia d'Italia," issued by the

Istituto Storico Italiano.

[107] Repetti, article on Gangalandi and Monte Orlando.

[108] "Dum in Dei nomine, Domina inclita Comitissa Matilda, Ducatrix,

stante ea in obsedione Prati," &c. Anno 1107. _Vide_ "Fiorentini," op.

cit., bk. ii. p. 299. Villani, vol. iv. pp. 25 and 26; Hartwig, vol.

ii. pp. 45 and 47; Repetti, art. "Prato"; "Arch. Stor. It.," Storie

v. vol. v. disp. i., p. 108 and fol. Villani's narrative, however, is

crammed with fantastic details concerning Prato. The destruction of

Monte Orlando is not mentioned in vol. i. of the "Annales," which only

begin with the year 1110; but is recorded in the Codex Neap. and in

Tolomeo da Lucca.

[109] The "Annales florentini," ii., followed by Villani, merely

relate the destruction of the castle in 1113, without any comments,

for the next event they mention relates to the year 1135. The "Annales

florentini," i., say nothing about it in 1113, and place the "secunda

et ultima destruccio murorum" in 1114. In 1119 they record two other

attacks on the castle, "quem marchio Rempoctus defendebat": by

the second of which the Florentines "Monte Cascioli ignem (_sic_)

consumpserunt." It seems clear that three attacks were made in

succession, and farther dispute on the point would be superfluous.

[110] The "Annales," i. and ii., omit this event. The Neap. Codex

assigns it, as does Villani, to the year 1117, but only says that the

Pisans went to the Balearic Isles, and that "the Florentines guarded

the city of Pisa" (Hartwig, ii. 272). The same account is given by

Tolomeo da Lucca, but he dates the event in 1118; so, too, the pseudo

Brunetto Latini, who records the gift of two porphyry columns, "by

reason that the Florentines guarded their lands, while they were at

the war," but adds nothing more to this statement. As to the error of

date, we will merely remark that Capmany, in his "Memorias historicas

sobra la marina ... de Barcelona," vol. i. p. 10, after narrating the

expedition of 1113-15, goes on to say that Raimondo Berengario III.

came to Pisa and Genoa in 1118, in order to promote another campaign.

Perhaps the remembrance of this visit contributed to the mistake, the

which, once made, was repeated by many subsequent writers.