[111] Dr. Hartwig quotes particulars received from Dr. Wüstenfeld of

a patent dated 1114, which would seem to show that the Florentines

also took part in the expedition, in which case, he observes, the

columns might have been the gift of the Pisans, and nevertheless part

of the spoil taken in common. I caused a search to be made for the

diploma in the Pisan Archives, and obtained it through the courtesy

of Prof. Lupi. It is inserted in another patent, dated _vi. idus

Augusti, 1233_, whereby King James of Aragon confirms the Pisans in the

privileges conferred on them by the preceding diploma that "Berengarius

Barchinione gloriosissimus Comes Pisanis fecit." This older patent is

reproduced in the document, and bears this date: "M.C. quarto decimo

... septimo idus septembris, indictione sexta." Although several other

words stand between those of decimo and septimo, this mode of writing

the date may have been another cause of the blunder committed by the

chroniclers who dated the event in 1117.

Whatever may be thought of these very disputable theories, it is

certain, on the other hand, that the privileges were conferred on the

_populo pisano_, and that three of their Consuls were invested with

them, and received "vice aliorum Consulum tociusque pisani populi,"

and that this concession was made "coram marchionibus, comitibus,

principibus romanis, lucensibus, florentinis, senensibus, volterranis,

pistoriensibus, longobardis, sardis et corsis, aliisque innumerabilis

gentibus, que in predicto exercitu aderant." Therefore it was no

mere alliance between one or two cities: it was the Pisan people in

conjunction with many potentates from different parts of Italy. The

chancellor of the Pisan Consuls drew up the diploma, in the presence

of the Archbishop of Pisa, "qui Dompni apostolici in predicto exercitu

vicem gerebat," of two _vice comites_ and nine Consuls, the names of

the latter being given. This diploma had never been published in Italy;

therefore Amari, who was much interested in the subject, wished to

print, just before his decease, the copy I had sent him, although he

had ascertained that it was already published in Spain by Moragues y

Bover in the notes to a "Historia de Mallorca," by Don Vincente Mut,

printed at Palma in 1841.

[112] _Vide_ "Documenti che illustrano la memoria di una monaca del

secolo xiii." ("Arch. Stor. It.," Series iii. vol. xxiii.). These

documents are among the earliest of the thirteenth century, and contain

the depositions of witnesses, alluding almost always to events of the

twelfth century, and continually mentioning the monastery of Rosano,

and of one who "defendit ipsum monasterium a Teutonicis" (_vide_ pages

206, 391-2, and other parts also).

[113] The "Annales," i., record two fires (1115 and 1117), which

destroyed the whole place; the Neap. Codex only mentions the second.

Thomas Tuscus, writing in Florence about 1279, speaks of both the fires

in his "Gesta Imperatorum et Pontificum," attributing to that cause the

destruction of many chronicles which he supposes to have existed, but

which probably never existed at all. Villani adopted the same theory,

being equally unable to understand that the Commune might have had no

historians of earlier date.

[114] Petrus f. Mingardole, who, "_ad defendendum se de crucifixo_,"

passed through the fire unhurt. Certain historians, unwilling to credit

the existence of heresy in Florence at that time, have disputed as

to the words _de crucifixo_, and proposed this reading instead: _cum

crucifixo_ or _de crimine infixo_. But the facsimile of the Codex,

published by Prof. Paoli, leaves no doubt on the point.

[115] In fact, Simone della Tosa, a later chronicler, who may have

copied from Villani at this point, after relating the second burning

of the city in 1117, goes on to say that "the heresy of the _Paterini_

was then abroad in Florence." Pope Innocent III. (1198-1216), in

discoursing on heretics, wrote: "Impii Manichaei qui se Catharos vel

Paterenos appellant" (Ep. lib. x. ep. 54, in Migne's ed. vol. ii. p.

1147). Also, in the "Annales Camaldulenses" (vol. iii. app. p. 396)

there is a sentence pronounced at Sutri, in 1141, running as follows:

"Igitur universi qui vulgo Paterenses vocantur, eo quia, sub iugo

peccati, retinebant omnia que de predicta ecclesia sancte Fortunate

accipiebant." Therefore it is plain that the name of _Paterini_

(although strictly speaking that of a special sect, quite separate

from others) was here applied to all those occupying Church lands, or

opposed in any way to the Church. Hartwig, vol. ii. pp. 17 and 21.

[116] _Vide_ the Chronicle, _ad annum_. As we have already observed,

all information regarding this period is derived from the Gaddi

Codex, discovered in the Laurentian Library a few years ago. The part

beginning from 1181 is also contained in the autograph Chronicle that

has been longer known to us; but being very difficult to decipher has

not been much studied.

[117] "Would to God that Ghibellines were declared to be _Paterini_!"

So says the pseudo Brunetto Latini in the year 1215.

[118] The MS. of the "Annales," i., writes, _Rempoctus_, not

_Remperoctus_, as it was printed elsewhere.

[119] Ficker, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224, par. 310; Murat., "Antiq.," iii.

1125.

[120] Murat., "Antiq.," i. 315.

[121] The "Annales," i., say that, "deo auctore, Florentini Monte

Cascioli igne consumpserunt." The MS. really seems to run, _de

auctore_, but this would be nonsense. Lami proposed the reading,

_des auctoritate_, but this too would lack sense. The interpretation

preferred and adopted by ourselves was suggested by Prof. Paoli. In

combating the Empire and fighting for the Church, the Florentines

believed themselves to be under Divine protection, and considering

their adversaries as enemies of God, accordingly named them heretics

and _Paterini_.

[122] "Teneanla certi gentiluomini Cattani, stati della città di

Fiesole, e dentro vi si riducevano masnadieri e sbanditi e mala gente,

che alcuna volta faceano danno alle strade e al contado di Firenze"

(iv. 32).

[123] According to the "Annales," i., the war lasted less than three

months, while Sanzanome stretches it to three years. Possibly the

latter included all the attacks and skirmishes by which the war may

have been prefaced.

[124] Soldani, "Historia Monasterii S. Michaelis de Passiniano," p.

109, quoted by Lami, "Lezioni," i. 288.

[125] In Passerini's collection of documents, quoted above, one finds,

at p. 211, the following words: "Domina Sofia dixit et dicit quod est

lxxx. annorum et plus, et recordatur de destructione Fesularum." Others

give testimony to the same effect.

[126] In a sentence given on December 30, 1172, we find seven Consuls

named, a judge in ordinary, and three proveditors. The Consuls instal

the judge, "huic missioni in possessum auctoritatem prestans." This

document and many similar ones are in the Florence Archives, Curia di

S. Michele. Some have been printed separately by Prof. Santini, in pt.

ii. of a volume soon, we hope, to be given to the world. We call the

reader's attention to the fact that we quote from his work not only

with regard to documents which are still inedited, but also touching

those already edited by other writers, because we know that he has

carefully collated all with their originals. In his forthcoming work

he will probably indicate which documents were discovered by himself,

which simply reproduced. _Vide_ Santini, pt. ii. doc. i. In October,

1181, three Consuls preside "super facto iustitiae, nominatim in mense

octobris." The judge _Restauransdampnum_ confirms the sentence (ibid.,

doc. ii.). There are other documents to the same effect, though we

also sometimes find two Consuls for one month. On January 27, 1197,

there are two Consuls of justice for January and February (Santini, pt.

ii. doc. ix.), and so on for some time, two Consuls for two months.

On February 28, 1198, the two Consuls are judges by profession; but,

nevertheless, the assistance of a judge in ordinary--one _Spinello

Spada_--is still required (ibid., doc. x.). This is an additional proof

that the Consuls of justice did not exactly fulfil the function of real

judges. From 1201 downwards we find one Consul of justice _per totum

annum_ (ibid., docs. xiii., xv.).

[127] On April 18, 1201--there being then a _Potestà_--we only find

"Gerardus ordinarium iudex cognitor controversiae ... hanc sententiam

tuli ideoque subscripsi," without a Consul of justice, who reappears

soon afterwards (Santini, pt. ii. doc. xi.). It would seem that at

Pisa it was the rule to nominate special judges, _electi_, or _dati a

Consulibus et universo populo_, who pronounced judgment on their own

account, sometimes in the presence of the Consuls. Elsewhere we find

_Consules de placitis_, or _Assessores Consulum_ (as at Parma, for

instance), who pronounced judgment without the intervention of the

Consuls of the Commune (Ficker, iii. pars. 584 and 585).

[128] Originally, Florence was divided in quarters (_quartieri_). The

old city did not then comprise the part beyond the Arno, Oltrarno,

which was only inhabited by a few "low folk of small account" (Villani,

iv. 14). Afterwards, but from the earliest days of the Commune, the

city was arranged in _sestieri_, of which the Oltrarno formed one. In

the year 1343 (Villani, xii. 18) the division in four quarters was

resumed.

[129] It is dated January, 1165, and is to be found in the Florentine

Archives (S. Appendix ii. doc. i. p. 517). It is an act of donation,

giving part of a house to the members of the _Società della Torre_ of

Capo di Ponte: "Tam qui modo sunt, aut in antea fuerunt ex Societate

vestre turris de Capite Pontis."

[130] On two scraps of parchment dated 1179 and 1180, together with

a document, part of which dates from May 16, 1209, and part from an

older period, in the Florence Archives. The Statute of the Podestà (in

1324) also mentions the Societies of the Towers. The whole question

has been minutely studied by Prof. Santini in his learned work on the

"Società delle Torri in Firenze," first published in the "Arch. Stor.

It.," Series iv. t. xx. 1887, and subsequently in a separate form. In

Appendix ii. of his previously quoted work the author includes several

documents relating to these societies. They are respectively dated

1165, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1183, 1201, 1209, &c.

[131] In the above-quoted, separate, work, at p. 55, and fol. Prof.

Santini names many of these families, and supports his statements by

documentary evidence.

[132] On this point I differ from Santini. The rural societies he has

been able to discover are few in number, of a different nature from

the others, and of less ancient date. Out in the country the principal

basis of the society was lacking--_i.e._, the tower surrounded by

houses belonging to different members.

[133] Villani (v. 32) also tells us that Florence was under "the

rule of Consuls chosen from the greatest and best of the city, with

a council of the senate", that is of one hundred worthies, and that,

as in Rome, all these Consuls "guided and governed the city, holding

office for one year." He arbitrarily fixes their number at four or six,

according to the division of the city in quarters or sixths, and adds

that, whenever mentioned, only the chief Consul was named. January

seems to have been the time fixed for the election. In 1202 we find

the same Consuls in the first and second half of the year (March 1 and

October 1). This would likewise prove that the year was not then begun

on the 25th of March, according to Florentine style (Santini, doc. v.).

In Sienna, January was the time of the election, and on the evidence of

the chroniclers one may infer that it was the same in Florence.

[134] The first document recording the names of consuls is dated March

19, 1138 (quoted by Hartwig, ii. 185, from the "Memorie di Lucca,"

vol. iv. p. 173, doc. 122), and states that "_Broccardus et Selvorus_"

promise "_pro se et pro sociis suis_." The second is dated June 4, 1138

(Santini, pt. i. doc. ii.), and in this a Count Ugicio (or Egicio)

receives "launechild et meritum a Burello et Florenzito Consulibus,

vice totius populi." These two documents of the same year do not

contain identical names, perhaps because they only give those of the

_Consules priores_, who sat in turn, as we have before remarked. Even

in Sienna the _Consules priores_ seem to have been continually changed.

_Vide_ Caleffo Vecchio for June, August, October, 1202; Caleffo dell'

Assunta, 1202. And when Consuls were replaced by Governors, each of

these was _Prior_ for one week.

In two Florentine documents, among the Capitoli, dated April 7,

1174, and April 4, 1176 (Santini, pt. i. docs. vi. and ix.), all the

Consuls--ten in number--are named, possibly the Consuls of justice

being omitted. But, on the other hand, in an oath sworn by the men of

Mangona to Florence (October 28, 1184, in Santini, pt. i. doc. xv.) we

read: "Annualiter dabimus unam albergariam xij. Consulibus Florentie."

Even in 1204 we find twelve; but more than twelve are recorded in the

documents of the League (1197-8), and likewise in the year 1203. We

have already given the probable explanation of this fact. The _Consules

priores_, also existing in other communes, are seldom mentioned in

Florence by the name of _Priores_, especially in early days. But there

is one doc. dated October 24, and November 7, 1204 (S. pt. i. doc.

liii.) saying: "Potestas Florentie vel Consules eiusdem civitatis,

omnes vel maior pars vel Priores aut Prior eorum." So, too, another

document dated October 15, 1200.

[135] Santini, pt. i. doc. xii.

[136] Ibid., pt. i. doc. xv.

[137] There were, in fact, Consuls of the Commune, of the guilds, of

the Arno, of the city gates, of the Societies of the Towers, and the

latter were more specially styled Rectors. Yet even "Rectors" was a

generic term, indicating all who governed, and there were Rectors of

the Towers, of the city, and of the guilds. _Potestas_ then indicated

the supreme authority in general, and was only converted later on into

a special and separate office.

[138] There are so many examples of this, that quotation is unneeded.

It was the usual formula in other cities as well as in Florence. In

the treaty drawn up between Lucca and Florence (July 24, 1184), from

which we have already quoted, there was a proviso in case there might

be no Consuls at Lucca, no _Lucana Potestas_, and this addition was

accordingly made "aut bonos viros lucensis civitatis, si Consules vel

Rector aut Potestas tunc ibi non fuerit."

[139] "Forte Belicocci Senator eiusdem [Florentiae] Civitatis" (in

a document dated April 15, 1204, Santini pt. i. doc. li). Another

document of November 13 and 14, 1197, in the Acts of the Tuscan League,

we find the name _Bilicozus_ among the _consiliarii_ present. In the

"Breve Consulum Pisane Civitatis," of 1162, edited by Bonaini, the

councillors are styled _senatores_.

[140] This document (Santini, pt. i. doc. xxii.) is that of November

13 and 14, 1197, and also one of those of the Tuscan League. It should

be remarked, however, that even at this grave juncture there were more

than twelve Consuls; so, too, for similar reasons, either the number of

the councillors was augmented, or else (being towards the end of the

year) some of the newly elected members sat together with those about

to retire.

[141] The term _arengo_, _arrengo_, _aringo_, or _arringo_, was derived

from the verb _arringare_, to harangue, in the same way as parliament

from the verb _parlare_, to speak.

[142] In Italian communes _habitatores_, and even _assidui

habitatores_, are clearly distinguished both from _cives_ and

foreigners. Florentine documents often mention _cives salvatichi_, a

term that indicates, I believe, the quasi citizenship of persons living

in the country, but bound to dwell in the city during part of the year.

These greatly increased in number later on, and in course of time

became real and entire citizens, in accordance with certain rules not

yet fully known to us.

[143] Many examples of this have been found by us among _provvisioni_

(or decrees) of later date.

[144] _Nuova Antologia._ Rome, July 1, 1890.

[145] Ficker, vol. ii. par. 310, p. 223. Here the names of many of

these envoys are given, and what scanty details are known concerning

them. To Rabodo (died 1119) succeeded a Corrado (1120-27), afterwards

a Rampret (1131), then an Englebert (1134), then Errico of Bavaria

(1137), immediately followed by Ulrico d'Attems, then the Duke Guelfo

(1160-62), uncle to the Emperor Frederic I., by whom he was sent.

[146] "Annales," i.

[147] "Annales," i.; Sanzanome, Florentine ed., p. 128; Villani, iv. 36.

[148] "Annales, i.; 16 kal. Iulii. Ingelbertus Florentiam est

ingressus."

[149] "Annales," i.; Otho of Friesland, _vide_ Pertz, xx. 264, and the

Annali Senesi.

[150] Sanzanome, Florentine ed., p. 129.

[151] This is related by an eye witness in the Passerini collection of

documents (often quoted to us) at p. 389. The "Annales," i., manifestly

err in assigning precisely this date of 1147 to the capture of Monte

Orlando, which really happened in 1107. The erasures in the Codex just

where the date and places of the event narrated are written--_i.e._,

before the entry in Florence of Henry IV., 1111--also serve to prove

that a blunder had been made.

[152] The above-quoted Passerini Documents make repeated mention of the

reconstruction of the walls, both at p. 394 and p. 217. It records at

the same point the subsequent destruction of Monte di Croce: "Et dixit

quod sunt lx. annos quod fuit destructus Mons Crucis." Both Villani

(iv. 37) and the pseudo Brunetto Latini give the date of 1154; the

"Annales," ii., the Neapolitan Codex, and Paolino Pieri, that of 1153.

Sanzanome, according to his frequent practice, gives no precise date

even here (at p. 130). He merely says that the first attack on the

castle took place in 1146.

[153] Santini, i. doc. iii. dated April 4, 1156.

[154] "Constituit etiam Teutonicos principes ac dominatores super

Lombardos et Tuscos, ut de caetero eius voluntati nullus Ytalicus

resistendi locum habere ullatenus posset. Vita Alexandri," in the year

1164. In the "Cronica Urspergense," of the year 1186, we read that:

"Coepit Imperator in partibus Tusciae et terrae romanae castra ad se

spectantia, suae potestati vendicare, et quaedam nova construere, in

quorum presidiis Teutonicos praecipue collocavit." _Vide_ Ficker, vol.

ii. par. 311, p. 227.

[155] "Nullus enim Marchio et nullus nuntius Imperii fuit, qui tam

honorifice civitates Italiae tributaret, et romano subiceret Imperio."

_Vide_ the Annali Pisani, in Pertz's Mon^{ta.} Ger^{ma.} xx. 249.

Ficker, vol. i. par. 137, p. 259.

[156] Ficker, vol. i. par. 122-4.

[157] _Vide_ the Passerini Documents, pp. 208, 394-400.

[158] Some of these depositions have been printed before, but the whole

collection is now given in Santini, i. doc. xlv. They are dated May,

1203, but naturally refer to a much earlier period. _Vide_ Santini, pp.

115, 117-19.

[159] _Vide_ the treaty given in Santini, i. doc. iv.

[160] Count Macharius was the Imperial representative at San Miniato.

Ficker gives a list of other German counts in that castle (vol. ii.

par. 311, p. 227 and fol.).

[161] "Castrum autem intelligimus recuperatum etiam sine superiori

incastellatura."

[162] At this moment many former partisans of the Empire were fighting

against it. Pisa is one example.

[163] Nevertheless it was not kept among the _Capitoli_ comprising

real official documents, but among papers of an almost private nature.

Hartwig was the first to bring it to light (ii. 61); and it was

afterwards reprinted verbatim in Santini, pt. iii. doc. i.

[164] Tommasi, "Storia di Lucca," in the "Arch. Stor. It.," vol. x. _ad

annum_; Roncioni, "Istorie Pisane," in the "Arch. Stor. It.," vol. vi.

_ad annum_; Marangoni, i. 285; Ottoboni, "Annales," i. 95; Hartwig, ii.

58-63.

[165] _Vide_ Santini, i. docs, v., vi., vii., viii. The first of these

is dated Feb. 23, 1173; the others are of April 7, 1174.

[166] "Annales," ii., year 1170; Villani, v. 5.

[167] "Annales," ii.; Sanzanome; Villani, v. 6; Neapolitan Codex

(here, however, the event is ascribed to the year 1175); Repetti, art.

"Asciano"; Hartwig, ii. 64-5.

[168] This treaty (in which not only the emperor, but also Christian

of Mayence, and Count Macharius, who was then at San Miniato, are

expressly named) is in the Siennese Archives, Caleffo Vecchio, at c.

9, and Caleffo dell' Assunta, at c. 53. Dr. Hartwig published a large

summary of it, made by Wüstenfeld. Thanks to the kindness of Cavaliere

Lisini, Director of the Sienna Archives, we were enabled to obtain a

copy of the treaty, and of other documents connected with the peace.

Some belonging to Florence are comprised in Santini's work, i. docs.

ix., x., xi. (April 4 and 8, and December 11, 1176).

[169] "Et quod Comunis Senensis acquisierit extra eorum episcopatus et

comitatus, dabo medietatem Florentinis." In the above-quoted treaty

among the Siennese Archives.

[170] Nevertheless, in the year 1174, we find a Guido Uberti on the

list of Consuls. Santini, i. doc. vi.

[171] Villani, v. 8. The "Annales," ii., of 1177, say that "Orta est

guerra inter Consules et filios Uberti; eodem anno combusta est civitas

florentina." The Neapolitan Codex dates the first fire the 4th of

August, as Villani also does, and gives the commencement of the civil

war immediately afterwards, the which "filled two years." Paolino Pieri

dates the first fire August 4, 1174, and the fall of the bridge and the

second fire in 1178. Tolomeo da Lucca merely states that a revolution

broke out in 1177 and lasted for two years.

[172] Chronicle of the pseudo Brunetto Latini, _ad annum_.

[173] We subjoin an extract from the pseudo Brunetto Latini, as it

stands in the Gaddi Codex, with all its blunders. After giving an

account of the revolution, the chronicler goes on to say: "Then in the

year 1180 the Uberti gained the victory, and Messer Uberto degli Uberti

and Messer Lamberto Lamberti were consul and rector of the city of

Florence, together with their companions, and these formed the first

consulate of the city, the which was brought about by violence, only

afterwards they began to rule the city according to reason and justice,

every one preserving his own position, so that it was decided by the

citizen Consuls to summon powerful nobles of foreign birth to fill the

post of Podestà, as will be shown to you in writing farther on." It is

strange that the chronicler should ascribe the origin of the Consuls

to so late a date. But, seeing that his list of these magistrates only

begins at this point, it would seem that he really believed them to

have no earlier origin. Nevertheless, shortly before, in writing of

1177, he had stated that the Uberti began to make war on the Consuls;

hence it is clear that even in his opinion they had existed before

the year 1180. Still, blunders and incongruities of this sort are

frequently found even in Villani and other chroniclers of the same

period.

[174] Santini, i. doc. xii. This is the document stating that the

tribute of fifty pounds of "good money" was to be paid to the Consuls

of the city, or, failing these, to the Consuls of the merchants,

authorised to receive it for the Commune.

[175] This had been granted them in an Imperial patent, given at Pavia

_iv. Idus Augusti_, 1164, the which has been published several times,

and is also included in the "Storia della guerra di Semifonte," by

Messer Pace da Certaldo (p. 5). As all know, this is a counterfeit

"Storia" dating from the beginning of the seventeenth century.

[176] Santini, i. doc. xiii. This is the document with the erroneous

date, 1101, rectified by Marquis Capponi to 1181 (modern style, 1182).

[177] Villani, Paolino Pieri, the Neapolitan Codex, and the pseudo

Brunetto Latini. The "Annales," ii., wrongly assign the event to 1172.

[178] Santini, i. doc. xiv. The terms were not to be altered without

the consent of the Consuls of either city, together with that of at

least twenty-five councillors on either side; and the Consuls of the

soldiery and of the merchants were to be included in the number.

We note that in naming the Consuls a hint is already given of the

possible election of a Podestà, although none had as yet been chosen in

Florence. This subject will be resumed later on. Meanwhile, the words

of the document run as follows: "Inquisitis florentinis Consulibus,

vel florentina Potestate, sive Rectori vel Dominatore a comuni populo

electo." On Lucca's side mention is also made of the "bonos viros

lucensis civitatis, si Consules vel Rector aut Potestas ibi non

fuerint."

[179] The "Annales," ii., the pseudo Brunetto Latini, and the Neap.

Cod. date the event in 1185; Villani (v. ii.) dates it instead 1184,

and says that Pogna was occupied by nobles, who were _cattani_ and

hostile to Florence. We follow Villani, for otherwise it would be

impossible to explain the captivity of Count Alberto in 1184, an event

confirmed by documentary evidence.

[180] Santini, i. doc. xvi. and xvii.; the first dated November, 1184,

and the second, November 29, 1184.

[181] Hartwig, ii. 79.

[182] Villani, v. 12.

[183] The "Annales," ii., and Paolino Pieri except Pisa alone; Villani,

the Neap. Cod., and the pseudo Brunetto Latini except both Pisa and

Pistoia.

[184] The chroniclers only say, with obvious inexactitude, for ten

miles round.

[185] This diploma is given in Ficker, iv. doc. 170, p. 213. Henry

(then Henry VI., King of the Romans, afterwards, as emperor, also

called Henry V.), after granting the concession, adds: "Excepto ac

salvo iure nobilium et militum, a quibus etiam volumus ut Florentini

nihil exigant." The diploma only refers in general terms to the

services rendered by the Florentines to Henry and to his father,

Frederic I. Villani considers the grant a reward for their prowess in

the Crusade; but the Crusade took place in 1189, and the grant was

made in 1187; for although he wrongly dates the latter in 1188, this

blunder does not suffice to remove the anachronism. Besides, he also

states that the concession was granted through the intervention of Pope

Gregory VIII., who was elected in 1187, and died the same year.

[186] In 1186 Perugia was granted judicial rights over the _contado_

beyond the walls: "Exceptis domibus et possessionibus, quas habent

marchiones et monasterium S. Salvatoris," and, excepting several

nobles, specified by name, "in quibus nihil iuris Perusinis

relinquitur." Ficker, i. par. 128, p. 242. Sienna, after being deprived

of the _contado_ in June, 1186, received it back in October, under the

same conditions, and so, too, Lucca in the same year. Ficker, i. par.

125. p. 239, and par. 128, p. 2 2.

[187] Ficker often gives the names of these Imperial Podestà, as

gleaned from the depositions of witnesses. _Vide_ Ficker, vol. iii.

p. 440. Hartwig (ii. 192) cites one _Henricus comes florentinus_,

also mentioned by Stumpf and who seems to have been a Podestà of the

_contado_ in September, 1186. After all this, it is not surprising

that the Imperial authority should be often referred to in documents

of the latter half of the twelfth century. We may cite some instances

from the rolls of the Florence Archives: October 14, 1175 (Passignano),

"Sub obligo Consulum Florentinorum vel Nuntio Regis"; October 9,

1185 (Passignano), "Sub duplice pena Imperatoris et eius Missi aut

quicumque habuerint dominium pro tempore." (Reference is here made to

the _contado_, and is another proof of the uncertain rule previously

described by us.)

[188] "Liberalitate benefica ipsos respicere volentes, concedimus," &c.

... "huius munifice nostre concessionis."

[189] In 1184, _vide_ in addition to the chroniclers, Santini, i. docs.

xiv., xv., xvii. and Hartwig, ii. 191. For the years 1185, 1186, and

1187, besides the names recorded by the pseudo Brunetto Latini, the

documents furnish frequent allusions of the following kind: April 30,

1185 (Passignano), "Sub obligo Consulum Florentie resarcire promitto";

December 13, 1185 (Santa Felicità), "Sub obligo Consulum Florentie";

April 26, 1186 (Passignano), "Penam ad Consules Florentie"; September

21, 1187 (Arch. Capitolare, 629), "Consulum vel Rectorum pro tempore

Florentie existentium (Actum Florentie)." The rolls of the Arch.

Capitolare were examined by Santini, to whom we are indebted for

the information; those of the Florence Archives we have personally

examined, but some of these were first brought under our notice by

Santini.

In 1189 there were undoubtedly Consuls. Not only are the names of three

of them recorded by the pseudo Brunetto Latini, but documents give the

names of the Consuls of justice. Santini, ii. docs. v. and vi.

[190] Ficker (ii. par. 313, p. 234) cites the words of Pillius, a

jurist of the period: "Ut quando faciunt castellanos vel comites in

Tuscia"; and, further on: "Sicut fit hodie illis, qui pracficiuntur in

singulis provinciis, vel in parte alicuius provinciae, ut in comitatu

senensi, florentino vel aretino."

[191] They are both named in the Passerini documents, from which we

have frequently quoted.

[192] According to the results of Hartwig's inquiries, between 1150 and

1180.

[193] We find in the Passerini documents (p. 206) that one of the

witnesses states that Count Guidi "defendit ipsum monasterium [of

Rosano] a Teutonicis et a Renuccio de Stagia, quando erat Potestas

Florentinorum, et a Consulibus Florentinis."

[194] October 14, 1175 (Passignano), "Sub potestate consulum

Florentinorum vel Nuntio Regis"; July 5, 1191 (Arch. Capitolare, 347),

"Sub pena Consulum Florentie vel Potestatis"; April 15, 1192 (Arch.

Capitolare, 449), "Sub obligo Potestatis vel Rectorum pro tempore

Florentie existentibus"; November 7, 1192 (Passignano, in the Church

of St. Biagio), "Sub obligo Potestatis in hac terra existentis" (here

allusion is possibly made to some Podestà of the _contado_); May 9,

1193 (Passerini documents in the Florence Archives), "Sub obligo

Potestatis vel Consulum Florentinorum ... Actum Florentie." According

to these and other rolls examined by me in the Florence Archives, the

change is seen to have been carried out in a regular and steady manner.

The ancient formulas reappear from time to time.

[195] "Inquisitis florentinis Consulibus, vel florentina Potestate,

sive Rectore vel Dominatore ... florentini Consules vel florentina

Potestate sive Rector vel Dominator" (Santini, i. doc. xiv).

[196] Santini, i. doc. xx.

[197] Santini, ii. doc. viii. His name is _Corsus_, and at one point

he is styled a councillor _super facto iustitie_, at another, _consul

iustitie_.

[198] In the years 1193 and 1195 he still mentions the Consuls, and

even by name. These may have been the _consiliarii_ of the two Podestà

known to have existed in those years. It is well to observe here that

all this would have been impossible in the case of Imperial Podestà,

had there ever been any in Florence. They could never have appeared in

the light of chief Consuls.

[199] Florence Archives, "Bullettone," c. 131. July 10, 1196: "Dominus

Petrus episcopus habuit tenutam a consulibus curie Communis Florentie."

In the years 1197-99, _vide_ the documents of the Tuscan League, quoted

later on, and Hartwig, ii. 194.

[200] In the year 1197, Paolino Pieri tells us: "San Miniato al

Tedesco, or rather its fortress, was destroyed." In 1198, he tells how

"San Genesio was pulled down by the inhabitants" (_terrazzani_), who

then returned to the hill-top, and rebuilt San Miniato. Villani (v. 21)

says that San Miniato was destroyed, and its inhabitants came down to

St. Genesio in the plain. _Vide_ also the "Annales," ii., and the Neap.

Cod., _ad annum_. Hartwig (ii. 93) has examined the question minutely,

and swept away all inaccuracies and exaggerations.

[201] "Annales," ii., Neap. Cod., _ad annum_, Villani (v. 22). From

the reports of eye witnesses, published by Passerini, one sees that

Montegrossoli was troublesome to its neighbours, and even Villani

says that it was held by _cattani_, who made continual attacks on the

Florentines.

[202] _Vide_ the "Acts of the League" (November 11 and December 14,

1197; February 5 and 7, 1198), in Santini, i. doc. xxi., and in Ficker,

vol. iv. p. 242, doc. 196. Ficker uses some of the documents preserved

in Florence, and also some of those at Sienna which are more complete

and correct at certain points.

[203] Sed Podiumbonizi possit recipi per capud.

[204] _Vide_ the "Acts of the League" in Ficker, vol. iv. p. 246.

[205] "Atti della Lega." The Florentines swore to the League on

November 13 and 14, 1197. The document in Santini, i. doc. xxiii.

gives the names of sixteen Consuls and 133 councillors who took the

oath. In a preceding document, also relating to February 5 and 17,

1198, there are the names of ten Consuls, but three of them are not

the same on both days, so that there must have been more than twelve

Consuls in February, 1198. Some, too, were already in office even in

November, 1197, and this confirms our previous hypothesis that, on the

great occasion of the League, all or part of the withdrawing Consuls

remained in office with those just elected. Nor is this a solitary

instance. On April 2, 1212, the Commune of Prato, in arranging a treaty

with Florence, sent three _Consules veteri_, and three _Consules novi

eiusdem terre_ to conclude it. Santini, i. doc. lx.

[206] Innocentii III., "Epistolae," i. 15, 27, 34, 35; Ficker, vol. ii.

par. 363, p. 384.

[207] Instead of mentioning the _Ducatus Tusciae_, he now spoke of

the _magna pars Tusciae, quae in nostris privilegiis continetur_. To

the Pisans he wrote, "Post correctionem adhibitam, nihil invenimus

quod in ecclesiastici iuris vel cuiusquam maioris vel minoris personae

praeiudicium redundaret." And in February, 1199, he urged them to join

the League. Innocentii, "Ep.," bk. i. 401 and 555; "Gesta Innocentii,"

c. ii.; Ficker, vol. ii. par. 363, pp. 385-6.

[208] Santini, i. docs. xxiii., xxiv., xxv. The first is dated the

10th; the second, April 15, 1198; and the third, giving the names of

the men of Figline swearing fealty to the League, is also dated the

15th of April. The second alludes to the chief Consuls: "Comandamenta

Consulum florentine civitatis omnium vel maioris partis aut priorum ex

eis." The third informs us (pp. 43 and 44) that the oath was sworn:

"In Florentia, in ecclesia S. Reparate et Parlamento, coram florentino

populo iuraverunt." Also further on: "In ecclesia S. Reparate, in

Aringo." This is another instance of the parliament being convened in a

church.

[209] Santini, i. doc. xxvi. Obedience was sworn to the Consuls or

Rectors _vel segnoratico aliquo extante_. This, too, is an expression

having very little savour of the more democratic temper of former times.

[210] In Villani (v. 26) he is wrongly styled Count Arrigo della Tosa.

The Della Tosa family were not counts. The pseudo Brunetto Latini

speaks of him in an undated paragraph, anterior to his record of 1200,

as "Messer Arrigo, count of Capraia."

[211] As we have stated, it seems to be for this reason that the pseudo

Brunetto Latini dates the office of Podestà from this moment: "A

novel thing was done, and for the first time a Potestade was elected

in Florence, from jealousy of the Consuls, the which Potestade was

Paganello Porcaro of Lucca."

[212] Santini, i. doc. xxvii. (February 12 and 23, 1200); doc. xxviii.

(February 12 and 19); doc. xxix. (February 12 and 23, and March 25). In

these papers the Podestà is always mentioned with the councillors, and

the office of the Consuls is also invariably recorded: "Sive parabola

Potestatis et Consiliariorum vel Consulum sive Rectorum Florentie" (p.

49). "A Potestate vel Consiliariis eius, sive a Consulibus Florentie

vel Rectoribus" (p. 48). In a posterior document (Santini, i. doc.

xxxvii., dated August 14, 1201), we find the councillors representing

the Podestà: "Sitio filio condam Butrighelli, Melio filio Catalani

Consiliarii domini Potestatis Florentie, recipienti (_sic_) vice et

nomine dicte Potestatis et totius Comunis Florentie" (p. 72). These

councillors did not yet form a special council, but were on the way

to it, since the council or senate of the city being already called

the general council, the existence of a special one is implied: "In

Florentia, in ecclesia S. Reparate, coram generali consilio civitatis,

iuraverunt." Santini, i. doc. xxviii. p. 53.

[213] Santini, i. doc. xxx.

[214] It may be roughly rendered:

"Florence, get out of the way,

Semifonte's a city to-day."

[215] Santini, i. doc. xxxiv.

[216] This treaty was concluded April 27, 1201; about five hundred

inhabitants of Colle swearing adhesion to it on the 28th, 29th, and

30th of April. Santini, i. docs. xxxv. and xxxvi.

[217] "Per quinquennium guerra durante et eidem omnibus de Tuscia

prestantibus patrocinium.... Tacere tamen nolo magnalia quae inter

caetera vidi, guerra durante." Sanzanome, Florentine ed., pp. 134-5.

[218] The document is given in the "Delizie," of Ildefonso di San

Luigi, vii. 178. Perpetual exemption from all taxes was decreed to

Gonella and his comrades, "qui mortui fuere in turre de Bagunolo et in

muris apud Summumfontem, in servitio Communis Florentie." _Vide_ also

in Hartwig, ii. 100.

[219] Santini, i. xxxviii., xxxix. The treaty of peace was concluded

between Alberto da Montauto, lord of San Gimignano, for the people of

Semifonte, and Claritus Pillii, Consul of the merchants for Florence.

[220] This letter, published by Winkelmann (Philipp von Schwaben,

i. 556), is taken from a MS. of the Florentine Boncompagni, in the

Archives of Berne, No. 322, fol. 18, and part of it is referred to by

Hartwig, ii. 102.

[221] About eight hundred men of Montepulciano swore to these terms on

the hand of the Florentine Consul. Santini, i. doc. xl. October 19, 24,

1202.

[222] Santini, i. docs. xlii., xliii., xliv., and xlv. These papers,

dated April and May, 1203, give the names of all the Siennese citizens

and country people sanctioning the arbitration in the name of their

city. The last document contains the depositions of the witnesses

examined by Ogerio. Doc. xlvii., June 4, 1203, is the verdict

pronounced by him.

[223] On the days 4th, 7th, and 8th of June, the Bishop and Commune of

Sienna gave up all that was due to Florence, in accordance with the

verdict. Santini, i. doc. xlviii. On the 6th of the same month one

hundred and fifty Siennese councillors swore observance to the terms.

Santini, i. doc. xlix.

[224] Santini, i. doc. lii.

[225] Ibid., i. doc. xlvi.

[226] Murat., "Antiq. It.," iv. 576-83. _Vide_ also Ficker (vol. ii.

par. 312, p. 229 and fol.), who gleaned from this important document

the list of the Podestà established as Imperial envoys in the Siennese

territory. These Podestà are mentioned by the witnesses as "Comites

teutonici, Comites comitatus senensis pro imperatore Federigo," and

occasionally even as "Comites contadini."

[227] "Per distruggere questa capra, non ci vuol altro che un lupo."

_Vide_ Repetti, art. "Capraia e Montelupo"; Hartwig (ii. 106-9)

rectifies some chronological and other blunders made by Villani.

[228] The treaty is probably extant in the Archives of Pistoia.

Repetti, in citing it from the "Aneddoti" of Zaccaria, dates it the 3rd

of June; other writers date it July.

[229] Dated October 29, November 17, 1204, in Santini, i. doc. liii.

The oath sworn before the Consul Guido Uberto was of obedience to the

commands "que ... fecerint Potestas Florentie vel Consules Civitatis

vel maior pars vel priores aut prior eorum." Thus the Podestà's name

came first, even at a time when there were Consuls in office, before

whom the oath was sworn, in presence of "Angiolerii Beati, Doratini et

Burniti Paganiti sexcalcorum Comunis Florentie." Even the office of

_sexcalcus_ is new (it is also mentioned in another document of the

30-31st of May, in Santini, i. xlvi.), and seems to us a sign of the

change tending to a more aristocratic form of government in Florence.

The communal oath sworn on October 29, 1204 (Santini, i. doc. liv.)

began thus, "Hec sunt sacramenta, quae Potestas et Consules Comunis et

Consules militum, mercatorum et Priores Artium et generale Consilium,

ad sonum campane coadunatum, fecerunt Guidoni Borgognoni comiti et

filiis et Caprolensibus." The Consuls took the oath, not the Podestà,

for there was none, although nominally heading the formula.

[230] Recorded in the "Acta Sanctorum," the 1st of May, at p. 14, and

also in the list (known as that of Sta. Maria Novella) of the Consuls

and Podestà. _Vide_ Hartwig, ii. 197. But the documents of this year

only refer in general to the Consuls and Podestà without giving any

names.

[231] Sizio Butrigelli, or Butticelli, is mentioned in the Sta. Maria

Novella Catalogue. Hartwig, ii. 197.

[232] Sanzanome, pp. 139-40; Hartwig, ii. 111-12.

[233] Santini, i. doc. lviii. and lix. A great number of Siennese

swore to the treaty in the presence of the Podestà Gualfredotto

Grasselli, _vice et nomine Comunis Florentie recipienti_, without

the _consiliarii_. But the ceremony being very lengthy, he delegated

Ildebrandino Cavalcanti to represent him, _procuratoris nomine_. Some

of the documents of this peace are in Florence, the others in Sienna.

The former were discovered by Santini, and all are mentioned by

Hartwig, ii. 113-14.

[234] This chapter was originally published in the _Politecnico_ of

Milan, numbers for July and September, 1866.

[235] The details of this event are differently told by Villani (v.

38), by the pseudo Brunetto Latini (_ad annum_), and by Dino Compagni

at the beginning of his Chronicle. But the gist is the same in all

three, and we have mainly adhered to the first and second authorities,

whose accounts are longer and more detailed than that of Compagni.

[236] Villani, v. 38.

[237] Villani, vi. 5.

[238] Villani (vi. 33) says: "Albeit the said parties existed among

the nobles of Florence, and they oftentimes came to blows from

private enmities, and were split into factions by the said parties,"

nevertheless the people "remained united, for the good and honour and

dignity of the Republic" (vol. i. p. 253). The "Annales," ii., of the

year 1236 relate that the palaces of the Commune and of the Galigai

were destroyed, which would certainly seem to be a proof of a genuine

revolution.

[239] Ammirato, "Storie," lib. xi. (with additions made by Ammirato the

younger). Anno 1240.

[240] In this year we find the first official mention of the Florentine

Guelphs. Frederic II. complains of their conduct, saying: "Pars

Guelforum Florentiae, cui dudum nostra Maiestas pepercerat." The

"Annales," ii., first name the Guelphs in 1239, and in 1242 mention

the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. _Vide_ Hartwig, "Quellen," &c., vol.

ii. pp. 159-60 and 164. This author believes that the names of the two

Florentine parties first came into use in the year 1239.

[241] Lami, "Antichità Toscane," lesson xv.; Passerini, "Istituti di

Beneficenza--Il Bigallo." Florence: Le Monnier, 1853.

[242] _Vide_ "Statuta Populi et Communis Florentiae," published in

Florence, but with the mark of the Friburg press, vol. i.; Cantini,

"Saggi," vol. iii. chap. xvi.; "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," vol.

ix. p. 256 and fol.

[243] Villani says: "They stripped all power from the Podestà then in

Florence, and dismissed all the officers" (vi. 39). As usual, Malespini

copies from Villani (chap. cxxxvii.). But reading farther we see

clearly that the Podestà was elected as before, and that a palace was

built for his use. The chronicler's real meaning was that the form of

government was changed, and the actual governors dismissed from office.

The term Podestà was used in its general sense of magistrate-in-chief.

[244] Villani, vol. vi. pp. 39 and 40. _Vide_ also Coppo Stefani.

[245] It is thought to be the work of Lapo or Jacopo, the supposed

master of Arnolfo Brunelleschi.

[246] Villani, vi. 39.

[247] _Vide_ Marchionne di Coppo Stefani, "Storia Fiorentina,"

bk. ii. rubric 63. In relating the first rupture of the Guelphs

and Ghibellines, the author says: "Almost all the families on the

Ghibelline, or Imperial side, were nobles of the _contado_, because

these held lands or castles in fief from the Empire." Also Ammirato,

who was well versed in contemporary chronicles and documents, in

relating what was said by men of the people as to the reforms of 1250,

makes them continue their statement that the Uberti, as leaders of

the nobles, were the authors of all the misfortunes of Florence, with

the following words: "Who but the Uberti waste our substance and our

strength by exorbitant taxes and imposts? These haughty men deemed it

an honourable thing, among their other grand and noble usages, to be

our foes; inasmuch as, exulting in their descent from the princes of

Germany, they consider us to be churls and peasants, and despise us, as

though we were of a different clay from their own." Ammirato, "Storie,"

bk. ii. _ad annum_.

[248] In fact, Villani only mentions them at a much later date. But

there is documentary evidence of their previous existence. _Vide_, for

instance, the "Arch. Stor. Ital.," Series iii. vol. xxiii. p. 222. Doc.

dated April 30, 1251. _Vide_ M. di Coppo Stefani, rub. 90.

[249] Giannotti, "Opere," ed. Le Monnier, vol. i. p. 82.

[250] Machiavelli, "Storie," bk. ii. On this point it may be well to

repeat our former remarks, to the effect that Machiavelli is often as

inaccurate in his definition of facts as profound in his intuition of

their character and tendency. After the first book of his "Storie,"

giving a general introduction to the Middle Ages, he begins to

narrate the history of Florence in the second book. He was the first

writer, after L. Aretino, to put aside nearly all the fabulous tales

of the chroniclers touching the origins of Florence, and start from

well-authenticated facts. For although he, too, believes that Florence

was destroyed by Totila and rebuilt by Charlemagne, and even credits

the destruction of Fiesole by the Florentines in 1010, it is easy to

condone these blunders, remembering how many other legendary tales

were rejected by him, and how much time elapsed before some germ of

historic truth could be gleaned from the less incredible traditions

to which he adhered. But why did Machiavelli pass over almost at one

bound the interval between 1010 and 1215 without saying anything of

the first and second Florentine constitutions, or alluding to the

numerous deeds of war and political revolutions occurring during that

period? Regarding these events, he might have derived information from

the chroniclers. But he clings to the theory that the Buondelmonti

tragedy was the primary cause and origin of all internecine strife

in Florence, although the evidence of contemporary chroniclers and

his own historical acumen might have saved him from this error.

Continuing with the same strangely unaccountable negligence, he skips

another period--from 1215 to 1250--saying that then at last Guelphs

and Ghibellines came to an agreement, and "deemed the moment come to

establish free institutions," almost as though this were the first time

that the Florentines had contemplated organising a free government.

Yet we have seen that Florentine liberties were assured, and the first

constitution founded in 1115; that the constitution of 1250 was the

third, not the first, and established by the Guelph _popolani_, to the

hurt of the Ghibelline nobles, instead of being formed, as Machiavelli

states, by the united efforts of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines.

Nor is this the last of his blunders, for Machiavelli goes on to

say: "Likewise to remove causes of enmity arising from judgments

delivered, they [the Florentines] decreed the establishment of two

foreign judges, with the respective titles of Captain and Podestà,

authorised to administer justice to the citizens in all cases, whether

civil or criminal." In this manner he converts the two chief political

authorities into ordinary judges, places both on the same level,

and fails to remark that, although the Captain was a newly created

functionary, the Podestà had been in existence for more than half a

century. He also states that the _carroccio_ was instituted in 1250,

to give prestige, or _maestà_, to the army, although the Florentines

had adopted the use of the _carroccio_ long before this date. He shows

equal negligence in his account of the organisation of the army, and

without drawing any distinction between the forces of the Commune

and those of the people, although this point is fully elucidated

by the chroniclers. Villani, for instance, tells us: "Inasmuch as

we have treated of the gonfalons and banners of the people," it is

fitting to make mention of those "of the knights and the army proper"

(_guerra_). Nevertheless, whenever Machiavelli pauses to consider the

general character of Florentine revolutions, and particularly of those

subsequent to 1250, his definitions excel those of any other writer.

[251] November, 1252.

[252] "Arch. Stor. It." Series iii. vol. xxiii. p. 220.

[253] Villani and Ammirato, _ad annum_.

[254] Villani, vi. 51. Ammirato, _ad annum_.

[255] Ammirato, _ad annum_, contains a summary of the treaty of peace.

[256] Villani and Ammirato, _ad annum_.

[257] VI. 70.

[258] _Scaggiale_--a leathern belt with a buckle.

[259] _Tassello_--a square of cloth attached to the cloak so as to be

used as a hood.

[260] Villani, vi. 70.

[261] _Vide_ "I Capitoli del Comune di Firenze, inventario e regesto,"

vol. i., edited by C. Guasti. Florence: Cellini, 1866.

[262] Ammirato, _ad annum_, gives a summary of the treaty.

[263] Villani, vi. 62. This incident, highly praised by Villani as a

magnanimous example, has been quoted by others as a proof that the

Florentine people must have been corrupt at a time when so exceptional

a monument could be decreed to one of the citizens simply because he

had refused to betray his country. But it should be noted, first of

all, that he was not honoured with a monument merely because he had

rejected a bribe, but, as Villani goes on to say, because "Aldobrandino

died in such excellent repute for his virtuous deeds for the good of

the Commune." Even should Villani's praises of the deed in itself seem

too marked and consequently indicative of general corruption, this

corruption might be more fitly attributed to Villani's own days than to

the earlier period of Aldobrandino and the _Primo Popolo_, when genuine

virtue and true patriotism were undoubtedly predominant.

[264] "Storie," lib. ii.

[265] Villani, vi. 65.

[266] C. Paoli, "La battagali di Montaperti" (extract from vol. ii. of

the "Bollettino della Società Senese di Storia patria"). Sienna, 1869.

In 1889 Prof. Paolo added another very important publication to this

work, _i.e._, "Il libro di Montaperti," in the "Documenti di Storia

Italiana," brought out by the Royal Commission for Tuscany, Umbria, and

the Marches, vol. ix.

[267] Marchionni di Coppo Stefani, "Stor. fior.," rubric 120.

[268] Villani and other Florentine chroniclers.

[269] The figures given by Florentine chroniclers are never exact, and

must be therefore regarded as approximate ones only.

[270] Here is an instance extracted from a law of 1284: "Item quod

nullus presumat consulere, vel arengare super aliquo quod non sit

principaliter propositum per dominum Potestatem, vel aliquem loco sui.

Et qui contrafacerit, in soldos sexaginta florenorum parvorum vice

qualibet puniatur, et plus et minus ad voluntatem domini Potestatis.

Et quicquid dictum vel consultum contra propositionem, non valeat, nec

teneat." "Consigli Maggiori, Provvisioni e Registri," i., sheets 12

_retro._ Archivio di Stato, Florence.

[271] Too coarse to be translated.--_Translator's note._

[272] Villani, vi. 78.

[273] Aldobrandini, "Chroniche," p. 9; Paoli, "La battaglia di

Montaperti," p. 46.

[274] In the cathedral of Sienna certain poles are shown traditionally

believed to have belonged to the Florentine _Carroccio_. But Siennese

scholars now justly maintain that these poles formed part of their own

_Carroccio_ instead.

[275] Paoli, op. cit., p. 58.

[276] Sismondi, after comparison of the chroniclers' accounts, raises

the number of killed to 10,000 and the wounded to the same figure.

[277] VI. 19.

[278] Lord of the Castle of Poppi in the Casentino. He had separated

from the other Counts Guidi, who were Guelphs.

[279] All this is narrated by Villani and other chroniclers, and is

likewise recorded by Dante in the "Divina Commedia." A few writers

have tried to throw doubt on the incident, but, as Dr. Hartwig justly

observes, it is difficult to suppose that Guelph chroniclers would have

invented a legend so entirely favourable to the Ghibelline chief.

[280] Prof. Del Lungo gives a full account of these demolitions in his

paper, "Una vendetta in Firenze," in the "Arch. Stor. It.," Series iv.

vol. 18, p. 355 and fol.

[281] P. Ildefonso, "Delizie," &c., vol. ix. p. 19 and fol.

[282] Machiavelli, "Storie," lib. i. p. 37.

[283] It is said that Manfred, on witnessing their attack, showed

his admiration for their courage by exclaiming, "Whoever may win the

victory, these Guelphs will not lose it."

[284] Dante (Purgatorio, iii. 121-32). The poet places Manfred in

purgatory, although at the period he was classed as a heretic together

with the Emperor Frederic, Farinata, and many other Ghibellines:

"Orribili furon li peccati miei,

Ma la bontà infinita ha si gran braccia

Che prende ciò che si rivolve a lei.

Se il pastor di Cosenza, che alla caccia

Di me fu messo per Clemente, allora

Avesse in Dio ben letta questa faccia,

L'ossa del corpo mio sarieno ancora

In co' del ponte presso a Benevento,

Sotto la guardia della grave mora.

Or le bagna la pioggia e move il vento,

Di fuor del Regno, quasi lungo il Verde,

Ove le trasmutò a lume spento."

[285] Machiavelli, "Storie," lib. ii. p. 73.

[286] This result had come to pass at a much earlier period, was of

frequent occurrence in Florentine history, and was now more assured

than at any previous time. Malespini's Chronicle, chap. 104, even

before the coronation of Frederic II., refers to certain families who

"were beginning to be prominent, although too obscure to be mentioned a

short while ago.... The Mozzi, Bardi, Jacopi detti Rossi, Frescobaldi,

all these were of recent creation, inasmuch as they were still

merchants and of petty origin: likewise the Tornaquinci and Cavalcanti,

also traders, were of petty origin, and the same may be said of the

Cerchi, who shortly began to rise higher than the aforesaid."

[287] Most of these letters are given in Martène, others are published

by Del Giudice in his "Codice diplomatico di Carlo I. and Carlo II

d'Angiò."

[288] Machiavelli, "Storie," lib. ii. p. 75.

[289] "Il Codice diplomatico di Carlo I. e II. d'Angiò," published by

Del Giudice, in Naples, serves to rectify many blunders made by the

chroniclers on this point.

[290] "The citizens of ancient times being either entirely

extinguished, or, at least decayed by age, another race began to spring

up, as it were, in a new city." Ammirato, "Storie."

[291] There are so many discrepancies among Florentine authorities

regarding this question that, after careful study and comparison of the

different accounts given by the chroniclers, we have chosen Villani

as our guide. He is the most celebrated of the old writers and the

nearest to the times described. On close consideration of his words

(_vide_ Villani, lib. vii. chap. xvi.) we see that the councils are

to be specified as those of the Twelve, of the Captain and of the

Podestà. But reference to the State Archives, the _Consulte_, or first

volume of _Provvisioni_--dated a few years after the reform of which we

speak--will serve to prove that sometimes the Council of One Hundred

was assembled; at others both the special council of the Captain and

his council-general and special were summoned; sometimes again the

Podestà's special council--likewise styled the Council of Ninety--with

his council-general and special, amounting in all to 390 members (300

+ 90). We also find that admittance to these four last-mentioned

councils was usually granted to the seven masters (_capitudini_) of the

greater guilds, and that in course of time the number of the masters

increased, and that they were sometimes summoned to meet as a separate

council. By studying the number of votes given at the councils, we find

sufficient proof of the accuracy of Villani's statements. In special

councils the voting was done with black and white balls, a record being

kept of their respective numbers. But at that period general councils

only signified their verdict by standing up or remaining seated, and

the votes were not recorded in writing. But regarding these points

the rules changed as circumstances required, for the magistrates were

frequently authorised to consult _whichever councils they preferred_.

In affairs of the highest importance, and in discussions carried on in

a strictly legal way, every measure proposed had to be first approved

by the twelve worthies, who were likewise allowed to ask the advice

of confidential private persons, afterwards denominated _advisers_

(_richiesti_). The proposal was next submitted to the One Hundred, then

to the Captain's two councils, and finally to those of the Podestà. All

these details are confirmed by the documents in the Archives; and as a

more easily verified instance, although of later date than the period

now described, we may quote the opening sentence of the "Statuto dell'

Esecutore di Giustizia," given in the Appendix to Signor Giudici's

"Storia de' Municipi Italiani," p. 402 (1st edition). "In the name of

God, _Amen_. In the year of His Holy Incarnation, 1306, &c., firstly,

in the Council of One Hundred, and subsequently in the council and

through the special council of _Messere lo Capitano_ and the masters of

the twelve greater guilds (these having already increased in number)

... and farthermore, at once, without delay, in the council and

through the general and special council of _Messere lo Capitano_ and

of the people of Florence, and of the masters of the guilds ... done,

confirmed, and carried the vote by sitting and rising, as prescribed

by the same Statutes.... Likewise after these proceedings, in the same

year, same '_indiction_' and day, in the council and by the general

council of three hundred and special council of ninety men of the

Florentine Commune, with the aforesaid guild-masters, by order of the

noble gentleman, Messere Count Gabrielli d'Agobbio of the same city and

Commune of Florence, Podestà, &c." Here it should also be noted that

although in this case the councils of the Podestà assembled on the same

day as those of the captain, yet according to law and usage the former

should not have been convoked until one or two days had elapsed.

[292] _Vide_ "Delizie degli eruditi Toscani," by P. Ildefonso, vol.

vii. pp. 203-286.

[293] Del Lungo "Una Vendetta," in "Firenze Arch. Stor. It.," Series

iv. vol. xviii. p. 354 and fol.

[294] The _Giornale Storico degli Archivi Toscani_, anno i., No. 1,

contains "Lo Statuto di Parte Guelfa," of 1335, edited by Bonaini,

whose learned commentary on the same appeared in subsequent numbers.

Villani tells us (vii. 17) that, "by mandate from the Pope and the

king, the said Guelphs _nominated three_ knights as rectors of the

party." But this must be a blunder, since, according to the statutes

of the party, three knights and three men of the people were named

to the office. A document dated December 12, 1268, appended to Del

Lungo's "Una Vendetta in Firenze," mentions, "_Unus de sex Capitaneis

Partis Guelforum_." Villani, in the same chap. xvii., confuses Pope

Clement with Pope Urban, deceased in 1264. The statute of 1335 adds a

third council, of one hundred, to the others, and this probably served

the same purpose with regard to the councils as that fulfilled by the

parliament to the Republic.

[295] The English word "milliner" is derived from _Milan_.

[296] The term _calimala_ seems to have been taken from the name

of the street in which the guild was situated. The street led to a

house of ill-fame, hence the name _Calis malus_, in the sense of _Via

mala_--evil road or lane.

[297] A statute of the Calimala Guild, dated 1332, is given in the

appendix of Giudici's "Storia dei Municipi Italiani." Another, dated

1301-2, has been published, with a commentary by Dr. Filippi, "Il

più antico Statuto dell' Arte di Calimala." Turin: Bocca, 1889. The

statutes formulated regulations already long in vigour by means of

special laws.

[298] All these details of the Calimala Guild are to be found in the

statutes cited above. We have quoted from the earliest statutes.

[299] Originally published in the Milan _Politecnico_, Nos. for

November and December, 1867.

[300] Ammirato (ed. of 1846; Florence, Batelli), i. 248.

[301] The chroniclers say Guy de Montfort, but the latter only came in

1269. _Vide_ Del Giudice, Cod. Dipl. ii. 23.

[302] Villani, vii. 19. The frequent mention of eight hundred knights

by the chroniclers of this period excites doubts as to their accuracy.

It is never safe to accept their statements regarding the number of

this or that army. Probably eight hundred horse was a species of

regulation number, signifying a squadron of French men-at-arms.

[303] Villani, vii. 19; Marchionne Stefani, rubric 138; Ammirato, lib.

iii.

[304] Gregorovius, vol. v. chap. 8: Cherrier, "Storia della lotta dei

Papi e degli Imperatori di Casa Sveva," lib. x.

[305] Ammirato, i. 262; "Delizie degli Eruditi," vol. ix. p. 41.

[306] Machiavelli, "Storie," vol. i. p. 77. Italy, 1813.

[307] "Ipsas petitiones benigne accessimus et audivimus cum effectu,

primo de conservando iure et honore Comunis Florentie; contra Pisanos

et Senenses invasores et Gibellinos et exiticios terre vestra et

infideles Podiibonizi proditores nostros proponimus, cum Dei auxilio

atque vestro, facere vivam guerram, donec peniteant de commissis,

et vos de factis vestris habeatis comodum et honorem.... Vicarium

Ytalicum virum providum discretum et fidelem, cuius devotionem, fidem

et probitatem in magnis factis nostris cognovimus, firmiter et ab

experto vobis concessimus secundum quod vestra postulatio continebat,

et volumus quod sit contentus salario et expensis et emendis, prout in

ipsius Civitatis statutis continetur, nec ultra aliquid exigat." Del

Giudice, "Codice Diplomatico," ii. 116-17.

We find that several Italian Podestà were afterwards appointed in

Florence by Charles.

[308] Villani, vii. 54.

[309] Raynaldi, anno 1278; Sismondi, vol. ii. chap. vii.

[310] Villani, vii. 56.

[311] Ammirato, vol. i. p. 274.

[312] Ammirato the younger was the first writer to give an exact report

of this agreement, with minute details derived from State papers, in

his additions to the elder Ammirato's "History" (Anno 1279 and 1280).

Several documents are given in the "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani,"

by Padre Ildefonso, vol. ix. p. 63 and fol. Still ampler details are

given by Bonaini ("Della Parte Guelfa in Firenze") in the _Giornale

Storico degli Archivi Toscani_, vol. iii. p. 167 and fol. _Vide_ also

A. Gherardi's recent and very important work, "Le Consulte della

Repubblica Fiorentina" (Firenze, Sansoni). The original document of the

Peace is to be found (mutilated) in the State Archives of Florence.

[313] The Fourteen are mentioned together with the Twelve in the

cardinal's treaty of peace, and for some time later both bodies

are simultaneously mentioned in the "Consulte," according to the

usual Florentine custom of enumerating the old as well as the new

magistrates. Subsequently the Fourteen alone are recorded, and the

Twelve disappear entirely.

[314] Villani, vii. 56; Ammirato (Florentine edition of 1846), lib.

iii. p. 275, &c.

[315] The old chronicles contain indications of these particulars,

but for the minute description of them, corroborated by documentary

evidence, _vide_ Ammirato the younger, in his appendices to the

"Storie" of Ammirato the elder.

[316] Dr. Hartwig, who first called attention to this point, also

remarked that the office of _Defensor_ is first recorded in the

"Consulte," in November, 1282, and that the first Defender mentioned

by name is Bernardino della Porta. "Consulte," pp. 116, 132, 133, 140,

from November 6, 1282 to February 6, 1283.

[317] Dr. Hartwig also ascertained that in the "Consulte" the first

mention of the priors occurs on June 26, 1282. Their names are

recorded after those of the Fourteen; on April 24, 1283, they are

given precedence over the latter; and from December forwards they are

mentioned alone, without the Fourteen.

[318] Bk. i. p. 25 and fol. (the Del Lungo edition).

[319] Villani, vii, 79; Ammirato, iii. pp. 288-90.

[320] Villani says (vii. 89) that this "was the most noble and renowned

_court_ ever held in the city of Florence."

[321] "Consulte," vol. i. pp. 169-70.

[322] Hartwig, "Ein menschenalter florentinische Geschichte" (1250-93).

Freiburgi B., 1889-91, p. 111.

[323] Ammirato gives full details of this treaty. A summary of the

original document was afterwards included by Canale, in his "Nuova

Istoria della Repubblica di Genova" (the Le Monnier edition), vol. iii.

p. 34.

[324] Villani, vii. 98; Malespini, ccxliii.

[325] Some of the chroniclers assert that the archbishop hoped to

extract large sums of money from his captives before making an end of

them.

[326] For details of the Pisan war with Genoa and Florence, _vide_

"Storie e Cronache Pisane," edited by Bonaini and others in vol. vi.

(pts. i. and ii.) of the "Archivio Storico Italiano"; Canale, "Nuova

Istoria della Repubblica di Genova"; Villani; Flaminio dal Borgo;

Muratori Script., vol. xv.; Sismondi; "Hist. des Rep. It.," T. ii.

chap. 8.

[327] An order of knighthood limited to the nobility.

[328] G. Villani, Dino Compagni, and the other Florentine chroniclers.

[329] Villani, Compagni, Ammirato, and the Pisan historians previously

quoted.

[330] Villani, vii. 99; Vasari, "Vita di Arnolfo"; Ammirato (Florence:

Batelli and Co., 1846), vol. i. pp. 310-11.

[331] Ammirato, vol. i. p. 337.

[332] _Vide_ Note A at the end of this chapter.

[333] Prof. P. Santini has treated of this question in his article

entitled "Condizione personale degli abitanti del contado nel secolo

xiii.," "Arch. Stor. It." (Series iv. vol. xvii. p. 178 and fol.).

He justly remarks that there is no basis of comparison between the

Bolognese law of 1256 and the Florentine law of 1289, seeing that they

relate to persons of a different class and to two different periods

of the movement set on foot in every commune for ameliorating the

conditions of the inhabitants of the _contado_ (p. 188 and fol.).

[334] Villani, vii. 132.

[335] Ammirato, bk. iii. _ad annum_.

[336] _Vide_ Note B at the end of this chapter.

[337] _Vide_ Note C at the end of this chapter.

[338] Originally published in the _Politecnico_ of Milan; Nos. for June

and July, 1867.

[339] _Vide_ the Florentine edition of 1755, p. 133.

[340] This anecdote is related by the Friar of St. Gall, "De rebus

bellicis Caroli Magni." _Vide_ Muratori, Dissertazione xxv.

[341] Muratori, Dissertazione xxv. _Vide_ likewise Pignotti, "Storia

della Toscana," vol. iv. Saggio iii. Florence, 1824.

[342] We have already mentioned the probable derivation of this term.

[343] _Vide_ Pagnini, "Della Decima," vol. ii. sec. 4 and 5.

[344] Pagnini, "Della Decima," ibid.

[345] Villani, lib. xi. chap. 94.

[346] Villani, lib. xi. chap. 94.

[347] It would seem that the Guild of Por' Santa Maria originally

traded in Florentine woollen stuffs, and that the silk merchants formed

a secondary and separate branch. Gradually, however, they became

amalgamated with the guild (early in the thirteenth century), and then

became its principal components, until at last the Silk Guild and Por'

Santa Maria were entirely fused in one.

[348] _Vide_ the "Cronaca" of Benedetto Dei (1470-92), preserved among

the MSS. of the Magliabecchian Library. Many interesting portions of

this "Cronaca" have been published in the appendix to vol. ii. of

Pagnini's "Decima."

[349] _Vide_ the same "Cronaca" of Dei.

[350] "Again, a law was passed in 1371, inasmuch as many men traded the

shares of the Monte in this wise: One said to another: 'the shares of

the Monte are at thirty; I wish to do some business with you to-day.

This time next year I'll sell to you, or you to me, at what price shall

we say?' At thirty-one the share [of one hundred]? 'What premium do you

ask for this?' So they bargained, and the terms were fixed. When shares

fell, the merchant bought, if they rose, he sold out, and the stock

changed hands twenty times in the year. Accordingly a tax was charged

of two florins in the hundred for every transfer." Marchionne di Coppo

Stefani, vol. viii. p. 97, in the "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," vol.

xiv.

[351] Vettori, "Il Fiorino d'oro"; Orsini, "Storia delle Monete."

Florence, 1760.

[352] Pagnini, "Della Decima," vol. ii. sec. iii. chaps. i.-iv. Other

details are supplied by Ammirato, Dei, and more especially by Villani

(xi. 88, and xii. 55).

[353] G. Villani, xl. 54.

[354] Ammirato, lib. 18, _ad annum_.

[355] "Cronaca" of Benedetto Dei, given in Pagnini.

[356] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 275.

[357] Ammirato, _ad annum_; Pagnini, loc. cit.

[358] This led some writers to believe that slavery still existed in

Italy many centuries after it had disappeared. A praiseworthy article

on this theme, by Signor Salvatore Bongi, was published in the _Nuova

Antologia_, anno I. No. 6.

[359] _Vide_ the Speech of Tommaso Mocenigo, so often reproduced by

chroniclers and historians; Pagnini, "Della Decima," vol. ii. p. 7 and

fol.; Romanin, "Storia documentata di Venezia," vol. ii. pp. 156-7.

[360] Urghanj, the chief city of Khwarezm, the country now called

Khiva. New Urghanj, the present commercial capital of Khiva, is sixty

miles from the ancient city.

[361] Balducci Pegolotti, in Pagnini's book. Colonel H. Yule's "Cathay,

and the Way Thither, being a Collection of Mediæval Notices of China"

(London, printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1866), is a very important

work, includes a series of documents translated by the author, and is

prefaced by a learned dissertation from his pen.

[362] Pagnini, vol. ii. sec. i. K. Sieveking, "Geschichte von Florenz."

This very brief but excellent work was published anonymously at Hamburg

in 1844. It has furnished many of the details given in this chapter.

[363] The first five were frequently joined to the greater guilds,

which were then increased to twelve.

[364] "Inferno," Canto x.

[365] Franco Sacchetti tells us that while he was a member of the

government the magistrates of the Republic never succeeded in enforcing

the laws against luxury. One of them, having been severely reprimanded

on this score and threatened with dismissal from office, gives the

following account of the devices by which Florentine women evaded the

regulations established by law:

"_Signori miei_,--All my life I have sought to acquire reason; and

now, when methought I knew something, I find I know nothing; inasmuch

as when searching for forbidden ornaments, according to your orders,

the women bring forward arguments of a kind never found by me in any

law; and among others I will quote these: There comes a woman with an

embroidered trimming turned down over her hood, and the notary says,

'Give me your name, since you wear an embroidered trimming.' The good

woman takes off this trimming, which is fastened to the hood by a

pin, and, holding it in her hand, declares it is a garland. He goes

to another woman and says, 'I find you have too many buttons on the

front of your gown; you must not wear those buttons.' But she replies,

'Yes, Messere, I can, for these are not buttons, but bosses; and if

you do not believe me, see, they have no shanks, and neither are there

button-holes.' The notary passes on to another woman wearing ermine

fur, saying to himself, 'What excuse can she allege for that? You wear

ermine,' and he begins to write her name. The woman says, 'Do not

write me down, for this is not ermine, but _lattizzi_ fur.' Says the

notary, 'What are these _lattizzi_?' 'They are animals....' One of the

magistrates says, 'We are trying to fight against a wall.' And another

remarks, 'It were better to attend to affairs of more importance!'"

(Novella, 137.)

[366] Guicciardini, "Considerazioni sui Discorsi del Machiavelli"

(Opere inedite, vol. i., Barbéra, Florence). Full confirmation of the

above statements are to be found in this work. In treating of chap.

xii. bk. i., where Machiavelli charges the Popes with having prevented

the unity of Italy, the author qualifies his approval of the remark by

adding: "But I feel uncertain whether it were a good or an ill chance

for this province to escape being absorbed in a kingdom; for although

to be subject to a republic might prove a glory to the name of Italy

and a happiness to the dominant city, it could only bring calamity to

all other cities, seeing that, oppressed by the latter's shadow, they

were unable to rise to any greatness, it being the wont of republics

'to give no share of the fruits of their independence and power to

any save their own citizens.... This reason does not hold good in a

monarchy wherein all subjects enjoy more equality, and therefore we

behold France and many other provinces living contentedly under a

king.'"

[367] Originally published in the Milan Politecnico, July and August,

1868.

[368] To avoid the addition of too many notes to a chapter treating of

the general course of events, and only purposing to throw some light on

the political conditions of our communes, more especially of Florence,

I may say once for all, that besides the statutes, quoted in due place,

the authorities most frequently referred to are: Savigny, "Storia del

Diritto Romano nel Medio Evo"; Francesco Forti, "Istituzioni Civili e

Trattati inediti di giurisprudenza"; Gans, "Il Diritto di Successione

nella Storia Italiana," translated by A. Torchiarulo: Naples (Pedone,

Lauriel, 1853); Gide, "Etude sur la condition privée de la femme":

Paris, 1868; Schupfer, "La Famiglia Longobarda," in the Law Archives

of Bologna, Nos. 1, 2. At this date it is scarcely necessary to remark

that since 1868 these studies have made enormous progress in Italy,

and that many works of signal importance have been produced which were

naturally unknown to me while engaged on these pages, only intended--at

the moment--to assist my pupils to a clearer comprehension of the

Florentine revolution of 1293, and the "Ordinamenti di Giustizia,"

which were its inevitable and long needed results.

[369] _Translator's note to Chapter VII._--With regard to this

chapter, I am greatly indebted to the kindness of my learned friend

Mr. Ninian Thompson, late judge at Calcutta, since without his skilled

collaboration and revision it would have been impossible to cope with

the legal technicalities of the text. My thanks are also due to Signor

Del Vecchio, Professor of Jurisprudence, for his valuable explanation

of ancient terminology.--LINDA VILLARI.

[370] Gaius, i. pp. 890-2.

[371] Comitis Gabriellis Verri, "De ortu et progressu iuris

mediolanensis," &c. In Book I. of this work we find, among others, the

following words: "Quæ omnia manifeste demonstrant, maiores nostros

maximum atque perpetuum studium, contulisse ad agnationem conservandam

pro veteri xii. tabularum iure, a Justiniano postea immutato, quo certe

nihil ad servandum augendumque familiarum splendorem ... utilius,

commodius, aptius, commendabilius potuit afferri."

Another of those old writers on law who steadfastly maintain this view

is Cardinal De Luca, who, in his "Theatrum veritatis et iustitiæ,"

makes a singularly angry attack upon Justinian and all agreeing with

his views on the subject of agnation. According to De Luca, the

Italians never accepted the reforms, or, rather, as he calls them, the

_destructions and corruptions_, favoured by Justinian.

Even Giannone, in his "Storia Civile del Regno di Napoli" (bk. iii.

paragraph v.), says that Justinian's works met with no favour among

us. "They found no acceptance either in Italy or in our provinces,

nor could they be planted and strike deep roots here, as on foreign

soil; on the contrary, the ancient books of the juris-consults were

retained, and the code of Theodosius lost neither its reputation nor

its authority."

Here it may be well to remark that the persistence of the Roman law in

Italy during the Middle Ages, maintained by Savigny, but combated by

others, is now admitted on all hands.

[372] Dr. J. Ficker, "Forschungen zur Reichs und Rechtgeschicte

Italiens," 4 vols. Innsbruck, 1868-74.

[373] Gans, while accepting the ideas of Savigny as to the diffusion

of the Justinian law in Italy, also takes this view, which is in

accordance with his own theory that the new forms of the Italian law

were derived from the laws of the Longobards.

[374] Baudi de Vesme, in his notes on the Longobard laws, repeatedly

remarks: "Theodosiani juris vestigia hic agnoscere mihi vedetur." Del

Giudice has recently proved that certain passages are taken from the

Justinian law and others from the Theodosian code.

[375] This discussion may now be considered superfluous, it being

generally acknowledged at the present day, that even subsequently to

Justinian's constitution, the Theodosian code continued in force. In

this way the Justinian and pre-Justinian forms had a contemporaneous

existence, only the Pandects were longer neglected.

[376] According to Savigny, the school of Guarnerius was already

flourishing in 1113-18. It is now well ascertained that this school was

preceded by others adhering far less closely to Justinian forms.

[377] The ancient statute of Giacomo Tiepolo, of which the MS. is

extant in the Archives of the Frari, in Venice, and which has been

frequently printed, concludes its first prologue with these words: "Et

se alguna fiada occorresse cosse che per quelli statuti non fossero

ordinade, perchè l'è de plui i facti che li statuti, s'el occorresse

question stranie, et in quele alcuna cossa simela se trovasse, de simel

cosse a simele è da proceder. Aver, secondo la consuetudine approvada,

oltremente, se al tuto sia diverso, over si facta consuetudine non se

trovase, despona i nostri iudexi come zusto et raxionevole a la so

providentia apparèrà, habiendo Dio avanti i ochi de la soa mente, si

fatamente che, al di del zudixio, de la streta examination davanti el

tremante (_tremendo_) Iudexe render possa degna raxione."

[378] Many examples to this effect will be found in the volumes of

"Provvisioni" in the Florence Archives.

[379] "Statuta Romæ," Romæ, 1519, ii. 110, 111, and iii. 17.

[380] "Statuta Pisauri, noviter impressa," 1531, ii. 79, 84, 106, 107.

[381] "Statuta Pisauri, noviter impressa," 1531, ii. 79, 84, 106, 107.

[382] "Etiam nullis probationibus, _quia volumus quod_ nuda patris

assertio plenam probationem faciat." _Vide_ "Statuta Civitatis

Lucensis," 1539, ii. 66, 67, 68.

[383] "Statuta Civitatis Urbini, impressa, Pisauri," 1519, vi. 30.

_Quod pater pro filis, dominus pro famulo teneatur in damnis datis._

[384] "Statuta Florentiæ" (edition dated from Friburg), ii. 110.

[385] "Statuta Florentiæ" (edition dated from Friburg), ii. 110.

[386] _Vide_ "Statuti Pisani," edited by Bonaini.

[387] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 61, 62, 63.

[388] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 64.

[389] Ibid. ii. 65. _Vide_ also the statutes of 1324 (ii. 36 and 74)

and of 1355 (ii. 39) in the State Archives.

[390] "Nisi promiserit de continuo habitando in dicta civitate, vel

comitatu Urbini" ("Statuta Urbini," Pisauri, 1519, ii. 54).

[391] "Liber juris civilis urbis Veronæ," chap. xliv. Verona, 1728.

[392] See Gans, _op. cit._ This author made a very careful examination

of the Pisan law in the statutes (then unpublished) contained in a MS.

Codex at Berlin.

[393] _Vide_ the "Consuetudini della città d'Amalfi," edited and

annotated by Scipione Volpicella, p. 22; and the "Consuetudini della

città di Napoli," under the heading, "De successionibus ab intestato."

The same provisions are found also in the "Consuetudini Sorrentine."

See also Dr. Otto Hartwig's work, "Codex iuris municipalis Siciliæ."

Heft 1, "Das Stadtrecht von Messina." Cassel und Göttingen, 1867.

[394] "Statuta Comunis Mantuæ," Rubric li., "De successionibus ab

intestato." _Cod._ MS. F. T., 1, fourteenth century, Mantua Archives.

Similar terms are used in the Veronese statutes ("Statuta Veronæ."

Veronæ, 1588, bk. ii. chap. 82). "_Ut bona parentum in filios

masculos et cæteros per lineam masculinam descendentes conserventur_,

pro conservandis domibus et oneribus Communis Veronæ sustinendis,

_statuimus_," &c.

[395] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 130.

[396] Statutes 4 (of 1324), ii. 70, and 9 (of 1355), ii. 73, in the

State Archives, declare in fact that when there are no surviving sons,

but only brothers or their sons, the woman is entitled to have the

usufruct of her father's, grandfather's, or great-grandfather's estate:

"Tunc ipsa mulier habeat usufructum omnium bonorum talis patris,

avi, vel proavi defuncti." This is the usufruct for which alimony is

afterwards substituted.

[397] State Archives, "Statuti," 4, bk. ii. 50, and 9, bk. ii. 51.

[398] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 32.

[399] Ibid. ii. 130.

[400] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 126.

[401] Ibid. ii. 129.

[402] "Constitutiones Marchiæ Anconitanæ." Forolivii, 1507.

[403] "Statuti della honoranda Universitate deli Mercanti de la Citade

di Bologna," 1530, file 98 and following.

[404] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 51.

[405] Ibid. ii. 76.

[406] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 75.

[407] Ibid. ii. 77.

[408] Ibid. ii. 108.

[409] Ibid. ii. 109.

[410] The frequent repetition of this phrase is worthy of note, since

it enables us to understand the manner in which associations were

usually constituted.

[411] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 66.

[412] State Archives, "Statuti" 9, ii. 30. The same provision is found

in the statutes of 1324 (ii. 87), and was already comprised in those of

Pistoia dated 1296 (ii. 6), having been copied from another Florentine

statute of earlier date.

[413] The _Mezzeria_ system obtains not only throughout Tuscany and

Lucca, but over a considerable part of Romagna. But the terms and

contracts most favourable to the peasantry are to be found near

Florence and in the Pistoian district. Contracts implying a system of

_Mezzeria_ more or less rudimentary, and dating from about the close of

the twelfth century, are still extant.

[414] Two of 1250 and 1251, in the Florentine territory, have been

edited by Ruhmor (_vide_ also Capei in the "Atti dei Georgofili,"

vol. xiv. p. 228); other hardly less ancient examples have been

found at Cortona by the Notary L. Ticciati, and published by him in

the "Archivio Storico Italiano," Series v., vol. x., No. 4, 1892.

Nevertheless, contracts on the true _Mezzeria_ system cannot have

been in general use earlier than the commencement of the fourteenth

century. A common contract drawn up in 1331 on Siennese territory was

communicated by Prof. C. Paoli to Baron S. Sonnino, and published by

the latter in 1875 Florence, in his work "Sulla Mezzeria in Toscana."

In a review, entitled "L'Agricoltura Italiana," nineteenth year (1893),

Nos. 274-5, Marquis L. Ridolfi justly remarks that the difficulty in

finding old _Mezzeria_ contracts in the Florentine territory proceeds

from the custom prevailing there of seldom referring to a public notary

for the purpose. As a rule, the parties concerned merely exchange

written copies of the agreement.

[415] "Statuta Florentiæ," ii. 18.

[416] Ibid. ii. 21.

[417] Ibid. ii. 23. _Vide_, on this subject, Salvetti, "Antiquitates

Florentinæ."

[418] "Nuova Antologia," Florence, July, 1869.

[419] G. Villani, "Cronica," xi. 96.

[420] P. E. Giudici, "Storia dei Comuni Italiani," bk. vi., paragraphs

53 and 54. Florence, Le Monnier, 1866. Vannucci, "I primi tempi della

libertà fiorentina," chap. iv. p. 161 and fol. Florence, Le Monnier,

1861. Napier's "Florentine History," vol. i. chap. xiii. p. 342.

London, 1846. T. A. Trollope, "A History of the Commonwealth of

Florence," bk. ii. chap. iii. p. 212. London, 1865. It should be noted

that although Mr. Trollope failed to overcome every difficulty, he was

enabled to avoid various blunders on this head by merely translating

certain parts of the enactments without explaining the more obscure

items. Mons. Perrens, in a recent work, written after the first

publication of this chapter, has generally accepted its conclusions and

corroborated them by fresh researches of his own.

[421] _Vide_ chaps. v. and vi. of the present work.

[422] It is impossible to believe that there were no duties of any

kind. Villani himself (bk. xi. chap. xcii.) enumerates a great many

imposed between 1336 and 1338, and certain of these were unquestionably

of earlier origin. Perhaps he meant to express that the duties were few

and slight.

[423] "Per non mettere gravezza." Whenever taxes were imposed on

the property of citizens, an estimate was made of it, as the tax

in question was paid in _lire_ or _libbre_, the term _far libbra,

allibbrare_, was often used to signify making valuations of property as

well as the imposition of taxes.

[424] G. Villani, viii. 2.

[425] _Vide_ the preceding chapter.

[426] Dino Compagni, bk. ii. p. 201, the Del Lungo edition. I quote

from this edition, as being far more correct than the others, although

it was only published in 1879, ten years after the first appearance of

this chapter in the form of a separate essay.

[427] _Vide_ in Padre Ildefonso's "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," the

document appended to vol. viii. It consists of a petition presented by

certain inhabitants of Castelnuovo after having been attacked by the

Pazzi and others, _armata manu, cum militibus et peditibus_, who had

burnt their houses, killed several persons, and compelled others to

sign a contract, under false pretence of a law suit, that had never

occurred, _et scribi faciendo litem contra eos esse super renovationem

servitiorum_.

[428] G. Villani, vii. 16.

[429] _Vide_ the "Statuto della Parte Guelfa," chap. xxxix. It may

be found in vol. i. (1857) of the "Giornale storico degli Archivi

Toscani," that was published for some years jointly with the "Arch.

Stor. It." This statute of 1355 (edited by Bonaini) is the earliest

known statute of the _Parte Guelfa_, but does not appear to be the

first that was compiled. In the above-mentioned "Giornale," vol. iii.

(1859), Bonaini began a monograph, entitled, "Della Parte Guelfa

in Firenze," which was continued in several numbers, but then left

incomplete. _Vide_ also G. Villani, vii. 17, describing the original

formation of the Society. Its precise condition in 1293 is as yet

imperfectly known, but this may be inferred from what it was shortly

before and after that period.

[430] G. Villani, viii. 1.

[431] The first of these laws, already known to the public, and the

others which were then inedited, have been fully examined in chap. v.

of this work and are printed in the appendix to the same.

[432] In fact the "Ordinamenti" (rubric xviii. of the Bonaini edition)

refer to this law, dated October 2, 1286 ("Provvisioni," i. 27), and

comprised in the statute. Both the rubric and title are quoted in

the "Ordinamenti." A _Consulta_ (or decree) of March 20, 1280 (81),

given in Gherardi's collection, p. 33, had also cited a similar and

still older law: "De securitatibus prestandis a magnatibus," which was

afterwards amended by that of 1286.

[433] Ammirato, at commencement of bk. iv.; also in "Provvisioni," ii.

72, Florentine Archives.

[434] Dino Compagni, bk. i. p. 56.

[435] G. Villani, viii. 8.

[436] Ammirato, bk. iv. p. 348.

[437] In fact, many neglected to give surety (_sodare_), and several

laws were framed to compel the contumacious to obey.

[438] This is known from the terms of the debate, which has been

published by Bonaini in the "Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i. p.

78, document B.

[439] At the period there were twelve Greater and nine Lesser Guilds.

[440] Many historians assert that he was among the priors when the

"Ordinamenti" were compiled. But these are officially dated the 18th of

January, and Compagni states that Giano entered the Signory on the 15th

of February. This statement is supported by the list of priors given by

Coppo Stefani, in his "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," and likewise by

documentary evidence.

[441] Another inedited compilation also exists in the Florence

Archives. Certain new rubrics were inserted in this at a later date,

and even, as we shall show further on, among the first twenty-eight.

[442] Dr. K. Hegel, "Die Ordnungen der Gerechtigheit," Erlangen, 1867.

This is a _Prolusion_, in which the learned author of the "Storia

della Costituzione dei Municipi Italiani," very carefully examines the

code edited by Bonaini, and compares it with others. But he does not

investigate the value or intrinsic importance of the enactments, and

merely gives a brief summary of them.

[443] "Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i. (1855) p. 38, note 1.

[444] Until this draft was published, we could only refer to posterior

compilations, and had no means of ascertaining to what extent they

differed from the law in its original form. Although Bonaini had

failed to discover the original document of the law as approved, his

publication of the first draft brings us very near to the real thing.

And this is a point of no small importance, seeing that the laws of

the Florentine Republic underwent such radical changes from one day to

another, that a compilation, dated only two or three years after the

original law, might be very different from it. For instance, Document

A, published by Bonaini ("Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i. p. 72),

contains a rider or addendum to the Ordinamenti passed on the 9th and

10th of April, 1293. This was inserted as part of the original law in

the compilations edited by Fineschi and Giudici.

In the following bibliographical notices I shall be obliged, for the

sake of greater clearness, to occasionally repeat or sum up previously

related facts.

1. Of the various compilations of the enactments, that included among

the printed statutes was the first to be published.

2. P. F. Vincenzo Fineschi published a second compilation in his

"Memorie storiche, che possono servire alle vite degli uomini illustri

di Santa Maria Novella," &c., Florence, 1790.

3. The third published compilation was given by Prof. P. E. Giudici

in the appendix to his "Storia dei Municipi Italiani," Florence,

Poligrafia italiana, 1853; reprinted in 3 vols., Florence, Le Monnier,

1864-66. The Italian compilation, divided in 118 rubrics, the last of

which is mutilated, was published from a codex in the State Archives of

Florence ("Statuti," No. 8). By some oversight the author chanced to

omit the three concluding rubrics.

4. The last published compilation is that brought out by Bonaini in the

"Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i, No. 1, 1855, of which we have

already spoken, and shall have to mention again farther on.

5. Another compilation, to which previous allusion has been made (p.

89, note 92), is also deserving of notice. It is among the MSS. of the

Florence Archives (ch. ii., dist. i., No. 1), and is still inedited.

Padre Ildefonso published certain fragments of it, however, in vol. ix.

of the "Delizie degli Eruditi Toscani," and Bonaini published an index

of its rubrics, 134 in number.

6. In conclusion, we may mention the Miscellany or "Zibaldone,"

likewise referred to before, which in addition to many decrees

issued between 1274 and 1465, some of which augment the force of

the enactments, also includes a petition presented by the people of

Florence in June, 1378--namely, the year in which the Revolt of the

Ciompi occurred, imploring that the Enactments of Justice should be

again enforced, the which request was granted. This codex is also a

useful contribution to the history of the enactments.

Recently both Prof. Del Lungo (_vide_ "Bullettino della Società

Dantesca," Nos. 10, 11, of July, 1892) and Sig. G. Salvemini,

undergraduate of the Instituto Superior, Florence (_vide_ "Arch. Stor.

It.," Series v., vol. x. 1892), have published the provision of July

6, 1295, introducing several modifications and mitigations in the

enactments. Although this provision was already known to the world,

by Prof. Del Lungo's previous careful examination of it in his work

on "Dino Compagni" (vol i., 1078-80), Salvemini's clever commentary

has gleaned fresh information from it. This provision includes all the

modifications made in the enactments in 1295, and often gives fragments

of the law as it previously stood, together with the changes then

introduced. Hegel, having examined all the documents edited in his

day, was the first to prove, on assured evidence, that the rough draft

edited by Bonaini, although, as he thinks, omitting certain rubrics and

comprising some disparities, mostly of form, contained the real gist

of the original enactments. This in itself was an important result.

Regarding the disparities noted by Hegel, and the missing rubrics,

Salvemini was enabled, by studying the document of July 6, 1295, to

make some novel remarks, to which we shall refer later on.

[445] Rubric iii. of the draft states that "De prudentioribus,

melioribus et legalioribus artificibus civitatis Florentiæ, continue

artem exercentibus, dummodo non sint milites." Also farther on:

"Aliquis qui continue artem non exerceat, vel aliquis miles non possit

nec debeat modo aliqui eligi, vel esse in dicto officio Prioratus."

"Arch. Stor. It.," New Series, vol. i. pp. 44, 45. Rubric xviii., p.

66, enumerates the persons bound to give guaranty as nobles, although

exercising a trade, "non obstante quod ipsi vel aliquis eorum de

dictis domibus et casatis ... sint artifices vel artem seu mercantiam

exerceant."

[446] _Vide_ on this point a document of 1287 appended to this chapter.

It proves that the practical exercise of a trade or craft was held

indispensable before 1293, and shows what precautions were required to

prevent the law from being easily evaded.

[447] Rubric iii., G. We generally quote from Giudici's Italian

compilation as being more widely known than the others. But we are

careful to collate it with the versions of Fineschi and Bonaini, taking

note of significant divergences. The letters B. G. F. are used to

indicate the respective editions of Bonaini, Giudici, and Fineschi.

[448] Mons. Perrens (vol. ii. p. 385, note 2) doubts this fact,

and states that it only occurred in 1305. It is certain that the

Gonfalonier's function was to enforce the enactments, and that when

released from this duty by the creation of an "Executor" in 1306, he

then began to be more specially considered as the chief of the Signory;

but it is none the less certain, that among seven magistrates, all of

the same legal standing, the one possessed from the first of loftier

attributes and more direct command of the army, was virtually, if not

nominally, their president and chief.