BOOK THE FIRST. CHAPTER VI.
FROM A.D. 1085 TO A.D. 1170.
Although strong presumptive proof has been given of
the independence of Florence during nearly all the eleventh century, still no
tangible document, no act of sovereign authority performed in her own name, is
extant before the twelfth, and her history during the whole of this period is
merged in that of Italy; being at best but a doubtful patchwork of insulated
uncertainties.
Matilda as Marchioness of Tuscany exercised her powers
of public jurisdiction up to the year 1100, and while she lived probably enjoyed
the honours and authority if not the emoluments of Florentine royalty; but
after that year her name is no longer heard of within the walls. An attempt has
been already made to explain the somewhat paradoxical connexion between the
free cities and the crown of Italy; but for greater perspicuity and as an
introduction to the account of Florentine government it may not here be
irrelevant to quote the historian Sigonius as well as
some extracts from records of an older date adduced by Cosimo della Rena: they describe a state of things that existed
even to the close of the twelfth century, somewhat differing, it is true, from
our present notions of civil liberty, but which like all great and continued evils
finally roused the angry spirit of freedom awakened the slumbering dignity of
man, and burst those ties that bound the Italian cities to aristocratic
privilege and imperial supremacy.
This produced a most wholesome movement throughout all
northern Italy which in its day was accused of turbulence, visionary projects
of political improvement, and restless democratic innovation. Innovation! Time,
says Bacon, is the great innovator: the elements are unstable; all is
mutability, even the very races of created beings that once inhabited the crust
of this changing planet have been successively blotted from its surface; that
surface no longer the same, and the present race of man perhaps destined to be
in its turn extinguished before some higher creation. And shall we then still
continue to stigmatise those who, in their endeavours to enlighten mankind,
would alter the effete institutions of other times to suit the wants
intelligence and habits of their own, with the crime of restless and wanton
innovation? But let us contemplate for a while the good old times of Italian
servitude under Frankish and German rulers; let us examine privilege and scan
the admired prerogatives of legitimacy, and we shall no longer marvel that the
inalienable rights of man were sternly asserted and intrepidly maintained.
“It was an ancient custom,” say these records, “after
the Roman empire had passed to the Franks, and still practised in our own days,
that whenever the kings of Italy intended to go into that province they sent
forward some of their most experienced people to visit all the cities and
castles in order to receive the contributions due under the name of 'Foderum.' The result was that many cities, towns and
castles where the payment of this tax had been altogether resisted or only a
portion of it acknowledged, were punished for their audacity and razed to the
ground. There is a tradition that from ancient custom is derived this kind of
justice; by virtue of which on the king’s arrival in Italy it is understood
that all dignities and magistracies immediately cease and are redisposable at the sovereign’s pleasure according to
legal provisions and the opinion of jurists. It is moreover asserted that the
judges of the land acknowledge so ample an authority in the king’s person, and
that they believe the people are bound to furnish for the use of the court and
army everything usually produced by the earth, both of the necessaries and
delicacies of life, according as they are demanded; scarcely even excepting the
oxen that till the ground or the seed for the next year’s crop.”
From this plenary power arose the various exemptions
and privileges conceded by the monarchs of those times with such benefit to
their exchequers; and those lords distinguished by feudal holdings repaid
themselves by forced contributions from their serfs and vassals to most of whom
they left no more than what was requisite for their daily sustenance. Sigonius at a later day gives us a similar picture but
deriving his information partly from the same source: in the year 973 he says:
“The emperor Otho after conquering the rest of Italy left the greater number of
Italian cities in liberty but all tributary, he having in some created
marquises and counts to govern them yet always reserving to himself the rights
of sovereignty. He reduced the freedom of cities to this, namely, that they
might have their own laws, customs, jurisdiction, and magistracies with the
power of imposing local taxes at their pleasure after having sworn allegiance
to their sovereign the king of Italy. Following this system part of the executive
government was nominated by the king to represent his person and part was
elected by the community: those elected by the king to administer justice in
the provinces were called “Messi” or messengers; in other words Envoys,
Nuncios, Legates, or Imperial Ambassadors. The magistrates elected by the
people were called Consuls, and their number was two or more according to the
ancient usage of the Roman commonwealth. These took a yearly oath of allegiance
in presence of the bishop or royal Nuncio; and even before the time of Frederic
Barbarossa foreign presidents were nominated under the title of “Podestà”.
Hence it is that Otho bishop of Fresingen a
cotemporary and relation of that emperor justly writes “that in their civic
institutions and the conservation of their republics the people of Lombardy
imitated the wariness of the Romans; and in order to avoid the rigid imperial
government they preferred the rule of consuls to the authority of a podestà”.
For a clearer explanation it may be necessary to say that at the diet of
Roncaglia in 1158 Frederic I dexterously imposed a magistrate and master of his
own creation on every town of the Lombard kingdom under the specious and
perhaps to a certain point real pretext of justice. A prodigious number of
causes having been brought before him he declared that a whole life would be
insufficient to determine them, and therefore gave full authority to a class of
imperial officers, called by the appropriate title of Podestà with the
condition that they should always be strangers living at a considerable
distance from the place they were to govern and entirely unconnected with it.
The consequences were soon felt; for the new podestàs being nominated solely by the crown and taken from nobles or civilians devoted
to it, found themselves in direct opposition to the consuls who were freely
chosen by the people; hence quarrels became so frequent that the Emperor in an
angry mood determined to abolish the consulate. Words soon changed to blows and
though the people everywhere succeeded in preserving their magistrates they
could not entirely throw off the podestàship, which
had in fact much to recommend it, so retained the functionary but reserved his
nomination to themselves. In the course of time this minister superseded the
consuls and by introducing the habit of looking to one chief for the settlement
of public justice and private disputes paved the way in several instances, says
Sismondi, for the retreat of liberty and the advance of absolute authority.
“The Emperor or King of Italy”, continues Sigonius, “maintained the Frankish tributes, which were the Foderum, the Parata, and the Mansionaticum. The Foderum was a tax by which the Italians were obliged to furnish entertainment for the
king whenever he visited the province, or else pay many times its estimate in
money. The Parata were intended for repairs of bridges and roads in the
sovereign’s passage; and the Mansionaticum for
the maintenance of his house and quarters: under this name were comprised all the
contributions “that the country furnished for the royal army, and so amply and
rigorously enforced was the king’s power, that every necessary of life, every
production of the land, the seed and labouring oxen only excepted, belonged to
the service of die court and the soldiers’ daily consumption”. Otho having thus
disposed of the cities did not neglect the opportunity of securing the
good-will of private individuals by especial favours, not only for his own
immediate advantage but to increase the splendour of his court: following the
Franks’ example he invited the most valorous and distinguished to join his
armies and rewarded those by whom he was well and faithfully served. “His
rewards consisted principally of dignities and the possession of some peculiar
privileges occasionally conceded to his favourites. The dignities were titles
of Duke, Marquis, Count, Captain, Vavassour, and Vavassin. The privileges were the right of imposing duties
and tolls of divers natures; such as coining money, grazing cattle, erecting
milk, making salt, and using rivers and streams in every way that might turn
them to most advantage. “A Duke was he who obtained a duchy; a Marquis, a
marquisate; a Count, a contado, contea,
or county, under a feudal tenure.
“The Captains were those empowered by the
sovereign or some of the above-mentioned dignitaries to rule either a portion
or all the lower classes of the people. The Vavasours were ministers
subordinate to the Captains, and the Vavasins to the Vavasours. The three first were called King’s Captains, and the
others greater or lesser Vavasours, with inferior ranks besides.” By this a new
nobility was introduced into Italy, those alone being considered noble who
either personally or through their ancestors had been dignified by such titles
and privileges. This however did not generally apply to the civic nobility:
those of Venice for instance arose out of a pure and primitive democracy
gradually condensed into a nucleus of privileged nobles, around which a new
population of foreign emigrants, unentitled to civic privileges, had insensibly
formed and became the Venetian people of after times. The Genoese nobles
derived their title from the office of principal magistrate or from having been
one of the podestàs council an office which only
began in the twelfth century; and in general high civic office conferred a
dignity equal in fact if not in name to high nobility.
Otho’s system subsequently acquired strength and
became a fertile source of military rewards and distinctions all intended to
gain the affection and secure the fidelity of those by whose means the country
was governed, under the various names of Feudatories, Vassals, Uomini, and Fedeli; and the Feudo, the Vassallaggio, the Ominio and the Omaggio, or Homage, were rights of the crown, by virtue of which those who obtained dignities or the possession of lands were obliged
with their posterity to acknowledge the king for their master by taking the
oath of allegiance and being always ready to expose both life and fortune in
his service.
Three sorts of dominion therefore existed : the
superior, the middle, and the inferior: the first was that of the emperor: the
second, of the duke count or marquis; and the third that of private individuals
over their own allodial property, for which was due neither rent nor service.
Hereditary succession to the greater fiefs gradually diminished the royal
authority and they soon began to assume the form and character of independent
states: but while their lords exercised certain acts of jurisdiction within the
towns, these last during the eleventh century enjoyed municipal freedom, and up
to a certain period remained unshackled in all their external operations:
therefore if antiquarians be correct in assigning the sovereign prerogative of
coining to Florence so early as the year 1000 it will go far to prove that she
also was well advanced in the road to independence.
The relation between Italian kings and civic
communities during the Saxon dynasty, as well as the connexion of these last
with the provincial dukes after that office became hereditary, (the power of
making war excepted), was not unlike the present relationship between Great
Britain and some of her colonies: the latter enjoy, or are said to enjoy a free
internal legislature on popular principles under a representative of the crown;
and as the Italian cities rejected even this semblance of superiority the moment
they were able, so probably will the British colonies assert their freedom
whenever their native vigour and independence abate the necessity of support.
It does not appear how or when Florence became
independent, but one of Matilda’s last acts there exists in the archives of the
archiepiscopal palace or “Capitolo Fiorentino” and is given at length by Cantini in his Historical Essays on
Tuscan Antiquities. It is an investiture made of the court and lands of Campiano by Count Guido in her presence on the 1st of March
1100 to the canons of Saint Reparata of Florence: also another exercise of
royal authority in the following June in favour of the Vallombrosan monks as quoted by Fiorentini: after this no more is heard of her jurisdiction
having been actively employed within the city although she visited Florence as
late as 1105, and in 1103 granted some new favours to the above-named convent.
The next document in proof of the complete
emancipation of Florence is its first authenticated act of independent power,
namely a contract with the castle and town of Pogna in the Val d’Elsa in 1101 where the two consuls ore
named as representatives of the Florentine people, who on their part promise to
defend those of Pogna against all enemies except the
Emperor or his Nuncios, without allusion to Matilda or any other superior.
If the dates of these instruments are correct, for
Borghini seems doubtful of the latter, they mark with great precision the
setting of regal power and the early dawn of popular rule in Florence;
wherefore its independence may be with some confidence dated from the year
1100, but whether this liberty were a boon from Matilda, or whether it had
gradually fed and fattened on times and circumstances until too strong for
regal control there are no documents to prove. It is however scarcely credible
that Florence could have suddenly broken from Matilda’s grasp, for she was not
wont to suffer any opposition to royal power as may be judged from the whole tenor
of her reign; and the siege of Prato in 1107 for a revolt against Florence,
(which from this would appear to have been under her especial protection) is an
instance in point. She also assembled a large army about the same time to
punish Ferrara which had rebelled when she was in distress; and moreover
exercised several acts of authority in the neighbourhood of Prato the same
year, and in the Mugello in 1105; all tending to prove that her power was still howering around Florence but never after settled
within its walls. Yet at this very time the Countess Matilda was almost Queen
of Italy; her dominions not only extended over a great part of Lombardy
including Mantua and Milan, but also beyond the Alps where she inherited great
possessions from her mother: all her acts show clearly enough how jealous she
was of the royal authority but the wars of Pisa and Lucca prove that either
force or inclination were sometimes wanting to exert it.
These acts of private hostility between rival cities
may have been exercised by virtue of an original imperial grant with which it
became dangerous for provincial lords to meddle, except as mediators; and in
fact the right of an appeal to arms was fully recognised by the laws and
customs of the age ; it was considered as the voice of God, and therefore
acknowledged universally from the private gentleman to the independent city,
from duels to national contests. Matilda was in continual movement through her
states; constantly occupied in public works, administering justice, bestowing
favours or granting privileges; but especially in the aggrandisement of
convents and churches with the idea of reenforcing religion, or what she
believed to be such, by the addition of great temporal power, while she
simultaneously worked out her own salvation. Amongst her numerous acts of grace
more especially towards those who had always remained faithful, the unflinching
loyalty of Florence was perhaps rewarded by complete emancipation: but that no
documents now exist of these conjectured acts is not surprising, because all
the public and private archives of the city were consumed in the successive
conflagrations of 1115 and 1117 which mined most part of the town leaving only
obscure and detached notices of anterior history.
The foregoing evidence being deemed sufficient to
prove that Florentine independence existed at the beginning of the twelfth
century if not long before, a rapid sketch will now be made of the particular
form of civil government adopted by this infant state, and thus spare some
interruptions in the general story of a city against which her great poet
sarcastically exclaims—
Atene e Lacedemona che fenno
L’antiche leggi e furon si civili,
Fecero al viver bene un picciol cenno
Verso di te che fai tanto sottili
Provedimenti ch’a
mezzo Novembre
Non giunge quel che tu di’ Ottobrc fili.”
The general outline of that form of government chosen
by the free Italian cities during the Saxon dynasty has already been traced;
also the supposed institution of a senate and consuls at Florence according to
the conflicting accounts of Malespini and Ammirato; the former referring this
institution to the days of Charlemagne; the latter to those of the Fiesoline conquest; while the first authentic proof of
their existence is in the abovementioned treaty with Pogna in 1101. Their number was originally two; afterwards one for each quarter of
the city; and finally a consul for each “Sesto'” or sixth—when the town was
thus divided. The Duke of Bavaria’s occupation of Florence along with all the rest of Tuscany in
1135 or 1137 probably crushed the consular authority while he remained, as no
record appears of any person having held that office during three subsequent
years from the former date. In 1138 Bucello and Florenzetto were consuls; after which, documents are
wanting up to 1172 when Foreze Forteguerra and Arlotto filled that station; in 1184 there seems to have been no less than
eight, and afterwards more; thus fluctuating from two to twelve over a period
of about ninety years. They probably augmented with the augmentation of people
and increase of public business for magistrates like laws are multiplied by
civilisation. The number was finally reduced to one for each “Art” or Trade who
not only presided over those of his own calling, but was also a member of the
supreme government, one consul taking the foreign, another the civil, and a
third the criminal department of state, as was the custom about the same epoch
in Genoa. It is believed that when two consuls only existed, one administered
the political one the civil affairs : but in 1181 another consul was added with
the title of “Ordinary Judge” apparently unconnected with trade or
politics; and also three “Consuls of Justice” who seem to have formed a court
of appeal from his decisions.
In an old treaty with Guido di Ridolfino and other lords of Trebbio in 1193, the first sure
indication of a change in the form of government occurs by the mention of a
Podestà and his council, as well as of another magistracy composed of seven
citizens called “Rectors of the Arts”. The spirit and forms of liberty seem
even thus early to have penetrated into the smallest fiefs and curbed feudal
despotism : for the lords of Trebbio “along with
the consul of that place” promise to receive a Florentine garrison and
consider themselves under the jurisdiction of that government, making peace or
war at its bidding : for every new castle built they engage to offer at the
Baptist’s shrine in Florence a large waxen torch; and to the municipality one
silver mark; while the Podestà promises on the part of his countrymen that no
person shall be suffered to molest the Trebbians, who
are to be considered in all respects as Florentines.
The “Rectors of the Arts” were in 1204 called “Priors”,
and afterwards “Consuls”; they seem to have formed a chamber of commerce and
manufactures besides exercising the functions of judicial magistrates in their
respective trades and the higher duties of general administration. Ammirato
asserts that the government at this time consisted of eleven “Consuls of the
Arts”; two “Military Consuls”; three “Priors of the arts”; a “Senator of the
City”; a “General Council”; a “Special Council”; and lastly ten “Buoniomini” or “Goodmen” from each “”Sesto”, besides one
officer for the administration of justice whose title does not appear.
How all these were elected and the exact nature of
their duties are points not well ascertained and embrace too wide a field for
present discussion; but there is reason to believe that they collectively
formed the General Council at which the consuls presided, one being commonly
distinguished by the name of “Rector”. Whether this was a fluctuating title of
honour or a permanent dignity with superior power is not clear; but probably
the latter, as it was always given to the Podestà, of whose office a more explicit
notice becomes necessary.
There are no accounts of the exact time when this
magistrate first appeared in Florence nor of her being immediately affected by
the institution or revival of that office in 1158 at the Diet of Roncaglia: it
seems probable that all the cities of Lombardy and Tuscany were included in the
same decree for none could fairly avoid so apparently just an act of regal
power based as it seemed to be on a rigid sense of justice. As there are
indications of such a functionary in 1184, and the certainty of one in 1193, we
have additional reasons for believing that Florence was also compelled to
receive these governors but perhaps, without much interruption of the ancient
consular authority, for it is not until the year 1207 that the Republic seems
to have been really governed by such magistrates. “Hitherto,” says Malespini,
“the city had been ruled by a seignory of Consuls selected from the most
distinguished citizens of the Senatorial Council of a Hundred Buoniomini; and these consuls directed the republic in
all things and administered civil and criminal justice : their office lasted
one year, and their number was four while the city was divided into quarters,
and afterwards six when changed into Sestos; but our ancestors only mention one
of them who was of the greatest consequence, or at most two.
“The city increasing in numbers and in vice, and evil
offices becoming frequent amongst the citizens; in order to improve the
condition of society and to save the inhabitants from the hateful necessity of
punishing malefactors; or by prayers, or relationship, intimidation, necessity,
enmity; or any other reason whatever, that justice should be defeated; it was
resolved to invest a foreign gentleman with the authority of Podestà for one
year; that he should preside in their civil courts with his Judges; that he
should administer criminal justice, pass sentence on those convicted of capital
crimes, order corporal punishments, and carry into execution all the orders of
the community”.
The first podestà was Gualfredotto of Milan who inhabited the Bishop’s palace: nevertheless the consuls were not
discontinued but still retained the administration of every other affair.
From the podestàship of
Gherardo Capponsacchi in 1193 to the year 1199 there
is no notice of that office, but in the last-mentioned year Paganello de’ Porcari, or Porticari, of Lucca filled this
station, and so much to the public satisfaction that he was continued until
1201, or double the usual period. The office was however, at this epoch, of
inferior power and dignity to that of 1207; and if Porticari were invested with more than common authority, it was probably either as an
experiment or from some peculiar ephemeral circumstance, for he is not quoted
by any of the early historians as the first regular podesta; and in his time as
we have seen this new magistracy had not quite obscured the consular dignity.
Paganello’s name is to be found in several public acts while he held office; but
the very year of its expiration no less than twelve consuls signed a charter of
liberties granted to some of the inhabitants of San Donato in Poci for assistance given to Florence in the Semifontine War. The Podestà of 1207 should therefore be
considered in conformity with Malespini and Villani’s account, as a new
state-officer with increased powers; and not as the mere successor of former
magistrates under the same title. His power was very extensive; because
independent of the administration of civil and criminal justice he interfered
in all foreign affairs, commanded in war, and seems to have assembled and
directed the general council, besides holding a separate one called the
“Council of the Podestà”: there is
however much obscurity about these early fluctuating forms of Florentine
government; it seems indeed to have been a mere chain of expedients forged link
by link from existing circumstances, rather than any regularly digested system,
a natural consequence of the lightened pressure or rather total removal of the
fixed weight of royal authority from a people not yet sufficiently steadied by
self-government.
During the Ghibeline ascendancy in 1250, the citizens tumultuously suppressed this office and
substituted a “Captain of the People” to watch over their rights, besides other
changes. It was re-established the following year in all its pristine authority
which afterwards became considerably extended; but whether by the natural
expansion and encroachment of power or by public decrees, is now very difficult
to determine, for the Florentines were continually pecking with almost capricious
jealousy at their institutions, or recklessly increasing power at the nod of
faction and expense of freedom. In 1270 they limited the term of office to six
months, but the Captain of the People still continued conjointly with this and
a new council of twelve citizens called “Anziani” or elders, who superseded the
consuls.
The “Capitano del Popolo” when first appointed was
intended as the people’s advocate and protector, an office somewhat analogous
to the Roman tribunes: but it soon lost this character and became a part of the
regular executive government, the prevailing features of which for a long
period were mutability and the frequent exposure of public liberty in times of
external danger. In such times the Republic was wont to implore the protection
of some foreign potentate with dictatorial authority, and was ever rewarded by
his shameless and unmeasured rapacity: the Romans with a finer spirit trusted
their safety and freedom to a fellow-citizen and their own native courage, and
were never disappointed. Haply the Florentines preserved their independence;
but these protectors, or their vicars, governed with mercenary, selfish, and
almost absolute sway, and often with tyranny; and the only wonder is that they
did not take permanent possession of the state. When their power ended, the
regular constitutional government resumed its functions and continued in
activity until 1502, when the podestà’s authority was
confided to a Council of Justice called the “Ruota”
or Wheel, because each individual like each spoke became in his turn uppermost
and presided with all the potency and attributes of Podestà. Such is the
general outline of Florentine institutions, the various parts of which we shall
make an attempt to fill up in the course of this History.
The Florentines increasing in riches and strength, and
all the ambitious confidence of a rising nation, were no longer content with a
domain, limited and chequered by the possessions of proud and powerful barons,
who with a nominal friendship scorned the dominion of ignoble citizens and even
rendered but an uneasy obedience to imperial vicars. Wherefore indulging the
natural propensity of strength to command weakness, and hiding incipient
ambition under the cloak of compassion and justice, Florence covertly intimated
to the rural population and small communities, that behind the republican aegis
shelter would be found against feudal oppression; and even the chiefs
themselves were invited to acquiesce in Florentine supremacy. Those who
hearkened were received joyfully and acquired the rights of citizenship; those
that resisted were reduced by force and their castles demolished or occupied as
best suited the victors’ convenience.
The first enterprise was against Monte Orlando where
some of the principal citizens governing under the title of “Cattani” refused
the proffered hand of Florence : an army was instantly assembled; the place
assaulted carried and levelled to the ground without any hesitation or delay.
The siege of Prato, then in its infancy, was the next expedition : its
inhabitants had previously occupied a hill called Chiavello between the site of their present town and Pistoia, and not far from Monte Murlo; but they afterwards purchased land from Count Guido
and moved down to a plain at the foot of Monte Morello where they hoped under
his auspices to escape from Florentine ambition and gave to their new
settlement the appropriate name of Prato. On refusing obedience to Florence
preparations were made to reduce them, and under the conduct of Countess Maltida in person, who took the place, they were taught an
early lesson of prudence.
Matilda’s presence has led some to believe that as yet
the Florentines were unable single-handed to reduce so insignificant a town the
siege of which had been commenced a long time before her arrival; and the fact
of her co-operation is singular enough, because it would seem as if Florentine
aggressions were not only tolerated but seconded by that princess. A denser
mist is thus cast over all these early transactions; but the Counts Guido who
then protected Prato were powerful chiefs with strong mountain territory, and
gave Florence much trouble even in her better days; they might possibly have
embraced the imperial cause nay were likely to do so, and Matilda was as
unlikely to permit the example of a petty town renouncing its allegiance to a
faithful adherent only to increase the power of and gain protection from an
enemy; for it was discontent at the Florentine government that first made them
quit Chiavello and seek peace and favour from those
potent chieftains.
The star of Matilda was now in the ascendant; her
Italian influence was paramount, and her great enemy Henry IV, after having
been defeated and imprisoned by his own son, had died of starvation in 1106
while vainly soliciting the humble office of clerk to the Church of the Holy
Virgin at Spires which he had himself erected and endowed!
This miscreant Son had made his father a prisoner by
stratagem; threats of death forced him to resign the then royal insignia of the
Holy Lance, the Cross, and the Imperial Sceptre: and Pasqual II at whose
unchristian incitements so unnatural a war was chiefly begun, soon felt the
evil consequences of his conduct. Henry V descended into Italy at the head of a
large army, and after an honourable reception at Florence proceeded with
overflowing protestations of duty and reverence to be crowned at Rome; but no
sooner was he there than the old dispute about investitures with many other
grievances revived with augmented bitterness until the impetuous monarch broke
into open acts of violence. He imprisoned both Pope and Cardinals, made Pasqual
swear not to visit him with ecclesiastical censure; demanded for his father’s
body, which had remained years unburied, the rights of sepulture;
and insisted on his own instant coronation.
These acts soon convinced the world that the dethroner
and murderer of his own father was not the man to regard word or oath; or bow
to the dictates, or brook the ambitious pride of grasping churchmen. After
visiting Matilda he returned to Germany leaving a deep impression of his power
in the Italian mind; yet Florence, ever faithful to the church from which no
danger to public liberty was feared, disdained to conciliate that church’s
enemy and therefore directed her arms more particularly against the neighbouring
barons of the imperial faction.
The Emperor’s Vicar who then resided at the town or castello of San Miniato del Tedesco, seeing the hostile
conduct of Florence towards all who really were, or pretended for protection to
be his masters friends, immediately took the field, captured Monte Casole, and even menaced the capital; but the citizens who
resolved to answer words by deeds instantly marched to the place, and after
some hard blows. exasperating language, and the Vicar’s death, the town was
recaptured and destroyed. This short decisive war against the imperial
representative himself, who had actually been provoked to hostilities, and
waged with such vigour under the eyes of Matilda, exhibits the growing audacity
of Florence; and she, then amusing herself by superintending the construction
of the Pisan baths, could scarcely have been displeased at any successful
opposition to the imperial arms in Tuscany.
Scarcely two years from the date of this event, being
then at a place called Monte Baroncione and in her
sixty-ninth year, this celebrated woman breathed her last after a long and
glorious reign of incessant activity, during which she displayed a wisdom,
vigour, and determination of character rarely seen even in men: she bequeathed
to the Church all those patrimonial estates of which she had previously
disposed by an act of gift to Gregory VII without however any immediate royal
power over the cities and other possessions thus given, as her will expresses
it, “for the good of her soul and the souls of her parents”.
Whatever may now be thought of her chivalrous support,
her bold defence, and her deep devotion to the Church, it was in perfect
harmony with the spirit of that age and has formed one of her chief merits with
many even in the present. Her unflinching adherence to the cause she had so
conscientiously embraced was far more noble than the emperor Henry’s conduct:
swinging between the extremes of unmeasured insolence and abject humiliation,
he died a victim to papal influence over superstitious minds; an influence
which amongst other debasing lessons, then taught the world that a breach of
the most sacred ties and dearest affections of human nature was one means of
gaining the approbation of a Being who is all truth and beneficence.
Matilda’s object was to strengthen the chief spiritual
against the chief temporal power, but reserving her own independence; a policy
subsequently pursued, at least in spirit, by the Guelphic states of Italy: she
therefore protected subordinate members of the Church against feudal
chieftains, and its head against the feudal emperor. True to her religious and
warlike character she died between the sword and the crucifix, and two of her
last acts even when the hand of death was already cold on her brow, were the
chastisement of revolted Mantua and the midnight celebration of Christ’s
nativity in the depth of a freezing and unusually inclement winter.
Only indistinct accounts are extant of these early
transactions of Florentine History; the original records as already remarked,
having perished in a fire which this year did great a n 1117 mischief (AD 1117),
and was followed two years afterwards by another much more destructive that not
only devoured houses and palaces as yet scarcely rebuilt, but multitudes of
those that had escaped the former calamity. In these two conflagrations it is
supposed that almost all the public and private archives were consumed, an
irreparable loss, which by effacing the vivid memorials of past ages has left
nothing but obscurity and dim shadows to evade the inquiries and satisfy the
wants of the historian.
Such misfortunes were attributed to divine wrath, the
corruption of manners, and heretical doctrines: the latter were then extremely
common in Florence, and religious opinions so strong and various that theology
was often forced to decide its arguments by the sword. These disputes were
maintained up to the time of Saint Francis and Saint Dominic before complete
tranquillity was restored; and even the disciples of these honest bigots
subsequently quarrelled on an absurd point of doctrine that was first mooted in
this century.
The Florentine Epicureans are particularly blamed for
gluttony lasciviousness and other vices, which were quite enough, says
Malespini, to account for every calamity. But whatever may have been their
private immorality the Florentines as a people seem at this time not only to
have had the confidence of their neighbours but to have deserved it also: the
Pisans, who were then in the full tide of military and commercial glory, on
sending an expedition against the Saracens of Majorca requested them to protect
Pisa from an apprehended attack of the Lucchese its bitterest enemies. The
Florentines accepted this charge without hesitation, equipped a strong force,
occupied a position two miles from that city and prohibited on pain of death
the entrance of any Florentine into the town: the old men with the wives and
daughters of their allies alone remained there, and the object was to prevent a
shadow of suspicion from darkening the minds of absent citizens which might
tarnish the reputation of their women or reflect on the honour of Florence. In
despite of this penalty one soldier had the audacity to enter the forbidden
place and was instantly condemned to death : the aged Pisans vainly petitioned
for his pardon, and to save him forbade the execution of any sentence on their
territory. The Florentine general in conformity with his instructions bowed to
their commands, but determining neither to suffer a breach of discipline nor
encourage the repetition of a crime which might dishonour his country, he
purchased a field from one of the neighbouring peasantry in the name of
Florence, and hanged the culprit there in despite of every supplication from
the Pisans.
In due time the Florentines being relieved, were
offered as a mark of gratitude, the choice between a pair of metal gates or two
truncated columns of highly polished porphyry, the spoils of their late
expedition. The latter were selected and afterwards sent, adorned with scarlet
cloth, in grand pomp to the people who had so honourably served the Republic,
and are still to be seen attached by massive chains, which tell a different
tale, to the brazen gates of the Florentine Baptistry, a lasting memorial of the
high spirit, discipline, and honesty of that nation. “In the polished surface
of these magic columns,” said the Saracen slaves that accompanied them to Pisa,
“are to be seen all treasons or machinations against that state which possesses
them but history further records that the Pisans hearing and believing this,
yet unwilling to recede from their offer, passed them through a furnace, and at
once destroyed their lustre and dangerous enchantment.
We have already said that the Rocca or citadel of
Fiesole was still standing in the year 1125 as a stronghold for the Cattani, a
set of predaceous chiefs who harassed the whole neighbourhood by levying
contributions on travellers and merchants: such employment was then far from
rare or even dishonourable, but far too stinging to be long suffered by a
mercantile people; it was therefore reduced by famine, but this act drew down
strong ecclesiastical censures on Florence. The why is not easy now to explain
except by supposing that its feudal Lord the Bishop, in his anxiety to preserve
that town interwove temporal and spiritual interests so closely in complaining
of the outrage as to interest the Pontiff in his quarrel: nor is it unlikely
that the disputes which arose nearly a century later without any assigned cause
between the Florentines and Hildebrand Bishop of Fiesole, might have arisen
from the churchman’s efforts to attract a population round his episcopal
residence in direct opposition to their policy, which was always jealous of any
attempt to repeople that city: it was moreover a political maxim of all free
Italian communities that their Bishops should be divested of feudal power as
being utterly inconsistent with their sacred duties, and that they should be
compelled to live under civil jurisdiction. This was a probable cause of
quarrel; and in fact the dispute after lasting several years became so violent
as to make Pope Honorius III stop them by giving Hildebrand the Church of
Santa Maria in Campo as his residence and commanding his permanent removal to
Florence.
When once the Republic began to feel its power and had
determined to allow of no independent chiefs in its dominion, the haughty
nobles who though attached to the Emperor scarcely vouchsafed obedience to his
Vicars, clearly foresaw their own downfall in its increasing and uncontrolled
authority. They were not likely therefore to fall tamely under the shadow of
her flag or surrender a jot of feudal independence without a struggle, and
hence continual disputes arose between them, to which the contention of Popes
and Emperors was ever adding new bitterness. But in these conflicts the Clergy
although rich and powerful, were generally left untouched, and the Bishop of
Florence was allowed to enjoy bis vast possessions in tranquillity; for by
adhering to the party of Matilda and the Republic, the Bishop and Clergy
necessarily ranked amongst its firmest allies and their disputes were personal
or local, not political.
The nobles on the contrary were almost all
imperialists, yet unable to resist the march of republican greatness
successively fell beneath it. The Figiovanni, Firidolfi, and Fighineldi lost
their domains in the Mugello, Valdamo, and other
places, the ancient Pazzi of Upper Val d'Arno surrendered many a castle: the
Buondelmonti of Monte Buono were compelled to follow and become Florentine
citizens : the Ubertini shared a similar fate: the Lamberti of Monte Ghiso and Calenzano were not more
fortunate: the Ravignani in the Mugello and the Catellini, Guigni, and Buonaguisi
of Monte Morello, with the Galli, the Abati, the Guidi and Ferrantini who dwelt about Pratolino, Montile and the flanks of Monte Morello, all successively sunk under republican
ascendancy. The Agolanti of Veglia; the Capponsacchi, Arrigucci, and Corbizzi of the Fiesoline hills: the Greci, Bisdomini, Tosinghi, Della
Pressa, Nerli, Pulci, Franzesi,
Ricasoli, and a host of others all successively yielded and augmented the
population, fame, and riches of Florence. Hence Dante exclaims,
“Io vidi gli Ughi e vidi i Catellini,
Philippi,
Greci, Ormanni, e Alberichi
Già nel calare illustri Cittadini. ”
The emperor Henry V, dying at this time without issue,
assembled a Diet at Mentz and was long divided in its choice between the rival
houses of Bavaria and Franconia, but, at the Bishops’ suggestion, Duke Lothario
of Saxony was elected King of Germany. As an enemy of Franconia he attached
himself to the rival party by marrying his daughter to Henry IV, Duke of
Bavaria, with the Duchy of Saxony as her portion; but on this both Franconia
and Suabia flew to arms, and Conrad chief of the
former state returning from Palestine joined his brother Frederic of Suabia. Assuming the title of King he passed into Italy and
endeavoured to conciliate the Lombards; the Milanese, probably by a previous
agreement, received him with open arms; he was crowned at Monza, and afterwards
by Archbishop Anselmo at Milan as legitimate King of Italy, and was
acknowledged by nearly all Lombardy and Tuscany. The Pope, a formidable enemy
in those times espoused the party of Lothario; many Lombard cities followed
this example; and the Papal malediction, mercilessly launched against Prince
and Bishop, scattered most of his adherents and reduced him to the last
extremity. He was nevertheless enabled to hold some ground in Italy until 1132,
when fearing the presence of Lothario he escaped secretly into Germany while
his adversary pushed on to Rome and was crowned by Innocent II.
As the two famous names of Guelph and Ghibeline originated in these houses of Bavaria and
Franconia, and by their pernicious influence destroyed Italian prosperity and
happiness, a short account of them will not here be irrelevant, especially as
they were the principal though remote source of that inveterate disunion which
has left the Peninsula a constant prey to transalpine ambition. For many ages
these factions prowled over Italy like lions seeking whom they could devour;
they divided city from city, house from house, family from family: they tore
asunder all domestic ties, undermined the dearest affections, and scattered
duty, obligations and humanity to the winds. But these fatal appellations were
originally nothing more than the distinctive names of two princely German
families whose chiefs were rivals in personal ambition and feudal power. The
enmity of one to the Popes was reason sufficient for the other’s determined
adherence to the Holy See; and though mere leaders of a petty feud, their names
became, from circumstances, the rallying cry of two great opinions which
penetrating with the wonted subtilty of religious and political rancour into
the smallest branches of national life, affected Italy mid Germany to the
quick.
When Conrad III was crowned King of Italy, the last
four emperors had been chosen from the House of Franconia, a family that
received its name from the Castle of Waiblinga,
or Gueibelinga situated amongst the Hertfeld Mountains in the diocese of Augsburg and which was
called indiscriminately “Salique” or “Gueibelinga”.'
The rival House, originally of Altdorf, at this period governed Bavaria, and in
consequence of several of its princes being named “Guelpho”
or “Welph”, both the family and its partisans received
that appellation. The two last Henrys of the Ghibeline House of Franconia had long contests with the Church, as already related, while
the Bavarian Guelphs on the contrary always declared themselves its protectors
from the days of Guelph IV, son of Albert Azzo lord of Este in 1076. From this
branch is descended in a direct line the royal family of England and from his
brother Folco the ancient Marquises of Este, Dukes of Ferrara. Modena and
Reggio.
These things, springing as they did from rivalry and
disappointment, sharpened hereditary feuds while the Pontiffs support of
Lothario augmented the Ghibelines’ enmity to holy Church: these names were not
however permanently attached to the two factions until 1210 when Innocent III
drove the fourth Otho from the imperial throne and took young Frederic of
Sicily under his charge. The Pope was then supported by the Ghibelines; but
when the same Frederic turned to rend the Church the Guelphic banner again waved
over it and there continued until the final dissolution of these adverse
factions, long after the original cause of their quarrels had melted entirely
away.
Ten years of peace made the Florentines impatient of
repose and the Buondelmonti of Monte Buono became their first victims: this
family, so famous and so fatal to Florentine happiness, possessed a small
castle about five miles distant from the town, which commanding the Siena road,
enabled them to impose a toll on all merchandise in its passage. Florence
complained of this imposition and being refused redress destroyed their castle,
obliging them without farther spoliation to become Florentine citizens: others
followed; and so they continued adding bit after bit to their possessions, by
money, conquest, or persuasion, but still maintaining a close alliance with
Pisa which at this period although the most commercial and military nation of
Tuscany was rivalled by Florence in ambition and warlike propensities if not in
power and celebrity.
In the year 1144 all Tuscany was in arms, partly on
account of these republics but more from those dissensions that spring from
mutual jealousy in rising states commencing the race of ambition and of blood,
who league for war as a pastime, and regard the butchery of their fellowcreatures as legitimate amusement. Lucca and Pisa
were in constant collision, and the friendship of the former with Siena, of the
latter with Florence, occasioned a quadruple war between those states, each
jealous of the others ascendancy: the necessities of commerce, untouched as yet
by its rivalry, kept peace between Pisa and Florence; and the distance of the
other two diminished their points of contact and consequently their chances of
quarrel.
Ulric, Marquis or vice-Marquis of Tuscany and imperial
Vicar, commanded the Florentine army with which he advanced to the gates of
Siena and burned a suburb; the Sienese demanded assistance from Lucca, who
answered by declaring war on Florence, not only to draw the enemy from her
ally, but also in aid of Count Guido Guerra of Modigliana,
a Ghibeline chief and confederate of Siena, who had
already suffered from Florentine aggression. Pisa on the other hand took the
field at the request of the Florentines and Count Guido’s possessions were
devastated by these combined forces while the Sienese, covertly advancing on
Florence, fell into an ambuscade and were nearly all made prisoners. More
bitter was the struggle between Pisa and Lucca, where no exchange of prisoners
took place, no ransom was accepted, and where a strong personal feeling of
hatred pervaded every class: perpetual incarceration was with them the
consequence of defeat, and we are told by the Bishop of Fresingen that several years afterward he saw “the Lucchese officers, wasted squalid and
miserable in the dungeons of Pisa drawing tears of compassion from every
passing stranger”
At this period however not Tuscany alone but all
northern Italy seems to have been in similar confusion from similar causes;
from jealousy, faction, and that ever boisterous passage between comparative
bondage and complete independence, for Conrad with full employment in Germany
was forced to leave Italy uncontrolled, a prey to angry passions, unsettled
institutions and political anarchy. The particular causes of discord between
the Tuscan cities are now difficult to trace; vicinity, by multiplying the points
of contact increased the chances and was always a source of dissension; but the
peculiar enmity between Siena and Florence, according to the Senese historians
originated in the assistance given to Henry IV during the siege of 1081; an
injury in itself not easily forgiven, but fostered as it was by national
emulation lasted until long after the ruin of both republics, and even now is
scarcely obliterated.
Elated by success and jealous of the Counts Guidi by
whose possessions she was nearly surrounded, Florence assembled an army in
February 1146 and besieged Monte Croce, a Castello about nine miles distant
which belonged to that family; but confidence in superiority of force created
carelessness of conduct, and Count Guido aided by the people of Arezzo defeated
them with great loss. For a time they were quieted by this sharp military
lesson, and a crusade the following year under the emperor Conrad III carried
off some of their more enterprising and devout spirits to Palestine; amongst
them Dante’s ancestor Cacciaguida who after having been knighted by Conrad,
fell in battle against the Infidels.
After the submission of this Conrad and Frederic of Suabia, the emperor Lothario made one visit to his Italian
provinces and died in the mountains near Trent on his return to Germany in
1137. Conrad who had already been crowned at Milan in 1128 and abdicated in
1135 succeeded him, but was for a while opposed by Henry called afterwards “the
Proud”, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, marquis of Tuscany, and son-inlaw to the deceased emperor. Haughtiness to the German princes cost him the throne
and made way for Conrad III, who in 1138 was crowned King of Germany at
Aix-la-Chapelle; but being opposed by the German Guelphs, he became too much
occupied to interfere with Italian politics or even once visit Italy for his
coronation, and died on his return from the Holy Land while about to hold a
Diet at Bamberg.
At his especial wish Frederic of Suabia,
surnamed Barbarossa from the colour of his beard, was elected instead of
Conrad’s own son by all the German princes and many of the Italian nobility who
met at Bamberg for that purpose. Besides avoiding the evils of a long minority
it seems to have been Conrad’s wish thus to terminate all existing dissensions
between the united Ghibeline houses of Suabia and Franconia on the one hand, of which Barbarossa
was the chief; and the Guelphs of Saxony and Bavaria on the other, who were
represented by their dukes Henry the Lion and Guelph VI.
Barbarossa was the son of Frederic of Suabia and Judith daughter of Henry the Black, duke of
Bavaria (of the Guelphs of Este) father of the above-named Guelph VI who was
his maternal uncle; and Henry the Lion duke of Saxony his cousin. Uniting in
this way the interests of both factions all party quarrels ceased during his
and the succeeding reign, and the united powers of Germany were amicably
arrayed beneath the imperial standard; but concord terminated with the reign of
Henry VI; the knot was then severed, families once more divided, former
enmities returned with conflicting interests, the old poison spread throughout
both nations, and centuries of blood scarcely sufficed to satiate the demon of
Italian discord.
The Florentines mortified by the check they had
received at Monte di Croce resolved to recover their reputation by a new
attack, but as the place was strong and well defended several unsuccessful
attempts were made ere they succeeded in taking the town even by stratagem, and
razed it to the ground. This deepened the hatred of Counts Guidi which lasted
with little intermission, except in the Battifolle branch, until their ultimate spoliation in 1440: they were lords of many
castles in the provinces of Cosentino and Upper Val d’ Arno and are too closely
connected with Florentine history to render any apology necessary for giving a
short account of them.
Sprung, like most of the Italian Barons, from German
blood, they are supposed to have accompanied Otho I into Italy and received the
lordship of Modigliana in Romagna where they settled,
and in time acquired the seignory of a considerable portion of that province,
Ravenna being the seat of government. Their tyranny and licentiousness
ultimately produced insurrection and all the family were murdered but one child
then nursing at Modigliana, who was called “Guido Besangue” in commemoration of the bloody catastrophe. This
chief, or his son who was called Count Guido Vecchio, received large grants of
land in the Casentino from Otho IV and married Gualdrada daughter of Bellincion Berti de’ Ravignani,
one of the most distinguished Florentines, all of whose possessions finally centered in the Counts Guidi. We learn in fact from Dante
that in a certain quarter of Florence
“Erano i Ravignani ond’ è
disceso
Il Conte Guido e qualunque del nome
Dell’ alto Bellincione ha
poscia preso”.
Amongst all the Florentine ladies who had assembled to
do him honour on his arrival, Gualdrada Berti most attracted the Emperor Otho’s
attention by her extreme beauty and peculiar modesty of demeanour. His
admiration seems however to have been at first unaccompanied by due respect: an
impudent attempt to kiss her at a festival in the cathedral church, or, as some
say, her father’s offer to allow of more questionable intercourse, was met by
an indignant repulse, with a spirited declaration that “no man should take that
liberty except her husband.” The Emperor appreciated and applauded this
conduct, and by his advice Count Guido married her without a dowry
notwithstanding the difference of rank.
From their five sons all the Counts Guidi were
descended: one died soon after his father, leaving the Counts Guidi of Poppi
his heirs: the eldest survivor Guglielmo was father of Guido Novello and
Simone, both originally Ghibelines, but in consequence of a quarrel, the
latter, who was ancestor of the Counts of Battifolle,
joined the Florentine Guelphs. Another son Rugieri was father of Count Guido Guerra and Salvatico, both of the Guelphic faction;
from the third Guido were descended the Counts of Romena a family divided between both parties; and from the fourth, Tegrimo and the Counts of Porciano who were always
Ghibelines.
With Pistoia’s assistance and the subsequent
protection of Florence, Prato had increased her strength and riches; and either
voluntarily or at the latter’s instigation was ungrateful enough to claim the
castle of Carmagnano, then under the jurisdiction of
Pistoia, as her property, and immediately attacked it with an auxiliary force
of Florentine troops. The Pistoians indignant at such
ingratitude not only repelled this assault but with some aid from Siena routed
the allies while the ambassadors of that state remonstrated with Florence on
her injustice, declaring their obligation to assist Pistoia according to treaty
and reminding her how much easier it was to begin a war than to finish it.
Hostilities recommenced in the following year when after an obstinate
engagement the confederates were defeated and the revolted castle of Carmagnano recovered: Prato was in its turn besieged, and
the combined forces of Florence and Pisa were completely routed at Montemurlo in a vain attempt to relieve it; their loss was
considerable, and as Fiesoline auxiliaries are
mentioned amongst the Florentine troops, that city must still have been in
a comparatively flourishing state notwithstanding its subjugation. According to
the Pistoian chronicles a continued course of
hostilities seems to have been followed by Prato in 1156 with occasional aid
from Florence and several battles were fought; but Pistoia to punish the Pisans
for their interference in these wars made a close alliance with Lucca by which
she was to send the latter a hundred and fifty horse, two hundred foot, and two
hundred crossbowmen, for one month in each year; also a certain number of
cavalry and infantry for twenty days when needed . This treaty was renewed in
1161 and 1171, and the Pisans and Florentines having been defeated in 1162
Pistoia lost no opportunity of making the former feel all the force.
The English Pope Adrian IV died in 1159: twenty-three
Cardinals out of twenty-eight united in choosing Rolando de’ Paperoni as his successor: he was a native of Siena and
became afterwards celebrated under the name of Alexander III, but the remainder
fixed their election on Cardinal Octavian of Rome who was called Victor IV, and
Barbarossa by promptly acknowledging him avowed his enmity to Alexander in the
most decided manner. When the latter was Adrian’s legate at the imperial court
they had quarrelled on divers points of diplomacy, but especially because he
had been mainly instrumental in persuading Adrian to crown the Norman William
II king of Sicily against Frederic s will, who himself aspired to that throne;
and thus more fuel was added to the flames of faction. Alexander after a variety
of fortune sought refuge in France from the power and persecution of Barbarossa
who boasted that he would put all Italy in order: but instead of this he found
his authority disputed and carried death and destruction throughout the
northern provinces. In 1162 he laid Milan waste without remorse, and
exasperated the whole country by a series of barbarities so great that they
roused a spirit which being embodied in the famous League of Lombardy baffled
all his power, cruelty, and ambition. Four successive Antipopes thus powerfully
supported maintained a long schism in the Church which shook pontifical
infallibility, disturbed consciences, and augmented the bitterest feelings of
the Italian community: all this at a moment too when Guelph and Ghibeline humours were rapidly fermenting under a more
definite form and character: and when another source of dissension had been
reopened between the Church and Empire about their conflicting claims to
Matilda’s patrimony.
Excepting some hostilities with Pistoia unnoticed by
the historians of Florence in which the latter seems to have been worked,
little is said of her affairs for fifteen years after the war of Prato; it may
therefore be supposed that the republic enjoyed an interval of peace, for it is
a favourable augury when the transactions of civilised countries offer no
exciting subject for the historian. War, tumult, ambition, victory, misused
powers, and all the desolating consequences of unregulated passion and misapplied
talent, generally the most prominent, and if rightly studied perhaps amongst
the most instructive materials for history; while silent unobtrusive
ameliorating institutions hide their lees brilliant heads, and though failing
to excite so deep and universal an interest, are steadily working on the spirit
of the and softening the general character of man.
|
