Chapter X: 548 (3)

The document we have quoted speaks at one point of the _gastaldo of the doge_, and at another alludes to him as the _gastaldo of the smiths_, because the director of the guild held his nomination from the doge. This is clearly evidenced in the thirteenth century by a decree (_pro-missione_) of the Doge Jacopo Tiepolo, dated March 6, 1229, and by another of the Doge Marco Morosini (June 13, 1249). Thus we see, on the one hand, how much the organisation of the Venetian guilds differed from that of the Florentine, while, on the other, we note how ancient and persistent in all Italian communes was the character of their institutions in general and of the trade guilds in particular. For the details given in this and the preceding note we are indebted to Prof. Monticolo, a man of great learning, and now engaged in important researches on Venetian history, of which the results will soon be published. Meanwhile we seize this occasion to express our thanks in print.

P.S.--We may now add that Prof. Monticolo has already begun to publish his discoveries in "Le Fonti della Storia d'Italia," issued by the Istituto Storico Italiano.

[107] Repetti, article on Gangalandi and Monte Orlando.

[108] "Dum in Dei nomine, Domina inclita Comitissa Matilda, Ducatrix, stante ea in obsedione Prati," &c. Anno 1107. _Vide_ "Fiorentini," op. cit., bk. ii. p. 299. Villani, vol. iv. pp. 25 and 26; Hartwig, vol. ii. pp. 45 and 47; Repetti, art. "Prato"; "Arch. Stor. It.," Storie v. vol. v. disp. i., p. 108 and fol. Villani's narrative, however, is crammed with fantastic details concerning Prato. The destruction of Monte Orlando is not mentioned in vol. i. of the "Annales," which only begin with the year 1110; but is recorded in the Codex Neap. and in Tolomeo da Lucca.

[109] The "Annales florentini," ii., followed by Villani, merely relate the destruction of the castle in 1113, without any comments, for the next event they mention relates to the year 1135. The "Annales florentini," i., say nothing about it in 1113, and place the "secunda et ultima destruccio murorum" in 1114. In 1119 they record two other attacks on the castle, "quem marchio Rempoctus defendebat": by the second of which the Florentines "Monte Cascioli ignem (_sic_) consumpserunt." It seems clear that three attacks were made in succession, and farther dispute on the point would be superfluous.

[110] The "Annales," i. and ii., omit this event. The Neap. Codex assigns it, as does Villani, to the year 1117, but only says that the Pisans went to the Balearic Isles, and that "the Florentines guarded the city of Pisa" (Hartwig, ii. 272). The same account is given by Tolomeo da Lucca, but he dates the event in 1118; so, too, the pseudo Brunetto Latini, who records the gift of two porphyry columns, "by reason that the Florentines guarded their lands, while they were at the war," but adds nothing more to this statement. As to the error of date, we will merely remark that Capmany, in his "Memorias historicas sobra la marina ... de Barcelona," vol. i. p. 10, after narrating the expedition of 1113-15, goes on to say that Raimondo Berengario III. came to Pisa and Genoa in 1118, in order to promote another campaign. Perhaps the remembrance of this visit contributed to the mistake, the which, once made, was repeated by many subsequent writers.

[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.